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. 303–330

Chapter 12
Language learning and teaching with Swedish FrameNet++

Two examples

| University of Gothenburg
| University of Gothenburg
| University of Helsinki
| Norwegian Computing Center
| University of Gothenburg

This chapter describes and discusses the use of resources connected to Swedish FrameNet++ (SweFN++) in the context of the teaching and learning of language proficiency and grammatical analysis in Swedish. We illustrate the way in which different resources in the SweFN++ context can be useful for language pedagogy, by employing two examples, the Swedish Constructicon and a semantic role exercise on the intelligent computer assisted language learning (ICALL) platform Lärka. These resources make use of the infrastructure developed within SweFN++ in fundamentally different ways, which are discussed and compared. In addition, we discuss the possibilities for further development of the language pedagogical potential of SweFN++, both in relation to ICALL and to other types of resources and descriptive databases, like corpora, constructicons and framenets.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Language technology and language pedagogy
      • 1.1.1Framenets, digital lexical and constructionist resources and language pedagogy
      • 1.1.2Language teaching and ICALL
  • 2.Using resources within SweFN++ for learning and teaching language proficiency and grammatical analysis
    • 2.1The Swedish constructicon as a pedagogical resource
    • 2.2Exploring the usefulness of SweCcn and construction grammar for the teaching of Swedish as a second language
    • 2.3Pattern finding
    • 2.4Type case
    • 2.5Applying construction-based L2-teaching in the classroom – two small-scale studies
    • 2.6SweFN for learning linguistic analysis – semantic roles in Lärka
  • 3.Developing the language pedagogical potential within SweFN++
  • 4.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.14.12pre
References (56)
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
Alfter, David, Lars Borin, Ildikó Pilán, Therese Lindström Tiedemann & Elena Volodina
2019 Lärka: from language learning platform to infrastructure for research on language learning. In Selected papers from the CLARIN Annual Conference 2018, 1–14. Linköping: LiU EP.Google Scholar
Alfter, David & Elena Volodina
2018 Towards single word lexical complexity prediction. In Proceedings of BEA 2018, 79–88. New Orleans: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amaral, Luiz A. & Detmar Meurers
2011 On using intelligent computer-assisted language learning in real-life foreign language teaching and learning. ReCALL 23(1): 4–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atzler, Judith Kerstin
2011 Twist in the list: Frame semantics as vocabulary teaching and learning tool. The University of Texas at Austin. (PhD thesis).
Boas, Hans C. & Ryan Dux
2013 Semantic frames for foreign language education: Towards a German frame-based online dictionary. Veredas 17(1): 82–100.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Ryan Dux & Alexander Ziem
2016 Frames and constructions in an online learner’s dictionary of German. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar, 303–326. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C., Benjamin Lyngfelt & Tiago Timponi Torrent
2019 Framing constructicography. Lexicographica 35(1): 41–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars
2002 Where will the standards for intelligent computer-assisted language learning come from? In Proceedings of the LREC workshop on international standards of terminology and language resources management, 61–68. Las Palmas: ELRA.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Dana Dannélls, Markus Forsberg, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Dimitrios Kokkinakis
2010 Swedish FrameNet++. In Proceedings of SLTC 2010, 5–6. Linköping: Linköping University.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Martin Hammarstedt, Dan Rosén, Roland Schäfer & Anne Schumacher
2016 Sparv: Språkbanken’s corpus annotation pipeline infrastructure. In Proceedings of SLTC 2016, 17–18. Umeå: Umeå University.Google 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
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casenhiser, Devin & Adele E. Goldberg
2005 Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental science 8(6): 500–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Tom
1997 Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25(3): 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, Andy
2007 Getting to ‘know’ connectors? Evaluating data-driven learning in a writing skills course. Language and Computers 61(1): 267–287.Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, Anna
2014 Ramar och konstruktioner – en kärlekshistoria [Frames and constructions – a love story]. University of Gothenburg. (MA thesis).
Fillmore, Charles J.
1988 The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. In Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 1988, 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1968 The case for case. In Emmon Bach & Robert Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
1982 Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
François, Thomas & Cédrick Fairon
2012 An “AI readability” formula for French as a foreign language. In Proceedings of EMNLP/CoNLL 2012, 466–477. Jeju: ACL.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
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
Goldberg, Adele E.
2013 Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Håkansson, Camilla, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Matilda Brasch
2019 Typfall och mönsterigenkänning. In Svenskans beskrivning 36, 107–118. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Heift, Trude & Mathias Schulze
