Advertisement

Evidence for Frames from Human Language

  • Sebastian LöbnerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 94)

Abstract

The point of departure of this paper is the hypothesis that there is a general format common to all representations in the human cognitive system. There is evidence from cognitive psychology that this might be frames in the sense of Barsalou’s. The aim of the paper is an exploration of the consequences of this assumption for natural language. Does natural language provide evidence in favor of Barsalou frames being the general format of representations in human cognition? The paper discusses two levels of representation of linguistic gestures: syntactic structure and meaning. The first part deals with syntactic structure and compositional meaning. It is argued that specific universal uniqueness constraints on the syntactic and semantic structure of complex linguistic gestures provide positive evidence for the assumption. The second part investigates lexical semantics, in particular the emergence of abstract attribute vocabulary. Observations in this field, too, corroborate the hypothesis.

Keywords

Frames Cognition Natural language Syntactic structure compositional meaning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to Robert D. Van Valin Jr., Albert Ortmann, Katina Bontcheva, Anja Latrouite, and Thomas Gamerschlag, for discussion, comments, and hints. I would also like to thank the two reviewers of the paper as well as the audience of the talk which I held at the 2009 International Conference on Concept Types and Frames at Düsseldorf. The research for this article was supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) grant Research Unit RU 600 “Functional Concepts and Frames”.

References

  1. Anderson, John M. 1977. On case grammar. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992a. Cognitive psychology. An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992b. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, ed. A. Lehrer and E.F. Kittay, 21–74. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660.Google Scholar
  5. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Language & Cognitive Processes 18: 513–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barsalou, Lawrence W., and Christopher R. Hale. 1993. Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. In Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis, ed. I. Van Mechelen, J. Hampton, R. Michalski, and P. Theuns, 97–144. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms. Their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of Los Angeles Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1987/1989. Semantik der Graduierung. In Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, eds. Manfred Bierwisch, and Ewald Lang, 91–286. Berlin: Akademieverlag. 1987. English trans: The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives. Grammatical structure and conceptual interpretation, eds. Manfred Bierwisch, and Ewald Lang, 71–262. Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. 1989.Google Scholar
  9. Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Carruthers, Peter, and Peter K. Smith. 1996. Introduction. In Theories of theories of mind, ed. P. Carruthers and P.K. Smith, 1–10. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Corbett, Greville. 2000. Number. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comrie, Bernard, and Maria Polinsky. 1998. The great Daghestanian case hoax. In Case, typology and grammar. In honour of Barry J. Blake, ed. A. Siewierska and J.J. Song, 95–114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Creissels, Denis. 2011. Spatial case. In The Oxford handbook of case, ed. A.L. Mal’chukov and Andrew Spencer, 609–625. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cresswell, M.J. 1985. Structured meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Debusmann, Ralph, and Marco Kuhlmann. 2009. Dependency grammar: Classification and exploration. In Resource-adaptive cognitive processes, ed. M.W. Crocker and J. Siegmann, 365–388. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Dixon, Robert W.M. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Language 1: 19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farmer, Ann K. 1989. Configurationality and anaphora – Evidence from English and Japanese. In Configurationality. The typology of asymmetries, ed. L. Marácz and P. Muysken, 249–266. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  21. Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in linguistic theory, ed. E. Bach and R.T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  22. Guarino, Nicola. 1992. Concepts, attributes, and arbitrary relations. Some linguistic and ontological criteria for structuring knowledge bases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 8: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20. Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. K. Hale and S.J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-bar syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jacob, François. 1977. Evolution and tinkering. Science 196 (Nr. 4295): 1161–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janssen, Theo M.V. 1997. Compositionality. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 417–473. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelter, Stephanie, and Barbara Kaup. 2012. Conceptual knowledge, categorization, and meaning. In Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 3. eds. Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner, 2775–2804. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. King, Jeffrey C. 1996. Structured propositions and sentence structure. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 495–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. King, Jeffrey C. 2008. Structured propositions. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2008 ed.), ed. E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/propositions-structured/. Accessed 22 Mar 2011.
  31. Levinson, Stephen C. 2001. Yélî Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10: 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Linnebo, Øystein, and David Nicolas. 2008. Superplurals in English. Analysis 68: 186–197.Google Scholar
  33. Löbner, Sebastian. 1979. Intensionale Verben und Funktionalbegriffe. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  34. Löbner, Sebastian. 1990. Wahr neben Falsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Löbner, Sebastian. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. In Approaches to discourse anaphora: Proceedings of DAARC96 – discourse anaphora and resolution colloquium, Lancaster University July 17th–18th 1996, ed. Simon Botley. Lancaster, Lancaster University. Also available at http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/mU3YzU1N/.
  36. Löbner, Sebastian. 2000. Polarity in natural language: Predication, quantification and negation in particular and characterizing sentences. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 213–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Löbner, Sebastian. 2011. Concept types and determination. Journal of Semantics 28: 279–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Löbner, Sebastian. 2012. Functional concepts and frames. Available at: http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/jI1NGEwO/.
  39. Löbner, Sebastian. 2013. Understanding semantics, 2nd ed. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Markman, E. 1989. Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Montague, Richard. 1970. Universal grammar. Theoria 36: 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moravcsik, Edith A. 1995. Summing up Suffixaufnahme. In Double case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, ed. Frans Plank, 451–484. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ostler, Nicholas. 1980. A theory of case linking and agreement. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  44. Pensalfini, Rob. 2004. Towards a typology of configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 359–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Petersen, Wiebke. 2007. Decomposing concepts with frames. In Complex cognition and qualitative science. The Baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication, vol. 2, eds. J. Skilters, F. Toccafondi, and G. Stemberger, 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.Google Scholar
  46. Plank, Frans. 1995. (Re-)introducing Suffixaufnahme. In Double case. Agreement by Suffixaufnahme, ed. F. Plank, 3–110. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Rosch, Eleanor, C.B. Mervis, W.D. Gray, D.M. Johnson, and P. Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sapir, Edward. 1944. Grading, a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11: 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schachter, Paul and Fe T. Otanes. 1982. Tagalog reference grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Soames, Scott. 1987. Direct reference, propositional attitudes and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Stassen, Leon. 2000. AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguistic Typology 4: 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2001. An Introduction to syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Valin Jr., Robert D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Werning, Markus. 2010. Complex first? On the evolutionary and developmental priority of semantically thick words. Philosophy of Science 77: 1096–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang, Niina Ning. 2009. Coordination in syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dictionaries

  1. [Georges] Georges, Karl Ernst. 2004. Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch. Digital ed. Berlin: Directmedia.Google Scholar
  2. [Grimm] Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm. 1854–1954. Deutsches Wörterbuch, Reprint 1984. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. [Klein] Klein, Ernest. 1967. A comprehensive etymological dictionary of the English language. Amsterdam/London/New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations