Concept Composition in Frames: Focusing on Genitive Constructions

  • Wiebke PetersenEmail author
  • Tanja Osswald
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 94)


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.


Genitive constructions Frames Concept composition 



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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Barker, Chris. to appear. Possessives and relational nouns.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hartmann, K., and M. Zimmermann. 2003. Syntactic and semantic adnominal genitive. In A-symmetrien – A-symmetries, ed. C. Maienborn, 171–202. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics. Access published in May 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. 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.
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  19. Søgaard, Anders. 2006. The semantics of possession in natural language and knowledge representation. Journal of Universal Language 6: 85–115.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations