Cargando…
Frames of understanding in text and discourse : theoretical foundations and descriptive applications /
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 organize...
| Clasificación: | Libro Electrónico |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Otros Autores: | |
| Formato: | Electrónico eBook |
| Idioma: | Inglés Alemán |
| Publicado: |
Amsterdam ; Philadelphia :
John Benjamins Pub. Co.,
©2014.
|
| Colección: | Human cognitive processing ;
v. 48. |
| Temas: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Texto completo |
Tabla de Contenidos:
- Machine generated contents note: 1.1. Evidence for frames
- 1.2. Frames in research
- 1.2.1. 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
- 2.1. 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)
- 3.1. 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. "space of understanding" (C. Demmerling)
- 3.3. 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
- 4.1. Linguistic signs as constructions
- 4.1.1. 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)
- 5.1. 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
- 6.1. 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
- 7.1. Preliminaries
- 7.1.1. Frames as an instrument of corpus-based analysis
- 7.1.2. Cognitive and discourse-related aspects of metaphors
- 7.2. "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. generic frame
- 7.4.2. input frames locust/s and financial investor/s
- 7.4.3. metaphor frame
- 7.5. Frame semantics and discourse analysis: some conclusions.