Volume 06 Issue 09 September 2023
Narmin Arif Ahmadova
Azerbaijan University of Languages Candidate For A Degree
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i9-10Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
Text linguistics, which is one of the relevant fields of linguistics in our modern times, was born in the 20s of the 20th century and began to be formed in the 50s and 80s. As the name suggests, the main research object of text linguistics is the text itself. If we consider the word text in general, the word text can have two different meanings. That is, this word can be considered to be both in a broad sense - macrotext, and in its opposite narrow sense - microtext. The microtexts in a narrow sense combine to form macrotexts with a broad meaning. In this case, the concept of complex syntactic whole coincides with the concept of microtext. So, macrotexts are a collection of complex syntactic entities. While a single sentence expresses a complete idea, a complex syntactic whole expresses a complex idea, any particular information. Complex syntactic whole is a syntactic unit in which two or more sentences are connected by syntactic and formal relations. The group of sentences forming the basis of the text has been named by different scholars with different terms. For example, V.G. Kolshansky paragraph, I.R. Galperin, I.O. Moskalskaya discourse, K. Abdullayev complex syntactic whole, V. G. Admoni large syntactic whole and others used different terms. The term complex syntactic whole is more appropriate as the sentences in the text form certain unified whole.
KEYWORDStext, text linguistics, concept, sentence, meaning, brain, syntactic whole
REFERENCES
1) Abdullayev, K. (2016). Theoretical problems of Azerbaijani language syntax. Baku: MTM Innovation, 360 p.
2) Abdullayev, A. A. (2011). Actual linking, text and discourse. Baku: Zardabi LTD, 272 p.
3) Croft W., Alan D., (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. The UK CUP.
4) Aristotle (1998). Nicomachean Ethics. USA: Oxford University Press.
5) Frege, G. (2000). On Concept and Object. Vol. 60, No. 238, pp. 168-180, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6) Clark H., Marshall C., (1981). Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge. Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, p. 10-63.
7) Talmy L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Volume 1Concept Structuring Systems. The MIT Press, p. 104-118.
8) Lyapin S.Kh. Conceptology: towards the formation of an approach // Concepts. Issue 1. - Arkhangelsk, 1997. - p. 32-45.
9) Askoldov, S.A. (1997). Concept and Word // Russian Literature: From the Theory of Literature to the Structure of the Text. - M.: Academia, - p. 267-279.
10) Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. (1993). An Introduction to Language. USA: New York press, 544 p.
11) Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B.F.Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour. “Language”, 35, pp. 26-58.
12) Likhachev, D.S. (1993). Concept sphere of the Russian language. Ed. RAN-SL- 1, p.5.
13) Ronald, W. L. (2008). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 584 p.
14) Popova, Z.D., Sternin, I.A. (2007). Cognitive linguistics. East-West, 220 p.