2. Home
  3. Journal Issues
  4. Journal issue Volume 4 №2 for 2025
  5. Snezhitskij P.V. Definitive cluster “physical culture”: semantic structure from the generic concept “culture” to the specific concept “health”

Snezhitskij P.V. Definitive cluster “physical culture”: semantic structure from the generic concept “culture” to the specific concept “health”

Download the article in pdf format

Publication date: 15.06.2025
DOI: 10.24412/2782-6570-2025_04_02_1
UDC 796.011.1:81'373.46

DEFINITIVE CLUSTER “PHYSICAL CULTURE”: SEMANTIC STRUCTURE FROM THE GENERIC CONCEPT “CULTURE” TO THE SPECIFIC CONCEPT “HEALTH”

P.V. Snezhitskij

Grodno State Medical University, Grodno, Belarus

Abstract. The article presents the results of theoretical research devoted to the problem of the categorical and conceptual framework development of the physical culture theory (a system of concepts reproducing different sides (meaning, significance, structure, etc.) of the object studied by science) from the positions of philosophical anthropology, culturology, semantics and linguistics. Aim of the study: theoretical justification of a new interpretation of the main definitions of the physical culture theory’s categorical and conceptual framework in the light of recent research based on semantic analysis. The study uses methods of theoretical analysis, generalization and synthesis of published online scientific research in the field of pedagogy and physical culture theory. The keyword combinations built on the basis of semantic interrelations and semantic ranks allowed us to identify the definitive cluster (a set of terms united by a generic concept) of the concept “physical culture” as “cultivation of human nature with the aim of its improvement” and to present it by the following chain of combined terms: physical culture → motor culture → nutrition culture → body culture → health culture. Consequently, from the culturological and anthropological positions, “personal physical culture” as an integrative concept is a set of cognitive, motor, gastronomic (or nutritional), corporeal and valeological values that provide homeostasis of an individual (and, therefore, the human population as a whole) in the relevant for a particular cultural and historical stage of society development in its inherent natural and socio-environmental conditions. Due to the newly discovered scientific knowledge and research approaches in philosophical anthropology, pedagogy and sociology of personal physical culture, the process of the categorical and conceptual framework formation of the physical culture theory cannot be static, it is dynamic. Consequently, it allows and requires from the modern scientific community to timely adjust the basic terms interpretation and concepts according to the semantic canons relevant for a particular historical period, allowing more realistically reflect the connection of subject matter and the term, word combination or thesis representing it.

Keywords: physical culture theory, scientific knowledge, terms, definitions, semantics.

Introduction. At the current stage of society development in conditions of modern creative and pedagogical civilization, where a shift in educational paradigm occurs (direction towards a highly educated and self-sufficient person), a primary goal of education is the formation of a versatile, harmonious and free personality as a carrier of fundamental cultural values, including physical culture. However, to date, the issues of achieving a stable semantic standard (or benchmark) [1-6] in the categorical and conceptual framework (a system of concepts that reproduce different aspects (meaning, significance, definition, connection, structure) of the object studied by science) of the physical culture theory (PCT) remain controversial, which confirms the lack of validity of the identification, semantic, theoretical and conceptual framework in this field [7-21].

A constant consideration of the issue of PCT’s categorical and conceptual framework in the history of scientific pedagogical knowledge development (since the main field for implementing physical culture methods is pedagogy) is accompanied by a number of controversial opinions (their points of connection, crossing, discrepancies)  [12, 14], which indicates incomplete semantic process of forming basic definitions and their interrelation in definitive clusters (a system of concepts united by a semantic link) of scientific knowledge on physical culture or culture of a human nature (“physics” comes from the ancient Greek “φύσις” – “nature” and “φυσική” – “natural”). The fact that up to this moment the scientific society has offered and is successfully using more than 200 interpretations of the term “physical culture” adds to that [8, 12, 22]. This is due to the ever-expanding variety of  “colors, tones, semitones and shades” in the PCT’s scientific palette in the light of new research approaches, which initiates a forced retreat from the classical interpretation of basic terms, concepts and theses [10]. However, there is a danger of institutional and culturological aberrations leading to a further distortion of initially accepted as a basis and non-compliable to semantic canons universal and unique scientific definitions [10, 23].

In the history of science, there is a vast number of such phenomenon’s examples. The most eloquent of them is the case known since antiquity, when the ancient Greek astronomer Ptolemy repeatedly tried to substantiate the theory of the geocentric (with the planet Earth in the center) planetary system’s multilevel structure. Since the theory was wrong from the start, as scientific research progressed, it required more and more additional explanations, corrections and alterations connected with the observed orbits of planets and the Sun’s movement, up until the Copernican’s heliocentric theory of the solar system (with the Sun at the center) was adopted , which put everything in its place. In our case, by taking as a starting point the generic notion of “culture” and its derived generic notion of “physical” in their original semantic meaning (from primary sources), we can convey to the general public at a more popular level a true understanding of the deeper meaning of the term “physical culture”, while the vast majority of ordinary people (and often specialists) associate it with “sports” and “motor activity”.

In our opinion, a way to solve the current issue of categorical and definitive  diversity is a return to the beginning (the source or relict source material) origin of the term “physical culture” and consequent interpretation, related main concepts in the PCT’s scientific knowledge according to semantics in terms of anthropology  (the branch of science that studies the origin and development of human beings in the process of interaction with natural and cultural environment), since the term “physical culture” is mainly used in relation to humans, excluding all other forms of the Earth’s flora and fauna. Consequently, from the positions of philosophical anthropology and cultural studies, in the centre of our semantic system ‘physical culture’ should be such semantic category as ‘personality’, which is a civilization embodiment of cognitive, spiritual, motor and corporeal values of a human.

From nature, a human receives their physical body as a unique high-tech and ready for development biological material (or template) for self-creation in direct interaction with the surrounding biogeosociocenosis (biological, geographic, climatic and social conditions of the environment). Since birth, some get a more or less effective one, but in whole, due to adaptive mechanisms, subject for exposure of education or self-education (creation of purposeful influence of external conditions for human development and self-development, mastering social experience, culture, values and norms of the community interacting with them). The template’s result depends on a person themselves and their environment, as well as depth of their interaction. It is noteworthy that by improving their body thanks to adaptive mechanisms (first of all, its motor and cognitive functions), a person acquires, in the process of expanding their motor and intellectual capabilities, better tools (high level of function development) for further self-improvement (expansion of motor and cognitive capabilities), and this further contributes to their motor-cultural, body-cultural, intellectual-cultural progress [15, 16, 24].

Aim of the study: theoretical justification of a new interpretation of the main definitions of the PCT’s categorical and conceptual framework (in the light of recent research) based on a semantic analysis to obtain interpretations available for a broader group of population, who currently use the term “physical culture” in its somewhat distorted meaning.

Methods and organization. The study included methods of theoretical analysis, generalization and synthesis of online (eLibrary.ru, CyberLeninka scientific online libraries, Lan system, disserCat dissertation library etc.) scientific research in the field of pedagogy and PCT.

Results and discussion. Construction of semantic relations and semantic ranks of key word combinations has allowed to identify the definitive cluster of the term “physical culture” as “cultivation of human nature with the aim of its improvement” and to present it by the following chain of combined terms: physical culture → motor culture → nutrition culture → body culture → health culture. Consequently, from the culturological and anthropological positions, “personal physical culture” as an integrative concept is a set of cognitive, motor, gastronomic (or nutritional), corporeal and valeological values that provide homeostasis of an individual (and, therefore, the human population as a whole) in the actual for a particular cultural and historical stage of society development in its inherent natural and socio-environmental conditions.

The word combination used in our modern understanding as “physical culture” was first applied in England at the end of the XIX century as the term “bodily culture” in the semantic meaning of “culture of the human body” [10]. In Russia, the word combination became popular in the early XX century in the modern interpretation as the term ‘physical culture’. At that time physical culture was understood as human and social activity aimed at physical education and health improvement [13, 16]. Nowadays, the most accessible for an ordinary user and popular among other interpretations (the first that appears on a monitor after a Google search) is a thesis, which is a result of collective scientific labor of internet users, who wished to participate in the interpretation of this term, taking into account the numerous points of view of physical culture theorists and practitioners (including ours): physical culture is a part of the general culture of mankind, which is a combination of intellectual, spiritual and material values (scientific and popular knowledge; motor, corporeal and behavioral standards, norms and traditions; physical culture and sport inventory, equipment, constructions etc), created and used by society for multidirectional physical, spiritual and intellectual development (activity), creation of a healthy lifestyle and health itself, as well as social adaptation through physical education.

The same source points that the term “culture” means “cultivation” in ancient Greek, “physics” (physical) – “nature” (natural). While linking these word forms in a word combination, it is logical to assume that when we say “physical culture”, we mean “cultivation of human corporeal nature”, i.e. we have a purposeful influence on the natural development of an individual of “Homo sapiens” for the purpose of motor (expansion of the motor capabilities) and  corporeal (improvement of external forms and functions) improvement, aimed at increasing the quality of life activity in its subsequent interaction with the surrounding biogeosociococenosis (biological, geographical and social environment of a particular human population). In this case, the key points are taken by the main measure of physical culture, i.e. physical exercise (or modelled and repetitive motor action, subject to an objective of physical improvement of a human) and motor activity in whole, which play the role of a bricklayer that creates a cultural and natural masterpiece – a proportionally constructed and functionally independent human body – from the building materials that the body receives (food).

In other words, physical culture lies at the basis of personal self-sufficiency. According to the studies of I.A. Nikonova (2010) [25], the definition of “self-sufficiency” is interpreted as a “complex organization of combined internal qualities of a person (including physical ones), allowing it to successfully realize itself in creative, social and professional activities and meet the requirements of society for all members of a given society, and bring inner satisfaction from the results of these activities”.

Thus, physical culture is the “keystone” in destiny of both one specific person and all representatives of a world society in whole (it can be said that it is manifested in the indicators of efficiency of the motor-active material or physical body as a multifunctional biological carrier, expressor and embodiment of human cognitive potential). From the point of view of philosophical anthropology that suggests considering the definition of “personal physical culture” as a result of spontaneous (daily motor activity) and purposeful (specific motor activity) motor and gastronomic interaction with (but not limited to) the environment, contributing to improvement of human’s nature through creation of intellectual, spiritual and material values, we can logically relate the following concepts as constituent components and accompanying definitions [6, 17, 18, 21, 22]:

- motor culture (as a set of traditional, basic and elite values of human motor sphere (physical qualities and motor skills), providing safe and effective interaction with the environment as well as mastering of movements, forms and functions of the body);

- nutrition culture (as a set of nutritional, etiquette and dieting values, providing metabolism with bioenergetics (energy function of nutrients) and “building” (plastic function of nutrients) materials for cognitive, corporeal and functional development of an individual and their motor interaction with the environment);

- body culture (as a set of aesthetic, hygienic and plastic values, providing proportional body constitution and effective interaction of a human with the environment through the musculoskeletal system, as well as a carrier, an embodiment and expressor of personal cognitive functions);

- health culture (as a set of cognitive, motor, gastronomical and corporeal values, providing human homeostasis as an open biological system in biogeosociocenosis).

Since the basis of a human’s physical culture includes motor culture (as a locomotive that sets in motion the whole composition of subsequent types of personal culture), and any cultural motor action (creative, sports, combat, labor, household, leisure, etc.) is a civilizational value [7, 23, 26, 27], it makes sense to dwell on its definitive structure, consisting of the following main components: mass (basic), popular and elite [19, 20].

The elite motor culture is a set of motor and cultural values (motor standards or motor masterpieces), represented by various forms of individual and collective high-cultural movement activity in the performing arts (ballet, choreography, etc.), elite sports (variety of sports: gymnastics, track-and-field, martial arts, sports games, etc.), and integrative forms that combine the first two (figure skating, ice theatre or circus on ice, ice performances, circus art, etc.), which belong to creative and sporting professional communities [18].

Popular motor culture is a set of motor and cultural values (motor relics), represented by forms of individual and collective traditional motor and cultural activity formed over many generations and reflected in motor-activity and behavioral algorithms of demographic social and ethnic communities (folk dances, rituals, games, festivities, etc.), which are characteristic to a greater extent of the rural population of the modern world community [17, 18].

Mass (basic) motor culture is a set of motor and cultural values (physical conditions, motor skill, static and dynamic position, locomotion, motor manipulation and imitation), represented by everyday forms of individual and collective motor-cultural activity in domestic, labor, leisure and other spheres of human life, as well as regulated by generally accepted norms of behavior, canons of a healthy lifestyle and mass physical culture and sport [17, 18].

Thus, if we return the origins, as it was already established earlier in historical and theoretical studies, the foremother of physical exercises was existential combat (ensuring the survival of an individual in combat interaction with animals and similar beings in hunting and warfare) [13, 17, 27] and labor (ensuring the survival of an individual in labor interaction with flora and fauna in the process of building a house, cultivating soil, preparing food for oneself and for animals as well as caring for them etc) motor activity, then the change in the purpose of combat and labor actions, as well as the ways of their performance contributed to the development of methods of physical improvement of a human with the same purpose – for even more successful interaction with the surrounding biological and social environments in different climatic and geographical conditions. And this puts the mass (basic) motor culture among the others as the top priority, as preserving homeostasis not only for a particular individual (or a small elite community), but for the whole human population on the Earth as a whole.

Consequently, from the culturological and anthropological positions [15, 16, 26], “personal physical culture” as an integrative concept is a set of cognitive, motor, gastronomic (or nutritional), corporeal and valeological values that provide homeostasis of an individual (and, therefore, the human population as a whole) in the actual for a particular cultural and historical stage of society development in its inherent natural and socio-environmental conditions.

Conclusion. In connection with the newly discovered scientific knowledge and research approaches in philosophical anthropology, pedagogy and sociology of personal physical culture the process of forming the PCT’s categorical and conceptual framework cannot be static. It is dynamic, and it allows to timely correct the interpretation of the main terms and concepts in accordance with semantic canons relevant for a particular historical period, allowing a more realistic reflection of the relationship between the subject and the term representing it. Thus, on the basis of semantic analysis of recent theoretical studies, the interpretations of the main definitions of the PCT’s categorical and conceptual framework are supplemented and updated, which will be available to a broader group of people both in the common environment and in the pedagogical one, among physical culture and sport specialists. The study identifies the constituent components of the definitive cluster of generic concepts “culture” and “physical culture”, presented as a set of terms united by semantic chain: culture ↔ physical culture ↔ motor culture ↔ nutrition culture ↔ body culture ↔ health culture. All the above proposed concepts form directly the semantic and content structure of movement culture at all its levels (elite, popular and mass), which allows us to define its role as leading in the formation of personal physical culture, and basic movement culture as a priority in the homeostasis of the human population. In our opinion, the obtained results of the study represent a certain theoretical significance and can be used in the TPC in the category of complementary scientific knowledge in the scientific branch of the same name.

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Batura T.V. Semantic analysis and methods of text meaning representation in computer linguistics. Software and systems, 2016, no. 4 (116). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/semanticheskiy-ana­liz-i-sposoby-predstavleniya-smysla-teksta-v-komp­yuternoy-lingvistike (accessed 12.04.2024) (in Russ.)
  2. Gurdaeva N.A. Principles of structural organization of lexical terms as a result of genus-species relations of the system of concepts. Bulletin of the Taganrog Institute named after A.P. Chekhov, 2011, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/printsipy-strukturnoy-organizatsii-leksiches­kih-terminov-kak-rezultat-rodo-vidovyh-otnosheniy-sistemy-ponyatiy (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  3. Il'in V.V. About the tasks of semantics as a science. linguistic – logical – philosophical semantics: subject-creative differentiation and cooperation. Liberal arts in Russia, 2022, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/o-zadachah-semantiki-kak-nauki-lingvisticheskaya-logicheskaya-filosofskaya-semantika-predmetno-tvorcheskoe-razgranichenie-i (date accessed: 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  4. Mingkulova N.B. What is linguistics. Economics and society, 2019, no. 4 (59). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/chto-takoe-lingvistika (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  5. Ovchieva Yu.A. Semantic web – a promising platform for knowledge management system. Vestnik Universiteta, 2015, no. 3, pp. 14-16. (in Russ.)
  6. Harlamov A.A. Ermolenko T.V. Text analysis: linguistics, semantics, pragmatics in the cognitive approach. Problems of Artificial Intelligence, 2015, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/analiz-tekstov-lingvistika-semantika-pragmatika-v-ramkah-kognitivnogo-podhoda (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  7. Bal'sevich V.K. Development of human motor po­tential. Russian Journal of Physiotherapy, Balneolo­gy and Rehabilitation, 2003, 5, pp. 35-36. (in Russ.)
  8. Vizitej N.N. Theory of Physical Culture: Towards Correction of Basic Concepts. Philosophical Essays. Moscow: Sovetskij sport, 2009. 184 p. (in Russ.)
  9. Drandrov G.L., Burcev V.A., Burceva E.V. Theoretical grounds of interaction of physical and sports cultures. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2013, no. 6. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoreticheskie-osnovy-vzaimodeystviya-fizicheskoy-i-sportivnoy-kultury (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  10. Kuramshin Yu.F. On the object and subject of the theory of physical culture as a scientific and academic discipline: historical and comparative analysis. Scientific Notes of the P.F. Lesgaft University, 2006, no. 22. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-obekte-i-predmete-teorii-fizicheskoy-kultury-kak-nauchno-uchebnoy-distsipliny-istoriko-sravnitelnyy-analiz (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  11. Lubysheva L.I. V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach to physical activity of senior and elderly people. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2020, no. 8, pp. 3-5. (in Russ.)
  12. Matveev L.P. Generalizing theory of physical culture at the current stage of its development. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2009, no. 9, pp. 16-17. (in Russ.)
  13. Mel'nikova N.Yu. History of physical culture: science, academic discipline and historiography. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2015, no. 4. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/isto­riya-fizicheskoy-kultury-nauka-uchebnaya-distsip­lina-i-istoriografiya (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  14. Nikolaev Yu.M. The essence of theory of physical culture. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2015, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoriya-fizicheskoy-kultury-chto-zhe-eto-takoe (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  15. Salikhova N.R. The Value-Meaning Sphere of the Individual’s Life Space and the Level of Human Physical Ability. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2015, no. 4. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/
    tsennostno-smyslovoy-relief-zhiznennogo-prostranstva-lichnosti-i-uroven-fizicheskogo-razvitiya-cheloveka (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  16. Sinitsina I.A., Uvarova L.N. Bodily culture as a factor of formation of health creative of a person’s behavior. Health and Education Millenium, 2016, no. 2. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/telesnaya-kultura-kak-faktor-formirovaniya-zdoroviesozidayuschego-povedeniya-lichnosti (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  17. Snezhitskij P.V. Motor culture: genesis, state, problems. A monograph. Grodno: Grodno State Agrarian University, 2022. 282 p. (in Belarusian)
  18. Snezhitskij P.V. Formation of personal motor culture in professional and social communities of rural regions of the Republic of Belarus. A monograph. Grodno: Grodno State Medical University, 2024. 308 p. (in Belarus).
  19. Snezhitskij P., Romanova E., Kolokoltsev M., Vorozheikin A., Smirnov S., Bolotin A., Tarasov A., Aganov A. Complex pedagogical diagnostics of personal motor activity. Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), vol. 22 (11), pp. 2681-2687. (in Russ.)
  20. Snezhitskij P., Romanova E., Bolotin A., Kraynik V., Ketrish E., Andyukhina T., Arnst N., Tyupa P., Aganov S., Plotnikova I. Results of testing an improved methodology for assessing the dynamic performance of rural population in Belarus. Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), no. 24 (1), pp. 29-35.
  21. Stolyarov V.I. Modern theory of the physical education (problems, solutions, innovative conception). Science and Sport: Current Trends, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1 (10), pp. 13-25. (in Russ.)
  22. Stolyarov V.I. A pretentious but unsuccessful at­tempt to rethink the basic foundations of the physical culture theory (critical notes). Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, 2011, no. 10, pp. 32-36. (in Russ.)
  23. Stolyarov V.I. Sports science as an integrative discipline: history, current state, ways of improvement. Moscow: Sovetskij sport, 2023. 353 p. (in Russ.)
  24. Gimpel’ L.P. Formation of the intellectual culture of the personality as its creative beginning. New psychology of professional work of a teacher: from unstable reality to sustainable development, 2021, no. 1. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/formirovanie-intellektualnoy-kultury-lichnosti-kak-ee-tvorcheskogo-nachala (accessed 04.04.2024) (in Russ.)
  25. Nikonova, I.A. Definition of the concept of “personal self-sufficiency”. Vestnik Bashkirskogo Universitets, 2010, no. 3. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/opredelenie-ponyatiya-samodostatochnost-lichnosti (accessed 03.03.2024) (in Russ.)
  26. Girenok F.I. Approaches to the Philosophy of Man. Nauchnye trudy Moskovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta, 2018, no. 2. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/podstupy-k-filosofii-cheloveka (accessed 04.04. 2024) (in Russ.)
  27. Grigor’evich, V.V. General history of physical culture and sports: a learning guide. Moscow: Sovetskij sport, 2008. 286 p. (in Russ.)

INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
Pavel V. Snezhitskij – Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Physical Education and Sport, Grodno State Medical University, Grodno, Republic of Belarus, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

For citation: Snezhitskij P.V. Definitive cluster “physical culture”: semantic structure from the generic concept “culture” to the specific concept “health”. Russian Journal of Sports Science: Medicine, Physiology, Training, 2025, vol. 4, no. 2(14). DOI: 10.24412/2782-6570-2025_04_02_8

Search