Burn freestyling, is every where a luck thats could cull… massacres
And I know you’re not bad,a boardroom risinga dragon trafficker
They do not exist
whatever my hell has come gor Texas
ready made us notoriety, cattle sunked workers spamming it flarf
Eat from my colostomy Pin laugh
Im sleeping when im able
Putting foot there on the tabloids
Hierarchical anonymous Botched a riot canal Betty boop with baddy bloops
No bs, aye. Derriere Mondays boombap ruts we
Don wannabe yr liver, we’re
A deliquescent celluloid
failing
To connect 4 dots….
raekwon in the crash converters
Without us
Brains brands
Sipping Junkie Workers
Walls tightening, the resigned looking
Overdriven glass windows shutter
Stock island’s tomb magazine sticks and stones
sticks,’s dead ears open up dr Cox
Drop off the shadow steaks away into the karma b4
The storm drain trooper role
Er merges dirty myer braggs billies on all fuzz
u best the drum, but justice
Creaks online, marketing a
Trauma Queen
Barney humble
Why dont u come on overpaid Valerie
Solaris?
Het on, eh? Soul-less, ill jostle” and without saying good byte , get in
Accuracy
Mass appeal, or oppressive material,?
That’s the soil test
This is the car seat head rest.
Life in Misprint
Today tonite we heart The while of social relations. It’s Time Files itself away. Breakers; theyre petty, money, too Avant Garde, vacant? Fake rent i pay as a myers worker – mic drop division Moonshine as a diva of hyacinths Illuminating Hunk Sour by Rob-it Lo-fi,w/ us typecast off from the cliffite face Book: john wolffinden. Hooker, line and thinker. Bitch Coin was invented for me perso- Nally; im, like, a barf-tub, i always rude the best, but yr tangs barbiturates, rocking considerates – fitzy collapsey, the ingrate gatsby. Fossil Foolsly, amex predators, burying ground floor flat pack up grade the Refu gee, u, late coupletism, don’t have to leave in sin, or st All sign waves hit The sure Dotted “Line!”/ on / the same night, you Smashed as his Oppo-tunity Clash,, sharp the Engels brace let / B predicate Lake, unctuous lady Of Veronica Forest Thompson: string theories off, poetic: art if ice. Coveted in malt risky Business,,6,7 history’sinr Holden, mean While, curls, klatch u in the White Open, rhodes,!!! The ghost between.
Thee, Svery Path
It hade nothing to do with me, but i couldnt helpp.wondering what it would be like[ly] I thought it must be the worst thing in the worl.
The first time i saw a cadaver i were carrying ]out] that cadaver dully along in the middle of the surrounding hullabaloo [a cab over date, a cat over there, yawning like an audience] I use [scribd] the liipsticks ]missing apodtrophs is rippling,,an (ah, come in) [Friendstuff} ] (up, eye 2 stream of conscientiousness these annexed dreams delivered with anagogic awkwardness (key moshing ridge auctioned ([repetition]ooft) ghood sir) cut the plastic (cool) starfish [circu$] hortel [pillzon3™] rooms : [avoilable? Then, of course, ]: a round; the new york shky… bored as … yachts , hell [fish] skiing j[Z]ealous fingers nasty good [position lief] mo[U]rnin her(0] fashion [failire fasvism) conscious (nest) breath [less] of flesh air [raids the house oft] Sin, that electricity [stint] leaves the musk of story boss with fake eyelashes and giddy jewellery.
I [flitted] fitted the lid on my typewriter and clipped [for it is a bullet or a vehicle; a ballet] it shut.
They imported blonde angles excited about his corn[y×π] eyes trying to vet good marks. Nothing looked terrific, smug, corseted. The night felt wise and cynical [my might is tampered by this cubicle], but my bones of intuition looked silver, floored me; whiskey.
Never managed to get anything. [Get anything] I know hem all. My dream tasted wonderful. He kept waiting for dt to stay something huuman.
The drinks arrived, just like jungle grass [jingling undergarments]>>. I drrragged his e inyes burst
[Tap] –
Out laughing; i wannnabr 2 [en]famous as heil’s bails. Squeeze dusk. What bleached dance thought of [god] anything? If there’s anything i look dow upon, its a, man [heresay it aint so so],
gL ass mouth snapping, begat to think at last
Taste made me feel […so] powerful and god like a high had. No
Body paid any notice [an y? not ice]. Perfect , , green bills
Wilted away the night
[Hills]
*
[Purt]Platters of starving New York. My eye, the richest, most expensive of them. [OW L] I never felt. I made a point of eating. Reduce, welcome the prettiest wheeze. This banquet is just small. Uh Mirror dizzy forkful to your mouth (eating pennies). One bowl was an empty chair. Do something inchoate with a certain arrogance. You are original, wit, a poet; horrible, lumpy, and immaculate [concept: ions, icons] pale[stoned], sensible like caviar, confident; Sunday. Woolworths. Beauty, i dont know, went to a special school. n [Or something] Bizarre. I felt very low.
Morning couldn’t hide much longer [hours for less pay. (Day). ] i didnt. Mad was what i wanted to do. Hideous effort dragged me to class [analysis], [them] flatteRED.
I thought it was quite ingenious of me. Scared and depressed; intellectual maturity, rickety old, making blue flames and clouds of another voice [vice
It was a mosquito in the distance. I was writing, like, [the school of] resent me. I thin[Ned] Air.
Bzzz. Money trumpets lilac wise. ‘Dont let the wicked city get you.’ [wine] The thought hit with a hiss, in technicolour. A lot[tery] of very [read] trees rolling sway for miles and miles [Davis] in every [needs] directoon.
The shadow, puking the screen. ‘i feel hell.’
‘so do i; ill come back[stage???] with you.’
Excuse me excuse me excise me
The cab driver seemed to know what we were doing. I thought i would die, it was so far. The sickness glittering, it didnt seem to be summer anymore. I could feel my bones, the big white hotel.
The words bungled out thick as vomit. Cry the night. The ice went on. The door shut again. Love.
‘ll sleep now The tenderness of sand [thtough the hourglass] was empty. I had a vision. avocado pear after avocado pear…
off with ] The hole [inne] me Poison. Ha! Sue the pure ]st] Sick daisies – birthed ‘out laughing, have my soup if you want! [Every rosé has its storm.] They put 12 in the trap by mistake. L and I stuffed down so many hotdogs while we were waiting for the reign to stop]
Texas Fontanella has published widely over the years in an array of internationally recognised journals, and has participated in art exhibitions in the past, from America to Argentina to Germany and France, and of course in their home city Sydney, a city they love. They are eager to find, and figure out funding for a new art exhibition, for they’ve material enough for several. Any leads on this avenue internationally would be greatly appreciated.
PROBLEMS OF LINGUO-COGNITIVE STUDY OF THE UZBEK LANGUAGE
Abstract:
Shomurodova Dilafro’z Bahodir qizi
Student of Denov Institute of Entrepreneurship and Pedagogy
Email: shomurodovadilafruz07@gmail.com
The article discusses the fact that in Uzbek linguistics a number of studies have been carried out on the linguopoetic, pragmatic, derivational, and communicative features of texts, and that the emergence and development of such fields as pragmalinguistics, discourse analysis, cognitive linguistics, and linguoculturology in world linguistics have led to the appearance of serious theoretical approaches in interpreting the phenomenon of text creation.
It is well known that in world linguistics texts were initially approached mainly from semantic and syntactic perspectives. In recent years, especially since the beginning of the 21st century, the tendency to study texts on the basis of linguoculturological, pragmatic, sociolinguistic, cognitive, and psycholinguistic principles has intensified. Texts began to be viewed not merely as a collection of semantically and syntactically connected sentences, but as a form of communication possessing social value and as a mental construct that reflects the knowledge, linguistic thinking, national psychology, and mentality of speakers of a particular language. The formation of the anthropocentric paradigm is associated with the study of the speaker as a linguistic subject.
The anthropocentric turn in linguistics shifted attention away from the structuralist principle of studying language “in and for itself” and focused instead on the human factor. The roots of anthropocentrism, which is now recognized as one of the leading paradigms in linguistics, draw upon the theoretical views of W. von Humboldt and L. Weisgerber. The term anthropocentrism is derived from the Greek anthropos (human) and the Latin centrum (center). Initially, the term was used in reference to the ancient Greek philosophical idea that “Man is the center of the universe,” a view that became especially widespread in medieval Europe.
In linguistics, the anthropocentric study of the language system has been manifested primarily in research on linguistic semantics, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, pragmatic linguistics, and linguoculturology. Studies conducted within the framework of the anthropocentric paradigm investigate the language system in close connection with the human factor. Although research by Uzbek linguists in linguistic semantics, pragmatics, and cognitive linguistics demonstrates anthropocentric tendencies, studies in this area are still insufficient.
In particular, approaching text analysis from an anthropocentric perspective has become one of the leading directions in modern linguistics. Many researchers emphasize that in the study of texts as complex and multifaceted phenomena, the triad consisting of the speaker-text-listener (author- text-recipient) should be regarded as the main object. The well-known Russian linguist Yu. N. Karaulov, in the preface to a collection of articles devoted to issues of language and personality, emphasized the idea that “behind every text stands a specific individual who has mastered linguistic systems.” The external and internal structure of a text can be likened to a mirror that reflects the linguistic competence of speakers belonging to a particular nation.
In early studies of text, attention to the text creator was observed mainly in psycholinguistic and pragmalinguistic research, whereas today rapidly developing fields such as cognitive linguistics, functionalism, ethnolinguistics, linguoculturology, and discourse analysis have made this issue one of the central problems of linguistics. The main achievement of the system-structural approach was proving that language is a systemic phenomenon. However, it became evident that these paradigms shared a common shortcoming:
language was separated from its owner-the human being. Attempts to overcome this deficiency led to the emergence of pragmatic and cognitive linguistic paradigms.
Professor N. Mahmudov, reflecting on the formation of the anthropocentric paradigm in linguistics, notes that in accordance with the objective nature of language, the anthropocentric paradigm places the human being at the center, while language is regarded as the main component that shapes human personality. Specialists often cite the aphoristic statement of the famous Russian writer S. Dovlatov that “90 percent of a person’s personality is formed by language.” At the same time, the anthropocentric approach to language integrates the latest achievements of these fields and increasingly strengthens its status as an independent paradigm. As recognized in linguistics, the anthropocentric paradigm focuses primarily on the subject of speech activity-that is, the language user who produces and perceives speech. The inclusion of the category of the language user in scientific paradigms necessitates greater attention to concepts such as personality, linguistic consciousness, thinking, activity, mentality, and culture.
At present, the concept of the language user is mainly employed in the following senses: (a) an individual capable of carrying out speech activity in a particular language, that is, capable of producing and perceiving speech; (b) a person who uses language as a means of communication, a communicant; (c) a representative of a particular language community who possesses and manifests the lexical resources reflecting the national-cultural and spiritual values of their people.
In contemporary research, various branches of linguistics approach the issue of the human factor from their specific perspectives. The problem of text interpretation and the human factor is closely connected with issues of text creation and the perception of its content. In studying this problem, it is important to examine not only the text creator but also the perceiving individual-the listener or reader. As N. I. Zhinkin aptly stated, “A person speaks not through individual sentences, but through texts.” Therefore, a person’s stylistic features can be adequately studied only on the basis of the texts they produce.
Investigating the speech style of a writer or creator solely from the perspective of word choice or sentence construction no longer meets contemporary requirements. Consequently, studying text creation from the perspective of individual style enables a deeper examination of the linguistic aspects of texts.
It is well known that cognitology is intrinsically linked with semantics. Today, many researchers regard the 21st century as the age of interdisciplinary integration. Interdisciplinary cooperation yields effective results in revealing the essence of particular objects of study. Such an approach is especially appropriate in investigating the speech activity of the human personality, a complex phenomenon. Human speech, like the human being itself, is multifaceted and complex. Therefore, cooperation among linguistic disciplines will undoubtedly yield fruitful results.
