European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
70
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
70-74
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
24 March 2025
ACCEPTED
20 April 2025
PUBLISHED
22 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Ethological and Cognitive
Foundations of Zoo-
Symbols in Literary
Discourse
Sadokat Toshpulatovna Kuchkorova
Doctoral Student (DSc), Department of French Philology, Samarkand
State Institute of Foreign Languages, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This study examines how animal symbols
(zoonyms) in literature reflect both ethological
principles and cognitive processes. We combined
Tinbergen’s ethological framework with cognitive
metaphor theory to analyze French and Uzbek literary
passages featuring animal imagery. Each instance of
animal symbolism was categorized into one of five
motivational bases
–
instinctive, emotional, archetypal,
initiatory, or moral
–
guiding a cross-cultural
comparison. Applying Tinbergen’s four questions
(function, phylogeny, mechanism, ontogeny) revealed
that many animal metaphors share biological roots
(e.g., a universal fear of predators) yet carry culturally
specific nuances. The findings indicate that literary zoo-
symbols are not arbitrary; they arise from innate animal
behaviors interpreted through human cognitive and
cultural lenses. Ultimately, the research highlights an
integrated
ethological
–
cognitive
approach
to
understanding how animal imagery conveys meaning,
offering insights for future cross-cultural literary
studies.
Keywords:
Zoo-symbols, cognitive metaphor, ethology,
animal imagery, Tinbergen’s four questions, cross
-
cultural literature, symbolic motivation, French and
Uzbek texts, archetypes, cultural semantics.
Introduction:
Animal symbols (zoonyms) pervade
literary traditions as rich signs linking natural animal
behavior to human meaning. From a cognitive
–
semiotic perspective, such zoo-symbols are not
arbitrary; they reflect deep biological and cultural
patterns. Tinbergen’s classic ethological framework—
which asks about an animal trai
t’s adaptive function,
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
71
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
phylogeny
(evolutionary
history),
mechanism
(causation), and ontogeny (development)
—
offers a
systematic lens for this analysis (Tinbergen, 1963). We
adopt this ethological approach, combined with
cognitive metaphor theory, to analyze how literary
images of animals arise from and shape human
thought. In particular, we classify each animal symbol’s
motivational basis into instinctive (biological),
emotional, archetypal, initiatory (transformational), or
moral categories, as suggested by recent studies in
metaphor and cultural linguistics. These categories
capture how innate animal behavior and human
cognitive schemas jointly create symbolic meaning.
Literary texts in different cultures highlight both
universal and culture-specific aspects of animal
symbolism. Cross-cultural idiom studies confirm that
“animal idioms often carry symbolic meanings and
cultural associations that vary across languages and
cultures” (Kurbanova, 2024). By comparing French and
Uzbek literary examples, we can observe which motifs
(for example, lion
–
power, wolf
–
cunning, dove
–
peace)
recur and how they are framed in each context. This
comparative method
—examining each example’s
literal and figurative meanings and cultural
associations
—
follows a mixed qualitative framework.
Our goal is to show how ethological facts about animals
combine with human cultural cognition to produce the
zoo-
symbols found in these texts. We use Tinbergen’s
four questions as a guiding structure throughout the
analysis.
METHODS
We collected a representative sample of French and
Uzbek literary passages containing animal imagery
from available sources. Both prose and poetry
examples were included to reflect diverse genres. Each
passage was analyzed for its motivational basis
(instinctive, emotional, archetypal, initiatory, moral),
following the classification outlined in prior
ethnolinguistic research. We then applied Tinbergen’s
four questions to each case, as follows:
1.
Function
–
What adaptive or cultural role
does the animal image serve?
2.
Phylogeny
–
How does this image connect to
historical or evolutionary tradition?
3.
Mechanism
–
What immediate behavior or
cause underlies the imagery?
4.
Ontogeny
–
How does the symbol develop in
an individual’s experience or narrative?
This comparative approach parallels methods in
translation studies and cultural linguistics, where
animal idioms are systematically compared across
languages. In our study, we first identified each animal
symbol’s denotation and connotation in context, then
traced its motivational roots. The analysis was guided
by concepts from cognitive semantics (e.g., Lakoff &
Johnson’s conceptual metaphor theory) and ethology
(Tinbergen, 1972). For example, we examined how the
predatory behavior of a lion (mechanism) is mapped
onto human concepts of power or preparation, and
how this mapping is conditioned by cultural archetypes.
Both quantitative (cataloging examples) and qualitative
(textual analysis) methods were employed to ensure a
thorough cross-cultural comparison.
