Last updated
Module 3 · Syntax · Lesson 5 of 7
Complements and Specifiers
Complements combine directly with a head, specifiers with the head-plus-complement unit; the two positions behave differently.
Arguments are not all alike. They divide into two kinds according to where they combine in the structure. A complement is an argument that combines directly with the head of a phrase. A specifier is an argument that combines with the combination of the head and its complement. This layered way of building structure has traditionally been called X-bar theory.
How they combine
Take the verb throw in Cooper threw a baseball. The verb is threw and its complement is a baseball. These two combine first: threw a baseball forms one unit, and that unit is what X-bar theory labels X-bar. The specifier — here the subject Cooper — is another argument, and it combines not with the verb alone but with the whole threw a baseball unit. So the order of assembly is: verb plus complement first, then specifier.
This is not merely notational. The positions arguments occupy affect how they are interpreted, and complements and specifiers behave in observably different ways.
The no-agent idiom hypothesis
A striking piece of evidence comes from what is called the no-agent idiom hypothesis, drawn from Marantz 1984. Compare threw a baseball with threw his support behind a candidate, threw a boxing match, threw a party, and threw a fit. In each case the complement — all of these are direct objects of throw, not specifiers — shifts the interpretation of the verb in a distinctive, often idiomatic way. Throwing a baseball is nothing like throwing a boxing match, a party, or a fit.
What we do not find is the same effect with specifiers. Idioms form from a verb and its complement, but not from a verb and its agentive specifier. Swapping the subject confirms this: the referee threw a baseball or the referee threw a boxing match keeps the same special reading of throw as with Cooper. Whether the subject is Cooper or the referee, the interpretation is unchanged. Marantz's point is that idioms have a logic: they are built from a verb and a complement, never from a verb and an agent specifier.
The prototypical complement
One practical takeaway is worth repeating: the prototypical complement is the direct object. If asked simply what the complement of a verb is, the answer is the direct object. Verbs can also take prepositional complements, but as a default the complement of a verb equals its direct object.
Check your understanding
Become a fluent reader of the biblical languages
Biblingo is the only language-learning app (mobile and web) that provides everything you need to go from zero knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and Latin to reading the Bible in its original and historic languages — all in one place.