Frames as Records

  • Robin CooperEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9804)


We suggest a way of formalizing frames using records in type theory. We propose an analysis of frames as records which model situations (including events) and we suggest that frame types (record types) are important in both the analysis of the Partee puzzle concerning rising temperatures and prices and in the analysis of quantification which involves counting events rather than individuals likes passengers or ships passing through a lock.

Our original inspiration for frames comes from the work of [13, 14] and work on FrameNet ( An important aspect of our approach to frames, which differs from the Fillmorean approach, is that we treat them as first class objects. That is, they can be arguments to predicates and can be quantified over. The proposal that we have made for solving the Partee puzzle is closely related to the work of [22, 23] whose inspiration is from the work of [1, 2, 3] rather than Fillmore.


Frames Type theory Record types Events Situations 


  1. 1.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Cognitive Psychology. An Overview for Cognitive Scientists. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semanticand Lexical Organization, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22, 577–660 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson, G.N.: Generic terms and generic sentences. J. Philos. Logic 11, 145–181 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, R.: Frames in formal semantics. In: Loftsson, H., Rögnvaldsson, E., Helgadóttir, S. (eds.) IceTAL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6233, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, R.: Type theory and semantics in flux. In: Kempson, R., Asher, N., Fernando, T. (eds.) Philosophy of Linguistics. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 14, pp. 271–323. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2012). General editors: Gabbay, D.M., Thagard, P., Woods, JGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, R.: Type theory and language: from perception to linguistic communication (in prep).
  8. 8.
    Fernando, T.: A finite-state approach to events in natural language semantics. J. Logic Comput. 14(1), 79–92 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernando, T.: Situations as strings. Electron. Notes Theoret. Comput. Sci. 165, 23–36 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernando, T.: Finite-state descriptions for temporal semantics. In: Bunt, H., Muskens, R. (eds.) Comput. Meaning. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 83, pp. 347–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fernando, T.: Situations in LTL as strings. Inf. Comput. 207(10), 980–999 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fernando, T.: Constructing situations and time. J. Philos. Logic 40, 371–396 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2), 222–254 (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, A.: The Logic of Common Nouns: An Investigation in Quantified Model Logic. Yale University Press, New Haven (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Halliday, M.A.K.: Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In: van Dijk, T., Petöfi, J. (eds.) Grammars and Descriptions, pp. 176–225. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1977)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kallmeyer, L., Osswald, R.: Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. J. Lang. Model. 1(2), 267–330 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krifka, M.: Four thousand ships passed through the lock: object-induced measure functions on events. Linguist. Philos. 13, 487–520 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linell, P.: Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing Human Development. Information Age Publishing Inc., Charlotte (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Löbner, S.: Intensionale Verben und Funktionalbegriffe. Untersuchung zur Syntax und Semantik von wechseln und den vergleichbaren Verben des Deutschen. Narr, Tübingen (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Löbner, S.: Intensional verbs and functional concepts: more on the “rising temperature” problem. Linguist. Inq. 12(3), 471–477 (1981)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Löbner, S.: Evidence for frames from human language. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Petersen, W., Osswald, R. (eds.) Frames and Concept Types, Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 94, pp. 23–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
    Montague, R.: The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., Suppes, P. (eds.) Approaches to Natural Language: Proceedings of the 1970 Stanford Workshop on Grammar and Semantics, pp. 247–270. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht (1973)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prinz, J.J., Barsalou, L.W.: Steering a course for embodied representation. In: Dietrich, E., Markman, A.B. (eds.) Cognitive Dynamics: Conceptual and Representational Change in Humans and Machines, pp. 51–77. Psychology Press, Hove (2014). Previously published in 2000 by Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations