INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE INSTITUTE Image Schemas and Force-Dynamics in Framenet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER SCIENCE INSTITUTE 1947 Center St. • Suite 600 • Berkeley, California 94704-1198 • (510) 666-2900 • FAX (510) 666-2956 Image Schemas and Force-Dynamics in FrameNet∗ Klinton Bicknell† and Ellen Dodge‡ TR-04-00X December 2004 Abstract This report presents the early results of the Frame+Schema project, a project to repre- sent image and force-dynamic schemas in FrameNet. These structures are eventually intended to be used in leveraging the wealth of frame semantic knowledge available in the FrameNet database for situation-specific reasoning. We detail our image and force- dynamic schemas in the Embodied Construction Grammar formalism and give corre- spondence rules to represent these schemas in FrameNet. We also analyze much of the current force-dynamic structure in the FrameNet database and suggest changes to make it more compatible with image and force-dynamic schema-based inference. We note many of the issues raised by our representation as well as the unsolved problems and also make proposals for future work in the Frame+Schema project. ∗This would be far worse if not for the many suggestions of the others at the Frame+Schema meetings: Jerry Feld- man, Srini Narayanan, Michael Ellsworth, Collin Baker, and Josef Ruppenhofer. Johno Bryant was also more than helpful and generous with his time. †[email protected] ‡[email protected] ii 0 Introduction (3) investigating how FrameNet currently rep- resents force-dynamic and image schematic Schemas have been hypothesized to be cen- ideas such as causation, and changing these tral to the human capacity to reason (John- representations to use the newly represented son 1987; Lakoff & Johnson 1999), with schemas. For the first two pieces, we de- image schemas and force-dynamic schemas fine our schemas in the Embodied Construc- (Talmy 1988) playing central roles. The tion Grammar (ECG) formalism and give map- goal of making inferences from language in ping rules to represent the ECG schemas in a human-like way, then, would require at FrameNet. We use the ECG formalism to rep- the least a force-dynamic/image schematic resent our schemas independently of the de- analysis. (Hereafter, image/force-dynamic tails of their FrameNet representation because schemas will be collectively referred to sim- a sizable body of literature exists showing that ply as schemas.) To allow for situation-specific image schemas can be effectively represented inferences, these schemas must interface with in the formalism1 (Bergen & Chang In Press; real-world knowledge about the scenario un- Chang et al. 2002; Feldman 2002b). This litera- der discussion. Frame semantics character- ture provided us with some initial ideas about izes this real-world knowledge in units called how to represent schemas in terms of roles and frames, which are representations of gestalt sce- relations, since there is no complete ontology narios defined by a set of entities and states of of image schemas and force-dynamic schemas affairs which participate in the scenario, and available for use. relations between these frames (Fillmore 1975, This paper treats all three pieces of the task: 1985). The FrameNet project at the Interna- Section 1 presents a short overview of the ba- tional Computer Science Institute has built a sic method of representation, i.e., of mapping large database of such frame semantic knowl- from ECG schemas to FrameNet frames2 and edge and connects it to corpus text by a pro- Section 2 (providing the bulk of the paper) de- cess of annotation (Fillmore et al. 2003; Baker tails our schema ontology in ECG and high- et al. 2003). Because schemas can also be for- lights anything controversial about a schema mally represented as a list of participating ele- definition, anything not straightforward about ments and relations to other schemas, it seems its FrameNet representation, or any relevant natural that the FrameNet project can be ex- relation between that schema and the rest of tended to represent both kinds of structures the FrameNet database. required for reasoning, the frames and the 1In fact, the ECG literature works on the hypothe- schemas, as well as the interactions between sis that image schemas, force-dynamic schemas, action these two structures. As a first step toward us- schemas, and frames can all be represented in a simi- ing the extensive frame semantic knowledge lar way, using roles and relations, calling them all just available in the FrameNet database for rea- “schemas.” It thus works very nicely with our current project of representing schemas as frames. soning, this paper proposes a means of repre- 2This assumes basic familiarity with the ECG formal- senting image/force-dynamic schemas in the ism, which may be gained from Bergen & Chang (In FrameNet database and a method of relating Press) or Chang et al. (2002). these structures to each other and to the frames already present in the database. This basic proposal can be broken into two main pieces: (1) defining the relevant schemas and (2) representing these schemas in the FrameNet database. A third piece is 1 1 The Basic Representation DEFINES DEFINES Strategy PARENT CHILD ONLY FORCED INHERITANCE “POV-Uses” Inheritance Most of the mapping from ECG to FrameNet FREE INHERITANCE Subframing “Chatty-Uses” representation is straightforward. A schema is represented as a class of frame3. Roles in ECG Table 1: The four frame-to-frame relations in map to frame elements in FrameNet. The sub- FrameNet, separated by binary features case of operator corresponds to an Inheritance relation. Type-constraints on roles are trans- lated into semantic types on frame elements if possible, and otherwise are just mentioned in the text of the frame element’s description. ECG identity statements (i.e., unification) cor- “Chatty-Uses.” “POV-Uses” is a quite rare re- respond to pairing frame elements in frame-to- lation, and is the relation between a point-of- frame relations (more on this below). All this view-independent representation of a scenario seems to be quite straightforward, since struc- and the point-of-view-specified versions of it. tures are available in the FrameNet database So, for example, the Commerce buy and Com- basically equivalent to these ECG structures. merce sell frames both have “POV-Uses” rela- tions to Commerce goods-transfer, since buy- ing and selling describe the same event from evokes 1.1 Representing two different perspectives. “Chatty-Uses” is The evokes operator in ECG should clearly the relation between a frame and a background specify some sort of frame-to-frame relation in frame needed to make sense of it. This is, for FrameNet. In order to explain why we chose example, the relation between the Volubility the “Chatty-Using” relation as its correspon- frame (which is referred to by words such as dent, it seems helpful to describe the other op- chatty, loudmouth, and mum) and the Commu- tions. nication frame. The Volubility frame only rep- FrameNet has four types of frame-to-frame resents a valid concept given the Communica- relations: Inheritance, Subframing, “Chatty- tion frame. Using,” and “POV-Using.” Inheritance is ex- These four relations can be thought of in actly what one would expect, a requirement a matrix of binary features (Table 1). “POV- that every element in the parent frame have Uses” and Inheritance both require that ev- a counterpart in the child frame. The Sub- ery element in the parent be mapped to (i.e., frame relation is used for the event struc- unified with) an element of the child, while ture of frames within a larger scene. For in- the Subframe relation and “Chatty-Uses” do stance, the Arresting frame would be a sub- not have such a requirement. “POV-Uses” frame of the larger Criminal process frame, as and the Subframe relation also express rela- would the Arraignment frame and the Trial tions in which the child helps to define the frame. There is a only a single formal rela- parent. For example, the Criminal Process tion called Using in the FrameNet database, al- frame is defined mostly by the definitions of though it is used to represent two distinct re- its constituent parts (such as Arresting or Ar- lations, what I have called “POV-Uses” and raignment). Similarly, the Commerce goods- 3 transfer frame is defined by being what is left The way this class is marked in the FrameNet after the point-of-view is removed from the database has not yet been specified. Commerce buy and Commerce sell frames. 2 For Inheritance and “Chatty-Uses” relations, to ‘metaphoric’ and ‘non-metaphoric’ scenar- this is not the case. Communication is defined ios, while frames are more specified and are just fine without reference to Volubility, and domain-specific. For example, both “I am in obviously, an inheritance relation does not add Austin” and “I am in mourning” would use anything to the superclass. the same In schema, while only the first case Given these two formal features of the four would use the Locative relation frame. relations, the final relation, “Chatty-Uses,” Our solution to this problem is to add an- seems to correspond most closely to the ECG other mediating structure to the hierarchy evokes relation, since it is certainly not defini- called a “dependent frame.” Every dependent tional for the parent, and there is no require- frame inherits from both one schema and one ment that the child have the same elements frame; thus they the very bottom of the hi- as the parent. By representing evokes with erarchy, and all FrameNet annotation should “Chatty-Uses,” we are extending the meaning be done relative to them. For example, one of “Chatty-Uses.” For our purposes, it will dependent frame might inherit from the In often not be a scenario in which a larger con- schema and the LocativeRelation frame; this de- text frame must be present for the structure pendent frame would be used in phrases such to be made sense of (as with the Volubility as “the ball in the box.” Another dependent frame and Communication), but will often be frame might inherit from In schema as well a scenario in which a smaller frame is used as the TakingTime frame; this dependent frame as part of the frame’s structure (as the Jailing would be used in cases such as “Andy finished frame might use the Container schema).