Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r4mrb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-11T11:55:18.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Framenets and ConstructiCons

from Part I - The Constructional View of Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Lars Borin  and
Benjamin Lyngfelt
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

Framenets and constructiCons are applied instantiations of the linguistic frameworks known as Frame Semantics and Construction Grammar, respectively, in the form of computational, semiformally structured linguistic resources. The resources have a common history, both theoretically and in design: They are built as English-language resources in the framework of the Berkeley FrameNet initiative. They enjoy the double nature of being descriptive linguistic resources as well as finding frequent use in a computational linguistic context, where they have been used both in NLP applications and as underlying knowledge bases in areas such as computer-assisted language learning. The chapter provides a bird’s-eye view on these resources: their theoretical foundations; design principles and how they are compiled; theoretical and methodological interrelations; the challenges involved in building framenets and constructiCons for new languages and for cross-linguistic application; the differences and interactions between linguistic and computational linguistic work on framenets and constructiCons; application to language pedagogy; and outstanding theoretical and methodological issues.

Keywords

computational linguisticsconstructiConconstructicographyFrame Semanticsframenetlanguage technologylexical semanticslanguage resource
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 71 - 100
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bäckström, L., Lyngfelt, B., & Sköldberg, E. (2014). Towards interlingual constructicography: On correspondence between constructicon resources for English and Swedish. Constructions and Frames, 6, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. F. & Lorenzi, A. (2020). Exploring crosslinguistic framenet alignment. Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual Framenet. Marseille: ELRA, pp. 77–84.Google Scholar
Bender, E. M. & Koller, A. (2020). Climbing towards NLU: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data. In Proceedings of ACL 2020, pp. 5185–5198. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoldi, A. & Chishman, R. (2012). Frame semantics and legal corpora annotation. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 7(9), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beuls, K., Van Eecke, P., & Cangalovic, V. S. (2021). A computational Construction Grammar approach to semantic frame extraction. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(1), 20180015. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisk, Y., Holtzman, A., Thomason, J., Andreas, J., Bengio, Y., Chai, J., Lapata, M., Lazaridou, A., May, J., Nisnevich, A., Pinto, N., & Turian, J. (2020). Experience grounds language. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2020, pp. 8718–8735. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., ed. (2009). Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2017). Computational resources: FrameNet and constructicon. In Dancygier, B., ed., The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Dux, R. (2013). Semantic frames for foreign language education: Towards a German frame-based dictionary. Veredas, 17, 82–100.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Lyngfelt, B., & Torrent, T. T. (2019). Framing constructicography. Lexicographica, 35(1), 15–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructing a constructicon for German: Empirical, theoretical, and methodological issues. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.183–228.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Muhonen, K., Purtonen, T., & Voionmaa, K. (2012). Transferring frames: Utilization of linked lexical resources. In Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT Workshop on the Induction of Linguistic Structure. Montreal: ACL, pp. 8–15.Google Scholar
Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Lönngren, L., & Zechner, N. (2021). Swedish FrameNet++ – lexical samsara. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.03bor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borin, L., Toporowska Gronostaj, M., & Kokkinakis, D. (2007). Medical frames as target and tool. In Proceedings of FRAME 2007: Building Frame Semantics Resources for Scandinavian and Baltic Languages. Tartu: NEALT, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2016). Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology, 20, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax: Constructions of the World’s Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czulo, O., Ziem, A., & Torrent, T. T. (2020). Beyond lexical semantics: Notes on pragmatic frames. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual Framenet. Marseille: ELRA, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
da Costa, A. D., Gamonal, M. A., Paiva, V. M. R. L., Marção, N. D., Peron-Corrêa, S. R., de Almeida, Gomes, Matos, V., E. E. S., & Torrent, T. T. (2018). FrameNet-based modeling of the domains of tourism and sports for the development of a personal travel assistant application. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 6–12.Google Scholar
Dannélls, D., Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Friberg Heppin, K., & Toporowska Gronostaj, M. (2021a). Swedish FrameNet. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.02dan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannélls, D., Borin, L., & Friberg Heppin, K., eds. (2021b). The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlemark, A. (2014). Ramar och konstruktioner – en kärlekshistoria [Frames and constructions – a love story]. Report GU-ISS 2014-01. Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/35145.Google Scholar
Ehrlemark, A., Johansson, R., & Lyngfelt, B. (2016). Retrieving occurrences of grammatical constructions. In Proceedings of COLING 2016: Technical Papers. Osaka: ACL.Google Scholar
Endresen, A. & Janda, L. A. (2020). Taking construction grammar one step further: Families, clusters, and networks of evaluative constructions in Russian. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellbaum, Ch., ed. (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets Construction Grammar. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 49–68.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R., & Rhomieux, R. (2012). The FrameNet Constructicon. In Boas, H. C. & Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 309–372.Google Scholar
Forsberg, M., Johansson, R., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., & Prentice, J. (2014). From construction candidates to constructicon entries: An experiment using semiautomatic methods for identifying constructions in corpora. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 114–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K. (2021). Differing design decision – comparing Swedish FrameNet to FrameNet. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 191–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.08fri.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friberg Heppin, K. & Friberg, H. (2012). Using FrameNet in communicative language teaching. In Proceedings of EURALEX 2012. Oslo: University of Oslo, pp. 640–647.Google Scholar
Fried, M. (2021). Discourse-referential patterns as a network of grammatical constructions. Constructions and Frames, 13(1), 21–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemmel Hudson, M. (2022). Teaching second year German using frames and constructions. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar: Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilardi, L. & Baker, C. F. (2018). Learning to align across languages: Toward Multilingual FrameNet. In Proceedings of the LREC International FrameNet Workshop 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 13–22.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (2001). Lexico-semantic universals: A critical overview. Linguistic Typology, 5, 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grūzītis, N., Dannélls, D., Lyngfelt, B., & Ranta, A. (2015). Formalising the Swedish ConstructiCon in Grammatical Framework. In Proceedings of the Grammar Engineering Across Frameworks (GEAF) 2015 Workshop. Beijing: ACL, pp. 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2019). How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Olmen, D., Mortelmans, T., & Brisard, F., eds., Aspects of Linguistic Variation. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 83–113.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 21–52.Google Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2019). Constructicons – a new type of reference work? Lexicographica, 35, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D. (2004). A Valence Dictionary of English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th. & Uhrig, P. (2019). Towards a valency and argument structure constructicon of English: Turning the valency patternbank into a constructicon. Lexicographica, 35, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction Grammar and Its Application to English, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Lyashevskaya, O., Nesset, T., Rakhilina, E., & Tyers, F. M. (2018). A constructicon for Russian: Filling in the gaps. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds. (2018), Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R. (2021). NLP for resource building. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.07joh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R., Friberg Heppin, K., & Kokkinakis, D. (2021). Semantic role labeling. In Dannélls, D. et al. eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1075/nlp.14.07joh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, R. & Nugues, P. (2006). A FrameNet-based semantic role labeler for Swedish. In Proceedings of COLING/ACL 2006. Sydney: ACL, pp. 436–443. https://doi.org/10.3115/1273073.1273130.Google Scholar
Laviola, A. B. (2015). Frames e construções em contraste: Uma análise comparativa português-inglês no tangente à implementação de constructicons [Frames and constructions in contrast: A Portuguese-English comparative analysis in regard to the implementation of constructicons]. MA thesis. Federal University of Juiz de Fora.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2022). Frame-based metonymy in teaching L2 vocabulary. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee-Goldman, R. & Petruck, M. R. L. (2018). The FrameNet constructicon in action. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds. Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindén, K., Haltia, H., Luukkonen, J., Laine, A. O., Roivainen, H., & Väisänen, N. (2017). FinnFN 1.0: The Finnish frame semantic database. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 40(3), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J., & Tingsell, S. (2016). Constructicography meets (second) language education: On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G., eds., Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.327–355.Google Scholar
Lönneker-Rodman, B. & Baker, C. F. (2009). The FrameNet model and its applications. Natural Language Engineering, 15(3), 415–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B. (2018). Introduction: Constructicons and constructicography. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Bäckström, L., Borin, L., Ehrlemark, A., & Rydstedt, R. (2018a). Constructicography at work: Theory meets practice in the Swedish ConstructiCon. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Borin, L., Ohara, K., & Torrent, T. T., eds. (2018b). Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Laviola, A., Bäckström, L., Hannesdóttir, A. H., & Matos, E. E. S. (2018c). Aligning constructicons across languages: A trilingual comparison between English, Swedish, and Brazilian Portuguese. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 255–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyngfelt, B., Torrent, T. T., Matos, E. E. S., & Bäckström, L. (2022). Comparative concepts as a resource for multilingual constructicography. In Blensenius, K., ed., Valency and Constructions. Gothenburg: MASO, pp. 101–129.Google Scholar
