(17c) We consider that the reforms are necessary Should one pattern be chosen to represent all the others in these cases? And if so, which one, and based on what rules? An attempt at combining the above example sentences 16 to 16c and 17 to 1 7c under one valency category would run counter to the inclination of many grammarians of dependency and valency grammar not to manipulate the urface appearance of sentences if at all possible(Fischer 1997), but treat different urface structures in their own right. This approach was chosen in this study A variation on the tri-valent valency sentence patterns are occurrences with a correlate or anticipatory ' it'structure(example sentences 24-27). Since this structure relatively frequent for the verb CONSIDER it was decided to investigate it separately in the analysis 2.1.1 Frequency analysis of the valency sentence patterns of CONSIDEr Table 7. Frequency of valency sentence patterns of CONSIDER EuroParl 200 lines BoE 200 lines CONSIDER Total o Total %o Total (% Total (% sub ob 72(36.0%) 79(39.5%) sub obj-that 27(13.5%) 12(6.0%) sub obj-wh 8(4.0%) 3(6.5%) sub obj-ing 9(4.5%) 28(140%) sub obj nom 3(1.5%) 18(9.0%) sub obj adi 17(8.5%) 28(14.0%) sub obj nom-as 9(4.5%) 8(4.0%) sub obj adi-as 1(0.5%) sub obj vb-to-be-n1om 16(8.0% 3(1.5%) sub obj vb-to-be-aadj 20(10.0%) 5(2.5%) sub obi vb-to-inf 2(1.0%) 3(1.5%) sub obj prp-for 1(0.5%) 1(0.5%) sub it nom vb-that 1(0.5%) sub it adj vb-that 6(3.0%) sub it nom vb-to-inf sub it adi vb-to-inf 9(4.5%) 1(0.5% ADJECTIVE 2(1.0%) 4(2.0%12 (17c) We consider that the reforms are necessary. Should one pattern be chosen to represent all the others in these cases? And if so, which one, and based on what rules? An attempt at combining the above example sentences 16 to 16c and 17 to 17c under one valency category would run counter to the inclination of many grammarians of dependency and valency grammar not to manipulate the surface appearance of sentences if at all possible (Fischer 1997), but treat different surface structures in their own right. This approach was chosen in this study. A variation on the tri-valent valency sentence patterns are occurrences with a correlate or anticipatory ‘it’ structure (example sentences 24–27). Since this structure is relatively frequent for the verb CONSIDER it was decided to investigate it separately in the analysis. 2.1.1 Frequency analysis of the valency sentence patterns of CONSIDER Table 7. Frequency of valency sentence patterns of CONSIDER CONSIDER EuroParl 200 lines Total % BoE 200 lines Total % Total (%) Total (%) sub obj 72 (36.0%) 79 (39.5%) sub obj-that 27 (13.5%) 12 (6.0%) sub obj-wh 8 (4.0%) 13 (6.5%) sub obj-ing 9 (4.5%) 28 (14.0%) sub obj nom 3 (1.5%) 18 (9.0%) sub obj adj 17 (8.5%) 28 (14.0%) sub obj nom-as 9 (4.5%) 8 (4.0%) sub obj adj-as 1 (0.5%) sub obj vb-to-be-nom 16 (8.0%) 3 (1.5%) sub obj vb-to-be-adj 20 (10.0%) 5 (2.5%) sub obj vb-to-inf 2 (1.0%) 3 (1.5%) sub obj prp-for 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) sub it nom vb-that 1 (0.5%) sub it adj vb-that 6 (3.0%) sub it nom vb-to-inf sub it adj vb-to-inf 9 (4.5%) 1 (0.5%) ADJECTIVE 2 (1.0%) 4 (2.0%)