Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 10:1 (2018) ► pp.38–60

FrameNet’s Using relation as a source of concept-based paraphrases

| University of Stuttgart
| University of Stuttgart

Characterizing paraphrases formally has proven to be a challenging task. Hasegawa et al. (2011) pointed out the usefulness of FrameNet for paraphrase research, focusing on paraphrases which are backed by underlying classical linguistic relationships such as synonymy or voice alternations. This article proposes that other frame-to-frame-relations, notably Using, can serve as a source for concept-based paraphrases – that is, paraphrases that are backed by common sense knowledge, as in he called him a hero – he praised him for being a hero. While the predicates in these sentences are not synonymous, we would argue that the sentences are paraphrases – albeit of a kind that involves world knowledge about the relationship between different event classes. In this article, we propose a shallow taxonomy for the frame pairs which instantiate Using, that is motivated by their ability to form concept-based paraphrases. Second, we analyze the subclass of Using instances which supports concept-based paraphrasing, and provide a formalization of some prominent types of side conditions that are necessary to produce felicitous paraphrases.

Keywords: FrameNet, paraphrases/paraphrasing, conceptual paraphrases, frame-to-frame relations, world knowledge, the Using relation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Frame-to-frame relations in FrameNet
    • 2.1The Using relation
  • 3.Analyzing and classifying instances of Using
    • 3.1Class 1: EVENTUALITY uses OBJECT
    • 3.2Class 2: OBJECT uses OBJECT
    • 3.3Class 3: EVENTUALITY uses EVENTUALITY
      • 3.3.1Class 3a: minimal paraphrases
      • 3.3.2Class 3b: non-minimal paraphrases
    • 3.4Class 4: other (non-EVENTUALITY, non-OBJECT)
    • 3.5Frequencies of classes
  • 4.Formalizing side conditions for minimal concept-driven paraphrases
    • 4.1Side condition type 1: presence of sentiment
    • 4.2Side condition type 2: granularity of semantic roles
    • 4.3Side condition type 3: presence of semantic roles
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00010.sik
References

References

Abelson, R. P.
(1981) Psychological status of the script concept. American psychologist, 36(7), 715. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aharon, R. B., Szpektor, I., & Dagan, I.
(2010) Generating entailment rules from FrameNet. In Proceedings of ACL (pp. 241–246). Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Bach, E.
(1981) On time, tense, and aspect: an essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 63–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B.
(2003) The structure of the Framenet database. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 281–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M.
(1992) In Other Words. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B., & Chang, N.
(2005) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. -O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botschen, T., Mousselly Sergieh, H., & Gurevych, I.
(2017) Prediction of frame-to-frame relations in the FrameNet hierarchy with frame embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on representation learning (pp. 146–156). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Castillo, J. J.
(2011) A WordNet-based semantic approach to textual entailment and cross-lingual textual entailment. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2(3), 177–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, N., Narayanan, S., & Petruck, M. R.
(2002) Putting frames in perspective. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 148–154). Taipei, Taiwan. International Committee on Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chow, I. C., & Webster, J. J.
(2007) Integration of linguistic resources for verb classification: FrameNet frame, WordNet verb, and suggested upper merged ontology. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (pp. 1–11). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyne, R., & Rambow, O.
(2009) Lexpar: A freely available English paraphrase lexicon automatically extracted from FrameNet. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Semantic Computing, (pp. 53–58). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
Dolan, W. B. & Brockett, C.
(2005) Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (pp. 9–16). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, M., & Janin, A.
(2007) Mutaphrase: paraphrasing with FrameNet. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing (pp. 143–150). Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
(Ed.) (1998) WordNet An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, IV(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Baker, C. F., & Sato, H.
(2004) FrameNet as a “net”. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resource Association.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
(2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A.
(1961) Projection and paraphrase in semantics. Analysis, 211, 73–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J. -M.
(2011) Frame semantics. In Handbook of Semantics, Volume 11 (pp. 664–687). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Kong, A., & Kimi, A.
(2011) FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 104–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S.
(1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A.
(1963) The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 391, 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 751, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.
(1974) Semantics. Penguin.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S.
(2014) Bridging text and knowledge with frames. In Proceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: A Workshop in Honor of Chuck Fillmore (pp. 22–25). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norvig, P.
(1987) Inference in text understanding. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 561–565). Seattle, WA: American Association of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Padó, S.
(2007) Cross-lingual parallelism and translational equivalence: the case of FrameNet frames. In P. Nugues & R. Johansson (Eds.), Building Frame Semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages [LU-CS-TR: 2007–240] (pp. 39–46). Department of Computer Science, Lund University.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R., & de Melo, G.
(2012) Precedes: a semantic relation in FrameNet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Resources for Public Security Applications (pp. 45–49). Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resource Association.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R., Fillmore, C. J., Baker, C. F., Ellsworth, M., & Ruppenhofer, J.
(2004) Reframing FrameNet data. In Proceedings of The 11th EURALEX International Congress (pp. 405–416). Université de Bretagne Sud, Lorient, France.Google Scholar
Reiter, N., Hellwig, O., Frank, A., Gossmann, I., Larios, B. M., Rodrigues, J., & Zeller, B.
(2011) Adapting NLP tools and frame-semantic resources for the semantic analysis of ritual descriptions. In C. Sporleder, A. van den Bosch, & K. Zervanou (Eds.), Language technology for cultural heritage: selected papers from the LaTeCH workshop series (pp. 171–193). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
(2010) FrameNet II: extended theory and practice. [URL]. Revision of Nov 1, 2016.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R.
(1977) Scripts, goals, plans, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scheffczyk, J., Pease, A., & Ellsworth, M.
(2006) Linking FrameNet to the SUMO ontology. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp. 289–300). Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Schreyer, R.
(1978) On paraphrase relations. In Wortstellung in Bedeutung: Akten des 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums (pp. 225–235), Pavia, Italy. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Abdelzaher, Esra’ M. & Bacem A. Essam
2019. Weaponizing words. Journal of Language and Politics 18:6 ► pp. 893 ff. DOI logo
Pluwak, Agnieszka
2021. The frame system as an interlingual representation for parallel texts. Intercultural Pragmatics 18:5 ► pp. 657 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. 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.