complementizer

(redirected from complementisers)

com·ple·men·tiz·er

 (kŏm′plə-mĕn-tī′zər)
n.
A word that introduces a clause, especially a subordinate clause, such as the word that in I believe that they have eaten lunch.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

complementizer

(ˈkɒmplɪmənˌtaɪzə)
n
(Grammar) generative grammar a word or morpheme that serves to introduce a complement clause or a reduced form of such a clause, as that in I wish that he would leave
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

com•ple•men•tiz•er

(ˈkɒm plə mənˌtaɪ zər)

n.
(in generative grammar) an element or elements marking a complement clause, as that in We thought that you forgot or for … to in For you to come here would be silly.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Translations
complémenteur
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
4 used substituting the swapping of complementisers and relativisers cover manipulation plug-in as [9].
A hybrid natural language information hiding system
Ignoring some theory-internal details (such as the postulation of a separate projection for inflection markings or complementisers), the syntactic structure of a sentence is of the following form:
Syntax of information structure in Turkish
Although there is not extensive research on this issue, complementisers in Spanish follow the expected order and are found in early utterances either a little before or a little after wh-questions (see Barrena 2000).
The presence or absence of the complementiser in an embedded clause such as (I) often goes unnoticed and seems not to have any semantic or syntactic consequences.
The fact that the complementiser can be absent, as in (I)b, is not a general property of the language, as there are constructions where that cannot be absent:
Sobre la omision del that y su ausencia en la produccion escrita de aprendices de ingles bilingues catalan/espanol
It being the case that wh-operators are generally argued to raise to [Spec,CP], the claim that those relative operators that introduce restrictive clauses move to [C.sup.0] instead of [Spec,CP], thereby becoming derived complementisers, needs to be strongly supported, and it thus seems to me that the major differences between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relatives can be used as an argument in favour of such a claim.
In a parallel fashion to relative that, which has generally been considered a complementiser in transformational grammar (see the classical analysis in Bresnan [1970]), restrictive who(m) and which, and likewise the null or empty operator, are argued in this approach to be eventually relative complementisers (see [8] above).
The Difference between Restrictive and Non-restrictive Relative Clauses

Dictionary browser ?
Full browser ?