Uzbek and English political texts: linguocultural features and translation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20810788
Abstract
Political discourse is a key site of cultural and ideological meaning-making, and its translation across languages is a demanding task in applied linguistics. This article examines linguocultural features of Uzbek and English political texts, focusing on metaphorical language as a vehicle of ideological framing. Drawing on conceptual metaphor theory, critical discourse analysis, and cross-cultural pragmatics, the study analyzes 60 political speeches and official statements from English- and Uzbek-speaking contexts (2015-2024). Moreover, findings reveal systematic metaphorical differences: English political discourse relies heavily on war, journey, and organism metaphors that foreground competition and individual agency, whereas Uzbek rhetoric favors metaphors from nature, family, and ancestral wisdom that emphasize collectivity and cultural continuity. These differences challenge translators, as surface equivalence often fails to preserve ideological intent or pragmatic function. As well as, the article proposes strategies for culturally informed translation of political metaphor and contributes to non-Western political discourse analysis.
Keywords:
Political discourse Uzbek English conceptual metaphor translation linguoculturology cross-cultural pragmatics ideological framingReferences
Azamova, D. S. (2024). Interpretation of the concept of discourse in Uzbek and English linguistics: Analyzing discourse types. Экономика и социум, 12(127-2), 155-157.
Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099919
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218
Crespo-Fernandez, E. (2007). The language of death: Euphemism and conceptual metaphorization in Victorian obituaries. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 20, 7-30.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203593769
Kovecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408
Kussmaul, P. (1997). Text-type conventions and translating: Some methodological issues. In Anna Trosborg (Ed.), Text typology and translation (pp. 67-86). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.26.06kus
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago Linguistic Society.
Musolff, A. (2004). Metaphor and political discourse: Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.2307/409588
Sharafutdinov, N. S. (2025). Cross-cultural euphemistic strategies in political discourse: A comparative linguopragmatic analysis of English and Uzbek languages. TLEP - International Journal of Multidiscipline, 2(2), 247-257.
Sharafutdinov, N. S. (2024). History of linguopragmatics study. Kokand University Research Base, 9-15.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). MIT Press.
Published
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Nigora Erkin qizi Ergasheva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent city, 
+998 93 097 75 88