Uzbekistan state world languages university translation faculty the english applied translation department

The conclusion
In the present work I have considered and analyzed the main concepts and questions concerning the problems of notions ‘discourse analyses and ‘speech acts and speech events’.
We see discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the mental world of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world. Particular aspects of the world may be represented differently, so we are generally in the position of having to consider the relationship between different discourses. Different discourses are different perspectives on the world, and they are associated with the different relations people have to the world, which in turn depends on their positions in the world, their social and personal identities, and the social relationships in which they stand to other people. Discourses not only represent the world as it is (or rather is seen to be), they are also projective, imaginaries, representing possible worlds which are different from the actual world, and tied in to projects to change the world in particular directions. The relationships between different discourses are one element of the relationships between different people they may complement one another, compete with one another, one can dominate others, and so forth. Discourses constitute part of the resources which people deploy in relating to one another keeping separate from one another, cooperating, competing, and dominating and in seeking to change the ways in which they relate to one another.
To conclude, as is evident from the work presented, the nature and structure of the discourse analysis and speech act are complex due to the interrelationships among the par­ticipants and their aims, their expectations and assumptions, the ways in which meaning emerges, and the way participants represent those mean­ings in their languages. Studying discourse, its phenomena and speech event among and between the participants and the interpreter explicates how the inter­preting process works and how the interpreter works within it.
One of the aims of the graduation work was to provide a pragmatic contrastive analysis of the realization of Speech Act of Requesting in English and Uzbek. The aforementioned comparative study was carried out with respect to the level of directness of a request, and request modification strategies (both internal and external). The model proposed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) has been very helpful in coding the data and spotting the differences between the two language groups. The question that remains the most difficult to answer is the nature of such differences. It seems that politeness theory, in its present form, is not enough to explain such differences, since they seem less from universal norms of politeness but more form culture-specific values and attitudes. Understanding these values and attitudes is essential to understand the use of a particular language.
In the light of the present findings on requests in the two compared languages, I could claim that indirectness always motivates politeness does not hold true for language users coming from different speech communities, and thus should be treated with some reservation. It holds for English requests, where conventionally indirect request strategies appear very frequently, but not for their Uzbek equivalents, where direct request strategies (i.e. imperatives) function as the preferred, socially and culturally acceptable request strategies in some situations. The choice of direct strategies by Uzbeks is motivated by cultural values, i.e. power distance. The large power distance of the Uzbek culture results in using imperatives in situations characterized by lack of familiarity (e.g. service encounters). On the other hand, imperatives can be also employed in situations where there is no power distance (e.g. among friends and family members), especially if associated with easiness of the task and a pre-agreement to comply with the request. This is so because Uzbek allows combining directness with warmth- and friendliness-devices.
Contrary to Uzbek, English does not allow request in the form of imperatives to
such a great extent. This might be due to the fact that imperative and infinitive forms are identical in English, which enhances the illocutionary force of imperatives making them sound like orders rather than requests.
Cultural differences in the use of linguistic forms also revealed that the level of family collectivism seems to be lower in England than in Uzbekistan.
The present analysis focuses on the request realizations of situations in English and Uzbek. It should be remembered that it does not cover all the aspects of request realization in the two languages in question. As has been mentioned before, more research is needed before generalizations can be made about the nature of English and Uzbek.
Such research ought to employ varying data elicitation tools, ideally those by means of which naturally-occurring material can be obtained.
Not withstanding the aforementioned limitations, the findings of the current study of the language use in English and Uzbek adds to the research on contrastive analysis of speech act realization and politeness formulas in the two language communities.
The second chapter expands on the research in the field of contrastive analysis by examining the strategies used by English and Uzbek speakers when requesting a service or asking permission to carry out some action. The analysis focuses on the head act strategies employed and on the quantity and kinds of internal and external modification found in English and Uzbek. The empirical material for this study comes from the analysis of responses to questionnaires. The findings of the present study will provide useful data for describing English and Uzbek language use in different contexts. The results may also be used to show cross-cultural differences in requests realization strategies. The findings may not only contribute to research on speech act realization but also on politeness. In addition, the importance of such studies for foreign language learning is obvious.
Without doubt, speakers of a particular foreign language face a difficult task while learning the appropriate ways of expressing language functions. Speech acts differ cross-culturally in their distribution, function and frequency of occurrence in a particular context.
Thus, it is necessary for the foreign language users to be conscious of similarities and differences between their native language and a foreign language.