Speech chain and repeated nomination in different system languages
Keywords:
consistency, lexical repetition, lexical unit, repeated nomination, speech chain, speech unit, syntactic relationAbstract
This article studies the syntactic meaning of the speech chain in different structural languages and the repeated nominations reflected in different lexical units. In the process of analyzing the relationships between complete sentences which concepts related to the syntax of simple or complex sentences, acting on assumptions that are less acceptable. Similarly, it is inappropriate to transfer the connections specific to simple and complex parts of speech to the analysis of the relationships between independent sentences, as has unfortunately been observed in some scientific sources. Practice shows that the most common syntactic form of the chain is "object-subject" (the previous object is similar to the next in the lexical order). However, other structural forms of the chain (subject - object, object – object) are also widely used. Thus, lexical repetition is undoubtedly syntactic. This is a unique means of demonstrating the connection of independent sentences in a coherent speech.
Downloads
References
Abdurazakov, M. A. (1973). Essays on the comparative study of different system languages. Fan.
Aripov, M. P. (2021). Semantics of wishes/applause/prayers associated with religious terms. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 7(4), 274-278. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v7n4.1808
Balota, D. A., & Duchek, J. M. (1991). Semantic priming effects, lexical repetition effects, and contextual disambiguation effects in healthy aged individuals and individuals with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain and Language, 40(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(91)90124-J
Barra-Chicote, R., Yamagishi, J., King, S., Montero, J. M., & Macias-Guarasa, J. (2010). Analysis of statistical parametric and unit selection speech synthesis systems applied to emotional speech. Speech communication, 52(5), 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2009.12.007
Baxtiyorovna, Y. S. (2021). Age-appropriate, pragmatic content in personal correspondence. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 8(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijllc.v8n1.2005
Beach, C. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structure ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of memory and language, 30(6), 644-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90030-N
Belke, E., Brysbaert, M., Meyer, A. S., & Ghyselinck, M. (2005). Age of acquisition effects in picture naming: Evidence for a lexical-semantic competition hypothesis. Cognition, 96(2), B45-B54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.006
Bo’ronov, J.B. (1973). Ingliz va o’zbek tillari qiyosiy grammatikasi.
Cappelle, B., Shtyrov, Y., & Pulvermüller, F. (2010). Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and language, 115(3), 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004
Caramazza, A., & Miozzo, M. (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: evidence from thetip-of-the-tongue'phenomenon. Cognition, 64(3), 309-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00031-0
Clark, R. A., Richmond, K., & King, S. (2007). Multisyn: Open-domain unit selection for the Festival speech synthesis system. Speech Communication, 49(4), 317-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.01.014
Díaz, F. C., & Banga, E. R. (2006). A method for combining intonation modelling and speech unit selection in corpus-based speech synthesis systems. Speech communication, 48(8), 941-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2005.12.004
Eshkuvvatovna, K. L., Tuychievna, M. S., Furkatovna, S. . D., & qizi, M. F. Z. (2021). Comparative analysis of the usage of concept "hospitality" in the phraseological units of English, Russian and Uzbek languages on the basis of the English translation of the novel “Silence” by S.Ahmad. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 1640-1648. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS1.1989
Gak, W. G. (1977). Comparative lexicology.
Greimas A. (1976). Semantique structurale.Paris, p.355
Issa, S. H. M., Bajiri, M. E., Alyamani, K. A. Z., & Abhishek B. P. (2021). Lexical semantic activation in bilinguals: evidence through blocked naming task. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S1), 860-866. https://doi.org/10.21744/lingcure.v5nS1.1470
Krushelnitsky G.K. (1976). On the question of the semantic division of a sentence. Questions of linguistics, (5).
Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Dell, G. S. (1996). Recovery in deep dysphasia: Evidence for a relation between auditory–verbal STM capacity and lexical errors in repetition. Brain and Language, 52(1), 83-113. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1996.0005
Suryasa, I.W., Sudipa, I.N., Puspani, I.A.M., Netra, I.M. (2019). Translation procedure of happy emotion of english into indonesian in k???a text. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(4), 738–746
Zhou, G., Qian, L., & Fan, J. (2010). Tree kernel-based semantic relation extraction with rich syntactic and semantic information. Information Sciences, 180(8), 1313-1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.12.006
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2022 Linguistics and Culture Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
