AJH

Article Details

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): June

Linguistic Representation of Gender in Uzbek Family Terms

https://doi.org/10.35912/ajh.v5i2.4235
03 Jun 2026

Abstract

Purpose: This article aims to examine how gender is linguistically represented in Uzbek family terms.

Research Methodology: This study uses a qualitative linguistic approach by analyzing selected Uzbek kinship terms, including ota “father”, ona “mother”, aka “elder brother”, opa “elder sister”, kelin “bride/daughter-in-law”, kuyov “groom/son-in-law”, qaynona “mother-in-law”, and qaynota “father-in-law”.

Results: The findings show that modern gender theory has shifted beyond binary male and female models toward broader analyses of power, discourse, embodiment, technology, race, class, sexuality, disability, and global inequality.

Conclusions: Uzbek family terms represent gender through lexical distinctions between male and female relatives as well as through cultural meanings attached to family roles.

Limitations: This study is limited to selected Uzbek family terms and does not include broader comparative analysis with other Turkic languages.

Contributions: This study contributes to linguistic and gender studies by showing how Uzbek kinship vocabulary encodes gender, social hierarchy, and cultural values within family relationships.

Keywords

Culture Family Terms Gender Kinship Vocabulary

How to Cite

Kizi, S. N. B. (2026). Linguistic Representation of Gender in Uzbek Family Terms. Annals of Justice and Humanity, 5(2), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.35912/ajh.v5i2.4235

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

References

  1. Al-Qatawneh, S., & Al Rawashdeh, A. (2019). Gender representation in the Arabic language textbook for the ninth grade approved by the Ministry of Education for use in schools in the United Arab Emirates. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.12.001
  2. Bisilki, A. K. (2017). A sociolinguistic analysis of kinship terms in Likpakpaln. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, 6(3), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.4314/gjl.v6i3.2
  3. Goddard, C. (2025). The conceptual building blocks of kinship terminologies. Lingua, 313, 103841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103841
  4. Honkola, T. K., & Jordan, F. M. (2023). Kin term borrowings in the world’s languages. Journal of Language Contact, 15(3–4), 562–626. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-15030004
  5. Idaryani, I., & Fidyati, F. (2023). The usage of kinship terms and their values among Acehnese people in Indonesia. Journal of English Language and Education, 8(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.31004/jele.v8i2.465
  6. Kholisin, K., Maulidya, R., Alfan, M., & Fauzi, M. F. (2022). Contrastive analysis of kinship terms between Arabic and Indonesian languages: Anthropolinguistic study. Izdihar: Journal of Arabic Language Teaching, Linguistics, and Literature, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22219/jiz.v5i1.18860
  7. Kuraedah, S., Gunawan, F., Alam, S., Ubaidillah, M. F., Alimin, A., & Fitriyani, F. (2023). Gender representation in government-endorsed Arabic language textbooks: Insights from Indonesia. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1022998. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1022998
  8. Milanova, V., Metsäranta, N., & Honkola, T. (2024). Kinship terminologies of the Circum-Baltic Area: Convergences and structural properties. Journal of Language Contact, 17(2), 315–358. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-bja10079
  9. Passmore, S., Barth, W., Greenhill, S. J., Quinn, K., Sheard, C., Argyriou, P., Birchall, J., Bowern, C., Calladine, J., Deb, A., Diederen, A., Metsäranta, N. P., Araujo, L. H., Schembri, R., Hickey-Hall, J., Honkola, T., Mitchell, A., Poole, L., Rácz, P. M., & Jordan, F. M. (2023). Kinbank: A global database of kinship terminology. PLOS ONE, 18(5), e0283218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283218
  10. Purba, R., Saddhono, K., Herman, H., Widodo, A., Risdianto, F., A., F., & Saputra, N. (2023). Women’s language features: Identifying language and gender in a talk show from a sociolinguistics perspective. Research Journal in Advanced Humanities, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.58256/mbjnc027
  11. Suryanarayan, N., & Khalil, A. (2021). Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-125-146
  12. Aziz, Z. A., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Menalisa. (2020). Kinship terminology in the Tamiang language: A Malay variety spoken in Eastern Aceh, Indonesia. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 382–400. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16802
  13. Alenizi, A. (2019). The norms of address terms in Arabic: The case of Saudi speech community. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(5), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n5p227
  14. Chan, W. M. (2021). Gender representation in language textbooks. Advances in Education Sciences, 3(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5791934
  15. Kanwal, T., Haroon, H., Khan, U. A., & Arif, M. (2025). Linguistic diversity in kinship terminology: A study of cultural evolution across regions. Journal of Asian Development Studies, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.62345/jads.2025.14.2.23
  16. Czerwinski, E. (2020). Kinship terminology and social relations in comparative linguistic perspective. Language and Culture Studies, 6(2), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/lcs-2020-0004
  17. Dobrushina, N., & Staferova, E. (2023). Gender and age distinctions in kinship terminology across language communities. Linguistic Typology, 27(3), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2023-2011
  18. Kotek, H., Dockum, R., & Sun, D. (2021). Gender bias and stereotypes in linguistic examples. Language, 97(4), 653–677. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2021.0060
  19. Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2017). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317700990
  20. Milanova, V., & Honkola, T. (2024). Kinship terminologies of the Circum-Baltic Area: Convergences and structural properties. Journal of Language Contact, 17(2), 315–358. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-bja10079
  21. Norocel, O. C., Saresma, T., Lähdesmäki, T., & Ruotsalainen, M. (2018). Discursive constructions of white Nordic masculinities in right-wing populist media. Men and Masculinities, 23(3–4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18780459
  22. Suryanarayan, N., & Khalil, A. (2021). Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-125-146
  23. Tadi?, D. (2021). Influence of gender on the use of kinship terms in English and Serbian: Cultural linguistic study. International Journal of Language and Culture, 8(2), 346–372. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.20019.tad
  24. Ta?ba?, E. (2019). The Turkic kinship system. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 72(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2019.72.2.6
  25. Ta?ba?, E. (2021). Kinship loanwords in the Turkic languages. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 74(3), 511–541. https://doi.org/10.1556/062.2021.00155
  26. Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/14413582241264619
  27. Suryanarayan, N., & Khalil, A. (2021). Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-125-146
  28. Agarwal, P., Sharma, D., & Singh, R. (2021). Language, gender, and cultural identity in kinship communication. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 50(4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2021.1909214
  29. Floyd, S., Norcliffe, E., & San Roque, L. (2018). Egocentric and non-egocentric perspectives in language and social interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02205
  30. Formanowicz, M., Hansen, K., & Roessel, J. (2023). Gender-fair language and the social perception of gender roles: A review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(2), e12737. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12737
  31. Hegarty, P., Bittner, A., & Lemmerich, F. (2022). Linguistic representations of gender across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.019
  32. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2023). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press Review Studies, 15(2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108958586
  33. Mills, S., & Mullany, L. (2023). Language, Gender and Feminism: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003282229
  34. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2023). Language and social interaction in intercultural communication. Language Teaching Research, 27(5), 1045–1061. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211044532
  35. Rzymski, C., Tresoldi, T., Greenhill, S. J., Wu, M. S., & List, J. M. (2020). The database of cross-linguistic colexifications. Scientific Data, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0341-x
  36. Sunderland, J. (2017). Language and gender research in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review, 8(2–3), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-1037
  37. Xue, J., & Pan, Y. (2024). Kinship address forms and politeness strategies in Asian societies. Journal of Pragmatics, 226, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.02.004

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors

Shukurova Nodira Bahtiyor Kizi
Uzbekistan State University of World Languages, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Downloads

View PDF

Statistics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): June
Section: Articles
WhatsApp Instagram Facebook LinkedIn Email