This paper deals with the theory of Frame Semantics, a concept developed by the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore. The basic assumption of frame semantics is that in order to understand a word properly, its "frame," i.e. all the knowledge relating to this word is necessary. I will use this theoretical framework to explore the question to what extent the problems of the so-called dictionary view can be solved by Frame Semantics.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Dictionary View
3. Problems of the Dictionary View
4. Frame Semantics
4.1 Encyclopadic View
4.2 Frame Semantics
4.3 The Commercial Event Frame
4.4 The RISK Frame
4.5 The Speech Event Frame
5. How Can Frame Semantics Solve the Problems of the Dictionary View
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to explore the limitations of the "dictionary view" in semantics and to evaluate the extent to which Charles J. Fillmore’s theory of Frame Semantics can provide a more robust framework for understanding word meaning by incorporating human experience and encyclopaedic knowledge.
- The distinction between dictionary components and encyclopaedic knowledge.
- Limitations of defining words solely through semantic "core" features.
- The role of background frames in linguistic comprehension.
- Analysis of specific frames such as the Commercial Event Frame, the RISK Frame, and the Speech Event Frame.
- The integration of context and situational experience in lexical meaning.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 Frame Semantics
A frame is a "coherent region of human knowledge, or (...) a coherent region of conceptual space." (Croft and Cruse 2004: 14) The frame is necessary to understand the meaning of words and grammatical constructions. Therefore, frames illustrate a knowledge structure that helps to understand groups of related words and is important to the way the are assembled grammatically. (Evans and Green 2006: 222) Moreover, words denote concepts of meaning and certain concepts form an entity as they are associated in experience.
One example of such an entity would be the word restaurant. Attached to it are certain and very specific further concepts such as customer, waiter, ordering, eating and bill. "These concepts are not related to restaurant by hyponymy, meronymy, antonymy or other structural semantic relations; they are related to restaurant by ordinary human experience." (Croft and Cruse 2004: 7)
Furthermore, frame semantics gives a perspective to look "at word's meanings and a way of characterizing principles for creating new words and phrases." (Fillmore 1982: 111) To understand any of the concepts one has to understand its whole structure. (ibd.: 111)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the basic assumption of Frame Semantics and sets the goal of exploring how this framework solves the problems inherent in the dictionary view.
2. Dictionary View: This chapter defines the traditional semantic view that differentiates between a dictionary component (lexical meaning) and an encyclopaedic component (world knowledge).
3. Problems of the Dictionary View: This section discusses the limitations of the dictionary view, specifically how it fails to account for connotation, context, and the dynamic nature of word usage.
4. Frame Semantics: This chapter introduces the encyclopaedic view and details specific frames like the Commercial Event, RISK, and Speech Event frames to demonstrate how they structure human conceptual space.
5. How Can Frame Semantics Solve the Problems of the Dictionary View: The author synthesizes the previous findings to argue that Frame Semantics effectively addresses the shortcomings of the dictionary view by grounding meaning in human experience.
6. Conclusion: The conclusion summarizes that human experience is the essential signifier for understanding meaning and confirms that Frame Semantics is a viable solution to the problems of the dictionary view.
Keywords
Frame Semantics, Dictionary View, Encyclopaedic Knowledge, Semantic Core, Lexical Semantics, Pragmatics, Mental Lexicon, Human Experience, Commercial Event Frame, RISK Frame, Speech Event Frame, Linguistic Meaning, Conceptual Space, Construal, Valence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines the theory of Frame Semantics developed by Charles J. Fillmore and investigates how it can overcome the limitations associated with the traditional dictionary view of word meaning.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The work focuses on semantic theory, the distinction between dictionary and encyclopaedic knowledge, the importance of background frames, and how these frames structure our understanding of language in specific contexts.
What is the core research question addressed by the author?
The research seeks to determine to what extent the problems of the dictionary view—such as its inability to handle contextual variations and connotation—can be solved by adopting a frame-based approach to semantics.
Which scientific methodology does the author utilize?
The author employs a theoretical framework approach, analyzing existing literature from cognitive linguistics (specifically Fillmore, Croft, Cruse, Evans, and Green) and testing the theory against select linguistic examples and specific frames.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section evaluates the encyclopaedic view, details various frames (Commercial, RISK, Speech), and argues for the necessity of background knowledge in decoding the precise meaning of utterances.
Which key terms characterize the study?
The study is characterized by terms such as Frame Semantics, encyclopaedic knowledge, mental lexicon, and contextual grounding.
How does the author define a "frame" in the context of semantics?
A frame is defined as a coherent region of conceptual space or human knowledge that is necessary for understanding the meaning of words and how they relate to one another within an experience.
Why does the dictionary view fail to capture the full meaning of words like "bachelor" or "pail"?
The author argues that the dictionary view relies on rigid definitions that ignore cultural stereotypes, social statuses, and situational contexts, which are essential for true linguistic understanding.
What role does the "Commercial Event Frame" play in this study?
It serves as a case study to illustrate how verbs like "buy" and "pay" require background knowledge of a transaction situation and specific participant roles to be used correctly in sentences.
How does the paper conclude regarding the potential of Frame Semantics?
The paper concludes that Frame Semantics is an effective solution because it successfully integrates human experience and perceived world knowledge into the understanding of linguistic signs.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Christoph Schrank (Autor:in), 2015, To What Extent Can the Problems of the Dictionary View Be Solved by Frame Semantics?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/462674
