STUDENTLERDI BIRLESTIRIW: XALÍQARALÍQ IZERTLEWLER HÁM PÁNLER BOYINSHA BIRGE
ISLESIW 1-XALÍQARALÍQ STUDENTLER KONFERENCIYASÍ. NÓKIS, 2025-JÍL 20-21-MAY
__
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
119
INTERLINGUISTIC CORRESPONDENCE OF MULTILEVEL MEANS OF EXPRESSING
THE MEANING OF MODALITY IN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN
Seytova D.U., сandidate of philological sciences,
associate professor of KSU named after Berdaq.
Kadirbaeva N.Sh., 3
rd
year student of KSU named after Berdaq
Belonging to one group of world languages (Indo-European), English and Russian have
analogues in the system of means of expressing modality - as a lexical-grammatical category
expressing the relation of an action to reality, established by the speaker.In English and Russian
modality is expressed by both grammatical and lexical means. However, for the typological
characteristics of language, grammatical means of expressing the meaning of modality are of great
importance. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct an analysis of interlingual correspondence of
different-level means of expressing modality in English and Russian, in terms of comparing the
grammatical means of its expression. «Язык,как важнейшее и удивительно совершенное средство
человечес-кого общения,средство обмена мыслями,может выполнять эти разнообразные и
сложные функции потому,что он представляет собой весьма гибкую и в то же время отлично
организованную систему» [1;5].
The main grammatical means of expressing the meaning of the modality of reality in both
languages is the indicative mood, which at the same time has certain nuances in the ways of expressing
the meaning of modality. For example, in Russian, the modality of reality related to the present tense
is expressed by the form of the present tense, and in English it can be expressed not only by the Present
Indefinite, but also by the form of the Present Perfect Continuous.
Significantly greater differences are observed in the system of grammatical means of both
languages for expressing the meaning of the modality of invalidity. In Russian, there is only one mood
for expressing the meaning of the modality of invalidity - the subjunctive, denoting an action that is
thought of by the speaker as unreal and only as possible or desirable. In contrast to Russian, in English
the modality of invalidity is expressed by four so-called indirect moods: subjunctive I, subjunctive II,
hypothetical and conditional.
As a basic seme, subjunctive I has the seme of
“hypotheticality”,
“uncertainty”
in the reality of
a given phenomenon, but does not express any opposition to what takes place in reality. Subjunctive
II has the basic seme "unreality" and has a polar meaning with the forms of the indicative, which has
the seme
"reality".
Subjunctive II, unlike subjunctive I, differs in the form of the present and the form
of the past tense. The presumptive mood has the seme
“presumption
”, and its morphological structure
consists of the verb
should+Vinf.
The presumptive mood in Russian corresponds to the form of the
subjunctive mood. The category of modality can be expressed in both languages in the forms of the
imperative mood, which in both languages expresses the will, request, order of the speaker or the
incitement of the interlocutor to action. If the forms of this mood are combined with the negation
"not", then the seme
"incentive"
is extinguished and instead of it the seme
"prohibition"
appears.
The imperative mood in both languages has categories of number and person. In English, unlike
Russian, there is only one form for the 2
nd
person of both numbers:
read, write, take, go
etc. If in
Russian the first person plural form for perfective and imperfective verbs has two ways of expression
(пойдем, возьмем; будем читать, будем писать), then in English these two forms correspond to
only one analytical form -
let us (let’s) read, let us (let’s) go, let us (let’s) take etc.
The third person singular and plural forms are expressed analytically in both languages: пусть
он придет
-
let him come; пусть они придут - let them come.
Thus, the semantic structure of the Russian imperative mood is characterized by greater
complexity compared to the English one, despite the identity of the basic seme “incentive”.
STUDENTLERDI BIRLESTIRIW: XALÍQARALÍQ IZERTLEWLER HÁM PÁNLER BOYINSHA BIRGE
ISLESIW 1-XALÍQARALÍQ STUDENTLER KONFERENCIYASÍ. NÓKIS, 2025-JÍL 20-21-MAY
__
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
120
References:
1.
В.Д.Аракин.
Сравнительная
типология
английского
и
русского
языков.Л.,«Просвещение»,Ленинградское отделение,1979.
TYPOLOGICAL CATEGORIES IN LINGUISTICS
Seytova D.U.,
сandidate of philological sciences, associate professor,
KSU named after Berdaq.
Sarsenbaeva A.A.,
3
rd
year student of KSU named after Berdaq
Sabirbaeva M.A.,
3
rd
year student of KSU named after Berdaq.
The typological category in linguistics is intercategory. This feature contrasts it with the
traditional grammatical category, which is characterized as a monocategory category.
«Типология языка строит свои выводы на основе тех общих признаков,которые и
составляют типологические черты языка»[1;26].
Each language has its own resources for conveying categories. If a category is expressed by two
or more word categories, then in such cases, units of different categories act as different-category
synonyms. These different-category synonyms can be both intralingual and interlingual. The system
of each language has a huge number of intercategory synonymous units, which, being correlated with
different word categories, can have a common depth. For example, if we proceed from their common
base, then in English words like
fun
,
fur
are classified into two lexical and grammatical categories of
words:
fun (n)
a joke and
fun (v)
to joke;
fur (n) fur
, wool, skin and
fur (v)
to line, trim with fur.
The intercategory nature of typological categories is based on a deep commonality that unites all
formal means expressing a common categorical meaning. The deep commonality of typological
categories unites units of different lexical and grammatical categories of words in the systems of the
languages being compared. When comparing, a generalized unit of the content plan is used as an
interlingual substrate. Therefore, typological categories are distinguished taking into account the
nature of this unit.
The real meaning is conveyed by means of certain grammatical frames that characterize the
language system as a whole. The grammatical framework or grammatical models, in turn, also have
a generalized-abstracted meaning that underlies the deep community of the typological category.
When transferring the selected categories, units of different levels of language are involved. Indicators
of a certain category have different distributional relations between themselves,i.e. their relations can
be either mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive.Thus, each categorical indicator, whether it is a
separate morpheme or a special unit, excludes the use of another synonymous indicator.
In English, mutual inclusion and mutual exclusion are carried out in a unique way. Some
categories are expressed by mutual exclusion of synonymous indicators, while others, on the contrary,
simultaneously use two or more mutually inclusive synonymous categorical indicators.
The category of plurality in nouns is conveyed in at least two ways: 1) with the help of plurality
morphemes; 2) with the help of numerals. Both ways are related as two synonymous indicators. In
some languages, two signs of plurality are mutually exclusive, in others, both can be used in one
construction. In such cases, numerals complement and clarify the meaning of plurality. Thus, for
many Turkic, Mongolian and Finno-Ugric languages, mutual exclusion of different-level indicators
is characteristic, and for English, Russian and some other languages, cases of mutual inclusion are
characteristic. For example:
Eng.:
two schools; five students; four men.
