Herb,

I frankly have never introduced licensing in a technical sense, but I
suppose our classroom discussion amounts to the same thing, although
with less abstraction. I don't define complements in terms of obligatory
elements, so perhaps I sidestep the problem of distinguishing optional
complements from adjuncts. I try to put everything in terms of options.
Pick a verb. Then you have certain options as to how to continue. The
basic verb patterns (i.e., of complements) are a limited set of
options--tightly restricted and occurring with verb after verb. After
that (i.e., the adjuncts) you have almost unlimited choice that has
little or nothing to do with the verb. I do expect students to perceive
the basic patterns, but don't ask them to make any systematic
distinction between complements and adjuncts.

I like to illustrate adjuncts with the fortune-cookie phenomenon: the
fact that you can add "in bed" to most fortunes and still have a
sensible, if slightly risque, prediction. Clearly, the choice of verb
doesn't limit your ability to add this PP. Indeed, when "in bed" doesn't
work, it's usually because there's already a locative expression in the
fortune (that is, it isn't the verb's fault).

Karl

Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College

Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:

>Karl,
>
>Thanks for adding the notion "licensing" to this discussion.  It does
>help to clarify the problem of obligatory vs. optional, one of the
>problems I run into when presenting this material in class.  Have you
>found that undergrad English majors pick up licensing, or do they find
>it difficult?
>
>Herb
>
>
>On the required/optional problem with complements:
>
>Linguists talk about verbs _licensing_ (i.e., allowing) certain
>complements. In other words, the presence of a particular verb is
>necessary to license (but not always to mandate) the complements. Hence
>"She slept the bed" is ungrammatical, because "slept" doesn't license an
>
>object. Adjuncts, on the other hand, simply appear without license,
>whatever the verb subtype. The only restrictions are semantic. Some
>complements are obligatory, of course. That's the easy case where their
>complement-hood is unambiguous, but we don't need to define
>complement-hood by whether or not something is required. Indirect
>objects are licensed, but rarely, if ever, obligatory. Omissibility,
>therefore, doesn't really tell us whether or not something is a
>complement.
>
>A useful test of complement-hood is "do so" substitution. If it can be
>included in the scope of "do so," it's a complement. For example,
>
>I bought our daughter presents for Christmas, and my wife did so for
>Chanukah.
>*I bought our daughter presents for Christmas, and my wife did so our
>son.
>
>In other words, the IO is a complement (although it's certainly
>grammatical to say "I bought presents for Christmas"), but the time
>expression is an adjunct. And when a verb license a both the IO-DO and
>the DO-PP pattern, the PP is a complement too.
>
>Applying the test your 'move' sentence, it seems pretty definite that
>"to the porch" is a complement:
>
>I moved the ladder to the porch, and--after my wife put it in the
>garage--I did so again.
>*I moved the ladder to the porch, and then I did so to the living room.
>
>By the same test, I think the dialectal sentences too are ditransitive
>(although there are clearly additional restrictions on semantic roles
>that you note.)
>
>Karl
>
>Karl Hagen
>Department of English
>Mount St. Mary's College
>
>Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>
>
>>Herb,
>>It may come down to a difference in definitions, but I would use
>>/indirect object/ to account for participants in sentences that seem
>>grammatical without it. (/I baked a cake. I baked the kids a cake. I
>>composed a sonata. I composed my wife a sonata.)/ /The kids/ and /my
>>wife/ are beneficiaries of the process, and so indirect objects, at
>>least in my frame of reference. Both pass the structural to or for
>>test. /I baked a cake for the kids/. /I composed a sonata for my
>>wife./ If I /baked myself a cake/ or /baked me a cake,/ I would
>>include both /myself/ and /me/ as indirect objects. /Me/ just feels
>>colloquial and informal.
>>We have to be a little careful about composing examples that might
>>never be used in practice. I think, in my case at least, I would
>>substitute /me/ for /myself/ (within this dialect) only when it means
>>/for/ or /to myself/. I wouldn't say /I hated me in the morning/. But
>>i would say /I'm gonna run me a/ /good race/, in part because it adds
>>the meaning that I am doing this for myself. I'm/ gonna/ /compose me a
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>sonnet for my wife /is a theoretical example that doesn't feel right
>>to me, just as /I'm gonna run me a good race for the team/ seems
>>awkward as well. If I'm gonna win me a good race, then I expect to win
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>me some acclaim. I am doing it for myself.
>>I have always had a problem with "obligatory element" as definition
>>for a verb complement, if only because context creates situations
>>where the element doesn't need to be explicit.
>>In /I moved the ladder to the porch/, is /to the porch/ modifier or
>>complement? To me, it's a complement,. though /I moved the ladder/ is
>>perfectly grammatical. Similarly, I can /teach blue/s /guitar/ or
>>/give a pint of blood/, both of which can easily be expanded with
>>receiver type participants. (You can't teach guitar without teaching
>>it to someone, can't give blood without giving it to someone, but I
>>don't feel obliged to fill in that blank every time I use the verb.)
>>Am I misunderstanding what is intended by "obligatory"?
>>
>>Craig
>>
>>Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Craig,
>>>
>>>You could argue that it's ditransitive, but the IO is not obligatory.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>You could also argue that the IO is deletable if it refers to the
>>>subject, which would get around my objection. But this pronoun gets
>>>used in the same way with verbs that a pretty clearly not
>>>
>>>
>ditransitive:
>
>
>>>I'm going to run me a better race this time.
>>>
>>>I'm going to compose me a sonata for my wife.
>>>
>>>I'm going to drink me enough beer to blot out the whole #### game.
>>>
>>>This use of the pronoun provides additional emphasis on the subject
>>>but doesn't act as a complement to the verb.
>>>
>>>Herb
>>>
>>>Herb,
>>>You leave me curious on this one. Substitution for the reflexive
>>>pronoun I follow, but why is it not an IO in that case?
>>>I'm going to get her a new car.
>>>I'm going to get myself a new car.
>>>I'm going to get me a new car.
>>>I think we understand ditransitive structures as involving three
>>>participants (entities), but do we really need to include them in all
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>statements? (I gave at the office. I sent a nice card. And so on?)
>>>I don't think I'm misreading the dialect, since it's in my own
>>>repertoire from the blue collar streets of South Jersey. (I'm gonna
>>>get me a case of cold beer and watch the #### game.) I'm not sure
>>>these guys were influenced by Latin or Greek.
>>>
>>>Craig
>>>
>>>Stahlke, Herbert F.W. wrote:
>>>
>>>This is not really an indirect object construction.  Rather,
>>>
>>>
>Appalachian substitutes the object pronoun for the reflexive.  Second,
>the first two instances look like they could be interpreted as IOs but
>are different in that they, actually all three, are optional, which IOs
>never are.  Third, there is another construction, rare in Standard
>English, called, at least by classical grammarians (Latin and Greek) the
>ethical dative.  Why "ethical" I've never understood.  Rather, they are
>a form of reference to the subject without using  a reflexive.
>
>
>>>
>>>Herb Stahlke
>>>
>>>Ball State University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ATEG Members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know whether anyone has covered this in the lengthy discussion
>>>
>>>of indirect objects, but in Appalachian dialects, especially, but also
>>>
>>>in the dialect of many South Midland speakers, indirect object are
>>>
>>>
>quite
>
>
>>>prevalent in speech. You hear structures like:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                  I'm going to get me a switch and whip you.
>>>
>>>                  I got me a new car today.
>>>
>>>                  He had him a good time at the dance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is there anybody else out there who has noticed the same constructions
>>>
>>>in other dialects?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Marshall
>>>
>>>Eastern Kentucky University
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Edward Vavra wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>   As an instructor of Freshman comp at the college level, I found
>>>>
>>>>this thread on indirect objects very interesting, especially since I
>>>>
>>>>have also been struggling with the teaching of grammar for almost a
>>>>
>>>>quarter of a century. What interested me most is that I literally
>>>>
>>>>
>tell
>
>
>>>>my students that I do not care if they label indirect objects as
>>>>
>>>>
>direct.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>   As many contributors to this thread noted, students enter our
>>>>
>>>>classrooms with almost no formal knowledge of grammar. As some
>>>>
>>>>contributors noted, indirect objects give students few, if any,
>>>>
>>>>practical problems. Meanwhile, many students have problems with
>>>>
>>>>subject/verb agreement because they cannot identify verbs.
>>>>
>>>>
>(Two-thirds
>
>
>>>>of my students enter the course unable to identify "is," "are," "was"
>>>>
>>>>and "were" as verbs.) Thus, to me, it seems absolutely senseless to
>>>>
>>>>
>try
>
>
>>>>to teach them to identify indirect objects.
>>>>
>>>>   I must admit that, in trying to develop a consistent, systematic
>>>>
>>>>approach to teaching grammar (KISS) that begins in grade three and
>>>>
>>>>
>ends
>
>
>>>>in grade eleven, I have for several years been working in neutral in
>>>>
>>>>
>my
>
>
>>>>own courses. I had material that I used with my students, but I
>>>>
>>>>considered abandoning the teaching of grammar because it was not
>>>>
>>>>
>working
>
>
>>>>to my satisfaction. In end of course evaluations, however, my
>>>>
>>>>
>students
>
>
>>>>overwhelmingly voted that I should not abandon it; instead they
>>>>
>>>>
>wanted
>
>
>>>>more examples and explanations. I have therefore been revising that
>>>>
>>>>material. See:
>>>>
>>>>http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/ENL111/Syntax/50Lessons/index.htm
>>>>
>>>>
><http://home.pct.edu/%7Eevavra/ENL111/Syntax/50Lessons/index.htm>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> The new approach is costing me a lot of time, and it has been
>>>>
>>>>driving the tutors in our Tutoring Center crazy, but more students
>>>>
>>>>
>seem
>
>
>>>>not only to be getting it, but also to be appreciating it. (Of
>>>>
>>>>
>course,
>
>
>>>>some students simply don't do the work, but there is little I can do
>>>>
>>>>about that.) What I want to suggest here, however, is that students
>>>>
>>>>appreciate it because we begin with the psycholinguistic model, not
>>>>
>>>>
>with
>
>
>>>>grammar. The approach also focuses on analyzing real, randomly
>>>>
>>>>
>selected
>
>
>>>>sentences, and not on learning definitions of grammatical terms. Thus
>>>>
>>>>students are studying how their minds, and the minds of their
>>>>
>>>>
>readers,
>
>
>>>>are processing sentences. The most interesting, and most important
>>>>
>>>>
>work
>
>
>>>>involves clauses. The Fifty exercises are not yet complete, but if
>>>>
>>>>
>you
>
>
>>>>look at them, you will see that we get into questions of
>>>>
>>>>
>clause-boundary
>
>
>>>>errors, style, and logic fairly quickly. This is what catches
>>>>
>>>>
>students'
>
>
>>>>attention and makes the grammar meaningful to them. They are
>>>>
>>>>particularly fascinated when they see that the errors they have been
>>>>
>>>>making (such as comma-splices) can be resolved in a number of
>>>>
>>>>
>different
>
>
>>>>ways (colons, dashes, semicolons, subordinate conjunctions), each of
>>>>
>>>>which changes the focus of the sentence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   As with the KISS Grammar site, anyone is free to use, adapt, etc.
>>>>
>>>>the materials I have on the web, and suggestions are always welcome.
>>>>
>>>>Ed V.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>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/ 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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>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/
>
>
>

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/