The term “Component analysis” was first used by U. Gudenaf (W. Goodenough) and F. Lonsbiri (F. Lounsbury)[1].

The meaning of a word consists of a set of distinguishing semas. A sema is the smallest unit constituting the meaning of a word. In the process of component analysis, it is necessary to identify the diminutive indicating arkhiseme and integral semas in the semantic explanations of words in the compared languages.

Arkhiseme is considered a means that creates cohesion in the grouping of words. In linguistics, arkhiseme is sometimes used through the term “general sema”[2].

Arkhiseme is a sema present in the explanations of all lexical units belonging to one field, while integral semas are similar or related semas. They may appear in the explanation of one word but not in that of another.

Integral semas, in turn, are divided into distinguishing semas. The phenomenon of differentiation goes deeper into the semantics of language units and aims to find their specific meanings, setting the goal of fully understanding and analyzing the object in the “semantic and lexico-grammatical field” [3].

So, a distinguishing sema is a sema that helps to group lexical units belonging to a specific field based on certain features and characteristics. The arkhiseme and integral semas present in the lexical definition of a word are clarified through two methods: explicit and implicit expression. If the arkhiseme, integral semas, and pometa (index words) are clearly present in the lexical definition, this is called explicit clarification. If these units are not clearly stated in the lexical meaning, then a multi-level method is used. The distinguishing sema of a word can be identified at several stages of multi-level definitional analysis. This is called implicit clarification [4].

To analyze the cognitive features of FSFA, it is necessary to thoroughly study the sema structure of each word in the relevant word definitions, to compare the components forming their lexical series with other words, and to identify the arkhiseme, integral, and distinguishing semas within them. For this purpose, dictionaries in the English and Uzbek languages were used.

To clarify the semas in the lexical definitions of existing English words, let us consider several examples of component analysis:

sugar (shakar) – (informal, especially name) a way of addressing smb. that you like or love like sweetheart,

chickabiddy (jo‘ja) – 1) a chicken, 2) a trivial term of endearment for a child,

dove (kabutar) – 1) a pigeon of the genus Columba and various related genera, 2) a word of endearment for one regarded as pure and gentle.

In the above analysis, in the definition of the words sugar, chickabiddy, dove and other similar wordsdear, sweetheart, lover, sweetheart semas as well as the endearment marker words were identified through the explicit expression method.

In the following example, the sema was identified through the implicit expression method:

laddie (bolakay) – 1) a young lad, 2) a male person of any age between early boyhood and maternity, BOY, YOUTH. 3) fellow, chap.

In the above given defenition, there is no sema indicating endearment, but according to the component analysis of the word boy, we can find the sweetheart-integral sema:

a boy (bola) – 1) a male child from birth to adulthood, 2) son, 3) an immature male, separate the men from the boys, 4) sweetheart, beau.

Thus, in the component analysis of the word laddie, the indicator sema was identified at the second level (laddie → a boy → sweetheart).

If the sema love in English is accepted as the arkhiseme of lexical units belonging to FSFA in their lexical semantic explanations (definitions), then the semas of darling, sweetheart, dear, lovable, lover, endearment and affection marker words in dictionaries are accepted as integral semas. Words possessing these integral semas in their semantic structure unite into one group according to the love arkhiseme. For example:

sweetheart (jonim) – one who is loved,

darling (jonim, azizim) – dearly loved person, favorite,

dear (azizim) – 1) a loved one, 2) a lovable person,

lover (sevuvchi) – a person in love, esp. a man in love with a woman.

Using English dictionaries, the number of collected examples amounted to 200. Of these, 66 (33%) were identified through explicit expression, 104 (52%) through implicit expression, and 30 (15%) through pometas. The activity level of integral semas and marker words identified based on component analysis is as follows:

sweetheart – 107 (53%), darling – 12 (6%), dear – 7 (3.5%), love – 34 (17%), endearment – 15 (7.5%), affection – 15 (7.5%).

According to the component analysis conducted in Uzbek, lexical units expressing affecrion collected from dictionaries amounted to 225. The sevish arkhiseme and semas such as sevikli, sevimli, sevgili, sevuvchi were accepted as integral semas. Marker words like erkalatib, erkalab, erkalatish present in dictionary definitions were also included in FSFA. These integral semas and marker words unite in the arkhiseme formed by words based on sevish. For example:

sevgili – 1) kishining ko‘ngil qo‘ygan dildori, yor, ma’shuqa, mahbub, 2) sevikli, suyukli, sevimli.

sevimli–sevikli, suyukli, sevimli.

Let’s observe the component analysis of several examples:

qo‘zichoq – 1) Qo‘yning emadigan bolasi, 2) (1-sh., egalik formasida) bolalarga erkalatib murojaat etish formasi,

qulun – 1) bir yoshga to‘lmagan toycha, (-choq), 2) (1-sh., egalik formasida) o‘g‘il bolalarni erkalatish yoki erkalatib murojaat qilish formasi,
nigor – 1) sevgili, go‘zal, 2) Nigor (xotin-qizlar ismi),
nuri diyda – 1) ko‘z nuri, 2) sevikli farzand.

The integral semas such as sevimli, sevgili, sevikli identified through explicit expression in these examples were clearly present in some word definitions collected during our study.

Of the examples, 37 (16.4%) were found by marker words, 25 (11.1%) by explicit, and 163 (72.5%) by implicit expression. The activity level of integral semas and marker words identified by component analysis is as follows:
erkalash (erkalatish, erkalatib) – 123 (60%), sevikli (sevimli, suyukli) – 18 (8.5%), sevuvchi – 66 (33%), sevgili – 18 (8.5%).

In English and Uzbek, lexical units expressing affectionate meaning do not contain semas explicitly showing endearment in their lexical definitions, but based on their contextual meanings, they were included in FSFA. For example, fromShakespeare’s tragedy “Othello,” Brabantio uses the word jewel (qimmatbaho tosh) for his daughter Desdemona:

Brabantio (to Desdemona): I would keep from thee. For your sake, jewel,

I am glad at soul I have no other child[5].

Brabasio (Dezdemonaga):– Eshit, durdonam,

Xayriyatki, sendan o‘zga zuryodim yo‘qdir... [6]

In Uzbek explanatory dictionaries, several words such as asal, novvot, shakar do not have marker words denoting affection in their figurative meanings. However, in Uzbek, these words are used in thismeaning. For example:

– Bu boshqa gap, asalim! – mazax qildi Yusuf aka [7].

…Bu yorug‘ dunyoda yo‘g‘u-borimsan,

Tilimning ostida novvot-zarimsan[8].

Buvim puf deb nosni tuflab, tomga qarab:

– O‘g‘rigina bolam, hoy o‘g‘rigina bolam, hoynahoy biror tiriklikning kuyida tomga chiqqan ko‘rinasan..[9].

In the phrase o‘g‘rigina bolam- gina and -im first person singular possessive suffixes are present. However, according to the meaning of the text, the speaker is not caressing or fondling the thief who entered the house, but rather addressing him with scolding or reproach and pity. Of course, scolding has a distinct tone and intonation compared to foundling. Here, the meaning of scolding predominates over foundling.

To conclude we can say that the research showed that materials available in dictionaries of the compared languages are insufficient for deep linguistic analysis of FSFA. It became clear that relying on materials collected from literary works, newspapers and magazines, radio and television, the Internet, surveys from informants, and other sources in both English and Uzbek helps to more accurately illuminate the topic under study.

[1]      Muminov  О.М. Lexicology of the English Language (олий ўқув юртларининг инглиз филологияси, таржимонлик факультети талабалари, магистрлари учун дарслик). – Tошкент: Меҳридарё, 2006. – PP. 33-144.

[2]      Ҳожиев А. Тилшунослик  терминларининг изоҳли луғати. – Т.: Ўзбекистон миллий энциклопедияси, 2002. – Б. 51, 22.          Нарзиева М.Ж. Ўзбек тилида шахсни ёш жиҳатдан тавсифловчи отларнинг маъно таркиби. Филол. фан. номз. ...дис. – Бухоро: Ф. Хўжаев номидаги БДУ, 1992. – Б.106, Ҳакимова Г.Э. Зоонимик компонентли фразеологик бирликларнинг структуравий ва семантик хусусиятлари (инглиз тили материаллари асосида). Филол. фан. номз. ...дис. –  Тошкент: М. Улуғбек номидаги ЎзМУ, 2008. – Б. 65-67.

[3] Ҳакимова Г.Э. Зоонимик компонентли фразеологик бирликларнинг структуравий ва семантик хусусиятлари (инглиз тили материаллари асосида). Филол. фан. номз. ...дис. –  Тошкент: М. Улуғбек номидаги ЎзМУ, 2008. – Б. 72.

[4] Ирискулов М.Т. Тилшуносликка кириш (иккинчи нашри). Филология: Бакалавриат таълими йўналиши талабалари учун дарслик. –  Т.: ЎзДЖТУ, 2008. –  Б. 219.

[5] Shakespeare. W. Othello (The Moor of Venice). – Moscow: Издательское товарищество иностранных рабочих, 1936. – P.25.

[6] Шекспир B. Сайланма (Жамол Камол таржимаси). 3 жилдли. – Т.: ЎзР ФА “Фан” нашриёти, 2008. Ж. 2. – Б.178.

[7] Каримова Л. Муҳаббат изтироблари. – Т.: Ғ. Ғулом номидаги  нашриёт матбаа ижодий уюшмаси, 2004. – Б.20.

[8] Муҳаммад Ю. Улғимсан Ватаним. – Т.: Ижод дунёси, 2004. – Б. 21.

[9] Muhiddinova X.S., Salisheva Z.I., Po‘latova X.S. O‘zbek tili (oliy o‘Kuv yurtlari bakalavriatining rusiyzabon guruhlari uchun). – Т.: O‘Kituvchi, 2006. – Б. 169-170.