Education of the republic of uzbekistan state university of world languages

3.2. Data analysis and Results
In accordance with the evaluation procedure, the object of the evaluative categorization in this paper is the “intelligence” concept. The selected feature for the evaluation of the “smart-foolish” category, which gives an idea of intelligence, is personal constructs that, according to G. Kelly (2007), are used by the human to understand or interpret, explain or predict his experience. The distinguishing of personal constructs “is a stable means, whereby a human comprehends certain aspects of reality in terms of similarity and contrast. Examples of personal constructs include “excited-calm”, “smart-foolish”, “manly-womanly”, “religious-nonreligious”, “good-bad”, and “friendly-hostile”. A human uses the “smart-foolish” personal constructs to evaluate human intelligence.
In order to correlate the evaluation object (human intelligence) and the evaluation feature, it is necessary to distinguish cognitive classification and differential features. The cognitive classification feature is interpreted as the parameter of categorization of a respective object or phenomenon that generalizes homogenous differential cognitive features within the concept structure. Classification cognitive features are always common for a number, group, or many concepts ⁴⁴.
According to the cognitive classification feature, objects “having intelligence” and “not having developed intelligence” are united into two different groups, and set in opposition to other groups of objects that are not characterized by this classification feature.
The “smart” and “foolish” cognitive classification features are specified within the structure of the respective concept. The words that denote human intelligence are divided into several groups:
1) the “presence-absence of intellect” group, for example: smart, sharp, gifted, brainy, clever, inventive, rational, reasonable, competent, experienced, prepared, educated, intelligent, wise, etc.
2) the “presence-absence of literacy” group: literate, learned, educated, illiterate, uneducated, ignorant, unprepared, semiliterate, stupid, thick skull, fool, dull, brainless, dense, slow-witted, etc.
The dominant words “smart-foolish” and “literate-illiterate” are distinguished in these two groups, while the other group members are arranged around them. Adjectives that refer to the “presence-absence of intellect” group are a general semantic feature that characterizes a high level of the “smart” intellectual ability, and a low level of the “foolish” intellectual ability.
Adjectives that refer to the first group characterize human literacy, his knowledge of something; the adjectives of the second group characterize illiteracy and “lack of knowledge of something”. The common semantic feature that is represented by dominant words is not complicated by additional features. The main words denote the zero degree of the feature.
The central semantic features also act as cognitive classification features with national specificity. G. Lakoff (1988) argue different nations classify seemingly identical realities quite unexpectedly, since each culture has specific fields of experience (fishing, hunting, etc.) that determine the connections within categorical chains of concepts. Therefore, the “smart” and “foolish” categories are underlain by different knowledge of language speakers regarding human intelligence. These ideas originate as inadequate classification features that are based on different features of objects classification, associated with human intelligence in different cultures. Cognitive classification features reflect different sets of differential features: in one language, the “smart” and “foolish” concepts can be represented by one differential cognitive feature, while in other languages – by many. The main cognitive classification features of the “smart” and “foolish” concepts are present in all languages, but the sets of their differential features and their images differ. This is predetermined by the different sociocultural experience of language speakers that is formed in various environmental niches of peoples’ dwelling, and their preoccupation with various types of economic activity. This is conditioned by the inadequacy of the depth of “cognition of the objective world “broadways” (extensively) and “in-depth” (intensively). ⁴⁵
The “smart” and “foolish” concepts are conceptualized, based on an inadequate understanding of notions of human intelligence, correlation of human intelligence concepts by using various cultural codes, a “net” that the culture “throws” on the world, divides, categorizes, structures, and evaluates it.⁴⁶
Information on human intelligence can be encoded as a set of symbols that are used to categorize the evaluation of human intelligence. The following basic cultural codes are used to denote the “smart” concept:
a) spatial-local: his thought flowed in all sixty directions; all those smart are beyond the well;
b) artefact: o’z (aql) tarozisida o’lchadi (he weighed his mind on a scale), i.e. he approached the discussion with prudence); aql tayoq, jahl o’q (jahl dushman, aql do’st ) (anger is an arrow, the mind is a stick); aql gavhardir, aqlsizlik kasallikdir (the mind is a precious diamond, foolishness is a disease); to have nothing upstairs; на вожжах и лошадь умна (a horse would be wise, too, when holding the reigns); ума ни грош (not a penny’s worth of brains);
c) zoological, based on stereotypical behavior of animals: as cunning as a fox, as wise as a serpent, as wise as an owl; as slippery as an eel;
d) ornithological: птице крылья, а человеку разум (let the bird have the wings, let the man have the mind);
e) numeric: yetti o’lchab bir kes (second thoughts are best, measure thrice before you cut once);
f) anthropocentric (the human and parts of his body): a clear head; as wise as Solomon; aql ko’zi bilan boqdi (watched with smart eyes); aqliga quloq soldi (to listen to his advice); otalar so’zi – aqlning ko’zi (the words of ancestors are the eyes of the mind);
g) demonological code: devilishly clever;
h) temporal: an hour in the morning is worth two hours in the evening; утро вечера мудренее (the morning is wiser than the evening).
