Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / concepts / ADP: adposition

🏷️ ADP: adposition

Universal Dependencies · 7 key papers · all concepts

Part of: 🗨️ Natural language processing · 🌐 Universal Dependencies

ADP (adposition) is the Universal Dependencies part-of-speech tag for prepositions, postpositions and circumpositions. These are function words that attach to a nominal and mark its grammatical or semantic relation, such as place, time, instrument or possession, to the rest of the clause.

Also: adposition, preposition, postposition, circumposition, ADP

What it is

In Universal Dependencies, ADP is one of the closed classes in the universal part-of-speech inventory. In English the label covers words such as in, of, with and after. In Japanese it covers words that follow the noun, such as ni or de. An adposition usually belongs to a nominal phrase and signals how that phrase relates to its governor, much as a case ending does in a language with rich morphology.

UD treats content words as heads and makes function words their dependents (Marneffe et al. 2021). An adposition therefore does not head its phrase. It attaches to the noun it introduces, and that noun attaches to the verb or noun it modifies. The tag inventory of UD v2 is closed: languages cannot add new basic categories and can only refine existing ones (Nivre et al. 2020).

Borderline cases

Features and relations

The typical feature is AdpType (Prep, Post, Circ). Some languages also use Case, for the case an adposition governs, or Abbr. In the basic tree, the usual relation is case. Others are mark before clauses, fixed inside multiword adpositions such as because of, and occasionally obl when the adposition is stranded or elliptical.

Examples

book   on    the  table
NOUN   ADP   DET  NOUN
       case→table   (table —nmod→ book)

In this example, on is tagged ADP and depends on table via case, and table is the dependent of book via nmod. Some further examples:

Across languages

Word order largely decides whether a language uses prepositions (English, French, Arabic) or postpositions (Japanese, Turkish, Hindi). Many languages express similar meanings through case morphology rather than separate words. Because UD takes the syntactic word as its basic unit, case affixes are not tagged ADP, and the same relation can therefore surface as a word in one language and as a feature in another (Marneffe et al. 2021). Clitic adpositions written together with their host, as in Hebrew or Arabic, are segmented into separate words (Marneffe et al. 2021).

Frequency also varies by language. In the current English treebanks, ADP is dominated by case, followed at a distance by compound (verb particles), fixed and mark. In French, ADP accounts for a larger share of all tokens. There case again leads, but mark comes clearly second, reflecting de and à before infinitives. See the English and French topics.

In treebanks and research

ADP originates in the twelve-category universal tagset of Petrov, Das and McDonald (Petrov et al. 2012). They mapped many incompatible treebank tagsets onto one coarse set so that part-of-speech tagging results could be compared and parsers transferred across languages. In that coarse mapping, a tag like the Penn Treebank's IN, which covers both prepositions and subordinators, falls into ADP.

UD v1 extended the set to seventeen tags. It added categories such as PROPN and AUX and drew its morphological features from Interset (Nivre et al. 2016). Interset is a feature interlingua that converts tagsets through decoder and encoder drivers rather than pairwise converters (Zeman 2008). UD v2 renamed CONJ to CCONJ, which separated coordinators from the subordinators that sit next to ADP in the inventory (Nivre et al. 2020). The principles and tooling behind these choices are presented in tutorial form by Zeman (Zeman 2021).

The ADP/SCONJ/ADV boundary is a common source of disagreement in treebanks. Consistency studies of the UD corpora examine such annotation divergences (Marneffe et al. 2017). One symmetric measure of this kind, built on UPOS trigram distributions, flags inconsistent treebank pairs within a single language without depending on any tagger (Aggarwal & Zeman 2020). For dependency parsing, ADP's role as a dependent of the content word keeps argument structure parallel across languages, whatever their surface morphology (Marneffe et al. 2021).

How often the tag ADP occurs: its share of all tokens

Counted by code over the Universal Dependencies 2.18 treebanks of English and French (every token once, subtypes with their base relation).

How often the tag ADP occurs: its share of all tokensEnglish treebanks: 8.68% of tokens (97,794 tokens)English treebanks8.68% of tokens (97,794 tokens)French treebanks: 12.98% of tokens (141,506 tokens)French treebanks12.98% of tokens (141,506 tokens)
The numbers
TreebanksShare
English treebanks8.68% of tokens (97,794 tokens)
French treebanks12.98% of tokens (141,506 tokens)

The relations ADP words take most often

The five most frequent in each language's treebanks, by tokens.

The relations ADP words take most oftenEnglish: case: 89,873English: case89,873English: compound: 3,771English: compound3,771English: fixed: 1,425English: fixed1,425English: mark: 1,212English: mark1,212English: obl: 606English: obl606French: case: 127,402French: case127,402French: mark: 10,644French: mark10,644French: advmod: 1,655French: advmod1,655French: fixed: 660French: fixed660French: reparandum: 258French: reparandum258
The numbers
PairTokens
English: case89,873
English: compound3,771
English: fixed1,425
English: mark1,212
English: obl606
French: case127,402
French: mark10,644
French: advmod1,655
French: fixed660
French: reparandum258

Key papers

The works this page cites, the most cited first; citations as counted by OpenAlex plus the papers of this library that cite the work, read 2026-10-24.

More papers

Topics: 🔤 Part-of-speech tagging · 🌐 Universal Dependencies

Shelves: 🗣️ Language and Linguistics

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/concepts/upos-adp/