RESULTS
Instinctive (Biological) Motivation
The instinctive motivational base invokes hardwired
animal behaviors such as hunting, feeding, or self-
defense as metaphors. In our examples, predatory or
survival scenes yield such imagery. For instance, a
French prose passage describes a character stalking
prey: “Comme un lion en chasse, il avançait lentement,
prêt à bondir” (“Like a lion hunting, he moved slowly,
ready to spring”). An Uzbek narrative uses similar
imagery: “Oyim arslonga o‘xshab ish tutadilar. Bir
qadam orqaga ch
ekinib turib, sakrab hamla qiladilar.”
(“She proceeded like a lion: stepping back, then leaping
to attack”). Both draw on the lion’s slow, preparatory
hunting behavior. Tinbergen’s proximate mechanism
question applies here: the lion’s stalking behavior
(preparing to pounce) is mirrored by the human
character’s cautious advance. Likewise, wolf behavior
appears in contexts of fear and vigilance. A French line
reads, “Il marchait dans l’ombre, silencieux comme un
loup solitaire…” (“He walked silently in the sh
adows,
like a solitary wolf”), paralleling an Uzbek saying, “Bo‘ri
zoti o‘tmish bilan emas, bugun bilan yashaydi. Ko‘z
oldidagi narsalar bilan hisoblashadi” (“The wolf lives
not by the past but by today; it deals with what is in
front of its eyes”). These images rely on animals’
survival instincts
—
such as the loneliness and vigilance
of wolves
—
to convey caution or readiness. In each
case, the symbolic link emerges through the animal’s
concrete behavior (ethology) feeding a metaphorical
meaning (e.g. caution, readiness) that is processed by
the reader’s cognition.
Emotional Motivation
Animal symbols often carry affective weight based on
human emotions toward those animals. The emotional
motivational base reflects how feelings such as fear,
awe, or affection are projected onto animal figures.
Fear of predators is a prime example. In a French novel,
a terrified character says, “Je suis entre ses mains
comme un passereau aux serres de l’aigle…” (“I am in
his hands like a sparrow in the eagle’s talons”),
connoting helplessness. An Uzbek narrative similarly
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
72
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
notes, “Uning kulrang ko‘zlarida yana bo‘rinikidek
sovuq o‘t yondi” (“In his gray eyes burned a cold fire,
like a wolf’s”), evoking the fear of a wolf’s gaze. Anger
and aggression also motivate animal-based symbolism:
one character exclaims, “Je tuerais, comme je tuerais
un chien enragé” (“I would kill as I would kill a rabid
dog”), equating an enraged person with a mad dog and
triggering disgust. Uzbek texts describe how “wolves’
howls.. spread terror,” linking a
nimal sounds to visceral
fear. According to evolutionary psychology and
cognitive ethology, humans have evolved strong
emotional responses to dangerous animals, which in
turn shape metaphorical language (Hart & Long, 2011).
Thus, Tinbergen’s ontogeny dimen
sion can be
considered here in terms of how these images develop
in a reader’s mind: solitary predators evoke an almost
universal fear. Not all emotions are negative
—
admiration or respect can also appear. For instance,
images of solitary freedom carry positive connotations:
“Il se remit à vivre… comme le loup dans le piège” (“He
returned to living... like the wolf in the trap”) and
“Ohudek erkin yugurib yurgan qiz…” (“[She] ran freely
like a deer”). In such cases, animals symbolize dignity or
nobility, eliciting empathy and even aspiration. In
summary, animal symbols often arise from
fundamental human emotions toward animals (fear,
awe, affection), and cognitive processing links these
feelings to the narrative context.
Archetypal Motivation
Some zoo-symbols tap into collective, mythic images.
The archetypal motivational base corresponds to
Jungian archetypes or culturally ingrained figures. For
example, the serpent frequently symbolizes evil or
death across both cultures. A French novella describes
a sinister
presence “comme un serpent qui traînait sur
le pavé” (“like a serpent crawling on the pavement”),
and an Uzbek epic scene likewise depicts “илон”
(snake) bringing news of death to Babur: Hozirgina
gulday nafis tuyg‘ular ichida yurgan Boburga o‘lim
xabari
shu gul orasidan chiqqan ilon bo‘lib tuyuldi. In
each case the snake evokes the archetype of danger
and treachery. Tinbergen’s ultimate function question
applies here: the snake’s evolutionary role as a
venomous or constricting predator has long made it a
symbol of threat, supporting its mythic function as an
emblem of evil or peril.
Similarly, the lion often appears as a royal power
archetype. A French fable includes the line, “À nous
autres rois, nos chiens doivent être des lions” (“For us
kings, our dogs
must be lions”), and an Uzbek proverb
says, “Siz o‘z nomingizga munosib sher yigitsiz” (“You
are a lion among men”), both linking lion imagery to
leadership and courage. Other animals also carry
archetypal weight: the dove (Uzbek “кабутар”) stands
for purity and peace, while the dog symbolizes loyalty.
These cases rely on universal cultural inheritances
—
the
lion as king, the serpent as evil, the dove as peace, and
so on. Cognitively, such archetypes can be seen as
“mental structures” that preserve primordi
al images
across cultures. In Tinbergen’s terms, the phylogeny of
these symbols is cultural rather than strictly biological,
stemming from humanity’s shared symbolic repertoire.
In practice, literary authors invoke these archetypes to
encode broad themes: for instance, the snake image in
the Babur story not only conveys the character’s
personal tragedy but also taps into an innate fear of
death; an eagle image in a French poem becomes the
“king of the sky,” evoking dominance and vision. Thus,
archetypal zoo-symbols emerge from the interplay of
evolved animal behavior (e.g. a snake’s threat display)
and deeply ingrained cultural symbolism.
Initiatory (Transformational) Motivation
The initiatory motivational base concerns life
transitions, trials, and personal transformations.
Animal imagery in this category often signifies a
character’s inner change or rite of passage. For
instance, a French narrative depicts a man fighting
“comme un tigre en fureur” (“like a furious tiger”),
emphasizing
primal
courage
in
battle.
The
corresponding Uzbek metaphor refers to “yo‘lbars
yurakli” (“tiger
-
hearted”) youths facing hardship. These
images of ferocious beasts in combat represent an
individual’s ordeal or test. Tinbergen’s phylogeny
dimension suggests that such combat instincts are
ancient, and consequently tiger-fight imagery has long
conveyed bravery and struggle in human storytelling.
Another example is the motif of entrapment and
escape: one verse compares a cursed man to “le loup
pris au piège” (“the wolf in the trap”),
and another
image shows a pigeon struggling free of its cage. These
portrayals mirror rites of passage or metamorphosis
—
the innocent becoming wise, or the captive being
liberated. Cognitive interpretation links the animal’s
situation (trapped, isolated, fighting) to human
psychological states (imprisonment, awakening,
struggle). As a result, readers infer that surviving or
overcoming hardship confers a new identity or wisdom
(a “wolfish” cunning or a newfound freedom). Overall,
the initiatory category uses animal behavior (fight-or-
flight scenarios) to symbolize human life-cycle stages
and trials, aligning with Tinbergen’s notion that such
instincts were shaped through evolution and have been
passed down as shared metaphors.
Moral (Spiritual) Motivation
Finally, the moral or spiritual motivational base ties
animal images to ethical or spiritual values. In these
cases, animals emdiv virtues or vices. A French text
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
73
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
addresses a ruler, noting that “…la débonnaireté est
vertu de lion et de roi” (“…clemency is th
e virtue of a
lion and of a king”), equating lion
-like magnanimity with
noble leadership. The Uzbek example similarly
interprets an eagle (“бургут”) flying high as a dispenser
of justice: “Cho‘qqilar ustida burgut sokin suzardi. Tog‘
orqasida bosh ko‘targa
n quyosh uning qanotlarida
chaqnaydi. Go‘yo osmoni falakda burgut yonayotganga
o‘xshaydi” “An eagle glided calmly above the peaks.
The sun rising from behind the mountain shimmered on
its wings. It seemed as if the eagle were ablaze in the
heavens”. In bo
th cases, the lion and eagle serve as
moral exemplars
—the lion’s kingliness and the eagle’s
lofty perspective imply stewardship and righteousness.
In contrast, other sayings carry warnings: a French
proverb asserts, “Qui sauve le loup tue les brebis” (“He
who saves the wolf kills the sheep”), using the wolf to
symbolize treachery and the destructive consequence
of sparing evil; and Montaigne famously wrote, “Le
chien, c’est la vertu… qui ne pouvant se faire homme,
s’est faite bête” (“The dog is virtue that,
unable to
become human, became an animal”), implying that the
dog represents a pure virtue that humans often fail to
attain. Such symbols emerge from culturally ingrained
moral narratives mapped onto familiar animals. Here
Tinbergen’s function question is
relevant at the level of
societal
adaptation:
communities
project
trustworthiness (onto the loyal dog) or deceit (onto the
predatory wolf) to teach moral lessons. Cognitively,
these mappings make abstract ethical concepts more
concrete. The emotional impact evoked by the animal
(for example, the gratitude inspired by a faithful dog or
the fear provoked by a menacing wolf) reinforces the
lesson. Thus, moral zoo-symbols arise from the
convergence of observed animal behavior and the
cultural narratives that impart didactic weight to those
behaviors.
DISCUSSION
This ethological
–
cognitive analysis reveals that literary
zoo-symbols systematically reflect real animal
behaviors as projected through human cognition.
Across the French and Uzbek texts examined, many
motifs recur
—
lions often signify courage or power,
wolves symbolize isolation or danger, snakes represent
lurking threats
—
providing evidence of shared
instinctive and archetypal roots. For example, the lion
image in both cultures connotes power and readiness
(consistent with its behavior as a predator), and the
wolf carries negative connotations of danger and
deception. At the same time, each culture adds its own
local inflections. Uzbek literature, for instance, places a
warm emphasis on the dove (кабутар)
as a peace
symbol (paralleling French uses of the dove/pigeon for
peace), and also incorporates imagery influenced by
Islamic tradition and the steppe environment (e.g.
references to historical figures like Babur, or the
prominence of wolves, tigers, and eagles in folk
narratives). These patterns align with findings in
comparative animal idiom studies: cultural norms,
historical context, and local ecology strongly shape the
specific manifestations of animal symbolism. While
Uzbek passages draw on nomadic steppe motifs,
French texts may invoke pastoral scenes or classical
allusions
—
each reflecting the environment and
heritage of the culture.
Importantly, the symbolic meanings in these texts
emerge from a tight loop between ethology and
cognition. An animal’s
natural behavior (for example,
hunting, solitary roaming, or metamorphosis) provides
the raw template, and the human mind applies
metaphorical schemas to interpret it (cf. conceptual
metaphor theory; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Thus, a
lion’s stalking can bec
ome a metaphor for human
cunning or pride (a proximate mechanism mapping),
while the lion’s role as an apex predator with high social
stature lends it a further layer of royal or moral
symbolism (an ultimate function mapping). Our
classification of motivational bases demonstrates that
some symbolic aspects are likely universal (e.g. an
instinctive fear of predators) whereas others are
learned and culture-specific (e.g. an eagle representing
justice). This supports Tinbergen’s insight that a full
explanation of a behavior
—
or by extension, a symbol
—
requires addressing all four questions: for instance, a
symbol’s function might be moral education, its
phylogeny lies in mythic tradition, its mechanism is
grounded in observable animal behavior, and its
ontogeny is through learned cultural association. Our
data-driven analysis (including a representative table
mapping each symbol to Tinbergen’s categories)
exemplifies these linkages, clarifying each symbol’s
cognitive and cultural motivation.
CONCLUSION
The zoo-symbols in Uzbek and French literary discourse
are deeply rooted in ethological behavior patterns and
human cognitive processing. Metaphors and similes
serve as effective literary devices largely because they
reflect underlying ethology-based motivations. By
combining Tinbergen’s framework with a cognitive
-
semiotic perspective, we observe that animal imagery
in literature is neither random nor purely ornamental
—
it arises from biologically grounded instincts filtered
through cultural frames (Hart & Long, 2011; Kurbanova,
2024). This integrated approach highlights both the
shared human
–
animal conceptualizations across
cultures and the unique spiritual or moral values each
culture attaches to certain animals. These findings offer
a comprehensive model for analyzing zoo-symbolism in
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
and Management Studies
74
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms
European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies
cross-cultural literary studies and underscore the value
of interdisciplinary methods in uncovering the deep
connections between biology, cognition, and symbolic
meaning.
REFERENCES
Hart, K. R., & Long, J. H., Jr. (2011). Animal metaphors
and metaphorizing animals: An integrated literary,
cognitive, and evolutionary analysis of making and
partaking of stories. Evolution: Education and
Outreach, 4, 52
–
63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-
010-0301-6
Kurbanova, M. M. (2024). Revisiting animal idioms:
Cultural insights across languages. In Proceedings of the
Scientific and Practical Conference on Innovative
Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages, Modern
Approaches in the Research of Translation Studies and
Philology (pp. 230
–
235). Tashkent State Transport
University.
Retrieved
from
https://transport-
research.uz/index.php/rs-conf/article/view/520/479
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by.
University of Chicago Press.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of
ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410
–
433.
Hugo V. Les misérables. Tome I, II, III, IV. Édition du
groupe «Ebooks libres et gratuits » (numérique)
Qodirov, P. (2010). Yulduzli tunlar; Bobur: Tarixiy roman
(Selected works, Vol. II). Tashkent: Sharq.
Hoshimov, O. (2016). Ikki eshik orasi. Tashkent: Yangi
Asr Avlodi.
Norqobilov, N. (2007). Bo‘ron qo‘pgan kun. Tashkent:
Sharq.
Said Ahmad. (1976). Kelinlar qo‘zg‘oloni (Comedy).
Tashkent: [Publisher not specified].
Said Ahmad. (1976). Ufq (Trilogy). Tashkent: Adabiyot
va San’at Nashriyoti.
