Cover not available
Part of
The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, integration, method development and practical language technology applications
Edited by Dana Dannélls, Lars Borin and Karin Friberg Heppin
[Natural Language Processing 14] 2021
► pp. 37–66

Chapter 2
Swedish FrameNet

| University of Gothenburg
| University of Gothenburg
| University of Gothenburg
| HeppiLing AB
| University of Gothenburg

This chapter describes the development of Swedish FrameNet. A new framenet project often follows one of two methodological approaches: (1) extension, through translation of a different-language – often English – framenet into the target language, and (2) merging, where the resource is built from scratch in the target language. Both approaches have their pros and cons, which have been extensively discussed in the literature. Swedish FrameNet is mainly developed through the extension approach, although balanced with the merging approach. Drawing on the two approaches simultaneously, we describe how integrated language resources and tools have been exploited to create and develop Swedish FrameNet: how it was constructed, what it contains, and the basic assumptions underlying the annotation of its contents.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Berkeley FrameNet
    • 1.2International framenets
  • 2.Framenet development methodologies
    • 2.1The extension approach
    • 2.2Merging approach
    • 2.3Modified and new frames
  • 3.Language resources and tools for building SweFN
  • 4.The SweFN database
    • 4.1Database fields
      • Name
      • BFN ID
      • SweCxn ID*
      • Definition
      • Semantic type*
      • Inheritance
      • Domain*
      • Core elements
      • Peripheral elements
      • Examples
      • Compound patterns*
      • Compound examples*
      • Lexical units
      • Suggestions for LUs*
      • Regular polysemy*
      • Berkeley-LUs
      • Created by
      • Comment and hidden comment*
      • Status
      • Modified
    • 4.2Annotation and encoding of the data
      • 4.2.1Encoding of lexical units
        • Indexing
        • Nesting
        • Discontinuity
        • Elliptical constructions
      • 4.2.2Encoding of nouns as targets
      • 4.2.3Encoding of verbs as targets
      • 4.2.4Encoding of frame elements
      • 4.2.5Encoding of prepositional phrases
      • 4.2.6Encoding of syntactically complex frame elements
        • Discontinuity
        • Coordinated and non-coordinated FEs
      • 4.2.7Encoding of compounds
        • Non-compositional, lexicalized compounds
        • Compositional compounds
        • Partially transparent compounds
        • Compound modifier as LU
      • 4.2.8Encoding of copula verbs, support words, etc.
    • 4.3Consistency checks and evaluation
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • 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 [email protected].

Published online: 26 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.02dan
References
Ahlberg, Malin, Lars Borin, Dana Dannélls, Markus Forsberg, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj, Karin Friberg Heppin, Richard Johansson, Dimitrios Kokkinakis, Leif-Jöran Olsson & Jonatan Uppström
2014 Swedish FrameNet++: The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning. In Proceedings of SLTC 2014. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, Malin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Martin Hammarstedt, Leif-Jöran Olsson, Olof Olsson, Johan Roxendal & Jonatan Uppström
2013 Korp and Karp – a bestiary of language resources: The research infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of Nodalida 2013, 429–433. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Ahlberg, Malin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Olof Olsson, Anne Schumacher & Jonatan Uppström
2016 Karp: Språkbanken’s open lexical infrastructure. In Globalex 2016 book of abstracts.Google Scholar
Alonso, Héctor Martínez, Bolette S. Pedersen & Núria Bel
2013 Annotation of regular polysemy and underspecification. In Proceedings of ACL 2013, 725–730. Sofia: ACL.Google Scholar
Bick, Eckhard
2009 DeepDict – a graphical corpus-based dictionary of word relations. In Kristiina Jokinen & Eckhard Bick (eds.), Proceedings of Nodalida 2009, 268–271. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Dana Dannélls, Markus Forsberg, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Dimitrios Kokkinakis
2010 The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2010, 269–281. Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars & Markus Forsberg
2010 Beyond the synset: Swesaurus – a fuzzy Swedish wordnet. Presentation at the workshop Re-thinking synonymy: Semantic sameness and similarity in languages and their description . Helsinki.
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Richard Johansson, Kristiina Muhonen, Tanja Purtonen & Kaarlo Voionmaa
2012 Transferring frames: Utilization of linked lexical resources. In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT workshop on the Induction of linguistic structure, 8–15. Montrèal: ACL.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg & Lennart Lönngren
2008 The hunting of the BLARK – SALDO, a freely available lexical database for Swedish language technology. In Joakim Nivre, Mats Dahllöf & Beáta Megyesi (eds.), Resourceful language technology: Festschrift in honor of Anna Sågvall Hein, 21–32. Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics & Philology.Google Scholar
2013 SALDO: A touch of yin to WordNet’s yang. Language Resources and Evaluation 47(4): 1191–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Leif-Jöran Olsson, Olof Olsson & Jonatan Uppström
2013 The lexical editing system of Karp. In Proceedings of eLex 2013, 503–516. Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg & Johan Roxendal
2012 Korp – the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 474–478. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Dimitrios Kokkinakis
2007 Medical frames as target and tool. In Proceedings of the Nodalida workshop FRAME 2007: Building frame semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages, 11–18. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Luis Nieto Piña & Richard Johansson
2015 Here be dragons? The perils and promises of inter-resource lexical-semantic mapping. In Proceedings of the Workshop on semantic resources and semantic annotation for natural language processing and the digital humanities at Nodalida 2015, 1–11. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Katrin Erk, Anette Frank, Andrea Kowalski, Sebastian Padó & Manfred Pinkal
2009 FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation, representation and automation. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 209–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Church, Kenneth Ward & Patrick Hanks
1990 Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
Dannélls, Dana & Lars Borin
2012 Toward language independent methodology for generating artwork descriptions – exploring FrameNet information. In Proceedings of LaTeCH 2012, 18–23. Avignon: ACL.Google Scholar
Dannélls, Dana, Karin Friberg Heppin & Anna Ehrlemark
2014 Using language technology resources and tools to construct Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on lexical and grammatical resources for language processing, 8–17. Dublin: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dannélls, Dana, Karin Friberg Heppin & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj
2011 Documentation for SweFN. University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Das, Dipanjan, Desai Chen, André F. T. Martins, Nathan Schneider & Noah A. Smith
2014 Frame semantic parsing. Computational Linguistics 40(1): 9–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane
(ed.) 1998 WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982 Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin Baker
2009 A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright
2003 FrameNet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John Rupert
1957 Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Markus
2011 Green resources in plain sight: Opening up the SweFN++ project. In Proceedings of the Nodalida 2011 workshop Visibility and availability of LT resources. 7–10. Tartu: NEALT.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj
2012 The rocky road towards a Swedish FrameNet – creating SweFN. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 256–261. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
2014 Exploiting FrameNet for Swedish: Mismatch? Constructions and Frames 6(1): 52–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, Luca & Collin F. Baker
2018 Learning to align across languages: Toward Multilingual FrameNet. In Proceedings of the International FrameNet workshop at LREC 2018: Multilingual framenets and constructicons, 13–22. Miyazaki: ELRA.Google Scholar
Halácsy, Péter, András Kornai & Csaba Oravecz
2007 HunPos – an open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of ACL 2007: Demo and poster sessions, 209–212. Prague: ACL.Google Scholar
Johansson, Richard, Karin Friberg Heppin & Dimitrios Kokkinakis
2012 Semantic role labeling with the Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 3697–3700. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Kann, Viggo & Magnus Rosell
2006 Free construction of a free Swedish dictionary of synonyms. In Proceedings of Nodalida 2005, 105–110. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Miloś Husák, Katy McAdam, Michael Rundell & Pavel Rychlý
2008 GDEX: Automatically finding good dictionary examples in a corpus. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2008, 425–432. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell
2004 The Sketch Engine. In Geoffrey Williams & Sandra Vessier (eds.), Proceedings of EURALEX 2004, 105–115. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar
Kokkinakis, Dimitrios
2004 Reducing the effect of name explosion. In Proceedings of the LREC workshop: Beyond named entity recognition, semantic labelling for NLP tasks, 1–6. Lisbon: ELRA.Google Scholar
2012 Initial experiments of medication event extraction using frame semantics. In Scandinavian conference on health informatics, 41–47. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Kokkinakis, Dimitrios, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Karin Warmenius
2000 Annotating, disambiguating & automatically extending the coverage of the Swedish SIMPLE lexicon. In Proceedings of LREC 2000. Athens: ELRA.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro, Nuria Bel, Federica Busa, Nicoletta Calzolari, Elisabetta Gola, Monica Monachini, Antoine Ogonowski, Ivonne Peters, Wim Peters, Nilda Ruimy, Marta Villegas & Antonio Zampolli
2001 SIMPLE: a general framework for the development of multilingual lexicons. International Journal of Lexicography 13: 249–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
(ed.) 1993 English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Anna Ehrlemark & Rudolf Rydstedt
2018 Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish constructicon. In Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torrent (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 41–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moschitti, Alessandro, Paul Morarescu & Sanda M. Harabagiu
2003 Open domain information extraction via automatic semantic labeling. In Proceedings of FLAIRS 2003, 397–401. Florida: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, Johan Hall, Jens Nilsson, Atanas Chanev, Gülşen Eryığıt, Sandra Kübler, Svetoslav Marinov & Erwin Marsi
2007 MaltParser: A languageindependent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering 13(2): 95–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose
2013 Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17(1): 11–28.Google Scholar
Pilán, Ildikó, Elena Volodina & Richard Johansson
2013 Automatic selection of suitable sentences for language learning exercises. In Proceedings of EUROCALL 2013, 218–225. Évora: Research-publishing.net. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
(ed.) 1995 The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Kirk, Yuqi Si, Anshul Gandhi & Elmer V. Bernstam
2018 A FrameNet for cancer information in clinical narratives: Schema and annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2018, 272–279. Miyazaki: ELRA.Google Scholar
Roth, Michael & Anette Frank
2009 A NLG-based application for walking directions. In Proceedings of ACL/IJCNLP 2009: Software demonstrations, 37–40. Suntec: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk
2016 FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Research report. Berkeley: ICSI.Google Scholar
Saito, Hiroaki, Shunta Kuboya, Takaaki Sone, Hayato Tagami & Kyoko Ohara
2008 The Japanese FrameNet software tools. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, 1835–1838. Marrakech: ELRA.Google Scholar
Subirats, Carlos
2009 Spanish Framenet: A frame-semantic analysis of the Spanish lexicon. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. methods and applications, 135–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timpioni
2013 Behind the labels: Criteria for defining analytical categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas 17(1): 44–65.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Maria Margarida Martins Salomão, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Maucha Andrade Ganomal, Júlia Gonçalves, Bruno Pereira de Souza, Daniela Simões & Simone Rodrigues Peron-Corrêa
2014 Multilingual lexicographic annotation for domain-specific electronic dictionaries: the Copa 2014 FrameNet Brasil project. Constructions and Frames 6(1): 72–90.Google Scholar
Voionmaa, Kaarlo & Karin Friberg Heppin
2013 Use of support verbs in FrameNet annotations. In Proceedings of eLex 2013, 358–369. Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies.Google Scholar
Vossen, Piek & Christiane Fellbaum
2009 Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual WordNets. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 319–345. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar