This article explores the use of implicitness in English and Uzbek business discourse, focusing on metaphors, euphemisms, and implicatures. It highlights how cultural and linguistic factors influence indirect communication strategies in both languages. While English favors metaphor and euphemism for subtle expression, Uzbek places greater emphasis on euphemism and implicature, often linked to cultural values of respect and politeness. The analysis provides insights into how these strategies enhance business interactions, facilitating polite and effective communication across different cultural contexts.

Implicitness, business discourse, metaphor

Комлев Н.Г. Словарь иностранных слов. Москва: Флинта, 2006. Available at: http://enc-dic.com/fwords/JEkstralingvisticheskij-41678.html

Ҳакимов М. Ўзбектилида матннинг прагматик талқини: фил.фан. док.дисс. – Тошкент, 2001.

Ширяева Т.А. Когнитивное моделирование институционального делового дискурса: дис. …д-ра филол. наук. – Ставрополь, 2008. – 545 с.

Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber (2004) Relevance Theory. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics. (Blackwell), 607-632.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Martinich, A.P. (ed). Philosophy of Language. (pp. 165-175) New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Grice, P. (1981). Presupposition and Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.183–98). – New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shamaxmudova A. Zamonaviy tilshunoslikda bilvositalik va implitsitlik tushunchalari. Xorijiy filologiya. – № 1. 2017. – B. 68-70.

Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1982. Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Van Dijk Teun. Discourse semantic analysis. – London: Academic Press London, 1985.