CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS OF EXPRESSING WISH AND DESIRE: EVIDENCE FROM ENGLISH AND UZBEK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
pragmatics, wish/desire expressions, cross-cultural communication, discourse analysis, English, UzbekAbstract
This article deals with the linguopragmatic mechanisms of expression of wish and desire in English and in Uzbek. By the method of comparativism of authentic samples of discourse and the data from the corpus the research studied the semantics, pragmatics and the socio-cultural parameters of how the participants of the discourse formulate wish/desire expressions. It was proven that the cross-cultural differences of the participants’ discourse are multifaceted in terms of the techniques of politeness, mitigation, the form of the verbs in the conditional mood and the contextualization. In terms of sophisticated discourse, English language speakers constructed desire in the decreased indirect illocutionary force, in contrast, the Uzbek speakers predominated with socio-politically direct formulations of desire.
Downloads
References
1.Abd Aliwie, A. (2024). A pragmatic analysis of wish strategies used by Iraqi EFL learners. Conference Proceedings.
2.Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
3.Bardis, B. (2021). Cross-cultural pragmatic competence in an EFL context. Sustainability, 13(18), 10346.
4.Bednarek, M. (2019). Corpus linguistics and media studies. Bloomsbury.
5.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
6.Crowley, P. (2024). Modal tense: If and wish. Linguistics and Philosophy.
7.Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Palgrave Macmillan.
8.Johanson, L. (2021). Turkic languages and linguistic typology. Routledge.
9.Karimova, N. (2021). Politeness and religious expressions in Uzbek communication. Journal of Central Asian Linguistics, 3(2), 55–72.
10.Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
11.Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
12.Mancia, A. E. (2021). Wish modality and its connection to deontic modality. University Working Paper.
13.McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
14.Norrick, N. (2020). Expressive acts and conversational stance. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 160–175.
15.Rahmatullayev, Sh. (2018). O‘zbek tili pragmatikasi: Nazariya va amaliyot. Fan nashriyoti.
16.Schauer, G. (2019). Interlanguage pragmatics in L2 acquisition. Routledge.
17.Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
18.Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. Continuum.
19.Tursunov, B. (2022). Pragmatic functions of formulaic expressions in Uzbek discourse. Central Asian Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 44–61.
20.van der Auwera, J., & Ammann, A. (2020). Modality across languages. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 271–295.
21.Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.
22.Wierzbicka, A. (2006). English: Meaning and culture. Oxford University Press.
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
