Extracted pages from Викулова9.pdf

21. Sentence: General Characteristics Sentence is the second linguistic unit falling under syntax. Sentence, as well as phrase, must be considered on a separate level of linguistic analysis. Among various definitions given to the sentence the most general one is the following: Sentence is the minima...

21. Sentence: General Characteristics Sentence is the second linguistic unit falling under syntax. Sentence, as well as phrase, must be considered on a separate level of linguistic analysis. Among various definitions given to the sentence the most general one is the following: Sentence is the minimal syntactic structure used in speech communication, distinguished by predication and built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern. This definition focuses on three aspects of the sentence: pragmatic, semantic and structural. The sentence is a means of communication, in contrast to a phrase which performs nominative function. Intonation is a specific feature of the sentence as a unit of communication. In the semantic aspect, the sentence is characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The centre of predication is a finite verb. Predication is performed through the verbal categories of tense and mood. The structural aspect is confined to the fact that every actual sentence is built up according to a definite syntactic pattern. The variety of such patterns is specific of a particular language, but their number is always finite. The exact number of sentence patterns in English is determined by the level of linguistic analysis: the most abstract level produces three basic structures (Ch. Fries), while the most detailed analysis results in fifty one (A.S. Hornby). Each of the aspects presented in the definition makes a basis for classification of sentences. The sentence is a unit of communication therefore the primary classification is based on the communicative principle. This principle is formulated in traditional grammar as the purpose of communication. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 164–171. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 175. 66 Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 229–236. Fries Ch. C. The Structure of English / Ch. C. Fries. N. Y., 1952. Hornby A. S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English / A. S. Hornby. Moscow, 1982. Vol. 2. 22. Communicative Types of Sentences In accord with the purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have been recognized in linguistic tradition: the declarative sentence, the imperative sentence, the interrogative sentence. These communicative types are strictly identified, and their properties of meaning and form are correlated with the listeners’ responses. Thus, the declarative sentence expresses a statement (affirmative or negative), has a direct word order (SVO…) and stands in syntagmatic correlation with the listener’s responding signals of attention or appraisal. The imperative (or inductive) sentence expresses a request or command, features the initial position of the verb in its structure (V…) and urges the listener to make an action response. The interrogative sentence expresses a question, has an inverted word order (vSVO…) and is connected with an answer (verbal response), forming together with it a question-answer dialogue unity. Alongside with the three cardinal communicative sentencetypes, another type of sentences is recognized in syntax, namely, the exclamatory sentence. In the course of studies, it has been shown that exclamatory sentences do not possess the basic properties of cardinal sentence-types. Exclamation is considered as an accompanying feature which is actualized in the system of the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. Each of them can be represented in the two variants: non-exclamatory and exclamatory (e. g.: It was a small house — What a small house it was!). Working bibliography Гуревич В. В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков / В. В. Гуревич. М., 2004. С. 163–164. 67 Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 174–181. Кобрина Н. А. Грамматика английского языка : Морфология. Синтаксис / Н. А. Кобрина, Е. А. Корнеева, М. И. Оссовская, К. А. Гузеева. М., 2001. С. 300–310. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 243–260. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. Р. 185–187. 23. Actual Division of the Sentence Actual division of the sentence, or functional sentence perspective, refers to the communicative properties of sentences. According to this theory the sentence is divided into two parts. Theme is the part of the sentence which contains a starting point of the statement. Rheme is the other part of the sentence containing the new information for the sake of which the sentence has been uttered or written. The terms “theme” and “rheme” are derived from Greek. The term “theme” means “what is set or established”, the term “rheme” means “what is said or told”. This pair of terms appeared to be best suited for the theory of actual division. They came into use in the works of several Czech linguists, first of all Jan Firbas, who wrote his thesis on the function of word-order in Old English and Modern English (1959). The relation between the syntactic structure of the sentence and its actual division is a very important linguistic problem. The means of expressing a thematic or a rhematic quality of a word or phrase in a sentence depend on the grammatical structure of the given language. In a language with a developed morphological structure and free word-order, the latter (i. e. word-order) is effectively used to show the difference between theme and rheme. The word order plays a very important part in the communicative structure of Russian sentences. Cf.: Женщина села на скамейку — На скамейку села женщина. In each sentence the last word corresponds to a rheme. No such variation would be possible in the corresponding English sentence: The woman 68 sat on the bench. It would involve some additional changes in the grammatical structure and wording. In Modern English there are several specific ways of showing that a word or phrase corresponds to the rheme. 1. The grammatical construction “…It is …which/that/who” is used for the representation of the rheme enclosed between the two components, e. g. It is our disagreement that matters in the long run. 2. The subject or any other sentence member can be made a rheme by means of intonation, cf.: Mary was playing the piano at the ‘moment. ‘Mary was playing the piano at the moment. Mary was ‘playing the piano at the moment. 3. Another means of pointing out the rheme in the sentence is the intensifying particle (just, even, only, etc), followed by the word in question, e. g. It is only a suggestion. 4. The subject put at the end of the sentence becomes rhematic, which is typical of the existential sentences, e. g. And there came some new information from the expert. 5. Another means of indicating the rheme of a sentence may be the indefinite article, e. g. There is a problem. There are also some means of showing up the theme in the English sentence: 1. This can be achieved by using the definite article, e. g. The idea was good. 2. The loose parenthesis introduced by the phrase As to / As for produces the so-called double subject focusing on the theme, e. g. As for the others, they were not eager to interfere. 3. Some scholars also believe that any notional constituent placed at the beginning of the sentence is made its theme, e. g.: All that Dr Roberts found in the reference books; Next morning we are leaving for Boston. Many problems concerning the actual division of the sentence have not been solved yet. In particular, it is not certain that every sentence necessarily consists of the two parts: theme and rheme. In some cases 69 there are supposed to be intermediate elements. Jan Firbas in his analysis of English functional sentence perspective pointed out these intermediate elements and described their function as a transition zone. R. Quirk closely relates the organized communicative system of the sentence to the English intonation patterns. He takes into consideration three aspects of this system: theme, focus, and emotive emphasis. According to this approach each tone unit represents the unit of information and the place where the nucleus falls is the focus of information (the rheme). The neutral position of the focus is called end-focus. It is stated that if the nucleus falls on the last stressed syllable of the clause (according to the principle of end-focus), the new information could be the entire clause, or the predication of the clause, or the last element of the clause. There are three factors contributing to the presentation of the content of a clause in one particular order rather than another. One is the tendency to place new information towards the end of the clause — the principle of end-focus. Another is the tendency to reserve the final position for the more complex part of a clause — the principle of end-weight. A third factor is the limitation of possible clause structures, with their sets of participant roles. These restrictions determine, for example, that an agentive role cannot be expressed by an object or complement, but only by the subject or by the agent of a passive clause, e. g.: Who makes these chairs? — They are made by Morris. Actual division is different in different communicative types of sentences. The declarative sentence expresses a certain proposition, that is a statement of the fact, and the actual division of a declarative sentence presents itself in the most complete form. The rheme of the declarative sentence is the centre of the statement, e. g. Now you know the truth. The imperative sentence does not express any statement of fact that is any proposition proper. M. Y. Blokh says that the proposition underlying the imperative sentence is reversely contrasted to the content of the expressed inducement. Thus, command or request to do something is based on the premise that something is not done. For 70 example: Give me his address, please (Premise — the address has not been given yet). The rheme of the imperative sentence expresses the informative nucleus of the inducement — a wanted (or unwanted) action together with its attending elements. The interrogative sentence expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker does not possess. The rheme of the interrogative sentence is informatively open or gaping. Its function is to mark the rhematic position in the response sentence. Different types of questions present different types of open rhemes. In special questions the nucleus of the inquiry is expressed by a question-word. The gaping meaning is to be replaced in the answer by the wanted actual information. Thus, the rheme of the answer is the substitute of a question-word, the two making up a rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction, e. g.: Where did you meet him? — At a scientific conference. The rheme of general questions is also open. But its openness consists in two suggestions presented for choice to the listener. It is clearly seen in the structure of alternative questions, e. g.: Will you invite him home or visit him at the hotel? The general question of the “yes — no” response type is implicitly alternative. Its inquiry concerns the choice between existence and non-existence of an indicated fact, e. g.: Are you going to leave for good? — Yes / No. Working bibliography Гуревич В. В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков / В. В. Гуревич. М., 2004. С. 54–59. Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 256–260. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 236–242. Quirk R. A University Grammar of English / R. Quirk [et al.]. Moscow, 1982. Р. 353–356. 71 24. Sentence Structures Before we take the study of sentence structures it is worth considering the relationship between two notions: sentence and clause. The notion of clause is identical to that of sentence. A simple sentence consists of one clause. When we come to composite sentences, that is sentences consisting of two or more clauses, we have to deal with the notions of main clause and subordinate clause. The first principle of classification of composite sentences is the way of joining clauses: either by means of special words designed for this function (syndetically), or without such words (asyndetically). In the syndetic way, the joining word may be a conjunction, a pronoun, or an adverb. If it is a conjunction, it has no other function in the sentence but that of joining the clauses together. If it is a relative pronoun or a relative adverb, it has a double function: it serves to join the clauses together and at the same time, it makes up a part of a subordinate clause, e. g. I do not know what has happened. The transition zone between simple and composite sentences may be represented by sentences with homogeneous parts (e. g. I took the child in my arms and held him), by sentences with a comparative complex (e. g. This bag is as big as my blue one), and by sentences with secondary predication (e. g. I did not expect you to come so early). Compound sentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating conjunctions (and, or, but, yet, so). Clauses in compound sentences have equal rights, they are coordinated. However, there is a suggestion that the independence of the second clause is not complete, and its structure and content is predominated by the first clause. The other specific feature of this structural type is that there are compound sentences which consist of clauses belonging to different communicative types, e. g.: It means something to her, but why? Complex sentences consist of clauses which are not on an equal footing. One of them is the main clause and the other (or others) — subordinate. There is a great variety of conjunctions (after, before, though, since, etc), a number of phrases (as soon as, in order to). Besides, there are relative pronouns (who, which, that, etc) and relative adverbs (where, how, why, etc). Complex sentence is a sentence containing at 72 least one subordinate clause. The structural classification of complex sentences is based on the classification of subordinate clauses which includes subject clauses, predicative clauses, object clauses, attributive clauses and various types of adverbial clauses (of place, time, result, purpose, cause, condition, manner, etc). However, the communicative classification of complex sentences depends on the main clause. Structural types of simple sentences. It is usual to classify simple sentences into two-member sentences (having both subject and predicate) and one-member sentences (nominative, infinitive, imperative). Elliptical sentences are two-member sentences with either the subject or the predicate omitted, presented implicitly. Implication is the information which is not given explicit verbal expression to, but which is suggested by some other elements of the context. Such sentences are treated as incomplete because the missing parts can be easily understood from the context. They are mostly used in colloquial speech and especially in dialogue. Simple sentences, both two-member and one-member, can be nonextended (consisting only of the main parts) and extended (consisting of the subject, the predicate and one or more secondary parts). Elementary sentence is a non-extended sentence which besides the main parts (the subject, the predicate) may have complementive secondary parts. This is a sentence all the positions of which are obligatory. According to R. Quirk et al, the set of elementary English sentences includes the following patterns: 1) SVA — Mary is in the house; 2) SVC — Mary is kind/a nurse; 3) SVO — Somebody caught the ball; 4) SVOA — I put a plate on the table; 5) SVOC — We have proved him wrong/a fool; 6) SVOO — She gives me expensive presents; 7) SV — The child laughed. It should be kept in mind that one and the same verb can belong, in various senses, to a number of different classes. The verb get is particularly versatile and can be found in each type given above: SVC — He is getting angry; SVA — He got through the window; SVO — He’ll 73 get a surprise; SVOC — He got his shoes wet; SVOA — He got himself into trouble; SVOO — He got her a splendid present; SV— He got up. Working bibliography Гуревич В. В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков / В. В. Гуревич. М., 2004. С. 161–163. Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 227–237. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 295–323. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. Р. 264–306. Quirk R. A University Grammar of English / R. Quirk [et al.]. Moscow, 1982. Р. 157–158. 25. Simple Sentence: Constituent Structure As M. Y. Blokh puts it, simple sentence is organized as a system of function-expressing positions. The parts of the sentence are arranged in a hierarchy wherein all of them perform some modifying roles. Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predicate is a process-modifier of the subject-person. The object is a substancemodifier of the process. The adverbial is a quality-modifier of the predicate part or the sentence as a whole. The attribute is a qualitymodifier of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached speaker-bound modifier of any sentence-part or the sentence as a whole. The addressing enclosure (address) is a substantive modifier of the destination of the sentence. The interjectional enclosure is a speakerbound emotional modifier of the sentence as a whole. The ultimate objective of this integral modification is the sentence as a whole and the reflection of the situation or the situational event. The subject is one of the two main parts of the sentence. It denotes the thing whose action or characteristic is expressed by the predicate. In both practical and theoretical approaches, it is the problem of the 74 anticipatory subject which is worth considering first of all. It refers to the sentences of the type: It is necessary to do this work. The most convincing interpretation of this sentence structure, proposed by R. Quirk, is as follows. The subject is placed at the end of the sentence, and the subject position is filled by the anticipatory pronoun It. The sentence thus contains two subjects, which are identified as the postponed subject (the element which is notionally the subject of the sentence) and the anticipatory subject (It). The predicate is one of the two main parts of the sentence. It denotes the action or property of the thing expressed by the subject. Structurally predicates may be simple or compound, morphologically — verbal or nominal. The resulting types are: a simple verbal predicate, a compound verbal predicate, a simple nominal predicate, a compound nominal predicate. The compound nominal predicate always consists of a link-verb and a predicative (complement) of any type. The link-verb be is regarded as the most abstract (a pure link verb). The other link-verbs have each some lexical meaning, either factual (become, get, grow, turn, remain, keep, etc), or perceptional (seem, appear, look, feel, taste, etc). It must be kept in mind that some notional verbs (especially intransitive verbs of position and motion) can perform the function of a link-verb without losing their lexical nominative value, e. g.: The moon rose red; He was found guilty. Since such sentences have both a simple verbal predicate and a compound nominal predicate in their structure, they form a special or mixed type of sentences with a double predicate. The simple nominal predicate is rare in English but still a living type. In fact, it is a compound nominal predicate with a link-verb omitted, e. g.: My ideas obsolete!!!; Splendid game, cricket; so thoroughly English! The differentiation between the simple verbal predicate and the compound verbal predicate is a real problem. It arises from the fact that a considerable number of verbs can be followed by an infinitive (with or without the particle to). The combination of a modal verb (can, may, must, should, etc) with an infinitive makes up the compound verbal modal predicate, which is generally accepted. The combination 75 of a phasal verb (begin, start, continue, etc) with an infinitive or gerund is regarded as the compound verbal phrasal predicate, or the compound verbal aspect predicate. Some scholars, in particular V. V. Burlakova, do not agree with this interpretation and treat such forms as free word combinations of a simple verbal predicate with an object of any kind, infinitive included. The theory of the secondary parts of the sentence has many weak points. First of all, there is a problem of definitions of the object, the attribute and the adverbial modifier. In Modern English, with its case system practically ruined, it is very difficult to give a definition of the object based on its formal and semantic properties, though it is common practice to speak about the direct object and the indirect object (including the prepositional one). R. Quirk proposes the following definition of the direct object: “The direct object is by far the most frequent kind of object and it must always be present if there is an indirect object in the sentence: He had given the girl an apple. As here, the indirect object almost always precedes the direct object: it is characteristically a noun referring to a person, and the semantic relationship is often such, that it is appropriate to use the term “recipient”. Loosely, one might say in most cases that something (the direct object) tends to be done for (or received by) the indirect object” (R. Quirk et al, p. 21). Sometimes it is hard to distinguish the object from the adverbial modifier, e. g.: He entered the room; Mary lived with her parents. The traditional definition of the adverbial modifier is rather vague: it is a secondary part of the sentence serving to characterize an action or a property as to its quality or intensity, or to indicate the way an action is done, the time, place, cause, purpose, or condition with which the action is connected. R. Quirk describes three classes of adverbials: adjuncts, disjuncts and conjuncts. According to him adverbials may be integrated into the structure of the clause or they may be peripheral to it. If integrated, they are termed adjuncts, e. g. He writes to his parents because of money. If peripheral, they are termed disjuncts (To my regret, they did not leave for home) and conjuncts (What’s more, I’m going to tell him that myself ), the distinction between the two being that conjuncts have primarily a connective function. 76 The attribute is defined as a secondary part of the sentence modifying a part of the sentence expressed by a noun, a noun-pronoun, a cardinal numeral or any other substantivized word, and characterizing the thing, named by these words, as to its quality and property. And here again we have the problem of differentiation between the object and the attribute in a sentence. B. A. Ilyish says that in many cases the answer to the question whether a secondary part expresses a thing or a property will be arbitrary, that is it will depend on the scholar’s opinion and not on any objective criteria. In the sentence: The gloom of winter twilight closed about her the phrase of winter twilight modifies the noun gloom and may be either an object or an attribute (denoting either a thing or a property). Also compare: The idea of such a travel was good; This pair of shoes does not fit you. Another problem with the attribute is its grammatical status. There is a view expressed by many scholars that the attribute is a part of a phrase rather than a sentence. In particular, B. A. Ilyish points out the fact that an attribute often comes within a part of a sentence, for example, between the article and the noun to which the article belongs. It speaks strongly in favor of the view that the attribute stands on a lower level than the usual parts of the sentence and that it should be considered a part of a phrase, not of a sentence. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 183–201. Кобрина Н. А. Грамматика английского языка : Морфология. Синтаксис / Н. А. Кобрина [и др.]. М., 2001. С. 318–391. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 261–271. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. Р. 198–230. Quirk R. A University Grammar of English / R. Quirk [et al.]. Moscow, 1982. Р. 189–192. 77 26. Text Grammar and Theory of Discourse When talking about the relationship between the traditional sentence grammar and the theory of discourse, we should take into consideration the three main aspects of the sentence: structural, semantic, and pragmatic. Analyzing sentence in the text, M. Blokh focuses on the structural features as primary ones. In his opinion, sentences in speech are connected both semantically and syntactically. They combine with one another on syntactic lines in the formation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text. It implies a succession of sentences with a common informative purpose (topic). The terms used are: “a complex syntactic unity”, “a super-phrasal unity”, and “the supra-sentential construction”. Text has two distinguishing features: first, it is a semantic (topical) unity, second, it is a syntactic cohesion. According to M. Y. Blokh, there are two types of text. Monologue is a one-direction sequence of sentences e. g.: We’ll have a lovely garden. We’ll have roses in it and a lovely lawn for little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we’ll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer. Dialogue is a two-direction sequence, in which sentences are uttered by the speakers in turn, e. g.: Annette, what have you done? — I’ve done what I had to do. The monologue formation is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, whereas the dialogue formation is based on its sentences being positioned so as to meet one another. The monologue text, or “discourse” is a topical entity; the dialogue text, or “conversation” is an exchange-topical entity. Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either prospectively or retrospectively. Prospective (epiphoric, cataphoric) cumulation is effected through connective elements (mainly, notional words) that relate a given sentence to one that follows it. This type can be found in scientific and technical texts, e. g.: Let me add a word of caution here. The valve must be correctly engineered and constructed. Retrospective (anaphoric) cumulation is effected through connective elements that relate a sentence to the one that precedes it. This type is usually found in ordinary speech, e. g.: What curious class sensation was this? Or was it merely fellow-feeling with the hunted? Conjunctive connectors include regular conjunctions (coordinative and subordinative), adverbial and parenthetical forms 78 (then, yet, however, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless, etc). Conjunctive cumulation is only retrospective. Correlative cumulation is both prospective and retrospective. It is effected through a pair of elements, one of which refers to the other, e. g.: Spolding woke me with the noiseless efficiency of a trained housemaid. She drew the curtains, placed a can with hot water in my basin. M. A. K. Halliday focuses on the semantic aspect of the utterance as a dominating one. His main ideas are the following. The word text in linguistics refers to any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that forms a unified whole. It may be anything from a proverb to a whole play. A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence, and it is not defined by its size. A text is a semantic unit. A text does not consist of sentences, it is realized by sentences. A text has texture, derived from the fact that it functions as a unity with respect to its environment. The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning. Cohesion occurs when the interpretations of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one presupposes the other. Like other semantic relations, cohesion is expressed through the stratal organization of language. Language is a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding: the semantic (meanings), the lexico-grammatical (forms), and the phonological and orthographic (expressions). In brief, meaning is put into wording, and wording is put into sound or writing. Within the layer (stratum) of wording there is no hard-and-fast division between vocabulary and grammar: the more general meanings are expressed through grammar, and the more specific meanings through the vocabulary. Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. As contrasted to M. A. K. Halliday, T. A. van Dijk says that it is the pragmatic aspect of utterances which makes the basis of every text. Discourse is generally understood as text in social environments. Relations between sentences in a discourse cannot be described in semantic terms alone. The conditions imposed on connectives as well as coherence, topic, focus, perspective, and similar notions, also have a pragmatic base. In other words, we do not only want to 79 represent certain facts but at the same time we want to use a particular textual representation. The basic idea of pragmatics is that when we are speaking in certain contexts we also accomplish certain social acts. Our intentions for such actions as well as the interpretations of intentions of other speech participants are based on sets of knowledge and belief. These sets are different for speaker and hearer, although largely overlapping, and the knowledge set of the hearer changes during the communication, ideally according to the purposes of the speaker. By uttering a sentence a speaker accomplishes a referential act. It has a social point as soon as the speaker has an intention to demonstrate that he/she has the particular knowledge about the particular fact. The purpose is to change the knowledge of the hearer as a consequence of the interpretation of this semantic (referential) act. If this purpose is realized, the speaker has accomplished a successful communicative act, that is, he/she has been able to add some information to the knowledge of the hearer. Working bibliography Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 351–362. Dijk T. A. van. Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse / T. A. van Dijk. L. ; N. Y., 1980. Halliday M. A. K. On Grammar. / M. A. K. Halliday; ed. by J. Webster. L. ; N. Y., 2005. Р. 219–230.