Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T11:53:40.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Frame Semantics

from Part I - The Constructional View of Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2025

By
Yoshiko Matsumoto
Edited by
Mirjam Fried  and
Kiki Nikiforidou
Mirjam Fried
Affiliation:
Univerzita Karlova
Kiki Nikiforidou
Affiliation:
University of Athens, Greece
Get access

Summary

Frame Semantics is foundational to Construction Grammar in both chronological and conceptual terms. Originally developed by Charles J. Fillmore in the late 1970s to 1980s as a theory of semantics that prioritizes language users’ human experience, it views the meaning of linguistic elements in terms of a network of empirical information, which, in turn, motivates the concept represented by the linguistic elements. The theory laid a rich foundation for a variety of approaches associated with Construction Grammar and remains an intellectual resource for further research developments. This chapter focuses on the seminal ideas of Frame Semantics, further advanced in relation to Construction Grammar and the FrameNet project. After an overview of the theory, a variety of frame concepts (e.g., cognitive frame, interactional frame, and linguistic frame) are discussed. We then turn to how frames can effectively explain grammatical ‘well-formedness’ as illustrated by two case studies that were conducted on the path from Frame Semantics to the establishment of Construction Grammar. The last section discusses implications and prospects for the theory of Frame Semantics.

Keywords

Frame Semanticscognitive frameinteractional framehuman experienceevokeinvokecommercial eventschematized scenesprototypeencyclopedic knowledge
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar , pp. 23 - 43
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andor, J. (2010). Discussing frame semantics: The state of the art – An interview with Charles J. Fillmore. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, G. (1972 [1955]). A theory of play and fantasy. Reprinted in Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 177–193.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2003). A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bordería, S. P. & Fischer, K. (2021). Using discourse segmentation to account for the polyfunctionality of discourse markers: The case of well. Journal of Pragmatics, 173, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1977). Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In Freedle, R. O., ed., Discourse Production and Comprehension. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, pp. 41–55.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S., eds., New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M., & Mineroff, Z. (2020). Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition, 203, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1971). Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T., eds., Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 272–289.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123–131.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In Zampolli, A., ed., Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 55–81.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Topics in lexical semantics. In Cole, R. W., ed., Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 76–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1977c). The case for case reopened. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, , ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 613–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (2008). The merging of frames. In Rossini Favretti, R., ed., Frames, Corpora, and Knowledge Representation. Bologna: Bononia University Press, pp. 2–12.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. & Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E., eds., Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2019). Reflections on the role of pragmatics in Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 11(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. (2015). Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby talk register. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Östman, J.-O. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. (2009). Representing contextual factors in language change: Between frames and constructions. In Bergs, A. & Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & Nikiforidou, K., eds. (2013). Advances in Frame Semantics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2016). Prospects and problems of prototype theory. Diacronia, 4, 1–16.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1984). Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language, 60(4), 753–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2019). Diachronic frame analysis: The purpose frame in French. Constructions and Frames, 11(1), 43–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Grammar and Semantics of Adnominal Clauses in Japanese. PhD dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (1997). Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2008). Variations in Japanese honorification: Deviations or a change in the making? In Leino, J., ed., Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics, 172, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y., Comrie, B., & Sells, P., eds. (2017). Noun-Modifying Clause Constructions in Languages of Eurasia: Rethinking Theoretical and Geographical Boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, K. (1983). Mari (Cheremis) pseudo-relatives. In Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, 461–464.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. Reprinted in Winston, P., ed., The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 211–277.Google Scholar
Moore, D. (2012). Relative clauses in Gavião of Rondônia. In Comrie, B. & Estrada-Fernández, Z., eds., Relative Clauses in Languages of the Americas: A Typological Overview. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2015) Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations: Empathetic narration as genre. Constructions and Frames, 7(2), 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K. (2021). Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in stage directions. Journal of Pragmatics, 173, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. & Berman, R. A. (2010). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 744–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Östman, J.–O. (2005). Construction Discourse: A prolegomenon. In Östman, J. O. & Fried, M., eds., Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (1996). Frame Semantics. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J. O., Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. R. L. (2011). Advances in Frame Semantics. Constructions and Frames, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In Moore, T. E., ed., Cognitive Development and Acquisition of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistic Association, 3(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A., eds. (1996). Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In Honor of Charles J. Fillmore. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3–4), 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1980). The representation of space by language. Manuscript. Cognitive Science Program. University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectation. In Freedle, R. O., ed., New Directions in Discourse Processes. Norwood: Ablex, pp. 137–181.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×