Similar basic cultural codes are also used to express the evaluation of human intelligence in the “foolish” concept:
a) artefact: ни в куль, ни в воду (good for nothing);
b) zoological:уставился, как баран на новые ворота (to look like a cow at a new gate), цыплячьи мозги (chicken brains);
c) anthropocentric: дурная голова ногам покоя не дает (a witless head makes a weary pair of heels), медный лоб, чугунный лоб, толоконный лоб (thick skull), dumb, bone head, etc.
During the conceptualization of the “foolishness” concept in Uzbek, Russian, and English cultures, an inadequacy of semantic differential features is noted: in the Uzbek and Russian cultures, they are based on such differential features as:
1) the complete or partial absence of intellect – aqldan ozgan (not a dime of brains), пустая башка (empty head), олух царя небесного (perfect fool), каша в голове (muddle-headed);
2) stupidity: глядеть, будто баран на новые ворота (to look like a cow at a new gate), толоконный лоб (thick skull), отпетый дурак (regular fool), ahmoqning boshiga aql yopishtirib qo’ysang, qo’li bilan ko’chirib tashlaydi – горбатого могила исправит;
3) fool acts inconsiderately: aqlli o’ylaguncha, tentak suvdan o’tar (while the wise man is thinking, the fool is already drowning);
4) fool does not listen to advice – ahmoqqa aytgan bilan gap uqmas, xarsangga qoqqan bilan mix o’tmas (send a fool to the market and a fool hell return);
5) fool acts thoughtlessly, his mind is clouded, he gets too excited –дурная голова ногам покоя не дает (a witless head makes a weary pair of heels); bitta ahmoq quduqqa tosh tashlasa, o’nta aqllini ovora qiladi (дурак в воду камень бросит, десятеро умных не вытащат);
6) fool is snobbish, selfish, one should avoid communicating with foolish people – ahmoqqa aytgan bilan gap uqmas, xarsangga qoqqan bilan mix o’tmas (не связывайся с дураком).
In the English culture, the concept of foolishness denotes the mental principle of this ethnos to strive for knowledge. Foolishness is condemned: fools will be fools still, fools rush in where angels fear to tread, never bray at an ass.
Differential features coincide with the national specificity to a greater extent, since they are assigned to a specific object – a concept, a phenomenon, a human’s status within the cultural and mental models of the ethnos. Each nation understands the concepts of “smart” and “foolish” in accordance with its own vision and perception of objects, which is associated with selectivity of linguistic reflection features, determined by “the selective focus of the mind – the reflected reality, where the same object is grasped according to different features”. ⁴⁷
The motivation of naming human intelligence is an encoded semantic association of “a feature that caught the eye” that underlies the naming by a member of any nation.
In this case, the cognitive classification feature of the “smart-foolish” category is elaborated by means of various differential features that are assigned to the evaluated object. The set of such differential features is national, which is obvious from the inadequate features of the “smart” and “foolish” concepts, which every nation distinguishes depending on its experience, and its evaluation that reflects the values orientations of nations. The elaboration of cognitive classification features within each nation’s culture, and the values of the differential feature assigned to evaluated objects – “smart” and “foolish” – are a procedure of elaboration of objects’ classification and differential features in accordance with each nation’s experience.