Malm, P., Virk, Sh., Borin, L., & Saxena, A. (2018). LingFN: Towards a framenet for the linguistics domain. In Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop at LREC 2018: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons. Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 37–43.Google Scholar
Manning, Ch. D. (2015). Last words: Computational linguistics and deep learning. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marques, T. & Beuls, K. (2016). Evaluation strategies for computational construction grammars. In Proceedings of COLING 2016: Technical Papers. Osaka: ACL, pp.1137–1146.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. & Žolkovskij, A. K., eds. (1984). Толково-комбинаторный словарь современного русского языка: Опыты семантико-синтаксического описания русской лексики [Explanatory combinatorial dictionary of modern Russian: Semantico-syntactic studies of Russian vocabulary]. Vienna: Wiener Slavistischer Almanach.Google Scholar
Nesset, T. & Janda, L. A. (2022). Securing strategic input for L2 learners: Constructions with Russian motion verbs. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, A. & Perek, F. (2022). Pedagogic applications of the English Constructicon. In Boas, H. C., ed., Directions for Pedagogical Construction Grammar. Learning and Teaching (with) Constructions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pease, A. & Fellbaum, Ch. (2010). Formal ontology as interlingua: The SUMO and WordNet linking project and global WordNet. In Huang, Ch, Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., Oltramari, A., & Prevot, L., eds., Ontology and the Lexicon: A Natural Language Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Patten, A. (2019). Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24, 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, J., Håkansson, C., Lindström Tiedemann, T., Pilán, I., & Volodina, E. (2021). Language learning and teaching with Swedish FrameNet++: Two examples. In Dannélls, D. et al., eds., The Swedish FrameNet++: Harmonization, Integration, Method Development and Practical Language Technology Applications. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Berkeley: ICSI. http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, M. & Carlsson, F. (2021). The singleton fallacy: Why current critiques of language models miss the point. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, September 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.682578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the Linguistic System. Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Th. (2009). The Kicktionary: A multilingual lexical resource of football language. In Boas, H. C., ed., Multilingual Framenets in Computational Lexicography. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 101–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E., eds. (2020). Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L., ed. (2011). Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Ellsworth, M., Baker, C. F., & Matos, E. E. S. (2018a). The Multilingual FrameNet shared annotation task: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 International FrameNet Workshop: Multilingual Framenets and Constructicons (IFNW 2018). Miyazaki: ELRA, pp. 62–68.Google Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Matos, E. E. S., Lage, L., Laviola, A., Tavares, T., Gomes de Almeida, V., & Sigiliano, N. (2018b). Towards continuity between the lexicon and the constructicon in FrameNet Brasil. In Lyngfelt, B. et al., eds., Constructicography: Constructicon Development across Languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrent, T. T., Salomão, M. M., Matos, E. E. S., Gamonal, M. A., Gonçalves, J., Pereira de Souza, B., Simões Gomes, D., & Peron-Corrêa, S. R. (2014). Multilingual lexicographic annotation for domain-specific electronic dictionaries: The Copa 2014 FrameNet Brasil project. Constructions and Frames, 6(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.1.05tor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eecke, P. & Beuls, K. (2018). Exploring the creative potential of computational construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 66(3), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Trijp, R. (2017). A computational construction grammar for English. In The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Technical Report SS-17-02. Stanford: AAAI, pp. 266–273.Google Scholar
Venturi, G. (2011). Semantic annotation of Italian legal texts: A FrameNet-based approach. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 46–79. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.3.1.02ven.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virk, Sh. M., Azam Sheikh, M., Borin, L., Aslam, M. I., Iqbal, S., & Khurram, N. (2019). Exploiting frame-semantics and frame-semantic parsing for automatic extraction of typological information from descriptive grammars of natural languages. In Proceedings of RANLP 2019. Varna: INCOMA, pp. 1247–1256. https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-056-4_143.Google Scholar
Virk, Sh. M., Dannélls, D., Borin, L., & Forsberg, M. (2021). A data-driven semi-automatic framenet development methodology. In Proceedings of RANLP 2021, pp. 1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vossen, P. & Fellbaum, Ch. (2009). Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual WordNets. In Boas, H. C., ed., Multilingual Framenets in Computational Lexicography. Methods and Applications. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 319–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziem, A., Flick, J., & Sandkühler, Ph. (2019). The German constructicon project: Framework, methodology, resources. Lexicographica, 35, 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×