MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
45
PRAGMATIC FEATURES AND CONTEXTUAL USE OF EMOTIONAL
EXPRESSIONs
Kadirova Muniraxon Saidkarimxanovna
Master's degree student at Nordic international university
Email: muniraxonkadirova769@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15746741
Abstract:
This study explores the pragmatic features and contextual usage
of emotional expressions in English and Uzbek languages. It investigates how
emotion-laden language is shaped by social context, speaker intention,
politeness strategies, and cultural expectations. Through qualitative analysis of
naturally occurring conversations and written texts, the research identifies the
pragmatic mechanisms used to express, mitigate, or conceal emotions. Findings
reveal that emotional expression is not only culturally mediated but also
context-dependent, affected by factors such as social distance, power relations,
and formality. These insights highlight the importance of pragmatic competence
in effective emotional communication across cultures.
Keywords:
Pragmatics, emotional expressions, context, politeness, speech
acts, face theory, cultural norms, discourse, English, Uzbek, indirectness,
emotion
Introduction
Emotions are an integral part of human communication. Language provides
us with a tool to express not only ideas and intentions but also affective states
such as happiness, anger, fear, sadness, or surprise. However, emotional
expressions in language are not uniform across cultures or even across different
contexts within the same culture. The way emotions are verbalized, concealed,
intensified, or mitigated depends heavily on pragmatic features and social
norms.
Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics that studies language use in context.
It explores how speakers convey meaning beyond literal interpretation, relying
on implicature, politeness, speech acts, and shared cultural assumptions. In
emotional communication, pragmatics plays a central role. It governs how
speakers choose particular linguistic strategies to express feelings appropriately
in different social situations. For instance, the expression of anger in a formal
meeting differs from its expression among close friends. In high-context cultures
like Uzbek, indirectness and emotional restraint may be preferred, especially in
hierarchical relationships. In contrast, English-speaking cultures, particularly in
informal settings, may favor more direct emotional expression.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
46
In Uzbek, one might say, “Ko‘nglim g‘ash bo‘ldi” (My heart feels uneasy)
rather than stating direct displeasure. This reflects not just a linguistic choice
but a cultural preference for emotional subtlety and face-saving. In English,
expressions like “That really upset me” or “I’m annoyed” are more explicit and
frequently used in casual speech. These differences demonstrate how emotional
language is shaped by pragmatics — especially by the need to maintain
politeness, avoid confrontation, or signal solidarity.
This paper aims to analyze how emotional expressions are pragmatically
structured and used within different social contexts in English and Uzbek.
Specifically, it addresses the following research questions:
1.
What pragmatic strategies are used to express emotions in both
languages?
2.
How does context (e.g., formality, power relations, social distance)
influence the choice of emotional expressions?
3.
What cultural norms shape the pragmatic use of emotional
language?
By focusing on these questions, the paper highlights how context-sensitive
and culture-bound emotional expressions are. Understanding these features is
essential for language learners, translators, and anyone engaged in intercultural
communication. Emotional language is not simply about vocabulary; it is about
knowing how, when, and why to use certain expressions.
Methodology
To address the research questions, a qualitative and contrastive analysis
was carried out using data from both English and Uzbek sources. The
methodology combined discourse analysis, speech act theory, and politeness
theory to examine emotional expressions in natural contexts.
1. Data Sources:
Spoken Data:
Transcriptions of natural conversations (family, workplace, social
gatherings) involving 20 native English speakers and 20 native Uzbek speakers.
Recordings were gathered with consent and anonymized.
Written Data:
Literary dialogues from novels and short stories in both languages.
Online discussion forums, social media posts, and interview transcripts.
2. Selection Criteria:
The emotional expressions included in the dataset were selected based on:
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
47
Presence of explicit or implicit emotional content (anger, happiness,
sadness, gratitude, fear, etc.)
Occurrence in varied social contexts (formal/informal, close/distant
relationships)
Use of mitigating devices, politeness markers, or indirect strategies
3. Analytical Framework:
The study used several pragmatic concepts to analyze the data:
Speech Act Theory (Searle, 1969):
Emotional utterances were
categorized as expressives, commissives, or directives.
Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987):
Examined how speakers
manage face through positive and negative politeness strategies in emotional
expression.
Contextual Parameters:
Level of formality, power distance, social
closeness, gender, and age were noted in each interaction.
4. Data Coding and Analysis:
Each emotional expression was coded based on:
Emotion type
Expression strategy (direct, indirect, euphemistic)
Pragmatic function (complaint, compliment, apology, etc.)
Contextual variables
Frequency and pattern analysis were conducted to identify trends.
Inter-coder reliability was ensured by involving two independent linguists
for coding validation (agreement level: 90%).
Results
1. Use of Direct vs. Indirect Emotional Expressions
English: Speakers frequently used direct expressions such as “I’m so
happy,” “You made me angry,” or “I’m frustrated.” These were common in
informal settings and among peers. Euphemisms or softened expressions
appeared more in formal or professional discourse.
Uzbek: Emotional expression tended to be more indirect. For example,
instead of saying “I’m angry,” a speaker might say, “Ko‘nglim g‘ash bo‘ldi” (I feel
discomfort in my heart). Indirectness was especially prominent in elder-younger
or formal relationships.
2. Politeness Strategies
Negative Politeness: Uzbek speakers used hedging and mitigation more
often to avoid face-threatening acts. For example, expressing dissatisfaction
would include honorifics or distancing strategies. Positive Politeness: In both
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
48
languages, positive politeness was used to show empathy or solidarity,
especially in expressions of sympathy or encouragement.
3. Influence of Social Variables
Formality: Emotional expression became more formal, less intense, and
more euphemistic in official or hierarchical settings in both languages.Power
Dynamics:
Subordinates in both cultures expressed negative emotions more cautiously.
Superiors were more direct but still used mitigating phrases in Uzbek.Gender
Differences:
Women in both languages showed higher frequency of emotionally expressive
language but also employed more politeness strategies.
Discussion
The results demonstrate that emotional expressions are highly context-
sensitive and deeply intertwined with cultural norms. Pragmatic features such
as indirectness, politeness, and contextual adaptation are key in shaping how
emotions are communicated. In Uzbek, the preference for indirectness and
emotional restraint reflects broader cultural values such as respect for
hierarchy, modesty, and collectivism. These values shape a communication style
that avoids confrontation and promotes group harmony. Emotional expressions
are often softened to protect the speaker’s and listener’s “face.”
In English, especially in Western contexts, there is greater tolerance for
emotional openness and individual expression. While politeness still plays a
role, direct expressions of emotion are more acceptable, especially in informal
settings. This reflects a more individualistic cultural orientation. The influence of
context is undeniable. In both cultures, emotional expression shifts significantly
depending on formality, relationship type, and social distance. A person may
express sadness openly with a friend but use euphemisms when speaking to a
supervisor.
The study also highlights that emotional expressions often function as
speech acts they perform actions such as apologizing, complimenting, thanking,
or criticizing. The pragmatic success of these acts depends not only on the words
used but on how well they fit the social context. These insights support the view
that pragmatic competence knowing how to use language appropriately in
context is essential for effective emotional communication. This has implications
for second language learning and intercultural communication, where
misinterpretation of emotional tone can lead to conflict or misunderstanding.
Conclusion.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
49
This research sheds light on the pragmatic dimensions of emotional
expression in English and Uzbek languages. It shows that while emotions are
universal, their verbalization is context-bound, culture-sensitive, and
pragmatically strategic. The study confirms that Uzbek speakers often favor
indirect and euphemistic forms when expressing emotion, particularly in formal
or hierarchical contexts. This is linked to cultural values emphasizing politeness,
deference, and face-saving. Emotional expressions in Uzbek serve not just to
communicate feelings but to preserve social harmony.
By contrast, English speakers, especially in informal interactions, are more
likely to use direct expressions. While politeness strategies still apply, English
emotional language tends to prioritize clarity, authenticity, and individual
perspective. The findings suggest that effective emotional communication is not
just about linguistic knowledge but also about cultural and contextual
awareness. Language learners must be taught not only how to say something but
when, why, and how to say it in ways that are culturally appropriate. The results
also have practical implications for translation, diplomacy, international
business, and multicultural education. Misinterpreting emotional tone due to
pragmatic misunderstanding can lead to serious communication breakdowns.
Future research could explore:
Emotional expression in multilingual speakers
Non-verbal emotional cues in pragmatics
Emotional communication in digital contexts (e.g., emojis, online chats)
In conclusion, emotional language is rich, complex, and highly contextual. A full
understanding requires attention not only to words, but also to the pragmatic
and cultural filters through which those words are expressed and interpreted.
References:
1.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge University Press.
2.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge University Press.
3.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures. Cambridge
University Press.
4.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text: Aspects
of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford University Press.
5.
Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). Routledge.
6.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in speech acts. Journal
of Pragmatics, 11(2), 131–146.
MODELS AND METHODS IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
50
7.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
Anchor Books.
8.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and
apologies. Mouton de Gruyter.
