SEMANTIC FEATURES AND SELECTION 
RESTRICTIONS 
Elena V. Paducheva 
Institute of scientific and technical information (VINITI) 
Academy of Sciences of the USSR 
125219 Moscow, Usievicha 20a 
Telefax: (Z095) 9430060 
ABSTRACT.One of the essential aspects is described 
of an expert system (called LEXICOGRAPItER), 
designed to supply the user with diverse brformation 
about Russian words, h~cluding bibliographic hi forma- 
tion concemhrg hrdividual lexical entries. Tire lexical 
database of tire system contahrs semantic btfonnation 
that catmot be elicited from the existhrg dictionaries. 
Tire priority is given to semantic features influenchtg 
lexical or grammatical co-occurrence restrictions. Pos- 
sibilities are discussed of predicting selectional restric- 
tions on the basis of semantic features of a word bz the 
lexicon. 
1.LEXICAL DATABASE OF THE 
SYSTEM 
LEXICOGRAPllER is an expert system 
designed, in the first place, for the purposes of natural 
language processing. The work on the project is being 
conducted by a group of researchers including 
E.Belorusova, S.Krylov, E.Rakhilina, M.Filipenko 
e.a.; cf. Paduchcva,Rakhilina 1989. 
The system consists of two basic components: 
-- lexical database (LBD); 
-- bibliographical database (BBD). 
LBD is a vocabulary presented in a machine 
readable form and consisting of several domaines, as 
in a usual relational database. The user may get 
information about morphology, syntactic features, 
semantic features, prosody and referential features of 
individual iexical items. Among the semantic features 
that are included or must be included in the database 
there are such features as: \[ + Speech act verb\], \[ + Per- 
formative verb\], \[ + Verb of motion\], \[ + Kinship term\], 
\]+Part of the body\], \[+Person (as opposed to a 
physical body)\], \[+Parameter\], etc., all in all -- 
several dozen features. 
Programs now existing g{ve the following options: 
-- marking the vocabulary by a feature presented 
as a list of words; 
-- compiling lists of words possessing a common 
feature or a set of features named; 
compiling lists of documents containing infor- 
mation about the lexeme named, as well as about a 
given feature or a set of features; 
compiling alphabetical lists of words and fea- 
tures mentioned in the BBD; such lists may play, for 
the user, the role of a catalog representing the running 
state of the BBD. 
In the BBD for every lexeme or semantic feature 
all the documents are mentioned that contain some 
lexicographically useful information about that 
lexeme or feature. In contradistinction to all the ex- 
isting bibliographic catalogs, our BBD contains bibli- 
ographic information about individual lexemes, 
cf.Krylov 198~). 
The vocabulary consists of some 12.500 words. 
Morphological information is taken from the diction- 
ary Zalizniak 1977. 
As for syntactic and semantic information, usual- 
ly it cannot be found in existing dictionaries. 
2~ SEMANTIC FEATURE ACCORDING 
TO U.WEINREICH 
Semantic features are the main subject of the 
present paper. The notion of semantic feature is 
associated, in the first place, with the name of 
U.Weinreich (1967), who proposed a useful distinc- 
tion between a paradigmatic semantic feature (ap- 
proximately as in componential analysis, cf.Bendix 
1965 ) and a transfer feature. This distinction made it 
possible to use the notion of semantic feature in a 
broader sense than in transformational grammar 
(TG) where semantic features are strictly opposed to 
syntactic ones, namely, to selection features and to 
features of strict categorization: in TG semantic fea- 
tures do not take part in formulation of grammatical 
rules. 
In Weinreieh's conception semantic feature ser- 
ves several different purposes: 
1) it is regarded as a basis of semantic agreement 
(as in well known examples pretty girl vs. *pretty man; 
a year ago vs. *a house ago; before breakfast vs. *before 
John etc.); 
- 194 - 
2) it explains deviant and metaphorical readings 
(as in a grief ago, before the wall etc.); 
3) it adds provisional semantic contents to a 
potentially ambiguous word in order to impose 
semantic agreement where strictly speaking (i.e. 
under literal interpretation) there is none; thus, in 
example (1), from Be~Hpeflx 1981, p.159, the word 
ho__uuse, with the inherent semantic feature \[-Time\], 
acquires in the given context feature \]+Time\] as a 
transfer feature imposed by the governing verb occur; 
as a result, the word house is interpreted as an event, 
e.g., as an event of somebody's perception of a house 
while passing by: (1) A red house occurred twice. 
In example (2), from BeflHpefix 1981, p.159, the 
word craft acquires the feature \[ +Aircraft\], as a trans- 
fer feature imposed by the verb.to .fl_F 
(2) They flew the craft. 
Thus, following Weinreich, we divide semantic 
features into two groups. Categorial feature of a word 
(usually, of a noun) is understood as its own charac- 
teristics, possibly, as a common property of its 
referents; cf. such features as \[+ Person\] or \[+ Place\] 
of the words man and house correspondingly. Tran- 
sitive feature of a word (usually, of a predicate) is a 
semantic condition imposed on one of the arguments 
- namely, on the semantic necessity of its presence in 
the utterance with the given word and on its categorial 
features. Thus, verbs of emotional state, such as t..Ro 
hope, possess the following transitive feature: their 
subject (necessarily existent) has a categorial feature 
\[ + Person\]. Verbs of motion must have at least one 
argument with the categoriai feature \[ + Place\], etc. 
3. SEMANTIC FEATURES IN SYSTEMS 
OF NATURAL LANGUAGE 
PROCESSING (NLP) 
Semantic features belong to obviously significant 
NLP resources having no equivalents in existing dic- 
tionaries. The following problems of NLPi may be 
listed where semantic features are constantly made 
use of: 
1. Revealing predicate-argument relations in 
parsing algorithms: categorial features of the argu- 
ment should agree with the transitive feature 
predicted for this argument by the predicate. As is 
pointed out in AnpecaH ed al. 1989, p.261, "in many 
cases adequate identification of a syntactic construc- 
tion relies upon semantic agreement of words" Thus, 
semantic features can make a substantial contribution 
in syntactic parsing.~2. Disambiguation of a lexically 
homonymous predic~-6"word: categorial feature of an 
argument may help in choosing the right lexical mean- 
ing of the predicate; cf.J(._._.3) a.Oxna rocTan~ttbt 
BHXOj~$1T Ha ~or; 
b. l'\]eTfl BblXO,I~HT Ha ay~xafiKy. 
In (a) the word .rocT~HX_U~a 'hotel' has a categorial 
feature \[-Movable\]; hence the stative meaning of the 
verb n_~xoztnr~ 'go out'. In (b) Ma.ab'mK 'boy' has the 
feature \[+Movable\] and the verb ~h~xg.&~.Tb has its 
usual meaning of a verb of motion. 
3. Disambiguation of a lexically homonymous 
noun by addressing transfer features of the predicate. 
Thus, semantic features are usable for disambignation 
of words in context. 
4. Combinability of verbs with adverbials desig- 
nating time, place, reason, purpose, instrument etc., 
always rely upon some sort of semantic concord, cf. 
Paducheva, Rakhilina 19JD. E.g., the adverbial of 
purpose is only possible in the context of a verb 
denoting controlled action and, consequently, having 
an agent endowed with free will. If this condition is 
not fulfilled, the adverbial of purpose sounds deviant 
(cf. *J\]~a onaaTm npoeaaa y BOJ\]\[HTPdI$1 HMesyrca a 
npo~axe a6oneMeHTmae KHH.,~KetIKH: the adverbial 
of purpose is out of place here because HMewrca a 
npo~a~e does not denote an action). The time adver- 
bials denoting exact time (Fla~y,~eaa 1988a) are ex- 
cluded, on semantic grounds, in the context of such 
non-action verbs as orlo3,~3Tb,OTffraTb, 3aTflHyTbC$1 
< o no~c.naz~e >, coxpaHHTbCg etc. 
5. In the course of analysis of coordinate construc- 
tions it is often necessary to carry out a transformation 
opposite to conjunction reduction, and semantic 
agreement is what gives a hint as to how this transfor- 
mation is to be fulfilled. 
6. Semantic features may be useful in the proce- 
dure of revealing anaphoric relations in the text, cf. 
example from Dahlgren, McDowell 1986: (4) The cat 
did not drink the milk. It spilled. 
As the verb to spill presupposes a subject which 
is a liquid, the pronoun may be unambiguously as- 
sociated with the milk and not with the cat. 
7. Transfer semantic features may be used to 
distinguish texts allowing for literal interpretations 
from deviant or metaphoric (as in the sea smiled). 
