Against adjuncts and complements

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.