Errata and Comments

p. 6: Example (1.5): Optionality is a complicated business. Even Alice doesn't know may be possible under appropriate circumstances (e.g., Bob's back already but Alice doesn't know). So it may be better to replace "*" with "#" to show that optionality is context-dependent.  

p. 33: "... trajector/landmark alignment." > "... trajector/landmark alignment (abbreviated as 'tr/lm landmark' in Figure 2.7)."

p. 45 (second line in Section 3.3): "... morphology ." > "morphology." 

p. 46: "... called nominal inflection, (e.g., cats, buses), ..." >  "... called nominal inflection (e.g., cats, buses), ..."

p. 73: "Non-count nouns typically designate ..." > "Concrete non-count nouns ..."

p. 109: For consistency, I think it would be better if the text treated twice (and related expressions) primarily as Q/Adv rather than Adv/Q. 

p. 136: "Similarly, [...] given in (7.8c) means ‘on account of’; concerning in (7.8d) and regarding in (7.8e) mean ‘when considering’. In (7.8f), the booklet does not include the charter but is discussed in addition to the charter." > "[...] given in (7.8d) [...]; concerning in (7.8e) and regarding in (7.8f) [...]. In  (7.8g), [...] . "

p. 151: Examples (7.32) and (7.33): "subordinating preposition" > "preposition"

p. 276: "we see that the subordinate clause who/that we met" > "... that/who ..."

******

A note on verb complements, clausal complements and catenative complements

I have avoided using the term verb complement, which is employed, for example, by Berk (1999) to cover cases such as to leave in Alice forced Bob to leave. This term, when applied to internal complements, could be interpreted so generally as to include direct/indirect/prepositional objects since these all are (internal) complements of a verb. However, Berk (1999) seems to use 'verb complement' more restrictively, namely for clauses that are (internal) complements of a verb, especially non-finite complement clauses (like to leave above). 

I have preferred to use the term clausal complement for such cases. This goes hand in hand with the fact that I have used the term direct object quite broadly (similarly to Aarts 2024) to cover clauses that are complements of verbs and are replaceable by either an NP or a PP, as in Alice asked whether Bob had already left (cf. Alice asked that) and Alice marvelled that Bob left (cf. Alice marvelled at that). (Such finite clauses are categorised as 'content clause (internal) complements' rather than direct objects in Huddleston & Pullum 2002: Ch. 11). Although, in principle, the term 'clausal complement' also covers such clausal direct objects, I have used it specifically for clausal complements that are not analysed as direct objects in the book, such as to leave above. In other words, clauses that are (internal) complements of verbs but cannot be subsumed under the (quite broad understanding of the) label 'direct object' adopted in the book are referred to as 'clausal complements'. 

Another term that one may come across is catenative complement (see e.g. Huddleston & Pullum 2002: Ch. 14). This can be viewed as a more specific type of (internal) 'clausal complement', namely a non-finite clausal complement, whether or not the complement is a dependent of a transparent verb (see Alice seems to have left, where seem is a transparent verb, and Alice wants to leave, where want is not a transparent verb). Importantly, the book may categorise some of these cases as direct objects (as with want). In sum, we have the hierarchy

 'verb complement' (which would include direct/indirect/prepositional objects) > 

'clausal complement' (which includes clausal direct objects but in the book is used specifically for clausal complements not classified as direct objects) > 

'catenative complement' (i.e., non-finite clausal complements that are usually not analysed as direct objects).