DOI: https://doi.org/10.36719/2789-6919/55/62-67
Gunay Mehraliyeva
Azerbaijan University of Languages
PhD student
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4923-8004
gunay-m2014@yandex.com
Comparative Cognitive Analysis of Impersonal Constructions:
Evidence from English and Azerbaijani
Abstract
In modern linguistics, the study of impersonal constructions is of great significance for revealing both the grammatical structure of language and its conceptual mechanisms. Impersonal constructions are syntactic units in which the subject is not explicitly expressed, while the predicative center objectively reflects an event or state. These constructions are not merely a formal feature of language but also a projection of cognitive and perceptual processes into linguistic form.
Although the structure, semantics, and functional potential of impersonal constructions in English and Azerbaijani are based on a similar semantic foundation, the means of their expression differ considerably. In Azerbaijani, impersonality is mainly expressed through natural phenomena (Yağış yağır – “It is raining”), physiological and psychological states (Mənə elə gəlir – “It seems to me”), indefinite agent constructions (Qapını döyürlər – “They are knocking at the door”), and structures indicating existence (Gec oldu – “It is late,” Lazımdır – “It is necessary”). In English, however, impersonal constructions are mostly realized through formal elements such as it-constructions (It is raining, It seems…), there-constructions (There is a book on the table), passive structures (It was said that…), and modal expressions (It is necessary to try).
From a cognitive perspective, impersonal constructions demonstrate the modeling of reality not through the subject, but in a process and object-centered manner. In human experience, certain events and states are conceptualized as existing independently of any agent. This feature reveals both the universal semantic core of impersonal constructions and their cross-linguistic differences in expression. Such constructions neutralize the agent of the event or process and shift attention to the event itself. Thus, the removal of the subject from the conceptual background and the emphasis on objectivity represent the main cognitive mechanism of impersonality. For example, It is necessary to learn foreign languages and Vacibdir ki, xarici dillər öyrənilsin differ structurally but share the same cognitive meaning: the category of necessity is presented independently of the subject, in a general and objective way.
Keywords: impersonal constructions, cognitive linguistics, comparative analysis, it-constructions, there-constructions, objectivity