MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
138
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF METONYMIC MODELS IN RUSSIAN
AND UZBEK LINGUISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS
Sultanova Durdona Abulkhair kizi
Probationary Lecturer at GSPI
+998 90 107-01-97
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15105814
Abstract.
The article presents a comparative analysis of metonymy as a
cognitive mechanism in Russian and Uzbek languages. Universal and nationally
specific models of metonymic transfers are identified, and the cognitive
functions of metonymy in conceptualizing reality are determined. Based on
lexicographic sources and literary texts, the national-cultural specificity of
metonymic transfers is established, conditioned by differences in the
conceptualization of reality characteristic of Russian and Uzbek linguistic
cultures. The research results confirm the position that metonymy is an
important means of conceptualizing reality, reflecting both universal cognitive
mechanisms and the national-cultural specificity of linguistic consciousness.
Keywords:
metonymy, cognitive mechanism, Russian language, Uzbek
language, comparative analysis, conceptualization, national-cultural specificity,
linguistic culture, metonymic transfer models.
Introduction.
Metonymy as a universal cognitive mechanism plays a
significant role in forming the linguistic worldview and provides
conceptualization and categorization of reality. Despite the significant number of
studies devoted to metonymy in individual languages, a comparative analysis of
metonymy functioning in typologically different languages, such as Russian and
Uzbek, remains a poorly studied area.
Methodology.
The study is based on an integrative approach combining
methods of cognitive linguistics, comparative linguistics, and linguoculturology.
The main methods are:
Comparative-typological method for identifying common and specific
features of metonymy in Russian and Uzbek languages.
Cognitive modeling for reconstructing metonymic models.
Component analysis for identifying semantic components in the structure of
metonymic meanings.
Contextual analysis for studying metonymy functioning in text.
Linguoculturological analysis for identifying the national-cultural specificity
of metonymic transfers.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
139
The research material included lexicographic sources (explanatory
dictionaries of Russian and Uzbek languages), literary works in Russian and
Uzbek (20th-21st centuries), journalistic texts in Russian and Uzbek, and data
from national corpora of Russian and Uzbek languages.
Results.
Analysis of theoretical concepts of metonymy in foreign, Russian,
and Uzbek linguistics showed the evolution of views from understanding
metonymy as a simple name transfer and rhetorical device (antique tradition)
to recognizing its role as a cognitive mechanism and means of conceptualizing
reality (cognitive tradition) .
In the Russian linguistic tradition, the emphasis is placed on the regularity
of metonymic models and their role in semantic derivation (N.D. Arutyunova,
E.V. Paducheva, D.N. Shmelev), while in the Uzbek tradition, the focus is on the
national-cultural specificity of metonymic associations (E.R. Kilichev, A.M.
Mamatov, D.U. Ashurova).
Metonymy as a cognitive mechanism is characterized by the following
features:
1.
Conceptuality:
Metonymy is not limited to language but represents
a way of thinking, perception, and experience organization.
2.
Referentiality:
Metonymy provides access to one conceptual entity
through another.
3.
Сonceptuality:
Metonymic relationships are established within a
single conceptual domain or cognitive model.
4.
Motivation:
Metonymic connections are based on objective
contiguity relations between objects of the real world.
5.
Pragmatism:
Metonymy serves pragmatic purposes of cognitive
effort economy and emphasizing certain aspects of a situation.
Discussion. The research results allow us to conclude that metonymy as a
cognitive mechanism has both universal and nationally specific features in
Russian and Uzbek languages.
The universality of metonymy is manifested in the presence of common
models of metonymic transfers based on objective contiguity relations between
objects of the real world. This confirms the cognitive linguistics position that
metonymy is a fundamental cognitive mechanism with a biological basis in the
characteristics of human perception and thinking.
The national-cultural specificity of metonymy is due to differences in the
conceptualization of reality characteristic of Russian and Uzbek linguistic
cultures. In the Russian language, metonymy often reflects state-political
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
140
realities and geographical features, which is associated with the historical
development of Russian culture. In the Uzbek language, metonymy is more
closely connected with traditional values, craft traditions, and kinship relations,
which is due to the specifics of Uzbek culture.
Conclusion. The conducted research allows us to draw the following
conclusions:
1.
Metonymy is a universal cognitive mechanism that has both
common and specific features in different languages.
2.
The national-cultural specificity of metonymy is manifested in
reflecting various aspects of reality characteristic of Russian and Uzbek
linguistic cultures.
The research results can be used in teaching lexicology, cognitive
linguistics, linguoculturology, and in translation practice. Prospects for further
research are associated with studying the dynamics of metonymic models in
diachrony, as well as with a comparative analysis of metonymy in other
typologically different languages.
References:
1.
Aristotle. Poetics. Rhetoric / Translated from Ancient Greek by V.
Appelrot, N. Platonova. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2000. - 348 p.
2.
Arutyunova N.D. Metonymy and its role in the structure of language //
Philological research. - Moscow: Nauka, 1979. - P. 78-92.
3.
Apresyan Yu.D. Lexical semantics. Synonymic means of language. -
Moscow: Nauka, 1974. - 367 p.
4.
Ashurova D.U. Linguoculturology. - Tashkent: TashSIWL, 2012. - 316 p.
5.
Kilichev E.R. Tropes and figures of speech in the Uzbek language. -
Tashkent: Fan, 1978. - 204 p.
6.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By / Translated from English,
edited and with a foreword by A.N. Baranov. - Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2004. -
256 p.
7.
Paducheva E.V. Metonymic and metaphorical transfers in the paradigm of
meanings of the verb "to appoint" // Theory and typology of language: From
description to explanation. - Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2003. - P. 76-
88.
8.
Barcelona A. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and
metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update // Metaphor and Metonymy in
Comparison and Contrast / Ed. by R. Dirven, R. Pörings. - Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2003. - P. 207-277.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
141
9.
Dirven R. Metonymy and metaphor: Different mental strategies of
conceptualization // Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast / Ed.
by R. Dirven, R. Pörings. - Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. - P. 75-111.
