An adjective phrase

Question

Hi,What is a good practical definition of "an adjective phrase" that would be generally understood in these forums?Best wishes,  - A.

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

I first try to determine whether the student asking about it is learning what I call "old style" or "new style" grammar. Then I use these:

Old style:

based on function; includes single-word adjectives, but also prepositional phrases and relative clauses (and any other constructions, really) that modify nouns

http://www.english-for-students.com/Adjective-Phrase.html

[ (a) kind (man); (a man) of great wealth, (a man) without a friend, (a letter) that must be written soon ]
_______________

New style:

based on "head" word and its "satellites"

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/phrases/ap.htm

[very late; fond of animals, happy to meet you]
____________

So the "new-style" grammarians would call the "old-style" adjective phrase a noun modifier, if I understand the relationship between these two styles correctly.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks, Jim. I'm glad I asked!

I had been under the impression that naming a phrase for its head predated naming it for its function.
Perhaps this is because I was using the wrong model. "Prepositional phrase" dates back to my birth.
I guess it depends on the "part of speech" involved.

A poster had asked if a particular example was an adjective phrase.
"Well, it depends on your definition" seemed like a dumb answer.

- A.

CalifJim · Answer

Avangi"Well, it depends on your definition" seemed like a dumb answer.

Au contraire, mon ami. It's just about the only smart answer these days. (Note my little motto from Nietzsche.)

CJ

BillJ · Answer

AvangiHi,What is a good practical definition of "an adjective phrase" that would be generally understood in these forums?Best wishes, - A.

There's only one. An adjective phrase consists of an adjective as head, alone or accompanied by one or more more dependents. The dependents may be complements, licensed (permitted) by the head, or modifiers. Examples (with the adjectives in bold and the complements/modifiers underlined):

Alone: 'Cold' 'Huge' 'Red' 'Wealthy'

With complements: 'Afraid of the dark'. 'Bent on revenge'. 'Good at chess'.

With modifiers: 'Extremely hot'. 'Much better'. 'Old enough'.

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

BillJWith complements: 'Afraid of the dark'. 'Bent on revenge'. 'Good at chess'.

Hi, Bill,
I think I understand what you have said. Thanks for your reply.

I suppose we can leave the choice of terms to the heavyweights.
I can readily accept these prepositional phrases as complements to the adjectives, as they surely complete, or add to the meanings. The implication is that without these prepositional phrases, the adjectives would be incomplete.
Somehow "dependents" and "complements" seem antithetical as terms. How can the phrases be both? I guess "complement" is used in a very general way. So they're "dependents" in one sense and "complements" in another. (According to some old traditions, a wife is both a dependent and a complement.)

But even as the phrases are complements to the adjectives, it wouldn't seem right to call them "adjective complements."
To me, an adjective complement is "She is too fat." But then we're supposed to call that a "subject complement."
We just have to bend over and let someone else formulate these terms. But they don't always harmonize.
Shouldn't we at least have consistency in "naming" a complement for the thing which it complements vs. the thing which it is?
This is analogous to my confusion over the naming of phrases - for the head, or for the function?

- A.

BillJ · Answer

Avangi'Afraid of the dark'. 'Bent on revenge'. 'Good at chess'. I can readily accept these prepositional phrases as complements to the adjectives, as they surely complete, or add to the meanings. The implication is that without these prepositional phrases, the adjectives would be incomplete.

An important point about complements is that they may be obligatory or optional; that applies across the board. Take objects for example: in 'Sue used the cheese', 'the cheese' is obligatory because you can't say *'Sue used'. But in 'Sue ate the cheese', 'the cheese' is optional because you can also say 'Sue ate'. In those pairs, the verb is the determining factor as to whether the complement is obligatory or optional.

Back to adjectives. For the most part, complements in AdjP structure are optional elements: they qualify as complements by virtue of being licensed by (permissible with) the head rather than being obligatory. So you get 'He was [afraid of dogs]' and 'He was [afraid]' where the complement 'of dogs' is optional. Contrast that pair with 'They are [mindful of the danger]' and *'They are [mindful]' where the complement is syntactically obligatory.

There is also a semantic factor to be recognized. The rule is that a complement is obligatory if its omission results in a change in the meaning of the head. Compare: 'They were [fraught with danger]' where 'fraught' means roughly "full of, charged, accompanied by", with 'They were [fraught]' where it means "anxious, distressed, causing anxiety/distress". In such cases the complement is clearly obligatory.

AvangiSomehow "dependents" and "complements" seem antithetical as terms. How can the phrases be both? I guess "complement" is used in a very general way. So they're "dependents" in one sense and "complements" in another.

'Dependent' is defined as "an element in the structure of the phrase (or clause) other than the head". But 'dependent' a very general function, so it's necessary to distinguish different subtypes according to their more specific relation to the head. At the first level of subdivision we distinguish complements, modifiers and determiners (the latter figuring in noun phrases), so that's why the dependents in an adjective phrase are described as either complements or modifiers. Does that make it clearer?

AvangiBut even as the phrases are complements to the adjectives, it wouldn't seem right to call them "adjective complements."To me, an adjective complement is "She is too fat." But then we're supposed to call that a "subject complement."We just have to bend over and let someone else formulate these terms. But they don't always harmonize.Shouldn't we at least have consistency in "naming" a complement for the thing which it complements vs. the thing which it is?This is analogous to my confusion over the naming of phrases - for the head, or for the function? - A.

'Adjective complement' is misleading. In 'afraid of the dark', 'of the dark' is a preposition phrase functioning as complement of 'afraid'. An adjective complement would be a complement comprising an adjective. In 'Afraid to go out in the dark', 'to go out in the dark' is a clause functioning as complement of afraid. In 'She is too fat', 'too fat' is an adjective phrase functioning as a predicative complement (a subtype of complement). It is often just called a 'subject complement', but that term is misleading, as you've identified. It's correctly called a subjective predicative complement, or better still a PC with subject orientation.

BillJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks for your thorough treatment of my questions.

I don't have anything further at the moment, but I'm taking a few of these terms "on faith."

- A.

Anonymous · Answer

Bill - I think your analysis is very sound.

I'd like to query your terminology, though - at http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAComplement.htm , for example, the term complement is restricted to phrases or clauses selected by the head [(rather than licensed or even permitted) and thus] obligatory.
At http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OmjH711wDMQC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Complements+vs+adjuncts+Quirk+optional+obligatory&source=bl&ots=Za7X8UolNh&sig=R_zPaAWkR05R4KBreig70AQ8hSs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oC2TT_n4OcOL8gOosfnNDA&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=Complements%20vs%20adjuncts%20Quirk%20optional%20obligatory&f=false , we have:

. . .sometimes the adverbial is required by the verb in order to make the clause grammatically acceptable. Such adverbials have been labelled obligatory (eg Quirk et al . . .) . . . or complements (Huddleston and Pullum . . .).

As usual, terminology seems to conflict, but perhaps there is a forum stance taken in these posts. Perhaps it is related to one particular take on grammar - valency, maybe.

On another note, the sentence He was sure to see her is usually analysed as a catenating (with to-infinitive) multi-word verb (be sure . . .) construction, rather than copula + adjective-with-whatsit. I wonder if be happy + to-infinitive could be similarly analysed.

Edwin Ashworth

An adjective phrase

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions