Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse
Theoretical foundations and descriptive applications
1st Edition
Published on 24. October 2014
XII, 428 pages
978-90-272-6964-5 (ISBN)
Description
How do words mean? What is the nature of meaning? How can we grasp a word's meaning? The frame-semantic approach developed in this book offers some well-founded answers to such long-standing, but still controversial issues. Following Charles Fillmore's definition of frames as both organizers of experience and tools for understanding, the monograph attempts to examine one of the most important concepts of Cognitive Linguistics in more detail. The point of departure is Fillmore's conception of "frames of understanding" - an approach to (cognitive) semantics that Fillmore developed from 1975 to 1985. The envisaged Understanding Semantics ("U-Semantics") is a semantic theory sui generis whose significance for linguistic research cannot be overestimated. In addition to its crucial role in the development of the theoretical foundations of U-semantics, corpus-based frame semantics can be applied fruitfully in the investigation of knowledge-building processes in text and discourse.
More details
Other editions
Additional editions
Alexander Ziem
Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse
Theoretical foundations and descriptive applications
Book
10/2014
John Benjamins Publishing Co
€104.94
Shipment within 10-15 days
Person
Content
- Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse
- Editorial page
- Title page
- LCC data
- In memory of Chuck Fillmore
- Table of contents
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1. Semantic interest in frames
- 1.1 Evidence for frames
- 1.2 Frames in research
- 1.2.1 The development of frame research
- 1.2.2 Frames and other representation formats
- 1.3 Frames in cognitive science
- 1.3.1 Cognition, representation, categorization
- 1.3.2 Positions in cognitive theory
- 1.3.3 Frames in modularist and holistic approaches
- 2. Cognitive theory and semantic issues
- 2.1 Holism vs. Modularism: an example
- 2.2 Modularism
- 2.2.1 Two-level semantics (M. Bierwisch)
- 2.2.2 Frame semantics vs. two-level semantics: some issues
- 2.2.3 Example analyses
- 2.2.4 Three-level semantics (M. Schwarz)
- 2.3 Holism
- 2.3.1 Meaning as conceptualization
- 2.3.2 Language as conceptualization (R. Langacker vs. R. Jackendoff)
- 3. The holistic paradigm
- 3.1 Are linguistic and conceptual knowledge distinct entities?
- 3.1.1 Essence vs. accidence?
- 3.1.2 Synthetic vs. analytic truths?
- 3.1.3 Culture vs. language?
- 3.1.4 Semantics vs. pragmatics?
- 3.2 The "space of understanding" (C. Demmerling)
- 3.3 The postulate of U-relevance
- 3.3.1 Busse's explicative semantics
- 3.3.2 Approaches in psycholinguistic research on language-processing
- 3.3.3 Comparison of knowledge types
- 4. Semiotic issues
- 4.1 Linguistic signs as constructions
- 4.1.1 The symbolic principle in construction grammar and Cognitive Grammar
- 4.1.2 What are constructions and symbolic units?
- 4.1.3 Constructions in the "space of understanding"
- 4.2 Frames and symbolic units
- 4.2.1 Conventional vs. contextual aspects of meaning (R. Langacker)
- 4.2.2 Are "situations" and "backgrounds" elements of semantic units? (J. Zlatev)
- 4.2.3 Are "scenes" elements of semantic units? (C. Fillmore)
- 4.3 Relations
- 4.3.1 Evoked and invoked frames (C. Fillmore)
- 4.3.2 Meaning potentials (J. Allwood)
- 5. Frames as schemata
- 5.1 Categorization
- 5.2 Schemata
- 5.2.1 Schemata as representational formats of non-specific modality
- 5.2.2 Shared features of frames and schemata
- 5.3 Frames as schemata: example analysis
- 6. The structural constituents of frames
- 6.1 Issues
- 6.2 Reference
- 6.2.1 Frames as a projection area of referentiality
- 6.2.2 Every word evokes a frame
- 6.3 Predication potential: slots
- 6.3.1 What are slots?
- 6.3.2 Hyperonym type reduction: determining slots
- 6.3.3 Example analysis
- 6.4 Explicit predications: fillers
- 6.4.1 When are predications explicit?
- 6.4.2 Linguistic manifestations
- 6.5 Implicit predications: default values
- 6.5.1 Recurrent schema instantiations: token and type frequency
- 6.5.2 "Cognitive trails" as phenomena of the third kind
- 6.5.3 Type frequency: an example
- 7. Frames in discourse: the financial investors as Locusts metaphor
- 7.1 Preliminaries
- 7.1.1 Frames as an instrument of corpus-based analysis
- 7.1.2 Cognitive and discourse-related aspects of metaphors
- 7.2 The "capitalism debate"
- 7.2.1 Discourse and corpus
- 7.2.2 Investigation period, discourse development, research corpus
- 7.2.3 Locust: a basic discourse-semantic figure
- 7.3 Methodological guidelines for the corpus-based analysis
- 7.3.1 Annotations
- 7.3.2 Predication analysis
- 7.3.3 Hyperonym type reduction
- 7.3.4 Classification of explicit predications
- 7.4 Empirical results
- 7.4.1 The generic frame
- 7.4.2 The input frames locust/s and financial investor/s
- 7.4.3 The metaphor frame
- 7.5 Frame semantics and discourse analysis: some conclusions
- 8. Conclusions and future research perspectives
- References
- Name index
- Subject index
