Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Preferential utterances in the system of syntactic
constructions of modality
Zarnigor SIROJOVA
Bukhara State University
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received April 2024
Received in revised form
10 May 2024
Accepted 25 May 2024
Available online
25 June 2024
The article is devoted to an analysis of preferences expressed
through evaluative modality and its syntactic constructions. The
study is concerned with sentences containing preference modality,
which frequently occurs in comparative constructions and only
partially describes inverse relations.
2181-3701
/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss1
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
utterance,
will,
preference,
reality,
possibility,
optional statements,
preferential statements.
Sintaktik tizimdagi imtiyoli gaplar modallik qurilishlari
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
gap,
iroda,
afzallik,
voqelik,
imkoniyat,
ixtiyoriy gaplar,
imtiyozli gaplar.
Ushbu maqolada afzallik va xohish -istak mayllarining
sintaktik tizimidagi tuzilmalarini tadqiq etadi. Afzallik
modalligiga ega bo'lgan gaplar zid munosabatlarni qisman
tavsiflaydi, bu qiyosiy gaplarda juda keng tarqalgan.
1
English Literature and Translation Studies Department, Bukhara State University. E-mail: z.n.sirojova@buxdu.uz
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
29
Конструкции преференциальных выражений в системе
синтаксиса
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
высказывание,
воля,
предпочтение,
реальность,
возможность,
факультативные
высказывания,
преференциальные
высказывания.
Статья посвящена анализу предпочтений, выражаемых
через оценочную модальность и её синтаксические
конструкции.
Исследование
фокусируется
на
предложениях с модальностью предпочтения, которые
часто встречаются в сравнительных конструкциях и лишь
частично описывают обратные отношения.
INTRODUCTION
It has been widely accepted that the category of evaluation determines the
modality. One of the categories that is exclusively human is evaluation. It is based on an
individual's physical and mental makeup, his existence and emotions, how he thinks and
behaves, how he views other people and the real world, and how he perceives art.
Evaluation is the capacity of human awareness and cognition to establish stereotypes,
understand experiences in terms of positive and bad entities, and evaluate the world
around them. It permeates every facet of people's intellectual and practical endeavors,
and it is utilized during both the decision-making and result-analysis stages. The ability
to generalize is a feature of estimates; when applied to individual objects, they
encompass classes of typical objects and situations. This leads to the stereotyping of
images of phenomena in the surrounding reality and the capacity to characterize and
describe some phenomena in terms of others. In general, the appearance of external
objects in human perception and throughout the study process from a variety of
qualitative and functional characteristics, rather than on a strictly material basis, makes
assessment conceivable. This raises a philosophical and epistemological issue since it
allows various people to interpret the same real-world facts in different ways, which
ultimately determines how mobile and relativistic a judgment can be. n this sense, it is
important to recognize the relationship between choice and assessment because it is a
preference that highlights evaluation characteristics like relativity and mobility.
Preferences specify those characteristics of things that allow one to identify their benefits
over others in a particular context rather than emphasizing the positive or bad qualities
of things per se. In a different circumstance, opposing qualities might be preferred.
METHODOLOGY
Any informative statement that is created using the conventions of a specific
language and implemented in a communication context either directly or indirectly
includes a judgment. We provide several arguments in favor of this thesis. First of all, the
statement cannot be separated from its creator, who attempts to contribute to the
communication situation by making the subjective meaning of the information being
given as well as its factual content apparent to the other party. In this sense, it seems
sense to ask, "Who said that?" Second, the statement fits in both stylistically and
thematically with the rest of the claims that make up the oral or written speech's text.
As a result, it takes on some factual and modal details from earlier utterances.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
30
Thirdly, assessment is the process by which the speaker assigns reality (modality) to the
propositional basis of a statement; that is, the speaker considers scenarios in terms of
reality, possibility, desirability, preference, etc. In this sense, every word contains a
component that represents the speaker's evaluation of the outside world. This section of
the dissertation will examine preference statements that are part of the system of
evaluative statements and share some characteristics with them, as well as some
characteristics that set them apart from the kind of statements under investigation.
REFERENCE
First of all, based on content similarity, preference is linked to affirmative
statements and statements with a moral and ethical bent. As it is well-known, the former
uses speech to convey the speaker's personal preferences, while the latter conveys
societal conceptions of what is morally right and wrong. In one way or another, the
meaning of morality statements is to influence an individual to make the correct decision
and lead him down the correct road. The universal and nationally specific ideas that hold
knowledge about customs, moral values, and social norms of behavior create the
cognitive foundation of moral and ethical statements. Therefore, moral and ethical claims
reveal the values that are acknowledged inside a specific cultural group. Human choice,
or a predilection for a particular life paradigm that dictates people's relationships and
activities, is already present in the phenomena of value. Value phenomena are regarded
by society as the most essential pillars of culture.
Philosophy and psychology have investigated the notion of "value" extensively.
Values stand for universal goods, which are the basis for the good category. It is reflected
in special values like life, love, health, financial security, and 37 other things. Values are
different from particular preferences in that a large number of them are universal and do
not correspond to individual tastes; they are the pinnacle of the value vertical and are
incomparable. Preferences, on the other hand, are inherently dependent on choice and
comparison. They encompass the field of endeavor wherein entities and circumstances
vie with one another for the assignment of varying degrees of meaning. Therefore,
despite certain semantic similarities, preference expressions differ from the listed
categories in certain ways.
ANALYSIS
The speaker effectively has a wide range of options when expressing a preference,
and the final decision is made by comparing them all. He may even design the
circumstances in which each of them might one day come to pass; in addition, he may
forecast the advantages that each one will offer. In this way, we may say that a subject
may prefer entirely different things depending on the context, as different features of the
same situation may be preferred under different circumstances. When the subject
expresses his preferences, the circumstances are slightly different. Tastes and
preferences are less prone to fluctuate when under pressure from the outside
environment and are more consistent over time. However, since sympathy for one often
translates into apathy or hostility against something other, they can also be discussed in
terms of comparison and choice. This holds for preferences in political elections as well,
when a voter can only sympathize with one candidate at a time and still prefer that one.
Preferential statements and optional statements are different in that the former do
not emphasize comparison and choice. Their application is limited to circumstances
where the speaker expresses his realization of a want, which is always expressed
specifically in statements like "I want to eat" or "I would like to rest now" and is not
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
31
determined by selecting a particular option. Optative utterances can express multiple
wishes at once, but they do not prioritize them or indicate which desire is most
important. Optatives, unlike preferences, generally convey passive daydreaming as
opposed to deliberate decisions. Optional statements express the speaker's wishes for
the past, present, and future, regardless of their viability. They are distinguished by the
speaker's coreference and the topic of desire. The causality of action and the addressing
of others are optional aspects of optative statements. Expressions of want typically do
not have an addressee or performer because they merely convey the speaker's feelings
rather than imply implementation. They are not the same as always addressed
imperative statements in this regard, where the primary goal is to order the performance
of an action. Nonetheless, there are situations where optative expressions serve as
imperatives and indicate a softer desire as opposed to a categorical one. Because of their
similar functions, they are similar to imperative statements in this application and have
the two previously mentioned characteristics.
The following optional meanings are distinguished in functional grammar theory:
1) the desire itself, distinguished by the hypothetical and prospective character of
the intended action's execution;
2) a motivation-related desire that, typically, manifests in optative utterances due
to the influence of illocutionary elements if the want is linked to an effect on the
interlocutor;
3) an impractical want directed towards the past; in this instance, the affirmative
statement assumes an emotive meaning of sorrow for an unaccomplished deed in the past;
4) Desire is connected to the meanings of condition, purpose, and comparison;
these meanings are already on the edge of optativity and can be found in an optative
phrase within a semantic-syntactic complex with other sentences;
5) desire, as an addressed act of expressing goodness, contentment, luck,
prosperity, etc.
In the English language, desirability can be expressed through lexical and
grammatical means. The verbs wish and want are the most common ones, as are verb
combinations like
would like/love to
and
be willing to,
which indicates that the speaker is
both ready and willing to fulfill their desire, even though their fulfillment does not solely
depend on them.
In the broadest sense, moral and ethical statements transmit societal customs that
have grown via tacit consensus in addition to expressing the need for everyone to live in
harmony with one another in society. Moral and ethical claims are expressions of collective
preference because they absolutize the preferences of the vast majority of individuals. The
general class of normative statements, which generally dictate human behavior in diverse
life situations, can be linked to moral and ethical statements that define an individual's moral
sphere. From a linguistic perspective, this kind of speech has two features. The same duality
of features applies to declarations of choice, which are expressed as both statements and
indirect incentives (advice). It should be particularly highlighted that the speaker invariably
communicates his taste in recommendations in addition to motivation. The speaker freely
provides the interlocutor with his point of view, which the interlocutor may accept or reject,
to rescue him from a difficult situation and offer the best option. Advice can be defined as a
preference in the shape of a subtle reward. Advice can be put into practice whether the
speaker is genuinely involved or when the speaker is unconcerned with whether or not his
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
32
advice is followed; in this sense, the second person will always possess the last word.
However, occasionally, threats, negative outcomes, and cautions are incorporated into the
advice or incentive's structure
–
either overtly or covertly
–
in the proposal. This severely
restricts one's freedom of choice and occasionally encourages undesired behavior.
Conjunctions like if, or, otherwise are typically used to introduce negative outcomes and
covert threats. For instance:
I'd better keep my distance if I don't want to suffer.
They'd better report them to the police or / otherwise it will happen again.
The way moral, ethical, and preferential expressions are used in comparison and
choice contexts explains their relative proximity. The speaker depends on his
understanding of right and wrong in every situation in which they are used. "A person
always tries to choose the good, strive to take the path of wisdom and virtue, and instruct
others on it," observes N.D. Arutyunova, "Even though in life the bad is much more
multifaceted than the good since it corresponds to unlimited opportunities to deviate
from the norm, and the good is consistent with the norm." Preferential statements are
statements of comparative evaluation, the semantics of which are unrelated to any
particular moral absolute. This is how they differ from moral and ethical statements.
Comparisons apply not only to items but also to situations, given their inherent variety.
Because preference statements can be applied to an infinite number of different objects
and situations, they have a greater pragmatic significance than moral and ethical
statements, which have a much-restricted field of applicability. For example, in the
following sentence, the game of cricket is preferred:
“
Oh, I am glad you have begun to take
an interest in cricket.
It is simply a social necessity in England”.
One cannot help but notice the complexity of preference's specificity about other
subjective modality phenomena when researching modality. Discourse actualization is a very
subtle mechanism that characterizes this interaction. One can observe the intricate modal
nature of preference constructions while examining one or the other. It is an example of a
semantic alloy made up of the modalities of comparison, desirability, and will expression (see
section 2.2 for additional details). As a result, it is frequently challenging to discern between
comparisons and statements of will or want and preferences. They are all somewhat
autonomous and have their linguistic standing at the same time.
We believe that the following factors distinguish them from one another:
1) Comparison sentences do not consider the utility of individual things for the
subject; instead, they just highlight the unequal amount of attributes of each object. By
contrasting the object with another member of the same series, the subject of the remark
appears to be distancing himself from the object. Only characteristics that are directly
relevant to the speaker's utility are compared in sentences using the preference modality.
Preference clauses are distinguished from comparison clauses by the choice component.
2) Sentences with the modality of preference only partially describe converse
relations, which are extremely frequent for comparative sentences (better / worse;
bigger / smaller). It is possible to compare a semantic trait on both an increasing and
decreasing scale. When someone expresses a preference, they usually describe the object
of preference in terms of a rising priority attribute. This explains, for instance, why
preference constructions employ the better operator rather than the worst one. It is
impossible to completely rule out instances of indirect expression of preference, though,
in which outlining a disadvantage of one option suggests an advantage of another.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
33
3) Any qualitative trait can be used to compare an object in a comparison
statement. This suggests that contrasts show the broadest. For example,
Dick is more
sensible than John, the latter being more sensitive.
Preference expressions differ in that they do not emphasize an object's intrinsic
qualities. Preference solely expresses an object's priority attribute as seen from the
speaker's perspective, hence its primary meaning in language is "good for someone" or
"better for someone," rather than "higher," "lower," "slimmer," etc. But we must never
lose sight of the fact that comparison is at the core of all preference.
4) Unlike preference sentences, which lack thematic consistency, comparative
sentences have a consistent set of objects to compare. Generally speaking, the things
under comparison are from the same category of phenomena. Conversely, a single metric
does not apply to objects of desire; in this case, a universal criterion is not used for
comparison. What matters in this instance is not the alternatives' thematic coherence but
rather the fact that they are all personal.
DISCUSSION
The meaning of the statement of will is another specific facet of the modality of
choice. Preference, in a profound, philosophical sense, is always related to the idea of
insatiability, a person's perpetual unhappiness with the current condition of affairs, as
N.D. Arutyunova correctly points out individuals are continuously faced with decision-
making crossroads, where they must tilt the balance towards the scenario that best fits
their circumstances. In this sense, the subject must undoubtedly be aware of the benefits
of one alternative over the other because, if both scenarios are perfectly equal in terms of
their utility for the subject, then he will not be able to make a choice. In other words, the
inequality of alternatives in a situation of choice is always noted.
