In theories ofsyntax, a phrase is any group of words, or sometimes a single word, which plays a particular role within the syntactic structure of asentence. It does not have to have any special meaning or significance, or even exist anywhere outside of the sentence being analyzed, but it must function there as a complete grammatical unit. For example, in the sentenceYesterday I saw an orange bird with a white neck, the wordsan orange bird with a white neck form anoun phrase, or adeterminer phrase in some theories, which functions as theobject of the sentence.
Many theories of syntax and grammar illustrate sentence structure using phrase 'trees', which provide schematics of how the words in a sentence are grouped and relate to each other. A tree shows the words, phrases, and clauses that make up a sentence. Any word combination that corresponds to a complete subtree can be seen as a phrase.
There are two competing principles for constructing trees; they produce 'constituency' and 'dependency' trees and both are illustrated here using an example sentence. The constituency-based tree is on the left and the dependency-based tree is on the right (whereadjective (A),determiner (D),noun (N),sentence (S),verb (V),noun phrase (NP),prepositional phrase (PP),verb phrase (VP)):
In the constituency tree each phrase is marked by a phrasal node (NP, PP, VP); and there are eight phrases identified by phrase structure analysis in the example sentence. On the other hand, the dependency tree identifies a phrase by any node that exerts dependency upon, or dominates, another node. And, using dependency analysis, there are six phrases in the sentence.
The trees and phrase-counts demonstrate that different theories of syntax differ in the word combinations they qualify as a phrase. Here the constituency tree identifies three phrases that the dependency trees does not, namely:house at the end of the street,end of the street, andthe end. More analysis, including about the plausibilities of both grammars, can be made empirically by applyingconstituency tests.
In grammatical analysis, most phrases contain ahead, which identifies the type and linguistic features of the phrase. Thesyntactic category of the head is used to name the category of the phrase;[1] for example, a phrase whose head is anoun is called anoun phrase. The remaining words in a phrase are called the dependents of the head.
In the following phrases the head-word, or head, is bolded:
tooslowly —Adverb phrase (AdvP); the head is an adverb
The above five examples are the most common of phrase types; but, by the logic of heads and dependents, others can be routinely produced. For instance, thesubordinator phrase:
before that happened —Subordinator phrase (SP); the head is asubordinating conjunction—it subordinates the independent clause
By linguistic analysis this is a group of words that qualifies as a phrase, and the head-word gives its syntactic name, "subordinator", to the grammatical category of the entire phrase. But this phrase, "before that happened", is more commonly classified in other grammars, including traditional English grammars, as asubordinate clause (ordependent clause); and it is then labellednot as a phrase, but as aclause.
Most theories of syntax view most phrases as having a head, but some non-headed phrases are acknowledged. A phrase lacking a head is known asexocentric, and phrases with heads areendocentric.
Some modern theories of syntax introducefunctional categories in which the head of a phrase is a functional lexical item. Some functional heads in some languages are not pronounced, but are rathercovert. For example, in order to explain certain syntactic patterns which correlate with thespeech act a sentence performs, some researchers have positedforce phrases (ForceP), whose heads are not pronounced in many languages including English. Similarly, many frameworks assume that covertdeterminers are present in bare noun phrases such asproper names.
Another type is theinflectional phrase, where (for example) afinite verb phrase is taken to be the complement of a functional, possibly covert head (denoted INFL) which is supposed to encode the requirements for the verb toinflect – foragreement with its subject (which is thespecifier of INFL), fortense andaspect, etc. If these factors are treated separately, then more specific categories may be considered:tense phrase (TP), where the verb phrase is the complement of an abstract "tense" element;aspect phrase;agreement phrase and so on.
Further examples of such proposed categories includetopic phrase andfocus phrase, which are argued to be headed by elements that encode the need for a constituent of the sentence to be marked as thetopic orfocus.
Theories of syntax differ in what they regard as a phrase. For instance, while most if not all theories of syntax acknowledge the existence ofverb phrases (VPs),Phrase structure grammars acknowledge bothfinite verb phrases andnon-finite verb phrases whiledependency grammars only acknowledge non-finite verb phrases. The split between these views persists due to conflicting results from the standard empirical diagnostics of phrasehood such asconstituency tests.[2]
The distinction is illustrated with the following examples:
The Republicansmay nominate Newt.- Finite VP in bold
The Republicans maynominate Newt.- Non-finite VP in bold
The syntax trees of this sentence are next:
The constituency tree on the left shows the finite verb stringmay nominate Newt as a constituent; it corresponds to VP1. In contrast, this same string is not shown as a phrase in the dependency tree on the right. However, both trees, take the non-finite VP stringnominate Newt to be a constituent.
