Danes, Frantisek. Papers On Functional Sentence Perspective

JANUA LINGUARUM
STUDIA MEMORIAE
NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA
edenda curat
C. H. VAN SCHOONEVELD
Indiana University
Series Minor, 147

PAPERS ON FUNCTIONAL
SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
edited by
F. D A N E S
1974
ACADEMIA
P U B L I S H I N G HOUSE OF THE
CZECHOSLOVAK ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES
PRAGUE
MOUTON
THE HAGUE · PARIS
Scientific Editor:
Dr. Milos Dokulil, DrSc.
Scientific Adviser:
Prof. Dr. Jozef Mistrik, DrSc.
•© Academia, Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences

1974
All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form,

by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means
without written permission from the publishers
Printed in Czechoslovakia
CONTENTS
Foreword 9
JAN FIRBAS, Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to
problems of functional sentence perspective 11
ALES SVOBODA, On two communicative dynamisms 38
MICHAEL A . K . HALLIDAY, The place of "functional sentence

perspective" in the system of linguistic description 43
PETR SGALL, Zur Stellung der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung in
der Sprachbeschreibung 54
ÖSTEN DAHL, Topic - comment structure in a generative gram-
mar with a semantic base 75
LÁSZLÓ DEZSÔ — GYÖRGYE SZÉPE, Two problems of topic-
comment 81
WOLFGANG DRESLER, Funktionelle Satzperspektive und Text-
theorie 87
FRANTISEK DANES, Functional sentence perspective and the
organization of the text 106
JOSEF FILIPEC, Zur Frage der funktionalen Satzperspektive
im dramatischen Text 129
HPHHA H. KOBTYHOBA, AKTyajibHoe HJieHemie H CHCTeMa
jotnca (Ha MaTepnane pyccKoro a3biica) 142
HeKOToptie ΠΟΗΗΤΗΗ Teopun aKTyajit-
OJLTRA A . J I A N T E B A ,
ΗΟΓΟ HJieHeHH« npHMeHHTejIbHO Κ H3yHeHHK) BblCKa3bIBa-
HHH Β pa3r0B0pH0H penn 152
6
OJïbrA Β. CtíPOTHHHHA, 0 6 AKTYAJIBHOM «UIEHEHHH Β pa3-

rOBOpHOH pena 172
PAVEL NOVÁK, Remarks on devices of functional sentence
perspective 175
EJIEHA ΓΕΟΡΓΗΕΒΑ, CpeflCTBa aKTyajn>Horo HJIEHEMW
Β öojirapcKOM H3biKe 179
JANKO BACVAROV, Concerning the peculiarities of the Bul-
garian grammatical system from the point of view of
functional sentence perspective 185
ILPJKEMMGJI A/JAMEIJ, AKTyajiBHoe HJieHeHHe, rjiyÔHHHwe
CTpyKTypti Η πβρΗφρ33Η 189
KAREL PALA, Semantic classes of verbs and FSP 196
LUDMILA UHLÍftovÁ, On the role of statistics in the investi-
gafiön of FSP 208
FRANTISEK DANES et al., Zur Terminologie der funktionalen
Satzperspektive 217
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AO Archiv orientální
AUC Acta Universitatis Carolinae
AUP Acta Universitatis Palackianae
BSE Brno Studies in English
CM F Casopis pro moderni filologi!
CL Ceská literatura
FL Foundations of Language
IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics and Lan-
guage Teaching
JL Journal of Linguistics
KZ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschungen auf
dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen, gegrün-
det von A. Kuhn
LF Listy filologické
Lg Language
PBML The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association
PSML Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics
PhP Philologica Pragensia
RRL Revue roumaine de linguistique
SaS Slovo a slovesnost
SPFFBU Sbornik praci filosofické fakulty bmënské university
Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/25/15 1:43 AM
8
STZ Sprache im technischen Zeitalter

StudGen Studium Generale
TCLP Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague
TLP Travaux linguistiques de Prague
VJa Voprosy jazykoznanija
ZRP Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie
ZS1 Zeitschrift für Slawistik

Authenticated
FOREWORD
This volume represents the revised papers of the first international

symposium on Functional Sentence Perspective* at Mariánské
Làznë (Marienbad) in the autumn of 1970, organized by the Insti-
tute of Czech Language of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss in a roundtable manner
certain aspects of the communicative function of the sentence,
together with questions of the organization of the text. It was
evident (and the most recent developments of our science con-
firmed this fact very clearly) that these aspects of the study of lan-
guage have not always been given due consideration in contempo-
rary linguistics, in spite of the fact that the phenomena in question,
referred to as, e.g., "point de départ" and "but du discours",
"psychological subject" and "psychological predicate", "thème"
and "propos", "theme" and "rheme", "topic" and "comment",
"presupposition" and "focus" have been the concern of scholars
at least since the first half of the nineteenth century. Any linguistic
theory with a claim to adequacy should account for FSP phenome-
na in a consistent way within its framework.
The symposium was supposed to deal with the following basic
topics: 1. The FSP in the theory and practice of the Prague Lin-
* Referred to also as "aktuální ilenëni vëtné", "aktualnoje ölenenije

predlozenija", "aktuelle Satzgliederung", "funktionale Satzperspektive",
„Mitteilungsperspektive", "kontextové ilenëni vëty", "contextual segmenta-
tion of the sentence", "vyznamová vystavba vypovëdi", "the thematic orga-
nization of the utterance", "smyslovoje ilenenije predlozenija", "Thema-
Rhema-Gliederung", "topic-comment structure".

Authenticated
10 FOREWORD
guistic School, and of other currents of linguistic research. 2. The

place of FSP in the system of linguistic description. 3. The FSP
and the structure of the text. 4. The ways of expressing the FSP in
various languages. 5. The methods and procedures of the examina-
tion of the FSP.
The papers in the present volume are arranged according to
these topics; and are supplemented by some of the contributions
made by the participants during the discussions.
In the concluding session participating linguists from ten Euro-
pean countries discussed the results of the symposium and agreed
on the text of a Memorandum (that was afterward published in
a number of linguistic journals in the world). The Memorandum
states: "While admitting that there were different possible ap-
proaches to the problems under discussion it was conceded that
a more unified and coordinated approach can only be achieved by
pooling of interests and reappraisal of individual approaches in the
light of the insights gained into other approaches in the course of
discussion. This aim would certainly be promoted by an extensive
bibliography**, and a glossary of the most frequent terms used by the
FSP theorists."
"Further investigation into FSP, duly employing also the methods
of contrastive analysis, should be concerned with an explicit for-
mulation of the FSP phenomena within a theory of grammar
aiming at completeness, as well as with the relevance of FSP to
various fields of applied linguistics (language teaching, stylistics,
practical and theoretical problems of translation, automatic pro-
cessing of linguistic data)."
The editor of the present volume has nothing to add, but his
wish that this publication of the papers should promote the further
study of the phenomena of FSP in the same spirit of international
collaboration that characterized the discussions of the Symposium.
** Cf. also Z. TYL (ed.), A tentative bibliography of studies in functional

sentence perspective 1900—1970 (mimeo), Prague 1970.

Authenticated
SOME ASPECTS OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK APPROACH
TO PROBLEMS OF FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE
PERSPECTIVE
Jan Firbas (Brno)
For some time Czechoslovak linguists have devoted considerable

attention to problems of what has been called in Czech "aktuální
clenëni vëtné" and has usually come to be termed in English
"functional sentence perspective" (=FSP), "contextual sentence
(utterance) organization", "theme-rheme" or "topic-comment
structure". 1 It is Vilém Mathesius's (1882-1945) merit that in the
period between the two wars these problems began to be intensively
studied in Czechoslovakia. In the last quarter of the 19th century,
they were dealt with by German scholars, for instance, by G. von
der Gabelentz, H. Paul and Ph. Wegener. Most of them used the
terms "psychological subject" and "psychological predicate",
which according to Mathesius unduly tended to relegate the prob-
lems of FSP to spheres not treated by current linguistic research.2
A true pioneer work in the field of FSP, however, is the mono-
graph De Vordre des mots dans les langues anciennes comparées
aux langues modernes by Henri Weil, a French classical scholar.
It was published as early as 1844.3 Two practically unchanged later
editions followed in 1869 and 1879. An English translation, en-
titled The Order of Words in the ancient languages compared with
1
D A N E S , F., Prispëvek k novëjgi syntaktické terminologii [ A Contribu-
tion to an Inquiry into Recent Syntactic Terminology], Slavjanskaja lingvis-
tiêna terminologija [Slavonic Linguistic Terminology], Sofìa 1963, 46—52.
2
MATHESIUS, V . , Cestina a obecny jazykozpyt [The Czech Language and
General Linguistics], Prague 1947, 235.
3
Not 1 8 5 5 as stated by V . MATHESIUS: In Cestina... (quoted here in
note 2 ), 234, and elsewhere.

Authenticated
12 J. FIRBAS
that of the modern languages, appeared in Boston in 1878. It is

evidently chiefly the ideas of H. Weil that inspired Mathesius and
were further developed by him. It will not be without interest to
recall some of Weil's ideas here.
Weil distinguishes between the movement of ideas and the syn-
tactical movement. The former is expressed by the order of words,
the latter by terminations (cf. p. 36 of the English translation).
Weil endeavours to show that men think and express themselves in
the same order whether they speak a modern langauage or use one
of the ancient languages (37). Romance and Germanic languages
represent the former, Greek and Latin represent the latter. (No
mention is made of Slavonic languages.) A sentence contains a point
of departure (an initial notion) and a goal of discourse. The point
of departure is equally present to the speaker and to the hearer;
it is their rallying point, the ground on which they meet (29). The
goal of discourse presents the very information that is to be im-
parted to the hearer (30). Weil claims that the movement from the
initial notion to the goal of discourse reveals the movement of the
mind itself (43). Languages may use different syntactical construc-
tions, but the order of ideas remains basically the same (35). Weil
finds that modern languages tend to make the grammatical subject
express the point of departure (37). The reverse order, which puts
the goal of discourse first and the initial notion last, also occurs;
Weil refers to it as the pathetic order and looks upon it as a vehicle
of emotion (43).
In his researches Mathesius has corroborated Weil's idea that
a more rigid order of words increases the frequency of thematic
subjects. Comparing English with Czech and also with German,
he has established the marked English tendency to make the sub-
ject express the theme.4 He has also inquired into the constructions
4
See his Nëkolik poznámek o funkci podmëtu ν moderni angliétinè
[Some Notes on the Function of the Subject in Modern English], Casopis
pro moderni filologa 10,1924, 1 — 6; On Linguistic Characterology, Actes du
Premier Congrès International de Linguistes à La Haye, Leiden 1928, 56—63,
republished in Prague School Reader in Linguistics, compiled by J. VACHEK,
Bloomington 1964, 59—67; Zur Satzperspektive im modernen Englisch,

Authenticated
THE CZECHOSLOVAK A P P R O A C H TO FSP 13
English may employ to make the subject-predicate order conform

to the theme-rheme sequence. Thus apart from the passive con-
struction with a subject directly affected by the action (The book
is being read), he treats the passive construction with a subject
indirectly affected {I have been given a piece of advice), the so-called
possessive passive (Everywhere he had crowds hanging on his lips),
or the so-called perceptive passive (/ found a certain boldness of
temper growing in me), etc.5
One of Mathesius's most significant contributions to the theory
of FSP is his inquiry into the role played by FSP in determining
the order of words. In his view word order phenomena constitute
a system characterized by a hierarchy of word order principles.
The hierarchy is determined by the extent to, and the manner in,
which the principles operate. 6
Within the Czech system of word order, the leading principle is
that of FSP: the theme-transition-rheme sequence renders the word
order non-emotive, unmarked, whereas the rheme-transition-theme
sequence renders it emotive, marked. (By transition Mathesius
understands elements that actually belong to the rheme, but occur
at its periphery and in this way intermediate between theme and
rheme.)7 It appears that Weil's observations on the ordinary and
the pathetic order of words are fully applicable to Czech. Apart
from the word-order principle of FSP other word order principles
are in play. In fact, every word order is the outcome of an interplay
of principles. In regard to Czech, however, the other principles,
though by no means unimportant, merely play a secondary role.
They are mainly the rhythmical principle, the grammatical principle
and the principle of coherence of sentence elements. Mathesius's
Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 84. Jahrg.,
155. Band (der neueren Serie 55. Band), 1929, 202—210.
5
Cf. MATHESIUS, V., O pasívu ν moderni angliitinë [On the Passive
Voice in Modem English], Sborník filologicky 5, 1915, 198-220.
6
See Centina... (quoted here in note 2 ) 327—352, and Ze srovnávacích
studií slovoslednych [From Comparative Word Order Studies], CMF 28,
1942, 181-190, 302-307.
7
See his Cestina... (quoted here in note 2 ), 340.

Authenticated
14 J. FIRBAS
interpretation of the Czech system of word order is widely accepted

by Bohemicists. As can be gathered from the works of J. Horecky,
J. Mistrik, E. Pauliny and J. Ruzicka, Mathesius's interpretation
is also applicable to Slovak.
Before Mathesius advanced his conception of Czech word order,
three other Czech scholars had proved to be aware of the relevance
to word order of what may be termed FSP phenomena. These
scholars were J. Zubaty,8 V. Erti 9 and F. Trávnícek.10 Each of
them spoke of the psychological subject and/or the psychological
predicate. In appreciating their approaches, 11 Mathesius points
out that Zubaty did not offer any finished theory of word order,
but realized the importance of FSP, though taking into account
only the psychological subject and paying no attention to its coun-
terpart, the psychological predicate. Erti offers a keen-sighted analy-
sis of Czech word order, but falls short of detecting the leading role
of FSP. Trávnícek's thorough and able analysis establishes two
basic word order principles: the semantic and the rhythmical
principles. Distributing the sentence elements according to their
communicative importance, the semantic principle is evidently an
FSP factor. It is, however, put on the same hierarchical level as the
rhythmical principle.
Mathesius holds that in communication the lexical and grammat-
ical means of language are made to serve a special purpose imposed
on them by the speaker at the moment of utterance, i.e. in the very
act of communication. In accordance with the requirements of the
8
See his Die Wortfolge in den slavischen Sprachen von Dr. Erich Ber-
neker, Lis Iy fiìologické 28, 1901, 129—134.
9
See his O postavení podmëtu po ölenech úvodních [On the Position
of the Subject after Introductory Sentence Elements], Nase fee 1,1917,33 — 38,
7 5 - 7 9 , 1 0 9 - 1 1 4 , 1 3 6 - 1 4 0 , 1 7 2 - 1 7 7 , 2 0 0 - 2 1 0 ; a n d GEBAUER, J . - E R T L , V . ,
Mluvnice ceská II (Skladba) [A Grammar of Czech II (Syntax)], 1926 9 ,
55-63.
10
See his Základy òeskoslovenského slovosledu [The Foundations of
Czechoslovak Word Order], SaS, 1927, 78—86; Slovosled pri durazu
[Emphatic Word Order], SaS 5, 1939, 131 — 144; Mluvnice spisovné âestiny II
[A Grammar of Standard Czech II], 1951 2 , 8 6 2 - 1 0 0 4 .
11
In Cestina... (quoted here in note 2 ), 327—352 passim.

Authenticated
THE CZECHOSLOVAK APPROACH TO FSP 15
context, the lexical units acquire specific meanings, and the sen-
tence, which grammatically speaking consists of a subject and
a predicate, splits up into a theme and a rheme. 12 The lexical and
grammatical means have been made to function in a definite kind
of perspective; they show a certain kind of contextual organization.
It is due especially to F. Danes and M. Dokulil that these thoughts
have been developed into what has come to be called the three-level
approach to syntax. This approach distinguishes between three
levels: the semantic level, the grammatical level and the level of
FSP (or contextual organization). 13 In this connexion it is not
without interest to recall Danes's observation that the forerunner
of this approach is V. Erti, 14 who in 1926 distinguished between
the grammatical, logical and psychological subject. Expressing,
for instance, the bearer of a quality or the agent, Ertl's logical sub-
ject is a phenomenon of the semantic level. I hope to be able to ad-
duce ample proof of the fruitfulness of the three-level approach.
Regarding the semantic and grammatical sentence structure as
a means that can function in different contexts and consequently
display different perspectives, Mathesius distinguishes between
the sentence as a pattern belonging to the language system and the
sentence as part of the context, i.e. an utterance (a component of
the discourse).15 This might suggest the conclusion that non-
12
See Cestina... (quoted here in note 2 ), 294. Cf. also DANES, F. Intonace
a véta ve spisovné cestini [Sentence Intonation in Present-Day Czech], Prague
1957, 55.
13
Cf. DANES, F., op. cit., 56; DANES, F.,Vedlejsi vëty ùôinkovë prirovnávací
se spojkou "nez aby" [Consecutively Coloured Comparative Subclauses
with the Conjunction "nez aby"], Nase ree 37, 1957, 12—22; DANES, F. -
DOKULIL, M., Κ tzv. vyznamové a mluvnické stavbë vëty [On the so-called
Semantic and Grammatical Sentence Structures], O vêdeckém ροζηάηί sou-
dobych jazyku [On a Scientific Inquiry into Contemporary Languages],
Prague 1958, 231 — 246; DANES, F., A Three-Level Approach to Syntax, TLP
1, 1964, 2 2 5 - 2 4 0 .
14
See DANES, F., Intonace... (quoted here in note 1 2 ), 56; GEBAUER, J. -
ERTL, V., Mluvnice... (quoted here in note 9 ), 5—6.
15
Cf. MATHESIUS, V., fteC a sloh [Speech and Style], ¿teñí o jazyce
a poezii [Readings about Language and Poetry], Prague 1942, 6.

Authenticated
16 J. FIRBAS
utterance phenomena belong to the sphere of "langue", whereas

utterance phenomena belong entirely to that of "parole". But
Danes is right in pointing out that even utterance phenomena
are subject to generalization.16 They display patterns that have
become the object of study of the theory of FSP. In accordance
with the three level approach it is therefore possible to distinguish
between the Semantic Sentence Pattern (=SSP), 1 7 the Grammatical
Sentence Pattern (=GSP) 1 7 and the Utterance or FSP or Com-
municative Sentence Pattern (=CSP). It would certainly be pos-
sible to imagine a context in which the semantic and grammatical
structure John wrote a poem would function as an utterance event
following the Agent-Action-Goal SSP, the Subject-Verb-Object
GSP and the Theme-Transition-Rheme CSP. It follows that the
resultant complex sentence pattern constituted by the semantic
sentence pattern, the grammatical sentence pattern and the com-
municative sentence pattern is part of "langue". This view would
evidently be subscribed to also by P. Sgall18 and others.
As has already been pointed out, in a number of papers Mathe-
sius has endeavoured to establish the means English has recourse to
in order to reconcile the requirements of FSP with those of gram-
matical structure. He regards the existence of such means as proof
of the powerful formative character of FSP. In regard to German,
16
Cf. DANES, F., Syntakticky model a syntakticky vzorec [The Syntactic
Model and the Syntactic Pattern], Ceskoslovenské prednásky pro V. mezi-
národní sjezd slavistû υ Sofii [Czechoslovak Papers Prepared for the Fifth
International Congress of Slavists in Sofia], Prague 1963, 116—117.
17
See DANES, F., Some Thoughts on the Semantic Structure of the Sen-
tence, Lingua 21, 1968, 5 5 - 6 9 .
18
Cf. his Functional Sentence Perspective in a Generative Description,
PSML 2, Prague 1967, p. 206. Cf. also BENESOVÁ, Ε., O sémantickém cha-
rakteru Ceského slovosledu [On the Semantic Character of Czech Word
Order], SaS 29, 1968, 34. A frequency count of CSPs based on Czech
scientific prose has been offered by UHIÄOVÄ, L. in Part Four of her un-
published ScC. dissertation Kvantitatwni rozbor vëty a vypovëdi υ éestinê
[A Quantitative Analysis of the Sentence and the Utteracne in Czech]. [For
a summarizing account of the analysis, see her On the Quantitative Analysis
of Clause and Utterance in Czech, PSML 4, 1972, 107—128.]

Authenticated
similar researches have been carried out by E. B e n e s . 1 9 In his last

paper o n English w o r d order, 2 0 however, Mathesius comes to the
conclusion that there are not e n o u g h means to put all the n o n -
emotive English sentences in the theme-transition-rheme order
(op. cit., p. 187). In determining the hierarchy of English word order
principles, he allots the leading role t o the grammatical principle,
ranking F S P only with factors o f secondary importance. H e even
goes t o the length o f concluding that "English differs from Czech in
being so little susceptible to the requirements of F S P as to fre-
quently disregard them altogether".
The mentioned wording has proved to be a real incentive to an
inquiry into the position o f F S P within the structure of English.
The inquiry has s h o w n that besides word order and intonation,
semantic structure operates as a n effective means of FSP. This
applies not only t o English, 2 1 but to other languages as well, f o r
instance, C z e c h , 2 2 R u s s i a n , 2 3 G e r m a n , 2 4 Spanish, 2 5 Albanian; 2 6
19
Cf. his Die Verbstellung im Deutschen, von der Mitteilungsperspek-
tive her betrachtet,/Ά.Ρ 5, 1962, 6—19; Die Ausklammerung im Deutschen
als grammatische Norm und als stilistischer Effekt, Muttersprache 78, 1968,
289—302; Die funktionale Satzperspektive im Deutschen im Vergleich mit
dem Tschechischen, Deutsch-tschechische Beziehungen im Bereich der
Sprache und Kultur, Aufsätze und Studien II, Abhandlungen der Sächsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1968, Philologisch-historische Klasse,
Band 59, Heft 2, 5 7 - 6 9 .
20
MATHESIUS, V., Ze srovnávacích studií slovoslednych [From Compara-
tive Word Order Studies], CMF2S, 1942,181-190, 302-307. Cf. FIRBAS, J.,
From Comparative Word Order Studies, BSE 4, 1964, 111—128.
21
Cf., e.g., FIRBAS, J., Κ otázce nezákladovych podmëtû ν souCasné
angliôtinë [On the Problem of Non-Thematic Subjects in Contemporary
English], ¿ M F 39,1957,22—42, 165—173; Non-Thematic Subjects in Con-
temporary English, TLP 2, 1966, 239—256.
22
Cf.,e.g.,DANES, F., Prispëvek k rozboru vyznamové vystavby vypovëdi
[A Contribution towards the Analysis of the Contextual Organization of
Utterance ( = Functional Sentence Perspective)], Studie a präce lingvistické I
[Papers and Monographs in Linguistics I], Prague 1954, 263—274.
23
Cf., e.g., ADAMEC, P., Κ úloze sémantiky ve slovosledu [On the Func-
tion of Semantic Structure in Word Order], A UC, Slavica Pragensia 4, Prague
1962, 297—300; the same, Porjadok slov ν sovremennom russkom jazyke
[Contemporary Russian Word Order], Prague 1966.

Authenticated
18 J. FIRBAS
semantic structure operating as a means of FSP seems to be at least

an Indo-European universal. Let me adduce an example in illus-
tration.
In Mathesius's terms the non-emotive structure A girl came into
the room would have to be looked upon as insusceptible to FSP,
because in its most natural use it does not display the theme-
transition-rheme, but the rheme-transition-theme sequence. The
semantic structure of the example is the following. The verb came
expresses the notion of appearance on the scene, the adverbial into
the room expresses the scene and the subject a girl a newcomer ap-
pearing on it. Under the circumstances, i.e. in the case of the most
natural use of the structure, the adverbial element carries known
information (derivable,27 recoverable 27 from the preceding con-
text) and is in consequence contextually dependent. The offered
semantic and contextual interpretation equally applies to the less
frequent, but not impossible order Into the room came a girl,
which would most naturally be interpreted as a theme-transition-
rheme sequence. In either case, being contextually dependent, the
adverbial element contributes least to the further development of
the communication. Of the two remaining elements, the contex-
tually independent subject announcing the person appearing on the
scene is communicatively more important than the contextually
independent verb merely expressing the notion of appearance. The
contextual independence of the subject is sufficiently signalled by
24
Cf., e.g.,BENES, E., Die Ausklammerung... (quoted here in note 1 9 );
FIRBAS, J., Thoughts on the Communicative Function of the Verb in Eng-
lish, German and Czech, BSE 1, 1959, 39—68.
25
Cf., e.g., DUBSKÍ, J., L'inversion en espagnol, SPFFBU A 8, 1960,
111 —115; FIRBAS, J., Notes on the Function of the Sentence in the Act of
Communication, ibid, A 10, 1962, 133—148.
26
NOVÁK, P., Κ zdvojování predmëtu Ν albânStinë [The Doubling of
the Object in Albanian], Sbornik slavistickych praci vënovanych IV. mezi-
národnimu sjezdu slavisti ν Moskvë [A Collection of Papers Prepared for the
Fourth International Congress of Slavists in Moscow], Universitas Carolina,
Prague 1958, 2 7 - 3 2 .
27
Terms coined by Μ. A. K. HALLIDAY; see, e.g., his Notes on Transitivity
and Theme in English II, JL 3, 1967, Part 4. 3.

Authenticated
the non-generic indefinite article. In terms of degrees of communi-

cative dynamism (=CD), the subject carries the highest, the ad-
verbial element the lowest degree of CD, the verb ranking between
them. By a degree of CD carried by a linguistic element, I mean
the extent to which the element contributes towards the develop-
ment of the communication. 28
The comments have indicated that irrespective of sentence posi-
tion, context and semantic structure are capable of signalling de-
grees of CD. I have attempted a more detailed discussion of the
important roles played by the verbs of existence and appearance
on the scene and of the articles in FSP in another place. 21 The im-
portance of these means of FSP has also been duly appreciated by
P. Adamec 23 and P. Novák. 26 ' 29 A. G. Hatcher's work should not
be left unmentioned either in this connexion. 30
Let me adduce some further examples of the operation of seman-
tic structure on the level of FSP and let me do so again in terms of
CD. I believe I am right in claiming that it follows both from
Adamec's 23 and my own researches24·'31 that a contextually inde-
pendent object will carry a higher degree of CD than the verb.
A verb cannot carry the highest degree of CD within a sentence
when preceded or followed by such an object. If the semantic agent-
action-goal pattern expressed by means of the grammatical subject-
verb-object pattern is contextually independent in its entirety or
28
For a more detailed discussion of the concept of CD, see my On the
Concept of Communicative Dynamism in the Theory of Functional Sentence
Perspective, summarizing my previous observations; mimeographed for the
Seminar on the Construction of Complex Grammars, Cambridge, Mass.,
June 1970 (held by Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights,
New York 10598) [and published in SPFFBU A 19, 1971, 135-144],
29
Novák, P., O prostfedcích aktuálního ëlenëni [On the Means of Func-
tional Sentence Perspective], AUC 1959, Philologica I, 9—15.
30
Syntax and the Sentence, Word 12, 1956, 234—250; Theme and Under-
lying Question, Two Studies in Spanish Word Order, Supplement to Word 12,
1956.
31
See also Firbas, J., On the Prosodie Features of the Modern English
Finite Verb-Object Combination as Means of Functional Sentence Perspec-
tive, BSE 8, 4 9 - 59.

Authenticated
20 J. FIRBAS
contextually dependent merely through its agent-subject element

(A I The girl broke a vase), the following interpretation applies. The
verb will carry a lower degree of CD than the object, but a higher
degree of CD than the subject. This is because a known or unknown
agent appears to be communicatively less important than an un-
known action and its unknown effect or result. I will come back
to this interpretation in the last section of my paper. It holds good
for all the subtypes of the described complex sentence pattern as
they have been discussed by F. Danes. 17
With due alterations, what has been said about the contextually
independent object applies to a contextually independent adverbial
element of place expressing the direction or goal of a motion (Ich
bin gestern nach Prag gefahren). Both the object and the adverbial
element express an absolutely essential semantic amplification of
the verb. Provided they are contextually independent, the former
will most naturally carry a higher degree than the verb. 32 It is espe-
cially F. Kopecny's merit to have drawn attention to the syntactic
importance of such amplifications.33 Their important role in word
order has recently been stressed again by L. Uhlírová. 34
Special mention should be made of elements that may be re-
ferred to as rhematizers. For instance, Cz. i, Engl, even, G. sogar,
R. daze would come under this heading. They render the element
they accompany rhematic. On the other hand, there are elements
that because of their semantic content most naturally function in
the theme. Personal pronouns are the most typical representatives
of this group. This sketchy note has only superficially touched
upon a sphere of problems discussed especially by F. Danes, 22
J. Mistrik 35 and most recently by B. Palek, whose monograph on
32
Cf. FIRBAS, J., Thoughts... (quoted here in note 2 4 ), 49.
33
KOPECNY, F., Základy ceské skladby [Foundations of Czech Syntax],
Prague 1958, 2 9 - 3 4 .
34
UHLÍftovÁ, L., Vztah syntaktické funkce vëtného òlenu a jeho mista
ve vëtë [Relationship between Syntactic Function and Linear Position of
Sentence Elements], SaS 30, 1969, 365.
35
See his Κ realizácii aktualneho Clenenia [On the Implementation of
Functional Sentence Perspective], Slovenská rei 24, 1959, 193—212; S Ιουo-

Authenticated
T H E CZECHOSLOVAK A P P R O A C H TO F S P 21
Cross-Reference 36 — though not explicitly referring to the theory

of FSP - is highly relevant to it.
Not all types of semantic content, however, are capable of sig-
nalling degrees of CD in the way indicated above. This is borne out
by the following examples, each of which contains a contextually
independent indirect and a contextually independent direct object:
He gave a boy an apple. He gave an apple to a boy. Of the two ob-
jects, the one occurring later evidently carries a higher degree of
CD. Similarly, a contextually independent infinitive of purpose will
carry a lower degree of CD when occurring initially than when
occurring finally: In order to meet his friend, he went to Prague. He
went to Prague in order to meet his friend. In all these cases it is the
linear arrangement that decides the degree of CD. 3 7
I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that the recognition of
the important role played by the semantic structure in determining
FSP and word order is one of the most essential features of the
post-war development of Mathesius's ideas in Czechoslovakia.
Much of course still has to be done. It remains to be seen whether
K. Pala's 3 8 plausible suggestion that the number of relevant se-
mantic patterns may be final proves to be correct.
As I see it, the distribution of the degrees of CD over the sentence
elements, which makes the semantic and grammatical structure
function in a definite kind of perspective, is an outcome of a tension
between, or rather interplay 39 of, the tendency towards the basic
sled a vetosled ν sloveníine [Word Order and Clause Order in Slovak], Brati-
slava 1966.
36
Cross-Reference, A study from Hyper-Syntax, AUC, Prague 1968,
Philologica, Monographie 21.
37
GOLKOVÁ, E., On the English Infinitive of Purpose in Functional Sen-
tence Perspective, BSE 7, Brno 1968, 119—128.
38
See his Otnoäenije mezdu porjadkom slov i aktual'nym ölenenijem
ν öeäskom jazyke [The Relation between Word Order and Functional Sen-
tence Perspective in Czech], PSML 2, 1967, 58. Cf. also BENESOVÁ, E.,
O sémantickém charaketru ¿eského slovosledu [On the Semantic Character
of Czech Word Order], SaS 29, 1968, 3 4 - 4 1 .
39
Cf., e.g., On the Interplay of Prosodie and Non-Prosodic Means of
Functional Sentence Perspective, to be published in The Prague School of

Authenticated
22 J. FIRBAS
distribution of CD on the one hand, and the context and the seman-
tic structure on the other. The basic distribution of CD is imple-
mented by a series of elements opening with the element carrying
the very lowest and gradually passing on to the element carrying
the very highest degree of CD. Context and semantic structure
operate either in the same direction as or counter to the basic dis-
tribution of CD. The basic distribution of CD would reflect what
H. Weil has called the "movement of the mind".
Insusceptibility to FSP displayed by word order is then no un-
mistakable proof of the insusceptibility to FSP of the entire lan-
guage system. In my opinion, insusceptibility to FSP could be
spoken of when in the very act of communication, written or
spoken, a structure permits of more than one interpretation of its
functional perspective. Such cases of multifunctionality or multi-
valence will certainly be far more frequent in written than in spoken
language. It must, of course, be borne in mind that at the present
stage of research it may be the investigator's insufficient knowledge
of the interplay of means that induces him to interpret a structure
as multifunctional. 40 On the other hand, as J. Vachek 41 and other
scholars of the Prague group have pointed out, language is not
a closed and perfectly balanced system. Multifunctionality on the
level of FSP would have to be accepted as a peripheral phenomenon
of this system.42
The concept of the interplay of means of FSP accommodates
various types of word order hierarchies. In the light of the re-
searches into the interplay of means of FSP, Mathesius's conclu-
Linguistics and Language Teaching (vol. 27 of the Oxford University Press

series Language and Language Learning), London. [The volume appeared in
1972; for the paper referred to, see 77—94.]
40
On multifunctionality in FSP, see FIRBAS, J., Non-Thematic Subjects
(quoted here in note 21 ), 249—251.
41
See, e.g., his Some Notes on the Development of Language Seen as
a System of Systems, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of
Linguists, Oslo University Press 1958, 418—419.
42
Cf. VACHEK, J., On Peripheral Phonemes of Modern English, BSE 4,
Brno 1964, 7—110; DANES, F., The Relation of Centre and Periphery as a
Language Universal, TLP2, 9—21.

Authenticated
sion to regard the grammatical principle as the leading one within

the English system of word order is undoubtedly correct. He is,
however, not right in making the FSP principle responsible for
emotive (marked) word orders. It has been shown that the common
feature of such word orders in English is not their deviation from
the basic distribution of CD, but from the grammatical sequence
SVOMPT (These men we trust that we know to prize).43
On the other hand, researches into the interplay of means of
FSP fully corroborate Mathesius's view allotting the rhythmical
principle a merely secondary status. Because of their semantic
weakness, rhythmically light words most naturally function in the
theme. They are mainly responsible for the practically clashless
co-operation of the rhythmical factor with the other word order
principles. Entering into groupings of rhythmically light and heavy
words, they appear in different positions, but remain thematic and
entail no change in the relationship of degrees of CD. In this way
they enable the rhythmical factor to assert itself within the limits
set by the requirements of other word order principles.44
For certain purposes it would certainly be sufficient to establish
just the mutual relations of elements in regard to the degrees of CD
carried by them. It has, however, proved to be expedient to dis-
tinguish between theme and rheme, or between theme, transition,
and rheme. These concepts require some comment.
F. Danes 45 has pointed out that Mathesius in fact offers two
conceptions of the theme. Roughly speaking, according to one of
them the theme expresses something that is spoken about; accord-
ing to the other it expresses something that is known or at least
obvious in the given situation. Mathesius has not elaborated these
two conceptions. But the two aspects presented by them need not
coincide. Thus in the sentence An unknown man has asked him the
43
See FIRBAS, J., From Comparative Word Order Studies (quoted here
in note 20 ), 117-120.
44
Cf. also ibid., 121.
45
Cf. his Intonace... (quoted here in note 12 ), 56; and his Téma || zá-
klad II vychodisko vypovëdi [Theme || Basis || Initial Point of Utterance],
SaS 25, 1964. 148-149.

Authenticated
24 J. FIRBAS
way to the railway station, An unknown man expresses the person

talked about, but conveys neither known nor obvious information.
F. Trávnííek 46 is right in refusing to regard the criterion of known
or unknown information as accommodating the most general
feature of the theme. According to this criterion, some types of
sentences opening a message (A girl broke a vase) would have to be
interpreted as themeless. Trávníéek, however, accounts for the
theme on psychological grounds and links it up invariably with
the beginning of the sentence. This makes it impossible to appre-
ciate the interplay of means of FSP, which does not permit of in-
variably linking up a sentence position with one definite degree of
CD. As I see it, within the theory of FSP the theme is best defined
as constituted by an element or elements carrying the lowest
degree(s) of CD within a sentence. According to this definition
both An unknown man and him would be thematic, him function-
ing as theme proper because carrying the very lowest degree of
CD.
It must, of course, be remembered that inquiries into the ways
sentences open in various languages may reveal considerable dif-
ferences. This view is borne out by the researches of E. Benes and
M. A. K. Halliday. Benes distinguishes between a basis and a
theme. While applying the term "theme" to the phenomenon de-
fined by me here as the element(s) carrying the lowest degree(s) of
CD, he understands by the "basis" the phenomenon that "as the
opening element of the sentence links up the utterance with the
context and the situation, selecting from several possible con-
nexions one that becomes the starting point, from which the entire
further utterance unfolds and in regard to which it is orientated". 47
46
See his O tak zvaném aktuálním dlenëni vëtném [On the So-Called
Functional Sentence Perspective], SaS 22,1961,163 — 171. For a discussion of
V. Mathesius's and F. TrávníCek's views of the "theme", see FIRBAS, J., On
Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis, TLP 1, 1964, 267 to
280.
47
BENES,E.,Zaíátek nëmecké vëty Ζ hlediska aktuálního ilenëni vëtného
[The Beginning of the German Sentence from the Point of View of Functional
Sentence Perspective], C M P 41, 1959, 216.

Authenticated
Halliday's conception of theme comes near to Benes's basis, but

differs from it in one important point. Halliday totally abstracts
from the preceding context. 48
The problem of the theme is naturally related to that of the seg-
mentation of the sentence on the level of FSP. Is there a bipartition
of theme and rheme, or a tripartition of theme, transition and
rheme? It is possible to proceed even further. Assuming that any
linguistic element (i.e. even a morpheme or a sub-morphemic phe-
nomenon) expressing some meaning is capable of carrying a de-
gree of CD, we arrive at a gamut of degrees of CD constituted by
theme proper, rest of rheme, transition proper, rest of transition,
rheme to the exclusion of rheme proper, rheme proper. Needless
to say, not all these degrees must necessarily be present in a sen-
tence.
The delicacy of segmentation depends on the purpose of the
investigation. A special problem, however, seems to be presented
by the concept of transition. Some scholars (e.g., V. Mathesius,
F. Danes, J. Firbas, E. Golková, F. Kopecny, P. Mistrík, E. Pauliny,
P. Sgall, A. Svoboda, L. Uhlírová 18 ) employ it, others (especially
P. Adamec) do not. I believe that the concept of transition can be
used to good purpose. The scope of the present paper does not
permit repeating the detailed argument developed elsewhere in
favour of this view.49 Let me therefore at least state that it leads to
the following interpretation of the function of the temporal and
modal exponents of the finite verb on the level of FSP. In their
non-marked use, they mediate between the thematic and the non-
thematic section of the sentence, carrying the lowest degree of CD
48
See HALLIDAY, M. A. K., Notes on Transitivity... (quoted here in
note 2 7 ), 212.
49
See FIRBAS, J., A Note on Transition Proper in Functional Sentence
Analysis, PhP 8, 1965, 170—176; the same, On the Prosodie Features of the
Modern English Finite Verb as Means of Functional Sentence Perspective
(More Thoughts on Transition Proper), BSE7, 1968,11—48. The conclusions
arrived at in these papers have recently been corroborated by L. UHLÍftovÁ's
quantitative analysis of Czech communicative sentence patterns (see here
note 1 8 ).

Authenticated
26 J. FIRBAS
within the latter and constituting what might be termed transition

proper (He [th] has [tr pr] fall- [tr] en [tr pr] ill [rh]).50 In their
marked use, i.e. when occurring in a sentence one element of which
has been singled out for sharp, ad hoc contrast, they are either part
of an extensive theme proper (HE [rh pr] has fallen ill [tr pr]) or
constitute the rheme proper (He [th pr] HAS [rh pr] fallen ill
[th pr]). If this interpretation is correct, the temporal and modal
exponents of the finite verb would constitute a boundary between
the thematic and the non-thematic section51 of sentences not oc-
curring in sharp, ad hoc contrast on account of one of their ele-
ments. Such a boundary is no doubt desirable in an inquiry into
the structure of the thematic layer within a paragraph, constituted
by all the thematic elements occurring within the sentences of this
subdivision of discourse. Mathesius has drawn attention to the
fact that in the course of the communication English tends to
change the theme less often than, for instance, Czech does. The
structure of the thematic layer is an important problem that has
recently been taken up by F. Danes, 52 who speaks of thematic
progression.
On other occasions, the concept of transition makes it possible
to distinguish between the rhematic and the non-rhematic section.
Transition may be delimited from rheme by means of a conspicuous
rise in CD, which brings the rheme into distinct relief. (There [th]
was [tr] a cold bitter taste [rh] in the air [th].) This does not only
effect a clear delimitation of the transition itself, but also a clear,
distinct delimitation between the non-rhematic (the thematic plus
50
The abbreviations "th", "tr", "rh", "pr" respectively stand for
"theme", "transition", "rheme", "proper".
51
"Section" does not necessarily denote here an uninterrupted sequence
of elements, but all elements of a type within a sentence, irrespective of their
positions. Thus the "thematic section" is constituted by all the thematic
elements within the sentence no matter where they occur. The term "bound-
ary" is to be interpreted accordingly.
52
See his Typy tematickych posloupnosti ν textu (na materiále òeského
textu odborného) [Types of "Thematic Progression" in Text (Based on an
analysis of Czech technical texts)], SaS 29,1968,125—141. Cf. also his paper
in the present volume.

Authenticated
the transitional) and the rhematic section. It has been shown 53

that the degree of distinctness is here in direct proportion to that
of the shift towards non-verbal expression (in other words, towards
an all-round weakening of the communicative value of the finite
verb). It appears that the rhematic layer of an English paragraph
tends to contain fewer verbal elements than the rhematic layer of
a Czech paragraph. 54 Speaking of the distinctness of the boundaries
delimiting the transition, I have in mind especially the boundary
between transition and rheme. It is at this point that the delimita-
tion may become less distinct or perhaps even difficult to deter-
mine. This, however, may not be at variance with the basic char-
acter of the transitional elements. Is it not their very function to be
transitional?
In connexion with the question of the delicacy of segmentation,
mention should be made of the hierarchy of segmentable sections.
A. Svoboda 55 has elaborated the idea that sections, or fields,
within which the distribution of CD can take place are provided by
explicit or hidden predication. An example of a distributional or
communicative 56 field of the former type would be a complex
sentence, a simple sentence or a subordinate clause, an example of
the latter type an attributive construction. A communicative field
of lower rank, for instance, that of a subordinate clause, functions
as a communicative unit within a field of higher rank. It follows
that besides the functional perspective of a sentence, simple or
complex, there are also the functional perspectives of the clause
and the attributive construction. There are, of course, distribu-
tional fields of higher rank than that provided by the sentence, for
53
In F i r b a s , J., On the Communicative Value of the Modern English
Finite Verb, BSE 3, 79—104. The paper also discusses the notions of con-
spicuous rise in C D and distinct relief. Cf. also H l a d k t ? , J., A n Attempt at
a Quantitative Expression of the Communicative Value of the Verb in Eng-
lish and Czech, BSE 7, Brno 1968, 103—118.
5 4
S e e F i r b a s , J., o p . cit. 95.
55
See his The Hierarchy of Communicative Units and Fields as Illus-
trated by English Attributive Constructions, BSE 7, 1968, 49—101.
56
A. Svoboda's term.

Authenticated
28 J. FIRBAS
instance, those of the paragraph, the chapter, etc. Consequently

it is possible to speak also of their functional perspectives. The
functional prespective of Czech or Slovak complex sentences has
been the object of special studies produced by F. Danes, 5 7
J. Mistrik 58 and S. 2aza. 5 9 Speaking of the hierarchy of segment-
able sections, mention should be made of A. Svoboda's 55 com-
municative units, i.e. elements making up the communicative (dis-
tributional) fields.
A special problem is presented by the range constituted by all
the possible perspectives in which semantic and grammatical struc-
tures can function. This range unmistakably shows two ends. One
is characterized by total contextual independence, the other by the
greatest possible contextual dependence. If occurring at the opening
of a narrative or forming a single, isolated message, the structure
A girl broke a vase functions at the former end. The same structure
occurs at the latter end if appearing in sharp, ad hoc contrast on
account of a semantic item conveyed by one of its elements, e.g.,
A girl BROKE a vase (she did not paint it). Cases of the latter type
have been referred to by D. L. Bolinger 60 as belonging to second
instance. Let me add that on second instance level any element
within a sentence may come to express rheme proper, and any
possible distributional subfield become eliminated (e.g. I didn't tell
YOU that a girl broke a vase, with you functioning as rheme proper
57
See his Vedlejsi vëty úCinkové prirovnávací... (quoted here in note 1 3 )
and Konfrontaüní souvëti se spojkami "jestlize", "zatímco", "aby", "kdyz"
[Complex Sentences of Confrontation Introduced by "jestlize", "zatímco",
"aby", "kdyz"], Nase ree 46, 1963, 113 — 130.
58
See his Slovosled a vetosled... (quoted here in note 3 5 ).
59
See his Κ problematice vëtosledu a aktuálního élenëni podradného
souvëti ν ruStinë [On Problems of Clause Order and the Functional Perspec-
tive of the Russian Complex Sentence], Ceskoslovenské prednáSky pro VI.
mezinârodni sjezd slavistû [Czechoslovak Papers Prepared for the Sixth Inter-
national Congress of Slavists], Prague 1968, 175—179.
60
In his Linear Modification, PMLA 1952,1117-1144. Reprinted in his
Forms of English, Cambridge, Mass.—Tokyo 1965, 279—307. See also
FIRBAS, J., On the Prosodie Features... (quoted here in note 4 9 ), esp. 12—18
and 36.

Authenticated
and the rest as an extensive theme proper). It is important to note

that second instance cases still convey some new information.
Though showing an unusually high degree of contextual depen-
dence, they never become contextually dependent in their entirety.
Cases of total contextual independence may be interpreted as oc-
curring on the basic instance level within the sphere of first in-
stance. A final classification of the intermediary instance levels
ranging between the two ends will have to await further inquiries,
which should not disregard the highly relevant researches of
A. G. Hatcher 30 and P. Adamec. 61 I have also attempted to throw
some light on these problems. 62 Last but not least, E. Benes's ap-
proach should be mentioned in this connexion. 63
Not every structure can operate on all instance levels. The range
of perspectives in which a particular structure can function may be
denoted as the contextual applicability of the structure. Not only
clausal structures, but even non-clausal structures, including words
and morphemes, should be studied in regard to their contextual
applicability. L. Uhlírová is right in emphasizing that efficient
generative rules should be capable of coping with the contextual
applicability of a sentence structure. 64
Earlier in this paper I touched upon the question of congruence65
61
See his Porjadok slov... (quoted here in note 2 3 ), esp. 26—30.
62
See Thoughts... (quoted here in note 2 4 ), esp. 51—53; and Notes...
(quoted here in note 2 5 ) , esp. 141—143.
63
See his Two Aspects of Functional Sentence Perspective, TLP 3, 1968,
267— 274. He distinguishes between two types of context: left-hand and
right-hand (whereas the above observations of mine have been made solely
in regard to left-hand context). As I see it, Beneä's contextually independent
sentences — viewed by him as free utterances affected neither by context
(left-hand or right-hand) nor by situation — and his contextually semi-
dependent sentences that occur without any left-hand context (functioning
as introductory sentences of discourses) virtually correspond to the basic
instance level cases as described above.
64
See her Some Aspects of Word Order in Categorial and Transforma-
tional Grammars, PSML 2, 1966, 164.
65
The problem of congruence (coincidence) has also been raised by
TRNKA, B. in On the Linguistic Sign and the Multilingual Organization of
Language, TLP 1, Prague 1964, 38.

Authenticated
30 J. FIRBAS
between the semantic, the grammatical and the FSP level. It has
perhaps now become evident that the degree of congruence must
necessarily be determined in regard to the instance levels. As has
already been pointed out, a case of high degree of congruence is
revealed by the temporal and modal exponents of the finite verb.
On first instance levels they function as transition proper; within
second instance they either constitute rheme proper (They [th pf]
HA VE [rh pr] already been to London [th pr]) or become part of
an extensive theme proper ( T H E Y [rh pr] have already been to
London [th pr]).
The question of congruence also arises in regard to prosodie and
non-prosodic means of FSP. F. Danes's extensive and important
researches into Czech intonation and into problems of intonation
in general 66 offer ample proof of the view that the rheme is signalled
by the intonation centre. P. Adamec's 23 examination of the relation
of Russian word order to intonation substantiates this view.
A disapproval of its general validity, however, has come from
H. Krízková. 67 In interpreting pronominal (special) and verbal
(yes/no) Czech questions, she regards the interrogative word
(pronoun or adverb) and the finite verb of the pronominal and the
verbal question respectively as rhematic. In either case she inter-
prets the rest of the interrogative sentence as thematic. This is be-
cause in the respective question types the interrogative word and the
finite verb point to the rhemes to be disclosed in the replies. They
represent the only elements that are unknown to the speaker (in-
quirer). In offering this interpretation, Krízková in fact follows
Mathesius, 68 her approach to the problem being essentially the
66
Apart from his Intonaca... (quoted here in note 1 2 ), Prispëvek ...
(quoted here in note 2 2 ), see also his Sentence Intonation from a Functional
Point of View, Word 16, 34—54, and his Order of Elements and Sentence
Intonation, To Honor Roman Jakobson, The Hague—Paris 1967, 500—512.
67
See herTázací vëta a nëkteré problémy tzv. aktuálního (kontextového)
¿lenëni [The Interrogative Sentence and Some Problems of the so-called
Functional Sentence Perspective (Contextual Organization of the Sentence)],
Naie reS 4, 1968, 2 0 0 - 2 1 0 .
68
Cf. his Cestina... (quoted here in note 2 ), 3 3 6 - 3 3 7 .

Authenticated
same as his. As to the fact that the intonation centre does not
normally occur on the interrogative word (interpreted by her as
rhematic), but on some non-rhematic element within the question
(interpreted by her as thematic), Krízková accounts for it on
rhythmical grounds.
F. Danes 69 has doubted the full validity of Mathesius's ap-
proach. Further developing his observations,70 I have come to the
conclusion that not only the speaker's point of view, but also that
of the listener (the prospective informant) must be taken into ac-
count. Viewed in this light, the question performs a double func-
tion: (i) it indicates the want of knowledge on the part of the in-
quirer and appeals to the informant to satisfy this want; (ii) it
imparts knowledge to the informant in that it informs him what
the inquirer is interested in (what is on his mind) and from what
particular angle the intimated want of knowledge is to be satisfied.
It is the second function that determines the rheme proper of the
question. In accordance with the requirements of the context, any
element within the question may become rheme proper. The of-
fered solution establishes a coincidence between the bearer of the
intonation centre (the most important prosodie feature) and the
bearer of rheme proper. It is fully borne out by M. A. K. Halliday's
recent interpretation of the function of the question. 71 It should
69
DANES, F., Intonace otázky [The Intonation of Interrogative Senten-
ces], Nase fee 33, 1949, 6 2 - 68.
70
In Some Thoughts on the Function of Word Order in Old English and
Modern English, SPFFBU A 5, 1957, 91 — 92. See also my Note on the
Intonation of Questions from the Point of View of the Theory of Functional
Sentence Perspective, to be published in the proceedings of the Symposium
on Intonology, Prague 1970. [The proceedings constitute Acta Universitatis
Carolinae, Philologica 1, 1972 (Phonetica Pragensia III); the relevant pages
are 91 — 94.] The Paper is based on my On the Function of the Question in
the Act of Communication, mimeographed for the Seminar on the Construc-
tion of Complex Grammars, Cambridge, Mass., June 1970 (quoted here in
note 2 8 ). [For a Russian version, Funkciji voprosa ν processe kommuni-
kaciji, see VJa 1972, 2, 55—65; the original English version is to appear in
BSE 12.]
71
Cf. his N o t e s . . . (quoted here in note 4 8 ).

Authenticated
32 J. FIRBAS
be added that also in M. Grepl's 72 and J. Mistrik's 73 views the

bearer of the intonation centre of a question is identical with the
bearer of its rheme proper.
Inquiries into the degree of congruence of non-prosodic and
prosodie means are of primary importance. A special aspect of
such inquiries is the question of congruence of the gamut of degrees
of CD and the gamut of functional weight carried by the prosodie
features. 74 To a considerable extent, these inquiries may be looked
upon as a touchstone of interpretations of degrees of CD offered
on the non-prosodic level. So far, in regard to English, they have
borne out the non-prosodic interpretations of the functions per-
formed in FSP by the temporal and modal exponents of the finite
verb 49 and by the verb-object phrase. 31 As FSP plays a decisive
role in controlling the intensity of prosodie features, and above all
in determining the location of the intonation centre, the relation
of grammar to intonation cannot be established without due regard
to this important phenomenon.
One of my primary concerns has been to show that FSP is an
outcome of an interplay of means. The fact that susceptibility to
FSP is by no means dependent on word order has far reaching con-
sequences. It means that the relations in regard to CD between the
elements of a distributional field may remain the same in spite of
differences or changes in word order. Synchronically speaking,
the laws of the interplay of means of FSP are flexible enough to
make room for differences between separate languages (English,
German, Russian and Czech, for instance) or for differences be-
tween different standards or substandards of one language, or for
stylistic differences within one of such standards or sub-standards.
Diachronically speaking, the laws of the interplay are flexible
enough to make room for changes in word order in the course of
72
See his Emocionâlnë motivované aktualizace ν syntaktické strukture
vypovëdi [Emotionally Motivated Actualizations in the Syntactic Structure
of Utterance], Opera Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis, Facultas Philo-
sophies 113, Brno 1967, 41.
73
See his Slovosled... (quoted here in note 3 5 ), 97—98.
74
See On the Prosodie Features... (quoted here in note 4 6 ), 21.

Authenticated
historical development. 7 5 Thanks to the adaptability of means of

FSP, demands o n the system of word order raised by other systems
of language in the course o f historical development may be com-
plied with without impairing the purpose o f the communication.
This is quite in keeping with J. Vachek's conception of language as
a system of systems. 4 1
Quite new problems have arisen owing to the recent interest in
FSP by scholars aiming at a generative description of language. One
problem deserves particular attention in this connection: that o f the
basic word order from which all the other orders may be derived.
P. Sgall is inclined to regard the basic distribution of C D as a
suitable point o f departure. 7 6 Some other authors, o n the other
hand, endeavour to find a basic order established quite indepen-
dently of any context. Let me offer some comment o n this highly im-
portant problem. One o f the authors 7 7 speaks of two systems of
75
Non-standard Czech word order has been examined, e.g., by
MATHESIUS, V. (K porádku slov ν hovorové ¿eátiné [On Word Order in
Colloquial Czech], Nase ree 14, 1930, 117—121), CHLOUPEK, J. (Porádek
slov ν náreóí, zvl. vychodomoravském [On Dialectal Word Order, with
special regard to that of the East Moravian Dialect], SaS 19, 1958, 260 to
265); word order in modern Czech poetry has been investigated by JELÍNEK,
M. (Slovosled ν dneäni ¿eské poezii [Word Order in Present-Day Czech
Poetry], Theorie verse I [The Theory of Verse I], Brno 1966, 33—46). Word
order of older stages of Czech has been investigated, e.g., by JELÍNEK, M.
(Postavení atributu ν obrozenské odborné literature [Sentence Position of
the Attribute in the Technical Literature of the Period of National Revival],
SPFFBU A 15,1967, 69— 84) and GREPL, M. (Vyvoj slovosledu Ν Tylovë pró-
ze [The Development of Word Order in Tyl's Prose], SaS 20,1959,247— 261 ).
The development of English word order has been studied, e.g., by §IMKO, J.,
( Word Order in the Winchester Manuscript and in William Caxton's Edition
of Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur (1485) — A Comparison, Halle a. Saale
1957). See also FIRBAS, J., Some thoughts... (quoted here in note 7 0 ).
76
Cf. his Porjadok slov i aktual'noje Clenenije predlozenija ν generativ-
nom opisaniji slavjanskych jazykov [Word Order and Functional Sentence
Perspective in a Generative Description of Slavonic Languages], Ceskoslo-
venské prednásky pro VI. mezinárodni sjezd slaoistä ν Praze, Prague 1968,
61-65.
77
See his papers O gramatiöeskom porjadke slov [On the Grammatical
Order of Words], VJa 15, 1966, 6, 27—34; Frazovoje udarenije i porjadok

Authenticated
34 J. FIRBAS
word order rules. 78 One system operates in the act of communica-

tion, determines the order of words in regard to context and is to be
accounted for by the theory of FSP. The other system is to be
looked for outside any context. The order it produces is to be re-
garded as primary and grammatical. It may be quite fictitious,
though in Russian it can be established on the basis of linguistic
material. Hierarchically, the latter system is superior to the former.
Further elaboration of the theory of FSP totally depends on the
establishment of the primary grammatical order. 79
For Russian the author finds the grammatical word order in such
sequences as in all possible contexts appear to be unchangeable
and fixed.80 Thus the matrix sentence Kupiv bilet, passazir uspoko-
jilsja contains a transform of Passazir kupil bilet. The impossi-
bility of * Bilet kupiv,passazir uspokojilsja points to the grammatical
V—Oacc. The fact that outside context the sentence Doc' ljubit mat'
is interpreted as S-V-0 by Russian speakers bears out the gram-
matical character of the order. In the end, the author tentatively
establishes the following grammatical word order for Russian:
S Adv modi V O dat Oacc
Adv dir .
The adduced grammatical word order pattern contains the order
S-V-O, which in English has come to be established as the gram-
maticalized core of the word order system. A note on this gram-
maticalized word order may not therefore be out of place here.
It is revealed, for instance, by the following sentence structures:
A boy liked a girl, A lion killed a hunter, A dog bit a wolf. Owing
to the presence of the non-generic indefinite articles, they could
open narratives or constitute complete single messages.63 It is
slov [Phrase Accent and Word Order], To Honor Roman Jakobson, The
Hague—Paris 1967, 967—976; Porjadok slov ν porozdajuäCej modeli jazyka
[Word Order in a Generative Model of Language], Ceskoslovenské pred-
násky pro VI. mezinárodni sjezd slavistù ν Praze [Czechoslovak Papers
Prepared for the Sixth International Congress of Slavists in Prague], Prague
1968, 5 1 - 5 9 .
78
See his Porjadok slov... (quoted here in note 7 7 ), 51.
79
Ibid., 58.
80
Ibid., 52.

Authenticated
certainly remarkable that a reader or hearer will most naturally

interpret them as actor-action-goal, subject-verb-object, theme-
transition-rheme sequences on the semantic, the grammatical and
and the F S P levels, respectively. It is evident that it is first and fore-
most sentence linearity that, particularly in regard to the nouns,
signals the mentioned orders of functions. But what is of particular
interest is the question why, in the absence of semantic and gram-
matical signals and any dependence on preceding context, sentence
linearity signals just the mentioned orders. The explanation seems
to be quite simple. Being a very primitive (though efficient) means,
sentence linearity cannot — under the circumstances — but reflect
the normal and natural order of phenomena as occurring in the
extra-linguistic reality. Initiating an action, the actor necessarily
exists before it. Only after it has started, can the action reach or
affect its goal or produce some altogether new object (A potter
made a vessel). The communication develops along the same line.
The degrees of C D rise accordingly and the intonation centre falls
on the object, expressing the goal of the action. The sequence dis-
plays the basic distribution of C D . The way the grammaticalized
core of Modern English word order has become established is
certainly not at variance with the nature and requirements of FSP.
The conclusion suggests itself that it could not be otherwise, for
F S P serves the communicative purpose of the sentence. On the
basic instance level, i.e. on the level of complete contextual inde-
pendence, the grammaticalized order S - V - 0 is in full harmony with
the basic distribution of C D .
Language is, of course, a pliant tool. In the presence of semantic
and/or grammatical signals linearity may become inoperative and
deviations from the basic distribution of C D may take place.
Moreover, context may intervene and some of the items, for in-
stance, the object, become contextually dependent and the extra-
linguistic reality in consequence viewed and presented from a dif-
ferent angle, the degrees of C D changing accordingly.
Language cannot be severed from its primary function, i.e. that
of communication, if its essential character is not to be overlooked.
Communication involves a communicative purpose. A communica-

Authenticated
36 J. FIRBAS
tive purpose is always prompted by a situation, a context, be it one

in which a semantic and grammatical structure appears at the be-
ginning of a message or itself constitutes a complete isolated single
message.
The offered notes substantiate the view that the basic distribution
of CD is a factor actually respected by language. In actual ut-
terances, or utterance types, it tends to be either fully observed or
to have the deviations duly signalled. As I have attempted to show
in the present paper and elsewhere, this is implemented by an inter-
play of means of FSP. The ways this interplay is implemented will
naturally vary from language to language and lead to different
hierarchies of word order principles. The ultimate point of depar-
ture, however, will remain the basic distribution of CD.
If this argument is correct, it shows that it is not on the level of
grammatical structure, but on the level of FSP that the communica-
tive purpose of an utterance is decided. Grammatical structure can
become the leading factor within the hierarchy of word order
principles, but only on condition it duly serves the communicative
purpose of the utterance, not infringing on the requirements of
FSP. Grammatical structure certainly is capable of complying with
these requirements, for in actual fact it is not severed from lexical
and ultimately from cognitive meaning. As A. Reichling has pointed
out and F. Danes recently emphasized, grammatical structure does
not merely combine forms as such, but with the aid of formal re-
lations effects a semantic connexion, i.e. a connexion of mean-
ings. 81 "These meanings might be called syntactic meanings and
characterized as the generalization of lexical meanings contained
in the sentence, the generalization being accomplished by the rela-
tional structure of the ... grammatical sentence pattern." 8 2
In the light of what has just been put forth, the basic distribution
of CD seems to be a more suitable starting point for generating
word orders than a primary grammatical sentence pattern.
81
REICHLING, Α., Principles and Methods of Syntax: Cryptoanalytical
Formalism, Lingua 10, 1961, 1. Quoted after DANES, F., Some Thoughts...
{quoted here in note 1 7 ) , 55.
82
DANES, F., op. cit., 56.

Authenticated
THE CZECHOSLOVAK A P P R O A C H TO FSP 37
I have only been able to touch upon some aspects of the theory of
FSP. My notes have by no means offered an exhaustive account.
Moreover, I have focussed my attention on the Czechoslovak ap-
proach. Nevertheless, I believe I am right in saying that the prob-
lems raised by H. Weil more than a hundred years ago have
opened vistas of research that might bring us a little nearer to
a better understanding of language as a tool of communication.

Authenticated
ON TWO COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMISMS
Ales Svoboda(Brno)
When dealing with the theory of functional sentence perspective

(FSP), some scholars have recently pointed out that some concepts
of FSP are insufficiently defined. On the one hand, this needn't be
a stumbling block to the analyst, since there are many examples of
insufficiently defined basic concepts (even such as "word", "sen-
tence", "deep structure", etc.) in both older and present-day lin-
guistic theories; nevertheless these theories have been successfully
developed. On the other hand, of course, concepts should and
must be defined as precisely as possible to make understanding
easier and research more effective.
Let us turn our attention to one of the basic concepts of FSP, the
concept of communicative dynamism (CD). According to Jan
Firbas, CD is a quality displayed by communication in its develop-
ment (unfolding) of the information to be conveyed and consisting
of advancing this development (FIRBAS, 1965), or, in other words,
CD is a quality expressible in degrees of the contribution to the
development of the discourse (cf. FIRBAS, 1961, and other papers
by the same author).
If these statements are taken in isolation, they may seem insuf-
ficient and may lead to the following questions: What are the rules
for ascertaining the degrees of the contribution to the development
of the discourse? If the rules have been discovered, are they cor-
rect? As I see it, however, I regard the entire work of J. Firbas as
an extensive definition of CD, presenting an open system of rules
and at the same time giving the reasons for their existence.
Another point is to prove the relevance of the reasons and the

Authenticated
ON TWO COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMISMS 39
validity of the rules, not only on the grounds of logic and common
sense, but also by means of measurement or testing. In my opinion,
the concept of CD as defined above is closely connected with two
things: (i) with the general way of conveying information by means
of a language and therefore with the objective information-amount
carried by certain language elements, (ii) with the personal ap-
proach of a language user to the communication, which consists of
increasing or decreasing the information-amount of certain lan-
guage elements according to the intention of a language user and
may be termed as subjective information. (This concept is close to
R. Well's "subjective information" — cf. Wells, 1961 — provided
that not only one sentence but also one element may be more in-
formative than the other according to the intention of a language
user.) On proving the validity of the theory of FSP, the ideal case
would be to measure either the relative or the absolute amounts of
both objective and subjective information carried by language ele-
ments. I think, however, that to the present stage of the develop-
ment of the information theory the probability of proving the
theory of FSP in this way is very low. That is why I will try to ap-
proach the problem from a different angle and will make an attempt
to define CD by means of contextual dependence, which seems to
be less resistant to measuring or testing than the information-
amount is.
By contextual dependence I understand two different kinds of
dependence: (i) horizontal (or linear) dependence, constituted by
the sequence of elements, (ii) vertical dependence (or cross-
reference), constituted by the occurrence of identical and/or closely
related elements. According to the three-level approach to syntax
(cf. D A N E S , 1 9 6 4 ) , each of the two kinds of contextual dependence
is to be ascertained and measured on all the three levels with cer-
tain modifications reflecting the specific character of the respective
level.
On the grammatical level, contextual dependence is constituted
by (i) the sequence of formal elements, (ii) the occurrence of identi-
cal formal elements and their substitutes. Both in regard to (i) and
(ii), formal contextual dependence would be measured in terms of

Authenticated
40 A. SVOBODA
degrees of formal distance existing between the elements within

a certain formal textual segment. On the semantic level, contextual
dependence is constituted by (i) the sequence of semantic elements,
(ii) the occurrence of identical or closely related semantic elements.
Both in regard to (i) and (ii), semantic contextual dependence would
be measured in terms of degrees of semantic affinity (or semantic
distance) of the elements within a certain semantic textual segment.
On what I have elsewhere termed functional level (SVOBODA, 1 9 6 8 ) ,
contextual dependence is constituted by (i) the sequence of com-
municative elements, each of them reflecting a definite part of the
extra-lingual reality in the very act of communication, (ii) the oc-
currence of a communicative element or elements closely related
to the part of the extra-lingual reality to which a language user is
taking a standpoint. (This formulation is based on J. Vachek's
functional definition of a sentence: The sentence is an elementary
verbal act of taking a standpoint towards some reality. Cf. VACHEK,
1 9 6 2 . ) Contextual dependence on the functional level would in
both cases be measured in terms of degrees of correspondence be-
tween the parts of the extra-lingual reality expressed by communica-
tive elements and that which is being taken a standpoint to within
a certain communicative textual segment reflecting the situation
in the extra-lingual reality at a given moment of communication.
Before adducing the definition of CD, I should like to emphasize
the fact that it is only a working definition, its aim being to make
CD verifiable not only in languages with the distribution of CD
representing the leading word-order principle, but also in those
where other word-order principles play the dominant role. Com-
municative dynamism is an abstraction from and generalization
of the reciprocal of contextual dependence.
It is evident from what has just been stated that, on the one hand,
CD and contextual dependence are regarded as complementary
phenomena, but, on the other hand, CD is a broader concept than
that of contextual dependence, since the former is an abstraction
from and generalization of the reciprocal of the latter. How to
understand the terms "abstraction" and "generalization"?
Suppose we have symbolic marks denoting the values attached

Authenticated
O N TWO COMMUNICATIVE DYNAMISMS 41
to the above elements on the grounds of measuring or testing both

kinds of contextual dependence on all the three syntactic levels.
If we abstract from the actual text and replace the elements by the
above symbols (denoting the degrees of contextual dependence) in
a large number of utterances, we arrive at a set of various patterns
displaying the distribution of contextual dependence in a language.
These patterns reveal certain laws according to which the utterances
are organized. As it seems, however, that the laws hold good not
only for utterances within a certain context, but also for those
standing in isolation or in the initial position of the discourse, we
generalize the above laws of utterance organization and apply
them also to utterances where we can hardly speak of any context
or contextual dependence. From this point of view, the concept CD
is apparently more suitable than that of contextual dependence,
since it may be employed in all the possible kinds of utterances.
As we are mainly interested not in the absolute but in the relative
amounts of CD in a given pattern of utterance organization, we are
to a certain extent free in choosing the criteria of measuring con-
textual dependence, the results being approximately the same. If we
take this into account, we are also able to understand why the em-
ployment of different criteria of contextual dependence in dif-
ferent languages needn't be any obstacle to comparing their pat-
terns of utterance organization by means of the concept of CD.
Though measuring contextual dependence may appear to be no
easy task, in any case it seems to be soluble at the present stage of
linguistic research and may, at least, prove the validity or invalidity
of such part of the theory of FSP as deals with utterances within
a context.
REFERENCES
DANES, F., A three-level approach to syntax. TLP 1, 1964, 225— 240.

FIRBAS, J., On the communicative value of the modern English finite verb.
BSE 3, 1961, 79-104.
FIRBAS, J., A note on transition proper in functional sentence analysis.
PhP 8, 1965, 170-176.

Authenticated
42 A. SVOBODA
SvOBODA. Α., The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated

by English attributive constructions, BSE 7, 1968, 49—101.
VACHEK, J. - FIRBAS, J., Lingvistickä Charakteristika souëasné angliítiny
[Linguistic characterology of contemporary English]. Prague (multi-
plicated), 1962.
WELLS, R., Measure of subjective information. Structure of language and its
mathematical aspects. In: Proceedings of Symposia of applied mathe-
matics 12, 1961, 237-244.

Authenticated
THE PLACE OF "FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE
PERSPECTIVE" IN THE SYSTEM
O F LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION
Μ. A. K. Halliday (London)
1. "Function" in FSP
2. "Function" in functional theories of language
3. The functions of language
4. Manifestation of these functions in the language system
5. Why is language as it is?
6. Summary of the place of FSP
1. "FUNCTION" I N FSP
The concept of "function" has always been centrally associated

with Prague linguistic scholarship. It is not accidental, I think, that
the term appears in both the expressions "functional theory of
language" and "functional sentence perspective". The notion of
functional sentence perspective is very closely bound up with that
of functional theories of language. I suspect, however, that the link
between them is actually rather obscured by the use of "functional"
in both these expressions, since the meaning of the term is some-
what different in the two places.
The notion of a functional theory of language is itself capable
of more than one interpretation, and since it is important to the
understanding of the place of FSP in linguistic description I shall
return to it below. Here it will suffice to note that "functional", in
the context "functional theory", refers to the functions of language.
In "functional sentence perspective", on the other hand, "func-
tional" relates to the analysis of the sentence into parts having
a function in the total communication process.

Authenticated
44 Μ . Α. Κ . H A L L I D A Y
I will assume here that FSP is a universal phenomenon. There

were at one time suggestions that it might be specific to certain
languages, at least in its fully developed form; but these were
founded, in my opinion, on a confusion between FSP as the orga-
nization of meaning, on the one hand, and the means by which it is
realized on the other. I do not think we need take very seriously the
notion that there are languages without FSP; in fact I would define
FSP in such a way that this would be a theoretical impossibility —
a semiotic system without FSP would not be a language. This is
not to say that FSP is irrelevant to linguistic characterology; there
is significant variation as regards the choices available in different
languages, as well as in where and how these choices are made. But
all languages have an FSP component.
FSP is concerned with the organization of the sentence as a mes-
sage: with "how the grammatical and semantic structures function
in the very act of communication" (Danes, in TLP 1, p. 227). This
is not simply a matter of relating the sentence to the context in
which it occurs. In FSP, as in any other component of linguistic
organization, it is the speaker's meaning potential that is being
represented. He has, among other things, the option of deciding
not to relate what he is saying to the context of utterance. He makes
his own choices.
What he does is to express a particular pattern of information,
which represents his selection from the complex of systematic op-
tions that are available for the creation of text. I would define FSP
as the "text-creating" component of language. This puts a some-
what different emphasis on the "F". I think the term "functional"
is most appropriate here if we interpret FSP as being the expression
of one of the basic functions of language, namely the function of
creating text. This is using the term in the general sense in which it
is used in "functional theory of language". A "functional" theory
is one which is concerned with the functions of language itself;
and the text-creating function is one of them.

Authenticated
T H E PLACE O F FSP I N LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION 45
2. "FUNCTION" IN FUNCTIONAL THEORIES

OF LANGUAGE
The limitation of functional theories of language, from the point

of view of linguistics, is that they have usually been purely ex-
trinsic. They have been attempts to incorporate language into
a psychological or ethnographic theory. This is entirely justifiable
and desirable, but it means that the categorization of language
functions which is offered in such a theory is inadequate to explain
the nature of language. That is not what it is designed to do.
Let me make my own position clear on this point. In attempting
to understand the organization of language I find it most helpful
to work with Firth's concepts of "system" and "structure" — with
"system-structure theory", as it has been called. In particular, in
investigating language in social contexts and settings I like to take
the "system" as the fundamental concept. A system is a set of
options in a stated environment; in other words, a choice, together
with a condition of entry.
It seems to me that the system-structure framework needs to be
supplemented in two ways. First, it is insufficiently explicit, and
needs to be underpinned by a formalized generative model.
Lamb's stratification theory, with its Hjelmslevian basis, provides
this, and gives a systematic account of linguistic levels that is
entirely compatible with the general theory of levels developed in
European linguistics. Secondly, it is insufficiently explanatory in
the sense of explaining why language has the particular form and
shape it has. We cannot give anything approaching a definitive
answer to the question why the human semiotic should have taken
precisely this form and no other; but we can begin to look into it:
and for this purpose we need a theory of linguistic functions. In
principle, language is as it is because of the functions it has evolved
to serve, and Prague linguistics is unique in attempting to incor-
porate a theory of what these functions are.
Here I venture to disagree with the observation of Novák and
Sgall, that "the functions concerned should be ascribed not to the
language but to utterances" (TLP 3, p. 292). In my opinion a fune-

Authenticated
46 Μ. Α. Κ. HALLIDAY
tional theory is a theory of language, and is an essential aspect of

any theory that attempts to explain the nature of language. And
this is how I would approach the question of the place of FSP. The
place of FSP in the system of linguistic description is determined
by the fact that it is (or at least it is an aspect of) one of a small
number of functional components of the language system.
In his well-known article in TLP 1, Danes distinguished three
"levels" within syntax:
(1) the level of the semantic structure of the sentence
(2) the level of the grammatical structure of the sentence
(3) the level of the organization of the utterance
Svoboda (BSE 7, p. 56) regards these as three "systems", seman-
tic, grammatical and functional, each with its own syntactic ele-
ments and relations.
These are important and fundamental categories. But they are
not just accidentally co-existent systems or levels of structure; they
are functional components of the grammar. They are the mani-
festation, in the language system, of the functions of language, in
the general sense in which the term has been used from the work of
Bühler onwards. This being the case, however, we need to show
how Biihler's categories, or else some modified version of them, are
represented in the Danes-Svoboda framework of analysis.
3. THE FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE
We have no difficulty in identifying Danes' "semantic level" with

Biihler's "representational function". If one of the functions of
language is to express our experience of the world that is around
us and inside us, it is natural that this should be reflected in the
linguistic system. At first sight, the equivalence might seem to go no
further than this; but it does.
The most problematical of Danes' categories is that of the "level
of grammatical structure". This seems rather circular. Why should
language have a level of structure whose only function is to be
a level of structure? Let us look back at Bühler. He has a con-

Authenticated
T H E PLACE O F FSP I N L I N G U I S T I C DESCRIPTION 47
ative function and an expressive function. The difference between

these two is significant psychologically, but linguistically it is very
tenuous: is an interrogative, for example, a demand to be given
information (conative), or an expression of a desire for knowledge
(expressive)? It is not surprising to find that expressive and con-
ative are not really distinct in the language system. They are
combined into a single "personal" function — or, as I would
prefer to call it, to bring out its social nature, an "interpersonal"
function.
How is this represented in linguistic structure? Actually, I think,
it is Danes' "level of grammatical structure", the "level" whose
elements are subject, predicate and the like. This is not very well
named, if with Svoboda we understand "grammatical" to mean
"purely formal"; it is a functional component like the first one —
and, we may add, is equally "semantic". It has often been noted,
for example, that the subject in English is essential to the expression
of mood; and in fact the organization of clauses into some form of
predicative structure has in many languages a modal function,
expressing the speaker's participation in, or intrusion into, the
speech event: his choice of speech role (mood) and his assessment
of the validity of what he is saying (modality). This in turn is part
of a more general component of meaning which includes his at-
titudes and comments, assertions of familiarity and distance, and
the like.
Let us postulate, then, an "experiential" component ( = Biih-
ler's "representational", Danes' "semantic") and an "interper-
sonal" component ( = Biihler's "conative" and "expressive",
Danes' "grammatical"), and insist that both are represented on
equal terms in the description of language. In other words, each
component has both semantic and lexicogrammatical connota-
tions.
When it comes to the third component, Bühler has nothing to
say — naturally, since he was not primarily concerned with the
nature of the linguistic system. But this is also a functional com-
ponent, provided we accept the notion of an enabling function that
is intrinsic to language: this is what we referred to above as the

Authenticated
48 Μ . Α. Κ. HALLIDAY
function of creating text. It is this that enables language to be

operational; "text" is language in use.
The speaker's command of his langue includes an awareness of
the difference between text and non-text — lists of words, or ran-
dom sets of sentences. Normally he will assume that what he hears
or reads is text, and he will go to great lengths to justify his as-
sumption and ensure that communication is taking place. This
assumption is a functional one; it rests not so much on recognizing
words and structures as on recognizing the role that language is
playing in the situation. And the language will be recognized as
playing some role only if it is acceptable as text.
Let us refer to this as the "textual" function of language, since
it is the function of creating text — or "texture", to use a stylistic
term, which is really the same notion. This function is not in
Bühler's scheme; but it is Danes' "level of organization of utter-
ance", whose elements are Svoboda's "communicative units".
Although the textual function differs from the other two in that it
is intrinsic to language, and thus instrumental and not autonomous,
I do not think it should be regarded as restricted to parole, or to
the utterance. It is an integral component of the language system,
and represents a part of the meaning potential of this system.
FSP can be defined, in this way, as the "textual" component in
the grammar of the sentence. The study of FSP was at first directed
just to the structure of sentence and clause. Subsequently, it has
been extended to other units having a "communicative" element
in their structure: to various classes of the phrase — deixis in the
noun phrase is an example of a text-creating element — as well as
to units which, as Danes pointed out (Word 1960), may have no
equivalent in the grammatical hierarchy (e.g. the unit realized as
one tone group in English). References to work on FSP are too
numerous, and too well-known, to be cited here; there have been
detailed and perspicuous descriptions, especially of English and
Czech, by Czechoslovak linguists such as Trávnícek, Vachek,
Danes, Poldauf, Firbas, Benes, Svoboda and others, which have
given a fundamental insight into this important and otherwise
rather neglected area of linguistic pattern.

Authenticated
THE PLACE OF FSP IN LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION 49
4. MANIFESTATION OF THESE FUNCTIONS

IN THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM
Where are these functions of language manifested in the language

system? Obviously, in the grammatical structure. A clause such as
the sun was shining on the sea shows (at least) these three dimen-
sions of grammatical structure:
the sun was shining on the sea
experiential: Actor Process Locative
interpersonal: Modal Propositional
textual: Theme Rheme
(I take "modal propositional" as the more general structure from which

categories like subject, predicate, object etc. can be derived.)
But since these structures are the means of expression of the

basic functions of language, they relate to particular functionally
defined areas of meaning. Grammatical structure may be regarded,
in fact, as the means whereby the various components of meaning,
deriving from the different functions of language, are integrated
together. We can see that each component makes its contribution
to the total structural complex.
The different functions are, quite evidently, simultaneous and
compatible. We should not be misled into equating "function of
language" with "use of language". There are indefinitely many uses
of language, which no linguistic theory has attempted to systema-
tize; but the fact that language can serve such a variety of purposes
is precisely because the language system is organized into this small
set of highly generalized functional components. Whatever we are
using language for, we need to make some reference to the catego-
ries of our experience; we need to take on some role in the inter-
personal situation; and we need to embody these in the form of

Authenticated
text. (I think there may also be a "logical" component to be brought

in, but this need not concern us here.) We draw on all these areas
of linguistic potential at the same time.
If we describe the grammar in terms of paradigmatic sets of
features, or "systems" in the Firthian sense, we find a clear indica-
tion that the grammatical system itself has a functional basis.
In the English clause, for example, there is one self-contained set
of interrelated systems concerned with transitivity, and another
concerned with mood. But transitivity and mood are nothing other
than functional components in the meaning potential of the clause.
Transitivity is the grammar of processes — of actions, mental pro-
cesses, relations — and the participants in these processes, and the
attendant circumstances. This is the experiential component in
the clause, Danes' "semantic". Mood is the grammar of speech
functions — the roles adopted (and those imposed on the hearer)
by the speaker, and his associated attitudes. This is the interper-
sonal component, Danes' "grammatical". And we find a third set
of systems (which I referred to elsewhere under the general heading
of "theme") concerned with the grammar of messages — the
status of the clause and its parts as "units of communication". This
is the textual component of clause structure, or FSP. FSP shows
up very clearly as a distinct, functionally determined set of options
in the underlying grammar of the clause.
5. WHY IS LANGUAGE AS IT IS?
We are interested in FSP because it is an integral part of the system

of language, and therefore essential to the understanding of the
processes of speaking, listening, reading and writing.
We take it for granted that language is a multiple coding system,
organized into levels, or "strata". This can be explained, it is true,
in terms of the problem of reduction. To oversimplify the matter,
a large number of complex meanings is to be encoded in a small
number of simple sounds, and this cannot be achieved without
intervening levels (i.e. grammar and phonology). But this stratal

Authenticated
T H E PLACE O F FSP I N L I N G U I S T I C DESCRIPTION 51
structure has evolved in the context of the demands that are made
on language, and the nature and organization of these intermediate
levels — the nature of linguistic form, in Hjelmslev's sense — re-
flects the role of language in the life of man.
With the very young child, the uses of language seem to be rather
discrete; and each has its own "grammar", or "proto-grammar"
since it has no stratal organization. With my eleven-month-old son,
for example, I can recognize four uses of language, with just two or
three options in each. But adult use of language is such that, with
minor exceptions, each utterance has to be multifunctional —
while at the same time having an integrated structure. There must
therefore be a level of organization of meaning: a semantic level,
or in Lamb's terms "semological stratum". In Hjelmslevian terms,
the "content purport" has to be separated from, and organized
into, a "content substance" as a precondition of its encoding in
"content form".
What we are calling the functions of language may be regarded as
the generalized categories of "content substance" that the adult
use of language requires. An utterance must be about something;
it must express the speaker's stake in the matter; and it must be
operational in its own context, either in the "here and now" or in
some second-order context created by the language. These condi-
tions would seem to determine a significant part of the properties
of the language system.
Specifically, the functional orientation of the system determines
the kind of interdependence that exists within the meaning poten-
tial. Certain options are dependent on others; for example both
modality and "key" are largely dependent on mood, and all these
are within the general "interpersonal" domain. Likewise there is
considerable interdependence among the options within FSP,
although these are largely independent of options in the other com-
ponents. Also, the functional basis of language is reflected in the
nature of constituent structure, which has not merely to serve in
the realization of meaning but to accommodate in a single struc-
tural realization configurations of elements deriving from different
functional points of origin.

Authenticated
6. SUMMARY OF THE PLACE OF FSP
Since FSP is readily incorporated into what Jakobson called a

"means-ends" model of language, this enables us to define its place
in the description of language.
First, it is part of general linguistic theory. There is a "textual"
component in every language (clearly, if we claim that it is essential
to the functioning of language, we are claiming that it is universal).
Hence it enters into the description of every language.
Secondly, the textual component is not a "level" in the usual
(stratal) sense of the term; it is a "vertical" division within the
content plane. There is no suggestion of one component being
"deeper" or "more surface" than another.
Thirdly, the textual component differs from the others in that,
while they are directly relatable to the conditions of language use,
the textual component is related only indirectly, through its func-
tion of creating text.
Fourthly, there is the place of FSP within the textual component.
We have kept these two terms distinct because the latter is expressly
related to a theory of language function, and is a broader category.
FSP has been used mainly to refer to structural relations within the
sentence; but the textual component specifies both intra-sentence
and inter-sentence relations, including non-structural relations of
presupposition. Let me try and summarize the domain of the tex-
tual component, as I see it. The textual component includes:
1. relations of presupposition (i.e. reference, substitution, con-
junction and lexical presupposition)
(a) verbal (i.e. anaphora and cataphora)
(i) between sentences (my "Cohesion")
(ii) within sentences
(b) situational
2. structural relations (i.e. FSP)
(a) in syntactic units
(i) sentence and clause
(ii) phrase ("group")
(b) in communicative units (my "information structure")

Authenticated
T H E PLACE O F FSP IN LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION 53
As far as English is concerned, the structural relations in the

sentence and clause are those of theme and rheme, together with
various patterns of identification and predication (the thing t h a t . . .
is ...; it's ... that ...; etc.). I myself take "theme" in Trávnícek's
sense: it is the FSP element that is realized by first position, and has
nothing to do with previous mention. The relations of information
structure — that is, those within the unit realized by the tone
group; Firbas' "prosodie means of FSP" — are those of "given"
and "new", as I see it, which do relate to the recoverability of in-
formation from situation or preceding text. In the nominal and
verbal group, the structures involved in FSP are those relating to
the here and now, such as the TMEs in Firbas' work: the "deictic"
elements in the widest sense of the term.
It may be that, if the general notion of the textual component
(or "communicative component" — but I am less happy with this,
because it suggests the personal interaction of speaker and hearer,
which is treated as a different function in the language system) is
accepted, the term FSP would be regarded as covering all the rela-
tions which derive from this function of language. Be that as it
may, the two concepts, that of the text-creating function in a func-
tional theory of language, and that of functional sentence perspec-
tive, clearly belong together. The emphasis on functional theories,
in Czechoslovak linguistic scholarship has thrown light on a
general property of language, one that helps to explain the nature
of the linguistic system; while work on FSP has thrown light on the
specific text-creating function within the linguistic system, that
whereby language is in turn enabled to serve the variety of ends in
the context of which it has evolved.

Authenticated
ZUR STELLUNG DER THEMA-RHEMA-GLIEDERUNG
IN DER SPRACHBESCHREIBUNG
Petr Sgall (Prag)
Wir möchten zeigen, daß die Thema-Rhema-Gliederung als eine

Hierarchie 'der Elemente der semantischen Satzstruktur in jede
Sprachbeschreibung eingegliedert werden sollte, die das Sprach-
system als ein Ganzes (samt semantischen und prosodischen Phe-
nomena) erfassen will. In einer formal gefaßten Sprachbeschrei-
bung kann vielleicht die Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (TRG) als eine
Anordnung der Elemente der Satzrepräsentation an der gesagten
Ebene beschrieben werden, wobei diese Anordnung der Wort-
stellungsrelation der "Oberflächenstruktur" nahe steht und mit
der syntaktischen Hierarchie eng verbunden ist. (Wenn man mit
einer Abhängigkeitsgrammatik arbeitet, ist die enge Beziehung
zwischen der TRG und der syntaktischen Struktur durch die Pro-
jektivität des Satzes — und auch durch Abweichungen von ihr —
wiedergegeben; wird eine Phrasengrammatik als Basis der Sprach-
beschreibung gewählt, dann spiegelt sich diese enge Beziehung
darin ab, daß die TRG in der Regel die Grenzen der Konstituenten
nicht überschreitet.)*
1. Wenn wir die Stellung der TRG in einer theoretischen Sprach-
beschreibung beurteilen wollen, ist es notwendig, zuerst zu wissen,
was unter dem Termin „TRG" (oder „aktuelle Satzgliederung",
„funktionelle Satzperspektive") zu verstehen ist. Es gibt Lingui-
sten, die die TRG als etwas durch den Kontext (oder genauer durch
* Neuere Forschungsergebnisse und eine ausführlichere Fassung der

ganzen Konzeption sind jetzt im Buch P. Sgall, E. Hajiôovà, E. Benesová,
Topic, Focus and Generative Semantics, Kronberg/Taunus 1973, enthalten.

Authenticated
ZUR STELLUNG DER THEMA-RHEMA-GLIEDERUNG 55
die Konsituation) Bestimmtes ansehen, als eine Gliederung des

Satzes in das Bekannte, schon vorher Gegebene, und in Elemente,
die neue Information mit sich bringen. D A H L (1969, §2) lehnt
diese Ansichten wohl mit Recht ab, ungenau rechnet er aber Ada-
mec zu ihren Anhängern. Die meisten Forscher wollen zwischen
diesen Kontextbedingungen und der eigentlichen T R G unterschei-
den, u. a. deshalb, weil auch das Rhema aus der Konsituation be-
kannt sein kann. Allerdings, wenn man zeigen will, daß die T R G im
allgemeinen nicht durch die Konsituation eindeutig bestimmt
wird, ist es vielleicht noch wichtiger, daß Beispiele vorhanden sind,
wo bei derselben Konsituation verschiedene Sätze (Aussagen) mit
demselben Inhalt vorkommen können, die sich eben durch ihre
T R G unterscheiden. Nehmen wir ζ. B. als den vorhergehenden
Kontext den Satz „Im heutigen Match der Hockey-Weltmeister-
schaft spielte Schweden gegen Finnland." Der nächste Satz kann
dann lauten „Den Match hat Finnland gewonnen", aber auch
„Finnland hat den Match gewonnen"; offenbar ist im ersten Fall
das Wort Finnland der Kern des Rhemas, während es im zweiten
Fall (wenn der Satz normale Intonation hat, ohne Satzakzent am
Anfang) als das Thema auftritt. Anders gesagt: in der gegebenen
Konsituation kann man dieselbe Tatsache verschieden formulie-
ren — entweder spricht man über (die Mannschaft von) Finnland
und man konstatiert, wie der Match für diese Mannschaft endete,
oder man spricht über den Match und stellt fest, wer ihn gewann.
Oder („Am Weihnachtsabend erwarteten wir die Verwandten.")
„Onkel Ernst ist als erster gekommen." „Als erster ist Onkel Ernst
gekommen." (Entweder spricht man nach dem gegebenen Kontext
vom Onkel Ernst, und man konstatiert, wann er gekommen ist,
oder man spricht vom Ersten, der gekommen ist, und man stellt
fest, daß es der Onkel war.)
Man wird also zugeben, daß die einfachste und oft benutzte
Charakteristik der T R G — „worüber man spricht, ist das Thema,
was man darüber aussagt, ist das Rhema" — im Grunde richtig
ist. (Man kann diese Formulierung ζ. B. bei MATHESIUS, 1961, 91,
finden, ebenso wie bei HALLIDAY, 1967, 212, Β REKLE, 1970, 72, und
bei anderen.) Diese einfache Charakteristik genügt aber nicht, um

Authenticated
56 P. SGALL
alle in Betracht kommenden Erscheinungen zu erfassen. Minde-

stens in zwei Richtungen muß sie weiter spezifiziert werden. Erstens
handelt es sich nicht nur um eine Dichotomie, sondern um eine
Skala, oder genauer um eine Hierarchie, die rekursive Eigenschaf-
ten ausweist; in den Arbeiten von Firbas und seinen Nachfolgern
(s. jetzt vor allem SVOBODA, 1967) wurde sie als die Hierarchie des
kommunikativen Dynamismus vielseitig charakterisiert. (Mit einer
solchen Hierarchie arbeitet auch z. B . UHLÍROVÁ, vorb., die aus
DANES'S Konzeption ausgeht.) Zweitens ist nicht immer ein einziges
nominales Satzglied (Subjekt, Objekt) das Thema des Satzes, son-
dern man kann in dieser Position auch zwei solche Satzglieder, oder
auch Adverbialien finden, die oft als eine „Situationskulisse" auf-
gefaßt werden (z. B. „local setting" bei FIRBAS, 1964, 271). Wie
ADAMEC (1966, 21f) mit Recht bemerkt, ist es nicht einfach, eine
Grenze zwischen dem Thema im eigenen Sinn und dieser Situations-
kulisse zu ziehen; auch das zweite von unseren oben angeführten
Beispielen zeigt, daß die Position des Themas nicht immer ganz
klar ist; eine Paraphrase wie „Von dem, der als erster kam, sage
ich, daß es Onkel Ernst war" klingt mindestens unnatürlich. Ähnli-
che Schwierigkeiten gibt es auch dort, wo ein verbales Thema auf-
tritt (vgl. unten, § 2.21).
Der Unterschied zwischen dem „worüber man spricht" und „was
man darüber sagt" kann also beim Studium der TRG nützlich
sein, er reicht jedoch nicht dazu aus, um die TRG als Objekt einer
Theorie zu charakterisieren. In Carnaps Terminologie können wir
sagen, daß wir diesen Unterschied als ein Explicandum (den prä-
systematischen Begriff, der durch die Theorie erst präzisiert werden
soll) nehmen dürfen, daß es aber notwendig ist, das entsprechende
Explicatum zu suchen, d. h. einen explizit formulierten Begriff, der
gut definiert ist und dem Explicandum so gut wie möglich ent-
spricht.
Die meisten theoretischen Arbeiten über die TRG bieten leider
keine klare Charakteristik ihres eigenen Objekts, die man als einen
Ausgangspukt für diese Explikation betrachten könnte. Eine der
klarsten Charakteristiken ist bei D A N E § (1968, 127) zu finden; falls
wir gut verstehen, da könnte nach ihm (für das Tschechische, also

Authenticated
Z U R STELLUNG D E R T H E M A - R H E M A - G L I E D E R U N G 57
für eine Sprache, wo die TRG mehr als anderswo mit der Wort-
stellung verbunden ist) die TRG mittels der Unterschiede zwischen
Sätzen (Aussagen) charakterisiert werden, die verschiedene Wort-
folge (oder Intonation), aber eine übereinstimmende grammatische
(und lexikalische) Struktur aufweisen. Das ist freilich nur dort aus-
reichend, wo grammatische Mittel der TRG nicht in Betracht
kommen. Es wird wahrscheinlich möglich sein, eine festere Grund-
lage für die Theorie der TRG auf Kriterien aufzubauen, die dadurch
gegeben sind, daß man feststellen kann, auf welche Frage der ge-
gebene Satz eine Antwort sein könnte (und welche Fragen ihm in
einem Dialog folgen können); vgl. schon H A T C H E R (1956), aus den
neueren Arbeiten vor allem D A N E S (1968,1968a), STAAL (1967, 77f).
Bis jetzt sind aber diese Kriterien nicht systematisch genug formu-
liert worden.
Um eine explizitere Charakteristik der TRG zu erreichen, die
einem formalen Explicatum näher käme, müssen wir die Stellung
der TRG im Ganzen der Sprachbeschreibung nachprüfen, denn die
formale Deutung muß Begriffe benutzen, die in der Sprachbe-
schreibung schon ihren festen Platz, eine befriedigende Definition
und klare Beziehungen untereinander haben. So kommen wir zum
eigenen Thema unserer Ausführungen. In der gegebenen Sachlage
können wir allerdings eher Fragen stellen als lösen. Wir versuchen
es, einige Hypothesen aufzustellen und hie und da auf Beziehungen
zwischen verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten aufmerksam zu machen.
2.1 Es gibt viele Konzeptionen der theoretischen Sprachbe-
schreibung (der Analyse des Sprachsystems), die meistens nicht
explizit formuliert sind und oft die TRG nicht systematisch berück-
sichtigen. Es fragt sich, ob man unter diesen Umständen etwas all-
gemein gültiges über die Stellung der TRG in einer Sprachbeschrei-
bung sagen kann. Eine solche Möglichkeit muß vor allem dort
gesucht werden, wo die verschiedensten Typen der Sprachbe-
schreibung gemeinsame Voraussetzungen aufweisen. Wir glauben,
daß man solche Voraussetzungen doch finden kann, wenn auch in
bescheidenem Maße.
Man kann wohl behaupten, daß jede Sprachbeschreibung min-
destens mit drei Dimensionen arbeiten muß.

Authenticated
58 P. SGALL
1. „von oben nach unten" (oder „von der.Tiefe zur Oberfläche"),

d. h. die Dimension, die dem Verhältnis zwischen Inhalt und
Ausdruck (in der glossematischen Terminologie) entspricht und
die für die Sprache als Zeichensystem besonders wichtig ist;
2. „von außen nach innen", oder von den einzelnen Erscheinungen
zu ihrer Klassifikation, bei der man vom Einzelnen abstrahiert,
um mehr oder weniger allgemeine Klassen von Erscheinungen,
Einheiten und ihren Arten zu erkennen;
3. „von links nach rechts", oder die Dimension der Zeitachse (es
ist allerdings eine Dimension im System, nicht im Text gemeint).
Wir möchten jetzt die Stellung der TRG in Hinsicht auf diese drei
Dimensionen untersuchen.
2.11 Was die erste Dimension betrifft, handelt es sich vor allem
um das Verhältnis der TRG zur Semantik. Es gibt hier zwei Ge-
sichtspunkte, die näher nachgeprüft werden sollten.
Einerseits gibt es — in der Prager Schule, wo man mit mehreren
Ebenen des Sprachsystems arbeitet — Konzeptionen, in denen man
mit einer spezifischen Ebene der TRG rechnet. Bei T R N K A (1964)
und HOREJSÍ (1961) ist es die Ebene der Aussage, bei D O K U L I L und
D A N E S (1958; D A N E S 1968a) ist es eine der Ebenen der Satzstruktur
(neben der semantischen und der grammatischen Satzstruktur),
ähnlich auch bei FIRBAS (1970a). Es ist jedoch nicht immer klar,
wie die Beziehung zwischen den verschiedenen Ebenen, und be-
sonderes die Beziehung zwischen der TRG und der semantischen
Satzstruktur zu verstehen ist. Bei DANES (1968a, 68f) wird diese
Beziehung durch Beispiele illustriert, die eben von diesem Gesichts-
punkt eine Erklärung brauchen: Sätze wie „France borders on
Switzerland" und „Switzerland borders on France" unterscheiden
sich dadurch, daß in dem ersten die „dominierende Position" mit
dem Wort „France" besetzt ist, in dem zweiten mit „Switzerland".
Das ist bestimmt so, aber es bleibt noch zu zeigen, ob und wodurch
die „dominierende Position" vom Thema abgehoben werden kann,
und weiter, ob und womit dieser Begriff wirklich der Ebene der
semantischen, nicht nur der grammatischen (syntaktischen) Satz-
struktur gehört. Aus der Literatur zu diesen Fragen möchten wir
außer JAKOBSON (1936, 251) auch HORÁLEKS (1967, 117) Ansicht

Authenticated
ZUR STELLUNG D E R THEMA-RHEMA-GLIEDERUNG 59
erwähnen, der hier „eine Hierarchie vom Standpunkt des Spre-

chenden oder des Kontextes" sieht. Jetzt bringt besonders Fillmore
(1970) neue Erwägungen, die für diesen Themenkreis relevant sind
(und zeigen, wie tiefgreifende Einzelforschungen notwendig sind,
um hier mindestens einige feste Kriterien zu erhalten). — Warum
wir mit dem Unterschied zwischen den Begriffen „Satz" und
„Aussage" (utterance) nicht in dem Sinne arbeiten, wie es D a n e s —
mit Hinsicht auf die T R G — tut (wonach verschiedene TRG-
Yarianten Aussagen sind, die als Varianten desselben Satzes gelten
können), wurde anderswo gezeigt ( S g a l l , 1967, 205f und 209).
Der andere Gesichtspunkt (der in der letztgenannten Arbeit zur
Diskussion gestellt wurde) kann vielleicht so formuliert werden,
daß die T R G als eine Organisation oder Hierarchie der Einheiten
der semantischen Ebene gedeutet wird. Wie aus den Arbeiten von
Firbas — aber auch Danes und anderen — gut bekannt ist, muß
man mindestens mit drei Schichten der T R G rechnen. Die erste von
ihnen (die Grundschicht, wo die hierarchische Skala des kommuni-
kativen Dynamismus eine merkmallose Form hat) besteht aus Fäl-
len, in denen die hierarchische Skala des kommunikativen Dyna-
mismus unmittelbar von den Beziehungen zwischen den Einheiten
der semantischen Satzstruktur bestimmt ist: wo die Konsituation
diese Beziehungen nicht anders beeinflußt, steht der Agens in dieser
Skala vor der Aktion (d.h. er ist mehr „thematisch" als sie, trägt
weniger kommunikativen Dynamismus), die Aktion steht vor dem
Patiens, ein Existenzverb steht vor dem Existierenden (in Sätzen
wie russ. „Nastupila vesna"), eine Situationskulisse steht vor der
Aktion, eine spezifizierte Adverbialbestimmung nach ihr, usw.
Schon diese Ausdrucksweise zeigt, daß es eine enge Beziehung zwi-
schen dieser Skala und der Wortfolge gibt; wie bekannt, gilt das zu
einem gewissen Grad selbst für Sprachen mit einer grammatisch
gebundenen Wortfolge. Diese Beziehung wollen wir unten, im
•§2.2, ausnützen. Eine Grundschicht, die durch die semantische
Satzstruktur bedingt ist, wird von Forschern, die verschiedene
Sprachen analysieren und verschiedene Konzeptionen anwenden,
erschlossen; vgl. jetzt besonders auch Z e m b ( 1 9 6 8 ) für das Deutsche.
Zur zweiten Schicht gehören die Fälle, wo die Konsituation (der

Authenticated
60 P . SGALL
vorhergehende Kontext usw.) zu einer merkmalhaften Variante der

erwähnten Skala führt. (Wo z. B. der Patiens aus der Konsituation
bekannt ist, geht er in einer solchen in den Kontext eingegliederten
Variante dem Aktionsverb voran: „Deine Uhr habe ich schon ge-
funden.") — Weniger wichtig ist für uns hier die dritte Schicht der
TRG, die sog. „zweite Instanz", d. h. Varianten, die durch einen
Kontrast, eine nachdrückliche Wiederholung eines (Teils des) miß-
verstandenen Satzes u. ähnl. beeinflußt sind.
Es ist zu bemerken, daß in der Analyse der semantisch- und
kontextbedingten Varianten z. B. HEIDOLPH (1966) ganz unabhän-
gig und von einer anderen Konzeption ausgehend zu ähnlichen
Ergebnissen gekommen ist; für die Charakterisierung der TRG als
einer Organisation der semantischen Repräsentation des Satzes
(also nicht nur durch Kontext bedingt) haben — in verschiedenen
Hinsichten - die Arbeiten von HALLIDAY (1967), BENES (1968;
1970) und BREKLE (1970) viel neues gebracht; auch z. B. ZATORSKI
(1970) und unter den Transformationalisten LAKOFF (1969) sind
sich dessen klar bewußt, daß die TRG (oder einzelne Erscheinun-
gen, die in unserer Terminologie zu ihr gehören) semantisch rele-
vant sind, daß sie in der Repräsentation eines Satzes auf der seman-
tischen Ebene figurieren müssen.
Sätze wie „Jeder dieser Beschreibungstypen ist für manche Spra-
chen adäquat" und „Für manche Sprachen ist jeder dieser Be-
schreibungstypen adäquat" zeigen, daß ein semantischer Unter-
schied (sogar ein Unterschied des ontologischen [kognitiven] In-
halts, der Wahrheitsbedingungen) auch dort bestehen kann, wo
wir keine grammatischen oder lexikalischen Unterschiede finden:
wenn keine Sprache existiert, für die alle erwähnten Beschreibungs-
typen adäquat seien, kann der erste, nicht aber der zweite Satz wahr
sein. Es ist dann allerdings nicht nützlich, hier von zwei bloßen
Varianten desselben Satzes zu sprechen. Man kann einwenden, daß
es sich in solchen Fällen um Qualifikation handelt, und daraus
schließen, daß es entweder ein Sonderfall ist, der eine spezifische
Deutung braucht, oder daß der gegebene Unterschied nicht zur
TRG gehört. Wir können aber fragen, ob ein Sonderfall unter die
allgemeine Regel nicht fallen soll (wenn sie wirklich allgemein ist),

Authenticated
und was für Unterschiede das sind, wenn nicht die in der T R G (sind
sie grammatischer Art, so müßte man sie in einer Grammatik be-
schreiben; das hat aber wohl vor den Transformationalisten —
dazu s. unten, § 2.21 — niemand getan). Wie man den folgenden
Beispielen entnehmen kann, ist der Sonderfall gar nicht so spezi-
fisch, und wenn man alle solche Fälle Qualifikation nennen will,
dann müßte die Lehre über die Qualifikation in der Semantik na-
türlicher Sprachen zu einem neuen Verständnis der ganzen Seman-
tik vieles beitragen: „In Österreich spricht man deutsch" —
„Deutsch spricht man in Österreich" (vgl. SGALL, 1967, 209f);
„Kurit' zdes'" — „Zdes' kurit'" (ein Beispiel von Martemjanov);
„Kurit' vredno" — „Vredno kurit'" (GLADNEY, vorb.); „Kusajte
za stolom" — „Za stolom kusajte" (SGALL, 1969). Es wäre nicht
einfach, zu sagen, was hier quantifiziert wird und wo eigentlich
die Grenzen der Qualifikation im Sprachsystem sind.
Die hier illustrierten Fragen, die das Verhältnis der T R G zur
Qualifikation betreffen, müssen in der Sprachbeschreibung auf
der semantischen Ebene respektiert werden. Wenn die von DAHL
(1969) gefundene Möglichkeit, die semantische Satzstruktur mittels
der Beziehung der Implikation zu beschreiben, bestätigt wird (und
wenn auch z. B. die Schwierigkeiten beseitigt werden, die damit
verbunden sind, daß eine mehrfache Kombination von Implika-
tionen mit einer Verbindung von Konjunktionen und Implikatio-
nen ontologisch gleichbedeutend, aber nicht linguistisch synonym
ist), dann hätte man einen festen Stützpunkt für die Deutung der
semantischen Relevanz der TRG. Die Skala des kommunikativen
Dynamismus wird dann im wesentlichen mit dem Unterschied der
Positionen vor und nach dem Implikationssymbol beschrieben
werden; vor dem Implikationssymbol steht — im typischen Fall —
als Thema eine generische (s. DAHL, 1969, § 3), oder eine bestimmte
(vgl. BENESOVÁ, vorb.) Nominalphrase.
Man muß dann die Frage stellen, welche Beziehungen (auf der
semantischen Ebene) als Implikation interpretiert werden können,
und welche nicht. Es handelt sich hier einerseits um verschiedene
Stufen der Deprädikation (backgrounding), vgl. weiter unten,
§2.13, andererseits um die Quantifikation; die Position der Quan-

Authenticated
62 P. SGALL
toren (und auch anderer Operatoren, wie der Negation, der unbe-
stimmten Pronomina und mancher Typen der Adverbialbestim-
mung, vgl. SEUREN, 1 9 6 9 ) in der semantischen Repräsentation (und
in der Hierarchie des kommunikativen Dynamismus) ist dann
ebenso wichtig wie die Position der Argumente der Implikation.
Es ist möglich, hier eine Hypothese auszusprechen, deren empi-
rische Verifikation im Gange ist (s. HAJICOVÁ, vorb., und vgl. dazu
die im § 2,21 erwähnten neuren Arbeiten der Transformationa-
listen): der Bereich (scope) eines Operators ist in der semantischen
Repräsentation des Satzes dadurch gekennzeichnet, daß er links
durch den Operator, rechts druch das Ende des (Matrix-, Konsti-
tuenten-) Satzes, der den Operatoren enthält, begrenzt ist. Anders
gesagt, ein Quantor oder ein anderer Operator steht — in der se-
mantischen Repräsentation, in der Hierarchie des kommunikativen
Dynamismus — links von seinem ganzen Bereich. In der Ober-
flächenstruktur kann diese Anordnung allerdings anders sein (sei
es mit einer merkmalhaften Intonation, oder mit bestimmten
grammatischen Bedingungen verbunden).
2.12 Zu den Fragen der zweiten Dimension (die die Klassifika-
tion der Einheiten einzelner Ebenen betrifft und z. B. durch den
Unterschied der terminalen und nonterminalen Symbole in der
Transformationsgrammatik, oder zwischen einzelnen Wörtern und
Wortarten, Satzgliedern usw. in anderen Konzeptionen illustriert
werden kann) möchten wir hier nur kurz folgendes bemerken. Nach
dem, was im § 2.11 gesagt wurde, ist es notwendig, auf der semanti-
schen Ebene Klassen von Einheiten (d. h. disjunkte Mengen kom-
plexer Symbole) zu finden, die die einzelnen Distinktionen im
Funktionieren dieser Einheiten in Hinsicht auf die T R G wieder-
spiegeln. Einen höchst nützlichen Schritt in dieser Richtung bilden
z. B. die Gruppen von Beispielen (und ihre Klassifikation) bei
DANES (1968a). Man sollte eine solche Trennungslinie zwischen den
Verben finden, die einer Aktion entsprechen, und denen, die die
Existenz wiedergeben, — oder mindestens zwischen den beiden
Typen von Einheiten, die primär durch das Subjekt dieser oder
jener Verben ausgedrückt werden. Die Beispiele, die BENESOVÁ
(vorb.) bringt, zeigen, daß die erste dieser beiden Möglichkeiten

Authenticated
mindestens für Sprachen wie das Tschechische gar nicht gesichert

ist. Ein Verb wie „fahren" gilt in vielen Sätzen als ein Aktionsverb,
es gibt aber Sätze wie „In Prag fahren jetzt Autobusse statt Troley-
busse" (im Sinne von „...gibt es..."), wo es sich um eine bloße
Existenz handelt. Der Unterschied kann vielleicht besser mit Hilfe
von Subjekten charakterisiert werden, denn die Autorin weist
darauf hin, daß in diesem Fall das (rhematische — mindestens in
einem merkmallosen Fall) Subjekt unbestimmt ist, während dort,
wo das Subjekt einer bestimmten Menge (die generische Bedeutung
eingerechnet) entspricht, handelt es sich um ein Subjekt, das primär
thematisch ist und auf der semantischen Ebene als Agens oder ähn-
lich gedeutet werden kann. Wie wir schon bemerkt haben, scheint
dieses Ergebnis mit Dahls Resultaten übereinzustimmen..— Ähnli-
che Probleme, die eine systematische Analyse brauchen, gibt es
allerdings auch bei den „Situationskulissen" (thematische Adverbia-
lia) und rhematischen Adverbialien.
2.13 Das Verhältnis der T R G zur dritten Dimension (zur
„Größe" der Einheiten) bietet ebenso wichtige und zahlreiche
Probleme, wie bei der ersten Dimension. Hier können wir aber
nichts mehr tun als die Probleme registrieren und zu einem ge-
wissen Maß klassifizieren. Die wichtigste Einheit, die hier in Be-
tracht kommt, ist der Satz (Aussage in der Terminologie von
Dokulil und Danes) und die vorhergehenden Erwägungen wurden
auch vom Standpunkt des Verhältnisses der T R G zum Satz formu-
liert. Hier muß man jedoch auch „kleinere" und „größere Einhei-
ten" — und ihre Beziehungen zur T R G — analysieren.
Beginnen wir mit den „kleineren", mit den Bestandteilen des
Satzes, müssen wir zuerst Fragen der Hierarchie des kommunika-
tiven Dynamismus in Betracht ziehen (vgl. oben über die Arbeiten
von Firbas und Svoboda). Zu den wichtigsten Fragen gehört hier
das Verhältnis zwischen dieser Hierarchie einerseits und der syn-
taktischen Struktur der semantischen Repräsentation des Satzes
andererseits. Die erste Hypothese, die wir aufstellen können, be-
steht darin, daß die Grundschicht der T R G mit der syntaktischen
Struktur insofern übereinstimmt, daß jedes Kommunikationsfeld
(in der Terminologie Svobodas) einer syntaktischen Verbindung

Authenticated
64 P. SGALL
zweier Satzglieder entspricht (in der Terminologie der Abhängig-

keitssyntax), oder einer Konstituente des Satzes (in einer Phrasen-
strukturgrammatik). Es sollte systematisch nachgeprüft werden,
was das „oder" hier bedeutet, denn wahrscheinlich sind die beiden
erwähnten Typen von Grammatiken in dieser Hinsicht nicht völlig
äquivalent, und ihre Konfrontation könnte vieles nicht nur zur
Erkenntnis der TRG, sondern auch zur Bewertung dieser Gram-
matiken beitragen. Die weitere Frage ist dann, ob auch für die
zweite Schicht der TRG (für die der Einfluß der Konsituation cha-
rakteristisch ist) ein solches Verhältnis zwischen der Hierarchie der
TRG und der Syntax der semantischen Ebene gilt. Eine Hypothese,
die mit diesen Erwägungen eng zusammenhängt, ist, daß die Wir-
kung der Konsituation in dieser Schicht der TRG die Projektivität
des Satzes nicht stört. (Der Begriff der Projektivität ist aus der Ab-
hängigkeitssyntax gut bekannt, vgl. z. B. MARCUS, 1965; vom ma-
thematischen Standpunkt s. jetzt L . NEBESKÍ, 1 9 6 9 ; für die Phrasen-
strukturgrammatik wäre eine mehr oder weniger parallele Frage, ob
die Wirkung der Konsituation zu diskontinuierlichen Konstituen-
ten führt.) In vollem Umfang wird diese Hypothese wahrscheinlich
nicht gelten, denn z. B. tschechische Sätze wie „Sportovec je dobry"
könnten nur schwierig zur dritten Schicht der TRG zugeordnet
werden. Man muß jedoch nachprüfen, ob die Stellung des Verbs in
der Oberflächenstruktur hier seiner Stellung in der Hierarchie des
kommunikativen Dynamismus wirklich entspricht. Jedenfalls
scheinen solche Konstruktionen durch eng begrenzte grammatische
Bedingungen bestimmt zu sein, sodaß sie die Annahme einer pro-
jektiven Struktur der semantischen Repräsentation der Sätze nicht
ausschließen.
Ein anderer Fragenkreis, der hierher gehört, betrifft Begriffe wie
Deprädikation, backgrounding, condensation (vgl. WEINREICH,
1 9 6 3 , auch die bei SGALL, 1 9 6 9 , 2 3 5 angeführte Literatur). Wenn
GRUBER ( 1 9 6 7 , 6 5 ) gefunden hat, daß die TRG im gewissen Sinn
in der Entwicklung der Sprache bei einem Kind der Subjekt-
Prädikat-Struktur des Satzes vorausgeht, sollte man systematisch
nachprüfen, ob sich die TRG (samt der Hierarchie des kommuni-
kativen Dynamismus) als die Grundlage aller erwähnten syn-

Authenticated
ZUR STELLUNG D E R THEMA-RHEMA-GLIEDERUNG 65
taktischen Beziehungen nicht auffassen ließe (vgl. D A H L , 1969,

28f).
In der Terminologie der neueren Diskussion innerhalb der Chom-
sky-Schule spricht man in einem ähnlichen Sinn vom Unterschied
zwischen der Bedeutung des Satzes (die mittels der Satznega-
tion negiert wird) und den entsprechenden Präsuppositionen
(die durch die Satznegation semanitsch unberührt bleiben), vgl.
Sätze wie „Er war nicht in Prag in der Zeit, als unser Haus gebaut
wurde" (es wird nicht negiert, daß das Haus gebaut wurde, sondern
nur, daß er damals in Prag war). Es ist notwendig, die verschieden-
sten Satztypen und den Effekt der Kondensation (backgrounding)
mit Rücksicht auf die Semantik der Negation — und auch anderer
Operatoren — zu analysieren, um die semantische Relevanz der
T R G zu präzisieren.
Wenn wir von der oben erwähnten Formulierung ausgehen, daß
das Rhema eines Aussagesatzes eben das ist, was von dem Thema
behauptet (ausgesagt) wird, ist es nicht überraschend, daß das
Thema und das Rhema in der Bedeutung des Satzes als Ganze
auftreten, und daß die Beziehungen innerhalb des Themas und des
Rhemas zu den Präsuppositionen gehören, wie im Satz „Emmas
Bruder ist mein bester Freund" (dessen Negation die Präsupposi-
tionen, daß Emma einen Bruder und der Sprechende einen besten
Freund hat, unberührt läßt). Wie HAJIÖOVA (1971; 1974; vorb.)
überzeugend gezeigt hat, gibt es auch Fälle, wo eine Beziehung
innerhalb des Rhemas im negierten Satz zwar nicht negiert wird
(also nicht zur eigenen Bedeutung des Satzes gehört), aber auch
nicht unberührt bleibt (wie eine Präsupposition); sie wird durch
die Negation vom behaupteten zu einem nur potentiellen Objekt:
„Karl wurde nicht dadurch aufgehalten, daß er einen Freund er-
wartete". Dieser Satz kann in den beiden Fällen wahr sein, wenn
Karl einen Freund erwartete, oder nicht. Hier handelt es sich also
um einen „dritten Typ" semantischer Einheiten (neben der Be-
deutung und der Präsupposition). Wenn jedoch der Nebensatz
im positiven Satzgefüge thematisiert wird, hat die Negation einen
anderen Effekt: „Dadurch, daß Karl einen Freund erwartete, wurde
er nicht aufgehalten." In diesem Satz wird — auch mit Negation —

Authenticated
66 P. SGALL
vorausgesetzt, daß Karl einen Freund erwartete, es handelt sich

also um eine Präsupposition. Ob der Unterschied zwischen Präsup-
positionen und dem „dritten Typ" im Rhema durch die Art der
Kondensation bedingt wird, oder durch die Art der Präsupposi-
tion, diese und viele andere Fragen können bei der Analyse der
semantischen Struktur des Satzes nicht außer Acht gelassen werden.
Probleme einer anderen Art, auf die wir hier nicht eingehen kön-
nen, sind mit der „Emphase" im weitesten Sinn verbunden (vgl.
den Begriff „podöerkivanije", mit dem Apresjan und andere arbei-
ten, weiter besonders WORTH, 1964, KIEFER, 1967, DAHL 1969, § 6).
Andere Probleme bietet die Struktur des Fragesatzes, in dem die
TRG in einer mehr nüancierten Beziehung zur semantischen Struk-
tur steht (vgl. z. B. KRÍZKOVÁ, 1968; jetzt vor allem FIRBAS, 1970).
Der andere Themenkreis, der die Stellung der TRG auf der
Achse der dritten Dimension betrifft, umfaßt, wie oben gesagt, die
Beziehungen der TRG zu „größeren" Einheiten als der des Satzes,
also zur „Hypersyntax". Für die Verbindung der Lehre über die
TRG mit der Textsyntax (vgl. DRESSLER, 1970) hat unter den
neueren Arbeiten die Klassifikation der „thematischen Reihen",
die DANE§ (1968, 1970) formuliert hat, eine große Bedeutung. Wir
möchten hier nur zwei Bemerkungen hinzufügen, die verwandte
Fragen betreifen.
Wenn man die Synonymie zwischen einem Satz und einer Kette
von Sätzen (vgl. SGALL, 1967, 212f) untersucht (samt der Funktion
der Wörter wie deshalb, also, trotzdem, des Strichpunktes usw.),
sollte man auch die TRG der betreffenden Sätze in Betracht ziehen
(in Verbindung mit den „thematischen Reihen"). Das ist notwen-
dig, wenn wir Kriterien finden wollen, die darüber entscheiden, ob
und wie die gegebene Kette von Sätzen durch einen einzigen Satz
paraphrasiert werden kann (und umgekehrt); eine solche Analyse
wird für die verschiedensten Fragen der semantischen Struktur des
Textes von Bedeutung sein.
Einen anderen Ausgangspunkt für das Studium der Beziehungen
zwischen der TRG und der Textstruktur bietet der oben (§2.11)
charakterisierte Unterschied zwischen den beiden ersten Schichten
der TRG. Während die Grundschicht keine Elemente der Konsitua-

Authenticated
tion voraussetzt, ist die zweite Schicht eben durch solche Elemente
bedingt. In der neueren transformationalistischen Terminologie
kann man sagen, daß ein Satz, dessen TRG zur Grundschicht ge-
hört, eine gewisse Menge von Präsuppositionen enthält, die durch
die lexikalischen Elemente und durch die eigene Struktur des
Satzes bestimmt werden. Daneben besteht jedoch noch eine dritte
Art von Präsuppositionen (vgl. SGALL-HAJIÈOVA, 1970, § 5), die
durch die TRG des Satzes bestimmt werden, nämlich durch die von
ihren Elementen, die zur zweiten Schicht gehören. Ein Satz, der
zur zweiten Schicht gehört, unterscheidet sich also vom entspre-
chenden Satz der Grundschicht in semantischer Hinsicht dadurch,
daß er zusätzliche Präsuppositionen aufweist; ζ. B. der Satz „Einen
Film von Forman habe ich gestern gesehen" unterscheidet sich
vom Satz „Gestern habe ich einen Film von Forman gesehen"
(wenn sie beide mit normaler Intonation gesprochen werden) da-
durch, daß er voraussetzt, daß der semantische Komplex „ein Film
von Forman" im „pool of presuppositions" (DAHL, 1970) enthalten
ist.
2.2 Mehr Konkretes kann man über die Stellung der TRG im
System einer Sprachbeschreibung sagen, wenn man über Typen
von Sprachbeschreibungen spricht, die explizit formuliert sind, wo
also die Beziehungen zwischen den einzelnen Bestandteilen (Ebe-
nen, Regelmengen usw.) klar ausgeprägt sind und strenger kon-
trolliert werden können. Wo diese Bedingungen erfüllt sind, ist es
schon möglich, eine formale Explikation einzelner syntaktischer
und semantischer Begriffe anzustreben. Wir möchten hier ganz
kurz zwei von solchen Beschreibungstypen erörtern, nämlich die
transformationelle und die stratifikative (funktionelle) Beschrei-
bung.
2.21 In der Transformationsgrammatik wurde der Begriff des
Themas (topic) wohl zuerst in Chomskys Aspects of the Theory of
Syntax erwähnt, die Unadäquatheit dieser Bemerkung wurde aber
bald bemerkt (STAAL, 1967; DAHL, 1969, 1 2 - 1 5 ) . CHOMSKY (1968)
und einige seiner Schüler (LAKOFF, 1965, 1969, FILLMORE, 1970,
JACKENDOFF, 1969) haben dann neue Formulierungen gesucht. Da-
neben stehen wichtige Arbeiten, die mit der eigenen Chomsky

Authenticated
68 P. SGALL
Schule nicht so eng zusammenhängen: wir haben schon einige von

ihnen erwähnt.
Es wird da allgemein anerkannt — wenn auch in verschiedener
Terminologie — daß Erscheinungen, die wir zur TRG rechnen, in
der semantischen Repräsentation des Satzes wiedergegeben werden
sollen. Die Fragen der Operatoren (Quantifikation, Negation) wer-
den oft von denen der eigenen TRG getrennt; wir haben in SGALL -
- HAJICOVÁ, 1970, § 5, versucht zu zeigen, daß man zu einer ein-
facheren Beschreibung kommen kann, wenn man die Operatoren
mit der TRG verknüpft und ihren Bereich eben durch ihre Stellung
in der Hierarchie des kommunikativen Dynamismus beschreibt.
Die Anordnung der lexikalischen Elemente in der semantischen
Repräsentation des Satzes (oder in der Tiefenstruktur) kann man
als Grundlage für das formale Explicatum der Hierarchie des kom-
munikativen Dynamismus in der Grundschicht der TRG halten,
die zweite Schicht der TRG kann mittels Regeln der Thematisierung
(topicalization) formal gefaßt (expliziert) werden, und wahrschein-
lich sollte man auch mit Regeln der Rhematisierung arbeiten (min-
destens für die dritte Schicht der TRG). Es sollte sich jedoch nicht
um Transformationsregeln, deren Applikation doch wohl keine
semantischen Effekte haben soll (dazu s. auch KATZ, 1970, 222),
handeln, sondern um Formationsregeln innerhalb der semantischen
Komponente (oder der Basis); die jetzige Form der Phrasenstruk-
turregeln ist allerdings für diese Regeln nicht geeignet, denn ihre
Applikation muß vom Bestand des „pool of presuppositions" ab-
hängen (vgl. hier den letzten Absatz des § 2.13).
Außerhalb der Hierarchie des kommunikativen Dynamismus
sollte wahrscheinlich die Gliederung des Satzes in Thema und Rhe-
ma formal expliziert werden (um nicht nur die Skala, sondern auch
die Dichotomie beschreiben zu können). Zu diesem Zweck könnte
man die Hypothese von Ross und Sadock benützen, nach der jeder
Satz in seiner semantischen Repräsentierung einen „performati-
ven" Matrixsatz von der Form „Ich sage dir S" enthält. Wenn wir
auf die enge Beziehung zwischen der TRG und der Syntax der
Verba dicendi zurückgreifen (vgl. § 1 und die Formulierungen wie
„worüber man spricht = Thema", „was man darüber sagt =

Authenticated
= Rhema"), könnten wir eine einfache formale Explikation der

Dichotomie darin sehen, daß der Matrixsatz die Form „Ich sage
dir über NP, daß S" haben sollte (wobei S ein Element enthalten
muß, das zum NP referiert). Es sind jedoch mit dieser Annahme
einige Schwierigkeiten verbunden, auf die wir hier nicht mehr aus-
führlicher eingehen können: es müßte zuerst die Beziehung dieses
Matrixsatzes zu den Regeln der Thematisierung (also auch zu Sät-
zen wie „Daß er sich gut benimmt, habe ich über Karl nicht ge-
sagt") analysiert werden; auch die Deutung der Existenzverba und
der Situationskulisse wird hier an Schwierigkeiten stoßen (für den
ersten diesen beiden Typen könnte man zwar mit einem „Null-
thema" arbeiten, vgl. ζ. B. ADAMEC, 1966, §22, für den zweiten
wäre aber auch das keine Lösung). Die Stellung dieses Matrix-
satzes in verschiedenen Typen von Satzgefügen ist noch nicht ganz
klar (vgl. STAAL, 1970, über Sätze, die mehrere performative Ma-
trixsätze an verschiedenen Niveaus der Einbettung enthalten).
2.22 Was die funktionelle generative Sprachbeschreibung be-
trifft, in der die Ebenen (ähnlich wie im stratifikativen System von
S. M. Lamb) von der semantischen bis zur phonetischen linear
geordnet sind, wurde eine Möglichkeit der Beschreibung der T R G
zuerst in SGALL ( 1 9 6 7 ) versucht (vgl. jetzt auch SGALL - HAJICOVÁ,
1970). Wir können dazu folgendes hinzufügen: Die Grundschicht
der T R G kann in einem solchen System dadurch beschrieben wer-
den, daß drei Teilmengen von Regeln der generativen Komponente
unterschieden werden (d. h. von Regeln, die die semantische Struk-
tur der Sätze spezifizieren):
(a) Regeln, die Syntagmen mit der Anordnung Regens post Rec-
tum entsprechen (z. B. Agens—Aktion, oder Situationskulisse —
Aktion); diese Anordnung wird so interpretiert, daß das regierende
Wort eine größere Ladung des kommunikativen Dynamismus trägt
als das abhängige Wort im Syntagma;
(b) Regeln für Syntagmen mit der Anordnung Rectum post Re-
gens (für Syntagmen wie z. B. „Nastupila vesna", oder „citat'
knigu");
(c) Regeln, bei denen beide Anordnungen in der Grundschicht
der T R G gleichberechtigt sind.

Authenticated
70 P. SGALL
Es müssen auch Bedingungen hinzugefügt werden (z. B. zur De-

finition eines Syntagmas), die eine Anordnung der von demselben
Wort abhängigen Satzglieder ausschließen, die in der Grundschicht
der T R G nicht vorkommt.
Die Thematisierung (in der zweiten Schicht der TRG) würde
dann dadurch in die Beschreibung eingegliedert, daß — nach einer
allgemeinen Regel — die Stellung der Wörter im Typ (a) und (b)
umgetauscht werden kann, wenn nur das Wort, das in der Grund-
schicht nach dem anderen stehen sollte, zu einem Element referiert,
das im „pool of presuppositions" enthalten ist.
Eine weitere Frage betrifft die Fälle, wo Elemente, die in der
Oberflächenstruktur ihre eigene Rolle im Verhältnis zur T R G spie-
len (die in der Wortfolge oder Intonation verschiedene Positionen
haben können), in der semantischen Repräsentation dagegen nur
als Bestandteile von komplexen Symbolen auftreten. Für diese
Fälle ist es nicht ausreichend, die Hierarchie des kommunikativen
Dynamismus mittels der Anordnung der Symbole der semanti-
schen Repräsentation zu beschreiben. Wie BENESOVÁ (vorb.) am
Beispiel der modalen Verben zeigt, kann hier die Thematisierung
und die Rhematisierung solcher Elemente mit Hilfe von spezieller
Symbole bezeichnet werden, die dann beim Übergang zur Ober-
flächenstruktur (morphematischen Ebene) die Stellung der betref-
fenden Ausdrucksmittel in der Wortfolge und (oder) ihre Intona-
tion bestimmen. Eine solche Beschreibung sollte vielleicht für die
Rhematisierung auch in anderen Fällen (auch bei semantisch selb-
ständigen Wörtern) angewendet werden. (Was die Thematisierung
betrifft, ist es noch nachzuprüfen, ob sie die unselbständigen Ele-
mente wirklich betreffen kann.) Auf diese Weise könnte man viele
unprojektive Wortfolgetypen in die Beschreibung ohne grundsätz-
liche Schwierigkeiten eingliedern (denn die Abweichungen von der
Projektivität betreffen dann nicht die höheren Ebenen, und auf der
morphematischen Ebene arbeitet man mit keinem Abhängigkeits-
baum, sodaß hier die Frage der Projektivität irrelevant ist).
Diese Beschreibungsweise kann dann adäquat sein, wenn die
am Ende des § 2.11 formulierte Hypothese gilt. Ob man in einer
Sprachbeschreibung, die mit der Abhängigkeitssyntax arbeitet,

Authenticated
auch mit einem performativen Matrixsatz rechnen kann, ist noch

nachzuprüfen. Auch die Darstellung der Präsuppositionen wurde
bisher nicht formal erfaßt.
Für jede Sprachbeschreibung gibt es mehrere Fragen, die erst
empirisch gelöst werden müssen (vgl. besonders die im § 2.11 und
2.13 erwähnten Probleme), d. h. in denen man das Niveau der
„deskriptiven Adäquatheit" noch nicht erreicht hat. In der Bewer-
tung der einzelnen Beschreibungstypen muß man also heute auch
das Maß berücksichtigen, in dem jeder Beschreibungstyp dazu ver-
hilft, für die empirische Forschung relevante Fragen klar zu stellen.
3. Zum Abschluß können wir unsere vorläufigen Entwürfe
folgendermaßen zusammenfassen: Als das Explicandum (den
präsystematischen Inhalt des Termins „Thema-Rhema-Glie-
derung") nehmen wir den Unterschied zwischen dem, wovon
man spricht (dem Thema, bzw. auch der Situationskulisse), und
dem, was man darüber sagt (Rhema). Dieser Unterschied ist viel-
leicht jeder (zweigliedrigen) Prädikation eigen; bei den mehr oder
weniger deprädikationsartigen (kondensierten) Konstruktionen und
Formen muß man jedoch daneben auch weniger auffällige Stufen
des kommunikativen Dynamismus in Betracht ziehen. Als eine
Grundlage für das entsprechende formale Explicatum schlagen wir
zwei Beziehungen vor: einerseits die Anordnung, die man „Wort-
folge der Tiefenstruktur" (oder genauer die Folge der Elemente
der semantischen Satzstruktur) nennen könnte, andererseits den
Unterschied zwischen den beiden Objekten des performativen Ma-
trixsatzes: „Über Obj t sage ich dir (hier jetzt), daß Obj 2 " (wo Obj 2
ein Satz ist, der als eines seiner Elemente eine Kopie von Obj t ent-
hält); dabei entspricht Obj t dem Thema, Obj 2 dem Rhema und die
erwähnte Anordnung der hierarchischen Skala des kommunikati-
ven Dynamismus. Es handelt sich allerdings nur um Vorschläge,
deren Berechtigung in mancher Hinsicht noch nachgeprüft werden
muß und deren explizite Formulierung noch nicht vorhanden liegt.

Authenticated
72 P. SGALL
LITERATURVERZEICHNIS
ADAMEC, P., Porjadok slov ν sovremennom russkom jazyke. Praha 1966.

BENES, E., On Two Aspects of Functional Sentence Perspective, TLP 3,
1968, 267-274.
BENES, E., Über zwei Aspekte der funktionalen Satzperspektive. In: Actes
du Xe Congrès international des linguistes II, Bucarest 1970, 1021 —
1062.
BENESOVÂ, E., (vorb.). Nëkteré otázky aktuálního ôlenëni a slovosledu
ν ôeâtinë (Einige Fragen der aktuellen Satzgliederung und der Wortfolge
im Tschechischen], AUC, Slavica Pragensia 13, 1971, 179—198.
BREKLE, H. E., Generative Satzsemantik und transformationeile Syntax im
System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München 1970.
CHOMSKY, N . , Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpreta-
tion. (Vervielfältigt.) 1968, jetzt in CHOMSKY (1972), 62—119.
D A H L , Ö . , Topic and Comment: A Study in Russian and General Transforma-
tional Grammar. Göteborg 1969.
D A H L , Ö., Some Presuppositions about Presuppositions. (Vervielf.) 1970,
DANES, F., Order of Elements and Sentence Intonation. In: To Honor Roman
Jakobson, The Hague 1967, 499—512.
DANES, F., Typy tematickych posloupnosti Ν textu [Types of Thematic
Progressions in Texts], SaS 29, 1968, 125-141.
DANE§, F., Some Thoughts on the Semantic Structure of the Sentence,
Lingua 21, 1968a, 5 5 - 6 9 .
DANES, F . , Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur, Folia Linguistica 4 ,
1970, 4 9 - 5 6 .
DOKULIL, M . - DANES, F . , Κ tzv. vyznamové a mluvnické stavbë vëty [Zu der
sogenannten semantischen und grammatischen Satzstruktur]. In: O vë-
deckém poznáni soudobych jazykû, Prag 1958, 231 — 246.
DRESSLER, W., Modelle und Methoden der Textsyntax, Folia linguistica 4,
1970.
FILLMORE, J . C . , Subjects, Speakers and Roles. In: Working Papers in Lin-
guistics 4, 1970, 31 — 63, Ohio State University, jetzt in Synthese 21,
1970, 251-274.
FIRBAS, J., On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis, TLP 1,
1964, 267-280.
FIRBAS, J., On the Function of the Question in the Act of Communication,
1970 (vervielfältigt für das Seminar über komplexe grammatische Syste-
me, Cambridge, Mass.), jetzt russisch in Voprosy jazykoznanija 1972,
No. 2, 5 5 - 6 5 .
FIRBAS, J., On the Interplay of Means of Functional Sentence Perspective.
In: Actes du Xe Congrès internat, des linguistes II, Bucarest 1970a,
741-745.

Authenticated
GLADNEY, F. M., (vorb.), handschriftliche Arbeit über Fragen der Intona-

tion im Russischen.
G R U B E R , J . S . , Topicalization in Child Language, FL 3 , 1 9 6 7 , 3 7 — 5 6 .
H A J I Í O V Á , E., 1971. Some Remarks on Presupposition, vorgetr. an der Kon-
ferenz "Computational Linguistics", Debrecen; auch in PBML 17, 1972,
11-23.
HAJICOVÁ, E., 1974. Meaning, Presupposition, and Allegation, PhP 17, No. 1.
HAJICOVÁ, E. (vorb.), Negace a presupozice ve vyznamové stavbë vëty (Nega-
tion und Präsupposition in der Satzsemantik), Academia, Prag.
H A L L I D A Y , M . A . K . , Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, JL 3 ,
1967, 3 7 - 8 1 , 1 9 9 - 2 4 4 ; 4, 1968, 179-215.
HATCHER, A. G., Syntax and the Sentence, Word 12, 1956, 234—250.
H E I D O L P H , K. E., Kontextbeziehungen zwischen Sätzen in einer generativen
Grammatik, Kybernetika 3, 1966, 274—281.
H O R Á L E K , Κ . , Filosofie jazyka. Prag 1967.
HoREjäf, V., Les plans linguistiques et la structure de l'énoncé, PhP 4,1961,
193-203.
JACKENDOFF, R. S., An Interpretive Theory of Negation, FL 5, 1969,
218-241.
JAKOBSON, R., Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre, TCLP 6, 1963, 240—288.
K A T Z , J . J . , Interpretative Semantics vs. Generative Semantics, FL 6 , 1 9 7 0 ,
220-259.
KIEFER, F., On Emphasis and Word Order in Hungarian. Bloomington 1 9 6 7 .
KRÍZKOVÁ, H . , Tázací vëta a nëkteré problémy tzv. aktuálního (kontexto-
vého) dlenëni [Der Fragesatz und Probleme der aktuellen Gliederung],
Nase fee 51, 1968, 2 0 0 - 2 1 0 .
LAKOFF, G . , Passives, Adverbs and Quantifiers. In: Mathematical Lin-
guistics and Automatic Translation, 1965, Rep. NSF-16, F-l —F-48.
LAKOFF, G., On Derivational Constraints. In: Papers from the 5th Reg.
Meeting, Chicago Ling. Society, 1969, 117—139.
M A R C U S , S., Sur la notion de projectivité, Zeitschr.f. math. Logik u. Gründl,
d. Math. 11, 1965, 1 8 1 - 1 9 2 .
MATHESIUS, V . , Obsahovy rozbor soucasné angliètiny na zàkladë obeenë
lingvistickém [A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on General
Linguistic Basis], herausg. v. J. Vachek, Prag 1961.
SEUREN, P. A. M., Operators and Nucleus. Cambridge 1969.
SGALL, P., Functional Sentence Prespective in a Generative Description,
PSML 2, 1967, 2 0 3 - 2 2 5 .
SGALL, P., L'ordre des mots et la sémantique. In: Studies in Syntax and Se-
mantics, Dordrecht 1969, 231 — 240.
SGALL, P. - HAJICOVÁ, E., 1970. A "Functional" Generative Description,
PBML 14, 3 - 3 8 .
STAAL, J. F., Some Semantic Relations between Sentoids, FL 3,1967, 66—88.

Authenticated
74 P. SGALL
ST AAL, J. F. .Performatives and Token-Reflexives, Linguistic Inquiry 1,1970.

No. 3, 373-381.
SVOBODA, Α., The Hierarchy of Communicative Units and Fields as Illu-
strated by English Attributive Constructions, BSE 7, 1967, 49—101.
TRNKA, B.: On the Linguistic Sign and the Multilevel Organization of Lan-
guage, TLP 1, 33—40.
UHLÍftovÁ, L., (vorb.), Kvantitativni rozbor vëty a vypovëdi ν ôeStinë.
[Quantitative Analyse des Satzes und der Aussage im Tschechischen],
1970, handschriftliche Dissertation über statistische Bezeihungen der
TRG zur syntaktischen Struktur des Satzes (Institut der tschechischen
Sprache, Tschechosl. Akad. d. Wiss.).
WEINREICH, U., On the Semantic Structure of Language. In: Universals of
Language (J. H. Greenberg, ed.), 1963, 114—171, Cambridge, Mass.
WORTH, D. S., Suprasyntactics. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International
Congress of Linguistics, 1964, 698—704, London—The Hague —
Paris.
ZATORSKI, R. J., Grammatical Relations and the Structure of the Categorial
Aspects-Type Base, Linguistics 55, 1970, 70—81.
ZEMB, J. M., Les structures logiques de la propositoin allemande. Paris, 1968.

Authenticated
TOPIC - COMMENT STRUCTURE IN A GENERATIVE
GRAMMAR WITH A SEMANTIC BASE
Osten Dahl (Göteborg)
During the last few years, the adherents of generative grammar

have split into a few major "schools". One of these, headed by lin-
guists such as G. Lakoff, J. McCawley and J. R. Ross, calls itself
"Generative Semantics". The most important theoretical assump-
tion that characterizes this school is the identification of the seman-
tic representation of logical form of a sentence and its deepest
underlying grammatical structure. What I have tried to do is to
integrate the description of topic-comment structure into a theory
of this type.
The following points sum up the main claims that I want to make:
1. It is necessary to assume that topic-comment structure is to
be accounted for in the semantic representation of the sentence and
is not merely a surface phenomenon.
2. Topic-comment structure can be regarded as the reflection of
some fundamental aspects of the semantic representation or logical
form of the sentence, as outlined below:
In the semantic representation of a sentence, there are normally
two main parts, the topic, where we name or define a set or an
individual, and the comment, which is a propositional function
"predicated" about this set or individual. Thus, I would argue that
the logical forms of sentences are best rendered by a notation simi-
lar to that used in set theory, i.e., the sentence
(1) My brothers are drunkards
might be quasi-formally represented as
(2) Let A = {χ I χ is my brother}. Then, for every χ such that χ is
in Α, χ is a drunkard.

Authenticated
76 ö . DAHL
Some arguments for these claims are the following:

1. In languages like Russian, where topic-comment structure is
one of the major factors for determining intonation and word
order, it is quite striking to what extent one can match logical forms
and "types of topic-comment structure" (what Adamec 1966 calls
aktual'no-sintaksiceskie tipy). To take some simple examples, the
sentence KoroV — bogac "The king is a rich man" defines an in-
dividual, "the king", and assigns to him the property "to be a rich
man", whereas Bogac — korol' defines an individual, "the rich
man" and assigns to him the property "to be King". Kniga — na
stole "The book is on the table" defines the individual entity "the
book" and predicates about it the property "to be on the table",
whereas Na stole — kniga defines a place, "on the table", and asserts
the existence of a book in this place, Èensciny rabotajut "the
women work (are working)", defines a class, "the women", and
asserts about this class the propositional function "the members
of χ work". Rabotajut zensciny "It's the women who work", on
the other hand, defines the class {χ | works} and assigns to the
members of this class the property "x is a woman".
Noun phrases in topic position are typically definite or generic,
which exactly corresponds to the individual and set descriptions we
have talked about, whereas noun phrases in comment position are
often what I have called "existential indefinites", i.e. assert the
existence of the entity denoted by the NP, e.g. knigu in the Russian
sentence Ja kupil knigu " I bought a book". What have been called
"topicless sentences" are mostly sentences having the logical form
of an existential proposition, e.g. Suscestvujut belje medvedi "There
exist white bears", which do not contain set descriptions of the
type talked about above.
2. Consider the following sentences:
(3) (a) Only I love my wife.
(b) My wife is loved by me only.
(4) (a) Zena rugaet Ivanova — Menja toze. "Ivanov's wife scolds
him — Me too"
(b) Ivanova rugaet zena — Menja toze. "Ivanov is scolded by
his wife — I too"

Authenticated
T O P I C — C O M M E N T I N A GENERATIVE G R A M M A R 77
The (a) sentences in each pair are ambiguous — e.g. (3a) can mean
(5) (a) I am the only person who loves his wife
(b) I am the only person who loves my wife
The (b) sentences are unambiguous — (3b) has only the interpreta-
tions (5b). The explanation I would give for these facts is approxi-
mately this: Sentence (3a) expresses a relation between the individual
I and a set, either the set "persons who love their wives" or "per-
sons who love my wife". The relation is being the only element of
the set in question. Now, the condition for this ambiguity is that
the description of the individual that is referred to by the noun
phrase my wife be contained within the other set description. If the
theory about topic-comment structure that I propose is correct, the
noun phrase my wife, if it is topic of the sentence, would neces-
sarily be outside this set description and the semantic representation
of (3b) would look like the following:
(6) Let A = {χ I χ is my wife}: Then if Β = {y | y love A}, I am
the only element of B.
As we see, in a sentence of this logical form, the ambiguity would
be impossible.
3. Sgall 1970 considers basically sound the old idea that topic is
what the sentence is about and that the comment is what is said
about the thing named in the topic. I certainly agree with this,
though I am sceptical about the representation he proposes, where
the topic is an argument of the performative assumed to be the
topmost S of every semantic representation, thus,
(7) About χ I tell you that S
Notice that this implies that the about-relation is a primitive.
I would rather like to regard it as derived from the notion of pre-
dication, where I take "predication" to denote the types of logical
forms illustrated above (e.g. (6)). Notice that taking "about" as a
primitive we still have to explain why only definites and generics
can be topics. This is not at all clear from meaning of "about", as
we can very well have indefinites after it, e.g.
(8) I am talking about a man I met last year.
I would not exclude, though, that it might be possible to derive the

Authenticated
78 ö. DAHL
constraint in question from the special properties of performative

sentences.
The idea that the topic is what the sentence is about is however
interesting from slightly other points of view. It might be thought
that in a sentence with several noun phrases it would be more or
less arbitrary to say that a certain of these NPs is what the sentence
"is about". However, it is possible to construct tests where the
intuitions of speakers are fairly consistent in this respect. One such
way of learning which N P in a sentence is what the sentence "is
about" is illustrated by the following examples:
Consider sentences of the form NP Verb NP, like
(9) John dislikes Bill.
Logicians usually say that such sentences have the logical form
(10) Fab
where F is the relation "dislike", and a and b are individual con-
stants referring to John and Bill. If we accept this, there would
really be no reason to say that the sentence is about John rather
than about Bill. Let us now add the clause ... and the same holds
true for Harry to (9). Then, if (9) can be said to "be about" Bill as
well as about John, the resulting sentence
(11) John dislikes Bill, and the same holds true for Harry
would be unambiguous, however, most speakers find it unambigu-
ous. The same in (11), for them, can refer just to the propositional
function "— dislikes Bill". Consider now the same sentence with
topicalized object:
(12) Bill John dislikes, and the same holds true for Harry
(12) turns out also to be unambiguous, but this time the same can
refer only to the propositional function "John dislikes — ". The
conclusions to be made seem to be the following: The logical nota-
tion Fab is not adequate to render the meaning of sentences like
(9) or (12). The semantic representation of these sentences must in
some way make clear that (9) is about John, whereas the first
clause of (12) is about Bill.
How the assumed semantic representations are to be linked with
the respective surface manifestations of the sentences is rather un-
clear. It is usually considered that we have a basic word order that

Authenticated
TOPIC — COMMENT IN A GENERATIVE GRAMMAR 79
is modified by various transformations like topicalization and pas-

sivization, as a result of which different topic-comment structures
arise. The hypotheses I have put forward imply, however, that the
surface word order is a reflection of the hierarchical organization
of the underlying structure. This seems to imply in its turn that the
idea of transformations that modify topic-comment structure is
wrong. However, it is rather hard to state the rules that we would
have instead. Moreover, the transformational character of at least
some of the rules assumed in the earlier theory seems to be rather
indisputable.
I would agree with Sgall's (1970) claim that the problem of re-
presenting topic and comment and the problem how to describe
quantifiers in a grammar are really the same thing. Lakoff (1969) has
proposed a theory of derivational constraints to account for the
fact that the surface order of quantifiers normally coincides with
the order of quantifiers in the semantic representation. It might be
possible to extend this type of solution to the description of topic-
comment relations. This would mean that we would have a general
constraint on derivations to the effect that a derivation is well-
formed only if the order of the surface elements is the same as the
order of the elements in the underlying structure.
Thus, we might have cases where the original order is destroyed
by some rule such as NP-lowering (that is, the assumed rule that
moves down the set and individual descriptions into the proposi-
tional functions) and then restored by a later rule, e.g. Topicaliza-
tion.
This hypothesis certainly needs further qualification and empiri-
cal support.
REFERENCES
ADAMEC, P., Porjadok slov ν sovremennom russkom jazyke. Rozpravy Ces-

koslovenskê akademie vëd, rada spoleòenskych vëd, Praha 1966.
D A H L , Ö . , Topic and Comment. A Study in Russian and General Transforma-
tional Grammar. Slavica Gothoburgensia 4. Acta Universitatis Gotho-
burgensis 1969. Distr.: Almkvist and Wikseil, Stockholm.
DAHL, ö . , Studies in Russian and General Transformational Grammar, Göte-
borg 1970. (Thesis in summary form, available from the author.)

Authenticated
80 Ö. D A H L
(in press). On Sets and Propositional Functions in Grammar. To

DAHL, Ö . ,
appear in Scando-Slavica 16. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
LAKOFF, G., On Derivational Constraints. In: Papers from the 5th Regional
Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Binnick et al., ed.). Dept. of
Linguistics, University of Chicago 1969.
SGALL, P., Zur Stellung der Thema-Rhema-Gliederung in der Sprachbe-
schreibung, 1970, pp. 54—74 in this volume.

Authenticated
TWO PROBLEMS OF TOPIC - COMMENT
László Dezsö - Görgy Szépe (Budapest)
1. ON THE UNIVERSAL CHARACTER

OF TOPIC-COMMENT RULES
1.1. Let us ask the following question: is the topic-comment rela-

tion universal? The universal character of Topic - Comment has
been mentioned by Ch. F. Hockett: "Every human language has a
common clause type with bipartite structure in which the consti-
tuents can reasonably be termed 'topic' and 'comment'. 1 If we
accept that the topic-comment is universal we have to ask whether
it is a formal or substantive universal.
I
Our tentative answer is the following: (i) topic - comment is a sub-
stantive universal of semiotical order, i.e. covers an area where
language falls into the same class with zoo-semiotical systems and
with secondary sign systems (represented by arts, games etc.). The
language specific topic - comment relation is thus ipso facto a sub-
stantive human language universal, of course, but there are some
major open questions in this respect. Inasmuch as none of the topic-
comment-like notions (psychological subject, psychological pre-
dicate; actual division of sentences, topic - comment) was born
within the framework of a grammatical theory, t o p i c - c o m m e n t
t h e o r y needs a c o m p l e t e r e f o r m u l a t i o n w i t h i n any
d e f i n e d g r a m m a t i c a l t h e o r y (such as generative theory
preferred by us). But this requirement is doubleedged, so we claim
1
HOCKETT, CH. F., The problem of universale in language. In: Universali
of language (J. H. Greenberg, ed.), Cambridge, Mass. 1963.

Authenticated
82 L. DESZÓ - G. SZÉPE
that any g r a m m a t i c a l t h e o r y needs r e f o r m u l a t i o n if it

t r i e s to cover the t o p i c - c o m m e n t r e l a t i o n .
For the moment let us assume that the deep structure is a well
defined subset of rules. Then let us assume another subset of rules,
that of the syntactic transformations.
Now, if we look closer at the syntactic transformations then we
find the following apparently isolated minor characteristics —
among other major ones: (i) some rules are order-oriented, i.e.
their only effect is upon the order of the elements of the string, and
(ii) some rules may be divided into two parts: (a) substitution of
symbols; (b) re-arrangement of symbols. The ordering and re-
ordering are language-specific, but their mere existence (with some
few features) is universal.
Saussurean linguistics stressed the linear character of the verbal
sign systems. Now in our framework we must consider that:
(i) surface structure is the outcome of a linearization; so s u r f a c e
s t r u c t u r e is an a l r e a d y l i n e a r i z e d s y m b o l system;
(ii) furthermore linearization is carried by the syntactic transfor-
mations;
(iii) t h a t p a r t of the g r a m m a t i c a l m e t a - t h e o r y which
r e g u l a t e s the general o r d e r i n g a s p e c t of the s y n t a c t i c
t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s is f i l l e d by the t o p i c - c o m m e n t rules;
(iv) must be somehow connected with more general rules
valid for all kinds of sign systems.
1.2. We have to differentiate three groups of rules.
1. Primary ordering rules applied to deep structure and having
as an output the primary order of sentence corresponding roughly
to the Subject-Predicate division, e.g:
Péter (topic) irja a levelet (comment)
"Peter is writing the letter."
or
Péter (topic) levelet ir (comment)
"Peter is letter-writing".
2. Context rules adjusting word order to the context, if it is
necessary, e.g.:
A levelet (topic) Péter irja (comment)

Authenticated
TWO PROBLEMS OF TOPIC — COMMENT 83
In this sentence it must be that the word levél "letter" has been
mentioned in the foregoing context.
Az utcân âllt (topic) egyfiú (comment)
"There was a boy standing in the street" (i.e. "In the street
there stood a boy")
where utca "street" is known anáfiú "boy" is novel; and
3. emphatic rules, which may be applied after both primary and
contextual rules; e.g.:
Péter ir ja a levelet
"It is Peter who is writing the letter"
or
A levelet ir ja Péter
"It's the letter that Peter is writing"
where the word levelet "letter" is both mentioned and stressed.
These examples may be misleading and insufficiently developed
as they stand, but the complexity of the stress, focus and topic-
comment rules and the tight interwoven character of the entire
system make it impossible to thoroughly specify the working of
the rules at this point. 2 Rather we wish to continue on to a study
of the ontogenesis of topic - comment.
2. ON THE GENESIS OF TOPIC - COMMENT RULES
2.1. For a proper understanding of the genesis of the topic-com-

ment relation, it would be advisable to study not only the onto-
genesis of topic-comment in child language but also the possible
sources of this relationship in animal communication. The former
will however occupy our present interest. First among the questions
to be considered is the relation of the above stated order of de-
rivation of the three sets of topic - comment rules and the sequence
of their acquisition in the language learning of children. If we as-
2
For details see DEZSÖ, L., SZÉPE, GY. Adalékok a topic-comment pro-
blémához. Nyelvtudományi Kôzlemények 69 (1967), 356—388, its English
version: Contribution to the topic-comment problem. Papers in Text linguistics
(Ed. by ö . Dahl) (forthcoming).

Authenticated
84 L. DESZÔ - G . SZÉPE
sume that the three sets of tules apply in the following order during
the course of derivation: (1) primary rules, (2) context rules, and
(3) emphatic rules, we can pose the following questions: Does it
also necessarily follow that they are logically connected to each
other in a similar order? Should the primary rules in the language
of children attain priority over the context and emphasis rules?
Thus do they (i.e. the primary rules) appear earlier in their speech?
In the earliest infantile monomorphemic utterances, we find that
comment plays a predominant role while topic is either evident in
the communicative context or otherwise excluded from linguistic
expression. Two examples may be adduced from a monolingual
Serbo-Croatian speaking child of 15 months who says:
bu-bu (ljubi) "like", i.e. "I like my game", the other element of
comment is expressed by gesture
or
bibe (cipele) "shoe" 3 i.e. "Give me the shoe", the other element
of comment is expressed by gesture.
At this stage one cannot speak of a system of rules governing the
topic-comment relationship, however the child already evidences
a system which may be characterized as a set of proto-primary
rules, since it is from these rules that the primary rules later should
develop. Paralleling the development of the basic rules, but stag-
gerred at later times in terms of a developmental sequence, we find
the appearance of context and then emphasis rules. In order to
form a proper understanding of these rules we must also take into
consideration the characteristics of the speech situation and the
elocutionary act.
The primary topic - comment rules are to be applied to the struc-
tures represented in terms of the components of the deep structure
which may also be characterized by such terms as Agent, Locative
etc. The exact nature of these components however, in the earliest
3
For a more detailed analysis of these examples see Vlahovió, P. —
MikeS, M. - Dezsô, L., Développement des constructions de complément d'objet
et de lieu dans le langage des enfantes serbocroate et hongrois. Colloquium
paedolinguisticum (Ed. K. Ohnesorg), The Hague 1972, 260—269.

Authenticated
TWO PROBLEMS O F TOPIC — C O M M E N T 85
phases of language acquisition must be reconsidered to some ex-

tent, for we cannot assume as an a priori fact that the child em-
bodies the adult deep structure component system in toto. The ap-
plication of topic-comment rules can be detected in various word
order and stress regularities of the surface structure.
2.2. We must also investigate into the nature of the relation between
topic - comment rules and the surface structure categories of the
sentence "Satzglieder" such as Subject and Object. The primary
topic - comment rules seem to occur earlier in the acquisition of
language than the formation of such categories of surface structure
as Subject and Object. It is possible to speak of underlying Agent
and Goal in child language before the acquisition of morpho-
logical (or strictly ordered sequential) means of representation
of the surface categories Subject and Object. For example: a 16-
month-old bilingual (Hungarian and Serbo-Croatian speaking)
child says
apu tiitü ("father water") in the context where the father is to
bring the child water. Thus the adult Hungarian translation
would be: Apu, hozz vizet "Father bring me some water". 4
In this utterance the underlying deep structure components are not
expressed through formal means such as morphological marking
in the surface structure. Nonetheless understanding or interpreta-
tion of the sentence is only possible through the postulation of deep
structure categories of Agent and Goal (or Object). If we rely only
upon the information of the surface structure data, we can interpret
this sentence in a variety of different ways, for instance "Father is
drinking water", "Father is in the water", or "Father is being
sprayed by water". However, we are limited by accurate perception
of the elocutionary act and of the speech situation in our selection
of possible underlying categories.
We have focussed our attention only upon the sequence of ac-
quisition of the topic - comment rules and have not fully considered
4
F o r a m o r e detailed analysis see MikeS, M . - D e z s ô , L. - V l a h o v i c , P.,
Sentence-programming span in child language. Colloquium paedolinguisticum
(Ed. K. Ohnesorg), The Hague 1972, 166-178.

Authenticated
86 L. DESZÖ - G. SZÉPE
the various means available in the surface structure for the expres-
sion of these rules such as word order, case markings, agreement
between verb and noun and various larger sentence construc-
tions.

Authenticated
FUNKTIONELLE SATZPERSPEKTIVE
UND TEXTTHEORIE
Wolfgang Dressler (Wien)
1. Die Theorie der FSP wird von vielen Textlinguisten vernach-

lässingt.1 Dies muß jeden schmerzlich berühren, der, wie der Be-
richterstatter,2 durch das Studium der FSP zur Textlinguistik ge-
langt ist. Dennoch möchte ich diesen Bericht nicht dazu benützen,
in erster Linie die verkannte Bedeutung der FSP hervorzuheben,
denn erstens haben dies berufenere Linguisten schon oft getan;
zweitens darf ich hier eine Vertrautheit mit den Arbeiten zur Rolle
der FSP in den übersatzmäßigen Bezügen voraussetzen. M. E. ist
es für die Forschung nützlicher, wenn ich die FSP einer möglichst
gründlichen und herausfordernden Kritik unterziehe, wobei ich
über P. SGALLS (1967,203 - 8; 1969,67f. ) Kritik einigermassen hin-
auszugehen suche.
Der Standpunkt, von dem aus ich kritisiere, ist einerseits der der
Prager Schule, andererseits der einer Sprachbetrachtung, die wie
die verschiedenen Schulen der generativen Semantik,3 P. SGALLS
( 1 9 6 9 ) Modell, die stratifikationelle Grammatik (cf. SGALL 1969;
4
TABER 1966) und entwickeltere Modelle der Dependenzgrammatik
von der Bedeutung ausgehen, ihr die Syntax unterordnen und die
Oberflächenstrukturen beobachtbarer Sätze durch Transforma-
1
Wertvolle Förderung verdanke ich Diskussionen nach textlinguistischen
Vorträgen in Bratislava, Wien, Salzburg, Berkeley und im slawistischen Semi-
nar an der University of California, Los Angeles.
2
DRESSLER, W., Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Wien 1968, 30f.
3
Vgl. die Bibliographie von H . K R E N N - K . MÜLLER, Lingu. Berichte 5 ,
1970, 8 5 - 1 0 6 .
4
Cf. HERINGER, J., Neuhochdeutsche Syntax. München 1970.
Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
88 W. D R E S S L E R
tionen aus semantischen Basisstrukturen voraussagen.5 Dement-

sprechend versuche ich auch in der Terminologie die lingua franca
der generativen Grammatik mit den Termini der FSP zu harmoni-
sieren: So werde ich in folgendem die FSP-Termini „Thema" und
„Rhema" in derselben Bedeutung verwenden wie M. H A L L I D A Y
(1967, 1968) in seinen brillanten „Notes on transitivity and theme
in English" „given" ( = Thema) und „new information" ( = Rhe-
ma); andere sagen dafür „topic" und „comment". Thema ist das
aus dem Text Gegebene, Rhema das Neue, das der Sprecher zur
Weiterführung des Textes beisteuert. Andererseits verwende ich
„Topik" satzgrammatisch im Sinne der generativen Grammatik;
andere Termini dafür sind „Thema" (Halliday, Ammann, Boost,
Trávníóek), logisches Subjekt, so E. B E N E S (1968, 269) und nach
ihm gelegentlich J. F I R B A S (1964, 273-6). M. E. müssen „Thema"
und „Topik" unterschieden werden, wenn man Textlinguistik
sprachimmanent betreibt.
2.1. Die bisherige textlinguistische Untersuchung der FSP rankt
sich um den Begriff der „Suprasyntax". In der Suprasyntax stu-
diere man die Ebene der Äußerung (utterance) als minimaler Kom-
munikationseinheit, die über dem Satz stehe.6 Dabei wird jedoch
meist nicht klar geschieden, ob mit „über dem Satz" die hierar-
chisch höhere, ausgedehntere Text-Ebene gemeint ist, oder die
suprasegmentale Ebene,7 oder die kommunikative Ebene, oder gar
die Ebene der Stilistik.8 Damit hängt innig der bereits von
P. S G A L L (1967, 206, 213, Fn. 12) bemerkte Fehler zusammen,
suprasyntaktisch als supra- oder extragrammatisch aufzufassen,
und weiters auf der Ebene der Suprasyntax nicht zwischen „langue"
und „parole" zu unterscheiden.9
Wenn jedoch die Suprasyntax eine sprachliche Ebene darstellt,
5
Vgl. auch KOCH 1965, 1966a,b.
6
TRNKA, B „ PhPA, 1 9 6 1 , 1 3 0 , cf. TLP 1 , 37f; DANES 1 9 6 4 ; BENES 1 9 6 8 ;
J . FIRBAS spricht passim von „act of communication".
7
Nach WORTH, D. S., Proceedings of the Ninth Intern. Congress of Lin-
guists, 698ff.
8
VACHEK, J., In: Symbolae Kurylowicz, 1965, 349; HAUSENBLAS 1964.
9
Explizit TRNKA (Fn. 6), vgl. auch HAUSENBLAS 1964.

Authenticated
FS Ρ U N D TEXTTHEORIE 89
so ist die Unterscheidung zwischen „langue" und „parole" (oder

ähnlich Kompetenz und Performanz) unerlässlich. Soll sie eine
kommunikative Ebene darstellen, so muß auch dort Kompetenz
und Performanz auseinanderhalten werden, vgl. K. Pike's Be-
griff des „Behaviorems". Manche Textlinguisten unterscheiden
daher konsequent zwischen „Textern" und „Textvorkommen"
(KOCH 1966b; HARWEG 1968). Idealziel der Textgrammatik muß
es demnach sein, durch textematische Regeln alle möglichen (kor-
rekten) Textvorkommen einer gegebenen Sprache voraussagen zu
können.
2.2. Mit der mangelhaften textologischen und grammatikali-
schen Einordnung der FSP hängt auch die Praxis zusammen, daß
alle V e r t r e t e r d e r F S P , a u ß e r DANE§ (1968) 1 0 u n d PALEK (1968),
in der Regel nur isolierte Sätze betrachten. 10 " Ganz im Sinne der
Satzgrammatik sprechen sie von der Parole-Einbettung der FSP
in wechselnde Kontexte; diese sprachlichen Kontexte werden aber
weder untersucht noch auch meist zitiert. Die FSP ist jedoch we-
nigstens zum Teil textgrammatisch bedingt. Daher müssen sowohl
„means" als auch „ends" der FSP im Rahmen des oft zitierten
Prager „functional approach" textlinguistisch untersucht werden.
Ja selbst Satzgrammatik sollte man heutzutage nur mehr in kon-
stanten Textrahmen analysieren.
3.1. Wenn wir den Beitrag der FSP zur Texttheorie bewerten
wollen, so müssen wir fragen: Welche Anforderungen dürfen wir
an eine linguistische Theorie stellen? Die kürzeste Antwort mag
lauten: Eine linguistische Theorie muss nach theoretischer, empi-
rischer und applikativer Adäquatheit streben. 11
Um das letzte, die applikative Adäquatheit kurz zu streifen, die
heute im Zeitalter der „Relevanz" immer wichtiger wird, so kann
man m. E. in den Arbeiten zur FSP kaum mehr praktische An-
weisungen zur Übersetzung etwa der textbedingten Wortstellung
oder Intonation lesen als anderswo.
10
Der leider nicht zwischen Thema und Topik unterscheidet.
10a
Vgl. schon N . FRANCIS, Lg 42, 1966, 149.
11
Cf. POPPER, K„ Logik der Forschung3. Tübingen 1966; HABERMAS, J.,
Philosophische Rundschau, Beiheft 5, 1967.

Authenticated
90 W. DRESSLER
3.2. Nun zur theoretischen Adäquatheit: Abgesehen von P . SGALL

haben sich die Vetreter der FSP kaum darum bewußt gekümmert.
Wenn etwa nach DANE§ (1964) zwischen den Ebenen der Supra-
syntax, Grammatik und Semantik geschieden wird, so werden
keine logisch konsistenten, explizit dargestellten deduktiven Hy-
pothesengebilde anvisiert, in denen die Beziehungen dieser drei
Ebenen zu einem kohärenten System zusammengefügt werden.
Die textologisch wertvollen Beobachtungen der Vertreter der FSP
sind eben weitgehend empiristisch.
3.3. Ist deswegen die Theorie der FSP empirisch adäquat? Eine
adäquate Theorie muß intersubjektiv überprüfbar bzw. falsifizier-
bar sein. Dies sind die Hypothesen der FSP größtenteils noch nicht,
was in Anbetracht der theoretisch unzureichend definierten Be-
griffe auch nicht verwunderlich ist. Schon Sgall 12 hat die mangelnde
Abgrenzung zwischen Thema und Rhema kritisiert, aber auch die
„transition" (vgl. besonders FIRBAS 1965, 171) ist unscharf um-
rissen.
4.1. Als Mittel der Zuordnung eines Satzteils zu Thema oder
Rhema wird oft das Kriterium der Frage angegeben. 13 D. h. der
Linguist könne zu einem gegebenen Satz Fragen stellen; die einen
führten zum Thema, die anderen zum Rhema. Etwa auf die Fragen
„What happened? What's the matter?" erhielte man das Rhema.
Doch 1. versagt diese Frage bei den meisten Sätzen, die die
Kopula enthalten, wie
(1) Prag ist schön. Prag ist die Hauptstadt der CSSR.
2. erhält man zwar vielleicht oft den rhematischen Pol des Satzes,
aber erhält man ihn ganz und nur ihn allein? 3. ist mir nicht klar,
wie man sauber die Fragen voneinander trennen kann, die erstens
auf das Thema, zweitens auf den Topik (logisches oder psychologi-
sches Subjekt), drittens auf das grammatische Subjekt zielen. 4. Was
ist der theoretische Status solcher „inhärenten Fragen", die sich aus
der römischen Grammatik bis in die Satzanalyse unserer Tage ge-
rettet haben? Es handelt sich offenbar um eine Entdeckungsproze-
12
1967, 207f, 223, Fn. 15; 1969, 67.
1 3
C f . FIRBAS 1 9 6 2 m i t L i t . ; D A N E S 1 9 6 4 , 5 0 7 ; 1 9 6 8 , 158.

Authenticated
FSP U N D TEXTTHEORIE 91
dur des Sprachbetrachters. Entdeckungsprozeduren können aber

nur Werkzeuge zur provisorischen Abtastung des Untersuchungs-
feldes sein. Zur Überprüfung könnten solche Fragen nur verwendet
werden, wenn man sie textgrammatisch verwendet, als Teiläußerun-
gen der Texteinheit Dialog; d. h. man müßte ζ. B. das Sprachver-
halten von Versuchspersonen in Antworten auf Vergewisserungs-
fragen testen, ζ. B..
(2) Prag ist schön. — Wovon ist die Rede? — Von Prag.
Dieser Topik-Test ist aber nur sehr begrenzt anwendbar. 14
4.2. Nützlicher ist m. E. in vielen Sprachen ein „responsiver
Auslassungstest". Abgesehen von satzgrammatischen Restriktio-
nen kann in Second-instance-Antworten auf Fragen alles bis auf
das „Thematisierte" 15 Satzglied ausgelassen werden:
(3) Wenn hat Hans gesehen? — Maria {hat Hans gesehen).
Die gilt auch für zweizielige, zweifach Thematisierte Fragen:
(4) Wer hat wen gesehen? — Hans # Maria.
Nehmen wir als nächstes die Frage:
(5a) Hat Hans Maria gesehen? — Ja # Maria.
Hier bleiben zwei Elemente übrig, denn das Wort „ j a " kann nur
dann ausgelassen werden, wenn man es durch eine Geste, ζ. B.
Kopfnicken, ersetzt. Dies hat zur Konsequenz, daß schon die
neutrale Entscheidungsfrage
5b) Hat Hans Maria gesehen?
ein Thematisches Glied enthält, das nicht mit dem Rhema des kor-
respondierenden Aussagesatzes „Hans hat Maria gesehen" iden-
14
Z u r M ö g l i c h k e i t des D i a l o g t e s t s vgl. GREENBERG 1969; DRESSLER -
fordert für die FSP die Befragung von In-
GABRIEL 1 9 7 0 . BENES ( 1 9 6 8 , 2 6 9 )
formanten: Wo ist diese Forderung (unter notwendiger Einbeziehung der
Statistik usw.) schon erfüllt?
15
D a ich hier keine kohärente Texttheorie entwickeln kann, verwende
ich für „Hervorhebung", das Kennzeichen der Second-instance-Sätze, den
Terminus der F S P „Rhematisierung" (andere: „focus"); vgl. FIRBAS (1962,
141; 1968, 15) und D A N E S (1967, 509f; cf. WEIL 1887, 101). Eine gute Dar-
stellung im Rahmen der generativen Grammatik bietet POSTAL (1968, 210if;
anders CHOMSKY 1969, 18ff), doch macht der Einbau in eine Textgrammatik
Schwierigkeiten. Im Begriff „Rhematisierung" meint Rhema leider sowohl
den Gegensatz zu Topik als auch zu Thema (vgl. u. 8.2).

Authenticated
92 W . DRESSLER
tisch ist, und das sich in der Oberflächenstruktur vieler Sprachen in

der Frage-Intonation (und auch in der Inversion) manifestiert;
denn in einem sinnvollen Fragesatz (5b) muß die Existenz von
Hans und Maria als bekannt vorausgesetzt (präsupponiert) wer-
den, ferner muß die Möglichkeit vorausgesetzt werden, daß Hans
Maria gesehen hat; neu oder rhematisch ist also nur die Frage, ob
diese Möglichkeit im aktuellen Fall zutrifft. 16
Eine positive Antwort muß zumindest eine Bejahungspartikel
wie „ j a " enthalten, oder ein Verb wie „he did" oder ein Pronomen
wie griech. „egö". Übrigens ist in der Basisstruktur selbst von „ j a "
wenigstens ein performatives „ich antworte dem Frager" enthalten.
Der syntagmatischen Substitution des rhematischen Frageperfor-
mativs der Frage durch das rhematische Antwortperformativ der
Antwort korrespondiert die Substitution des „du" der Frage durch
das „ich" der Antwort (immer in der Basisstruktur). 17
Im Litauischen genügt die Wiederholung des perfektiven Aspekt-
präfixes „pa-", denn die Angabe des perfektiven Aspekts impliziert
die Durchführung der gefragten Handlung, also ζ. B.
(6) Ar pa-mâtê Jonas Marijq? — Pa (wörtlich etwa „Hat Hans
Maria ge-sehen? — Ge.").
4.3. Die vorangegangene Diskussion spricht gegen die Anschau-
ung, jedem Aussagesatz liege mindestens eine mögliche, inhärente
Frage zu Grund ( F I R B A S 1962,133), denn Aussagesätze sind keines-
wegs mit Antwortsätzen identisch, da diese mindestens ein Themati-
siertes Glied enthalten müssen (zur Kategorie der Antwortsätze
16
Kommt dies daher, daß jeder Fragesatz generativ aus zwei Sätzen ab-
geleitet werden muß, so wie ein Satz mit Kontrastemphase (Rhematisie-
rung)? (vgl. Fn. 15). Dann enthalten alle Satztypen außer unemphatischen
Aussagesätzen mindestens eine Hervorhebung oder Rhematisierung, die aus
dem Rhema des zusätzlichen (ζ. T. performativen) Basis-Satzes resultiert;
ein eventuelles deklaratives Performativ (Ross, J., vgl. DRESSLER 1970, § 4 )
wäre dann unmarkiert. Freilich kann man in der Antwort von (5a) „Maria"
auslassen; der Unterschied zu (5b) besteht aber darin, daß dort die Antwort
„Ja, Maria" problematisch wäre. Anders HALLIDAY 1967, 212f.
17
Zum Dialog vgl. noch WUNDERLICH, D., STZ 32, 1969, 272—280;
CHOMSKY 1968, 18—27, 30f.

Authenticated
vgl. noch DRESSLER 1970). Vgl. ζ. B. den u. U. möglichen Antwort-

satz
(7) Ich gehe weg « Ja, ich gehe weg 4= (Aussagesatz) Ich gehe
weg.
Die Anschauung, „ja" sei in einer Antwort ein zweiter Satz, ist
rein oberflächenstrukturell, da in der Basisstruktur jede Antwort
auf mindestens zwei Sätze zurüchzuführen ist (vgl. u. 6.3.).
4.4. Die Kehrseite der Beibehaltung des Rhemas ist das Prinzip
der „Thema-Ellipse" oder "elliptischen" Anapher. 18 Daher ist in
der Frage-Antwort-Einheit
(8) Hast du ihm ein Buch gege—ben? Ja
auch die indefinite Nominalphrase „ein Buch" ein Teil des Topiks
der Frage bzw. des Thema-Satzes der Antwort „x ( ( = ich/du-
Variable) hat ihm ein Buch gegeben". Dabei ist die Ellipse im Rah-
men eines Konstituenten in der Regel rechtsläufig (die Möglichkeit
der Ellipse nimmt von links nach rechts zu). Auch dies spricht
gegen die Auffassung des Antwortsatzes als einfacher Satz, denn
dann sollte das Thema bzw. der Topik in der Regel am Anfang ste-
hen und auslassbar sein.
4.5. Neben dem responsiven Auslassungstest gibt es noch einen
anderen Rhema-Test, nämlich eine Kommutationsprobe: Das
Rhema kann nach einigen Sprachwissenschaftlern18" nicht durch
Anaphorika paradigmatisch (wohl aber syntagmatisch) substituiert
werden. Dies gilt jedoch nicht, wenn ein Anaphorikum katapho-
risch oder deiktisch verwendet wird (vgl. DRESSLER 1970, § 2.6.)
4.6. Bekannt ist die Bedeutung der FSP für die Prosodie, darun-
ter für die Satzintonation. 19 Auch hier stellt sich die Frage nach
der empirischen Überprüfbarkeit, wozu ebenfalls eine textgramma-
tische Betrachtung notwending zu sein scheint.20
5.1. Das Thema (im Sinn von oben 1.) hat zwei konkurrierende
Definitionen erfahren: Bei HALLIDAY ( 1 9 6 7 , 200, 204f) und ge-
18
DRESSLER 1970 § 2; v g l . LYONS, J . , JL 2 , 1 9 6 6 , 212.
18a
Vgl. ζ. B. To Honor R. Jakobson I, The Hague-Paris 1967, 967-976.
19
DANES 1960; 1967, 508ff; FIRBAS 1961 u n d 1968.
20
GRBENBERG 1969; DRESSLER-GABRŒL 1970; MORGAN 1967, 124.

Authenticated
94 W. DRESSLER
wohnlich in der Prager Schule wird „ T h e m a " als bekannte Infor-

mation aufgefaßt, „ R h e m a " als neue Information. Dann kann
„ T h e m a " kaum mit „Topik" ( = Basis = logisches Subjekt) iden-
tisch sein. Hingegen definiert J. F I R B A S 2 1 das Thema als denTräger
der geringsten kommunikativen Dynamik (CD) im Rahmen eines
kommunikativen Feldes ( S V O B O D A 1968) und gelangt zu einer ge-
wissen Harmonisierung von Thema und Topik: „theme p r o p e r "
mit der allergeringsten C D wäre dann vermutlich der Topik-Teil
des Themas. Doch die CD wird weder im Rahmen einer linguisti-
schen noch einer kommunikativen Theorie hinreichend definiert,
sondern bleibt ein intuitiver, bloß empfindbarer Primitivbegriff.
5.2. Second-instance-Sätze sollen ζ. B. zum Unterschied von
nichtemotionellen Sätzen keine ansteigende (oder gar keine) C D
besitzen. 22 Doch wenn wir in den acht Sätzen
(9) Karl gab das (ein) Buch einem (dem) Freund [mit optionaler
Vertauschung von direktem und indirektem Objekt]
den Topik „ K a r l " Thematisieren, so ändert sich m. E. die darauf-
folgende Kontur der CD keineswegs, sie tritt nut „in den Schatten"
des neuen wichtigeren Rhemas. Auch das alte Rhema bleibt unter-
geordnet erhalten (vgl. u. 7.3.), der nicht-rhematisierte Satzteil ist
keineswegs ein kompaktes „theme proper", wenn auch sein kom-
munikatives Feld weniger C D besitzt als das rhematisierte Satz-
glied. Auch in Second-instance-Sätzen wie (9) beeinflussen Ände-
rungen in Wortstellung und Artikelgebrauch die C D des sog.
Thema-Teils.
5.3. Oder wann haben zwei Segmente dieselbe oder eine ver-
schiedene C D ? F I R B A S (1961, 84f, 88f) spricht zwar von „Kom-
paktheit", wenn „eine Kette von Elementen voneinander relativ
wenig im Grad der von ihnen vermittelten CD differieren", doch
dies ist noch keine hinreichende Definition.
5.4. Nehmen wir ζ. B. verschiedenartige mit der Konjunktion
„ u n d " verbundene Segmente: die idiomatischen Wendungen
„Stadt und Land, Katz und Maus" sind wohl kompakt: Ihre Wort-
2 1
FIRBAS 1964, 272; 1966, 240f; 1968; SVOBDOA 1968, 54.
2 2
FIRBAS 1 9 6 8 , 1 3 f f , vgl. BSE 1 , 1 9 5 9 , 43.

Authenticated
Stellung ist nur in der Sprachform festgelegt. Anders steht es mit

(10) Hans und Maria gingen spazieren
ein Satz, der (wenn man nicht „conjunction reduction" annimmt)
vielleicht dieselbe Basisstruktur hat wie der Satz
(11) Hans ging zusammen mit Maria spazieren (cf. SGALL 1969,
64f).
Schon in (10) hat „Maria" mehr CD als der Topik „Hans", auch
wenn beide zum Thema gehören könnten. In (11) kann „Maria"
sogar Rhema sein, allerdings kaum nach dem vorausgehenden Satz
„Gestern traf ich Hans und Maria" (mit kompakten „H. und M.").
Nun zur Textgrammatik: In den beiden Oberflächenstrukturen
identischen Teilsätzen (clauses) bzw. Sätzen (sentences)
(12a) Hans lief und Hans lief
(12b) Hans lief. Und Hans lief
kann nur dann die korrekte Kontur der CD identisch sein, wenn
„und" soviel wie „und dann immer weiter bis" bzw. im Fall der
Mehrmaligkeit „ . . . immer wieder bis" bedeutet, ζ. B. vor dem Ab-
schlußsatz
(12c) Aber er erreichte sein Ziel nicht
mit Thematischer Negation (cf. FIRBAS 1962,142f). Oder der zweite
Satz bzw. Teilsatz ist ein Second-instance-Satz:
(13) Hans lief und Hans lief (gedehnt, steigend-fallend),
wobei „und" sowohl „und zwar" als auch „und dann..." bedeuten
kann.
In anderen Sprachen leitet „und" nach der Apodosis die Protasis
ein („Parahypotaxe") und markiert sozusagen die Apodosis als
Thema oder Topik (vgl. DRESSLER, hier, Fn. 3 9 ) .
Wie wichtig eine empirisch überprüfbare linguistische oder kom-
munikative Theorie der CD wäre, zeigt das Problem der Gleich-
wertigkeit gewisser mit „und" verbundener Satztypen mit Relativ-
satz-Satzgefügen,23 die sich im Neugriechischen in der Oberflä-
chenstruktur manifestiert:
2 3
Relative Clauses and Conjunctions. Mimeo, June 1967;
ANNEAR, S . ,
MOORE 1967; LANGACKER R. W., Mirror Image Rules in Natural Languages.
Mimeo, January 1968; LAKOFF, G., Deep and Surface Grammar, 36ff,

Authenticated
96 W. DRESSLER
(14) Eide tà paidià hai (= poü) paizane

wörtlich „Er sah die Kinder und sie ( = welche) spielten".
6.1. Noch einmal zur intersubjektiven empirischen Überprüf-
barkeit der FSP: Am objektivsten wäre eine Überprüfung durch
einen Computer. Ich habe daher versucht, die Behauptung, gewöhn-
lich sei der definite Artikel thematisch, der indefinite Artikel rhe-
matisch, und das Thema gehe gewöhnlich dem Rhema voraus,
durch einen Computer zu überprüfen, und zwar in den Gedichten
des portugiesischen Dichters Fernando Pessoa. 24 Der erwartete
Normalfall trat aber nur in 3% der Sätze ein, der indefinite Artikel
stand in kaum weniger Sätzen (2,5%) vor dem definiten Artikel.
Diese lächerlich niedrigen Prozentsätze erklären sich z. T. daraus,
daß pluralische definite Artikel nicht gewertet werden konnten,
weil der Computer die oppositionellen indefiniten pluralischen No-
minalphrasen nicht zählen konnte.
Der tiefere Grund, warum eine solche Überprüfung von vornher-
ein zum Scheitern verurteilt war, ist das Faktum, daß die FSP
keine Eigenschaft der Oberflächenstruktur ist, wie manche ameri-
kanische Generativisten implizit annehmen, wenn sie die sog.
„freie Wortstellung" durch bedeutungslose, oberflächliche „scram-
bling rules" generieren wollen. Die Annahme der Bedeutungslosig-
keit der „freien" Wortstellung ist natürlich für den Linguisten eine
recht angenehme Vereinfachung seiner Aufgabe, wenn man etwa
bedenkt, daß der russische Satz
(15) Ja zavtra utrom pojdu guljaf (Ich werde morgen früh spa-
zieren gehen) 25
mimeo, Indiana Linguistics Club 1968; NICKEL, G., Some Contextual Rela-
tions between Sentences in English, Proceedings of the Tenth Intern. Con-
gress of Linguists. — Zur Analyse von „und" vgl. noch PALA, P., PSML 1,
1 9 6 6 , 1 9 5 - 2 1 7 ; FREY, G., StudGen 19,1966, 439f; THÜMMEL, W„ Lingua 20,
1968, 3 8 1 - 4 1 4 ; STAAL, J. F., JL 4, 1968, 7 9 - 8 1 ; VASILIU, E., RRL 14,
1969, 4 3 5 - 4 4 6 .
24
Gespeichert im Statischen Institut der Universität Wien. Das Pro-
gramm hat liebenswürdigerweise der Mathematiker Norbert Winterleitner
ausgearbeitet.
25
FEDOROV, Α . V . - KUZNECOVA, N . N . - MOROZOVA, E. N . - C'IGA-
NOVA, I. Α., Nemecko-Russkie jazykovyeparalleli. Moskau 1961, 112.

Authenticated
zumindest rechnerisch 120 Wortstellungsvarianten besitzt. Sie alle

textgrammatisch einzuordnen, ist eine entmutigende Aufgabe! 26
6.2. Wenn die FSP also nicht der Oberflächenstruktur angehört,
dann muß die Frage, wo sie in der „underlying structure" einzu-
ordnen ist, je nach der Theorie einer Schule ganz verschieden aus-
fallen. M. E. läßt sich der Begriff Topik an wenigstens drei Stellen
nebeneinander anwenden:
1. in der satzgrammatischen Basisstruktur, wenn wir eine seman-
tische Erklärung für folgende Übersetzungsäquivalenzen: 263
(16a) russ.: U Peti byl velosiped = deut.: Peter(chen) hatte ein
Fahrrad
(16b) russ.: Velosiped u Peti byl = deut.: Das Fahrrad befand
sich bei P.
D. h. von den semantischen Tiefenkasus des Dependenzschemas
wird jeweils ein anderer zum Topik. 2 7
2. brauchen wir in der Derivation den Topik zur sog. Topikali-
sierungsregel, die in der generativen Grammatik „cleft sentences" 28
erzeugt, wie
(17) It was Mathesius, who founded the theory of FSP.
Hier liegt zugleich auch eine Rhematisierung vor, sodaß man
Fall 2. als Abart von Fall 1. auffassen könnte.
3. können wir den Topik (oder wenigstens eine CD-Hierar-
chie) in der Tiefenstruktur der Textgrammatik anwenden, um etwa
die folgenden drei Äußerungen zu unterscheiden, die oifenbar die-
selbe text- und satzsemantische Basisstruktur haben:
(18a) Ich frage dich : Gehst du weg?
(18b) Ich frage dich, ob du weggehst,
(18c) Gehst du weg?
26
Vgl. zum Deutschen SEILER, H., Word 18, 1962, 121ff.
26a
Vgl. Cs. pfednäsky pro VI. mezindrodm sjezd slavistä, Praha 1968,
51-59.
27
Vgl. auch HALLIDAY 1968, 205, 208; STAAL, J. F . , FL 3, 1967, 66ff;
BREKLE, H . E . , Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im
System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München 1970, 78f, 128—135.
2 8
C f . BREKLE, F n . 2 7 ; MOORE 1 9 6 7 ; A n d e r s LAKOFF, G . , O n Generative
Semantics, In: Steinberg-Jakobovits, Semantics.

Authenticated
98 W. DRESSLER
Interessanterweise scheint in der Sprachnorm die optionale Frage-

intonation in (18a) seltener verwendet zu werden als in (18c); in
(18b) wäre sie irregulär. Verwandt ist auch die Basisstruktur von
(18d) Ich stelle die Frage nach deinem Weggehen.
6.4. Und damit kommen wir zur dornigen Frage der Beziehung
von Parataxe und Hypotaxe. Gleichbedeutende parataktische und
hypotaktische Äußerungen haben dieselben semantischen Basis-
strukturen, unterscheiden sich aber in den gegenseitigen Beziehun-
gen ihrer kommunikativen Felder. 29 Wenn man die Hypotaxe
nach alter Grammatikertradition aus der Parataxe ableitet, dann
wird der Unterschied zwischen Satz- und Textgrammatik scharf
(cf. DRESSLER 1969, 2, 2 1 f ) . W . THÜMMEL (1968) deriviert hingegen
die Parataxe aus der Hypotaxe, und dies muß letzlich auch jede
konsequente Textgrammatik tun, wenn sie einen ganzen Text aus
einem einzigen Textsymbol ableitet. 30
6.5. Topiks von Textabschnitten haben zwar in der Rhetorik und
Kommunikationstherie (Ungeheuer 1968) eine Rolle gespielt,
m. W. aber noch kaum in der Linguistik (cf. DRESSLER 1970, § 3.2).
A. WHEELER (1967) entdeckte in der kolumbianischen Indianer-
sprache Siona Partikeln, die der Hervorhebung im Text, nicht im
Satz dienen. Sie spricht (nach K. Pike) von „focus". Wenn man ihre
Bemerkungen und ihren Beispieltext liest, so erhält man den Ein-
druck, daß hier die Termini Thema, Rhema, Topik, Nicht-Topik
(„comment") in ihrem gewöhnlichen Sinn nicht passen.
7.1. Ein Thema („given") wird durch semantische Anapher bzw.
durch semantische Äquivalenz- oder Kontinuitätsbeziehungen zwi-
schen Sätzen konstituiert, 31 die nach J. Carroll 32 ζ. T. durch Asso-
2 9
SVOBODA, S . , 1 9 6 8 ; FIRBAS 1 9 6 8 , 1 2 f , 4 2 , F n . 4 1 ; c f . SGALL 1 9 6 7 , 2 1 2 f .
Damit ist auch HEGERS, K . semantische Taxonomie vereinbar (ZRP 8 5 ,
1969, 204-206).
30
Vgl. DRESSLER, W., Modelle und Methoden der Textsyntax. Folia
linguistica 4, 1970.
3 1
BUTTKE 1959, 557; HARRIS, Z. S., Discourse Analysis Reprints (The
Hague 1963); WORTH 1964, 56f; K O C H 1965, 12ff; HARPER 1965, 2 - 9 ;
KARTTUNEN 1 9 6 8 , 1 4 , 2 2 — 2 6 ; UNGEHEUER 1 9 7 0 ; D A N E S 1 9 6 8 ; BAUMANN,
H., Lingua 23,1969, 285; DRESSLER 1970 § 3.1.
3 2
HILL, Α . , ed.: Linguistics Today. New York 1969, 168f.

Authenticated
ziationsexperimente getestet werden können. Wenn jedoch im

Folgesatz mehr als eine semantische Anapher besteht, so ist das
Satzglied mit der geringsten C D textgrammatisch nicht einwandfrei
vorauszusangen. Dazu ist der satzgrammatische Topik notwendig.
Nehmen wir eine Abwandlung einer Firbas'schen (1968, 12f) Satz-
folge, so haben wir zwei Varianten, die sich nur durch die Wahl des
Topik unterscheiden:
(19a) Ein Mann sah einen Jungen.
[JAL] g a b [ i ] e i n e n B a l L
Die weiteren, Thematisierten Wortstellungsvarianten zeigen eine
topikale Bevorzugung des Subjekts:
(19b) Einen Ball gab er (er) ihm II er ihm // ihm er // *ihm
(ihm) er.
7.2. Die Frage, ob man auch von Thema und Rhema von Text-
abschnitten sprechen kann, wurde m. W. noch nicht untersucht
(doch vgl. W H E E L E R 1967 und DRESSLER Fn. 39). F I R B A S (1968,
39 Fn. 12) nimmt an, daß auch in Textabschnitten die C D gra-
duell ansteigt. Dies trifft zumindest bein Phänomen des Aus-
klingens nicht zu.
7.3. Vier weitere wichtige Probleme wurden im Rahmen der FSP
m. W. noch nicht angeschnitten.
Erstens genügt es nicht, den thematischen Charakter von anapho-
rischen Pronomina fesztustellen; man muß auch untersuchen, wann
überhaupt pronominale Anaphora möglich ist, und warauf sie sich
bezieht. Darüber gibt es schon eine umfangreiche Literatur, 3 3 ich
möchte hier ein neues Beispiel für die topikale Bevorzugung des
Subjekts (cf. 7.1.) bzw. den Parallelismus der grammatischen Rol-
le 3 4 bringen, wobei ich den pronominalen Bezug durch Indices an-
gebe:
33
TABER 1 9 6 6 , 113; 117; PALEK 1968; HARWEG 1968; POSTAL 1968;
LAKOFF G., Counterparts, or the Problem of Reference in Transformational
Grammar. (Mimeo.) Indiana Linguistics Club 1968; KARTTUNEN, L., Dis-
course Referents. COLING (Sänga-Säby 1969). Usw.
3 4
C f . HARPER 1 9 6 5 , 12; e h e r s t i l i s t i s c h MORGAN 1 9 6 7 , 1 2 7 , v g l , d e n b e -
kannten „parallelismus membrorum".

Authenticated
100 W. DRESSLER
(20a) Die Herrin¡ machte mit ihrer Hündin^ eine Spazierfahrtk.

Siei(j7k?) war sehr schön. / Und sie¡ ( j Í ek) wahr sehr schön.
Man könnte freilich auch die Faustregel aufstellen: Thema bezieht
sich auf Thema, Rhema auf Rhema. Vgl. auch die Satzfolge:
(19c) Ein Mann¡ sah einen Jungen y Er¡ erhielt von ihm¡ einen
Ball. I Von ihm¡ erhielt eri einen Ball.
Kein Gegenbeispiel ist die parallel Satzfolge
(20b) Der Herri machte mit seinem Hund¡ einen Spaziergangk.
Er j(k7) war sehr schön.
Denn von einem Mann sagt man gewöhnlich nicht, daß er schön
ist: Die semantische (oder pragmatische) Sprachnorm ist hier ent-
scheidend.
Hingegen bezieht sich anaphorisches „Der" (vgl. sie in (20a))
auf das Rhema, wodurch Second-instance-Sätze mehrdeutig wer-
den können (cf. Fn. 15):
(21a) Die Herrin¡ machte mit ihrer Hündin} eine Spazierfahrt^.
Diek war sehr schön.
(21b) Die Herrini machte eine Spazierfahrtk mit ihrer Hündin-y
Diej(kV war...
(21c) Eine Spazierfahrtk mit ihrer Hündin¡ machte Herrin ¡.
Die kj¡ war ,..35
(21d) Eine Spazierfahrtk machte die Herrin¡ mit ihrer Hündiny
Diek j war ...35
Die anaphorische Zuordnung erfolgt in solchen Zweifelsfällen
wohl nach Wahrscheinlichkeitsüberlegungen in der Performanz. 35
7.4. Zweitens: Da im Rahmen der F S P (vgl. SGALL 1967) nicht
zwischen Oberflächen- und Tiefenstruktur unterschieden wurde,
blieb das Phänomen der Thema-Ellipse unbeachtet. Thema-Ellipse
ist z. B. eine der häufigsten Ursachen für anaphorische Anfang-
stellung des Verbums 36 , vgl. etwa die folgende Passage aus dem
ersten Kapitel von Caesars „De bello Gallico":
35
Die Zweideutigkeit der Anaphora scheint bei emphatischer Betonung
der jeweils letzten Nominalphrase des Erstsatzes stärker zu sein. Dies müßte
genauer überprüft werden, ebenso die Frage, ob die Hervorhebung eines
bereits rhematischen Element nicht-diskret ist.
36
s. DRESSLER 1969. Weitere Ursachen sind topikale oder rhematisierte

Authenticated
(22) Eorum una pars ... initium capii a flumine Rhodano;

continentur Garumna flumine, Oceano, finibus Belgarum;
attingit edam ab Sequanis et Helvetiis flumen Rhenum;
vergit ad semptemtriones.
7.5. Drittens ist die Beziehung von pronominaler Referenz und
Second instance aufzuklären (cf. 7.1.). So haben A. AKMAJIAN und
R. JACKENDOFF37 folgende Satzfolgen mit wechselnder Referenz
bemerkt:
(23) John¡ hit Bill¡ and then George hit him¡ (him¡) Μ. E. ist
hier allerdings zumindest im ersten Fall „George" ebenfalls rhe-
matisch.
7.6. Viertens wurde nicht untersucht, wann Second-instance-
Sätze textgrammatisch regulär sind (cf. HALLIDA Y 1968, 210).
Nehmen wir die texthomonyme Satzfolge
(24a) Ein Mann sah einen Jungen. Ihm (dem Jungen) gab er
(der Mann) einen Ball. Der war sehr schön.
Annehmbar ist hier im Mittelsatz nur eine einzige Rhematisierung
(24b) Er gab ihm einen Ball // Einen Ball gab er ihm
und auch dies höchstens dann, wenn in dem Land, in dem diese
Geschichte spielt, Bälle eine große Mangelware darstellen. Der Satz
(24c) Er gab ihm einen Ball
wäre allenfalls in einer Welt denkbar, in der Erwachsene grundsätz-
lich Jugendlichen Spielsachen wegnehmen, aber keine geben.
(Unter besonderen Umständen könnten sehr religiöse Menschen
„ E r " auf „ G o t t " beziehen).
8.1. Und damit kommen wir zur Eingliederung der Textgramma-
tik und damit auch der FSP in die Pragmatik, 3 8 die die extralingui-
Verwendung des Verbs, vgl. BUTTKE 1959, 554ff. Bei der kataphorischen
Anfangstellung des Typs tschech. „Byl jednou jeden král... [Es war einmal-
ein König...]" scheint das Verb Text-Topik zu sein (anders FIRBAS 1964, 268;
WEIL 1887, 33). Die Semantik der Verba (BENES 168, 267 mit Lit.) wird
m. E. überschätzt.
37
Squib (Mimeo), February 1968.
3 8
MONTAGUE, R . , Pragmatics. In: Contemporary Philosophy (ed. R . Kli-
bansky), Florenz 1 9 6 8 , 1 0 2 — 1 2 1 ; WUNDERLICH, D . , Pragmatik, Sprech-
situation und Deixis. Univ. Stuttgart, Lehrstuhl für Linguistik, Papier 9,

Authenticated
102 W. D R E S S L E R
stische, situative Anwendbarkeit der Sprache untersucht. Hier wäre

es ζ. B. wichtig, die Beziehung zwischen Topik und Präsuppositio-
nen zu untersuchen.
8.2. Mit der Pragmatik konkurriert die Kommunikationstheorie
(UNGEHEUER 1968). Ihre Bedeutung für die FSP erhellt schon aus
folgendem hypothetischen Axiom: „Sprachlich muß nur mitgeteilt
werden, was dem Empfänger unklar oder unbekannt ist. Was be-
kannt ist, kann vorausgesetzt, d. h. verschwiegen oder als Topik
eingeführt werden". Wenn man die FSP im Rahmen einer kommu-
nikativen Theorie untersucht, so könnte man vielleicht Thema und
Topik unter dem Begriff der kommunikativen Voraussetzung zu-
sammenfassen.39
8.3. Oft kritisieren Linguisten die Ausdrücke „psychologisches
Subjekt" und „Prädikat" als unlinguistisch. Die Psychologie spielt
hier aber eine wichtige Rolle. Denn wie der Psycholinguist S. Ertel
(Münster/Heidelberg) in Vorträgen gezeigt hat, kann die Psycho-
logie voraussagen, welche Nominalphrase in isolierten, texthomo-
nymen Einzelsätzen als Topik gewählt wird.
8.4. Auch die Bezeichnungen „logisches Subjekt" und „Prädi-
kat" dürfen nicht ohne weiteres abgelehnt werden, denn die Lin-
guistik braucht eine Beziehung zur Logik, sei es zu der unter den
Generativisten der USA und BRD so beliebten Prädikatenlogik
oder zur „natural logic" G. LAKOFF'S (ZU beidem s. Fn. 3) oder
zur Universalgrammatik R. MONTAGUE'S. 4 0
8.5. Verdienst der Prager Schule ist es, selbst in den Zeiten des
größten Sprachimmanentismus die extralinguistischen Bezüge der
FSP nicht ganz vergessen oder verschwiegen zu haben. Doch geht
es heute nicht mehr an, textgrammatische, pragmatische, kommu-
1968. Vgl. die Lehre von den Präsuppositionen (Ζ. B. LAKOFF, R . , Lg 45,
1 9 6 9 , 6 0 8 f f . ; v g l . KRENN-MÜLLNER F n . 3 ) u n d K . PIKE'S Sprechsituation.
Zum Begriff des Subkontexts s. SKALIÖKA, V., Slav Ρ 3, 1961, 73—78.
39
DRESSLER, W., am Ende von Grundsätzliches zur Funktion der altana-
tolischen Satzpartikeln, AO 38, 1970.
40
English as a Formal Language. In: Languages in Society and the Tech-
nical World, Milano 1970.

Authenticated
FSP UND TEXTTHEORIE 103
nikative, psychologische und logische Relationen in denselben

Sammeltopf „Kontext" z u werfen.
W e n n wir dies alles bedenken, s o müssen wir gestehen, daß im
R a h m e n der F S P noch äußerst viel geleistet werden muß, und daß
die m. W. einzige bisher gedruckte längere textlinguistische Arbeit
aus der FSP-Schule, DANES'S (1968) Untersuchung zur themati-
schen Progression, nur einen allerersten Anfang darstellt. U n d
wenn wir ferner bedenken, daß dieser Bericht nur einen kleinen
Teil textlinguistischen Problemkreise erwähnt hat (ζ. B. über-
haupt nicht Tempus, M o d u s , Aspekt), s o kann sich unser Eindruck
nur verstärken, daß die wirklich großen Aufgaben erst bevorstehen!
LITERATURVERZEICHNIS
BENES, E., On two aspects of functional sentence perspective, TLP 3, 1968,

267-274.
BUTTKE, K., Beziehungen zwischen Wortstellung und sprachlichem Umfeld,
ZSl 4, 1959, 551-559.
CHOMSKY, N., Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation.
(Mimeo.) Indiana Linguistics Club, 1969.
DANES, F., Sentence intonation from a functional point of view, Word 16,
1960, 3 4 - 54.
DANES, F., A three-level approach to syntax, TLP 1, 1964, 225—240.
DANES, F., Order of elements and sentence intonation. In: To Honor R.
Jakobson I, The Hague 1967, 499-512.
DANES, F., Typy tematickych posloupnosti Ν textu (na materiále íeského
textu odborného) [Thematische Progressionen im Text]. SaS 29, 1968,
125-141.
DANES, F., Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur, Folia linguistica 4,
1970,49-56.
DRESSLER, W., Eine textsyntaktische Regel der idg. Wortstellung. KZ 83,
1969, 1 - 2 5 .
DRESSLER, W., Towards a semantic deep structure of discourse grammar.
Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
1970.
DRESSLER,, W. - GABRIEL. E., Vorbericht über experimentelle textsyntak-
tische Untersuchungen zur deutschen Satzintonation, Sprache 16, 1970.
FIRBAS, J., On the communicative value of the modern English finite verb,
BSE 3, 1961, 7 9 - 1 0 4 .

Authenticated
104 W. DRESSLER
FIRBAS, J., The function of the sentence in the act of communication (Margi-
nalia on two important studies by Anna Granville Hatcher), SPFFBU
11 A 10, 1962, 133-148.
FIRBAS J., A note on transition proper in functional sentence analysis,
PhP 8, 1965, 170-176.
FIRBAS, J., On the prosodie features of the modern English finite verb as
means of functional sentence perspective, BSE 7, 1968, 11—48.
GREENBERG, S. R . , An experimental study of certain intonation contrasts in
American English, Working papers in phonetics 13, Univ. California,
Los Angeles 1969.
HALLIDAY, M . A . K . , Notes on transitivity and theme in English. JL 3,
1967, 37— 81, 1 9 9 - 244; 4, 1968, 1 7 9 - 2 1 5 . Cr. SSE 8, 1969, 8 1 - 8 8 .
HARPER, Κ. E., Studies in inter-sentence connection. Sta. Monica 1965.
HARWEG, R . , Pronomina und Textkonstitution. München 1968.
HAUSENBLAS, Κ . , On the characterization and classification of discourses,
TLP 1, 1964, 67-83.
KARTTUNEN, L., What makes definite noun phrases definite? Santa Monica 1968.
KOCH, W., Preliminary sketch of a semantic type of discourse analysis, Lin-
guistics 12, 1965, 5 - 30.
KOCH, W., Recurrence and a three modal approach to Poetry. The Hague
1966a.
KOCH, W . , Einige Probleme der Textanalyse, Lingua 16, 1966b, 383 — 398.
MOORE, T . H . , The topic-comment function: A performance constraint on a
competence model. Diss.: Univ. of California, Los Angeles 1967.
MORGAN, J. O . , English structure above the sentence level. Monograph series
in languages and linguistics 20, 1967 (Georgetown Univ.), 123 — 132.
PALEK, B., Cross-reference: A contribution to hyper-syntax, TLP 3, 1968,
253-266.
POSTAL, P. M., Cross-Over phenomena. In: W. J. Plath, ed.: Specification
and utilization of a transformational grammar. Yorktown Heights 1968.
SGALL, P., Functional sentence perspective in a generative description.
PSML 2, 1967, 203-225.
SGALL, P . - NEBESKY, L . - GORALÉÍKOVÁ, A . - HAJICOVÁ, E . , A functional
approach to syntax in generative description of language. New York
1969.
SVOBODA, Α . , The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated
TABER, C. R., The Structure of Sango Narrative. Diss., Hartford Studies in
Linguistics 17, 166.
THÜMMEL, W . , Subordination und Koordination von Sätzen. 3. linguist.
Kolloquium über generative Grammatik. Univ. Stuttgart, Lehrstuhl
für Linguistik, Paper 8,1968, 143—149.

Authenticated
FSP U N D T E X T T H E O R I E 105
UNGEHEUER, G., Paraphrase und syntaktische Tiefenstruktur. Folia lin-
guistica 3, 1970.
WEIL, H . , The order of words in the ancient languages compared with that of
the modern languages. (Translated by C. W. Super.) Boston 1887.
WHEELER, Α . , Grammatical structure in Siona discourse, Lingua 19, 1 9 6 7 ,
60-77.
WORTH, D. S., Ob otobrazenii linejnych otnoäenij ν porozdajuädich mode-
ljach jazyka, VJa 5, 1964, 4 6 - 5 8 .
NACHTRAG
Erst nach Fertigstellung des Manuskripts sind dem Verfasser u. a. folgende

Arbeiten bekannt geworden, die für Probleme dieses Berichtes von Bedeutung
sind: PALEK, B., Cross-Reference. A study from hype'-syntax. Praha 1968/70
(zu § 3.2, 8.5). — TORSUEVA, I. G., Akustiöeskie charakteristiki smyslovogo
àlenenija predlozenija. Proceedings of the 6th Internat. Congress of Phonetics.
Praha 1970, 917f. — FIRBAS, J . , Note on the prosodie features as means of
functional sentence perspective. Ibid. 327—330 (beides zu § 4, 6) — KOCH,
W. Α., Phonologie und Textanalyse. Ibid. 493—497 (bezieht ausserdem das
Redetempo ein). — BENES, E. Über zwei Aspekte der funktionalen Satzper-
spektive. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Linguistis 2,
1970, 1021—1025 (zu §1, 3.2, 8.2). — Vgl. auch ibid. die Beiträge von
P A D U & V A , E. V. - FIRBAS, J . , - KIEFER, F . , - KIRKWOOD, H . W . , Some sys-
temic means of "functional sentence perspective" in English and German.
IRAL 8, 1970, 103-114 (zu § 4.3, 4.6, 5 . 1 - 2 ) .

Authenticated
FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
AND THE ORGANIZATION OF THE TEXT
Frantisele Danes (Prague)
The relevance of functional sentence perspective for the organiza-

tion of discourse (or text) is beyond doubt. We do not claim that
the whole linguistic theory or "grammar" of texts should be reduced
to F S P (cf. SKALIÖKA 1960), but Halliday's statement that "given
the clause as domain, ... theme [= FSP] is the grammar of dis-
course" (HALLIDAY 1967) holds good, with certain modifications,
beyond the domain of the clause as well.
In the works dealing with FSP three aspects of the phenomenon

under discussion have been pointed out by various authors:
(1) known (given) information — new information; (2) theme (T) —
rheme (R); (3) different degrees of communicative dynamism (CD).
As I have pointed out elsewhere (cf. DANES 1964) the distinctions
(1) and (2) go back to V. MATHESIUS. In his wellknown paper from
1939 he defines the "starting point of the utterance (vychodisko)"
as "that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation
and from which the speaker proceeds", whereas "the core of the
utterance (jádro)" is "what the speaker states about, or in regard
to, the starting point of the utterance". The same author defines (in
1942) "the foundation (or the theme) of the utterance (základ,
téma)" as something "that is being spoken about in the sentence",
and "the core (jádro)" as what the speaker says about this theme. —
Distinction (3) has been introduced by J. FIRBAS. By CD he means
"the extent to which the sentence element contributes to the de-

Authenticated
FSP A N D T H E T E X T O R G A N I Z A T I O N 107
velopment of the communication" (1964, 270) and at the same time

he states that Τ is constituted "by the sentence element(s) carrying
the lowest degree(s) of CD within the sentence" (ibid., 272).
Τ "need not necessarily convey known information or such as can
be gathered from the verbal and situational context" (ibid.). This
third aspect of FSP may be viewed as a refined analysis of aspect
(2). (In fact, the different degrees of the thematic and rhematic
character of sentence elements were mentioned even by Mathesius.)
Instead of a strict bipartition of the "information-bearing struc-
ture" of the sentence (to use P. Garvin's rendition of Mathesius's
Czech term "aktuální clenëni") we arrive at an uneven distribution
of CD over the sentence, assigning various degrees of thematicity,
or rhematicity to different sentence elements.
The two basic aspects of FSP, i.e., the contextual and the thema-
tic ones, have been pointed out by other linguists as well, e.g.
E. BENES (1959, 1968), M. A. K. HALLIDAY (1967), P. SGALL (1969),
F. DANES (1964, 1970). Most distinctly and consequently this dis-
tinction has been pursued by Halliday: in the broad area of
"Theme" he distinguishes two simultaneous structures of text:
(1) "information focus" (given — new), and (2) "thematization"
(T — R). The former determines the organization of text into dis-
course units, the latter frames each clause into the form of a mes-
sage about one of its constituents.1
It should be noted, however, that the said distinction is an in-
complete dichotomy: the differentiation concerns the first members
of the two pairs only (i.e., the known (given) piece of information
vs. theme), while the second members are identical, viz. the core
of the utterance or the rheme (what the speaker says about the
1
HALUDAY (1967) summarizes this distinction in the following way:
"...while 'given' means 'what you were talking about' (or 'what I was
talking about before'), 'theme' means 'what I am talking about' (or
'what I am talking about now')". He calls the theme also "the point of
departure"; this term (Czech "vychodisko") was used by Mathesius in con-
nection with "known information", however.

Authenticated
108 F. D A N E S
known information, or what he says about the theme).2 After all,

what makes the investigators differentiate between "known" and
"theme" is the fact that there exist cases where Τ does not convey
known information (cf. FIRBAS 1964) or where the ranges of both
do not fully coincide. It is true that such cases remain in the minori-
ty (cf. Mathesius's statement (1939) that the "starting point" (de-
fined as known information) very often represents the theme of the
utterance) and are experienced as special or marked (cf. HALLIDAY,.
1967, 17: "there is in the unmarked case ... and association of the
theme with the given"). Nevertheless their existence undoubtedly
calls for, and justifies, the said distinction.
This being so, we may assume that the connexion of FSP with
the text structure proceeds along two lines. The first line, i.e., the
opposition between known (given) and new information, clearly
involves the textual and situational environment. Halliday (op.
cit.) states that it is "closely bound up with the cohesive patterns
such as those of substitution and reference" (17) and "does con-
tribute in large measure to the organization of discourse" (16).
(The close relationship of the phenomena of anaphora with FSP
has been pointed out by B. PALEK, 1968.) 3
From Halliday's statement that "thematization is independent
2
The position of HALLIDAY (1967) is somewhat different, and not quite
clear. He defines the rheme in English clauses very indistinctly and indirectly
("the theme is assigned initial position in the clause, and all that follows is
the rheme" 17) and his discussion of the Τ — R structure is concentrated on
the choice of T; only from the example on p. 22 may we guess that focus and
theme principally do not coincide. Cf. also his statement on p. 8: "...in the
unmarked case the focus of information will fall on something other than
the theme; it will fall at least within the rheme, though not necessarily ex-
tending over the whole of it." Roughly speaking, the most discussed prob-
lems are the focus (new information) and the theme (what is being talked
about), while the other two functions stand rather in background.
3
PALEK (1968) has also suggested a useful distinction of the contextual
and the textual approach: the former proceeds from the sentence and takes
into account those features of it that are due to its cohesion with neighbouring
sentences, while the latter takes as its point of departure the discourse and
looks for the network of relations linking together its elements.

Authenticated
FSP A N D T H E TEXT O R G A N I Z A T I O N 109
of what has gone before" (ibid., 17), i.e., of the preceding context,
it might follow that this second aspect of FSP is irrelevant in re-
spect to the organization of text. But such a conclusion appears
very doubtful in the light of the fact that the choice of the themes of
particular utterances can hardly be fortuitous, unmotivated, and
without any structural connexion to the text. In fact, even a super-
ficial observation of texts shows that the choice and distribution of
themes in the text reveal a certain patterning; this statement also
corresponds to our intuitive expectations that the progression of
the presentation of subject-matter must necessarily be governed
by some regularities, must be patterned.
In order to throw more light upon the relationship of the notions
"known (given) information" and "theme", let us analyse more
deeply the former notion.
It is evident that the notion "given (known)" is relative and very
broad (if not vague):
(1) Given or known is that information which is derivable or re-
coverable (to use Halliday's wording) from the context, situation
and the common knowledge of the speaker and listener. Certainly,
there exist individual divergencies between the two, due to dif-
ferences in their experience, memory, attention, etc. But after all,
it is the speaker's evaluation that is the determining factor; this
does not exclude, of course, that the speaker takes, more or less,
into account the presupposed position of the listener.
(2) The communicative feature of "givenness", assigned to parti-
cular sentence elements, is a graded property.
(3) "Givenness" depends on the length of the portion of preceding
text in relation to which the evaluation is being carried out. The
upper limit of such a portion should be empirically ascertained.
We may tentatively assume, that these portions or "intervals" are
in a way correlated with the segmentation of text into paragraphs,
groups of paragraphs, chapters, etc. We may even expect a kind of
hierarchy or stratification of the feature "given": taking for granted
that not only particular utterances but also the sections of text,
as paragraphs, etc., and the whole text have "themes" of their
own ("hyperthemes"), we can expect that, e.g., the theme of

Authenticated
110 F. DANES
a chapter will be evaluated as "given" throughout the chapter, so

that the "interval of givenness" in respect to the information carried
by this "hypertheme" will be the whole chapter.
(4) The contextual determination of givenness is far from being
a simple phenomenon. We might tentatively suggest that as "con-
textually given" may be regarded such semantic information that
has been somehow mentioned in a qualified portion (interval)
of the preceding text. It can be mentioned directly, or indirectly.
In the first case, it can be mentioned not only with the identical
wording, but also with a synonymous expression, or with a para-
phrase (cf. Pike's "hypermeaning' or "verbalized concept"). The
indirect mentioning is based on semantic inference (or semantic
implication, if viewed from the opposite point). Thus, e.g., the ex-
pression "illness", occurring in an utterance, might be experienced
as conveying a known piece of information if in a preceding sen-
tence (belonging to the same text interval) "health" has been
somehow mentioned. The notion of semantic inference (implica-
tion) needs a more exact elaboration in terms of distinctive seman-
tic features and their sets. It is clear that, in principle, such semantic
relations are involved as those obtaining between a term and its
generic terms (hyponymy and hyperonymy), "associative" relations,
exemplified by such as "restaurant" — "lunch"; "summer" —
"vacations"; "science" — "investigator", etc.
(5) The evaluation of (the degree of) contextual givenness depends
also on the delicacy (determined by various factors, partly objec-
tive — e.g., stylistic — partly subjective) with which the speaker
(and listener) evaluates a given expression as semantically implied
in a certain preceding expression.
(6) Last but not least let us point out the very important fact that
the relative character concerns the notion of "new" information
as well. Halliday has pointed out that the new piece of information
is "new" not in the sense that "it has not been previously mentioned
although it is often the case that it has not been, but in the sense
that the speaker presents it as not being recoverable from the pre-
ceding discourse" (1967, 7/8). The first part of this exposition is
obviously true, but the final statement is somewhat obscure, since

Authenticated
FSP A N D THE TEXT ORGANIZATION 111
the author does not explain by what kind of procedure the speaker
gets the listener to interpret what, in fact, is recoverable from con-
text, as not being recoverable from it, as being "new". There must
exist some objective principle underlying the possibility of present-
ing something that has been previously mentioned as a "new"
piece of information.
Let us examine the following example:
Sedimentary rocks. (1) Most of historical geology has to do with sedi-
mentary rocks and their contained organic remains. (2) This is accounted
for by the fact that events in earth history are recorded mainly in terms of
differing kinds of sedimentation...
It is obvious that "sedimentation", representing an essential part

of the new information of sentence (2), is fully recoverable from
the preceding sentence (in respect to the expression "sedimentary
rocks"). But what is new is the connexion of "sediment-" into
which it has been put. By "connexion" I mean here not only the
rather trivial fact that a word may occur in different collocations
or other phrases (i.e., in different multiverbal denominating units),
but also, and foremost, the position (or function) of the given
element in the communicative structure of the utterance.
In other words: the property of being new has two, independent,
aspects: (1) "new" in the sense of "not mentioned in the preceding
context", (2) in the sense "related as Rheme to a Theme to which
it has not yet been related". In the former case, the property "new"
is assigned to the expression itself, while in the latter it is the Τ — R
nexus that appears as new.
This interpretation is justified by the following facts: First, in all
cases the new element functions as R (as we have mentioned above,
Mathesius did not make a distinction between "new piece of infor-
mation" and R , and also H a l l i d a y (1967, 8) states that new infor-
mation "will fall at least within the rheme"). Second, it is not R
alone, but its connexion with the given Τ that is communicatively
relevant (cf. E . B e n e § 1968, 271). - Thus we may conclude that the
information accumulated, at a certain point of a text (or, within
a text interval), comprises two kinds of elements (appearing as
"known"): denominating units, and Τ — R nexuses.

Authenticated
112 F . DANES
The amount (or the potential) of successively accumulated infor-

mation is mostly so extensive that the speaker, carrying on the
discourse, must necessarily make a choice from this mass. And we
may rightly assume that he selects the utterance theme from it
(unless he has some special reason to choose something that is not
comprised in it). In any case, the portions (elements) of "known"
information occurring in an utterance are exactly those elements
that are closely connected with the selected Τ (and indirectly with
R). Our conception of the utterance theme stands near to E. Benes's
characterization of the "point of departure" (Cz. "vychodisko",
G. "Basis") as "the opening element of the sentence"· that "links
up the utterance with the context and the situation, selecting from
several possible connexions one that becomes the starting point,
from which the entire further utterance unfolds and in regard to
which it is oriented" (1959, 216).4
To put it differently: it is evidently necessary to distinguish be-
tween the mass of information accumulated up to a certain point
of text, and the portion of this mass contained (occurring) in the
particular utterance following this point. This distinction involves
a selection from the mass of known information for every utterance.
We assume that this selection is determined, directly or indirectly,
by the choice of the utterance theme. Thus we must not be content
with a statement that certain sentence elements convey the known
information (in contrast to others, conveying the new one), but we
ought to find out the principles exactly according to which this
and not another portion of the mass of known information has
been selected. In other words, we have to inquire into the principles
underlying thematic choice and thematic progression.
Note:
In his stimulating article K . HAUSENBLAS ( 1 9 6 9 ) defines the theme as "what
has been posited to the fore, into the focus of the field of vision and, at the
same time, what presents a foundation to be developed (elaborated) in the
4
BENES (1959) distinguishes between this "point of departure", and what
he calls "foundation (základ)" of the utterance. Cf. p. 221 of the present
volume.

Authenticated
FS Ρ AND THE TEXT ORGANIZATION 113
subsequent discourse" (7). From this statement two functions of the theme
may be deduced: (1) the perspective function, consisting in hierarchical
graduation of thematic text components (and involving a static point of
view, regarding the text as a completed whole), (2) the prospective function,
in which the theme serves as a point of departure for the further develop-
ment of the semantic progression and, at the same time, as a prospect or
plan of this development (in which case, the dynamic aspect of the progres-
sive realization of the text is accounted for).
The pointing out of the dynamic aspect of text construction is new and
undoubtedly deserves further attention. Unfortunately, from Hau'senblas's
brief exposition it is not easy to get a clear-cut picture what this aspect really
consists in and where to draw the line between the two aspects. Generally
speaking, these difficulties probably arise from the lack of an exact model of
the dynamic structure of objects, realized in time (real or fictitious); such
a model, taking into account their progressive growth, would involve a pro-
gressive nexus (relative to the "future" functions of components in the sub-
sequent portion of the text and in the resulting whole), a regressive nexus
(relative to possible modifications and transformations of components arising
from the backward effect of subsequent components), and a continuous
process of cumulation. It might be interesting to reinterpret our notion of
"thematic progression" in terms of the two aspects.
It is obviously not by chance that the studies o f F S P predomi-

nantly concern the problems of theme (and not those o f rheme —
cf. the frequent term "thematization" and the rarely Used term
"rhematization"), in spite o f the fact that it is just the rheme that
represents the core o f the utterance (the message proper) and
"pushes the c o m m u n i c a t i o n f o r w a r d " (FIRBAS): f r o m the point
o f view o f text organization, it is the theme that plays an important
constructional role. The rheme shows its significance as the con-
veyor of the "new", actual information, while the theme, being
informatively insignificant, will be e m p l o y e d as a relevant means
o f the construction. (The relation between the rheme and the text
will be touched u p o n in section III of our paper.)
The inquiry into the thematic organization o f the text is closely
connected with the investigation o f the so-called "text coherence"
or "text connexity". S o m e scholars even define the text in terms
o f this property. (Cf., e.g., H. ISENBERG, 1970, 1: "Wir verstehen
unter einem "Text" eine kohärente Folge v o n S ä t z e n . . . " . ) Never-
theless, as w a s duly pointed out by Κ . HAUSENBLAS (1964),

Authenticated
114 F. DANES
P . TROST (1962) and others, coherence (connexity, continuity) is

not a necessary property of texts: they not only display this prop-
erty to a very uneven degree, but some of them may be character-
ized exactly as "discontinuous" (HAUSENBLAS, op. cit., 79f.); and
TROST (op. cit., 268) calls attention to the very old distinction be-
tween the "connected style", tending towards a very close linking
up of the sentence with the text (harmonía glaphyra), and the discon-
nected one (harmonía austera), which tends towards a clean-cut
independence of each sentence. In other words, when analysing
text coherence (connexity), we should employ the term "coherence"
in the neutral (unmarked) sense.
The following exposition will be devoted to the way in which
FSP contributes to the inner connexity of texts. (It is based on an
investigation discussed in DANES 1968, 1970, 1970a.)
II
Our basic assumption is that text connexity is represented, inter

alia, by t h e m a t i c p r o g r e s s i o n (TP). By this term we mean the
choice and ordering of utterance themes, their mutual concatena-
tion and hierarchy, as well as their relationship to the hyperthemes
of the superior text units (such as the paragraph, chapter, ...), to
the whole text, and to the situation. Thematic progression might
be viewed as the skeleton of the plot.
For our purposes it is necessary to discover an objective criterion
for ascertaining the theme (T) of a given utterance. The detailed
analysis done by Firbas and others, ascertaining the distribution of
different degrees of the communicative dynamism over sentence
elements, establishes the communicative microstructure of the
utterance. We may content ourselves with establishing the macro-
structure, i.e., with a rough determination of the thematic and the
rhematic part of the utterance, without specifying the central, peri-
pheral and transitional elements.
To this aim we employ a procedure using wA-questions, prompted
by the given context and situation, for eliciting the rheme (R) of
a given utterance (R-questions). Generally speaking, we assume that

Authenticated
it is possible to assign to any sentence (taken as a grammatical

unit) a set of wA-questions, representing all possible types of con-
text in which the given sentence is applicable, and consequently,
revealing all possible FSP-structures which it can acquire. In this
way we are also able to find out, indirectly, the theme of the given
utterance. This procedure seems workable, since it is objective,
purely linguistic, and involves both the contextual and the thematic
aspect of FSP.
Before starting with the classification of TP's, let us state that
between a simple utterance (i.e., a sentence containing only one
Τ — R nexus, with simple Τ and R) and a textual concatenation of
grammatically independent sentences, a transitional zone exists,
comprising cases of sentence units that reveal a more complicated
(condensed or composed) Τ — R structure, i.e., units that, from
the point of view of FSP, reveal a textual character, which, how-
ever, represent a single grammatical unit, one sentence only. Such
sentences are now usually described by grammarians as transforms
of a combination of two (or more) underlying simple sentences
(different linguists will use different ways of description, but this
is irrelevant for our discussion). A similar approach might be
employed for the description of the FSP-structure of non-simple
utterances as well.
The English sentence (describing Wöhler's well known discovery
from 1828) (1) Wähler heated ammonium cyanate andfound that it was
thereby converted into urea, previously known only as a product of
living organisms, evidently revealing a complicated FSP-structure,
may be reduced on the following sequence of three sentences (a),
(b), (c), each of them having a simple Τ — R structure:
(2) (a) Wöhler heated some ammonium cyanate.
(b) He found that it was thereby converted into urea.
(c) This substance had been previously known only as a
product of living organisms.
A comparison of (2) with (1) shows the following transformational
processes on the level of FSP leading from (2) to (1):
1. (b) has lost its independent status and has been, without the loss
of its explicit Τ — R structure, combined with (a) into a multiple

Authenticated
116 F. DANES
utterance, composed of two complete Τ — R nexuses; the con-

nexion between (a) and (b) is supplied by the identity of T a
and T b .
2. (c) has lost its independent utterance status, and its Τ — R
structure as well; it has been restricted to its rhematic elements
and fused with R b into a single complex R{b c) ; or briefly, it has
been rhematized. The fusion has been allowed due to the fact
that T c is a paraphrase of R b and thus it may be omitted.
Thus the FSP-structure of (1) might be symbolized as T a Ra +
+ T b ( = T a ) -> R(b,c) and described as a multiple utterance with
the complex second R. (The grammatical aspect of these processes
will not be discussed here.)
Generally speaking: In respect to their Τ — R structure, ut-
terances (U's) may be divided into simple U's ,composed U's, and
condensed U's. — The composed U's result from composition, by
which two (or more) simple utterances are combined in a single
sentence frame; if the T's, or R's of the two utterances are the same
(from the semantic point of view), they will be mentioned only
once. — The condensed U's are based on fusion: If two subsequent
«imple Ui and U 2 share a common FSP-element, they may be fused
into a single condensed U, either by way of thematization, or
rhematization of one of the utterances. The two possibilities
depend on the type of the thematic interrelations obtaining between
U j and U 2 :
(1) If T 2 = Ri, principally both possibilities are available:
(a) T 2 will be deleted, and R 2 fused with R x into a complex R*
(rhematization of U 2 ). (b) Τ -> R t will be fused into a complex T*
(thematization of U t ), T 2 deleted, and R 2 linked with T* as R* of
the resulting condensed U*. The choice between (a) and (b) de-
pends on the proportion between respective communicative re-
levance of RJL and R 2 : if, in the given context, R j appears more
relevant than R 2 , then U 2 will be rhematized (i.e., deprived of its
utterance status, and thus backgrounded); in the inverse case,
R 2 will be brought to the fore by means of thematization
of Ui.
(2) If T 2 = T t , then T 2 will be deleted and R t fused with Ti

Authenticated
into complex T* (i.e., R t will be thematized), to which R 2 will

function as R* of the resulting condensed U*.
Schematically.
1. Composed U's:
a) multiple U: "Goethe wrote the second part of Faust after eighty, and
V. Hugo astounded the world with Torquemada at eighty."
b) U with a multiple T: "The melting of solid ice and the formation from
ice of liquid water exemplify physical changes."
c) U with a multiple R: "It is further postulated that the activated amino
acids are joined together... and that the long chains are molded in
a specific manner..."
2. Condensed U's:
a) U with a complex T: "This dark-coloured liquid, known as crude
petroleum or crude oil, is obtained from wells of different depth."
b) U with a complex R: "The amino acids are required for making
proteins, consisting of long chains of these units."
From these elementary types various combinations may be pro-

duced (cf., e.g., the above adduced compound sentence (1)). These
may be called "complicated" utterances.
Note:
The processes of composition and fusion on the level of FSP (on the ut-
terance level) are manifested by means of different grammatical devices on
the level of the sentence, such as coordination, apposition, some nominaliza-
tions, some relative transformations, etc. (This does not mean, however, that
the said processes are the only functions of these grammatical means.) Some
functions described here in terms of FSP are sometimes referred to as
"backgrounding", "complex condensation", etc. (cf., e.g., WEINREICH 1963,
VACHEK 1955). But it seems to me that the explanation having recourse to
FSP may supply a more exact structural explanation of these somewhat
impressionistic notions of a semantic and stylistic character.
The grammatical descriptions, especially the transformational ones, have
ascertained many synonymous, or nearly synonymous relationships between
syntactic constructions. But they tell us nothing or very little about functional
differences between such constructions, in spite of the fact that only certain
differences in the functional employment of apparent synonymous linguistic
means of expression are able to account for their existence in the given lan-
guage. Assuming that the level of FSP, lying above the other syntactic levels
(i.e., the grammatical and the semantic one), represents the domain of the
functional employment of sentences, we may try to find out the motivation

Authenticated
118 F. DANES
for the choice between different (semantically) synonymous syntactic forms

and transforms exactly in the communicative needs of FSP, to associate dif-
ferent syntactic options with the alternatives of the distribution of the com-
municative dynamism.
Our analysis of Czech scientific and other professional texts, as
well as some tentative soundings in the area o f German and
English language materials has ascertained the following t h r e e
m a i n t y p e s of TP:
(1) Simple linear T P (or TP with linear thematization of rhemes):
T2(=Rj)->R2
;
Examples: "Γΐί- ^2)
Cz.: V oboru izolâtorù se vënuje velká pozornost tzv. feroelektrikûm. Tyto
látky mají schopnost mënit energii elektrickou ν mechanickou a naopak.
G.: Eine besondere Klasse stellen tragbare Geräte dar. Diese werden be-
sonders zur Ueberwachung von Strahlungsfeldern verwendet.
E.: (a) The first of the antibiotics was discovered by Sir Alexander Flem-
ming in 1928. He was busy at the time investigating a certain species
of germ which is responsible for boils and other troubles,
(b) The chief organic compound obtained from natural gas is satu-
rated methane. Small quantities of other volatile hydrocarbons are
associated with methane.
Type (1) represents the most elementary, basic TP. Briefly, R¡ of

the utterance U ¡ appears in the next U i + 1 as its T i + 1 , or, in other
words, each R becomes the Τ o f the next
»
utterance.
[In the formulae the horizontal arrow -> indicates the Τ — R nexus
within an utterance, while the vertical one j, indicates the contextual con-
nection of U's. — In the formula Τ -»• R the order of symbols does not
necessarily correspond to the sequence of expressions in a particular senten-
tial utterance based on this formula, since this sequence depends on the
interplay of language means employed in FSP.]
(2) TP with a continuous (constant) theme:

Authenticated
Examples:
Cz.: [Mezi tzv. ovládací zarízení patri i vëtâina automatickych vyrobních
linek.] Tyto linky a jim podobná zarízení vykonávají samoëinnë vSech-
ny operace nutné k zhotovení vyrobku. Tato zarízení vsak nemohou
kontrolovat prubëh a vysledky své íinnosti. Nejsou také schopna pri-
zpûsobit se zmënàm vnëjâich podmínek...
G.: ["Goethes Erbe in unserer Zeit".] Goethe war überzeugt von dem Fort-
schritt der menschlichen Entwicklung. Er trat für die Erreichung des
Menschengeschlechtes zur friedlicher Entwicklung... Goethes Huma-
nismus ging aus von dem Glauben an das Gute im Menschen...
Goethe nannte sich "ein Kind des Friedens".
E.: The Rousseauist especially feels an inner kinship with Prometheus and
other Titans. He is fascinated by any form of insurgency... He must
show an elementary energy in his explosion against the established order
and at the same time a boundless sympathy for the victims of it...
Further the Rousseauist is ever ready to discover beauty of soul in any-
one who is under the reprobation of society.
In this type one and the same Τ appears in a series of utterances

(to be sure, in not fully identical wording), to which different R's
are linked up. (There are several ways of introducing T, in the
utterance, but this is irrelevant here.)
(3) TP with derived T's:
[ τ ]
τ3 — - R3
Examples:
Cz.: Záákrt (diphteria) je infekëni onemocnëni. Pûsobi je corynobacterium
diphteriae. Siri se kapénkovou infekci primym stykem s nemocnym,
ëastëji väak bacilonosiôem, nebo neprímo predmëty potrisnënymi hle-
nem. Inkubaëni doba je 2 az 5 dnû.
G.: Die sozialistische Republik Rumänien liegt am Schnittpunkt des 45.
Breitenkreises mit 25. Längenkreis. Die Bodenfiäche des Landes be-
trägt 235 000 Quadratkilometer; seine Bevölkerungszahl ist 19 Milionen
Einwohner. Die Staatsgrenze hat eine Gesamtlänge von... Kilometern.

Authenticated
120 F. DANES
Im Westen hat Rumänien gemeinsame Grenze mit... Im Süden bildet

der Fluss Donau die Grenze mit... Die östliche Grenze ist teilweise das
Schwarze Meer.
E.: New Jersey is flat along the coast and southern portion; the north-
western region is mountainous. The coastal climate is mild, but there is
considerable cold in the mountain areas during the winter months.
Summers are fairly hot. The leading industrial production includes
chemicals, processed food, coal, petroleum, metals and electrical equip-
ment. The most important cities are Newark, Jersey City, Paterson,
Trenton, Camden. Vacation districts include Asbury Park, Lakewood,
Cape May, and others.
The particular utterancé themes are derived from a "hypertheme"

(of a paragraph, or other text section). The choice and sequence of
the derived utterance themes will be controlled by various special
(mostly extralinguistic) usage of the presentation of subject matter.
The types of TP just established may be employed in various

combinations. Thus the combination of (1) and (2) is frequent.
Some of such combinations, revealing a certain regular pattern,
may be considered as TP-types of a higher order, representing
a formal frame for the employment of the basic types. The most
important of such frames may be called the exposition of a split
Rheme:
T, — - R, ( = RÍ • + R'i )
Tj - Rj
f
r; — • R'5
Examples:
Cz.: Na poCátku 17. stol. polozili základ novému rozvoji astronomie dva
velcí muzové. Jan Kepler zalozil teoretickou astronomi!. Ukázal, ze je

Authenticated
mozno ζ pozorování odvodit... Galileo Galilei zaloiil mechaniku.

Svymi pokusy...
G.: Die Widerstandsfähigkeit in feuchter und trockener Luft ist bei verschie-
denen Arten pathogener Viren sehr unterschiedlich. Poliomyelitisviren
sterben in trockener Luft sofort ab, während bei einer Luftfeuchtigkeit
von 50% relativ stabil sind. (,..)Bei einem Grippenvirus ist es hingegen
umgekehrt; wenn die Luftfeuchtigkeit unter 40% bleibt, so halten sie
sich recht gut, sie gehen aber rasch zugründe, wenn die Luftfeuchtigkeit
höher steigt.
E.: All substances can be divided into two classes: elementary substances
and compounds. An elementary substance is a substance which con-
sists of atoms of only one kind... A-compound is a substance which
consists of atoms of two or more different kinds...
This type of TP is characterized by the fact that a certain R is ex-
plicitly or implicitly doubled (R' + R") or multiple (R' + R" +
+ R'" + ...), so that it gives rise to a pair (triple,...) of thematic
progressions: first R' is expounded and after this progression has
been finished, R" becomes Τ of the second TP. (These two
(three,...) partial progressions may be of one type only, or they
may represent a combination of different types, without having
necessarily a parallel structure.)
Further, TP's are often complicated by various insertions (sup-
plements, explanatory notes) or asides. They may also occur in an
incomplete or somewhat modified form. Let us mention here a
typical modification of type (1), namely a TP with an omitted link
(or with a thematic jump). Essentially, it consists of the omission
of an utterance in a TP. That is to say, the content of such an
utterance is to such a degree evident, plainly implied by the con-
text, that it appears redundant, unnecessary, and consequently
omissible.
Our types of TP are to be considered as abstract principles,
models, or constructs. The implementation (manifestation) of these
models in particular languages depends on the properties of the
given language, especially on different means available for express-
ing FSP. It should be also mentioned that languages have at their
disposal some special means even for the purposes of TP. Thus
such expressions as English both ... and, on the one hand — on
the other hand·, in the first instance — in the second instance;

Authenticated
122 F. DANES
etc., are often used in connexion with type (4). Every text (mainly
in scientific or technical prose) is interwoven with expressions
signalling significant points of TP of the text. The distribution of
such expressions in a particular text might be termed its network of
orientation. The ascertaining of the set óf these devices for each
language, and their functional classification seems to be an im-
portant as well as interesting task. (Cf. now GÜLICH, 1970.)
The study and knowledge of the thematic organization of texts
have some practical applications as well, namely in practical stylis-
tics and computational linguistics, especially in information re-
trieval. As for the former, the central question is how to construct
and present (express) the thematic progression. As for the latter,
we have to find out how to discover it, and how to make the con-
cept of FSP and TP workable in the non-human conditions of a
computer. But considerations of this kind are beyond the frame of
the present paper. (Some suggestions will be found in DANES,
1970.)
At the end of section II let us try to find out the systemic cor-
relations existing between the basic types of TP's and the basic
types of multiple and condensed utterances (treated as transforms
of the former).
(1) Simple linear TP involves the following relevant relations:
R.J = T 2 , T t =f= T 2 , Ri φ R 2 ; therefore it yields utterances with
a complex T, or R;
(2) TP with a constant Τ involves the following relevant relations:
T j = T 2 , R t Φ T 2 , Ri φ R 2 ; therefore it yields multiple utter-
ances, utterances with a multiple R and utterances with a complex
Τ as well.
(3) TP with derived T's involves the following relevant relations:
T j Φ T 2 , R t φ T 2 ; therefore it yields multiple utterances. —
Utterances with a multiple Τ are derivable only from a progression
based on the schema T t R t + T 2 -» R 1; in which R's of Uj
and U 2 are identical; such a progression may be considered a very
rare modification of (3).

Authenticated
FSP AND THE TEXT ORGANIZATION 123
Schematically:
U's U's U's U's

multi-
with with with with
Types of TP's ple a multi- a multi- a com- a com-
U's ple Τ ple R plex Τ plex R
Tj - Rj + T 2 ( = Rj) R2 — + +
T, ^ R j + T 2 ( = TJ) —>• R 2 + - + + _
Ύ, ^ R 1 + T2->R2 + -
(T, Rj + T 2 Rt) (+)
III
Linguists pursuing the analysis of intersentential relations in the

text mostly interpret these relations in semantic terms, disregarding
FSP. (One of the rare exceptions is Κ. E. H E I D O L P H (1966), whose
approach implies FSP, without mentioning it.) Now a query arises
whether or how the said semantic relations bear upon FSP. We
shall content ourselves with raising some questions without trying
to supply satisfactory answers.
To start with, it will be useful to find out connexions between FSP
and the semantic structure of the sentence. In my paper at the Tenth
International Congress of Linguists in Bucarest 1967 (cf. D A N E S
1970b, 409) I suggested that the different semantic relations be-
tween R and Τ might supply a criterion for a linguistically relevant
classification of utterances. A similar idea has been proposed by
E. BENES (1968): "This relationship of the rheme to the theme can
be regarded as the constituent act of utterance, just as the rela-
tionship of subject and predicate as the constituent act of a sentence"
(271). He exemplifies his thought by the following utterances: the
actual communicative aim or sense of the utterance Prague is the

Authenticated
124 F. D A N E S
capital of CSSR is the assignment of a particular quality to its

bearer, while the sense of the other utterance (revealing the same
grammatical as well as semantic structure, and the identic lexical
filling), The capital of CSSR is Prague, may be described as the
assignment of a bearer to a quality.
Following this line we might dare propose a further generaliza-
tion: A n y Τ — R nexus actualizes a particular semantic relation
contained in the semantic (propositionäl) structure o f the under-
lying sentence, so that the communicative sense of an utterance
( C U S ) may be defined in terms o f the semantic function o f R-por-
tion in relation to T-portion of the underlying sentence. 5
A German example:
(la) Unsere Mutter schreibt ihre Briefe mit der Feder
Semantic sentence structure: Ag-Act-Res-Instr
Phonological shape: unmarked, centre of intonation (CI) on the ter-
minal word (stress-group) Feder
Diagnostic R-question: "Womit schreibt unsere Mutter ihre Briefe?"
R: mit der Feder
CUS: the assignment of an instrument to an agentive resultative action
(or, more generally: indication of instrument)
(lb) Mit der Feder schreibt ihre Briefe unsere Mutter
Semantic sentence structure: the same as in (la)
Phonological shape: unmarked, CI on the terminal word Mutter
Diagnostic R-question: "Wer schreibt seine Briefe mit der Feder?"
R: unsere Mutter
CUS: the assignment of an agent (to an instrument used in a resultative
action)
(lc) Mit der Feder schreibt unsere Mutter ihre Briefe
Semantic sentence structure: the same as in (la)
Phonological shape: unmarked CI on the terminal word Briefe
Diagnostic R-question: "Was schreibt unsere Mutter mit der Feder?"
R: ihre Briefe
CUS: the assignment of result (achieved with an instrument in an
agentive action)
Note:
It is evident that the adaptation of a sentence to different contexts (resulting
5
An interesting attempt at a semantic classification of statements con-
veyed by different sentences has been made by GARVIN, BREWER, and
MATHIOT ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

Authenticated
FSP A N D T H E TEXT ORGANIZATION 125
in different utterances with different CUS) merely by means of word order

variations and/or of changes in the position of CI is possible in some lan-
guages only, and even there this possibility is not without restrictions. But
I will not recapitulate here what is known from analyses done by Firbas and
others, namely that the means for signalling FSP are various and numerous,
word order and sentence intonation being only the most elementary of them
(cf. DANES 1 9 6 7 ) .
It is evident that CUS, being defined as a function of R, plays no

part in building up thematic progressions. But this does not mean,
of course, that CUS plays no part in constructing texts. We may
reasonably ask, e.g., what kinds of relations hold between the
rhemes of concatenated sentences in a text.
Thus in the following sequence of German sentences
(2) (a) Dieser Brief kommt nicht von meiner Mutter her.
(b) Meine Mutter schreibt ihre Briefe immer nur mit der Feder.
CUS of (a) is the contradiction of a presupposed originator
(source), and that of (b) is the assignment of an instrument. The
sequence is based on a simple linear TP, schematically T a -> R a +
+ T b ( = R a ) -> R b . The semantic relation of R b to R a is inexplicit,
but since (b) may be considered an answer to the question (a')
"Warum kommt dieser Brief nicht von meiner Mutter h e r ? " (cf. the
possibility of complementing (b) with the particle nähmlich, stating
the relation explicitly), we may identify it as the relation of
"reason". Schematically:
t I
In terms of CUS we may state that the indication of an instrument

(CUS b ) supplies the reason for the contradiction of a presupposed
originator (CUS a ).
(It may be noticed as well that the semantic sentence function
of R a ("originator") switches, when this item becomes T b (its new
function being "agent"). But such a functional semantic switch
has no structural relevance for the text; it is conditioned by the
choice of the grammatical construction.)
This being so, we may conclude (1) that (at least some) semantic
relationships between concatenated sentences in a text (regarded by

Authenticated
126 F. DANES
many linguists as the text constituting relations — cf. Isenberg's

notion of "Vertextungstypen") do not hold, in fact, between the
whole sentences, 6 but only between their R's, and (2) that these
semantic relations (or "semantic text functions") are of another
kind than those involved by CUS (i.e., the intersententional seman-
tic relations): the former necessarily belong to a higher level of
abstraction, since they appear as functional implementations of
the latter (i.e., CUS's are employed as means of expression of inter-
sententional textual relations).
But by far not all intersentential relationships belong to the same
type as "reason" does, i.e., to the type of "causal" or "logical"
relations (such as cause, consequence, concession,...). Another
type is represented by the temporal and local relations; to another
kind of abstraction belong such notions as "explication", "enu-
meration, or again, "adversative relation", "gradation", "con-
f r o n t a t i o n " , e t c . (cf., e.g., SKALICKA 1960, BECKA 1960).
Unfortunately, the classifications done by various investigators
of text structure often fail to differentiate systematically the dif-
ferent types and levels of semantic abstraction (they often content
themselves with semantic relations used by "traditional" as well as
"modern" grammarians for the classification of clauses within com-
pound and complex sentences, of adverbials, etc.), and what they
offer seems to be an (unexhaustive) list of heterogeneous relations,
lacking theoretical justification, a hierarchical order and objective
classificatory criteria.
Another analytical problem is prompted by the fundamental
distinction of the "semantics of reference", and the "semantics of
meaning" (Quine): It is necessary to differentiate the multiple
factual extralinguistic relations existing between the denotata (i.e.,
objects or events) of concatenated sentential utterances, from that
6
Our interpretation is backed by the fact that in some languages particles
and conjunctions explicitly expressing the given relation may be shifted
from the beginning of the sentence and placed exactly before R (or R proper).
Cf. the Czech version of (3) with the particle totiz (equivalent to G. nähmtich):
"Tento dopis není od mé matky. Moje maminka píSe dopisy totiz vzdy jen
perem."

Authenticated
(those) relation(s) which the speaker has selected for his message
and which he is now conveying by means of the specific linguistic
meanings (lexical and syntactic) of language units he has chosen
to this aim from the overall inventory of the given language system.
Especially when the intersentential relation is not explicitly ex-
pressed, all the linguist may do is to find out all linguistically pos-
sible interpretations, i.e., interpretations prompted (allowed for)
by the semantic context (lexical and syntactic meanings) in ques-
tion.
T o s u m u p : In respect to FSP, the generalized structure of a co-

herent text may be described in terms of an underlying thematic
progression (representing the most abstract thematic relationships
of several types) and a rhematic sequence of semantic relations
obtaining between the particular rhemes. (It is not yet clear whether
there exist standardized types of rhematic sequences as well, i.e.,
whether the rhematic sequences reveal an underlying pattern, as
TP's do.)
REFERENCES
BECKA, J. V., Základy kompozice jazykovych projevû (Fundamentals of

stylistic composition). Acta Unwersitatis Palackianae Olomucensis,
Philologica III, Praha 1960.
BENES, E., Zaöatek nèmecké vëty Ζ hlediska aktuálního ¿lenëni vëtného
[with a German Summary "Der Satzbeginn im Deutschen, von der
Mitteilungsperspektive her betrachtet"], CMP 41, 1959, 205—217.
BENES, E., On two aspects of functional sentence perspective, TLP 3, 1968,
267-274.
DANES, F., Téma //(základ)// vychodisko vypovëdi [Theme //(Foundation)//
Starting point of the utterance], SaS 25, 1964,148f.
DANES, F., Order of elements and sentence intonation. In: To Honor Roman
Jakobson I, The Hague 1967, 4 9 9 - 512.
DANES, F., One instance of Prague School methodology: Functional analysis
of utterance and text. In: Theory and method in linguistics (P. Garvin,
ed.), The Hague 1970, 1 3 2 - 1 4 6 .
DANES, F., Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur, Folia Linguistica 4,
1970a, 7 2 - 7 8 .

Authenticated
128 F. DANES
DANEÍ, F., Semantic considerations in syntax. In: Actes du Xe Congress

international des linguistes II., Bucarest 1970b, 407—413.
FIRBAS, J., On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis, T L P 1,
1964, 2 6 7 - 2 8 0 .
GARVIN, P. - BREWER, J . - MATHIOT, M . , Predication-Typing. A pilot study
in semantic analysis. Language Monograph 27, Washington 1967.
GÜLICH, E . , Gliederungssignale in der Makrosyntax des gesprochenen Fran-
zösisch. München 1970.
HALUDAY, Μ . Α . Κ . , Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part I I ,
JL 3, 1967, 199-247.
HAUSENBLAS, K . , On characterization and classification of discourses, TLP I,
1964,67-84.
HAUSENBLAS, K . , Krátká úvaha na téma "téma" [ A short paper on the theme
"theme"], CL 17, 1969, 3 - 1 0 .
HEIDOLPH, K. E., Kontextbeziehungen zwischen Sätzen in einer generativen
Grammatik, Kybernetika 2, 1968, 274—281.
ISENBERG, H., Ueberlegungen zur Texttheorie, ASG-Bericht Nr. 2, Berlin
1968. (Multiplicated.)
ISENBERO, H . , Der Begriff "Text" in der Sprachtheorie, ASG-Bericht Nr. 8,
Berlin 1970. (Multiplicated.)
KLEMENSIEWICZ, Ζ., O syntaktycznym stosunku nawiazania, Slavia 19, 1949,
13-27.
MATHESIUS, V . , O tak zvaném aktuálním ôlenëni vëtném [On the so-
called actual bipartition of the sentence], SaS 5, 1939, 171 — 174.
MATHESIUS, V . , fteiS a sloh [Language and style]. In: Cteni o jazyce a poezii,
Praha 1942, 1 3 - 1 0 2 .
PALEK, B . , Cross-Reference. A study from hyper-syntax. A UC, Monographia
21. Praga 1968.
SGALL, P . , L'ordre des mots et la sémantique. In: Studies in syntax and
semantics (F. Kiefer, ed.), Dordrecht 1969, 231—240.
SKALICKA, V., Syntax promluvy (enunciace) [Syntax of the enunciation],
S a S 2 1 , 1960, 2 4 1 - 2 4 9 .
TROST, P., Subjekt a predikát [Subject and Predicate], Slavica Pragensia 4,
1962, 2 6 7 - 2 7 0 .
VACHEK, J . , Some thoughts on the so-called complex condensation in
modern English, SPFFBU, 1955, A3, 6 3 - 7 7 .
WEINREICH, U., On the semantic structure of language. In: Universals of
language (J. H. Greneberg, ed.), Cambridge 1963, 114—171.

Authenticated
ZUR FRAGE DER FUNKTIONALEN SATZPERSPEKTIVE
IM DRAMATISCHEN TEXT
Josef Filipec (Prag)
1. Bei der Analyse der Texte der schönen Literatur darf die Thema-
Rhema-Gliederung keineswegs vernachlässigt werden. Natürlich
sind die Verhältnisse hier komplizierter als in rein kommunikativen
Texten und Fachtexten. Das bedeutet aber nicht, daß man die
schwierige Arbeit nicht unternehmen sollte.
Ich habe zum Objekt meiner Untersuchung den dramatischen
Text (DT) des heutigen tschechischen Prosaschriftstellers und Dra-
matikers Bohuslav Brezovsky, Nebezpecny vëk ÇDas gefährliche
Menschenalter, Praha 1962) gemacht, der trotz aller Stilisierung
den mündlichen Charakter der natürlichen Rede aufweist. Das
Drama stellt den Kampf der jungen Leute und ihrer Eltern für die
Wahrheit ihres Lebens und ihrer gemeinsamen Beziehungen gegen
die bürgerlichen Konventionen dar.
Die Eigentümlichkeit des mündlichen Textes äußert sich darin,
daß dieser situationsgebunden ist. Unter S i t u a t i o n eines DT
verstehe ich spezifische Beziehungen der Gegenstände einer Hand-
lung (Personen, Ort, Zeit, Requisiten, Stimmung), also ζ. B. eine
Liebesszene. Diese Situation des Textes verweist auf eine Situation
des realen Lebens und kann mit ihr konfrontiert werden. Derjenige,
der einen DT wahrnimmt, bewegt sich also in drei E b e n e n : Text-
ebene, Szeneebene (charakterisiert durch szenische Anmerkungen)
und Ebene der außerhalb des Textes stehenden Realität. Wichtig
ist ζ. B. der Unterschied der realen, szenischen und der dramati-
schen Zeit: was sich zwischen zwei Personen früher ereignet hat,
kann im Text erst nachher angeführt sein und der Leser oder
Zuschauer erfährt es erst im Verlauf der Handlung.

Authenticated
130 J. FILIPEC
Der DT hat immer den Situationellen Hintergrund, er wird immer

im Kontext der Situation1 wahrgenommen. Immer wird die erste
Satzaussage von einer Person in einer bestimmten Situation ge-
macht, der sprachliche und vor allem der Situationskontext ist also
immer anwesend.2 Auch bei der Analyse der funktionalen Satz-
perspektive (FSP) muß man dementsprechend zwei Linien berück-
sichtigen: die Textfolge I. (Sprachtext) und die Situationsfolge II.
(Situationskontext). Die Thema-Rhema-Gliederung der Ebene I.
muß durch die Elemente der Ebene II. ergänzt werden, und zwar
auf die möglichst einfache und kurze Weise.
Zum Beispiel spricht Professor Hába mit seiner Schwiegertochter
Olga über seinen Schwiegersohn, der gerade aufgrund einer Amne-
stie vom Gefängnis entlassen wurde und im Nebenzimmer schläft
(S. 64). Seine Ankunft bedeutet für die ganze Familie eine Kom-
plikation. Vor allem die Ehefrau des Entlassenen, Professors Toch-
ter, steht vor der Wahl zwischen zwei Männern und vor der Ehe-
trennung. Gerade diese Situation gibt der Textfolge einen anderen
Sinn, den man rekonstruieren muß, um den Text zu verstehen.
Die Textfolge hat also einen gewissen Subtext (s. weiter).
Die erfolgreiche und genaue FSP-Analyse setzt also die voll-
s t ä n d i g e R e k o n s t r u i e r u n g der T h - R h - S e q u e n z e n und
ihres Zusammenhanges und diese wieder die vollständige syntak-
tische Analyse und die explizite semantische Interpretation und
Analyse der Textaussagen in den beiden angezeigten Ebenen vor-
aus.
2. Daraus ergeben sich gewisse m e t h o d o l o g i s c h e F o l g e r u n -

gen. Die FSP ist nicht der einzige textbildende Faktor, wie es z. B.
1
FIRTH, J. R., Personality and Language in Society. In: Papers in Lin-
guistics (1934—1951), London—New York—Toronto 1964, 182.
2
Dazu auch SKALIÍKA, V., Text, kontext, subtext. In: AUC — Philo-
logica 3, Slavica Prag. III., Praha 1961,76: „Der Kontext ist immer anwesend,
d. h. die Einheiten des Textes stehen immer in einem Verhältnis zueinander
und zur Situation".

Authenticated
ZUR FRAGE D E R FSP IM DRAMATISCHEN TEXT 131
aus Hallidays 3 Formulierung fließen möchte. Dieser kommunika-

tive Mechanismus setzt vor allem die Schicht der semantischen
und in gesprochenen Texten die Schicht der prosodischen Mittel
und Klangqualitäten voraus. 4 Die thematischen Zusammenhänge
konstituieren die Komposition der Texte. Die Mittel aller Schichten
stehen in gemeinsamen Beziehungen, deren Zusammenspiel eine
Gesamtqualität ästhetischer Werte hervortreten läßt, die in der
kommunikativen Ebene ihre Grundlage finden. Der Zusammen-
hang dieser Schichten ist ein semiologischer, denn zum Beispiel die
Gesten drücken den semantischen Inhalt aus oder begleiten und
unterstreichen den Akzent oder die Intonation in ihrer mimischen
Funktion.
Zum Beispiel wiederholt der Vater die Worte seines Sohnes, der
ihn über seine Absicht, einen Film zu sehen, informiert, mit großer
Aufregung, die sich in Rufesätzen mit spezifischer Intonation reali-
siert. Jan (Vater): Wo gehst du hin? — Honzik: Nur ins Kino. Ver-
kaufte Leben. Große Spannung. Frankreich — — Jan: Ins Kino\ Sol
Große Spannung! Frankreich! Also keine Spannung und kein Frank-
reich! Lernen mußt du! Weißt du, daß du vor der Reifeprüfung
stehst - -? (17)
In der s e m a n t i s c h e n S c h i c h t eines Dramas sind mehrere
Komponenten zu unterscheiden: a) Ebene der dargestellten D e n o -
t a t e (Personen, Gegenstände, Ort, Zeit, Stimmung) und ihrer Be-
ziehungen, die mit den außerhalb des Textes stehenden realen
Denotaten konfrontiert werden können, z. B. im Falle eines zeitlich
unpassenden Kostüms oder der veränderten Nacheinanderfolge
3
HALLIDAY, M. A. K., The Place of FSP in the System of Linguistic De-
scription, S. 44, in dieser Sammelschrift: „I would define FSP as the text-
creating component of language".
4
Zu den Strukturkomponenten eines Textes vgl. auch FILIPEC, J., Zur
sprachlich-stilistischen Analyse der tschechischen Übersetzungen der Dra-
men Bertolt Brechts. In: Deutsch-tschechische Beziehungen im Bereich der
Sprache und Kultur. 2. Bd., Abhandl. der Sächs. Akad. der Wiss. zu Leipzig,
Berlin 1968, 17—45. — Vgl. auch Abteil Drama in Knízka o jazyce a stylu
soudobé ieskè literatury (Buch über Sprache und Stil der heutigen tschechi-
schen Literatur), Praha 1961, SS. 161 — 195.

Authenticated
132 J. F I L I P E C
der realen Zeit usw.;5 b) Ebene der s i g n i f i k a t i v e n (eigentlich

sprachlichen) B e d e u t u n g , die den sprachlichen Inhalt der Satz-
aussagen, ihren Sinn zum Ausdruck bringt, c) Ebene der p r a g m a -
t i s c h e n B e d e u t u n g , das heißt Konnotationen und zusätzliche
expressive Qualitäten, die die Standpunkte der Personen unter-
einander, zur Äußerung der Partner und zur dargestellten Realität,
ausdrücken, d) Ebene des S u b t e x t e s 6 in der Auffassung der
Theatertheoretiker, d. h. des aktuell gemeinten Sinnes einer Satz-
aussage, der von der Handlung gefordert wird, ihr neue Entwick-
lungsanregungen erteilt und den eigentlichen Kontext herausbildet.
Ad a) Die Repliken (Teiläußerungen der einzelnen Dialogpart-
ner) oder ihre Teile befinden sich in dem semantischen Zusammen-
hang, der durch die Relation Stimulus — Reaktion 7 charakterisiert
werden kann. Der Stimulus ist entweder die Replik eines Partners
oder die vorangehende Replik des Sprechers selbst oder eine außer-
sprachliche Äußerung (Lachen, Bewegung) oder Eingreifen einer
Person oder eines Gegenstandes (ζ. B. spricht man über ein Licht-
bild).
Ad c) Dabei sind vor allem die pragmatischen Aspekte relevant.
Diese zeigen sich in syntaktischer Hinsicht in der Bevorzugung von
expressiven Sprachmitteln,8 die der Dominanz der emotiven Funk-
tion entsprechen. Dazu gehört (1) die relativ hohe Häufigkeit von
Rufesätzen, (2) die subjektive Reihenfolge und (3) die emotionell
gefärbte Intonation und andere auditive Mittel. Über Interjek-
tionen vgl. weiter.
Ad (1) Die Statistik aus den ersten 100 Satzganzen des
zweiten Teiles und aus den weiteren 100 Satzganzen anderen
5
Dazu die Ausführungen von R. INGARDEN, Das literarische Kunstwerk,
1931 und O poznawanitt dziela literackiego, Warszawa 1957 2 (übersetzt ins
Tschechische, Praha 1967).
6
Vgl. dazu in dem von SKALICKA hier sub 2 zit. Aufsatz, 77f.
7
BOSÁK, C. - CAMUTALIOVÁ, I., Κ vystavbë dialogu (Zum Dialogauf-
bau), SaS 28, 1967, 2 3 7 - 245.
8
GREPL, M., Emocionàlné motwované aktualizace υ syntaktickê strukture
vypovëdi (Emotionell motivierte Aktualisationen in der syntaktischen Aus-
sagenstruktur), Brno 1967.