2007 Errors and intelligence in computer-assisted language learning: Parsers and pedagogues. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heilman, Michael, Le Zhao, Juan Pino & Maxine Eskenazi
2008 Retrieval of reading materials for vocabulary and reading practice. In Proceedings of BEA 2008, 80–88. Columbus: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, Randal
2010 A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48(4): 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hovy, Eduard & Julia Lavid
2010 Towards a ‘science’of corpus annotation: A new methodological challenge for corpus linguistics. International Journal of Translation 22(1): 13–36.Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A., Olga Lyashevskaya, Tore Nesset, Ekaterina Rakhilina & Francis M. Tyers
2018 A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torrent (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 165–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel & James H. Martin
2009 Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lindström Tiedemann, Therese, Elena Volodina & Håkan Jansson
2016 Lärka: Ett verktyg för träning av språkterminologi och grammatik [Lärka: A tool for linguistic terminology and grammar training]. LexicoNordica 23: 161–181.Google Scholar
Litkowski, Ken
2010 CLR: Linking events and their participants in discourse using a comprehensive FrameNet dictionary. In Proceedings of SemEval 2010, 300–303. Uppsala: ACL.Google Scholar
Loenheim, Lisa, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Joel Olofsson, Julia Prentice & Sofia Tingsell
2016 Constructicography meets (second) language education: On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar, 327–355. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torrent
(eds.) 2018 Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018 Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara & Tiago Timponi Torrent (eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 255–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurers, Detmar, Ramon Ziai, Luiz Amaral, Adriane Boyd, Aleksandar Dimitrov, Vanessa Metcalf & Niels Ott
2010 Enhancing authentic web pages for language learners. In Proceedings of BEA 2010, 10–18. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Miltsakaki, Eleni & Audrey Troutt
2008 Real-time web text classification and analysis of reading difficulty. In Proceedings of BEA 2008, 89–97. New Orleans: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, Pamela
1997 Micro-and macrolinguistics for natural language processing. In Anne Wichmann & Steven Fligelstone (eds.), Teaching and language corpora, 175–185. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pilán, Ildikó & Elena Volodina
2014 Reusing Swedish FrameNet for training semantic roles. In Proceedings of LREC 2014, 1359–1363. Reykjavik: ELRA.Google Scholar
Prentice, Julia & Benjamin Lyngfelt
2016 Det svenska konstruktikonet: språkpedagogiska tillämpningar och integrering med andra resurser [The Swedish constructicon: Applications to language pedagogy and integration with other resources]. LexicoNordica (23): 119–137.Google Scholar
Prentice, Julia & Sofia Tingsell
2019 Inlärningsfokus i det svenska konstruktikonet. In Svenskans beskrivning 36, 231–242. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Römer, Ute
2011 Corpus research applications in second language teaching. Annual review of applied linguistics 31: 205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salesky, Elizabeth & Wade Shen
2014 Exploiting morphological, grammatical, and semantic correlates for improved text difficulty assessment. In Proceedings of BEA 2014, 155–162. Baltimore: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson
1999 Svenska Akademiens grammatik [The Swedish Academy grammar]. Stockholm: Norstedts.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003 Constructing a language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Volodina, Elena, Lars Borin, Hrafn Loftsson, Birna Arnbjörnsdóttir & Guðmundur Örn Leifsson
2012 Waste not, want not: Towards a system architecture for ICALL based on NLP component re-use. In Proceedings of NLP4CALL 2012, 47–58. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Volodina, Elena, Dijana Pijetlovic, Ildiko Pilán & Sofie Johansson Kokkinakis
2013 Towards a gold standard for Swedish CEFR-based ICALL. In Proceedings of NLP4CALL 2013, 48–65. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Volodina, Elena, Ildikó Pilán, Lars Borin & Therese Lindström Tiedemann
2014 A flexible language learning platform based on language resources and web services. In Proceedings of LREC 2014, 3973–3978. Reykjavik: ELRA.Google Scholar
Wee, Lionel
2007 Construction grammar and English language teaching. Indonesian JELT 3(1): 20–32.Google Scholar
Wilson, Eve
1997 The automatic generation of CALL exercises from general corpora. In Anne Wichmann & Steven Fligelstone (eds.), Teaching and language corpora, 116–130. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xia, Menglin, Ekaterina Kochmar & Ted Briscoe
2016 Text readability assessment for second language learners. In Proceedings of BEA 2016, 12–22. San Diego: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander, Johanna Flick & Phillip Sandkühler
2019 The German constructicon project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica 35(1): 15–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

Coussé, Evie, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt & Julia Prentice
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages [Constructional Approaches to Language, 37], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. 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.