CC BY
16INTERJECTION AND MODAL WORD RELATIONSHIP
KONUL ISRAFiL GiZi HASANOVA
Doctor of philosophy in philology, teacher of the Faculty of Philology of ADPU
Summary
In our linguistics, the position and essence of intermediate words are not interpreted correctly. From the explanation of this language unit, it is not understood correctly that it is a syntactic or morphological category. In most cases, interjections are not presented as a syntactic unit, but as a group of words. In this case, it is identified with modal words, which are morphological units. So both are praised in the same way. Meaning types are listed in the same form. Even in the explanation of their development, they are not distinguished from each other. In short, almost modal on works written about interjectionswords, it is possible to write an interjection on the monograph written about modal words. Therefore, clarifications should be made.
Keywords: text, intermediate words, modal words, difference, type
Abstract: It can be said that both in world linguistics and in Azerbaijani linguistics, intermediate words and modal words are not presented correctly, the differences and similarities between them are not explained correctly. In our article, those issues were revised, the relationship issues between the mentioned word groups were clarified, and an opinion was expressed about their meaning types and forms of writing. It was concluded that modal words and interjections are not distinguished in the existing textbooks. As a result, it is possible to write modal words on the works written about modal words, and modal words on the stories written about modal words. This is not the right approach.
Issues such as syntax, functional syntax, text syntax still retain their relevance in modern world linguistics. One of the main problems in this direction is the issue of distinguishing between syntactic units and morphological units. In this regard, it is important to determine the differences and similarities between intermediate words, which are syntactic units, and modal words, which are morphological units, and clarify their meaning and spelling.
Introduction:
First of all, in order to clarify the relationship of these language units, it is necessary to consider each of them separately.
About the concept of interjection. To say a few words about interjection, first of all, it would be appropriate to pay attention to its position in our language and at the same time to the ideas expressed in our linguistics about interjection.
In our linguistics, this language unit is also called "Grammatically words and word combinations that are not related to sentence members" (Modern Azerbaijani language, 1970). In our opinion, it is inappropriate to call these language units words and word combinations. So word and word combination is a very general concept. It is not clear from this expression whether interjections and addresses are lexical, morphological or syntactic units.
As we know, when giving a definition to something, first of all, it should be mentioned the relative gender to which it belongs. In our opinion, the closest gender concept for interjections and interjections is at least syntactic unit or as shown by A. Demirchizade, it can be an additional sentence member. Based on this consideration, the following definition can be given to address and interjection: "Address and interjection, which are not grammatically related to sentence members, but not to words and word combinations, but to syntactic units - additional sentence members, include address and interjection" (A. Demirchizadeh, 1947).
In this research, we talk about them under the name of syntactic units we will do. This is also appropriate, because interjections and addresses should be treated as a component of the sentence, as a member. Each of the elements involved in the sentence should be considered as its organic part. By
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
the way, it should be noted that in the book "Modern Azerbaijani Language, Part III" of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, it is written as follows: "In recent linguistic works, words that are not grammatically related to sentence members are considered as sentence members. This is absolutely true. Because, a word that participates in a sentence and fulfills a certain task is a member of the sentence" (A. Demirchizadeh). In this book, syntactic units that are not grammatically related to sentence members (unfortunately, they are called word and word combination) are divided into two parts. 1) address, 2) interjections"(A. Demirchizadeh, 1947).
By the way, it should be noted that prof. A. Demirchizade "A word and a word that are not grammatically related to the members of the sentencecombinations" called additional members of the sentence. A. Demirchizade in his famous work "Sentences" (1947) divided "words and word combinations that are not grammatically related to sentence members" into 4 parts: address, interjection, exclamation and conjunction (A. Demirchizadeh, 1947 p. 24). Budil interpreted the units as additional sentence members. Although A. Demirchizade rightly called these linguistic units additional sentence members, it is difficult to agree with the idea that he called them "address, interjection, exclamation and conjunction". Thus, khitab and ara are their own syntactic units, while exclamation and connecting words are morphological units. Interjection, interjection, exclamation, and conjunction cannot be different types of the same gender concept. Therefore, instead of the morphological term exclamatory, emotional words corresponding to interjections are called syntactic units instead of the morphological term conjunctions. Because in this case, along with address and interjection, these can also be considered as types of gender. Thus, the main means of expression of syntactic interjections are modal words, but all interjections can be expressed not only with modal words, but also with other language units, as well as the main means of expression of emotional words are exclamations, but all emotional words are not only with exclamations, interjections and modal word relation other language units, for example, noun, adjective, verb, etc. can also be expressed by parts of speech. Also the closures. The main means of expression of conjunctions are not only conjunctions. It can be expressed by other language units, nouns, numbers, connecting words. In other words, agreeing with A. Demirchizade's statement: "Units that are not grammatically related to the sentence members, it is appropriate to call them additional members of the sentence, and call them: "Address, interjection, emotional word, and conjunctions that are not grammatically related to the sentence members are syntactic units." It would be more appropriate to call it in the form of "i". Therefore, the position and place of interjections in our language is among the members of the sentence, in other words, among the additional members of the sentence. Since this aspect is not taken into account, in most textbooks, the interpretation of interjections is given not among the members of the sentence, but even after the interpretation of the individual types of the sentence, in the section "Expanding the simple sentence". In our opinion, the sequence of topics in the syntax should be like this.
1) syntactic relations,
2) word combinations,
3) general information about the sentence,
4) sentence composition and members. (main members - subject, news, completeness, determination, adverb, additions, specializations, members of the same gender, additional members of the sentence - address, interjection, emotional words, conjunctions).
5) Expansion of a simple sentence.
6) Classification of sentences,
7) Syntactic wholes,
A. Demirchizadeh) Punctuation marks,
9) Mediated and unmediated speech.
This sequence would also be logical. As for the explanation of the meaning of intermediate words, this issue is also very complicated and controversial.
Interjection concept.
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
It can be said about the definition of interjections in our linguistics that the following definition is given to interjections in most linguistics literature: It expresses the attitude of the speaker towards his expressed opinion. In our opinion, attitude is a very general and broad concept. Here, emotional, direction, cause, purpose, result, generalization, reference, sequence, etc. can be attributed to the concepts expressing attitude. It is precisely because this aspect is not taken into account that the meaning types of intermediate words are extremely wide is done". For example: 1) Those expressing probability: Of course, undoubtedly, undoubtedly, really, really, true, really, definitely, etc. 2) Suspects, doubters: probably, most likely, probably, maybe, perhaps, it seems, it seems, maybe, probably, it should be, maybe, it might be, etc. 3) Those who state that the expressed opinion is natural, according to custom: according to custom, according to custom, as always, as a rule, of course, etc.
4) Those who express a feeling-emotional attitude to the said opinion:
unfortunately, unfortunately, thankfully, thankfully, fortunately, it's strange, it's unbelievable, as if, as if, as if, almost, etc. 5) The source, those who report isnad: I think, according to what is said, without looking, it is known, he says, when the fathers said, you who know, etc. 6) Generalization, signifiers: thus, especially, e.g. 7) Those who comment on the method of expression of thought: in short, in other words, frankly, among ourselves, etc. A. Demirchizadeh) Calling, those that express attention: do you see, do you know, suppose you believe (do), imagine (do), if you want to know, good, very nice, excuse me, do you understand, etc.
As can be seen, most of these types of meaning do not belong to the modal relation. After all, as you know, interjections mainly indicate modality. In our opinion, some of them: for example, emotionality, feeling, expressive attitude to emotional words, which are independent syntactic categories; another part: generalization, sequence, series, etc. such relations belong to the syntactic category of bindings. From what we have mentioned, it is clear that the semantic relations of intermediate words are wrongly overstated at the expense of concepts that do not belong to them already exaggerated (Modern Azerbaijani language, 1972, p. 323; Modern Azerbaijani language, 2014, p. 323-324; G. Kazimov, 2001. p. 353-355).
5) In our linguistics, in addition to the interpretation of the meaning of intermediate words, a number of entanglements were allowed in the interpretation of their essence. So, it is not clear from the interpretation of the essence of intermediate words, whether this category is a morphological or a syntactic problem? In our linguistics, the study of the essence of interjections is not a syntactic unit -an additional sentence member, but rather a part of speech. In the textbooks and textbooks, the interpretation of the types of meanings of interjections is noted: 1) interjections expressing certainty: of course, of course, certainly, undoubtedly, really, truly, rightly, etc.
2) Interjections expressing doubt, supposition: maybe, maybe, likely, likely, apparently, probably, etc.
3) Interjections expressing feelings and attitudes: happily, unhappily, sorry, strange, etc.
Thus, all intermediate named units are displayed in this way. First of all, it is not correct to mark
the meaning types of intermediate words in this way. All of these are either modal words or modalized language units.
When talking about the meaning groups of intermediate words, it should be noted that;
1) interjections denoting certainty are the following modal words or modals: really, truly, undoubtedly, apparently, etc. expressed in words;
2) modal and modalizing interjections expressing supposition and doubt are expressed by language units such as maybe, probably, probably, must, it seems, maybe, maybe, almost, it seems.
3) Interjections showing the degree of commonality of thought. These interjections are modal and modalizing language units: usually, by custom, as always, as a rule, as a rule, of course, expressed in words.
4) Interjections that show who the source of the idea belongs to. These are
in your opinion, in your opinion, in our opinion, in your opinion, according to me, according to opinion, known, according to information expressed in units.
