Definition and Relation to adjuncts

It is possible to define a pseudo-complement precisely in terms of its relationship to the semantics of the verbs it modifies. Specifically, a pseudo-complement is an element with an independent semantic contribution involving a semantic argument of the verb. In contrast, adjuncts are elements with an independent semantic contribution involving the full event described by the verb and its semantic arguments. Pseudo-complements and adjuncts are both syntactically optional modifiers of the verbs with which they appear, in opposition to complements which are syntactically required (e.g. subcategorised). Pseudo-complements may introduce a semantically entailed argument of a verb or extend the verbal relation, while the complement PPs are restricted to introducing a semantically entailed argument (such as the -PP obligatory complement of give) or providing an idiosyncratic semantic contribution to the verb meaning (e.g. the arbitrariness of the PP complements of the semantically similar verbs charge (with), blame (for), accuse (of) noted by Wechsler wechsler:95). Adjuncts do not affect the verbal relation expressed by the verb. These distinctions are summarised in Table 3.1.

 

PP Type Syntax Semantics

complement required

pseudo-complement optional

adjunct optional

 

The parallel sentences in d101, on their most salient interpretations, exhibit the pseudo-complement/adjunct distinction clearly: in d101a the PP with brochures is interpreted as indicating what John put into the envelopes and as such introduces a relationship between the envelopes and the brochures, while in d101b the PP with Sarah introduces someone who accompanied John in the stuffing envelopes event, introducing a relationship between Sarah and the full event, not the envelopes. The preposition with exhibits an ambiguity which is resolved by the way it predicates what it modifies (where an infelicitous predication would be ruled out via pragmatic reasoning).

 

John stuffed the envelopes with brochures. John stuffed the envelopes with Sarah.

Thus the semantics of a pseudo-complement preposition specifies a relation between an element within the semantics of the verb it modifies and the object of the preposition (internal predication), while the semantics of an adjunct specifies some operation on the full event conveyed by the sentence, minus the adjunct (external predication).

This definition differs from Gawron's definition of co-predicators in that I do not assume that a pseudo-complement will always introduce a relation which is not already a component of the lexical semantics of the main verb. It is, on the other hand, simply an internal predicator which is not strictly subcategorised by the main verb.

Consider the sentences in pc1-pc2.

 

John sang a song about his homeland. John sang a song for Mary. John sang a song in the park. John sang a song at noon. John sang a song John sang a song

 

Sam kicked a ball to Bill. Sam kicked a ball to Bill in the park. *Sam kicked a ball in the park to Bill.

 

*John ran a marathon about his homeland. John ran a marathon for Mary. John ran a marathon in the park. John ran a marathon at noon. John ran a marathon for Mary John ran a marathon for Mary.

None of the PPs in the above sentences contains information which is entailed by the main verb's semantics. However, in pc1 there is a clear difference between the PPs in the (a,b) sentences and the (c,d) sentences. The PP in (3.50a) expresses a property of the song which is sung by John, while the PPs in the (c,d) sentences provide information about the situation described by the main predicate of the sentence. Likewise, in pc5 the PP to Bill specifies a particular goal relation between Bill and the ball rather than a relation between Bill and the full situation expressed by the main predicate of the sentence.

It could be argued that the PP in (3.50a) is a structural modifier of the NP rather than the VP, such that a song about his homeland forms a single constituent. This would explain the grammaticality of d74a.

 

A song about his homeland was sung by John. A song was sung by John about his homeland. A song was sung by the choir about freedom. John sang about his homeland.

It seems, however, that the analysis in which the PP modifies the VP constituent must also be available, as shown by the grammaticality of the sentences in d74b-d74c. These sentences appear to be licensed semantically -- there is an argument of sing which is embedded into the semantics of the verb (singing entails singing something, even if that something is an unnamed tune; that is, it involves producing sound which is normally called a song) and this argument is available as the element within the verbal semantic representation which can be picked out for the relation contributed by a pseudo-complement. Furthermore, the existence of sentences such as d74d, in which there is no explicit NP to which the PP could be attached, provides evidence that the PP can be viewed as specifying a relation involving an argument internal to the verb -- an argument which is unexpressed in this case but still entailed by the verb and therefore a part of the verbal semantic argument structure. The event of singing is not about John's homeland, but rather what John was singing.

Sentence (3.50b) is ambiguous between two interpretations -- one in which the PP behaves as a pseudo-complement and a second in which it behaves as a true adjunct. On the pseudo-complement interpretation, the PP expresses that the song itself is for Mary's benefit, while on the adjunct interpretation it expresses that the entire activity of singing is for Mary's benefit. This ambiguity is more marked in the case of d102, where the pseudo-complement interpretation would be preferred if, for example, Mary were a teacher who will receive the essay, while the adjunct interpretation would be preferred if Mary were ill and asked John to do her homework of writing an essay for her.

  John wrote an essay for Mary.

This ambiguity provides an another example of the influence of pragmatic coherence on interpretation -- both interpretations might be feasible independent of a context, but only one will make sense in a particular context.

The availability of both of these interpretations implies that both a pseudo-complement and an adjunct can appear in the same sentence. Not only is this evidenced by (3.50e), but more interestingly by pc4, which can only be interpreted as indicating that the song was for Mary's benefit and that the entire activity was done for Bill's benefit. If this sentence is difficult to interpret, imagine a context, for example, in which Bill and Mary are unable to celebrate their anniversary together because they are living in different places, so Bill asks John to go to where Mary is and sing.

  John sang a song for Mary for Bill.

There is a syntactic ordering preference for the pseudo-complement PPs to precede the adjunctive PPs, as shown by the contrast between (3.50e) and (3.50f), and between (3.51b) and (3.51c). The interpretation of the for Mary version of the sentences in (3.50f) is questionable -- it is unclear whether the pseudo-complement interpretation of the PP is available when preceded by another adjunct. It could be postulated on the basis of the contrast in (3.50f) and the sentences in pc5 that the pseudo-complement interpretation of a PP is only available in immediately post-verbal-complement position, and that therefore for Mary in (3.50f) must be interpreted as specifying a relation involving the entire event expressed by the verb. This constraint can be captured in terms of obliqueness -- pseudo-complements are semantically less oblique than adjuncts, and less oblique elements precede more oblique elements in English.

The distinction between pseudo-complements and adjuncts leads to an explanation for the ungrammaticality of (3.52a). The PP about his homeland can only behave as a pseudo-complement with respect to a verb phrase; it does not provide information which could apply to a full situation. There appear to be certain PPs which can only behave as pseudo-complements and other PPs which can only behave as adjuncts. Furthermore, the semantic contribution of the pseudo-complement must be compatible with the semantics of the modified verb, and there must be appropriate arguments in the relation expressed by the verb available for modification by the pseudo-complement. This will be discussed further in Section 3.3.3. Semantic incompatibilities will rule out pc2a, because a move-rel verb like run cannot be extended to a relation involving a topic, and the preposition about introduces a topic. This means that the PP in (3.52b) can only be interpreted as a true adjunct, that is that the whole activity of John running a marathon was done for Mary. The marathon itself cannot be interpreted as benefitting Mary. This also explains the contrast in acceptability between (3.50f) and (3.52f). There is an obliqueness difference between the PPs in the former on the pseudo-complement interpretation, which prevents the PPs from freely alternating in syntactic order. In contrast, there is no obliqueness difference between the adjuncts in the latter, enabling the PPs to appear in any order.