1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 7, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 7, 2021

Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition

Abstract

This article reviews the work on frames in the last decade by a Düsseldorf research group. The research is based on Barsalou's notion of frames and the hypothesis that the frame is the general format of categorization in human cognition. The Düsseldorf frame group developed formal definitions and interpretations of Barsalou frames and applied the theory in linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. This review focuses on applications of the theory in semantics. The Düsseldorf approach grounds the analysis of composition in deep decomposition of lexical meanings with frames. The basic mechanism of composition is unification, which has deep repercussions on semantic theory and practice: Composition produces structured meanings and is not necessarily deterministic. The interaction of semantic and world knowledge can be modeled in an overall frame model across levels of linguistic analysis. The review concludes with a brief report on the development of hyperframes for dynamic verbs and for cascades, a model for multilevel categorization of action.

Keyword(s): cascades, cognitive representations, composition, decomposition, frames, unification
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
2021-01-04
2024-05-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Allen J. 1983. Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Commun. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 26:832–43
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson C. 2019. Specification of methods and the semantics of method-oriented adverbs. Proc. Linguist. Soc. Am. 4:22 https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v4i1.4529
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson C, Löbner S. 2018. Roles and the compositional semantics of role-denoting relational adjectives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 U Sauerland, S Solt 91–108 Berlin: ZAS https://semanticsarchive.net/sub2018/Anderson.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andreou M. 2017. Stereotype negation in Frame Semantics. Glossa 2:179 http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.293
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Andreou M, Petitjean S. 2020. An XMG account of multiplicity of meaning in derivation. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  6. Austin JL. 1962. How to Do Things with Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  7. Babonnaud W, Kallmeyer L, Osswald R 2016. Polysemy and coercion—a frame-based approach using LTAG and Hybrid Logic. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL 2016) M Amblard, P de Groote, S Pogodalla, C Retoré 18–33 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Balogh K, Osswald R. 2020. A frame-based analysis of verbal particles in Hungarian. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  9. Barsalou LW. 1992a. Cognitive Psychology: An Overview for Cognitive Scientists Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  10. Barsalou LW. 1992b. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization A Lehrer, E Kittay 21–74 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Barsalou LW. 1993. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. Theories of Memory A Collins, S Gathercole, M Conway 29–101 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barsalou LW. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 22:577–660
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Barsalou LW. 2003. Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Lang. Cogn. Proc. 18:513–62
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Barsalou LW. 2017. What does semantic tiling of the cortex tell us about semantics. Neuropsychologia 105:18–38
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Barsalou LW, Hale CR. 1993. Components of conceptual representation: from feature lists to recursive frames. Categories and Concepts: Theoretical Views and Inductive Data Analysis I van Mechelen, J Hampton, R Michalski, P Theuns 97–144 San Diego, CA: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Beckmann N, Indefrey P, Petersen W 2018. Words count, but thoughts shift: a frame-based account to conceptual shifts in noun countability. Vopr. Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki 2:79–89
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Berio L. 2020. Linguistic relativity and flexibility of mental representations: color terms in a frame-based analysis. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  18. Binder J, Conant L, Humphries C, Fernandino L, Simons S et al. 2016. Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 33:130–74 https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  19. Blackburn P, de Rijke M 1997. Zooming in, zooming out. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 6:5–31
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Bresnan J. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax Malden, MA/Oxford, UK: Blackwell
  21. Burkhardt B, Lichte T, Kallmeyer L 2017. Depictives in English: an LTAG approach. Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+13) M Kuhlmann, T Scheffler 21–30 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Busse D. 2012. Frame-Semantik: Ein Kompendium Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
  23. Busse D. 2015. Juristische Semantik als Frame-Semantik. Zugänge zur Rechtssemantik: Interdisziplinäre Ansätze im Zeitalter der Mediatisierung F Vogel 39–68 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Busse D, Felden M, Wulf D 2018. Bedeutungs- und Begriffswissen im Recht: Frame-Analysen von Rechtsbegriffen im Deutschen Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
  25. Chen X. 2014. Interests in conceptual changes: a frame analysis. See Gamerschlag et al. 2014 111–22
  26. Cooper R. 2020. Perception, types and frames. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  27. Croft W, Cruse DA. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  28. Dowty DR. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
  29. Fillmore CJ. 1968. The case for case. Universals in Linguistic Theory E Bach, R Harms 1–88 New York: Holt Rinehart Winston
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Fillmore CJ, Baker C. 2010. A frames approach to semantic analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis B Heine, H Narrog 313–40 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Fleischhauer J, Gamerschlag T, Kallmeyer L, Petitjean S 2019a. Towards a compositional analysis of German light verb constructions (LVCs) combining Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG) with frame semantics. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS 2019)—Long Papers S Dobnik, S Chatzikyriakidis, V Demberg 79–90 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Fleischhauer J, Gamerschlag T, Petersen W 2017. A frame-analysis of the interplay of grammar and cognition in emission verbs. Yearb. Ger. Cogn. Linguist. Assoc. 5:179–96
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Fleischhauer J, Gamerschlag T, Petersen W 2019b. Why aktionsart-based event structure templates are not enough—a frame account of leaking and droning. Proceedings of the 12th International Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic, and Computation (TbiLLC 2017) A Silva, S Staton, P Sutton, C Umbach 108–27 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gabrovska E. 2019. A frame-based analysis of agent-oriented manner adverbials in German PhD Thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Univ. Düsseldorf Düsseldorf, Ger:.
