Abstract
The topic of this volume is the investigation of frame representations and their relations to concept types. Frames are cognitively founded and formally explored devices for representing knowledge about objects and categories by means of attributes and their values. They offer a flexible and expressive way of representing concepts of different types in language, philosophy and science at different levels of detail and at different stages of processing and development. This interdisciplinary volume presents approaches to frames and concept types from the perspective of linguistics and philosophy of science.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The analysis is based on the FrameNet online database as of January 2013. While (1) is not an actual corpus example of FrameNet, there are analogous examples in the database such as Unemployed Martin Lewis of Trinity Close in the town, stabbed Trevor Lampett in the chest with a 10 inch kitchen knife.
- 2.
For the moment, we put aside the distinction between the formal arguments of a predicate and the syntactic arguments and adjuncts of a verb. FrameNet draws a distinction between “core” and “non-core” roles in order to single out the roles that contribute to the core meaning of the frame.
References
Andersen, H., P. Barker, and X. Chen. 2006. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, C. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Barsalou, L.W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and contrasts, eds. A. Lehrer and E.F. Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barsalou, L.W., and C.R. Hale. 1993. Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis, eds. I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. Michalski, and P. Theuns, 97–144. San Diego: Academic.
Behaghel, O. 1923. Deutsche Syntax Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitaetsbuchhandlung.
Bergen, B.K., and N. Chang. 2005. Embodied construction grammar in simulation-based language understanding. In Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, eds. J.-O. Östman and M. Fried, 147–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boas, H.C. 2008. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 17–48.
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Busse, D. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Carpenter, B. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chappell, H., and W. McGregor (eds.). 1996. The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part whole relation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Chen, X. 2002. The ‘platforms’ for comparing incommensurable taxonomies: A cognitive-historical analysis source. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33(1): 1–22.
De Bruin, J., and R. Scha. 1988. The interpretation of relational nouns. In Proceedings of 26th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, ed. J. R. Hobbs, 25–32. Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo.
Fellbaum, C. (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fillmore, C.J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.
Fillmore, C.J. 2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. In Valency: Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues, eds. T. Herbst and K. Götz-Votteler, 129–160. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C.J., and C. Baker. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. In The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, eds. B. Heine and H. Narog, 313–340. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C.J., C.R. Johnson, and M.R.L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250.
Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung (‘on sense and meaning’). Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.
Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual spaces. The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gerland, D., and C. Horn. 2010. Referential properties of nouns across languages. In Universal grammar and individual languages. In Proceedings of SICoL 2010, eds. Choi, D.-H., Hong, J.-S., Kang, H.-K., Kang, Y.-S., Kim, K.-H., Kim, K.-A., Yoon, J.-Y., Rhee, S.-H., and Wu, J.-S. Seoul: Korea University.
Gleitman, L.R., A.C. Connolly, and S.L. Armstrong. 2012. Can prototype representations support composition and decomposition? In Oxford handbook of compositionality, eds. M. Werning, W. Hinzen, and E. Machery, 418–436. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guarino, N. 1992. Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations. Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 8: 249–261.
Guarino, N. 2009. The ontological level: Revisiting 30 years of knowledge representation. In Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Essays in honor of John Mylopoulos, eds. A.T. Borgida, V.K. Chaudhri, P. Giorgini, and E.S. Yu, 52–67. Berlin: Springer.
Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.
Heine, B. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kamp, H., and B. Partee. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191.
Lehrer, A., and E.F. Kittay (eds.). 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsday: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.
Löbner, S. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Montague, R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398.
Osswald, R. 2012. Standards for the formal representation of linguistic data: An exchange format for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on natural language processing (KONVENS), ed. J. Jancsary, 486–493. Wien: Österreichische Gesellschaft für Artificial Intelligence.
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Parsons, T. 1995. Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4): 635–662.
Partee, B.H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. J. Groenendijk, D. de Jongh, and M. Stokhof, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
Petersen, W. 2007. Representation of concepts as frames. In Complex cognition and qualitative science, the Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, vol. 2, eds. J. Skilters et al., 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.
Pollard, C., and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Rosch, E., and C.B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605.
Rounds, W.C. 1997. Feature logics. In Handbook of logic and language, eds. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 475–533. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.
Strawson, P.F. 1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.
Woods, W.A. 1975. What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, eds. D.G. Bobrow and A.M. Collins, 35–82. New York: Academic.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (2014). General Introduction. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds) Frames and Concept Types. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 94. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01540-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01541-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)