The Perception of Bookish Religious Lexicon in Selected Poetry of Akmulla: Comprehensibility, Lexical Complexity, and Poetic Effect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1611.07Keywords:
poetic text, lexical complexity, poetic effect, bookish religious lexicon, reader perceptionAbstract
This study examines how bookish religious vocabulary in Akmulla’s poetry is perceived by contemporary Kazakh-speaking readers. The aim is to identify the relationship between text comprehensibility, lexical complexity, and poetic effect. The research materials were drawn from a corpus of 60 poetic stanzas, of which 10 were selected for experimental analysis, each containing one target lexical item. Data were collected through Google Forms, where participants evaluated stanzas containing Arabic-Persian-derived words. The results show that overall text comprehensibility remains relatively high despite lexical complexity. Although lexical difficulty is moderate, it does not significantly hinder understanding. At the same time, poetic effect scores are consistently high, indicating that readers are able to appreciate the aesthetic value of the text even when some lexical items are not fully understood. Correlation analysis reveals a weak relationship between comprehensibility and difficulty, and a slight positive relationship between difficulty and poetic effect. The A/B comparison results demonstrate that participants tend to prefer simplified variants in terms of clarity. However, the original bookish forms retain their aesthetic impact. These findings suggest that the perception of poetic texts operates on both cognitive and aesthetic levels. The study contributes to understanding the role of historical bookish vocabulary in modern reader perception and the mechanisms underlying poetic language processing.
References
Abdrakhim, M. (2018). The image of Kazakh officials in Kazakh folklore. Journal of history, 91(4), 298-303.
Abylkasov, G., Shayakhimov, D., Orazkhanova, M., Kazhibayeva, G., Smagulova, N., & Osken, A. (2025). Akmolla’s Poetry in the Context of Interliterary Relations: Continuity of Kazakh and Bashkir Linguo-Poetic Traditions. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(11), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i11.11576
Akhmetbekova, A. (2013). Sufi vocabulary in Kazakh poetry: semantics and usage. Almaty: Kazakh University.
Aubakirova, Zh., & Zhumagul, S. (2025). Kazakh and Tatar literary relations: based on the research of Berkit Iskakouly. Bulletin of Shokan Ualikhanov Kokshetau University Philological Series, 3, 192-206.
Baumann, J. F. (2005). Vocabulary-comprehension relationships. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 41–53). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cushing, I. (2020). “Suddenly, I am part of the poem”: Texts as worlds, reader-response and grammar in teaching poetry. English in Education, 54(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/04250494.2020.1785593
Däribaiuly, S. (2017). Islamic worldview in the poetry of Kazakh poets and zhyrau. Almaty: Science.
Fazylova, F. S. (2021). Spiritual and moral problems in the lyrics of Bashkir poets and educators (on the example of the work of m. Akmulla and m. Umetbayev). Uralsky scientific Vestnik, 3(2), 17-23.
Gürgil, F., & Erdağı, Ş. (2025). An Analysis of Digital Stories Prepared for Social Studies Course According to Reader-Response Theory. Uluslararası Sosyal Bilgilerde Yeni Yaklaşımlar Dergisi, 9(1), 61-80.
Iskakov, B. (2007). Ideological and creative ties of literature of the peoples of the Kazakh and Volga regions. Almaty: Arys.
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.
Kim, M. (2024). New reader response: An examination of three high-achieving high school readers and their literacies. Essays in Education, 31(1), 1-14.
Mataeva, A. K., Zhumagul, S. B., & Talgbekovna, A. (2022). Kazakh literary criticism of the end of the XX century at the beginning of the XXI century: searches in the study of the history of literature in a new way. Eurasian Journal of Philology: Science & Education, 187(3), 148-157.
Momeni, S. M., Aerila, J. A., & Routarinne, S. (2026). Classroom applications of the reader-response approach in primary and secondary education: A systematic review (1989–2024). L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 26(1), 1-39.
Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. International Reading Association.
Nursaid, N., Ghaluh, B. M., & Wulandari, E. (2025). An artificial intelligence assistant to reader response theory: Pioneering novel analysis in the digital age. Language Teaching Research, 1, 1-14.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Southern Illinois University Press.
Safari, M., & Mohaghegh Montazeri, M. (2017). The effect of reducing lexical and syntactic complexity of texts on reading comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(3), 59–83.
Spiegel, D. L. (1998). Reader response approaches and the growth of readers. Language arts, 76(1), 41-48.
Westwood, P. (2009). What teachers need to know about reading and writing difficulties. ACER Press.
Widayanti, M. J. A., Mujiyanto, J., Rukmini, D., & Pratama, H. (2025). Optimizing the Reader Response Approach: A Strategic Framework for Improving Reading Comprehension in EFL Classroom. Educational Process: International Journal, 15, 1-17.
Zhurtbay, T. (2021). "I also recognized him by his fingernails..."(Parables of Abai). Bulletin of the Karaganda university. Philology series, 101(1), 6-15.
