Re: Frame-based vs ontology-based vocabulary

On 2/20/07, Sai Emrys <sai@...> wrote:

> What I would like instead is a system based on frames. For example,
> there is the 'commercial transaction' frame of cogsci standards fame;
> it has various roles that are implied to exist within it - buyer,
> seller, money, object - and perhaps various other peripheral ones,
> Specifically, how could you construct as much as possible of your
> "vocabulary" (if it still functions like one... I'm not at all certain
> that it would) or "grammar" to work based on frames, i.e. based on
> relationships in a socially-known and merely-pointed-to context,
> rather than on ontologically-derived naming and role-specifying words?
> Could names be abandoned altogether?
>
> How many frames are there vs lexical items, in e.g. English?
It seems to me that (some) frames are likely to vary more
from one subcultural "dialect" to another than most
words do.  For instance, a cogsci natural philosopher
might talk about a "worship" frame but the details
of what roles etc. that implies are liable to vary
a lot from one religion to another or even from
one Christian denomination to another.   A "game"
frame would imply different things to a group of
friends who regularly get together to play a certain
game or to a heterogeneous group of people
at a large party who are casting about for some
standard game that they all already know.  Etc.
This is probably surmountable, but I don't know
how I would go about trying to count the number
of frames "in English" .... more likely one would
count the number of distinct frames in general
American culture, leaving out (or saving for later)
frames that are peculiar to a given subculture.

--
Jim Henry
http://www.esperanto-atlanta.org

Reply