THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
11
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN UNITS OF MEASUREMENTS IN
UZBEK AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES
Zoirjanov Shaxbozbek Shavkatjon oʻgʻli
Doctoral student, Namangan State University
zoirjanovshakhbozbek@gmail.com
ORCID ID 0009-0000-7169-2460
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15826188
This article explores the linguistic and cultural characteristics of modern
units of measurement in the Uzbek and English languages through a
comparative lens. The study uncovers how linguistic systems encode
measurement concepts and how culture shapes terminology. Using lexical-
semantic and historical-linguistic methods, the research identifies similarities
and differences in naming patterns, semantic motivation, and cultural
associations. The findings offer insights into the interaction between language,
cognition, and sociocultural context in forming and using measurement units.
Key words:
units of measurement, comparative linguistics, Uzbek language,
English language, terminology, cultural semantics
Introduction
Units of measurement are not only essential scientific tools but also
linguistic and cultural constructs. They serve as markers of how societies
perceive and organize space, mass, time, and quantity. The English and Uzbek
languages, representing two distinct language families—Indo-European and
Turkic, respectively—emdiv different conceptualizations and terminologies in
their treatment of measurement units [1, 2].
Modern globalization and scientific standardization, especially through the
International System of Units (SI), have influenced both languages, though the
cultural heritage in traditional units still persists, especially in Uzbek [3, 5].
The purpose of this article is to investigate:
The linguistic structure and formation of measurement units in English and
Uzbek.
The semantic and cultural motivation behind unit names.
The historical and sociolinguistic factors shaping their development and
current usage.
Methods
This research is based on a comparative linguistic analysis applying the
following methods:
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
12
- Lexical-semantic analysis of standard and traditional units (e.g.,
meter/metr, kilogram/kilogramm, inch/dyuym, foot/quloch) based on Uzbek
National Corpus and Oxford English Dictionary [1, 4].
- Etymological tracing using historical dictionaries and terminological
sources to understand the origin and borrowing paths of key terms [2, 3].
- Cultural-contextual analysis to examine units embedded in everyday
expressions and traditional measurements [5].
- Corpus and dictionary comparison of usage patterns in formal and
informal registers in both languages [1, 4].
Primary sources include:
- The Oxford English Dictionary and British National Corpus for English.
- The Uzbek National Corpus, and scholarly works on Uzbek lexicon and
terminology [1, 2, 5].
Results
Lexical structure and formation
English measurement terms predominantly derive from Greek, Latin, and
French roots—such as meter (Gk. metron), liter (Fr. litre), and gram (Gk.
gramma) [1, 4]. Uzbek equivalents tend to be phonetic borrowings from Russian
(santimetr, millimetr) with adaptation to Turkic morphology (e.g., metr + -lik)
[2, 5].
Semantic motivation
Semantic extensions are common in both languages. For instance:
- English: a ton of work (figurative use of weight) [1].
- Uzbek: bir gazlik yer qoldi (traditional unit used figuratively for short
distance) [2]. Traditional Uzbek terms (quloch, gaz, torshak) are used
metaphorically, often linked with the human div (e.g., armspan, step) [5].
Cultural associations
In English, imperial units (inch, foot, pound) still exist in the US and UK
alongside SI units, leading to mixed-system coexistence [3]. In Uzbekistan, older
units are preserved in rural or colloquial contexts, though the SI system
dominates in education and administration [2, 5].
Borrowing and standardization
Uzbek terms often came via Russian during the Soviet period, leading to
Russianized spellings and usage (dyuym, funt, tonna) [2]. English underwent
earlier standardization, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, with
consistent unit naming practices [4]. The Uzbek lexicon underwent rapid reform
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
13
during the 20th century, integrating SI units into official dictionaries and school
curricula [5].
Discussion
The comparative analysis confirms that units of measurement are shaped
by language structure, historical contact, and cultural function. English exhibits
deep-rooted standardization and multiple etymological layers, reflecting its
colonial and scientific past [1, 4]. Uzbek, in contrast, demonstrates linguistic
hybridization, where international terminology coexists with culturally
grounded traditional units [2, 5].
Furthermore, both languages show semantic flexibility—units are not just
technical terms but also participate in idiomatic and expressive language. This
suggests that measurement systems are semiotic systems, not purely
mathematical ones [3].
Cultural specificity is especially visible in Uzbek, where terms like quloch or
gaz retain symbolic or idiomatic meaning, even as they lose official status. In
English, residual imperial units remain primarily due to cultural inertia and
market conventions rather than linguistic necessity [3].
Conclusion
This study reveals that modern units of measurement in Uzbek and English
reflect both universal scientific trends and localized cultural-linguistic evolution.
Uzbek maintains a dual system, balancing SI terms with traditional concepts,
while English gradually transitions away from older forms, especially outside
the U.S.
This kind of cross-linguistic comparison underscores the need for culturally
aware scientific communication and provides a foundation for further research
in terminological adaptation, language planning, and cognitive linguistics.
Future directions could include multilingual comparison (e.g., with Arabic,
Chinese), or fieldwork-based sociolinguistic surveys on how different
generations perceive and use measurement units.
References
1. Oxford English Dictionary (2024). OED Online. Oxford University Press.
2. Axmedova, G. (2019). O‘zbek tilida birliklar leksikasi: strukturaviy-semantik
tadqiq. Tashkent: Fan.
3. International Bureau of Weights and Measures (2022). The International
System of Units (SI Brochure, 9th ed.). Paris: BIPM.
4. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.
Cambridge University Press.
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
14
5. Ganieva, N. (2020). Lingvokulturologiya asoslari. Namangan: NDPI Publishing.
6. British National Corpus (2024). BNC Online. University of Oxford.
