GENDER, TONE, AND INTERTEXTUALITY IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP DIRECTIVES
Jild 4 son 22 (2025): Innovative research in the modern world: theory and practice 94-97
Annotatsiya
This study looks at directive speech acts employed by university administrators in Uzbekistan and English-speaking countries, going deeper into contextual, gendered, and strategic elements beyond syntactic and lexical realization. While directives fulfil institutional functions, their structure and wording reflect subtle sociocultural norms, leadership ethos, and institutional expectations. This paper uses speech act theory, politeness theory, and leadership discourse frameworks to examine not just modality and directness, but also prosodic signals, intertextuality, genre sensitivity, and leadership positioning in written and spoken academic communication. The findings point to modest distinctions in communicative authority, rhetorical style, and interpersonal dynamics that influence how rectors, deans, and chairs lead through language. It also takes into account gender patterns and emotional tone while issuing orders. The findings have implications for intercultural competency, leadership development, and applied discourse pedagogy in higher education.
Kalit soʻzlar:
Iqtiboslar
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). Managing Language: The Discourse of Corporate Meetings. John Benjamins.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Coates, J. (2015). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. Routledge.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil There? The Structure of Some American English Directives. Language in Society, 5(1), 25–66.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. Sage.
Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Gender Identity through Workplace Discourse. Wiley-Blackwell.
House, J. (2005). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness Theory and Relational Work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9–33.
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (1999). Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings. Mouton de Gruyter.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. Continuum.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of Discourse. Longman.
Oʻquvchilar geografiyasi
Nashr qilingan
Son
Boʻlim
Iqtibos keltirish tartibi
