THE LINGUISTIC METAPHOR IN TRADITIONAL PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES

JOURNAL OF IQRO – ЖУРНАЛ ИҚРО – IQRO JURNALI – volume 18, issue 01, 2025 ISSN: 2181-4341, IMPACT FACTOR ( RESEARCH BIB ) – 7,245, SJIF – 5,431 www.wordlyknowledge.uz ILMIY METODIK JURNAL Ashurbayeva Sarvinoz Kholmirza qizi Doctoral Student, Kokand State University E-mail: [email protected] THE LINGUISTIC METAPHOR IN TRADITIONAL PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES Annotation: This article explores the evolution of the linguistic metaphor in traditional philological research, tracing its development from Aristotelian rhetoric to modern cognitive linguistics. The study emphasizes the shift from aesthetic and rhetorical interpretations to cognitive and cultural dimensions, focusing on how emotions and metaphorical expressions reflect universal and culture-specific conceptualizations. The comparative analysis of English, Russian, and Uzbek linguistic materials reveals the dual nature of emotional metaphors as both biologically grounded and culturally mediated phenomena. Key words: linguistic metaphor, philology, cognitive linguistics, emotion, cultural semantics, conceptualization, comparative linguistics. Annotatsiya: Ushbu maqolada an’anaviy filologik tadqiqotlarda til metaforasining evolyutsiyasi o‘rganiladi. Tadqiqotda Aristotel ritorikasidan boshlab zamonaviy kognitiv lingvistika bosqichigacha bo‘lgan rivojlanish jarayoni tahlil qilinadi. Asarda metaforaning estetik va ritorik talqinlardan kognitiv va madaniy o‘lchamlarga siljishi ta’kidlanadi. Shuningdek, emotsiyalar va metaforik ifodalar orqali inson tafakkurining umumiy (universal) va madaniyatga xos (milliy) konseptuallashtirilishi ko‘rsatiladi. Ingliz, rus va o‘zbek tillaridagi materiallarning qiyosiy tahlili metaforalarning biologik asoslangan va madaniy jihatdan shakllangan ikki tomonlama tabiatini ochib beradi. Kalit so‘zlar: til metaforasi, filologiya, kognitiv lingvistika, emotsiya, madaniy semantika, konseptuallashtirish, qiyosiy tilshunoslik. Аннотация: В данной статье рассматривается эволюция языковой метафоры в традиционных филологических исследованиях, прослеживается её развитие от аристотелевской риторики до современной когнитивной лингвистики. Особое внимание уделяется переходу от эстетических и риторических интерпретаций к когнитивным и культурным измерениям. Анализируется, каким образом эмоции и метафорические выражения отражают универсальные и культурно-специфические концептуализации. Сопоставительный анализ английского, русского и узбекского языкового материала выявляет двойственную природу эмоциональных метафор — как биологически обусловленных, так и культурно опосредованных явлений. Ключевые слова: языковая метафора, филология, когнитивная лингвистика, эмоции, культурная семантика, концептуализация, сравнительное языкознание. 1. Introduction The phenomenon of metaphor has long attracted scholarly attention as one of the essential expressive means of language. From the works of Aristotle and Rudaki onward, metaphor has been seen not only as a poetic device but also as a fundamental mechanism of human cognition. Aristotle, in Poetics, was the first to define metaphor as the transfer of meaning based on JOURNAL OF IQRO – ЖУРНАЛ ИҚРО – IQRO JURNALI – volume 18, issue 01, 2025 ISSN: 2181-4341, IMPACT FACTOR ( RESEARCH BIB ) – 7,245, SJIF – 5,431 www.wordlyknowledge.uz ILMIY METODIK JURNAL similarity. His typology of metaphor, distinguishing between changes “from genus to species, from species to genus, or from one species to another,” remains a classical foundation for linguistic metaphor studies. In modern linguistics, metaphor is no longer viewed solely as a stylistic ornament but as a reflection of how people conceptualize the world. The linguistic metaphor thus bridges the domains of rhetoric, psychology, and cognitive science, allowing us to explore how language encodes both thought and emotion. 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Background In Russian and European philology, the linguistic nature of metaphor was first systematically analyzed by A.A. Potebnya, who described metaphorical structures in syntax and semantics. Later, scholars such as V.V. Vinogradov, N.D. Arutyunova, and V.N. Teliya developed comprehensive linguistic classifications of metaphors. G.N. Sklyarevskaya identified four main directions in the study of linguistic metaphor — nominative, logical, psychological, and linguistic — and later expanded this classification to include semantic, cognitive, and stylistic approaches. N.D. Arutyunova distinguished between nominative, figurative, and cognitive metaphors, emphasizing their functional diversity. Cognitive linguistics, emerging in the late 20th century, transformed the understanding of metaphor. Scholars such as P.B. Parshin and V.V. Petrov interpreted linguistic metaphors as cognitive structures reflecting mental processes. In this framework, metaphors are not merely rhetorical devices but conceptual mappings that organize human experience. 3. Methodology The present study employs a comparative linguistic and conceptual analysis method. Primary sources include classical theoretical works (Aristotle, Potebnya, Vinogradov, Arutyunova, Sklyarevskaya) and modern cognitive linguistic research (Lakoff, Wierzbicka, Shakhovskiy). The analysis focuses on: The typology and semantic mechanisms of linguistic metaphors; The relationship between metaphor and emotion in different linguistic systems (English, Russian, Uzbek); The interaction between universal and culture-specific elements in emotional conceptualization. Examples were extracted from literary texts, idiomatic expressions, and lexicographic data in the three target languages. 4. Results 4.1. The Dual Nature of Linguistic Metaphor Linguistic metaphor occupies a dual position: it is both a linguistic unit (a lexicalized element of language) and a figure of speech (a stylistic device). While the poetic metaphor emphasizes imagery and aesthetic impact, the linguistic metaphor primarily functions as a means of secondary nomination, preserving a trace of imagery while performing a cognitive role. 4.2. Typological Classifications JOURNAL OF IQRO – ЖУРНАЛ ИҚРО – IQRO JURNALI – volume 18, issue 01, 2025 ISSN: 2181-4341, IMPACT FACTOR ( RESEARCH BIB ) – 7,245, SJIF – 5,431 www.wordlyknowledge.uz ILMIY METODIK JURNAL V.G. Gak and Yu.I. Levin proposed classifications of metaphors based on semantic and structural criteria — distinguishing between complete and partial metaphorical shifts, or between similebased, riddle-based, and attribute-based metaphors. These typologies highlight the richness of metaphorical mechanisms in everyday language. 4.3. Cognitive and Emotional Dimensions In the cognitive approach, metaphor is seen as a tool for conceptualizing emotions. According to Ekman’s theory, basic emotions such as joy, fear, anger, and disgust are universal; however, Wierzbicka argues that the linguistic realization of emotions is culture-specific. Words like toska in Russian or obida cannot be precisely translated into English as sadness or anger. Similarly, in Uzbek, expressions such as jigarim ezildi (“my liver ached”) reveal a culturally rooted metaphorical model where emotional experiences are associated with internal organs other than the heart. 4.4. Linguistic Expression of Emotions V.I. Shakhovskiy proposed a linguistic concept of emotion emphasizing that emotional experience reflects the individual’s subjective interpretation of reality. Emotions thus serve as mediators between external reality and its linguistic representation. The study of emotive vocabulary shows that emotional meanings permeate all language levels — morphological, syntactic, textual, and lexical-semantic — forming what Russian scholars now call emotiology. 5. Discussion The findings support the view that linguistic metaphors are not random poetic inventions but cognitive mechanisms that encode emotional and cultural experience. The interaction between universal biological emotions and culture-specific linguistic encoding demonstrates that emotion concepts are both universal and relative. Languages differ in how they metaphorically map emotions onto body, space, and nature. For instance, the English metaphor broken heart corresponds to the Russian razbitoe serdtse and the Uzbek yuragi ezildi — all conceptualizing sadness through bodily imagery, yet each carrying distinct cultural nuances. Cognitive linguistics provides the necessary framework to integrate these observations, showing how linguistic metaphors structure emotional cognition and how they differ across linguistic communities. 6. Conclusion The study of linguistic metaphor has evolved from rhetorical and aesthetic interpretations to cognitive and emotive paradigms. Traditional philological approaches laid the foundation for modern cognitive linguistics, which views metaphor as a key to understanding how people conceptualize both thought and feeling. The comparative analysis of English, Russian, and Uzbek materials demonstrates that while emotional metaphors have universal biological roots, their linguistic manifestations are deeply culture-bound. The synthesis of cognitive and cultural perspectives thus enables a fuller understanding of how language encodes human emotion, identity, and worldview. References Aristotle. Poetics. In Ethics. Politics. Rhetoric. Poetics. Categories. Minsk: Literatura, 1998. JOURNAL OF IQRO – ЖУРНАЛ ИҚРО – IQRO JURNALI – volume 18, issue 01, 2025 ISSN: 2181-4341, IMPACT FACTOR ( RESEARCH BIB ) – 7,245, SJIF – 5,431 www.wordlyknowledge.uz ILMIY METODIK JURNAL Potebnya, A.A. Notes on the Theory of Literature. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Sklyarevskaya, G.N. Metaphor in the System of Language. St. Petersburg: SPbSU, 2004. Arutyunova, N.D. “Linguistic Metaphor: Syntax and Lexicon.” In Linguistics and Poetics. Moscow: Nauka, 1979. Parshin, P.B. “Theoretical Revolutions and Methodological Rebellion in 20th-Century Linguistics.” Voprosy Jazykoznaniya, 1996, No.2. Wierzbicka, A. “Talking about Emotions: Semantics, Culture, and Cognition.” Cognition and Emotion, 1992, 6(3): 285–319. Shakhovskiy, V.I. Categorization of Emotions in the Lexico-Semantic System of Language. Voronezh, 1987. Vezhbitskaya, A. Language. Culture. Cognition. Moscow: Russkie Slovari, 1997.