Хоrijiy filologiya
№3, 2021 yil
100
EVIDENSIALLIK VA EPISTEMIK MODALLIKNING KOGNITIV VOQELANISHI
(“TASTE”-“TA‟M BILMOQ” SEZGI FE‟LLARI MISOLIDA)
Xamrayeva Maxzuna Gayratovna,
QarDU o„qituvchisi, mustaqil tadqiqotchi
Kalit so„zlar:
evidensiallik, epistemik modallik, kognitiv voqelanish,grammatik kategoriya,
lingvistik konsepsiya, lingvistik kategoriya, epistemologik makon, ta‟m bilmoq.
Psixolingvistik nazariyalarga ko‗ra,
bizni o‗rab turgan borliq (undagi subyekt va
obyekt, voqea-hodisalar, yer, falak va
hokazolar)ni
biz
tafakkurimiz
orqali
anglaymiz. Sezgilarimiz orqali qabul qilingan
narsa-hodisalarni ongimizda aqlan idrok
etgach,ushbu ma‘lumotlarni til orqali bayon
qilamiz. Lingvistik olam tadqiqotchilari
bunday
klassik
modellarni
dunyoni
tasvirlovchi universal konsepsiya sifatida
aksariyat holatlarda nutq bilan bog‗laydilar.
Zero, insonlar atrof-olamni his qilish hamda
qabul qilingan ma‘lumotlarni o‗zlarining
qobiliyat va tafakkuri yordamida qayta
ishlash
jarayonida
o‗y-fikrlari
va
mulohazalarini
turlicha
bayon
qiladilar.
Mazkur jarayonda kattalar va bolalarning
fahmlash
(cognition)
konseptiyasining
vujudga
kelishi
orasidagi
tafovutining
ahamiyatli tomoni hisoblanadi.
[Jackendoff
1996, Miller and Johanson Laird 1976,
Pinker 1989].
Bu konsepsiya tilshunoslikda
evidensiallik hodisasi nomini olgan.
Evidensiallik
bu
–
grammatik
kategoriya
bo‗lib,
unda
asosiy
diqqat
ma‘lumotga qaratiladi. Evidensial tahlilda
so‗zlovchi ko‗rgan yoki ayrim dalillarga
asosan tahmin yoki gumon qilgan ma‘lumoti
tushuniladi. Ma‘lumotning qay yo‗sinda
yetkazilgani, ya‘ni insonning uni qay darajada
idrok etganiga ko‗ra ifodalanishi e‘tiborga
olinadi.Shuning uchun bu lisoniy hodisa
sifatida baholanadi.
―Evidensiallik
tushunchasi
inson
idrokini aks ettiruvchi til tarkibining kognitiv-
lisoniy
voqealanishi
natijasida
paydo
bo‗ladigan
real
voqelikka
aloqador
hodisadir‖, deydi ispaniyalik tilshunos
[Cornillie
2004;
62].
Bu
borada
Aykenvaldning qarashlari ma‘lum ma‘noda
farq
qiladi.Muallifning
ta‘kidlashicha
evidensiallik aslida lingvistik kategoriya
bo‗lib, u gapning semantik xususiyatlari bilan
aloqador bo‗ladi, chunki undagi bosh ma‘no
ma‘lumot o‗chog‗i hisoblanadi.Bu esa, har
qanday turdagi ma‘lumotning, hoh u rost
bo‗lsin hoh yolg‗on, qabul qilinganini
bildiradi. Evidensiallikda bu kabi morfemalar
ma‘lumotning tag ma‘nosiga qaratilgan
bo‗lib, belgilanmagan yohud bajarilmagan
ish-harakatni ham yuzaga keltirib chiqarishi
mumkin
[Aikhenvald 2004; 3].
Avstraliyalik
lingvist B.Monika evidensiallikni quyidagicha
izohlaydi: ―Ta‘riflarning qanchalar xilma-xil
bo‗lishidan qat‘i nazar, evidensiallik hodisasi
kognitiv asosga ega bo‗lib, so‗zlovchi
tomonidan
yetkazilayotgan
ma‘lumotning
tinglovchida
ishonch
uyg‗otishi,
so‗zlovchining
epistemologik
makoniga
aloqador ma‘lumotiga asoslanadi
[Bednarek
Monica 2006; 635
].
