The article is dedicated to the syncretic feature of the Kazakh language, to which the analytic structure is inherent. The Kazakh language is considered as an agglutinative language, in spite of seventy five percent of predicates are conveyed in an analytical form. Despite this, it is impossible to find information about the Kazakh analytical structure. There are different phenomena in Kazakh, which are impossible to explain from the point of agglutination. For example, there is no the dominant verb aspect category, which organizes a sentence proposition, because they are mostly conveyed analytically. There are so many analytical composite predicates, which consist of several constituents, for example, құлап қала жаздап тұрып кетті, which consists of four gerunds and one auxiliary verb. The agglutination does not answer the questions: what is what in this composite predicate, the role of gerunds in it, how many semantic cores it has, what about syntax structure of this conglomeration, their dependencies on each other, because these constituents of analytic predicates do not agglutinate. Kazakh is one of the oldest syncretic languages with predicates at the end of sentences. The syntactic functions being carried out by the positions of sentence members and its multifunctional properties of parts of speech are the main indicators of syncretic languages. If a language has an agglutinative structure, the evidence for this phenomenon is the presence of affixal morphemes, if a language has an analytical structure, then what is the source of this phenomenon? There is no answer. The aim of the article is to determine the status of ‘syncretism’ in Kazakh and its analytic structure, which is inherent in syncretism and syncretism manifestation features on the background of Kazakh verb. The article also focuses attention on the thesis that languages do not consist of a single type, they consist of synthesized types. The Kazakh language is analytical on the basis of syncretism, then agglutinative language. It is impossible to find pure language types.
The Kazakh language is the Kipchak branch of Turkic languages of Altaic family. Kazakhs speak Kazakh. Kazakhstan is located in Central Asia and partly in Eastern Europe. It borders Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Russia, China, and others. Kazakhs live in many former Soviet Union countries and China, Turkey, Iran, аnd others 1.
When analyzing linguistic phenomena, comparing, contrasting languages, each linguist proceeds from the typological classification of a language. The typological classification of languages provides a comprehensive information about syntactic relations of linguistic units within a language system. If a language typology is identified correctly, it helps to choose the right research strategies, assumptions and decisions. If it is not so, then it will lead to certain errors, judgments, and conclusions.
Kazakh is considered as synthetic language and presents an agglutinative branch of it. ‘The mechanical attachment of unambiguous standard affixes to roots is called agglutination’ 2. The agglutination is considered the main characteristic of the Kazakh language, in spite of the most of predicates are conveyed in analytic forms (оқып отырмын, тыңдап отырып жаздық, барып қайтып келе жатырмыз) in Kazakh. The agglutination plays a certain role in these analytic predicates, supplying the last auxiliary verb of analytical predicates with post affixes for transferring the missing verb category meanings: tense, person and number (барып қайтып келе жатырмыз). The other constituent of analytical predicates is a gerund (non - finites). It inherited from the verb only aspect, voice, and mood verb categories. Gerunds and auxiliary verbs together pick up the necessary number of categorical meanings of the verb to express analytic predicates.
Only one fourth of Kazakh predicates are conveyed synthetically, they also use agglutinations. The main semantic constituent of analytical predicates with a verb denotative meaning is a gerund in Kazakh, it does not take agglutinations.
The Kazakh language is one of the ancient syncretic languages. It has all the characteristics of syncretic languages.
• Firstly, syncretic languages are languages with strict word order of sentence members. The Kazakh language uses such a basic word order: subject, object and predicate (SOV) 3. Мен (S) мақала (O) жаздым (V). The affirmative sentences of the Kazakh language begin with subjects and end with predicates at the end.
• Secondly, syncretism is the basis of ancient languages, there were no modern morphemic affixes and other synthetic and semi-synthetic means necessary for syntactic works at that time. All language needs were performed by the parts of speech, that is why syncretic languages contributed to the emergence of an analytic structure. Parts of speech are no morphemic affixes that can be inserted before, after or inside root morphemes, they must stand either in front or behind the word being transformed, creating an analytical structure. About seventy five percent of Kazakh predicates are conveyed analytically, which express sentence propositions. There are analytical word formations, form formations and others in Kazakh, despite the language is considered as agglutinative.
• Thirdly, syncretic languages are limited in the application of morphemic affixes either quantitatively or functionally.
1.1. A Little Information about the History of the Development of the Kazakh LanguageIt is considered that the formation and development of a language close to the modern Kazakh. language took place in the XIII-XIV centuries 4.
An invaluable contribution to the formation and development of the Turkic languages, including the Kazakh language, were made by brilliant representatives of the school of turkologists-orientalists: N.I. Ilminsky, who was one of the first researcher of the Kazakh language. The works of N.I. Ilminsky in the field of vocabulary formed the basis of bilingual dictionaries; V.V. Radlov’s ‘Experience of the Dictionary of Turkic Dialects’ in four volumes; P.M. Melioransky’s textbook ‘A Brief Grammar of the Cossack-Kyrgyz Language’ in two parts were contribution to the development of the Kazakh language. They contributed to the appearance of the first Kazakh textbooks, dictionaries and others.
A lot of work to the study of Turkic languages, including Kazakh were made by Soviet Turkologists A.N. Kononov, N.A. Baskakov, I.I. Meshchaninov, N.K. Dmitriev, D.M. Nasilov, A.N. Tikhonov, A.M. , L.N. Kharitonov, B.A. Serebrennikov, V.A. Bogoroditsky, N.P. Dyrenkov and many others. They dealt with the problems of linguistics of that time, such as the category of aspect, complex sentences and others. There were no special works on the typology of the Turkic languages, there was the work of Baskakov N.A. ‘Main objectives of the historical and typological studies of the grammar of the Turkic languages’, devoted to the methodology of historical and typological studies of Turkic language 4.
I would like to express sincere gratitude to all those Turkologists for their discoveries and deep judgments and conclusions in various areas of Turkic linguistics in general and Kazakh language in particular for their invaluable work in promoting Turkic studies in lexis, grammar and in the creation of writing.
The first textbooks in the Kazakh language - Oku kuraly’ (1912), ‘Tіl-kuraly’ (1914), ‘Alіpbi’ (the Kazakh language was written for teaching literate adults) (1924), ‘Zhana alipbi (1926) were written in Kazakh by Akhmet Baitursunov.
During the Soviet period (75 years) all national languages lost their status, having lost their social functioning, the languages began quietly stagnated due to unfavorable external conditions.
After gaining independence (90s), began to appear some scientific articles, studies on the Kazakh language. They were mainly devoted to modern directions of our time such as cognitive linguistics, discourse and others, but not to the basic materials of Kazakh language.
There was practically no time for a scientific and theoretical study of the current state of the Kazakh language.
The task was to analyze the concept of syncretism, its essence, features, role in languages. Syncretism was necessary to find answers to some issues: why some objectively existing language materials are not reflected in textbooks, why the basic postulates of the language cannot explain some linguistic phenomena and others in Kazakh language.
Syncretism turned out to be quite rarely studied, so the first step was to collect materials on this concept from those available sources, from different types dictionaries, websites, and others.
All practical language themes used in this article - the aspect category, non- finites, auxiliary verbs and others were studied before separately for scientific works apart from syncretism. Here they were investigated from the point of view of syncretism. It was a completely different vision, conclusions and judgments.
The first reason of studying of this theme was that having the aspect content plan in the world view of Kazakhs and the aspect expression plans in the matrix of objective Kazakh language, Kazakh has no the aspect category among verb categories in morphology in Kazakh grammar -books.
All issues of the Kazakh language are analyzed from the point of view of agglutination and the principles of synthetic languages. But not all postulates of the synthetic language fit the Kazakh language. It is not always taken into account that synthetic languages are different. Synthetic languages are divided into agglutinative, inflectional, depending on the functions of affixal morphemes. The agglutinative Kazakh and the inflectional Russian are two branches of the synthetic languages. In spite of having the same affixes: suffixes, infixes, postfixes, prefixes (Kazakh verbs have no prefixes), these languages are different. These affixes have different functions in syntax in these two languages, therefore affixes have different syntactical meanings. That is why it is not logical to search for answers of Kazakh language problems in syntactic laws of the Russian language, as it often happened. ‘…Turkic languages were described on the basis of Russian aspectual forms…’ 5.
‘Agglutinative languages do not fundamentally differ from inflectional languages since they reject any indication of grammatical categories through inflection’ 6. If the differences between these two languages ‘are not fundamentally’, such opinions support to refer Kazakh to the synergy of the Russian language. Despite the fact, that they relate to different branches of synthetic languages and their affixes are different in functions and semantics. This opinion continues to live inertially still now. Some unsolved problems of Kazakh are connected with this problem also. The problem of the aspect category, which is the basic category of the verb, cannot be resolved by the laws of synthetic languages. Kazakh has no enough productive morpheme affixes to create all aspect types synthetically as the Russian language, that is why they are conveyed analytically.
To proof this idea, let us analyze the role of affixal morphemes (reduced) in creation of the aspect category in the Kazakh and Russian languages.
|
Each Russian affix morpheme is ready to create the aspect expression plan. Russian infixes even create pair aspects: решить –решать, prefixes create all perfect aspects. The synthetic index of Russian affixes is very high in creating of Russian aspect category.
Kazakh has the very low synthetic index of affixes in creating of Kazakh aspect category. Only two affixes (postfix and infix) out of three affixes express the same Kazakh Fact (Indefinite) aspect in synthetic predicates. Kazakh verbs do not combine with prefixes at all.
The Russian language has many other synthetic means in aspect organization - the alternation of root vowels and changing of stress: предложить (the completed action, because the root – лож - has stress) – предлагать (the incomplete action, because the root – лаг- has no stress), different suffixes such as: - ива – разговаривали (for incomplete aspect) and others. Inflectional synthetic Russian conveys all types of aspects with the help of affix morphemes synthetically.
Kazakh has no such variety of synthetic affix functions and other synthetic means for aspect organization. Only Kazakh Fact aspect expression plan is conveyed synthetically with agglutinations. The other three aspects are conveyed analytically (Kazakh aspect was studied by the author of this article).
In languages with matrix of ancient languages, morphemic affixes are limited either quantitatively or functionally. It is clear that the Kazakh language refers to syncretic languages, that is why it is limited functionally and quantitively (there is no prefix).
Aspect is an internal structuring of actions: process, resultative, fact, protracted. If Kazakh has no the aspect phenomenon, then Kazakhs do not produce these actions. If there is an aspect content plan (each person does these various types of actions dozens of times a day, because action is the essence of a person), then the task of the language is to reflect to this content plan by language aspect plan.
The Kazakh language can not convey all aspect expression plans synthetically as the synthetical Russian except the Fact (Indefinite) aspect. This means that the synthetic possibilities of the Kazakh language in conveying the verb category meanings are limited. The Kazakh language presents aspect analytic expression plans for aspect content plans. For example, Kazakh aspect analytic expression plans:
Processti (Continuous) aspect: gerund + one of these auxiliary verbs: жүр, тұр,отыр, жатыр. For example: істеп жатыр, істеп отыр, істеп тұр, істеп жүр (all of them are translated is doing, but each of the auxiliary verb has its own shade in the Prossesti aspect).
Natigeli (Perfect) aspect: gerund + one of these auxiliary verbs: біту, болу, шығу, кету, келу, алу, салу and others. For example, icтеп бол, істеп біт (both of them are translated have done, but each of the auxiliary verb has its own shade in the Perfect aspect constructions).
Therefore, it is useless to look for Kazakh aspect organization in synthetic languages, despite the fact, that Kazakh is considered as synthetic.
Kazakh has no still the aspect category among verb categories in Kazakh grammar text - books. Despite this, Kazakhs use all kinds of aspects in their speech, writers write their masterpieces, and poets write poems using all aspect categories.
3.1. Various Types of Analytic Predicates in Agglutinative KazakhAn imprecise identification of linguistic typology arises some problems in analyzing of such Kazakh analytic composite predicates: оқып отырмыз, барып қайтып келе жатырмыз, which consist of several constituents. It is difficult to explain each component of this predicate from the point of its syntactic role, its dependency hierarchy, functions, semantics, and others from the point of the agglutination.
Only the last auxiliary verb of such composite predicates has an agglutination. For example, барып қайтып келе жатырмыз, the analytical predicate consists of four constituents. Three gerunds: барып қайтып келе and one auxiliary verb: жатырмыз, which has the agglutination - мыз, the indicator of tense, person, and number. The second important constituent of analytical predicates is a gerund. Namely it represents the semantic center of these analytic predicates, having the verb denotative meaning, and they have no agglutinations.
Барып қайтып келе жатырмыз. It consists of two semantic centres: 1) барып, 2) қайтып келе. The auxiliary verb has the agglutination -мыз, which expresses the number, person, and tense. This ending harmonizes these components from the point of syntactic connection. They are rather cumbersome. Analytical predicates with the two centre formats, practically replace two simple sentences. Барып қайтып келе жатырмыз, which consist of two semantic centres: the first centre is барып (had gone); the second centre is қайтып келе жатырмыз (are coming back ). Барып қайтып келе жатырмыз is the equivalent of a compound sentence: |Біз бардық,| қазір қайтып келе жатырмыз| (We had gone and we were returning). It is the equivalent of two simple sentences - Біз бардық. (We went). Біз қайтып келе жатырмыз (We are returning). Kazakh has no the rule of the sequence of tenses, that is why the first part is in the past tense, the second part should be in the present according to context: Біз бардық, қазір қайтып келе жатырмыз (‘We had gone and we were returning’ is in English; ‘We had gone and we are returning’ is in Kazakh).
What is a syntactic connection between these gerund constituents? Adjacency. What kind of dependency do these gerund constituents have? Semantically dependency.
English composite predicate ‘shall have been reading’ is easily explained from the point of constituents. Firstly, all the constituents of this analytical predicate express only one thought, because Participle I - reading with the denotative semantic meaning of the verb (to read) is the main semantic core of this predicate. Secondly, the rest of the constituents are auxiliary verbs, they carry out the compensatory functions. They translate the missing verb category meanings of tense, person and number to the Participle I. They also demonstrate the constituents of the Perfect - Continuous aspect - have presents some results in the form of the perfect aspect (I have been waiting for 2 hours – 2 hours is the result), been represents protracted action (2 hours is not 2 minutes yet), working (Participle I) indicates that the action will continue. There are only four auxiliary verbs: to be, to have, shall and will in English and so they are easily recognized.
There is another situation in Kazakh. Each verb of Kazakh language can become an auxiliary verb. It is impossible to find such a ‘sacrificial’ part of speech as Kazakh verbs in other languages, except the Turkic languages. They are always ready for any syntactic needs of Kazakh. It is the basic law of the parts of speech of syncretic languages, to do what the language needs. That is why it is difficult question to recognize immediately meaning of each constituent of analytical predicates in Kazakh They cannot be explained by Kazakh agglutinations.
3.2. Consequences of Subjective ErrorsWhat about those who want to learn the Kazakh language? Many native Kazakhs cannot speak in Kazakh, they speak in Russian and they have a desire to learn their native language. A foreigner wanted to learn the Kazakh language with the help of grammar textbooks. He did not succeed, he said in his hearts that ‘the Kazakh language cannot be described by categories of European languages’. But he learned the Kazakh language from the works of Kazakh native writers.
Native writers create their works on the basis of their born native language competence given by the Creator. It is such a great power. Each of us carries this power sometimes without recognizing what natural power we possess! It doesn't matter for native writers if there is the aspect category in the Kazakh grammar textbooks or not, they have it in their born language matrix.
If a language has the problems listed above, then it is necessary to reconsider the conclusions about this language. The theoretical part of the language must coincide with the essence of the objective language. Fortunately, objective languages do not react to subjective errors, they live by their own laws, but learners suffer, especially those who want to learn a language through grammar.
We do not always pronounce the word syncretism, but we often use the words conversion, polysemy instead of it. These are strokes of syncretism.
Syncretism has recently been actively used in philosophy, religion, and sociology, than in linguistics. What is a syncretism in linguistics?
‘Syncretism (Greek συγκρητισμός) in linguistics is a constant combination in one form of several meanings or components of a meaning…’ 7. According to A.M. Peshkovsky’s opinion, ‘ Syncretism is on the distribution of the same form between different formal categories and the heterogeneity of the corresponding meanings’ 8. ‘Syncretism is a form of expression, the ability of the same word form or construction to implement several syntactic functions, the ability of the same word to serve as a nomination for several phenomena” 9. ‘Syncretism is a coincidence in the process of language development of functionally different grammatical categories and forms in one form’ 10.
All presented authors’ opinions pointed out the same thought about syncretism, with that difference, some wrote several meanings in one form, some of them wrote several functions in one form. These two concepts ' meaning’ and ' functions ' are interdependent, if you change the function, then the meaning changes or vice versa.
