Is 'the course' a complement or an adjunct in 'Stay the course'?

Question

Stay the course is a fixed expression, but I'd like to know how to analyze the course. At first blush, it seems to be complement of the verb stay.

But then, you have a similar-looking example stay the night, where the night seems to be an adjunct.

So I'm torn between the two. Which do you think is correct, and why?

I'm inclined to say that despite its idiomatic meaning "the course" is Od of "stayed", though some might say it's an obligatory complement. "The night" is,as you say, probably best analysed as a duration adjunct (cf. "stayed for the night). — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 08:51
The problem with analysing "the course" as Od of "stayed" is that it can't occur in the passive equivalent -- we can't say "The course was stayed", or at least it's not natural. — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 09:45
@BillJ I don't think all direct object can be passivized, though. For example, you can't say A fortune was cost. — listeneva, Apr 11 '20 at 10:05
The fact that we can’t passivise is a lexical property of "cost”. Leaving aside such verbs, it's OK to say that most verbs taking just one object permit passivisation. — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 10:17
@BillJ Which is not true. For example, you can't passivize I want you to leave, where want takes one object you, to say You're wanted to leave by me. And there are many such verbs. — listeneva, Apr 11 '20 at 10:29
@BillJ That is a characteristic mark of idiom; the passive makes no sense. However, certain syntaxic changes can sometimes be made. — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 10:53
Incidentally, in "I want you to leave", "you" is a raised object, so different considerations apply. — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 11:00
@listeneva Your analysis of "I want you to leave." is incorrect. the object is "you to leave". You have the two possibilities withe those constructions: "Can persuade Sheila to chair the meeting?" (Sheila), "I expected her to pass her drivint test firts time." (her to pass …). (From OALD) — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:01
@LPH Sorry, but that's incorrect. "I want you to leave" is a complex catenative construction, where it's just the intervening noun "you" that is the object of the matrix verb "want". "to leave" is a separate constituent -- the catenative complement of "want" — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 11:05
@BillJ That is not what I get from the dictionary I mention (OALD); it is clearly stated in it what I assert: there are two possibilities. Moreover, on the basis of common sense, what is wanted? Not the person, but that the person should leave. — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:10
@BillJ Nevertheless that does exclude the fact that as an object "you to leave" is not analyzable and is a catenative construction. — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:14
@LPH Don't use dictionaries for grammar! Of course it can be analysed. In a catenative construction like "I want you to leave", "you" is the syntactic object of "want" and the semantic subject of "leave". "You" is called a raised object because the verb it relates to syntactically is higher in the constituent structure than the one it relates to semantically. — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 11:15
@BillJ A dictionary such an Oxford dictionary is certainly based on grammatical principles; this dictionary in particular, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, provides an annex that explains the syntax of verbs and it is very serious (for each meaning of a verb, the particular relationship is mentioned; here we have "[VN to inf]"). — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:21
@BillJ Above, read "…that does not exclude…"; sorry for the error. — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:27
@LPH To be clear, "you" is parsed as direct object of "want" and "to leave" is parsed as complement of "want". "Want" has three complements ("I", "you" and the infinitival) but only two arguments ("I" and the infinitival -- "you" is not an argument), thus proving that "you" is a raised object. Complex stuff perhaps, but that's English syntax for you! — BillJ, Apr 11 '20 at 11:33
@BillJ I did understand this alternative approach as you explained it at first. I still don't agree with this direct object scheme as "you" (which is nothing but the traditional object, it seems to me). From my point of view the object as "you" is not complete. — LPH, Apr 11 '20 at 11:38
It's a moot point as to whether a lot of the verbo-nominal idioms in use should really be analysed as V + DO. Certainly with measure phrase 'completers' (He ran a mile; it weighs a ton; it cost a fortune ...) many agree that the 'completer', whether it may be lopped off to leave an acceptable remainder of the same ilk or not, should not be classed as a DO. I've quoted Allerton, de Swart, and Meyer in this thread in support of this argument. With 'complements', it depends heavily on how you define them. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 11 '20 at 13:27
@EdwinAshworth Is the term 'completer' widely used in linguistics? Is there any reason for using it instead of 'complement', which seems to be enough to describe all your 'completer' examples? Where do you draw the line between prototypical DOs and the other DOs? — listeneva, Apr 11 '20 at 16:20
Complement is variously defined, and often people use it as if a definite definition was universally agreed. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 11 '20 at 18:50
You see what I mean? 'The term 'complement' adds nothing to the discussion and should be dispensed with, since it doesn't have a useful definition. – John Lawler Mar 19 '13 at 4:06' [my bolding] So the above claim is at best disingenuous. // I dragooned the universally-agreed-as-not-usually-used (I hope) term 'completer' to try to avoid getting into the 'What exactly is a complement?' debate yet again. Note that 'three miles' in 'He ran three miles' may or may not be considered essential in some way to the sentence. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 12 '20 at 11:51
'Complement' has a very clear and widely-accepted meaning. The contrast between complements and adjuncts is crucial, the latter being modifiers, the former not. — BillJ, Apr 12 '20 at 12:37
Matthews in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics defines a complement as ‘A syntactic element seen as completing the construction of another element’ (the syntactic concept construction is preferable to the semantic concept meaning). He goes on to say, more specifically, that it applies to elements other than the subject which are within the valency of a verb or other lexical unit. And his entry for 'valency' is: 'The range of syntactic elements either required or specifically permitted by a verb or other lexical unit’ – which is equivalent to licensing. — BillJ, Apr 12 '20 at 12:38
In "stay the course", if 'course' is not the object, what could it be? In the sentence, "I want you to leave", 'you' is the object. "To leave" can be separately parsed, I think. Here I agree with @BillJ's views — Ram Pillai, Sep 08 '20 at 11:31
I'm reasonably confident that the original expression of this idiom was something along the lines of "stay on the course", with "course" being the object of the preposition. As an idiom (and especially as a nautical one), the syntax does not need to be rigidly "correct". — Hot Licks, Jan 06 '21 at 13:27

score 1 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

1

Neither is correct. "Stay the course" is an idiomatic expression and therefore the verb "to stay", as far as its use in that expression, is not classified as a transitive verb or an intransitive verb (ref.); in consequence it is not possible to say whether "the course" is an object or an adverbial.

Addition

Here is a complement to consolidate the notion that the grammatical analysis of idioms is not really possible. It is contrary to the notion of compositionality (ref.).

Compositionality is the key notion for the analysis of idioms. This principle states that the meaning of a whole is constructed from the meanings of the parts that make up the whole. In other words, one understand the whole if one understands the meanings of each of the parts.

This is what can be read in a pdf on idioms available in The International Journal of English Linguistics.

They are expressions, not subjected to analysis, only some syntactic changes may be carried out in them. Moreover, the diagram from the same source shows clearly the non grammatical approach on the left for the idiom and the usual grammatical analysis on the right for the "regular" meaning of this phrase.

edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

Community

1

answered Apr 11 '20 at 08:41

LPH

20,841

1

Where in the reference is it claimed that 'stay' is neither transitive nor intransitive? – listeneva Apr 11 '20 at 08:49
@listeneva Look up the numbers (1, 2, …) before the section on idiomatic phrases. You should see that only there you find the labels "transitive " and "intransitive". – LPH Apr 11 '20 at 08:54
1

That doesn't mean that 'stay' used in idioms is neither transitive nor intransitive. You're reading too much into it. – listeneva Apr 11 '20 at 08:58
@listeneva I don't believe so. If the nature of the verb were transitive (object function for "the course") we'd have a transitive section and the expression would be in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom# idioms are usually presumed to be figures of speech contradicting the principle of compositionality. Compositionality is the key notion for the analysis of idioms. This principle states that the meaning of a whole is constructed from the meanings of the parts that make up the whole. In other words, one understand the whole if one understands the meanings of each of the parts. – LPH Apr 11 '20 at 09:14
1

Your reference similarly doesn't say anything about "take it or leave it" under take, and that is clearly transitive. You're reading too much into it, as @listeneva says. – Peter Shor Apr 11 '20 at 11:38
@PeterShor Not so according to OALD; this is again an idiom if there is nothing to take materially in the context; it is transitive in "Take the package or leave it." (Take it or leave it.); it is not transitive in "I will come to your party only if you get rid of those mosquitoes…Take it or leave it.". – LPH Apr 11 '20 at 11:47
Are you saying that the OALD believes that transitive/intransitive labels don't apply to *any* idioms? – Peter Shor Apr 11 '20 at 14:05
@PeterShor Yes, that must be it. For some other questions such as whether parts of speech are still a relevant concept I can't assert that they absolutely never impinge on the analysis, as from what I understand, some idioms have some characteristics which are "normal"; for instance the person or the number can be changed (for instance "He'll take it or he'll leave it." is still the same idiom.). But, overall, yes that is what is to be believed: those classifications have little meaning and the idiom is a so called catena (string of words), just a lexical unit. – LPH Apr 11 '20 at 14:17
1

There are several understandings of "idiom" - the main two are (i) a commonly used phrase or clause (ii) a phrase or clause whose meaning is not literally obvious. -- The essence of an idiom is that it arises from a common understanding or reference, e.g. "I'd put my shirt on it's winning." There is never anything "ungrammatical" about idioms when the omissions and or references are understood by the listener: "stay the course" is not an "idiom". – Greybeard Apr 12 '20 at 10:03
@Greybeard There must be some dissension on this particular phrase, as 4 dictionaries I could consult classify it as an idiom: 1, 2, 3, 4. I take it that we are talking of "idiom" as you define the term in "(ii)". – LPH Apr 12 '20 at 15:54
This is one interpretation (and perhaps the one Crystal would espouse), but there are very obviously others. The compositionality of idioms is an area where research / analysis is ongoing. – Edwin Ashworth Sep 08 '20 at 16:25

score -1 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 11 '20 at 09:06

The original meaning of "stay" was

I. intransitive. To cease moving, halt.

1640 tr. G. S. du Verdier Love & Armes Greeke Princes i. xxii. 96 Their Bark (= boat) staying at an Island,..they went on shore.

