29. The Phrase, its definition. H. Sweet’s, e. Kruisinga’s, and o. Jespersen’s theories of the phrase.

Syntax treats phrases and sentences. Both syntactic units are studied in paradigmatic and syntagmatic syntax.

Phrase is the object of minor syntax. The phrase is usually understood as a combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of a word.

The phrase is a nominative unit which fulfils the function of polynomination denoting a complex referent (phenomenon of reality) analyzable into its component elements together with various relations between them.

BLOKH, SEMIONOVA

Traditional Classification of Phrases. (p. 247)

Agreement and Government as two main types of syntactic relations (p.247-248)

Nominative Classification of Phrases (p. 248, scheme – 249)

Special Means of Syntactic Connection of Phrase Constituents (248-249)

H. SWEET

When words are joined together grammatically and logically without forming a full sentence, we call the combination a word-group.

When words come together without there being any special connection between them, they may be said to constitute a word-collocation.

Adjunct-Words and Head-Words

The most general relation b/w words in sentences from a logical point of view is that of adjunct-word and head-word, or, as we may also express it, of modifier and modified.

The distinction b/w adjunct an head is only a relative one: the same word may be a head in one sentence or context, and an adjunct in another. Or the same word may even be an adjunct and head at the same time.

Relations b/w words

1) The first main division is that of modifying and connective.

The earth – the is a modifying form-word

The Earth is round, you and I – is, and – connective form-words.

The relations b/w words in sentences are shown mainly by connectives, while modifiers have almost the function of word-formers.

2) When two words are associated together grammatically their relation may be one either of coordination or of subordination. Coordination is shown either by word-order only, or by the use of form-words, as in men, women, and children, where the first two full words are connected only by their position, while the last two are connected by the form-word and.

3) Subordination implies the relation of head-word and adjunct-word. But there are degrees of subordination.

• when the subordination of an assumptive (attributive) word to its head-word is so slight that the two are almost coordinate, the adjunct-word is said to be in apposition to its head-word (King Alfred, Good king)

• I bought these books at Mr. Smith’s the bookseller’s – the connection b/w the adjunct-words these and bookseller’s and their head-words is shown by each adjunct word taking the inflection of its head-word. This repetition of the inflection of a head-word in its adjunct-word is called concord, and the two words are said to agree in whatever grammatical form they have in common: the concord b/w these and books consists in their agreeing in number – that is, in both having plural inflection.

• When a word assumes a certain grammatical form through being associated with another word, the modified word is said to be governed by the other one, and the governing word is said to govern the grammatical form in question. Thus in a day’s work day’s is governed by work, and work itself is said to govern the genitive case.

E. KRUISINGA

Close and Loose Syntactic Groups

A syntactic group is a combination of words that forms a distinct part of a sentence.

We speak of a close group when one of the members is syntactically the leadinf element of the group. We speak of a loose group when each element is comparatively independent of the other members.

Close groups can best be enumerated when we arrange them according to their leading member: we may thus distinguish verb groups, noun groups, adjective groups, adverb groups, preposition groups. The pronoun groups are most suitably included in the noun or adjective groups to which they are evident parallels.

Classification of these groups – IOFIK p. 123

The members of a loose group may be connectd by other words or not – linked or unlinked groups.

The number of members – double, triple, quadruple, multiple.

When a linked group contains more than two members – some members are linked, others are not – full-linking and part-linking

Broken and continuous.

Broken – when its members are eparated by a clear pause

Continuous – when there is no such pause b/w its members.

O. JESPERSEN

The Three Ranks

In any composite denomination of a thing or person we always find that there is one word of supreme importance to which the others are joined as subordinated. The chief word is defined (qualified, modified) by another word, which in its turn may be defined by a third word, etc. We are thus to establish different “ranks” of words according to their mutual relations as defined and defining. In the combination extremely hot weather the last word weather, which is evidently the chief idea, may be called primary; hot, which defines weather, secondary, and extremely, which defines hot, tertiary.

If now we compare the combination a furiously barking dog (a dog barking furiously), in which dog is primary, barking secondary, and furiously tertiary, with the dog barks furiously, it is evident that the same subordination obtains in the latter as in the former combination. Yet there is fundamental difference b/w them, which calls for separate terms for the two kinds of combination: we shall call the former kind junction, and the latter nexus.

As regards terminology, the words primary, secondary and tertiary are applicable to nexus as well as to junction, but it will be useful to have special names adjunct for a secondary word in a junction, and adnex for a secondary word in a nexus. For tertiary – subjunct, quarternary – sub-subjuct.

Junction and Nexus

If we compare the red door and the barking dog on the one hand (junction), and on the other the door is red and the dog barks or the dog is barking (nexus), we find that the former kind is more rigid and stiff, and the latter more pliable; there is, as it were, more life in it. A junction is like a picture, a nexus is like a drama or a process. In a nexus something new is added to the conception contained in the primary: the difference is seen clearly:

The blue dress is the oldest.

The oldest dress is blue.

A dancing woman charms.

A charming woman dances.

30. Complicated sentences. (Ilysh. Chapter XXXII. Transition from simple to composite sentences. – pp. 254-263).

According to the structure, sentences are divided into simple, composite and some linguists (e.g. Ilysh) distinguish complicated sentences.

The notions of simple and composite sentences seem to be well defined and distinctly opposed to each other, however this doesn’t mean that there are no transitional elements between them. There belong sentences with such syntactical phenomena as:

1. sentences with homogeneous parts (sometimes termed “contracted sentences”);

2. sentences with a dependent appendix;

3. sentences with secondary predication.

These phenomena are like in that they gradually get out of the limits of the simple sentence and approach the composite one.

1. By homogeneous parts of the sentence we mean parts of the same category (two or more subjects, two or more objects, etc.), standing in the same relation to the other parts of the sentence, or speaking about homogeneous secondary parts to the same head word. According to the older terminology, such sentences used to be termed “contracted”, as if they had been contracted out of two or more sentences.

E.g. I met my relatives and friends. =I met my relatives, and I met my friends.

According to Ilysh, such treatment doesn’t seem to be justified, “as it introduces a sort of historical element, implying the origin of such sentences, which is both doubtful and completely irrelevant for the study of these sentences as they exist in the modern language”.

Some types of sentences with homogeneous parts quite clearly fit into the general type of simple sentence. This is the case, e.g., with sentences having several homogeneous objects to one predicate, or several homogeneous adv. modifiers to one predicate (e.g. I only came to thank you and return the coat you lent me), or several homogeneous attributes to one head word.

However, the number of homogeneous parts in the sentence can be much larger. E.g. sentences in which only the subject keeps the sentence together, while there are two predicates, and each predicate has its adverbial modifier, object, etc.: She makes way proudly for her, and then goes into the house. The reason why we can’t call this sentence compound is that it has only one subject and thus can’t be separated into two clauses. If we repeat the subject before the second predicate we shall get a compound sentence consisting of 2 clauses and identical in the meaning with the original sentence with homogeneous parts.

2. In the first place, there are the phrases consisting of the conjunction than and a noun, pronoun, or phrase following an adj. or adv. In the comparative degree: e.g. I’ve known many ladies who were prettier than you (пример можно или даже лучше изменить, хотя решать Bам). It would always be possible to expand this appendix into a clause by adding the required form of the verb to be. e.g. I’ve known many ladies who were prettier than you are…After this change we have a clause introduced by the conj. than and the sentence is complex one.

Very similar to these are the sentences containing an adj. or adv., which may be preceded by the adverb as, and an additional part consisting of the conj. as and some other word. e.g. His expression had been as bland and clear as the day without. In this case the finite verb might be added at the end, and the sentence would become a complex one.

There belong also sentences containing a phrase which is introduced by a subordinating conj.: Jane, though a little disappointed, had too much good nature to make any opposition. It seems much better to say that the phrase though a little disappointed is a subordinate part than to suppose that it is a subordinate clause, with the subject (she) and the link verb (was) “omitted”. According to Ilysh, this phrase is a loose attribute to the subject.

Sometimes a secondary part of the sentence is added on to it, connected with the main body of the sentence by a coordinating conj., although there is no any part in the main body that could be considered homogeneous with the part thus added. E.g. He tried to escape, but in vain. The coordinating conj. makes it difficult to term such phrases loose secondary parts of the sentence: it gives them something of a separate status.

3. Secondary predication is a kind of predication found between the elements of the predicative constructions.

a) Complex object: I saw him run.

I saw – primary predication; him run – secondary one.

There different views on the syntactic function of the group him run. The main difference is between those who think that it is a syntactic unit (and the function is complex object), and those who think that him and run are different parts of the sentence (so him functions as an object, while run is termed the objective predicative). Neither of the approaches can be proved to be the only right one. But in favor for the 1^st view we can say that in some cases the 2 elements can’t be separated without changing the meaning of the sentence. E.g. I hate you to go (if stop after its first element we‘ll get I hate you…). H. Sweet, discussing these phenomena, referred to the sentence I like boys to be quiet, which, as he pointed, doesn’t imply even the slightest liking for boys.

The choice between 2 possibilities: complex object or object and objective predicative largely a matter of arbitrary decision. If we choose the second one, and state in each case 2 separate parts of the sentence, this will add to the list of secondary parts one more item - the objective predicative.

However, the choice depends on the factors lying outside grammar. (Semantics).

O. Jesperson has proposed the term “NEXUS” for every predicative grouping of words. He also distinguishes between “JUNCTION” (a connection of two words or phrases without any predicative relation between them, as in a new house) and “NEXUS” (any connection of two words or phrases with a predicative relation between them, as in he spoke; him speak).

b) The absolute construction. It expresses what is usually called attendant circumstances. This secondary action may be the cause of the main action, or its condition, etc., but these relations are not indicated by any grammatical means. What is expressed by any grammatical means is merely the subordinate position of the absolute construction.

Prof. Blokh (pp.330-350) calls complicated sentences in which one predicative line is represented by a semi-predicative construction - semi-clauses, which are parts of the semi-composite sentences. Semi-composite sentences are divided into semi-complex and semi-compound acc/ to the type of relations between the semi-clause and the main clause – subordinative and coordinative, respectively.

Semi-complex sentence is derived min. from 2 base sentences: matrix (dominant part) and insert (subordinate semi-clause). The semi-complex sentences fall into a number of subtypes. Their basic division depends on the character of predicative fusion (слиянии, смешении). This may be effected by: a) the process of position-sharing (word-sharing); b) the process of direct linear expansion.

1. Sentences based on a) fall into those of

• subject-sharing (is built up by 2 base sentences overlapped round the common S.) e.g. The man stood. +The man was silent. = The man stood silent. (As the moon rose it was red. Pleni-complex sent.)and

• object-sharing (is built up of 2 base sentences overlapping round the word that perform different functions: Object in the matrix sent. and Subject in the insert). E.g. We saw him. + He approached us. = We saw him approach us.

2. The sentences based on the semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of

- attributive complication (is built up of 2 base sentences having an identical element that occupies the position of Subj. in the insert and any notional position in the matrix). E.g. I came in late for the supper. + The supper was served in the dining-room. = I came in late for the supper served in the dining-room.

- adverbial complication (is built up of 2 base sentences one of which(insert) is predicatively reduced and embedded in an adv. position in the matrix). E.g. The task was completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. = The task, when completed, seemed a very easy one.

- nominal-phrase complication (is built up of 2 base sentences one of which (insert) is partially nominalized (changed into a verbid phrase of infinitival or gerundial type) and embedded in one of the nominal and prepositional adv. positions in the matrix). E.g. Tom’s coming late annoyed his mother. – The fact that Tom came late annoyed his mother.

Each subtype is related to a definite complex sentence (=pleni-complex sent.) as its explicit structural prototype.

Semi-compound sentence is built on the principle of coordination. The structure of it is traced to min. 2 base sentences having an identical element belonging to one or both of their principal syntactic positions (either S., or Pr., or both). Coordinative fusion can be syndetic or asyndetic. E.g. The entrance door stood open, and also the door of the living-room. = The entrance door stood open. + The door of the living room stood also open.

(i.e. sentences with homogeneous parts + уподобление из ЧТП: He came here to hear a strange noise. – He came here. and He heard a strange noise).

H. Sweet (pp. 383-384 синий учебник).

Such a simple sentence as I hear of his coming home can be transformed into complex I heard that he had come home. The 1^st sent. is called extended. Complexes can also be shortened by making sentence-connecting into word-connecting conj. E.g. He is tall, but he isn’t strong. is made into a simple - He is tall, but not strong. Such sentence Sweet considers also to be extended, but to distinguish them from the extended he prefers calling them contracted.

31. Types of Phrases. Syntactic relations between the components of a phrase (лекция).

Phrase is a debatable term: = word combination, or word clusters, or word collocations. Bloomfield insisted on “phrase”.

Usually phrase is treated as a unit of polynomination.

e.g. red-haired, blue-eyed, long-legged - {red}+{hair}+{ed}, red hair +{ed}?, ٭haired

Formal grammars treat all the sentences as having a simple linear structure (a string of constituents, concatenation of elements): a+b+c+d.

Immediate Constituent Analysis (IC analysis) was introduced by L.Bloomfield (1933). ‘Any English-speaking person who concerns himself with this matter, is sure to tell us that the immediate constituents of Poor John ran away are the two forms poor John and ran away, that each of these is, in turn, a complex form; that the immediate constituents of ran away are ran and away; and that the constituents of poor John are poor and John.’

There is obvious parallelism between IC analysis and the traditional procedure of ‘parsing’ sentences into ‘subject’ and ‘predicate’, and each of these, where appropriate into words, phrases and clauses of various types.

Underlying both approaches to grammatical analysis is the view that sentences are not just linear sequences of elements, but are made up of ‘layers’ of immediate constituents, each lower level constituent being part of a higher level constituent.

The IC analysis can be graphically presented in a number of ways. We may use brackets [(Poor John)(ran away)]. Or we may construct a tree diagram:

The IC analysis enables us to treat a number of ambiguities on different levels of grammatical descriptions:

1. They can fish: can – could, or can – canned.

2. A beautiful girl’s dress: a beautiful girl or a beautiful dress (a method of brackets)

Such systems are called phrase structure grammars. We may begin by providing a set of rules of the following form:

(1). Σ – NP + VP

(2). VP – V + Adv

(3). NP – Adj + N

Σ {NP (Adj + N) + VP (V + Adv)}

The three rule grammar will generate such sentences as Poor John ran away with their correct constituent structure. There are alternative rules:

(1). Σ – NP + VP

(2a). VP – Vintr. + Adv

(2b). VP – Vtr. + NP

(3). NP – Adj + N

Old men love young women (J.Lyons)

There are 2 understandings of the term phrase:

1. Narrow meaning: Moscow School (end of the 19^th c.). A phrase is a combination of 2 or more notional words connected by means of subordination: e.g. cold weather, writing letters, fruit salad, Peter’s book, some of them, very fast – NOT! mother and father, at dawn, Peter came.

2. Prof. Barkhudarov: a phrase is a combination of 2 or more notional words, connected by means of subordination, coordination and predicative relation if it cannot function as a sentence: mother and father, Peter came - ?at dawn. Prof.Blokh divides all the phrases into equipotent phrases – syntactically equal elements (mother and father) and dominational phrases – syntactically not equal elements (reading letters).

3. Combinations of a notional word with a functional word are equivalent to separate words by their nominative function: with difficulty, too cold, of Mr. Snow, to him. Prof.Blokh calls these combinations formative ones. Their contextual dependence is obvious. This is the phenomenon of synsemantism (семантическая недостаточность компонентов языка). Expanding the formative phrases corresponding to notional words one can obtain notional phrases of contextually self-dependent value – autosemantic at their level of functioning: did it with difficulty, was too cold, ideas of Mr. Snow, gave it to him.

A phrase and a sentence? (communicative/ non-communicative units of language): working hard – Working hard?

Classification of phrases:

1. According to their distribution – foreign approach:

Paratactic phrases (free relations between elements; elements are equal)	Hypotactic phrases (interdependence of elements; one element is leading)
Examples:	Endocentric (the distribution of the phrase is identical to one of its components); further division is based on syntactical criterion		Exocentric (the distribution of the phrase is different from the distribution of its components); further division is based on morphological criterion
E.g. Yes, please. e.g. We, the people,	subordinative	coordinative	predicative	prepositional
	e.g. fresh milk	e.g. some pens and pencils	e.g. for him to do	e.g. at sunrise

Hockett developed own classification:

endocentric		exocentric
coordinative	subordinative	directive in the box; asked me	connective became exhausted	predicative He is a big man.

Predicative phrase: He is a big man (structure: pronoun + VP; VP=verb + NP; NP=noun+adj.);

He has been a big man. He was a big man. (structure is the same). So there is one phrase structure, but 3 sentences.

Henry Gleanson presented the relations between elements graphically (Посмотрите значки для обозначения типов фраз в лекции).

2. According to the type of connection: subordinative, coordinative and predicative phrases (subordination, coordination, predicative relation)

Subordination:

1) agreement (concord) – identical form of the dependent word and the head word e.g. this book – these books; Flying planes can be dangerous (Flying planes is/are dangerous);

2) government – a dependent word takes a certain form required by a head word e.g. seeing her, Peter’s;

3) adjoinment – juxtaposition of the components e.g. reading fast; the most popular type;

4) enclosure – Ilysh – when some elements are enclosed between 2 other parts of the phrase e.g. giving her a present, a nice dress.

a) According to the morphological properties of the head word, nucleus: noun phrases, verb phrases, adjective phrases, pronominal and adjectival phrases.

b) According to the syntactic function of the adjunct (modifier): attributive (cold weather), object (writing letters), adverbial phrases (very interesting).

c) According to the position of the adjunct: with prepositive adjunct (cold weather), with postpositive adjunct (money to spend), with mitpositive adjunct (did not know), frame structures (as good as).

Coordinative phrases:

• according to presence or absence of connectors (syndetic and asyndetic);

• according to the type of conjunctions (with copulative connection pens and pencils; with disjunctive connection just but strict; with adversative connection now or never).

Predicative phrases (acc. to the type of predication: primary, secondary).

3. According to the number of constituents: binary (cold weather) and multiple (a girl with blue eyes) – multiple elementary phrase.

Elementary phrase can’t be reduced, but extended e.g. a very cold Russian winter (is a binary elementary phrase).

Conclusion: there are 3 principles of classification (1. Distribution (basic one); 2. Type of syntactic relations; 3. Number of elements).

Valency of the phrase.

Definition: a capacity of a phrase to enter syntactic relations with other elements. Earlier this term was referred only to verbs. Теньёр believed that it’s an ability of the verb to take a number of adjuncts. Adjuncts can be obligatory (called complements, except S.) and facultative/ optional (supplements). E.g. He made some tea for her in the morning.

So the valency can also be obligatory and optional. However, the meaning of the phrase isn’t the sum of its components. Compare: fruit salad and fruit knife (knife for cutting fruit).