The Interaction of Language and Culture in Expressing Emotions: A Comparative Analysis of English and Uzbek

Razzokova Feruza

Student of Navoi State University

Email: feruzarazzoqova663@gmail.com

Tel:+998934168907

Orcid ID:0009-0003-7975-3004

Abstract

Emotions are universal to human experience, yet the ways they are expressed in language are deeply shaped by culture. This article presents a comparative analysis of how English and Uzbek encode emotional experiences, combining theoretical insights with illustrative data. We examine linguistic forms (grammar and vocabulary), idioms and metaphors, and cultural scripts that guide emotional expression in each language. The analysis reveals both shared tendencies and key differences: English emotional discourse often emphasizes individual feelings and employs abstract or metaphorical language, whereas Uzbek discourse places greater stress on social context, direct descriptive phrases (often via possessive constructions), and culturally ritualized expressions. These differences reflect broader cultural orientations – an individualistic Anglo worldview versus a collectivistic Uzbek perspective – and manifest in everything from idiomatic usage to norms of emotional display. We discuss the implications of these findings for intercultural communication and language learning, highlighting the need for cultural competence in interpreting and conveying emotions across languages.

Keywords: emotional expression, language, culture, cultural values, low-context, high-context, cultural-pragmatic, emotional scripts, idioms, metaphors.

Introduction

Language is not merely a neutral conduit for communication; it also serves as a mirror of cultural values and worldviews. Emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, or fear are fundamental to human life, but the manner in which people talk about and display these feelings varies markedly across linguistic and cultural communities. Every culture develops conventions for emotional expression – implicit “rules” about how one should articulate or conceal feelings in words. For this reason, studying emotion in language offers insight into the interaction between language and culture.

English and Uzbek provide a compelling cross-cultural comparison due to their distinct linguistic lineages and cultural backgrounds. English is an Indo-European language grounded in a Western, largely individualistic cultural context, whereas Uzbek is a Turkic language shaped by Central Asian and Islamic traditions that emphasize collectivist values. These differing cultural orientations suggest that the two languages may encourage different ways of talking about emotions. Indeed, English communication is often characterized as low-context and direct, prioritizing explicit verbal expression of feelings, while Uzbek communication tends to be high-context and indirect, relying more on contextual cues and shared understandings. Such differences can lead to subtle divergences in emotional discourse, from the choice of words and metaphors to the pragmatics of when and how emotions are expressed.

Despite the importance of these issues, the comparative study of emotional expression in English and Uzbek remains relatively under-explored in international scholarship. Recent studies have begun to document contrasts – for example, in the linguistic encoding of joy and sadness or in the grammatical and pragmatic strategies used to convey feelings – but a comprehensive analysis that integrates multiple levels of language (lexical, idiomatic, and cultural-pragmatic) is still needed. Addressing this gap, the present article aims to analyze how language and culture interact in the expression of emotions in English and Uzbek. By examining a range of examples and drawing on established theoretical frameworks, we seek to identify both universal patterns and culture-specific strategies in emotional expression. In doing so, we also consider the practical implications for intercultural communication and second language learning, where miscommunication of feelings can easily arise if one is unaware of the other culture’s “emotional script.”

Literature Review

Research in linguistic pragmatics and anthropological linguistics has long recognized that emotional expression is guided by culturally specific norms. As Anna Wierzbicka (1999) argues, each culture develops its own characteristic “emotional scripts” – that is, conventional patterns and expectations for how feelings should be talked about and revealed. These cultural scripts encompass not only which emotions are deemed acceptable to express in a given context, but also the linguistic forms used to do so (for example, whether one says “I am sad” or conveys sadness indirectly). Zoltán Kövecses (2000) similarly observes that while certain metaphors for emotions have a universal, embodied basis, their specific realizations are often culture-bound. In other words, people in different speech communities may all liken joy to brightness or anger to heat, but the idiomatic expressions and nuances of these metaphors can differ according to local traditions and values.

A key dimension of cross-cultural variation in emotional discourse relates to directness versus indirectness. Scholars of intercultural communication describe English-speaking cultures (especially Anglo-American) as relatively direct in verbalizing internal states, in line with an ethos of individual self-expression. By contrast, many Central Asian cultures including Uzbek are described as indirect or high-context, meaning that speakers often hint at or contextualize emotions rather than stating them bluntly. This general tendency is reflected in the languages’ typical linguistic strategies. Uzbek speakers, operating within a context of social harmony and respect for hierarchy, may choose subtle or roundabout phrases to convey negative feelings so as not to offend or disturb others. English speakers, on the other hand, are more prone to explicitly naming emotions (e.g. “I’m upset,” “She’s excited”) as a way of asserting personal experience, and they rely less on the interlocutor to infer feelings from context. It is important to note, however, that directness in one sense can coexist with indirectness in another: English discourse, for instance, sometimes uses softening devices (like understatement or tentative modal verbs) to mitigate emotional statements, while Uzbek may encode the emotion directly in a descriptive image. We will see examples of these contrasting techniques in the analysis.

Prior comparative studies of English and Uzbek support the idea that the two languages encode emotion along divergent linguistic lines. Grammatical analyses have found that Uzbek frequently expresses emotions using possessive constructions and descriptive or poetic phrasing, effectively embedding the emotion in imagery or in relation to the self (e.g. “my heart is aching”). English, in contrast, often employs straightforward adjectival predicates (“I am sad”) or chooses to express feeling-states through more cautious structures – for example, using modal verbs or impersonal constructions (“I could be happier,” “It upsets me that…”) as a way to hedge or indirectize the emotion. One study notes that English speakers tend to use a more direct emotional vocabulary (plain emotion words) whereas Uzbek speakers lean on figurative language and context to convey the same content. This aligns with observations that English allows individuals to plainly label their internal states, while Uzbek often communicates affect through metaphor, proverb, or culturally resonant allusion.

Differences in idioms and metaphors have also been documented. Cognitive linguistic research highlights that both English and Uzbek use body-part metaphors for emotions, but the specific body parts and images invoked can vary. For example, Uzbek employs the liver (jigar) as a symbol of affection and endearment – calling someone “my liver” (jigarim) denotes beloved closeness – a usage not found in English. English idioms, by contrast, overwhelmingly center the “heart” as the seat of love and compassion (e.g. to have a big heart, heartbroken), whereas Uzbek idioms distribute emotional meanings across multiple organs and natural images. Even when the same organ is used, the connotation may differ: in Uzbek ko‘ngli toza (“his heart is clean”) praises someone’s purity of soul, whereas in English “to have a big heart” implies generosity. Such examples demonstrate how cultural values get inscribed in metaphor: the English notion of a “big heart” prizes individual benevolence, while the Uzbek “clean heart” emphasizes moral integrity in a social context.

Language-specific emotion vocabulary also reflects cultural priorities. Uzbek has words for culturally salient emotional concepts that have no direct one-word equivalent in English. For instance, andisha denotes a mix of modesty, restraint, and regard for others’ opinions – essentially, an emotional-ethical norm of not overstepping bounds or embarrassing oneself (or others) in society. This concept carries significant weight in Uzbek culture. Likewise, g‘urur (pride/self-respect) and oriyat (honor, especially family honor) are deeply rooted in the Uzbek worldview. A person is expected to feel and display andisha or oriyat in appropriate situations, and these feelings are often conveyed not through explicit declaration (“I have pride”) but through behavior and subtle linguistic cues that others culturally interpret. In contrast, Anglo-American culture places higher value on individual autonomy and emotional frankness; concepts like personal freedom or privacy are salient, and English speakers are more inclined to openly discuss feelings of, say, pride or shame in personal terms. This does not mean that English lacks notions of tact or honor, but such notions are less lexicalized as specific emotion terms and more embedded in general descriptors (e.g. polite, reserved for tactful restraint). The literature thus suggests that to fully understand emotional expression, one must consider these culturally loaded terms and the expectations around them.

In sum, previous research provides a framework for examining how language and culture intertwine in emotional expression. We know that each language has its repertoire of emotion words and idioms reflective of its cultural history, and that pragmatic norms (direct vs indirect communication styles) influence how these words and idioms are used. Building on these insights, the present study will compare English and Uzbek systematically across multiple levels of expression, seeking to detail the specific linguistic mechanisms and cultural values at play.

Methodology

This research adopts a comparative linguo-cultural approach to analyze emotional expression in English and Uzbek. The study combines qualitative semantic analysis with contrastive linguistic description, using both scholarly sources and constructed examples to illustrate key points. The methodology consists of the following steps:

1. Data Collection: We gathered a broad set of emotional expressions in both languages, including:

• Lexical items: common emotion words (e.g. happy, sad, angry in English; xursand, xafa, jahli chiqqan in Uzbek) and culturally specific terms (e.g. andisha, oriyat in Uzbek).
• Idioms and metaphors: figurative expressions describing emotions (for instance, English phrases like “on cloud nine” or “feeling blue,” and Uzbek phrases like ko‘ngli ko‘tarildi – “his spirit was lifted” – or jahl otiga mindi – “he mounted the horse of rage”). These were drawn from dictionaries, phraseological compilations, and prior studies.

• Proverbs and sayings: brief sayings that encapsulate emotional attitudes or advice (e.g. English “Every cloud has a silver lining” vs. Uzbek Yig‘lagan ko‘rar, kulgan kun ko‘rar – “He who cried will see the day to laugh,” expressing hope after sorrow).
• Ritualized expressions: culturally fixed phrases used in emotional contexts such as blessings, condolences, congratulations, and apologies. For example, Uzbek condolence phrases like Sabr qiling (“Please be patient/endure,” said to someone grieving) or blessings like Ko‘nglingiz doimo to‘q bo‘lsin (“May your heart always be content”) were collected alongside their English counterparts (“I’m sorry for your loss,” “Congratulations on your success,” etc.).

2. Classification: The collected expressions were categorized into thematic groups for analysis. We distinguished positive emotions (e.g. joy, affection, pride) from negative emotions (e.g. sadness, anger, fear), and noted for each expression what linguistic form it took (simple adjective, possessive construction, idiom, etc.). We also identified the use of any salient imagery (body parts, colors, nature metaphors) and whether the expression was literal or figurative.
3. Analytical Framework: Each category of expressions was analyzed through a comparative lens. We examined the semantic content of words and idioms to uncover underlying metaphors (for instance, happiness as “up” or “light” versus “bright” or “open” in the two languages). We also analyzed grammatical aspects – such as how each language forms statements about feeling – and pragmatic usage – such as levels of directness or formality in emotional utterances. Wherever possible, we connected these linguistic features to known cultural values or norms (drawing on anthropological linguistics and cultural psychology literature).
4. Comparison: Finally, English and Uzbek findings were juxtaposed to identify commonalities and differences. We looked for potentially universal patterns (e.g. metaphors of height for positive feelings, or physical pain for sadness in both languages) as well as unique, culture-specific elements (e.g. the presence of jigar “liver” in Uzbek love idioms, which has no parallel in English). We also compared the degree of explicitness or indirectness in sample contexts – for example, how a complaint, a love confession, or an expression of sympathy might be phrased in each language – to see how cultural context influences linguistic choices.

The research is primarily qualitative and interpretative, aiming to illustrate patterns rather than to provide statistical frequencies. Example sentences were constructed or taken from literature and media in each language to ensure authenticity of usage. Throughout the analysis, references to prior studies are used to support observations and ensure that interpretations align with established knowledge. While the data includes hypothetical examples, it is grounded in real linguistic usage as documented by native speakers and existing corpora. This approach allows us to blend theoretical and empirical perspectives in exploring the nexus of language, culture, and emotion.

Data Analysis

Lexico-Grammatical Patterns in Emotion Expression

One of the first points of contrast between English and Uzbek lies in the basic linguistic structures used to express emotions. English typically uses subject–predicate constructions with adjectives or nouns to denote emotional states: for example, “I am happy”, “She feels anger”, “We were sad.” The emotion is directly attributed to the person as a state or feeling. Uzbek, while it can also use adjectival predicates (e.g. Men xursandman – “I am happy”), shows a strong tendency toward possessive and descriptive constructions in everyday emotional language. It is common in Uzbek to say things like Ko‘nglim xijil – literally “My soul is uneasy” – to express embarrassment or discomfort, or Yuragim og‘riyapti – “My heart is aching” – to mean “I am hurt” or sorrowful. In these phrases, the emotion is expressed through a noun (heart, soul) with a possessive suffix (-im for “my”) and often a descriptive verb or adjective indicating the state (aching, uneasy). The emotional experience is thus framed as something one has or that happens to one’s heart/soul, rather than something one is in a straightforward way.

This structural difference reflects a subtle divergence in construal. The English pattern “[Subject] + [copula] + [emotion adjective]” presents the emotion as a transient property of the person. The Uzbek possessive pattern, “[Possessed noun (body part or feeling)] + [state]”, can suggest the emotion is a condition affecting the person (literally, “my heart hurts” rather than “I am sad”). Such phrasing may make the emotion somewhat more externalized or embodied – tied to the heart or soul – instead of purely an abstract inner state. It also aligns with the collectivist tendency to avoid overuse of the “I” in some contexts; saying “My heart is broken” (Yuragim sindi) can sound less directly self-centric than “I am heartbroken.” Notably, English also has constructions that externalize emotions (e.g. “My heart broke,” “My blood boiled”), but these are idiomatic and somewhat poetic, whereas in Uzbek they are closer to the default way of speaking about feelings.

Another grammatical distinction is the use of modal and impersonal forms in English to modulate emotional statements. English speakers often employ modal verbs and conditional phrases to soften or imply emotional states indirectly. For instance: “I would be happy to help” (implying willingness/pleasant disposition), “You shouldn’t have done that” (implying the speaker is upset or reproachful), or “I might have hurt her feelings” (expressing guilt or worry). These constructions convey emotion (joy, anger, guilt) without stating it outright; the feeling is inferred from context and the modal/auxiliary verb used (would, shouldn’t, might). Uzbek can also use modal expressions (it has words like kerak “should,” mumkin “might”) but emotional communication in Uzbek is less characterized by these syntactic mitigations and more by choosing the appropriate register or set phrase. An Uzbek speaker might more directly say Sizni ranjitib qo‘ydim, deb o‘ylayman (“I think I made you upset”) rather than “I might have hurt your feelings,” or use a respectful apology without explicitly naming the emotion, trusting context and tone to convey remorse.

English also has a tendency to use passive or experience-focused constructions for negative emotions: “I was offended by his words” (passive, focusing on the feeling experienced) or “It surprised me” (impersonal “it” construction). These allow the speaker to mention an emotional reaction without explicitly placing agency or blame on anyone in a face-threatening way. Uzbek, in analogous situations, might use reflexive or intransitive verbs: Men xafa bo‘ldim (“I became upset”) or Hayron bo‘ldim (“I became surprised”). The Uzbek phrasing describes the change of state within the speaker, somewhat akin to an intransitive event (“upsetness happened to me”), which is conceptually similar to the English passive/experiencer focus. However, the degree of directness can differ: the Uzbek phrase Men xafa bo‘ldim is a straightforward statement “I got upset,” whereas an English speaker might more indirectly say “I was a bit upset” or “I didn’t take it well.” In formal contexts, English might even shift to a detached construction: “There was some frustration on my part.” The choice in each language depends on cultural norms about self-assertion versus humility. According to one analysis, Uzbek generally permits a more vivid portrayal of personal feelings in grammatical form – through explicit mention of heart, soul, and other imagery – yet within a culturally prescribed modesty, whereas English favors precision and nuance, using grammar (e.g. modals, tense, aspect) to calibrate how strongly or directly an emotion is stated.

To illustrate, consider expressions of regret. In English, one might say, “I should not have said that; I feel bad about it,” using a modal (should not have) and a general “feel bad” statement. In Uzbek, a speaker might say, Aytib qo‘yganimga pushaymonman – literally “I am repentant for having said [that],” using the Persian-derived word pushaymon (repentant/regretful) or simply Afsusdaman (“I am in regret/sorrow”). The Uzbek expressions directly name the emotion or state of regret (pushaymon, afsus) and attach it to the first person (with -man “I am”). English speakers do use “I regret…” or “I am regretful,” but these can sound formal or heavy; more often, an English speaker might prefer the construction “I shouldn’t have…” or “I wish I hadn’t…”, conveying regret in a roundabout way. This exemplifies how English often submerges the explicit emotion word into a larger syntactic frame, whereas Uzbek will use an emotion noun or adjective straightforwardly but may surround it with polite particles or context to maintain courtesy.

In summary, English and Uzbek both possess the grammatical means to express emotions either directly or indirectly, but they differ in their default preferences. English syntax offers many ways to allude to emotions without bluntly stating them (through modals, passives, hypotheticals), aligning with a cultural tendency to balance honesty with tact. Uzbek grammar, conversely, often encodes emotions in possessive or experiencer-focused structures that allow for direct description of the feeling as something one has or undergoes, aligning with a cultural comfort in vivid emotional imagery. Yet, as we will see in the next sections, this directness in describing the feeling is coupled with a strong use of idiomatic and ritualized forms that ensure the expression remains culturally appropriate and not overly personal in the wrong context.

Idioms and Metaphors: Cultural Imagery of Emotion

Idiomatic expressions and metaphors for emotion provide some of the most colorful evidence of how culture influences language. Both English and Uzbek make extensive use of figurative language to describe how people feel, often drawing on embodied experiences (such as sensations of temperature, movement, or bodily pressure) and culturally salient symbols. Our comparative analysis finds that while there are certain universals in metaphor (for example, associating happiness with upward movement or lightness, and sadness with downward or heavy sensations), each language also showcases unique idioms grounded in its culture’s history and environment.

Happiness and positive emotions: English idioms for joy frequently invoke a sense of rising up or floating, reflecting the metaphor HAPPY IS UP (as noted in cognitive metaphor theory). One can be “on cloud nine,” “over the moon,” “floating on air,” or “in seventh heaven.” These idioms emphasize an individual’s elation by comparing it to vertical or atmospheric ascent – being high above worldly concerns. Uzbek also has metaphors of elevation for happiness, but often with a more earthy or expansive twist. A happy Uzbek speaker might say Ko‘ngli tog‘dek ko‘tarildi – “His soul rose like a mountain,” or Og‘zi qulog‘iga yetdi – “His mouth reached his ears,” meaning he smiled broadly. The former compares the heart’s uplift to a mountain (a grand, solid natural image) rather than a cloud, and the latter uses a vivid bodily image of a huge grin. Another common Uzbek phrase for being very happy is Ko‘ngli osmonda – “His soul is in the sky,” which is analogous to English “on cloud nine.” Thus, both languages link joy with height and brightness (sky, clouds), but English leans toward fanciful imagery (clouds, heaven), whereas Uzbek sometimes uses more tangible natural features like mountains or concrete body-based depictions (a wide smile). Culturally, this might relate to the Uzbek affinity for nature in folklore and the importance of the heart/soul (ko‘ngil) as the site of emotion. It’s worth noting that English too personifies the heart in happiness (e.g. “heart leaps” for joy), but English speakers more often locate joy in the overall person (“I am thrilled”) than explicitly in a body organ.

Sadness and grief: English idioms for sadness often involve darkness, downness, or damage to the heart. Someone might be “feeling blue” (blue connoting sadness), “down in the dumps” (low, depressed), or “heartbroken” (the heart metaphorically cracked by grief). There is also the idiom “with a heavy heart,” indicating sorrow as a weight. Uzbek, similarly, uses downward and weight metaphors: Ko‘ngli cho‘kdi means “His soul sank” (he became depressed), and Yuragi vayron bo‘ldi means “His heart became ruined” – essentially equivalent to heartbroken. However, Uzbek idioms can be strikingly direct and visceral in portraying sadness. For example, Yuragi ezildi – “His heart was crushed/pressed” – paints an image of the heart under unbearable pressure, conveying deep anguish. In moments of extreme despair or lamentation, an Uzbek might exclaim Fig‘onim falakka chiqdi, literally “My wail/cry rose to the sky,” meaning that the person cried out so bitterly that their cry reached heaven. This idiom emphasizes the external expression (the act of wailing) and uses a hyperbolic vertical imagery (sound reaching the sky) to communicate the depth of sorrow. English has nothing quite as vivid in everyday use; one might say “cry one’s eyes out,” but that still focuses on personal tears rather than a cosmological image of mourning. The use of falak (sky) in Uzbek links to poetic and perhaps religious imagery – appealing to the heavens in distress – reflecting how intertwined emotion is with literature and spirituality in Uzbek culture.

Anger: Both languages liken anger to heat and loss of control, but again with cultural flavor. English speakers say “to lose one’s temper” (suggesting the metaphor of anger as a thing that is unleashed or lost from grip), “see red” (associating anger with the color of blood and fire), or “blow one’s top”/“hit the roof” (anger as explosive upward force). Uzbek shares some common metaphors: Jahli chiqmoq literally “his anger went out” corresponds to “lost his temper”, and Qoni qaynadi – “his blood boiled” – is identical in imagery to the English phrase, showing a likely universal bodily metaphor for anger. However, Uzbek also has richly figurative idioms unique to its cultural context. A particularly evocative one is jahl otiga mindi, which means “he mounted the horse of rage”. This phrase personifies anger as a wild horse that the angry person has metaphorically jumped onto, implying that the person is being carried away by anger and perhaps will act recklessly (just as a rider on a rampaging horse might). There is no English equivalent to this metaphor – an English speaker wouldn’t say “he rode anger’s horse,” but might simply say “he flew into a rage.” The Uzbek idiom reflects a cultural heritage of horsemanship and steppe imagery, integrating it into emotional language. Another Uzbek expression, To‘nini teskari kiymoq (“to put on one’s coat inside out”), describes someone who has become angry or contrary, essentially “turning against” others in temper. This is a very culturally specific idiom that would sound opaque if translated literally. English would express that idea with something like “He turned surly” or “He was beside himself with anger,” without the quaint coat image. The presence of such idioms underscores that Uzbek emotional metaphors often draw from everyday traditional life (coats, horses, etc.), whereas English idioms might draw more from industrial or universal experiences (explosions, color changes).

Fear and surprise: In English, fear is often conveyed by metaphors of coldness or loss of color: “cold feet,” “shivers down my spine,” “went pale,” etc., as well as the idea of “frozen stiff” by fear. Uzbek also uses the pale imagery: Rangi oqardi – “his color turned white,” meaning he was frightened. This suggests a similar physiological observation (blood draining from the face). But Uzbek can also say Ko‘zlari kosasidan chiqib ketay dedi – “his eyes almost popped out” – to describe extreme surprise or fright, an idiom not common in English (though English says “eyes popped out” more for astonishment than fear). The overlap in these idioms indicates some shared human experience of fear (paleness, wide eyes) and their metaphorization. However, when consoling someone who is afraid or distressed, cultural scripts diverge: an Uzbek might use a proverb or a gentle familial nickname (e.g. calling a child jigar or bolajon “dear, sweetheart” to soothe them), whereas an English speaker might say “It’s okay, I’m here, don’t worry” – directly addressing the emotion and offering rational assurance.

Across these examples, a pattern emerges: English idioms tend to isolate the individual’s internal state, often using abstract or hyperbolic imagery (floating, exploding, color changes), whereas Uzbek idioms frequently incorporate social or physical context, using concrete objects, nature, and body parts, and sometimes implying an interaction with the world or others. English says “heart of stone” for a person who lacks empathy; Uzbek might say Ko‘ngli toshdek qotgan (“his soul has hardened like a stone”), which is a very similar metaphor, likely arising independently or via literary influence. But in praising someone’s courage, an English speaker might say “She has a lot of heart” (again heart-as-center-of character), whereas an Uzbek might say Yuragi bo‘ri (“Her heart is [like] a wolf”) in some contexts to imply bravery or wild courage, drawing on the wolf as a cultural symbol of ferocity. There are also idioms where English and Uzbek metaphors diverge in emotional valuation: for example, liver in English idioms has no emotional significance (it appears only in an archaic idiom like “pluck up one’s liver” which is obsolete), but in Uzbek (and related cultures) jigar (“liver”) is associated with love and dear affection. To call someone jigar (“liver”) in Uzbek is an endearment akin to “my dear” or “my beloved,” which might puzzle an English speaker. Such cases highlight how culturally arbitrary some metaphorical mappings are – why liver for love? Possibly because in ancient Central Asian medicine the liver was seen as the seat of emotion, or simply through linguistic convention. English, by contrast, would almost never use an internal organ besides the heart in a positive idiom; calling someone “my liver” would sound comical or nonsensical in English.

It is also notable that ritualized idiomatic expressions exist for certain emotional situations, especially in Uzbek. These are fixed phrases used on social occasions that carry emotional weight. For example, upon news of a death, an Uzbek might say Joyingiz jannatda bo‘lsin (“May your place be in paradise”) or the earlier mentioned Sabr qiling (“Have patience/endure”), which convey sympathy and communal solidarity in the face of loss. English speakers, in the same scenario, rely on a simpler set of phrases (“I’m so sorry,” “my condolences”) which, while sincere, are less metaphorical and more straightforward. The richness of condolence expressions in Uzbek (often tied to Islamic concepts of patience and heaven) indicates how emotional expression is interwoven with religious and cultural values in the language. Similar contrasts can be found for expressions of gratitude or joy at celebrations: English “Congratulations!” versus Uzbek Tabriklaymiz, boshingiz ko‘kka yetsin! (“We congratulate you, may your head reach the sky!” said to someone who has achieved something, literally wishing them utmost joy) – the latter again uses an upward metaphor for joy but in a ritualized well-wishing form.

In summary, idioms and metaphors in English and Uzbek both utilize the human body, physical sensations, and environment to conceptualize emotions, but they do so with different emphasis. English metaphors of emotion often highlight individual subjective experience (up in the clouds, broken heart, seeing red) and can be quite abstract, while Uzbek metaphors tend to be more concrete, communal, and narrative (involving parts of the body like heart, liver, or culturally salient scenarios like riding a horse, enduring a trial). These idiomatic differences are a direct reflection of cultural narrative and imagery traditions: the stories, proverbs, and daily life of Uzbek people (agrarian, family- and honor-oriented, often referencing nature and folklore) versus those of English speakers (historically more influenced by industrial, urban imagery and a tradition of individual-centered expression in literature). Recognizing these differences is crucial for translation and intercultural understanding, as a literal translation of an emotional idiom can easily fail to convey the intended feeling or could even cause misunderstanding if the imagery does not carry over culturally.

Cultural Scripts and Pragmatic Norms

Beyond specific words and idioms, one must consider the cultural scripts – the unwritten rules and expectations – that govern how and when emotions should be expressed. These scripts influence pragmatics: what is appropriate to say (or not say) in a given social context, how openly one should display feelings, and what kind of emotional expressions are valued or discouraged. The contrast between English and Uzbek in this regard illuminates deeper differences in interpersonal communication styles and cultural values surrounding emotion.

In broadly Anglophone (especially North American or British) culture, there is a notable emphasis on authenticity and individualism in emotional expression. From a relatively young age, English speakers are often encouraged to “use your words” to describe feelings and to be honest about how they feel, albeit in a polite manner. This reflects an underlying cultural script that asserting one’s personal feelings is generally positive, or at least a sign of honesty and self-awareness. Of course, there are limits – English social norms also prize emotional restraint in certain settings (the stereotype of the “stiff upper lip” in British culture, for example) – but compared to Uzbek norms, there is more tolerance for explicit self-disclosure of emotions. Saying “I’m really upset about what happened,” “I love you,” or “I feel nervous” in appropriate circumstances is seen as natural and even healthy in English-speaking contexts. This aligns with the individualistic orientation: the individual’s inner state is considered important and worth sharing, and emotional transparency can be linked to sincerity and trustworthiness in interpersonal relations.

Uzbek cultural scripts, shaped by a collectivist and high-context society, put relatively more weight on emotional self-control, respect, and situational appropriateness. An important concept is andisha, mentioned earlier, which entails exercising restraint and modesty in behavior so as not to disturb social harmony or offend others. In emotional terms, andisha means one should not impose one’s negative emotions on others or appear out of control. For example, if an Uzbek person is angry with an elder or in a public setting, a direct confrontation or shouting would be seen as highly inappropriate; instead, they might express their displeasure in a tempered way or even conceal it, speaking around the issue indirectly. Similarly, overt boastfulness about one’s happiness or success is frowned upon for fear of provoking envy (ko‘z tegmasin – “may the evil eye not strike”). Culturally, there is an ethic of emotional moderation – neither too ecstatic nor too despondent in public – which ties to values of humility and endurance. Emotions are certainly felt deeply by Uzbek people, but the expected script is to channel them in culturally approved ways. For instance, sadness and grief are expressed, but often in ritual forms (wailing at a funeral is allowed, even expected, but outside of that context constant complaining might be seen as lacking sabr or patience). Joy is expressed communally (dancing and loud laughter at weddings), yet an individual praising their own achievements too much would breach andisha.

These cultural scripts manifest linguistically. English interactions may include frequent emotional vocabulary as part of “small talk” or interpersonal communication – e.g., “I’m excited about the trip,” “I’m a bit upset with how that meeting went” – where the speaker voluntarily offers their emotional state. In Uzbek interactions, especially in formal or intergenerational contexts, one would less commonly hear explicit self-reports of emotion. It would be unusual, for example, for a student to tell a teacher “I’m angry about my grade” in plain terms; showing such emotion to an authority could be seen as disrespectful. Instead, an Uzbek student might indirectly say, “I did not expect this result, it was a bit disappointing” using soft words, or simply not verbalize the feeling at all, hoping the teacher infers it. Respect (hurmat) and deference often override personal emotional display. Uzbek language usage supports this through honorifics and polite circumlocutions – one might cushion a complaint with phrases like hayron bo‘ldim (“I was surprised”) rather than xafa bo‘ldim (“I was upset”), to be less confrontational.

Another aspect is the use of ritualized expressions and proverbs to convey or manage emotions. Uzbek culture has a rich repertoire of proverbs that carry emotional wisdom or social admonitions (many stemming from folklore and Islamic teachings). Instead of saying “I’m angry at you for being ungrateful,” someone might quote a proverb about ingratitude, allowing the message to be delivered without direct accusation. For joy and affection, rather than saying “I love you” repeatedly (which can be seen as overly direct and even suspicious if overused), an Uzbek might use nicknames, blessings, or perform acts of service – all part of a script where actions and conventional phrases stand in for explicit verbal emoting. English speakers also use formulaic expressions (“Thank you so much, I really appreciate it” – expressing gratitude; or sending greeting cards with set phrases), but in general English relies less on proverbs or fixed formulas in everyday emotional communication. The heavy use of such formulas in Uzbek (and many Asian cultures) implies that emotions are seen as communal experiences governed by time-honored scripts, whereas in English, emotions are seen more as personal states that one articulates in one’s own words.

One interesting cultural script difference pertains to empathy and consoling. In an English context, if a friend is sad or in trouble, a typical response is verbal empathy: “I’m sorry you’re going through this. I know how you feel. Is there anything I can do?” This directly addresses the person’s emotion and attempts to validate it. In Uzbek contexts, empathy might be shown more through presence and implicit understanding than through explicit acknowledgment of the feeling. A friend might come and sit with the person, help with chores, or gently say “Hamma narsa o‘tib ketadi” (“Everything will pass”) – a comforting phrase – rather than “I know how you feel.” The script here is to offer hope or practical support rather than to talk about the emotion per se. This does not mean Uzbeks lack empathy; rather, the cultural norm favors solidarity and patience as responses to emotion, rooted in the collective experience (often with religious undertones of fate and endurance), whereas the Anglo norm favors verbal articulation and validation of the individual’s feeling.

The concept of honor and face also plays a role. In English, maintaining one’s dignity is important, but emotional vulnerability is not always seen as loss of face – it can even garner support. In Uzbek (and many collectivist cultures), there can be stronger pressure to maintain composure because one person’s emotional outburst might reflect on the family or group. For example, a public display of anger could be seen not just as a personal issue but as shameful to one’s kin or community. Thus, cultural scripts in Uzbek encourage emotional restraint in public settings (andisha and oriyat – a sense of honor that discourages making a scene). In private, among close trusted friends or family, Uzbeks certainly share deep feelings, but even then the mode of expression might differ (perhaps lamenting through storytelling or metaphors rather than direct “I-statements”). English speakers, by contrast, are culturally granted more license to “vent” or explicitly say what they feel, especially in cultures like American where openness is often equated with emotional health.

These differing pragmatic norms have clear implications for intercultural communication. Misunderstandings can occur when an English speaker interprets an Uzbek speaker’s subtle or formulaic expression through an Anglo lens, or vice versa. For instance, an English speaker might mistake an Uzbek colleague’s reserved reaction as indifference, not realizing it is a sign of respectful restraint. Conversely, an Uzbek might find an English speaker’s candid talk about their emotions to be oddly direct or lacking andisha, when in that person’s culture it is normal. Awareness of the other culture’s emotional scripts (the “invisible rules”) is crucial to avoid misinterpretation. One cultural script is not “better” than the other; they are simply different ways in which language and culture have co-evolved to manage the expression of the human affective experience.

Discussion

The comparative analysis of English and Uzbek emotional expression highlights the profound interaction of language and culture in shaping how emotions are communicated. Several key themes emerge from the findings, each reflecting the underlying cultural values and social structures of the respective speech communities:

• Individualism vs. Collectivism in Emotional Discourse: The English patterns we observed – explicit labelling of feelings, a wealth of personal emotion adjectives, and a communication style that often foregrounds the speaker’s internal state – align with the individualistic orientation of Anglo culture. Emotional expression in English tends to validate the importance of “my feelings” as an individual. In contrast, Uzbek’s use of communal metaphors, its preference for implicit communication in many situations, and the integration of cultural values like andisha and oriyat into emotional language reflect a collectivist ethos. Emotions are not just personal matters but are intertwined with social expectations and relationships. The language invites speakers to express feelings in ways that consider others – through honorifics, communal idioms, or ritual phrases – thereby reinforcing group cohesion and respect. This difference supports Wierzbicka’s contention that each culture has its own “emotional script”: in Anglo culture, the script encourages being true to one’s individual feelings (within polite bounds), whereas in Uzbek culture, the script emphasizes maintaining social harmony and dignity when expressing emotion.

• Metaphorical Universals vs. Cultural Specifics: The analysis confirms Kövecses’s observation that metaphors of emotion have universal and culture-specific elements. Certain embodied metaphors – like up/down, warm/cold, pressure/release – appear in both English and Uzbek, suggesting common human physiological experiences of emotion. Both languages, for example, talk about “heart” and “blood” in emotional contexts, indicating a shared understanding that the heart is central to emotions and that strong feelings affect one’s heartbeat or blood flow. However, the specific idioms and the frequency of particular images differ, painting unique cultural tapestries. English discourse showed a penchant for abstracted imagery and hyperbole (cloud nine, see red), whereas Uzbek demonstrated a richer use of organic and narrative imagery (horses, mountains, proverbs). Uzbek metaphors often carry an embedded story or social context (like the idiom that implicitly references how an angry person might behave like a rider on a wild horse, potentially causing chaos in the village). These findings illustrate how metaphorical language is “partly universal—rooted in bodily experience—but also culture-specific”. For intercultural communication, this means that some emotion metaphors might translate relatively easily (those based on shared human experiences), while others require explanation or adaptation to avoid confusion.
• Direct vs. Indirect Expression: We found an interesting nuance regarding directness. On the surface, English seemed more direct lexically – using straightforward words for emotions (happy, sad, etc.) – whereas Uzbek used more figurative or roundabout phrases. Yet, one could also argue the opposite in terms of imagery: Uzbek’s expressions like “my heart is torn” or “mounted the horse of anger” are quite graphic and direct in painting the emotional picture, while English might euphemize (e.g. “upset” is milder than “heart-torn”). The resolution of this apparent paradox lies in understanding contextual directness. English is direct about stating that one has an emotion, but often indirect about the intensity or cause (using softeners, vagueness, or shifting blame). Uzbek might be indirect about acknowledging an emotion explicitly (due to cultural restraint), but once it is expressed, it may be conveyed with very potent imagery or proverb. In essence, English speakers say “I” with an emotion word more readily; Uzbek speakers might let the metaphor speak for them. The discussion of directness thus must consider multiple layers: semantic directness (using a literal emotion term vs. a metaphor) and pragmatic directness (openly declaring feelings vs. hinting). Our analysis suggests English favors semantic directness but can employ pragmatic softening, whereas Uzbek often uses semantic indirection (metaphor) combined with pragmatic respectfulness. This dynamic is crucial for translators or bilingual communicators to understand – what is unsaid in one language might be said through idiom or context in the other.
• Role of Cultural Values in Emotional Lexicon: The presence of culturally unique emotion terms in Uzbek (andisha, g‘urur, oriyat, etc.) highlights how language encodes the values and social norms of a community. These words have no exact English equivalents because the emotional nuances they carry are tied to specific cultural contexts – for instance, andisha encapsulates an emotional restraint that is taught and expected in Uzbek society, blending shame, humility, and respect. English speakers have to paraphrase it (“not wanting to impose or overstep”) but might not feel it as acutely as someone raised with that concept. Similarly, English has terms like awkward or embarrassed that don’t translate neatly into Uzbek without explanation, because they emerge from an individualistic context of self-conscious emotion different from the collectivist context of uyat (shame) or andisha. These gaps remind us that certain emotional experiences are amplified, downplayed, or segmented differently by different cultures. A practical implication is that language learners must not only learn foreign words, but also the cultural attitudes behind those words to truly understand when and how to use them.

In light of these insights, what are the broader implications? For intercultural communication, as mentioned, miscommunication can easily occur if one interprets the other’s emotional expressions through one’s own cultural filter. An English manager might think an Uzbek employee is unenthusiastic or devoid of ideas because the employee does not openly volunteer feelings or react with visible excitement – when in fact, the employee is being appropriately reserved and cautious (andisha at play). Conversely, an Uzbek host might find a Western guest somewhat bold or lacking subtlety because the guest verbalizes every like or dislike frankly, whereas Uzbek etiquette might expect reading between the lines. Training in intercultural competence should include awareness of these emotional expression differences. Something as simple as how we say “thank you” or “sorry” can have different weight; in English, “sorry” is used even for mild inconveniences as a token of empathy, while in Uzbek, Kechirasiz (excuse me/forgive me) might be reserved for more serious apologies – thus, over-saying sorry in Uzbek context could puzzle people.

For language learning and translation, our analysis underscores the importance of teaching beyond direct translation. Learners of English coming from Uzbek (or similar cultures) need to grasp idioms like “feeling blue” or “butterflies in my stomach” and understand that these convey emotions which they might express differently. They also might need encouragement to express emotions more directly in English, especially in contexts where it is expected (like writing a personal statement or in a therapeutic conversation – contexts where English norms encourage openness). On the flip side, English speakers learning Uzbek must learn the local emotional etiquette: for example, understanding why an Uzbek friend might not say “I love you” frequently even if they care deeply, or why certain complaints are phrased as proverbs instead of direct statements. Teaching materials could incorporate common emotional scenarios (celebrations, condolences, conflicts) and show how each language approaches them. Translators should be particularly cautious with idioms and metaphors: a literal translation of jahl otiga mindi as “rode the horse of anger” in an English novel might confuse readers, so a better translation might be “flew into a rage” or “became furious,” capturing the meaning without the exact image. Sometimes, an image can be kept for flavor if explained or if the context makes it clear, but the translator must judge if the metaphor is transparent or not to the target audience.

Another implication is in the field of cross-cultural psychology and counseling: Emotional expression is tied to mental health and interpersonal communication. Counselors working with Uzbek clients (or generally, clients from more collectivist backgrounds) should be aware that direct probing of feelings (“Tell me how you feel”) might not immediately yield results, as the client could be unaccustomed to such direct labeling and may instead reveal emotions through narratives or analogies. Likewise, Western-trained practitioners might misread the emotional state of someone from a different culture if they expect the same overt signals. A culturally sensitive approach would recognize the legitimacy of different emotional expressions – neither Anglo frankness nor Uzbek restraint is inherently better; they are adaptations to social environments.

Finally, our discussion highlights that language and culture form an integrated system when it comes to emotions. Changes in cultural attitudes (for example, globalization and increased intercultural exposure) can lead to shifts in language use. There is anecdotal evidence that younger Uzbeks, under the influence of global media and perhaps English, are becoming more comfortable saying things like Men sizni yaxshi ko‘raman (“I love you”) in casual contexts, something that older generations might have expressed less directly. Likewise, English speakers are increasingly borrowing foreign words for unique emotional concepts (consider the popularity of terms like schadenfreude from German, or feng shui from Chinese philosophy, etc., in niche contexts). This cross-pollination of emotional vocabulary suggests that as the world becomes more interconnected, languages may enrich each other in the emotional domain, but core cultural scripts often persist at a deep level.

Conclusion

Language and culture are inextricably linked in the realm of emotional expression. Through this comparative analysis of English and Uzbek, we have seen how two languages can each articulate the same human feelings – joy, sorrow, anger, love – yet do so differently, guided by cultural context. English, emerging from an individualistic cultural milieu, tends to foreground personal emotion with explicit words and imaginative metaphors, often prioritizing clarity and personal voice. Uzbek, shaped by a collectivist, high-context culture, often embeds emotion in richly descriptive phrases, communal idioms, and respectful communicative norms, thereby prioritizing social harmony and shared understanding.

The findings highlight several specific contrasts: English speakers commonly say “I am [emotion]”, whereas Uzbek speakers might say “My heart/soul [experience]” to convey the feeling. English idioms may place one’s head in the clouds or heart in pieces, while Uzbek idioms might seat one’s heart on a mountain or depict anger as a wild steed to be tamed. English communication values a degree of candor about feelings (tempered by politeness), whereas Uzbek communication values discretion and contextual sensitivity, drawing on cultural scripts like andisha (prudence/modesty) to modulate emotional display. Despite these differences, we also observed underlying commonalities: both languages use metaphor to bridge the internal experience of emotion with external reality, and both have mechanisms to soften or intensify emotional messages as needed.

Appreciating these nuances is more than an academic exercise – it has practical significance for anyone engaging across languages. For translators and interpreters, an in-depth understanding of how emotions are couched in each language can spell the difference between a translation that resonates and one that falls flat. For language learners, developing pragmatic competence – knowing not just how to translate words, but how to express feelings appropriately in the target language – is crucial for truly effective communication. An English speaker learning Uzbek must learn when it is appropriate to use a proverb instead of a direct complaint; an Uzbek speaker learning English must practice being a bit more direct with “I feel…” statements in contexts where it’s expected. Such adjustments can greatly improve mutual understanding and reduce the risk of miscommunication.

In intercultural interactions, awareness of different emotional expression styles fosters empathy and patience. Rather than stereotyping an English speaker as “insincere” for smiling while upset, or an Uzbek speaker as “unfeeling” for not verbally expressing sorrow, one learns to read the signs according to that culture’s norms. As our analysis shows, Uzbek discourse may convey deep care or grief in what appears to an outsider as an indirect way – through rituals, allusions, or a respectful silence – but those expressions are no less genuine than a forthright English “I’m sorry” or “I’m angry.” Developing the ability to interpret these cultural signals is a key component of intercultural competence.

This study has combined theoretical perspectives with illustrative examples to shed light on how language structure, idiomatic imagery, and cultural context come together in the expression of emotion. Of course, the topic is vast. Future research could expand on this work by examining other emotion categories (such as envy, hope, or humor) in English and Uzbek, possibly using corpus-based methods to see how frequently certain patterns occur in natural discourse. Investigating how younger generations or bilingual individuals navigate between these two emotional styles would also be illuminating – do they code-switch their emotional expressions depending on language? Do global influences cause convergence in some areas? Additionally, surveying native speakers about their perceptions of emotional expression could add a sociolinguistic dimension to the analysis, validating the pragmatic observations made here.

In conclusion, the way we talk about feelings is a product of both our shared humanity and our distinct cultural heritage. Emotions may be universal, but as this comparative analysis demonstrates, languages map those emotions in wonderfully diverse ways. English and Uzbek each provide a window into how humans can weave their joys and sorrows into words, guided by the loom of culture. By understanding these patterns, we not only become better linguists or communicators, but we also gain insight into different ways of seeing the world – with the heart, the soul, or perhaps the liver – and ultimately, we inch closer to a more nuanced appreciation of the human emotional tapestry in its global context. As the Uzbek proverb wisely puts it, Til – dilning ko‘zgusi (“Language is the mirror of the heart”): by studying language, we come to understand the heart – and in doing so, understand one another – a little better.

References:

1. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling. Cambridge University Press.
2. Hamidov, D. S. (2025). “Linguocultural Features of Joy and Sadness in English and Uzbek.” International Journal of Science and Technology, 2(11), 34–35.
3. Najmiddinova, M. (2025). Linguopragmatic analysis of phraseological units and idioms relating to the concept of hospitality in English and Uzbek. Scientific journal of the Fergana State University, (4), 94-94. DOI:  10.56292/SJFSU/vol31_iss4/a94,  https://journal.fdu.uz/
4. Najmiddinova M.N. Linguodidactic features of proverbs related to the concept of “hospitality” (Examples from English and Uzbek languages) // il va adabiyot.uz Ilmiy-metodik elektron jurnal. -tilvaadabiyotuz@gmail.com, 6-son.2025.-B.227-230. https: //oak.uz/pages/4802 
5. Najmiddinova M.N., Furqatova H.A., Nabiyeva D.G‘. “Linguistic features of phraseological units with a common meaning “hospitality”, “Modern trends of teaching in the context of innovative and digital
   technologies in higher education: prospects, problems and solutions”. November 29, 2024. –B.607-609.https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14259715.
6. Najmiddinova M.N. “Linguocultural and linguopragmatic features of the concept of “hospitality” in English and Uzbek”//International conference Philology, Methodology, Translation Studies: Current Issues of Modern Science. -8-9.11.2024.-P.306-309.https://doi.org/10.2024/1xm0b673.
7. Najmiddinova  M.N. “Linguoculturalogical features of proverbs on “hospitality” in English and Uzbek”, Tamaddun nuri // The light of civilization, ISSN 2181-8258, 10(61), 2024.-P.74-79. https://jurnal.tamaddunnuri.uz/index.php/tnj/article/view/972
8. Najmiddinova  M.N., Qahramonova M.U. “Innovation in language teaching, learning and assessment” // Results of National Scientific Research International Journal, Volume 4| Issue 3 Researchbib 9.1, ISSN: 2181-3639,2025. -P.132-140. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15111294
9. Najmiddinova M.N. “Mehmondo‘stlik” tushunchasiga oid maqollarning pragmatik tahlili// “Universal journal of social sciences philosophy and culture”. -https://scienceresearch.uz/index.php/UJSSPC/article/view/286   ISSN: 2992-8834 IMPACT FACTOR: 8.0,2025.-B.44-50.. https://zenodo.org/records/14732811
10. Najmiddinova M.N. Similarities and differences between values of Uzbek and English cultures // Tanqidiy nazar, tahliliy tafakkur va innovatsion g‘oyalar.2025.-B.107-111. https://phoenixpublication.net/index.php/TANQ/article/view/3802
11. Najmiddinova  M.N., Rahmatova M.U. The role of Pragmatics in Intercultural Communication with an Emphasis on Politeness // Tamaddun Nuri/The light of civilization. -ISSN 2181-8258 IF-9.347 DOI 10.69691,4-son (67) 2025.-P.237-240. https://doi.org/10.2024/1xm0b673.
12. Najmiddinova M.N. Linguistic features of phraseological units with a common meaning “hospitality” // Qo‘qon DPI. Ilmiy xabarlar,3-son. ISBN: 978-9943-7182-7-2 “CLASSIC” nashriyoti.2025.-P.1886-1891. www.kspi.uz journal.kspi.uz 
13. Zakirova, D. Y. (2023). “Cultural and Contextual Differences in Expressing Emotional States in Uzbek and English.” TIIJ (Tashkent International Journal) – see for analysis of grammatical features.
14. Berdiyeva, Z. O. (2024). “A Comparative Study of English and Uzbek Body Metaphors.” Proceedings of ASR Conference – referenced for examples of jigar and ko‘ngil metaphors.
15. Karimov, X. (2025). “Psycholinguistic Features of Communication in Uzbek and English.” Web of Journals, 3(1) – supporting discussion on context styles.
16. Uzbek phraseological dictionary examples – see for idioms (jahli chiqmoq, jahl otiga mindi, etc.) illustrating Uzbek emotional expressions.

Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge University Press.