It should be noted that in the early years of the 21st century, significant research was conducted in Uzbek linguistics within the field of text linguistics. Monographic studies emerged on text linguopoetics, content perception, pragmatic, derivational, and psycholinguistic features of texts, as well as text modality and temporality. Studying texts from the perspectives of their creation, perception, and comprehension further deepens theoretical views on texts. Investigating the mechanisms through which the intellect and thinking patterns of a discourse subject are transformed into textual form makes it possible to identify features specific to the reflection of cognitive models in the Uzbek language. In literary works, especially in prose, the expression of key linguoculturological concepts such as life, death, mother, homeland, love, goodness, justice, and woman frequently occurs. Since literary texts are products of creative activity, the expression of particular concepts in such texts naturally manifests individuality and imagery.
Consider the following text:
By the side of a great road, a tree was growing… By chance, a traveler came to rest beneath it. The day was hot, and the traveler was tired. He sat in the shade of the tree and rested… The traveler grew hungry. He looked and saw that fruits were ripening on the tree. He was too lazy to climb it, so he threw a stone. The fruits fell abundantly. The traveler ate his fill… The destination was far. He broke off a branch from the tree and made a walking stick… Then his throat became dry. He went back under the tree’s shade… Then he continued on his way… The tree began waiting for another traveler… The name of this tree was Goodness… (O’. Hoshimov, “The Tree by the Road”).
In this passage taken from O’. Hoshimov’s book Notes in the Margins, the concept of GOODNESS is expressed. In the text, this concept is represented through the symbol of a tree, and the act of comparison employed in the author’s cognitive- discursive activity gives the text a metaphorical meaning.
Indeed, the most important source for elucidating the relationship between language and personality is the text. A text is not only a speech structure that encompasses all levels of language, but also a phenomenon that fully reveals the linguistic potential of the speaking (or writing) individual. Cognitive metaphors, as one of the factors generating implication, leave their traces in words, phrases, sentences, or entire texts. Units whose meanings have shifted on the basis of metaphor represent the visible part of the “cognitive iceberg” (to use Fauconnier’s term), while its main part remains hidden deep within our linguistic consciousness. It should be noted that the cognitive background phenomenon manifested in such cases has not yet become an object of study in Uzbek linguistics. Studying the cognitive background in connection with metaphor, metonymy, simile, and personification is one of the essential issues of anthropocentric linguistics.
Today, the study of the human factor as the performer of linguistic activity continues to deepen in such linguistic fields as psycholinguistics, linguoculturology, cognitive linguistics, and pragmalinguistics.
References:
1. A. Aliyev, Q. Sodiqov. From the History of the Uzbek Literary Language: A Textbook for University Students. Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 1994. 118 p.
2. U. Tursunov et al. History of the Uzbek Literary Language: A Textbook for University and Pedagogical Institute Philology Students (revised and expanded edition). Tashkent: O’qituvchi, 1995. 264 p.
3. M. Vahoboyev. The Uzbek Socialist Nation.
Tashkent, 1960. pp. 30-32, 49.
4. M. Qodirov. “A Journey into the Wealth of Words.” Labor and Life, no. 4, 1972, pp. 20-21. 5. A. Nabiyev. Historical Local Studies. Tashkent: O’qituvchi, 1979. pp. 63-74.
J.J. Campbell (1976 – ?) is old enough to know better. He’s been widely published over the years, most recently at Disturb the Universe Magazine, The Beatnik Cowboy, Crossroads Magazine, The Rye Whiskey Review and Yellow Mama. You can find him most days at home in Ohio taking care of his disabled mother and betting on sports. Most people will say he’s okay at both, most days. He does still have a blog, evil delights, but rarely has the time to write on it. (https://evildelights.blogspot.com)
Short biography: Amb. Dr. Priyanka Neogi from Coochbehar. She is an administrative Controller of United Nations PAF, librarian, CEO of Lio Messi International Property & Land Consultancy, international literacy worker, sports & peace promoter, dancer, singer, reciter, live telecaster, writer, editor, researcher, literary journalist, host, beauty queen, international coordinator of the Vijay Mission of Community Welfare Foundation of India.