The paper presents clustering experiments on Russian verbs based on the statistical data drawn from the Russian FrameBank (framebank.ru). While lexicology has essentially abandoned the idea of syntactic transformations as the primary basis for grouping verbs into semantic classes (Apresjan 1967, Levin 1993), the hypothesis of the same lexical and syntactic distributional profiles underlying lexical clusters is still attractive. In computational linguistics, some attempts have been made to obtain verb classes for English, German and other languages using observable morpho-syntactic and lexical properties of context (Dorr and Jones 1996; Lapata 1999; Schulte im Walde 2006; Lenci 2014, among others). Our experiments on semantic classification of Russian verbs are based on two types of tags embedded in the annotation of argument constructions: a) semantic roles and b) morpho-syntactic patterns. The domain of speech verbs is classified automatically on vectors, and the resulting clusters are contrasted against Babenko (2007)’s semantic classes and three other manual classifications. The classes within the domain of possessive verbs are constructed using rule-based solutions and evaluated against Berkeley FrameNet verb clusters. We conclude that clustering on morpho-syntactic (pure formal) patterns loses the race to more intelligent approaches which take into account semantic roles.
The Incongruity Theory of Humor in its different forms states that the cause of laughter is the perception of something that violates our mental patterns and expectations. It seems particularly true of comic absurdity which is based on a deadpan violation of established norms of logic and convention. The current paper explores linguistic mechanisms that underlie the comic effects in the works of Mikhail Zoshchenko, one of the great satirists of Soviet Russia. Zoshchenko is well-known for his simplified writing style which imitates the language and mentality of “the simple people” while at the same time mocking the nascent Soviet officialdom and its demands for the popular accessibility of art. The paper considers Zoshchenko’s narrative through the prism of conventional implicatures (Grice 1961, Karttunen and Peters 1979, Horn 2004, Potts 2005, 2007), or meanings that are not directly stated in the utterances, but implied by the speaker; e.g. Even John solved the problem implies that it was it was not expected of John to solve it. In successful communication, implicit meanings form the shared background of conversational partners; violation of these shared norms may be used to create comical effect. One of the most conventionalized societal norms and one Zoshchenko most frequently violates is the value of human life and, hence, solemn attitude to death. The narrator in Zoshchenko’s stories repeatedly implies otherwise, thus creating a comical portrait of the mentality of Homo Soveticus. Consider a quote from “The story about a greedy dairy woman”: “So, her husband died. At first she probably took it lightly. - A-a, she thought – no big deal… But then she realized – yes, this is a big deal!... Eligible bachelors are not running around in bunches. And then, of course, she started grieving” (shift in emphasis; the cause for grief is not the husband’s death but its inconvenience for the surviving wife). The story “A restless old man” (about an old man who lives in a communal flat and falls into lethargic stupor taken by his family and neighbors for death and then after waking up really dies) is based on violating the same conventional implicature. Throughout the story the narrator implicitly creates the image of death as an inconvenient occurrence and of a deceased person as an unwanted piece of waste. The harshly comic effect is achieved by implicatures about the shallow emotional impact of death (“And then of course there is aggravation: because the room is small and here is a superfluous element”, “If my husband, this surviving idiot, ordered the hearse right away, then the wait for it would have only been three days”; “The summoned doctor reassured everybody that now the old man is bona fide dead”); by violation of semantic compatibility rules whereby the seemingly dead old man is alternately referred to as an animate being (“The dead man is lying and demanding the last tribute to be paid to him”, “The babysitter is afraid to be in the room where a dead person is living”) or inanimate object (“There is so little space that there is even nowhere to pile up the old man”; “I am going to pile him up in the hall, let him wait for the hearse there”).
Russian FrameBank is a bank of annotated samples from the Russian National Corpus which documents the use of lexical constructions (e.g. argument constructions of verbs and nouns). FrameBank belongs to FrameNet-oriented resources, but unlike Berkeley FrameNet it focuses more on the morphosyntactic and semantic features of individual lexemes rather than the generalized frames, following the theoretical approaches of Construction Grammar (Ch. Fillmore, A. Goldberg, etc.) and of Moscow Semantic School (Ju. D. Apresjan, E. V. Paducheva, etc.).
This handbook presents a comprehensive account of current work on Construction Grammar, its theoretical foundations, and its applications to and relationship with other kinds of linguistic enquiry. This volume is divided into five sections. The first section highlights the fundamental assumptions shared by all constructionist approaches; the second describes the particular frameworks in which the notion of constructions plays a central role; the third illustrates how constructionist approaches can be used for the analysis of all types of (morpho)syntactic phenomena from the lexicon-syntax cline; the fourth discusses the psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic underpinnings of Construction Grammar; and the final section considers the relation of Construction Grammar to language variation and change. The handbook also traces the history of Construction Grammar and explains its distinction from Chomskyan Mainstream Generative Gramma
March 27, 2017 – March 29, 2017
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, in cooperation with Stanford University’s Department of Computer Science, is pleased to present the 2017 Spring Symposium Series, to be held Monday through Wednesday, March 27–29, 2017 at Stanford University. The titles of the eight symposia are as follows:AI for the Social Good Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Computational Context: Why It's Important, What It Means, and Can It Be Computed? Designing the User Experience of Machine Learning Systems Interactive Multisensory Object Perception for Embodied Agents Learning from Observation of Humans Science of Intelligence: Computational Principles of Natural and Artificial Intelligence Wellbeing AI: From Machine Learning to Subjectivity Oriented Computing
The paper presents a recently created Russian learner translator corpus and demonstrates the prospects of its use.
The paper deals with the lexical typology of words which refer to closing (cf. English close, shut, lock, cover, bar, etc.) and opening (open, uncover, unlock, unwrap, etc.). The former domain includes situations of preventing access to a static object by creating a barrier, whereas the latter deals with creating access to a static object by removing a barrier. In particular, we have singled out the following situations involved in lexical oppositions:Barrier in a building (door, window), sometimes requiring Instrument Barrier for the motion Barrier for the visual perception of a functional part (book, newspaper) “Self-closing” body parts (eyes, mouth), Covering (in contact with a surface), with further distinctions between complete and partial coverage, flexible and inflexible Instrument Containers (pan, bag): sometimes the same verb as used for covering with sth. flexible (seal). Hole with a possible difference between filling in a 3-D space and just covering a split or fracture in a flat surface Barrier for the visual perception or for impact
Some situations of closing can be conceptualized by lexemes from other domains.
Verbs of opening are often asymmetrical to verbs of closing, which provides a cross-linguistic confirmation and some new perspectives to the idea of asymmetry between antonyms and which in our case concerns particular lexical collocations, the general structure of semantic oppositions, and constructional patterns.