I have him in my class.

[Phaedrus]

Greetings,

(1) I have him in my class.
(2) She keeps it under the bed.
(3) He left it on the roof.

Do you think it is reasonable, in sentences such as these, to say that the prepositional phrases are functioning as object complements?

Thank you.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Greetings,

(1) I have him in my class.
(2) She keeps it under the bed.
(3) He left it on the roof.

Do you think it is reasonable, in sentences such as these, to say that the prepositional phrases are functioning as object complements?

Thank you.

We could try movement tests to see if those PPs behave as object complements do.

 

[Phaedrus]

We could try movement tests to see if those PPs behave as object complements do.

That's an interesting suggestion, Ray. Would you care to demonstrate? I'm not sure if I'm divining properly what you have in mind.

The reason I want to describe these PPs as object complements is that they indicate the location of the direct object, not the location of the having/keeping/leaving.

But perhaps the syntax is parallel to what (mysteriously) happens in "I can see her in the garden" on the interpretation where the speaker need not be in the garden.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

That's an interesting suggestion, Ray. Would you care to demonstrate? I'm not sure if I'm divining properly what you have in mind.

The reason I want to describe these PPs as object complements is that they indicate the location of the direct object, not the location of the having/keeping/leaving.

I suspect it's unlikely to front an object complement to sentence-initial position.
Do you find the following awkward in prose?

Happy the song made John.
A good teacher we consider John.

Compare the following:

(1') In my class I have him.
(2') Under the bed she keeps it.
(3') On the roof he left it.

Are these awkward?

The reason I want to describe these PPs as object complements is that they indicate the location of the direct object, not the location of the having/keeping/leaving.

But perhaps the syntax is parallel to what (mysteriously) happens in "I can see her in the garden" on the interpretation where the speaker need not be in the garden.

On that reading, an adjunct analysis of "in the garden" is still possible, provided that we put a kind of proxy spin on it, as when we see her through a security camera, as if we were in the garden.

On that reading, is it awkward to front "in the garden" to sentence-initial position?

 

[Phaedrus]

I suspect it's unlikely to front an object complement to sentence-initial position.
Do you find the following awkward in prose?

Happy the song made John.
A good teacher we consider John.

Yes, I do find those sentences awkward.

If a comma were placed after the topicalized object complement, they would sound like something Yoda might say in Star Wars:

A good teacher, Jedis consider Obi-Wan.

Compare the following:

(1') In my class I have him.
(2') Under the bed she keeps it.
(3') On the roof he left it.

Are these awkward?

Yes, they are very awkward, too. I don't find them impossible, but they don't sound like normal English.

On that reading, an adjunct analysis of "in the garden" is still possible, provided that we put a kind of proxy spin on it, as when we see her through a security camera, as if we were in the garden.

On that reading, is it awkward to front "in the garden" to sentence-initial position?

If the sentence were "In the garden I saw her," I would find it awkward on the reading where the speaker simply sees her (being) in the garden without being in the garden himself at the time of seeing her (being) there.

I checked Quirk et al. (1985) and CGEL (2002) yesterday and didn't find anything very helpful on this topic, though I found it interesting that Quirk et al. categorize the "keep" (and, I believe, the "leave") pattern as SVOA. "Have" is missing from their list of verbs in that section.

Assuming that analysis is correct, I don't know what the SVOA pattern amounts to in terms of formal syntax. The prepositional phrase doesn't modify the object, nor does it modify the verb.

What do you think, Ray? Should we get minimalistic on this type construction and talk about little vP shells containing big VPs in which the direct object is base-generated in the specifier of the big VP and the PP adjunct adjoins to the big VP? Is a "small clause" involved perhaps?

This issue started for me when I proposed a Reed-Kellogg diagram for "Having the student in class has been essential" and then decided it was incorrect to represent "in class" as an adverbial modifier within the gerund. The notion that the having of the student takes place in class is ludicrous.



I decided that it must be an object complement instead.



But that diagram simply begs the question of whether it is even possible to interpret the PP in a structure like that as an object complement. Interestingly, House and Harman (1950) analyze and diagram the PP in the sentence "I found my mother in good health" as an object complement.

I wonder whether they would have said the same thing about the PP in "I found my mother in the kitchen. (I saw her there through the window while I was outside mowing the lawn)."

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

I tend to think the PPs in your examples are complements, not adjuncts, as the latter are optional.
Removal of the PPs renders your examples incomplete on the intended reading, doesn't it?

 

[Phaedrus]

I tend to think the PPs in your examples are complements, not adjuncts, as the latter are optional.
Removal of the PPs renders your examples incomplete on the intended reading, doesn't it?

That's an excellent point. Thank you. What do you think about the tree below? Now we're a long way from Reed and Kellogg!

I have him in my class.

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

That's an excellent point. Thank you. What do you think about the tree below? Now we're a long way from Reed and Kellogg!

I have him in my class.

View attachment 4598

I have nothing against it. Do you have empirical motivations for adopting a VP shell analysis?

 

[jutfrank]

(1) I have him in my class.
(2) She keeps it under the bed.
(3) He left it on the roof.

I think (1) differs from (2) and (3). Look at the passivisation:

It is kept under the bed.
It was left on the roof.

*He is had in my class.

So yes, it seems to me that the PPs in (2) and (3) are certainly complements. As far as (1) is concerned, I think the PP there could be used as an adjunct. Consider a group of teachers in the staff room:

A: Who has John (in their class)?
B: I have him (in my class).

 

[raymondaliasapollyon]

Can the following sentence, which presumably has "ready" as the object complement, be passivized?

He had the report ready before four o'clock.

 

[jutfrank]

The report was had ready before four o'clock.

I don't think it's completely wrong grammatically but yuck!

 

[Phaedrus]

I think (1) differs from (2) and (3). Look at the passivisation:

It is kept under the bed.
It was left on the roof.

*He is had in my class.

Very nice, Jutfrank. It is interesting that the passive of I have him in my class seems ungrammatical.

Isn't have somewhat notorious in that way, though? We don't say *The car is had by him, ?Lunch was had at noon, or *A baby has just been had by her, either.

In trying to find something similar to a passive of (1), I came upon a very interesting case: to have someone in derision, which does seem passivizable.

"He has been had in great derision" (source).
"There was a time when the Labour movement was had in derision of orthodox politicians" (source).

The contrast between having someone in derision and having someone in one's class seems somewhat parallel to the contrast between finding someone in good health and finding someone in the kitchen, doesn't it?

In the one case, it seems plausible to call the PP an object complement; in the other case, it seems very debatable. At present, the issue has become for us whether the PP is a complement, as it seems to be in the keep and leave sentences.

Incidentally, assuming the PPs are complements in the keep and leave sentences, do you think it is fair to use the term "object complement" for them, as we presumably would for the adjectives in They keep the coffee hot and The news left her dumbfounded?

I like Ray's example about having the report ready, though I'm not sure whether it should be deemed an object-complement construction or a causative one.

 

[Phaedrus]

I have nothing against it. Do you have empirical motivations for adopting a VP shell analysis?

I only have theoretical motivations. The shell structure is available in modern syntax and allows for a PP to be a complement within a VP without ternary branching.