Cross-Cultural Politeness in Indonesian and Uzbek Communication: A Linguo-Pragmatic Perspective

Authors

  • Hulkar Turdieva Komilovna Alfraganus University
  • Samigov Boburjon Asrarjonovich Tashkent State University of Oriental Studies
  • Azizah Des Derivanti Universitas Nasional

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24903/sj.v10i2.2227

Keywords:

Politeness strategies, Speech etiquette, Linguo-pragmatics, Cross-cultural communication, Uzbek language, Indonesian language, Intercultural pragmatics

Abstract

Background

Politeness is a key element of communication that reflects cultural identity, social values, and interpersonal ethics. In both Indonesia and Uzbekistan, politeness plays a crucial role in maintaining harmony and respect, yet it is realized differently due to variations in cultural norms and interactional styles.

Methodology

This study employs a linguo-pragmatic comparative approach based on Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and Goffman’s concept of face. Data were collected through natural observations, recorded conversations, and questionnaires with 120 participants from Indonesia and Uzbekistan. The analysis focused on verbal and nonverbal expressions of politeness in daily communication, marketplace interactions, and hospitality situations.

Findings

The results show that Indonesian speakers tend to use negative politeness strategies emphasizing moderation, indirectness, and hierarchical respect. In contrast, Uzbek speakers prefer positive politeness strategies characterized by expressiveness, warmth, and repeated offers. Both cultures regard politeness as a reflection of communal and moral values, although they differ in the pragmatic realization and social intensity of politeness.

Conclusion

Politeness in both societies serves as a tool for sustaining harmony and social cohesion. The study confirms that Brown and Levinson’s theory remains relevant but must be contextualized within Asian collectivist pragmatics to fully capture the moral and relational dimensions of politeness in Muslim-majority societies.

Originality

This research offers one of the first comparative linguo-pragmatic analyses of Indonesian and Uzbek politeness, contributing new insights into intercultural Communication, pragmatic competence, and culturally responsive language education.

References

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago Linguistic Society.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–289). Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N

Arndt, H., & Janney, R. W. (1991). Interpersonal pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Goffman, E. (1997). The Goffman reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jaworksi A., Coupland N. (Eds.) (1999). The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

Watts, R. J. (2005). Linguistic politeness research: Quo vadis? In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. xi–xlvii). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Lakoff, R. (2005). The politics of nice: How we can dismantle the politeness problem. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Huang, Y. (2011). The Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford University Press.

Leech, G. N. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.

国立国語研究所. (2006). 言語行動における配慮の諸相 [Various aspects of consideration in verbal behavior]. Tokyo: 国立国語研究所 [National Institute for Japanese Language].

Pei Chun, S. (2009). A comparison of politeness strategies in Japanese and Cantonese (Master’s thesis). University of Birmingham.

Turdieva, H.K. (2020). Linguopragrmatic analyse of speech etiquette units. Dissertation of Phd. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/akt-rechevogo-etiketa-v-persidskom-i-uzbekskom-yazykah-vyrazhenie-vezhlivosti

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371489519_Indonesian_Persian_and_Uzbek_greetings_pragmatics_in_cross_cultural_communication

Culpeper, J. (2021). Impoliteness and emotions. Cambridge University Press.

Lioni, & Pujiati. (2025). Investigating Politeness Strategies Among Native Indonesian Speakers During Presidential Candidate Debate: A Cyberpragmatic Study

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393448244_Investigating_Politeness_Strategies_Among_Native_Indonesian_Speakers_During_Presidential_Candidate_Debate_A_Cyberpragmatic_Study

Huang, Y. (2023). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Kahhar, A. (http://uforum.uz/showthread.php?t=13146&page=11

Downloads

Published

2025-10-31