Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:49:18.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brief Notices/Publications Received

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Brief notices/publications received
Information
Language in Society , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 417 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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.)

References

NOTES

1. Semantic categories include, for example, NPs that are + animate, verbs that are + causative, and so forth. Crothers distinguishes semantic from rhetorical categories, which he says would include protagonist, setting, antagonist, and so on. He says these would be equally useful in text analysis: the semantic and propositional structures together are said to comprise textual structure: the rhetorical and propositional ones together do also. It is not really clear why Crothers chose to use the semantic one as his illustration.Google Scholar

2. I have not mentioned the notion of theme, which Crothers considers to be important. His discussion is never developed to the point of showing in a specific way how it relates to the rest of the model. He appears to be drawing on the concept of theme originally presented by researchers such as Michael Halliday.Google Scholar