Variation of score in language achievement tests according to gender, item format and skill areas

II. Main part

1. 
   The role of paradigmatic and in syntagmatic
   

The very formulation of the question in such a plan is considered to be relevant and innovative. This is because it does not only have linguistic meaning, but also goes far beyond the scope of a particular area. Ontological self-determination of Azerbaijani relative syntagmas at the contemporary stage is that the three vectors take effect during the process of its formation: Russian, European and Turkic. This requires revision and the organization of these schools in order to determine their own linguistic norms of relative syntagmas in Azerbaijani language. From this point of view, the theory of relative syntagmas has not been studied in the Azerbaijan linguistics. It was in this that we see the innovation that takes place in this paper. The syntax, as a branch of linguistics, is engaged in researching words and phrases in this regard as reflected in its modern paradigmatic tendency to identify the intercultural dialogue at the language level. Syntactic syntagmas in this sense have a special role. In today's schools, there is conflicting theoretical linguistics to the definition of syntagmas. Hence, this is due to the versatility of the syntagma as a grammatical category.
Materials and Methods
The methodological base of the research is an integrated approach to the study of the syntagma. Historical method, comparative - typological analysis, and linguistic analysis of the text were used here. Similar problems have demanded the creation of a methodological complex, in addition to the input linguistic theories and contemporary developments related disciplines: psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, discourse receptive theories, culture, and psychology. The entering of mixed theories explains modern integration in the field of language, philosophy, literature, and culture. This is based on the fact that the language is manifested at all stages of the language of the personality as an individual, in terms of the functioning of the society (A.A Akhundov, G. Kazimov, Y. Seyidov, F. Veysalli, F. Aslanov etc.). This methodological approach is the inevitability of routinization. Syntagma is derived from the Greek language, in which the theoretical interpretation of the syntagma refers to the rhetorical figure of the language. According to
Greek rhetoric, syntagma is defined as a word, group of words, or a whole sentence.
In the paper, effort was made to identify syntagma historically. The concept of the term, and its functions in the regulatory field of the Azerbaijani language was also identified. Some difficulties in solving this problem resulted in different approaches to research on comparative linguistics. Its task includes adequate description and interpretation of the operation of the syntagma in the Azerbaijani language. Thus, this is in terms of the specific features of the language in an effort to explore the linguistic comparative-typological aspect of language universals in comparison with English language. The differences in languages, especially clearly expressed in the phraseologisms, are reflected in the features of a native speaker of verbal thinking and verbal discourse.
This provision is expressed in the works of many Russian, Azerbaijani, and foreign linguists (V.V. Vinogradov, V.N. Yartsev, V.G. Gak, A.D. Raykhshteyn, A.A. Ufimtsev, G.S. Schur, N.Y. Trir, E.M. Solodukho, A.A. Akhundov, G. Kazimov, Y. Seyyidov etc.). Subsequently, this methodological approach is due to the term routinization. Thus, this term is inevitable.
From the research works written about syntax, it is known that this field of science is busy with the investigation of word combinations and sentences. In this regard, according to some scientists (F.de Saussure, Sh. Bally, F. Mikush, B.V. Tomashevsky, S.I. Kartsevsky, V.V. Vinogradov,

1. 
   A. Akhundov), syntax is being understood as the field of science about syntagmatic relations and syntagmas. Thus, a question appears. What is the syntagma?
   

“The word “syntagma” comes from the Greek (-syntaqma - literally something to unite) -linguistics.

1. 
   Decisive element with the meaning of the element and emphasis, appointed by the combination of words and word parts, for example: Rus. везущий воду - водовоз;
   
2. 
   Word or word group;
   
3. 
   Whole syntactic intonation and a unit of meaning” (Jaffarov, Garayev & Jaffarova, 1981; Словарь иностранных слов (1949)).
   

As can be seen, the origin of syntagma belongs to the Greek language. Here, the theoretical interpretation of the syntagma referred to the rhetorical figure of the language. According to Greek rhetoric, “syntagma” is defined as a word, group of words, or a whole sentence. The word “syntagma” is of the Greek origin which means to “connect to something”. Therefore, the question is translated and explained in linguistics as follows:

1. 
   Words or phrases that are formed by defining the semantic connections and detectable element, e.g., Rus. совхоз, колхоз
   
2. 
   Word or group of words;
   
3. 
   A holistic syntactic or semantic intonation unity.
   

Thus, our understanding of the syntagma is as follows:
Syntagma is composed of two members of the joint. It serves as the function of determining and being determined. It is used in the oral language, i.e. in oratory. Sentences are divided into certain rhythmic groups, which are determined by the phonetic syntagma. It is possible that analogically words are divided into syllables. In general, the term "syntagma" in linguistics has many meanings. For example, O.S. Akhmanova gave six definitions of "syntagma" in her dictionary of linguistic terms (AxMaHOBa, 1966). Furthermore, syntagma in semantic context is a group of rhythmic words. In this case, syntagma is represented as a phonetic phenomenon. This aspect of syntagmas is analyzed in detail in the works of M. Gramm, L. Shcherba, V.V. Vinogradov, A.N.Gvozdev, and others.
In fact, the problem of syntagma does not have a long history in linguistics. Even independent scientific research works have not been written about this question. However, it should be noted that this area created too many ideas. Also, there is a serious difference between linguistic specialists and researchers.
Thus, there are many different approaches to the definition of the syntagma. Although speech segmentation is a more phonetic character, i.e. related to the mechanism of pronunciation, partitioning in our speech on the different parts are based on grammatical and semantic effects of regularity.
In linguistics, there are other approaches in determining the syntagma. The existing concept of modern science binomial syntagmas is associated with the name of the famous Swiss philosopher and linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. They identified the syntagma as a connection or association of two or more characters. Consequently, they make words, phrases, sentences, or sentence member to be complex. Another outstanding linguist, Baudouen de Kourtene, also used the syntagma as a word.
In science, there were also approaches which were discussed. An example of this approach is the syntagma which is regarded as a syntactic phenomenon in the works of Sh.Bally, S.O. Kartsevsky, F.F. Fortunatov, B.V. Tomashevsky etc. These linguists believe that the syntagma can be divided rhythmically and linearly together inside its members in another word. Syntactically, syntagma is indivisible. This is because in this case, the members of syntagmas act together to form a single meaning.
For comparison, brother’s book - green (color, valuable) - which was looking new was bought two years ago in Bucharest.
Syntagma is regarded as unity. It is formed by combining two members which has two functions. One of the members acts as “defining”, while the other acts as a “definable one”.
Here, the syntagma can act as words and phrases, morphemes, and separate sentences. Examples include: to buy a car; green trees of the forest of our village; If you became a miller, call for brave Koroghlu (Azerbaijani proverb).
Syntagma has been described by some other scientists. For example, Ferdinand de Saussure has described it in a word (re-lire), phrase (de grace), or sentence (il ya) in the presence of the members to create any complex combination or junction of two or more signs (Соссюр, 2004). Consequently, Badouen de Kurtene has used the syntagma in the meaning of “word” (Бодуэн де Куртэнэ, 1963). Some French phonetists (especially, P.Passy- H.A.) referred to the syntagma as a group of breathing. L.V.Scherba considers syntagma as the completeness of the meaning of rhythmic groups of words in a sentence (Щерба, 1953). Furthermore, V.V. Vinogradov writes about syntagma: "It is very difficult to find two scientists who understand and give the same meaning to this term" (Виноградов, 1952).
Thus, it appears that syntagma can be called both phonetic and syntactic unit. In linguistics, there are different opinions about syntagma. Some linguists believe that syntagma is a group of words rhythmically combined and which expresses a complete thought (L.V. Scherba, V.V. Vinoqradov). In addition, others (F. de Saussure, Sh.Bally, F.Mikush,

2. 
   V.Tomashevsky, S.I. Kartsevsky) referred to syntagma as not a phonetic, but as a syntactic event. Academician L.V. Scherba is the founder of the theory of syntagma. Thus, he named it phonetic event. He shared his clear thoughts on this new sense. L.V. Scherba writes: "In the process of speech­views integrity, expressing a single meaning wholeness consists of a rhythmic group, including several phonetic units, I call them syntagma" (Щерба, 1953).
   

It should be noted that in the same book at page 84, L.V. Scherba has given the syntagma as a "phrase" and "rhythmic group" together with the headlines "syntactical segmentation of the flow of speech". It is obvious that though L.V. Scherba was spoken from a phonetic point of view, at the same time, he shows that the syntagma is connected with syntax and it connects with phonetics according to the condition of pause and stress in the process of syntactic event. As a result, syntagma is marked as a syntactic and phonetic event.
L.V. Scherba also noted the syntagma as the idea of integrity as well. He shows that syntagma at the same time is a semantic-syntactic unit. Scherba’s learning of syntagma still shows its strength. This is however just as A.N. Gvozdyev considers the syntagma as L.V.Scherba shows (Гвоздев, 1958).
In one of his articles, the academician V.V.Vinogradov has noted the syntagma to be full of syntactic unit. He opined that it should be approached from this point of view. In another article, he stated: "Syntagma is the main category of stylistic syntax." (Ученые записки Московского Университета, вып. 150, 1952)
Subsequently, A.A. Reformatsky has approached the syntagma from other aspect. He has given the following definition to it: “Syntagma is the combination of two other members in the relationship of subordination” (Реформатский, 1955). While saying two members, he meant two words, namely: two members of sentence. A.A. Reformatsky’s thoughts and opinions about syntagma coincide with that of Saussure. Thus, we can say that their instructions (teaching) have not brought anything new to the world of linguistics. A.A. Reformatsky also showed some types of internal syntagma in the Russian language.

1. 
   With derived word generated, for example, syntagma сад - being determined (the root of the word), and ик - determined (endings).
   
2. 
   Consists of compound word, for example, syntagma паровоз, колхоз, совхоз, водовоз, etc. These are simply lexemes. According to the author, it has no importance for syntax. Thus, some characteristic or features of syntagma are as follows:
   

o Syntagma combines two members;
o This and other member of syntagma can belong to other syntagma; o There is a subordination relationship between components of syntagma.
Furthermore, subordination relationship can mostly be found in complex sentences. As mentioned above, though syntagma is a unit of syntax (namely syntax - H.A.), it does not learn only syntagma, but also explores sentences. Therefore, taking a look at one example:
Young doctor examined the patients thoroughly.

• 
  In the sentence:
  

1. 
   Young doctor, 2) doctor examined, 3) examined, 4) examined the patients, 5) the patients, 6) examined thoroughly.
   

• 
  We have these syntagmas which clearly shows that these syntagmas are built on the basis of the following relations:
  

the first one is in the attributive relation, the second one is in the predicative relation, the third one is in the predicative relation, the fourth one is in the predicative relation too, the fifth one is in the attributive relation, the sixth one is in the relative relation.
Therefore, it was noted that two member syntagmas was built up in the relationship of subordination. The word doctor two times has been used in the composition of four syntagmas, while the word examined has been used four times. Based on this example, it can be concluded that the syntagmas differ from the word combinations according to the breadth of their coverage area. Here, it is only one of the syntagmas (young doctor). However, this is the same with syntactical combinations. Predicative combinations and being a two member syntagmas, once again shows that they are like phrases (word combinations). Also, it confirms that syntagma is a unit of syntax.
Academician A.A. Akhundov considers the syntagma as a unit of the level of syntax. On the other hand, A. Rajably considers this statement to be untrue. He shows the two units of the level of syntax. "1) Word combinations as a syntactic model which consists of the forms of words based on syntactic connection and syntactic meaning. 2) Sentence given as a syntactic model consists of the combination of sentence model of the forms of word and word combinations" (Rajably, 2003). From this point of view, A.A. Akhundov's thoughts about syntagma are more interesting. He writes: "First of all, syntagma is considered as a phonetic unit, and is used based on the meaning of rhythm, intonation, and speech flow. Secondly, syntagma is used based on the meaning of the result of syntactic stylistic segmentation. Thus, in this case, it is regarded as a stylistic unit, consisting of determined and being determined binomial structural meaning” (Akhundov, 1988). As a unit of syntax, the same syntagmas is divided into two groups, namely: 1) predicative, and 2) non-predicative syntagmas. The predicative syntagmas are the same in accordance with the sentence. As a rule, they are communicative. Furthermore, there is one predication. Thus, non­predicative syntagmas cover only word combinations. They usually have a nominative (naming) nature.
As known, non-predicative syntagmas are divided into three parts: attributive, objective, and relative. Attributive syntagmas are the syntagmas established by the relation of approach. Objective syntagmas are formed by the management relation. Relative syntagmas are based on foreign relationship. Thus, it can be concluded that the predicative relations creates the syntagma by expressing a certain opinion. For example:
It is raining. My uncle returned from Bucharest. My friend works in the village etc.
Consequently, non-predicative relation is the relation which does not denote a predication. However, this relationship serves as the formation of three types of syntagmas. They are:
1)
Attributive - namely, determining word is an attribute. We can give as an example to such syntagmas the (first) type substantive combinations in the Azerbaijani language. For example,
Golden ring, red shirt, green grass, cold room, and so on (there is a relation of approach).

2. 
   Objective - namely, the determining word is an object. For example, to read a novel, to learn the words, to tell a lie etc (it is created by management relationship).
   
3. 
   Relative - that is, the determining member of the predicative (verb predicate) expresses a definite quality. Relative syntagma is the syntagma which is formed by verb and the combination of adverb denoting its manner of action. For example, to run quickly, to write well, to run fast.
   

Subsequently, they are developed as word combinations. For example, to read rapidly, to talk kindly, to smile gently, and so on (it is formed by external approach).
As mentioned above, these different relation types between members of syntagm, once again prove that it (namely syntagma - H.A.) is the unit of syntax. However, Professor A. Rajably is against this opinion. He stated that there are only two types of syntax level. They are word combinations and sentences.
The problem of syntagma is the new one to the Azerbaijani linguistics. As a result, some scholars are generally not talking about it. Some are just overcoming it, while others stated that it is not so important for linguistics.
Professor Yusif Seyyidov's thoughts of syntagma, almost coincides with the opinion of Professor A. Rajably's. According to his mind, syntagma consists of words. Hence, this is why it cannot be considered a unit of phonetics. At the same time, he does not also include the syntagma to the syntax. As A.Rajably writes, Yusif Seyyidov stated that syntax has two investigation objects - 1) word combinations and 2) sentence. He notes that "being in case of the permanent forms developed from the grammatical structure of language of syntactical events, syntagma does not have such forms; and it can provide itself in any form at every chance" (Seyyidov, 1992). Y. Seyyidov notes that syntagma is mostly connected with rhetoric, art scene, and oral speech culture. According to his notes, syntagma can also be organized with words which have no grammatical relations with each other. In this regard, he generally does not want to talk about the relation forms of words in syntagma. However, at the end, he comes to a conclusion that word combination is formed by the semantic-syntactic unity of words. Also, in syntagmas, these peculiarities go back, but phonetic and stylistic features go to the forefront.
A.Rajably notes that syntagma is not a unit of syntax, but it is necessary for providing information about it. Specifically, Y.Seyyidov does not comment on this theme. He sometimes connects the syntagma to oral speech, but sometimes notes the important role of phonetic and stylistic features along with syntactic features in its creation. Sometimes, he considers it (syntagma - H. A.) as neither phonetic, nor syntactical unit. Other times, he tells it is odd to deal with the relation forms of the words in syntagma. As for Y.Seyyidov, syntagmas are parts separated by interval in speech. Thus, this is irrespective of the relations and forms of words, and how they appear in different ways. He has generalized these forms as 1) word; 2) auxiliaries;

3. 
   word combinations (in different types); 4) sentence (in different types); 5) two or more free words that do not cover word combinations and sentences. According to the scientist’s mind, syntagmas also vary according to their attitudes in sentences and towards the parts of sentence. “Syntagma, however, includes:
   

1.