Linguistic Status of Word Combination
It is not settled yet whether the word combination is a specific unit of syntax. Three interpretations have been put forth:
1) the word combination is not a specific unit of syntax;
syntax studies nothing but sentences;
2) the word combination is the only unit of syntax;
3) the word combination is one of syntactic units.
F.I. Buslaev, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya, V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors are of opinion that syntax deals with sentences only. The exclusion of word combinations from the sphere of syntax, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, causes a disregard of the rules of joining words that exist irrespective of the fact whether a word combination makes part of a sentence or not.
F.F. Fortunatov and A.M. Peshkovsky, on the contrary, are of opinion that the word combination is the only syntactic unit. If the word combination were the only syntactic unit, it would not be clear how to treat one-word sentences. A.M. Peshkovsky looks upon them as a specific kind of word combination, which is theoretically wrong.
However, the existence of one-word sentences is not the most important argument against restricting the sphere of syntax to word combinations. The main drawback of the conception lies in the fact that it does not differentiate between the word combination and the sentence. And they must be distinguished because they are different: the word combination represents a naming unit of language [V.V. Vinogradov; N.Y. Shvedova; O.B. Sirotinina; M.Y. Blokh], the sentence is a means of communication [O. Jespersen; A. Gardiner; Y.M. Skrebnev],
We regard the word combination as one of syntactic units, alongside of words, sentences, etc.
Words That Form Word Combinations
Another debatable problem is what language units can build up a word combination. Most foreign linguists think that a word combination is a unity of any words, including the group 'preposition + noun* [S. Greenbaum; D. Crystal].
Combinations with prepositions do play an important role in all languages, analytical in particular. But the essence of the word combination consists in the adjunct narrowing the notion rendered by the head, e.g.:
English books (A.S. Hornby).
books
English books
Prepositions as function words cannot narrow the notion comprised in the following noun or noun equivalent because they are semantically, syntactically, and phonetically weak. Hence, they should be excluded from the sphere of word combination [V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; G.N. Vorontsova].
|
|
|
Following the majority of Russian linguists, we think that the term 'word combination' can be applied only to such groups of words that contain at least two notional words forming a semantic and a grammatical whole.
Syntactic Relations That Build Up Word Combinations
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. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, 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
206
207
something so that its purpose is communicative. A word combination has no such aim. It is employed for naming things qualities, actions, etc.
True, some linguists [V.G. Gak; T.A. Tulina] say that the naming function does not differentiate the word combination and the sentence, for the sentence is also a kind of name. It is the name of a situation.
There is no denying the fact that every level of language structure contributes to the creation of naming units. But in some language units the naming function is primary (e.g. in words and word combinations); in others — it is secondary (e.g. in sentences).
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).
|
| books | 1 |
| English books | ||
|
|
| --and................. |
But: books and notebooks
That's why we exclude coordinate groups of words from word combinations. [See on this point: V.V. Vinogradov; V.N. Zhigadio, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; O.B. Sirotinina].
Accumulation, in our 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. Zhigadio, I.P. Tvanova and L.L. lofik - 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 tying 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.
|
|
|
208
209
Valency
The valency of the head determines the occurrence of this or that adjunct. The term 'valency' was originally used in chemistry for the combinatory potential of atoms. The French linguist L. Tesniere introduced it into linguistics. According to L. Tesniere, only verbs possess valency characteristics, e.g.:
(Toby) shook his head (S. Sheldon).
Nowadays, linguists have come to the conclusion that valency is not restricted to verbs. Adjectives and nouns possess valency characteristics, too. Cf.:
... (but I'm) capable of making my own decisions (S. Sheldon).
(It's got) a sort of greenish blue roof(D. Crystal, D. Davy).
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 1381; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!