IDENTIFYING THE SEMANTIC COMPONENT OF MEASUREMENT

ABSTRACT

This article aims to identify the semantic components of the concept of measurement and explore their role in linguistics. It analyzes the semantic structure of measurement units and related terms, their multilingual differences, their contextual usage features, and how they are shaped under the influence of cultural and spiritual factors. The article presents a structural and semantic analysis of measurement words in Uzbek and several other languages, and investigates their classification from both theoretical and practical perspectives in linguistics.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Цель данной статьи — выявить семантические компоненты понятия «измерение» и исследовать их роль в лингвистике. В статье анализируется семантическая структура единиц измерения и связанных с ними терминов, межъязыковые различия, особенности их употребления в контексте, а также влияние культурных и духовных факторов на их формирование. Представлен структурно-семантический анализ слов, обозначающих измерение, в узбекском и ряде других языков, а также рассмотрена их классификация как с теоретической, так и с практической точек зрения в лингвистике.

Keywords: measurement, semantics, lexical unit, metalexeme, context, etymology, linguoculturology.

Ключевые слова: измерение, семантика, лексическая единица, металексема, контекст, этимология, лингвокультурология.

Introduction

The concept of measurement is one of the essential conceptual domains of any language, playing a crucial role in expressing phenomena such as time, distance, weight, volume, quantity, and temperature. Measurement units are formed within the lexical layer of language and are closely connected to culture and cognition. Each measurement unit possesses unique semantic components, which represent an important object of study in linguistics. Therefore, this article aims to identify the semantic components of measurement units, classify their expression forms, and conduct a comparative analysis across languages.

Measurement, in both scientific and everyday contexts, plays a crucial role in human cognition, communication, and cultural practices. While its mathematical and empirical dimensions are extensively studied, the linguistic and semantic aspects of measurement concepts often remain underexplored. Understanding the semantic component of measurement requires delving into how languages encode, categorize, and contextualize measurement terms across cultures and domains.

At its core, the semantic component of measurement refers to the meanings and conceptual structures underlying measurement-related lexical items. This includes units of length (e.g., meter, inch), weight (e.g., kilogram, pound), volume (e.g., liter, pint), and more abstract domains such as time and value. These terms are not only numerical markers but also convey specific cultural, historical, and pragmatic meanings [1].

Lexical units representing measurement often form metalexemes—higher-order semantic categories that encapsulate related lexemes. For instance, the metalexeme “distance” includes terms like mile, kilometer, step, and light-year, each varying in etymology, precision, and contextual use. These distinctions highlight the rich semantic layering that emerges within the broader concept of measurement [2].

The semantic structure of measurement terms often reflects etymological developments. Many traditional units of measurement in languages such as English or Uzbek originated from body-based or practical referents—such as “foot” or “gaz” (a Central Asian unit)—which were later standardized or replaced by SI units. Tracing these origins unveils shifts in conceptualization and standardization shaped by technological and scientific progress [3].

Moreover, cultural context significantly influences the semantics of measurement. In multilingual settings, certain measurement terms may carry connotative or metaphorical meanings not directly translatable across languages. For example, the English idiom “give an inch and they'll take a mile” or the Uzbek expression “bir qarich joy” (“a palm’s space”) demonstrates how measurements extend beyond literal values into figurative language, reflecting cognitive and sociocultural frames [4].

Another critical aspect of measurement semantics lies in usage context. Measurement terms function differently depending on register, genre, and communicative intent. In scientific discourse, precision is prioritized; in casual speech, approximation and cultural familiarity often guide expression. For instance, “a handful” or “a bit” may have no fixed quantity but are meaningful within shared pragmatic understandings [5].

Linguoculturology, the interdisciplinary study of the interplay between language and culture, provides a robust framework for analyzing measurement semantics. It posits that units of measurement, like other lexical items, are embedded within a cultural worldview. Languages prioritize certain dimensions over others depending on societal needs, environmental conditions, and historical influences [6].

In conclusion, identifying the semantic component of measurement goes beyond listing units and definitions. It requires examining how measurement terms operate as culturally situated, lexically structured, and semantically layered phenomena. This process unveils the deep interconnection between language, cognition, and measurement systems—highlighting how even the most ostensibly objective terms are embedded within human culture and communication. Future research should expand cross-linguistic investigations into measurement semantics to foster greater understanding of both linguistic diversity and cognitive universals.

Literature Review

Numerous researchers have studied measurement units from a linguistic perspective. For instance, A. V. Superanskaya [7] focused on the historical development of measurement terms. Lakoff and Johnson, in their theory of conceptual metaphor, interpreted the measurement concept as “quantity is distance” [8]. In Uzbek linguistics, M. Jo‘rayev  paid special attention to the semantic grouping of measurement units [9]. Livanova highlighted the challenges of translating traditional measurement units. These sources provide a theoretical foundation for studying the semantic components of measurement [10].

Research Methodology

This study adopts a descriptive and comparative linguistic approach to identify and analyze the semantic components of measurement-related lexical items. The primary method involves qualitative content analysis of dictionaries, etymological sources, and corpus data in English, Uzbek, and selected other languages. Semantic fields were mapped using componential analysis to determine core and peripheral features of measurement terms. Particular attention was given to the etymology, polysemy, metaphorical usage, and contextual variability of measurement units. Cross-linguistic comparison allowed for identifying universal and culture-specific semantic traits. Linguocultural interpretation was supported by examples from idiomatic expressions and culturally embedded measurements. In addition, theoretical constructs from semantics and linguoculturology were used to frame and interpret the data. The research is exploratory in nature and aims to reveal how language encodes measurement through complex semantic structures, with implications for translation studies, lexicography, and cognitive linguistics.

Results and Discussion

Determining the linguistic nature of measurement units

Measurement units are considered lexical units in linguistics. They possess both denotative (primary meaning) and connotative (secondary or associative meaning) components. For example, words like “qultum” (a sip), “misqol” (a small weight), and “arshin” (a traditional unit of length) not only denote quantity but also embody associated cultural markers.

Analysis of semantic components

The semantic components of measurement terms can be divided as follows:

• Denotative component – the direct meaning of the word (e.g., meter – 100 cm).
• Associative component – images and notions linked to the word (e.g., arshin – an ancient unit of measurement, historical context).
• Pragmatic component – the social or contextual use of the word (e.g., as sharp as a knife, as vast as the sea).

Measurement as a metalexeme

General terms such as distance, quantity, pitch, and density are regarded as higher-level metalexemes. Specific lexemes like meter, liter, and gram are grouped under these umbrella terms [11].

Traditional Uzbek measurement units

The following Uzbek measurement units hold deep semantic connotations:

“Misqol” a unit of weight with religious and historical connotations.

“Qadam” a unit of distance, often perceived as a subjective measure.

“Supa” though not a unit of height, it serves as a reference for measurement in certain contexts.

Comparative analysis: Uzbek, Russian and English.

In English, standard measurement units (inch, foot, yard, mile) differ from the SI system. In Russian, historical units such as “arshin,” “vershki,” and “pud” are regarded as a culturally rich lexical layer. In Uzbek, units such as “gaz”, “qultum”, “xalta”, and “to‘nka” are widely used in oral tradition, indicating their rich semantic background.

Table 1.

Comparative table of English, Russian and Uzbek measurement idioms

Contextual analysis of measurement units

Words reveal their full semantic load in context. For example:

• He drank a sip of water – implies a very small quantity.
• He bought ten arshins of fabric – uses an old unit in a historical context.
• My soul is as vast as the sea – a metaphorical measurement.

Conclusion

Studying the semantic components of measurement units helps to analyze the conceptual structure of language, cultural heritage, and their usage in discourse. The richness and connotative load of measurement terms in the Uzbek language serve as a cultural mirror of the language. Identifying high-level conceptual categories through metalexemes and comparing them across languages is a valuable direction for linguistic research.

References:

1. J. Lyons, Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
2. G. Wierzbicka, Semantics, Culture and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. A. A. Zaliznyak, I. A. Levontina, and A. D. Shmelev, The Key Concepts of Russian Language: A Linguocultural Dictionary. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2005.
4. A. K. Halliday and M. A. K. Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
5. R. W. Langacker, Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1991.
6. V. V. Vorobyov, Lingvokulturologiya (Linguoculturology): Theory and Methodology. Moscow: RUDN, 1997.
7. A. V. Superanskaya. General theory of proper names. Moscow: Nauka, 2005.
8. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
9. M. Jo‘rayev. Fundamentals of Folklore. Tashkent: Fan, 2019.
10. A. Livanova. The Phonosemantic Component in the Meaning of Norwegian Verbs of Rotation: Problem Statement. St. Petersburg. 2018.
11. D. Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008.