The structure of cognitive type of scientific article on mountain ecosystems is given in the article. The purpose of the research is to build a structure of cognitive type of scientific article describing mountain ecosystems. For achievement of the stated work’s aim it was necessary to solve the following problems: 1) to explore the text corpus of scientific article on mountain ecosystems; 2) to define the topical structure of cognitive type of scientific article describing mountain ecosystems; 3) to present verbal fragments for each compositional-thematic unit; 4) to describe pragmatics of text realization of scientific article on mountain ecosystems; 5) to build mini-thesaurus of words and phrases. The author justifies the thesis that the cognitive type of a scientific article is the basic part of one of the cognitive blocks in the system of human knowledge representation in subject area “Mountain ecosystems”. The main elements as: (people’s life’s work, environmental pollution, environmental protection, constant nature monitoring) are defined. There are words and phrases which are arranged in sub-topics in English and Russian. These words and phrases are samples from the text corpus of the subject area “Mountain ecosystems” and are not ready texts, but their blank for discoursive activity not only for specialists in this sphere but for everybody who is interested in ecological problems in English and Russian. Summing all up, it can be noted that the structure of the cognitive type of the scientific articles is a mental-linguistic frame used by the authors of the scientific articles in the process of generation of texts and the readers in the process of understanding. The structure of the cognitive type is presented by a scan of a specific topic and verbal fragments for each thematic unit. The reader is able to solve or suggest a solution to the critical environmental situation in the ecosystem based on the data obtained in the course of the text description of the environmental problems of mountain ecosystems.

About the authors

Sofiya Novikovna Semenova

Kuban State University

Author for correspondence.
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of English in Professional Sphere Department of Roman-German Faculty at the Kuban State University; Interests: sociolinguistics, theory of discourse, semantics Stavropolskaya st., 149, Krasnodar, Russia, 350040


  1. Baranov, A.G. (1999). Cognitive Formalisms of Text Activity. Pyatigorsk State University Bulletin, 2, 34-37. (In Russ.).
  2. Baranov, A.G. (1993). Functional-pragmatic concept of text. Rostov: Rostov State University publ. (In Russ.).
  3. Baranov, A.G. (2008). Pragmatics as the methodological perspective of the language. Krasnodar: Prosveschenie-Yug. publ. (In Russ.).
  4. Karasik, V.I. (2002). Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena publ. (In Russ.).
  5. Lominina, Z.I. (2004). Emotional breadth of texts on ecology: trends and hypotheses. Ecological Bulletin of Research Centers of the Black sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC. Ecology of Language as Pragmatic Essence, 3, 45-48. (In Russ.).
  6. Austin George. (1986). Word as action. New in foreign linguistics. Vol. XVII. The theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress publ. pp. 22-129. (In Russ.).
  7. Semenova, S.N. (2016). Compositional-Topical Modules of Content of Scientific-Popular Genre, Characterizing Subject Area “Geography” (on material of “National Geographic”). Bulletin of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of Language. Semiotics. Semantics, 2, pp. 56-61. (In Russ.).
  8. Semenova, S.N. (2015). Cognitive Type of a Scientific Article on Ecological Problems of Mountain Ecosystems. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice,10 (52), II. pp. 144-147. (In Russ.).
  9. Searle, J.R. (1986). The classification of illocutionary acts. New in foreign linguistics, 17. Moscow: Progress publ. pp. 170-194. (In Russ.).
  10. Abelson, R.P. (1981). Psychological Status of the Script Concept. American Psychologist, 36(7). pp. 715-729.
  11. Beaugrande, R. de. L. & Dressler, W. (1994). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman publ.
  12. Bellezza, F.S. & Bower, G.H. (1982). Remembering script-based text. Poetics, 11(1), 1-23.
  13. Dijk, T.A. van. (1995). Discourse Semantics and Ideology. Discourse and Society, 6(2), 243-285.
  14. Dijk, T.A. van. (1976). Pragmatics and Poetics. Pragmatics of Language and Literature, 2, 23-57.
  15. Divjak, D., Levshina, N. & Klavan. J. (2016). Cognitive Linguistics: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Cognitive Linguistucs. 27(4), 447-463. doi: 10.1515/cog-2016-0095.
  16. Enquist, N.E. (1985). Stylistics, Text Linguistics and Composition. In Nordic Research in Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis. 25-45.
  17. Goral, M. & Conner P.S. (2013). Language Disorders in Multilingual and Multicultural Populations. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 128-161. doi: 10.1017/S026719051300010x.
  18. Gries, S.T. & Ellis N.C. (2015). Statistical Measures for Usage-Based Linguistics. Language Learning. The Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons, Inc publ., 65 (S1), pp. 228-255. doi: 10.1111/lang.12119.
  19. Jakobson, R. (1969). Linguistics in its Relation to other Sciences. Actes du Xe congres international des linguists, 1. P. 76.
  20. Krause, H., Bosch, S. & Clahsen, H. (2014). Morphosyntax in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon: an Experimental Study of Strong Stems in German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), pp. 597-621. doi: 10.1017/S02722623114000564.
  21. Kruse, L. (1986). Drehbucher fur Verhaltensschauplatze oder: Skripts fur Settings. In: Ordnung and Variabilitat im Altagsgeschehen. pp. 135-153.
  22. Lakoff, G. (1972). Language in Context. Language, 48(4), 907-927.
  23. Mak, W.M., Tribushinina, E., & Andreiushina, E. (2013). Semantics of Connectives Guides Referential Expectations in Discourse: an Eye-Tracking Study of Dutch and Russian. Discourse Processes, 50(8), 557-576. doi: 10.1080/0163853x.2013.841075.
  24. Melinger, A., Branigan, H.P., & Pickering, M.J. (2014). Parallel Processing in Language Production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(6), 663-683. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2014.906635.
  25. Meutsch, D., & Schmidt, S.J. (1986). On the Role of Conventions in Understanding Literary Texts. Amsterdam.
  26. Nuyis, J. (2015). Subjectivity: Between Discourse and Conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, pp. 106-110. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015.
  27. Romanova, N. & Gor, K. (2017). Processing of Gender and Number Agreement in Russian as a Second Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1). 97-128. doi: 10.1017/S0272263116000012.
  28. Schank, R.C. (1982). Reminding and memory organization: An introduction to MOPs. In: Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale (N.J.); L.: Erlbaum. pp. 455-493.
  29. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Oxford.
  30. Winke, P., Gass S., & Sydorenko, T. (2013). Factors Influencing the Use of Captions by Foreign Learners: An Eye-Tracking Study. The Modern Language Journal, 97(1). 254-275. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.01432.x.
  31. High Priorities. (2002). GEF’s Contribution to Preserving and Sustaining Mountain Ecosystems. Washington, 13 (1). P. 30.
  32. Meith, N. World Conservation: Mountain High. Switzerland, 2002. Vol. 33. № 1.
  33. Mountain Momentum: Agenda for Today and Policy beyond IYM 2002. (2002). The United Nations University. 2002 International Year of Mountains. P. 26.
  34. Nemolyaeva, L. (2001). Ensuring Long-Term Conservation of the Altai-Sayan Ecoregion WWF Project: Achievements and Lessons Learned. Moscow, P. 16.
  35. Russian Bird Conservation Union. (1998). Moscow, P. 11.
  36. Supporting Environmental Cooperation in Central Asia. (2002). Philippines, P. 49.
  37. Tropical Montane Cloud Forests: Time for Action. (1999). Switzerland, P. 29.

Copyright (c) 2018 Semenova S.N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies