541
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE IN LIVING
LANGUAGES
Fayzullaeva Nigina Sur’at qizi
Asia International University, English chair.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15664131
Abstract.
Language is not static but continuously evolving. This article examines the
evolution of language as a characteristic process of all living languages, integrating theoretical
and empirical perspectives. We begin with key linguistic theories
–
Noam Chomsky’s generative
grammar, Ferdinand de Saussure’s structuralism, and William Labov’s sociolinguistics –
outlining how each framework accounts for language structure and change. We then compare
the historical evolution of English and Uzbek, providing insights from Old English through
Modern English, and from Chagatai Turkic to contemporary Uzbek. Special attention is given to
the evolution of spoken language in contrast to written language, highlighting how
pronunciation and usage shift more rapidly in speech while written forms often preserve older
conventions. We incorporate corpus-based evidence of phonological, grammatical, and lexical
changes over time in both English and Uzbek, illustrating these changes with concrete examples
(such as sound shifts, morphological simplification, and vocabulary expansion). The analysis
underscores that all living languages undergo constant change, shaped by social, cognitive, and
historical forces. By understanding these processes
–
through theory, historical comparison, and
corpus data
–
we gain insight into why languages today are both connected to and different from
their past forms.
Keywords:
language change; historical linguistics; generative grammar; structuralism;
sociolinguistics; English language history; Uzbek language history; spoken vs written language;
corpus linguistics.
Introduction.
All living languages undergo change
–
a fundamental fact of linguistics.
As the noted linguist David Crystal observes,
“All living languages change. They have to.
Languages have no existence apart from the people who use them. And because people are
changing all the time, their language changes too, to keep up with them. The only languages that
don't change are dead ones.”
. Indeed, the development and transformation of language is a
continuous process inherent to linguistic life. New words emerge to name inventions or social
trends, old grammatical forms fade, pronunciations shift, and meanings drift over generations.
This dynamic evolution is observable in every natural language, whether global lingua francas
like English or regional languages like Uzbek. In this article, we explore the mechanisms and
patterns of language evolution from multiple angles.
First, we outline a theoretical framework through three influential linguistic perspectives.
Generative grammar, pioneered by Noam Chomsky, emphasizes the innate, rule-governed
structures underlying all human languages. Structuralism, introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure,
focuses on language as a system of interrelated elements at a given time, distinguishing between
synchronic (current structure) and diachronic (historical) analysis. Sociolinguistics, largely
shaped by William Labov, examines language variation and change in social contexts, showing
how usage evolves within communities. Each of these theories offers tools for understanding
why and how languages change.
1
Crystal, David (2011).
A Little Book of Language
. Excerpt in Visual Thesaurus:
David Crystal on Language
Change
.
542
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
Next, we compare historical linguistic changes in English and Uzbek. English, a
Germanic language, has undergone dramatic transformations from Old English (Anglo-Saxon, c.
5th
–
11th centuries) through Middle English and into Modern English. We illustrate these
changes with examples from Old English texts and discuss major shifts such as the loss of
inflectional endings and the Great Vowel Shift. Uzbek, a Turkic language, likewise has a rich
history: it evolved from earlier Turkic tongues (with Chagatai Turkic in the 15th century as a
prominent literary predecessor) to the modern Uzbek spoken today
. We highlight how Uzbek’s
development was influenced by contact with Persian, Arabic, and Russian, and by deliberate
language policies (for example, script reforms in the 20th century).
We then delve into the evolution of spoken vs. written language, analyzing how spoken
language often changes more rapidly and unconsciously, while written language can be
conservative or subject to standardization. Spoken vernaculars undergo sound changes and
grammatical simplifications that may take years or decades to be reflected (if ever) in writing.
Conversely, writing systems and orthographic conventions can preserve archaic features
(such as silent letters in English) or be subject to reform for political and cultural reasons (as
seen in Uzbek’s script changes).
Throughout the discussion, we incorporate corpus-based evidence to ground our analysis
in real linguistic data. By examining historical corpora
–
large collections of texts spanning
different time periods
–
linguists can quantitatively trace phonological shifts, grammatical
developments, and lexical trends. For instance, a recent diachronic corpus study (Satibaldieva
2025) compared 19th- and 20th-century English and Uzbek literary prose, revealing parallel
trends like technological vocabulary expansion and the decline of archaic words, as well as
differences due to each language’s unique historical context
In sum, the evolution of language is a multifaceted process. In the sections that follow,
we integrate theory, historical comparison, and empirical data to paint a comprehensive picture
of how and why languages change over time. Understanding this process in English and Uzbek
will illustrate the broader principle that linguistic change is inherent to all living languages.
Theoretical Framework. Generative Grammar (Noam Chomsky)
Noam Chomsky’s theory of generative grammar revolutionized linguistics in the mid
-
20th century by treating language as a rule-governed, innate system
. In this view, each human
language is underpinned by a set of implicit grammatical rules and principles that allow speakers
to generate an infinite number of sentences. Chomsky defined a generative grammar as “a
system of rules that in some explicit and well-defined way assigns structural descriptions to
sentences”. Crucially, generative grammar assumes an inborn Universal Grammar –
a genetic
endowment common to all humans
–
which provides a template for language development in
children. Under this framework, the astonishing speed and uniformity with which children
acquire language is explained by an innate cognitive blueprint for language structure.
How does generative theory account for language evolution and change? Unlike
historical linguistics, Chomsky’s focus was on the synchronic competence of speakers (the
2
Western European Journal of Linguistics and Education (2023). “Historical Development of the Uzbek Language”.
(Uzbek language phases, Navoi’s role).
3
Satibaldieva, N. (2025). “A Corpus Driven Comparison of English and Uzbek Literary Prose (19th–20th c.).”
Modern American Journal of Linguistics, Education, and Pedagogy
1(1). (Lexical change patterns from corpus
analysis).
4
Pressbooks Open Text
–
Generative Grammar
overview. (Explains Chomsky’s contributions to rule
-governed
grammar and Universal Grammar).
543
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
internalized grammar) rather than diachronic change. In fact, early generative linguists often
bracketed off historical change to concentrate on the universal properties of language. However,
one can interpret language change within a generative paradigm as changes in the underlying
parameters or rules across generations. As children acquire language, they may interpret the
input slightly differently than their parents did, especially if the input is variable or changing.
Small shifts in parameter settings or rule applications can accumulate over time, leading to
grammatical change. For example, a generativist might frame the loss of verb-second word order
from Old to Modern English or the shift in a morphological rule as a re-setting of grammatical
parameters by new generations of speakers. Generative grammar’s emphasis on the creativity of
language (“generating” new sentences) also implies that language is open to innovation –
new
structures or word forms can be generated and, if they spread in a speech community, can
become part of the grammar.
In summary, Chomsky’s contribution lies in viewing language as a structured, innate
capacity. While generative grammar itself does not primarily study historical change, it provides
insight into the cognitive constraints and possibilities that underlie any linguistic evolution. All
languages are seen as variations on a universal theme, and change is the result of the same
generative capacity operating on new inputs. This perspective complements historical
approaches by explaining the deep commonalities across languages even as their superficial
forms change over time.
Structuralism (Ferdinand de Saussure).
Ferdinand de Saussure, often called the "father
of modern linguistics," introduced a structuralist approach that fundamentally shaped how
linguists understand language change. Saussure emphasized that language is a structured system
of signs, wherein each element (word, sound) has value only in relation to others. One of his key
insights was the distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics. A
synchronic
study
examines a language at a given moment in time, treating it as a complete system (la
langue
as
Saussure termed it) with interdependent parts. A
diachronic
study, on the other hand, looks at
how language evolves through history, i.e., the changes in sounds, forms, and meanings over
time
Saussure acknowledged that any living language must change over time, but he argued
for the analytical separation of describing a language’s structure at one point versus describing
its historical transformations. According to Saussure,
“language… as a social product… is
acquired by heritage. Therefore, correlations to the past are stronger than innovation.
Nevertheless, this does not impede new displacements.”
. In other words, each generation inherits
a linguistic system that largely persists from the past, yet incremental innovations continually
occur. Because language exists in the minds of a community of speakers, it has a kind of inertia
–
a stability due to convention and social transmission
–
even while it is never truly static. Changes
(or “displacements”) enter the system gradually: a sound may be pronounced slightly differently
by some speakers, a grammatical construction may be used in a novel way, or a new word may
be coined or borrowed. Over time, these changes can generalize and become part of the
language’s synchronic state.
Structuralism also introduced the idea that linguistic signs are
arbitrary
and defined by
relationships. This means when changes happen, they often occur in
sets
or
patterns
because
altering one element can have ripple effects on the structural oppositions in the language.
5
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916).
Course in General Linguistics
. (Synchronic vs. diachronic perspective summarized
in).
544
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
For example, if a language has a set of verb endings that mark tenses, and one ending
erodes or disappears over time, the whole tense marking system may reorganize (perhaps another
element takes over the function, or aspect markers gain importance, etc.). Saussure’s focus was
not on enumerating specific sound changes or etymologies (as 19th-century historical linguists
did), but on understanding the
systemic consequences
of change. He famously used the analogy
of language as a game of chess: the configuration of pieces (the structure) matters more than the
individual history of each piece, yet the current configuration is reached through a series of
moves (changes).
In sum, Saussure’s structuralism contributes two major ideas to language evolution: (1)
Language change is a constant but gradual process affecting a system that is socially transmitted;
(2) To fully understand a change, one must see how it reconfigures the structural system of
contrasts at a given time. This structural perspective laid groundwork for later linguists to
investigate patterns of change (such as shifts in phonological systems or reanalysis of
grammatical structures) in a systematic way. It reminds us that every historical change integrates
into an existing linguistic structure and that studying those structures synchronically is crucial to
explaining why certain changes unfold as they do.
Sociolinguistic Perspectives (William Labov).
While generative grammar and
structuralism focus on internal structures of language,
sociolinguistics
brings the spotlight to
language
use
in social context and how variation across speakers drives change. William Labov,
a pioneering figure in variationist sociolinguistics, argued that to understand language change,
one must observe language in its social milieu
. Labov’s famous studies in the 1960s (such as on
Martha’s Vineyard and in New York City) demonstrated that linguistic change is often rooted in
social identity, group differentiation, and contact between dialects.
One of Labov’s key contributions is the idea that language variation at any given time can
signal ongoing change. By examining how people of different ages, social classes, or
communities speak, we can often catch a language change in progress. For example, Labov’s
MA thesis research on Martha’s Vineyard (an island off the coast of Massachusetts) revealed that
a subtle shift in vowel pronunciation was underway in the mid-20th century. He noticed that
certain Vineyarders, especially young adults in up-island fishing communities, were beginning to
pronounce the diphthong in words like
“sound”
and
“bout”
with a more centralized vowel
(sounding like
“seund”
or
“beut”
)
–
a pronunciation reminiscent of an older, perhaps more
conservative accent. Paradoxically, this change went against the broader historical trend (it was a
reversal to an older sound). Why was this happening? Labov discovered that those leading the
change were people with strong local identity: they were often fishermen or others tied to
traditional island life, and they positively valued their community’s distinctiveness. By adopting
an “archaic” vowel sound more heavily than their parents’ generation, these speakers were
symbolically resisting the influx of mainland tourists and asserting a unique island identity. This
case illustrates how social factors (identity, attitude, in-group vs out-group dynamics) can cause
certain linguistic features to persist or even intensify in a community, thus driving language
evolution in a particular direction.
Labov’s work in New York City English further showed how socioeconomic stratification
correlates with language variation and change. In his study
The Social Stratification of English in
New York City
(1966), Labov examined the pronunciation of the post-vocalic /r/ (as in
“car”
,
6
Labov, William (1963). “The Social Motivation of a Sound Change.”
Word
19(3). (Martha’s Vineyard study
referenced in MVTimes article).
545
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
“fourth floor”
) across different social classes and stylistic contexts. He found a clear pattern:
higher socioeconomic status and more formal speech styles favored pronouncing /r/ (a prestige
form), whereas working-class and casual speech often dropped /r/ (a historically older NYC
dialect feature). Moreover, younger speakers were adopting the prestige /r/-pronouncing habit
more than older working-class speakers, indicating that change was in progress towards the r-ful
pronunciation in New York City English. This change was influenced by social prestige and
attitudes (rhotic pronunciation was associated with standard American English and upward
mobility). Such findings underscored Labov’s principle that
language change is socially
conditioned
–
it does not happen in a vacuum, but through the choices speakers make (often
subconsciously) in response to social pressures and values.
Another important insight from sociolinguistics is about attitudes towards change. Labov
formulated the “Golden Age Principle,” noting that people often perceive their language as
having been at a peak of perfection in the past, and thus they view contemporary changes
negatively. As he put it,
“No one has ever been heard to say, 'It's wonderful the way young
people talk today. It's so much better than the way we talked when I was a kid.' ... The most
general and deeply held belief about language is that at some time in the past, language was in a
state of perfection… and every change represents a falling away from that golden age.”
. This
observation explains why language evolution often encounters resistance or stigma
–
for
instance, older generations might criticize new slang or pronunciation of younger people, even
though those very changes are natural. Despite such social resistance, changes can and do spread
if the social conditions favor them (e.g., the younger generation eventually becoming the
majority or the new form indexing a desirable identity).
In sum, Labov’s sociolinguistic perspective provides a mechanism for language change:
variation within a speech community, often correlating with social groups and identities, is the
seedbed of change. It complements the structural view by showing
why
a particular change might
occur (social motivation) and the generative view by emphasizing that actual usage
(performance) can feed back into the linguistic system. Sociolinguistics teaches us that to truly
understand language evolution, we must pay attention to who is using what language forms, in
what contexts, and with what social meaning
–
for those are the channels through which
innovation becomes the new linguistic norm.
Historical Linguistic Changes in English and Uzbek. Historical Changes in English. The
English language has experienced profound changes over the past 1,500 years, evolving through
distinct historical stages. Old English (c. 5th
–
11th centuries CE), also known as Anglo-Saxon,
was the language of Beowulf and King Alfred
–
a Germanic tongue brought to Britain by Anglo-
Saxon settlers. Old English differs drastically from Modern English in grammar, vocabulary, and
pronunciation. It was a highly inflected language: nouns had four cases (nominative, genitive,
dative, accusative) and two numbers, and they were also classified by grammatical gender
(masculine, feminine, neuter)
. For example, the word for “stone” in Old English was
stān
(masculine noun); it would appear as
stān
(nom. singular),
stānes
(genitive, “of the stone”),
stāne
(dative, “to/for the stone”),
stān
(accusative), and had a plural
stānas
. Adjectives and
demonstratives (like “the/that”) were inflected to agree with these case
and gender distinctions.
Verbs were conjugated for person, number, tense, and mood, with many irregular (strong) verbs
forming past tenses by vowel changes (e.g.,
singan
“to sing” –
sang
(past)
–
sungen
(past
7
Payne, Julia (2011). “50 years of language study began on Martha's Vineyard.”
Martha’s Vineyard Times
.
(Summary of Labov’s Martha’s Vineyard findings).
546
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
participle)). A line from an Old English text illustrates how foreign it looks to modern eyes: for
instance, the opening of
Beowulf
–
“Hwæt! wē Gār
-
Dena in geār
-
dagum…”
–
is almost
unrecognizable as English, requiring translation (
“Lo! We spear
-
Danes in days of yore…”
).
By the Middle English period (c. 12th
–
15th centuries), following the Norman Conquest
of 1066, English underwent dramatic grammatical simplification and heavy lexical borrowing.
Many Old English inflectional endings weakened or disappeared, especially as unstressed
vowels in final syllables all merged into a neutral
-e
(schwa) sound. This phonological erosion
led to the weakening of inflections and consequently the loss of grammatical gender and case
marking on nouns. By late Middle English, nouns no longer had distinct case endings (except a
genitive
-
’s
and some remnants in pronouns), and grammatical gender was gone
–
the
replaced
Old English gendered articles (
sē, sēo, þæt
) for all nouns. Word order became more rigid (since
case no longer signaled subject vs object clearly). Middle English speakers also borrowed
thousands of French words (due to Norman French nobility ruling England)
–
words related to
law, art, religion, and everyday life (e.g.,
court, justice, painting, prayer, beef, pork
) enriched the
vocabulary. A Middle English example, from Chaucer (14th century), shows considerable change
but some familiarity:
“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote / The droghte of March hath
perced to the roote…”
–
while largely comprehensible with effort, it still contains archaic forms
(
whan
for “when”,
soote
“sweet”, etc.) and a French
-influenced lexicon.
In conclusion, corpus evidence corroborates that phonological, grammatical, and lexical
changes in English and Uzbek are not just anecdotal but measurable. The data reveal parallel
trends (all languages modernize their lexicon and simplify some structures over time) and unique
paths (each language’s specific history leaves a signature on its evolution, whether it’s English’s
historical layering of vocabulary or Uzbek’s mix of Turkic structure with Persian and Russian
overlays). By examining corpora, linguists can observe the living process of language change in
action, reinforcing the notion that evolution is an inherent property of all living languages,
continuously unfolding in usage.
Conclusion.
Language evolution is a universal phenomenon
–
any language that is used
actively by a community will undergo change. We have seen through theoretical, historical, and
empirical lenses how this process unfolds. Theoretical frameworks provide insight into different
facets of change: Chomsky’s generative grammar highlights the cognitive capacity for language
that sets the stage for how children may internalize slightly different grammars than their
parents, Saussure’s structuralism reminds us that changes affect and are constrained by the
existing linguistic system, and Labov’s sociolinguistics demonstrates that social dynamics and
variation are the immediate fuel of changes in progress. Together, these perspectives show that
language change is at once a mental, structural, and social process.
The historical comparison of English and Uzbek put these abstract ideas into concrete
context. English illustrated a dramatic trajectory from a highly inflected early medieval language
to a largely analytic global language today, accumulating layers of external influence (Norse,
French, Latin, etc.) and undergoing internal simplifications and sound shifts. Uzbek’s journey,
while less familiar to many, is equally rich
–
from ancient Turkic roots through a Persianate
literary zenith in the Chagatai era, to adaptations under Russian/Soviet rule, and into a modern
national language asserting its identity. Both languages exemplify the axiom that
“the only
languages that don’t change are dead ones”
8
Crystal, David (2011).
A Little Book of Language
. Excerpt in Visual Thesaurus:
David Crystal on Language
Change
547
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
Changes in English and Uzbek were driven by a mix of internal linguistic pressures (e.g.,
ease of articulation leading to sound changes, analogy leveling irregular forms) and external
influences (conquests, trade, migration, cultural prestige, political decisions). Even as the
specifics differ
–
English never had to change its script, for instance, whereas Uzbek did multiple
times
–
the underlying principle is the same: living languages respond to the needs, contacts, and
creativity of their speakers.
Our exploration of spoken vs. written language evolution highlighted an important
caveat: when we talk about “language change,” we often implicitly mean the spoken vernacular,
as that is where change originates. Written language can both reflect and obscure these changes.
English’s conservative orthography and Uzbek’s shifting alphabets show that the written form
may freeze or divert the course of linguistic evolution in interesting ways, but ultimately, if
spoken usage changes enough, the written standard either adjusts (slowly, as in spelling reforms
or new accepted grammar rules) or risks growing distant from actual speech. The tension
between the inertia of writing and the flux of speech is itself a catalyst for conscious language
reforms and standardization efforts.
Finally, corpus-based evidence anchored our discussion in observable data. It confirms
that language change is not just a theoretical claim but an empirically measurable reality
–
frequencies shift, new words enter, old forms fade, and sentence structures transform over time.
By analyzing corpora, linguists can trace, for example, how an Old English paradigm gave way
to a new construction, or how Uzbek vocabulary changed under Soviet influence and then again
after independence. Such evidence complements traditional historical linguistics (which might
rely on comparing old texts and modern forms) with quantitative rigor and the ability to detect
subtler trends.
In conclusion, the evolution of language
–
be it English, Uzbek, or any other
–
should be
understood as a natural, continuous, and inexorable process. Languages change because they are
in the hands of people, and societies and cultures themselves are never static. This is not to say
change is random; it is patterned and constrained by grammatical structure, shaped by cognitive
tendencies, and directed by social factors. The development and change of language is often
likened to biological evolution: there is inheritance (tradition, teaching of the young), variation
(different usage, new inventions), and selection (some innovations catch on because they are
useful or prestigious). Over generations, these incremental changes accumulate, so that what was
once
stan
in Old English is now
stone
in Modern English, or what was once a Chagatai phrase in
Arabic script is now a Uzbek sentence in Latin script
–
intelligibly related and yet distinctly
evolved.
Understanding language evolution has practical implications as well: it fosters
appreciation for linguistic diversity and the historical depth of modern languages, it dispels the
notion of language “decay” (realizing that change is neither good nor bad, just inevitable), and it
aids efforts in language education and preservation (for instance, knowing how a language
changed can help in teaching its grammar or revitalizing an endangered tongue). It also allows us
to better handle contemporary language change (such as new internet-born vocabulary or
grammatical constructions) with a rational perspective, recognizing these as the latest chapter in
an age-old story of linguistic transformation.
Ultimately, the study of language change underscores a profound truth: language lives as
long as its speakers do, and in that life lies growth and change.
548
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
By examining theories, comparing histories like that of English and Uzbek, and analyzing
real language data, we see this truth in action. Every word we speak today carries echoes of the
past and hints of the future
–
a continuum of human expression, ever-changing and ever vital.
References
1.
Crystal, David (2011).
A Little Book of Language
. Excerpt in Visual Thesaurus:
David
Crystal on Language Change
.
2.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916).
Course in General Linguistics
. (Synchronic vs. diachronic
perspective summarized in).
3.
Chomsky, Noam (1965).
Aspects of the Theory of Syntax
. (Definition of generative
grammar in Ch.1).
4.
Pressbooks Open Text
–
Generative Grammar
overview. (Explains Chomsky’s
contributions to rule-governed grammar and Universal Grammar).
5.
Labov, William (1963). “The Social Motivation of a Sound Change.”
Word
19(3).
(Martha’s Vineyard study referenced in MVTimes article).
6.
Payne, Julia (2011). “50 years of language study began on Martha's Vineyard.”
Martha’s
Vineyard Times
. (Summary of Labov’s Martha’s Vineyard findings).
7.
Britannica
–
English language: Historical background
. (Old English inflection and loss of
gender).
8.
Wikipedia
–
Uzbek language
. (Influence of Persian on Uzbek phonology, loss of vowel
harmony).
9.
Satibaldieva, N. (2025). “A Corpus Driven Comparison of English and Uzbek Literary
Prose (19th
–20th c.).”
Modern American Journal of Linguistics, Education, and Pedagogy
1(1). (Lexical change patterns from corpus analysis).
10.
Western European Journal of Linguistics and Education (2023). “Historical Development
of the Uzbek Language”. (Uzbek language phases, Navoi’s role).
11.
Langdale Primary School (n.d.). “Unstressed consonants (silent letters)”. (Note on spoken
language changing faster than written, with examples of silent letters).
12.
Labov, William (2001).
Principles of Linguistic Change, Vol. 2: Social Factors
. (Contains
the “Golden Age Principle” quote on attitudes to language change).
13.
Fayzullaeva, N. (2025). GRAMMATICAL ECONOMY AS EXPRESSING ECONOMY
IN THE SYNTACTIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF A LANGUAGE.
Modern
Science
and
Research,
4(2),
567
–
572.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/65917
14.
Fayzullayeva, N., & Kamolova, M. (2025). PHONETICS AS THE STUDY OF THE
ACTUAL SPEECH SOUNDS THAT CREATE WORDS IN A LANGUAGE. Modern
Science and Research, 4(2), 46
–
52. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-
research/article/view/65428
15.
Fayzullayeva , N. (2024). Using animation discourse on the cartoon Kung Fu Panda.
Medicine, Pedagogy and Technology: Theory and Practice, 2(9), 18
–
25. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/mpttp/article/view/59340
16.
Surat, F. N. . (2024). DIALOGUE IN THE ANIMATED SERIES "KUNG FU PANDA.
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, ETHICS AND VALUE, 3(4), 202
–
205. Retrieved from
https://jeev.innovascience.uz/index.php/jeev/article/view/624
549
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
17.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2024). FEEL THE FREEDOM IN THE WORKS OF WALT
WHITMAN.
MODERN
SCIENCE
AND
RESEARCH,
3(3),
330
–
335.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10814469
18.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2024). WALT WHITMAN WORD ABOUT "A CELEBRATION OF
THE HUMAN SPIRIT IN POETRY". MODERN SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, 3(3),
336
–
341. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10814566
19.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2024). WALT WHITMAN AND HIS POEM ABOUT AMERICA.
Modern
Science
and
Research,
3(1),
35
–
39.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/28918
20.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2024). "AMERICAN DREAM" IN WALT WITHMAN’S POEMS.
Modern
Science
and
Research,
3(1),
220
–
224.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/27940
21.
Fayzullayeva, N. S. qizi . (2023). Theoretical Views on the Use of the Term "Concept" in
Cognitive Linguistics. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION IN NONFORMAL
EDUCATION,
3(5),
27
–
31.
Retrieved
from
https://www.inovatus.es/index.php/ejine/article/view/1685
22.
Sur’at qizi Fayzullayeva, N., & Kilicheva, M. R. (2022). UOLT UILTMAN NASRIDA
“AMERIKA ORZUSI” KONSEPTI. INTERNATIONAL СONFERENCE ON
LEARNING AND TEACHING, 1(8), 574-576.
23.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2023). THE IMPROVING OF LISTENING SKILL. Modern Science
and Research, 2(10), 272
–
276. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-
research/article/view/25086
24.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2023). THE CONCEPT OF THE AMERICAN DREAM AND WALT
WHITMAN. Solution of social problems in management and economy, 2(11), 137-142.
25.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2023). THE ROLE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM IN UOLT
WILTMAN’S POEMS. Modern Science and Research, 2(10), 714–
718. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/24676
26.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2023). USAGE OF THE FLORA IN THE EARLY MODERN
ENGLISH POETRY. Modern Science and Research, 2(9), 36
–
39. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/24078
27.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2023). IMPORTANCE OF ENGLISH MODERN CIVILIZATION.
Modern
Science
and
Research,
2(12),
284
–
287.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/26698
28.
Qobilova Nargisa Sulaymonovna, & Fayzullayeva Nigina Sur’at qizi. (2025).
Tilshunoslikda Qisqaruvni Vujudga Keltiruvchi Shart-Sharoitlar Va Ularning Linguistik
Xususiyati.
Miasto
Przyszłości,
57,
113–
115.
Retrieved
from
https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/6069
29.
Fayzullayeva, N. . (2025). LINGUISTIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
ECONOMY THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES AND APPROACHES. Modern Science
and Research, 4(4), 657
–
667. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-
research/article/view/79289
30.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2025). FUNKSIONAL LINGVISTIKA DOIRASIDA TEJAMKORLIK
TAMOYILI. Modern Science and Research, 4(3), 621
–
626. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/72798
550
ResearchBib IF - 11.01, ISSN: 3030-3753, Volume 2 Issue 6
31.
Saidova , S., & Fayzullayeva, N. . (2025). THE JOURNEY, ART, AND WISDOM OF
SADRIDDIN SALIM BUKHARI.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(5), 876
–
882.
Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/98096
32.
Saidova, S., & Fayzullayeva , N. . (2025). THE MESSAGE BEHIND GEORGE
ORWELL’S ANIMAL FARM.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(5), 871
–
875. Retrieved
from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/98095
33.
Fayzullayeva, N. (2025). O‘ZBEK TILSHUNOSLIGINING ASOSIY YO‘NALISHLARI
VA SHAKLLANISH BOSQICHLARI.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(5), 541
–
544.
Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/87984
34.
Саидова, О. (2025). ГЛАВНЫЕ ЧЛЕНЫ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ И СПОСОБЫ ИХ
ВЫРАЖЕНИЯ
КОТОРЫЕ
СОСТАВЛЯЮТ
ОСНОВУ
ЛЮБОГО
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(2), 553
–
558. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/65915
35.
Саидова Олима, . (2024). КОНЦЕПТ “ЛЮБВИ” В ЛИРИКЕ АЛЕКСАНДР
СЕРГЕЕВИЧА ПУШКИНА.
Medicine, Pedagogy and Technology: Theory and
Practice
,
2
(9),
59
–
66.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/mpttp/article/view/59346
36.
Ботировна , С. О. . (2024). Склонение Имён Существительных.
Miasto Przyszłości
,
46
,
531
–
535. Retrieved from https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/2895
37.
Саидова Олима Ботировна. (2024). Александр Александрович Блок
-
Один ИзСамых
Известных Поэтов
-
Лириков “Серебряного Века”.
Miasto Przyszłości
,
55
, 696
–
700.
Retrieved from https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/5708
38.
Саидова Олима Ботировна. (2024). ЗНАЧЕНИЕ ОТЧИЗНА В ТВОРЧЕСТВЕ
МИХАИЛ ЮРЬЕВИЧ ЛЕРМОНТОВА.
Miasto Przyszłości
,
49
, 472
–
475. Retrieved from
https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/3919
39.
Саидова, О. (2025). ГЛАВНЫЕ ЧЛЕНЫ ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ И СПОСОБЫ ИХ
ВЫРАЖЕНИЯ
КОТОРЫЕ
СОСТАВЛЯЮТ
ОСНОВУ
ЛЮБОГО
ПРЕДЛОЖЕНИЯ.
Modern Science and Research
,
4
(2), 553
–
558. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-research/article/view/65915
40.
СаидоваОлима
,(2024).
КОНЦЕПТ“ЛЮБВИ”
ВЛИРИКЕАЛЕКСАНДРСЕРГЕЕВИЧАПУШКИНА
.
Medicine,
Pedagogy
and
Technology:
Theory
and
Practice
,
2
(9),
59
–
66.
Retrieved
from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/mpttp/article/view/59346
41.
БотировнаС. О.(2024). Склонение Имён Существительных.
Miasto Przyszłości
,
46
, 531
–
535. Retrieved from https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/2895
