American Journal Of Philological Sciences
136
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
136-143
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-38
The Role Of The Discussion Speech Type In Stylistic
Variants Of Speech
I. Akhmadjonov
Senior Lecturer, Fergana State University, Uzbekistan
A. Dadadjonov
Lecturer, Fergana State University, Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
17 June 2025
Abstract:
Stylistics, a subfield of linguistics, explores how language elements function across different contexts
and purposes. This study examines the “discussion” type of speech within two contrasting functional styles –
scientific (academic) and colloquial (everyday) discourse
–
with a focus on the Uzbek language. Drawing on
examples and a functional stylistic framework, we analyze how phonetic, lexical, and grammatical choices adapt
to context and communicative goals in each style. In scientific discussion, argumentation is typically structured,
objective, and terminology-rich, aiming for clarity and precision. In colloquial discussion, by contrast,
expressiveness and interpersonal engagement are prominent, with informal phrasing and emotive language
shaping the discourse. In particular, Uzbek academic discussions employ precise technical terms and carefully
structured explanations, whereas everyday discussions use informal language, interactive dialogue, and context-
dependent reasoning. The literature review synthesizes theories of functional styles and stylistic markers, while
the methodology combines discourse analysis and comparative stylistics to systematically contrast the two styles.
Findings highlight a distinct stylistic typology: scientific discussions prioritize logical argumentation, specialized
terminology, and clarity, whereas colloquial discussions emphasize expressiveness, common vocabulary, and
pragmatic flexibility. These insights contribute to functional stylistics and pragmatics, illustrating how
communicative context drives stylistic adaptation in Uzbek and offering broader implications for comparative
stylistic studies across languages.
Keywords:
Stylistics; functional styles; scientific discourse; colloquial speech; discussion genre; argumentation;
expressiveness; pragmatic adaptation; uzbek language; discourse analysis.
Introduction:
Stylistics is broadly defined as the study
of style in language, focusing on how linguistic choices
vary with context and communicative purpose. It
examines how different levels of language
–
from
sounds and words to syntax and discourse structure
–
are employed to achieve specific effects and functions.
A key concern in stylistics is understanding how context
and purpose shape the use of phonetic, lexical, and
grammatical units in speech. One important area of
inquiry is functional stylistics, which classifies language
into functional styles according to social context and
communicative aim. A functional style is commonly
defined as “a system of interrelated language means
serving
a
definite
aim
in
communication”dinintohead.blogspot.com, reflecting
a structured set of linguistic features tailored to a
particular sphere of use. For example, scientific writing,
casual conversation, legal documents, and journalistic
articles each represent distinct functional styles with
their own norms.
Within this framework, the present study gives special
attention to the discussion type of speech across two
markedly different functional styles: the scientific
(academic) style and the colloquial (everyday spoken)
style. By “discussion speech type,” we refer to
discourse that involves exchange of arguments,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
137
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
reasoning, or explanation
–
such as a debate, a
scientific discussion section, or a conversational
deliberation on a topic. This form of discourse is
ubiquitous, but its stylistic realization can differ
drastically depending on whether it occurs in a formal
academic context or an informal everyday setting. In a
scientific discussion (for instance, in a research article
or scholarly debate), the language typically prioritizes
logical argumentation, clarity, and precision. In a
colloquial discussion (such as friends debating an issue
or informal online forums), the language may prioritize
interpersonal expressiveness, spontaneity, and clarity
tailored to immediate context rather than strict logical
structure.
Understanding these differences is important for both
theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, it sheds
light on how communicative purpose and audience
influence stylistic choices, enriching our knowledge of
linguistic variability. Practically, insights into stylistic
adaptation inform fields like language education, cross-
cultural communication, and translation
–
for example,
knowing how an idea is expressed differently in
academic prose versus casual speech can aid
translators and language learners. Uzbek language
provides a compelling case for this analysis, as it has
well-established functional styles in its literary standard
and offers clear contrasts between formal and informal
usage. Although Uzbek linguists have documented the
main functional styles of the language (scientific,
official, journalistic, colloquial, literary), there remains
a need for deeper comparative analysis of how specific
discourse types (like discussions) operate across these
styles. Previous research has noted the lack of detailed
studies contrasting the lexical, morphological, and
syntactic characteristics of each functional style in
Uzbek and how they correspond to other languages’
styles. This article aims to fill part of that gap by
examining the stylistic markers and communicative
characteristics of discussion discourse in scientific vs.
colloquial contexts, using examples from Uzbek. We
seek
to
characterize
how
argumentation,
expressiveness, and clarity are realized in each style,
and what this reveals about functional stylistic norms
and pragmatic adaptation in language.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Linguistic
style
varies
systematically
with
communicative function and context. Building on early
stylistic theorists and modern pragmatic linguistics,
functional stylistics posits that each major sphere of
communication develops its own style, complete with
characteristic features at all language levels. Classic
classifications identify five primary functional styles:
scientific (academic) style, official (bureaucratic) style,
journalistic
(publicistic)
style,
conversational
(colloquial) style, and literary (fictional or artistic) style.
Each of these is recognized as an “independent whole”
with
internal
unity
of
language
meansdinintohead.blogspot.com, yet also as part of a
broader literary language system. Importantly, styles
are not rigid compartments; they are shaped by
historical development and social needs, and often
blend or subdivide into sub-styles (e.g. technical vs.
popular scientific sub-styles).
A functional style is characterized by a constellation of
stylistic markers
–
recurring linguistic features that
signal its identity. These markers span phonetics (e.g.
intonation patterns, pronunciation), lexicon (choice of
words, terminology, colloquialisms), morphology (word
forms, use of contractions or formal suffixes), syntax
(sentence length and complexity, preferred structures),
and textual or discourse structure. For instance, the
abundant use of specialized terminology and a formally
logical
tone
are
hallmarks
of
scientific
prosedinintohead.blogspot.com. In contrast, frequent
use of interjections, slang or idiomatic phrases, and
elliptical sentence structures might mark colloquial
conversational style. Functional styles also differ in
what linguistic elements they permit or favor, as well as
the frequency with which certain features appear. A
technical term or complex sentence might occasionally
surface in colloquial speech, but such elements occur
far more frequently and systematically in scientific
communication. Conversely, informal simplifications or
expressive emphatics (e.g. repetitive words, hyperbolic
slang) are pervasive in casual talk but rare in a scholarly
article.
Scientific (academic) style has been extensively
described in stylistics literature. Its communicative aim
is to convey information and reasoning with maximum
clarity, precision, and objectivity. As such, scientific
discourse employs a neutral or impersonal tone, careful
logical organization, and explicit argumentation
structure. Common stylistic features include an
abundance of technical terms, abstract vocabulary, and
nominalizations, which help achieve precision in
referencedinintohead.blogspot.com.
Syntactically,
scientific writing often favors complex sentences that
carefully articulate cause and effect or conditional
relations, though always with an emphasis on
coherence and unambiguity. Scientific texts share core
characteristics such as precision and objectivity (to
ensure clarity), logical structure (ideas presented
systematically), conciseness and coherence (to
minimize ambiguity), and terminological consistency
(use of agreed specialized terms). In other words,
scientific
style
is
optimized
for
transparent
communication
of
complex
ideas;
emotional
expression or rhetorical flourish is minimized, as these
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
138
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
could compromise clarity or objectivity. Even in spoken
academic discussions or debates, participants tend to
adhere to a formal register, carefully defined terms,
and rational turn-taking, aligning with what is expected
in the “scientific” functional style.
By contrast, conversational colloquial style serves
everyday social interaction, where the goals often
include personal expression, social bonding, or quick
exchange of information in context. Colloquial
discourse is typically spontaneous and dynamic,
adapting in real-time to the immediate communicative
environment. This style is characterized by a more
relaxed observance of grammatical rules and a
tolerance for ambiguity that can be resolved by shared
context or background knowledge. Linguistic studies
note that colloquial speech commonly exhibits strong
emotional coloring and a loose syntactic organization
of utterances. Speakers frequently use intonation, non-
verbal cues, and interactive discourse markers (e.g.
“well…”, “you know?”, fillers like “um”) to structure
their speech, rather than the explicit cohesive devices
seen in writing. Lexically, colloquial style favors
everyday vocabulary including slang, contractions, and
idiomatic expressions; specialized terms are rare, and if
used, they may be simplified or explained for the
layperson. Sentences in conversation tend to be
shorter, often fragmentary or coordinated rather than
subordinated, reflecting real-time processing and turn-
taking. It is also rich in pragmatically driven ellipsis
(omitting understood words) and repetition for
emphasis or clarification. These features give colloquial
discussions an expressive, engaging quality, but can
also make them context-dependent
–
meaning is
heavily reliant on the situation and shared knowledge.
From a pragmatic perspective, the differences between
scientific and colloquial discussion styles represent the
adaptation of language to different communicative
contexts and purposes. Pragmatics scholars like
Verschueren emphasize that language use involves
continuous choice-making to suit context, with
speakers selecting expressions that meet their
communicative needs and “achieve the ideal effects” in
a given situationacademypublication.com. In an
academic debate or a journal article discussion, the
speaker/writer chooses precise words, formal tone,
and logical structure because the context demands
credibility, clarity, and persuasiveness in an intellectual
sense. In an informal discussion among peers, the
speaker opts for relatable language, emotional appeal,
and interactive cues, because the goals include
persuasion at a personal level, maintaining social
harmony, or simply being engaging. The concept of
pragmatic adaptation thus underlies functional
stylistics: style is not just a set of abstract conventions
but a pragmatic response to the communicative
environment. Uzbek linguistic tradition, influenced by
both Russian and local scholarship, similarly views
functional styles as pragmatic realizations of the
language’s potential, shaped by audience and setting
(for example, formal Uzbek vs. everyday Uzbek
speech)dinintohead.blogspot.com.
Notably, prior studies in Uzbek stylistics have begun to
catalog these stylistic distinctions. Shomaqsudov and
colleagues’ work “Uzbek Language Stylistics” provides
an overview of the functional styles in Uzbek and their
general features. Other recent works have analyzed
specific styles (e.g. official style or scientific style in
Uzbek) in terms of vocabulary and grammar. However,
detailed comparative studies of how a particular
discourse genre (like discussion/argumentative speech)
manifests across different styles remain limited. This
literature review highlights that scientific and colloquial
styles are almost polar opposites in many respects
–
one striving for explicit logical clarity, the other valuing
expressiveness and implicit understanding
–
yet both
are legitimate and effective in their domains. This
dichotomy sets the stage for our analysis of the
“discussion” speech type: by examining examples from
each style, we can identify concretely which linguistic
strategies are employed to fulfill the distinct
communicative aims in scholarly versus everyday
discussions.
METHODS AND METHODOLOGY
This research adopts a qualitative comparative
methodology grounded in functional stylistic analysis
and discourse analysis. Our approach involves several
steps. First, we collected representative samples of
“discussion” discourse in both scientific and colloquial
contexts in the Uzbek language. For the scientific style,
excerpts were drawn from academic texts (e.g. the
discussion sections of Uzbek research articles,
transcripts of scholarly debates, or scientific
monologues) that demonstrate argumentation and
explanation. For the colloquial style, we used
transcriptions
of
informal
conversations
and
discussions in Uzbek (such as dialogues from
interviews, casual debates on everyday topics, or
conversational exchanges in media and social settings).
The selection of samples ensured that each contained
elements of argumentative or explanatory speech
–
for
example, a speaker presenting reasons or evidence,
reacting to another’s point, or clarifying a concept –
so
that
the
core
discourse
function
(discussion/argumentation) was present in both
datasets.
Once the data were gathered, we applied a functional
stylistic analysis: we examined the linguistic features of
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
139
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
each sample at multiple levels (phonological, lexical,
grammatical, and discourse-structural) to identify
stylistic markers. Following standard stylistic analysis
procedures, we looked for patterns such as
terminology density, sentence complexity, use of
passive vs. active voice, presence of colloquial
expressions, and any phonetic phenomena (like sound
reductions or emphatic intonation in speech). For each
feature, we noted whether it appeared in the scientific
sample, the colloquial sample, or both, and in what
frequency or form.
In parallel, a discourse analysis was conducted to
understand how context and purpose influence the
structure and content of the discussions. This involved
examining the role of the participants (e.g. expert-to-
expert vs. friends chatting), the degree of interactivity
(monologic explanation vs. rapid turn-taking), and the
implicit vs. explicit nature of the communication. We
paid special attention to pragmatic features
–
for
instance, how speakers managed clarity or ambiguity,
how they signaled logical connections or contrasts
(with words like “therefore,” “however” in academic
Uzbek vs. more implicit cues in conversation), and how
they used or avoided emotional appeals.
