Modify vs. Complement

Modifiers

1. The cat
2. The cuddly, friendly cat
3. The fierce, mean cat

But cat is not a word that necessarily takes an adjective. Consider:

The cat sat on the mat.

It's a well formed sentence. We don't have any information about whether it's advisable to pat this cat, but that's a practical concern, not a grammatical one.

Similarly we can say:

1. Harold drove.
2. Harold drove fast.
3. Harold drove fifty miles over the speed limit.
4. Harold drove with exemplary caution on the wet road.

The adverbials in sentences 1-4. give you information about how Harold drove and might lead you to different conclusions about whether you'd like to be Harold's passenger, but the sentence Harold drove. is complete--if bland--without an adverbial modifying the verb.

Complements

I. For example, a small class of English verbs require adverbials of location as complements.

Compare:

1. Ernestine dwells in a little vine covered cottage.
2. Ernestine dwells there.
3. There, Ernestine dwelt.

II. Similarly, with be and the linking verbs, the subjective complement completes both the structure and the meaning.

1. Harold seems well. [adj. as subjective complement]
2. Harold seems to be well. [infinitive as subjective complement]
3. Harold seems a snob. [NP as subjective complement]

You might say that these sentences work because seem is tagged in a speaker's internal dictionary, or mental lexicon, as a verb that requires a an adjectival or NP complement:

Some verbs that can function as linking verbs can also be used as transitive or intransitive, but note that their meaning changes:

Harold looked.

Harold looked down the hole.

BUT Harold looks good.

So look has at least two possible tags: it's either without complement (intransitive) or (in a different meaning) with subjective complement.

Compare: Harold looked down the hole. This sentence is simply an instance of the intransitive use with an adverbial PP modifying the verb.

A sentence like: Harold is. is possible only in the present tense and only in the marginal meaning "Harold exists." You might, in fact, want to consider it a sort of pseudo pattern VI (intransitive).

The sentence Harold was. isn't a possible sentence in English in the meaning *"Harold existed." Forms of be can, however, occur in all tenses as responses to questions, but in these cases the complement is missing, or implied from the context of the preceding sentence; for example:

Q. Who was at the party?
A. Harold was. [at the party]. (pattern I be + ADV T/P)

Q. Who is the fairest of them all?
A. Cinderella is. [the fairest of them all] (pattern II be + adj)

Q. Who was the team's manager?
A. Harold was. [the team's manager]. (Pattern III be + NP)

III. Some grammarians would describe verbs that are ONLY transitive as requiring direct objects as complements.

*Harold adores.

But:

1. Harold adores chicken tandoori. [NP as D.O. ]
2. Harold adores eating Indian food. [gerund phrase as D.O.]

Again, adore can be thought of as tagged in the speaker's mental dictionary as requiring a direct object:

IV. Similarly, some verbs are marked as requiring either objects or objective complements:

1. The voters elected a president.
2. The voters elected Ernestine president.

A verb like elect would be marked as either:
1. requiring a D.O.

OR
2. requiring a D.O. and an objective complement:

V. Other structures, for example, adjectives, can take complements too.

1. Harold is eager.
2. Harold is eager to go to the store.

Here, the adjective eager is tagged as possibly, but not obligatorily, taking an infinitive as complement:

Return to handouts index.

Return to objects, complements, and modifiers index.