Abstract
The Berkeley FrameNet project aims at implementing Fillmore’s Frame Semantics program on a broad empirical basis. The syntactic environments of words in corpora are systematically aligned with the semantic frames evoked by the words. It is Fillmore’s vision that such a collection of valency data can pave the way for an empirically grounded theory of the syntax-semantics interface. In this article, we examine to what extent this goal can be achieved by the FrameNet approach in its present form. We take a close look at verbs of cutting and separation and at the representation of events and results in the latest FrameNet version. Our investigation reveals a certain lack of systematicity in the definition of frames and frame relations, which may hinder the derivation of linking generalizations. This situation seems to be partly due to the expectation that a system of frames can be developed on a data-driven, purely bottom-up account. As a possible solution, we argue for a richer frame representation which systematically takes into account the inner structure of an event and thereby inherently captures structural relations between frames.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is worth mentioning that FrameNet has gained some popularity among computational linguists as a lexical semantic resource in systems for textual inference and the like. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most current natural language understanding systems combine various, often statistically trained processing components and are in need of any kind of information about lexical semantic classes and possible paraphrases.
- 2.
A good part of the FrameNet data has been gathered by full text annotation (Ruppenhofer et al. to appear), which is a particularly demanding and, hence, error-prone task.
- 3.
Similarly, Fillmore and Baker (2010, p. 317): “In Frame Semantics, the meaning dimension is expressed in terms of the cognitive structures (frames) that shape speakers’ understanding of linguistic expressions.”
- 4.
The FrameNet annotations identify two further types of omissions of core frame elements, called definiteand indefinite null instantiations; cf. Fillmore (1986).
- 5.
The eighth relation is the ‘See also’ relation, which is used for cross-referencing purposes.
- 6.
Cf. Fillmore et al. (2001, p. 16): “Profiling […] is the presentation of the foregrounded part of a frame […] which figures centrally in the semantic interpretation of the sentence within which the frame is evoked.”
- 7.
But see Van Valin (1999, p. 387), where it is argued that buyand sellare not simple shifts of perspective.
- 8.
Although not shown in Fig. 6.2, the Getting frame is part of a similar change scenario. The easiest way to get an overview of the frame relations in FrameNet is to use the FrameGrapher tool available at the project website http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu. (Note that the online version might differ from the FN 1.5 release discussed here.)
- 9.
- 10.
In an earlier, more programmatic publication on the FrameNet project, one of its central goals is described as follows: “As much as possible, we wish to show that the particular valence profiles of individual words can often be best understood with reference to the multiple frames which enter into their semantic structure.” (Fillmore and Atkins 1998).
- 11.
Note that it is not the physicalistic notion of change which is relevant here. In the physical sense, progression of time is always accompanied by changes of state.
- 12.
As of January 25th, 2012, the frames Motion and Objective_Influence have been added to this list.
- 13.
‘X-schema’ is short for ‘executing schema’; cf., e.g., Chang et al. (2002)
- 14.
The frame-to-frame relations in the FrameNet database are subject to continuous revision; cf. Petruck et al. (2004).
- 15.
It is worth mentioning that the foundational upper-level ontology DOLCE (Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering; cf. Gangemi et al. 2002), which is used by Ovchinnikova et al. (2010) in their ontological analysis of FrameNet, basically follows Vendler’s (1957) Aktionsart typology in subdividing situations (“perdurants”) into events and statives, events further into accomplishments and achievements, and statives into states and processes.
- 16.
This distinction is similar to that between resultant states and target states proposed by Parsons (1990).
- 17.
The online version of the FrameNet database of January 25th, 2012, has Altered_phase renamed to Substance_by_phase, with the adjectives gaseousand liquidand the nouns gasand liquidadded, among others. The basic dichotomy between the two structures shown in Fig. 6.5nevertheless persists (not to mention the additional problem that the new name suggests that the frame should inherit from Substance and thereby from Physical_entity, which seems fully at odds with the structure shown in Fig. 6.4).
- 18.
See Levin and Rappaport Hovav (2005) for an overview.
- 19.
E.g., along the lines of Carpenter (1992).
- 20.
- 21.
Notice that this could lead to faulty inferences, given that the missing inchoative relation between Becoming_dry and Being_dry is added.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
The shaded Initand Lessercomponents are redundant if changes of state are always assumed to have an initial stage different from the result stage and if ‘zero’ is the minimal value of the degree of moisture scale.
- 25.
It remains to be seen whether the recent initiative of including frame bearing constructions into FrameNet (Fillmore et al. forthcoming) will be able to resolve these issues.
- 26.
This is even more surprising in view of the fact that some of the annotated example sentences associated with other verb units of the Cutting frame contain cutin the correct sense; witness (9).
- 27.
Consider, e.g., the following two Dictionary definitions for the relevant sense of chop: “cut (something) into pieces with repeated sharp blows of an axe or knife” (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd ed.); “to cut sth into pieces with a sharp tool such as a knife” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary).
- 28.
Note that there is a use of carve, as in he carved the roast into slices, that conforms to (8).
- 29.
Of course, only the pareclause of the coordination is relevant here.
- 30.
The restriction of the adjective to a postverbal position (*thick cut the meat) does not seem to preclude the resultative interpretation of the preverbal adverb in (10)g, but this point may need further investigation.
- 31.
- 32.
Levin (1993) defines a separate split-verb class with members break, cut, hack, kick, pull, rip, saw, split, and tear, among others. The verbs of this class occur also in other classes such as the break-verbs, the cut-verbs, and the push/pull-verbs. When used as split-verbs, these verbs are said to manifest “an extended sense which might be paraphrased ‘separating by V-ing’, where ‘V’ is the basic meaning of the verb” (Levin 1993, pp. 166f). Among the alternation patterns associated with this class is the “apartreciprocal alternation” as exemplified by I broke the twig off (of) the branchvs. I broke the twig and the branch apart. Note that the ‘apart’ pattern of this alternation requires a collective NP as object. The sentences I broke the twig apartand I cut the twig apart, by contrast, would count as unrelated evidence for the resultative phrase patterns of the break-verb class and the cut-verb class, respectively. (Cf. Baker and Ruppenhofer (2002) for a comparison between FrameNet frames and Levin’s verb classes.)
- 33.
The FN 1.5 definition of Separating shown in Table 6.7is deficient in not explicitly mentioning Part_1 and Part_2.
- 34.
For simplicity, we stick to FrameNet’s view that “apart” and “off” scenarios are perspectives of fragmentation scenarios, in spite of the problems mentioned in Sect. 6.4.1.
References
Atkins, B.T. Sue, Charles J. Fillmore, and Christopher R. Johnson. 2003. Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 251–280.
Baker, Collin F., and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2002. FrameNet’s frames vs. Levin’s verb classes. In Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society, Berkeley.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and contrasts, ed. Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bittner, Thomas, and Maureen Donnelly. 2004. The mereology of stages and persistent entities. In Proceedings of the 16th European conference on artificial intelligence, Valencia, ed. R. Lopez de Mantaras and L. Saitta, 283–287. IOS Press.
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2007. Morpholexical transparency and the argument structure of verbs of cutting and breaking. Cognitive Linguistics18(2): 153–177.
Bolinger, Dwight. 1971. The phrasal verb in English. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science, vol. 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chang, Nancy, Srini Narayanan, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2002. Putting frames in perspective. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING-2002), Taipei.
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and montague grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. Emmon Bach and Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 2006.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. In Berkeley linguistics society 12, Berkeley, 95–107.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2003. Valency and semantic roles: The concept of deep structure case. In Dependenz und Valenz/dependency and valency, ed. Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin, vol. 1, 457–475. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. In Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues, ed. Thomas Herbst and Katrin Götz-Votteler, 129–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Charles J., and B.T. Sue Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Frames, fields, and contrasts, ed. Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 74–102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, Charles J., and B.T. Sue Atkins. 1998. FrameNet and lexicographic relevance. In Proceedings of LREC 1998, Granada.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Collin Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, Charles J., and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. FrameNet glossary. International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 359–361.
Fillmore, Charles J., Christopher R. Johnson, and Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography16(3): 235–250.
Fillmore, Charles J., Russell R. Lee-Goldman, and Russell Rhodes. forthcoming. The FrameNet constructicon. In Sign-based construction grammar, ed. Hans Boas and Ivan Sag. Stanford: CSLI.
