Frame semantics

Miriam R. L. Petruck
Table of contents

Frame semantics is a research program in empirical semantics which emphasizes the continuities between language and experience, and provides a framework for presenting the results of that research. A ‘frame’ is any system of concepts related in such a way that to understand any one concept it is necessary to understand the entire system; introducing any one concept results in all of them becoming available. In frame semantics, a word represents a category of experience; part of the research endeavor is the uncovering of reasons a speech community has for creating the category represented by the word and including that reason in the description of the meaning of the word.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Atkins, B.T.S.
1994Analyzing the verbs of seeing: A frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. In C. Johnson et al.. (eds.): 42–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995The role of the example in a frame semantics dictionary. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.): 25–42.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
1968The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds.) Universals in Linguistic Theory: 1–88. Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1975An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 123–131. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1976aFrame semantics and the nature of language. In S.R. Harnad, H.D. Steklis, & J. Lancaster (eds.) Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech, Vol. 280: 20–32. Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
1976bThe need for frame semantics within linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics 12: 5–29.Google Scholar
1977Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (ed.) Linguistics Structures Processing: 55–81. North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
1977bTopics in lexical semantics. In R. Cole (ed.) Current Issues in Linguistic Theory: 76–138. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
1978On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In D. Frakas et al. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on the Lexicon: 148–173. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1982Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: 111–137. The Linguistic Society of Korea. Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985aFrames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222–254.Google Scholar
1985bSyntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In M. Niepokuj et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 73–86. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1986U-semantics, Second Round. Quaderni di Semantica 7(1): 49–58.Google Scholar
1988The mechanisms of construction grammar. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 35–55. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1994The hard road from verbs to nouns. In M.Y. Chen, O.J.L. Tzeng, & W.S.Y. Wang (eds.) In Honor of William S. Y. Wang: Interdisciplinary Studies on Language and Language Change: 105–129. Pyramid Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. & B.T. Atkins
1992Towards a Frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantics and Lexical Organization: 75–102. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1994Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge of corpus lexicography. In B.T.S. Atkins & A. Zampolli (eds.) Computational Approaches to the Lexicon: 349–393. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fujii, S.Y.
1993The Use and Learning of Clause-linkage: Case Studies in Japanese and English Conditionals. Unpublished PhD. dissertation. University of California.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C.
et al. (eds.) 1994Proceedings of the Twentieth Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1986Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint. In M. Farley et al. (eds.) Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory: 152–167. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
1984Formulaicity, frame semantics, and pragmatics in German binomial expressions. Language 60: 4: 753–796. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lawler, J.
1988Time is money: The anatomy of a metaphor. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
1989Lexical semantics in the commercial transaction frame: value, worth, cost, and price. Studies in Language 13(2): 381–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y.
1989Grammar and Semantics of Adnominal Clauses in Japanese. PhD. Diss. University of California.Google Scholar
Minsky, M.
1975A framework for representing knowledge. In P.H. Winston (ed.) The Psychology of Computer Vision: 211–277. McGraw-Hill.  BoPGoogle Scholar
O’connor, M.C.
1994The marking of possession in Northern Pomo: privative opposition and pragmatic reference. In C. Johnson et al. (eds.): 387–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996The situated interpretation of posessor raising. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.) Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning: 125–156. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Okamoto, S.
1985Ellipsis in Japanese Discourse. PhD. Diss. University of California.Google Scholar
Petruck, M.R.L.
1986Body Part Terminology in Hebrew: A Study in Lexical Semantics. PhD. Diss. University of California.Google Scholar
1995Frame semantics and the lexicon: nouns and verbs in the body frame. In M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (eds.): 279 – 296.Google Scholar
forthcomingWhat’s a frame? The development of a concept in lexical semantics.Google Scholar
Schank, R.C. & R.P. Abelson
1977Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Lawrence Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, M. & S. Thompson
(eds.) 1995Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. John Benjamins.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D.
1979What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In R. Freedle (ed.) New Directions in Discourse Processing: 137–181. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar