Modality in Russian. On the grammatical expression of modality in modern Russian language

Modality- this is a functional-semantic category that expresses the attitude of the statement to reality, as well as the attitude of the speaker to what is being expressed.

There are objective and subjective modalities.

Objective modality expresses the relationship of what is being communicated to reality in terms of reality or unreality. The main means of expressing objective modality is the verb.

Subjective modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to what is being expressed. Subjective modality is an optional feature of an utterance, realized with the help of intonation, as well as. In a typical way manifestations subjective modality modal words are considered.

The basis of subjective modality is the concept of evaluation in the broad sense of the word.

There are two types of assessment: logical, or intellectual, and emotional. Logical assessment is expressed by modal words, and emotional assessment by interjections.

The concept of subjective modality was most fully considered by the French scientist Charles Bally. He believed that in any statement there is a contrast between the actual content, or dictum, as he called it, and an individual assessment of the facts presented, or mode.

In Russian linguistics, V. V. Vinogradov dealt most deeply with the problem of modality and, in particular, specific forms of manifestation of subjective modality at different levels of the language system. In the article “On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language,” the scientist emphasizes that the category of sentence modality belongs to the central linguistic categories. He shares the point of view of I.I. Meshchaninov that the category of modality refers to conceptual categories.

According to A.M. Peshkovsky, the category of modality expresses “attitude to attitude,” that is, the speaker’s attitude to the connection that he establishes between the content of a given utterance and reality. With this approach, modality turns out to be closely related to categories of the pragmatic* level.

* Pragmatics(from Greek pragma, genus. case pragmatos- matter, action) is an area of research in semiotics and linguistics that studies the functioning of linguistic signs of speech.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

INconducting

Perhaps there is no other category about the linguistic nature and composition of the particular meanings of which so many contradictory points of view have been expressed as about the category of modality. Most authors include in its composition meanings that are the most heterogeneous in their essence, functional purpose and belonging to the levels of linguistic structure, so that the category of modality is deprived of any certainty.

Modality is the basis for the formal grammatical classification of sentences according to modality. Offers various types, divided by subjective modality, form a formal paradigmatic series. The difference between sentences in subjective modality - the degree of reliability of the content of the sentence from the point of view of the speaker - is their difference in both form and content. In the cognitive process aimed at one or another phenomenon of reality, the speaker evaluates the degree of reliability of the thought he is forming about reality. Any judgment characterized by the subjective modality of categorical certainty can be not only true, but also false, since a subjective assessment of the reliability of the thought expressed by the corresponding sentence may not coincide with the extent to which this thought actually corresponds to reality.

The purpose of the course research is to study the category of modality in the Russian language. To achieve this goal, a number of tasks must be solved, namely:

Reveal the concept and essence of modality;

Consider modality as a semantic category;

Explore what special forms moods can express modality;

Consider modal words in the work of I. Odoevtseva “On the Banks of the Neva”.

The solution to the problems was carried out using the following theoretical and empirical research methods:

Method of theoretical analysis and synthesis;

Induction method;

Method of quantitative and qualitative data processing;

Comparison method;

Classification method;

Generalization method.

The object and material of the course work is the work of I. Odoevtseva, the choice of which is explained big amount modal words used in it.

The subject is modal words as a means of expressing a subjective assessment of what is being communicated.

The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that, using the example of I. Odoevtseva’s work “On the Banks of the Neva,” the lexical-semantic features and functional-stylistic potential of modal words are considered. This information will be useful not only when studying the language and stylistics of I. Odoevtseva’s works, but when studying modal words as parts of speech in their direct use in the text.

The theoretical significance of the course work is that it examines the category of modality and the functioning of modal words in the Russian language.

The practical value of the work lies in the fact that the research materials can be used in the compilation of textbooks and teaching aids on the modern Russian language, in the course of teaching the disciplines “Morphology”, “Stylistics”.

1. Ffunctional-semantic category of modality(KM) and its implementation in Russian

1.1 Modality as a languagebasic universal

Modality (from Middle Latin modalis - modal, Latin modus - measure, method) is a semantic category that expresses the speaker’s attitude to the content of his statement, target setting speech, the relationship of the content of the statement to reality. Modality is linguistic universal, belongs to the main categories of natural language.

Modality is a category that expresses the speaker’s attitude to the content of the utterance, the latter’s attitude to reality. Modality can have the meaning of statement, order, wish, etc. Modality is expressed by special forms of moods, intonation, modal words (for example, “possibly”, “necessary”, “should”); in logic, such words are called modal operators; with their help, the method of understanding judgments (statements) is indicated.

The end of the twentieth century in linguistics was marked by an increase in interest in language not as a sign, but as an anthropocentric system, the purpose of studying which is human speech and mental activity. In this regard, many different directions in science have appeared, such as: cognitive linguistics, linguoculturology, ethnopsycholinguistics, psycholinguistics, intercultural communication, etc. In fact, all of the listed linguistic directions pose one task - to identify those mental and psychological processes, the result of which is human speech. These mental processes are inextricably linked to modality.

Academician V.V. Vinogradov (Professor S.I. Abakumov, E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk and others are unanimous with him) identified modal words in the system of parts of speech of the Russian language.

Modal words are words that correlate the content of a sentence with reality and act as an introductory word or a sentence word. For example, Pokorsky is incomparably taller than him, no doubt.(I.T.) She was probably sick.(F. Ch.) In the first sentence, the modal word undoubtedly indicates that what is being reported is reliable and corresponds to real reality, in the second, the modal word probably indicates that what is being reported is in fact only possible, i.e., it may not be a fact reality.

Modal words function in a sentence. One of the most important grammatical features of a sentence is the category of predicativity, which expresses the objectively existing relationship of the content of the statement to reality. Predicativity is a mandatory grammatical feature of a sentence in any language. The relationship of the content of an utterance to reality is expressed using the categories of modality, syntactic tense and person.

Modal relations depend on real relationships between the subject of speech (speaker), the utterance and objective reality. The meaning of modality as a grammatical category lies in the nature of these relationships.

A statement can be thought of by the subject of speech as real or unreal (surreal), i.e., a possible, desirable, required fact of objective reality. For example, a statement is thought of by the speaker as a real fact in the present, past or future: It is snowing. It was snowing. It will snow, as a surreal fact.: It would snow. Let it snow. In this case, we can talk about objective modality, which in Russian is expressed by the grammatical categories of mood, tense, and intonation. However, the speaker may have his own subjective attitude towards the objective (real or unreal) modality of the sentence. Therefore, a category of subjective modality is distinguished, which expresses greater or lesser reliability / unreliability of a fact of objective reality. The linguistic means of expressing subjective modality in the Russian language are very diverse: intonation, repetitions, word order in a sentence, modal words, modal particles, as well as units of syntax - introductory words, phrases and sentences. Thus, modal words are one of the linguistic means of expressing the category of subjective modality. The grammatical category of subjective modality is not a mandatory feature of a sentence. Wed: It will snow, of course, and it will snow. The content of the utterance in the absence of a modal word did not change.

Thus, modality is a grammatical category that expresses the speaker’s attitude to the content of what is being expressed, the attitude of the utterance to reality.

Modality in the Russian language has different means of expression: lexical - these are significant words belonging to different parts of speech: truth, lie, want, can, doubtful, confident, etc.; morphological - these are forms of mood, tense of the verb; syntactic - these are different types of sentences - narrative, incentive, interrogative and negative. Among the listed means, a special place is occupied by modal words, which have become an independent part of speech and express subjective modal meaning.

From the point of view of the speaker, judgments are divided into those that he considers true ("I know that" cf. Twice two is four), those that he considers false ("I know that not" cf. Twice two is five).

So, we can conclude that differences in the ways of expressing the category of modality are partly related to internal differences in its syntactical-semantic functions themselves, in its functional-semantic essence.

1.2 Modality as semenic category

The concept of “functional-semantic field”, which began with the works of F. de Saussure, is one of the leading ones in modern linguistics. The followers of the ideas of the great linguist formed a functional branch of linguistics, which is represented in a number of linguistic schools, the largest of which are: Prague, London and Copenhagen. In our country, the functional direction was developed by A.V. Bondarko, N.A. Slyusareva, G.S. Shchur, V.S. Khrakovsky and others, who base their research on the ideas of the luminaries of Russian linguistics V.V. Vinogradova, K.S. Aksakova, I.I. Meshchaninova, A.A. Potebnya, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatova.

As is known, the method of the functional-semantic approach consists of special interest to the semantic side of linguistic phenomena, there is a search for a connection between meaning and form, and functional grammar takes the semantic element as the main one. A.V. Bondarko points out that the identification of universals in this direction of linguistics is associated with a reflection of the actually existing structural organization specific language. This principle of consistency in the study of language structures is a mandatory requirement. functional grammar. This structural approach fully reflects the nature of language, which is not a random accumulation individual sounds, words and structures, but an internally connected, organized whole. Linguistic realities are deeply interconnected and interpenetrate each other, and this should be taken into account in order to indicate the place occupied by a particular phenomenon in the system being studied. This approach deserves especially close attention, as it allows us to consider language structures from several sides. Indeed, every phenomenon in language system has not only its own meanings and qualities, but also those that are determined by its relationship with other structures. Thus, this approach seems to us the most acceptable in our work, since the considered linguistic phenomenon, namely modality, is complex structure, the place of which relative to other language systems is a decisive factor in solving translation problems.

The concept of a functional-semantic field is one of the central ones in functional grammar. It is defined as a phenomenon based on a certain semantic category and representing a unity of grammatical and “structural” lexical units, as well as various combined means interacting on the basis of the commonality of their semantic functions.

The core of the FSP of modality is the morphological means of expressing modality. The predicative core of the FSP modality contains modal verbs; on the periphery - the category of mood related to syntactic means of expression, then phraseological units, related to lexical means of expressing modality. This field is monocentric with one integral predicative core.

The study and construction of semantic fields is very important, as it helps to systematize and combine linguistic elements, having a common semantic function, and select those for which this semantic feature is predominant in the core of the semantic field, and the rest, according to the degree of weakening of this feature, are located on the periphery. The use of semantic fields makes it possible to express any human thought more broadly, more accurately and emotionally.

In modern linguistics, the description of functional-semantic categories and multi-level means of their verbalization within the functional-semantic field, including the description of the functional-semantic category of modality, is becoming one of the leading methods of linguistic research.

1.3 Categories of modalityand in Russian

There are objective and subjective modalities.

Objective modality is a mandatory feature of any statement, one of the categories that forms predicative unit- offer. Objective modality expresses the relationship of what is being communicated to reality in terms of reality (feasibility or fulfillment) and unreality (unrealization). The main means of formalizing such modality is the category of verbal mood, as well as syntactic particles in some cases - the grammatically significant order of the main members of the sentence. In a specific utterance, these means necessarily interact with one or another intonation structure. All this finds expression in syntax in the forms of the syntactic indicative mood (indicative) and in the forms of syntactic irreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, motivating, obligatory). Objective modality is also organically connected with the category of time. However, mood and tense must be distinguished as verbal and syntactic categories.

Since in many languages not only verbal, but also verbless sentences are widely represented, the verb with its morphological categories cannot be recognized as the only carrier of these meanings in a sentence: it is a very important means, but still one of the means of their formation and expression - along with others mentioned above grammatical means. IN morphological forms of the verb, the meanings of the mood (and tense) are concentrated and abstracted, and this gives grounds to represent them as the meanings of the verb itself in the entire system of its forms. Morphological meanings of tense and mood of the verb interact with other means of expressing syntactic meanings of the same name. A verb with its meanings of tense and mood is included in a sentence in a broader system of means of forming syntactic tenses and moods and interacts with these syntactic means in unified system expressions of syntactic meanings.

Subjective modality, that is, the expression of the speaker’s attitude to what is being communicated, in contrast to objective modality, is an optional feature of the utterance. The semantic scope of subjective modality is wider than the semantic scope of objective modality. Subjective linguistic modality includes not only the logical qualification of what is being communicated, but also various lexical and grammatical modes of expression emotional reaction. It can be:

1) members of a special lexical and grammatical class of words, as well as phrases and sentences functionally close to them; these members typically function as input units;

2) special modal particles to express uncertainty, assumption, unreliability, surprise, fear, etc.;

3) interjections;

4) special intonation to emphasize surprise, doubt, confidence, distrust, protest, irony, etc.;

5) word order, emphatic constructions;

6) special designs;

7) units of expressive vocabulary.

According to the fair remark of V.V. Vinogradov, all modal particles, words, phrases are extremely varied in their meanings and in their etymological nature. Vinogradov V.V. On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language, Tr. Institute of Russian Language of the USSR Academy of Sciences. T.2. M.; L., 1950.. In the category of subjective modality, natural language captures one of the key properties of the human psyche - the ability to contrast “I” and “not-I” within the framework of a statement. In each specific language, modality is formalized taking into account its typological features, but everywhere it reflects the complex interaction between the four factors of communication: the speaker, the interlocutor, the content of the utterance and reality.

