3. The theory of phrase

Modern linguists assume that the organized whole is greater than the mere sum of its parts. Phonemes taken separately don’t have any meaning. But when they are organized into morphemes they express a certain meaning. When morphemes are, in their turn, organized, a new kind of meaning emerges. When words are organized, they acquire a new meaning while separate words only have their own lexical meaning.

E.g. A table stands for a piece of furniture, but in King Arthur and his Round Table, the word table means knights. Besides, if we take words like busy, go, people, watch, they have only their separate meanings. But if we arrange them into a syntactic structure, e.g. busy people, or watch busy people go, they acquire some additional meaning [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981: 106].

So the important point to make here is that in English syntactic structures words are bound up by means of word order and proximity.

Another important point in the study of phrases is the distinction of grammatical and lexicological aspects of analysis. The difference between them boils down to the following point. Grammar is to study those aspects of phrases that spring from the grammatical peculiarities of the words making up the phrase as a whole, while lexicology has to deal with the lexical meaning of the words and their semantic grouping.

Thus, for example, B.A. Ilyish points out that from the grammatical point of view the two phrases read letters and invite friends are identical since they are built according to the same pattern ‘verb + noun’ indicating the object of an action. From the lexicological point of view, on the other hand, they are different as the constituting words belong to totally different semantic spheres. This is the basic difference between the grammatical and the lexicological approach to phrases. However, it is not always easy to draw the demarcation line while carrying out concrete research in this sphere.

The theory of phrase or a word combination in Russian linguistics has a long tradition going back to the XVIII^th century. According to Russian scholars, the term word combination can be applied only to such groups of words, which contain at least two notional words forming a grammatical unit. It’s obvious that Russian linguists restrict the use of the term ‘word combination’ to combinations of notional words. This makes the traditional approach to the definition of word combinations. For instance, acad. V.V. Vinogradov insisted on applying the term phrase to a limited number of structures. He excluded from phrases (1) combinations of formal and notional words, (2) predicative structures, and (3) coordinate structures, though he felt dubious⁶³ about it. Basically, these are the points of debate within the theory of phrase.

Thus many Russian linguists do not consider combinations of a notional word with a formal word as phrases. V.D. Arakin interprets a phrase as a combination of two or more notional words related to one another and performing the nominative function [Аракин 2000: 139]. A similar approach is taken by L.S. Barkhudarov: he defined a phrase as a combination of syntactically related notional words which does not make up a sentence in its own turn [Бархударов 1966: 44]. N.A. Kobrina et al also insist on the definition of the phrase as “a group of two or more notional words functioning as a whole” [Грамматика английского языка 1986: 26].

By contrast, other Russian grammarians and the majority of Western scholars consider that every combination of two or more words constitutes a unit that is termed phrase. In other words, a phrase is not only limited to combinations of notional words or a sharp distinction is not drawn between the two types of word groups such as wise men and to the lighthouse or under the table.

This approach marks the studies of such Soviet linguists as acad. V.M. Zhirmunsky, prof. B.A. Ilyish and prof. V.V. Burlakova who do not limit the definition of a phrase and think that its constituents may belong to any part of speech. For example, this is the definition of a phrase given by B.A. Ilyish: the term ‘phrase’ is applied to every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of a certain word (as for instance, the perfect forms of a verb). The constituent elements of a phrase may belong to any part of speech.

This makes a wide definition of a phrase, and it appears to be more adequate to a vast number of modern linguists. Restricting the notion of a phrase to those groups which contain at least two notional words has some drawbacks, for example the group ‘preposition + noun’ remains outside the classification and is therefore neglected in grammatical theory.

Prof. V.V. Burlakova shares B.A. Ilyish’s viewpoint. She defines a phrase as any combination of words, not only a subordinate structure. At the level of phrase structure we are interested only in the linear perspective of words. That’s why modern linguists tend to refer to phrases all combinations of words (irrespective of the limitation proposed by acad. V.V. Vinogradov). Grammarians make it a point that if combinations of words based on coordinate relations are excluded from consideration then they constitute an area which is completely overlooked in grammar theory. Nevertheless one has to admit that there are certain rules governing coordinate phrases as well both of syndetic and asyndetic types. E.g. phrases like nice new (house), nice long (summer holiday), delicious hot (vegetable soup)⁶⁴ are grammatical in contrast to phrases in which the word order becomes reverse, e.g. *new nice, *long nice, *hot delicious.

Another debatable problem in linguistics is whether a predicative combination of words forms a word combination. One view is that the phrase type ‘noun + verb’ (which is sometimes called a predicative phrase) exists and should be studied just like any other type of phrase. The other view is that no such type as ‘noun + verb’ exists as this combination constitutes a sentence rather than a phrase.

It is generally known that a sentence is based on predication, and predication, in its shortest and easiest definition, consists in saying something about something, as its purpose is communication. A word combination has no such aim. Word combinations are more like words because they are employed for naming things, actions, properties, etc. Thus some Russian grammarians seem justified in postulating the separate existence of the two entities which bear the names of ‘word combination’ and ‘sentence’ respectfully.

Nevertheless not all Russian linguists share this view point. This is, for one, the approach suggested by B.A. Ilyish. He is of the opinion that if we take the combination ‘noun + verb’ as a sentence, which is sometimes possible, that means that we are analyzing it at a different level, namely, at the sentence level. And what can be discovered at the sentence level cannot affect analysis at the phrase level or instead, take its place. In other words, the levels of analysis must not be mixed. Besides, for example the group a man writes is taken at the phrase level, this means that each of the components can be changed in accordance with its paradigm in any way so long as the connection with the other component does not prevent this. In the given case, the first component man can be changed according to its number, i.e. it can appear in the plural form, and the second component writes can be changed according to the verbal categories of aspect, tense, correlation, and mood. Thus the groups a man writes, men write, a man wrote, men are writing, etc. are all variants of the same phrase, just as men, a man are forms of the same noun; writes, wrote, are writing, has been writing are forms of the same verb [Ильиш 1971: 173-174].

It is also important to note that a phrase as such has no intonation of its own, no more than a word as such has one. B.A. Ilyish holds that this example is sufficient to show the difference between a phrase of the pattern ‘noun + verb’ and a sentence. The conclusion is that the existence of phrases of this type finds a solid base.

The general conclusion is as follows: if the former approach is taken as the basis for reasoning, admittedly phrases of the pattern ‘noun + verb’ do not exist. They are sentences. On the other hand, according to the latter approach the existence of phrases of the ‘noun + verb’ pattern is justified. Both these interpretations co-exist in modern linguistic theory.

As for the majority of Western scholars, they make no difference between subject-predicate combinations of words and any other word-combinations. They consider that every combination of two or more words constitutes a unit which they term ‘a phrase’. Nevertheless in D. Crystal’s ‘Encyclopedia of the English Language’ his definition of the phrase rules out predicative constructions from the domain of the phrase: “a phrase is a syntactic construction which typically contains more than one word, but which lacks the subject-predicate structure usually found in a clause” [Crystal 1995: 222].

These are the major questionable areas concerning the composition of phrases. Other aspects of phrases attract attention on the part of grammarians as well. Linguists make numerous attempts at the analysis and work out various approaches to the classification of the syntactic units in question.

The theory of phrase got its shape with the publication of ‘Language’ by Leonard Bloomfield in 1933. Later on American structuralists further developed Bloomfield’s theory of phrase. According to L. Bloomfield in all the languages there are only two types of phrases: endocentric and exocentric. In endocentric phrases the phrase belongs to the same form-class as one or more of its constituents.

E.g. Poor John ran away.

In order to know whether the phrase Poor John is endocentric or exocentric it is necessary to examine how it functions in a larger structure:

E.g. Tom and Mary ran away. → Tom ran away. → Mary ran away.

L. Bloomfield subdivided endocentric phrases into two subgroups: (1) subordinate: Poor John, and (2) coordinate: Tom and Mary.

In exocentric constructions the phrase does not share the form-class of any of its constituents:

E.g. John ran – predicative structure,

beside John, with me, by running away – prepositional phrase.

But some phrases are difficult to classify. E.g. to catch (trans.) a ball – endocentric (based on subordination), whereas The boy caught a ball – the phrase can’t be substituted for by any of its members and consequently cannot be classified as an endocentric phrase. This is a marginal case.

L. Bloomfield’s classification of phrases is based on substitution since he classifies phrases in accordance with their functioning at a higher level in larger structures. Nevertheless when discussing kinds of phrases L. Bloomfield himself never speaks of substitution as a technique applied in his analysis. But in reality it is so. With the help of this technique L. Bloomfield finds out if any of the constituents of a phrase can function at a higher level in the same way as the whole phrase.

If a phrase appears in a different syntactic position than any of its constituents, it is called exocentric. E.g. John ran is neither a nominative expression (like John) nor a finite verb expression (like ran). Therefore it is an exocentric construction. Among exocentric phrases there are also phrases of the following kind: beside John, with me, in the house, by running away. They are also exocentric as the phrase has a function different from either of its constituents and thus none of the elements constituting it can be used to substitute for the whole phrase at a higher level of analysis.

L. Bloomfield points out that in any language there are more endocentric constructions than exocentric ones. Thus it is but natural that he focuses his attention on the description of endocentric phrases. He distinguishes two kinds of endocentric phrases: (1) coordinate (or serial) and (2) subordinative (or attributive). In coordinate phrases the elements constituting the phrases are on the same footing, e.g. boys and girls, books, papers, pens, pencils (were lying…).

The structure of subordinative endocentric constructions is different as it is based on different kind of syntactic relations between its elements since they are not on the same footing. Only one element, which is called ‘the head’, can be used instead of the whole phrase; the other elements in the phrase are subordinate to the head, e.g. poor John where John is the head and the element poor is its attribute. The attribute in its turn may be a subordinate phrase. Thus the phrase very fresh milk consists of the head milk and the attribute very fresh, and this phrase in its turn consists of the head fresh and the attribute very. In this way there can be several ranks of subordinative position.

Closing the discussion, it is necessary to point out that L. Bloomfield advanced an interesting and original theory of phrase. He put the phrase study on a sound basis and, besides, he summarized the main results of linguistic research. L. Bloomfield’s theory of phrase is insightful as it prepared the ground for further discussion and indicated some ways of exploration of the phrase which was further undertaken by Harold Whitehall (1956), Paul Roberts (1958), Charles Hockett (1959).

Given the fact that “there are considerable differences between the syntactic patterns which can occur within each type of phrase, ranging from the very limited possibilities of pronoun phrases to the highly variable patterns found within noun phrases” [Crystal 1995: 222] it is quite obvious that there are diverse classifications of phrases which are built on various criteria. Linguists set the goal of making comprehensive classifications that could comprise many facets of a phrase structure. Fundamental treatment of phrases can be found in [Бурлакова 1975, 1984] which is reflected in [Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов 1981].

By way of summing up it should be pointed out that a phrase is a syntactic unit formed in keeping with laws of grammar. This makes a phrase a grammatical structure. On the other hand, it consists of constituent elements that are characterized by their combinatory power. This entails the study of the morphological make-up of phrases. Phrases are devoid of the communicative function that puts them at a different level of linguistic analysis if compared to sentences.