Skip to main content
editor@theusajournals.com | Oscar Publishing Services Journal Home

American Journal of Philological Sciences

Peer Reviewed | Open Access | E-ISSN: 2771-2273
Published Article

Comparative Analysis of the “Oy / Moon” Concept in Uzbek And English Linguoculturology

Comparative Analysis of the “Oy / Moon” Concept in Uzbek And English Linguoculturology

  • Sharipova Bahora Odiljonovna
    Navoi State University, Faculty of Philology, Department of Practical English, Lecturer, Uzbekistan
Moon concept comparative analysis symbolism

This article examines the conceptual structure of the “Oy / Moon” concept within the framework of linguocultural studies, focusing on a comparative analysis of Uzbek and English languages. The study explores the three-layered model of the concept, including imagery, semantic, and axiological components. Special attention is given to how the moon is represented in language, culture, and collective consciousness, as well as its role in reflecting aesthetic values, emotional states, and cultural traditions. The research reveals that although the “Oy / Moon” concept refers to the same astronomical object, its conceptual content and evaluative meanings differ significantly across cultures. In Uzbek linguoculture, the moon is predominantly associated with positive values such as beauty, purity, and moral ideals, whereas in English it demonstrates an ambivalent nature, combining romantic, mystical, and sometimes negative connotations. The findings highlight the importance of conceptual analysis in understanding the interaction between language, culture, and cognition.

Маслова В. А. Лингвокультурология. – М.: Академия, 2001. – 208 с.

Степанов Ю. С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. – М.: Академический проект, 2004. – 824 с.

Карамов А. А. Ўзбек тилининг лингвомаданий хусусиятлари. – Тошкент: Фан, 2015. – 156 б.

Shakespeare W. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. – 1260 p.

Kövecses Z. Metaphor and Culture. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. – 230 p.