ILMIY VA PROFESSIONAL TA’LIM JARAYONIDA MULOQOT, FAN VA MADANIYATLAR
INTEGRATSIYASI
237
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
CONCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC EXPRESSION OF THE CATEGORIES OF
REALIS/IRREALIS
(in the example of the English and Uzbek languages)
Rasulov Normurod Atakulovich
PhD at SamSIFL
Abstract:
The article analyzes theoretical views of the grammatical category
realis/irrealis, the contrast of grammes, conceptual representation of irrealis, its semantic
realization and its grammatical indicator. The existence of prepositions referring to the future
tense in the Uzbek language indicates the conceptual and semantic expression of the categories
of realis/irrealis.
Key words:
realis/irrealis, real and non-real situations, suffix
“– mish”,
imperfect verb
“emish”,
grammes, grammatical indicator, conceptual field, perfective, imperfective.
In some languages, the boundary between real and non-real situations may be clearer
compared to the opposition of certain grammatical category grammes. We can refer to this in the
Uzbek language the suffix
“ – mish”
, and the imperfect verb
“emish”
. For example:
Oyim bilan
dadam meni juda erkalatib yuborishgan
emish
, shu ketishda ketaversam, mendan qip-qizil
bezori chiqar
emish
(To‘xtaboyev X. Sariq devni minib. 105-bet);
Garchi
u yerda hokimiyat
Faridun Mirzo‘ning qo‘llarida bo‘lsa ham, lekin shahzoda janoblarining yoshligi va tajriba-
sizligidan foydalanib, Darveshali jamiki ishlami o‘z bilgicha olib bormoqda emish
(Oybek.
Navoiy. 363-bet).
In another language, the contrast of grammes of another grammatical category (for
example, one-sided approach) is more dominant. This idea has been proven both practically and
theoretically. In practice, it makes it possible to divide situations into real and non-real, and it
allows to determine and describe the meaning of realis and irrealis of various structures in the
language.
It has a future tense, two negatives, desire, intention, and sometimes a future or command
meaning - the verb suffix
“- sa”
, which expresses purpose and creates contrastive constructions.
For instance:
Katta bo‘lsam, deyman, o‘zimga-o‘zim, men ham odamlarga yaxshiliklar qilaman,
kasalxonada yotganlardan ko‘ngil so‘rab turaman
(To‘xtaboyev X. Sariq devni minib. – B. 69);
Qasidangizning tuzi bo‘lmasa, hech kim sizni shoir demaydi
(Oybek. Navoiy. – B. 99).
It is necessary to pay attention to the absence of a single indication of the field of irrealis
in the grammars proposed by J. Bybee [1, 265]. Therefore, the existence of a single index
covering a small part of the typological irrealis category is also important in determining the
realis/irrealis category in each language.
It seems that in the analysis of any language it is necessary to distinguish between the
conceptual representation of irrealis, its semantic realization and its grammatical indicator. It is
known that in some languages the distinction between realis and irrealis may not have any
categorical indicators in the verb morphology. However, the existence of prepositions referring
to the future tense in the Uzbek language also indicates the conceptual and semantic expression
of these categories. For example, in determining realis/irrealis in English, J. Bybee refers to
modal loadings. He refers to the terms “realis” and “irrealis” to describe modal loadings. The
author's research covers a small and very limited part of the conceptual fields of realis/irrealis.
The scientist concludes that it is useful to describe modal meanings with the help of narrower
terms and puts forward the idea that abstract terms do not accurately describe loading meanings.
Furthermore, he argues, it misleads researchers engaged in cross-linguistic comparisons [1, 265].
It seems that “realis” and “irrealis” are being focused on broader rather than narrower
meanings. In fact, it seems more effective to focus on a set of more specific and more common
meanings in different contexts than on general meanings in defining realis and irrealis. As a
proof of these comments, we can observe that J. Bybee believes that the irrealis indicator can be
ILMIY VA PROFESSIONAL TA’LIM JARAYONIDA MULOQOT, FAN VA MADANIYATLAR
INTEGRATSIYASI
238
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
expressed as the integrity of the entire construction used, rather than referring to the linguistic
units with an unreal meaning in the broad sense of the realis category. That is, we can assume
that the meanings of the irrealis indicator in different contexts may combine a number of
grammatical categories that do not have a common feature.
When analyzing the concept of “irrealis”, it is taken into account that there is no
correspondence between the conceptual field and the grammatical expression. Obviously, it is
not difficult to understand that there is a conceptual field that includes different ways of
conceptualizing the situation as unreal. In fact, as noted, the conceptual domain often intersects
with the modality domain. Perhaps the absence of realism cannot be the main characteristic of
these conceptual fields. On the contrary, according to the purpose of the speaker, his description
of narrow meanings such as obligation, permission, command or opportunity serves to define a
certain feature of the conceptual field.
The cases of using the term “irrealis” as the name of a grammatical category can be
divided into two classes. In determining the general meaning of a certain element found in
different constructions, and in differentiating certain meanings belonging to that particular
construction, the irrealis phenomenon serves an incomparable service. The term “irrealis”' is
seldom used in general usage, except when it is widely used as a conceptual field term [1, 269].
When talking about the importance of the conceptual representation of Irrealis, first of all,
it is necessary to emphasize its clear argument about reality. This is explained by the presence of
not one, but several indicators related to realis or irrealis semantics of information.
Comparisons of this case with other distinctions, including the more common
grammatical categories of perfective and imperfective, are also widespread. For example,
linguists engaged in cross-linguistic research, such as B. Comrie and O. Dahl, noted their
scientific conclusions about the existence of a close similarity between the meanings of grammes
expressing completion and incompleteness in different languages [2, 255-287; 3, 309-328]. This
should be considered as a prototype according to the structure of the interrelated linguistic
grammatical type. But there is a core of prototypical completion functions and a core of
prototypical incompleteness functions. For example, the most common primary function for the
complete in different languages is to tell the sequence of events that happened. In terms of
semantic attributes, O. Dahl cites the following:
1) a perfective verb usually means an individual event that cannot be analyzed, is
considered as a whole concept, has a defined result in the past or has a final state;
2) often the event is realized in time, or at least considered as a continuation of the
transition from one state to its opposite [2, 255-287; 3, 309-328]. So far, no proposals have been
made in the literature for a precise characterization of general semantic attributes and usage
prototypes of “realis” or “irrealis”. Indeed, given the widespread use of the so-called “irrealis”
grammes, such a proposal is unlikely. Nor is there any suggestion of a general or specific use of
irrealis. We do not consider it preferable to add the phenomenon of “irrealis” to the grammatical
category of completion. Moreover, it is not considered a universal grammatical phenomenon.
REFERENCES
1. Bybee J. “Irrealis” as a grammatical category // Anthropological Linguistics 40. 1998. –
P. 269.
2. Comrie B. Plenary Session (including T. Givon: “The Speech-Act Continuum”); in
William S. Chisholm, Louis T. Milic, and John A. C. Greppin (eds.), //
Interrogativity: A
Colloquium on the Grammar, Typology and Pragmatics of Questions in Seven Diverse
Languages. -
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984. – P. 255-287;
3. Dahl O. The Grammar of Future Time Reference in European Languages; in Osten 51
(ed.), //
Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. -
Berlin and New York: Mouton de
Gruyter, 2000. – P. 309-328.
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000111001185
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228359
6. https://www.unm.edu/~jbybee/downloads/Bybee1998IrrealisCategory.pdf
