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
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

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 28 march 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.