Locative Alternation in English and Russian: A Frame Semantic Analysis

  • Yulia Zinova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8607)


In this paper, an analysis of locative alternation phenomena in Russian and English within the framework of compositional frame semantics and Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (LTAG) is proposed. It features a compositional approach to locative alternation in both discussed languages and takes advantage of the possibility of separating construction meaning from the meaning of lexical elements provided in LTAG. As an additional decomposition step, metagrammar descriptions for both syntactic and semantic representations are given. Moreover, for Russian the decomposition goes further towards the morphology-semantics interface which makes it possible to account for the differences in the behavior of verbs with different prefixes (or no prefix) with respect to locative alternation.


Scalar Change Direct Object Argument Structure Locative Alternation Elementary Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, S.R.: On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 7(3), 387–396 (1971)Google Scholar
  2. Crabbé, B., Duchier, D., Gardent, C., Le Roux, J., Parmentier, Y.: XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar. Computational Linguistics 39(3), 591–629 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dudčuk, P.: Locativnaja alternacija i struktura glagol’noj gruppy (Locative alternation and the structure of the VP). Diploma thesis, Moscow State University (2006)Google Scholar
  4. Filip, H.: The quantization puzzle. In: Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 3–60. CSLI Press, Stanford (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Fillmore, C.: The grammar of hitting and breaking. In: Jacobs, R., Rosenbaum, P. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp. 120–133. Ginn, Waltham (1970)Google Scholar
  6. Fillmore, C.J.: Frame Semantics. In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul (1982)Google Scholar
  7. Fillmore, C.J., Johnson, C.R., Pertuck, M.R.L.: Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 3(16), 235–250 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, A.: Generalizations over corpus-induced frame assignment rules. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2004 Workshop (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Frank, A.: Question answering from structured knowledge sources. Journal of Applied Logic 5(1), 20–48 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, A., van Genabith, J.: GlueTag. Linear logic based semantics for LTAG – and what it teaches us about LFG and LTAG. In: Butt, M., King, T.H. (eds.) Proceedings of the LFG 2001 Conference, Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  11. Frank, R.: Phrase structure composition and syntactic dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardent, C., Kallmeyer, L.: Semantic Construction in FTAG. In: Proceedings of EACL 2003, Budapest, pp. 123–130 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. Goldberg, A.E.: Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. In: Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)Google Scholar
  14. Iwata, S.: Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach, vol. 6. John Benjamins Publishing (2008)Google Scholar
  15. Joshi, A.K., Schabes, Y.: Tree-Adjoining Grammars. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 69–123. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  16. Joshi, A.K., Vijay-Shanker, K.: Compositional semantics with lexicalized Tree-Adjoining Grammar (LTAG): How much underspecification is necessary? In: Blunt, H.C., Thijsse, E.G.C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Computational Semantics (IWCS-3), Tilburg, pp. 131–145 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. Kageyama, T.: Denominal verbs and relative salience in lexical conceptual structure. In: Kageyama, T. (ed.) Verb Semantics and Syntactic Structure, pp. 45–96. Kurioso Publishers, Tokyo (1997)Google Scholar
  18. Kallmeyer, L., Joshi, A.K.: Factoring Predicate Argument and Scope Semantics: Underspecified Semantics with LTAG. Research on Language and Computation 1(1-2), 3–58 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 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)Google Scholar
  20. Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Journal of Language Modelling 1(2), 267–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kallmeyer, L., Romero, M.: Scope and situation binding in LTAG using semantic unification. Research on Language and Computation 6(1), 3–52 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 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)Google Scholar
  23. Levin, B., Rappaport Hovav, M.: Morphology and lexical semantics. In: Spencer, A., Zwicky, A.M. (eds.) Handbook of Morphology, pp. 248–271. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  24. Osswald, R., Van Valin Jr., R.: Framenet, frame structure, and the syntax-semantics interface. Manuskript Heinrich-Heine Universität (2012)Google Scholar
  25. Pinker, S.: Learnability and cognition: The aquisition of argument structure. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  26. Van Valin, R.D., LaPolla, R.J.: Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vijay-Shanker, K., Joshi, A.K.: Feature structures based tree adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of COLING, Budapest, pp. 714–719 (1988)Google Scholar
  28. Zinova, Y., Kallmeyer, L.: A Frame-Based Semantics of Locative Alternation in LTAG. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on TAG and Related Formalisms (2012)Google Scholar
  29. Zinova, Y., Osswald, R.: A frame-semantic analysis of Russian verbs of motion. Presentation, Szklarska Poreba Workshop (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yulia Zinova
    • 1
  1. 1.Heinrich Heine University DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations