(26)We/consider /it/a bad idea/to take the funding from the farming sector <sub it adj vb-to-infp (27)We/consider /it/ necessary /to discuss this topic It should be noted that other researchers may decide on different sub-patterns and different labelling. For example, Noel(1996)uses word-class labels as in CONSIDER+ NP, which is equivalent to the pattern <sub obj> in Table 6, he also identifies a category"CONSIDER ifhwhether-clause' in add ition to the category CONSIDER wh clause. Both of these structures are combined under the category <sub obj-wh> in Table 6 An interesting case for discussion is constituted by a probable mono-valent pattern <sub for the verb consider as shown in table 6 (11) The Commission should hear the sectors views, consult, listen, consider The Valency Dictionary of English(Herbst et al. 2004: 175) includes a mono-valent valency pattern which is exemplified with the sentence Cook tilted her head to one side, considering, while others, such as the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (2005: 324), only show it as transitive verb. Francis et al(1996: 1)note that many verbs are used with this [mono-valent pattern only when something involved in the action, apart from the subject, has already been mentioned. This seems to clearly imply that most verbs usually occur with an object, i.e. they are transitive, and only occur without the object due to stylistic reasons as the object can be retrieved from the context For example, sentence 1 l could be rewritten as 1la (1la) The Commission should hear, consult about, listen to, and consider the sector s views Furthermore, the low frequency of the mono-valent use certainly implies rare usage For this reason, though shown in Table 6, the mono-valent patten <sub> is ignored for the verb CONSIDER. Occurrences such as sentence 1 1 are included in the analysis under the bi-valent sentence pattern <sub obj> For the tri-valent valency sentence patterns of CoNSIDER a decision had to be made as to how many sub-categories based on the realisation form should be differentiated In traditional grammar(e.g. Swan 2005, Biber et al. 2002, Quirk et al. 1985, Allerton 1982) it is often implied that there is apparently no difference in meaning between sentences 16 to 16c and 17 to 17c, thus implying that the different surface structures are merely a stylistic choice (16) We consider this agreement a milestone (16a) We consider this agreement to be a milestone (16b) We consider this agreement as a milestone (16c) We consider that this agreement is a milestone (17) We consider the reforms necessary (17a)We consider the reforms to be necessary ( 17b) We consider the reforms as necessary11 (26) We / consider / it / a bad idea / to take the funding from the farming sector. <sub it adj vb-to-inf> (27) We / consider / it / necessary / to discuss this topic. It should be noted that other researchers may decide on different sub-patterns and different labelling. For example, Noël (1996) uses word-class labels as in ‘CONSIDER + NP’, which is equivalent to the pattern <sub obj> in Table 6; he also identifies a category ‘CONSIDER + if/whether-clause’ in addition to the category ‘CONSIDER + wh￾clause’. Both of these structures are combined under the category <sub obj-wh> in Table 6. An interesting case for discussion is constituted by a probable mono-valent pattern <sub> for the verb CONSIDER as shown in Table 6. (11) The Commission should hear the sector’s views, consult, listen, consider. The Valency Dictionary of English (Herbst et al. 2004: 175) includes a mono-valent valency pattern which is exemplified with the sentence ‘Cook tilted her head to one side, considering’, while others, such as the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (2005: 324), only show it as transitive verb. Francis et al (1996: 1) note that ‘many verbs are used with this [mono-valent] pattern only when something involved in the action, apart from the subject, has already been mentioned.” This seems to clearly imply that most verbs usually occur with an object, i.e. they are transitive, and only occur without the object due to stylistic reasons as the object can be retrieved from the context. For example, sentence 11 could be rewritten as 11a: (11a) The Commission should hear, consult about, listen to, and consider the sector’s views. Furthermore, the low frequency of the mono-valent use certainly implies rare usage. For this reason, though shown in Table 6, the mono-valent pattern <sub> is ignored for the verb CONSIDER. Occurrences such as sentence 11 are included in the analysis under the bi-valent sentence pattern <sub obj>. For the tri-valent valency sentence patterns of CONSIDER a decision had to be made as to how many sub-categories based on the realisation form should be differentiated. In traditional grammar (e.g. Swan 2005, Biber et al. 2002, Quirk et al. 1985, Allerton 1982) it is often implied that there is apparently no difference in meaning between sentences 16 to 16c and 17 to 17c, thus implying that the different surface structures are merely a stylistic choice. (16) We consider this agreement a milestone. (16a) We consider this agreement to be a milestone. (16b) We consider this agreement as a milestone. (16c) We consider that this agreement is a milestone. (17) We consider the reforms necessary. (17a) We consider the reforms to be necessary. (17b) We consider the reforms as necessary