0

I asked a question regarding PP complements the other day and I believe I now have a better handle on that. But I am still scratching my head over this paragraph from CGEL:

Within the category of internal dependents we will draw a distinction between modifiers and complements. The pre-head dependents in [7] are modifiers, while complements are seen in the finance minister, our legal advisor, and the like. (Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), p.331)

I thought "finance" in "the finance minister" was a noun adjunct, and so was "legal" in "our legal advisor", because if you take them out what you get is still normal, meaningful NPs. A minister is a minister, and that one just happens to be responsible for finance. But in Huddleston and Pullum's description, "finance" and "legal" are indispensable to the NPs. Are they integral parts of their respective NPs because they bond with the head nouns? But why?

Eddie Kal
  • 1,162
  • Page number in CGEL, please. – BillJ May 11 '21 at 06:27
  • @BillJ P.331. Will update the question as well. – Eddie Kal May 11 '21 at 06:29
  • 1
    Generally, if the adjective can be incorporated into a PP, then it's a complement. "Legal advisor" = "advisor on legal matters". Likewise with a noun: "finance minister" = "minister of financial affairs". "Legal" and "finance"are thus complements. not modifiers. – BillJ May 11 '21 at 06:45
  • The definition of 'complement' that you're using - indispensable to the NP / integral parts of the NP - did you find these in CGEL? The definition of 'complement' in A Student's Introduction to English Grammar', an introductory version of the same system of grammar, might be helpful - A kind of dependent that must be licensed by the head. In _It shakes the building, 'the building' is a complement because it's allowed only with a certain kind of head verb: shake licenses dependents of this kind, but quake doesn't (*It quakes the building). – DW256 May 11 '21 at 06:52
  • @DW256 Re "indispensable/integral": Different sources, though variously worded, all point to that notion. For example, Wikipedia states "In grammar, a complement is a word, phrase, or clause that is necessary to complete the meaning of a given expression." Also please refer to the comments under this question. Can you cite a page number for that example you gave? – Eddie Kal May 11 '21 at 06:59
  • Okay found it. A Student's Introduction to English Grammar P. 297. Hmm, now I am puzzled by that example... How is "the building" a complement? It could be anything. It sees the building. It obliterates the building. It touches the building. It pees on the building. – Eddie Kal May 11 '21 at 07:06
  • It could not be anything - It sings the building. It sleeps the building, It will the building, It dies the building. Only a certain set of verbs allow this sort of a complement (an object). – DW256 May 11 '21 at 07:18
  • 1
    @EddieKal The usual licensing does not apply with pre-head complements. Nevertheless, such complements typically have close paraphrases involving post-head complements where a forced choice of preposition is observable, as in the "legal advisor" example ("an advisor on legal matters"). Similarly, "an alcohol ban" and "a ban on alchohol"; "a wrist injury" and "an injury to the wrist". – BillJ May 11 '21 at 07:21
  • @DW256 Actually I meant to put "it" in italics. That "it" referred to the subject in that sentence. I meant if "it" could be anything there is a whole range of verbs that are applicable in that sentence. What they say in that passage doesn't make sense. Of course their example "*It quakes the building" doesn't work. "Quake" is intransitive. – Eddie Kal May 11 '21 at 07:21
  • @BillJ This makes sense. I wasn't able to tell them (pre-head complements and modifiers) apart by looking at the semantics, but with your comments I feel closer to getting a grasp. – Eddie Kal May 11 '21 at 07:24

0 Answers0