GRAMMATICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE CATEGORY OF MODALITY IN THE KAZAKH LANGUAGE

The category of modality expresses the speaker’s attitude to the connection that he establishes between the content of a given utterance and reality, i.e., attitude to attitude. This article examines the category of modality as a phenomenon of grammatical forms and its representation. The analysis of the features of modal words, mood, modal verb forms in the transmission of modal meaning is carried out. And we are also talking about the specifics of modal meaning in other Turkic languages, including the semantic differences between the languages of Kazakh and Karakalpak. Opinions are given regarding the allocation of modal words as a lexico-semantic class.

The category of modality can be considered both in morphological and syntactic, as well as in lexical aspect. The modal meaning is first expressed in grammatical forms. The article will touch upon the most frequently used language techniques in creating modal meaning, as well as the features of the transmission of modal meaning in moods. There are many grammatical ways to convey modal meaning, including purely grammatical and lexico-grammatical, morphological and syntactic techniques. Modality can be defined as a complex category that can be conveyed syntactically, morphologically and lexically. Although the article considers grammatical representative models of giving modal meaning, morphological approaches are becoming increasingly important. Syntactic approaches will be discussed briefly. In our opinion, syntactic methods of transmitting modal meaning are becoming increasingly associated with extralinguistic factors.

1. Azharbekova E. (2011) Transmission of the meaning of uncertainty through modal words / / Bulletin of Karaganda University. Philological series. – No. 2, 2011 – PP 49-51. (in Kazakh)

2. Akhmetzhanova Z. (1989) Functional and semantic field in Russian and Kazakh languages. – Alma-Ata, 1989. – 108 P. (in Kazakh)

3. Baitursynuly A. (1992) Language Teaching. – Almaty: Ana Tili, 1992. – 447 P. (in Kazakh)

4. Baskakov N. (1970) Grammar of Turkmen language. Part I. Phonetics and morphology. Ashgabat. – 1970. 463 p. (in Russian)

5. Imankulova S. (2012) Expression of modality values / / Bulletin of kaznu. Philological series. №1(135). 2012. pp. 113-115. (in Kazakh)

6. Iskakov A., Aralbayev zh. (1991) Modern Kazakh language. Almaty, 1991. – 384 P. (in Kazakh)

7. Kazakh grammar. Phonetics, word formation, morphology, syntax. (2002) – Astana, 2002. – 784 P. (in Kazakh)

8. Kulmanov S. (2007) Functional and semantic field of opportunity modality in the Kazakh language. – Almaty, 2007. – 153 P. (in Kazakh)

9. Oralbay N. (2007) Morphology of the modern Kazakh language. – Almaty, 2007. – 390 P. (in Kazakh)

10. Sairambaev T. (1991) Syntax of a phrase and a simple sentence. – Almaty: Rauan, 1991. (in Kazakh)

11. Tuimebayev Zh. (2018) Comparative grammar of Kazakh and Karakalpak languages. – Almaty: Kazygurt, 2018. – 248 P. (in Kazakh)

12. Tuimebayev Zh., Sagidolda G. (2016) Comparative descriptive grammar of Kazakh and Turkish languages. Phonetics. Morphology. Second edition. – Almaty: «Kazygurt», 2016. – 324 P. (in Kazakh)

13. Zhubayeva O. (2014) Cognitive grammar of the Kazakh language. – Almaty: Kazygurt publishing house. – 2014. – 392 P. (in Kazakh)

14. Vinogradov V. V. (1972) Russian language. MOSCOW: AN SSR, 1972. – P. 616 (in Russian)

15. Gak V.G. (1993) Space of thought (Experience of systematization of words of the mental field) // Logical analysis of language. mental actions. – M., 193. – Issue. 6. (in Russian)

16. Vezhbitskaya A. (1997) Language. Culture. Cognition: Per. from English. / Rev. ed. M.A. Krongauz; intro. Art. E.V. Paducheva. – M .: Russian dictionaries, 1997 (in Russian)