WordNet and FrameNet as Complementary Resources for Annotation

WordNet and FrameNet are widely used lexical resources, but they are very different from each other and are often used in completely different ways in NLP. In a case study in which a short passage is annotated in both frameworks, we show how the synsets and definitions of WordNet and the syntagmatic information from FrameNet can complement each other, forming a more complete representation of the lexical semantic of a text than either could alone. Close comparisons between them also suggest ways in which they can be brought into alignment.

[1]  C. Fillmore.  FRAME SEMANTICS AND THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE * , 1976 .

[2]  Martha Palmer,et al.  SemEval-2007 Task-17: English Lexical Sample, SRL and All Words , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007).

[3]  Richard Johansson,et al.  LTH: Semantic Structure Extraction using Nonprojective Dependency Trees , 2007, Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007).

[4]  Martha Palmer,et al.  Class-Based Construction of a Verb Lexicon , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[5]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[6]  C. Fellbaum.  An Electronic Lexical Database , 1998 .

[7]  Mitchell P. Marcus,et al.  OntoNotes: The 90% Solution , 2006, NAACL.

[8]  Alessandro Moschitti,et al.  Automatic framenet-based annotation of conversational speech , 2008, 2008 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop.

[9]  Nancy Ide,et al.  The American National Corpus: More Than the Web Can Provide , 2002, LREC.

[10]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Analysis of a Hand-Tagging Task , 1997, Workshop On Tagging Text With Lexical Semantics: Why, What, And How?.