International Journal Of Literature And Languages
133
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
133-137
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue06-38
Linguo-Pragmatic Analysis Of Historical Terms In Amir
Temur’s Speech
Zohida Akromjon Qizi Anvarova
Phd Candidate, 2nd Year Andijan State University, Uzbekistan
Received:
21 April 2025;
Accepted:
26 May 2025;
Published:
30 June 2025
Abstract:
This article presents a linguo-pragmatic analysis of the historical speech of Amir Temur as depicted in
Muhammad Ali’s novel Buyuk Saltanat. Through the historical vocabulary, military terminology, and religious
-
philosophical concepts used in the character's speech, the study reveals aspects of medieval military strategy,
psychological influence, social stratification, and communicative intentions. The research identifies underlying
meanings and presuppositions, and compares the semantics of historical terms. The analysis highlights the
semantic load, illocutionary force, and cultural relevance of speech units within their historical context. The study
contributes to illustrating the relationship between language and thought through the examination of historical
texts.
Keywords:
Amir Temur, historical vocabulary, linguo-pragmatics, military speech, Buyuk Saltanat, cultural context.
Introduction:
The portrayal of historical figures in
literary works serves not only aesthetic purposes but
also reflects deeper communicative and socio-
ideological intentions. In Muhammad Ali’s novel Buyuk
Saltanat, the historical speeches of Amir Temur
function as a key narrative device through which the
author advances his pragmatic objectives. Specifically,
the integration of historical lexical units, military
terminology, and religious-philosophical concepts into
Temur’s speech illustrates the author’s intent to convey
the values, worldview, and strategic thinking of the
medieval era to a contemporary readership.
The author’s pragmatic orientation is manifested in two
principal dimensions: first, to harmonize historical
authenticity with artistic expressiveness in constructing
a vivid and influential national hero; and second, to
foster a sense of historical consciousness and cultural
pride through the strategic use of language. The
lexemes selected by the author
—
particularly those
carrying military, political, and spiritual connotations
—
are designed to activate presuppositions and evoke
emotional resonance in the
reader’s perception.
Therefore, this study aims to analyze the speech
episodes attributed to Amir Temur in the novel through
a linguo-pragmatic lens. Particular emphasis is placed
on the communicative goals embedded in the author’s
language choices, the illocutionary force of speech acts,
and their functional significance within the broader
cultural and historical context. This approach facilitates
an understanding of the mechanisms of literary
communication between author and reader in
historical fiction.
The portrayal of historical figures in literary texts
reflects not only their political or military activity but
also plays a significant role in shaping the author’s
worldview, the ideological stance of the era, and the
construction of national memory. In particular, the
depiction of Amir Temur in Muhammad Ali’s novel
Buyuk Saltanat serves as a vivid literary manifestation
of Uzbek historical consciousness. The novel presents
Temur’s political leadership, military genius, state
-
building strategies, and moral-ethical character from
the perspective of national pride and cultural values.
MAIN PART
In constructing Temur’s image, the author aims to
reveal not only the historical figure’s external actions
but also his internal psychological state through the
expressive power of language. Notably, the use of
speech portraits, character-specific linguistic features,
historical terms and expressions, phraseological units,
and stylistic devices all contribute to the artistic and
aesthetic elevation of Amir Temur’s pe
rsona. The
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
134
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
linguistic representation of Amir Temur in Buyuk
Saltanat demonstrates the author’s mastery of
language and his ability to convey historical thinking.
In particular, the speeches delivered by Amir Temur
before battles encapsulate a significant linguo-
pragmatic load, reflecting the socio-political context of
the medieval era and emdiving the cultural mindset
of the time. The following speech excerpt from the
novel serves as a clear example of this phenomenon:
Oliy shon amirlarim(Commander or noble; high-ranking
military or administrative leader), burgutday olg‘ir
bahodirlarim(Brave warrior; often used to praise
courage and valor)! Janoblar! Ting‘chilarim(Informant
or scout; responsible for gathering intelligence) xabar
berdilarki, Tarak daryosi u
tomonini To‘xtamishxonning
lak-lak cherigi tutib ketibdur, bamisoli olam lashkardan
iboratday
ermish.
Biznikidan
bisyor
ko‘p...
Cherig(Troops; military units)imizda esa ozuq tugab
qahatchilik xavfi paydo bo‘ldi. Amir Shohmalik
tarxon(Elite noble title in Turkic-Mongol traditions,
similar to a general) o‘z lashkari birlan atrofga
qishloqlarga borsun, shikorga chiqsun(“Let him go
hunting” –
metaphorically refers to foraging or
resource raids), ozuq topib farog‘at ila qaytsun!”[1
-
483]
This excerpt represents a direct speech attributed to
Amir Temur in Buyuk Saltanat. The rhetorical structure
of the address (“Oliy shon amirlarim, burgutday olg‘ir
bahodirlarim”) demonstrates formal elevation, heroic
metaphors, and military hierarchy. The expression
“burgutday olg‘ir” (as swift as a falcon) serves as a
traditional Turkic symbol of martial courage and
vigilance.
The passage reflects three key pragmatic dimensions:
1. Commanding strategy: Temur addresses his
commanders
about
enemy
occupation
(To‘xtamishxonning lak
-lak cherigi
–
Tokhtamysh’s
countless troops), instilling urgency.
2. Realistic assessment: He openly mentions the threat
of famine within his own army (ozuq tugab, qahatchilik
xavfi), indicating transparency in leadership.
3. Delegated action: The order to Amir Shohmalik
Tarxon to go “shikorga chiqsun” (literally: go hunting)
implies a strategic foraging expedition, blending literal
and pragmatic meaning.
The lexical items present in this excerpt
—
such as amir,
bahodir, ting‘chi, janob, lak
-lak, cherik, lashkar, tarxon,
shikor, ozuq, qishloq, and farog‘at—
are considered
expressive markers of the historical period’s language.
Their usage serves not only a semantic function but also
reveals the communicative and functional capacities of
the language in the given historical context. Each term
carries cultural and pragmatic weight, reflecting the
author's intention to construct a linguistically and
historically authentic narrative voice.
The passage under analysis depicts a pre-battle
situation, where the accumulation of military and
socio-political vocabulary underscores the martial
atmosphere surrounding Amir Temur’s leadership. The
prevalence of military terminology is directly linked to
the biographical background of the protagonist, who
spent much of his life engaged in warfare and strategic
campaigns. As such, the lexical selection in the speech
corresponds to the context of military urgency and
pragmatic decision-making.
Terms such as amir, bahodir, and tarxon represent
historical military ranks, each reflecting the hierarchical
structure of Turkic-Mongol governance. These titles,
often conferred by rulers, indicate positions of honor,
leadership, and command. In parallel, terms like cherik,
lashkar, and lak-lak relate to military forces, with lak-lak
emphasizing the vast quantity of enemy troops,
thereby enhancing the rhetorical tension.
Moreover, ting‘chi denotes a scout or intelligence
gatherer, a vital role in pre-modern warfare. The word
shikor carries dual meaning
—literally “hunting,” but
pragmatically, in this context, implying a foraging
expedition to secure military supplies. Similarly, ozuq
(provisions), qishloq (village), and farog‘at (comfort or
relief) extend the speech’s semantic scope to the
logistical and social dimensions of war preparation.
Altogether, these lexemes are not employed arbitrarily
but selected deliberately to reflect the character’s
communicative intent and the historical authenticity of
the moment. The author’s linguistic choices illustrate a
high degree of contextual awareness, aligning the
speech with the realities of medieval warfare while also
revealing the deeper interrelation between language,
historical narrative, and pragmatic function in literary
discourse.
In the course of the pragmalinguistic analysis of the
text, it becomes evident that each sentence carries a
distinct meaning and communicative function. For
instance, the expression “Oliy shon amirlarim” (“My
glorious commanders”) serves not only to honor
Temur’s military leaders but also to emphasize the
socio-hierarchical structure of the army. This phrase
functions as more than a form of address; it operates
as a rhetorical strategy aimed at elevating the morale
of the audience and reinforcing their sense of loyalty
and duty.
Likewise, the metaphorical description “burgu
tday
olgʻir bahodirlarim” (“my falcon
-
like valiant warriors”)
amplifies the combat readiness and superiority of
Temur’s troops by invoking imagery associated with
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
135
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
speed, precision, and predatory strength. Such
metaphor serves to symbolically position his warriors
as being not only courageous but also tactically
dominant over the enemy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
From a pragmatic perspective, the utterance contains
both
presupposition
and
implicature.
The
presupposition embedded in the initial sentence is that
Temur’s amirs and warriors are individuals of the
highest rank (“oliy shon”), emdiving the traits of
sharp-sightedness, agility, decisiveness, and battlefield
prowess
—
qualities metaphorically associated with a
falcon. The implicature, on the other hand, subtly
conveys that these military leaders are expected to act
in a manner worthy of their titles and reputations.
Thus, Temur’s speech not only praises but also
implicitly demands valor and responsibility, anchoring
the entire message in both motivational and
disciplinary dimensions.
Many of the historical words used in the text originate
from Arabic and Persian-Tajik, and most of them are no
longer in common usage today. Some, however, are of
purely Turkic origin. For instance, the term amir (from
Arabic)
traditionally denotes “ruler,” “leader,” or
“commander.” In regions such as Bukhara and several
other Muslim lands, it was used as a royal or princely
title. During the Timurid period and later in the
khanates of Turkestan, amir referred to the highest
military rank and was broadly used to denote a
commander-in-chief or military leader. This definition
is confirmed across several lexicographic sources,
including the Explanatory Dictionary of Navoiy's Works,
Boburnoma Glossary, and the Dictionary of Historical
Terms, which all associate the term with meanings such
as "governor," "sovereign," or "chief of army."
In historical-literary sources from the 14th to 17th
centuries, amir
—
including its shortened form mir and
plural umaro
—
is frequently encountered in the sense
of "army leader" or "general," particularly within
Arabic-influenced
discourse.
As
a
military-
administrative term, amir was widely used in both the
Golden Horde and the region of Mā Warāʾ al
-Nahr
(Transoxiana). Initially, this title was exclusively
assigned to members of the military elite, though over
time, amirs began to hold civil positions as well. For
example, during the Ghaznavid dynasty, the head of
state was formally titled amir.
From a socio-historical perspective, the amirs, much
like beks and bahodirs, represented the hereditary
military aristocracy, although they typically had no
direct familial ties to Mongol khans. In modern Uzbek
language usage, the term amir has largely been
replaced by the title "army general," which refers to a
high-ranking officer within the armed forces. From the
20th century onward, the scope of the term’s meaning
has narrowed significantly. Today, amir continues to be
used primarily in monarchical Arab states
—
such as
Saudi Arabia
—
where it designates royal family
members or crown princes.
The word bahodir, on the other hand, is believed to
originate from Mongolic roots. During the period of
Mongol rule, this term was used to refer to members of
the khan’s elite guard. In other sources, it is defined as
a title bestowed upon individuals from Turkic and
Mongolic peoples during the medieval era in
recognition of outstanding bravery demonstrated in
battle.
Throughout the speech, historical toponyms and
anthroponyms such as Tarak River and Tokhtamysh
Khan establish a distinctly military and historical
context, grounding the events in a specific geopolitical
and temporal reality. These names contribute to the
authenticity of the narrative and indicate that the
described events are rooted in real historical
circumstances. The lexemes cherik and lashkar
represent military terminology specific to the era. The
phrase “lak
-
lak cherik” (an exaggerated expression
meaning “countless troops”) functions as a pragmatic
threat, emphasizing the overwhelming number of
enemy forces. Through this rhetorical strategy, Amir
Temur urges his commanders to remain alert and ready
for mobilization.
The word lashkar, derived from Persian, historically
referred to an army, armed forces, or military
contingent of the state. During the feudal period, the
lashkar referred to troops gathered for a military
campaign from territories under a ruler's control. Each
soldier called to serve was required to arrive with his
own horse, weapons, and provisions. This definition is
supported by various historical and terminological
dictionaries.
Conversely, cherik is of Mongolic origin and is
considered a military term synonymous with lashkar.
According to historical lexicographic sources, cherik
appears frequently in early Turkic texts and is usually
defined as “troops” or “soldiers.” Some dictionaries
also note alternate spellings such as cherig. While both
terms
—
lashkar and cherik
—
convey similar meanings,
their etymological roots and nuanced usage reflect
different socio-political layers of military discourse.
The word lak (from Arabic) denotes an extremely large
numerical value, generally interpreted as “hundreds of
thousands,” “innumerable,” or “countless.” In
dictionaries of classical Uzbek literature
—
such as the
Explanatory Dictionary of Navoi's Works and the
glossary for the Baburnama
—
the term lak is defined
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
136
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
similarly, often used in reference to immense army
sizes. In contemporary Uzbek, this lexical item has been
largely replaced by the numerical expression yuz ming
(one hundred thousand), although the original meaning
remains intact.
The
sentence
“Tarak
daryosi
u
tomonini
To‘xtamishxonning lak
-lak cherigi tutib k
etibdur”
presupposes that Tokhtamysh Khan is recognized as
the enemy and that his forces have already occupied
the far side of the Tarak River. This is presented as a
given fact within the discourse. The following
statement, “bamisoli olam lashkardan ibora
tday
ermish. Biznikidan bisyor ko‘p...” carries an implicature
suggesting
that
the
enemy's
army
appears
overwhelmingly large and threatening. This implicit
meaning is intended to heighten the sense of danger
and thereby reinforce the urgency and motivation
among Amir Temur’s own troops. Through such
discourse strategies, the speaker manipulates
presuppositions and connotations to influence the
audience’s psychological readiness and reinforce group
solidarity.
Moreover, expressions such as “ozuq tugab”
(“provisions have run out”) and “qahatchilik xavfi”
(“danger of famine”) reflect the dire conditions during
a military campaign. These utterances function as
warning pragmemes, which aim to capture the
audience’s attention and underscore the urgency of
addressing a practical crisis. They contribute to a
realistic portrayal of the military setting and serve to
motivate immediate action.
The lexeme ozuq appears in Mahmud al-
Kashgari’s
Dīwān Lughāt al
-Turk, recorded in the form azuq,
where it is defined as “foodstuff” or “something edible”
[15-97]. A similar definition is provided in modern
etymological works, such as Sevortyan’s Etymological
Dictionary of Turkic Languages, where ozuq is one of
the few terms from this passage that is attested. Other
historical terms from the same excerpt are notably
absent from that lexicon.
The phrase “Amir Shohmalik tarxon” illustrates the use
of a specific historical title. The term tarxon referred to
an individual who held a privileged status, often
exempt from taxes and entrusted with significant
military or administrative authority [3- 224]. Its
inclusion in the speech highlights the importance of the
task assigned and underscores the high level of trust in
the addressee. The term tarxon also appears in Dīwān
Lughāt al
-Turk, written as tarxan, and additionally
denotes one of the Uzbek tribal lineages [ 15-409; 13-
193].
The statement “Cherigimizda ozuq tugab...” explicitly
indicates that Temur’s army is facing severe logistical
challenges, particularly a critical shortage of food
supplies. Assigning the responsibility to Amir Shohmalik
tarxon implies his status as a reliable and competent
military commander.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the sentence
presupposes a deteriorating material condition within
the army. The subsequent directive
—“shikorga
chiqsun, ozuq topib, farog‘at ila qaytsun”—
represents
a complex linguo-pragmatic unit, combining a
command, a wish, and a blessing. It instructs action (go
hunting), expresses the desired outcome (find
provisions), and invokes a positive return (with peace
and relief).
The historical term shikor is derived from Persian and
denotes “hunting” or “to hunt,” and is also used to
refer to the product of the hunt [9-41; 13-525; 14-203].
Meanwhile, the term farog‘at, of Arabic origin, means
“rest,” “tranquility,” or “peace of mind” [8
-16; 12-327;
14-183]. In the context of the speech, however,
farog‘at ila qaytsun is pragmatically interpreted as
“may he return with success, peace, and abundance”—
an expression that combines the elements of
imperative force, benevolent intent, and strategic
optimism.
At first glance, the final sentence
—
"Amir Shohmalik
tarxon... shikorga chiqsun, ozuq topib farog‘at ila
qaytsun"
—
appears to be a straightforward command.
However, a deeper interpretation reveals that the term
shikor may extend beyond its conventional meaning of
“hunting” to imply the forced procurement of
provisions from nearby villages
—
potentially even
military looting. The phrase “farog‘at ila qaytsun” (may
he return in peace) underscores the danger of the task
and the expectation that it be completed without
violence or confrontation. This reflects Temur’s
attempt to maintain his army’s morale and prevent
starvation, while at the same time discouraging
unnecessary aggression or pillaging.
This intention becomes clearer in the next sentence,
where the implicature affirms Temur’s ethical stance:
“In truth, all people in the world are like one div; all
are servants of God.” Here, the underlying message is
that war and destruction are not ideal paths, and that
all humans share a common essence
—
thus, military
necessity must be guided by moral restraint.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, among the terms analyzed, only ozuq is
of pure Turkic origin, while the rest derive from Persian,
Mongolic, or Arabic. The historical speeches of Amir
Temur in Buyuk Saltanat reveal significant linguo-
pragmatic characteristics of the Uzbek historical-
literary language. Each historical word functions not
merely as a lexical item, but as a communicative tool
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
137
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
that reflects societal thought and fulfills specific
pragmatic intentions. In the novel, war is framed as
strategy, deception as intellect, noise as threat, and
clothing as psychological pressure. These associations
serve as crucial analytical markers at the intersection of
linguistics and cultural studies.
The speech analyzed here encapsulates a range of
historical lexemes, military-political terminology, and
cultural imagery unique to the Timurid era. These
words perform more than nominal functions; they
carry
communicative
intent,
emotive
force,
psychological pressure, and strategic motivation.
Historical words thus serve not only to anchor the
narrative in a specific time and place but also to express
the speaker’s status, rhetorical goals, and situational
strategies. Therefore, such units hold special value in
linguo-pragmatic analysis.
Delivered in a military context, the speech contains
multiple semantic layers. It serves to motivate the
army, inform them about the enemy's position,
acknowledge the severity of the current situation, and
issue decisive instructions. This illustrates the
pragmatic power of the utterance, its contextual
relevance, and its psychological impact
—
key aspects
that underpin its rhetorical effectiveness.
REFERENCES
1.
Ali, M. (2021). Buyuk Saltanat. Tashkent: Sharq
Publishing House.
2.
Aliev, A. A. (2007). Linguoculturology: Subject
and Objectives. Moscow: Flinta
–
Nauka.
3.
Bekmuhammedov, H. (1986). Explanatory
Dictionary of Historical Terms. Tashkent:
O‘qituvchi Publishing House.
4.
Dolimov, Sh. (2007). A Concise Explanatory
Dictionary of Military Terms. Tashkent: Military
Publishing House.
5.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language,
Vol. 1. (2006). Tashkent: O‘zME. 680 pages.
6.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language,
Vol. 2. (2006). Tashkent: O‘zME.
672 pages.
7.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language,
Vol. 3. (2007). Tashkent: O‘zME. 688 pages.
8.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language,
Vol. 4. (2008). Tashkent: O‘zME. 608 pages.
9.
Explanatory Dictionary of the Uzbek Language,
Vol. 5. (
2008). Tashkent: O‘zME. 592 pages.
10.
Fozilov, E. I. (1983). Explanatory Dictionary of
the Language in Alisher Navoi's Works, Vol. I.
Tashkent: Fan Publishing. 656 pages.
11.
Fozilov, E. I. (1983). Explanatory Dictionary of
the Language in Alisher Navoi's Works, Vol. II.
Tashkent: Fan Publishing. 644 pages.
12.
Fozilov, E. I. (1984). Explanatory Dictionary of
the Language in Alisher Navoi's Works, Vol. III.
Tashkent: Fan Publishing. 624 pages.
13.
Fozilov, E. I. (1985). Explanatory Dictionary of
the Language in Alisher Navoi's Works, Vol. IV.
Tashkent: Fan Publishing. 636 pages.
14.
Iskhaqov, F. (2008). Brief Explanatory
Dictionary for “Baburnama”. Andijan: Andijan
Publishing and Printing JSC. 236 pages.
15.
Kashgari, M. (1960
–
1963). Divan-u Lughat at-
Turk (Vols. 1). Translated into Uzbek by S.
Mutallibov. Tashkent: Fan Publishing House.
16.
Shamsiyev, P., & Ibrohimov, S. (1973).
Dictionary of Navoi’s Works. Tashkent:
Literature and Art Publishing House. 784 pages.
17.
Sevortyan, E. V. (1974). Etymological Dictionary
of Turkic Languages. Common Turkic and Inter-
Turkic stems beginning with vowels. Moscow:
Nauka, 768 pp.
18.
Uzbek Language Explanatory Dictionary, Vol. 1
(Russian Edition). (n.d.).
Moscow: “Russkiy
yazyk” Publishing. 631 pages.
