INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AREA
 1. Chinese Semantics
 2. Semantic difference related to syntax
 3. Module Attribute Representation of
Verbal Semantics (MARVS)
AIM/JUSTIFICATION
 Chinese is full of near-synonymous verbs which are
difficult for foreign learners to learn and they are a
potential problem for computer translation.
 MARVS is a representational framework to distinguish
meaning of Chinese verbs in their syntax structures.
 Try to do a little help to Chinese learners and a little bit
contribution to computer translation by using MARVS to
find out the distinction between “Guan” and “Kan”(
both means looking in Chinese).
REFERENCES

(1) Huang, Chu-Ren, Kathleen Athens, Li-Li Chang, Keh-Jiann Chen, Mei-Chun Liu, and
Mei-Chih Tsai. 2000. The Module-Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics: From
Semantics to Argument Structure. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and
Chinese Language Processing.

(2) Liu, Mei-Chun. 2002. Corpus-based Lexical Semantic Study of Verbs of Doubt: Huayi
and Cai in Mandarin. Concentric. 28.2.

（3）Liu, Mei-Chun. 2003. From Collocation to Event Information: the Case of Mandarin
Verbs of Discussion1. Language and Linguistics 4 (3): 563-586, 2003.

(4) Chiang, Ting-Yi, Chou, Ming-Hui, Liu, Mei-Chun. 2005. A Frame-based Approach to
Polysemous Near-synonymy: the Case with Mandarin Verbs of Expression. Journal of
Chinese Language and Computing, 15 (3): (137-148)

(5) Chung, Siaw-Fong and Kathleen Ahrens. Forthcoming. MARVS Revisited:
Operationalizing Sense Frequency and MI Values. Language and Linguistics: Lexicon,
Grammar and Natural Language Processing.

(6) Mei-chun Liu and Ting-yi Chiang. 2008. The Construction of Mandarin VerbNet: A
Frame-based Study of Statement Verbs. LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 9.2:239-270, 2008

（7）Wang Juan. 2009. A Corpus Based Study on the Chinese Near- Synonymous Verbs of
Running
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Can the two near-synonymous verbs of
looking in Chinese be used alternatively in
all the contexts?
 If not, what are their distribution
differences?
 How to explain the differences by using
the model of MARVS? (Two more steps will
be introduced here)
MATERIALS/INSTRUMENTS
 Module Attribute Representation of Verbal Semantics
(MARVS)
 Verb---Sense---Eventive Information
Event Module
Event-Internal
Attribute
Role Module
Role-Internal
Attribute
 Share Sense and Mutual Information Value
METHODOLOGY ---SOURCE
The corpus that I would like to use is developed by
the Center for Chinese Linguistics of Beijing
University. Both modern and classical Chinese data
are included in this corpus. For the modern Chinese
data, there are both spoken and written data, and
the latter just takes a small percentage (0.04%).
Now I am also trying to find a Chinese corpus
dominated by spoken data.
 Firstly, all instances of each of the two verbs will be
searched for in the corpus.
 Secondly, these entries of each verb will be classified
into different type of syntactic pattern.
 Thirdly, the aspectual type that is associated with each
verb will be examined.
 Last but not least, I will use the modified MARVS model
to explain the differences between the verbs.
TYPE OF DATA AND ANALYSIS
 Data collection: written ones and spoken ones.
 Beginning period: quantitative approach to
analyze data themselves and try to find out their
common features.
 Later period: qualitative approach to explain the
differences under the guidance of modified MARVS.
A Corpus Based Study on the
Chinese Near- Synonymous
Verbs of Looking By Using
Modified MARVS
Sun He
ANTICIPATED PROBLEMS/LIMITATIONS
OF THE STUDY
The data I can collect is probably prone to
written ones since the spoken ones are hard
to access to. Therefore the result will not
very comprehensive.
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO FIND?
 Kan probably has the event focus of
both the starting and the endpoint of
the event while Guan does not.
 Guan tends to work more with artistic
words while Kan can work with more
variety kinds of nouns.