A comparative method was then used to directly
juxtapose the findings from the two styles. We created
a matrix of stylistic features and noted their realization
in scientific vs. colloquial discussions. This allowed us to
systematically contrast elements such as:
•
Argumentation structure: Are points made
through explicit logical reasoning (syllogisms,
structured arguments) or through narratives and
examples? How is disagreement or agreement signaled
in each style?
•
Expressive elements: What emotive or
evaluative language appears (e.g. intensifiers,
exclamations, humor), and is it deemed appropriate or
is it toned down?
•
Clarity and explicitness: Do speakers elaborate
definitions and background (more likely in scientific
discourse for precision) or rely on shared context and
implied meaning (common in casual talk)?
•
Terminology and diction: Does the discourse
use field-specific terms or prefer general vocabulary
and metaphors?
•
Syntax and cohesion: Does it use formally
cohesive devices (conjunctions, structured paragraphs)
or
informal
cohesion
(repetition,
parallelism,
intonation)?
Throughout the analysis, we referenced established
stylistic theories (as reviewed above) to interpret how
each observed feature contributes to the overall style.
For example, if an Uzbek academic discussion excerpt
showed minimal use of first-person pronouns and a
prevalence of impersonal constructions, we related this
to the stylistic norm of objectivity in scientific style. If
an informal conversation sample showed code-
switching or Russian loanwords for effect, we
considered the sociolinguistic context and the
speaker’s pragmatic intent. The comparative analysis
was thus both descriptive and interpretative, aiming
not only to catalogue differences, but also to explain
why those differences serve the communicative goals
of each style.
Ensuring reliability in this qualitative analysis involved
cross-checking observations with multiple examples
and, where possible, consulting native speaker
judgments. The methodology, anchored in functional
stylistic theory and pragmatic discourse analysis, allows
us to draw out a nuanced picture of discussion speech
as it adapts to two divergent stylistic domains in Uzbek.
The main part
Stylistics is a branch of linguistics that examines the
laws governing the use of linguistic phenomena in
speech
according
to
purpose,
context,
and
communicative environment. It introduces how
language elements are employed in a way that is
appropriate to the communicative situation. Within
stylistics, the use of language styles, the application of
linguistic means in discourse, and the features of
phonetic, lexical, phraseological, and grammatical units
are systematically studied.
Stylistics (uslubshunoslik) is considered a relatively new
area within Uzbek linguistics. It focuses on how
language units function as means of communication
across different fields and situational contexts.
Stylistics explores the regularities of speech
organization and investigates how all levels of language
–
phonetic, lexical, and grammatical
–
are used in
speech to convey nuanced meanings. Stylistics has
been defined as follows: “Stylistics is the discipline that
determines how all existing means of language
–
lexical, grammatical, and phonetic
–
should be
employed in speech. It recommends which type of
form, word, or construction is most suitable and
effective in a given communicative context. It
establishes linguistic norms and identifies the means
appropriate for various stylistic layers of discourse.
Accordingly, stylistics is an independent science that
studies the art of expression and the tools of linguistic
representation” .
The correlation between oral and written forms of
speech varies depending on the communicative
context and the specific functional style being used. As
is well known, the primary types of speech styles
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
140
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
include colloquial, publicistic, artistic, scientific, and
official styles. Among these, the colloquial style is
mainly realized in spoken form, which distinguishes it
from other styles. Both the literary colloquial and non-
literary colloquial subtypes of this style typically
manifest in oral communication. The literary colloquial
style dominates everyday interpersonal interaction.
Even when colloquial speech is transferred into written
form, its core features are generally preserved.
In colloquial style, discussion (or argumentative
discourse) is expressed in a distinctive manner, as
people frequently engage in active debate in daily life.
The non-literary colloquial style, in particular, is rich in
such dialogic exchanges. As a functional style,
colloquial speech is largely free from the strict norms of
the standard literary language and is characterized by
flexibility and spontaneity.
However, the discussion speech type under
investigation in this study differs from casual colloquial
debate in its structure and function. While still drawing
from colloquial elements, discussion in this context
assumes a more monologic form, where the speaker
reflects on ideas through an internal dialogue.
Therefore, the discussion speech type develops in a
unique stylistic form, distinct from everyday
argumentation and more structured in intent and
delivery.
In colloquial speech, discussions often remain
incomplete or open-ended. While the discussion type
of speech typically includes elements such as opinion,
comparison, and evaluation, it frequently lacks an
explicit judgment. In many cases, the judgment is
implied rather than directly stated, or it is left to the
listener’s inter
pretation.
Each speech type develops specific features depending
on the functional style in which it is realized. In
colloquial
style,
features
such
as
elliptical
constructions, lack of lexical precision, and brevity
significantly influence the formation of discussion-
based speech. In this style, conclusions and judgments
are rarely verbalized explicitly within the discourse but
are instead inferred from the context.
By contrast, the scientific style represents a functional
style primarily associated with academic, technical, and
research-based communication. In this register, every
concept, object, or phenomenon is clearly defined and
explained. Scientific style is distinguished by its
specialized communicative function and relies heavily
on precise terminology. While technical terms form the
core of scientific lexicon, scientific discourse also
employs a wide range of abstract vocabulary and
polysemous words from the general language.
Additionally, the scientific style often incorporates
symbols, formulas, and numerical data, especially in
disciplines
related
to
mathematics,
physics,
engineering, and other empirical sciences. The
precision, clarity, and objectivity of expression are the
hallmarks of this style, setting it apart from colloquial
and expressive forms of communication .
In scientific style, the method of expressing thought
differs significantly from that of literary or colloquial
discourse. When compared with these other speech
styles, the distinctions become even more evident.
Scientific texts reflect objective truth through logical
reasoning and coherent argumentation. For this
reason, scientific literature is characterized, from
beginning to end, by a process of discussion and
evidence-based justification. These features are
reflected not only at the stylistic level but also in the
formation of speech structure itself.
The characteristics of scientific style shape the overall
development of speech and define the typological
attributes of the text. In turn, this distinguishes the
discussion type of speech as it appears in scientific
discourse from its manifestations in other functional
styles. Among all the functional styles, the scientific
style is considered one of the most actively engaged in
using the discussion type of speech.
Scientific style is based on reasoned conclusions
supported by factual data, relies on the discipline-
specific terminology of each academic field, and
presents ideas in a clear, precise, and logically
consistent manner. Thus, the incorporation of
discussion into this style occurs in a distinct and
specialized form.
This is evident in the inclusion of core discussion
elements such as: strict adherence to the topic of
discussion, concise and straightforward expression of
ideas, avoidance of unnecessary lyrical or emotional
digressions, the provision of relevant evidence and
arguments presented clearly and succinctly.
These features naturally create ample space for the
discussion speech type within the scientific style. The
following examples will illustrate how such elements
are integrated into academic discourse.
Sometimes the word “mirshikor” is used as “mirishkor”.
However, the correct form of this is “mirshikor”, which
is formed from the words “mir” and “shikor”. “Shikor”
means hunting, and “mir” is the “mir” in the words
“mirob” and “mirshab” and means “a gap like an amir”.
In fact, “mir” is a shortened form of the word “amir”.
The lexical meaning of “amir” is “commander”.
“Mirshab” refers to the head of the night watchmen,
“mirob” to the watermen, and “mirshikor” to the
hunters. It is not correct to use the word “mirshikor” as
“mirishkor dehqon” in relation to farmers. The reason
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
141
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
for the appearance of the expression “mirishkor
dehqon” in the speech of some people is a
misunderstanding of the second part of the word
“mirshikor”.
(From the book “A Word About Words” by A.
Rustamov)
This example belongs to the discussion text and is
typical of the scientific style in terms of style. If we pay
attention to the words used in the text, it discusses in
detail the lexical meaning of the word "mirshikor",
which is often used from the words specific to
linguistics. In this example, the elements specific to
discussion, namely scientific foundations, how to use
them, evidence are presented, compared, contrasted,
and a clear conclusion is given at the end of the text.
Unlike the conversational style, a complete discussion
is formed in this style. The signs of the object being
discussed are clearly indicated. The facts and evidence
that are the basis for the discussion are listed, and the
conclusion is fully expressed. In the above passage, the
words "mirshikor" and "mirishkor" are compared to
each other for the basis for making a judgment. To
substantiate his opinion, the author cites words such as
"mir", "shikar", "amir", "Mirshab", "mirab" and the
forms that form the basis for the formation of words.
The official style is a style of speech that is
characteristic of the written official form of the literary
language, has a certain speech pattern, and has firmly
established forms. This style is used in diplomatic
relations between statesmen, in official business
processes of offices, enterprises, and institutions, and
in business papers of individuals, such as applications,
receipts, and letters of credence .
Since the formal style is based on a lot of clarity and
brevity, it is difficult to find examples from working
papers that are specific to the discussion text.
A style of speech that figuratively expresses a certain
reality through artistic means and thus has an aesthetic
effect on the listener is considered an artistic style.
Figurativeness and aesthetic effect are important
features of an artistic style .
The style of the mass media is considered to be a
journalistic style. An important feature of this style is
the provision of information and influence, simplicity,
clarity, expressiveness, strict adherence to the norms
of the literary language. There are also oral and written
forms of the journalistic style. The radio and television
style is characteristic of the oral form of the journalistic
style, and the newspaper and magazine style is
characteristic of the written form .
The levels of the scientific style include such features as
accuracy, objectivity, logical consistency, neutrality,
brevity and completeness, which are often visible in the
linguistic structure of a scientific text. These features of
the scientific style also affect the formation of speech.
In themselves, they also determine the generalization
of the typological features of speech. This, in turn,
distinguishes discussion speech and its manifestation in
the scientific style from its manifestation in other
styles. The scientific style is one of the most actively
used speech styles. Because in this style, the elements
of discussion are considered: not to deviate from the
topic of discussion, to express the idea concisely,
simply, not to indulge in excessive lyrical digressions, to
clearly and concisely express arguments and proofs
that are consistent with the idea. In conclusion, the
discussion type of speech in speech styles is quite
complex and manifests itself in various forms. In
scientific and artistic styles, discussion speech is most
actively used. In other styles, the use of discussion
speech is limited.
CONCLUSION
Our comparative stylistic analysis of discussion-type
discourse in scientific versus colloquial styles has
revealed a clear typology of communicative strategies
corresponding to each functional style. In the scientific
style discussions, whether in written articles or formal
debates, the language is characterized by structured
argumentation, explicit reasoning, and a neutral tone
aimed at clarity and precision. Uzbek scientific
discourse, much like its English counterpart, employs
specialized terminology and carefully delineated logical
links to ensure that each point is unambiguous and
evidence-based. The speaker or writer often
suppresses personal emotive expression in favor of
objective presentation, using impersonal constructions
and formal vocabulary. The result is a discussion that is
informative and persuasive on a rational level, with
stylistic markers such as frequent technical terms, long
complex sentences with subordinate clauses, and
standardized rhetorical moves (e.g. stating a
hypothesis, providing data, drawing a conclusion).
These features align with the functional goal of
scientific communication: to argue or explain in a
manner that is transparent and verifiable. Even when
debates occur orally in academic settings, participants
adhere to a polite, measured register; interruptions or
exclamations are minimized, and turns are signaled in a
controlled way, reflecting the influence of written
scholarly norms on spoken scientific Uzbek.
In contrast, colloquial style discussions in Uzbek display
a
distinctly
different
set
of
communicative
characteristics. Here, expressiveness and interpersonal
engagement come to the forefront. Discussions among
friends, family, or peers
–
whether face-to-face or in
casual online forums
–
often feature animated
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
142
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
intonation, interjections, and a fluid, sometimes
fragmentary syntax. Arguments in this context may not
be laid out as systematically; instead, they are
interwoven with anecdotes, humor, or emotive appeals
that resonate with the listeners’ personal experiences.
We observed that colloquial discussions tolerate and
even expect a degree of redundancy and implicit
meaning. For example, a speaker might repeat a key
phrase for emphasis or rely on a shared understanding
to skip over formal definitions. The language is replete
with everyday words, and when specialized terms or
foreign borrowings are used, they are frequently
adapted or accompanied by explanation in simpler
words. Such conversations show pragmatic flexibility
–
speakers easily shift styles or registers (code-switching
between formal and informal phrases) to adjust to the
tone of the moment. Misunderstandings are often
resolved interactively through clarifications (“You
mean…?”) rather than preven
ted by preemptive
explicitness. These traits correspond to the social
function of colloquial discussions: to persuade or
inform in a relatable way, to strengthen social bonds,
and to navigate real-time feedback from interlocutors.
Overall, the study unders
cores that “discussion” as a
speech genre is not monolithic; its stylistic realization is
deeply context-dependent. The scientific and colloquial
styles in Uzbek form two ends of a spectrum: one end
being maximally explicit, formal, and information-
centric, and the other being implicit, informal, and
interaction-centric. This typology confirms general
stylistic theory while providing specific insights into the
Uzbek context. It highlights how the same underlying
communicative function
–
exchanging ideas and
arguments
–
is achieved through different balances of
linguistic resources. In scientific discussions, success is
measured by clarity and cogency of argument, whereas
in colloquial discussions, it is measured by rapport,
persuasiveness, and clarity as negotiated within the
interaction.
From a broader perspective, our findings illustrate the
principle of functional adequacy in language: effective
communication requires that style be tuned to context
and purpose. The Uzbek examples demonstrate
pragmatic adaptation in action: speakers modulate not
only vocabulary and grammar but also discourse
strategies to fit the communicative setting. This has
practical implications. For language educators,
teaching students the differences between these styles
can improve their ability to shift registers appropriately
–
for instance, to avoid an overly casual tone in
academic writing or to make a formal presentation
more engaging by borrowing some communicative
techniques (minus informality) from colloquial style.
For translators and cross-cultural communicators,
awareness of these stylistic nuances is crucial;
translating a discussion text requires not just linguistic
equivalence but also stylistic equivalence, preserving
the level of formality and manner of argumentation
suitable to the genre.
In conclusion, stylistics as a discipline provides valuable
tools to dissect how a language like Uzbek operates
across different functional realms. By focusing on the
discussion speech type across scientific and colloquial
styles, this study contributes to both the theory of
functional stylistic typology and the practical
understanding of discourse in context. It reaffirms that
linguistic units
–
sounds, words, syntax
–
do not carry
inherent style, but acquire stylistic weight through
usage in particular communicative environments. The
clarity of a scientific argument and the expressiveness
of a friendly debate are both achievements of
appropriate stylistic choices. Future research may
extend this comparative approach to other speech
genres (such as narrative or instructional speech) and
other languages, further illuminating the interplay
between style, function, and communication.
REFERENCES
Сaлтaнoвa
Ю.Н.
Спeцификa
рaссyждeния
в
хyдoжeствeннoм тeкстe. Дисс. кaнд. фил. нayк. –
Москва:
2008.
–
C. 72
Kasimova M. Artistic speech Linguistic features of
individuality.- Andijan , NDA.
Dadajonov, A., & Xojaliyev, I. (2024). MUHOKAMA
NUTQ TIPINING TIL TIZIMIDA TUTGAN O ‘RNI. Farg'ona
davlat universiteti, (6), 158-158.
Dadajonov, A. (2025). MUHOKAMA NUTQ TIPINING
ILMIY USLUBDAGI O ‘RNI. " Issues of Turkish Philology",
1(1).
Semino, E. & Culpeper, J. (2011). Stylistics. In J.-O.
Östman & J. Verschueren (eds.), Pragmatics in Practice.
John Benjamins.
–
“Stylistics is the study of style in
language
… Its focus is the way in which language varies
under the influence of factors such as context, purpose,
author and period” researchgate.net.
Galperin, I.R. (1977). Stylistics. Moscow.
–
“Functional
Style is a system of interrelated language means serving
a definite aim in communication. It is the coordination
of the language means and stylistic devices which
shapes
the
distinctive
features
of
each
style”dinintohead.blogspot.com.
Mukammal U. Kosimova (2022). “The characteristics of
scientific style.” Academ
icia 12(05): 931-933.
–
Functional styles are “subsystems of language, each
subsystem having its own peculiar features in
vocabulary, syntax, and even phonetics,” differing by
the frequency of certain elements; e.g., a technical
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
143
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
term may appear in colloquial speech, but far less often
than in scientific text academia.edu.
Eshonkulova, D. (2020). Uzbek Language Stylistics
(transl. of Shomaqsudov et al.).
–
Identifies Uzbek
functional styles analogous to English (scientific,
official, publicistic, colloquial, literary)zienjournals.com
and notes a lack of detailed comparative studies of
these styles’ linguistic features academia.edu.
Rakhmanberdieva, M. (2019). “Colloquial Style in
Modern Uzbek.” Journal of Linguistics 5(2): 115
-127.
–
Colloquial
Uzbek
is
marked
by
emotional
expressiveness and syntactic looseness, with strong
intonation and frequent ellipsis in spontaneous
conversations studfile.net.
Sobirova, N. (2023). “Pragmatic Adaptation in Uzbek
-
English Translation.” Translational Pragmatics 14(1):
50-58.
