162 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education Volume 01, Issue 8, 2023 ISSN (E): 2993-2769 Discourse as interdisciplinary connectivity: UN, political science and linguistics Nilufar Turanbaevna Kuchimova Teacher of the English Language, PhD Samarkand State University Samarkand, Uzbekistan Abstract. At the present stage of development of linguistics, the focus of attention of scientists working in its various fields is the linguistic personality in all its styles and forms. The need for communicative practice aimed at its optimization and determination of factors representing the success of communication predetermined an increase in interest in discourse and its components. In addition, the attention of researchers is attracted by specific types of discourse, and in this regard, the study of official discourse is actual task. This article focuses on the discourse as an interdisciplinary connectivity of political science and linguistics identifying its specific features, as well as differences and similarities from other species through official discourse, in particular, the official discourse of the UN. Keywords: discourse, UN, politics, communication, linguistics, etymology, linguocultural measurement, concept. Introduction. The word “discourse” has two main meanings that come from different etymologies of the concept. One of these meanings is classical and comes from the Latin verb discursus, which has the direct meaning “run, move quickly, flicker” and the derivative meaning “reasoning, conversation” and which is a metaphor for the quick exchange of ideas among participants in communicative interaction. This classical meaning of the term “discourse” is essential for the theory of language. Another meaning, which is especially often used today by media, was proposed by the French poststructuralists, where discourse means a way of thinking, ideology, and the way they are manifested and verbalized. It is this meaning of discourse that we will adhere to within the framework of this work due to the fact that we will be interested in the manifestation of the consciousness and way of thinking of political figures through the word, i.e. how and through what verbal means consciousness “breaks through” into speech. The most detailed theoretically substantiated structural semiotic understanding of the concept of discourse is given by A.Z. Greimas and J. Courtet in their “Explanatory dictionary of the theory of language”. Discourse is interpreted as a semiotic process realized in various types of discursive practices. When they talk about discourse, they, first of all, mean a specific method or specific rules for organizing speech activity (written or oral). For example, J.C. Coquet calls discourse “a concatenation of structures of meaning that have their own rules of combination and transformation.” Hence the frequent use of discourse as a concept close to style, such as “literary 163 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us discourse”, and “scientific discourse”. We can talk about “scientific discourse” of various fields of knowledge: philosophy, natural scientific thinking, etc., up to the “idiolect” - the individual style of the writer. Discourse studies over the past decades in linguistic science have been relevant, since the linguistic paradigm itself, namely systemic-structural and static, has been replaced by an anthropocentric one. In this work it was pointed out that the concept of “discourse” has a certain structure, characteristics, and features, and the concepts of “politics”, and “political discourse” have certain linguistic and cultural elements (text, information, social classes, personality, impact on listeners), then we can assume that the term “political discourse” itself has been included in linguistic science in recent years, since it, in turn, studies language and culture. Through the use of language, the politician imposes his interests and constructs his speech in accordance with the needs of the audience. He, as already indicated above in this work, touches the right “strings” of listeners, and uses psycholinguistic and NLP techniques to achieve his goals. We come to the conclusion that politics and power work in linguocultural measurement. Consideration of political communication between the author of political discourse and the audience is considered important. For example, A.P. Chudinov identifies the following antonymous components of political discourse: ritualism – information content, institutional - personal character, esoteric – generally accessible reductionism - multidimensionality of information, uthorship – anonymity, intertextuality – autonomy, aggressiveness – tolerance.1 [10, С. 42-56]. Also, according to E.I. Sheigal, political discourse has two dimensions: real and virtual. The real component of political discourse is of interest to us since the essence of the features that determine political discourse is shown in this component. In the context in which speech activity is carried out, the participating parties are endowed with certain social roles that depend on their participation in political life. As a result, texts arise that take into account the level of influence of linguistic and non-linguistic elements on the above aspects. A politician, before imposing his opinion, must try to “move” into the addressee’s head. It must take into account the personal characteristics of the addressee, place, time, and circumstances. We can see in the discourse a reflection of the author’s inner world, his vision of the world that he himself creates. It follows from this that in order to correctly compose a political discourse, it is necessary to calculate the specific features of the culture where it will be put into action. Thus, in political discourse, its linguistic and cultural specificity is given priority. According to Yu. S. Stepanov, concepts “politics”, “power”, and “social class” are equal to cultural constants: “Concepts exist differently in their different layers, and in these layers, they are differently real for people of a given culture”. 2[11, С.40]. These concepts are represented in quite a variety of ways in the language. A person uses language to express his vision of the world, and language, in turn, imposes a certain vision of the world on a person. This conditional vision of the world includes: 1 Чудинов А. П Политическая лингвистика: Учеб. пособие / Москва. Изд-ва «Флинта», «Наука». 2006 254 с. 2 Степанов Ю. С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования. – М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1997. 825 с 164 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us One can come to the conclusion that political discourse is sufficiently a multifaceted phenomenon that reflects the inner world of a politician and the “political” picture of the world of a particular state. It is goal-oriented, contextual, and dynamic. Official discourse is a means of communication and forms a component of the concept of political and social relations between countries at the level of linguistic units. An approach to formal discourse is the study of the language of formal communication associated with real international socio-political activities. It is known that any communication carried out within a certain style and scale. Formal style is used in sphere of administrative and legal activities and is used in various texts of government documents, laws, international documents and correspondence between individuals and legal entities. Linguistic analysis of official discourse means the creation of discourse signs at the level of linguistic units (in this case, the analysis of lexical-semantic and formal features of diplomatic work), as well as the study of the internal features of discourse. Partners are known to engage in speech during formal communication. Such activity, like any social behavior, is carried out on the basis of certain rules. They, in turn, are formed and implemented as a result of communicative and social interaction between interlocutors. Interactions are carried out on the basis of various social relations on the personal, social, formal, and informal scales. Accordingly, speech influence can be carried out on the basis of certain norms. Official communication is based on norms and rules that are fairly well established and are always used in practice. At the same time, it has been noted that changing, “softer” relationships are also triggered in situations of official communication. Denying or ignoring them can often lead to “communication breakdowns.” 3 The United Nations not only occupies a central place in the system of intergovernmental organizations but also plays an important role in modern international political development. The UN, founded in 1945 as a universal international organization whose main task is to protect international security and society and the development of cooperation between states, today unites 185 countries of the world. The influence of the official UN discourse on modern international relations is significant and multifaceted. It is determined by the following main factors: The United Nations is the most influential forum for discussing current issues of international development between countries; The Charter of the United Nations, the customary conduct of countries and their relations is the basis of modern international law and is called its rules; other international treaties and agreements 3 Колтунова М.А. Деловое общение: Устная и письменная формы (к вопросу о полезной принадлежности): Автореф. дисс. ... конфеты. Филол. наука - Саратов, 1998. - 25с. language and culture national traditions story model of political attitude interactions with other cultures 165 AMERICAN Journal of Language, Literacy and Learning in STEM Education www. grnjournal.us are compared with it; The UN itself has become an important mechanism for defining international standards and occupies a special place among other parent organizations of international law. As part of the UN initiative, hundreds of international conventions and agreements have been signed aimed at regulating the situation in various spheres of public life. The main purpose of official-departmental style texts is to manage relationships between people, institutions and countries, as well as convey information about the status of an issue. At the same time, the content of the text should have the same meaning4. Thus, we can draw a conclusion about the purpose of official discourse and assess the level of value of official (socio-political) action from a linguistic point of view. For example, the job of a diplomatic agent is to inform the public both at home and abroad about the government's views on certain international issues. In such a situation, official discourse represents a specific form of political and social activity. On the other hand, the goal official discourse of the UN is to achieve agreement between various common participants in communicative action in accordance with international issues policies, formulating rules between regions based on mutual interests, harmonizing their interests, expanding cooperation, limiting conflicts, etc5. UN specialized agencies are autonomous international organizations cooperating with the UN. All of them were created on the basis of negotiations with the UN. Some of them existed before the First World War. Some were associated with the League of Nations, created almost simultaneously with the UN. Other agencies were created by the UN to meeting emerging needs. Conclusion. The functions of formal discourse include integration, legitimacy, and credibility. Inclusion means applying knowledge to the public in ways that support government control strategies. Based on the above principles, it can be stated that the official speech practice of presidents is aimed at ensuring the legitimacy and validity of government practice through systematization of evidence. Moreover, it is defined here that the official discourse of speakers in relation to the public aims to “politically embed” them into the current political order. References 1. Чудинов А. П Политическая лингвистика: Учеб. пособие / Москва. Изд ва «Флинта», «Наука». 2006 254 с. 2. Степанов Ю. С. Константы. Словарь русской культуры. Опыт исследования. – М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1997. 825 с 3. Колтунова М.А. Деловое общение: Устная и письменная формы (к вопросу о полезной принадлежности): Автореф. дисс. ... конфеты. Филол. наука - Саратов, 1998. - 25с. 4. Веселов П.В. Современное дело письмо промышленности. - М.: Изд. Стандартов, 1990. – 158 с.; 5. Вшивков А.П., Старцев Т.В. Деловая переписка. - Пермь, 1991. - 90 с. 6. Федоровская О.А. Жанровая классификация научно-технических документов в IX науч. трудов под ред. М. Я. Гражданское дело. - М.: Наука, 1989. - С. 37–48. 4 Веселов П.В. Современное дело письмо промышленности. - М.: Изд. Стандартов, 1990. – 158 с.; Вшивков А.П., Старцев Т.В. Деловая переписка. - Пермь, 1991. - 90 с. 5 Федоровская О.А. Жанровая классификация научно-технических документов в IX науч. трудов под ред. М. Я. Гражданское дело. - М.: Наука, 1989. - С. 37–48.