Preface -- Figures -- Tables -- Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Major questions -- 1.2 The model of analysis - overview and important concepts -- 1.2.1 Valency models - a brief overview -- 1.2.2 Valency carriers, complements and adjuncts, and different types of valency -- 1.2.3 Valency patterns -- 1.2.4 Optionality of complements -- 1.2.5 Subject complement unit (SCU) and predicate complement units (PCUs) -- 1.2.6 Levels of valency and the use of semantic roles -- 1.2.7 Valency constructions -- 1.2.8 Complement types -- 1.2.9 Participant roles -- 1.3 Design of the study -- 2 The meaning of complements -- 2.1 Complement types as part of a verb's valency structure -- 2.1.1 Overview -- 2.1.2 Complement types -- 2.1.3 Valency structures - introducing the model used -- 2.2 Alternative realizations of participants -- 2.2.1 Semantic specialization vs. synonymy of complement types -- 2.2.1.1 AGENT + talk + TOPIC -- 2.2.1.2 AGENT + agree + TOPIC/REFERENCE -- 2.2.1.3 AGENT + forget + ÆFFECTED -- 2.2.2 Polysemous complement types -- 2.2.2.1 AGENT + cheat + REFERENCE -- 2.2.2.2 AGENT + argue + TOPIC/REFERENCE -- 2.2.2.3 AGENT + inform + TOPIC -- 2.2.3 Blocked patterns -- 2.3 Conclusion -- 2.3.1 No stable semantic properties -- 2.3.2 Synonymous and polysemous complement types -- 3 Pattern choice and verb meaning -- 3.1 Assessing the role of verb meaning - theoretical assumptions -- 3.2 A comparison of semantically similar verbs -- 3.2.1 The database - introduction and description of methodology -- 3.2.2 Semantically similar verbs and their pattern inventories -- 3.2.3 Results of the analysis - quantitative evaluation -- 3.3 Phenomena identified in the analysis -- 3.3.1 Complementation options in a valency framework - an overview.

3.3.2 Same valency pattern but different participant pattern -- 3.3.3 Same pattern restricted to a very specific context -- 3.3.4 Different formal realizations of the same participant -- 3.3.4.1 Differences in optionality -- 3.3.4.2 Different formal realizations of the same participant - an overview -- 3.3.4.3 Different formal realizations of BENREC -- 3.3.4.4 Different formal realizations of PREDICATIVE -- 3.3.4.5 Different formal realizations of TOPIC -- 3.3.4.6 Different formal realizations of ÆFFECTED -- 3.3.4.7 Different formal realizations of PREFERENCE and AIM -- 3.3.4.8 Conclusion -- 3.3.5 Different flexibility in the combination of participants -- 3.3.6 Frequency-based differences in the choice of complements -- 3.3.7 Formal similarity between verbs of opposite meaning -- 3.4 Different aspects of verb meaning and pattern choice -- 3.4.1 The participant inventory -- 3.4.2 Selection restrictions -- 3.4.3 The situation type of the verb -- 3.5 Implications -- 4 The meaning of patterns -- 4.1 The pattern as an additional entity -- 4.1.1 Complement type-independent pattern restrictions -- 4.1.2 Participant mergers -- 4.1.3 Instability of complement-participant correlation -- 4.1.4 Realization of participants dependent on the overall pattern -- 4.1.5 Conclusion -- 4.2 The relationship between pattern and meaning -- 4.2.1 Same valency pattern - same participant pattern? -- 4.2.1.1 Theoretical background: assumptions of construction grammar -- 4.2.1.2 The pattern [NP + verb + NP + NP] -- 4.2.1.3 The pattern [NP + verb + for_NP] -- 4.2.2 Same valency pattern - similar verb meaning? -- 4.2.2.1 Verb class studies - a brief review -- 4.2.2.2 Semantic verb groups based on pattern groups -- 5 Conclusion.

5.1 Different approaches towards the syntax-semantics interface - an assessment in the light of empirical findings -- 5.2 Summary of the results -- 5.2.1 Lexical aspect, selection restrictions, and participant inventories -- 5.2.2 Competition with other lexical units of the same lexeme -- 5.2.3 No stable complement type or pattern meaning -- 5.2.4 Verb meaning not predictable from pattern choice -- 5.2.5 Accounting for alternative valency constructions -- 5.2.6 Idiomaticity in complementation -- 5.3 Implications for a theory of complementation -- Appendix 1 -- References -- Index.