The Mythologeme as a Cognitive-Linguistic Model of Knowledge Structures
Abstract
This article examines the notion of "mythologeme" from a systematic perspective within cognitive-linguistic and semiotic frameworks. Initially, the historical and theoretical foundations of the terms "myth" and "mythologeme" are explored through the lenses of Jung, Lévi-Strauss, Cassirer, Barthes, and Meletinsky’s research. A myth is conceptualized not merely as a narrative of the past but as a linguistic structure that regulates social consciousness and covertly manifests phenomena through culturally determined symbols. The function of mythologemes as a knowledge structure is then elucidated in relation to frame, script, and conceptual metaphor theories. The article provides examples from Uzbek folk tales and world mythology, analyzing the narrative and semantic characteristics of mythologemes and their role in encoding forms of cultural memory and identity. The results of applied analysis demonstrate that the study of mythologemes holds significant scientific importance for understanding the internal mechanisms of human cognition, cultural stability, and the operational principles of semiotic systems. Mythologemes are not confined to the analysis of ancient myths but serve as a conceptual tool for exploring contemporary thought and culture. Positioned at the intersection of cognitive linguistics, cultural studies, and semiotics, mythologemes constitute a crucial layer of human knowledge. They not only preserve archetypal images but also organize knowledge within conceptual structures, forming frames that address society’s moral and existential questions. Methodology: cognitive-semiotic analysis and comparative textology. The conclusion affirms the theoretical and practical significance of considering mythologemes as a module of knowledge structure.
Keywords:
Mif mifologema bilim tuzilmasi kognitiv lingvistika freym kodlovchi strukturaviyTil va tafakkur o‘zaro uzviy bog‘liq bo‘lib, inson dunyoqarashini shakllantirishda muhim vosita hisoblanadi. Kognitiv lingvistika doirasida bilim tuzilmalari tilning nafaqat kommunikativ, balki konseptual xususiyatlarini ham ochib beradi (Ashurova & Galieva, 2018). Konteptuallashtirish – kognitiv lingvistikaning asosiy tushunchalaridan biri sifatida, inson aqli voqelikni qanday ifodalashi va ma'nolarni qanday tuzishi jarayonini anglatadi. Langacker (1987) ta'riflaganidek, konteptuallashtirish – bu tajribani aqliy jihatdan tashkil etish, unga muayyan nuqtai nazardan baho berish va ushbu qarash orqali til ifoda vositalarini tanlash jarayonidir. Ya'ni, inson voqelikni faqat “qayta aks ettirmasdan”, balki ma'lum kognitiv nuqtai nazar asosida qayta ishlab ifodalaydi. Shu tariqa ongda o‘ziga xos bilimlar tuzilmalarni shakllanib boradi. Bilim tuzilmalari bu inson ongida dunyo haqida shakllangan aqliy modellar va ularning ichki munosabatlardir. Ular ma'no shakllanishida asosiy rol o‘ynaydi. Langacker (1987) ta'kidlaganidek, ma'no tushunish – bu bilim tuzilmalari orqali idrok qilish natijasidir. Ushbu bilim tuzilmalari orasida mifologemalar alohida ahamiyat kasb etadi, chunki ular qadimiy miflarda ifodalangan ramzlar, obrazlar va strukturalar orqali insonning dunyoni anglash mexanizmini yoritadi (Boldyrev, 2014). Mif va mifologik strukturalar insoniyat tafakkurining eng qadimiy shakllaridan biri sifatida falsafiy, antropologik, semiotik va lingvistik tadqiqotlarning muhim obyekti bo‘lib kelgan. Kognitiv lingvistika doirasida mifga bo‘lgan qiziqish, avvalo, uni inson ongida mavjud bo‘lgan bilim tuzilmalari va konseptual tizimlarning markaziy elementi sifatida talqin etish bilan izohlanadi (Lakoff, 1987; Langacker 1987). Sababi miflar nafaqat kollektiv xotiraning arxaik qatlamini saqlovchi afsonalar, balki ijtimoiy-madaniy qadriyatlarni ifodalovchi kognitiv freymlar hamdir (Eliade, 1963). Shu nuqtai nazardan, “mifologema” tushunchasi mifni tahlil qilishning nafaqat filologik, balki kognitiv-semiotik asosini belgilovchi fundamental ilmiy kategoriya sifatida shakllangan (Meletinsky, 1998; Toporov, 1995).
“Mif” atamasining ilmiy izohi ko‘p qirralidir. M. Eliade (1963) mifni “muqaddas tarix”ni aks ettiruvchi va kosmos, inson hamda madaniyatning kelib chiqishini asoslovchi afsona sifatida talqin etadi. K. Lévi-Stross (1969) mifni strukturalistik nuqtai nazaridan ko‘rib chiqib, uni tabiat va madaniyat o‘rtasidagi ziddiyatlarni intellektual darajada muvofiqlashtiruvchi vosita sifatida talqin qiladi. Ernst Kassirer (1946) esa mifni ramziy tafakkurning alohida shakli deb ko‘rsatib, uni mantiqiy tafakkurga muqobil gnoseologik model sifatida baholaydi. Roland Bartes (1957) mifni ikkilamchi semiologik tizim sifatida ta’riflab, u orqali kundalik madaniy hodisalar ramziy rivoyatlarga aylantirilishini asoslaydi. Shu tariqa, mif shunchaki afsona emas, balki ijtimoiy ongni tartibga soluvchi va madaniy universaliyalarni kodlovchi murakkab semiotik-kognitiv konstruksiya hisoblanadi (Lotman, 1990). Shu bois mifologemalarni oʻrganish nafaqat lingvistik, balki madaniy tadqiqotlar uchun ham muhim nazariy va amaliy ahamiyatga ega (Ashurova & Galieva, 2019).
“Mifologema” termini A. Meletinskiy (1998) tomonidan ilmiy muomalaga kiritilgan bo‘lib, u mifologik hikoyalarning eng kichik barqaror birligi, ya’ni “motiv” sifatida izohlanadi. Mifologemalar turli madaniyatlarda qayta-qayta takrorlanadigan, ammo mazmuniy invariantligini saqlovchi strukturalar bo‘lib, ular mifologik tafakkurning asosiy “kodlari”ni tashkil etadi. V.N. Toporov (1995) mifologemani semantik yadrosi doimiy bo‘lgan invariant birlik sifatida ko‘rsatadi. Vladimir Proppning (1968) ertak morfologiyasi haqidagi tadqiqotlari ham mifologema konseptsiyasi bilan uzviy bog‘liq bo‘lib, u narrativ strukturalarda takroriy funksiyalar mavjudligini ilmiy jihatdan asoslab bergan. V.A. Maslova (2007) esa mifologemalarning asosiy turlarini mif uchun ahamiyatli qahramon yoki voqea bo‘lib, ular mifdan mifga ko‘chish hususiyatiga ega deb tushintiradi. Demak, mifologema – motivdan kengroq, biroq arxetipdan torroq darajadagi narrativ birlikdir.
Kognitiv nazariyaga ko‘ra, mifologemalar insonning asosiy tajribalarini (tug‘ilish, o‘lim, yangilanish, yo‘qolish va qayta paydo bo‘lish) konseptual jihatdan tartibga soluvchi freymlar sifatida namoyon bo‘ladi (Fillmore, 1982; Lakoff, 1987). Jung (1968) ularni kollektiv ongsizlikning arxetipik shakllari sifatida ta’riflab, mifologik motivlarning universalligini izohlagan. Campbell (1949) tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan “qahramonning yo‘li” modeli esa mifologemalarning kognitiv yo‘riqnoma vazifasini bajarishini ko‘rsatadi. Semiotik yondashuv nuqtai nazaridan esa, Lotman (1990) mifologemalarni madaniy belgilar tizimidagi ramziy invariantlar sifatida o‘rganadi. Ularning asosiy vazifasi – madaniy xotirani uzluksiz saqlash va jamoaviy identifikatsiyani mustahkamlashdan iboratdir. Mifologemalar odatda ramziy yoki fantastik ma’nodagi obrazlar orqali ifodalanadi. Masalan, o‘zbek xalq ertaklarida “ajdaho” mifologemasi xavf va sinov konseptini ifodalaydi. Yevropa madaniyatida esa “dragon” mifologemasi shunga o‘xshash semantik freymni yaratadi (Lotman, 1990).
Ushbu fan sohasida inson bilimini va hayotiy tajribasini freymlar, senariylar va konseptual modellar shaklida namoyon qilishini asoslab beradi (Fillmore, 1982; Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1987). Shu jihatdan qaraganda, mifologema o‘zining universalligidan kelib chiqib, bilim tuzilmasining alohida turini tashkil etadi. U narrativ kontekstni shakllantiradi, voqealar ketma-ketligini belgilaydi va konseptual talqinni boshqaradi. Bu jihatdan mifologemalar insoniyat tajribasini tartibga soluvchi universal kognitiv modellardir.
Mifologemalarning bilim tuzilmasi sifatida amal qilishini turli adabiy va madaniy kontekstlarda kuzatish mumkin. Masalan, Narsiss haqidagi qadimiy mif o‘zining asosiy strukturasi – “o‘z aksiga maftun bo‘lish” motivi orqali ko‘plab madaniyatlarda turli talqinlarga ega bo‘lgan. Oskar Ualdning “Dorian Grey portreti” asarida ushbu mifologema qayta ishlatilib, o‘z qiyofasiga bo‘lgan ehtirosning zamonaviy ifodasi sifatida gavdalanadi (Eliade, 1963; Jung, 1968). Yana bir keng tarqalgan mifologema – “suv toshqini” mifi bo‘lib, u Mesopotamiya, Bibliya va Hind mifologiyalarida qayd etiladi; bu mifologema axloqiy yangilanish va kosmik tartibning tiklanishi g‘oyasini bilim tuzilmasi sifatida kodlaydi (Lévi-Strauss, 1969). Shunungdek, “The Arabian bird” – afsonaviy qaqnus qushini nazarda tutuvchi mifologema bo‘lib, aytishlaricha 500-600 yil yashagach bu qush o‘zidan olov chiqarib yonar va kullaridan qayta tug‘iladi va yangi hayot, abadiylik va umidni anglatadi. T.S. Eliotning “The Waste Land” asarida esa “Tiresias” mifologemasi donolik va narsalarni ichki mohiyatini ko‘ra olish qobiliyatini bildirish uchun ishlatiladi.
Yuqorida taqdim etilgan tahlil asosida shuni xulosa qilish mumkinki, mifologema – bu og‘zaki birlik darajasida shakllangan, ammo o‘zining kognitiv va semiotik xususiyatlari orqali insoniyat tafakkurining chuqur qatlamlariga singib ketgan bilim tuzilmasidir. U oddiy motiv yoki hikoya elementi emas, balki ramziy invariant sifatida ma’no hosil qilish jarayonida muhim vazifani bajaradi. Mifologema insoniyat ongida qadimiy kktajribalarni, arxetipik ramzlarni kodlaydi va shu orqali madaniy xotirani avloddan avlodga yetkazadi. Shu jihatdan u jamoaviy ongning konseptual asosini shakllantiruvchi, ijtimoiy-madaniy identifikatsiyani mustahkamlovchi va universallashgan kognitiv mexanizm sifatida oʻnamoyon bo‘ladi (Fillmore, 1982; Lakoff, 1987; Langacker, 1987).
Mifologemalarning asosiy xususiyatlaridan biri ularning universalligidir. Ular turli madaniyatlarda takroriy uchrasa-da, mazmuniy invariantligini saqlab qoladi. Shu tariqa, ular insoniyat tafakkurining umumiy tamoyillarini yoritib, bilim tuzilmalari sifatida o‘z maqomini mustahkamlaydi (Meletinsky, 1998; Toporov, 1995). Masalan, “qahramonning yo‘li”, “suv toshqini” yoki “ajdaho bilan kurash” kabi mifologemalar turli xalqlarda uchrashi, lekin bir xil semantik yadroni ifodalashi ularning kognitiv universalligi va semiotik barqarorligini ko‘rsatadi.
Demak, mifologemalarni tadqiq etish nafaqat mifologiyani filologik jihatdan o‘rganish, balki inson tafakkurining ichki mexanizmlarini, madaniy barqarorlikni va semiotik tizimlarning ishlash prinsiplarini anglash uchun ham dolzarb ilmiy ahamiyatga ega. Bu jarayon orqali mifologemalar nafaqat qadimiy rivoyatlarning izohi, balki zamonaviy tafakkur va madaniyat tahlilining konseptual vositasi sifatida ham namoyon bo‘ladi. Shu sababli mifologema tushunchasi kognitiv lingvistika, madaniyatshunoslik va semiotikaning kesishgan nuqtasida turib, insoniyat bilimining muhim qatlamini tashkil etadi.
References
Ashurova, D. U., & Galieva, M. R. (2018). Cognitive Linguistics. Tashkent: VneshInvestProm.
Ashurova, D. U., & Galieva, M. R. (2019). Cultural Linguistics. Tashkent: VneshInvestProm.
Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Boldyrev, N. N. (2014). Kognitivnaya semantika: vvedenie v kognitivnuyu lingvistiku. Tambov: TGU.
Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Cassirer, E. (1946). The myth of the state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Eliade, M. (1963). Myth and Reality. New York: Harper & Row.
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
Jung, C. G. (1967). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (Vol. 9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. Journal of American Folklore, 68(270), 428–444.
Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Maslov, V. A. (2006). Lingvisticheskie aspekty kontsepta i mifologemy. In Yazyk i mif (pp. 67–82). Moscow.
Maslova V. A. (2007) Lingvokultorologiya uch.pos 3-ye izdaniye. – M.: Akademiya.
Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Toporov, V. N. (1995). Mif. Ritual. Simvol. Obraz: Issledovaniya v oblasti mifopoeticheskogo [Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image: Studies in mythopoetics]. Moscow: Progress.
Published
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Нигора Ташхужаева

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
