Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article explores the specifics of the semiosis of family in the Kazakh culture. The approaches of Halliday and Malinovsky were used to analyze the semiotics of wedding toasts, as well as the method of analyzing the “cultural metaphor” in Sharifyan’s linguistics. Language units in the texts of Kazakh wedding toasts demonstrate the specific understanding of marriage and family by the Kazakhs. The language contains “traces” of archaic, sacral, mythological ideas, rituals and traditions of the Kazakhs. In particular, the semiotics of marriage reflect the idea of a young family as a new home. The semiotic parts of the Kazakh yurt (, and ) are also sacred signs of marriage, symbolizing happiness, well-being, wealth, and family safety. This is evidenced by the frequent use of names of the yurt – and its components in the speech of the wedding party guests. The cosmogonic concepts (‘light’, ‘shine’) are important for understanding the semiotics of family. The difficulties in interpreting wedding toasts arise in the intercultural communication due to Kazakh specific ideas about marriage and family presented in the non-equivalent units of the language.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Arhipova, E. M.
    (2010) Tost kak pervichnyi rechevoi janr v sovremennoi kontseptsii naychnogo znaniya [Toast as a primary speech genre in the modern concept of scientific knowledge]. Naychnaya mysl Kavkaza [Scientific thought of the Caucasus], 3, 151–155.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aytmatov, Ch.
    (1998) I dol’she veka dlitsya den’… [And the day lasts more than a century…]. Hudozhestvennaya literatura [Artistic literature].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, M. M.
    (1986) Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva[Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Iskusstvo [Art].
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Banerjee, R.
    (2017) Does Time Matter? – A Study of Participation of Women in Urban Governance. Space and Culture, India, 4(3), 62–76. 10.20896/saci.v4i3.232
    https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v4i3.232 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayburin, A. K.
    (1983) Zhilishche v obryadah i predstavleniyah vostochnyh slavyan [Dwelling in the rites and performances of the Eastern Slavs]. Leningrad.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bekberdinova, G. M.
    (2018) Vnutrennee prostranstvo i simvolika kazahskoj yurty [Internal space and symbolism of the Kazakh yurt]. Vostochno-Kazakhstanskiy oblastnoy arkhitekturno-etnograficheskiy i prirodno-landshaftnyy muzey [East Kazakhstan Regional Architectural, Ethnographic and Natural Landscape Museum]. Retrieved fromwww.vkoem.kz/index.php/ru/directions/otdel-kazaxskoj-etnografii/1428-vnutrennee-prostranstvo-i-simvolikakazaxskoj-yurty, 13/07/2019
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhatia, V. K.
    (1993) Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunn, C. D.
    (2005) Conventions, speaker identities, and creativity: an analysis of Japanese wedding speeches. Pragmatics, 15(2/3), 205–228. 10.1075/prag.15.2‑3.03dun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.15.2-3.03dun [Google Scholar]
  9. E-history.kz
    E-history.kz. Retrieved fromhttps://e-history.kz/media/scorm/75/text/text.htm, 08/08/2019.
  10. Fatikov, R. R.
    (1980) K semantike shanyraka [To the semantics of shanyrak], InProblemy izucheniya i ohrany pamyatnikov kul’tury Kazakhstana [Problems of studying and protecting cultural monuments of Kazakhstan] (pp.179–185). Nauka KazSSR [Science of the KSSR].
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Foucault, M.
    (1977) Slova i veshchi. Arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk [Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities]. Translation byV. P. Vizgin, N. S. Avtonomova. Progress.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gadamer, H. -G.
    (1988) Istina i metod. Osnovy filosofskoj germenevtiki [Truth and method. Basics of philosophical hermeneutics]. Progress.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goddard, C. & A. Wierzbicka
    (1997) Discourse and Culture, InTeun A. van Dijk. (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd edition, (pp.231–259). Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gunthner, S.
    (2007) Intercultural communication and the relevance cultural specific repertoires of communicative genres, InH. Kotthoff & H. Spencer-Oatey. (Eds.), Handbook Intercultural communication, (pp.127–152). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198584.2.127
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198584.2.127 [Google Scholar]
  15. Grodekov, N. I.
    (1889) Kirgizy i karakirgizy Syr-Dar’inskoj oblasti. Yuridicheskij byt [Kyrgyz and Karakyrgyz Syr-Darya region. Legal life]. Tashkent, T. 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1989) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Helpiks.org
    Helpiks.org. Retrieved fromhttps://helpiks.org/2-62479.html, 10/05/2019.
  18. Jung, C. G.
    (1991) Arhetip i simvol [Archetype and symbol]. Centr gumanitarnyh tekhnologij [Center for Humanitarian Technologies]. Retrieved fromhttps://gtmarket.ru/laboratory/basis/4229/4231, 27/05/2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kotthoff, H.
    (1995) The social semiotics of Georgian toast performances: Oral genre as cultural activity. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(4), 353–380. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00063‑K
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00063-K [Google Scholar]
  20. Kenesbaev, S.
    (1977) Frazeologicheskij slovar’ kazahskogo yazyka [Phraseological dictionary of the Kazakh language]. Alma-Ata.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G.
    (1995) Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Levinson, S. C.
    (1979) Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5/6), 356–399. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  24. Luckmann, T.
    (1986) Grundformen der gesellschaftlichen Vermittlung des Wissens: Kommunikative Gattungen [Basic forms of social mediation of knowledge: communicative genres]. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft [Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social Psychology. Special issue], 27, 191–211. 10.1007/978‑3‑322‑91077‑6_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-91077-6_10 [Google Scholar]
  25. Malinovsky, B.
    (2005) Nauchnaya teoriya kul’tury [The scientific theory of culture]. OGI.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, J. R.
    (1985) Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis, InJ. D. Benson and W. S. Greaves. (Eds), Systemic Perspectives on Discourse: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop (pp.248–274). Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (1992) English Text: System and Structure. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  28. Martin, J. R. & J. Rothery
    (1986) What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about ‘good writing’. InB. Couture. (Eds.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp.241–265). Frances Printer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Miller, C. R.
    (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167. 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  30. Petrovic, T.
    (2006) Zdravica kod balkanskih Slovena [Toast to the Balkan Slavs]. Balkanoloski institut SANU [Balkanological Institute SANU].
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Podosinov, A. V.
    (1999) Orientaciya po stranam sveta arhaicheskih kul’tur Evrazii [Orientation by countries of the archaic cultures of Eurasia]. Yazyki slavyanskoj kul’tury [Languages of Slavic culture].
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sahin, S. S.
    (2016) Communities and Cultures of Women: A Study of Neighbourhood Groups and Gated Communities in Assam. Space and Culture, India, 4(2), 45–60. 10.20896/saci.v4i2.211
    https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v4i2.211 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sharifian, F.
    (2011) Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/clscc.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Cultural Linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8 [Google Scholar]
  35. Shakhanova, N. Z.
    (1998) Mir tradicionnoj kul’tury kazahov [The world of traditional culture of the Kazakhs]. Almaty.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sozdik.kz
    Sozdik.kz. [Dictionary]. Retrieved fromhttps://sozdik.kz/ru/dictionary/translate/kk/ru, 02/01/2020.
  37. Stebleva, I. V.
    (1972) K rekonstrukcii drevnetyurkskoj religiozno-mifologicheskoj sistemy [To the reconstruction of the ancient Türkic religious and mythological system], InTyurkologicheskij sbornik [Turkological collection] (pp.213–214). Moscow.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Swales, J. M.
    (1990) Genre Analysis in English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Tannen, D.
    (1993) What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations, Framing in Discourse, 14–56. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Tasibekov, K.
    (2015) Situativnyj kazahskij: Mir kazahov [Situational Kazakh: World of Kazakhs]. Almaty.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Temirgazina, Z., Bakhtikireeva, U., Sinyachkin, V.
    (2017) Artifacts as a source of russian and kazakh Zoological terms. Information, 20, 4(A), 2325–2336. www.information-iii.org/abs_e2.html#No4(A)-2017
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Temirgazina, Z., Akosheva, M., Shakaman, Y., Shaharman, A., Kurmanova, Z., Kairova, M.
    (2019) Metaphors in Anatomical Terminology. Space and Culture, India, 7(1), 143–153. 10.20896/saci.v7i1.528
    https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v7i1.528 [Google Scholar]
  43. Temirgazina, Z., Nikolaenko, S., Akosheva, M., Luczyk, M., Khamitov, G.
    (2020) “Naive anatomy” in the Kazakh language world picture in comparison with English and Russian. XLinguae, 13(2), 3–16. 10.18355/XL.2020.13.02.01
    https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2020.13.02.01 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tokhtabaeva, S. Z.
    (2017) Etiketnye normy kazahov [Etiquette norms of the Kazakhs]. Almaty.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1983) Genry mowy [Speech genry]. InT. Dobrzyńska & E. Janus. (Eds.), Tekst i zdanie: Zbiór studiów [Text and sentence: Collection of studies], (pp.125–137). PAN.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (1991) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783112329764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112329764 [Google Scholar]
  47. Yegizbaeva, M. K.
    (2018) Yurta i osobennosti mirovospriyatiya kazahov [Yurt and Kazakh worldview features]. Elektronnyj nauchnyj zhurnal «edu.e-history.kz» [Electronic scientific journal “edu.e-history.kz”], 1 (05). Retrieved fromedu.e-history.kz/ru/publications/view/379, 09/04/2019.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Yu, N.
    (2017) Life as opera: A cultural metaphor in Chinese, InF. Sharifian. (Eds.). Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp.65–89). Springer Nature. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑4056‑6_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_4 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error