From Semantic Memory to Semantic Content

  • Henk ZeevatEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11456)


Barsalou (1992), Löbner (2014, 2015) hypothesise that frames form the natural way in which the brain represents concepts and more complicated semantic content built from concepts. An interesting aspect of the hypothesis is that it becomes easy to define stochastic properties of concepts. Particular frames can be seen as a collection of stochastic variables.

This paper develops a simple but powerful notion of semantic memory on the basis of an earlier concept of lexical knowledge under the frame hypothesis. It then tries to answer the question of whether the stochastic information in semantic memory contributes to conceptual content.


  1. Baroni, M., Zamparelli, R.: Nouns are vectors, adjectives are matrices: Representing adjective-noun constructions in semantic space. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2010, pp. 1183–1193. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L.: Frames, concepts and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organisation, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  3. Barsalou, L.: Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 364(1521), 1281–9 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder, J.R., et al.: Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 33(3–4), 130–174 (2016). PMID: 27310469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boleda, G., Baroni, M., Pham, T.N., McNally, L.: Intensionality was only alleged: on adjective-noun composition in distributional semantics. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2013) - Long Papers, Potsdam, Germany, pp. 35–46. Association for Computational Linguistics (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kasper, W.: Presuppositions, composition, and simple subjunctives. J. Semant. 9(4), 307–331 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Löbner, S.: Evidence for frames from human language. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Frames and Concept Types. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 94, pp. 23–67. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  10. Löbner, S.: Functional concepts and frames. In: Gamerschlag, T., Gerland, D., Osswald, R., Petersen, W. (eds.) Meaning, Frames, and Conceptual Representation. Studies in Language and Cognition, vol. 2, pp. 13–42. Düsseldorf University Press, Düsseldorf (2015)Google Scholar
  11. Moxey, L.M., Sanford, A.J.: Quantifiers and focus. J. Semant. 5(3), 189–206 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones, N., Jon Willits, M., Dennis, S.: Models of semantic memory. In: Busemeyer, J.R., Townsend, J.T. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Mathematical and Computational Psychology, pp. 232–254. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
  13. Petersen, W.: Representation of concepts as frames. In: Skilters. J., et al. (eds.) Complex Cognition and Qualitative Science. The Baltic International Handbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, vol. 2, pp. 151–170. University of Latvia (2007)Google Scholar
  14. Saeboe, K.J.: Anaphoric presuppositions and zero anaphora. Linguist. Philos. 19(2), 187–209 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zeevat, H.: Language Production and Interpretation. Linguistics Meets Cognition. Jacob Brill, Leiden (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Zeevat, H.: Local satisfaction explained away. In: Moroney, M., Little, C.-R., Collard, J., Burgdorf, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 26th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference, vol. 26 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zeevat, H., Grimm, S., Hogeweg, L., Lestrade, S., Smith, E.A.: Representing the lexicon: Identifying meaning in use via overspecification. In: Balogh, K., Petersen, W. (eds.) Proceedings of Workshop Bridging Formal and Conceptual Semantics (BRIDGE 2014). Düsseldorf University Press (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SFB991DüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.ILLCAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations