Predicative elements in the sentence structure

No. The NP "a black comedy..." is a subject-oriented predicative adjunct. Its predicand is "It", not a "tale", which is the head of the predicative NP complement "an original, gripping and disturbing tale of ...".

The sentence structure is : Subject + V + Predicative Complement + Predicative Adjunct. I'll explain this in more detail.

Dependents in the sentence structure belong to either integrated or supplementive group. The integrated ones divide into complements and modifiers. The supplements and modifiers together are referred to as "adjuncts" - a term used for elements that are readily ommissible from the sentence without affecting its interpretation. Speaking in these terms, your "a black comedy.." is an adjunct.

Furthermore, any dependent in the sentence structure can be "predicative" or "non-predicative" . The element is predicative if it is oriented towards an argument in the sentence (typically subject or object). It predicates something of its predicand, in this case the pronoun "it". The NP "A black comedy.." is then a "subject-oriented predicative supplement" (or if you prefer the more specific reference: "subject-oriented supplementive predicative adjunct"). The other NP, "a tale.." , is, by that same virtue, a "subject-oriented predicative complement". The two phrases sit side by side, as independent elements of the predicate. By no means does the latter modify the previous one, as a relative clause or else. Again, they are independent of each other, both being oriented towards the predicand "it".

Let's analyze the examples below:

1.George had checked into the hotel Esplanade, a five-star resort on the coast.

2.He found it an overrated place, a three-star hotel at best.

In the first sentence we have an instance of apposition. The appositive noun modifier "Esplanade" modifies the head "the hotel". (we have two appositions in this one :) . We also have a predicative supplement oriented towards the prepositional object "the hotel Esplanade" - "a five-star resort on the coast".

In the second sentence there is an object-oriented predicative complement - "an overrated place" (predicated of "it"), and an object-oriented predicative supplement - "a three-star hotel at best".

The supplementive NPs in these sentences can be understood as "secondary predications". They are appended to the main clause to predicate something else. Or, we can think of them as predicates, with the predicand as the subject. "George had checked into the hotel Esplanade. It is a five-star resort on the coast." "He found it an overrated place. It is a three star hotel at best."

So we distinguish between predicative complements and predicative adjuncts. Within the latter group we distinguish predicative supplements and predicative modifiers. Sentences 1 and 2 illustrate the use of predicative supplements and predicative complements. The first two sentences below show instances of predicative modifiers- optional, predicand-oriented elements tightly integrated in the sentence structure, while the last one is an -ing clause adjunct, with the implied subject "He":

3.He left the hotel a nervous wreck.

4.He left the hotel disappointed.

5.He left the hotel thinking about the money he'd wasted.

The core clause in these examples is: "He left the hotel" . The elements at the end of sentences 3 and 4 are subject-oriented predicative modifiers. All three forms (noun phrase (a nervous wreck), adjective phrase (disappointed) and participial clause (thinking about the money he'd wasted)) are commonly used as adjuncts.

The NP "a black comedy.." is not an appositive modifier either. There's a number of reasons why it shouldn't be confused with "apposition", and I'll write about it in a separate thread on the forum. For now, I'll just say that it is not a good idea to think of "apposition" as "anything set off from the rest of the sentence by punctuation". It is very simplistic, misleading and unhelpful to jumble unrelated syntactic elements under a single denotation. Such analyses show a great deal of confusion and a lack of structure in thinking about the basic syntactic concepts. I've checked the Wikipedia articles about apposition, and I wasn't enthused, on the contrary in the fact.

A noun phrase tacked on the linking (or any other ) construction can be interpreted differently, as is shown in these examples:

1. It is a black comedy, Dr Strangelove. (apposition)

2. It is a black comedy, my favorite movie genre. (reduced relative clause) (the reversed order of NPs would take on an appositive reading: ..my favorite movie genre, a black comedy.")

3. It is a black comedy, a tale of survival in the Wild West. (predicative)

In the first one "Dr Strangelove" specifies which black comedy is meant. It is an appositive with "a black comedy" as its anchor.

The NP "My favorite movie genre" in the second sentence is anchored to the preceding noun phrase "a black comedy". This noun phrase is understood as a sort of a reduced relative clause, qualifying the anchor "a black comedy".

Finally, "a tale of survival in the Wild West" in the third one is just one more predication of the same subject, hence the term "secondary predication". (CGEL calls this function a "predicative adjunct"). Two or more predications can be combined into a single sentence in a lot of different ways and forms and this is one of them.

In this specific case, the noun phrase is used as what is in literature called a "summative modifier". (although the term "modifier" should be broadly understood since, strictly speaking, "a tale of survival in the Wild West" doesn't "modify" anything, it is just slapped on the main predication). A summative modifier puts what is said in the main clause in different words. Its function is more obvious in non-linking constructions, where the "summative" noun phrase is clearly understood as reinterpreting the entire preceding predication.

The phrase "a tale of survival.." (or "a black comedy that at times.. in the OP) does not relate to the preceding NP. This phrase is clearly subject-oriented. "Black comedy" is not a tale of survival in the Wild West, but the particular movie referred to fits that description.

To understand this construction, one needs to have a clear understanding of the concepts of appositives, predicatives, and relative clauses.

NOTE: The term "summative modifier" comes from Joseph Williams who explains its use in this way: "*.add a term that sums up the substance of the sentence so far, and continue with a restrictive relative clause beginning with "that" . Obviously, the NP "a tale of survival in the Wild West" doesn't fit this definition, but I'll stick to what I said above as I don't think that a nominal functioning like this necessarily has to be modified by a relative clause. (A Google Books example: Emperor Shun occupied the throne for almost nineteen years, an unusual feat for the second century of the Eastern Han).

Anyway, the main point here is that the term "summative modifier" refers to a relative clause which is reduced to a phrase. This is what Williams explicitly stated in his book: "You can write a long sentence but still avoid sprawl if you change relative clauses to one of the three kinds of appositives: resumptive, summative and free.