American Journal Of Philological Sciences
102
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue04 2025
PAGE NO.
102-104
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue04-26
Zoometaphors As A Linguistic Way to Characterize A
Human Being
Eshimova Sharofat Kenjaboyevna
Senior teacher of the Department “Korean filology” at Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages, Uzbekistan
Received:
18 February 2025;
Accepted:
17 March 2025;
Published:
17 April 2025
Abstract:
In modern linguistics there is a great number of classifications of usual metaphors. In this article we will
consider zoometaphor as a way of linguistic characterization of a human being on the basis of various images. The
essence of metaphor lies in associative identification, which makes it possible to relate phenomena of different
subject areas by means of a nominative act. In zoometaphor, on the one hand, anthropomorphic properties are
attributed to the image of an animal, on the other hand, this image is projected onto a person, to whom
zoomorphic characteristics are attributed. The aim of the study is to identify common and national-cultural
features in the meanings of zoometaphors in Uzbek and Korean languages and to establish the peculiarities of
expressing knowledge about the world.
Keywords:
Zoometaphor, anthropomorphic, linguistic, cognitive, content, image, zoomorphism.
Introduction:
The basis of a zoometaphor is a
stereotypical image reflecting a vivid feature that is the
most characteristic of a given animal, easily
comprehended in the minds of speakers. The names of
animals are very often used to determine the
evaluative properties of a person and his behavior: fox
- cunning, donkey - stubborn, lion - strong, hare -
coward. Y.N. Karaulov believes that the reasons for
linguistic imagery should be sought not in semantics,
but in the thesaurus, in the knowledge system. In his
opinion, in linguistic imagery we find “a frozen
epistemological effort, an instant fixation of the act of
transition from one field in the thesaurus (for example,
‘wild animals, dangerous’) to another (“human
properties”). But in order for such a transition to be
possible and to take place, it is necessary to possess the
knowledge that the snake is insidious, the hare, say, is
coward, fearful, tends to flee from danger, the bear is
clumsy but strong, and the dove is gentle and harmless.
This transition does not belong to the verbal-
associative level, it is the generation of knowledge. Any
image can be transferred to the semantic level, can be
verbalized, can reveal its essence, its cognitive and
emotional content by constructing an appropriate text,
but the image owes its origin and emergence only to
knowledge, it appears when we leave the superficial-
ass
ociative level and plunge into the thesaurus”.
Since zoometaphor is one of the ways of encoding
national-cultural information, let us consider the
concept of the cultural code itself in language.
The concept of “code” came to linguistics from the
scientific and technical environment (Morse code,
genetic code). The essence of the code is to decipher
artificial languages.
According to S.I. Ozhegov, a code is “a system of
conventional designations, signals that transmit
information”.
METHOD
In modern linguistic studies the code is considered as
an important concept of linguoculturology. The rules of
its reading “are set by culture: cultural chronotope,
cultural competence of the interpreter”. Consequently,
the code is developed and functions in culture. In this
case, we speak of the existence of “cultural codes”
(cultural codes). D. B. Gudkov, V. V. Krasnykh
emphasize that the “culture code” is a transmission of
material and spiritual experience (achievements, moral
precepts) developed by mankind during the period of
real history, i.e. history confirmed materially and
having evidence (artifacts and descriptions, letters,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
103
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
chronicles, diaries, travelers' reviews).
The concept of cultural code is used as a key to
understanding the cultural picture of the world. A
cultural code is a key to understanding a given type of
culture; unique cultural features inherited by peoples
from their ancestors; it is information encoded in some
form that allows to identify a culture. A cultural code
defines a set of images that are associated with some
set of stereotypes in consciousness. It is the cultural
unconscious - not what is said or clearly realized, but
what is hidden from understanding but manifested in
actions. The cultural code of a nation helps to
understand behavioral reactions.
Cultural language is the totality of all sign ways of verbal
(verbal) and non-verbal communication by means of
which culturally significant information is transmitted.
The purpose of cultural languages is to reflect the
meanings of culture, i.e. the content that cannot be
expressed directly and unambiguously.
Language codes hide the deep features of the culture
of its bearers, i.e. conceptualization of reality in
accordance with the vectors and dimensions accepted
in the culture. The worldview of culture bearers is
encoded
in
texts
and
hypertexts.
Such
multidimensional texts allow to decode culture with a
sufficient degree of reliability. In this case, the subject
of analysis can be the hypertext of metaphors, where
metaphor functions as a means of expressing cultural
mentality and one of the forms of the conceptual
picture of the world. A recognized result of such an
analysis is the conclusion that different cultures often
have different metaphors.
Metaphor in cultural decoding is considered as a means
of linguistic modeling of human existence in the
likeness of the surrounding nature (time flies, feelings
overflow, life flows, talent blossoms, eyes sparkle, soul
bursts, etc.).
In Uzbek almost any of the names of representatives of
the animal world (domestic animals, wild animals,
birds, insects, etc.) can be used as an evaluative
characteristic of a person (bear, fox, donkey, monkey,
spider, seal, rooster, etc.). ), and therefore not all the
phraseological expressions including such a name as a
component are easily and freely “reduced” into a word,
although there are no obstacles on the part of
motivation: white crow -
“a person who stands out
sharply in some way among the people around him,
different in some way, not like them” and
crow -
“about
a careless, awkward and absent-
minded person”; wet
hen -
1. “about a person who has a pathetic
appearance”, 2. ‘about a weak
-willed, characterless
person’ and chicken
-
‘about a person of shallow mind,
not broad outlook, limited interests’; l
ost sheep (sheep)
-
‘a person who has strayed from the right path of life’
and sheep -
‘about a timid, unresponsive person’;
Buridan donkey -
‘extremely indecisive person,
hesitating in the choice between two equivalent
decisions, etc.’ and donkey
-
‘an in
decisive person,
hesitating in the choice between two equivalent
decisions, etc.’ and donkey
-
‘a person who has strayed
from the right path of life’ and sheep
-
‘about a timid,
unresponsive person’. etc.” and donkey
-
‘a foolish,
stupid, stubborn person’.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Zoomorphisms can occur both as separate lexemes
(Uzbek: crow, donkey, bear, eagle; Korean:
곰
(bear),
물소
(buffalo),
돼지
(pig),
여우
(fox); and as
components of zoophraseological units (Uzbek. : a
mouse in a hole, (run) like rats off a ship, a planted
duck, a dog in hay, calf's tenderness, a wolf in sheep's
clothing; to play cat and mouse, “like a pig”, with bad
temper),
돼지처럼
먹다
(lit. “to eat like a pig”; a
glutton).
In Uzbek, a dog is an evil, rude person, but also a
connoisseur, dexterous in some business (simple), and
also man's best friend, helper, rescuer. Some
expressions reveal the conditions of human life, his
habits and behavior in everyday life: a dog loyal (a
friend of man); a dog's death to a dog (about someone
who, having lived an unworthy life, did not deserve a
worthy end.); a dog in the hay (about someone who,
having something-n.., does not use it himself and does
not let others use it.); like a dog's fifth leg needs
someone (need something) (absolutely not needed,
not needed); dog barks, the wind carries (let them talk,
scold, do not need to pay attention), dog's life, dog
loyalty, dog devotion, dog - man's best friend.
In Korean, the word dog
개
denoting a person is a swear
word. It is the name of a mean person, a flatterer. A
large number of phraseological units reflect negative
qualities of a person:
개
새끼
,
개
자식
. Used as a
motherhood word usually when quarreling.
In contrast to Uzbek culture, where a dog can be a
friend of a man, the character of relationships in
Koreans dev
elops according to the model “master
-
servant”, but not according to the model “master
-
friend”. At the same time, the subordinating rather
than partner type of human-animal communication is
emphasized.
Having analyzed the dictionary definitions it is possible
to distinguish similarities and differences in the
interpretation of the word dog
개
. Among the common
features we can note the fact that in Uzbek and Korean
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
104
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
languages “dog” is called a mean, evil person.
In Uzbek phraseological units, a coward person is
compared to a hare: Uzbek. hare's soul (because he
trembles like a hare, trembles like an aspen leaf); lives
like a hare in the ear; is cowardly like a hare, but
prodigal like a cat.
In Korean, a coward person is also called a hare:
Korean:
토끼처럼
is like a hare,
놀란
토끼
같다
is like
a frightened hare. In Uzbek and Korean, the heart of a
cowardly person is associated with the image of a hare.
CONCLUSION
The analysis has shown that the phraseological units
formed on the basis of zoometaphor clearly reflect the
peculiarities of linguistic interpretation of reality,
national-cultural originality of figurative nominations.
The considered phraseological units of Uzbek and
Korean languages have common, universal and
national-specific features. The features underlying
their formation are often not inherent in the
phenomenon itself, but express national-cultural
associations understood in a given linguocultural
community. The appearance of anthropocentric
incremental meanings in zoonyms indicates that
animals played a huge role in the linguistic picture of
the world, which is determined by the traditional
model of transferring the qualities of animals to
humans and vice versa.
REFERENCES
Sagitova A.F. ZOOMETAPHOR AS ONE OF THE WAYS OF
CULTURAL MEANS OF CODING (ON MATERIALS OF
RUSSIAN, TURKISH AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES) //
Modern Problems of Science and Education. - 2014. -
№ 1.;
URL:
https://science-
education.ru/ru/article/view?id=12021
(date
of
reference: 22.12.2021).
Eshimova, Sh. (2020). Features of metaphor of
troponymic origin. Foreign philology: language,
literature, education, (2 (75)), 81-86.
Kenjaboyevna, E. S., & Abdusattorovna, D. K. (2024).
Metafora-Personifikatsiyaning Umumiy Nazariyasi.
Miasto Przyszłości, 45, 406
-411.
Kenjaboevna, S. E., & Ugli, K. M. S. (2021). The
phenomenon of personalization in korean (on the
example of fairy tales). ACADEMICIA: An International
Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 11(6), 677-681.
Usmonqulovna, B. D. (2024). KOREYS VA O ‘ZBEK
TILLARIDA AFFIKSLAR SEMANTIKASI. ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ
НАУКА И ИННОВАЦИОННЫЕ ИДЕИ В МИРЕ, 46(7), 12
-
18.
Azizova, S. B. (2023, December). KOREYS VA O’ZBEK
TILLARIDA HURMATNI IFODALOVCHI LINGVISTIK VA
EKSTRALINGVISTIK VOSITALARNING QIYOSIY TAHLILI.
In Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research
Spirit (pp. 138-141).
Turakulova, S. F. Differences and Similarities of
Derivative Adverbs in Uzbek and Korean Languages.
Qizi, S. S. A. (2023). KOREYS VA O ‘ZBEK TILLARIDA
TEJAM HODISASINING O ‘RGANILISHI. Innovation: The
journal of Social Sciences and Researches, 1(5), 104-
108.
Баенханова, И. (2019). Паремияларнинг турли
тизимдаги
тилларда
умумий
хусусиятлари.
Иностранная
филология:
язык,
литература,
образование, (2 (71)), 64
-66.
Алимова,
Д.
(2022).
Лексические
средства
выражения
вежливости.
Oriental
renaissance:
Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences,
2(Special Issue 24), 542-554.
Melikova, U. (2022). PRAGMATIC SEMANTIC FEATURES
OF THE TEXT IN KOREAN AND UZBEK LANGUAGES.
Spectrum Journal of Innovation, Reforms and
Development, 4, 371-373.
