Problems of Modality in Turkic and Kazakh Languages

The present article aims to study the modal words in Turkic and Kazakh languages. The importance of the research topic is explained by the fact that language is a necessary means of communication and influencing people on their activities and behaviors. Determining the category of modality has been done relying on the materialist theory of language. The authors support the position of linguists like Vinogradov that every sentence contains a message about reality and the speaker’s attitude towards it. Therefore, the current study’s fundamental methodological notion is that each sentence has an element of modality. As mentioned above, the ideal attributes to modality’s emotional expression such as surprise, indignation, and joy. The comparative method for Turkic and Kazakh languages concerning modality description was widely applied. The modality features in a sentence were determined, a general analysis of the modality in the sentence was done, and the means of expression of modality was specified. Modal words in the Kazakh language, by their nature of use and in Turkic languages, are very diverse and multifaceted. It is clear from linguistic facts that they can be used as synonyms for each other. They are also different in form. The study may be used by philologists and anyone interested in modality specifically within the Turkic and Kazakh language paradigm or/and other languages. Such research was first performed concerning the Turkic and Kazakh languages.


Introduction
The question related to the modality issue in the Turkic languages has not been studied in detail so far. Language studies have shown a link between the system of functional style and the sphere of human activity. Modal words, phrases, and particles are used as pointers of subjective and evaluative modality establishing an author's contact with a listener, conveying different modal tones of meaning, varying from the highest degree of confidence to the highest degree of uncertainty, and the possibilities regarding the reliability of information content transmitted by them.
The work solves the objectives to consider means of expressing modality; to describe the process of interaction of modalities of sentences; to study the features of the means of expressing modality in sentences. The method of direct observation of studied material with the subsequent generalization of obtained results was used as the primary analysis method. Quantitative calculations of modal words were also carried out. The novelty of the study lies in conducting a detailed analysis of sentence modality in the Kazakh language. The results' analysis can help understand the modality's functioning potential in Turkic languages and can be used in theoretical and practical grammar.

Literature Review
The problem of linguistic modality and ways of its expression are more comprehensively developed in Russian linguistics. Russian scientists since the 18th century researched the question of modality. This question was studied in the works of Lomonosov M.V., Grech N., and other linguists. Vostokov A.K. characterizes modal words as 'adverbs' that "determine the authenticity of an action and state." It should be noted here that there is a general flaw in their coverage of this issue, which consists of identifying the concept of modality with the concept of grammatical mood (Lomonosov, 1799;Grech, 1827;Vostokov, 1831). At that time, grammatical categories were not fully scientifically studied, and it was impossible, especially to study the problem of modality. This question is not fully resolved even now. In the middle of the 19th century, a particular category of coordinating conjunctions was discovered, which "show neither combination, nor subordination, but show the speaker 's attitude to the speech" (Perevlesskyi, 1869). From that, we should conclude that the necessity of distinguishing modal words was needed almost a century ago.
Potebnja A.A. studied modality problems more precisely than the previous authors. From his point of view, there is a link between mood and the category of time, and besides, from Potebnja's viewpoint, the Russian language has a morphological form of mood. Considering forms of mood, he pointed out mainly the modal functions of an imperative mood. Potebnja stated that modality and mood are not merged (Potebnja, 1888).
Shakhmatov A.A. did further development of modality. He emphasized six to eight moods. "Mood is a verbal expression of sense connection between subject and predicate" (Shakhmatov, 1941). It is not difficult to understand this is not about mood, but about another category, precisely about modality. Thus, according to the definition of Shakhmatov A.A., modality is the sense connection between the subject and predicate. He did not confuse modality with the category of mood. However, his views about mood are different from Potebnja's views.
The next stage in the development of modality questions is the research done by Vinogradov V.V., who, unlike previous linguists, tries to reveal specifics of the modality category and to highlight some means of its expression. In his works, Vinogradov V.V. associates the category of modality with sentence studies closely. The sentence contains not only a message about any event, but there is also a "relationship of speech content to reality." "Each sentence includes a modal meaning as an essential constructive attribute" (Vinogradov, 1950). In his article "Basic questions of the sentence syntax," V.V. Vinogradov sets out that in a different form. He claims that the sentence is characterized by the following two features: intonation of message and predictiveness, namely a correlation of expressed content to reality. The categories of time, modalities, and persons expressing a real message's relationship are brought under the general concept of "predictiveness." He states: "If predictiveness expresses the general relationship of speech to reality or the relationship of speech with reality, then the category of modality divides and differentiates this general function of the sentence, denoting specific qualities of attitudes to reality from the speaker's side" (Grammatical issues, 1955). In developing the modality question in a sentence, great merit belongs to Galkina-Fedoruk E.M. She pays excellent attention to distinguishing words that express emotional meanings from words that belong to modal words.
In a nutshell, the research, as mentioned above, shows that we can conclude that modality is posed in all its breadth and is gradually being developed. However, this is not evidence; there is now nothing controversial and unresolved. In Turkic languages, questions of modal words (not to mention the other means of expressing modality) have not received sufficient focus from linguists until now. Separate comments directly or indirectly concerning the modality of the sentence are in the works of some Türkologists. For example, in the Turkish and Tatar languages' grammar, the mood is divided into the following types: indicative, imperative, presumptive or conditional, desirable, subjunctive indefinite" (Kazem-Bek, 1889).
"The epistemic conversational background determines for every world the set of worlds which are accessible from it. It forms the modal base" (Kratzer, 1981). "It appears that modal meanings are part of a natural, logical vocabulary and thus elements with modal meanings easily become part of the inventory of grammatical or functional morphemes, which are typically associated with idiosyncratic, nonproductive grammatical characteristics" (von Fintel, 2006). Modality is concerned with the proposition's status that describes the event and is a cross-language grammatical category subject to typological study. Drawing upon data from a large number of languages, Palmer (Salkie, 1988). proceeds very systematically in the typological study of modality, proving at the very outset that grammatical typology cannot be undertaken based on purely formal grammatical marking. It is thus done based on 'notional' criteria. Palmer uses the term 'notional' to avoid the debate about semantic and pragmatic, etc." (Langendoen 2001). In his book 'Mood and Modality,' Terence Langendoen writes that Frank R. Palmer classified modality as propositional modality and event modality. The propositional modality can be further subdivided into epistemological and evidential modalities.
Modality has two types: deontic modality and dynamic modality. The distinction between deontic modality and the conditioning factors is external to the relevant individual or speaker, whereas they are internal with dynamic modality (Palmer, 1986). "Palmer notes that the term Mood 'is traditionally restricted to a category expressed in verbal morphology' (Palmer, 1986). He has previously pointed out, correctly, that in typological work, it means that counts: '... the identification [of a grammatical category -RMS] across languages ... rests upon shared semantic characteristics' (Salkie, 1988).
Modality, usually defined as the category expressing the speaker's attitude to the reality of the utterance, a class present in each utterance, presents a complex problem that can be studied from linguistics, logic, and philosophy. These scientific fields apply their approaches to the study of modality and pay special attention to some of its aspects (for instance, to the modality of judgments in logic, to the problem of objective reality in philosophy, to the linguistic means of expressing modality in linguistics and so on)" (Rácová, 2008).
Words expressing the modality of statements by some Türkologists had not been separated into a separate group, i.e., into a group of modal words, and they were considered adverb phrases. For example, in Kazem-Bek's works, we find groups of adverbs composed of nouns. He relates the word 'balki' (maybe) to this type. He considers the word 'balki' as an adverb expressing the meaning of doubt. For example, that, he cites such words as ("probably, apparently"-maybe). According to his statement, they are used in the meaning of affirmation, denial, restriction, or doubt (Kazem-Bek, 1889). Similar statements are found in the grammar of the Altai language. There the mood is not divided into seven types, as in Kazem-Bek's book "The Grammar of the Turkish and Tatar languages." (Janpeyisov, 1958). Here we do not encounter the conjectural, desirable, conditional, and indefinite mood. The authors of Altai grammar books emphasize indecisive and tentative forms of the verb. The indecisive form expresses a speaker's promises, hope, intention, speculative opinion, and request. "The indecisive relations between condition and consequence might not be in actions themselves, but in a speaker's imagination and mind..." (The grammar of the Altai language, 1869). The same idea can be found in the grammar book of Terentyev M. Here, the word -"of course" are considered as responding adverbs (Trentyev, 1875).
Thus, the words 'probably' and 'apparently,' which we now call modal words in the Kazakh language, in works of Terentyev M., as well as in Kazem-Bek's works, are adverbs. We consider modal words in the Kazakh language, and many languages refer to different parts of speech. Among them, it can be found as official, auxiliary, and introductory words. For example, in the Kazakh language: 'maybe' is a verb; 'quite so' is the auxiliary word; it is an official word; consequently, and are introductory words, etc.
All of these sayings state that Kazem-Bek, as well as authors of grammar books of Altai language and Terentyev M., either mixed modality with mood category. As it has already been established in our modern grammatical science, the modality cannot confuse the mood. However, for the first time in Turkology, the researchers, as mentioned above, highlighted some words that can give a tinge of modality in a sentence.
