Taboo Language and Pragmatic Constraints in English and Uzbek: A Comparative Pragmatic Analysis

Authors

  • Namangan State Institute of Foreign Languages

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18865238
Taboo Language and Pragmatic Constraints in English and Uzbek: A Comparative Pragmatic Analysis

Abstract

This comparative study examines taboo language and pragmatic constraints in English and Uzbek through the lens of sociolinguistic and pragmatic theory. Taboo words, euphemisms, and politeness strategies serve as cultural markers that reflect societal norms, values, and interpersonal dynamics. Drawing on recent cross-linguistic research, including multi-lab studies spanning 17 countries and 13 languages (Sulpizio et al., 2024), this article analyzes how speakers of English and Uzbek navigate sensitive topics such as bodily functions, death, disease, sexuality, and profanity. The study employs Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory as a theoretical framework to understand face-saving mechanisms and pragmatic strategies in both languages. Findings reveal that while English demonstrates moderate informality with context-dependent taboo use, Uzbek culture enforces stricter avoidance patterns rooted in Islamic values and collectivist social structures. The research contributes to cross-cultural pragmatics by highlighting culture-specific manifestations of linguistic taboo and their implications for intercultural communication, language teaching, and translation studies.

Keywords:

Taboo language pragmatic constraints euphemism politeness theory cross-cultural pragmatics English-Uzbek comparison

References

Abdel-Raheem, A., & Goubaa, M. (2024). Taboo language in a sample of Egyptian op-eds: A corpus-based socio-cognitive study. Discourse & Communication, 18(3), 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265241271491

Ahmed, S. (2024). English words interpreted as taboo in Arabic: A pragmatic study. American Journal of Social Humanities Research, 5(2), 12-25. https://globalresearchnetwork.us/index.php/ajshr/article/view/3897

Alimov, T. E., & Kupriyanova, M. E. (2024). Communicative and pragmatic peculiarities of euphemisms in Russian and Uzbek languages. Philology: Scientific Research, 6, 45-58. https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=43604

Allan, K. (2018). Taboo words and language. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of taboo words and language (pp. 1-25). Oxford University Press.

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.

Crespo-Fernández, E. (2025). Taboo language research in the new millennium: A literature review. Complutense Journal of English Studies, 33, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.5209/cjes.102066

Hazirdinov, I., & Lee, S. (2021). Euphemism in English and Uzbek: Relevance theoretic perspective. Journal of Studies in Language, 37(2), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.37.2.202108.227

Ibragimova, S. I. (2023). The cross-cultural specificity of the taboo: The example of the English and Uzbek languages. European Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 11(2), 50-62. https://geniusjournals.org/index.php/ejlat/article/view/5192

Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01115.x

Kirejeva, J. (2023). The use of taboo language in quarrels: The difference between men and women: A cross-cultural perspective. Beyond Language Journal, 12(3), 45-61. https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/beyond/article/view/10415

Mamadiyorova, S. M. (2025). A comparative analysis of neutral, positive, and negative pragmatic strategies in English and Uzbek languages. Spanish Journal of Innovation and Integrity, 12(1), 89-102. https://www.sjii.es/index.php/journal/article/view/381

Merriam-Webster. (2024). Taboo. Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/taboo

Oxford English Dictionary. (2024). Taboo. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com/

Pizarro Pedraza, A. (Ed.). (2018). Linguistic taboo revisited: Novel insights from cognitive perspectives. De Gruyter Mouton.

Stapleton, K. (2020). Swearing, good manners and social identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 24(1), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12375

Sulpizio, S., Günther, F., Beche-Ter, A., et al. (2024). Taboo language across the globe: A multi-lab study. Behavior Research Methods, 56(4), 3794-3813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02376-6

Xujanazarova, X., & Yusupova, S. B. (2023). The functions of euphemism in Uzbek language (On the example of O’tkir Hoshimov’s short stories). American Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 8, 23-29. https://americanjournal.org/index.php/ajrhss/article/view/334

Yuldosheva, V. (2025). Taboo and euphemism: A linguistic and cultural approach in Uzbek and German languages. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities Research, 3(1), 34-47. https://in-library.uz/index.php/ajsshr/article/view/122683

Published

Downloads

Author Biography

Dilshoda Gaybullo kizi Abdubokieva,
Namangan State Institute of Foreign Languages

Master’s student

How to Cite

Abdubokieva, D. G. kizi. (2026). Taboo Language and Pragmatic Constraints in English and Uzbek: A Comparative Pragmatic Analysis. The Lingua Spectrum, 2(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18865238