Anthroponyms in the Uzbek Worldview

Abstract

This article explores the role of anthroponyms in the Uzbek linguistic worldview. According to the author, proper names of people are a result of secondary interpretation and represent a cultural and spiritual value that has been formed by representatives of an ethnic group over many centuries. This has survived to this day as a rich historical and linguistic heritage. Upon studying Uzbek anthroponymy, it was discovered that the majority are names of indigenous Turkic origin, many of which have become traditional. There are also direct Uzbek names, which have a high nominative value and pronounced national-linguistic specificity. Additionally, there are units of different linguistic nature such as names created in different ways, in different periods, and borrowed from other languages through tracing, morphological transfer, and other means.The text describes the contributions of several scholars to the study of Uzbek anthroponyms, such as E. Begmatov, G. Sattarov, S. Rakhimov, and R. Khudoyberganov. The author, following N. N. Boldyrev, considers interpretation as a cognitive activity that is based on the main functions of language — cognitive, communicative, and interpretive. The author divides Uzbek proper names into 14 thematic groups, based on the results of secondary interpretation. The text concludes that interpretation is a cognitive activity that involves the perception and expression of objects and phenomena through language. There are two types of interpretation — primary and secondary. In primary interpretation, a system of conceptualization and categorization is formed based on a general description of existing objects and events in language. In secondary interpretation, language units are formed, encoded in human cognition, and found in verbal expression in language. Thus, anthroponyms are formed as a result of secondary conceptualization and categorization.