2646

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

UDC 81’367’37:811.111=161.2

Donetsk National University, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Postgraduate student of the Germanic Philology Department Nikita Yurjevich Byessonov

e-mail: nikitabessonov@mail.ru

N.Y. Byessonov

CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS IN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN WITH THE LINKING-VERBS ‘MAKE’, ‘РОБИТИ’, ‘ПРИМУШУВАТИ’

The article deals with isomorphic and allomorphic semantic attributes of causative linking verbs as the main elements expressing causative relations in causative constructions. The research addresses the comparative aspect of semantic syntax and is made on the material of such non-cognate languages as English and Ukrainian. The topicality of the study is accounted for by the need for further systematization of the accumulated knowledge in this field as well as by insufficient level of examination of causative constructions' realization in English and Ukrainian. The focus is made on the results of the contrastive analysis of causative constructions with the linking-verb make in English and the linking-verb робити and примушувати in Ukrainian.

Key-words: category of causativity, causative construction, link-verb, semantic type, English, Ukrainian.

The article addresses causative constructions in English and Ukrainian with causative linking verbs ‘make’, ‘робити’ and ‘примушувати’. The research is made within the paradigm of functional-semantic approach to the study of language units and linguistic categories. Being part of universal semantic organisation causative constructions are viewed as a fundamental basis existing in all languages. It is the underlying semantic information associated with causative situations that makes non-related languages very close. Allomorphic features depend on the way of expressing causativity on the surface level. The choice of such non-cognate languages as English and Ukrainian as a research material enables to identify convergent and divergent mechanisms of representing cause and consequence relations and knowledge structures, used in the process of communication to express a causative meaning.

Constructions incorporating verbs with a causative meaning are studied by linguists alongside other issues of semantic syntax [1; 2; 3]. The theory of the causative and causative constructions was developed first and foremost by such scholars as V. Nedjalkov, G. Silnitskiy, A. Kholodovich, [4; 5]. Particular issues connected with causative constructions have been touched upon by V. Kaliushhenko, O. Seliverstova, W. Croft and others [6; 7].

The nature of both national and foreign studies in the field of semantic syntax testifies to the considerable elaboration of the foundations and terminology of the theory of causativity. At the same time we should point out to a different degree of causative constructions examination in different languages. At present the semantic peculiarities of causative constructions with linking verbs need to be comparatively researched both in cognate and non-cognate languages with regards to various parameters.

The topicality of the study is accounted for by the need for further systematization of the accumulated knowledge in this field as well as by insufficient level of examination of causative constructions realization in English and Ukrainian.

____________________

© Byessonov N.Y., 2015

104

The present article explores constructions with the causative linking verb ‘make’ in English and ‘робити’, ‘примушувати’ in Ukrainian. The semantic and functional peculiarities of these constructions, their classification and identification of the semantic types productivity appear to be the subject matter of the research. The goal to be accomplished presupposes identifying convergent and divergent features in the semantics of causative linking verbs as the main elements expressing causative relation in the causative constructions under study.

The causative linking verbs in English and Ukrainian are not numerous. In English the most frequent among them are make, let, get, have. Their equivalents in Ukrainian are робити, дозволяти, примушувати, давати. The empirical data are sentences with causative linking verbs from the works by Ukrainian and English belles-lettres writers of the twentieth century. The sampling corpus makes 300 sentences with the causative linking verb make, 300 sentences with the verb робити, and 300 sentences with the verb дозволяти, примушувати.

Having outlined the contemporary state of knowledge in the given area and basic research objectives including a whole range of research questions I would like to prepare the indispensable ground for the discussion of the analysis results. For this purpose certain theoretical explanations seem to be a very good background for a more detailed review of the crucial results obtained and the main observations made in the course of the analysis.

Causativity or causation is looked upon as a semantic category indicating events or actions that condition other events or actions. Causative meanings or reason meanings include such types as reason-obstacle, reason-result, imperative reason or reason-promotion, pretext, etc.

G. Kornilov, A. Kholodovich and V. Khrakovsky view causation as everything that “can be explained by the words “to act in such a way that...” (someone read, something was short, something fell, something broke – the so-called real causation = to really do something) or by the words “to consider someone or something, for example, good, bad...” (the so-called ideal causation = to do something in your mind)” [8, p. 238 – 259].

