Pragmalinguistic Features of Sacred Anthroponyms

Authors

  • Gulzada Duisen

    Department of Turkology and Language Theory, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
  • Botagoz Suiyerkul

    Department of Turkish Studies and History of Eastern Countries, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
  • Altynshash Kurmanali

    Department of Turkish Studies and History of Eastern Countries, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty 050040, Kazakhstan
  • Karimbek Kurmanaliyev

    Department of Project Management, Kazakhstan National Academy of Natural Sciences, Astana 010009, Kazakhstan
  • Barno Boltaeva

    Department of Theory and Methodology of Primary Education, Faculty of Primary Education, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Jizzakh 130100, Uzbekistan
  • Gulnara Xolbayeva

    Department of Theory and Methodology of Primary Education, Faculty of Primary Education, Jizzakh State Pedagogical University, Jizzakh 130100, Uzbekistan
  • Zhamilya Otarbekova

    Department of Theory and Methodology of the Kazakh Linguistics, Institute of Philology, Kazakh National Women's Teacher Training University, Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i9.11236
Received: 24 July 2025 | Revised: 11 August 2025 | Accepted: 2 September 2025 | Published Online: 19 September 2025

Abstract

This study examines how contemporary Turkic society perceives sacred Muslim names, with particular emphasis on shifting attitudes toward their usage. The usage of sacred anthroponyms in these regions has evolved under the influence of various social, cultural, and historical factors. Muslim names have long been central to the religious and cultural identity of these societies. However, processes such as modernization, globalization, and urbanization have led to substantial changes in their usage. Despite these developments and the growing trend of secularization, the concept of 'sacred anthroponyms' remains an ongoing subject of debate. This paper deals with a significant aspect of Turkic anthroponyms: proper names derived from religious beliefs. A comprehensive methodological approach, integrating both linguistic and sociocultural analyses, facilitates a nuanced understanding of the role of Muslim names in preserving traditional cultural values. This paper aims to investigate the extent to which sacred anthroponyms are preserved across generations within the category of proper names. By analyzing the spiritual and pragmatic features of sacred anthroponyms, the study assesses the influence of socio-cultural transformations on their perception within modern Turkic societies. This study opens up avenues for comparative research in other linguistic or cultural groups undergoing similar socio-cultural transformations, particularly in post-Soviet or Muslim-majority contexts. The findings make a contribution to preserving cultural heritage and understanding naming practices in the context of globalization and provide a basis for future research on the intersection between name choices, self-perception, and social identity.

Keywords:

Turkic Anthroponyms; Proper Names; Muslim Names; Sacred Anthroponyms; Turkic Culture; Ethnocultural Identity; Pragmalinguistics

References

[1] Reading, H.F., 1983. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Routledge: London, UK.

[2] Goetz, P.W., McHenry, R., Hoiberg, D., 1998. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA.

[3] Nazarov, R.R., 2015. Ethnic Policy in a Polyethnic Society (The Case of Uzbekistan). In: Culture, Personality, Society in the Modern World: Methodology, Empirical Research Experience. Ural Federal University: Yekaterinburg, Russia. pp. 1644–1654.

[4] Andreeva, L.A., Bondarenko, D.M., Korotaev, A.V., et al., 2005. Introduction to the collection “Sacralization of Power in the History of Civilizations.” In: Bondarenko, D.M. (ed.). Sacralization of Power in the History of Civilizations, Part 1. Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia. pp. 5–32.

[5] Eliade, M., 1959. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt: San Diego, CA, USA.

[6] Kerimbaev, A.E., 2007. Ethnolinguistic characteristics of sacred terms in the Kazakh language [Doctoral Thesis]. Abai University: Almaty, Kazakhstan. (in Kazakh)

[7] Hagionyme, 2024. Definition of hagionym - Reverso English Dictionary. Available from: https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/hagionym (cited 5 January 2025).

[8] Moldabekov, S., 2021. Changes in Naming Practices in Post-Soviet Kazakhstan: Between Tradition and Modernity. Kazakh University Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[9] Aliakbarova, A., Madiyeva, G., Chen, X., 2020. Evolution of anthroponyms: Transformation in the naming of newborn babies and its role for society in the period of linguistic transition. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews. 8(4), 1522–1534. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.84140

[10] Kızıloğlu, M., 2021. Proper Names in Turkish Culture [Doctoral Thesis]. Ataturk University: Erzurum, Turkey.

[11] Al-Jarf, R., 2023. The interchange of personal names in Muslim communities: An onomastic study. Journal of Gender Culture and Society. 3(1), 42–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32996/jgcs.2023.3.1.5

[12] Kashgari, M., 1993. The Roots of the Turkic Language. Diwan Lughat al-Turk. Ana Tili Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan. p. 192.

[13] Zhalaiyr, K., 1997. Collection of Genealogies. Kazakhstan Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan. p. 128.

[14] Gumilev, L.N., 1967. Ancient Turks. USSR Academy of Sciences, Institute of Asian Peoples: Moscow, Russia.

[15] Valikhanov, C., 1984. Collected Works in Five Volumes, 2nd ed. Main Editorial Office of the Kazakh Soviet Encyclopedia: Almaty, Kazakhstan. p. 432.

[16] Baitursynov, A., 1992. Language Reflections. Ana Tili: Almaty, Kazakhstan. p. 448.

[17] Zhanuzak, T., 2021. Kazakh Onomastics, Vol. 2. International Turkic Academy: Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan.

[18] Nagy, G., 1974. Six studies of sacral vocabulary relating to the fireplace. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 78, 71–106.

[19] Brand, C.A., 2016. Very members incorporate: Reflections on the sacral language of divine worship. Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal. 19(2), 132–154.

[20] Stross, B., 2007. The Mesoamerican Sacrum Bone: Doorway to the Otherworld. University of Texas at Austin: Austin, TX, USA.

[21] Konovalova, N.I., 2007. Manifestations of linguistic consciousness as a component of the lexicographic representation of sacred texts. Psycholinguistic Aspects of Speech Activity Study. 5, 104–117.

[22] Burmistrova, T.N., 2008. Linguacultural interpretation of sacred phytonyms with transparent internal forms. Linguoculturology. 2, 39–46.

[23] Kuzmina, T.V., 2011. The sacred component in lexical units of the Russian language (about Bulgarian language units) [Doctoral Dissertation]. Moscow State University: Moscow, Russia.

[24] Kazakov, G.A., 2021. Sacred lexicon in the language system [Doctoral Dissertation]. Moscow State University of International Relations: Moscow, Russia.

[25] Dobychina, O.A., 2017. Sacred semantics of linguistic units in the modern sociocultural context [Doctoral Dissertation]. Ural State Pedagogical University: Yekaterinburg, Russia.

[26] Babenko, I.I., 2005. The sacred-religious component in the linguistic and conceptual worldview of M. Tsvetaeva. Bulletin of Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 3, 33–39.

[27] Koroleva, I.A., 2016. Regional onomastics: Problems and prospects of research. Proceedings of Smolensk State University. 2, 407–415.

[28] Rachinsky, A.V., Fedorov, A.E., 2018. Pre-Christian sacred lexicon in Russian. Report 1. Eco-Potential. 4(24), 176–205.

[29] Kirilova, I.V., 2011. Sacred symbolism of traditional folk culture as a means of influence in political discourse. Political Linguistics. 1, 135–138.

[30] Astafurova, T.N., Olyanich, A.V., 2009. Linguosemiotics of sacredness: Sign, word, text. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 2: Linguistics. 1, 80–87.

[31] Mikhnovets, N.G., 2006. The phenomenon of precedence: Linguistic and literary approaches. In: Bulletin of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen. Cyberleninka. Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen: St Petersburg, Russia. pp. 41–50. Available from: https://share.google/q6uxtg7wO0zHMzfV9

[32] Ivanova, R.A., 2009. Lexical borrowings in the language of English sacred literature. Bulletin Res Philologic: Scholarly Notes of the Severodvinsk Branch of Pomor State University named after M. V. Lomonosov. 1, 114–119.

[33] Rakhimova, E.F., Sagitova, A.F., 2014. Linguocognitive factors in the formation of cultural meaning in sacred numbers (based on Russian and Bashkir languages). Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2, 550.

[34] Sattarova, M.R., 2014. Sacred lexicon of the modern Tatar language (based on explanatory dictionaries). Modern Problems of Science and Education. 6, 1244.

[35] Gogolev, A.I., 2016. Yakut-Altai ethnocultural and linguistic parallels. Northeastern Humanities Bulletin. 3(16), 10–16.

[36] Kaidarov, A.T., 1998. Historical Lexicology and Ethnolinguistics. Problems of Historical Lexicology of the Kazakh Language. Ana Tili Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[37] Kopylenko, M.M., 1995. Fundamentals of Ethnolinguistics. Kazakhstan Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[38] Zhanpeisov, E.N., 1989. Ethnocultural Lexicon of the Kazakh Language. Gylym Press: Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan.

[39] Akberdieva, B., 2020. Mythological concepts related to the “human soul” in the mythological studies of Serikbol Kondybai. Tiltanym. 1, 92–96. Available from: https://www.tiltanym.kz/jour/article/view/515/355 (in Russian)

[40] Gabitkhanuly, K., 2006. The Reflection of Kazakh Mythology in Language. Arys: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[41] Uskenbaeva, R.M., 2014. On the history of the development of mythology as a science. Bulletin of the Kyrgyz Academy of Education. Kyrgyz Academy of Education Press: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. pp. 17–22.

[42] Rysbergenova, K.K., 2024. Linguocultural semantics of folk historical microtoponyms. Tiltanym. 2, 5–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55491/2411-6076-2024-2-5-17 (in Kazakh)

[43] Mustafina, R.M., 1992. Beliefs, Cults, and Rituals among the Kazakhs. Kazakh University Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[44] Shaimerdenova, N.Z., Avakova, R.A., 2004. Language and Ethnos. Kazakh University Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[45] Akhmetzhanova, G.A., Baimusaeva, B.S., Nietbaitegi, K.A., 2012. Anthroponyms as keepers of cultural information. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice. 7(2), 30–33.

[46] Abdul, S.M., 1998. Asma al-Husna. Saudi Publishing House: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

[47] Zhanuzakov, T., 1971. The History of Kazakh Names. Gylym Press: Almaty, Kazakhstan.

[48] Suiyerkul, B., Kurmanali, A., Smanova, B., et al., 2021. Teaching somatic idioms during the Corona crisis (based on historical and literary texts). XLinguae Journal. 14(1), 81–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18355/XL.2021.14.01.07

Downloads

How to Cite

Duisen, G., Suiyerkul, B., Kurmanali, A., Kurmanaliyev, K., Boltaeva , B., Xolbayeva, G., & Otarbekova, Z. (2025). Pragmalinguistic Features of Sacred Anthroponyms. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(9), 1186–1202. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i9.11236

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 9 (September 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Gulzada Duisen, Botagoz Suiyerkul, Altynshash Kurmanali, Karimbek Kurmanaliyev, Barno Boltaeva , Gulnara Xolbayeva, Zhamilya Otarbekova

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.