Ethnosemantic analysis of binary oppositions in toposystems

1 Introduction

The system of regional onyms as a complex linguistic-social, cultural-historical layer is considered from different angles in every field of science. In particular, as an integral part of the field of onomastics, solving general and particular language problems, it has a great opportunity to reflect the true image of society at every stage. “The purpose of onomastic studies related to a particular region is to determine the features of names in a particular region and/or the relationship of these names with neighboring and even remote regions. Regional onomastic studies provide valuable materials in the designation and fixation of onymic areas and their types” (Podolskaya 1988).

Each of the onomastic spaces of the regions of Kazakhstan has its own distinguishing features. Depending on the location and the historical and social conditions, the linguistic landscape of each region is formed differently (Zakirova et al. 2023). It is a matter of common knowledge that the formation and development of the onymic system of regions and their structure is influenced by various social factors at different levels. When studying the dynamics of onomastic development of each region (North-South, West-East), we can see how many names have influenced the cultural and social life of the population of the region. This is because onyms are a language layer that, by its very nature, preserves informality and sociality rather than appeal. Onyms serve a crucial function in faithfully conveying the linguistic essence of a specific historical era or world.

The toposystem of the Northern and Western regions of Kazakhstan on the border with Russia, on the one hand, has a special character as a space consisting of different ethnic groups; on the other hand, the political and ideological background is an onymic layer consisting of dense historical processes. It is noteworthy that the onomastic space of these regions is “multi-layered”: it has such features as pre-revolutionary suffixes, the policy of power in the Soviet period, and the restoration of the former name during the years of independence. Among them, the influence of the Soviet period is particularly strongly absorbed, because it is known from history that the Soviet authorities maintained their special “position” on almost all cultural and historical sites called the Soviet zone (Kulumzhanov et al. 2021).

The regions bordering Russia encompass a diverse range of geographical and cultural landscapes within Kazakhstan. These regions are significant because of their unique characteristics and contributions to the country’s cultural and economic diversity. Pavlodar region includes districts such as Ertіs, Qashyr, Aqtoǵai, and Sharbaqty. It is known for its industrial and agricultural sectors, with Pavlodar city serving as a major industrial hub. The region’s proximity to the Irtysh River contributes to its agricultural productivity and transportation infrastructure. North Kazakhstan Region is home to districts like Magzhan Zhumabayev, Zhambyl, Kyzylzhar, Mamlyut, and Shoqan Ualikhanov. North Kazakhstan region is known for its rich history, diverse ethnic communities, and cultural heritage. It has both urban centers and rural areas that reflect the blend of Kazakh and Russian influences. Kostanay region encompasses districts like Zhitiqara, Denisov, Uzunkol, Mendyqara, Fedorov, and Qarabalyq. The region is known for its extensive agriculture, including wheat and grain production, which contributes significantly to Kazakhstan’s food security. Aqtobe region includes Qargaly and Aiteke districts. Aqtobe is an industrial center with a focus on oil and gas production and processing. The region’s economy benefits from its natural resources, and it plays a vital role in Kazakhstan’s energy sector. West Kazakhstan region comprises districts like Shingirlau, Borili, Zhanibek, Kaztalov, and more. The region is known for its diverse landscapes, including the Ural River and the Caspian Sea coast. It is home to several ethnic communities and has a history influenced by trade and cultural exchanges with Russia.

These border regions not only contribute to Kazakhstan’s economic development but also showcase the country’s cultural diversity and historical significance. Their proximity to Russia has historically influenced their economic, social, and cultural interactions, making them essential components of Kazakhstan’s national identity and regional cooperation. An important phenomenon observed in the process of nominating toponymic names in the transboundary regions of Kazakhstan is the place of semantic contradiction. In scientific research, it is referred to by the terms binary opposition, binary names, and semantic opposition (Bapanova et al. 2023; Sartbekova et al. 2021). Podolskaya (1988) gives the following interpretation of the binary opposition in onomastics: “Opposition of (for differentiation) two well-known related objects using names that have the same basic lexeme and antonymic definitions.” And Superanskaya (1973) considers that the manifestation of such antonymism (binary opposition) in proper names can only be viewed from one side:

It is possible to speak about a kind of conditional antonymy not so much of names as of images associated with these names only in exceptional cases when a name with universal meaning is on the verge of becoming a common name. Particular geographical (North and South Pole, West and East Sayan) and toponymic (Greater and Minor Caucasus, Upper and Lower Maslovka) antonymy does not have linguistic antonymy and even simple onomastic one, because here the name of etymologically antonymi lexemes is included in one onomastic sequence and object coherence the names of their significant important sides. (Superanskaya 1973)

According to the author, the meaning of antonyms in names is different from lexical antonyms, in which the connection of words is restored only through the connection of concepts.

