complementation in syntax

8/10/2019 Complementation in syntax

1/16

UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURTFACULTY OF HUMANITIES

DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND COMMUNICATIONSTUDIES

A TERM PAPER ON

COMPLEMENTATION IN SYNTAX

BY

ABADA KEREN EBERECHI(U2010/1825089)

DEPT. OF LINGUISTICS/COMMUNICATION STUDIES (400level)

SUBMITTED TO

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

LCS

AUGUST 2014


2/16

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg.3

INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg.4

1.0 SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURAL SYNTAX ------------------------------------------------------ Pg.5

2.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: COMPLEMENTATION----------------------------------------- Pg.7

3.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE DIRECT OBJECT------------------------------------------- Pg.8

4.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE DIRECT OBJECT WITH INDIRECT OBJECT ------- Pg.9

5.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE OBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT-------------------------- Pg.10

6.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE RETAINED OBJECT-------------------------------------Pg.11

7.0 STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE SUBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT-------------------------Pg.12

8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION------------------------------------------------Pg.13

9.0 REFERENCES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pg.15


3/16


4/16

4

INTRODUCTION

The study of syntax is the study of the sequences of words which form the structure of

sentences.

Complementizers, like many terms in linguistics, is a rebarbative word. A natural

suspicion attaches to objects going by such a name. Unlike such weighty and venerable

things as predicates, quantifiers, sentences, and even conjunctions, the so-called

complementizers lack ready association s with logic. But therein, perhaps, lies their

special interest to the syntactician. What are complementizers? What are they for?

These clause-particles are to be found in each of the major subsystems of English

syntax in predicate complementation, comparative clause constructions, and relative

clause constructions.

Native speakers of English normally do not have a problem with complementation. They

know instinctively which patterns of complementation a particular verb allows or rejects.

They know for ins tance that enjoy is complemented by a gerund rather than an

infinitive. They would never say: * I enjoy to play tennis . They may not know the rule or

the metalanguage but they can very quickly detect and correct the error. In other words,

they know what is in the language and what is not. Likewise, they can instantly spot that

something is amiss with the statement: * I put the book . They can tell you that it is

perfectly acceptable to read the book or buy the book but it is not acceptable to put

the b ook as the verb put requires not only a following noun phrase, but also a locative

phrase. What they cannot tell you is why it is that enjoy triggers the gerund, or why

put is incomplete without a locative phrase. In fact, many grammarians have a hard

time explaining complementation. Many ignore it on the grounds that it is unteachable,

or at least very complex and messy. It is seen as one of those areas of English

grammar that is best acquired without overt instruction.


5/16

5

SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURAL SYNTAX

In talking about writing, or in analyzing written texts, it is useful to have a vocabulary to

describe syntax, or the grammatical structure of utterances. Different philosophies of

language and different approaches to the description of natural languages producedifferent grammars. The approach taken here might be described as structural

grammar--as opposed, for example, to "traditional" grammar or "transformational"

grammar.

Structural grammar, as its name suggests, assumes that linguistic entities are

"constructions"--that is, larger entities made up by combining smaller entities in certain

ways. The smallest unit of a natural language, according to the structural grammarian,

is the phoneme.

Phonem e : A phoneme is a class of sounds--not the actual vocal sounds speakers

make, which might vary widely, but the class of sounds that will be interpreted as

elements of meaningful utterances. Phonemes are combined to make morphemes.

Mor phem es : Morphemes are the minimal meaningful units of a language. A single

word might be a morpheme: dog. The morpheme {dog} is made up of three phonemes:

the classes of vocal sounds represented in English spelling by the letters d, o, and g,

respectively. The word doggy, on the other hand, is made up of two morphemes: {dog},

plus the suffix {-y}--the extra g is a spelling convention--which means, roughly, "turn the

noun into an adjective." In the word dogs, also, there are two morphemes: {dog}, plus

the "plural morpheme" {-s}.

Cons t r uc t i ons : Morphemes are combined to make words, and words are combined to

make constructions. Rules govern the ways constructions may be formed in any

particular natural language. Not just any string of words counts as a construction: for

example, an have with greenly would not count as a "well-formed" construction in

English. Speakers of a language "know" the rules that govern the combining of words

into constructions, in the sense that they "intuitively" use these rules. A grammarian is

someone who "knows" the rules in the sense of being able actually to articulate them.


6/16

6

Sentences : The sentence is a construction of a particular kind--normally, we think of a

sentence as a well-formed construction containing one or more "predications"--that is a

construction that has at least one "subject" and one "predicate." Although it might be

possible to articulate rules governing the combination of sentences into narratives, or

orations, or whatever, the study of grammar, strictly speaking, normally stops at the

level of the sentence.

A structural syntax, then, attempts to describe the ways words can be put together in

well-formed constructions up to the level of the sentence. No system of grammar is

exhaustively rigorous, in the sense of providing a completely satisfactory account of all

sentences that educated speakers would consider well-formed. The simplified account

given here neglects a number of difficult problems and important issues. The point here

is to establish a reasonably clear vocabulary that will enable discussion of certain

problems in writing and in interpretation.


7/16

7

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: COMPLEMENTATION

Complement means "to complete," and complementation has to do with "completing the

meaning" of a verb. Many times, verbs in English sentences are completed by

constructions that are not just modifiers. Complementation is indicated in diagrammingby labeling the grammatical tie between the verb and its complement with a C .

But the situation with verbs is a little complicated. Structural grammar distinguishes five

types of complementation, as follows.

Direct Object, indicated in diagramming by C with DO . Example: The dog ate

bones, where bones is said to be the direct object of ate.

Direct Object and Indirect Object, indicated in diagramming by DO and IO ,

respectively, along with the obligatory C . Example: He gave her flowers, where

flowers is said to be the direct object of gave, and her is said to be the indirect

object of gave.

Objective Complement, indicated in diagramming by C with OC . Example: It

made him angry, where angry is said to be the objective complement of made.

Retained Object, indicated in diagramming by C with RO . Example: She was

given flowers, where flowers is said to be the retained object of was given.

Subjective Complement, indicated in diagramming by C with SC . Example: He

was angry, where angry is said to be the subjective complement of was.

In considering complementation, it is important to remember that participles and

gerunds, which function syntactically as adjectives and nouns, respectively, are still

"verbals" and may take complements. The same is true of infinitives, which may

function syntactically in various ways.

A detailed discussion of each of the five types of complementation, with examples ofdiagramming follows in this paper:


8/16

8

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE DIRECT OBJECT

The direct object is perhaps the most familiar complement. Here, the object of the verb

- a noun, a pronoun, or a construction that functions like a noun--"receives the action" of

the verb.

The direct object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation with C ,

and then writing DO under the word or construction that serves as the direct object.


9/16

9

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE DIRECT OBJECT WITH INDIRECT OBJECT

In the kind of complementation called direct object + indirect object , the verb has two

complements--nouns, pronouns, or constructions that function like nouns. Both objects

"receive the action" of the verb, though in different senses.

The direct object + indirect object construction is indicated in diagramming by labeling

the complementation with C , and then writing DO under the direct object and IO under

the indirect object.


10/16

10

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE OBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT

As with the direct object and indirect object, in the case of the objective complement the

verb has two complements. One of the complements functions like a direct object -- it is

a noun, a pronoun, or a construction functioning like a noun. The objective complementitself might be either another noun or pronoun, or it might be an adjective or a

construction functioning like an adjective. The notion is that the objective complement

of the verb functions to provide information about the object of the verb.

The objective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation

with a C , and then writing OC under the word or construction that serves as the

objective complement.


11/16

11

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE RETAINED OBJECT

Historically, the construction called the retained object comes from archaic

constructions such as Him was given a gift, in which gift is the subject of the verb was

given, and Him is its object. Since the usual order of English sentences, however, issubject-verb-object, speakers tended to "correct" the object form of the pronoun (him) to

the subject form (he): He was given a gift. The gift, then, is retained as the apparent

object of the verb.

The retained object is indicated in diagramming by labeling the complementation with C ,

and then writing RO under the word or construction that functions as the retained object.


12/16

12

STRUCTURAL SYNTAX: THE SUBJECTIVE COMPLEMENT

In the case of the subjective complement, the idea is that the complement of the verb

functions to provide information about the subject of the verb. The verb is then thought

of as functioning to "link" its subject with its complement. We talk about the "copula" tobe and all of its forms (am, is, was, were, have been, being, and so on), where copula is

a Latin word meaning "link," and we talk about the "linking verbs" such as to become, to

feel, and so on, that in some sense function to link the complement to the subject.

The subjective complement is indicated in diagramming by labeling the

complementation with C , and then writing SC underneath the word or construction that

functions as the subjective complement.


13/16

13

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Complementation is never random; it is constrained by the semantic properties of the

verb. Therefore, a semantically based classification of English complementation seems

to have a certain logic and usefulness for the advanced English learner. Fossilisation of

faulty patterns is not uncommon and a purely grammatical treatment of the problem

leaves a lot to be desired. However, analysis is not acquisition. The semantic categories

outlined above are not a description of the learner s linguistic system. Interlanguage

studies have explored the phenomenon of verb complementation and attempted to

establish acquisition orders of complement types in English by learners. These studies

show that English complementation errors cannot be attributed mainly to transfer from

the mother tongue. Contrastive analysis often fails to predict many errors which are

made. Languages which are generically very different such as European and Oriental

languages will tend to provoke little interference. Rather, it appears that

complementation errors are due mainly to ignorance of the target language system and

occur most frequently when learners are required to perform at a level beyond their

current capacity. Whatever the cause, complementation remains a minefield for many

English learners. I take the view that language awareness and focus -onform tasks can

raise learners awareness of different types of verbs and their associated syntactic

complementation patterns. It may also help learners to restructure (or in some cases

de-fossilise) their emerging interlanguage. It is proposed that meaning determines

structure and not vice versa. In teaching, therefore, it seems reasonable to begin with a

focus on meaning before moving on to a focus on form. Both foci are interdependent


14/16

14

and the challenge for the teacher is to find ways and means of making the transition

from one to the other.


15/16

15

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1983). An accuracy order of English sentential complements for speakers

of Persian and Spanish . Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 16 , 16-32.

Biber, D. Conrad, S, & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and

written English . London: Longman.

Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2 , 119-127.

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English . Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

De Smet, H. (2005). A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal, 29 , 69-82.

De Smet, H., & Cuyckens, H. (forthcoming). Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning

of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-infinitive. To appear

in Journal of English Linguistics .

Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in

English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2), 97-141.

Graver, B.D. (1986). Advanced English grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A students grammar of the English language .

London: Longman.

Horiguchi, I. (1978). Complementation in English syntax: A generative semantics

approach. Georgetown University Doctoral dissertation. Washington, D.C.


16/16

16

Hornby, A.S. (Ed.) (1974). Oxford advanced learners dictionary of current English (3rd

ed.). London: Oxford University Press.

Hornby, A.S. (1975). A guide to patterns and usage in English . Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

http://facweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/syntax/ (2000) William E. Rogers Furman University,

Greenville, South Carolina.
http://facweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/syntax/http://facweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/syntax/http://facweb.furman.edu/~wrogers/syntax/

complementation in syntax

Documents