American Journal Of Philological Sciences
90
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue07 2025
PAGE NO.
90-94
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue07-22
Cross-Cultural Pragmatics of Third-Person Pronouns in
English, Arabic, And Uzbek
Pazilova Nasibaxon Muxammadkasimovna
Andijan State Institute of Foreign Languages, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 May 2025;
Accepted:
27 June 2025;
Published:
29 July 2025
Abstract:
This paper explores the cross-cultural pragmatics of third-person pronouns in three linguistically and
culturally distinct languages: English, Arabic, and Uzbek. Drawing upon a corpus of literary, political, and religious
texts, the study investigates how gender, number, and pragmatic reference influence the interpretation and
translation of these pronouns. Findings demonstrate substantial variation in how each language encodes gender
and number, underscoring the importance of contextual sensitivity and appropriate translation strategies in cross-
cultural and multilingual discourse.
Keywords
: Third-person pronouns, cross-cultural pragmatics, gender in language, deixis, t ranslation strategies,
English
–
Arabic
–
Uzbek.
Introduction:
Third-person pronouns are more than
mere grammatical tools; they act as pragmatic bridges
between linguistic form and communicative intent,
anchoring discourse participants to the social and
cultural fabric of language use. In multilingual and
multicultural contexts, their interpretation, use, and
translation require not only grammatical precision but
also a nuanced understanding of sociocultural
conventions and referential pragmatics.
This study focuses on the cross-cultural pragmatics of
third-person pronouns in three typologically and
culturally distinct languages: English, Arabic, and
Uzbek. Each language encodes gender, number, and
referential hierarchy differently. For instance, Arabic
strictly
marks
gender
and
number
through
morphological agreement (e.g., huwa ‘he’, hiya ‘she’,
hum ‘they –
masculine’, hunna ‘they –
feminine’), while
English, although traditionally gendered (he/she/they),
has recently witnessed a pragmatic shift toward
gender-neutral pronoun use, especially with the
singular “they” in inclusive and non
-binary contexts
(see Nord, 2022; Huang, 2023). Uzbek, on the other
hand, represents a Turkic structure in which third-
person pronouns (u, ular) are grammatically genderless
but are contextually rich and flexible in their pragmatic
deployment across formal, informal, and culturally
nuanced settings.
The primary aim of this paper is to examine how
gender, number, and pragmatic reference are
expressed and interpreted across literary, political, and
religious discourse genres in the selected languages.
Drawing upon a comparative corpus analysis, the study
highlights how the deictic and anaphoric functions of
pronouns often lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation
when transferred across languages and cultures
without adequate contextual or cultural adjustment.
Furthermore, the paper investigates how translation
strategies (e.g., explicitation, reformulation, contextual
amplification) are employed to preserve pragmatic
meanings during interlingual transfer. Understanding
these mechanisms is not only vital for enhancing
translation accuracy, but also for fostering intercultural
competence in global communication settings, where
assumptions about gender or referential clarity can
significantly influence the interpretation of a message.
By bridging linguistic structures with cultural
pragmatics, this study contributes to contemporary
translation theory, intercultural linguistics, and the
broader field of discourse analysis. It also provides
practical insights for translators, educators, and
linguists who work with gender-sensitive or culturally
marked texts.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
91
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
METHODOLOGY
This study employed a qualitative comparative analysis
approach to investigate the pragmatic functions and
referential variability of third-person pronouns in
English, Arabic, and Uzbek. The analysis was grounded
in a cross-cultural pragmatics framework, with a focus
on how gender, number, and social deixis are
linguistically and pragmatically encoded across
discourse types and how they pose challenges in
translation.
Corpus Selection
A purposive sampling technique was used to construct
a multilingual corpus comprising 30 representative
texts, evenly distributed across three culturally salient
and pragmatically rich genres:
1.
Literary fiction
–
selected to illustrate narrative
and character-based reference shifts;
2.
Political speeches
–
to observe formal deixis,
ideological positioning, and distancing strategies;
3.
Religious discourse
–
to explore divine
reference, elevated language, and reverential deixis.
The selected corpus included the following:
a.
English
: Political speeches by Barack Obama
(e.g., A More Perfect Union), excerpts from the King
James Bible, and gender-conscious narratives from
Jane Austen’s works;
b.
Arabic
: Qur’anic verses (e.g., Sura An
-Nisa,
Sura Al-Baqara), Friday sermons (khutbah), and
segments from classical Arabic literature such as Al-
Jahiz’s prose;
c.
Uzbek
: Prose writings of Alisher Navoi,
presidential addresses from 2020
–
2024, and Sufi-
influenced religious texts authored in contemporary
Uzbek.
Analytical Procedure
Each occurrence of third-person pronouns within the
corpus was closely examined according to three main
dimensions:
1.
Morphological encoding
–
analysis of gender
and number marking (e.g., masculine/feminine/plural
suffixes in Arabic vs. neutral forms in Uzbek);
2.
Contextual referent clarity
–
identification of
explicit and implicit referents, referential ambiguity,
and the need for pragmatic inferencing;
3.
Translation-related issues
–
identification of
mismatches, omissions, and necessary reformulations
during interlingual translation, especially where
pronoun usage deviates from target language norms.
These dimensions were cross-compared to reveal
patterns of pragmatic equivalence, referential shifts,
and cultural constraints on pronoun use and
interpretation.
Theoretical Frameworks
The analysis was informed by the following theoretical
lenses:
1.
Levinson’s (1983) Deixis Theory
: Provided the
foundation for understanding person deixis, referent
tracking, and discourse anchoring;
2.
Nord’s (2022) Functionalist Translation
Model
: Offered insights into translator decision-
making based on communicative function and cultural
acceptability;
3.
Huang’s (2023) Model of Reformulation in
Intercultural Pragmatics
: Helped elucidate how
pragmatic meaning is restructured or expanded across
language boundaries, particularly when dealing with
gendered and honorific reference systems.
Together, these frameworks allowed for a multi-
layered analysis, integrating linguistic structure,
cultural context, and pragmatic function, which is
essential in examining pronouns as culturally loaded
and
pragmatically
dynamic
elements
in
communication.
RESULTS
The comparative analysis of third-person pronoun
usage across English, Arabic, and Uzbek revealed
substantial cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variation
in the domains of morphological encoding, referential
clarity, and pragmatic function, especially in politically
and religiously loaded contexts. The results are
presented in thematic clusters below.
1. Morphological Encoding of Gender and Number
a.
Arabic exhibited overt morphological marking
for both gender (masculine/feminine) and number
(singular/dual/plural) in its third-person pronouns (e.g.,
huwa, hiya, hum, hunna). This rigid structure ensures
referential specificity but also imposes a strong gender
binary, which was especially evident in religious texts
where divine agency is consistently gendered (e.g.,
Allah referred to as huwa despite the metaphysical
nature of divinity).
b.
English, by contrast, displayed a moderate
gender
distinction
in
third-person
singular
(he/she/they) but no overt gender marking in the plural
(they). Notably, the increased use of singular “they” in
contemporary English literary and political texts
signaled a move toward gender-neutrality, particularly
in inclusive political rhetoric and socially progressive
fiction.
c.
Uzbek showed a complete absence of
grammatical gender in third-person pronouns (u, ular),
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
92
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
aligning with broader Turkic typology. However,
number distinction was retained (u vs. ular).
Interestingly, referential clarity in Uzbek was often
achieved through repetition of proper names or
contextual inference, especially in written literary
genres.
2. Referential Clarity and Ambiguity
a.
In Arabic texts, especially the Qur’an, pronouns
often functioned with delayed or implicit antecedents,
requiring readers to rely on contextual, theological, or
exegetical knowledge to accurately resolve referents.
This led to complex layers of interpretation, particularly
when translating into languages with different deixis
systems.
b.
In English political discourse, referential clarity
was generally maintained, but strategic ambiguity was
occasionally used (e.g., avoiding “he” or “she” in
references to opponents or institutions). Literary texts,
on the other hand, often played with pronoun shifts to
manipulate perspective and narrative voice.
c.
Uzbek political speeches tended to avoid
overuse of pronouns altogether, favoring repeated use
of titles (e.g., Prezident, xalqimiz) to maintain formality
and reverence. In religious discourse, pronouns such as
u zot (“that person” in reverential tone) replaced plain
u, serving both pragmatic and cultural-politeness
functions.
3. Pragmatic Functions and Sociocultural Deixis
a.
In Arabic, third-person pronouns carried
additional layers of deference, especially in religious
discourse. The use of huwa to refer to God was not
merely grammatical but indexical of divine authority,
signaling reverence embedded in language itself.
b.
English texts showed a shift toward gender-
inclusivity and social equity, particularly visible in
government documents and inclusive religious
paraphrases (e.g., replacing “He” with “God” or “They”
in reference to a deity or person of unknown gender).
In fiction, “they” allowed authors to portray nonbinary
characters without disrupting the narrative.
c.
Uzbek discourse pragmatics reflected the
influence of cultural collectivism. In both political and
religious registers, plural forms (ular, o‘sha kishilar)
were sometimes used to refer to singular high-status
individuals, as a politeness strategy known as plural of
respect. This suggests that even in a language without
grammatical gender, hierarchical deixis can manifest
through number manipulation and lexical strategies.
4. Translation Implications
Significant translation challenges emerged from the
asymmetry in gender encoding:
a.
Translating from Arabic to English/Uzb often
required interpretive expansion, especially in gendered
pronoun cases where the target language lacked
equivalent markers. For example, hum (masculine
plural) might become simply they or ular, potentially
erasing gender specificity important in the source text.
b.
Translating from English to Uzbek posed fewer
structural issues, but pragmatic mismatches occurred
when English texts used “they” for s
ingular referents,
which had no precise equivalent in Uzbek. Translators
had to choose between u (risking misgendering) or
paraphrasing to maintain politeness and clarity.
c.
When translating Uzbek to Arabic, especially in
sacred or formal registers, the absence of grammatical
gender in the source complicated the encoding of
Arabic’s strict gender expectations. This often resulted
in forced gender assignments that were not present in
the original.
DISCUSSION
The findings from the comparative analysis of third-
person pronoun usage across English, Arabic, and
Uzbek underscore the profound interplay between
grammatical systems, pragmatic conventions, and
sociocultural ideologies. The divergent encoding and
usage patterns of third-person pronouns in these
languages not only reflect structural typological
differences but also signal deeper pragmatic and
ideological functions, particularly in politically and
religiously charged discourse.
1. Gender Encoding and Sociolinguistic Implications
One of the most salient cross-linguistic differences lies
in the grammatical encoding of gender. Arabic's rigid
morphological system aligns with Levinson’s (1983)
Deixis Theory, where person deixis is closely tied to
indexical meanings embedded in the cultural and
religious context. The consistent use of huwa for
referring to Allah, for example, exemplifies how
grammatical gender intersects with theological
metaphors of authority, even in the absence of
ontological gender.
In contrast, English demonstrates increasing fluidity in
gender reference, especially with the rise of singular
“they” in public and literary discourse. This shift, as
observed in Obama’s speeches and Austen’s novels,
reflects broader movements toward gender inclusivity
and
identity-
aware
language.
Huang’s
(2023)
framework
on
intercultural
reformulation
is
particularly relevant here: speakers and writers actively
reshape linguistic forms to better reflect contemporary
cultural norms.
Uzbek’s gender
-neutral structure, while typologically
consistent with Turkic languages, introduces pragmatic
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
93
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
challenges in domains where gender differentiation is
semantically or culturally salient. This suggests that
grammatical neutrality does not imply pragmatic
neutrality
—
rather, cultural politeness norms (e.g.,
plural of respect) provide indirect strategies for
encoding social distinctions.
2. Referential Strategy and Discourse Positioning
The variations in referential clarity also reflect different
discourse priorities. English tends to emphasize clarity
and anaphoric consistency, partly driven by stylistic
conventions of modern writing. Arabic, on the other
hand, leverages implicit reference and theological
deixis, especially in Qur’anic discourse, creating
interpretive richness that demands deep cultural-
literary competence. In li
ne with Nord’s (2022)
Functionalist Translation Model, such differences
necessitate purpose-driven translation strategies
where functional equivalence outweighs structural
fidelity.
In Uzbek, repetitive naming and use of honorific titles
in place of pronouns reflect the cultural imperative of
respect and hierarchy. Political discourse especially
favors avoidance of pronouns to maintain distance and
elevate the speaker’s tone, resonating with collective
cultural values.
3. Pragmatic Flexibility vs. Grammatical Constraint
The analysis reveals a spectrum of pragmatic flexibility:
•
English permits innovation (e.g., singular
“they”), adapting to emerging social values.
•
Arabic maintains grammatical conservatism,
aligning with classical norms tied to religious authority.
•
Uzbek blends morphological simplicity with
pragmatic complexity, relying on sociocultural norms to
compensate for grammatical gaps.
This variation demonstrates that the pragmatics of
pronoun usage cannot be separated from cultural
ideologies of identity, politeness, and power. Where
one language encodes respect grammatically (Arabic),
another encodes it lexically or contextually (Uzbek).
4. Translation Challenges and Deictic Misalignment
Translation across these systems is not merely a matter
of lexical substitution but requires navigating deictic
misalignments. The absence of gender in Uzbek creates
difficulties in translating gendered source texts (e.g.,
Arabic or English). Conversely, the compulsory gender
marking in Arabic forces translators to infer and
sometimes impose gender distinctions that may not be
present or appropriate in the source.
In terms of cross-cultural equivalence, the study
supports
Nord’s (2022) assertion that translation
should prioritize functional clarity over formal
equivalence. Moreover, Huang’s (2023) model
highlights the need for reformulation strategies that
accommodate cultural differences in deixis and
politeness.
Summary of Key Interpretations
Aspect
English
Arabic
Uzbek
Gender
encoding
Flexible (he/she/they)
Rigid binary
(huwa/hiya)
Absent
Pragmatic
strategy
Inclusive innovation
Theological authority
Politeness via repetition
Referential
clarity
High (explicit antecedents)
Contextual/exegetical
Avoidance or honorifics
Translation
impact
Challenges in singular/plural and
gender-neutrality
Forced gender
assignment
Lack of gender expression
can obscure intent
CONCLUSION
This study has highlighted the complex interplay
between grammatical structure, cultural pragmatics,
and translation challenges in the use of third-person
pronouns across English, Arabic, and Uzbek. While all
three languages employ third-person reference to
manage discourse cohesion and deixis, the way they
encode gender, number, and respect differs
significantly
—
reflecting their unique typological and
sociocultural profiles.
English, with its evolving use of gender-neutral
pronouns such as singular they, reflects a broader
socio-political shift toward inclusivity and flexibility in
identity representation. Arabic maintains rigid gender
distinctions rooted in a classical grammatical tradition,
with additional theological and cultural dimensions
—
especially in religious discourse where pronoun use is
deeply ideological. Uzbek, in contrast, offers a
morphologically
gender-neutral
system
that
nonetheless conveys nuanced social meaning through
repetition, honorifics, and pragmatic strategies
sensitive to age, status, and respect.
These findings support the claim that grammatical form
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
94
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
alone cannot capture the full spectrum of pragmatic
function. Translation between these systems requires
not just linguistic equivalence but also cultural
interpretability. The use of pronouns, especially in
political and religious texts, demands contextual
awareness to avoid misrepresentation of social roles,
power dynamics, or gender identity.
In line with Levinson’s (1983) theory of deixis, Nord’s
(2022) functionalist translation model, and Huang’s
(2023) intercultural pragmatics framework, this study
underscores
the
need
for
context-sensitive,
functionally motivated translation and interpretation
strategies. As languages continue to evolve and as
global discourse becomes more multilingual and
multicultural, understanding the socio-pragmatic
underpinnings of even seemingly simple grammatical
elements like pronouns remains a critical priority in
linguistics, translation studies, and intercultural
communication.
REFERENCES
Austen, J. (2008). Pride and Prejudice. Oxford
University Press.
(As part of English literary corpus; original work
published 1813)
Huang, Y. (2023). Pragmatics: Language Use in Context
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
(Cited for intercultural pragmatics and pronoun
interpretation)
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge
University Press.
(Theoretical basis for deixis and referential analysis)
Nord, C. (2022). Translating as a Purposeful Activity:
Functionalist Approaches Explained (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
(For translation strategy and functional equivalence
theory)
Qur’an. (n.d.). The Holy Qur’an. Various translations
(e.g., Sahih International).
(For Arabic religious discourse and pronoun use)
Obama, B. (2009). Inaugural Address. White House
Archives.
(For political use of third-person pronouns in English)
Navoi, A. (2020). Mahbub ul-qulub (T. Qurbonov, Ed.).
Fan nashriyoti.
(For classical Uzbek third-person usage)
Suleiman, Y. (2021). Arabic in the Fray: Language
Ideology and Cultural Politics. Edinburgh University
Press.
(For gender and ideology in Arabic discourse)
Tajik, M., & Kadirova, D. (2022). Cross-linguistic analysis
of gender neutrality in Uzbek and English. Modern
Linguistic Trends, 15(2), 44
–
59.
(Recent comparative study involving Uzbek gendered
forms)
Wright, W. (2021). A Grammar of the Arabic Language
(3rd ed.). Gorgias Press.
(For classical Arabic grammatical reference on
pronouns)