Any construction that expresses a causative situation is looked upon as a causative construction. According to V. Nedjalkov, any structure having the category of causativity as a grammatical core is understood as a causative construction, regardless of the nature of semantic interpretation [9], for example:

Rus.: → Он дал им спать.

Germ.: → Er ließ sie schlafen.

Engl.: → He let them sleep.

Ukr: → Він дав їм спати.

V. Nedjalkov singles out three elements of the semantic environment of the causative (or a verb (V) with a causative meaning). These elements refer to nouns, pronouns or certain subordinate clauses [9, p. 9]:

1) the Subject (S) of the causative construction is the element of this construction which functions either as a subject of the causative verb V in the finite non-imperative form or as a word in the function of the subject if V in the non-finite or imperative form transforms into V in the finite non-imperative form. The Subject S can be animate (S an), inanimate (S in), concrete (S con), abstract (S abst);

2) the Object (O) of the construction is a syntactic object which follows a verb governed by the verb V, which follows the causative linking verb, for example: Germ. lassen, Engl. let, Engl. make etc.

3) the Agent (Ag) is an object or an adverbial modifier, designating the subject of the action, which has been caused. Ag can be accusative (Ag acc), prepositional (Ag prep), zero (Ag 0).

105

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

The complete formula of the causative situation can be presented in the following way [4, p. 6

– 7]:

RC

CS = (r1s1) → (r2s2), where:

CS is a causative situation, r1 is the subject of the antecedent (or initiator), s1 is a causing state (i.e. a thing, an action or a state connected with the factual initiator), r2 is the subject of the consequent (someone or something, which is exposed to action or influence), s2 is the caused state (a thing, an action or a state connected with the one, exposed to influence), RC is the relation of causation. The causative linking verb is a semantic and grammatical core of the causative construction. For example, the causative construction Your actions made him leave is nonelliptic because it contains both the antecedent and the consequent. The subject of the antecedent (r1) is ‘Your’, the causing state (s1) is expressed by the noun ‘actions’. Within the consequent we can single out the subject of the consequent (r2) ‘him’ and the caused state (s2) ‘go’.

The RC (relation of causation) is a constant component of the construction. The antecedent and the consequent can be optional: No you didn't ask to leave - you made. In this example we can single out only the antecedent of the construction, which is ‘you made’. The constructions with missing elements (either the antecedent or the consequent) are called elliptic. In the example mentioned above the obligatory element is ‘made’. It is the causative verb that identifies the causative nature of the construction and thus plays the principal role.

Within the framework of the theory of the causative the following ways of expressing causality can be singled out: 1) lexical (causative verbs), 2) morphological (affixes); 3) syntactical (causative constructions). It should be mentioned here that all the ways of expressing causation are found in the present day English and Ukrainian languages, for instance: 1) вбивати / kill, 2) з+несилити ‘to exhaust’ / en+large, 3) Ти робиш мені боляче ‘You cause me pain’/ You make me feel sorry. Within the framework of the causative theory developed by V.P. Nedjalkov and G.G. Silnitskiy and within the framework of the diathesis and aspect theory by A.A. Kholodovich three types of causatives are singled out:

-lexical (presupposes the opposition “non-causative/causative”, expressed by contrasting morphemes with different roots, e.g. die - kill);

-morphological (presupposes formation of causative verbs from non-causative by means of causative morphemes or other grammatical means like ablaut, e.g. lie - lay);

-analytical (presupposes analytical constructions like a linking verb + a notional verb).