The last stage of the cognitive evaluation procedure is the orientation of the act of assigning the evaluative feature’s value at the possibility of participation in making the decision on the distinguishing of the “smart” and foolish evaluative categories. The evaluative categorization of these concepts considers various categorization principles: the prototypical principle, the principle of non-rigid categorization, the consideration of the plurality and variety of categorization bases, the principle of distinction and identity, and the principle of gradualness. ⁴⁸
According to the prototypical principle, the concepts of “smart” and “foolish” can be considered prototypes of the “smart” and “foolish” categories that have typical features of intelligence: competent in any field of knowledge, the presence of intellect, incompetent in any field of knowledge, absence of intellect, or insufficient demonstration of intelligence. The “smart” category includes, firstly, the concepts that are identified with the prototype, which, according to E. Rosch (1978), is understood as a prototypical category that acts as a nucleus of a certain space, as opposed to its periphery, and, secondly, the concepts that reflect the subjective evaluation of the “smart” intellectual ability, for example: smart, competent, brainy, clever, to be streets ahead, etc.
The concept of “foolish” itself is the prototype of the “foolish” category. Words that contain the evaluative attitude are actualized around this nucleus: to be out of one’s box, to be soft in the head.
Categorization based on the consideration of the non-rigid categorization principle assumes the involvement of new members in the category by repeating the characteristics of the prototype or part of the prototype’s features, for example: smart – wise head, clever, intelligent; foolish – thick skull, the lights are on, but nobody is home, aql boshdan, asl toshdan (intellect from the youth, diamond from the stone), нет конца и краю глупости (there is no end to foolishness).
The categorization of the “smart” and “foolish” concepts, based on the consideration of the plurality and variety of categorization bases, shows that the strategies of evaluative categorization of different people are different, too. The study of the evaluative categorization of human intelligence showed that different linguistic cultures have different meanings associated with human intelligence, since in some languages the concepts of “smart” and “foolish” are distinguished by dissimilar, often contradicting features. For example, the “smart” category may include various concepts that do not bear much relation to intelligence, but are related to the “smart” or “foolish” categories, considering experience and life. Every nation can relate to these categories the concepts that bear little relation to the concepts of “smart” and “foolish”. For example, in the Russian language, the “smart” category includes such concepts as стреляный воробей (an old bird) and тертый калач (an old hand). They seemingly have nothing in common with the “smart” concept; however, these lexemes can be synonymous to the “smart” concept, based on the meaning “learned”, “experienced”, which demonstrates intelligence to a certain extent.
In the Russian language, the concept “тупой” (blunt, obtuse) is used in such expressions as “тупой угол” (obtuse angle) and “тупик” (dead end); however, the word “тупица” (dullard) is synonymous to the concept of “foolishness”. In the Uzbek language, the words “ahmoq” and “tentak” are used to denote the “narrowmindedness” concept. Thus, the conceptualization of the “тупой” (blunt, obtuse) in the “foolish” sense is inadequate in various languages.
“Do not interrupt! My teacher always told my mother: your boy is nice, but very dumb. Dumb! – Dumb? – Pete asked. – Yes! Dumb, bone head, dumb” (G. Vayner. The Sorrow Multiplier). In the Russian language, the “bone head” phraseological unit is not used to denote foolishness. In this case, one uses the expressions “голова мякиной набита” (head full of trash), “голова, два уха” (brain box), “без головы” (literally, headless), etc.
The fourth principle of evaluative categorization is the continuity principle, which includes the ideas of objects’ identity, based on their spatial continuous integrity of a physical body in space. The identity of the “smart” and “foolish” concepts is associated with the peculiarity of the ordinary consciousness (“common sense”) and its accepted world image, according to which, “the object is primary, while its features are secondary and do not exist independently” . ⁴⁹
According to the object centralism principle, spatial bodies and their properties are viewed as identical phenomena, even if their properties differ. For example, the “smart” and “foolish” concepts are reduced to one category as lexemes that denote the qualities of a human in continuous space. The human is the unifying property of “smart” and “foolish”, for example: the Ape of God, Cousin Betty, Tomfool, Simple Simon, farsighted, sharp, witty, talented, etc.