Constructions, Frames and Event Structure
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding Technical Report SS-17-02 Constructions, Frames and Event Structure William Croft and Meagan Vigus Department of Linguistics MSC 03 2130 1 University of New Mexico Albuquerque NM 87131-0001 Abstract Commercial_transaction Charles Fillmore developed both the theory of construction Commerce_goods_transfer Commerce_money_transfer grammar and the theory of frame semantics. Fillmore’s orig- inal frame semantic model included broad frames such as Commercial Transaction and Risk. FrameNet II (the current Commerce_buy Commerce_sell Commerce_collect Commerce_pay incarnation) has a complex lattice of frame-to-frame rela- tions, in which the original frames are often abstract frames, and/or have been decomposed into distinct concrete frames. Figure 1: Commercial transaction frames in FrameNet The frame-to-frame relations are of different types beyond simple taxonomic relations. The concrete frames are often more restricted in their argument structure construction pos- (location of the Goods), as well as non-core FEs such as In- sibilities than the original, more general frames. We argue strument, Manner, Means, Purpose, Explanation, Frequency, that some frame-to-frame relations effectively represent the Place and Time. An example is Leslie stole the watch from internal structure of the core events in the frame; the event Kim. structures are associated with different argument structure However, the nature of frames in FrameNet differs from constructions. Introducing event structure into the frame se- that in Fillmore’s earlier work, and in earlier versions of mantic representation offers the potential to simplify the FrameNet. For instance, in Fillmore (1977b, 59), all of the FrameNet lattice. Brief analyses of the Commercial Trans- action and Risk frames are presented. following sentences are considered to be instances of the commercial transaction ‘scene’ (as it was called in that pa- In this paper we explore the relationship between construc- per): tion grammar, in particular argument structure construc- (1) John bought the sandwich from Henry for three dol- tions, frame semantics and event structure. Charles Fillmore lars. developed the theory of frame semantics out of case gram- mar (Fillmore 1977a; 1982; 1985), and the theory of con- (2) Henry sold John the sandwich for three dollars. struction grammar at about the same time (Fillmore, Kay, (3) John paid Henry three dollars for the sandwich. and O’Connor 1988). (4) The sandwich cost three dollars. A semantic frame is a body of knowledge made coher- ent by the human activity that holds it together: ‘a system In the current version of FrameNet (FrameNet II), each of categories structured in accordance with some motivat- of these sentences are found in a different frame: Com- ing context...The motivating context is some body of under- merce buy, Commerce sell, Commerce pay, and Expensive- standing, some pattern of practices, or some history of social ness respectively. The unity of the commercial transaction institutions against which we find intelligible the creation of ‘scene’ is captured by an abstract Commercial transaction a particular category in the history of the language commu- frame and a set of frame-to-frame relations. FrameNet II in- nity’ (Fillmore 1982, 119). Semantic frames are frequently cludes a large range of frame-to-frame relations, forming a centered on a type of event (a pattern of practices, a social complex lattice of frames. institution) such as eating, placing something, or engaging Figure 1 gives the relevant part of the frame lattice in- in a commercial transaction (buying, selling etc.). cluding the frames for buy, sell and pay (Fillmore 2008, The implementation of semantic frames in FrameNet 54). The commercial transaction event is analyzed as a com- (Fillmore, Johnson, and Petruck 2003; Ruppenhofer et al. plex frame with two components, transferring the goods and 2016) consists of an informal prose description of the event transferring the money, linked by a Subframe relation. Each that forms the core of the semantic frame, and an enumera- of the latter two frames can be assigned two different Per- tion of frame elements (FEs) of varying degrees of centrality spectives: from the point of view of the buyer or the point of and uniqueness to the frame. For example the Theft frame view of the seller. In order to include cost, FrameNet uses has core FEs of a Perpetrator, a Victim, Goods and Source a still more abstract Commerce scenario frame, of which 147 Commercial transaction is a Subframe; the Expensiveness formal semantic, cognitive semantic and computational lin- frame is in a “Uses” relation to the Commerce scenario guistic literatures. frame. The consequence is that event structure is analyzed in One effect of the decomposition of the commercial event frame-to-frame relations instead. The Inchoative relation into multiple frames is that the argument realization, in links a