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. 169–190

Chapter 7
NLP for resource building

| University of Gothenburg
We evaluate several lexicon-based and corpus-based methods to automatically induce new lexical units for Swedish FrameNet, and we see that the best-performing setup uses a combination of both types of methods. A particular challenge for Swedish is the absence of a lexical resource such as WordNet; however, we show that the semantic network Saldo, which is organized according to lexicographical principles quite different from those of WordNet, is very useful for our purposes.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Frame semantics and frame-semantic lexicons
  • 2.Computational representation of the meaning of words
    • 2.1The semantic network Saldo
    • 2.2Semantic representations induced from corpora
      • 2.2.1Word representations from a class-based n-gram model
      • 2.2.2Geometric word representations from co-occurrences
      • 2.2.3Geometric representations from contextual classifiers
  • 3.From word meaning to frame meaning
    • 3.1Methods based on distance and similarity measures
    • 3.2Classification-based methods
      • 3.2.1Representing the meaning of a word using Saldo
  • 4.Quantitative evaluation
    • 4.1Evaluation metrics
    • 4.2Which way is the best to make use of the Saldo lexicon?
    • 4.3Which corpus-based semantic representations are most effective?
    • 4.4Combining lexicon-based and corpus-based classifiers
    • 4.5For which frames are our methods successful?
    • 4.6Use by lexicographers
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • 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.14.07joh
References (33)
References
Blanchard, Emmanuel, Mounira Harzallah, Henri Briand & Pascale Kuntz. 2005. A typology of ontology-based semantic measures. In EMOI-INTEROP 2005: Proceedings. Aachen: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. (ed.). 2009. Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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 & Lennart Lönngren. 2013. SALDO: A touch of yin to WordNet’s yang. Language Resources and Evaluation 47(4): 1191–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Peter F., Peter V. deSouza, Robert L. Mercer, Vincent J. Della Pietra & Jenifer C. Lai. 1992. Class-based n-gram models of natural language. Computational Linguistics 18(4): 467–479.Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Marco Pennacchiotti, Stefan Thater & Manfred Pinkal. 2009. Assessing the impact of frame semantics on textual entailment. Natural Language Engineering 15: 527–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Das, Dipanjan & Noah A. Smith. 2011. Semi-supervised frame-semantic parsing for unknown predicates. In Proceedings of ACL/HLT 2011, 1435–1444. Portland: ACL.Google Scholar
. 2012. Graph-based lexicon expansion with sparsity-inducing penalties. In Proceedings of NAACL/HLT 2012, 677–687. Montréal: ACL.Google Scholar
Fan, Rong-En, Kai-Wei Chang, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Xiang-Rui Wang & Chih-Jen Lin. 2008. Liblinear: A library for large linear classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9: 1871–1874.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge: Bradford Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1954. Distributional structure. Word 10(23): 146–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johansson, Richard. 2012. Non-atomic classification to improve a semantic role labeler for a low-resource language. In Proceedings of *SEM 2012, 95–99. Montréal: 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
Johansson, Richard & Pierre Nugues. 2006. A FrameNet-based semantic role labeler for Swedish. In Proceedings of Coling/ACL 2006, 436–443. Sydney: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007a. LTH: Semantic structure extraction using nonprojective dependency trees. In Proceedings of SemEval 2007, 227–230. Prague: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. Using WordNet to extend FrameNet coverage. In Proceedings of the Nodalida workshop FRAME 2007: Building frame semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages, 27–30. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Kanerva, Pentti, Jan Kristoffersson & Anders Holst. 2000. Random indexing of text samples for latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 103–106. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Koo, Terry, Xavier Carreras & Michael Collins. 2008. Simple semi-supervised dependency parsing. In Proceedings of ACL/HLT 2008, 595–603. Columbus: ACL.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., Prabhakar Raghavan & Hinrich Schütze. 2008. Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, Tomáš, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado & Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In Proceedings of ICLR 2013: Workshop track. Scottsdale.Google Scholar
Mikolov, Tomáš, Wen-tau Yih & Geoffrey Zweig. 2013. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Proceedings of NAACL/HLT 2013, 746–751. Atlanta: ACL.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Saif & Graeme Hirst. 2012. Distributional measures of semantic distance: a survey. CoRR abs/1203.1858.Google Scholar
Padó, Sebastian. 2007. Cross-lingual annotation projection models for role-semantic information. Saarland University. (PhD thesis).
Palmer, Alexis & Caroline Sporleder. 2010. Evaluating FrameNet-style semantic parsing: the role of coverage gaps in FrameNet. In Proceedings of Coling 2010: Posters, 928–936. Beijing: ACL.Google Scholar
Pennacchiotti, Marco, Diego De Cao, Roberto Basili, Danilo Croce & Michael Roth. 2008. Automatic induction of FrameNet lexical units. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2008, 457–465. Honolulu: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rada, R., H. Mili, E. Bicknell & M. Blettner. 1989. Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 19: 17–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tonelli, Sara, Claudio Giuliano & Kateryna Tymoshenko. 2013. Wikipedia-based WSD for multilingual frame annotation. Artificial Intelligence 194: 203–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turian, Joseph, Lev-Arie Ratinov & Yoshua Bengio. 2010. Word representations: a simple and general method for semi-supervised learning. In Proceedings of ACL 2010, 384–394. Uppsala: ACL.Google Scholar
Velldal, Erik. 2011. Random indexing re-hashed. In Proceedings of Nodalida 2011, 224–229. Riga: NEALT.Google Scholar