Cover not available
Article published In:
Frames, constructions, and computation
Edited by Lars Borin, Gerard de Melo, Karin Friberg Heppin and Tiago Timponi Torrent
[Constructions and Frames 6:1] 2014
► pp. 9–33

Towards interlingual constructicography

On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish

 | University of Gothenburg
This article addresses the possibility of linking constructicon resources for different languages, in particular English and Swedish. The entries in Berkeley’s English constructicon have been compared to Swedish, with a focus on potential correspondences in a Swedish constructicon. In most cases, approximately corresponding Swedish constructions could be established, although typically with minor differences, often concerning grammatical markers. The closest equivalents are, typically, relatively general grammatical constructions, whereas constructions containing specific lexical elements tend to differ more. In order to link all corresponding constructions between the two resources, a combination of strategies seems to be required. Constructions with a referential meaning may be linked via FrameNet frames, while those with a more abstract grammatical function may be related in terms of their grammatical properties.
Keywords: FrameNet, lexicography, construction, constructicon, constructicography, correspondence, equivalence, Swedish, English, construction grammar
Published online: 19 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.02bak
References (36)
Adamska-Sałaciak, A. (2010). Examining equivalence. International Journal of Lexicography 23(4), 387–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkins, B. T. S., & Rundell, M. (2008). The Oxford guide to practical lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lyngfelt, B., Prentice, J., & Sköldberg, E. (2013). Automatic identification of construction candidates for a Swedish constructicon. Proceedings of the Workshop on Lexical Semantic Resources for NLP at NODALIDA 2013 ,May 22-24, 2013, Oslo, Norway (pp. 2-12). NEALT Proceedings Series 191 [URL]
Bassnett, S. (2002). Translation studies. (3rd ed.) London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2005). Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography 18(4), 445-478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010a). Comparing constructions across languages. In Boas 2010b (pp. 1–20).
Ed.) (2010b). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in press). Zur architektur einer konstruktionsbasierten grammatik der deutchen. In A. Ziem & A. Lasch (Eds.), Grammatik als Netzwerk von konstruktionen? Sprachliches wissen im fokus der konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Borin, L., Dannélls, D., Forsberg, M., Toporowska Gronostaj, M., & Kokkinakis, D. (2010). The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. 14th EURALEX International Congress (pp. 269–281). Leeuwarden: EURALEX.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Olsson, L.-J., & Uppström, J. (2012). The open lexical infrastructure of Språkbanken. Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 3598–3602). Istanbul. ELRA.
Colson, J-P. (2008). Cross-linguistic phraseological studies. An overview. In S. Granger & F. Meunier (Eds.), Phraseology. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 191–206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farø, K. (2004). Hvornår går man over åen efter vand? Idiomatiske ækvivalensproblemer i leksikografi og leksikologi. Med dansk og tysk som eksempel [When do you cross the river for water? Issues of idiomaticity and equivalence in lexicography and lexicology. The example of Danish and German]. LexicoNordica 111, 85–108.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1988). The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society 141, 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In E. Bernal & J. DeCesaris (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress (pp. 49–68). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 641, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet constructicon. In H. C. Boas and I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based construction grammar (pp. 309–372). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fischer, O., van Kemenade, A., Koopman, W., & van der Wurff, W. (2000). The syntax of early English. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K., & Toporowska Gronostaj, M. (2012). The rocky road towards a Swedish FrameNet – Creating SweFN. In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2012) (pp. 256–261). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
this issue). Exploiting FrameNet for Swedish: Mismatch?
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2006). Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., & Del Giudice, A. (2005). Subject auxiliary inversion: A natural category. Linguistics Review 2(4), 411-428.Google Scholar
Hannesdóttir, A. H. (2012). Ekvivalensrelationer i tvåspråkig lexikografi [Equivalence relations in bilingual lexicography]. LexicoNordica 191, 39–58.Google Scholar
Korhonen, J. (2007). Probleme der kontrastiven Phraseologie. In H. Burger, et al.. (Eds.), Phraseology. An international handbook of contemporary research (Vol. 11.) (pp. 574-589). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Sköldberg, E., & Tingsell, S. (2012). Adding a constructicon to the Swedish resource network of Språkbanken. Proceedings of KONVENS 2012 (LexSem 2012 workshop) (pp. 452-461). Vienna. [URL]
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: BrillGoogle Scholar
1997). The molecular level of lexical semantics. International Journal of Lexicography, 10(4), 265–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara K. (2013). Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17(1): 11-27. [URL]Google Scholar
Padó, S. (2007). Translational equivalence and cross-lingual parallelism: The case of FrameNet frames. Proceedings of the NODALIDA workshop on building Frame Semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages . Tartu, Estonia.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, R. C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: extended theory and practice. ICSI, Berkeley. [URL].Google Scholar
Sköldberg, E., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lyngfelt, B., Olsson, L.‑J., Prentice, J., Rydstedt, R., Tingsell, S., & Uppström, J. (2013). Between grammars and dictionaries: a Swedish constructicon. Proceedings of eLex 2013 (pp. 310-327). Tallinn. [URL]
Svensén, B. (2009). A handbook of lexicography. The theory and practice of dictionary-making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., Tavares, T., & Matos, E. (this issue). Revisiting border conflicts between FrameNet and Construction Grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese constructicon.
Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J. (in press). Semantische frames und grammatische konstruktionen für die textanalyse. In J. Hagemann & S. Staffeld (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien. Vergleichende analysen. Tübingen: Staffenburg.
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Dannélls, Dana & Normunds Grūzītis
2021. Chapter 11. Computational representation of FrameNet for multilingual natural language generation. In The Swedish FrameNet++ [Natural Language Processing, 14], ► pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Ranta, Aarne, Krasimir Angelov, Normunds Gruzitis & Prasanth Kolachina
2020. Abstract Syntax as Interlingua: Scaling Up the Grammatical Framework from Controlled Languages to Robust Pipelines. Computational Linguistics 46:2 ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Boas, Hans C. & Alexander Ziem
2018. Chapter 7. Constructing a constructicon for German. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin
2018. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Anna Ehrlemark & Rudolf Rydstedt
2018. Chapter 3. Constructicography at work. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Lyngfelt, Benjamin, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Adrieli Laviola, Linnéa Bäckström, Anna Helga Hannesdóttir & Ely Edison da Silva Matos
2018. Chapter 9. Aligning constructicons across languages. In Constructicography [Constructional Approaches to Language, 22], ► pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
TORRENT, Tiago Timponi, Ludmila Meireles LAGE, Tatiane Silva TAVARES & Adrieli Bonjour LAVIOLA
2017. Relações de herança entre construções e entre frames: desafios da extensão do modelo construcionista para o domínio computacional no âmbito da FrameNet Brasil. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada 33:1 ► pp. 45 ff. DOI logo
Forsberg, Markus, Richard Johansson, Linnéa Bäckström, Lars Borin, Benjamin Lyngfelt, Joel Olofsson & Julia Prentice
2014. From construction candidates to constructicon entries. Constructions and Frames 6:1 ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo
Perek, Florent & Martin Hilpert
2014. Constructional tolerance. Constructions and Frames 6:2 ► pp. 266 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Frame-Constructional Verb Classes [Constructional Approaches to Language, 28], 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.