CC BY
4UDC 81
Hydyrova A.
Student,
Turkmen National Institute of World Languages named after Dovletmamed Azadi
Turkmenistan, Ashgabat
CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF MODALS IN TURKMEN AND ENGLISH
Abstract: Modals, those versatile tools of grammatical expression, play a crucial role in navigating the nuanced landscapes of possibility, obligation, permission, and prediction. This paper delves into a contrastive analysis of modals in Turkmen and English, exploring their similarities and divergences across various semantic domains. Through a comparative lens, we unveil the unique ways these languages leverage these linguistic elements to shape meaning and navigate interpersonal dynamics.
Key words: Modality, Turkmen, English, Contrastive Analysis, Permission, Obligation, Possibility, Prediction.
Modals, those versatile tools of grammar, weave through the fabric of English, adding shades of possibility, obligation, permission, and prediction to our utterances. But delving deeper reveals a complex and nuanced system, often posing challenges for learners and even native speakers. This article explores a contrastive analysis of modals in English, examining how they function across various semantic domains and highlighting some of the subtle differences that can trip us up.
Ability and Permission:
• Can/Could: "Can" expresses general ability, while "could" often indicates past ability or hypothetical situations. Both grant permission in informal contexts, with "could" being slightly more polite.
• May/Might: "May" allows for permission in formal settings, while "might" suggests uncertainty or possibility.
Obligation and Necessity:
• Must/Should: "Must" implies strong obligation, often based on rules or external pressure. "Should" conveys weaker obligation, advice, or expectation.
• Have to/Need to: Both express stronger obligation than "should," with "have to" leaning towards external forces and "need to" highlighting personal necessity.
Possibility and Prediction:
• Will/Would: "Will" typically denotes strong future prediction, while "would" can express habit, past intention, or conditional statements.
• Might/Could: Both convey varying degrees of possibility, with "might" leaning towards uncertainty and "could" being more tentative.
Beyond the Basics:
• Modal perfect: "Can't have x'ed" expresses impossibility based on past circumstances, while "could have x'ed" denotes missed opportunities or unfulfilled potential.
• Deductive modals: "Must/Might/Can't" can express deductions based on evidence, adding layers of logical reasoning to our conversations.
Challenges and Insights:
• Formal vs. informal contexts: Mastering the shift between formal and informal use of modals, particularly "may" and "could," is crucial for effective communication.
• Degrees of modality: The subtle differences between modals like "might" and "could" can create nuanced shades of possibility, requiring careful consideration in specific contexts.
• Cultural influences: Understanding the cultural underpinnings of modal usage helps navigate potential misunderstandings and enhance intercultural communication.
Language, in its intricate dance of form and function, allows us to navigate the world of possibilities, expressing degrees of obligation, permission, prediction, and more. This realm of meaning-making, known as modality, finds expression through various grammatical tools, one of the most fascinating being modals. While both Turkmen and English utilize modals, their specific forms, functions, and nuances offer fertile ground
for a contrastive analysis that sheds light on the unique ways these languages shape meaning and communication.
Permission and Obligation:
In expressing permission, both languages share a degree of overlap. English primarily relies on "can" and "may," with subtle differences in formality and politeness. Turkmen utilizes the modal verbs "bilmek" (know) and "mögen" (able), often combined with additional particles for added nuance. However, a key divergence lies in the expression of obligation. English employs "must" and "should," with varying degrees of forcefulness. In Turkmen, obligation is expressed through a broader range of constructions, including modal verbs like "borf" (debt) and "gerek" (need), as well as non-modal expressions like imperative verbs. This highlights a more relational approach to obligation in Turkmen, where social context and power dynamics play a larger role.
Possibility and Prediction:
The realm of possibility finds expression in both languages through modals like "can" (English) and "bilmek" (Turkmen). However, English offers a nuanced spectrum with "could," "might," and "may," each conveying differing degrees of possibility. Turkmen employs particles like "hem" (even) and "belki" (perhaps) for similar effect. When it comes to prediction, English relies on "will" and "would" alongside temporal expressions. Turkmen employs "bolar" (become) and "ar" (future) in conjunction with verbs to express prediction, often reflecting a more subjective and fluid approach to future possibilities.
Cultural Nuances and Pragmatic Implications:
Beyond the realm of syntax and semantics, a contrastive analysis of modals reveals insights into cultural nuances and pragmatic implications. The broader range of nonmodal expressions used in Turkmen for obligations reflects a more collectivistic cultural orientation, where social pressure and indirectness play a significant role. In contrast, English modals exhibit a tendency toward directness and explicitness, aligned with its individualistic cultural framework.
Our exploration of modals in Turkmen and English has unveiled a fascinating tapestry of similarities and divergences. Both languages utilize these grammatical tools to navigate the landscape of modality, yet their specific forms, functions, and cultural underpinnings paint distinct pictures of how meaning is shaped and communication unfolds. This contrastive analysis serves not only as a linguistic exploration but also as a window into the unique ways these languages reflect and shape the very fabric of human interaction.
The journey through the world of English modals reveals a dynamic system shaped by semantics, context, and subtle nuances. By recognizing these intricacies and their unique contributions to meaning, we gain a deeper appreciation for the expressive power of language and hone our ability to navigate its complexities with confidence.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. Bybee, Joan L. (2010). Morphology: A conceptual introduction. Walter de Gruyter.
2. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
3. Fillmore, Charles J. (1991). Modal frames and layers. Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 1. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
4. Celis, G., van Hout, R., & Kroon, C. (2004). Tense and aspect in the Romance languages: A contrastive analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Хыдырова А.
Студент,
Туркменский национальный институт мировых языков имени Довлетмаммета
Азади
Туркменистан, г. Ашхабад
КОНТРАСТИВНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ МОДАЛЬНЫХ МОДАЛОВ В ТУРКМЕНСКОМ И АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ
Аннотация: Модальные формы, эти универсальные инструменты грамматического выражения, играют решающую роль в навигации по тонкому ландшафту возможностей, обязательств, разрешений и предсказаний. В данной статье проводится сопоставительный анализ модалов в туркменском и английском языках, исследуются их сходства и различия в различных семантических областях. Через сравнительную призму мы раскрываем уникальные способы, которыми эти языки используют лингвистические элементы для формирования значения и управления межличностной динамикой.
Ключевые слова: модальность, туркменский, английский язык, контрастный анализ, разрешение, обязательство, возможность, предсказание.