Some linguists considered modal words as part of particles. For example, L.N. Kharitonov divides particles into four groups. According to his division, the third group includes "particles expressing the speaker's attitude" (Kharitonov, 1943). Ubryatova E.I. divides Yakut language's modal words into two groups: "modal words relating to predicate and modal words relating to the entire sentence as a whole." We find the complete descriptions in Turkic languages about modality in a sentence in the works of Ubryatova E.I. ( ), Baskakov N.A. (1951, and Kononov A.N. (1956). Aslanov A.A. writes that the Azerbaijani language's modal words are divided into six groups (Aslanov, 1957) In the modern Kazakh language, introductory words are not related to modal words. They show the sequence, the order of several thoughts, and modal words that express a speaker's attitude to a reporter. Indeed, introductory words are also capable of expressing modality in a statement. However, this is no evidence that essential words expressing the modality in a sentence are not significantly different.
Researchers have concluded that all introductory words cannot express a speaker's attitude to the statement. Consequently, all introductory words are not modal words. In the modern Uzbek language, depending on the participation in expressing modality, sentences are divided into active and passive (Modern Uzbek language, 1957). Separate valuable remarks concerning the issue of modal words in the Kazakh language we find in the works of Kenesbayev (1956), Amanzholov (1940), Sauranbayev (1948), Sauranbayev (1953), andBalakayev (1954). In the Kazakh language, as well as in other Turkic languages, some individual grammar questions still require comprehensive studies. The modality in a sentence and the ways of its expression belong to these issues. Modern views on the problems of modality within the paradigm of the Kazakh language are found in works of Abish ( In most Turkic languages, modal words remain unexplored, and their numbers have not been defined yet. However, the most recent attempts of analysis of the notion of modality in Turkic languages were made by such modern scientists as Yakup (2019), Karakoç (2019), Satýk (2020), and Mamyrbayev (2020).

Methodology
In the present work, the authors have attempted to analyze only modal words with introductory words and particles belonging to lexical and syntactic ways of expressing the modality in a sentence. So far, we have been talking about the studies of the issue related to the problem of modality. The question arises as to "What is 'modality' in general, and what are its ways of expression?" In determining the category of modality and other language categories, we must rely on the materialist theory of language. The modality category (lat. modus -image, method) is associated with philosophy's central question. Materialism teaches that philosophy's main question is about the relationship between thinking and existence, consciousness, and nature. "... Neither thought nor language forms themselves the special kingdom; they are only manifestations of real-life" (Marx & Engels, 1976).
In this regard, Karl Marx writes that "language is the immediate reality of thought."These thoughts, as Marxism teaches, are a reflection of the external world, which exists outside the human will independently from that. Consequently, the content of our statements is the processes and phenomena of the external world. Our statements find their expressions in grammatical forms in the sentence. One of the main features of the sentence, as indicated by Vinogradov V.V., is the relation of expressed content to reality. Speaking of predictiveness as the main feature of the sentence, Vinogradov V.V. writes that "the meaning and no meaning of the general category of predictiveness, which forms the sentence, is the attribution of sentence content to reality" (Grammatical issue, 1955). He relates categories of time and modality to the methods of its expression.
People have permanent connections with each other in the process of being. This relationship is manifested in their communications. Communication is the response of the speaker to reality. Consequently, "thought cannot be reduced to a simple idea, precluding any active participation from the part of the thinking subject (person)" (Balli, 1955). With the help of language, a person can report about phenomena that occur, have occurred, about phenomena that should happen or may happen, and about the phenomena he doubts. Thus, besides such messages, the sentence should express the correlation of these messages to reality. "Modals sentences are about what is possible … There is the set containing the time at which the possibility or necessity holds in the world of utterance …" (Weber et al. (2020)).
Consequently, the speaker is not limited by fixing processes or phenomena of the external world, but he also expresses his attitude. In this regard, Vinogradov V.V. writes that the sentence contains "not only a message about reality but also the speaker's attitude towards that" (Questions of grammatical structure, 1955). Nevertheless, these relationships depending on the content of the statement, may be different. They get a different design in our speech act. According to the Swiss linguist Charles Bally, "modality is a soul of a sentence, like a thought. It is formed mainly as a result of the active operation of a speaking subject. Therefore, a speaker cannot attach the importance of a sentence to a statement if it does not contain at least some expression of modality" (Balli, 1955).
It is necessary to distinguish emotion from the modal evaluation. The emotional attitude is inherent in expressive interjection sentences, i.e., an emotional attitude is very far from that attitude, which expresses the possibility, certainty, obviousness, necessity, obligation, and probability. Suppose we proceed from the fact that each sentence is modal. In that case, we attribute the emotional expression of modality such emotions as surprise, indignation, and joy because interjection sentences have this content.

Results
Modal words and words having modal characteristic functions are the lexical basis of the modality category. Its grammatical basis is the verbal mood category, i.e., the modality category is expressed by grammatical and lexical means.
According to Vinogradov V.V., the category of modality is a system of language tools that express the "speaker's attitude to the statement" (Grammatical issues, 1955). Janpeyisov E.N. noted that the modality is a speaker's subjective-objective relationship to the communicated fact. He distinguished two types of modality: direct modality and indirect modality (Janpeyisov, 1958). How do they differ from each other? By direct modality, we understand the speaker's objective attitude to relationships of an action (phenomenon) and its subject (it snowed, winter came). The indirect modality expresses a speaker's subjective attitude to the expressed report (winter has come). The tone of indirect modality does not deny direct modality. On the contrary, it complements and accompanies that.
The direct modality appears in the form of the predicate, and in verbless sentences (winter, night), it is expressed by intonation. The indirect modality is expressed by both predicate forms in lexical and grammatical means (Shabalin, 1955). This already indicates that the modality in the language is expressed in various ways. Modal words in modern Turkish literary language are divided into three categories: words expressing different semantic tones of word meanings in speech, words that bring into speech modal and volitional tones, and words that perform form-building functions. The following ranks group, the second one of these three categories: -Modal words expressing modal-volitional tones; -Modal words expressing attitude to reality; -Modal words expressing presumption; -Modal words are used in comparison to similar or expected phenomena and actions (Kononov, 1956). The modal words in the modern Kazakh language can also express various aspects of modality, namely, supposition, desire, doubt, belief, etc. According to these values, they are divided into separate categories, and they have connections not only with one meaning but with several meanings. This is already evidence that many of them have very diverse meanings. For further study, each modal word must be considered separately. The modality problem is closely connected with questions about the unity of language, communicative function of language, and thought. As modality in a sentence of Turkic languages remains insufficiently studied, there are many controversial and unsolved questions. In the Kazakh language, there are numerous kinds of expressions that have modal meanings. The sentence not only has a message, but it also shows a speaker's attitude towards that. Every sentence contains modality. The modality in a sentence is considered one of the modern linguistics' main features of modern linguistic science.
Modals have semantic and formal features that are not easy to understand with simple language chunks (Chartrand et al., 2000). This work is devoted only to modal words that constitute lexical and grammatical ways of expressing modalities in sentences with introductory words and particles. In the modern Kazakh language, they are divided into two types: nominal and verbal. In their grammatical and lexical features, modal words refer to different parts of speech. A large number of modal words in sentences have grammatical connections with predicates. Other words as 'of course,' 'exactly,' 'maybe,' take a syntactic position in the sentence's introductory part.
It should be noted that besides these words, in the Kazakh language, there are also such separate words as 'true' and 'probably,' which are used both in grammatical connection and in the syntactic position. In the Kazakh language, as well as in many Turkic languages, there is not a modal word which, by its nature, is modal. The words 'maybe,' 'whether,' 'probably,' 'apparently,' and others became modal words in the process of gradual grammaticalization; from their lexical meanings were evolved grammatical modal meanings. Nevertheless, it does not lead to the fact that they are not used in their nominative functions. The grammaticalization of these words is evidence that there is a complex dialectical connection between grammar and vocabulary.
Modal words of nominal types in the Kazakh language have meanings of obligation, assumption, probability, categorical approval, and confirmation (recognition or agreement). As for modal words of verbal types, they also express various aspects of modality: conviction, doubt, desire (request), regret, assumptions, etc. In the development and improvement culture of national speech, modal words' grammaticalization process is very indicative. Our study showed that the range of modal words in the modern Kazakh language is expanding mainly due to the grammaticalization of words in both verbal and nominal types. Individual words depending on the syntactic environment and semantic features, may gradually perform meanings of introductory and modal words.

Conclusion
The linguistics of modality in a sentence is usually understood as a relation between speech content and reality. Modality is one of the main issues related to sentence studies. Many linguistic works are devoted to modality, yet many aspects of this problem in Turkic and Kazakh languages remain insufficiently studied. Modal words in the Kazakh language, by their nature of use and in Turkic languages, are very diverse and multifaceted. It is clear from linguistic facts that they can be used as synonyms for each other. They are also different in form. Each modal word in the modern Kazakh language is specific. In addition to the primary value, they have many derived meanings. In modern language, modality is transmitted by various means.
Direct modality appears in the form of a predicate, and in verbless sentences (winter, night), it is expressed by intonation. Modal words in modern Turkish literary language are divided into three categories: words expressing different semantic tones of word meanings in speech; words that bring into speech modal and volitional tones and words that perform form-building functions.
In the Kazakh language, there are numerous kinds of expressions that have modal meanings. Modal words of nominal types in the Kazakh language have meanings of obligation, assumption, probability, categorical approval, and confirmation (recognition or agreement). The range of modal words in the modern Kazakh language is expanding mainly due to the grammaticalization of words in both verbal and nominal types.