In Russian linguistic theory, there is a third way of expressing syntactical relations between components of a phrase, which is termed примыкание. No exact definition of this notion is given

By government we understand the use of a certain form of the subordinate word required by its head word, but not coinciding with the form of the head word itself — that is the difference between agreement and government.

These fall under two main heads: (1) agreement or concord, (2) government.

The type "noun + noun" is a most usual type of phrase in Modern English. It must be divided into two subtypes, depending on the form of the first component, which may be in the common or in the genitive case.

In giving a general preview of our subject on p. 12 we pointed out that within the domain of syntax two levels should bo distinguished: that of phrases and that of sentences. In giving characteristics of a part of speech we consistently kept apart the two layers in so far as they concern the syntactical functions of parts of speech — their ability to combine with other words into phrases, on the one hand, and their function in the sentence, on the other.

Interjections have for a long time been an object of controversy. There has been some doubt whether they are words of a definite language in the same sense that nouns, verbs, etc. are, and whether they are not rather involuntary outcries, provoked by violent feelings of pain, joy, surprise, etc., not restricted to any given language but common to all human beings as biological phenomena are.

The distinction between modal words and adverbs is, as we saw in our general survey of parts of speech, based on two criteria: (1) their meaning: modal words express the speaker's view concerning the reality of the action expressed in the sentence, (2) their syntactical function: they are not adverbial modifiers but parentheses, whether we take a parenthesis to be a special part of the sentence or whether we say that it stands outside its structure. The latter problem is one that we will discuss in Syntax.

There are some words which may be classed either as particles or as adverbs, since the criteria which we apply to distinguish between these two parts of speech do not appear to yield a clear result here.

The particle not deserves special attention. It can, as is well known, be used in two different ways. On the one hand, it may stand outside the predicate, as in the following sentence: Not till Magnus had actually landed in Orkney did he consider the many difficulties that confronted him. (LINKLATER) It also stands outside the predicate in a type of so-called short answers, in which the negative is expressed by the particle not, if it is accompanied by a modal word like certainly, perhaps, or a phrase equivalent to a modal word, e. g. of course: Certainly not. Perhaps not. Of course not.1 Compare also: / am afraid not, I think not, etc. In these cases the particle not appears to be the main part of the sentence.

To include a word in the class of particles we must find out whether it has the characteristic features of particles which we have described in our general survey of parts of speech, and we should not apply any other criteria. We shall not inquire whether the word has one syllable, or two, or many; this phonetic quality of a word is irrelevant to its grammatical status: just as, for example, a preposition may have one syllable (of, to) or four (notwithstanding), a particle may have one syllable (just) or four (exclusively). Thus the diminutive suffix -icle should not be taken to refer to the length of the word.