Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940

Worldwide trends in the development of education and academic research, 15 - 18 June 2015

Communicative Perspective of the Composite Sentence in the

Context of Linguistic Interpretation
Nikolay Boldyrev, Svetlana Vinogradova*
FSBEI HPE “Tambov state university named after G. R. Derzhavin” 33, Internatsionalnaya St, Tambov 392000, Russia

Abstract

The authors discuss communicative perspective of the composite sentence in the context of interpretation as a linguistic cognitive
activity of an individual. Involved in the process of interpretation, the speaker configures his or her knowledge of the composite
sentence shaped like a linguistic knowledge format wherein communicative perspective is regulated by an interpreting language
function of determining the status of knowledge. This function reveals metainterpretation being a cognitive-linguistic basis for
communicative sentence perspective and conceptually organizes various linguistic means aimed at marking the given and the
new knowledge in the process of communication. The authors argue that the transfer of the given and the new through composite
sentences is governed by at least two principles: the conceptual representation and the conceptual hierarchy of meanings.
Regarded as an essential stipulation of successful communication, communicative perspective of the composite sentence requires
a deep linguistic research, on the one hand, and application of the research outcomes in language teaching, on the other hand.
© 2015
© 2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
Center (IRC) under responsibility
‘Scientific of: Bulgarian
Cooperation’, Comparative Education
Rostov-on-Don, Russia. Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research
Center (IRC) ‘Scientific Cooperation’, Rostov-on-Don, Russia.
Keywords: communicative sentence perspective; cognitive; composite sentence; consciousness; individual; interpretation; language teaching;
linguistic knowledge format; metainterpretation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +7-915-676-0611.

E-mail address: vinogradova.sg@yandex.ru

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society (BCES), Sofia, Bulgaria & International Research
Center (IRC) ‘Scientific Cooperation’, Rostov-on-Don, Russia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.676
934 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940

1. Introduction

Communication, a dialogue, an exchange of ideas, presupposes human interaction in the course of cognitive,
labour, social and cultural activities (Yartseva, 1998). In the process of communication, information is exchanged
through language messages. The basic unit of information processing is a proposition as a specific form of
knowledge representation (Givón, 1990; Pankrats, 1992), and its linguistic expression is usually a message shaped
as a sentence-utterance (hereinafter – sentence).
It is proved that communication depends on the movement of thought from the known to the new. In this regard,
communication is primarily based on the laws of apperception in knowledge assimilation (Miller, 1990), iconicity
(Jakobson, 1966; Haiman, 1985), and focusing (Halliday, 1967; Kuno, 1976; Deane, 1992).
Therefore, being aware of the ways to assess communicative sentence perspective, i.e. to verbalize the given and
the new information or recognize it in the process of interaction, should be considered an essential stipulation of
successful communication. This requires a fairly deep linguistic research, on the one hand, and application of the
research results in educational sphere, e.g. in the course of foreign language and translation teaching, on the other
hand.
However, at present communicative sentence perspective remains a matter of theoretical rather than practical
syntax. Hardly the existing manuals on English or Russian grammar in practice can offer you a section fully devoted
to communicative sentence perspective. Typically, this issue boils down to a short discussion concerned with the
features of information structure of a simple sentence due to a certain order of its constituent parts. At the same time,
the problem of communicative sentence perspective in different languages is analyzed at length in numerous
scientific papers, and the generalization of such experience could be really valuable for the purposes of language and
translation teaching.
It should be noted that communicative sentence perspective has been a subject of research performed by
scientists from various schools of thought. The first time the need for a thorough study of the phenomenon under
discussion was proclaimed by Mathesius (1967; 1967a) standing on the positions of functional structuralism.
Mathesius distinguished between grammatical and functional types of sentence division. The scientist outlined the
starting point and the core in the structure of sentence meaning generally understood as the known/given and the
new, which in many subsequent studies were named theme and rheme, topic and comment, etc.
Of course, communicative sentence perspective cannot be called a purely grammatical phenomenon. It is
determined by factors of different nature: linearity, grammatical forms of sentence parts and sentence as a whole,
context, semantics, intonation, contractiveness, empathy, pragmatic presupposition, conceptual specifics of the
speaker and the hearer interaction, discourse factors, etc. (Kuno, 1976; Chafe, 1976; Paducheva, 1985; Apresyan,
1988; Dijk, 2000). In addition, each sentential element promoting the process of communication shows a certain
degree of communicative activity or dynamism (Firbas, 1992). These factors already suggest that communicative
sentence perspective is a complicated phenomenon to study and cognize. However, there is no common approach to
its consideration.
At the current stage of linguistics development, we need to consider communicative sentence perspective taking
into account cognitive foundations behind this phenomenon, as nowadays a cognitive approach offers the most
efficient ways to analyze language and communication through the prism of human mind procedures.
In this regard, composite sentences are of particular note because in the theory of communicative sentence
perspective this kind of sentences is less well studied than simple ones, and in cognitive perspective composite
syntactic units still need a major conceptual development. (By composite sentences here we mean both compound
and complex sentences, i.e. syntactic units combining coordinated and subordinated parts respectively.) Besides,
composite sentences should be recognized as basic structural elements of written speech; and written speech
comprehension within the framework of academic writing in high school, for instance, ensures future success of a
professional in his or her field.

2. Objectives, methodology and research design

Proceeding from the above, in this article we would like to show what communicative perspective of composite
sentences is like, what it is caused by in cognitive context, what cognitive processes can be called the driving forces
 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940 935

behind it, and what principles and mechanisms provide the speaker with the opportunities to construct composite
sentences.
As part of the cognitive theory of language (to be dwelt on hereinafter), in which the central role is given to
linguistic interpretation, we examine the composite sentence as a linguistic knowledge format including both
individual and collective knowledge and communicative perspective of the composite sentence as a conceptual part
of such format. In conjunction with the elements of general linguistic methods, methods of component analysis,
contextual, conceptual analyses and cognitive modeling, this shapes a cognitive study of the considered
phenomenon in view of the anthropocentric nature of language. Through the interpretive aspect of language
cognition, the study is contiguous with construction grammar (Diessel, 2004; Goldberg, 2006).
The study of communicative perspective of the composite sentence is presented in the section Discussion of
research outcomes in relation to the English language. Illustrations are borrowed from the British National Corpus.
The results of the study discussed in this article are aimed at indicating the problem and should not be viewed as
exhaustive. Although, they emphasize the fact that communicative sentence perspective as an essential stipulation of
successful communication is to be given considerable attention for the purposes of language cognition and teaching
language acquisition.

3. Discussion of research outcomes

3.1. Interpretation of the world in language

In the process of cognitive activity, an individual turns to understanding the world and finding ways to convey
ideas about it, correlating non-linguistic and linguistic facts. Simultaneously, he or she is constantly mastering a
linguistic picture of the world represented by a wide range of language knowledge as knowledge of linguistic units,
categories, syntactic structures, their meanings and functional specificity (Boldyrev, 2009). A linguistic picture of
the world is always open not only for internal replenishment: because language shapes the picture of the world and
thoughts and does not just express them (Fearing, 1954), it enriches a conceptual picture of the world with new ideas
in the short or long run perceived by an individual. This cycle reflected in human consciousness is possible due to
the phenomenon of interpretation.
Chafe (1983) argues that interpretation does not occur during perception only; it takes place when we speak.
Interpretation covers virtually all activities with language when the reason for these activities is speaking. If it is
necessary to speak, your inner world is interpreted as speech. When speech is defined as a perception target, it is
interpreted (Demiankov, 1994).
In a broad sense, interpretation is one of the major aspects of human consciousness. It coincides with something
that in recent years in the framework of cognitive linguistics was called language cognition (Demiankov, 1985).
Speaking of language cognition, we can hardly have in mind the so-called human cognition associated with the
notion of language as a specific human way of being. Language cognition is rather a human cognitive activity. It is
reflected in the attempt of an individual to develop a linguistic picture of the world and in his or her ability to apply
the results of such cognition in the process of communication, in which it is possible to consolidate both known and
new linguistic knowledge.
By now, much contribution has been made to the development of the concept of language as an interpretive
aspect of human consciousness. Interpretation is thoroughly considered in the framework of an integrated theory of
representation and operating knowledge in language or a cognitive theory of language proposed by Boldyrev (2013).
Let us dwell on some of the provisions of this theory.
The theory implies that interpretation is one of the planes of the linguistic cognitive activity of an individual
(Boldyrev, 2011). So, speaking about interpretation of the world in language, we mean linguistic interpretation. In
the context of interpretive activities, linguistic expressions including information about various types of knowledge
of the world in language, as well as cognitive and linguistic mechanisms of meanings and implications, acquire
particular meanings and implications in accordance with a definite conceptual system of an individual. Interpretation
is based on the secondary conceptualization and categorization of objects and events and is individual in nature.
Methods used by individuals to interpret objects, events and knowledge about them are transferred through modus
936 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940

concepts and categories, the specificity of which is marked by their connection with a certain function (evaluation,
negation, expressiveness, evidentiality, etc.) within the major interpreting language function. It is important to
emphasize that interpretation is always based on typified schema of collective knowledge (Boldyrev, 2013).
It is logical that, defined by the statics and dynamics of cognition, composite sentences are predetermined by the
interpretive aspect of language cognition. The interpretive aspect of language cognition in relation to the composite
sentence works as follows.

3.2. Composite sentence as a linguistic knowledge format

The speaker creating composite sentences always operates some collective knowledge shared with the hearer.
Conceptually, the composite sentence expresses a package of two or more propositions reflecting a fragment of
reality that combines two or more events in their relationships. This propositional package includes basic predicates,
a set of their arguments and a linking element uniting propositions: coordination and/or subordination concepts. In
addition, the composite sentence comprises knowledge of vocabulary and grammar (morphology and syntax)
categories of linguistic resources needed to transfer information about related events.
Thus, the composite sentence can be viewed as a linguistic knowledge format, the idea of which is available both
to the speaker and the hearer. By the term ‘linguistic knowledge format’ we mean a form of presentation and
organization of any data about the world in language, a form accumulating language knowledge as a result of the
speaker’s awareness of the system and structure of language, its basic units and categories, principles and
mechanisms used to shape and transfer ideas through language (Boldyrev, 2009).
The format of the composite sentence includes not only potential systemic language knowledge, but also the
knowledge of interpretive nature as a result of an individual’s cognitive activity based on his or her ability to
exercise linguistic creativity. Hence, the ability to interpret allows the speaker to construct a particular sentence in
order to transfer information to the hearer. Relying on his or her conceptual picture of the world, the speaker creates
a sentence in view of the opportunities of systemic language knowledge configuration within the above-mentioned
format.
Together with the linguistic knowledge participating in the realization of the interpreting language function in its
different variations (evaluation, negation, expressiveness, evidentiality, etc.), the speaker deals with the knowledge
concerning the given/new information distinction within communicative sentence perspective aimed at the
realization of the function of determining the status of knowledge, the conceptual structure of which acts as a
scheme to organize different means expressing communicative perspective of the composite sentence (Vinogradova,
2014).

3.3. Metainterpretation as cognitive-linguistic basis for communicative perspective of the composite sentence

The individual, the secondary character of linguistic conceptualization and categorization, which is the basis of
interpretation in relation to communicative sentence perspective, is expressed in metainterpretation.
Metainterpretation is a kind of conceptual modification of ontological knowledge concerning some fragment of
reality the speaker gets interested in in the process of interpretation in order to assess this knowledge as given or
new for its subsequent transfer in the course of communication due to the speaker’s cognitive needs (Vinogradova,
2014a).
In the speaker’s consciousness, metainterpretive processes switch on the function of determining the status of
knowledge that is ranked higher than other variations of the interpreting language function, as no matter what the
functional aim a composite sentence has: the most important for understanding the meaning inherent in it to promote
communication is the status of knowledge definition behind this semantic-syntactic unit. Thus, the fact that
interpretation is always based on typified schema of collective knowledge makes us realize that mental
representations of composite sentences in their propositional form are the base for constructing metarepresentations
of these sentences as a result of the function of determining the status of knowledge in action.
From the cognitive point of view, in human consciousness the given and the new knowledge is organized as a
cluster of conceptual features reflecting primarily:
x the dynamics of referents – participants of the events described, events and their relationships;
 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940 937

x the peculiar properties of human consciousness related to processing of non-linguistic or linguistic information;
x the degree of knowledge sharing by the speaker and the hearer.
The above-mentioned features associated with the function of determining the status of knowledge are of modus
nature, which also reflects the interpretive aspect of an individual’s activity in the course of communicative
perspective recognition. Modus conceptual features or concepts imply the heterogeneity of the means to objectify
communicative perspective, and the integration of these means is possible within a modus category.
For example, in the scale of the composite sentences below the new knowledge in the parts selected by
underlining is transferred by profiling the conceptual feature ‘a weak degree of knowledge sharing by the speaker
and the hearer’. Heterogeneous language means used to objectify this feature as well as the participation of other
variations of the interpreting language function along with the function of determining the status of knowledge
reflect a multifaceted interpretive character of communicative perspective of the composite sentence and its modus
conceptual nature:

He was leading up to something, but she had no idea what.

What they need is centralized control…
I’m looking for a school friend; her name is Mary.

In the above examples, the conceptual feature ‘a weak degree of knowledge sharing by the speaker and the
hearer’ is objectified primarily by:
x the lexical unit have no idea meaning ‘not to know’ in the second part of the corresponding compound sentence;
x the structure of the complex sentence, in which the clause What I need serving as the subject of the sentence
contains a new information request, and the main clause is centralized control – the predicate – is a response to
this request;
x the indefinite article before the noun school friend in the opening part of the corresponding compound sentence.
Processing the information contained in the examples as given or new is respectively accompanied by the
interpreting functions of negation; expressiveness and evaluation; a marking (naming) function in action.

3.4. Cognitive principles ruling communicative perspective of the composite sentence

The interpretive aspect of human consciousness is signified by the fact that one of the basic principles to judge
communicative perspective is the principle of conceptual meaning representation consisting in the interaction of
the so-called thematic and operational concepts (Boldyrev, 2011a). The given knowledge generally reflects thematic
concepts as a result of quantitative and qualitative accumulation of linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge in all
cognitive activities of the society. The new knowledge generally reflects operating concepts, namely situational
meanings, which are outcomes of the speaker’s particular configuration of thematic concepts in the course of his or
her interpretive activities while communicating.
For example, in the complex sentences below where the information flow is traditional – from the left to the right
– the information activated in the speaker’s consciousness serving as a reference point, the given knowledge is
concentrated in the main clauses. In the subordinate clauses, operating concepts based on thematic concepts carry
the new knowledge. The new knowledge is the result of the speaker’s configuration of the given knowledge under
the process of metainterpretation primarily due to the cognitive mechanism of conceptual development.

It is important therefore that any reorganization should better facilitate this task.
How wonderful that at 62 she won Britain’s speed shooting championships.
It seems that ‘differentiation’ is being redefined once again, so as to include democratic institutions and a market
economy.

The given and the new line up united by completivity as a concept of subordination linking the propositions
objectified by the main and the subordinate clauses of each of the above sentences. On the one hand, the concept of
completivity fixes communicative and structural inferiority of the information in the main parts because the main
938 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940

parts contain modal-evaluative components (It is important; How wonderful; It seems), and the necessary evaluation
targets are not there. On the other hand, the concept of completivity predetermines vector conceptual relationships
between thematic and operational concepts reflecting the given and the new knowledge objectified by the main and
subordinate clauses respectively. In the first example the vector relationship is based on the thematic concept of
importance, in the second example – on the concept of surprise, and in the third example – the concept of seeming.
The described vector relationships are realized in the following operational concepts: the importance of
reorganization, the surprise of victory, and the seeming of changes. Thus, the concept of completivity not only sets
the parameters of one of the cognitive models of the composite sentence, but also plays an important role in
communicative perspective of composite sentences built on the basis of such model regulating the relationships of
thematic and operational concepts enshrined in these structural linguistic units.
The principle of conceptual hierarchy of meanings presupposes that at the moment of speaking in the
speaker’s consciousness thematic and operational concepts conveying different kinds of knowledge about events,
their participants and relationships within the events as a composite fragment of reality are subject to a specific
treatment. They are 1) evaluated from several points of view, for instance, analyzed for their activation/accessibility
in the memory of the speaker and the hearer (Chafe, 1987; Lambrecht, 1994), 2) configured in the process of
interpretation as a human linguistic cognitive activity, and 3) arranged in a certain conceptual hierarchy that is then
displayed in the speech in the form of a composite sentence. The hierarchy of conceptual components of a
composite sentence suggests that it is filled with active basic level concepts that reflect the known or given
information about the world in language carried by a composite sentence. The middle level of the hierarchy is
presented by semi active and accessible concepts. The highest level is occupied by the concepts conveying the new
knowledge about the world in language inherent in a composite sentence.
The degree of concepts activation is primarily due to the activity and the accessibility of referents, i.e. their
degree of markedness in the context of figure-background perception of the world. Figure-background distinction
allows the speaker to reflect the hierarchy of conceptual components of a composite sentence built in the course of
the given and the new knowledge transfer thanks to foregrounding or backgrounding of relevant participants, events,
and their relations.
For example, in the complex sentence He stopped, as though a sudden thought had struck him the basic level of
the hierarchy that reflects the prominent or the given knowledge in particular is represented by the argument he. He,
unlike the argument a…thought designed to carry the new knowledge and thus considered the highest level of the
hierarchy, shows signs of animation, certainty and specific reference.
Besides, formal possibilities of coding in language are also of great importance. For referents – events
participants – these are the ways to express the following traits of linguistic knowledge: certainty/uncertainty,
agentivity/non-agentivity, singularity/plurality, animation/inanimation, concreteness/abstractness, etc.). Thus, active
concepts reflect information about marked or flashed referents on the language level characterized by certainty,
agentivity, plurality, animation, and concreteness. These concepts primarily relate to the sphere of the given
knowledge. Inactive concepts reflect information about inactive or dark referents on the language level characterized
by uncertainty, non-agentivity, singularity, inanimation, and abstractness. These concepts mainly relate to the field
of the new, unknown, or unused knowledge. In turn, accessible concepts are in the middle position related to above-
mentioned concepts; they can be more or less active in a particular textual or situational context.
Referent participants are an integral part of referent events in our case complexly objectified by the composite
sentence. Presentation of both groups of referents through concepts with varying degrees of activation is largely
dictated by the ability of the speaker as the subject of cognition to establish conceptual relationships among referents
(separate objects of the world and fixed events). These relationships are mostly logically oriented, as events and
objects within them do not make themselves bound; it is an individual who sees that they are linked and transfers the
perceived information using logic and linguistic means (Wittgenstein, 2008). And to construct a composite sentence
based on the information perceived, the speaker configures the data of the linguistic knowledge format of this
sentence.
Projecting these relationships in language in order to inform the hearer about a certain state of affairs is possible,
for example, if the speaker designates anaphoric bonds needed to organize thoughts via marking the information
mentioned earlier. In the context of communicative perspective of the composite sentence, establishing anaphoric
bonds allows the speaker to indicate the degree of activation of referent participants and referent events through the
 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940 939

‘antecedent – anaphor’ correlation and contributes to referent participants and events facilitation. The anaphor
makes the antecedent become more accessible. In the composite sentences below, antecedents are underlined and
anaphors are in bold.

Both products have been produced specifically for permed, damaged hair and they replenish moisture lost in the
perming process.
They helped to make him unmistakable, which he liked.
We all have hopes for the future and that is why supporting CND is so important.

