19 марта 2016г.
Annotation: Linguists repeatedly address to a question of relationship of languages, of a ratio of language and the speech. Studying of separate units of language displays their rather real functioning in the speech. Incentive statements - a universal product of speech activity, are submitted almost in all languages. Research of similarities and distinctions in the forms expressing motivation by means of a subjunctive mood in the Tatar and English languages causes a certain interest.
The subjunctive mood is a functional analogue of imperative is constantly considered in many languages. The subjunctive mood expresses hypothetical action from the point of view of the speaker that obtains a variety of modal and expressive-emotional meanings in the context: desire, motivation, remorse, etc.[3]
Semantically "desire" and "motivation" are very close: motivation is the actualization of the desire, so the subjunctive mood can be used to express motivation. In this case we deal with the figurative use of this form in the meaning close to the semantics of the imperative [1]. We find a slightly different characteristic in Hook:
"The subjunctive mood expresses not a motivation, but a desire towards not an interlocutor but towards another person". [6]
In English a synthetic form of the subjunctive mood in present tense, which coincides in form with the base of the infinitive for all the persons in singular and plural, and the combination of may with the infinitive is usually used in various slogans, appeals, wishes (in the form of frozen expressions):
1) Be it so!
Success attend you! Long live freedom! May you be happy!
2) “Be happy and peace be with you, my dear”, said the mother (H.Lawson “His Father’s Mate”).
The forms of the subjunctive mood (synthetic and analytical forms) are widely used to express the semantics of the persistent advice, demand, request, proposal and recommendation in complex sentences after such constructions as:
I insist, I suggest, I advise, It is important, It is necessary , We propose , We recommend, It’ time to.. and so on: demand:
1) - Hastings required that all be kept secret (A. Christie “The Four Suspects”).
2) -The policeman ordered that none should leave the room (A. Christie “The
Mistery of the Blue Jar”).
3) - It is necessary that you should stay with us in the house (J.Lang “Barrington).
4) - It is high time you went to bed (L. Hadow “Sunday Afternoon”).. suggestion:
1) -Mom suggested that Sally should join us
2) (L.Hadow “Sunday Afternoon”).
3) -She had suggested that Abraham arrive precisely at one-thirty (I.Stone). advice:
-Is often expressed by the synthetic form of the subjunctive mood
If I were you, I should get that car serviced, which is transformed into a simple sentence as a result of transposition during the communication
I should get that car serviced:
- Meg? Did you polish your shoes? – she called.
- I hadn’t thought about it.
- I should get that shoes polished! – she advised (P.White “Down at the Dump”).
-Is expressed by the subordinate clause after the main sentence It is time…
Your father needs you on the farm of course but it is time you started earning your own living (J.Morrison “Morning Glory”).
The subjunctive mood in the Tatar language, as well as in English, is characterized in a simple sentence by polysemy: it is associated with a complex system of subjective attitude of the speaker to what he judges and evaluates.
In the Tatar language the form of the 2nd person in singular and plural finishing with - Р + иде expresses undemanding incentive to action, request:
1) - Бер-бер хезмәт белән килдегезме? – диде.
- Хезмәтем юк минем, мөмкин булса дәрес күрер идем, углым, - дидем (Ризаэддин бине Фәхреддин “Әсма, яки гамәл вә җәза”.
2) - Исән калсагыз, гомерегез буена шулай җырлый алыр идегез (Ю.Әминов “Үлемнең үлеме”).
Sometimes forms of imperative within the meaning of the subjunctive can be met in the language, with the intention of soft incentive to action, request:
1) - “ Аллаһы Тәгалә сиңа озын гомер бирсен. Синнән башка калмасам иде. Син үлсәң, егерме мең түгел, йөз мең булсын, миненм күзәмә күрәнмәс. Минем кызгануның кадерен белү өчен, васыять итеп биш йөз яки мең тәңкәлек вексель бирсәң дә кабул итәр идем” (Р.бине Фәхреддин “Әсма, яки гамәл вә җәза”);
2)- Сиңа әйтәм, мүкләк сыер булып, телеңне тешләп ник йөрисең син, Борһанетдин? Улың кәнсәләрдә дәү түре, баш хисапчы, намусы булса, әтисен төнге каравылчы итеп тотмасые, дәрәҗәләрәк бер эшкә куярые,... минем ике кызыма, багалмаларыма булышса, матур күлмәкләр алып бирсә, яңа капка ясаса, кулы корымасые...(Г.Ахунов “Тимерханның яшлеге”).
Subjunctive form finds its application in proverbs and sayings to express an advise, moral: Do as you would be done by.
Better be the head of a dog than the tail of a lion. Авыруың булса булсын, бурычың булмасын. Башың карт булса булсын, йорәгең карт булмасын.
Thus, the following similarities and differences in the forms expressing the motivation with the help of the subjunctive mood in the Tatar and Russian languages can be named:
- In the Tatar language the scope of the subjunctive mood with the intention of motivating is much less than in English, in which forms of the subjunctive mood can be observed in subordinate clauses of the object and subordinate clauses of the subject;
- In both languages form of the subjunctive mood is used mainly in complex sentences and very rarely by itself;
- In both languages the use of the subjunctive mood in stable combinations, proverbs and sayings is inherent.
List of references
1. Bondarko A.V. Functional Grammar. - L .:Nauka, 1984-136 p.
2. Davis E.E The English Imperative. - London, 1986. - 36 p.
3. Gak V.G. On the problem of semantic syntagmatics / V.G.Gak // Problems of structural linguistics. - M .: Nauka, 1972. - p. 367-395.
4. Habirova N.M. Ways of expression incentive intentions in English and Tatar languages: Avtoref.dis ....kand.filol.nauk. -Kazan, 2004, 21 p.
5. Leech G., Svartvic J. A Communicative Grammar of English // Moscow-Prosvesheniye, 1983. - 128-134 p.
6. Zakiev M.Z.Tatarskaya Grammar: 3t.- Morfologiya.11t. - Kazan: Tat.kn.izd of, 1993. – 397 p.
