Pragmatic Differences of Tourism Terminology

This article comprehensively examines the pragmatic, semantic, syntactic, discursive and linguocultural features of tourism terminology in English and Uzbek within the framework of comparative linguistics. The main objective of the research is to identify the mechanisms of formation, semantic transformation, pragmatic adaptation, and cultural-cognitive characteristics of international tourism terms in the English and Uzbek language systems. The article extensively analyzes the typological differences between the analytical and compact term-formation model of the English language and the agglutinative, descriptive, and explanatory terminological system of the Uzbek language.
During the research, methods such as semantic analysis, comparative-typological analysis, discourse analysis, pragmalinguistic approach, linguocultural analysis, and componential analysis were employed. The study investigates the cases of semantic expansion, narrowing, and pragmatic transformation of tourism terms widely used in the tourism industry, including “wellness”, “ecolodge”, “heritage tourism”, “medical tourism”, “travel influencer”, “hub airport”, “stopover”, “hidden gem”, “all inclusive”, “red-eye flight”, “window seat”, “digital travel card”, “travel insurance”, “package tour”, “guidebook”, and “visa support” in both English and Uzbek.
Furthermore, the article highlights how English compound terms, phrasal verbs, abbreviations, and terminological collocations are adapted into Uzbek through grammatical expansion, descriptive interpretation, and semantic explanation. The research findings demonstrate that tourism terms in English primarily possess a functional and service-oriented character, whereas in Uzbek their meanings tend to expand according to context, communicative situation, and cultural interpretation.
The article also analyzes the usage characteristics of tourism terminology in official discourse, service discourse, advertising discourse, and mass communication systems. It was determined that English advertising and marketing terminology is generally based on concise, compact, and aggressive communicative strategies, while Uzbek advertising units are more oriented toward explanation, pragmatic clarity, and reliability.
The results of this study provide a basis for further research in tourism linguistics, pragmalinguistics, semasiology, translation studies, and tourism communication.