Lexical and semantic essence of euphemisms in comparative linguistics and translation studies

Abstract

The scientific significance of the study's results stems from the fact that the conclusions drawn from a comparative analysis of lexical units in the Uzbek and Russian languages ​​are of scholarly significance. The relevance of this problem lies in the fact that lexical units are one of the most characteristic components of language, serving its development, complementation, and enrichment. Euphemisms possess the property of constant renewal, undergoing one renaming after another, and until studied, either require a new renaming or remain unstudied. The role of euphemisms in translation studies is greater than in comparative linguistics, due to the need to study this problem, which is becoming more problematic in the context of globalization. Moreover, the fact that numerous bachelor's and master's theses have been devoted to the translation of euphemisms testifies to the breadth and originality of the topic, the richness of euphemisms in general and specific aspects, and the diversity of approaches to translation problems. Works in comparative and contrastive linguistics are reflected in more comprehensive analyses. They include more statistical data, the extent of use of this unit in languages, the definition of the thematic group, and its alignment with the compared languages. The lexical and semantic issues of euphemisms are reflected in units that are defined by the relationship between form and meaning and by the scope of meaning. Both in their comparison and in translation, morphological, syntactic, genealogical, and linguacultural features of languages ​​of different systems are revealed. Furthermore, in the lexical-semantic issues of X-fem languages ​​of different systems, harmony is observed in the processes of synonymy (e.g., the concepts of death, illness), antonymy (e.g., grammatical features in the form of quotation marks and in the negative form), polysemantics (e.g., metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche), and monosemantics (e.g., insults, curses) in terms of generality and specificity, while the homonymous process is differentiated. This is because the different linguistic representations of the linguacultural and pragmatic situation within the internal resources of each language indicate the specificity of the homonymous process. This article demonstrates these problems and explains them using classificatory and descriptive methods. This is because the expression of euphemistic and dysphemic units also differs according to their mental-cultural characteristics. When comparing them, lexical-semantic problems are also visible in linguapragmatic and linguacultural processes