Abstract
Variability in the interpretation of Russian verbal prefixes is traditionally regarded as an issue of lexical semantics. Grammars and dictionaries list different usages that are possible for each prefix without explaining when and why particular usages are realised. For a limited amount of prefixed verbs further information can be found in the dictionaries, but often even this is not enough for a precise interpretation. In Zinova (2017) I proposed a Frame semantic analysis that allows to compositionally construct the meaning of a complex verb. In this paper I make a further step towards a computational account of the pragmatic component of the system that would allow to predict the final interpretation of a given verb. I claim that the competition between various verbs derived from the same stem is an important part of the prefixation system that ensures its flexibility and leads to what on the surface looks like lexical ambiguity. The final interpretation of a verb depends on the availability of alternative expressions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
These verbs would constitute aspectual pairs with the imperfective source verbs on the pair-based accounts of Russian verbal system. Janda (2007) calls such verbs Natural Perfectives.
- 2.
Such verbs fall in the Complex Act Perfectives class in the account by Janda (2007).
- 3.
Open Source Lexical Information Network, available online at http://ru.oslin.org/index.php? action=aspect.
- 4.
Available online at ruscorpora.ru.
- 5.
Please note that representing the contribution of the base verb is not the primary goal of this paper and there may be better and more accurate solutions for this.
- 6.
Note that in Zinova (Zinova 2017) the frame for the prefix po- is associated with an additional restriction that the measure dimension ( ) is the verbal dimension ( ). This restriction is removed here.
- 7.
- 8.
The question of competition between verbs that have different stems but are semantically close is left for future work.
- 9.
This is an arbitrary selected value. By varying this parameter one can model different behaviour: more or less dependent on the rational considerations. If alpha equals zero, pragmatic listener’s behaviour will not differ from that of a literal listener.
References
Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992). Chapter 1
Benz, A., Jäger, G., Van Rooij, R.: An introduction to game theory for linguists. In: Benz, A., Jäger, G., Van Rooij, R. (eds.) Game Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 1–82. Springer, London (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285897_1
Blutner, R.: Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation. J. Semant. 17(3), 189–216 (2000)
Dekker, P., Van Rooy, R.: Bi-directional optimality theory: an application of game theory. J. Semant. 17(3), 217–242 (2000)
Filip, H.: The quantization puzzle. Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 3–60. CSLI Press, Stanford (2000)
Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul (1982)
Franke, M., Jäger, G.: Bidirectional optimization from reasoning and learning in games. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 21(1), 117–139 (2012)
Goodman, N.D., Frank, M.C.: Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20, 818–829 (2016)
Goodman, N.D., Tenenbaum, J.B.: Probabilistic Models of Cognition (2016). http://probmods.org/. Accessed 2 Mar 2018
Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58. Academic Press, New York (1975)
Jäger, G.: Applications of game theory in linguistics. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2(3), 406–421 (2008)
Janda, L.A.: Aspectual clusters of Russian verbs. Stud. Lang. 31(3), 607–648 (2007)
Joshi, A.K.: Tree adjoining grammars: how much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural descriptions? In: Dowty, D., Karttunen, D., Zwicky, A. (eds.) Natural Language Parsing, pp. 206–250. Cambridge University Press (1985)
Joshi, A.K.: An introduction to tree adjoining grammars. In: Manaster-Ramer, A. (ed.) Mathematics of Language, pp. 87–114. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (1987)
Joshi, A.K., Schabes, Y.: Tree-adjoining grammars. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 69–123. Springer, Heidelberg (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59126-6_2
Kagan, O.: Scalarity in the Verbal Domain: The Case of Verbal Prefixation in Russian. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)
Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: A frame-based semantics of the dative alternation in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Submitted to Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 9 (2012)
Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. J. Lang. Model. 1(2), 267–330 (2013)
Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R., Pogodalla, S.: Progression and iteration in event semantics-an LTAG analysis using hybrid logic and frame semantics. In: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris (CSSP 2015) (2015)
Kennedy, C.: The composition of incremental change. In: Demonte, V., McNally, L. (eds.) Telicity, Change, State: A Cross-categorical View of Event Structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)
Kennedy, C., Levin, B.: Measure of change: the adjectival core of degree achievements. In: McNally, L., Kennedy, C. (eds.) Adjectives and Adverbs: Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)
Löbner, S.: Evidence for frames from human language. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Frames and Concept Types. SLP, vol. 94, pp. 23–67. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_2
Petersen, W.: Representation of concepts as frames. In: The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 2, pp. 151–170 (2007)
Petersen, W., Osswald, T.: A formal interpretation of frame composition. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Concept Types and Frames, Düsseldorf (2009, to appear)
Ušakov, D.N., (ed.): Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo jazyka. [Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language.]. Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow (1935–1940)
van Deemter, K.: Utility and language generation: the case of vagueness. J. Philos. Logic 38(6), 607 (2009)
Å vedova, N.J.: Russkaja Grammatika, vol. 1. Nauka, Moscow (1982)
Zinova, Y.: Russian verbal prefixation. Ph.D. thesis, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf (2017)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
A RSA code
A RSA code
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Zinova, Y. (2019). Explaining Prefix Contributions in Russian Using Frame Semantics and RSA. In: Kojima, K., Sakamoto, M., Mineshima, K., Satoh, K. (eds) New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. JSAI-isAI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11717. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31605-1_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31605-1_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31604-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31605-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)