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.

Stylistics, functional styles, scientific discourse

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.” Academicia 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 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.