INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 604
ZOONYM SIMILES IN THE KARAKALPAK LINGUOCULTURE
Elizaveta Iskenderova Kamalatdinovna
Senior teacher of the Karakalpak language department of NSPI named after Ajiniyaz
Abstract:
This article is devoted to the analysis of comparisons with the component-zoonym in
Karakalpak language in linguocultural aspect, and also gives examples of comparisons relating
to the names of local animals. Comparisons with the component-zoonym in Karakalpak language
with national consciousness, customs and linguistic culture of the people are scientifically
substantiated.
Key words:
Comparison, zoonym, popularity, lexical layer, code, linguoculturology.
It can be emphasized that linguistic comparisons, a form of comparison, which is considered a
logical category in linguistics, have been paid much attention since the times of Aristotle. He
gave the following definition of metaphor: ‘A transferred word (metaphor) is a non-proprietary
name transferred from genus to kind, or from kind to kind, or from kind to kind, or by analogy’,
further metaphor was described as a shortened comparison, a special syntactic form of metaphor
expression or any method of name transfer. And what unites metaphor, comparison and phrase
is based on a comparison characteristic of human consciousness - comparison.
Therefore, comparison can be the object of study of such subjects as logic, literature and
linguistics. In psychology, the comparison is recognised as one of the key operations carried out
by a person in cognition of the surrounding world, himself and other people, as well as in
situations of solving various, in particular, cognitive-communicative tasks. O.S. Akhmanova's
dictionary ‘Dictionary of Linguistic Terms’ gives the following definition of comparison:
‘Comparison (English simile, French comparaison, German Gleichnis, Spanish simil.) is a figure
of speech consisting in likening one object to another, which is supposed to have a feature in
common with the first’[1].
As well as in metaphors, distinguish stable, free and individual similes. L.A. Lebedeva points
out that, in contrast to individual, stable comparisons ‘are marked by the constancy of lexical
composition, ensuring the constancy of its imaginative basis, are distinguished by relative
simplicity and uniformity of grammatical structure’[2]. According to N. Makhmudov, ‘...the
essence of stable similes is that in them the image expressed in the standard of comparison
becomes stable, such comparisons, although used by a particular person or author, over time
become a tradition in the language and becoming stable expressions have time to occupy a place
in the lexicon of the national language. Such similes are introduced into speech as if they were
ready-made units of language"[3].
In Karakalpak language zoonyms are productively used as part of proverbs, phaseologisms,
metaphors, comparisons, stylistic figures in general. In our language zoonimic comparisons are
used especially productively. Similes are one of the characteristic stylistic figures of the
language. In the Karakalpak language P. A. Najimov specially studied comparisons, noting that:
‘Among the subjects of similes related to flora and fauna, nature, two groups can be
distinguished: animate and inanimate, which have been strengthened over the centuries"[4].
Sh.Abdinazimov and H. Tolibaev[5], considering figurative similes as indicators of the national
mentality, note that in comparisons related to the character and behaviour of man, which are
found in the speech of native speakers of the Karakalpak language, words denoting various kinds
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 605
of animals are often used: iyittey sasıq (stinky, like a dog), malday pamsiz (stupid, like an
cow),qumırsqaday biyzar (harmless, like an ant), eshektey qaysar (stubborn, like a donkey),
ogizdey ókiriw (growl like a bull), tasbaqaday tarbańlaw (crawl like a cherapaha), jılanday jıljıw
(crawl like a snake), bulbildey sayraw (sing like a nightingale).
In any language zoonymic similes are used both in direct meaning and in figurative meaning.
Similes of man with an animal has a long tradition in many cultures. Zoonymic similes are
directly related to the environment, nature, locality and climate of a particular ethnic group.
Since such animals as ostrich, giraffe, chameleon, seal, etc. do not live in our area, there are
almost no comparisons related to them. But the names of such animals as elephant and bear,
although rare, but still occur in the composition of metaphor in our language, although these
animals live in distant lands from us. Similes are a comparison of two objects by one common
feature, quality or property, etc.
Zoonimical comparisons are a vivid proof of the formation and enrichment of cultural studies
views of the Karakalpak people. Not all words in the language are used in direct meaning. It can
be emphasised that some words are used in the role of comparisons, with components-zoonyms.
Such stable units do not arise by themselves, because in the performance of euphemistic,
metaphorical tasks by zoonyms in comparisons the emotional-expressive influence dominates.
In his scientific work F.Usmanov writes that ‘Biomorphic code is associated with animals or
plants, it is reflected in the names of animals, insects, birds or plants’ [6] [6]. In nature, its
nearest neighbours are representatives of the animal and plant worlds. Similes through the
biomorphic code can reflect almost all human qualities, for example, courage - burkittey (like a
falcon), qarshıgaday (like an eagle), strength - ayyuday (like a bear), arıslanday (like a lion),
jolbarıstay (like a tiger), narday (like a camel), pilday (like an elephant), plough as - iyttey (dog),
eshektey (donkey), ógizdey (bull), qumırsqaday (ant), coil as - órmekshidey (spider), jılanday
(like a snake)[3].
In the Karakalpak language, the zoonym "bird" has a linguocultural character, signifying
awareness of the cultural and spiritual life experiences, life experiences, and secrets of the bird
world, which have been ingrained in the consciousness of the people for centuries.
Also, in works in the Karakalpak language, we encounter the names of parrot, cranes, geese,
falcons, nightingales, peacocks, from which our people compared girls to beautiful birds.
In general, in Turkic languages, the zoonym "bird" has the concept of possessing sacred,
powerful power. In the use of bird names, they can be conditionally divided into two groups.
Firstly, the names of birds (pigeons, sparrows, doves, etc.), encountered in real life, equally
familiar to everyone and recognized by us through sight, knowledge, and understanding, are
widely recognized.
Secondly: birds unseen by people, non-existent in real life, legendary, imagined, and mythical
(bird of happiness, bird of fortune, bird of fortune, etc.). These are bird names found in many
oral folk traditions, fairy tales, epics, and myths. Through the use of zoomorphs related to birds
in the language of the poet's works, we obtain rich information about the rich culture and
spiritual life of our people, which has long been formed and stabilized in the language.
The origin of proverbs-verbs and phrases with the component-zoonym, originates from time
immemorial and their basis is such heritage as everyday life, wisdom, instructions and advice of
our people. Since the main occupation of our ancestors was animal husbandry and farming, in
early times the number of livestock determined the material status of the people. The concept of
livestock implies types of animals considered hadal (permitted by the Islamic religion to be
consumed).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 606
For example: Sáske waqitta Baybóri tamasha bolsın toyim dep óortaga kókpar tasladı,eki jarın
bolıp ılaq oynadı. (In the evening Bayburı, to make it interesting, threw a kokpar in the middle,
and the two sides began to play yeanling) (Alpamıs). Eriksiz taqımına bastıń, Ílaq qılıp alıp
qashtıń. (Unwillingly clasping the yeanling under his knee, carried away with him.) (Alpamıs’).
(Grabbing by both hands, as if a kokpar goat.) (‘Alpamıs’).
The use of an yeanling in this national game is not accidental. As it (yeanling) is light, it is
convenient for the rider (player in kokpar) to hold it in his hand. It is a sign of intelligence and
deep thinking of the people. For this reason, comparisons with the zoonim ılaq (yeanling) are
firmly settled in our language: ılaqtay halı bar (weak like an yeanling), salmagı ılaktıń
salmagınday (weighs like an yeanling).
In conclusion, we can say that comparisons with the component-zoonym are closely connected
with the history and everyday culture of the Karakalpak people. Zoological comparisons show
the depth of human consciousness, and human appearance, movements and behaviour are
compared with the animal world. The culture of pasture animal husbandry of the Karakalpak
people has found its expression in the linguistic culture of the people. The formation of
euphemisms with a zoonim component is observed through the comparison of man with the
animal world. Zoonyms in Karakalpak language have emotional-expressive character. The use of
units related to animal husbandry in zoonimic similes shows that they occupy a significant place
in the national consciousness of Turkic peoples, including the Karakalpak people, and that they
have cultural value.
References:
1. Akhmanova O. S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. Publishing house ‘Soviet Encyclopaedia’
Moscow, 1966-C. 608.
2. 2 Lebedeva L.A. Ustable comparisons of the Russian language: a brief thematic dictionary.
Publisher: Moscow: Flinta, 2011-C,300.
3. The Linguistic Picture of the world and its Assimilation // Uzbek Language and Literature.
Mahmudov N. Study of the Magic of Language. Tashkent: Mumtoz so'z, 2017. - P. 119.
4. Abdinazimov Sh., Tolıbaev H. Linguoculturology. - Nukus: Karakalpakstan, 2020. - С. 93.
5. Nazhimov P.A. Structural-semantic features of comparison in the Karakalpak language:
Author's thesis. Candidate of Philological Sciences. - Nukus, 1994. - С. 18.
6. Usmanov F.F. Linguocultural study of similes in the Uzbek language: Doctor of Philological
Sciences (PhD)... Tashkent, 2020. - P.19.
