Czech Verbs of Communication and the Extraction of Their Frames

  • Václava Benešová
  • Ondřej Bojar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4188)


We aim at a procedure of automatic generation of valency frames for verbs not covered in VALLEX, a lexicon of Czech verbs. We exploit the classification of verbs into syntactico-semantic classes. This article describes our first step to automatically identify verbs of communication and to assign the prototypical frame to them. The method of identification is evaluated against two versions of VALLEX and FrameNet 1.2. For the purpose of frame generation, a new metric based on the notion of frame edit distance is outlined.


True Positive Rate Communication Class Edit Operation Verb Class Semantic Classis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sgall, P., Hajičová, E., Panevová, J.: The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hajič, J.: Complex Corpus Annotation: The Prague Dependency Treebank. In: Šimková, M. (ed.) Insight into Slovak and Czech Corpus Linguistics, Bratislava, Slovakia, Veda, vydavatel’stvo SAV, pp. 54–73 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopatková, M., Žabokrtský, Z., Skwarska, K.: Valency Lexicon of Czech Verbs: Alternation-Based Model. In: Proceedings of LREC 2006. ELRA, pp. 1728–1733 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levin, B.: English Verb Classes and Alternations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palmer, M.e.a.: The Proposition Bank: An Annotated Corpus of Semantic Roles. Computational Linguistics 31, 71–106 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackendoff, R.: Semantic Structures. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dorr, B.J., Mari, O.B.: Multilingual Generation: The Role of Telicity in Lexical Choice and Syntactic Realization. Machine Translation 11, 37–74 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker, C.F., Fillmore, C.J., Lowe, J.B.: The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: Boitet, C., Whitelock, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Seventeenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 86–90. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fillmore, C.J., Wooters, C., Baker, C.F.: Building a large lexical databank which provides deep semantics. In: Proceedings of the Pacific Asian Conference on Language, Information and Computation, Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fillmore, C.J.: FrameNet and the Linking between Semantic and Syntactic Relations. In: Tseng, S.C. (ed.) Proceedings of COLING 2002, Howard International House, pp. xxviii–xxxvi (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korhonen, A.: Subcategorization Acquisition. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-530, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, Cambridge, UK (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Václava Benešová
    • 1
  • Ondřej Bojar
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, ÚFAL MFF UKPrahaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations