Cognitive-semiotic modeling of tactile perception vocabulary in the Sakha (Yakut) language

The study of tactile perception vocabulary in the Sakha language is of significant interest to cognitive linguistics and semiotics, as it reveals the relationship between linguistic means, cultural codes, and the inner world of a person. Given the insufficient research on perceptual vocabulary in the Sakha language, this work fills a gap in understanding its role in literary texts. The aim of the article is to conduct a cognitive-semiotic modeling of tactile perception vocabulary in Angelina Vasilyeva-Daiyyna’s story “Kerecheene”, identifying its functions in conveying emotions, feelings, and the inner states of the characters. The research material is the text of the story “Kerecheene” by Angelina Vasilyeva-Daiyyna. The primary method is cognitive-semiotic analysis, which allows for the identification of key models such as “Tactile Perception – Feeling of Love”, “Tactile Perception – Emotional Wound”, “Tactile Perception – Gratitude”, and others. The analysis showed that tactile vocabulary plays an important role in revealing the psychological portrait of the main character, their experiences, and transformation. Tactile images interact with cultural and social contexts, forming complex semantic structures. Tactile perception vocabulary serves as an effective tool for conveying emotional states and internal conflicts. The study demonstrates the uniqueness of tactile vocabulary as an element of literary text, emphasizing its significance for meaning formation and the revelation of the human inner world. The article contributes to the study of perceptual vocabulary in the Yakut (Sakha) language, expanding the understanding of its role in the cognitive-semiotic space of a literary work. The findings highlight that tactile vocabulary not only reflects the emotional and psychological states of the characters but also serves as a bridge between individual experience and the cultural traditions of the Sakha people. This allows it to be viewed as an important tool for conveying deep meanings and cultural codes the Sakha ethnos.

1. Daddesio T. On minds and symbols: the relevance of cognitive science for semiotics. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; 1995 (in English).

2. Belyaev I, Kapustyan V, Rykov V. Sign systems and business processes. Information resources of Russia. Moscow: (2008)5 (in Russian).

3. Tsvetkov VYa. Cognitive semiotics and information modeling. Prospects for science and education. 2016;24(6):17-22 (in Russian).

4. Rykov VV. Knowledge extraction – implementation of cognitive semiotics. Available at: http://rykov-cs.narod.ru/dlg9.html [Accessed 23 March 2025] (in Russian).

5. Brandt PA. Spaces, domains and meanings: essays in cognitive semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang; 2004:268 (in English).

6. Zlatev J. Cognitive semiotics: an emerging field for the transdisciplinary study of meaning. Public Journal of Semiotics. 2012;4(1):2-24 (in English).

7. Paolucci C. Cognitive Semiotics. Springer Nature; 2021:167 (in English).

8. Valkman Yu, Tarasov VB. Cognitive semiotics in the processes of figurative thinking. Problems of Computer Intellectualization. Ithea. Kiev-Sofia: 2012:350-358 (in Russian).

9. Valkman YuR, Tarasov VB. From design ontologies to cognitive semiotics. Ontology of designing. 2018;8(1)(27):8-34 (in Russian).

10. Lakoff G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1987:614 (in English).

11. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: London: University of Chicago Press; 1980:256 (in English).

12. Rosch E. Principles of categorization. New developments in foreign linguistics. Moscow: Progress; 1988;23:23-52 (in Russian).

13. Wierzbicka A. Language. Culture. Cognition. Moscow: “Russkie slovari” Publ.; 1996:412 (in Russian).

14. Barsalou LV. Models of categorization in cognitive science. Cognitive research. 2010;(4):45-62 (in Russian).

15. Talmy L. Toward a Cognitive Semantics: in 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000:565 (in English).

16. Johnson M. The body in thinking: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures; 2011:368 (in English).

17. Fauconnier G. Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994:190 (in English).

18. Fauconnier G, Turner M. The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books; 2002:464 (in English).

19. Eco U. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1976:368 (in English).

20. Brazgovskaya EE. Semiotics. Languages and codes of culture. Moscow: Yurait; 2019:187 (in Russian).

21. Sonesson G. From the meaning of embodiment to the embodiment of meaning: a study in phenomenological semiotics. Embodiment. 2008:85-128 (in English).

22. Bart R. Selected works: Semiotics: Poetics. Moscow: Progress; 1989:616 (in Russian).

23. Gasparov ML. Language. Semiotics. Culture. About poets. Moscow: Russian culture; Koshelev: 1997:660 (in Russian).

24. Bart R. S/Z. Moscow: Ad Marginem; 1994:304 (in Russian).

25. Vasilieva A.-Dayyyna. Kerecheene. Cholbon: literary journal. 2015;(8):16-22 (in Yakut).

26. Big explanatory dictionary of the Yakut language. Letter Ч. Novosibirsk: Nauka; 2004:14:298-299 (in Yakut).