Beteiligte: | , |
---|---|
In: | Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 20, 1990, 4, S. 357-367 |
veröffentlicht: |
SAGE Publications
|
Medientyp: | Artikel, E-Artikel |
Umfang: | 357-367 |
---|---|
ISSN: |
0047-2816
1541-3780 |
DOI: | 10.2190/gvc1-jfbh-y72r-92n8 |
veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Technical Writing and Communication |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Schlagwörter: | |
Kollektion: | SAGE Publications (CrossRef) |
<jats:p> Harris argues that linguistic theory is useful for solving certain problems encountered in technical writing theory and pedagogy [1]. However, he undermines his purpose by introducing irrelevant distinctions between competing syntactic theories (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar and Transformational Grammar) and by failing to exploit the full potential of the few applications he mentions. The passive rule is a case in point. It not only constitutes an operational test for identifying passive sentences, it also contributes to the flow of discourse by rearranging both thematic roles (e.g. agent and patient) and given/new information. The passive rule is only one of a class of noun phrase-moving operations that technical writing specialists may find useful. </jats:p> |