The Worldview of Turkishness in Kazakh and Turkish Anthroponyms

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.30564/fls.v7i9.11028
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This study explores the worldview of Turkishness reflected in Kazakh and Turkish anthroponyms with mythological roots, focusing on how names derived from celestial bodies, animals, and deities convey national identity and cultural continuity. The research aims to identify the symbolic and semantic values of mythologically embedded personal names (mythoanthroponyms) and their roles in representing collective memory and Turkic heritage. A mixed-method approach was adopted, combining descriptive linguistic analysis with survey-based quantitative data collected from 100 respondents– 50 Kazakh and 50 Turkish participants. The survey used Likert scales and multiple-choice questions to assess public attitudes toward myth-based names such as Böri, Arystan, Sholpan, Ayman, and Kambar. The results reveal significant cultural parallels and distinctions between the two linguistic communities. Kazakh respondents displayed higher acceptance of animal symbolism (especially the wolf and lion), while Turkish participants emphasized celestial and divine associations. The comparative analysis also indicated generational shifts, with younger respondents in both groups showing reduced awareness of mythological meanings. Diagrams isualize approval rates and symbolic associations across national lines. The study contributes to linguistic anthropology and onomastics by demonstrating how mythological semantics persist in naming practices and function as vehicles for identity transmission. It also highlights the relevance of interethnic comparative research in understanding cultural semantics. By bridging language, history, and mythology, this work provides valuable insight into the evolving nature of Turkishness in anthroponymic traditions. Future studies may expand the demographic scope and deepen the historical-linguistic analysis to include other Turkic-speaking populations.