Semantic Peculiarities Of Chechen And Ingush Isoglosses Use In Speech And Writing

Abstract

This paper deals mainly with the development of the semantics of words and the peculiarities of word usage in the Chechen language in comparison with the Ingush language. The authors trace the general and particular features of the development of the content side of the Chechen-Ingush isoglosses and the patterns of their use in written and oral speech in connection with the peculiarities of the organization of utterance in these languages. The analysis of dictionary entries in the Chechen and Ingush languages showed that the patterns of compatibility of the linguistic elements of both languages are more nationally specific than the very composition of the lexical systems of the two languages. Words that are equivalent in sound structure and in general meanings can differ in the scope of use and in the volume of semantic content (expansion, narrowing and transfer of the meanings of words). The scope of use of equivalent lexical units differs that is the same word can be frequently used, for example, in the Ingush language and refer to archaisms in the Chechen language. In the studied languages the identical words in terms of expression (lexemes) are not always identical in terms of content (semanthemes). thesimilar discrepancies with the literary language are observed in Chechen dialects, and they concern not only the sound structure of words, but also all the elements of meanings that are associated with a change in the volume and boundaries of the concept itself, denoted by the word.

Keywords: Archaism, lexicology, lexical units, lexeme, semantheme, word motivation

Introduction

The paper analyzes the features of the use of Chechen words in comparison with the Ingush ones, mainly the main patterns that determine the choice of means (words and forms) used in accordance with certain situations.

The analysis of practical material showed that the patterns of compatibility of linguistic elements of the Chechen and Ingush languages are more nationally specific than the very composition of the lexical systems of the two languages. As it was rightly noted by Gak in his work: “Languages differ not only in what they have, but perhaps even more so in how they use what they have” (2009, p. 21). A great help in the comparative study of the Nakh languages is the lexical fund of the dialects of the Chechen language, since they have preserved obsolete words that have fallen out of the common vocabulary. This provision is confirmed by Vendina (2016), testifying to the:

conservativeness of dialects, which have successfully resisted external influences for many centuries, as well as the tendency towards standardization. This resistance of dialects in the process of their contact with the literary language contributed to the conservation of individual narrow-local lexemes". (p. 430)

Scientists came to the conclusion that it is not enough to compare the lexical systems of two languages, according to Gak (2010):

In the latest research, we are talking about the comparison of the functioning of these systems, about the relationship between lexical elements and the described reality, which are designed to show the comprehensive life of the word in the language. (p. 33)

Cooper and Retoré (2017) formulated "lexical semantics as: the meaning of a word in context (various forms of polysemy), relationships between meanings, relationships between lexical systems and lexical semantics" (p. 166).

Lexical units of related languages in the course of a long isolated development undergo not only phonetic “wear and tear”, but acquire such new properties as narrowing, expanding or rethinking the meanings of words.

One of the founders of structuralism, de Saussure, introduced the concept of motivated and unmotivated words into linguistics (Gak, 2009).

We are talking about motivation meaning the semantic connection of morphemes, realized by a speaker. The analysis of dictionary entries in the Chechen and Ingush languages showed that many of the studied lexical units are motivated and have obvious connections with the word-building elements of the commonly used vocabulary of both languages.

Problem Statement

This research is performed in order to identify the features of the use of lexical means in speech and writing in two related languages. With the prevailing common features of the structure and system of languages, the Chechen and Ingush languages have a discrepancy in how these words and forms are used in certain situations and contexts. In these studied languages, the identical words in terms of expression (lexemes) are not always identical in terms of content (semanthemes). At the same time, we can argue that the same content in both languages can be expressed using different lexical means.

Research Questions

According to the analysis of dictionary entries and examples from live speech, the paper traces the general and particular features of the development of the content component of the Chechen-Ingush isoglosses and the patterns of their use in written and oral speech in connection with the peculiarities of the organization of the utterance in these languages.

The uniqueness and originality of the Chechen and Ingush languages are associated not only with the composition of the lexical systems of the two languages, but to an even greater extent they depend on the patterns of the use of words of the same meaning and on the variety of means for the expression of the same thought.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the paper is to highlight the issues of the development of the semantics of words and the peculiarities of word usage in the Chechen language in comparison with the Ingush language.

Research Methods

The comparative method was used in order to identify and analyze the practical material. In the empirical part of the work, the inductive method of analysis was used.

Findings

As for the arsenal of lexical means of the two languages, we found out that the same semanteme, either in the Chechen or Ingush language, was realized with the help of one or more lexemes, in two forms of the root, participating in various word-formation processes. One form forms root word. It is implemented in non-affix word-formation models (syntactic word formation, stable word combinations). Another form can be used as an independent word and participates in word formation using morphological means: morphological compounding, prefixation, suffixation. According to Schlucker (2019), the main difference between compound words and polynomial expressions is that the former ones are the product of a morphological operation, while the latter are the result of syntactic processes.

In the Chechen and Ingush languages, the compatibility of morphemes in the formation of compound words and the compatibility of words in the formation of phrases are also peculiar,

comp: Ing. adj. ' self-confident ' – Chech. 'self-confident'. To express the same concept in the Chechen lexicalized phrase, the present participle was used, and in the Ingush compound word – the past participle ( );

Ing. verb 'fade' ( adj. ' dark, dull') – Chech. 'to be dull' / 'become dull'.

Ing. 'need, become poor' – Chech. 'be impoverished';

Ing. adj. 'vegetables', noun 'strawberry' (Chech. 'grass', Ing. adj. 'vegetable') – Chech. 'vegetables', 'strawberries'.

In the first two examples in the Ingush language, the lexeme was formed by a compound word (, – a morphological way of word formation), while in the Chechen language it is a phrase, and, on the contrary, in the last examples the Chechen equivalent is formed in a morphological way, that is expressed by a compound word (,), and in the Ingush language – by a stable phrase.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that in the Chechen dialects there are similar discrepancies with the Ploskostny dialect, which is the basis of the Chechen literary language, and they concern not only the sound structure of words, but also all the elements of meanings that are associated with a change in the scope and boundaries of the very concept denoted in a word, for example, Plosk., cornbread' –Galanch. dial.'corn flour' (Ing. – 'grain prepared for grinding'; Chech. – 'corn flour'). In the Cheberloev dialect of the Chechen language, as well as in the Ingush language, they say in the meaning of 'to be cured', however, in the Chechen literary language, the class verb is not used in those phrases where the subject of the action is an animated person: Chech. 'the wound has healed'.

Comp: Ing. 'to be cured', 'the sick person is cured– Chech. 'to be cured', ‘the patient was cured'. In the Chechen language, the names 'sick' are much less frequently used than, since un is an ' infectious sick ', andhas a special sphere of use.

In addition, the same word can be commonly used, for example, in the Ingush language and refer to archaisms in the Chechen language. Some of the obsolete words have been displaced from the Chechen and Ingush languages by words borrowed from the Russian language.

Comp: Ing. 'suit', 'clothing', 'get dressed' – Chech. 'clothes (archaism)'; Ing. 'cigarette' – Chech. (Chech. – archaism);

Comp: Ing. 'iron, iron'; 'to iron (with an iron)', 'to iron' – Chech. /dial. 'stroke';(archaism) 'stroke'.

In the case when in related languages in a compound word or in a stable combination one or even two elements diverge, speakers of the Chechen and Ingush languages in most cases understand the meaning of this lexical unit due to intralinguistic associations, Comp.: Ing. 'to pour out, crumble'; 'to pour in' – Chech.– 'to pour (grain into millstones)', to sprinkle, 'to pour in, to get enough sleep' (Ozdoev, 1980). Intransitive verbs Ing. / Chech., synonymous with verb, are the same in both languages both in terms of the scope of the concept and in terms of linguistic expression, with the exception of the phonetic simplification of the prefix [> 1o]. In addition, in terms of sound structure, the verbis closer to such Chechen verbal roots as 'to pour down', 'to drive down' (Karasaev & Matsiev, 1978).

Both languages have the following set of lexical units, however, each language expresses the same concepts using different means, Comp.: Ing. 'be interested', 'want', 'I want to drink' – Chech. 'I'm thirsty'.

Ing. 'curseword', ' rude ', 'rudeness' – Chech. – 'rough', 'dry, sharp' Chech. – 'stick', 'tasteless)'.

As we see from the example, in both languages the equivalents of the word “rough” are motivated by different generating words: the Ingush derivative is motivated by the nominal stem “ – stick”, and the Chechen one is motivated by the adjective “ tasteless”.

Ing. 'boast' (Chech. 'big, great') – Chech. 'boast', 'arrogant', 'boastful';

Ing. 'inexpensive' ( 'light' – Chech. give 'light, cheap') – Chech. 'inexpensive'; Ing. 'guess' – Chech. 'guess'.

In the following equivalent lexicalized phrases, one of the elements of the lexical unit (the verbal part) diverges, but nevertheless both elements convey the same meaning using different means and in most cases they have obvious connections with word-building elements in both languages, Comp: Ing. 'to say goodbye' – Chech., where the verbal part of the lexical unit differs ( farewell, Ing. lit. 'talk about farewell', Chech. lit. ' to make farewell').

Comp: Ing. 'torment' 'torture' – Chech. 'make suffering, torment' (Karasaev & Matsiev, 1978);

Ing. 'to lose one's liking, to lose one's liking' – Chech. 'dislike';

Ing.'nervous' – Chech. 'to be angry, angry';

Ing. ('sweet') 'unaffectionate' – ('beautiful') 'unfriendly';

Ing. 'curse', 'curse (curse)' – Chech. 'to curse' (Matsiyev, 1961);

Ing. 'to chew (about an animal)' – Chech. 'to chew (of an animal)';

Ing. apache buvtsa 'lie', 'lie' – Chech. abshpsh / putash bitta / butta.

In the following example, the Chechen and Ingush languages not only use different prefixes (, t1era 'above'), but also use different verbal roots to convey the same concept, although the Ingush language also has a lexeme equivalent to a Chechen verb in form (): Ing. 'subtract debt' (Chech. 'down', 'direct') – Chech. 'subtract' ('from above', – 'remove').

Ing. 'to hiss something'; 'to pinch a chicken'; 'horse nibbles grass' – Chech. 'spit the chicken', 'a horse nibbles grass' (Chech. 'let it turn sour' – direct meaning, 'pull something until its appearance changes' – figurative meaning).

In the next Ingush verb, a sound simplification of the prefix (uohya > 1o) took place ( 'to pour over' – Chech. prefixes following one after another () convey affective coloring and make the whole statement emotionally colored.

Many meanings of the common polysemantic verb Ing.chech words 'to close, lock' are the same in both languages, however, when different structural variants of the word are used, a shift occurs in the meaning of the word, which leads not only to a change in its compatibility, but also to a change in the very object denoted by it, Comp: Ing. (verbal noun) 'test, experience', – Chech. 'bracket', 'supports'.

A common occurrence: a common word has a broader or narrower meaning in one of the studied (Ing.'feather of a bird' – Chech. 'feather of a bird'), the Ingush variant is associated with the word 'clothes' commonly used in both languages, Comp: Ing. 'clothes, fluff', 'feather (bird's)' – Chech. 'clothing', 'down, plumage'.

Ing. adj. 'adult', adj. 'mature',. 'adult' (n.) – Chech. 'children have grown up', 'children need to be raised'; 'grow up, grow up', 'adult'. As we see from the example, in the Chechen language the verb is not as polysemantic as in the Ingush language and the scope of its use is somewhat narrower: in the meaning of “adult” it is used only in the Ingush language, in the meaning of “grow up, adult” it is used in both languages.

The expansion of the meanings of words occurs as a result of the transfer of the meanings of words. In the studied languages, identical words in terms of expression (lexemes) are not always identical in terms of content (semanthemes). For example, in the Chechen language 'hair of the head',hair on the human body', in Ingush – Russian dictionaries more often means 'hair of the head', and means 'lock of hair'; also Ing. ('head') is often used to mean the hair of the head.

Comp: Ing. 'snake', 'muck' – Chech. 'viper, snake', 'dishonest person' (figurative meaning); 'impurity, feces'.

Ing. adj. 'intact, whole (indivisible)', 'for three whole days' – Chech.'in a conspicuous place', – 'put in a place of honor';

In order to determine the place of a word in the lexical system of a language, it is necessary to take into account the use of the word not in its direct nominative meanings, but in a figurative meaning, in phraseological turns, in a service function.

Languages can use different types of forms to express the same meaning. In the Chechen and Ingush languages there are phraseological units that are incomprehensible to a native speaker of the Ingush or Chechen language for the simple reason that this turn has no phraseological equivalent in another language. The following phrase is incomprehensible to a native speaker of the Chechen language, despite the fact that each individual word that is part of it is a common word in both languages, at the same time, the Ingush language also has the following equivalent phrase from the Chechen language.

Comp: Ing. 'to humiliate' (lit. 'finger', 'put on') – Chech. 'to humiliate' (Ing. ).

The following words of the Ingush language are found only in the mountain dialects of the Chechen language: Comp:

(synonym of) 'door lock' – Chech./ Ing. 'valve', dial. 'castle' (Ismailov, 2009).

Moreover, it is obvious in the studied languages that there are the discrepancies in the sound structure of words (Chech. / Ing. 'valve'; Chech. 'to humiliate', Ing.), which we always observe in word formation and in the formation of grammatical categories. We considered in detail in a previous work the processes of changes in the sound structure of words during the formation of grammatical categories (Tokaeva, 2021).

Conclusion

This research was performed in order to identify the features of the use of lexical means in speech and writing in the Chechen and Ingush languages.

According to the analysis of dictionary entries, we can conclude that in order to express the same meaning, each language uses different types and methods of word formation. For example, the Ingush equivalent is expressed by a compound word (bad – a morphological way of word formation ), while Chechen is a phrase, and, on the contrary, in other examples, the Chechen derivative is formed in a morphological way, that is, it is expressed in a compound word ( ), and Ingush is a stable phrase.

In both languages, the equivalents of the lexeme "rude" are motivated by different generating bases: the Ingush derivative is motivated by the nominal stem "", and the Chechen one – by the adjective "".

In the following equivalent lexicalized phrases, one of the elements of the lexical unit (the verbal part) diverges. However, both elements convey the same meaning using different means, comp.: Ing.'to say goodbye' – Chech. ( farewell, Ing. lit. 'to speak of farewell', Chech. lit. 'to make farewell').

Moreover, the use of equivalent words in different contexts and situations often leads to discrepancies in the content of words of the same meaning, Comp: Ing. 'snake', 'muck' – Chech. 'viper, snake', 'dishonest person' (figurative meaning); 'impurity, feces'.

It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that the discrepancies that we found during the comparison off the vocabulary of the Chechen and Ingush languages were similar to the discrepancies that occurred between the Chechen dialects. Words that were equivalent in sound structure and in general meanings could differ in terms of the scope of use and the volume of semantic content (expansion, narrowing of the meanings of words). For example, the Chechen equivalent could be archaic, while the Ingush was a commonly used word.

With the prevailing common features of the structure and system of languages, the Chechen and Ingush languages have a discrepancy in how these words and forms are used in certain situations and contexts.

References

  • Cooper, R., & Retoré, Ch. (2017). An outline of type-theoretical approaches to lexical semantics. Journal of Language Modeling, 5(2), 165–178. DOI: 10.15398/jlm.v5i2.200

  • Gak, V. G. (2009). Comparative typology of French and Russian. Book house “LIBRIKOM”.

  • Gak, V. G. (2010). Comparative Lexicology: Based on French and Russian Languages. Book house “LIBRIKOM”.

  • Ismailov, A. T. (2009). Word (Dosh). Reflections on mother tongue. CJSC “NPP Dzhangar”.

  • Karasaev, A. T., & Matsiev, A. G. (1978). Russian-Chechen Dictionary. Russian language.

  • Matsiyev, A. G. (1961). Chechen -Russian Dictionary. State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries.

  • Ozdoev, I. A. (1980). Russian-Ingush Dictionary. Russian language.

  • Schlucker, B. (2019). Complex Lexical Units. Compounds and Multi-Word Expressions. Walter De Gruyter GmbH.

  • Tokaeva, A. S. (2021). Comparative analysis of tense forms of the verb in the Chechen and Ingush languages. Proceedings of the IV International Scientific Conference Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 117 (DB Web of Science Core Collection) (pp. 1531–1538). https://www.europeanproceedings.com/article/

  • Vendina, T. I. (2016). Russian dialects in the modern ethnolinguistic and ethnocultural situation. In: Slavic World in the Third Millennium. Vol. 11 (pp. 425–440). Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ID 27686741.

Copyright information

About this article

Publication Date

23 December 2022

eBook ISBN

978-1-80296-128-7

Publisher

European Publisher

Volume

129

Print ISBN (optional)

-

Edition Number

1st Edition

Pages

1-1335

Subjects

Cite this article as:

Tokaeva, A. S., Almurzaeva, P. K., & Idrazova, E. S. (2022). Semantic Peculiarities Of Chechen And Ingush Isoglosses Use In Speech And Writing. In D. K. Bataev, S. A. Gapurov, A. D. Osmaev, V. K. Akaev, L. M. Idigova, M. R. Ovhadov, A. R. Salgiriev, & M. M. Betilmerzaeva (Eds.), Knowledge, Man and Civilization- ISCKMC 2022, vol 129. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1126-1133). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2022.12.144