Jumaeva nasiba komil qizi lexical and semantic characteristics of hyponomic relations in words in english and

тетя” in Russian, also this lexical units “ uncle and дядя “ are used for parent’s 
42
Masharipova Nargiza Otaxonovna. Lexical-Semantic Features Of Hyponymy In The Short Stories “The Voyage” 
And “Dunyoning Ishlari” (Deeds Of The World) The American Journal of Social Science and Education 
Innovations (ISSN–2689-100x) Published: September 30, 2020 - P.606-613. Doi: https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/ 
Volume02. Issue09-92. 
43
Finnegan E. Language: Its Structure and Use, 5th ed. Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008.-P. 89 

---

38 
brother and “aunt” with “ тетя” for parent’s sister in both language. As a above 
mentioned languages, it is possible to observe the absence of specific hyponym and 
hyperonyms that express relationship on the father’s and mother’s side. However, 
in the Uzbek language we can observe that father’s brothers with sister are 
described the words “amaki”, “amma” and mother’s sister and brithers are 
illustrated the words “tog’a” and “xola” but these hyponyms do not posses 
hyperonyms. 
Additionlly, we can observe such relationship in the word or lexical unit 
meanings in the lexical area of English sister, brother, nephew, niece and cousin 
and it can be viewed clearly, in several languages there is hyperonym of hyponyms 
expressing such kind of relationship. In English and Russian languages, these 
lexical units can be expressed sister and brother who is elder that does not matter 
as sister and brother in English and сестра и брат in Russia. However, in the 
Uzbek language we can bumpt into that elder sister can be represented “opa” and 
little sister is marked out “singil” or , nephew, niece are that the kinship according 
to a son and daughter of one’s sibling, brother–in-law or sister-in-law that can be 
noticed them in both languages English and Russian we can see such as words 
according to female or male as “племянник and племянница”, but in Uzbek such 
kind of kinship can be described only one word such as “cousin” but these 
hyponyms do not possess hyperonyms. 
Hyponymic relations construct the lexical microsystem in the lexical system 
of the language and combined into special lexical and semantic groups with its 
kernel and dominants. Hyperonym is a lexical unit which expressed new gender as 
dominant words of hyponomy. According to English linguist M.L.Murphy’s 
opinions, “Interelationships among the words can be experessed with lexical and 
semantic relations”.
Hyponymy (the generic-specific relation) is generally defined as a relation of 
inclusion whose converse is hyperonymy . Furthermore, hyponymy is also central 
to many models of the lexicon for three main reasons, first one is its inference-
invoking nature; second one is its importance in definition; and last one is its 

---

39 
relevance to selectional restrictions in grammar.
44
Also, English linguist Barriere 
expressed his opinions about this phenomenon like that “Of all conceptual or 
semantic relations, hyponymy is considered to be the backbone of ontology-based 
terminological resources because it is the origin of all concept hierarchies”
45
.
In addition to this, hyponymy is the semantic connection or assosiation that 
plays the most important role in our conscious thinking about what a word means. 
Accordingly, classical or Aristotelian definitions use hyponymy to describe a 
concept, since they consist of genus and differentiae, i.e. a hyperonym and the 
qualities that distinguish the defined hyponym from the larger class For example, 
in the Aristotelian definition of the concept table, “piece of furniture” would be the 
genus, and “supported by one or more legs and having a flat top surface on which 
objects can be placed” would be the differentiae. However, hyponymic relations 
are complex, and thus hypernym-hyponym pairs can be studied from multiple 
perspectives. As in causality or meronymy, hyponymy can also be refined to 
provide an enhanced representation of genericspecific relations. In this line, two 
main proposals have been made as a means to improve the description of 
hyponymic relations: the specification of hyponymy subtypes, and the 
establishment ‘facets’ and/or ‘microsenses’. Regarding hyponymy subtypes, 
Murphy states that hyponymy can indeed be decomposed in the similar way as 
other semantic relations, but it is unclear the number of subtypes and whether they 
can provide a valid and comprehensive taxonomy of hyponymic relations. The 
most commonly accepted distinction is between taxonomic hyponymy (‘is-a-kind-
of’ relation) and functional hyponymy (‘is-used-as-a-kind’ relation). For example, 
cow is in a taxonomic relation to animal (a cow is an animal), but in a functional 
relation to livestock (a cow functions as livestock). Moreover, whilst taxonomic 
relations are always analytic, functional relations are vaguer since they are not 
44
Murphy L. M. Lynne. Hyponymy and Hyperonymy. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and 
Linguistics 1. New York: Elsevier. 2006. –P. 446–448 
45
Barrière Caroline. Building a Concept Hierarchy from Corpus Analysis. Terminology 10(2), 241–263. 
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2004. 10(2), -P. 241–263. 

---

40 
logically necessary relations (not every cow is livestock). 
46
On the other hand, 
D.Cruse proposes ‘facets’ as a means to distinguish between different types of 
hyponymy. ‘Facets’ are dimensions or aspects of a concept that show a high degree 
of autonomy and distinctness, making it possible to describe that concept from any 
of those multiple perspectives independently. For instance, highlights two ‘facets’ 
or dimensions in the hyponyms of book, and divides them into two sets: ‘physical 
object’ (such as hardback or paperback) and ‘abstract text’ (such as novel or 
biography). in these cases, the cohyponyms of the same hyperonym display within-
set incompatibility, but between-set compatibility (a certain book can be 
simultaneously a novel and a hardback, but a hardback cannot be a paperback at 
the same time). furthermore, another important phenomenon in the specification of 
hyponymic relations is the existence of ‘microsenses’. a ‘microsense’ is a specific 
meaning of a concept (e.g. regarding its properties, attributes or functions) which is 
only activated in a certain context, and which makes it is unalike the denotation of 
the same concept in a different context. for example, although knife generally has a 
single sense, it can be classified in different domains under a variety of 
hyperonyms (weapon, tool, surgical instrument, etc.). at this stage, it is clear that 
hyponymy itself is a broad conceptual relation that contains many specific nuances 
that could be exploited as a means to decompose it and obtain a more fine-grained 
vision of generic-specific relations.
47
It is clear that, as hyponyms be analyzed 
according to these linguits murphy’s opinions, we can give some examples for 
analyzing its features in lexical layer. for example: “living room” is in a 
taxonomic relation to room (living room is a room), but in a finctional relation to