4. SEMANTIC FEATURES AND 
SELECTION RESTRICTIONS IN 
LEXICON AND GRAMMAR 
In early 60-ies semantic features were almost 
unique theoretical instrument of semantic analysis. A 
progress in semantic theory achieved in the 70-ies and 
in the 8.0-ies (in the first place in works of Ju.Apresjan 
(1974) and A.Wierzbicka (1972), connected in the 
first place with semantic decomposition of lexical 
meanings, drew the notion of semantic feature aside, 
to a secondary and a more modest position. Semantic 
features were regarded at best as a subsidiary means 
in systems of NLP, el. Anpecan H ~tp. 1989. Now I 
argue that the notion of semantic feature deserves a 
more prominent place, even in the context of modern 
intricate "garden variety" semantics. 
The fact is that in many cases semantic features 
can be interpreted as a label for one or more semantic 
components in the semantic decomposition of a 
lexeme. 
I am inclined to think that it is the semantic 
feature and not the syntactic one that plays the leading 
role in regulating selection restrictions in lexicon and 
grammar. 
- 195 - 
Anna Wierzbicka in her book "Semantics of 
grammar" takes an ambitious task - to present all 
selection restrictions in grammar as motivated by 
some semantic features of words and constructions: 
"grammatical distinctions are motivated <...>by 
semantic distinctions" (Wierzbicka 1988, p.3). While 
not wholly agreeing with this thesis, we can add some 
arguments in its favor. Here arc several examples of 
selection restrictions that are usually considered to be 
purely syntactic, i.e. demanding Icxical lists, and which 
can be proved to be semantically motivated, namely, 
motivated by some semantic component of a word or 
of a grammatical construction. 
EXAMPLE 1. In 3am4aaaK, I'laayuena 1987 a 
semantic characterization was proposed for the class 
of predicates allowing Neg-Raising. Such Neg-Rais- 
ing predicates as to believe <that> possess two 
semantic features: \[+Incompatibility of contraries\] 
(you cannot believe that P and simultaneously believe 
that not-P, though, e.g., you can assume that P and 
simultaneously assume that not-P) and \[+ Excluded 
neutrality\] (I do not think that P is out of place in the 
context when I never gave it a thought - whether P or 
not-P). 
EXAMPLE 2. In ApyTmaona 1988 it was shown 
that Russian conjunctions qTo 'that' and KaK 'as' obey 
the followingrulc of semantic distribution: qTO is used 
after verbs with the semantic component 
'know/believe' (cf, similar considerations about 
English that in Wierzbicka 1988) and Kag - after words 
with the component 'perceive', cf. I;1 noMam, '~TO M~ 
TaM Kyna.al4Cb and fl noMmo, KaK MU TaM Kynam4cb. 
EXAMPLE 3. In rla~yqena 1988b the semantic 
invariant is revealed for the class of predicates capable 
of introducing indirect question or its equivalent - 
parameter word; cf. I know why he arrived; I know 
the reason of his arriva! , on the one hand, and *!. 
believe why h~ ca_me, *.I believe the reason of his arrival 
- on the other (this problem was stated in Vendler 
1981). It is the semantic component 'X knows' that is 
responsible for this semantic option. 
5. ON SEMANTIC IN-VARIANT OF THE 
CLASS OF WORDS WITH GENITIVE 
SUBJECT 
Our main object of attention in this paper is 
thdconstruction with genitive subject in Russian : 
OTBeTa He npnm~o, Mopoaa He qyncTnyeTc~, 
KaTaCTpOdp~ He nponaomao. Note that in some cases 
nominative is also possible: OTuer ne npamea, 
Mope3 He qyncTnona~ca. 
In Apresjan 1985 it is claimed that the choice of 
the case of the subject in this construction is deter- 
mined by a syntactic feature of a verb, and that this 
syntactic feature must be ascribed to the correspond- 
ing group of verbs (cf. npoaaoATa\];verb forms - 
mainly, passive forms (cf. Ha6.am~aTbCg, 
qynCTnonarbc~) or predicatives (cf. na~xo, c.nNmno) 
in the dictionary. The list is supposed to~ontain more 
than two hundred items. These words, as Apresjan 
believes, possess some semantic affinity, but this af- 
finity is not sufficient for reliable prediction of the case 
of the subject: the list of words is supposed to be the 
only thing thai is necessary and suffid~t. 
This thesis is demonstrated by the following dif- 
ferences in syntactic behavior of semantically cognate 
pairs of verbs: 
(5) a. CTapOCT~ na cO6paHaa ue 6z~z.ao, 
b. *CTapOCT,,, na co6panaa He npacyTCTeOBa.ao. 
