Socio-political media discourse plays a central role in shaping political reality by framing events, evaluating actors, and embedding ideological meanings through language. This study presents a comparative linguocultural and pragmalinguistic analysis of socio-political media texts from the United States and Uzbekistan, two countries with distinct political systems, media traditions, and cultural models of communication. The research is grounded in Cultural Linguistics (Sharifian, 2017) and Pragmatic Discourse Analysis (Mey, 2001; van Dijk, 2006). The corpus consists of forty political news and opinion texts published between 2021 and 2024 in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Xalq Soʻzi, and Gazeta.uz. Qualitative analysis reveals clear cross-cultural differences in the construction of political values, national identity, and ideological positioning. American media discourse is characterized by explicit evaluation, critical framing, and argumentative strategies linked to democratic accountability. Uzbek media discourse, by contrast, emphasizes national unity, stability, and gradual reform through indirect persuasion and positive institutional framing. The findings demonstrate that political meaning in media discourse is culturally and pragmatically constructed rather than neutral.

socio-political discourse; media discourse analysis; linguocultural analysis; pragmatics; political ideology; United States; Uzbekistan

Baker, M. (2018). In other words: A coursebook on translation (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619187

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489

Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319895

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315834368

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315002866

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203992722

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757498

Mirzahamdamova, D. (2025). The Role of English as a Lingua Franca in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges. TLEP – International Journal of Multidiscipline, 2(4), 51-53. https://tlepub.org/index.php/1/article/view/201

Mirzahamdamova, D. (2025). Linguistic Landscapes in Urban Areas: Insights from English-Speaking Countries. TLEP – International Journal of Multidiscipline, 2(4), 58-61. https://www.tlepub.org/index.php/1/article/view/203

Mirzahamdamova, D. (2025). ENGLISH IN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES. Journal of Applied Science and Social Science, 1(4), 39–44. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/jasss/article/view/97263

Mirzahamdamova, D. (2025). Code-Switching in Bilingual Communities: Patterns and Implications. TLEP – International Journal of Multidiscipline, 2(4), 65-68. https://www.tlepub.org/index.php/1/article/view/205

Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.8

Schäffner, C. (2004). Political discourse analysis from the point of view of translation studies. Journal of Language and Politics, 3(1), 117–150. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.3.1.09sch

TEACHING ENGLISH TO VISUALLY IMPAIRED STUDENTS. (2024). CONFERENCE ON THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE IN THE MODERN WORLD, 1(10), 33-35. https://www.universalconference.us/universalconference/index.php/crismw/article/view/2985

van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Elsevier encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 728–740). Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230583739

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473927133