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

Stallion Przewalski’s horse Male Foal 
Figure 3. Folk taxonomy of the word Horse. 
Hidden nodes are important in the expression of contrasting sets that do not 
have common super ordinates. If the unnamed nodes are stretched without a base, 
the number of sematic characteristics in each steps is directly affected by the steps 
in taxonomy. The more hidden categories in a taxonomy, the weaker the 
hierarchical contrast between words, i.e., the thesaurus model of the lexicon. The 
lack of the word at an important point in taxonomy undermines this assumption. 
The scientific taxonomy in the first diagram is not considered accurate for numbers 
of reasons.The fact that he has so many steps can not be considered a correct idea, 
and they do not affect which level of the speaker is more important in the 
taxonomy.
31
Figure 3 above details how an ordinary person express the word 
“horse” in hyponymic contexts. What is a horse? The English person answer the 
question instead of sentencers like An antelopes is a kind of ruminant or An 
antelopes is a kind of mammal, An antelopes is a kind of animals. When asked for 
the names of animals, res respond with simple terms such as cow, giraffe, elephant 
instead of inclusive terms such as carnivore, herbivore, omnivore. Although the 
31
Cruse. D.A. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. New York : Oxford University 
Press. 2000. –P. 356 

---

27 
speaker knows that the words mammal and bovine enter to the group of mediation, 
he ignores the fact the word “horse” is the most superordinate. What kind of 
animal is a horse? Instead of an answer such as mammal or ruminant to the 
question represents a farm animal or other descriptive superordinate phrase. 
According to linguists F. Ungerer and H. Schmid, folk taxonomies are 
characterized by alternative methods of incompatibility. In general, folk 
taxonomies have five or less levels and they consist of general and basic terms. 
For example, the word “horse” in Figure 2 can be seen in the folk taxonomy to 
include hidden categories, especially higher levels than other levels. But while folk 
taxonomies are more likely to be discussed in non-linguistic contexts, it does not 
intend that they are expressed more “linguistically,” i.e., interalexicaly, than 
scientific taxonomies. Folk taxomies are cognitive constractions that are 
completely different from the lexical units associated with them. The existence of 
lexical units at these levels of categorization only means that the concepts 
associated with them are important and specific. The presence of lexical gaps in 
such taxonomies suggests that these relationships are conceptual rather than 
interalexic.
32
In addtition to this relationship of the words we can see the concepts 
between the lexical units is interrelated to each others. 
As mentioned above, sources differ in that hyponymy is viewed as a 
relationship between words, meaning and things. According to many lexical 
semantics researches who observe about semantic relationships, hyponymy is the 
relationship between intentions. In this case the meaning of hyperonymsis within 
in the meaning of their hyponyms. According to J.Lyons, in many cases hyponym 
means at least some of them, but also combines the modifier and superordinate 
with the lexical meaning of the units. In formal semantics, hyponymic relationships 
are treated as semantic postulates, and this indicates the proportions of the addition 
between the two word meaning extentionsions, so the hyponym extension is part of 
32
Ungerer F. Schmid H.J. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London and New York: Longmans. 1996.
-P. 182-270 

---

28 
the hyperonym meaning.
33
Morover, there are some English linguistics who gave 
their opinions about taxonomy. According to P.Kay, in studies within linguistic 
anthropology and taxonomic traditions, the taxonomic structure connects a set of 
objects. Often in the direction of other areas, especially digital areas, extensive and 
intensive relationships do not differ. Intensive and extensive relationships are 
usually linkened to a coin with two sides, as intensities define extensive sets. For 
instance, the postulates of meanings in the formal approach include the purpose of 
the word, and the extensions associated with the postulates of meaning are 
intonally linked.
34
Hyponymy is not a simple membership between extensions in 
the usual sense, and although A.Wierzbicka argues that although the “someone’s 
number” intention does not expressed the component of the “policeman” intention, 
all members of the “policeeman” extension will be members of the “someone’s 
number” extension.
35
In short, relationships are at the heart of a cognitive process 
such as categorization and reflection. The hyponym and hyperonym relationship is 
very important in introducing a logical connection in speech by expressing the 
meaning of lexical units.
It is not clear basis for the fact that a hypero-hyponomic relationship is a 
linguistic-lexical relationship rather than a cognitive-semantic relationship. To 
date, the lexical relationship of hyponymy has been observed in “kind-type” 
relationships, although it has not been the focus of much lexical-semantic 
relationship research. The taxonomies of hyponymy do not cover all types of 
relationships that fall into the general term. The fact that functional hyponyms can 
not have to be component of hyperonyms, the range of what is considered a 
hyponym in these taxonomies, suggests that hyponymy is a broad concept. A. 
Wierzbicka distinguishes hyponymic relations based on the morpho-semantic 
properties of hyperonyms. These ideas raise the question of the relationship 
between hyponymy and words or concepts or meanings. The taxonomic with 
33
J.Lyons. Semantics (2 vols) Cambridge University Press. 1977. –P. 293. 
34
P. Kay. Taxonomy and semantic contrast. Language 1971.,47(4). - P. 866-887 
35
A. Wierzbicka. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford Universit Press, UK. 1996. -P. 569-789 

---

29 
semantics of a lexical field is defined by a field name that combines several 
features that allow the level name to be assigned to different ideographic classes. 
The taxonomic breadth of the semantic level is also determined in factually that the 
lexical unit does not exist as an isolated unit in the lexicon, interacting with other 
units to form different semantic paradigms. In selecting lexical representations of 
meaning, it was found that the structure of semantic steps around the name of a 
concept differs in terms of taxonomic depth and taxonomic latitude, and hypero-
hyponymic taxonomy also requires further study.
36
The stdying the taxonomic 
relationship in lexical words can be demended more attetion and wide speculation 
from the liguistics, cause it is really wider notion and should be researched deeply.