tilTiltanymTiltanym2411-60762709-135XИнститут языкознания имени А.Байтурсынулы КН МОН РК10.55491/2411-6076-2026-3-57-70til-2348Research ArticleТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКАTHEORETICAL LINGUISTICSСоматические концепты в казахском языке: воплощённое познание и культурная концептуализацияSomatic Concepts in the Kazakh Language: Embodied Cognition and Cultural Conceptualizationhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-5292-6727НабидуллинА. С.AldashevaK.

Айболат Сарсенбаевич Набидуллин, автор-корреспондент, доктор философии (PhD)

г. Алматы

Kamar Aldasheva, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Associate Professor, Postdoctoral Researcher

Almaty

aldash.kamar@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0331-9562АлдашеваК. С.NabidullinA.

Камар Сагингалиевна Алдашева, доктор философии (PhD), ассоциированный профессор, постдокторант

г. Алматы

Aibolat Nabidullin, Corresponding Author, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Almaty

anabidullin@vk.comhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-6043-4607АбдрахмановД. Д.AbdrakhmanovD.

Даурен Даулеткельдинович Абдрахманов, докторант

г. Алматы

Dauren Abdrakhmanov, Doctoral Student

Almaty

abdrahmanovdauren70@gmail.comКазахский национальный педагогический университет имени АбаяКазахстанAbai Kazakh National Pedagogical UniversityKazakhstan202617102026035770Copyright © Набидуллин А.С., Алдашева К.С., Абдрахманов Д.Д., 20262026Набидуллин А.С., Алдашева К.С., Абдрахманов Д.Д.Aldasheva K., Nabidullin A., Abdrakhmanov D.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.tiltanym.kz/jour/article/view/2348

Данное исследование предлагает сравнительно-когнитивный анализ соматических концептов казахского языка в рамках теории «воплощённого познания» (embodied cognition) – одного из активно развивающихся направлений современной когнитивной лингвистики. Истоки теории в американском прагматизме начала XX века (У. Джеймс, Дж. Дьюи) и её систематическая разработка Дж. Лакоффом и М. Джонсоном представлены кратко, как историко-теоретический фон, а не как самостоятельный устойчивый аналитический аппарат. Основная цель исследования – рассмотреть, как концепция «единства тела и разума» Лакоффа и Джонсона проявляется через соматические метафоры в казахском языке, и проанализировать, что данный материал говорит о межкультурной валидности образно-схематических моделей, построенных преимущественно на данных WEIRDобществ (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). На материале лексикографических и корпусных источников английского и казахского языков применены анализ концептуальной метафоры, сравнительнокросскультурный метод и авторская трёхэтапная процедура когнитивного картирования; сопоставлены соматические выражения, организованные вокруг концептов, рука, сердце/печень, живот, спина, голова, нога и глаз. Сравнительный анализ показывает, что оба языка используют общий набор образных схем (CONTAINER, PATH, BALANCE, INSTRUMENT), однако существенно различаются в культурной элaборации этих схем: в казахском материале заметно более выражена ориентация на родство, социальную ответственность и этическую оценку. Эти результаты расширяют эмпирическую базу исследований воплощенного познания за пределы англоязычного материала, а также формируют лингвистический фундамент для разработки культурно-чувствительных методов обработки естественного языка для казахского языка.

This study offers a comparative-cognitive analysis of somatic concepts in the Kazakh language within the framework of embodied cognition, one of the actively developing areas of contemporary cognitive linguistics. The theory's roots in early twentieth-century American pragmatism (W. James, J. Dewey) and its systematic elaboration by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson are outlined briefly as historical and theoretical background rather than as a sustained analytical framework in their own right. The study's central aim is to examine how the Lakoff-Johnson concept of the “unity of body and mind” is manifested through somatic metaphors in Kazakh, and to consider what this material suggests about the cross-cultural validity of image-schema models built largely on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) linguistic data. Drawing on lexicographic and corpus sources for English and Kazakh, the study applies conceptual metaphor analysis, a comparative cross-cultural method, and an author-developed three-stage procedure of cognitive mapping to compare somatic expressions built around the concepts of hand, heart/liver, stomach, back, head, foot, and eye. The comparative analysis indicates that the two languages share a set of underlying image schemas (CONTAINER, PATH, BALANCE, INSTRUMENT), while differing in how these schemas are culturally elaborated: the Kazakh material shows a comparatively stronger orientation toward kinship, social responsibility, and ethical evaluation. These findings extend the empirical base of embodied-cognition research beyond predominantly English-language material and offer a linguistically grounded starting point for culturally sensitive approaches to Kazakh-language natural-language processing.

воплощённое познаниесоматические концептыобразные схемыкогнитивная метафоракогнитивная лингвистикасравнительный анализembodied cognitionsomatic conceptsimage schemasconceptual metaphorcognitive linguisticscomparative analysisReferencesКеңесбаев І. Қазақ тілінің фразеологиялық сөздігі. – Алматы: Ғылым, 1977. – 712 б.Barsalou, L.W. (2008) Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 59. Pp. 617-645. (in English)Қайдар Ә. Қазақтар: ана тілі әлемінде: этнолингвистикалық сөздік. – 1-3 томдар. – Алматы, 2009-2013.Barsalou, L.W. (2010) Ad hoc categories. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 4th ed. Pp. 1-10. (in English)Смағұлова Г. Мағыналас фразеологизмдер сөздігі. – Алматы: Елтаным, 2010. – 252 б.Bergen, B.K. (2012) Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books. (in English)Сыздық Р. Сөз құдіреті. – Алматы: Ел-шежіре, 2014. – 296 б.Clark, (2008) A. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (in English)Barsalou, L.W. Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008. Vol. 59. Pp. 617-645.Dewey, J. (1925) Experience and Nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. (in English)Barsalou, L.W. Ad hoc categories. The Cognitive Neurosciences. 4th ed. 2010. Pp. 1-10.Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., De Jaegher, H. (2010) Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. New Ideas in Psychology. Vol. 28. No.1. Pp. 33-47. (in English)Bergen, B.K. Louder than words: The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books, 2012.Gallagher, S. (2005) How the Body Shapes the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (in English)Clark, A. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Gibbs, R.W. (2005) Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in English)Dewey, J. Experience and nature. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 1925.Harnad, S. (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. Vol. 42. No.1-3. Pp. 335-346. (in English)Di Paolo, E.A., Rohde, M., De Jaegher, H. Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. New Ideas in Psychology. 2010. Vol. 28. No.1. Pp. 33-47.Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A. (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol. 33. No.2-3. Pp. 61-83. (in English)Gallagher, S. How the body shapes the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.James, W. (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. (in English)Gibbs, R.W. Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Johnson, M. (1987) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (in English)Harnad, S. The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 1990. Vol. 42. No.1-3. Pp. 335-346.Kengesbaev, I. (1977) Qazaq tilining frazeologijalyq sozdigi. Almaty: Gylym. 712 b. [Kenesbayev, I. (1977) Phraseological Dictionary of the Kazakh Language. Almaty: Gylym. 712 p.] (in Kazakh)Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2010. Vol. 33. No.2-3. Pp. 61-83.Kövecses, Z. (2005) Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in English)James, W. Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907.Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 631 p. (in English)Johnson, M. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 256 p. (in English)Kövecses, Z. Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.Levinson, S.C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in English)Lakoff, G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. 631 p.Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review. Vol. 98. No.2. Pp. 224-253. (in English)Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 256 p.Noë, A. (2004) Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (in English)Levinson, S.C. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Núñez, R.E., Sweetser, E. (2006) With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science. Vol. 30. No.3. Pp. 401-450. (in English)Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review. 1991. Vol. 98. No.2. Pp. 224-253.Qajdar, A. (2009-2013) Qazaqtar: ana tili aleminde: jetnolingvistikalyq sozdik. T. 1-3. Almaty. [Kaidar, A. (2009-2013) The Kazakhs in the World of the Native Tongue: An Ethnolinguistic Dictionary. Vol. 1-3. Almaty.] (in Kazakh)Noë, A. Action in perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Núñez, R.E., Sweetser, E. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture inSharifian, F. (2017) Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (in English)the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science. 2006. Vol. 30. No.3. Pp. 401-450.Smagulova, G. (2010) Magynalas frazeologizmder sozdigi. Almaty: Eltanym. 252 b. [Smagulova, G. (2010) Dictionary of semantic phraseologisms. Almaty: Eltanym. 252 p.] (in Kazakh)Sharifian, F. Cultural linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017.Syzdyq, R. (2014) Soz qudireti. Almaty: El-shezhire. 296 b. [Syzdyq, R. (2014) The Power of the Word. Almaty: Elshezhire. 296 p.] (in Kazakh)Wierzbicka, A. Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Wierzbicka, A. (1999) Emotions across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (in English)

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.