Firbas (1979): "Semantically speaking, an object expresses an absolutely essential amplification of the semantic content of a transitive verb."

Hawkins (1990) mintzo zen gain paper inportantea zein dúten jokatzen buru sintaktikoak afin ezarri marko egokia non euren osagarriak sintaktikoki ondo kokatuko diren (ikus "Hawkins (1990): '... the attachment of NP to its dominating node cannot be made with confidence until the relevant (rightmost) head category is encountered.'"):

... the attachment of NP to its dominating node cannot be made with confidence until the relevant (rightmost) head category is encountered. [Hawkins, 1990]

Bai, ordenazio (kategoria sintaktiko) batzuk ...

... can act as unambiguous signals on-line ... [Hawkins, 1990]

bitárten besteak ...

... do not permit reliable inferences ... [Hawkins, 1990]

Horrá oinarrizko diferentzia.

Atzo, gainera, azpimarratu nahi genuen ze abantailak ti ordena progresiboa (sintaktikoki burulehena) ez dira amaitzen an esparru sintaktiko hutsa (zeintan kontua litzaké ziurtasunez aritzea barrén estruktura sintaktikoak), baizik-ze abantaila horiek zabaltzen dira ki esparru interpretatiboa, informatiboa, expresiboa, diskursiboa...

Adibidez, atzo aipatzen genuen Firbas, nok zún esan honako hau gain aspektu semantikoa e ordenazioa arten aditza eta bere objetua:

Semantically speaking, an object expresses an absolutely essential amplification of the semantic content of a transitive verb. If this amplification is constituted by a context independent notion, the necessity of amplification points in the direction of the further development of communication and makes the verb serve as an introductory element. To sum up, a. context independent goal of action is communicatively more important than the action itself. A context independent object expreesing a goal of action carries a higher degree of CD than the verb (cf. Firbas 1959). [Firbas, 1979]

Ondorioz, orohar, objetua abantailatsuki interpretatuko da (semantikoki ere) noiz aurkeztua ga bere aditza. [⇶]

Aditzaren osagarria izaten dá esaldiko parte dinamikoena (informazio rhematikoena, xehetuena, uztartzeko zailena, hedagarriena, pisutsuena, prosodikoki indartsuena)

Bai, aditzaren osagarria izaten dá esaldiko parte dinamikoena (informazio rhematikoena, xehetuena, uztartezko zailena, hedagarriena, pisutsuena, prosodikoki markatuena). Eta dinamismo horrek zuzenean eramaten gaitu ki dinamismo komunikatiboa ga Firbas barné Pragako Eskola eta haien Functional Sentence Perspective, zein adibidez, János Nagy-k honela aurkeztu zuen an bere 2015eko doktore-tesia:

The founder of the FSP [Functional Sentence Perspective] theory was Vilém Mathesius (1975), who wanted to set up a formal system for dividing the sentence into parts according to their information-load. [Nagy, 2015]

gero azálduz zértan den perspektiba funtzional hori:

In the FSP [Functional Sentence Perspective], functional refers to the functional linguistic and theoretical approach. It operates primarily at the sentence level, but through sentence level analysis we can get to a higher text level [...]. It is perspectival, because perspective expresses here the inner dynamism of a sentence unit, namely its directedness towards the most rhematic element in the sentence. [Nagy, 2015]

Eskola horretan Firbas mintzo zén gain dinamismo komunikatiboa, adibidez an bere artikulua titúlatzen "A functional view of 'ordo naturalis'" (1979), non dioen:

Let me approach the problem from the point of view of communicative importance (communicative weight), or rather — to take the dynamic character of communication duly into account — communicative dynamism (= CD) (Cf. Firbas 1971). The concept of CD is based on the fact that communication is not a static, but a dynamic phenomenon. By CD I understand a quality displayed by communication in its development (unfolding) of the information to be conveyed and consisting in advancing this development. By the degree of CD carried by a sentence element, I understand the extent to which the sentence element contributes to the further development of the communication.

