Philological science/ 3.Theoretical and methodological problems of language investigation.

Phd. Avazbakieva F.R.

Master of Education. Emelyanova E.V.

Kazakh Humanitarian and Law University

Semantic aspect of politeness concept in the linguistic world-image of Tatars.

Philosophers and linguists are interested in axiological (value) concept, in which the individual or society as a whole expresses his, her own opinion about what is good or bad, worthy or unworthy, due to the fact, that through this aspect the communicative essence of language is revealed, and the content side of language is associated with human cognitive activity, representing thus a complex set of epistemological, ethical, philosophical and other problems [1, p. 127].

Semantic aspect of adjectives describing a person in terms of politeness, in Tatar language, is investigated for the first time. In modern linguistics semantics of different groups of words, combined by thematic or meaningful similarity or systemic lexical relationship, or the principles development of a comparative analysis of lexical units combined into “small subsystems”, aroused great research interest, reflected in the large number of works, including the dissertation researches. Name just a few investigations: R.P. Afanasyev “Semantic and grammatical classes of the Russian verb”, R.A. Vafeev “Matching principle of language small systems”, T.S. Gorokhova “Connotative aspect of verbal lexis semantics in the modern Russian language”, M.A. Eremina “lexical-semantic field “man’s relation to work” in Russian folk dialects: the ethnolinguistic aspect”, E.A. Zabrodkina “Semantic field “home” in Russian folk dialects”, I.I. Kireyeva “Structural-semantic and pragmatic characteristics of English linguocultural code “Flora” , S.A. Kubasova “Imaginative characteristic of a person in the Romanian language through comparisons with animals and zoometaphore (lexical-semantic analysis)”, T.N Kurenkova “lexical-semantic field of “food” in the works of N.V. Gogol, A.P. Chekhov, M.A. Bulgakov”, D.I. Lalaeva “lexical-semantic field of “time” in the Don Cossack dialect: ethnolinguocultural aspect of the research”, Y.V. Lashkina “Semantics of spinning wheel in Russian traditional culture”, N.N. Maslova “Structural and semantic analysis and systemacity of compound terms of Cardiology and Pneumonology (names of diseases and pathological processes)”. E.A. Monastyrskaya “Lexical and semantic fields of mentality and negative emotions of anger, fear and grief in Selkup language” etc. Thus, the theme of this study represents a great interest for modern linguistics.

The choice for the analysis of adjectives, describing a person in terms of politeness, is determined, first of all, by the fact that, units naming moral and ethical qualities of man, have a more complicated relationship with the denotation of reality than, adjectives denoting its physical properties. Secondly, value preferences of society in the sphere of moral and ethical relations caused by a wide range of socio- historical, cultural and ethnic factors are transmitted in linguoaxilogical aspect of semantics. This is due to the research importance of linguoaxilogical aspect of semantics of the named lexical-semantic group of adjectives, defining axiological correlation of reality and language in general .

The study of these adjectives from linguoaxilogical positions is impossible without the theory of linguistic world-image, semasiology and its basic concepts, such as lexical-semantic groups, semantic field, the inner form of the word, etc.

Lexical-semantic analysis enables to determine better the specificity of the semantic structure of the word, identify systematic organization of lexical material in the language, set its stylistic differentiation, and thus to determine the lexical-semantic group as a fragment of the worldview of people in human, universal and specific manifestations.

For the purpose of target goal, it is necessary to analyze the semantic structure of all adjectives in the lexico-semantic group (hereinafter LSG), to identify the main semantic categories within LSG; and secondly, to compare the features of the seme structure of lexical-semantic variants of words, included in the named group.

Having regard to the Dictionary of Tatar language, edited by I.A. Abdullin, G.H. Ahunzhanov, the following adjectives with positive evaluative sign were included to this group: abyz, adyaple, ahlakly, gadyatle, belemle, zyyaly, igtibarly, ilgyazyak, iltifatly, intelligent, insafly, ihtiramly, ihtiramchyl, kechelekle, kulturaly, maglumatly, myagrifәtle, myadyani, maydayniyatle, myanle, nazakyatle, ukymyshly, ukygan, tyakyallefle, totnakly, tyarbiyale, tyartiple, tubyanchelekle, tyenky, һimmyatle, yagymly, yahshy [2].

Integrating semes of lexical-semantic group of words are concentrated in the meaning of dominant adjective. In other words, in the semantic dominant, which corresponds to a single word, holding central semantic position within the entire field. The meaning of dominant adjective is integrating, combining elements of group, reflects a certain type of denotation. A denotation type is specified and represented within the entire field by certain denotations, thus emphasized lexical-semantic groups may be divided into smaller unities [3].

As a result of understanding of the nature of the evaluative meaning, its place in the semantic structure of words, and the contextual dependence we have identified three types of words: lexemes with purely descriptive meaning (type D), with purely evaluative meaning (type E), words with descriptive and evaluative components in meaning (type DE), the latter type is divided into two subtypes: with a dominant descriptive component (subtype DE-1) and the dominant evaluative component (subtype DE-2).

Members of LSG of adjectives, describing a person in terms of politeness, are identified with an adjective tyartiple, which acts as a dominant representation for all lexemes that make up the lexical-semantic group. By the nature of the evaluative component and its place in the lexical meaning, the adjectives mentioned above refer to the type, called DV-1, which integrates both the descriptive-conceptual and evaluative components. The evaluative seme is a component of the semantic structure of lexical meaning and is distinguished by practically zero dependence on the context. In other words, the evaluative sign (+) is fixed in the semantics of the word tyartiple, reflecting steady positive attitude of native speakers to the compliance with social and cultural norms of behavior in society.

The adjective tyartiple in the Tatar language is defined as follows: following the rules of good manner and behavior, accepted by society. Thus, the meaning following the rules of good manner and behavior, accepted by society (I.A. Abdullin, G.H. Ahunzhanov. Tatar telenen anlatmali suzlege) will act as common class meaning for the members of the lexico-semantic group in the studied language.

For more representation lexical units of analyzed lexical-semantic group of Tatar language will be presented in the form of a semantic field within which macro-and microfields will be allocated on the basis of further semantic differentiation.

Macrofield of lexical-semantic group in Tatar language is divided into two microgroups (hereinafter LSMG), located in the center of semantic field with differential semes:

-“adherence to external rules of conduct”;

-“the conformity of external behavior to the inner world of man”.

And one more microgroup with common seme “well educated, brought up”, which is located in the periphery of the field.

Microfield presents adjectives with metaphorical meaning, which often reflect linguocultural ideas of native speakers about the concepts, phenomena, objects, etc.

As was stated above the center, or archiseme of semantic field in the Tatar language is the adjective tyartiple with the meaning “adherence to external rules of conduct”. Units of semantic macrofield in the Tatar language may vary distinctively, for instance the common meaning for adjectives adaple, gadatle, igtibarli, insafli, tubanchelekle, tyarbiyale, himmatle, yagimli are represented with “tyshky adap-ahlyak kagiydalyaren buisynu”, in which additional differential seme is tyshky. Adjectives ahlakli, ilgazak, iltifatly, ihtiramly, ihtiramchil, kechelekle, myanle, totnakly, tienki, yahshy are combined with differential seme “tishki adap-ahlyak kagiydalyarenen keshenen echke donyasi belyan yarashui”.

Adjective tyakayllefle has the meaning “tyshky adap-ahlyak kagiydalyaren artyk totuchy” with differential semes “artyk”, “adap-ahlyak kagiydalyaren”. The seme “tyshky” combines this adjective with adaple, gadatle, igtibarli, insafli, tubanchelekle, tyarbiyale, himmatle, yagimli.

A famous Russian researcher Y.N. Karaulov writes: “The semantic core consists of lexemes with high frequency, the most common by meaning, in the literal sense, stylistically neutral, without emotionally expressive and temporal constraints, minimally dependent on context” [4, p. 65]. For example: adyaplе, ahlаkly, gаdatlе, igtibаrly, ilgyazyak, iltifаtly, insаfly, ihtirаmly, ihtirаmchyl, kеchеlеklе, myanlе, tyakyallеflе, tyarbiyalе, tyartiplе, totnаkly, tubyanchelеklе, tyenky, himmyatlе, yagymly, yahshy. The mentioned lexemes refer to the semantic type, called DE-1, which combines both the descriptive and evaluative components. Evaluative seme is a part of the semantic structure of the word. It is stable, virtually independent of the context, as long as the evaluative sign is based on the descriptive properties of an object which are exposed to native speakers’ value conceptualization. Compare: Adaple eget kebеk кurena ide (М. Hudjin, “Моnly koi”); Hurligаyan bik iple, bik tyartiplе yugyisya, shulai dа Ailаsh kаrtkа Hurlygayannyn nаdаnrаk buлuy оshаmyi idе (R. Bаtullа, “Аidаsh bаbа”); Musа Djyalilnen “Kyzyl chyachyak» оeshmаsynа iorgyan tоtnаkly kyyu yashlyar (Т. Kоrbаnоv, “Egеrmenchе ellаrdа”); Musа Djyalil guzyal kеshеlек syifаtlаry, in bеrеnchе nyaubyattya esh soyuchyanlеgе bеlyan, uz ailyana-tiryasendyagelyargya igtibаrly, yagymly ham keshеcha gadi buluy bеlyan istya kаldy (Т. Кorbаnоv, “Sоngy оchrаshulаr”).

The adjectives abiz, intelligent, belemle, ziyali, maglumatli, magrifatle, ukigan, ukimishli, kulturali, myadyani, myadyaniyatle are stylistically neutral and belong to the near periphery. In comparison with the core, their frequency is lower. Adjectives mentioned above are united by an optional seme yahshi belem, tarbia algan. By the nature and location of the evaluative seme in the semantic structure these adjectives are attributed to the type, called DE-2, i.e. to the words with both descriptive-conceptual and evaluative components, but the evaluative seme is not based on objective properties of denotation and, accordingly, is not included in their semantic structure. The lexical meaning of tyartiple reflects minor signs of denotation and is non-essential for them. Therefore, the semantics of adjectives of this LSMG is distinguished by contextual dependence. In other words, their semantics reflects inessential features, which however can occur in a specific context. Compare: Bik shap harakteristika yazdi. Min talantli da ikyan, belemle da ikyan (R. Batulla “Valiya”); Avildan kuilgan Hamidulla Tohfatullinnin uli Albert yat ilda da yugalmagan, ukigan, keshe bulgan (R. Batulla “Baylanchek uy”).

The adjective “intelligent” derives from the Latin word «intelligens» - «understanding», the word has been used in social meaning since the middle or second half of the XIX century in relation to the social group of people, having a critical way of thinking, a high degree of reflection, an ability to systematize knowledge and experience. The word “intelligent” fits into the microgroup of adjectives, with general seme “yahshy belem, tyarbiya algan”. This microgroup includes the following adjecitives; abyz belemle, zyyaly, intelligent, kulturaly, myaglumatly, myagrifatly, myadyani, myadyaniyatle, ukymyshly, ukygan with common meaning " having good education, manners ". However, this meaning is non-core for these adjectives. It arose out of Tatar language speakers associative representations. For Tatars politeness is closely connected with culture, education and belonging to the intelligentsia. In the linguistic world-image of Tatars the interrelation of concepts like “politeness”, “education”, “scholarship”, “culture”, “intelligentsia” is reflected. Tartars metonymically transfer the qualities of a well-mannered man to their typical language speaker - educated and erudite person, belonging to intelligentsia.

In the far periphery there are adjectives derived by metaphorization. According to Charles Forceville, the linguistic metaphor is a universal linguistic category and reflects the subcultural differences [5]. Thus, a metaphor is not just one of lexico-semantic methods of word-formation, but also a way of attitude and understanding of the surrounding objects and phenomena, where specific characteristics of a nation’s thinking are fully realized.

Thus, in the Tatar language the adjective nyazyakyatle with a positive evaluative sign characterizes metaphorically a well-mannered person. Elegant, graceful girl are the primary meanings of the combination nyazyakyatle kiz. They are converted metonymically into a meaning of delicate, polite girl. In the linguistic consciousness of Tatars such external aesthetic qualities as grace, elegance are transferred metonymically to the characteristic of behavior, i.e. delicacy, politeness. Metaphorical nominations belong to the type DE-2.

As a result, the study of the axiological and semantic aspects of adjectives describing the person in terms of politeness, allowed, firstly, to examine linguocultural ideas of the native speakers of different languages, represented in the adjectives of this LSG, and secondly, to determine the complexity of their semantic structure, to identify basic semantic subgroups on the value sign within a given LSG and further - micro-groups within the sub-group, and third.

References:

1. Arutyunоvа N.D. Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. – М.: Science, 1998. – 339 p.

2. Abdullin I.А., Аhundjаnоvа G.H., Vаhitоvа S.B. Tаtаr tеlеnеn аnlаtmаly suzlеgе och tоmdа. – Kаzаn: Tаtаrstаn kitаp nyashriyaty, 1977. – Т. 1-3.

3. Nikitin М.V. Lexical meaning of word (structure и combinatorics). – М.: High school, 1983. – 127 p.

4. Kаrаulоv Y.N. General and Russian ideography. – М.: Science, 1976. – 355 p.

5. Forceville, C., 2006. Non-Verbal and Multimodal Metaphor in a Cognitivist Framework: Agendas for Research. In Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Eds., Kristiansen, G. and M. Achard. Berlin, New-York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp: 380.