Article published in:
Frames, constructions, and computation
Edited by Lars Borin, Gerard de Melo, Karin Friberg Heppin and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructions and Frames 6:1] 2014
► pp. 34–51

Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar

Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon

| Federal University of Juiz de Fora
This paper proposes three policies for the annotation of constructions in FrameNet Brasil, and, potentially, in other FrameNets. Annotation policies are defined so as to both avoid uncontrolled redundancy in the database and respect the theoretical and methodological foundations of Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar. The first policy is concerned with the task of deciding whether a given piece of language should be analyzed as an instance of a construction, or as a valence pattern of a lexical unit; the second specifies criteria for the definition of Construct Elements; finally, the third policy regulates the interconnections between constructions and frames in the database.
Keywords: construction grammar, frame semantics, Brazilian Portuguese, annotation policies, framenet; constructicon
Published online: 19 August 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
References

References

Atkins, S., Fillmore, C. J., & Johnson, C. R.. (
2003) Lexicographic relevance: selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3), 251–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardđal, J.. (
2008) Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardđal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.. (
2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian V-REFL-NP construction. Linguistics, 49(1), 53–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brodbeck, R. C. M. S.. (
2010) Um monte de problemas gera uma chuva de respostas: um estudo de caso de desencontro na quantificação nominal em português. [A mount of questions generates a rain of answers: A study of mismatch in noun quantification constructions in Portuguese]. PhD Dissertation in Linguistics,Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Elmasri, R., & Navathe, S.. (
2010) Fundamentals of database systems. Boston: Addition Wesley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.. (
1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic society of korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.Google Scholar
2006) The articulation of lexicon and constructicon. Plenary talk at the Fourth International Construction Grammar Conference (pp. 53–63). Tokyo.Google Scholar
2008a) Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In Proceedings of EURALEX 13 (pp. 49–68). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
2008b)  Wherewithal: eine verborgene konstruktion. In A. Stefanowitsch & K. Fischer (Eds.), Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der konstruktion zur grammatik (pp. 279–283). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.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, C.. (
1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.. (
2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R.. (
2012) The FrameNet constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
FrameNet (
2014) Berkeley FrameNet website. http://​framenet​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.. (
1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.. (
1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y construction. Language, 75, 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lage, L. M.. (
2013) Frames e construções: A implementação do constructicon na FrameNet Brasil. [Frames and constructions: The implementation of the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil]. M. A. Thesis in Linguistics. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S.. (
2012) Adding a constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (pp. 452–461). Vienna.
Ohara, K.. (
2013) Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas, 17(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Salomão, M. M. M.. (
1990)  Polysemy, aspect and modality in Brazilian Portuguese: The case for a cognitive explanation of grammar . PhD Dissertation in Linguistics. University of California, Berkeley.
2007) The metaphoric grounding of grammar: The modal construction with ‘give’ in Brazilian Portuguese. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of The Berkeley Linguistics Society . University of California, Berkeley.
Subirats, C.. (
2013) Frames, constructions, and metaphors in Spanish FrameNet. In I. Verdaguer, N. J. Laso & D. Salazar (Eds.), Biomedical English: A corpus-based approach (pp. 185–210). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T.. (
2009) A Rede de construções em para (SN) infinitivo: Uma abordagem centrada no uso para as relações de herança e mudança construcionais.[The para infinitive construction network: A usage-based approach for constructional inheritance and constructional change]. Ph.D. Dissertation in Linguistics.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.Google 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
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

No author info given
2020.  In Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28], Crossref logo
Li, Xiaochen & Mingyou Xiang
2019. Semantic evolution at the microscopic level: the case of suoyi. Language Sciences 74 ► pp. 110 ff. Crossref logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 255 ff. Crossref logo
Ohara, Kyoko
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
Perek, Florent & Amanda L. Patten
2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 354 ff. Crossref logo
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Ludmila Meireles Lage, Adrieli Laviola, Tatiane da Silva Tavares, Vânia Gomes de Almeida & Natália Sigiliano
2018.  In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 107 ff. Crossref logo
TORRENT, Tiago Timponi, Ludmila Meireles LAGE, Tatiane Silva TAVARES & Adrieli Bonjour LAVIOLA
2017. Relações de herança entre construções e entre frames: desafios da extensão do modelo construcionista para o domínio computacional no âmbito da FrameNet Brasil. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 33:1 ► pp. 45 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 march 2021. 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.