Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika –
Зарубежная лингвистика и
лингводидактика – Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Pragmatic functions of humour in English and Uzbek
dialogues
Zarnigor BAKHRIDDINOVA
1
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received January 2025
Received in revised form
10
February 2025
Accepted 25 February 2025
Available online
25 March 2025
Humour plays a crucial role in human communication,
functioning as a pragmatic device for managing social
interactions, expressing attitudes, and reinforcing cultural
norms. This study explores the pragmatic functions of humour
in English and Uzbek dialogues through a comparative analysis
of two novels, “Bridget Jones’s Diary” by Helen Fielding and
“Shum bola” by Gafur Gulom. Drawing on theories of pragmatics
and linguocultural communication, the research reveals that
humour in both languages serves to build solidarity, manage
face, express indirect criticism, and relieve conversational
tension. However, English humour is more self-deprecating and
direct, whereas Uzbek humour tends to be metaphorical,
indirect, and shaped by social hierarchy. The findings highlight
humour’s universal pragmatic value and its culturally specific
manifestations, offering insight into how language, culture, and
context interact in humorous discourse.
2181-3701/© 2024 in Science LLC.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss3
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
Pragmatics,
humour,
Uzbek dialogues,
English dialogues,
face-saving,
irony,
metaphor,
cross-cultural
communication,
linguocultural norms,
Shum bola,
Bridget Jones’s Diary.
Ingliz va o‘zbek dialoglarida yumorning pragmatik
funksiyalari
ANNOTATSIYA
Калит сўзлар:
Pragmatika,
yumor,
o‘zbek dialoglari,
ingliz dialoglari,
yuzni saqlash,
istehzo,
metafora,
Yumor insonlararo muloqotda muhim rol o‘ynaydi. U ijtimoiy
munosabatlarni boshqarish, munosabat bildirish va madaniy
normalarni mustahkamlashda pragmatik vosita sifatida xizmat
qiladi. Ushbu tadqiqot ingliz va o‘zbek tillaridagi dialoglarda
hazilning pragmatik funksiyalarini Helen Fildingning “Bridget
Jones’s Diary” va Gʻafur Gʻulomning “Shum bola” asarlari
asosida qiyosiy tahlil qiladi. Pragmatika va lingvokultural
1
Doctoral student, Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages. E-mail: zarnigor7755@gmail.com
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
298
madaniyatlararo
kommunikatsiya,
lingvokultural me’yorlar,
Shum bola,
Bridget Jones’s Diary.
kommunikatsiya nazariyalariga tayangan holda, tadqiqot shuni
ko‘rsatadiki, har ikki til yumori ham hamjihatlikni shakllantirish,
“yuz saqlash”, bilvosita tanqid ifodalash va suhbatdagi
keskinlikni yumshatish kabi funksiyalarni bajaradi. Biroq
inglizcha yumor ko‘proq o‘zini masxara qilishga va to‘g‘ridan-
to‘g‘ri gapirishga moyil bo‘lsa, o‘zbekcha hazil ko‘proq metaforik,
bilvosita va ijtimoiy iyerarxiya bilan shakllangan bo‘ladi.
Tadqiqot natijalari hazilning universal pragmatik ahamiyatini
hamda uning madaniyatga xos ifodalanishini ochib beradi va til,
madaniyat hamda kontekst hazil diskursida qanday o‘zaro ta’sir
qilishini yoritadi.
Прагматические функции юмора в английских и
узбекских диалогах
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
прагматика,
юмор,
узбекские диалоги,
английские диалоги,
сохранение лица,
ирония,
метафора,
межкультурная
коммуникация,
лингвокультурные нормы,
Шумбола,
Дневник Бриджит Джонс.
Юмор играет важную роль в человеческой коммуникации,
функционируя как прагматическое средство управления
социальным взаимодействием, выражения отношения и
укрепления культурных норм. В данном исследовании
рассматриваются прагматические функции юмора в
английских и узбекских диалогах на основе сравнительного
анализа двух романов «Дневник Бриджит Джонс» Хелен
Филдинг и «Шумбола» Гафура Гуляма. Основываясь на
теориях прагматики и лингвокультурной коммуникации,
исследование показывает, что юмор в обоих языках служит
для
установления
солидарности,
сохранения
лица,
выражения косвенной критики и снятия напряжения в
разговоре. Однако английский юмор более самоироничный и
прямолинейный, в то время как узбекский юмор чаще
метафоричный, косвенный и подчиняется социальной
иерархии.
Результаты
подчеркивают
универсальную
прагматическую ценность юмора и его культурно-
специфические проявления, раскрывая, как язык, культура и
контекст взаимодействуют в юмористическом дискурсе.
INTRODUCTION
Humour is an essential feature of human communication, present in virtually every
language and culture. It is more than just a tool for amusement; it serves multiple
pragmatic functions that help shape social interactions, reflect cultural norms, and
negotiate meaning in both casual and formal contexts. As a pragmatic device, humour can
soften criticism, establish solidarity, express dissent indirectly, and maintain politeness
in conversations. It plays a significant role in facilitating communication, especially in
spoken dialogues where context, intonation, and shared cultural knowledge contribute to
its interpretation and effect.
While humour has been widely studied in English-speaking cultures, there is
comparatively less scholarly focus on its use in Uzbek conversational settings. Moreover, the
contrastive analysis of humour’s pragmatic functions across cultures remains an
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
299
underexplored field. Given that humour is deeply embedded in socio-cultural traditions,
examining its functions in different languages offers insight into the values, communication
styles, and interpersonal dynamics of their respective speech communities.
In both English and Uzbek dialogues, humour manifests through various forms,
ranging from irony, sarcasm, and teasing to wordplay, anecdotes, and idiomatic
expressions. However, how these humorous forms function pragmatically can vary
significantly based on cultural expectations, communicative conventions, and the
situational context. For instance, while teasing might be seen as a sign of closeness and
informality in English, in Uzbek culture, it may require more subtlety and context
sensitivity due to the strong emphasis on respect and politeness.
This article aims to explore the pragmatic functions of humour in English and
Uzbek dialogues, with a particular focus on how humour is used to manage face, establish
or challenge social hierarchies, convey attitudes indirectly, and promote group cohesion.
Through a comparative analysis of authentic dialogue samples, the study seeks to identify
culturally specific patterns in the use of humour and contribute to a broader
understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics.
The research addresses the following key questions:
What are the most common pragmatic functions of humour in everyday dialogues
in English and Uzbek?
How does the socio-cultural context of each language shape the use and
interpretation of humorous utterances?
What similarities and differences can be observed in the strategic deployment of
humour across both languages?
By examining humour not as a universal phenomenon but as a culturally inflected
mode of communication, this study contributes to the fields of pragmatics, intercultural
communication, and linguistic anthropology.
METHODOLOGY
This study adopts a qualitative, comparative approach grounded in pragmatic and
linguocultural analysis. To examine how humour functions in English and Uzbek
dialogues, two literary works were selected as primary sources: “Bridget Jones’s Diary”
by Helen Fielding and “Shum bola” by Gafur Gulom. Both novels are rich in dialogue and
offer culturally embedded examples of humour used by characters in diverse social
contexts. While “Bridget Jones’s Diary” reflects contemporary British humour through
the inner monologue and spoken interactions of a modern woman navigating urban life,
“Shum bola” represents traditional Uzbek humour expressed through the mischievous
behavior and witty remarks of a clever, quick-witted boy in a rural setting.
The analysis focused on approximately thirty humorous dialogue excerpts from
each novel, selected based on the presence of clear pragmatic intent. The data was
interpreted through key pragmatic frameworks, including Speech Act Theory (Searle,
1979), Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987), and Incongruity Theory.
Additionally, the cultural scripts approach was applied to identify culturally specific
communicative norms. Emphasis was placed on how humour operates to build solidarity,
perform indirect criticism, manage face-threatening acts, reduce tension, and express
underlying social values. The interpretation considered social relationships, situational
context, and the intended or inferred pragmatic force behind the humorous utterances.
To ensure accuracy, the findings were reviewed by linguists fluent in both English and
Uzbek, ensuring that humour was appropriately contextualised within each culture’s
communicative traditions and values.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
300
The comparative analysis of humorous dialogues in “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and
“Shum bola” revealed that humour plays a central role in shaping interpersonal
communication, though the forms and cultural underpinnings of humour differ
significantly between English and Uzbek contexts. In “Bridget Jones’s Diary”, humour is
often constructed through self-deprecation and irony. For example, Bridget refers to her
failed resolutions with:
“I will not drink more than fourteen alcohol units a week. I will not
fall for any of the following: alcoholics, workaholics, commitment phobics… Oh God, it's only
January 3rd,”
illustrating a humorous contradiction between ideal and behaviour. Such
remarks function pragmatically as face-saving devices, allowing the speaker to admit
flaws while maintaining social relatability. This type of humour also allows characters to
criticise or reflect on social norms in a non-threatening manner. The use of sarcasm,
ironic deflection, and casual wit supports the English cultural preference for indirect
emotional expression and individualistic self-presentation.
In contrast, the humour in “Shum bola” is deeply tied to social relationships,
collective identity, and the playful subversion of authority through indirect means.
The main character, Qoravoy, uses humour as a survival tool and a form of resistance. In
one scene, after being caught stealing fruit, he innocently claims:
“Men bu olmani yerga
tushib ketgan deb o‘ylagandim,”
(I thought this apple had fallen to the ground), delivering
a blatantly cheeky excuse that both entertains and disarms the adult scolding him.
Pragmatically, this functions as a form of indirect apology mixed with humorous
justification, softening the seriousness of his action. In another episode, he jokes to his
friend about a stern teacher:
“Ustozning burni havo o‘lchagichga o‘xshaydi – harorat
o‘zgarsa, o‘zgaradi,”
(Our teacher's nose is like a thermometer – it changes with the
weather). This playful metaphor criticises the teacher’s mood swings without breaching
the boundaries of respect, using humour to negotiate hierarchical tension. In both
examples, humour acts as a way to critique social power, build rapport with peers, and
escape punishment while still adhering to social decorum.
While the English text demonstrates a preference for internalized, ironic humour
that often targets the self, the Uzbek novel showcases relational humour grounded in oral
tradition, social intelligence, and situational adaptability. Nevertheless, the pragmatic
functions of humour – whether to manage face, establish solidarity, mask critique, or
maintain group cohesion – remain parallel across both languages. The primary difference
lies in how the humour is performed: the English examples rely more on linguistic irony
and sarcasm, while the Uzbek examples are performative, metaphorical, and embedded
within the socio-cultural codes of modesty and hierarchy.
DISCUSSION
The comparative analysis of humour in “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and “Shum bola”
offers insight into how pragmatic functions of humour are shaped by cultural
expectations, linguistic norms, and interpersonal dynamics in English and Uzbek
contexts. While both novels demonstrate that humour is a fundamental communicative
strategy, the ways it is constructed, interpreted, and socially sanctioned differ
significantly across the two cultures.
In the English data, humour operates primarily as a reflection of personal identity
and emotional self-regulation. Bridget's frequent use of irony and self-deprecating
remarks reveals a cultural inclination toward individual expression, where making fun of
oneself can serve as a means of appearing relatable, modest, or emotionally resilient.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
301
Humour in this context helps the speaker cope with social or personal pressures while
also reducing the impact of negative emotions or judgments. This aligns with the broader
Anglo-Saxon communicative tradition, which values wit, sarcasm, and subtle challenge to
norms as markers of social competence and intelligence.
In contrast, “Shum bola” presents humour as a collective, culturally grounded tool
for navigating social structures, especially hierarchies. Qoravoy’s humour is not only a
source of entertainment but a strategic device that allows him to maintain autonomy
within a society that demands respect and obedience from youth. His playful metaphors,
indirect teasing, and humorous justifications reflect a linguistic culture where humour
must be encoded carefully to preserve harmony, avoid open confrontation, and show
awareness of social status. This reflects Uzbek communicative values such as
kattalarga
hurmat
(respect for elders),
muomala odobi
(etiquette in speech), and
odobli kulgu
(respectful laughter), where humour must tread lightly while still enabling subtle
critique or resistance.
Despite cultural and structural differences, the fundamental pragmatic roles of
humour remain consistent. In both English and Uzbek dialogues, humour functions to
manage face-threatening acts, strengthen in-group relationships, and negotiate social
meaning. It serves as a mediating force between the speaker’s intention and the listener’s
interpretation, allowing speakers to navigate complex emotions, deliver criticism, or
build intimacy with reduced social risk. The difference lies in the mode of delivery and
the degree of directness permissible within the cultural script of each language. English
speakers, particularly in informal settings, often favour irony and direct verbal humour,
while Uzbek speakers tend to favour metaphorical and context-sensitive humour that
maintains social decorum.
These findings reaffirm that humour is a culturally conditioned yet pragmatically
universal phenomenon. Its mechanisms may vary in form and intensity, but its
communicative value is preserved across languages. The contrast between
“
Bridget
Jones’s Diary” and
“
Shum bola” exemplifies how humour adapts to reflect different
cultural ideologies, social norms, and relational priorities, serving not only as a linguistic
ornament but as a pragmatic tool embedded in the very fabric of human interaction.
CONCLUSION
This study has demonstrated that while humour serves similar pragmatic
functions in both English and Uzbek dialogues – such as mitigating face-threatening acts,
building solidarity, expressing criticism indirectly, and managing interpersonal
relationships, the cultural realization of these functions differs significantly. In English,
humour is often individualistic, ironic, and self-directed, reflecting a communicative
culture that values personal expression and subtle challenge to norms. In contrast, Uzbek
humour, as illustrated in “Shum bola”, is more relational and context-bound, deeply
embedded in norms of politeness, respect, and social hierarchy.
By analyzing dialogues from “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and “Shum bola”, this article
has shown that humour is a powerful linguistic strategy that not only entertains but also
facilitates social navigation. It is shaped by the speaker's awareness of cultural
expectations, social roles, and linguistic conventions. These findings suggest the
importance of incorporating cross-cultural perspectives into pragmatic research and
language education, particularly when humour is involved.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika – Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика – Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue – 3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
302
Further research may expand this comparison by incorporating more genres,
dialects, or real-life speech data to enrich our understanding of humour as a culturally
variable yet universally functional discourse tool.
REFERENCES:
1.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
2.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language
usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Gʻulom, Gʻ. (1983). Shum bola. Toshkent: Gʻafur Gʻulom nomidagi Adabiyot va
sanʼat nashriyoti.
4.
Bahriddinova, Z. (2024, May). Thе Mеаning Оf “Grаndfаthеr”,“Grаndmоthеr”
Аnd Its Funсtiоnаl-Sеmаntiс Miсrоsуstеms. In Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your
Research Spirit (pp. 171-175).
5.
Hayitov, A. (2009). Til va madaniyat: Milliy mentalitet va lingvokulturologiya
masalalari. Toshkent: Fan.
6.
Holmes, J. (2013).
An introduction to sociolinguistics
(4th ed.). London:
Routledge.
7.
Karvanova, N. (2020). Ingliz va o‘zbek tillarida kinoya vositasining
lingvopragmatik xususiyatlari. Filologiya masalalari, (1), 112–116.
8.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Mirzaeva, N. (2017). O‘zbek adabiyoti va kulgi madaniyati. O‘zbek tili va
adabiyoti, (2), 34–40.
10.
Qodirov, M. (2018). O‘zbek xalq og‘zaki ijodida hazil va kulgi vositalari.
Respublika ilmiy-amaliy konferensiyasi materiallari, 58–64.
11.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: Reidel.
12.
Tursunov, E. (2005). Hazil va kinoyaning pragmatik talqini. Toshkent:
Oʻzbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi nashriyoti.
13.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human
interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
14.
Shermatov A. Some features of implicature in English and Uzbek literary texts
//International Engineering Journal for Research & Development. – 2023. – Т. 8. – №. 6. – С. 1-5.
15.
Latipov A. A. PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS WITH THE ELEMENTS REFERRING
“MAN” IN ENGLISH //УЧЕНЫЙ XXI ВЕКА. – С. 33
16.
Zaripova, S., & Gafurova, K. (2024). FEATURES OF TEACHING ENGLISH
PHONETICS TO PRESCHOOL CHILDREN. TAMADDUN NURI JURNALI, 5(56), 289-292.
17.
Mamayunusovna, P. I. (2021). BOBURNOMA. AS A HISTORICAL AND LITERARY
SOURCE. Thematics Journal of Social Sciences, 7(5).
18.
Ablakulovich, E. A., & Zafarovna, N. N. (2023). Difficulties in teaching
vocabulary to young language learners. In Proceedings of International Educators
Conference (Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 24-28).
19.
Яхшиев, А. А. (2021). Немис тили оғзаки нутқи тизимида фразеологик
бирликларнинг семантик-дискурсив мақоми. Филология фанлари доктори (DSc)
диссертацияси автореферати. Самарқанд: СамДЧТИ, 75.
20.
Турниёзов, Н., Турниёзова, К., & Хайруллаев, Х. (2009). Структур синтаксис
асослари.
