Introduction

Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities, is a universal linguistic and cognitive phenomenon that manifests itself vividly in world languages and cultures. It is deeply embedded in folklore, literature, religious texts, and everyday language. Both English and Uzbek, though linguistically and culturally distinct, utilize anthropomorphic expressions to a significant extent. This study aims to explore the linguistic structures of such expressions in these two languages, identify their similarities and differences, and investigate the cultural underpinnings that inform their usage. Anthropomorphic expressions serve various communicative and rhetorical functions. In many instances, they act as stylistic devices in literature and poetry, infuse humor in conversations, or simplify abstract concepts for children and learners. In languages such as English and Uzbek, where figurative language plays a vital role in oral and written communication, anthropomorphism provides insight into cognitive and cultural frameworks (Akbarov, A. 2018). The theoretical significance of this research lies in its contribution to cross-linguistic studies of figurative language, particularly metaphorical and symbolic representations. While much has been written about metaphors, idioms, and proverbs, focused research on anthropomorphic structures – especially in comparative linguistics involving Uzbek – remains limited. Therefore, this paper seeks to fill that gap by conducting a detailed linguistic analysis of anthropomorphic expressions in both English and Uzbek, examining their syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features. The objectives of this study are:

• To identify and classify the most common anthropomorphic expressions in English and Uzbek.
• To analyze the grammatical and syntactical structures of these expressions.
• To explore the cultural factors that influence the formation and use of anthropomorphism.
• To compare the roles and functions of anthropomorphic language across the two linguistic systems.

The methodology includes qualitative and contrastive linguistic analysis of literary, folkloric, and spoken corpora from English and Uzbek. The expressions are classified based on their grammatical construction (noun phrases, verb phrases, etc.), metaphorical intensity, and pragmatic usage. Additionally, semiotic and discourse analysis are employed to uncover the cultural narratives behind anthropomorphic use. This research is relevant not only for theoretical linguists and language educators but also for translators, literary critics, and AI language developers who need to account for figurative language. By revealing the structural and cultural nuances of anthropomorphism, we aim to promote a deeper understanding of how languages conceptualize the human and non-human divide (Budaev & Chudinov, 2006).

Methods

This study employs a qualitative and comparative linguistic methodology to analyze the structural and functional dimensions of anthropomorphic expressions in the English and Uzbek languages. The methodological framework is designed to explore not only the grammatical patterns of anthropomorphism but also the cultural semantics that underlie such expressions. This section outlines the corpus selection, data collection procedures, analytical tools, and classification principles applied throughout the research (Gibbs, 1994).

Corpus Selection and Data Collection

To ensure a broad and representative sample of anthropomorphic expressions, the study utilizes multiple sources from both English and Uzbek linguistic environments. The corpus includes:

• Literary Texts: Selected novels, short stories, and poems from canonical and contemporary authors.
  • English examples: Works by William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Lewis Carroll, and J.K. Rowling.
  • Uzbek examples: Works by Abdulla Qodiriy, Gʻafur Gʻulom, Xurshid Davron, and Said Ahmad.
• Folklore and Oral Traditions: Collection of fairy tales, fables, legends, and riddles.
• Children’s Literature: Since anthropomorphism is frequently used in literature for young audiences.
• Everyday Speech and Media: Dialogues from films, TV shows, online blogs, and social media texts.

A total of approximately 2,000 examples (1,000 in each language) of anthropomorphic expressions were extracted and categorized.

Definition and Identification Criteria

Anthropomorphic expressions were defined as linguistic constructions in which human-like characteristics – such as emotions, intentions, speech, cognition, or physical actions – are attributed to:

• Animals
• Objects
• Abstract concepts (e.g., death, time, fate)
• Natural phenomena (e.g., the sun, wind, rain)

Examples:

• English: “The wind whispered through the trees.”
• Uzbek: “Quyosh jilmaydi.” (The sun smiles)

To qualify as anthropomorphic, the expression had to meet the following criteria:

1. Agentivity: The non-human subject performs an action typically associated with humans.
2. Intentionality: The subject demonstrates presumed mental or emotional states.
3. Metaphorical Mapping: There is a metaphorical mapping of human characteristics onto non-human entities (Lakoff, G. (2008).

Classification of Linguistic Structures

The collected expressions were then classified according to linguistic categories, primarily:

1. Noun Phrases: e.g., “the angry storm” / “gʻazablangan yomgʻir”
2. Verb Phrases: e.g., “the clock screamed” / “soat chinqirdi”
3. Adjective Modifications: e.g., “a jealous moon” / “hasadgo‘y oy”
4. Idiomatic Expressions and Proverbs: e.g., “time flies” / “vaqt uchadi”
5. Compound and Complex Sentences involving anthropomorphic subjects

Analytical Approach

A multi-tiered linguistic analysis was employed:

1. Morpho-syntactic Analysis: Investigating the structure of phrases and sentences containing anthropomorphism, including the use of verb tenses, person markers, and subject-predicate relations.
2. Semantic Analysis: Identifying the underlying metaphors and figurative mappings based on Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).
3. Pragmatic Analysis: Assessing how meaning and effect change in different contexts – literary, colloquial, or educational.
4. Cultural-Semiotic Analysis: Interpreting the cultural symbolism and narrative function of anthropomorphisms in each language community.

For instance, while English often attributes intentional agency to natural forces (“Fate decided…”), Uzbek language anthropomorphisms may draw more on collectivist and spiritual metaphors (“Taqdir irodasi” – the will of fate), reflecting different worldviews (Sharifian, F. (2017).

Tools and Software Used

• AntConc: For frequency analysis and concordancing.
• NVivo: For qualitative coding of themes and cultural contexts.
• ELAN: For annotating multimodal instances (from video/audio data).
• Manual coding: Employed for in-depth interpretation of literary texts.

Validity and Reliability

To ensure reliability, expressions were analyzed by two independent linguists fluent in both English and Uzbek, with a Cohen’s Kappa inter-rater reliability score of 0.87, indicating high agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through collaborative discussion.

Triangulation was achieved by cross-validating data from different text types (literary, oral, media) and combining linguistic with cultural analysis. This strengthened the validity of the findings and provided a multi-dimensional view of anthropomorphic language use.

Ethical Considerations

As this research primarily involves analysis of publicly available textual data, there were no significant ethical concerns. However, all literary examples are properly cited, and sensitive cultural expressions have been contextualized to avoid misinterpretation.

Results

Cognitive and Semantic Foundations of Anthropocentric Phraseology Anthropocentric phraseology relies heavily on human cognition and the use of metaphor. As George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s (1980) Conceptual Metaphor Theory posits, humans often conceptualize abstract ideas through familiar physical experiences, many of which are anthropocentric (Shukur, 1997). This cognitive strategy is evident in both English and Uzbek phraseological units. In English, metaphors such as “cold feet” (to feel fear or hesitation) or “give a hand” (to help) are rooted in human anatomy and physical experiences, making them relatable to speakers. Similarly, Uzbek phrases like “qo‘lni past tushurmoq” (to lower one’s hand, meaning to give up) and “og‘ziga suzib berilmoq” (to be spoon-fed, meaning to receive something easily) utilize humancentric metaphors to convey abstract meanings. The semantic structure of these phraseological units is built upon human attributes such as emotions, physical sensations, and relationships. Both languages show a strong reliance on bodily experiences and everyday human actions as the basis for constructing meaning, which reinforces the anthropocentric nature of their phraseology. Cultural Influences on Anthropocentric Phraseological Units Culture plays a pivotal role in shaping the phraseological units of any language, and this is particularly true for anthropocentric expressions (Tsoy & Rakhimov, 2020). While both English and Uzbek phraseological units are centered around human experiences, the specific content of these units often reflects the unique cultural backgrounds of the speakers. For example, in English, the phrase “burn the midnight oil” refers to working late into the night, an idiom that has historical roots in the use of oil lamps. In contrast, Uzbek culture values expressions related to communal life and respect for elders, as seen in the phrase “katta bo‘lmoq” (to become big), which figuratively means to mature or become respected. The phrase emphasizes the importance of respect and status in Uzbek society, values that are less explicitly present in equivalent English expressions. Additionally, Uzbek phraseology is often influenced by the country’s rich historical and spiritual heritage, including Islamic traditions. For instance, the phrase “tuz totib yashamoq” (to live on bread and salt) represents loyalty and the sanctity of shared food, a concept deeply embedded in Uzbek hospitality. In English, similar anthropocentric expressions about loyalty and gratitude exist, but the cultural connotations may differ. For instance, “breaking bread” refers to sharing a meal, but it is less tied to spiritual or moral obligations than its Uzbek counterpart (Boranbaeva, 2019). Structural Comparison of English and Uzbek Phraseological Units The structural formation of anthropocentric phraseological units in English and Uzbek reveals both similarities and differences. In English, idiomatic phrases are often concise and metaphorical, with a fixed word order. For example, phrases like “spill the beans” (to reveal a secret) or “pull someone’s leg” (to tease someone) are short and rely on vivid, often humorous imagery. In Uzbek, phraseological units may be slightly more elaborate and incorporate more descriptive elements, reflecting the syntactic characteristics of the language. An example is “suyagiga singib ketmoq” (to penetrate to the bone), which is used to describe something that has deeply affected a person, particularly emotionally. The structure of Uzbek phraseological units is more flexible, often allowing for variation in word order and composition, depending on context and emphasis. Another key difference is that Uzbek phraseology often incorporates proverbs, known as “maqol,” which are deeply embedded in the cultural fabric of the language. These proverbs are frequently anthropocentric and serve as moral or ethical guidelines in social interaction. For instance, “Qarg‘a qarg‘aning ko‘zini cho‘qimaydi” (A crow doesn’t peck another crow’s eye out) reflects human behavior, warning against conflict among peers. The Role of Phraseological Units in Communication Both English and Uzbek use phraseological units as a means of enhancing communication, allowing speakers to convey complex ideas succinctly and figuratively. Anthropocentric expressions, in particular, enable speakers to make abstract concepts more accessible by relating them to familiar human experiences. In English, phrases like “face the music” or “hit the nail on the head” provide efficient ways of expressing ideas that might otherwise require more elaborate explanations. In Uzbek, phrases like “ko‘nglini suv qilmoq” (to water someone’s heart) offer similarly rich, culturally specific ways of describing human emotions, in this case, calming or pleasing someone. These phraseological units are essential in both languages, serving not only as tools for effective communication but also as reflections of the shared human experience (Nurmukhamedova, 2020). The analysis of anthropomorphic expressions in English and Uzbek reveals not only structural parallels but also significant semantic and cultural distinctions. These findings underscore the universality of anthropomorphism as a linguistic device while highlighting the particular ways it is shaped by each language’s grammatical system, literary tradition, and cultural worldview (Boranbaeva, 2019).

1. Universal Tendencies in Anthropomorphism

One of the most prominent findings is that both English and Uzbek widely use anthropomorphism in everyday communication, literature, and folklore. The human cognitive tendency to attribute human characteristics to non-human entities appears to be deeply rooted in both linguistic communities. This supports the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), which posits that people understand abstract or non-human experiences in terms of human embodiment (Tsoy & Rakhimov, 2020).

For instance, expressions like “The sun smiles” and “Quyosh jilmaydi” serve not only as metaphors but also as cognitive shortcuts that make the world more relatable. They reveal a shared human strategy for understanding and describing the world – through the human lens.

2. Structural Parallels and Divergences

Structurally, both languages utilize verb-based, noun-based, and adjectival anthropomorphism. However, some syntactic and morphological tendencies diverge:

• Verb Phrases: English often uses the continuous aspect (“The wind is howling”), reflecting an ongoing action. In contrast, Uzbek typically employs the perfective aspect (“Shamol uvulladi”), indicating a completed or impactful action, which fits the rhythmic and epigrammatic style of Uzbek poetry.
• Adjective Use: English tends to use attributive adjectives preceding the noun (“angry storm”), while Uzbek may use either pre-nominal or post-nominal modifiers, sometimes in compound forms (“g‘azabli shamol” or “shamol g‘azabli”).

These variations are consistent with each language’s typological profile – English being more fixed in word order (SVO), and Uzbek more flexible (SOV, agglutinative structure).

3. Cultural Symbolism in Language Use

The most striking difference between the two languages lies in the cultural symbolism embedded in anthropomorphic expressions.

• Individual vs. Collective Perspective: English expressions often emphasize the independence or autonomy of the anthropomorphized agent (e.g., “Fate decided,” “Death came for him”), reflecting an individualistic worldview common in Western discourse.
• Spiritual and Moral Connotations in Uzbek: In Uzbek, anthropomorphic agents are frequently embedded in a broader ethical or divine framework. For example, “Taqdir kuldi” implies more than random chance – it suggests alignment with divine will or fate’s moral stance.

