| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910463838003321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Advances in frame semantics / / edited by Mirjam Fried, Charles University, Kiki Nikiforidou, University of Athens |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Amsterdam : , : John Benjamins Publishing Company, , [2013] |
|
©2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (215 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Benjamins Current Topics, , 1874-0081 ; ; volume 58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Altri autori (Persone) |
|
FriedMirjam |
NikiforidouKiki <1961-> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Semantics |
Lexicology |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Advances in Frame Semantics; Editorial page; Title page; LCC data; Table of contents; Advances in Frame Semantics; References; Verbs of visual perception in Italian FrameNet; 1. Introduction; 2. Data and methodology; 2.1 Verbs of visual perception; 2.2 The Italian FrameNet methodology; 2.3 Sentence sampling; 2.3.1 Preliminary scanning; 2.3.2 Analyzing syntactic frame distribution; 2.3.3 Analyzing filler distribution; 2.4 Encoding and annotation; 3. Analysis of verbs of visual perception; 3.1 Assigning frames to LUs; 3.2 Frame Element structure |
3.3 Splitting Perception_active into two subframes4. Conclusions; 4.1 Results; 4.2 Further developments: A distributional approach to Frame Semantics; References; Semantic annotation of Italian legal texts; 1. Introduction; 2. Related work; 2.1 FrameNet-based semantic annotation of domain-specific corpora; 2.2 Semantic annotation of legal text corpora; 3. Starting points; 3.1 The Italian Environmental legal corpus; 3.2 Issues in legal language description; 3.3 Issues of Legal Knowledge Representation; 4. Annotation methodology; 4.1 The syntactic level of annotation |
4.2 Lexicographic or full-text annotation?4.3 Domain-specific customization issues; 5. First results of pilot annotation trial; 6. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion and future developments; References; Frames and the experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor; 1. Introduction; 1.1 Temporal concepts; 1.2 The conceptual metaphor theory of Lakoff & Johnson (1980); 1.3 Experiential basis; 1.3.1 Experiential basis and frames; 2. The experiential basis of the Moving Ego metaphor; 3. The experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor; 3.1 An apparent paradox; 3.1.1 The solution to the apparent paradox |
3.1.2 Another apparent problem3.2 Expectation of arrival at ego's location; 3.2.1 Other submappings and deictic structure; 3.2.2 Application to Moving Ego; 4. Summary and conclusions; References; FrameNet as a resource for paraphrase research; 1. Introduction; 2. Frames and frame elements; 3. Features of the FrameNet database relevant to paraphrase research; 4. Paraphrase by intersubstitutability of synonymous expressions; 5. Frame relations; 5.1 Paraphrase by inheritance; 5.2 Paraphrase by perspective alternations; 5.3 Paraphrase by isolating causation; 5.4 Paraphrase by isolating inchoation |
6. Paraphrase using grammatical information available in FrameNet6.1 Support constructions; 6.2 Valence choice by phrase type; 6.3 Voice alternation; 6.4 Paraphrase by complement type alternations; 6.5 Paraphrase by ditransitive alternations; 6.6 Paraphrase by reciprocal alternation; 7. Constructions; 7.1 Paraphrase by licensed omission; 7.2 Extra-thematic adjunction; 8. Negatively-defined antonym; 8.1 Symmetric antonymy; 8.2 Asymmetric antonymy; 9. Conclusions; References; A frame-based approach to connectives; 1. Introduction; 2. Frame semantics and FrameNet; 2.1 Frame semantics |
2.2 FrameNet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Construction grammarians are still quite reluctant to extend their descriptions to units beyond the sentence. However, the theoretical premises of construction grammar and frame semantics are particularly suited to cover spoken interaction from a cognitive perspective. Furthermore, as construction grammar is anchored in the cognitive linguistics paradigm and as such subscribes to meaning being grounded in experience, it needs to consider interaction since grammatical structures may be grounded not only in sensory-motor, but also in social-interactive experience. The example of grounded languag |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |