CC BY
65
Section 12. Philology
Abdikarim Nurziya, Candidate of philological sciences, Associate Professor Karaganda State Industrial University, (Temirtau, Kazakhstan) E-mail: [email protected]
COMPARATIVE TYPOLOGY OF KAZAKH AND MONGOLIAN LANGUAGES IN THE FIELD OF SYNTAX
Abstract. The article provides a brief overview of the basic studies of Kazakh-Mongolian languages, which are included in the group of Altai languages. The author points out the importance of comparative typological research in the syntax of the named languages, which is currently a gap not only in Turkic and Mongolian, but also in altaistic; gives generalized research results on this issue, which is focused on the level of simple Kazakh and Mongolian in the synchronous aspect. And we think that on the basis of typological studies it is possible to determine the future tasks of comparative studies of modern Altai languages.
Keywords: Kazakh language, Mongolian language, place of Kazakh language in Turkic studies, altaistics, syntactic typology, Turkic-Mongolian languages, descriptions of structural elements, type of communication.
Kazakh language is the state language of the Republic of Kazakhstan (since 1990 and this position is confirmed by the new Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan adopted on January 28, 1993) and together with Nogai and Karakalpak belongs to the Kipchak group and is considered the "youngest" language among all Turkic languages. Despite the fact that Kazakh language has such a "young" age, it has a great literary heritage and a rich literary language. The scientific works of Kazakh linguists are specific in the field of linguistics on a comparative study on the relationship between the Kazakh and Mongolian languages. Ironically, part of the ethnic Kazakhs who have been on the territory of the Mongolian People's Republic have lived in this country for many years. When Kazakhstan was part of the USSR, Mongolia as a socialist republic, had a good relationship with the Kazakh SSR in the field of science, technology and culture. All specialists of Kazakh language and literature studied in universities of the Kazakh SSR. Due to this, ethnic Kazakhs well preserved their identity and all the beauty of their native language and became bilingualists. Thus, it can be noted that this fact at a significant level encouraged Kazakh linguists to conduct research in this area. But the fundamentals of questions about the linguistic relations between Kazakh and Mongolian peoples were laid in the works of the first Kazakh scholar Sh. Ualikhanov, then -G. Musabaev, K. Akhanov, A Kaydari, Sh. Sarybaev, and their
research was continued in the theses by Zh. Tuymebayev, G. Sagidolda, B. Napil. The views and works of a prominent Mongolian-Kazakh scholar B. Bazylkhan about the common-language common root elements in these languages in foreign altaistics received a well-deserved assessment. Therefore, we can rightly assume that Kazakh linguistics has considerable experience on this issue than other Turkic languages. Unfortunately, in Kazakh linguistics, the facts of the Mongolian language were mainly involved in order to establish the etymological basis of individual words, to mention toponymic parallels, phraseological units. The works of the Mongolian-Kazakh linguist B. Bazylkhan are dedicated to identifying single-root words and comparing the morphological categories of Kazakh and Mongolian words. In this case, it is impossible not to draw attention to the comments ofAcademician Sh. Sarybayev, that it is high time for Kazakh linguistics to work on problems of general Turkic studies or general linguistics [1, 208], this approach will make it possible to clarify to a certain extent the place of the Kazakh language in Turkic studies and even in altaistics. There is an opinion that "... altaistics has spent many decades - it has no prospects, since in the overwhelming majority of cases, the Mongolian forms proper act as proto forms, while the most ancient Turkic forms show greater similarity with the forms of modern Mongolian languages, rather than with ancient Mongolian. The same is true about the Manchu-
COMPARATIVE TYPOLOGY OF KAZAKH AND MONGOLIAN LANGUAGES IN THE FIELD OF SYNTAX
Tungus languages: Turkic forms are more similar to those languages whose phonetic structure has been greatly changed -Oroch, Ulchi, Nanai; similar changes are shown by the Even language, more than the other Tungus-Manchu languages, subjected to the Turkic (Yakut) influence" [2]. According to our review of research on Altai languages, we observe that as research materials in these languages, some are distributed in the form of random or natural and artificially limited parts of the language, such as phonetics, from the grammar only morphology. If both parts of the grammar (morphology and syntax) were sufficiently and comprehensively considered, then we could give information about the linguistic image of the historical past and about historical development, change, differentiation or integration and other phenomena. In other words, "private convergence still does not give anything; for every language fact is part of an inseparable whole. One particular case should not be compared with another special case; it is necessary to compare one language system with another" [3, 19]. The system of linguistic phenomenon is clearly expressed in grammar, it is a set of techniques by which words are changed and connected to build phrases in addition it is also the most stable side of the language [4, 26]. This would be possible, because each act of speaking in its composition, both small and large, is part of the statement, which contains a number of repetitive elements. In this case, not only speaking is the basis of the speech act and brings all sorts of repetitive language elements into the system. And a sentence is a systemic structure that provides an exchange of views, intercommunication, emotional and expressive effect, gives openness to the process of thinking, in a broad sense, the syntactic system of the language opens up great prospects for typological research. One of the main tasks of the syntactic typology is to identify the process of thought formation and its verbal expression in various languages, taking into account the research of its communicative, thought-conscious structures, which will be helpful in determining the structure of the basic syntactic model (phrase and outline structure of the sentence) in which information about the permanent content structure that has developed over the years in the space of various circumstances and events. In general, very significant problems relate to the main issues of the general syntactic typology. It is known that "all Turkic languages, ... and all Altaic ... have common typological features: ... in the field of syntax, a specific word order in phrases and sentences, according to which all defining words are in position before defined, the complementary before complemented; lack of agreement in the number of defined and attribute, weak development of complex structures with subordinate clauses, which in most cases correspond to special participle and verbal participle phrases, etc." [5, 85]. And syntactic typological studies are mostly com-
parative and contrastive. This, apparently, is explained, on the one hand, by the volume of syntactic concentration, on the other hand, by the practical significance of clarifying linguistic similarities and differences. The syntactic level of the language, first of all, requires a description of its basic units and consideration of the most important functions, a comparison of the levels of a word combination, a sentence. Therefore, it is natural to describe the structural elements that will allow us to consider the "movement" of linguistic phenomena or the course of their mutual organization both from a formative and from a substantive position.
In our study, from the point ofview of traditional grammar, the structure of the simple sentence of Kazakh and Mongolian languages was covered: methods and forms of syntactic relations, types of simple sentence, modality, introductory words and inserted constructions; members of the sentence and ways oftheir expression; homogeneous and detailed parts of the sentence of Kazakh language, their compliance with Mongolian language. At the same time, similar and distinctive features in the Kazakh and Mongolian languages identified in all literary styles of the language were defined. For example, that in the languages represented the main parts of the sentence have more differences than the secondary ones. This can be explained by the fact that the main parts form the structural basis and define the typical types of sentences, therefore, the main parts of the sentence undergo qualitative changes in the language.
Some syntax units, such as functional names, do not differ much in grammatical terms, but they have a difference: if in Kazakh language, functional names only in the isaphet combination perform a service function, then in Mongolian this pattern is not necessary, although they are also used after the genitive case.
Also there were found some syntactic facts that distinguish Kazakh language from Mongolian - non-traditional subject, i.e. subject expressed by the noun in indirect cases. For example, in Kazakh language in simple sentences of a complicated type, the subject can be expressed not only in the nominative, but also in the genitive, and in Mongolian - in simple, and in complex sentences it can be expressed in other cases. Analyzing the facts of these languages, we came to the conclusion that the non-traditional subject of the compared languages is, firstly, of a formal nature, in this case it is impossible to speak about ergativeness; secondly, such differences of these languages are the effects of their historical superstratss, in Kazakh - Arabic, in Mongolian - Tibetan.
In addition, there are a number of issues awaiting immediate resolution for both Turkic and Mongolian languages; we are talking about expanded parts of the sentence. Around this concept in Turkology and Mongolism for a long time there were discussions, disputes, partly meaningful, partly
terminological, and as a result, Turkologists had a common opinion, adopted the term as a unit of complicated type of simple sentence. However, in its grammatical form and syntactic function, the same equal unit in Mongolian language is understood as a component of a complex sentence. When analyzing the studied languages, it turned out that sometimes the expanded parts of the sentence in Turkic languages have an advantage over the members of the simple sentence, and in Mongolian - the component of a complex sentence sometimes loses its function as a part of the simple sentence. Therefore, this syntactic unit still needs detailed study in altaistics.
The results of our research can be summarized as follows:
1. It was found that the linguists of the studied languages adhere to different theoretical concepts, as a result of which "attitudinal differences" arise. For example, in Kazakh linguistics, the forms of the Participle I and Participle II are the ways of joining, and in Mongolian they are defined as a method of composing and subordinating connections in a sentence. In fact, their syntactic functions are the same.
2. On the basis of linguistic facts, these differences were revealed:
a) in Mongolian, the subject is not consistent with the predicate; therefore, the person in the sentence is determined by the context, appeal, and possessive endings; therefore, the relationship between the main parts of the sentence is called coordination.
b) in Mongolian language there is no such type of communication as "mutual subordination" characteristic of all Turkic languages, including Kazakh;
c) in Kazakh language analytical constructions dominate, and in Mongolian - synthetic; grammar functions of the arkili, karai, boyinsha of Kazakh language can be given as examples,
and in the Mongolian language they are transmitted by case endings of the case "uildeq", but some synthetic constructs are transmitted analytically, for example, the function of the "deer" of Mongolian language in Kazakh language perform dative-directional and local cases.
3. It should be noted that the question of a single epoch of these languages still remains open, but they still have the most ancient grammatical features. This is noted when considering such a category as the case: the grammatical-syntactic functions of the nominative, genitive, directional, local and original cases that are not subject to internal and external influence.
4. In order to deny or approve the Altai theory or give a more developed and scientifically based judgment and for a complete picture of Altai languages in general, it is necessary to study the syntax materials not only of Kazakh and Khalkha-Mongolian languages, but also of other Turkic and Mongolian languages.
In conclusion, we would like to note that the study ofAltai languages from the point of view of comparative historical, comparative typological and areal linguistics should complement each other. According to our assumption, the study of Turkic-Mongolian (Altai) languages in the field of syntax should go in the following directions: determination of the scope and object of study of the syntactic typology of Turkic-Mongolian languages; development of basic criteria and identification of the syntactic typology of the named languages; delimitation or establishment of relations between syntactic typology and other typical types of linguistics, preparation of syntactic universal phenomena, etc. Solving a problem of this nature necessitates the expansion of language materials and the use of various research methods in order to create a more realistic typological picture ofAltai languages "in one's home".
References:
1. Sarybayev Sh. Kazak til bilimi maseleleri / Issues of Kazakh linguistics. - Almaty: Arys, 2001.- P. 613-621.
2. URL: http://altaica.ru/LIBRARY/burykin/burykin_korean.pdf / A. A. Burykin Position of Korean language in the classification of individual groups of Altai languages and new perspectives of Altaism.
3. Meye A. Comparative method in historical linguistics / Translated from French by A. V. Diligen.- M.: Foreign literature, 1954.- 125 p.
4. Krushevsky N. V. Selected works on linguistics.- M.: Heritage, 1998.- 275 p.
5. Baskakov N. A. Introduction to the study of Turkic languages.- M.: Higher School, 1969.- 383 p.
