CC BY
11EVIDENTIAL SEMANTICS IN LINGUISTIC RESEARCH
Mussatayeva M.,
Doctor of philological sciences, professor of Abay Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Kazakhstan,
Almaty Alipova A.
Doctoral student of Abay Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Kazakhstan, Almaty
Abstract
For the first time, the problem of evidentiality is considered by F. Boas [1] and is further developed in the works of R. O. Jacobson, who understands evidentiality as "a verbal category that takes into account three facts (a reported fact, a fact of message, and the transmissibility of a message fact, in other words, an indication of the source of information on a reported fact)" [2, 95]. Interest in this problem does not weaken, as evidenced by a certain amount of scientific literature. The complex organization of evidentiality as a category is studied from different positions; therefore, a review of the works devoted to this problem is carried out in this article, in order to systematize them.
Keywords: grammatical category, syntax, source of information, mediator, reported fact.
The study of the category of evidentiality, introduced into linguistic science by F. Boas, has a century-old tradition. It is known that F. Boas defines evidentiality as a universal grammatical category, which in various languages is expressed in a mandatory or optional form [1]. In the mid-20th century, the study of the category of evidentiality gets a new impetus. The accumulated arsenal of scientific research on this problem needs some systematization, in connection with which we review the research devoted to this problem.
It is known, the source received by a person from the outside information about any event can be: the speaker himself as an eyewitness or participant of the events in question; indirectly, via anyone; the speaker retrieves from the memory, remembering the case of his or of someone else's life; link to dream, etc. In semasiology this phenomenon is called term evidentiality - evidence (lat.evidentia) with the meaning "the speaker or other person was the author or witness of the event described in the statement".
Of course, this term is hard to call conventional, as evidenced by the presence of a number of synonymous terms: inference/ non-inference, obviousness/ non-obviousness, mediative, eyewitness/ non-eyewitness, confirmation / non-confirmation, distance, imperceptive. We share the point of view of N. A. Kozintseva, according to which the term evidentiality can be considered as generic, including both obviousness and non-obviousness [3, 92].
There are a number of works devoted to the phenomenon of evidentiality: F. Boas (1911), R. Jakobson (1957, 1972), E. I. Demina (1959), A. Hadeler (1977),
A. P. Sytov (1979), Z. K. Shanova (1979), I. Kutzarov (1984), S. De Lance (1986), T. Givon (1986), L. Gordon (1986), A. Slatcher (1986), R. Oswalt (1986), M.Mithun (1986), M. Hardman (1986), D. Weber (1986), A. Aksu-Kos, D. Slobin (1986), B. Friedman (1986), A. Woodbury (1986), W. Chafe (1986), J. Nicolas (1986) T. Willett (1988), T. N. Moloshnaya (1989), F.Giusti -Fichi (1994), J. Lizard (1996), A. Vezhbitzkaya (1994), N.A. Kozintzeva (1994; 1998),
B. Ya. Ostrovsky (1997), M. K. Sabaneeva (1999), A. A. Malchukov (1999), O. A.Hadartzev (2000), I. A.
Nevskaya (2001), S. I. Buglan (2000), E. E. Cordy (1998; 2001), F.De Haan, (1999a; 1999b; 2001), etc.
A significant contribution to the development of the ontology of this phenomenon was made by the work of W. Chafe on the material of the English language, in which the scientist as the main principle of differentiation of evidentiality takes its functional meaning [4, 262]. The merit of the scientist is to identify the essence of the category of evidentiality and its functional and semantic features.
The complex nature of this phenomenon causes differences of opinion among scientists about the existence of evidentiality as a communicative category. In this regard, it seems appropriate to carry out a small "excursion" into the history of the development of this problem. Of course, the description of the history of this category has repeatedly become the object of certain publications [5, 45], [6, 127], but since our subsequent publications will cover fragments of the study of the category of evidentiality on the material of the Kazakh press, we consider it necessary to conduct a small review of scientific research in order to identify the degree of development of this problem.
The development of this problem gets a new impetus in the last two decades of the 20th century in American linguistics. Significant in the history of the development of this phenomenon can be considered Philology Symposium, held in 1981 in Berkeley, dedicated to the problems of the ideological inspirers of which were W. Chafe and J. Nichols. The workshop was attended by such eminent scholars as R. Jacobson, R. Oswalt, L. Gordon, M. Mithun, M. Hardman, D. Weber, A. Aksu-Kos, D. Slobin, V. Fridman, A. Wood-bury, S. De Lance etc. In the course of this forum the ways and means of expression of evidentiality in different languages, various markers of evidentiality, their nature and scope of use were discussed and analyzed.
Research interest in this category is due to the fact that it can include any information about the source of the statements marked by (+) - presence of a source of information, and with the sign (-) - lack of source of information or uncertainty, the unawareness.
Most scholars consider it a grammatical category. For example, I. A. Melchuk refers evidentiality to qualitative grammatical categories (semantic-pragmatic type of classification), which express the relationship between the speaker and the proposition [7, 543].
The complex nature of this category contributes to the generation of various theories that can be conditionally grouped into three directions, implementing different approaches to the study of evidential semantics.
A group of scientists (A. Vezhbitzkaya, R. P. Us-ikova, representing the first direction, offers a study of evidence semantics via semantics and morphological form of the verb. Over time, studies show that this approach is acceptable in the study of this problem through verbal forms and semantics of only closely related languages, and does not justify itself on the material of different structural languages[8,780], [9, 239].
But, as noted by I. V. Nedyalkov, the category of evidentiality is based on the expression of information about the subject as a source of information, which is already incorporated in the paradigm of the verb [5, 46].
The next group of scientists (M. V. Lyapon, E. E. Kordi) offers consideration of evidentiality by means of the category of modality. This approach significantly expands the arsenal of representatives of this semantics, thereby providing more opportunities for obtaining reasonable and reliable results. The advantage of this approach is to involve not only verbal forms, but also modal words for the analysis. This provides an exit beyond morphology, into the vocabulary [10, 230], [11, 165].
The representatives of the third direction (G.N. Ivanova, Yu. V. Sharapova) category of evidentiality viewed from a literary standpoint, by identifying those or other literary landmarks: the author and his positions, lyrical, narratory and narrator etc. on the material of works of art [12,18], [13, 18].
As can be seen, the possibility of studying evidential semantics from different positions testifies to the universality of this phenomenon, which lies in its ontology.
In addition, evidential semantics includes many conceptual layers in inclusion relations: object-subject, spatial and temporal, types of object relations, etc.
A number of scholars (S. Yu.Stepanov, N. N.Boldyrev) draw attention to the taxonomic nature of evidentiality.[14, 360], [15, 171]. As it is known, the term taxonomy (from the Greek taxix - build, order, arrangement, and nomos - law) with a value of a set of principles and rules for the classification of linguistic objects (languages and language units) and this classification of scientific use introduced by B. L. Whorf [16, 44]. Taxonomy implies hierarchy, i.e. the expression of evidentiality at different levels of the language system on the principle of simple to complex.
Some linguists (N.V.Baber) also note the lacunar nature of evidential semantics, i.e. the absence of any signs in certain conditions [17].
It should also be noted that there is no evidence -evidence opposition, since any information is evidential, i.e. it is always based on a specific source.
Thus, as the semantic components of evidentiality can be distinguished: the universality, the relationship
of inclusion, hierarchy, lacunarity, the lack of opposition.
REFERENCES:
1. Boas, F. Handbook of American Indian languages. - Wash., 1911.
2. Jakobson R. Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. Cambridge, 1957 // Jacobson P. O. Shifters, verbal categories and Russian verb / / Principles of typological analysis of languages of different order. M.: Science, 1972. - p. 95-113.
3. Kozintseva N. A. Category of Evidentiality (the problem of typological analysis) / / Questions of linguistics. - 1994. - No. 3. - p. 92-93
4. Chafe W. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. It Evidentiality: the linguistic coding of epistemology in language. Norwood, N.Y.: ablex from Chafe and Nichols, ed., 1986. -p.262-275.
5. Nedyalkov I. V. Problems of Classification and Hierarchy of Grammatical Categories / / Language and speech activity. - Vol.3. - Part 1.-SPb., 2000.-p.45-63.
6. Hengeveld K. Layers and operators in functional grammar // Journal of Linguistics. - No. 25. -1989. -p.127-157.
7. Melchuk I. A. Course of General morphology. Vol.II. Part two: the morphological values of / Translated from French by N.N. Pertzova, E.N. Savina; Common edited by N.N. Pertzova, the article by A. E. Kibrik. - Moscow: Languages of Russian culture, 1998. - p. 543.
8. Vezhbitskaya A. Semantic universals and description of languages. - Moscow: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. - p. 780.
9. Usikov R. P. Macedonian language: Grammatical sketch, texts and dictionary. - CKonje: Macedonian book, 1985. - p. 239.
10. Lapon M. V. On the Language Specificity of Modality, Publ. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Vol. 3. - 1971. - p. 230-239.
11. Cordi E. E. Modal and causative verbs in modern French / Edited by B. S. Hrakowski. - JL: Nauka, 1988. - p. 165.
12. Ivanova G. N. Authorization and ways of its expression in modern English: Ph.D. thesis abstract. -L., 1981.-p. 18.
13. Sharapova Yu. V. Non-Direct Speech in Functional-Communicative and Structural-Semantic Aspects (on the material of the English language). Ph.D. thesis abstract. - SPb, 2001.- p. 18.
14. Stepanov Yu. S. Names. Predicates. Suggestions: semiological grammar. - Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The Institute of linguistics. - M.: Science, 1981.-p. 360.
15. Boldyrev N.N. Categorical meaning of the verb. System and functional aspects. - Monograph. -SPb.: Publishing house RGPU named by A. G. Gertsen, 1994. - p. 171.
16. Whorf B. L. Grammatical categories / / Principles of typological analysis of languages of different order. - M.: Science, 1972. - p. 44-60.
17. Baber N. V. Realization of the Category of Ev-identiality in German: Ph.D. thesis abstract.- M.,- 2012
