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. 197–232

FrameNet and FunGramKB

A comparison of two computational resources for semantic knowledge representation

| Universidad de La Rioja
| Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
This chapter presents a comparison between FunGramKB, a multipurpose lexico-conceptual base for Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems, and FrameNet, a lexical resource for English whose objective is to document the range of semantic and syntactic combinatory possibilities of each sense of a word. After providing the reader with an overview of the two resources under scrutiny, we address their similarities and differences by focusing on the following issues: (1) methodology; (2) information at the lexical and conceptual levels; (3) relations between frames and concepts; (4) information management; and (5) multilingualism. To illustrate this comparison, we analyze how the verb dry is represented in each project.
Published online: 1 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.150.08oyo
References (58)
References
Allen, James F. 1983. Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM 26(11): 832–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkins, Sue, Fillmore, Charles J. & Johnson, Christopher R. 2003. Lexicographic relevance: Selection information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 251–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Collin F., Fillmore, Charles J. & Lowe, John B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In COLING-ACL ’98 Proceedings of the Conference , 86–90. Montreal: Canada.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2005. From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In Semantik im Lexikon , Stefan Langer & Daniel Schnorbusch (eds), 129–160. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2009a. Recent trends in multilingual computational lexicography. In Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications , Hans C. Boas (ed.), 1–26. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009b. Semantic frames as interlingual representations. In Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications , Hans C. Boas (ed.), 59–100. Amsterdam: Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Linguistically relevant meaning elements of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 54–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. A frame semantic approach to syntactic alternations with build-verbs. In Morphosyntactic Alternations in English , Pilar Guerrero Medina (ed.), 207–234. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary . <[URL]> (September 2012).
Davies, Mark. The British National Corpus (BNC) <[URL]> (September 2012).
. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) <[URL]> (September 2012).
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar on Semantic Principles . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
English Cobuild Dictionary <[URL]> (September 2012).
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. Frame Semantics and the nature of language. In Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech , Stevan R. Harnad, Horst D. Steklis & Jane Lancaster (eds), 20–32. New York NY: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm , The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 11–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Beryl T. 1992. Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization , Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Kittay (eds), 75–102. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Johnson, Christopher R. & Petruck, Miriam R.L. 2003a. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Lee-Goldman, Russell R. & Rhodes, Russell. 2012. The FrameNet construction. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar , Hans C. Boas & Ivan Sag (eds), 283–299. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Petruck, Miriam R.L., Ruppenhofer, Josef & Wright, Abby. 2003b. FrameNet in action. The case of Attaching. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 297–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrido, Nazaret & Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2011. La modelación de conocimiento procedimental en FunGramKB. Anglogermánica Online 8: 106–120.Google Scholar
Guerra, Fátima & Sacramento, Elena. 2011. El modulo léxico de FunGramKB. Anglogermánica Online 8: 52–65.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar . London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Jiménez, Rocío & Luzondo, Alba. 2011. Building ontological meaning in a lexico-conceptual knowledge-base. Onomázein 23(1): 11–40.Google Scholar
Jiménez, Rocío & Pérez, María Beatriz. 2011. An account of selection restrictions in Role and Reference Grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 62: 99–122.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation . Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liddy, Elizabeth D. 2001. Natural language processing. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science , 2nd edn, Miriam A. Drake (ed.). New York NY: Marcel Decker.Google Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English . <[URL]/> (September 2012).
Mairal, Ricardo & Periñán, 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
2010a. Role and Reference Grammar and ontological engineering. In Los caminos de la lengua. Estudios en homenaje a Enrique Alcaraz Varó , José Luis Cifuentes, Adelina Gómez, Antonio Lillo, José Mateo & Francisco Yus (eds), 649–665. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.Google Scholar
2010b. Teoría lingüística y representación del conocimiento: Una discusión preliminar. In Tendencias en lingüística general y aplicada , Dolores García Padrón & María del Carmen Fumero Pérez (eds), 155–168. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo, Periñán, Carlos & Pérez, María Beatriz. 2012. La representación léxica. Hacia un enfoque ontológico. In El funcionalismo en la teoría lingüística. La Gramática del papel y la referencia. Introducción, avances y aplicaciones , Ricardo Mairal, Lilián Guerrero & Carlos González (eds), 85–102. Akal: Madrid.Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo & Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2009. Levels of description and explanation in meaning construction. In Deconstructing Constructions [Studies in Language Companion Series 107], Christopher Butler & Javier Martín Arista (eds), 153–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masolo, Claudio, Borgo, Stefano, Gangemi, Aldo, Guarino, Nicola & Oltramari, Alessandro. 2003. WonderWeb Deliverable D18: Ontology library. Technical report. Laboratory for Applied Ontology, ISTC-CNR.
Newman, John & Rice, Sally. 2005. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis , Stefan T. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), 225–260. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina,  Vieu, Laure,  Oltramari, Alessandro,  Borgo, Stefano & Alexandrov, Theodore. 2010. Data-driven and ontological analysis of FrameNet for Natural Language Reasoning. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10) , 3157–3164. Valletta, Malta.
Oxford Dictionaries . <[URL]> (September 2012).
Periñán, Carlos. 2013. A knowledge-engineering approach to the cognitive categorization of lexical meaning. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 85–104.Google Scholar
2013. Towards a model of constructional meaning for natural language understanding. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics: The Role of Constructions in Grammars [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Periñán, Carlos & Arcas, Francisco. 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
2007b. Deep semantics in an NLP knowledge base. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the Spanish Association for Artificial Intelligence , 279–288. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.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, Carlos & Mairal, Ricardo. 2009. Bringing Role and Reference Grammar to natural language understanding. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 43: 265–273.Google Scholar
2010. La gramática de COREL: Un lenguaje de representación conceptual. Onomázein 21: 11–45.Google Scholar
2011. The COHERENT methodology in FunGramKB. Onomázein 24(2): 13–33.Google Scholar
Petruck, Miriam R. L. 1996. Frame Semantics. In Handbook of Pragmatics , Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds), 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Procter, Paul (ed). 1978. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English . Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Rosca, Andreea. 2012. Bases for the Development of Ontological Semantics within the Conceptual Domains of Change and Possession. Implementations and Implications for the Lexico-Syntactic-Cognition Interface and the Development of Intelligent Agents. PhD dissertation, Universidad de La Rioja.
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. 2013. Meaning construction, meaning interpretation and formal expression in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Linking Constructions into Functional Linguistics. The Role of Constructions in RRG Grammars [Studies in Language Companion Series 145], Brian Nolan & Elke Diedrichsen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Mairal, Ricardo. 2008. Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica 42(2): 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco J. & Mairal, Ricardo. 2011. Constraints on syntactic alternations: Lexical-constructional subsumption in the Lexical Constructional Model. In Morphosyntacic Alternations in English , Pilar Guerrero (ed.), 62–82. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Ellsworth, Michael, Petruck, Miriam R.L., Johnson, Christopher R. & Scheffczyk, Jan. 2010. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice . <[URL]>
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
Velardi, Paola, Fasolo, Michela & Pazienza, María T. 1991. How to encode semantic knowledge: A method for meaning representation and computer aided acquisition. Computational Linguistics 17(2): 153–170.Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rof A. & Radvansky, Gabriel A. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123(2): 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar