PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK

  • Published
     May 7, 2026
  • Page
     103-105

Authors

Rustamjon Turgunboev
Teacher of UzSWLU

Abstract

This study investigates the pragmatic features of political discourse in English and Uzbek, focusing on how meaning is constructed, negotiated, and strategically deployed in public communication. Drawing on frameworks from pragmatics and critical discourse analysis, the research examines speech acts, implicature, politeness strategies, deixis, and presupposition in a comparative perspective. The data consist of twenty political speeches delivered between 2018 and 2024 by English-speaking and Uzbek political leaders. Using qualitative discourse analysis, the study identifies systematic similarities and differences in the realization of pragmatic strategies. Introduction. Political discourse constitutes a central domain in which language operates as a form of social action. It is through discourse that political actors construct authority, negotiate legitimacy, and shape collective identities. Within this domain, pragmatics - the study of meaning in context-provides critical tools for understanding how political messages are formulated, interpreted, and strategically manipulated. Although political discourse in English has been extensively examined, particularly within Anglo-American contexts, comparatively little attention has been devoted to Central Asian languages, including Uzbek. Existing research on Uzbek political communication has largely focused on lexical development, stylistic features or language policy, leaving pragmatic dimensions underexplored. This imbalance creates a significant gap in cross-cultural discourse studies. The present study addresses this gap by conducting a comparative analysis of pragmatic features in English and Uzbek political discourse. It seeks to answer the following research questions: 1. What pragmatic strategies are most prominent in English and Uzbek political discourse? 2. How do these strategies differ in their linguistic realization and communicative function? 3. What cultural, ideological, and political factors account for

References

  1. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
  2. Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
  4. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  6. Usmonova, S. (2025). Problems of Revealing the Linguistic and Creative Identity of The Author’s ‘Self’In Newspaper Discourse. Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan, 81-99.
How to Cite
PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK. (2026). Spectrum of Development, 2(4), 103-105. https://spectrumofdevelopment.com/index.php/sod/article/view/1649
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and adapt this work for any purpose, including commercially, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and source, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.

License: creativecommons.org

How to Cite

PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK. (2026). Spectrum of Development, 2(4), 103-105. https://spectrumofdevelopment.com/index.php/sod/article/view/1649

Issue Cover

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2026): Raqamli davrda til, tafakkur va madaniyat: sun’iy intellekt va gumanitar fanlar integratsiyasi

Statistics

Abstract Views
: 2 times

Section

Articles