6. The two leaders found it beneficial to have this opportunity, after so many years without contact, to present candidly to one another their views on a variety of issues. (The Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqué, Feb. 28, 1972)
7. No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. (Patrick Henry: Speech in the Virginia Convention of Delegates)
8. The graver and more important the matter, the more damage to the United Nations is a resolution which remains a dead letter. (from the United Nations documents)
9. From the Middle East have radiated the sparks of the world civilizations which have been blessings to humanity.
CONCLUSION
Inversion is a technique closely connected with grammar, rhetoric, logic, usage, and thinking style.
Robert Norton (1987) pointed out that writing in English has often been characterized as based almost entirely on a deductive thought pattern such as that characteristic of Aristotelian logic. In this pattern, one properly begins with a general topic sentence and then systematically restricts its meaning by presenting more specific details at several levels
of generality—proceeding from the most general to the least general. This consistent progression in a more or less straight line is what linguists and others have called linearity.
English essayists are deductive writers, using mostly restrictive and coordinate relationships in an overall general-to-specific sequence, whereas Chinese essays are more likely to use a non-deductive, non-linear
approach
to
writing
that
involves
primarily
a
specific-to-general sequence and other types of relationships, as what is called “circular/spiral”, “indirect” or “rambling” style . It is a widely held notion that English is basically a deductively organized language.
In English essays the proportion of restrictive and coordinate relationships predominated and the percentage of general-to-specific restrictive sequences (characteristic of deductive organization) was much higher than the corresponding percentage of specific-to-general sequences. Furthermore, the prediction that Chinese essayists are not deductive writers is equally well substantiated by the higher percentage of specific-to-general sequences found for them among the restrictive relationships. It is fairly obvious from the predominance of specific-to-general sequences in Chinese essays that Chinese writings tend to be inductively organized.
Many linguists maintain that discourse, which involves the interrelationships of sentences and paragraphs, is concerned basically
with what goes on in the writer's mind. The above differences at the discourse level are often found at the sentence level.
Given below is a brief summary showing some major differences between the two languages in the arrangement of information in a sentence or a discourse (see notes after section 2.2.2):
英语：较常受亚里士多德的演绎法逻辑思维模式的影响，突出主
语或主题句，注重分析推理，直线性（linearity）、有秩序、有层次地围绕主题展开，信息安排往往采用“突显”语序（salient order）：由近及远，开门见山，一语破的，头短尾长，先点出主要的或重要的判断、结论、观点、态度、要旨、结果、行为等，再追叙一些与此有关的背景、历史、条件、环境、事实、情况、情节、理由、原因、分析、例证等（general-to-specific sequence），句子或语篇开头注重的是“where the argument/talk is going”；也有受培根的归纳法逻辑思维模式的影响（Baconian inductive thought pattern），采用相反的语序，或按照时间先后的自然语序。
汉语：较常受儒、道、佛的悟性思维模式的影响，注重话题，注
重“意识流”，注重事理和先后顺序，常常采用非演绎式的、往往是领悟式的归纳型（because-therefore structure）、经验式的临摹型（isomorphism）或螺旋式（circular/spiral/indirect）、漫谈式（rambling）的思
维模式，喜欢“摆事实，讲道理”，信息安排常常按照“自然”语序（natural order）：由远及近，“层层剥笋”，逐层深入，头长尾短，先叙述一些背景、历史、条件、环境、事实、情况、情节、理由、原因、分析、例证等，再点出主要的或重要的判断、结论、观点、态度、要旨、结果、行为等（specific-to-general sequence），句子或语篇开头注重的是“where the argument/talk is coming from”，通常反映了现实的时间和事理顺序，犹如对现实生活经历的临摹；也有类似英语的逻辑顺序。
The following shows some general differences between English and Chinese in sentence structure and word order:
比 较 要 点 英 语 先总提后分述： 表态部分（判断、结论等）叙事部分与表态部在前， 分的顺序 叙事部分（事实、分析等） 在后 意思强弱、轻重部先弱后强，先轻后重，先顺序往往相反 分的顺序 小后大 顺序往往相反 先分述后总提： 汉 语
