What is a theme, motive, plot? Motive in literature
their status, correlation, interaction
(using the example of the functional-semantic category ‘intensity’)
In the sphere of topical and debatable issues of modern linguistics, attention is drawn to the problem of considering such a dominant category of language as the category of intensity in relation to quantity and expressiveness.
Quantity as a universal conceptual category, refracted in the sphere of other categories, finds one of its expressions in the linguistic category of intensity through the possibility of representing quantitative modifications of the magnitude of a feature. When considering the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of quantity, one can rely on the fundamental thoughts of de Courtenay expressed in the work “Quantity in Linguistic Thinking.” He notes that “... one of the aspects of universal existence is a whole complex of quantitative ideas, covered, that is, dissected and united (integrated), by mathematical thinking,” and highlights the quantitative intensity as an expression of the quantity (degree) of a sign [Baudouin de Courtenay 1963: 312 -313]. Relevant for modern linguistics is his thought about the correlation in language of the category of quantity, which is an abstract category of human thinking, with the category of quality: “the comparison of different degrees of quality gave, on the one hand, different grammatical degrees, and on the other hand, the designation of different degrees of intensity ..." . And finally, his idea that “the meaning of tension and intensity of certain elements of linguistic thinking appears most expressively in the field of semantics, both from the intellectual, mental, extra-sensory, and, above all, from the sensory side,” seems important. De Courtenay's concept stimulates the study of qualitative-quantitative relations as such, as well as in their relationship with other types of relations.
A broad interpretation of intensity also goes back to the ideas of S. Bally, who by the term 'intensity' understands “all differences that can be reduced to the category of quantity, magnitude, value, strength, etc., regardless of whether we are talking about specific ideas or abstract ideas” and further clarifies that “... a quantitative difference or a difference in intensity is one of those general “categories” into which we introduce any objects of our perception or our thought” [Bally 1961: 203].
The category of intensity is included in the content plan of both the linguistic category of quality and the linguistic category of quantity, therefore, it is associated with the qualitative-quantitative category of measure. However, the category of intensity is not synonymous with the category of measure, since intensity indicates the development of a characteristic within the framework of a measure and does not entail a change of this quality. It follows from this that the category of intensity is a particular version of the category of quantity, namely “non-discrete, continuous quantity”, determined “through measurement” [Panfilov 1976: 3].
The category of intensity in the conceptual field, along with the category of measure of quantity, is also correlated with the category of gradualism (E. Sapir, etc.). Relevant for modern linguistics is the idea of E. Sapir that any gradable meaning is not absolute, but relative and contains the idea of comparison. His work “The Psychology of Graduation” also affirms the connection between the categories of quantity and intensity, emphasizing the primacy of the latter as expressing an approximate quantity. E. Sapir distinguishes between gradation in relation to the norm and in relation to comparativeness, that is, it was he who established the opposition of graduated and point concepts. Thus, he notes: “the logical norm between them (polar characteristics - S.S.) is felt by a person not as a true norm, but rather as a blurred zone in which qualities ordered in opposite directions occur” [Sapir 1985: 54].
On the one hand, gradualism is subjective in nature, because it depends on the perception of the individual and the characteristics of the speech situation, on the other hand, it directly depends on the collective idea developed in society about the norm as a certain neutral manifestation of a qualitative attribute for certain objects of reality.
The term 'intensity' in its application to semantics in the last quarter of the 20th century received significant distribution in linguistics, which is associated with the development of functional grammar and expressive stylistics. However, with a relatively large volume of literature, one way or another dedicated to research range of problems associated with this term, it has not yet received a generally accepted interpretation. The poor development of this problem is also evidenced by the incomplete representation of the corresponding terminology in linguistic dictionaries.
Some researchers define intensity as a functional-semantic category: “intensity is a functional-semantic category because it expresses the meaning high level generality, characterized by different levels of means of expression and field organization of these means” [Sheigal 1990: 11]. Others associate intensity with the denotative-significative and connotative aspects of the word.
Intensity, thus, is closely related to the category of quantity and is in direct connection with the category of emotionality and expressiveness. Although the semantics of amplification has been revealed in a number of studies using material from different levels of language, primarily lexical, its status and relationship with related categories remains debatable. In works devoted to the range of these problems, there is an understanding of intensity as an increase in expressiveness, as a dominant component, systematically realized in affective speech.
It is significant that Sh. Bally, in connection with the tasks of studying stylistics, considers “emotional intensity”, since, in his opinion, stylistics studies “... the expressive facts of the language system from the point of view of their emotional content, that is, the expression in speech of phenomena from the field of feelings and actions of speech facts on feelings." His idea about the impossibility of reducing all means of intensification to lexical ones is also very valuable. In particular, he classifies as a means of intensification both the section of linguistics, which he called “affective syntax,” and prosody.
As in the study of S. Bally, in the article by E. Sapir “The Psychology of Graduation” the idea is raised about the interaction of intensity with emotionality, namely with the “emotional aspect” in terms of expressing the relationship between participants in a communicative act. Considering gradation in its relationship with the norm and subjective judgments (emotionality), E. Sapir also touches on the category of evaluativeness. At the same time, he points out that “after a person has gained experience in determining what society accepts and what rejects, what it evaluates (emphasis added - S.S.) as well known , and what is unknown or unusual, he begins to accept contrasting qualities as having, in general, an absolute, so to speak, nature.”
Last quarter of XX and early XIX centuries are characterized by a sharply increased interest of linguists in the problem under consideration, which is probably explained by the priority position of semantics in the linguistics of this period, called the “semantic explosion” (), as well as the anthropocentric approach to language.
One of the controversial issues in modern linguistics is the question of the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness. In modern general and private linguistic literature dedicated to this issue, the category of intensity is usually included in the category of expressiveness (, etc.). Thus, he believes that there is a narrow and broad interpretation of the category of expressiveness: “In in a broad sense Expressiveness is understood as the expressiveness of speech, which arises on the basis of such semantic properties of linguistic units as emotionality, evaluativeness, imagery... In in the narrow sense Expressiveness is considered as intensity, as contained in the meaning of the word, intensification (emphasis added by us - S.S.) of the degree of manifestation of a certain characteristic" [Sternin 1983: 123] . Intensity and expressiveness are also understood as a measure and “measurable property of speech” (, etc.). In particular, he notes that “... if the opposition is relevant for the intellectual function - yes / no, then the opposition is relevant for the expressive function - stronger / weaker, and for the emotional function - good / bad. Thus, expressiveness is measured by intensity, and emotionality - by evaluativeness" [Shakhovsky 1975: 17], and indicates that "intensity is a meter of the degree of expressiveness, a meter of imagery, expressiveness, evaluativeness... The degree of intensity is a measure of expressiveness" [Turansky 1992: 29].
The research also reflects the idea of the correlation between the category of intensity and the category of expressiveness as cause and effect (, etc.). Thus, he notes that “... between intensity and expressiveness there are not inclusive, but cause-and-effect relationships...” [Livanova 1995: 22]. However, the interpretation of these categories as being in a cause-and-effect relationship, in our opinion, is not correct enough, since cause and effect are ontological categories presented in the form of two situations connected by a logical proposition. Obviously, we can only talk about one or another relationship and interdependence of such categories as intensity and expressiveness. The similarity between the semantics of expressiveness and intensity is also determined by the fact that “expression is based on a deliberate discrepancy between any linguistic or speech means language standards, i.e. the most regular, sustainable models"[Kharchenko 1976: 68].
Thus, intensity is understood by us as a category associated with such a quantitative qualification of a phenomenon that demonstrates a deviation from the “zone of normativity” (). At the same time, we consider it necessary to emphasize its dual nature: on the one hand, it has an ontological status as a category lying within the framework of quantitative relations, i.e., it has an extra-linguistic referent, on the other hand, receiving the character of emphasis, it switches to the connotative level of language and speech, interacting with the category of expressiveness.
Literature
Bally Sh. French stylistics / S. Bally. – M., 1961. – 394 p.
Baudouin de Quantitativeness in linguistic thinking / de Courtenay // Selected works on general linguistics. – M., 1963. – T.2. – pp. 311-324.
Expressive vocabulary of colloquial use / . – Novosibirsk, 1986. – 230 p.
Sapir E. Psychology of grading / E. Sapir // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 16. – M., 1985. – P. 43-78.
Sternin I. A. About three types of expressiveness of a word // The structure of linguistic stylistics and its main categories. – Perm, 1983. – P. 123-127.
Distinction between evaluativeness, imagery, expression and emotionality in the semantics of a word // Russian language at school, 1976. – No. 3. – P. 66-71.
The problem of distinguishing between expressiveness and emotionality as semantic categories of linguistics // Problems of semasiology and linguistic stylistics. – Ryazan, 1975. Issue. 2. – P. 3-25.
Gradation in lexical semantics / . – Kuibyshev, 1990. – 95 p.
In “Prolegomena to any future metaphysics...” Kant outlines two ways to study categories. The first one is aimed at finding and systematizing actually existing in everyday language, concepts (words) that are constantly encountered in all experimental knowledge.
The second is to construct, on the basis of previously developed rules, a complete speculative scheme of rational concepts, independent of any historical conditions human life, nor from the content of the processed material.
Kant himself chooses the second path, which ultimately leads to the cold heights of Hegel's Absolute Spirit. But him main idea that the structures of being depend, even on universal, but still human definitions, turned out to be more fruitful precisely on the first path. This path led to the development of a linguistic interpretation of categories, which was stimulated by the research of Wilhelm Humboldt.
As has already been shown, the main function of categories is to introduce a certain order into a certain undifferentiated or unorganized integrity. This order, one way or another, is expressed (or displayed) in language.
The lexical composition of a language and the totality of categories basically coincide, and every word, insofar as it generalizes, acts as category for a certain set of things. Thanks to this coincidence, even a person who is completely unaware of the existence of theoretical schemes of categorical analysis or synthesis “sees” the world in a certain way ordered only because he uses his native language to describe it.
Language, just like categories, is not derived by each individual directly from his individual experience. Language has a pre-experimental (a priori) nature. Each individual receives it as the legacy of a long series of past generations. But like any inheritance, language, on the one hand, enriches, and on the other hand, binds a person before and independently of him with established norms and rules. Being, in relation to the knowable, subjective, the norms and rules of language, in relation to the knower, are objective.
But if thinking can still be imagined as absolutely pure (empty) thinking (Hegel and Husserl demonstrate this perfectly), then speech is unthinkable as absolutely “pure speech”, devoid of any specific content. Any conversation is a conversation about something. This “something” is the subject of speech, isolated and recorded in the word. Therefore, in words, as lexical units of language, both the primary division of being and the primary synthesis of sensory impressions already occur.
The history of language does not have a clearly defined beginning. No matter how far our research goes back into the depths of centuries, wherever we find people, we find them already speaking. But it is impossible that in the thinking of people who have words, those initial divisions of being and thought that already exist in language are completely absent. The idea of pure thinking, devoid of any content, working “idling” is an abstraction that grows only on the soil of the Cartesian cogito. Real thinking is never pure “thinking about anything”; it always has an intentional character, i.e. it is always directed at an object, there is always thinking about something specific.
At first glance, it seems that language, as a sign system, is completely neutral in relation to thought, which can be expressed in any arbitrarily chosen sign system: sound, graphic, color, etc. But in this case it turns out that thought arises before language and only expresses itself in it. Thinking is clothed in sounding speech as a form (more precisely, as one of the possible forms) of the external expression of an already existing own content.
The actual relationship between thinking and language is much more complex. This becomes noticeable when posing the question of their genesis.
Phylogenesis (historical development), as a rule, is reproduced in individual development - ontogenesis. As J. Piaget's research has shown, the formation of categories in the child's mind occurs after he has mastered the corresponding language structures. First, the child masters complex syntactic phrases, such as “because”, “where”, “after”, “despite”, “if”, etc., which serve to express causal, spatial, temporal, conditional - etc. .e. categorical relationships.
Categories are not derived from subject experience, but are mastered along with language acquisition and are consolidated, first of all, in verbal communication skills. They are realized much later than they begin to be used in language practices. Apparently, the order historical development categories was the same. First, unconscious, unconscious use and only then (much later) comprehension.
There is an organic connection of categories with certain types of very real practical questions, each of which can be formulated with direct use of the corresponding category: Where? - In which space? When? - In which time? etc. But vice versa, each category can be expressed in the form of a question. " What this?" – category essence; "Where when?" - categories space And time; "Which one?, How much?" - quality And quantities; "Why?" - category causes; "For what?" - goals.
We ask being about those aspects, properties and characteristics that constitute the sphere of our vital interests. In the linguistic interpretation of categories, there are lines along which the fragments and relationships that interest us are separated from the general mass and appear before us as objects of our close attention. Each category represents a certain perspective in which we see being from a special point of view, and all together they form a kind of functional unity, enshrined in the language system. Everyone who speaks a language is involved in this system, but this does not mean intentionality and full awareness of its use. Man, as Sartre notes, “is a being not so much speaking as being spoken,” and language speaks to man, perhaps to a greater extent than man speaks language.
The culture of each community, like its language, is different from the culture and language of every other community. This gives us every reason to assume that the dividing lines that language draws along the “body” of being can form worlds that have different configurations. This idea was first expressed in the well-known hypothesis about linguistic relativity, called, after its authors, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
“We dismember nature,” says Whorf, “in the direction suggested by our native language. We distinguish certain categories and types in the world of phenomena not at all because they (these categories and types) are self-evident... We dismember the world, organize it into concepts and distribute meanings one way and not another, mainly because we are participants in an agreement that prescribes such systematization... It is impossible to define a phenomenon, thing, object, relationship, etc., based on nature; definition always implies reference to the categories of a particular language."
The essence of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity is that the organization of the world of our experience depends on the categorical structure of a particular language, therefore even the same event can look completely different, depending on the words used. linguistic means. Indeed, a world in which “the rooster calls the hens with his cry” is different from a world where “the rooster’s crow sets the hens in motion.”
By accepting this hypothesis, we transfer categories from the spheres of Aristotelian being, Kantian pure reason or the Hegelian Absolute Idea into the sphere of human language and say goodbye to the hope that inspired these thinkers to discover (or create) an absolutely complete and complete system of categories that would be one and only “for everyone.” times and peoples." By placing categories in the structures of language, we recognize that they express not being as such or consciousness in general, but the specific life world of a person belonging to a certain culture and historical era.
The idea of connecting categories with the immediate life world a person develops in modern versions phenomenological-existential philosophy. In the traditional sense, categories serve, first of all, to highlight and designate what is most important and significant for a person. But what seems important and significant from the point of view of the whole - a cultural community, for example - can be completely indifferent to an individual, “this” person. For individual person the most important thing may be what directly affects him, concerns specifically and only his individual existence: his fears and hopes, aspirations and complexes, doubts and fears. Thus, in the context of philosophical research, completely unconventional, so-called “existential categories” appear, such as, for example: “death”, “fear”, “abandonment”, “care”, etc.
To summarize our analysis, we can say the following. Regardless of the context of their interpretation, philosophical categories represent extremely broad generic definitions of being. As extremely general genera, they themselves do not have a higher genus standing above them and, therefore, cannot, like concepts, be defined through assignment to a higher genus, with an indication of the specific difference. They are determined not through higher genera, but by establishing relationships with other categories. Concepts that are included in the semantic field of each category are subordinate to it and express certain aspects, shades and specific forms of manifestation. The relationship between categories and concepts can be illustrated as follows.
Every concept has a specific subject area or scope, which includes many subjects covered by this concept. So, for example, the scope of the concept “table” is the set of all possible tables, and the concept “house” is the set of all possible houses. It is clear that, since we mean not only actually existing ones, but also all possible tables or houses, the volume of each of these concepts is an infinite set, so we cannot say which of these concepts has a larger volume and which has a smaller one. However, there are concepts whose relationships are such that they make it possible to unambiguously determine which of the two infinities being compared is greater. So, for example, the infinite number of birches is clearly less than the infinite number of trees, and the infinity of trees is less than the infinity of plants. We get a hierarchical series of concepts, in which each subsequent one includes the previous one as its own component: birch - tree - plant - Live nature- nature - being. This series is completed by a concept that exhausts the possibility of further expansion of the volume. This is a philosophical category, which acts as the broadest generalization, the absolute limit of further expansion of the subject area.
Concepts lower levels generalities outline the boundaries of subject areas of specific sciences, and act as categories of a particular science, since they perform (within the area they limit) the same role of ultimate generalizations. So, for example, if the subject of philosophy is being, That nature- this is a subject of natural science in general, Live nature- subject of biology, plant- botanists and probably some science is being studied at the Forestry Academy, the subject of which is only trees.
So, we have found out that the role of philosophical and scientific categories in cognition is extremely important. However, there is no single universal system of categories. On different stages historical development, they become dominant in practical and spiritual activity Various types categories or, what is the same, various principles of structuring being and thinking. In general, each categorical conceptual system can be likened to a net that we throw into the ocean of existence, in the hope of catching Goldfish Absolute knowledge. But this network each time brings to the surface only what we ourselves capture in the woven cells.
In the article we will look at the main linguistic categories and give examples. You will learn that in linguistics there are various associations by which certain units can be classified.
What is a category
The very concept of “category” was first developed by Aristotle. In particular, he identified 10 categories. Let us list them: suffering, action, state, position, time, place, attitude, quality, quantity, essence. In many ways, their identification influenced the subsequent inventory of various predicates, predicates, sentence members and parts of speech.
Conceptual category
Before considering linguistic categories and problems of linguistic categorization, it is necessary to clarify this term. It is usually understood as a certain closed system of meanings of a semantic universal feature or a specific meaning of a given feature regardless of the method of expression ("explicit" or "hidden") and the degree of their grammaticalization in given language. For example, we can talk about the presence of the following conceptual categories: alienability/inalienability, activity/inactivity, reason, place, purpose, etc. In linguistics, there are lexical-semantic linguistic categories. They mean classes such as the names of states, professions, living beings, etc. If a categorizing seme receives a word-formative formal expression, linguistic categories are called word-formation. Examples are as follows: diminutives(pancake-chik, smoke-ok, house-ik), names of the figure (beg-un, cart-chik, teacher).
Linguistic categories in the broad and narrow sense
Linguistic categories are associations that can be considered in both a broad and narrow sense. In the first case, these are any groups of elements that are distinguished based on general property. In a narrow sense, linguistic categories are certain parameters (features) that underlie the division of homogeneous units into a certain number of non-overlapping classes. Their members are characterized by a certain value of one or another attribute. Examples: category of aspect, case, animate/inanimate, voiceless/voiced, etc. However, this term often denotes one of the meanings of a given parameter (feature). Examples: category of inanimateness, accusative case, condition, deafness, perfect appearance.
Types of categories based on various characteristics
Depending on the nature of the corresponding feature and the set identified by it, as well as on its relationship to the partition classes, we can distinguish different types categories. A set may include phonemes that are homogeneous units. In this case, various phonological linguistic categories are distinguished. This is, for example, the distinction between deafness and voicedness. Another example is the category of stop consonants. Based on differential phonetic characteristics, classification is made into in this case.
A set divided into categories may include two-sided units. Usually they are sentences, phrases and words. In this case, word-formation, lexical-semantic, syntactic, grammatical and other categories are distinguished. Classification is carried out according to a certain semantic or syntactic criterion. It can be either strictly syntactic, semantic, or general categorical (this word is often understood as “relating to parts of speech”).
Classifying and modifying characteristics
Other signs are also highlighted. In relation to partition classes, they are divided into classifying (selective, integral) and modifying (inflectional, differential). A attribute for a certain object is modifying when it corresponds to an element of some other class of partition, which differs from it only in the value of this attribute. This correspondence is called opposition. If this is not observed, the attribute is classifying for the corresponding element. In what case can we talk about varieties of some more general unit that varies according to a given characteristic? Let's answer this question too. When the elements differ from each other only in the values of one or another modifying attribute. As for the classifier, its value is constant, fixed for a given unit.
Modifying and classifying categories
In a number of cases, for most elements of the set the attribute is a modifying one. Then the category as a whole is also called modifying. For example, these are inflectional (inflectional) categories. These include case and number of the noun, case, number, gender of the adjective, mood, tense, person, number, gender of the verb. If for a sufficient number of elements a categorical attribute is classifying, then so will the category as a whole. For example, these are lexical-semantic categories. Examples: animacy, gender and parts of speech of a noun, transitivity/intransitivity, nominal classes of the verb, etc.
"Rules" and "exceptions"
What type a particular category should be classified into depends on what the classification was originally, as well as on what is the “rule” for a particular class and what can be called the “exception”. For example, we can assume that in the Russian language for some classes of the form it is inflectional (modifying), and for other classes it is word-formative (classifying). Or one can make one of these decisions with respect to an entire class of verbal tokens. Note that all of them are presented in Russian studies.
Offer categories
When studying the paradigmatic relationships existing in syntax, many researchers use the concepts of “communicative-grammatical categories” or “sentence categories.” They mean semantic differential features of certain sentences (syntactic modality, affirmation/denial, goal setting of the utterance). Less often, we can talk about individual meanings of these features (for example, the category of negation). A number of researchers, in particular N. Yu. Shvedova, propose a different concept. They talk about phrase-modifying categories. There are other concepts as well.
Grammatical categories
Grammatical linguistic categories and their types are among the most studied and most important. Their character traits- the modifying type of attribute taken as the basis, its involvement in syntax, the presence of a regular way in which it is expressed, as well as the “obligatory” choice for (word) forms belonging to a given set, one of its meanings. Grammatical categories are closed systems of meaning that exclude each other. They define a partition into non-overlapping classes of a vast collection of word forms. For example, such grammatical meanings, as plural or singular, in their totality form the category of number.
Text concept
Before considering the linguistic categories of the text, let us define key concept. Text is an object of multifaceted study in linguistics, but in specialized literature this concept is still interpreted differently. There is also no generally accepted definition. Therefore, let's consider the one that is the most common.
Text in general view characterized as a product specific activities people (speech-thinking). The latter can arise both in the process of indirect and direct communication, and in the process of a person’s cognition of the surrounding reality.
Text as a linguistic category
Its units form components ( structural elements), being expanded into a separate sentence or a group of them. A sentence (texteme, phrase, statement) is the main element of the text. It is recognized and perceived as related to other sentences. That is, it is a component of the text, part of the whole. The sentence is its smallest communicative unit.
SSC (SFE)
At the same time, proposals are sometimes combined into groups, which have been given different names by different researchers. V. A. Buchbinder, for example, calls them phrasal ensembles and phrasal unities. They are considered complex syntactic wholes (CSCs) by N. S. Pospelov, A. P. Peshkovsky, S. G. Ilyenko, L. M. Loseva. (SFE) they are called T. M. Nikolaeva, O. I. Moskalskaya, I. R. Galperin. To designate a group of sentences related in meaning, SFU and STS are most often used. These are very complex structural unities that consist of at least two independent sentences that have semantic integrity in the context of coherent speech, and also act as part of complete communication.
Free and strong sentences
Note that in the structure of the text, not all sentences are combined into groups. Free ones are also distinguished, which are not included in them, but are connected by semantic relations with one or another group. They contain comments and author's digressions. Such proposals act as a connecting link between SSCs and are a means by which a new micro-topic is designated.
Some researchers, in addition, highlight strong sentences in the text. They can be understood without knowing the content of others. Such proposals are not included in the SSC.
Communication blocks and larger associations
What other linguistic categories of text can be distinguished? Groups of sentences are combined into blocks of even larger parts. They are called in various studies either fragments or predicative-relative complexes. Another common name is communication blocks.
There are even larger associations. They are associated with the following sections of text: chapter, part, paragraph, paragraph.
So, sentences and their groups are the main communicative elements of the text. All others, as a rule, perform a text-forming function. They are usually means of interphase communication. Let's give a definition to this concept.
Interphase communication
It represents the connection between the SSC, sentences, chapters, paragraphs and other parts of the text, which organizes its structural and semantic unity. In this case, the semantic connection between individual sentences is ensured with the help of lexical and grammatical means. It's about most often about parallel or chain connection. The latter is realized by repeating a member of the previous sentence in one form or another, and subsequently developing part of its structure. In parallel communication, sentences are not linked, but compared. This construction allows for opposition or comparison, depending on the corresponding lexical content.
Means for implementing various types of communication
Using language tools, each of the following is implemented. For example, to connect parts of the text, particles, conjunctions, introductory words etc. To implement a chain connection between sentences in the SSC, synonyms, syntactic repetitions, words with spatial and temporal meaning, pronouns, etc. are used. As for the parallel connection, parallelism in constructing sentences is appropriate for its implementation. It is expressed in the use of verbs that have a common temporal plan, anaphoric elements, the same word order, etc.
Linguistic categories of creolized texts
They are characterized by the same categories as the so-called classical verbal homogeneous texts. It is necessary to clarify the concept of “creolization”. This is a combination of various means of sign systems in a complex that meets the condition of textuarity. Visual components refer to the means by which the creolization of verbal texts is carried out. They have a significant influence on their interpretation and on all technical issues related to the design of the text that affect their meaning. The following stand out among them: background, color and font of the text, means of punctuation, spelling, word formation, graphic design (in a column, in the form of a figure), printed (ideograms, pictograms), etc.
The text, therefore, is a specific structure where parts and individual sentences are interconnected. Linguistic and logical categories are a topic that can be discussed for a very long time. We tried to highlight the most important things, what every philologist needs to know.
