Development of lexical cohesion of German in writing

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University

Development of lexical cohesion of german in writing

Ahmadova V.H.

Abstract

In the article, a series of steps for interpreting lexical cohesion in texts of German containing written information are described. The main goal is to conduct an empirical analysis of realizing unified strategies for the providing lexical cohesion in Germanic languages, as well as in writing, and to indicate a description of practices grounded the improvement of lexical skills based on semanticfields in use of word combinations of German in the writing and can be effective in this field. Lexical coherence is an important linguistic component of meaningful writing and plays a significant role on getting general coherence and thematic continuity of a text. It is sometimes a problem to make very precise, subtle interpretations, avoid timeconsuming procedures and combine some automatic procedures in written texts. Therefore, one ofthe main challenges is to define subtle categories allowed identifying commonalities and differences. It is stated in the article that the relations must be explained to classify the semantic relations between the sentences and to write composition with several existing systems. The symmetrical arrangement of paired relations between sentences helps students understand how sentences follow each other and some transition words are necessary for cohesion. The appropriate word combinations ensuring the effectiveness of the speech make the study of the thematic lexicon and semantic fields a necessity. Word combinations having common meaning, belonging to a common topics and reflecting the conceptual similarity of the described phenomena are the researchfields for the lexical-semanticfields ofnew complex words. The most common source for the lexicon selection of the semantic field is thematic texts. In the writing process, the teacher classifies the appropriate lexical units to describe the concepts completely and to create a lexical-semantic field. This option allows students to form a certain knowledge about lexical units and to use them on completing various analytical, written and oral tasks.

Key words: coherence, sequence, thematic coherence, phraseological lexicons.

Анотація

Ахмадова В. Г. РОЗВИТОК ЛЕКСИЧНОЇ ЗВ'ЯЗНОСТІ НІМЕЦЬКОЇ МОВИ НА ПИСЬМІ

У статті описано ряд кроків для інтерпретації лексичної зв'язності в текстах німецької мови, що містять письмову інформацію. Основна мета - провести емпіричний аналіз реалізації уніфікованих стратегій забезпечення лексичної зв'язності в германських мовах, а також у письмовій формі, а також вказати опис практик, що ґрунтуються на вдосконаленні лексичних навичок на основі семантичних полів у використанні словосполучень. німецької мови в письмовій формі та може бути ефективним у цій галузі. Лексична зв'язність є важливим лінгвістичним компонентом осмисленого письма і відіграє значну роль у досягненні загальної зв'язності та тематичної безперервності тексту. Іноді буває проблематично зробити дуже точні, тонкі тлумачення, уникнути трудомістких процедур і поєднати деякі автоматичні процедури в письмових текстах. Тому однією з головних проблем є визначення тонких категорій, які дозволять виявити спільні риси та відмінності. У статті зазначено, що для класифікації семантичних зв'язків між реченнями та написання композиції з кількома існуючими системами необхідно пояснити зв'язки. Симетричне розташування парних зв'язків між реченнями допомагає учням зрозуміти, як речення слідують одне за одним, і деякі перехідні слова необхідні для зв'язку. Відповідні словосполучення, що забезпечують ефективність мовлення, обумовлюють необхідність вивчення тематичної лексики та семантичного поля. Полею дослідження лексико- семантичних полів нових складних слів є словосполучення, що мають спільне значення, належать до спільної тематики та відображають концептуальну подібність описуваних явищ. Найпоширенішим джерелом виділення лексики семантичного поля є тематичні тексти. У процесі письма вчитель класифікує відповідні лексичні одиниці, щоб повністю описати поняття та створити лексико- семантичне поле. Цей варіант дозволяє сформувати у студентів певні знання про лексичні одиниці та використовувати їх під час виконання різноманітних аналітичних, письмових та усних завдань.

Ключові слова: зв'язність, послідовність, тематична зв'язність, фразеологічна лексика.

Introduction

The principle of lexical cohesion is considered as the main type of combination contributing to the general coherence and thematic continuity of the text. Lexical coherence was introduced as a concept by Halliday and Hasan (1976) and is one of the main types of combination contributing to the general coherence and thematic continuity of the text. Helping students understand coherence in terms of possible lexical and semantic relations between sentences during text building in the writing process, formalizing a previously uncertain writing instruction field and creating a coherent paragraph are difficult sometimes. It is known that many students do not have the intuitive knowledge base to grasp the possible relations between sentences, or the readings of a composition course cannot provide them with such knowledge. They need conscious rules [2, s. 5].

The topicality of the problem. The problem on semantic analysis of the vocabulary is one of the most actively studied problems of linguistics. Advancement of new theoretical principles and new ideas on the formation of research object and comprehension of premature formation of semantic descriptions indicate that the volume of materials yet to be investigated is ten or perhaps hundreds of times greater than all has been investigated so far. Ensuring sequence in lexical cohesion in writing and researching Germanic languages in different periods of development indicate the processes occurring in the language.

Although the research on the mentioned topic arouses a lot of interest among linguists, until recently, more priority was given to the study of the grammatical structure of Germanic languages and very less attention was paid to the study of vocabulary and the lexical cohesion of word combinations in spoken language.

Goal and tasks

The comparative study of word combinations and the investigation of the principle of lexical cohesion in the German language consist of this approach, studying the specific structure and lexical-semantic features of word combinations in the language, their use in spoken language and determining the scientific-theoretical basis of their position in the text.

Methods

The main material to be investigated in the article is facts about German language. Contrasting, reconciliation, and comparison were used as scientific methods. lexical language text

Main paragraph

Maintaining lexical cohesion in writing. In recent literature examples, the use of a wide range of modifiers such as “syntactic”, “grammatical”, “semantic”, “substantive”, “logical”, “pragmatic”, “thematic” and “cognitive” for sequence in maintaining lexical coherence in writing is mentioned. In these terms, clarity and several complex aspects are indicated to be grouped together under sequence. The relations must be explained in order to classify the semantic relations between sentences and write compositions with several existing systems. The symmetrical arrangement of paired relations between sentences helps students understand how sentences follow each other and some transition words are necessary for cohesion [1, s. 2].

Lexical cohesion is often called perspective coherence. In writing, perspectival coherence is established through existing linguistic analyses and corruption of perspectival coherence rarely happens. Perspectival coherence is corrupted when perspectivality cannot be shared in a text written with perspectival coherence. In the text, perspective coherence in this sense will be called “logical” or “thematic” coherence. Halliday and Hasan put forward the lexical unit along with the other four main types of combination including co-reference, substitution, ellipsis, and conjunction in the brief interpretation of written texts. In this respect, lexical units differ from each other in terms of structure and semantics. Since we are interested in investigating the linguistic features of a lexical unit, our goal is to obtain a high- precision interpretation without spending a lot of time and effort. Therefore, while we are interpreting the text generally, identifying the elements of lexical chains and determining their semantic relations are helpful to us.

For convenience, a general summary is used in the presentation of the texts. On the one hand, this provides us with an accurate summary of the lexical unit, and on the other hand, it allows us to test and evaluate automatic procedures [2, s. 4].

Ich lebe in einer Stadt namens Quedlinburg in der Nahe der Mosel. Wir brauchen etwa 3 Stunden und 28 Minuten, um mit dem Zug nach Berlin zu gelan- gen. Ich sage, es ist eine Stadt, es ist eher ein Dorf. Es ist ziemlich klein. Es ist eigentlich sehr schon, es ist ein schoner Ort zum Leben. Es ist ein sehr schoner Ort zum Leben.

Und ich bin in Quedlinburg aufgewachsen, das ist ziemlich nah bei Munchen. Es ist ein sehr schoner Ort zum Leben. Quedlinburg ist ein Land, in dem Stadtburg und Kirche 1994 in die Liste des UNESCO- Weltkulturerbes aufgenommen wurden.

As it is seen in the example, unlike the other four types mentioned by Hallideyin and Hasan in structural interpretation, cojuctions indicating the relationship with other expressions in the text are not grammatical elements such as proforma, determiner or conjunction. As the term suggests, the associative connection between village, city and place is chosen by the lexicon. The authors note the coherence of relations between verbs, adjectives and adverbs. We include the following connections:

repetition: phrases such as Quedlinburg and the orthographic repetition of the nominal are mentioned in the example above. In case of combination, the second element is used as a determining factor. The direct form of lexical combination is the repetition of a lexical element; e.g. the coherence on repetition is used in the sentence as Bar. For example, Algy traf einen Baren. Der Bar war prall synonymy: common synonym, common language terms (e.g. blue sky and heaven).

antonymy: contrast relationship as with inflation and deflation hyperonymy: when a superlative term follows a more specific term, as with village hyponymy: if the specific term comes after the one from above co-hyponymy: between two elements of the same level, such as town and village holonymy: a relation in which the whole follows the part (e.g. neighborhood and city) meronymy: a part-whole relationship where the part follows the whole (e.g. city and neighborhood) co-meronymy: two parts of a whole following each other in sequence (e.g. square and quarter). type: the relation between a common noun and a named entity (e.g. place and Quedlinburg).

example: a relation in which the named entity follows a common noun (e.g. Quedlinburg and city).

joint instance: connection between two named entities (e.g. Quedlinburg and Berlin)

As it is seen, if lexical chains correspond to all other elements in the chain on word meaning, a nominal element in writing can be part of a lexical chain. One type of relations described in the writing can be related to the nominal element and to each of the other elements in the chain. As a result, one nominal element can be part of several different lexical chains in the same text [2, s. 5-6].

Lexical coherence and their role in written text quality. As mentioned in the theoretical views, harmony is the relation between different semantic meanings in written texts for Jaksendolf. Many scholars agree on the main element readers use to etablish and interpret semantic connections in a text is based on their prior knowledge. The second important element of establishing obvious semantic relations in writing is the arranging ideas in a logical sequence, which is the harmony aspect emphasized in many discussions on the concept of text coherence. For example, Bander describes paragraph coherence as a logical sequence of ideas creating a obvious relation of one sentence to another. According to Truckenbrodt and Hubert, if “each sentence in the text is arranged sequentially, the previous or following sentences provide a context for it”. Among others, Halliday and Hasan (1976, 1985) claimed that a prerequisite for the successful integration of ideas and the creation of harmony is combination refered to the meaning relations between the specific and superficial linguistic features of a text. [3, 4; 9]. For qualitative reading of the texts, the authors divide the coherence classification into the following categories:

lexical connective devices;

repetition of word;

substitutions (synonyms, antonyms, hyperonyms, cohyponyms, generals);

metacommunicative relations;

grammatical connectives;

reference words or basic forms (pronouns, adverbs, comparative constructions);

ellipses;

conjunctions (conjunctions, adverbs, prepositions).

According to Lautamati, three actual types of structural progression can be identified in the text readings:

content identity of parallel, consecutive sentences;

repetition of a theme to strengthen an idea to the reader;

consecutive different sentences used to turn the interpretation of one sentence into the subject of the next sentence in any content;

the first and last contents in a text fragmenrrt be read in extended parallel progression.

Brinker, Truckenbrodt and Hubert propose the concept of integrated coherence by commenting on the difference between coherence and harmony in writing. They put forward the idea that there is a close connection between the obvious forms of morphological-syntactic and the forms of semantic- cognitive connection, and they note separatiion of these two concepts is unnecessary.

The authors also argued that harmony is distinguished because it makes interaction between different factors at several levels. This kind of harmony is very multi-scale and combining the inobvious notions of interdependence and coherence between factors [1; 4].

As it is seen from the diagram, the application of lexical cohesion in writing includes the reading of words according to phonological rules, writing according to syntactic rules and conceptualization (diagram 1). Thus, the separation of the concept of comprehensive coherence into its different aspects such as grammatical, thematic, pragmatic, cognitive or obvious coherence indicate in the lexical cohesion.

Development of associative lexicons in writing. The first lexicon of discourse conjuctions of written texts in German was presented by German researchers Umbach, Carla, Ebert and Cornelia (1998) [6, s. 57]. The main goal was to use a declarative resource as a component of software needed knowledge of discourse relations to do the followings:

Phrase-based and word-based lexicons are widely used lexicons and create coherence in text generation systems. According to their description in the text, these lexicons can be roughly grouped into two classes.

typical lexical entry in traditional linguistic theory. Entries such as lexicons in a group usually consist of single words.

other class entries usually include larger constituents, lexicons containing phrases or even sentences with some lexical material implying orthographically noted words and usually can be created with additional lexical material or lexical entries. The difference between these two types is not always obvious. As mentioned above, some systems hche botfi typss, tyjrically a phrast lexicon pnmdes syntactic mid semaneicinbopnation, etcoyd-bsset lexicon provides morphological information and others can readily provide both types of representation. Lenicot s are tdy most nhsious orpecdc ere atcd lexital sthereccein thewritsng, neh at ffsiiSim eyidt; vyiume of the lexical object, the amount of structure in it, and tCnrole of the lexical selection in the system are seen obviously. In contrast to the concept in text creation,

PPcacScticaS Syntactic Ccyccyieal writing relcs writing relcs writing relcs і і 1 PPnanlctieal Syntactic strecterc Ccaccyieal sireeierc strecterc H Writing relc 1 Writing relc _l_t Lcxicon t

Diagram 1. Comprehensiveness of lexical cohesion in writing (Jackendoff, 2010)

there is a tendency for large size, complex structure and strong role for the lexical object. In this sense, it is useful to discuss the reasons for the maintenance of these tendencies in writing and their influences on the text creation [8; 9].

Generalize the written text: presentation system of a basic structured knowledge is used for appropriate discursive reading of the text. In this case, the principle of coherence creates a relation of temporal sequence between events in natural language, and ideas are expressed sequentially. This coherence was first applied in the preparation of maintenance instructions for car manuals.

For example, Parken Sie das Auto auf ebenem Boden und stellen Sie den Motor ab. Uberprufen Sie dann das Motorol;

Comprehending written text: associative units can be used as instructions as to what relations may exist between joining units of a text when making a discourse description of the system. It was first applied in researches based on Theory of Rhetorical Structure by Hanneforth working on texts in the German language [7; 8].

Conclusion

Thus, activities made by students related to writing on the principles of lexical coherence benefit from a combination of many different elements. Although lexical-semantic relations make it difficult to create sequence in writing, comprehending the different features of lexicons in writing and correctly understanding their role in writing are important areas. The wide scope of lexical norms in writing is explained as its phonological, syntactic and conceptual character.

Bibliography

1. F.Y. Veysalli German dilgiliyina giri§ Baki: Mutarcim, 2011.

2. F.Y. Veysalli. Struktur dilgiliyin asaslari. Studia philologica. II. Baki: Mutarcim, 2008.

3. Brinker, Klaus. Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einfuhrung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 7th edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2010.

4. Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan Cohesion in English. London: Longman Publishing, 1976.

5. Jackendoff, R. Meaning and the lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975-2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

6. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics. 2006. 32(3), 257-306.

7. Umbach, Carla and Ebert, Cornelia. German demonstrative so - intensifying and hedging effects to appear.

8. W'ollstein-Leisten, Angelika. 2001. Die Syntax der Dritten Konstruktion, volume 63 of Studien zur deutschen Grammatik. Tubingen: Stauffenburg.

9. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, Ludger and Strecker, Bruno (eds.). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, volume 7 of Schriften des Instituts fur deutsche Sprache". Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997.

Размещено на Allbest.ru