Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 15:1 (2023) ► pp.59–90

A multilingual approach to the interaction between frames and constructions

Towards a joint framework and methodology

| Leipzig University
| Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
| Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
| Federal University of Juiz de Fora | CNPq
The comparison of constructions across languages faces a major challenge: Both similarities and differences can appear on the whole scale from form to meaning. In this paper, we propose an approach combining the descriptive and explanatory power of Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics by applying the analysis of constructions and frames on a full-text scale. More concretely, we propose a contrastive and translatological analysis of (partially) schematic constructions in English, Brazilian Portuguese and German which may diverge in form, but are relatable to one another across languages by their conventional pragmatics and/or the semantic frames they evoke.
Keywords: contrastive linguistics, translation studies, frame-construction interaction, multilingual constructicography
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Comparing frames and constructions across languages: Starting points
    • 2.1Multilingual issues in Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar
    • 2.2Annotation data and methods
  • 3.Cross-linguistic analyses: From frames to constructions
    • 3.1Cross-linguistic frame analysis
    • 3.2Limits of a frame-based cross-linguistic analysis
      • 3.2.1 Exclamative constructions
      • 3.2.2 Conditional constructions
      • 3.2.3 Negation constructions
      • 3.2.4 Tag questions
    • 3.3Cross-linguistic constructional analyses
      • 3.3.1Frame-and-constructional correspondences
      • 3.3.2Frame commonalities despite constructional mismatches
      • 3.3.3A few remarks on multiword expressions and interactional frames
  • 4.Conclusion: Towards a methodology for cross-linguistic frame-and-construction analyses
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00067.czu
References (43)
References
Baker, C., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. Proceedings of COLING-ACL, 1 1, 86–90. Retrieved from [URL]
Bertoldi, A., & Chishman, R. (2012). Frame Semantics and legal corpora annotation: Theoretical and applied challenges. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 7 1, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2001). Frame semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 conference, 64–73. Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2010). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 1 (35), 41–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, L., Dannélls, D., Forsberg, M., Gronostaj, M. T., & Kokkinakis, D. (2010). The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. Proceedings of the XIV EURALEX International Congress, 269–281. Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Burchardt, A., Erk, K., Frank, A., Kowalski, A., Padó, S., & Pinkal, M. (2009). Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation, representation, and automation. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilinugal FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications (pp. 209–244). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W. (1997). Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21 (3), 247–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czulo, O. (2017). Aspects of a primacy of frame model of translation. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 465–490). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Czulo, O., Ziem, A., & Torrent, T. T. (2020). Beyond lexical semantic frames: Notes on pragmatic frames. In T. T. Torrent, C. Baker, O. Czulo, K. Ohara, & M. Petruck (Eds.), Towards a global, multilingual FrameNet (pp. 1–7). Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, M., Ohara, K., Subirats, C., & Schmidt, T. (2006). Frame-semantic analysis of motion scenarios in English, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, Japan.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2010). A frames approach to semantic analysis. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. 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. R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Ohara, K. H., Lee-Goldman, R., & Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame integration, head switching, and translation: RISK in English and Japanese. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4), 1–14. Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Heid, U. (1996). Creating a multilingual data collection for bilingual lexicography from parallel monolingual lexicons. Euralex ’96 Proceedings, 573–590. Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2002). English subjectless tagged sentences. Language, 78 (3) 453–481. Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laviola, A. (2019). Constructicografia Multilíngue em Ação: Diretrizes linguístico-computacionais para o alinhamento de constructicons [Multilingual Constructicography in Action: Linguistic-computational guidelines for constructicon alignment]. PhD Dissertation, Federal University of Juiz de Fora.
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Laviola, A., Bäckström, L., Hannesdóttir, A. H., & Matos, E. (2018). Aligning constructicons across languages. In: B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. H. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 255–302). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T. (Eds.). (2018). Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). The relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. H. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–163). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Finding corresponding constructions in English and Japanese in a TED talk parallel corpus using Frames-and-constructions analysis. In T. T. Torrent, C. Baker, O. Czulo, K. Ohara, & M. Petruck (Eds.), Towards a global, multilingual FrameNet. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Ohara, K., Fuji, S., Ohori, T., Suzuki, R., Saito, H., & Ishizaki, S. (2004). The Japanese FrameNet project: An introduction. Proceedings of the Satellite Workshop ‘Building Lexical Resources from Semantically Annotated Corpora’, 9–11. European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Oya, T. (1999). Er bettelt sich durchs Land – eine one’s way Konstruktion im Deutschen? Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation 4(27), 356–369.Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Erk, K. (2005). To cause or not to cause: Cross-lingual semantic matching for paraphrase modelling. Proceedings of the Cross-Language Knowledge Induction Workshop. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet: Theory and practice. Retrieved from [URL]
Subirats Rüggeberg, C., & Petruck, M. (2003). Surprise: Spanish FrameNet! In E. Hajičová, A. Kotéšovcová, & J. Mirovský (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on Frame semantics. Matfyzpress.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2015). On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration hypotheses. In J. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., & Ellsworth, M. (2013). Behind the labels: Criteria for defining analytical categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas, 17 1, 44–65.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C. F., & Matos, E. (2018). The multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. In T. T. Torrent, L. Borin, & C. F. Baker (Eds.), Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., da Silva Tavares, T., & da Silva Matos, E. E. (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
Torrent, T. T., Matos, E., Lage, L. M., Adrieli, L., Tavares, T., Gomes de Almeida, V., & Sigiliano, N. (2018). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 107–140). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willich, A. (2022). Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., & Boas, H. C. (2017). Towards a Constructicon for German. Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (pp. 274–277). Stanford University.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (2014). Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames für die Textanalyse. In J. Hagemann & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien: Analysen im Vergleich (pp. 297–333). Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., & Ellsworth, M. (2016). Exklamativsätze im FrameNet-Konstruktikon am Beispiel des Englischen. In R. Finkbeiner & J. Meibauer (Eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen (pp. 146–191). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., Flick, J., & Sandkühler, P. (2019). The German Constructicon Project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica, 35 (1), 15–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ziem, Alexander & Tim Feldmüller
2023. Dimensions of constructional meanings in the German Constructicon: Why collo-profiles matter. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.