Lecture 7: The Phrase Theory.The Notion of the Phrase.

The Composite Sentence.

Outline

4. The phrase.

5. The simple sentence.

6. The composite sentence.

1) The phrase

The phrase is the basic unit of syntax. Phrases make up sentences. The smallest phrase consists of two words. The phrase may become a sentence if it acquires its features. The phrase is differentiated from a sentence, because it is not a unit of communication. Like a word a phrase is a unit of nomination, but unlike the word the referent of a phrase is of a composite character: an object + its character (red pencil); an action + its character (do immediately).

When we say that a phrase consists of at least 2 words we should differentiate it from an analytical form. Analytical form is treated as one unit with no syntactic relations within it. One of the components of the analytical form is an auxiliary element while the other is a notional element. The analytical form appears and exists only when its two obligatory components are used together to express one grammatical meaning:

Has given – analytical form;

Has a book – a phrase.

The notion of the phrase is based first of all on syntagmatic relations. The phrase is any syntactically organized group of words in a syntagmatic line. The phrase is a language unit characterized by the plane of expression and the plane of content.

Words of functional parts of speech don’t change the lexical meaning of the notional word. They only modify the syntactic function or semantic role of the notional word without making an analytical form of it. The referent of such word combinations remains of a simple nature. However we can’t name such word combinations as words as they actually consist of two or more self-dependent words. Hence, such word-combinations can be placed somewhere between words and phrases proper. We can name them as quasi-phrases because they satisfy the notion of the phrase on the plane of expression but differ from them on the plane of content.

There are also cases when a word-combination includes a notional word and the functional one. And the latter changes the meaning of the notional word (give up, look for). They are not analytical forms either and consist of two or more words. On the plane of expression they satisfy the notion of the phrase, but on the plane of content they are equal to words.

Some scholars name them phrasal verbs. But the actual state of such words remains indefinite. It seems that they should also be treated as quasi-phrases.

Types of syntactic relations within a phrase and methods of their realization.

When we make up phrases they must be syntactically connected and must get into some kinds of syntactic relations with each other.

In proper phrases consisting of at least two notional words we can find coordinative, subordinative, interdependent and accumulative relations.

Coordinationis such a type of syntactic relations when the connected words are of equal syntactic status, independent of each other. Usually they have one common word beyond the phrase which dominates them. Words within a coordinative phrase make it possible to mark their relations with the help of a coordinative conjunction (neither … nor, and, but, or, not only but also etc.)

He spoke German fluently, with pathos – He spoke Germen fluently and with pathos.

But it is impossible to say: “He spoke Germen and fluently”.

A coordinating phrase is not closed. Theoretically it can include any number of constituents but practically such phrases include not more than 15 constituents.

Subordinationis such a type of syntactic relations which is based on syntactic inequity of connected constituents. It means that one of them dominates the other(s) and is called a head word or a nucleus of a phrase.

Interdependence is such a type of syntactic relations when both constituents of a phrase are equal and mutually dependent on each other. Mostly we find such relations between primary and secondary subject and predicate. Some authors (Mukhin) use the term “predicative” to name such phrases, but it seems better to choose the term “interdependent” (Elmslev) to characterize syntactic relation within such phrases because the term “predicative” evokes associations with a sentence, while a sentence is a unit of a higher lavel than a phrase.

Cumulative relations are those which appear between language units only because they are constituents of a larger syntagmatic line. Let’s take the phrase “his friend a letter” from the sentence “He wrote his friend a letter”.

The words “friend” and “letter” are members of one sentence, of its predicative group. Moreover if we replace them, what is structurally or syntactically possible, there appears the preposition “to”, which marks the presence of syntactic relations between them.

We can’t treat this phrase as subordinative, because it is difficult to say which of the words is the head word. This phrase can’t be coordinative either because we can’t use a coordinative conjunction between its constituents. It is not the case of interdependence as well, because both members don’t depend on each other and can function independently.

So it is possible to call such phrases or syntactic relations as cumulative.

]cumulative phrases can consist of:

1. two typically different objects;

2. morphologically and semantically different attributes: these new timely trade union actions;

3. a number of adverbial modifiers: Walked in the park last night quickly to the river;

4. An object + an adverbial modifier.

There are some methods of realizing syntactic relations between the constituents of the phrase. It has become traditional in grammar to speak of tree methods:

1. agreement (concord);

2. governing;

3. adjoining.

By agreement we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when a formal correspondence between word forms is observed. In English we can speak of agreement only in some cases because of the lack of inflexions to mark the syntactic relations. These cases are:

1. sometimes between the subject and the predicate: The boy runs – The boys run.

2. Between the determiner expressed by a demonstrative pronoun and a noun: this book – these books.

3. Between the head word and a reflexive pronoun: he did it himself - she did it herself.

By governing we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when there comes a change in the form of the governed word under the influence of the governing or head word. This method is also rare in English. But sometimes we can find it in English: he asked him (not his), he took care of her (not she).

Bu adjoining we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when words getting into syntactic relations don’t change their form. This method is most typical of English syntax, e.g. sat silent, sat silently, a young man, a young girl.