On the contrary, cataphoric bonds, in which code giving elements are proceeding in the line, make it possible for
an individual to concentrate his or her consciousness on the new, non-active knowledge. In the composite sentences
below, code giving elements are in bold.

There are hints, there are passages here and there where she goes into the present tense.
After breakfast came the one happy moment of the day, when the pupils could play and talk freely.

Establishing relationships reflecting the conceptual interaction of events and their participants and depending on
their degree of activation in human consciousness, relationships realizing a general scheme of modality or
temporality of the composite sentence, relationships concerning structural interaction of events concepts objectified
by the composite sentence, etc., an individual tends to convey information distribution rather than the information
about the ontology of the fixed fragment of reality. The speaker evaluates the existing conceptual content that is why
the ways to transfer communicative perspective of the composite sentence, linguistically speaking, are quite
different, which on the whole presupposes a modus nature of these ways.

4. Conclusion

So, communicative perspective of the composite sentence is predetermined by an individual’s ability to interpret
and metainterpret, the specifics of the composite sentence as a linguistic knowledge format, the conceptual nature of
the given/new, a set of thematic and operational concepts controlled by the function of determining the status of
knowledge, relationships within the hierarchy of the composite sentence conceptual components.
A full study of communicative perspective of the composite sentence in particular and linguistic interpretation in
general is important to develop the theory of the composite sentence, the communicative and cognitive syntax
theories, the theories of conceptualization and categorization, etc. At the same time, the results of the study
especially composite sentence formatting with the accent on the anthropocentric nature of language could be
extremely useful in developing a new practical course of cognitively and communicatively oriented syntax that
would allow language learners to easily produce, perceive and translate composite sentences following the accepted
rules of encoding and decoding of the given and the new information.

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant 15-18-10006 “A cognitive study of
anthropocentric nature of language”) at Tambov state university named after G. R. Derzhavin.

References

Apresyan, Yu. D. (1988). Tipy kommunikativnoj informacii dlja tolkovogo slovarja [Types of communicative information for a glossary]. V
Jazyk: sistema i funkcionirovanie (pp. 10-22). Moskva: Nauka.
Boldyrev, N. N. (2009). Konceptual'naja osnova jazyka [Conceptual basis of language]. Kognitivnye issledovanija jazyka. Vyp. IV:
Konceptualizacija mira v jazyke: Kollekt. Monografija, 25-77. Moskva; Tambov: In-t jazykoznanija RAN; Izdatel'skij dom TGU im. G. R.
Derzhavina.
940 Nikolay Boldyrev and Svetlana Vinogradova / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 214 (2015) 933 – 940

