Category of modality in the text Plan: I. Introduction II. Main part

Category of modality in the text


Plan:


I. Introduction
II. Main part

1. 
   Category of modality in the text
   
2. 
   Category of modality
   
3. 
   Modality in the text
   

III. Conclusion
IV. Reference


Introduction
In cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphor, or cognitive metaphor, refers to the understanding of one idea, or conceptual domain, in terms of another. An example of this is the understanding of quantity in terms of directionality (e.g. "the price of peace is rising") or the understanding of time in terms of money (e.g. "I spent time at work today").
A conceptual domain can be any mental organization of human experience. The regularity with which different languages employ the same metaphors, often perceptually based, has led to the hypothesis that the mapping between conceptual domains corresponds to neural mappings in the brain.^[1][2] This theory has gained wide attention, although some researchers question its empirical accuracy.^[3]
This idea, and a detailed examination of the underlying processes, was first extensively explored by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their work Metaphors We Live By in 1980. Since then, the field of metaphor studies within the larger discipline of cognitive linguistics has increasingly developed, with several annual academic conferences, scholarly societies, and research labs contributing to the subject area. Some researchers, such as Gerard Steen, have worked to develop empirical investigative tools for metaphor research, including the Metaphor Identification Procedure, or MIP.^[4] In Psychology, Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr., has investigated conceptual metaphor and embodiment through a number of psychological experiments. Other cognitive scientists, for example Gilles Fauconnier, study subjects similar to conceptual metaphor under the labels "analogy", "conceptual blending" and "ideasthesia".

Conceptual metaphors are useful for understanding complex ideas in simple terms and therefore are frequently used to give insight to abstract theories and models. For example, the conceptual metaphor of viewing communication as a conduit is one large theory explained with a metaphor. So not only is our everyday communication shaped by the language of conceptual metaphors, but so is the very way we understand scholarly theories. These metaphors are prevalent in communication and we do not just use them in language; we actually perceive and act in accordance with the metaphors.

