Cover not available
Part of
Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages
Edited by Benjamin Lyngfelt, Lars Borin, Kyoko Ohara and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructional Approaches to Language 22] 2018
► pp. 107–140

Chapter 4
Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil

This chapter presents the theoretical discussion, analytical procedures, and corresponding computational implementations carried out by FrameNet Brasil to take the principle of the continuity between grammar and the lexicon to the computational domain by deeply integrating two frame-based resources under development for Brazilian Portuguese: a lexicon and a constructicon. To achieve this goal, we start by discussing the continuity principle in the Construction Grammar paradigm, that is, the founding idea that both the lexicon and what is usually referred to in most traditions as grammar can be accounted for in terms of constructions. After, we present the computational solutions that led to the development of a new common database structure for the FrameNet Brasil Lexicon and Construction: FN-Br 2.0. Finally, we present the analyses of two constructions in Brazilian Portuguese: the Dative with Infinitive Construction, which illustrates currently available features of FN-Br 2.0, and the Inceptive Aspect Construction, which imposes a series of new challenges to the model.
Keywords: FrameNet Brasil, constructicon, lexicon, database structure, construction-to-construction relations, construction-to-frame relations
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.FrameNet Brasil
    • 2.1The FN-Br lexicon
    • 2.2The FN-Br constructicon
  • 3.Modeling the continuity between grammar and the lexicon
    • 3.1Requirements for modeling the continuity between grammar and the lexicon
    • 3.2FN-Br 2.0
  • 4.Sample analyses
    • 4.1The dative with infinitive construction
      • 4.1.1Constructions may evoke frames
      • 4.1.2Constructions may inherit from other constructions
    • 4.2The inceptive aspect construction
      • 4.2.1Constructions specify slot-filling constraints
      • 4.2.2Constructions may instantiate metaphors
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • 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: 17 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.04tor
References (38)
References
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Cronin, B. (2003). The structure of the FrameNet database. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 281–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. & Chang, N. (2005). Embodied Construction Grammar in Simulation-Based Language Understanding. In J. -O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions (pp.147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Embodied Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.168–190). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bryant, J. E. (2008). Best-fit Constructional Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation in Computer Sciences. University of California Berkeley. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Costa, A. D., & Torrent, T. T. (2017). A Modelagem Computacional do Domínio dos Esportes na FrameNet Brasil [The Computational Modeling of the Sports Domain in FrameNet Brasil)]. In Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium in Information and Human Language Technology (pp.201–208 ). Uberlândia: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia.Google Scholar
Dodge, E. K. (2010). Constructional and Conceptual Composition. Ph.D. Dissertation in Linguistics. University of California Berkeley. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Elmasri, R. & Navathe, S. (2010). Fundamentals of Database systems. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp.1–89 ). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
(1977). The Case for Case Reopened. In P. Cole & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations (pp.59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1999). Inversion and Constructional Inheritance. In G. Webelhuth, J. P. Koenig & A. Kathol (Eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation (pp.113–128). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2007). Valency Issues in FrameNet. In T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues (pp.129–160). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2013). Berkeley Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.111–132). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a Frame-Based Lexicon: the Semantics of RISK and its Neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts (pp.75–102). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let al.ne. Language 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In H. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.309–372). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Petruck, M. R. L., Ruppenhofer, J. & Wright, A. (2003). FrameNet in Action: The Case of Attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3), 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. (1991). On some principles on grammaticalization. In E. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. I (pp.17–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Argument Structure Constructions and The Argument-Adjunct Distinction. In M. Fried & H. Boas (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (pp.71–98). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). The Limits of (Construction) Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.32–48). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language 75, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lage, L. M. (2013). Frames e construções: A implementação do constructicon na FrameNet Brasil. [Frames and constructions: The implementation of the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil]. M. A. Thesis in Linguistics. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1979). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: a basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviola, A. B. (2015). Construções em Contraste: uma Análise Comparativa Português-Inglês no Tangente à Implementação de Constructicons. [Constructions in Contrast: a Portuguese-English Comparative Analysis Regarding the Implementation of Constructicons]. M.A. Thesis in Linguistics. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora. Juiz de Fora.
Miranda, N. S. & Salomão, M. M. M. (2008). Construções do Português do Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Editora da UFMG.Google Scholar
Paiva, V. M. R. L., & Torrent, T. T. (2017). Uma Proposta Metodológica para a Categorização Automatizada de Atrações Turísticas a partir de Comentários de Usuários em Plataformas Online [A Methodological Proposition for the Automatic Categorization of Touristic Attractions from User Comments in Online Platforms]. In Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium in Information and Human Language Technology (pp.232–239). Uberlândia: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia.Google Scholar
Ruppenhoffer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: ICSI, available at: [URL].Google Scholar
Sigiliano, N. S. (2011). Persistência e Extensão na Construção Inceptiva em [V1fin (PREP) V2inf] do Português [Persistence and Extension in the [V1fin (PREP) V2 inf] Inceptive Construction in Portuguese]. Letras & Letras, 27(1).Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2001). Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vol. I. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T. (2009). A Rede de Construções em Para (SN) Infinitivo: Uma Abordagem Centrada no Uso para As Relações de Herança e Mudança Construcionais. [The Para (NP) Infinitive Construction Network: a Usage-Based Approach to Construction Inheritance and Change]. Ph. D. Dissertation in Linguistics. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro.Google Scholar
(2015). On The Relation Between Inheritance and Change: The Constructional Convergence and The Construction Network Reconfiguration Hypotheses. In J. Bardđal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp.175–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T. & Ellsworth, M. J. (2013). Behind the Labels: Criteria for Defining Analytical Categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas 17(1), 44–65.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T. S., & Matos, E. E. S. (2014). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese Constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Salomão, M. M. M., Matos, E. E. S., Gamonal, M. A., Gonçalves, J., Souza, B. C., Gomes, D. S. & Peron-Correa, S. R. (2014). Multilingual Lexicographic Annotation for Domain-Specific Electronic Dictionaries. Constructions and Frames 6(1), 73–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Salomão, M. M. M., Campos, F. A., Braga, R. M., Matos, E. E. S., Gamonal, M. A., Gonçalves, J., Souza, B. C., Gomes, D. S. & Peron-Correa, S. R. (2014). Copa 2014 FrameNet Brasil. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp.10–14). Dublin: Dublin City University.
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Alexandre Diniz da Costa, Maucha Andrade Gamonal, Simone Peron-Corrêa & Vanessa Maria Ramos Lopes Paiva
2024. A flexible tool for a qualia-enriched FrameNet: the FrameNet Brasil WebTool. Language Resources and Evaluation DOI logo
Czulo, Oliver, Alexander Willich, Alexander Ziem & Tiago T. Torrent
2023. A multilingual approach to the interaction between frames and constructions. Constructions and Frames 15:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Patel, Malin, Armine Garibyan, Elodie Winckel & Stephanie Evert
2023. A reference constructicon as a database. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 11:1 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Frederico Belcavello, Marcelo Viridiano, Maucha Andrade Gamonal, Alexandre Diniz da Costa & Mateus Coutinho Marim
2022. Representing Context in FrameNet: A Multidimensional, Multimodal Approach. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Marção, Natália Duarte & Tiago Timponi Torrent
2021. Modelagem de construções de pretérito imperfeito. Cadernos de Linguística 2:3 ► pp. e420 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas
2020. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. Constructions and Frames 12:1 ► pp. 56 ff. DOI logo
Herbst, Thomas
2022. Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language. In Construction Grammar across Borders [Benjamins Current Topics, 122], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2018. Construction Grammar and language contact. In Constructions in Contact [Constructional Approaches to Language, 24], ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 november 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.