The concept of CD can be established empirically and inductively. Adopting this approach, we find that elements conveying known information (context dependent elements) contribute less to the further development of communication than elements conveying unknown information (context independent elements). Context dependent elements carry a lower degree of CD than context independent elements. [Firbas, 1979]

Bai aditzaren osagarria izaten dá esaldiko parte dinamikoena, rhematikoena, xehetuena, uztartzeko zailena, hedagarriena, pisutsuena, prosodikoki indartsuena. non dén garatzen informazio zehatzena ("development (unfolding) of the information"). 

Aditza ez da hain dinamikoa, ez da hain rhematikoa (nahiz bere informazioa dén fundamentala ki jarraitu garatzen esaldia), ez da hain xehetua (justuki osagarriak xehatzen eta osatzen du aditza), ez da zaila uztartzeko (prozesatzeko), baizik ondo erraza (sujetuaren ostean perfektuki uztartzen da bai sintaktikoki, bai semantikoki, bai diskursiboki, bai ...), ez da hedagarria (aditza hedatzen da justuki bidéz bere osagarria), ez da hain pisutsua (ez da izaten batere pisutsua), ez da hain prosodikoki indartsua (justuki zatio bere izaera gutxio rhematikoa zein bere osagarria), halan-ze esan ahal da ze aditzaren informazioa dá garatzen (destolezten, unfolding) an bere (orohar hobe geroko) osagarria. [⇶]

Firbas (1979) buruz Mathesius (1911): "Mathesius conception of word order as an outcome of an interplay of principles ... These principles may differ in intensity an manner [...] from an stage to another in the historical development of a language"

A ideia ezen bádira zenbait printzipio komunikatibo zeinen arabera diferenteki optimizatzen dira munduko sintaxi partikularrak an euren etapa ezberdinak (azpi baldintza ondo ezberdinak) ez da batere berria. Izan ere, ideia hori aurkitu ahal dugu jada an Mathesius (1911), zeintaz Firbas-ek dio (an bere "A functional view of 'ordo naturalis'", 1979):

Mathesius conception of word order as an outcome of an interplay of principles is in harmony with his endeavour to fully appreciate the tendencies that are at work in language (Mathesius 1911). These principles may differ in intensity an manner from language to language, or even from an stage to another in the historical development of a language. Language is therefore not viewed as a closed and perfectly balanced system. [Firbas, 1979]

Hor konsideratzen ari da a ideia ezen sintaxiek izan ahal dituzte baldintza eta behar komunikatibo ezberdinak zeinen arabera optimizatuko dute euren ordena diferenteki an etapa ezberdinak zehar euren garapen historikoa.

Beste batzutan ere erabili da halako ideia e optimizazioa, baina askotan soilik konsideratuz bere alde sinkronikoa: hala egiten du adibidez Tomlin-ek (1986), zein dún proposatzen zenbait printzipio funtzional zeinen arabera azalduko litzake gaur egungo hitz-ordenen banaketa sinkronikoa, non lehenesten dirá SOV eta SVO (ikus gure sarrera titulatzén "[#12] Tomlin (1964): "These principles derive from fundamental cognitive constraints on the processing of linguistic information.""). Hawkins bera ere, an bere "Efficiency and complexity in grammars" (2004), finean ari da formaltzen eredu bat ki inplementatu Tomlin-en (1986) maiztasunen ordenazio sinkronikoa. Ikus ondoko adibidea aterea ti gure "Hizkuntza bere osaotasunean" (2017):

Mathesiusen planteamendua, ordea, ez da soilik sinkronikoa, baizik ere diakronikoa, berdin nola Hoeks-ena (2016), edo berdin nola gurea ere noiz genioén an "Sintaxia da ekonomia purua":

Munduko hizkuntzen sintaxiak dira momentuko emaitza puntualak zein diren sortzen ti maximizazio komunikatibo-ekonomiko konkretuak zein doaz garatzen diakronikoki an hizkuntzak segun zenbait irizpide orokor (zeinen relevantzia doa aldatzen), eta azpi zenbait restrikzio estruktural (zeinen indarrak ere aldakorrak baitira).

Bai, baldintza eta behar komunikatiboak erabat diferenteak dirá ...

... from an stage to another in the historical development of a language. [Firbas (1979) buruz Mathesius (1911)]

eta, dimensio diakroniko-funtzional hori dá kruziala. [⇶]

F1 eta F2 berez dira foku-mota ezberdinak: F1 enfatikoagoa eta F2 landuagoa eta neutroagoa

Jan Firbas hizkuntzalari famatuak zún idatzi an 1982 ondoko hau (an bere artikuluá "Has every sentence a theme and a rheme?"):

A functional analysis can divide a verbal sentence into a thematic and a non-thematic section, i.e. into a theme and a non-theme. [Firbas, 1982]

Sekzio thematikoa dá osatzen kin informazio aski ezaguna eta oinarrizkoa nondik abiátu mezua, bitarten sekzio rhematikoa osatuko den kin informazio berria, zeinen transmisioa baita helburua on mezua.

Zentzu horretan esan genezake ze themak aportatzen du informazio gutxiago (da gutxiago informatiboa), bitarten rhemak aportatzen du yago informazio (da yago informatiboa). Edo alternatiboki, Jan Firbas beraren terminutan, esango genuke ze themak du gradu bajuagoa on dinamismo komunikatiboa, bitartén rhemak daramá berekin gradu altuagoa on dinamismo komunikatiboa:

The non-thematic section can be divided into a transition and a rheme. Theme, transition, and rheme are not position-bound concepts; they are not invariably linked with the beginning, middle and the end of the sentence, respectively. They are regarded as carriers of degrees of communicative dynamism (=CD). Let me recall that by a degree of CD carried by a linguist element I understand the relative extent to which such an element contributes towards the further development of communication. The theme (th) is constituted by an element (elements) carrying the lowest, the rheme (rh) by an element (elements) carying the higest, degree(s) within a sentence. The transition ranks between the two. ... Under normal contextual conditioning (i.e., in their most natural uses), the following sentence structures would function in these perspectives: A boy (rh) came (tr) into the room, Into the room (th) came (tr) a boy (rh), There (th) was (tr) a boy (rh) in the room (th). [Firbas 1982]

Aurreko postetan esana dugunez, SOV eta SVO ordenetan sujetua izaten dá thema, eta predikatua (OV edo VO) izaten dá sekzio rhematikoa. Baina, predikatuaren barruan bereizi dezakegu, alde batetik. elementu transizional bat kin gradu ertaina on dinamismo komunikatiboa, zein izaten baita aditza; eta beste aldetik beste elementu bat kin gradu altuena on dinamismo komunikatiboa, zein izaten baita aditzaren osagarria (delarik, objetu direktoa, indirektoa, edo beste edozein osagarri).

Kontuan hartuz hóriek-graduak on dinamismo komunikatiboa, normalean SVO izanen da estruktura koherenteena, informatiboena, komunikatiboena, artikulatuena, transizionatuena eta horregatik, printzipioz, neutroena ere. SVO edo (akaso hobeki esanda) F2.

Horregatik F2 izaten da neutroagoa zein F1, zeren F2 agertzen da atzé transizio lasai bat (aditza) zeinek prestátu entzule edo irakurlea afin jaso informazio berriena eta esanguratsuena an baldintza estrukturalki sendoak. Eta horrexegatik F2 fokulekua (eta bide beretik estruktura buru-lehenak, oro har) da ahaltsuagoa, koherenteagoa, pausatuagoa, reflexiboagoa, artikulatuagoa...

Horrek ez du esan nahi ze F1-ek ez duela ezertarako balio. Bai, balio du, bereziki noiz ez dugun transiziorik nahi, noiz hainbeste nahi dugun enfatizatu gure informazioa non nahiago dugun zuzenean jo tu informazio hori, gabé prestatu bidea. Bai F1 egokia da tu mezu bereziki adierazkor-kontestualak, baina bestela, noiz ez dugun horrenbesteko urgentziarik, hobe doa estruktura diskursiboa, zeintara jotzen duten hizkuntzak, ahal badute. [120] [⇶]