This fact is explained by the fact that, having created a language, a person reflected his own appearance in it. He captured in the language everything that he knows about himself and his physical appearance, his internal states, emotions and intellect, everything he knows about the outside world, his attitude towards himself and the world around him. The anthropocentric orientation of modern linguistic research has led specialists to actively study the modality of a literary text. Modality (from lat. modalis - modal; lat. modus - measure, method) is a complex and multifaceted category, which, according to the figurative expression of S. Balli, is the "soul of the proposal".
The term "modality" came to linguistics from classical formal logic. Modality -in different subject areas - a category that characterizes the mode of action or attitude to action, which is a linguistic universal. In foreign linguistics, the initial stage in the study of this category is associated with the name of the French linguist Ch. Bally, who made a fundamentally important remark that "... one cannot attach meaning to a sentence to a statement if at least some expression of modality is not found in it."
It was S. Bally who distinguished the semantic structure of the sentence dictum (objective semantic constant) and modus (subjective variable constant), which later became the basis for distinguishing two types of modality - objective and subjective. The study of modality in the Russian linguistic tradition is laid down in the works of V.V.Vinogradov, who ranked this category among the main, central linguistic categories, in various forms found in languages of different systems.
1 Алексеева, И. С. Введение в переводоведение / И. С. Алексеева. — СПб., 2004. — С. 75.
"Any holistic expression of a thought, feeling, motive, reflecting reality in one form or another of an utterance, is clothed in one of the intonation schemes of sentences existing in a given language system and expressing one of those syntactic meanings that in their totality form the category of modality."
The reflection of objective reality in speech, as well as the participation of the subject of speech in this process, determines the essence of modality, which in the most general form can be represented as an expression of the subjective and objective in the language. Objective modality, which expresses the relation of what is communicated to reality in terms of reality and potentiality, is considered one of the mandatory features of the utterance. The objective in speech follows from the objective properties of an object or a phenomenon of objective reality, and is also conditioned by the objective characteristics of the subject as a representative of a certain society, since "many life relationships coincide in large groups of people or even in all of humanity to the extent of the commonality of certain objective characteristics.
Objective modality reflects the objective connections of reality, a denotation independent of the act of communication is a fact or phenomenon of objective reality. In terms of content, the meaning of objective modality is traditionally limited to three characteristics and their varieties: the possibility, necessity and reality of the existence of any fact of objective reality. In linguistics, there are two understandings of the category of modality: narrow and wide.
According to the narrow approach, linguistic modality is understood as a direct analogy of the modality of judgment; being a semantic category, it "is implemented in the entire composition of the sentence and does not impose any special features on the structure of the sentence." This point of view is not widespread, because it reduces the linguistic modality to the logical modality of the judgment, limiting it to the values of possibility, necessity and reality allocated in formal logic.
V.Z.Panfilov, considering the category of modality at the sentence level in close connection with the analysis of the logical category of modality and judgment, distinguishes two types of modal meanings: objective modality and subjective modality, while objective modality "reflects the nature of the objective connections that are present in a particular situation, to which the cognitive act is directed, namely, possible, real and necessary connections. Subjective modality "expresses the speaker's assessment of the degree of knowledge of these connections, that is, it indicates the degree of reliability of the thought reflecting the given situation.2
According to the second, broad approach (coming from Sh.Bally and V.Vinogradov), the content of modality includes the meanings of reality/unreality, affirmation/negation, reliability, probability, necessity, possibility, desirability, as well
2 2. Блумфильд, Л. Язык. Пер. с англ. Е. С. Кубряковой // Под ред. и с предисл. М. М. Гухман / Л. Блумфильд. — М., 1968. — С. 504.
as the meanings of motivation, will and emotiveness. . Such a breadth in the approach to understanding the semantic volume of modality naturally leads researchers to try to limit or streamline the complex of meanings included in its composition, to establish a structural and functional hierarchy of individual semantic layers of modality in the content structure of the sentence.
T.I.Descheriev considers modality as "a lexico-grammatical category that characterizes the target communicative attitude, the type of connection between the subject and the predicate of the judgment indicated by the sentence, the intoteme of the latter and the mode of the speaker/writer's relationship to the meaning of the message. Thus, modality expresses the relation of judgment to reality from the point of view of the subject of speech and the relation of the latter to the meaning of the message.
Modality is a broad semantic category, it largely determines the semantic structure of the sentence, which provides "live contact with extralinguistic reality". A.B.Tumanova notes that modality is studied primarily at the sentence level: "Modality in the structure of a sentence is considered as a sign of relations between predicative units, as a communicative sign representing sentences according to the type of target setting, as a structural-semantic sign of a sentence expressing the relationship of the speaker to the reported and assessment of it in terms of reality/unreality.
