<?xml version="1.0"?>
<frameset>
<predicate lemma="introduce">
<note>
  Frames file for 'introduce' based on survey of initial sentences of
  big corpus and comparison with verbnet amalgamate 22.2.
</note>

<roleset id="introduce.01" name="cause to meet" vncls="22.2">
<roles>
  <role descr="entity making introduction" n="0">
	<vnrole vncls="22.2" vntheta="Agent"/></role>
  <role descr="entity being introduced" n="1">
	<vnrole vncls="22.2" vntheta="Patient1"/></role>
  <role descr="entity being introduced TO" n="2">
	<vnrole vncls="22.2" vntheta="Patient2"/></role>
</roles>

<example name="without arg2">
  <text>
  Mr. Stoltzman introduced his colleagues.
  </text>
  <arg n="0">Mr. Stoltzman</arg>
  <rel>introduced</rel>
  <arg n="1">his colleagues</arg>
</example>

<example name="with arg2">
  <text>
  John introduced Mary to the pleasures of chocolate ice cream.
  </text>
  <arg n="0">John</arg>
  <rel>introduced</rel>
  <arg n="1">Mary</arg>
  <arg f="to" n="2">the pleasures of chocolate ice cream</arg>
</example>

<note>
To my mind, "introduce" takes two almost-symmetrical arguments; that
is, if arg1 is introduced to arg2, logically arg2 is introduced to
arg1 as well.  Further, there are complicated figure-ground and
intentionality relations to worry about also.  To AVOID all of that,
take a purely *syntactic* approach to the arg1/arg2 distinction: arg2
is introduced by "to".
</note>

</roleset>


</predicate>
</frameset>
