Linguistic incentive category: definition and classification: example of different systematic languages

Aziza Arslonovna Muminova

doi:10.21744/lingcure.v5nS3.1396

Authors

Aziza Arslonovna Muminova
azizakamadi@mail.ru
Senior Lecturer, PhD in Philological Science, Department of General Linguistics, Uzbek State World Languages University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Keywords:

category, discourse, linguoculture, modality, motivation category, sentence semantics, structure, text

Abstract

The article discusses the difference between the category of motivation and the modality, that is, it is a type of speech act in which the speaker's wishes, desires, wills, and intentions are given to the listener. While modality refers to the speaker’s response to the content of a sentence, the urge is expressed as the speaker’s command to the listener. The reason why motivation is separated from modality as a separate category is that it combines several elements under a common motivational semaphore, which on the one hand motivates the addressee to do something as part of a complex whole, but on the other hand they do not intersect. Each component has its own specific motivation, for example: command, request, permission, prohibition, advice, warning, and so on. Motivation as an independent category has a communicative semantic tone and its own structure. The structure of the motivation category consists of a combination of content, transmission, and expression. The content side consists of communicative pragmatic and semantic components, the delivery plan consists of a field of language units that reflect the meaning of the impulse, and the expressive aspect consists of phonological, intonation and graphic parts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdurazzakov, M. A. (1985). Semantic structure of the utterance (Semantic types of subjects and predicates. ?oscow.

Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010

Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in cognitive sciences, 7(2), 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3

Boymirzaeva, S. O. (2010). Categories that shape the communicative-pragmatic content of text in the Uzbek language. ?ashkent.

Charles, B. (1926). Language and life.

Dapretto, M., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (1999). Form and content: dissociating syntax and semantics in sentence comprehension. Neuron, 24(2), 427-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80855-7

Filatova, E. A. (1997). Incentive utterances as speech acts in modern Russian. ?oscow.

Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax–semantic interface. Brain research, 1146, 50-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.038

Gak, V. G. (2002). Speech is correct and speech is authentic // Foreign languages at school. ?5. – P. 85-89.

Garaeva, A. (2014). The development of linguocultural competence of students in teaching the history of the English language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 1012-1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.359

Goldstone, R. L., Lippa, Y., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2001). Altering object representations through category learning. Cognition, 78(1), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00099-8

Haddi, E., Liu, X., & Shi, Y. (2013). The role of text pre-processing in sentiment analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 17, 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.005

Hovy, E. H. (1993). Automated discourse generation using discourse structure relations. Artificial intelligence, 63(1-2), 341-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90021-3

Iosifova, V. E. (2011). Russian imperative in the grammatical system and in colloquial speech. ?oscow.

Kuteeva, M., & Mauranen, A. (2018). Digital academic discourse: Texts and contexts: Introduction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.06.001

Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8(1), 1-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(80)90015-3

Maslova, A. Y.( 2009). The communicative-semantic category of incentive and its implementation in the Slavic languages (based on the material of the Serbian and Bulgarian languages in comparison with Russian. ?oscow.

Narrog, H. (2005). On defining modality again. Language sciences, 27(2), 165-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2003.11.007

Rasulova, M. I. (1998). Problems of lexical categorization in linguistics: Tashkent.

Rezanova, Z. I., & Khlebnikova, A. L. (2015). Gender metaphors in Russian and English linguocultures: a comparative study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.634

Sh, S. (1980). others. Particles/Modern Uzbek literary language. ?.: Teacher, 432-438.

Smith, V. ., Florence, K. ., & Maria, F. . (2018). Semantics in cultural perspective overview. Linguistics and Culture Review, 2(1), 24-31.

Spooren, W., & Sanders, T. (2008). The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of pragmatics, 40(12), 2003-2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.021

Volkova, E. A., Popov, A. M., & Tikhonova, O. V. (2011). Ionization and stabilization of atoms in a high-intensity, low-frequency laser field. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 113(3), 394-406.

Woodlove, G. M. ., & Vurly, M. E. . (2017). Political discourse approach applied the current study issue occurred. Linguistics and Culture Review, 1(1), 26-37.