  35. Gamerschlag T. 2014. Stative dimensional verbs in German. Stud. Lang. 38:275–334
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gamerschlag T, Gerland D, Osswald R, Petersen W 2014. Frames and Concept Types: Applications in Language and Philosophy Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
  37. Gamerschlag T, Gerland D, Osswald R, Petersen W 2015. Meaning, Frames, and Conceptual Representation Düsseldorf, Ger: Düsseldorf Univ. Press http://dup.oa.hhu.de/517/
  38. Gamerschlag T, Petersen W. 2020. On the fictive reading of German steigen ‘climb, rise’—a frame account. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  39. Gamerschlag T, Petersen W, Ströbel L 2013. Sitting, standing, and lying in frames: a frame-based approach to posture verbs. Proceedings of the 9th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2011) G Bezhanishvili, S Löbner, V Marra, F Richter 73–93 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Goffman E. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25:1–21–29
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldman AI. 1970. Theory of Human Action Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  42. Goldschmidt A. 2018. Hitting playfully but hard: conceptual effects of verb-adverb modification in the domain of force PhD Diss., Land. Onderzoekschool Taalwet Utrecht, Neth:.
  43. Goldschmidt A, Gamerschlag T, Petersen W, Gabrovska E, Geuder W 2017. Towards verb modification in frames: a case study on German schlagen (to hit). Proceedings of the 11th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2015) HH Hansen, SE Murray, M Sadrzadeh, H Zeevat 18–36 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hommen D. 2018. Frames and the ontology of particular objects. Dialectica 72:385–409
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kalenscher T, Schönfeld L, Löbner S, Wöhr M, van Berkel M et al. 2020. Rat ultrasonic vocalizations as social reinforcers—implications for a multilevel model of the cognitive representation of action and rats’ social world. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  46. Kallmeyer L, Osswald R. 2013. Syntax-driven semantic frame composition in Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars. J. Lang. Model. 1:267–330
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kallmeyer L, Osswald R, Pogodalla S 2016. For-adverbials and aspectual interpretation: an LTAG analysis using hybrid logic and frame semantics. Empir. Issues Syntax Semant. 11:61–90
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kallmeyer L, Osswald R, Pogodalla S 2017. Quantification in frame semantics with binders and nominals of hybrid logic. J. Lang. Model. 5:357–83
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kallmeyer L, Richter F. 2014. Quantifiers in frame semantics. Formal Grammar: 19th International Conference (FG 2014) G Morrill, R Muskens, R Osswald, F Richter 69–85 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kann C, Inderelst L. 2018. Gibt es eine einheitliche Frame-Konzeption? Historisch-systematische Perspektiven. Frames interdisziplinär: Modelle, Anwendungsfelder, Methoden A Ziem, L Inderelst, D Wulf 25–67 Düsseldorf, Ger: Düsseldorf Univ. Press http://dup.oa.hhu.de/617
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kawaletz L, Plag I. 2015. Predicting the semantics of English nominalizations: a frame‐based analysis of ‐ment suffixation. Semantics of Complex Words L Bauer, L Körtvélyessy, P Štekauer 289–319 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  52. King J. 2019. Structured propositions. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive: Summer 2019 Edition E Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/propositions-structured/
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  54. Levin B, Rappaport Hovav M 2005. Argument Realization Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  55. Löbner S. 2012. Sub-compositionality. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality W Hinzen, E Machery, M Werning 220–41 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Löbner S. 2013. Understanding Semantics London: Routledge, 2nd. ed.
  57. Löbner S. 2014. Evidence for frames from natural language. See Gamerschlag et al. 2014 23–68
  58. Löbner S. 2015. Functional concepts and frames. See Gamerschlag et al. 2015 13–42 http://dup.oa.hhu.de/504/
  59. Löbner S. 2017. Frame theory with first-order comparators: modeling the lexical meaning of punctual verbs of change with frames. Proceedings of the 11th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2015) HH Hansen, SE Murray, M Sadrzadeh, H Zeevat 98–117 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Löbner S. 2018. Barsalou-Frames in Wort- und Satzsemantik. Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität S Engelberg, H Lobin, K Steyer, S Wolfer 189–212 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Löbner S. 2020. Cascades: Goldman's level-generation, multilevel categorization of action, and multilevel verb semantics. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  62. Löbner S, Gamerschlag T, Kalenscher T, Schrenk M, Zeevat H 2020. Concepts, Frames and Cascades in Semantics, Cognition and Ontology Heidelberg, Ger: Springer In press
  63. Martin S. 1975. A Reference Grammar of Japanese New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  64. Minsky M. 1974. A framework for representing knowledge MIT-AI Lab. Memo 306, MIT Cambridge, MA: http://web.media.mit.edu/∼minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html
  65. Naumann R. 2013. An outline of a dynamic theory of frames. Proceedings of the 9th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2011) G Bezhanishvili, S Löbner, V Marra, F Richter 115–37 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Naumann R, Petersen W. 2015. Frame theory, dependence logic and strategies. Proceedings of the 10th International Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language, and Computation (TbiLLC 2013) M Aher, D Hole, E Jeřábek, C Kupke 210–33 Heidelberg, Ger: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Naumann R, Petersen W, Gamerschlag T 2018. Underspecified changes: a dynamic, probabilistic frame theory for verbs. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 U Sauerland, S Solt 181–98 Berlin: Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/GE4MWViN/Naumann.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Petersen W. 2015 (2007). Representation of concepts as frames. See Gamerschlag et al. 2015 43–67 http://dup.oa.hhu.de/506/
  69. Petersen W, Gamerschlag T. 2014. Why chocolate eggs can taste old but not oval: a frame-theoretic analysis of inferential evidentials. See Gamerschlag et al. 2014 199–218
  70. Pollard C, Sag I. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  71. Pustejovsky J. 2012. Co-compositionality in grammar. The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality W Hinzen, E Machery, M Werning 371–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Redmann A. 2018. Colour in concepts: accessing conceptual components in language production PhD Diss., Heinrich-Heine-Univ. Düsseldorf Düsseldorf, Ger: https://frames.phil.uni-duesseldorf.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Dissertation-Redmann.pdf
  73. Redmann A, FitzPatrick I, Hellwig F, Indefrey P 2014. The use of conceptual components in language production: an ERP study. Front. Psychol. 5:363 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00363
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sæbø KJ. 2016. “How”-questions and the manner-method distinction. Synthese 193:3169–94
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Schulzek D. 2019. A frame approach to German nominal word formation PhD Diss., Heinrich-Heine-Univ. Düsseldorf Düsseldorf, Ger: https://d-nb.info/1201159261/34
  76. Schurz G, Votsis I. 2014. Reconstructing scientific theory change by means of frames. See Gamerschlag et al. 2014 93–109
  77. Schwarze B, Geisler H. 2015. Diachrony of stative dimensional verbs in French. See Gamerschlag et al. 2015 201–15
  78. Searle JR. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality London: Penguin
  79. Seuchter T. 2020. Action-Related Representations: An Action-Based Approach to Grounded Cognition Düsseldorf, Ger.: Düsseldorf Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110663792
    [Crossref]
  80. Seyffarth E. 2019. Modeling the induced action alternation and the caused-motion construction with Tree Adjoining Grammar (TAG) and semantic frames. Proceedings of the IWCS 2019 Workshop on Computing Semantics with Types, Frames and Related Structures (CSTFRS 2019) R Osswald, C Retoré, P Sutton 19–27 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W19-1003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Strößner C, Schuster A, Schurz G 2020. Modification and default inheritance. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  82. Taylor S, Sutton P. 2020. A frame-theoretic model of Bayesian category learning. See Löbner et al. 2020. In press
  83. Terhalle A. 2017. Metonymy in frames: studies on the role of functional relations in contiguity-based semantic shifts of nouns PhD Diss., Heinrich-Heine-Univ. Düsseldorf Düsseldorf, Ger:.
  84. Tyler A, Takahashi H. 2011. Metaphors and metonymies. Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 597–621 Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Varzi AC. 1996. Parts, wholes, and part-whole relations: the prospects of mereotopology. Data Knowl. Eng. 20:259–86
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Vosgerau G, Petersen W. 2015. The relation between cognitive and linguistic structures. Proceedings of the 4th EuroAsianPacific Joint Conference on Cognitive Science/11th International Conference on Cognitive Science G Airenti, B Bara, G Sandini 542–47 Aachen, Ger: CEUR-WS http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0089.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Vosgerau G, Seuchter T, Petersen W 2015. Analyzing concepts in action-frames. See Gamerschlag et al. 2015 293–310
  88. Werning M. 2008. The “complex first” paradox: why do semantically thick concepts so early lexicalize as nouns. Interact. Stud. 9:67–83
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Werning M, Maye A. 2007. The cortical implementation of complex attribute and substance concepts: synchrony, frames, and hierarchical binding. Chaos Complex. Lett. 2:435–52
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wulf D. 2018. Eine framesemantische Modellierung des juristischen Diebstahl-Begriffs. Frames interdisziplinär: Modelle, Anwendungsfelder, Methoden A Ziem, L Inderelst, D Wulf 215–50 Düsseldorf, Ger: Düsseldorf Univ. Press http://dup.oa.hhu.de/623
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Zenker F. 2014. From features via frames to spaces: modeling scientific conceptual change without incommensurability or aprioricity. See Gamerschlag et al. 2014 69–89
  92. Zinova Y Forthcoming. Russian Verbal Prefixation: A Frame Semantic Analysis Berlin: Lang. Sci.
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
Loading
Frames at the Interface of Language and Cognition
Annual Review of Linguistics 7, 261 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-042920-030620
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error