WILDNESS–CIVILIZATION OPPOSITION AS AN ARCHETYPE AND ITS STYLISTIC MARKERS (BASED ON JACK LONDON AND NORMUROD NORQOBILOV)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
Wildness, Civilization , Archetype , Stylistic markers, Comparative literature Lexical-semantic field, Symbolism, Instinct vs society , Narrative structure , Cultural contextAbstract
This article investigates the archetypal opposition between wildness and civilization as reflected in literary discourse, with particular reference to the works of Jack London and Normurod Norqobilov. The study seeks to explore how this binary opposition operates not merely as a thematic contrast but as a deep-seated archetypal structure embedded in human cognition. Drawing on qualitative comparative analysis, the research examines lexical, stylistic, and narrative features that signal the presence of this opposition. It is argued that although both authors belong to different cultural traditions, they employ comparable archetypal patterns while articulating them through distinct stylistic means. The findings suggest that the wildness–civilization dichotomy functions as both a universal and culturally mediated construct.
Downloads
References
Abrams, M. H. (1999). A Glossary of Literary Terms. Boston: Heinle.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1968). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press.
Leech, G., & Short, M. (2007). Style in Fiction. Pearson Longman.
London, J. (1903). The Call of the Wild. New York: Macmillan.
London, J. (1906). White Fang. New York: Macmillan.
Norqobilov, N. Selected Prose Works (Uzbek literary editions).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.

Germany
United States of America
Italy
United Kingdom
France
Canada
Uzbekistan
Japan
Republic of Korea
Australia
Spain
Switzerland
Sweden
Netherlands
China
India