بررسی معنایی فعل‌های وجهی در زبان تالشی

The present study investigates a semantic analysis of modal verbs in Talysh language (Masal dialect) based on Palmer’s theoretical framework (1990).  Palmer classified three types of modality: epistemic, deontic and dynamic, each of which can be expressed through two degrees: possibility and necessity. The methodology of this research is descriptive- analytical and data were collected through audio recordings from 7 Talysh native speakers. After data collection, the modal verbs were categorized and analyzed based on Palmer’s classification of modality. The obtained modal verbs include four verbs;” ʃɑ”, “bu”, “bi” and “xɑ”. The results showed that “ʃɑ” and “bu” are used to express epistemic possibility, deontic possibility and dynamic possibility. The modal verb bi indicates epistemic necessity, deontic necessity and dynamic necessity. The last modal verb “xɑ” and its past form” xɑi” are used to express only dynamic possibility. Also two different past forms of “ʃɑ” which are “ʃɑst” and “ʃɑi” indicate only dynamic possibility.
 
Extended Abstract

Introduction

Modality is a linguistic category that has been examined from various semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic perspectives. It reflects the speaker's attitude toward the proposition. Different linguistic tools are used to express modality, including modal verbs, modal adverbs, and prepositional phrases. Modal verbs carry various meanings and are used in different contexts. In Talysh language, too, modal verbs have diverse meanings and usages. Talysh is a Northwestern Iranian language spoken along the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, extending to the southeastern tip of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Talysh can be divided into three dialects: Northern, Central, and Southern. This article, based on Palmer’s (1990) theoretical framework, examines the semantic features of modal verbs in the Southern Talysh dialect (specifically in Masal and Shanderman).

Theoretical Framework

Palmer (1990) classifies modality into three types: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic, each with two degrees: possibility and necessity. Epistemic modality conveys the speaker's beliefs, knowledge, and judgments based on evidence, and it is of two types: epistemic possibility and epistemic necessity. In epistemic possibility, which is the weakest and lowest degree, the speaker expresses a deduction based on relatively weak evidence. In epistemic necessity, the speaker is more confident in the truth of the proposition based on the available evidence. Deontic modality relates to actions that are performed either by the speaker or others. It too has two degrees: deontic possibility and deontic necessity. Deontic possibility indicates that an event or action is permitted by the speaker. Deontic necessity implies obligation or imposition by the speaker for the action to occur. Dynamic modality emphasizes the subject's ability, skill, or will to perform an action. In this case, the source of modality lies in the actor or in objective, external conditions—not in the speaker’s judgment or social obligation. Dynamic possibility expresses the potential for an event to occur, without reference to the speaker or subject's agency. Dynamic necessity does not arise from inference (as in epistemic necessity) or obligation (as in deontic necessity), but accompanies an action that is performed without compulsion, i.e., the speaker does not impose it on anyone.

Research Methodology

This study was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. Data were collected through audio recordings of 7 native speakers of the Masal dialect of Talysh — 2 men and 5 women aged between 60 and 75. A total of 245 sentences containing modal verbs were extracted from the recorded material. Out of these, 58 Talysh sentences were selected for detailed analysis. Since the recordings, totaling 8 hours, included a variety of topics, all modal verbs used in Talysh were captured. Additionally, the linguistic intuition of one of the authors contributed to the data collection. The extracted sentences were transcribed and analyzed based on Palmer’s (1990) framework.

Results and Discussion

In this study, Talysh modal verbs were analyzed using Palmer's (1990) framework. The analysis revealed four modal verbs: ʃɑ (can), bu (may/happen), bi (must), and xɑ (want). The first three verbs are more frequently used and show a wider range of meanings. ʃɑ (can) and bu (may) are used to express the three types of possible modality: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic possibility. bi (must) is used to express all three necessary modalities: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic necessity. Xɑ (want) and its past form xɑi are limited in meaning and only express dynamic possibility. The past forms of ʃɑ (can) — ʃɑi and ʃɑst — are also limited to expressing dynamic possibility. From the perspective of inflection, ʃɑ and its past forms (ʃɑi, ʃɑst) as well as xɑ and its past form xɑi are inflectional and conjugate for tense and subject. However, bu and bi are non-inflectional, have fixed forms, and lack personal agreement.

Conclusion

This article examined the semantic types of modal verbs in the Talysh language. The modal verbs studied include four verbs: ʃɑ (can), bu (may), bi (must), and xɑ (want). ʃɑ and bu express three types of possible modality: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic possibility. Bi expresses all three types of necessary modality: epistemic, deontic, and dynamic necessity. Xɑ and its past form xɑi express only dynamic possibility. The past forms of ʃɑ — ʃɑi and ʃɑst — also represent dynamic possibility. Overall, the three verbs ʃɑ, bu, and bi are the primary modal tools in Talysh. These verbs closely resemble the Persian modal verbs (can), (may/happen), and (must). This study has demonstrated that Talysh modal verbs have similar usages. Furthermore, the verb xɑ is used less frequently compared to the other three modal verbs.
Select Bibliography
Bybee, J.; Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. The Evolution of Grammar, Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1994.
Coates, J. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croome Helm, 1983.
Kratzer, A. “What “Must” and “Can” Must and Can Mean”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1977, (1): 337-355.
Lyons, J. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Narrog, H. On Defining Modality Again. Language Sciences, 2005, (27): 165-192.
Nuyts, J. Modality: “Overview and Linguistic Issue”. The Expression of Modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006, pp. 1-26.
Palmer, F. R. Modality and the English Modals. NewYork: Routledge, 1990.
Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality, second edition, Cambridge text books in Linguistics: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Portner, P. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Sweetser, E. E. “Root and Epistemic Modals: Causality in Two World”. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1982, pp. 484-507.