The fundamentals of the analytical causative theory were developed mainly by V.P. Nedjalkov [4]. The grammatical category of causativity consists of a combination of a verb with broad meaning (like let, lassen, позволить) with an infinitive. This combination can be treated as a special analytical form. V. P. Nedjalkov calls this construction a formal causative (V1). The scholar underlines that formal causative is opposed to formal non-causative (V), “a verb without lassen” [4*, p. 8]. The term “causative” is true for lexicalized formations in which the causative meaning with lassen is hard to be singled out or/and the infinitive without lassen is not used. V. P. Nedjalkov highlights that any formation having V1 as a grammatical core will be called analytical causative construction independent on its semantic interpretation, e.g. … they let him go his way unmolested” [9**, p. 23]. The causative meaning here is motivated by the linking verb let used in the function of a secondary predicate in the construction with the so called “object-predicative unit” [8*] or Complex Object. Complex Object can be expressed by a noun in the Common case or the pronoun in the Objective case or the possessive pronoun and the noun in the Common case which are combined with an infinitive or an adjective.

Both lexical and analytical causatives usually code events in which the action of the agent and the influence on the patient don’t coincide at the reference level: the cause precedes the

106

caused action. In contrast to analytical causatives lexical causatives neutralize this difference and conceptualize the action and its consequence as attendant and integral.

The ideas of V. Nedjalkov, G. Silnitskiy, A. Kholodovich, L. Talmy as for the constructions expressing different meanings of causality served as the theoretical premises for the present research [4]. The Russian linguistic tradition is characterized by “a high degree of semanticity” (this term is introduced by P. Parshin [10]) and the focus on the empirical data [9]. As for the works by L. Talmy they are in line with the cognitive grammar. In his research L. Talmy emphasizes that “peculiarities of a natural language functioning and structure can be explained by way of appealing to cognitive structures and processes” [10]. Analyzing L. Talmy’s impact into modern linguistic theory and underlining the empirical nature and the typological approach pursued in his works P. Parshin admits that “Talmy’s scientific methodology... represents a classical linguistic experiment in terms of L. Scherba, on which almost all modern linguistic semantics is based. It addresses the identification of how it is possible to say and how it is not. The only modification concerns the fact that L. Talmy is interested in, first and foremost, why it is possible or impossible to say” [10]. The detailed analysis of constructions with causative linking verbs as means of expressing force-dynamics relations in terms of L. Talmy’s approach is presented in

[11]. Its essence can be described as follows: causative and other situations of the forcedynamics type conceptualize in the form of basic force-dynamics situations, in which one force (antagonist) is connected by a certain relation with another force (agonist). Both forces have an inherent tendency towards rest or action. Depending on whether these forces are opposed, the result-situation can be either rest or action. L. Talmy points out that two conditions can function as a criterion of causative constructions identification:

1)the caused event wouldn’t occur if the causing event didn’t happen (e.g. The police got him to confess to the crime);

2)the caused event actually happened (e.g. - The police got him to confess to the crime. - No, he surrendered himself). On the basis of this approach L. Talmy singles out a number of causative constructions types, among them are: onset causation, extended causation, autonomous event, continuous or discontinuous causative chain, instrument causation, causing-event causative, "purpose" situation, resulting-event causative, effectuating causation, agent causation, author causation, "undergoer" situation, self-agentive causation, 2 (3, 4) - member chain of agency. L. Talmy differentiates the terms agent (A), author (Au), undergoer (U), e.g. I (A) hid my pen somewhere in the kitchen; I (Au) hid my pen somewhere in the kitchen; I (U) hid my pen somewhere in the kitchen [11]. The analysis of causative semantic types by L. Talmy testifies to the fact that there is no clear cut interpretation of the causative situation because of the influence of numerous intralinguistic factors. The deep semantic sense of the verb cause can be rendered by combination of a verbal lexeme with at least five causative verbs as RESULT-, EVENT, INSTRUMENT, AUTHOR, AGENT.

The classification of causative relations incorporates a lot of types. It is possible to make a logical hypothesis that all types of causative constructions can be traced in the sampling material, which makes up the empirical basis of the research. The empirical material proves that different types possess a different productivity degree.

The methodology of the research presupposes the use of a logical natural metalanguage which is expressed by means of interpretation formulae. The methodological procedure also involves the analysis of formulae correlation to utterances in a natural language. Some scholars, S. Krylov among them, stress the “one-sided domination of the “artificially logical” approach in many semantic studies of 1960s–1970s.” [12]. A formulaic interpretation used in this research follows the approach to semantic analysis suggested by Y. Apresjan [1].

The results of the research indicate that semantic classification of causative constructions with the verbs under consideration includes 8 types which have been identified on the ground of meanings found in the empirical material. No isomorphic semantic type has been found for the constructions with the linking verbs make, робити, примушувати.

107

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

In the process of the data analysis different interpretation formulae have been devised. It further served as a basis for the classification into semantic types of the constructions with causative linking verbs. The frequency value parameter has also been taken into consideration.

The semantic classification of causative constructions with make includes 3 types (see table 1).

The first type of the classification includes 120 constructions (40 %) with the meaning described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О be in state Cond», e.g.:

The long-enduring people had determined to make their protest felt [1*, p. 236]

The given example reproduces a situation in which subject S, expressed by the noun people, causes object О, expressed by the noun protest, to be in the state expressed by the verb feel in the form of Participle II.

The constructions of the second type number 96 contexts (32 %). Their meaning can be described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V», e.g.:

“And dreaming there by the Yukon bank, with lazy eyes blinking at the fire, these sounds and sights of another world would make the hair to rise along his back…” [2*, p. 42].

The given example describes a situation in which subject S expressed by the word combination sounds and sights causes object О expressed by the noun hair to do action V expressed by the verb to rise.

The third type in the classification is presented by 84 constructions (28 %) that have a meaning described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V regardless of О’s will», e.g.:

“It is such women as you that strew this degraded coast with wretched exiles, that make men forget their trusts.” [2*, p. 23]

The given example describes a situation in which subject S expressed by the noun women causes object O expressed by the noun men to do action V expressed by the combination of the infinitive and the noun forget their trusts.

The semantic classification with the verb робити includes 3 types (see Table 2).

The majority of the cases (183 constructions or 61%) belong to the first type, which can be described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О be in state Cond», e.g.:

«Батько ... не хотів зробити тобі боляче» [4*, p. 30].

The given example illustrates a situation in which subject S expressed by the noun батько (father) causes object О expressed by the pronoun тобі (you) to be in the state expressed by the adverb боляче (painful).

The second type is presented by 64 contructions (21,3%) with the meaning described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes Sit1 be Sit2», e.g.:

«– Не думаю, – сказала тьотя Клава. – Моя племiнниця дуже розумна людина iз пустячка не буде робити трагедiї.» [5*, p. 18].

The given example describes a situation in which subject S expressed by the noun племінниця (niece) causes the first situation Sit1 expressed by the noun пустячка (trifle) to be the second situation Sit2 expressed by the noun трагедії (tragedy).

The third type numbers 53 constructions (17,7%). They can be described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object O have a quality, skill». For example:

Мій батько, директор школи, викладає все життя хімію. Мене теж хочуть зробити хіміком. Два роки вже на хімію витрачено [4*, с. 27].

The given example describes a situation in which subject S expressed implicitly causes object O expressed by the pronoun мене (me) to have a quality, skill expressed by the noun хіміком (chemist).

The semantic classification of constructions with the verb примушувати includes 2 types (see Table 3).

The first type is presented by 201 constructions (67%) with the meaning described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V regardless of O’s will», e.g.:

Мій цинізм примушує тебе й інших звертати на мене увагу, мені ж цього й треба.

[5*, p. 42]

The given example illustrates a situation in which subject S expressed by the pronoun мій (my) causes object O expressed by the pronoun тебе (you) to do action V expressed by the infinitive звертати (pay attention) regardless of O’s will.

The second type is presented by 99 constructions (33%) that have a meaning described by the interpretation formula «Situation Sit causes object О do action V», e.g.:

Величні і водночас розгнівані переливи тромбонів та валторн змусили тебе відповісти палко й сердито… [6*, с. 53 – 54].

109

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

The given example illustrates an event in which situation Sit expressed by the word combination переливи тромбонів та валторн (play of trombones and horns) causes object O expressed by the pronoun тебе (you) do action V expressed by the infinitive відповісти (respond).

The detailed comparative semantic study of constructions with causative linking verbs enables to draw some conclusions as to the theoretical fundamentals and the crucial results obtained in the course of the analysis.

1.Causativity is a lexico-grammatical category expressing a wide range of in-phrase relations that can be generally characterized as relations of cause and consequence. Causative linking verbs are viewed as one of the main means of expressing causality. The existence of regular lexico-grammatical relations, namely causative relations, as well as primary lexical semantics determine the type of the verb syntactic construction.

2.It is typical of the analyzed languages structure to have a special group of verbs with broad semantics, which, due to their semantic and syntactic attributes, function as an auxiliary component in analytical lexemes with a wide range of basic components. Causative linking verbs make part of this group.

3.A causative linking verb is the main element of a causative construction. Causative verbs are characterized by broad semantics. The English causative verbs let, make, get, have and Ukrainian causative verbs робити, давати, дозволяти, примушувати possess the highest polysemy index. These causative verbs are treated as linking ones, i.e. not denoting any concrete action.

4.In the course of the analysis a number of criteria to identify grammatical constructions corresponding to causative communicative situations have been worked out. The suggested criteria helped to compile the empirical sample on the basis of which means of formal expression of different components in causative constructions have been described. The semantics of causative linking verbs as the main elements expressing causation in the constructions in question have been identified. The semantic peculiarities of causative constructions with linking verbs have been described by means of the interpretation formulae explaining the semantic roles of the components in the constructions.

5.In the course of the comparative analysis of the constructions with causative linking verbs in English and Ukrainian convergent and divergent features of causative relations realization have been singled out. Semantic classification of constructions with the linking verbs make, робити and примушувати numbers 8 types. The constructions with the English verb make and the Ukrainian примушувати are characterized by a wider range of semantic types (3 types each) as compared to the Ukrainian verb робити (2 types). The most frequent types in English are 1 (described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О be in state Cond») and 2 (described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V»), whereas in Ukrainian type 1 of the verb примушувати (described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V regardless of O’s will») and type 1 of the verb робити (described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О be in state Cond») appear to be the most numerous.

The following convergences in the semantics of the causative linking verbs have been traced:

‒ both the English causative linking verb make and the Ukrainian робити may express the meaning of type 1 described by the interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О be in state Cond»;

‒ both the English verb make and the Ukrainian verb примушувати may express the meaning described by interpretation formula «Subject S causes object О do action V regardless of О’s will», which results in the coincidence of semantic type 1 of make and semantic type 3 of

примушувати.

There is no isomorphic semantic type typical of all the three verbs analyzed.

110

It should be pointed out that a causative linking verb possesses wider semantics in the language of the analytical type (English) in comparison with the language of the synthetic type (Ukrainian).

Highlighting some ideas as to further research it should be mentioned that to contrast means of expressing all the elements of causative constructions as well as to attempt a typological study of this language phenomenon in a wider range of cognate and non-cognate languages may be of a particular interest.

Bibliographic list

1.Apresjan Ju.D. Issledovanija po semantike i leksikografii / Ju.D. Apresjan. – M.: Jazyki slavjanskih kul'tur, 2009. – T. 1: Paradigmatika. – 567 s.

2.Bulynina M.M. Dinamicheskij harakter sintaksicheskogo koncepta "agens peremeshhaet ob#ekt" v anglijskom jazyke / M.M. Bulynina // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.- stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodiko-didakticheskie issledova-nija. – 2011. – Vyp. 2 (16). – S. 43-52.

3.Danilenko V.P. Osnova metodologicheskoj struktury grammatiki / V.P. Danilenko // Nauchnyj vestnik Voronezh. gos. arh.-stroit. un-ta. Sovremennye lingvisticheskie i metodikodidakticheskie issledovanija. – 2013. – Vyp. 2 (20). – S. 27-33.

4.Nedjalkov V.P., Sil'nickij G.G. Tipologija morfologicheskogo i leksicheskogo kauzativov / V.P. Nedjalkov, G.G. Sil'nickij // Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij. Morfologicheskij kauzativ. – Leningrad: Izd-vo «Nauka», Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1969. – S. 20-50.

5.Holodovich A.A. Problemy grammaticheskoj teorii / A.A. Holodovich. – Lenin-grad: Nauka, Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1979. – 304 s.

6.Kaliushhenko V.D. Tipologija otymennyh glagolov: [monografija] / V.D. Kaliushhenko. – Doneck: Izd-vo “Donechchina”, 1994. – 422 s.

7.Seliverstova O.N. Kontrastivnaja sintaksicheskaja semantika: opyt opisanija / O.N. Seliverstova. – M.: URSS: Editorial, 2004. – 150 s.

8.Kornilov G.E., Holodovich A.A., Hrakovskij V.S. Kauzativy i antikauzativy v chuvashskom jazyke / G.E. Kornilov, A.A. Holodovich, V.S. Hrakovskij // Tipologija kauzativnyh konstrukcij (morfologicheskij kauzativ) / pod red. A.A. Holodovicha. – Lenin-grad: Izdvo «Nauka», Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1969. – S. 238-259.

9.Nedjalkov V.P. Kauzativnye konstrukcii v nemeckom jazyke / V.P. Nedjalkov. – Leningrad: Izd-vo «Nauka», Leningradskoe otdelenie, 1971. – 179 s.

10.Parshin P.B. Ob issledovatel'skoj programme Leonarda Talmi / P.B. Parshin // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. – Ser. 9. Filologija. – 1999. – № 1. – S. 88-91.

11.Bessonov N.Ju. Konstrukcii s kauzativnymi glagolami-svjazkami kak sredstvo vyrazhenija otnoshenija sily-dinamiki / N.Ju. Bessonov // Lingvistika XXI veka: sb. nauch. st. k 65-letnemu jubileju prof. V.A. Maslovoj / sored. V.V. Kolesov, M.V. Pimenova, V.I. Terkulov.

–M.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2013. – Vyp. 3. – S. 437-442. (Serija «Konceptual'nyj i lingval'nyj miry».).

12.Krylov S.A. O nauchnom tvorchestve N.D. Arutjunovoj / S.A. Krylov // Sokro-vennye smysly: Slovo. Tekst. Kul'tura: sb. st. v chest' N.D. Arutjunovoj. – M.: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury, 2004. – S. 843.

Analyzed sources

1*. Henry O. The Four Million [Jelektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: P. 3. Digitale Bibliothek Band 59. / In: English and American Literature. English and American Literature /

111

Scientific Newsletter of Voronezh State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering

CD-ROM. – The DIRECTMEDIA GmbH. – Berlin, 2003. – MoskvaDirektMedia Pablishing, 2003.

2*. London J. The Call of the Wild [Jelektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: P. 8. Digitale Bibliothek Band 59. / In: English and American Literature. Anglijskaja i amerikan-skaja literatura. Jelektronnaja biblioteka DM CD-ROM. – The DIRECTMEDIA GmbH. – Berlin, 2003. – Moskva: DirektMedia Pablishing, 2003. – The Call of the Wild.

3*. Henry O. Cabbages and Kings [Jelektronnyj resurs]. – Rezhim dostupa: P. 3. Digitale Bibliothek Band 59. / In: English and American Literature. English and American Literature / CD-ROM. – The DIRECTMEDIA GmbH. – Berlin, 2003. – MoskvaDirektMedia Pablishing, 2003.

UDC 801. 313: 804.0

Voronezh State Pedagogical University, Postgraduate of Department of French and Foreign Languages of nonlanguage profiles to FGBOU VGP

Suhad J. Mohammed Al-Sammarraie e-mail: kaf_in_yaz@vgasu.vrn.ru

Suhad J. Mohammed Al-Sammarraie

AUTHOR'S MULTIMODALITY AND FEATURES OF ITS REPRESENTATION

IN THE NOVEL «BELOVED» BY T. MORRISON

The article is devoted to the urgent problems of updating of scientific metalanguage of a literary text and its development based on T. Morrison`s novel «Beloved» in the aspect of the author's multimodality representation. Multimodality is presented here as the modern debatable phenomenon in the Russian and foreign philology where the text is considered either from linguistic or from semiotic positions. The way of the analysis uniting both positions, as shown in the article, allows us fuller and more meaningful to consider the linguistic, culturological, gender, discursive, functional and aesthetic parameters of the novel and the specific features of the author’s multimodality in it.

The multimodalital theoretical and empirical arguments of the increased functionality of the used method and a wider range of its analytical tools are presented in the article.

Key words: modality, multimodality, author's multimodality, gender, multicultural, denotation, connotation, narrative, discourse.

Problems of updating and improving the scientific language and, in particular, the metalanguage of a literary text, are classified as urgent, especially in demand at the turn of cultural epochs. This explains unusually wide interest in the phenomenon of multimodality in foreign science. Multimodality as the description language used in a variety of disciplines in natural

____________________________________

© Mohammed Al-Sammarraie Suhad J., 2015

112

sciences practice, for example, in medicine, chemistry, and biology.

In the foreign philology active and obvious semiotic trend or technically functional when much attention is paid to modern media and information sources.

The Russian scientific use of multimodality phenomenon as a problem of meta-language update text and discourse is still under review and included in the linguistic practice regularly, even though the terminology nomination in scientific space is rare, but there is, and even with a moderate expansion of activity used. However, the consensus in the understanding and use of multimodality in Russian science, including philology was not worked out. Our position is to bring together the main approaches of foreign and Russian philology in understanding multimodality as the unity of linguistic and semiotic aspects.

This article aims to make a contribution in the understanding of multimodality and its capacity to upgrade the language of science and meta-language literary texts (discourse), and in reasoned revealing increased functionality of the method under consideration today's complex, multi-level and multi-teksts as experimental material.

Novel by T. Morrison «Beloved», written in 1987, it refers to an early stage of postmodernism, then denoted as "magical realism." Postmodern literary texts (discourses) are characterized by increased complexity of his imagery, structure, language or languages, bearing in mind semiotic classification. In our view, it is the complexity of postmodern texts and expanding the range of information sources, media and technology has led to the addition of the modalities in the multimodality.

Thus, in the novel by T. Morrison not only the author and the reader come in a complex interaction, but the author’s of character’s points of view. In complex polyphonic unity author multimodality, concentrating all levels and aspects of the text, there is a variety of meanings, the "voice" of discourses, dialogues, styles, semiotic languages (color, music, gestures, etc.).

The anthropological paradigm in the study of language and literary text as a phenomenon of human speech activity (Arutyunov, 1981; Babenko, 1998, 2009; Bakhtin, 1979; Bondarko, 2001; Valgin, 2003; Halperin, 1981; Gasparov, 1988; Karasik, 2002; Lotman, 1968, 2001; Popov, 2001; Fateeva 2007; Bearne, 2003; Heath, 2000; Simpson, 2004; Walsh, 2007; Wallace, 1990, etc.), have identified the increased interest in the study of text and text-generating categories in Russian, and foreign philology, and among them - in the category of modality (Bondarko, 2001) and its derivative - modality author who has devoted his labors Barlas, 1987; Kukharenko, 1988; Otkupschikova, 1988; Popov, 1996; Yakimets, 1999; Valgin, 2003; Trofimova, 2004; Bochkova, 2008; Kress, Van Leeuwen, 1996; Kress, 2010; Unsworth, 2001, 2002, 2003; Jewitt, 2002; Lankshear, Snyder, Green, 2000; Lankshear, Noble, 2003; Lemke, 2002; Gee, 2003, etc.

And although language modality is comprehended thoroughly enough, the modality of a literary text and its components remains in the field of discussion, first of all, the Russian science U.M. Lotman originated the idea of the functioning of the text as an adequate channel that broadcasts modal values and the generates new meanings. He claimed that the maximum integrity and uniqueness of text is achieved by matching the codes of the speaker and the listener, and the result is a metatext that can be modeled and generate new meanings. As a result, text is defined as "thinking device", ie system of heterogeneous semiotic spaces in which signed the original message. [1].

According to L.G. Babenko: "As soon as it becomes the subject of the text modality, harmony and clarity of differentiation of modal values are lost, blurred their boundaries, their intersection and iteraction" [2]. Even in a small piece of text T. Morrison's novel we see a change of point of view of character the two discourses, their interchange, sophisticated palette of gestures and semiotic signs modalities regret dramatic experiences of the past, is not surrendering its position alone and together attempt to overcome it:

«Eighteen years, » she said softly. «Eighteen, » he repeated.

113