Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 1191–1211 | Cite as

SALDO: a touch of yin to WordNet’s yang

  • Lars Borin
  • Markus Forsberg
  • Lennart Lönngren
Original Paper


The English-language Princeton WordNet (PWN) and some wordnets for other languages have been extensively used as lexical–semantic knowledge sources in language technology applications, due to their free availability and their size. The ubiquitousness of PWN-type wordnets tends to overshadow the fact that they represent one out of many possible choices for structuring a lexical–semantic resource, and it could be enlightening to look at a differently structured resource both from the point of view of theoretical–methodological considerations and from the point of view of practical text processing requirements. The resource described here—SALDO—is such a lexical–semantic resource, intended primarily for use in language technology applications, and offering an alternative organization to PWN-style wordnets. We present our work on SALDO, compare it with PWN, and discuss some implications of the differences. We also describe an integrated infrastructure for computational lexical resources where SALDO forms the central component.


Lexical resources Swedish WordNet Interoperability LMF SALDO 



SALDO has been developed with Swedish public funding. After 2003, the University of Gothenburg through Språkbanken has financed the main part of the work on SALDO. During 2006–2008, the development of SALDO was partly supported by the Swedish Research Council project Library-Based Grammar Engineering (2005-4211; PI Aarne Ranta, Chalmers University of Technology). After 2008, part of the funding has come from the Swedish Research Council in the projects Safeguarding the future of Språkbanken (2007-7430; PI Lars Borin, Språkbanken, University of Gothenburg) and Swedish FrameNet++ (2010-6013; PI Lars Borin). We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and suggestions.


  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2007). Typological distinctions in word-formation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (2nd ed.). Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. R. (1985). Inflectional morphology, 1st edn. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (1st ed.). Volume III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Apresjan, Y. D. (2002). Principles of systematic lexicography. In M.-H. Corréard (Ed.), Lexicography and natural language processing. A festschrift in honour of B. T. S. Atkins. Euralex, pp. 91– 104.Google Scholar
  4. Baranov, A. N., & Dobrovol’skij, D. O. (2008). Aspekty teorii frazeologii. Moscow: Znak.Google Scholar
  5. Boas, H. C. (Ed.). (2010). Contrastive studies in construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Borin, L. (2005). Mannen är faderns mormor: Svenskt associationslexikon reinkarnerat. LexicoNordica 12, 39–54.Google Scholar
  7. Borin, L. (2010). Med Zipf mot framtiden—en integrerad lexikonresurs för svensk språkteknologi. LexicoNordica 17, 35–54.Google Scholar
  8. Borin, L. (2012). Core vocabulary: A useful but mystical concept in some kinds of linguistics. In D. Santos, K. Lindén, & W. Ng’ang’a (Eds.), Shall we play the Festschrift game? Essays on the occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th birthday (pp. 53–65). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Borin, L., & Forsberg, M. (2011). Swesaurus—ett svenskt ordnät med fria tyglar. LexicoNordica 18, 17–39.Google Scholar
  10. Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Ahlberger, C. (2011). Semantic search in literature as an e-Humanities research tool: CONPLISIT—consumption patterns and life-style in 19th century Swedish literature. In NODALIDA 2011 conference proceedings (pp. 58–65). Riga: NEALT.Google Scholar
  11. Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Lönngren, L. (2008). The hunting of the BLARK—SALDO, a freely available lexical database for Swedish language technology. In J. Nivre, M. Dahllöf, & B. Megyesi (Eds.), Resourceful language technology. Festschrift in honor of Anna Sågvall Hein. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia (pp. 21–32). Uppsala: Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar
  12. Borin, L., Forsberg, M., & Roxendal, J. (2012). Korp—the corpus infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 474–478). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
  13. Borin, L., Danélls, D., Forsberg, M., Kokkinakis, D., & Toporowska Gronostaj, M. (2010). The past meets the present in Swedish FrameNet++. In 14th EURALEX international congress (pp. 269–281). Leeuwarden: EURALEX.Google Scholar
  14. Borin, L., Forsberg, M., Olsson, L.-J., & Uppström, J. (2012). The open lexical infrastructure of Språkbanken. In Proceedings of LREC 2012 (pp. 3598–3602). Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
  15. Boyd-Graber, J., Fellbaum, C., Osherson, D., & Schapire, R. (2006). Adding dense, weighted connections to WordNet. In GWC 2006 proceedings (pp. 29–35). Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
  16. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1999). The origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cruse, D. A. (2000). Aspects of the micro-structure of word meanings. In: Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches (pp. 30–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Daudé, J., Padró, L., & Rigau, G. (2000). Mapping wordnets using structural information. In Proceedings of ACL 2000. Hong Kong: ACL.Google Scholar
  19. Erk, K. (2010). What is word meaning, really? (And how can distributional models help us describe it?). In Proceedings of the 2010 workshop on geometrical models of natural language semantics (pp. 17–26). Uppsala: ACL.Google Scholar
  20. Fellbaum, C. (1998a). Introduction. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), WordNet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998b). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fellbaum, C. (2005). Co-occurrence and antonymy. International Journal of Lexicography, 8(4), 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forsberg, M. (2007). Three tools for language processing: BNF converter, Functional Morphology, and Extract. PhD diss, Göteborg University and Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Francopoulo, G. (Ed.). (2013). LMF: Lexical markup framework. London/Hoboken, NJ: ISTE/Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Goddard, C. (Ed.). (2008). Cross-linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  26. Goddard, C., & Karlsson, S. (2008). Re-thinking think in contrastive perspective: Swedish vs. English. In: C. Goddard (Ed.), Cross-linguistic semantics (pp. 225–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hanks, P. (2000). Do word meanings exist? Computers and the Humanities, 34(1–2), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ISO. (2008). Language resource management—Lexical markup framework (LMF). International Standard ISO 24613.Google Scholar
  30. Kann, V., & Rosell, M. (2006). Free construction of a free Swedish dictionary of synonyms. In Proceedings of the 15th NODALIDA conference, Joensuu 2005 (pp. 105–110). Department of Linguistics, University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
  31. Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities 31(2), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lönngren, L. (1988). Lexika, baserade på semantiska relationer. In: Nordiske Datalingvistikdage og Symposium for datamatstøttet leksikografi og terminologi 1987 (pp. 229–236). Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolen i København, Institut for Datalingvistik.Google Scholar
  33. Lönngren, L. (1989). Svenskt associationslexikon: Rapport från ett projekt inom datorstödd lexikografi. Centrum för datorlingvistik. Uppsala universitet. Rapport UCDL-R-89-1.Google Scholar
  34. Lönngren, L. (1992). Svenskt associationslexikon. Del I-IV. Institutionen för lingvistik. Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
  35. Lönngren, L. (1998). A Swedish associative thesaurus. In Euralex ’98 proceedings, 2, 467–474.Google Scholar
  36. Mel’čuk, I. A. (1974). Opyt teorii lingvističeskih modelej «\( Smysl \leftrightarrow Tekst\)». Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, G. A. (1998). Nouns in WordNet. In: C. Fellbaum (Ed.), WordNet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 23–46). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Morris, J., & Hirst, G. (2004). Non-classical lexical semantic relations. In HLT-NAACL 2004: Workshop on computational lexical semantics (pp. 46–51). Boston: ACL.Google Scholar
  39. Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sag, I. A., Baldwin, T., Bond, F., Copestake, A., & Flickinger, D. (2001). Multiword expressions: A pain in the neck for NLP. In Proc. of the 3rd international conference on intelligent text processing and computational linguistics (CICLing-2002 (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Vossen, P. (Ed.). (1998). EuroWordNet: A multilingual database with lexical semantic networks for European languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  42. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universals. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wurzel, W. U. (1989). Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Borin
    • 1
  • Markus Forsberg
    • 1
  • Lennart Lönngren
    • 2
  1. 1.Språkbanken, Department of SwedishUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.University of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations