I have a problem identifying certain structures of the sentence; sometimes it is hard to tell whether I'm dealing with an argument or adjunct.
Adjunct is said to be optional;, that is, its omission will not change the meaning of the predicate. At the same time, the argument of the sentence is a mandatory syntactic unit that completes the meaning of the predicate.
What does the "meaning of the predicate" designate?
Does it simply mean, that with the complement being omitted the predicate becomes ambiguous?
Please consider my reasoning below:
Put the cheese back on the table. --> Should I put it on the table, in a purse or put it on as a hat and wear it to work?
Here, "back" appears to "complete" the meaning of the verb "put", whereas "on the table" can be omitted, because it doesn't affect the predicate in any way, and therefore can be thought of as structurally dispensable.
He stood in silence --> "in silence" must be complementing and therefore mandatory (but I don't know why).
I live in Bristol --> complement?
I'm running in the hallway of the Bristol University --> "in the hallway" - and "of the Bristol University" - both feel to be adjuncts;
The bag is under the table/round - "under the table" and "round" determine the state of the bag (i.e. whether its location or shape is in the focus)".
Am I getting it right? Does the argument help to identify the meaning of the predicate?