NEGOTIATING COMMUNICATIVE POWER AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LITERARY DISCOURSE: A COMPARATIVE PRAGMALINGUISTIC STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23310879Аннотация
This article investigates how communicative power and social hierarchy are linguistically negotiated in English and Uzbek literary discourse. Rather than treating power as a fixed attribute attached exclusively to institutional status, the study conceptualizes it as an interactional achievement that emerges through recurrent pragmatic choices: address forms, personal pronouns, directives, deontic and epistemic modality, politeness and impoliteness strategies, turn allocation, interruption, evaluative positioning, and strategically meaningful silence. The study adopts a qualitative comparative-pragmalinguistic design informed by critical discourse analysis, symbolic power theory, politeness research, social deixis, and conversation-analytic insights. English and Uzbek literary dialogue are treated as culturally embedded sites in which social relations are represented, negotiated, softened, contested, or reversed. The analysis indicates that English literary discourse tends to encode hierarchy through modal-pragmatic gradience, title and naming choices, indirect directives, epistemic stance, and conversational control, whereas Uzbek literary discourse makes social distance more morpholexically visible through the “Sen”/“Siz” opposition, kinship-based address terms, honorifics, status nominations, and culturally conventionalized etiquette formulas. At the same time, neither system is reducible to a simple opposition between “implicit” English power and “explicit” Uzbek hierarchy: both languages exploit indirectness, mitigation, interruption, silence, and contextual reframing to redistribute communicative authority. The article proposes a dynamic model in which social status shapes communicative role, communicative role constrains linguistic choice, and linguistic choice produces locally interpretable pragmatic effects. The findings contribute to comparative pragmatics, literary discourse analysis, linguocultural studies, and translation by demonstrating that communicative power is simultaneously universal as an interactional phenomenon and culture-sensitive in its linguistic realization.Ключевые слова
literary discourse, communicative power, social hierarchy, pragmatics, social deixis, address forms, politeness, modality, turn-taking, English, UzbekБиблиографические ссылки
1. Akbarova, Z. (2007). O‘zbek tilida murojaat shakllari va uning lisoniy tadqiqi [Forms of address in the Uzbek language and their linguistic study] (Candidate of Philological Sciences dissertation). Tashkent.
2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
3. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.
4. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
5. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). MIT Press.
6. Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.
7. Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.
8. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon Books.
9. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
10. Iskandarova, S. (1993). O‘zbek nutq odatining muloqot shakllari [Communicative forms of Uzbek speech etiquette] (Candidate dissertation). Samarkand.
11. Kadar, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.
12. Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
13. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
14. Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.
15. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
16. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
17. Spencer-Oatey, H. (Ed.). (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd ed.). Continuum. AKTABGACHA VA AKTABGACHA VA AKTAB TA’LIMI AKTAB TA’LIMI 13.00.00 Pedagogika fanlari 13.00.01 Pedagogika nazariyasi. Pedagogik ta’limotlar tarixi 13.00.02 Ta’lim va tarbiya nazariyasi va metodikasi (sohalar bo‘yicha) 13.00.03 Maxsus pedagogika 13.00.04 Jismoniy tarbiya va sport mashg‘ulotlari nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.05 Kasb-hunar ta’limi nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.06 Elektron ta’lim nazariyasi va metodikasi (ta’lim sohalari va bosqichlari bo‘yicha) 13.00.07 Ta’limda menejment 13.00.08 Maktabgacha ta’lim va tarbiya nazariyasi va metodikasi 13.00.09 Ijtimoiy pedagogika 07.00.00 Tarix fanlari 19.00.00 Psixologiya fanlari 01.00.00 Fizika-matematika fanlari 02.00.00 Kimyo fanlari 03.00.00 Biologiya fanlari 09.00.00 Falsafa fanlari 10.00.00 Filologiya fanlari 11.00.00 Geografiya fanlari AKTABGACHA VA AKTABGACHA VA AKTAB TA’LIMI AKTAB TA’LIMI Mas’ul muharrir: Ramzidin Ashurov
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 «Maktabgacha va maktab ta’limi» jurnali
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Как цитировать
Страницы
Цитирование