This study compares pragmatic ability in Uzbek and English using a corpus-based approach, with an emphasis on academic language situations. Effective cross-cultural communication, especially in academic discourse, depends heavily on pragmatic competence the capacity to comprehend and use language appropriate to a particular social and cultural context even though grammatical and lexical proficiency are frequently given priority in language education. A significant research vacuum in comparative pragmatics between these two linguistically and culturally different languages is filled by this study. The study examines important pragmatic phenomena such speech acts (e.g., requesting, apologizing, complimenting), hedging, position expression, and politeness techniques using a specialized academic corpus for both Uzbek and English. The results show notable cultural differences in how these pragmatic qualities are realized and interpreted. The discussion of methodological implications focuses on how these empirical findings can be used to create more efficient, data-driven teaching strategies and resources for academic language instruction, which will increase students’ intercultural communication proficiency and close communication gaps in international scholarship.  

Pragmatic competence, Uzbek language, English language, corpus linguistics, academic language

Azadova, G., & Mannonova, S. (2025). Linguistic and cultural features of everyday communication (on the example of English and Uzbek languages). Journal of Science-Innovative Research in Uzbekistan, 3(4), 336-341.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2014). Cohesion in English. Routledge.

Минникулов, И., & Рузметова, Ш. (2024). COMMISSIVE ILLOCUTIONARY SPEECH ACTS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES. Interpretation and Researches, (2(24)).

Qodirova, Z. (2025). PROVERBS AS PRAGMATIC TOOLS IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH DISCOURSE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. Journal of Applied Science and Social Science, 1(1), 660-666.

Qosimova, M. (2025). LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC FUNCTIONS OF PHRASEOLOGICAL UNITS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND UZBEK. Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Innovations, 1(2), 16-17.

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

Taguchi, N. (2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics: An overview. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics, 1-14.

Thomas, J. (1983). "Cross-cultural pragmatic failure." Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91–112.

Turgunovna, K. F. (2025). Metaphors In Illocutive Speech Acts: A CrossCultural Pragmatic Comparison Between English And Uzbek. The Peerian Journal, 43, 24-28.

Young, R. F. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 426-443). Routledge.

Wang, N., Ahmad, N., & Saharuddin, N. (2025). Effective measures to develop undergraduates’ communicative competence in English as a foreign language: A systematic review. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(2), 416-438.