COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK ACADEMIC EMAILS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
politeness strategies, academic emails, comparative linguistics, pragmatics, English language, Uzbek language, intercultural communication, academic discourseAbstract
This article presents a comparative analysis of politeness strategies employed in English and Uzbek academic emails. Drawing on the theoretical framework of pragmatics and politeness theory, particularly Brown and Levinson’s model, the study examines how linguistic and cultural norms shape the realization of politeness in academic written communication. The research focuses on greeting forms, requests, hedging devices, expressions of gratitude, and closing formulas used by students and academic staff in institutional email correspondence. A corpus-based qualitative and quantitative analysis is applied to identify similarities and differences between the two languages. The findings reveal that English academic emails tend to prioritize indirectness, mitigation, and negative politeness strategies, whereas Uzbek academic emails demonstrate a stronger preference for positive politeness strategies rooted in respect, hierarchy, and culturally specific etiquette norms. The study highlights the influence of sociocultural values on academic discourse and emphasizes the importance of pragmatic competence in intercultural academic communication.
Downloads
References
1.Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. – 345 p.
2.Leech G. The pragmatics of politeness. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. – 343 p.
3.Spencer-Oatey H. Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory. – London: Continuum, 2008. – 384 p.
4.Watts R. Politeness. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. – 288 p.
5.Hyland K. Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. – Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004. – 240 p.
6.Bhatia V.K. Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. – London: Continuum, 2004. – 228 p.
7.Gains J. Electronic mail – A new style of communication or just a new medium? // English for Specific Purposes. – 1999. – Vol.18, №1. – P.81–101.
8.Chen C.F.E. The development of e-mail literacy: From writing to peers to writing to authority figures // Language Learning & Technology. – 2006. – Vol.10, №2. – P.35–55.
9.Bou-Franch P. Openings and closings in academic email communication // Journal of Pragmatics. – 2011. – Vol.43, №6. – P.1772–1785.
10.Taguchi N. Pragmatic competence. – Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012. – 256 p.
11.Bardovi-Harlig K. Developing second language pragmatics // Language Learning. – 2013. – Vol.63, №1. – P.68–86.
12.Murmonov A. O‘zbek tilida nutq madaniyati va muloqot etiketi. – Toshkent: Fan, 2018. – 210 b.
13.Qurbonova M. O‘zbek tilida akademik muloqotning pragmatik xususiyatlari // O‘zbek tili va adabiyoti. – 2020. – №3. – B.45–52.
14.Rahmatullayev Sh. O‘zbek tilida muomala madaniyati va hurmat kategoriyasi. – Toshkent: O‘zbekiston Milliy Ensiklopediyasi, 2016. – 198 b.
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
