Gender Categories in English and Uzbek: A Corpus-Based Comparative Typological Analysis

Tolibova Shoxzoda Baxtiyorovna

doi:10.47134/ptk.v3i3.2539

Authors

Tolibova Shoxzoda Baxtiyorovna Samarkand State University Named After Sharof Rashidov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47134/ptk.v3i3.2539

Keywords:

Gender Categories, Corpus Linguistics, Comparative Linguistics, English Language, Uzbek Language, Gender Representation

Abstract

The study explores the linguistic representation of gender categories in English and Uzbek through a corpus-based comparative typological approach. Gender has become an important topic in contemporary linguistics, as language not only reflects social structures but also contributes to the construction of social identities. The research examines the semantic and functional behavior of gender-related lexical units in two languages that belong to different linguistic families and cultural traditions. Data for the analysis were obtained from large language corpora, including the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and the British National Corpus for English, as well as available Uzbek language corpora and digital text collections. The analysis focuses on several key gender-related lexical items such as woman, man, gender, masculinity, femininity, and their Uzbek equivalents. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to investigate frequency patterns, collocational behavior, and contextual usage. The results reveal both similarities and differences in the linguistic representation of gender categories. While English demonstrates a broader range of discourse contexts related to gender identity and social roles, Uzbek usage patterns appear to be more closely linked to cultural and social norms. The findings contribute to comparative linguistics and gender studies by providing empirical evidence about the ways gender categories are encoded in two typologically different languages. The study also highlights the importance of corpus-based methods in identifying linguistic patterns that might not be immediately visible through traditional qualitative analysis.

References

A.Moyer, “Do Language Attitudes Determine Accent?” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (2007). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd514.0

Aston, G., & Burnard, L. (1998). The BNC handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Baker, P. (2022). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Bloomsbury.

Baker, P., & Levon, E. (2021). Gender and language research. Cambridge University Press.

Cameron, D. (2021). Feminism and linguistic theory. Palgrave.

Coates, J. (2021). Women, men and language. Routledge.

Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav

Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2021). Language and gender. Cambridge University Press.

Ergasheva, G. I. (2019). Basic social categories: Natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) approach. Philology Matters, 2, 57–65.

Flowerdew, J. (2022). Corpus-based discourse analysis. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035244-11

G. Ergasheva, “Conceptual Gender Analysis of Gender-Marked Phraseological Units and Proverbs in the Uzbek Language,” Philology Matters (2021), p. 48.

G. Ergasheva, T. Alimov, and M. Mamurova, “Gender Concepts in the Phraseological World Picture of the English and Uzbek Languages,” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education 12, no. 6 (2021): 345–356.

G. Ergasheva. Experimental phonetics: problems and solutions. Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024)

G. I. Ergasheva, “Basic Social Categories: Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) Approach,” Philology Matters (2019), p. 60.

G. I. Ergasheva, “Language Potential Through Cognitive Semantics Lens: Frames and ICMs of Gender Terms,” Experimental Phonetics: Problems and Solutions, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2024), p. 15.

G.I.Ergasheva, “Basic Social Categories: Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) Approach,” Philology Matters, no. 2 (2019): 57–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36078/987654346

Gender concepts in the phraseological world picture of the English and Uzbek languages. G Ergasheva, TA Alimov, MJ Mamurova. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT) 12 (6), 345-356

Gries, S. T. (2021). Statistics for linguistics. De Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256

Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2022). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367821852

Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524773

J. Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 4th ed. (London: Routledge, 2013). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833057

Lazar, M. (2021). Feminist critical discourse analysis. Palgrave.

Litosseliti, L. (2021). Gender and language. Routledge.

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2022). Corpus linguistics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Meyerhoff, M. (2021). Introducing sociolinguistics (3rd ed.). Routledge.

O’Keeffe, A., & McCarthy, M. (2021). Corpus linguistics handbook. Routledge.

Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, 1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3115/1117729.1117730

S. Hall, “Cultural Identity and Diaspora,” in Identity: Community, Culture, Difference, ed. J. Rutherford (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1996.

Stefanowitsch, A. (2006). Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy. In A. Stefanowitsch & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy (pp. 1–16). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199895.1

Stefanowitsch, A. (2021). Corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

Sunderland, J. (2022). Language, gender and children’s fiction. Bloomsbury.

T. McEnery and A. Hardie, Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395

T. McEnery and A. Hardie, Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199276349.013.0024