Har qanday ma‘lumot evidensial
tahlilda bir nechta sezgilar orqali qabul
qilinadi. Bular:
ko„rish, eshitish, his qilish,
hid bilish va ta‟m bilish
sezgilaridir.
Quyida biz ana shu sezgilardan biri
bo‗lgan taste (
ta‟m bilish harakati)
ning ingliz
va o‗zbek tillarida ifodalanishini qiyosiy
jihatdan evidensial aspektda tahlil qilishga
harakat
qilamiz.
Odatda,
evidensiallik
quyidagi kategoriyalar orqali tahlil qilinishi
mumkin:
-
turli tillarda kichik sistemalar va
evidensial paradigmalar; semantik farqlar
yoki pragmatik xususiyatlar orqali;
-
evidensial
birliklarning
boshqa
grammatik kategoriyalar bilan mayl, zamon
va aspektda bog‗liqligi orqali;
-
sintaktik va pragmatik masalalarni hal
qilishda
tobe
yoki
ergash
gapda
evidensiallikning cheklovlari orqali;
Хоrijiy filologiya
№3, 2021 yil
101
-
grammatikalizatsiya darajalari hamda
evidensiallikning diaxron ko‗tarilishi orqali;
-
sezgi fe‘llarida evidensial markerlarni
leksik manbalarga tasniflash orqali;
-
evidensial
markerlarning
turli
kontekstlarda takroriyligi, distributsiyasi va
o‗ziga xos funksiyalari orqali [Diewald 2010;
3].
Evidensiallikka
bag‗ishlangan
tadqiqotlardagi
ma‘lumotlar
dalolaticha,
mazkur tadqiqotlarda turlicha qarashlarni
kuzatish mumkin.Masalan, ba‘zi olimlar
evidensiallik hamda epistemik modallik
o‗rtasida bog‗liqlik bor deb hisoblashadi,
ayrimlar ularni ayro tushunchalar deb
ta‘kidlaydilar.
Evidensiallik
tushunchasi
ko‗pincha epistemik modallikning quyi qismi
sifatida tushuniladi va bu ikki tushuncha bir-
biriga
o‗xshaganligi
bois,
ko‗pchilik
tadqiqotchilarni
chalg‗itadi.
Chunonchi,
Palmer
(1986)
bilan
Kiefer
(1994)
evidensiallik hamda epistemik modallik
o‗rtasidagi
bog‗liqlikni
quyidagicha
farqlaganlar: ―Evidensiallik aynan sodir
bo‗lgan voqea-hodisa sifatida haqiqatni
anglatsa, epistemik modallik esa o‗sha
holatdagi ishonchning qat‘iylik darajasini
belgilaydi‖, - deya ta‘riflab, ingliz tilida
quyidagi misollarni keltiradilar:
I see
that he is coming. (evidential) – Men
uning kelayotganini
ko„rayapman.
I know
that he is coming. (epistemic) –
B
ilishimcha
u kelayapdi. [Anna Papafragou;
bet]
Aslida epistemik modallik lingvistik
modallik bo‗lib, u
bilmoq, ishonmoq, iymon
keltirmoq
kabi harakat fe‘llarining modal
fe‘llar
orqali
ifodalangan
variantlari
hisoblanadi. Shu bois, ular ko‗pincha turli
kontekstlarda
can,may, might, must, should
kabi modal fe‘llar ko‗rinishida uchraydi.
Ta‘kidlash joizki, epistemik modallik o‗z
o‗rnida ikki guruhga bo‗linadi:1)
weak
(kuchsiz);
2)
strong (kuchli).
Agar u kuchsiz
bo‗lsa, unda
may, can
kabi modal fe‘llar
bilan, kuchli bo‗lsa
must
yoki
should
kabilar
bilan ifodalanadi [Johnson 1979; 38].
Masalan,
Ali may taste the cake = Ali can
taste the cake (I permit) – Ali tortni yeb
qo„yishi mumkin (ruhsat beraman).
Keltirilgan mazkur gap kuchsiz epistemik
modallikka misol bo‗la oladi.
Ali should taste the cake (I suggest) –
Ali tortni ta‟tib ko„rishi kerak (tavsiya
qilaman).
Mazkur jumlani kuchli epistemik
modallikning namunasi deya ayta olamiz.
Shu o‗rinda ta‘kidlash joizki,
must
modal fe‘li ham
obligation
(majburiyat)niham
possibility
(ehtimollik)ni ifodalagani bois, uni
ikki xil zamonda va ikki xil sema bilan
uchratishimiz mumkin bo‗ladi:
Ali must taste the cake (I insist) – Ali
tortni yeb ko„rishi shart, boshqachasi
ketmaydi (Men majburlayman).
Ali must have taken the cake (I suppose)
– Ali tortni ta‟tib ko„rgan bo„lishi mumkin
(deb o„ylayman).
Biz evidensiallikni grammatik markerlar
orqali ham tahlil qilishimiz mumkin.Boshqa
tillardan farqli ravishda ingliz tilida evidensial
marker degan tushuncha mavjud bo‗lib, ular
tilda biz qabul qilgan ma‘lumotning bir
bo‗lagi sifatida xizmat qiladi. Markerlar,
odatda,
zamon
(-ed,
-ing,
-es)
ni
suffikslar
(s/es/d/ed)
ni, qisqartmalar
(can‟t,
ain‟t)
ni ifodalab keladi
[Faller 2001, F de
Haan 2001, Mayer 1990].
So‗zlovchi ingliz
tilida ma‘lumotning manbasini shifrlab yoki
detallab yetkazishi shart emas, garchi ularda
leksik va sintaktik semalar mavjud bo‗lsa
ham.
Masalan,
ular
gapning
boshida
aytmoqchi
bo‗lgan
ma‘lumotini visual
(ko‗rish)
yoki
direct
(to‗g‗ridan-to‗g‗ri)
bo‗lgan sezgilar orqali ko‗rsatib o‗tadilar.
1.
I saw Ali taste the cake.
2.
I heard Ali tasted the cake.
3.
Ali apparently, tasted the cake.
Yuqoridagi
gaplarda
to‗ldiruvchi
vazifasida kelgan ergash gaplarning barchasi
bir xil ma‘noni ifodalaydi, ammo bosh
gapdagi fe‘llar ma‘lumotdagi evidensiallikka
o‗zgacha ma‘no yuklaydi. Misol uchun,
birinchi gapda
I saw
deganda so‗zlovchi o‗z
ko‗zi bilan ko‗rgan ma‘lumotni yetkazgan
bo‗lsa,
I heard
deganda birovdan eshitganini
bildirmoqda, u rost yoki yolg‗onligi hali aniq
emas. Uchinchi gapdagi
apparently
ravishi
esa o‗zbek tilida
shubhasiz
yoki
aniq
ma‘nolarini bildiradi.
Demak,
evidensiallik
turlicha
shakllarda
ifodalanadi.Yevropa
tillarida
Хоrijiy filologiya
№3, 2021 yil
102
evidensiallik grammatik shakllar, ya‘ni verbal
affikslar yoki yuklamalar orqali yuzaga
chiqadi.Misol uchun, o‗zbek tilida o‗tgan
zamonni ifodalalovchi quyidagi suffikslar
mavjud:
-di, -ti, -gan, -kan, -qan, -gandi, -
kandi, qandi, -ganmish, -kanmish, -qanmish
va h.k.lar. Masalan,
(I saw) Ali tasted the cake - Ali tortni ye
di
(o„zim ko„rdim).
(I heard) Ali tasted the cake - Ali tortni
yeganmish
(birovdan eshitdim).
Boshqa tillarda yanayam chuqurroq
o‗rganilgan sistema mavjud bo‗lib, olimlar
Kolumbiya hamda Braziliya aholisi tili
bo‗lmish
tuyuka
tilidagi
evidensial
mofemalarni beshta guruh (isbot)ga ajratib
o‗rganishgan [Barnes 1984; bet]. Biz bu
holatni quyida ingliz va o‗zbek tillari misolida
tahlil qilib ko‗ramiz.
1) Ali
tasted
the cake (I saw) – Ali
tortni yeb ko„rdi (ta‟mini bildi) men o„zim
ko„rdim (guvohlik).
2) Ali
tasted
the cake (I heard) – Ali
tortni ta‟tib ko„rganini eshitib qoldim
(qulog„imga uning chapillashi eshitildi).
3) Ali
tasted
the cake (I heard, another
person told me) – Ali tortni ta‟tib ko„rdi, deb
eshitdim (boshqa odam aytdi).
4) Ali
tasted
the cake (I assume) – Ali
tortni
ta‟tib ko„rdi
, deb o„ylayman holatga
ko„ra, lekin ko„zim bilan ko„rmadim (tahmin).
5) Ali
tasted
the cake (evidence) – Ali
tortni aniq
ta‟tib ko„rgan
, chunki u doim bir
nimalarni yeb ko„radi (avvalgi ma‟lumotga
doir fakt)
Biz yuqorida birgina gapning turlicha
evidensial
ma‘nolarini
ko‗rdik.
Bunda
evidensiallik sistemasi pragmatik xulosalarni
keltirib chiqarganligi sababli, ma‘lumot
manbalari evidensial markerlarning turli
xilligiga qarab o‗zining ishonchliligi yoki
noaniq manbalar orqali yetkazganini ifodalab
beradi.
O‗zbek tilining izohli lug‗atida ―ta‘m
bilmoq‖ fe‘li e‘tiborga olinmagan, ―ta‘m‖
so‗zining esa quyidagi ma‘nolari keltirilgan:
Ta‟m [a. – maza, ta‟m, yoqimli his-tuyg„u]
1 Totib yoki yalab ko„rib bilinadigan
xususiyat;
2 maza-tot sezuvchi a‟zolarga ta‟sirdan
uyg„onadigan tuyg„u; maza tot.
3 ko„chma. Boshdan kechirilgandagi
taassurot, maza.
Ta‟m bilmoq
fe‘lining o‗zbek tilidagi
sinonimlari sifatida quyidagilarni matnda
qo‗llashimiz mumkin:
totmoq, totib ko„rmoq,
yalab ko„rmoq, yeb ko„rmoq, ta‟mini tuymoq
kabilarni kontekstda qo‗llashimiz mumkin.
Misol uchun:
1.
Hademay bir yil ham o„tib ketyapdi,
Hali o„sha mayning ta‟mi lablarda. Uyg„un,
muzdek qovunni yesangiz ta‟miga ta‟m,
mazasiga ma‟za qo„shiladi [Sh.Rashidov;
Bo„rondan kuchli].
2.
Dolchin, zanjabil va kardamon
maxsus ta‟m beruvchi ziravorlardir [Nargiza
Ikramova, Ziravorlar va maxsus ta‟m
beruvchi vositalar savdosining rivojlanish
tarixi haqida ba‟zi masalalar; 1-bet].
3.
Amir sarbozlikning ta‟mini bir
marta totgan Yodgor, bunday “ozodlik”ni
istamadi, sarboz bo„lishdan zindonda
qamalib yotishni a‟lo bildi [S.Ayniy;
Doxunda].
Bunda 1- va 2-gaplardagi ta‘m so‗zi
aynan bir xil semaga ega, 3-gapda esa so‗z
ko‗chma ma‘noda qo‗llangan.
Ta‟m
bilmoq
fe‟li
ish-harakatni
ifodalovchi birlik sifatida izohli lug„atdan
joy olgan bo„lmasa-da, ammo ingliz tilidagi
taste
fe‟lining ma‟no bo„yoqlarini o„zbek
tilida ham turli grammatik vositalar
yordamida
ifodalash
mumkinligini
misollarda ko„rdik.
Lingvistik
evidensiallik
epistemik
modallik bilan chambarchas bog‗liq bo‗lib, u
so‗zlovchining bayonotidagi fikr va e‘tiborni
dalillar
orqali
isbotlanganini
bildiradi.
Evidensiallikning tilshunoslikda ikki xil turi
mavjud: 1)
kvotativ evidensiallik;
2)
sezgi
fe‟llari evidensialligi
[Alexandra 2004; 32].
-
Kvotativ evidensiallik
deganda aslida
yetkazilgan ma‘lumotning yoki bajarilgan ish-
harakatning ko‗chirma gapdagi ma‘nosi
tushuniladi.
Bunda
shaxs
to‗ldiruvchi
vazifasini emas, subyekt hamda harakat
o‗rtasidagi bog‗liqlikni namoyon qiladi
[Lionnet 2017;38]. Masalan;
-
He said: I don‟t eat the cake – U
dedi: men tortni yemayman
(ko‗chirma gap).
-
He said that he doesn‟t eat the cake –
U tort yemasligini aytdi
(o‗zlashtirma
Хоrijiy filologiya
№3, 2021 yil
103
gap).Bunday holatda
I won‟t taste the cake
(tort yegim kelmayapti)
ma‘nosi chiqib keladi
(it is disgusting, yoki I hate sweets - U
yoqimsiz yoki shirinlikni yomon ko„raman)
degan pragmatik ma‘no paydo bo‗ladi.
Sezgi fe‟llari evidensialligi
deganda
ko„rish, eshitish, ushlab ko„rish, hid bilish
va
ta‟m bilish
kabi his qilinuvchi barcha sezgi
fe‘llari yordamida ifodalanadigan ma‘lumot
nazarda tutiladi. Chunki, nutq jarayonida
sezgi fe‘llari evidensial hodisaga nisbatan
referensiya
vazifasini
bajaradi.
Bunda
so‗zlovchi yohud yozuvchining ma‘lum taklif
uchun mantiqiy dalillarga asoslanib, fikr
bildirishi tushuniladi
[Murray 2017; 32].
Evidesiallikni modal elementlardan
farqlashning yana boshqa bir yo‗li shundaki,
evidensiallik kuchli epistemik fe‘llar orqali
ishlatiladi. Bunda ular ingliz tilidagi ikki
asosiy fe‘l
must
hamda
shall
fe‘llari bilan
kognitivlik hosil qiladi. Nemis, dat hamda
shved tillarida must fe‘liga nisbatan shall fe‘li
faolroq
ekanligini
e‘tirof etish lozim.
Masalan:
He is said to be extremely hungry –
u juda och ekanligini
They are said to taste the cake.I shall
taste the cake.
Merriam
Websterning
ingliz
tilini
yuqori darajada o‗zlashtirishga mo‗ljallangan
lug‗atida ―taste‖ fe‘lining 7 dan ziyod
ma‘nolari keltirilgan bo‗lib, unga quyidagicha
izoh berilgan:
1)
the sweet, salty, bitter or sour quality
of a thing that you can sense when it is in
your mouth;
2)
the ability to notice or recognize
flavours when you eat or drink something;
3)
something that gives you some
knowledge about what something is like;
4)
to experience something;
5)
to have a particular taste;
6)
a small amount of food or drink that
you have in order to see how it tastes;
7)
the feeling that each person has about
what is appealing or attractive.
Ma‘lumot sifatida shu ham ta‘kidlash joizki,
ingliz tilidagi
taste
so‗zi omonimik shaklga
ega bo‗lib, lug‗atlarda uning ham otga ham
fe‘l fe‘lga doir ma‘nolari beriladi. Masalan,
The wine has
a
slightly bitter
taste
– Vinoning
birozgina tahir
ta‟mi
bor (ot).
The food was very pleasant
to taste
– Ovqat
ta‟tib ko„rish
uchun juda mazali edi (fe‟l).
Bunday hollarda, tabiiyki fe‘lva ot
gapning kontekstidan anglashiladi. Ushbu
shakldosh
so‗zlarni
evidensial
tahlil
yordamida ham ajratib olish mumkin.Chunki
evidensial tahlilda grammatik markerlar
muhim o‗rin tutadi. Ular zamonni ifodalovchi
suffikslar oqali og‗zaki va yozma nutqda ko‗p
uchraydi. Chunonchi,
1.
The milk tast
es
sour. (hozirgi
zamon fe‟l shakli)
2.
The hot fried ham and eggs tast
ed
wonderful [E.Hemingway, The Battler p 92]
(o„tgan zamon fe‟l shakli)
3.
But there was a good bottle of
really cold, dry, resiny tast
ing
Greek white
wine and for desert they had cherry pie.
[E.Hemingway. The strange country p 2]
(hozirgi zamon sifat shakli)
4.
The food was very pleasant
to taste
( fe‟lning infinitiv shakli).
5.
“It‟s got a swell smoky
taste
”,
Nick said, and looked at the fire through the
glass. [E.Hemingway, The three day blow p
82] (hozirgi zamon ot shakli).
Ingliz tilidagi internet manbalarida
taste
fe‘lining sinonimlari sifatida
flavor, savour,
smack, tang, relish, nibble, mouthful, tidbit,
nibble, nugget, morsel
so‗zlari keltiriladi.
Yuqoridagi
fe‘llarning
barchasi
sezgi
harakatini ifodalab, ushbu fe‘llar
ta‟m bilmoq
semasi dominant vazifasini o‗taydi.
Xulosa
sifatida
aytish
mumkinki,evidensiallikdagi eng muhim jihat
ma‘lumotning asosini belgilashga xizmat
qiladi. O‗z navbatida, asos bir tomonlama
subyektning shaxsiy kuzatishi, ya‘ni bevosita
guvohlik berishini amalga oshirib, biror
kimsaning ma‘lum obyektni yoki voqelikni
ko‗rishi orqali, sezgi organlari yordamida his
qilishiga
nisbatan
ishlatiladi.
Bu
esa
so‗zlovchining tafakkuri bilan chambarchas
bog‗liq holat hisoblanadi. Bundan tashqari,
ma‘lumot asosi boshqa manbaga tegishli
bo‗lib, u bilvosita ham yuzaga kelishi
mumkin. Demak, evidensial tahlil kognitivlik
asosida yuzaga keladi, vatildagi epistemik,
grammatik
va
pragmatik
hodisalarni
aniqlashda muhim ahamiyat kasb etadi.
Хоrijiy filologiya
№3, 2021 yil
104
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar
1.
Alexandra Y Aikhenvald, Evidentiality. Oxford University Press 2004.– 481 p.
2.
Barnes J. Evidentials in the Tuyuka verb. International Journal of American Linguistics,
1984.-271 p.
3.
Bednarek M. Epistemological Positioning and Evidentiality in English News Discourse
2006.–P 635-660.
4.
Bert Cornillie. Evidentiality and epistemic modality . On close relationship between two
categories. Functions of language 2004. – 168 p.
5.
Diewald G., Smirnova E. Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages.
Berlin-Germany 2010. –378 p.
6.
Faller M. Reportative evidentials and modal subordination. Lingua 2014. –P 367.
7.
Fricker E. Testimony and epistemic autonomy In Lackey J. Sosa E. The epistemology of
testimony. Oxford University Press 2006.– 225 p.
8.
F de Haan WALS. Semantic Distinctions of evidentiality, Privacy Policy Disclaimer
1999.– 413p.
9.
Jackendoff R. Semantics and cognition In Lappin S // The handbook of contemporary
semantic theory 1996.–P 539-559.
10.
Johanson Laird and Utas, B. Evidentails: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages.
Berlin-Germany 1976.–P 28-43.
11.
Murray Sarah. The Semantics of Evidentials. Oxford University Press 2017.– 517p.
12.
Merriam-Webster
Advanced
LEARNER‘S
English
dictionary.
Springfield
Massachusetts, USA 2008.– 2032 p.
13.
Ernest Hemingway, The complete short stories of E.Hemingway. The Finca Vigia
Edition. Simon and Schuster Inc 1987, p 535.
14.
O‗zbek tilining izohli lug‗ati, ―O‗zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi‖ davlat ilmiy
nashriyoti, 2006, TO‗RTINCHI JILD, 648 bet.
Xamrayeva M. Evidensiallik va epistemik modallikning kognitiv voqelanishi (“Taste”-
“ta‟m bilmoq” sezgi fe‟llari misolida).
Maqolada ingliz tilidagi “taste” hamda o„zbek tilidagi
“ta‟m bilmoq” sezgi fe‟llari evidensial hamda epistemik tahlilga olingan, shuningdek,
evidensiallikning inson tafakkuri (kognitivlik) bilan bog„liqligi tushuntirilgan.
Xamrayeva M. Evidentiality and epistemic modality in cognitive occurrence (In the sample
of “taste”-“ta‟m bilmoq” perceptual verbs).
The article deals with evidential and epistemic
analysis of the perceptual verbs "taste" in English and “tam bilmoq” in Uzbek, as well as explains
that evidentiality is linked with human thinking (cognition).
