General Introduction

  • Thomas GamerschlagEmail author
  • Doris Gerland
  • Rainer Osswald
  • Wiebke Petersen
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 94)


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.


Concept Frame Definite Article Frame Representation Concept Type Frame Attribute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Andersen, H., P. Barker, and X. Chen. 2006. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, C. 1995. Possessive descriptions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Behaghel, O. 1923. Deutsche Syntax Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitaetsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Boas, H.C. 2008. Towards a frame-constructional approach to verb classification. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 57: 17–48.Google Scholar
  8. Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Busse, D. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carpenter, B. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Chen, X. 2002. The ‘platforms’ for comparing incommensurable taxonomies: A cognitive-historical analysis source. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Fellbaum, C. (ed.). 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fillmore, C.J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Fillmore, C.J., C.R. Johnson, and M.R.L. Petruck. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frege, G. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung (‘on sense and meaning’). Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
  20. Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual spaces. The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Guarino, N. 1992. Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations. Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 8: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heim, I. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  26. Heine, B. 1997. Possession. Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamp, H., and B. Partee. 1995. Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition 57: 129–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehrer, A., and E.F. Kittay (eds.). 1992. Frames, fields, and contrasts. Hillsday: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Löbner, S. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Löbner, S. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montague, R. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Parsons, T. 1995. Thematic relations and arguments. Linguistic Inquiry 26(4): 635–662.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Pollard, C., and I.A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rosch, E., and C.B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7(4): 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seiler, H. 1983. Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  42. Strawson, P.F. 1959. Individuals. London: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Gamerschlag
    • 1
    Email author
  • Doris Gerland
    • 1
  • Rainer Osswald
    • 1
  • Wiebke Petersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations