Yesterday, your smile still moved through the air.
Now the room a quiet of unfinished sentences, glances that stopped halfway.
On the side table, a glass of tea gone cold. Your room, refusing time, keeps a trace of your warmth.
I wish you a heaven, mother.
Let the earth be light above you. Let the wind pass without knowing you.
Mountains should remain untouched. The sky, unbroken. The sea free of all urgency.
At night, may moonlight find your pages.
Let there be no distance between you and the names you carried.
Let longing lose its language.
And happiness no longer a thing that must survive.May your tea never grow cold
The Sign
By Barbaros İrdelmen
Ah, how long I have been waiting for a sign from those alluring, colorful eyes!
If only it came…
Ah, then would crumble, collapse into dust, all the civilizations that have ever been.
A Conversation with Yesterday
By Dr. Barbaros İrdelmen
When our eyes first met we fell in love.
What day was it when we were married? You haven’t forgotten, have you?
The children— their graduations, their going off to the army, their weddings…
Then the grandchildren.
“Can such things ever be forgotten?” we had laughed the day I retired.
That grandchild in high school now— when was he born?
Tell me, do you remember all of it?
Or was all of this just yesterday, truly?
Dr. Barbaros İrdelmen is a Turkish poet, writer, translator, and retired specialist in internal medicine and nephrology, lives in Istanbul. With 19 published poetry collections to date, his works have been included in numerous national and international anthologies, poetry festivals, and selected literary compilations. Currently a poetry columnist for Edebiyat Magazin Newspaper and TV, also contributes actively to prominent literary journals such as Pazartesi14 NEYYA Edebiyat, Kirpi Edebiyat ve Düşünce Dergisi, writer for the Papirus Magazine, Literature House writer. As a member of the Writers Syndicate of Turkey, he is not only known for his original poetry but also as a leading figure in the translation of world poetry written in English into Turkish. He is also a member of the poetry translators community, part of the ITHACA Foundation (Spain), building cultural and literary bridges across borders through the power of poetry.
in response to a monster jam video prompt on YouTube by Poetry Pea Podcast:
dust storm
the butterfly landing of
a flying raptor
2)
in response to a video prompt on YouTube by Poetry Pea Podcast:
dusk haze
a shatter of crows
wound the night
3)
in response to a 3 word challenge posted on YouTube by Poetry Pea Podcast:
crisp spring light
a snowflake’s shadow
stitched to the breeze
4)
solstice mirth
a swell of seashells
docking ashore
5)
elk tree
a cranium of gold
dusky branches
6)
shrine lamps
san’aa crescents alcove
white dawn
san’aa is an Arabic word for hymn/praise.
7)
rain ruffles
reclined river
—lush lilies
8)
star-storm haze
pilgrim clouds flock
to Fujisan
9)
square waves
beneath her posture
seismic inhale
10)
dainty moon
aural feet of light
teasing rivers
11)
moon drowns
in Arabian Sea
white albatross
Sheikha A. is a Pushcart and Rhysling nominee from Pakistan and United Arab Emirates. Her poetry appears in a variety of literary venues and has been translated into 10 languages so far. More about her can be found at sheikha82.wordpress.com
“Essentially an artist does one thing throughout his career, but over the years he discovers its various implications and expands upon and deepens aspects of what had been present in his work. Perhaps that’s the difference between a serious artist and an entertainer. The artist is constantly deepening a single, obsessive theme, rather than decorating a succession of topical themes.”
~Richard Foreman
Rus Khomutoff’s poem Kaos Karma suggests an encounter between a body of literary writing and a body of magickal/philosophical writing, thus crossing (nonstop) various thresholds of consistency. This despite the consistent all caps no punctuation of its form that positions it on brink of resembling Jenny Holzer’s Truisms (1978–87), though she did not center the text as Khomutoff usually does.
So I read Kaos Karma as an abstract machine that consists of formed and unformed formal functions expressing the relationship of literature to a philosophy of cut-up chaos magick (and vice-versa). As such, Khomutoff offers a way of saying something about the philosophy of poetry that began with Stéphane Mallarmé’s Un coup de dés jamais n’abolira le hasard, but also of the philosophy that is claimed by and for, and sometimes of, chaos magick’s labyrinthine conception of multiplicity and singularity.
In Kaos Karma the reader is not linked by means of period, genre, nationality, style, theme or political ideology; for it has a relentless high-wire flow of exposition that exposes a conniving with transcendence. Especially when its apparently cut-up philosophical transactions (without transitions) are underway. It is with this privilege I am according to Kaos Karma the sign of art that can force thought. This, while at the same time, it is busy effectuating dispersal and fragmentation, rather than totalization.
Khomutoff, on an aesthetic plane, screams in all caps urgent questions that confronts the reader with phrases from different disciplines as the poem oscillates between manifesto and chance. Yet the jump-cuts encountered in Kaos Karma are an encounter between a poetic discipline which decrees a level of specificity and irreducibility. The poet has an immanent manner when he is considered on quite another terrain: that of literature ‘itself’. For, Kaos Karma is important for what it can do as an ABSTRACT MACHINE, rather than for what it might be said to mean.
This evaluative enterprise involves an assessment of the degree of affect produced by Khomutoff’s dramatic work as an impure intercourse between literature and manifesto. But Kaos Karma has a very particular slant deriving from two distinct (but intimately related) bodies of work, Beat literature on the one hand, and the rhizomatic philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari on the other, as it gestures towards the preposition of its title.
Of course rhizomatic philosophy is itself already subjected to particular encounters with connectivity in our poetic thinking, but the liaisons found in Kaos Karma reads as if the writer is pushing the reader to be impatient and to get on to the next phrase without pause. There is a privileging of a certain speed-flow of words here that merges the possibility that some of Kaos Karma is inscribe or prescribe with a heavy dose of something irrational.
While I would not wish to stress this view, what emerged out of reading Kaos Karma a number of times, is a fact that certain words used here (more than others) gravitate comprehensively towards specific mysteries around passion through the text’s emphasis on being and judgement.
It might be objected that the encounters with passion I found in Kaos Karma are arbitrary (validated by a mere coincidence). But each poem page, to a greater or lesser extent, bears the imprint of a coincidence of this sort.
To identify a specific philosophical passion or problem in each of the pages of Kaos Karma would be reductive and subject the poet’s word-flows to the demands of rationality, instead of feeling. My point, however, is quite to the contrary, even though Kaos Karma read the third time through illuminated through these encounters with passion the philosophical tradition of Deleuze and Guattari for me. Particularly, their critique of interpretation which they together launched in The Anti-Oedipus. In that sense, Kaos Karma may assist the reader in the unlearning of romantic word-image-thoughts which have dominated the poetic discipline.
This is only in part explained by the frequent recourse which Khomutoff makes in his work to ecstatic celebration. The uniqueness of the pertinence of the colorist Dionysian non-space he creates as a form of modulation questions the relationship of poetry to passion to the extent to which the magickal chaotic philosophy of Austin Osman Spare pervades his practice.
Transfiguration forms the corpus of Khomutoff’s writing in this dramatic poetry. But the reader does not encounter a programmatic statement which might be applied by one attempting to write about literature and philosophy in the manner of, or after Kaos Karma. This singular body of work enters the bloodstream of this reader at a rate quite distinct but similar to William S. Burroughs’s Beat poetic transfusions. And yet there is a noncorrosive quality in these Kaos Karma poetic interventions which renders any attempt at a general theory of literature decadent. An intellectual-artistic enterprise doomed in advance.
For me, the reading of Kaos Karma required an exploration of my memories of the work of Antonin Artaud, James Joyce, Henry Miller, José Saramago, Maurice Blanchot, Comte de Lautréamont, Samuel Backett, Jack Kerouac, André Breton, F. Scott Fitzgerald and the stream of consciousness writing that originated with Surrealism and the works of psychologist William James; even as the poem invents unknown or unrecognized affects and brings them to light. For Kaos Karma outlines a plane of consistency which enables, activates or prolongs mental fluxes and becomings as it unfolds a possible world of declaration which secretes and promotes incommensurability, heterogeneity and multiplicity. Such an encounter with such a world entails the crossing of a threshold of becoming, a displacement which scrambles positions of psychoanalytic or karmic interpretation. It consists of a stream of semiology which is anti-psychoanalysis.
This banging bit of poetic writing is precisely an affair of becoming, but it is important to note that becoming in Deleuzeian terms does not entail the attainment of form by means of identification, imitation, or mimesis; but finding, rather, the zone of indiscernibility such that it is not possible to identify or distinguish this or that specific thing. It is a process, that is, a passage which traverses the livable and the lived inseparable from becoming.
THE SINCERITY PARADOX: COGNITIVE MECHANISMS OF PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN UZBEK-ENGLISH POLITENESS TRANSFER
Kоshevа Dilrаbо, Phd, prоf.оf TSPU named аfter Nizаmi
Yulduz Kurbоnоvа, MА оf the TSPU nаmed аfter Nizаmi
E-mаil: yulduzqurbоnоvа0211@gmаil.cоm
Abstract: This research investigates the ‘Sincerity Paradox’ within the context of pragmatic transfer between Uzbek and English languages. The sincerity paradox occurs when the linguistic markers of politeness intended to show deep respect in a source culture (Uzbek) are perceived as insincere, manipulative, or redundant in the target culture (English). This study utilizes a qualitative analysis of Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) and semi-structured interviews with 50 Uzbek EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners at the C1 level. The findings reveal that pragmatic failure is not merely a result of insufficient vocabulary but is rooted in deep-seated cognitive mechanisms where the ‘Positive Face’ strategies of Uzbek culture—characterized by high-context indirectness and verbal decoration—clash with the ‘Negative Face’ priorities and clarity-based sincerity of English speakers. Specifically, the transfer of Uzbek ‘lutf’ (graceful speech) and ‘andisha’ (thoughtful restraint) into English often results in over-politeness, which English native speakers decode as a lack of transparency. The article concludes that pedagogical approaches to language learning must transition from grammatical competence to sociopragmatic awareness to mitigate these communicative breakdowns.
Annotatsiya: Ushbu tadqiqot o‘zbek va ingliz tillari o‘rtasidagi pragmatik transfer kontekstida “Samimiyat paradoksi”ni o‘rganadi. Samimiyat paradoksi shundan iboratki, manba madaniyatda (o‘zbek tilida) chuqur hurmatni ifodalash uchun ishlatiladigan muloyimlik (odob) ko‘rsatkichlari maqsad tilida (ingliz tilida) samimiy emas, manipulyativ yoki ortiqcha sifatida qabul qilinishi mumkin. Tadqiqot C1 darajadagi 50 nafar o‘zbek EFL (ingliz tilini xorijiy til sifatida o‘rganuvchi) talabalari bilan o‘tkazilgan Diskursni To‘ldirish Vazifalari (DCT) va yarim tuzilgan intervyular asosida sifat jihatdan tahlil qilindi. Natijalar shuni ko‘rsatadiki, pragmatik xatolik faqat lug‘at boyligining yetishmasligi bilan bog‘liq emas, balki chuqur kognitiv mexanizmlarga borib taqaladi. Ya’ni, o‘zbek madaniyatidagi “Ijobiy yuz” strategiyalari — yuqori kontekstli bilvositalik va nutqiy bezakdorlik bilan xarakterlansa — ingliz tilida “Salbiy yuz” ustuvorligi va aniqlikka asoslangan samimiyat bilan to‘qnash keladi. Xususan, o‘zbek tilidagi “lutf” (nazokatli nutq) va “andisha” (mulohazali o‘zini tiyish) tushunchalarining ingliz tiliga ko‘chirilishi ko‘pincha ortiqcha muloyimlikka olib keladi, bu esa ingliz tilida so‘zlashuvchilar tomonidan shaffoflik yetishmasligi sifatida talqin qilinadi. Maqola xulosa qiladi: til o‘rgatishdagi pedagogik yondashuvlar grammatik kompetensiyadan sotsio-pragmatik xabardorlikka o‘tishi lozim, aks holda kommunikativ uzilishlar davom etadi.
Аннотация: Данное исследование рассматривает «Парадокс искренности» в контексте прагматического переноса между узбекским и английским языками. Парадокс искренности возникает, когда языковые маркеры вежливости, предназначенные для выражения глубокого уважения в исходной культуре (узбекской), воспринимаются в целевой культуре (английской) как неискренние, манипулятивные или избыточные. Исследование основано на качественном анализе заданий на дополнение дискурса (DCT) и полуструктурированных интервью с 50 узбекскими изучающими английский язык как иностранный (EFL) на уровне C1. Результаты показывают, что прагматические ошибки обусловлены не только недостаточным словарным запасом, но и глубинными когнитивными механизмами. В частности, стратегии «позитивного лица» в узбекской культуре — характеризующиеся высокой контекстуальностью, косвенной речью и украшенностью высказывания — вступают в противоречие с приоритетами «негативного лица» и ясности, присущими английской культуре. Перенос таких понятий, как «lutf» (изящная, вежливая речь) и «andisha» (вдумчивая сдержанность), в английский язык часто приводит к чрезмерной вежливости, которая носителями английского языка интерпретируется как недостаток прозрачности. В заключении отмечается, что педагогические подходы к обучению языкам должны перейти от акцента на грамматическую компетенцию к развитию социопрагматической осведомлённости для предотвращения коммуникативных сбоев.
