Russet leaves were swept by past winds in heaps.

(Original sentence: "Russet leaves, swept by past winds in heaps."— Jane Eyre)

‘In heaps’ can be called as a ‘positional’ complement for verb phrase (were swept), yet it’s not an argument for the verb phrase. And if we regarded the verb phrase as a copular, ‘in heaps’ could be called as a semantic complement for the subject (russet leaves). So ‘in heaps’ may be called as a subject complement. Is this a possible view?

  • 1
    It's a resultative phrase. It describes the results of sweeping; into would also be correct. I don't understand the rest of your terminology; it's probably peculiar to your English textbook. There is a lot of variation in terminology, because many authors merely copy others, and lots of authors don't understand English grammar. Feb 18 '13 at 3:33
  • 1
    Those are not terms that will be useful outside a very small set of people who've used the same textbook. Unless one has a test to determine whether Constituent X has Property Y or not, names are useless. Feb 18 '13 at 4:39
  • 1
    Sorting out the terminology is a big problem, all right. I try to use mine consistently, and explain what I mean by example; that's about the best one can do. The fact is that everybody makes up their own terminology, because everybody makes up their own language. What you think of as a Noun Phrase is no doubt different in many ways from what I think of as a Noun Phrase, because how you think and talk is different from the way I think and talk. About anything, not just language. Feb 18 '13 at 16:21
  • 1
    I'm not sure I even understand this question, but I still think it's Too Localised. It seems to be asking us whether it's reasonable to categorise a specific usage according to some classification framework that's neither well-established nor clearly defined. Feb 18 '13 at 21:17
  • 1
    I think I vaguely recall the term "subject complement" as being what one called predicate adjectives and NPs after be. Things like a doctor in Bill's a doctor. I believe the theory was that it couldn't be a direct object because be is intransitive (which is true); and that it had to be something like an object because it was a noun (which is not true). Since it was therefore (officially, at least) in the Nominative Case, it was variously called a "predicate nominative" or a "subject complement", and there was a slanted object-like line for it in sentence diagramming. Feb 19 '13 at 21:02

Many might see it simply as an Adverbial, or, in functional grammar terms, a Circumstance.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.