https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
134
INTERCULTURAL PRAGMATICS AND SPEECH ACT REALIZATION IN ENGLISH
Omonova Farangiz Asror kizi
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
Master’s student in Linguistics
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4376-6572
Abstract:
This article analyzes the pragmatic and stylistic features of the implementation of
speech acts in the process of intercultural communication in English. The main attention is paid
to how speech acts such as request, refusal, congratulations, requests, suggestions, and advice are
expressed in English and their differences from their Uzbek equivalents. According to the
research results, speech acts in English are usually expressed indirectly and in a polite form,
which requires caution and cultural sensitivity in intercultural communication. Through
discursive and comparative analysis methods, the importance of intercultural pragmatic
competence for individuals studying English as a second language was substantiated. The article
contains theoretical and practical recommendations for language teachers and translators.
Keywords:
Intercultural communication; pragmatics; speech acts; English; politeness; discursive
analysis; indirect expression; communicative strategies.
INTRODUCTION
As a result of the acceleration of the globalization process, the scope of communication between
representatives of different nationalities, customs, and cultures is expanding. In these conditions,
intercultural communication plays an important role not only in social and political relations, but
also in education, business, and everyday life. In particular, as the English language strengthens
its position as a means of international communication, the need to form intercultural pragmatic
competence for the correct and effective organization of speech activity in this language is
increasing. Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that deals with how language units express
meanings in context, how they are used appropriately, and in intercultural communication it
becomes more complex. Because the approaches of representatives of different cultures to the
implementation of speech acts (for example, asking, refusing, requesting, congratulating, etc.)
are unique and can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Therefore, an in-depth
study of intercultural pragmatics and speech acts in English is important for language learners
and translators and is an important tool for improving their communicative competence. This
article analyzes how speech acts in English are performed in a cross-cultural context, their
semantic and pragmatic features, as well as differences related to different cultural conventions.
The article also offers linguodidactic recommendations for preventing intercultural pragmatic
errors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Intercultural pragmatics is one of the dynamic and multi-layered directions of modern linguistics,
which studies the mechanisms of the use of language tools in the social and cultural context.
Research in this area primarily relies on the theory of speech acts. John L. Austin (1962) in his
work "How to Do Things with Words" substantiated that speech can be used not only for
transmitting information, but also for performing an action (illocutionary act). He distinguishes
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
135
between "performative" and "constative" expressions, emphasizing that each speaker performs a
certain social function. John Searle (1969), who developed Austin's work, directly classifies
speech acts, dividing them into five categories: declarative, directive, commissive, expressive,
and representative acts. This classification serves as a methodological basis for analyzing the
types and forms of speech acts, especially in intercultural contexts.
Theoretically, intercultural pragmatics is further enriched in the works of Leech (1983) and Grice
(1975). In his famous "Cooperative Principle," Grice states that communication participants
adhere to four principles - quantity, quality, relevance, and clarity (quality, quality, relevance,
manner). However, these principles are not always accepted the same in every culture. Leech put
forward the "Politeness Principle," showing how conflict and discomfort can be prevented in
different cultural environments. He views politeness strategies as a social interpretation of
speech acts. Brown and Levinson (1987) developed one of the most influential theories of
intercultural pragmatics - "Face Theory." Based on the concept of personal "face" (social image),
they analyzed whether people strive to protect a positive or negative image in communication. In
their opinion, speech acts - especially questioning, rejection, criticism - can be "face-threatening
acts" (FTA), and speakers use indirect expressions, euphemisms, and culturally acceptable forms
to mitigate this threat. For example, in English, phrases like "Could you possibly open the
window?" seem much more polite than a simple "Open the window" command, as it doesn't
harm a negative "face". The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Implementation Project (CCSARP),
conducted by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), is an important study that empirically
confirmed these theories. They compared how representatives of German, Jewish, American,
English, Indian, and other cultures perform simple speech acts such as "request" and "gratitude,"
and determined that the level of indirect expressions and politeness strategies differ in each
culture. This research reveals the importance of pragmatic differences, especially for those
learning English as a second language.
