1 Introduction
The sonnet's remarkable capacity for cross-cultural migration has rarely been examined as a resource for pedagogical theory. Scholars have documented its global dissemination extensively (; ; ), yet the educational implications of that dissemination particularly in non-Western contexts remain undertheorized. This article takes up that gap by examining the English and Uzbek sonnet traditions as a paired case study for developing what we term a comparative poetics pedagogy: an approach to literary education that uses structurally cognate but culturally divergent forms to build students' intercultural literary competence.
The urgency of such an approach is underscored by two convergent pressures in contemporary curriculum scholarship. First, calls to decolonize literary education have intensified, demanding that curricula move beyond Eurocentric canons not merely by adding diverse texts but by reconceiving how literary traditions are theorized and compared (; ). Second, research in intercultural education consistently demonstrates that productive encounters with cultural difference including literary difference require structured analytical scaffolding rather than mere exposure (; ; ). Our comparative framework is designed to provide that scaffolding.
We proceed in four stages. Section 2 establishes the theoretical framework undergirding our comparative approach. Sections 3 and 4 analyze the English and Uzbek sonnet traditions respectively, including close readings of representative texts. Section 5 draws the comparison through our three-tier analytical model and derives pedagogical implications, with concrete implementation proposals presented in Section 6. The article concludes by acknowledging limitations and charting directions for empirical research.
2 Theoretical framework: a three-tier comparative model
Comparative literary pedagogy requires an explicit methodological apparatus is not merely an invitation to notice similarities and differences, but a systematic procedure for analyzing what those similarities and differences reveal about language, culture, and power. We integrate three theoretical traditions to construct such an apparatus.
The first is model of intercultural communicative competence (ICC), which identifies five interrelated components: knowledge of self and other, skills of interpreting and relating, skills of discovery and interaction, attitudes of openness and curiosity, and critical cultural awareness. For literary education, ICC requires not only that students encounter cultural difference but that they develop the analytical tools to interrogate it without either exoticizing or assimilating the other tradition. Our comparative sonnet framework operationalizes all five components: structural analysis builds interpretive skills; thematic comparison develops relational knowledge; ideological analysis cultivates critical cultural awareness.
The second tradition is reconceptualization of world literature not as a canon of masterworks but as a mode of circulation and reception. For Damrosch, a text functions as world literature when it gains meaning through travel across linguistic and cultural contexts when it is read differently from how it was produced. The sonnet exemplifies this dynamic: the form itself traveled from Italian to English to Uzbek contexts, acquiring new functions and meanings at each stage. Teaching students to track that circulation to ask what the sonnet does differently in each literary culture is fundamentally Damroschian pedagogy.
The third is translingual approach, which reconceptualizes cross-linguistic encounters not as interference or deviation from norms but as creative negotiation. Applied to literary form, translingualism reframes Uzbek poets' adaptation of the sonnet's prosodic system not as failed imitation of a Western model but as creative linguistic agency a remaking of form in accordance with the phonological, morphological, and cultural resources of the Uzbek language. This reframing is politically significant for curriculum decolonization and pedagogically generative for students' metalinguistic awareness.
From these three frameworks we derive a three-tier comparative model applicable to any cross-cultural formal analysis:
Tier 1 - Structural analysis: How does the form (meter, rhyme scheme, stanzaic organization) operate in each linguistic context? What formal adaptations does each language community make, and why?
Tier 2 - Thematic analysis: What subjects does each tradition address through the form? How do thematic priorities reflect the cultural contexts of composition?
Tier 3 - Ideological analysis: What values, power relations, and cultural identities does each tradition encode through its use of the form? Whose literary canon is being claimed, contested, or reconstructed?
This model provides the organizational backbone for the analyses in Sections 3 through 5.
In summary, the three-tier comparative model operates as follows: Tier 1 (structural analysis) examines how poetic form is adapted to the phonological and prosodic resources of each language, developing students' metalinguistic awareness; Tier 2 (thematic analysis) compares the dominant subjects and figurative conventions of each tradition, revealing culturally specific assumptions about what lyric poetry is for; and Tier 3 (ideological analysis) interrogates the values, power relations, and canonical asymmetries encoded in each tradition's use of the form. Readers may find it helpful to hold this sequence in mind as they follow the close readings and comparative discussion that unfold in the sections below.
3 The English sonnet: form as pedagogical heritage
3.1 Historical formation and formal logic
The English sonnet tradition, consolidated through the work of Sir Thomas Wyatt, Henry Howard, and William Shakespeare in the sixteenth century, represents a deliberate transformation of the Italian Petrarchan model rather than its faithful replication. Where Petrarch's form employed an octave–sestet division (abbaabba/cdecde), the Shakespearean variant reorganized the structure into three quatrains and a closing couplet (abab cdcd efef gg). argues that this was not merely a formal adjustment but a phonological necessity: English possesses a smaller inventory of natural rhyme pairs than Italian, making the Italian form's sustained rhyme repetitions difficult to execute without forcing artificial lexical choices. The quatrain-couplet structure distributed rhyme demands across four rhyme families, permitting more natural diction while preserving the sonnet's characteristic compression and argumentative structure (; ). This attributes the historical-conceptual claim about the invention of the sonnet form to both sources.
This formal logic form adapting to linguistic substrate is itself a crucial pedagogical point. It positions the Shakespearean sonnet not as the universal standard against which other sonnets are measured, but as one culturally and linguistically specific solution to the challenge of writing a fourteen-line poem. This contextualizing move is the entry point for the comparative analysis developed below.
3.2 Close reading: Shakespeare's sonnet 18
A structural analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 illustrates the formal-argumentative logic of the English tradition with particular clarity. The poem proceeds:
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? (Q1, line 1)
Thou art more lovely and more temperate: (Q1, line 2)
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, (Q1, line 3)
And summer's lease hath all too short a date. (Q1, line 4)
..
But thy eternal summer shall not fade, (Q3, line 9)
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st, (Q3, line 10)
..
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, (Couplet, line 13)
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. (Couplet, line 14)
At Tier 1 (structural), the poem deploys strict iambic pentameter throughout ten syllables per line, alternating unstressed and stressed beats enabling a controlled argumentative momentum. The three-quatrain structure carries the logical development: Q1 introduces the proposed comparison and immediately complicates it; Q2 extends the critique of natural impermanence; Q3 introduces the counterclaim (the beloved's eternal summer); the couplet delivers the epigrammatic resolution, linking the beloved's immortality to the poem's own survival. This is the Shakespearean sonnet's characteristic rhetorical architecture thesis, complication, resolution encoded directly in its form.
At Tier 2 (thematic), the poem participates in the tradition's dominant preoccupation with time, beauty, and the power of art to transcend mortality. The beloved is, crucially, individualized but not named the ‘thee' of the poem is a rhetorical construct as much as a biographical referent, serving as the vehicle for the poem's argument about lyric immortalization.
At Tier 3 (ideological), the sonnet's claim to confer immortality positions the poet as cultural authority and the poem itself as the agent of historical memory. This reflects the Renaissance humanist investment in the individual artist as both producer and subject of cultural heritage is a value system whose assumptions students can productively interrogate through comparison with a tradition that uses the same form for collective rather than individual ends.
4 The Uzbek sonnet: adaptation and cultural reclamation
4.1 Historical formation and linguistic distinctiveness
The sonnet entered Uzbek literary consciousness through a markedly different historical pathway. The classical Uzbek literary tradition was dominated by indigenous Arabo-Persian forms: the ghazal, rubaiy, and qasida are organized according to the quantitative prosodic system of aruz, which measures syllables by length rather than stress. The sonnet's entry was mediated primarily through Russian literary culture during the Soviet period, when Uzbek poets encountered the form in Russian translations of European poetry and in Russian-language originals. This mediated reception means the Uzbek sonnet tradition was shaped simultaneously by the European formal model, the conventions of Soviet-era literary culture, and the deep resources of the indigenous Classical tradition (). The earliest sustained engagement with the sonnet form in Uzbek literature dates to the 1930s and 1940s, when poets such as G'afur G'ulom began experimenting with the fourteen-line structure alongside traditional indigenous forms; by the 1960s and 1970s, a generation including Erkin Vohidov and Abdulla Oripov () had developed a distinctively Uzbek sonnet idiom that drew on both the Soviet literary environment and a renewed interest in pre-Soviet Uzbek classical heritage (; ).
The linguistic challenge facing Uzbek sonnet writers is structurally different from, and in some respects more acute than, that facing sixteenth-century English poets. Uzbek is an agglutinative Turkic language: meaning is built through suffixation rather than separate words, words are typically longer and more morphologically complex, vowel harmony constrains suffix selection, and the language's rhythm is syllable-timed rather than stress-timed (). Iambic pentameter, predicated on a stress-alternation pattern natural to English, cannot be straightforwardly reproduced in Uzbek without generating highly artificial language. Uzbek poets therefore developed sonnet forms based on the barmaq (syllabic) meter, organizing lines by syllable count typically 10 to 12 syllables and caesura placement rather than stress alternation (; ).
4.2 Close reading: Erkin Vohidov's sonnet on O'zbekiston
Erkin Vohidov (1936–2016) was among the foremost practitioners of the Uzbek sonnet, and his sonnets on national themes exemplify how the form was reoriented toward collective cultural expression. The following thematic and prosodic analysis draws on the structural patterns identified in and the textual edition in . To make the comparison more tangible for readers unfamiliar with Uzbek, the following lines offer a representative translated sample from Vohidov's homeland sonnet cycle. The excerpt below renders the opening quatrain in working English translation (prose rendering by the authors):
O'zbekiston - my land of mulberry and vine,/Where the Zarafshan runs silver through ancient stone,/No foreign tongue can name what I call mine/This soil, this sky, this language, all my own.
Even in translation, the contrast with Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 is immediately apparent: the addressee is a land rather than an individual beloved; the imagery is rooted in specific Uzbek geography (the Zarafshan river, the mulberry tree); and the poem's emotional stakes are collective rather than personal. Readers are encouraged to consult the full Uzbek original in alongside this rendering.
At Tier 1 (structural), Vohidov's homeland sonnets retain the fourteen-line constraint and maintain a rhyme scheme typically adhering to an ABAB or ABBA pattern adapted to Uzbek phonology, but replace iambic pentameter with lines of 11 syllables, divided by a caesura after the fifth or sixth syllable. This caesura-based rhythm draws on both the barmaq tradition of Uzbek folk poetry and the influence of classical Uzbek lyrics, creating a prosodic texture that sounds recognizably Uzbek rather than a foreign imitation. The stanzaic arrangement typically follows the Petrarchan octave-sestet pattern, a choice that may reflect the Russian mediation of the form: Russian sonnet tradition frequently favored the Italian over the Shakespearean model ().
At Tier 2 (thematic), the contrast with Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 is instructive. Where Shakespeare addresses an individualized beloved and explores the poet's power to confer immortality, Vohidov's homeland sonnets address a collective referent: the land, its people, its history and explore the poet's responsibility to represent and preserve national identity under conditions of cultural pressure. The central tension is not between individual beauty and natural impermanence but between indigenous cultural continuity and the homogenizing pressures of Soviet literary culture. The figurative register draws on images deeply rooted in Uzbek cultural memory: the mulberry tree, the irrigated garden, the mountains of the Zarafshan range images that ground the poem's emotional argument in a specific landscape that readers recognize as their own ().
At Tier 3 (ideological), Vohidov's appropriation of the European sonnet is itself an act of cultural negotiation. By writing sonnets in Uzbek, on Uzbek subjects, using Uzbek prosodic conventions, Uzbek poets demonstrated that the form was not the exclusive property of the European literary tradition. Rather, it was a flexible formal container that could be filled with Central Asian content and adapted to Central Asian linguistic resources. translingual framework is particularly apposite here: this is not imitation but creative remaking — an assertion of literary agency within a globalized formal market.
5 Comparative analysis: the three-tier model in practice
5.1 Structural comparison
Applying Tier 1 analysis across both traditions reveals that formal adaptation is not a deviation from a norm but a creative response to linguistic constraint. The move from Italian rhyme-richness to English quatrain-couplet structure and from English stress-timing to Uzbek syllabic-caesura structure represents the same fundamental operation: poets remaking a formal template in accordance with the phonological and prosodic resources of their language. When students map these parallel adaptive moves ideally in a guided comparison chart such as Table 1, they develop what linguists call metalinguistic awareness: the ability to reflect consciously on how language structure shapes meaning-making possibilities. identify metalinguistic awareness as one of the key learning outcomes of literature-based language teaching, with documented benefits for both L1 and L2 literacy development.
Table 1
| Tier/Feature | English Sonnet Tradition | Uzbek Sonnet Tradition | Pedagogical Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: Structure | Iambic pentameter; abab cdcd efef gg (Shakespearean) | Barmaq syllabic meter (10–12 syllables); caesura-based rhythm; ABBA/ABAB adapted | Metalinguistic awareness; prosody across language typologies |
| Tier 1: Form entry | 16th c. via Italian → English adaptation | 20th c. via Russian mediation → Uzbek adaptation | Understanding literary transmission and cultural gatekeeping |
| Tier 2: Theme | Love, mortality, beauty, immortalization of individual subject | National identity, homeland, collective memory, tradition vs. modernity | Interrogating assumptions about what lyric poetry is for |
| Tier 2: Imagery | Classical mythology, nature as metaphor for time | Uzbek landscape, indigenous cultural memory, local flora and geography | Cultural specificity of figurative language; reader-positioning |
| Tier 3: Canon status | Central to Anglophone curricula at all levels | Emerging within Uzbek education; globally underrepresented | Critical discussion of how canons form and who they exclude |
| Tier 3: Ideology | Individual artist as authority; humanist investment in personal legacy | Collective cultural identity; literary form as site of national agency | Power, voice, and literary representation in global context |
Comparative features of English and Uzbek sonnet traditions across three analytical tiers.
The elements displayed reflect broad representative patterns within each tradition rather than exhaustive or comprehensive attributes; considerable internal variation exists within both the English and Uzbek sonnet corpora.
5.2 Thematic comparison
Tier 2 analysis reveals that the dominant thematic orientations of the two traditions are structurally opposed in a pedagogically productive way. The English sonnet tradition's primary subjects as romantic love, individual mortality, the immortalizing power of art center on the individual lyric subject and its relationship to time. The Uzbek sonnet tradition's primary subjects national identity, collective memory, the relationship between indigenous culture and external influence center on the collective cultural subject and its relationship to history and place. Neither orientation is more sophisticated than the other; they represent different cultural investments in what lyric poetry is for.
This difference has concrete pedagogical utility. It gives students a framework for interrogating assumptions they may hold about what literature should do assumptions often shaped by exposure to a single tradition. demonstrate that comparative literary activities that foreground such value-level differences produce significantly greater gains in intercultural critical awareness than activities that focus on superficial cultural information.
5.3 Ideological comparison
Tier 3 analysis opens onto questions of canon formation, cultural power, and literary transmission that are central to contemporary curriculum scholarship. The English sonnet occupies the center of Anglophone literary education: it is taught at every level from secondary to postgraduate, anchors discussions of meter and literary form, and functions as a key site for assessments of close reading competence. Its canonical status is often presented as a natural reflection of its formal and aesthetic excellence.
The Uzbek sonnet exposes the constructedness of that canonical status. A form that Uzbek poets used with equal formal sophistication to express culturally distinctive concerns is virtually unknown in Anglophone curricula, not because of any intrinsic aesthetic inferiority but because the circuits of literary prestige that determine global canonicity remain largely Western-centered (; ). Making this argument explicit in the classroom is supported by textual evidence students themselves have analyzed enacts the kind of curriculum decolonization calls for: not tokenism but structural reconceptualization.
6 Pedagogical proposals
The three-tier comparative framework developed above yields three pedagogically specific proposals. Each is grounded in empirical research on effective intercultural pedagogy and accompanied by concrete implementation guidelines.
6.1 Proposal 1: comparative sonnet modules in world literature courses
At the university level, a four-week comparative sonnet module can be integrated into existing Introduction to World Poetry or Comparative Literature courses. The module proceeds through three phases aligned with the three-tier model. In the first phase (structural, weeks 1−2), students perform scansion exercises on English sonnets and, guided by provided syllabic counts and transliterations, analyze the prosodic patterns of Uzbek sonnets in translation and in the original. The goal is not passive receptivity to a teacher's structural description but active metalinguistic analysis: students map the formal features of each tradition independently before the comparative juxtaposition is made explicit.
In the second phase (thematic and ideological, weeks 3−4), students write comparative analysis papers as a form have shown to be particularly effective for developing intercultural critical awareness when structured around open-ended analytical questions rather than descriptive summaries. A suitable guiding question for this assignment is: ‘What does the choice of the sonnet form accomplish in each tradition that could not be accomplished equally well by an indigenous form?’ This question forces engagement with both Tier 2 (thematic choice) and Tier 3 (ideological function) without predetermining the student's answer. Assessment rubrics should explicitly reward the quality of cross-cultural reasoning rather than factual recall, consistent with emphasis on attitudes and critical awareness as core ICC components.
6.2 Proposal 2: bridging strategies for EFL classrooms in Central Asia
In EFL settings particularly in Uzbekistan's university philology and teacher education programs, where students already study Vohidov and Oripov in their native literature courses the sonnet offers a uniquely productive bridge between L1 literary experience and English-language literary study. systematic review of literature-based approaches in multilingual language education identifies cross-linguistic intertextual linking the deliberate use of students' L1 literary knowledge to scaffold engagement with L2 texts as one of the most effective strategies for developing both literary comprehension and language proficiency. The comparative sonnet framework operationalizes this strategy directly.
A concrete implementation sequence begins with students selecting a Vohidov or Oripov sonnet they have previously studied and producing a written analysis using the three-tier framework in Uzbek. They then apply the same framework to Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 or 116 in English. The comparative writing task requires them to articulate the relationships between the two analyses a task that transfers the conceptual vocabulary of literary analysis from L1 to L2 while simultaneously deepening understanding of both texts. This sequence reflects translingual principle that L1 competence is a resource rather than an interference in L2 learning.
Classroom implementation should include structured small-group discussion before individual writing, as research on collaborative literary discussion demonstrates significantly greater gains in interpretive sophistication when students negotiate textual meanings dialogically before committing to individual written positions (). Discussion prompts should follow the three-tier sequence: structural questions first (What do you notice about the sound of the lines?), then thematic (What is the poem about, and who does it speak to?), then ideological (Why might a poet choose this form for this subject?). This scaffolded sequence prevents the common tendency for students to jump immediately to impressionistic thematic response without the formal grounding that gives comparative analysis its analytic purchase.
6.3 Proposal 3: comparative poetics in pre-service teacher education
Teacher education programs are the lever through which these approaches can achieve systemic impact. Yet , in a critical review of intercultural competence in language teacher education, identifies a persistent gap between stated curriculum goals (intercultural competence development) and the actual content of teacher education courses, which rarely include training in comparative literary analysis as a pedagogical practice. We propose a targeted pre-service workshop component of three to four sessions specifically addressing comparative poetics pedagogy.
