The traditional approach of ruling out prepositional phrases as subject complements is partly, I think, a relic of the “word-based” focus of pretty much all grammar up until the twentieth century. That is, an actual “object” or “complement” had to be a word – and in older systems a “substantive.” That category could include nouns and adjectives, so adjectival subject complements were no problem. With prepositional phrases, though, the nominal part was considered to be the object of the preposition, and it could not simultaneously be the object of a preposition *and* the complement of a verb. Saying that the PP as a whole is the complement, rather than the NP inside it, solves the problem nicely, but the traditional system never quite made it that far with subject complements, although it did with (for example) acknowledging noun
clauses as direct objects.
I can’t see much of an argument other than tradition for ruling out PPs as SCs. Yes, there are semantic limitations on them, but that’s true of regular SCs as well. It’s difficult to set up a situation in which “My cat is tangential” or “The chief of staff is the twelfth century” work very well. Locational PPs work well primarily as SCs to….well, locations. Acknowledging PPs as complements also lets you deal more systematically with the verb “put,” since otherwise you’re stuck explaining why that “adverbial PP” is not only mandatory, but hard to move.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Prepositional Phrases as Subject Complements
I certainly agree, Dick, that these adverbials have limitations. Time adverbials are limited, I suspect, to events.
Martha,
We probably should make a distinction between time/place adverbials that are complementary (describing the subject) and those that are non-complementary (purely adverbial, describing the predicate). For example, in your sentence "The car is here now," "here" is complementary but "now" is not. We can say "The car is here," but we can't say "The car is now."
Likewise the sentence "Emma was at the beach after final exams" allow us to say "Emma was at the beach," but it doesn't allow us to say "Emma was after final exams." "At the beach" is an adverbial that complements the subject (answers "Where was Emma?). "After final exams" is a non-complementary adverbial (answers "When was Emma at the beach?" rather than "When was Emma?").
Dick
________________________________
Richard Veit
Department of English
University of North Carolina Wilmington
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha Kolln
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 2:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Prepositional Phrases as Subject Complements
Hi Patty,
In traditional grammar, be is classified as a linking verb. That system leaves out sentences like Peter's second one, "Deb was in her car," where what follows be is an adverbial.
This is a pattern that , in my grammar book, I identify as "NP be ADV/TP"--where be is followed by an adverbial of time or place, rather than by a subject complement. Such adverbials are often prepositional phrases. Here are some other examples:
Deb was there.
The car is here now.
The party will be tomorrow.
The election was on Tuesday.
These "completers" of the predicate don't describe or rename the subject, as Peter's first example does. "Cornelia was in a bad mood" is another way of saying "Cornelia was cranky." I suppose you could call the adverbial completers complements, but they aren't subject complements as adjectivals and nominals are.
And note too that the adverbials that complete be sentences are limited to time or place; adverbials of manner, for example, don't work here. It's not that we can't say "Deb was quickly"--it's just that we don't.
Martha
Sincere question, here:
Would it be OK/accurate to say that, in the first sentence, "in a bad mood"
is a prepositional phrase functioning adjectivally, where in the second
sentence, "in her car" is more of an adverbial function?
Tell the truth, I'm not sure how to classify "location" as a subject
complement.
My thinking is: how would I explain this to students, who might not have had
the exposure to this grammar list?
-patty
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Prepositional Phrases as Subject Complements
How would you categorize the prep phrase, "in a bad mood," in a
sentence like the following?
Cornelia was in a bad mood.
How about the prep phrase "in her car" in the
following sentence?
Deb was in her car.
Peter Adams
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"