Lexicon, Valence, and Clausal Complements



My plan currently is to add clausal complement strategies as possible choices for verb types’ argument structure.

Right now, you get to choose between transitive and intransitive, case unspecified, plus the choices defined by the case system:

38 PM

Now, the “Add a feature” button still gives you an option to constrain the subject to nominative case, even though nom-acc has already been chosen. I think it doesn’t do any harm; I believe it is there to deal with Splits.

My question is: should I build a list of all possible argument structures based on both the case system choices and the clausal complement choices, or could I just leave it to the user (please disregard the check mark in the list below, just look at the list):

50 PM

Simply leaving it to the user seems neater, but perhaps the full list of options also wouldn’t be too bad (too long that is). Unless the person specifies too many clausal complement strategies… Any thoughts?..


I assume you’re only going for two-place predicates here? That is, NP (or PP) subject and S (or CP) complement? If so, then I think it makes sense to produce the equivalent of the intransitives:

transitive clausal complement (nom, no case)
transitive clausal complement (case unspecified)


I think the object case also varies though (esp. in case of nominalized things).


In that case, it’s a type of < NP, NP > frame and should have those options, right? So same as ordinary transitives + case unspecified.