Keywords
lexical-semantic field
collocation
conceptual metaphor
modality
conditional construction
directivity
isomorphism
allomorphism
functional equivalence
How to Cite
Abstract
This thesis analyzes the lexical-semantic and syntactic-pragmatic features of entrepreneurial discourse in Uzbek and English in a comparative aspect. Conceptual fields such as profit, income, investment, risk, growth, cooperation, and trust, as well as terminological collocations, metaphorical models, and grammatical means like modality, condition, directivity, and passive voice are compared. The analysis reveals that the communicative-pragmatic function is isomorphic in both languages, while the lexical and grammatical means expressing it are allomorphic. In today's globalization, entrepreneurial activity manifests not only as an economic process but also as a complex socio-communicative practice realized through language. Communicative tasks such as informing, proposing, convincing a partner, undertaking obligations, and negotiating are actualized in unique linguistic forms in each language. Therefore, comparing entrepreneurial discourse in Uzbek and English at lexical-semantic and syntactic-pragmatic levels, and revealing how common communicative goals are expressed in different linguistic forms, is one of the urgent tasks of comparative linguistics. In world linguistics, the lexical-grammatical means of business and entrepreneurial speech have been studied by researchers such as P. Daly and D. Davy, E. Malyuga and E. Madinyan, M. Pellegrini and P. Hunter [4; 7; 9]. In Uzbek linguistics, the linguopragmatic aspects of economic and business discourse have been covered in the works of scholars like M.A. Sayfutdinova and M. Qodirova [10; 11]. However, the connection between lexical and grammatical means and communicative goals in Uzbek and English entrepreneurial discourse has not been systematically compared. The aim of this thesis is to partially fill this gap, i.e., to compare the lexical-semantic and syntactic-pragmatic means of entrepreneurial discourse in both languages based on the principle of functional equivalence. The research utilized comparative-contrastive, descriptive, contextual, and semantic-pragmatic analysis methods.References
Akizhanova D.M., Satenova S.K., Seitova S.B. va boshq. Universal and culture-specific keywords in business discourse // Papers on Language and Literature. – 2018. – Vol. 54, № 1. – P. 57–64.
Austin J.L. How to Do Things with Words. – Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. – 174 p.
Biber D., Conrad S., Reppen R. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. – 300 p.
Daly P., Davy D. Structural, linguistic and rhetorical features of the entrepreneurial pitch // Journal of Management Development. – 2016. – Vol. 35, № 1. – P. 120–132.
Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English. – London: Longman, 1976. – 375 p.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors We Live By. – Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. – 242 p.
Malyuga E., Madinyan E. A Linguistic-Pragmatic Study on Collocations in Business Media Discourse // WISDOM. – 2023. – Vol. 26, № 2.
Мадинян Е.И. Лексико-семантическое поле «движение вперед» в англоязычном деловом дискурсе // Вопросы журналистики, педагогики, языкознания. – 2021. – Т. 40, № 4. – С. 520–533.
Pellegrini M., Hunter P. Constructing Entrepreneurial Opportunities: The Argumentative Structure of Early-Stage Business Pitch Problem Statements // IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. – 2024. – Vol. 67, № 2. – P. 156–172.
Qodirova M. Tilshunoslikda biznes diskurs: tadqiq, tasnif va tahlil // Scienceproblems.uz. – 2024. – № 4. – B. 7–12.
Sayfutdinova M.A. Ingliz va o‘zbek tillari iqtisodiy diskursining lingvopragmatik xususiyatlari: filol. fan. bo‘yicha falsafa doktori (PhD) diss. avtoref. – Toshkent, 2023. – 55 b.
Плаксин В.А. К вопросу об экономической языковой картине мира // Вестник Адыгейского государственного университета. Серия 2: Филология и искусствоведение. – 2019. – № 2 (237). – С. 45–52.
