International Journal Of Literature And Languages
58
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
58-61
10.37547/ijll/Volume05Issue06-18
Linguistic Reflection Of Socio-Political Realias In Uzbek,
Russian And English-Language Communicative Practice
Toshboeva Munisa Rustam Qizi
Second Year Basic Doctoral Student, Tashkent State University Of Uzbek Language And Literature, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
17 June 2025
Abstract:
This study offers a comparative analysis of socio-political realias in Uzbek, Russian, and English-language
communicative practices. Drawing on national language corpora and applying methods from contrastive
linguistics and discourse analysis, the research identifies how culturally specific political concepts are linguistically
represented in each language. Special attention is paid to institutional terminology, ideological vocabulary, and
metaphorical constructs that reflect national identity and political culture. The results provide insights relevant to
translation studies, intercultural communication, and linguistic anthropology.
Keywords: -
Socio-political realia, Uzbek, Russian, English, political discourse, comparative linguistics, national
corpora.
Introduction:
Realias are based on aspects inherent in
the culture of the people, which extend to various
spheres of social activity. The research is grounded in
the theories of linguistic relativity (Sapir
–
Whorf
Hypothesis), discourse theory (Fairclough, van Dijk),
and cultural linguistics (Sharifian), which emphasize the
interplay between language, culture, and ideological
worldviews. Socio-political realias are understood as
culturally and historically specific phenomena that
acquire unique lexical-semantic representations across
different languages.
Socio-political realias, being one of the most important
reasons, not only suggest the characteristics of political
discourse, but also form the essence and type of
manifestation of political communication. These realias
describe socially significant situations, general
philosophical trends and cultural-political orders that
carry out political integration and form public speech.
To understand the ethnocultural characteristics of
political discourse, one must know the political and
sociocultural situation of that country or that people,
namely: Uzbek, Russian and English-speaking (in this
case, American).
The class approach to language processes can be clearly
seen in the area of socio-political vocabulary. The
peculiarities of language allow for exaggerating
completely different meanings to equal language signs.
The semantic meaning of socio-political terminology
often has an obvious class phenomenon, that is, it is
closely connected with the worldview and perception
of the world, interpreted through the prism of class
struggle. Thus, the same words, especially in the
context of political discourse, can describe different
meanings in accessible content. In addition, they often
generate different ideas and connections among
people
from
different
social
groups,
which
demonstrates the differences in their ideological
attitudes.
Political discourse is not only a combination of language
units, but also a speech formation associated with
certain socio-political prerequisites. In this sense, a
special role is occupied by the category of socio-
political realias, which imply a combination of socio-
historical, general cultural and ideological situations
that establish the characteristics of the activity of
political language in a particular state.
METHOD AND METHODOLOGY
The inclusion of this aspect in the study is caused by the
need for a systematic approach to assessing the
ethnocultural features of political discourse. This study
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
59
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
employs a comparative, descriptive, and corpus-based
methodology within the framework of linguistic and
cultural analysis. The research is guided by the
principles of contrastive linguistics, critical discourse
analysis (CDA), and ethnolinguistic profiling to identify
and interpret the ways in which socio-political realias
are conceptualized, verbalized, and culturally marked
in
Uzbek,
Russian,
and
English-language
communicative practices.
RESEARCH RESULTS
The above-mentioned category of realia was chosen for
study based on the coefficient of use in political speech.
It was found that in American political discourse 20% of
realia are considered socio-political. In the Russian
language, this percentage ratio is much lower and
amounts to an average of 20%. The most restrained in
this regard was the Uzbek political discourse, which
averaged 15%.
Language
Approximate percentage of realias
Characteristic features of the realia usage
Russian 15
–
20% High saturation with realias, frequent
mention of government structures (State Duma,
Kremlin), ideological concepts (sovereignty, traditional
values), historical images (WWII, USSR)
Uzbek 10
–
15% Realias are often linked to national
identity and reforms: mahalla, taraqqiyot, Amir Temur,
milliy qadriyatlar; moderate density of realias, neutral
tone
English 12
–
18% Predominance of institutional realities
(Congress, White House, Brexit), lesser role of historical
and cultural symbols; emphasis on political, legal and
foreign policy terminology
Cultural and traditional foundations define the
boundaries of what is permissible and predictable in
the political sphere. In Uzbekistan, this is manifested in
the observance of etiquette, collectivist values, and
moral justification of power. In Russia, it is manifested
in the emphasis on historical heritage, the desire for
stability, and an ideology that affirms the role of a great
power. In the United States, individualism, freedom of
expression, and a willingness to engage in direct
confrontation are prioritized. These differences result
in unique discursive styles that are reflected in both the
vocabulary used and the practical aspects of political
statements.
To analyze the realias of political discourse related to
the socio-political life of the countries under study, it is
considered rational to provide a classification,
supplementing it with examples from linguistic and
cultural dictionaries and the media.
Socio-political realias can be divided into four main
categories, each of which, in turn, has its own
subgroups:
The first category is administrative-territorial division,
which includes various types of settlements: cities,
towns, villages, as well as their constituent parts, such
as streets, districts and squares.
The second category covers authorities and persons
representing them. The third is the realias associated
with political forces: movements, parties, politicians,
state structures, social strata, as well as the names of
educational institutions.
The fourth category is dedicated to the military sphere
and includes designations of military uniforms, types of
weapons, military ranks and military organizations.
According to the nature of our research, we are more
interested in classifications that present the category of
socio-political realias. In this case, the most indicative
and detailed is S. Vlahov and S. Florin’s classification.
Here it is necessary to pay attention to the subgroups
of socio-political realias (SPR) considered by the
classification. Let us consider the first category of SPR,
the administrative-territorial structure, which includes:
• administrative
-territorial units
(туман, қишлоқ
фуқаролар йигини; губерния, уезд;state, county );
•
populated
areas
(кишлак,
аул;
станица,
хутор;township, uptown);
• details of the settlement (жума
-
базар; зума,
старгало ; canton, department ).
The second category is accordingly subdivided into the
following:
•
authorities
(маджлис,
курултай;
дума,
муниципалитет; congress, legislature);
• power holders (шах, визирь; царь, земский
начальник; Lord Mayor, Sheriff).
A broader group of CPR is considered to be political
forces, which, in turn, are divided into:
• political activities and figures (джадизм, хаким;
большевизм, эсдеки; lobbying. congressman);
• patriotic and social movements (камолотчилар,
Фидокорлар; партизаны, славянофилы; Trumpists,
Rockefeller Republicans);
• social phenomena and movements (and their
representatives) (Адолат, Миллий тикланиш ;
нэпман, болельщик; rock and roll, Martin Luther
King.);
• ranks, degrees, titles, addresses («Фахрий
мураббий»
(Почетный
наставник),
«Мехнат
шухрати» (Трудовая слава); статский советник,
товарищ; Vice President, Reverend .)
• institutions (хакимият, махалля; облоно, загс;
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
60
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
college, Senate.)
• educational and cultural institutions (Баркамол
авлод, медресе ;одиннадцатилетка, вуз; junior high
school, school district.)
• esta
tes and castes (and their members)
–
(оқсуяк,
зиёли; дворянство, барин; White, Afro
-American .)
• class signs and symbols ( хан, визирь ;князь, герцог;
Uncle Sam, Mount Rushmore.)
Military realias are divided into:
• units (национальная гвардия, НКВД; военные
комиссариаты, ОМОН; Delta Force, Secret Service .);
• weapons (меч, кинжал;катюша, Savage Arms MSR
-
15, Ruger LCP.);
• uniforms (шапка
-
ушанка, китель; нарукавные
нашивки, кокарды; camouflage, chevrons.)
• servicemen (and commanders) –
(Ватан химоячиси,
аскар; прапорщик, гвардеец; patriot, draftee.)
The mass media, being the main channels for
broadcasting
political
discourse,
demonstrate
significant differences in the linguistic design of political
realia, conditioned by the cultural, historical and
mental characteristics of society. A comparative
analysis of publications in the media in Uzbek, Russian
and English languages allows us to identify the specifics
of the lexical-semantic and pragmatic content of
political realias in each of the linguocultural spaces
under consideration.
Uzbek media tend to use terms that reflect stability,
national identity and statehood. For example, the
article “O‘zbekiston tashabbuslari –
milliy manfaatlar
va umuminsoniy qadriyatlar ustuvorligining yorqin
ifodasi” emphasizes
the priority of national interests
and universal human values in the policy of Uzbekistan.
Another article, “Taraqqiyot strategiyasi –
Yangi
O‘zbekiston
barqaror
taraqqiyotining
garovi,”
emphasizes development strategy as a guarantee of
the country’s susta
inable progress. Expressions such as
“barqaror taraqqiyot” (sustainable development) and
“milliy manfaatlar” (national interests) emphasize the
strategic and integrative nature of political discourse in
Uzbekistan,
focused
on
consolidation
and
modernization.
Political discourse in Russian media demonstrates a
more pronounced polyphony and a wide use of
evaluative vocabulary. In publications such as
Kommersant and Izvestia, expressions such as "foreign
policy course", "sanction pressure", "geopolitical
stabi
lity"
(«внешнеполитический
курс»,
«санкционное
давление»,
«геополитическая
стабильность»)
are
often
encountered.
A
characteristic feature is the use of metaphorical and
ideologically marked constructions, for example:
"information war", "Western dictate", "sovereign
democracy" («информационная война», «западный
диктат», «суверенная демократия»). These elements
give Russian political discourse an expressive coloring
and form a dichotomy of "friend or foe" ("свой —
чужой"), actualizing the concept of national
identity
through opposition to external influence.
In English-language media such as The Guardian, BBC
News or The New York Times, an analytical style of
presentation and a focus on neutral, factual
presentation of information prevails. Typical examples
of the representation of political realities are
constructions such as “policy shift”, “bipartisan
agreement”, “international sanctions”. In this case,
euphemisms or highly general terms such as “strategic
interests” or “diplomatic efforts” are often used,
which
indicates a desire to avoid direct confrontation and
ensure a balanced coverage of events. At the same
time, in a number of cases, the presence of implicit
assessments can be observed, especially in relation to
authoritarian regimes or human rights violations.
CONCLUSION
A comparative analysis of socio-political discourse in
the Uzbek, Russian and English languages revealed
significant differences at both the lexical-semantic and
pragmatic levels. Uzbek political discourse is
characterized by a high degree of institutionality and
the purposeful construction of the image of a stable,
modernizing
state.
Russian-language
media
demonstrate rhetorical richness, a tendency toward
metaphorization and ideological labeling, forming a
binary opposition of “friend or foe,” which reflects the
desire to mobilize the audience in conditions of
geopolitical pressure. In English-language sources, the
analytical model of presenting information with a
predominance of neutral or euphemistic vocabulary
prevails, which is associated with the pragmatics of
objectivity and compliance with the principles of
journalistic ethics.
Thus, the linguistic representation of socio-political
realities is directly linked to the national mentality,
media strategies and communicative norms of each
cultural space. These differences should be taken into
account not only within the framework of linguistic
research, but also when analyzing the mechanisms of
public opinion formation, intercultural dialogue, and
political positioning in the global media space.
REFERENCES
Влахов, С. Непереводимое в переводе / С. Влахов, С.
Флорин. —1980: Международные отношения, 1980.
—343 с.
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
61
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll
International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834)
М.А. Амири, А. Мадаени Аввал” Классификация
Реалий В Русском И Персидском Языках” Гилянский
университет, Иран, г. Решт,
2014.
—с.94
Yusubov, Jaloliddin Kadamovich; Esonaliyeva, Gulnoza
Dilmurod qizi “Taraqqiyot Strategiyasi –
Yangi
O‘Zbekiston
Barqaror
Taraqqiyotining
Garovi”
16.02.2024.
«США. Внешняя политика: последние новости».
kommersant.ru
Tim Davie: BBC journalists' families are being
persecuted in Iran». thetimes.co.uk
«BBC boss: Funding cuts aid Russian and Chinese
'assault on truth'». thetimes.co.uk