stative event frame to the frame for the process that particular the core argument realization, of the participants results in the state. The Causative relation links a processual (frame elements or FEs) is uniform within the more spe- event frame to the frame that includes an external cause (hu- cific frames. The commercial transaction examples have man agent or physical entity). The Subframe relation links the following FE argument realizations; each one expresses a complex event to component subevents, which may be ex- the FEs in different grammatical roles (subject, object, for pressed with different verbs, and are sometimes in temporal phrase, from phrase): sequence, described by the Precedes relation. The Perspec- tive relation and sometimes the Uses relation is used for “fo- (5) Buyer buy Goods from Seller for Money cusing” on one participant or set of participants in a frame (6) Seller sell Buyer Goods for Money (in the general sense) as opposed to others. For example, Commerce buy focuses on the Buyer and the Goods, while (7) Buyer pay Seller Money for Goods Commerce collect, as in Henry charged John three dollars (8) Goods cost Money for the sandwich, focuses on the Seller and the Money. We propose that analyzing the structure of the events in In other words, the FrameNet II frames divide lexical frames allows one to capture the relationships represented in items, particuarly verbs, into separate frames effectively de- the Inchoative, Causative and Perspective relations, and the pending on the argument structure constructions they occur relationships represented in some cases of the Subframe and in. The semantic commonalities for a frame in the more gen- Uses relations. This is a strong claim whose fulfillment rests eral (and earlier) sense of that term are captured by abstract on two bases. The first is an analysis of event structure that frames and a variety of frame-to-frame relations. can account for these relations. We will use the event anal- This represents a long-term tension in frame semantics ysis presented in detail in Croft (2012) and currently being between a more general notion of frame as a ‘motivating elaborated. The second is to apply the event structure anal- context’ and a notion of frame more specific to particular ysis to the FrameNet frames. Obviously this is impossible syntactic realizations of argument structure based on case to do in a short paper, and is a task we have hardly begun. grammar. Fillmore (1977b) calls the more general seman- We will restrict ourselves to brief event structure analyses of tic structure a ‘scene’ and the argument structure that high- the commercial event frame (Croft, Taoka, and Wood 2001; lights or perspectivizes a part of the scene a ‘case frame’. Croft 2012) and an event structure analysis of the RISK Baker et al. (1998), which describes an early version of frame (Fillmore and Atkins 1992; 1994). FrameNet, calls the more general structure a ‘frame’ and the argument-structure-specific entity a ‘scene’. In that version Event Structure Analysis of FrameNet, the only frame-to-frame relation is inheritance. In FrameNet II, both the more general and more specific Although there are a variety of analyses of event structure structures are frames, and the positing of abstract frames and that have been proposed, there are certain commonalities different types of frame-to-frame relations allow the repre- among the analyses. The primary dimensions of event struc- sentation of both types of frame as the same data structure. ture are aspect and the (mostly) causal network of interac- In this paper, we suggest another way to resolve this ten- tions among the participants in the event. sion between ‘frame’ as motivating context and ‘frame’ as a Aspect describes how an event unfolds over time. Mod- more specific semantic structure related to argument struc- els of the aspectual structure of events in different theoret- ture/case frame. We propose that the more specific seman- ical traditions have converged on a phasal model, in which tic structure can be accounted for by analyzing the event events unfold over distinct phases of states, transitions and structure of the motivating context and using the analysis processes. Croft proposes a richer phasal model than most of event structure to handle the argument realization varia- others, including states, transitions and processes. Croft’s tion. In other words, event structure is not equated to frame representation also allows for different profiled phases in structure (though in some cases there may be only one event the aspectual contour of an event. For example, I see Mount structure that is lexically realized for a particular frame). Tamalpais profiles the state of the mountain being in the vi- Event structure semantics is instead (or in addition) associ- sual field, while Suddenly I saw Mount Tamalpais profiles ated with argument structure constructions (Goldberg 1995; the transition from not seeing to seeing the mountain. 2006; Croft 2003; 2012; 2015).