YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
102
CONCEPT AND STRUCTURE IN LINGUOCULTUROLOGY
S. Saparbaeva
Karakalpakstan Medical University
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15782152
Keywords:
concept, conceptual sphere, conceptual analysis, concept classification,
concept structure, national concepts, universal concepts.
The recognition of language's fundamental role in cognitive activity has led to the fact that
the subject of cognition has become the subject of study not only for philosophy, psychology,
and logic but also for linguistics. At the present stage of scientific development, this
anthropocentric coordinate is considered as the leading role characteristic of human
manifestation in language. This was based on numerous studies that significantly broadened
the perspective on the problem of language anthropocentrism, proving that it is not confined
within the framework of speech activity and is closely connected with mental activity.
Considering the primacy of thought confirms the need to search for the central role of a
person in language within their cognitive activity. This, in turn, leads linguists to pay close
attention to the subject of cognition and the specifics of its linguistic representation.
The complex nature of cognitive activity lies in its multi-level organization and involves
the cognition subject performing various role functions. In science, there are quite a few studies
of such anthropocentric coordinates as observer, interpreter, and evaluation subject. They help
to penetrate deeper into the complex system of language, but, nevertheless, do not allow for the
construction of a complete picture of human manifestation in it. This is due to several reasons.
First of all, most studies, due to belonging to different linguistic directions, are only separate,
often unrelated fragments of the problem's description. Moreover, recognizing the complexity
of cognitive activity, they do not take into account the fact of the integration of cognitive
functions and, as a consequence, neglect the hierarchical coordinates of a person's
representation in language.
The lack of a clear definition of the long-stated human problem in language, as well as the
failure to identify its classification basis, necessitates the systematization of the main
anthropocentric coordinates. Such a comprehensive analysis of the cognitive activity of the
subject of cognition becomes particularly relevant within cognitive linguistics. According to the
precise observation of E.S. Kubryakova, with the emergence of this science and its cognitive-
discursive direction, in particular, there is an opportunity to approach many of the issues raised
from new positions and to see the concepts under consideration in new aspects and
perspectives [Kubryakova 2006: 4].
Analysis of language in its close relationship with human mental activity involves the
correlation of linguistic and mental structures. This allows us to explain the peculiarities of the
cognitive organization of the subject of cognition and, thereby, to penetrate deeper into
consciousness as "a component of the brain's infrastructure, which concentrates all the mental
experience acquired by a person during their lifetime and reflects the impressions, sensations,
representations, and images accumulated by a person in the form of meanings or concepts of a
unified conceptual system" (highlighted by the author. - N. B., O. M.) [Kubryakova 2004: 9].
The multiplicity of objects of real reality, their characteristic differences, as well as the
uneven degree of formation of knowledge about them, determine the multi-level nature of
cognition. It manifests itself in the unity and close interconnection of several types of cognitive
YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
103
activity. The main ones are perceptual, conceptual, and interpretive-evaluative. In reality, these
methods of interaction between the subject of cognition and the world form complex networks
of relationships, thereby achieving an integrated nature of the cognitive process.
Despite the conventionality of distinguishing the above-mentioned types of activity, for
research purposes, it seems justified to consider them as separate levels of comprehension.
This is empirical knowledge, primary (conceptual) comprehension, and secondary
(interpretative-evaluative) comprehension. Their universal nature determines the logic of
structuring, the coordinates of the subject of cognition into smaller, specific coordinates
representing all the main stages of the cognitive process.
Based on the fact that of all the anthropocentric coordinates identified in linguistics, three
are inherently cognitive, namely: the observer, the interpreter, and the evaluation subject, and
the last two coordinates, in a broad sense, carry out a single interpretative-evaluative activity,
the need to identify a new anthropocentric coordinate becomes clear. This coordinate
represents the level of primary understanding. On this basis, it is terminologically defined as
the subject of conceptual understanding [Magirovskaya 2007a, 2007b].
As a result of restoring the integral chain of coordinates, it becomes possible to represent
the relationship "structural organization of the subject of cognition - basic cognitive functions"
as follows:
- empirical cognition → observer;
- conceptual understanding → subject of conceptual understanding;
- secondary comprehension → subject of secondary comprehension (interpreter and
evaluation subject).
Systematic analysis of the main coordinates of the subject's functional representation
implies not only their level classification but also the establishment of hierarchy regarding the
'basicity/derivation' parameter. This ensures a higher level of its scientific objectivity, as it
allows for a sufficiently clear identification of the status of each of them.
Adhering to the proposed requirement of strict correspondence to one level of cognitive
activity of only one cognitive function allows us to identify the following hierarchy of
coordinates: the primacy of the observer, the basicity of the subject of conceptual
understanding, and the derivation of the subject of secondary understanding. As proof of the
conclusion made, a review of the main characteristics of each of the levels of cognition and the
features of their linguistic representation is proposed.
In existing studies, the observer is represented differently [Apresyan 1986; Bondarco
2002; Kravchenko 2004; Paducheva 2006]. This is due, firstly, to the fact that the process of
perception is often not distinguished from other cognitive processes. It is understood not only
as an activity of empirical contact with the world (perception), but most often as a purely
mental activity (cognition), which presupposes and includes perception. Secondly, the observer
does not have a clearly defined terminological status and is therefore considered either as one
of the speaker's role characteristics or as one of the participants in the ongoing event. This leads
to the blurring of the terminological boundaries of this coordinate and frequent criticism of its
various interpretations. Taking this fact into account, within the framework of the ongoing
systematic analysis of the subject of cognition, it seems appropriate to designate the observer
as the subject of empirical cognition.
At the considered level of cognitive activity, sensory perception of the world is carried
out. The subject interacts with real reality only within the framework of their specific object
YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
104
activity. As a result, empirical knowledge is formed, which linguists define as phenomenological
[Kravchenko 2004], non-linguistic, analogical knowledge about the ontology of the world
[Boldirev 2005]. Its peculiarity lies in its close connection with the essence of the object, its
objective features, which allow us to distinguish this object from the entire world of objects. It
is precisely this that leads to the formation of individual specific concepts in the individual's
consciousness. They are primary. According to E.S. Kubryakova's definition, they define the
conceptual system of man at the beginning of his evolution and include primary ontological
categories or the simplest categories of being [Kubryakova 2004a: 95].
The perceptual basis of the cognitive activity of the empirical cognition subject allows us
to characterize it as the primary, initial coordinate of the functional representation of the
cognition subject. Nevertheless, the primary nature of perception cannot be considered a
sufficient criterion for asserting the basic nature of this coordinate for all cognitive activity, as
is currently accepted in linguistics.
In conclusion, systematization and identification of the hierarchical status of the main
coordinates of the functional representation of the subject of cognition, in this way, allows for
a new understanding of the problem of man in language. Simultaneously, it becomes possible
to demonstrate the universality of the linguistic representation of the distinguished levels of
cognitive activity, emphasizing that universality pertains not to individual categories and units,
but to the principles of linguistic representation arising from the categorical organization of
language.
References:
Используемая литература:
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1.
Boldirev N.N. Modus categories in language // Cognitive linguistics: Mental foundations
and linguistic realization. St. Petersburg: Trigon, 2005. P. 31-46.
2.
Kubryakova E.S. On cognitive attitudes science and current problems of cognitive
linegvistics // Ed. RAS. Literature and Language Series. 2004. Vol. 63. No 3.
