COGNITIVE–PRAGMATIC DYNAMICS IN THE RE-LEXICALIZATION OF CENTRAL ASIAN DIPLOMATIC LANGUAGE

Abstract

This study analyzes Central Asian diplomatic terminology as an evolving, multilingual lexicon shaped by the interaction of Soviet-era bureaucratic conventions, Turkic relational pragmatics, and Islamically inflected moral evaluation. Drawing on Conceptual Metaphor Theory alongside speech-act and politeness approaches, it examines a corpus of Uzbek, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz diplomatic texts (2015–2024) to show how recurrent lexical choices and formulaic constructions encode culturally patterned models of negotiation, authority, and sovereignty. The analysis finds systematic cross-linguistic differences in metaphorical framing (e.g., negotiation as transactional procedure vs. collective deliberation) and in pragmatic packaging (explicit proceduralization vs. solidarity-oriented mitigation), which affect how commitment, refusal, and legitimacy are performed in institutional discourse. Overall, the study argues that diplomatic meaning is not simply transmitted through language but is partly constituted by the cognitive and pragmatic conventions that structure what can be said, by whom, and with what force. Diplomacy is not only conducted through language but is also partly constituted within it. International relations are enacted through cognitive and pragmatic structures that make positions, commitments, and legitimacy publicly expressible across languages and histories.