Volume 03 Issue 06-2023
167
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
167-171
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the cognitive processes involved in the description and classification of linguistic units at different
levels. It explores how language is processed and understood by the human brain, and how this understanding can be
used to identify and categorize different types of linguistic units. The article also examines the role of context and
cultural factors in shaping our perception and interpretation of language. By providing a comprehensive overview of
the cognitive aspects of linguistic description and classification, this article offers insights into how we can better
understand and analyze language at all levels.
KEYWORDS
Cognition, cognitive linguistics, cognitive process, linguistic units, different levels of a language, cognitive aspect,
cognitive model, perception, interpretation, cultural factor, mental image, linguistic frame.
INTRODUCTION
Today, there are trends to conduct comprehensive
research from a cognitive point of view at different
levels of language. The 20th century brought
significant changes to the study of global language
phenomena. Linguistics reflects the globalization of
language units in the mind of a certain cultural group.
In this regard, it is promising to study the place of
linguistic units in this process. Linguistic units are the
soul of any national language, reflect the cultural
relations of people, and therefore cause great
difficulties in decoding by speakers of other linguistic
and cultural communities.
On the other hand, languages do not exist without
linguistic units. The languages of the world are very
diverse, but the basic mechanisms of cognition are
universal, which is reflected in the semantics of the
Research Article
COGNITIVE DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION OF LINGUISTIC UNITS
OF DIFFERENT LEVELS
Submission Date:
June 19, 2023,
Accepted Date:
June 24, 2023,
Published Date:
June 29, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ajps/Volume03Issue06-27
Norbekova Gulrukh Khusan Kizi
Post-Graduate Student, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
Prof. Mirsanov. G. K.
Scientific Supervisor, Post-Graduate Student, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ajps
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 06-2023
168
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
167-171
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
language. Linguistic units are highly informative
language units and are considered as a special
structure (model) of knowledge. Correspondence of
cognitive models in different languages helps to
understand the linguistic units in the language. The
content, meaning and internal form of such units form
a single cognitive structure. The basis of this content is
the cognitive level of meaning and the cognitive level
of internal form. In this regard, it is necessary to pay
attention to several studies conducted on the concept
of "cognitive structure".
MATERIALS AND METHODS
There are different interpretations of the concept of
"cognitive structures", A.A. Kibrick considers cognitive
structures to be structures of human mind, thinking
and perception [6, p. 126], V.B. According to Kasevich,
cognitive structures are structures created by a person
in the process of processing information [4, p. 98]. He
considers the concept of "cognitive structure" to be a
knowledge representation scheme consisting of verbal
and non-verbal knowledge.
Non-verbal forms of knowledge expression mean
information processing tools (mental images) that a
person uses without resorting to language: images,
"pictures", schemes. Verbalized (linguistic) knowledge
is divided into text "constructed" through the use of
limited linguistic and language within the relevant
language system. At the same time, textual knowledge
significantly exceeds real language in terms of volume,
resulting in encyclopedic knowledge.
The most common structures of knowledge
representation are categories, kinesthetic image
schemes, frames, scenarios.
In modern scientific paradigms, meaning is considered
as a cognitive structure that reflects knowledge and
experience that is embedded in language and closely
related to human activity. Meaning covers the entire
set of knowledge about the signified, including
potential and associative properties. In cognitive
linguistics, it is assumed that linguistic and
encyclopedic information cannot be strictly separated
due to the autonomy of linguistic knowledge, its
inseparability from knowledge about the world in
general [3, p. 17].
The meaning of a linguistic unit is understandable only
in the context of other cognitive structures or blocks
of knowledge that stand behind these meanings and
ensure their understanding. This turn of the problem
allows us to consider linguistic units as figures against
the background of some basic knowledge structure [11,
p. 17].
V.N. Telia considers a language unit as an event
belonging to a certain frame in speech. She also argues
that linguistic units are considered informative by their
meaning, which is "embedded" in the structures of
knowledge about the world - frames, scenarios, which
mediate between the actual linguistic meaning and the
defined reality [9, p. 129].
In terms of linguistic units, two structures of
knowledge interact - knowledge "categorization" and
knowledge "scenario"; the first appears as a classifying
frame and the second as a situational frame.
Summarizing the arguments about the cognitive
approach to the study of word meaning, there are
other approaches to the study of the meaning of
language units in modern linguistics: transformational-
interpretive analysis (interpreting one meaning by
interpreting the meaning of another unit), component
analysis (breaking values into minimal semantic
components), paraphrasing ( explaining the meaning
of a word / unit through synonyms), distributive
Volume 03 Issue 06-2023
169
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
167-171
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
analysis (determining the meaning of a word / unit
through the environment). The described methods of
studying the meaning of language units do not negate
each other, but complement each other, which
emphasizes the complexity and versatility of the
phenomenon.
The cognitive content of the linguistic sign is acquired
by the internal form and content. A specific internal
form expressed through linguistic reality is a complex
cognitive structure.
At the same time, the internal form of linguistic units is
an extremely complex phenomenon. Despite many
studies in this area, they may not lead to the creation
of a comprehensive theory of the concept of "inner
form". In modern linguistics, the concept of "internal
form" is interpreted differently. Often, this term is used
by researchers to indicate features of an unusual order.
Linguists use different approaches and criteria to study
this phenomenon
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
The linguistic fund of any literary language is divided
into two - figurative and simple units. As an internal
form of linguistic simple units, it is not limited to the
content of individual lexical units, but covers all
categorical features belonging to each lexical unit.
This, in turn, applies to the linguistic, cultural and
conceptual foundations of the lexical unit taken for
analysis.
The linguistic essence of the image was explained by
V.G. Gak defines the concept of "figurativeness" in the
book "Conversations about the French word" and
claims that the linguist derives from the semantic
conditionality of figurative units, which allows to
understand the mechanism of the appearance of a
linguistic image. V.G. Gak believes that figurativeness
"is based on the interdependence of two images, one
of which is the figurative meaning of a word (or
expression), and the other corresponds to its literal
(original) meaning. Such expressions, corresponding
to two different meanings, occur in a dependent
manner [2, p. 335]. In addition, the figurative meaning
is activated in the foreground, and the literal meaning
is activated in the literal sense. All this is related to the
degree to which semantics is developed in the
language. The development of semantics depends on
cognitive activities such as thinking structure and
perception. Knowledge arises through cognitive
activity, and knowledge forms the basis of the
semantic field.
Semantics is based on the new meaning resulting from
the connection (syntactic, logical) of different linguistic
units, and the realization of such meaning is considered
a conceptual phenomenon that occupies an important
place in cognitive linguistics.
The concept is a unit of thought and its basis is the
generalization of concept, image and linguistic
meaning. M. B. Nikitin emphasizes that the basis of the
concept is the meaning.
The meaning, in turn, is determined by the universality
of the main forms of semantic changes, the universal
nature of logical and mental operations, and aspects
related to the determination of relations, functions,
their similarities, combinations, etc., characteristic of
linguistic reality [8, p. 294].
Thus, V.N. Telia, studying the uniqueness of cognitively
related meanings of words, comes to the conclusion
that the semantic key words in this combination, which
determine the entire formation process of linguistically
related meanings, play a special role in the formation
of a phrase. The scientist considers such words to be
names of reference. According to the author,
Volume 03 Issue 06-2023
170
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
167-171
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
according to their denotation, the possible meanings
of the words were added [10, p. 284].
From the perspective of cognitive linguistics,
knowledge plays a key role in the mechanism of
metaphorical transfer. J. Lakoff and M. Johnson
emphasizes that the theory of metaphor is a
conceptual system of thinking, a person, so the
authors are based on the idea that linguistic semantics
has a metaphorical nature [1, p. 6]. Understanding
events and phenomena in different languages is based
on a revision of the basic concepts of human
experience (physical, emotional, anatomical, etc.).
