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. 139–166

Chapter 6
Swedish FrameNet++ and comparative linguistics

| University of Gothenburg
| Uppsala University
| University of Gothenburg
| University of CaliforniaSanta Barbara
In this chapter we describe a multilingual extension of Swedish FrameNet++, intended to address research questions of a broad comparative nature, in genealogical, areal and typological linguistics, focusing on the integration into Swedish FrameNet++ of so-called core vocabularies, used in several linguistic subfields in order to conduct massive comparative studies involving large numbers of languages. Specifically, we describe the inclusion of two such lexical databases covering several hundred South Asian languages, with the aim of investigating areal and genealogical connections among these languages.
Article outline
  • 1.The multilingual aspects of Swedish FrameNet++
  • 2.Core vocabularies for comparative linguistic studies
    • 2.1Basic vocabularies in linguistics
      • 2.1.1Semantic simplicity
      • 2.1.2Early acquisition/commonness/representativeness/frequency
      • 2.1.3Resistance to replacement
      • 2.1.4Related kinds of vocabularies
    • 2.2The composition and size of core vocabularies
      • 2.2.1The “words” of core vocabularies
      • 2.2.2Selecting core vocabulary concepts
      • 2.2.3Selecting core-vocabulary lexemes
      • 2.2.4Comparing core vocabularies
      • 2.2.5Conclusions
  • 3.Two lexical databases for investigation of South Asian linguistic diversity and unity
    • 3.1Linguistic diversity in South Asia
    • 3.2Grierson’s comparative vocabulary in Swedish FrameNet++
      • 3.2.1The Linguistic survey of India
      • 3.2.2The LSI comparative vocabulary
    • 3.3The Intercontinental Dictionary Series as a comparative linguistic research tool
      • 3.3.1A lexical basis for investigating the linguistic landscape of the indian Himalayas
      • 3.3.2The IDS – not just another Swadesh list
  • 4.Conclusion and future prospects
  • 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.14.06bor
References (79)
References
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
Baroni, Marco & Silvia Bernardini (eds.). 2006. Wacky! Working papers on the Web as Corpus. Online version: [URL]. Bologna: GEDIT.
Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars. 2012. Core vocabulary: A useful but mystical concept in some kinds of linguistics. In Diana Santos, Krister Lindén & Wanjiku Ng’ang’a (eds.), Shall we play the Festschrift game? Essays on the occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th birthday, 53–65. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Bernard Comrie & Anju Saxena. 2013. The Intercontinental Dictionary Series – a rich and principled database for language comparison. In Lars Borin & Anju Saxena (eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences, 285–302. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Leif-Jöran Olsson & Jonatan Uppström. 2012. The open lexical infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 3598–3602. Istanbul: ELRA.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
Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41(4): 977–990. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buck, Carl Darling. 1929. Words for world, earth and land, sun. Language 5(4): 215–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1949. A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal IndoEuropean languages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Justice (Sir George). 1866a. Appendix A: List of words and phrases to be noted and used as test words for the discovery of the radical affinities of languages, and for easy comparison. In Journal of the Asiatic Society. Special number: Ethnology, vol. XXXV, p. II, 201–203. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.Google Scholar
. 1866b. The ethnology of India. In Journal of the Asiatic Society. Special number: Ethnology, vol. XXXV, p. II, 1–152. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal.Google Scholar
Chiarcos, Christian, Sebastian Nordhoff & Sebastian Hellman (eds.). 2012. Linked data in linguistics: Representing and connecting language data and language metadata. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
COE. 2012. Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Dockum, Rikker & Claire Bowern. 2018. Swadesh lists are not long enough: Drawing phonological generalizations from limited data. In Peter K. Austin (ed.), Language documentation and description, vol 16, 35–54. London: EL Publishing.Google Scholar
Dolgopolsky, Aharon B. 1986. A probabilistic hypothesis concerning the oldest relationships among the language families in northern Eurasia. In Vitalij V. Shevoroshkin & Thomas L. Markey (eds.), Typology, relationship and time: A collection of papers on language change and relationship by Soviet linguists, 27–50. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2021. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. 24th edn. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karen. 2006. South Asia as a linguistic area. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of languages and linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emeneau, Murray. 1956. India as a linguistic area. Language 32: 3–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2011. Semantic typology. In Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, 504–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everaert, Martin, Simon Musgrave & Alexis Dimitriadis (eds.). 2009. The use of databases in cross-linguistic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane. 1998a. Introduction. In Christiane Fellbaum (ed.), WordNet: An electronic lexical database, 1–19. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1998b. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forsbom, Eva. 2006. A Swedish base vocabulary pool. In Proceedings of SLTC 2006. [URL]. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.
Georg, Stefan. 2017. Other isolated languages of Asia. In Lyle Campbell (ed.), Language isolates, 139–161. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 2001. Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology 5: 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2008. Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Semantic primes, semantic molecules, semantic templates: Key concepts in the NSM approach to lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3): 711–743. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Robert Blust & Russell D. Gray. 2008. The Austronesian basic vocabulary database: From bioinformatics to lexomics. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 2008(4): 271–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grierson, George A. 1903–1927. A linguistic survey of India. Vol. I–XI. Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch.Google Scholar
Gustafson-Capková, Sofia & Britt Hartmann. 2006. Manual of the Stockholm Umeå Corpus version 2.0. Stockholm University, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2020. Glottolog 4.3. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Uri Tadmor (eds.). 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holman, Eric W., Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Viveka Velupillai, André Müller & Dik Bakker. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 331–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Chu-ren, Nicoletta Calzolari, Aldo Gangemi, Alessandro Lenci, Alessandro Oltramari & Laurent Prevot (eds.). 2010. Ontology and the lexicon: A natural language processing perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Chad K. McDaniel. 1978. The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Language 54(3): 610–646. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Frieda Charalabopoulou, Maria Gavrilidou, Janne Bondi Johan nessen, Saussan Khalil, Sofie Johansson Kokkinakis, Robert Lew, Serge Sharoff, Ravikiran Vadlapudi & Elena Volodina. 2014. Corpus-based vocabulary lists for language learners for nine languages. Language Resources and Evaluation 48: 121–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2012. New directions in lexical typology. Linguistics 50(3): 373–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Tobias. 2014. A survey and classification of controlled natural languages. Computational Linguistics 40(1): 121–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The controlled natural language of Randall Munroe’s Thing explainer. In Proceedings of CNL 2016, 102–110. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laming, Donald. 1957. Human judgment: The eye of the beholder. Andover: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2003. Language and mind: Let’s get the issues straight! In Dedre Gentner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought, 25–46. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, William D. & Fei Xia. 2010. Developing ODIN: A multilingual repository of annotated language data for hundreds of the world’s languages. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(3): 303–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torrent (eds.). 2018. Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malm, Per, Shafqat Virk, Lars Borin & Anju Saxena. 2018. LingFN: Towards a framenet for the linguistics domain. In Proceedings of the International FrameNet workshop at LREC 2018: Multilingual framenets and constructicons, 37–43. Miyazaki: ELRA.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., Mihai Surdeanu, John Bauer, Jenny Finkel, Steven J. Bethard & David McClosky. 2014. The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In Proceedings of ACL 2014, 55–60. Baltimore: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Jeanette Sakel (eds.). 2007. Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milton, James. 2009. Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John (ed.). 1998. Linguistic databases. Palo Alto: CSLI, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2003. Diversity and stability in language. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 283–310. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Charles K. 1930. Basic English: A general introduction with rules and grammar. London: Paul Treber & Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
Oswalt, Robert L. 1971. Towards the construction of a standard lexicostatistic list. Anthropological Linguistics 13(9): 421–434.Google Scholar
Saxena, Anju. Forthcoming. The linguistic landscape of the Indian Himalayas: Languages in Kinnaur. Leiden: Brill.
Saxena, Anju & Lars Borin. 2011. Dialect classification in the Himalayas: A computational approach. In Proceedings of Nodalida 2011, 307–310. Riga: NEALT.Google Scholar
. 2013. Carving Tibeto-Kanauri by its joints: Using basic vocabulary lists for genetic grouping of languages. In Lars Borin & Anju Saxena (eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences, 175–198. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slaska, Natalia. 2005. Lexicostatistics away from the armchair: Handling people, props and problems. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2): 221–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swadesh, Morris. 1948. The time value of linguistic diversity. In Paper presented at the Viking Fund supper conference for anthropologists. Abstract in part: Swadesh 1952: 454.Google Scholar
. 1950. Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics 16: 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1952. Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: With special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96(4): 452–463.Google Scholar
. 1955. Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating. International Journal of American Linguistics 21: 121–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, 55–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey. 2000. Linguistic areas and language history. In Dicky G. Gilbers, John Nerbonne & Jos Schaeken (eds.), Languages in contact, 311–327. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Michael Ellsworth, Collin F. Baker & Ely Edison da Silva Matos. 2018. The Multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the International FrameNet workshop 2018: Multilingual framenets and constructicons, 62–68. Miyazaki: ELRA.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2012. From contrastive linguistics to linguistic typology. Languages in Contrast 12(1): 69–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voice of America. 2009. VOA Special English word book a–z. Washington: Voice of America.Google Scholar
von Fintel, Kai & Lisa Matthewson. 2008. Universals in semantics. The Linguistic Review 25(1–2): 139–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren & Eric W. Holman. 2013. Languages with longer words have more lexical change. In Lars Borin & Anju Saxena (eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences, 249–281. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, Eric W. Holman & Cecil H. Brown. 2010. Sound symbolism in basic vocabulary. Entropy 12(4): 844–858. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren, André Müller & Viveka Velupillai. 2010. Homelands of the world’s language families: A quantitative approach. Diachronica 27(2): 247–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilks, Yorick. 2009. Ontotherapy, or how to stop worrying about what there is. In Nicolas Nicolov, Galia Angelova & Ruslan Mitkov (eds.), Recent advances in natural language processing V, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Hai. 2012. A critique of the controlled defining vocabulary in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. Lexikos 22: 367–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar