Complement (syntax)
The term complement is used in linguistics with different, slightly different meanings for certain types of syntactic additions.
Complements in the structural syntax
general definition
In formal theories of syntax , complement is a phrase that is directly connected to a syntactic head . In a structure tree , a complement is thus the “sister” of a head (i.e. an X ° category). In contrast to an adjunct , the addition of a complement changes the level of complexity (level of projection) of the expression. In a schematic example as below, the phrase YP is a complement to the head X ° and results in the expansion stage X 'for this head. On the other hand, ZP is not a complement, even if ZP is also dependent on X °:
...
/ \
ZP X'
/ \
X° YP
The concept of complement in this sense is part of a general theory of the structure of the syntax (e.g. in the X-bar theory). Above all, this means that the term complement is used regardless of the part of speech of the respective head (noun, verb, adjective, preposition, conjunction, etc.). In this sense z. B. nouns have complements as well as verbs, whereas these are denoted differently in traditional grammar, since one traditionally speaks of "attributes" instead of "additions" in connection with a noun.
Applications
Examples of complements are both direct objects of transitive verbs (as opposed to their subjects ) and certain genitive attributes of a noun (as opposed to adjective attributes ), as in the following examples (complements in each case in bold):
...
/ \
V'
/ \
NP V°
Cäsar (zu) ermorden
...
/ \
N'
/ \
N° NP
(die) Ermordung Cäsars
If X ° is a content word that assigns a semantic role , then the complement position is the place for the first argument connected to the predicate. The term “argument”, however, must be kept separate, since in this context it mainly describes a semantic function, whereas “complement” is the term for the position in the structure. Since complement is a structural term here, complements need not necessarily be arguments; Examples of heads that do not assign an argument role to their complement are subordinate conjunctions, i. H. Complementizer in generative grammar.
The copular complement
Another example that shows that the term complement is independent of other grammatical terms is the copular complement . A copula is a relatively meaningless verb that has to be combined with another, non-verbal element (the predicative ) to form a predicate. This addition to the copula does not have a semantic role and is not case- ruled , but is only a complement. Analysis for the example: "... that he was the only one:"
...
/ \
NP V'
er / \
NP V°
der einzige war
(The nominative case of the copula complement, the only one, is an equation nominative, i.e. it appears through agreement with the subject, not through direction).
Complements in the sense of the valence grammar
In the literature on valence grammar (as well as in the German literature influenced by it) the term “complement” is often used as a synonym for (obligatory) “ supplement ”, and in these cases it is practically interchangeable with the term syntactic “argument ".
An essential difference to the structural complement concept is then z. B. that subjects count as additions to the valence of the verb, but as a rule cannot be complements in the sense of a complementary position . Furthermore, the concept of complement in the sense of the valence grammar only applies to units that depend on a predicate, whereas the structural concept of complement also refers to cases of purely structural proximity, as it is e.g. B. exists between an introductory conjunction and the rest of the subordinate clause. (Subordinate conjunctions are, at least in Tesnière's classical formulation of the concept of valence, recorded using the concept of “translation” instead of that of “valence”).
literature
- Vilmos Ágel et al. (Ed.): Dependenz und Valenz / Dependency and Valency: An international handbook of contemporary research / An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2004.
- Karin Pittner, Judith Berman: German Syntax. A work book. 4th edition. Narr, Tübingen 2010.
- Geoffrey Poole: Syntactic Theory. 2nd edition. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2011.
References and comments
- ↑ See e.g. B. Poole, chap. 3
- ↑ However, if an accusative object occurs at the same time as a prepositional object, the prepositional object is closer to the verb; in such cases the direct object is not a complement in the sense mentioned. See German grammar # syntax of the middle field
- ↑ z. B. Pittner & Berman p. 45
- ^ Edeltraut Werner: The translation in Tesnières syntax model. In: Ágel et al. (Eds.), Pp. 115-129.