Abstract
Similarity, which plays a key role in fields like cognitive science, psycholinguistics and natural language processing, is a broad and multifaceted concept. In this work we analyse how two approaches that belong to different perspectives, the corpus view and the psycholinguistic view, articulate similarity between verb senses in Spanish. Specifically, we compare the similarity between verb senses based on their argument structure, which is captured through semantic roles, with their similarity defined by word associations. We address the question of whether verb argument structure, which reflects the expression of the events, and word associations, which are related to the speakers’ organization of the mental lexicon, shape similarity between verbs in a congruent manner, a topic which has not been explored previously. While we find significant correlations between verb sense similarities obtained from these two approaches, our findings also highlight some discrepancies between them and the importance of the degree of abstraction of the corpus annotation and psycholinguistic representations.
References
Albertuz, F. J. 2007. Sintaxis, semántica y clases de verbos: Clasificación verbal en el proyecto ADESSE. Actas del VI Congreso de Lingüística General, Santiago de Compostela, 3–7 de mayo de 2004. 2015–2030.Search in Google Scholar
Alvez, J., J. Atserias, J. Carrera, S. Climent, A. Oliver & G. Rigau. 2008. Consistent annotation of eurowordnet with the top concept ontology. Proceedings of Fourth International WordNet Conference (GWC’08).Search in Google Scholar
Baker, S., R. Reichart & A. Korhonen. 2014. An Unsupervised Model for Instance Level Subcategorization Acquisition. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 278–289.10.3115/v1/D14-1034Search in Google Scholar
Banerjee, S. & T. Pedersen. 2003. Extended gloss overlaps as a measure of semantic relatedness. Ijcai 3. 805–810.Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W., A. Santos, W. K. Simmons & C. D. Wilson. 2008. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning. 245–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Bonial, C., W. Corvey, M. Palmer, V. V. Petukhova & H. Bunt. 2011. A hierarchical unification of LIRICS and VerbNet semantic roles. Semantic Computing (ICSC), 2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference. 483–489.10.1109/ICSC.2011.57Search in Google Scholar
Brainerd, C. J., Y. Yang, V. F. Reyna, M. L. Howe & B. A. Mills. 2008. Semantic processing in “associative” false memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15. 1035–1053.10.3758/PBR.15.6.1035Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar
Camacho-Collados, J., M. T. Pilehvar & R. Navigli. 2015. A framework for the construction of monolingual and cross-lingual word similarity datasets. Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. 1–7.10.3115/v1/P15-2001Search in Google Scholar
Christensen, J., S. Soderland & O. Etzioni. 2010. Semantic role labeling for open information extraction. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 First International Workshop on Formalisms and Methodology for Learning by Reading. 52–60.Search in Google Scholar
Chumbley, J. I. & D. A. Balota. 1984. A word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision. Memory & Cognition 12. 590–606.10.3758/BF03213348Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Church, K., W. Gale, P. Hanks & D. Hindle. 1989. Word associations and typical predicate-argument relations. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Parsing Technologies.10.3115/1075434.1075449Search in Google Scholar
Chwilla, D. J. & H. H. Kolk. 2005. Accessing world knowledge: Evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research 25(3). 589–606.10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.08.011Search in Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1970. Word associations and linguistic theory. New horizons in linguistics 1. 271–286.Search in Google Scholar
Coll-Florit, M. & S. Gennari. 2011. Time in language: Event duration in language comprehension, Cognitive Psychology 62. 41–79.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.09.002Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, W. & A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803864Search in Google Scholar
De Deyne, S., D. J. Navarro & G. Storms. 2013. Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behavior Research Methods 45(2). 480–498.10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed
De Deyne, S., Y. Peirsman & G. Storms. 2009. Sources of semantic similarity. Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 1834–1839.Search in Google Scholar
De Deyne S. & G. Storms. 2015. Word associations. In J. R. Taylor (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641604.013.018Search in Google Scholar
De Deyne, S., S. Verheyen & G. Storms. 2015. The role of corpus size and syntax in deriving lexico-semantic representations for a wide range of concepts. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 68(8). 1643–1664.10.1080/17470218.2014.994098Search in Google Scholar
Deese, J. 1962. Form class and the determinants of association. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 1(2). 79–84.10.1016/S0022-5371(62)80001-2Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-9473-7Search in Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3). 547–619.10.1353/lan.1991.0021Search in Google Scholar
Faruqui, M. & C. Dyer. 2014. Community evaluation and exchange of word vectors at wordvectors. Org. ACL: System Demonstrations.10.3115/v1/P14-5004Search in Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 1998. WordNet. New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 2015. Lexical relations. In J. R. Taylor (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641604.013.028Search in Google Scholar
Fernández-Montraveta, A. & G. Vázquez. 2014. The SenSem Corpus: An annotated corpus for Spanish and Catalan with information about aspectuality, modality, polarity and factuality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10(2). 273–288.10.1515/cllt-2013-0026Search in Google Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., K. McRae & A. Hatherell. 2001. Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory & Language 44. 516–547.10.1006/jmla.2000.2728Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1–88.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., C. R. Johnson & M. R. Petruck. 2003. Background to framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3). 235–250.10.1093/ijl/16.3.235Search in Google Scholar
Finkelstein, L., E. Gabrilovich, Y. Matias, E. Rivlin, Z. Solan, G. Wolfman & E. Ruppin. 2001. Placing search in context: The concept revisited. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 20(1). 116–131.10.1145/371920.372094Search in Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. & C. Izura. 2011. Word association in L1 and L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(03). 373–398.10.1017/S0272263111000027Search in Google Scholar
García-Miguel, J M. 2009 A semantic classification of Spanish verbs. Verb Typologies Revisited: Proceedings of A Cross-Linguistic Reflection on Verbs and Verb Classes, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium, 5–7 February.Search in Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. 1974. The processing of information and structure. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Gentner, D. & A. B. Markman. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52(1). 45–56.10.1037/0003-066X.52.1.45Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldfarb, R., & H. Halpern. 1984. Word association responses in normal adult subjects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13(1). 37–55.10.1007/BF01067901Search in Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L. & J. Y. Son. 2005 Similarity. In Holyoak, Keith J. & Morrison, Robert G. The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning, 13–36. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Agirre, A., E. Laparra & G. Rigau. 2012. Multilingual Central Repository version 3.0. In LREC. 2525–2529.Search in Google Scholar
Gruber, J. S. 1965. Studies in lexical relations. Diss. MIT. Published as Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976.Search in Google Scholar
Hahn, U., N. Chater & L. B. Richardson. 2003. Similarity as transformation. Cognition 87. 1–32.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00184-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Hare, M., K. McRae & J. L. Elman. 2003. Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 48(2). 281–303.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00516-8Search in Google Scholar
Hernández Muñoz, N. & M. López García. 2014. Análisis de las relaciones semánticas a través de una tarea de libre asociación en español con mapas auto-organizados. RLA. Revista de lingüística teórica y aplicada 52(2). 189–212.10.4067/S0718-48832014000200009Search in Google Scholar
Hill, F., R. Reichart & A. Korhonen. 2015. Simlex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics 41(4). 665–695.10.1162/COLI_a_00237Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, MN, J. Willits, S. Dennis & M. Jones. 2015. Models of semantic memory. In J. T. Townsend & J. R. Busemeyer (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Computational and Mathematical Psychology, 232–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press. .10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199957996.013.11Search in Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. 1989. Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kiss, G. R., C. Armstrong, R. Milroy & J. Piper. 1973. In A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey & H. N. Smith (eds.), The Computer and Literary Studies, 153–165. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Klein, D. E. & G. L. Murphy. 2002. Paper has been my ruin: Conceptual relations of polysemous senses. Journal of Memory and Language 47. 548–570.10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00020-7Search in Google Scholar
Kozima, H. & T. Furugori. 1993. Similarity between words computed by spreading activation on an English dictionary. Proceedings of the sixth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 232–239.10.3115/976744.976772Search in Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K. & S. T. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological review 104(2). 211.10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211Search in Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Search in Google Scholar
Lin, D. 1998. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. ICML 98. 296–304.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, D. & D. Gildea. 2010. Semantic role features for machine translation. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 716–724.Search in Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., D. B. Pisoni & S. D. Goldinger. 1990. Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In G. T. M. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. ACL–MIT Press series in natural language processing. 122–147.Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (vols I & II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Maki, W. S. & E. Buchanan. 2008. Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic, and thematic knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15(3). 598–603.10.3758/PBR.15.3.598Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Manning, J. R. & M. J. Kahana. 2012. Interpreting semantic clustering effects in free recall. Memory 20(5). 511–517.10.1080/09658211.2012.683010Search in Google Scholar PubMed
McKoon, G. & R. Ratcliff. 1992. Spreading activation versus compound cue accounts of priming: Mediated priming revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18(6). 1155.10.1037/0278-7393.18.6.1155Search in Google Scholar PubMed
McRae, K., M. Hare, J. L. Elman & T. R. Ferretti. 2005. A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition 33. 1174–1184.10.3758/BF03193221Search in Google Scholar PubMed
McRae, K., S. Khalkhali & M. Hare. 2012. Semantic and associative relations: Examining a tenuous dichotomy. In V. F. Reyna, S. Chapman, M. Dougherty & J. Confrey (eds.), The adolescent brain: Learning, reasoning, and decision making, Washington: American Psychological Association.Search in Google Scholar
Merlo, P. & S. Stevenson. 2001. Automatic verb classification based on statistical distributions of argument structure. Computational Linguistics 27(3). 373–408.10.1162/089120101317066122Search in Google Scholar
Michelbacher, L., S. Evert & H. Schütze. 2007. Asymmetric association measures. Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP 2007).Search in Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., K. Chen, G. Corrado & J. Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. ICLR Workshop.Search in Google Scholar
Moldovan, C. D., P. Ferré, J. Demestre & R. Sánchez-Casas. 2015. Semantic similarity: Normative ratings for 185 Spanish noun triplets. Behavior Research Methods 47(3). 788–799.10.3758/s13428-014-0501-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
Mollin, S. 2009. Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(2). 175–200.10.1515/CLLT.2009.008Search in Google Scholar
Neely, J. H. 1991. Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition 11. 264–336.Search in Google Scholar
Nelson, D. L., C. L. McEvoy & S. Dennis. 2000. What is free association and what does it measure? Memory & Cognition 28. 887–899.10.3758/BF03209337Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Nelson, D. L., C. L. McEvoy & T. A. Schreiber. 1998. The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/(accessed 16 April 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Niles, I. & A. Pease. 2001. Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of the international conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, Volume 2001. 2–9.10.1145/505168.505170Search in Google Scholar
Nordquist, D. 2009. Investigating elicited data from a usage-based perspective. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory5(1). 105–130.10.1515/CLLT.2009.005Search in Google Scholar
Padró, L. & E. Stanilovsky. 2012. Freeling 3.0: Towards wider multilinguality. LREC 2012.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, M., D. Gildea & P. Kingsbury. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational linguistics 31(1). 71–106.10.1162/0891201053630264Search in Google Scholar
Patwardhan, S., S. Banerjee & T. Pedersen. 2003. Using measures of semantic relatedness for word sense disambiguation. In A. Gelbukh (ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, 241–257. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/3-540-36456-0_24Search in Google Scholar
Peirsman, Y. & D. Geeraerts. 2009. Predicting strong associations on the basis of corpus data. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 648–656.10.3115/1609067.1609139Search in Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C. 1995. Semantic and associative priming in a distributed attractor network. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 17(2). 37–42.Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & L. Frazier. 1989 Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(5). 779–790.10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.779Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Resnik, P. 1995. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. Proceedings of IJCAI-95. 448–453.Search in Google Scholar
Riordan, B. & M. N. Jones. 2007. Comparing semantic space models using child-directed speech. In D. S. MacNamara & J. G. Trafton, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive Science Society, 599–604. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Search in Google Scholar
Rodd, J., G. Gaskell & W. Marslen-Wilson. 2002 Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language 46. 245–266.10.1006/jmla.2001.2810Search in Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., III, J. M. Watson, K. B. McDermott & D. A. Gallo. 2001. Factors that determine false recall: A multiple regression analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8. 385–407.10.3758/BF03196177Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Sahlgren, M. 2006. The Word-space model: Using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces. Stockholm: Stockholm University publishing service, Ph.D. thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Savage, C., E. Lieven, A. Theakston & M. Tomasello. 2003. Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6(5). 557–567.10.1111/1467-7687.00312Search in Google Scholar PubMed
Schuler, K. K. 2005. VerbNet: A broad-coverage, comprehensive verb lexicon. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, S. 2006. Experiments on the automatic induction of German semantic verb classes. Computational Linguistics 32. 159–194.10.1162/coli.2006.32.2.159Search in Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, S. 2008. Human associations and the choice of features for semantic verb classification. Research on Language and Computation 6(1).79–111.10.1007/s11168-008-9044-8Search in Google Scholar
Schulte im Walde, S., A. Melinger, M. Roth & A. Weber. 2008. An empirical characterisation of response types in German association norms. Research on Language and Computation 6(2). 205–238.10.1007/s11168-008-9048-4Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, H. 1992. Dimensions of meaning. In Supercomputing’92Proceedings. 787–796.10.1109/SUPERC.1992.236684Search in Google Scholar
Shen, D. & M. Lapata. 2007. Using Semantic Roles to Improve Question Answering. In EMNLP-CoNLL. 12–21.Search in Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. 1962. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika 27. 125–140.10.1007/BF02289630Search in Google Scholar
Spence, D. P. & K. C. Owens. 1990. Lexical co-occurrence and association strength. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19(5). 317–330.10.1007/BF01074363Search in Google Scholar
Steyvers, M., R. M. Shiffrin & D. L. Nelson. 2004. Word association spaces for predicting semantic similarity effects in episodic memory. Experimental cognitive psychology and its applications: Festschrift in honor of Lyle Bourne, Walter Kintsch, and Thomas Landauer. 237–249.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, L. & A. Korhonen. 2009. Improving Verb Clustering with Automatically Acquired Selectional Preferences. EMNLP.10.3115/1699571.1699596Search in Google Scholar
Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review 84(4). 327–352.10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327Search in Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. & P. A. Luce. 1999. Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 40(3). 374–408.10.1006/jmla.1998.2618Search in Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. & P. A. Luce. 2016. Phonological neighborhood effects in spoken word perception and production. Annual Review of Linguistics 2. 75–94.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-124832Search in Google Scholar
Wettler, M. & R. Rapp. 1993. Computation of word associations based on the co-occurrences of words in large corpora. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Very Large Corpora. 84–93.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, D. & D. M. Powers. 2006. Verb similarity on the taxonomy of WordNet. In Proceedings of GWC-06. 121–128.Search in Google Scholar
Appendices
Appendix 1. Verb senses, definitions and frequency (between brackets)
abrir 18: Move the latch, unlock, unclick any piece that closes something. (15)
cerrar 19: Secure with a lock, a latch or other instrument a door, window, lid, etc. to stop it from opening. (14)
crecer 1: Increase the amount or the importance of something, develop. (116)
dormir 1: Remain in a state in which there are no voluntary movements, usually in order to rest. (99)
escuchar 1: Listen, pay attention to what is being heard. (107)
estar 14: To be something or someone in a specific state. (101)
explicar 1: Explain, give information about a specific issue. (106)
gestionar 1: Manage, go through a procedure to achieve an objective. (36)
gustar 1: Like, find somebody or something appealing. (117)
montar 2: Get in a vehicle or get on top of an animal. (26)
morir 1: Die; cease to exist (somebody or something). (115)
parecer 1: To pretend to be something without necessarily being it. (51)
pensar 2: Think, reason, examine an idea. (25)
perseguir 1: Chase somebody or pursue something in order to reach it. (53)
trabajar 1: Work, do a specific task or job. (80)
valorar 2: Value, recognize the importance of a fact, thing or action. (70)
valer 1: For something to have a specific value. (45)
ver 1: See, perceive through the eyes. (86)
viajar 1: Travel, go from one place to another distant one, usually in a means of transportation. (111)
volver 1: Return, go back to a place where one has already been. (84)
Appendix 2. Semantic fields of the verb senses
| Verb sense | WordNet supersense | Adesse macro-class |
|---|---|---|
| abrir 18 | change | Material |
| cerrar 19 | change | Material |
| crecer 1 | change | Material |
| dormir 1 | activity (bodily) | Material |
| escuchar 1 | perception | Mental |
| estar 14 | state | Relational |
| explicar 1 | communication | Verbal |
| gestionar 1 | activity (social) | Material |
| gustar 1 | cognition | Mental |
| montar 2 | movement | Material |
| morir 1 | change | Existential |
| parecer 1 | state | Relational |
| pensar 2 | cognition | Mental |
| perseguir 1 | movement | Material |
| trabajar 1 | activity | Material |
| valorar 2 | communication | Relational |
| valer 1 | state | Relational |
| ver 1 | perception | Mental |
| viajar 1 | movement | Material |
| volver 1 | movement | Material |
Appendix 3. List of stimuli used in the psycholinguistic experiment
ABRIR una puerta. /TO OPEN a door.
CERRAR una ventana. /TO CLOSE a window.
CRECER a cierto ritmo. /TO GROW at a certain rate.
DORMIR durante un rato. /TO SLEEP for a while.
ESCUCHAR atentamente. /TO LISTEN carefully.
ESTAR en una determinada condición. /TO BE in a specific state.
EXPLICAR una cuestión. /TO EXPLAIN an issue.
GESTIONAR un trámite. /TO HANDLE a procedure.
GUSTAR mucho. /TO LIKE a lot.
MONTAR en un vehículo. /TO GET IN a car.
MORIR alguien. /TO DIE somebody.
PARECER fuerte. /TO SEEM strong.
PENSAR en un asunto. /TO THINK about an issue.
PERSEGUIR a una persona. /TO CHASE a person.
TRABAJAR en algo. /TO WORK in something.
VALORAR la importancia de algo. /TO ASSESS the importance of something.
VALER dinero. /TO COST money.
VER una imagen. /TO SEE an image.
VIAJAR en un medio de transporte. /TO TRAVEL in a means of transportation.
VOLVER a un lugar. /TO GO BACK to a place.
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
