SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ETYMOLOGY OF KAZAKH TOPONYMS: DIVERGENCES AND CONVERGENCES OF SCHOLARLY APPROACHES

Abstract

The article systematizes scholarly interpretations presented in the literature concerning the etymology of Kazakh toponyms and examines their interrelations and contradictions from theoretical and methodological perspectives. Kazakh toponymy is demonstrated to constitute a multilayered semiotic system preserving historical and cultural data, information on ethnic composition and migration processes, natural-geographical features, and archaic linguistic strata. On this basis, the established scholarly approaches to explaining the origins of individual place names are analyzed, and alternative etymological interpretations are comparatively assessed.

The aim of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of various interpretations in order to determine their scientific validity, phonetic consistency, and semantic foundation, as well as to clarify theoretical coherence within Kazakh onomastics. The research focuses on hydronyms and orographic names such as Abyraly, Azgyr, Aksu, Alatay, Buktyrma, Bakanas, Ayagoz, and Urzhar. The analysis compares anthroponymic, ethnonymic, zoonymic, orographic, and substrate-based explanatory models and highlights the conceptual differences between folk and scholarly etymology. The methodological framework integrates comparative-historical analysis, phonetic reconstruction, morphemic segmentation, semantic motivation analysis, as well as linguocultural and cognitive approaches.

The findings demonstrate that the formation of Kazakh toponyms reflects not only Old Turkic foundations but also the influence of Mongolian and Arabic-Persian layers, semantic stratification, processes of transtonymization, and historical phonetic changes. The coexistence of multiple historical-semantic layers within a single toponym and its reinterpretation across different periods reveal the dynamic nature of place names. The study systematizes etymological interpretations, introduces methodological clarity, and proposes a comprehensive model for analyzing Kazakh toponyms. The results may serve as a basis for improving toponymic dictionaries, updating onomastics curricula, and advancing historical-linguistic research.