BELARUSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL COMMUNICATIONS

Department of Translation Theory and Practice

Theoretical English Grammar

THE SENTENCE AND THE PROBLEM OF ITS DEFINITION

Individual Research Project

Kamko Timofei
Group 4
The 4th year

Minsk, 2024
 Introduction

The sentence as a grammatical category of the language is defined by

different scholars and according to different approaches in a large number of ways.
This happens mostly because the intention to define the notion “sentence” and
consider it completely contributes not to a single problem, but to a number of
problems. So, the attempts to solve each problem may lead to existence of different
approaches and as a consequence to existence of different definitions. The vital
point is that the sentence may be considered not only as unit of language, but also
as an implementation in spoken language. It, in turn, imposes particular
intensifying factor for its definition.
This Individual Research project is focused on considering several
approaches of different scholars who tried to establish the category of the sentence
among the other categories and to describe it.

2
 The main problems

According to the traditional view, which has been most often used in
grammar books, and which can be found in The Oxford Dictionary of English
Grammar, the sentence is defined as “a set of words expressing a complete
thought” [ODOE]. This definition illustrates the category of the sentence from the
notional point of view and it is rather uncertain to fulfill the complex research.
The more specified problem with the “traditional” definition may be
formulated in the following way: it does not strictly separate the category of the
sentence from the other grammatical categories, for example, from the category of
word-combination. This syncretism constitutes one of the main problem of the
definition of the sentence. Professor Nikitina and her co-authors trying to solve the
problem consider this issue from the following point of view: “The sentence is a
communicative unit, and a word-combination is nominative. Word-combination
and the sentence are concepts of different semantic spheres. They correspond to
different forms of thinking”. [NIKITINA, 89] Nikitina develops this idea
classifying the sentence as a basic unit of syntax and the word-combination as the
category that present a primary syntactic level. Moreover, she adds, that the
difference is also in function: the word-combination names an object,
phenomenon, quality, action, while the sentence performs the function of
informing, rendering a final idea that can contain such elements as names. Another
criterion, expending more accurate understanding of the sentence is intonation. The
word-combination does not possess, as the sentence, a complete intonation
contour, where the final tone is used, in writing there are no punctuation marks
showing the end of the sentence. The word-combination is not used in speech in
itself, but only in structure of the sentence. The same criteria can be applied to the
word. Also one should take into account that visible sentences can be incomplete
in structure. Many elements can be omitted, so it is necessary to reconstruct them
to judge about structure. Thus, the definition that is offered by Nikitina and which
tries to exclude the first problem of the the definition of traditional view is the
following one: “The sentence is a basic unit of syntax. The sentence expresses a
final idea, it has a communicative aim, it is grammatically organized,
intonationally arranged.”
The second problem with the “traditional” definiton is that there is no
objective standard by which to judge the completeness of a thought, and it leads to
a particular kind of circular assertion, that “a complete thought is a thought that is
complete” [Khaymovichh p.220]. The evaluation of the completeness is the
problem, which slightly induces to consider the sentence from the functional point
of view, from the point of its realization in speech. Only interlocutor may judge
about the realized in speech sentence from the point of its completeness. Michael
Halliday argues that “the completeness of a sentence should be evaluated based on
its ability to fulfill specific communicative functions rather than adhering strictly
to traditional grammatical rules.”[Halliday p. 38]

3
 From Halliday’s viewpoint, a complete sentence is one that successfully
conveys meaning and serves its intended purpose within a given context. This
perspective emphasizes the role of language as a tool for communication, where
completeness is determined by factors such as coherence, context, and the
interaction between speaker and listener. For instance, in a conversation, an
incomplete sentence might still be considered “complete” if it effectively conveys
the speaker's intention and is understood by the listener. That’s why, the
completeness of the sentence cannot be considered purely from grammatical point
of view.
Another very influential point of view and often used definition considers
the sentence as “a group of words that contains an unsubordinated subject and
predicate” [Brown D.W. From in modern English]. It is also often added that it
begins with a capital letter and ends with a full stop.
The problem with that definition is that the sentences usually have a subject
and predicate, but not always. For example, imperatives usually lack an expressed
subject. At the same time more than one “grammatically complete sentence” can
be run together in writing with only one full stop, so that grammatical and
orthographic sentences may not correspond (e.g. I came, I saw, I conquered).
As it was already stated in the introduction and partly considered while
describing Halliday’s functional approach, one of the intensifying factor for the
definition of the sentence is its implementation in spoken language. In spoken
language it is often impossible to say where one sentence ends and another begins.
Moreover, spoken language frequently employs ellipsis, where parts of a sentence
are omitted because they are understood from context. This informal structure
challenges traditional definitions of completeness.
Another problem affects the definition of the sentence as “the largest unit of
analysis in grammar”. The sentence has often been considered the largest unit of
analysis in grammar by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and Ronald Langacker.
Chomsky emphasizes the importance of the sentence “as a fundamental unit in
syntactic analysis” [Chomsky Syntactic Structures, p. 93], arguing that
understanding sentence structure is key to understanding the rules of grammar and
language. He highlights that the sentence serves as a comprehensive framework for
understanding the relationships between words, phrases, and clauses, making it
essential for grammatical analysis and linguistic theory. But Halliday emphasizes
that “coherence and meaning can extend beyond individual sentences” [ Cohesion in
English, p7]. He illustrates how elements like reference, substitution, and
conjunction can link ideas across multiple sentences or even entire paragraphs,
challenging the notion that the sentence is the largest unit of analysis.
Halliday's perspective highlights the interconnectedness of discourse and the
importance of considering how meaning is constructed in larger contexts, rather
than isolating analysis to single sentences. This approach has influenced many
contemporary studies not only connected with the sentence, but also in discourse
analysis and it also has expanded the understanding of language functioning in
communication. But the point is the sentence.
4
 Modern approaches

The modern or contemporary way of understanding the sentence is focused

on the considering the theoretical possibility of a sentence containing an infinite
number of clauses. In other words on the existence of so called recursion, which is
known as “the phenomenon whereby a particular type of linguistic unit or structure
is contained within a unit or structure of the same type.” [ODOE p.353]
One of the most prominent linguists, who paid much attention to the
problem of the sentence and the possibility of existence of recursion is Noam
Chomsky. He is also known as the founder of generative grammar. In the work
“Syntactic Structures” that was already mentioned in this research, Noam
Chomsky introduces the idea of recursion as a fundamental principle of syntactic
structure. Recursion allows for the embedding of clauses within clauses, enabling
the creation of infinitely complex sentences from a finite set of rules.
Chomsky emphasizes that recursion is a mechanism that permits the
expansion of sentence structures. He notes that a basic sentence can be transformed
into a more complex form through the addition of subordinate clauses. For
example, he states, “A sentence may consist of a noun phrase and a verb phrase,
each of which may contain other phrases” (Chomsky, 1957, p. 15). This illustrates
the recursive nature of language, where each phrase can contain further
elaborations.
That all means that sentences can grow in complexity. Chomsky states, “We
can have an embedded clause that itself can contain another clause, leading to a
hierarchical structure” (Chomsky, 1957, p. 34). This reflects the potential for
sentences to expand indefinitely through recursive embedding, which is essential
for understanding the syntactic flexibility of human language.
Chomsky argues that recursion is not just a feature of syntax but is crucial to
the generative capacity of language. He explains, “The recursive property allows
for the construction of an infinite number of sentences from a finite number of
elements” (Chomsky, 1957, p. 36). This highlights how recursion underpins the
ability of speakers to produce and comprehend complex linguistic expressions.
The question about the sentence definition may be solved not completely,
but it extended or specified thanks for recursion. And recursion by itself is vital in
modern understandings of the sentence, mainly because recursion reflects the
hierarchical nature of sentence structure. Chomsky argues that sentences are not
just linear strings of words but are organized into nested structures. This
hierarchical organization is crucial for understanding syntactic relationships, such
as subject-verb agreement and modification.
Another way of observing the sentence, which is modern one is describing it
through the analyzing syntactic structure in terms of clauses. Sentences are
categorized in modern grammar, as in traditional grammar, into simple, compound,
and complex on the basis of the number and type of clauses they contain.

5
6
 Conclusion

An interesting point that was realized by me during this Research is that

people often do not mistaken trying to separate one sentence from another,
moreover, almost everyone will say that he knows what the sentence is and what it
means. But if someone tries to define it, or in other words tries to extract it from
the field of unconscious understanding he fails to describe in order that is not
controversial to the definitions of the other categories.

7
The list of resources