Two remarks: (1) On collapsing lexical and syntactic levels This is a coming idea in both mainstream and non-mainstream linguistics. Ray Jackendoff, for example, has suggested that syntactic patterns are stored in the lexicon (in a form not completely unlike the familiar 'basic sentence patterns'!) Ronald Langacker has suggested the same thing, at the polar opposite end of the theoretical spectrum, so to speak, in Cognitive Grammar. (2) Rebecca Wheeler's posting lays out the basics of valence grammar mostly in terms of structural co-occurrences: how many NPs follow the verb, etc. There is another element to valence that brings us even better capabilities for doing things like separating 'consider'-type verbs from 'give' or 'read'-type verbs. This is the notion of 'thematic roles'. How thematic roles are defined varies somewhat from theory to theory, but the basic story is that there is a limited universal inventory of participant-roles that languages encode grammatically. These are based on real-world relationships (or how these are perceived/conceived) among participants in a scene described by a sentence. T. Givon (Syntax: A functional/typological introduction, pp. 126-127) gives this list: "Agent: deliberate initiator of events Dative: conscious participant or recipient in events or states Patient: registering a non-mental state or change-of-state Benefactive: conscious benefitter from an agent-initiated event ... Instrumental: unconscious instrument used by the agent in bringing about the event Associative: co-agent or co-dative that is outside the focus of importance Locative: concrete point of spatial reference with respect to which the position or change-in-location of another participant is construed Manner: the manner of a state or of an agent-initiated event" Again, the precise ways the names of the roles are used might vary slightly, but there is a lot of commonality. ('dative' and 'benefactive' are particularly subject to different definition/usage within linguistics; there may also be slightly larger or smaller inventories depending on the theory; 'experiencer' and 'absolute' are other roles that come to mind.) These interact with valence grammar by being viewed as part of the semantics of a verb (part of the verb's meaning as stored in our mental lexicon). 'Give', for instance, would include an agent, a patient, and a benefactive as 'intimate' or defining participants (if any one is missing from the _scene_ (NOT the sentence), the event does not count as an instance of 'giving'). In trying to figure out 'consider'-type verbs, I don't see a role here for the object complement, but clearly there is an agent and a patient, but no benefactive. Verbs vary as to which roles MUST also be encoded in a sentence. 'Put', for instance, requires agent, patient, and locative to be named by phrases in a sentence. 'Eat' is defined by an agent and a patient, but the verb can be used with only one of these encoded, e.g. 'Sue ate'. (Note that this is one way to describe 'transitive verbs used intransitively'.) If we include thematic roles in sentence analysis, it adds a 'layer': Sentence: John broke the window with a hammer Structure: NP V NP PP Gram. roles: Subject Direct Object Adverbial Them. roles: Agent Patient Instrument Are thematic roles of any use in grammar teaching? It's clear that passive sentences are defined by having patient-subjects; if the agent appears, it appears as an adverbial PP with 'by'. What do you think? Could you see an application for thematic roles in grammar teaching -- perhaps a short list for earlier levels, a fuller list for more-advanced levels? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics ~ English Department, California Polytechnic State University ~ San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 ~ Tel. (805)-756-2184 Fax: (805)-756-6374 ~ E-mail: [log in to unmask] ~ Office hours Winter 1999: Mon/Wed 10:10-11am Thurs 2:10-3pm ~ Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~