Volume 10, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Characterizing paraphrases formally has proven to be a challenging task. Hasegawa et al. (2011) pointed out the usefulness of FrameNet for paraphrase research, focusing on paraphrases which are backed by underlying classical linguistic relationships such as synonymy or voice alternations. This article proposes that other frame-to-frame-relations, notably , can serve as a source for concept-based paraphrases – that is, paraphrases that are backed by common sense knowledge, as in  – . While the predicates in these sentences are not synonymous, we would argue that the sentences are paraphrases – albeit of a kind that involves world knowledge about the relationship between different event classes. In this article, we propose a shallow taxonomy for the frame pairs which instantiate , that is motivated by their ability to form concept-based paraphrases. Second, we analyze the subclass of instances which supports concept-based paraphrasing, and provide a formalization of some prominent types of side conditions that are necessary to produce felicitous paraphrases.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abelson, R. P.
    (1981) Psychological status of the script concept. American psychologist, 36(7), 715.10.1037/0003‑066X.36.7.715
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.7.715 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aharon, R. B. , Szpektor, I. , & Dagan, I.
    (2010) Generating entailment rules from FrameNet. InProceedings of ACL (pp.241–246). Uppsala, Sweden.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, E.
    (1981) On time, tense, and aspect: an essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp.63–81). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, C. F. , Fillmore, C. J. , & Cronin, B.
    (2003) The structure of the Framenet database. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 281–296.10.1093/ijl/16.3.281
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.281 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, M.
    (1992) In Other Words. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203327579
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203327579 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. , & Chang, N.
    (2005) Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In J. -O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp.147–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.3.08ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.08ber [Google Scholar]
  7. Botschen, T. , Mousselly Sergieh, H. , & Gurevych, I.
    (2017) Prediction of frame-to-frame relations in the FrameNet hierarchy with frame embeddings. InProceedings of the 2nd workshop on representation learning (pp.146–156). Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/W17‑2618
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-2618 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bresnan, J.
    (2001) Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Castillo, J. J.
    (2011) A WordNet-based semantic approach to textual entailment and cross-lingual textual entailment. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2(3), 177–189.10.1007/s13042‑011‑0026‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-011-0026-z [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, N. , Narayanan, S. , & Petruck, M. R.
    (2002) Putting frames in perspective. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 148–154). Taipei, Taiwan. International Committee on Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1072228.1072384
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1072228.1072384 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chow, I. C. , & Webster, J. J.
    (2007) Integration of linguistic resources for verb classification: FrameNet frame, WordNet verb, and suggested upper merged ontology. InComputational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (pp.1–11). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑540‑70939‑8_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70939-8_1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coyne, R. , & Rambow, O.
    (2009) Lexpar: A freely available English paraphrase lexicon automatically extracted from FrameNet. InProceedings of the Third International Conference on Semantic Computing, (pp.53–58). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dolan, W. B. & Brockett, C.
    (2005) Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. InProceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (pp. 9–16). Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellsworth, M. , & Janin, A.
    (2007) Mutaphrase: paraphrasing with FrameNet. InProceedings of the ACL-PASCAL Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing (pp.143–150). Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/1654536.1654566
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1654536.1654566 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fellbaum, C.
    (Ed.) (1998) WordNet An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA/London: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, IV(2), 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C. J. , Baker, C. F. , & Sato, H.
    (2004) FrameNet as a “net”. InProceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resource Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C. J. , Johnson, C. R. , & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250.10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fodor, J. A.
    (1961) Projection and paraphrase in semantics. Analysis, 21, 73–77.10.1093/analys/21.4.73
    https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/21.4.73 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gawron, J. -M.
    (2011) Frame semantics. InHandbook of Semantics, Volume1 (pp.664–687). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110226614.664
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.664 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hasegawa, Y. , Lee-Goldman, R. , Kong, A. , & Kimi, A.
    (2011) FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 104–127.10.1075/cf.3.1.04has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.3.1.04has [Google Scholar]
  22. Jackendoff, R. S.
    (1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Katz, J. J. , & Fodor, J. A.
    (1963) The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210.10.2307/411200
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411200 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33.10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  25. Leech, G.
    (1974) Semantics. Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Levin, B.
    (1993) English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Narayanan, S.
    (2014) Bridging text and knowledge with frames. InProceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: A Workshop in Honor of Chuck Fillmore (pp.22–25). Association for Computational Linguistics.10.3115/v1/W14‑3006
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-3006 [Google Scholar]
  28. Norvig, P.
    (1987) Inference in text understanding. InProceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp.561–565). Seattle, WA: American Association of Artificial Intelligence.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Padó, S.
    (2007) Cross-lingual parallelism and translational equivalence: the case of FrameNet frames. In P. Nugues & R. Johansson (Eds.), Building Frame Semantics resources for Scandinavian and Baltic languages [LU-CS-TR: 2007–240] (pp.39–46). Department of Computer Science, Lund University.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Petruck, M. R. , & de Melo, G.
    (2012) Precedes: a semantic relation in FrameNet. InProceedings of the Workshop on Language Resources for Public Security Applications (pp.45–49). Istanbul, Turkey: European Language Resource Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Petruck, M. R. , Fillmore, C. J. , Baker, C. F. , Ellsworth, M. , & Ruppenhofer, J.
    (2004) Reframing FrameNet data. InProceedings of The 11th EURALEX International Congress (pp. 405–416). Université de Bretagne Sud, Lorient, France.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Reiter, N. , Hellwig, O. , Frank, A. , Gossmann, I. , Larios, B. M. , Rodrigues, J. , & Zeller, B.
    (2011) Adapting NLP tools and frame-semantic resources for the semantic analysis of ritual descriptions. In C. Sporleder , A. van den Bosch , & K. Zervanou (Eds.), Language technology for cultural heritage: selected papers from the LaTeCH workshop series (pp. 171–193). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑642‑20227‑8_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20227-8_10 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ruppenhofer, J. , Ellsworth, M. , Petruck, M. R. L. , Johnson, C. R. , & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2010) FrameNet II: extended theory and practice. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.5/book.pdf. Revision ofNov 1, 2016.
  34. Schank, R. C. , & Abelson, R.
    (1977) Scripts, goals, plans, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Scheffczyk, J. , Pease, A. , & Ellsworth, M.
    (2006) Linking FrameNet to the SUMO ontology. InProceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (pp.289–300). Baltimore, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Schreyer, R.
    (1978) On paraphrase relations. InWortstellung in Bedeutung: Akten des 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums (pp.225–235), Pavia, Italy. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111713083.225
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111713083.225 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media 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