do you get your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde). p align="justify"> But disconnected sequences like these are rather an exception than the rule. Moreover, they do not contradict in the least the idea of ​​a continual topical text as being formed of grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successive sentences in a disconnected sequence mark the corresponding transitions of thought, so each of them can potentially be expanded into a connected sequence bearing on one unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personage in a work of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic connection of sentences in the sequence) is usually introduced by a special author's comment. E.g.:
"You know, LS, you're rather a good sport." Then his tone grew threatening again. "It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to take "(CP Snow). p align="justify"> As we see, the general idea of ​​a sequence of sentences forming a text includes two different notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, ie a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose. It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual element with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second, semantico-syntactic cohesion. p align="justify"> The primary division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue sequences and dialogue sequences are to be discriminated. p align="justify"> In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterised as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:
We'll have a lovely garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and H. Hall). p align="justify"> The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N. S. Pospelov and L. A. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a "complex syntactic unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I). p align="justify"> As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the speakers-interlocutors in turn, so that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another; the sequence of this type, then , should be characterised as a two-direction sequence. Eg: "Annette, what have you done?" - "I've done what I had to do" (S. Maugham). p align="justify"> It must be noted that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a monologue text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (ie a dialogue of the speaker with himself). Eg: What were they jabbering about now in Parliament? Some two-penny-ha'penny tax! (J. Galsworthy). p align="justify"> On the other hand, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance forms not a rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers themselves as a collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:
St. Erth. All the money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. -Canynge (profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means something (J. Galsworthy). Elуоt. I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. Amanda. Or last night. El-yоt. Or the night before. Amanda. There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here (N. Coward). p align="justify"> Thus, the direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a conversation between two parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two types of sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence-connection used. The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of sentences making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction of one-direction communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence,...
