European International Journal of Pedagogics
92
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
92-95
DOI
3
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
09 March 2025
ACCEPTED
05 April 2025
PUBLISHED
08 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Lexical Characteristics of
English Agroagrotourism
Discourse
Mamadaliyeva Moxizarxon
Doctoral student of the Practical English Department, Fergana State
University, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
Agrotourism has become a global
phenomenon in our time, affecting many areas of
human life, in particular, communication. In this regard,
an independent form of linguistic activity has emerged,
the so-called tourist discourse. However, due to its
diverse genres and close relationship with other types
of discourse, it is still insufficiently studied.
This study examines the linguistic features of the
English-language tourist discourse based on tour
descriptions. In the theoretical part, the central
concepts such as “discourse” and “agrotourist
discourse” are explained, the typological place of this
type of discourse is determined and its characteristic
features are revealed.
The practical part of the study is devoted to the analysis
of the linguistic design of English-language tour
descriptions at the lexical and morphological level. The
analysis showed that proper names (such as the name
of a village, city, person, rural life and brand), as well as
descriptive epithets, are often used at the lexical level.
Metaphorical
expressions,
idioms,
neologisms,
ambiguous words, homonyms, and emotionally charged
vocabulary are less common.
At the morphological level, the frequent use of
compound adjectives and superlatives was particularly
noticeable. In addition, abbreviations and morphemes
formed by numbers are often used in tour descriptions.
Methods such as analysis, classification, and discourse
analysis were used to solve research issues. The results
of the study give an idea of the current state of the
tourism discourse and clarify its pragmatic potential in
terms of the use of linguistic means.
Keywords:
Linguistic features, discourse, agrotourism
discourse.
Introduction:
Currently, the agrotourism industry is an
European International Journal of Pedagogics
93
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
intensively developing area. Today, human life cannot
be imagined without traveling in one’s native country
and abroad. However, tourism and the agrotourism
business also imply communication processes. Thus,
within the framework of a very significant sphere of
human life, a special type of real activity has developed
- tourist discourse. Nevertheless, a large number of
genres of agrotourist discourse and its close
connection with other types of discourse do not allow
us to consider this type of discourse studied to a
sufficient extent. Let’s consider the key concepts of this
work: discourse and tourist discourse. In the linguistic
encyclopedic dictionary, “discourse” is presented as “a
coherent text combined with extralinguistic -
pragmatic, socio -cultural, psychological and other
factors; a text taken in the event aspect; speech,
considered as a purposeful social action, as a
component involved in the interaction of people and
the mechanisms of their consciousness (cognitive
processes)” [1, p.113].
METHODOLOGY
Thus, it is noted that discourse cannot be considered
outside of the situation of its generation- acceptance
and in isolation from its participants, while the text is
considered as an independent unit of speech. From
this it should be concluded that the concept of
“discourse” is broader than the concept of “text” and
expresses both the process of speech activity and its
result (text) at the same time [2, p. 15].
Discourse is directly related to the concept of
“situation” or “event”. Thus, T.A. Van Dijk
suggests
broadly considering discourse as “a communicative
event that occurs between a speaker and a listener in
the process of communicative action -in a certain
temporal, spatial and other context” [3, p.192]. This
event includes not only communicative interaction
(the process of exchanging information), but also
interactive interaction (the process of exchanging
actions) and perceptual interaction (the process of
perceiving each other and establishing mutual
understanding). V.E. Chernyavskaya clarifies this
definition, emphasizing that a relationship is both a
process and a result by R.E. Chepnyavskaya “liskups”,
V.E.
Chernyavskaya
clarifies
this
definition,
emphasizing that discourse is both a process and a
result. According to V.E. Chernyavskaya, “discourse”
means “a specific communicative event recorded in
written texts and oral speech, carried out in a certain
cognitively
and
typologically
conditioned
communicative space» [4, p. 144]. It can be described
as “text plus situation”, where the situation is
the
unique circumstances under which and for which the
text was created. These circumstances include the
addressee’s communicative intentions; the socio
-
cultural context (background linguistic and socio-
cultural knowledge); features of participants in speech
interaction, their previous communication experience.
Thus,
according
to
Yu.V.
Krasnoperova,
the
communicative situation determines the reproduction
in the discourse of social institutions and value systems
inherent in a particular group, as well as the social
aspects of participants in communication [5, p. 6].
