Skip to main content

syntactic analysis - How to tell if something is a core complement or a non-core complement?


CaGEL on page 216 cite the following:



"Kim gave the key to Pat"


An NP indirectly related to the verb through the preposition is referred as an oblique. The phrase "to Pat" is a non-core compliment of the verb give, but the NP Pat is an oblique.



In a double object construction where both the noun phrase + prepositional phrases are both "core complements" either, is referred to as a direct or indirect object.



enter image description here


These verbs are called double object verbs. When we have two noun phrases after the verb the first noun phrase is the indirect object and the second noun phrase is the direct object.


Are old man and animals in the second row of the picture above, not noun phrases too? Like the oblique NP Pat, in "Kim gave the key to Pat".


My guess is that where there are two possibilities: core complements (NP and NP) and when there is a core complement and non-core complement (NP and PP):
Sentences with two core complements next to each other in the clause-final position; the first component can be seen as an indirect object, and the following NP after, is the direct object.
In a sentence where there is a core complement next to a non-core complement in the clause-final position; only the first complement is considered core which is usually a NP and the direct object, and the second component which is usually the (PP) a non-core complement and not a indirect object.


In most cases, it is easy to distinguish such as below:


Kim gave Pat _______ .


This does not answer what Kim gave Pat, so there must be another core complement that being "the key". Traditional grammar analysis would class "the key" in this case as the direct object, while "Pat" the indirect object. Does CaGEL think this too when there is 2 noun phrases following the verb?



  1. Kim gave the key. [to Pat]


  2. Kim gave Pat _____ .


    The direct object in (1) can stand on its own without the non-core "to-complement"; the to-complement is not an indirect object according to CaGEL and the direct object would be "the key".
    But the indirect object in (2) cannot stand on its own, so the what-complement has to be answered and is core; the what-complement "the key" is a direct object. Both "Pat" and "the key" in (2) are noun phrases.





Wikipedia considers the CaGEL's example "She gave the key to Pat" as an oblique dative shift, where the prepositional phrase is a non-core complement. They make this distinction:



In the oblique dative (OD) form, the verb takes a noun phrase (NP) and a prepositional phrase (PP), the second of which is not a core argument:


John gave [NP a book] [PP to Mary].


In the double object construction (DOC) form the verb takes two noun phrases, both of which are core arguments:


John gave [NP Mary] [NP a book].




  • The assumption is that the “oblique objects” which you get through dative alternation with a prepositional phrase are not core arguments


However, in some cases it's harder to distinguish whether a complement is core or not. This means that the PP is not always a non-core complement to the NP. For example, Wikipedia also cites the following examples as DOC, even though there is a dative alternation, with NP and PP as its core argument:



John bought [NP a cake] [PP for Mary]


John acquired [NP a new car] [PP for Mary]




My question is what do you consider as "core" and "non-core complements"?



(The bold is what I believed to be the core complements and the italics the non-core complements)



*John bought Mary a cake.
*John acquired Mary a new car.



? John bought Mary.
? John acquired Mary.


Can the above stand on their own, but in:


"Kim gave Pat."


it cannot?



✓ John bought a cake.
✓ John acquired a new car.


*John bought a cake Mary.
*John acquired a new car Mary.


✓ John bought a cake for Mary.
✓ John acquired a new car for Mary.



There is a preference for the NP (a new car/cake) to be core complements to the verb and the NP Mary to be a non-core complement indirectly related to the verb. But there doesn't seem to be an explanation as to why the NP "a cake" and "a new car" can stand on their own; but the NP Mary and Pat cannot. The correct form would be "for Mary" and it would still have to follow the core complement, it cannot precede the core complement or stand on its own. For example it cannot be:



*John acquired for Mary.
*John bought for Mary.


? John acquired for Mary a new car.
? John bought for Mary a cake.


✓ John acquired a new car for Mary.
✓ John bought a cake for Mary.



But below is possible:



✓ John acquired a new car.
✓ John bought a cake.





John bought a cake.



and



John bought a cake for Mary.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more