SOCIOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LITERARY DISCOURSE
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15517398
Kalit so‘zlar
Sociopragmatics, literary discourse, English literature, Uzbek literature, politeness, speech acts, cultural communication, comparative pragmaticsAnnotasiya
This study examines the sociopragmatic aspects of literary discourse in Uzbek and English, emphasizing the ways in which language reflects social dynamics, cultural values, and norms. The study identifies significant distinctions and parallels in pragmatic expression between a few chosen English and Uzbek literary texts by examining speech acts, politeness techniques, forms of address, and contextual elements. The ideas of Brown and Levinson (1987), Searle (1969), and Hofstede (2001) are cited to support the use of qualitative discourse analysis and comparative pragmatics. The results show that Uzbek literary discourse places more importance on indirectness, group harmony, and hierarchy than English literary discourse, which stresses directness and individual autonomy. The study has ramifications for language instruction, translation, and cross-cultural communication.
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar ro‘yhati
Abulkosimovna, E. Z. (2022). Synonymous analysis of professional words in English and Uzbek. Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal, 2(05), 15-22.
Alimdjanovna, K. M. (2024). ADVANTAGES OF SCAFFOLDING IN TEACHING READING COMPREHENSION. Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, Philosophy and Culture, 4(5-1), 163-166.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Gulomova, R. (2020). Sociolinguistic competence of L2 students. TJE-Tematics journal of Education ISSN, 2249-9822.
Kadyrova, G. (2018). Linguocultural Features of Uzbek Speech Etiquette. Tashkent: Fan Nashriyoti.
Kasimov, Sh. (2005). Adabiyotda til va uslub masalalari. Tashkent: O‘qituvchi.
Kholbutayeva, S., & Gulshoda, R. (2025). PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATIONS: HOW TO ENHANCE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT THROUGH KAHOOT?. YANGI O ‘ZBEKISTON, YANGI TADQIQOTLAR JURNALI, 2(7), 141-145.
Koppelman, P., & Gulomova, R. (2024). Amerika ingliz tilidagi leksik o'zgarishlarning madaniyatlararo muloqotga ta'siri. O ‘zbekiston davlat jahon tillari universiteti konferensiyalari, 619-624.
Kupaysinovna, S. G. (2020). The significance of sociocultural competence in teaching foreign languages. Проблемы науки, (4 (52)), 93-95.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Rashidova, G., & Khilola, K. (2024). THE ROLE OF INTONATION AND STRESS IN MEANING. TANQIDIY NAZAR, TAHLILIY TAFAKKUR VA INNOVATSION G ‘OYALAR, 1(3), 72-75.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sultonova, M. (2024, October). Features of Critical Thinking Skills for B1 Level Learners. In Conference Proceedings: Fostering Your Research Spirit (pp. 786-790).
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Мухташамова, П. (2022). Linguoculturological features of phraseological units of the english and uzbek language. Переводоведение: проблемы, решения и перспективы, (1), 351-353.
