Cover not available
Part of
Language Processing and Grammars: The role of functionally oriented computational models
Edited by Brian Nolan and Carlos Periñán-Pascual
[Studies in Language Companion Series 150] 2014
► pp. 233–250

Exploring the thematic-frame mapping 
in FunGramKB

| Instituto de Lingüística Andrés Bello
| Universidad de La Laguna
FunGramKB (Functional Grammar Knowledge Base; Periñán and Arcas 2010a, 2010b; Periñán and Mairal 2010b) has three levels of knowledge representation (i.e. lexical, conceptual and grammatical). Conceptual modelling takes place within the Ontology, whereas the implementation of both the semantic and the constructional information of lexical units belongs to the lexical level. Both processes are designed to be completely independent within the knowledge base. Nevertheless, concept encoding and representation at the level of deep semantics and the semantic definitions of the predicates belonging to the lexicons of different languages are clearly intertwined. The objective of this paper is to analyse how the interaction of deep and shallow semantics takes place within this full-fledged knowledge base.
Published online: 1 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.09gar
References (19)
References
BNC (British National Corpus). <[URL]>
COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English). <[URL]>
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations . Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mairal Usón, Ricardo & Periñán Pascual, Carlos. 2009. The anatomy of the lexicon component within the framework of a conceptual knowledge base. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 22: 217–244.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos & Arcas Túnez, Francisco. 2004. Meaning postulates in a lexico-conceptual knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Databases and Expert Systems Applications , 38–42. Los Alamitos CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
2005. Microconceptual-knowledge spreading in FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 9th IASTED International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing , 239–244. Anaheim CA: ACTA Press.Google Scholar
2007a. Cognitive modules of an NLP knowledge base for language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 39: 197–204.Google Scholar
Periñán, Pascual Carlos & Arcas Túnez, Francisco. 2007b. Deep semantics in an NLP knowledge base. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence , 279–288. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos & Arcas Túnez, Francisco. 2008. Modelling OLIF frame with EAGLES/ISLE specifications: An interlingual approach. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 40: 9–16.Google Scholar
2010a. Ontological commitments in FunGramKB. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 44: 27–34.Google Scholar
2010b. The architecture of FunGramKB. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation , 2667–2674. Malta: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
2011. Introducción a FunGramKB. Anglogermánica Online 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Periñán Pascual, Carlos & Mairal Usón, Ricardo. 2010a. La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21: 11–45.Google Scholar
2010b. Tutorial de FunGramKB suite. <[URL]> and < [URL]>
2011. The COHERENT methodology in FunGramKB. Onomazéin 24(2): 13–33.Google Scholar
Procter, Paul (ed.). 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English . Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax, Structure, Meaning and Function . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WebCorp. <[URL]>