Conceptual and semantic expression of the categories of realis/irrealis

Аннотация

The article analyzes theoretical views of the grammatical category realis/irrealis, the contrast of grammes, conceptual representation of irrealis, its semantic realization and its grammatical indicator. The existence of prepositions referring to the future tense in the Uzbek language indicates the conceptual and semantic expression of the categories ofrealis/irrealis. Key words: realis/irrealis, real and non-real situations, suffix “– mish”, imperfect verb “emish”, grammes, grammatical indicator, conceptual field, perfective, imperfective. In some languages, the boundary between real and non-real situations may be clearer compared to the opposition of certain grammatical category grammes. We can refer to this in the Uzbek language the suffix “ – mish”, and the imperfect verb “emish”. For example: Oyim bilan dadam meni juda erkalatib yuborishgan emish, shu ketishda ketaversam, mendan qip-qizil bezori chiqar emish (To‘xtaboyev X. Sariq devni minib. 105-bet); Garchi u yerda hokimiyat Faridun Mirzo‘ning qo‘llarida bo‘lsa ham, lekin shahzoda janoblarining yoshligi va tajriba- sizligidan foydalanib, Darveshali jamiki ishlami o‘z bilgicha olib bormoqda emish (Oybek. Navoiy. 363-bet). In another language, the contrast of grammes of another grammatical category (for example, one-sided approach) is more dominant. This idea has been proven both practically and theoretically. In practice, it makes it possible to divide situations into real and non-real, and it allows to determine and describe the meaning of realis and irrealis of various structures in the language. It has a future tense, two negatives, desire, intention, and sometimes a future or command meaning - the verb suffix “- sa”, which expresses purpose and creates contrastive constructions. For instance: Katta bo‘lsam, deyman, o‘zimga-o‘zim, men ham odamlarga yaxshiliklar qilaman, kasalxonada yotganlardan ko‘ngil so‘rab turaman (To‘xtaboyev X. Sariq devni minib. – B. 69); Qasidangizningtuzibo‘lmasa,hech kim siznishoir demaydi (Oybek. Navoiy. –B. 99). It is necessary to pay attention to the absence of a single indication of the field of irrealis in the grammars proposed by J. Bybee [1, 265]. Therefore, the existence of a single index covering a small part of the typological irrealis category is also important in determining the realis/irrealiscategory ineach language. It seems that in the analysis of any language it is necessary to distinguish between the conceptual representation of irrealis, its semantic realization and its grammatical indicator. It is known that in some languages ​ ​ the distinction between realis and irrealis may not have any categorical indicators in the verb morphology. However, the existence of prepositions referring to the future tense in the Uzbek language also indicates the conceptual and semantic expression of these categories. For example, in determining realis/irrealis in English, J. Bybee refers to modal loadings. He refers to the terms “realis” and “irrealis” to describe modal loadings. The author's research covers a small and very limited part of the conceptual fields of realis/irrealis. The scientist concludes that it is useful to describe modal meanings with the help of narrower terms and puts forward the idea that abstract terms do not accurately describe loading meanings. Furthermore, he argues, itmisleads researchers engaged in cross-linguisticcomparisons [1, 265]. It seems that “realis” and “irrealis” are being focused on broader rather than narrower meanings. In fact, it seems more effective to focus on a set of more specific and more common meanings in different contexts than on general meanings in defining realis and irrealis. As a proof of these comments, we can observe that J. Bybee believes that the irrealis indicator can be Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages 237 ILMIYVAPROFESSIONALTA’LIMJARAYONIDAMULOQOT,FANVAMADANIYATLAR INTEGRATSIYASI expressed as the integrity of the entire construction used, rather than referring to the linguistic units with an unreal meaning in the broad sense of the realis category. That is, we can assume that the meanings of the irrealis indicator in different contexts may combine a number of grammatical categories that donothave a common feature. When analyzing the concept of “irrealis”, it is taken into account that there is no correspondence between the conceptual field and the grammatical expression. Obviously, it is not difficult to understand that there is a conceptual field that includes different ways of conceptualizing the situation as unreal. In fact, as noted, the conceptual domain often intersects with the modality domain. Perhaps the absence of realism cannot be the main characteristic of these conceptual fields. On the contrary, according to the purpose of the speaker, his description of narrow meanings such as obligation, permission, command or opportunity serves to define a certain feature ofthe conceptual field. The cases of using the term “irrealis” as the name