American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences ISSN (E): 2832-8019 Volume 24, | May - 2024 P a g e | 36 www.americanjournal.org LEXIC-SEMANTIC FEATURES OF APHORISMS SYSTEMS Ruziev Khusniddin Bakhritdinovich Termiz State University Teacher of the Department of English language and Literature A B S T R A C T K E Y W O R D S This article deal with lexic-semantic features of aphorisms. Linguistic sciences’ opinion are given and semantic categories of aphorisms are discussed. aphorisms, linguistic term, semantic content, metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole. Introduction Aphorism as a linguistic phenomenon has always aroused interest of researchers in various fields of study, including psychology, philosophy, literary studies and The wide scope of interpretations of essential features of this phenomenon explains different approaches to its study: structural-functional, linguistic-stylistic, pragmatic, cognitive, intertextual etc. However, nowadays the lingual status of aphorisms, their categorical features, selection criteria and classification as well as other aspects remain debatable. Some scientists view them as phraseological units others regard aphorisms as paremiology elements (, but the vast majority consider aphorism studies to be a separate branch of linguistics; Vereshchagin and Kostomarov 2005 and others). Aphorisms as a writer’s idiolect units have been widely researched as well. In this context, the phrase “linguistic aphorism” is used to define the author’s individually formulated term definitions, which conveys subjective vision of a linguistic notion figuratively and supplies additional information about its usual meaning. Despite the volatile status of aphorisms, researchers agree on genre requirements: informative conciseness, thought generalization, didacticism, expressiveness, precision, communicative clearness, completeness and memorability. While studying linguistic aphorisms, special emphasis is given to semantic, grammatical, structural and stylistic peculiarities of these language units from the viewpoint of their function in fiction, massmedia, political and epistolary discourses. However, the problem with using aphoristic utterances in scientific paradigm requires special attention. Davis, an outstanding American sociologist of culture, traces the origin of aphorism back to Antique times when it was first used in a scientific context as the title of Hippocrates’s book of medical observations. “Later aphorism eventually expanded to include principles of morality and philosophy. Finally, philosophers disconnected it from its scientific origins, distinguishing between aphorism […], axiom […], theorem […] and hypothesis […]” Aphorisms are nominative units. However, Vereshchagin and Kostomarov, representatives of the Russian school of linguistics, suggest differentiating between nominal and non-nominal information within an aphoristic utterance. Nominal information is responsible for revealing the denotative meaning of an aphoristic utterance. Nonnominal semantics of aphorism includes meanings of component words that, by their turn, involve whole complexes of background knowledge. Scientists American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 24 May - 2024 P a g e | 37 www.americanjournal.org define the information irrelevant to nominative semantics of an aphorism as aphoristic background. It includes different associations with a language unit: time and circumstances of its appearance, its author and background knowledge etc.. Depending on the aim and means of defining, the scientific corpus of linguistics is represented by various types of definitions (real and nominal, verbal and visual, semantic and syntactic, analytical and synthetic, genetic, contextual, operational etc.). In this context, aphoristic definitions also may refer to the linguistic terminological system. Scientific definitions and corresponding aphoristic definitions can be viewed as correlative pairs. By nominative feature, they correlate as units of primary and secondary nomination; by the degree of sematic dominant expression – as logical and figurative; by correspondence to language norm – as usual and occasional; by stylistic affiliation – as scientific and fictional: A dictionary definition: Orthography is a set of commonly recognized and compulsory rules that establish the ways of representing language in writing – (This aphorism renders primary nomination and is logical, usual and scientific by character); Aphoristic definition: Orthography is, basically, the language legislation (Khomiak) (This aphorism reveals secondary nomination and is figurative, occasional and fictional by character). Defining is a logical process by its nature. Scientific elucidations are the examples of logical definitions where the semantics of terms is revealed from the viewpoint of factual knowledge and displays generalized scientific experience. They represent denotational meaning of a notion, highlighting its essential and central features, but do not render the complete information about it: Phoneme is the smallest phonic unit of speech that serves to create and differentiate words and their forms. Such definitions are typical for linguistic encyclopedias, philological thesauri and other reference books. Unlike scientific elucidations, the aphoristic utterances are individual authorial units, and reflect the subjective comprehension of a linguistic term by the author. Being an original thought, aphorism is opposed to a doxa, the common opinion. This explains somewhat paradoxical, unique or unusual nature of the aphorism. Often an aphorism is associated with its creator, who presented it either in written form or orally to a public. By its logical and semantic content, this type of definitions is similar to reflection or opinion and renders subjective interpretation of already known linguistic notion, but realized, recognized and reconsidered anew. This enables to treat aphorism from the perspective of anthropological approach to analysis of linguistic phenomena, which is being actively discussed in modern scientific research. Thus, it is important to take into account the pragmatic intention of the author while analyzing an aphoristic utterance. We agree with Shabat-Savka, who stated that the category of communicative intention is characterized by duality: it includes both the content level (i.e. speaker’s intention to inform, retell, emotionally respond to something, evaluate etc.) and level of form (i.e. verbalized content) rendered by lexical, morphological and syntactic constructions. Some scientists suggest that certain linguistic terms do not have a generally approved way of application and are used in different contexts. Their key intention purpose is not the definition itself, but rather the reflection from the perspective of author’s intention. It is often determined by various factors, e.g. experience, scientific background, ideology and personal/ social/ cultural/ expressive etc. components. The category and value of intention has been characterized in Shabat-Savka’s research as well. The scholar describes this phenomenon as the direction of consciousness and the target at which thinking process is aimed. In the linguistic discourse communicative intention is viewed as “the illocitionary power of expression”, being an integral feature of human life. It also serves as motivation for speech activity (194). Aphoristic definitions in scientific texts differ considerably from interpretations of linguistic notions in writers’ American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 24 May - 2024 P a g e | 38 www.americanjournal.org fiction works, in their speeches and interviews. Trusov suggests that defining in fiction is just an imitation of logical definition and is the result of synthesizing logicalanalytical and associative- metaphorical thinking. Defining in fiction is produced applying mental operation diametrically opposite to the scientific language compression. Davis claims that “the humanities have increasingly diverged from the sciences over the question of whether to focus on what text asserts about the objective world or suggests about the subjective world viewer”. Gray defines aphorism as a prose genre, “in which in a strictly compressed textual space, metaphorical and metonymical drives of a language and thought enter into an exaggerated dialectical interplay”. It reveals “the dialectical relationship between creative association and logical order”. Davis claims, “aphorisms refer not only forward and outward to the world they ostensibly concern but also backward and inward to their creator” (Davis 1999: 256). Authors use imagery vocabulary as outer style “inclusions”, which proves “the unity of emotional and sensitive perception of reality and logical cognition”. Taranenko explains the process of association applied while putting linguistic terms into words, as follows: during the process of semantic composing one base joins another as a result of a certain association in the speakers’ consciousness with the help of familiar notions. Moreover, these bases are not necessarily in contact syntagmatic position. As Kulishkina suggests, “imaginative thinking based on the associative connections, which determines peculiar “aphoristic reception” i.e. individual “further-thinking”, is the background for aphoristic utterances”. A person’s cognitive activity is not limited by exploration of primary, main features of objects and phenomena, but also requires connecting “differentiated, externally unrelated factors into united system and content” (Sazbandian 2008: 8). Baias even singles out an aphoristic function of a language, stating that “a brilliant aphorism is not intended to describe or explain reality, but to inspire human hearts and minds”. It can be clearly seen that both English and Uzbek own a large number of Aphorism in their national treasure of folklore. These aphorisms, in some way, not only provide us with a valuable bag of wisdom but also broaden our awareness of cultural value and life experience. Moreover, one of the most characteristic properties of Aphorism in the two languages is also marked by the use of many similar stylistic devices such as metaphor, antithesis, hyperbole and simile. Thanks to these powerful expressive means, we can create aphorisms with subtle nuances of meaning that no other means can attain. This also proves a fact that English as well as Uzbek like to use figurative image to make their speech more persuasive. With regard to semantic of Aphorism in English and Uzbek, one can easily realize the phenomenon of the twofold application of meaning in most aphorisms: the surface meaning of the aphorisms and their figurative meaning embodied through the stylistic markers, just mentioned above. In addition, it must be noted that English and Uzbek people meet each other in thought in spite of the fact that they live far from each other. As a matter of fact, the formation as well as the way they generalize their idea in aphorisms are identical. Another identical feature between EAphorism and VAphorism is that they both share the same semantic fields such as labour and business, life experience, family relationship, social relationship, education, destiny, money, characters and some other fields. Although both English and Uzbek people like to use stylistic devices in their aphorisms to make their utterance more condensed and colourful, the frequency of these expressive means does not always occur correspondence with each other and the case of metonymy is an instance. We can find some American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 24 May - 2024 P a g e | 39 www.americanjournal.org metonymic aphorisms in English. In contrast, there are no cases of metonymic aphorisms in Uzbek. This indicates that the difference is resulted from the habit of language use of each nation. What is more, the differences between EAphorism and VAphorism are also revealed through the dissimilarities between cultural characteristics of the two nations. It is obvious that each country has its own civilization, national tradition, religious belief and life condition. These factors, to some extent, impose on their thought then produce different aphorisms as an inevitable consequence. Additionally, the semantic field does not have the same numbers of Aphorism in English and in Uzbek. This is because different awareness of people in the two nations leads to the difference in describing objects or phenomenon in the objective world. That explains why the aphorisms of the lexical fields such as social relationship, labour and business and money are used more co mmonly in Uzbek than these in English. Aphorisms are prefabricated units. They are usually short, pithy and lapidary. And for the sake of memorability, aphorisms tend to be alliterative. The structure of a aphorism is normally fixed and not easy to brea k. Another feature in the structure of aphorisms is the frequent use of many types of meaning transference such as metaphor and simile which shows the creativity of former generations as well as their original worldview. Regarding content, aphorisms usually bear advice and moral lessons which have been drawn from the real experience of life of many generations. Before applying aphorisms in practice, it is of first priority to ascertain what each aphorism means. If a person uses a aphorism in a particular text without realizing its meaning, the expression could be used incorrectly and might cause some misunderstandings. In addition, aphorisms may contain more than one stylistic device and, in such a way, they become more impressive and effective, however, at the same time their meanings are harder to perceive. The same aphorism used in different texts or situations can have more or less varying meanings. Moreover, the inner form of aphorisms affected by the flow of time and historical development, which influenced the appearance of new interpretations and applications in situations differing from the traditionally intended ones. Gain and Loss related aphorisms investigated in this thesis areaphorisms which meet the notion of aphorisms stated in section and simultaneously contain words denoting Gain and Loss such as gain, loss, win, lose, come, go, throw, catch, nothing, everything, etc. in English. However, the aphorisms with four words in English Aphorism are less frequently used than the ones in Uzbek. Semantically, there are total of 9 groups semantic fields in both languages categorized. Through the process of investigation we have also discovered that most aphorisms contain two simultaneous meaning at the same time: literal meaning and figurative meaning, so we sometimes find it difficult to understand the aphorisms at the first sight. Basically, the figurative meaning or implied meaning of aphorisms is usually conveyed through the expensive means such as metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, simile, or metaphor. More interestingly, some Uzbek aphorisms have no equivalence in English or vice versa because of the cultural differences from countries to countries. One example of teaching Aphorism combining all above implications is as follows: - Step 1: providing learners with kinds of sentences in English which are simple, compound, complex, comparative and aphoristic. American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 24 May - 2024 P a g e | 40 www.americanjournal.org - Step 2: supplying two columns: column A consisting of the first part of aphorisms and column B consisting of the second part of aphorisms. -Step 3: giving definitions or clues for each aphorism. - Step 4: asking learners to match one part in column A with another in column B to make a complete aphorism which is correct grammatically and suitable with the definition given before. From these exercises, learners will more easily remember aphorisms syntactically and semantically. Moreover, teachers can ask learners to find out Uzbek equivalent aphorisms so that they can have a deep insight of aphorisms relating to gain and loss in both languages REFERENCES 1. Andrew H. A Theory of the Aphorism. New York, Princeton University Press, 2019. – 345 p. 2. Auden and Louis K. The viking book of aphorisms. London, The Viking Press, 1981. – 417 p. 3. David Bohlke. Skillful reading and writing. student’s book. A division of Macmillan, London. – 2012. – 110 p. 4. Geary James The World in a Phrase: A Brief History of the Aphorism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2005 .– 240 p. 5. Jacob Cats and Robert Farlie Moral Emblems with aphorisms, adages, and proverbs, of all ages and nations. London: longman, green, longman, and roberts, 1860. – 262 p. 6. Jhon Cross. The Oxford Book OF Aphorisms. Oxford University Press, Walton Street,1983. – 383 p. 7. Ruziyev, K. (2021). Etymology of the word and term paremia. InterConf. 8. RUZIYEV, X. B., & SIDIKOVA, S. A. K. (2019). Translation problems of proverbs and some special tip for translating from english into uzbek. Наука среди нас, (5), 100-105. 9. Рузиев, Х. Б. (2018). Semantic analysis of the words of value and respect in English and Uzbek. In Человекознание (pp. 40-41). 10. Рузиев, Х. (2017). Исторические и теоретические аспекты определения понятия" неологизм". К истории возникновения термина" неологизм". Евразийский научный журнал, (4), 391-392. 11. Ruziev, K. (2022). The phenomenon of synonymy in English proverbs. Scientific Collection «InterConf», (132), 197-201.