UNIVERSITY OF PORT HARCOURT

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS AND COMMUNICATION
STUDIES




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

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

ABSTRACT
This term paper treats the syntax of simple sentences in English. It begins with a brief
description of constituent structural syntax. It then defines the notion of a syntactic
constituent and discusses the different relations of dependency holding between
members of a constituent. The complement structures found in the verb phrase are
treated, a number of grammatical functions are identified, and a categorization of
complementation types with diagrammatic illustrations emerges.
















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 associations 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 instance 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 book 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

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 produce
different 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.
Phoneme: 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.
Morphemes: 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}.
Constructions: 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

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

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 diagramming
by 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 of
diagramming follows in this paper:


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

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

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 complement
itself 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

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, is
subject-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

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" to
be 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

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 learners 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

and the challenge for the teacher is to find ways and means of making the transition
from one to the other.
















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

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.