In this aspect, it is possible to consider participants in
communication within the framework of the
agrotourism sector: communication within the
agrotourism sector proceeds according to certain norms
and rules, and has its own specific features. Thus, we
can talk about a special kind of speech activity that has
developed within the framework of the agrotourism
sector - tourist discourse. The study of this type of
discourse began relatively recently, and it also takes
place within the framework of different linguistic
approaches.
DISCUSSION
The typological status of tourist discourse is also
disputed: an independent type or subspecies of
advertising discourse. However, there is still no clear
definition of this type of discourse. For example, N.A.
Tyuleneva suggests considering agrotourism discourse
as “a special subspecies of advertising discourse that
combines various types of agrotourism advertising and
is aimed at positioning and promoting agrotourism
services using argumentation strategies that are
linguocognitive in nature” [6, p. 7
-8]. On the assumption
that agrotourism discourse is a subspecies of advertising
discourse, the concept proposed by N.V. Filatova:
“tourist discourse is a special
kind of advertising
discourse, having not only similarities with him, but also
very specific differences” [7, p. 49]
It is noted that agrotourism discourse, like advertising,
is mainly aimed at attracting attention, maintaining
interest, creating needs and encouraging action. As
mentioned earlier, in this regard, there is an opinion
that tourism discourse is a special subspecies of
advertising discourse, possessing both similar and
specific features. However, this point of view covers
only those genres of tourist discourse, the purpose of
which is to promote a tourist product. Thus, the tourist
discourse narrows down to brochures, travel guides,
and the work of tour operators with clients. On the
other hand, it should be noted that the tourist discourse
is independent. It arises within a wide sphere of
society’s life, agrotourism, and manifests itself in a
variety of situations that are directly or indirectly related
to this sphere. It is characterized by a special thematic
focus, a focus on a strictly defined addressee, the
uniqueness of the goal, the specificity of the set of
European International Journal of Pedagogics
94
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
linguistic means, and its own genre paradigm. This
allows us to characterize the tourist discourse as an
independent type of discourse. Thus, based on the
above, as well as taking into account the structural and
substantive typology of V.B. Kashkin) and the work of
V.I. Karasik “On types of discourse” , it is logical to
speak about the tourist discourse as a type of
institutional discourse [8, p.67].
The specific features of this type of discourse should be
highlighted. Such features of the tourist discourse as
the limited scope of application and the socio-
institutional nature are generally recognized.
Indeed, as previously mentioned, only that part of the
tourist discourse applies. speech activity that occurs
within the tourism sector, represented by various
organizations related to this field (travel companies
and agencies, airline and railway ticket offices, hotels,
etc.). However, L.R. Sakayeva and L.V. Bazarova also
note the following features of the tourist discourse.
1. Cross-culturality. The tourist discourse represents a
certain, peculiar environment where the formed ideas
and images concerning the national character of
different peoples are cultivated and reflected.
2. Media coverage. The tourist discourse is mainly
represented by media texts, which is due to the
intangible
and
immaterial
nature
of
many
phenomena., which are described in the tourist
discourse. Due to the media nature of tourist
discourse, it interacts with other types of discourse
(advertising, scientific, everyday), which determines
the use of strategies and values belonging to these
types of discourse in tourist discourse.
3. The predominance of conversational style.
Participants in the tourism discourse need to establish a
more trusting atmosphere and a close tone of
communication in order to achieve for communicative
purposes, in connection with which the tourist
discourse mostly corresponds to the conversational
style [ 9, p. 161-165]. The tourist discourse is
characterized by rapid development and a variety of
forms. The development of a virtual communicative
space played an important role in its development,
which allowed the emergence of such a phenomenon as
virtual tourist discourse. V.A. Mityagina notes in this
regard that hypertext technologies provide the
opportunity to present information in various ways,
allowing both the printed text and audio to be combined
into a single whole on the basis of explicitly expressed
internal connections and videos, photos, illustrations,
animations, etc. Thus, the tourist discourse is realized in
the entirety of the tasks being solved [10, p. 270].
RESULTS
The genre space of virtual tourist discourse is huge and
requires a comprehensive study. In this paper, the
features of such a subgenre of agrotourism discourse as
the “agrotour description” (the main advertising text)
were studied. This subgenre is one of the components
of the “travel agency website” genre, its main part.
Thus, the addressee (the author of the description of the
tour) must carefully select the linguistic means of
formatting the text for the success of the speech effect.
In the course of the study of the linguistic features of
English-language discourse, there were 80 agrotour
descriptions taken from English-language websites have
been analyzed “villagetours.net” The following features
of the subgenre are revealed at the lexical level (Table
1):
European International Journal of Pedagogics
95
https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijp
European International Journal of Pedagogics
Thus, stylistic variability is manifested at the lexical
level and, as a result, a large number of unresolved
neologisms. Proper names, such as toponyms,
anthroponyms, caronyms, and others, are an
important feature of transmitting information at the
lexical level of English-language agrotourist discourse.
Various epithets, metaphors and idioms are used to
impart imagery to the text, and emotional-evaluative
vocabulary and polysemous words and homonyms
used in the language game are used to create a positive
image of a agrotourist product.
The superlative degree of adjectives allows stylistically
neutral adjectives to perform the function of epithets.
Compound adjectives, abbreviations, and the
numerical spelling of morphemes formed from
numerals are compression tools. First of all, the listed
linguistic and stylistic features of the tourist discourse
are designed to perform a pragmatic function, i.e.
language is used as a means of influencing the
addressee. The linguistic means used in the tourist
discourse are designed to encourage the addressee to
take the action that the addressee expects from him:
purchase and IP- use of a tourist product. Thus, there
is an intention of the addressee aimed at creating a
positive impression of the tourist product from the
addressee.
In order to successfully achieve this goal, the addressee
selects the necessary language tools that create a
positive image of the tourist product, encouraging the
addressee, if not to purchase this product, then at least
to pay attention to it, i.e. embodies a strategy of
positivity. According to many linguists, the strategy of
positivity is the main communicative one is the
strategy of tourist discourse. It is worth clarifying that
this strategy is the main one in cases where the tourist
discourse intersects with the advertising one, i.e. when
the genre of tourist discourse is aimed at presenting
and advertising a tourist product: brochures,
guidebooks, work of tour operators with clients,
descriptions of tours, etc. Thus, it can be said that in
the descriptions of tours of the English-language
tourist discourse language tools designed to perform a
pragmatic function are implemented within the
framework of a positive strategy.
CONCLUSION
In English-language agrotourist discourse, to express
expression and emotional a language game is used to
influence the addressee, and verbs expressing positive
feelings are used to form the image of the intended
tourist product and program the addressee for
satisfaction with this product: “enjoy”, “love”,
“savour”, “like”. Also, a distinctive feature of the
English-language tourism discourse is the use of
language tools that indicate which age category the
proposed tourism product is aimed at.
Thus, due to the processes of globalization, the
agrotourism sector is one of the most rapidly changing
and widely demanded spheres of society’s life. The
phenomenon of tourism goes beyond a single country
and becomes a socio-economic phenomenon on a
global scale. As in any other sphere of life,
communication within the tourism sector proceeds
according to certain norms and rules, and has its own
specific features. The tourism sector has developed its
own special type of speech activity - agrotourist
discourse, which has the above-mentioned features,
manifested at the level of vocabulary and morphology.
REFERENCE
Мойсеенко А. А. Функционально
-
прагматические
параметры делового дискурса в производственной
ситуации //Magister Dixit. –
2012.
–
№. 4. –
С. 111
-118.
Alefirenko N. F. and others TEXT AND DISCOURSE
(textbook for undergraduates).
–
2012.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary
approach.
Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2021). Linguistics of the text.
Linguistics of discourse. URSS.
Krasnoperova,
Yu.
V.
(2009).
Interaction,
communication, discourse: the relationship of concepts.
Amur Scientific Bulletin, (2), 339-346.
Tyuleneva, N. A. (2008). Linguistic and cognitive
strategies for positioning and promoting travel services
in Russian and Anglo-American advertising.
Filatova, N. V. (2012). Tourism discourse among related
discourses: hybridization or polyphony?. Issues of
Modern Linguistics, (3), 41-46.
Karasik, V. I., & Gillespie, D. (2014). Discourse
personality types. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 154, 23-29.
Sakaeva, L. R., & Bazarova, L. V. (2014). The concepts of
“tourism” and “tourist discourse” in the modern
scientific paradigm. Philological sciences. Questions of
Theory and Practice, (6-1), 159-161.
Mityagina, V. A. (2012). Global and ethnocultural
characteristics of the tourist discourse on the Internet.
Internet communication as a new speech formation.
Moscow: Flint: Nauka, 271-290.
