a comparative and contrastive study on complements and modifiers english sytax

Part 1: Introduction
1.1. Rationale
In English in general, syntax and grammar in particular, complements and
modifiers are two of the most important elements in forming phrases as well as
sentences. However, a large number of English learners are confused in uses of
them; therefore, misusing these two components occurs regularly and commonly.
In order to contribute to solving the problem and assisting English learners to
employ them efficiently and accurately, I decided to conduct the research called ‘A
comparative and contrastive study on English modifiers and complements’.
1.2. Aims and objectives
Identifying and distinguishing complements and modifiers in order to utilize them
properly and efficiently.
1.3. Scope of the study
Due to the limited time and ability of the researcher, the data served for this study
are:
- Syntactic features of complements and modifier
- Similarities and differences of complements and modifiers in sematic roles
1.4. Research questions
- What are the Syntactic features of English Complements and Modifiers ?
- What are similarities and differences of complements and modifiers in sematic
roles?
1.5. Methods of the study
- Qualitative (studying materials related and searching on the Internet)

Part 2. CONTENT


2.1. Theoretical background
2.1.1. Complement
A phrasal element that a head must combine with or a head select.
Ex. She is unbelievably beautiful.

2.1.3. Modifier
A phrase that optional occurs and modify a head
Ex. My boss is extremely strict.
2.1.3. Minimal Phrase
A minimal phrase is the phrase including this head and all of its complements.
Ex. He donated thousands of dollar to the charity yesterday.
2.1.4. Maximal Phrase:
A XP (VP/NP/AP) that includes complements as well as modifiers.
Ex. She have travelled to America five times.
2.1.5. Phrase structure Rule
The common structure of a phrase is:
XP  (specifier) (modifier) X (modifier) (complement)
X is a head of phrase standing for N, V, A or P
These words (determiners such as the, auxiliaries such as will, and degree
words such as quite or almost) are said to function as specifiers. Semantically,
specifiers help to make more precise the meaning of the head.
Ex. The book
In building up any phrase, there is one obligatory element in each phrase. We
call this essential element the head of the phrase. The head of each phrase thus
determines its ‘projection’ into a larger phrasal constituent. The head of an NP
is thus N, the head of a VP is V, and the head of an AP is A.
Ex. Have studied
The elements which a head verb should combine with are called complements.
The complements include direct object, indirect object, predicative
complement, and oblique complement since these are all potentially required by
some verb or
other.
The properties of the head become properties of the whole phrase. Why are the
examples in (1+b) and (2+b) ungrammatical?
(1+) a. They [want to leave the meeting].

b. *They [eager to leave the meeting].
(2+) a. The senators [know that the president is telling a lie].
b. *The senators [certain that the president is telling a lie].


The examples in (1+b) and (2+b) are unacceptable because of the absence of the
required head. The unacceptable examples lack a finite (tensed) VP as the
bracketed part, but we know that English sentences require a finite VP as their
immediate constituent, as informally represented as in (3+):
(3+) English Declarative Sentence Rule:
Each declarative sentence must contain a finite VP.
Each finite VP is headed by a finite verb. If we amend the ungrammatical
examples above to include a verb but not a finite one, they are still
ungrammatical:
(4+) a. *They [(to) be eager to leave the meeting].
b. *The senators [(to) be certain that the president is telling a lie].
The VP is considered to be the (immediate) head of the sentence, with the verb
itself as the head of the VP. In this way, we can talk about a finite or non-finite
sentence, one which is ultimately headed by a finite or nonfinite verb,
respectively.
In addition to the complements of a head, a phrase may also contain modifiers:
Ex. a. Tom offered advice to his students in his office.
b. Tom offered advice to his students with love.
The PPs in his office or with love here provide further information about the
action described by the verb, but are not required as such by the verb. These
phrases are optional and function as modifiers, and they function to augment the
minimal phrase projected from the head verb offered.
The VP which includes this kind of modifier forms a maximal phrase. We might
say that the inner VP here forms a ‘minimal’ VP which includes all the
‘minimally’ required complements, and the outer VP is the ‘maximal’ VP which

includes optional modifiers.
2.1.6. Iterability
Iterability is the possibility of iterating identical types of phrase can occur with
the same head.
I met her in Ha Noi in December.

2.2. Syntactic features of English Complements
2.2.1. Function


Providing information about entities and locations whose is implied by the
meaning of the head- necessary to complete the meaning of a given
expression( obligatory)
Ex. He has established his own company.
In the example above, the noun phrase his own company act as a compliment of
the head established. If his own company is absent, the meaning of the verb
phrase with the head established will not complete.
2.2.2. Position
Complements are attached to the right of the head
Ex. These policies have made a great impact on people’s lives.
2.2.3. Distribution
A complement is typically limited in its distribution.
Ex. I rely on you.
2.2.4. Testing method to identify
If we try omitting a phase occurring in a head that make the given expression
ambiguous, then it is a complement.
Ex. She gave a cake to the children.
2.3. Syntactic features of English Modifiers
2.3.1. Function
Modifying or qualifying the head or adding extra information etc..- not

necessary to complete the meaning of a given expression( optional)
Ex. He went to the bank on Monday.
On Monday can be omitted without changes in the meaning or completion.
Therefore, on Monday is a modifier.
2.3.2. Position
Modifiers can be attached to both sides of the head
Ex. An incredibly beautiful girl.
The man with a gun.
2.3.3. Distribution
An modifier can co-occur with a relatively broad range of heads.
Ex. Kim jogs on the hill/under the hill/over the hill
2.3.4. Testing method to identify
Unlike a complement, a modifier can be left out.
Ex. I often go to the supermarket at weekend.
2.4. Syntactic differences between Complements and Modifiers
2.4.1. In distribution
An modifier can co-occur with a relatively broad range of heads whereas a
complement is typically limited in its distribution. Note the following contrast:


(1) a. Kim camps/jogs/mediates on the hill..
b. Kim jogs on the hill/under the hill/over the hill.
(2) a. Kim depends/relies on Sandy.
b. Kim depends on Sandy/*at Sandy/*for Sandy.
The semantic distribution of the adjunct- modifier on the hill in (1a) is
independent of the head whereas that of the complement on Sandy is
idiosyncratically dependent upon the head.
2.4.2. In obligatoriness:
As hinted at already, complements are strictly-required phrases whereas
modifiers are not. The examples in (3)– (5) show that the verb placed requires

an NP and a PP as its complements, kept an NP and an AP, and stayed a PP.
(3) a. John placed Kim behind the garage.
b. John kept him behind the garage.
c. *John stayed Kim behind the garage.
(4) a. *John placed him busy.
b. John kept him busy.
c. *John stayed him busy.
(5) a. *John placed behind the counter.
b. *John kept behind the counter.
c. John stayed behind the counter.
In contrast, modifiers are optional. Their presence is not required by the
grammar:
(6) a. John deposited some money in the bank.
b. John deposited some money in the bank on Friday.
In (6b), the PP on Friday is optional here, serving as a modifier.
2.4.3. In iterability:
The possibility of iterating identical types of phrase can also distinguish
between
complements and modifiers. In general two or more instances of the same
modifier type can occur with the same head, but this is impossible for
complements.
(7) a. *The UN blamed global warming [on humans] [on natural causes].
b. Kim and Sandy met [in Seoul] [in the lobby of the Lotte Hotel] in March.
In (7a) on humans is a complement and thus the same type of PP on natural
causes cannot co-occur. Yet in Seoul is a modifier and we can repeatedly have
the same type of PP.
2.4.4. In testing methods to identify ( Do-so Test)


A reliable test often used to distinguish complements from modifiers is the do

so or do the same thing test. As shown in (8), we can use do the same thing to
avoid repetition of an identical VP expression:
(8) a. John deposited some money in the checking account and Mary did the
same thing (too).
b. John deposited some money in the checking account on Friday and Mary
did the same thing (too).
What we can observe in (8b) is that the VP did the same thing can replace either
the minimal phrase deposited some money in the checking account or the
maximal phrase including the modifier on Friday. Notice that this VP can
replace only the minimal phrase, leaving out the modifier.
(9) John deposited some money in the checking account on Friday and Mary
did the same thing on Monday.
From these observations, we can draw the conclusion that if something can be
replaced by do the same thing, then it is either a minimal or a maximal phrase.
This in turn means that this ‘replacement’ VP cannot be understood to leave out
any complement(s). This can be verified with more data:
(10) a. *John [deposited some money in the checking account] and Mary did
the same thing in the savings account.
b. *John [gave a present to the student] and Mary did the same thing to the
teacher.
Here the PPs in the checking account and to the student are both complements,
and thus they should be included in the do the same thing phrase. This gives us
the following informal generalization:
(11) Do-so Replacement Condition:
The phrase do so or do the same thing can replace a verb phrase which includes
at least any complements of the verb.
This condition explains why we cannot have another locative complement
phrase in the savings account or to the teacher in (10). The unacceptability of
the examples in (12) also supports this generalization about English grammar:
(12) a. *John locked Fido in the garage and Mary did so in the room.

b. *John ate a carrot and Mary did so a radish.
2.4.5. Structural Difference: We could distinguish complements and modifiers
by tree structures, too: complements combine with a lexical head (not a phrase)
to form a minimal phrase whereas modifiers combine with a phrase to form a
maximal phrase. This means that we have structures of the following forms:
XP


XP

Modifier

X
Complement(s)
As represented in the tree structures, complements are sisters of the lexical head
X, whereas modifiers are sisters of a phrasal head. This structural difference
between complements and modifiers provides a clean explanation for the
contrast in do-so test. Given that the verb ate takes only an NP complement
whereas put takes an NP and a PP complement, we will have the difference in
the two structures shown in (13):
(13) a.

VP

VP

PP

V

NP

Ate

some food

b.

on the table

VP

V

NP

Put

some food

PP

on the table

In this way, we represent the difference between complements and modifiers.
2.4.6. Ordering Difference:


Another difference that follows from the structural distinction between
complements and modifiers is an ordering difference. As a complement needs to

combine with a lexical head first, modifiers follow complements:
(14) a. John met [a student] [in the park].
b. *John met [in the park] [a student].
A similar contrast can be observed in the following contrast:
(15) a. the student [of linguistics] [with long hair]
b. *the student [with long hair] [of linguistics]
The PP with long hair is a modifier whereas the of linguistics is the complement
of student. This is why with long hair cannot occur between the head student
and its complement of linguistics.
As such, observed ordering restrictions can provide more evidence for the
distinction between complements and modifiers.
As we can see, there are several clear differences between modifiers and
complements. They can be summarized as the following table below:

Dimensions

Complements

Modifiers

1. Obligatoriness
2. Iterability

Compulsory
One only

3. In distribution
4. Structure

Limited

combine with a lexical
head (not a phrase) to
form a minimal phrase
complement needs to
combine with a lexical
head first

Optional
Two or more modifiers
for the same head
Broadly
combine with a phrase
to form a maximal
phrase
modifiers
follow
complements

5. Order

Part 3: Conclusion
Generally, a few similarities can be seen between modifiers and complements.
For example, they are used to modify and qualify the head, making the meaning
of the phrase or the sentence more obvious and fulfilled. However,
simultaneously, there are many noticeable differences between them. Although
both them are employed to provide additional information, the existence and
presence of complements are compulsory in contradiction with modifiers.


Modifiers can be removed or absented themselves from the phrase or the

sentence without changing the meaning or transforming the phrase the sentence
into ungrammaticality but it is not true for complements, if we do that the
phrase the sentence will or not have complete meaning or be ungrammatical. In
addition to obligation, they differ in iterability in structural in distribution .etc..

References
1. />2. />3. />4. English Syntax, Quang Nam university
5. Aarts, Bas. 1997. English Syntax and Argumentation. Basingstoke and
London: Macmillan.


6. Borsley, Bob. 1991. Syntactic Theory: A Unified Approach. Cambridge:
Arnold.
7. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
8. Jacobs, Roderick. 1995. English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language
Professionals. Oxford University Press.