INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 2310
THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANTHROPOCENTRIC APPROACH IN
THE FORMATION OF COGNITIVE ACTIVITY
Kilichev Akram Abdusamadovich
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Bukhara State University
Email: akramqilichiv89@gmail.com
Phone: +998 90 635 07 75
Annotation:
This article analyzes the scientific and theoretical foundations as well as the
practical significance of the principle of anthropocentrism in the formation of cognitive activity.
Human-centered views define the active role of the subject in the cognitive process. The article
highlights the formation of cognitive activity through individual experience, social environment,
and language from an anthropocentric point of view. Additionally, it explains the function of
language in cognition, understanding through concepts, and mechanisms of thinking. The
results of scientific research show the crucial role of the human factor in cognitive activity and
demonstrate the emergence of anthropocentrism as a methodological foundation in the system
of knowledge.
Keywords:
Anthropocentrism, cognitive activity, human factor, concept, language and thought,
subjectivity, cognitive linguistics
Annotatsiya.
Ushbu maqolada bilish faoliyatining shakllanishida antropotsentrizm
tamoyilining ilmiy-nazariy asoslari va amaliy ahamiyati tahlil qilinadi. Inson markazida
turuvchi qarashlar bilish jarayonida sub’ektning faol rolini belgilab beradi. Maqolada bilish
faoliyatining individual tajriba, ijtimoiy muhit va til orqali shakllanishi antropotsentrik nuqtai
nazardan yoritiladi. Shuningdek, bilish jarayonida tilning funksiyasi, konseptlar orqali anglash
va fikrlash mexanizmlari ochib beriladi. Ilmiy izlanishlar natijalari bilish faoliyatida inson
faktorining muhim o‘rin tutishi, antropotsentrizmning bilimlar tizimida metodologik asos
sifatida namoyon bo‘lishini ko‘rsatadi.
Kalit so‘zlar.
Antropotsentrizm, bilish faoliyati, inson omili, konsept, til va tafakkur,
sub’ektivlik, kognitiv lingvistikа
Аннотация.
В данной статье анализируются научно-теоретические основы и
практическое значение принципа антропоцентризма в формировании познавательной
деятельности. Взгляды, в центре которых находится человек, определяют активную роль
субъекта в процессе познания. В статье освещается формирование познавательной
активности с антропоцентрической точки зрения через индивидуальный опыт,
социальную среду и язык. Также раскрываются функции языка в процессе познания,
понимание через концепты и механизмы мышления. Результаты научных исследований
показывают важную роль человеческого фактора в познавательной деятельности и
демонстрируют антропоцентризм как методологическую основу системы знаний.
Ключевые слова:
Антропоцентризм, познавательная деятельность, человеческий фактор,
концепт, язык и мышление, субъективность, когнитивная лингвистика
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 2311
The first ideas about anthropocentrism appeared during the Renaissance, although many
researchers trace its roots back to antiquity. This worldview marked the beginning of the
subject-object scheme of human cognition. The entire philosophy and culture of the
Renaissance centered on recognizing human dignity, the right to free development, and the
expression of human capabilities. A new criterion for evaluating social relations—humanism—
was established.In anthropocentrism, the reflection, measurement, and interpretation of external
and internal reality are inextricably linked to human consciousness and thinking, as well as to
one’s relationship with the world. In general, this may be described as the anthropocentrism of
subjective reality.Since language is anthropocentric and designed for humans, the entire
linguistic categorization of objects and phenomena in the external world is directed toward
human individuality. The idea that linguistic capacity is inherently individual first appeared in
the works of Wilhelm von Humboldt. The German philosopher and linguist considered
language to be an intermediary link between humans and the surrounding world. According to
him, the study of language is subordinated to the human goal of self-understanding and of
relating to everything observed or hidden in the world. For Humboldt, language is a type of
activity that transforms the external world into a domain of human consciousness.
Many ideas and concepts of modern linguistics were developed by V.V. Vinogradov, who
consistently focused on phenomena connected to the manifestation of the human factor within
language. He introduced the concept of the "linguistic personality" and began its investigation
through the language of literary texts. At present, identifying the various features of the
language system is not the sole or ultimate aim of linguistic analysis. It has become increasingly
important to study linguistic phenomena in close relation to human beings and their cognitive
processes. After all, humans perceive the world and their spiritual-practical activities through
cognition. Anthropocentrism should be regarded as a paradigm that thoroughly explores the
issue of “the person within language.” It can be stated that "behind every text stands a linguistic
personality who possesses the language system." This individual becomes the starting point for
linguistic analysis, shaping its direction, purpose, and interpretation. The anthropocentric
paradigm places the human being at the center, treating language as a key attribute and integral
part of human identity. One cannot imagine a person outside of language, or divorced from the
linguistic competence necessary for producing and understanding texts. Texts created by
humans are inherently individual and therefore egocentric in nature—because behind every
word stands a person marked by their unique life experiences, perspectives, and cultural
background. A number of studies have raised the question: “Can anthropocentrism be
considered the main paradigm of linguistics at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st
century?” To answer this, scholars turn to the term “scientific paradigm,” exploring how it is
used to describe the current state of linguistic science. The term paradigm was introduced by
Ferdinand de Saussure to denote a system of forms of a word—that is, the cross-sectional
structure of language including inflections and derivations. This term laid the groundwork for
the emergence of new paradigms in scientific knowledge, later reflected in the works of
American scholar Thomas Kuhn. In his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
Kuhn explored the deep connections between scientific development and societal change,
formulating the concept of the “scientific community” as the subject of logical activity.
According to Kuhn, such a community operates under a shared set of assumptions—its
paradigm—which researchers may accept without question. Contemporary linguistics is
recognized for its polyparadigmatic nature. This creates an open question about the number of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 2312
existing paradigms at the current stage of linguistic development. As a result, the dominance of
the anthropocentric paradigm is not universally acknowledged. T. Khomutova believes that the
current stage of scientific development is shaped by globalization, which inevitably leads to the
emergence of an integrative approach. This new approach aims to synthesize various scientific
paradigms. From this perspective, language should be studied as an object that spans four
domains: consciousness, language system, culture, and society. The study of linguistic
material—especially lexical units—from an anthropocentric standpoint remains insufficient in
scope, highlighting the urgency of continued research in this direction. Many of the problems
raised in these studies have either not been addressed at all, or are so complex and multifaceted
that they demand deeper exploration.
Conclusion
Thus, the following conclusions were reached:
a) Since the mid-1980s, the fundamental distinction between earlier linguocentric (system-
centric, object-centric) and anthropocentric approaches in the interpretation of linguistic
phenomena has been acknowledged;
b) Although numerous theoretical studies have explored the lexical system from a linguocentric
point of view and yielded notable results, the anthropocentric perspective remains in its early
stages of development;
c) At present, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate crucial theoretical and practical
categories such as the concept, as well as lexical deficiencies within the psycho-linguistic
structure of individuals.
The anthropocentric orientation of cognitive activity is manifested in the subject’s pursuit of
self-knowledge and self-actualization, and in their perception of the surrounding world based
on human values and needs. As a product of both individual and collective cognitive efforts,
anthropocentric focus helps form a stable and ethically grounded worldview.
In conclusion
, the anthropocentric perspective performs a vital function in cognition, as it
emphasizes the interpretation of information, selection of dominant knowledge, and activation
of personal meaning. The interrelation between anthropocentric orientation and personal
cognitive activity indicates that this approach plays a crucial role in shaping one’s worldview,
which in turn influences social and professional development.
References:
1. Vorkachev, S. G. (2001). Linguoculturology, Linguistic Personality, Concept: The
Formation of the Anthropocentric Paradigm in Linguistics. Philological Sciences, (1), 64–
72.
2. Khomutova, T. N. (2009). Scientific Paradigms in Linguistics. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk
State University, (35), 142–151.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 06,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 2313
3. Kubryakova, E. S. (2004). Language and Knowledge: On the Path to Understanding
Language. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture.
4. Karasik, V. I. (2002). The Linguistic Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse. Volgograd:
Peremena.
5. Maslova, V. A. (2001). Linguoculturology. Moscow: Akademia.
6. Humboldt, W. von (1984). Selected Works in Linguistics. Moscow: Progress.
7. Vinogradov, V. V. (1946). Basic Concepts of Russian Phraseology as a Linguistic
Discipline. Proceedings of the Jubilee Session of Leningrad State University.
8. Khaydarov, N. (2020). Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. Tashkent: Fan.
9. Anorkulova, O. (2022). Observations on the Concept and its Study in Uzbek Linguistics.
Issues of Philology, (2), 45–52.
10. Shomansurov, A. (2018). Man and Language: Within the Principles of Anthropocentrism.
Tashkent: Iste’dod.