In the contemporary era of globalization, the ability to communicate across cultural boundaries is paramount. However, linguistic proficiency in a second language (L2) does not guarantee communicative success. One of the most complex hurdles for learners is the mastery of pragmatics—the study of how context contributes to meaning. This paper explores a specific phenomenon termed the ‘Sincerity Paradox,’ particularly focusing on the transfer of politeness strategies from Uzbek to English. Pragmatic failure occurs when a speaker’s intended illocutionary force is misunderstood by the listener due to differing cultural norms regarding what constitutes ‘polite’ or ‘sincere’ behavior.
Uzbek culture is fundamentally high-context and collectivist, placing a high value on ‘andisha’ (social caution/restraint) and ‘lutf’ (eloquence and hospitality). In contrast, English-speaking cultures, particularly in Western contexts, tend toward lower-context communication where sincerity is often equated with brevity, directness, and transparency. When an Uzbek speaker applies the cognitive scripts of their native culture to English, they often employ excessive honorifics, indirect requests, and prolonged introductory rituals. While these are markers of extreme sincerity in the Uzbek worldview, they often trigger a cognitive dissonance in English interlocutors, leading to the perception that the speaker is being ‘too formal’ or even ‘disingenuous.’ This research seeks to map the cognitive mechanisms behind this transfer and identify the specific linguistic structures where pragmatic failure is most prevalent. By understanding the gap between Uzbek ‘Hormat’ (respect) and English ‘Sincerity,’ we can better prepare learners for the nuances of international discourse.
Methodology
This study is grounded in the Politeness Theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), which distinguishes between ‘Positive Face’ (the desire to be liked and appreciated) and ‘Negative Face’ (the desire to be unimpeded). In Uzbek communicative culture, there is a heavy emphasis on attending to the interlocutor’s positive face through ‘mubolag’a’ (hyperbole) and elaborate hospitality formulas. English pragmatics, however, often prioritizes the negative face, where being polite means not imposing on the other person’s time or autonomy.
To investigate the cognitive mechanisms of transfer, a mixed-methods approach was adopted. The primary data collection tool was a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) administered to 50 Uzbek students enrolled in advanced English programs. The DCT presented ten social scenarios requiring varied speech acts: making a request to a superior, declining an invitation from a peer, and offering a compliment. Following the DCT, participants engaged in semi-structured interviews to explain their cognitive reasoning behind their linguistic choices. This ‘stimulated recall’ method allowed researchers to see whether the learners were consciously trying to translate Uzbek concepts of politeness or if the transfer was an unconscious cognitive default.
Data analysis focused on ‘pragmalinguistic’ transfer (the use of specific linguistic forms) and ‘sociopragmatic’ transfer (the underlying social values). For instance, the Uzbek phrase ‘Sizni ko‘rib juda xursandman, qadamlaringizga hasanot’ translates literally to a level of enthusiasm that, in an English professional setting, might seem exaggerated. The study analyzed how these ‘scripts’ are cognitively mapped from the L1 (Uzbek) to the L2 (English). We specifically looked for instances of ‘upgrading’ (intensifying politeness) and how these correlate with the learner’s perception of social distance and power dynamics.
Analysis of Results
The results of the DCT and interviews revealed three primary cognitive mechanisms driving pragmatic failure in Uzbek-English transfer. First is the ‘Hospitality Script.’ In 85% of the responses involving invitations, Uzbek learners used multiple refusals before accepting, or multiple offers when hosting. In Uzbek, ‘qistov’ (insisting) is a sign of sincerity. However, when translated into English (‘You must eat more,’ ‘No, I cannot possibly accept’), it often leads to a ‘Sincerity Paradox.’ The English speaker takes the first ‘no’ as a literal fact, while the Uzbek speaker expects the offer to be repeated. This results in the Uzbek speaker feeling neglected and the English speaker feeling pressured.
Second, the data showed a high frequency of ‘Internal Modification’—the use of elaborate honorifics and apologetic openings. Learners frequently used phrases like ‘If it is not too much trouble for your kind self’ for simple requests. In English, this level of indirectness is often decoded as ‘beating around the bush’ or being manipulative. Native English speakers in the control group rated these responses as ‘suspiciously polite.’ This is the core of the paradox: the more the Uzbek learner tries to show respect (using L1 logic), the less they are trusted by the L2 listener.
Third, the ‘Andisha’ mechanism leads to a lack of clarity in disagreement. Instead of saying ‘I disagree,’ 70% of participants used vague phrases like ‘Maybe you are right, but perhaps we can think.’ While this avoids immediate conflict (Uzbek norm), in an English business or academic context, it is often interpreted as agreement or a lack of opinion. The cognitive load of trying to balance ‘Andisha’ (not offending) with English grammar often results in ‘pragmatic fossilization,’ where the learner continues to use these patterns despite high levels of grammatical accuracy. The data suggests that the ‘Sincerity Paradox’ is most acute in high-stakes environments where the social consequences of perceived insincerity are highest.
Discussion: Cognitive Mapping and Sociopragmatic Awareness
The findings suggest that the ‘Sincerity Paradox’ is a result of conflicting ‘cultural schemas.’ A schema is a cognitive framework that helps individuals organize and interpret information. The Uzbek schema for a ‘Sincere Request’ involves a long preamble, establishing a social bond, and using diminutive or honorific suffixes. The English schema for a ‘Sincere Request’ involves a brief apology for the intrusion, a clear statement of the need, and a thank you. When these schemas clash, the ‘Pragmatic Failure’ is not just a linguistic error; it is a failure of social alignment.
The cognitive mechanism at play is ‘Negative Transfer,’ where the rules of the native culture are inappropriately applied to the target culture. Interestingly, the study found that even learners with high IELTS scores (7.5-8.0) struggled with this paradox. This indicates that sociopragmatic competence does not develop automatically alongside linguistic competence. The participants’ interviews revealed a ‘Fear of Rudeness.’ Many Uzbek learners stated that using direct English politeness felt ‘cold’ or ‘dry’ (quruq). This emotional resistance to English pragmatic norms is a significant barrier. They feel that by adopting English directness, they are losing their own cultural identity or being ‘insincere’ to their own values of ‘Hormat.’
Furthermore, the discussion highlights the role of ‘Attribution Error.’ When an English speaker encounters an over-polite Uzbek speaker, they often attribute the behavior to the person’s character (e.g., ‘he is sneaky’) rather than to their cultural background. This underscores the importance of ‘Explicit Pragmatic Instruction’ in the classroom. Learners need to be taught that ‘sincerity’ is a culturally constructed concept. In English, sincerity is often signaled by ‘Prosodic Cues’ (tone of voice) and ‘Directness,’ rather than the ‘Lexical Verbosity’ common in Uzbek. To bridge this gap, educators must move beyond teaching ‘Please’ and ‘Thank you’ and begin teaching the cognitive logic of English social interactions.
Conclusion
This research has demonstrated that the ‘Sincerity Paradox’ is a significant barrier in Uzbek-English cross-cultural communication. The study identified that the transfer of Uzbek politeness strategies—characterized by indirectness, hyperbole, and insistence—often leads to pragmatic failure in English contexts, where these same traits are perceived as insincere. The cognitive mechanisms of ‘andisha’ and ‘lutf’ are so deeply embedded in the Uzbek speaker’s psyche that they persist even at advanced levels of English proficiency.
The key finding is that pragmatic failure is a two-way street: it involves both the speaker’s transfer of L1 norms and the listener’s cultural interpretation of those norms. To mitigate the sincerity paradox, it is recommended that English language curriculum in Uzbekistan include specific modules on sociopragmatics. These modules should focus on ‘contrastive pragmatics,’ allowing students to compare how sincerity is signaled in both languages. Future research should expand this study to include non-verbal communication, such as eye contact and physical distance, which also play a crucial role in the perception of sincerity. Ultimately, achieving true fluency in English requires more than just mastering grammar; it requires the cognitive flexibility to navigate different systems of social value without losing one’s cultural essence.
References
1. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). ‘Exploring the pragmatics of interlanguage pragmatics.’ Language Learning, 63(s1), 68-86.
2. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). ‘Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.’ Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). ‘Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.’ Cambridge University Press.
4. Crystal, D. (2003). ‘English as a Global Language.’ Cambridge University Press.
5. Kasper, G. (1992). ‘Pragmatic transfer.’ Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231.
6. Leech, G. N. (2014). ‘The Pragmatics of Politeness.’ Oxford University Press.
7. Safont, M. P. (2005). ‘Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness.’ Multilingual Matters.
8. Taguchi, N. (2012). ‘Context, Individual Differences and Pragmatic Competence.’ Multilingual Matters.
