The Problem Of The Study Of The Lexical-Semantic Field Of “Time” In Linguistics

This scientific work analyzes the objective, subjective signs of time and their ways of expression: lexical and phraseological units in the temporal space, their place, scope, lexical units of time in the Uzbek language. There has been a great deal of research in the field of lexical semantics in linguistics, and scholars differ on this point. It is well known that in linguistics, the theory of the lexical-semantic field has been studied within one language, two languages, and based on comparative analysis.


INTRODUCTION
The scientific literature which is collected during the study of the lexical-semantic field of the concept of "time" is divided into three groups according to their content: the category of scientific works organized by Uzbek, Turkish and Russian linguists. In Uzbek

The Problem Of The Study Of The Lexical-Semantic Field Of "Time" In Linguistics
The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations (ISSN -2689-100x)

THE MAIN PART
The presence of linguistic semantics, such as structural semantics and conceptual semantics, facilitates the study of language units on a field-by-field basis. It is said that the introduction of the "field theory" into Uzbek linguistics, is connected with the introduction of system-structural methods in relation to language units. M.F. Kurbanova in her dissertation "Semantic analysis of semantic lexical units "ma'naviyat" in the Uzbek language" [3] noted that the term 'semantic field' was formed under the influence of Western linguistics, but in our language during the Zoroastrian period words were divided into the semantic field. However, "field of meaning" was not recognized. If we focus, for example, on the words used in Zoroastrianism, we can divide these words into two types of systems of meaning. If we include words that have the meaning of good in the first field of view, we can divide others into words that have the meaning of evil in the field of the second meaning. The study focuses on the semantics of "ma'naviyat" (spirituality) and the human factor in its formation, i.e. the explanation of the anthropocentric theory. In this article, the semantic content of the semantics of "ma'naviyat" and the units with the semantics of "ma'naviyat" (spirituality) are identified and analyzed. During the analysis, the units with the "ma'naviyat" (spirituality) semaphore are grouped according to certain integral and differential features, and the units with the "ma'naviyat" (spirituality) semaphore are explained as much as possible.
Turkish linguistics also focuses on the semantic field too. In Z.Jangabilova's, and E.Hamitova's article "Türk ve kazak dillerinde fiil kökenli antroponimlerin leksik-semantik özelliği" [4] the lexical-semantic structure of verb anthroponyms in Turkish and Kazakh languages was analyzed. It is well known that the origin of verb pronouns is due to the fact that verbs and their lexical forms have nouns. In linguistics, lexical construction refers to word formation and semantic construction refers to word meaning. In the process of analysis, the lexical-semantic grouping of verb bases on anthroponyms in the Turkish and Kazakh languages, first in terms of meaning, and then the history of their emergence. In the article of Lamiye Vagifkizi "Çağdaş tük ve azerbaycan dillerinde kullanılan öztürkçe kelimelerin leksik-semantik özellikleri" [5] one of the problems which were studied, is the language process in modern Turkology. In the process of analysis, the researcher considers the characteristics of words used in Turkish and Azerbaijani languages, and their lexicalsemantic relations, terms and interaction. Currently, citizens of the independent Republic of Azerbaijan can use Turkish words without In Russian linguistics, this issue is also covered in the following works too. According to the doctoral dissertation of L.N.Muheeva "Vremja v russkoj jazykovoj kartine mira: lingvokulturologicheskij aspekt" [9] at the beginning linguistics used to study time as a grammatical category which now it has been studied in the world as one of the elements of the linguistic landscape, a cultural concept that studies this or that nation from a linguocultural point of view, as a cognitive category. Time is a fundamental and universal category that reflects the various aspects of life, activity, consciousness, science, culture, language, and human life in general. Therefore, the time has long been the subject of study in various disciplines, but the concept of time remains a mystery to both humanity and science. In the dissertation of Yu.A.Kuznetsov "Leksiko semanticheskoe pole smeha kak fragment russko jazykovoj kartiny mira" [10] main attention was given to study the lexicalsemantic field of the concept of "laughter" in modern Russian from a linguocultural point of view and to determine that the lexeme "laughter" as a concept. In the lexical system of the language, the lexical-semantic field of the concept of "laughter" is studied as a result of the analysis of emotions, facial expressions, loudness, and gestures.

CONCLUSION
To sum up, this concept is interpreted differently in works devoted to the study of the lexical-semantic field in linguistics. Taken together, they can be divided into two major groups. The scholars in the first group regard the class of equally valuable linguistic units combined based on a particular meaning as a semantic field. At this point, the field becomes linguistic: in common with the paradigm. Therefore, they try to differentiate between the concepts of semantic field and paradigm concepts and take different hierarchy and one hierarchy as a differential sign between the two concepts. If applied only to the lexical level, the paradigm can be used to almost all level units. In this case, the concept of paradigm includes both a class of lexemes combined based on a certain common meaning and a class of syntaxes, as well as a class of phonemes united based on a certain general sign. The second group of scholars, on the other hand, uses the same hierarchy and different hierarchy as the differential sign between the paradigm, the semantic field, and the different levels, but apply this sign to the relationship between the members of the paradigm and the field.