Actual division of the sentence. Syntactic inversion

4.Word order and actual division of sentences
Some phrases and sentences mean something quite different from what would be obtained from simple addition of the used words. Why the same sentence can be understood in different ways by putting an emphasis from one word to another? If the proposal is in the context, the surrounding words are usually given explanations that help avoid mistakes. But sometimes the right conclusion very difficult to do. In addition, this significantly complicates the perception of information, because it requires too much effort to balance the places of the pieces of sentences and phrases. Given the problems of explanation and perception is important to separate syntax and the actual division of the sentence.
If you don't understand the move, what part of the sentence is the main, as a dependent, and what the speaker makes a statement based on facts already known, and that he wanted to present as a unique information – not received any cursory reading, no standing dialogue with the interlocutor. Therefore, when you set out to better align your words with some rules and norms inherent to the used language. Arguing in the opposite direction, the process of assimilation will be easier if you are familiar with the logical principles of formation of sentences and the most common use cases.
Syntax and semantics
We Can say that the actual division of sentences – and there are logical connections and accents, or rather, their explanations or finding. Misunderstandings often occur when communicating even in their native language, and when it comes to transactions with a foreign language, you need in addition to the standard issues to take into account differences in culture. In different languages traditionally prevails one or another word order and actual division of the sentence should be culturally appropriate.
References
1. Awh E, Smith EE, Koeppe RA, Schumacher EH, Katz S. Dissociation of storage and rehearsal in verbal working memory: evidence from PET. Psychol Sci.
2. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics.
3. Boland JE. The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes.
4. Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M. The Extended Argument Dependency Model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review.
5. Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M, Friederici AD. Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: the role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes.
6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on “semantic P600“ effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews.
7. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: a cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass.
8. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on ‘semantic P600’ effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews.
9. Caplan D, Alpert N, Waters G. PET studies of sentence processing with auditory sentence presentation. Neuroimage.
10. Caplan D, Vijayan S, Kuperberg G, West C, Waters G, Greve D, Dale AM. Vascular response to syntactic processing: an event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Hum Brain Mapp.