Linguistic and Terminological Interpretation of the Noun Category Terms in Uzbek and Kazakh Languages

Abstract

One of the urgent tasks of modern linguistics is the systematization of linguistic terminology and the software of scientific consistency of Turkic languages. Despite the genetic proximity of Uzbek and Kazakh, as well as the typological similarity of two languages, absolute differences and variations in designating grammatical categories are observed, especially in the category of noun. Abstract The paper deals with the description and interpretation of the notions of noun category terms in Uzbek and Kazakh linguistics, which implies that the equivalent grammatical phenomena are described under the name of different national labels and theoretical descriptions. The knowledge gap this article fills is that, compared to those nouns, relevant terminology is not often described comparatively as a single terminological system, especially in terms of number, possession, case categories, and predicative forms. While these categorizations have been discussed previously, and sometimes even in cross-linguistic perspectives, with a strong emphasis on school grammar traditions framed within each language, overall terminological equivalence, divergence and functional overlap remains poorly explained. Comparative typological and structural semantic analysis, where definitions of Uzbek and Kazakh grammar works are compared and the functional functioning of nouns; This analysis is based on grammatical concepts such as the common and proper nouns, concrete and abstract nouns, plural and collective meaning, the possessive, the case, the auxiliary nouns, the predicative suffix. The results show that most of the meanings of noun category terms of Uzbek and Kazakh are similar, although the terminology is different, but some categories have structural differences. The most prominent difference is the Kazakh instrumental case, which has no direct morphological counterpart in Uzbek (where it corresponds functionally to constructions with bilan). These results point to a need for greater terminological standardization and more effective comparative description, with ramifications for Turkic grammar writings, the development of philological terminology, and terminology in textbooks.