18. Phrase. Means of expressing relations between its constituents

The phrase (a free word combination) is a syntagmatic grouping of 2 or more words.

It can be made of

• Notional words ( an old man)

• Notional and functional words ( in the corner) –naming function

• Functional words only ( one of)-disputable

Two or more notional words can be joined by means of predication, coordination, accumulation, apposition, and subordination. The question arises if all these syntactic relations build up word combinations. Western linguists of the past made no distinction between a sentence, i.e. a predicative group of words, and a word combination. Nowadays, things have changed.

Western linguists of the past made no distinction between a sentence, i.e. a predicative group of words, and a word combination. Nowadays, things have changed. D. Crystal writes, '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.' Most Russian linguists postulate a separate existence of 'sentence' and 'word combination' because they serve different purposes. A sentence is based on predication, and predication consists in saying something about something so that its purpose is communicative. A word combination has no such aim. It is employed for naming things, qualities, actions, etc.

The problem of coordinate groups of words is controversial, too. Traditionally, linguists single out coordinate groups of words into a special type of word combinations [H. Sweet; E. Kruisinga; L.S. Barkhudarov; V.A. Beloshapkova], V.N. Yartseva leaves the question open, saying that even if such groups as men and women could be referred to word combinations, one should bear in mind their specific nature.

Really, as opposed to word combinations proper, each component of a coordinate group of words renders a new, but homogeneous notion. Cf:

English books (A.S. Hornby). But: books and notebooks

That's why we exclude coordinate groups of words from word combinations.

Accumulation, in Pribitok’s opinion, does not form a word combination either. Just like coordination, accumulation unites independent notions that are heterogeneous, into the bargain.

Neither do we recognize the existence of appositive word combinations, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O. Wilde). Qualifying apposition as a kind of attribute [H. Sweet; N.Y. Filitcheva], syntactic tradition proceeds from the assumption that it is always easy to draw a line of demarcation between the head and the adjunct. However, it is rather rare the case. Already A.M. Peshkovsky has drawn the attention of linguists to numerous difficulties in finding the apposition and the element to which it is apposed. And even nowadays linguists are still at variance as to the right answer to this question. Thus, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya think that the apposition is constituted by the proper noun; V.N. Zhigadlo, LP. Ivanova and L.L. Iofik - by the common noun. I.G. Saprykina is right: the differentiation of the head and adjunct in appositive groups of words is impossible because both components are logically equal: they give different names to one and the same person or thing, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O. Wilde).

Only groups of words based on subordination can be regarded as word combinations because only subordination unites notional words into a semantic and grammatical whole. The semantic integrity of a subordinate word combination manifests itself in the fact that its components render one notion: the head names it, and the adjunct narrows it.

The semantic integrity leads to the grammatical consolidation of the components of a subordinate word combination as a result of which it is only the head that can substitute the whole word combination. For instance, instead of saying: The little boy was lying in bed (K. Mansfield), we can say: The boy was lying in bed, with the head boy representing the subordinate word combination little boy. The second variant, *The little was lying in bed, with the adjunct little standing for the subordinate word combination little boy is out of the question because it fails to render any independent notion, but serves the purpose of narrowing the notion of the following head boy.

1. According to Henry Sweet relations in the phrase based on grammatical and logical subordination. He distinguished the relations:

• Of the modifier and modified (adjunct and a head-word)-subordination (tall men are not always strong)

• The relationships of coordination, which is shown either by word-order or by the use of form words (men, women and children are human beings)- between the first 2 words just by their order and between the last 2 words by the form word and.

2. According to Jesperson there are 3 ranks, which is based on the principle of determination.

A densely¹ populated² country³

Tertiary-secondary-primary rank.

The secondary may be joined to the primary in 2 ways:

• Junction (=attributive relations)- relations of subordination;

• Nexus ( predicative relation S+Pr)- interdependence;

3. Bloomfield devides word-groups into the following types:

• Endocentric word-groups ( =headed) – the word-group takes the same position as its head-word. (Belarus is a densely populated country- Belarus is a country)

• Exocentric ( =non-headed)- the distribution of the components differs from the distribution of the whole word-group.

Means of expressing syntactic relations:

• Word order ( cannon ball) N+N

• Prepositions ( the catefory of aspect) N+of+N an account of her pride

• Conjunctions ( warm and nice) Adj+and+Adj

• Case inflexions ‘s ( Bobs car) N’s+N

Morphological expression of the components ( speak softly) V+Adv.