Today, the developing field of cognitive linguistics, along with linguoculturology, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and ethnolinguistics disciplines related to language, culture, and society demands a comprehensive analysis of words, phrases, and phraseological units.

In particular, there is no dissertation or scientific article devoted to an integrated study of the functional-semantic field of affection (FSFA) in English and Uzbek. This may be due to the tendency to regard the function of affection in language as belonging to other categories. For example, some linguists continue to study affection without distinguishing it from diminutives (N.Sh. Nishinadze, J. Buronov, A.K. Pulatov, U. Tursunov, Kh. Abdurakhmonov, A. Rafiev, D. Shodmonkulova, N. Askarova, etc.).

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that analyzing the FSFA in the languages under study will not only identify many previously unexamined allomorphic properties but also contribute significantly to understanding related issues. Indeed, everything in the world is understood through comparison. Comparison is the basis of understanding any thought or existence (Ушинский, 1939; 43).

Researchers have conducted studies on affection, as mentioned above. However, the sociolinguistic, linguocultural, and gender characteristics of the FSFA in English and Uzbek have not been sufficiently addressed. This linguistic problem requires a thorough solution.

Some linguistic issues concerning lexical and phraseological units expressing affection in various languages have been explored by scholars such as R. Lakoff, A.V. Kunin, N.Sh. Nishinadze, and others. Notably, R. Lakoff expressed views on the expression of affection in the speech of English-speaking men and women primarily from a gender perspective, while A.V. Kunin paid attention to certain phraseological units expressing affection in English. N.Sh. Nishinadze approached affection and derogation from a morphological perspective in English, Georgian, and Russian.

In Uzbek linguistics, this topic was also conducted by scholars such as R.R. Khadyatullayev, A.K. Polatov, O. Safarov, Sh. Kazakov, U. Tursunov, K. Musayev, E. Kilichev and others.

Observations show that some scholars investigate affection and diminutives as grammatical categories, focusing mainly on their formation via suffixes (J. Buronov, O.M. Muminov, U. Tursunov, Kh. Abdurakhmonov, A. Rafiev, N. Askarova, R.R. Khadyatullayev, R. Kungurov, etc.). However, some researchers consider affection as part of address (A.V. Velistova, Z.A. Akbarova, etc.). According to their view, affection belongs to the positive expressive-emotional form of address from the perspective of interpersonal relations (Акбарова, 2007; 105).

Some scholars have examined affection from a folklore perspective (D.M. Yuldasheva, O. Safarov, M.N. Melnikov, V.N. Anikin, etc.). According to them, lullabies and soothing songs containing affectionate forms are created and performed mainly by mothers for children. For example, M.N. Melnikov refers to maternal poetry in Russian children's folklore as affectionate poetry. O. Safarov studies affection as part of lullaby folklore, reflecting the diverse relationships between mother and child (Сафаров, 1983; 65).

The scientific-theoretical and practical significance of the conducted research is undeniable; however, despite many studies on the topic of affectionate form, much remains unexplored in this field. In particular, affectionate form as a distinct field has not been studied comparatively in English and Uzbek languages in a monographic direction. There have been no studies on its gender, sociolinguistic, and linguocultural features in these languages.

O.K. Yusupov, in his work, touching on the principles of comparative language study, emphasizes the need to study the object as a whole, comprehensively and in all aspects (Юсупов, 2007; 92).

Various sources provide specific explanations for the term affection (erkalash). Sh. Kazakov, expressing his opinion on the term affection - erkalash, says: “If there were no affection in a language, neither young nor old would have smiles on their faces” (Казаков, 1990; 57).

In Webster’s explanatory dictionary, the word affection is defined as: affection – 1) feeling or emotion, tender attachment, fondness; 2) the action of affecting, that means feeling or emotional state, gentle touching, love (MWCD, 2003; 21).

In Roget’s Thesaurus, the term affection has synonymous names such as endearment, loving words, affectionate speeches, pretty names, pet name (Ашурова, 2008; 88-889).

In Russian explanatory dictionaries, unlike the above, affection is explained as “manifestation of tenderness, care, nurturing and protection” (ласка – 1) проявление нежности, любви; 2) доброе, приветливое отношение, обращение) (ТСРЯ, 1938; 26).

In the Uzbek explanatory dictionary, erkalash is understood not only as loving affection but can also be expressed through paralinguistic means, i.e., through body movements (ЎТИЛ, 1981; 450).

In internet sources, this term is also referred to as terms of endearment.

D.M. Yuldasheva calls this term in Uzbek as erkalatma. According to her, erkalatma is a folklore genre peculiar to mothers and is connected with the semantic content of the adjective erka, which expresses character traits. The suffix -la forms a verb, and -ma is an affix that forms a noun from the verb. Erkalatmalar can always be said. It is a form of expressing love to a child (Ахмедова, 2006; 31).

However, unlike the aforementioned scholars, K. Musayev in his work calls lexical units related to erkalash by the term shirinsuhanlik (Мусаев, 2005; 163-166).

1. Kungurov emphasizes that affectionate forms express not only the meaning of smallness or diminutiveness but also meanings of courtesy, kindness, and affection (Қунғуров, 1980; 44).

In our opinion, affectionate forms - erkalash is an expression of kindness, love, tenderness, delicate care, and affection towards people, animals, nature, objects, and phenomena, that is formed by special lingusiric means and forms in each language.

Often affectionate form was studied together with diminutives. Some scholars (A.K. Pulatov, J. Buronov, O.M. Muminov, Kh. Abdurahmonov, A. Rafiyev, N. Askarova, etc.) in their scientific works link diminutives and affectionate forms together. Others (M.I. Rasulova, Sh. Kazakov, O. Safarov, R.R. Khadyatullayev, etc.) studied these terms separately. Our initial aim is to distinguish these terms in terms of meaning.

The affectionate forms is created by adding suffixes (such as -jon, -xon, -gina) to a word, but in the text, this word may not express affectionate meaning. Affectionate forms can be expressed in context even when these suffixes are not added to the same word. For example, the word asal in a figurative sense expresses affectionate forms. If the suffix -xon is added to the word Nigora (Nigoraxon), the affectionate form is created. Conversely, the same word with affectionate form suffixes may not express this meaning; instead, it can convey irony, respect, or diminutive meanings.

According to E. Kilichev, the meanings of diminutive-affectionate forms depend on the general meaning of the speech (Қиличев, 1992; 21-23). It should be emphasized that in some cases, diminutive meaning exists alongside affectionate form, which is an undeniable phenomenon in the language. Below, to differentiate affectionate forms and diminutives generally, several examples are given with explanations:

The kitten is ill and it is in bed (Скультэ, 2005; 147).

In this example, the word the kitten refers to the offspring of a cat. In the next example, the predominance of affectionate meaning is noticeable:

Sleep, pretty loved one; do not cry. And will sing a lullaby (Malkos, 1993; 106).

In pretty loved one, the meaning of affection, rather than diminutive, can be observed. The text expresses soothing and comforting a crying child. In Uzbek, we also pay attention to this phenomenon:

Qopcha, qopcha ichida uncha, uncha ichida ustuncha;

Pichagina bo‘yi bor, takkakidan to‘ni bor (Абдураҳимов, 1991; 85-161).

From the words pichagina, uncha, qopcha, ustuncha in the examples, it is evident that the object is expressed as reduced in size. Unlike diminutives, in the following examples, affectionate meaning is clearly expressed:

• Qo‘ying, aylanay, yig‘lamang. Mayli, katta buvingiz, xafa bo‘lmang, jonimni qoqay (Раҳматуллаев, 1992; 98).
• Jo‘ra polvon, akasi jonidan, quyundek yugurdak bolasan. Voy, onaginang qoqindiq (Хадятуллаев, 1969; 120).
• Xi-xi-xi, aylanay sizdan, poshsha qiz! Mirzakarim boyning hovlilari shumi? – deb so‘radi (Қодирий, 1974; 171).

The words aylanay, jonimni qoqay, akasi jonidan, poshsha qiz in these extracts express the affectionate meaning.

Thus, affectionate form is an expression of care and love, whereas diminutive, unlike endearment, indicates the smallness of an object or person in size or age. However, in a text, both endearment and diminutive meanings can be expressed simultaneously. For example:

Mally’s meek, Mally’s sweet,

Mally’s modest and discreet (Строганская, 1967; 71).

Onajoni yolborar: – O‘g‘lonim, erkatoyim...

Butun drujina uning, ketidan yurar doim;

Akajoni singlisini erkalaydi: – Alla-yo, alla,

Gapimni uq, singilginam, kinoga ketgan oyim, dadam (Барто, 1990; 127-275).

In the examples, the words meek (kichkintoy), singil, and erkatoy carry diminutive meanings. However, alongside these, the affectionate meaning is also expressed in the text.

Thus, based on the results of our research, in the compared languages there exist pure affection, pure diminutive, and combined affectionate-diminutive meanings. These, in turn, are identified through texts.

This study is aimed at investigating words, word combinations, and phraseological units that express the meaning of affection in English and Uzbek.

Since our research required clarifying the distinctions between the terms affection – erkalash, evaluation – baholash, and praise – maqtash, their definitions were also examined.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, evaluation (baholash) is “to show the value of something” (evaluate – estimate the value of smth.) (ODEL, 2001; 39).

In the explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language, baholash is defined as “setting a price, putting a monetary value, giving an assessment, expressing an opinion about the importance, value, or worth” (ЎТИЛ, 1981, 90).

The concept of evaluation manifests within nationality and expressiveness, consisting of both positive and negative meanings. Positivity and negativity in language affect a person’s emotional state. The predicate baho expresses two main meanings: good and bad. The expression of good and bad evaluation is mainly reflected through qualities (Қамбаров, 2008; 85).

Thus, evaluation should be understood as the subject’s positive or negative attitude toward the object. It is important to note that while affectionate only expresses a positive attitude, evaluation may include both negative and positive emotions.

Below, to distinguish the term praise - maqtash from affection, we will examine explanations from various sources.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, praise means “to approve of something, to show pride, and to raise prestige” (praise – 1) speaking with approval of; saying that one admires; 2) giving honor and glory to) (OLDCE, 1974, 653).

In contrast, Webster’s Dictionary defines praise as “an expression of approval” (MWCD, 2003, 97).

In the Uzbek explanatory dictionary, maqtash is defined as “to speak about the good sides and virtues of a person or thing, to present it in a good light.” For example:

Oftob oyim so‘radi: – Chiroyli yigit, aqilli yigit deb maqtay-maqtay To‘ybekaning ichagi uzildi, u kim edi? (Сафаров, 2006; 456).

The phrases chiroyli yigit (handsome young man), aqilli yigit (smart young man) contain the meaning of praise.

To conclude, we can say that praise is speaking about the positive qualities of someone or something and presenting it favorably; evaluation is expressing one’s opinion about the good or bad aspects of a person or thing.

When expressing praise and evaluation, feelings of affection and fondness are generally weaker compared to affectionate form. Below, we analyze their differences through several examples:

1. mening shakar bolajonim (my sweet little child);
2. anavi bola yomon bolaga o‘xshamaydi (that child does not look like a bad boy);
3. buncha odobli, axloqli bola ekan-a (such a polite, well-mannered boy indeed).

In these examples, the first expresses affection (the child is spoken about with affection), the second is evaluation (the speaker expresses an opinion about the child’s qualities), and the third is praise (the child’s good traits are praised and presented positively). Below are examples from English and Uzbek literature.

English language axample (from Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”):
Capulet:
“A gentleman of noble parentage,
Of fair demesnes, youthful, and nobly trained,
Stuff’d, as they say, with honorable parts,
Proportion’d as one’s thought would wish a man;
And then to have a wretched puling fool” (Shakespeare, 1972; 67).

Uzbek translation (by Jamol Kamol):
Kapuletti (Juliettaga):
“Mana, yaxshi kuyov topdim, o‘ktam, navqiron,
Aslzoda, nazokatli, yigitlar ichra
Havas qilsa arziydigan raso bir yigit” (Шекспир, 2008; 109).

In these examples, Juliet’s father praises the prospective groom, describing him with phrases like “a gentleman of noble parentage,” “youthful,” “nobly trained,” which correspond to “o‘ktam, navqiron, aslzoda, nazokatli,” showing a positive opinion (praise). Here, the speaker praises a person, it is not affection or endearment, only positive evaluation.

Next, we provide examples of evaluation:

“Where are all good priest-baiters? Where is Cavalsanti? Where is Brundi? Where is Cesare?...” said the major (Hemingway, 1971; 122).

“I am a very simple girl,” Catherine said.

“I did not think so at first. I thought you were crazy girl” (Hemingway, 1971; 109).

These examples use phrases such as a good priest, a very simple girl, crazy girl to show evaluations given to people.

In our opinion, expressiveness and emotionality are stronger in praise than in evluation. Thus, unlike affection, which conveys caring and love, praise highlights the good and positive traits of someone or something, while evaluation expresses an opinion about whether the object is good or bad.

Alongside affection, it is important in our research to identify the distinct features of respect – xurmat and approval – ma’qullash.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, respect means “to show esteem for a person or thing” (respect – to have respect for a person or thing) (ODEL, 2002; 598).

In Uzbek, the second and third-person plural pronouns siz, ular express respect. Moreover, when plural suffix -lar and first-person singular possessive suffix -im are added to kinship nouns, respect is also implied. For example, dadamlar keldilar (“my father came”), oyimlar so‘radilar (“my mother asked”). Although the addressee is one person, the speaker uses plural form to show respect.

Approval also has specific definitions in various sources. Here are some verb definitions: approve v. – 1) prove; 2) to have or express a favorable opinion of; 3) a: to accept as satisfactory; b: to give formal or official sanction to – meaning “approval is to confirm, express approving opinion, or officially sanction” (MWCD, 2003; 61).

Thus, unlike affectionate form, to approve means to accept an opinion as correct, to agree with someone’s idea.

The words and phrases sir, madam, Sobiraxon, keliningiz bo‘ladilar express respect; the words yes, you do, of course, e-e, yashang, baraka top o‘g‘lim, ha-aa, mana bu bo‘lak gap express approval and the words sweet, darling, oying o‘rgilsin bo‘ylaringdan express affection.

Therefore, the terms affection, praise, approveal and respect differ from one another, and their differences have been clearly defined with a help of componential analysis, dictionary meanings, and texts. This analysis will help us not to confuse the affectionate terms with other linguistic terms in our further research.