EPISTEMIC MODALITY OF THE RUTHENIAN DISCOURSE PRACTICES IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/2520-6397.2020.1.09Keywords:
epistemic modality, verbs, homiletic and polemical discourse practices of the 16th and 17th centuries, early Modern period in UkraineAbstract
The article analyzes the influence of epistemic modality on the change of discourse practices in Ukraine in the early Modern period. It explores discourse practices of the 16th and 17th centuries in their dynamic state applying the principles of ‘cultural knowledge’ (the term introduced by M. Foucalt).
The paper discusses the common and distinctive features of realizing epistemic modality in polemical and homiletic discourses. The author argues that they are new discourse practices, which appeared as a result of compelling social needs arising in the 16th and 17th centuries, while the functions of the literary language of the time, the Ruthenian language, enhanced. The study shows that in the discourse practices, religious notions were conceived through demonstrating epistemic states of the author / readers that reveal the subjectivity / intersubjectivity in conception, interpretation, and understanding the postulates of faith.
The paper proves that epistemic modality is interlinked with certainty, evidentiality, and inferentiality. The article focuses on the epistemic verbs знати (to know), відати (to be aware), розуміти (to understand) which explicate the epistemic modus of the author in these discourse practices and perform phatic and persuasive functions. Thus, the paper considers discursive features of the phraseological unit дати знати (let sb know), signaling the transition from a quotation to an inference, an explication of the message of the preacher. The study also presents grammatical modifications of the phraseological unit: the past tense forms (давал/дал знати), the impersonal form -но (давано знати), participle (даючи знати). The author establishes the link between the epistemic вѣдат with indirect evidentiality and certainty. The author also shows the dominant of the epistemic verb розумѣти in the discourse of the polemists and preachers of the early Modern period.
References
Averina, A. V. (2010). Stilisticheskii aspekt funktsionalno- semanticheskogo polia (na primere polia epistemicheskoi modalnosti nemetskogo yazyka). Specialnost: 10.02.04 - germanskiie yazyki; avtoref. dis. dokt. fil. nauk. Moskva, 39 s. [in Russian].
Arutiunova, N. D. (1988).Tipy yazykovykh znachenii: Otsenka, sobytiie, fakt. Moskva: Nauka, 341 s. [in Russian].
Blox, M. Ya., Averina, A. V. (2011). Pole epistemicheskoi modalnosti v prostranstve teksta: monografiia. Moskva: MPGU, 154 s. [in Russian].
Dmitrovskaia, M. A. (1988). Znaniie mneniie: obraz mira, obraz cheloveka. Logicheskii analiz yazyka: Znaniie i mneniie / Otv. red. N.D. Arutiunova. Moskva: Nauka, S. 6-18. [in Russian].
Zema, V. Ye. (2004). Gomiletyka ta propovidnytstvo v Ukraini 9-18 st. Encyklopediia istorii Ukrainy: T. 2: G-D / Redkol.: V. A. Smolii (golova) ta in. NAN Ukrainy. In-t istorii Ukrainy. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, URL: URL: http://www.history.org.ua/?termin=Gomiletyka. [in Ukrainian].
Koho nasliduvaly ukrainski propovidnyky XVII st. - grekiv, rymlian chy poliakiv?
URL: http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/8342/Koho_nasli duvaly_ukrainski.pdf. [in Ukrainian].
Lingvokulturologicheskiie issledovaniia. (2018). Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Poniatie very v raznych yazykach i kulturach / Otv. red. N. D. Arutiunova, M.L. Kovshova. Moskva : Gnozis. 856 s. [in Russian].
Moser, M. (2018). Istoriia ukrainskoi movy. Kyiv, 29 s. (Biblioteka Likbez). [in Ukrainian].
Nika, О. I. (2009). Modus v staroukrayinskii literaturnii movi drugoi polovyny XVI-pershoi polovyny XVII st. Kyiv.: KNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenka, 446 s. [in Ukrainian].
Nika, O. I. (2011). Teoriia modusu v suchasnii lingvistytsi. Ukrainska mova., № 2. S. 19-29. [in Ukrainian].
Nika, O. I. (2012). Barokova propovid XVII st. i rozvvtok staroukrainskoi literaturnoi movy. Studia Linguistica. Vyp. 6. S. 165-170. [in Ukrainian].
Nika, О. І . (2019). Leksychni zaminy v «Apokrysysi» Khrystofora Filaleta. Studia Ucrainica Varsoviensia. Tom. 7. Str. 35-48. [in Ukrainian].
Paducheva, E. V. (2016). Modalnost. Materialy k Korpusnoi grammatike russkogo yazyka. Glagol. Chast 1. Sankt-Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriia, S. 19-94. [in Russian].
Potapenko, A. S. (2003). Semantiko-sintaticheskiie i pragmaticheskiie svoistva bazisnykh epistemicheskikh glagolov ispanskogo i angliiskogo yazykov: avtoreferat dis. ... kand. fil. nauk. Piatigorsk, 16 s. URL: https://static.freereferats.ru/_avtoreferats/01002618632.pdf. [in Russian].
Skybytska, N. V. (2004). Epistemichna modalnist v angliikii movi (diakhronnyi aspekt): avtoref. dys... kand. filol. nauk: 10.02.04; Kyivskyi nacionalnyi un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Kyiv, 21 s. [in Ukrainian].
Shatunovskii, I. B. (1988). Epistemicheskiie glagoly: kommunikativnaia perspektiva, prezumpcii, pragmatika. Logicheskii analiz yazyka: Znanyie i mneniie / Otv. red. N. D. Arutiunova. Moskva: Nauka, S. 18¬22. [in Russian].
Brennan, V. M. (1993). Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs.
Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest. AAI9316625. URL:
https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9316625. [in English].
Cornillie, B. (2009). Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship between two different categories. Functions of Language 16.1: Рр. 44-62. [in English].
Drubig, H. B. (2001). On the syntactic form of epistemic modality. University of Tubingen, 52 p. [in English].
Kiefer, F. Modality. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics / R. E. Asher (Ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press, Р. 2515-2520. [in English].
Nuyts, J. (2001). Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 33, Issue 3, р. 383-400. [in English].
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman, 220 p. [in English].
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 236 p. [in English].
Smith, N. (2003). Changes in the Modals and Semi-modals of Strong Obligation and Epistemic Necessity in Recent British English. Modality in Contemporary English / R. Facchiretti, M. Krug, F. Palmer (Eds.). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 241-266. [in English].
SOURCES
Filalet Hristofor. Apokrysys, Ostrog: Drukamia K. Ostrozkoho, 1598. Starodruk Natsionalnoi biblioteky Ukrainy imeni V. І. Vernadskoho, Shyfr Kyr. 824.
Galiatovskyj Joanykii. Kliuch razuminiia. Lviv: Drukarnia M. Sliozky, 1665. Starodruk Natsionalnoi biblioteky Ukrainy imeni V. І. Vernadskoho, Shyfr Kyr. ЗІ № 420.
Dialogizm v istorychnykh vymirakh staroukrainskoho chasu: O(t)pys Kliryka Ostro(z)skoho / Pidgot. naukovoho doslidzhennia, tekstu, pokazhchykiv O. I. Nika. Kyiv: Osvita Ukrainy, 2016. 238 s. (XLIV s., 63 l., 66 s.).
Radyvylovskyi Antonii. Barokovi propovidi XVII stolittia / Pidgot. nauk. doslidzhennia, tekstu, pokazhchykiv Oksana Nika, Yuliia Oleshko. Kyiv, 2019. XIV + 381 s.
Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy XVI - pershoi polovyny XVII st. : u 28 vyp. / NAN Ukrainy, Instytut ukrainoznavstva imeni I. Krypiakevycha / D. Hrynchyshyn ta in. (vidp. red.). Lviv, 2001. Vyp. 8; 2005. Vyp. 12.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Linguistic and Conceptual Worldviews
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
