Sitting, Standing, and Lying in Frames: A Frame-Based Approach to Posture Verbs

  • Thomas Gamerschlag
  • Wiebke Petersen
  • Liane Ströbel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7758)

Abstract

Posture verbs which allow for an extended locative use, such as sit, stand and lie, make reference to specific parts of the localized object, to the orientation of prominent object axes and to positional information, which are perceived by means of cognitive modules such as gestalt recognition and spatial perception. These properties render posture verbs an excellent object for the investigation of cognition and language. This paper analyzes the three basic posture verbs of German (sitzen ‘sit’, stehen ‘stand’ and liegen ‘lie’) in terms of frame representations. It turns out that frames can serve as a highly flexible device for decompositional analyses that is at the same time a cognitively plausible knowledge representation format.

Keywords

posture verbs extended locative use frame analysis object schemata German Korean French 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ameka, F.K., Levinson, S.C.: The typology and semantics of locative predicates: posturals, positionals, and other beasts. Linguistics 45(5/6), 847–871 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asbury, A., Dotlačil, J., Gehrke, B., Nouwen, R.: Syntax and semantics of spatial P. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, pp. 21–74. Erlbaum, Hillsday (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berthele, R.: The typology of motion and posture verbs: a variationist account. In: Kortmann, B. (ed.) Dialectology Meets Typology, pp. 93–126. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bierwisch, M.: Semantik der Graduierung. In: Bierwisch, M., Lang, E. (eds.) Grammatische und Konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, pp. 91–286. Akademieverlag, Berlin (1987)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bierwisch, M., Lang, E.: Grammatische und Konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven. Akademieverlag, Berlin (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L., Garrett, M.F.: Language and Space. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chomsky, N., Halle, M.: The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebert, K.: Progressive markers in Germanic languages. In: Dahl, Ö. (ed.) Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, pp. 605–653. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans, V., Chilton, P.: Language, cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions. Equinox Publishing, London (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahlmann, S.E.: A system for representing and using real-world knowledge. PhD thesis. MIT (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gamerschlag, T., Petersen, W.: An analysis of the evidential use of perception verbs. In: Hart, C. (ed.) Selected Papers from UK-CLA Meetings, vol. 1, pp. 1–18 (2012), http://uk-cla.org.uk/proceedings
  13. 13.
    Hickmann, M., Robert, S.: Space in Language: linguistic systems and cognitive categories. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaufmann, I.: Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen: Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Komplemente. Niemeyer, Tübingen (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuteva, T.: Auxiliation: an enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kutscher, S., Schultze-Berndt, E.: Why a folder lies in the basket although it is not lying: the semantics and use of German positional verbs with inanimate figures. Linguistics 45(5/6), 983–1028 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landau, B., Jackendoff, R.: ‘What’ and ‘where’ in spatial language and spatial cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(2), 217–238 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang, E.: Semantik der Dimensionsauszeichnung räumlicher Objekte. In: Bierwisch, M., Lang, E. (eds.) Grammatische und Konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, pp. 287–458. Akademieverlag, Berlin (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lang, E.: Spatial dimension terms. In: Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., Raible, W. (eds.) Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. HSK, vol. 20.2, pp. 1251–1275. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lang, E., Carstensen, K.-U., Simmons, G.: Modelling Spatial Knowledge on a Linguistic Basis. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 481. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lemmens, M.: Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 17(3), 183–217 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levinson, S.C.: Space in language and cognition: explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levinson, S.C., Wilkins, D.P.: Grammars of space. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Löbner, S.: Evidence for frames from human language. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Concept Types and Frames in Language, Cognition and Science (to appear)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Minsky, M.: A framework for representing knowledge. In: Winston, P.H. (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision, pp. 211–277. McGraw-Hill, New York (1975)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Newman, J.: The linguistics of sitting, standing and lying. Benjamins, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Keefe, J.: The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the Cognitive Map Theory. In: Bloom, P., Peterson, M.A., Nadel, L., Garrett, M.F. (eds.) Language and Space, pp. 277–316. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petersen, W.: Decomposing concepts with frames. In: Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 2, pp. 151–170 (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petersen, W., Gamerschlag, T.: Why chocolate eggs can taste old but not oval: a frame-theoretic analysis of inferential evidentials. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Concept Types and Frames in Language, Cognition and Science (to appear)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petersen, W., Osswald, T.: A formal interpretation of concept types and type shifts. In: Kosecki, K., Badio, J. (eds.) Cognitive Processes in Language. Lodz Studies in Language, vol. 25, pp. 183–191. Peter Lang, Frankfurt (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petersen, W., Werning, M.: Conceptual Fingerprints: Lexical Decomposition by Means of Frames – a Neuro-cognitive Model. In: Priss, U., Polovina, S., Hill, R. (eds.) ICCS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4604, pp. 415–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Serra Borneto, C.: ‘Liegen’ and ‘stehen’ in German: a study in horizontality and verticality. In: Casad, E.H. (ed.) Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: the Expansion of a New Paradigm, CLR 6, pp. 459–505. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song, J.J.: The posture verbs in Korean. In: Newman, J. (ed.) The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing and Lying, pp. 359–385. Benjamins, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Talmy, L.: Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vosgerau, G., Seuchter, T., Petersen, W.: Analyzing concepts in action frames. University of Düsseldorf (2012) (manuscript)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wunderlich, D.: How do prepositional phrases fit into compositional syntax and semantics? Linguistics 29, 591–621 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wunderlich, D., Herweg, M.: Lokale und Direktionale. In: von Stechow, A., Wunderlich, D. (eds.) Semantik. Ein Internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. HSK, vol. 6, pp. 758–785. de Gruyter, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zwarts, J.: Vectors as relative positions: a compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14, 57–86 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zwarts, J., Winter, Y.: Vector space semantics: a model-theoretic analysis of locative prepositions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9, 169–211 (2000)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Gamerschlag
    • 1
  • Wiebke Petersen
    • 1
  • Liane Ströbel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations