LINGUOPRAGMATIC FEATURES OF PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK COURTROOM DISCOURSE

Looking into how lawyers persuade in court, this work compares English and Uzbek speaking styles. Not just word choice matters, yet also how sentences are built shapes courtroom outcomes. Instead of open confrontation, some settings lean toward subtle hints, layered meanings. Research shows Western methods favor clear logic, structured debate. In contrast, Central Asian practice often wraps arguments in respect, hierarchy. Devices like suggestion, softening statements play big roles there. Speech acts do more than state facts they shift power. One system highlights individual reasoning, another stresses social harmony. Tone, mood markers, indirect requests stand out across cases studied. Influence hides not only in what is said, but in what stays unspoken. Patterns emerge when comparing trials: clarity versus implication, challenge versus deference. Each tradition molds persuasion differently, shaped by deeper cultural rules. What counts as strong argument varies widely between these worlds. What matters here is how grasping such distinctions shapes not just ideas about language, yet touches real courtroom behavior, precise translations, along with clearer exchanges across legal cultures. Missing pieces become clear when looking at how pragmatic skills are overlooked in education fixing this could sharpen argument impact within each system.