Advertisement

Modelling Derivational Morphology: A Case of Prefix Stacking in Russian

  • Yulia Zinova
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10686)

Abstract

In order to automatically analyse Russian texts, one needs to model complex verb formation, as it is a productive mechanism and dictionary data is not sufficient. In this paper I discuss two implementations that aim to produce all and only the existing complex verbs built from the available morpheme inventory for the same fragment of Russian grammar. The first implementation is based on the syntactic theory approach to prefix combinatorics by Tatevosov (2009) and the other one uses the combination of basic syntactic restrictions and frame semantics to construct all possible combinations. I show that a combination of basic syntactic and semantic restrictions provides better results than a set of elaborated syntactic restrictions, especially for the complex verbs that are not normally tested by introspection.

References

  1. Abeillé, A., Rambow, O.: Tree adjoining grammar: an overview. In: Abeillé, A., Rambow, O. (eds.) Tree Adjoining Grammars: Formalisms, Linguistic Analyses and Processing, pp. 1–68. CSLI, Stanford (2000)Google Scholar
  2. Babko-Malaya, O.: Zero morphology: a study of aspect, argument structure, and case. Dissertation, Rutgers University (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 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, Chap. 1, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  4. Crabbé, B., Duchier, D., Gardent, C., Le Roux, J., Parmentier, Y.: XMG: eXtensible MetaGrammar. Comput. Linguist. 39(3), 591–629 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Filip, H.: The quantization puzzle. In: Tenny, C.L., Pustejovsky, J. (eds.) Events as Grammatical Objects, pp. 3–60. CSLI Press, Stanford (2000)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. Int. Lexicogr. 3(16), 235–250 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, R.: Syntactic locality and tree adjoining grammar: grammatical, acquisition and processing perspectives. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania (1992)Google Scholar
  9. Frank, R.: Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kagan, O.: Scalarity in the Verbal Domain: The Case of Verbal Prefixation in Russian. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2015)Google Scholar
  12. Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: A frame-based semantics of the dative alternation in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. In: Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, p. 9 (2012, to be submitted)Google Scholar
  13. Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. J. Lang. Model. 1(2), 267–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lichte, T., Petitjean, S.: Implementing semantic frames as typed feature structures with XMG. J. Lang. Model. 3(1), 185–228 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Löbner, S.: Evidence for frames from human language. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Frames and Concept Types. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 94, pp. 23–67. Springer, Dordrecht (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petitjean, S., Duchier, D., Parmentier, Y.: XMG 2: describing description languages. In: Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (2016)Google Scholar
  17. Ramchand, G.: Time and the event: the semantics of Russian prefixes. Nordlyd 32(2) (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Romanova, E.: Constructing perfectivity in Russian. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tromsø (2006)Google Scholar
  19. Svenonius, P.: Slavic prefixes and morphology. An introduction to the Nordlyd volume. Nordlyd 32(2), 177–204 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. Svenonius, P.: Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd 32(2), 205–253 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. Tatevosov, S.: Intermediate prefixes in Russian. In: Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics, vol. 16 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. Tatevosov, S.: Množestvennaja prefiksacija i anatomija russkogo glagola [Multiple prefixation and the anatomy of Russian verb]. In: Kisseleva, X., Plungian, V., Rakhilina, E., Tatevosov, S. (eds.) Korpusnye issledovanija po russkoj grammatike [Corpus-Based Studies in the Grammar of Russian], pp. 92–156. Probel, Moscow (2009)Google Scholar
  23. Švedova, N.J.: Russkaja Grammatika, vol. 1. Nauka, Moscow (1982)Google Scholar
  24. Zinova, Y.: Russian verbal prefixation. Ph.D. thesis, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf (2016)Google Scholar
  25. Zinova, Y., Filip, H.: Biaspectual verbs: a marginal category? In: Aher, M., Hole, D., Jeřábek, E., Kupke, C. (eds.) TbiLLC 2013. LNCS, vol. 8984, pp. 310–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46906-4_18 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinrich Heine UniversityDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations