Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

General Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Frames and Concept Types

Part of the book series: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy ((SLAP,volume 94))

  • 1023 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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. 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behaghel, O. 1923. Deutsche Syntax Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitaetsbuchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, H.C. 2008. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 17–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse, D. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, B. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. 2002. The ‘platforms’ for comparing incommensurable taxonomies: A cognitive-historical analysis source. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellbaum, C. (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C.J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fillmore, C.J., C.R. Johnson, and M.R.L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung (‘on sense and meaning’). Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual spaces. The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, N. 1992. Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations. Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 8: 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, B. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H., and B. Partee. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A., and E.F. Kittay (eds.). 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsday: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löbner, S. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1995. Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4): 635–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C., and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E., and C.B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P.F. 1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Universitätsstraße 1, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany

    Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen

Authors
  1. Thomas Gamerschlag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doris Gerland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rainer Osswald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wiebke Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Gamerschlag .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Thomas Gamerschlag

  2. Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Doris Gerland

  3. Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Rainer Osswald

  4. Department of Linguistics and Information Science, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Wiebke Petersen

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation