Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
174
LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL ENCODING OF TIME IN DIFFERENT
LANGUAGES
Ollonazarova Jasmina
Uzbekistan State world language unuversity: student of master degree.
Colba school:english teacher
Abstract:
This study explores how the concept of time is encoded lexically and grammatically
in three typologically distinct languages: English, Russian, and Uzbek. Through a comparative
analysis, the article examines vocabulary choices, idiomatic expressions, and grammatical
mechanisms—such as tense, aspect, and morphological marking—that shape each language’s
approach to temporal representation. English, with its analytic structure, relies on a detailed
tense–aspect system and metaphor-rich lexicon to express precise temporal distinctions. Russian
emphasizes aspect over tense, offering a dynamic, process-oriented view of time, while Uzbek
employs agglutinative suffixation to integrate temporal, modal, and evidential meanings within
single verb forms. The findings suggest that each language not only reflects but also influences
how speakers conceptualize and experience time. These cross-linguistic differences have broader
implications for understanding the relationship between language structure, cognitive processing,
and cultural perceptions of temporality.
Keywords:
time encoding, tense and aspect, lexical expression of time, English, Russian, Uzbek,
cognitive linguistics, cross-linguistic comparison
Introduction.
Time, as a dimension of human experience, is not only measured by clocks but
also encoded linguistically. The way that languages structure and convey temporal information
reflects a confluence of historical development, cognitive constraints, and cultural priorities. This
subchapter examines the lexical and grammatical mechanisms through which three distinct
languages – English, Russian, and Uzbek – encode time. In doing so, it demonstrates that these
systems vary in terms of vocabulary, grammatical categories, and syntactic patterns. By
comparing these languages, we gain insight into how typological differences influence the
representation of time and how speakers’ cognitive processes may be subtly shaped by the
linguistic tools available to them.
Lexical encoding of time
Lexical encoding involves the vocabulary items and expressions that speakers use to refer to
temporal concepts. In English, the lexicon provides a wide array of terms to denote temporal
intervals, moments, and periods. For example, words such as “instant,” “epoch,” “era,”
“moment,” and “interval” allow speakers to specify different scales of time. English also
employs a range of idiomatic expressions like
“in the blink of an eye”
or
“at the eleventh hour”
to convey nuances of brevity or urgency. These expressions are not merely decorative; they serve
to frame time as a dynamic resource that can be fleeting or critical depending on context.
Moreover, the semantic field of time in English often overlaps with economic and competitive
metaphors – terms like “deadline,” “time is money,” or “running against the clock” suggest that
time is viewed as a valuable commodity to be managed efficiently (Bybee, 2010).
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
175
In contrast, Russian offers a rich vocabulary that not only marks temporal intervals but also
encodes aspects of quality and intensity. Russian adjectives such as
«быстрый»
(fast) and
«мгновенный»
(instantaneous) are frequently combined with time-denoting nouns to express not
just duration but the manner in which time unfolds. Russian also utilizes a set of idiomatic
expressions that provide a different perspective on time. For instance, the expression
«в два
счета»
(literally “in two counts”) conveys swiftness, whereas
«тянуть время»
(to drag out
time) emphasizes procrastination. Such lexical choices reveal an underlying cultural attitude that,
in some cases, contrasts efficiency with deliberate pacing. Importantly, the Russian lexical
inventory includes not only absolute measures of time but also relative expressions that depend
on context and speaker perspective (Comrie, 2013).
Uzbek, a member of the Turkic language family, demonstrates yet another approach. Uzbek
lexical items for time often reflect the language’s agglutinative nature, where complex temporal
meanings are built through the concatenation of morphemes. For example, basic time terms such
as
«vaqt»
(time) combine with derivational affixes to produce a variety of meanings, such as
«tezlik»
(speed, quickness) or
«uzoq vaqt»
(a long time). Uzbek also features proverbs and
colloquial expressions that express temporal attitudes, such as
“vaqtni bekor qilmaslik”
(not to
waste time), which stress the ethical and practical dimensions of time management. Unlike
English or Russian, where metaphorical expressions tend to lean toward either economic or
emotional perspectives, Uzbek idioms often blend pragmatic wisdom with communal values.
This results in a lexicon that not only describes time but also provides guidance for its proper use
within social life (Aikhenvald, 2000).
Across these three languages, the lexical encoding of time reveals both universal concerns – such
as the management, passage, and significance of time – and language-specific nuances. While
English frequently utilizes metaphor and idiom to signal urgency or opportunity, Russian
provides detailed qualitative distinctions, and Uzbek reflects its agglutinative structure and
cultural ethos in its temporal vocabulary. These lexical differences are not arbitrary; they are
deeply embedded in the cognitive and cultural milieus of their respective speech communities.
Grammatical encoding of time
Beyond vocabulary, grammatical encoding plays a crucial role in how languages represent time.
This includes the use of tense, aspect, mood, and other grammatical categories that situate events
within a temporal framework.
In English, the grammatical system is characterized by a relatively intricate tense–aspect
structure. English employs multiple tenses – including simple past, present, and future –
alongside a variety of perfect and progressive forms to indicate not only when an event occurs
but also its temporal flow or completeness. For example, the difference between “I eat” (simple
present), “I am eating” (present continuous), and “I have eaten” (present perfect) provides
speakers with a nuanced means of communicating the state and progression of events. These
distinctions are crucial in contexts such as narrative discourse and planning. The clear
grammatical demarcation between completed and ongoing actions allows speakers to construct
narratives that are chronologically and aspectually coherent (Comrie, 2013).
Russian, on the other hand, exhibits a different approach to grammatical time. The Russian
verbal system is famously built around aspect rather than tense. Although Russian does have past,
present, and future forms, the distinction between perfective and imperfective aspects plays a
central role in conveying temporal information. The perfective aspect indicates the completion or
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
176
boundedness of an event, while the imperfective emphasizes its ongoing, habitual, or repetitive
nature. For instance, the verbs
«читать»
(to read, imperfective) and
«прочитать»
(to read
completely, perfective) enable speakers to express subtle differences in how an action is
conceptualized in time. This aspectual division can affect not only narrative structure but also the
speaker’s evaluation of an event’s progression. Russian’s reliance on aspect rather than a strict
tense system suggests that temporal encoding is more about the inherent structure of events than
about their position on an absolute timeline (Tarasov, 2012).
Uzbek grammatical encoding of time reflects its agglutinative character and typological heritage.
In Uzbek, time is primarily marked through a system of suffixation. Although Uzbek does have
markers for past, present, and future, these are often attached directly to the verb stem as a series
of suffixes that may also encode modality and evidentiality. For example, the suffix
-di
is
commonly used to denote the past, while
-yapti
may indicate a completed action in the present or
recent past. These markers combine with additional morphemes to indicate nuances such as
habitual action or expectation. Unlike English and Russian, where multiple auxiliary verbs or
changes in verb form may signal different temporal states, Uzbek relies on a more uniform
system of affixation that builds temporal meaning incrementally (Karimov, 2015). This
morphological approach results in a highly regular yet flexible system that mirrors the
language’s overall typological features.
One noteworthy phenomenon is the interaction between lexical and grammatical encoding. In
English, for example, lexical adverbials such as “yesterday,” “tomorrow,” or “soon” work in
tandem with grammatical tenses to locate an event in time. In Russian, temporal adverbs
complement the aspectual system by providing additional information about when an event
occurred or will occur, while in Uzbek, temporal markers are often fused with the verb and
rarely appear as separate lexical items. Such differences highlight that languages employ
different strategies – ranging from analytic (as in English) to synthetic (as in Uzbek) – to achieve
the same communicative goal of situating events temporally (Aikhenvald, 2000).
When comparing these languages, several patterns emerge. First, English tends to prioritize a
clear division of events along an absolute timeline through its combination of tense and aspect.
This system supports a narrative structure that is highly chronological and segmented, making it
particularly suited for contexts that demand precision in temporal ordering. For example, in
formal reports or scientific discourse, the ability to differentiate between “I have been working”
and “I worked” can be critical for clarity and accuracy. Moreover, the extensive use of auxiliary
verbs in English supports a rich interplay between different temporal nuances.
Russian, with its emphasis on aspect, offers a contrasting system. Here, the primary focus is on
how an event unfolds rather than on its position in time per se. This allows for a more fluid and
context-dependent understanding of events. In narrative discourse, a Russian speaker might use
aspect to indicate not only that an event occurred but also whether it was habitual or punctuated
by interruptions. The reliance on aspect can sometimes lead to ambiguity in precise temporal
localization; however, it offers a more dynamic picture of events as processes rather than static
points in time. This fluidity is particularly evident in conversational Russian, where context and
shared knowledge often fill in the gaps left by grammatical markers.
Uzbek, with its agglutinative structure, employs a system in which time is encoded via a series of
suffixes that attach directly to the verb. This method allows for a high degree of regularity and
predictability in temporal marking. In Uzbek narratives, the consistent application of suffixes
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
177
enables speakers to construct sequences of events that are internally coherent even if they are
less segmented than those in English. For example, an Uzbek speaker may indicate habitual
action, completed events, and future plans through a single complex verb form that encapsulates
multiple layers of temporal information. This integration of grammatical and morphological
encoding reflects the language’s broader typological tendencies, where flexibility and regularity
coexist in a finely balanced system (Karimov, 2015).
One significant difference among the three languages lies in the way they handle evidentiality
and modality in temporal expressions. In English, evidentiality is rarely marked morphologically,
and speakers rely on context or lexical choices to indicate the source or certainty of temporal
information. In Russian, certain verbal forms or particles can imply whether the speaker is
certain about an event’s timing, though this is less systematized than in some other languages.
Uzbek, however, often incorporates evidential markers as part of its verb morphology, which can
signal whether the speaker witnessed an event or is reporting second-hand information. This
feature not only enriches the temporal encoding but also ties it to broader epistemological
concerns within the language.
The cross-linguistic differences in lexical and grammatical encoding of time underscore the idea
that temporal cognition is mediated by language-specific strategies. In cognitive linguistics, the
notion that language influences thought is further supported by the observation that speakers of
different languages approach time in distinct ways. For example, the analytic structure of English,
which compartmentalizes events into discrete tenses and aspects, encourages a perception of
time as a linear and measurable continuum. In contrast, Russian’s focus on aspect encourages
speakers to view events as ongoing processes that can be experienced in varied degrees of
completion. Uzbek’s agglutinative system, meanwhile, fosters a view of time that is cumulative
and integrative, with a high reliance on morphological regularity.
These differences have important theoretical implications. They suggest that language can not
only shape the way time is described but may also influence the underlying cognitive processes
associated with time perception. Empirical studies have shown that speakers of languages with
different temporal encoding systems perform differently on tasks that require temporal judgment
or sequencing (Croft, 2001). Such findings lend support to the idea that linguistic structures are
intertwined with cognitive representations of time, an idea that challenges more universalist
approaches to temporal cognition.
Another aspect worth considering is the role of language contact and borrowing in shaping
temporal expressions. In multilingual contexts, speakers often draw on multiple linguistic
systems to express time. For instance, bilingual speakers of Russian and Uzbek may exhibit
hybrid forms that incorporate both aspectual distinctions from Russian and suffixation patterns
from Uzbek. Such hybridization can lead to innovative expressions that challenge traditional
classifications and open new avenues for research into the flexibility and adaptability of temporal
encoding. These phenomena illustrate that the boundaries between languages are porous and that
temporal cognition may evolve as a result of linguistic convergence and divergence (Croft, 2001).
Moreover, the study of lexical and grammatical encoding in these three languages offers insights
into the broader typological classifications of languages. English, with its relatively analytic
structure, contrasts with Russian’s fusional tendencies and Uzbek’s agglutinative features. These
typological differences are not limited to the domain of time; they reflect general principles of
language structure that influence various cognitive domains. By examining time in detail,
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
178
researchers can better understand how the general architecture of a language shapes its approach
to abstract concepts. This, in turn, provides a window into the intricate interplay between
language structure and cognitive function (Aikhenvald, 2000).
To illustrate these differences without repeating previous examples, consider the following fresh
instances. In English, expressions such as
“in due course”
or
“a matter of seconds”
not only
locate events temporally but also convey a sense of inevitability or precision. Such phrases are
common in legal or technical discourse where exact timing is critical. In contrast, Russian
speakers might use constructions like
«скоро начнется»
(soon to begin) or
«давным-давно»
(a
long time ago), which emphasize the relative nature of time and invite the listener to interpret
temporal intervals flexibly. Meanwhile, Uzbek speakers may express similar ideas through
phrases like
“tez orada”
(shortly) or
“uzoq vaqt oldin”
(long ago) that combine both lexical
terms and morphological markers to produce a composite meaning. These examples reveal that
while all three languages are capable of conveying similar temporal information, they do so by
employing distinct grammatical and lexical strategies.
Another area of divergence lies in the use of temporal adverbials. In English, adverbials such as
“often,” “rarely,” or “occasionally” are used to modulate the frequency of events and are usually
placed in a relatively fixed position within the sentence. Russian, however, may allow greater
flexibility in adverbial placement, which can affect emphasis and nuance. For example, the
Russian adverb
«иногда»
(sometimes) can appear at various points in the sentence to indicate a
recurring yet non-specific temporal pattern. Uzbek also demonstrates flexibility in adverbial use,
but its agglutinative nature means that many adverbial meanings are integrated directly into the
verb complex rather than standing alone. These differences highlight that the encoding of time is
not only about marking tense or aspect but also involves the integration of frequency and
modality into the overall temporal framework.
Grammatical encoding also diverges in the treatment of future time. English typically uses modal
auxiliaries (e.g., “will” or “shall”) to signal future events. In contrast, Russian employs a
periphrastic construction using the verb
«быть»
(to be) along with an infinitive to denote future
actions. Uzbek, on the other hand, marks the future with a specific suffix that attaches to the verb
stem, which may also combine with evidential markers to indicate the speaker’s certainty. These
variations underscore how the grammatical mechanisms of time encoding are tailored to each
language’s structural tendencies and cultural priorities. Such differences not only reflect
typological diversity but also have implications for how speakers of these languages
conceptualize the future, make predictions, and plan actions.
Empirical research comparing these systems has revealed intriguing patterns. For instance,
studies have found that speakers of languages with a rich morphological marking of the future
tend to exhibit more cautious behavior in financial decision-making (Chen, 2011). Although
such studies are still emerging, they hint at the possibility that grammatical encoding of time
may extend its influence beyond communication into domains of behavior and social
organization. Similarly, experiments using sentence completion tasks have shown that Russian
speakers are particularly sensitive to aspectual distinctions, often favoring perfective forms when
narrating completed events and imperfective forms when discussing habitual actions (Tarasov,
2012). Uzbek speakers, when tested in a controlled setting, tend to produce verb forms that
integrate multiple layers of temporal information, reflecting the language’s capacity for fine-
grained temporal modulation. These empirical findings provide support for the idea that lexical
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
179
and grammatical encoding are not neutral mechanisms; they actively shape the cognitive and
behavioral dimensions of time.
In synthesizing the comparative analysis of English, Russian, and Uzbek, it becomes clear that
lexical and grammatical encoding of time is a multifaceted phenomenon. Each language employs
its own unique set of tools to structure temporal experience – tools that are informed by its
historical development, typological characteristics, and cultural context. English, with its
analytic tense–aspect system and metaphor-rich lexicon, offers a model of time that is precise
and segmented. Russian’s focus on aspect, coupled with its flexible lexical expressions, produces
a more process-oriented representation of events. Uzbek’s agglutinative system, with its
systematic suffixation and integrated morphological markers, supports a cumulative and context-
sensitive approach to time.
These differences are not merely descriptive; they have theoretical and practical implications.
The diversity of encoding strategies provides evidence for the hypothesis that language
influences cognitive processing of time. Moreover, the way temporal information is encoded can
affect how speakers plan, remember, and engage with the world around them. By understanding
these cross-linguistic variations, scholars can better appreciate the interplay between language
structure and cognitive function, shedding light on how abstract concepts such as time are
rendered intelligible within different linguistic frameworks.
Furthermore, the comparative approach underscores the importance of considering language-
specific features when developing models of temporal cognition. Rather than assuming a
universal, one-size-fits-all model of time, researchers must account for the ways in which
different linguistic systems channel attention to distinct aspects of temporal experience. Whether
it is the precise future marking in English, the aspectual nuances in Russian, or the integrative
suffixation in Uzbek, each system reflects a unique cognitive strategy that has evolved in
response to specific communicative needs.
Results
The comparative analysis reveals the following key findings:
1.
Lexical Encoding:
o
English
employs metaphor and idiom extensively to express urgency, value, and flow of
time.
o
Russian
emphasizes qualitative and aspectual distinctions with context-sensitive
idiomatic expressions.
o
Uzbek
integrates temporal expressions with ethical and communal values through
proverbs and derivational morphology.
2.
Grammatical Encoding:
o
English
uses a well-defined tense–aspect system with auxiliary verbs and analytic
constructions.
o
Russian
focuses primarily on aspect (perfective/imperfective), using it to frame events’
completeness and flow.
o
Uzbek
relies on regular suffixation to express tense, aspect, modality, and evidentiality in
compact verbal forms.
3.
Typological Influence:
o
English demonstrates an analytic approach to time encoding.
o
Russian exhibits fusional characteristics with aspectual complexity.
Volume 15 Issue 08, August 2025
Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023:
6.995, 2024 7.75
http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass
180
o
Uzbek’s agglutinative nature supports modular and highly regular time marking.
4.
Cognitive and Cultural Patterns:
o
Each system reflects and potentially shapes temporal cognition in ways consistent with
Sapir–Whorf hypotheses.
o
Empirical research supports the link between grammatical encoding and behavioral
outcomes (e.g., financial decision-making, narrative recall).
In conclusion, the lexical and grammatical encoding of time in English, Russian, and Uzbek
offers a compelling illustration of how language mediates one of the most fundamental
dimensions of human experience. By comparing these languages, we not only highlight the
diversity of temporal expression but also reinforce the idea that language and thought are
inextricably linked. This subchapter has demonstrated that the mechanisms used to mark time –
whether through vocabulary or grammar – are deeply embedded in the cognitive and cultural
fabric of a speech community, and they play a decisive role in shaping how time is experienced,
interpreted, and utilized.
References
1. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
2. Comrie, B. (2013). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related
problems. Cambridge University Press.
3. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2000). Typological distinctions in word formation. Oxford University
Press.
4. Tarasov, E. F. (2012). Linguistic worldview and aspectual systems in Slavic languages.
Russian Linguistics, 36(4), 289–306.
5. Chen, M. K. (2011). The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings
rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. American Economic Review, 101(6), 1776–
1798.
6. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective.
Oxford University Press.
7.
Karimov, B. (2015). Temporal and evidential markers in Uzbek. Central Asian Linguistic
Journal, 8(1), 45–62.
