The Linguocognitive Structure of the Conceptual Sphere in Fiction: Paradigmatic Relations and Models of Conceptual Activation

Authors

  • Kattakurgan State Pedagogical Institute
Лингвокогнитивная структура концептосферы в художественном тексте: парадигматические отношения и модели концептуальной активации

Abstract

This article examines the linguocognitive nature of the conceptual sphere through the analysis of paradigmatic semantic relations and cognitive models. The study focuses on synonymy, antonymy, and hyponymy as key mechanisms of conceptual activation in language and discourse. Special attention is given to the “core–periphery” model, frame semantics, conceptual dominance, and network-based representations of meaning. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of cognitive linguistics proposed by Cruse, Croft, Fillmore, Evans, Popova, and Sternin, the article demonstrates how concepts are structured as dynamic, multi-layered systems rather than static lexical units. The concepts of crime and betrayal are analyzed as axiologically marked conceptual formations, revealing their internal semantic organization, evaluative potential, and cultural embeddedness. The integration of frame-slot structures and network models allows for a deeper understanding of how conceptual meanings expand and interact in discourse. The findings contribute to the development of linguocognitive theory and provide a methodological basis for analyzing concept activation in fictional and non-fictional texts.

Keywords:

Conceptual sphere cognitive linguistics synonymy antonymy frame semantics core-periphery model conceptual dominance network model

Tilshunoslik nuqtai nazaridan sinonimiya paradigmatik munosabatlarning eng nozik ko‘rinishidir. A. Kruz sinonimiyani “near-synonymy” ya’ni qisman sinonimlik va “absolute synonymy”, mutlaq sinonimlikka ajratadi va haqiqiy lingvistik tizimlarda “mutlaq sinonim” deyarli mavjud emasligini isbotlaydi (Cruse, 1986).

Demak, sinonimlarning paradigmadagi joylashuvi ularning ma’no komponentlari farqi orqali belgilanadi. Bu farqlar esa konseptual tizimda periferik elementlarning faollashuvini ta’minlaydi. Shu bois, sinonim qatorlar konseptning ichki semantik imkoniyatlarini kengaytiradi va matnda turli darajadagi konseptual faollashuvni yuzaga keltiradi.

Sinonimik qatorlar konseptning semantik kengayishini hisobga olib aytish mumkinki, masalan, “jinoyat” konseptini – qilmish, huquqbuzarlik, jinoyatchilik, qonunga xilof ish, kabi sinonimlar orqali konseptual maydonning turli aspektlari aniqlanadi. Sinonimik qatordagi har bir birlik konseptning yangi semik komponentini yuzaga chiqaradi.

Antonimlar paradigmatik munosabatning qarama-qarshi yadrosini tashkil etadi. M.L. Merfi antonimiyani “binary conceptual structuring” (Ikkilik konseptual tuzulma) deb atab, antonimik juftliklarning asosiy vazifasi konseptlarni qarama-qarshi qo‘yish orqali ma’no chegaralarini aniqlash ekanini ta’kidlaydi (Murphy, 2003). Antonimlar konseptning baholovchi va aksiologik jihatlarini shakllantirishda muhim rol o‘ynaydi. Masalan, “xiyonat” konsepti “sadoqat” antonimi orqali o‘z aksini topadi va konseptual akslar (opposites) tizimi yuzaga keladi.

  1. Kroft va A. Kruzlarning tamoyillariga ko‘ra esa antonimiya konseptual xaritaning eng barqaror qismlaridan biridir, chunki qarama- qarshilik tizimlari ongda avtomatik tarzda faollashadi (Croft, Cruse, 2004).

Demak, antonimiya badiiy matnda konseptning aksiologik, baholovchi, diskursiv jihatlarini kuchaytiradi.

Giponimiya tilshunoslikda konseptual taksonomiyaning asosiy mexanizmi sifatida izohlanadi. Lyons giponimiya tizimini “leksik ierarxiya” deb atab, har bir giperonim o‘z ichida bir nechta giponimlarni birlashtirib, konseptual maydonning yadro qismiga mos kelishini ta’kidlaydi (Lyons, 1977/1995).

  1. Kruz bunday ierarxik tizimlar konseptual tasnifning kognitiv modeli bilan mos kelishini, ya’ni giponimiya orqali konseptlar kategoriya-munosabatlar tizimida joylashishini aytadi. Bu jarayon badiiy matnda konseptning darajali faollashuvini yuzaga keltiradi: giperonim umumiy fon bo‘lsa, giponimlar ma’no tafsilotlarini ochib beradi.

Giperonimik qatorda konseptning umumiy semantik kategoriyasi (masalan, “jinoyat” – “huquqbuzarlik”), giponimik qatorda esa uning xususiy turlari (o‘g‘irlik, aldamchilik, zo‘ravonlik) ifodalanadi. Bu munosabatlar konseptning klassifikatsion modelini belgilaydi.

Konsept tuzilishini tavsiflovchi eng asosiy modellardan biri Popova va Sternin tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan yadro-periferiya modelidir. Ularga ko‘ra, konseptning ichki mazmuni qatlamli tuzilishga ega bo‘lib, yadro (tsentral zona), yaqin periferiyа va uzoq periferiyadan tashkil topadi (Popova & Sternin, 2007). Yadro konseptning eng barqaror, milliy ongda mustahkamlashgan, ma’noni aniqlovchi belgilardan iborat bo‘lsa, yaqin periferiyа yadroga yaqin, lekin uning uchun majburiy bo‘lmagan prototipik bilimlarni o‘z ichiga olishi uning o ‘ziga xos jihatidir va uzoq periferiyа konnotativ, emotsional, individual, madaniy va ijtimoiy-psixologik ma’nolarni jamlaydi.

Popova va Sternin qayd etganidek, yadro–periferiya printsipi konseptni statik emas, dinamik tizim sifatida talqin qilish imkonini beradi: konseptning yadrosi nisbatan barqaror bo‘lsa-da, periferik qatlamlar madaniy jarayonlar, ijtimoiy o‘zgarishlar, diskurs amaliyoti natijasida o‘zgarib boradi (Popova & Sternin, 2007).

Shunday qilib, konseptosferaning lingvokognitiv tabiati aynan mana shu “ichki tartiblanganlik” bilan boshlanadi: har bir konsept avval o‘z yadrosini shakllantiradi, so‘ng u bilan bog‘liq periferik ma’nolar kengayadi.

Yadro-periferiya modeli konseptning katta strukturasini berar ekan, Ch.J. Fillmor tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan freym semantikasi konseptning ichki ensiklopedik tuzilishini ochib beradi.

Freym – bu ma’lum bir vaziyat haqidagi bilimlarning kognitiv sxemasi. Har bir freym slotlar (rol pozitsiyalari) va ularni to‘ldiruvchi fillerlardan iborat.

 

 

INSTRUMENT

Qurol, jismoniy kuch, texnologiya

Agent (Offender)

Jinoyatchi

Patient (Victim)

Jabrlanuvchi

Action (Crime type) o‘g’irlik, talonchilik, aldamchilik, zo‘ravonlik

CRIME EVENT FRAME

(Jinoyat freymi)

CAUSE / MOTIVE

Moddiy manfaat, qasd, bosim, ehtiyoj,

TIME-PLACE

Jinoyat sodirbo‘lgan vaqt va joy

 

INVESTIGATION

Dalillar, tergov, ochish jarayoni

LEGAL, EVALUATION

Ayblash, sud jarayoni, jazo, huquqiy baholash, hukm

 

RESULT / CONSEQUENCE

Zarar, talofat, ijtimoiy oqibat, jabrlanuvchiga ta’sir

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                     

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                     

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1-rasm.

 

 

Bu slotlar konseptning bilim strukturasini tashkil etadi va uning semantik maydonining to‘liq tasvirini beradi. Freym-slot modeli konseptni lug‘aviy ma’nodan tashqariga olib chiqib, uni kognitiv ssenariy sifatida talqin qiladi (Fillmore, 1982).

Freym modeli yadro-periferiya modelini to‘ldiradi, ya’ni yadro – freymning eng majburiy slotlari bo‘ladigan bo‘lsa, periferiya – ixtiyoriy slotlar, konnotativ atributlar, madaniy belgilar hisoblanadi. Shu sababli konseptosfera freymlar ketma-ketligi sifatida ham tasavvur qilinishi mumkin: har bir konsept o‘z “freym maydoni”ga ega.

Konseptosfera ichida ayrim leksik birliklar konseptning eng kuchli ma’nodoshi sifatida konseptual dominanta rolini bajaradi. Dominanta – konseptual maydonning semantik markazi; boshqa birliklarni o‘ziga tortuvchi leksik “magnet”; konseptning eng yuqori frekansli va barqaror nomidir (Karasik, 2004). Konseptual dominanta yadroda joylashadi, lekin u periferiyani tashkil etuvchi birliklarning ma’nosini ham tartibga soladi. Tadqiqotlar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, dominanta konseptning madaniy ahamiyatini, baholovchi komponentini va prototipik ssenariylarini birlashtirib turadi (Zhuravel, 2011).

 

 

CAUSE/ MOTIVE

Shaxsiy manfaat, qo‘rquv, bosim, nafs, beparvolik

Agent (betrayer)

Xiyonatchi

Patient (betrayed)

Zarar ko‘ruvchi

ACT (type of betrayal) sadoqatni buzish, va’da ustudan chiqmaslik, aldash

BETRAYAL FRAME

(Xiyonat)

       

MECHANISM

Yashirish, aldash, sirni ochish, xiyonatkorona harakat

CONTEX

Do‘stlik, oilaviy munosabat, ishonchga asoslangan aloqalar

RELATION TYPE

Ishonch darajasi, yaqinlik, axloqiy majburiyat

MORAL EVALUATION

Ayblash, axloqiyhukm, qoralash, xiyonatning baholanishi

RESULT / CONSEQUENCE

Iztirob, ishonch yemirilishi, ajralish, xavfsizlikning buzilishi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2-rasm. “Xiyonat” konsepti uchun dominanta

 

 

Demak, konseptual dominanta konseptning butun strukturasini tartibga soladigan “semantik o‘q” vazifasini bajaradi.

  1. Evans va M. Greenning kognitiv semantika bo‘yicha tahlillari konseptlarni faqat maydonlar yig‘indisi sifatida emas, balki tarmoqli tuzilma sifatida tasvirlaydi. Ya’ni bu yerda konsept: markaziy “prototipik ma’no”; undan radial tarzda tarqalgan ma’nolar; o‘zaro bog‘langan semantik yo‘nalishlar; metaforik va metonimik kengayishlar ko‘rinishida mavjud bo‘ladi. (Evans, Green, 2006)
  2. Evans o‘z tadqiqotida tarmoq modeli quyidagilarni isbotlashini keltirib chuqur izohlaydi, (Evans, 2019) konseptlar o‘zaro bog‘langan tugunlar (nodes) va har bir tugun – yadro, prototip yoki periferik ma’no bo‘lishi mumkin chunki konseptosfera tarmoqli struktura bo‘lganligi sababli, uning ichida semantik masofa, aloqa kuchi, uzellararo o‘tkazuvchanlik mavjud. Shundan kelib chiqib aytish mumkinki, polisemiya ham aslida network modelning mahsuli: bir so‘z bir nechta bog‘langan konseptual tugunlarga ega bo‘ladi.

Korpus lingvistikasining zamonaviy modellarida so‘zlarning vektorli tasviri (embedding), vector semantika ham aynan shu tarmoq mantig‘i tasdiqlangan (Hamilton, Leskovec, Jurafsky, 2016). Muallifning nuqtai nazariga ko‘ra bu yondashuv yadro-periferiya modelini kengaytirib, yadro – markaziy tugun; periferiya – unga ulanadigan semantik yo‘llar vazifasini bajaradi.

Konseptosferaning lingvokognitiv tabiati murakkab strukturaviy modelga tayangan holda talqin qilinadi. Yadro-periferiya modeli konseptning statik qatlamini ochsa, freym-slot modeli uning ensiklopedik ssenariylarini beradi, konseptual dominanta ma’nosining semantik markazini belgilaydi, tarmoq (network) modeli esa konseptlararo aloqalarni dinamik tizim sifatida ko‘rsatadi. Ushbu to‘rtta modelning birgalikdagi amal qilishi konseptosferani ko‘p o‘lchamli, tarmoqli, dinamik lingvokognitiv makon sifatida qayta talqin qilish imkonini beradi.

Bu yondashuv ayniqsa “JINOYAT” va “XIONAT” kabi aksiologik konseptlar tahlilida muhim, chunki ularning yadro, frame, dominanta va tarmoq strukturalari kognitiv, madaniy va semantik jarayonlarni chuqur ochib beradi.

 

 

References

Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.

Cruse, D. A. (2004). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford University Press.

Evans, V. (2019). The semantics of English: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.

Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm. Hanshin Publishing Company.

Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1141

Karasik, V. I. (2004). Language circle: Personality, concepts, discourse. Gnozis.

(Transliterated from Russian)

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge University Press.

Popova, Z. D., & Sternin, I. A. (2007). Kognitivnaya lingvistika (Cognitive linguistics). AST: Vostok–Zapad.

Zhuravel, J. (2011). Conceptual dominance in semantic structures. Journal of Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 87–101.

Published

Downloads

Author Biography

Zarina Muxtor qizi Murtozayeva ,
Kattakurgan State Pedagogical Institute

Assistant Lecturer

How to Cite

Murtozayeva , Z. M. qizi. (2026). The Linguocognitive Structure of the Conceptual Sphere in Fiction: Paradigmatic Relations and Models of Conceptual Activation. The Lingua Spectrum, 12(1), 173–178. Retrieved from https://lingvospektr.uz/index.php/lngsp/article/view/1420

Similar Articles

<< < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.