Note that “He stayed the night” can be rendered as “He stayed for the night” or “He stopped the night” or “He stopped for the night”.

or transitive = to cause to halt:

1816 "The History and Antiquities, Ancient and Modern, of the Borough of Reading" By John Man "And also his majesty further stayed his horse until the mayor had taken his horse."

In most cases, this meaning gave way to the idea of “remaining” and, in this sense, both of your examples are much the same and basically carry the meaning of “to maintain or remain or endure in a constant state or action. [1]

In both cases, the verb acts only on the subject: neither “the course” nor “the night” experience being “stayed”. Thus, in these cases, the verb “to stay” must be intransitive.

There is no reason why a word cannot be both a complement and an adjunct: in your case, what follows ‘stay’ can also be described as a dative (= for the course / for the night)[1] Thus in all cases, the noun in question becomes a modifier/adjunct.

The OED describes the verb “to stay” (the course/the night) as

6.a. With predicative complement:* To remain in the specified condition.

And gives examples:

1640 J. Suckling Ballad on Wedding 38 Her finger was so small, the Ring Would not stay on which he did bring, It was too wide a Peck.

1871 B. Taylor tr. J. W. von Goethe Faust II. ii. iii. 150 She grows not old, stays ever young and warm.

In the entry for “to stay the course” we have:

12.a. Sport. To last, hold out, exhibit powers of endurance in a race or run. Also, to hold out for (a specified distance). [? Derived from sense 7b[2]]

1860 Rous in Baily's Mag. I. 18 There is another popular notion that our horses cannot now stay four miles.

1897 T. C. Allbutt et al. Syst. Med. II. 841 [Alcohol] may enable a man ‘to spurt’ but not ‘to stay’.

[1] II. quasi-transitive and transitive uses derived from I.

17.a. quasi-transitive. To remain for, to remain and participate in or assist at (a meal, ceremony, prayers, etc.); to remain throughout or during (a period of time). *= to stay for —— vb. at sense 14. *

1599 J. Hayward 1st Pt. Henrie IIII 26 The rest of the lords departed, except the Earle of Darby, who stayed supper with the King. 1888 G. Gissing Life's Morning II. xi. 135 I'm obliged to ask them to stay tea.

17.b. to stay the course: to hold out to the end of a race. Frequently figurative. 1885 Daily Tel. 11 Nov. 3/7 Doubts are also entertained..concerning her [sc. a horse's] ability to stay the course.

1966 Listener 10 Mar. 365/3 There was much to be learnt from this programme—about metal fatigue, for instance—for those who could stay the course.

[2]7. With emphasis or contextual colouring:

7 b. To stand one's ground, stand firm (as opposed to fleeing or budging). Now rare.

a1616 W. Shakespeare Henry VI, Pt. 3 (1623) ii. iii. 50 And giue them leaue to flye, that will not stay . [ And give leave to flee to them who do not wish to remain here.]

1851 E. B. Browning Casa Guidi Windows i. xxvii. 74 Who, born the fair side of the Alps, will budge, When Dante stays, when Ariosto stays, When Petrarch stays, for ever?

So you're saying that the course is an adjunct and that stay is intransitive? — listeneva, Apr 11 '20 at 09:54
The original meaning of stay the course was to halt something, in other words to stop something in its tracks. All the uses in Google books before 1800, and many in the 19th century, seem to have this meaning. So for this meaning, the expression is transitive; the course was really being stayed. From your references, the use of the expression with the opposite meaning seems to have arisen in the late 19th century, probably independently. — Peter Shor, Apr 11 '20 at 12:06
@listeneva OED here claims that 'He stayed the course' displays a quasi-transitive usage, This means that their analysis deems 'transitive / intransitive' labels inappropriate here. But the very term 'quasi-transitive' means that the usage is closer to transitive than to intransitive usages, and that one might expect a direct-object-like 'completer'. — Edwin Ashworth, Apr 11 '20 at 13:15
@Greybeard If the course is an adjunct, it should be able to be placed after another adjunct, right? But I can't think of any such other adjunct that could intervene between stay and the course. (ex) I stayed often the course. I stayed here the course. *I stayed adamantly the course. — listeneva, Apr 12 '20 at 09:36

Is 'the course' a complement or an adjunct in 'Stay the course'?

2 Answers2