FrameStllWltics

Charles J. Fillmore
llnivcrsllY of Califomla, Berkeley

1.101'-101I
With the term 'frame semantica' r have in mind I research prolrtm in
\ empirical &emantics Ind. descripllve framework for presenclal the mults
or 5uch research. Fflme lemanliet oft"e,. I perdcular wly of lookln, ••
word me.ninp, .. well •• I wly of chlracterizin. principles ror creal in, new
worda and phri1eS, ror add in. new !DeIIRlnp to woro., and ror auemblina
Ihe meanings of elemenll iD 0 t.. 1 Into the total meanln. of the tell. By
the term '(rame' I have in mind aay s)'Item O(COnceptl rellted in luch. wly
that to undentand In)' one of them you have to undentand the who:
structure in which It IHI: when one orthe thinas in luch I ttNCture II in.
troduced into I text, or into I converutlon,.n althe othen Ire lutomatally
mado IVlil,ble. J intud the word 'frame' u used hera to be. ae~' M.er !

term rOt the let of eoncepll nriou.ly known, in the litenture on n.turol
language undentandina. u 'schema', 'Kript\ 'aceRario', 'ideltional teaf.
(oldin.', 'colnilive model'. or 'rotk theory'.1
Frame .emantica COmet out or tndltions of empirical semantica nthet
than formal .. montiCi. III. moot akin to ethnolllphic .. miotic&, tb. work
of Ihe onthropolo,ilt who move. Into an olien cultu,," ODdub .ud! q.....
tions I', 'Whit Cltelorie. of experienee are encoded by the memben or thl,
.pecch community throulh the IIn",lltic chom thot they moh whoa they
.a1k r A frame .. mantico outlook I. not (or I. not n......nly) looompatiblo
wi.h work and rCiull. ,In formal ..... ntico; but it ditr... ImpartlDlly (rom
formal temantics in emphuizin, (hecantlnuilla, rather tbaD the dilCOtltinui·
lies, between 10naUiae .nd "perie""". The Ide.. I will be _tlnllD thl,
paper represent not .0 much. ,engine theory or empiricll temlDticl I ••
set of waminp about the kinds of problema luch • theory will have to dell
with. rr we wish, we can think or the remarks I make u 'prc-ronnlll' nther
than 'non·rormalist'j I tlalm to be IIltin,. and al well.1 r can to be describ.
ing, phenomena which mUll be well undentood ond ca,.,fully described
berore serious formal theorizjnl about them can become poslible.

[III)

Tho Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 1982,

Lingui.lic. in the Morning Calm, Seoul: Han.hin Publishing Co .

.
,'--
 .,
-,
112
In the view I am presenti"£!. words represent calc,orillitions orexperience,
and each of these categorics is underlain by a motivating situation octurring
dgainsl a background of knowledge and uperience. With respect to word
meanings, frame semantic research can be thought or as the etrort to under-
stand what reason a speech community might have found ror creating the
category represented by the word, and to explain the word's meaning hy
presenting and clarifying that reason.
An"analoD Ihat 1 Hnd helpful in distinguishing the operation and the goab
of frame semantin from those of standard views of rompositional semantics
is between a lrammar and I set of tools-tools like hammers and kniv~,
but abo like clock! and .hoes ,nd pencils. To know about tools is to know
what they look like and what the)' are made of-the phonology and morphol-
ogy. so to speak-but it is also to know whit people use them for, why
people Ire interested in doinl the thin~ that they use them for, and maybe
even what kinds of people use them. In this analogy, it is po5sible to think
of a linguistic text, not as a rKord or 'small meaninp' which give the
interpreter the job of assemblinl th~e into a 'big meaning' (the meaning of
the containinllut). but rather as a record of the tools Ihal somebody used
Q in carrying out a particular aClivity. The job of interprelinl a text, then, is
e..:; analogous to the job of figuring out what aetivhy the peorle had to be
t..:;- engaged in who used these tools in this order.
2. A Prlflte Hblary of thf C~ 'Frame'
Ilrace my own interest in semantic frames throu8h my career-long infertst
in lexical structure and lexical semantics_ As a Jraduate student (at the
Univenity of Michigan in the late fifties) J spent I lot of time exploring the
cO-oC'Currence prlvilegel of words, and I Iried to develop distribution classes
of English wordl usinl Itrings of words or strings of word classes as the
'framel' within which I could disco\ler appropriate classes of mutually sub-
stitutable elementl. This way of working, standard for a lonl time in phono·
logical and morphologk:al innstisations, had been developed with particular
rigor ror purpotn or .yntlclic description by Oarlcs Frio. (Frie. 19S2)
Dnd played an important role in the development of ·t.pnemic formulas'
in the .. ork of Kenneth Pike (Pike 1967), the scholan who most dirctlly
influenced my think ins durinl this period. Substitutability within the same
'slot' in such a 'frame' was subj«t to certain (poorly articulated) conditions
of meaning-prncrntion or structure_preserVation, or sometimes merely
meaningfulness-preservation. In this conception, the 'frame' (with its sin!!,lc
open 'slot') was conside~d capoble of lending to thc discovery of imJ"Ortnnt
functioning word clanes or grammaticltl categories- As In eumple of the
workin~~ of such a procedure, we can take the frame conlisting of two
comrlcte clauses and 8 gap hetween them, as in "John is Mary's husband-
113
he doesn't live .. lth her," The .ubstllution in Ihi. frame of BUT ond YET
suggests thlt these two words han (by thil diagnostic at lcalt) very limilar
runclion.: Insertion or MOREOVER or HOWEVER ,uuest the .. loteoee of
conjunction. functioning semantically ,Imllarly to BUT ond YET but ....
quiring senlence boundarie •.The conJunclion. AND ond OR can ..... oloafull,
be inserted into the frame, but in each case (and in each case with different
effect) the logical or rhetorical 'point' of the whole utterance difren impor.
'anlly rrom thlt broulht about by BUT or YET, In each orthese ....... whIt
one came to know about these words was the kind of Itructures wllh which
,hey could Decur and .. hit funcllon they hod wi'hln those atruc1um.
In the tilly ,i.,ie., together .. lth William SoY. Wan. Ind .. en,u.II, D.
Terence Lan&endoen and a number of other colle.sun, I WII IIlaclated with
Ihe Project on Lin,ui"ic Analy.ls at 'he Ohio StIle Unlvenlty. My work on
that project wa. 'arsely devoted to the classification of Enllflh verbs. but
now not only accordinl to the lurface.syntactic frame! whicb were hotpltabfe
to them, but also .ccordins to their «r1mmatlcal 'behavior" thoulhf of in
terms of the lensitivlty of Itructure. conllinins them to ~!!iu~l~or~:::.-"
ical 'transrormations." Thll project was whofe~heartedl 'tran.fomledsRalllt,
basins its operations .t fint on the earliett work on Enlll sformad,
,rammar by Chomsky (19S7) ond Lecs (1961), ond in ill Iller 110,.. on
advances within the theory lugested by the work of Peter Rosenbaum _
(Rosenbaum 1967) ond 'he book .. hich cstablish.d the Itond.rd workiD,
paradigm for transformationltist Itudiel of English. Chomlky (1965). What
animated Ihis work W/IS the belief thai discoyeries in the 'behavior' of poIrtic-
ular classes or words led to discoveries in the structure of the ".mmar of
English. This .... so because It .... believed that the diotribullonol
properties of individual words discovered by thil retearch could onl, be
accommodated if the grammar of the 'anlUare operated under particular
,. workins principles. My own work from this period Included I Iman mono-
Vaph on Indirect object verbs (Fillmore 1961) and I paper which pointed to
the c\lentual recognition of the tnnarormatioMl cycle at an openti",
prioeiple In a fonnlll'lmmar of En,llth (FilllIIOR 1963).
The proj«t', .. ork on verbs .... ot ftnt completely ayntoctlc, IDtbe ......
that what was loulht was, (or elch verb, I fullacc:oual (elprnsed In IttmI or
subcategorilition (fealures) of the deep Itructure Iyntactic fnmes wbicb
were hospitlble to it, and a full account (expressed in terms of rule rttturn)
of the \larious palhs or 'Iflnsformatlonll histories' by which ICtItenca COIl-
~.tning them could be transformed into lurfate senfences. The kind of wort.
I hne in mind W8I carried on with much greater thoroulhneu by Fred
'-fou!eholder and his collClfjues at Indiana Univenity (Householder et al
1964), and wllh ex'reme eore and aophi.tlcllion by Maurice Oros. aod hi,
team in Paris on the verM and adjectives of F~nch (Gross J9lS).
 114 CMrta J. Fill*"
In the late li.'ies r belan to btl inc that cer.ain kinds of ,roupings or
-verbs and classifications or clause types could be Ilaled more meaninlfully
if the IlrUclurti with which verbs were initially luocialcd were described in
terms Of
the semlntlc roles of their Issociated .,sumen ... I hid become
IWlre Clfterliin American and European work on dependency .rammar
and \'.I~nc:e theory, Ind it seemed clear to me that whit wu really importlnt
.bout • ~.rbwiliu 'oemantic y.Ie...,· (II on. miaht .. 11it)•• description of
the .. m.Dtic role oflu .,...menu. V.lence theory .nd depcndeDcy anmmor
. did not auip. tbe lime clauifk:atory role to the 'predicate' (or 'VP') that
ODefound IDtnllwormationalilt work (.... e.•.• Tnniere 1959); the kind of
.. m.ntic CluaificotioDl that I needed could be mode more compl.,e .nd
sensible, J believed. If, instead of relyin. on thtorcdcally separate kinds of
distributional .tatementa luch II 'strici lubcatelorization feature.' and
'Kteclionll features,' one could take into account the acmlntic roles of all
arauments of I predication, that oC the 'subject' beinl.imply one oC them,
QUHlionin., ultimately, the reJevlnce or the I ..umed be.le immediate-
constituency cut between .ubject and predicate, I proposed that nrbs could
be seen ubuiCilly hl~ln. two kind. oC (eaturH relevant to their di.tribution
In ICntenoes: the fint a deep-ttnlClure valence description elpreued in terms
o( what I called 'cue (ramea', the second I description in tennl oC rule
features. What I called 'cue frames' amounted to description. oepredictting
r"'"
<::) words that communicated such inCormation a. the Collowin,: 'Such ....nd·such
o I verb OCCUR in expressionl contain in, three nominlls, one delilnating an
actor who performl the act delfanated by the verb, one desianatin, an object
on which the Ictor'. act hu a I.alt<hanain. 'nnuence, and one dcaianating
In object throuah the m.nlpul.tlon of whicb the actor brlnp .bout the
mentioned ltate chanae.' In symboll this Ilatement could be represented as
[_ A P I). the &ellen.l8ndln. for 'Aaent', 'Pallent' and "nstrument', Actually,
the kind of descriptloD IlOuaht dlltlnsullhed ..... from.. ' ., the ItructUrel
In Ictual Indlyldual oent...... In which the verba eould appear from '....
frame features' u representatioN of the clus or "cuo framet' into which
pardcular verbl could be inserted. In the description or 'CAse frame Ceatures'
it wu pouible 10 notice whk:h of the "cases' were obligatory, which were
optional. whit selectional dependenciel obtained amon, them, and 10 on
(.... Fillmore 1968).
We were developing a kind of mixed syntlctic-semantic valence descrip-
tion of verbt, and wo noticed that the sepante valence patterns teemed to
chancteriz.e semantic typet or \lerm, .uch II verbl oC perception, CAusation,
movement, etc. Within these Iyntactic valence t)'peI, however, it seemed
that lOme semantic leneralizatlons were lou. There seemed to be imporlant
dilferencel betw.en GIVE IT TO JOHN and SEND IT TO CHICAGO
t~at could not be illuminated merely by showln, what syntactic rules SCPll4
~-.Jj L --'
,
--J_ _ '-----'
,
.'--
115
rate GIVE Crom SEND. just as there seemed to be semantic commonilltlet
betw.en ROB .nd STEAL, BUY and SELL, ENJOY .nd AMUSE. etc.•
which were lost in the synllclic cl.... separation or these vcr".
My ultimate ,011 in Ihil work in 'clle .... mm.r· (u the rl'llmework came
to be called) WIS the development or I 'vaJence dtction.ry' which WII, to
dilfor Importantly from the kindl orv.I •..., dlctlonariea .ppearln.'n Europc
(e.•.• H.lbi •• nd Schenkel 1973) by h.yID, lu semutic nle..., Ilbn u
balic .nd by h.yins al much .1 poulble of lu oyatoclic yaleDc:eICCOUDted
for by sener.1 rul ... (Thul, It wu nO! lhouaht to be -.ory 10 elplaln,
in IndiylduallCllea1 .ntrl ... which of the ar ......... U In a [V A P I) pRdIca.
tlon of the typc described abeye wu to be the IUbjocI Ind which _ to lie
the object, II..., luch m.tten wae lutomatleaUy predicted by tbe ......... ,
with reference to • set of sen.nl principles coac:cml •• lhe moppiq from
conflrunlionl of .. mlntic eo... Into eonfl",raUonl of annunatlcal relo·
tionl,)
Allhou,h the concept of 'fnme'ln yorioui fieldl witbln c:opollivepoydool.
OIY.ppc.n to h.y. ari.IDI quite indepcndent of Jln",lttlea. lu \lie ID....
If"Immlf w.s continuoul.ln my own thinkin .. with the Ule to which I have
put It In 'rrame sem.nllea': In plrdcula" Ithouaht of' eacbc:ue f'rame &I
characlerizin, a .mall at.tract 'Kene' or '.ituation',"so that to undenllne'
the semantic Ilructure of the y.rb it wal "......ry 10 undentand the proper.
tiOl of luch ICh.moU.. d ICOnOl. .
The lCene ICh.m.t. d.fin.bl. by the IY'tem of .. mantic ..... (a aytIen
of oem.nllc role nOlionl which I held to he maximally seneraland deftnln••
minimal .nd poIIibly unly.nol repcrtory) wol lulllci.Dt. I believed. fo
undel'ltlndin. thOle aspect. or the semantic IlNCIure of I verb whk:h wel'l
linked to the yerb'l ba.lc Iyntactic propcrties .nd to .n unclenlandln. 0
the waY' In which dilf.rent I.n.u .... dilf.rently Ihapcd Ih.lr miDI...
CI.U.OI, but th.y were clearly not adequ.te for delCribin. willi any com
pI.t.nOlI the .. manUc Itruclure of the cl..... cont.IDln. Indlyldual verbs
Thll theory of .. m.ntic rol.. fellihon of proyidln. the detlll aeeded fo
semantic deacrlptlon; it Clme more and more to seem th.t notbel' independ
ent lent or role ,tructure wa. needed (or tho semantic detcription or Yerb
In particular limited domain •• One pouible w.y or devisin. a (uUer ICCOUTI
or lelical sem.ntlcs II to auocllte lOme mechlni.m (or derivin. sctl ( I
truth conditions Cora clause rrom semantic inronn.don individually attache --r-
10 li\len predicate.; but it seemed to me more profitable to believe thlt thet
are larICr cOlnitive .tructurel ClJNlb&e of provldin. a new I.yer or semlati
role notions in term. oC whtch whole domain. orvocabul.ry could. be Kmll
lically characteriud.
My finl aHempt 10 des.c:ribeone luch cognitive llructure WII In a pap
on 'Verbs of judging' (Fillmore 1971~YCfbs like BLAME, ACCUSI
--
I •
- -.
". "f , - I
C1Iorttt J. _
116
CRITICIZE-for which I n.. dcd to be able to imagine a kind of '"",ne
schematitatlon' that was e-ssenlially different from the lort associated with
'case frlme,', In devisi"1 a frame-work for descrlbins the elements in this
class of verbs, 1 found it useful to distinguish a penon who formed or e..·
pressed lome IOrt of judgment on the worth or behavior of lome siluation or
indiyidual (and r Cllled luch a penon the Judse);' penon concerni", whose
behaylor or character it ....as releYint for the Jud,e to make a judsment (I
called this penon the Defendant); and lome liluation concerninl which it
seemed relevant for the Judge to be makin, I Jud,}.1ent (and this f called
.imply the Situation). In term. of this framework, Ihen, I chM< to de>cribe
ACCUSE a•• verb usoble for a... rtlng that the Judge, pre.upposing Ih.
badness of.he Situation, claimed tblt the Defendant WII responsible ror the
Siluatlon: I described CRmCIZE a. usable for ""rling that the Judge,
presupposinS the Defendant'l mponsibiJit)' for the Situation, prmnted
af!umentl for befievinl that the Situation was in lome WI)' blamewonhy.
The delill. of my description ha.e been 'criticized' (... e.p. McCawley 1971),
but the point remainl that we hive here not jUlt a group or Individual
words, but a 'domain' or vocabulary whose elements somehow preluPr>Ose
...
..t-:;~ a schematitallon or human judsment and behavior involvlnl notions of
worth, rnponslbility,. judgment, etc., such that one would want to say that
nobod)' ean reall)' understand the meanings or the words in that domain
who does not understand the social Institutions or tKe structures or uperi-
enee which they presuppose.
A second domlln In which I Illemptcd to chlnclerize I cognitive 'scene'
wilh the same function was that or the tcommercial event' (see Fillmore
J977b). In particular, I tried to .how thlt • larle and important set of
Enllilh ver'" could be Iftn .. aemantieall)' related to each other b)' virtue
or the different WI,.. In which the)' tindexed' or tevoked' the lame ,eneral
'rane" The element. or this schematic S('tne included a penon interested in
uchlnafnl money for loods (the Buyer), 0 penon inlere.led in uehanglng
good. for mOllty (the Seller), the JOO4. which IheJIuyd'did or C<)uldacquire
(t Oood.), and the mo red (or sought) by the seller (the Money).
.1 the tenns o. • f_~ ..... then pou~. y that the verb
.µ (OCURI on tbe action. ot the Buyer with rei to t e Ooods, back.·
BfO dinl the Seller ond the Money: that the YO foeu ... on the
• Ion. of the Seller with respeet to Ihe Oood., back8fCltlrlding Ihe Buyer
and the Money; that the verb PAY rocuses on the actions of the Buyer whh
... peet 10 both the Money and the Seller, bockaroundinl Ihe Oood., .nd
50 on. with luch verbs •• SPEND, COST, CHARGE, and a number or others
somewhat more peripheral to these. Apln, the point of the description was
to argue that nobody could be said to know the meanlnp ofthne verbs who
did not know the detaila or the kind or scene whIch provided the backvound
117
and motivation ror the cltegories which these words reprnent. Usln, the
word 'rrame' ror the SlruclUred way in which the scene is presented or
remembered, we can say that the (rame structures the word-meaninp, and
that the word 'evokes' the frame.
The .tructura t have mentioned so rlr cln be thoulhl o( .s motlYaUni
the eateBoriei speakers wish to brlnl into pia)' when describinl .itvatfons
thlt milht be Independent or the Ictuilipeech Iltulfion, the convcnationat
conle>l. A .eeond .nd equally important kind .of (ramlnll. the (remlnl of
the actu.1 communication situation. When we undmtand I ·plece of lin ..
£1I'ge, we brlnl to the ta.k both our ahilily to ."Ian schernotlzatlon. of the
phases or componenu or the 'world' that the text somehow chlflcterim,
and our abilit)' to scheml,jze the .ituation in which thl. pttee ofllnJUl1C
is beinl produced. We have both tcognitive (rames' Ind 'interactlona'
rrames', the laller ha\linl to do with how we conceptualize what is ,olna on
hetwetn the speaker and the heartr, or between the arChar and 'be ",eff![
By the earl)' leventies I hid bewme in"uented by wor on speech let., per.-
rormati\lit)', Ind pralmatics in Beneral, and had belun contributln, to this
field In the form or I number or writinlS on presuppositionl and dcixls (see,
c.g., Fillmore 1975). Knowled,se or deic.ic Clt~Bories requim In under.
standin, or the WIYI in which lenses, penon markinl morphemes, demon-
strative cRlelorles, etc., schematize the communicatinlsitultion; knowledae
or illocutlonlry points, pri,pciples or converudonal cooperation, and routin-
ized speech events, contribute to the rull undentandinl or most connna.
IIon11 nchanBCs. Furthtr.lcnowinl that a text ia, SI)', In obituary, I proposal /
or marria,e, a business contract, or I folictale, providea .knowJed,e about
how 10 Interpret "articular plSS_sel in it, how to expect the text to dewlap,
ond how to know when It I. finl.hed. It I. frequently the ""M thot such
expectations combine witb the aclual material orthe ted to Jead to the text'.
correct interytretation. And once 1IIIn this J. accomplished by havJDa in
mind an abstract structure or expectltion. whk:h brin,. wilh it roles, pUt-
poses, nltural or conventionaliled sequtftCH of event 'ypet, and III the rHt
or the app.ratus that we wish to .. ,ocille with the nolion of·rrame'.
In the mid-seven tiM I came into contact with the work or Eleanor R.osch
(Rosch 1973) and Ihot of Brent Berlin ond Paul Koy (Berlin ond Koy 1969)
and be8ln to tee the importanet of the notion or'prototype' in undmtandinl
the nature or human cate,orilltion. Throu.h the work or Karl Zimmer
(Zimmer 1971) and Pamel. Downing (Downinl 1977) on the relevance of
caltgorizinl contexls to principles o( word-ronnation and. in work tha'
re"ccl~ fruitrul collaboration with Paul Kay Ind Geor,e Laka"', I belln to
'pro~e descriptions or word me.ninKS that made use or the prototype
notion. One renenliZlltion thlt Jetmed ""id was th.t very on en che rrame
or h3ckp:round against which the meaning or.ll word is defined and under.
j

118
Itood il. f.irly huge sltcc of the lurroundi"1 cullure, and this backlround
undentlndinl il best undentood I' • tprololype' 'Ither than II • aenuine
body or assumptions about what the world II like. II il frequently useful.
when tryi", to Itlte truth conditions tor the .ppropriateneu or predicating
the word or IOmtthin,. to conltruct Ilimp~ definition or'he word, allowing
the complexity of ftt between usn of the word Ind real world .ilultionl to
be .ttributod to the det.ils of tbe prototype bockaround frame rather than
to the de'lila of the word'. meanin,. nUl we could define an ORPHAN II
• child whole parenti Ire no lonaer Ii~in .. and then understand the Cllc,ory
II mOlivalcd Ipinlt I background or • partkulu kin~: in thl, .ssumed
baclcllound world, children depend on their plrentl (or care and ,uidance
.nd pa .. nt. a,"pI the responsibility of provldin, thl. ca .. Ind ... ido"""
wilhout question; I penoD without plRntl hiS I lpecillslltw, (or soeiety,
onl)' up to I pinkul., lse. becaUICI durina this period a lOCiely needs to
provide lOme special way o( providin, are and inuNCtion. The alcoay
ORPHAN doa not have 'built into It' any .peeift .. tlon of the .10 an.rwhich
it is no lonser relevant to ,peak of somebody U In orphln. because that
undentlodins il • put of the backlf'Dund prototype; I boy in hil twentin
i... n.rally .. prded 01 beinl.bI.,o toke .... ofhinuclflnd to hay. passed
the a.. where the main ... idlnc:e i. expected to come from hi' family. It I.
tb.t backlfOUDd I.formatlon which delmnlnn tho f.CI th.l·tho word OR·
PHAN would no! be Ippropri.tely used of .uch • boy, rather th.n Infonna.
tion that II to be septu.tel)' built into I dHCriptlon of the word's meanlnl.
Jn the prototype ,ituation, In orphln is teen .. aomebody dtservin. of pity
and concem; hence Ih. point of the joke about the youn, m.n on trial for
the murder of hi. ~renll who laked the court Cormercy on the arounds that
he WI. In orphan: the prototype Kene 1.. lnst which sociel)' hUI realOn 10
clleaonu lOme children I' orphln. does not take into Iccount the cue in
which. child orphans hinuclf.
A, I teCOnd eumpte oC a alelor)' Ihat hIS to be fined onlo I back,round
of Inltitutiono and pro<:tica we con con.ider the word BREAKFAST. To
undentand this word Is to understlnd the pracla: in our culture or hnina
three mull a dl)'. at more ur Itli conventionally ntabliahed limet oC the
day. and for one ot thne mull to be the one which is tlten early in the
dlY. Iner I period o(.letp, and ror il to conlill oC.tomewhlt unique menu
(th. detail. of which .. n vary from community to communiIY). What I. Inter·
eslin,.bout the word BREAKFAST I. that each ofth. three condilion. most
typically ... ociated wilh It can be independently Iblent Itillillowin, native
speakers to usc the word. The flcl thlt someone can work throulh the nllhl
without sleep. Ind then It lun·up have a metl or eus. tOlSl, cotru and
oranac juice. Ind all that meal 'bruUn", .howl clearly that the 'posl-
sleep' character of the category I. not criterill; the rael thll someone Cln
I ", ! II "
.,
>-- .
119
sleep Ihroulh the morninl. Wlite up at thret: o'cltXk in the dlcmoon. and
Iii down to I meal of ell'. toast. coffee and oranae juke. and call that mal
'breakrll", thoWl that the 'tlrly morninl' character or the Qtcaory II .lso
not crlteria'i and I1I1Iy. the ract that. penon can ,kcp throuah the IIlahl.
waite up in the momin,. have cabblae IOUp aDd chocolate pic 'ror brak ..
fOil', ,hoWl that the 'breokfOlt menu' oharacter 01 the ........ pI Is .100 not
crit.rill, (Thi.'n .pil. of the fact tba.an America. mlaurant that ad_lin
ill .. illin' ..... to ..... breakfut .t .ny II 10 .. ferri., pr<cioely to tho
Ite .. otypod breokfOlt inarediOlltJ.) What wont to .. y, wboo we oIIaene
u.... ph.nomenl like th.t, II not that we have 10 r.r railed to "pI_ the
true c.ore of the word', meanin., but nther that tlte word ,Iva uti c:a.tetorY
whtch an be wed in mlny different conlcllI, this ran. of contol. deter-
mined by the multiple •• peell of III prototypic Ul&-tho UN It haa wboo the
C<lndltlon. of the backJl'ound .Ituation more or I", .uctly match the de-
finln, protolype.
The deocriptlve framework which I. In the proc:eu of ovol,I., out oI.n
of the above con.id.ratlona it one In which wordo .nd other 1I.... lotlc r_
Ind .. t.l0rin Ire oeen a. Indnln, .. mantic or eopltlve calepiet wbleb
.re themoelvn rtOO,nlr.ed •• ponlclpotin, In 10.............. ptuaJ Ilnoc1_ 01
lOme IOn,.n ofthl. mode Int.malble by knowln, _hl",.bout the klndo
of .. uings or oontextJ In whlcll I commu.lty round a need to ..oe ltacb
cat.loriea .valloble to ItJ ponicipantJ, tho boctpound or uperieDoea Ind
practica within which .lIth cont oould .rite, the cot.aort ... the_ta.
and the boctaround. themltl 11u.dmtood I. lontll of protolypeo.
J. r... llIIIItnt_ ... s..e Tam' s' V,I PI ; h
A 'frame', u the nollon plaY' a role In the delcriplion oIlinaulotlc_
In.. , I•• ')'Item of .. tolone. Itructured In a«otdanc:e with 101M _1fttJ ••
cont.xt. Som. word. nlot in order to provide ...... to k_1edfe 01 IUdl
fro",., to the paniciponllin the communication -..nd Ihllullo-4-
It"'. to perronn a calo,orlzatlon which tokel .utII framl., for IrInIed.
The motiv.llnl conlext I. IOmo body 01 un_nell .... lOme pattent 01
practices, or lOme hillory of lOCI. I Inltltudona, Ipinat whkh we find hMelli--
Bible the ereilion of I perdcular cate,ory In the hlltory or the 'lftIUIlD
communily. Th. word WEEK·END conve.,.. what It convO)'l both becI...
of the calendrlc .... n-<lIY eyc:le .nd beclult of. poniculor pnlClIce 01
devoliftl a relatively raraer continuoul block of days within .uch • cyde
to public work and two continuous dlytto one'l privlte liCe.• (we had only·
one 'day ot rest' there would be no need tor the word fweek.-end': one eouJdI
limply use the nlme oClhlt dlY. If we had three dl,.. of work and (ourclaJi
, orrtlt. then too it &eeml unlikely thlt the name (or Ihe period devoted to
one private life would have ~en ,Iven thlt nlme. (It the work wed: ,.
l
,
'.
""
 120 o.rttt J. flit...,
gradually shonened, the word 'week..end' might stay; but il Is unlikely that
the category could have developed nllurally if (rom the lIart the number of
day. devoted to work were shorter than the number or the remaining days.
An acquaintance of mine who works only on Wednesdays, pleased at being
able 10 enjoy 'I long week-end\ reco,nize5 that the word Is here being used
facetiously.)
The word VEGETARIAN mean. what It mean •• when u.ed of people in
our culture, because the calC,ory of 'someone who eals only vegetables' Is
a relevant and inleralin, catcgory onty og.inst the backjround or. com-
munity many or most of whose members rerul.r1y eat meat. Notice thai
the word deaisn1tet, not Just someone who eat! plant food, but someone
who elt. only plant rood. Furthermore, it it used most appropriately for
situallons in which the individulllO delianated lVoldl mut deliberately and
(or. purpose. The purpose mllht he one of belief. obout nutrition. or It may
be one ofconceml for animillife; but the word is not used(ln I lenience like
"John i•• ve,etariln!') to describe people whose diet does not Include meat
because they Ire unable to find Iny, or because they cannot Ifford to buy it.
-..J Occallonally one comes upon I lenn whOle mOlintin, contut is very
o .peciflc. One .uch I. the compound FLIP STRENGTH. u.. d. [ om told. In
the pomo,",phic IIt.rature budn .... Some publi.hen ofpomoanphle novel.
instruct their authors to Include I cer1aln quat. of hlah interest words on
every paae, 10 that a potential cultomer. in a bookstore, white Iftlppin,' the
paaes of the book, will, no mltter where he open. the book. find evidence
thot the book I. fliled with wonderfUl and .. citlnl.oln....,n. A book which
h.. 0 hilh ratio ofnalty worn. per PO.. hu hi,h ftip ItrenJlh; 0 book which
h•• th .. e word. more widely di.tributed hll low flip .trenJlh. A. [ under.
stand the word, In editor of such a publication nnture milht reject a mlnUe
ocript. requntinlthat It boretumed only .nerlt. nlplt .. nlth hll been roised.
With thi. lilt eumple. It I... t.. mely clear th.t the bocklround conle.t
i. obsolutely ...."tlol to undentondinl the calesory. It I. not thl! the condl.
tiona for u.'n, the -.r cannot be .toted without thl. bocklTOund under.
.tondinl (relotlve nip .t .. nath of novel. could e.,lIy be det.rmlned by a
computer). but thotthe worn'. meonlnl cannot be truly understood by
someone who is unaware of those humin conte"" Ind probleml which
provide the realOn for the cate,ory·' .xI.tence.
We can lOy thot. In Ihe prOCftl of utlnl a Ian." .... a .pe.k .. ·applle.· a
frame to a ,ituation, Ind IhOWIthat he intends this frame to be Ipplied by
usin@:wordl rttO",ir.ed al Jfounded In luch I frame. Whit il JOin. on here
seems to correspond, within the ordinary vocabullry or a lanJUa~,.Io
lexical material in Klenlinc dlscoune that II describable IS 'theory laden':
the word 'phlosiston' i, 'theory-laden'; the realon it II no lenrer uacd in
!erioul discourse il that nobody acceptl the theory within which it Is a cone
121
cept. That is, nobody schemltius the physical world in , wlY that would
give a rtlson to speak of part of it as 'phloBisto,,'.
To illustrate the point with items rrom everydlY lanBUase, we can COfto.
.ider the word. LAND and GROUND (whleh I have described elsewhere
but clnnot foreBo mentlonin« here). The difference between these two words
appears to be best e.prm,d by .. yln8 thlt LAND d"I,nat .. the dry .urface
or the earth II It I. diuinct from the SEA. where a. GROUND dealsnlt ..
Ihe dry .urflee of the earth II it I. di.tinct from the AIR .bovelt. The word.
'land' and 'ground', then, differ not 10 much in what It I, that they can be
used to identll'y, but in how they lituate that thinl in I larrer fnme. It Is
by our recosnilion or this rramecontrast that we Ire Ible to undentand that
a bird that ·'pend.lulife on the l.nd·l. belns described neptively II 0 bird
that does not spend Iny time in wlter; • bird that 'spendl ill lire on the
vound' i. beinl described n.ptively os 0 bird that does not ny.
Though the detoil. are 0 bit tricky. the two Ensli.h word. SHORE and
COAST (not differently translltable in mlny lan@:uages)leem to differ from
each other In that while the SHORE I. the boundary between lond ond woter
(rom the water's point of view, the COAST is the boundary between lind and
water rrom the land', point or view. A trip' that took four houn 'from shore
to shore' I, I trip IcrOiI I body of water; I trip that took four houn 'from
coast to COlst' I•• trip IcrOIl I land ml". "We will loon reach the coast"
is a natural way to Ily lomethlng about a journey on lind; "we will soon
reach the shore" il I nltural way to lay something about I sea journey.
Our perception or thete nuances derives from our recornltlon of the different
waYI In which the two word. Khemalize the world.
The Jlponese odjective NURUI i. Inother .. ample of. fromin, word.
Allhou,h not III J'panese ••peokln, Informont •• upport thi. judament.
enough do to inlke the eumple wor1h livlnl. In the ullae thlt IUpport.
my point. NURUI •• ,.d to describe the temperotu .. of 0 liquid. meon.
'at room t.mperatu .. •• but It I... Id moinly of liquid. tbot 0"
Ideally hot.
"Kono OChlll nurut" (this tea 1.lukewlrm) il In acceptable sentence In the
idiolect. that .upport my point. but "kono bilru p nurul" (thb beer 1.luh·
wlrm) I. not. It will be notlc<odth.t the Enlli.h word LUKEWARM does
DOt 'frome' ill object In the .. me woy.. A cold liquid ODd 0 hot liquid can
both beeomelukeworm when len Itondlnllonlenoulh; but only the liquid
tha\ wu .upposed to be hOI can he deseribed as 'nurui',
A lar .. number of frominl word. oppear only ID hlShly .peciollzed con-
te~u,lueh IS the term FLIP STRENGTH discuued eu'icr. The lepJ rem
DECEDENT Ilvel UI Inother example or such context speclaliDtion. Ac·
cordi"! to my 1~lalinrormanll (and my available IIW dictionaries) the word
DECEDENT II used to IdentiFYa dead ptrson in the contut of I dilCuulon
or the inheritance or that person's prof'Crty.(The word DECEASED, IS in
 122
the phrase 'the decelKd', is abo limited 10 Je.11 or journalistic contexls,
but it i. not limited to any panj.cu'u lubdomain within the law.) Another
e.. mple i. MUFTI. MuOi. In the Itnlt It one< hid in the military se",ice.
refen 10 ordinary cloth in, when worn by somebody who rc,ularly weln a
military uniform. If we sec two men wearin, idcntiealluill, 'Ne can, rererring
to their clothi" .... y thlt one or Ihem ia 'in muOi' if that one i•• military
officer. The property of btinl 'in muOI' I. obvioulfy • property thot ho.
relevance only in the conlClt or. military communily.
Given an theM examples or clear cues of terma linked 10 hilhly lpecific
coanitlve rrameo,
we can ... th.t the proceu ofundenl.~diDla tnt involves
,.trievln. or percelvi •• the fromes evoked by the te"', lexlcol content Ind
.... mblin. thl. kind of schem.tic knowled .. (in lOme w.y which un not bt
euily formalized) inlo lOme sort or 'envi.ionment' or the 'world' or the
tnt. If I tell you (to he IOmewhlt rldiculou.) thlt the decedent .. hlle on
I.nd and in muOllut .... kend .te • typleal breakf .. t .nd read I novel hi.h
in flip lirenath, you know that , 1m t.'kin, about I now.ftad nlnl oflk:er
.. ho durin. the period Ineludin,l .. t Saturd.y .nd SundlY read • porno"".
phic novelj and you know a rew other Ihinp about the min, lbout how he
.pent hi. time. and .bout the settin.ln which thl. "pon of hi•• ttlvltles I.
• iven. The sentence did not live you thil informltion directly; you had to
·compute'lOme oflt by conltructin., in your imarinillon, a compJix oonfut
within .. hich each of the lexically .i.naled fromln,. .... motivated. We see
In this way that there I. a very lilht connmlon between lulcalsemandCllnd
te., .manticl, or, to .peak more carefUlly, between rnicer
semlnttea and
the proceu or telt comprehension. The rrlmin, wordl in a tnt revell the
multiple woytln which the .peaker or aUlhor schematl ... the .ltu.tlon .nd
induce .he hearer to conslNet that envislonmcnt of the tnt wortd whk:h
would rnocin'l or I.plein the Clteloril.ltion aet. elpressed by the Jukal
choicet 0......... In the tnt.
The IDlerpreter·. envl.ionment of the texl world aul.n. th.t world bolh •
penpective .nd a hlatory. A report of IOmebody buylnl.omelhin. evok..
the (rime or the commercial event, but let. that event, ror the moment at
Ie.II. (rom Ih. point ohlew of one of It.partlclpanfl. o..cribinllOmebody
os hein. ON LAND I_tes the ocene in the hl.tory of I se. voyl ... by
notlcln. lhot II I. rele.. nt to deocribt the location In this ... y only if thl.
perind II seen a. an Interruption of a period of ... trove!. Sayinllhat 10m..
body I. AT BAT I_tot an event .. one part ofa particular bueballpme.
Describin. coffee, In Japancsc, as NURUI recoanlm that it WII once hot
and hu been allowed to 'cool', One knowl that the coffee i. currently It
room tempentuR, but also thl. it did not ret that WI)' by Illrtin, out II
iced oalf",.
Sometimes the penpective whi<:h I word liS II"I I. not I perspective on
123
the current scene-somcthina that m1aht be vllible in I plctorill representa· .
lion of the seeM-but i. that of. much Ilraer framework, Thus, the detcrip-
tion or someone II I HERETIC prtlUpposa In eatlbll.hed rclilton, or.
reli,iou. community which hoi a well-deft.ed notion or doctrinal oamct·
n.... In a commuDlty l.. kln•• 1Kh btliefl or proct'-, the word boa no pur-
pose. Sometlm .. a word .Ituot .. an .... t I. a hiliOf)' wider tho. the hlolOf)'
of the on.oInl narrative. In .peakln. of Iocotlon. wlthiIo NOC1hAmalea.
the ex."..,ion. OUT WEST and BACK EAST .n (""I_t1y
lerm. h... the form they do _UK uoed. The
(or .1.... portion of AmerIc:on r.mllleo
the .. ttlement hl.lory or the country lraced IlIwoy (rom the ... t cout to lhe
west COl.1. European immi.rlntJ flnt liDded on the cut cout; some oftbent.
or lOme of Iheir descend.nll. ""duolly "" .... ed _wan!. The ......
part of the country ... he,. these Imml.... nll or their • .-tOrl .- wn.
WII BACK EAST; the w.. tern part of the eountry. not yet rudIetI. WI'
OUT WEST. The exp .... iOftS.re used todoy by people .. hOM f..,,1I1esdid
not share In thilaenerll WtllWlrd movement themselvCl, but the terml recall
the historical bO.1I of their creation .
Earlier '.poke of the notioD o( deep euea .. olferin. an locount of the
.. mantic Upectl of linaJe-ctau .. predlca~o .... hieh n..,red In the buIc
g,ammiticalllruclure of CIaIllCl. A broader .Ie .. of the ICtrIOntleoof ........
mar. OtIC .. hich 0WtI •• reat deal to lhe .. ork of Leonord Talmy (100 Talmy
1980) .nd Ronald Lanpcker (Lanpcker fonheomlna). .- Iexleal f ,••
provldln. the 'oontent' upon "hich ""lIUIIItical ,truc:ture perfOC1llO ......
fiJUrinl' function. Thlnkln. In thl. way. we can 100 thol lOy .... mmadeal
catesory or patlern Impoon It. own 'frame' on lhe m.I .... 1 It Itruettmtl.
For eumple. the En,li.h pluperfect can bt _bed u hovln. u III role.
In .Iruclurinl the ·hi.,ory· of the tell world. thot of choroc:terltl •• the oltua·
tion It • particular time (the n.rr.tlve time) u btln. portly •• plaIDed by.he
occurrence of In event or situltlon that OCC\Irredor ellilted earlier on. 11te
pro, .... I.... pect. In Itl tum. schema~ ... I lituotlon u one which I, con-
tinuina nr iterltin, aCrosI I Ipln of time. Thu.,. sentence In a a.urati .. of
the form "She had been runnln ••" I rorm which comblnea the pnltreIIift
and the pluperfect form •• can ha •• the /ltnctlon of nplalnln. why. at the
nuratlve time point. uahc" wa. pant In,. or lweatlna. or tired. nus we see
Ihlt the cosnitive from .. whlc:h Inform .nd .h.pe our undentandl •• of
l.n,uI.e un dilfer .re.lly In reopect to their .. nerolity or.peciflc:lty: .Iexleal
verb like RUN un aiva u••• peclflc: kind of physleol activily lma ... wblle
the pluperfect .nd tbt pros .... lve combl.e. eoch In ... nerol and abatnoct
way. to ahlpe the imaac of runnin, in a WI' thlt flu the current .ilUitlon
and to .ituate the eYent of nlnnin. botb temporall)' Ind In 'reICVInce' fnto
the onloi •• hlltory of the text world.
It II neceuary to dillin,ul.h two Importantly dift"erent ways in whkh thc
!'I
 - - ,
-
,

124
125

cognitive frames we call on to help UI interpret 'insuistie lext'eet introduced,

into the interpretation procesl. On the one hand, we have cases in which the Allt"tNItt Frlm'"" at • SInt:te Slt.,kM't
lexical and grammatical materi.1 observable in the text 'evokes' the relevanl
From a frame semantics point of view. it is frequently possible to show that
(rames In the mind of the interpreter by virtue of the facllhat Illese lexical
the same 'fRCts' can be presented within different fumings, framin" which
(orms or these IrammaticalltructurtS or atclOries nisi as indicts or these
make them out u.dilTerent 'faCIS'. Somebody who shows an unwillin«ness to
frames; on the other hand, we have cases In which the interpreter assigns
, Five out mone~in I particular situation might be described by one penon as
coherence to alext by 'invokfn.' I particular interpretive frame. ADextremely
STINOY (In which e".'he behavior is contrasted with beinl OENEROUS).
important difference between frames thlt are e\loked by materi.1 in the Ie",.
and by another IS THRIFTY (in which cise. contrast is mlde with beln,
and frames that ate Invoked by the Inte;preter Is Ihat In the tatter clSe an
WASTEFUL). The .peak" who opplies the STINOY: OENEROUS ODn·
'outslder' hll no realOn to IUSpect. beyond a teneral.cnse of imlevance or
trast to a way or boh....in« anumes that it is 10 be evaluated "ilh rapect to
pointlessness in the text, thlt anythlnl i. milSi"s. To repeat an example that
the behaver'l treatment or rellow humans i whereas the lpelter who evalu-
J have used elsewhere. I Japanese penona' leiter in the traditional style is
ates the behavior by opplying to It a THRIFTY: WASTEFUL eont .. st
supposed to besin with I comment on the currenl selson. Somebody who
U5umes that what is most important Is • measure of the skill or wisdom dis"
knows this tradition i. able to sense the relevance of In open ins sentence in
played in the use or money or other resources .
• Jetter which lpeaka or the prden noor co ...ertd with leaves. The kind .of
undentandlns which aliowl such an interprtillion comel from outside of 'Contrut Wlt"'" FnlIMt' "rfnI 'CoMrut Acros:s f'raIM1'
the t•• t It.. lf.
The ract that a .inlle situation can be 'framed' in contrast!n, wa,. mikes
In ...oked frames can come from senenl lnowredre, knowledge that e~isls
f'05sible two ways of presentins a neption or an opposition. Usin, the
independently of the tut at hind, or from the onsoins text itself.
contrasts introduced in the last plra8f1ph. If I lay of .omebody, uHe', not

,.... 4.InF,,""-o .. F..... lotloM orbtplrlnl

1t O"",",,tloM
s...01l!1t

this section J examine. number or obs.ervations about lelical meaning

o or tut interpretation which permit formulations in terms of notions from
'-1 frame lemanlies. In the rollowinl seclion I eumine a number of traditional
topics In standard lemantlc theorizinsand raise questions lboUI the impor.
tance they would be alven In In IcCount of linl!uistic meaning of the sort we
have been elplorin,. .
Poir-J ~ rr- A"... II.. p,""",.. of lilt Some Inlall II...
For mony imtollC<l of polysemy It I. possible to say Ihat 0 liven lui",,'
item property fltl either of two different cognitive rrames. One possibility is
that a word hu I aen ... 1Ute In the ev.rydoy lonlulae bUI h.. been Biven a
separate use in t«hnaltanBUlre. For enmpte. we misht wish to say that
the Enlli.h word ANOLE ,. und.ntood in connection wilh 0 peroeptlIOl
frame IS I flJUrc made by two linea joined at I point in I way sugGested hy
a bent stick. Presented in lenni of I competlns I'Irocedurl' frame, an anBle
is thoURht or in lenns of the rotation of. line about I point, the ansle iuelf
visually represented as the line berore and aner jl~ roillion. In the rroceduritl
frame the nolion or a 180 devee angle is intellilible. as is the notion of II
360 de~rte angle. Within the perc:eptuII frame such nolion5 do not fit, (The
example is from Arnhelm 1969, p. 182f.)
stinty-he'. really senerous", I hive accepted the scale by which you choose
to measure him, and I inform you that in my opinion your application of
this scale was in error. If on the other hand I say uHe's not stinlY-he'.
thriny", what I am doinS is proposins ttlat the behavior in question i. not
to be evaluat.d alonl the STlNOY: OENEROUS dim.nslon but Ilonl the
THRIFTY:WASTEFUL dim.nslon. In the ftnt cos. I hove .r .... d for.
radicular standard in the application of an Iccepted scale; in the second
case my utterance ar~ues for the irrele ....nce of one scale nnd ttle appropriate-
ness of another~
Wn s..... er..IIoo hy F..... ~""
Wh.n a .peak.r wishes to talk obout lom.thlnl for which on·appropriat.
cosniti ...e frame has not been establiShed, or ror which he wishn to introduce
• novel Ichematilltion, he can sometimes accomplish this by Innsrenin,
the Iin8uistie material associated with I frame which mikes the di.tinctlons
he'llnterested In onto the new lilu.tion, relyin« OD the interpreter to tee the
appropriateness of the transfer. Certlin new seniti or words can be best
understood as having orittinated in this way; we mi@:hte.pecithat.uchwis
the ca~e in the importalion of the term BACHELOR into the termlnololY
appropriate to fur seal society, to use the eumple made common in re.tical
&ertHllrrtics discussion from the reminder, in Katz find Fodor (1963). of the use
oflh. word BACHELOR to d.signat. '. mal. (ur l.alwllhoUI. male durin,
the mating season'. LRkofTand Johnson (1980) have made us aware of Ihe

126
....Iue or metaphor in conceptualiZAtion and communication, mllkina the
penu •• ivc case that in a afnl min)' domains or uperlenee meta phon pro--
vide UI with the only wly or communicalina about those experiences. (Some
detail. a.. to ~ found elsewhere in this .olume.)
..".... • Lal.oI Sot
, pheDOmenon (II I ho.. dilcuued er..wr.a.-Filloooro
VarioUi kJlIdj or ltII1antic chon .. can be illuminated by con.lderinl the
phenomena In (rune temlDdc tennl. One Important type or chlnp conlilll
i......... titutl •• lhe mOllvotin. clrc:umslOnctI ...hilo _",In. the 1.. lcal
item .nd I.. buIc fit with tho .uocIoted scene. PoopIo o~in ... rt.in
Ulaan otEnJli,h with In eyo to reminl •• concem. haw noticed tcndenca on
the part or mony .peake .. to ho.o .. mi ••• ymmetrl<t In lhe .. II of condi·
tions for usln. the word. I. the proportion BOY:MAN::OIRL:WOMAN.
In partlcul.r, in tho ..... pattern thot I have in mind, m.les .ppelred to be
daultled "' MEN It .n eorller "" than tUt at whleh females .ro clouifled
I. WOMEN. A number of people, .... In. th.t this u.... pattern ..... led
.ttltudea to.... rd females (or • history or .ttitudes tOW1lrdfemolel .. "..,.d
in cumnt convention.' Ullat pouibly in Independence ol the uscrt, own
.ttltudea) ...hich ou,ht to be correCled. A numberohpooh .. h.... _ded
-..J
W in modlfyln, their u.... lna .... y ...hlch ell.bli.hed the "" boundlry between
tbe BOY to MAN tnn.itlo •• t tbe lOme pll ... 1th.t between tho OIRL 10
'"" WOMAN trln,itlon. The .. m.ntic chan .. in thl, .... II I ... 1 one, ...hich
o needa to be explained. But It ...ould not be IOtisfyin. to lee the .. plollltion
::':l IOlelyln diaD", or the meanin. of the word, OIRL .nd WOMAN; the flJlI
e.pll .. tlon mUit usl .. the chan .. to lhe underlyln. aehematlution on tho
part of the I......... ler. The ... Iltles (or potpie of both Ie'es .. ttln. older)
ha .. not chanaed, nor hIVe the available choices of lin.. istic material;
what hal c....... d (i. lOme ,peake .. ) I, the underlylnl .. hem.,iutlon, the
clrcumatlncea motJ".tin, the (;Itclory contraslt.
.... h" • ..,......."...
A second klDd of .. mantic chanae, which oddly can be iIIu'trated with
the ume word" II one in ,.,hic:h the links between words and their frames
Ire chlnaed, but lbe undertyinl schematiulion remains unchanacd. The
ell'on to respond to ooclely'. new It1IIlti.lty to Ihe connection. between
I.n ...... od attltudea I, perb.po .. IIeat to malll,,'n Iho ,hort run If It does
not requl .. IOmclhln. II deeply coanltl ... 1 ..... hemali .. tion of the
domaIn. A ,uperfidol rul.... f.. humb for brlnain •• bout the .ppe.nnce of.
nited coRJCiousnca in the realm of Ilnauap and sexllm il • mech.lnk:al
principle like "Where I am inclined to lOy OJRL I ,houlel in,l .. d lOy
WOMAN". A person who .doptl thll rule m.y find th.t in moot ..... it
perform, .ery well; but one IOmetimca flnd, oneself tnpped-u in lhe e.·
L..J________
_.~ IlA__ I
.--x..
,r:-'~
;::;......•..•• __
127
periencc or In acqulintance of mine-when talklnl about very younS
females; my rriend round himself. levenl times, UIiDa the word WOMAN
when 1.lkln. about .nellht.ye .. ..,ld .lrI. Tho roc! that thll rrlead would
never aceldenlOlly u.. the word MAN ...hen lOlkln•• bout an elJht.yeor-old
boy shoWi that the chante In question J. not of the nlchm,tlutioft type
dilCUllOd IDtho preyJou, panaroph. A. equally dear _pie 0( the ......
1m)10I. the 0(
tho word SUSPEcr whe.. the lpooter or writer MlJId .... _,nclined to
u.e luch I word a' BURGLAR, MURDERER, ARSONIST, or •
.lIy, CULPRIT. eo... loUi of the le.. 1cIoeIri.. lhol • penon II I<> be .....
.idered InnoceDI until pro.e ... lIty, and COnldoUi 100 or the do of
<ommittln. libel, joum.lIst, .Dd pollee ollloe.. ha.. leamed to ldefttlfy
person, aceuoed or crimea but not (yet) r... lly helel to he .. illy or thml .1
SUSPECTS. A chan .. In usare ...hlch would deorly .. 1Iect the adoption of
thele,.1 doc:trine mentioned .bovo .bout .. lit and Innocence II tho uadcriy·
in, co,nltlvo fnme would DOt... ullin some of the freq .... t -- people
mike In the UN of tho word SUSPECT. The ...ord SUSPECT Illuppooed to
be uoed of a porIOn who I" .. poet'" of ODmmlttl•• the crime I. q .... lon;
for it to be u.. d .ppropriately, the", hal to be lOme lpeellic perso. of whom
it un be lOid th.t that perlOn I, ,u,poet'" by IOmeoot of committi •• the
<rime. The C1Irrent joumlli,tic u.. of SUSPEcr ... n w.... nobody hal
been .oeuaed of the crime 'ho .... lhat Ihe cha ... Ia 0( tho luperllcilll kJnd,
followinl tho appllcotlon of a rule of thumb that lOY'> "Wherner I am
inclined to .. y CULPRrr (etc.), I Ihould Inlteod lOy SUSPEcr." I ha..
in mind ,uch u..... al un be found In .. portillto "Pollee In... tl.. tln. the
murder h•• e found no clu.. II to the Identity of the 'Ulpoet."
The law provides mlny contextl in which lpeciftc new framlnp need to
be conltMl<led for familiar word,. The noIlon INNOCENT mentloaed above
i•• n ... mple. In both e.eryd.y lan.. a.. ODd1... II.n ...... the .. 1a • con·
tradictory oppo.ltlon betwe.n INNOCENT .nd GUILTY. I. nerydoy
lanlulle, the dill'e.. nce depend, on whether tho lodi.lduallD q.... tlon did
or did not commit the crime in question. In lepl lanpap', by contnlt.
the dill'e.. nce depend' on whether th.l.dlyJdual in q .... tlo. hal or hal not
been declared quillY by the coun II. result o(le .. 11ld1onwltbi.lhecrimin.1
ju.tice ')"Ilem. Thi, di.parity of .. hemoti .. tlo. I, ... poaaiblo for frequent
mitundentlndlnp in the use or these wordl. Au cumple or luch milunder·
st.ndings (which I hIVe di...... d In Fillmore 1978) w.' in • con ..... tion
. between I proopectlve juror .nd I.wye .. ' ••• olr dire heorin. in • municipal
court In Berkeley. The .ttorney for the defen .... ked the prospective juror
"00 you .... pt Ihe American Jel.J doetrln. lhot I m.n I, innocent until
L..-! ~._ ....--:..._._...,......,.
..
 -
. , --.
,. ,
128
proven guilty?" The citizen answered that a penon should be trealed '"
innocent until proven «'lilly. but that it would be strange to !,Iy that he was
actually innocent. The aUomey asked III in, sayin,. "I'm talking about the
doctrine that a man IS Innocent until flroven SUilty. Do you or do you not
accept that doctrine'" The citizen answered that ir the man IS innocent,
. then there is no need for. trial. (ThIs rude answer excused the man from
jury duty.) Thll litlle bit of miscommunieating could ealily have been
avoided. The citizen was not really being I.ked whether or not he accepted
a particul.r legal doctrine, but whether or not he wa, willinK 10 adopt for the
purpose of discussion in the trial which WI5 about 10 start the rraming or
Ihe word. INNOCENT and GUILTY provided by the criminal justice
institutions in place of the everyday use of the!e same 'Words.
Rtf...... t""" III T.... 1eoI ~IO
Legal contexts live us rurther ",a)'1 or seelns changes between general and
speclal.purpose rramings or word •. In m"any cases fhis is because the every-
day tense of a word doe. not cover all cases in which it Ihould be appropriate
10 use the word, In the protolype cue of event. fittins Ihe .. ord MURDER,
one penon (A), Intendinl 10 kill a second penon (0), acts in such a way as
f'-4" to cause that penon 10 die. Thi. prototype does not coYer a case in which A,
,:.) intendinl to kill B. aims hi. gun at 8, and kills C (who is standinl nut to 0)
~ instead. Some or the properties or MURDER relate A and Bj olhers relate
A to C. The question somebody needs to an,wer, of course, Is whether,
ror the purposes or the law, it is proper to say that A murdered C. The law
does this, not by modiryinlthe definition or MURDER 10 that It will coYer
this 'wrons-tlfltl' cue, but by addlns to the 'Yltem or le881 semantics a
statutory interpretation principle called 'Transfer or fntent' according 10
which A's intent to kill 8 Is fictitiously transrerred to C so that the definition
of MURDER con rully fit what A did to C, Wilh respect 10judgmenl. or
reprehensibility ondlepl provl.ion. for puni.hment. A'. killins ofC should
be t.. ated In Ih... me ... y II A'I .uccessful killinl of B would have been.
The Tran.fer of IDteot principle makes it possible for the non·prololypic
co.e to raU under the .. me definition.
Other .uch .. Inte"""t.tlon. In the law a.. equally founded on Inlenllons
associated with the prolotypical co... The concept of FORCIBLE ENT~R y
involvel one penon pinin, entry to another penon's pfIJl"ICrtyby oYer-
cominlthe resistance or penons tryln! to prevent that person'. enlry. The
u!ual definition or FORCIBLE ENTRY, however, includes not only the
situation In which the intruder physically overpo",en the other, but also
the situation in which, as It J, ulually put. uresillance would be unavailing".
If you, being twice my .Ize and ttrenatb, inllst on belnl admitted to my apart-
ment, and 1 meekly let you enter (on the reasonable grounds that if we had a
129
Ii~hl. I would lose), Ihen Ino you C3n be charged wilh FORCIRLE ENTRY.
A third example is ORAL AGRFEMENT. Basically aJ' ORAL AGREE.
MENT is a contract or agreement which two parties entered into orilly,
that is, without putting the agreement in a writlen ronn and without li",inl
our nam" 10 it. The importance of the nOlion ORAL AGREEMENT In the
law Is that the conditions or its authenticity and its bindingness dl,tinpish
it rrom agreements that are fully written out and ,igned. The critieal ditrera
enee, ror the given legal purposes, is the preJenee or Ibsence orthe .ignature.
or the principals, The important part or the contrast, then, is thl. between
heing signed and not being signed. Accordingly, provisions made in the raw
ror ORAL AGREEMENTS .1.0 apply 10 written arr«ments .. hleh hoppen
not to be signed. The prototype background in which the notion ORAL
AGREEMENT i. motivaled. i. one In which .~ements ... either made by
word of mouth or by means or documents which Ire written and .iantd.
In situations which depart rrom the prototype the Jaw ha. needed to deter ..
mine which aspect or the prototype conlnst Is leplly the most Sllient (the
presence or aMence or the sil!natures supporting a written document) and
let that be the criterion which specifies the Conlrast.
Fnlt'lf1 rOlf Enhaltlon
One important area in which semantic interpretation dependl crucially
on le~ical rramin! is that oC attributions oCvalue. Enluatiye adjectl,," ean
contain in their meanings rererence to the dimensions, scales, or standards
according to which lomethins is evaluated, as ...ith adjectivel like FAA.
GRA NT, TASTY,EFFICIENT.INTELLlGENT.ctc.ln many c.... ,ho .... er.
An adjective is abstractly eyaluatlve (DS with the English word. GOOD and
BAD) and inter~retalions or their atlribulive use depend on knowledtt or
the ideational rrames to which they are indexed. The ract that speakm or
~ngli.h .re able 10 inlerprel such ph .. se... A GOOD PENCIL. GOOD
COFFEE. A GOOD MOTHER, A GOOD PILOT. etc .•• ho ... that they
nre able to call into their consciousness ror tbis purpose the raet tbl ••
pencil is used ror writin« and cln be eYaluated ror how ea.y or emelent It I.
to write with it, or how clearly its trices appear on the paper, the fact thlt
coffee is a drink and can be evaluated ror its laste, it. coDtrlbutlon to tho
drinker's alertness, etc., that moth en and pilots do what they proreulonally
and conventionally do and can be evaluated for how el.ily, how efl"ectlvely.
and how efficiently they do it, The point wa. made earlier that carnltlvo
frames calltd on to a!5i~t in te,;! inttrpretfltion may derive rrom reneral beck ..
ground knowJ~dge or may be brou,ht into play by the textual context. This
is particularly true in the case of the interprelation or evaluative adjectives,
since some nouns have frames 15socinfed with them whose evaluative dimena
,liion~are prnvided in adv:Jnce, while others designate thin~ that could be
. I
 1)0 n.ran J. t'lIImul(' FrI_ St'MUUtl III

eVlllualetl only if the COlileXI provitled scmI.' b:uis for the (\luIU:lIioll. Whcn
S. "·unw--Stm •• Uc fornlldalloa or IUUH I. Trdulkal Scnl .. tKI
we come IIcroSilhe phrase A GOOD STICK we expect to lind in the conful
lome cxpltlnltion oC. situation within which one ,tid could function bellet In this lection I cumint a smlllll number of lopict thal one trudltionull)'
than ,"olher ((or propping I window open, ror rcpellinl I ,.ccoon, for finds in standard trutises on technical semantica: proportionality, pin ..

skewering mlnhmalioWl, etc.). A general concept orOftaminl' involvtl con- digms. tDlonomiel, syncateJorematicily, the suppoKd conlnnt between
tCltu.'iling or .itualin. event. in the broadest tenle poslible; within IInsu;, .. 'diclionary' Ind tencyclopedia', the loal o( dHCTipCin .impliclty and redun ..
de: aemlDlia proper 1M concern il with patlcml or (ramina thl.lre already daney elimination, and,III!lly, the troubled noli on o('lexical presupposition'.
ntabli.hed and which Irc Ipecifi.calJ), IlSOClllcd wllh siven lexlCiI item. ~1oooIhJ
or .ramfMlical cate.ories.
One or the molt rrequently used heuristic <levas ror diloCoverinl Ind
ScrtptE_ \ demOnllrltina the ni.tence or wmandc relturn in the ~ocabulary or a
language II thlt or Kllina up • proportionality Involvin. rour warda Ind
I said earlier about colnilive (ramet that to .peak o( one o( its elements
askin. ror intuitive I.r«ment about tbe identity or plirwise dltrerwcet
il to lpeak of the othen .t the same time. More carerully put. 10 speak o( amana them. Believin. chat man i, to woman at boy i, to airl, we lid up tho
one put or. (rime i. to brin,lo conlCloulnell, or to rlile inlo qUeltion, ralio MAN:WOMAN: : BOY :OIRL. Othc:n frequently uoed ore COME:
itl other components. Thi. effect il panicularly Itrlkln8 in connection with GO: : BRING: TAKE, LOOK: SEE: : GLANCE: GLIMPSE,INUAU!:
the kind. o( (timet known II 'scripts', ('Imts whose element. are sequenced
EXHALE: :SNIFF: SNORT,ond MAN:WOMAN: :BACHELOR: SPIN·
tyPH o( event •. Text undentandin. that mdts uae or Kripta! knowledgl.!
STER. The approach which Ket the basic ttmlntic relit Ions u hoIdJns
(on whkh see Schank. and Abelson, 1977) involves the Icllvation o( whole- amana words.lken in llClalion rill. to help UI become a .. arc oHhe poaibly
JC.Ile script/", or event I on the presentation or In event that cln be Wen to quite separlte way. in which Individual membcn or thne proportlOBI are
part or luch • script. Thua, in • tutlet like
fitted onlo, or (rime, their ruUty. ) have .Iready pointed out that in mlny
"He pushed .... inst the door. The room WII emply."
people'. speech the ditrerentiatin. criterion (or BOY \' •. MAN mlsht be
we make the two aentences cohere by wumin, Ihilihe g011 somebody importantly different (rom that (or GIRL vs. WOMAN: BRINO i, separate
miShl hln In pUlhinla,.inlt a door il to ,et thlt door open, and Ihat i( enough in Its SCft13nliCi (rom COME (or it to have acquired quite aepal'lte
one succeeded in reninl the door open by such In 'CI, one could then be patterns or
dialect varialion: and the moti~.lion (or the cale,orles BACHE ..
in I posilion to notice whether the room WIS empty. Readin. between the
lines, we expand the tnt to mean:
LOR nnd SPINSTER appear to be conliderably different, in .pite or one'.
Inclination, al •• y.tematiltr, 10 put the two word. tOlether. One mllht wish
"He pu,h,d opinl! Ihe door. THE DOOR OPENED. HE LOOKED
10 propose that Ihe obstnet struetunl pattern. underlyinl these word pups
INSIDE. HE SAW THAT The room WI! empy."
arc simple .nd .Iralahtrorward, in Ihe WIYS lugretled by tbe proportion.,
.-- f.. Tn .. even though certain (acu lboutthe world make the domain look leu orderly .
I think such D proposal il not help(ul, because it i. not OM which ub the
DllCuuion of tnt Itructure on the part o( Robert lon,ocre and others anHlys. to look (or the backlround and mOllvltinl .ituations fthich tepa·
.howl thatlanlulJCS Dr culturet can differ with respect to the way. in which rately give reasons ror Ihe cxistence or the Individual Cltelories, Cine by one.
tntl wilh partk:tJlar communkative loa'i can have particular convention-
.Iiud rorma.lledpet in EnJlish makecon.i.tent Ute orimpcratl~el.
JAnln recipes.. fint person plural deSCriptions Ire the norm. And Longacre
In Hun- Psnd"""
A prime example o( semantic Itructure .monglcxic.l item. is (hc 'para.
hal described (in COftnrulion) a 'ansulae lackin. in procedural discourse cJigm'; .and the best example or I lexical-semantic paradigm is the kind o(
USCI nlrrative (arm ror luch purposes. Here it would be difficult to believe display of livc510d terms represented by Table I.
that lanJWIJCt differ (rom each other in lhe presence o( 'material usable ror cattle sheep horse swine
particular kind. of diacoune, it leeml rtlher to be the case thlt traditions cow ewe mare 'ow
or language Ule within the culture develop in ditrerent wa)'s in telts with bull ram stallion bolf
different communicative goal!. steer weIher g~lding barrow
T.ble I

,
--I. '--"\ --- --,... ,~ ,

-

Il2 etta,," J. FllfwIort
lIere the rrol'O!iul IIll1t we hnve II cto~t!d system or terms lied tocether by
!iueh renlure!' us General, Femule, Male, and Neuler, crou-cul by features
identifying !ipecies (Bovine, Ovinc, Equine, Porcine), §cems very attractive.
Unrortunntcly the displny disguises many facls IIhout both these words Dnd
the domnin which they appear to cover. CATIlE And SWINE Ire plura's;
SHEEP and HORSE are not. The word. WETHER ond BARROW are
known only 10,,,,ciatiSl'. In thee.,e of CATILE. COW and BULL op",ar
10 haye thc stntus of'baslc level objects' (in the sense of Rosch 1973), whereas
Ihe general term. hRve Ihat function in Ihc case of SHEEP ond HORSE.
In l.hccnseorSWINE, 0 word not in the table, namely PIG, is the best candj~
date for 'basic level object' Iialus.
In Ihort, the regullritits Ipparent in the paradilm (and this set of tenns-
together with terms for younS, newborn, etc.-make up what is sene rally
nC'C"Cpted as the best example of a semantic paradlsm) ate misleading. To
which we ought 10 add the Neuter category of the words in the bollom
row is not just i 'neutral' catesory operlting in the lime line or business as
the categories Female and Male. The category is diffcrently motivated in the
different species. which is another way of.ayin«that one has different reasons
ror castrating a bull and a horse, one misht do it at different (relative) Dges,etc.
TllIOMend"
The next most common kind of le~ical semantic formol structure is the
'semlntic taxonomy', a semantic network founded on the retation 'is a kind
or. Scientific taxonomiea have obvious uses In ~ientific discoune, and
research that has led to the uncoverln. o! folk tuonomics has been among
the most important empirical semantic research yet done. But there are two
aspects or taxonomic structures that arsue asainst resarding them as rcrre·
sentln, merely a fonnal system of relationships founded on a lin,le clear
semantic relation. The fint is that at different levels in a taxonomy the com·
munity mlsht have hid dift'erent reasons for introducing the categorics; the
second is that the ulual tr«~form display of the elements or a tuonomy
dOC'Snot .how how it il that particular elements In the tnonomy are 'cot;ni·
tively priyjle~d catesoriC'l' in imrorlant ways. Both of these points can be
illustrated with a 'poth' in a taxonomy ofzoological term! In English, nnmrly
ANIMAL
VERTEBRATE
MAMMAL
DOO
RETRIEVER
Of this set of words, DOO and ANIMAL leem 10 be the cotlnitively privi.
ICfled cntegorlc" privileged in the lense that they are the words that would
mo~t ordinllrily hoe used whtn in e\'eryday nntural talk one is descrjhin~ one's
/ C'
.. ",ricne". VERTEBRATE ond MAMMAL ore term. whose employment'
fits a ",articular kind or intcractlonnl
or contcltlual schema (that or scientinc
discou~e).whilc RETR IEVE R 85 D category occurs most naturatlya! an answer
to 8 question about what kind of a dog one has. Suppose that you, hearinl
a splltsh In my back yard, were to ask me what that noise weSt and suppose
the fact is that my pet retriever fell in the family swimmlnl pool. As a WIY or
e~f'lainlng the source of the noisc, it would be natural (or me to say "An
animal felt In the POD'" or "A dog fetl In the pool", but it would be \"Cl')'
unnatural (or me to say lOA vertebrate fetl in the pool" or UA mammal feU
in the roo"" and unnatural in a different way fot me to II)'''A retriever fell
in the poo,,,, The lauer three terms seem to appear more nltunl in uttennca
used in acts or ChlSairying, but seem unnalural when used in acts or rtfemnl·
This runctional difference is not revealed within the logic of a standard
ta~onomic tree.
5,...., .......... lIe T"",'
It has frequently been discussed (c., .• Austin 1964. Lecture VII) that. word
like IMITATION doe. not oem.ntie.lly modify 0 word it IT3mmatleally
modifies in the standard 'set intersection' way. Rather. It combines with the
meaning or its partner to form a fairly comple~ concept. Somethins tOrf't'Ctly
described as IMITATION COFFEE looks like coffee and tastes like eoffee,
And it looks and tastes like coffee not by accident, but because lomebody
manuractured it 10 that it would have these properties: bul, whatever it Is.
i! is not made or corree beans. Undentanding the catesory, in fact. ft'quim
undtntanding the role or coffee In our lives and (perhaps) the reasons
someone might havc ror mnkins a coffee substitute.
By contr,!!' a word like REAL appears to contribute nolhln, It .11 to
the noun to which it Is aUached as a modifier. To describe somethlnl II
REAL COFFEE is todo nothi"J more than to assert that something iltoft"ee,
agAinst the background or (the possibility of) somcbody'l luspicion that it
is imitation coffee. A, with IMITATION •• part of. rull undentanding of
an e~pression with REAL is knowing the reasonS one might hive ror pro-
viding substitutes for the thing in question. The notion REAL COFFEE
malees sense to us because we know that In some seHlnp coffee's K'ftftt,
and we know thflt some people lind coffee damasinl to their hellhh or held
ofTeMive by their ~1i8jon. We can understand a cateSOJ)' like REAL OOLD
or REAL DIAMOND because we can imaglnc a ~a50n why somebody
mi(!ht choose to produce fake gold or fake diamonds, and we can imal!:'ne
why ~omeone might hAvedoubts about the authentic:ly of particular Simples.
By cnnlrllst.l'I notion like REAL PANTS js unlntelli,lble, MC8use it II fmpos-
sihle to imAgine somelhins lookinl like pants and functioning like pantl
which do not, by virtue or tho~e rrnrcrlies nlnnl':. count A~ being genuine
 ," ,.. , '.,'.
134 l"htJtsJ. Fill..,
pants.
Rcdund.MY 1!:II11tlnwrion
A common g031 in structural ~emantics i,sthe eliminatiun ur minimization
of redundant inform;lIion in the &.emanlicdescription or
lexical items, Fre-
quentlya semantic Iheorist will declare thai the ,oal ora '~mtlnlicdiclionary'
is that of sayin, just enough about each word in the lansuage to ,uwrantec
that il il semantically in conlrast with each other word in the language
(Bendix 1966), It il a gODIwhich presupposes the Inlllysl', obility 10 have
In ovef"\liew of the entire luic..1 repertory of the Ilngu8.e, Such a loal is
completely tlnlilhelicallo the ,oal.
OrrrlO'1e semantlC1..since (rame &em:tnl~
.im, II dilCOverin. whitt cate.oriun, ('unctionl the word serves in the con.
ttll. in which iI. use il motivaled. This kind of knowledge is in principle
anainlble Independently or knowledre about olher words in the language,
elcept ror thOle relatively few Clift in ...hkh the "mos.aic' image is appro-
priate, the im.ae by which Ihe me.nin, ,iven to anyone word is dependent
on the meaninas or itl nei.hborin, word. (a. in Trier 1931).
DicI"-'7 ... Eatydopoollo
The various structurali.t approaches th •• find a goal of redundancy. eli-
mination relevant. also find it intelliaible to draw a clear distinction between
'dictionaries' .nd ·encyclopedi •• •• In particular, «rt.ln scholln Insist on a
dislinetion betWHn purely semantic intonnation lbout wordl Ind encyclo-
pedtc inform.tlon .bout the desi",at. orwordl. Somebody holdinalh;s view
mi.ht CXpttl 10 be .ble to juslify certain characteriltics of c:arpenlen (or the
concept CARPENTER) al belonlln, 10 the .. mantle catelory of the noun,
other distinct characteristics o( carpetllen II limply beinglrue of the indivi-
duals who IIlilry the crileri. auociated with the Cltegory, A frame-t.emanttc
apprOich would fllher lIy that eommunilies of men conlain individuals wbo
by trade make things oul of wood, ulins particulu kinds or tools, etc" elc.,
ond would not. that these people 0", coiled CARPENTERS. The possibility
of lepar!tin, acme fealures or. full description or what carpenten do D$ re-
lated to the concept .nd olhera II related to the people does nol &cemimpor-
tlnl. There is. distinction to be made between knowledge about words and
knowledre .bout thinp, but il il nol to be made in I w.y that servc! the
inlemts or the ternlnikisis f have just been describing, True 'encyclopedic'
information about carpenters IS people ml.ht uy som(thin,lboul woges,
union Iffiliatlons, job related diseases, etc,: luch informution is nol a matler
or dispute,
Slr.pUdt)' 0( Dnttlptloa
While in rt1ptct 10 redundancy elimln:ttion it has HpJ)(llr(d thiJl stOllidard
L_ -_ ..
IJS
uprroachet nlue limplicity .nd rrlme-s.emuntic arproaches do nol, there is
another senlt In which simplicity of dCKription i, enhancetl by the frame
>emlllnlicsapproach. A recent lively dilCunion between P.ul Kay and Unda
Coleman on the one hind (Coleman and K.y 1981) .nd Eve Sweetler on lhe
other hand (Sweet~' 1981) concerns Ihe potlibility of a prototype back·
Braund of Issumption. (or, u Swtthcr calls it, • 'folk theory') u providin.
the .roundin, (or a simplified definition of the noun LIE, On the Kay'
Colem.n .oeount, 0 LIE II lomethin."hich II (I) robe in r.ct, (2) belie-<e<!
by tho lpeaker to be rol.. , ond (3) lIid In ordtr to deceive, SwtellCT'IIU,-
lion Is th.t if we can characterize. folk theory of human communication
involvin. Cooperation. e.preuin .... hlt one believtl. CIC,. then it is pouible
to describe a LIE .1 limply a 'raise statement" those other undemandinp we
hllve about tho concept f.llinl out Ihrou.h In undentandin. of why OM
would bother to produce a false sfalement,
" " 115_
Cr.lm. about 'prCluPpolition.r' inrormation beinS allocialed wilh indi-
vidullluiCiI items hIVe not rt«lvtd • load preu, I find thai within (rame
semantics. the concept or ledell prelupposition don not It'Cm unjustlfitd.
Conlider the case or a verb like En.lish CHASE, I verb ror whkh • Icxk:al
presupposltionllt milht be Inclined to IIY that "hen it i. uoed of two belnp
movin.ln tho limo coune. the mo'lemcnt of the OM In fronlll pteluppoled.
independently of whether the movement of the individu.1 dnipated by the
subjector the nrb is UlCrtcd. denied. questioned. or suppoc.ed.ln I Itttlni in
which one penon I. runnin •• especially where it is undtntood thlt thlt ptnOa
is fteein'l it Is relevant to conlider whether lOme other penon il or is not
,oinl to try to prevent that flnl person from !Cllin •• WI)'. (My iIIUllration
il with people, but that's not In important condition.) The verb CHASE
exill' •• I cate.ory by rcco.nilion of such relevance. If I ask, "Did Inybody
chase him?", or if J IIY IIWedldn'l chue him". our reason (or undentandin.
IhJtt 'he' WII runnln. ("eei"a) is that we know the kind of shUition Ipinsl
which the Cltelory CHASE hall rellon for bein., It is in that sense, it aeems
, to me, that one can t.lk aboul lexical prt1uppottions.
6. C_11lCl1aaRnurb
In this paper I have Irgued (or a view ofthe description of m(aning-bcarina
clements in alanlu.le aC'Cordinlto which words (elc.) come inlo bein. only
for I reason, that realon bein. Inchof'\!d in human experiences and human
institutions. In this view, the only way in which people can truly·be said to
undentand the use to which these meanina-be.rin. elemenls are bein. put
in aclual utterances il 10 understand thaie expcricncn .nd inltitulions and
. to know why such experiences and inst itulions gave people rtasons to create
---, --" L.J
 1
136 131

tht- eat~~ries C'JlI"rcssed by IJ~ wMds. TM JCmanlicis"s job is to lense out Currenl hsues in Unluklk TMofy.' BIoomI"atOft: Indlona Uniwnhy ~~.
the preci!e n!.llure oflhc rtlaliorishir belYt'een the word and the calel!,ory. ilod Fillmore. ChatSe5 J. (1978), On the orpnlltllon or 5CmIndc intonnalton In the
the precise nuture orthe reJalion~hips hetween the calc,"ory I'Ind the back. k:dcon. In hpen from the Pnl!l$e'Ssion on the Ltdcon. Chb,o: 1M OlicalO
,round. I believe that some of the cum,,'es I hDve offered have shown the Un,uislk. Sodety.
advnntages of 'ookint allangu8te in Ihis way. Fries. o,.rlM C. (19.52), The S'rUC!VTt or EnA;lish.New YOft: Htrrottrt. Brace A
World.
No1t Gross. ......urke (1975). M~lhodes en Synlue. Plris: HermtM.
Helbi,. Gerhard and. Wotr .. n, Schtnbl (1973), Wor1tTbfidt ZUf V.ltnz und
fo For tI rtunl.tfm)pt 10 dirrmnlhlle I~ Itrn'It, see B~u".nde /981. p. ~O,l. DrstrlbulJon de\ltJchet Verbtn. Lclplll: YE8 Verla, Enzytlopa
Househohkf, Fred·W., el al (1964), LinlU1stk: Ana'ysls of Enslkh. FiNlI Report
\ on NSF O,.nl No. OS-lOB.
Katz., Jenokll. and Jerry A. Fodor (1963), Th~ struet~ of. s.ernantk: lheory,
Am~im. Rudorr( 1969), VIsUIllhinkin,. Btrkeky: Unhoenlty or Clliromla PI't'Sl.
Lanl\l'''' l~.J1O-210.
Austin. John L (1964). Sense .nd Semibili .. CR.econstructed rrom man~l ...ipi lakoR'. Geor. Ind Mark John~on (19SO). Mellphon We Live By. ChicaIO:
notes b)' O. J. W.mock.) o,.rord Unlwnhy Preu.
Unlvenily of CIIk:qo Pr....
a.......n<le. Robm <Ie (19811, Des;" c:riltfla for proer!' models of mdinS. Lanpcker. RMild W. (ronhcominc), Foundlt1om of CosnIUw: Orlmmar.
RudlnS R.... n:h Quonerly 16~261-lIJ. l...t:e\. ROMI B. (1960), The Grammar or EnsHsh NomlMlilatiom. The Hapt:
Brndi., Edward H. (l966~ Compo_llial An.lysls or Gmetol Vocabulary: The
Mouton
Semantk: StftJClure or. Set of V~bs In E,.lkh, Hindi and J.pane5e. nloom. McCawSey, ,limes D. (197'), Verbs or bhc:hlns. In DlYid Hackney ~ al. (eds.).
inlfon: Jndllftl Uniwnily PYas. Conlempora.ry R~ in Philosophkallogk: and Linruj,Ik: Semantics. Dof·
Berlin, Brent .nd Paul K.y (1969). BaSfe CoJM Terms. Berte)ey: Unlwrsity or
dreeht: Reidel. 1'1'. lU-ll2.
California Pms.
Pike, Kenneth L. (l961),l.an1Ul1t in Relation to • Unified Theory orlhc SlructlM
Otomsk" NOI:m A. (19m, SyntlC:lk: Structures. Tht "1«tIe: Mouton
Cbomsky, NOim A. U!J6S). Aspec1Sor the 1beoty or S",tn. C.mbrid&e (Mas~.):
or Human .hrf~. The Harue: Mouton.
'!'" I.UT. Pm. .
Rotch, EleatlOf' H. (1"3). On the ln1etnll atrueture or pe1'Oe'Ptual aMi ternande
""'coI.mon, Undo .nd PII.I K.y (1981). Prot.,y". ..... ntia.La ...... ,., 57,2&-44.
cat~ies. In Timothy e..
Moore (ed.), COlT1IIiw: Development Ind the Acquk~
lion or UflIUIlt. New York: Aeademlc Pres.s.
,.....,.OO."dn.. Parnela (1911), On the enatlrtn .nd Use or EnSlish CompoorK! Nourt1. Rosenbaum, Pelrr S. (l967), 1be Ol'lmmar or Enatish Prtdkate CompJemtnl
La J). Ilo.M2.
Conmuctiom. Camtwidae (MIss.): M.tT. Pms
fillm CIIorles J. (I96Il.lndirm Object C"",'ruct;"", In Ensthh.nd.hO o.de<. Schlink, R.otet C. Ind Robert P. Abekon (1977), Scripts., pt.... GMb .rMl Undn'·
ht. of Transformations. T1te HaJUt: Mouton. standln.: An Inquiry Inlo Human Knowledsc Struetures. Hillsdale-: Lawrmc:e
Fnt ....... CIIo.1os J. (l96l). The "",Ilion or emb<ddlnl" .. "rormll;"'" In • BTII"'" Erlbaum.
. mo •. Won! 19.208-:101. Sweel~, EYe E. (191:1), 'The definition or lk: Ao enmfnatton of the rotk theories
Fit ...... C'borIeo J. (19681. The cas< ror ..... In E. _ .nd R. H,nn,. cd •.• unden,.illl ... mantic I".,ot1l'<. Unpublhhel mo.
Un;""'h In Unrunlle 'TheoTy. New Yon: HolI, Rinehart A WIMIOfl. Talmy, leonard (1980'), OtIImmar and co,nhlon. MS.U~, orClllromia..t
filmore, Cbartes J. (1911), Verbs 0( JudJina: IneJlerc:iJe in ttmlntlc decri~jon. Son DieIo. C.,.,illve Selenoe Prosrom.
In C. J, Fillmore and D. T. Lan,endom, rds., Studies in Un,uktk: Sm1anliC1. Te1niere. lucien (l9S9). EJemenls de Syntlle Structurale. ParIs: klinJbIed.
NC'W yort: Hott, RI .... " .nd Wimfon. Trt«. )0~1 (19)1). Ocr dtutsche WoflSchall im Smnbe:titt::des Venlude'. Heldrt.
FiJlmore. Otarln J. (1m). On Jtntrltivlly. fn Stlnley Peten, ed., The Goals or betS·
U .... ;,11eThtooy. Enate-ood Olfr" ""nlia: H.II. Wil,on. [)eln!rc (l97J), PmUppo!ltl.m .nd Non-TMh-ConditIonol _mia.
F/nmon::,Chl~ J. (191'), Santa Crm: lec1u~ on Dej~h. B100minJfon: rndian.l. London: Academic: Press.
Univmll)' Linlukt~ Club. timmer, Kart E. (1971), Snme ~rli oMtnaliom about ooml,.1 compovndI.
Fillmore. Ot.~ J. U917.), ~ C.St' ror ~~~, In P. Colt and J. S.dock, In War. in, 'Ipe" on LanJU'se Unl\ItfU:b. S. l..IntUaJfl UnlvttsaJt Project,
Ink), 'Syntn nnd Semanl~ R: GT3n1mlticnl Relaliom. ~ Von:: Ac..ckmic Commlllt'e em UnSUrs1ia, St.nrord Uni"enil)" pp. '-2.f. Rqwinled In Wor1·
"r"~. bikJ~nll: (I~fll), W~w:nKh.nlkhe Buch~lf~hart Otrrml.dl, Pl'· 23,)-2".
Fillmore. Ch.rlM J. (l9nb). TopfC1 in UlI.tclli ~lntic1. In R~ W. Cole (cd.).