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. 37–66

Chapter 2
Swedish FrameNet

 | University of Gothenburg
 | University of Gothenburg
 | University of Gothenburg
 | HeppiLing AB
 | University of Gothenburg
This chapter describes the development of Swedish FrameNet. A new framenet project often follows one of two methodological approaches: (1) extension, through translation of a different-language – often English – framenet into the target language, and (2) merging, where the resource is built from scratch in the target language. Both approaches have their pros and cons, which have been extensively discussed in the literature. Swedish FrameNet is mainly developed through the extension approach, although balanced with the merging approach. Drawing on the two approaches simultaneously, we describe how integrated language resources and tools have been exploited to create and develop Swedish FrameNet: how it was constructed, what it contains, and the basic assumptions underlying the annotation of its contents.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Berkeley FrameNet
    • 1.2International framenets
  • 2.Framenet development methodologies
    • 2.1The extension approach
    • 2.2Merging approach
    • 2.3Modified and new frames
  • 3.Language resources and tools for building SweFN
  • 4.The SweFN database
    • 4.1Database fields
      • Name
      • BFN ID
      • SweCxn ID*
      • Definition
      • Semantic type*
      • Inheritance
      • Domain*
      • Core elements
      • Peripheral elements
      • Examples
      • Compound patterns*
      • Compound examples*
      • Lexical units
      • Suggestions for LUs*
      • Regular polysemy*
      • Berkeley-LUs
      • Created by
      • Comment and hidden comment*
      • Status
      • Modified
    • 4.2Annotation and encoding of the data
      • 4.2.1Encoding of lexical units
        • Indexing
        • Nesting
        • Discontinuity
        • Elliptical constructions
      • 4.2.2Encoding of nouns as targets
      • 4.2.3Encoding of verbs as targets
      • 4.2.4Encoding of frame elements
      • 4.2.5Encoding of prepositional phrases
      • 4.2.6Encoding of syntactically complex frame elements
        • Discontinuity
        • Coordinated and non-coordinated FEs
      • 4.2.7Encoding of compounds
        • Non-compositional, lexicalized compounds
        • Compositional compounds
        • Partially transparent compounds
        • Compound modifier as LU
      • 4.2.8Encoding of copula verbs, support words, etc.
    • 4.3Consistency checks and evaluation
  • 5.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.14.02dan
References (55)
References
Ahlberg, Malin, Lars Borin, Dana Dannélls, Markus Forsberg, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj, Karin Friberg Heppin, Richard Johansson, Dimitrios Kokkinakis, Leif-Jöran Olsson & Jonatan Uppström. 2014. Swedish FrameNet++: The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning. In Proceedings of SLTC 2014. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
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
Ahlberg, Malin, Lars Borin, Markus Forsberg, Olof Olsson, Anne Schumacher & Jonatan Uppström. 2016. Karp: Språkbanken’s open lexical infrastructure. In Globalex 2016 book of abstracts.Google Scholar
Alonso, Héctor Martínez, Bolette S. Pedersen & Núria Bel. 2013. Annotation of regular polysemy and underspecification. In Proceedings of ACL 2013, 725–730. Sofia: ACL.Google Scholar
Bick, Eckhard. 2009. DeepDict – a graphical corpus-based dictionary of word relations. In Kristiina Jokinen & Eckhard Bick (eds.), Proceedings of Nodalida 2009, 268–271. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Dana Dannélls, Markus Forsberg, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Dimitrios Kokkinakis. 2010. The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2010, 269–281. Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars & Markus Forsberg. 2010. Beyond the synset: Swesaurus – a fuzzy Swedish wordnet. Presentation at the workshop Re-thinking synonymy: Semantic sameness and similarity in languages and their description. Helsinki.
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Richard Johansson, Kristiina Muhonen, Tanja Purtonen & Kaarlo Voionmaa. 2012. Transferring frames: Utilization of linked lexical resources. In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT workshop on the Induction of linguistic structure, 8–15. Montrèal: ACL.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg & Lennart Lönngren. 2008. The hunting of the BLARK – SALDO, a freely available lexical database for Swedish language technology. In Joakim Nivre, Mats Dahllöf & Beáta Megyesi (eds.), Resourceful language technology: Festschrift in honor of Anna Sågvall Hein, 21–32. Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics & Philology.Google Scholar
. 2013. SALDO: A touch of yin to WordNet’s yang. Language Resources and Evaluation 47(4): 1191–1211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borin, Lars, Markus Forsberg, Leif-Jöran Olsson, Olof Olsson & Jonatan Uppström. 2013. The lexical editing system of Karp. In Proceedings of eLex 2013, 503–516. Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies.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
Borin, Lars, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Dimitrios Kokkinakis. 2007. Medical frames as target and tool. In Proceedings of the Nodalida workshop FRAME 2007: Building frame semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages, 11–18. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
Borin, Lars, Luis Nieto Piña & Richard Johansson. 2015. Here be dragons? The perils and promises of inter-resource lexical-semantic mapping. In Proceedings of the Workshop on semantic resources and semantic annotation for natural language processing and the digital humanities at Nodalida 2015, 1–11. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Burchardt, Aljoscha, Katrin Erk, Anette Frank, Andrea Kowalski, Sebastian Padó & Manfred Pinkal. 2009. FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation, representation and automation. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 209–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Church, Kenneth Ward & Patrick Hanks. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
Dannélls, Dana & Lars Borin. 2012. Toward language independent methodology for generating artwork descriptions – exploring FrameNet information. In Proceedings of LaTeCH 2012, 18–23. Avignon: ACL.Google Scholar
Dannélls, Dana, Karin Friberg Heppin & Anna Ehrlemark. 2014. Using language technology resources and tools to construct Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of the Workshop on lexical and grammatical resources for language processing, 8–17. Dublin: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dannélls, Dana, Karin Friberg Heppin & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj. 2011. Documentation for SweFN. University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Das, Dipanjan, Desai Chen, André F. T. Martins, Nathan Schneider & Noah A. Smith. 2014. Frame semantic parsing. Computational Linguistics 40(1): 9–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Collin Baker. 2009. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer & Abby Wright. 2003. FrameNet in action: The case of attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, John Rupert. 1957. Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forsberg, Markus. 2011. Green resources in plain sight: Opening up the SweFN++ project. In Proceedings of the Nodalida 2011 workshop Visibility and availability of LT resources. 7–10. Tartu: NEALT.Google Scholar
Friberg Heppin, Karin & Maria Toporowska Gronostaj. 2012. The rocky road towards a Swedish FrameNet – creating SweFN. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 256–261. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
. 2014. Exploiting FrameNet for Swedish: Mismatch? Constructions and Frames 6(1): 52–72. DOI logoGoogle 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
Halácsy, Péter, András Kornai & Csaba Oravecz. 2007. HunPos – an open source trigram tagger. In Proceedings of ACL 2007: Demo and poster sessions, 209–212. Prague: ACL.Google Scholar
Johansson, Richard, Karin Friberg Heppin & Dimitrios Kokkinakis. 2012. Semantic role labeling with the Swedish FrameNet. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, 3697–3700. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
Kann, Viggo & Magnus Rosell. 2006. Free construction of a free Swedish dictionary of synonyms. In Proceedings of Nodalida 2005, 105–110. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Miloś Husák, Katy McAdam, Michael Rundell & Pavel Rychlý. 2008. GDEX: Automatically finding good dictionary examples in a corpus. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2008, 425–432. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz & David Tugwell. 2004. The Sketch Engine. In Geoffrey Williams & Sandra Vessier (eds.), Proceedings of EURALEX 2004, 105–115. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.Google Scholar
Kokkinakis, Dimitrios. 2004. Reducing the effect of name explosion. In Proceedings of the LREC workshop: Beyond named entity recognition, semantic labelling for NLP tasks, 1–6. Lisbon: ELRA.Google Scholar
. 2012. Initial experiments of medication event extraction using frame semantics. In Scandinavian conference on health informatics, 41–47. Linköping: LiUEP.Google Scholar
Kokkinakis, Dimitrios, Maria Toporowska Gronostaj & Karin Warmenius. 2000. Annotating, disambiguating & automatically extending the coverage of the Swedish SIMPLE lexicon. In Proceedings of LREC 2000. Athens: ELRA.Google Scholar
Lenci, Alessandro, Nuria Bel, Federica Busa, Nicoletta Calzolari, Elisabetta Gola, Monica Monachini, Antoine Ogonowski, Ivonne Peters, Wim Peters, Nilda Ruimy, Marta Villegas & Antonio Zampolli. 2001. SIMPLE: a general framework for the development of multilingual lexicons. International Journal of Lexicography 13: 249–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth (ed.). 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google 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
Moschitti, Alessandro, Paul Morarescu & Sanda M. Harabagiu. 2003. Open domain information extraction via automatic semantic labeling. In Proceedings of FLAIRS 2003, 397–401. Florida: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, Johan Hall, Jens Nilsson, Atanas Chanev, Gülşen Eryığıt, Sandra Kübler, Svetoslav Marinov & Erwin Marsi. 2007. MaltParser: A languageindependent system for data-driven dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering 13(2): 95–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose. 2013. Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas 17(1): 11–28.Google Scholar
Pilán, Ildikó, Elena Volodina & Richard Johansson. 2013. Automatic selection of suitable sentences for language learning exercises. In Proceedings of EUROCALL 2013, 218–225. Évora: Research-publishing.net. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James (ed.). 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Kirk, Yuqi Si, Anshul Gandhi & Elmer V. Bernstam. 2018. A FrameNet for cancer information in clinical narratives: Schema and annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2018, 272–279. Miyazaki: ELRA.Google Scholar
Roth, Michael & Anette Frank. 2009. A NLG-based application for walking directions. In Proceedings of ACL/IJCNLP 2009: Software demonstrations, 37–40. Suntec: ACL. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, Collin F. Baker & Jan Scheffczyk. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Research report. Berkeley: ICSI.Google Scholar
Saito, Hiroaki, Shunta Kuboya, Takaaki Sone, Hayato Tagami & Kyoko Ohara. 2008. The Japanese FrameNet software tools. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, 1835–1838. Marrakech: ELRA.Google Scholar
Subirats, Carlos. 2009. Spanish Framenet: A frame-semantic analysis of the Spanish lexicon. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography. methods and applications, 135–162. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timpioni. 2013. Behind the labels: Criteria for defining analytical categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas 17(1): 44–65.Google Scholar
Torrent, Tiago Timponi, Maria Margarida Martins Salomão, Ely Edison da Silva Matos, Maucha Andrade Ganomal, Júlia Gonçalves, Bruno Pereira de Souza, Daniela Simões & Simone Rodrigues Peron-Corrêa. 2014. Multilingual lexicographic annotation for domain-specific electronic dictionaries: the Copa 2014 FrameNet Brasil project. Constructions and Frames 6(1): 72–90.Google Scholar
Voionmaa, Kaarlo & Karin Friberg Heppin. 2013. Use of support verbs in FrameNet annotations. In Proceedings of eLex 2013, 358–369. Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies.Google Scholar
Vossen, Piek & Christiane Fellbaum. 2009. Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual WordNets. In Hans C. Boas (ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications, 319–345. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar