The syntagmatic relations between the verb and each of the complements go to characterise the frame as a notation for a complex syntagmatic relation. In order to capture the distinctions between identically specified items in different positions, each syntagmatic relation is named. But instead of the functions SUBJECT, OBJECT, etc., which do not permit the kind of subtle distinction required, more semantically flavoured role names are used. An early combination of roles was AGENT, INSTRUMENT, DATIVE, FACTITIVE, LOCATIVE, OBJECTIVE.
This approach was developed by:
Fillmore, Charles (1968). The case for case. In: Bach, E. & R. T. Harms, eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. London &c.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Naming the syntagmatic relations means that the position in the subcategorisation frame is not so important; the specific syntagmatic relation of the verb to a specific COMPLEMENT is now not characterised by position number in the frame, but by name (optionally, but not necessarily by position):
| open | <OBJECTIVE> | The door opened. |
| <AGENT, OBJECTIVE> | John opened the door. | |
| <INSTRUMENT, OBJECTIVE> | This key opened the door. | |
| <OBJECTIVE, INSTRUMENT> | The door opened with this key. | |
| <AGENT, OBJECTIVE, INSTRUMENT> | John opened the door with this key. |