LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF AI-RELATED INSTRUCTIONAL DISCOURSE IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54613/ku.v18iB.1679Keywords:
AI discourse, instructional discourse, English, Uzbek, imperatives, directive speech acts, terminology, prompt, digital communication, pragmaticsAbstract
This article investigates the linguistic features of AI-related instructional discourse in English and Uzbek. The rapid development of artificial intelligence has produced new forms of human–machine communication in which users are guided through prompts, commands, recommendations, safety warnings, interface instructions, algorithmic explanations, and procedural texts. In this context, instructional discourse is no longer limited to traditional manuals or pedagogical explanations; it also includes digital commands, prompt-writing guidelines, chatbot interaction patterns, platform-based instructions, and AI system warnings. The study approaches AI-related instructional discourse as a specialized form of procedural and directive communication. It compares English and Uzbek examples in terms of lexical, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features. The findings show that both languages rely heavily on imperative structures, sequential organization, technical terminology, modal expressions, and directive speech acts. However, English AI instructions tend to be more compact, verb-initial, and analytically organized, while Uzbek instructions are more morphologically explicit, politeness-oriented, and frequently constructed through verbal suffixes, auxiliary forms, and explanatory components. The article also demonstrates that Uzbek AI discourse is characterized by active borrowing, transliteration, calquing, and semantic adaptation of English AI terms such as prompt, chatbot, algorithm, machine learning, and neural network. The paper concludes that AI-related instructional discourse represents an emerging area of comparative linguistics, terminology studies, pragmatics, and digital discourse analysis.
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.
2. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman.
3. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
4. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
5. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
6. Herriman, J. (2022). Metadiscourse in English instruction manuals. English for Specific Purposes, 65, 120–132.
7. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
8. ISO/IEC. (2022). ISO/IEC 22989:2022: Artificial Intelligence — Concepts and Terminology.
9. Longacre, R. E. (1996). The Grammar of Discourse (2nd ed.). Springer.
10. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). U.S. Department of Commerce.
11. OECD. (2024). Explanatory Memorandum on the Updated OECD Definition of an AI System. OECD Publishing.
12. OpenAI. (2026). Prompt Engineering Best Practices for ChatGPT. OpenAI Help Center.
13. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23.
14. Sjoberg, A. F. (1963). Uzbek Structural Grammar. Indiana University Press.
Downloads
Published
Iqtiboslik olish
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 QO‘QON UNIVERSITETI XABARNOMASI

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.