https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
120
LINGUISTIC INTERPRETATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE CONCEPT
Makhmudova Gulchekhra Dilshadbekovna
Andijan State Medical Institute
Department of Foreign Languages, teacher7
e-mail:makhmudovagulchekhra1975@gmail.com
Annotation:
This article analyzes the structure of linguocultural concepts and the notion of
segments, as well as their role in language and culture. The layered model of concepts,
specifically the core, primary layer, and segments, is elucidated using the concept of "tolerance"
as an example. The article scientifically examines the distinctions between conceptual and
semantic characteristics, the uniqueness of universal and autochthonous concepts across
languages and cultures, and the interaction of linguistic and cultural factors. National and
universal values, the place of concepts within the lexico-semantic paradigm, and their cultural
and ethical content are extensively covered.
Keywords:
linguoculturology, concept, segment, abstraction, tolerance, semantic characteristic,
lexico-semantic paradigm, universal concept, autochthonous concept, culture, language,
cognitive linguistics.
Introduction.
Linguistic interpretation of the concept is an important direction that studies the
complex relationships between human thinking, language and culture. Researchers have long
studied the components of the concept and methods for identifying them. The content plan of a
linguistic sign is closely related to the concept and includes all information that has
communicative significance, in addition to indicating the subject. The place of a given sign in the
lexical system of a language is determined by its paradigmatic, syntagmatic and derivational
connections. The semantic content of a concept includes all the pragmatic information associated
with the expressive and illocutionary functions of a linguistic sign, as well as semantic properties
associated with the cognitive memory of a word, that is, with the original purpose of a linguistic
sign and the system of spiritual values of native speakers. Of particular importance is the
cultural and ethnic component, which determines the semantic features of natural language units
and reflects the “linguistic picture of the world” of native speakers.
Literature analysis
. I.A. Sternin noted that the complex structure of concepts determines their
constant presence as active and dynamic participants in the thought process. Concepts are a
fundamental and stable part of human thinking. They serve not only for independent conclusions,
but also enter into a deep dialogue with other concepts, significantly influencing them and
creating the possibility for their reformulation. N. N. Boldyrev describes the concept as a
snowball, and I. A. Sternin likens it to the shape of a cloud. [4: 35] According to the theory of Yu.
S. Stepanov, the concept includes all the main aspects related to the structure of the concept, as
well as all the elements that manifest themselves as cultural facts and constitute its essence,
including the original form (etymology). The concept simultaneously embodies linguistic,
cultural, social and historical contexts.
According to this approach, the concept has a "layered" structure, and the different layers are
the result of the cultural life of different eras. In the main, "active" layer, the concept is
accessible to everyone who uses each language as a means of mutual understanding and
communication. In the additional, "passive" features of its content, the concept belongs only to
certain social groups. The internal form, or etymological feature, is revealed only to researchers,
but is indirectly accessible to language users. According to S.A. Megentesov, a whole complex
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
121
of correspondences is developed in the language, mediating derivational connections between
semantic units of different levels. Among such correspondences, the author considers such
oppositions as “lightness–difficulty”, “visible–invisible”, “hardness–softness”, “stability–
instability”.
I.A. Sternin claims that any concept, regardless of its type, has a base layer, which is a certain
emotional image. This image is a unit of the universal subject code, encoding this concept for
mental operations. In complex concepts, additional cognitive properties are superimposed on the
base image, forming a "soft spot of the fruit". Every concept must have a basic cognitive layer
with an emotional-figurative core, otherwise the concept cannot function as a mental unit. [3: 50-
58]
Methodology.
Based on scientific and practical works and research conducted by scientists, we
can dwell in detail on three main structural types of concepts:
Single-level concepts:
simple in their structure, often consisting of one layer and level. For
example, according to N.N. Boldyrev, in the minds of children there are many concepts that are
formed only after infancy
.
Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternin cite such concepts as green, yellow, and
salty as examples of single-level concepts. [6: 328] However, these examples cannot fully
describe single-level concepts, since these words often have several direct and indirect meanings,
and their semantics are more complex. [3: 58]
Multi-level concepts:
contain several cognitive layers that differ in the level of abstraction
reflected in the main layer. For example, the concept of "literate" includes, in addition to the
main layer (the image of the writer), such layers as the ability to read and write, communicate
effectively, perform this type of activity, and have good knowledge in a certain area of
knowledge.
Segmented concepts:
a basic emotional layer surrounded by several segments of the same level
of abstraction. An example of a segmented concept is "tolerance". At the heart of this concept in
its emotional form is the image of a calm, meek, unperturbed person. The basic layer includes
such cognitive characteristics as tolerance, calmness. Segments of the concept "tolerance"
include political, scientific, everyday, religious, pedagogical, sports and musical tolerance. In
language, conceptual properties correspond to semes, and cognitive classifiers correspond to
semantic properties (for example, the semantic property is "gender", the specifying seme is
"woman", the seme is "female gender"). If we proceed from the fact that a linguacultural concept
is a type of abstraction that generalizes the meanings of a number of its linguistic realizations,
then the specific form of this concept is determined by the area of abstraction. Concepts are
abstracted from the meanings of their specific linguistic realizations, and their semantics contains
both “subjective” and ethnocultural semes.
"Universal concepts"
(e.g., "norms") provide the
standard needed for abstraction from an unknown number of linguistic applications, as well as
for cross-linguistic comparison and translation. Examples include scientific consciousness, moral
terms, and logical operators ("good-bad," "good-bad-indifferent," etc.). In turn, autochthonous
(from the Greek "autochthon" - local, characteristic of a given area) concepts may not only be
intralingual, monoglossy, that is, abstracted from lexical units of two or more languages. For
example, they may be polyglossy, like the "limit concepts" of Western and Eastern language
cultures.
The main means of activating a concept in the communication process are linguistic signs.
Linguistic units, i.e. elements of language, play an important role in the full and comprehensive
expression of a concept. For example, words, expressions, phraseological units, sentences of a
wide range of application are the means that form the conceptual basis. However, the name of
the concept is not the only sign that activates it in the human consciousness. Any component can
be realized in the form of another sign. For example, to activate the concept of "nature" in the
consciousness of a native speaker of the Uzbek language, not only the lexeme "bino" can be used,
but also "oila", "sulola", etc. This concept can also be expressed by paralinguistic means, for
example, by rubbing the index and middle fingers with the thumb. The more diverse the
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
122
possibilities of symbolizing a concept, the more ancient it is and the higher its value from the
point of view of a specific language community. [5: 35]
Conclusion.
In the linguistic sense, a concept is a unit of collective consciousness that has a
linguistic expression and a certain ethnocultural identity. Concepts include attached lexemes, the
meanings of each of which are carriers of separate content that form the content of national
linguistic consciousness.
Secondly, in a narrow sense, the concept is defined by linguacultural identity and includes
semantic formations that characterize the bearers of a particular ethnoculture. The range of
concepts studied by researchers is constantly expanding, which indicates the dynamic
development of linguacultural studies. The article scientifically analyzes the difference between
conceptual and semantic features, the linguistic and intercultural specificity of universal and
autochthonous concepts, as well as the interaction of linguistic and cultural factors. National and
universal values, the place of concepts in the lexical-semantic paradigm, their cultural and moral
content are reflected.
List of references:
1. Telia V.N. The human factor in language: Language mechanisms of expressiveness. Moscow:
Nauka, 1991. –p. 214;
2. Yakovleva A.S. The category of evaluation in public speeches of P.A. Stolypin and Otto von
Bismarck: based on the Russian and German languages: diss. ... candidate of philological
sciences: - Tyumen, 2006.–P.309.;
3.Sternin I. A. Methodology for studying the structure of a concept// Methodological problems of
cognitive linguistics: scientific publication / edited by I. A. Sternin. Voronezh: Publishing house
of Voronezh State University, 2001. - P. 58.
4. Stepanov Yu.S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture. Moscow: School "Languages
of Russian Culture", 1997. - P. 45.
5. Megentesov S. The linguocultural concept of “language” and approaches to its study. – M.,
1993. – P. 35
6. Popova Z.D., Sternin I.A. Cognitive linguistics. – M.: AST: East – West, 2010. .–P.314.