The closeness of language models of expressing one's will and choice (evaluative
assertions of will and preference) suggests that decision-making processes (preference)
and their actualization in particular actions (expression of will) are inextricably linked.
To a certain extent, preference is a prerequisite for volition as a level of reasoning that
guards against rash and careless decisions. When it comes to language expression,
volition can be viewed as a reduced-preference structure where the logic behind the
action in issue is easily reconstructable. In English, the verbs
shall, will, should, and would
with inf. are forms of the future tense that are used to indicate will. Examples of word
combinations that express will include "going to do," "being willing to do," "determined
to do," and so on. The expression of will is frequently stated lexically
–
that is, by
employing the verb decide or the term to make a decision
–
in the description or narration
of historical events.
REFERENCE:
1.
Sirojova Zarnigor Nasriddinovna. (2024). THE PROBLEM OF MODALITY IN
LINGUISTICS. International Multidisciplinary Journal for Research & Development,
11(05). Retrieved from http://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd/article/view/1417
2.
Nasriddinovna, Z. S. (2023). Conceptual Analysis of Word Formation and
Sentences. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND APPLIED
LINGUISTICS, 2(5), 46-50.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
1 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
34
3.
Sirojova, Z. (2022). Functional Study of Syntactical Relations of Compound
Sentences in Uzbek Linguistics. ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu.Uz), 22(22).
извлечено от http://journal.buxdu.uz/index.php/journals_buxdu/article/view/8069
4.
Zokirova N. TARJIMADA LINGVOKOGNITIV DUNYO MANZARASI, LINGVISTIK
ONG VA LINGVISTIK ANGLASHNING O‟ ZARO MUNOSABATLARI //ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ
ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu. uz). –
2023.
–
Т. 29. –
№. 29.
5.
Subxonova, M. (2023). DINIY DISKURSDA METAFORIK BIRLIKLAR
TALQINI VA FUNKSIONALLIGI. Talqin Va Tadqiqotlar, 1(19). извлечено от
https://talqinvatadqiqotlar.uz/index.php/tvt/article/view/137
6.
Markova, Y. S., & Ruziyeva, N. X. (2024). REQUEST LENGTH
AS
POLITENESS
MATTERS.
SCHOLAR,
2(2),
227
–
231.
Retrieved
from
https://researchedu.org/index.php/openscholar/article/view/6140
7.
Markova Yelena Sergeyevna, & Ruziyeva Nilufar Xafizovna. (2024). The Role of
Politeness in Communication. Miasto Przyszłości, 44, 239–
242. Retrieved from
https://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/2413
8.
Sergeyevna , M. Y. ., & Savriyevna , Z. N. . (2024). Translation as a Bridge
Between Cultures: a Multidisciplinary Perspective. Miasto Przyszłości, 48, 80–
84.
Retrieved from http://miastoprzyszlosci.com.pl/index.php/mp/article/view/3414
9.
Zokirova N. TARJIMADA LINGVOKOGNITIV DUNYO MANZARASI, LINGVISTIK
ONG VA LINGVISTIK ANGLASHNING O‟ ZARO MUNOSABATLARI //ЦЕНТР НАУЧНЫХ
ПУБЛИКАЦИЙ (buxdu. uz). –
2023.
–
Т. 29. –
№. 29.
10.
Tolibovna, S. Z. (2024). FIRST LANGUAGE INTERFERENCE IN LEARNING A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR),
10(1), 311-313.
11.
Бондарко А.В. Теория функциональной грамматики. –
Л.: Наука, 1990.
-
263 с.
12.
Бондарко А.В., Беляева Е.И., Бирюлин Л.А. Теория функциональной
грамматики. Темпоральность. Модальность. –
АН СССР, Ин
-
т языкознания. –
Л.:
Наука, 1990. –
262 с.
13.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Логическая структура препозитивного значения // Язык
и мир человека. –
М.: «Наука», 1999. –
С. 449
-452.
14.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Модальные и семантические операторы //Облик слова. –
М, 1997.
-
С. 22
-40.
15.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Об объекте общей оценки // Вопросы языкознания. –
1985.-
№3.
-
С. 13
-24.
16.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. –
М.:
Наука, 1988.
-
341 с.
17.
Блох М.Я. Проблема тождества предложения в свете соотношения
понятия синтаксиса, семантики и информации // Вопросы языкознания. –
1997.-
№3.
-
С. 73
-85.
