[Lexicog] FrameNet

[David Frank]

from David Frank:

If Agent is more generic than Healer, then it seems to me that there is an imbalance in the FrameNet analyses of these sentences:

    John [[Healer]] treated Mary with antibiotics.
    John [[Agent]] treated the woodwork with creosote.

The second of these sentences should have been given a frame that is more specific than simply Agent, to match the level of specificity in the first example. Or else John should be called an Agent in both cases.

To follow this to its logical extreme, shouldn't each agentive verb -- and each sense of each verb -- have its own specific type of agent? How about these examples?

    John [[stumbler]] stumbled over a root.
    John [[drinker]] drank a cup of coffee.
    et cetera

In the first example, of John treating Mary with antibiotics, how would you distinguish that from the following?

    John healed Mary with antibiotics.

In other words, when John treated Mary with antibiotics, what if that treatment didn't actually have any positive effect? Is he still a Healer then? On what basis? I agree with the concerns that I have heard, that this all seems very ad hoc and inconsistent. Maybe the problem is that it is not yet "ready for prime time."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Hanks wrote:

Thirdly, the relationship between semantic types and semantic roles needs
attention. To take an example:

John treated Mary with antibiotics = [[Healer]] treated [[Patient]] with [[Medication]]
John treated the woodwork with creosote = [[Agent]] treated [[Material]] with [[Alterant]]

Does FN provide sufficient information for the interpretation that in one
case John is a Healer and in the other an Agent? The semantic type of "John"
is [[Human]]; there is nothing explicit in the text that says that he is a
Healer or an Agent. This is a semantic role assigned to John (semantic type
= Human) by the context. This is a systematic problem with FN, which we are
trying to address in the Verb Pattern Dictionary (watch this space).

John Roberts wrote:

I would disagree with your semantic analysis here. Agent is a more 
generalized semantic role and John is Agent in both cases. Healer is a more 
verb-specific semantic role and would strictly apply to the first argument 
of the verb *heal*. But you could apply the role of Healer to *treat* in 
this sense of "apply medical attention". The more specific semantic role of 
*John* in *John treated the woodwork with creosote* would be Preserver as in 
the sense *apply something to preserve*.

The sense of the predicate *treat* is derived from the object of the verb 
and the object of the preposition *with*. For example, in (a) where the 
object is *the patient* the interpretation of *treat* meaning [apply medical 
attention] makes the most sense, whereas in (b) where the object is *the 
woodwork* then the interpretation of *treat* meaning [apply preservative] 
makes the most sense. In (c) since the *poisonous snake* is not inanimate 
the interpretation of *treat* meaning [apply medical attention] makes more 
sense than the interpretation of *treat* meaning [apply preservative] and 
you assume that John is a veterinarian. (semantic role of Vet?)
...
In any case the semantic role of the subject NP in each case is determined 
by the semantic properties of the object of the verb and the semantic 
properties of the object of *with* deliminating the meaning of the verb 
*treat*. Whether you choose to specify this semantic role in more general 
terms like Agent and Patient or in more verb specific terms such as Healer, 
Preserver, Pay attentioner, etc. it wouldn't capture the fact that the 
meaning of *treat* is derived from its complements.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20060531/f0efabd2/attachment.htm>