PRAGMATICS OF GENDERED COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Authors

  • Bibigul Eshtuhtarova

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I10Y2025N45

Keywords:

Pragmatics, gendered communication, speech acts, politeness strategies, discourse markers, English language

Abstract

This article explores the pragmatic features of gendered communication in the English language. It focuses on differences in speech acts, politeness strategies, and discourse markers used by men and women. The study highlights how gender identity influences communication styles and how these differences reflect broader social and cultural norms.

References

1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Cameron, D. (2006). On Language and Sexual Politics. London: Routledge.

4. Coates, J. (2013). Women, Men and Language: A Sociolinguistic Account of Gender Differences in Language. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

5. Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194–213.

6. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

7. Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19(2), 201–224.

8. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

9. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

11. Tagg, C. (2012). Discourse of Text Messaging: Analysis of SMS Communication. London: Bloomsbury.

Downloads

Submitted

2025-10-12

Published

2025-10-12

How to Cite

Eshtuhtarova, B. (2025). PRAGMATICS OF GENDERED COMMUNICATION IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. Ижтимоий-гуманитар фанларнинг долзарб муаммолари Актуальные проблемы социально-гуманитарных наук Actual Problems of Humanities and Social Sciences., 5(10), 263–267. https://doi.org/10.47390/SPR1342V5I10Y2025N45