Introduction

Pragmatics focuses on meaning in relation to the context of speech. Pragmatic competence, the ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts, is a crucial component of effective communication, especially in multilingual and multicultural settings. It involves understanding not only linguistic structures but also cultural norms that guide the interpretation of speech acts such as requests, apologies, and expressions of gratitude (Leech, 2014). To determine if something falls under pragmatics, we look at various aspects of the speech situation.

Since the need for learners to grasp the socio-pragmatic rules governing language use has been highlighted, the importance of cultural awareness in language education has gained significant attention recently (Kasper and Rose, 2002). Uzbek speakers, for instance, engaging with English, as both languages represent distinct cultural frameworks that influence communication style and pragmatic choices, navigate challenges. It is experienced especially when interpreting or performing speech acts in English, as these acts often rely on implicit cultural conventions.

The primary objective of this study is to provide insights into the interplay between cultural awareness, language proficiency, and pragmatic skills, how cultural norms and values influence the pragmatic interpretation of speech acts. In addition, it aims to identify common pragmatic challenges faced by Uzbek speakers, offering practical implications for language education and cross-cultural communication.

Literature review

The concept of context can vary, but it generally includes the ‘relevant’ aspects of the physical or social setting of an utterance. Levinson (1983) defined context as any background knowledge assumed to be shared by the speaker (s) and the listener (h) that contributes to the listener’s interpretation of what the speaker means by a given utterance. To simplify, he referred to the speaker or writer as ‘s’ and the listener or reader as ‘h’, following the convention of Searle (1979), Austin (1962) and others. Using ‘s’ and ‘h’ does not limit pragmatics to spoken language, it applies to written communication too. Levinson considered to note a distinction made by Lyons (1977) important between a receiver (someone who receives and interprets the message) and an addressee (someone intended to receive the message). A receiver could be a bystander or eavesdropper, not necessarily the addressee. This distinction matters in our study because the analyst of pragmatic meaning acts more like a receiver, trying to make sense of discourse based on available context. However, ‘h’ always refers to one or more addressees or people the utterance is directed at by ‘s’ (Levinson, 1983).

Having admitted that we should take into account various aspects of Pragmatics, we tried to learn from many linguists. As for Thomas (1983), the performance and interpretation of Speech acts can profoundly be impacted by cultural differences, leading to potential miscommunication in multilingual contexts. Moreover, he identified "pragmatic failure" as a common issue, where speakers misinterpret intentions due to unfamiliarity with the socio-pragmatic norms of another language (Thomas 1983).

Being a critical component of communication, pragmatic competence encompasses the ability to use language appropriately in various social and cultural contexts (Canale and Swain, 1980). As we are focusing to this very point, we would like to highlight claim by Kasper and Rose (2002) that pragmatic development in a second language involves understanding not just grammatical structures but also cultural conventions that dictate language use. Uzbek speakers, who often employ indirect strategies in their native language, may struggle to adapt to the more direct styles common in English.

Miscommunication in cross-cultural interactions, on the one hand, often stems from differing pragmatic conventions. Studies on pragmatic transfer have consistently shown that when using a second language, learners tend to apply the norms of their first language often resulting in unintentional pragmatic errors (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984).

Methodology

  In order to find out how cultural norms and values influence pragmatic interpretation in English and Uzbek languages, to determine common pragmatic challenges faced by speaker of both languages, we tried to conduct potential correlation analysis between language proficiency levels, cultural awareness, and pragmatic interpretation skills. Our major audience were final year students of Uzbekistan State World Languages University (groups 2001-2007) who were majoring in English language and literature. We shared the link for the survey in the lecture of Comparative typology and successfully got 94 responses. Our survey relied on context analysis along with multiple choice questions and open-ended questions type.

By the survey we aimed at investigating the ways in which speech acts, including expressions of gratitude, requests for assistance, offers of help, and apologies, are employed by Uzbek speakers with the additional focus in their interactions on social media.

Data collection

While doing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we tried to ensure that the participants are fully informed about the purpose of the survey and survey questions are culturally appropriate and sensitive.

The survey consisted of three sections: demographics, pragmatic interpretation and social media practices.

Data analysis and results

Here is the quantitative analysis presented in the form of a table:

Table 1

According to the questions that are designed to gather insights into how Uzbek speakers engage in various speech acts in their language, considering both their cultural norms and personal experiences, the results were as follow:

Table 2

If we pay precise attention to the responses that allow to write their own options, Uzbek speakers use “xafa bo’lmang” and depending on additional phrases “…hojati yo’q” in order to decline. In terms of apologizing, most of them mentioned “uzur” with other apology words such as “mendan o’tgan bo’lsa”, “boshqa qaytarilmaydi”, “bilmay qoldim” etc. The most notable point is that for open-ended questions that ask about rejecting and about how to apologize in non-official situations, almost every respondence began with “uzur” as well. Besides, they are found to add some interjections (“voy”, “oy”…) and they let us know how thay utter these interjections with writing more vowels within interjections (“voooy”, “vuuuy”, “iii”…) in order to express their excuse in a more emotive way.

In terms of orders and demands, there were more responses which were chosen to express directly. As most of our responders were students, it is interesting that for question about how to order and urge your listener to do something, they naturally come to the decision to address to their peers or elder people since the answers showed the verbs in the meaning of “bajar”, “qil”, “bo’l”, “tezlash” and the phrases like “qani, davay”. Yet there are such direct non-official ways of ordering, we can see gentle and respected phrases as well.

Our next goal from the survey was to find out social media communication among youth as nowadays they spend most of their time socializing online.

Reason for posting and commenting on social media

Table 3

Intention to Impact audience with Social Media Posts or Comments

Table 4

Methods of Expressing Intentions in Social Media Posts or Comments

Table 5

Discussion

When we were conducting a survey, we tried to find out about the reason of more responses such as using emojis. During our short face-to-face conversation, we were able to know that every emoji has its own meaning among social media users so that they could send them more than typing utterances. Furthermore, they showed us the most used emojis, at the same time what do they mean actually.

The survey data on language use and social media interaction among Uzbek speakers provides insightful findings regarding the varied communicative practices and preferences within this linguistic community.

Conclusion

The survey results reveal understanding of how Uzbek speakers navigate different contexts and purposes in their communication practices, particularly on social media. The flexibility in language use, as indicated by the various methods of expressing intentions and the situational responses to invitations and apologies, underscores the importance of context in pragmatic communication. This aligns with the theoretical framework that meaning is not fixed but dynamically constructed based on situational factors and interlocutor relationships.

Additionally, the significant role of non-verbal communication (gestures and body language) in face-to-face interactions highlights the multimodal nature of effective communication among Uzbek speakers. The preference for using emoticons and humor on social media further emphasizes the blend of traditional and modern communicative strategies in their discourse practices.

Overall, the findings suggest that while Uzbek speakers may have high proficiency in multiple languages, their pragmatic use of language is deeply rooted in contextual and cultural nuances, which influence their interaction patterns both online and offline. This insight is valuable for understanding the complexities of bilingual or multilingual communication in a globalized context.