| Article | |
|---|---|
| Article name | Zoomorphic Comparisons in the Works by T. Kasymbekov “Syngan Kilich” (“Broken Sword”) |
| Authors | Akmatova A.B.Postgraduate Student nazik131090@gmail.com |
| Bibliographic description | Akmatova A. B. Zoomorphic Comparisons in the Works by T. Kasymbekov “Syngan Kilich” (“Broken Sword”) // Humanitarian Vector. 2019. Vol. 14, No.1. PP. 81–85. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-1-81-85. |
| Section | |
| DOI | 10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-1-81-85 |
| UDK | 811.512.154 |
| Article type | |
| Annotation | This article provides a linguistic analysis of zoomorphic comparisons of the Kyrgyz language on the example of the novel by T. Kasymbekov “Syngan kylych” (“Broken Sword”). Zoomorphic comparisons are the result of assimilation of man, objects, phenomena of nature with animals. The comparison is constructed according to the scheme using four elements: 1) similar things; 2) alike things; 3) similar marks; 4) additional means for similarity (affixes: -дай, -ча, additional words сыяктуу, сыўары, окшош, түстүү, бетер, куду, өўдүү). These four elements are the foundation of comparison. Figurative comparison determines the coincidence of a specific speech object with an abstract concept. The article discusses examples in the following values: канаты сынып бийиктен түшкөн бүркүт сыяктуу – абдан алсыз powerless (very impotent); кара жырткыч куш сымал – абдан ачууланып (very angry); ыркырап турган илбирс өўдөнүп – абдан каарданып (very livid); туурдагы куштан бетер – куштун отурганына окшош (looks like a bird that sits); катырган балыктай – абдан арыктап кеткен (very thin). From these examples it is clear that comparisons are created according to personal experience, as well as in accordance with the general knowledge of the language community. The stability of zoomorphic values comes to the forefront of the description, that is, zoomorphic comparisons should be distinguished into separate subspecies: idioms and author comparisons. The main criterion for distinguishing the author’s comparison from phraseological comparisons is due to the wide use of the latter in the speech of different people. The occasional (or author’s) comparison does not have a stable structure and is accompanied by a connotative meaning. Objects of speech create them according to their own experience. These concepts are associated with national artistic values adopted in society, as well as correspond to the established system of stereotypes. |
| Key words | zoomorphism, imagery, artistic, autorˈs comparisons, connotative meaning |
| Article information | |
| References | 1. Akimushkin, I. The World of Animals. M: Young Guard, 1981. (In Rus.) 2. Arnold, I. V. Interpretation of the literary text: Types of nomination and the problem of expressiveness. Expressive means of English. L: Enlightenment, 1975: 11–20. (In Rus.) 3. Arutyunova, N. D. Language metaphor (syntax and vocabulary). Linguistics and poetics. M: Science, 1979: 147–173. (In Rus.) 4. Gak, V. G. Theory of language transformations. M: Languages of Russian culture, 1998. (In Rus.) 5. Gachev, G. D. About national pictures of the world. M: Science, 1967. (In Rus.) 6. Derbisheva, Z. K. Key concepts of Kyrgyz linguistic culture. Flinta, 2015. (In Rus.). 7. Lapshina, V. V. Metaphor as a means of constructing the image of a politician (on the material of the Austrian print media). Cand. filol. sci. diss. M: MGLU, 2006. (In Rus.) 8. MANAS: Kyrgyz heroic epic. According to options Sagymbaya Orozbak uulu and Sayakbay Karalaev. Bektenov, Z., Nanaev, K., comp. Bishkek, 1999. (In Kyr.) 9. Mezenin, S. M. Imagery as a linguistic category. Questions of linguistics, no. 6, pp. 48–58, 1983. (In Rus.). 10. Moldobaev I. B. The epos «Manas» as a source of studying the spiritual culture of the Kyrgyz people. Frunze, 1989. p. 42. (in Rus.). 11. Musaev, K. M. Turkic vocabulary in comparative coverage. АN SSSR. In-t yazykoznaniya. M: Nauka, 1975. (In Rus.) 12. Pimenova, M. V. Archaic symbolism and linguistic picture of the world (zoomorphism of the soul and heart). Regional national policy: historical experience and criteria for evaluating effectiveness. Materials of an International conference (Kemerovo, November 23–27, 2003). Kemerovo, 2003: 258–264. (In Rus.) 13. Ryzhkina, O. A. Systemic study of zoomorphisms in the Russian language (in comparison with English). Cand. filol. sci. diss. Novosibirsk, 1979. (In Rus.) 14. Telia, V. N. Secondary nomination and its types. Language nomination. M: Nauka, 1977: 129–221. (In Rus.) 15. Khojamberdiyev, T. Livestock vocabulary of the Uzbek language: author. Cand. filol. sci. diss. Tashkent, 1975. (In Uz.) 16. Amangeldіzyzy, A. Ai. «Nomads» esenberlinn novels zhylyy ataularyny ethnolinguistics mun. Cand. filol.sci. diss. abstr. Almaty, 2008. (In Kaz.) 17. Sydykov, S. Vocabulary that nomad languages. Historian of the language in which the Kyrgyz lexical essay. B., 1991. B. 5. (In Kyr.) 18. Tlepin ,B. Қ. Ethnolinguistic nature of vocabulary related to farming (based on the names of sheep and goat). Cand. filol. sci. diss. abstr. Almaty, 1997. (In Kyr.) 19. Toқtabay A., Seitқұlova J. Properties of the four types. Almaty, 2005. (In Kyr.) 20. Useev, N. The secrets of the word:the historical lexicologica are. B., 2010. (In. Kyr.) |
| Full article | Zoomorphic Comparisons in the Works by T. Kasymbekov “Syngan Kilich” (“Broken Sword”) |
