Word Combination in Russian and Foreign Linguistics
The theory of word combination in Russian linguistics has a long tradition, going back to the 18 century. No corresponding theory is distinguished in Western European or American linguistics. True, the term 'phrase' goes as far back as the 18* century when it was used by R. Lowth. However, the attention of early English grammarians was chiefly focused upon the description of the grammatical devices of joining words.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the tone of grammatical discussion became more scholarly. O. Jespersen introduced the theory of three ranks that concerns the mutual relations of words in word combinations. Analyzing the example terribly cold weather, O. Jespersen states that the words are not on the same footing. The word weather is grammatically most important, while the words cold and terribly are subordinate to it. The word weather is defined by the word cold, and the word cold is defined by the word terribly. Thus, we have three ranks: the word weather is primary, the word cold is secondary, and the word terribly is tertiary.
O, Jespersen discusses only word groups formed by combinations of primaries with secondaries. He distinguishes two main types of combinations in which a secondary is joined to a primary - junction and nexus. In a junction, the joining of the two elements is so close that it is often substituted by a separate word, e.g.:
The warmest season - summer (O. Jespersen).
In traditional grammar, O. Jespersen's junction corresponds to subordination.
In a nexus, something new is added to the conception contained in the primary. In other words, nexus designates predicative relations. According to O. Jespersen, nexus falls into two subtypes: independent and dependent. He considers a nexus to be independent when it forms a whole sentence, i.e. when it gives a complete bit of information, e.g.
204
The dog barks (O. Jespersen).
A dependent nexus, in his opinion, forms only part of a sentence, e.g.:
I hear the dog bark (O. Jespersen).
Although O. Jespersen draws a distinction between different levels of subordination and clearly opposes subordination and predication, he fails to define the word combination.
This drawback is overcome by L. Bloomfield. However, L. Bloomfield's definition cannot be considered a happy one, for defining a word combination as a free form which consists of two or more free forms, he lumps together predicative and non-predicative combinations of words, as is evident from his classification of word combinations into endocentric and exocentric.
|
|
|
In endocentric word combinations, according to L. Bloomfield, at least one of the components (or both) has a function coinciding with the function of the word combination as a whole, e.g.: poor Maggie, where the component Maggie can stand for the whole word combination poor Maggie. Cf:
Poor Maggie sat down again... (G. Eliot). —» Maggie sat down again...
Or: he and his wife, where both components he and his wife can stand for the whole group he and his wife. Cf.:
He and his wife listened to the six o'clock news (A.S. Hornby). —*• He listened to the six o 'clock news. His wife listened to the six o 'clock news.
Exocentric word combinations unite such components neither of which can stand for the whole word combination. Here we have:
1) predicative combinations, e.g.: Catherine blushed (E. Hemingway), which is not equivalent either to Catherine or to blushed;
2) prepositional combinations, e.g.; He won't take you with him (St. Minot), where we cannot omit either the preposition with or the pronoun him. We cannot say:
*He won't take you him.
*He won't take you with.
As you see, both endocentric and exocentric combinations comprise heterogeneous phenomena. Endocentric combinations include subordinate and coordinate groups of words; exocentric combinations include predicative and prepositional groups of words.
205
|
 Мы поможем в написании ваших работ! |
