Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1996. Vol. 1. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 24)

Éva Kovács: Complements vs. adjuncts in valency grammar

(19a) Nick smashed the vase yesterday. (19b) Nick smashed the vase with a hammer. While with a hammer in (19b) may not be a complement at all, it is somehow more central to the predicate smash than yesterday. Matthews( 1981:140) seems to have recognised the same phenomenon, as Figure 1 shows: non-peripheral Somers (1984:522) suggests that non-peripheral non-complements {2} and peripherals {3} can logically be grouped together as nonvalency-bound elements, while complements {1} are valency bound. Somers (1984:522) introduces the term "middle elements" between adjuncts and complements, which are neither complements nor adjuncts, but a bit of both. There are two further terms Somers adds to the range of degrees of valency binding: integral complements, which are at the top of the scale, above obligatory complements and extraperipheral modifiers, which are more peripheral than the outmost elements so far suggested. Somers notes that obligatory complements are not truly obligatory, because under certain circumstances - e.g. passives, infmitivals, nominalizations - they can be omitted. There are, however, some complements that are resistent to these omission possibilities because they are integral parts of the predicate. Examples of this are nominals pave the way, keep pace, have a chance, put at risk etc. The extraperipherals are elements which modify an entire proposition, adjuncts included, and are typically logical or discursive modifiers like personally, as you knou, indeed, in fact, as seen above

, which are often seperated from the surrounding text by conventional means ( punctuation in writing, pauses and intonation in speech). {2} non-complements Figure 1 123