Characteristic Features of Modern Discourse in English and Uzbek Educational and Print Media
Main Article Content
Abstract
Modern discourse is a dynamic phenomenon shaped by digital technologies, globalization, and cultural diversity. It extends beyond traditional textual communication to include multimodal elements such as visuals and interactivity. This study investigates the characteristic features of modern discourse in English and Uzbek educational and print media. The research adopts a theoretical-conceptual approach, drawing on critical discourse analysis (CDA), multimodal discourse analysis (MDA), and sociolinguistics. No primary empirical data were collected. The analysis is supported by the authors’ autoethnographic reflections as bilingual participants in English and Uzbek media environments. The study identifies five key features of modern media discourse observed across both languages: (1) multimodality, (2) fragmentation and hybridity, (3) identity construction, (4) tension between globalization and localization, and (5) ephemerality and speed. English discourse tends to lead in adopting fast-paced, multimedia forms, while Uzbek discourse reflects efforts to preserve cultural identity while adapting to global trends. These discourse features reveal changing norms in education and journalism. Educators and media practitioners must adapt to evolving expectations, using diverse communicative modes and addressing multilingual audiences. The findings underscore the need for critical awareness in designing content that is culturally responsive and communicatively effective.
Article Details
Issue
Section
How to Cite
References
[1] S. B. Abdusattarova, “Theoretical foundation of the study of neologisms in English and Uzbek newspaper discourse,” Eurasian Journal of Academic Research, 2021.
[2] A. Bell, The Language of News Media, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
[3] J. Blommaert, The Sociolinguistics of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
[4] N. Fairclough, Media Discourse, London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
[5] N. Fairclough, Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, London: Routledge, 2003.
[6] S. Usmonova, “Newspaper discourse: Features of speech influence in Uzbek and American newspapers,” Excellencia: International Multi-Disciplinary Journal of Education, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 517–522, 2024.
[7] T. A. van Dijk, “Critical discourse analysis,” in Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 1, T. D. Thu, Ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, pp. 466–485.
[8] S. Vertovec, “Super-diversity and its implications,” Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1024–1054, 2007.
[9] R. Wodak and M. Meyer, Eds., Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, London: SAGE Publications, 2001.
[10] G. Kress and T. van Leeuwen, Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication, London: Arnold, 2001.
[11] D. Machin and A. Mayr, How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis: A Multimodal Introduction, London: SAGE Publications, 2012.
[12] B. Bhatia and B. Ritchie, The Handbook of Bilingualism, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
[13] T. Scollon and S. Scollon, Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
[14] J. Martin and D. Rose, Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause, London: Continuum, 2003.
[15] D. Crystal, English as a Global Language, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003