96 • 2011 - Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora - Universität ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Multilingual Resources and Multilingual Applications - Invited Talks other general language, non-legal specific frames, as is illustrated by Figure 4. Bertolid's analysis shows that finding translation equivalents is not always an easy task and that one needs to pay close attention to different polysemy networks across languages, which may sometimes be influenced by systematic differences such as differences between legal systems. 4.4 Universal frames? Claims about the universality of certain linguistic features are abundant in the literature. When it comes to semantic frames the question is whether frames derived on the basis of English are applicable to the description and analysis of other languages (and vice versa). While a number of studies on motion verbs (Fillmore & Atkins, 2000; Boas, 2002; Burchardt et al., 2009; Ohara, 2009) and communication verbs (Boas, 2005a; Subirats, 2009), among other semantic domains, suggest that there are frames that can be re-used for the description and analysis of other languages, there also seem to be culture-specific frames that may not be re-usable without significant modification. One set of examples comes from the English Personal_Relationship frame, whose semantics appears to be quite culture-specific. Atzler (2011) shows that concepts such as dating (to date) seem to be quite specific to Anglo culture and may not be directly applicable to the description of similar activities in German. Another, perhaps more extreme example, is the term sugar daddy, which has no exact counterpart in German, but instead requires a lengthy paraphrase in German to render the concept of this particular type of relationship in German. A second example comes from the intransitive Finnish verb saunoa (literally 'to sauna'), which has no direct English counterpart because it very culture-specific, and in effect evokes a particular type of frame. To this end, Leino (2010:131) claims that this verb (and correspondingly the Finnish Sauna frame) “expresses a situation in which the referent of the subject goes to the sauna, is in the sauna, participates in the sauna event, or something of the like.” Dealing with such culturespecific frames thus requires quite lengthy paraphrases to arrive at an approximation of the semantics of the frame in English. 16 5. Conclusions and outlook This paper has outlined some of the basic steps underlying the creation of parallel lexicon fragments. Employing semantic frames for this purpose is still a work in progress, but the successful compilation of several FrameNets for languages other than English is a good indication that this methodology should be pursued further. Clearly, the problems outlined in the previous section need to be solved. The first problem, polysemy and profiling differences, is perhaps the most daunting one. Decades of linguistic research into these issues (see, e.g. Leacock & Ravin, 2000; Altenberg & Granger, 2002) seem to suggest that there is no easy solution that could be implemented to arrive at an automatic way of analyzing, comparing, and classifying different polysemy and lexicalization patterns across languages. This means that for now these issues need to be addressed manually, in the form of careful linguistic analysis, in the near future. The same can be said about the problems surrounding lexicalization patterns, zero translations, and the universality of frames. Without a detailed catalogue of linguistic analyses of these phenomena in different languages, and a comparison across language pairs, any efforts regarding the effective linking of parallel lexicon fragments, whether on the basis of semantic frames or not, will undoubtedly hit many roadblocks. 6. Acknowledgements Work on this paper was supported by a fellowship for experienced researchers from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, as well as by Title VI grant #P229A100014 (Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning) to the University of Texas at Austin. 7. References Altenberg, B., Granger, S. (2002): Recent trends in cross-linguistic studies. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in Contrast. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3-50. Atkins, B.T.S., Fillmore, C.J., Johnson, C.R. (2003): Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from
Multilingual Resources and Multilingual Applications - Invited Talks corpus evidence. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), pp. 251-280. Atzler, J. (2011): Twist in the line: Frame Semantics as a vocabulary teaching and learning tool. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. Baker, C.F., Fillmore, C.J., Lowe, J.B. (1998): The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In COLING-ACL '98: Proceedings of the Conference, pp. 86-90. Baker, C.F., Fillmore, C.J., Cronin, B. (2003): The Structure of the FrameNet Database. In International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), pp. 281-296. Bertoldi, A. (2010): When translation equivalents do not find meaning equivalence: a contrastive study of the frame Criminal_Process. Manuscript. UT Austin. Bertoldi, A., Chishman, R., Boas, H.C. (2010): Verbs of judgment in English and Portuguese: What contrastive analysis can say about Frame Semantics. Calidoscopio, 8 (3), pp. 210-225. Boas, H.C. (2001): Frame Semantics as a framework for describing polysemy and syntactic structures of English and and German motion verbs in contrastive computational lexicography. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, pp. 64-73. Boas, H.C. (2002): Bilingual FrameNet dictionaries for machine translation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Vol. IV, pp. 1364-1371. Boas, H.C. (2005a): Semantic frames as interlingual representations for multilingual lexical databases. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(4), pp. 445- 478. Boas, H.C. (2005b): From theory to practice: Frame Semantics and the design of FrameNet. In S. Langer & D. Schnorbusch (Eds.), Semantik im Lexikon. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 129-160. Boas, H.C. (2009): Recent trends in multilingual lexicography. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1-36. Boas, H.C. (to appear): Frame Semantics and Translation. In I. Antunano and A. Lopez (Eds.), Translation in Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Burchardt, A., Erk, K., Frank, A., Kowalski, A., Pado, S., & Pinkal, M. (2009): Using FrameNet for the semantic analysis of German: annotation, representation, and automation. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in Computational Lexicography: Methods and Applications. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 209-244. Dux, R. (2011): A frame-semantic analysis of five English verbs evoking the Theft frame. M.A. Report. The University of Texas at Austin. Ellsworth, M, Ohara, K., Subirats, C., & Schmidt, T. (2006): Frame-semantic analysis of motion scenarios in English, German, Spanish, and Japanese. Presentation given at the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG-4), Tokyo. Fillmore, C.J. (1982): Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111-138. Fillmore, C.J. (1985): Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quadernie di Semantica, 6, pp. 222- 254. Fillmore, C.J. (2006): Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. BLS, 12, pp. 95-107. Fillmore, C.J. (2007): Valency issues in FrameNet. In: T. Herbst & K. Götz-Vetteler (Eds.), Valency: theoretical, descriptive, and cognitive issues. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 129-160. Fillmore, C.J., Atkins, B.T.S. (2000): Describing polysemy: The case of 'crawl'. In Y. Ravin and C. Laecock (Eds.), Polysemy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91-110. Fillmore, C.J., Baker, C.F. (2010): A frames approach to semantic analysis. In: B. Heine and H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 313-340. Fillmore, C.J., Petruck, M.R.L. (2003): FrameNet Glossary. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), pp. 359-361. Fillmore, C.J, Johnson, C.R., Petruck, M.R.L. (2003a): Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), pp. 235-251. Fillmore, C.J., Petruck, M.R.L., Ruppenhofer, J., Wright, A. (2003b): FrameNet in action: The case of Attaching. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), pp. 297-333. 17
Page 1: ARBEITEN ZUR MEHRSPRACHIGKEIT WORKI
Page 4: Collaborative Research Center: Mult
Page 7 and 8: Call for Papers The Conference of t
Page 9 and 10: Hybrid Machine Translation for Germ
Page 11: IV System Presentations New and Fut
Page 14 and 15: Multilingual Resources and Multilin
Page 72 and 73:
Multilingual Resources and Multilin
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
WORKING PAPERS IN MULTILINGUALISM
Page 274:
74. Ludger Zeevaert: Variation und
show all

96 • 2011 - Hamburger Zentrum für Sprachkorpora - Universität ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?