A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STYLISTIC FEATURES OF ANECDOTES IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15517258
Kalit so‘zlar
Comparative analysis, linguistic features, cultural analysis, anecdotes, English language, Uzbek language, stylistic features.Annotasiya
This research presents a comparative linguistic and cultural analysis of anecdotes in the English and Uzbek languages, with a particular focus on their stylistic features. Anecdotes, as a form of short, often humorous narratives, serve various functions in both spoken and written discourse—ranging from entertainment to social commentary and moral instruction. The study aims to explore how language structure, cultural values, and humor mechanisms influence the stylistic construction of anecdotes in two distinct linguistic and cultural environments. A qualitative research approach was employed, involving the collection and textual analysis of 60 anecdotes—30 from English-language sources and 30 from Uzbek-language sources. The anecdotes were selected to represent a range of social themes such as politics, education, family, and everyday life. The study concentrates on four primary stylistic elements: tone, narrative voice, figurative language, and cultural references. They commonly reflect individualistic perspectives and highlight personal cleverness or irony in social interactions. In contrast, Uzbek anecdotes draw heavily on oral storytelling traditions, making frequent use of idiomatic expressions, hyperbole, repetition, and culturally embedded characters such as "Nasriddin Afandi." The tone in Uzbek anecdotes is often more animated, and the humor frequently arises from social norms, communal wisdom, and exaggerated depictions of everyday life.
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar ro‘yhati
Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2015). A Glossary of Literary Terms (11th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning. pp. 140-160.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 70-190.
Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 140-180.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press. pp. 50-80.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 70-130.
Kadir, D. (2011). Stylistic features in humorous texts: A comparative study. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies. pp. 123–134.
Nurgali, S., & Ybyraimzhanova, N. (2017). The transformation of the genre of anecdote in the oral tradition of the Turkic peoples. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies. pp. 184–193.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 34-68.
Rashidova, G. (2023). INGLIZ TILI DARSLARIDA YOZISH KO’NIKMASINI O’RGATISH JARAYONIDA ZAMONAVIY INNOVATSION TEXNOLOGIYALARDAN FOYDALANISH. Engineering problems and innovations.
Sultonova, M. (2024, October). Features of Critical Thinking Skills for B1 Level Learners. In Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research Spirit (pp. 786-790).
Gulomova, R. (2022). AUTHENTIC MATERIALS AS A SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPROACH. British View, 7(1).
Erdanova, Z. (2021). THE PROBLEM OF THE NORMS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS. Mental Enlightenment Scientific-Methodological Journal, 2021(1), 74-81.
Rasulova, S., & Muhtashamova, P. (2024). Innovative teaching techniques for distance education. O ‘zbekiston davlat jahon tillari universiteti konferensiyalari, 169-174.
Nasirova, G., Soatova, G., Tilovova, G., & Makhim, A. (2023). A Review of Individual Level Knowledge Sharing in the Workplace. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, 9(4), 22-28.
Alimdjanovna, K. M. (2024). ADVANTAGES OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING WRITING COMPREHENSION. Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 4(5-3), 70-72.