A fragment of the linguistic category of modality is the modality of a literary text, since "a literary text, being an artificially organized structure, a materialized fragment of a specific epistemological and national culture of an ethnic group, conveys a certain picture of the world and has a high power of social impact.
The text as an idiostyle implements, on the one hand, the immanent features of a certain system of language, on the other hand, it is the result of an individual selection of language resources that correspond to the aesthetic or pragmatic goals of the writer or poet. So, for example, we observe the following sonnet in English and its Uzbek translation.
Shakespeare's sonnets were first translated into Russian by the outstanding translator S. Marshak, and Yusuf Shomansur translated them into Uzbek from Russian, namely, with the help of an intermediary language. M.Bakoeva in her scientific work studied the translation of Shakespeare's 66-sonnet by Yusuf Shomansur, and, according to her statement, "the translation is characterized by the consonance of thoughts, the language and style of the original are partially reflected, the anaphora, form and rhythm are masterfully worked out" .
Thus, the translation of a poem translated from English into Uzbek using an intermediary language was highly appreciated by researchers, and further we will consider the extent to which it reflects linguophonetic properties.
Tired with all these, for restful death I cry,
As, to behold desert a beggar born,
And needy nothing trimmed in jollity, And purest faith unhappily forsworn, And gilded honor shamefully misplaced, And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted, And right perfection wrongfully disgraced, And strength by limping sway disabled, And art made tongue-tied by authority, And folly (doctor-like) controlling skill, And simple truth miscall'd simplicity, And captive good attending captain ill: Tired with all these, from these would I be gone, Save that, to die, I leave my love alone. Uzbek translation:
Улимни чорлайман. Токат килмайман. Садокатгуй кадру-кимматларга х,еч. Соддаликни мазах килмокда ёлFOн, Хдшамдор либосда, - хдр нарсаки пуч. Нафратимга дучор: хукмки нохдк -Камолотга завол, иффатки - паймол, Шармандаликларки, - килинар ардок, Кудратки, - заифлик чангида лол. Ростликки, - нодонлик аъмолидадир, Тентакликки, - никоб киймиш донодай, Ил^омки, - OFЗида кулф ва занжир, Таквоки, - иллатнинг фармонига шай. Нимаики курдим, - бари бадкирдор, Лекин сени кандок ташлаб кетай, ёр.
The main concept of the poem is "injustice", "hatred". As you can see, the idea expressed in the original language is also reflected in the translation. Shakespeare in this sonnet tried to convey to readers a feeling of suffering from hopelessness, hatred of injustice, and the author succeeded. The translation also retains the rhyme order of the original.
A literary text as a complete speech work is permeated with "subjectivity and anthropocentric aspirations, and anthropocentricity is expressed in speech as a subjective-modal meaning." The semantic basis of subjective modality is an assessment, which is characterized by a variety of meanings and their shades. In connection with the increased interest in the problem of subjective modality, there is a constant expansion of its scope by including new meanings in it. In the semantic volume of subjective modality, different researchers include different meanings:
WWW.OPENSCIENCE.UZ 2036 |
- absolute and comparative assessment,
- expressive-emotional assessment,
- forbidden/allowed values,
- desirable/undesirable,
- known/unknown,
- true/false value,
- assertions/denials,
- potentiality/purposefulness,
- categorical/non-categorical,
- possible/impossible and so on.
A significant step along this path was made, in our opinion, by G.A.Zolotov, which, based on the concept of modality proposed by V.V.Vinogradov, identifies three aspects of modal relations:
- relation of the content of the statement to reality in terms of its reality/unreality from the point of view of the speaker - an objective modality; - the attitude of the speaker to the content of the statement in terms of its reliability / unreliability -subjective modality; - the relationship between the subject of the action (the carrier of the sign) and the action (the predicative sign); - according to the terminology of the author, intra-syntactic modality and so on.
English modality can be expressed not only by modal verbs. Modality can be expressed by different linguistic means. In actual speech all forms expressing modality work together to make the meaning clear. But in every case there is some leading form that expresses the main attitude. These forms fall into four categories: phonetic (intonation) grammatical (mood) lexico-grammatical (modal verbs) lexical (modal words and phrases). But the most important from them is the third form which includes modal verbs. It is important to take into consideration one more feature peculiar to modal verbs.
We differentiate two types of modality: objective and subjective.
Objective modality is a compulsory feature of any utterance, and one of the categories which build up a predicative unit - sentence. This type of modality expresses the attitude of utterance to the reality. Objective modality connects with the category of time and is differentiated by the feature of time certainty - uncertainty. Subjective modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to the utterance. In contrast to the objective modality subjective one is an elective feature of the utterance. Semantic content of the subjective modality is broader than semantic content of objective modality. Semantic stem of the subjective modality makes up the conception of assessment in the broad meaning including not only logic (intellectual, rational) qualification of the utterance, but and different types of emotional (irrational) reaction.
The main purpose of this work to analyse modality expressing language means in English texts. The objects:
>To give an idea of Modality as one of the main syntactic categories;
>To pick up Modality expressing language from English texts;
>To classify the means found.
The categories have similar interrelationships and properties within each type. These uniformities allow us to abstract them, but nevertheless each type needs to be considered separately. The interactions between types must also be analyzed [6].
Quantity, or extensional modality, is the primary type of modality. And Aristotle thoroughly dealt with it.We are not consistent in our everyday use of terms like "sometimes", "can", "may", "might", "must", and so on [7,7].
Ultimately these are semantic issues, not important to us. Though we must pointing out them. Logic simply establishes conventions for terminology, and focuses on the material issues.
Two more, temporal modality and natural modality interact intimately with quantity. Temporal and natural modality may be called "intrinsic" modalities, because they concern the properties of concrete individuals; extensional modality is comparatively "extrinsic", in that it focuses on abstract universals. While it is true that often the copula "is" is intended in a t imeless sense, we sometimes use the word with a more restrictive connotation involving temporal limits.
The temporal equivalent of what is a singular instance in extension, is a momentary occurrence. This is the unit under consideration here. When we say N is M we may mean either that N is always M, or that N is now M, or even that N is sometimes M. This ambiguity must be taken into consideration by Logic. A possible modification of standard propositions is therefore through the factor of temporal frequency.
The most significant type of modality is called natural modality. This refers to propositions such as "N can be M", "N cannot be M", "N cannot -be M", and "N must be M", with the sense of real, out-there potential or necessity. Aristotle in his philosophical discussions,recognized these relations, but he not systematically dealt with them in the framework of his logic works.
Temporal modality radically differs from such modality. We do not here merely recognize that something may be sometimes one thing and sometimes another, or always or never so and so. We tend to go a step further, and regard that there is a character intrinsic to the object which makes it able to behave in this way or that, or incapable of doing so or forced to do so. Thus, temporal and natural modalities represent distinct outlooks, which cannot be freely interchanged.
Also need to indicate two other main types of modality, the logical and the ethical. As it is previously stated, these types are each unique, and worthy of thorough treatment on their own.
Logical modality expresses the compatibility or otherwise of a proposed assumption with the general framework of our knowledge to date. Logical modality makes use of terms such as "might" (or perhaps) and "surely"(or
certainly), for possibility and necessity. Remember that we defined truth and falsehood as contextual, so this definition fits in consistently.
To the extent that such an evaluation is scientific, based on rigorous process, thorough, common public knowledge, and so on, it is objective information. To the extent that thought is deficient in its methodology, such modality is subjective.
Whereas the extensional, temporal and natural types of modality may be called 'materialistic', in that they refer directly to the world out there, which is mainly material or in any case substantial, logical modality may be called 'formalistic', because it operates on a more abstract plane.
Ethical statements tacitly refer to some value to be safeguarded or pursued, and consider the compatibility or otherwise of some proposed event with that given standard. We use terms such 'may' (for permissible) and 'should' (for imperatives), to indicate ethical possibility or necessity.
Ethical modality is of course relative to standards of value. An ethical statement can in principle be judged true or false like any other.
Subjectivity comes into play here, not only in the matter of selecting basic values, but also to the extent that, in this field more than any other, factual knowledge is often very private.
Logic must, of course, eventually analyze such modality types in detail. But for our present purposes, let us note only that, in either case, the resemblance to the other types of modality is the aspect of conditionality. They are defined through the conditions for their realization. [4]
In modern English there are grammatical and lexical means of expressing modality. Grammatical means are modal verbs like must, should, ought, will/would, can/could, may/might, need. Moreover, these verbs weaken its initial value, desirability, of obligation, necessity, etc., and transmit only the relation of the speaker to the content of the assumptions in General. Modal verbs convey different shades of modality, starting with the assumption bordering on certainty and ending with the assumption in which the speaker is not sure.
Lexical means are such modal words as perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly. Many linguists say about modal words as an independent part of speech. Their syntactic function is an introductory member suggestions. In foreign linguistics this type was noted, but was not allocated in a special category. The question arises how to deal with these units, syntactic position which does not provide information regarding their morphological nature. It seems that there are two possible solutions: either they are a special modal words, or that adverbs can function along with modal words. Some foreign and Russian linguists believe that these words are adverbs, involved in the field of modal words, without ceasing to be adverbs. Other linguists are firmly convinced that words such as perhaps, maybe, probably, possibly should include the modal group.
George Lakoff makes similar claims on the overlap of conceptual metaphors, culture, and society in his book Moral Politics and his later book on framing, Don't Think of an Elephant!. Lakoff claims that the public political arena in America reflects a basic conceptual metaphor of 'the family.' Accordingly, people understand political leaders in terms of 'strict father' and 'nurturant mother' roles. Two basic views of political economy arise from this desire to see the nation-state act 'more like a father' or 'more like a mother.' He further amplified these views in his latest book, The Political Mind.
Urban theorist and ethicist Jane Jacobs made this distinction in less gender-driven terms by differentiating between a 'Guardian Ethic' and a 'Trader Ethic'.^[22] She states that guarding and trading are two concrete activities that human beings must learn to apply metaphorically to all choices in later life. In a society where guarding children is the primary female duty and trading in a market economy is the primary male duty, Lakoff posits that children assign the 'guardian' and 'trader' roles to their mothers and fathers, respectively.
Linguistics and politics
Lakoff, Johnson, and Pinker are among the many cognitive scientists that devote a significant amount of time to current events and political theory, suggesting that respected linguists and theorists of conceptual metaphor may tend to channel their theories into political realms.
Critics of this ethics-driven approach to language tend to accept that idioms reflect underlying conceptual metaphors, but that actual grammar, and the more basic cross-cultural concepts of scientific method and mathematical practice tend to minimize the impact of metaphors. Such critics tend to see Lakoff and Jacobs as 'left-wing figures,' and would not accept their politics as any kind of crusade against an ontology embedded in language and culture, but rather, as an idiosyncratic pastime, not part of the science of linguistics nor of much use. And others further, such as Deleuze and Guattari, Michel Foucault and, more recently, Manuel de Landa would criticize both of these two positions for mutually constituting the same old ontological ideology that would try to separate two parts of a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Lakoff's 1987 work, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, answered some of these criticisms before they were even made: he explores the effects of cognitive metaphors (both culturally specific and human-universal) on the grammar per se of several languages, and the evidence of the limitations of the classical logical-positivist or Anglo-American School philosophical concept of the category usually used to explain or describe the scientific method. Lakoff's reliance on empirical scientific evidence, i.e. specifically falsifiable predictions, in the 1987 work and in Philosophy in the Flesh (1999) suggests that the cognitive-metaphor position has no objections to the scientific method, but instead considers the scientific method a finely developed reasoning system used to discover phenomena which are subsequently understood in terms of new conceptual metaphors (such as the metaphor of fluid motion for conducted electricity, which is described in terms of "current" "flowing" against "impedance," or the gravitational metaphor for static-electric phenomena, or the "planetary orbit" model of the atomic nucleus and electrons, as used by Niels Bohr).
Further, partly in response to such criticisms, Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez, in 2000, proposed a cognitive science of mathematics that would explain mathematics as a consequence of, not an alternative to, the human reliance on conceptual metaphor to understand abstraction in terms of basic experiential concretes.
Literature
The Linguistic Society of America has argued that "the most recent linguistic approach to literature is that of cognitive metaphor, which claims that metaphor is not a mode of language, but a mode of thought. Metaphors project structures from source domains of schematized bodily or enculturated experience into abstract target domains. We conceive the abstract idea of life in terms of our experiences of a journey, a year, or a day. We do not understand Robert Frost's 'Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening' to be about a horse-and-wagon journey but about life. We understand Emily Dickinson's 'Because I could not stop for Death' as a poem about the end of the human life span, not a trip in a carriage. This work is redefining the critical notion of imagery. Perhaps for this reason, cognitive metaphor has significant promise for some kind of rapprochement between linguistics and literary study."^[23]
Education
Teaching thinking by analogy (metaphor) is one of the main themes of The Private Eye Project. The idea of encouraging use of conceptual metaphors can also be seen in other educational programs touting the cultivation of "critical thinking skills".
The work of political scientist Rūta Kazlauskaitė examines metaphorical models in school-history knowledge of the controversial Polish-Lithuanian past. On the basis of Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor theory, she shows how the implicit metaphorical models of everyday experience, which inform the abstract conceptualization of the past, truth, objectivity, knowledge, and multiperspectivity in the school textbooks, obstruct an understanding of the divergent narratives of past experience.^[24]
Language learning
There is some evidence that an understanding of underlying conceptual metaphors can aid the retention of vocabulary for people learning a foreign language.^[25] To improve learners' awareness of conceptual metaphor, one monolingual learner's dictionary, the Macmillan English Dictionary has introduced 50 or so 'metaphor boxes'^[26] covering the most salient Lakoffian metaphors in English.^[27][28] For example, the dictionary entry for conversation includes a box with the heading: 'A conversation is like a journey, with the speakers going from one place to another', followed by vocabulary items (words and phrases) which embody this metaphorical schema.^[29] Language teaching experts are beginning to explore the relevance of conceptual metaphor to how learners learn and what teachers do in the classroom.^[30]
Conceptual metaphorical mapping in animals
A current study showed a natural tendency to systematically map an abstract dimension, such as social status, in our closest and non-linguistic relatives, the chimpanzees.^[31] In detail, discrimination performances between familiar conspecific faces were systematically modulated by the spatial location and the social status of the presented individuals, leading to discrimination facilitation or deterioration. High-ranked individuals presented at spatially higher position and low-ranked individuals presented at lower position led to discrimination facilitation, while high-ranked individuals at lower positions and low-ranked individuals at higher position led to discrimination deterioration. This suggests that this tendency had already evolved in the common ancestors of humans and chimpanzees and is not uniquely human, but describes a conceptual metaphorical mapping that predates language.