This article deals with the category of possessiveness and its linguoculturological features in the languages belonging to the different language systems as English and Uzbek. The ways of expressing the category of possessiveness in both languages and their linguoculturological classification will be in the center of discussion. Brief comparative method of analysis of possessive constructions in linguistic and cultural point of view can open new sides and opportunities of researching possessiveness in the field of comparative linguistics. Practical implication of the research can be used in the lecture and practical courses of linguistic typology and typological linguoculturology of compared languages. Keywords: anthropocentric paradigm, linguoculturological analysis, category of possessiveness, classification, belonging, category of case, national-colorings, features of nations, possessive constructions. Nowadays, researching the problems of foreign languages in comparison with native languages, comparing their similarities and differences is becoming urgent for investigations of comparative linguistics. Therefore, identifying distinctive features of the category of possessiveness in linguoculturology is considered as the next untouched problem in Uzbek comparative linguistics. Because, it is known that comparative linguistics deals with typological analysis and revealing language universals in linguistics which helps to understand both languages deeper than researching it separately. In the period of development of linguistics, the aspects of it also developed. Moreover, instead of the structural paradigm which was topical in the last century the system of anthropocentric, functional, cognitive and dynamic paradigms started to function. In anthropocentric paradigm there can be understood moving of the interests of the researcher from the object of cognition to the subject of it, with another words it can be explained like analysis of human being in language and language analysis in human being. It should be pointed out that linguoculturology is one of the topical directions in anthropocentric paradigm of modern linguistics. It studies interrelation and influences between language and culture, and investigates language as the phenomenon of culture. That's why in the article possessiveness and its ways of expressing is classified according to the culture of the compared languages. Also, comparison of linguoculturological analysis of category of possessiveness and revealing its distinctive features are essential in the culture and language system of different languages as English and Uzbek. Possessiveness is defined as relation between two objects, belonging or possessing of one to another with the help of the language means. These associations are named as possessors and the units which expressed by them are called possessive constructions (Bondarko, 1996). Generally, human being is considered as possessor. So that in possessive relations mostly can be understood possessing of one object or to belong this object to human being. In Uzbek language possessiveness is one of the grammatical categories of noun. And it is classified in the narrow sphere like the category of case, and also expressed with suffixes in that language (research works of F. Abdullaev, Sh. Rakhmatullaev, A. Kononov, B. Serebrennikov, N. Gadjieva). In Uzbek language this category indicates the object which belongs to one of the three persons. The word which is expressed by possessive suffix should be connected with possessive noun or pronoun. However, if this category can be investigated from the points of view of modern directions of linguistics, this category would be observed as independent semantic category in this language. In the language system of Uzbek linguistics the units of expressing features of possessiveness also can be observed in spread form. Altogether, in the following cluster there can be seen the ways of uttering of possessiveness with range of means and function (Kononov, 1956). All of them give only meaning and cognition of possessiveness: