Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
15
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
As Barbara Pizziconi notes, numerous studies in the field of linguistic politeness, starting from the mid-70s of the 20th
century, i.e. since the birth of the later famous theories of R. Lakoff, J. Leach, as well as the universal theory of linguistic
politeness by P. Brown and S. Levinson, play a very important role in modern pragmatic works. Nevertheless, although
the number of publications on this issue is steadily growing, there is no single, generally accepted definition of the
social and communicative phenomenon of politeness. There is also no unity among scientists in understanding the
very nature of linguistic politeness (Pizziconi 2006: 706).
KEYWORDS
Linguistic politeness, Nevertheless, generally.
INTRODUCTION
Moreover, all these theories have been and are at the
center of criticism. In particular, the universal theory of
politeness by P. Brown and S. Levinson, created more
than 30 years ago, almost immediately after its
appearance came under fire from many linguists and
sociologists representing both European and non-
European countries.
The general scheme of the universal theory of
politeness, also called the face-saving theory, in
addition to the concept of power, is based on the
abstract concept of a social face (face), and developed
Research Article
A DISCOURSIVE TURN IN THE THEORY OF LINGUISTIC POLITENESS: TO
THE FORMATION OF THE THEORY OF LINGUISTIC IMPOLITENESS
Submission Date:
February 12, 2023,
Accepted Date:
February 17, 2023,
Published Date:
February 22, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume03Issue02-05
Z.O. Djalilova
Esp Teacher Bukhara State Medical Institute Named After Abu Ali Ibn Sino, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijll
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
16
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
by the American sociologist E. Hoffman. The theory is
also based on the idea of P. Grice that the nature of the
communicative process should be understood as a
special kind of intentions of the addressers that need
to be recognized by the addressees.
P. Brown and S. Levinson understand politeness as a
rational, expedient aspect of communication that
obeys certain rules. The authors agree with the idea of
P. Grice that the entire process of communication is
based on the Principle of Cooperation. The main goal
of politeness in terms of P. Brown and S. Levinson is to
maintain social unity by preserving the social faces of
communicants (Brown P., Levinson 1987: 3-7).
The focus of the universal theory of politeness is the so-
called. “model person” (model person), having the
ability to logically substantiate their communicative
goals and the most optimal means of achieving them.
The social face of an abstract, devoid of any national
specificity model personality, according to the authors,
should be a combination of two different desires that
are constantly present in her mind: a) positive face
(desire (to some extent) to receive approval from
others), b) negative face (the desire to be free in one's
actions, not to allow interference from another)
(Brown P., Levinson 1987: 13). That is, a face is “
an
image of oneself described in terms of personal
qualities approved by society. It is an image that other
people can share, as in the case when a person, by
making a good impression of himself, makes a good
impression of his profession or religion” (Goff
man
1967: 5).
The claim to the universality of the theory of P. Brown
and S. Levinson, as well as the author's interpretation
of the concept of a social person, which is central for
them, coupled with a clearly European understanding
of the cornerstone cat
egories of “politeness” and
“threat to a social person (face threat)”, turned out to
be at the center of the most serious theoretical
objections (Kasper 2001: 189).
The object of criticism is often the addresser-centricity
inherent in this theory, because the authors pay
excessive attention to the social faces of the
addressers, but not the addressees of statements that
remain out of sight. It also criticizes the incorrect, from
the point of view of representatives of collectivist
Asian cultures (China, Japan, Korea) understanding by
the authors of a number of speech acts.
The impossibility of applying a universal model in the
study of politeness in modern Chinese society is noted
by Gu Zheguo, who emphasizes the differences in the
concepts of the Chinese negative face and the negative
face in the theory of P. Brown and S. Levinson. Unlike
European individualistic cultures, in Chinese culture,
speech acts (hereinafter referred to as RA), offers,
invitations and promises are not considered
statements that threaten the negative face of the
communicant. A feature of the Chinese mentality and
Chinese cultural traditions is that any native Chinese
associates the function of politeness with the need to
be restrained in monologue and dialogic speech (Gu
1990: 242).
The primitive, from the point of view of the Chinese,
understanding of many RAs by P. Brown and S.
Levinson, such as compliments, is drawn to the
attention of R. Mao LuMing, who believes that it is
incorrect to consider them only as RAs that threaten
the negative face of the addressee, because their
verbalization is mutually beneficial for both
communicants (LuMing 1994: 455-456).
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
17
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The concept of a social person in terms of P. Brown and
S. Levinson is criticized by the Japanese scientist Y.
Matsumoto. She notes the importance for the
Japanese of the concept of “social identity”, which is
manifested not so much in their awareness of the
concept of personal space, but in their awareness of
how they are treated by other members of society or a
social group (Matsumoto 1988. - cited in: Spenser-
Oatey 2008: 13).
Criticism of the concept of a negative person in terms
of P. Brown and S. Levinson is also characteristic of
representatives of African cultures. The Nigerian
linguist O. Nwoye, analyzing the concept of a person in
the egalitarian society of the Igbo people, notes that
for representatives of this culture, concern for group
rather than personal interests is considered to be
expected behavior (Nwoye 1992. - cited in: Watts 2003:
102-103).
The British linguist Sarah Mills, recognizing the
importance of the universal theory of politeness for
the further development of linguistic pragmatics,
notes its limited nature. In her opinion, a significant
disadvantage of this theory is that it focuses on a very
narrow, simplified model of what, in terms of P. Brown
and S. Levinson, is politeness. From the point of view
of S. Mills, politeness is a much more complex
phenomenon than shown by P. Brown and S. Levinson
(Mills 2003: 57-58).
The French sociolinguist K. Kerbra-Orecchioni criticizes
the universal theory of politeness, also noting the
limitations of many of its provisions and disagreeing
with them. In her terms, the point of view of P. Brown
and S. Levinson on politeness and on the mechanism of
interaction between communicants is negative,
pessimistic, and “paranoid, because communicants are
presented as individuals who are under constant threat
of all kinds of RA, which pose a danger to their faces,
and who spend their time guarding their territory and
th
eir faces” (Kerbrat
-Oreccioni 1997: 13).
Interpreting linguistic politeness differently than P.
Brown and S. Levinson, in order to correct a number of
shortcomings in their theory of politeness, C. Kerbra-
Orecchioni introduces the concept of “Face
-Enhancing
Act” (an act that enhances a face, flattering a face) to
designate RAs “positive analogues” of RA, threatening
the social faces of the communicants. The author
refers to this category of statements, for example,
compliments, thanks, apologies and RA expressions of
consent (Kerbrat-Oreccioni 1997: 13).
Recognizing the importance of the universal theory of
politeness, M. Locher and R. Watts emphasize that it
“rises above most other theories, being a guiding star
for scientists who are looking for the phenomenon of
politeness in examples of interaction between
communicants and differing in the breadth of
penetration into the essence of human behavior”
(Locher , Watts 2005: 9-10). However, they consider it
the weakest point of ignoring situations of aggressive,
offensive or rude communicative behavior.
The above criticisms of the universal theory of
politeness have forced linguists and sociologists to
significantly expand the "horizons of linguistic
politeness."
Among a number of post-classical approaches in the
analysis of linguistic politeness (impoliteness), the
most widespread is the so-
called. “postmodern
approach” (otherwise referred to as the discursive
approach), represented by the works of J. Yilen, M.
Locher, R. Watts, A. Langlotz, D.Z. Kadar, S. Mills, S.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
18
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Harris, H. Cesar Felix-Brasdefer, N. Geyer and many
others.
The “postmodern approach” questions many of the
classical views on the phenomenon of politeness in
language and speech. Theorists of the analyzed
approach, firstly, incorporate into their works the
socio-theoretical views of the sociology of language of
Pierre Bourdieu with his central concept of habitus.
Habitus is understood as “a personified history,
internalized as a person’s second nature and no longer
recognized as history, but being an active
manifestation of the present, summing up the entire
past of a person” (Bourdie 1990.
- cited in: Karasik 2007:
355). In Latin, “habitus” means “manner of conduct”
or “style in clothes, costumes”. In terms of R. Watts,
this concept is closely related to the concept of
prudent behavior (Watts 2003: 149).
Secondly, and most importantly, in this approach it is
customary to distinguish between two ideologies of
politeness: Politeness1 and Politeness2 a special term
in the theoretical research of scientists (Eelen 1999:
163-164).
“Postmodernists” abandoned in their works the
classical model of cooperation by P. Grice, the weak
point of which, in their opinion, is the excessive focus
on the intentions of the addressers and the almost
complete disregard for the intentions of the
addressees. With regard to the theory of speech acts,
its most serious shortcoming for “postmodernists” is
the fact that it analyzes isolated, often self-created
sentences considered out of context (Mills 2003: 38).
Proponents of a
discursive (“postmodernist”)
approach to the study of politeness (impoliteness)
emphasize the need to consider a conversation as a
process, interpreting politeness/impoliteness as a kind
of dynamic phenomenon (Mills 2003: 38, Watts 2003:
222-246). In contrast to the traditional understanding
of politeness, “postmodernists” do not consider it as
something deterministically related to certain linguistic
forms and functions, but define it only through the
subjective perception of these forms and functions by
communicants (Pizziconi 2006: 709). Therefore, a
distinctive aspect of the activity of “postmodernists” is
their analysis of fragments of authentic minute-to-
minute interaction of communicants, much larger than
sentences or individual utterances, called “r
elational
work” (activity to create and improve relationships
between communicators) (Locher, Watts 2005).
In terms of the British linguist H. Spencer-Oatey, who
represents a socio-psychological approach to the study
of politeness (impoliteness), this type of daily
interaction of communicants is called the closely
related term “rapport management” (Spencer
-Oatey
2008: 3-17).
The discursiveness of the “postmodernist” approach is
manifested in the fact that politeness is considered as
a relatively small part of the entire spectrum of
interpersonal activities of communicants and is
analyzed only in interaction with other types of this
activity. The most important thing, according to M.
Loher and R. Watts, is that the activity of
communicants to create and improve their
relationships covers the entire spectrum of their verbal
and non-verbal behavior (from direct, i.e. rude,
aggressive verbal behavior up to polite speech
behavior). Therefore, M. Loher and R. Watts prefer the
term “relational work” rather than “facework”
(actions to preserve the social face of communicants),
which P. Brown and S. Levinson used to designate only
the RA of appropriate and polite behavior.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
19
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
The authors rightly believe that only taking into
account the impolite behavior of communicants can
help in the most accurate definition of specific
communicative behavior as belonging to one of the
categories: a) impolite (impolite), b) in no way related
to the category of politeness (non-polite), c) polite
(polite), d) overly polite (over-polite). At the same
time, only polite behavior should be positively
evaluated, behavior that is not related to the category
of politeness should not be evaluated in any way, and
impolite and excessively polite behavior should be
negatively evaluated. An interesting idea is that polite
behavior is always prudent (politic), while prudent
behavior can be outside the category of politeness
(non-polite). The central fundamental concept for the
theory of “relational work” is the concept of a person
in terms of E. Hoffmann, and not P. Brown and S.
Levinson (Locher, Watts 2005: 11-13).
The discursive nature of the concept of “relational
work” is also manifested in the fact that all forms of
verbal and non-verbal behavior of any communicant,
carried out in real time, are open to interpretation by
other communicators. At the same time, this concept
is cognitive in its essence, since the activity it denotes
is carried out through the continuous creation and
“dismantling” of changing, intermingling cognitive
spaces in the minds of two or more communicants
(Watts 2008: 313).
Proponents of the “postmodern” (discursive)
approach to the study of impoliteness in speech
behavior are J. Eilen, R. Watts, M. Loher, S. Mills. In this
approach (also called the Impoliteness1-approach),
researchers focus on their own awareness of the
discourse by its ordinary participants (i.e., non-
specialists) as impolite.
The starting point in the second approach
(Impoliteness2-approach) is the analytical opinions of
discourse specialists based on pragmatic theory.
Unlike the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson,
which can be seen as an example of the manifestation
of Politeness2, one of the main provisions of the
analytical Impoliteness2 approach (also called the
universalist or context-sensitive approach) is the
contextuality of statements. The supporters of this
approach in the study of the phenomenon of
impoliteness include D. Bousfield, M. Terkurafi and M.
Huff.
The theoretical position of the English linguist
Jonathan Culpeper plays a huge role in understanding
the complexity of the phenomenon of communicative
impoliteness. His taxonomy of impolite behavior
strategies is highly cited, although it is considered to be
modeled after a universal theory of politeness and
therefore not escaping from “
Anglo-
centricity”
(Garcés-Conejos Blitvich 2010: 536).
Noting that the phenomenon of impoliteness is related
to how insult (offense) is communicated and
perceived, J. Culpeper believes that “impoliteness
arises when: 1) the addresser deliberately attacks the
addressee's face, and 2) the addressee realizes and / or
recreates this behavior as a person deliberately
attacking him, or as a simultaneous manifestation of
the first and second actions. The key aspect of this
definition is that it becomes clear that impoliteness,
like politeness, is manifested in the interaction of the
speaker and the listener” (Culpeper 2005: 38).
Among the discourses "forcing communicants to be
impolite", the author refers to the discourses of the
army training camp and the courtroom. Based on the
provisions of the universal theory of politeness by P.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
20
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Brown and S. Levinson, J. Culpeper developed a
paradigm of 5 super-strategies of impoliteness aimed
at causing a certain moral damage to the addressee of
the statement, i.e., at undermining his social face: 1)
bald on record impoliteness (obvious, unequivocal
impoliteness, i.e. threatening the person of the
addressee of the RA, carried out in an obvious way); 2)
positive impoliteness (impoliteness towards the
positive person of the addressee); 3) negative
impoliteness (impoliteness towards the addressee's
negative face); 4) sarcasm or mock politeness (sarcasm
or mock politeness, when threatening the face of RA
are carried out with the help of clearly insincere
politeness strategies and therefore are implemented
only at a superficial level); 5) withhold politeness
(complete lack of politeness if one of the
communicants expects it) (Culpeper 1996: 356-357).
Each of these super-strategies is implemented in
speech behavior by separate strategies. The author
identifies ten strategies of impoliteness aimed at the
positive face of the addressee and five strategies
aimed at the negative face of the addressee (ibid: 357-
358).
The study of linguistic impoliteness is taking its very
first steps. It started just over 15 years ago. And
researchers need to remember that to achieve the
greatest
success,
this
promising
area
of
pragmalinguistic research must be open to multiple
research models. At the same time, it is necessary to
ensure that “impoliteness is understood in different
cultural and linguistic contexts, and the reliability of
the applied methodology is tested at the intercultural
and interlingual level” (Garcés
-Conejos Blitvich 2010:
536).
REFERENCES
1.
Карасик В.И. Языковые ключи. –
Волгоград:
Парадигма, 2007.
2.
Bousfield D. Impoliteness in Interaction
(Pragmatics & Beyond. New Series. vol. 167).
–
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2008.
3.
Khajieva, F. M. (2019). DECODING OF STYLISTIC
DEVICES
IN
RUSSIAN
AND
ENGLISH
TRANSLATIONS OF THE UZBEK NOVEL" DAYS
GONE BY" BY ABDULLA QADIRI (STYLISTIC
CORRESPONDENCES
AND
TRANSFORMATIONS). Theoretical & Applied
Science, (4), 541-545.
4.
Khajieva, F. M. (2020). Theoretical aspects of
the language learned (Stylistics). Бухоро:
Дурдона.
5.
Xajiyeva, F. (2021). ЛАЙЛА ЛАЛАМИНИНГ
“THE
MOOR’S
ACCOUNT”
РОМАНИДА
ФОНЕТИК
СТИЛИСТИК
ВОСИТАЛАР
ТА
Ҳ
ЛИЛИ
.
Журнал
иностранных
языков
и
лингвистики
, 3(8).
6.
Khajieva, F. M. (2021). The rise and
development of the american biographical
novel. JournalNX-A Multidisciplinary Peer
Reviewed Journal, 7(06), 262-267.
7.
GENESIS, F. M. K. (2020). DEVELOPMENT OF
STYLISTIC
DEVICES
CLASSIFICATIONS.
Филология масалалари. Ўзбекистон давлат
жа
ҳ
он
тиллари университети, (3
-
Б), 30
-38.
8.
Хажиева, Ф. М. (2020). Америка ёзувчиси
Жей Паринининг “The Last Station”(“Сўнгги
бекат”) биографик романи лейтмотивини
шакллантиришда полифоник тафаккурнинг
вазифаси. УзМУ хабарлари. Мирзо Улу
ғ
бек
номидаги
Ўзбекистон Миллий университети
илмий журнали, (6
-
Б), 192
-197.
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
21
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
9.
Khajieva, F. (2020). Genesis and development
of stylistic devices classifications. Philology
Matters, 2020(3), 30-38.
10.
Khajieva, F. M. (2019). Kendjayeva Gulrukh
Fatilloyevna STUDY OF STYLISTIC LEXICOLOGY
(2019). TEST Engineering and Management,
USA, 4162-4169.
11.
Khajieva, F. (2016). The diversity of Viewpoints
in
Jay
Parini’s
novel.
In
The
Last
Station””//“World
Science”
International
Scientific and Practical Conference. UAE Ajman
(p. 57).
12.
Melsovna, K. F. (2021). Cosmopolitanism
throgh intertextual devices in the postmodern
biographical
novel.
ACADEMICIA:
An
International
Multidisciplinary
Research
Journal, 11(11), 156-161.
13.
Хажиева, Ф. М. (2019). The manifestation and
the function of epistolary technique in the
biographical novel “The Last Station” by Jay
Parini.
Проблемы
и
достижения
современной науки, (1), 71
-73.
14.
Хажиева, Ф. М. (2022). Поэтика ва риторика
бинар
оппозицияда.
Integration
of
Pragmalinguistics,
Functional
Translation
Studies and Language Teaching Processes, 193-
196.
15.
Khajieva,
F.
(2021).
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK OF ALLUSIONS IN THE NOVEL
“THE MOOR’S ACCOUNT” BY LAYLA LALAMI.
Збірник наукових праць SCIENTIA.
16.
Хажиева, Ф. М. (2021). ЖЕЙ ПАРИНИ
ИЖОДИДА
БИОГРАФИК
РОМАН
КОНЦЕПЦИЯСИ.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ
ЖУРНАЛ ИСКУССТВО СЛОВА, 4(1
-2).
17.
Khajieva, F. M., & Fatilloyevna, K. G. (2019).
Study of Stylistic Lexicology.
18.
Khajieva,
F.
M.
(2018).
EPISTOLARY
TECHNIQUE IN THE BIOGRAPHICAL NOVEL
«AVICENNA» BY MAQSUD QORIYEV. ББК 1 Р76,
27.
19.
Khajieva, F. M. (2016). THE DIVERSITY OF
VIEWPOINTS IN JAY PARINI’S BIOGRAPHICAL
NOVEL THE LAST STATION. World science, 3(7
(11)), 41-43.
20.
Melsovna, K. F. (2013). Narrator in the
Biographical
Novels:
A
Typological
Comparison.
Academic
Journal
of
Interdisciplinary Studies, 2(9), 357.
21.
Хажиева, Ф. М. (2010). БЕЛЛЕТРИСТИКА В
БИОГРАФИЧЕСКОМ
РОМАНЕ
Н.
НОРМАТОВА" ПОСЛЕДНЯЯ ВОЛЯ РУЗЫ
ЧАРЫЕВА". Филологические науки. Вопросы
теории и практики, (3), 153
-156.
22.
Davlatova, M. H. (2019). Variability of A
spectual Meanings in English. European
Journal of Research and Reflection in
Educational Science, 7(12.2019), 778-780.
23.
Davlatova, M. H. (2020). An Integrative history
of Aspectual meanings. JournalNX, 6(04), 17-
22.
24.
Davlatova, M. H. (2020). Aspectual variability of
information culture in the history of the English
language. International Journal on Integrated
Education, 3(3), 24-28.
25.
Davlatova, M. H. (2020). Lexico-semantic
Structure and Its Analysis on the Example of
Verbs. JournalNX, 6(06), 189-192.
26.
Davlatova, M. H. Relation of lexical-semantic
structure of verbs in the linguistic essence.
IEJRD-International Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(5).
27.
Zayniddinovna, T. N. (2021). The Image of the
Eastern Ruler in the Works of Christopher
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
22
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Marlowe. Central Asian Journal Of Social
Sciences And History, 2(10), 10-14.
28.
Zayniddinovna, T. N. (2022). The Problem of “A
Strong Personality” in Shakespeare’Dramas:
Richard III and Macbeth. Middle European
Scientific Bulletin, 20, 7-10.
29.
Zaynitdinovna, T. N. (2022). Lyrical Dialogue in
Shakespeare's Poems as a Reflection of
Renaissance Anthropocentrism and a Strong
Personality.
Middle
European
Scientific
Bulletin, 21, 120-125.
30.
Djalilova, Z. (2022). DISCURSIVE ELEMENTS
AND THE CATEGORY OF POLITENESS.
Academic research in modern science, 1(12), 8-
14.
31.
Джалилова,
З.
О.
(2022).
НУТ
Қ
Ҳ
АРАКАТЛАРИДА
ХУШМУОМАЛАЛИКНИНГ
ГЕНДЕР
ХУСУСИЯТЛАРИ
.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ
ЖУРНАЛ
ИСКУССТВО
СЛОВА
, 5(5).
32.
Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). DISTINCTIVE FEATURES
OF MALE AND FEMALE ORAL SPEECH IN
MODERN ENGLISH. International Journal Of
Literature And Languages, 2(10), 14-21.
33.
Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). THE MAIN CONCEPTS
OF
POLITENESS
IN
MODERN
LINGUOPRAGMATICS:
THE
POLITENESS
PRINCIPLE BY J. LEECH. International Journal
of Pedagogics, 2(11), 15-20.
34.
Djalilova, Z. (2022). GENDER DIFFERENTIATION
OF DISCOURSE ELEMENTS AS INDICATORS OF
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVALUATIONS.
International Bulletin of Applied Science and
Technology, 2(12), 55-63.
35.
Djalilova, Z. (2022). GENDER-DETERMINED
DIFFERENCES IN THE SPEECH OF LITERARY
CHARACTERS. Eurasian Journal of Academic
Research, 2(12), 210-215.
36.
Djalilova, Z. (2022). GENDER ELEMENT OF
SPEECH BEHAVIOR FROM THE POSITION OF
TEXT ORGANIZATION MECHANISMS. Eurasian
Journal of Academic Research, 2(13), 274-281.
37.
Джалилова, З. (2022). ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИЙ
ВЗГЛЯД НА МЕЖЛИЧНОСТНОЕ ОБЩЕНИЕ.
Zamonaviy dunyoda ilm-fan va texnologiya,
1(7), 331-336.
38.
Djalilova,
Z.
(2022).
GENDER
XUSHMUOMALALIKKA
ASOSLANGAN
IBORALARNING SHAKLLANISHI. Zamonaviy
dunyoda innovatsion tadqiqotlar: Nazariya va
amaliyot, 1(28), 303-308.
39.
DZHALILOVA, Z. O., & SHARIPOV, A. G.
ALPHABET OF LATIN LANGUAGE. МОЛОДОЙ
УЧЕНЫЙ Учредители: ООО" Издательство
Молодой ученый", (52), 338
-339.
40.
DZHALILOVA, Z. O., & UBAJDULLOEV, A. U. U.
COMPARISON DEGREES OF ADJECTIVES IN
LATIN LANGUAGE. МОЛОДОЙ УЧЕНЫЙ
Учредители: ООО" Издательство Молодой
ученый", (52), 336
-338.
41.
DZHALILOVA, Z. O., & JAKUBOV, U. S.
NUMBERS IN LATIN LANGUAGE. МОЛОДОЙ
УЧЕНЫЙ Учредители: ООО" Издательство
Молодой ученый", (52), 339
-341.
42.
DZHALILOVA, Z. O., & ALIEV, M. N. ADJECTIVE
IN LATIN LANGUAGE
. МОЛОДОЙ УЧЕНЫЙ
Учредители: ООО" Издательство Молодой
ученый", (52), 332
-334.
43.
DZHALILOVA, Z. O., & ALIEV, M. N. PRONOUNS
IN LATIN LANGUAGE. МОЛОДОЙ УЧЕНЫЙ
Учредители: ООО" Издательство Молодой
ученый", (52), 334
-336.
44.
DJALILOVA, Z. O., & KHAYOTOV, K. M. K. U.
LATIN PRONOUNS. МОЛОДОЙ УЧЕНЫЙ
Volume 03 Issue 02-2023
23
International Journal Of Literature And Languages
(ISSN
–
2771-2834)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
02
Pages:
15-23
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
(2023:
6.
997
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Учредители: ООО" Издательство Молодой
ученый", (53), 257
-258.
45.
DJALILOVA, Z. O., & KHAYOTOV, M. K. U.
VERBS IN LATIN LANGUAGE. МОЛОДОЙ
УЧЕНЫЙ Учредители: ООО" Издательство
Молодой ученый", (53), 255
-257.
46.
Obidovna, D. Z. (2022). A Speech Etiquette
Formula for the Gender Communication
Strategy. American Journal of Social and
Humanitarian Research, 3(10), 44-50.
