SOMATIC COMPONENTS AS AN OBJECT OF PHILOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN LINGUISTICS
Abstract
This article investigates somatic component units (SCUs) as a significant object of philological research within modern linguistics. Somatic lexemes—words denoting parts of the human body—play a crucial role in the formation of phraseological units, idioms, and metaphorical expressions across languages. The study aims to analyze the structural, semantic, and cultural features of SCUs, highlighting their universality and language-specific peculiarities. A comparative and descriptive methodology is applied, supported by corpus-based analysis of English, Uzbek, and Russian linguistic data. The findings demonstrate that somatic components are highly productive in phrase formation and reflect anthropocentric perspectives in language. These units often encode cultural values, emotional states, and cognitive patterns, serving as linguistic markers of worldview. Despite cross-linguistic similarities, significant differences are observed in metaphorical mappings and semantic extensions. The study concludes that SCUs are a vital element of linguistic research, bridging lexicology, phraseology, and cognitive linguistics, and offering insights into the interaction between language, culture, and human perception.
Keywords
somatic components, phraseology, linguistics, philology, idioms, metaphor, cognitive linguistics, anthropocentrism, semantic analysis, cross-linguistic study, cultural linguistics, lexical units.How to Cite
References
. Apresyan, Y. D. (1995). Lexical Semantics. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, pp. 45–78.
. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–25.
. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–89.
. Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 120–145.
. Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–102.
. Kunin, A. V. (1996). English Phraseology. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola Publishing, pp. 112–150.
. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame Semantics. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing, pp. 111–137.
. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 210–245.
. Gibbs, R. W. (2006). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–120.
. Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 134–168.
. Fauconnier, G. (1997). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–110.
. Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–180.
. Vinogradov, V. V. (1977). Russian Phraseology. Moscow: Nauka Publishing, pp. 98–130.
. Evans, V. (2007). Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 55–90.
. Nida, E. A. (1975). Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 101–135.
. Palmer, G. B. (1996). Toward a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 70–105.
. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 180–220.
. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–88.
. Bartmiński, J. (2009). Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics. London: Equinox Publishing, pp. 120–156.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Etibor Murodova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
