1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Constructicography
  4. Chapter

Chapter 5. Relations between frames and constructions

A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon

image of Chapter 5. Relations between frames and constructions

This chapter discusses relations between frames and constructions, based on the constructicon-building project within the Japanese FrameNet (JFN) project. The aims are: to clarify distinctions between a framenet lexicon and a constructicon; and to contribute to the on-going discussion on whether all constructions are “meaning-bearing.” I will argue that a framenet analysis involves annotating frame-based syntactic/semantic structures of words (simple words and multiwords), while a constructicon annotation pertains to describing the internal and external syntax/semantics of linguistic objects that have complex structures. While maintaining that all constructions are meaning-bearing, I will point out that meaning structures of some constructions may not involve frames and propose a frame-based classification of constructions. Finally, I will suggest that a constructicon annotation needs both semantic frames and interactional frames.

References

  1. Boas, H. C.
    (2010) The Syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. 24, 54–82. doi: 10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.03boa [Google Scholar]
  2. Evans, N. , & Watanabe, H.
    (2016) Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  3. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 35–55.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  5. (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]
  6. (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]
  7. (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]
  8. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Fillmore, C. J. , & Baker, C.
    (2010) A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In B. Heine , & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasegawa, Y.
    (1996) Toward a description of te-linkage in Japanese. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp. 55–75). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasegawa, Y. , Lee-Goldman, R. R. , Ohara, K. H. , Fujii, S. , & Fillmore, C. J.
    (2010) On expressing measurement and comparison in Japanese and English. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Construction Grammars (pp. 169–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.10.08has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.08has [Google Scholar]
  14. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jurafsky, D.
    (1991) An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation). Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ohara, K. H.
    (2013) Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas17(1), pp. 11–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2014) Relating Frames and Constructions in Japanese FrameNet. InProceedings of LREC 2014 (pp. 2474–2477). Reykjavík: ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (In Press). Internally headed relativization and its related constructions. In Y. Hasegawa Ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ohori, T.
    (2002) (In Japanese) Cognitive Linguistics. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ruppenhofer, J. , Ellsworth, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/the_book
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sköldberg, E. , Bäckström, L. , Borin, L. , Forsberg, M. , Lyngfelt, B. , Olsson, L. -J. , Prentice, J. , Rydstedt, R. , Tingsell, S. , & Uppström, J.
    (2013) Between Grammar and Dictionaries: a Swedish Constructicon. InProceedings of eLex 2013 (pp. 310–327). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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: 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Boas, H. C.
    (2010) The Syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics. 24, 54–82. doi: 10.1075/bjl.24.03boa
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.24.03boa [Google Scholar]
  2. Evans, N. , & Watanabe, H.
    (2016) Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.115
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.115 [Google Scholar]
  3. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings (pp. 373–400). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 14, 35–55.10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  5. (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]
  6. (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]
  7. (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]
  8. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone. Language64(3), 501–538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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]
  10. Fillmore, C. J. , & Baker, C.
    (2010) A Frames Approach to Semantic Analysis. In B. Heine , & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (pp. 313–340). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hasegawa, Y.
    (1996) Toward a description of te-linkage in Japanese. In M. Shibatani & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions (pp. 55–75). New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasegawa, Y. , Lee-Goldman, R. R. , Ohara, K. H. , Fujii, S. , & Fillmore, C. J.
    (2010) On expressing measurement and comparison in Japanese and English. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive Construction Grammars (pp. 169–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.10.08has
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.08has [Google Scholar]
  14. Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jurafsky, D.
    (1991) An On-line Computational Model of Human Sentence Interpretation: A Theory of the Representation and Use of Linguistic Knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation). Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ohara, K. H.
    (2013) Toward Constructicon Building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas17(1), pp. 11–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2014) Relating Frames and Constructions in Japanese FrameNet. InProceedings of LREC 2014 (pp. 2474–2477). Reykjavík: ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (In Press). Internally headed relativization and its related constructions. In Y. Hasegawa Ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Japanese Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Ohori, T.
    (2002) (In Japanese) Cognitive Linguistics. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ruppenhofer, J. , Ellsworth, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , Johnson, C. R. & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/the_book
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Sköldberg, E. , Bäckström, L. , Borin, L. , Forsberg, M. , Lyngfelt, B. , Olsson, L. -J. , Prentice, J. , Rydstedt, R. , Tingsell, S. , & Uppström, J.
    (2013) Between Grammar and Dictionaries: a Swedish Constructicon. InProceedings of eLex 2013 (pp. 310–327). Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 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: 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027263865-cal.22.05oha
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027263865-cal.22.05oha
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027263865
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error