Odile, 
These are interesting questions in that to me they seem to be asking about what structure is.  

1) You mention "slot" for the object complement and then ask about a slot for the predicate adjective. This seems to suppose that it can be both.  Your "yes" answer suggest that you are willing to vies the sentence at two levels of analysis simultaneously: the one that has an object complement and the one that has a predicate adjective.  

		She painted the car red. 

This adjective is normally called the object complement or the objective complement.  You don't say that the car "is" red until the painting is done.  The verbs that build this construction are normally causatives.  In my mind the sentence, "She considered the car red" is not the best formed sentence and is interpreted on the basis of analogy with the better formed sentence: "She considered the car to be red."  The implication for the object complement seems to be that her consideration has something to do with what the color designation is, i.e., that it might be some other color for other people, but her stance had made it red for her purposes.  Here again the car becomes red by virtue of the consideration.  

2) Here the question seems to be about whether the slot in a subordinate structure can be inherited by the super-ordinate elements.  Maybe the problem is that an adjective in a subject complement slot needs a subject to refer to, and the subject of the subordinate clauses, i.e., phrases, is missing.  Your examples are not complete, so the possible slot conflicts are not clear.  Note: "The car, by her considered red, is green" seems to be telling us that there is no problem in sharing subjects.  There are really two propositions, each having a "predicate adjective."  This would take the "predicate adjective" as a semantic concept, in which terms it was originally defined.  If it must be used as a syntactic term, then it would appear that some mechanism for subordination would have to be worked out.  

3) This question displays perhaps more clearly the way slots in simple sentences have to be modified to work in the related syntax of subordinate structures.  I think the theoretical constructs need to be multiplied, i.e., divided.  I have tried to do this in the past by building a grammar in terms of a set of regular and systematic paraphrases that will reduce even the most complex sentence into a series of simple sentences containing a limited number of slots.  I think that paraphrases that are strict with maintaining semantic "equivalence" can be most instructive to students learning English.  Where one language will permit one pattern with a certain interpretation, another will not.  The student's native language seems to have its own set of patterns and pattern equivalences.  

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Odile Sullivan-Tarazi
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Predicate adjectives: three questions

I am tangled up in the throes of predicate adjectives, and I'm 
wondering whether anyone can help.  I have three questions.


* Question 1

Is an adjective in the object complement slot a predicate adjective? 
(That is, with an understood copula.)

           She considered the car red.

I think yes.  The _to be_ relationship is understood, and the 
adjective appears in the predicate phrase.


* Question 2

Is the adjective that follows a noun in the subject phrase a 
predicate adjective when it follows a verbal (infinitive, 
participial) form and refers back to that noun?

           The car, being red . . .

           The car, considered red . . .

           The car, to be red . . .

I think no.  The adjective is not in the predicate phrase.  (The verb 
form is not finite, but then neither is the understood "to be" in the 
first example, so the limiting factor is that the adjective does not 
appear in the predicate phrase, right?)

But if so, if this is the limiting factor, must the predicate phrase 
be that of the entire sentence?  Is the crucial point here not that 
the adjective is not in _the_ predicate phrase, but that the 
adjective is not in _any_ predicate phrase?  (That's question 3, 
actually.)


* Question 3

Is an adjective that appears within the predicate phrase of its 
clause as a subject complement in that clause a predicate adjective, 
regardless of whether it appears in the predicate phrase for the 
entire sentence?

           I like that car because it is red.  (two main verbs, so no 
problem here)

           I like the car that is red.

           I like the car, which is red.

           I think that the car is red.

I think yes.  Within the clause, the relationship is that of a 
predicate adjective.

But does it matter that in the second, third, and fourth sentences 
the main verb is transitive?  There is a sense in which, for these 
particular sentences, the embedded clause appears in the predicate 
phrase, but not in the standard way in which we think of predicate 
adjectives.  And in the second and third, it might as easily have not.

           The car that is red . . .

           The car, which is red, . . . .

Does it matter, with respect to the entire sentence (for the purpose 
of this one issue: is _red_ a predicate adjective here or not), 
whether the relative clause falls within the subject phrase or the 
predicate phrase?


_____

Predicate adjectives are most commonly spoken of in terms of being 
subject complements with respect to the entire sentence, but is it 
rather the case that the predicate adjective is linked to its noun 
via _to be_ or another linking verb, whether explicitly or 
implicitly, such that it appears in the predicate of some clause?

In other words, the limiting factor is not that the verb be 
conjugated (it is not in the case of the object complement), but that 
the adjective be situated as a predicate within a clause (it is not, 
for instance, in the case of a relative phrase).

I think so.



Odile

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/


 NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/