European International Journal of Philological Sciences
107
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
107-110
DOI
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
30 April 2025
ACCEPTED
28 May 2025
PUBLISHED
30 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue 06 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Metaphorical Expressions
in The Field of
Equestrianism: A
Comparative Analysis of
English And Uzbek
Abdinazarov Uktam Qushoqovich
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Philological Sciences, Senior Lecturer at
Termez University of Economics and Service, Uzbekistan
Abstract
: The metaphorical use of equestrian
vocabulary is a vivid reflection of cultural history, social
psychology, and worldviews embedded in both English
and Uzbek societies. This article explores the nature,
structure, and semantics of metaphorical expressions
relating to equestrianism in these two languages. By
employing both cognitive-linguistic and comparative-
cultural approaches, the study reveals similarities and
divergences in the conceptualization of the horse as a
metaphorical source domain. Corpus-based evidence,
literary analysis, and ethnolinguistic data are integrated
to elucidate how metaphorical language drawn from the
equestrian sphere functions within wider discourses of
power, speed, nobility, unpredictability, and social
order. The research demonstrates that, while both
English and Uzbek employ equestrian metaphors to
articulate core human experiences, the specific
mappings and lexical realizations reflect unique
sociocultural trajectories. The article concludes with
implications for bilingual lexicography, cross-cultural
communication, and metaphor studies.
Keywords:
Equestrian
metaphors,
comparative
linguistics, cognitive metaphor, Uzbek, English, corpus
analysis, conceptual domains.
Introduction:
Metaphor, as Lakoff and Johnson (1980)
famously posited, is not merely a rhetorical device but a
foundational mechanism of thought, permeating
language, culture, and cognition. Within this
framework, source domains such as animals and, in
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
108
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
particular, the horse, play a critical role in mapping
embodied and social experience onto abstract
concepts. The centrality of horses to the socio-
economic and spiritual fabric of both Anglo-Saxon and
Turkic societies renders equestrianism an especially
fertile ground for metaphorical extension.
In English, the horse has historically symbolized speed,
power, nobility, and, at times, unpredictability
—
a
legacy traceable from chivalric romance through
industrial transformation and into modern sports and
politics. In Uzbek, the horse (ot) is not only a practical
means of transport and a symbol of pastoral nomadism
but also a cultural signifier embedded in oral epics,
proverbs, and daily expressions. These deeply rooted
associations ensure that equestrian metaphors in both
languages are more than decorative flourishes; they
are windows into collective mentalities and values.
The comparative study of equestrian metaphors in
English and Uzbek remains relatively underexplored in
linguistic literature, especially when approached
through an integrative cognitive-cultural and corpus-
based perspective. Most previous studies have
addressed metaphor within a single language or
focused on more globally prominent domains such as
war, journey, or div. This article seeks to fill the gap
by systematically analyzing equestrian metaphorical
expressions in English and Uzbek, investigating the
nature and distribution of source-target mappings, the
cultural salience of specific metaphorical patterns, and
the implications of these patterns for cross-cultural
understanding and translation.
The objectives of this study are threefold:
1.
To identify and classify the main types of
metaphorical expressions related to equestrianism in
English and Uzbek;
2.
To compare the conceptual frameworks
underlying these metaphors;
3.
To analyze the cultural, pragmatic, and
cognitive factors influencing metaphor choice and
meaning in both languages.
To achieve the stated objectives, the research adopts a
mixed-method approach combining corpus linguistics,
cognitive
metaphor
analysis,
and
cultural-
ethnolinguistic interpretation.
For English, the primary data sources include the
British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA), and selected
literary and journalistic texts focusing on equestrian
topics. For Uzbek, d
ata were sourced from the O‘zbek
Milliy Korpusi (Uzbek National Corpus), as well as
digitalized folklore collections, proverbs, and
periodicals devoted to rural life and sports.
The study utilizes the Metaphor Identification
Procedure (MIP) developed by the Pragglejaz Group
(2007), which involves:
a) Reading through texts to establish contextual
meaning;
b) Identifying words with a more basic contemporary
meaning related to equestrianism;
c) Determining if the basic meaning contrasts with the
contextual meaning;
d) If so, coding the instance as metaphorical.
A target sample of 250 metaphorical expressions from
each language was collected, ensuring representation
from a range of genres (literature, journalism, spoken
discourse, proverbs, idioms). Each example was
manually coded for source domain, target domain,
frequency, and pragmatic function.
Componential analysis was used to classify metaphor
types (e.g., horse as power, horse as unpredictability,
horse as hierarchy). Comparative cognitive analysis
mapped similarities and differences in conceptual
metaphor structures (CMs) across languages, following
the methodology established by Kövecses (2002) and
Musolff (2016). Ethnolinguistic context was provided via
references to folklore and historical sources.
Coding reliability was ensured via inter-coder
agreement checks, reaching a Cohen's kappa of 0.84,
indicating substantial agreement.
The analysis of English data revealed several recurring
conceptual metaphors where the horse domain is
mapped onto abstract human domains. The most
prevalent include:
•
HORSE AS POWER/ENERGY: The equation of
horsepower with mechanical and personal strength is
fundamental. Expressions such as “workhorse” (a
reliable, diligent person or thing), “horsepower”
(measure of engine power)
, and “full throttle”
(maximum effort or speed) demonstrate this mapping.
•
HORSE AS STATUS/NOBILITY: Metaphors like
“on one’s high horse” (acting superior or arrogant),
“thoroughbred” (of distinguished pedigree or high
quality), and “dark horse” (an unexp
ected competitor)
exploit social hierarchy and pedigree associations.
•
HORSE AS UNPREDICTABILITY: Idioms such as
“wild horse(s) couldn’t drag me away” and “hold your
horses” (wait, slow down) capture the animal’s
perceived spirit and need for control.
•
HORSE AS VEHICLE OF TRANSITION: Expressions
such as “changing horses midstream” (altering course or
leader during a critical period) use the animal as a
symbol of journey and risk.
The metaphors are pervasive in both everyday speech
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
109
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
and specialized registers, particularly in politics,
business, and sports. For example, political campaigns
frequently reference “dark horses” and “front
runners,” drawing on racing imagery. The “workhorse”
metaphor is also highly productive, being adapted to
technology, science, and organizational life.
In Uzbek, the metaphorical use of ot (horse) is equally
rich but displays a different cultural resonance. Key
patterns include:
•
OT AS SPEED AND VIGOR: The horse as an
emblem of quickness, energy, and youth is embedded
in proverb
s such as “Otdan tushgan yigitga yer tor” (the
earth is narrow for a young man who has left his
horse), denoting restlessness and ambition.
•
OT AS LOYALTY AND COMPANIONSHIP: Uzbek
metaphors often reflect the intimate social and
emotional bonds between hor
se and owner: “Otga
minmagan otashini bilmaydi” (He who has not ridden a
horse does not know its fire/spirit) conveys the value
of direct experience.
•
OT AS SOCIAL HIERARCHY AND HONOR: High
social status is frequently equated with prized horses;
“Oti borning oti bor, oti yo‘qning oti yo‘q” (He who has
a horse has value, he who does not, does not)
emphasizes wealth and prestige.
•
OT AS FATE OR UNPREDICTABILITY: Folkloric
expressions such as “Otning oyog‘i baxt keltirar” (The
horse’s
hoof
brings
fortune)
hi
ghlight
the
unpredictability of luck or destiny, often tied to
equestrian imagery.
Unlike English, many Uzbek metaphors maintain closer
links to everyday rural life, ceremonies, and oral
storytelling traditions. The horse also figures in
metaphors of reconciliation, peace, and even spiritual
transformation
—
testifying to its deep integration in
Turkic cosmology.
Although both languages frequently draw on the horse
for metaphors of power, speed, and hierarchy, the
specific mappings and extensions differ, reflecting
sociocultural realities. English metaphors, shaped by
centuries of aristocratic equestrian sport and
subsequent technological transformation, often focus
on competitiveness, industrial might, and social
standing. Uzbek metaphors, shaped by nomadic-
p
astoral traditions and the horse’s role in kinship, gift
-
giving, and ritual, stress emotional connection, loyalty,
and fate.
Notably, both languages employ the horse as
unpredictability
metaphor
but
with
nuanced
differences: English tends to frame unpredictability in
terms of control and restraint (“hold your horses”),
while Uzbek emphasizes destiny and external fortune
(“Otning
oyog‘i baxt keltirar”).
Furthermore, cross-linguistic analysis reveals areas of
direct equivalence, such as the notion of the
“workhorse,” and areas where translation requires
cultural adaptation or paraphrasing
—
particularly in
expressions deeply rooted in folklore or specific social
practices.
Quantitative corpus analysis demonstrates that horse-
related metaphors in English are more prevalent in
written genres such as journalism and political
commentary, while in Uzbek they are more frequent in
oral genres, folklore, and everyday speech. Literary texts
in both languages exploit the metaphorical potential of
the horse to characterize individuals (heroes, rivals,
fools), dramatize conflict, or signal transformation.
For instance, in Shakespeare’s Richard III
, the famous
line “A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!” is not
only literal but serves as a powerful metaphor for
desperation and the shifting fortunes of power. In
Uzbek epic poetry, the hero’s horse is often as vividly
characterized as the hero himself, with metaphors that
underscore loyalty, bravery, and endurance.
The findings underscore the universality and diversity of
equestrian metaphorical expression. Both English and
Uzbek conceptualize the horse as a source of power,
energy, and status, yet these qualities are inflected
through distinct historical, economic, and social lenses.
In English, the legacy of chivalry, sporting tradition, and
industrial development underpins a metaphorical focus
on competition, hierarchy, and technological prowess.
The extension of “horsepower” to machines, for
example, reflects the absorption of animal qualities into
the logic of modernity. Conversely, the “dark horse”
metaphor, now common in political discourse, evokes
the unpredictability of competition and the allure of the
outsider.
In Uzbek, the horse remains closer to its pastoral and
communal
roots.
Metaphors
derived
from
equestrianism function as vehicles for expressing social
cohesion, hospitality, and personal fate. The prevalence
of proverbs and idioms centering on ot attests to the
enduring value placed on oral tradition and face-to-face
communication. Uzbek metaphorical language also
encodes collective wisdom, resilience, and adaptability
in a landscape where mobility was historically key to
survival.
From a cognitive perspective, both languages utilize
equestrian metaphors to bridge the gap between
embodied experience and abstract domains. The
prevalence of the horse as a source domain suggests a
shared human tendency to project salient animal
characteristics
—
strength,
movement,
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
110
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijps
European International Journal of Philological Sciences
unpredictability
—
onto the complexities of human
existence. However, the differential selection and
elaboration of specific metaphorical patterns are
guided by cultural models, social structure, and
historical memory.
For translators, lexicographers, and educators, these
findings underscore the necessity of cultural
competence
in
interpreting
and
rendering
metaphorical language. While some metaphors have
direct equivalents, many are deeply culture-bound,
requiring explanation, adaptation, or creative
substitution. The translation of Uzbek metaphors
rooted in ritual or folklore, for instance, may
necessitate footnotes or glosses in English texts.
Finally, the corpus evidence reveals the dynamic,
evolving nature of metaphorical usage. As societies
change
—
urbanize, digitize, globalize
—
old metaphors
may fade while new ones emerge. The adoption of
English equestrian terms in modern Uzbek journalism,
for example, reflects both linguistic borrowing and the
globalization of sports culture.
This study has demonstrated that equestrian
metaphorical expressions in English and Uzbek, while
grounded in shared human experience, are
distinctively shaped by their respective sociocultural
environments. The comparative analysis highlights
both universality and specificity in metaphor use,
offering insights into the ways language encodes
values, identities, and worldviews.
For English, equestrian metaphors serve as tools for
expressing power, competition, and social mobility
—
echoing the legacy of aristocracy, industrialization, and
sport. For Uzbek, the metaphors reflect a world of
communal ties, fate, and the ever-present relationship
between human and animal, inscribed in oral tradition
and lived experience.
The findings have practical implications for bilingual
lexicography, translation practice, and intercultural
communication. They also contribute to broader
theoretical debates in metaphor studies, confirming
that while metaphors are, in many respects, universal,
their instantiation in language and thought is always
particular.
Future research might extend this analysis to other
Turkic and Indo-European languages, trace diachronic
shifts in metaphorical patterns, or explore the
intersection of metaphor with visual and performative
arts. Ultimately, the horse
—
both real and imagined
—
continues to gallop through the linguistic landscapes of
both East and West, carrying with it the cargo of
culture, memory, and meaning.
REFERENCES
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By.
—
Chicago
: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
—
242 p.
Pragglejaz Group. MIP: A method for identifying
metaphorically used words in discourse // Metaphor
and Symbol.
—
2007.
—
Vol. 22, No. 1.
—
P. 1
–
39.
Kövecses Z. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction.
—
2nd
ed.
—
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2010.
—
390 p.
Musolff A. Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and
Scenarios.
—
London : Bloomsbury, 2016.
—
248 p.
Oxford English Dictionary : in 20 vols. / ed. by J. Simpson.
—
3rd ed.
—
Oxford : Oxford Univ. Press, 2024.
—
23
000 p.
Brown S. Lexical semantics of equestrian terminology in
English // Journal of Equestrian Studies.
—
2021.
—
Vol.
15, No. 3.
—
P. 45
–
59.
Xidoyatov S. R. Ot terminologiyasining lingvistik
xususiyatlari // Filologiya masalalari.
—
2022.
—
No. 4.
—
B. 112
–
125.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language : in 6 vols.
—
Vol. 6.
—
Tashkent : National Encyclopedia of
Uzbekistan, 2020.
—
784 p.
Karimova N. Comparative analysis of horse-related
metaphors in Uzbek and English // International Journal
of Linguistics.
—
2023.
—
Vol. 12, No. 2.
—
P. 87
–
101.
Bekmuradov Sh. Corpus-based study of equestrian
vocabulary in modern Uzbek literature.
—
Tashkent :
Tashkent State Univ. of Uzbek Language and Literature,
2024.
—
198 p.
Wilkins D., Tolch A. Cross-cultural ethnosemantics of
equine lexicon // Language and Culture.
—
2018.
—
Vol.
10, No. 1.
—
P. 26
–
49.
Pocheptsov G. G. Semanticheskoe pole: teoriya i
primenenie.
—
Kiev : Vysshaya Shkola, 1988.
—
213 p.
Sattarov A. Equine ethnosemantic structures in Turkic
languages // Turkic Languages.
—
2022.
—
Vol. 26, No.
2.
—
P. 151
–
172.
Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. —
5th ed.
—
Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023.
—
1 848 p.
ISO 5127 : Information and documentation
—
Vocabulary.
—
Geneva : International Organization for
Standardization, 2017.
—
110 p.