Syncretism is the basis of ancient languages and some languages of today. Syncretism is a layered syntactic functions of one language form that unfold during syntactic functions according to context ( to
Syncretism is the basis of ancient languages. Syncretism is foundation of all languages, but in different degrees. More in those languages where the matrix of ancient languages has been preserved to some extent, less in languages that appeared later with synthetic and semi-synthetic structures and others.
The structure of the ancient languages was analytic, due to the lack of morphemic affixes and other modern mobile synthetic and semi-synthetic means, because syncretism worked with parts of speech. Parts of speech are not mobile, portable as morphemic affixes, that is why they are not inserted in words, they just stand before or after words to be transformed, making analytic structures.
Without the generative property of language, such a phenomenon does not happen. Syncretism creates generative properties of a language form based on a fractal-quantum basis.
The fact, that all language aspects (phonetics, lexis, and grammar) are subjected to generative property at the same time, allow languages to convey any thought in different language variations.
There was an information about analytic word -formation in Turkic languages at the conference devoted to word formation, where mainly talked about synthetic word formations. Lexicology is not my field. The idea was interesting, the first question was how? It was useless to search for information about analytical word formation in the ‘purely agglutinative’ Kazakh language.
While translating English sentences with phrasal verbs, I accidentally came across the answer to this question. I faced with analytical word formation in Kazakh: run in – жүгіріп кіру (Kazakh) – вбегать (Russian); run out (E) - жүгіріп шығу (K) - выбегать (R). English expresses these words by prepositions. Russian presents them with the help of prefixes. Kazakh expresses by verbs - one verb is in the gerund form, the second constituent is in an auxiliary verb form. They together make the analytic word formation. It confirmed the ability of Kazakh verbs to produce the analytic word formation. The question arose of what kind of life synthetical agglutinative Kazakh creates analytical word formation and how. What contributes to this phenomenon? The search led to syncretism.
4.1. Kazakh Verb SyncretismAll aspects of a language are subject to the syncretism: phonetics (four types of pronunciations of one English vowel, depending on the environment and position), lexis (contextual semantic changes of one word or transition from one part to another by conversion or affixes and others); grammar (syntactical changes of parts of speech into different functions and others).
Verbs, due to the syncretic property, carry out all the needed syntactic functions of Kazakh.
Let us look at the manifestation of syncretism in the Kazakh language through verbs. It is usually considered that the subject and predicate are the center of each sentence. According to L. Tesniere’s opinion, that the verb is the main member of sentences 11. The verb, having several categories, is really the semantic center and syntactic organizer of all (-) members of a sentence. Thanks to syncretism, verbs have several stratified functions.
Thanks to syncretism, the verb is involved in the creation of non-finites and auxiliary verbs. For what? To create analytic structures in languages, including Kazakh. It should be noted that if there were no gerunds, then there would not be analytical predicates. It is impossible to make analytic predicates from two, three, four verbs with their categories (that's what non-finites with the semantic meaning of the verb were needed for). Analytic structure needs constituents. Neither every word nor every part of speech can be a predicate, except for the verb with its six categories. It means, that the constituents of analytic predicates should have these verb category meanings: aspect, voice, tense, mood, person and number to be predicates. How to distribute these categorical meanings of the verb among the components of the analytic predicate? Should one of these constituents have all these verb category meanings or distribute them between components?
Language made it possible thanks to syncretism, it creates an auxiliary verb from full semantic verb, removing the denotative verb meaning, leaving the verbal category meanings: tense, person and number. It creates non-finites (participles, infinitives, and gerunds) with participation of verbs, leaving them a verb denotative meaning and the remaining three verb category meanings: aspect, voice, and mood. Combining gerunds with three verb categories with auxiliary verbs with three verb categories, Kazakh syntax got these six verb category meanings to express analytic predicates. Both of these constituents of analytic predicates are derived from verbs.
These two constituents, gerunds and auxiliary verbs are the basis of analytic structures of the Kazakh language not only predicates, but also word formation, form formation and others.
Examples of verb stratified functions in Kazakh syntax:
(1) verbs are transformed into auxiliary verbs to satisfy the syntactic needs of the language for creating of analytic predicates: оқып болдым, (it consists of two verbs: оқу - оқып in the form of gerund and болу - болдым in the form of auxiliary verb). Examples: жазып жатыр (is writing); жазып отыр (is writing); жазып тұр (is writing).
The full verbs: жатыр, отыр, тұр, жүр are transformed into auxiliary verbs. Verbs in the function of auxiliary verbs neutralize their semantic, grammatical meanings and lose denotative verb meanings. They perform such functions:
• compensate missing verb category meanings in gerunds, which are necessary for syntactic connections of analytic predicates: tense, person, and number. For example, жазып жатыр (жатыр, is the auxiliary verb, -ыр is the indicator of the present tense, III-person, singular form);
• represent tense meanings: infixes: -a, -e, -й in auxiliary verbs, demonstrate the future tense: aйтады; postfixes: - қан, - ген, -ды, -ді, -ты, -ті are for past tenses: айтқан;
• identify aspect category types.Aйтып тастады is in the perfect aspect, because тастады is the the indicator of the perfect aspect. Aйтып жатыр is in the process aspect, because жатыр is the the indicator of the perfect aspect;
• activate the verb categories of gerunds: aspect, voice, mood in analytic predicates. Gerunds themselves cannot manifest them in analytic predicates, but they manifest these qualities in the function of adverbial modifiers and attributes independently without auxiliary verbs;
• auxiliary verbs together with gerunds make up a syntactic grammatical single entity and their combination from the point of auxiliary verbs depends on the type of aspects. The constituents of the analytic predicates are invented in such a way, that each component must have three verb category meanings (gerund three verb categories + auxiliary verbs three categories) to make analytic predicates. Each category meaning has its own element in a single expression continuum of analytic predicates.
(2) verbs thanks to syncretism participate in the formation of non-finites (gerund, participle, infinitive), representing them their denotative meanings and three verb category meanings - aspect, voice, and mood, which are necessary for organizing analytic structures.
Gerunds are the main constituents of Kazakh analytic structures. Kazakh gerund consists of a verb and an adverb. English gerund consists of a verb and a noun and therefore it cannot be a constituent of the English analytic predicates.
Non -finites participate to make processible nominative secondary members of sentences. They are conveyed in analytic forms:
a) adverbial modifier of time:
Оқып болып, ол кітапты библиотекаға тапсырды. Having read (after reading), he returned the book to a library.
b) An attribute:
Оқып тұрған бала ол менің інім. The boy, who is reading , is my brother. Жазылып жатқан кітап биыл баспадан шығады. The book ,being written ,will be published in this year.
c) An object:
Олар оның ұстап әкеле жатқанын көрді. They saw him being caught and brought.
(3) verbs in the form of auxiliary verbs together with gerunds create analytic word formations instead of affix morphemes:ұшу-to fly, ұшып келу – to fly in; ұшып кету – to fly out; ұшып түсу – to fly off, that is why Kazakh predicates are cumbersome, consisting of several verbs. Examples: келіп кіру- go in, келіп шығу – go out, қайтып оралу - come back, қайтып кету - come away.
The verbs: кіру, шығу, оралу, кету in the form of auxiliary verbs combine with the gerunds to form new meanings. Келіп кіру consist of two constituents: келіп is the gerund and кіру is the auxiliary verb and they make a single unit with one meaning. The meanings of word forming auxiliary verbs express directions - кіру – to come in or to enter somewhere; шығу – to go out, оралу - to return or to come back, кету -to go away.
Word formation auxiliary verbs combine with gerunds on the background of their semantics.
The syntactic connections between gerunds and word forming auxiliary verbs are realized by adjoining. The word formation auxiliary verbs agglutinate (кетті) in analytical predicates. Gerunds (ұшып) always remain in static forms without agglutinations, so the auxiliary verbs change.
(4) verbs in the form of auxiliary verbs participate in analytic form formations.
Gerunds with these auxiliary verbs: жатыр, отыр, тұр, жүр (the indicators of the processti - continuous aspect), келу, кету, болу and others (the indicators of the natigeli- perfect aspect) create different types of aspects: ұшып келді - have flown, келу -келді is the indicator of the result aspect; ұшып жатыр- is flying, жатыр is the indicator of the process aspect.
Ұшып келу/кету/ түсу -to fly in/ out/off express only the perfect aspect: for example, ұшып келді – have flown in. In creating of other aspects, the combination ұшып келу is used as a single word unit. It combines with the indicators of the other aspects, for example, жатыр is the indicator of the process aspect: ұшып келе жатыр - is flying in expresses the process aspect, where келе is the word - forming auxiliary verb, жатыр is the form-forming auxiliary verb. Examples: істеп жатыр- the process aspect; істеп келе жатыр is the process aspect (first the action has been done, істеп кетті - the perfect aspect
- жатыр, отыр, тұр, жүр are the indicators of the processti (continuous) aspect;
- болу, қою, біту and others are the indicators of the natigeli (perfect) aspect.
Ол істеп келе жатыр is in the process aspect. The type of aspect is identified by the last auxiliary verb. There are two types of gerunds: iстеп, -п is the indicator of the perfect aspect. Kеле, -e is the indicator of the imperfect aspect, жатыр is the auxiliary verb, which is the indicator of processti aspect or the form forming auxiliary verb. It consists of two semantic centres, the first is істеп – had done and the second is келе жатыр is coming back. Істеп келе жатыр - After doing (having done), he is coming back.
(5) Verbs in the form of auxiliary verb and gerund participate in semantic generating process in syntax. They together express the meaning of other part of speech, particularly adverbs: үйді жинай сал, the verb салу - to build performs the function of auxiliary verb and expresses:
1) үйді жинай сал, caл expresses a mild form of a request;
2) жолда бұл хабарды айта сал, сал expresses additional action along the way (how?);
3) oл не ойлағанын айтып салды, cал expresses the action of an unexpected and decisive action.
They have the equivalents with verbs and adverbs.
Examples:
1) айтып тастады - say sharply (gerund + auxiliary verb,
1a) қатты айтты) - say sharply (adverb + verb);
2) айта қойды - say quickly (gerund + auxiliary verb),
2a) тез айтты – say quickly (adverb + auxiliary verb)
Which of these two equivalent expressions has the greatest impact on a person? Gerund + auxiliary verb.
(6) in addition to multiple functions listed above, verbs have their own six categories in a single expression continuum. Three of the verb categories - aspect, voice, mood directly relate to creation of actions. Tense has directily and indirectly related to actions, identifying action time realization. Two of these categories - person and number perform purely syntactic functions, express an agreement between subjects and predicates. Thanks to syncretism all these verb categories function in one single verb expression continuum, that is why they have no individual expression plans. It is difficult to imagine if each category of the verb would have a separate expression plan!
The single predicate expression continuum with all verb categories: жазып болдым – have read
1. aspect - perfect;
2. tense -past;
3. voice - active;
4. indicative;
5. person -I (I, II, III pl. in English);
6. number- singular (singular and plural in English).
Thanks to our mind, we decode all these verb category meanings in a single continuum in a second.
Such syncretic multifunctionality of language units represent strength and power of languages. All these presented items belong to grammar. Grammar has always been conservative in terms of modification. Why are the Turkic languages considered as conservative languages? Because parts of speech in our case, verbs, represent such basic morphological and syntactic functions of a language - transition from one part of speech to another, analytic word formation and form formation functions, making contextual semantic transformations from one part of speech to another and others, which come from the bowels of the language. These enumerated syncretic transformations occur due to solid verb base with their deep roots. So, nothing can shake, erase, destroy the structure of the Kazakh language. They are not superficial morphemic affixes (prefix, postfix, infix), which the slightest external changes may destroy their existence and disappear. As it once occurred with the synthetic English in diachrony, which became analytical in synchrony, it returned it to its source. Syncretism indicates the strength of the foundation of languages.
Information about Kazakh syncretism appears for the first time. The presented stratified verb functions with examples are from today’s living Kazakh language. There are given some examples from other languages for internal comparison and for manifestation of differences and similarities of these languages on the background of this topic.
Stratified functions of one language form and strong word order were the criteria for organization of syncretic languages. They appeared at the beginning of the development of languages, when morphological means for syntactic relations were not developed. So, they worked with parts of speech and word order. The Kazakh language corresponds to syncretic languages, since all Kazakh affirmative sentences follow SOV, all morphological, syntactic, semantic transformations occur thanks to parts of speech, and limited use of morpheme affixes.
Syncretism is the main determinant, the internal potential of the Kazakh language generation. Syncretism is a contributing factor to the functioning of analytical structures.
The Turkic languages are considered conservative, including the Kazakh language, they are conservative because the language is served by parts of speech, and not by lightweight morphemes.
The Kazakh language is analytical and agglutinative. Agglutination is also necessary for the Kazakh language for syntactic links, to indicate the person, number and time categories, but this is not the only typology of the Kazakh language.
Not to accept these existing errors, we multiply errors in theoretical aspect. Languages are objective and logical with the right synergy, because it is God's creation! Theories of language are created by people.
In analyzing the linguistic phenomena of the Kazakh language, we must always remember the syncretic basis of the Kazakh language.
We are far from thinking that we have discovered all the possibilities of the Kazakh language from the point of view of syncretism, the topic is open. Self-sufficient Kazakh language is not fully disclosed.
| [1] | Nusanbaev A.N. (2001). The Republic of Kazakhstan. Kazakh encyclopedic reference book. Almaty. | ||
| In article | |||
| [2] | Reformatsky A.A. (1996). Introduction to linguistics. Moscow: Aspent Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [3] | Greenberg J. (1970) Some grammatical universal primary elements regarding the order of significant elements. New in Linguistics. - Vol. 5. - M., - P. 114-162. | ||
| In article | |||
| [4] | Baskakov N.A. (1970) Main objectives of the historical and typological studies of the grammar of the Turkic languages. M. Science Press. P 80-92. | ||
| In article | |||
| [5] | Nasilov D.M. (1976). Once again about the aspect. On the history of the issue (to the 70th anniversary of Academician A.N. Kononov) / D.M. Nasilov // Turkolohika. - L.: Nauka. | ||
| In article | |||
| [6] | Humboldt V. (1984) Selected works on linguistics. - M. | ||
| In article | |||
| [7] | Maslov Yu. S. (1987). Introduction to linguistics: textbook. M. Higher school. (p. 120). | ||
| In article | |||
| [8] | Peshkovsky y A.M. (2001) Russian syntax in scientific coverage / A.M. Peshkovsky. – M.: URSS. (p. 53). | ||
| In article | |||
| [9] | Zemskaya I.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Shiryaevyu E.N. (1981). Russian colloquial speech//General issues on word formation. Syntax. M. Nauka. 278 p. | ||
| In article | |||
| [10] | Babaitseva V.V. (2002). Syncretism // Linguistic encyclodepic dictionary / ch.ed. V.I. Yartseva. M.: Bolshaya Ros. entsik. 406 p. | ||
| In article | |||
| [11] | Tesniere L. (1988). Fundamentals of structural syntax. M. Progress. 656 p. | ||
| In article | |||
Published with license by Science and Education Publishing, Copyright © 2023 Kakzhanova Fazira Aidarkhanovna
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
| [1] | Nusanbaev A.N. (2001). The Republic of Kazakhstan. Kazakh encyclopedic reference book. Almaty. | ||
| In article | |||
| [2] | Reformatsky A.A. (1996). Introduction to linguistics. Moscow: Aspent Press. | ||
| In article | |||
| [3] | Greenberg J. (1970) Some grammatical universal primary elements regarding the order of significant elements. New in Linguistics. - Vol. 5. - M., - P. 114-162. | ||
| In article | |||
| [4] | Baskakov N.A. (1970) Main objectives of the historical and typological studies of the grammar of the Turkic languages. M. Science Press. P 80-92. | ||
| In article | |||
| [5] | Nasilov D.M. (1976). Once again about the aspect. On the history of the issue (to the 70th anniversary of Academician A.N. Kononov) / D.M. Nasilov // Turkolohika. - L.: Nauka. | ||
| In article | |||
| [6] | Humboldt V. (1984) Selected works on linguistics. - M. | ||
| In article | |||
| [7] | Maslov Yu. S. (1987). Introduction to linguistics: textbook. M. Higher school. (p. 120). | ||
| In article | |||
| [8] | Peshkovsky y A.M. (2001) Russian syntax in scientific coverage / A.M. Peshkovsky. – M.: URSS. (p. 53). | ||
| In article | |||
| [9] | Zemskaya I.A., Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Shiryaevyu E.N. (1981). Russian colloquial speech//General issues on word formation. Syntax. M. Nauka. 278 p. | ||
| In article | |||
| [10] | Babaitseva V.V. (2002). Syncretism // Linguistic encyclodepic dictionary / ch.ed. V.I. Yartseva. M.: Bolshaya Ros. entsik. 406 p. | ||
| In article | |||
| [11] | Tesniere L. (1988). Fundamentals of structural syntax. M. Progress. 656 p. | ||
| In article | |||
