LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF EVERYDAY VOCABULARY IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGE
Keywords:
everyday vocabulary, cultural movements, language environment, cultural identity, technological progress, global influence, cultural interactionAbstract
This study shows that the household vocabulary in English and Uzbek goes beyond simple labels for everyday objects - it functions as a living system that reflects cultural and linguistic change. Several conclusions emerge. First, household terms have a rich historical and lexical depth. English words often trace their roots to French and Latin, while Uzbek has been influenced by Persian, Arabic, Russian, and increasingly English, demonstrating how these languages reflect long-term cultural interactions. Second, household objects have symbolic significance.
References
1. Abdullaeva, N. (2020). The Kitchen A Center of Family Relations and Traditions. . Uzbek Culture and Traditions, 158.
2. Aminah, M., Lustyantie, N., & Chaeruman, U. (2025). A Sociolinguistic Approach to Language Levels in Social Interaction and Cultural Identity. Journal La Edusci, 6, 28-47. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.37899/journallaedusci.v6i1.1775
3. Bobojonova, K. (2021). REVIEWS ON THE USAGE OF SPECIFIC BORROWED UNITS IN THE LEXICON OF THE UZBEK LANGUAGE. Psychology and Education Journal, 58, 4998- 5002. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17762/pae.v58i1.1721
4. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self: Cambridge university press.
5. Gur-Arieh, S., Mintz, E., Boaretto, E., & Shahack-Gross, R. (2013). An ethnoarchaeological study of cooking installations in rural Uzbekistan: development of a new method for identification of fuel sources. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(12), 4331-4347. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.06.001
6. Hartwell, C. (2023). Kazakhstan: snow leopard at the crossroads: Routledge.
7. Howes, A., Brokalaki, Z., Sharifonnasabi, Z., & Licsandru, T. C. (2024). Towards an understanding of domestic practice as commodified work. Journal of Marketing Management, 40(17-18), 1529- 1569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2024.2406940
8. Johnson, R. (2007). The Co-Construction of Roles and Patterns of Interaction in Family Discourse. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL, 7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/salt.v7i2.1510
9. Jumaniyazova, Q. (2019). M. Household Items and the Social Structure of the Family. Journal of Social Sciences, 135.
10. Khaydarov, R. (2019). Cultural Interactions in Uzbek and English Lexicons. International Journal of Linguistic Studies.
11. Kizi, N. G. I. (2025). LINGOCULTURAL INTERPRETATION OF LEXEMES DENOTING HOUSEHOLD ITEMS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES. Western European Journal of Linguistics and Education, 3(2), 183-186.
12. Kučerová, A., & List, J.-M. (2025). Everybody Likes to Sleep: A Computer-Assisted Comparison of Object Naming Data from 30 Languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08312. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.08312
13. Laucuka, A. (2018). Communicative Functions of Hashtags. Economics and Culture, 15, 56-62. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jec-2018-0006
14. McGregor, S. L. (2003). Critical discourse analysis: A primer. Paper presented at the Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM. Ozodbekovich, T. Q. (2025). Uzbekistan’s initiatives to ensure peace and stability in Central Asia, raising relations of friendship and cooperation with neighboring states to a new level. Dynamics of Politics and Democracy, 4(2), 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.35912/dpd.v4i2.2952
