Cover not available
Part of
Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages
Edited by Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructional Approaches to Language 22] 2018
► pp. 141–163

Chapter 5
Relations between frames and constructions

A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon

This chapter discusses relations between frames and constructions, based on the constructicon-building project within the Japanese FrameNet (JFN) project. The aims are: to clarify distinctions between a framenet lexicon and a constructicon; and to contribute to the on-going discussion on whether all constructions are “meaning-bearing.” I will argue that a framenet analysis involves annotating frame-based syntactic/semantic structures of words (simple words and multiwords), while a constructicon annotation pertains to describing the internal and external syntax/semantics of linguistic objects that have complex structures. While maintaining that all constructions are meaning-bearing, I will point out that meaning structures of some constructions may not involve frames and propose a frame-based classification of constructions. Finally, I will suggest that a constructicon annotation needs both semantic frames and interactional frames.

Keywords: FrameNet, constructicon, Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, syntax-lexicon continuum, semantic frame, interactional frame, Japanese, annotation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The need for constructicons
  • 3.Framenet annotations and constructicon annotations
  • 4.Constructions “without meanings” and the use of frames to represent meaning structures of constructions
  • 5.A five-way frame-based classification of constructions
    • 5.1Non frame-evoking constructions
      • 5.1.1Compositionally interpretable constructions
      • 5.1.2Constructions whose more elaborated constructions evoke frames of their own
      • 5.1.3Constructions that omit repetitive position-specific constituents
    • 5.2Frame-evoking constructions
      • 5.2.1Constructions evoking a semantic frame
      • 5.2.2Constructions evoking an interactional frame
  • 6.Summary and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 17 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha
References
Boas, H. C.
(2010) The Syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. 24, 54–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Watanabe, H.
(2016) Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp.373–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 35–55.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999) Inversion and Constructional Inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J. P. Koenig, & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp.113–128). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2008) Border Conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In E. Bernal, & J. DeCesaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress (pp.49–68). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
(2013) Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.111–132). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R.
(2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.309–372). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C.
(2010) A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In B. Heine, & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp.313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y.
(1996) Toward a description of te-linkage in Japanese. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp.55–75). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R. R., Ohara, K. H., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C. J.
(2010) On expressing measurement and comparison in Japanese and English. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Construction Grammars (pp.169–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D.
(1991) An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation). Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ohara, K. H.
(2013) Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17(1), pp.11–27.Google Scholar
(2014) Relating Frames and Constructions in Japanese FrameNet. In Proceedings of LREC 2014 (pp.2474–2477). Reykjavík: ELRA.Google Scholar
In Press). Internally headed relativization and its related constructions. In Y. Hasegawa Ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Ohori, T.
(2002) (In Japanese) Cognitive Linguistics. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J.
(2016) FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Sköldberg, E., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lyngfelt, B., Olsson, L. -J., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Tingsell, S., & Uppström, J.
(2013) Between Grammar and Dictionaries: a Swedish Constructicon. In Proceedings of eLex 2013 (pp.310–327). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S., & Matos, E. E. S.
(2014) Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Herbst, Thomas
2020. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. Constructions and Frames 12:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas
2022. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Willich, Alexander
2022. Introducing Construction Semantics (CxS): a frame-semantic extension of Construction Grammar and constructicography. Linguistics Vanguard 8:1 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.