1 / 35

Against adjuncts and complements

Against adjuncts and complements. Dick Hudson UCL LAGB 2005. A bit of history. The terms adjunct and complement are at least 100 years old. But their meanings have varied wildly.

ronat
Download Presentation

Against adjuncts and complements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Against adjuncts and complements Dick Hudson UCL LAGB 2005

  2. A bit of history • The termsadjunct and complement are at least 100 years old. • But their meanings have varied wildly. • The ideas ‘adjunct’ and ‘complement’ have been in the air for nearly 50 years, using different terminology. • But the ideas need better evaluation.

  3. 1891 Henry Sweet • “The most general relation between words in sentences from a logical point of view is that of adjunct-word and head-word, or, as we may also express it, of modifier and modified.” §40 • “The relation of adjunct-word to head-word is one of subordination.” §45 • But: strong is an adjunct of men in “Tall men are not always strong” §40 • i.e. ‘adjunct’ includes our ‘complement’

  4. 1898 J C Nesfield • “[some] verbs do not make a complete sense by themselves, but require some word or words … such additional …words are called the completion. The completion may be either (a) an Object or (b) a Complement …” • Our adjunct of a verb is its ‘extension’.

  5. 1902 E A Sonnenschein • “A verb, or an adjective … or an adverb may be qualified by an adverb (or adverb-equivalent)… Such a qualifying part of the sentence is called an adjunct.”

  6. Summary • Well before 1900, grammarians distinguished complements from adjuncts • in fact if not in name. • This insight was incorporated into grammatical theory in 1930s Europe: • In Poland (Categorial Grammar) • In France (Dependency Grammar)

  7. 1935 Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz A A/A A A A/B B eat sandwiches often walk head complement head adjunct

  8. Comments • This definition is formal. • Complements are authorised by the head. • Adjuncts authorise themselves. • But adjuncts have different categories for different head-types. • For example, in London is: • V/V in work in London • N/N in life in London

  9. 1959 Lucien Tesnière • ‘Actants’ are the people or things which, in any guise and in any way, even as mere walk-on parts or in the most passive way, take part in the process. • We will treat as ‘circonstants’ the subordinates of the verb which indicate the circumstances of the action: time, place, manner, etc. The number of ‘circonstants’ is unlimited.

  10. Comments • This definition is functional: meaning. • Taken literally it distinguishes: • Concrete (people, things) • Abstract (circumstances) • But we interpret it as a functional justification for a major division: • Actants = Complements are essential/central • Circonstants = Adjuncts are optional/peripheral

  11. 1965-70 Noam Chomsky • NB He studied Categorial Grammar under Bar Hillel. • Complements are authorised by the head. • Adjuncts aren’t. • They’re also distinguished very naturally by the geometry of X-bar theory … • which translates easily into Categorial Grammar.

  12. X-bar and CG X’ X’ X’/X’ Z adjunct Y X complement

  13. A consensus view • Complements and adjuncts are defined by formalstructure • Sister versus aunt (or B vs A/A) • And also by formal derivational history • Authorised by head vs by self • And also by functionalroles • central ‘arguments’ vs peripheral ‘circumstances’.

  14. But … • There’s also a consensus that the contrast is problematic because: • ‘Adjuncts’ may be authorised by the head • ‘Complements’ may authorise themselves • ‘Adjuncts’ may be close to the head • ‘Complements’ may be peripheral

  15. ‘subcategorised adjuncts’ • E.g. • He put it on the table. • He behaved badly. • Hot dog • He worked out the answer. • Must be complements: • because authorised by head • Must be adjuncts: • because also authorised by dependent

  16. Free particles • E.g. • He faxed out the message. • Must be complement: • Same word order as complements Compare: Faxed the message out. Worked out the answer • Same words as complements • Only one per verb • Compare: Faxed off (*out) the message • Must be adjunct: • Not authorised by the head • Out has its own independent meaning

  17. Compound pronouns • E.g. • Someone nice • Must be complement: • Only one: *someone nice friendly • Compare: nice friendly person • Only adjectives: *someone London • Compare: London person • Must be adjunct: • Functionally just like nice person

  18. ‘Non-valent complements’ • Valent = sub-categorised • E.g. • email him the results • Must be complement: • Same position as an indirect object (= comp) • Same passivisation as indirect object • Must be adjunct: • Ok for any verb of transfer

  19. Word order • Central adjuncts • He actually succeeded. • He faxed out the message. • French: Jean aime bien Marie. John loves well Mary • Peripheral complements (German) Paul holt mich morgen vom Bahnhof ab. Paul picks me tomorrow at the station up

  20. 1990 Word Grammar • Adjuncts are simply default dependents • ‘Complement’ is stipulated as a sub-type of dependent • Compare the consensus, where ‘complement’ is implicit in structure, derivation or function. • By default, a word has no complement • But this default may be overridden lexically. • Is ‘complement’ really needed?

  21. The grammatical-relation hierarchy in 1990 = adjunct None except where authorised

  22. Why adjunct = default dependent • Default word depends on another word. • inherited from dependent. • Adjuncts limit the dependency • in terms of: • the semantic relation • the head’s word class, agreement, position, ... • i.e. inherited from dependent.

  23. A default dependency Only the dependent inherits the dependency.

  24. Complements • E.g. direct objects • It’s the head that decides whether a complement is possible/obligatory • The head defines the complement’s semantic role • The head selects word class and inflection

  25. A typical complement But some default constraints here too. Many extra constraints here complement

  26. Types of verb complement= ‘sub-complements’ • direct objects • John drank a beer. • But non-valent: John drank the bar dry. • indirect objects • John gave Mary a present • But non-valent: John winked Mary the answer • sharers/xcomps/predicatives • John made it cold • But non-valent: John drank it cold

  27. More sub-complements • particles • John gave up smoking • But non-valent: John chucked up the ball • prepositionals • John lives on baked beans • But non-valent: John triumphed on beans. • ‘clausal’ • John thought that it was late • But non-valent: John snarled that it was late.

  28. Limits on sub-complements • Maximum 1 per verb • *He drank beer + the bar dry • *He threw out his hands + up • Not permitted by some verbs • *He dined cabbage. • But maybe all are allowed with semantically suitable verbs, so no general ban?

  29. Sub-complements in the grammar • Individual sub-complements must be stipulated, together with their associated properties. • Typically, they’re ‘valents’ – authorised by the head. • But exceptionally, they can authorise themselves.

  30. But what about ‘complement’? • What generalisations apply to all complements? • if none, it’s not needed. • Extraction across non-verbs seems to be restricted to their complements • Which subject do you teach students of? • *What colour hair do you teach students with? • Why?

  31. Extraction in WG extractee + sharer extractee + object extractee + ‘object’ extractee x x+r x+o x+o Which subject do you teach Which subject do you teach students of? Which subject do Which subject Which subject do you teach students x x x+o

  32. Extractees and heads • The extractee is transmitted via head words. • So it is inherited from the head word, like this ...

  33. Recursive extraction do teach students

  34. Why ‘complements’ are preferred extractees • The general schema is learned from stored tokens • where extractee = sub-complement • So these stored tokens are available for processing. • So there’s no rule about only ‘complements’ being extractable.

  35. Conclusion • The complement/adjunct distinction is ‘traditional’ and insightful • but only informal. • Adjunct = default dependent. • Complement isn’t needed. • But individual sub-complements are essential.

More Related