SOCIOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK

Authors

  • Raxmonova Dilnavoz Shavqiddinovna Renaissance University of Education Senior Lecturer of the Department of Foreign Philology

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v4i4/2.5711

Keywords:

sociopragmatics, academic discourse, English language, Uzbek language, communication, pragmatics, discourse analysis.

Abstract

Language functions not only as a means of communication but also as a tool for expressing social relations and speaker intentions. This study investigates the sociopragmatic features of academic discourse, focusing on the interaction between linguistic choices and social factors. The research provides a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek academic discourse, identifying both universal principles and culture-specific characteristics. Using theoretical and discourse analysis, including examples from literary texts, the study demonstrates how social context, politeness strategies, and communicative norms influence academic communication. The findings reveal that while both languages share core features such as objectivity, logical coherence, and terminological precision, their realization differs due to sociocultural and communicative traditions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

2. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing.

3. Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.pp.70-75.

4. Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge, pp. 1–25.

5. Holmes, J. 2013. An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Routledge, pp. 9–35.

6. Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum, pp. 45–70.

7. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. Longman, pp. 10–20.

8. Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.

9. Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–85.

10. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman, pp. 1–30.

11. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, pp. 3–20.

12. Brontë, C. 1847. Jane Eyre. Smith, Elder and Co.

13. Qodiriy, A. (1929). Mehrobdan chayon. Toshkent: O‘zbekiston davlat nashriyoti.

Downloads

Published

2026-04-16

How to Cite

SOCIOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF ACADEMIC DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK. (2026). SCIENCE TIME JOURNAL, 4(4/2), 230-233. https://doi.org/10.66345/stj.v4i4/2.5711
Indexed & Abstracted In

Our articles are indexed and discoverable across leading academic databases worldwide