Verbal Complementation
Verbal Complementation
Verbal Complementation
35
Verbal complementation:
A pedagogical challenge
James Mannes Bourke
University of Brunei Darussalam
ABSTRACT
Errors of verbal complementation are among the most frequent and intractable
types of grammatical error produced by ESL learners of all levels. Formal rules help
only to a very slight degree, and most of the time one operates on intuition. One
avoids constructions such as *Mary avoids to make mistakes. simply on the basis of
feelit sounds and looks odd. Many learners seem to operate on the economy
principle, that is to say, they show a preference for shorter forms, such as the toinfinitive or gerund, resulting in errors such as *He suggested us to leave. The writer
makes the point that teaching verbal complementation without invoking semantic
considerations may be counterproductive. Verbal complementation is meaning-driven.
Verbs possess certain semantic properties which help us to predict the type of
complementation that can be selected. Hence, it makes good pedagogical sense to
focus on the semantic features of verbs and to notice the dependency relations that
exist between them and the allowable complementation sequences.
Introduction
Native speakers of English normally do not have a problem with verbal
complementation. They know instinctively which patterns of complementation
a particular verb allows or rejects. They know for instance that enjoy is complemented by a gerund rather than an infinitive. They would never say: *I enjoy to
play tennis. They may not know the rule or the metalanguage but they can very
quickly detect and correct the error. In other words, they know what is in the
language and what is not. Likewise, they can instantly spot that something is
amiss with the statement: *I put the book. They can tell you that it is perfectly
acceptable to read the book or buy the book but it is not acceptable to put the
book as the verb put requires not only a following noun phrase, but also a
locative phrase. What they cannot tell you is why it is that enjoy triggers the
gerund, or why put is incomplete without a locative phrase. In fact, many
grammarians have a hard time explaining verbal complementation. Many
pedagogical grammars ignore it on the grounds that it is unteachable, or at least
very complex and messy. It is seen as one of those areas of English grammar that
is best acquired without overt instruction. A few grammar books do attempt to
deal with it in a systematic manner, for instance, Shepherd et al. (1984) and
Graver (1986).
36
37
Group 3: Verbs followed by the gerund or the infinitive, e.g., We like to swim/
swimming.
There are 36 verbs in this group. However, each verb collocates with only
one of three infinitive options, infinitives without a preceding noun (e.g., He
declined to tell me his name.), infinitives followed by a noun + infinitive (e.g., He
allowed her to borrow his pen.), and infinitives with or without a preceding noun
(e.g., I hate (them) to make fun of Sally.) At least half of these verbs may also be
complemented by a that-clause. While all this information is correct, it is hard to
see how the learner of English could possible internalise it or retrieve it in
productive use.
Group 4: Verbs followed by a noun + present participle or infinitive without to,
e.g., I saw the train leave (leaving) the station.
There are only eight verbs in this group, the verbs known as verbs of
perception, feel, hear, notice, observe, perceive, see, sense, watch. The use of the bare
infinitive (e.g., I saw him cross the road) denotes the whole action, while the ing
participle (e.g., I saw him crossing the road) denotes an activity in progress. This
group is quite problematic in that there are many other verbs associated in
meaning with Group 4: e.g., (i) catch, spot, find, discover, and smell. None of these
is followed by an infinitive, but all may be followed by an object + ing participle
(e.g., He caught the boys fighting.); (ii) the verbs leave and keep can be followed by
an object + a present or past participle (e.g., She kept me waiting. He kept his room
locked.)
Group 5: Verbs followed by a that-clause e.g., I know that London is an expensive
city.
There are 32 such verbs, including assume, believe, declare, think, etc. Some
that-clauses can be paraphrased with the accusative and infinitive construction.
e.g. They found his ideas to be very useful.
It would be very difficult for all but the most dedicated learner to master all
the verbs and all the complementation patterns outlined above. Obviously,
teaching would have to focus only on those verbs and patterns that arise in a
given context of use. A focus on form is always selective and has a limited and
specific objective. Very often it may be effected by means of language awareness
rather then direct instruction. In a language awareness approach it is axiomatic
that the problem be first encountered in a meaningful context; that its form and
function be noticed and that its critical features be highlighted in the data. For
example, in a text one might come across sentences such as:
She objected to working overtime.
He succeeded in passing the test.
Here, one would want students to infer the fact that the presence of propositions
triggers gerund complementation. They should then be in position to detect and
correct errors such as: *We look forward to see the show.
38
Other verbs possessing the feature verb + prep would then be noted and
listed (e.g., object to, look forward to, succeed in, etc.) The structural jigsaw would
not all be completed on one lesson. It would be revisited whenever it cropped
up again in other contexts of use. The idea behind form-focused instruction is
for learners themselves to wrestle with the raw data, and by inductive means
infer the rule, rather than having it presented and explained by the teacher. There
are two good reasons for favouring an inductive, problem-solving approach, viz.
(a) it is more stimulating for students to uncover linguistic facts themselves, and
(b) they do not easily forget something that they have discovered for and by
themselves.
The Structural Approach
As we have seen, the traditional approach to verbal complementation is based
on collocation. The more comprehensive Structural approach is based on the
notion of transitivity. Apart from linking verbs, most verbs can be used transitively
(i.e., with a grammatical object following the verb). The most frequent verb pattern
in English is S-V-O, e.g., Mary (S) likes (V) marmalade (O). We can say, therefore,
that English verbs such as like are complemented by a direct object. We can also
notice that quite a few verbs can be used transitively or intransitively. They are
said to be weakly transitive, e.g., Abu is writing (a letter). A few verbs are inherently
intransitive. e.g., The old man died. Various grammarians have used transitivity as
the basis on which to develop a complex web of complementation patterns.(e.g.
Quirk et al., 1972; Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990). The most common verb patterns
are also summarised by Hornby (1976) in a Guide to Patterns and Usage well as in
the third edition of the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English
(1974). The bare bones of the Quirkian approach can be outlined as follows:
(Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990, pp. 343-358)
1. Intransitive verbs where no complementation occurs.
2. Complementation of copular verbs: The copula be and a few other verbs
(e.g., appear, feel, look, seem) are complemented by a noun phrase or adjective.
Here it is important to note that Complement in this context is an element
of sentence structure, alongside Subject, Verb, and Object, and must not be
confused with complement, meaning any obligatory structure(s) that must
follow verbs other than copular verbs.
3. Complementation of monotransitive verbs: Monotransitive verbs require a
direct object, which is often a noun phrase, but may be a finite clause or a
nonfinite clause. Some verbs, such as phrasal verbs, are complemented by a
noun phrase as prepositional object.
4. Complementation by a finite clause: Greenbaum & Quirk (p. 346) distinguish
four categories of verbs that are complemented by that-clauses: FACTUAL,
SUASIVE, EMOTIVE, AND HYPOTHESIS. These semantic categories are not
elaborated, and seem oddly out of place in an otherwise structural description.
5. Complementation by nonfinite clauses: Greenbaum & Quirk (p. 348)
distinguish five types on nonfinite clauses that function as direct object. They
are as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
39
wh-infinitive clause
subjectless infinitive clause
subjectless ing participle clause
to-infinitive clause with subject
ing participle clause with subject.
40
[+ fact]
[- fact]
NON-FACTIVE VERB
gerund
to-infinitive
The following account is based on Kirby (1987: 24-48) whose work in turn is derived from the school of Generative
Semantics, in particular Horiguchi (1984), Lakoff (1971), the Kiparskys (1970), Bolinger (1968), and Menzel (1975).
41
Examples:
regretted
deplored
She accepted [the fact] that the plan had failed.
resented
bemoaned
By the same token, they will observe that verbs that take factive complements
reject infinitives, e.g., *She accepted the plan to have failed.
2. Actuality
The gerund is closely linked with verbs expressing the idea of activity, action,
or event. The gerund implies actuality and fulfilment whereas the infinitive
implies potentiality (Quirk et al.,1972, p. 825).
Examples:
We enjoy reading books
We expect to arrive at 6pm.
[+ activity]
[- activity]
Action verbs include avoid, enjoy, detest, appreciate, deny, postpone, etc. Verbs
expressing potentiality include expect, wish, hope, want, etc. Whether learners can
distinguish between actuality and hypothesis is a moot question. A useful test is
to see if the head word activity can be inserted in the predicate without altering
its meaning.
Peter
enjoys
detests
dislikes
postponed
avoids
playing chess
washing dishes.
visiting relatives.
sending an answer
getting into debt.
Language awareness tasks can be used to raise awareness of the actuality vs.
hypothesis contrast. Learners might, for example, be asked to account for the
non-occurrence of: *I enjoy to go to the park.
Here, they have to realize that one does not enjoy something that is hypothetical
and does not occur. Rather, one enjoys something that does occur and has
happened at least once. (Kirby, 1987, p. 25).
Gerundial complements also occur in two other slightly different contexts.
They can be found in an oblique position after phrasal verbs.
Examples:
approves of
boasts about
Peter is engaged in
persists in
is thinking of
working hard.
gaining promotion.
selling computers
arriving late.
quitting his job
42
Gerunds also occur after the verbs necessitate, entail, involve, imply, and entail
which denote a resultative action rather than a general activity.
It will
necessitate
imply
entail
moving overseas.
43
non-factive verbs. They are complemented by a that-clause, and they do not allow
fact insertion before the complement clause.
Examples:
believes
assumes
Adam
understands
supposes
thinks
They also permit an accusative and infinitive complementation, e.g., Adam believes
the house to be haunted.
5. Emotive verbs
Emotive verbs such as like, love, hate, wish, fear, regret, ignore, intend, etc., are
similar to cognitive verbs in that they are not normally used in the progressive
form. We do not say things like: *I am loving you. However, they differ from
cognitive verbs in that they do not take a that-clause as object complement. We
do not say things like: *I dislike that she swears. These verbs can be complemented
by a that-clause only after fact insertion, or else by the gerund.
Examples: I dislike the fact that he swears.
I dislike him (his) swearing.
It makes good pedagogical sense to focus on the semantic features that verbs
share, and to notice the dependency relations that exist between them and the
allowable complementation sequences.
6. Communication verbs
Communication verbs are concerned with asking for and presenting
information. They appear in indirect speech as reporting verbs: say, declare,
maintain, report, deny, remark, mention. Like cognitive verbs they characteristically
collocate with a that-clause and resist fact insertion, e.g. She remarked that the
roses were fading. However, a few communication verbs collocate with a gerund.
He
admitted
denied
mentioned
In these cases the complement has a clear past tense reference and the matrix
verb has factive value.
Following Horiguchi (1976, p. 62), Kirby (1987, p. 32) subdivides communication verbs into effect verbs and presentation verbs. Effect verbs exert some
manipulative force on the lower agent. In functional grammar, they are known
as suasive verbs (Wilkins, 1976, pp. 46-48). They take an indirect object before
the complement clause.
44
Examples:
persuaded
reminded
He
told
convinced
advised
her
informed
assured
promised
her
Presentation verbs are concerned only with the presentation of information. They
do not seek to control the addressee or manipulate him into acting in a certain way.
Examples:
said
mentioned
She
remarked
declared
pointed out
It could be argued, however, that verbs are seldom neutral. The context often
colours the verb, adding implicational meaning. For instance, in the sentence
She remarked that the roses were fading. the implication might be that the speaker
wants the addressee to do something about it.
7. Request verbs
These verbs are used to report directive functions ranging from explicit
imperatives to tentative suggestions.
Examples:
suggested
demanded
insisted
She
requested
asked
urged
hinted
that he leave.
45
[+ past]
[+ future]
46
I think
|
[main clause]
Daddy is sleeping.
[finite complement clause]
It was found that the main clauses in these early utterances do not express a
full proposition but serve as epistemic markers and attention getters. The main
focus of the study is complement clauses (COMP-clauses) i.e. subordinate clauses
functioning as an argument of a predicate. Three main types have been identified
(Diessel & Tomasello, 2001, p. 100):
1. S-complements marked by that or by zero.
e.g., Sally thought that he was crazy.
2. if-complements marked by if (or whether)
e.g., Peter asked Bill if it was true.
3. wh-complements introduced by a wh-word
e.g., Mary didnt understand what Bill was saying.
In this study only a small set of complement-taking verbs (CTV) has been
analysed, mainly mental verbs, perception verbs, and desiderative verbs. The
researchers distinguish between the assertive use and the performative use of
these verbs.
Even though the entire corpus is quite small (a total of 1811 S-complement
clauses which occur with 20 different complement-taking verbs), it provides a
rich source of data in which one can observe how verb complementation patterns
in child language development emerge and change over time.
The third study of verb complementation is based on a corpus of texts selected
from Project Gutenberg and the Oxford Text Archive and covers the period from
1710 to 1920. This corpus of Late Modern English texts known as CLMET was
compiled by De Smet (2005). Chronologically, it extends from the age of
Alexander Pope (1733) to Gilbert Keith Chesterton (1912).
De Smet and Cuyckens (forthcoming) have used a slightly extended version
of CLMET to investigate changes in the English system of verbal complementation.
For instance, they have looked at the development of the construction like + toinfinitive from a volitional to a habitual construction. They have also used the
corpus to study the impact of entrenchment on the long-standing competition
between infinitives and gerunds as verbal complements in English.
It is worth noting that most recent grammars of English are corpus-based,
for instance, the Cambridge Grammar of English (CGE) by Carter and McCarthy
(2006) contains a whole section on verb complementation (pp. 503-529). The
CGE is based on a corpus of spoken and written English called the Cambridge
International Corpus (CIC) containing over 700 million words of English, drawn
from a wide range of contexts of use. The authors of CGE make the point that
their grammar is informed by the corpus and not driven and controlled by it.
The verbal complementation taxonomy offered by CGE does not depart
fundamentally from the older descriptive framework. There are still four major
types of verbal complementation: monotransitive, ditransitive, complex transitive,
47
and copular. The main difference is that the GCE description is finely grained.
One obvious analytical tool available to modern corpus-based grammarians
is the concordance. Concordances are especially useful in studying verbal
complementation in that all the instances of a given verb can be shown on the
computer screen, with the keyword (in this case a particular lexical verb)
centralised and bolded, with the surrounding co-text shown on either side. In
this way, it is possible to provide a reliable and comprehensive description of the
patterns of usage associated with any given verb. Moreover, one can glean useful
statistical evidence from the corpus regarding the range of complementation
patterns that various verbs allow or require, their frequency of occurrence, the
contexts in which they are most typically used, the different functions that they
encode, as well as new insight into verb complementation structures.
Like the CGE, the Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English
(LSGSWE) by Biber, Conrad and Leech (2002) is also a modern corpus-based
grammar, based on the Longman Spoken and Written Corpus (LSWE) containing
40 million words of text. The topic of verb complementation is treated under the
heading valency patterns, i.e., the pattern of clause elements that can occur with
a given verb, e.g. intransitive, monotransitive, ditransitive, complex transitive and
copular. The description of valency patterns is quite brief (pp.119-122). There is,
however, a longer section (pp.106-114) on semantic categories of lexical verbs.
The authors of LSGSWE distinguish seven semantic categories: activity verbs,
communication verbs, mental verbs, causative verbs, verbs of occurrence, verbs
of existence or relationship, and verbs of aspect. However, there is no attempt to
link these semantic categories to the various structural patterns that they allow
or require.
It seems, therefore, that the new descriptive grammar is not saying anything
radically different from the old descriptive grammar, except that it is fuller, richer,
and attested to by copious examples of real English. As Hunston (2002, pp.
138-139) notes, a key observation that emerges from the close study of items in
a corpus is the association between pattern and meaning. For example, take the
verb MAINTAIN. It has three basic meanings each of which is associated with a
particular grammatical pattern.
The keep at the same level or rate meaning, as in Nissan aims to maintain
prices at the current level. The pattern here is verb followed by noun followed
by at + NP.
48
49
Notes
1.
2.
The author acknowledges his indebtedness to J. P. Kirby (1987) whose work on verbal
complementation provided the inspiration for the present article.
The author uses the term verbal complementation in the sense of dependency relations as in
Skelton, (1984).
References
Anderson, J. (1983). An accuracy order of English sentential complements for speakers of Persian
and Spanish. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 16, 16-32.
Biber, D. Conrad, S, & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London:
Longman.
Bolinger, D. (1968). Entailment and the meaning of structures. Glossa, 2, 119-127.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
De Smet, H. (2005). A corpus of Late Modern English texts. ICAME Journal, 29, 69-82.
De Smet, H., & Cuyckens, H. (forthcoming). Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement
constructions: The case of like and love with the to-infinitive. To appear in Journal of English
Linguistics.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A
corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 97-141.
Graver, B.D. (1986). Advanced English grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A students grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Horiguchi, I. (1978). Complementation in English syntax: A generative semantics approach.
Georgetown University Doctoral dissertation. Washington, D.C.
Hornby, A.S. (Ed.) (1974). Oxford advanced learners dictionary of current English (3rd ed.). London:
Oxford University Press.
Hornby, A.S. (1975). A guide to patterns and usage in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.
Kirby, J.P. (1987). Acquiring English verbal complements: A project in interlanguage studies. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin.
Mair, C. (2002). Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: a realtime study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 6(1), 105-31.
Kiparsky, P. & C. (1970). Fact. In Bierwich, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (Eds.), Progress in linguistics
(pp. 143-147). Mouton: The Hague.
Lakoff, G. (1971). Generative semantics. In D. Stein. & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 232-296).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shepherd, J., Rossner, R., & Taylor, J. (1984). Ways to grammar. London & Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Skelton, J. (1984). Dependency relations in language teaching. ELT Journal, 38, 135-138.
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50