Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

1984.3.6. Frame descriptionThe identification of the frames that the selected terms evoke proceeded in two parts: 1) thegrouping together of terms into frames, and 2) the description of the frames that grouptogether a given set of terms. In order to group together the selected terms into frames, wecompared the actantial structures of the selected terms for each language separately. Termswith similar actantial structures were considered same-frame-evoking candidates. Then, weapplied the criteria set out in the FrameNet methodology (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010) toconfirm or refute whether two or more terms evoked the same frame.According to the FrameNet methodology (Ruppenhofer et al. 2010), LUs that evokethe same frame have the same number of syntactically prominent FEs and the semanticnature of the FEs is similar. Also, according to the FrameNet methodology, the LUs shouldprofile the FEs in the same way unlike buy and sell which profile the frame [Commerce] intwo different ways. It should follow that terms that have identical actantial structures verylikely evoke the same frame and that the actants of the terms that are grouped together intothe same frame should correspond to the core FEs in the frame.For example, comply 1 , infringe 1 , satisfy 1 and violate 1 have exactly the same numberof actants and the labels attributed to each actant are the same. From Table 18 it can beobserved that the semantic nature of the actants of the terms is the same because LAW1 andLAW2 refer to two types of written law in all contexts of the verbs. The semanticresemblance of the actants is such that the linguistic realizations of the actant labelled LAW2relate to constitutional rights (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) across thecontexts of the four verbs.