In some cases, if one of the FEs in a group of conceptually related FEs shows up, no other FE from that group can. Again, in the Attaching frame, if Items occurs, then Item and Goal are excluded. In this situation, we say that Items excludes Item and Goal. (21) The robbers tied [his ankles Items] together. The above Excludes-relation in the Attaching frame is an instance of a much more common pattern of alternation between a symmetric/reciprocal and an asymmetric construal of events or states involving two parties. In most frames, where the alternation is possible, the names of the frame elements reflect the underlying alternation between reciprocal and asymmetric construal. For instance, in the Similarity frame with lexical units such as similar, different, etc. we have the frame elements Entity_1 and Entity_2, and Entities. Usually, one is allowed to infer equal participation in the event or state by the grammatically less profiled participant (Participant_2). However, since in the case of Attaching, the Goal (which would be Item_2 under our normal naming scheme) is not readily understood as itself being secured or immobilized via attachment to the Item on the asymmetric construal, we selected a name that reflects the fact that the usual inference to equal status for Participant_2 in the asymmetric construal is not warranted. The Excludes relation also manifests in frames where an event can be brought about either by an intentional Agent or by a Cause event. Consider the following examples from the Placing frame. (22) [The same flood tide that had brought such a good harvest of tiles Cause] heaped a mass of driftwood onto the Reach. (23) [Bill Agent] deposited the bag of croissants and the Financial Times carelessly on the hall table. The two sentences represent two different construals of Placing scenes. Sentence (22) focuses on an event as causing the change in location of the Theme, whereas sentence (23) focuses on an Agent who through their involvement in an unspecified event, most likely an intentional action involving his hands and body, causes the change of location of the Theme. The two construals are incompatible (since there is only one subject slot) and the frame elements Agent and Cause stand in an Excludes relation to each other.8 Another clear instance of the Excludes relation between frame elements occurs in the Evading frame, where an Evader moves under its own power to thereby avoid Capture or contact with a Pursuer. The Capture is an actual or hypothetical event in which the Pursuer takes physical control of the Evader. The Capture frame element and the Pursuer are thus clearly interrelated but only one of them can appear as a dependent of a target in the Evading frame. (24) Sheriff's officials said they apprehended a gang member after he evaded [them Pursuer]. (25) He had successfully evaded [arrest Capture]. Finally, note that the Excludes relation strictly applies only to the direct syntactic dependents of a target word, that is, to first layer annotation. Frame elements that exclude each other may co-occur in an annotation set if they appear on separate annotation layers. (26) Perkins McLain evaded [capture [through Spain Pursuer] Capture] . (27) The discussions [between [Miller Interlocutor_1] and [the dean Interlocutor_2] Interlocutors ] went nowhere. In (26), information about the Pursuer is expressed inside the Capture frame element in a prepositional phrase dependent of the noun capture. In (27), the two sides of the discussion, Interlocutor_1 and Interlocutor_2 are expressed within the coordinate NP that encodes the Interlocutors frame element. xsd:string