A LINGUOCULTURAL MODEL OF TRUST CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK ONLINE PUBLIC RELATIONS DISCOURSE
PDF

Keywords

trust, public relations discourse, linguoculture, pragmatics, English–Uzbek comparison

Abstract

Trust is a central but culturally contingent concept in public relations (PR), particularly in digital environments where organizations must communicate under conditions of uncertainty and reputational risk. While trust has been extensively theorized in organizational psychology and PR studies, less attention has been paid to its linguistic and linguocultural realization across languages. This paper proposes a Linguocultural Trust Construction Model (LTCM) that integrates organizational trust theory (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995), sociological approaches to trust (Luhmann, 1979), discourse-pragmatic frameworks (Hyland, 2005), and intercultural rapport management (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Using a comparative analysis of English and Uzbek online PR texts (corporate apologies and institutional press releases), the study demonstrates that while both languages draw on similar trust dimensions—competence, integrity, benevolence, and accountability—their linguistic realization differs systematically. English PR discourse prioritizes procedural transparency and explicit responsibility-taking, whereas Uzbek PR discourse emphasizes relational reassurance, institutional authority, and culturally grounded politeness strategies. The findings highlight trust as a performed linguistic practice shaped by culture, with implications for cross-cultural PR, translation, and professional communication.

PDF

References

1. Abdullaeva, M. (2020). Linguocultural features of public and institutional communication in Uzbek. Uzbek Journal of Philology, 3, 66–78.

2. Bentele, G. (2008). Trust and credibility in public relations. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 843–846). Sage.

3. Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2022). Press releases on transparency and public confidence in the banking system. https://cbu.uz/

4. Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Books.

5. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

6. Karimova, N. (2018). Politeness strategies and speech etiquette in Uzbek institutional discourse. Journal of Uzbek Linguistics, 5(2), 45–58.

7. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

8. Kun.uz. (2021). UzAuto Motors issues official apology and announces compensation measures. https://kun.uz/

9. Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Wiley.

10. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

11. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. Continuum.

12. Toyota Motor Corporation. (2023). Corporate apology and compliance statements. Toyota Global Newsroom. https://global.toyota/en/newsroom/

13. UK Government. (2021). Statement on vaccine confidence and public trust. https://www.gov.uk/

14. Valentini, C. (2021). Trust research in public relations: A systematic review. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0030