PDF
ZENODO
Published
2025-12-12
Section
Articles
How to Cite
How to Cite
METAPHORICAL EXPRESSIONS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK CLASSICAL PROSE: A CROSS-CULTURAL STYLISTIC COMPARISON
Kurbondurdiyeva Shodiya
1st year Master of Chirchik State Pedagogical University.
Raupova Mukhayyo
PhD in Philology Associate Professor of the Department of English Language Teaching Methods Uzbek State University of World Languages
Keywords: metaphor, stylistic comparison, English classical prose, Uzbek classical prose, cultural symbolism.
Abstract
This article presents a cross-cultural stylistic comparison of metaphorical expressions in English and Uzbek classical prose, focusing on how each literary tradition employs metaphor to convey cultural values, emotional depth, and narrative meaning. While English classical prose often uses metaphors to explore psychological complexity and social realities, Uzbek classical prose relies on culturally embedded imagery drawn from nature, oral tradition, and communal experience. The study highlights similarities in thematic metaphor types—such as images of nature, light and darkness, and time—while demonstrating how each tradition assigns distinct cultural and symbolic meanings to these metaphors. By examining representative works from both literatures, the article reveals how metaphor functions as a key stylistic device that reflects the worldview, aesthetic principles, and historical consciousness of English and Uzbek societies.
References
1. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. – 256 p.
2. Kövecses Z. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. – 315 p.
3. Turner M. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. – New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. – 183 p.
4. Qodiriy A. O‘tkan kunlar. – Toshkent: G‘afur G‘ulom nomidagi nashriyot, 2016. – 368 b.
5. Qahhor A. Asarlar to‘plami. – Toshkent: Sharq nashriyoti, 2010. – 420 b.
6. Richards I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. – 136 p.
