الفهرس 
Chapter One: IntroductoryOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 122 |  |  |
| | | from | 122 | | |
Abstract
In the previous pages some differences between features of INV and DET havc been discussed in the part or the writer. We can notice that there are some strategies or INV and OET used in the discourse under study. Whereas \vriters or articles foster the kind or OCT evidenced in the use of passives, nominal izations, and participles, they also write in involved style which shows a variety of manifestations of INV which a writer has with his/her audience.
Among these evidences of INV are the references to the writcr, references to his mental processes, the interaction between the writer and the reader, the use or modal expressions, and the use or cmphatic particles, ctc. There is a \’ast rangc of\’crbs to which propositions can be attached to convey dirrerent stances by thc writer towards what he is saying, and through this towards h is reader. In the case 0 f ”know”, ror instance, the proposition which follows the verb is offered as part of a mental process by the writcr.
We can come to the conclusion that Chafe’s concept of INV and DET leads to differences in syntax and complex characterization. INV writing is an interpersonal language experience betwccn the writer ami the reader, while DET writing is a comparatively lonely activity whcre there is no interaction bctween the sender and the rcceiver. Another feature of the INV writing is that it is contextualized whilc DET writing is decontextualized, i.e. it is because ofthose difrerences that make INV discourse highly context-bound, as it implies an action bctween the writer and the reader. On the other hand, DET discourse rcveals a detached quality in the arrangement of words and sentcnces.