Abstract
In this paper we investigate the status of instrumental adjuncts in the clause. We present data from three Austronesian and three non-Austronesian (Papuan) languages and show that instrumental arguments are grammatically privileged compared to other non-terms, sharing grammatical properties with terms as well as non-terms. We also show that instruments that are not integral to the event do not have the same privileged status. We argue that this difference in behaviour results from the fact that some instrumental arguments are integral to the event, and must thus be included in a verb's lexical conceptual structure, while others are truly adjuncts.