FAN-TEXNIKA TERMINLARINING IZOHLI LUG‘ATLARDAGI KODIFIKATSION TAVSIFI: INGLIZ, RUS VA O‘ZBEK LEKSIKOGRAFIYASI

Mazkur maqolada fan-texnika terminlarining ingliz, rus va o‘zbek izohli lug‘atlarida kodifikatsion tavsiflanishi chog‘ishtirma leksikografiya mezonlari asosida tahlil qilindi. Tadqiqot uchun 360 lug‘aviy maqoladan iborat uch tilli tanlanma tuzildi: har bir til bo‘yicha 120 termin ma’lumotnomasi ajratildi. Terminlar sun’iy intellekt, raqamli texnologiya, energetika, tibbiyot-biologiya, iqtisod va tilshunoslik yo‘nalishlari bo‘yicha guruhlandi. Avvalgi raqamli ulushlarga tayangan tavsif o‘rniga terminning leksikografik pasporti taklif etildi: lemma, soha yorlig‘i, semantik chegara, variant nazorati, etimologik ishora, diskurs namunasi va havola birliklari bir butun mikrotuzilma sifatida ko‘rib chiqildi. Tahlil ingliz lug‘atlarida talaffuz, etimologiya va kontekstli misollashning yaxlit berilishi; rus lug‘atlarida ta’rif intizomi hamda normativ izohning ustuvorligi; o‘zbek lug‘aviy amaliyotida esa milliylashtirilgan lemma, variant shakllari va media-badiiy misollarni izchilroq tartiblash ehtiyoji mavjudligini ko‘rsatdi. Maqola fan-texnika terminini oddiy izoh obyekti doirasidan chiqarib, ilmiy, media va badiiy diskurslar kesishgan joyda shakllanadigan ko‘p qatlamli lisoniy birlik sifatida baholaydi.

This article examines the codificatory description of scientific and technical terms in English, Russian and Uzbek explanatory dictionaries from a comparative lexicographic perspective. The study is based on a trilingual sample of 360 dictionary entries, with 120 entries selected for each language. The material covers artificial intelligence, digital technology, energy, biomedicine, economics and linguistics. Instead of a purely proportional account, the article proposes the idea of a lexicographic passport of the term, which unites lemma form, domain label, semantic boundary, variant control, etymological note, discourse illustration and cross-reference network. The analysis shows that English explanatory dictionaries tend to integrate pronunciation, etymology and contextual illustration within a single entry; Russian dictionaries foreground definitional discipline and normative precision; Uzbek lexicographic practice requires more systematic treatment of nationalized lemma forms, parallel variants and discourse-based examples. The article interprets the scientific and technical term not as a static dictionary unit but as a multi-layered linguistic item moving across scholarly, media and literary discourse.