Studies conducted in recent years also emphasize the role of intercultural pragmatic competence
in the educational process. Kasper and Rose (2001) show the need to develop educational
approaches to the study of pragmatic competence, that is, exercises based on pragmatics lessons,
games, scenarios. This approach is widely used today in the methodology of teaching
communicative language. Uzbek scientists are also conducting a number of scientific studies in
this area. In particular, Khudoyberganova (2021) in her article studied the cultural differences of
the act of "denial" in English and Uzbek. It shows that rejection in English is often expressed in
softened forms, indirectly, while in Uzbek rejection is more dependent on context, social status.
Also, Mamatkulova (2022) criticized the insufficient reflection of pragmatic competence in
English language textbooks and gave linguodidactic recommendations.
METHODOLOGY
In this study, the qualitative approach was taken as the basis, since the main focus is on a deep
analysis of the pragmatic features of speech acts in English in a cross-cultural context. The
scientific work was carried out by studying the theoretical and methodological foundations,
analyzing the scientific views of specialists in the field, and analyzing how speech acts are
performed in real communicative contexts. The study was based on the speech acts and
politeness theories of such scientists as Austin, Searle, Grice, Leech, Brown, and Levinson.
Through the method of discursive analysis, the forms of expression of speech acts such as
inquiry, refusal, proposal, congratulations were analyzed based on examples of film dialogues,
interviews, and everyday conversations written in English. Also, in order to identify intercultural
differences, a comparative analysis of expressions used in the same speech situations in the
cultural context of English and Uzbek was conducted. The results of the analysis were coded
using the content analysis method, and scientific conclusions were drawn on the topic.
RESULTS
This study has proven that there are many complexities, differences, and peculiarities in the
process of implementing speech acts in English in a cross-cultural context. Real examples of
communication, scientific theories, and cultural differences, studied on the basis of a discursive
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
136
and comparative approach, show that speech acts are formed not only through linguistic units,
but also through the cultural values, social norms, and communicative strategies behind them.
1. Cultural Formation of Inquiry Acts
In the English language, interrogative acts are often expressed through soft, arbitrary formulas
that reflect politeness. Especially when dealing with culturally sensitive topics or when
communicating with strangers, the request is made as indirectly as possible. For example:
"Would you happen to know where the nearest bank is?"
"I was wondering if you could help me with this form."
Here, phrases like "happen to know" and "I was wondering" give the inquiry a neutral and
arbitrary tone, emphasizing the interlocutor's convenience rather than the speaker's desire.
On the contrary, in the Uzbek language, requests are more direct or, depending on the degree of
social closeness, pronounced in a short, familiar tone:
"Bank qayerda ekan?" (“Where is the bank?”)
"Shu formani to‘ldirib yubor, iltimos" (“Fill out this form, please”).
This situation shows that in English-speaking cultures, special attention is paid to formulas
expressing caution, social distance, and respect when asking for help from strangers.
2. Complex structure of acts of refusal
In English, rejection is one of the most subtle speech acts and involves many cultural strategies.
The speaker tries not to say "No" directly, especially in formal or socially distanced situations.
Instead, the following strategies are observed:
Apologizing: "I'm really sorry, but I won't be able to make it."
Give a reason: "Unfortunately, I've already made other plans."
Alternative suggestion: "Maybe we can meet another day instead?"
Such multi-stage rejection is important in a cross-cultural context and reduces the social "threat"
of the speech act.
In the Uzbek language, this process can be shorter, based on context:
"Kechirasiz, bora olmayman" – ("I'm sorry, I can't go")
"Bugun imkon yo‘q" – ("It's impossible today")
Sometimes you can refuse without even apologizing, especially among acquaintances.
This increases the likelihood that a direct and short refusal in English will be misinterpreted and
perceived as coldness or disrespect. Consequently, rejection in English pragmatic culture is more
a means of maintaining cultural balance than language units.
3. Political Strategies and "Face-Saving" Behavior
Analysis based on Brown and Levinson's "Face Theory" showed that speech acts in English are
often mitigated through "face-saving" strategies. Especially when acts such as "order,"
"criticism," "request" are presented, the speaker uses special grammatical and lexical means:
Modal verbs: could, would, might
Hedging: sort of, kind of, I guess, maybe
Caution phrases: I don't mean to offend you, but...
Euphemism: He passed away
Example: "You may want to double-check this report before submitting it."
Here, "might" is not being used to criticize, but rather to give advice.
In the Uzbek language, such expressions are more conveyed through tone, div movements, or
context:
"Yaxshilab ko‘rib chiqqaning ma’qul" – ("You'd better look at it carefully")
Bu esa yozma yoki begona kontekstdagi suhbatlarda noto‘g‘ri talqinga olib kelishi mumkin.
4. Acts of congratulations, courtesies, and gratitude
According to the research results, congratulations and compliments in English are an important
communicative component of culture. They are often expressed clearly, explicitly, and sincerely:
"You look absolutely stunning today!"
"That was a brilliant idea you proposed at the meeting."
"Thank you so much for your help - I really appreciate it."
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
137
In the Uzbek language, such expressions are used more in formal situations or in a limited
context in relation to close acquaintances. Acceptance of kindness is also determined by cultural
differences. For example, in English:
"Thank you!" - a simple and typical answer.
In the Uzbek language, the expression of modesty is preferred:
"Rahmat, lekin unchalik emas" – ("Thank you, but not so much")
This means that there are differences in how to receive kindness and how to respond to it in
intercultural communication.
5. Suggestions and advice: awareness and cultural sensitivity
In English, advice and suggestions often begin with cautious phrases like "I think," "Maybe you
could," "How about":
"I think it might be better to try a different approach."
"Would you like me to call the doctor for you?"
In the Uzbek language, advice is expressed more openly, sometimes in a form close to an order:
"Shunday qilganing yaxshi" – ("It's better if you do that")
"Doktorni chaqirganingiz ma’qul" – ("You'd better call the doctor")
These cultural differences are especially pronounced in the service sector, in hierarchical
relationships such as teacher-student, leader-employee. In English, even an elderly person uses
polite, cautious speech. For example:
"If it's not too much trouble, could you look into this for me?"
In this case, both the task is given and voluntariness is expressed.
DISCUSSION
The analysis showed that the correct implementation of speech acts in English, especially in a
cross-cultural context, requires not only linguistic, but also pragmatic and cultural competence.
The theory of speech acts, developed by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), approaches based on
the politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson (1987) and the cooperative principle of Grice
(1975), serve a deeper understanding of the formation and perception of speech acts in English.
While these theories clearly define the role of speech acts in linguistics, cultural differences in
practical communication make them more complex. During the discussion, it was revealed that
in English, speech acts - especially requests, refusals, requests, and proposals - are often
expressed indirectly and cautiously. This reduces the risk of communicative errors, but the
inability to understand this style can lead to misunderstandings, especially among those learning
English as a second language. For example, the indirect expression "Would you mind closing the
window?" in the Uzbek language is usually pronounced as "Derazani yopib yubor". Although the
method of direct speech is more a sign of social closeness in Uzbek culture, in English culture it
can be perceived as rudeness or a command. This leads to communication barriers between
representatives of different cultures.
Another important aspect is the contextual dependence of politeness strategies. In English,
factors such as social distance, the status of the interlocutor, gender, and age directly influence
how the speech act is expressed. As Searle notes, each illocutionary act reflects the speaker's
purpose and attitude towards the listener. This demonstrates the importance of intercultural
sensitivity in communication. In the Uzbek language, pragmatic meaning is understood more
through context, which sometimes leads to incorrect interpretation in English communication. In
addition, hedging - that is, lexical means that soften expression (maybe, perhaps, sort of) - is
widely used in English speech acts. Such means allow one not to contradict the interlocutor, but
to express their opinion without coercion. However, learners unfamiliar with this method may
overlook indirect requests or advice while searching for clear expressions.
The study also shows that speech acts performed without considering cultural conventions lead
to disruption of communication. This is evident in translation, international business negotiations,
academic correspondence, and even tourist dialogues. For example, in English, the phrase
"Would you like to join us for dinner?" is considered an official and sincere invitation, while in
Uzbek, such invitations can often be open and invitational, such as "Keling, biz bilan
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
138
ovqatlaning." In English, this form can be interpreted as indecency, especially towards strangers.
All this shows that the implementation of intercultural speech acts in English is not limited to
phonetic, grammatical, and semantic knowledge. It also requires recognizing cultural differences
between the participants in communication, taking them into account, and applying appropriate
communicative strategies. Consequently, intercultural pragmatic competence should be
considered as a key component in teaching English, translation, and international relations.
CONCLUSION
The research results showed that for the correct and effective implementation of speech acts in
the process of intercultural communication in English, it is necessary not only to know the
grammatical and lexical system of the language, but also to deeply understand its pragmatic and
cultural aspects. Simple speech acts, such as a request, a refusal, a request, a greeting, advice, are
formed and perceived differently in different cultural contexts. In English, these acts are usually
expressed through politeness strategies, indirect expressions, modal verbs, and linguistic means
that take into account social distance. Expressions in the Uzbek language are given more directly,
contextually, and in a form based on social proximity. Differences in speech acts in intercultural
contexts can cause significant communicative barriers for those learning English. In particular,
understanding an indirect request as indifference, interpreting a refusal as disrespect, or
perceiving excessive formality as coldness leads to communication disruption. Therefore, the
development of intercultural pragmatic sensitivity in teaching English, translation, and
international relations is of current importance. In conclusion, an in-depth study of the features of
speech acts in the English language in the intercultural context ensures respect for the social and
cultural values of native speakers in global communication, the correct interpretation of their
subtle signals in speech. This is one of the strong foundations of effective dialogue, mutual
respect, and intercultural cooperation.
THE LIST OF USED LITERATURE:
1.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-to-do-things-with-words-9780198245537
2.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
3.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (Eds.), Syntax
and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-613320-0.50005-5
4.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
5.
Leech,
G.
(1983).
Principles
of
Pragmatics.
Longman.
https://www.routledge.com/Principles-of-Pragmatics/Leech/p/book/9780582551105)
6.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies.
Norwood,
NJ:
Ablex
Publishing.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110885286/html)
7.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatic development in a second language. Applied
Linguistics, 22(2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.147
8.
Hinkel, E. (1997). Appropriateness of advice: DCT and multiple choice data. Applied
Linguistics, 18(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.1
9.
Xudoyberganova, D. (2021). Differences in speech acts between Uzbek and English in
intercultural communication. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 17(2), 915–928.
https://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/2790
10.
Mamatqulova, Z. (2022). Pragmatic competence development in EFL classrooms:
Challenges and recommendations. Central Asian Journal of Literature, Philosophy and Culture,
3(6), 44–50.
https://cajlpc.centralasianstudies.org/index.php/CAJLPC/article/view/259
11.
Asror qizi , O. F. . (2025). Linguistic Problems of Intercultural Communication. Miasto
Przyszłości,
56,
128–130.
Retrieved
from
https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/5976
https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi
volume 4, issue 6, 2025
139
12.
Omonova Farangiz Asror qizi Master student of Samarkand State Institute of Foreign
Languages. (2025). STYLISTIC DISCORDANCES OF ENGLISH AND UZBEK SPEECH
FORMULAS. Zenodo.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14873780
13.
Omonova Farangiz Asror qizi. (2025). Cultural Discordances of English and Uzbek Set
Phrases. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION IN NONFORMAL EDUCATION, 5(5),
208–210. Retrieved from
https://inovatus.es/index.php/ejine/article/view/5764
14.
Omonova, F.
.(2025).
WAYS OF SOLVING
THE
PROBLEMS OF
INTERCULTURALCOMMUNICATION. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 1(4),
1362–1366. Retrieved from
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/ijai/article/view/106556
15.
Asror, O. F., Sherzod, A. E., & Salimovna,N. M. (2023). The importance of motivation in
education.
Trends
of
Modern
Science
and
Practice,
1(2),
5-7.
https://trendsmodernscience.com/journal/volume1/issue2/importance-motivation-education.pdf
16.
Omonova Farangiz Asror kizi. (2025). INTERCULTURAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS
CAUSED BY IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS IN ENGLISH. Journal of Applied Science and
Social
Science,
15(07),
66–69.
Retrieved
from
https://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass/article/view/1450
