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. 191–220

Chapter 8
Differing design decisions – comparing Swedish FrameNet to FrameNet

| HeppiLing AB

Creation of framenets for languages other than English based on Berkeley FrameNet has tested the hypothesis that semantic frames, to a certain extent, are language independent. This working hypothesis facilitated reuse of frames for new framenets, defining language specific frame evoking lemmas and annotating language specific sentences. The caveat is the bias towards creating what is possible, rather than typical, in a language. The reuse of frames allowed developing SweFN in a relatively short period of time. However, the goal to build a typical, not a possible Swedish framenet, necessitated some frame modifications.

This chapter provides a comparison between the English and Swedish framenets regarding semantic annotation and representation, and socio-cultural factors, including how differences forced modification of the original structure.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Differences
  • 3.Linking to a dictionary
  • 4.New frames for additional concepts
  • 5.Polysemy
    • 5.1Hyponymy relations
    • 5.2Regular polysemy and Guest_LUs
    • 5.3Diverse meaning potentials
    • 5.4Frame relations and potential meanings
    • 5.5Complex relations
    • 5.6Polysemy and Swedish FrameNet: Summing up
  • 6.Compounds
    • 6.1Non-compositional compounds
    • 6.2Compositional compounds
    • 6.3Partially transparent compounds
    • 6.4The constituent–affix cline
  • 7.Lexical incorporation of frame element
  • 8.Socio-cultural differences
  • 9.Conclusions
  • 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.14.08fri
References
Allén, Sture, Daniel Berg, Sture Berg, Martin Gellerstam, Louise Holmer, AnnKristin Hult, Susanne Lindstrand, Sven-Göran Malmgren Sven Lövfors, Christian Sjögreen, Emma Sköldberg, Lennart Tegnér & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj
(eds.) 2009 Svensk ordbok utgiven av svenska akademien. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Apresjan, Jurij D.
1974 Regular polysemy. Linguistics 12(142): 5–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkins, B. T.Sue & Michael Rundell
2008 The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bertoldi, Anderson & Rove Luiza de Oliveira Chishman
2011 The limits of using FrameNet frames to build a legal ontology. In Proceedings of joint IV seminar on ontology research in Brazil and VI international workshop on metamodels, ontologies and semantic technologies, 207–212. Aachen: CEUR-WS.org.Google Scholar
Blåberg, Olli
1988 A study of Swedish compounds. Research report. Umeå: Umeå University, Dept. of General Linguistics.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C.
(ed.) 2009 Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars & Markus Forsberg
2009 All in the family: A comparison of SALDO and WordNet. In Proceedings of the Nodalida 2009 workshop WordNets and other lexical semantic resources – between lexical semantics, lexicography, terminology and formal ontologies, 7–12. Odense: NEALT.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
Dura, Elzbieta
1998 Parsing words. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. (PhD thesis).
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., Christopher R. Johnson & Miriam R. L. Petruck
2003 Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Dana Dannélls
2015 Polysemy and questions of lumping or splitting in the construction of Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on semantic resources and semantic annotation for natural language processing and the digital humanities at Nodalida 2015, 12–20. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Håkan Friberg
2012 Using FrameNet in communicative language teaching. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2012, 640–647. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Miriam R. L. Petruck
2014 Encoding of compounds in Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of MWE 2014, 67–71. Gothenburg: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj
2014 Exploiting Frame-Net for Swedish: Mismatch? Constructions and Frames 6(1): 52–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Kaarlo Voionmaa
2012 Practical aspects of transferring the English Berkeley FrameNet to other languages. In Proceedings of SLTC 2012, 28–29. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
2013 Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Philip & Ian Hinchliffe
2003 Swedish: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam
1997 I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities 31(2): 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
2015 Semantics and pragmatics of argument alternations. Annual Review of Linguistics 1(1): 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lönneker-Rodman, Birte & Collin F. Baker
2009 The FrameNet model and its applications. Natural Language Engineering 15(3): 415–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Julia Prentice, Rudolf Rydstedt, Emma Sköldberg & Sofia Tingsell
2012 Adding a constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop), 452–461. Vienna: ÖGAI.Google Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose
2013 Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17(1): 11–28.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Bolette S., Sanni Nimb & Anna Braasch
2010 Merging specialist taxonomies and folk taxonomies in wordnets: A case study of plants, animals and foods in the Danish Wordnet. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, 3181–3186. Valletta: ELRA.Google 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
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
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Lexicalisation patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 1st edn., 36–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teleman, Ulf
1970 Om svenska ord. Lund: Gleerups.Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke
2007 Wordnets, framenets and corpus-based contrastive lexicology. In Proceedings of the Nodalida workshop FRAME 2007: Building frame semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages, 1–10. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1984 Cups and mugs: Lexicography and conceptual analysis. Australian Journal of Linguistics 4(2): 205–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
You, Liping & Kaiying Liu
2005 Building Chinese FrameNet database. In Proceedings of 2005 international conference on natural language processing and knowledge engineering, 301–306. Wuhan: IEEE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar