Linguocognitive Principles Of Using Modal Units In Speech
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51699/ijllal.v4i1.267Keywords:
Linguocognitive Principles, Modal Units, Modality, Cognitive Linguistics, Epistemic Modality, Deontic Modality, Pragmatics Interpersonal Communication, Cultural Norms, Digital CommunicationAbstract
In this article the author analyses the concepts connected with linguocognitive approach to the use of modal units in speech, investigated in the focus on this language, thought and social action. Several types of modals are used as can, may, must, and should which express shades of possibilities, requirement, permission, and capability. The discussion focuses on the nature of modality emphasizing on the role of those linguistic tools in human cognitive process. It then goes further to examine the functional concern of modality in interactional practices, and in so doing demonstrates how a speaker mediates social relations and responds to politeness and culture. Also, turning to the aspect of interaction, the article analyzes the effects of the digital communication on modal expressions and their role in relations between people. With this analysis of modality, this investigation adds to an understanding of language as a complex, intelligent, and social phenomenon.
References
Goldberg, A. E., R. Jackendoff. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 2004.80,–Р. 532–568.
Hoekstra T.Small Clause Results // Lingua. 1988. № 74. –P. 101-139.
Jackendoff R. Conceptual semantics and cognitive linguistics // Language, № 7. 1996; 104, –Р 93129.
Jackendoff R. Semantic structures. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. USA. 1990. –312p.
Levin B., RappaportM. The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity”. In I.M. Roca (ed), Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.–P. 247-269.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Beth Levin. An event structure account of English resultatives.Language 77: 2001. –Р.766-797.
Rappaport T. R. Secondary Predication and the Lexical Representation of Verbs //Machine Translation 5, 1990. –P.31-55.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, Beth Levin. 1996. Two types of derived accomplishments // Proceedings of the First LFG Workshop, ed. by Miriam Butt and Tracy H. King.Retrieved June 22, 2013, from http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/1/toc-lfg1.html.
Sweetser, E. (1990). *From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure*. Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). *Mood and Modality*. Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. (2010). *Language, Usage and Cognition*. Cambridge University Press.
Alimova, M. (2024). Effective Practice of Learning English at Universities in Uzbekistan. Features of the Linguocognitive Approach to Grammatical Phenomena of Language. Proceedings - 2024 4th International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education, TELE 2024, 295–300. https://doi.org/10.1109/TELE62556.2024.10605595
Filippova, I. N. (2019). RECIPIENT FACTOR IN POETIC TRANSLATION DIACHRONY. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 10(2), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2019-10-2-435-450
Mironova, D. M. (2019). SYSTEM APPROACH PRINCIPLES IN THE COGNITIVE STUDIES OF LANGUAGE: RELEVANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION. Philological Class, 58(4), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.26170/FK19-04-03
Mironova, D. M. (2020). On the systemological adequacy of a cognitive approach to language. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, Filologiya, 63, 64–82. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/63/4
Skorobohatova, O. O. (2022). The Role of the Prototypes нет and без in the Formation and Explication of the Notion “Absence” in Poetic Texts. Studia Slavica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 66(1), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1556/060.2021.00016
Tivyaeva, I. (2021). Linguistic memory studies: Track record and prospects. Ezikov Svyat, 19(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.37708/ezs.swu.bg.v19i2.1
