Aleš Svoboda

AN ABC OF
FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
(Part One)
(An e-learning text for the students of English)

© Aleš Svoboda 2005

Opava 2005

1
1. Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP)
1.1 Sources of FSP

The modern conception of Functional Sentence Perspective goes back to the Prague
Linguistic Circle (1926-1953). This linguistic school, represented by VILÉM MATHESIUS, R.
JACOBSON, N. TRUBETSKOY, and other prominent linguists, was one of the branches of the
stream called functional structuralism. While the American branch (American descriptivism)
laid stress on the formal aspect of the language structure, and the Danish branch (Copenhagen
glossematics) laid stress on the semantic aspect, the Prague School focussed on the functional
aspect, i.e., on how the structures function in the very act of communication.

In his papers (MATHESIUS 1939, 1941a,b), MATHESIUS (1882-1945) introduced the idea
that the formal analysis of a sentence (subject and predicate – a static phenomenon) should
be distinguished from the functional analysis of a sentence (‘what is being talked about’ and
‘what is being said about it’ – which is a dynamic phenomenon, changing in the very act of
communication). What is being talked about is the theme (východisko, the point of
departure), and what is being said about it is the rheme (jádro, the core of the message). The
point of departure (theme) is often something known or easily gathered from the context or
situation. The core of the message (rheme) is often something new or not known at the
moment of communication. The natural way is to procede from the known to the unknown
information, so the linear sequence theme-rheme is a natural way of developing the discourse.
Dala jsem za ni dvacet korun. (theme→rheme)
Dvacet korun jsem za ni dala. (rheme→theme)

MATHESIUS regarded the sequence theme→rheme as objective (normal, unmarked) word

order and the sequence rheme→theme as subjective (emotive, marked) word order. He
focussed his attention primarily on sentence word order and sentence stress (or emphasis). In
his Czech paper Ze srovnávacích studií slovosledných (1942) he considers English to be less
susceptible to the theme-rheme articulation than Czech because of its relatively fixed word
order.
V dálce zaštĕkal pes. (theme-rheme – unmarked)
A dog barked in the distance. (rheme-theme – marked??)
Karel včera letĕl do Prahy. (theme-rheme – unmarked)
Charlie flew to Prague yesterday. (theme-rheme-theme – marked?, unmarked?)

2
1.2 Jan Firbas (1921-2000)

In 1950’s, J. FIRBAS started examining MATHESIUS’ idea of English being less susceptible
to the theme-rheme articulation than Czech, and from the negative answer to this statement he
developed his theory. As an Anglicist he wrote most of his papers in English, but the
impossibility of the literal translation of aktuální členění into English forced him to introduce
a new term for this phenomenon – the Functional Sentence Perspective (FSP).

The axioms of J. FIRBAS’ theory (cf. Firbas 1992 and references therein) are the following:
Every element that conveys meaning pushes the communication forward and is a carrier of
communicative dynamism. The degrees of communicative dynamism are relative degrees
of communicative importance by which the elements contribute to the development of
communication. The degrees of communicative dynamism are determined by the interplay
(interaction) of the factors of FSP (see later) in the very moment of communication.

Instead of simple bipartition (theme-rheme), FIRBAS introduced tripartition (theme-

transition-rheme), and pluripartition in FSP as shown below:
THEMATIC NON-THEMATIC

THEMATIC TRANSITIONAL RHEMATIC

THEME DIATHEME TRANSITION TRANSITION RHEME RHEME

PROPER PROPER PROPER

Firbas came to the conclusion that apart from word order (which had already been
examined in some detail), and apart from context and intonation (which had been taken
into account), there is another factor – semantics – which plays an important role in FSP.
Firbas introduced a systematic examination of the following four factors of FSP:
linearity (word order)
semantics (dynamic semantic scales)
context (verbal, situational, experiential)
intonation (prosodic features)

It is the interplay or these four factors that determines the relative degrees of
communicative dynamism carried by separate elements, and – in the end – determines their
thematic, transitional, or rhematic character. In unimpaired communication, the above factors
are present anyway (the first three in written communication, all of them in spoken
communication), so the language user makes an advantage out of the necessity. Let us have a
closer look at FIRBAS’ four factors.

