In the cited sentences the theme is expressed by the subject, and the rheme, by the predicate. This kind of actual division is direct.

On the other hand, a certain context may be built around the given sentence in the conditions of which the order of actual division may be changed into the reverse: the subject will turn into the exposer of the rheme, while the predicate – into the exposer of the theme.

– Isn’t it surprising that Tim is so fond of poetry?

– But you are wrong. Mary is fond of poetry, not Tim.

The actual division in which the rheme is expressed by the subject is referred to as inverted.

Communicative types of sentences

The sentence is a communicative unit, therefore the primary classification of sentences must be based on the communicative principle. This principle is formulated in traditional grammar as the purpose of communication. In accord with the purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have long been recognized in linguistics:

1. The declarative sentence.

2. The imperative (inducive) sentence.

3. The interrogative sentence.

These communicative sentence-types stand in strict opposition to one another.

The declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative.

e. g. “We live very quietly here, indeed we do: my niece here will tell you the same.”

“Oh, come, I’m not such a fool as that”, answered the squire.

The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative.

e. g. “Let’s go and sit down up here, Dinny.”

“Really, Alan, I never met anyone with so few ideas.”

The interrogative sentence expresses a question, i.e. a request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener. The interrogative sentence is naturally connected with an answer, forming together with it a question-answer dialogue unity.

e. g. “What do you suggest I should do, then?” said Mary helplessly.

“If I were you I should play a waiting game,” he replied.

Alongside the three cardinal communicative sentence-types, another type of sentences is recognized in the theory of syntax, the so-called exclamatory sentence. In modern linguistics it has been demonstrated that exclamatory sentences do not possess any complete set of qualities that could place them on one and the same level with the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. The property of exclamation should be considered as an accompanying feature which is effected within the system of the three cardinal communicative sentences. In other words, each of the cardinal communicative sentence-types can be represented in the two variants: non-exclamatory and exclamatory.

e. g. What a very small cabin it was!

It was a very small cabin.

How utterly she had lost count of events!

She had lost count of events.

Then why in God’s name did you come?

Why did you come?

Imperative sentences are characterized by a higher general degree of emotive intensity than the other two cardinal communicative sentence-types. Still, they form analogous pairs, whose constituent units are distinguished from each other by the presence or absence of exclamation as such.

e. g. Francis, will you please try to speak sensibly!

Try to speak sensibly.

As is seen from the given examples, all the three pairs of variant communicative types of sentences (non-exclamatory – exclamatory for each cardinal division) make up distinct semantico-syntactic oppositions effected by regular grammatical means of language, such as intonation, word-order and special constructions with functional-auxiliary lexemic elements.

The vast set of constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by cardinal, monofunctional communicative types. Besides these, it includes also intermediary predicative constructions distinguished by mixed communicative features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be disclosed in the light of the actual division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic oppositions.