Education of the republic of uzbekistan state university of world languages

2.2. Significance of the processes of categorization of the universe and its objects, conceptualization and naming
Categorization is a process that all living organisms use to connect sensory input and other information with mental prototypes. Survival of an organism is impossible without categorization.
Nonetheless, using economic language labels to name conceptual categories or concepts is a totally human activity. Animals' danger cries are not names; they are only used "online" and are intimately related to emotions. Some animals, such as chimps, can but do not wish to name objects³⁵, which distinguishes them even from little human infants.
We cannot go back in time and recreate the moment when people developed the habit of naming and what the first names looked like. Yet, we can list the fundamental naming patterns shared by all people.
Language units such as free word combinations (a nice girl) (propositional naming), phrases (She is a nice girl), and even texts can execute the name function (discursive naming). These name units are not ready-made; they are formed each time in speech by phrase building rules, and they do not enter the lexicon as its units. Syntax, discourse analysis, and other fields of linguistics are all interested in these naming units.
The most cost-effective way of naming concepts is to use lexical naming units and the rules that govern their construction. This sort of naming is known as lexical, and the processes and outcomes of it are studied in lexicology.
Units of naming in the lexicon. Lexicalization
Lexical naming units are lexical units having a naming function, such as words, phraseological units, and their lexical-semantic variants (commonly referred to as senses) if the words or their equivalents are polysemantic. The process of creating each of these lexical name units in conformity with language norms is known as lexicalization of an idea.
However, lexicology only deals with conventional lexical naming units that join a lexicon and are authorized by the linguistic community, being lexicalized. Lexicalized things are processed faster than non-lexicalized objects in speech comprehension. In speech production, lexicalization of naming units can be indicated by phonetic modifications such as emphasis, pronunciation, and speed of speaking the nominative unit.
Only those concepts in the mind that are very significant for communication are lexicalized, or named by conventional lexical units. Many notions have no names; there are lexical gaps for them, which individuals may become aware of only when they need to translate a name from one language to another. For example, the meaning of the American English lexeme caboose, 'a small carriage at the back of a goods train for people who work on the train,' is rendered descriptively as in New English Russian Dictionary³⁶, descriptively ‘амeр. ж.-д. служебный вагон в товарном поезде’ because there is no equivalent lexeme in Russian.
Many concepts have names in a language, but most people are unaware of them.
For example, we may have a clear concept of a tag covering the ends of lace, but not all English speakers are familiar with the term aglet. (In Russian, there is a lexical gap for the notion because it is described rather than lexicalized in the English-Russian dictionary: металлиески накoненик шнура. Currently, it is not always metallic, and not only шнур but also шнурок have it).
The most significant conceptual categories may have multiple names. For example, in English, there are hundreds of synonyms for 'drunk' (boozy, intoxicated, foxed, jolly, tight, D and D 'drunk and disorderly,' balmy, loaded, and so on) (bucks, bread, bread and honey, beans, dough, cash, change, clam, gravy, jack, paper, scratch, shekel, etc.). Different societies naturally have distinct values, which may result in disparities in their lexical systems. Another key cause for lexical differences between languages is that people organize concepts about things, attributes, and events differently. Despite the fact that our senses are built similarly, the results of categorization may differ in the minds of various people (cf. the proverb: What is trash for one man is treasure for the other). Even in the same person's thinking, categorization of the same item, property, or event may alter owing to new experiences since "we are structured in such a way that we are generally ignorant of our own contribution to our experiences"³⁷.
These categorization inconsistencies become most apparent when we compare the results of categorization and name ideas employed by different language communities. Different color categorization and naming by different language communities demonstrates that the choice of the focus and attributes critical for categorization may be quite deliberate (cf. names for the same color spectrum: blue in English and ko’k and havorang in Uzbek; red in English and qizil and qirmizi in Uzbek).
Conceptual space can be classified and lexicalized to various degrees of precision, with discriminative capacity governed to a large extent by practical needs. As a result of cultural and lifestyle differences, Greeks, for example, distinguish more than one category and, as a result, words for 'a stone', Eskimos for 'snow,' Australian aborigines for 'a hole,' Arabs for 'a horse' and 'a camel,' and Belarusians for 'a mushroom'. Hence, despite the fact that naming is a fundamental part of human language, the quantity of names in different languages and their meanings rarely correspond. One of the reasons for this is conceptual disparities in classification. The other significant factor for language lexicon diversity is differing naming practices.