We can witness that they are embedded in the
conceptual system of each ethnic group as linguistic
expressions that combine different meanings. The
conceptual system defines the image schemes that
operate in the human mind. These image schemes can
be identified by observing the actual use of language -
after all, the basis of linguistic communication is the
same conceptual system that a person uses in the
process of thinking and acting. Thus, language is
recognized as an important source of information
about a person's conceptual system.
Conclusion. From the perspective of cognitive
linguistics, linguistic units are considered as cognitive
linguistic features. The cognitive structure of linguistic
units consists of two levels - the cognitive level of
meaning and the cognitive level of internal form. Such
a view of the nature of linguistic units opens up new
perspectives for researchers.
In conclusion, the cognitive processes involved in the
description and classification of linguistic units at
different levels are complex and multifaceted.
Understanding these processes is crucial for
developing a deeper understanding of language and its
use. By examining the ways in which language is
processed and understood by the human brain, we can
better identify and categorize linguistic units at various
levels. Additionally, taking into account the role of
context and cultural factors can help us to better
interpret
and
analyze
language.
Overall,
a
comprehensive understanding of the cognitive aspects
of linguistic description and classification is essential
for advancing our knowledge of language and its use in
communication.
REFERENCES
1.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by.
–
Chicago, London, 1980.
–
p. 6, 242.
2.
Гак В.Г. Беседы о французском слове. (Из
сравнит. лексикологии фр. И рус. яз.). –
М.:
Междунар. отношения, 1966. –
335 с.
3.
Демьянков В.З. Когнитивная лингвистика как
разновидность
интерпретирующего
подхода // Вопр. языкознания. –
1994.
–
№ 4.
–
С. 17.
4.
Касевич В.Б. Языковые и текстовые знания //
Вопр. языкознания. –
1990.
–
№ 6. –
С. 98.
5.
Касевич
В.Б.
Языковые
структуры
и
когнитивная
деятельность
//
Язык
и
когнитивная деятельность / АН СССР, Ин
-
т
языкознания; [Редкол.: Р.М. Фрумкина (отв.
ред.) и др.]. –
М., 1989. –
С. 8, 18.
6.
Кибрик А.А. Когнитивные исследования по
дискурсу // Вопр. языкознания. –
1994.
–
№ 5.
–
С. 126.
7.
Кубрякова Е.С., Демьянков В.З., Панкрац
Ю.Г. и др. Краткий словарь когнитивных
терминов / под общ. ред. Е.С. Кубряковой. –
М.: МГУ, 1996. –
245 с.
8.
Солодухо Э.М. Теория фразеологического
сближения (На материале яз. слав., герм. и
роман. групп). –
Казань: Изд
-
во Казан. ун
-
та,
1989.
–
294 с.
Volume 03 Issue 06-2023
171
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
(ISSN
–
2771-2273)
VOLUME
03
ISSUE
06
P
AGES
:
167-171
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2022:
5.
445
)
(2023:
6.
555
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
9.
Телия В.Н. Вторичная номинация и ее виды //
Языковая номинация: Виды наименований. –
М., 1977. –
С. 129.
10.
Телия
В.Н.
Русская
фразеология:
Семантический,
прагматический
лингвокультурологический аспекты. –
М.:
Языки рус. культуры, 1996. –
284 с.
11.
Феоктистова А.Б. Когнитивные аспекты
семантики идиом, обозначающих чувства
-
состояния: автореф. дис. … канд. филол.
наук
.
–
М., 1996. –
17 с.
12.
Norbekova, G. K. K. (2021). The Linguacultural
Role Of Incantations In Linguistics. Academic
research in educational sciences, 2(CSPI
conference 2), 307-310.
13.
Norbekova,
G.
(2021).
Linguacultural
Pecularities Of Incantations Of The Uzbek
Language. Mental Enlightenment Scientific-
Methodological Journal, 2021(5), 169-179.
14.
Norbekova, G. (2020). CHARACTERISTICS,
SIGNIFICANCE AND ROLE OF MOTIVATION
PROBLEMS
IN
FOREIGN
LANGUAGE
LEARNING. Архив Научных Публикаций JSPI.
