LINGUISTIC REPRESENTATION OF TOLERANCE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE THEORY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
intercultural competence, tolerance, linguistic representation, communicative strategy, linguoculturology.Abstract
The article explores the linguistic representation of tolerance within the framework of intercultural competence theory. It examines tolerance as a sociocultural and psycholinguistic phenomenon, highlighting its communicative significance in international communication. The study compares linguistic means of expressing tolerance in English and Uzbek, analyzing their semantic and pragmatic features from a linguocultural perspective. The findings demonstrate that tolerance is not only a social value but also a key communicative strategy that facilitates effective intercultural interaction.
Downloads
References
1.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
3.Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.Qodirova, D. (2020). Intercultural communication and the development of tolerance in higher education. Tashkent: O‘zbekiston Milliy Universiteti.
6.Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London: Continuum.
7.Yo‘ldosheva, N. (2018). Bag‘rikenglik va milliy qadriyatlar uyg‘unligi. Tashkent: Fan va texnologiya
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