Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 12. Number3 September 2021 Pp.201-215
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.14
Author’s Digression in the English Literary Text Space: Types of Cohesion
Iryna Arkhipova
Horlivka Institute for Foreign Languages HSEE “Donbas State Pedagogical University”
Bakhmut, Ukraine
Email: englishirinaa@gmail.com
Received: 1/19/2021 Accepted: 8/19/2021 Published: 9/24/2021
Abstract:
One of the most critical problems of the Linguistics of text is the structure study of the literary text, principles of its organization following the rules of the compositions that suggest splitting the linguistic work into the interconnected parts. In this regard, it is necessary to research the individual compositional and significant elements of the text and their role in forming the whole work. The paper focuses on revealing structural and syntactic properties of the author’s digressions, namely, detecting such concepts as integration/non-integration of the author’s digressions in the English literary prose. Integrated and non-integrated types of author’s digressions into the academic space of the text have been distinguished based on interpretative-textual and compositional analysis. The analysis of the text-forming function of the author’s digression contributed to defining the features of the cohesion of the literary text and included in its elements. The analysis results show that the author’s digressions can be both integrated and non-integrated. Non-integration of the author’s digression lies in their composition-semantic independence, and integrated author’s digressions are the ones that the author weaves into the text with different types of cohesion. This research promotes the studies of the cognitive aspect of the author’s digression in the different genres literary texts of English and American prose.
Keywords: Author’s digression, autosemantic, coherence, cohesion, integrated / non-integrated, literary text
Cite as: Arkhipova, I. (2021). Author’s Digression in the English Literary Text Space: Types of Cohesion.
Arab World English Journal, 12 (3) 201-215.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.14
References
Bal, Mieke, (2009). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Benedetti, G. (2015), The Semantics of Grammatical Elements: A New Solution. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. 3 (6), 493-509. http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/
Bošković, Ž. (2016), Getting Really Edgy: On the Edge of the Edge. Linguistic Inquiry. 47(1), 1-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00203
Britta, Mondorf, Javier Pérez-Guerra. (2016), Special issue on support strategies in language variation and change. Journal: English Language & Linguistics. 20 (3) 383-393. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000289.
Crofft, W. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics Text. Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press.
Dijk, T.A. (1980). Macrostructures: an Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition Text. Hillsdale, N.Y., Erlbaum Publ.
Galperin, I.R. (2014). Text as an Object of Linguistics Studies. Moscow, Russia; Editorial URSS.
Givon, T. (1993), Coherence in Text, Coherence in Mind. Pragmatics and cognition, (1),
University of Oregon, Eugene.
Gordon, J.A. (2004). The movement of English Prose. London: Longman.
Green, G. (1990), Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Journal of Linguistics,
- 26. (1), 277– 280.
Green, G. (2004). The Quiet American. Мoscow, Russia: Manager.
Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, М.А.К., Hasan R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Kipling, R. (2021). The Lіght That Failed. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2876/2876-h/2876-
h.htm
Klimkova, L.A. (1991), Associative Meanings of the Words in Literary Text. Philological Studies. (1), 45–54.
Kosmeda, T. (2017), Problems of Linguistics of Text Interpretation of Intimaxation Category. Linguistic Studies. (33), 103-108.
Kramar, N.U. (2017), Towards the Integrative Approach to Identity Construction in Academic Discourse. Linguistic Studies. (33), 113 – 120.
Krongauz, M A. (2001). Semantics. Moscow, Russia: In-t Otkryitoe obschestvo.
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato.
Oxford: OF Publ.
Maugham, W. S. (2007). The Moon and Sixpence. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/222/222-h/222-h.htm
Maugham, W.S. (2004). The Razor’s edge. Мoscow, Russia: Manager.
Priestley, J B. (2020). Angel Pavement. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishing.
Redeker, G. (2000). Coherence and structure in text and discourse. Abduction, Belief, and Context in Dialogue. Studies in Computational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Scott, A. Crossley, Kristopher K. (2016), The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods. 48 (4), 1227–1237. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
Selivanova, E.A. (2004). The Basis of Linguistic Theory of the Text and Communication. Kyiv, Ukraine.
Troshina, I.N. (1982), About Syntactic and Semantic Coherence in Literary Text. Aspects of General Linguistic Text Theory. (2), 50 – 74.
Turowetz, Jason (2017). On the Use of “I Just Thought” Formulatіons for Modifying One’s Stance toward a Problematic Action. Research on Language and Social Interaction. (50), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1375800