Onomastic Metaphors in The Works of Utkir Hoshimov

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

357

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue06 2025

PAGE NO.

357-359

DOI

10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-93

Onomastic Metaphors in The Works of Utkir Hoshimov

Xaydarova Feruza

Lecturer at Jizzakh Polytechnic Institute, Uzbekistan

Received:

30 April 2025;

Accepted:

28 May 2025;

Published:

30 June 2025

Abstract:

This article explores the use of onomastic metaphors in the literary works of Utkir Hoshimov, a

prominent Uzbek writer known for his rich and culturally nuanced language. Onomastic metaphors

—

those

derived from proper names such as personal names, place names, and ethnonyms

—

serve as a significant stylistic

device in Hoshimov’s narratives. They not only enrich the imag

ery and expressiveness of the text but also reflect

the national mentality, historical consciousness, and sociocultural context of the Uzbek people. The study analyzes

selected examples from Hoshimov’s major works to identify how proper names are metaphori

cally transformed

to convey emotional, symbolic, or evaluative meanings. These metaphorical usages highlight the deep
interconnection between language, identity, and cultural memory in Uzbek literature.

Keywords:

Utkir Hoshimov, onomastic metaphor, Uzbek literature, cultural memory, stylistic device, personal

names, toponyms, ethnonyms, linguistic imagery, national identity.

Introduction:

The metaphor is described as “a

necessary tool of thinking, a form of scientific

reasoning,” “a means that extends the hand of the
intellect,” and “

one of the most powerful tools for

understanding the world,” serving as a key to grasping

the universe and reflecting the features of human
cognition. Attention has been given to metaphor since
the time of Aristotle. The scholar defines metaphor as
a linguistic tool based on the process of transferring the
properties of one object to those of another [2;686].

One of the leading contemporary specialists on

metaphor, N.D. Arutyunova, states: “There is no more

beautiful method of providing vivid illustrations in

speech than metaphor” [3;188]. In recent years,

linguoculturology has emerged as a relatively new
scientific discipline. Within this field, metaphor has
primarily been studied as a means of artistic expression
and has been recognized as an integral component
(object) of linguoculturology. Of particular note is N.

Mahmudov’s article “Term, Figurative Word, a

nd

Metaphor,” which deserves special attention. This

article emphasizes that metaphor has been studied in
the field of world philology for over two thousand
years, and nearly all philosophers of the classical era
interpreted metaphor mainly as an embellishment of

speech, a rhetorical device, and a tool of artistic
expression. However, by the 20th century, perceptions
of metaphor had changed: its spheres of existence had
expanded, and metaphor came to be seen as a true
manifestation of fundamental cognitive activity.
Notably, the article also stresses that metaphor, while
being one of the most productive tools for
understanding the world, simultaneously serves to
economically and intelligently regulate the number of
separate lexical units in a language [4;117].

D. Khudoyberganova evaluates metaphors not only as
possessing significant cognitive-semantic value in a text
but also as phenomena that reflect the unique aspects
of the national cultural mindset of a language
community. She asserts that texts constructed on the
basis of similes and metaphors allow for the
identification

of

patterned

textual

structures

characteristic of a given language. The scholar has
assessed them as precedent forms of text [9;18] and
has proposed a classification of metaphors into word,
word combination, sentence, and microtext forms
[7;36].

Metaphor is a universal means of understanding the
world, through which the interaction of cognition,
language, consciousness, and culture is manifested. It

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

358

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN

–

2771-2273)

undoubtedly arouses interest in linguocultural
research.

The use of metaphor in literary works individualizes the
speech of characters and imbues it with the author's
unique style. A new image, a new metaphor expands
the cultural space and reveals its inner essence and
meaning.

In recent years, onomastic metaphor has been
distinguished as a specific type of metaphor in

linguistics. As is known, “onomastic metaphors, which

are one type of metaphor, are phenomena that reflect
the expressive potential of our language. A name
endowed with metaphorical meaning, particularly in

literary texts, becomes an exceptionally impactful unit”

[6;60]. In Uzbek linguistics, onomastic metaphors have
been studied to a certain extent by D. Andaniyozova
[1;54].

Precedent names, considered as linguocultural units,
are among the primary objects of study in
linguoculturology. As D. Khudoyberganova emphasizes,

“precedent names, as one type of precedent unit, are

also regarded as units within the onomastic scope of a

particular language” [9; 132]. It is known that
“precede

nt names are names associated with famous

texts or situations, as well as symbolic names that refer

to a set of exemplary qualities” [5; 35]. The scholar

proposes

studying onomastic

units,

including

precedent names, from both a linguopoetic and
linguocultu

ral perspective, writing: “In general, the

names used in Uzbek literature form an entire system.
The history of their formation, their linguopoetic
features, and their place in Uzbek linguoculture are
among the pressing issues in linguistics that demand
de

dicated research” [8; 36]. Therefore, examining

precedent names from a linguocultural standpoint and
analyzing them in connection with literary texts can
rightly be considered one of the key problems of Uzbek

linguoculturology. “Indeed, these are among the

most

essential units that reflect national culture. The
onomastic scope of a given nation is a multifaceted
phenomenon that encompasses its history, culture,

aesthetic views, and spiritual values” [9; 131].

Preserving the national and natural character of names
and ensuring their conformity with the laws of the
national language is a requirement of the times.
Determining and studying the function of onomastic

metaphors used in specific authors’ works within

literary texts will undoubtedly have a positive impact
on the development of onomastics, linguopoetics, and
linguoculturology. However, it should be noted that the
linguocultural characteristics of onomastic metaphors
used in the works of specific authors have not yet been
the subject of special research. It is well known that one
of the functions of precedent names in literary texts is

their appearance as onomastic metaphors. “Onomastic

units may also be used metaphorically in literary texts.
When metaphor is manifested through such units, it is
referred to as an onomastic metaphor, which involves
using a specific onomastic unit in a non-name context

—

that is, relying on the similarity between a concept

and a name (for example, expressing the meaning of a

generous person through the anthroponym Hotam)”

[

1; 54]. “If a metaphorically used onomastic unit has

been accepted as a cultural standard of a specific
feature in a particular linguoculture, its connection to
the concepts and ideas formed in the minds of the
representatives of that linguoculture also becomes
evident. In other words, the fame of a particular
onomastic unit

—

its precedent nature

—

is one of the

necessary conditions for its metaphorical use” [9; 131].
It is known that “precedent names are classified as

national or universal, depending on their affiliation

with a particular linguoculture” [9; 131]. Names like

Hamlet (a symbol of hopeful emotions) and Othello (a
symbol of jealousy) are universal precedent names that
are understood and accepted similarly by people across
the world. However, every nation has its own national
precedent names. For instance, in Uzbek linguoculture,
Alpomish symbolizes honor and dignity; Barchin

–

a

faithful beloved; Qorabotir

–

a vile rival; Gorogly

–

a

fearless, brave, and courageous young man; Layli

–

a

loyal beloved; Majnun

–

a symbol of mad, devoted love.

In the present text, Layli and Majnun serve as
onomastic metaphors, used by the author as a
linguopoetic device to fulfill an artistic purpose: It

seems that Rais Buvа once again acted as a

matchmaker. Realizing that Nargiskhon and I had been
wandering around like Layli and Majnun, he agreed to

hold the wedding in the summer. (O. Hoshimov, “Two
Times Two Is Five”) As is known, Layli and Majnun are
the names of the main characters in Alisher Navoi’s

poem Layli and Majnun. In Uzbek literature, these
names are invoked as symbols of true love and faithful
lovers. Therefore, in literary texts, the names Layli and

Majnun refer to “beloved ones, ideal lovers” and fulfill

a linguocultural function. These anthroponyms are
used in the story Two Times Two Is Five as onomastic

metaphors meaning “lovers.” Titles of works that

employ metaphorical meanings often capture the

reader’s attention immediately. For instance, the titles

of works by master wordsmith Utkir Hoshimov such as

“Where There Is Light, There Is Shadow”, “The Pure
Notebook of the Heart”, and “Between Two Doors”

support our point. These types of individual onomastic
metaphors are the result of Uzbek perception and the
Uzbek worldview.

Thus, metaphor represents the past, present, and
future of language. By analyzing metaphors, one can

American Journal Of Philological Sciences

359

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps

American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN

–

2771-2273)

evaluate the formation and development of a
language. From the early stages of the science that
emerged at certain points in the development of
language to its present state, it is impossible to imagine
language without metaphor. Studying onomastic
metaphors used in literary texts from a linguocultural
perspective also enables the collection and
preservation of cultural information.

We believe that onomastic metaphor should also be
taken into account in the linguopoetic and
linguocultural analysis of literary works. Studying
onomastic metaphor as a method of creating new
meanings within the linguistic picture of the world
contributes to a broader understanding of the
linguocultural features of our language.

REFERENCES

Анданиязова

Д.

Ономастик

бирликларнинг

лингвопоэтик тадқиқи. –

Тошкент: Turon zamin ziyo,

2016.

–

Б.54

-61.

Аристотель. Поэтика /Собр. соч. в 4 томах. Т. 2. –

М.:

Мысль, 1983. –

686 с.; Аристотель. Риторика //

Аристотель и античная литература. –

М.: Наука,

1978.

–

С. 164

-

229; Аристотель. Этика. Политика.

Риторика. Поэтика. Категории. –

Минск, 1998. –

459

с.

Арутюнова Н.Д. Номинация, референция, значение
//Языковая номинация. Общие вопросы. –

М., 1979.

–

С. 188

-206;

Арутюнова Н.Д. Метафора и дискурс:

Вступительная

статья

к

сборнику

“Теория

метафоры”. –

М.: Прогресс, 1990. –

С. 5

-32;

Арутюнова Н.Д. Язык и мир человека. –

М.: Языки

русской культуры, 1998. –

895 с.; Арутюнова Н.Д.

Метафора в языке чувств // Язык и мир человека.
М., 1999. –

С. 385

-402.

Маҳмудов Н. Термин, образли сўз ва метафора / Тил
тилсими тадқиқи. –

Тошкент: Mumtoz so‘z, 2017. –

Б.

117-126.

Худойберганова

Д.

Лингвокультурология

терминларининг қисқача изоҳли луғати. –

Тошкент:

Turon zamin ziyo, 2015.

–

Б. 35.

Худойберганова Д. Лингвостилистиканинг тадқиқ
объекти хусусида / Ўзбек тилшунослигининг
долзарб муаммолари. –

Тошкент, 2018. –

Б.60

-65.

Худойберганова Д. Матннинг мазмуний таркибида
метафоралар //Ўзбек тили ва адабиёти. –

Тошкент,

2012, 1-

сон. –

Б. 36.

Худойберганова Д. Ўзбек тили поэтонимларининг
изоҳли луғатини тузиш хусусида // Ўзбек тили ва
адабиёти. –

Тошкент, 2016. –

№2. –

Б. 36.

Худойберганова Д.С. Ўзбек тилидаги бадиий
матнларнинг антропоцентрик талқини: Филол. фан.

д

-

ри дисс.... автореф. –

Тошкент, 2015. –

Б.18.