Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The comparison of constructions across languages faces a major challenge: Both similarities and differences can appear on the whole scale from form to meaning. In this paper, we propose an approach combining the descriptive and explanatory power of Construction Grammar and Frame Semantics by applying the analysis of constructions and frames on a full-text scale. More concretely, we propose a contrastive and translatological analysis of (partially) schematic constructions in English, Brazilian Portuguese and German which may diverge in form, but are relatable to one another across languages by their conventional pragmatics and/or the semantic frames they evoke.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, C., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J.
    (1998) The Berkeley FrameNet project. Proceedings of COLING-ACL, 11, 86–90. Retrieved fromacl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P98/P98-1013.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bertoldi, A., & Chishman, R.
    (2012) Frame Semantics and legal corpora annotation: Theoretical and applied challenges. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 71, 1–17. 10.33011/lilt.v7i.1277
    https://doi.org/10.33011/lilt.v7i.1277 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (2001) Frame semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 conference, 64–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (Ed.) (2010) Contrastive studies in construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2019) Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 1(35), 41–85. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
    (2018) Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 183–228). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.07boa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.07boa [Google Scholar]
  7. Borin, L., Dannélls, D., Forsberg, M., Gronostaj, M. T., & Kokkinakis, D.
    (2010) The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. Proceedings of the XIV EURALEX International Congress, 269–281. Fryske Akademy.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burchardt, A., Erk, K., Frank, A., Kowalski, A., Padó, S., & Pinkal, M.
    (2009) Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: Annotation, representation, and automation. InH. C. Boas (Ed.), Multilinugal FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications (pp. 209–244). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110212976.3.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110212976.3.209 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clausner, T. C., & Croft, W.
    (1997) Productivity and schematicity in metaphors. Cognitive Science, 21(3), 247–282. 10.1207/s15516709cog2103_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2103_1 [Google Scholar]
  10. Čulo, O.
    (2013) Constructions-and-frames analysis of translations: The interplay of syntax and semantics in translations between English and German. Constructions and Frames, 5(2), 143–167. 10.1075/cf.5.2.02cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.2.02cul [Google Scholar]
  11. Czulo, O.
    (2017) Aspects of a primacy of frame model of translation. InS. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo, & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 465–490). Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Czulo, O., Ziem, A., & Torrent, T. T.
    (2020) Beyond lexical semantic frames: Notes on pragmatic frames. InT. T. Torrent, C. Baker, O. Czulo, K. Ohara, & M. Petruck (Eds.), Towards a global, multilingual FrameNet (pp. 1–7). Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellsworth, M., Ohara, K., Subirats, C., & Schmidt, T.
    (2006) Frame-semantic analysis of motion scenarios in English, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Paper presented at theFourth International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1968) The case for case. InE. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C.
    (2010) A frames approach to semantic analysis. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 313–339. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘let alone’. Language, 64(3), 501–538. 10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R., & Rhomieux, R.
    (2012) The FrameNet Constructicon. InH. C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp. 309–372). CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hasegawa, Y., Ohara, K. H., Lee-Goldman, R., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (2006) Frame integration, head switching, and translation: RISK in English and Japanese. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG4), 1–14. Tokyo, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heid, U.
    (1996) Creating a multilingual data collection for bilingual lexicography from parallel monolingual lexicons. Euralex ’96 Proceedings, 573–590.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kay, P.
    (2002) English subjectless tagged sentences. Language, 78(3) 453–481.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Laviola, A.
    (2019) Constructicografia Multilíngue em Ação: Diretrizes linguístico-computacionais para o alinhamento de constructicons [Multilingual Constructicography in Action: Linguistic-computational guidelines for constructicon alignment]. PhD Dissertation, Federal University of Juiz de Fora.
  25. Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Laviola, A., Bäckström, L., Hannesdóttir, A. H., & Matos, E.
    (2018) Aligning constructicons across languages. In: B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. H. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp.255–302). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.03lyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.03lyn [Google Scholar]
  26. Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T.
    (Eds.) (2018) Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ohara, K.
    (2018) The relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet constructicon. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. H. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 141–163). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.05oha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha [Google Scholar]
  28. (2020) Finding corresponding constructions in English and Japanese in a TED talk parallel corpus using Frames-and-constructions analysis. InT. T. Torrent, C. Baker, O. Czulo, K. Ohara, & M. Petruck (Eds.), Towards a global, multilingual FrameNet. Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ohara, K., Fuji, S., Ohori, T., Suzuki, R., Saito, H., & Ishizaki, S.
    (2004) The Japanese FrameNet project: An introduction. Proceedings of the Satellite Workshop ‘Building Lexical Resources from Semantically Annotated Corpora’, 9–11. European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Oya, T.
    (1999) Er bettelt sich durchs Land – eine one’s way Konstruktion im Deutschen?Deutsche Sprache: Zeitschrift für Theorie, Praxis, Dokumentation4(27), 356–369.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Padó, S., & Erk, K.
    (2005) To cause or not to cause: Cross-lingual semantic matching for paraphrase modelling. Proceedings of the Cross-Language Knowledge Induction Workshop. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet: Theory and practice. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Subirats Rüggeberg, C., & Petruck, M.
    (2003) Surprise: Spanish FrameNet!InE. Hajičová, A. Kotéšovcová, & J. Mirovský (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on Frame semantics. Matfyzpress.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Torrent, T. T.
    (2015) On the relation between inheritance and change: The Constructional Convergence and the Construction Network Reconfiguration hypotheses. InJ. Barðdal, E. Smirnova, L. Sommerer, & S. Gildea (Eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 173–212). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18.06tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18.06tor [Google Scholar]
  35. Torrent, T. T., & Ellsworth, M.
    (2013) Behind the labels: Criteria for defining analytical categories in FrameNet Brasil. Veredas, 171, 44–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C. F., & Matos, E.
    (2018) The multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. InT. T. Torrent, L. Borin, & C. F. Baker (Eds.), Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. European Language Resources Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Torrent, T. T., Lage, L. M., Sampaio, T. F., da Silva Tavares, T., & da Silva Matos, E. E.
    (2014) Revisiting border conflicts between framenet and construction grammar: Annotation policies for the brazilian portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 34–51. 10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.03tor [Google Scholar]
  38. Torrent, T. T., Matos, E., Lage, L. M., Adrieli, L., Tavares, T., Gomes de Almeida, V., & Sigiliano, N.
    (2018) Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara, & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. 107–140). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.04tor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.04tor [Google Scholar]
  39. Willich, A.
    (2022) Konstruktionssemantik: Frames in gebrauchsbasierter Konstruktionsgrammatik und Konstruktikographie. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110762341
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110762341 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ziem, A., & Boas, H. C.
    (2017) Towards a Constructicon for German. Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (pp. 274–277). Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ziem, A., Boas, H. C., & Ruppenhofer, J.
    (2014) Grammatische Konstruktionen und semantische Frames für die Textanalyse. InJ. Hagemann & S. Staffeldt (Eds.), Syntaxtheorien: Analysen im Vergleich (pp. 297–333). Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ziem, A., & Ellsworth, M.
    (2016) Exklamativsätze im FrameNet-Konstruktikon am Beispiel des Englischen. InR. Finkbeiner & J. Meibauer (Eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen (pp. 146–191). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ziem, A., Flick, J., & Sandkühler, P.
    (2019) The German Constructicon Project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica, 35(1), 15–40. 10.1515/lex‑2019‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lex-2019-0003 [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