Semantics of the Kalmyk Modal Particle биз: a Case Study of Kalmyk National Corpus and Interview Data

Studies of Kalmyk particles are topical enough since the latter remain understudied, and it is urgent to identify their semantics for further analysis of their modality category within the examined language; besides, there has emerged significant interest in issues of semantics and polysemanticism as such. Goals. The paper deals with semantics of the modal particle биз ‘probably, possibly, likely, evidently’ that usually expresses doubt regarding the articulated narrative. Materials. The work analyzes texts of Kalmyk National Corpus (http://kalmcorpora.ru) containing 9 million tokens and approximately 7 million word usages. Examples with the analyzed particle биз ‘probably, possibly, likely, evidently’ were selected through the continuous sampling method. Results. The particle бизexpresses semantics of certainty / uncertainty (reliability / unreliability), the latter being of three types: suppositional certainty, suppositional uncertainty, and epistemic certainty. Functionally, it serves to remove assertiveness of a narrative, i.e. neutralizes indicativeness and transforms a real proposition into neutral one. The particle биз marks the category of indirect evidentiality, drawing no distinct line between inferentiality and presumptiveness. In certain contexts, the lexeme can also express — apart from certainty / uncertainty — semantics of positive emotiveness, thus denoting expectation, good feeling and faith in future. Moreover, in some contexts биз grows to lose certainty / uncertainty meanings, becoming reduced to impersonal predicative semantics of assessment of action / condition (of actions / conditions) from intellectual and emotional perspectives.

1. Informant: Tatiana A. Mikhaleva.

2. National Archive of the Republic of Kalmykia.

3. [Kalmyk National Corpus: Local Database] (accessed: September 1, 2019). (In Kalm.)

4. [Kalmyk Grammar: Phonetics and Morphology]. Elista: Kalmyk Book Publ., 1983. 336 p. (In Russ.)

5. Aikhenvald A. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Pp. xxvii + 452. (In Eng.)

6. Belyaeva E. I. [Functional and Semantic Modality Fields: a Case Study of the English and Russian Languages]. Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 1985. 180 p. (In Russ.)

7. Bembeev E. V. Kalmyk particles revisited: a historical comparative perspective. Bulletin of the Kalmyk Institute for Humanities of the RAS (Oriental Studies). 2011. No. 1. Pp. 117–123. (In Russ.)

8. Bogdanova N. V. [Russian Speech: Contemporary Phonetic Processes]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2001. 189 p. (In Russ.)

9. Bondarenko V. N. [Types of Modal Meanings and Their Expression in the Language]. Cand.Sc. (philology) thesis abstract. Moscow, 1977. 23 p. (In Russ.)

10. Ermolaeva L. S. [Modality Expression Means System in Modern Germanic Languages: a Case Study of the German, English, Swedish and Icelandic Languages]. Cand. Sc. (philology) thesis abstract.Moscow, 1964.15 p. (In Russ.)

11. Galperin I. R. [Information Values of Language Units]. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola, 1974. 174 p. (In Russ.)

12. Grepl M. Essence of modality revisited. In: [Linguistics in Czechoslovakia]. Coll. papers (1956–1974). Moscow: Progress, 1978. Pp. 277–301. (In Russ.)

13. Halliday M. A. K. Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language. 1970. Vol. 6. Pp. 322–361. (In Eng.)

14. Hoye L. F. Evidentiality in discourse: a pragmatic and empirical account. In: Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. J. Romero-Trillo (ed.). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin / New York, 2008. Pp. 151–174. (In Eng.)

15. Janhunen J. A. The Mongolic Language. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. xxix + 421 p. (In Eng.)

16. Kukanova V. V. About Kalmyk National Corpus. In: [Languages of Russia’s Peoples: Topical Issues of Dialectal Studies]. Conf. proc. (Ufa; September 13–14, 2013). Ufa, 2013. Pp. 209–212. (In Russ.)

17. Kukanova V. V. Kalmyk modal particle биз: morphosyntactic properties, structural patterns, frequency of use (a case study of Kalmyk National Corpus and interview data). Oriental Studies. 2019. No. 5. Pp. 1007–1025. (In Russ.)

18. Kukanova V. V., Kadzhiev A. Yu. Kalmyk Morphological Parser: functioning principles. In: [Written Heritage and Information Technologies]. Conf. proc. (Varna; September 15–20, 2014). V. A. Baranov et al (eds.). Sophia; Izhevsk, 2014. Pp. 116–119. (In Russ.)

19. Mushaev V. N. [Kalmyk Sentence: Structure and Semantics]. Elista: Dzhangar, 2005. 382 p. (In Russ.)

20. Paducheva E. V. Modality. At: [Russian Corpus Grammar]. Available at: http:rusgram.ru/Modal’nost’ (accessed: September 1, 2019). (In Russ.)

21. Panfilov V. Z. Category of modality and its role in constituting the structure of sentence and reasoning. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 1977. No. 4. Pp. 37–48. (In Russ.)

22. Plungyan V. A. [General Morphology: Introduction]. 2nd ed., rev. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2003. 384 p. (In Russ.)

23. Samoylova M. N. [Expressing Hope, Certainty, and Positive Expectation in the English Language: Functioning Contexts and Semantics of Means]. Cand. Sc. (philology) thesis abstract. Pyatigorsk, 2003.24 p. (In Russ.)

24. Shevernina Z. V. Mongolian modal particles: functional and semantic meanings. In: [Mongolic Languages: Questions of Grammar System]. Elista: Republican Print. House, 1980. Pp. 20–31. (In Russ.)

25. Shmeleva T. V. Sentence semantic structure and modality. In: [Topical Issues of Russian Syntax]. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1984. Pp. 78–100. (In Russ.)

26. Shvets V. M. Subjective (epistemic) modality and its expression in child speech. In: [Semantic Categories in Child Speech]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya, 2007. Pp. 161–180. (In Russ.)

27. Skribnik E. K., Seesing O. A. Kalmyk language: depicting evidentiality and mirativity. Voprosy Jazykoznanija. 2012. No. 4. Pp. 39–72. (In Russ.)

28. Svetozarova N. D. Phonetic features of Russian spontaneous speech. In: [Language and Oral Activity: Scholarly Readings of St. Petersburg Linguistic Society]. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2002. Pp. 115–123. (In Russ.)

29. Teletskaya T. V. [Subject Modality and Modality of Certainty in Language and Speech: a Case Study of the Ukrainian, Russia, French and English Languages]. Cand.Sc. (philology) thesis.Odessa, 2005.184 p. (In Russ.)

30. Usenkova E. V. [Modal Meanings Expression Means: a Comparative Study of the Nganasan and Selkup Languages]. Cand. Sc. (philology) thesis abstract. Tomsk, 2002.21 p. (In Russ.)

31. Willett Th. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticization of evidentiality. Studies in Language. 1988. 12(1). Pp. 51–97. (In Eng.) DOI:10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil

32. Yakovleva E. S. [Modal Words Identified as Indicators of Certainty / Uncertainty: Meanings and Usage Patterns]. Cand. Sc. (philology) thesis. Moscow, 1983.171 p. (In Russ.)