Abstract
In this paper, we show how frames can be employed in the analysis of genitive constructions. We model the main approaches in the discussion about genitive constructions, i.e. the argument-only approach, the modifier-only approach and the split approach. Of these three, the split approach is modeled most naturally in frames. Thus, if frames are considered a cognitively adequate representation of concepts, our analysis supports the split approach to the interpretation of genitive constructions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The former construction ‘brother of John’ is often referred to as a ‘postnominal genitive of phrase’ (Barker to appear). Whether the latter construction ‘a brother of John’s’ is a genitive construction is controversial. While some, including Partee and Borschev (2003), classify ‘of John’s’ as a postnominal Saxon genitive, Barker (2004) and others argue that it is not a true genitive but a partitive construction.
- 2.
Throughout this paper, we will concentrate on examples in which the main NP consists of a single noun. More complex NPs which involve relational adjectives, e.g., ‘John’s favorite movie’, will not be considered in detail here.
- 3.
- 4.
Exceptions occur when the node’s referent is uniquely determined, as will be discussed in Sect. 11.2.2.
- 5.
Note that this expression is not unique. We do not regard the dual question of which fragment of the λ-calculus is expressable by frames.
- 6.
He calls them conceptual types but to avoid confusion with the type hierarchy and with logical types, we stick to ‘classes’ in this paper.
- 7.
Again, please note that our examples are highly simplified.
- 8.
Remember that Löbner calls ‘type’ what we call ‘class’.
- 9.
We write predicates in the same fonts as in frames, i.e. A for an attribute and T for a type.
- 10.
This is an artefact of the λ-notation. In the graph notation, the central node is closed iff it is determined by an incoming arc from another open node or from context. If a construction fills that node or destroys the connection to the open node, the central node is open. In λ-notation, there is no such straightforward constraint.
- 11.
We write Pred (FC) to denote the predicative reading of the FC.
- 12.
For example, it can be argued that the genitive construction should be made with a minimal frame for the concept, like the one in Fig. 11.18. This, in turn, opens the question about definition and existence of minimal frames.
References
Barker, Chris. 2004. Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, ed. Y. Lander, J. Kim, and B.H. Partee, 89–113. Amherst: GLSA, Linguistic Department, University of Massachusets at Amherst.
Barker, Chris. to appear. Possessives and relational nouns.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and contrasts, ed. Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartmann, K., and M. Zimmermann. 2003. Syntactic and semantic adnominal genitive. In A-symmetrien – A-symmetries, ed. C. Maienborn, 171–202. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Jensen, Per Anker, and Carl Vikner. 1994. Lexical knowledge and the semantic analysis of Danish genitive constructions. In Topics in knowledge-based NLP systems, ed. S.L. Hansen and H. Wegener, 37–55. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Jensen, Per Anker, and Carl Vikner. 2004. The English prenominal genitive and lexical semantics. In Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, ed. Yury A. Lander, Ji-Yung Kim, and Barbara H. Partee, 3–27. Amherst: GLSA.
Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics. Access published in May 2011.
Löbner, Sebastian. 2013. Evidence for frames from human language. In Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, ed. Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen. Heidelberg: Springer.
Ortmann, Albert. 2013. Definite article asymmetries and concept types: Semantic and pragmatic uniqueness. In Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, ed. Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald, and Wiebke Petersen. Heidelberg: Springer.
Partee, Barbara H. 1983/1997. Uniformity versus versatility: The genitive, a case study. In The handbook of logic and language, ed. Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 464–470. Amsterdam/New York: Elsevier. Chapter Appendix to Theo Janssen (1997) Compositionality.
Partee, Barbara H. 1986. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principles. In Studies in discourse representation theory and the theory of generalized quantifiers, ed. D. de Jongh, J. Groenendijk, and M. Stokhof, chap. 15, 115–143. Dordrecht: Foris.
Partee, Barbara H., and Vladimir Borschev. 1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting. In Proceedings of the second Tbilisi symposium on language, logic and computation, ed. R. Cooper and Th. Gamkrelidze, 229–241. Tbilisi: Center on Language, Logic, Speech: Tbilisi State University.
Partee, Barbara H., and Vladimir Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns, and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. C. Maienborn, E. Lang, and C. Fabrizius-Hansen. Interface explorations, 67–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Petersen, Wiebke, and Tanja Osswald. 2012. A formal interpretation of concept types and type shifts. In Cognitive processes in language, ed. Krzysztof Kosecki and Janusz Badio. Volume 25 of Lodz studies in language, 183–191. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Petersen, Wiebke, and Markus Werning. 2007. Conceptual fingerprints: Lexical decomposition by means of frames – a neuro-cognitive model. In ICCS 2007, Sheffield, ed. U. Priss, S. Polovina, and R. Hill. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, 415–428. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT.
Søgaard, Anders. 2006. The semantics of possession in natural language and knowledge representation. Journal of Universal Language 6: 85–115.
Vikner, C., and P.A. Jensen. 2002. A semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2): 191–226.
Acknowledgements
Work on this paper was funded by the DFG, FOR 600. We would like to thank the audiences of ctf09 and Riga2010, an anonymous reviewer of an earlier version of this paper, and Marie-Luise Fischer, Janine Reinert, Eva Nowack, Albert Ortmann, Ralf Naumann and Sebastian Löbner for helpful comments.
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
Petersen, W., Osswald, T. (2014). Concept Composition in Frames: Focusing on Genitive Constructions. 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_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01541-5_11
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)