“Object complements” and conversation towards a realistic account
Based on a corpus of conversational English, I argue that the standard view of complements as subordinate clauses in a grammatical relation with a complement-taking predicate is not supported by the data. Rather, what has been described under the heading of complementation can be understood in terms of epistemic/evidential/evaluative formulaic fragments expressing speaker stance toward the content of a clause. This analysis, in which CTPs and their subjects are stored and retrieved as formulaic stance markers accounts for the grammatical, pragmatic, prosodic, and phonological data more satisfactorily than a complementation analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.26.1.05tho
Cited by
Cited by 207 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.