Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:58:43.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some wherefores of English inversions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Georgia M. Green
Georgia M. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the usage of some constructions which display non-canonical word order, despite having grammatical counterparts with canonical order—S V (O) (ADV)—whose truth conditions are identical: (1a) Outside stood a little angel vs. (1b) A little angel stood outside. It is claimed here that non-canonical constructions like 1a allow language users to exploit alternative word orders for multiple purposes, ranging from the facilitation of encoding to the creation of many specific rhetorical effects. A large number of syntactic constructions may be transformed into inverted structures of two target types, and these may be exploited to serve a variety of pragmatic functions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , September 1980, pp. 582 - 601
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Becker, Lee. 1978. A preliminary programmatic introduction to the study of the effects of intonation on syntax. Ms, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1978. Peculiar passives. Lg. 55. 42–66.Google Scholar
Eschholz, Paul, and Rosa, Alfred. 1977. Subject and strategy: A rhetoric reader. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. W. 1923. On grammatical inversion. Society for Pure English, Tract 10. 9–25.Google Scholar
Gary, Norman. 1975. Discourse functions of some root transformations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gordon, David, and Lakoff, George. 1975. Conversational postulates. Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry, 83–106. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia, and Morgan, Jerry. 1979. Pragmatics, grammar, and discourse. To appear in Radical pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole.Google Scholar
Hermon, Gabriella. 1979. On the discourse structure of direct quotation. (Center for the Study of Reading, Technical report 143.) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. MS. Presupposition: Variations on a theme.Google Scholar
Jamieson, Alexander. 1853. A grammar of rhetoric and polite writing. New Haven: A. Maltby.Google Scholar
Laff, Margaret. 1978. An exploration into the effects of intonation on syntax. Ms, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1977. Conversational postulates revisited. Lg. 53. 277–84.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1978. Two kinds of convention in indirect speech acts. Syntax and semantics, 9: Pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 261–80. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry., and Sellner, Manfred. 1979. Discourse and linguistic theory. Theoretical issues in the study of reading, ed. by Rand C. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer. To be published by Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Slifting. The formal analysis of natural language, ed. by Gross, Maurice et al., 133–69. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sheintuch, Gloria. 1977. ‘Same rule’ in a transformational theory of syntax. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1898. A new English grammar. Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilkenfeld, Deborah. 1978. Prosodic encoding in silent reading. Paper presented at LSA Annual Meeting.Google Scholar