International Journal Of Literature And Languages
9
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue08 2025
PAGE NO.
9-14
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue08-02
Components of Cognitive-Discursive Approach:
Understanding the Foundations
Kdirbaeva Gulzira Kurbanbaevna
Nukus State Pedagogical Institute, department of distance education of social and humanitarian disciplines, DSc., Associate Professor,
Uzbekistan
Received:
11 June 2025;
Accepted:
07 July 2025;
Published:
09 August 2025
Abstract:
The presented article delves into the cognitive-discursive approach in the study of mythology. This
approach, within language research, holds a broader scope compared to the cognitive approach, providing a
deeper understanding of verbalization within speech activity and its content. Within the realm of speech
(discursive) activity, the cognitive basis of the language competence of the speech subject is manifested through
content forms, which are then expressed through language forms grounded in cognitive-propositional structures.
Today, the study of mythology and the conceptual realm of myths holds significant relevance, particularly within
the context of conducting research on human concepts through an anthropocentric paradigm. This involves
advancing methods to describe and investigate anthropocentric issues, understanding the core principles of
comparative mythology, and establishing the interconnectedness of mythological conceptual units based on how
gods and heroes are represented in mythology.
In this article, we aim to provide a methodological and linguistic-cultural exploration of mythological concepts.
This will be achieved through the analysis and etymology of mythological images as integral components of
phraseologisms, linguistic and cultural interpretations of these mythological images, as well as their modeling. We
will also develop a methodology and a conceptual framework for studying the distinctive features of mythology.
Special emphasis will be placed on the analysis from a cognitive-discursive approach perspective to delineate the
aforementioned characteristics of units within the mythological conceptual sphere.
Keywords:
Cognitive-discursive approach, mythology, conceptual sphere, verbalization, comparative mythology,
linguistic-cultural analysis, propositional structures, discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, mythological
concepts.
Introduction:
In the contemporary context, the
exploration of mythology and the intricate conceptual
sphere of myths is profoundly relevant. This is
particularly true within the realm of anthropocentric
paradigm research, where understanding human
concepts is a paramount endeavor. Such an exploration
necessitates the development of methodologies to
describe and analyze anthropocentric issues, a
comprehensive grasp of the fundamental principles of
comparative mythology, and the substantiation of the
shared essence of mythological conceptual units based
on the representations of gods and heroes in
mythology.
This article endeavors to provide a methodological and
linguistic-cultural analysis of mythological concepts. To
achieve this objective, we will delve into the analysis
and etymology of mythological images as integral
components of phraseologisms. Additionally, we will
explore the linguistic and cultural interpretations of
these mythological images, their modeling, and the
development of a robust methodology and conceptual
framework for studying the unique features of
mythology.
The cognitive-discursive approach in language research
encompasses a broader scope than the cognitive
approach, offering a more comprehensive description
of speech activity verbalization and its content. Within
the realm of speech (discursive) activity, the cognitive-
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
10
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
discursive approach involves the integration of content
forms that establish the cognitive foundation of the
language competence of the speech subject. These
content forms are expressed through language
structures
built
upon
cognitive-propositional
frameworks.
Of particular importance will be a focused analysis from
the perspective of the cognitive-discursive approach,
aiming to elucidate the distinct characteristics of units
within the mythological conceptual sphere.
Hence, within the cognitive-discursive approach, we
primarily adhere to the following step-by-step
analytical methods:
1)
Analysis of conceptual sphere and verbalizers:
This involves scrutinizing the list of concepts within the
conceptosphere and the verbal expressions associated
with them. Researchers employ deductive or inductive
methods, drawing from descriptive and subject-
thematic dictionaries, lexical fields, to select words
corresponding to these concepts;
2)
Contrastive component analysis of words:
Here, the focus is on contrasting and analyzing the
semantic scope of words across different languages. It
entails a detailed examination of the meanings
associated with words in the languages being
compared;
3)
Analysis of the semantic field and its structures.
This stage aims to ascertain the systemic relationships
of words within the semantic field, requiring
meticulous effort from the researcher. Analysis
considers both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations
of words, incorporating essential structural norms. It
involves determining the structure of lexical-semantic
groups, encompassing various elements like lexemes,
lexical semantic variants, phraseologisms, and
metaphorical lexicons;
4)
Conceptual analysis: At this stage, a deeper
level of interpretation and explanation is sought,
transcending linguistic boundaries. Conceptual analysis
necessitates tapping into non-linguistic knowledge,
providing insights into linguistic indicators and their
interrelationships. Scientific research methodologies
from cognitive linguistics play a significant role in this
analytical phase;
5)
Cognitive-discursive analysis: This phase
underscores the significance of comparative studies,
especially considering the relatively novel exploration
of English and Karakalpak languages within the global
linguistic landscape. It involves comparing the
perception of the world and imaginative constructs in
these languages. Analyzing artistic and religious texts
facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the
literary literature of the cultures under comparison.
This comparative analysis sheds light on critical aspects
of concepts not readily available in common
dictionaries or discernible through conventional
cognitive analysis.
Literature review
Although cognitive linguistics extensively investigates
language and thinking activities, the true essence of
this field lies in understanding the interplay and
composition of these fundamental elements. Sh.S.
Safarov emphasizes that language serves as a vital
means of communication, extending beyond mere
functionality within society. As a mental phenomenon,
language plays a crucial role in conditionally defining
(codifying) the knowledge an individual accumulates
while perceiving the world. It aids in preserving and re-
presenting this knowledge in the context of
communication. Safarov further elaborates on the
mediating function of language within the interactive
landscape of two-way relationships. In such an
environment, the interlocutors' roles are intertwined,
and their leadership position can alternate [Safarov
2016: 100].
When an individual encodes the acquired knowledge
from their worldview and imparts it to the subsequent
generation, the mediation function of language
becomes apparent. The process of re-perceiving the
coded information is influenced by the individual's
temporal, socio-political, cultural, and personal
conditions. Consequently, the individual can apply this
information in transformative meanings and tasks,
adapting it to the evolving societal context.
Yu.N. Karaulov proposes an alternative approach to
interpreting one's worldview. He suggests that when
it's challenging to explicitly interpret the world through
imagination, one can construct the "imagination of the
world" using structures found in dictionaries. Karaulov
identifies two reasons for this phenomenon: firstly, the
structure of dictionaries is undeniably linked to the
existence reflected in language, and secondly, the
extent of vocabulary structure within a language
owner's mind remains unknown [Karaulov, 1987: 28]. It
is imperative to ascertain the commonalities between
these phenomena and delve into their characteristics
within the language system.
In numerous works by foreign researchers, the
cognitive-discursive approach to analyzing language
phenomena has been advocated. These researchers
emphasize the necessity of integrating cognitive and
discursive analyses, contending that such integration
elucidates the communication process. E.S. Kubryakova
argues
that
describing
language
phenomena
independently, without considering these integrated
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
11
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
aspects, is largely provisional and serves specific
scientific objectives. The fundamental underpinning of
language activity becomes apparent through the
concept of discourse and discursive analysis, as
knowledge and communication functions are
inseparable [Kubryakova, 2012: 65-66]. These insights
align with L.S. Vygotsky's observations regarding
language and consciousness [Vygotsky, 2008: 642].
In recent decades, the examination of language from a
discursive approach has surged to the forefront of
linguistic research. However, this approach has yet to
crystallize into a distinct scientific paradigm with its
own defined research subject and methodology.
Establishing the cognitive-discursive approach as a
standalone paradigm among existing scientific
knowledge paradigms remains a complex task.
While discursive analysis of speech and language
remains one of the dynamically evolving domains in
contemporary linguistics, it, to a certain extent,
elucidates
and
contextualizes
our
general
understanding of language in alignment with prevailing
scientific trends. However, the concept of speech itself
has not attained a definitive clarity. Furthermore, the
term "discourse" has been employed in various
linguistic contexts with differing meanings.
Sh.S. Safarov, drawing from the insights of English
scientist W. James regarding the significance of reflexes
in conscious activity, is recognized as a theorist of
cognitive-discursive activity [Safarov 2015: 27]. L.S.
Vygotsky posited that "reality (universe) is perceived by
observers, and consciousness is a product of reflexes.
Consciousness is a reflex of reflexes" [Vygotsky 2008:
645]. Vygotsky also highlighted the presence of
"regenerative" reflexes, differing in their activity and
function from others. These reflexes respond to stimuli,
sometimes of human origin. Several linguists concur
with this perspective, particularly in interpreting the
official linguistic nature, where a heard word acts as a
stimulus and a spoken word can be the corresponding
response or reaction that generates a similar stimulus,
and vice versa.
Analysis
Phonetic units, as previously highlighted, function as
stimuli, while lexical and syntactic units serve as
reflexes. Viewing discourse through this lens broadens
its potential, enabling a multifaceted analysis. Initiating
the analysis from the smallest structural unit, the
phonetic unit, is paramount. To comprehend discourse,
delving into supersegments of speech
—
such as stress,
intonation, pitch, volume, and tempo
—
is essential.
However, analyzing all components of the phonetic
shell of speech may not always be feasible. The
discursive process not only extends "meaning"
(meaning > text) but also consolidates and transforms
it into a "compact" structure.
Propositional words play a role analogous to nouns in
English and Karakalpak; however, their status
undergoes variations. This variability is manifested
through a unit performing diverse functions across all
levels. For instance, if a verbalizer belongs to class X
within the lexical-grammatical group, while verbalizers
belonging to the functional-semantic group pertain to
class Y, they exhibit differences in grammatical valence
(GV) and morphological form (MF) compared to words
of class X (GV=MF≠X). However, syntactically in the
layer, they can correspond to each other (Y=X).
Consequently, it can be deduced that linguistic units, as
products of the speaker's thinking, manifest with
various verbalizers, determined through cognitive-
discursive analysis. Particularly, due to the variability in
their propositional meanings, syntactic-level analysis
assumes a pivotal role in elucidating language
uniqueness
Figure 2: Language units in the vortex of discursive activity
The text is primarily perceived as an abstract and
formal construct, resembling speech, and different
manifestations of text are examined concerning the
linguistic diversity across the world and in relation to
extralinguistic influences. Discourse analysis is
conducted employing definitional (classification) and
experimental methodologies. Linguist T.A. van Dijk is
widely recognized as the pioneer of discursive analysis.
Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, each scholar
interprets this approach in distinct manners.
Text
discoursive
process
Meaning
compact
structure
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
12
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
According to T.A. van Dijk, discursive analysis
encompasses two fundamental aspects. Firstly, there's
text analysis, which involves a structural examination of
the text across all levels, ranging from the phonetic to
the syntactic level. Secondly, contextual analysis, which
emphasizes the significance of context in determining
the text's structure [Deyk 1989: 99]. Conversely, French
linguist E. Le posits that speech can be considered from
three distinct perspectives:
•
The mechanics of language use, encompassing
phonetics, vocabulary, and syntax;
•
Assimilation of specific ideas from a particular
social consciousness, functioning as an "implant"
(contextual and component analysis);
•
The dynamic force driving interaction among
social groups and individuals (linguacultural analysis).
This concept is not entirely novel. In fact, certain
versions of transformational (generative) grammar
partially incorporate this notion through a formally
functional language apparatus. This apparatus
facilitates the alteration of original (basic) language
structures through a transformational phenomenon
often described as "folding." An example of this can be
found in the Annotated Dictionary of English
Euphemisms titled "How Not To Say What You Mean,"
where the word "bagman" is presented as a marker,
defined as "someone employed in a taboo activity."
Initially referring to a tramp carrying a bag of
belongings, the term has evolved to denote a passer of
bribes or an individual involved in illegal distribution of
narcotics, among other taboo activities [Reference to
the Annotated Dictionary of English Euphemisms].
In the given text, the concept of transformation is
evident in the characterization of 'Shri Adam Zogoiby'
as the 'bagman' in the affair. The term 'bagman'
undergoes a transformation of meaning, transitioning
from its original sense referring to someone carrying a
bag of belongings (a tramp) to a person handling illicit
activities such as transporting large amounts of out-of-
sequence banknotes discreetly. This shift in meaning
illustrates how language adapts and evolves to convey
nuanced and diverse connotations over time.
Indeed,
the
term
'bagman'
exemplifies
a
transformation process within language. The two
markers provided by the "Macmillan Dictionary"
highlight this transformation by showcasing how the
term has evolved to carry distinct meanings. Originally
referring to a person with no home traveling with their
belongings in a bag, 'bagman' has also evolved to
denote an intermediary in an illicit or unethical deal.
This transformation showcases the adaptability and
flexibility of language, demonstrating how words can
acquire nuanced meanings based on the contextual
and societal usage over time.
Moreover, the phenomenon of reflection, as explained
by
Sh.S.
Safarov,
further
emphasizes
this
transformative nature of language. People, guided by
their perceptions and societal context, may use the
term 'narcodiller' as a reflex, reflecting the implicit
meaning associated with the individual's role and work,
showcasing how language continues to evolve and
shape meanings through societal interpretation and
usage.
The propositional word, often viewed as a form of
nominalization, has long been a subject of interest for
linguists across different generations. However, its
analysis typically remained confined to treating it as a
standard lexical-grammatical unit. This limited
approach
gave
rise
to
semasiological
and
onomasiological methods for analyzing this central
linguistic unit. Nevertheless, these approaches, by and
large, operated on general assumptions and centered
around the recognition of two closely linked entities: 1)
the object (events) and its 2) symbol (name of the
object), or alternatively, 1) the symbol (name) and 2)
the object (events).
In the realm of discursive activity, however, the process
isn't merely about emdiving extralinguistic reality or
researching reality based on linguistic signs. Discourse,
as an intricate process of thinking, involves the creation
of a new linguistic representation of the world rather
than a mere reflection of extralinguistic reality in
speech activity. It delves into the construction of a
unique linguistic portrayal of the world, shaping how
we perceive and understand the complexities of our
surroundings.
Especially noteworthy are the units constituting the
linguistic landscape of the human experience,
encapsulated within the conceptual sphere of "man."
This sphere encompasses a multitude of fundamental
concepts that shape our understanding of humanity:
man, child, friend, traveler, grief, joy, woman, relative,
state, love, friendship, health, as well as various
components of the human div like intelligence,
courage, and femininity. Additionally, it extends to
encompass broader concepts such as races, doctrine,
marriage, human life, and the purpose of life. These
linguistic units intricately map the diverse facets of
human existence, reflecting the richness and
complexity of our shared human experience.
According to S.N. Plotnikova, cognitive discursive
activity resides at the core of the human mind's
interaction with reality [Plotnikova 2005: 68].
Conscious perception, in this regard, serves as a
motivating force behind the creation of linguistic signs.
These signs are essentially artificial constructs,
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
13
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
encouraged by conscious beings - humans. It's crucial
to recognize that these signs are inherently dependent
on human understanding; overlooking this dependency
can lead to erroneous philosophical conclusions
[Safarov 2015: 32].
We firmly align with Sh.S. Safarov's perspective that
culture's formation involves artificial creation and is
closely tied to the emergence of meaningful signs.
Additionally, we present a curated list of thematic
groups encompassing concepts of "artificial creation"
within the conceptual sphere levels of "man." Our aim
is to develop linguistic signs by meticulously studying
these groups through the lens of comparative
linguistics. These groups are immensely rich in
potential sources, offering an abundance of
opportunities for new research endeavors.
The linguistic and cultural description and analysis of
concepts, particularly when conducted within the
cognitive-discursive approach, present numerous
challenges. This complexity is evident in the scientific
inertia observed during discursive analysis, which
encompasses phonetic, lexical, and syntactic levels. The
intricacy amplifies when attempting a comparative
study involving two languages. Furthermore, the
diversity in theories, methods, schools, and
perspectives among scholars studying discourse
through cognitive analysis adds to the complexity.
Given these challenges, and drawing primarily from the
theories of Sh.S. Safarov and K.A. van Dijk, we endeavor
to outline a systematic structure for the cognitive-
discursive approach. This structured framework aims to
navigate the complexities inherent in analyzing
concepts and conceptospheres within the framework
of a single language and extend to comparative studies
across languages. By synthesizing and integrating
insights from prominent theorists, we strive to
establish a comprehensive and coherent approach for
understanding the interplay of language, thought, and
culture through a cognitive-discursive lens:
Figure 3: Systematic composition of the cognitive-discursive approach
Analyzing language or linguistic activity offers a
valuable avenue to gather insights into the nature of
consciousness and the semantic composition of its
elements, as emphasized by Sh.S. Safarov. In recent
years, there has been a growing convergence between
linguistics and various other humanities, including
philosophy, epistemology, psychology, psychiatry, and
cultural anthropology. This convergence has given rise
to a novel interdisciplinary field known as cognitology.
Within the realm of cognitivism, linguistics is evolving
and embracing fresh methods and categories derived
from its interdisciplinary counterparts. This evolution
equips linguistics with practical capabilities to delve
into the depths of human cognition and thought
processes, facilitating a deeper understanding of the
intricate workings of the human mind [Safarov 2015:
33].
CONCLUSION
In addition, the emerging cognitive-discursive
approach in the field of linguistics offers a fresh
perspective on research, particularly in understanding
propositional structures that significantly influence the
overall trajectory of language development. The
integration of cognitive and communicative processes
Cognitive dicoursive approach
Text analysis
phonetic level
graphic level
morphological level
syntactic level
semantic and lexical
level
macrostructure
rithoric peculiarity
Conceptual analysis
time
place
event/movement
field of activity
recipient
role of recipient
social relations
cognitive description of
recipient
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
14
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
into speech thinking underscores the importance of
researching their interplay. Hence, delving into
cognitive-propositional structures as a means of
conceptual realization within the cognitive abilities of
the human mind and thinking, including exploring them
as a foundational source for all manifestations of
propositional content in language, becomes essential
for further research. As these propositional structures
are verbalized products of thinking, their content is
embodied in the speech process using various language
tools. Given that the content of cognitive-propositional
structures among interlocutors holds a similar status,
they can be expressed in different forms within
discourse.
In summary, considering the insights and theories of
the aforementioned scholars, we draw the following
overarching conclusion:
•
Discourse, an approach examined in the
definition and theories of various scholars,
amalgamates different domains and is studied
distinctly across various fields;
•
The cognitive-discursive approach represents a
specially structured approach to discourse grounded in
text structure, elucidating specific contextual aspects.
Discourse, in this framework, manifests as a unity of
linguistic units with a cognitive structure, and the
cognitive-discursive approach is deployed in two key
activities: discourse and conceptual analysis;
Text analysis hinges on the investigation of linguistic
factors such as phonetics, graphics, morphology,
syntax, semantics, lexis, and macrostructure, as well as
language structures. Cognitive analysis of discourse
delves into extralinguistic factors like time, space, the
field of activity, discourse participants, social roles,
their connections, and the cognitive abilities of the
discourse participants.
In conclusion, adopting the cognitive-discursive
approach to study language enables a comprehensive
understanding of the cognitive processes intertwined
with human speech and thinking. The cognitive-
discursive approach serves as a valuable framework for
studying linguistic and extralinguistic factors, shedding
light on the intricate relationship between language
and cognition.
REFERENCES
Кубрякова
Е.С.
О
понятиях
дискурса
и
дискурсивного анализа в современной лингвистике
(Обзор) // Дискурс, речь, речевая деятельность:
функциональные и структурные аспекты: Сборник
обзоров. –
М.: РАН ИНИОН, 2000. –
С. 7
-25.
Макаров М.Л. Основы теории дискурса. –
М.:ИТДГК
«Гнозис», 2003. –
280 с.
Марианне В., Йоргенсен, Луиза Дж. Филлипс.
Дискурс
-
анализ. Теория и метод / Пер. с англ. –
Харьков: Изд
-
во «Гуманитарный Центр», 2008. –
352
с.
Прохоров Ю.Е. Действительнось. Текст. Дискурс. –
М.: Флинта: Наука, 2009. –
224 с.
Сафаров Ш.С. Онг когнитив
-
дискурсив фаолият
манбаси
сифатида//Хорижий
филология.
–
Самарқанд: СамЧТИ. 2015, №3 Б. 26
-33.
Ли В.С. Когнитивно
-
дискурсивный подход к языку в
системе
современных
парадигм
научного
знания//Вестник КазНУ,
-
Казакстан: КазНУ. 2015
[Мурожаат
киши
муддати
12.11.2021
https://articlekz.com/article/23260]
Сафаров
Ш.С.
Тилшуносликнинг
навбатдаги
вазифалари//Хорижий филология. –Самарқанд:
СамДЧТИ. –
2016.
№ 3. Б. 98
-105.
Дeйк, Т. А. ван. Язык. Познание.Коммуникация: пер.
с англ. / сост. В. В. Петрова. М., 1989. 312 с.
Dijk, T.А. van. Discоurse, ideolоgy and context // Folia
Linguistica. 2001. № 35 (1–
2). P. 11
–
40.
Ле, Э. Лингвистический анализ политического
дискурса: язык статей о чеченской войне в
американской прессе // Полис. Полит. исслед. 2001.
№ 2. С. 95–
112.
