0

Can only linking verbs have predicate adjectives and predicate nominatives as complements?

If action verbs can have predicates as well then it would be really helpful to me if you could please share some examples. I am confused regarding this, would really appreciate any help.

This below text is from a grammar book that I am reading:

Only linking verbs can have predicate adjectives as complements.

By definition, predicate nominatives have two distinctive characteristics:

1.   They are always complements of linking verbs.

Source: McGraw-Hill Education Handbook of English Grammar & Usage by Mark Lester.

Here is some more text from this book:

The traditional definition of verb is “a word used to express action or describe a state of being.” As the definition implies, there are two different types of verbs: action verbs and linking verbs that describe the subjects.

PS: also, I read one moderator on stackexchange saying that predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives are just made up stuff, made to sell more grammar books and have no role in English at all; is that true?

Community
  • 1
Nick
  • 3
  • 1
    In some sense, all grammar is just made-up stuff. But I don't see why predicate nominatives and predicate adjectives are any more made-up than the rest of grammar. – Peter Shor Mar 03 '20 at 10:56
  • @Peter Shor: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/140985/issues-with-predicate-nominative Please read the comment by Colin fine. But regardless of that, I am more interested in understanding this concept than trying to figure out who made it. :P I just asked it in PS so that people answering my question would shed some light on that as well. :)) – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 11:03
  • @PeterShor, you wrote a sentence and then removed it; why did you remove it? – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 11:04
  • I removed it because it wasn't an example of a predicate adjective as a subject complement, but rather an example of a predicate adjective as an object complement. – Peter Shor Mar 03 '20 at 11:27
  • @PeterShor, well, but in my question, I mentioned only "complements" so I would guess that to include "subject complements" as well? Was there a specific reason why you thought subject complements shouldn't be mentioned? I am asking you this because as you removed it so there must have been a good reason why you did so, I am just trying to understand the logic behind it. :)) I am just a novice so trying to learn from experts like you. :)) – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 12:04
  • Please be aware that many books on grammar below the level of say 'The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language', McCawley, Quirk et al, and other famous works (and even these disagree on occasion) will use different terminologies and analyses, and less accurate understanding, in certain areas. You need to follow your school text if the exam is based on their treatment. ELU will usually give a better explanation in these cases, but one that will not generate the answers the examiners like. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 15:09
  • @EdwinAshworth, I am preparing for the GMAT Exam but my grammar learning is not contingent on that exam, I am just trying to learn how grammar works, in a logical manner. :)) So please feel free to recommend any of your favorite grammar books. :)) – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 15:29
  • They're listed in the resources section on ELU.meta. But CGEL say is over £220 now, I bellieve. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 15:35
  • So according to you, those statements that I quoted above from a grammar book weren't correct? yes? Here is the book that I quoted from: McGraw-Hill Education Handbook of English Grammar & Usage by Mark Lester. – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 15:42
  • @EdwinAshworth, I just checked the resources section on ELU.meta, I don't see any books listed over there? Is it a privileged page or something because of which I can't see? – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 16:27
  • @EdwinAshworth, which is your favorite book on Etymology? – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 17:02
  • Here is a link; other works are recommended elsewhere, and 'A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language' is valuable. // OED is the only real starting point for etymologies. Further esoteric offerings are often presented here, and on Wordwizard (Ken Greenwald is an expert on etymological research ). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 21:06
  • Thanks, btw, I ordered the CGEL. :)) will see how it is. :) Thanks – Nick Mar 04 '20 at 13:20

1 Answers1

1

The classification of verbs into action/dynamic v stative v link/linking is simplistic and can lead to confusion, though the concepts involved are helpful. And note that the action-stative differentiation is semantically decided, whereas the linking-other differentiation is essentially syntactically based, which makes three disjoint classes almost inconceivable.

Nordquist, at ThoughtCo, addresses the stative - dynamic classification cogently [reproduced here with major reformatting and other, minor, adjustments]:

Exceptions: Verbs that 'are both stative and dynamic'

English also has plenty of gray areas, where a word isn't always only in one or the other category — sometimes words are stative and sometimes those same words are active. As with so many things in English, it depends on context.

Sylvia Chalker and Tom McArthur explain: "It is generally more useful to talk of stative and dynamic meaning and usage [rather than classes alone].... Some verbs belong to both categories but with distinct meanings, as with have in

  • She has red hair [stative] and
  • She is having dinner [active]"

[The Oxford Companion to the English Language Oxford University Press, 1992]

Another example could be with the word feel. Someone can

  • feel sad (a state of being), and a person can also physically
  • feel a texture (an action). They can also tell others to check it out as well:
  • Feel how soft!

Or even think can be in both categories, though thinking doesn't seem like a very dynamic process. Compare the usage in

  • I think that's really lousy

with the famous scene in "Back to the Future" when Biff comes up to George in the cafe and commands him,

  • "Think, McFly! Think," while knocking on his head.

....................

When it comes to thinking about link verbs in this context, note that there can be a continuing state involved:

  • She was happy with her uneventful lifestyle.
  • They remained childless throughout their lives.

or a change

  • He became king / angrier and angrier.
  • The sky turned grey.

Note also there are verbs fulfilling a linking role but also having real semantic content

  • He lay silent on the bed.
  • She sat quite still.
  • The flags hung limp.
  • Resistance proved futile.
  • The Roman army emerged victorious.
  • The Tallis Fantasia sounded incredible.
  • The apple pie tasted delicious.
  • George died insane.
  • He fell dead at their feet.
  • The poor dog was born blind.
  • The poker glowed red.
  • The soldier jumped clear.
  • The idea fell flat.

Again, some of the above examples show stative usages, some show dynamic (and in some cases, it's arguable: is 'glowed' stative or dynamic here?)

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
  • ok, this seems like a very well written answer; thank you for taking the time out to answer my question, really appreciate it. This is the first time I have heard of the word "stative" so please pardon me while I try to comprehend your reply. In your answer, I can't find the word "predicate" written anywhere, is stative equivalent to predicate? – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 12:44
  • 'referring to a state' (non-changing). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 12:59
  • ok, but what does all this have to do with predicate adjectves and predicate nominatives? that's what I am trying to figure out. I apologize, I am just a novice trying to learn things from experts such as you. – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 13:08
  • I've tried to show that the term 'link/ing verb' is untenable. If a suitable verb is used in a linking fashion (and note that while 'be', 'remain', 'turn' and 'become' refer solely to remaining in a single state or changing to another state, other verbs used similarly, like 'sit', 'lie', 'sound', 'taste', 'jump' ... provide additional information and so do more than prototypical 'link verbs'), then yes, it's traditional to call the AdjP or NP after the link verb a predicate adjective or predicate nominative, or a subject complement. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 14:04
  • @Lucky: at the end of the answer, Edwin gives a dozen sentences with non-linking verbs where predicate adjectives modify the subject. (And while you might argue that some of these are flat adverbs, and that some of the verbs are linking verbs, some of them are clearly predicate adjectives for non-linking verbs, and not simply flat adverbs; "he died insane" means something quite different than "he died insanely.") – Peter Shor Mar 03 '20 at 14:10
  • Your first two sentences ("Can only linking verbs ..." and "If action verbs can [also]") sets up a false dichotomy, that (a) 'linking verbs' and 'action verbs' are well-defined classes (not so: eg 'get' is a linking verb; fine in 'he got cold', but in fact 'He got a bike for Christmas' shows a non-link usage).and (b) they are disjoint sets (linking 'remain' is stative while linking 'become' is an 'active verb', one showing a transformation). – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 15:01
  • @EdwinAshworth, so you don't really wanna call that book wrong but you disagree with how it is stating those three statements; correct? – Nick Mar 03 '20 at 17:27
  • I'm saying that 'If action verbs can have predicates as well' doesn't make sense; you need to state clearly what you mean by 'action verbs' (I keep trying to get it across that linking usages can show 'action' in the transformation sense, which most would regard as an 'action usage'), and recognise the difference between subject complements, and direct and indirect objects. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 03 '20 at 21:14
  • @EdwinAshworth, ok, now I understand why you say so. Well, here is some more text from that same book:

    The traditional definition of verb is “a word used to express action or describe a state of being.” As the definition implies, there are two different types of verbs: action verbs and linking verbs that describe the subjects.

     – Nick Mar 04 '20 at 04:45
  • now, if afterward in his book, he says that: "Only linking verbs can have predicate adjectives as complements." Then what am I going to think? – Nick Mar 04 '20 at 04:49
  • so you see, what I am stating is what that book taught me, those are not my words but the author's words. That's why I asked you whether you disagree with the author of that book. – Nick Mar 04 '20 at 07:29
  • @Lucky: If you look online, many websites define predicate adjectives as adjectives that come after linking verbs. If you take this definition, the book is correct. But this raises the question: why should childless be a predicate adjective in he is childless but not in he died childless? And if it isn't, what kind of adjective is it? – Peter Shor Mar 06 '20 at 15:50
  • @Peter Shor There is also the problem of the definition of 'link/ing verb'. Collins CoBuild say (I'm paraphrasing) that besides linking verbs, there are other verbs that, while linking a subject and a complement, also carry a distinct semantic sense (be, remain, become, get etc show only remaining in some state or transforming to some other state). Thus they class lie, sit, hang, emerge, sound, taste, die, be born, glow, jump, fall ...' when used in a linking role as what I call 'link-like verb usages'. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 06 '20 at 17:14
  • @PeterShor, true, well it seems to me that nearly every grammarian has their own way of understanding grammar and defining things. I wonder how they ever agree on anything. You are absolutely right about "childless." @!Edwin, according to you(or the CGEL,) childless in "he died childless" is also a predicate adjective? – Nick Mar 06 '20 at 19:45
  • It's an adjective, it's depictive rather than resultative (contrast 'The red [ball] has run safe'), it's optional rather than obligatory (contrast 'He fell ill' where 'He fell' is a totally different sense) and it occurs in the predicate. Whether one calls it a 'predicate adjective', a 'predicative adjective', or gives it some other label is a matter of definition. As with 'gerund', I'm thinking that it's best to keep clear of the arguments. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 06 '20 at 20:10