Introduction

Speech etiquette formulas – also referred to as politeness formulas or routine expressions – play a central role in interpersonal and intercultural communication. They encompass a variety of linguistic strategies for addressing interlocutors, making requests, offering compliments, apologizing, and more (Brown & Levinson, 1987). These formulas, and their underlying cultural values, often differ substantially across languages. The differences become especially evident when comparing a widely researched language such as English with a language like Uzbek, which has its own culturally distinct norms for politeness and speech etiquette.

In the rhetorical aspect, speech etiquette formulas function not merely as polite words or phrases but as strategic rhetorical devices that shape and reflect social relationships. They work to maintain face, convey respect, and establish or reinforce social hierarchies (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). The rhetorical function of these formulas is deeply embedded in cultural norms and collective mentalities. For instance, the use of titles (e.g., “Sir” or “Madam” in English, versus respectful suffixes such as “-aka,” “-opa,” or “-jon” in Uzbek) provides insight into how social roles and relationships are negotiated linguistically (Muminov, 2015).

Given that English is often cited as the lingua franca of international communication (Crystal, 2003) and Uzbek is one of the widely spoken Turkic languages in Central Asia (Husseinov, 2020), a comparative analysis of their speech etiquette formulas is especially relevant. Understanding these formulas through a rhetorical lens is not only theoretically interesting but also practically useful for language learners, linguists, and intercultural communicators.

This article aims to provide a detailed study of speech etiquette formulas in English and Uzbek, focusing on their rhetorical usage. Specifically, it seeks to:

1. Examine the cultural and historical evolution of speech etiquette formulas in both languages;
2. Identify and compare key types of formulas in English and Uzbek;
3. Investigate how these formulas function rhetorically in everyday and formal discourse;
4. Discuss implications for language teaching, intercultural communication, and future research.

In so doing, this article draws upon theories from pragmatics (Leech, 2014), sociolinguistics (Holmes, 2013), and rhetoric (Miller, 2005), as well as empirical studies analyzing politeness in different languages. The study will be of interest to researchers of pragmatics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, as well as educators teaching English or Uzbek as foreign languages.

Literature Review

One of the seminal works in politeness theory is Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Their model, grounded in the notion of “face,” highlights positive and negative politeness strategies. Although derived from English and a limited set of other languages, the model has been broadly applied – and sometimes contested – in various cultural contexts (Wierzbicka, 1991). Speech etiquette formulas, often recognized as routinized acts of politeness, serve as key examples of positive politeness (e.g., compliments, greetings) or negative politeness (e.g., apologies, requests).

Drawing on Brown and Levinson’s framework, researchers like Blum-Kulka (1987) examined the universality of indirectness in requests and found cultural variability in how politeness was performed and perceived. In English, for instance, indirect requests such as “Could you possibly…?” are seen as polite because they mitigate imposition. In Uzbek, however, politeness can also be reflected via specific morphological markers and honorific forms that indicate respect for the listener’s age or status (Muminov, 2015).

English speech etiquette has been shaped by the language’s spread across diverse cultural environments, notably through colonization and globalization (Crystal, 2003). Contemporary English politeness strategies reflect a synthesis of traditional British norms – like the use of titles (Mr., Mrs., Ms., etc.) or modal verbs for requests – and emerging global norms that prioritize clarity and directness (Tannen, 1984).

Uzbek, part of the Turkic language family, carries deep-rooted notions of respect, hospitality, and communal belonging (Husseinov, 2020). Its speech etiquette formulas often hinge on morphological and lexical markers that honor elders, guests, and superiors. The usage of the particle “-mi” in questions and the honorific “Siz” for second-person pronouns exemplifies the nuanced politeness distinctions in Uzbek (Muminov, 2015).

Historically, Uzbek politeness norms have been influenced by Islam, Persian cultural traditions, and Turkic tribal structures. Formal ceremonies such as “khatna” (circumcision ceremonies) or wedding receptions are settings where respectful address forms and elaborate formulaic blessings are prominently used (Rasulov, 2019). Hence, speech etiquette in Uzbek extends beyond simple linguistic expressions to encompass richly symbolic, culturally embedded formulas.

From a rhetorical perspective, speech etiquette formulas can be studied as discursive strategies that fulfill specific communicative intentions, such as persuasion, negotiation, or the establishment of social cohesion. Classical rhetoric typically focuses on ethos, pathos, and logos (Aristotle, trans. 2007), but modern rhetorical studies extend these concepts to the broader socio-cultural context (Miller, 2005). In speech etiquette formulas, ethos may be reflected in the speaker’s credibility and respectful positioning toward the audience, while pathos may be seen in the emotional resonance of polite expressions that reinforce communal bonds.

Speech act theory, introduced by Austin (1962) and developed by Searle (1969), categorizes utterances as performative acts. Greeting formulas (“Hello,” “Assalomu alaykum,” “Good morning,” etc.) are considered expressive speech acts that establish rapport, while requests (“Could you…?” “Iltimos…”) are directive speech acts. Studying these acts comparatively in English and Uzbek reveals how cultural norms drive the rhetorical force of politeness formulas.

Comparative studies of speech etiquette often center on Indo-European language pairs (e.g., English-German, English-Russian), or analyze East Asian politeness strategies (e.g., Japanese, Chinese). Fewer studies have covered Uzbek, although there is an emerging body of work on Central Asian languages, focusing on their morphological and cultural uniqueness (Husseinov, 2020; Muminov, 2015; Rasulov, 2019).

Research by Muminov (2015) provides one of the most thorough accounts of Uzbek politeness norms, examining morphological forms of address, culturally specific routines in greetings, compliments, and farewells. Meanwhile, cross-linguistic studies such as Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s (1989) seminal Cross-Cultural Pragmatics provide an essential framework for exploring speech act realizations across languages.

This article draws on these theoretical and empirical sources to offer a structured rhetorical analysis of English and Uzbek speech etiquette formulas.

Methodology

This study adopts a qualitative, comparative research design, drawing on data from recorded conversations, interviews, and existing corpora in both English and Uzbek. Since the central focus is on rhetoric and speech etiquette formulas, the qualitative approach allows for a nuanced exploration of context, usage, and underlying cultural norms (Dörnyei, 2007). The research is divided into three main phases:

1. Data Collection: Gathering authentic samples of speech etiquette formulas from naturally occurring conversations in English and Uzbek.
2. Data Analysis: Categorizing the formulas based on their pragmatic function (greetings, requests, compliments, apologies, etc.) and conducting a rhetorical analysis of these categories.
3. Comparative Synthesis: Identifying similarities and differences in rhetorical strategies, cultural values, and linguistic forms.

2. Data Collection

To capture a broad range of rhetorical contexts, data were sourced from the following:

• Transcribed Dialogues and Interviews: Thirty audio-recorded conversations (15 in English, 15 in Uzbek) conducted in informal (friends, family) and semi-formal (teacher-student, work colleagues) settings. Participants were voluntarily recruited from university communities in Tashkent and London.
• Publicly Available Corpora: Excerpts from the British National Corpus (BNC) for English and an online corpus of Uzbek maintained by the Uzbek Language and Literature Research Center in Tashkent.
• Literary Works and Media: Select passages from contemporary Uzbek literature (e.g., works by Abdulla Qodiriy) and English novels or news broadcasts to identify more traditional or formal instances of speech etiquette.

Data Analysis

A modified version of discourse analysis was used (Johnstone, 2018). First, each speech etiquette formula (e.g., “Hi,” “Good evening,” “Rahmat,” “Iltimos”) was identified and coded according to pragmatic function: greeting, parting, thanking, requesting, apologizing, complimenting, or congratulating. Next, each formula was examined for its rhetorical aspects – how it constructs relationships, persuades, or aligns with particular social roles. Finally, comparisons were drawn by looking at how frequently each formula appeared, in which contexts, and what rhetorical strategies they served.

Ethical Considerations

All participants provided informed consent, and personal details were anonymized. The study followed the ethical guidelines set by the Uzbek State World Languages University’s Department of Teaching English Methodology, ensuring confidentiality and respect for cultural sensitivities when translating or interpreting data.

Analysis

In English, the rhetorical function of greeting formulas often lies in quickly establishing a friendly or neutral rapport. Common greetings (“Hello,” “Hi,” “Good morning”) exhibit varying degrees of formality. For instance, “Hello, Mr. Smith” signals a formal setting and acknowledges Mr. Smith’s social or professional status. The rhetorical force behind such greetings is typically oriented toward courtesy and face-saving, ensuring that the interaction begins positively (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Title usage (Mr., Ms., Dr., Prof.) signifies both politeness and a degree of social distance or hierarchy.

Uzbek greetings, such as “Assalomu alaykum,” carry stronger religious and cultural connotations, directly translating to “Peace be upon you.” This formula is deeply rooted in Islamic tradition and emphasizes respect. Younger speakers greeting elders with “Salom, aka” (Hello, older brother) or “Salom, opa” (Hello, older sister) reflect social hierarchy based on age and gender (Muminov, 2015). Adding suffixes like “-jon” (dear) intensifies feelings of warmth and closeness. Thus, rhetorical power in Uzbek greetings is linked to communal values, solidarity, and respect for one’s elders.

Comparatively, while English greetings are straightforward and often revolve around formality vs. informality, Uzbek greetings incorporate hierarchical acknowledgments that reinforce communal norms. Rhetorically, the Uzbek system constructs an ethos of respect, while English fosters an ethos of equality, though titles maintain a sense of professional or social respect.

English requests frequently employ modal verbs – “Could you…?”, “Would you mind…?”, “Can I…?” – to soften impositions (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989). These rhetorical devices reduce directness and preserve the interlocutor’s negative face. Indirect requests, especially with mitigating phrases like “if it’s not too much trouble,” further enhance politeness. The rhetorical aspect involves balancing clarity with consideration: an excessively indirect request may be seen as ambiguous, while a direct request may be considered rude (Tannen, 1984).

In Uzbek, requests often rely on lexical or morphological markers indicating deference. The word “Iltimos” (please) is almost mandatory in polite requests, and second-person plural “Siz” underscores respect (Muminov, 2015). Expressions such as “Sizdan iltimos qilmoqchiman…” (I would like to request from you…) highlight the speaker’s lower position in the hierarchy or reflect the sincerity of the appeal. Rhetorically, Uzbek requests often include blessings or well-wishes, reflecting a collectivist cultural orientation where politeness extends into mutual well-being.

The difference in rhetorical force is notable. English speakers may emphasize personal freedom and autonomy, even in polite requests, while Uzbek speakers underscore relational bonds and mutual respect. The rhetorical function in Uzbek requests thus includes reaffirming cultural and communal norms each time a request is made.

Compliments in English typically center on appearance, ability, or achievements – “You look great today,” “Well done on the project!” (Wolfson, 1989). Rhetorically, they function as positive politeness strategies to reinforce social bonds. A typical response might be “Thank you” or a modest acknowledgement, though deflection or compliment return is also common. The rhetorical goal is to maintain a polite equilibrium, signaling neither arrogance nor undue humility (Leech, 2014).

In Uzbek culture, compliments often reflect collective values such as family well-being, hospitality, or moral character – “Mehmondo‘st ekaningiz juda yaxshi” (It’s wonderful how hospitable you are). Responses usually include expressions of humility or gratitude combined with a reciprocal blessing – “Rahmat, doim xizmatga tayyorman” (Thank you, I am always ready to serve). These rhetorical formulas reinforce communal ties and an ethos of shared well-being (Muminov, 2015). Comparing the two, English compliments may be more individualistic, focusing on personal achievements or attributes, whereas Uzbek compliments often extend to the collective – family, community, or moral values. The rhetorical dimension in Uzbek compliments thus transcends individual praise, aiming to fortify communal and familial bonds.

In English, apologies typically include “I’m sorry,” “I apologize,” or “Excuse me.” Elaborations might offer a brief explanation or take responsibility – “I’m sorry I was late; the traffic was terrible.” Rhetorically, apologies mitigate damage to the speaker’s face and restore relational harmony (Holmes, 2013). The depth of apology can vary from a casual “Sorry about that” for minor infractions to a more elaborate, formal statement for significant transgressions.

Uzbek apologies incorporate humility and a heightened sense of respect. Common formulas include “Kechirasiz” (Forgive me) or “Uzr so‘rayman” (I ask forgiveness). Age and social hierarchy again shape the rhetorical formula: when addressing an elder or someone of higher status, extended forms may include blessings or references to the listener’s generosity – “Kechirasiz, sizga boshimni egaman” (Forgive me, I bow my head to you). These expressions go beyond simple regret to display sincerity and a willingness to rectify social imbalance (Rasulov, 2019).

Thus, while both languages acknowledge wrongdoing and seek to repair social harmony, Uzbek apologies often carry a more elaborate rhetorical structure, invoking personal humility and appealing to the addressee’s magnanimity.

A key rhetorical dimension in both languages involves how speakers use titles and honorifics to position themselves and others in social space. In English, professional or academic titles – Doctor, Professor – are markers of respect but do not typically shift with the listener’s age or gender. In Uzbek, address forms such as “aka,” “opa,” “ota,” “ona,” “domla” (teacher), or “amir” (leader) and suffixes like “-jon” significantly shape rhetorical effect. They convey not only respect but also warmth, communal closeness, or moral appeal, aligning with cultural norms that emphasize family-like relationships within the community (Husseinov, 2020).

Discussion

The rhetorical dimension of speech etiquette formulas in English and Uzbek is deeply intertwined with each culture’s worldview. English-speaking contexts, especially those influenced by Anglo-American traditions, often prioritize directness balanced by politeness. This leads to formulas that show consideration for personal autonomy but maintain social distance or mitigate face threats through indirectness (Tannen, 1984). In Uzbek, collectivist ideals place strong emphasis on community, hierarchy, and respect, leading to speech formulas that explicitly maintain social harmony and hierarchy (Husseinov, 2020; Rasulov, 2019).

The findings highlight the importance of teaching not just grammatical and lexical aspects of a language, but also its rhetorical norms (Bachman & Palmer, 2010). For instance, Uzbek EFL learners might find English requests either too direct or too indirect if they apply Uzbek politeness norms uncritically. Conversely, native English speakers learning Uzbek should be aware of the deep cultural weight carried by certain address forms and the use of “Siz” vs. “Sen.” Teaching materials must therefore incorporate authentic speech etiquette samples, role-plays, and discussions of cultural context.

As globalization intensifies intercultural exchanges, pragmatic competence becomes crucial (House, 2015). Misunderstandings frequently arise if speakers transfer politeness norms from their native language inappropriately, leading to perceptions of rudeness or excessive formality. The rhetorical aspect – how politely or persuasively one addresses an audience – can build or undermine cross-cultural relationships. Integrative teaching programs that focus on cross-linguistic pragmatics, including speech etiquette, can substantially improve intercultural communication.

Conclusion

This study has examined speech etiquette formulas in English and Uzbek through a rhetorical lens, revealing how cultural values and linguistic resources converge to shape polite discourse. English relies heavily on modal auxiliaries, indirect requests, and relatively straightforward greetings to balance politeness and individual autonomy. Uzbek, by contrast, employs a rich system of morphological and lexical markers, often referencing communal values, hierarchy, and mutual well-being.

Rhetorically, these differences signal broader contrasts in worldview. English-speakers favor a strategy that acknowledges individual autonomy and minimal imposition, while Uzbek-speakers underscore collectivity, respect for elders, and elaborate expressions of goodwill. In practice, these distinctions emerge in greetings, requests, apologies, and compliments – speech acts that are foundational to social interaction.

For language educators, intercultural trainers, and communicators, an awareness of these rhetorical norms is indispensable. Mastery of grammar and vocabulary is only the first step; true communicative competence involves selecting the appropriate speech etiquette formulas to maintain or enhance social rapport across cultural contexts. As global interactions expand, understanding and respecting these nuanced rhetorical mechanisms in languages like English and Uzbek becomes both a scholarly pursuit and a practical necessity.