Modifier vs. Complement

Syntax

Linguistics 222/322

Contents: PP Modifiers | Ordering Test | Relative Clause Replacement Test | Psuedo-cleft Test | Stranded Preposition Test | Conjunction Test | Predicate Separation Test | Omission Test | WH-Word Conjunction Test

Be sure to read the section on complements: Complements

PPs may be adjoined to both NP and VP or they may function as a complement to either category. Given a phrase with a PP, it is not easy to determine the PP is a complement or a modifier. A couple of short items are useful in NPs:

For example:

  1. a bottle of wine, a glass of water, a bowl of cherries, a vase of roses, a picture of the Alps, a gaggle of geese, a tale of two cities, one of the students, some of the exercises.
  2. the presentation to the class, a gift of some candy to Mary, the road to Mandalay, the way home from school, a gift from John, the receipt of a good mark from his prof.

There are at least seven tests which can be used to test for the difference between complements and modifiers. None of these tests works in all contexts. To test for complements and modifiers, one should succeed with at least two tests if at all possible.

Nouns (nominal heads)

1. Complements precede adjuncts

This test only works if there are two PPs. If there is one PP the test is useless. However, the following two statements are true because of the above test: if the second PP is a complement, then the first PP must be a complement t, and if the first PP is a modifier, then the second PP must be a modifier.

  1. Mary likes the picture of John on the table.
  2. *Mary likes the picture on the table of John.

2. There is one test for PP modifiers of NPs: relative clause replacement. If a PP can be replaced with a relative clause formed with some form of be or have, and there is no change in the meaning of the phrases except for the tense that the relative clause marks, then the PP is a modifier: Otherwise, it is a complement:

  1. the book on the table <--> the book which is on the table
  2. the cat in the corner <--> the cat that is in the corner
  3. the mouse under the sofa <--> the mouse that is under the sofa
  4. the boy with red hair <--> the boy who has red hair
  5. the dog with a long tail <--> the dog that has a long tail
 
  1. a bottle of wine <--> *a bottle which is of wine
  2. a glass of water <--> *a glass which is of water
  3. a picture of the Alps <--> *a picture which is of the Alps
  4. one of the students <--> *one which is of the students
  5. a gift of candy to Mary <--> *a gift of some candy which is to Mary
  6. the road to Mandalay <--> *the road which was to Mandalay.

In (1), for example, the only diference in meaning is in tense. The copular verb is marks the present tense in the relative clause, but it is missing in the PP complement.

Note that there is the following construction:

  1. the bottle which has wine (in it).

This appears to be a counter example to the relative clause test. In the relative clause test, the relative clause should have the same meaning as the test PP with the exception of tense. Sentence (1) immediately above implies that the bottle was intended for something else--it just happens to have some wine in it. Evidence to support this can be found in compounds of the following type:

  1. a wine bottle.

The left member of the compound implies the function of the bottle--for wine. Such compounds do not take complements:

  1. *a wine bottle of wine
  2. *a wine bottle of gin.

But the compound can be modified by a modifier:

  1. a wine bottle which has gin in it.

Thus there is close link between the head and its complement. Here, it is one of intention or purpose.

3.     Complement restriction

A noun that takes a complement can take a restricted number of complements as determined by their subcategorization properties. For example, container nouns can take only one complement:

  1. A cup of coffee
  2. *A cup of coffee of tea (Tea takes no complements).
  3. *A cup of coffee to the house
  4. The gift of roses to the winner
  5. The gift of roses to the winner from Henry
  6. The gift of roses to the winner from Henry to the prime minister.

An indefinite number of modifies may modify a noun. This number is determined by performance factors:

  1. The cup of coffee on the table in the kitchen next to the toaster by the mixer
  2. The gift of roses to the winner from Henry in the procession at the convocation at S.F.U. on Monday in the morning.

Note that modifiers can modify most preceding nouns in the string restricted only by semantics. For example next to the toaster can modify table or cup but is unlikely to modify kitchen since rooms are not usually located next to an implement. Similarly, it isn't the coffee per se that is next to the toaster, but the cup of it that is. That is, the following is unacceptable:

  1. *It was coffee near the coaster that John drank a cup of.
  2. It was a cup of coffee near the coaster that John drank a cup of.

Verbs

1. The pseudo-cleft test

The following is an example of a normal sentence and a related pseudo-cleft sentence:

  1. John pulled the fire alarm at school.
  2. What John did at school was pull the fire alarm.

A pseudo-cleft construction consists of the following six parts:

Both do and be are inflected for tense--usually the same tense. The verb put takes two first level complements; neither complement can be omitted:

  1. Mary put the bowl on the table.
  2. *Mary put the bowl.
  3. *Mary put on the table.
  4. *Mary put.

A first level complement of a verb cannot occur in the marked focus position of the pseudo-cleft construction:

  1. *What Mary did the bowl was put on the table.
  2. *What Mary did on the table was put the bowl.

Note the following interesting complement structure of two different meaning of the verb place:

  1. Mary placed everything on the desk.
  2. John placed a $5 bet at the races.

Place in (1) takes two complements; in (2) it takes one complement:

  1. *What Mary did everything was place on the desk.
  2. *What Mary did on the desk was place everything.
  3. *What John did a $5 bet was place as the races.
  4. What John did at the races was place a $5 bet.

At the races is a modifier which says where the placing of the bed took place. It occurs in the marked focus position of the pseudo-cleft construction.

Adjunct modifiers and second level complements can occur in the marked focus position:

  1. What Mary did in the kitchen was cook breakfast.
  2. What John did in the garage was take the engine out of his car.
  3. What Henry does in the morning is drink black coffee.
  4. What Molly does on Sundays is go to the movies.
 
  1. What Seymour did with the knife was slice up the burned roast
  2. What Mary did with the eggbeater was beat eggs for an omelette.

The last two sentences contain second level complements. Second level complements not as tightly linked to the verb semantically as first level complements. Second level complements include agents, instruments, and a few other theta roles (see theta roles). Secondary level complements are modifiers incorporated into the verb and thus function like complements.

2. The stranded preposition test.

As opposed to pure modifiers, complements are incorporated into the meaning of the verb (or noun). There is one test for complements, but the test does not go far enough--preposition stranding. A stranded preposition is a transitive preposition that remains when its complement has been repositioned (moved):

  1. John put his glasses on the table.
  2. The table John put his glasses on.
  3. It was the table that John put his glasses on.

 

  1. It is easy for Mary to cook a soufflé on her new stove.
  2. Her new stove is easy for Mary to cook a soufflé on.

Stranded prepositions are possible if the preposition heads a complement PP at both first level and second levels:

  1. It was a new 1928 Franklin that John decided on.
  2. It was this knife that Seymour sliced the salami with.
  3. It was Henry who the smutty book was written by.
  4. It was Lottie that Clarence went to Kamloops with.
  5. It was a forklift that Bruce put the lumber on the truck with.

Stranded prepositions are not possible if the preposition heads an adjunct PP. This is always true for temporal PPs, and true for locative PPs that follow another PP:

  1. Polly studies syntax in the morning.
  2. In the morning Polly studies syntax.
  3. *The morning Polly studies syntax in.
 
  1. Peter set the vase down on the counter.
  2. It was the counter that Peter set the vase down on.
  3. On the counter Peter set the vase down.
  4. The counter Peter set the vase down on.
 
  1. Peter set the vase down on the counter at home.
  2. At home Peter set the vase down on the counter.
  3. *Home Peter set the vase down on the counter at.
  4. It was at home that Peter set the base down on the counter.
  5. *It was home that Peter set the vase down on the counter at.

However, some prepositions that head an adjunct may be stranded if they do not follow another PP:

  1. It was our kitchen that Mary cooked breakfast in.
  2. It is his own bedroom that John sleeps in.
 
  1. The kitchen is a good place to cook breakfast in.
  2. The back bedroom is not such a good place for the kids to sleep in.

The evidence here is negative evidence. If a preposition cannot be stranded, then it is an adjunct. If it can be stranded, other tests must be made to determine whether the PP is an adjunct or not.

As we noted above, complements tend to mark purpose. For example:

  1. ??What John does in bed is sleep.
  2. ??What Mary does in her pajamas is sleep.

(1) sounds quite odd since the purpose of a bed is to sleep in. (2) sounds quite odd since the purpose of a pajamas is to sleep in. Compare these sentences with the following:

  1. What John does on the couch all day is sleep.
  2. What John does in bed is watch Hee-Haw reruns on the idiot box.
  3. What Mary does in her pajamas is drive her kids to school.
  4. The only thing which Mary does in her fur coat is sleep.

These sentences do not sound odd because a couch is not intended to sleep on, and pajamas are not intended to drive ones kids to school in. In the purpose or intent reading , incorporation appears to have taken place. That is, in bed or in ones pajamas are incorporated into the meaning of the verb as propose. It may be the case that all stranded locative prepositions may have been incorporated as intent or purpose, thus become level two complements. Level one complements are inherent and not incorporated. If this is the case, then the distinction between adjunct and complement is less fuzzy.

 

3. The conjunction test: an adjunct and a complement may not be conjoined.

Two complements of N or V may be conjoined:

  1. All the kings of England and of France were bald.
  2. John consumed several dishes of ice cream and of sherbet.

Two adjuncts may be conjoined:

  1. All the vases of roses on the tables and in the kitchen sink are beginning to wither.
  2. Will all the students with green or with purple hair please report to the principle.

But one or more of each may not be conjoined:

  1. *All the kings of England and in pajamas are bald.
  2. *John consumed several dishes of ice cream and on the table.
  3. *The destruction of the city and with bombs.
  4. *The merciless killing of the assassins and with a gun.

4. The predicate separation test

In related constructions an adjunct may occur in the predicate construction of a sentence; adjuncts may not:

  1. The book of matches on the table is dangerous for kids.
  2. The book of matches is on the table.
  3. *The book is of matches.

What is interesting in this construction is that any modifier (with a few exceptions based on semantics) can occur in the predicate separated from the noun it modifies:

  1. The old book is boring.
  2. The book is boring.
  3. The boring book is old.

A predicate adjective can be transposed as a premodifier. Note that the information content of 1 and 3 immediately above is the same. Only the prominence changes (the way the speaker is looking at the information). PPs can do the same thing:

  1. The book on the table is about syntax.
  2. The book about syntax is on the table.

Relative clauses are also modifiers and they have the same property:

  1. The book which is on the table is about syntax.
  2. The book which is about syntax is on the table.

There is a small class of prenominal adjectives that cannot occur in predicate position:

  1. The former president of Russia is in Canada.
  2. *The president of Russia who is in Canada is former.

 

  1. The late mayor Timbuktu served six terms.
  2. *The mayor of Timbuktu who served six terms was late. (where late means deceased.)

Some predicate adjectives can occur as prenominal modifiers:

  1. The large door is ajar.
  2. *The ajar door is large.

 

  1. Nasty rumours about syntax a afloat.
  2. *Afloat rumours about syntax are nasty.
  3. Nasty rumours which are afloat are about syntax.

In the third example afloat is a predicate adjective in a relative clause which is OK. Note also that a relative clause with a main verb can also become the main predicate losing the relative pronoun:

  1. The book that John likes is on the table.
  2. John likes the book that is on the table.

If the form in question can be separated as shown above then the form is an adjunct (modifier). If it cannot it either a complement (if it follows the noun) or it is prenominal modifier with special properties.

5. The omission test.

The omission test tests for complements. It not useful for adjuncts. If the constituent in question cannot be deleted, it is a complement. All adjuncts are optional. Some complements can be omitted and some cannot:

  1. John likes syntax and conceptual structures in the spring.
  2. *John likes in the spring.
  3. John likes syntax and conceptual structures .
  4. *John likes.
  5. Mary never eats dinosaurs on Sundays.
  6. Mary never eats on Sundays.
  7. Mary never eats dinosaurs.
  8. Mary never eats.

Syntax and conceptual structures is the complement of like. The phrase cannot be deleted as shown in (2) and (4). This is evidence that the constituent is a complement since it is required. The complement of eat may be deleted as shown in (5) and (7). The two time PPs may be deleted with any verb. However, since dinosaurs, which is a complement, can be omitted, omission is no test. Only the failure of omission is a test.

6. The Wh-word conjunction test

Wh-words are pronominal forms that replace NPs and PPs and are intended to seek information in standard clauses and are modifier links in relative clauses. NP Wh-words and PP Wh-words include:

  1. who, what = NP
  2. where, when, why, how

The Wh-word which is a D (or a prenominal modifier).

If two Wh-words refer to complements with different theta roles, they cannot be conjoined:

  1. *Who and what did John give to? (theme, goal)
  2. Who did John give what to?
  3. What did John give to who?

Two adjunct Wh-words may be conjoined even though they may bear different theta-roles:

  1. When and how did you find your missing ring?
  2. Where and why did John paint the kitchen table?
  3. *When and where did John put his books?

In the latter example where is a complement of put, but when is a temporal adjunct. They cannot be conjoined. In the preceding example, both where and when are adjuncts. To use this test on a PP, replace the PP with the appropriate Wh-word, and then try to conjoin it with an adjunct Wh-word and then a complement Wh-word. If conjunction works, both are adjuncts. If it doesn't, at least one of them is a complement.

  1. Mary found her ring in the morning with no difficulty.
  2. John painted the kitchen table outside because of his odd habits.
  3. John put his books on the mantle in the afternoon.

For example, suppose you want to know whether "on the edge of the frying pan" is a complement or an adjunct in:

  1. Maggie broke an egg on the edge of the frying pan in the kitchen.

In the kitchen is clearly a complement. So replace in the kitchen with where and on the edge of the frying pan with on what:

  1. *What and where did Maggie break an egg on?
  2. *On what and where did Maggie break an egg?

The latter sentence is possible if on what refers to the location of the event of breaking an egg:

  1. On the chair Maggie broke an egg in the kitchen.

Where this sentence means that Maggie was standing on the chair and somehow broke an egg. In the target sentence above, on the edge of the frying pan is an instrument+locative.

Contents: PP Modifiers | Ordering Test | Relative Clause Replacement Test | Psuedo-cleft Test | Stranded Preposition Test | Conjunction Test | Predicate Separation Test | Omission Test | WH-Word Conjunction Test

Go to conjunction

Go to x-bar theory

To return to 222 course outline Click here

To return to 322 course outline Click here

This page last updated 31 JA 2000