LEADER 05331nam 2200649 450 001 9910787762703321 005 20230803032025.0 010 $a90-272-7097-X 035 $a(CKB)2670000000495838 035 $a(EBL)1577465 035 $a(SSID)ssj0001060535 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11985593 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0001060535 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)11087494 035 $a(PQKB)10824394 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1577465 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1577465 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10818036 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL550927 035 $a(OCoLC)865334295 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000495838 100 $a20130913d2013 uy| 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aAdvances in frame semantics /$fedited by Mirjam Fried, Charles University, Kiki Nikiforidou, University of Athens 210 1$aAmsterdam :$cJohn Benjamins Publishing Company,$d[2013] 210 4$dİ2013 215 $a1 online resource (215 p.) 225 1 $aBenjamins Current Topics,$x1874-0081 ;$vvolume 58 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a90-272-0277-X 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aAdvances 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 327 $a3.3 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 327 $a4.2 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 327 $a3.1.2 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 327 $a6. 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 327 $a2.2 FrameNet 330 $aConstruction grammarians are still quite reluctant to extend their descriptions to units beyond the sentence. However, the theoretical premises of construction grammar and frame semantics are particularly suited to cover spoken interaction from a cognitive perspective. Furthermore, as construction grammar is anchored in the cognitive linguistics paradigm and as such subscribes to meaning being grounded in experience, it needs to consider interaction since grammatical structures may be grounded not only in sensory-motor, but also in social-interactive experience. The example of grounded languag 410 0$aBenjamins current topics ;$vv. 58. 606 $aSemantics 606 $aLexicology 615 0$aSemantics. 615 0$aLexicology. 676 $a415 701 $aFried$b Mirjam$01481832 701 $aNikiforidou$b Kiki$f1961-$01481833 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910787762703321 996 $aAdvances in frame semantics$93699083 997 $aUNINA