In alignment with prior research, a study by Akbari and Ashrafzadeh (2021) explored binary poetic oppositions, emphasizing their role as the foundation for poemonymic oppositions, incorporating both single-component and multi-component elements, often linked to linguistic elements like antithesis. As demonstrated by Seiitova et al. (2021), binary names exhibit a close connection within a single hydrographic or oikographic system, often resulting in compound names. Kostić (2017) investigated the usage of adjectival antonyms in discourse, specifically examining two types: scalar antonyms and complementary antonyms.

Despite the works presented, this topic is poorly researched and requires clarification. So, it is necessary to define the research questions: How prominent and evident are binary oppositions within the Kazakh cross-border toposystem, specifically when considering the etymology of toponyms based on semantic opposition? What is the relationship between toponymic binary names and lexical antonyms, and how do they differ in terms of expressing contradiction and opposition? In what ways does the contradiction in toponyms manifest itself within the toponymic context, and are there instances where related pairs are formed instead of clear semantic contradictions?

2 Materials and methods

Various methodological tools were used during the research. In particular, the method of analysis was applied to study the components of the topic of this scientific work. On its basis, the content of the concept of “binary oppositions” and “topological system” was analyzed. In addition, it was possible to reveal not only their meaning, but also the distinguishing features that make them stand out from other language structures and tools. The synthesis method was used during the formation and study of the object of scientific work. The peculiarities of the geographic units of Kazakhstan were considered, in the context of the selection of their names. This made it possible to group them, as well as to establish opposing concepts among them.

The method of comparison was used, which made it possible to compare various names and terms that are part of the structure of Kazakh cross-border toponymy. Thus, the content of the toposystem, which includes the Northern and Western names of the regions bordering Russia in Kazakhstan, was compared. Based on this, their common and distinctive features were determined, on the basis of which the classification of binary oppositions was carried out.

In addition, the article used the deductive method, which made it possible to investigate the issue of binary oppositions and toposystems from its general concepts to specific provisions. Thus, at the beginning of the work, an analysis of the regional system of Kazakhstan was carried out, namely, the regions bordering Russia were determined. Their names were specified, and the main features were analyzed. Subsequently, these principles were outlined, namely, a system of binary terms was developed, based on the results obtained above, that is, established toponyms of this transboundary zone.

The research was carried out in three stages, which involved the implementation of relevant tasks. At the first stage, the general principles relating to binary oppositions were revealed. Accordingly, the content of the entire toposystem was described, as well as its properties were revealed in comparison with other language tools, in particular antonyms. At the second stage, binary names were classified by toponyms, the results of which are shown schematically. Next, the direct geographical names of Kazakhstan’s cross-border regions adjacent to the border with Russia were studied. At the third stage, a discussion was organized, which made it possible to study positions in scientific doctrine. In particular, the works of various scientists, which related to the object of this study both directly and indirectly, were analyzed. Also at this stage, the results obtained were compared with the conclusions of other researchers. Based on this, logical conclusions were formed and approaches to the further development of this scientific work were considered. In the work scientific literature, dictionaries, archives were studied.

3 Results

In lexical antonyms, when the contradiction is expressed as a chain of meaninglessness and “comes from comparing the quality, excess, and quantity of objects, phenomena in the world” (Bolganbayuly and Kaliuly 1997), binary opposition along toponyms cannot be a clear contradiction. The contradiction of toponyms is recognized in the toponymic context, and sometimes it is even possible that it is not a semantic contradiction, but a related series. Constantly in lexical contradiction– large and small, black and white, new and old, narrow and wide – in the top system, the place of opposites is different. In lexical opposition, big, small, white, black, new, old, narrow, wide, etc., are regularly used, and so one is an antonym, and the position of these opposites in topology is different. Take, for example, Ulkenkol-Kishikol; it might be assumed that the toponyms were originally set in relation to the size of the lake, its coverage area, and formed a mutual binary (Kostić 2015, 2017; Muikku-Werner 2015). However, over time, Ulkenkol became smaller in size, so the Kishikol semantic opposition to the name may cease to exist. Therefore, the contradiction between toponyms is measured by the speed of time, considered from the point of view of the past.

