<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="E91-1034">
  <Title>SEMANTIC FEATURES AND SELECTION RESTRICTIONS</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2~ SEMANTIC FEATURE ACCORDING
TO U.WEINREICH
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 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 distinction between a paradigmatic semantic feature (approximately 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 features do not take part in formulation of grammatical rules.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In Weinreieh's conception semantic feature serves 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 transfer feature imposed by the verb.to .fl_F (2) They flew the craft.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Thus, following Weinreich, we divide semantic features into two groups. Categorial feature of a word (usually, of a noun) is understood as its own characteristics, possibly, as a common property of its referents; cf. such features as \[+ Person\] or \[+ Place\] of the words man and house correspondingly. Transitive 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.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3. SEMANTIC FEATURES IN SYSTEMS
OF NATURAL LANGUAGE
PROCESSING (NLP)
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Semantic features belong to obviously significant NLP resources having no equivalents in existing dictionaries. 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 argument should agree with the transitive feature predicted for this argument by the predicate. As is pointed out in AnpecaH ed al. 1989, p.261, &amp;quot;in many cases adequate identification of a syntactic construction relies upon semantic agreement of words&amp;quot; Thus, semantic features can make a substantial contribution in syntactic parsing.~2. Disambiguation of a lexically homonymous predic~-6&amp;quot;word: categorial feature of an argument may help in choosing the right lexical meaning of the predicate; cf.J(._._.3) a.Oxna rocTan~ttbt</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 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.&amp;~.Tb has its usual meaning of a verb of motion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 3. Disambiguation of a lexically homonymous noun by addressing transfer features of the predicate.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Thus, semantic features are usable for disambignation of words in context.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 4. Combinability of verbs with adverbials designating time, place, reason, purpose, instrument etc., always rely upon some sort of semantic concord, cf.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 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 adverbials denoting exact time (Fla~y,~eaa 1988a) are excluded, on semantic grounds, in the context of such non-action verbs as orlo3,~3Tb,OTffraTb, 3aTflHyTbC$1  &lt; o no~c.naz~e &gt;, coxpaHHTbCg etc.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> 5. In the course of analysis of coordinate constructions 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 transformation is to be fulfilled.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> 6. Semantic features may be useful in the proce null dure of revealing anaphoric relations in the text, cf. example from Dahlgren, McDowell 1986: (4) The cat did not drink the milk. It spilled.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> As the verb to spill presupposes a subject which is a liquid, the pronoun may be unambiguously associated with the milk and not with the cat.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> 7. Transfer semantic features may be used to distinguish texts allowing for literal interpretations from deviant or metaphoric (as in the sea smiled).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4. SEMANTIC FEATURES AND
SELECTION RESTRICTIONS IN
LEXICON AND GRAMMAR
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 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 &amp;quot;garden variety&amp;quot; semantics.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> - 195 Anna Wierzbicka in her book &amp;quot;Semantics of grammar&amp;quot; takes an ambitious task - to present all selection restrictions in grammar as motivated by some semantic features of words and constructions: &amp;quot;grammatical distinctions are motivated &lt;...&gt;by semantic distinctions&amp;quot; (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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> EXAMPLE 1. In 3am4aaaK, I'laayuena 1987 a semantic characterization was proposed for the class of predicates allowing Neg-Raising. Such Neg-Raising predicates as to believe &lt;that&gt; 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).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 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 *!.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> 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.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5. ON SEMANTIC IN-VARIANT OF THE
CLASS OF WORDS WITH GENITIVE
SUBJECT
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> In Apresjan 1985 it is claimed that the choice of the case of the subject in this construction is determined by a syntactic feature of a verb, and that this syntactic feature must be ascribed to the corresponding 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 affinity 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> This thesis is demonstrated by the following differences 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> (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,.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> b. *CHMHTOMOB 6021eaHH He Hcqc3JIO.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> 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 sentence,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 &amp;quot;responsible&amp;quot;, in the 1-st group of genitive vcrbs, for the genitive subject.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> If the meaning of the verb does not predict unambiguously whether the presupposition of existence must or must not be present in the semantic reprose~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).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9">  Nominative is only possible as an &amp;quot;aggressive&amp;quot; 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> 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 responsible for the genitive subject in the second group of genitive predicates.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> On the contrary, Nominative case of the subject in the context of verb of group I! expresses the presupposition that the object is present at the place mentioned, but is not accessible to perception:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> Semantic components responsible for the genitive 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 occupy different places, the problem does not arise.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> Thus when stating (14) Mama ne BH/IHO &lt;a~ecb&gt; the speaker does not call in question the existence of Masha.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> Thus, our semantic invariant of the class of sentences 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 genitive 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 subject; null topic-focus articulation of the implied non-negative sentence; presence vs. absence of the observer.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> 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.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>