Semantic divergence of cognate verbal stems in Kyrgyz and Turkish languages
Alfiia Seydenalieva*This article examined the semantic divergence of verbal stems in Kyrgyz and Turkish – two languages sharing Turkic roots but developing distinctly over time. The study aimed to identify specific shifts in verbal meanings and determine their underlying factors. The research material comprised four pairs of Turkic verbs: gel/кел, çık/чык, al/ал, and düş/түш. Utilising a comparative analysis of contextual usage and derived meanings, the study identified three distinct types of semantic divergence. Semantic expansion: observed in the Turkish verbs gel and çık, which acquired abstract and idiomatic meanings (e.g., related to time or outcomes), whereas their Kyrgyz cognates retained narrower, spatially motivated semantics. Semantic specialisation: characterised Kyrgyz verbs, which stably preserved their original meanings. Lacking significant alterations, their semantic structure remained transparent and motivated for native speakers. Metaphorical divergence: occurred in the pairs al/ал and düş/түш, where shared original meanings evolved in different directions. Turkish verbs focused on external events and pragmatic aspects, while Kyrgyz verbs acquired abstract meanings associated with internal cognitive states and social concepts. The research demonstrated that these shifts were driven by a combination of factors. The primary catalyst for Turkish semantic shifts was the 1923 language reform, which compelled native verbs to express complex abstract ideas. Conversely, the semantic conservatism of Kyrgyz verbs was sustained by development under Kyrgyz-Russian bilingualism. Divergent cultural environments and differing cognitive models of metaphorical thinking also played decisive roles. These findings contributed to the comparative study of Turkic languages, lexical semantics, and language pedagogy for preventing cross-linguistic interference. Ultimately, analysing Kyrgyz and Turkish verbal stems enhanced the understanding of diachronic semantic evolution, offering deeper insights into the shared history and cultural trajectories of their speakers
References
- Abdulqader, K.M. (2024). Semantic shift and phonological features of words borrowed from Kurdish to Turkish. British Journal of Education, 12(12), 51-74. doi: 10.37745/bje.2013/vol12n125174.
- Alijonova, F. (2025). Semantic analysis in global, Turkic, and Uzbek languages: Resources, algorithms, and development prospects. Science and Innovation: International Scientific Journal, 4(12), 19-28. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.18054745.
- Baskakov, N.A. (1969). Introduction to the study of Turkic languages. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola.
- Buhari, & Kumala, S. A. (2024). Semantic change in historical linguistics: Theories, evidence, and contexts. Lingua: Journal of Linguistics and Language, 2(2), 102-115. doi: 10.61978/lingua.v2i2.1033.
- Doğan, N. (2022). Formal and semantic hierarchy of Turkish transitive verbs. İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 688-703. doi: 10.33709/ictimaiyat.1195290.
- Erdal, M. (2004). A grammar of Old Turkic. Leiden: Brill.
- Göksel, A., & Kerslake, C. (2005). Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.
- Johanson, L., & Csató, É.Á. (Eds.). (1998). The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.
- Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781139016704.
- Kaçar, G. (2024). On the classification of compound verbs in Kyrgyz. Akademik Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 8(3), 1456-1474. doi: 10.34083/akaded.1572240.
- Kamchybekova, K. (2013). Taste perception verbs in Kyrgyz Turkish. Türk Dünyası, 35, 9-22.
- Kamchybekova, K. (2011). Perception verbs in Kyrgyz Turkish. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(3), 87-102.
- Kononov, A.N. (1956). Grammar of the modern Turkish language. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
- Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London: Routledge.
- Kornfilt, J. (2003). Subject case in Turkish nominalized clauses. In U. Junghanns & G. Zybatow (Eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information (Vol. 7; pp. 129-215). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110904758.129.
- Starostin, S.A., Dybo, A.V., & Mudrak, O.A. (2003). An etymological dictionary of Altaic languages (Vols. 1-3). Leiden: Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789047400165.
- Tabaldieva, A. (2022). Semantics of verbs in Yenisei texts. Bulletin of the Jusup Balasagyn Kyrgyz National University, 14(4), 263-268.
- Tan, A. (2006). On descriptive verbs in Kyrgyz Turkish. Türk Dünyası Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi, 22, 67-82.
- Tenishev, E.R., Nadelyaev, V.M., Nasilov, D.M., & Shcherbak, A.M. (Eds.). (1969). Old Turkic dictionary. Leningrad: Nauka.
- Traugott, E.C. & Dasher, R.B. (2008). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486500.
- Tyulemissov, M. (2005). Mahmud al-Kashgari “Diwan Lughat al-Turk”. Almaty: Dayk Press.
- Washington, J.N., & Tyers, F.M. (2019). Delineating Turkic non-finite verb forms by syntactic function. Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic, 4, 132-146. doi: 10.3765/ptu.v4i1.4587.
- Yudakhin, K.K. (1985). Kyrgyz-Russian dictionary. (Part 1). Frunze: Main Editorial Board of the Kyrgyz Soviet Encyclopedia.