Authenticated
Z U R F R A G E D E R FSP I M D R A M A T I S C H E N T E X T 133
Charakters zeigt 50% Rufesätze mit oder ohne Rufezeichen. 9
Rufesätze
Frage- Befehl- u.
Satz- Aussage-
ganze mit ohne Wunsch-
sätze zusam- sätze
sätze
Rufezeichen men
1
100 20 21 29 50 28 2
I
S. 4 6 - 4 8
100 23*) 24 26 50 25 2
S. 5 3 - 5 6 ¡
1
Zusam- i
men 43 45 ! 55 100 53 4
I
* Bemerkung: Die relativ höhere Anzahl der Aussagesätze entspricht hier

auch dem absichtlich stereotypen Standpunkt der handelnden Person
(Honzik: monoton, stereotyp usw.).
A d (2) Der mündliche Charakter des D T bevorzugt die s u b -

j e k t i v e R e i h e n f o l g e in Verbindung mit der Inversion, Wieder-
holung und Gradation. Zum Beispiel: Jan (Vater): . . . Co zapírám?
(Was leugne ich ab?) — Honzik: Podvádís— (Du betrügst —) —
U M
Jan: Coze! (Was denn!) — Honzik: Mámu! Mámu podvádís! (Die
w w
Mutter! Die Mutter betrügst du! S. 55). Oder Jan: Co vis? (Was
w \\ \\ u
weißt du denn?) — Honzik: Vsechno! Vsechno vim. (Alles! Alles
weiß ich. S. 57). Oder Hába ... Jenze to uz neni nie platné, ty vase
M M
hovory. Je pozdë! Ulicnika jste ζ nëho vychovali. Lumpa — (Nur
9
Vortreffliche Belehrung über Satztypen findet man bei SMILAUER, V.,
Novoéeská skladba (Neutschechische Syntax), Praha 19662, hier 34ff. Auch
K O P E C N Í , F . , Základy íeské skladby (Grundlagen der tschechischen Syntax),
Praha 1958 und BAUER, J . - G R E P L , M . , Skladba spisovné iestiny (Syntax der
tschechischen Schriftsprache), Praha 1972.

Authenticated
134 J. FILIPEC
daß sie keine Suppe fett machen, diese Plaudereien. Es ist schon
u \\
spät! Einen Lausbuben habt ihr erzogen. Einen Gauner — S. 59)
Ad (3) In den angezeigten Fällen wird das Rhema und auch das
Intonationszentrum gegen Anfang der Aussage vorgeschoben.10
Natürlich kommen dabei oft auch andere p r o s o d i s c h e Mittel,
wie Akzent, Intonationskadenzen, Pausen, Rhythmus (ζ. B. bei
den Enklitika) und Timbre, zum Vorschein. Der Akzent dominiert
ζ. B. in folgenden Aussagen (in der ersten ist das Rhema vorge-
schoben):
w
Jan: Jestli to mâ nëkdo ν neporádku, tak jsi to ν prvé rade asi ty —
\ \ \ v \ \
Honzík: Já to nezapírám. Jan: A kdo? Snad já — Honzík: Ty!

w
(iSpricht man von Unordnung, dann ist das vor allem deine Sache —.
w
Wörtliche Übersetzung:... dann bist es in erster Reihe Du! — Diese
merkmalhaltige Formulierung anstatt des Merkmallosen: Und du
hast alles in Ordnung? oder: Aber du hast doch Unordnung! —
Honzík: Ich leugne es nicht. — Und wer? Vielleicht ich Du!
S. 55)
Oder eine andere Stelle: Honzík: Jâ opravdu nevím, kam chce
w
p o t o m jit — Olga: Jak to p o t o m ? ! Ty vis, kde je ted —? (Ich
w
weiß wirklich nicht, wohin sie nachher gehen will — Olga: Wie so
\\ u
nachher?! Du weißt, wo sie jetzt ist — ? S. 70)
3. Man darf DT nicht mit denselben Kriterien beurteilen, die auf

Grund der Analyse der Texte anderer Gattungen und nicht münd-
lichen Charakters gewonnen worden sind. Der D T h a t eigene
W e s e n s z ü g e und gehört zum Texttyp mit eigenen Normen. Auch
10
DANES, F., Intonace a vëta ve spisovné cestinë (Intonation und Satz in
der tschechischen Schriftsprache), Praha 1957. In unserem Zusammenhang
vor allem 55fF. und 75ff. Auf 76 spricht er auch über Theaterstücke. — Der-
selbe Autor, Order of Elements and Sentence Intonation. In: To Honor
R. Jakobson, The Hague 1967, 4 9 9 - 5 1 2 .

Authenticated
ZUR FRAGE DER FSP I M DRAMATISCHEN TEXT 135
die syntaktischen Verhältnisse sind arteigen, wie eine kleine Über-

sicht aus den 200 früher angeführten Satzaussagenganzen (SAG)
des DT zeigt:
Hinzeine Satzaussagen
2-Glied-A.
Fragment.
1-Glied-Aussagen
SAG zusammen
e
<υ
ε
Partikel
g
Vokat.
ε
Subst.
Β Interj.
Adv.
rt
S
3
Vi
3
Ν Ν
zusam-
31 men 23 10 9 4
100 132 78 54
17 31 9 4 10 2 6
100 134 86 48
48 54 19 13 10 6 6
200 266 164 102
100% 61,6% 38,4%

!
Im DT gibt es ziemlich viele unvollendete und elliptische Zwei-

glied-Aussagen (im Schema s. Fragmentarische). Das Prozent die-
ser und der Einglied-Aussagen ist ziemlich hoch: 38,4%. Die
Ellipse 1 1 ist sehr häufig und hat zwei Typen, die mit dem früher
1 1
SMILAUER, V., op. zit. sub 9, 90—95 und 451f. AUCIIZIMMERMANN, H.,
Zu einer Typologie des spontanen Gesprächs (Dissertation), Langenthal 1965,
5 3 - 5 9 . BAUER - GREPL, 178f.

Authenticated
136 J. FILIPEC
Gesagten übereinstimmen: kontextuelle und situationelle Ellipse.

Beispiel der kontextuellen: Eva: A to tam s ním bude spät? Hába:
Coze? (Pochopí) Aha! To maminka jistë nëjak zaridí — (Und sie
wird mit ihm schlafen? — Was denn? Aha! Das wird die Mutter
sicher einrichten — S. 48)
Beispiel der situationeilen: Hába: ... A trochu se ho bojím
Râno —Jan: Co ríkás-- Hába: Mluvím o nëm — (Ukááe na dvere
Kastnero vie bytu) — {Und ich fürchte mich ein wenig vor ihm - - Am
Morgen — Was sagst du denn — Ich spreche von ihm — (Er zeigt
auf die Tür von Kastner's Wohnung) S. 57.
4. Die Satzaussagen sind ziemlich kurz, und zwar nicht nur der
Wortzahl, sondern auch der Anzahl der verwendeten Satzglieder
nach.
Wortanzahl in 200 Satzaussageganzen
Wortanzahl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Anzahl der
Aussagen 79 61 57 33 19 10 5 2 Zusammen 266
Es gibt also 230 Aussagen, d. h. mehr als 86,4% mit 1—4 Wör-
tern. Der Durchschnitt beträgt 2,67 Wort pro 1 Aussage.
Anzahl der Satzglieder in 200 SAG
Anzahl der Satzglieder 1 2 3 4 5
Anzahl der Aussagen 106 70 53 23 14 Zusammen 266

Authenticated
Z U R F R A G E D E R FSP I M D R A M A T I S C H E N TEXT 137
Der Durchschnitt beträgt 2,13 Satzglieder pro 1 Aussage.

Die Statistik der Beziehung der S a t z g l i e d e r zu einzelnen
G l i e d e r n der T h - R h - G l i e d e r u n g , obgleich der Anzahl der
Angaben nach beschränkt, gibt doch interessante Resultate. Sie
zeigt, daß in einzelnen Komponenten der Th-Rh-Gliederung alle
Satzglieder vorkommen, aber mit ungleicher Häufigkeit. Es tritt
klar die Tendenz hervor, daß sich das Thema vor allem zur Aus-
nützung des Subjektes, das Rhema zur Ausnützung des Prädikats
neigt und das Übergangsglied Prädikat (Verbum finitum und die
Kopula) bevorzugt. Die Teilstatistik aus zwei Dramen zeigt etwa
folgende Reihenfolge: ·
Thema: Subjekt-Prädikat-Objekt und adverbiale Bestimmung-
Ergänzung (im zweiten Drama steht Prädikat auf der vierten Stelle)
Rhema: Prädikat-Subjekt-Adverb.-Objekt-Ergänzung
Übergangsglied: Prädikat (Verbum finitum, Kopula)-Adverb.-
Objekt
Die relativ hohe Anzahl von Einwortaussagen und die Nicht-
Wiederholung der Teilthemen, die in der gegebenen Situation klar
sind, begründet die relativ hohe Häufigkeit subjektloser Aussagen.
Eine mehr detaillierte Statistik sollte auch die Länge der Aus-
sagen, d. h. die Anzahl der Satzglieder,12 sowie auch die Tatsache,
daß mehrere Glieder der Th-Rh-Gliederung durch einige Satz-
glieder gebildet sind, daß also ζ. B. das Rhema aus dem Rhema-
Kern und dem Rhema-Rest besteht, berücksichtigen. Zum Bei-
w
spiel: Hába: Tys uz s ním mluvila?... Eva: No, nemluvila, protoze
spi. Na mém ganci, abys vëdël! {Du hast ihn schon gesprochen? ...
Aber, ich hab ihn nicht gesprochen, da er schläft. Auf meiner Couch,
weißt du! S. 47) — Er schläft auf meiner Couch könnte auch als
Rhema im Rahmen einer einzigen Satzaussage fungieren.
Noch zwei weitere Tatsachen sollen berücksichtigt werden:
(1) Den Ausgangspunkt der Aussagen bildet oft nicht das Thema,
12
U H L Í f c o v Á , L., Vztah syntaktické funkce vëtného élenu a jeho mista
ve vëtë (Die Beziehung der syntaktischen Funktion des Satzgliedes und seiner
Satzstellung), SaS 30, 1969, 358-370.

Authenticated
138 J. FILIPEC
sondern ein Wort, das den gesprochenen Charakter eines Textes

signalisiert. Es sind im Tschechischen vor allem Verweispartikeln,
wie to, a to, pak ze, a pak, vono, (je) to, tak mit der Bedeutung
es, dann", und Konjunktionen, die aber vom Standpunkt der
schriftlichen Texte als redundant erscheinen, wie ζ. Β. a (auch als
„das, Partikel), ale (auch als Interjektion), anebo, a ted, jestli, kdyz,
a kdyz, nez, vSak „und, aber, oder, wenn, als, bevor". Dies unter-
streicht die Richtigkeit der U n t e r s c h e i d u n g zwischen dem
A u s g a n g s p u n k t und dem T h e m a einer Aussage, die man
früher festgestellt hat. 13
(2) Das R h e m a wird oft durch gewisse Wörter, die Steigerung,
Wiederholung oder Hervorhebung der Aussage oder deren Teiles
ausdrücken, angekündigt: docela „gar", dokonce „sogar", prece
„doch", jen, jenom „nur", jestë „noch", opravdu „wirklich", taky
„auch", uz „schon", uz ne „nicht mehr" und andere.
5. Die Feststellung der T y p e n t h e m a t i s c h e r P r o g r e s s i o n e n ,

wie sie von F. Danes 14 gebahnt wurde, ist auch in den künstleri-
schen Texten und dementsprechend auch im DT hauptsächlich
wegen der Kompositionsfunktion dieser Typen von großer Wich-
tigkeit. Die Analyse einiger Abschnitte der DT zeigt, daß hier die
von Danes festgestellten Grundtypen vertreten sind, aber mit Aus-
nahme der den erklärenden Fachstil kennzeichnenden Progression
mit den aus einem Hyperthema abgeleiteten Teilthemen, die das
Hyperthema charakterisieren.
1. E i n f a c h e l i n e a r e P r o g r e s s i o n , die eigentlich merkmallos
ist, z. B.:
Karla: Je to müj muz. Ted je tady a potrebuje më. Jednou jsem
s ním spojila svùj zivot ... (Es ist mein Mann. Jetzt ist er hier und
13
BENES, E., ZaCátek nëmecké vëty Ζ hlediska aktuálniho ëlenëni vypo-
vëdi (Anfang des deutschen Satzes vom Standpunkt der aktuellen Aussage-
gliederung), CMF41, 1959, 2 0 5 - 217.
14
DANES, F., Typy tematickych posloupnosti ν textu (Typen der thema-
tischen Progressionen im Text), SaS 29, 1968, 125—141. — Auch „FSP and
the Organization of the Text" in dieser Sammelschrift, und Zur linguistischen
Analyse der Textstruktur, Folia Linguistica 4, 1970, 49—56.

Authenticated
Z U R F R A G E D E R FSP I M D R A M A T I S C H E N TEXT 139
bedürft meiner. Ich habe einmal mit ihm mein Leben verbunden ...
S.71). Schematisch:
Th t Ü Rhl5 Th2 = Rhi Ü Rh2, Th 3 = Rh2 Ü Rh3
2. P r o g r e s s i o n mit dem d u r c h l a u f e n d e n T h e m a , d. h. Re-
pliken mindestens zweier Personen betreffen dasselbe Thema:
Eva: JeSisi, on tarn je. Na mém gauci. Spi. To prece nejde. {Jesus,
er liegt dort. Auf meiner Couch. Er schläft. Das ist doch nicht
möglich. S. 46)
Schematisch:
3. P r o g r e s s i o n mit den aus den K o m p o n e n t e n eines ge-

spalteten Rhemas abgeleiteten Teilthemen:
Eva: Do toho nikomu nie nenî. Já uz nejsem dite, abych musila vsech-
no rikat. Abych musila spät ν dëtsky postylee — (Das geht niemand
an. Ich bin kein Kind mehr, auf daß ich Alles von mir sagen muß.
Auf daß ich in meinem Kinderbett schlafen muß — ( = wie ein
Kind. S. 47)
Schematisch:
Daneben gibt es noch andere Typen, die eigentlich nur Modi-

f i k a t i o n e n der G r u n d t y p e n darstellen, vor allem:
1. Typ mit dem für einen DT typischen I n e i n a n d e r g r e i f e n
der T h e m e n aus der Text- und Situationsfolge. Ζ. B. geht dem
hier unter der Nummer 2 angeführten Teiltext folgende Situations-
folge voraus:
Eva kommt nach Hause. Auf Ihrer Couch schläft ein Mann.
Schematisch: Th! Rh| — Th„ R h n . Nach dieser Situationsfolge

Authenticated
140 J. FILIPEC
kommt die Textfolge Thi Rh^ Jesus, er liegt dort (vgl. oben).
2. Typ mit a b w e c h s e l n d e r R e i h e n f o l g e der T h e m e n (vgl.
das Schema):
— A Jak vis, ze mä dneska nocni? ...

— Myslela jsem — kdyz za ni nechces do bytu —
— Abych za ni sel do spitàlu, co? No, myslelas to dobre.
(Und wie weißt du, daß sie heute Nachtdienst hat? — Ich dachte,
wenn du sie nicht in ihrer Wohnung besuchen willst. — Daß ich sie
im Krankenhaus aufsuchen soll, nicht wahr? S. 10.)
3. Typ mit w i e d e r k e h r e n d e m T h e m a :
Haba: Myslil jsem — rozumnë si pohovorit. Eva: Rozumnë si poho-
vorit! Kazdy se mnou chce rozumnë hovorit. Mäma vcera — (Ich
habe gedacht — die Sache vernünftig zu besprechen. — Die Sache
vernünftig zu besprechen! Ein jeder will mit mir vernünftig sprechen.
Die Mutter gestern — S. 48). Schematisch:
Th 1 Rh 1 - Thi = Rht - Rh2Thi - Rh3(Th!)
Typ mit w i e d e r k e h r e n d e m R h e m a :
Eva: Spi. ... No, nemluvila, protoze spi. ... Hába: Aha, on spi. (Er
schläft.... Aber, ich habe ihn nicht gesprochen, da er schläft. — Aha,
er schläft. S. 46f. und wiederholt.) Schematisch:
(Th)Rht - (Th)Rhi - ThRhj ...
4. Typ mit T h e m a - E l l i p s e in vielen nur rhematischen Aussagen
(vgl. auch früher).
Alle diese Typen und Modifikationen sind für den DT typisch.
Sie realisieren sich auf dem Hintergrund der kommunikativ nor-
malen unmarkierten Reihenfolge der Th-Rh-Sequenzen. Auf Grund

Authenticated
Z U R F R A G E D E R FSP IM D R A M A T I S C H E N TEXT 141
der manchmal komplizierten Beziehungen konstituiert sich der

K o m p o s i t i o n s a u f b a u des DT. Ζ. B. gibt es in unseren Proben
das sich wiederholende Thema des schlafenden Mannes als Sym-
bol der bedrückenden Vergangenheit.
Zusammenfassung: Unsere Analyse hat mehr anregend als er-

schöpfend gezeigt, daß die Th-Rh-Gliederung unter die relevanten
Strukturelemente der gesamten Textstruktur gehört. Andere Text-
faktoren sind die semantische Schicht, die selbst spezifisch geglie-
dert ist, und die sich darauf konstituierenden thematischen und
auch rhematischen Zusammenhänge, die noch zu erforschen sind.
Zu den wichtigen Komponenten der mündlichen Texte gehören
prosodische Mittel und weitere Mittel, die den Hauptfunktionen
dieser Texte dienen, d. h. der referentiellen und Situationellen, der
emotiven, der Kontakt- und Appellfunktion. Es gibt hier relativ
viele Rufesätze, subjektive Th-Rh-Sequenzen und Inversion, häu-
fige Eingliedaussagen, fragmentarische Zweiglied-Aussagen, der
Wort- und Satzgliederanzahl nach kurze Aussagen und spezifische
Tendenzen zur Ausnützung der Satzglieder durch einzelne Glieder
der Th-Rh-Gliederung. Zu den typischen thematischen Progressio-
nen treten spezifische Modifikationen hinzu, die den D T in seinen
mündlichen und situationellen Aspekten und in seiner Gegliedert-
heit in Dialogpartnerrepliken kennzeichnen.

Authenticated
A K T Y A J I b H O E q j I E H E H H E H C H C T E M A Λ3ΒΙΚΑ
( H A M A T E P H A J I E P Y C C K O I O Λ3ΒΙΚΑ)
H. H. KoBTyHOBa (MocKBa)
BbicKa3WBaHHe, paccMaTpHBaeMoe co CTopoHW ero aicTyajibHoro

HJieHeHH«, npeACTaBJiaeT coöoh eflHHHity caMOCToaTejibHoro ypoB-
HH H3MKOBOH CHCTeMbl. 3Ta eflHHHI(a He CTpOHTCH H3 eflUHHII HH3-
iuero ypoBHH — npeaJioxceHHH, ho co3flaeTca onpeaejieHHoñ
rpynnHpoBKOH CHHTaKCHHecKHX κοΜΠΟΗβΗΤΟΒ npefljiOHceHHa. HHa-
ne r o B o p a , BbicKa3biBaHHe c e r M e H T H O coBnaaaeT c npe^Jioxce-
HHeM, a CTpyKTypHaH opraHH3aijHJi BticKa3BiBaHHH ocymecTBjia-
eTCH n p H nOMOIQH CynepCeTMeHTHblX CpeflCTB — HHTOHaUHH
Η nOpHAKa CJIOB.
KaK BCHKan eflHHHiia η3βικοβοη chctcmm, BHCKa3BiBaHne cyme-
CTByeT β CHHTarMaTHiecKKx η napaflHrMaraiecKHx OTHOUICHHHX
c paflOM flpyrax BbicKa3biBaHHii.
C H H T a r M a T H i e c K H e OTHomeHHS ycTaHaBjiHBaiOTCH Meac/ty
cjieflyiomHMH .npyr 3a apyroM BbicKa3biBaHHHMH β peieBOH iienH.
HanpaBJieHHe CHHTarMaTHiecKOH 3aBHCHM0CTH 3flecb oahocto-
poHHee: οτ npeainecrayiomero BbicKa3biBaHHH κ nocjie/iyiomeMy.
3 τ ο 3HaHHT, ΗΤΟ φopMa j n o 6 o r o BbicKa3biBaHHH onpeaeJiaeTca
npeAUiecTByiomHM BbicKa3biBaHHeM hjih paflOM npefluiecTByio-
uiHX BbicKa3biBaHHH η He 3aBHCHT οτ nocjieflyromero BbicKa3biBa-
hhä hjih nocjieayiomHX BbicKa3biBaHHH. TaKaa oahoctopohhhh Ha-
npaBJieHHOCTb 3aBHCHM0cra Meacfly BbicKa3biBaHHHMH CBH3aHa c xa-
paKTepoM penn, icoTopaa npeflcraBjiaeT co6oii nocjie/ioBaTejibHoe
pa3BepTbiBaHHe bo BpeMeHH sjicmchtob peneBoñ ιχεπκ. 3 T a 3aBH-
CHMOCTb npoaBjiaeTca cjie^yiomHM 06pa30M.
TeMa h peMa Kaxworo BbicKa3braaHHa onpeaejiaeTca κοΗκρετ-
HblM KOMMyHHKaTHBHbIM 3aflaHHeM Kaayioro BbICKa3bIBaHHH. 3 τ ο

Authenticated
AKTYAJIBHOE HJIEHEHHE H CHCTEMA Ä3LIKA 143
3aaaHHe, β cboio o n e p e ^ b , a m n - y e T C H y c j i O B i w M H KOHTeKCTa. Cre-

n e H I . KOHTeKCTyJIbHOH 06yCJI0BJieHH0CTH BbICKa3bIBaHHH MOXCeT
6biTb pa3JiHHHa, h o β n p H H u n n e T a x a « 06ycji0BJieHH0CTb β c b h 3 -
HOM TeKCTe B c e r a a c y m e c T B y e T . Β 3aBHCHMOCTH ο τ npeaiuecTBy-
lOmHX BbICKa3bIBaHHH ΤβΜΟΗ flaHHOrO BbICKa3bIBaHHH CTaHOBHTCa
p a 3 J i H i H b i e κ ο Μ π ο Η ε Η Τ Η CHHTaKCHHecKoii c T p y K T y p h i n p e f l j i o a c e -
HHH. Ha ocHOBe npefljioaceHHa Cmydenmbi yexa/iu o6pa3yioTCH
pa3JiHHHbie BbicKa3biBaHHH β 3aBHCHM0CTH οτ npeflniecTByio-
mero KOHTeKCTa: Cmydenmbi ¡ yexanu (/ — 3hek pacHJieHeHHH
BbicKa3biBaHHH H a T e M y h p e M y ) η Yexanu / cmydenmbi.
ΠβρβΛ HEMH flBa BbicKa3biBaHHH, 3 a H H M a i o m H e p a 3 J i H H H y i o n o -
3H1I.HK) Β CHHTarMaTHHeCKOM paay.
IlpHMeHaHHe. ΠρΗΗΗΗΠ OAHOCTOpOHHeH HanpaBJieHHOCTH
CHHTarMaTHHecKHX CBjraeíí BbicKasbiBaHHH MoaceT 6biTb HapymeH
β xyfloacecTBeHHOH peHH. XyaoxcecTBeHHoe npoH3BeaeHHe npea-
CTaBJiaeT C060H KOHCTpyKUHK), Β KOTOpOH npOHCXOflHT He TOJlbKO
nocjieaoBaTejibHoe pa3BepTbmaHHe bo BpeMeHH 3BeHbeB peneBOH
nenn, ho cymecTBeHHoe 3HaneHHe npno6peTaeT hx CHHXpoHHaa
cooTHeceHHOCTb β npocTpaHCTBe. IIosTOMy (JiopMa h 3HaneHHe οτ-
AejibHbix BbicKa3biBaHHH 3aecb MoxceT onpeflejiHTbCH He tojibko
HenocpeACTBeHHO npeflmecTByiomHM hjih paaoM npeflmecTByio-
IQHX BbICKa3HBaHHÍÍ, HO H HenOCpeflCTBeHHO CJie^yiOmHM HJIH
ρΗΛΟΜ nocjieayiOHíHX BbicKa3biBaHHH, β HHbix cjiynaax — nejibiM
KOHTeKCTOM xyaoacecTBeHHoro npoH3BeaeHHH, Bee nacTHKOTO-
p o r o flpyr c a p y r o M cooTHeceHbi. CHHTarMaTHHecKaa ace
CBH3b C HenOCpeaCTBeHHO npeflineCTByiOmHMH BbICKa3bIBaHHaMH
β xyaoacecTBeHHOM npOH3BeAeHHH MoxceT 6biTb CHJibHO ocjia6jieHa
hjih flaace CBeêHa κ Hyjiio.
IlapaflHrMaTHHecKHe ΟΤΗΟΠΙΘΗΚΗ ycTaHaBJiHBaioTCH Meac^y
BbICKa3bIBaHHHMH, o 6 l . e f l H H e H H b I M H OÔmHOCTbIO CHHTaKCHTCCKOH
CTpyKTypbi η <|)0pMajibH0 pa3JiHHaiomHMHca B3aHMopacnojio»e-
HHeM ΚΟΜΠΟΗβΗΤΟΒ 3TOÍÍ CTpyKTypH HJIH HHTOHaHHOHHMM CTpO-
eM. OopMajibHoe pa3JiHHHe Meac^y βμοκ33ηβ3ηηημη CBsuaHO
c p a 3 H b i M ΤΗΠΟΜ a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH, τ ο e c T b c pa3HbiM chh-
TaKCHHecKHM HanojiHeHHeM TeMbi η peMbi. ITocjieAHee, β cboio one-
p e f l b , o n p e f l e j i a e T C H p a 3 J i H « m e M πο3ηηηη n p e a n o a c e H H « c μ η η ο η

Authenticated
144 H. H. KOBTyHOBA
CHHTaKCHHecKoii cTpyKTypoH β CHHTarMaTHHecKoñ iienn, τ ο ecTb

pasHtiM xapaKTepoM CHHTamaTHHecKHX oTHomeHHü c npe^me-
CTByiOmHMH BhICKa3bIBaHHJIMH. HanpHMep, npHBefleHHbie BblIIie
BbicKa3biBaHHfl CmydeHmbi / yexmu h Yexanu / cmydehmvi pa3Jia-
naiOTca CBoeñ no3HiíHeH β cmrrarMe π o6pa3yioT flBa HjieHa ojjhoh
napaaHTMbi.
TaKHM 06pa30M, Ha 6a3e npeflJioaceHHa c onpeaejieHHbiM chh-
TaKCHHecKHM cocTaBOM MoaceT 6biTb 06pa30BaH0 Ηεκοτοροε κο-
JIHHeCTBO BbICKa3bIBaHHH, KOHeHHOe HHCJIO KOTOpblX H COCTaBJIJieT
napa^HrMy.
BbicKa3hiBaHHH, MaKCHMajibHO He3aBHCHMbie OT KOHTeKCTa, 6y-
fleM Ha3biBaTb napa^HrMaTHMecKH CHJibHbiMH h β τ ο ace
BpeM« CHHTarMâTHieCKH CJiaÖBIMH (HaXOÄ«mHMHCa Β CHH-
TarMaTHHeCKH cjiaöoö πο3ΗΙ;ηη), a βξ>ιοκι3μβεηη5ι, MaKCHMajibHO
3aBHCHMbie οτ KOHTeKCTa, — napa^HTMaTHnecKH c JI a 6 M m h
H Β TO ace BpeMH CHHTarMaTHHeCKH CHJIbHblMH (Haxofl»mH-
MHC« Β CHHTarMaTHHeCKH CHJIhHOH Π03ΗΙΙΗΗ).
CreneHi KOHTeKCTyajibHOH o6ycjioBJieHHocTH BbicKa3biBaHHa
OTpaacaeTca Ha ero φορΜε: β CHHTarMaTHHeCKH CHJibHoñ πο3ηι^ηη
npoHBJxaioTCH Bee ΑΗφφερεΗΐίΗ3^ΗΗε npH3HaKH (φ opMajibHbie
noKa3aTejiH) TeMbi h peMbi, β CHHTarMaTHHeCKH cjiaöoö iio3hhhh
— JiHHib HeKOTopbie h3 hhx. CooTBeTCTBeHHO HjieHbi οληοη napa-
OTrMbi pa3JiHHaiOTca HaôopoM ^ΗφφερεΗΐίΗΟϋΒΗΗΧ npH3HaKOB:
CHJIhHbie HJieHH napaflHrMbl OÖJiaâiOT HX MHHHMajIbHbIM HHCJIOM,
cjiaöbie HJieHbi napajmrMbi — MaKCHMajibHbiM.
Β pyccKOM H3HKe cymecrayioT cjiezryiomjie ocHOBHbie φορΜ3.ΐΉ-
Hbie noKa3aTejiH TeMbi η peMbi: 1. πορπΛοκ cjiob, t o ecTb Hanajib-
Hoe nojioHceHHe TeMbi η KOHeHHOe — peMM, η 2. HHTOiiaixHOHHbie
noKa3aTejiH: noBbimeHHe TOHa Ha TeMe hflHHaMHHecKoeyaapeHHe
Ha peMe (TaK Ha3broaeMoe jiornnecKoe yflapeHHe).
CHHTarMaTHHeCKH cjia6bie BwcKa3biBaHHH ( = cHJibHbie HJieHbi
napaflHrMbi) β khhîkho=JiHTepaTypHoñ η πρκ 3tom cthjihcth-
necKH HeÜTpajibHOH peHH xapaKTepH3yioTca jinnib nepBMM noKa-
3aTejieM: HanajibHbiM nojioaceHHeM TeMbi η κοΗβΗΗΜΜ — peMW.
HHTOHauHOHHbie npH3HaKH TeMbi h peMbi HeHTpajiH3yioTCH: no-
BbiuieHHe TOHa Ha TeMe hjih coeceM OTcyTCTByeT hjih cjiHBaeTca

Authenticated
AKTyAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE H CHCTEMA H3MKA 145
c oôbiHHbiM JierKHM n o B b i m e H H e M TOHa Β KOHue p e n e B o r o TaKTa,

a y a a p e H H e Ha p e M e He n p e B b i m a e T n o c a n e o ô t i H H o e φpa30B0e
y a a p e H H e Β κοΗίχε npefljioaceHHH. H H H M H cjioBaMH: c H H T a m a T H -
necKH c j i a ô b i e BbicKa3biBaHHH ( = cHJibHbie HJieHbi napaflnrMbi)
BKJIIOHaiOTCH Β pHTMHKO-HHTOHaiXHOHHyiO CeTKy CTHJIHCTHHeCKH
HeñTpajibHoií k h i d k h o = jiHTepaTypHoii p e n « 6 e 3 ηητοηεπηοη-
HblX H3M6H6HHH.
/ÍJIH ΤΟΓΟ, HTOÔbl HHTOHaiJHOHHbie IIOKa3aTeJIH TeMbI H peMbl
npeBpaTHJiHCb β cmrraKCHHecKH peJieBaHTHbie, ohh aojixchbi
n p e B b i m a T b n o c H j i e a H a j i o r H H H u e HHTOHauHOHHtie cpeACTBa,
c o 3 j i a i o m H e aBTOMaTHnecKHH p h t m k h h î k h o = J i H T e p a T y p H o ñ p e n n .
MMeHHO 3TO Η npOHCXOÄHT Β CHHTaTMaTHHeCKH CHJTbHblX BbICKa3bI-
BaHHax ( = c j i a ô b i x HJieHax n a p a f l n r M b i ) , b K O T o p w x n p o H B J i a i o T c a
o 6 a Λ Η φ φ ε ρ ε Η ΐ ΐ Η Ε ϋ Β Η Β ΐ χ npH3Haica TeMbi η p e M b i : 1. H a n a j i b H o e
nojioaceHHe TeMbi η KOHeHHoe — p e M b i ; 2 . y c n j i e H H o e noBbime-
HHe TOHa Ha TeMe η y c n j i e H H o e ztHHaMHHecicoe y a a p e H H e Ha
peMe.
y K a 3 a H H y i o 3aKOHOMepHOCTb j i e r n e B e e r ò n p o H j u i j o c T p H p o B a T b
flBycjioBHbiMH BbicKa3biBaHHHMH, n o c T p o e H H b i M H Ha 6 a 3 e n p e f l -
jioHceHHH c nofljieacaniHM=cymecTBHTejibHbiM β HMeHHTejibHOM
n a a e x c e h CKa3yeMbiM=rjiarojioM β cnparaeMoñ φορΜβ (Cmyden-
mu yexaAu; MCIAÒHIIK npuiueA η π ο α · ) · T a i c n e npeflJioaceHHa o 6 p a -
3 y i o T τ ρ π CTHJIHCTHHeCKH HeHTpajibHbix HJieHa n a p a ^ H T M b i : ^Ba
pacHJieHeHHbix rana BbicKa3biBaHHií — MaAbum / npuiueA η
JJpuiueA I MaAbHUK η oflHH HepacHjieHeHHbiH τ η π ( t o e c T b He q j i e -
M i H H H c a Ha TeMy h p e M y , c o c T a B j r a i o m H H „KOMnneKCHyio pe-
My") — npuiueA MÛAÔHUK ( c p . A p y n i e i m p M e p b i : IJpuuiAa eecw;
3adyA eemep; Hepatom demu; UlyMum Mope).
Β BbicKa3biBaHHHX c T e M 0 H = n 0 A n e H c a m H M (rana MaAbHUK /
I npuiueA) TeMa MoaceT o 6 o 3 H a n a T b h a a H H o e η HOBoe. 3 τ ο τ τ η π
BbicKa3biBaHHH β u e j i o M oÖHapy»CHBaeT MHHHMajibHyio CTeneHb
KOHTeKCTyajibHOH 06ycji0BjieHH0CTH h, cjieflOBaTejibHO, μηηη-
M a j i b H y i o CTeneHb cmrrarMaTHHecKOH 3aBHCHMOcra. 3 t h m onpe-
flejiaeTca e r o B e ^ y m e e MecTO β n a p a / i B m e . H a TaKHX BbicKa3biBa-
ηηλχ He o 6 H 3 a T e j i b H o jieacHT n e n a T b KOHTeKCTa, n o s T O M y ohh
n p e a c T a B J u n o T c o 6 o h H a n ß o j i e e caMocTOjrrejibHbiH, He3aBHCHMbiH

Authenticated
146 H. H. KOBTYHOBA
HJieH napaAHrMH ( c h j h h h h hjich napaflHrMbi). Β CHHTarMara-

necKOM pH^y TaKne BbicKa3biBaHHS 3aHHMaioT c j i a ô y i o no3mjHio,
Β HHX npOHBJIHeTCH TOJIBKO OflHH H3 ΛΗφφερεΗΙΙΗΕΛΒΗΕΙΧ HpH3Ha-
KOB — HanajibHoe nojioacerae τ β Μ Η h κοΗβΗΗοε peMbi. Η η τ ο η ε -
UHOHHbie pa3JiHHHTejiH TeMbi h peMbi HeËTpajiH3yioTCH. 3 t h b l i -
CKa3bIBaHHH BXOflflT Β KOHTCKCT 6e3 HHTOHaUHOHHblX H3MCHCHHH.
Β BbicKa3biBaHHHx c TeMoii=CKa3yeMbiM (τηπ IIpuuieA / MÜAÓ-
HUK) TeMa 06»3aTejibH0 o6o3HanaeT A a r a o e , roeecTHoe H3 npe/i-
mecTByiomero KOHTeKCTa. O h h o ß j i a ^ a i o T MaKCHMajibHoñ CTe-
neHbK) KOHTeKCTyajibHOH o6ycjiOBJieHHOCTH h, cjieaoBaTejibHo,
MaKCHMajIbHOÍÍ CTeneHbK) CHHTarMaTHHeCKOH 3aBHCHMOCTH. B3H-
Tbie BH6 KOHTeKCTa, sth BbicKa3biBaHHa HecyT Ha ce6e n e n a i b koh-
TeKCTa, nenaTb cnHTarMaTmecKHX ο τ η ο η κ η η η . O h h npeacTaBjin-
κ ) τ coGoii cjiaGbiñ hjiêh napaflHTMbi. Β CHHTamaTHHecKOM pHfly
TaKHe BbiCKa3biBaHH9 3aHHMaioT CHjibHyio πο3ηη;ηιο: β hhx προ-
HBJiHioTCH o 6 a ΑΗφφερεΗΐχΗ3^ΗΗΧ npH3HaKa — HanajibHoe n o j i o -
aceHHe TeMbi η KOHeiHoe peMbi; ycHJieHHoe noBbimeHHe TOHa Ha
TeMe (3HaK f ) η ycHJieHHoe OTHaMHnecKoe yuapeHHe Ha peMe
(3HEK ,
IlpUlueA I j MdAbHUK.
CymHocTh npouecca aKTyanroauHH BbiCKa3bmaHHH coctoht,

rjiaBHbiM 06pa30M, β npeBpameHHH cHHTarMaTHiecKH cjiaGbix
BbicKa3biBaHHH β cHHTarMaTHHecKH cHJibHbie. Β 3THX c j i y i a a x
oöbiHHO B03HHKaeT npoTHBopenne, „HanpaaceHHe" Meacay chh-
TaKCHHecKoií c r p y K T y p o ñ h aKiyajibHbiM HJieHemieM. T a K o e ,,Ha-
npaaceHHe" oSsnaTejitHO conpoBoacaaeTca BbiaBjieHHeM HHTOHa-
UHOHHblX ΠρΗ3ΗΕΚΟΒ TeMbi H peMbi.
ITpHMeHaHHe. <J>aKyjibTaTHBHoe ycHjieHHe b h c o t m TOHa Ha

TeMe h yaapeHHH Ha peMe bo3mohcho η β CHHTarMaTHiecKH cjiaôbix
BbicKa3biBaHHHX (cp. Mzpa noupaeuAacb h Mzpa — noHpaeuAacb),
h o β 3Τ0Μ cjiynae oho He 06ycu0BjieH0 no3imneH, a 3aBncnT ο τ
acejiamiH r o B o p a m e r o η npecjie/iyeT HHflHBH^yajibHbie cthjihcth-
necKHe uejiH. Π ρ Η xaparrepHCTHKe cmrrarMaTHHecKHX cbohctb b h -
CKa3bœaHHH h e r o bkjhohchhh β napaflHTMaTHHecKHÜ p a a ( τ ο ecTb
πρπ onpeflejieHHH Haöopa ΑΐιφφερεΗΐΐΗ3ΐιι>ΗΒΐχ nproHâKOB) Heo6-

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE H CHCTEMA 5J3LIKA 147
XOflHMO yHHTblBaTL· JIHIUb Π 0 3 Η Π Η 0 Η Η 0 O Ô y C J I O B J i e H H b i e φ ο ρ -

MajibHbie noKa3aTejiH TeMbi h peMbi.
TpeTHH HJieH napaAHTMbi — HepacHJieHeHHbm ΤΗΠ BbicKa3WBa-
HHH {TIpuiueA MaAbHUK). H e p a c n j i e H e H H b i e B b i c K a 3 b m a H H H ΠΟΗΤΗ
Bcerâ coaepacaT HOBoe cooömeHHe. Hx KOHTeKCTyajibHaa o6y-
CJIOBJIHeHHOCTb OÔblHHO CBOflHTCH Κ MHHHMyMy HJIH >Ke COBCeM
OTcyTCTByeT. 3 τ ο ΤΗΠ B b i c i c a 3 M B a H H H c o c j i a ô b i M H cmrrarMaTH-
HeCKHMH CBH3HMH. IIOSTOMy OHH COCTaBJIHfOT CHJIbHblH HJieH na-
paflHrMM.
T p H H J i e n a n a p a A H r M b i — flBa p a c H J i e H e H H b i x T H n a B b i C K a 3 b i B a -
HHH Η OAHH HepaCHJieHeHHblH — ß y a y H H npOTHBOnOCTaBJieHbl no
x a p a K T e p y a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH, n p o m B o n o c T a B J i e H b i a p y r flpy-
r y Η n o φopMaJIbHbIM ΠρΗ3Η3Κ3Μ.
flea CHjibHbix HJieHa n a p a ^ n r M b i — pacMJieHeHiibiH Η H e p a C H J i e -
HeHHblH — pa3jiHHaiOTCH n o p a f l K O M CJIOB: MaAbHUK I npuiueA Η
TIpuiueA MaAbHUK. Β p y c c K O M H3biKe c y m e c T B y e T 3aKOHOMepHOCTb:
n o p H f l O K CJIOB Β i i e p a c M j r e H e H H b i x BbicKbi3biBaHH5tx B c e r ^ A o6pa-
TeH n o p a f l K y CJIOB Β BUCKASBIBAHHAX, OTHOCHIUHXCH Κ HcxoAHorvry
cnjiBHOMy HJieHy n a p a f l H r M b i (MaAbHUK / npuiueji). 3Ta 3aKOHO-
MepHOCTb oöecneHHBaeT pa3JiHHHTejibHyio φyHK^HK) nopaflica
CJIOB, nOCKOJIbKy HHTOHaUHOHHbie pa3JIHHHH 3 f l e c b HeÜTpajIH3y-
K>Tca.
RIAPAFLHRMATHHECKH CHjibHbift HepaCHJieHeHHblH ΤΗΠ ITpuwe/i
MaAbHUK c o B n a a a e T n o n o p a ^ K y CJIOB C n a p a a n r M a T H H e c K H c j i a -
6bIM paCHJieHeHHbIM ΤΗΠΟΜ IJpUUieA F / MÜAbHUK. ®OpMajIbHbIM

npH3HaKOM, pa3JiHHaioinHM a r a flBa rana, H B J i i i e T c a HHTOHaitfia.
OTCyTCTBHe pa3JIHHHH Β CJIOBOpaCnOJIOXCeHHH 3 f l e C b KOMneHCH-
pyeTCH HHTOHaiiHOHHblM pa3JIHHHeM.
H c x o f l H b i H CHjibHbiH HJieH n a p a f l n r M h i MaAbHUK I npuuieA h c j i a -
\
6 H H HJieH n a p a ^ H T M b i IIpuuieA f / MÜAÓHUK n p o T H B o n o c T a B J i e H t i

a p y r A p y r y n o O6OHM φ o p M a J I b H b I M n p H 3 H a K a M — n o p s m i c y CJIOB
H HHTOHaHHH.
I T a p a f l H r M a BKJUONAET He TOJIBKO CTHJIHCTHHCCKH H e i h p a j i b H b i e
BbICKa3bIBaHHH, HO Η SKCHpeCCHBHbie. KaHCflblH H3 Tpex OIIHCaHHblX
HJieHOB napa^HrMbi ΗΜβετ sKcnpeccHBHbiñ B a p n a i r r . SiccnpeccHB-

Authenticated
148 H. H. KOBTYHOBA
Hbie BMCKa3bIBaHHH OCHOBaHBI Ha HapyineHHH CTHJIHCTHieCKH ΗβΗ-

TpajlbHOrO pHTMHKO = HHTOHaUHOHHOrO CTpOH KHtDKHO = JIHTCpa-
TypHOH pera: φρα30Β0ε yâpeHHe β hh^ HaxoflHTca β Havane npefl-
JiOHceHHa, a He β KOHije. IIopaflOK cjiob β SKcnpeccHBHbix BbicKa3bi-
B3HHHX — HHBepCHpOBaHHblH. Β paCHJieHeHHblX BbICKa3bIBaHHHX
\\
p e M a npefliuecTByeT TeMe: 1. IIpuuceA / MÜMHUK (sKcnpeccHBHbiìi

BapHaHT ΗΟΧΟΛΗΟΓΟ CHJIbHOrO HJieHa n a p a f l H r M b l MdAbHUK j npu-
w
luej); 2. MaAbuuK / npuiueA (sKcnpeccHBHWH BapHaHT c j i a ö o r o HJie-
\
Ha napaflHrMbi Tlpuiuen j / MCIAWUK). Β HepacHJieHeHHbix Bbicica-

3biBaHHHx nofljieacamee, Hecymee Ha ce6e φpa30B0e yaapeHHe,
npeauiecTByeT CKa3yeMOMy: Manbum npuiueA (aKcnpeccHBHbiii

BapnaHT C H j i b H o r o MJieHa n a p a ^ H r M b i IJputueA ManbnuK).
3KCnpeCCHBHbie BbICKa3MBaHH» HaXOflHTCH Β CHHTarMaTHHeCKH
CJiaÔOH Π03ΗΗΗΗ: Β ΗΗΧ npOHBJIHÊTCS JIHHIb OflHH H3 flByX ΛΗφφε-
peHHHajibHbix npioHaicoB — HHTOHauna. ITopaôK CJIOB 3flecb
yTpaHHBaeT pejieBaHTHbie CBoñcTBa — o h nepecTaeT pa3JiH*iaTb
TeMy h p e M y (HapyiuaeTca n a n a j i b H o e nojioiKeirae TeMbi h kohch-
Hoe peMbi).
H3 flByx HHTOHauHOHHbix noKasaTeneii aKTyajibHoro HJieHeHHa

— noBbimeHHa TOHa Ha τβΜβ h yaapeHHH Ha peMe — β sKcnpec-
cHBHbix BbicKa3biBaHHax npHoyTCTByeT Jinnib o a h h — cHjibHoe
yaapeHHe Ha peMe. TeMa η η τ ο η 3 ι ι η ο η η ο He BbifleiraeTca, Hanpo-
THB, oHa HHTOHaHHOHHO cKpaßbiBaeTCH. YaapeHHe Ha peMe β 3kc-
npeCCHBHMX BbICKa3bIBaHHHX HaMHOrO CHJIbHee ( b HaniHX npHMe-
pax o h o o6o3HaHeHO 3HâKOM v v ), neM yuapeHHe Ha peMe β Heñ-
TpaJIbHblX BbICKa3BIBaHHHX.
Β napaAHTMe SKcnpeccHBHbie BHCKa3biBaHHa hbjihkjtch ee cjia-

6 b i M H HjieHaMH. Β HHx OTpaaceHO HapynieHHe c t h j i h c t h h c c k h Heñ-
TpajibHoro HHTOHaHHOHHoro CTpoH. TaKoe HapynieHHe Bcerâ
HMeeT onpeflejieHHyio cnuiHCTHiecicyio MOTHBHpoBKy β κοΗτεκ-
CTe, n03T0My Ha SKcnpeccHBHbix BbicKa3biBaHHHX JieacHT nenaTb
C T H J I H C T H H e C K O H O Ô y C J I O B J i e H H O C T H , KOTOpyiO MONCHO p a c -
CMaTpHBaTb KaK cneiyMj>HHecKyio pa3H0BHflH0CTb KOHTeKCTyajib-
HOH oGyCJIOBJieHHOCTH.

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE H CHCTEMA Ή3ΗΚΑ 149
w
VÍ3 Tpex 3KcnpeccHBHbix HjieHOB napaflHrMbi MdAbuuK j npuiueA
HBjifleTCH HaHÔojiee cjiaôbiM. O h xapaKTepeH npeHMymecTBeHHO
Ana pa3r0B0pH0H pena, β He m oTpaaceHa KOHCHTyaTHBHaa o6yc;io-
BjieHHocTt. flea ApyrHX sKcnpeccHBHbix HJieHa napaflHTMbi β oa-
hhx cjiynanx (b cthjihcthhcckh pa3r0B0pH0M KOHTeKCTe) MoryT
HecTH 3KcnpeccHio pa3r0B0pH0CTH, nocKOJibKy ohh xapaKTepHbi
HflJIHpa3rOBOpHOH p6HH, Β flpyTHX CJiynaaX (b KOHTCKCTe, BBWep-
acaHHOM β KHH»cHO=JiHTepaTypHOH TOHajibHOCTH) ohh o6jiaflaioT
\v
Kaayibiii CBoeñ ocoôoh cthjihcthhcckoh OKpacKOH. Τηπ ÜputueA /
I MOAbHUK HMeeT noBecTOBaTejibHyio, snHHecKyio oicpacKy. Hepac-
\ \ \
HJieHeHHbiñ τ η π MaAbHUK npuiueA (cp. Berna nacmynuAa; Jlyza
\
3aifeeAu; ümuifbi npuAemeAu) xapaKTepeH pjix khhxchoh xyfloace-

CTBeHHOH n p 0 3 b l ( n a m e — Β CHHTaKCHHeCKH paCnpOCTpaHeHHblX
npeajioxceHHHx). BbicKa3biBaHH» s t o t o rana HaHMeHee ρε3κο Bbi-
flejIfllOTCH Ha φθΗβ HeÖTpajIbHOrO HHTOHailHOHHOTO CTPOJI KHH3K-
H o = J i H T e p a T y p H o ö p e r a , n o s T O M y β n a p a f l H T M e o h h cHJibHee z i e y x
Apyrnx SKcnpeccHBHbix τηποβ.
ConocTaBJieHHe m e c r a hjichob napaflHTMbi roBopHT o tom, mto
CHJIbHbIMH e e HJieHaMH HBJIHIOTCH TaKHe BbICKa3bIBaHHÄ, KOTOpbie
BKJiiOHaiOTCH β HHTOHauHOHHyio CTpyKTypy KHHXCHO=JiHTepaTyp-
HOH p e r a 6 e 3 η η τ ο η 3 ι ι η ο η η η χ H3MeHeHHii. 3 τ ο BbicKa3biea-
HHH, Β KOTOpblX pejieBaHTHbIMH CBOHCTBaMH O Ô J i a ^ a e T HOpflflOK
CJIOB, a HHTOHailHH pa3HHTejIbHOH POJIH He H r p a e T . TaKHX HJieHOB
flBa: pacHJieHeHHbiH τ η π MUAWUK / npuiueA h HepacHJieHeimbiH τ η π
ÜputueA MOAbHUK. OcTajibHbie HJieHbi napa^HTMbi — cjiaöbie
Β pa3HOÍÍ CTeneHH, Β 3aBHCHMOCTH OT CTeneHH HHTOHaUHOHHblX H3-
MeHeHHH.
ri03T0My, npH conocTaBJieHHH inecTH hjichob napaflHTMbi, Gbijio
6bl OIHHÔOHHblM nOJiaraTb, HTO pejieBaHTHbIMH CBOHCTBaMH Β KO-
HeHHOM cncre o6jiaflaeT jrainb HHTOHaipiJi. Jinx khhscho=JiHTe-
paTypHoro söbnca pemaiomee 3HaneHHe HMeeT HeñTpajibHbiH
PHTMHKO = HHTOHâlJHOHHblH CTpOH, CTpeMHHIHHCH nOflHHHHTb
c e 6 e HHTOHaiiHOHHyK) C T p y K T y p y OTflejibHbix BHCKa3bi-
BaHHH h Tpe6yiomHH cneuHaflbHOH mothbhpobkh ajih ee Hapy-
ineHHa. Β npeflejiax s t o í i cthjihcthhcckh HeihpanbHOH HHTOHa-

Authenticated
150 H. H. KOBTyHOBA
QHOHHOH CTpyKTypbi nopaflOK cjioB o6jiaaaeT pejieeaHTHbiMH
CBOHCTBaMH H HBJIHeTCfl Γ-JiaBHbIM ( a Β CHHTarMaTHHeCKH CJiaGtIX
H npH 3TOM HanGoJiee HaCTOTHblX BbICKa3bIBaHHHX — eflHH-
CTBCHHblM) pa3JIH1HTejILHbIM n p H 3 H a K O M ΤβΜΒΙ H p e M b l .
Β KpaTKOM C006meHHH ΗβΤ B03M05KH0CTH OCTEHOBHTbCH H a na-
paflHTMaTHKe BbicKa3biBaHHñ, κοτορκε o6pa3yioTca Ha ocHOBe
CHHTaKCHHecKH p a c n p o c T p a H e H H b i x npeßJioaceHHH, τ β Μ 6 o j i e e ,
HTO 3TH n a p a f l H T M b l HMeiOT GoJIbHiee HHCJIO HJieHOB. O r p a H H H H M C H
JlHinb n p H M e p a M H napaflHTMaTHHeCKH CHJIbHblX H n a p a f l H T M a T H -
lecKH cjia6bix βμοκε3μβ3ηηη. napa^HTMaTHHecKH cnjibHbie bh-

CKa3biBäHHH HMeiOT oflHHaKOByK) C T p y K T y p y Β p a C n p O C T p a H e H H b l X
h HepacnpocTpaHeHHbix npefljioaceHHax. Cp.: Cmydenmbi / yexanu

η Cmydenmbi mpembezo Kypca / yexanu na npcmmmy. CrpyKTypa
napaAHTMaTHHecKH cjiaGbix ( = aarrarMaTHHecKH CHJibHbix) bm-
CKa3biBaHHH, 0 6 p a 3 0 B a H H b i x H a OcHOBe p a c n p o c r p a H e H H b i x npefl-
jioaceHHH, OTJiHHaeTca c B o e o 6 p a 3 n e M . A K T y a j i H 3 H p o B a T b C H 3 f l e c b
MoryT oTAejibHwe κοΜΠΟΗβΗΤΗ cjioBoconeTaHHii, π ρ κ 3tom β bw-

CKa3biBaHHH M o a c e T noaBHTbca A s e hjih HecKOJibKo T e M : Yexaim. f j
\
cmydenmbi mpembezo Kypca // na npaKmmy (3HaK // OTêjiaeT

co6cTBeHHO p e M y οτ Bcex τ β Μ ) . I l e p e f l HaMH CHHTarMaTHHecKH
CHJIbHOe BbICKa3bIBaHHe, Β K O T O p O M npOflBJIHIOTCH o 6 a ΑΗφφε-
peHUHajibHbix npH3HaKa tcmm η peMbi. YcHJieHHbiM n o B b i m e -
ΗΗβΜ TOHa BbiflejiaeTC« n e p e a a T e M a (co6cTBeHHO TeMa). BTopaa
TeMa (TeMa = A a H H o e ) OKa3biBaeTCH β H H T O H a i m o H H O M n p o B a j i e .
PeMa Bbi/iejTfleTCH ycHJieHHHM AHHaMHHecKHM yuapeHHeM.
Β 3aKJIK)HeHHe HeOÔXOflHMO O T M e T H T b , HTO n p H OnpeflejieHHH
KOJiHHecTBa hjichob napaflHTMbi flOJixcHa ynHTbiBaTbca TOJibKo

CHHTaKCHHecKaH CTpyKTypa npe^JiOHceHH«, H a OcHOBe κοτο-
poro o6pa3yeTca p»A βμοκ&3μβ3ηηη, ho He e r o JieiccHHecKoe
HanojiHeHHe. JleKCHHecKoe HanojiHeHHe npeano^ceHiui HOCHT
eflHHHHHblH, HHÂHBHflyaJIbHbliî X a p a K T e p H MOaCeT OrpaHHHHBaTb
B03M0acH0CTH a K T y a j i b H o r o HjieHeHHH. 1 B p a f l u h HanpHMep, B03-
1 3aBHCHMOCTb aKTyajn>Horo hjichchha ot jieKcmecKoro cocTaea npefljio-

ìKeHHa oiein. oôcTOHTejiBHO h HHTcpccHO noKa3aHa β KHure: AflaMea, Π . .
ITopxdoK CAOS Β pyccKOM H3UK6. ITpara 1966.

Authenticated
AKTyAJIBHOE HJIEHEHHE H CHCTEMA Λ3ΒΙΚΑ 151
MoacHa CHTyaqiM, πρπ κοτοροίί β npeajioaceHHH Comife e30tuA0

630UÌA0 MoaceT CTâTL TeMOH, a coAHife — peMoñ. 3 τ ο npeôHce-
HHe He o6pa3yeT nojiHoe hhcjio BbicKa3MBaHHÖ, Bxoaamnx β na-
paflHTMy. Ho napa^HrMa — sto He p$m μοληΦηκβιιηη OTflejib-
Horo eflHHHHHoro npeOToaceHHii. ITojiHoe kojihhcctbo hjichob na-
paflHrMbi, το ecTi BbicKa3biBaHnfl, pa3JiHHaioinHxc5i HaôopoM
,iIH(j5(|>epeHUHajii>Hbix πρη3ηεκοβ, o6pa3yeTCH β npeênax flaH-
HOH CHHTaKCHêcKOH CTpyKTypH.

Authenticated
ΗΕΚΟΤΟΡΜΕ ΠΟΗϋΤΗϋ TEOPMH
AKTYAJILHOrO qJIEHEHHil nPHMEHHTEJIbHO
Κ H3yÊHHIO ΒΜΟΚΑ3ΒΙΒΑΗΜΛ
Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪΪ PE*ffl
O. A. JIanTeBa (Mocjcea)
OcHOBHbie ΠΟΗΧΤΗΗ TeOpHH aKTyajIbHOIO HJieHeHHH B03HHKJIH

npH opneHTHpoBKe Ha iracBMeHHfciñ h JiHTepaTypHO o6pa6oTaHHbiií
TeKCT. ÜMeHHO OH n03B0JIHJI θφθρΜγϋΗρθΒ3.Τίι HOJIOaceHHH O HJie-
Η6ΗΗΗ BHCKa3HBaHHH Ha HCXOAHyiO HaCTb H «,ΖφΟ, O pOJIH Iipefl-
mecTByiomero BbicKa3biBaHHio KOHTeKCTa πρκ ycTaHOBjieHHH co-
CTaBa AaHHoro Η ΗΟΒΟΓΟ. ΠΡΗΗΠΗΙΜΜ aHajnoa MaTepnaâ, BH-
paôoTaHHbiM TeopHeñ aKTyajn>Horo hjichchhh, cyacêHo 6biJio
CTaTb Mpe3BbIHaHHO BJIHHTejIbHbIMH H nojiywrb paCIOHpHTejIbHOe
npHMCHeHHe Β KanecTBe yHHBepcajibHoro cpeflCTBa aâKBaTHoñ
TpaKTOBKH KBJieHHH pa3JIHHHOH φγΗΚΗΗΟΗΕΛΒΗΟ-ΟΤΗϋεΒΟΗ OTHÊ-
ceHHOCTH, jieacauiHX bhc οφερΜ npaMoro aeñcTBHH npaBHJi φορ-
MaJIbHO-rpaMMaTHHeCKOrO ypoBHH.
OÖpaTHMCH Κ HBJieHHHM CJIOBOpaCIIOJIOHCeHHfl ΟΛΗΟΗ H3 TaKHX
φγΗΚΠΗ , ΟΗ&ΛΒΗΟ-ρεΗεΒΒΙΧ o6jiaCTejí — yCTHO-pa3rOBOpHOÍÍ pa3-
HOBHflHOCTH coBpeMeHHoro pyccKoro JiHTepaTypHoro H3biKa (resp.
bëznë mluveny projev) h paccMOTpHM hx b aboakom acneKTe —
nexo«» H3 peaJiH3aiiHH ocHOBHbix ποηητηη Teopim aKTyajibHoro
HJieHeHHH H HCXOflH H3 CaMHX φορΜΗΛΒΗΜΧ MOflejieö cjioBopac-
nojioxceHHH (το ecTb KaK β HanpaBjieHHH οτ Φυηκιιηη κ cpe^cTBy,
TaK Η BO BCTpCHHOM HanpaBJieHHH OT CpeflCTBa Κ ΦυΗΚΠΗΗ).
I. MjieHeHHe BbicKa3bieaHHH noBecTBOBaTejibHoro THna Ha aea
UeHTpa C BblpaaceHHblMH 3HaHeHHHMHflaHHOrO— ηοβογο (hcxoa-
HOH HaCTH — Hflpa) B COOTBeTCTBHH C npaBHJiaMH, yCTaHOBJieHHbl-
MH Teopneü aKTyajn>Horo uieHeHBm, npeflCTaBJieHO β ycTHO-pa3-
ΓΟΒΟρΗΟΗ pa3H0BHflH0CTH COBpeMeHHO pyCCKOrO JIHTepaTypHOrO
A3biKaflocTaTOHHOπετκο, npHHeM oho oxBaTbiBaeT BbicKa3biBa-

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE MJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪΪ PEHH 153
HM, NPHHAAJIEACAMNE κ PA3JIHHHBIM CHHTAICCINECKHM MOAEJIAM.

Cp. Β aBycocTaBHMX 6e3rjiarojibHbix HMCHHBIX npe/yioaceHHflx:
— ΠΙκολο ocmameKa. CAedymufan nonma; — IlpaBHJiBHO onjiaiH-
BaiÍTe 3a npoe3/i, Bomeanine. Hembipe Koneemu cmouMocmb ea-
lueü noe3ÒKu; — Yxce ece zomoeo, yotce ece pacnopomo nAambe,
HTO6 ero nepeêjiaTi)..., — HcmopmecKux poMcmoe ozpoMHoe
KOAimecmeo H onenb mhozo xydooKecmeenmü Aumepamypbi. Β aey-
cocTaBHMX rjiarojibHtix npe^JioaceHHax: — OHH Ha MOTOUHKJIC
Λ
npHe33cajiH HTO jiH? — Hy aa.] Ohu MomoifUKA óoAbiuoü npodaAu;
— A nero BapiiTL·, κτο 6bi MHe npncoBeTOBaji? Mamyto muiy
c U310M0M η 6ydy eapumb; — A rae IlaycTOBCKHH? — Β ρκκ3ακβ
TlaycmoecKuü JIOKHT npecnoKoìiHo; — Ά He ΠΟΜΗΚ», Η Τ Ο 6 Η OH
e3flHJi. — A oh oòuh /laj no-Moeiviy e3ÒUA Beerò; — Bticjiyry c Hac
CHHMaKDT? — Πο-MoeMy, ne Mozym cnnmb ebiCAyzy hukok; Cctuia-
eTecb Bbi Ha flaHema, ccbuiaeTech ΒΗ Η Ha YopTa, Komopbiü Toace
nonnmue napaduzMbi npuMetwern... ΒflBycocTaBHHXnpeAJioxce-
HH3X c rjiarojioM ôbimb η rjiarojiaMH CTaHOBjieHHH: — ffeenoma
Mon no Toro GbiBaeT pa3Han ; Oh na Kypc 6bui MCHH cmapiue;
— Ohu oòhu 6MJIH Ha rope; TaHeiica, Β cjie/iyiomyK) cpeay H Te6e
MejiKa He npHHecy, NOTOMY HTO menepb y MCHH noAum3aHnmun

\
TOJibKO 6yayT eoceMHadyamozo hucao; Eonee ohu cTaHOBHTCH

aKmuemiMU.
Ocoßbiü HHTepec cpean STOH rpynnbi (jjaKTOB npHBJieicaioT Ta-
KHe, rfle pacuieHeraie Ha cocTaB AaHHoro Η ΗΟΒΟΓΟ ocymecTBJiH-
eTCH Β npeflenax CHHTaKCHiecKOH MOêJiH OAHonjieHHoro cocTaBa,
cp.: — A B najiaTe no MHory JieacaT? — Πο eoceMb πβΛοββκ ecTb
e naname; — IToneMy ΠΗΤΊ. iiiTyK-TO 3anncaji? — A CKOJibKo? —
Mecmb. lUecmb lumyKflojiacHo6bm> nummo.
Hapjmy C 3THM Β yCTHO-pa3rOBOpHOH pa3HOBHAHOCTH coBpe-
MeHHoro pyccKoro mrrepaTypHoro H3brea πικροκο npefleraBjieHH
H TaKHe ΤΗΠΜ noBecTBOBaTejibHMX BbicKa3biBaHHìi, rae cocraB
aaHHOro npaKTHHecKH OTcyrcTByeT, H TaKHM 06pa30M ainyajibHoe

Authenticated
154 O. A. JIATITEBA
HJIEHEHHE 3AMEMIETCFL NPEACTABJIEHHEM Β BBICKA3BIBAHHH JIHIUL

OFLHORO KOMNJIEKCA — KOMNJIEKCA ΗΟΒΟΓΟ. CHHTAICCHHECKHE M O f l e -
JiH 3xecb TaK»ce pa3Hoo6pa3Hbi. HanHeM HX nepeHHCJieime c Tex,
r«e a x T y a j i B H o e HJieHeHHe H e Μ 0 5 κ ε τ o c y m e c T B j i H T c a H 3 - 3 a CHH-
TAKCHHECKOÑ O^HOHJIEHHOCTH MOAEJIH. C P . : — 3mo na Eay/am-
CKOÜ, maM, zde Kopoeuü 6pod πεόαΑβκο; — M o a c e T 6BITB, MHe
y a c e ΚΟΗΗΗΤΒ ecTt TaKyio e a y HecycTBeTHyio? 3HaeTe, uadoem

yace ovem; TAM Eepe3m MazasuH... ; — A TLI B e c b CBOÍÍ r o p o m e K
pa3flajia? — KaKOH? — Buepa Komopviü MU C moóoü noKynam.

n p e A C T a B J i a e T C H ΒΟ3ΜΟ)ΚΗΜΜ p a c c M a T p H B a T b KaK CHHTaKCHiecKH
oflHOHJieHin>ie Η H e K O T o p w e n i a r o j i b H b i e npeAJioaceHHH, c p : y nac
\
3H(mumeAbHo Menbiue emano ΜβΑκιιχ xyAuzcmoe; — 3aieM? —
Hucmo nmoôbi 6ΜΛΟ. KaK BHÄHO, Β cuHTaciinecKOM OTHOIIIEHHH

3TH npeOTOXCeHHK flOnyCTHMO OTHOCHTb Κ TOH ace MOfleJIH, KOTO-
p a a B b i i n e 6I>uia B b i f l e j i e H a ÍUIH ΒΪ>ΚΚΕ3ΗΒΗΗΗΗ, n o f l B e p r a i o m H x c «
BBLLJIEHEHHK) 0 6 0 Η Χ COCTaBOB.
Β 3TOH r p y n n e (JiaicTOB BaacHO o 6 p a T H T b oco6oe BHHMamie Ha
TaKHe, Β KOTOpWX CHHTaKCHieCKHH COCTaB MOêjIH He TOJIbKO ffO-
n y c K a e T , HO a a a c e n p e ^ n o j i a r a e T HJieHeHHe H a r p y n n t i âHHoro
Η ΗΟΒΟΓΟ (Β CHJiy BblpaHCeHHOH CHHTaKCHHeCKOH AByHJieHHOCTH) Η
TeM He M e H e e Β BbicKa3bmaHHH n p e A C T a B j i e H j i n i u b ΟΛΗΗ c o c T a B —
ΗΟΒΟΓΟ. 3 T H Φ 3 Κ Τ Η íiBJiHK)TC5i KaK 6 b i 3 e p K a j i b H H M OTpaaceHHeM,
aHTHnOAOM BblfleJieHHOH Bbirne r p y m i b l C o 6 p a T H b I M ΟΤΗΟΙΗΒΗΗΒΜ
CHHTaKCHHecKoro Η a K T y a j i b H o r o MjieHeHHa, r a e cHHTaKCHHecKaa
oflHOMJieHHocTb coBMemajiacb c aKTyaJibHOH AsyiJieHHOCTbio.
C p . : IJoAHyw cyMKy môpaAa 6APAXAA\ — Η doKepcu npodatom py-
6atuKu, u ceumepbi npodmom CKOAVKO yzodno; T a M TOJibKO a B T O -

\
MOÔHjibHbiH T y p H 3 M p33BHT. Mnozue man xodam; — Bo, cuôupm,

fleBHOHKH, edem; — Hx MHOZO AemoM ôbieaem.
Y a c e n p H B e f l e H H b i H MATEPNAJI n o K a 3 B a b i e T , HTO, H e c M O T p a Ha
B 0 3 M 0 ) K H y i 0 yGeflHTejibHOCTb PJWA TPAKTOBOK Β n p H M e p a x , flpyrae
MoryT OKA3ATBCA cnopHbiMH. KaK npe^CTABJIAETCA, STO HaxoflHT
CBoe oôbHCHeHHe He TOJIBKO Β HccjieflOBaTejibCKOM H e c o B e p m e H -

Authenticated
A K T y A J l b H O E HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗOft PEMH 155
cTBe n p e ^ n o a c e H H o r o a H a j i H 3 a , HO Η Β OTCYTCTBHH HaêacHbix κ ρ κ -

τ ε ρ κ ε Β ycTaHOBJieHHH cocTaBa a i c T y a j i b H o r o H.TCH8HHH ( ο κρπτε-
pHH KOHTeKCTa η e r o Hcn0Jit30BaHHH G y ^ e T CKa3aHO HH»ce). JXy-
M a e T C H , HTO T a K o e o T c y T C T B H e H e c j i y n a H H o Η H e B b i 3 B a H o jumib
c y G t e K T H B H W M H M O M e H T a M H . ^ e j i o Β ΤΟΜ, ΗΤΟ Β p a c c M a T p H B a e -
Moiî HaMH φyHK^HOHaJIBHO-peHeBOH ο φ ε ρ ε HMeeTcjt KOMnaKTHa«
r p y n n a HBJieHHÖ, noxcajiyñ, H M e i o m n x H a n G o j i b i u y i o p a c n p o c T p a -
HeHHOCTL·, r a e a H a j I H 3 KOMMyHHKaTHBHOÍÍ n p H p O A b l BMCKa3bIBa-
HHfl n03B0JIHeT yCTaHOBHTL· JIHIHb CaMblH φ α κ τ HajIHHHH HJieHeHHH
BbicKa3biBaHHH Ha ΗεκοτορΜε HHφopMaτHBHbIε ιχεΗτρω, h o Ηε
n03B0JI38T COAepXCaTejIbHO ΚΒ3ΛΗΦΗΙ^ρθΒ3ΤΒ 3TH Ι^ΕΗΤΡΗ Β τ ε ρ -
MHHax „flaHHoe — HOBoe". HecoMHeHHocTb cymecTBOBaHna STHX
ΙίεΗΤρΟΒ nOÍ[TBep2CâeTCÍI Η pHTMHKO-HHTOHaUHOHHOH H JIHHefi-
Hoií opraHH3auHeñ βμοκη3ι>ιβ3ηη)ι.
npH 3TOM, eCJIH n0JIb30BaTbCH npHHHMaeMblM HaMH 3AeCb

K O M M y H H K a T H B H O - C M H C J I O B H M Π Ο Λ Χ Ο β Ο Μ , O K a 3 b I B a e T C H , HTO H e -
COMHeHHOCTb C y m e C T B O B a H H H Η Η φ θ ρ Μ 3 Τ Η Β Η Η Χ i j e H T p o B H e c o i e -
T a e T c a 0 ^ H 0 3 H a H H 0 c J i e n c o c r b i o HX κ ο Η κ ρ ε τ Η ο κ η,Π£ηίήΦΚ3ιιηη
Β KaacflOM 0 T / i e j i i , H 0 M c j i y i a e . I I o a c a j i y H , H a n 6 o j i e e J i e n c o ñ T a n a »
H f l e H O ^ H i c a u H H 0Ka3biBaeTCH Β a B y c o c T a B H b i x r j i a r o j i b H b i x π ρ ε Λ -
Λ ο ^ ε Η Η Η Χ , r i t e r j i a r o j i = C K a 3 y e M o e Η ε ε ε τ B a a c H y i o RJIZ Bbicica3bi-
BaHHH Η Η φ θ ρ Μ 3 Η Η Κ ) Η Τ ε Μ C a M b I M O K a 3 b I B a 8 T C H O f l H H M H 3 U e H -
τ ρ ο Β . C p . : K a K H e - T O xaAmypufUKu T a M nodeu3awmcH\ — Hy Bce-
T a K H y3Abi, ΒΗ^πτε, ecmb y Bac; ΟτηκΑίικοβ Ha paAHOcneicTaKjib

Λ
npuuiAo MHozo; — A TBoe co3HaHne? — flapoM He nponaêT.
Jlpyzou κακοϋ-Huôydb 3a m 8 h s mun co3Haeamb ôydem. ( Β . KOMC8B-
HHKOB. H n H a . J I . Γ . 1 HHB. 6 4 ) ; — Κακ COCUCKU | pyicu deAawmcx.
To ace c H e r j i a r o j i b H b i M c K a 3 y e M t i M : T a M TOJibKO aemoMoßuAb-
Hbiü mypu3M I pa3eum. — H y a c manux npocmydnbix mAeuuü, eom
no HÜHCLAY Komopbie 6UAU, T o a c e y a c e Hem; — A y H a c ouem MHOZUX
U3 uHcmumyma \ Hem doMauiuezo adpeca; — H y y a c ne xyoKe ueM
y uac I y nee cmema. Π ρ κ O T c y T C T B H H φ o p M a J I b H O Γ O c o c T a B a ΠΟΛ-
j i e x c a m e r o ΟΑΗΗΜ H3 i i e H T p o B CTaHOBHTCH n p H r j r a r o j i b H b i H H J i e H :
— ypau y a c e mmomeamp npoexaAu; C e ì r e a c matcux manoK \ oueub
MHozo Hocnm. T o ace n p à HajiHHHH φ ο ρ Μ 3 : π > Η θ Γ θ nowieacamero:

Authenticated
156 Ο. Α. ΛΑΠΤΕΒΑ
CcbiAaemecb ΒΜ πα fíaneuia, ccbuaemecb ΒΜ Η Ha Yopma. Xapaic-

TepHO, HTO coflepacaTeJitHO oueHim. npnpofly ΗΗΦορμ3ΤΗΒΗΟΓΟ
IJEHTPA Β TEPMHHAX HCXOÄHOH n a c r a Η nppa, KAK NPEFLCTABJIAETCH,
He yaaeTCH η Torâ, Korâ MJieHeHHe ocymecTBjweTCH Β npeaJio-
»ceHHH npo3paHHoro (JjopMajibHoro cocTaea, rae Β KaiecTBe CKa-
3yeMoro πρκ BtipaaceHHOM cymecTBHTejibHbiM HOAJieacameM BW-
CTynaeT npiuiaraTejibHoe (onem. nacTOTHtm ΤΗΠ Β pa3roBopHoñ
penn) Η cocTaB ueHTpoB BHflejiHeTCH HCHO, cp.: — Y Hee peöeHOK
\ \
MajieHbKHH? — Η ε τ , ôoAbiuan y Heft deeoma; — Bce-Taica eom

smom natu yzoA \ caMbiü npunrnnbiü; — Bom sma eom euiuewca \ Ma-
AeHbKCLH oneub; — 51 jiyMaio, MHHyT nHTHa,zwaTb ôyêM rpy3HTb-
cn. — TnMceAbie y Hac eeufu Bce-TaKa; — ^το c HHM? Y Hero

\ \ \
nenenb | ôoAbHan; — TaM, Meacay npoHHM, nydecnoe 6bi.no nepo\
\ \
3TO oueiib saMamueax AJM MCHU 6buia MbicAb; — H a 10.55 Mbi Mo-
ra ycneTb, Η npHHeM STO xopoiuuü oueHb I noe3Ò; — 3 τ ο oienb
\
6biJi KpyriHbiü \ tunuoH\ Ha pa3pîWHbie-T0 n o x o f l b i BceM ôoAbtuan
6biJia domatfun; — Y H e r o M a T b ÄBOPHHKOM 6biJia. B o o 6 m e ece
ΠΟΤΟΜ zpaMomHbie CTajiH y Hee demu. 3flecb Haao cêjiaTb Ty

oroBopxy, HT O ÄJIH apyrnx cjiynaeB coaepacaTejibHafl KBajn^HKa-
ilHH ueHTpoB Β npeaJioxceHimx TaKoro Tana ôbiBaeT Bnojrae BO3-
MoxcHa, cp.: 3 τ ο 6yaeT HJIH yHHBepMar, HJIH fleTCKHH Miip...
H y Β o6meM ouem ôoAbuioù 6y/ieT Maza3uu; — M a j i o npacno-
coöjieH. — IIoHeMy? — XAUKKUÜ OH onenb. fljw OCHOBHOH »ce
Maccbi noAoÖHbix BbicKa3biBaHHH 6ojiee npaBOMepHoñ HBjiaeTCH
B3aHMHaa KOJiHHecTBeHHafl oqeHKa nepeflaBaeMoñ ueHTpaMH HH-
φορΜαιίΜΗ.
Bojiee 3aTpyflHHTejibHO BbmejiHTb cocTaB ιχβΗτροβ Β ABycocTae-
HHX rjiarojibHbix npe/yioHceHHax, τρρ r j i a r o j i = CKa3yeMoe oKa3bi-
BaeTCH ΗΗφ0ρ\«ΤΗΒΗ0 MajIO 3HaHHMbIM Η ΤβΜ CaMbIM neHTpOM
He CTaHOBHTCH. TeM He MeHee HjieHemie BbiCKa3bmaHHH Ha uern-pw
ocymecTBJiHeTCH η 3flecb, npoHBJisH ce6a KaK yHHBepcajibHbiii
npHHUHn 0praHH3aUHH BbICKa3braaHH« Β yCTHOH peiH, npHHeM

Authenticated
AKTyAJItHOE HJIEHEHME Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪ1 PE HPT 157
3TO HJICH6HH6 ocymecTBJiaeTCH 3a cieT 6ojiee flpoÔHoro, pa3flenb-

Horo npeflCTaBJieHHH cocTaBa, Hecymero ocHOByio ΚΗφορΜαανυο.
3τοτ cocTae HJICHHTCH H npeflCTaeT Β Bn/ie ASYX ueHTpoB C BHCO-
KOÖ CTENEHWO KOMMYHHKATHBHOÑ Harpy3KH, cp.: — A pa3Be B H
3aBTpa He yBHÄHTecb? — A KaK ace, oHa β ce Mb yeaeT ympa\ — OHa
tuecmbcom pyö/teü nouynaeT nencuto; A CKopocmb OHH M o r y T pa3-
BHBATB do ceMuòecnmu nnmu KUAOMempoe β nac; — BOH ôyMazu
\
oTopBHTe KyconeK ce6e; — Tbi 3Haeuib, β JleHHHrpaae KHUMCKO

\ \
Bbimjia no eH3anbio ; OHH nycmnK nepeÔHJiH mpody; — EoAbiuan
KOMNMUN noimia ryjiHTb MywcmiH. M H C xoTejiocb 6bi onetib MHO ζo
CAOS CKa3aTb BaM / ônazodapnocmu, doôpux nootceAamü... — Πο-
τοΜ TaM oflHH aKTep ecTb, χ ezo He 3Haio (fiaMUAiiw; — TaM eme
M a p H H a nepenucKy BeaeT c Dcmonueü; CTOHJI h3 cmeKAa u KepaMu-
Ku I doM. C rjiaroJiOM 6bimb\ — Bot h cMOTpio y MCHH 3a nocjie^HHe
ÄHH x o T b 6bi odna öbiJia nepemnan; T a M ceMepo 6biJio MocKemeü

H eme ΟΛΗΗ; — Ά n03B0HHJi κεκ pa3, Kor.na y Cepera pa3zap 6biJi
6OAE3HU; IJOAUKAUHUM ecn. nnamnan HO <J>pyH3eHCKou, ecTb BOT
CeMaïuKo HanpoTHB Hac noJIHKJiHHHKa... Β npeaJioaceHHHX HHOÍÍ
CHHTaKCHHecKOH CTpyKTypbi: — A ΜΗΟΓΟ y Bac nejioBeK? — ffee
mbiCHHU eoceMbcom πβΑοβεκ TOJibKO npodaeyoe.
TaKoe ace uieHemie cocraBa, Hecymero ocHOBHyK) môpMa-
HHio, Ha Asa qeHTpa MoaceT ocymecTBJiHTbCH H Β npeaejiax KOM-
MyHHKaTHBHO BaacHOH rpymibi rjiaroJibHoro CKa3yeMoro, cp.:
\ * \
— Hyecmeyro Χ ceôfl cefinac nernoxo; IIocAe HOC OHH TaM
ôypuAu; — Ά Aumepamypy ΉΠΒΙΟ ÒAH ceoezo ydoeoAbcmeun u ÒAH

nonoAttemiH 3HÜHUÜ. IlycTb TaK κακ xomnm KPHTHKH CMompnm.
M b i oôpaTHjiHCb noKa Jinnib κ MaTepHany noBeTCTBOBaTejibHbix
BbICKa3aHHH, HenOCpeflCTBeHHO COOTHOCHMIIX C JIOrHHeCKOH CTpyK-
Typoâ cyameHHa. â»ce H πρκ Hajnrnni, Ka3ajiocb 6bi, npaMbix
cBH3eñ Meac^y iêmpaMH Bbicica3biBaHiiH h S h Ρ cyacêHHH OKa-
3bmaeTca: 1. BwcKa3biBaHHe Β ycTH0-pa3r0B0pH0H pa3HOBHÄHOCTH
coBpeMeHHoro pyccKoro JiHTepaTypHoro rabiica noaeepraeTca
Β penn HJieHeHHK) Ha môpMaTHBHbie ueHTpbi; 2. 3 t h u e m p u ga-

Authenticated
158 O. A. JIAIITEBA
jieKO He b o B c e x c j i y i a s i x y / j a e T c n c o A e p a c a T e j i b H O Η Α ε Η Τ Η φ κ ι ΐ Η ρ ο -
BaTb β TepMHHax „aaHHoro — ηοβογο" („hcxoahoh nacra —
a s p a " ) ; J i e r i e ycTaHOBHTb hx β3&ημημη y A e J i t H H H B e c π ρ κ nepe-
r i a n e KOMMyHHKaixHH; 3. C a M O y c T a H O B J i e m i e c o c T a B O B ηεΗτροΒ
n p H M e H H T e j I I j H O Κ MOêjlHM p a 3 H O r O CHHTaKCHHeCKOrO COCTaBa
HepeaKO OKa3biBaeTca 3aTpy,HHHTeJibHi,iM, He Bcerâ npaMo coot-
BeTCTBya S Η Ρ c y ^ e H H « (OGBIHHO s t o HecooTBeTCTBHe MOXCHO
OTMeTHTb TaM, rê 06a ixeHTpa coOTBeTCTByιοτ Ρ cy>KfleHH5i).
Β yCTHO-pa3rOBOpHOH pa3HOBHflHOCTH COBpeMeHHOrO p y c c K o r o
j i H T e p a T y p H o r o »3biKa H a p j i ^ y c BbiCKa3biBaHnaMH noBecTBOBa-
TejibHoro rana Hpe3BbraiÍHO m a p o K O n p e n c T a B j i e H b i BbicKa3hiBa-
HHH B o n p o c H T e j i i i H b i e , n o 6 y 3 H T e n b H t i e , 3M0iiJi0HajibH0-3Kcrrpec-
CHBHBie. K a K H3BCCTH0, JIOrHHeCKHe 3KBHBajieHTW HeTKOH CTpyK-
T y p b i AJiH HHx n o K a He H a i i f l e H H ( κ ρ ο Μ ε τ ε χ τηποβ noc:ie,nHHx,
K O T O p H e HenOCpe^CTBeHHO COOTHOCHTCÍI C COOTBCTCTByiOmHMH
π ο Β ε ο τ Β Ο Β Η τ ε ϋ Β Η Η Μ κ ) . T e M 6 o j i e e 3aTpyflHHTejibHi>iM π ρ ε / i c T a B -
jiHeTCH y c T a H O B J K H H e β hhx cocTaea aaHHoro η ηοβογο. Ecjih
Β BMCKa3HBaHHHX nOBeCTBOBaTejIbHOrO rana Β 3TOM KaK-TO ΜΟΓ
nOMOHb Κ ρ Η Τ ε ρ Η ί ί KOHTeKCTa H OÔmeCMblCJIOBbie C006pa»CeHHH,
TO Β BbICKa3bIBaHH5IX HeΠOBεCTBOBaτεJlbHL·IX 3TO OKa3bIBaeTCa
npaKTHHCCKH H80Cym8CTBHMbIM (BHflHMO, 3TO KaCa8TCH O Ô m e j I H -
TepaTypHoro H3biica β uejioM), 3a hckjiioh8hh8m cjiyiacB, ΓΛε
B H e a 3 b i K O B a a c H T y a i i M Μ θ > κ ε τ n r p a T b p o j i b c M t i c j i O B o r o yTOHHH-
τ ε π Η . Τ ε Μ H8 M e H e e H H φ o p M a τ H B H b I ε ι χ ε Η τ ρ Μ η β h h x b h ^ j i h -
lOTCH BnOJIHe OTHeTJIHBO.
HaHHeM h x 0 6 3 0 p c HaHÖojiee pacnpocTpaHeHHbix penjiHK β ο -

npocffreJibHoro rana. Oömhho TaKiie p e n j i H K H He c j i e / i y i o T β penn
3 a KaKHM-TO c o o ö m e H i i e M η 'BbiCTynaiOT KaK oflHHOHHtie, TaK
HTO Η TO, O HeM CnpaiHHBaeTCH, Η TO, HTO CnpaiHHBaeTCH, ΓΟ-
B o p a m e M y ßbiBaeT οαιπήκοβο BaacHO bhhchhtL·. Cp. pacnpocT-
paHeHHbie β peía flBycocraBHbie penjiHKH, β KOTopbix npefl-
CTaBjieHM c y m e c T B H T e j i b H o e h r j i a r o j i ( b K O M M y H m c a r a B H O M n j i a H e
iijih
CHHTaKCHHecKafl n o 3 H i p r a c y m e c T B H T e j i b H o r o — h c 3 a B i i C H M a n
3aBHCHMaü ΟΤ r j i a r o j i a — He B a a c H a ) : — üpocfieccop | 6ydem pa6o-
mambl; — BucAyzy c Hac CHUMawml; — Coyca mm ne MCIAO ΠΟΛΟ-
MCUAUI', — Bot ά c n p o c H J i a : b h c e r o / j H H ßamou ßoAbiuoü | nanuna-

Authenticated
AKTYAJIBHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΠ PEHH 159
λ«?; — M/ro y Bac Λγκα \ πιικακοζο neml — A mapeAOK nem hu od-

hoüI', — Y Bac Kapandaiua | Hem 6au3ko nod pyKaMuT; — A ne m
omKpbimb TAM ecmbl; — FLEBYNIKA, ne m noMbimb oKonmie cmexAa |
ecmb y Bac?; — Odunadtfamoe hucao Te6e Β uiKony ummul TaKHM
ace 0 6 p a 3 0 M C T p o a x c a „ T p a H c n o p T H b i e " H „ y j m H H b i e " c r e p e o T H n b i
C H a p e i H H M HJIH rjiarOJIHMM BOnpOCHTejIbHUM CJIOBOM, KOTOpOe,
Β oTJiHHHe OT raarojia Β B o n p o c H T e j i b H b i x p e n j i H K a x CBOÔOAHOIO
c o c T a B a , Β ö o j i b m e ä M e p e » B c r a y e T H3 C H T y a i m n H n o T O M y KOM-
MyHHKaTHBHO MeHee 3HaiHMO (KaK H BonpocHTejibHoe CJIOBO
Β flByx npuBefleHHbix Bbirne , , M a r a 3 H H H b i x " cTepeoranax), cp.:
— Bbi He 3HaeTe, cedbMan hoaukauhukü \ ¿del; — Ha o6cyxcdenue |
zàe npoümul; — Bbi MHe CKaaceTe, IlaccaoK — κακ MHe npoümul;
— Jlyzoean οαηαποβκα | hom cxodumbl; —Pmhok\ / edecb cxodumbl
— Mempo ôydeme ebixodumbl — IJpocneKm Mupa όαΛβκο Μέτρο?;
— IJoAUKAUHUKa I Komopoe 30ecb ôydem 3damel
MONCHO npHBeCTH OflHHOHHbie penJlHKH-BOnpOCbl H ΗΗΟΓΟ, Becb-
M a pa3JiHHHoro CHHTaKCHnecKoro c o c T a B a . O Ö H H H O Β HHX Taicace
BbiflejifliOTCH H H φ o p M a τ H B H b I e i i e H T p t i , KaK n p a B H j i o , flea, peace —
OAHH HJiH 6 o j i e e A B y x . I I p n e e / i e M n p H M e p b i TaKHx p e m i H K c flByMH
u e H T p a M H : — Tpucma z p a M M , \ cKOAbKO MHe riAamumbl; — Cjryiuañ,
a CKOAbKO cmoum | Ha maKcu doexamb οτηαοόαΊ',—Α oh ade oicueem \
β HoeoM doMe?; — OHa κακγιο κοφηιγ mdeAa, \ cuhwwI; — 3mo
naAbmeifo κακού pa3Mep B H CMOTpHTe?; — OJIH! Β y36emcmaHe
npedcedameAb Bepxoenozo Coeema | — Kmol; — A ona ympoM \
nepeodeeaem hocku!; — MOHCHO a BaM nocAe npa3dnuKa [ 3anecy
καραπόαΐΜίκΊ; — A OHa ôueaem ΗΤΟ β noAÒecnmozo πρπχοΑκτ?
C oflHHM π,εΗτροΜ: — rê re0JiHH03? IJodnepKHymoe το hto?
Bojiee neM c flByM« ueHTpaMH: — HuKOMy \ MeAoub \ ne nado?;
— A U3peducKu y Bac ôydem caAaml; — 3a luecmbdecnm mpemuû
zod y Hac Hem \ „CAaeuu"?; — 3 τ ο y nee HJIH y nac 6biJi chumohckI
Β NO6YAHTEJIBHBIX permnicax Taxace MoaceT 6 b i T b ppa. HJIH OAHH
ΗΗφορΜ3ΤΗΒΗΜΪί iieHTp, cp.: — 3apmee nporny zomoebmecb
κ ebixody; T b l Bce-TaKH 3my deepb \ 3ακροϋ, ΚΟΓΛ a ô y ^ e n i b y x o ^ I M . ;
— H H a , nozAHdu-κα, TYT r a e - T O „10Mamme" ΑεοκαΑα. K a K BHÄHO,
Ο Λ Η Η Μ Η3 u e H T p o B BbiCTynaeT n y ô o f l t r r e j i b H b i H r j i a r o j i . Β c j i y i a e ,
e c j i H OH flocTaTOMHO HBCTBeHHO noflCKa3bmaeTCH CHTyauHeö, e r o

Authenticated
KOMMyHHKaTHBHoe 3HaieHHe ocjiaÔJiiteTca, cp.: — Tòe cymcoe

Hem, I npbizaü.
Β pa3HOrO pOfla SMOqHOHajIbHO-SKCnpeCCHBHblX BbICKa3bIBa-
HHHX p a 3 ^ H H H O r O CHHTaKCHHeCKOrO CTpOeHHH OÖhlHHO TaKXCe Bbl-
fleJIHIOTCH flBa IIHφOpMaTHBHbIX IêHTpa (eCJIH 3TO He OflHOCJIOBHbie
npeflJioaceHHH, r / j e Βτοροκ cocTaB He BbipaxceH BCJieflCTBHe HBCT-
ΒΒΗΗΟΗ npeflMeTHO-CHTyaTHBHOH OÖyCJIOBJieHHOCTH BbICKa3bIBa-
HHH, rana — Hdem! — o n o e 3 ^ e , — ropmuü! — o nae, — Ca-
uta, MAblfbl! — Β CMbICJie „ B b I H h H 3 0 p T a " , C p . Β B o i i p o c e — Tbl
βο CKOAbKO ? — Β CMbICJie „ B e p H e m b c a " Η τ . Λ.), c p . — Ynacu meôn
6oz I Hmo-Huôydb cdeunymb c Mecma u nepenymamb!; — TapeAKu-mo |
3aôbuu ebiümu nocMompemb! A, HHH?; — EuAemu m cezodun
β EoAbutoü meamp u eo ffeopeii Cbe3doe | ecmb!; — fío ebicmaem,
p e G j r r a , Mamma udem! JXim ΜΗΟΓΗΧ M TAKHX Bbicica3biBaHHH c y -
m e c T B y e T n a p a j i J i e j i b H b i H n o B e c T B O B a T e j i b H b i ñ s K B H B a n e H T H, c j i e -
flOBaTeJIbHO, (J)OpMaJIbHO-JIOrHHeCKHH 3KBHBajieHT.
H T a K , M a T e p n a j i pa3JiHHHoro rana ρειυιπκ ycTHo-pa3roBopHoñ
pa3HOBHÄHOCTH c o B p e M e H H o r o p y c c K o r o j i H T e p a T y p H o r o H3biKa,
oTHHHaiomHHCH OT i i H C b M e H H O - J i H T e p a T y p H o r o M e H b i n e ñ c B H 3 b i o
c O K p y a c a i o m H M Η3ΗΚΟΒΗΜ KOHTCKCTOM (KOTOPORO Β c j i y i a e ΟΛΗ-
HOHHbix p e n j i H K M05KCT H He 6 b i T b ) , n 0 3 B 0 J i a e T c f l e j i a T b c j i e a y i o -
m a e n p e f l B a p H T e j i b H b i e BbiBOflbi: 1. O p r a m o a u H a KOMMyHHKaTHB-
HOH C T p y K T y p b i B b i c K a 3 b i B a H H a o c y m e c T B j i a e T C H n y T e M HjieHeHiia
e r o H a H e K O T o p b i e HH<})opMaraBHbie u e H T p u , κοτορωχ o6hiho
ö b i B a e T flBa, HO M o a c e T 6 b i T b ö o j i b i i i e HJIH M e H b i i i e flByx. 2 . C o a e p -
ACATEJIBHAA HFLEHTH<J)HKAMUI STHX QEHTPOB OÔHHHO 0KA3BIBAETCH
3aTpyflHHTejibHOH H3-3a OTcyTCTBHH HafleacHbix K p H T e p n e B . Β He-
KOTopbix c j i y n a a x oömecMbicjioBbie c o o 6 p a a c e H n a n 0 3 B 0 j i a i 0 T r o -
BopHTb o cocTaBe „aaHHoro" Η ,,ΗΟΒΟΓΟ", „HCXOAHOH nacra"
Η „ a ^ p a " ( H c n 0 J i b 3 0 B a H H e n o K a 3 a H H H KOHTeKCTa orpaHHHHBaeTCH
M a T e p n a j i o M TCKCTOB 6 o j i t i n o r o p a 3 M e p a , K O T o p b i e ycrao-pa3-
rOBOpHOH pa3HOBHÄHOCTH J I H T e p a T y p H O r O J B b l K a Β OÔJiaCTH HaH-
B b i c m e ñ KOHixeHTpaQHH e e 0 C 0 6 e H H 0 C T e ñ — Ο6ΗΧΟ,ΖΪΗΟ-6ΗΤΟΒΟΗ —
cBOHCTBeHHbi M e H e e , HeacejiH B e c b M a K p a T K H e τ ε κ σ τ ω rana ΟΛΗ-
HOHHHX p e n j i H K HJIH o Ô M e H a p e n j i H K a M H ) , Β a p y r H X c j i y n a a x T a K i i e
ocHOBaHHH o T c y T c r e y i O T . B M e c T e c τ β Μ K O J i n n e c T B e H H a a x a p a i r r e -

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪΪ PEMH 161
pHCTHKa Η Η φ θ ρ Μ 3 Τ Η Β Η Η Χ I j e H T p O B ( „ 6 o J i e e — MeHee — OflHHa-

KOBO B a a c H o e " ) β π ρ Η Η ΐ χ κ π ε β ο 3 μ ο > κ η ε B c e r ^ a . 3 . T e M c a M U M n p n
X a p a K T e p H C T H K e Η Η φ θ ρ Μ 3 Τ Η Β Η Μ Χ UeHTpOB B b I C K a 3 b I B a H H H B Ka-
n e c T B e p e j i e B a H T H b i x B b i c r y n a i o T K O J i H H e c T B e H H b i e n p n 3 H a K H , β ica-
necTBe HepejieBaHTHbix — KaiiecTBeHHbie.
II. K a K H e ace φ 0 ρ Μ 3 ^ Η 0 - Η 3 Μ Κ 0 Β Β ΐ ε cpe^cTBa yKa3biBaioT Ha

HaJIHHHe Β B b I C K a 3 b I B a H H H H e K O T O p b l X Η Η φ ο ρ ί ν ^ Τ Η Β Η Η Χ I i e H T p O B ?
Kan ocymecTBJiaeTCH opramoaiiiisi BbicKa3bmaHHH β jihhchhom
njiaHe?
T l p e a c ^ e B e e r ò , B b i p a a c e H H i o KOMMyHHKaTHBHOH C T p y K T y p b i B b i -
cKa3biBaHH« c n o c o ô c T B y e T n p H c y m a s ycTHOMy e r o BonjiomeHHio
pHTMHHecKaH o p r a H H 3 a u H H . Π ο cyTH flejia, t o t h o t hhoìì p h t m
B c e r f l a conyTCTByeT y c T H o ñ penH. H a n ö o j i e e xapaicTepHhiH cjiy-
Hañ — nepeflOBaHHe y ^ a p H b i x h 6e3yaapHbix 3BeHbeB peneBoñ
uenH, conpoBOKflaioineeca cooTBeTCTByiomeH jihhchhoh paccTa-
HOBKOH O T f l e j I b H b l X SJieMeHTOB B b I C K a 3 b I B a H H H (CJIOB). n p H 3TOM
β KanecTBe y a a p H o r o h 6 e 3 y a a p H o r o 3BeHa M o a c e T B b i c T y n a T b η
coöcTBeHHo φοΗετκιεοκαΗ eflHHHiia (MeHbmaa, neM cjiobo), h o
OÖbIHHO, Β yCJIOBHHX TeCHOTO B3aHMOfleHCTBHfl p H T M a H CMblCJia
Π ρ Η yCTHOM npOH3HeceHHH, T a K H M 3BeHOM HBJIHeTCa 3HaHHMaa
eflHHHija ( c j i o b o ) . Y f l a p H o c T b n e p e B o r o 3 B e H a He c o B n a a a e T bo
Bcex cjiyiaax co cjiOBecHbiM yâpeHHeM — pojib 6e3y/iapHwx
3BeHbeB MoryT BbinojiHHTb h nojiHoy,ziapHhie 3HaMeHaTejibHbie
CJIOBa. KojIHHeCTBO pHTMHKO-CMbICJIOBblX yflapeHHH Β yCTHOH
φρ33β OÖbIHHO M e H b l U e , HeaCejlH KOJIHHeCTBO B X O a « m H X Β Hee
c j i o b . O c o 6 a a p o j i b 3flecb npHHafljieacHT s h k j i h t h h c c k h m η π ρ ο -
KJIHTHHeCKHM 3 J i e M e H T a M . P H T M H K O - C M b l C J I O B a a y f l a p H O C T b OÖbIH-
HO c o n p o B o a c f l a e T C H η O T ^ e j i t H b i M .nBJDKeHHeM TOHa. B o t Η β κ ο τ ο -
pbie xapaKTepHbie npHMepw crpoeHHa noBecTBOBaTejibHoro bh-
\ \ ν *
CKa3biBaHHJi: — MaTpacmc | a cboh j. c K w a J, n p H T a m y j . : —
ì \ \ \
Π ο Η ^ ε Μ β MaraHHH. — A o h h t m a c B c e 3 a K p b i T b i J,; — 3 a B T p a j.
> \
Mbi n o n p o c H M Î o h cfleJiaeT { ; — E c j i h η He 6ypy c n a T b , τ ο Ha
Λ \ \ >
K o f i MHe Η β ρ τ 3 T a HyxcHa G o j i b H H u a . Π ρ κ 3 t o m M o r y T B 0 3 H H K a T b

Authenticated
162 O. A. JIAHTEBA
χ \
paBHOueHHbie BapnaHTU, cp. : OneHt flojiro ohh Ghjih β kjihhhkc =
Λ X X
= ΟΗβΗΒ OHH 6mJIHflOJITOΒ ΚΛΗΗΗΚβ. HHOrâ pHTMHHCCKdfl Opra-
HH3amis βμοκ33ϊ>ιβ3ηηη oKa3MBaeTCH CBH3aHHoíí c napajuiejira-
\
MOM CHHTaKCHHeCKOrO CTpOCHHH, Cp.t — AnejIbCHH«fflK XOieTCH

\ \ \
Β35ΠΊ» nococan. η hôjiohko; IlojioxcHJi Ha CTOJi, y6paji β Kop3HHy,
X X X X
B3HJI c C060H aeTen; — Cnipajia, njiaTKna 3a KBaprapy, Bcë (πο-
cjie^HHH njieoHacTHHecKHH MecTOHMeHHBiH 3JieMeHT Ao6aBjieH
paan yKpenneHHH npHHmma napajieJun>HOCTH cTpyKTypti Bbicica-
X \
3biBaHna). Π ο t o h ace cxeMe: — Bo ma 6pouiy β οκοπικο, bo rypß.

nojieTHT (MajiBHHK HTpaeT β öaHOHKy). 3Ta ace cxeMa MoaceT co-
ömoflaTBCH η πρΗ nepeâie pa3roBopm>ix HHTOHauHìi Ha iracbMe,
\ \
cp.: riepeflo mhoh cjioBapHK jieacHT, 1621 r. h3ashhh, crapule
\
IleTpa I KHnaceiica (h3 lacTHoro HHCbMa).
HHOrfla npH pHTMHHeCKOH OpraHH3aHHH BbICKa3BIBaHHH 6e3-
yaapHbie 3Bem>H Moryr HacraiHO hjih nojiHOCTbio oTcyrcTBOBaTb,
X X X X
cp.: — Bce y Hac l y r ckjiokh Glijih H3-3a Heë. 06ηηηο sto npoHc-
XOflHT npH npeAeJIbHOM HaCbimeHHH BbICKa3bœaHHH HHfjlOpMa-
THBHO 3HaHHMbiMH sjieMeirraMH, cp. β BonpocHTejibHbix pemiHicax:
X X X X X X
— Mara3HH 11 3flecbf / GyaeT? j.; — flßa j. / KOMy f / ÖHJieTa? |
(xoth η 3«ecb B03M0acH0 eme 6ojibuiee ΗΗφορΜ3ΤΚΒΗοε cacaTHe —
nocjieflHHe sjieMeHTti MoryT OTcyrcTBOBaTb, npeepaman pemiHKH
β flBycnoBHbie — β nepBOM cjiyiae H3-3a cjiyaceÖHoro xapairrepa
nocjieAHero ajieMeHTa, bo btopom — H3-3a CHTyaraBHOÖ onpeae-
jieHHOCTH). OöpaTHM BHHMaHHe Ha HajiHHHe nay3 Meacoy yâp-
HblMH 3BeHbHMH. fljIÄ CpaBHeHHH ΠρΗΒβΛβΜ BOnpOCHTeJIbHyK) pe-
X
ruimcy c 6e3yziapHbiMH 3BeHbHMH: — A Tenepb eñ npnexaTb 4

X X
Tbl 3aHHTa t β 3TO BpeMH 4 Hejn.3«? t
CjieflyeT otmcthtb, hto yaapHocTb η 6e3yflapHocn> sjieMeHTa

Authenticated
AKTyAJItHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟ« PEHH 163
Β BHCKa3HBaHHH Ηβ e C T b ΗβΗΤΟ a 6 c O J I K ) T H O e , 3 T H ΠρΗ3Η3ΚΗ Ηβ

oôjiaaaiOT cbohctbom τοηηοη Φιτκοειιηη hmchho Ha flaHHOM 3 J i e -
MeHTe. C y m e c r a e H H H M OKa3biBaeTc$i cairn,™ n p m n m n pHTMHHec-
k o h opraHH3an.HH, K O T o p b r i i n a m e B e e r ò n p e / j c T a e T β BHfle n e p e -
flOBaHZH y ^ a p H B i x η 6e3y.napHi.ix 3BeHbeB.
3 τ ο τ πρΗΗϋ,ΗΠ 0 K a 3 B i B a e T C H y a o Ô H b i M A J i a B o n j i o m e H H H h j i h -
ΗβΗΗΟΓΟ npeflCTaBJieHHH J Q ^ O p M a T H B H b l X IêHTpOB. OÖHHHO Β K a -
necTBe yAapHBix 3Bem>eB φpa3bx BHCTynaiOT HHφopMaτHBHO 3Ha-
HHMBie 3JieMeHTBI, φθρΜΗρ>ΤΟΙΐΧΗε KOMMyHHKaTHBHUH CMBICJ1 Bbl-
CKa3bIBaHHH. IlOCKOJIbKy ΗΗφθρΜ3ΤΗΒΗΗΧ HeHTpOB Β sjieMeHTap-
HOH φρ33β name Bcero öbiBaeT flBa (xoth sto η He o6a3aTejn>Ho),
a yaapHOCTb hjih 6e3yâpHOCTb 3BeHa — npn3HaK noflBHHCHbiH,
OCHOBHblX yaapHblX 3BeHbeB Β BbICKa3bIBaHHH npH COBHaaeHHH HX
c HHφopMaτHBHbIMH ueinpaMH Taicxce oôbiHHO 6bœaeT ΚΒΆ. Π ρ κ
3ΤΟΜ Β pOJIH IDÔpMaTHBHOIO IieHTpa MOryT BbICTynaTb CHHTaK-
CHHecKH pa3JiHHHHe uieHbi npeAJioxceHHH, 3aHHMaTb MecTO 6e3-
yflapHoro 3BeHTa T a o c e MoryT c n H T a K C H i e c K n η ΜορφοΛΟΗΓκεοκπ
pa3JiHTHbie HJieroi (name r j i a r o j i , MecTOHMemie, H a p e n n e — ohh
jierne cTaHOBSTca 3ηκπητηκ3μη h npoKJiHTHicaMH, η sto o6ctoh-
TejiBHO He BCTynaeT β προτΗΒορεπΗβ c pa3MemeHHeM KOMMyHHica-
T H B H o i í H a r p y 3 K 0 H a HJieHax B b i c K a 3 b i B a H H a ) . C p . : — IÜHypKOB j.
y Bac 3flecb Ηετ f n a nepBOM STaxce?; — TaM hhkto î mhoh He

\
HHTepecyeTCH?î ; — B b i 6yn;eTe mhtb r o j i O B y ? — Ά 6y.ny, noTOMy
\ \ \ \
HTO nenieTCH n p o c T O r o j i O B a ; — Τ η οτκροκ ce6e οκοπιεικο; —
KojieHbKa, T a n ™ t u cboh 6pocnji; — Τ ω y Memi h3 n a j n > T o H3

\ \ \ \
KapMaHa j / He 6 p a j i f / MejioHb? j,; — 3apoäobo Mbi B i e p a nrpa-
\ *
jih!; H h c p a 3 y e m e He e a p a n H , μοχηο CBapHTb; — Τ ω ctohji Ha
n j i o m a f l K e ? — Ά CHanajia Ha m i o m a ^ K e , a ποτομ yace β BaroHe.
T a M CHjibHO H a i a n o . n y n . ; Ά e m e οληη 6 y a y noKynanb c e 6 e MaT-
pac; — τ β J l a ^ y MHe H e K p a c o B y ; — Hy κοηθηηο hx ceìreac

Authenticated
164 O. A. JIAIITEBA
\ \
Ηβτ. OHH TOJIBKO GbraaiOT oceHLio; — Y M e m i o i e H b GojibHbie

\ \
ΗΟΓΗ, Bce ΑΘΦΟΡΜΗΡΟΒΕΗΗΒΊΕ, H TOJIbKO Mory HA ΜΗΓΚΟΜ; — TaM
Λ X
6MJIO neTbipe HJIH ΠΚΊΊ> φορΜ TOJIbKO, a ceñiac ropa3flo HX 6OJIB-
\ \
me; ^lepeanyp Bcerâ npHMepHbi. H a 3TOM CTOHM; — HaBepHoe,
\ \ \ \ Λ
MACTB YâjiHJiH ΚΗΠΙΟΚ; ΠΟΤΟΚ TaM MEIIIHH — yjimiy He nepeñflenib
Ι Λ \
HH 3a HTO; H a ypoBHe pemajiocb 3aM3aBa; — Ί τ ο MM .uejiaeM AJIH
\
Toro, HTO6Í>I noBbimaTb ypoacañHocTb, aaTb öojibiue rocyaapcTBy
npOflyKUHH?
Β πρΗΗυ,Ηπε Ty »ce opraHH3auHio HMeioT BbicKa3biBaHHH, Β ko-
TOpblX HHCJIO y/japHHX pHTMHKO-HHTOHaiIHOHHblX 3BeHbeB yBeJIH-
Λ — Tbi 3Haeuib κ I T O \
\ ΛΟ Tpex, cp.:
HHBAETCH Ά jiyMaio,
AyMaio? Λ
MTo NHCATB MONCHO MY3HKY coBepmeHHo ΟΠΟΚΟΗΗΟ; MRE xoTb 6bi
\ \ \ \
Äpyryio KapTOHicy;... Η 6e3 KOHiia, 6e3 Komja C HHM TaKHe npoHcxo-
\ \ \ \
ΛΗΛΗ HCTopHH; Ά YACE Β Tpex 6biJia Mara3HHax xo3HHCTBeHHbix —
\ \ \
HHRFLE najiKH HETY; ...BOT caMbiñ CHHTAETCH JIYQUIHH φκκοοοφ
Χ \ \
STO TameHKO Β Jlemmrpaê; Ka/ipoe 3flecb KpacHBbix oneHb
MHoro 6yaeT; O i e H b ΜΗΟΓΟ GtiJio HHTepecHbix Bemeñ; Κρεπκο

\ * \ \
OH coacajieji, HTO 6pocHJiH ero Ha xo3añcTBeHHyio pa6oTy. C p .
c OAHHM yaapHHM 3BeH0M: — A 3Haeuib, ecTb najiaTKH no τρΗΑ-
iiaTb pyójieñ. — Ά 3Haio, η Τ3ΚΗΧ anêsi ΜΗΟΓΟ najiaTOK. Β κομ-

MyHHHKâTHBHOM njiaHe yBejiHHeHHe nncjia yâpHtix 3BeHbeB 03Ha-
naeT pa3flejibHoe npejjcTaBJieHHe, pacmeiuieHHe MHoroHJieHHoro
ΗΗφσρΜ3ΤΗΒΗθ BaacHoro ijeHTpa (name Beerò — Ρ cyxcfleHHa) β
ijejiax ero Jiyiuiero npe^cTaBjieHHH Β ΒΜΟΚ&3ΗΒΕΗΗΗ.
KaK BHflHO H3 npHMepOB, pHTMHKO-HHTOHaUHOHHaH CXeMa Ηβρβ-
OLOBAHHH YAAPHBIX H 6E3YÂPHBIX 3BEHBEB OKA3BIBAETCA ONEHB

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΚ PEHH 165
yflOÔHOH AJI5I BapBHpOBaHHÄ Β JIHHeÍÍHOM p a 3 M e m e H H H KOMMyHH-

KaTHBHO 3HaHHMbIX 3JieMeHT0B. M o a c e T 6bITb, TOJIbKO HapeHHH
noKE3biBaK>T TeHfleHUHio κ HanajibHOMy n o j i o a c e H H i o , o c T a j i b H b i e
Μ ο ρ φ ο Λ Ο Γ Η Η ε ο κ κ θ p a 3 p a a b i CJIOB M o r y T 3aHHMaTb ΠΟ3ππ;ΗΙΟ JIK)6O-
r o y ^ a p H o r o 3BeHa. /JJIH H e K O T o p w x ΤΗΠΟΒ KOHCTpyiciyiH, n p e a c a e
B e e r ò fljia TaK Ha3biBaeMbix k o h c t p y k u h h c HMeHHTejibHbiM T e M b i ,
o c o ß e H H o T e x H3 HHX, KOTopbie npeacTaBJieHbi B o n p o c H T e j i h H b i M H
p e i u i H K a M H , MONCHO OTMeTHTb cTpeMJieHHe κ BhiHocy Β H a n a j i b H o e
n o j i o x c e H H e HHcfjopMaTHBHo 6 o j i e e 3 H a i H M o r o s n e M e H T a ; OHO XO-
p o n i o c o r j i a c y e T c a c B03M0acH0CT»MH p a c c M a T p i r e a e M O H cxeMbi.
Β TO »Ce BpeMH ΠρΗΗΙίΗΠ pHTMHHeCKOH OpraHH3aUHH BbICKa3bI-

BaHHH MOaCeT BOHTH Β CTOJlKHOBeHHe C He06x0flHM0CTbK> nOfl-
HepKHyTOrO npOH3HeceHHH HH(J>OpMaTHBHO 3HaHHMbIX 3JieMeHTOB.
ΠΟ HaniHM HaöjiioaeHHHM, Β 3T0M c j i y n a e OÔHHHO no6eac,o;aeT
pHTM. T a K , Β c j i e ^ y i o m H X npHMepax r j i a r o j i , H e c y m n i i ocHOBHyio
môpMauHjo, 3aHHMaeT MecTO 6e3yâpHoro 3BeHa: — Hmca,
\ χ \ \
rpHÔbi n e p e c o x j i H ΤΒΟΗ; — ^ τ ο ace STO, MOH ocTaioT nacbi HT o JIH,
fla? BOT T e Ha. T O »ce C HapenneM: — B b i yace n p H u i J i H , ΜΗΟΓΟ Ha-

\ \ \
p o a y 6biJio, fla?; — O H MHe He HyaceH. — M e c r a M a n o 3aHHMaeT,
yaoÔHO (3êcb cbirpaji CBOIO pojib nprnnmn napajuiejiPOMa).

HHOTAa TpeôoBaHHH cxeMbi 3acTaBJi«ioT aKneHTpapoBaTb Η Η φ ο ρ -
MaTHBHO He 3HaHHMoe CJIOBO (B c j i e ^ y i o m a x n e r a p e x n p H M e p a x —
\
HapeHHe HJIH n a c T H u y ) : — 3 a HHHKH-TO 3 f l e c b n p o Ö H B a i o T HaBepHO
Toace, fla?; — T b i acapb BEE: a Be AB B c r a H y Toace 6ypy e c T b ; — Bbi

\ \ X \ \
Haa neM ceßnac paöoTaeTe?; ...nyTKHH OH a B T o p Bcë-TaKH, a?
JlaÔHjibHOCTb npH3Haica „ y ^ a p H O C T b — 6 e 3 y a a p H O C T b " Β y c j i O B n a x
yCTHOrO npOH3HeCeHHH MOaceT npHBeCTH Κ OTCyTCTBHIO ΟΛΗΟΓΟ
H3 y ^ a p H b l X 3ΒβΗΒβΒ, 3aHHMaeMbIX KOMMyHHKaTHBHO BaaCHbIM
X \
3JieMeHTOM, c p . : — O i e H í . y Hac H e n p H j m n > i ñ ¿ m p e r r o p H3â-
TejibCTBa 6biJi STO M m i e H T b e B ; — BOT y H a c e m e ΟΛΗΗ nonyTHHK

Authenticated
166 O. A. JIAIITEBA
Λ
noflBimciî; — 3HaeTe ito, y Hac 3aBTpa ^οβολβηο 6y.neT TpyçHHH
\
fleHB, TaK HTO aaeaHTe; — ôporaa, TaK βη iijiotho oGcejin...

KaK bhaho, HCCMOTpH Ha nponycKflHHaMHnecKoroycmiemia, no-
pjIflOK CJieflOBaHHH 3JI¿MCHTOB OCTaeTCS TaKHM xe, KEKHM oh 6mji
6hi 6e3 3τογο nponycxa.
3flecb XOTeJIOCb 6bl OCTaHOBHTbCH Ha HeOflHOKpaTHO BbICKa3bI-
BaBnieMCH HaÓJIIOAeHHH, COrjiaCHO KOTOpOMy Β yCTHOH pCHH ΠΟ-
pazioK cjioB noflHHMeTca npmmnny accoijHaTHBHoro ηεηιϊ3ηβε-
hhs, cjie,nyeT HenocpeflCTBeHHoS CMeHe npeacTaBJieHHH. 3το 6buio
3aMeieHO He tojibko cneunajiHCTaMH. A. H. Kynpra, HanpHMep,
HHcaji: „Ohh (cjioBa - O. JT.) BbiJieTaioT ra ee pfa 6e3 βοικογο
nopa^Ka, Tax hto nopoa KaaceTca, i t o mecTHaflHaToe no ciery
onepe»aeT TpeTbe" („Cama η £nia"). 3το τοΗκοβ 3aMenaHHe,
KaK h Bee HaôjnoAeHHH sToro po/ja, HecoMHeHHO, HMeeT noa co6oh
noHBy, OAHaKO geñcTBHe npHHmraa accoipiaTHBHoro npacoe^HHe-
HHH npH óJiracanmeM paccMOTpeHHH OKa3biBaeTCH He 6e3rpaHHH-
HWM h ocymecTBJweTCfl bo tapase jiHini. β onpeflejieHHtix ycjio-
BH5IX.
Haaôojiee aicTHBHO stot nprnunn nposBjraeTCH β npeêjiax
6e3yaapHoro phtmhko = HHTOHaixHOHHoro 3BeHa <J>pa3bi. 3jieMeH-
TH, cocTaBJifltomne sto 3bcho, Moryr cboöoaho mchhtbch Mecra-
MH (eCJIH HXflBaHJIH HeCKOJIbKO), B3aHM03aMemaTbCH, HTO C03AaeT
mHpOKOe B03M03CH0CTH PJIH Β03ΗΗΚΗΒ0βΗΗΗ 3KBHBajieHTOB = Ba-
pHaHTOB. Cp.: — AjieKcaH^p IlaBJioBHi, CKaHorre, a Korâ B a m
6tur nepBbiH peñe Ha ΊΎ-104?; — Eme JiHTepaTypti HaflOTaK

\ \
μ η ο γ ο npoHecTB (cp.: — TaK μ η ο γ ο jiHTepaTypw eme Haflo
npoHHTaTb); — Η ποτομ oh îkhji β XaMOBHincax, HbiHe r a e

\
My3eñ; — Βο-nepBbix, HyacHO tojibko noKynaTb Bpamaioiuyio-

CH ÖpHTBy; ΚοΗβΗΗΟ, 3flecb ΜΗΟΓΟ MOXCeT 6bITb TOJIbKO
npeanonoaceHHH, a peajibHbix BbiBOÔB 6yêT h He TaK μηογο;
— npe^cTaBjiHK), KaKHe y Bac TyT 6e3 μθηη Bbipocjm Ha Horax
Η0ΓΤΗ (cp. B03M03KHBie 3KBHBajieHTbi: y Bac BbipOCJIH TyT 6e3

Authenticated
AKTyAJILHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪΪ PETO 167
\ \
M C H H ; y B a c τ γ τ B b i p o c j i H 6 e 3 M C H H ) ; Ά T e 6 e ΠΟ3ΒΟΗΚ> n e p e 3
\ Λ \
MHHyΤ AecHTt; a y MEMBI T O J I I . K O 6 b i J i a cyMOHKa Β p y i c a x ;
. . . T e n e p b y MCHH n o j n r o a H j r r m i T O J I B K O 6 y a y T B0ceMHa;maT0-
ro HHCJIA; — Kro-HH6y,zib 3y6bij, 6paJi | HHCTHTB Kpyacicy?
3 H a e T e , a x o T e j i a HTO e e c n p o c H T b ?
C a M a H e o ß x o A H M O C T B c o 3 f l a H H x BO 4>pa3e 6 e 3 y A a p H o r o ρπτ-
MHKO-HHTOHaiXHOHHOrO 3 B e H a B e f l e T Κ CBOÔOflHOMy p a 3 M e m e H H K )
3JIEMEHT0B c j i y x c e 6 H o r o HA3HAHEHHH, BBO^HBIX CJIOB Η Π Ο Λ , c p . :
\ \ ^
— D i e x o T b EAEM, O6I>HBJMJI 6 M ; — Α . , B 0 3 b M H T e CBOK>, n o a c a -
j i y ñ c T a , n o c T e j i b ; B b i He ΜΟΓΛΗ 6 b i T a M n o x c a j i y ñ c T a OTOPEATB
ÔHJieTHKH?; a T a i o K e κ c B o G o f l H O M y BKJiHHHBaHino 6e3yflapHbix
CJIOB Β c o c T a B φ p a 3 e 0 J I 0 Γ H 3 M a , cp.: — A CMMCJI c T O H T b ecTb
Β o n e p e f l H , Bbi flyMaere?; — ECJIH Η He 6 y ^ y cnaTb, τ ο H a κ ο ί ί

\ \ \
M H e π ε ρ τ 3 T a HyacHa G o j i b H i m a ? E e s y q a p H o e 3BeHO M o r y T c o c r a B -
jiHTb H TaKHe cHHTaiccHHecKHe 3JieMeHTBi, pacnojioxceHHe κοτορΗΧ
Β yCJIOBHHX IIHCbMeHHOH ΚΟΑΗφϋΙΙΗρΟΒΕΗΗΟΗ ρβΗΗ C T p O I O φίΙΚΟΗ-
poBaHO, c p . : — H e p H b i ñ κ ο τ TaM aôeflHHHaji. — Η τ ο ? — H e p H b i ñ
κ ο τ A E M Y R O B O P I O H T O TAM NÓE^HHIAJI (XOTH OÔHHHO CBOÔOFLA

c j i o B o p a c n o j i o a c e H H H Β n p e ^ e j i a x 6 e 3 y a a p H o r o 3 B e H a He H a p y m a e T
3 a a a H H O C T H cHHTaKCHHecKOH M O f l e j i H ) . H a K O H e n , 6 e 3 y ^ a p H o e 3 B e -
H o M o a c e T p a 3 M e m a T b c a BO ΦPA3E n o NPHHNPNY flo6aBJieHna, BO3-
B p a m e H H f l κ H e c K a 3 a H H O M y , c p . : — T b i w r a j i a Î , KaK ΟΑΗΗ ΒΟΛΟ-
jia3 Β „ I Ï 3 B e c T H 5 i x " norpyacajicH | Β TpiOM TaHKepa 3anoji-
\
H e H H o r o Η ε φ τ Β ί ο ? Ι ; H e 3 H a i o , i c y n a OHH e r o fleHyr. HJIH οτειι
K y a a n o e a e T B 0 3 b M e T C M a T e p b i o C COÖOH.
O c o ö e H H O H a c T o n o n p H H Q m i y ÄOÖaBJieHHa o p r a H r o y r e c H 6e3-
y f l a p H o e 3 B e H o , p a c n o j i a r a e M o e Β K o m j e BbtCKa3MBaHHH Β K a n e c T B e
3JieMeHTa n o a c H H T e j i b H o r o x a p a K T e p a , oTcyTCTBOBaemero Β n e p -
BOHanaJIbHblX KOMMyHHKaTHBHblX ycTaHOBKax npH nocTpoeHHH

Authenticated
168 O. A. JLAJITEBA
BBICKA3I>IBAHH5I. C p . : — O H BEßB YE3HCAET BOTFLEBHTORO,C ACTCKHM

\ \
c a a o M O T n p a B J i a e M M M e r o ; — A Μ β τ ρ ο / r ^ e 3flecb 6 j i H 3 K a ö -
m e e ? ; — B b i y aceHmHHH JieHHTecb H e B p o n a T O J i o r a ? ; — A rae

\
n a y c T O B C K H H ? — Β p r o s a i c e riaycTOBCKHÜ JIOKHT npecnoKoií-
Η o ; B o c e M H a a u a T a a M H H y r a 3aKaHHHBaeTca BToporonepnoaa;
— 3 H a e u i b I T O MHe HyacHO? Kaicyio-HHÔyzib C T a p y i o m e T K y . Moa
\
c j i o M a j i a c b B b i H n i u a T b n b i j i e c o c ; C M e T a H a He HyacHa. T a M e m e
C T a p a a e c T b C M e T a H a ; — H y , M U o n e H b MHJIO C Heñ n o r o B o p a n H ,
TCMy 6 b i j i H o n e H b p a ^ H yneHHKH B c e ΚΟΗΘΜΗΟ.
npOHJIJHOCTpHpOBaHHblË ΠρΗΗΗΗΠ flOÔaBJieHHH I H ^ O p M a T H B H O
M a j i o 3 H a H H M o r o 3JieMeHTa x o p o r n o c o r j i a c y e T c a c o CTpeMJieHneM
KHanajibHOMy pacnojioaceHmo Hanôojiee 3HaHHMoro sjieMenra,
K O T o p o e HaÔJiioflaeTca Β H e K O T o p w x c j i y n a a x Β3&ΗΜΗΟΓΟ p a c n o -
JioaceHHH y a a p H b i x 3BeHbeB, n p e / i c T a B j i a i o m H X ΗΗφορΜατΗΒΗΗβ
q e H T p w HJiH HX n a c r a . Π ο ρ Η ^ ο κ HX Β33ΗΜΗΟΓΟ cjieôBaHHH o K a -
3biBaeTCH He6e3pa3OT«mbiM T o r a a , K o r e a ο λ η ο H3 HHX n p e a c T a B -
j i a e T CJIOBO, H e c y m e e ß o j i e e BaacHyio m H f r o p M a m i K ) H H M e i o m e e
ß o i t e e sBCTBeHHoe flimaMHHecKoe ycHjiemie n p a npOH3HeceHHH.
Β 3ΤΟΜ c j i y i a e OH Η Μ β ε τ T e H / i e m m i o κ p a c n o j i o a c e H H i o β H a n a j i b -
HOÍÍ LACRA BBICKA3BIBAHH5I. C p . : — M o a c e T 6μτί>, MHe yace KOH-
HHTb e c T b T a K y i o e s y H e c y c B e r a y i o ? 3 H a e T e , H a ^ o e j i a yace o n e t i b ;
— Bce? - P.a.. ÂACE HexojibHHK n p o c j i e f l H j i , HTOÔ y ö p a j i H (HHH-

H H a j i b H o e p a c n o j i o a c e H H e y u a p H o r o a j i e M e n r a B e « e T 3,necb κ ο τ -
CTynjieHHK) ο τ K O A i ^ i m H p o B a H H b i x H o p M pacnojioaceHHH n o c j i e -
\
flyiomeH CHHTaKCHHecKOH r p y n n w ) ; I T o j i H y i o c y M K y H a ô p a j i a 6 a -
p a x j i a ; — B o j i b i i i e KaK 6 y A T O Η ε τ n o e 3 A O B ? — E m e .nonojiHHTejib-
HblH e c T b CTO COpOK BTOpOH n O e 3 f l ( c p . B03M0KHbIH BapHaHT
Β KOHeHHOH n a c r a : = nOe3fl CTO COpOK BTOpOÍÍ); y H a c 3HaHHTeJIb-
»
HO M e H b m e CTAJIO MCJIKHX x y j i n r a H O B ; — A STO HE TE? — H y HTO

*
Tbi, Mbi yace .NABHBIM aaBHO OTflanH HXHHÊ Bce B e m n (cp. Ba-

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΪΪ PEHH 169
pHaHT: = Bee HXHHC B e i i m ) ; — A cBoeo6pa3Hbiñ η3μκ o new.;

\
^CajiKo fleBHOHKH ye3acaioT oneHi,. BnpoieM, TCHfleHUHS κ Ha-
najibHOMy pacnojioaceHHio HHφopMaτHBHO Hanôojiee 3HaiHMOH
n a c r a He HBJiaeTCH a ô c o j i i o T H b i M 3aKOHOM, c p . : — A ecjin nocjie
n a r a a f l i ^ a T o r o , τ ο He H a a o ? — Μ η H a KHHacenicy 3aHHCJum» τ ε -
\
n e p b t o j i l k o n H T H a a u a T o r o 6 y ^ e M HHCJia.
ECJIH y q a p H b i e 3Bem>a r e s p . Η Η φ ο ρ ρ ^ τ Η Β Η Μ ε ixeHTpbi h j i h HX
HaCTH OÔJiaâiOT npHÔJHÔHTeJIbHO O/IHHaKOBLIM ΗΗφθρΜ&ΤΜΒ-
H H M B e c o M , τ ο h x B3aHMHoe p a c n o j i o a c e H H e He p e r j i a M e H r a p y e T -
c a , c p . : — Τ η 3ΤΟ HaBepHO e m e r y f l 3 H K > c ^ a B a j i a B b i y i H J i a ? — Ά

\ \
Β yHHBepcHTeTe H H i e r o He Π Ο Μ Η Ι Ο h t o y i H j i a ( B a p H a w r : = Ά hh-
n e r o He Π Ο Μ Η Ι Ο η τ ο β yHHBepcHTeTe y m n a . C p . , KaK η β B h i u i e n p H -
BeêHHbix n p H M e p a x , HeKoafîmHpoBaHHoe pacnojioaceHHe ko-
HeHHOH CHHTaKCHHeCKOH rpynnbl); — liCTOpHHeCKHX pOMaHOB
o r p o M H o e KOJiHHecTBO η o i e H b M H o r o x y n o a c e c T B e H H o i i jimrepa-
Typbi; B e e s t h a r m c t M a T y a a noflniHBaâ (BapnaHT: = Bce 3th

\ \ \ \
a T y a a n o f l u i H B a j i a n n c b M a ) ; — 3 τ ο npHHTejitHHiia M o a 6 o j i b i u a a
η e r o G o j i b i u a a n p n a T e j i b H r n i a ; I I p H M e p H O Taicaa ace 6hiJia n o r o f l a

\ \
h KapTHHa 6 b i j i a T a K a a ace.
OcOÔeHHO ABCTBeHHO 3TO 6e3pa3JIHHHe npOHBJWeTCH ΠρΗ ΠΟ-
B T O p a x , K o r a a HaJinijo n e p e c n p o c . r o B o p a i i m i i o ö h h h o n p o a B j i a e T
Heacejiamie coxpaHaTb nepBOHanaJibHoe pacnojioaceHHe hjichob
BbICKa3bIBaHHa — ΒΗΛΗΜΟ, C RejIbK) 6bITb JiyTOie nOHHTblM.
Cp.: — M a j i b H H u i K H Toace K y A a - H H Ô y f l b XO^HJIH M a j i e H b K H e ? —
Hto? - MajibHHiHKH MajieHbKHe Toace Kyâ-HH6yflb ΧΟΛΗ-
jih?; — MoaceT 6biTb, cteji 6bi Maca? — Ητο? — MoaceT
6biTb, Maca 6w ci>e.ii?; — Tbi cMOTpejia, icaicaa ocTaHOBKa
6biJia? — H t o ? — K a i c a a OcTaHOBKa 6 b u i a , t b i C M O T p e j i a ? ; — Tw
BCK> K O j i 6 a c y c b e j i ? — Mto? — Kojiôacy BCIO e b e n ? ; — Ectb
n j i a H 3TH ΛΟρΟΓΗ HHHHTb? — ΗΤΟ? — E C T b ÜJiaH, 6 y f l y T HHHHTb
3 T H f l o p o r H ? ; — A c e n n a c ö o j i b H a a npHXOflHJia. — H t o ? — C e f i n a c

Authenticated
npHxoflHJiafleByiioca,h OHa ...; — 3,apaBCTByHTe, 3το HacieT 0 6 -
MeHa. — H t o ? — H a c n e T oßMeHa B a M 3BOHHT; — Ilomjia τβτβω»-

Ka KypHTb. — H t o ? — KypHTb TeTeHtKaa nonuia; — rê OHa?
— Κ 6a6ymKe β tocth noexajia. — Tê? — Κ 6a6yiiiKe noexajia
β rocTH. Heacejiairae coxpaHjrn» yace Hcn0Jib30BaHH0e cjioBopac-
nojioxcerae roBopammi oÔHapyîKHBaeT h πρκ ποΒτορβ 6e3 no-
ßyacfleHHH H3bhc, h πρπ οτΒετε Ha Bonpoc, cp.: — CKOpo Bce
CTeKjia ôy^yr β Mopo3e. Β Mopo3e 6yayT Bce cremia; — M a m m a
cjie^yeT ro rjiaBHoro Bxoâ BbicraBKH. ΠοΒτορίπο: äo rjiaBHoro
Bxofla M a m m a cjieayei·; — TaK h ocTanact PiraccicaH, fla? —
PrajccKaa TaK h ocrajiacb.
HTaK, aHajiH3 B3aHMOAeöcTBHH miara coflepacaHHH h miaHa
BbipaaceHHH H a y p o B H e j i h h c h h o h o p r a H i m i i H H BbicKa3biBaHHX
Β y C T H O - p a 3 r O B O p H O H p a 3 H O B H A H O C T H C O B p e M C H H O pyCCKOrO JIH-
T e p a T y p H o r o »3biKa n03B0JiaeT cêjiaTt cueflyiomae npeflBapn-
TejiBHBie b b i b o ^ h :
1. OCHOBHblM φορΜίυίΒΗΗΜ CpeflCTBOM BbipaXCeHHH KOMMyHH-
KaTHBHOH CTpyKTypbl BMCKa3bIBaHH5I ΠρΗ MJieHeHHH ero Ha ΗΗφορ-
MaTHBHbie iteHTpbi cjiyxcHT ρΗΤΜΗΚο-HHTOHauHOHHaji CTpyKTypa
BbiCKa3bœaHHH, opramoyiomerocH oôhhho no npaBHjiy nepeô-
BaHHH yaapHhix h 6e3yaapHbix 3BeHbeB. Β Kaiecrae TaKHX 3BeHbeB
OÖbIHHO BbICTynaiOT CaMOCTOHTeJIbHbie OTfleJIbHO HHTOHHpOBaH-
Hbie cjioBa, ho Moryr BbicTynaTb h ôojiee MejiKHe φοΗετΗΗβοκπβ
eAHHHiïbi. Β cjiyiae OTcyrcTBM 6e3y,napHoro 3BeHa Ha CTbiKe
yaapHbix 3BeHbeB B03HincaeT nay3a, nrpaiomaa pojih pa3T>e^nHH-
TejiH, 3KBHBajieHTHoro 6e3yaapHOMy 3BeHy. 2. Π ρ Η Hajioacemra
pHTMHKO-HHTOHaUHOHHOrO HJieHCHHH Ha KOMMyHHKaTHBHOe B03-
MOXCHO KaK nojiHoe coBnaflemie yaapHbix 3BeHbeB h môpMaTHB-
Hbix ueHTpoB, TaK h hx HenojiHoe coBnafleHHe, a Taoce HecoBna-
fleHHe. Β nocjieflHHX cjiynaax KOMMyHmcaTHBHO 3HaHHMbiñ 3Jie-
ΜβΗΤ MOxceT 0Ka3aTbca npe^cTaBJieHHbiM flpoÔHo 6ojiee mêm
yAapHWM οληημ 3bchom, a TaKxce MoaceT 3aHjm> πο3ηηηιο yflap-
Horo 3BeHa. Β KanecTBe ochobhoio pejieBaHTHoro npH3HaKa bh-
CTynaeT momcht pa3beaHHeHHH yaapHbix 3BeHbeB nocpeflCTBOM
nepeflOBaHHH hx c 6e3yaapHHMH hjih nay3bi. 3. Πορκβοκ cjieô-

Authenticated
AKTyAJItHOE HJIEHEHHE Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΗ PEHH 171
BaHHfl ΗΗφορΜατΗΒΗΜΧ πβΗτροΒ .zipyr OTHOCHTejibHO a p y r a

Β yCTHO-pa3rOBOpHOM BbICKa3bœaHHH OÔHHHO He φϋΚΟΗρΟΒΕΗ
β cjiynae ηχ KOMMymncaTHBHOH paBHoqeHHOcra η oÒHapyacHBaeT
TeHaeHijHK) κ HHimiiajibHOMy pacnojioaceHHio KOMMymiKaTHBHO
6ojiee BaacHoro sjieMeHTa β cjiynae hx HepaBHOixeHHOCTH β 3tom
OTHOIIieHHH. 4. AcCOIJHaTHBHOe HaHH3bmaHHe 3JieMeHTOB ΠρΗ JIH-
ΗβΗΗΟΗ OpraHH3aUHH BBICKa3BIBaHHH B03HHKa6T OÔblHHO JIHIIIb
β npeêjiax p h t m h t c c k h 6e3yâpHtix 3BeHteB cxeMM.
IlpHMeiaHHe:
ycjioBHBie o6o3HaHeHHH β npHMepax:
noÓHepKnymbiü xypcue: „Hoeoe" („aapo")
Kypcue: „flaraoe" („HcxoflHaa lacTb") η HeKBajiH<{)HLiHpyeMi.rñ μηΦορνμτηβ-
ΗΗ8 αβΗτρ
paspHflKa: 6e3yflapHoe 3ΒβΗ0
* 3HaK yaapemw
I l 3H3KH ABH^CeHHH TO Ha
I 3HaK nay3u
(riocjieAHHe τρκ o6o3HaieHnn aaBajiHCb jihiiib πρκ ycjiOBHH hx οτηοτπηβογο
BbipaaceHHH β ποτοκβ penn h HecoMHeHHOCTH 3arincn.)

Authenticated
OB A K T Y A J I b H O M Ή Ι Ε Η Ε Η Η Η Β Ρ Α 3 Γ 0 Β 0 Ρ Η 0 ί ί PEMH
Ο . Β. CHpoTHHHHa (CapaTOß)
BojibiiiHHCTBO p a ö o T no a K T y a j i b H O M y HjieHeHHio o c H O B a H O Ha
aHaJiH3e i m c b M e H H o ñ p e n n . Π ρ Η HsyneHHii n n c b M e H H O H p e n n AIIH
BbWBjieHHH a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH n p e f l J i o a c e H H H T p e ö y e T c a cne-
UHajibHBiii a H a j i H 3 c o f l e p j K a H H H T e K C T a η φ ο ρ Μ e r o BbipaxceHH».
I T o c K O J i b K y Β i m c b M e H H O H p e n n H H T O H a m r a H e n o c p e A C T B e H H o He
A a H a , a K T y a j i b H o e HJieHeHHe B b i p a a c a e T c a Β n H C b M e H H o ì i p e n n n o -
paflKOM CJIOB, CHCTeMOH apTHKJieñ, OCOÔbIMH KOHCTpyKItflHMH
( t h e r e i s , t h e r e a r e Β a H r j m ñ c K O M » 3 b i K e H T. Η.), a τ Η ί ο κ ε Η ε κ ο τ ο ρ κ -
ΜΗ CneiXHaJlbHbIMH BCnOMOraTeJIbHblMH CpeflCTBaMH (naCTHUbl
monòico, òaotce, u H T. JI. Β p y c c K O M , even — Β aHrjiHHCKOM; M e c r o -
HMeHHbie HapeHHH rana p y c c K H X ecezda, HUKozda, ee30e, miede,
YCHJIHBAIOMHX yTBepxfleHHe HJIH OTpHiiaHHe). OöjiernaeT BOC-
npHHTHe a K T y a j i b H o r o ijieHeHHJi, τ ο e c T b n o A C K a 3 b i B a e T n p a B H j i b -
H y i o HHTOHauHK) HTeHHfl, jieKCHHecKoe H a n o j i H e H H e n p e f l j i o a c e H H H
( C M . Π . A f l a M e n , 1966 o T e M a r a i e c K H X Η p e M a r a n e c K H X c j i o e a x ) , 1
e r o cHHTaKCHHecKaa p e a n n 3 a r t i u i (cHHTaiccHHecKaji p a 3 B e p H y T o c T b ,
HajIHHHe OflHOpOAHblX HJieHOB, ΠΟΒΤΟρΟΒ ΤΗΠΗΗΗΒΙ FLJIH p e M b l ) .
Η B e e ace Β iiHCbMeHHOH p e n n IIOHTH B c e r ^ A o c r a e T c a HeKOTopaa
NOJIHBAJIEHTHOCTB NPEFLJIOACEHHH C TOHKH 3PEHH» aKTyajibHoro
HJieHeHHH, MTO A O K a 3 H B a e T C H B a p n a H T H O C T b i o h t c h h h T e n e r a M a c -
TepaMH xyaoacecTBeHHoro c j i o e a , aKTepaMH η τ . λ .
1 Aflaineu, Π . , Πορ.ηάοκ cAoe β pyccKOM nnixe. ITpara, 1966. C M . Tamice

CapoTHHHHa, O . E . - 5Kyic, P . T . - T o K a p e e a , JI. H . , O AeKcuKo-ceMmmu-
lecKoit oóyc.we.ieHHOcmu ηορηόκα CAOS. Bonpocbi c/iaenncKozo n3biK03HHaujt,
CapaTOB, 1968.

Authenticated
OB AKTYAJIBHOM HJIEHEHMH Β ΡΑ3ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΜ PEHH 173
Β p a 3 r 0 B 0 p H 0 H p e n n a K T y a j i b H o e HJIEHEMIE n p e f t n o a c e H H « BM-
p a x c a e T c a HENOCPE^CTBEHHO, K a a c f l o e n p e f l j i o x c e H H e C TOHKH 3 p e -
H H 3 a K T y a j i t H o r o HJIEHEHHH COBEPMEHHO 0 f l H 0 3 H a M H 0 H ACHO Kaac-
AOMY ROBOPAMEMY HA .HÜHHOM H3HKE. AKTYAJIBHOE MJIEHCHHE BLI-
PAACAETCH Β PAAROBOPHOM PENA ΗΗΤΟΗ3ΪΪΗΟΗΗΙ>ΙΜΗ CPE^CTBAMH,
HO, NOCKOUBKY Β p a 3 r 0 B 0 p H 0 H penn MHoro npeflJioaceHHH 6e3
apKO BbipaaceHHOH TeMbi, x a p a K T e p H M M H B J i a e T c a He HJieHeHne
Β noJiHOM CMHCjie cjiOBa Ha T e M y - p e M y , He HX n p o T H B o n o c T a B J i e -
HHe, a B w a e j i e H H e COÖCTBCHHO p e M b i Η p a 3 J i H H n e n o c r e n e H H KOM-
MyHHKaTHBHOH 3HaHHMOCTH O C T a j i t H L i x 3 j i e M e H T O B n p e ^ J i o x c e H H H .
3 τ θ OÖCTOHTeJIbCTBO 3aCTaBHJIO MeHH nOJIbSOBETbCfl Β CBOHX p a -
6 o T a x TepMHHaMH „KOMMyHHKaTHBHaa C T p y K T y p a n p e f l j i o a c e H H a " ,
„KOMMyHHKaTHBHO 3 H a H H M b I Ì Ì " Η „KOMMyHHKaTHBHO He3HaHHMbIÍÍ
HJieH".
SKcnepHMeHTajibHbie HccjieaoBaHHa p a 3 r o B o p H o ñ pe^H noKa-
3 a j i H , HTo p e M a Β Heft B b i a e n a e r c a He TOJibKO MejiOAHKOH (pe3Koe
CHHaceHHe n a c T O T b i KOJießaHHH OCHOBHOIO T O H a H a y ^ a p H O M c j i o r e
yâpHOrO CJIOBa) HO Η ÖOJIbUieii HHTeHCHBHOCTblO, flJIHTeJIbHO-
CTbio, HANPAXCEHHOCTBK) n p o H 3 H o i n e H H H , ΠΡΚΠΕΜ STH NPH3HAKH
peMbi B3aHM03aMeHHMbI H HHAHBHayajIbHO BapHaÖHJIbHbl (Befly-
m y K ) p o j i b MOACET H r p a T h JIK>6OH H3 STHX npH3HaKOB HJIH OHH MO-
r y T H C n 0 J I b 3 0 B a T b C H KOMnJieKCHO), 2 H e r o BHflHMO, He y H H T b l B a e T
O . A . JlanTeBa, r o B o p n o n a c T o ñ HeB03M03KH0CTH onpejjejiHTb
a K T y a j i b H o e HjieHeHHe n p e A J i o x c e m u i Β p a 3 r o B o p H o i t p e n n . PeMa
B b w e j i a e T c a Bcer.ua coBepuieHHO OTHCTJIHBO Η 0 £ H 0 3 H A I H 0 , HO
κροΜβ p e M b i Β 0 3 Μ 0 3 Κ Η Η Η A p y r a e uieHTpbi (Β 3TOM O . A . J l a n T e B a
c o B e p m e H H o n p a e a ) — B b i f l e j i a i o m H e c H H a φ ο Η β HHTOHauHOHHbix
n p O B a j I O B ( T e p M H H H . H . K o B T y H O B O ñ ) KOMMyHHKaTHBHO 3HaHH-
M b i e MjieHbi. 3 τ ο H c o s ^ a e T ΤΟ HHT0Han;H0HH0e c B o e o 6 p a 3 H e p a 3 -
ΓΟΒΟΡΗΟΗ p e n n , o KOTOpOM Γ Ο Β ο ρ π τ O . A . J l a n T e B a .
HenocpeacTBeHHoe HHTOHauHOHHoe BbipaaceHHe aKTyajibHoro
MjieHeHHH (KOMMyHHKaTHBHOH C T p y K T y p w n p e A n o a c e H H a ) Β p a 3 r o -
BopHoií p e r a πρπΒΟΛΗΤ κ o c o ß b i M H o p M a M p a 3 r o B o p H o r o n o p a ^ K a
CJIOB Β pyCCKOM A3bIKe (npen03HI^HH KOMMyHHKaTHBHO 3HaHHMO-
2
CnpoTHHHHa, O . B., Πορηόοκ cjioe β pyccKOM n3biKe. C a p a t O B , 1965.

Authenticated
174 O. Β. CHPOTHHHHA
ro), flejiaeT H36MTOHHHM H c n 0 j n > 3 0 B a H H e c n e i y i a j i t H B i x cpe^CTB

(πρπ 3TOM HX Π03ΗΙΙΗ« Β pa3rOBOpHOH ρβΗΗ CBOÔOflHa. Cp.¡ Μπβ
flaace n o H p a B H J i o c b H flaace M u e n o H p a B H j i o c b ) , κοτορΒίε ιππροκο
p a c n p o c T p a H e H B i Β p a 3 r o B o p H o ñ p e n e , HO O6MHHO KaK HHAHBH-
flyajn.Hwe c p e f l C T B a 3MOUHOHaJn>HOCTH p e r a . 3
3 CHpoTHHHHa, O. B. - Ky3bMHieBa, H . C . - ΟφπβΗκο, JI. H . - ToKapeBa

JI. T. - TpaBKHHa, Η . H . , HeKomopue cmmKacmecKue ocoSemocmupaitoeop-
HOU peuu. PyccKüH pa32oeopnan penJ^CapaTOB, 1970.

Authenticated
REMARKS ON DEVICES OF FUNCTIONAL
SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
Pavel Novák (Prague)
Given our present knowledge of the so-called functional sentence

perspective (FSP), it is to be expected that anyone wishing to survey
the ways of expressing FSP in different languages will meet with
serious difficulties of a conceptual and/or empirical nature. As for
the empirical ones, suffice it to say that very few languages have
been described, from the point of view in question, at all satis-
factorily (systematically, completely and in detail).
As for the conceptual obstacles of such a survey, the issue is
rather involved. It is commonly felt that the main terms of FSP
have not been fully clarified, but it remains to be seen what kind
of elucidation we are aiming at, in what framework we are to look
for it. In this connection two things call for emphasis. On the one
hand, at the descriptive, "observational" level it is of no use to
employ terms referring to distinctions of meaning that a normal
native user of a language cannot be aware of. On the other hand,
it is unwise to neglect this very descriptive, "observational" aspect
of the terms of FSP by claiming that we are operating on a theoreti-
cal level, for, in fact, we are short of a theory which would provide
an explanation of the phenomena of FSP.
I will give an example to convey what I mean. Since, in the world
around us, there are phenomena subsumable under such notions as
an asymmetrical relation, we need, in languages, such devices as
cases or fixed word order and the like (Sapir 1921, 99). We cannot
imagine a language which lacks these devices and yet can be used
in the world we live in. It is, however, quite easy to imagine, in a

Authenticated
176 P. N O V Á K
Gedankenexperiment, a language lacking many features that are

said to pertain to the FSP.
Unfortunately, I do not know of any explanation of the very
existence of the phenomena referred to in various conceptions of
FSP, but I feel that a theory of language behaviour might be a
fitting framework for it, and that a rich mine of ideas for it might
lie in the study of cases of misunderstanding in verbal communica-
tion where phenomena of FSP might play a role, in the study of the
communicative significance of this type of misunderstanding, ways
of, and ease in, discovering it, and ways of, and ease in, removing it.
I would sum up my first, general point by way of a methodo-
logical slogan: let us attempt to explicate our terms but, at the same
time, let us try to provide an explanation for the phenomena re-
ferred to in these terms (for the distinction between explication and
explanation, see, for example, Pap 1963).
After all that has been said, it is clear that in order to be able to
say anything at all about FSP devices in different languages I must
assume some intuitive knowledge of FSP.
It is known that, in principle, devices of any kind (not only
intonation contour and word order) can serve to express FSP com-
ponents (theme — rheme) (Novák 1959). Thus, for our present
purpose, it would be futile to write up lists of particular FSP devices
in various languages, and the establishment of a series of typo-
logical regularities involving FSP devices would place us, on the
other hand, at the opposite end of the gamut of possibilities of how
to treat the topic. My aim here is more modest. I would like to
call attention to the pattern of FSP devices in two languages as it
seems to be of considerable general interest. 1
The place of the devices of FSP in the language structure varies
according to the main typological features of these devices and to
the similarity to (dissimilarity from) devices used in the other
aspects ("parameters", "coordinates") of overall sentence mean-
1
Only during this Symposium I learnt that the relevance of the two lan-
guages (Yukaghir and Tagalog) for the study of FSP had been recognized,
apparently for the first time, by Dahl (1969, 53).

Authenticated
R E M A R K S ON DEVICES O F FSP 177
ing. What I mean by aspect of overall sentence meaning I can ex-

plain only in terms of examples. Consider, for example, the sentence
"Can you get home?" (with one or another kind of intonation
contour). This asks a question rather than giving us a statement or
a command, conveys the idea that the question relates to the pos-
sibility of doing something rather than to the actual realization
of it, circumscribes a certain "cognitive content" of the question
(it can be rendered by the neutral phrase "your getting home")
etc., etc. (see Novák 1966, 220).
Now, in the Slavonic languages the main devices of FSP are
"non-grammatical", in contradistinction to the devices of the other
aspects of overall sentence meaning. There are languages, however,
of a different structure. For instance in Yukaghir, a Paleo-Asiatic
language, we have for each transitive verb three series of forms
(distinguished from one another by the presence or absence of
personal inflexion, by morphological exponents, and by the pre-
sence or absence of certain prefixes) which are used according to
whether the rheme-component coincides with the subject of the
verb, or its object, or the verb itself, respectively. Moreover a suffix
is attached to the subject or object under conditions that pertain
to the distribution of the rheme as well. In short, in Yukaghir, FSP
is expressed obligatorily and using morphological means (Krejnoviö
1958).
Another example: From the Indo-European languages we are
accustomed that one participant in an action or one term of a re-
lation is singled out from the other participants or terms mostly
by the so-called agreement between the verb and the noun denoting
this participant. This is commonly called a subject and so far it has
resisted a unifying formulation of meaning. By contrast, in Taga-
log, an Indonesian language, what is singled out by means of certain
particles (articles) and word order is just the theme, whereas the
rôle of the participant in question (actor, patiens, beneficiary,
place) is indicated by an appropriate form of the verb (Bowen
1965). Again, the FSP devices of Tagalog are of the same typologi-
cal nature as devices that function otherwise.
If my sources are reliable, it is reasonable to repeat an objection

Authenticated
178 P. N O V Á K
made to Danes's three-level approach to syntax (if interpreted as

aiming at offering a scheme for a language universal) (Danes 1964,
Novák 1966). As is known, in this conception FSP is "detached"
from the other aspects of what I call overall sentence meaning and
conceived of a belonging to a specific level of syntactic structure
("level of the organization of the utterance"). I cannot see any
motivation for this "detachment" of FSP other than the character
of the FSP devices in Slavonic languages mentioned earlier.2 The
trouble is that this step is not warranted by universal features of
language structure (cf. Yukaghir and Tagalog).
It seems to be commonly accepted that our conceptions and
theories of general language structure can be and are influenced to
a considerable extent by the structure of the languages we speak
and study (in the sense that special is, tacitly, taken for general).
What I have wanted to say is merely that it would perhaps
be useful to explore fully the possibilities and realities of this type
in the realm of FSP as well. This is my second and last point.
REFERENCES
BOWEN, D. J., (ed.). Beginning Tagalog. Berkeley and Los Angeles 1965.
DAHL, O., Topic and comment: a study in Russian and general transforma-
tional grammar. Slavica Gothoburgensia 4. Götteborg 1969.
KREJNOVIÈ, JE. Α., Jukagirskij jazyk. Moskva—Leningrad 1958.
NOVÂK, P., O prostredcích aktuálního dienení [On the means employed by
the functional sentence perspective], AUC Philologica 1, 1959, 9—15.
NOVÁK, P., On the three-level approach to syntax, TLP 2, 1966, 219—223.
PAP, Α., An introduction to the philosophy of science. London 1963.
SAPIR, E . , Language. N e w Y o r k 1921.
2
By this I would not wish to deny that it is useful to distinguish between
the intra-sentential and inter-sentential texturing of various aspects of overall
sentence meaning.

Authenticated
CPEACTBA AKTYAJILHORO ^JIEHEHHÜ
Β EOJIRAPCKOM Λ3ΜΚΕ
EjieHa TeoprneBa (ΟοφΗπ)
1. 0 6 0C06EHH0CTHX aKTyajii>Horo HJIEHEHNA NPEFLJIOACEHHH 6OJI-

rapcKoro a3biKa, κροΜβ HCCKOJIBKO cTaTeS πρόφ. C B . MBAHHCBA
o poJiH KaTeropHH onpeaejieHHocTH, BbipaaceHHoñ ΜορφθϋθΓΗ-
HECKHMH cpeacTBaMH, Β aKTyajiH3auHH npe^JioaceHHH, a o CHX nop
He 6biJio nyôJiHKaijHH. HccjieflOBaHHH Β STOM OTHomeHHH TOJIBKO
HTO HaHHHaiOTCH. 1
2. CaMo CO6OH pa3yMeeTCH, ΗΤΟ Β KpaTKOM cooômeHHH Hejn>3H

OTpa3HTi> BO Bceñ nojiHOTe Bee MHoroo6pa3He B03M0acH0creii
öojirapcKoro »3bnca, aHajinranecKoro no CTpyKType, HTO ero o6o-
coGjiaeT ο τ Bcex flpyrnx cjiaBHHCKHx JBHKOB, πρκ aKTyajiH3amm
NPEAJIOACEHHH. ΠΟ3ΤΟΜΥ BTIABJIEHHE ΕΠΕΊΊΚΦΗΗΕΣΚΗΧ AJM H3BIKA
cpeacTB aKTyajibHoro uieHeHHH 6y.neT npeacTaBJiaTb nepBocre-
neHHbiii HHTepec AJIH τ ε ο ρ κ κ aKTyajibHoro HjieHemm H eë πρηΜε-
ΗβΗΗΗ πρκ KOHKpeTHOM HCCJieflOBaHHH CHHTaKCHCa OTflejIbHblX
H3MKOB.
3. AKTyajibHoe HjieHeHne KaK npoixecc ceMaHTHKO-CMHCJIOBOII
cerMeHTaiiHH npefljioaceHHH Ha TeMy h peMy (ocHOBa η χχρο, μ η -
Hoe H HOBoe, H3BecTHoe H HeH3BecTHoe η τ . #.) noKa emë He nojiy-
HHJio flocTaTOHHO HeTKoro η ΛΗφφερεΗίικροΒαΗΗΟΓΟ onpeflejieHHH
no OTHomeHHio κ τοίί ςφερε jrebnca, Β κ ο τ ο ρ ο κ OHO ocymecTBâ-
ετοίΐ. AKTyajibHoe υιεΗεΗΗε paccMaTpHBajiocb 6ojibineií nacTbio
KaK H3biK0B0e flBJiemie. Π ο cyra flejia «3biK0Baa CTpyKTypa
(ocHOBHaa CHHTaKCHiecKaa CTpyKTypa HJIH rpaMMaranecKoe HJie-
HeHHe) H aKTyajibHoe HJieHeime — ABa Meatfly CO6OH CBJNAHHBIE
HBJieHHH, Haxowmyieca Β HepapxHiecKOM p«,ny. H e CHHTaTbCH
HMeHHO C 3T0ÎÎ OTHOCHTejlbHOH HepapXHieCKOH CBH3aHHOCTblO Η

Authenticated
180 Ε. ΓΕΟΡΓΗΕΒΑ
B3äHM03a.BHCHM0CTbK) ÄByX OCHOBHMX HJieHeHHH JBbIKa AOBOAHT

MACTO AO OTOHMECTBJIEHBÜI n p o ö j i e M a T H K H n o p a A K a CJIOB H a i a y -
a j i b H o r o MJIEHEHHH. OCOÔEHHOCTH NOPHAKA CJIOB He HCHEPNBIBAIOT
npH3HaKH aKTyajibHoro HJieHeHHsi. AKTyajibHoe HJieHeHiie —
TOJIbKO OAHa H3 ΦΓΗΚΙΙΚΟΗΊΥΊΒΗΒΙΧ OCOÖeHHOCTeÖ NOPÂKa CJIOB.
3 Τ Ο 03HAHAET, HTO AKTYAJIH3AU,HH C n o M o m t i o NOPAAKA CJIOB aB-
AasTca TOJIbKO nacTHbiM acneKTOM Β M e x a m o M e aKTyajibHoro
HAEHEHHH. Β 3THX CAynaax n o p a A O K CAOB He HTO HHoe, KAK c p e A -
CTBO o c y m e c T B j i e H H H a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHiia.
4 . IlOpHAOK CAOB Β ÔOArapCKOM H3bIKe, BOnpeKH HeKOTOpbIM
BbicKa3aHHHM yace MHCHHÄM, He HMeeT, β XanecTBe CBoeü OCHOB-
HOH φγΗκιΐΗΗ, 3HaHeHHH CHrHajiH3aTopa a K T y a j i b H o r o HAeHeHHa,
x o T H H H o r A a e ë H c n o j m a e T . E r o ΦΓΗΚΙΙΙΙΚ c e a 3 a H a npeacAe B e e r ò
C BblAeAeHHeM OCHOBHOÌÌ CTpyKTypbl CHHTaKCHHeCKOH eAHHHUbl
Η CHHTaKCHHeCKOH pOAH ΚΟΜΠΟΗβΗΤΟΒ npeAJIOJKeHHH π ρ κ ΠΟΜΟ-
U(H HX JIHHeHHOrO paCnOAOXCeHHa. O A H H M CAOBOM, n o p a A O K CAOB
Β 6 0 J i r a p C K 0 M a3bIKe CBH3aH npeHMymeCTBeHHO C BbWBJieHHeM
r p a M M a T H i e c K o r o HJIÊHCHHJI npeAAoaceHHa H OTpaacaeT ocHOBHyio
CHHTaKCHHecKyio C T p y K T y p y , CHHTaKCHHecKyio cxeMy, cHHTaKCH-
l e c K y i o M O A e A b npeAJioaceHHa.
4 . 1 . T a K H M 0 6 p a 3 0 M M b i ΠΟΑΧΟΑΗΜ Κ B o n p o c y onpeACJicHiia
c y m H o c T H a K T y a A b H o r o HJIEHEHIRA Β ΟΤΗΟΙΙΙΘΗΗΗ Κ NOPAAKY CAOB,
HHane rOBOpa, Β ΟΤΗΟΗΙΒΗΗΗ Κ OCHOBHOH CHHTaKCHHeCKOH MOAeAH
«3biKOBOH eAHHHHbi. I I p H 3 H a B a a r p a M M a T H H e c K o e HAeHeHHe H aK-
T y a A b H o e HAeHeHHe CAMOCTOATEJIBIIUMH YPOBHAMH H3MKOBOH CHC-
T e M b i , Mbi T e M c a M b i M o6a3yeMca yKa3aTb HX CBa3aHHOCTb Η
B3anM03aBHCHM0CTb. A K T y a A b H o e HAeHeHHe e c T b HAeHeHHe n p e a -
AoaceHHJi, 0 6 y c A 0 B A e H H 0 e r p a M M a r a n e c K H M HAeHemieM, c κοτο-
p b l M OHO CBH3aHO TaKHM 0 6 p a 3 0 M , HTO AOA5KHO COXpaHHTb ΒΓΟ
o c H O B H y i o c x e M y . B e e A o n o A H H T e A b H b i e npnÖMbi, B X O f l a i i m e Β H a -
6 o p cpeACTB, K O T o p b i e H c n o A b 3 y i o T c a π ρ κ aicTyaAbHOM HJieHemm,
H i p a i O T p o j l b OTHpaBHOH ΤΟΗΚΗ A ™ yKa3aHHH COXpaHeHHH, H a p y -
HieHHH HAH Η3ΜΒΗΕΗΗΛ OCHOBHOH CXeMbl IipeAAOvKeHHH ΠΟ OTHO-
UieHHK) HOpM CHHTaKCHHeCKOH C T p y K T y p b l Η nOpHAKa CAOB.
5. H a p y m e H H e HAH ΜΟΑΗΦΗΜΗΗΗ OCHOBHOÍÍ CHHTAKCHHECKOÖ

MOAeAH 33bIKa npOH3BOAHTCH Β HpOHeCCe KOMMyHHKaUHH. ΠΟ-

Authenticated
CPEflCTBA AKTYAJlLHOrO HJIEHEHHÍI Β EOJirAPCKOM Λ3ΗΚΕ 181
3TOMy aKTyajibHoe HJieHeHHe npe^cTaBJiaeT COÖOH caMocTOjrrejib-

Hyio eOTHHiiy Ha ypoBHe penn. IIopjwoK CJIOB HJIH rpaMMaranec-
Koe HJieHeHHe «BjiaeTca caMOCTOHTejibHOH eflHHHueñ Ha ypoBHe
H3HKa. MMÜHHO Β npoiiecce KOMMyHHKaiJHH Π Ρ Η yCJIOBHH o6iI3a-
TejibHoro HajiHHHH cyôbeKma cooôufemn H oôbeKma cooônfeHun
C03aaëTCH B03M0XCH0CTL· peajIH3aiJHH HJ1H Τ Ρ 3 Η Θ Φ Θ Ρ Μ 3 Ι ΐ ; Η Η aicry-
ajibHOH Η Η Φ Ο Ρ Μ 3 ΐ Ι , Η Η nepeâBaeMoro cooömeHH».
Π ρ Η OTCyTCTBHH 3ΤΟΓΟ yCJIOBHH KaXCflOe COOÔmeHHe ο φ ο ρ Μ -
jiaeTCH no 3aK0HaM (npaBHjiaM) rpaMMaranecKoro HjieHeHHH Ha
H3BIKOBOM ypoBHe. T a K H e C H T y a i ï H H BCTpenaioTCs npeHMymecTBeH-
Ho Β K a n e c T B e npaiwepoB HJIH Β H30JiHp0BaHH0M T e K C T e . ü o s T O M y
MHe KaaceTca, HTO iienecoo6pa3Hee 6yaeT roBopHTb o rpaMMaTH-
necKOM h aKTyajibHOM HjieHeHHH TojibKO npH coôJiiofleHHH yno-
M H H y T b l X yCJIOBHH. T a K O H Β3ΓΛΗΑ Ha Bonpoc, MOHCeT 6 b I T b , n p H -
HyacaaeT roBopHTb He o rpaMMaranecKOM Η O aKTyajibHOM HjieHe-
HHH, a o rpaMMaTHHecKOM HjieHeHHH h o aKTyajibHOM
rpaMMaTHMecKOM HjieHeHHH, nocKOjibKy aKTyajibHoe HJieHe-
HHe B c e r a a orpaHHneHO paMxaMH, .zionycTHMbiMH rpaMMaTHnec-
KHM HJieHCHHCM.
5.1 TaKHM 0 6 p a 3 0 M caMa no ce6e OTnaâeT HeoôxoAHMOCTb
OnepHpOBETL· T e p M H H a M H OÖbeKmueHblÜ (HOpMajIbHblH, OÖblHHblH,
r p a M M a T H i e c K H H ) ηορηόοκ cnoe h cyôbeKtnueHbiù ( s M o i j H O H a j i b -
HbiH, 3KcnpeccHBHbiH, aKTyajibHbiñ) nopndoK cAoe. üepBbiH OTpa-
a c a e T OCOGCHHOCTH r p a M M a r a n e c K o r o HjieHeHH«, Β τ ο ρ ο κ — aic-
TyajibHoro HJieHeHH«, κ ο τ ο ρ ο ε HX npe/iycMaTpHBaeT H flonycKaeT.
6. AKTyajibHoe HJieHCHHe — STO o n e p a n H H Ha ypoBHe penn,
KOTopaa HacjiaHBaeTcn Ha Η3ΗΚΟΒΟΗ ypoBem». OflHOBpeMeHHO
C TCM HeOÖXOflHMO O T M e T H T b , HTO Β JIHHTBHCTHHeCKOH J I H T e p a T y p e
h y p O B e H b p e n n n o K a e m ë H e n o j i y n a j i Ο/ΙΗΟ3ΙΉΗΗΟΓΟ o n p e f l e j i e -
HHfl. O C H O B H b l M H H C X O ß H b l M nOJIOHCeHHeM ΒΓΟ OnpeflejieHHfl HB-
JIAETCH o 6 H 3 a T e j i b H o e H a j i H H H e n p o u e c c a K O M M y H H K a q H H . Ü 3 M K O -
B b i e Φ 3 Κ Τ Η T a K O B W , HTO H a y p o B H e p e n n OCYMECTBJIAIOTCH ppa.
T H n a KOMMyHHKamiH. Hx xapaKTepHbie φορΜΜ npoaBjieHHH —
M O H O J I O r H A H a j I O r . Y K a 3 a H H a X ΟΠΕΊ^ΗΦΗΚΑ K O M M y H H K a i J H H Tpe-
6yeT onpeflejiëHHoro H a 6 o p a jobncoBbix φορΜ H cpeflCTB, K O T o p w e
Aojdkhu 6biTb onpeaeJieHH h oimcaHbi.

Authenticated
182 Ε. ΓΕΟΡΓΉΕΒΑ
6.1. IIpoHjiJiiocTpHpyeM BbicKa3aHHyio M b i c j i b Ha MaTepHajie

6ojirapcKoro H3bnca. 06meH3BecTHO, ητο β G o j i r a p c K O M A3 t u c e
β o n p e f l e j i e H H H X CHTyaijHHX c o 3 f l a i o T c a y c j i o B H » , π ρ κ KOTOpbix
npaMoe flonojiHeHHe ( ο β ι ε κ τ ) y^BaHBaeTca (pe^ynjiHiinpyeTca) —
τ . e . o h o B w p a a c a e T C H o/iHOBpeMeHHO η 3 η κ π η τ η κ ο - μ 6 ο τ ο η μ 6 η η ο η
φ ο ρ Μ Ο ί ί Η n0JIH03HaHHI.IM CJIOBOM. CHHTaKCHHeCKHe yCJIOBIM T a -
KOBbl, ΗΤΟ AJIfl flyÔJIHpOBaHHOrO aOnOJIHeHHH He 0 6 H 3 a T e j I b H 0 c o -
xpaHeHHe onpeitejieHHbix π ο 3 η η ; η ο η η μ χ ycjioBHH — oho MoaceT
ynoTpeGjMTbcsi η β npeno3HiiHH, η β π ο ο τ π ο 3 η η ; η η n o o t h o i h c h h i o
κ rjiarojiy, β r p y n n y KOTOporo b x o o t t . Η β τ ο μ , η β a p y r o M cjiy-
nae, oflHaKO, ^BoiiHoe aonojiHeHHe n o j i y n a e T o n p e a e j i s H H y i o c h h -
T a K C H H e c K y i o 3HaHHMOCTb. C t o h k h 3peHHH a K T y a j i b H o r o u i e H e r o i a
ABoiÍHoe TjonojiHeHHe n a m e B e e r ò h b j i h c t c h c u r H a j i i o a T o p o M b h -
χ ο λ η ο η n a c r a (ocHOBbi, H 3 B e c T H o r o ) p e n e B o r o c o o ö m e H H H . YGe-
flHTejibHbiM ÄOKa3aTejibCTBOM τ ο γ ο , η τ ο CKa3aHHoe h b j i h c t c h n p a -
BHjibHbiM, c j i y a c a T flpynie rpaMMaTHnecKHe noKa3aTejin Gojirap-
C K o r o H3biKa, a h m c h h o — y n o T p e G j i e m i e h j i c h h o h φ ο ρ Μ Η cyme-
C T B H T e j i b H o r o . n p H M e p b i : Kmzama Λ β3β 6u6nuomepKama h BU-
ÔAUomepKama Λ β3β KHueama.
Β 3ΤΗΧ n p H M e p a x x a p a i c r e p H o : β n e p B O M c j i y n a e — Hapyrnerae
ocHOBHoro rpaMMaTHHecKoro HJieHeHHH (Tpe6yiomero, htoGh
cyöbeKT 6bin β nepBoñ, ββιχοληοη πο3ηη;ηη), ho coxpaHeHHe
y c j i o B H Ì i a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH ( T p e ô y i o m e r o , h t o G m o c H O B a c o -
oômeHHH 6bijia β nepBoñ, β μ χ ο α η ο η π ο 3 η η η η ) ; b o Β τ ο ρ ο Μ cjiynae,
H a o ö o p o T , HaGjiiOAaeTca coxpaHeHHe ο ο η ο β η ο γ ο rpaMMaranecKo-
r o HJieHeHHH ( c y ô t e K T H a x o f l H T c a β n e p B O H , B b i x o f l H o ñ π ο 3 η η η η )
η H a p y m e H H e y c j i o B n ñ (npaBHJi) a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHemra (OcHOBa
HaXOflHTCH Β KOHeHHOH Π03ΗΙΧΗΗ).
C tohkh 3peHHH rpaMMaranecKoro η a K T y a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH
ö o j i b i i i H H HHTepec n p e f l C T a B j i a e T n e p B b r i i npHMep, n 0 3 T 0 M y o c T a -
HOBHMCH Ha HeM. PeaynjIHKaaHH flOHOJIHeHH« Β flaHHOM npHMepe
noMoraeT n p e o ^ o j i e T b npOTHBopenne Meac^y rpaMMaranecKHM
η aKTyajibHbiM HJieHemieM npeAJioaceHHa. TaK OHa HcnojiHaeT
p o j i b naflsacHoro yKa3aTejia cHHTaKCHHecKOH φyHK^HH λβοηηογο
HJieHa npeflJioxceHHH. E c j i h pe^ymiHKaiiHH HeT, τ ο MoaceT bo3-
HHKHyTb c e M a H T H H e c K a a η j i o r H H e c K a a H e c o B M e c T H M O C T b . TaKHM

Authenticated
CPEßCTBA AKTyAJIBHOrO HJIEHEHHÄ Β EOJirAPCKOM JI3HKE 183
06pa30M, flBOÖHoe ÄonojiHeHHe öojirapcKoro H3biKa yaoBJieTBO-

paeT TpeöoBaHHio aKTyajibHoro HJICHCHHH πρπ ΜΗΗΗΜΟΠΒΗΟΗ no-
Tepe TOHHOS rpaMMaTHKO-CHHTaKcmecKOH onpeaejiëHHOCTH kom-
ΠΟΗβΗΤΟΒ npeflJlOJKeHHH, TaK KaK ΙφΗ 3TOM H3ÔeraeTCH CHHTaKCH-
Ko^yHKUHOHajibHaH ABycMbicjieHHOCTb npefljioaceHiw.
HyacHO noOTepKHyTB, Ο,Π,ΙΉΚΟ, HT O pe^ynjiHKaiïHH AonojiHeHHa
Β öojirapcKOM a3bnce — STO npoiiiecc Β nprnmane xapaKTepHHH
ΛΛΗ y c r a o ö , pa3r0B0pH0H pera (fluajiora). HeoôxoflHMO flonoji-
HHTb, HTO Cneip^HKa ΛΒΟΗΗΟΓΟ flOnOJIHCHH» Β H3BeCTHOH Μβρβ
coxpaHaeTca H Β xyaoacecTBeHHbix TeiccTax, Koraa OHH Bocnpom-
BOflHT 0C06eHH0CTH pa3r0B0pH0H pe«ffl. ^BOHHOeflOnOJIHeHHeTa-
KHM 06pa30M íiBjiaeTCH cpeACTBOM HHAHKaijHH aKTyajibHoro Hjie-
HeHna Β ycTHOH, PA3ROBOPHOÑ (ÂAJIORHHECKOH) pein.
6.2. Β imcbMeHHOH p e r a (KOTopaa 6ojibmeñ nacTbio 6bœaeT
MOHOjiorHHecKoä) pe,nynjiHKaiiHH flonojiHeHHa ΠΟΗΤΗ He BCTpe-
naeTca, H3ßeraeTca, noTOMy HTO oiieHHBaeTca xaK npoTHBopena-
maa CTporo HopMaTHBHoii CTpyKType BbicKa3biBaHna. H T O G H CO-
XpaHHTb OAHOBpeMeHHO HOpMaTHBH JIHTepaTypHOH a3bIKOBOH
npaKTHKH Η aKTyajibHoro HJieHeHHa, nHCbMeHHaa pent ορκβΗΤΗρο-
Bajiacb κ flpyrHM cpe^cTBaM a3bnca. TaKHMH HBJIHIOTCH naccHB-
Hbie 3ajioroBbie φορΜΗ Η ΚΟΗΟΤΡΓΚΠ;™ jiHTepaTypHoro a3biKa.
TaK Hanp. Β nacbMeHHOM τεκοτβ yKa3aHHbie Bame ABa npHMepa
ΤPAHCΦOPMHPYΚ>ΤCA Β O£HO:
Knuzama 6e e3ema (ce e3e) om 6u6AuomepKama,
KOTOpoe BnojiHe cnocoÔHO npHMHpHTb rpaMMaTHHecKoe H aKTy-

ajibHoe HJicneHne npefljioacemia.
Β noAOÔHbix c j i y i a a x , ecjin aonojiHHTejibHO B03HHKaeT ποτρεδ-
HOCTb Β aKTyajiH3auHH npeanoxceHna, Hcnojib3yioTca apyrae
cpeACTBa a3biKa — nopaaoK CJIOB, HHTOHai^HH, jioraiecKoe yua-
peHHe H T. G.
6.3. n p H 3TOM a3biKOBaa cncreMa, ocHOBHaa a3biKOBaa CTpyK-
Typa, CHHTaKCHHecKaa Moêjib, cxeMa He npeflycMaipneaeT H He
TpeôyeT 06a3aTejn>H0Ö peaymiHKaimH AonojiHemia h Hcnojn>30-
BaHHH naCCHBHblX φθρΜ H KOHCTpyKHHÎÎ Β ÔOJITapCKOM a3bIKe. 3ΤΗ
cpeACTBa noaenjiHCb Β a3biKe no3AHee Β CHjiy HeoôxoflHMOCTH Bbi-

Authenticated
184 Ε. ΓΕΟΡΓΗΕΒΑ
p a x a T b a K T y a j i b H o e HJieHeHne 6 e 3 H a p y u i e H H H o c h o b h o h c h h t e k c h -
HecKoñ MOAejiH npewioaceHHH. O n e p a n p n , c o B e p n i a e M t i e Hcnojib-
3 0 B a H H C M y K a 3 a H H L I X φ θ ρ Μ Η C p e f l C T B » 3 H K a , OCymeCTBJUUOTCH H a
ypoBHe p e n a c uejn>io c o x p a H e m a rpaMMaranecKOH οτργκτγρω
H3HKa η e r o r p a M M a r a n e c K o r o h j i c h c h h s . 0 6 a c j i y n a « npeflcraB-
J1HMT coßoii rpaMMaTHKO-CHHTaKCHHeCKyiO COOTHOCHTeJIBHOCTB
aKTyajiBHoro η r p a M M a r a n e c K o r o uieHeHHfl npejyioaceHHa, coGjiio-
a a a Hx ocHOBHBie T p e ß o B a H H H . flBOHHoe A o n o j i H e H H e η e r o 3KBH-
B a n e H T — n a C C H B H M e φ ο ρ Μ Β Ι H KOHCTpyKIXHH, — 3 Ί Ό Ä B a T p a H C -
φθρΜ3 OCHOBHOrO r p a M M a T H H e C K O r O HJieHeHHH, OpneHTHpOBaH-
Hbie κ pa3HBiM cφepaM peneBoñ KOMMyHHKaqHH — ycTHoñ η
üHCLMeHHOH p e H H . IIOSTOMy HeOÖXOflHMO Β KaSCflOM KOHKpeTHOM
c j i y i a e h m c t l β BHfly κ K a K o ä p e n e B o ö ς φ ε ρ ε o t h o c h t c h paccMa-r-
pHBaeMoe H3BiK0B0e cpe^CTBo, Hcnojn>3yeMoe fljiH qejieö aKTy-
a j i b H o r o HJieHeHHH.
I l p H M e i a H H e : 3kbhbaji6hthocti> λβοΒηογο aonojiHeHHfl h CTpafla-

T e ^ b H M X KOHCTpywiHñ β öojirapcKOM κ3bixe — TOJibKO lacTHbifi cnyiafi
3HaHeiIHÖ Η npOflBJieHHH naCCHBa.

Authenticated
CONCERNING THE PECULIARITIES
OF THE BULGARIAN GRAMMATICAL SYSTEM
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF THE FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
Janko Bacvarov (Sofia)
In her contribution for this volume, my compatriot E. Georgieva

mentions the most characteristic features of the Bulgarian gram-
matical system from the point of view of the functional sentence
perspective (FSP). I should like to add a few more thoughts in order
to give a more complete picture of the means of expressing the
category of definiteness in Bulgarian by means of comparison with
other languages.
This question has already been discussed in Bulgarian lingustic
literature (particularly in the works of Stoyan Stoyanov, Svetomir
Ivanchev and Jana Molhova).1 Of these authors only S. Ivanchev
investigates this problem in the light of the theory of FSP. He
emphasizes the fact that "the definite article aided by the word
order and intonation is able to replace the lacking noun inflection
1
CroHHOB, CT., V A e u y e a u e ua uMenama β öbAzapatun e3UK. [The use of
nouns with articles in Bulgarian.] Sofia 1965. HeameB, Ca., Edna Heonucaua
ynompeöa πα uAenyeauama φορΜα [An unrecorded use of the article.] C6.
Β L E C T H A AJI. TeoflopoB-EajiaH, Sofia 1955, 271—278. HeameB, CB., HaSjiio-
AeHHH BT>pxy ynoTpe6aTa Ha u i e r a Β ôwirapcKiM e3HK [Observations on the

use of the article in Bulgarian], BbAzapcKu e3UK 7,1957, 499—524. HeaHHeB,
CB., K T > M BMipoca 3a uieHyBaHeTO Ha reHepmmo ynoTpeôeinM noftnor
[Concerning the question of using the article of the generically employed
subject], E3HK H jiHTepaTypa 22, 1967, 61—64. HeaHHeB, CB., ΠροβπβΜΗ Ha
aKryajiHOTo ιπβΗβΗΗβ Ha H3peieHHeTO [Problems of the functional sentence
perspective], ΟΛαβηηοκα Φ Μ Ο Λ Ο Ζ Ι Μ Ι 10,1968, 39 — 53. Monxoea, }K., Χαρακ-
mep u ynompeöa na HACHO β ÔBAEAPCKUN u ÜHZAUUCKUH e3W. KoumpacmeH
amAU3. [The nature and use of the article in Bulgarian and English. A con-
trastive analysis.] Sofia 1970.

Authenticated
186 J. BACVAROV
in languages such as Bulgarian, and to develop from a means

primarily of FSP into a grammatical means." 2
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Bulgarian,
because of its specific character of an analytical language, differs
sharply in this respect from the other Slavonic languages and is
extremely similar to English and French, which are also analytical.
Apart from this it must be emphasized that an analogical distribu-
tion of the defined, concretely characterized sentence components
mainly in the theme can be observed in all three languages. It can
be said that it is namely the FSP that dictates definiteness and con-
creteness of those components. It is because of this, in fact, that
they have an article — the definite in English and French, and the
same in Bulgarian.
The components with a definiteness which is weaker or even
lacking are most frequently to be found in the rheme, and in Eng-
lish and French have an indefinite article; in Bulgarian they have
a zero article, i.e. are without article; or else indefinite pronouns
(HHKou "somebody", Ηηκακτ,β "some") as well as the numeral
eduH "one", are used to fulfil the function of an indefinite article.
In order to illustrate this, I should like to quote several examples
from Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's Le Petit Prince and their equi-
valents in the Bulgarian, Russian and Polish versions.3
2
IJpoÔACMU πα aKmyaAHomo H.WHenue..., p. 42.
3
The quotations are taken from the following publications:
ANTOINE DE SAINT-EXUPÉRY, Œuvres, M o s c o u 1969; AHToaH /o>o CCHT EK3K>-
nepH, MaAKunm npunif, Οοφκβ 1966, A m y a H Ae CeHT-3K3ionepH, Majiem>KHii
ΠΡΗΊΊ, MocKBa 1967; ANTOINE DE SAINT-EXUPÉRY Ma/y Ksiqzç, Warsza-
wa 1970. Examples from translations in the three Slavonic languages from
three different groups (Southern, Eastern and Western) have deliberately been
selected in order to emphasize more clearly the separate place occupied by
Bulgarian in the Slavonic linquistic family. The figures in brackets indicate
the page in the respective publication.

Authenticated
PECULIARTIES OF FSP IN BULGARIAN 187
Here are several examples with a component bearing an article

in the theme:
Les e n f a n t s seuls savent ce qu'ils cherchent. (388)
CaMO atixama 3HasT KaKBo T t p c H T . (72)
O f l H H TOJibKO aeTH 3 H a i o T , nero HmyT. (71)
Jedynie d zi e ci wiedz^, czego szukaj^. (66)
Les h o m m e s ont oublié cette vérité. (387)
X o p a m a ca 3a6paBHJiH TA3H HCTHH3. (71)
JIK>AH 3a6wJiH 3Ty HCTHHy. (70)
L u d z i e zapomnieli o tej prawdzie. (65)
Le l a n g a g e e s t s o u r c e d e m a l e n t e n d u s . ( 3 8 6 )
E 3 H K 6 W e H3Bop Ha H e a o p a 3 y M e H H a . ( 6 8 )
CjiOBa TOJibKO M e u i a i o T n o H H M a T b a p y r a p y r a . (68)
M o w a jest z r ó d l e m nieporozumieñ. (62)
Les f l e u r s s o n t si c o n t r a d i c t o i r e s ! ( 3 6 7 )
ljBeTHma ca H3ntJiHeHH c TOjiKOBa npoTHBopeiHfl! (36)
I ^ B e T b i TaK H e n o c j i e , z i o B a T e j i b H b i ! ( 3 1 )
K w i a t y maj^ w sobie tyle sprzecznoáci. (29)
In the following examples the component bearing an article is

in the rheme:
Dessine-moi an m o u t o n . (356)
HapHcyBañ μ η edna OBija. (14)
HapHcyñ öapamica. (12)
Narysuj mi b a r a n k a . (12)
J'ai besoin d'«« m o u t o n . (356)
Tpaöea ΜΗ O B i j a . (14)
MHe HyaceH 6apauieK. (12)
Potrzebny mi jest b a r a n e k . (12)
C'est trieste d'oublier «η ami. (360)
TbXHO e fla 3a6paBHm edun npnaTeji. (22)
3 τ ο oieHb nenajibHO, xorâ 3a6biaaK>T apy3eñ. (18)
To bardzo przykre zapomniec przyjaciela. (18)

Authenticated
188 j. baCvarov
And finally, several intermediate cases where there are compo-

nents bearing articles both in the theme and in the rheme:
Et les r o u t e s vont toutes chez les h o m m e s . (383)
A niTHiiiama Bimani b o a h t πρπ xopawzß. (64)
A Bee floporH Be,ítyT κ j i i o a h m . (62)
A d r o g i prowadzq. zawsze do l u d z i . (56)
Les g r a n d e s p e r s o n n e s aiment les c h i f f r e s . (359)
Bï>3pacTHHAne oÔHiaT ιικφρΗ/ηβ. (21)
B 3 p o c j i b i e oneHL· jiioGht υ;Ηφρι>ι.
D o r o s l i sq. zakochani w c y f r a c h . (16)
Les e n f a n t s doivent être très indulgents envers les g r a n d e s
p e r s o n n e s . (359)
¿ J e n a m a Tpaöea p.a. 6i»aaT μ η ο γ ο CHH3xoflHTejiHH ki>m
Bl>3paCTHH/7ie. (22)
fleTH AOJHKHM 6bITL· ΟΗβΗΒ CHH3XOflHTejTbHbI Κ B3pOCJIbIM.
(18)
D z i e c i muszq byc bardzo poblazliwe w stosunku do d o r o -
s l y c h . (17)
I consider that o n the basis of the given examples it is obvious
that the Bulgarian language combining the means of FSP with
morphological expression of the category of definitess differs from
the other Slavonic languages and displays peculiarities typical of
languages of analytical type.

Authenticated
A K T Y A J l b H O E ÎÎJIEHEHME, r J i y B H H H W E
CTPYKTYPLI H Π Ε Ρ Η Φ Ρ Α 3 Η
IIpaceMbicJi AflaMeu, (Ilpara)
1. Oahoh H3 KapAHHantHbix npoÔJieM yneHHH 06 aKTyajibHOM
HJieHeHHH npoflOJiacaeT ocTaBaTBCH Bonpoc o B3anMooTHomeHHH

Meacay aKTya^tHbiM HjieHeimeM h ciiHTaKCHHecKOH CTpyKTypoñ
npeanoxceHHH. IIocKOJibKy Β nocjieflHHe Γ Ο Λ Η ΠΡΗΗΗΤΟ pa3JiHiaTb
noBepxHocTHyio h rjiyÔHHHyio CHHTaxcHHecKHe cTpyiarypbi, το
aaHHaa npoöjieMa pacnaâeTca Ha flBe n a c T H b i x : a) B3anM00TH0-
iiieHHe A 1 ! h noBepxHOCTHOÌi CTpyKTypbi, 6) B3aHMooTHoiiieHne
A 1 ! h rjiyöüHHOH CTpyKTypbi. flo HeAaBHero BpeMeHH BHHMamie
HCCJIEAOBATEJIEÑ cocpeAOTOHHBajiocb Ha nepBOM H3 STHX B3aHMo-
oTHomeHHfi; β CBoeM AOKJiafle a xony ocTaHOBHTbca Ha ΒτοροΜ.

2. Β noHHMaHHH rjiyÖHHHOH CTpyKTypbi ( r C ) noKa HeT eflHH-
CTBa. OflHaKO, ecjiH He oumôaiocb, 6ojn>nraHCTBO aBTopoB Tenepb
r C noHHMaeT KaK HeKOTopyio Κ0ΗφΗΐ7ρ3ΐΐΗΚ) ceMaHTHHecKHX Ka-
TeropHH, KOTopaa BnocjieacTBHH nyTeM onpeaejieHHbix onepauHH
MoaceT 6biTb τρ3ΗθφορΜΗροΒ3Η3 Β noBepxHocTHyio CTpyKTypy,
τ. e. KOHKpeTHoe npeajioaceHHe. 0 6 h h h o TaKace CHHTaeTCH, MTO
oimy r C MOKHO peaJiH30BaTb HecKOJibKHMH cnocoôaMH, t . e. MTO
oflHa H Ta ace rjiyÖHHHaa cTpyirrypa MoaceT jieacaTB Β ocHOBe He-
CKOJIbKHX nOBepXHOCTHblX CTpyKTyp, 3KBHBajieHTHbIX C TOHKH 3pe-
HHH coêpacameHcn Β ηηχ ΗΗφορΜ3ΐ^ΗΗ. ECJIH BCTâTb Ha Taicyio
no3HHHK>, το, MHe KaaceTCH, aKTyajibHoe HjieHeHHe npHAeTCH TaK
HjiH HHane BKJiioHHTb Β TC, HOCKOJibKy OHO OTHacTH onpeaejiaeT
B03M03CH0CTH 06pa30BaHHH OTfleJIbHblX nOBepXHOCTHblX CTpyKTyp
H3 aaHHoií rjiyÔHHHOH CTpyKTypbi. IlocTapaiocb STO noKa3aTb
Ha HecKOJibKHX npocTbix npHMepax.
3. ECJIH B3HTL· TpH sjieMenra — areHC, fleñcTBHe Η ο6τ>εκτ flea-

Authenticated
190 Π. Α Λ Α Μ Ε Ι ί
CTBHH, ΤΟ ΗΧ Μ 0 5 Κ Η 0 , Β 3 a B H C H M O C T H ΟΤ flaHHOH KOHCHTyaUHH
η AaHHoro ΗΗφορΜαηιιοΗΗΟΓο HaMepeHHH roBopamero, opraHH-
30BaTfc Β npe^JioaceHHa c niecTbio rjiaBHMMH BapnaHTaMH A H :
(1) ffupexmop / U3ynaem ηροεκιη (¿JnarHOCTiHecKHH Bonpoc: Hmo

denaem dupeumopl)
\
(2) ffupexmop my wem / ηροεκιη {Hmo myuaem dupeKmopT)

\
(3) Προεκηι / U3ynaem dupexmop ( Hmo npoucxodum c ηροεκ-

moM ?)
\
(4) Προεκηι mynaem / dupeicmop (Kmo U3ynaem ηροεκιη!)

\
(5) ffupeKmop ηροεκιη / toynaem1 (Hmo όεΑαειη dupeKmop c ηρο-
εκιηοΜΐ)
(6) ffιιρεκηιορ ηροεκιη / U3ynaem (M3yuaem AU όιιρεκιηορ ηρο-
εκηιΊ)
4. ΠocMOTpHM T e n e p i . , Kaie MOHCHO n e p H < j ) p a 3 H p o B a T i > (rpaM-

M a T H H e c K H ) p a r a b l e npeflJioaceHHa. I T p e A J i o a c e H H e ( 1 ) MOJKHO ne-
ρπφρ33ΗροΒ3Τΐ> npefljioxeHHeM ( 7 ) ¡^ηρεκιηορ j 3aHUMaemcn (3a-
\
nam) u3ynehueM ηροεκιηα. A H a j i o r n H H O (4) m o ä h o nepi^pa3npo-
B a T i > K a K ( 8 ) M3ynemeM ηροεκιηα 3anuMaemcn (ßauHm) j όιιρεκιηορ.
fljia ocTajibHbix n e r a p e x BapnaHTOB Taicoñ c n o c o 6 περκφρ33ΗροΒ-
K H , τ . e. c a H a J i H T H 3 H p o B a H H b i M B b i p a a c e H H e M r j i y ö m r a o r o npeflH-
K a T a , M a j i o Π Ο Λ Χ Ο ^ Η Τ : OHCBHAHO, n o B e p x H O C T H a a penpeseHTauHH
r j i y Ô H H H o r o o ô b e K T a Β BHfle n o B e p x H O C T H o r o a T p a ö y T a B 0 3 M 0 » C H a
TOJibKo Β TOM cjiynae, ecjiH fleñcTBHe H o6i>eKT BMecre bxoaht
Β O f l H H H T O T ace Κ Ο Μ Π Ο Η Β Η Τ A H , H T O H M e e T M e C T O Β ( 1 ) Η ( 4 ) , H O
He Β OCTajIbHbIX.
B a p n a H T (3) moncho, npeacße Beerò, Jienco τpaHcφopMHpoBaτb
1
Β noBepxHOCTHOü CTpyKType TaKoK BapiiaHT A H r o p a 3 ^ o rame Bbipa-
jKaeTCH φ ο ρ Μ ο ϋ ffupeKmop / u3yuàem / itpoeKm (c (J>pa30BbiM y ^ a p e r a e M β ce-
peAHHe). B o o 6 m e , KaHCflilÖ HS ΠρΗΒβΛβΗΗΜΧ BapHaHTOB Β nOBepXHOCTHOH
CTpyKType ΜΟΗΜΤ 6MTI> BtipaaceH HecKOJiwcHMH CHHOHHMHHHMMH φ ο ρ Μ & Μ Η
C flpyrUM MeCTOM <J)pa30BOrO yflapeHHH, HO 3TOT B o n p o c Mbl, a n a n p O C T O T H
Η3ΠΟ»βΗΗΧ, OCTaBHM Β CTOpOHe.

Authenticated
AKTYAJIBHOE HJIEHEHHE H rJiyEHHHblE CTPYKTyPM 191
Β npe/uioMceHHe c naccHBHoñ nepcneKTHBoft: (9) IJpoeKm [ layna-

\
emcH dupeKtnopoM, a Tanace nepH<J)pa3HpOBaTb KaK (10) Προεκηι /
\
I .wAnemcH oôbeKmoM myneiiun co cmopoHbi dupeKmopa H nofl.

U n a ocTajTbHbix π η τ ή BapHaHTOB TaKoii cnoco6 onaTb-TaKH He
nOflXOflHT, ΟΗΒΒΗΛΗΟ IIOTOMy, ITO OÔbeKT Β ΗΗΧ He SBJIJieTCH caMo-
CTOaTeJIbHOH ΤΒΜΟΗ (OCHOBOH BLICKa3bIBaHHH). w
BapnaHT (2) MOJKHO πepHφpa3HpoBaτb KaK (11) 3mo npoeKm, /
I nmo dupeKmop myuaem, HJIH (12) JJ3yuaeMoe dupexmopoM /
w
I —npoeKm ΗΤΠ. AHajiornHHo, BapwaHT (4) MOHCHO nepeâTb ne-
w
ρπφρ330Η (13) 3mo dupeKmop, / Kmo U3ynaem npoeKm, (14) H3y-
\
uawufuü npoeKm j — dupeKmop Η τ. π. fljia ocTajibHhix neTbipex Ba-
paaHTOB TaKOH ΤΗΠ n e p i ^ p a s H p o B a H M HeB03M0aceH: ycjioBiieM,
oneBHAHo, HBJiaeTCn coBMecraaH npHHaAJieacHOCTb fleñcTBHH Η
areHca, HJIH ace aeñcTBHfl h oôbeKTa, κ TeMe Η peMaTHiecKHH xa-
paKTep rjiyÔHHHoro oôbeKTa (HJIH areHca).
Hjih npe^jioaceHHa (5) πepHφpa3aMH MorjiH 6bi nocjiyacHTb
npeAJioaceHHH c rjiyÔHHHbiM npeflHKaTOM, aHajiH3HpoBaHHbiM
n p a noMoiHH Kay3aTHBHoro r j i a r o j i a : (15) ffupeKmop npoeKm /
I cdenaa oôbeKmoM ceoezo myneHUH, (16) ffupeKmop npoeKm /
/ nodeepzaem ceoeMy u3yneHuw H n o a . CMBICJI a p y r n x Π«ΤΗ Ba-

pnaHTOB TaKHe πepHφpa3bI HecnocoÔHbi aêRBarao nepeâTL·.
HaKOHeq, min BapnaHTa (6) cjieayeT HCKaTb BO3MCMKHOCTH nepH-
ΦPA3HPOBAHHH Β oGjiaCTH 3KCIIJ1HHHTHO BbipaHCeHHOH MOflajIb-
HocTH. Mbi MoaceM e r o CMbicji Sojiee 3KCIIJIHUHTHO nepeaaTb
w
npeflJioaceHHaMH KaK (17) ffupeKmop j deücmeumeAbHo / mywem
w
npoeKm, (18) ffa, dupeKmop npoeKm ¡ U3ynaem, (19) Β moM, umo
w
dupeKmop npoeKm usyuaem, / η βηοΛΗβ yôeMcàen H T. Π.
5. yiHTMBaa BbiiiiecKa3aHHoe, T. e. ITO OAHH B a p n a f f r a A H no-
nycKaiOT TaKHe πepHφρa3bI, KOTopbie HenpneMJieMbi (HJIH Tpy^HO
npneMjieMbi) a j i a apyrHx, H npeAnojiaraa, HTO Bce HacToamne ne-

Authenticated
192 Π. ALAMELI
ρπφρά3Βΐ OTHOcflTCH Κ oflHOH H TOH ace rjiyÖHHHOH cTpyKType, MM

MoaceM CFLEJIATB BMBOA, HTO A H 3ajioaceHO yace Β CSMHX T C
2
npe/in03CeHHH. 3 t 0 MOXCHO 6 M J I O 5bl TeXHHHeCKH H306pa3HTb TaK,
HTO nepBBiM pa3ÖHeHHeM KOMnjieKCHoro CHMBOJia Σ (rJiyÔHHHaa
CTpyKTypa) 6buio 6 h pa3ÔHeHHe Ha TeMy 9 H peMy Q, H TOJibKO
ΠΟΤΟΜ yace ocymecTBJiajiocb 6bi aajibHeñiiiee pa3ÖHeHHe (Hanp.,
Β TepMHHax oöoömeHHO-ceMaHTHiecKHx Kaxeropmi, Kaie areHC (Ag),
aeñcTBHe (Act) Η ο6τ>εκτ fleËCTBua (Obj). IIpoeKTHpoBaHHbie T a -
KHM 06pa30M r C ΠΟΤΟΜ npeBpamajiHCb 6bi Β KOHRperatie n o -
BepxHocTHbie CTpyKTypti (τ. e., Hanp., ( 1 ) —(19)) nyTeM npaMeHe-
HHH peajiH3au;HOHHi>ix TpaHCfJjopMauHH, onpeflejiHiomHX κοΗκρετ-
Hbie cHHTaKCHHecKHe οφορΜϋεΗΐω. Γραφκ^εοκΗ STO MoaceT 6BITB
npeflCTaBJieHO cjie^yiomHM 06pa30M:
e
I
Ag Act Obj Obj Act Ag
ι I (1)
I f' 4 '
(.IHJK'KTOp) {myran.) (ιψοι'κτ) —»- (npoeicT) (inyiaTi.) (jlipt'KTOJ)) . (8 )
(13)
l
(7)
(14>
Ai Act Ob¡ Ag Obj Act

I I (2) I l '(5)
(.IHpt'KTitp) (ii:iyimTi>) (ιιροι·κτ) - (11) (,ιιιροκτορ) (ηροοκτ) (uayia-ri,)-·- (15)
(12) (16)
«
I
Obj Act Ag Obj Affirm.mod. U )
I I I (3)
(ΠΡΟΘΗΤ) (HdyiaTb) (AHpeKTOp) - (9) (;ihpcKTop) (H3y>uiti>) (ιιροοκτ) ( + (17)
(10) (18)
(19)
6. rioBepxHOCTHoe οφορΜπεΗκε npeAJioaceHHH H noBepxHOCT-

Hbie CHHTaKCHiecKHe KaTeropHH, TaKHe icaic ncwieacamee, CKa3ye-
K nofloßHOMy 3aMKweHHK) πρκχοΛΗτ H flpyrne HCCJiefloeaTejiH, Hanp.

Π. Crajiji, K. liana, 3 . flaut, JI. flsace h flp.

Authenticated
AKTYAJIbHOE HJIEHEHHE Η ΓΛΥΒΗΗΗΗΕ CTPyKTYPW 193
Moe, flonojiHeHHe, onpeaejieHHe η τ. a., npeacraBjiaiOT co6oñ ρε-

3yjibTaT CJIOHCHOÍÍ HHrepaKijHH Meacay KaTeropHHMH ypoBHH A H
h KaTeropHHMH o6o6meHHO-ceMaHTHHecKoro ypoBHH, KaK areHc,
aeñcTBHe, ο6ι»εκτ AeñcTBHfl, npH3HaK cyócraHimn η τ. π. Te η apy-
rne KaTeropHH πpeφepHpyIoτ oahh cnocoöbi noBepxHOCTHoro
οφορΜπεΗΗΗ h OTpHitaioT zipyrae (HanpHMep, φyHKÎla caMOCToa-
TejibHOH TeMbi H, c Apyroñ CTopoHu, φyHκ^Ha areHca cnocoô-
CTByioT οφορΜπεΗΗΐο aaHHoro 3JieMeHTa KaK no^Jieacamero, φyHK-
uaa caMOCTOHTenbHOH peMM, a TaK»ce 3HaHeHHe aeiiCTBHa cnoco6-
cTByioT οφορΜϋεΗΗΐο AaHHoro 3JieMeHTa KaK cKa3yeMoro η t. ρ,.).
ECJIH BJiHHHHe 060HX ypoBHeö HaxoflHTca β corjiacHH (KaK, Hanp.,
Β (1) η (5), τ ο HeT flpyrHx B03MoacHocTeñ rpaMMaTHHecKoro
ΠερΗφρΕ3ΗρθΒΒΗΜ3, ΚρΟΜβ aHajIH3aUHH rjiyÔHHHOrO npeflHKa-
Ta. HaoöopoT, TaM, r ^ e bjihhhhc A H h o6o6meHHO-ceMaHTHie-
CKORO ypOBHH HaXOflHTCH Β npOTHBOpeHHH, TaM B03M05KHM pa3-
Hbie πepHφpa3L·I, nocKOJibKy „noôeflHTb" Μοκετ η tot, η a p y r o ö
ypoBeHb. Cp., Hanp., Σ 2 , rfle 3anpocaM ceMaHTHHecKiix KaTeropiiñ
cooTBeTCTByeT noBepxHOCTHoe οφορΜϋΟΗΐιε (2) ffupenmop U3y-
\\
wem I ηροβκτη, Torâ KaK TpeßoBaHnaM A H öojibine yAOBJieTBo-
paeT οφορΜπεΗΗε (11) 3mo ηροεκιη / nmo dupeKmop mywem η
(12) H3ynaeMoe dupenmopoM / — ηροεκτη η τ. r.
7. Το, Ητο μ η noKa3ajiH Ha npHMepe npeAJioxceHHH c ceMaHTH-
HeCKHMH KOMnOHeHTaMH Ag, Act H Obj, M03KH0 npOAeMOHCTpH-
poBaTb — h noacajiyM, em8 HarjisiAHee — h Ha npe^JioaceHrax,
cocToamnx Η3 sjieMeHTOB Äpyroro THna. TaK, Hanp., ecjiH b3htL·
npeAJioaceHHH
(20) flemu ¡ uzpawm eo deope (^HarHocTHnecKHÖ Bonpoc:
*frno dejiawm demuT)
w
(21) fíemu uzpawm / eo deope (Tde uzpawm demul)
\
(22) Bo deope / uzpawm demu ( Hmo npoucxodum eo deopel)

w
(23) Bo deope uzpawm / demu (Kmo uzpaem eo deopel),
το (21) M03KH0 πepHφpa3HpoBaτb KaK (24) Hzpawufue demu /
•\ \
I Haxodnmcn eo deope hot (25) Hzpa demeü / npoucxodum eo deope,

Authenticated
194 Π. ΑΛΑΜΕ1Ι
Λ
ama ace (26) MecmoM, zde demu uzpaiom, / neAnemcn deop. AHajio-
γηηηο CMMCJI (22) M03CH0 nepeflaTb nepH<{)pa3aMH (27) Bo deope [
\
I npucymcmeyiom uzpawufue demu, (28) Bo deope / npoucxodum
uzpa demeü η (29) fíeop / WAnemcn MecmoM, zde uzpaiom demu.
HanpoTHB, (23) nepH<}>pa3HpyeTCH

\
coeepmeHHO wHHane: (30) Hzpa-
toufUMU eo deope / neARwmcH demu, (31) 3mo demu, / Kmo uzpaem
eo deope η τ. λ. Hh oflHa h3 πepHφpa3 Tana (24)—(31) He π ο λ χ ο λ η τ
W W (20).
3acjiyacHBaeT BHUMamm φακτ, ητο β πepHφpa3ax npefljioxceHHH

(21) Η (22) nOHBJMHOTCH 3JieMeHTM CO 3HaneHHeM HaXOaCfleHHH
h j i h HajiHHHH (uaxodumbcsi, npoucxodumb, npucymcmeoeamb,
HeAnmbcn MecmoM), H3 nero m o n c h o caejiaTb β μ β ο λ , η τ ο η β ca-
ΜΗΧ npeAJioaceHHHX (21) η (22) 3HaneHHe npeflHKaTa pacmenjia-
eTCH H a a e n c T B H e + H a j i H i n e . Π ο α ο 6 η ο γ ο p a c m e n j i e H H H 3HaHe-
HHH HCT hh β (20), hh β (23) η ero πepHφpa3ax. 3πβΜβΗΤ CO 3Haie-
HHCM HaX03KfleHH3 HJIH HajIHHHH, OHeBHflHO, HHflyiiHpyeTCH TOJIbKO
Ha CTtree τβΜΜ η peMH, β cjiynaax, Korâ jiOKaTHB eo deope caMO-
CTOHTejibHO o6pa3yeT o a h h h 3 s t h x rjiaBHbix κ ο μ π ο η β η τ ο β A 1 ?.
8. I I o a c a j i y H « p i e B e e r ò p a 3 J i r m i a β bo3mohchoct5dc πepHφpa3H-
pOBaHHfl, a cjieflOBaTejiijHO, h pa3JiHiM β re, npoHBJiaioTCH
y pa3HMX BapnaHTOB A*I npeanoaceHHH, coaepacamHX pa3HBie
x a p a K T e p a c T H K H (xapaKTepHCTHKH c y 6 c T a i m n H — onpe/iejieHM,
H j i H x a p a K T e p H C T H K H ä c h c t b h h — τ . Ha3. oScTOflTejrbCTBa o 6 p a 3 a
A e ñ c T B H H ) . flejio β t o m , h t o T a M , r ^ e T a K n e x a p a K T e p H C T H K H c a M o -
CTOHTejIbHO BbinOJIHÎHOT φ γ Η Κ Ι Ι Η Ι Ο p e M b l , ΟΗΗ JieTKO M O r y T 6bITb
Π β ρ Η φ ρ 3 3 Η ρ θ Β 3 Η Η Β n p e f l H K a T , ΗΤΟ ΗβΒ03Μ03ΚΗ0 B flpyTHX CJiy-
Haax. Cp.:
(32) ffeeyuiKa / muxo nem (Hmo demm deeyuiKal) η
(33) ffeeyiuKa neAa / muxo (Κακ nena deeywKal),

rae TOJibKO (33), h o He (32), mohcho πepHφpa3HpoBaτb β (34) Ilenue
w
deeyuiKu / ßbtAo muxuM, h j i h
~~ \\
(35) OH HonucaA / KopomKoe comueme (Hmo OH uanucanl) η

Authenticated
AKTyAJTbHOE HJIEHEHHE H rJiyEHHHblE C T P Y K T y P H 195
w
(36) OH HanucaA /κοροτηκοε/ coumenue HJIH
w
(37) Commenue OH uanucaA / κοροτηκοε,
r a e ( 3 6 ) η ( 3 7 ) M o r y T 6biTb περΗφρ&3ΐιροΒ3Ηΐ>ι β HanucaHoe UM
\
COHUMHUe I ΗβΑΗεΤηεη KOpOmKUM, HTO HeB03M0)KH0 flJI« (35).
9. JâHHoe B b i c i y n j i e H H e npejceraBJiHeT c o 6 o ñ JIHLUL· n e p e y i o ,

B e c b M a n o B e p x H o c T H y i o H H e c o B e p m e H H y i o n o n t r r i c y npHMeHeHHH
yKa3aHHOH MCTOAHKH. OAHaico, e c T b ocHOBamra cHHTaTb, HTo T a -
KOH ÜOflXOfl ΜΟΓ 6bl nOMOHb ΠΟΑ HOBbIM y r j I O M 3peHHH OCBßTHTb
cjiOHCHeiíiiiyio n p o ô j i e M y a i c T y a j i b H o r o HneHeHna.

Authenticated
SEMANTIC CLASSES OF VERBS AND FSP
Karel Pala (Brno)
1. The purpose of our paper is the following:

(a) to describe briefly the apparatus of the so-called predicate ex-
pressions and to make use of it for some basic types of FSP;
(b) to show certain relations between semantic classes of Czech
verbs as are described by means of the apparatus of predicate
expressions and FSP.
1.1. The data on the distribution of the degrees of communica-
tive dynamism (CD), i.e. data on the positioning of thematic and
rhematic component represents an indispensable part of the semantic
information about text and about what meaning is to be assigned
to a sentence and how it is to be interpreted. It follows, however,
that the data about the distribution of the degrees of CD is neces-
sary for any sort of synthesis, e.g. for generative grammars as well
as for machine-translation synthesis. It means that for any parti-
cular transformational grammar its base component should be able
to assign automatically the marker "rheme" (R) to certain elements
of the deep structure and marker "theme" (T) to the other. It
means further that this fact must be reflected in the arrangement
of elements in surface structures and that it is necessary to know
how to link up all the data with the corresponding consituations
at the same time observing all the rules of cross-reference.
These facts will undoubtedly change the present types of trans-
formational descriptions of natural languages in a more radical
way than it has as yet been supposed. Apparently it will be neces-
sary to employ systematically the terms '.'communication" (in
connection with the present concepts "sentence" and "set of

Authenticated
SEMANTIC CLASSES OF VERBS AND FSP 197
sentences"), "text", "theme", "rheme", "consituation", "com-

municative intention (of the speaker)", etc. Attempts of this kind
have already appeared. Following the ideas of McCawley, Dahl
has recently ( D A H L 1969) made an attempt to describe the meanings
of sentences by means of splitting them into atomic sentences that
are always formed by a predicate and a set of N P descriptions. This
enables us to describe the atomic sentences by means of the apparatus
of a modified predicate calculus and in this way to look for the
relations to FSP. N o doubt these ideas are fruitful, but a detailed
analysis shows that better results may be achieved in case we start
working directly with verbs as predicates or predicate expressions
(see e.g. A P R E S J A N 1967 vs. FILLMORE 1968). Then it is possible to
avoid Dahl's problem how to define precisely the relations between
the atomic sentences and how to cope with a "rather improbable
hypothesis that all predications are perhaps in reality implications"
even when "this hypothesis with some modifications works quite
well" ( D A H L 1969, p. 19).
1.2. A note on terminology. In this paper the following termino-
logy will be used:
(a) on the syntactic level — sentence elements — subject, object,
predicate, attribute, adverbial, NP, VP, PP.
(b) on the semantic level — subject of the action (Sub) as e.g.
agent, initiator, bearer of the state, bearer of the attitude, and ob-
ject (Obj) of the action as e.g. patient, result of the action, goal of
the action, goal of the movement, and further action, activity, state,
movement, existence in space, attitude, as a broader term actant
or the participant in the situation, place, time, manner. This seman-
tic metalanguage is intentionally sketchy and incomplete and is in
need of further elaboration.
(c) o n the level of FSP — rheme (R), theme (T), the degrees of
communicative dynamism, contextual dependence (CDP), con-
textual independence (CIDP), the basic distribution of the degrees
of C D or some other terms all of which are taken from the works
of J. Firbas (survey FIRBAS 1970). Symbol // denotes the boundary
between Τ and R.

Authenticated
198 Κ. PALA
2. Verbs and predicate expressions (ΡE). For the description of

verbs and their semantics it is convenient to employ the concept
"predicate expression" (APRESJAN 1967) or "predicate and its ar-
guments" (e.g. FILLMORE 1968).
PE is represented by the predicate whose places are occupied by
the symbols of predicate variables — arguments. If the terms of the
above semantic level are used for predicates and their arguments
then PE may describe the semantic structure of sentences; to a one-
place PE of the type P(a) may correspond semantic pattern Sub-
State, where the Sub is the only argument and the State — the
predicate, similarly to two-place PE may correspond the pattern
Sub-Action-Obj or Sub-Movement-Obj effected by the movement,
where Sub and Obj are arguments, Action and Movement — pre-
dicates (PALA 1967). In most cases one-place predicate correlates
with intransitive verbs, two-, three- or four-place predicates with
transitive verbs.
The question is how to treat, in this framework, the expressions
denoting place, time, manner and circumstantial modifiers and
whether to regard them as arguments (or actants) or otherwise.
There are more ways of solving this problem but I shall not pursue
it at least for the time being. It will suffice that the so-called
"inherent" adverbial modifiers (KOPEÖNY 1958) and some other
obligatory adverbials may appropriately be treated as arguments
whereas the so-called "free" or "relational" adverbials (which are
optional) may in some way or other be regarded as constants.
Further it should be pointed out that arguments syntactically
realized as expanded NP are in fact predicates (PE) as well but of
a lower rank. The same holds for arguments syntactically realized
as PP or as dependent clauses (especially so-called content clauses
in Czech grammars). E.g. in the sentence Vim, ze to η erti pravda
(/ know it is not true), where the dependent clause represents the
argument Obj, because there exists the semantic pattern Sub-
Information activity - Information content.
3. Predicate and FSP. We regard the apparatus of PE as a suit-

able means of describing even some phenomena on the FSP level.

Authenticated
SEMANTIC CLASSES OF VERBS AND FSP 199
From the point of view of a speaker or a generative device, the

FSP of a given sentence depends in fact on how the arguments and
their corresponding predicates are distributed and what their se-
mantic contents are (on condition that each member of the PE is
realized in the surface structure as at least one syntactic sentence
element). Or in other words and more precisely (APRESJAN 1 9 6 7 ,
pp. 58 — 59), "Razumejetsja, ν zavisimosti ot togo, kakoj element
situacii my sëitajem boleje vaznym, my mozem upomjanut' ego
ran'se ili pozze. V rezul'tate peremeSòajetsja logiceskij akcent, a na
jesce boleje poverchnostnom urovne menjajutsja sintaksiceskije po-
zicii leksiceskich morfem, oboznacaju§öich elementy situacii. Od-
nako eti izmenenija zatragivajut tol'ko sposob predstavlenija vesöej,
no ne sami vesci; opisyvajemyj s toj ili s drugoj toòki zrenija klass
situacij ostajetsja neizmennym." (In accordance with which element
of the situation is considered to be most important, we may men-
tion it sooner or later, which leads to a varied distribution of
logical accent and, more on the surface, to a change of syntactic
positions of lexical morphemes denoting the elements of a situa-
tion. These changes, however, have only to do with the way in
which the things are presented, they have no bearing upon the
things themselves, i.e., the situations are being described from
different points of view, but the very class of situations remains
unchanged.)
The conception of semantic structure of sentence described as an
η-place PE coincides with the degrees of CD and their distribution
within a sentence. The predicate and its individual arguments may
be regarded as the carriers of the degrees of CD.
The following situations may arise:
(1) One-place PE enables bipartition in Τ and R, where the pre-
dicate is Τ and the arguments are R and vice versa. The possible
combinations are as follows:
arg-T ¡I Pred-R
arg-R ¡I Pred-T
Pred-T // arg-R
Pred-R // arg-T

Authenticated
200 Κ. PALA
(2) Two place PE offers more possible combinations. I should like

to mention at least the basic one:
arg-T Pred-T // arg-R
arg-T ¡I Pred-R arg-R
arg-R ¡I Pred-T arg-T
arg-T II Pred-R 11 arg-T
arg-T ¡I arg-R // Pred-T
arg-T arg-T 11 Pred-R
arg-T II arg-R Pred-R
Pred-T arg-T // arg-R
Pred-T // arg-R arg-R
Pred-T // arg-R // arg-T etc.
In this place we feel we ought to stress that what is usually
termed as "normal" or "neutral" word order, is actually an intuitive
expression of the fact that the character of human thinking and the
necessity of linearizing the communication most often tend to
constitute the order arg-T Pred-T // arg-R, where the first argu-
ment has semantic content "Subject of an action", "agent",
"bearer of an action", etc., the predicate in the second place has
the semantic content "Action", "Activity", "Movement", etc., the
second argument in the third place denotes one of the possible
"Objects of an action". This positioning is symmetrical in regard to
the predicate (a fact being unjustly neglected) and is most closely
connected with the basic distribution of the degrees of CD.
It seems to be highly probable that the controversy "bipartition
of the type Τ // R vs. tripartition T-Transition // R" has its origin
in the existence of one-place predicates in regard to two-place and
three-place ones. It is evident that from a certain viewpoint one-
place predicates only allow of Τ // R partition, whereas with more-
than-one-place predicates the situation is much more complex. In
addition to that, it is impossible to achieve a symmetric distribution
of arguments in regard to their predicate with three- or more-than-

Authenticated
SEMANTIC CLASSES O F VERBS A N D FSP 201
three-place predicates. As has been shown by Firbas (FIRBAS 1968),

the situation is more complicated, but it is clear that the distribu-
tion of the degrees of CD represents a gamut, whether one-place
or more-place predicates are dealt with.
(3) Three-place PE offers still more combinations than the pre-
ceding group and is more flexible in regard to potential context
dependence. It would be interesting to ascertain which theoretically
possible combinations do actually occur. The following may be
regarded as the main ones:
arg-T Pred-T arg-T // arg-R

' arg-T Pred-T / / arg-R arg-R
arg-T /1 Pred-R arg-R arg-R
arg-T arg-T Pred-T // arg-R
arg-T arg-T // Pred-R arg-R
arg-T ¡I arg-R Pred-R arg-R
Pred-T // arg-R arg-R arg-R
Pred-T arg-T // arg-R arg-R
Pred-T arg-T arg-T // arg-R etc.
We touched on predicate of different rank but in regard to the

distribution of CD it is possible to state even more: N P or PP is
from viewpoint of the degrees of CD segmentable only if they are
at least one-place PE of lower rank. In our opinion this statement
is in accordance with Svoboda's findings concerning the internal
analysis of attributive constructions. Of course, the situation may be
more complex than it might appear to be since some action nouns
copy to some extent the predicate structure of the corresponding
verbs.
4. Semantic classes of verbs and FSP. For some semantic classes

of Czech verbs described by means of PE it is possible to attempt
to formulate approximate rules of the distribution of the degrees
of CD, i.e. rules of the arrangement of Τ and R provided the re-

Authenticated
202 Κ. PALA
spective sentences are contextually independent and have basic

distribution of the degrees of CD. Our starting point will be mean-
ing of verbs and their groups (classes) which to a great extent
predicts what distribution of the degrees of CD should be assigned
to the (semantic) PE (and to corresponding surface sentences).
(1) Semantic copulas, i.e. semantically weak verbs cannot func-
tion as R and that is why their Sub (in fact denoting processes — as
war, symposium on FSP, etc.) has the role of the R. Examples of
this class: vznikat (to originate), zacít se (to begin), prestai (to stop),
skonëit (to end, to finish), byt (to be), objevit se (to appear),
konat se (to take place), probihat (to be in progress), existovat (to
exist). Semantic (PE) and FSP pattern (rule)
appearance-T 11 Sub (process)-R
"inchoative"-T // Sub (process)-R
"being in progression"-T // Sub (process)-R
(2) The class of verbs denoting "existence in a place". Their
main feature is that they require local specification. The marker
" R " may be assigned either to the argument Sub or to the Local
specification. E.g. byt nëkde (to be somewhere), nachâzet se (to
occur somewhere), zit nëkde (to live somewhere), rozlozit se (to
spread), ocitnout se, zdrzet se (to be detained), pracovat nëkde (to
work somewhere), etc. Semantic and FSP pattern:
Sub-T Existence (in a place)-T // Place-R
Place-T Existence (in a place)-T // Sub-R
(3) The verbs denoting "position in space" (sometimes termed
as stative verbs, e.g. viset (to hang,) sedët (to sit), lezet (to lie),
stât (to stand), valet se (to lie about) and possibly verbs such as
spät (to sleep), etc. In regard to the preceding group they differ
in that their local specification is not obligatory.
Semantic and FSP pattern:
(a) Sub-T Positioning-T // Place-R
Place-T Positioning-T // Sub-R
(b) Sub-T ¡I Positioning-R
State-R

Authenticated
(4) The verbs with the meaning "oriented movement requiring

some goal or cause", e.g. jit se koupat (to go to bathe), bëzet pro
pivo (to run and fetch), vyjit (to come out of something), dojit (to
arrive at something) and as a subgroup the verbs of the type uzivat
nëceho k nëcemu (to use something for some purpose), uvëznit në-
koho proc (to imprison somebody because of), odsoudit nëkoho
proc (to condemn somebody for some reason) and others. Rhematic
components are the goal and the cause.
Sub-T Oriented movement-T // Goal-R
Cause-R
(5) The verbs with the meaning of "implied negation" are them-
selves rhematic components even if their arguments are present.
This is due to the fact that expression of negation is communica-
tively more dynamic than the other participants (arguments) in the
situation, e.g. zmizet (to disappear), propadnout (to fail), propad-
nout se (to drop), uniknout (to escape), vyhnout se (to avoid), chybët
(to be missing), odmitnout (to refuse), etc. All of them are for-
mally non negative.
Sub-T //Impliednegation-R // Obj-T
Sub-T 11 Implied negation-R Place-R
(6) The verbs denoting "attitude". It is typical of them that
their grammatical subjects are semantic Obj (DANES 1968). From
this point of view it means that rhematic component is usually
semantic Obj (but grammatical subject). This conception is based
on the fact that, with action verbs, the semantic Obj is more
dynamic than the verb itself. E.g. libit se (to please), tësit (to en-
joy — like German "gefallen"), zdât se (to seem), jevit se (to ap-
pear), pfekvapit (to surprise), etc.
Obj-R // Sub-T Attitude-T
or
Attitude-T Sub-T // Obj-R (with the Obj brought into
prominence)

Authenticated
204 Κ. PALA
(7) The verbs with the meaning "behaviour " require specification
as to the manner of behaviour which constitutes the rhematic ele-
ment because — in regard to the meaning of PE as the whole —
it is communicatively most dynamic. E.g. chovat se jak (to behave),
drzet se (to do well), jednat (to act), zit nëjak (to live), postupovat
(to go about), projevit se (to proved to be), oblékat se jak (to dress)
and others.
Sub-T Behaviour-T // Manner-R
(8) The class of verbs whose objects denote "a person or a

thing affected or effected by the action" and other verbs of the type
"faciendi", e.g. bit nëkoho (to beat), irezat (to cut), odmënovat (to
reward), stavët (to build) and many others. As a matter of fact this
class of verbs probably comprises a number of more refined sub-
classes (maybe 10—15 possible semantic types). It has been proved
that in the case of verbs of this type in particular ( F I R B A S 1970 —
in fact 1959) the semantic Obj is communicatively the most dy-
namic (and rhematic) element.
Sub-T Action, Activity-T // Obj of action-R
activity-R
(9) The verbs denoting "losing, seeking, finding". Their meaning

suggests the conclusion that the location of the loss of the Obj and
that of finding it is to be regarded as the most dynamic element
even if in certain circumstances the Obj lost or found becomes
rhematic. Examples of this group are: ztratit nëco nëkde (to lose
st. somewhere), nafit (to find), nalézt (to find), objevit (to discover),
hledat (to seek), nechat (to leave), etc.
(a) Sub-T Losing-T Obj-T // Place-R
Finding-T
(b) Sub-T Losing-T // Obj-R

Finding-T

Authenticated
(10) The verbs with the meaning "perception", "evaluation"

•whose characteristic feature is the presence of the manner of per-
ception or evaluation as a rhematic element but here, too, the
perceived object may become rhematic. E.g. brât nëco nëjak (to
take), pfijimat (to accept), vyklâdat (to interpret), vysvëtlovat (to
explain), vyjádñt se (to express), vnimat (to perceive), hodnotit (to
appreciate), châpat, rozumët (to understand), etc.
(a) Sub-T Evaluation, Perception-T // Manner-R
(b) Sub-T Perception-T // Obj-R
Some multiambiguous verbs may belong to several classes at the

same time.
On the one hand it is evident that our list of verb classes is in-
complete, but on the other hand it clearly shows how the semantics
of verb has a bearing on FSP and how to proceed in this direction.
The final results of such a procedure should be formal rules
applicable to any kind of synthesis.
To prevent the search for seeming counter-examples, it is neces-
sary to emphasize that the following rule holds: any argument
or its predicate may become rhematic if it is given special intona-
tion, if it is preceded by a special lexical means (we can speak of
a kind of operator), or if it is put into a contrast position (e.g.
FIRBAS 1970).
5. Semantic classification of adverbial modifiers and FSP. It
might have been gathered from what has so far been put forth that
semantic classification of adverbial modifiers from the viewpoint of
FSP is equally necessary as the analogical classification of verbs.
We don't intend to deal with this problem in detail — as it would
be a topic for a separate paper — but we should only like to
stress two basic things:
(1) We have already mentioned the so-called inherent adverbial
modifiers, which are, in fact, semantic supplements of verbs, or
according to Kopecny (KOPECNY 1958), "ad-verbal attributes",
expressing the degree (intensity) or quality of a verbal action. As

Authenticated
206 Κ. PALA
for FSP, it means that they are — in the same way as attributive
expressions in N P groups — communicatively more dynamic than
their headwords (verbs) and together with them (or under special
c i r c u m s t a n c e s o n l y b y themselves) r e p r e s e n t a n R (SVOBODA 1968).
This fact is also reflected by the word order (UHLÍROVÁ 1969) and is
the cause of the striking difference betwen their word order be-
haviour and that of the so-called free, relational adverbial modifiers.
Inherent adverbial modifiers are most frequently posited immedi-
ately before or after the verb.
(2) The so-called free or relational adverbial modifiers are con-
nected with the verb only facultatively, they are attached to the
verb from outside and do not constitute an inherent component of
its content. In this case the verb functions semantically as a linking,
transitive element. From the viewpoint of FSP, it means that "free"
adverbial modifiers may be either thematic or rhematic element and
probably do not markedly prefer one possibility to the other.
As for their word-order behaviour, they represent the most mobile
elements of a sentence and are posited especially at the beginning
o r a t t h e e n d of a sentence (UHLÍROVÁ 1969, MATVEJENKO 1969).
The mobility is not only their characteristic feature in Slavonic
languages, but it seems very probable that similar behaviour is
to be expected in English or German. Interesting investigations
and new procedures in this field have been dealt with by MATVEJENKO
(1969b).
We hope it may have been gathered, even from our sketchy ac-
count, in what way the semantics of adverbial modifiers is connected
with the semantics of verbs, how the two phenomena influence
each other, and what conclusions may be drawn from it within the
sphere of FSP.
REFERENCES
APRESJAN, JU. D., Eksperimental'noje opisanije semantiki russkogo glagola.

Moskva 1967.
DAHL, Ö., Topic and comment: A study in Russian and general trasnformation-
al grammar. Göteborg 1969.
DANES, F., Some thoughts on the semantic structure of the sentence, Lingua
21, 1969, 5 5 - 6 9 .

Authenticated
SEMANTIC CLASSES OF VERBS A N D FSP 207
FILLMORE, C H . J., Lexical entries for verbs, FL 4, 1968, 373—393.
FIRBAS, J., On the prosodie features in the modern English finite verb as
means of FSP(More thoughts on transition proper),BSE 7,1968,11—48.
FIRBAS, J., Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of FSP,
pp. 11—37 in this volume.
KOPECNY, F., Zàklady éeské skladby [Foundations of the Czech syntax],
2 9 - 3 4 , 181. Praha 1958.
MATVEJENKO, V. Α., Nëkotoryje faktory, vlijajuSdije na razmeäienije obsto-
jatel'stv ν russkoj fraze. In: Masinnyj perevod iprikladnaja lingvistika 12,
1969a, 1-j MGPIIJA, 8 1 - 9 5 . Moskva.
MATVEJENKO, V. Α., Materialy dlja avtomatiöeskogo raspoznavanija logi-
öeskich akcentov. In: Masinnyj perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika 11,
1969b, 1-j MGPIIJA, 153-176. Moskva.
PALA, K., Otnoäenije mezdu porjadkom slov i aktual'nym ölenenijem ν Ceä-
skom jazyke, PSML 2, 1967, 5 1 - 6 4 .
SVOBODA, Α., The hierarchy of communicative units and fields as illustrated
UHLiftovÀ, L., Vztah syntaktické funkee vëtného ölenu a jeho mista ve vëtë
[Relationship between syntactic function and linear position of sentence
elements], SaS 30, 1969, 360— 370.

Authenticated
ON THE ROLE O F STATISTICS
I N THE INVESTIGATION OF FSP
Ludmila Uhlírová (Prague)
1. In accordance with the view generally accepted in the Prague

School linguistic theory, as was presented in the paper by J. Firbas, 1
FSP is a phenomenon of a systemic character, i.e., a phenomenon
belonging by its nature into the sphere of linguistic competence,
but at the same time a phenomenon with a very strong impact on
linguistic performance, too. It has been clearly pointed out by
recent developments in linguistics and many times stressed during
this symposium that it is both important and fruitful to investigate
not only problems of linguistic competence, but also problems of
linguistic performance from different aspects of human communica-
tion.
One of the methods, or procedures, often applied to the study of
linguistic p e r f o r m a n c e is the statistical one. Perhaps all kinds of
investigation of higher levels of language so far performed with
the help of statistics are concerned predominantly with its perfor-
mance. They usually start with a frequency count of some elements
in a representative corpus of material and aim at the establishment
of some significant correlations the interpretation of which can
have a certain linguistic relevance. The role of statistics lies in the
fact that it helps in making a differentiation between and evaluation
of what is really implemented during the language performance
(i.e., the empirical linguistic reality) on the one hand, and on the
other hand what is implementable potentially, i.e., what is per-
1
FIRBAS, J . , Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of
functional sentence perspective, pp. 11—37 in this volume.

Authenticated
STATISTICS I N THE INVESTIGATION OF FSP 209
mitted by the system of language), but actually does not occur in

texts.
One of the relationships to be investigated also statistically is
the relationship between two levels of syntax, namely — according
to Danes's model 2 — between the level of the grammatical syntactic
structure of sentence and the level of the organization of utterance;
more concretely, it can be presented as the relationship between the
grammatical s y n t a c t i c functions of sentence elements and their
c o m m u n i c a t i v e functions in utterance. It is this relationship
that forms the topic of the present contribution.
2. It was already pointed out by V. Mathesius 3 that languages
with rich morphology, such as Slavonic languages, usually have free
word order and that word order is — together with intonation —
the main means of expressing FSP. In contradistinction to the
languages with fixed (grammaticalized) word order, such as En-
glish, it holds that the grammatical sentence elements in Slavonic
languages are arranged one after another in utterances just ac-
cording to their degrees of communicative dynamism, the impor-
tance of grammatical syntactic functions for the linear arrangement
being very limited. Thus, it is not essential from the communicative
point of view, whether, e.g., a Czech clause begins with grammatical
subject, or grammatical object, or with some other syntactic ele-
ment; the essential point is, whether it begins with a thematic,
or rhematic element, or perhaps with a communicative element
of another kind. Potentially, each syntactic element can be a carrier
of different communicative functions, both thematic and rhematic;
and conversely, each communicative function has various syntactic
means of implementation as well. It would be possible to give
plenty of examples of clauses with thematic subjects, as well of
2
3
MATHESIUS, V., Obsahovy rozbor souiasné angìiètiny na zâkladë obecni
lingvistickém [A functional analysis of present-day English on a general
linguistic basis], Prague 1961. — MATHESIUS, V., O tak zvaném aktuálním
¿lenëni vëtném [On the so-called functional sentence perspective]. In: Cestina
a obecny jazykozpyt [The Czech language and general linguistics], Prague
1947, 2 3 4 - 2 4 2 .

Authenticated
210 L. UHLÍÜOVA
clauses with thematic objects, examples of clauses with transitional

predicates as well of clauses with thematic predicates etc. In other
words, the relationship between the grammatical syntactic element
and its communicative function is never b i - u n i q u e .
As has been proved by empirical research, nor the opposite ex-
treme occurs: No grammatical syntactic element implements dif-
ferent communicative functions with the same p r o b a b i l i t y ,
e.g. no grammatical syntactic element can be the theme of utterance
as often as it is the transition and as often as it is the rheme. Each
grammatical syntactic element prefers one, sometimes two com-
municative functions and the degrees of preference can be objec-
tively measured by means of statistics. This holds for the surface
structure both of utterances in context and of isolated utterances.
3.1. The concrete statistical research may proceed in two direc-
tions, i.e.
a) from the grammatical syntactic elements to their communica-
tive functions, or briefy, from the syntactic f o r m to the communi-
cative f u n c t i o n . It is investigated which communicative function
(thematic, transitional, rhematic) is carried by a given syntactic
element most often, less often etc.
b) Inversely, from the communicative function to the syntactic
form. It is ascertained which syntactic element implements a given
communicative function most often, which one less often etc.
3.2. The former of the two just mentioned approaches leads to
the conclusions which will be now illustrated by several examples
from written Czech.
Ex. 1. A grammatical syntactic element is a carrier of almost
exclusively one communicative function, only exceptionally of
other functions. E.g. more than 90% of all occurrences of the verbal
predicate in the examined texts of written Czech function as transi-
tion between theme and rheme; the same holds for the copula.4 —
More than 90% of the predicative attributes ("doplnëk" in the
Czech terminology) function as rheme of utterance.
4
Firbas, J., On the prosodie features of the modern English finite verb
as means of functional sentence perspective. BSE 7, 1968, 11—48, Brno.

Authenticated
STATISTICS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF FSP 211
Ex. 2. A syntactic element is a carrier of two functions, one of

them being more frequent than the other. E.g. two thirds of all
occurrences of subjects are thematic, and only one third of them
are rhematic. — Two thirds of occurrences of the objects are
rhematic, and only one third are thematic objects.
Ex. 3. A syntactic element is a carrier of two functions, the
m e a n frequencies of which are approximately the same, but the
frequency distribution shows a strong dependence on the length
of clause. E.g., the so-called inherent adverbials, i.e. adverbs
qualifying the verbal predicate of clause (semantically a kind of
"attribute" to verb) 5 function as transitional elements roughly in
50% and as rhematic also in 50%. They can either function as
separate rhematic communicative constituents, this function sta-
tistically prevailing in short clauses, or as o n e communicative con-
stituent t o g e t h e r w i t h the transitional predicate, this function
prevailing in longer clauses.
3.3. The latter of the two approaches mentioned in 3.1. leads to
such conclusions as follows: For each communicative function
there is one syntactic element (for the rhematic function two syn-
tactic elements) which is most typical of it and which renders it
much more often than other syntactic elements. Thus, the theme
is most frequently rendered by the subject: 6 53% of the occurrences
of thematic constituents are the subjects of clauses. The transition
is most often rendered by the predicate (finite verb), in 54%. The
rheme is most frequently rendered either by an object o r by an
adverbial (55%).
These data are, undoubtedly, of a comparative value with regard
to the data of the former approach. At least they give evidence of
5
KOPECNY, F., Základy âeské skladby [Foundations of the Czech syn-
tax]. Prague 1962. — ADAMEC, P., Κ otázce uplatnëni vëtnych ölenü ν struk-
turních popisech jàzyka [On the role of sentence elements in structural
lingustic descriptions]. In Otázky slovanské syntaxe 2 [Problems of the Sla-
vonic syntax 2] Brno 1968, 111—114.
6
MATHESIUS, V., O funkci podmëtu [On the functioning of subject]. In:
Cestina a obecny jazykozpyt [The Czech language and general linguistics],
Prague 1947, 277-285.

Authenticated
212 L. UHLÍS.OVÁ
the fact that the approach "from the syntactic form to the com-
municative function" is not identical in its results with the reverse
approach and that the two approaches can analyze given pheno-
mena from different aspects.
4. The numerical data mentioned here for illustration only
could be supported by more detailed statistical analysis, which
was performed for Czech.7 The relationship between syntac-
tic and communicative functions of sentence elements proves to be
quite close. This closeness, however, is not due to the grammatical
syntactic nature of sentence elements, but due to the semantic
nature of the communicative structure. More concretely, it is the
manifestation of the fact that Danes's three levels of syntax are
not isolated from each other, the manifestation of a strong inter-
ference of semantics with the grammatical syntactic structure of
clause. The degree of closeness, as quantitatively illustrated above,
can serve — and this is the main point — as a certain objective
m e a s u r e for establishing to*what degree the syntactic and com-
municative functions of an element of clause are determined by
their general meaning as a part of speech, or by their appurtenance
to semantic categories, such as actor, goal, action, circumstances
etc.
5.1. A suitable syntactic category for a more detailed discussion
on links among the three levels of syntax is the adverbial, because
this category, as usually defined in grammars, is rather heteroge-
neous both from the purely syntactic and from the semantic points
of view (its heterogeneity was subjected to criticism many times;
recently Adamec (op. cit. in fn. 5) has elaborated a new classification
according to which is split the adverbial into three diiferent syn-
tactic categories). As for the communicative point of view, we shall
try to show that some subclasses of adverbials display different
communicative properties in comparison with other ones.
5.2. There is a class of the so-called inherent adverbials (already
mentioned in sec. 3.2.), usually defined as adverbs qualifying the
7
UmiftovÁ, L., On the quantitative analysis of clause and utterance in
Czech, PSML 4, 1972, 107-128.

Authenticated
STATISTICS I N THE INVESTIGATION O F FSP 213
verbal predicates of clauses. As a rule, inherent adverbials either

belong to the transition (provided that the transitional verbal pre-
dicate is present), or they are the rheme proper; other communica-
tive functions are rare and inherent adverbials carry them only
under special circumstances. Besides, there is an apparent depen-
dence on the length of clause — the proportion of the rhematic
inherent adverbials decreases with the clause length (cf. changes
in the ratio "length/% of rhematic adverbials": 2/75%, 3/47%,
4/42%, 5/33%, 0/49%) and at the same time the proportion of
the transitional adverbials increases accordingly (cf. again the
ratio "length/% of trans, adverbials": 2/25%, 3/36%, 4/47%, 5/58%,
0 /42%). Inherent adverbials are the only subclass of adverbials
functioning in the communicative structure as a part of transition.
In contradistinction to them, the rest of adverbials (most usually
nouns in prepositional cases) are either thematic or rhematic.
A more detailed quantitative examination leads to the following
numbers:
length 2 3 4 5
thematic adverbials 14% 53% 54% 55%
rhematic adverbials 86% 47% 45% 45%
It holds only of clauses of the length of 2 that the adverbial prefers

just one, rhematic communicative function; frequencies of occur-
rence (given in %) in clauses longer than 2 should be interpreted
rather as a kind of balance between the thematic and rhematic
functions than a clearly marked prevalence of the rhematic func-
tion. (Note: Under the "length" we understand the number of
grammatical syntactic elements in clause, excluding all attributes
to nouns.)
The differences in usage of inherent and non-inherent adverbials
in the communicative structure are demonstrated by means of
a roughly complementary word-order distribution. Whereas the
inherent adverbial prefers the positions in the middle of clause
(this preference increasing with length), the most frequent positions
of the other adverbials are the beginning and the end of clause,

Authenticated
214 L. UHLÍftOVÁ
both being equally typical (the average frequency at the beginning

amounts to 35%, at the end to 37%). Significant differences between
the beginning and end of clause are found only in the shortest ones,
where the frequency at the end prevails (57%). Positions in the
middle are not typical of the adverbial, the frequencies in these posi-
tions being almost equal to one another. Thus, the different com-
municative functions and the different word-order distribution as
well reflect the different semantic nature of the two subclasses of
adverbials under consideration. The deep-structure relation be-
tween "study" and "diligently" in the phrase "to study diligently"
("diligently" being an inherent adverbial to verb) is close to that
between "student" and "diligent" in the phrase "a diligent student"
("diligent" being an attribute to noun 8 ). The non-inherent adver-
bials are often optional complements to predicate and render time,
place, manner, circumstances etc.
Another word-order property characterizing the affinity of in-
herent adverbials and attributes is worth mentioning. Being a part
of transition, the inherent adverbial most often occurs in the con-
tact preposition before verb (contact preposition: 93%, distant pre-
position 7%), whereas being the rheme proper, the distant post-
position after verb is quite usual.
5.3. In sec. 3.2. we claimed that each syntactic element prefers
one or two communicative functions. 9 There is only one exception
to this general rule, namely the adverbial (but not the subclass
of the inherent adverbial). As has been already shown in sec. 5.2.,
both thematic and rhematic functions are equally typical of it. It is
clear evidence of the semantic complexity of this category. Be-
8
KURYLOWICZ, J., Dérivation lexicale et dérivation syntaxique, Bulletin
de la Société linguistique de Paris 37, 1936, 79—92. — SGALL, P., Generatami
popii jazyka a ieskà deklinace [Generative description of language and the
Czech declention]. Prague 1967.
9
PALA, Κ., Otnosenije mezdu porjadkom siov i aktual'nym ölenenijem
ν öeäskom jazy ke, PSML 2,1967, 57—64. — BUTTKE, K., Gesetzmässigkeiten
der Wortfolge im Russischen, Halle 1969. — ELEKFI, L., Kriterien der aktuel-
len Satzgliederung in ungarischen "Kernsätzen", 2t für Phonetik, Sprach-
wissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 22, 1969, 226—351.

Authenticated
STATISTICS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF FSP 215
sides, in this connection it is not without importance, that thematic

elements can be further classified.
Utterances often include elements which express various circum-
stances of the action, condition, time, place, manner etc. and
which are thematized only very weakly, sometimes even indistinct-
ly. E.g. in the utterance Za tohoto predpokladu ( = theme proper)
mùzeme najít ( = transition) ν prenosové technice (a weakly themat-
ized element) zdroje jiného druhu ( = rheme) (literally: Under
this assumption, we can find in broadcast technique sources of
a different kind). The loose contextual connection of the optional
element "v pïenosové technice" (in broadcast technique) is in ac-
cordance with its relatively loose position in the linear arrange-
ment of utterance. It usually stands either at the beginning of the
utterance, or in the middle, following after thematic and/or transi-
tional constituents. The change in its position (such as: V preno-
sové technice mùzeme za tohoto predpokladu najít zdroje jiného
druhu) in many cases does not significantly influence the communi-
cative structure of the whole utterance — both variants (with a
changed word order) can be used in the same context types. We
propose to consider this kind of constituent as a separate category
different from the theme, transition and rheme and call them op-
tional constituents. While the former three constituents are the
basic constituents of the communicative structure of the utterance,
or discourse (according to the ways of the consecutive thematiza-
tion/rhematization, different types of "thematic progression" 10 in
texts are distinguished), the role of the "optional" constituents is
here only of secondary importance. Their main function consists in
connecting the T-R nexus of a given utterance with a wider thematic
frame of the whole paragraph, chapter, or perhaps thematic sphere.
What is most important, however, is the fact that the majority
of "optional" constituents (65% in our material) are expressed by
one and the same syntactic category, namely by (non-inherent)
10
DANES, F., Zur linguistischen Analyse der Textstruktur, Folia lin-
guistica 4, 1970, 72—78. — DANES, F., FSP and the organization of the text,
pp. 106—128 in this volume.

Authenticated
216 L. UHLÍ&OVÁ
adverbiale. This leads us to the hypothesis — let us present it by

the way of conclusion — that a more detailed semantic classifica-
tion of adverbials should reveal some classes, called, e.g., situativa
(with J. Firbas) or otherwise, of typical "optional" constituents
in the communicative structure of clause.

Authenticated
ZUR TERMINOLOGIE DER FSP
Frantisek Dane§ et al. (Prag)
Die Entstehungs- und Entwicklungsgeschichte der von Mathesius

geprägten Terminologie für „aktuální clenëni vëtné" wurde bis
zum Jahre 1962 von F. Danes dargelegt.1 Im Anschluß an diese
Ausführungen sollen hier auch terminologische Ansätze erwähnt
werden, in denen schon vor Mathesius und später unabhängig von
ihm die Erfassung desselben sprachlichen Phänomens versucht
wurde.
H. Weil hat seine Einsichten terminologisch noch nicht fixiert.
Erst G. von der Gabelentz hat die Termini „psychologisches Sub-
jekt" und „psychologisches Prädikat" eingeführt. Diese Termini
wurden zwar von W. Wundt abgelehnt, aber von H. Paul verteidigt
und treffend erläutert; auch später wurden sie von vielen Gelehrten
verwendet.
Die Termini Subjekt und Prädikat wurden also eigentlich in dop-
peltem Sinne gebraucht. Eine ähnliche Doppeldeutigkeit scheint
freilich schon den Termini des Aristoteles "hypokoimenon" („das
Zugrundeliegende") und „kategoroumenon" („das dazu Gesagte")
innegewohnt zu haben. Aristoteles hat zwar diese Termini geprägt,
um logische Begriffe zu beschreiben; da er sie aber der Sprache
abgelesen hat, spiegeln sie eher die Gegliedertheit des Satzes in
einen thematischen (expositionellen) und einen explizierenden Teil,
1
DANEÍ, F., Prispëvek k novëjSi syntaktické terminologii. Slavjanska
lingvistiina terminologija I, Sofia 1962, 46—52. — Für den weiteren Text sei
im allgemeinen auf Z. TYL (ed.), A tentative bibliography of studies in func-
tional sentence perspective verwiesen, Praha 1970 (vervielfertigt), wenn keine
näheren Hinweise gegeben sind.

Authenticated
218 F. DANES et al.
in „Thema" und „Aussage" wider.2 (Durch die lateinischen Über-

setzungen „subiectum" und „prädicatum" wurde später ihre Ver-
wendbarkeit auf das Urteil eingeengt.)
Im 19. Jahrhundert war allerdings die Wahl der Termini „psycho-
logisches Subjekt" und „psychologisches Prädikat" für völlig vom
grammatischen Subjekt und Prädikat unterschiedliche Begriffe
nicht glücklich; der ziemlich klar erkannte sprachpsychologische
Sachverhalt wurde dadurch nur verdunkelt. Schließlich wurde die
terminologische Verwirrung auch noch dadurch vergrößert daß
man darüber hinaus auch noch vom „logischen Subjekt" sprach,
wobei man darunter z. T. „das handelnde Subjekt", z. T. aber auch
die „Exposition" meinte.3
Außerdem tauchten auch andere Namen auf zur Bezeichnung
der einzelnen Aspekte, die dann später in der Theorie von Mathe-
sius vereinigt werden sollten.
So hat z. B. M. Kuttner von „Ausgangs- und Zielvorstellung"
gesprochen und später auch die Termini „Start" und „Ziel" er-
wogen. L. Sütterlin hat die Namen „vorbereitete" und „neue Vor-
stellung" verwendet.
E. Richter unterschied sehr genau zwei Typen der Wortstellung:
1. die rücksichtsvolle oder sachliche und 2. die rücksichtslose oder
persönliche. Einer ähnlichen Unterscheidung begegnet man auch
bei E. Lerch: 1. die auf den Hörer eingestellte (soziale oder päda-
gogische), steigende und 2. die impulsive, fallende Wortstellung.
Auch die kontextbedingten Modifikationen der usuellen Wort-
folge wurden immer wieder mit verschiedenen Namen belegt, wie
„Anschlußzwang", „logische Verknüpfung", „sachliche Wort-
stellung", „psychologische Gliederung" u. a.
Schon diese terminologische Mannigfaltigkeit — obwohl wir
uns hier nur auf den Bereich der deutschen Sprachforschung be-
schränken — ist ein Zeugnis dafür, daß es dabei an einer einheitli-
2
N a c h JUNKER, H . F. J., Grundfragen des koreanischen Satzbaues.
fViss. Zt. der Humboldt-Universität Berlin. Gesell, u. sprachw. Reihe 7,
1957-58, 329-350.
3
WEGENER, PH., Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens.
Halle 1885.

Authenticated
Z U R T E R M I N O L O G I E D E R FSP 219
chen und allgemein anerkannten Deutung der Einzelerscheinungen

mangelte. Vorherrschend war die sprachpsychologische Einstellung:
die Zerlegung der Gesamtvorstellung und ihre Zusammensetzung
aus zwei Hauptkomponenten in der Seele des Sprechers und des
Hörers.
Zu einer vertieften Auffassung der ganzen Frage hat der Sprach-
philosoph H. Ammann wesentlich beigetragen. Er hat für die bei-
den Hauptkomponenten neue Termini „Thema" und „Rhema"
gewählt und ihren Inhalt scharfsinning umrissen, indem er diese
Begriffe aus der Differenz der Bewußtseinslage des Sprechenden
und des Hörers entwickelt. Bei Ammann stehen die Wechselbezie-
hungen zwischen Denken, seelischem Leben und Mitteilungsprozeß
im Vordergrund.
Erst bei Mathesius gewinnt die prinzipiell linguistische Betrach-
tungsweise die Oberhand. Er unterscheidet scharf zwischen der
formalgrammatischen und der kommunikativen, auf eine aktuelle
Redeabsicht eingestellten Satzgliederung. Die wörtlichen Lehn-
übersetzungen des tschechischen Originalterminus „aktuální cle-
nëni vëtné" ins Englische und ins Französische 4 haben sich nicht
eingebürgert; die Lehnübersetzungen ins Deutsche und Russische
(„die aktuelle Satzgliederung", „aktual'noje clenenije predloze-
nija") sind aber z. T. schon üblich geworden (bei Elekfi, Lapteva
u. a.).
Mit Mathesius' Originalterminus wird der Unterschied zwischen
dem abstrakten Satzschema (auf der Langue-Ebene) und seiner
Realisierung in einer konkreten Äußerung in einem aktuellen (Si-
tuations)-Kontext (auf der Parole-Ebene) hervorgehoben. Andere
Modifikationen des Terminus betonen entweder, daß diese Gliede-
rung im kommunikativen (partner- und situationsbezogenen) Rede-
akt zutage tritt (vgl. Ivancev: „komunikativno delenie", „kommu-
nikativnoje ölenenije"), oder daß erst dadurch der eigentliche Sinn,
bzw. : die Hauptinformation der Äußerung (die Redeabsieht des
Sprechers) realisiert wird (Krusel'nickaja: „smyslovoje clenenije",
* Vgl. VACHEK, J., Dictionaire de linguistique de l'École de Prague.

Utrecht 1960.

Authenticated
220 F. D A N E S et al.
Boost: „Gliederung auf der Sinn-Ebene"). Auch Garvin übersetzt

den Originalterminus von Mathesius durch „information-bearing
structure of the sentence". Das Wort „ilenëni" ( = „Gliederung")
deutet an, daß es sich um ein bestimmtes Organisations- oder Auf-
bauprinzip des Satzes handelt.
In seinem deutsch geschriebenen Aufsatz hat Mathesius einen
anderen Terminus verwendet, u. zw. „Satzperspektive". Damit
wird hervorgehoben, daß es sich um die Organisation des Satzes
unter einem bestimmten Blickwinkel, aus einer bestimmten Sicht
handelt. Die Art der Sicht wird aber im Terminus nicht erwähnt.
Firbas hat diesen Terminus wieder aufgegriffen und durch das
Attribut „funktional" erweitert: „functional sentence perspective".
Dieser Terminus hat einige Vorteile; aber das Wort „funktional"
ist nicht prägnant genug und eigentlich redundant. Benes verwendet
deshalb lieber die Bezeichnung „Mitteilungsperspektive", womit
wieder das kommunikative Moment betont wird. Doch scheint
wieder dieser Terminus zu weit zu sein.
Das ganze Phänomen kann auch nach den Hauptkomponenten
benannt werden: So hat auch K. Boost (1955), auf Ammann
fußend, den Terminus „Thema-Rhema-Gliederung" eingeführt.
Die amerikanischen Linguisten gebrauchen wieder gern „topic-
comment" als Grundlage für verschiedene Beziechnungen dieses
Phänomens.
Die Bezeichnungen für beide Hauptkomponenten, die man bei
der Betrachtung des Phänomens gewöhnlich unterscheidet, sind
noch mannigfaltiger als die Namen für die ganze Erscheinung. So
findet man schon bei Mathesius verschiedene Termini: „základ",
„téma", „vychodisko" — „jádro" ( = „Kern"), bei Boost (nach
Ammann): „Thema" — „Rhema", bei Bally und de Groot:
„thème" — „propos", bei Elekfi „Thema" — „Propositum", bei
Krusel'nickaja: „dannoje" — „novoje", bei Ivanöev: „ekspozi-
cija" — „kulminacija", bei Y. R. Chao (wohl zum erstenmal) und
Ch. Hockett: „topic" — „comment" usw.
Auch die älteren Termini „psychologisches Subjekt" und „psy-
chologisches Prädikat" halten sich noch bis heute; von einigen
sowjetischen Gelehrten (A. S. Mel'niöuk, P. Z. Panfilov) wurden

Authenticated
Z U R T E R M I N O L O G I E D E R FSP 221
die Termini „logiceskij Subjekt" und „logiceskij predikat" deshalb

wieder eingeführt, weil es sich nach ihrer Meinung um eine Wider-
spiegelung der logischen Kategorien in der Sprache handelt.
Tatsächlich ist eine terminologische Einigung auf diesem Gebiet
deshalb schwierig, weil der begriffliche Inhalt dieser Termini von
verschiedenen Forschern recht unterschiedlich interpretiert wird.
Schon Mathesius hat zwar den Unterschied angedeutet, der zwi-
schen dem kontextbedingten „Ausgangspunkt" ( = „vychodisko")
und dem „Thema" als Mitteilungsgrundlage besteht; aber er hat
diesen Unterschied nicht folgerichtig ausgearbeitet. Boost identi-
fiziert wieder das „Thema" mit dem Drachschen „Vorfeld"
( = Raum vor dem Verbum fini tum im deutschen Aussagesatz).
Benes hat deshalb vorgeschlagen, die Termini „Thema" ( = Thema
im Sinne von Mathesius) und „Basis" ( = Thema im Sinne von
Boost, Ausgangspunkt im Sinne von Mathesius) genau zu differen-
zieren. Eine ähnliche Unterscheidung scheinen auch Μ. Α. K.
Halliday und W. Dressler zu empfehlen, die „theme" und „topic"
als differenzierte Termini verwenden. Die „Basis" wäre also ein
Teil des „Themas".
Auch im „Rhema" wird ein Zentralteil ausgesondert, das „Into-
nations- und Mitteilungszentrum" (Danes), auch kurz „Sinnwort"
genannt.
Infolgedessen unterscheidet man weiter zwischen „einfachen"
und „komplexen" Themen und Rhemen (Adamec).
Außer diesen zwei Komponenten wird manchmal noch eine
dritte ausgegliedert und mit dem Terminus „prechodová slozka",
„transition", „Bindeglied" (so schon bei H. Paul) bezeichnet.
Ein wichtiger Terminus ist „communicative dynamism" (Firbas),
„kommunikativnaja nagruzka" (Krusel'nickaja), „Mitteilungs-
wert" (Bost), der in der objektiven Abfolge der Mitteilungsperspek-
tive allmählich ansteigt.
Auch für die gegenläufigen Anordnungen der Mitteilungsper-
spektive: Thema — Rhema χ Rhema — Thema werden verschie-
dene Namen gebraucht: „objektive und subjektive Abfolge" (Ma-
thesius), „Eindrucks- und Ausdrucksstellung" (Drach) u. a.
Die Vielfalt der Termini in diesem Forschungsbereich, die mit

Authenticated
222 F . D A N E S et al.
unseren Bemerkungen nur angedeutet wurde, ist durchaus begreif-

lich. Weil es sich um einen verhältnismäßig jungen Forschungsbe-
reich handelt, will jeder Forscher seine eigene Auffassung (auch
wenn sie sich nur wenig von den anderen unterscheidet) auch durch
seine eigene Terminologie erhärten. Es ist aber dann auch möglich
und nicht selten, daß derselbe Begriff oder Sachverhalt mit unter-
schiedlichen Termini und umgekehrt auch daß unterschiedliche
Begriffe oder Sachverhalte durch denselben Terminus bezeichnet
werden.
Eine terminologische Einigung wäre dringend nötig. Voraus-
setzung dafür ist allerdings, daß man sich zunächst über die Grund-
begriffe einigt, die terminologisch festgehalten werden sollen.
Auf diese Weise soll einerseits die Forschungsgeschichte ange-
deutet, anderseits die heute noch herrschende Vielfalt von ver-
schiedenen Auffassungen übersichtlich dargestellt und miteinander
konfrontiert werden.

Authenticated
Authenticated
Authenticated

Danes, Frantisek. Papers On Functional Sentence Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Danes, Frantisek. Papers On Functional Sentence Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JANUA LINGUARUM

Series Minor, 147

Dr. Milos Dokulil, DrSc.

Prof. Dr. Jozef Mistrik, DrSc.

•© Academia, Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences

All rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form,

MICHAEL A . K . HALLIDAY, The place of "functional sentence

OJïbrA Β. CtíPOTHHHHA, 0 6 AKTYAJIBHOM «UIEHEHHH Β pa3-

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

STZ Sprache im technischen Zeitalter

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

This volume represents the revised papers of the first international

* Referred to also as "aktuální ilenëni vëtné", "aktualnoje ölenenije

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

guistic School, and of other currents of linguistic research. 2. The

** Cf. also Z. TYL (ed.), A tentative bibliography of studies in functional

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Jan Firbas (Brno)

For some time Czechoslovak linguists have devoted considerable

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

that of the modern languages, appeared in Boston in 1878. It is

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

English may employ to make the subject-predicate order conform

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

interpretation of the Czech system of word order is widely accepted

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

utterance phenomena belong to the sphere of "langue", whereas

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

similar researches have been carried out by E. B e n e s . 1 9 In his last

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

semantic structure operating as a means of FSP seems to be at least

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

the non-generic indefinite article. In terms of degrees of communi-

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

contextually dependent merely through its agent-subject element

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Cross-Reference 36 — though not explicitly referring to the theory

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Linguistics and Language Teaching (vol. 27 of the Oxford University Press

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

sion to regard the grammatical principle as the leading one within

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

way to the railway station, An unknown man expresses the person

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Halliday's conception of theme comes near to Benes's basis, but

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

within the latter and constituting what might be termed transition

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

the transitional) and the rhematic section. It has been shown 53

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

instance, those of the paragraph, the chapter, etc. Consequently

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

and the rest as an extensive theme proper). It is important to note

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

be added that also in M. Grepl's 72 and J. Mistrik's 73 views the

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

historical development. 7 5 Thanks to the adaptability of means of

Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet

word order rules. 78 One system operates in the act of communica-