International Journal Of Literature And Languages
96
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
96-97
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue05-26
Pragmatics Of Using Cultural Metaphors and
Phraseologisms in Intercultural Dialogue: A Comparative
Study of Uzbek, British, and American Cultures
Yangibayeva B. Ye.
Assistant teacher, Nukus State Technical University, Uzbekistan
Received:
29 March 2025;
Accepted:
10 April 2025;
Published:
30 May 2025
Abstract: -
This article compares and contrasts Uzbek, British, and American cultures in order to examine the
practical uses of cultural metaphors and phraseologisms in cross-cultural communication. The study emphasises
how these linguistic components represent cultural norms, mental processes, and values. The article illustrates
the potential difficulties and miscommunications that may occur in cross-cultural conversations because of
disparate idiomatic and metaphorical expressions through a number of examples.
Keywords: -
Pragmatics, cultural metaphors, phraseologisms, intercultural communication, Uzbek culture, British
culture, American culture.
Introduction: -
Language is not merely a system of
communication; it is also a reflection of cultural
thought, behavior, and tradition. Metaphors and
phraseologisms serve as powerful tools for expressing
shared experiences and cultural values. In intercultural
communication, understanding these tools is crucial to
interpreting meaning beyond the literal level.
Metaphors and phraseological units are more than just
decorative elements of language; they are vital
cognitive and communicative instruments that
represent a culture's values, worldview, and ways of
thinking. This paper explores how metaphors and
idiomatic expressions are used pragmatically in Uzbek
and British cultures and discusses how these
expressions influence intercultural understanding.
Extended Analysis and Cultural Insights
In extending our analysis of metaphor and phraseology
use across cultures, it is essential to delve deeper into
pragmatic situations where cultural assumptions and
values shape communication. In Uzbek, metaphors like
"Ko‘ngli tog‘dek keng" (literally “his heart is as wide as
a mountain”) reveal a collectivist orientation toward
generosity and emotional openness. This image-heavy
metaphor, grounded in nature, aligns with rural
cultural narratives and collectivist values of Central
Asia.
British English, influenced by an individualistic and
historically class-conscious society, includes metaphors
such as “a stiff upper lip,” which pragmatically signals
emotional restraint and stoicism. This cultural
metaphor not only describes behavior but also guides
it, especially in public discourse. British speakers may
pragmatically employ this phrase to encourage social
decorum, in contrast to more emotionally expressive
cultures.
In intercultural communication, such metaphors may
cause misunderstanding. For instance, a British
colleague describing someone as having “a stiff upper
lip” might be misunderstood by an Uzbek speaker as
cold or unfeeling, whereas it actually connotes strength
under pressure. Similarly, the phrase “turning the other
cheek,” root
ed in Biblical language, may carry
pragmatic implications of forgiveness or moral
superiority in British English, which may not resonate
with the Uzbek emphasis on honor and collective
reputation.
Further examining phraseologisms in intercultural
interacti
on, Uzbek speakers might use “Bir kunmas bir
kun” (lit. “If not today, someday”), a culturally
grounded phrase expressing patience and hope,
whereas British English often resorts to more
deterministic or time-
specific idioms like “Better late
than never” or “There’s always tomorrow.” Each carries
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
97
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
subtle pragmatic cues about one’s orientation to fate,
time, and planning.
Politeness Strategies and Cultural Values
Pragmatic choices are often guided by politeness
strategies, which vary cross-culturally. Uzbek culture,
influenced by collectivism and Islamic values, often
favors indirectness and deference to elders. British
culture values understatement and indirectness, while
American culture, though polite, leans toward direct
and egalitarian expression [4].
Idiomatic Expressions as Cultural Markers
Idioms encapsulate history and shared experiences.
Uzbek idioms like 'it og’ziga tushgan suyak' (a bone in a
dog’s mouth) signify fortune. In British English, 'barking
up the wrong tree' denotes misjudgment, while
Americans say 'hit the nail on the head' to express
precision. Such idioms function as cultural shorthand.
Cultural Specificity and Translation Challenges
Phraseologisms often lack direct equivalents across
languages, posing challenges for interpreters and
t
ranslators. Translating 'ko’ngil ko’tarish' (lifting the
heart) as simply 'cheering up' misses the emotional
depth in Uzbek. Similarly, British expressions like 'break
the ice' may seem strange if translated literally into
Uzbek.
Intercultural Competence and Pragmatic Awareness
To enhance intercultural dialogue, speakers must
develop intercultural communicative competence. This
involves not just language proficiency but also
pragmatic awareness of culturally bound expressions
and their functions in communication [5, p. 56].
As Karasik [6] and Wierzbicka [9] have shown, culture-
specific phraseologisms often encapsulate deep-seated
values and worldviews. Wierzbicka emphasizes that
language serves as a repository of cultural scripts,
where certain phrases act as condensed norms of
behavior. The British “don’t make a fuss,” for instance,
pragmatically enforces modesty and avoidance of
attention, whereas an Uzbek speaker might find the
phrase overly dismissive if directness or public concern
is culturally encouraged.
Pragmatic Misalignments and Intercultural Strategy
Miscommunication can occur not due to lexical
misunderstanding but due to the pragmatic inferences
attached to metaphorical language. A British manager
using “take it with a pinch of salt” might expect
skepticism or humor, whereas the literal-minded
interpretation in an Uzbek context could reduce the
impact or create confusion. Conversely, an Uzbek
speaker referring to “Ko‘ngil ovlash” (soothing
someone’s soul) might imply emotional nurturing, a
layer that might be lost on a British interlocutor
unfamiliar with this culturally embedded expression.
To bridge these gaps, learners and professionals in
intercultural settings must develop what Thomas [8, p.
91-
112] calls “pragmatic fluency”—
the ability to
interpret intended meaning rather than literal form.
This includes understanding both source and target
cultural connotations behind common metaphors and
idioms.
Educational
materials
should
include
parallel
metaphoric structures with context-rich examples,
s
uch as comparing British “It’s not my cup of tea” to an
Uzbek equivalent like “Bu mening ishim emas” (That’s
not my affair), though the former is softer and often
humorous. Awareness of these pragmatic nuances
helps build more effective intercultural dialogues.
CONCLUSION
The pragmatic study of metaphor and phraseologism in
intercultural dialogue reveals the intricate interplay
between language and cultural cognition. Uzbek and
British cultures, while sharing some communicative
goals, differ significantly in how metaphors encode
social norms, emotional expression, and politeness
strategies. A nuanced understanding of these
metaphorical idioms can greatly enhance intercultural
competence and mitigate the risk of pragmatic failure.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and Culture. TESOL
Quarterly, 33(4), 625
–
654.
Bozorov, K. (2015). Cultural Metaphors in Uzbek
Proverbs. Uzbek Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 45
–
53.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural
Communicative Competence. Multilingual Matters.
Juraev, O. (2016). Pragmatic Aspects of the Uzbek
Language. Tashkent: Fan.
Karasik, V. I. (2004). Yazyk sotsial’nogo statusa i roli
.
Volgograd: Peremena.
Nurmatov, A. (2020). Phraseological Units in Uzbek:
Semantic and Cultural Dimensions. Tashkent: UzMU
Press.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91
–
112.
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The
Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
