Calling it an object complement seems a bit of a stretch, because PP
complements can play a variety of roles. I suggest simply calling all
such PPs "complements" and showing students how to distinguish them from
adjuncts.

Karl Hagen

Spruiell, William C wrote:
> Hi All --
> 
> I'm in the phase of my grammar class that involves dealing with clause
> patterns. I give my students a list of the basics, and then (of course)
> start fielding questions about exceptions. One issue that I know has
> come up on this list, albeit a while ago now, is how to treat the kind
> of prepositional phrase that's a required component of sentences such
> as, "The meeting is at 5:00." I seem to remember some of the list
> members being not too upset at the notion of treating it as a kind of
> subject complement (with the proviso, of course, that I may just be
> remembering what I want to). Traditionally, prepositional phrases have
> not been considered arguments of the verb, and subject complements are
> arguments, so there's a principled position against this kind of
> treatment -- but if we relax the prohibition against PPs as arguments,
> it seems to work fine.  
> 
> What kind of approaches are there to dealing with the required
> prepositional phrase after 'put'? Is it too far off to consider it an
> object complement? This may have come up in the earlier discussion about
> linking expressions, but if so, I don't have old enough messages
> archived to search through (in other words, sorry if I'm beating a
> long-dead horse!). 
> 
> Canonical object complements have the same relation to the direct object
> that subject complements have to the subject --they're identifying, or
> attributive:
> 
> 	We elected Brunnhild president.	/	Brunnhild is president.
> 	We consider Brunnhild competent.	/	Brunnhild is
> competent.
> 
> Based on this, I've started informally calling object complement
> constructions "translinking patterns," to try to highlight their
> similarities to the linking-verb constructions. Trying this with "put"
> seems to produce a parallel result:
> 
> 	We put the book on the table.		/	The book is on
> the table.
> 
> Of course, to some extent, trying to treat everything as falling into
> one of a few basic patterns is simply an exercise in abstraction; I
> don't want to maneuver me or my students into thinking that we're
> approaching "reality" this way. However, it does seem to work as an
> organizational device. 
> 
> Bill Spruiell
> 
> Dept. of English
> Central Michigan University
> 
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
> 
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/