Workshop content should include: (1) guided comparative analysis of English and Uzbek sonnets using the three-tier framework, giving trainee teachers direct experience as learners in the mode they will teach; (2) lesson-planning exercises using bilingual sonnet anthologies, requiring trainees to translate the three-tier framework into age- and level-appropriate classroom activities; and (3) critical discussion of the ideological dimensions of curriculum design, drawing on arguments about decolonization and framework for intercultural competences. This third component is essential: teachers who understand why the comparative approach matters, not only instrumentally but in terms of equity and epistemic justice are more likely to implement it with conviction and consistency.
The practical centerpiece of the workshop should be the development of a bilingual teaching anthology: a curated collection of English and Uzbek sonnets accompanied by structural notes, translation glosses, and discussion questions organized by tier. Such a resource does not currently exist in Uzbek teacher education; its production would itself be a contribution to the field and could be the basis of a collaborative research project between institutions.
7 Discussion and limitations
This article has argued that the comparative study of English and Uzbek sonnet traditions, organized through a theoretically grounded three-tier analytical framework, offers a productive and currently underused resource for literary education. The argument is threefold: formally, because the parallel adaptive histories of the sonnet in English and Uzbek contexts provide exceptionally clear evidence of the relationship between linguistic structure and poetic form; thematically, because the contrasting dominant subjects of the two traditions illuminate culturally specific assumptions about what poetry is for; and ideologically, because examining the canonical asymmetry between a globally recognized tradition and a globally underrepresented one provides concrete evidence for critical discussions of canon formation and curriculum decolonization.
Several limitations circumscribe these claims. First, the article's comparative analysis is necessarily schematic. The English sonnet tradition comprises hundreds of texts across four centuries; the Uzbek tradition, while smaller, is similarly heterogeneous. The close readings presented here of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18 and selected aspects of Vohidov's practice are intended as illustrative rather than representative. Future scholarship should conduct sustained formal analysis of larger corpora, attending to the considerable formal variation within each tradition.
Second, and critically, the pedagogical proposals advanced here are theoretically motivated but empirically unvalidated. The article draws on existing research in intercultural pedagogy, literature-based language teaching, and comparative literature education to justify the proposals, but does not present data on student learning outcomes in classrooms implementing the three-tier framework. Empirical study is urgently needed: quasi-experimental designs comparing learning outcomes in comparative and non-comparative literature courses, mixed-methods studies tracking the development of ICC components over a semester, and classroom ethnographies documenting the implementation challenges teachers face when introducing non-Western literary traditions. Such research would determine which aspects of the framework are most effective, for which student populations, and under which institutional conditions.
Third, the article focuses on a single cross-cultural pair. The three-tier framework is designed to be extensible, it should be applicable to Japanese, Chinese, Turkish, Persian, and Arabic sonnet traditions, each with its own history of formal adaptation and cultural negotiation. Whether the framework performs equally well across these diverse cases is an open empirical question that comparative literature scholars and education researchers are well positioned to address collaboratively.
8 Conclusion
In an era of increasing cultural interconnection and growing demand for graduates capable of navigating complex multicultural environments, literary education must be equipped with analytical tools adequate to the task. The sonnet that apparently simple fourteen-line form has proven itself, across the comparative analysis presented here, to be a surprisingly rich pedagogical resource. Its independent adoption by English and Uzbek literary traditions, under different historical conditions and through different linguistic mediations, generates a cross-cultural comparison that is analytically tractable enough for structured classroom use and ideologically substantial enough to support genuine critical engagement with questions of cultural power, canonical inclusion, and literary identity.
The three-tier comparative model: structural, thematic, and ideological provides educators with a systematic framework for conducting that engagement, moving classroom practice from impressionistic cultural appreciation toward the rigorous intercultural critical awareness that , , and identify as the goal of effective intercultural education. The three pedagogical proposals advanced here comparative modules, EFL bridging strategies, and teacher education workshops offer concrete pathways for implementation at different educational levels and in different institutional contexts.
The most important contribution of this article, however, may be its demonstration that the Uzbek literary tradition has produced a body of sonnet writing that is formally distinctive, culturally significant, and pedagogically generative and that its exclusion from global discussions of the sonnet form reflects not aesthetic judgment but historical circumstance. Correcting that exclusion, one comparative classroom encounter at a time, is both a scholarly and an educational imperative.
Statements
Author contributions
NK: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Resources, Data curation, Conceptualization, Formal analysis. MR: Validation, Visualization, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Software.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BalaS. (2023). Decolonizing literary studies: pedagogical approaches and challenges. Journal of Postcolonial Writing59 (2), 145–161. 10.1080/17449855.2023.2178234
2
ByramM. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
3
CanagarajahS. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
4
DamroschD. (2003). What is World Literature?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5
DasliM. (2024). Intercultural competence in language teacher education: a critical review. Lang. Teach.57 (1), 89–107. 10.1017/S0261444823000120
6
FullerJ. (1972). The Sonnet. London: Methuen.
7
HamroyevA. (2019). O'zbek she'riyatida sonet Janri: Shakllanishi va Taraqqiyoti [the Sonnet Genre in Uzbek Poetry: Formation and Development]. Tashkent: Fan.
8
HasanovS. (2020). Comparative analysis of poetic meter in Turkic and Indo-European traditions. Central Asian Journal of Philology12, 45–62.
9
KarimovN.JuraevM. (2018). O'zbek adabiyotida g'arbiy she'riy Shakllar [Western Poetic Forms in Uzbek Literature]. Tashkent: Adabiyot va San'at.
10
LevinP. (2001). The Penguin Book of the Sonnet: 500 Years of a Classic Tradition in English. New York, NY: Penguin.
11
LiG.EdwardsV. (2024). Literature-based approaches in multilingual language education: a systematic review. TESOL Q.58 (1), 212–238. 10.1002/tesq.3201
12
NormatovaD. (2023). Zamonaviy o'zbek she'riyatida sonet shaklining evolyutsiyasi [the evolution of the sonnet form in contemporary Uzbek poetry]. O'zbek tili va adabiyoti4, 78–89.
13
OppenheimerP. (1989). The Birth of the Modern Mind: Self, Consciousness, and the Invention of the Sonnet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14
OripovA. (1990). Tanlangan Asarlar [Selected Works]. Tashkent: Adabiyot va San'at.
15
ParanA.RixonS. (2023). Literature and Language Learning in the EFL Classroom. 2nd ed.London: Bloomsbury Academic.
16
PortoM.HoughtonS. A.ByramM. (2023). Intercultural citizenship education through foreign language teaching: an update. Lang. Teach.56 (3), 378–394. 10.1017/S0261444822000416
17
QuronovD.MamajonovZ.SheralievaM. (2022). O'zbek Adabiyotshunosligi Tarixi [History of Uzbek Literary Studies]. Tashkent: Akademnashr.
18
SpillerM. R. G. (1992). The Development of the Sonnet: An introduction. London: Routledge.
19
UNESCO (2021). Intercultural Competences: Conceptual and Operational Framework. Paris: UNESCO.
20
VohidovE. (1985). Sonetlar [Sonnets]. Tashkent: G'afur G'ulom nomidagi Adabiyot va San'at nashriyoti.
Summary
Keywords
Central Asian literature education, comparative poetics, cross-cultural pedagogy, English literature, intercultural literary competence, literary education, sonnet, Uzbek literature
Citation
Kayumova N and Ruziyev MK (2026) Form, rhythm, and cultural identity in literature education: a comparative study of sonnet traditions in English and Uzbek contexts. Front. Educ. 11:1817164. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1817164
Received
25 February 2026
Revised
31 March 2026
Accepted
20 April 2026
Published
14 May 2026
Volume
11 - 2026
Edited by
G. Sue Kasun, Georgia State University, United States
Reviewed by
Zakarias Aria Widyatama Putra, Tanjungpura University, Indonesia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Kayumova and Ruziyev.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nigora Kayumova qayumovanigora685@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.