Frames and domains: a combined approach

We would just have to accept that not all the roles in this structure will assume a value on every occasion (time does not have any purpose, nor does culture) and that the characterization of a given linguistic unit may require further, probably less clearly delimited, domains which are not captured by the four roles and their values in the qualia

structure. In the discussion of the results of the empirical investigation of explicitation and implicitation in chapter 8, I will at various points make use of this core formalism provided by the qualia structure to make statements about implicit information in the domain matrices of linguistic units.

In the literature on cognitive semantics, the terms frame and domain are often used more or less interchangeably (e.g. Croft/Cruse 2004:16-17; Evans/Green 2006:206-207). However, equating the notions of frame and domain may not be as unproblematic as it appears. Besides being embedded in different theoretical frameworks (which, however, share the commitment to a conceptualist and encyclopaedic approach to meaning), both concepts seem to be concerned with slightly different phenomena. Fillmore’s frame semantics has a somewhat verbal bias, as evidenced by the prototypical commercial event frame which is often used to illustrate his theory (however, the various definitions of frame are broad enough as to be applicable to nominal concepts as well44

43 _{For an application of Pustejovsky’s qualia structure in specialized language semantics as “a systematic}

way of representing conceptual dimensions” see León Araúz et al. (2012:148).

). Also, and perhaps more importantly, frame semantics is not particularly concerned with the inner structure of concepts (Busse 2012:551). A frame is prototypically understood as a system of concepts and thus provides a more “extrinsic” perspective by highlighting other frame elements that

44 _{For example, the frame model developed by Barsalou (1992a, 1992b) is exclusively concerned with}

are evoked when a given element of the frame is indexed in a text (see Fillmore’s definition in 4.6.3.1). Langacker’s theory of domains, on the other hand, provides a more “intrinsic” perspective, by focusing on the various domains which characterize a single concept (see the examples of glass and Kohlekraftwerk above). However, it does not capture the external relations of nominal concepts to other concepts as readily as frame semantics does.45 Also, it is generally agreed within the theory of domains that lexical concepts are usually complex in the sense that the encyclopaedic knowledge required for their full understanding is not structured in only one but rather in several domains, which constitute the expression’s domain matrix. Consider the example glass, for which we posited the domains SHAPE, MATERIAL, SIZE, FUNCTION1,2 and possibly many more.

In frame semantics, the corresponding information would probably be subsumed under the frame indexed by the term glass, whereas in the theory of domains the information is distributed over various domains. Therefore, it seems that, besides the other differences identified above, a frame has a broader extension than a domain. In light of the discussion so far, it seems then that a frame is closer to a domain matrix than to a single domain46

For the purpose of the present thesis, I would like to propose a combination of the two approaches to highlight their shared epistemic aims (albeit from slightly different perspectives) and to do justice to the joint consideration of frames and domains in multiple works on cognitive linguistics. In this thesis, the terms frame and domain matrix will be used interchangeably to refer to the body of encyclopaedic knowledge that is associated with a given linguistic unit. Understood this way, a frame/domain matrix may, depending on the nature of the linguistic unit or concept in question, consist of one or more domains that represent the internal structure of the concept (with the qualia structure as a core formalism for organizing these domains), and/or may provide a more extrinsic perspective , keeping in mind that a frame provides a more extrinsic perspective (i.e. going from the concept in question to related concepts) while a domain matrix provides a more intrinsic perspective (by zooming in on the internal structure of a single concept).

45 _{However, if we use Pustejovsky’s qualia structure as core formalism for structuring domain information in}

scientific and technical translation, there are various values in this structure which imply such extrinsic relations to other concepts, for example, the values parts/component elements, purpose, built-in function/aim,

creator and causal chain.

46 _{This is in line with Taylor’s (}3_{2003:90) understanding of the concepts. For Taylor, the term frame is “a}

useful theoretical term, denoting the knowledge network linking the multiple domains associated with a given linguistic form.”

by highlighting the relations of this concept to other concepts which feature in its understanding. However, as pointed out in 4.5.3, the thesis will draw more heavily on the theory of domains since, with the notions of profile/base/domain matrix, it has more to say about the important explicitness-implicitness divide and is better suited to describe the dynamic foregrounding and backgrounding of different domains or aspects of meaning in specific usage events (see 5.3.4). The explanatory power of frames/domain matrices for modelling knowledge organization and representation in scientific and technical discourse/translation will be illustrated in the empirical analysis in chapter 8.