Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6759
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9897
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Drawing on the Lexical Grammar Model, Frame Semantics and Corpus Pattern Analysis, we analyze and contrast verbs of stealing in English and Spanish from a lexico-semantic perspective. This involves looking at the lexical collocates and their corresponding semantic categories that fill the argument slots of verbs of stealing. Our corpus search is performed with the Word Sketch tool on Sketch Engine. To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet taken advantage of the Word Sketch tool in the study of the selection preferences of verbs of stealing, let alone a semantic, cross-linguistic study of those verbs. Our findings reveal that English and Spanish verbs of stealing map out the same underlying semantic space. This shared conceptual layer can thus be incorporated into an ontology based on deep semantics, which could in turn enhance NLP tasks such as word sense disambiguation, machine translation, semantic tagging, and semantic parsing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Asher, N.
    2011Lexical Meaning in Context: a Web of Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511793936
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baisa, V., Moze, S. and Renau, I.
    2016 Linking Verb Patterns Dictionaries of English and Spanish. Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Association for Lexicography International Congress EURALEX ʼ16. Tbilisi, Georgia, 6–10September 2016 Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. 410–417.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsalou, L.
    1992 Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields. InFrames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, E. Kittay and A. Lehrer (eds), 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berman, R.
    1982 On the Nature of ‘Oblique’ Objects in Bitransitive Constructions. Lingua56(2): 101–125. 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90026‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90026-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, H.
    2005 Semantic Frames as Interlingual Representations for Multilingual Lexical Databases. International Journal of Lexicography18(4): 445–478. 10.1093/ijl/eci043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/eci043 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2008 Towards a Frame-Constructional Approach to Verb Classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses57: 17–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 Frame Semantics and Translation. InCognitive Linguistics and Translation, A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxte-Antunano (eds), 125–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.125 [Google Scholar]
  8. British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
    British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available atwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  9. Butler, C.
    2003Structure and Function: a Guide to Three Major Structural-Functional Theories. Part I: Approaches to the Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary
    Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary 2018 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available athttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  11. Collins Free Online Dictionary
    Collins Free Online Dictionary 2018 Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers. Available athttps://www.collinsdictionary.com/es/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  12. Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (DRAE)
    Diccionario de la Real Academia Española (DRAE) 2018 Madrid: Real Academia Española. Available atwww.rae.es/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  13. Diccionario Salamanca de la Lengua Española
    Diccionario Salamanca de la Lengua Española 2018 Madrid: Santillana Educación. Available atfenix.cnice.mec.es/diccionario/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  14. Dik, S.
    1978Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dux, R.
    2011 A Frame-Semantic Analysis of Five English Verbs evoking the Theft Frame. Master’s Dissertation, University of Texas. Available athttps://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05-3114 [last accessed28 December 2018].
  16. 2018 Frames, Verbs, and Constructions: German Constructions with Verbs of Stealing. InApproaching German Syntax from a Constructionist Perspective, A. Ziem and H. Boas (eds), 367–405. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Enghels, R. and Wylin, K.
    2015 Expressing the Source of Dispossession Acts in French and Spanish. Languages in Contrast15(1): 102–124. 10.1075/lic.15.1.06eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.15.1.06eng [Google Scholar]
  18. Espinoza, M., Montiel-Posoda, E. and Gómez-Peréz, A.
    2009 Ontology Localization. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Knowledge Capture K-CAP ʼ09. Redondo Beach, California, USA, 1–4September 2009 ACM. 33–40. 10.1145/1597735.1597742
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1597735.1597742 [Google Scholar]
  19. Faber, P. and Mairal, R.
    1998a Prototipos semánticos en el lexicón Lexemático Funcional. InEstudios de tipología lingüística, J. D. D. Luque-Durán and A. Pamies-Bertrán (eds), 15–36. Granada: Método.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1998b Towards a Typology of Predicate Schemata in a Functional-Lexematic Model. InTowards a Functional Lexicology, G. Wotjak (ed), 11–37. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1998c Towards a Semantic Syntax. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses36: 37–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1999Constructing a Lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800623
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800623 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2017 A Conceptually-Oriented Approach to Semantic Composition in RRG. InThe Cambridge Handbook of Role and Reference Grammar, R. D. Van Valin (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, C.
    1982 Frame Semantics. InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 1985 Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di Semantica6: 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fillmore, C., Baker, C. and Lowe, J.
    1998 The Berkeley FrameNet Project. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics COLING ʼ98. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 10–14August 1998 Université de Montréal. 86–90. Available athttps://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fillmore, C. and Baker, C.
    2010 A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. InThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, B. Heine and H. Narrog (eds), 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gilardi, L. and Baker, C.
    2018 Learning to Align across Languages: Toward Multilingual FrameNet. Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki, Japan, 12May 2018 13–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A.
    1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010 Verbs, Constructions and Semantic Frames. InSyntax, Lexical Semantics and Event Structure, M. Rappaport-Hovav, E. Doron and I. Sichel (eds), 39–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544325.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gruzitis, N. and Dannéls, D.
    2017 A Multilingual FrameNet-based Grammar and Lexicon for Controlled Natural Language. Languages Resources and Evaluation51(1): 37–66. 10.1007/s10579‑015‑9321‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-015-9321-8 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hanks, P.
    2004 Corpus Pattern Analysis. Proceedings of the Eleventh European Association for Lexicography International Conference EURALEX ʼ04. Lorient, France, 6–10July 2004 Université de Bretagne-Sud. 87–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 How People Use Words to Make Meanings: Semantic Types Meet Valencies. InInput, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora, A. Boulton and J. Thomas (eds), 52–67. Brno: Masaryk University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hanks, P. and Jezek, E.
    2010 What Lexical Sets Tell Us about Conceptual Categories. Lexis 4: Corpus Linguistics and the Lexicon7–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Harley, H.
    2003 Possession and the Double Object Construction. InLinguistic Variation Yearbook 2, P. Pika and J. Rooryck (eds), 31–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Heine, B.
    1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
    2013 The TenTen Corpus Family. InCorpus Linguistics 2013: Abstract Book, A. Hardie and R. Love (eds), 125–127. Lancaster: UCREL.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
    2014 The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography1: 7–36. Available athttps://www.sketchengine.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_Sketch_Engine_2014.pdf [last accessed28 December 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kilgarriff, A. and Renau, I.
    2013 esTenTen, a Vast Web Corpus of Peninsular and American Spanish. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences95: 12–19. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.617
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.617 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kilgarriff, A., Vojtěch, K., Krek, S., Srdanovič, I. and Tiberius, C.
    2010 A Quantitative Evaluation of Word Sketches. Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Association for Lexicography International Congress EURALEX ʼ10. Leeuwarden, Netherlands, 6–10July 2010 Fryske Akademy. 372–379.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Langacker, R.
    2007 Cognitive Grammar. InThe Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (eds), 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levin, B.
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2018 London: Pearson Longman. Available athttps://www.ldoceonline.com/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  45. Marsh, I., Melville, G., Morgan, K., Norris, G. and Walkington, Z.
    2006Theories of Crime. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. McCarthy, D., Kilgarrif, A., Jakubíček, M. and Reddy, S.
    2015 Semantic Word Sketches. InCorpus Linguistics 2015: Abstract Book, F. Formato and A. Hardie (eds), 231–233. Lancaster: UCREL.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller, G. and Fellbaum, C.
    2007 WordNet Then and Now. Language Resources and Evaluation41(2): 209–214. Available athttps://wordnet.princeton.edu/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Oxford English Dictionary
    Oxford English Dictionary 2018 Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available athttps://en.oxforddictionaries.com/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
  49. Periñán, C. and Arcas, F.
    2007 Deep Semantics in an NLP Knowledge Base. Paper presented at theTwelfth Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence CAEPIA ʼ07, Spain, 12–16 November.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruppenhofer, J., Boas, H. and Baker, C.
    2017 FrameNet. InThe Routledge Handbook of Lexicography, P. Fuertes-Olivera (ed), 383–398. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315104942‑25
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315104942-25 [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C. and Scheffczyk, J.
    2010FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rychlý, P.
    2008 A Lexicographer-Friendly Association Score. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Languages Processing RASLAN ʼ08. Karlova Studánka, Czech Republic, 5–7December 2008 Masaryk University. 6–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Subirats, C.
    2009 Spanish FrameNet: A Frame Semantics Analysis of the Spanish Lexicon. InMultilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography. Methods and Applications, H. Boas (ed), 135–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Available atspanishfn.org/ [last accessed28 December 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Thorgren, S.
    2005 Transaction Verbs: A Lexical and Semantic Analysis of Rob and Steal. Reports from the Department of Language and Culture3, 1–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Trampus, M. and Novak, B.
    2012 The Internals of an Aggregated Web News Feed. Paper presented at theFifteenth Multiconference on Information Society, Slovenia, October 2012.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Velardi, P., Pazienza, M. and Fasolo, M.
    1991 How to Encode Semantic Knowledge: a Method for Meaning Representation and Computer-aided Acquisition. Computational Linguistics17(2): 153–170.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. WordReference Dictionary
    WordReference Dictionary 2018 Available atwww.wordreference.com/ [last accessed28 December 2018].

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error