[Casiopea]

I've come across another dichotomy of verbs: complete (needing no complements to complete the verb) and incomplete (needing complements to complete the verb).

Transitive verbs need to transfer their meaning through an object. They are incomplete. Intransitive verbs do not need to transfer their meaning to an object. They are complete within themselves.

Here, a verb is emphasized in the relationship with complements. I feel that for the SVC and SVOC cases, this relationship seems to weaken the link between S and C(in SVC) and O and C(in SVOC). So I've never used this concept to explain to my students. What do you think?

Notice the wording given in the definition for '(in)complete'. The definition refers specifically to verbs, not to subjects and objects. That is, the word completed is made in reference to (in)transitive verbs, not to complements, object and subjects.

Yup, complements take virtually any form. I thought a PP can't be a C.

Well, it is somewhat confusing to think of a word as having a form as well as a function. It's that duality, I believe, that confuses students, both native speakers and non-native speakers.

Darn me! I was concentrating too much on "put something in somewhere" that I didn't notice it's a simple O=OC relationship! Only that, why can't I say "in her pockets" functions as an adverb to modify "put"?

'She put her hands in her pockets'
'in her pockets'
Form: Prepositional phrase
Function: Adverb of location? Let's test it:
Describes where the action took place. (Huh?) (Not OK)
Function: Object complement.
Describes where the object is located. (Yup)

The verb 'put' has the following structural form: V+NP+PP.

Compare:

'swam' intransitive: SV+Adjunct
We swam in the lake.'in the lake'
Form: prep phrase
Function: adverb
Describes where the action took place. (OK)

*An adjunct is a non-complement. It's added information.

That means, we can also say "She introduced her brother me" , since S+V+IO+DO and S+V+DO+PP+IO are interchangeable? Like "I bought her a present." = "I bought a present for her."

There are different types of ditransitives (i.e. double object verbs). Verbs like 'bought' undergo dative shift. When we switch the DO and IO we have to add 'for' or 'to'. Ditransitives like the verb 'introduce' however don't follow that pattern:

1. She introduced me (DO) to her brother (IO).
2. She introduced her brother (DO) to me (IO).

In the case of 'introduce' the DO and the IO cannot be switched, only the nouns can be switched, which results in a different meaning:

1. I was introduced first, he was introduced second.
2. He was introduced first, I was introduced second.

I couldn't find an entry for exhausted as an adverb in the dictionary. Is it the case that an adjective functions as a adverb?? If that's the case, your explanation is all clear to me.

The word 'exhausted' has an inflectional -ed suffix. Words are not listed in the dictionary with inflections. Take off the -ed and you'll find the word 'exhaust'. If we add -ed to it we get a past participle in form. In our example sentence:

She left the room exhausted.

'exhuasted' describes her state of being. How she left. (Adverb)
'exhausted' is an adverb.
'exhuasted functions as an adverb.
Sentence Pattern: SVO+Adv

*Sorry. Did I say SVOC originally? Sorry.

Compare:

She left the room a mess.
'a mess' describes the state of 'the room'.
'the room is a mess'
'a mess' functions to describe the object 'the room'.
Sentence Pattern: SVOC

So if it's just written SVOC, we wouldn't know whether the C complements S or O. Thus there are actually two forms: SVO(OC) and SVO(SC), right?

Here's the difference. C of SVOC modifies Objects, whereas C of SVC modifies Subjects. The former has an Object, the latter does not. The Cs are different. C of SVOC can never modify S. Having said that, I see I've erred. Allow me to correct the structural analysis:

The plan struck me as excellent. (SVO) not (SVOC)

The plan (S) struck (V) me (O) as excellent. (SVO+Adjunct)

The excellence of the plan (S) struck (V) me (O). (SVO)

:D