.png)
UDC 811.161.1
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.1-21.014
Devyatova Nadezda M.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Russian Language and General Linguistics Department of the Institute of Humanities
Moscow City Pedagogical University
e-mail: Deviatovan@mail.ru
The article considers a group of introductory-modal words ‘вообще, вообще-то, в общем, в общем-то, вообще-то говоря’. Having the ability to express the idea of generalization, they are distinguished by their pragmatics, the subtle nuances of modus meanings and ratings. The differences relate to the speaker’s attitude to the situation and its assessment: whether the situation is presented as significant, requiring attention and effort (‘и вообще’), or as natural, ordinary (‘в общем’). In the number of units studied, the meaning “the way of expressing a thought and its design” is also significant, dealing with a greater or less categorical utterance of a statement. For ‘вообще-то говоря’ priority meaning is the meaning of “a way of expressing thoughts” — a polite form of expression of thought can be noted. The polite form is ‘вообще-то говоря’.'
Keywords: subjective modality, introductory modal word, point of view, assessment, pragmatic meaning.
References
1. Vinogradov V.V. O kategorii modal’nosti i modal’nykh slovakh v russkom iazyke // Trudy Instituta russkogo iazyka. T. 2. Moscow – Leningrad, 1950. S. 38–79.
2. Zolotova G.A. Ocherk funktsional’nogo sintaksisa russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Knizhnyi dom “LIBROKOM”, 2009. 352 s.
3. Khimik V.V. Kategoriia sub"ektivnosti i ee vyrazhenie v russkom iazyke. Leningrad: Izd-vo LGU, 1990. 180 s.
4. Orekhova E.N. Sub”ektivnaia modal’nost’ vyskazyvaniia: forma, semantika, funktsii. Moscow, 2011. 296 s.
5. Russkaia grammatika. T. 2. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. 710 s.
6. Deviatova N.M. Vvodno-modal’nye slova i problema ikh tekstovoi semantiki // Vestnik MGOU. Seriia: Russkaia filologiia. 2020. No. 1. S. 26–36.
7. Baranov A.N., Plungian V.A., Rakhilina E.V. Putevoditel’ po diskursivnym slovam russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Pomovskii i partnery, 1993. 205 s.
8. Cheremisina M.I., Kolosova T.A. Ocherki po teorii slozhnogo predlozheniia. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Sibirskoe otd-e. 1987. 200 s.
9. Balli Sh. Obshchaia lingvistika i voprosy frantsuzskogo iazyka. Moscow: Izd-vo inostrannoi literatury, 1955. 416 s.
10. Iakovleva E.S. Soglasovanie modusnykh kharakteristik v vyskazyvanii // Logicheskii analiz iazyka. Izbrannoe 1988–1995. Moscow: Indrik, 2003. S. 129–146.
11. Ionesian E.R. Problemy epistemicheskogo soglasovaniia // Problemy intensional’nykh i pragmaticheskikh kontekstov. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. S. 116–133.
12. Deviatova N.M. Problema modusa i vvodno-modal’nye slova: lingvisticheskii portret edinitsy pokhozhe // Russkii iazyk v shkole. 2009. No. 7. S. 61–65.
13. Ozhegov S.I. Slovar’ russkogo iazyka. Moscow: Russkii iazyk, 1991. 917 s.
14. Arutiunova N.D. Iazyk i mir cheloveka. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1999. 896 s.
15. Gatinskaia N.V. Portret leksemy voobshche (opyt funktsional’no-semanticheskogo opisaniia) // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 9. Filologiia. 2002. No. 5. S. 122–130.
16. Posobie po russkomu iazyku dlia postupaiushchikh v vuzy: Orfografiia i punktuatsiia / V.N. Svetlysheva, V.L. Leshchenko, T.M. Voiteleva i dr. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1997. 240 s.