CC BY
15
В заключение новости мы видим речь Госсекретаря США Рекса Тиллерсо-на: «U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Russia had "failed" to deliver on a 2013 agreement to remove Syria's chemical weapons» («Госсекретарь США Рекс Тил-лерсон сообщил, что Россия "не смогла" выполнить соглашение 2013 года по химоружию Сирии»). В данном фрагменте обратим внимание на глагол «failed» (провалила, потерпела неудачу), который носит экспрессивный характер. Авторы иногда используют квазицитаты, чтобы одновременно выразить оценочное мнение и не нести при этом ответственность, так как они ссылаются на слова другого человека [13, с. 32].
По результатам исследования можно сделать вывод о том, что в новостном видео-вербальном тексте авторы часто используют речевые средства воздействия. Особый интерес вызывает скрытая и прямая речевая агрессия, которая часто реализуется через речь политиков или других авторитетных источников. Широкие манипулятивные возможности открывает добавление авторитетного мнения определенной организации или персоны, которые могут создать эффект мнимой достоверности передаваемой информации. Также при анализе аудиовизуального уровня новостных видео-вербальных текстов ав-
Библиографический список
торы прибегают к манипулятивным приемам, которые апеллируют к чувствам и эмоциям зрителей. В результате анализа фрагментов нами были выявлены следующие способы воздействия, характерные для новостных видео-вербальных текстов.
На уровне текста средством выражения субъективного отношения к кому-или чему-либо является лексика с оценочной семантикой, которая может быть выражена следующими способами: во-первых, это слова, в которых коннотатив-ное значение совпадает с денотатом, во-вторых, более грубая форма изначально нейтрального слова. Часто издательства самовольно интерпретируют слова политиков путем изменения смысла слов и понятий, которые преднамеренно изменяются для создания вокруг персоны негативных ассоциаций.
В заключение можно сделать вывод о том, что новостной видео-вербальный текст, содержащий аудиовизуальную информацию с текстовым сопровождением, предоставляет иные способы воздействия по сравнению с обычным текстом. Анализ новостных текстов показывает, что примененные способы воздействия не только искажают реальную картину событий, но и способны создавать у зрителя «правильное» восприятие информации с точки зрения манипулирующего.
1. Добросклонская Т. Г Медиалингвистика: системный подход к изучению языка СМИ: современная английская медиаречь. Москва: Наука, 2008.
2. Рогозина И.В. Медиа-картина мира: когнитивно-семиотический аспект: монография. Москва - Барнаул: Изд-во АлтГТУ 2003: 130 - 131.
3. Добросклонская Т. Г Методы анализа видео-вербальных текстов. Медиалингвистика. 2016; № 2 (12): 13 - 25.
4. Данилова А.А. «Манипулирование словом в средствах массовой информации». Москва: Добросвет, Издательство «КДУ», 2009: 220 - 232.
5. Николашкин Я.И., Поскачина Е.Н. Видеоряд как способ воздействия на общественное мнение (на материале англоязычных сайтов). Научный электронный журнал «Меридиан». 2017; № 8 (11): 30 - 32.
6. Экранная культура: теоретические проблемы: сборник статей. Под редакцией К.Э. Разлогова. Санкт-Петербург, 2012.
7. Пойманова О.В. Семантическое пространство видео-вербального текста. Автореферат диссертации кандидата филологических наук. Москва, 1997.
8. Светана-Толстая С.В. Русская речь в массмедийном пространстве. Под редакцией Я.Н. Засурского. Москва: МедиаМир, 2007.
9. Щербинина Ю.В. Вербальная агрессия. Москва: ЛКИ, 2008.
10. Syrians report 15 dead in U.S. airstrike. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-airstrike-20170406-story.html
11. US military strikes on Syria: what we know so far. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/us-airstrikes-on-syria-donald-trump-what-we-know-so-far
12. Ракетный удар США по Сирии. Обобщение. Available at: http://www.interfax.ru/world/557315
13. Слышкин Г Г. От текста к символу: лингвокультурные концепты прецендентных текстов в сознании и дискурсе. Москва, 2000. References
1. Dobrosklonskaya T.G. Medialingvistika: sistemnyj podhod k izucheniyu yazyka SMI: sovremennaya anglijskaya mediarech'. Moskva: Nauka, 2008.
2. Rogozina I.V. Media-kartina mira: kognitivno-semioticheskijaspeki: monografiya. Moskva - Barnaul: Izd-vo AltGTU, 2003: 130 - 131.
3. Dobrosklonskaya T.G. Metody analiza video-verbal'nyh tekstov. Medialingvistika. 2016; № 2 (12): 13 - 25.
4. Danilova A.A. «Manipulirovanie slovom v sredstvah massovoj informacii». Moskva: Dobrosvet, Izdatel'stvo «KDU», 2009: 220 - 232.
5. Nikolashkin Ya.I., Poskachina E.N. Videoryad kak sposob vozdejstviya na obschestvennoe mnenie (na materiale angloyazychnyh sajtov). Nauchnyj 'elektronnyj zhurnal «Meridian». 2017; № 8 (11): 30 - 32.
6. 'Ekrannaya kul'tura: teoreticheskie problemy: sbornik statej. Pod redakciej K.'E. Razlogova. Sankt-Peterburg, 2012.
7. Pojmanova O.V. Semanticheskoe prostranstvo video-verbal'nogo teksta. Avtoreferat dissertacii kandidata filologicheskih nauk. Moskva, 1997.
8. Svetana-Tolstaya S.V. Russkaya rech' v massmedijnomprostranstve. Pod redakciej Ya.N. Zasurskogo. Moskva: MediaMir, 2007.
9. Scherbinina Yu.V. Verbal'naya agressiya. Moskva: LKI, 2008.
10. Syrians report 15 dead in U.S. airstrike. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-airstrike-20170406-story.html
11. US military strikes on Syria: what we know so far. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/07/us-airstrikes-on-syria-donald-trump-what-we-know-so-far
12. Raketnyj udar SShA po Sirii. Obobschenie. Available at: http://www.interfax.ru/world/557315
13. Slyshkin G.G. Ot teksta k simvolu: lingvokul'turnye koncepty precendentnyh tekstov v soznaniii diskurse. Moskva, 2000.
Статья поступила в редакцию 01.12.19
УДК 801.52 DOI: 10.24411/1991-5497-2019-10278
Aigubova S.S., Cand. of Sciences (Philology), senior lecturer, Dagestan State University (Makhachkala, Russia), E-mail: soulless17@yandex.ru
Dzhakaeva A.A., Cand. of Sciences (Philology), senior lecturer, Dagestan State University (Makhachkala, Russia), E-mail: a.dzhakaeva.a@mail.ru
PRONOUNS IN THE MORPHOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF SPEECH OF KHUDUTS OF THE SIRKHIN DIALECT OF THE DARGIN LANGUAGE. The article deals with pronouns in the morphological system of the Khuduts who speak the Sirkhin dialect of the Dargin language. The author describes all the main categories of the pronouns in the dialect in comparison with the literary Dargin language. The forms of pronouns in the dialect, as well as their categories are considered: personal, reflexive, indicative, interrogative, relative, definitive, indefinite and negative. The work highlights pronoun declensions. The article also provides an analysis of the views of researchers on a rather complex and controversial issue of the third person pronouns in Dargin studies. The similarities and differences of pronouns in the morphological paradigm of the Khuduts' speech of the Sirkhin dialect of the Dargin language and its literary version are also analyzed. In some cases, the processes that Muld cause some characteristic features of the studied dialect are considered.
Key words: discrepancies, actonym, paradigm of declension, personal pronouns, reflexive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, interrogative pronouns, relative pronouns, definitive pronouns, indefinite pronouns, negative pronouns.
С.С. Айгубоеа, канд. филол. наук доц., ФГБОУ ВО «Дагестанский государственный университет», г. Махачкала, E-mail: soulless17@yandex.ru
А.А. Джакаева, канд. филол. наук доц. ФГБОУ ВО «Дагестанский государственный университет», г. Махачкала, E-mail: a.dzhakaeva.a@mail.ru
МЕСТОИМЕНИЕ В МОРФОЛОГИЧЕСКОЙ СТРУКТУРЕ ХУДУЦСКОГО ГОВОРА СИРХИНСКОГО ДИАЛЕКТА ДАРГИНСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
В данной статье речь идет о местоимениях худуцского говора сирхинского диалекта даргинского языка. Автор описывает все основные категории местоимения в анализируемом диалекте в сравнении с литературным даргинским языком. Рассматриваются формы местоимений в говоре, а также их разряды: личные, возвратные, указательные, вопросительные, относительные, определительные, неопределенные и отрицательные. Кроме того, приводятся примеры склонения местоимений в изучаемом говоре. В статье также приведен анализ взглядов исследователей по поводу довольно сложного и спорного в даргиноведении вопроса о местоимениях 3-го лица. Анализируются сходства и различия местоимений в морфологической парадигме худуцского говора
сирхинского диалекта даргинского языка и литературного его варианта. В отдельных случаях рассматриваются процессы, которые обусловили появление у исследуемого говора тех или иных характерных признаков.
Ключевые слова: расхождения, дейктоним, парадигма склонения, личные местоимения, возвратные местоимения, указательные местоимения, вопросительные местоимения, относительные местоимения, определительные местоимения, неопределенные местоимения, отрицательные местоимения.
The relevance of the problem under consideration is due to the need for a detailed study of the phonetic and morphological features of the Khudutskyi dialect of the Dargin language, and exactly of the category of pronouns, and the defining of their place in the system of areal units of the Dargin language. There are still few works devoted to this theme. P.K. Uslar, Z.G. Abdullaev, Temirbulatova S.N., Abdullaev S.N. and some other scientists did research on this morphological category but regarding the literary language or some local dialects. Meanwhile the Khudutskyi dialect hasn't' been the object of the study.
In the pronouns of the Khudutskyi idiom there are many peculiar, distinctive from the pronouns of other Dargin dialects and the literary language. The very forms of many pronouns are peculiar: personal, and demonstrative, and interrogative and others.
The personal pronoun of the 1st person is a different lexeme than in the literary language - du 'I', there are peculiar features in the declension of pronouns.
In the studied dialect there are pronouns of the following categories: personal, reflexive, demonstrative, interrogative, relative, definite, indefinite and negative.
The personal pronouns of the Khudutskyi dialect have some discrepancies with similar ones in the literary language, e.g.:
Khud.dial. Lit. lang.
ду ну 'I'
нусса нуша 'we'
г1у х1у 'you'
г1уша х1уша 'you'
ит ит 'he'
итти итди 'they'
In the last example, ummu 'they' in the Khudutskyi dialect, and in the literary umdu, as a result of progressive assimilation in the dialect, the consonant element of the suffix of pezoralis -du is aligned with the prepositive [t].
In the personal pronouns of the Khudutskyi dialect, as well as in the literary language, the class differentiation of the referent does not have its formal grammatical expression. P.K.Uslar also wrote referring to this: 'Personal pronouns are the essence of any category, that is, the difference in categories in them is no different '[1, p. 52].
The form of the grammatical class of personal pronouns is thus assigned to the form of the verbs that combine with them:
Khud.dial. Lit. lang.
dy esNluSda Hy eaKlupa 'I have come' - I class
Sly eaNluSdu xly eaKlupu 'I have come' - II class
ummu 6aHlu6 umdu 6aKlu6 'they came' - III class.
Z.G. Abdullaev as a supporter of the primacy of deuteronyms in the lexico-grammatical system of any language believes that the category of grammatical classes is still a characteristic of personal pronouns. They give the following arguments: '... in the Dargin language all forms of the same personal singular dectonym are represented: -Hy, -dy. The form -Hy is inherent in some dialects (Akushinsky, Khurkilinsky, Muirinsky, etc.), the form -dy is inherent in others (Tsudakhar, Sirkhinsky, Kharbuksky, Haydaksky, etc.). The author fairly observes that "the point is not the consuming use of one and the same dectonym, and in the nature of opposed root morphemes -H and -d of this dectonym, in their historical role" [2, p. 9-10]. The indicators -Hy and -dy are historical indicators of the sexual (primary) or social (secondary) division of people: women and men: when a woman spoke in an act of speech, the dectonym was used in the form of -Hy, whereas the man talked, the dectonym was pronounced in the form -dy.
The researcher believes that 'the parallel existence of second forms of the same development of the dectonym (-Hy and -dy) is a mystery of the historical development of the Dargin language' [2, p. 9-10].
We can add to the above-mentioned that the pronoun -dy serves as the basis for the formation of the genitive, nominative, dative, themative, additive, locative, etc., i.e. of all indirect cases. In the plural, it is used in the form -Hy. Attention should be paid to the fact that in the literary language, -dy serves as the basis for the formation of the genitive and the additive with the end -y with the semantics of 'under'.
Quite complex and controversial in darginology is also the question of 3rd person pronouns.
P.K. Uslar as the 3rd person pronouns mentions the pronoun sbum 'he' and sbummu 'they' [10]. S. Abdullaev considers -cau 'he, himself' to be a pronoun of the 3rd person [3].
A.A. Magometov, in his turn, writes that "the third person of personal pronouns is expressed through demonstrative pronouns" [4, p.139].
