IDENTIFICATION OF LINGUISTIC SIGNS OF THREAT

Аннотация

This article analyzes the threat as a speech act, as well as examines its linguistic features. The forms of expression, stylistic means, syntactic structures and pragmatic aspects of the threat are analyzed. The features that distinguish the threat from other speech acts are also considered. Keywords:threat, Linguistics, speech act, pragmatics, semantics, stylistics The threat is one of the speech acts that is common in human communication. It usually refers to an intention to signal harm to the listener or third party. There are different forms of threat, which are expressed through linguistic units. This article is aimed at linguistically analyzing a threat, identifying its structural and semanticproperties. In the modern practice of conducting forensic linguistic examinations of studies, the need to use the scientific means of the latest achievements of linguistic theory is clearly recognized. This is due to the qualitative complication and significant expansion of the range of controversial texts that need to be checked by linguistic experts. Often, the" correct " choice of linguistic theory as themethodological basis ofresearch gives thedesired result. Thus, among the most popular categories of requirements for conducting a linguistic examination are the tasks of identifying and qualifying meaningful and colloquial signs of verbal aggression in textmaterials presented foranalysis. In our opinion, the methodological tools of the Postclassic, extended theory of speech actions can be of great help in solving this problem. The importance of linguistic pragmatics and the use of the ideas of the theory of speech acts is shown, for example, in works . Also, our previous studies show how pragmatics and the theory of Speech Acts "work", manifested, for example, in giving unfair information, manipulating language, in the identification and qualification of speech acts of hidden information ofany kind in general 1. In the case of Uzbek forensic linguistic expertise, many controversial cases are also observed in the following years. The problem is that linguistic expertise in Uzbek linguistics is a field of Applied Linguistics that is nowtaking shape. Linguistic expertise may not be involved in all forms of criminalism. However, there is a need for a process of linguistic expertise in areas that work with the text. Somecrimes are linguistic in nature because they are carried out through language. For example, in cases such as threats, slander, insults, extortion, it is the need to carry out a linguistic examination. Investigative processes carried out with thistype ofcrimeare alsodefined as " languagecrimes2. 1РадбильТ.Б.,ЮматовВ.А.Способывыявленияимплицитнойинформациивлингвистической экспертизе//ВестникНижегородскогоуниверситетаим.Н.И.Лобачевского.2014.№3(2).С.18- 21; 2 Solan L.M., Tiersma P.M. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. – Chicago and London: The UniversityofChicagoPress,2005.–P.40-46. http://www.internationaljournal.co.in/index.php/jasass 829 Volume 15Issue 06, June 2025 Impact factor: 2019: 4.679 2020: 5.015 2021: 5.436, 2022: 5.242, 2023: 6.995, 2024 7.75 A threat is an act of speech aimed at achieving a goal through intimidation with negative consequences in communication. It pragmatically expresses the intention of the speaker (the force of the illocution). To distinguish a threat from other expressions in the language, special methodsof linguisticanalysis are necessary. 1.Pragmaticanalysis method Pragmatics is thestudyof howlanguage units areused incontext. Threat pragmatically: •Denotes intent to intimidate •Putspressure onthelistener •Includes items ofconditionality, warning and coercion Example: “If you don't dowhat Isay, you will regret it.” The pragmatic force in this sentence: expresses a threat by warning that a negative outcome will occur. 2.Method ofsemanticanalysis Semantics-studies the meaning of words and sentences. In threatening statements, the following semanticsigns are observed: •Negative lexical units:"I kill", "I beat",”I punish" •Conditional binders: "if", " ifnot” *Wordsexpressing theconsequence: "the result willbe bad", " you willanswer” Method: is analyzed on the basis of the question of whether lexical units are semantically associated withnegative intent. 3.Syntactic analysis method Threatening statements often take theform of command, conditional, oremotional statements: •Commandsentence: "hurry up!” *Conditional sentence: "if you don't come, I'll find you myself.” *Demonstrativesentences: "You Seestill!” Method:through the grammatical structure of thesentence, theillocutionforce isdetermined. 4.Stylisticanalysis method Threatening expressionsoften havestrong emotionality. They are: •Hyperbola: "I will raze you!” *Metaphor: "I Dig Your Grave with my own hands!” •Irony orirony: “imagine foryourself what will happen to you.” Method:with thehelp ofstylisticmeans, thestrength andintention ofthethreat are analyzed. 5.Method ofcontextual analysis The meaning of