I would go farther than Mike and say that subcategorization frames are pretty much gone from contemporary syntactic analysis. They have been been replaced by head-complement relations, in many cases involving functional heads, like "little v", which plays a role in the "double object" construction. For a good explanation, and indeed an excellent introduction to contempory syntax, see Andrew Radford's Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English.
From: Mike Maxwell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Corpora-List] Subcat Questions
Ute Römer wrote:
> ... I explained verbal
> subcategorisation frames to my intro to linguistics students this
> morning as the combination of complements (obligatory constituents) a
> verb (as head of a VP) takes.
One of the differences between this idea of subcat and that in the
earlier msg today, concerns whether subjects are subcategorized
(previous msg) or not (above-quoted msg). This is a theoretical issue.
Since all finite verbs in English require subjects, and since there is
evidence that the subject is outside the VP, while all the complements
are inside the VP, some linguists hold that subjects are not
subcategorised. There are lots of arguments pro and con, which I won't
go into here.
There are also questions about whether other categories besides verbs
have subcategorization frames (prepositions, for instance, and at least
Linguistic Data Consortium
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 19 2003 - 16:35:21 MET DST