5) Interjections expressing the feeling towards the opinion expressed by the speaker. Such interjections are expressed by the words: unfortunately, fortunately, unfortunately, it is strange, it is a strange thing, it is a shame, it is surprising. All types of interjections should be interpreted in this way. At this time, it can be clearly seen that interjections are interpreted as a syntactic unit rather than a word group effect.
This is a kind of adverbial and adverbial relationship. So, when talking about adverbs (for example, adverbs of time), it is indicated that they include: now, just now, yesterday, still, always, always, then, before, in the morning, in the evening, at night, tell, tomorrow, etc. includes words like.
Modal-movement adverbs. These include: quickly, slowly, slowly, hard, strongly, carefully, impatiently, beautifully, well, suddenly, suddenly, later, etc. includes words like 2) Adverbs of place: In here, forward, up, back, there, here, there, here, near, down, down, in the middle, near, near, etc. includes words like 3) Quantitative adverbs: This group includes a little, a lot, a lot, completely, many times, a little, a lot, so much, many times, etc. includes adverbs like.
When talking about adverbs, they are interpreted as follows: For example: 1) Manner-movement adverbs: These adverbs: a) manner-movement adverbs, b) verb binding or verb binding compounds, with (-la, -la) nouns, c) expressed by phraseological combinations. For example: The horses were moving slowly (M.I). The van was creaking softly. At such a time of pleasure, he began humming under his lips (M.I). 2) Adverbs of time: a) adverbs of time, b) closing verbs or closing verbs, c) adjectives or adjectives, 9) nouns denoting time, d) numbers of quantity, e) phraseological combinations. For example, you would have been small then, the Blacks immediately disappeared, When I arrived, I saw my friend. Gulshan began to check the cotton that would reach the field. Other adverbs are also analyzed in this way.
Method: The main methods of language analysis were used in the writing of the article. Description of these; comparative history; comparative; historical; structure; opposition; component analysis; style analysis; quantity; automatic analysis; refers to logical-semantic modeling. In addition, language stratification is used in the article.
Result: Both nouns and verbs are modal words, not adverbs. These are units of speech. It should have been noted there that the modal words related to the noun and the modal words related to the verb, the interjections expressed. Interjections are a syntactic unit that can only be expressed. There is no interjection. There are words related to modal words. As we mentioned earlier, such cases remind us of the relationship between an adverb and an adverb. An adverb is not a group of words, but a syntactic unit, it can only be expressed. Also, interjections are not a morphological unit, word group, is a syntactic unit. It can only be expressed by modal words.
Discussion: G. Kazimov is right in his "Modern Azerbaijani language" (syntactic )states: "Interjections are expressed both by modal words and by a number of main parts of speech expressing modality according to their place (G. Kazimov, 2001, p.323). But when giving examples: For example: "As main parts of speech. They say it's true, it's true, it's true. (S. Rahimov)
My eyes are clear, my image is vivid (Nizami)......
Like interjections. True (true).
I am your friend, but I cannot follow what you say. It seems that you have an appetite for the sun (S. Vurgun), I wonder where you can go, cousin (H. Mehdi).
While recording, he did not approach the issue correctly. So, the comparison is not done correctly here.
The main part of speech is a morphological unit, and an interjection is a syntactic unit. The comparison had to be made either between the main part of speech and the modal word, or between the main clause and the intervening word. Then on that page we find such a consideration. Noun interjections: work, in the world, actually.
Verb interjections: it seems, to say, let's think, etc." (5). Sentences related to these is given.
ОФ "Международный научно-исследовательский центр "Endless Light in Science"
Conclusion:
From what we have mentioned, we can come to the conclusion that modal words and interjections are mostly not distinguished in textbooks and teaching aids, as well as in monographs. We can even say that modal words can be written on works written about modal words, and modal words can be written on stories written about modal words. The essence does not change that much.
REFERENCES
1) Modern Azerbaijani language. Baku: Publication of ASU, 1972, page: 323.
2) Modern Azerbaijani language. Baku: Publication of EA, Part III. 19A. Demirchizadeh1.
3) Modern Azerbaijani language. Baku: ASU publication, 1970, p. 223.
4) Modern Azerbaijani language EA publication. Baku: 1931, p. 306.
5) Modern Azerbaijani language. Publication of EA, Baku: 19A. Demirchizadeh1, p. 306.
6) Modern Azerbaijani language. Syntax. ASU edition, part IV. Baku, 1972, p 323.
7) Modern Azerbaijani language. EA-edition. Part III. Baku: 19A. Demirchizadeh1, Baku, 2014, p.: 323-324.
8) A. Demirchizadeh. Clause members. Baku: 1947.
9) G. Kazimov. Modern Azerbaijan language. Syntax. Baku: 2001, p.353-355.