(6) a. HonopoTa n nocTanonge TeXnHqeCKOfl 
nponaram1~a He nacTynnmo 
b. *rlonopoTa B nocTaHon~e TeXHHqeCKOI~ 
nponaraaau He Haqa.rlOCb, 
(7) a. CHMHTOMOB 6oaeaaa He noslni~Laocl,. 
b. *CHMHTOMOB 6021eaHH He Hcqc3JIO. 
We claim that different choice of the case of the 
subject in these examples has a semantic explanation. 
Verbs that can be used with genitive subject will be 
called genitive verbs. Now we claim that the set of 
genitive verbs (more precisely, the set of meanings 
these verbs have when used with a genitive subject) 
has a semantic invariant. 
There are two semantic components, different 
but cognate, such that at least one of them is always 
present in every negative sentenc~ with the genitive 
subject construction. Correspondingly, there are two 
semantic groups of genitive verbs. In group i genitive 
subject in a negative sentence is explained by the fact 
that the corresponding sentence without negation 
contains a semantic component 'X cxists',whcre X 
stands for the referent of the subject NP (or 'X takes 
place' - if the subject NP does not denote any object 
but rather a process or an event). An important 
condition is that this essential component should have 
- in the semantic representation of a sentence - the 
status of an assertion or an implication (according to 
Karttunen 1973): it must not have the status of a 
presupposition. Now, if the semantic representation 
of the non-negative sentence contains a proposition 
of the form 'X exists' and if this proposition does not 
have the status of a presupposition of this sen- 
tence,then under negation (of the whole sentence) 
proposition 'X exists' will be negated. It is exactly this 
semantic component - negation of existence of X, - 
that is "responsible", in the 1-st group of genitive 
vcrbs, for the genitive subject. 
If the meaning of the verb does not predict un- 
ambiguously whether the presupposition of existence 
must or must not be present in the semantic repro- 
se~ntation of a sentence then both genitive and 
n6mina/tive subjects are possible: negative sentences 
with the nominative and with the genitive subject will 
have different meanings: 
(8) a~(OTneT npume.a) = OTaeT ae npame.n (the 
existence of the answer is presupposed); 
b.~(Hpumea OTne'r) = OTneTa ne npnmao ( the 
existence of the,answer is not presupposed). 
In examples (9)-(11), where only genitive subjcct 
is: possible in a negative sentence, proposition 'X 
exists' cannot have the status of presupposition - it is 
always an implication; thus, the case of the subject is 
genitive: 
(9) a. 0caaga He Bblrla~O~ 
- 196 - 
b. *OcaaoK He n~naJL 
(10) a. 3axpy~lHeHHfi ne so3naxao) 
b. *3axpy~tHenast He noanngaa~ 
(11) a. PaaHrlRbl lie ycMaTpasaerca~ 
b. *Paanatta He yc~arpnnaerca. 
Nominative is only possible as an "aggressive" 
stylistic variant corresponding to a newly born norm, 
as in 
(12) ~oronopeaaoc'rb He ~oc'rllrrlyTa, 
It is much better to say RoroaopenHocra ne 
lloc'rnrnyTo. 
In group Ii genitive subject is predicted by a 
component 'X is present in the field of vision of an 
observer'. When negated, this component has the 
following form: 'X is not present in the field of vision 
of the observer'. It is this component that is respon- 
sible for the genitive subject in the second group of 
genitive predicates. 
On the contrary, Nominative case of the subject 
in the context of verb of group I! expresses the presup- 
position that the object is present at the place men- 
tioned, but is not accessible to perception: 
(13) a~l(~epenna nx~xa) = ~epena~ ne nxzxa. 
6.q(Bngna ;aepe11Ha) = ~epesaa He !i11/11tO. 
Semantic components responsible for the geni- 
tive subject in group I and in group II are cognate. In 
fact, proposition 'X is not present in the field of vision 
of the observer' often has a conversational implicature 
- 'And I doubt whether X exists at all'. In other words, 
the absence of the object in the field of vision casts 
doubt on the very fact of its existence. This implicature 
impends itself if the subject can only occupy the place 
that the speaker has in mind. Then if the subject is not 
perceived in this place it does not exist at all, as in 
Mopoaa ae qyllcrnyeTc~. For persons who can oc- 
cupy different places, the problem does not arise. 
Thus when stating 
(14) Mama ne BH/IHO <a~ecb> 
the speaker does not call in question the existence 
of Masha. 
Thus, our semantic invariant of the class of sen- 
tences with a genitive subject makes it possible to 
characterize semantically the class of genitive verbs; 
moreover, this invariant makes it possible: to state 
conditions (on sentence structure) under which geni- 
tive subject is excluded, inspite of the fact that the verb 
belongs to the class of genitive verbs. Thus, we get 
explanation of the role of such factors (mentioned in 
Babby 1980) as 
-- animate vs. inanimate subject; 
referentiality vs. non-referentiality of the sub- 
ject; 
topic-focus articulation of the implied non- 
negative sentence; 
presence vs. absence of the observer. 
To recapitulate, our example shows that there is, 
though indirect, connection between selectional 
restrictions and semantic features of the word, i.e. 
semantic components of its semantic decomposition. 
REFERENCES 
Anpecan IO.\]L .rleKcHqecxasl ceMaHTHKa. M.: 
Ffayi~fffi-97K-. 
Anpecan .IO~.., BoI~y__.cLIaBcKHfi I~.__M., HOMIaHit .JldI. 
i~--~__~u nsacrrh~ e~e -b6~cn eq erm e cucreM~ 
9TAH-2. M.: Hayxa, 1989. 
Apy~m_.~_oaa H./I. OaKr, co6~rne, otteaxa. M.: 
HayKa, 1988. 
Be___~A~. Onur ceManrxqecxofi TeopHa. - B an.: 
Hosoe u 3apy6exnofi aanns~crnxe, s~n. q. M.: 
Hporpecc, 1981, c.50-176. 
3a.naan~K A,A. FpaMMaTaqecxHfl CJlOBapb 
~yccxoro sla~xa. CaosonzMeaeaHe. M., 1977. 
3..a,nHanax Aa~.a, l'la___~y_qe.Ba__E,B. \]'loa'eM 
OTpHt~aHH~" CHHTaKCHC, ceMaHTHKa HJIH 
nparMaTaxa? - HTH, cep.2, 1987. 
KpuJlon C_.A. 0 crpyKType/1OKyMeHTaIlbHOfi I/II'IC 
fro pyccxo~ JIeKCHKOJIOPHH. - B: Tezac~a 
KOH0e\[I~HIJ, HH no MamHmmMy 0OH~y pyccxoro 
az~axa. M., 1989. 
lqa~yqena E. B. K ceMaHTHqeCKO~ x.~accHOaxauHa 
BpeMeHHbiX ~\[ffrepMHHaHTOB npe~,r~O~KeHHa. - B KH." 
~3biK: CHCTeMa H OyHK~HOHHponaHHe. M.: Hayxa, 
1988a. 
Ila_.,nLyqena E.B. Buno~ttMa ~t cnoCO6HOCTb 
HO)I\[qHHtIITb KOC11eHHIa/H BOnpOC H3 ceMaHTHKI! 
caoaa. - B aS.: 3sanae H raHenHe. M.: Hayxa, 1988b, 
c.33-46. 
Bendix E.H. Componential analysis of general 
~-abulary. The Hague, 1966, 
Dahl.grcn K., McDowell Y. Kind tYl~eS in knowledge 
i'e-pr-esentat--'ion_-In: 11-th Internatmnal conference 
on Computational linguistics (COLING-1986). 
Proceedings. Bonn, University of Bonn, 1986, p. 216- 
221. 
Karttunen L. La Iogique des constructions anglaises a 
c0mple-na~ predicatif. - Languages, 1973, N 30, p. 
- 36-80'.'1Paducheva E.V., Rakhilina E.V. Predicting 
Co-OcCurrence Resfrietions by using Semantic Clas- 
sifications in the Lexicon. - In: COLING-90. Papers 
presented to the 13-th International Conference on 
Computational linguistics. V. 3. Helsinki, 1990. 
.Vendler Z. Telling the facts. - In: Speech act theory 
and pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981. 
Weinreich U. Explorations in semantic theory. - In: 
"F.A. Sebe0k-(ed.). Current trends in linguisti'cs, 1II. 
The Hague: Mouton, 1966, p. 395-477. 
Wierzbicka A. Semantic primitives. - Frankfurt/M. ~iii~n-aiim, 1972. 
Wierzbicka A. The semantics of grammar: Amster- 
ffam,ei~:.--Jo-0Tm Benjamins, 1988. 
- 197- 
