Differential features of the phrase and of the sentence

One problem concerning the phrase is the absence of a universal term.

Before the 20th century the word “phrase” was used to denote this linguistic

phenomenon, however, it was dismissed by H. Sweet who considered it too vague.

There appeared new terms, such as “word group” and “word cluster”. Later L.

Bloomfield restored the past status of “phrase”, and currently this term is widely

used by American linguists.

Another problem is connected with the definition of the phrase. Despite the

fact that the phrase, along with the sentence, is a basic unit of syntax, there is no

universally accepted definition of the phrase. Some scholars define the phrase as a

combination of at least two notional words which do not constitute the sentence

but are syntactically connected. However, the majority of Western linguists and

Russian researchers Prof. B. Ilyish and V. Burlakova believe that a combination of

a notional word with a functional word can be treated as a phrase as well, that is

they term “phrase” every combination of two or more words, which is a

grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word. The problem is

disputable since the role of functional words is to denote some abstract relations

and they are devoid of nominative power. On the other hand, such combinations

are syntactically bound and they should belong somewhere. We shall adhere to the

view supported by B. Ilyish and V. Burlakova.

Despite all the controversies regarding the essence and nature of the phrase,

the most adequate interpretation seems to be as follows: the phrase is any

syntactically organized group including either notional words (happy life, very

nice, to ignore the comment), or both notional and functional words (on the table,in the bag, under the tree) connected with any of the existent types of syntactic connection. The phrase is a linear language unit that can be either a part of the sentence, or a separate sentence thus acquiring not only intonation coloring and corresponding phrase stress, but also communicative orientation. Thus, the phrasecan be defined as a syntactically organized group of words of any morphological composition based on any type of syntactic connection.

The difference between the phrase and the sentence is fundamental: 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; the sentence is a unit of predication

which, naming a certain situational event, shows the relation of the denoted event

towards reality.

General characteristics of the phrase are:

1) A phrase is a means of naming some phenomena or processes, just as a

word is. As a naming unit it differs from a compound word because the number of

constituents in a word-group corresponds to the number of different denotates (a

black bird – a blackbird; a loud speaker – a loudspeaker).

2) Each component of the word-group can undergo grammatical changes

without destroying the identity of the whole unit: to see a house - to see houses – saw houses (grammatical modifications of one phrase).

A sentence is a unit with every word having its definite form. A change in

the form of one or more words would produce a new sentence.

3) A word-group is a dependent syntactic unit, it is not a communicative unit

and has no intonation of its own. Intonation is one of the most important features

of a sentence, which distinguishes it from a phrase.

The correlation of the phrase and the sentence is a bit different from that of

other language units. Usually, the sentence is considered a unit of the level higher

than the phrase. However, according to some scholars, eg. Yu. S. Maslov, the

phrase can be a sentence or a part of a sentence while the sentence can be realized

as a phrase, a group of interconnected phrases and a separate word.

Types of phrases

Linguists discuss different classifications of phrases, all of them having their

own advantages.

The traditional classification of phrasesis based on the part of speech

status of the phrase constituents, therefore nounal, verbal, adjectival, adverbial, etc.

phrases are singled out.

Phrases can also be classified according to the nominative value of their

constituents. According to Prof. Blokh, syntagmatic groupings of notional words

alone, syntagmatic groupings of notional words with functional words, and

syntagmatic groupings of functional words alone should be differentiated,

therefore three major types are identified: notional, formative and functional.

According to the theory worked out bythe American linguist L.

Bloomfield, phrases can be classified into two groups: endocentric and

exocentric. The former include phrases one or any constituent part of which can

function in a broader structure as the whole group.

Eg. Red flower – He gave me a red flower. He gave me a flower.

Flowers and chocolate. – He gave me flowers. He gave me chocolate.

As for exocentric structures, according to Bloomfield, none of their

constituent parts can replace the whole group in a broader structure.

Eg. He gave, to the girl.

Endocentric structures are further divided into subordinate (red flower) and

coordinate (flowers and chocolate). Exocentric structures are divided into

predicative (He gave) and prepositional (to the girl). Bloomfield’s classification

was further developed by his followers. It was made more detailed. Some new

types of phrases were singled out. A significant drawback of this scheme is that it

is not based on a single principle applied at every stage of the classification to all

discriminated types of structures.

According to the classification based on the internal structure of

phrases, two groups can be singled out: kernel phrases and kernel-free phrases.

Kernel phrases are grammatically organized structures in which one

element dominates the others. This element is not subordinated to any other

element within the group, therefore it is the leading element, that is, the kernel of

the given phrase (for example, a nice place, well-known artists, absolutely positive, to run fast, to see a movie, to taste good).

According to the direction of dependencies, that is, the position of the

dominating and subordinated elements relative of each other, all kernel phrases

are divided into regressive and progressive (with the left and right position of

dependent elements respectively).

Further types of regressive and progressive kernel phrases can be singled

out according to what part of speech the head word belongs. The following types

are differentiated:

Regressive:

− substantive (a good girl),

− adjectival (absolutely clear),

− verbal (to fully understand),

− adverbial (very quickly).

Progressive:

- substantive (a feeling of comfort),

- adjectival (independent of your decision),

- verbal (to read a book),

- prepositional (on the wall).

Kernel-free phrases are divided into dependent and independent, which are

further subdivided into one-class and hetero-class and characterized by a certain

type of syntactic connection.

Three types of syntactic connections can be singled out: coordination,

subordination and accumulation.

Coordination: coordinate phrases consist of two or more syntactically

equivalent units joined in a cluster which functions as a single unit. The member

units can be potentially joined together by means of a coordinate conjunction.

Subordination: subordinate phrases are structures in which one of the

members is syntactically the leading element of the phrase. This dominating

element is called the head-word, or the kernel, and can be expressed by different

parts of speech.

Accumulation: the accumulative connection is present when no other type

of syntactic connection can be identified.

Cf. (to give) the boy an apple – (to give) an apple to the boy

The presence of a certain syntactic connection between the words in the

phrase “the boy an apple” can be proved by the fact that the change of order results

in the change of the form.

The accumulative connection is widely spread in attributive phrases made up

by attributes expressed by different parts of speech (these problematic (issues); some old (lady)). The position of the elements relative to each other is fixed, they cannot exchange their positions (*problematic these (issues); *old some (lady)).

So, according to the type of syntactic connection, the following subclasses

are singled out:

1. Independent one-class phrases with

- syndetic coordination (sense and sensibility),

- asyndetic coordination (the Swiss, the Dutch, the Germans);

2. Independent hetero-class phrases with interdependent primary

predication (he runs).

3. Dependent one-class phrases with the accumulative connection (sharp

green (pencil)).

4. Dependent hetero-class phrases with

- accumulative connection (my green (pencil)),

- interdependent secondary predication ((to find) the cup broken; (she

took the box), her fingers pulling the ribbon)).

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 3961