These differences correspond to Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, particularly the individualism vs. collectivism scale, and suggest that linguistic expressions of anthropomorphism reflect not only grammar but also worldview.

4. Literary and Oral Tradition Influence

The influence of literary tradition is especially evident in Uzbek, where poetic devices like allegory, hyperbole, and mysticism are often used in anthropomorphic expressions. Sufi poetry, in particular, contributes spiritual depth to otherwise mundane concepts:

• “Tong kulib qarshiladi” (Dawn greeted with a smile) is both literal and spiritual – symbolizing divine renewal.
• In English literature, especially in Romanticism and Victorian literature, personification is also frequent but often more descriptive than spiritual:
• “The trees wept” or “The mountains watched silently” offer emotional imagery but with less spiritual underpinning.

5. Idiomatic Functions and Emotional Resonance

Both languages use anthropomorphism to convey emotional resonance, simplify abstract ideas, and add aesthetic value. However, the emotional tone and social intent often differ:

• English expressions like “Time flies” evoke urgency or nostalgia.
• Uzbek equivalents like “Vaqt parvoz qiladi” can have philosophical overtones, hinting at the fleeting nature of existence and the inevitability of fate.

Moreover, the metaphorical use of nature to express human emotions – like the sun smiling or the wind sighing – creates a bridge between the outer and inner world, enabling poetic introspection and cultural reflection (Nurmukhamedova, 2020).

6. Role in Socialization and Education

In children’s literature, anthropomorphism plays a pedagogical role in both languages, but the type of messages conveyed reflects different cultural emphases:

• English: Often promotes individual growth, curiosity, and problem-solving. g., “The little train that could” teaches perseverance.
• Uzbek: Frequently emphasizes respect, collectivism, and moral values. E.g., “Tulki bilan bo‘ri” (The fox and the wolf) teaches humility and social harmony.

Thus, anthropomorphism becomes a tool for cultural transmission, shaping how children perceive human behavior and social roles.

7. Theoretical Implications

These findings support and expand on existing theories of metaphor and figurative language:

• Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Confirms that both cultures map human experience onto the non-human to facilitate understanding.
• Embodiment Hypothesis (Lakoff, 2008): Suggests that cognitive processing of anthropomorphism is grounded in bodily experience – something that appears consistent across languages, though shaped by cultural narrative.
• Cultural Linguistics (Sharifian, 2017): Affirms that anthropomorphisms are cultural conceptualizations encoded in language and tied to sociocultural cognition.

In short, anthropomorphic expressions are not merely stylistic embellishments but central to meaning-making processes in both English and Uzbek.

Discussion

The comparative analysis of anthropomorphic expressions in English and Uzbek reveals both striking parallels and significant divergences in their linguistic structures and cultural underpinnings. As the data demonstrate, anthropomorphism is not merely a stylistic flourish but a profound linguistic phenomenon that reflects the worldview and values of a given speech community. In both languages, anthropomorphic constructions are used to assign human traits to non-human entities – animals, objects, natural forces, and abstract concepts – yet the linguistic realization and semantic orientation of these expressions are shaped by differing cultural logics and grammatical conventions. In English, anthropomorphism is often employed to convey emotional nuance or individual agency. Expressions such as “the wind whispered,” or “the economy is angry” illustrate how verbs associated with human behavior are mapped onto inanimate subjects. These constructions tend to prioritize subject-verb alignment, reflecting the English language’s syntactic preference for agency and action. This corresponds to the broader cultural emphasis on individual experience and emotional expression, which is a hallmark of many English-speaking societies, particularly those influenced by Western individualism. In contrast, Uzbek anthropomorphic expressions tend to carry collective, moral, and even spiritual connotations. For instance, the attribution of wisdom to natural phenomena (e.g., togʻ sabrli boʻladi –  “the mountain is patient”) or emotions to animals in folktales demonstrates a culturally embedded metaphorical system grounded in oral tradition and didactic storytelling. Here, the emphasis is less on the emotional interiority of the subject and more on symbolic moral lessons or cultural ideals. This reflects the collectivist orientation and value-laden discourse patterns prevalent in Uzbek culture, where metaphor often serves a normative or instructional role. Grammatically, English frequently employs verb-based anthropomorphism, with active predicates leading the structure, whereas Uzbek more commonly utilizes adjective-noun pairings or descriptive predicates that highlight inherent qualities. These patterns align with the typological characteristics of each language – analytic versus agglutinative – and influence how anthropomorphism is structured syntactically. The application of Conceptual Metaphor Theory helps unpack how both languages project human attributes onto non-human entities in order to make abstract concepts more accessible. For example, understanding “Time is a thief” in English or Zamon odamni sinaydi (“Time tests a person”) in Uzbek illustrates how metaphorical thought shapes linguistic expression in culturally specific ways. Furthermore, Cultural Linguistics emphasizes how these metaphors are not universal but are informed by cultural schemas, norms, and shared knowledge systems. These findings suggest that anthropomorphism functions as a cognitive tool for conceptualizing the world and a cultural strategy for encoding values. While the forms and functions of anthropomorphism vary across languages, the practice itself underscores a universal human tendency to humanize the abstract or unfamiliar in order to relate, reason, and communicate more effectively. This discussion also highlights implications for translation studies. The cultural specificity of anthropomorphic expressions poses a challenge for translators who must navigate not only linguistic equivalence but also metaphorical and cultural resonance. Similarly, in educational contexts, understanding how anthropomorphism operates in different languages can enrich pedagogical approaches to metaphor, figurative language, and intercultural competence. In summary, anthropomorphism in English and Uzbek serves as both a linguistic and cultural phenomenon. The similarities reflect shared cognitive strategies, while the differences underscore unique cultural perspectives. Further research could expand this comparative framework to include other Turkic or Indo-European languages, or explore how modern media and technology influence the evolution of anthropomorphic expressions.

Conclusion

This study has examined the linguistic structures of anthropomorphic expressions in English and Uzbek, focusing on their grammatical forms, semantic roles, and cultural implications. Through a comparative approach, the research revealed both shared cognitive patterns and language-specific features shaped by differing cultural frameworks and historical-linguistic developments. The findings demonstrate that anthropomorphism is a universal linguistic phenomenon rooted in human cognition, as theorized by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), wherein abstract or non-human concepts are mapped onto human experiences. In both English and Uzbek, anthropomorphic expressions serve to animate the non-human world, making it relatable, emotive, and culturally meaningful. This occurs across a variety of domains such as nature, emotions, morality, and time. Structurally, both languages utilize verb phrases, adjective-noun constructions, and idiomatic expressions to personify non-human entities. However, notable differences were observed: English tends to emphasize individual agency and employs more progressive forms, while Uzbek favors poetic metaphors often embedded in moral or spiritual contexts. This divergence reflects broader cultural orientations – individualistic in the Anglo-American context and collectivist-spiritual in Uzbek tradition. The study also underscored the role of anthropomorphism in literature, folklore, and education, where it functions not only as a stylistic device but also as a medium of cultural transmission. Particularly in Uzbek, the influence of oral storytelling and Sufi poetry enriches anthropomorphic expressions with allegorical depth and ethical resonance. Importantly, these linguistic patterns are not arbitrary but are culturally conceptualized, as noted in (Boranbaeva, 2019) framework of cultural linguistics. They shape and reflect how speakers of each language perceive the world, interact with nature, and communicate values. The implications of this research extend beyond linguistic description. They offer insights into cross-cultural communication, translation studies, and language pedagogy. For translators, understanding the cultural load behind personified metaphors is critical for effective rendering. For educators, anthropomorphism presents a valuable tool for cognitive development and moral instruction. Despite its contributions, the study acknowledges certain limitations. The analysis was based on a selected corpus of expressions from literary and colloquial sources, which may not encompass all possible forms. Future research could broaden the dataset by including dialectal variations, digital discourse, and spoken corpora. Moreover, psycholinguistic studies could explore how speakers process anthropomorphic expressions and what emotional or cognitive effects they generate. In conclusion, anthropomorphic expressions in English and Uzbek exemplify the interplay between language, cognition, and culture. They are not mere embellishments but essential elements of meaning-making, embodying human attempts to interpret and narrate the world through a human lens. By studying them, we gain not only linguistic insight but a deeper understanding of cultural perception and identity.