Boldyrev, N. N. (2011). Interpretirujushhaja funkcija jazyka [Interpreting function of language]. Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo
universiteta, 33 (248) (Filologija. Iskusstvovedenie), 60, 11-16.
Boldyrev, N. N. (2011a). O metajazyke kognitivnoj lingvistiki: koncept kak edinica znanija [On metalanguage of cognitive linguistics: concept as
a unit of knowledge]. Kognitivnye issledovanija jazyka. Vyp. IX: Vzaimodejstvie kognitivnyh i jazykovyh struktur: Sb. nauch. tr, 23-32.
Moskva; Tambov: In-t jazykoznanija RAN; Izdatel'skij dom TGU im. G. R. Derzhavina.
Boldyrev, N. N. (2013). Aktual'nye zadachi kognitivnoj lingvistiki na sovremennom jetape [On the integrative theory of linguistic representation
of knowledge]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki, 1, 5-13.
British National Corpus. URL: http://corpus.byu.edu>bnc
Chafe, W. /*LYHQQHVVFRQWUDVWLYHQHVVGH¿QLWHQHVVVXEMHFWVWRSLFVDQGSRLQWRIYLHZ,Q&1/LEd.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25-
55). New York: Academic Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1983). Pamjat' i verbalizacija proshlogo opyta [Memory and the past experience verbalization]. Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike.
Vyp. XII: Prikladnaja lingvistika, 35-73. Moskva: Progress.
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21-52).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Deane, P. D. (1992). Grammar in mind and brain. Explorations in cognitive syntax. Cognitive linguistics research, 2. Berlin – New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Demiankov, V. Z. (1985). Osnovy teorii interpretacii i ee prilozhenija v vychislitel'noj lingvistike [Fundamentals of the theory of interpretation
and its applications in computational linguistics]. Moskva: Izd-vo MGU.
Demiankov, V. Z. (1994). Kognitivnaja lingvistika kak raznovidnost' interpretirujushhego podhoda [Cognitive linguistics as a kind of interpretive
approach]. Voprosy jazykoznanija, 4, 17-33.
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dijk, T. A. van (2000). Jazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikacija [Language. Cognition. Communication]. Blagoveshhensk: BGK im. I. A. Bodujena de
Kurtenje.
Fearing, F. (1954). An examination of the conceptions of Benjamin Whorf in the light of theories of perception and cognition. In H. Hoijer (Ed.),
Language in culture: Conference on the interrelations of language and other aspects of culture (pp. 47-81). Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional typological introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haiman, J. (1985). Iconicity in syntax. Typological studies in language 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Part 2. Journal of linguistics, 3, 199-244.
Jakobson, R. (1966). Implications of language universals for linguistics (2nd ed.). In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 263-278).
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Kuno, S. (1976). Subject, theme and the speaker’s empathy – a reexamination of relativization phenomena. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic
(pp. 417-444). New York: Academic Press.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mathesius, V. (1967). O tak nazyvaemom aktual'nom chlenenii predlozhenija [On the so-called actual sentence division]. V N. A. Kondrashov
(red.), Prazhskij lingvisticheskij kruzhok (sbornik statej) (pp. 239-245). Moskva: Progress.
Mathesius, V. (1967a). Osnovnaja funkcija porjadka slov v cheshskom jazyke [The main function of linearity in the Czech language]. V N. A.
Kondrashov (red.), Prazhskij lingvisticheskij kruzhok (sbornik statej) (pp. 246-249). Moskva: Progress.
Miller, G. A. (1990). Obrazy i modeli, upodoblenija i metafory [Images and models, similarities and metaphors]. V N. D. Arutyunova i M. A.
Zhurinskaya (red.), Teorija metafory (pp. 236-283). Moskva: Progress.
Paducheva, E. V. (1985). Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost' s dejstvitel'nost'ju (referencial'nye aspekty semantiki mestoimenij) [Utterance and its
relation to reality (referential aspects of pronouns semantics)]. Moskva: Nauka.
Pankrats, Yu. G. (1992). Propozicional'nye struktury i ih rol' v formirovanii jazykovyh edinic raznyh urovnej [Propositional structures and their
role in the formation of linguistic units of different levels]. Diss.dokt. filol. nauk. Minsk – Moskva.
Vinogradova, S. G. (2014). Slozhnoe predlozhenie kak format jazykovogo znanija: interpretacionnyj aspect [Composite sentence as linguistic
knowledge format: interpretative perspective]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki, 3, 10-18.
Vinogradova, S. G. (2014a). Problema kommunikativnogo chlenenija slozhnogo predlozhenija s kognitivnoj tochki zrenija [The problem of
communicative division of a complex sentence in cognitive perspective]. Kognitivnye issledovanija jazyka. Vyp. XVII: Aktual'nye problemy
vzaimodejstvija myslitel'nyh i jazykovyh struktur: Sb. nauch. tr, 39-47. Moskva; Tambov: In-t jazykoznanija RAN; Izdatel'skij dom TGU im.
G. R. Derzhavina.
Wittgenstein, L. (2008). Logiko-filosofskij traktat [Logical and philosophical treaties]. Moskva: Kanon+ROOI “Reabilitacija”.
Yartseva, V. N. (1998). Jazykoznanie. Bol'shoj jenciklopedicheskij slovar' [Linguistics. Large encyclopedic dictionary]. Moskva: Bol'shaja
Rossijskaja jenciklopedija.