Ways of expressing locativity in Kazakh and Kyrgyz languages


Views: 17 / PDF downloads: 7

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32523/2664-5157-2025-1-146-162

Keywords:

onomasiological approach, conceptual categories, functional-semantic field, locativity, core, periphery, linguistic units, worldview, Kyrgyz language, Kazakh language

Abstract

The article analyzes the functional-semantic field (FSF) of locativity in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz languages. Functional linguistics in Kazakh is a relatively new field of study, with research on functional grammar emerging only in the late 20th century. In the Kyrgyz language, however, there is a paucity of scholarly work on this topic. Previous studies on linguistic units conveying spatial meaning have been conducted in isolation, and this issue has not been systematically addressed in Turkology.

The article is divided into theoretical and practical sections. The theoretical part outlines the key concepts of functional analysis, including the distinction between systemic-structural and functional linguistics, the concept of extra-linguistic categories as the foundation of functional methodology, and the definition and structure of the FSF, consisting of a core and a periphery. In the practical section, based on collected data the FSF of locativity in Kazakh and Kyrgyz is determined. The study reveals that the conceptual basis of the FSF of locativity in both languages is grounded in spatial meanings. The core of the locativity field is polycentric, with spatial meaning expressed through both morphological and lexical units. Morphological elements in the core include the noun case markers (dative, locative, ablative), auxiliary parts of speech, adverbs, interrogative and demonstrative pronouns, and verbs. Lexical indicators include geographical terms, toponyms, different types of objects and units of measurement related to space. In the periphery, the spatial meaning becomes less distinct, manifesting through phraseological units in Kazakh and Kyrgyz, as well as syntactic structures such as phrases and sentences.
The FSF of locativity in both languages shares a common conceptual foundation, exhibiting similar structures and linguistic units for expressing locativity. However, the fields differ in terms of their inherent semes. The differences are particularly noticeable in traditional units
of measurement and fixed expressions, thereby facilitating a more profound comprehension of their structural intricacies and distinctive characteristics.These differences reflect the diversity of spatial perception and locativity across different cultures.
The study establishes new possibilities for the comparative analysis of the functional and semantic systems of Turkic languages, thereby enhancing our comprehension of their structure and distinctive characteristics.

Information about author

Laszlo Karoly, Uppsala University

PhD, Professor, Department of Turkic Languages

Aisulu Iskakova, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University

Doctoral Student

Reference

Ахметжанова З.К., 1989. Функционально-семантические поля русского и казахского

языков. Алма-Ата: Наука. 108 c.

Бондарко А.В., 1996.

Теория функциональной грамматики. Локативность.

Бытийность. Посессивность. Обусловленность. Наука. 229 с.

Бондарко А. В., 2001. Основы функциональной грамматики: языковая интепретация

и идеи времени. Санкт-Петербург: Изд-во С. -Петерб. Ун-та. 257 с.

Бондарко А.В., 2001. Принципы функциональной грамматики и вопросы аспектологии.

-е изд. Москва: Эдиториал УРСС. 208 с.

Бондарко А.В., 2005. Проблемы функциональной грамматики. Полевые структуры.

Санкт-Петербург: Наука. 478 с.

Боровикова Н.А., 1989. Полевые структуры в системе языка. Воронеж: Изд-во

Воронежского ун-та. 197 с.

Гухман М.М., 1971. Единицы анализа словоизменительной системы и понятие поля

// Фонетика. Грамматика. Москва. C. 163-170.

Есенберлин І., 2014. Көшпенділер. Алматы: Көшпенділер. 892 б.

Жолшаева М.С., 2016. Қазақ тілі: функционалды грамматика. Алматы: «Print Word»

баспасы. 137 б.

Касымбеков Т., 2018. «Сынган кылыч». Тарыхый роман. «Окурмандын китеп текчеси»

сериясы: 39-том. Б.: «Турар». 692 б.

Кубрякова Е.С., 1997. Язык пространства и пространство языка (к постановке вопроса)

// Известия РАН. Серия литературы и языка. Т. 56. № 3. С. 22-31.

Қазақтың этнографиялық категориялар, ұғымдар мен атауларының дәстүрлі жүйесі,

Энциклопедия. 1-том. – Алматы: DPS. 738 б.

Қазақ әдеби тілінің сөздігі. Он бес томдық. 2-том. 2011. Алматы. 744 б.

Қазақ тілінің қысқаша этимологиялық сөздігі, 1966. Алматы: Қазақ ССР-ның «Ғылым»

баспасы. 240 б.

Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь, 1990. Москва: Советская энциклопедия.

с.

Мещанинов И.И., 1945.Члены предложения и части речи. Москва: Ленинград. 140 с.

Сарсеке Г., 2011. Қазақ тілінің функциональды грамматикасы. Павлодар: ПМПИ баспасы.

б.

Шаймердинова Н.Г., 2002. Средства выражения времени в русском и казахском

языках (функциональный аспект). Астана. 140 c.

Шаймердинова Н.Г., 2019. «Киргизско-русский словарь» (1987): культурные и

языковые экспликации. Turkic Studies Journal. 1 (T. 1). 2019. P. 73-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32523/tsj.01-2019/5-5

Ярцева В.Н., 1985. Проблемы функциональной грамматики. Москва: Наука. 198 с.

Published

2025-03-27

How to Cite

Karoly Л., & Iskakova А. (2025). Ways of expressing locativity in Kazakh and Kyrgyz languages. Turkic Studies Journal, 7(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.32523/2664-5157-2025-1-146-162

Issue

Section

Turkic languages