[PPT] - Surfin ng the f frame n et A frame is a complex condition on PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Me etonymy

D

y and si

Hein Institu

üsseldorf, in

Surfin imilar p appro

Se nrichHei Univ uteofNe 1

,CRC991 Language

ng the f phenom

ach to

ebastianL neUnive

versityof

euroscien 11April,

“TheStru

e,Cognitio

frame n mena as concep

Löbner ersitätDü Glasgow nceandP 2016

uctureofR

n,andSc

et evidenc pts

üsseldorf w Psycholog

Represent cience”

ce for a

gy

tations

a frame

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 1

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

1. Barsalou frames
AccordingtoBarsalou,framesmaybethestructureofhumancognitive

representationsingeneral. Frame Hypothesis Framesarethegeneralformatconceptsinhumancognition. Corollary Framesarethegeneralformatoflexicalandcompositionalmeanings. Thus,linguisticsemanticscanprovideevidencefororagainsttheFrame Hypothesis.

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 2

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

What’s a frame? Aframeisacomplexconditiononitspotentialreferent.

Theconditionisintermsofattributesofthereferentandtheirvalues.

Attributesassignuniquevalues.

Thevaluesoftheattributesmaythemselvescarryattributes,andsoon,

recursively.

Attributesaredefinedforcertainontological/conceptualtypesofpossessors

andassignvaluesofacertainontological/conceptualtype.

Variousconstraintsmaybeimposedonthestructure,e.g.constraintsonthe

valueofanattribute,oronvaluecorrelationsbetweenattributes.

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 3

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 1: Basic structural unit of a Barsalou frame (original)

possessor

attribute value

ASPECT TYPE

SLIDE 2

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 4

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 2: Basic structural unit of a Barsalou frame (restructured)

ATTRIBUTE

value (possessor)

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 5

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 3: Basic structural unit of a Barsalou frame – extended

ATTRIBUTE

value (possessor)

ATTRIBUTE

value

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 6

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: Basic structural unit of a Barsalou frame – extended

ATTRIBUTE

value (possessor)

ATTRIBUTE

value

1. Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 7

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Sortal concepts Conceptsthatdescribetheirreferentsintermsoftheirproperties,i.e.intermsof theirattributesandthevaluesthosetake.

Example:

Lexicalmeaningsofcommonnoussuchasperson,cat,tree,chair,nounetc.

Framesforsortalconceptshaveacharacteristic structure:
Thereisacentralnoderepresentingthepotentialreferent(s)oftheframe.

Everyothernodeintheframecanbereachedfromthecentralnodeinafinite numberofattributelinks/byachainofattributes.

SLIDE 3

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 8

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame
university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS PREMISES

campus

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 9

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Shift reference to the campusnode>activation of attributes of the target

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS PREMISES

campus

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 10

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Disconnection of the source attribute (nolinkfromtargettosource)

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS PREMISES

campus

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 11

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Relinking the target to the source by inverting the relation

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS

campus

OCCUPANT PREMISES

SLIDE 4

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 12

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

> Thereby reactivating the attributes of the original source

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS

campus

OCCUPANT PREMISES

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 13

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Metonymy

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS

university

OCCUPANT PREMISES

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 14

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Two metonymically nested concepts

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS

u. campus

OCCUPANT PREMISES

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 15

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

2. Shifting reference in a frame

Focusingonthecampus

Two metonymically nested concepts

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS

u. campus

OCCUPANT PREMISES

SLIDE 5

1.Frames

2. Shifting

3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 16

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

ShiftingthereferentoftheframefromsourceR1totargetR2, i.e.tothevalueofoneofitsattributes,will possiblyactivatemoreattributesofR2

TheresultingtargetframewithreferentR2will

possiblynotfulfiltheuniquenessconditionforthereferentofasortal concept,becausetheremaybenoattributewhichassignsR1asitsvalueto R2 Iftherecenteredframeistoencodeasortalconcept(e.g.for‘acampus’),the

riginalframemustprovideaninverseattributeconnectingR2backtoR1.

Thisisapriorionlypossibleiftheattributeinvolvedintheshiftisabijective function.

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 17

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3. Metonymy

3.1 Notorious examples

(1)

a. Thehamsandwichiswaitingforhischeck.
b. MoscowdeclaredtheChechenrebelsdefeated.
c. Joyceishardtounderstand.
d. Weneedsomenewfacesaroundhere.
e. That’sasmartpaper.
f. Hewasbeatenupbyskinheads.

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 18

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.2 Bierwisch: examples of ‘conceptual shift’

(Bierwisch1983):multiplemetonymieswithuniversity (2)

a. Theuniversityimproveditsranking.

(=institution)

b. TheuniversitywillclosedowntheFacultyofAgriculture.

(=administration)

c. Theuniversitywonthesoccergameagainsttheministryofdefense.

(=soccerteam)

d. Theuniversitystartson3April.

(=courses)

e. Theuniversityisinthesouthernpartoftown.

(=campus)

1.Frames

2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 19

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

university

SOCCERTEAM COURSES ADMINISTRATION STAFF STUDENTS PREMISES

campus

SLIDE 6

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 20

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.3 Traditional definitions

Extensional definitions of metonymy: list of ‘metonymical relations’ Metonymyischaracterizedbycertainrelationsbetweenthereferentsofthenoun initsliteralmeaningandinitsnonliteralmeaning. part

whole

asshole,skinhead,redneck,newface equipment

carrier

bluehelmet,greenberet location

institution

Moscow meal

customer

hamsandwich author

work

Joyce instrument

play(er)

bass person

name

I[‘minthephonebook] container

content

cup university: institution

administration/soccerteam/courses/premises/etc.etc.

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 21

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Intensional definitions of metonymy: same domain, contiguity Targetandsourceare“contiguous”. (Lakoff&Johnson1980;Lakoff1987;Langacker1987,2008;Croft2002) Targetandsourcebelongtothe“same domain”, whereadomainis“anykindofconceptionorrealmofexperience” (Langacker2008:44). Targetandsourcebelongtothe“same ICM”(IdealizedCognitiveModel), whereadomainis“anykindofconceptionorrealmofexperience” (Lakoff2008:44,KövecsesandRadden1998).

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 22

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.4 A closer look at metonymical relations: bidirectional uniqueness

Observation(1)[e.g.Lakoff]: The metonymical relations are functional (1to1): Foreveryinstanceofthesourcetypethereisexactlyoneinstanceofthe targettype + Observation(2)[new] The inversions of the metonymical relations are functional: Foreveryinstanceofthetargettypethereisexactlyoneinstanceofthe sourcetype. THUS: Therelationsonwhichmetonymiesarebased,arenotarbitrary; theybidirectionallyonetoonerelations(bijections).

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 23

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

uniquepart

(natural)whole

asshole,skinhead,redneck,newface uniqueequipment

carrier

bluehelmet,greenberet location

institution

Moscow

rderedmeal
rderingcustomer

hamsandwich author

euvre

Joyce carrier

content

paper instrument

playorplayer

bass person

name

I[‘minthephonebook] container

content

cup

Notallattributesinaframearebijectivefunctions.

Noninvertibleattributesinthe‘universityframe’:

e.g.YEAROFFOUNDATION,REPUTATION,SIZE,STATE,etc.

SLIDE 7

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 24

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

A frame perspective on metonymy Metonymicalrelationsareattributesintheframeofthesourceconcept. Metonymycanbeunderstoodasashift of the central (= referential) node

ftheoriginalframeandthecreationofanattributerelationfromthenew

centralnodebacktotheoriginalone. Ametonymicalshiftfromonesortalconcepttoanotherisonlypossibleifthe attributeisabijectivefunction.

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 25

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.5 Selected examples revisited

Figure 2: Frame structure for ‘skinhead’ (1): functional concept ‘(the) skinhead of (person)’

skin

HEAD SCALP

person

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 26

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.5 Selected examples revisited

Figure 2: Frame structure for ‘skinhead’ (2): sortal concept ‘(a) skin head’

skin

skin

HEAD

SCALP POSSESSOR

person

HEAD SCALP

person head

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 27

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

3.5 Selected examples revisited

Figure 2: Frame structure for ‘skinhead’ (3): sortal metonymical concept ‘skinhead’

skin

skin skin

HEAD SCALP POSSESSOR

skinhead

HEAD

SCALP POSSESSOR

person

HEAD SCALP

person head

SLIDE 8

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 28

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Thehamsandwichiswaitingforhischeck.

Thesentenceinvokesarestaurantscenario,triggeredbythemention
fahamsandwichandthepredicationiswaitingforhischeckwhich

selectsforsomebodywhoorderedsomething,acustomer.The customerbeingspecifiedbythehamsandwichmustberetrievableon thebasisofthisspecification.Crucially,framesforanorderina restaurantaresuchthatoneandthesameitemcanonlybeorderedby

necustomerorcustomerparty.Therefore,thereisa11relation

betweenordereditemsandcustomers(orcustomerparties).Thisis whatenablesthemetonymy.

Therearefiveframesinvolved:waitfor,check, ham sandwich,order

andcustomer;thelattertwoareinferredfromworldknowledge.

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 29

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

wait-for

check

ham sandwich

?

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

? ?

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 30

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Unifydebtorofcheckwithexperiencerofwaiting
wait-for

check

ham sandwich

?

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

?

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 31

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Unifythehamsandwichwiththegoodsthecheckisfor
wait-for

check

ham sandwich

?

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

SLIDE 9

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 32

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Linkthehamsandwichtotheeventoforderingit
wait-for

check

ham sandwich

?

rder

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 33

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Linktheorderingofthehamsandwichtothedebtorastheorderer(=customer)
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

(customer)

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 34

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Linkthecustomertotheordering
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

(customer)

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 35

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Linktheorderingtothehamsandwich
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

(customer)

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS THEME

SLIDE 10

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 36

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Thisamountstoabidirectionallinkbetweencustomerandhamsandwich
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

(customer)

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS THEME

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 37

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Performthemetonymicshift:‘hamsandwich’customerwhoorderedit
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

ham sandwich

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS THEME

1.Frames 2.Shifting

3. Metonymy

4.Wordformation 5.Conclusion 38

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 4: “The ham sandwich”

Thecorepredication
wait-for

check

ham sandwich
rder

AGENT

ham sandwich

EXPERIENCER DEBTOR TARGET GOODS THEME

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 39

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

4. Metonymical shifts in wordformation processes

4.1 Conversion and deverbal nouns

Notationalconvention:openargumentnodesarerepresentedbyrectangles. (3)

V>N

drive1:V,drive2,PATH:N

Figure 4: Frames for driveV and driveN

FOR
AGENT

PATH

driveV driveN person

AGENT

PATH

driveV

SLIDE 11

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 40

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

todrive
Figure 5: Frames for driveV and driverN
AGENT

PATH

driveV

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 41

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

todrive

adriver

sortal
Figure 5: Frames for driveV and driverN
AGENT

PATH

driveV

AGENT

driveV driverNsortal

HABIT.ACTIVITY

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 42

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

4.2 Certain types of compounds

Bidirectionalaffordancelinks

Figure 6: Frames for ‘coffee’ and ‘cup’ representing drinking affordance

drink

drink

coffee

VESSEL THEME

FOR FOR

cup

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 43

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

4.2 Certain types of compounds

Bidirectionalaffordancelinks

Figure 6: Frames for ‘coffee’ and ‘cup’ representing drinking affordance

drink

drink

coffee

VESSEL THEME

FOR FOR

cup

SLIDE 12

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 44

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 7: Bare unification

VESSEL

THEME

cup
drink

coffee FOR FOR

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 45

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 7: Bare unification … and adjustment (1)derankingofcoffeenode

VESSEL
cup

drink coffee

THEME

FOR FOR

VESSEL

cup
drink

coffee

THEME

FOR FOR

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy

4. Word formation

5.Conclusion 46

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Figure 7: Bare unification … and adjustment (1)derankingofcoffeenode

(2)redirectinglinktocoffeenode
VESSEL
cup

drink coffee

THEME

FOR FOR

VESSEL

cup
drink

coffee

THEME

FOR FOR

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation

5. Conclusion

47

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

5. Conclusion
Therearemanysemanticphenomenathatinvolveshiftingthereferentnode

inagivenframe. Therearestructuralconstraintsonframesforcertaintypesofconcept; inparticular,withframesforsortalconceptsthereferentnodeisasource. Shiftingthereferentnodeastoyieldaconceptofacertaintypeisrestricted bythestructuralconstraintsforthattypeofconcept. Inparticular,iftheresultoftheshiftistoyieldasortalconcept,thenew referentmustbeabletobeconstruedasthesourcenodeofasortalframe. Inthiscase,theshiftisonlypossibleifthelinkingrelationisbidirectionally unique(i.e.abijectivefunction).

SLIDE 13

1.Frames 2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation

5. Conclusion

48

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Theframeapproachpredictsthathumancognitivesystemshostavast

networkofframeswhichareinterconnectedbyattributelinks. THUS:theubiquitouspresenceofmetonymyasarelationbetweenconcepts andbetweeninternalelementsofconceptsprovidesevidencefortheFrame Hypothesis:Conceptshaveframestructure. Attributesingeneralprovidefunctionallinksthatare1to1onlyinone direction.However,certainsubclassesofattributes,e.g.mereological attributes,arebidirectionally1to1.Thisexplainsandpredictstheavailability

fmetonymicalrelationsbetweenconcepts.
1.Frames

2.Shifting 3.Metonymy 4.Wordformation

5. Conclusion

49

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

Acknowledgements

ResearchforthistalkwasfinancedbytheDeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)intheCollaborativeResearchCentre991‘TheStructureofRepresentations inLanguage,Cognition,andScience’.IamindebtedtoDanielSchulzekand AnselmTerhalleforprovidingmaterialandreferencesanddiscussingcases.

50

LöbnerSurfingtheframenetGlasgow1April2016

References

Barsalou, Lawrence W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields, in A. Lehrer and E. F. Kittay (eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.21–74. Bierwisch,Manfred(1983).SemantischeundkonzeptuelleRepräsentationlexikalischerEinheiten.In:R.Ržika &W.Motsch,Hrsg.UntersuchungenzurSemantik.Berlin:AkademieVerlag,61–100. Croft,William(2002).TheRoleofDomainsintheInterpretationofMetaphorsandMetonymies.InDirven,Rene (ed.).MetaphorandMetonymyinComparisonandContrast.Berlin,NewYork.DeGruyter,161–205. Koch,Peter(2004).Metonymybetweenpragmatics,reference,anddiachrony.Inmetaphorik.de07:6–54. (http://www.metaphorik.de/07/) Kövecses,ZoltánandGünterRadden(1998).Metonymy:Developingacognitivelinguisticsview.Cognitive Linguistics9:37–77 Lakoff,George(1987).Women,fireanddangerousthings.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Lakoff,GeorgeandMarkJohnson(1980).Metaphorsweliveby.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Langacker,RonaldW.(2008).CognitiveGrammar.Abasicintroduction.Oxford:OUP. Löbner,Sebastian(2013).Understandingsemantics.2ndedition.London:Routledge. Pustejovsky,James(1995).Thegenerativelexicon.CambridgeMA:MITPress.