It is typical for the Khudutskyi dialect to use demonstrative pronouns as the 3rd person singular: Mm duna amma uae.'He is my father'. Mmmu duna yu6u ua6. 'They are my brothers.'
Speaking about the use of demonstrative pronouns in the role of the 3rd person, S.N. Abdullaev also underlines: "In the role of the 3rd person pronoun, the following demonstrative pronouns are used: urn, um, uk\, ux ' that ' "[1, p.140].
Personal pronouns in the Khudutskyi dialect are inclined as follows:
sing. number pl. number
Nom. ду 'I' нусса 'we'
Erg. ду нусса
Gen дила ниссала
Dat. дам ниссай
Komit. диццил ниссацил
Them. диярка ниссерка
Adit. дишшу нисашу
Loc. дицциб ниссациб
Abl. дишшурка ниссашурка
Dest. дишшу ниссашу
For comparison, we cite the paradigm of declining personal pronouns of the 1-st person in the Dargin literary language:
sing. number pl. number
Nom. ну 'I' нуша 'we'
Erg. нуни нашани
Dat. наб нушаб
Gen. дила нушала
Com. набчил нушачил
Them. набчила нушачила
Med. набчибли нушачибли
Adit. набчи нушачи
Loc. набчиб нушачиб
Abl. набчибад нушачиб
Dest. набчибях. нушачибях1.
In the declension of the personal pronouns of the analyzed dialect, attention is drawn to the fact that the ergative is not framed yet, i.e. in the singular and plural nominative acts as an ergative: Py 6euJ KaxbySda 'I killed the wolf; Hycca 6euJ KaxbySda 'We killed the wolf' rlymma 6euJ Kaxby6da 'You killed the wolf'; rly 6euJ Kaxby6du 'You killed the wolf'.
Personal pronouns dy 'I', sly 'you', Hycca 'we', slymma 'you' here carry the functions of nominative and genitive cases. Ergative is not differentiated from nominative.
We believe that this phenomenon is due to the fact that ergative differentiated later in personal pronouns than in nouns; before that, the ergative in personal pronouns was replaced by the nominative case [5]. In the Khudutskyi dialect, unlike the literary Dargin language, the process of separating the ergative from the nominative did not occur. This may indicate that the forms of personal pronouns of the dialect under study are more relict than the literary language.
Reflexive pronouns in the Dargin language are used only in the 3rd person [1]. A similar picture takes place in the Khudutskyi dialect:
Khud.dial. Lit. lang.
uae cau 'he, himself'
uap capu 'she, herself'
ua6 ca6u 'they, themselves.'
The pronouns цай, цари, цаби in the dialect under study, as well as the forms сай, сари, саби are a kind of two-part lexical and grammatical units, they act both as class forms of the reflexive dectonym and as class forms of the verb. As forms of a reflexive dectonym, they have a single declension paradigm, where indirect cases are deprived of class differentiation [2].
I II II
Nom. цав (he himself) цар (she herself) цаб (they themselves)
Erg. цинни цинни цинни
Genit. цинна цинна цинна
Dat. циний циний циний
Komit. циниццил циниццил циниццил
Demonstrative pronouns, along with personal and interrogative ones, belong to the most important categories of pronoun words, since they due to their many features occupy a central place among all categories of dectonymic words [6].
As in many Dagestan languages, the demonstrative pronouns of the Dargin language as a whole and the Khudutskyi dialect in particular have the ability to express spatial orientation relatively to the vertical and horizontal plane.
The demonstrative pronouns of the dialect in the initial form differ in their sound structure with the literary language: uu - lit. um 'this' (located next to the speaker); sben - lit. un 'this', 'that' (next to the second person, located at some horizontal distance from the speaker); sbem - lit. um 'that' (outside the participants in the speech); sbeK - lit. uk (above speakers); sbex - lit. ux 'that' (below speakers).
As can be seen from the material, the demonstrative pronouns of the Khudutskyi dialect (rbeT, rbeKI, rbex, rben) preserved the alautian spirant sb, which is represented in the demonstrative pronouns of a number of Dagestan languages with a vowel. Such a spirant sb also exists in the Muirin dialect. This indicates the primacy of the indicative names of the studied dialect in comparison
with the literary language, in which the prefix гь is not fixed in the demonstrative pronouns.
With emotionally evaluative indicative coloring, there are used pronouns that are derived from varieties of pronouns without the prefix гь by the addition of the -e element. In the root, in some cases, the alternation of vowels takes place: Итте, итталла нясдихь! 'Look at them, at their sloppiness.'
These forms are used when they want to pay special attention to the index person(s). Depending on the tone of speech, they may contain either a condemnation by the speaker of the subject of speech, or admiration for him: -Яже! Ижила куц! 'At him, at his look!' (oondemnation, contempt).
Interrogative pronouns in the Khudutskyi dialect are represented by the following forms: ча? 'Who?' (lit. чи?), ци? 'What?' (lit. се) чум? 'How much?' (lit. чум?), кутти? 'What? Which?' (lit. чиди?), цикъкъала? 'When?' (lit. мурт?).
In the interrogative pronouns ча 'who?' and ци 'what?' there are semasiologically opposed, as in many related languages, a person and not a person, a person and a thing. Question ча? 'who' refers to a person, and ци? 'what?' - to animals, things. In declension, interrogative pronouns ча? 'who?' in the Khudutskyi dialect there appears an indirect stem of chi, which in other dialects and in the literary language is the initial form, the direct stem.
Nom. ча? 'who?' ци 'what?'
Erg. чи-л? чи-л?
Genit. чи-ла? ци-ла?
Dat. чи-й? цили-й?
Komit. чи-ццил? чи-ццелли?
The interrogative pronoun ча 'who?' makes the form of a representative set of чахъал? (lit. чихъали?) 'who are they?'
The stem -ку of the pronoun кути (lit. чиди) 'which' corresponds to the forms of other dialects with the root -ч. "Since the Dargin language is characterized by the process of affrication of the rear-linguals, does the assumption of the secondary affricate of -ч in the Akushin interrogative dectonym чиди seem reasonable in relation to the back-lingual - in the corresponding forms of other dialects "[2, p. 33].
In addition to the above-mentioned interrogative pronouns with the greatest functional load, the following interrogative pronouns can be distinguished in the dialect: чинарка? 'where?' (lit. чинабад?), чумдилий? 'who?' (lit. чумбилий?), куцалий? 'how much?' (lit. сетсадилис?), цит1ли? 'how?' 'how many times?' (lit. чуйна?).
Negative pronouns in the Khudutskyi dialect are represented by the following forms: чак1алра 'nobody' (lit. чилра), цик1алра 'nothing' (lit. селра), цаалра 'not one' (lit. цалра). Negative pronouns are formed from interrogative ones with the help of the particle -алра, e.g.: цигъуналра 'no', цикалра 'nothing'.
The declension of negative pronouns does not differ from ordinary declensions:
Khud. dial. Lit.lang.
Nom. чак1алра чилра 'nobody'
Erg. чак1аллира? чилира?
Genit. чак1аллара? чилара?
Dat . гьилк1аллий? чисра?
Komit. гьиццерка чиссерка
Adit. гьишшурка чичира
The pronoun чакал (without -ра) is not inclined. The case forms of negation are expressed by the -ра element, since the suffix -al disappears when the case forms are formed, conveying its negative semantics to the allied particle -ра, which does not carry such a load in the nominative case.
Библиографический список / References
The forms of the cases without the particle -p are identical with the forms of the interrogative pronouns ya? 'who?', yuna? (Gen.)' whose?, yuu? 'to whom? (Dat.).
The definitive pronouns in the dialect under study are represented by the following forms: abapKu 'each' (lit. abapun), duKlapiu 'different, different' (lit. iapKun), nedunpa 'all, all,' (lit. neSunpa), aa-euxappa 'who- whatever, '(lit. cu-duaapa), abeu-abyha such as this '(lit. umabyHa) 'abeayrn' as that which is lower than the speakers '(lit. umabyHa), dyabyHa 'such as I '( lit. HyabyHa), alyabyHa 'like you' (lit. xlyabyHa), luabyHanpa 'none' (lit. ceabyHanpa).
Most definitive pronouns are derived from personal and demonstrative pronouns, eg.: HyccaabyHa ^ Hycca + abyHa 'such as we are'; alymmaabyHa ^ alymma + abyHa 'such as you'; abeKlabyHa ^ abeKl + abyHa 'as that which is higher than the speakers.'
Definitive pronouns are inclined in all cases. Let us illustrate what was said by the paradigm of declension of the pronoun duKlapiu 'other, different':
Khud. dial. Lit.lang.
Nom. дик1арци царх1ил' other'
Erg. дик1арцил царх1или
Genit. дик1арцила царх1ила
Dat. дик1арцилий царх1илис
Komit. дик1арцилиццил царх1илизил
Adit. дик1арцишу царх1изи
Lock. дик1арцишуб царх1иличиб
Abl. дик1арцишу царх1иличибях
Dest. дик1арцишурка царх1иливад
Indefinite pronouns. There are also indefinite pronouns in the described dialect: ча-вихарра 'someone' (lit. чи-биалра), ци-бихарра 'anything' (lit. се-биалра), чадил 'someone' (lit. чирил), чум-бихарра 'any' (lit. чум-биалра).
Indefinite pronouns are formed from interrogative pronouns with the help of a particle- бихарра (in lit. language - биалра): чина-бихарра 'somewhere' (lit. чина-би-алра).
Possessive pronouns. In the Khudutskyi dialect, as well as in the literary language, possessive pronouns as such are not represented. The functions of possessive pronouns are performed by the genitive forms of personal and reflexive pronouns.
Taking this into account, in the existing scientific literature, the Dargin language researchers attribute the forms of the genitive cases of personal pronouns to possessive pronouns.
In the dialect under study, as well as in the literary language, the possessive pronouns are represented by the forms of the genitive cases of the reflexive pronoun вах1ла 'his, her, his, hers' and personal pronouns: дила 'my, mine'; ниссалa 'our, ours'; г1ила 'your, yours', г1ишшала 'your, yours'; цинна 'his, her, his, hers.'
Phrasal examples of the use of pronouns: Пязизла мехъ гьей бацлицциб бир-кьан цаб. 'Aziz's wedding will be this month.' Гьей замана атта виккигьавхъун хъяли 'At this time, the father entered the house.' Цигъуна хабар сакъибдий? 'What news did you bring?' Г1у чина аргулдий? 'Where are you going?' Г1у чинавдий? 'Where are you?' Дуччилий микуппи черсайчанни цинна г1унру къант/ диркьу. 'Who cuts his nails at night, shortens his life.' Ит вали вач1иб ниссацил, ниссала шицци. 'He went with us to our native village.'
Our study revealed a lot of peculiar, distinctive features in the pronouns of the Khudutskyi dialect. The very forms of many pronouns are unique. For example, the personal pronoun of the 1st person is a different lexeme than in the literary language -du 'I'; there are also peculiar features in the declension of pronouns. In addition, some dialect pronouns have discrepancies with literary words.
1. Uslar P.K. Ethnography of the Caucasus. Linguistics. V. Hurkilin language. -Tiflis, 1892. S. 52 - 53.
2. Abdullaev Z.G. Dargin language. T. II. Morphology. - M., 1993. S. 9 - 10, 19.
3. Abdullaev S.N. Grammar of the Dargin language (phonetics and morphology). - Makhachkala, 1954.P. 139 - 140.
4. Magometov A.A. Kubachi language (studies and texts). - Tbilisi, 1963. S. 139.
5. Chikobava A.S. Introduction to Iberian-Caucasian linguistics: general principles and basic principles // EIKYA, -T. VII. - Tbilisi, 1980, p. 9 - 35.
6. Temirbulatova S.M. On the basics of reflexive pronouns of the Haidak dialect of the Dargin language Materials of the international symposium dedicated to the 100th birthday of A.S. Chikobava. Tbilisi, 1998.
Статья поступила в редакцию 05.12.19
УДК 81'44 DOI: 10.24411/1991-5497-2019-10279
Ahunzyanova R.R., Cand. of Sciences (Philology), senior lecturer, Naberezhnye Chelny State Pedagogical University (Naberezhnye Chelny, Russia),
E-mail: ahraisa@mail.ru
EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY AND ITS MANIFESTATION IN THE ENGLISH AND TATAR LANGUAGES. The article deals with subjective type of modality -epistemic modality - which consists in qualifying the content of the proposition of the utterance in terms of its probability by the speaker. Utterances with epistemic modality have a character of inferences, in which the speaker makes a personal assessment, if the content of the proposition corresponds to reality, basing the inference on the knowledge of the situation the speaker possesses. The focus of the article is an epistemic possibility as a subtype of epistemic modality ,which denotes low or medium degree of likelihood of the content of the proposition and results from the limited or insufficient knowledge of the situation by the speaker. The actual research concerns representation of semantics of epistemic possibility in typologically diverse languages - the English and Tatar languages, which belong to the analytical and agglutinative language types correspondingly. The realization of the modal meaning is examined on different levels (morphological, lexical, syntactical) of the language system.
Key words: modality, epistemic modality, epistemic possibility, English language, Tatar language, semantics.
