INGLIZ VA O‘ZBEK MEDIA DISKURSIDA MODAL VOSITALARNING ISHONCHLILIKNI SHAKLLANTIRISHDAGI LINGVOPRAGMATIK XUSUSIYATLARI
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67227/3e7tdm57Kalit so‘zlar:
media diskursi, ishonchlilik, epistemik modallik, evidensiallik, modal fe’l, modal marker, lingvopragmatika, jurnalistik pozitsiya, manba atributsiyasi.Abstrak
Maqolada ingliz va o‘zbek media diskursida ishonchlilikni shakllantirishda modal vositalarning lingvopragmatik imkoniyatlari qiyosiy tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqotning maqsadi epistemik modallik va evidensiallik birliklarining xabarni fakt, taxmin, ehtimol yoki inferensiya sifatida taqdim etishdagi rolini, shuningdek, jurnalistning axborot manbasiga nisbatan masofasini aniqlashdan iborat. Material sifatida 2026-yilda Reuters, Gazeta.uz va Kun.uzda e’lon qilingan yangilik matnlaridan tanlangan tipik kontekstlar olindi. Qiyosiy-chog‘ishtirma, kontekstual-semantik va pragmatik tahlil asosida may, might, could, reportedly, apparently, must kabi birliklar mumkin, ehtimol, aytilishicha, xabar qilinishicha, ko‘rinishicha, shubhasiz singari vositalar bilan funksional jihatdan qiyoslandi. Natijalar ingliz tilida modal fe’llar va ravishlar epistemik darajani ixcham kodlashini, o‘zbek tilida esa analitik konstruksiyalar, shaxssiz predikativ shakllar va xabar fe’llari faolroq qo‘llanilishini ko‘rsatdi. Ishonchlilikning eng samarali modeli modal marker, aniq manba atributsiyasi va dalilning o‘zaro uyg‘unligi asosida yuzaga kelishi, tarjimada esa modal kuchning saqlanishi xabarning pragmatik maqomini buzmaslik uchun muhim ekani asoslandi.
Yuklashlar
Havolalar
1. Aikhenvald A. Y. Evidentiality. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. – 452 p.
2. Bednarek M. Epistemological Positioning and Evidentiality in English News Discourse: A Text-Driven Approach // Text & Talk. – 2006. – Vol. 26, No. 6. – P. 635–660. – DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.027.
3. Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S., Finegan E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. – Harlow: Longman, 1999. – 1204 p.
4. Chafe W., Nichols J. (eds.). Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. – Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1986. – 346 p.
5. Halliday M. A. K., Matthiessen C. M. I. M. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. – 4th ed. – London: Routledge, 2014. – 808 p.
6. Hyland K. Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse // Discourse Studies. – 2005. – Vol. 7, No. 2. – P. 173–192. – DOI: 10.1177/1461445605050365.
7. Martin J. R., White P. R. R. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. – Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. – 278 p.
8. Nuyts J. Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. – Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001.
9. Palmer F. R. Mood and Modality. – 2nd ed. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. – 236 p.
10. Safarov Sh. Pragmalingvistika. – Toshkent: O‘zbekiston Milliy Ensiklopediyasi, 2008. – 318 b.
11. White P. R. R. Beyond Modality and Hedging: A Dialogic View of the Language of Intersubjective Stance // Text. – 2003. – Vol. 23, No. 2. – P. 259–284.
12. White P. R. R. Exploring the Axiological Workings of “Reporter Voice” News Stories – Attribution and Attitudinal Positioning // Discourse, Context & Media. – 2012. – Vol. 1, No. 2–3. – P. 57–67. – DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004.