3
1.3 The four factors of FSP
1.3.1 Linearity
Czech Tu knihu jsem četl. (T, T – R)
the theme→rheme sequence = unmarked
Četl jsem tu knihu. (R – T, T)
the deviation from the theme→rheme sequence = marked
English I’ve read the book. (subject, verb, object)
the S → V → O sequence = unmarked
The book, I’ve read. (object, subject, verb)
the deviation from the S → V → O sequence = marked

FIRBAS came to the conclusion that while in Czech, markedness is caused by the deviation
from the theme→rheme sequence, in English, markedness is caused by the deviation from the
grammatical word order. It is important to take into account that the carriers of
communicative dynamism need not only be single words. The elements form hierarchic
structures – units and fields (see later). The above elements tu knihu, the book are noun
phrases, representing one unit in the given field. A unit represented by a word in one language
may be represented by a morpheme in another language
She was eating. (theme – transition – rheme)
Jed-l-a. (rheme – transition – theme)
1.3.2 Semantics

FIRBAS found out that the relations among the contents of language units (words and
morphemes) operate as an important factor of FSP. He introduced highly abstract semantic
functions called dynamic semantic functions, which operate irrespective of word order.
They are similar to static semantic functions like ACTOR, ACTION, PATIENT, GOAL OF THE

ACTION, CIRCUMSTANCE, but they are more abstract and are dynamic because they may
change with the use of the given element in the act of communication. FIRBAS distinguishes
two scales of dynamic semantic functions: the Presentation Scale (P-scale) and the Quality
Scale (Q-scale).

4
Presentation Scale
Scene (Setting) → Presentation (Existence/Appearance) → Phenomenon
PHENOMENON

PRESENTATION PRESENTED

SCENE (SETTING) ON THE SCENE ON THE SCENE

theme transition rheme

V dálce (SCENE) zaštĕkal (PRESENTATION) pes. (PHENOMENON)

A dog (PHENOMENON) barked (PRESENTATION) in the distance. (SCENE)

Quality Scale
(Scene →) Quality Bearer → Quality → Specification(s)
SPECIFICATION(S)

QUALITY

QUALITY transition
BEARER
SCENE
(IN THE ABSENCE OF
theme theme SPECIFICATION rheme
rheme)

na souseda.

štĕkal

Náš pes

včera
QUALITY BEARER SCENE QUALITY SPECIFICATION
theme theme transition rheme

at our neighbour
barked
Our dog
yesterday.
QUALITY BEARER QUALITY SPECIFICATION SCENE
theme transition rheme theme

5
 There are two important provisos: QUALITY is understood in a very broad sense, and the
dynamic semantic functions operate if there is no intervention of other FSP factors (e.g.
context and prosodic features).

1.3.3 Context

According to FIRBAS, there are three basic types of context:

verbal: I met my teacher. She said ... (she refers to my teacher)
situational: Open the window, will you? (the window, the implicit and the explicit you)
experiential: I met Jack Nicholson and Miloš Forman ... The famous actor said ...(the
famous actor refers to J. Nicholson)

The oppositions old–new, known–unknown, context dependent–context independent

are not black-and-white oppositions but represent gamuts where the amount of oldness or
newness etc. is a matter of degree. The operation of decontextualization is realized by other
factors (word order, prosodic features, semantics): It was him! (cf. I saw him. versus I saw
him, not her!).

According to the extent of the operation of context over a sentence, Firbas distinguishes
three instance levels:
• ordinary instance (“no operation” of context)
In a far-away country a rich king had three daughters.
• first instance (partial influence of context)
I sent him a letter yesterday.
• second instance (all the elements are influenced by the context except one)
[You haven’t called Mary as you promised.]
But I did call her! (Yesterday, at seven sharp!)

1.3.4 Prosodic features (Intonation)

It was a well-known fact that prosodic features, especially the intonation centre of the
sentence, may influence the placement of rheme of the sentence. After several years of
research the situation is not so straightforward as it seemed to be. Let it suffice to say that
FIRBAS distinguishes
• the re-evaluating intonation, changing the FSP status of units (the word with the
intonation centre is bold):

6
 I go to Prague tomorrow. (to Prague is the rheme)
I go to Prague tomorrow. (tomorrow is the rheme)
I go to Prague tomorrow. (I is the rheme)

and the non-re-evaluating intonation, which does not change the FSP status of units:
Let him do what he wants to. (what he wants to is the rheme)
Let him do what he wants to. (what he wants to is the rheme)

Since the present thesis deals with written texts, the question of the operation of prosodic
features will not be dealt with here.

1.3.5 The interplay of the four factors of FSP

In spoken discourse, the relative degrees of communicative dynamism of the respective

thematic, transitional, and rhematic units are given by the result of the interplay of all the four
factors: linearity, semantics, context, and prosodic features. In different languages the rules of
the interplay and the extent of means employed may vary considerably, but basically it holds
that prosodic features are superior to context, context is superior to semantics, and
semantics is superior to linearity. In written discourse, the result of the interplay seem to be
influenced by mere three factors: linearity, semantics, and context. The latest research,
however, shows that even written discourse may be – in the very act of communication –
accompanied by latent, “unconscious” prosodic features. In the present thesis, the attention
will be focussed on the results of the interplay of factors rather than on their separate
operation. The interplay need not always be unequivocal. The ambiguous or multifunctional
cases will be treated separately if they are relevant to further investigation.

1.4 The types of FSP units in a communicative field

In J. FIRBAS’ pluripartition approach to FSP units (FIRBAS 1982), there are basically six
types of units; two types of thematic units, two types or transitional units, and two types of
rhematic units. The units with their brief characteristics are adduced in the following table:
THEMATIC TRANSITIONAL RHEMATIC
T TR R
THEME DIATHEME TRANSITION TRANSITION RHEME RHEME
PROPER PROPER PROPER
Thp DTh Trp Tr Rh Rhp
often personal (in verbal fields) (in verbal fields)
endings of temporal and often
verbs, any modal the notional content any any
unstressed pers.
elements indications of the verbs elements elements
pronouns

7
 One rhematic (rheme proper), one transitional (transition proper), and one thematic unit
constitute a communicative field (the transitional and the thematic unit may also be implicit)
She was eating. Look, ⏐ a blackbird!
T TR R (T)TR/R ⏐ (T)(TR)R
A communicative field may have a number of thematic, transitional, and rhematic units:
Charlie explain-ed it to me in five minutes.
T TR TR T T R
There is a hierarchy of units and fields. A field may become a unit in another field as is the
case with the subordinate field she was eating in the following example:

I thought she was eating

_ ______ T TR R
T TR/TR R

In the following paragraphs, we shall deal with the types of FSP units separately by means
of illustrative examples to give the reader a general idea of the FSP analysis. In the examples,
we shall use different graphical marking for different FSP units:
• themes proper
• diathemes
• transitions proper
• transitions
• rhemes
• rhemes proper

1.4.1 Thematic units

Theme proper (Thp) is the least dynamic unit of the respective field. It is usually
expressed by the minimum grammatical form possible (it in the following examples):
Charlie explained it to me in five minutes.
Other units of this type are called theme proper oriented themes (to me):
Charlie explained it to me in five minutes.

Diatheme (DTh) is the most dynamic among the thematic units of the respective field
(often represented by QUALITY BEARER or SCENE):
Charlie explained it to me in five minutes.
Yesterday he explained it to me in five mintues.

8
Other units of this type are called diatheme oriented themes:
Charlie explained it to me in five minutes yesterday.
Diathemes currently fulfil at least one of the following three functions:
(1) They bring a new piece of information into the discourse, but in relation to some more
dynamic units within the field, they represent the thematic units. In the following example
all pieces of information are new, but the interplay of the factors of FSP render the
elements Kateřina Neumannová and yesterday thematic (diathemes):

Kateřina Neumannová won the 10 km race yesterday.

(2) They mediate the transfer of the new information presented as rheme proper in the
preceding communicative field into the following field, in which the information is not
new, but is not regarded as fully established in the text either. The information is gradually
established in the text through the dia-theme (dia- means through):

Once upon a time there was a mother pig who had three little pigs. The three little
pigs grew so big that their mother said to them: ...
(3) They represent contrasted elements in the thematic part of the field:
He did it in five minutes, and she did it in four.

In this case the pronouns he and she are not themes proper because they do not represent
the minimum form, but they are contrasted diathemes set into contrast by context and stressed
in speech.

1.4.2 Transitional units

Transition proper (Trp) is a unit that constitutes the communicative field in the very
moment of communication, it also sets the type of field. In clausal fields, Trp is the temporal
and modal indication anchoring the clause in the discourse (in nominal fields, Trp is the case
and number indication anchoring the nominal phrase in its superordinate field). Formally, this
temporal and modal indication is often signalled by the temporal and modal exponents of the
verb, on the other hand, the indication may also be implicit (A blackbird!)

In one respect, Trp is expected, presupposed, and therefore “thematic”, in another respect it
must be aduced again and again to establish a new predication, a new field, and in this sense it
is ‘new’, non-thematic, keeping its functional position at the very beginning of the non-
thematic, i.e., in a tripartite division, the transitional sphere (expressions ‘position’ and
‘sphere’ are not word-order concepts!) In the following example, Trp is represented by the
temporal ending of the verb -ed, by the absence of other temporal or modal indications, and
by the full stop at the end of the sentence:
Charlie explain-ed it to me in five minutes.

9
 Transition (Tr) is mostly expressed by the notional component of the verb (denoting the
dynamic semantic function of QUALITY or PRESENTATION):
Charlie explain-ed it to me in five minutes.

1.4.3 Rhematic units

Rheme proper (Rhp) is the most dynamic unit of the field. Any element may become
rheme proper. Rhp is often expressed by PHENOMENON (in the case of a Presentation Scale) or
by SPECIFICATION (in the case of a Quality Scale):
A dog barked in the distance.
Charlie explained it to me in five minutes.
In the absence of SPECIFICATION, Rhp is often QUALITY
She was eat-ing.
In the case of more SPECIFICATIONS, only one is Rhp, the other(s) is (are) just (non-proper)
rheme(s), being less dynamic than the most dynamic rheme proper:
Charlie explained to me a new approach to chaos in mathematics in five minutes.

The procedure of how the individual units are determined by the interplay of the four
factors of FSP is a very complex one, and its explanation exceeds the scope of the present
paper.

1.5 The organization of text

Research into Functional Sentence Perspective is closely connected with text linguistics
and discourse analysis. The examination of written texts led to the introduction of a new unit
– a paragraph. For some linguists working in this field (cf. DANEŠ 1994), paragraph is the
basic unit of text. Its cohesion and coherence display certain features which are not displayed
by the whole text in the same degree. The most conspicuous are thematic strings
representing several types of thematic progressions (here bold letters denote rhemes proper,
letters in italics denote thematic elements):
• the series of subsequent themes after rhemes (after newly adduced elements):
I saw a man. He came to the gate of the garden. The gate was
half open. Not enough for him to get through.
• the running theme:
A king had a beautiful daughter. Every day, she woke early in the morning, and

10
 before breakfast she walked in the garden. She spoke to the flowers and (she) sang
with the birds. She ...
• the thematic development of a split rheme:
A king had three sons. The eldest was clever and courageous and (he) was supposed
to be the next king. The middle one was an excellent hunter, but otherwise (he) did not
show any interest in other activities. The youngest was very shy, he never said a word
if he was not asked.
• themes derived from one hypertheme (common theme for the whole paragraph):
(Cf. a description of a chemical compound being the theme of the whole paragraph)

The examination of themes and thematic progressions is so extensive today that it is

sometimes regarded as a separate linguistic discipline called thematics.

1.6 The latest developments

A complex analysis of written and especially spoken texts is often denoted as discourse
analysis. One stream in it is the application of the FSP analysis and the theory of thematic
(and other) progressions to vast stretches of original texts and their translations. A contrastive
analysis of such texts opens new horizons in comparative biblical studies and comparative
literary studies based on the linguistic analysis. As an example we shall adduce two texts, two
contrastive tables, and the subsequent commentary offered in J. FIRBAS’ paper On the
Thematic and the Rhematic Layers of a Text (1995). (The paper is a sample of a contrastive
FSP analysis of two different texts (a biblical one and a modern one) and their English,
German, French, Dutch, Czech, and Slovak translations.)

The collection of all the thematic elements of the examined text constitute the thematic
layer of the text, the collection of transitional elements constitute the transitional layer, and
the collection of all the rhematic elements constitute the rhematic layer of the text. If we
follow the development of elements in each of the layers and compare them with the
development in a compared text, we may come to linguistic characteristics which have impact
on our reception of the text. The adduced samples are represent the interductory paragraphs of
B. Pasternak’ book Doctor Zhivago.

11
Doctor Zhivago
Russian original (transliterated)
(1) Shli (2) i shli (3) i peli Vechnuyu pamyat’, (4) i kogda ostanavlivalis’, kazalos’, chto ee
po zalazhennomu prodalzhayut pet’ nogi, loshadi, dunoveniya vetra.
(5) Prochozhie propuskali shestvie, (6) schitali venki, (7) krestilis’. (8) Lyubopytnye
vchodili v protsessiyu, (9) spraschivali: (10) "Kogo khoronyat?" Im otvechali: "Zhivago." —
Vot ono chto. Togda ponyatno. — Da ne ego. Ee. — Bce ravno. Tsarstvie nebesnoe.
Pokhorony bogatye.
(11) Zamel’kali poslednie minuty, schitannye, bespovorotnye. (12) "Gospodnya zemlya i
ispolnenie eya, vselennaya i vsi zhivushchie na nei." (13) Svyashchennik krestyashchim
dvizheniem brosil gorst’ zemli na Mar’yu Nikolaevnu. (14) Zapeli So dukhi pravednych. (15)
Nachals’ strashnaya gonka. (16) Grob zakryli, (17) zakolotili, (18) stali opuskat’. (19)
Otbarabanil dozhd’ kom’ev, kotorymi toroplivo v chetyre lopaty zabrosali mogilu. (20) Na
nei vyros kholmik. (21) Na nego vzoshel desyatiletnii mal’chik.

English translation

(1-3) On they went, singing "Eternal Memory", (4) and whenever they stopped, the sound
of their feet, the horses and the gusts of wind seemed to carry on their singing.

(5) Passers-by made their way for the procession, (6) counted the wreaths (7) and crossed
themselves, (8) some joined in out of curiosity (9) and asked: (10) "Who is being buried?" —
"Zhivago," they were told. — "Oh, I see. That explains it." — "It isn’t him. It’s his wife." —
"Well, it comes to the same thing. May she rest in peace. It’s a fine funeral."

(11) The last moments flashed past, counted, irrevocable. (12) "The earth is the Lord’s and
all that dwell therein." (13) The priest scattered earth in the form of a cross over the body of
Marya Nikolaevna. (14) They sang "The souls of the just." (15) Then a fearful bustle began.
(16) The coffin was closed, (17) nailed (18) and lowered into the ground. (19) Clods of earth
drummed on the lid like rain as the grave was filled hurriedly by four spades. (20) A mound
grew up on it (21) and a ten-year-old boy climbed on top.

12
Chart One: Russian original
No Thp DTh (+Trp) Tr Rh, Rhp scale
5,S 3,Q 4,Sp
13 Na Mar’yu Nikolaevnu + brosil gorst’ zemli Q
Svyashchennik1,B
2,S
krestyashchim dvizheniem
14 ^B + Zapeli1,Q So dukhi Q
pravednych2,Sp
15 + Nachalas’1,Pr strashnaya Pr
gonka2,Ph
16 ^B Grob1,S + zakryli2,Q Q
B 1,Q
17 ^ + zakolotili Q
18 ^B + stali1,Q opuskat’2,Sp Q
19 + otba- dozhd’ kom’ev Pr
rabanil1,Pr kotorymi2,Ph
^B kotorymi1,S + zabrosali4,Q Q
mogilu5,S toroplivo2,S
v chetyre lopaty3,S
20 Na nei1,S + vyros2,Pr kholmik3,Ph Pr
1,S 2,Pr
21 Na nego + vzoshel desyatiletnii Pr
mal’chik3,Ph

Chart Two: English translation

No Thp DTh (+ = Trp) Tr Rh, Rhp scale
13 over the body of + scattered2,Q earth3,Sp Q
Marja Nikolaevna5,S
in the form
1,B
The priest of a cross4,FSp
14 They1,B + sang2,Q The souls of Q
of the just3,Sp
15 Then1,S + began3,Pr a fearful Pr
bustle2,Ph
16 The coffin1,B + was2 closed3,Q Q
17 ^EB + nailedQ Q
B 1,Q
18 ^E + lowered into the Q
ground2,Sp
19 on the lid3,S + drummed2,Q like rain4,Sp Q
clods of earth1,B as...5,FSp
the grave2,B + was Hurriedly4,Sp Q
filled3,Q
as1 by four spades5,FSp
20 on it3,S + grew up2,Pr A mound1,Ph Pr
21 on top3,S + climbed2,Pr a ten-year-old Pr
boy1,Ph

13
No = number of the communicative field column
Thp = theme proper layer column (^ = ellipted theme)
DTh = diatheme layer column
Tr = transition layer column (+ = transition proper)
Rh, Rhp = rhematic layer column
scale = scale column (P = Presentation Scale, Q = Quality Scale)
superscripts1,2,3,4,5,... = word order indication: 1st item, 2nd item, 3rd item, ...
superscriptsS, Pr, Ph = semantic functions: Scene, Presentation, Phenomenon
superscriptsB, Q, Sp, FSp = semantic functions: Quality Bearer, Quality, Specification, Further Specification

J. Firbas describes the rhematic layer of the original in the following way:

“Within the rhematic layer of the third paragraph of Pasternak’s text, an interesting
gradation takes place. It opens with the rheme proper of (13), gorst’ zemli [’a handful of
earth’], continues with the rhemes proper of (19), dozhd’ kom’ev [’a rain of the clods of
earth’], zabrosali [’filled’], and (20) kholmik [’a mound’], and closes with the rheme proper of
(21) desyatiletnii mal’chik [’a ten-year-old boy’]. First, merely a handful of earth falls on
Mar’ya Nikolaevna’s coffin; then clods of earth follow; more and more earth fills the grave
and even grows into a mound, upon which eventually a ten-year-old boy appears. Through
this gradation the rheme proper layer effectively serves the narrator’s communicative purpose:
to introduce the main character, Yurii Andreevich Zhivago, into the flow of the narration.”
(Firbas 1995:8)

The rhematic layer of the English translation displays a certain deviation if compared with
the original. Firbas comments on it in the following way:
“The rhematic layer of the English translation does not perspective the text towards
Zhivago so effectively. The following are the rhemes proper of the corresponding English
fields: (13) in the form of the cross, (19) like rain, by four spades, (20) a mound, (21) a ten-
year-old boy. It is important to note that none of these rhemes proper conveys the notion of
earth. In consequence, the picture of accumulating earth is not evoked in the rheme proper
layer.” (Firbas 1995:8)

The above examples of comparative FSP analysis show how FSP can contribute to
a deeper analysis of (literary) texts.

14
Bibliography:

DANEŠ, F. (1974): Functional sentence perspective and the organization of the text. In DANEŠ,
F. (ed.): Papers on functional sentence perspective. Prague: Academia. pp. 106-28.
DANEŠ, F. (1994): Ostavec jako centrální jednotka tematicko-kompoziční výstavby textu (na
materiále textů výkladových). SaS, 55:1–17
FIRBAS, J. (1982): "Aktuální členění větné"(,) či "funkční perspektiva větná"? SaS, 43, pp.
282-293.
FIRBAS, J. (1992): Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FIRBAS, J. (1995): On the Thematic and the Rhematic Layers of a Text. In: Organization in
Discourse. Proceedings from the Turku Conference. 1995. Wårvik. (B., S-K.
Tanskanen & R. Hiltunen (eds), Anglicana Turkuensia 14:59-72.)
MATHESIUS, V. (1939): O takzvaném aktuálním členění věty. SaS, 5, pp. 171-174, reprinted in
MATHESIUS, V. (1982): Jazyk, kultura a slovesnost. (Ed. J. VACHEK.) Prague: Odeon,
pp. 174-178.
MATHESIUS, V. (1941a): Základní funkce pořádku slov v češtině. SaS, 7, pp. 169-170.
MATHESIUS, V. (1941b): Rozpor mezi aktuálním členěním souvětí a jeho organickou stavbou.
SaS, 7, pp. 37–40.
MATHESIUS, V. (původně 1942a): Věta a její aktuální členění. In: MATHESIUS, V. (1982):
Jazyk, kultura a slovesnost. (Ed. J. VACHEK.) Prague: Odeon, pp. 119-123.
MATHESIUS, V. (1942b): Ze srovnávacích studií slovosledných. ČMF, 28, pp. 181-190, 302-
307.
SVOBODA, A. (1984): České slovosledné pozice z pohledu aktuálního členění. SaS, 45, pp. 22-
34, 88-103.
SVOBODA, A. (1989): Kapitoly z funkční syntaxe. Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství.

Abbreviations in Bibliography:
ČMF = Časopis pro moderní filologii. Prague.
SaS = Slovo a slovesnost. Prague.

15