ATTRIBUTING AND DEPERSONALISING: SOURCE PRACTICES IN UZBEK AND ENGLISH ONLINE NEWS DISCOURSE

Aminova Mahfuza Jamoladdinovna

Mamun University, Uzbekistan

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4567-4046

Bekberganova Hilola Maqsud qizi

Urgench State University, Uzbekistan

https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6025-9990

Keywords: source attribution, agentless passive, evidentiality, contrastive pragmatics, online news discourse, Uzbek, English.

---

Abstract

This study examines how sources are attributed and how agency is grammatically suppressed in Uzbek and English online news discourse. Four pragmatic functions connected with evidence presentation were coded in a genre-balanced corpus of 50 editorial articles (26,210 words) published between September 2025 and August 2026. Results show that attribution practices converge across the two languages, that a recurrent pattern of named and unnamed sourcing within a single text is attested in both, and that the two systems nevertheless differ in one respect: English employs reporting-verb selection and explicit epistemic commentary as distancing devices for which the Uzbek subcorpus offers no equivalent. The divergence is argued to be a matter of journalistic convention rather than grammatical possibility.

---

References

1. Boʻronov, J. (1973). Ingliz va oʻzbek tillari qiyosiy grammatikasi [Comparative grammar of English and Uzbek]. Oʻqituvchi.

2. Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media. Blackwell.

3. Cardon, P. W. (2008). A critique of Hall’s contexting model: A meta-analysis of literature on intercultural business and technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(4), 399–428 https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651908320361

4. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.

5. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.

6. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

7. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.

8. James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. Longman.

9. Krzeszowski, T. P. (1990). Contrasting languages: The scope of contrastive linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter.

10. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. SAGE.

11. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

12. Richardson, J. E. (2007). Analysing newspapers: An approach from critical discourse analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.

13. Safarov, Sh. (2008). Pragmalingvistika [Pragmalinguistics]. Oʻzbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi.

14. Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

15. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

16. Yusupov, U. K. (2013). Ingliz va oʻzbek tillarining chogʻishtirma lingvistikasi [Contrastive linguistics of English and Uzbek]. Akademnashr.