FLORISTIC METAPHORS AS COGNITIVE MODELS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK PHRASEOLOGY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19981917Keywords:
floristic metaphors; phraseology; cognitive linguistics; conceptual metaphor; linguocultural analysis; English language; Uzbek language; semantic modeling; cultural symbolism; comparative linguisticsAbstract
This study explores floristic metaphors as cognitive models in English and Uzbek phraseology, focusing on their role in conceptualizing human experience through plant-based imagery. Grounded in cognitive linguistics, particularly conceptual metaphor theory, the research examines how floristic elements function as source domains in metaphorical mappings. The analysis is based on a comparative corpus of phraseological units in both languages, identifying common patterns and culturally specific features. The findings demonstrate that floristic metaphors systematically encode abstract notions such as emotions, character traits, social relations, and life processes. While certain metaphorical models show universality due to shared embodied experience, others reflect distinct cultural values and symbolic associations inherent in each linguoculture. The study highlights the interaction between cognition and culture in shaping phraseological meaning and contributes to a deeper understanding of metaphor as a cognitive and linguocultural phenomenon in cross-linguistic perspective.
Downloads
References
1.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
2.Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
3.Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
4.Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vols. 1–2). MIT Press.
5.Kunin, A. V. (1970). English phraseology: Theoretical and practical problems. Vysshaya Shkola.
6.Vinogradov, V. V. (1977). Selected works on lexicology and lexicography. Nauka.
7.Telia, V. N. (1996). Russian phraseology: Semantic, pragmatic and linguocultural aspects. Languages of Russian Culture.
8.Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
9.Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
10.Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
11.Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2000). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Mouton de Gruyter.
12.Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford University Press.
13.Fernando, C. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford University Press.
14.Moon, R. (1998). Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford University Press.
15.Dobrovol’skij, D., & Piirainen, E. (2005). Figurative language: Cross-cultural and cross-linguistic perspectives. Elsevier.
16.Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins.
17.Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding cultures through their key words. Oxford University Press.
18.Goddard, C. (2006). Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context. Mouton de Gruyter.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India