History can not only “separate” toponyms, but also “add” them again due to the fact that the object was once destroyed. Such thing can be said about the toponyms Verkhnii Tagil – Nizhnii Tagil. When these names were formed, mutual binary opposition was formed. However, over time, Nizhnii Tagil developed significantly and became a large city, while Verkhnii Tagil remained at the level of a relatively small village. However, later, when Verkhnii Tagil received the status of a city, the two toponyms again formed binary pairs with each other. (Glinskikh 1987)

That is, in order to maintain the relevance of the contradiction that occurred at the time of the appearance of toponyms, it is important that these objects belong to the same category.

Figure 1 shows an Euler diagram representing the relationship between the toponyms Ulkenkol and Kishikol.

Figure 1:

Euler diagram of toponyms Ulkenkol and Kishikol.

The diagram features two overlapping circles, with the larger circle labeled Ulkenkol and the smaller, overlapping circle labeled Kishikol. The overlapping area symbolizes the shared characteristics or close geographical relationship between the two locations, while the distinct areas of each circle represent their unique attributes. This diagram is designed to be simple and clear, focusing on illustrating the concept of binary toponyms in an abstract way.

Such antonyms, called binary names (opposites), make a significant contribution to the enrichment of the lexical fund of the toposystem. In particular, it can provide accurate data in revealing the landscape, and the historical and social conditions of the region. That is, the establishment of contradictions in the toposystem makes it possible to determine the diverse structural and typological character of a particular region, as well as determine the principles of naming places (Debois and de Stefani 2022; Heyd 2022; Tamás 2021).

Binary names are often found throughout the Turkic onomastic space, and in the Kazakh toposystem as well. This is evidenced by the accumulated linguistic data on the Northern and Western transboundary regions. Binary names along the toponyms of these regions, depending on the structural and semantic system, can be considered as:

1. binary rows with large and small names;

2. binary rows with black and white names;

3. binary rows with other names. Among these rows the first two types form the most productive binary series (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Quantitative indicator of binary names in cross-border regions of Kazakhstan. Source: compiled by the authors based on works from Debois and de Stefani (2022), Heyd (2022) and Tamás (2021).

4 Discussion

Having considered the practical principles of the implementation of the research question, it is advisable to focus on its theoretical basis. For this, it is appropriate to refer to the positions of scientists regarding binary opposition, as well as toposystems in general. In particular, Özata (2020) investigated the meaning of the concept of “binary oppositions” and also revealed their properties. Thus, the researcher managed to prove that the above-mentioned object was a pair of terms that are related to each other, and their characteristic feature is the opposite in meaning. Accordingly, due to the formation of binary oppositions, it is possible to oppose two completely different objects in terms of language. In his study, the scholar gives examples of such speech compounds that are mutually exclusive, including on and off, up and down, low and high. The practical meaning and essence of binary oppositions is revealed in the fact that their content allows for the reflection of the necessary concept characterized by structuralism. In addition, he noted that the meaning of such contrasting terms was to establish differences between the basic principles defined by the language of a particular state or the thinking of citizens. The described position may allow for a thorough description of the meaning of the concept of “binary opposition,” which contributes to the development of its perfect understanding and characteristics. Moreover, the approaches revealed in the researcher’s work are general, which allows for a shaping of a classical idea of the perceived contrasts of linguistic compounds.

Much like the previously mentioned research, a study conducted by Akbari and Ashrafzadeh (2021) delved into the analysis of binary poetic oppositions. In his opinion, it is binary oppositions that serve as the basis among poemonymic oppositions, since among them there are single-component and multi-component, which in turn consist of a combination of two elements. Thus, he noted that such an opposition was quite often associated with such a linguistic element as antithesis, which as a result made it possible to compare a pair of opposed objects, concepts, and names. The approach of this researcher stands out among others in scientific doctrine, because it is based on presenting of binary oppositions as complementary unities. In this context, it may be necessary to furtherly confirm the obtained conclusions in order to understand on the basis of which criteria the concept with the property of mutual responsibility is endowed.

In turn, De Giorgi et al. (2021) believe that binary opposition belongs to such a type of opposition as “no-no” pairs or the interweaving of linguistic compounds of four components. Undoubtedly, there is a contradiction in the given classification due to the criteria for its construction. However, the researcher’s statement that in a binary opposition a pair of terms are opposite in meaning, but merge into one, is convincing. In this case, full agreement with the provided principles is challenging, as the principles do not entirely align with the overarching theoretical tenets concerning binary oppositions. However, it should be emphasized that in the process of highlighting binary oppositions, the essential aspect lies in the direct difference between the elements, rather than in the decorative arrangement. But the current study highlights that unlike simple lexical antonyms (e.g., big/small, black/white), the contradiction in toponyms is recognized in their toponymic context and may not always be a semantic contradiction but rather a related series.

Bijak (2021) analyzed the topic of this study in detail in her work. To a greater extent, her research was based on the components of the toposystem, namely, oikonyms. Thus, she managed to establish that the use of the latter contributed to the possibility of establishing both language units and their entire system. Accordingly, the formation of a set of concepts makes it possible to form a complete toponymic landscape of a certain territory or region of the country, in the context of its regional-spatial analysis. Thus, this element of the toposystem is its organic component and makes it possible to analyze the features of a specific territory. Therefore, toponymic vocabulary is harmonized, which is accompanied by the development of the mental component. The given study may contain important conclusions, in particular, that the ontological being of a separate toponymic system is undeniably unified and connected with its mental content (Bijak 2021).

Bai et al. (2021) paid special attention directly to the “toponymic system” category. In their opinion, in order to carry out a qualitative analysis of the structural elements of the toposystem, it is advisable to establish the content of the latter. Thus, the concept of the mentioned system formed by the scholar is revealed as a regular organization of a certain number of toponyms related to a certain geographical region. According to the researcher, the formation of the toponymic system is largely determined by the number of regions in the states, in particular Kazakhstan. Based on this, each geographical object is characterized by a set of toponyms, which in turn require classification and grouping, which will allow to harmonize their content among themselves. In this process, a noticeable feature is the juxtaposition of concepts, in particular toponyms (Bai et al. 2021). The results obtained by the researcher fully correspond to the results obtained in the present research, as the toponymic system is proven to be separate from the general language and forms its own structure.

Ardanuy et al. (2020) also revealed the theoretical foundations of the toponymic system. The research demonstrated that the territory served as the foundation for the toponymic context, leading to a syntagmatic opposition responsible for the usage of terms and names based on the characteristics of the area. The researcher emphasized that the syntagmatic opposition of toponyms was in their non-linearity, which distinguished them from common language ones. Thus, such toponyms exhibit the presence of the main word, root, and suffix, while also incorporating an opposing element. Moreover, instances exist where toponyms can be paradigmatically linked, such as when they belong to a homonymous series and vary based on their association with distinct classes of concepts (Ardanuy et al. 2020). The presented ideas can be considered accurate, as they involve a systematic analysis of the types of toponyms constituting a comprehensive system of opposing concepts.

The discussion made it possible to describe the most common approaches in scientific doctrine regarding binary oppositions and their place in the topological system. In addition, the far-sighted ideas of researchers indicate that at the moment there is no absolute approach to establishing the content of the above-mentioned elements. However, to a greater extent, the obtained results correspond to the revealed positions of other scientists who established the features of binary oppositions and the structure of the toponomic system. The text provides numerous examples from the Kazakh toposystem, showing how binary names are used to describe various geographical features. These binary names not only have a semantic role but also reflect historical, social, and landscape conditions of the regions they denote. The text discusses how binary oppositions in toponyms are part of a broader structural and semantic system, which helps in understanding the diverse structural and typological characteristics of regions. These observations underscore the significance of studying toponyms in the field of onomastics (the study of names) for understanding the interplay between language, geography, and culture. This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights into the dynamic nature of toponyms, their role in reflecting and influencing cultural and geographical landscapes, and the complexities involved in their study.

5 Conclusions

The research findings confirmed the presence of binary opposition within the toponymic context, manifesting as a semantic contradiction. However, it is worth noting that there are instances where related series are formed instead of direct contradictions. Thus, the key criteria for the emergence and persistence of opposition are the moment of its inception and the affiliation of opposing elements or categories to the same group. Antonyms hold a significant role in enriching the toposystem’s vocabulary. Typically, these antonyms can be regarded as binary concepts, with their essence lying in their ability to highlight essential properties and distinctive characteristics of the region they are in binary opposition with. For example, the landscape, culture, and social conditions of various territories can be vividly contrasted through these antonyms. It is important to emphasize that the formation of opposition within the toposystem enables the identification and exploration of various aspects of the structural and typological nature of a specific locality. Moreover, these contrasts play a pivotal role in the nomenclature of regions, as they effectively describe their salient features or draw comparisons with neighboring regional units. The study conducted a classification of binary names based on the toponyms of Kazakh regions, with the structural-semantic system serving as the foundational criterion. Consequently, the study delineated binary series with uppercase and lowercase names, binary pairs with black and white names, and binary sequences with other designations. Among these types, the first two are the most dynamic and effective in generating binary series.

In light of these findings, it becomes evident that the scope of general binary oppositions does not extend beyond the regularities on which toponyms are constructed. These oppositions primarily illustrate specific characteristics of objects and regions. Subsequent research endeavors should focus on delineating the criteria underlying the formation of binary oppositions.