Fillmore, Charles J., Charles Wooters, and Collin F. Baker. 2001. Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. In Proceedings of the Pacific Asian conference on language, information and computation, Hong Kong.
Gangemi, Aldo, Nicola Guarino, Claudio Masolo, Alessandro Oltramari, Ro Oltramari, and Luc Schneider. 2002. Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on knowledge engineering and knowledge management. Ontologies and the semantic web, ed. Asunción Gómez-Pérez and V. Richard Benjamins. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 2473, 166–181. Berlin: Springer.
Guerssel, Mohamed, Kenneth Hale, Mary Laughren, Beth Levin, and Josie White Eagle. 1985. A crosslinguistic study of transitivity alternations. In Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting, Chicago, ed. Paul D. Kroeber and Karen L. Peterson, 48–63. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Im, Seohyun, and James Pustejovsky. 2010. Annotating lexically entailed subevents for textual inference tasks. In Proceedings of FLAIRS 2010, Daytona Beach, 204–209.
Kearns, Kate. 2007. Telic senses of deadjectival verbs. Lingua117: 26–66.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Beth Levin. 2008. Measure of change: The adjectival core of degree achievements. In Adjectives and adverbs. Syntax, semantics, and discourse, ed. Louise McNally and Christopher Kennedy, 156–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levin, Beth, and Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mairal Usón, Ricardo, and Pamela Faber. 2002. Functional grammar and lexical templates. In New perspectives on argument structure in functional grammar, ed. M.J. Perez Quintero, 39–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Majid, Asifa, Melissa Bowerman, Miriam van Staden, and James S. Boster. 2007. The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics18(2): 133–152.
Ovchinnikova, Ekaterina, Laure Vieu, Alessandro Oltramari, Stefano Borgo, and Theodore Alexandrov. 2010. Data-driven and ontological analysis of FrameNet for natural language reasoning. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Valletta, 3157–3164.
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge: MIT.
Petruck, Miriam R. L., Charles J. Fillmore, Collin F. Baker, Michael Ellsworth, and Josef Ruppenhofer. 2004. Reframing FrameNet data. In Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX international congress (EURALEX 2004), Lorient, ed. G. Williams and S. Vessier. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors, ed. Miriam Butt and Wilhelm Geuder, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI.
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin. 2010. Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Syntax, lexical semantics, and event structure, ed. Malka Rappaport Hovav, Edit Doron, and Ivy Sichel, 21–38. Oxford: Oxford Universitiy Press.
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Hand Boas, and Collin Baker. to appear. The FrameNet approach to relating syntax and semantics. In Dictionaries. An international encyclopedia of lexicography. supplementary volume: Recent developments with special focus on computational lexicography, ed. Rufus H. Gouws, Ulrich Heid, Wolfgang Scheickard, and Herbert Ernst Wiegand. Handbooks of linguistics and communication science. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, and Jan Scheffczyk. 2010. FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Manuscript, Version of September 14, 2010.
Scheffczyk, Jan, Collin F. Baker, and Srini Narayanan. 2010. Reasoning over natural language text by means of FrameNet and ontologies. In Ontology and the lexicon: A natural language processing perspective, ed. Chu-ren Huang, Nicoletta Calzolari, Aldo Gangemi, Alessandro Lenci, Alessandro Oltramari, and Laurent Prévot, 53–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sider, Theordore. 2001. Four-dimensionalism. An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford: Clarendon.
Van Valin, Robert D. 1999. Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. In Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics 2, ed. F. Corblin, C. Dobrovie-Sorin, and J.M. Marandin, 373–389. The Hague: Thesus.
Van Valin, Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D., and Randy J. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review66(2): 143–160.
Washio, Ryuichi. 1997. Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics6: 1–49.
Acknowledgements
The research presented here was supported by the Research Unit 600 “Functional Concepts and Frames” and the Collaborative Research Centre 991 “The Structure of Representations in Language, Cognition, and Science”, both funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We would like to thank Hans Boas, Jens Fleischhauer, Thomas Gamerschlag, Ulrich Heid, Josef Ruppenhofer, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Osswald, R., Van Valin, R.D. (2014). FrameNet, Frame Structure, and the Syntax-Semantics Interface. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds) Frames and Concept Types. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01540-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01541-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)