So, we can consider two types of modality: objective and subjective, but, in any case, modality is a complex interaction between the speaker, the interlocutor, the content of the utterance and reality.

2. WITHways to express modality in Russian

2.1 Spec modality expressionsocial forms of moods

Modality is also expressed by special forms of moods. Mood is a verbal category that expresses a certain modality of an utterance, that is, the attitude of the utterance to reality established by the speaker. Traditional grammar establishes the presence of 4 moods: indicative, imperative and subjunctive and independent infinitive. However, the most commonly used method is the imperative mood.

2.1.1 Expressflax mood

The indicative mood (lat. modus indicativus) expresses the presence or absence of an unconditioned (objective) action, within one time or another, as if in contemplation of an action; the subject’s various attitudes to this action are not determined by him and are conveyed by other inclinations.

Special morphological characteristics the indicative mood does not have and is always formed from the base of a given time (present, past, future) by attaching the corresponding endings to it. The person expressed by this ending, like all other moods (except for the imperative and the so-called indefinite mood, which is not a real mood), is understood in the nominative case. The injunctive forms also sometimes have the meaning of the indicative mood.

The indicative mood expresses an action that is conceived by the speaker as quite real, actually occurring in time (present, past and future): The Urals serve well, have served and will serve our Motherland. The expression of modality by the indicative mood can also be carried out by combining its form with modal words and particles: as if he had stepped, as if he had changed. The indicative mood differs from other moods in that it has tense forms.

2.1.2 Will commandspruce mood

The imperative mood (lat. modus imperativus; also imperativus) is a form of mood expressing expressions of will (order, request or advice). For example: “go”, “let’s go”, “talk”.

Already in the ancient era of the Indo-European proto-language there was a form of the verb that was intended to encourage other persons to a certain action. In Vedic Sanskrit, the imperative mood is used only in a positive sense, and only in later, classical Sanskrit does it begin to express prohibition, combined with the particle mв (Greek mu - so as not to, but not...). The same positive use of the imperative mood is found in the language of the most ancient parts of the Avesta, while in Greek its negative use is already quite common. The imperative mood primarily denoted not only an order, but also a desire, a request. Thus, the appeal to the gods in the Rig Veda is constantly expressed in forms of the imperative mood: “harness your horses, come and sit on the sacrificial mat, drink the sacrificial drink, hear our prayer, give us treasures, help us in battle,” etc. Usually the imperative mood expresses the expectation of an immediate occurrence, an action, but sometimes it also means an action that should occur only after the end of another.

The imperative mood expresses the will of the speaker - a request, order or encouragement to perform the action indicated by the verb, and is characterized by a special imperative intonation: Heart friend, desired friend, come, come: I am your husband! (P.). The main meaning of the imperative mood - an inducement to perform an action - usually refers to the interlocutor, therefore the main form of this mood is the form of the 2nd person singular or plural.

The imperative form is formed from the basis of the present tense and has the following three varieties:

With final -y after vowels (pure base): build, come on, don’t spit;

With the ending -i after consonants: carry, cut, repeat;

With a final soft consonant, as well as with a hard zh and sh (pure base): leave, save, provide, smear, eat.

2.1.3 Soslagateflax mood

Subjunctive mood (conjunctive, subjunctive, Latin modus conjunctivus or subjunctivus) - series special forms verbal mood of most Indo-European languages, expressing through a subjective attitude a possible, conjectural, desirable or described action.

The subjunctive mood, which exists in Indo-European languages, dates back to the common Indo-European era and was already characteristic of the Indo-European proto-language. Not all, however, forms known under the name of the subjunctive mood go back to the ancient native Indo-European forms of the subjunctive mood; many of them are various kinds of new formations, only having the functions of the subjunctive mood.

In its meaning, the subjunctive mood is close to the desirable, imperative and indicative future tenses. It differs from the desirable in that it denotes the will, often the demand of the speaker, while the desirable expresses only his desire. The subjunctive differs from the imperative mood in that it expresses an intention, the implementation of which depends on certain certain circumstances, and from the indicative mood of the future tense - in that it means mainly the intention, the will of the speaker, while the indicative mood of the future tense expresses mainly the anticipation of an action. However, sometimes the subjunctive mood has the meaning of the indicative mood of the future tense. Accordingly, there are two types of subjunctive mood: the subjunctive mood of will or desire (Conjunctivus volitivus) and the subjunctive mood of foresight (Conjunctivus prospectivus). The first, apparently, like the imperative mood, was used primarily only in positive sentences. The subjunctive mood is also used to ask about something that is about to happen. An example of the subjunctive mood of desire, will: lat. hoc quod coepi primum enarrem (Terence: “first I want to tell you what I have done”); example of the prospective subjunctive mood (with the meaning of the future tense): Skt. uv всoshв uchв с са n ш -- “the morning dawn has appeared and will appear now” (R. V. I, 48, 3); Greek kbYa rpfe feyt erzuy - “and if ever someone says”, etc.

2.1.4 Independentproper infinitive

An independent infinitive is an infinitive without the function of the subject or predicate of a two-part sentence and in the function of the main member of a one-part (infinitive) sentence, an infinitive that is independent of other members of the sentence. Smoking is prohibited. The thrush is to grieve, the thrush is to yearn. To be a bull on a string.

The verbs I drink, I beat, I pour, I view form the forms pei, beat, lay, wey; the verb lie down has the imperative form lie down, lie down, and the verb eat - eat, eat; With the verb food, the imperative forms are used: go - go. The imperative form of the 2nd person plural is formed by adding the affix -te to the singular form: build, carry, leave. Reflexive verbs are attached to the indicated formations of the imperative form by the affixes -sya (after the consonant and -y) and -sya (after -i and -te): don’t be stubborn, line up, cut your hair, cut your hair.

In addition to the basic form of the 2nd person singular and plural, the imperative mood has forms expressing the action of the 3rd person and 1st person plural. The forms of the 3rd person are expressed (analytically) by a combination of particles let, let, yes with the form of the 3rd person singular and plural of the present tense and the future simple: Let the face glow like the dawn in the morning (Ring); Let him serve and pull the strap (P.); Long live the muses, long live the mind! (P.).

The 1st person plural of the imperative mood is expressed by the form of the 1st person plural of the present tense or, more often, the future simple, pronounced with a special intonation of invitation: Let's begin, perhaps (P.). Attaching the affix -te to this form expresses an appeal to many people or gives the statement a hint of politeness: You, my brothers, blood friends, let’s kiss and hug at the last parting (L.).

Some verbs, for semantic reasons, do not form the imperative form of the 2nd person, for example, impersonal verbs, individual verbs with the meaning of perception (see, hear), with the meaning of state (rot, become ill).

2.2 Expression modalityand modal words

2.2.1 Vvoadverbs

The peculiar position of modal words among other grammatical categories was noted in manuals on the Russian language with early XIX V. But clear grammatical characteristics it is impossible to find this type of words there. Modal words did not stand out as an independent category for a long time. They were mixed with adverbs. It `s naturally. It is not without reason that in Slavic-Russian grammars until the end of the 17th century. even interjections were included in the class of adverbs. Since ancient times, the category of adverbs has been a dumping ground for all the so-called “unchangeable” words. However, there were other, closer historical reasons for classifying modal words as adverbs: many modal words were formed from adverbs. The grammatical uniqueness of modal words has long been striking. But shackled by the theory of ancient grammar, Russian linguists of the 19th century. they were considered as a special category within adverbs. Thus, Vostokov calls modal words adverbs, “determining the authenticity of an action and state.” Mixing them with adverbs and particles, he distinguishes five groups of “adverbs” with modal shades.

"1. Interrogative; is it really, really, really.

2. Affirmative: truly, truly, in fact, really, etc.

3. Supposed: maybe, maybe, not at all, hardly, hardly, hardly, etc.

4. Negative: no, neither.

5. Restrictive: only, only, only, only" (2).

N.I. Grech also singled out into a special category “adverbs that define the property and way of being, the existence of an object, namely:

a) with the statement: truly, truly, undeniably, accurately, certainly;

b) with an indication of possibility: maybe, perhaps, probably, almost, hardly, hardly, etc.;

c) with negation: not, not at all, not at all, not at all;

d) with the expression of the question: really, really."

2.2.2 Fashionline verbs

Modal verbs are those verbs that express not an action or state, but the attitude of a person, designated by a pronoun or noun that carries the function of the subject in a sentence, to the action or state expressed by the infinitive. A modal verb in combination with an infinitive forms a compound in a sentence verbal predicate. Modal verbs express the meaning of possibility, necessity, probability, desirability, etc.

Dictionary interpretations of the main modal verbs of the Russian language:

CAN, I can, you can, they can; could, could; powerful; mogi (in some combinations; colloquial version); nonsov., with undef. To be able, to be able (to do something). We can help. Can not understand. Can study well. This cannot be, because this can never happen (joking form).*

Maybe or maybe -

1) as an introductory word, as one might think, perhaps. He will return perhaps only in the evening;

2) an expression of uncertain confirmation, probably, apparently. He will come? - May be. I can’t know (outdated colloquial) - a polite official answer in the meaning. I don’t know, I don’t know (usually among the military). Can't be! - an exclamation expressing surprise and distrust, doubt about something. Seen Bigfoot. - Can't be! Don't pray! (obsolete and colloquial) - don’t do, don’t even think about doing anything. You cannot offend the weak (aphorism). You couldn’t even squeak in front of your boss. And I couldn’t think! (strict prohibition). How can you live? (colloquial) - how do you live, how are you? Through I can’t (do, do something) (colloquial) - overcoming impossibility, lack of strength. || owls can, I can, you can, they can; could, was able; could.

MUST, -zhna, -zhno, meaning. tale

1) with undef. Obliged to do something. Must obey orders.

2) with undef. About what will happen without fail, inevitably or presumably. He d. will come soon. Something important is about to happen.

3) to whom. Borrowed, must repay

4) You owe me a hundred rubles. * Must be introductory. sl. - probably, in all likelihood.

SHOULD (-your, -you, 1 and 2 liters. not used), -twuet, -twuesh; nesov. (book). To be due, to follow (in 5 meanings). You must agree. Take appropriate measures. || noun obligation, -I, cf.

WANT, want, want, wants, want, want, want; pov (colloquial) although; nesov.

1. someone, something, someone (with a specific noun, colloquial), with an undefined or with the conjunction "to". To have a desire, intention (to do something), to feel the need for someone. X. help (to help). X. tea. X. is. Do you want some candy? Call whoever you want (anyone). Eat whatever you want (anything).

2. someone or something and with the conjunction “to”. To strive for something, to achieve something, getting something. X. world. X. understanding from the interlocutor. Wants everything to be okay. * If you want (want), enter, ate. - perhaps, of course. He's right, say what you want. As you want (want) -

a) as you wish;

b) enter, ate, in case of objection: but still, no matter what. Whatever you want, I don’t agree. Whether you like it or not (colloquial) - you have to. Whether you like it or not, you are going. Through I don’t want (colloquial) - overcoming reluctance. Eat (drink, take, etc.) - I don’t want (colloquial) - in combination with the pov form. incl. denotes an unlimited opportunity to do something, freedom of action.

Thus, modal verbs are verbs that mean desire, intention, the ability of the actor to carry out an action: want, be able, wish, assume, intend, strive, decide, succeed, etc. They are often used in the structure of a compound verbal predicate.

3. Modd words in the workAND.ABOUTdOevtseva"Nand the banksNEve»

Odoevtseva modality Russian language

Analyzing modal words in I. Odoevtseva’s work “On the Banks of the Neva” and systematizing them, in this work we will use the classification of modal words proposed by linguists such as V.V. Babaytseva, N.M. Shansky, A.N. Tikhonov, P.P. Fur coat. Thus, we will divide all modal words into the following categories according to the modality value they express:

1) modality of reliability, confidence, conviction;

2) the modality of uncertainty, assumption, probability, or impossibility of what is being reported;

3) modality, expressing an emotional attitude towards the phenomena of reality;

4) modal words that characterize the form of the statement or its attribution to another person.

We have analyzed a fragment of the text “On the Banks of the Neva” from page 09 to page 114 inclusive.

In this passage of text, a total of 89 modal words were identified. Here is their complete list:

I) Sentences that include modal words expressing the degree of reliability, confidence, conviction:

“My memory is truly excellent”;

“I understand that this is about him, of course, Akhmatova wrote about him...”;

“No, really, it all looked more like suicide”;

“Of course, I entered the literary department”;

“He, of course, failed to inscribe “Timofeyev” on the “Charter of Ages”;

“Naturally, Gumilyov cannot even imagine what talents there are among us”;

“The handwriting is really beautiful”;

"I rode horseback with early childhood, but, of course, I had no idea about driving a car";

“Of course, I didn’t go to Gumilyov’s lectures”;

“Vsevolodsky even asked me and another successful dalcrozist if we agreed to go to Switzerland for a year to study dalcrosis - of course, at public expense”;

“Of course, this was a purely rhetorical question - no one from the Living Word was sent to Dalcroze”;

“We, of course, treated ourselves as poets, not students”;

“On that day, of course, very weak poems were read, but Gumilyov refrained from ridicule and murderous sentences”;

“And, of course, I chose the studio”;

“Of course, I was hungry too”;

“Indeed, the “Lozinsky eye” always noticed something”;

“Have you heard, of course?”;

“But Mayakovsky, of course, didn’t hear”;

“Of course, I was not his friend”;

“And now, indeed, those who have waited for the opportunity”;

“But, of course, many imitations were devoid of comedy and did not serve as a reason for the fun of Gumilyov and his students”;

“Of course, come! I’m terribly glad”;

“But, of course, sometimes this premonition is deceiving”;

“He was joking, of course”;

“Of course he laughs at me”;

“All this, of course, is pure fantasy, and I am surprised how Otsup, who knew Gumilyov well, could create such an implausible theory”;

“But he was, of course, very smart, with some sometimes even flashes of genius and, this also cannot be hidden, with failures and misunderstandings of the most ordinary things and concepts”;

“I, of course, arrogantly dream about this”;

“Of course, this could only be a pose on Gumilyov’s part, but Mandelstam winked at me mockingly and said when we were left alone...”;

“True, the known fact of translation of “Cat Mine” does not indicate this”;

“It’s unclear how he could confuse Chat Minet with the Orthodox Chetya-Mineaion, which the French Catholic woman, of course, could not read”;

“Of course, if I had said: “Please give me borscht, cutlet and cake,” he would not have shown displeasure”;

“It never occurred to me, nor to him, of course, nor to Larisa Reisner herself that such “glorification” could end tragically for me”;

“And this, of course, could not please the majority of St. Petersburg poets”;

“And, of course, love”;

“At the top”, having learned about the existence of a clearly counter-revolutionary “graceful poetess” slandering representatives of the Red Army, they could, of course, become interested in her…”;

“But, indeed, from the evening of May 3, I became known in the literary - and not only literary - circles of St. Petersburg”;

“Of course. I often feel it. Especially on full-moon nights”;

"No, of course not";

II) Sentences containing modal words expressing the meaning of uncertainty, assumption, probability, or impossibility of what is being reported:

“They all soon dropped out and, having probably not received what they were looking for in the Living Word, they switched to other courses”;

"Maybe more, maybe less";

"He doesn't even seem to blink";

“Perhaps someone would like to ask me a question?”;

“My long-time dream has come true - to form not only real readers, but, perhaps, even real poets”;

“When he first met me, probably wanting to force me to take up my work more energetically, he told me...”;

“Yes, it seems that I have come to terms with the fact that poetry is not over, that I have turned from a poet into a “salon poetess”;

“He’s really no worse than me”;

“A blank wall of indifference and, perhaps, even hostility again stood between him and us”;

“It must have lasted only a moment, but it seemed to me like a very long time”;

“You seem to live at the end of Basseynaya?”;

“You must not be very nervous and not very sensitive”;

“Even more ignorant than carp, apparently, I don’t understand anything”;

“And you probably looked very funny”;

“I really must have been ugly then - too thin and awkward”;

"None of them seem to have discovered what a canander is";

“Not only in his youth, but even now, it seems, Nikolai Stepanovich,” I note mockingly;

“They must have fought off their own”;

“This rumor may have reached ears that were not intended for them at all”;

“I must have really felt it”;

"Perhaps he really didn't notice";

“But maybe this is a masculine trait in me?”;

"But he seems to understand";

“But, apparently, Bely spent too much eloquence on me”;

“He’s probably ashamed of me”;

“Probably wants to see and remember “Gumilyov’s student” in every detail”;

“He apparently got tired of being silent for a long time...”;

“You don’t seem to be aware of what happened”;

“Maybe he has not only horns, but also hooves?”;

“It must be that all the other three hundred and sixty-four are like him”;

“Perhaps not like lakes, but like ponds in which frogs, newts and snakes live”;

“You and I are probably the only ones who will pray for him today, on his birthday”;

“Judging by the joyful and respectful “Thank you!” of the priest, he must have paid very well for the funeral service”;

“It seems that I really drank too much buza and the hops went to my head”;

III) Sentences that include modal words expressing an emotional attitude towards phenomena of reality:

“Unfortunately, time flies like an arrow in Spain”;

“A woman, unfortunately, is always a woman, no matter how talented she is!”;

“But, unfortunately, Ada Onoshkovich hardly became aware that Mayakovsky, Mayakovsky himself, liked her poems”;

“Fortunately, they were all not in the same class as me, and it didn’t take much effort for me to avoid them”;

IV) Sentences that include modal words that characterize the form of the statement or its reference to another person:

“However, in my opinion, there is nothing amazing about this”;

“However, it doesn’t matter”;

“However, through our own fault, and not through his fault”;

“Of my poems, they, and I myself, especially liked one”;

“He behaved, however, just as importantly, solemnly and self-confidently”;

“However, not quite suitable for a poet, perhaps”;

“However, comrade, you don’t need to be afraid”;

“However, many of the students, unlike the painters, became people, and even big people”;

“However, they laughed very good-naturedly, harmlessly and cheerfully”;

Analyzing the text of I. Odoevtseva’s work “On the Banks of the Neva,” we identified modal words that express the subjective attitude of the speaker, his assessment of any fact or event, as well as the reliability, reality, unreliability, and conjecture of what is being reported. The given examples can serve as an illustration of how modal words express the reliability/unreliability of what is being communicated, as well as the speaker’s attitude towards what is being communicated.

In the text of this work modals are ubiquitous. The frequency of use of individual modal words is shown in the table (ORPAL Appendix).

Based on the data presented, we see that the most frequently used modal words mean reliability, confidence, and conviction. With the help of these words, the author expresses the degree of his confidence in what he is talking about. For example, in the sentence: “We, of course, belonged to the poets, and not to the students,” the author expresses his confidence in his belonging specifically to the students.

With the help of other modal words, a subjective attitude towards a certain object, action, or phenomenon is expressed. For example, in the sentence: “My memory is truly excellent” - the author evaluates his memory from his own point of view and thereby makes the reader believe in the capabilities of this very memory. The meaning of confirming a fact is also expressed by this word, for example: “Indeed, the “Lozinsky eye” always noticed something” - the author only confirms someone’s opinion.

There are also sentences with an indisputable statement in the text. So, for example: “But he was, of course, very smart, with some sometimes even flashes of genius and, this also cannot be hidden, with failures and misunderstandings of the most ordinary things and concepts” - the sentence expresses the absence of doubts about the reality and reliability of what is being reported , carries the truth and reliability of knowledge. The modal word "certainly" has an intensifying character.

In a sentence:

In the sentence: “Of course, this could only be a pose on Gumilyov’s part, but Mandelstam winked at me mockingly and said when we were left alone...” - the reliability of the assumption itself is expressed precisely thanks to the modal word “of course.”

The meaning of fear is expressed by using the word “of course” in the sentence: “Of course he’s laughing at me.” The meaning of hope is heard in the sentence: “He will appreciate them and, of course, me, their author” - I. Odoevtseva hopes that she will be appreciated.

Having examined the meanings of modal words, we can say that they express a high degree of confidence, truth, and relate to categorical certainty. The author uses these modal words in the context where he is completely confident in the truth of his judgment.

No less often there are modal words in the text with the meaning of uncertainty, assumption, probability or even impossibility of what is being reported. So in the sentence: “They all soon dropped out and, having probably not received what they were looking for in the Living Word, they switched to other courses” - expresses the degree of probability of not getting what they were looking for precisely thanks to the introductory construction "must be".

This construction can also express the meaning of an assumption. For example:

“When he first met me, probably wanting to force me to get down to work more energetically, he told me...” - the author only assumes, but does not affirm the very purpose of Gumilyov’s words.

The meaning of uncertainty about what is being narrated is expressed using the modal word “seems”. For example: “It doesn’t seem to even blink” - the author only assumes, but there is no certainty in the statement.

The meaning of the probability or desirability of what is being discussed can be expressed using the modal word “maybe”. For example: “My long-time dream has come true - to form not only real readers, but, perhaps, even real poets” - here the author expresses his desire to form real poets, but there is a tinge of uncertainty about the possibility of this.

The meaning of the assumption contains the modal word “perhaps”: “A blank wall of indifference and, perhaps, even hostility has again arisen between him and us” - is of an intensifying nature.

Uncertainty in what is being reported is expressed using the words “probably, apparently should”: “And you probably looked very funny” - the connotation of the assumption is not affirmative and can easily be disputed.

In the sentence: “Perhaps he really did not notice” - the modal word “perhaps” has the meaning of uncertainty in the fact itself; the author only assumes, but does not assert.

Thus, the modal words of this group serve to express assumptions, uncertainty, and the likelihood of a statement. To make the statement more true, the author refers to the probability of what he is talking about. Uncertainty about a particular event is expressed precisely with the help of such modal words.

Modal words expressing an emotional attitude to the phenomena of reality are rarely found in the text of the work. This group of modal words is mainly represented by only two constructions: fortunately, unfortunately. With the help of these words, an emotional attitude to the statement is expressed: either a feeling of joy or grief. For example: “Unfortunately, time flies like an arrow in Spain” - the author regrets the transience of time, expressing this using the introductory construction “unfortunately.”

And in the sentence: “Fortunately, they were all not in the same class as me, and it didn’t cost me much effort to avoid them” - using the construction “fortunately” the author’s feeling of joy about the expressed fact is expressed.

The fourth group of modal words, characterizing the form of a statement or its attribution to another person, is represented in the text mainly by only one type of modal word: “however” - a modal word of a logical nature. It acts as a means of supplementing and summarizing information, for example: “However, they laughed very good-naturedly, harmlessly and cheerfully” - the author adds that despite the fact that they laughed, their laughter was completely harmless.

The meaning of clarification is heard in the sentence: “Of my poems, they, and I myself, especially liked one” - here the author seems to express his opinion and clarify his attitude to this with the help of the modal word “however.”

The meaning of unimportance, optionality can also be expressed using this word, for example: “However, it doesn’t matter” - when talking about the facts of reality, the author concludes that this is no longer so important.

The modal word “in my opinion” is an indicator of authorization, linking the reliability of information with its source. For example: “However, in my opinion, there is nothing amazing in this” - the author indicates that this is exactly her Subjective opinion using the modal word "in my opinion".

Having traced the dynamics and frequency of use of modal words, we found that modal words in the work of I. Odoevtseva are most often found in contexts where the author expresses his thoughts, opinions on a particular issue, i.e. in internal monologues-reasonings, and also in dialogues

between the heroes. This reveals the movement and direction of the author’s thought, internal struggle. Categorical affirmative judgments are strengthened with the help of modal words of approval, reliability, and conviction. The author’s uncertainty and doubts are expressed and emphasized using the modal words assumption, probability, impossibility. The emotional state is conveyed using modal words such as “fortunately, unfortunately.” Modal words enhance the meaning of a statement, serve as a means of expressing reliability/unreliability, assumption/conviction, make speech more emotionally expressed, closer to life, more intense. With the help of modal words, the author not only expresses his opinion, but also influences the reader’s opinion.

The author creates any work (artistic, journalistic), using a personal vision of the world, all the diversity of his language and culture, to influence the reader. This is where the use of modal words helps him. The reader can evaluate the statement in different ways: what is being said can be presented either as something real, or as necessary - something that must necessarily happen.

It should be noted that the gender aspect has a great influence on the frequency of use of certain modal words, because the author of the work “On the Banks of the Neva” is a woman. Gender identity determines the appearance of specific themes, plots, images of heroes in a work, determines the originality of psychological analysis and speech characteristics characters and speech of the author. The “woman speaking” becomes not only the object of the image, but also the subject of speech, the bearer of her voice in the world, the narrator of her misfortune and fate. It is the female vision of the world that is characterized by internal dialogue with oneself, uncertainty, doubt, understatement, inconsistency and sometimes absurdity. All this is manifested with the help of modal words in the text of I. Odoevtseva’s work.

Zconclusion

In accordance with the goals and objectives of our research, we examined: modality, its types, and also determined the means of expressing the reliability/unreliability of what is being reported. Thus, modal words, although they constitute a quantitatively insignificant group, have such unique features that they cannot without stretch be attributed to any of the parts of speech that have long been recognized and should be recognized as a special category, different from others significant parts speech because they do not serve as members of a sentence and do not combine grammatically with the words that make up the sentence.

Disagreements in the characterization of modal words in the works of various linguists are explained mainly by the fact that modal words, as a special part of speech, have not yet been sufficiently studied. Semantic and syntactic nature of modal words, ways of transition of forms various types words into modals need careful study.

We took into account the differentiation of modality into objective and subjective. In addition to what is obligatory for each proposal, objectively modal meaning, a specific sentence may carry an additional subjective-modal meaning, which “forms the concept of evaluation, including not only the logical (intellectual, rational) qualification of what is being communicated, but also different types of emotional reaction.” Also, as the basis for this course work, we took the classification of modal words proposed by linguists such as V.V. Babaytseva, N.M. Shansky, A.N. Tikhonov, P.P. Fur coat. In our opinion, it is this classification of modal words that most accurately reflects their lexical and semantic features.

In the work of I. Odoetseva “On the Banks of the Neva”, subjective modality prevails, since the text of this work contains the opinions, thoughts, and memories of the author himself. We recorded the most frequent use of modal words in the work in contexts with internal monologues-reasonings and interpersonal dialogues. It is in these cases that the degree of confidence or uncertainty in what is being narrated by the author himself is expressed. Modal words emphasize the degree of reliability/unreliability of a statement and thereby allow you to influence the reader, convincing him of something or, conversely, denying the very fact of the possibility of this phenomenon. I. Odoevtseva expresses her personal attitude towards this or that phenomenon, the subject of reality with the help of modal words. The gender aspect plays an important role in this: a woman’s vision and perception of the world around her, her assessment of a particular situation, her attitude to the phenomena of reality determines the special language of the work, its emotionality, and the saturation of modal words of subjective assessment.

So, we can conclude, based on research on this problem, that in any segment of speech one can observe the use of various means of modality. Moreover, the differences in the ways of expressing this category are partly related to internal differences in its syntactical-semantic functions themselves, in its functional-semantic essence. The facts of reality and their connections, being the content of a statement, can be thought of by the speaker as reality and reliability, as a possibility or desirability, as an obligation or necessity.

...

Modality and related phenomena

The boundaries of the sphere of modality are drawn by different scientists in different ways. Let's look at some of the values that Not belong to modal ones - at least in the grammar of the Russian language.

Negation is not one of the modal meanings (except for expressive negation, which falls within the scope of subjective modality, as in the sentence I wanted to go there= ‘there was no hunting’). Negation is an operator that combines with linguistic units of very different meanings (including modalities), forming natural semantic combinations. For example, denial of possibility is impossibility, denial of permission is prohibition. The category formed by the opposition of affirmation and negation is called polarity(see, for example, Melchuk 1998: 149, Horn 1989).

Words with the meaning of evaluation are close to the sphere of modality (see Plungyan 2000). However, modal meanings characterize the proposition as a whole, while the evaluation (usually according to the good/bad parameter) is rather included in the semantics of individual words (such as manage, manage, freak out, show off) and is an independent object of natural language semantics, mainly lexical. See Arutyunov 1998 for the assessment category.

The grammatical category is adjacent to the sphere of modality evidence, which expresses the source of the speaker’s information about the situation. In languages with the grammatical category of evidentiality, a statement about a fact, i.e. about an event that the speaker himself saw or took part in ( direct evidence), necessarily different from a statement where the speaker is based on the data that was communicated to him (quotation; in some languages the term “retelling mood” is adopted); conveys the result of his conclusions (inferential); or what seemed to him (imperceptive) ( indirect evidence). In Russian, evidentiality is not a grammatical category, but particles and introductory words with evidential meaning (such as supposedly, as if, as if, it seems, apparently) are available in abundance; on evidentiality see Melchuk 1998, on evidential indicators in the Russian language see Bulygina, Shmelev 1997, Arutyunova 1998, Khrakovsky 2007, Letuchy 2008.

There is a close connection between evidentiality and epistemic modality: epistemic modality is the incomplete degree expressed by the speaker reliability its information, and evidentiality marks sources information on which the speaker bases his utterance. Both meanings can be expressed undifferentiated in one indicator, but indirect evidence in itself does not mean unreliability (Khrakovsky 2007).

The indicator of evidentiality is semantically similar to the introductory phrase with the verb of speech / opinion: in both cases, the speaker shares with a certain person responsibility for the truth of the expressed proposition (on the semantics of introductoryness, see Paducheva 1996: 321-334]). Citation evidentiality is close to Russian citation indicators, they say And they say. The difference is that they say And they say, semantically and sometimes syntactically, are localized as part of a subordinate clause of a speech verb with an autonomous subject, so that the speaker is completely eliminated, as in (a), and the quotative can be semantically likened to the associated proposition introductory sentence, as in (b), where the speaker and the syntactic subject are present on a parity basis:

(a) My neighbor said, necessary they say, beware of provocationsÜ My neighbor said, What we must beware of provocations;

(b) How said my neighbor, we must beware of provocations.

Modality as an egocentric category

In the tradition of Russian grammars, it is customary to divide modality into objective and subjective, and those meanings that are expressed by mood are classified as objective modality. But the semantics of mood is also subjective, i.e. also presupposes the speaker. For the optative meaning of the subjunctive mood this is obvious: It would be summer now! = ‘I I want it to be summer now.’ However, the speaker is also present in the semantics of the indicative mood, as demonstrated by Moore's famous paradox. Phrase She's beautiful, but I don't think so is anomalous because it contains a contradiction: the component ‘she is beautiful’ has the implication ‘I think she is beautiful’, which contradicts the assertion ‘I don’t think so’. The component ‘I believe ...’ in semantics affirmative proposal– this is even more than an implication: it is epistemic obligation speaker. So the term “subjective modality” must be accepted as a tribute to tradition: in principle, grammatical modality is also subjective.

It should be noted that the modality expressed lexically by the verb be able, does not always have the speaker as its subject, see section 3 on this. In a subordinate clause, it is quite common for the speaker to have nothing to do with the modality expressed by the subjunctive mood ( He wants me to obey him). This is a speaker-oriented problem vs. participant-oriented modality. Moreover, in a simple sentence, the implied subject of a modal word may not be the speaker, but the hearer; for example, there are natural connections between question and answer:

(A) - Can <мне>? – Can <тебе>.

With these reservations, what is common to all phenomena in the sphere of grammatical modality is the participation of the speaker: modality is an egocentric category. It is on this basis that negation, which is not an egocentric category, is excluded from the sphere of modality - at least in the Russian language.

According to Palmer, subjectivity is an essential criterion of modality, Palmer 1986: 16. However, modality is not the only egocentric category. Another sphere of the egocentric is deixis. (These two spheres are combined in the classic work of R. Jakobson - Jakobson 1957/1972, which introduced the concept of a shifter into use.) The third sphere is the already mentioned assessment. Finally, there is a fourth sphere - emphasis and communicative structure (theme-rhematic division).

2. Illocutionary modality

Affirmation, encouragement, question

In linguistics, it is customary to divide sentences “according to the purpose of the statement” - into narrative, imperative and interrogative. J. Austin (Austin 1962) drew attention to the fact that when making this or that statement, a person can sometimes not just describe a certain state of affairs, but also perform specific action – speech act: inform, ask, encourage, request, predict, promise, thank, etc. Austin called the characterization of an utterance from the point of view of the action performed with its help illocutionary force statements. Corresponds to illocutionary forces illocutionary modality(which is opposed to simply modality - so to speak, semantic).

Basic speech acts (and their corresponding illocutionary forces) are statement(otherwise – assertion, declarative), motivation And question. Accordingly, they talk about assertive, motivating and interrogative illocutionary modality.

The theory of speech acts is based on the distinction between the propositional content of an utterance (proposition) and its illocutionary force. It is believed that different illocutionary forces can be connected to the same or similar content; you will get statements that are appropriate in different speech acts: He bought himself a bicycle(speech act - statement), Buy yourself a bike(motivation), You'll buy yourself a bike? (question).

A proposition may not be asserted, but may be used as an assumption, opinion, fear, question, etc. Only the use of a proposition in a speech act with one or another illocutionary force turns it into a statement or statement of some other type.

A proposition, in addition, can be an argument of modal operators (such as perhaps necessary), predicates of propositional attitude and evaluation (such as it's a pity, it's desirable). This is how they arise modalized propositions. A modalized proposition is also a proposition; receiving one or another illocutionary force, it can be used in a speech act. For example, He forgot about our agreement– this is a categorical statement, i.e. assertion of a non-modalized proposition. And in a sentence Maybe he forgot about our agreement modalized proposition. Another example: Father is pleased with your success(categorical statement) and Father would be pleased with your success(affirmation of a modalized proposition).

Illocutionary modality motives is expressed, first of all, imperative (Pass the salt!). In addition, the illocutionary force of an incentive can be expressed by an interrogative sentence with a modal verb ( You can't pass me the salt?); or lexically, using a particle: Let him pass you the salt; or subjunctive mood: Would you pass me the salt! The incentive illocutionary modality, in contrast to the affirmative one, is poorly compatible with the modality expressed by introductory words; cf., however, Please pass me the salt;Give me, perhaps salt. For information on incentive modality, see the article Imperative.

Illocutionary modality question expressed by an interrogative pronoun (private question), particle whether and questioning intonation ( general question). An interrogative sentence in form acquires the illocutionary force of a question only in the context of a speech act: an interrogative sentence as part of a complex sentence is understood as indirect question, Wed Who are you? (question) and I know who you are (who are you– indirect question).

this is a question about the possibility:

(1) May be, he forgot about our agreement? –

Answer No, it can not be! implies ‘no, he didn’t forget’; but the answer Yes, May be it only means that there is such a possibility.

On the basis of the basic illocutionary modalities - statements, motives and questions - other, private types of speech acts (verbal, or speech, actions) arise.

Performative verbs

Speech act theory began with the discovery performative sentences – sentences with performative verbs such as I ask, I demand, I promise, I predict, I advise. These are sentences that are narrative in form, but have the property that their use in a statement does not describe the corresponding action, but is equivalent to its very implementation. Yes, the statement I promise you to come at seven there is already a promise; similarly for Please come at seven, I advise you to come at seven, etc. Each performative verb expresses its own speech act, i.e. is a lexical indicator of a certain illocutionary modality.

Indirect speech acts

In addition, there are many particular types of speech acts that do not have a performative verb. Thus, different types of speech acts are built on the basis of an interrogative sentence - both in Russian and in other languages; these are the so-called indirect speech acts, see Wierzbicka 1991: Why paint your house purple?? (‘don’t’, condemnation); Why don't you go to the doctor? (‘we must go’, advice); How about something to eat? ('offer'); How dare you? (‘strict condemnation’, cf. English. How dare you?) and etc.

Different private illocutions have their own rules for the use of pronouns, specific intonation contours (Yanko 2009), etc. See Paducheva 1985/2009, Wierzbicka 1991, and what else? for an overview of the illocutionary problematic.

An affirmative sentence, with an indicative mood of the verb, is intended to be used in the context of the speech act of assertion, but is not entirely unambiguous. Yes, a proposal It's cold in the room can be used as a separate statement, or can be part of a complex Ivan says the room is cold, and then it is not asserted by the speaker - the speaker is not responsible for its truth. However, the illocutionary purpose can be specified. So, in sentence (2) the particle Truth marks the speech act of expressing a desire to hear confirmation of one’s opinion (see Wierzbicka 1984):

(2) The room is cold, Truth?

An unambiguous illocutionary indicator characterizes a sentence as a complete utterance intended for use in a specific speech act. Therefore, a sentence with a clearly expressed illocutionary modality is usually syntactically insubordinate, i.e. cannot be part of a more complex sentence. In fact, sentence (2) by its structure is intended to be a separate statement and cannot be part of another sentence. Thus, in sentence (3), sentence (2) does not constitute a syntactic component: the scope of the particle Truth is no longer a clause It's cold in the room; (3) is understood as ‘is it true that Ivan says this’:

(3) Ivan says it’s cold in the room, isn’t it?

Another example of clarifying the illocutionary modality of an affirmative sentence. There are various language means to express the idea that this statement must be understood, so to speak, ironically, i.e. in a meaning opposite to the literal one:

(4) There is something to envy! He wanted to get married! You understand a lot!

The statement has an expressive tone and syntactically insubordinate– in a hypotactic context, the “ironic” meaning is lost, the illocutionary force of irony disappears:

(5) But memory again and again confirms that there is something to envy. [S.A. Semenov. Preliminary Grave (1924)]

Different illocutionary modalities can arise on the basis of a sentence with a grammatically expressed question modality. Thus, a particular question can be understood as a negative statement:

(6) Who needs it? = ‘no one needs’;

Well, what will he do? = ‘nothing will be done’.

Other interrogative construction can be understood as exclamatory (i.e. expressive), also negative:

(7) What a scientist he is!

The above overview of illocutionary modalities is incomplete. Questioning, quoting. Wed. Grishinskaya Murka

Illocutionary conjunctions

There are exceptions to the rule about the syntactic insubordination of unambiguous indicators of illocutionary modality. So, in sentence (1) the conjunction So expresses causation between the propositional meaning of the first sentence (lack of bread) and the illocutionary modality of the request included in the meaning of the second; thus the illocutionary modality of the imperative is subordinate:

(1) There is no bread either, So go to the bakery.

Conjunctions are capable of interacting with the illocutionary modality of the imperative and then for now, so that, once, if:

(2) Once You tame fierce beasts, try to cope with my little wife.” [Walter Zapashny. Risk. Struggle. Love (1998-2004)]; Since you're sure I'm lying, why are you calling? [Inka (2004)]; Since you don’t understand Russian, maybe you should sing in Hebrew? [Andrey Belozerov. The Seagull (2001)]

See about Russian illocutionary conjunctions Paducheva 1985/2009: 46, 47; Jordan 1992.

Withdrawn assertiveness

A proposition with a verb in the indicative mood is intended for use in a statement with an affirmative illocutionary modality. However, the same proposition can be used in contexts where its truth is not asserted. These are contexts withdrawn affirmative(Paducheva 1985: 33, 94, 95; 2005), otherwise – non-veridicality (Zwarts 1998). A proposition in the context of a sublated affirmative has neutral modality. Yes, the proposal Ivanov in Moscow in example (1) there is an assertive modality, and the same proposition in (2) and (3) is in the context of lifted assertiveness and has a neutral modality.

(1) Ivanov in Moscow;

(2) I don’t think Ivanov is in Moscow;

(3) If Ivanov is in Moscow, he will help you.

Thus, an indicative in Russian can express a proposition regardless of its illocutionary modality (otherwise, assertive status). Propositions that fall into the context of a question, external negation, condition, modal operators, verbs of opinion, performative verbs, future tense, imperative have neutral modality; This is the modality of infinitives and verbal nouns. Interrogative illocutionary modality is interrogative illocutionary force, in the context of a proposition with neutral semantic modality.

Removed assertiveness is an important context for referential indicators, in particular for pronouns in - someday. Yes, a proposal Has anyone come, with the illocutionary force of the statement, sounds strange - it requires conjecture of some modality (for example: Maybe, somebody came). And in the context of the question, the pronoun is - someday Fine: Has anyone come? Zvarts, Laduso about negative polarization: monotony or subdued affirmativeness.

3. Subjective modality: constructions, introductory words

The sphere of subjective modality includes constructions, introductory words and phrases, the semantics of which includes the speaker.

Constructions and revolutions

Constructions with conjunctions, particles, repetition, and interjections ( Oh this money!), pronouns ( That's the voice, that's the voice!).

Example 1. Using the construction " it was necessary+ infinitive” the speaker expresses regret about his action or dissatisfaction, disapproval of someone else: ‘it wasn’t necessary’]:

AND it was necessary Send the car for technical inspection today. [V. Grossman. Everything flows].

Example 2. Turnover Wow has a completely different phraseologically related meaning - it expresses the surprise of the speaker:

Wow"how time flies" [Andrey Gelasimov. Someone else's grandmother (2001)]

Looks so unadapted, not of this world, but Wow- how you got your bearings! [Vera Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]

Union How connects the state of surprise with its object. But a unionless union is also possible:

- Well, he must have escaped! - Egor was amazed. [IN. Shukshin. Viburnum red (1973)]

The meaning of surprise arises only in speech mode; in the subordinate position no idiomatic meaning arises; the meaning of the whole is composed compositionally from the meaning of the parts:

Feeling that Wow to say something,<…>I told him that I had just read Pnin and that I liked it very much. [G.Barabtarlo. Resolved dissonance // “Star”, 2003]

Example 3. Using a construction like " you never know+ predication” the speaker can express an opinion about the insignificance of what happened [there is a four-page text about this with a reference to “no place to sleep”]:

He said - in two days. - You never know He said. Do you want to argue? [A. Gelasimov. You Can (2001)] = ‘he could have said a lot of things, but it should not be taken into account’.

This construction can have other meanings – ‘many’ or ‘many, including bad’:

You never know can be found on someone else's computer! [Izvestia, 2001.12.05]

I decided to wash this fang: you never know where he lay and Who touched him! [Valery Pisigin. Letters from Chukotka // “October”, 2001]

Example 4. Using the construction " no to+ infinitive” the speaker expresses disapproval that a person did not do something:

No, to listen, adjust, wait for your solo, don’t get out. [L. Gurchenko. Applause]

It is important that in all these cases the subject of a propositional attitude (dissatisfaction, disapproval, etc.) can only be the speaker - all three constructions are insubordinate and unquotable, cf. the insubordination of sentences with an unambiguously expressed illocutionary intention, noted in section 2.

Example 5. Construction " what the+ noun phrase” can have several meanings (Podleskaya 2007). Its main meaning is an expressive expression of a negative assessment:

What the jokes! = ‘bad jokes’

The same construction with an anaphoric or cataphoric addition can be used to express a positive assessment:

What a beauty these county ladies!

And as an ordinary non-expressive question about identification:

This what stop?

In the context of an indirect question, all that remains is the meaning of identification:

I don't understand What He behind there was a man; I did not know, What This behind song; tell me well what he is like and What He behind Human; we will clearly represent<…> What we have behind fans.

A positive assessment can, with appropriate vocabulary, be preserved in a hypotactic context:

Imagine what a bliss it was to talk to her (A.A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky)

There are other constructions with a subjective modal meaning, cf. What do I care?? = ‘I don’t care about this’; What does he care?\ = ‘nothing bad will happen to him’.

For a number of constructions that in Grammar 1980 belong to the sphere of subjective modality, the semantics does not include the speaker as the subject of an emotional state or expression, and therefore there are no grounds for classifying them as the sphere of subjective modality. In particular, they are freely used in a hypotactic context without changing their meaning:

A. He always believed that friendship - friendship, and the money is apart;

b. I went and saw that house is like home, nothing special;

V. He says that what wasn't there;

g. The neighbors said that she the holiday was not a holiday;

d. He complained that take - take, but they don’t put it back;

e. It was clear that he waiting - can't wait, When I leave;

and. It is clear that he has no time for talking;

h. She suspects that I something to think about.

Even if these constructions presuppose a subject of consciousness, it is certainly not necessarily the speaker. True, their morphology is not completely regular; for example, in (a, b, f) the verb tense can only be present.

Some classes of introductory words and their properties

In principle, introductory words, like all other words, should be described in the dictionary. However, the general properties of introductoryness as a specific semantic-syntactic phenomenon are described in grammar. Introductory words and phrases, in principle, express the speaker’s attitude to what is being communicated (i.e., they have the speaker as an implied subject) and, thus, enter the sphere of subjective modality.

The 1980 Grammar distinguishes, on a semantic basis, into seven classes introductory words and revolutions. We will look at two of them:

– words expressing the emotional-intellectual attitude or assessment of the speaker ( Unfortunately),

– words characterizing the source of information ( as you know, according to you).

a) words expressing an assessment of a fact - approval, disapproval, fear, surprise (for example: fortunately, unfortunately, a strange thing, what good, it turns out);

b) compliance with expectation ( of course, naturally, of course, really, in fact);

c) assessment of the reliability of information ( certainly, indisputably, probably, undoubtedly, it seems, without a doubt, probably, in all likelihood, obviously, should be, must be assumed, perhaps, most likely, perhaps, seems), see Vinogradov 1947: 739.

Let us indicate one important division within the reliability indicators. Mental predicates are divided into predicates opinions(type count) and predicates knowledge(type know, see, feel). Introductory words also have a corresponding division. Introductory words expressing the mode of opinion are perhaps, probably. And the words expressing the mode of knowledge are (this division was introduced in Yakovleva 1988, where, however, a different, opaque terminology is used).

In the group with the mode of knowledge, the most frequent word is Seems. Introductory Seems used in the following situations (Bulygina, Shmelev 1997).

1) In a situation of uncertain perceptual impression: Seems to smell like gas.

2) In a situation of recall or when transmitting something inaccurately remembered:

At one of the stations, Seems, between Belgorod and Kharkov, I got out of the car to walk along the platform. [A. P. Chekhov. Beauties (1888)]

3) When transmitting incompletely reliable information received from other persons: It seems he's out of town;

4) In a situation where there is no reliable data to make a final judgment: .

Confirmation of connection Seems with the mode of knowledge is its incompatibility with non-referential pronouns: * It seems someone has already solved this problem(necessary - somebody) with acceptable Maybe(or: I think that), has anyone already solved this problem.

In the example It seems we've done it wrong word Seems at first glance expresses an opinion. However, as shown in Zaliznyak 1991, in a modal and evaluative context a substitution can occur, in which an opinion-evaluation is passed off as knowledge (accordingly, an unverifiable proposition is presented as a verifiable one): the sentence states that the speaker is in a “state of knowledge” - albeit uncertain .

The implied speaker appears at the word Seems subject of uncertain knowledge. The explicit subject of the 1st person changes the semantics of the introductory word (Bulygina, Shmelev 1997): Seems like a good movie can be uttered in a situation of transferring information received from other people or when the film has not been watched to the end; A I think the movie is good indicates the subject’s uncertainty in his own assessment.

Syntactic subordination of introductory words

Some sentences with the word Seems syntactically insubordinate:

(1) a. Ivan, Seems, on holiday;

b. *Zina believes that Ivan, Seems, on holiday.

As we know, the syntactic inconsistency of a sentence can be evidence of the presence in it of an unambiguous illocutionary or subjective modal indicator. However, insubordination can also be due to purely semantic incompatibility of the modal indicator with the content of the propositional attitude. To set out general rules In this regard, preliminary clarification is needed.

There are three groups of introductory words from the point of view of the modality of the associated proposition (Paducheva 1996: 313):

I. Introductory words compatible only with assertive modality of the proposition; Thus, in (2)–(4), the speaker asserts that the situation (described in the proposition) occurs:

(2) Ivan, Unfortunately, on holiday;

(3) Honestly, Bobby lied;

(4) He, nevertheless, succeeds.

If the associated proposition of the introductory word is not asserted, the introductory phrase of group I cannot be used:

(5) *Ivan, Unfortunately, on holiday?

(6) *If Ivan, Unfortunately, on vacation, we will have to wait until the fall.

II. Introductory words suggesting neutral modality in associated proposition; Thus, in (7), unlike (2), the speaker does not assert anything, but only communicates his assumption:

(7) Ivan, Maybe, on holiday.

Introductory words of group II can be used in the context of a question, and some even in a conditional sentence:

(8) You, apparently (Maybe, probably seems like) busy?

(9) If you May be, busy, tell me straight.

Group II includes all parentetic indicators of reliability (i.e. definitely...it seems).

III. Introductory words that are indifferent to the modality of the associated proposition. This group includes words expressing compliance with expectations:

(10) He, Certainly, busy again;

(11) If, of course, he’s busy again, and he’s worse.

If an introductory phrase (modal) is subordinated to a propositional attitude predicate, then its associated proposition is within the scope of two operators: the subordinating operator of the propositional attitude and its own, modal. Clearly, if these operators are not consistent, a semantic anomaly will arise. There are two natural rules of agreement.

Rule 1. An introductory phrase that presupposes the neutral modality of the associated proposition is not combined with a subordinating predicate that requires assertive or presumptive status for the same proposition:

(12) *I'm glad that he maybe, returned;

(13) *I'm upset that she definitely left;

(14) *It turned out that he undoubtedly scammer.

Wed. strangeness of example (15):

(15) And no one knows what, May be, he keeps her white scarf under his padded jacket... [“Our Contemporary”, 2004.01.15]

Rule 2. Introductory phrases expressing the mode of knowledge (i.e. it seems, clearly, definitely, as if, as if), are possible only in the context of subordinating predicates of knowledge - such as know, see, feel, see (16); similarly, a phrase expressing a mode of opinion is combined with a subordinating predicate of opinion, see (17) (this rule is formulated, in other terms, in Yakovleva 1988):

(16) a. I feel like it's behind me definitely are watching;

I feel that I Seems, you will have to give in.

b. *I feel that he maybe, somewhere nearby;

*I feel like I undoubtedly, tired.

(17) a. I believe that you undoubtedly, you can handle it;

I think he probably, will refuse.

b. *I think that Ivan Seems, on holiday;

*I think Ivan obviously satisfied.

Returning now to example (1b), we see that insubordination Seems here is explained not by subjective modality as such, but by the semantic inconsistency of the propositional attitude and the modal predicate. Yes, they are capable of subduing Seems Verbs remember, feel, smell, understand, conclude and even rejoice:

Through its roar I heard some sound in the room, and with fear I remembered that, Seems, didn’t lock the door, carefully, opening the bathroom door slightly, looked out. [Alexander Kabakov. Writer (1990-1991)]

“I’m not worried,” Maxim answered. And I felt that Seems, lied again. “No, I’m worried, but I’m not afraid,” he corrected himself. [V. Krapivin. Boltik (1976)]

Sons of bitches Goshka and Sashka, sensing that their father great mood, What, Seems, he had money, and they immediately began to beg for gifts. [Eduard Volodarsky. Suicide Diary (1997)]

Having taken office, Orlov looked closely for the first day, comprehended what he saw on the second, and on the third he realized that, Seems, it's time to do something. [About myself (1997) // “Capital”, 1997.02.17]

From the way Huascaro was happy, Inca concluded that, Seems Having traveled a couple of tens of kilometers around the city in search of a gift, they finally found it. [Ulya Nova. Inka (2004)]

The neighbor, delighted that, Seems Finally, the topic for conversation was chosen, and he turned to me. [Maria Golovanivskaya. Contradiction in essence (2000)]

Marusya’s empty look took on some meaning, and Korshunov was foolishly happy that it seemed like it might be... In a word, well, Marusya will yell, well, she’ll cry, but nothing else terrible will happen. There will be no emptiness. [Galina Shcherbakova. Details of Small Feelings (2000)]

Subordinate Seems also allow verbs of speaking - which in this context act like knowledge:

Tant Elise even said today that he, Seems, a good person, even if he’s crazy. [Yu.N. Tynyanov. Küchlya (1925)]

And, can you imagine, Valka, he fell to his knees in front of me and declared that, Seems, loves me. [Tatiana Tronina. Mermaid for intimate encounters (2004)]

Her father had just told her two days ago that, Seems, met the only woman who he needed all his life, that he was suffering, but could not help himself... [Anna Berseneva. Flight over separation (2003-2005)]

Another ten to fifteen minutes later, Nikolai Ivanovich reported that it seemed that Baran and his passenger had arrived: they parked the car, Baran remained in the car, and the passenger walked on foot to a multi-story building on Seleznevka. [Lev Korneshov. Newspaper (2000)]

he wanted to tell his friend that, Seems, knows this “dead man”. [Sergey Osipov. Passion according to Thomas. Book two. Primus inter pares (1998)]

and only then finally managed to squeeze out of himself that, Seems, fell out of love with his wife [Evgeny Shklovsky. State of weightlessness (1990-1996)]

Mom told me later that, Seems, Uncle Buma did not treat him carefully enough without preventing him from getting out of bed. [N.M.Gershenzon-Chegodaeva. Memoirs of a daughter (1952-1971)]

Is the subject of subjective modality always the speaker?

So, the hypotactic context forces an amendment to the original definition of modality, which is that the subject of modality is the speaker. In a hypotactic context, the implied subject introductory turnover is the subject of the subordinating clause:

(1) Kolya believes that Ivan, May be, will come.

Speaking about the implied subjects of introductory words, you should pay attention to the use Seems in the subjunctive mood - it would seem:

(2) Volodya arrived indignant: he asked representatives of the Yamaha company to give Zhenya a piano. It would seem what it cost them! But they limited themselves to some kind of electronic keyboard. [Sati Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]

If in ordinary context the implied subject Seems– speaker, the subjunctive mood adds the point of view of the second participant in the speech situation: the speaker invites the listener to share his point of view with him, so that it would seem expresses an expectation that the speaker assumes is common between him and the listener. In the meaning ‘it would seem’ it can also be used simply Seems. And example (4) (belongs to E.E. Razlogova) shows that an indirect speech act arises on the basis of the subjunctive mood:

(4) I, Seems, I speak Russian!

Here the speaker has no uncertainty about the language he speaks. Its illocutionary goal is to find out why the listener behaves as if the language is incomprehensible to him. Those. the listener is one of the subjects of modality.

The implied subjects of the introductory sentence deserve special attention. turns out. The semantics of this word is described in detail in Khrakovsky 2007, where it is interpreted as an indicator of a special grammatical category of admirativeness - close to evidentiality. Without challenging this interpretation in any way, we can offer a more traditional interpretation turn out to be in its different contexts (see Paducheva 2006).

Initial input value turns out includes the following two components:

turns out(X, P) =

a) X found out that P;

b) X is surprised that R.

In example (6), in a speech context, the implied subject turns out, participant X, is the speaker; he is both a subject of new knowledge and a subject of surprise:

(6) I'm so glad! Found, found! They, turns out, were sick and didn’t send any news! (L. Petrushevskaya. Three girls in blue)

In addition to person X, the situation may include person Y - the source of information-knowledge, since they learn very often from someone. In (6) person Y is off-screen. Person Y may not exist; Thus, in (7) the speaker receives knowledge not from the Source participant, but from direct perception:

(7) He returned home, went up to the porch, was about to open the door, but she, turns out, locked from the inside with a bolt. (V. Pisarev. Fairy tales)

This is the case in a speech context. In a narrative, the speaker's surrogate and the subject of knowledge and surprise can be the narrator, as in (8), or a character, as in (9):

(8) City of Kozelsk, turns out, annually celebrates its fall (M. Gasparov, Records and Extracts).

(9) Thirdly, he was afraid of being scared and kept checking himself: “Aren’t you scared?” “No, it’s not scary,” answered a cheerful voice in his head, and Nikolka was proud that he, turns out, brave, turned even more pale. (M. Bulgakov. The White Guard)

In this case, the second participant – the Source of information – can also enter the game, and then turns out may introduce inappropriate direct speech. In the original meaning, as in (6), P is the knowledge of the subject X. Meanwhile, in a situation of improper direct speech, P is what a certain Y said or made X understand. As for the person X, it is not necessary considers information P as his knowledge, and P causes him not so much surprise as bewilderment. Example (from Hrakovsky 2007, with a different interpretation):

(10) - I'll tell you. Do you want to be honest? I’ve been noticing you for a long time, Dima. - And then she spewed such unthinkable and stunning nonsense that Glebov was speechless with amazement. Turns out, he always inspects their apartment with some special attention; in the kitchen, he was interested in the refrigerator under the window and the freight elevator door. One day he asked in detail<...>(Yu. Trifonov)

In (10) The source of Y is the interlocutor, the landlady; person X does not consider this information as his knowledge, i.e. is the subject not of surprise, but of bewilderment about R.

The semantics of introductory words and phrases confirms that egocentricity is a general property of modal indicators.

4. Possibility and necessity

The scope of modality includes verbs, predicates and introductory words, which, by their lexical meaning express a possibility or necessity, such as can, it is possible, perhaps, perhaps, it is impossible;must, must, necessary, must, must, ought, must, required etc. The meanings ‘possibility’ and ‘necessity’ are included in the semantics of syntactic constructions (for example, independent infinitive : The day cannot be corrected by the efforts of the luminaries) and illocutionary forces (for example, motivation). So these meanings play an important role in the grammatical semantics of the Russian language.

Possibility and necessity are the main concepts of traditional modal logic. Logic offers an apparatus that can be used to describe the polysemy of modal words in natural language; when describing contextual synonymous relationships between possibility and necessity; when explaining the interaction of modality with negation.

For example, logic predicts synonymy can not And should not: He can't accept this gift» He should not accept this gift; How could I forget!» I shouldn't have forgotten; synonymy there must be R and impossible not R: He has to admit it» He can't help but admit it.

In modal logic, there are three types of modality: alethic, deontic and epistemic. Let's look at these three types first with an example. possibilities.

Alethic possibility (alethic – from the Greek aletheia ‘truth’). The statement that p(x) is alethically possible means that x is capable of doing p given his physical or intellectual endowment; that there are no obstacles in the world for p(x) to exist: the alethic possibility follows from the objective structure of the world. The main indicators of alethic possibility are: maybe, maybe. Examples.

(1) hare per day can run more than four hundred kilometers [Murzilka, No. 7, 2002];

(2) he was sure that she had a banal cataract, which can be removed and at least partially restore lost vision. [Lyudmila Ulitskaya. Journey to the seventh side of the world // New World, No. 8-9, 2000]

(3) Irina does not could kissing the director. She felt nauseous. [Tokareva Victoria. Its own truth // “New World”, No. 9, 2002]

Verb be able has forms present. and past time ( maybe, could) and owls view. past and bud. ( smog, will be able), so is not morphologically defective in the same sense as English. modal verbcan. (NB: SV forms smog And will be able verb be able are permissible only in the context of alethic possibility and are not used in deontic and epistemic meanings Maybe.)

Synonyms for alethic maybe, maybe – capable, able, has the opportunity. Each synonym has, of course, its own shades of meaning. For example, You can get your feet wet there ≠ There is an opportunity to get your feet wet, because the I have an opportunity usually used in relation to something desirable.

Alethic possibility (especially impossibility) can be expressed by a construction with an independent infinitive:

(4) You don't see such battles (L.) = ‘you are not you can to see such battles (more precisely, to participate in them)’;

Where did you get me from? know! = ‘you you can not know me'.

Semantics of alethic Maybe is revealed by Anna Wierzbicka's interpretation (Wierzbicka 1987):

X can do V = ‘X will do V if he wants’.

For example: Ivan can swim across the Volga= ‘will swim across if he wants’.

It should be noted that this interpretation is only suitable for that kind of alethic possibility, which in Plungian, Auvera 1998 is called internal possibility (participant internal possibility). Internal opportunity– is an ability; external possibility (alethic) concerns a state of affairs external to the subject. Participant external possibility is demonstrated by example (2).

The indicator of external possibility can express existential quantification:

(5) Strategic mistakes can have widespread consequences" Some strategic mistakes have widespread consequences.

Intrinsic alethic possibility, ability, does not presuppose the speaker as the subject of this modality (see Palmer 1986: 16 for the corresponding meaning of English can). Logical equivalences do not work on the alethic possibility: Ivan cannot swim across the Volga ≠ must not swim across.

A deontic possibility is the possibility of action of some agent, affirmed by a morally or socially responsible subject or institution. Deontic possibility is associated with duty, with the requirements for behavior imposed by a system of rules. In the prototypical case, a deontic possibility is permission given by an authority, usually the speaker.

(1) Well, if you don’t want to be a charm, which would be very nice, you may not be by her. [M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 2 (1929-1940)]

You you can leave We have our own things here, we have a large staff of cloakroom attendants here.

Deontic possibility can be expressed not only by a verb be able (You can go), but also a performative sentence ( I give you permission to go), imperative mood ( Go), combination to have a right.

In Bulygina, Shmelev 1997, it is noted that alethic and deontic possibility differ in their relation to the logical law ab esse ad posse: this law is applicable to alethic possibility, but not to deontic possibility: what is not allowed can really exist. The deontic possibility essentially presupposes the alethic: what is usually prohibited is what is alethically possible.

The deontic possibility is under the control of authority, and therefore is freely used in motivating speech acts: Let me pass! Let me tell you! You can go?("'let me pass"). And verbs expressing alethic possibility do not form imperatives (* could!).

The opposition between alethic and deontic possibilities is manifested in the interaction of these modalities with the grammatical aspect of the subordinate infinitive. Denial of deontics Maybe And Can requires replacement of owls. type of subordinate infinitive to imperfect. So, the negation of (2a) must be (2b), since. view; in sentence (2c), from Sov. by the form of the verb, the modality is understood as alethic (see Rasudova 1968 about this):

(2) a. Here you can go street [in the deontic meaning: ‘allowed’];

b. It's not allowed here go over street;

V. It's not allowed here go street.

The contrast between alethic and deontic modality is shown by examples (3)–(5) (in example (a), with a verb of the owl type, alethic modality, 'impossible', in example (b), with a verb of non-natural type, - deontic, ' wrong'):

(3) a. They say to pain you can't get used to it. Wrong. [AND. Grekova. Fracture (1987)]

b. It would all be over sooner. Why does he need this merciless pleasure? You can't get used to it to her, you cannot allow yourself to fear loss. [Yuri Nagibin. Another Life (1990-1995)];

(4) a. To him can't be helped[impossible]; b. To him can't help[wrong];

(5) a. His can't be interrupted[impossible]; b. His you can't interrupt[wrong].

The imperfective in the context of a denied deontic possibility (i.e. in the context of a prohibition) is to some extent semantically motivated: in order to prohibit an action in general, it is enough to prohibit the activity that leads to this result (and alethic impossibility concerns specifically the achievement of a result, hence SV) . For a negated deontic I authorize the imperfective of the subordinate infinitive is not required; both forms are possible - although the imperfective is preferred:

(6) I don't allow you put / put there's a chair here.

Epistemic possibility expresses the incompleteness of the speaker's knowledge. With its help, a probabilistic judgment is made. Examples.

(1) It seems it could have happened so he was wrong. [Vasil Bykov. Stone (2002)]

True, common sense considerations were also not on their side, but then common sensecould turn out to be with a flaw. [Vasil Bykov. Stone (2002)]

newspaper could have crumpled up, collected in a heap by the wind, soaked by rain, either dogs or cattle crushed it with their snout... [V. Astafiev. Passing Goose (2000)] [unknown what exactly]

Irina suddenly realized that Sasha could have been burned together with a tent or shoot in the entrance. [Tokareva Victoria. Your own truth]

In the last sentence, modality is clearly epistemic: it is a possibility that occurs to the subject of the attitude.

