CC BY
13
УДК 811.1/. 9
DOI: 10.18384/2310-712Х-2022-6-25-40
NEW TENDENOiEs iN THE sTuDY of MODALiTY: EPiSTEMiO MODALiTY AND EViDENTiALiTY
P. Kosta1, G. Zh Iskakova2
1 University of Potsdam
Am Neuen Palais 10, House 1, Potsdam 14469, Germany
2 Sh. Ualikhanov Kokshetau University
Abaya str. 76, Kokshetau 020000, Akmola Region, Kazakhstan
Abstract
Aim. The following article goes back to a series of research work on modality and evidentiality and focuses on the interrelation and division of labor between the syntax-semantic interface and the expressions with grammatical categories of mood and mode on one side, and lexical or morphological items on the other.
Methodology. The present article is based on functional approach of functional syntax and semantics combined with the theory of generative grammar and minimalism. The second part has a comparative component showing the wide range of affixal expressions with which the agglutinative languages such as Kazakh and Kirgiz mark epistemic modality. The comparative approach is seemingly to be preferred over a monolingual functional one because the comparison can show differences and similarities and thus shed light into new ways of conveying grammatical functions and lexical meanings in different types of languages.
Results. It can be shown that while modality is a category which seems to have universal implications, that means there are no languages which lack modality, evidentiality can be expressed either explicitly (by lexical or grammatical expressions) or implicitly (via pragmatic inference, deixis or presuppositins). Research implications. As opposed to the Indo-European languages where the distincition of epistemic modality and evidentiality is based on the so called portmanteu effect, meaning that epistemic modality can include evidentiality, the expression of evidentiality in Kazakh and Kirgiz is expressed by inference or deicticly. This material makes a certain contribution to the further development of the theory of modality as a universal language category from the perspective of both Russian and Turkological comparative linguistics.
Keywords: assessment, semantics, the Turkic languages, epistemic modality, evidentiality Acknowledgments. This article has been presented as a report at the session B on day 2 at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society (SLS-17) September 19 (Mon.)-21 (Wed.), 2022, Venue: Slavic-Eurasian Research Center, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ ИЗУЧЕНИЯ МОДАЛЬНОСТИ: ЭПИСТЕМИЧЕСКАЯ МОДАЛЬНОСТЬ И ЭВИДЕНЦИАЛЬНОСТЬ
Коста П.1, Искакова Г. Ж.2
1 Потсдамский университет
14469, г. Потсдам, Ам Нёэн Пале 10, д. 1, Федеративная Республика Германия
2 Кокшетауский университет имени Ш. Уалиханова
020000, Акмолинская обл., г. Кокшетау, ул. Абая, д. 76, Республика Казахстан
© CC BY Коста П . , Искакова Г. Ж 2022.
V2V
Аннотация
Цель. Данная статья восходит к серии исследований модальности и эвиденциальности и фокусируется на взаимосвязи и разделении труда между синтаксико-семантическим интерфейсом и выражениями с грамматическими категориями наклонения и модуса, с одной стороны, и лексическими или морфологическими единицами, с другой.
Процедура и методы. Настоящая статья основана на функциональном подходе функционального синтаксиса и семантики в сочетании с теорией порождающей грамматики и минимализма. Вторая часть имеет сравнительный компонент, показывающий широкий спектр аффиксальных выражений, которыми агглютинативные языки, такие как казахский и киргизский, отмечают эпистемическую модальность. Сравнительный подход, по-видимому, предпочтительнее одноязычного функционального, потому что сравнение может показать различия и сходства и, таким образом, пролить свет на новые способы передачи грамматических функций и лексических значений в разных типах языков.
Результаты. Можно показать, что, хотя модальность является категорией, которая, по-видимому, имеет универсальное значение, это означает, что не существует языков, в которых отсутствует модальность, эвиденциальность может быть выражена либо эксплицитно (посредством лексических или грамматических выражений), либо имплицитно (через прагматический вывод, дейксис или пресуппозитин).
Теоретическая и/или практическая значимость. В отличие от индоевропейских языков, в которых эпистемическая модальность и эвиденциальность накладываются друг на друга и эписте-мическая модальность может включать в себя эвиденциальность, в казахском и киргизском языках эвиденциальность выражается умозаключением или дейктически. Данный материал вносит определённый вклад в дальнейшую разработку теории модальности как универсальной языковой категории с позиции как русского, так и тюркологического сопоставительного языкознания.
Ключевые слова: оценка, семантика, тюркские языки, эпистемическая модальность, эвиденциальность
Благодарности. Данная статья была представлена в виде доклада на сессии Б во 2-й день 17-го ежегодного собрания Славянского лингвистического общества (СЛО-17), проходившего 19-21 сентября 2022 г. в Центре славяно-евразийских исследований Университета Хоккайдо (Саппоро, Япония)
1. Introduction: General remarks trate on epistemic modality and evidential-and definitions ity as complex categories showing a typical
This section gives an overview of the re- syntactic and semantic division °f ЬЬот be-lation between two grammatical categories tween the syntax-semantic interface and at of modality, the epistemic modality and the the same time being of imPortant grammati-evidentiality. In showing their distribution cal and lexical-semantic relevance . between lexicon and grammar in different Since evidentiality is coded very differ-types of languages such as the two Turkic ently in many languages of the world (in languages Kazakh and Kyrgyzs on one side Kazakh also morphologically, in German via and Russian, German and English on the modal verbs like sollen "should" and mussen other side as typical members of the Indo- "must" in Russian via particles and adverbs European language family, we focus on the such as jak°by, v^mo, ос^Шо, ved' , see different means, their similarity and differ- also Kosta [23-25].
ences, ranging between grammar proper (as In this second part of the article, Kosta grammatical categories of mood) and lexi- wiU present a new conception of evidential-con (as lexical categories of modality). ^ including a typological comparison and a
For clarity of exposure, we will concen- syntactic and semantic analysis based on the
Framework of Radical Minimalism (RM) as presented in our basis work in Kosta (2011, 2013, 2019, 20211) [23-25] and Kosta (2020) [26].
The most recent works by Alexandra Ai-khenvald [7], by Martina Faller [14-17], by Fintel and Anthony Gilles [18], Heim, Irene & Angelika Kratzer [21], Jan Nuyts [28], Martin Hummel [22], Margarita Gonzalez-Vazquez [20] are relevant in terms of language typology, language comparison and from the point of view of compositional semantics
Epistemic modality expresses the speaker's evaluation of the degree of cognition of objective connections, the degree of reliability of the thought and includes problematic, simple and categorical reliability. Simple reliability is expressed by the form of the indicative mood of the verb, i. e. by an unmarked statement. The problematic and categorical forms of epistemic modality are heterogeneous in their content and have a certain scale of meanings . The study of epistemic modality, as it turned out, is possible only in combination with the category of evidentiality.
The first attempts to define the category of "evidentiality" are found in the work of F. Boas [10], in which he points to the fact that in Indian languages it is necessary to name the source of the speaker's information in those cases when the speaker could not have the opportunity to personally observe the situation
R. O. Jakobson assumed that in Russian this category is exclusively verbal and defined it as follows: "evidentiality is a verbal category that takes into account three facts: a reported fact, a fact of message, and the trans-missibility of a message fact, in other words, an indication of the source of information on a reported fact" [6, c . 96]. W. Chafe gives a broad interpretation of this concept; according to it, evidentiality is any expression of attitude to experienced knowledge [11].
1 See also: Kosta P. (2021) . On Typology of Epistemic Modality, Root Modals and Evidentiality. In: Slavic Linguistic Society Meeting 17, September 20, 2022, Hokkaido University (Sapporo, Japan)
In later works devoted to this topic, we can find the following interpretations: "evi-dentiality is the language coding of the source of information about the transmitted fact" [5, c . 8]; "evidentiality brings out the source of knowledge or provides evidence of what is being reported" [2, c . 8]; "evidentiality is a marked source of information" [34, p. 52].
There exist two main definitions of evi-dentiality: broad and narrow The broad definition of evidentiality includes into the category under consideration not only an indication of the source of information (as in the narrow definition), but also different kinds of the speaker's attitude to the proposition Thus, the broad understanding of evidentiality suggests that epistemic modality enters the field of evidentiality as a subcategory. Due to the fact that the category of evidentiality is a relatively new problem in linguistics, many aspects of this concept (including suppositions connected with modality) are still at the stage of understanding and, therefore, are very controversial It is known that the term modality of supposition is often used in linguistics to refer to the epistemic modal category. We should clarify here that this fact is observed primarily in Russian linguistics This is due to the peculiar nature of the Russian noun denoting supposition, which is remarkable for the range of its semantic extent and functional flexibility; this may allow us to consider the term modality of supposition to be an equivalent to the term epistemic modality
Scientists believe that "the basis of the modus of supposition can be a logical conclusion, information of a third person, or a sensory experience" [3, p. 230].
2. On Evidentiality, epistemic particles, root modals and truth values in Slavic and other languages (with evidence of Slavic parallel corpora) - Demonstrated with root modals, raising verbs and
epistemic/evidential particles The second part of this article written by Peter Kosta will take up the difference and similarities between Epistemic Modality and
Evidentially. "Modality" is a semantic-pragmatic category that affects the speaker's attitude towards the validity of his statement: the speaker expresses how he wants what he has said to be understood, whether and to what extent he is prepared to undertake communicative recourse to take over. In this respect, modality is a central and linguistically very interesting category for successful communication
Epistemic Modality, also known as epis-temology, deals with the type and origin of knowledge, and it relates to the logical structure of statements that contain, implicitly or explicitly, the information that the speaker (S) knows or believes proposition. It is the area of the speaker's beliefs that expresses whether they believe the proposition corresponds to reality or whether they doubt it Explicit markers are verbs of the type: believe, suspect, doubt, et cetera In many languages, modal verbs can be used epis-temically but at the same time can exhibit a so-called portmanteau-effect, typical for most languages which have Evidentiality as modality of see the sections treated on many pages of Kosta's newest book (2022)1.
Evidentially has been and is often treated as a type of epistemic attitude. Recently, however, the view has been growing that Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality are two fundamentally different phenomena. Roughly speaking the difference is that the former is about the speaker's attitude towards the truth of the proposition, whereas evidence markers refer to the source of the information (cf. references and especially A. Y. Ai-khenvald (2004, 2012, 2018) [7-9]; F. De Haan (1999) [12]; V. Chrakovskij (2005) [4]; P. Kosta (2011; 20 222) [25]; B. Wiemer (2006, 2008, 2015, 2018) [29; 31-33]).
The respective basis can be divided ono-masiologically into corresponding functions .
1 Kosta P. Turn Initiating Elements in Everyday Conversations: Conversational Analysis and Radical Minimalism at the Syntax-Semantic Interface . Lanham, Maryland, USA: Lexington Books. Rowman & Littlefield, 2022. P. 158-160.
2 Ibid.
A resulting taxonomy or partial taxonomies create in a linguistic system at the same time the starting point for the recording of means, with the help of which a speaker provides clues as to which source the Information or which knowledge base ('mode of knowing') the assertion P is based on . See Willett: "Evidentiality is the linguistic means of indicating how the speaker obtained the information on which s / he bases an assertion" [34 p. 56].
The empirical part of the present contribution covers specific means of Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality such as weak modals, modal particles and modal adver-bials . Raising verbs (it seems, kazetsja) and root modals show similar syntactic behavior, it follows that they do too have similar syntactic functions. One overlooks the fact that particles and parenthetics often have the same semantic-pragmatic functions and identical scope behavior, they do not form strict paradigms and, in terms of their dia-chronic development, are often closely related (Russian kazetsja 'it seems' or kak budto 'as if') [24].
We will try to give a detailed analysis on two typical expressions of both categories of modality: the modal adverb vrode by expressing both epistemic modality and evidentiality The metaphor for this weird behavior is known as portmanteau Effect already mentioned in the work of Palmer and others We will compare the semantic and syntactic behavior of this item in comparing it with the root modal must in English showing that both vrode by and must behave like raising verbs it seems and kazetsja
We will try to address this problem now in more detail, using the example of the English root modals must, the raising verbs it seems, X seems P and the Russian modal particle vrode by 'as if', the problem of the exact demarcation between lexical and functional categories
The arrangements made implicitly or explicitly on a lexicon-grammar continuum often turn out to be at least inconsistent The attempted exclusion of lexical markings
turnsout to be artificialinsofar as someof thedeiinitions of -nAikhen-
valdtan beonSe rsioobinaOuo ctiambmo-mas iolo gical way -7sy. 1 A;8] ahE notrefei* to cert amdaasesbfrOTms oi" reiationsOrlooen syn- aohreareict auiptsemanllc morphemes ortexicoou nito
An Inihaim conduiron cm le krawn OeteilOrroOastofarPeeboodeofln defineb dassiUcition oii^r^;nennfy myrhlnge aC' cording "o morphosyntaciic, and rexlcelogicalyriteciatriataPrwecom-ptehensible differentiation on a lexicon-O^mmarcmnm^m*
The following table 1 shows the expres-si onsef EpicirmicModaiityend Enidrntioiiiy. The special case of must and eр6де 6u. any a number ofauthorshavepointed out, the English epistemic modal must has evidential characteristics, tao R.Westmere-land (1998) [30], H. B. Drubig (2001) [13],
KSvon FineeUnO AS: Gillies (2010) [19]. hoisirmic mnsl eEdnOer Plrectperrepteolrr irte duciPly lft percooaclOeeoe, fos^^^amj^k, es --1118003^ P( (la)asopposeh to (Id) akd tlO)nt.(ld)
pi a. # Your nosemust be dripping. Icon seeit.
b.Uoumust have a cold. Your nose is
Arinpine-
c.iilnr^^tha^^c terriblenerbache.Iferl
l^iaj^d-
d The baby must have a terrible head-dche. He is screaming and pressing his hands against his temples
Eogiishsndis oet evrdehtialrmodm, and temporal meaning components together as tOesinrOeleotcatidem musO,rrtulttngin what we call a "present tense epistemic modal" We trCeChatheosyoC A. Kraezti-(20 C2) [27] and K. von Fintel and A. S. Gillies (2010) [19] for
Table 1 / Таблица 1
Means of marking Epistemic Modality and Evidentiality / Средства выражения эписте-мической модальности и эвиденциональности
Distinct lexical units (lexical categories) grammatical morphology (functional)
1 Particles
2. Complementizers & subordinating conjunctions
3. Adpositioas
4. Sentential Adverbs (cf. Kosta 1998, 2003ab)
5. Predicatives
6. Copuiai participles
7. Auxiliaries (weak modals)
8. Functional extensions of
9. Tense-Mode-Aspect Paradigms
10. Bound Morphology (Inflexion. Agglutination, Incorporation)
Require hosts' to take scope Operate on Heads (in a strictly
Over, but are not dependents morpliosyntactic functional sense )
(with the possible exception of complementizers)
Source: compiled by the authors
ViV
granted and differentiate between two classes of particles in Russian.
The first class includes particles such as вроде "like", вроде бы "as if", как будто "as if", кажется "it seems", мол "likely", дескать, -де, "they say", якобы, "supposedly" словно "literally", that correspond to weak modals (such as German sollen) and strong evidentials (reportatives, quotatives or inferentials)
The second class of particles and adverbs corresponds to the meaning of strong modals (such as German müssen). The latter class of evidentials is represented with adverbs and particles of high degree of Epistemic Modality such as очевидно, конечно, без сомнения, по-видимому, как сообщается, без сомнения логично, естественно, поэтому, должно быть, следователъно,несомнен-нн, ил сноби^енсош, "obviouslyof eourso, no doubt, apparontvfy, deportcdly,without: anydoubt, it islogioal,fppbtiose, tderefore, rnportodly' tdotarebbsed о n indirect infer-ente resuttind fromreasoning tby lngitoO cpnclusiHus,resultsdod converdattondl iog pltcctureugfrom reeobts and htdr- say.
We will try to demonstrate how particles that show the portmanteau effect between Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality interact and are used in conversations using for Russian the ORD and other data (UVUP) of the spoken National Corpus of Russian .
The particle vrode by can be used to mark the evidential meaning in a context such as (3) where the speaker does not remember exactly the situation how to get to somewhere but tries to mark the evidence that he was already here before and that he now tries to remember the way how to get there (see Table 2)
The particle вроде бы has the same 'portmanteau' function as the english raising verb It seems that between raising verb and epistemic modal, namely ist serves as evidentialpaticle,p ointingat thesourseof information Iweathnr forecatt), taking si-multanaouslytherelatinelylow degree hg epishemic proOability what the weetherwill actually be like on the aforementioned date о f Octobeahasedoionnmisesmnre tPan peagneeesef theweetharOope cash
Table 2 / Таблица 2
Odin recevoj den' korpus(ORD) = Сноска 1 Тексты
u Footnote lTexts/OflHHpe4eBoiifleHbKopiiyca(ORD)
Source: ORD-corpus (Odinrecevojden')(Asinovskyetal. (2009)1,Sherstinova etal. (2009)2)
Asinovsky A . , Bogdanova N . , Rusakova M . , Ryko A . , Stepanova S ., Sherstinova T. The ORD Speech Corpus of Russian EverydayCommunication "OneSpeaker'sDay":Creation Principles and Annotation. In:MatousekVaclavand MautnerPaveleds. Text, Speech and Dialogue: Proceedings of 12th International Conference, TSD 2009, Pilsen, Czech Republic,September 13-17, 2009. Berlin, Heidelberg:Springer, 2009. P. 250-257. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-04208-9_36. (Series:LectureNotesinComputer Science. Vol. 5729).
Шерстинова Т. Ю . , Рыко А . И . , Степанова С. Б . Система аннотирования в звуковом корпусе русского языка «Один речевой день» // Материалы XXXVIII международной филологической конференции, март 2009. Секция: Формальные методы анализа русской речи . СПб .: Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, 2009. С. 66-75 (Sherstinova T. Y. , Ryko A ., I . , Stepanova S . B . Annotation system in the audio corpus of the Russian language "One Speech Day" . In: Proceedings of the XXXVIII International Philological Conference . Section: "Formal methods for the analysis of Russian speech" St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg State University Publ ., pp . 66-75).
2.1. Semantic Characteristics of vrode by and it seems
Vrode by (Ru)
Low degree of epistemic probability [symbol:
Evidential meaning high degree (direct evidenceorvisual]
[symbol: •]
Deicticmeaning:Oo intiogio thesource of information
[symdod SC
No commitment to truth values Itsermg ( engl)
gow Magrce of epidemic jprera^^^ [symbol:
Evidsntial meuninR i°m oocesorneutnad ized degree (by inference) [symbol: 0]
Doieiicmeaning:eero
Conversational Implicature: No commitmentw. r. t. truth conditions
2.2. Syntactic status of vrode by
The working hypothesis of the following secti n is stated a follow:
The English root modal must and Russian vrode by have raising verbs like features such as Engl .it seems.
Susi Wurmbrand (1999) shows in her syntactic analysis that the subject of root
modals usually behaves like a subject of a Raising Verb (it seems) Thus, it must be based generated lower in the structure and has to move to a higher position for inde-pendentre asons[35].
must and seem = both are Raising verbs secmsSeootModali:mustgivaoDo by Root Modals (must) behave syntactically like Raisinu Verbs
Research question: Is vrode by also a root modal? (see Fig. 1)
e.3. Docomporirion, Compooddion<U Meaning and the problem of truth values
For RussianParticlevrvde by,itchn be hypothesized that we can decompose it into Moryhosyniam v rode by
in manner as
PP head of a COND Particle
Functional Level v rode + by EVIDENTIAL Particle
X seems to P
CONDITIONAL
X vrode by P
There is of course evident and proven in the Corpora we have considered that in Par-
(2) a. Control
ModP
Fig. 1 / Рис. 1. Root modal must is a rasing verb like seems: is vrode by also a root modal? / Модальный гла-голmust - глагол,обладающийподъёмом,какиглаголseems:являетсяли'вроде бы'также модальным
allel texts the raising verb seem is not always translated with the same word, e . g. vrode by, into Russian . Rather, the equivalent can vary and is often also subject of over- or under-translation, as we can see in the following Ru translation which uses the word абсолютно
Table 3 / Таблица 3
'absolutely' instead of the better functional equivalent vrode by or kak by which would correspond the English original much better In the case, we can speak of 'overtranslation' and a violation of the semantic level (see Table 3).
Parallel Corpus Example National Corpus of Russian Language with an example of overtranslation of it seems with the degree adverb абсолютно 'absolutely' / Пример параллельного корпуса Национальный корпус русского языка с примером избыточного перевода it seems с наречием степени абсолютно 'absolutely'
I'm about to dash out of the Louvre ... a fugitive . Sauniure's clever anagrammatic message was still on his mind, and Langdon wondered what Sophie would find at the Mona Lisa ... if anything. She had seemed certain her grandfather meant for her to visit the famous painting one more time As plausible an interpretation as this seemed, Langdon felt haunted now by a troubling paradox. P. S . Find Robert Langdon . Sau-niure had written Langdon's name on the floor, commanding Sophie to find him . But why?
Я - беглец, преследуемый полицией . Едва не выпрыгнул из окна Лувра . Из головы не выходили анаграммы, оставленные Соньером, и Лэнгдону было страшно интересно, что же найдет Софи у знаменитой картины. Если вообще что-то найдет. Но она абсолютно уверена: дед хотел, чтобы она еще раз пришла к знаменитому полотну. Вроде бы вполне приемлемая интерпретация, однако Лэнгдона беспокоил теперь другой парадокс Постскриптум. Найти Роберта Лэнгдона. Соньер написал его имя на полу, велел Софи разыскать его. Но к чему? [Дэн Браун . Код Да Винчи (Н . Рейн, 2004)]
Source: Национальный корпус русского языка . Available at: https://ruscorpora. ru (accessed: 20.07.2022).
Vrode by behaves like a raising verb in the following examples (3)-(4) from the National Corpus of Russian Language (NKRJa)1:
The compositional semantics of the complex word vrode by shows a low degree of certainty about the content of the proposition from the point of the speaker and at the same time a distance to the opinion of the speaker At this point, evidentiality is only indirect and has a deictic meaning of distance to the truth values . In fact, in epistemic propositions marked with a semi-evidential and semi-epis-temic word, no truth values and no truth conditions apply because the proposition does not state a fact in real or possible words
(3) Ну, покритиковал начальник подчинённых. Так он вроде бы на то и начальник. Ну, посчитал возможным сде-
1 Национальный корпус русского языка. Available at: https://ruscorpora.ru (accessed: 20.07.2022).
лать это публично. Да, как правило, российские чиновники «заоблачных рангов» предпочитают выяснять отношения в тиши своих высоких кабинетов, а не натрибуне, да ещё в присутствии пишущей и снимающей братии . [Александр Рыклин, Спор правительствующих субъектов // «Еженедельный журнал», 2003.03.24] [омонимия снята]
(4) В его отношении к стукачам не было ни «Бернстайна», ни «Бернштей-на» - было немеркнушее, лагерное: розовая пена на синюшных губах стукача, задушенного под нарами. Поскрёбыша гражданки Касаткиной он вроде бы и не замечал . Мудряк обижался . Не то чтобы лично, а за всё наше монолитное общество, ведь мальцу жить при коммунизме. [Юрий Давыдов . Синие тюльпаны (19881989)] [омонимия снята]
3. Comparison with Turkic language type
For Turkic studies, and Kazakh and Kyrgyz linguistics in particular, it is not typical to employ the term "epistemic modality'! Moreover, the meanings we are interested in seem to lie in the domains of the modality of supposition, probability, certainty or uncertainty, reliability and doubt, with regard to the individual semantic categories of certain linguistic units .
We recognize the concepts of reliability and probability as the key concepts in the semantics of epistemic modality By epistemic modality we mean the speaker's qualification of their attitude to the expressed proposition from the perspective of its reliability In this case, the evaluation of the reported information reliability is an evaluation of the likelihood that the expressed content agrees with the reality. The subject of speech analyzes how reliable their statement is, and determines how probable the actual connection between the object and the characteristic may be in the statement. Depending on how the speaker assesses the degree of such probability, epistemic modality takes the form of epistemic necessity or epistemic possibility. The specificity of this type of modal meanings lies in the fact that these relations are not only established by the speaker, but are also realized by them as the result of their limited knowledge regarding the analyzed situation As for the meanings of certainty/uncertainty and doubt, they seem secondary to us, for they are related rather with the emotional than with the epistemic state of the speaker The degree of certainty of the subject of speech depends on how the speaker assesses the degree of reliability of the message The higher the speaker assesses the likelihood that the reported content is realistic, the higher is their certainty, and vice versa In the illocutionary aspect, an epistemic utterance is an act of supposition.
We analyzed the lexico-grammatical means of expressing supposition in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz languages and considered the modal words listed below:
Kazakh: 6dnKiu, 6dnKU, cuxqmu, cu^aunu, cuHdu, dnnemmi, MYMKiH, maMacu, u^mu-uan, 6onap, musap, 6ineM, -du 6ineM, -kaH,
-кен бЫем, -са, -се керек, -у керек, -га, -ге щсайды, -уы MYMmH and others. For example (5), (6):
(5) Бадан ызасын солай алгысы кел-ген шь^ар1 [Probably, he wanted to take revenge in this way].
(6) Мумкш, м^ныц басы жетпей ж. рген ж^мбацты ол тусшер5 [Perhaps, he will guess the riddle she could not find].
Kyrgyz: ыктымал, mym^h, балким, чыгаар, экен, имиш; послелоги: сымал, сы-мак, сыцары, окшош; частицы: го, белем, бейм, беле, эле. For example (7):
(7) Балким, ал сен жокто чабандар-дын бири менен Yлпeт куруп жаткандыр, кой, жолтоо болбо!2 [Maybe she's playing with some shepherd when you're not there, and you'll interfere with them!].
Parenthetical words and phrases were also considered. Here belong Kazakh parentheses рас, шынында, шамасы, метцше; Kyrgyz parentheses менимче, менин оюмча, сыягы, калыбы, кейпи, etc. , as well as their combinations with each other and with affixes, including tense forms of the verb .
In Russian, this type ofmodality is expressed by way of various morphological means:
1. An infinitive used to impart a subjective coloring of indecision, doubt, bewilderment, emotional hesitation, or to express awareness of the aimlessness of an action [1, с . 605]. For example (8):
(8) И к чему же, за что себя убивать?3 [And why, why should you kill yourself?]
2. The verbs казаться, сомневаться, колебаться, etc. (9):
(9) Года два колебалась, а потом, наконец, сделала выбор4 . [I had been hesitating for about two years, and then I finally made a choice]
1 Кекшбайулы Q . Он ею томдыц шыгармалар жина-гы. Т. 3 . Алматы, "влке" баспасы, 1999. 400 б .
2 Айтматов Ч . Кыямат. VII том чыгармаларынын се-гиз томдук жыйнагы . YчYHШY басылышы . Бишкек, "УЛУУ ТООЛОР", 2018. 491 б .
3 Чехов А . П . Мститель . In: Чехов А . П . Повести и рассказы. Новосибирск, Западно-Сибирское книжное издательство, 1973. C. 73 .
4 Достоевский Ф . М . Идиот. Москва, АСТ: Транзит-
книга, 2005.С. 25 .
V3V
3 . Modal words возможно, вероятно, вряд ли, видимо, видно, видать, знать, право, по-видимому, наверно, наверняка, может быть, должно, должно быть, авось, небось, чай, будто, просто, пожалуй, повидимому, вроде, едва (ли), навряд ли, неужели, разве and others (10), (11):
(10) И она, по-видимому, рассуждала подобным же образом7. [And she, apparently, had the same thoughts].
(11) Возможно, что завтра я не буду верить и самому себе - вот этой своей записи1. [It is possible that tomorrow I will not believe even myself nor this note I made].
1 Замятин Е. Мы. Ставрополь, Ставропольское
книжное издательство, 1990. С. 113 .
Based on the above examples, we can conclude that the evaluation implying doubt is expressed in the three languages by verbs and modal words, united by the seme of supposition
Ch . Aitmatov was both a bilingual speaker and writer who wrote his works in two languages (Kyrgyz and Russian) . In the former USSR, Ch . Aitmatov's works were translated into Russian from Kyrgyz, or were written by the author in two languages - Kyrgyz and Russian, or were originally written in Russian In this article, we want to analyze the means of expressing modality of supposition and give examples from the works (see Table 4), which he wrote in two languages .
Table 4 / Таблица 4
Means of expressing the modality of the assumption in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages (on the example of the works of Ch. Aitmatov) / Средства выражения модальности предположения в кыргызском и русском языках (на примере произведений Ч. Айтматова)
Examples in the Kyrgyz language Examples in the Russian language Translation into English
Чоро жумушка чыккандай болду 1 . (^лсарат) Чоро, говорят, вышел2. (Прощай, Гульсары!) Choro is said to be out . (Farewell, Gulsary!)
Айтып журушпейбу, окумал тотукуштар да бар имиш3. (Эрте ^айтган турналар) Говорят, есть попугаи, которые умеют читать4. (Ранние журавли) They say there are parrots that can read . (Early cranes)
Баары тиги кагаздан коркуп отурган сыяктуу5. (^лсарат) Казалось, все были в страхе от этой бумаги6. (Прощай, Гульсары!) Everyone seemed to be in awe because of this paper. (Farewell, Gulsary!)
Кырчын eмYр курч кези ошол колхоз деген щреште калгандай сезилет азыр7. (ГYЛсарат) . Словно бы вся жизнь его осталась там, в той удивительной поре, когда колхозы набирали силу8 (Прощай, Гульсары!) It was as if his whole life had been left there, in that amazing time, when the collective farms were being organized. (Farewell, Gulsary!)
Баарын чечмелеп отуруу артык-баш го дейм .. .9 (ГYЛсарат) Думаю, комментарии излишни ...10 (Прощай, Гульсары!) I think comments are needless . . . (Farewell, Gulsary!).
Мындан кийин, мумкун, малчы-лардын тиричилигине кецул бу-руп, алахбалына кез сала ЖYPYшeр, муцзарыбызды угушар11 . (ГYЛсарат) . Быть может, после этого оглянутся на чабанов, на житьё наше, на наши беды12. (Прощай, Гульсары! С. 312) Maybe after that they will look back at the shepherds, at our life, at our troubles . (Farewell, Gulsary!)
Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат. In: Айтматов Ч . Т. Чыгармаларыныц сегиз томдук жыйнагы . Т. 8 . Бишкек, Бийик-тик, 2008, б . 166 . Further - Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат.
Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары! In: Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары!: повести и рассказы . Фрунзе, Кыргызстан, 1967, с . 298. Further - Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары!
Айтматов Ч . Эрта ^айтган турналар . In: Айтматов Ч . Эрта ^айтган турналар: ^иссалар ва ^икоялар / Рус тилидан Асил Рашидов таржимаси . Тошкент, Янги аср авлоди, 2016, б . 245.
Айтматов Ч . Т. Ранние журавли . In: Айтматов Ч . Т. Ранние журавли; Пегий пес, бегущий краем моря: повести; И дольше века длится день: роман / послесл . А . Хватова. Ленинград, Лениздат, 1982, с . 269. Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат. Б . 191. Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары! С. 314 . Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат. Б . 172 . Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары! С. 302. Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат. Б . 192 . Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары! С. 315 . Айтматов Ч . Т. ^лсарат. Б . 188 . Айтматов Ч . Прощай, Гульсары! С. 312 .
4
The above indicates that modality of supposition in the Kazahk and Kyrgyz languages is actualized mainly due to distribution (diverse compatibility of morphological and lexico-grammatical means), and in the Russian language this occurs mainly due to the functioning of a flexible system of high-valence lexical means (modal words and modal particles)
Thus, based on the analysis of the linguistic means of epistemic modality in the works by Ch . Aitmatov (in the Kyrgyz and Russian languages), the conclusion was made that the most common means are modal words, particles and verbs
Axiological predicates imply the speaker's subjective evaluation reflecting the author's attitude to the presented information from the perspective of reliability and realness . The lexical means of epistemic modality are an emotional way of expressing author's evaluation and, therefore, are considered a manifestation belonging to the level of subtext .
The analysis - A Summary
The fact that the modal particle by and the adverb vrode form a Portmanteau word
is explained by the double Janus-headed nature of both elements It is assumed that the modal epistemic particle -by is head of the epistemic phrase (EpistP) and stands in a lower projection headed and dominated by Evidentiality phrase (EvidP) The adverb vrode "in the way" is the head of the evidential phrase and the by-particle of the Epis-temic Phrase is adjoined via Chomsky adjunction via head-to-head movement, then it incorporates via substitution and the complex head vrode-by is the result .
The connection of evidentiary and epis-temic meaning (also in the sense of semantic composition) ends up with a modal auxiliary head by adjoined to the host, vrode. In this sense, by is a weak auxiliary clitic and must be moved (raised) to vrode to check its evidential features . It is confirmed by the fact that by + vrode behave like the weak modal auxiliary must in English: it shows the typical syntactic properties of a raising verb moving over a subject but refering to it . The lower-lying sentence subject of a finite verb can and must sometimes be moved / raised via this new modal auxiliary / raising verb (see Fig. 2, 3).
он вроде бы и не замечал
EvidP
SpetEvid Evid" Evid°~
EpistP
vrode by SpeeEpiit Epist' visual auditive on
inferential quotative
Fig. 2 / Рис. 2. Structureoftheadverb " vrode by" withraising of the modalparticle fromEpist0
to Evid0 + subject movement specTP to specEpistP / Структура наречия vrode by, в которой происходит
подъём модальнойчастицысEpist0 до Evid0 + смещениеподлежащегосо specTP KspecEpistP
EvidP
0 Evid'
Evid°
EpistP
Epist0
Epist'
TP
Nat«;»« [NOMSgl
by
T
raboLdci [3PsSg]
vP
VP
Fig. 3 / Рис.3. Structure of theadverb' vrode by^with raisingofthemodalparticle 'by' from the starting position under theheadofthe epictemicphrase Epist0 rightattaching totheheadoftheevidential phrase Evid0 'vrode'/ Структура наречия ^вродебъС споднятиеммодальнойчастицы 'бы' изисходного положения под заголовком эпистемической фразы ЭпистО,прикрепляемой справа к заголовку доказательной фразы ЭвидО 'vrode'.
1. Vinogradov V. V. Russkiy yazyk (grammaticheskoye ucheniye o slove) [Russian language (grammatical
doctrine of the word)]. Moscow, Nauka Publ . , 1975. 640 p . 2 . Kobrina O. A. Kategoriya evidentsial'nosti v sovremennom angliyskom yazyke: Semantika i sredstva vyrazheniya: dis. ... kand. filol. nauk [The category of evidentiality in modern English: Semantics and means of expression: PhD thesis in Philological Sciences], St . Petersburg, 2003. 159 p . 3. Tuychiev M . T. [On the virtual model of the movement of mental energy in the theory of modality]. In: Izvestiya akademii nauk Respubliki Tadzhikistan. Otdeleniye obshchestvennykh nauk [News of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan . Department of Social Sciences], 2019, no. 2 (256), pp. 229-232.
4 . Khrakovsky V. [Evidence and epistemic modality]. In: Hansen B . , Karlik P. , Hgg . Modality in Slavonic
Languages. New Perspectives. München, Verlag Otto Sagner, 2005, S . 87-94.
5 . Eyup B . Kategoriya evidentsial'nosti v turetskom yazyke v funktsionalno-semanticheskom aspekte: V
sopostavlenii s altayskimyazykom: dis.... kand. filol. nauk [The category of evidentiality in the Turkish language in the functional-semantic aspect: In comparison with the Altaic language: PhD thesis in Philological Sciences] Moscow, 2005 209 p
6 . Yakobson R . O . [Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb]. In: Printsipy tipologicheskogo anal-
iza yazykov razlichnogo stroya [Principles of typological analysis of languages of different structures]. Moscow, Nauka Publ. , 1972, pp . 95-113.
7 . Aikhenvald A . Y. Evidentiality. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004. 452 p.
8 . Aikhenvald A . Y. The Languages of the Amazon . Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012 . 514 p.
9 . Aikhenvald A . Y. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018. 720 p.
Дата поступления в редакцию 10.10.2022
REFERENCES
ISSN 2072-8379
2022 / № 6
10 . Boas F. Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington, G . P. O, 1911. 297 p. 11. Chafe W Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing. In: Chafe W , Nichols J. , eds . Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ, Ablex, 1986, pp. 261-272.
12 . De Haan F. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality : Setting boundaries . In: Southwest Journal of Linguis-
tics, 1999, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 83-101.
13 . Drubig H . B. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality, 2001. Available at: https://www. lingexp . uni-
tuebingen . de/sfb441/b2/papers/DrubigModality. pdf (accessed: 20.03.2022). 14. Faller M. Evidentiality below and above speech acts (2006). Available at: https://semanticsarchive . net/ Archive/GZiZjBhO/Faller-evidentiality. above . below.pdf (accessed: 19.03.2021).
15 . Faller M . Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua . In: Semantics of Un-
der-Represented Languages in the Americas, 2003, vol. 2, pp . 19-33 .
16 . Faller M. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua: a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philolsophy. Stanford University, 2002. 304 p . 17. Faller M. The Cuzco Quechua conjectural: An illocutionary analysis of an epistemic evidential. In: Deal A . R. , ed. Proceedings of the 4th Conference on the Semantics of Underrepresented Languages in the Americas (SULA 4). Amherst, MA, Graduate Linguistic Student Association of the University of Massachusetts, 2007, pp 65-80
18 . Fintel K . von, Gilles A . S . An opinionated guide to epistemic modality. In: Gendler T. S . , Hawthorne J. ,
eds . Oxford studies in epistemology. Vol. 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 32-62.
19 . Fintel K . von, Gillies A . S . Must .... stay . . . . strong! In: Natural Language Semantics, 2010, vol . 18, iss. 4,
pp. 351-383. DOI: 10.1007/S11050-010-9058-2.
20 . Gonzalez-Vazquez M. The evidentiality system in Galician and the seica marker. In: Journal of Prag-
matics, 2021, vol. 178, pp. 83-92. DOI: 10 ,1016/j .pragma.2021.03.009. 21. Heim I . , Kratzer A . Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford, Blackwell, 1998. 336 p .
22 Hummel M Romance sentence adverbs in -mente: epistemic mitigation in synchrony and diachrony In: Linguistik Online, 2018, Bd. 92, nr. 5, pp. 111-144. DOI: 10,13092/lo. 92.4507.
23 . Kosta P. Book Review: The Semantics of Evidentials, Sarah E. Murray, Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2017), (Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 9). ISBN 978-0-19-968157-0 (hbk.), 978-0-19968158-7 (pbk. ) 168 pp +Lists of tables, List of figures, List of abbreviations. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 2019, vol. 140, pp. 156-159. DOI: 10 ,1016/j .pragma.2018.12.006. 24. Kosta P. How can I lie if I am telling the truth? The unbearable lightness of the being of strong and weak modals, modal adverbs and modal particles in discourse between epistemic modality and evidentiality. In: Thielemann N . , Kosta P. , eds . Approaches to Slavic Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013, pp. 167-184 (Dialogue Studies. Vol. 20). DOI: 10.1075/ ds. 20 ,13kos.
25 . Kosta P. Modalité Epistémique et Evidentialité et sa disposition à la base déictique. In: Schlaak C. ,
Busse L . , eds . Sprachkontakte, Sprachvariation und Sprachwandel (Festschriftfür Thomas Stehl zum 60. Geburtstag). Tübingen, Narr Verlag, 2011, pp. 257-283.
26 Kosta P The Syntax of Meaning and the Meaning of Syntax: Minimal Computations and Maximal Derivations in a Label-/Phase-Driven Generative Grammar of Radical Minimalism . Berlin, Peter Lang, 2020 372 p (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations Vol 31)
27 . Kratzer A . Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives . Oxford, Oxford University Press,
2012 203 p
28 . Nuyts J. Evidentiality reconsidered. In: Marin-Arrese J. I. , Haßler G . , Carretero M. , eds. Evidential-
ity Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2017, pp. 57-83. DOI: 10,1075/pbns.271.03nuy.
29 Wiemer B , ed Studies on Evidentiality marking in West and South Slavic München, Berlin, Leipzig, Washington D. C. , Peter Lang GmbH, 2015. 304 p . (Series: Specimina philologiae Slavicae. Vol. 183).
30 . Westmoreland R. Information and Intonation in Natural Language Modality: Doctoral dissertation .
Bloomington, IN, 1998
31 Wiemer B Catching the Elusive Lexical Evidentiality markers in Slavic Languages (A questionnaire study and its background). Berlin, Peter Lang, 2018. 446 p . (Series: Slavolinguistica . Vol. 23).
32 . Wiemer B. Lexikalische Markierungen evidenzieller Funktionen: zur Theoriebildung und empirischer
Erforschung im Slavischen . In: Wiemer B . , Plungjan V. A . , eds. Lexikalische Evidentialitäts-Marker in
slavischen Sprachen (Wiener slavistischer Almanach. Sonderband 72). München, Wien, Gesellschaft zur Förderung Slawistischer Studien, 2008, S . 5-49 . 33 . Wiemer B. Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as Evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (a first exploratory study). In: Studies in Polish Linguistics, 2006, vol. 3, pp . 5-67 . 34. Willett T. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. In: Studies in Language,
1988, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 51-97. DOI: 10,1075/sl.12 ,1.04wil. 35 . Wurmbrand S . Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs . In: Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics WCCFL 18. Somerville, MA . , Cascadilla Press, 1999, pp . 599-612.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
I. Виноградов В . В . Русский язык (грамматическое учение о слове). 3-е изд . , испр . М . : Наука, 1975. 640 с
2 . Кобрина О . А. Категория эвиденциальности в современном английском языке: Семантика и
средства выражения: дис. ... канд. филол. наук. СПб . , 2003. 159 с .
3 . Тойчиев М. Т. О виртуальной модели движения мыслительной энергии в теории модально-
сти // Известия академии наук Республики Таджикистан . Отделение общественных наук. 2019 . № 2 (256). С 229-232.
4. Храковский В . Эвиденциальность и эпистемическая модальность // Modality in Slavonic Languages . New Perspectives / Hgg. Hansen B . , Karlik P München: Verlag Otto Sagner, 2005. S . 87-94.
5 . Эйюп Б. Категория эвиденциальности в турецком языке в функционально-семантическом
аспекте: В сопоставлении с алтайским языком: дис . канд филол наук М , 2005 209 с
6 . Якобсон Р О . Шифтеры, глагольные категории и русский глагол // Принципы типологического
анализа языков различного строя . М . : Наука, 1972. С. 95-113 .
7 . Aikhenvald A . Y. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 452 p .
8 . Aikhenvald A . Y. The Languages of the Amazon . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012 . 514 p .
9 . Aikhenvald A . Y. The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. 720 p.
10 . Boas F. Handbook of American Indian languages. Washington: G. P O, 1911. 297 p.
II. Chafe W. Evidentiality in English Conversation and Academic Writing // Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology / ed. W. Chafe, J. Nichols . Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. P 261-272.
12 . De Haan F. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality: Setting boundaries // Southwest Journal of
Linguistics. 1999. Vol. 18 . No. 1. P 83-101.
13 . Drubig H. B. On the syntactic form of epistemic modality [Электронный ресурс]. [2001]. URL:
https://www.lingexp. uni-tuebingen . de/sfb441/b2/papers/DrubigModality. pdf (дата обращения: 20 03 2022)
14. Faller M . Evidentiality below and above speech acts [Электронный ресурс]. [2006]. URL: https:// semanticsarchive . net/Archive/GZiZjBhO/Faller-evidentiality. above, below, pdf (дата обращения: 19.03.2021).
15 . Faller M . Propositional- and illocutionary-level evidentiality in Cuzco Quechua // Semantics of Un-
der-Represented Languages in the Americas . 2003. Vol . 2 . P 19-33 .
16 . Faller M . Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua: a dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philolsophy. Stanford University, 2002. 304 p.
17 . Faller M . The Cuzco Quechua conjectural: An illocutionary analysis of an epistemic evidential // Pro-
ceedings of the 4th Conference on the Semantics of Underrepresented Languages in the Americas (SULA 4) / ed. A . R . Deal. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association of the University of Massachusetts, 2007 P 65-80
18 . Fintel K. von, Gilles A . S . An opinionated guide to epistemic modality // Oxford studies in epistemol-
ogy Vol 2 / ed T S Gendler, J Hawthorne Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 P 32-62
19 . Fintel K. von, Gillies A . S . Must .... stay . . . . strong! // Natural Language Semantics. 2010 . Vol. 18 . Iss . 4.
P 351-383. DOI: 10.1007/S11050-010-9058-2.
20 . Gonzalez-Vazquez M . The evidentiality system in Galician and the seica marker // Journal of Pragmat-
ics. 2021. Vol. 178 . P 83-92. DOI: 10 ,1016/j .pragma.2021.03.009. 21. Heim I . , Kratzer A. Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. 336 p. 22 Hummel M Romance sentence adverbs in -mente: epistemic mitigation in synchrony and diachro-ny // Linguistik Online. 2018 . Bd. 92 . Nr. 5 . P 111-144. DOI: 10,13092/lo. 92.4507.
23 . Kosta P. Book Review: The Semantics of Evidentials, Sarah E. Murray, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017), (Oxford Studies in Semantics and Pragmatics 9). ISBN 978-0-19-968157-0 (hbk), 978-0-19968158-7 (pbk ) 168 pp +Lists of tables, List of figures, List of abbreviations // Journal of Pragmatics. 2019 .Vol. 140 . P. 156-159. DOI: 10 ,1016/j .pragma.2018.12.006.
24. Kosta P. How can I lie if I am telling the truth? The unbearable lightness of the being of strong and weak modals, modal adverbs and modal particles in discourse between epistemic modality and evidentiality // Approaches to Slavic Interaction / ed. N. Thielemann, P. Kosta. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013 . P. 167-184 (Dialogue Studies . Vol. 20). DOI: /10,1075/ds . 20 ,13kos .
25 Kosta P Modalité Epistémique et Evidentialité et sa disposition à la base déictique // Sprachkontakte, Sprachvariation und Sprachwandel (Festschrift für Thomas Stehl zum 60 . Geburtstag) / ed. C. Schlaak, L. Busse. Tübingen: Narr Verlag, 2011. P. 257-283.
26 Kosta P The Syntax of Meaning and the Meaning of Syntax: Minimal Computations and Maximal Derivations in a Label-/Phase-Driven Generative Grammar of Radical Minimalism Berlin: Peter Lang, 2020. 372 p. (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations. Vol. 31).
27 . Kratzer A . Modals and Conditionals: New and Revised Perspectives . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012 203 p
28 Nuyts J Evidentiality reconsidered // Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives / eds J I Marin-Arrese, G Haßler, M Carretero Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2017. P. 57-83. DOI: 10,1075/pbns.271.03nuy.
29 Studies on Evidentiality marking in West and South Slavic / ed B Wiemer München, Berlin, Leipzig, Washington D. C. : Peter Lang GmbH, 2015. 304 p. (Series: Specimina philologiae Slavicae . Vol. 183).
30 Westmoreland R Information and Intonation in Natural Language Modality: Doctoral dissertation Bloomington, IN, 1998
31 Wiemer B Catching the Elusive Lexical Evidentiality markers in Slavic Languages (A questionnaire study and its background). Berlin: Peter Lang, 2018. 446 p. (Series: Slavolinguistica. Vol. 23).
32 Wiemer B Lexikalische Markierungen evidenzieller Funktionen: zur Theoriebildung und empirischer Erforschung im Slavischen // Lexikalische Evidentialitäts-Marker in slavischen Sprachen (Wiener slavistischer Almanach . Sonderband 72) / ed. B. Wiemer, V. A . Plungjan . München-Wien: Gesellschaft zur Förderung Slawistischer Studien, 2008. S . 5-49 .
33 Wiemer B Particles, parentheticals, conjunctions and prepositions as Evidentiality markers in contemporary Polish (a first exploratory study) // Studies in Polish Linguistics . 2006. Vol. 3 . P. 5-67 .
34. Willett T. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality // Studies in Language . 1988. Vol. 12 . Iss. 1. P. 51-97. DOI: 10,1075/sl.12 .1. 04wil.
35 . Wurmbrand S . Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs // Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics WCCFL 18 / ed. S. Bird, A. Carnie, J. D. Haugenm, P. Norquest. Somerville, MA. : Cascadilla Press, 1999. P. 599-612.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Peter Kosta - Dr. Sci. (Phil. ), Professor emeritus of Slavic linguistics, the Institute for Slavic Studies, the University of Potsdam; Honorary Professor of the Russian-Armenian University (Yerevan, Armenia); External Professor, the Institute of General Linguistics, Jan Palacky University (Olomouc, Czech Republic); е-mail: peter.kosta@uni-potsdam . de
Iskakova Gulgul Zhenisovna - Master (Pedagogy and Psychology), Dr. Sci. degree-seeking candidate, Educational program 8D02301 "Philology", Sh . Ualikhanov Kokshetau University; е-mail: g. ristina@mail. ru
ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ
Петер Коста - доктор философских наук, почётный профессор кафедры славянского языкознания Института славистики Потсдамского университета, почётный профессор Российско-Армянского университета (г. Ереван, Армения), внештатный профессор Института общего языкознания Университета Яна Палацкого (г. Оломоуц, Чехия); е-mail: peter.kosta@uni-potsdam . de;
V3V
ISSN 2072-8379
2022 / № 6
Искакова Гульгуль Женисовна - магистр педагогики и психологии, докторант образовательной программы 8002301 «Филология» Кокшетауского университета имени Ш . Уалиханова; е-шаИ: ^ и81та@таП . ги
FOR CITATION
Kosta P. , Iskakova G . Zh . New tendencies in the study of modality: epistemic modality and evidentiality. In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 2022, no . 6, pp . 25-40. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2022-6-25-40
Коста П . , Искакова Г. Ж. Современные тенденции изучения модальности: эпистемическая модальность и эвиденциальность // Вестник Московского государственного областного университета. Серия: Лингвистика. 2022. № 6 . С 25-40. Э01: 10.18384/2310-712Х-2022-6-25-40
ПРАВИЛЬНАЯ ССЫЛКА НА СТАТЬЮ
