Halliday draws a different ‘basic opposition in grammars of the second half of the 20th century’ than the one featured in ‘the public debates of the 1960s’ between ‘“structuralist”‘ and ‘“generative”‘ approaches (IF xxviii). On one side he places ‘paradigmatic’ or ‘“choice” grammars’ — ‘the functional ones, with their roots in rhetoric and ethnography’ — ‘interpreting language as a network of relations with structures’ that ‘realize3 these relationships’, ‘emphasizing variables among different languages’, and ‘taking semantics as foundation; hence grammar is natural and organized around the text or discourse’ (IF xxviii, xiii, xix). On the other side he places ‘syntagmatic’ or ‘“chain” grammars’– ‘the formal ones with their roots in logic and philosophy’ — ‘interpreting language as a list of structures’ connected by ‘regular relations’ (shown as ‘transformations’), ‘emphasizing universal features of language, and taking grammar (which they call “syntax”) as the foundation of language; hence the grammar is arbitrary’ and ‘organized around the sentence’. Despite some ‘cross currents’ and ‘borrowing’ of ‘insights’, the two sides have found it ‘difficult to maintain a dialogue’ or ‘exchange ideas’ (IF xviii).
Robert de Beaugrande. Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works
про функціональний підхід у граматиці.
і слово “от” з російьским прийменником “от” нічого спільного не має.
нижче кілька вправ, які давала дітям в 11 класі в різних темах. дітям сподобалося. елемент гри: вгадай виконавця тільки викликає в дітей більше цікавості