Epistemic possibility is spoken of when different possible states world, and the speaker does not know which of the possibilities occurs. However, in example (2) the verb be able is in a context where, from the speaker’s point of view, there is only one possibility:

(2) Marfusha walked around as if in a daze, but did not sound the alarm, and this could only mean one thing: She knew where Sonya was. [IN. Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]

Deontic possibility makes sense only in relation to situations that are controlled by the subject; Therefore, in the context of uncontrollable situations, modality is clearly epistemic:

(3) There is a real danger that the state may be late with a reaction to the situation in the field of interpersonal relationships between men and women ["Family Doctor", 2002.04.15].

Epistemic possibility can be expressed not only by a verb be able, but also introductory words Maybe And May be:

(4) He could go to Paris;

(5) May be, he went to Paris;

(6) Maybe, he left for Paris.

All three sentences contain the same proposition – ‘he went to Paris’ and the same modality – epistemic possibility.

Epistemic possibility has the speaker as its subject. Thus, the speaker is the subject of the assumption in sentence (7):

(7) Petka could forget about our agreement.

Now about the three types of modality necessity.

Alethic necessity must be understood as logical necessity. The main indicator is must:

(1) It is curious that Semashko hates the intelligentsia, and certainly must hate, because as a Bolshevik he is no longer an intellectual, he is already a weapon in the elements: the elements against the intellectual. [M. M. Prishvin. Diaries (1918)]

An example of alethic necessity from Kobozev, Laufer 1991:

(2) What kind of mug is this? At the mug must be pen.

One should distinguish from alethic necessity “practical” necessity, expressed in words necessary, necessary. Practical necessity is related to the concept of purpose (see Lewontin 2006), so that need to has three valencies - the subject of the goal, the need and the goal:

(3) To light a fire, I need matches.

The goal may not be expressed explicitly:

(4) “Naturally,” answered Azazello, “how can we not shoot him?” Its a must I should have shot you. [M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 2 (1929-1940)]

Words necessary, necessary do not necessarily imply the speaker as the subject of the goal, so that the modality they express is not necessarily egocentric.

Deontic necessity is an obligation. The agent believes that he is obliged to perform some action if there is a person or institution whose authority he recognizes; moral principles or social attitudes; moral obligation, duty, law-abiding behavior.

Indicators of deontic necessity: must, obliged, necessary, necessarily, inevitably, certainly, required, should; with negation - wrong, unconstitutional, illegal, immoral. Examples.

(1) <…>waved his hand to the arrested man, indicating that he must follow behind him. [M.A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita, part 1 (1929-1940)

(2) Meanwhile, both these newspapers and our entire office have been trying to convince me for two months now that I must hate Germans [L. N. Andreev. Yoke of War (1916)]

(3) Fear of breaking the rules it should be organically inherent in a local government official. [Discussion on local government (2001-2004)]

Usually the need arises from some source or cause: X need to Y (i.e. Y is the source of what X needs). By specifying the reason, it is possible to distinguish different types of deontic obligations.

Epistemic necessity is the speaker's belief that a situation is highly probable:

(1) We were passionate about a rock band project that should have done us famous. [LiveJournal Entry (2004)]

If I, a belly-first philistine who does not share the views of the communists, hate the current “disgusting”, then how can I must hate his honest communist, for whom this disgusting stands in the way of his life path? [M. M. Prishvin. Diaries (1920)] [ must hate‘must hate’, epistemic necessity:]

An indicator of epistemic modality can be the subject's genitive. Yes, word must in sentence (2), with a nominative subject, can be understood in both an epistemic and deontic meaning, and in (3) rather in an epistemic meaning, which follows from the emphasized non-agentivity of the verb with a genitive subject (deontic understanding is also possible; for example, speech can go about ordering the eviction of the unreliable person):

(2) He shouldn't be at this time in Moscow;

(3) It shouldn't exist at this time in Moscow.

The modality of necessity can be expressed by the speech act of motivation:

(4) Take a seat.

The modality of necessity can also be expressed by a construction with an independent infinitive (examples from Grammar-80):

(5) We are in Siberia for frosts no stranger to[absence of necessity];

No one do not move! Everyone stand up! [obligation, i.e. necessity];

Such silence search[= ‘need to look’, necessity].

Necessity and denial.

Let's start with the fact that the word must, in all its meanings, interacts with negation non-compositionally: should not most often means the same thing should not:

(1) He shouldn't stop on the first step - the consciousness of one’s evil, but one must take the second step - to recognize the existing Good above oneself. [IN. S. Soloviev. Three speeches in memory of Dostoevsky (1881-1883)].

Actually here should not means ‘cannot’. Indeed, shouldn't stop = must not stop, A should not, according to one of the laws of modal logic, means ‘cannot’: it is necessary not P = it is not true that R Maybe.

In example (2) shouldn't guess= ‘it must be so that he wouldn’t guess’ (possibly the epistemic understanding of ‘most likely won’t guess’, but it follows from the context that this is not what is meant):

(2) He shouldn't guess that she started this intrigue on purpose... [Tatyana Tronina. Mermaid for intimate encounters (2004)].

So, should not, as a rule, does not mean ‘it is not true that one should’. More precisely, compositional understanding in the sense of negating an obligation requires special prosodic efforts: You do not have to \ reply to this letter= ‘You don’t have to answer’. Meanwhile, the words obligated, obligatory interact with negation compositionally, i.e. not necessary P = maybe not R:

(4) he<Государственный совет>must give advice to which the President can, but don't have to listen... ["Kommersant-Vlast", No. 36, 2000].

Negation of the indicator of alethic and deontic necessity usually requires replacement perfect form infinitive for imperfect. Example.

(5) Olya believed that people like her shouldn't go out get married<…>because otherwise they won’t be able to work. [Anna Berseneva. Flight over separation (2003-2005)]

In (5) the subject is plural; but also with the subject in singular. number, as in (6), the form is also imperfect:

(6) She believed that shouldn't go out married

In example (7) SV is used, but NSV is possible and preferable:

(7) Before the operation began, he was instructed that he would under no circumstances shouldn't detect themselves even in front of the crews of other ships. ["Soldier of Fortune", 2004.01.14].

The same in example (8) – Sov. the appearance of the infinitive sets the reader up for epistemic understanding must, i.e. to understand the meaning of probabilistic assessment; to express a deontic meaning, ness would be preferable. view:

(8) The instinct of a historian told Eidelman that letters of this kind are, first of all, documents, and they should not be left lying around in his personal archive... ["Our Contemporary", 2004.05.15].

So, with a deontic meaning, the infinitive in nes is preferable. form. Denial of epistemic necessity, on the contrary, does not require replacing the SV infinitive with NSV:

(9) I believe that this situation shouldn't end just a discussion. [New Region 2, 2008.01.19].

(10) I think Spartak shouldn't meet great resistance [Football-4 (forum) (2005)]

In (11) it is clear that must expresses the speaker’s opinion, his assessment of the likelihood of the situation:

(11) Seal is stubborn and hates cops to the extreme. He shouldn't split. - You understand a lot! - the one called Vaga interrupted him. - Between us, Tyulen is so cool, but in the cops everything is different, understand? [N. Leonov, A. Makeev. Cop roof (2004)].

In example (12), the type of necessity itself is unclear (which is often the case in everyday life); but judging by the absolute appropriateness of the owls. kind, here is the epistemic modality: shouldn't cause= ‘unlikely to cause’, the confidence of the speaker (in a narrative context, the character).

(12) Everything was thought out to the smallest detail: in the morning Katya and the children will leave for Sheremetyevo, which shouldn't cause no suspicions, since Katya always went to the dacha in advance to prepare the house for Moore’s arrival. [Lyudmila Ulitskaya. Queen of Spades (1995-2000)]

Correlation of epistemic modality with owls. the type of verb is not random. This is a consequence of the fact that epistemic modality arises naturally in the context of uncontrollable events. The correlation of the negative SV imperative with uncontrollability is similar: don't cook porridge– intentionally; don't cook porridge– accidentally (Bulygina 1980: 341, Zaliznyak 1992: 81).

The egocentricity of epistemic modality does not contradict the fact that in a narrative the subject of modality can be a character (Paducheva 1996). Thus, in (13) the subject of the ought judgment is obviously the accusers.

(13) He publicly, from the pulpit, asked his accusers why he must hate The West and why, hating its development, would it read its history? [A. I. Herzen. Past and thoughts.] [= ‘why do you demand that I hate?’]

Literature

Bondarko A.V., Belyaeva E.I., Biryulin L.A. et al. 1990. The theory of functional grammar. Temporality. Modality. Publishing house "Science". Leningrad.

Vinogradov V.V. Selected works. Research on Russian grammar. M., 1975.

Letuchiy A. Comparative designs, irrealis and evidentiality //Wiener Slawistischer Almanach, Sonderband 72 (2008)

Levontina 2006 – The concept of purpose and semantics of target words in the Russian language. // Language picture world and system lexicography. M.: YASK, 2006.

Khrakovsky 2007 – Khrakovsky V.S. Evidentiality, epistemic modality, (ad)mirativity. //Evidence in the languages of Europe and Asia. Collection of articles in memory of N.A. Kozintseva. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007.

Horn 1989 – Horn L.R. A natural history of negation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago press, 1989.

Haspelmath 1997 – Haspelmath M. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Clarendon press, 1997.

Lyons 1977 – Lyons J. Semantics. Vol. 1–2. L. etc.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977

Modality is a multidimensional phenomenon, and therefore different opinions are expressed in the linguistic literature regarding the essence of this phenomenon. As is known, it has already become traditional to divide modality into two types: objective and subjective. The first is understood as the relation of the utterance to extra-linguistic reality, formalized grammatically, the second - as an expression of the attitude of the speaker (writer) to what he communicates. Researchers note that objective modality is mandatory for any statement, while subjective modality is optional.

This is absolutely fair statement. Moreover, the two types of modality described are so different that it seems rational to us to separate these two terms. For the range of phenomena that fall under the concept of “objective modality”, you can use the term “modality”, and for what is called subjective modality, you can introduce the term “emotivity”. Then it will be possible to consider two universal quality statements: modality and emotivity. They will be opposed to each other on the basis of obligatory – facultative. Having accepted this division, we can define modality as follows: modality is the obligatory quality of an utterance, which consists in the grammatically expressed relationship of this utterance to extra-linguistic reality.

Our remark about modality and emotivity is, of course, terminological in nature, but it should be noted that the nomination of a particular phenomenon of reality is very important, since it depends on the clarity of awareness of those features that are characteristic of this concept.

The article brought to the attention of readers is devoted to the issues of grammatical expression of objective modality.

Linguists have been talking about the fact that objective modality has its own grammatical expression for a long time. The authors of very respectable studies talk about the morphological-syntactic nature of the expression of modality , , . They are certainly right, but we believe that when studying such a complex and multifaceted phenomenon as modality, we must separately and especially consider the syntactic and morphological side of this linguistic phenomenon. This approach is consistent with that proposed in psychological research description of speech production. Here is a diagram made by Professor R.S. Nemov:

The diagram shows that the formation and linguistic expression of thoughts has a level character.

shema1.gif (8144 bytes)
SCHEME 1

Based on the theory of speech production, we can characterize the features of the grammatical expression of modality.

As you know, any sentence (statement) has its own denotation. It is an extra-linguistic situation.

Modality, figuratively speaking, “is superimposed” on the denotative content of the utterance, making it communicatively oriented and valuable for communication. The described processes take place at the level of thought formation.

Moving on to the analysis of language facts, we note that we will begin our description from the syntactic level. It corresponds to the level of sentences and phrases in the speech production scheme. In the structure of a sentence (statement) there is a component that is responsible for expressing modality. We will call it the modal component of a sentence (statement). Its task is to embody modality at the syntactic level.

Let us give examples of modal components: Toward sunset the pale sun appeared (I.A. Bunin. Dark alleys); His coat, tie and vest were always black (M.Yu. Lermontov. Hero of our time).

In the first sentence (statement) the modal component is the predicate “looked through”, in the second it is part of the predicate “were”. Thus, the concept of “member of a sentence” is broader in scope than the concept of “modal component of a sentence.” We need the latter to show the existence of the “gene” of modality that is in every sentence (utterance).

The quality of the modal component of a sentence (utterance) is characterized by us as a way of expressing modality. The study of ways of expressing modality is the study of its syntactic aspect.

We know that syntactic components have their own morphological “filling”. In other words, this or that syntactic position is filled with certain parts of speech in certain forms. The modal components of a sentence (statement) in this sense are not exceptions.

So, we go down one level of speech production: to the level of morphemes and words. The forms of modality expression will correspond to it. Forms of expression of modality we call parts of speech in specific morphological forms that are used to express modality. So, for example, in the sentence (statement): Give me a paw, Jim, for luck... (S.A. Yesenin. Kachalov’s Dog) the form of expression of modality is a finite verb used in the imperative mood.

The study of forms of expression of modality is a study of the morphological aspect of this linguistic phenomenon.

We think that when forming a statement there must be a link that connects the method (syntactic position) and form (morphological expression) of expressing modality. This link is the means of expressing the relationship between the utterance and extra-linguistic reality (modality).

So, the role of means is to connect the ways and forms of expressing modality. But some remedies also have another function: they help one or another grammatical form adapt to the expression of modality. We will call the first of the described means universal (this includes intonation), the second – non-universal. Let's imagine everything that has been said in the form of diagram 2. The methods and forms of expressing modality are combined into a kind of block. The means of expressing modality seem to connect the forms of expression of modality with the ways of expressing it. This is their role in the formation of statements. We emphasize that non-universal means of expressing modality relate to grammar, and universal means to phonetics. This is reflected in the diagram in the form of different levels of their location.

shema2.gif (7102 bytes)
SCHEME 2

Grammatical means perform a dual function. On the one hand, they help forms that are deprived of inclination or have a use that is not in their proper direct meaning inclination, become forms of expressing modality; on the other hand, they thereby contribute to the connection of forms and ways of expressing modality. Let's give an example: May you leave here tomorrow!

The form of expressing modality in this case is the indicative verb. But it expresses the modal meaning of the impulse. And this meaning is unusual for the indicative mood. Consequently, to express such a meaning, a lexico-grammatical device was needed - the particle “so that”. It contributes to the expression of the meaning of motivation by a verb of the indicative mood and is thereby included in the modal component of a given sentence (statement).

Let us note that intonation as a means of expressing modality turns from a purely phonetic phenomenon into a phonetic-grammatical phenomenon, since it also performs a grammatical function.

So, it seems to us that an adequate description of modality can only be made based on the triad “method - form - means”. With this approach, each side of the grammatical expression of modality is analyzed. The described approach to the study of modality requires a very clear definition of the ways, forms and means of expressing modality, and not the random use of these words when describing modality.

Of course, language synthesizes all this, but the task of the researcher is to use analysis to understand the essence of language and its structure.

In conclusion, we will briefly describe the methods and forms of expressing modality.

Ways of expressing modality

1. Predicate: The steppe is cheerfully full of flowers... (A.I. Kuprin). I immediately dived into the bathhouse - and the cold went away. Yes, anyone can come here, no one will object.

2. Partitive. If a predicate consists of more than one component, then modality will be expressed by only one of these components. In this case, we are talking about a partitive (lat. pars, partis - part) way of expressing modality. It is divided into several subtypes: a) Futural. This variety occurs when the modal component is expressed by verbs in the form of the future complex tense; b) Collocational (collocations are written in detail in the work): We agreed with by decision; c) Phraseological. If the predicate is expressed phraseological turn verb type, then the modal meaning is expressed only by its verb part: The guys were beating their thumbs; d) Auxiliary verb: The car began to stop; e) Liaison: The engineer was thoughtful.

3. Comprehensive. In modern Russian, the phenomenon of a significant absence of a copula (zero copula) is quite often observed. In this case, the integrity of the sentence (statement) is not violated - it is ideally suited for communication. To prove the presence of a connective in the present tense, linguists use paradigmatic comparisons: The house is new - The house was new - The house will be new - The house would be new. And this is a research technique. The average native speaker does not perceive sentences (statements) like “New house” as constructions with missing components. Due to these circumstances, we believe that in such cases modality is expressed through the significant absence of a copula (zero copula) and the presence of a nominal part. Thus, modality is expressed complexly.

4. Independent subject. Characteristic for nominative and genitive sentences: Central Park. To the people, to the people! Of course, the main members of the described one-part sentences We purely formally consider them as independent subjects. In fact, everything is much more complicated here, but the purpose of our description is to consider the grammatical aspect of modality.

Forms of expressing modality

As forms of expressing modality, we consider those parts of speech that are capable of expressing various modal meanings. Let's list them. 1. Finite forms of verbs. They have three varieties: verbs of the indicative, subjunctive and imperative mood. The grammatical category of mood creates unique internal reserves that allow these verbs to be used as forms of expressing modality. 2. Infinitives: He - to run. Stand! 3. Verb interjections (Sanka immediately fell into a puddle). 4. Interjections of non-verbal adjunct: “Shh,” my friend whispered. 5. Nouns in the nominative case: Night. 6. Nouns in the genitive case: Delo, delo!

Means of expressing modality

As we noted earlier, all means of expressing modal meanings (modalities) can be divided into two types: universal and non-universal. The first ones are characteristic of all statements without exception. This is intonation. The latter are present only in some statements. The purpose of the means of expressing modality is to connect forms and methods of its expression. Non-universal means of expressing modality are used to create conditions for a particular form so that it becomes a form of expressing modality. These means include: the presence of a two-part construction with direct word order (I - laugh), the presence of a one-part construction (Sit!), the presence of a complex sentence structure (If he had arrived on time, nothing would have happened). These are structural means. If the verbal mood is used to express a modal meaning that is unusual for it, then particles are used as a means of expressing this meaning: May you leave here tomorrow! These are lexico-grammatical means of expressing modality.
*****************************************************************************
Literature:
Zolotova G.A. Essay on functional syntax. M., 1973.
Nemov R.S. Psychology. M., 1995. Book 1.
Shvedova N.Yu. Paradigmatics of a simple sentence in modern Russian // Russian language. Grammar studies. M., 1973.
Kiefer F. Modality // The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, New York, Seoul, Tokyo, 1990.
Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning. M., 1976.
Borisova E.G. Collocations: What are they and how to study them? M., 1996.

Linguistic), “in different forms found in languages different systems..., in the languages of the European system it covers the entire fabric of speech” (V.V. Vinogradov). The term “modality” is used to designate a wide range of phenomena that are heterogeneous in semantic scope, grammatical properties and in the degree of formalization in different linguistic structures. The question of the boundaries of this category is resolved by different researchers in different ways. The sphere of modality includes: contrasting statements according to the nature of their goal setting (statement - question - motivation); opposition on the basis of “statement -”; gradations of values in the range “reality - unreality” (reality - hypothetical - unreality), varying degrees the speaker’s confidence in the reliability of his thoughts about reality; various modifications of the connection between and , expressed by means (“wants”, “can”, “should”, “need”), etc.

Most researchers differentiate the category of modality. One aspect of differentiation is the contrast between objective and subjective modality. Objective modality is a mandatory feature of any statement, one of the categories that form -. Objective modality expresses the relationship of what is being communicated to reality in terms of reality (feasibility or realization) and unreality (unrealization). The main means of formalizing modality in this function is the category. At the level, objective modality is represented by the opposition of the forms of the syntactic indicative mood to the forms of the syntactic irreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, incentive, obligatory). The category of the indicative mood (indicative) contains objective-modal meanings of reality, i.e., temporal certainty: by the ratio of indicative forms (“People are happy” - “People were happy” - “People will be happy”) the content of the message is classified into one of three time plans - present, past or future. By the correlation of forms of unreal moods characterized by temporary uncertainty (“People would be happy” - “Let people be happy” - “Let people be happy”), with the help of special modifiers (verb forms and ) the same message is included in the plane of the desired, required or necessary. Objective modality is organically connected with the category of time and is differentiated on the basis of temporal certainty/uncertainty. Objective-modal meanings are organized into a system of oppositions that is revealed in the grammatical sentence.

Subjective modality, i.e. the speaker’s attitude to what is being communicated, in contrast to objective modality, is an optional feature of the utterance. the scope of subjective modality is wider than the semantic scope of objective modality; the meanings that make up the content of the category of subjective modality are heterogeneous and require ordering; many of them are not directly related to grammar. Semantic basis subjective modality forms the concept of evaluation in the broad sense of the word, including not only the logical (intellectual, rational) qualification of what is being reported, but also different types of emotional (irrational) reaction. Subjective modality covers the entire gamut of multi-aspect and different-character methods of qualifying what is being communicated that actually exist in natural language and is implemented: 1) by a special lexical-grammatical class, as well as sentences that are functionally close to them; these means usually occupy an autonomous position within the utterance and function as units; 2) the introduction of special modal particles, for example, to express uncertainty (“sort of”), assumption (“perhaps”), unreliability (“supposedly”), surprise (“well”), fear (“what the hell”), etc. .; 3) with the help (“ah!”, “oh-oh-oh!”, “alas”, etc.); 4) special means to emphasize surprise, doubt, confidence, distrust, protest, irony and other emotional shades of subjective attitude to what is being communicated; 5) using, for example, placing the main thing at the beginning of the expression negative attitude, ironic denial (“He will listen to you!”, “Good friend!”); 6) special constructions - a specialized structural scheme of a sentence or a scheme for constructing its components, for example, constructions like: “No, to wait” (to express regret about something that did not come true), “She take it and say it” (to express unpreparedness, suddenness of action) and etc.

Means of subjective modality function as modifiers of the main modal qualification, expressed by the verbal mood; they are able to overlap objective modal characteristics, forming the qualification of “last resort” in the modal hierarchy of the utterance. In this case, the object of optional assessment may be not only the predicative basis, but any informatively significant fragment of what is being reported; in this case, an imitation of an additional predicative core appears on the periphery of the sentence, creating the effect of polypredicativeness of the message being reported.

In the category of subjective modality, natural language captures one of the key properties of the human psyche: the ability to contrast “I” and “not-I” (the conceptual beginning with a neutral-informational background) within the framework of a statement. In its most complete form, this concept was reflected in the works of S. Bally, who believed that in any statement there is a opposition between the actual content (dictum) and the individual assessment of the stated facts (modus). Bally defines modality as active mental operation, produced by the speaking subject over the representation contained in the dictum. An in-depth analysis of the functional range of modality and, in particular, specific forms of manifestation of subjective modality at different levels is presented in Vinogradov’s work “On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language,” which served as an incentive for a number of studies aimed at deepening the search for the actual linguistic aspects of the study of modality (in contrast to logical modality), as well as to study the specifics of the design of this category in the conditions of a particular language, taking into account its typological features. Many studies emphasize the conventionality of contrasting objective and subjective modality. According to A. M. Peshkovsky, the category of modality expresses only one relationship - the speaker’s attitude to the connection that he establishes between the content of a given utterance and reality, that is, “attitude to relation.” With this approach, modality is studied as a complex and multidimensional category that actively interacts with the whole system other functional-semantic categories of language and closely related to categories of the pragmatic level (see). From these positions, the category of modality sees a reflection complex interactions between four factors: the speaker, the interlocutor, the content of the utterance and reality.

Vinogradov V.V., On the category of modality and modal words in the Russian language, in the book: Proceedings of the Russian Language Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, vol. 2, M.-L., 1950;
Bally Sh., General linguistics and issues of the French language, trans. from French, M., 1955;
Peshkovsky A. M., Russian syntax in scientific coverage, 7th ed., M., 1956;
Jespersen O., Philosophy of Grammar, trans. from English, M., 1958;
Shvedova N. Yu., Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech, M., 1960;
Panfilov V.Z., The relationship between language and thinking, M., 1971;
Russian grammar, vol. 2, M., 1980;
Bally Ch., Syntaxe de la modalité explicite, “Cahiers F. de Saussure”, 1942, No. 2;
Ďurovič L., Modálnosť, Brat., 1956;
Jodłowski S., Istota, granice i formy językowe modalności, in his book: Studia nad częściami mowy, Warsz., ;
Otázky slovanské syntax. III. Sbornik symposia “Modální výstavba výpovědi v slovanských jazycích”, Brno, 1973.

M. V. Lyapon.

Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. ed. V. N. Yartseva. 1990 .

Synonyms:

See what “Modality” is in other dictionaries:

Modality- (from Latin modus size, method, image) in different subject areas a category characterizing a method of action or attitude towards action. Modality (linguistics) Modal logic Modality (programming) Modality (psychology) ... ... Wikipedia

modality- and, f. modalité f. Property of modal. Krysin 1998. I have always known this girl to be the most modest, and even, let me tell you, that her modality always seemed exaggerated to me. I reproached her for the backward trend of ideas and the lack... ... Historical Dictionary Gallicisms of the Russian language

MODALITY- (from Latin modus measure, method) assessment of the connection established in a statement, given from one or another point of view. Modal assessment is expressed using modal concepts: “necessary”, “possible”, “accidental”, “provable”, “refutable”, “mandatory”, ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

modality- (from the Latin modus method) one of the main properties of sensations, their qualitative characteristics (color in vision, tone and timbre in hearing, character of smell in the sense of smell, etc.). Modal characteristics of sensations, in contrast to their other characteristics... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

Modality- Modality ♦ Modalité It happened that day when I invited five or six of my friends to a restaurant to celebrate the release of an issue of a magazine we had once worked on together. Among them were A. and F. - both stood out noticeably... ... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

MODALITY- (in philosophy) denotes a judgment in which the person expressing it determines the degree of reliability of the judgment itself. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Pavlenkov F., 1907. MODALITY Such a judgment in philosophy, in ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language