The Current State of FrameNet - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 10
About This Presentation
Title:

The Current State of FrameNet

Description:

for specialist vocabulary nobody doubts the need of such background ... support verbs or prepositions with dependent frame-bearing nouns ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:29
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 11
Provided by: lily92
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Current State of FrameNet


1
The Current State of FrameNet
  • CLFNG
  • June 26, 2006
  • Fillmore

2
The Starting Challenge
  • A standard dictionary often does not give us
  • the background to the meanings of words
  • for specialist vocabulary nobody doubts the need
    of such background
  • frame semantics proposes that ALL (content)
    words, including the ones that everybody knows,
    are best understood in terms of their background
    frames
  • a description of a words combinatory affordances
    (valences)
  • this requires a description of the elements of
    each frame the things that can be relevantly
    talked about within phrases structurally related
    to the word being described and a
    classification of relevant syntactic forms and
    functions
  • examples illustrating its common uses
  • and these should be determined from examples from
    a large corpus

3
The Starting Solution
  • Describe a situation type (frame) that holds for
    one or more words in the language.
  • Revenge
  • Find the frame elements for this frame.
  • Avenger, Offender, Injury,Injured_Party,
    Punishment
  • Choose words that belong to the frame.
  • avenge, retaliate
  • Create valence descriptions as sets of triples
    frame elements, grammatical function, phrase
    type for each word.
  • one possibility for avenge
  • Av,Subj,NP, Inj,Obj,NP, Pun, Dep,
    PPingby

4
Do this by
  • Having trained humans annotate good example
    sentences by assigning FE labels to the syntactic
    dependents of words being described.
  • Having automatic processes assign syntactic form
    and function properties to the labeled phrases.
  • Having automatic processes derive the valences
    from the annotations.
  • Noticing whether the number of syntactic phrases
    found with the head word matches the number of
    frame elements known to belong to the frame, and
    figure out what to make of discrepancies when you
    find them.

5
The Product
  • Frame Descriptions
  • Lexical Entries specifying
  • frame membership
  • valences
  • access to examples
  • Annotated Sentences
  • Map of Frame-to-Frame Relations

6
Immediately Emerging Issues
  • For our lexicographic purposes we wanted to
    select only simple clear examples.
  • First, thats not possible.
  • Second, we need to be able to annotate full
    texts.
  • There are cases where the major frame in a
    construction was evoked by a syntactic dependent,
    not a syntactic head
  • support verbs or prepositions with dependent
    frame-bearing nouns
  • say a prayer, swear an oath, make a promise
  • transparent nouns selected by their complements
    (unitizers, etc.)
  • stick of gum, kernel of rice,
  • There are cases of mismatches between the number
    of syntactic constituents we find in a sentence
    and the number of frame elements that we might
    expect to see represented. For example
  • null representation of some FEs (for which we
    have stories)
  • multiple or discontinuous representations of some
    FEs

7
More Recently Emerging Issues
  • Not all FE are of equal status. We proposed
    distinguishing
  • Core,
  • Peripheral and
  • Extrathematic FEs,
  • if only because we wanted to say SOMETHING about
    all phrases that were in syntactically
    appropriate positions relative to each target LU.
  • We bombed their village yesterday in retaliation.
  • The set of frames is not a flat list. There are
    frame-to-frame relations, of various kinds,
    importantly
  • inheritance
  • composition
  • perspective

8
Issues that dont go away
  • Public Relations
  • Some of our lexicography and NLP friends object
    that since we work one frame at a time,rather
    than one word at a time, itll take forever
    before we can provide the research community with
    any serious kind of systematic polysemy analysis
    hence were useless for WSD.
  • Speed
  • Well always be slow, but a current grant
    providing collaboration with Adam Killgarriff and
    the use of his WordSketch tool for FrameNet
    vanguarding shows promise. (Vanguarding is what
    you do before you turn material over to the
    annotators selecting correct senses of
    polysemous words, sorting and selecting samples
    that can together show the variety of syntactic
    patterns found with a given word, choosing the
    most relevant collocations, etc.. Collin will
    talk about this.)

9
Continuing Ambitions
  1. A speeding up of the whole process (the
    WordSketch connection)
  2. Collaborative alignment with WordNet and SUMO
  3. Full sample FN analysis of some portions of the
    ANC
  4. Some open-source way of enhancing the growth of
    the FrameNet lexicon
  5. Success in funding 1-4.

10
Current FN Visitors
  • Carlos Subirats
  • Jan Scheffsczyk
  • Thomas Schmidt
  • Kyoko Hirose
  • Fran Valverde
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com