International scientific journal
“Interpretation and researches”
Volume 1 issue 12 (58) | ISSN: 2181-4163 | Impact Factor: 8.2
56
LINGUOCULTURAL FEATURES OF LEXICAL UNITS RELATED TO THE
SPHERE OF THEATRE IN TYPOLOGICALLY DIFFERENT LANGUAGES
Elvina Sherefetdinova
ESL teacher of Foreign Language Department, Kokand University, Uzbekistan
elvinaserefetdinova.elvina@gmail.com
Abstract:
This article investigates the linguacultural characteristics of lexical
units related to the theatre domain in typologically different languages—specifically
English, Russian, and Uzbek. It highlights the impact of cultural, historical, and
structural factors on the formation, usage, and conceptualization of theatre-related
vocabulary. By conducting comparative analysis, the paper uncovers both universal
elements and culturally specific features that reflect national mentalities and cultural
narratives. This research contributes to cross-linguistic and intercultural
understanding of the theatre as a complex semiotic and social phenomenon.
Keywords
: linguacultural, theatre vocabulary, typologically different languages,
English, Russian, Uzbek, cultural specificity, lexical units, cross-linguistic analysis,
semiotics, intercultural communication.
Introduction
Theatre is not only a form of artistic expression but also a mirror of societal
values, historical development, and collective memory. The language of theatre,
embedded in scripts, performances, criticism, and everyday speech, reflects the
unique cultural framework of its speakers. Therefore, exploring theatrical
terminology through a linguacultural lens allows us to uncover how different
linguistic communities interpret similar concepts and encode their cultural identities.
In typologically diverse languages such as English (an analytic Germanic
language), Russian (a fusional Slavic language), and Uzbek (an agglutinative Turkic
language), the theatre lexicon showcases unique linguistic mechanisms shaped by
distinct historical and cultural trajectories.
Theoretical Background
Linguacultural studies (linguacultural) examine the interrelation between
language and culture, focusing on how culturally significant concepts are encoded in
linguistic forms. According to scholars such as V. V. Vorobyov and Yu. S. Stepanov,
language serves as a repository of cultural knowledge, worldview, and social norms.
Theatre vocabulary can be classified into several linguacultural categories:
•
Culturally marked terms
: Words reflecting national traditions or specific
theatre forms (e.g.,
kabuki
in Japanese,
commedia dell’arte
in Italian).
International scientific journal
“Interpretation and researches”
Volume 1 issue 12 (58) | ISSN: 2181-4163 | Impact Factor: 8.2
57
•
Linguoculturemes
: Units that encode culture-specific knowledge and
emotions (e.g.,
stage fright
,
tragicomedy
).
•
Cognitive metaphors
: Conceptual metaphors used in theatre language, such as
“life is a stage.”
Understanding these terms involves not just translation but also cultural
interpretation, making the study of theatre lexicon a rich field for linguocultural
inquiry.
Methodology
The research is conducted using descriptive, contrastive, and contextual analysis.
A corpus of approximately 100 theatrical terms was compiled from glossaries,
dictionaries, translated plays, and academic articles in English, Russian, and Uzbek.
Each term was examined based on the following parameters:
•
Etymology and origin
•
Direct (denotative) and indirect (connotative) meanings
•
Cultural significance and symbolic value
•
Usage in both professional and everyday contexts
The analysis focused on identifying both universally shared concepts and
culturally bound expressions that are unique to each language.
Findings and Discussion
1. Etymological Layers and Borrowings
•
English
: A significant portion of theatre vocabulary in English is derived from
Latin, Greek, and French (e.g.,
drama
,
tragedy
,
prologue
,
backstage
). The
widespread influence of Shakespeare and Western dramaturgy has led to a rich and
metaphorical theatre lexicon.
•
Russian
: Russian theatrical terminology includes both native Slavic roots and
borrowings from French and German (e.g.,
актёр
,
сцена
,
декорации
,
режиссёр
).
During the Soviet era, many terms were ideologically loaded (e.g.,
агиттеатр
–
propaganda theatre).
•
Uzbek
: Uzbek, influenced by Persian, Arabic, Russian, and modern English,
features a blend of native terms and borrowings (e.g.,
tomosha
– performance,
aktyor
,
sahna
,
rejissyor
). Traditional forms such as
lapar
(dialogic singing) and
maskaraboz
preserve pre-modern theatre elements.
2. Conceptual and Cultural Features
•
English
theatre terms often emphasize
individual creativity and
performance
:
monologue
,
star actor
,
one-man show
. The commercial and
professional nature of Western theatre is reflected in terms like
box office
,
understudy
,
audition
.
•
Russian
terms reveal the historical emphasis on
collectivism, ideology, and
education
:
театр юного зрителя
(Theatre for the Young Spectator),
народный
International scientific journal
“Interpretation and researches”
Volume 1 issue 12 (58) | ISSN: 2181-4163 | Impact Factor: 8.2
58
театр
(People’s Theatre), and
самодеятельность
(amateur performance by
workers or students).
•
Uzbek
theatre culture incorporates
oral traditions and folklore
, using terms
such as
dostonchi
(epic narrator),
maqomchi
(classical musician), and
qo‘g‘irchoq
teatri
(puppet theatre), which reveal a unique synthesis of music, dance, and
storytelling.
3. Theatrical Metaphors in Everyday Speech
Theatre terms often extend metaphorically into non-theatrical domains:
•
English
: "to play a role," "the curtain falls," "stage presence."
•
Russian
: “сыграть сцену” (to stage a scene), “быть на сцене жизни” (on the
stage of life).
•
Uzbek
: “sahna ko‘rinishini yaratmoq” (to create a stage-like scene), often used
to describe exaggerated or false behavior.
These expressions highlight the theatre’s symbolic role as a representation of
life and performance.
4. Typological Differences in Term Formation
•
English prefers
compound and phrasal expressions
:
stage direction
,
set
designer
,
black box theatre
.
•
Russian often uses
affixation and calques
:
переигрывать
(to overact),
самоотдача
(self-sacrifice, often used about an actor’s passion).
•
Uzbek typically uses
agglutinative structures and hybrid borrowings
:
dramaturgiya
,
aktyorlik mahorati
,
tomoshabinlar zali
(auditorium).
Conclusion
The theatre lexicon in English, Russian, and Uzbek demonstrates both
universality and cultural specificity. While certain terms are internationally shared
due to globalization and common classical heritage, others are deeply embedded in
national traditions, belief systems, and artistic conventions.
Understanding these linguistic and cultural features enhances cross-cultural
communication, translation accuracy, and cultural literacy. Further research may
include the comparative study of sub-genres (e.g., opera, musical theatre), diachronic
changes in terminology, or the impact of digital media on theatre language.
References:
1.
Vorobyov, V. V. (1997).
Linguocultural Studies: Theory and Methods
.
Moscow: Russian University of Friendship of Peoples.
2.
Stepanov, Yu. S. (2004).
Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture
.
Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.
3.
Crystal, D. (2003).
A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
. Blackwell.
International scientific journal
“Interpretation and researches”
Volume 1 issue 12 (58) | ISSN: 2181-4163 | Impact Factor: 8.2
59
4.
Урманчиева, А. Ю. (2009).
Театральная лексика в русском языке:
Семиотика и стилистика
. Москва.
5.
Yusupova, Z. (2018).
O‘zbek sahna san’ati va til unsurlarining
uyg‘unligi
. Toshkent: O‘zRFA Nashriyoti.
6.
Gvozdev, A. N. (1985).
Kultura rechi i teatr
. Moscow: Nauka.
7.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). “The Pronouns of Power and
Solidarity.” In
Style in Language
, MIT Press.
8.
Elvina
Rustemovna
Sherefetdinova.
(2024).
IN
INTERCULTURAL CONTEXTS, SOCIAL NORMS, BELIEFS, AND VALUES
PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN SHAPING INTERPRETATIONS AND
INTERACTIONS. Kokand University Research Base, 112–123. Retrieved from
https://scholar.kokanduni.uz/index.php/rb/article/view/297
9.
Elvina
Rustemovna
Sherefetdinova.
(2024).
GLOBALIZATION AND THE SHIFTING SANDS OF CULTURAL IDENTITY.
Kokand
University
Research
Base,
124–127.
Retrieved
from
https://scholar.kokanduni.uz/index.php/rb/article/view/298
10.
Elvina Sherefetdinova (2024). CLASS AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY IN
BRITISH LITERATURE: A REFLECTION OF SOCIETY. Talqin va tadqiqotlar
ilmiy-uslubiy jurnali, 2 (56), 85-88
11.
Elvina Sherefetdinova (2024). SOCIAL ISSUES IN WORKS OF
CHARLES DICKENS. Talqin va tadqiqotlar ilmiy-uslubiy jurnali, 2 (56), 109-112.
12.
Elvina Sherefetdinova (2024). INNOVATIVE APPROACHES IN
TEACHING PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES. Talqin va tadqiqotlar ilmiy-uslubiy
jurnali, 2 (56), 104-108.
13.
Mamurova Shaxlo. (2024). Ibora, so’z birikmasi va frazeologik birliklar
haqida umumiy tuchuncha. Kokand University Research Base, 180–185. Retrieved
from
https://scholar.kokanduni.uz/index.php/rb/article/view/308
14.
Vokhidova, T. S. (2024). INTERNET LINGUISTICS: A NEW
DIRECTION IN DESCRIPTION INTERNET LANGUAGE. Zamonaviy fan va
ta'lim yangiliklari xalqaro ilmiy jurnal, 2(5), 58-63.
15.
Surayyo Abidjanova (2024). HIGHLIGHTING HOW LACK OF
PREPARATION IN ACADEMIC ENGLISH IMPACTS STUDENT SUCCESS IN
GLOBAL UNIVERSITY CONTEXTS. Talqin va tadqiqotlar ilmiy-uslubiy jurnali, 2
(56), 94-98.
16.
Шерефетдинова, З. Р. (2023). Национально-культурные особенности
фразеологизмов русского языка. Gospodarka i Innowacje., 42, 359-364.
17.
Шерефетдинова, З. (2023). Фразеологические единицы в контексте
лингвокультурологии. Interpretation and Researches, 1(1). извлечено от
http://interpretationandresearches.uz/index.php/iar/article/view/359
