Differing design decisions – comparing Swedish FrameNet to FrameNet*

Abstract

Creation of framenets for languages other than English based on Berkeley FrameNet has tested the hypothesis that semantic frames, to a certain extent, are language independent. This working hypothesis facilitated reuse of frames for new framenets, defining language specific frame evoking lemmas and annotating language specific sentences. The caveat is the bias towards creating what is possible, rather than typical, in a language. The reuse of frames allowed developing SweFN in a relatively short period of time. However, the goal to build a typical, not a possible Swedish framenet, necessitated some frame modifications. This chapter provides a comparison between the English and Swedish framenets regarding semantic annotation and representation, and socio-cultural factors, including how differences forced modification of the original structure.

What frame semantics can offer to task‐based language teaching

“…What seems to be missing from these accounts is a comprehensive methodological framework for incorporating frame semantic insights into language teaching. The question of what method would be suitable for that purpose is touched on by Friberg Heppin and Friberg (2012), who argued that FrameNets of different languages will be useful resources for communicative language teaching because frames could help teachers “introduce situations in natural sequence, while annotated sentences could show patterns of expression” (p. 640). On the contrary, Kemsies (2016) devised “a frame‐based” instructional framework for teaching polysemous nouns that is form‐focused and rather complex, and acknowledges its ineffectiveness.…”