Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) frame (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: frame


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines171 - : "Following a suggestion by Harder (1996), we might think of linguistic structures (of whatever size) as instructions to modify the current discourse space in particular ways. Each instruction involves the focusing of attention within a viewing frame. A discourse comprises a succession of frames each representing the scene being "viewed" and acted on by the speaker and hearer at a given instant" (Langacker, 2001: 151 ).

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : Para Lakoff (2006a) los marcos de superficie, que evocan marcos más profundos en el entendimiento del mundo, se obtienen de las expresiones metafóricas. Con mayor claridad, Lakoff ilustra esto proponiendo el análisis del uso del Bad apple frame (el marco de la manzana podrida), contenido en el dicho popular "una manzana podrida echa a perder el cajón", marco que funciona en diferentes culturas en tanto lugar común:

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines266 - : "Bad apple frame: Consider the saying "A bad apple spoils the barrel" . The implication is that if you remove the bad apple or some small number of bad apples, the others will be fine. The rot is localized and will not spread. Rot here is a metaphor for immorality. In a case where there is immoral behavior, it points blame at one person or a few people -and not to any broader systematic immorality, an immoral policy, or an immoral culture. This commonplace frame has been used to limit the inquiry into torture as a systematic problem in the military (as in the Abu Gharaib scandal), so the problem is contained. The army just got rid of the "bad apple" -the lowest-ranking military personnel involved. The same was true of Enron Corporation, where a few executives (Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay) were identified as bad apples, rather than the entire culture of Enron, where top-level and even midlevel employees commonly schemed to rip off the public by taking advantage of the deregulation of

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Interaction within the Romanian Parliament is conventional and regulated by a set of rules contained in various official documents. When it comes to the interaction frame, Ilie (2010a: 202) identifies and discusses two concurrent practices: "the use of an institutionally ritualised discourse and the use of an individually tailored discourse" . In the Romanian parliamentarian community of practice this is often translated as a desire to follow the procedures when delivering a speech (i.e. the MP puts his/ her name on the list and waits for his/her turn, speaks to the point, does not reply to the comments from the audience), which is mixed with a desire to add a personal note in his/ her speech (i.e. the MP makes remarks, uses quotations, references to previous speeches of other MPs, makes digressions, starts verbal exchanges with the audience while at the rostrum).

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : This remark points to the fact that the senator seems to be fully aware of the existence of two distinct frames: the serious and humorous frames as well as of their triggers . Moreover, he is perceived as a person who is known to go along with such invitations and to switch from one frame to another, depending on the context of situation or his agenda.

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Encouraged by the audience’s reaction, i.e. laughter, which signals agreement to enter the joking frame (Jefferson, 1979), CVT further escalates the issue of the ‘ambiguous’ status of DUHR with the utterance: nici el nu ştie, nu s-a hotărăt dacă este uniune culturală sau altceva (‘They don’t know themselves if they are a cultural union or something else’ ). What he actually does is to activate a script, more precisely the ‘stupidity script’, which triggers further laughter and comments from the audience.

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines404 - : 16 “The Frame setting topic presents a general domain or setting where the predication which follows holds, and often coincides with adverbial complements or clauses which appear at the beginning of the sentence. The frame setting topic is different from the aboutness topic: the former does not say ‘what the sentence is about’ and cannot be identified with a discourse entity (a pronoun or a NP ). Other differences are the following: (i) a sentence may not have a frame setting topic at all (and this happens often), but (ii) a sentence may have more than one frame setting topic; in addition, (iii) there is no necessarily direct relation between the frame setting topic and the predication”. (Hidalgo & Downing 2012: 200).

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines429 - : Research findings have also indicated that language can impact thought even after it has been used. It is posited that the acquisition of a language might generate a specific processing mode, which might persist in both linguistic and non-linguistic contexts. A subclass of this view proposes that acquiring a language would cause speakers to pay greater attention to some specific properties of the physical context. For example, three kinds of spatial frames of reference have been identified: the geocentric or absolute frame which places the coordination axes in the larger environment, the object-centric or intrinsic frame which consider the axes within objects, and the ego-centric frame which considers the speaker as the point of reference (Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun & Levinson, 2004 ). It has been observed that not all frames of reference are used in all languages. In a series of experiments, Levinson, Kita, Haun and Rasch (2002) found a correlation between linguistically encoded frames of

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : In FrameNet there are two main units of analysis: i .e. frames and lexical units. A frame is a schematic representations of a situation type (^[66]Fillmore, Petruck & Wright, 2003b), which can be defined in terms of participants and their functions. Frames are evoked by a set of lexical units (i.e. words taken in one of their senses). This means that, as much as it is done in FunGramKB, the separate senses of a polysemous word are connected to different semantic frames/concepts. Additionally, FrameNet supplies valence information, which is specified both semantically and syntactically via the following elements: (i)frame elements (i.e. the entities taking part in the situation depicted by a given frame), and (ii) phrase types (e.g. NP, PP, etc.) and their corresponding grammatical functions (Subject, Object, etc.) (Fillmore, Johnson & Petruck, 2003a). Consider the case of the verbal predicate 'tear', which evokes the ‘Cause to fragment’ frame, i.e. 'An Agent suddenly and often violently

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : * d. Thematic frame mapping: x = Theme ; y = Referent

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : Thematic frame mapping: x = Agent ; y = Theme; z = Location

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines549 - : Un aspecto de la Semántica de Marcos, que se reflejará en los resultados del presente artículo, es que sostiene que cada marco focaliza una perspectiva diferente. Y así, las predicaciones prototípicas disponibles en inglés para una escena de ‘transacción comercial’ gravitan en torno a los verbos buy, sell, charge, cost y pay, y cada uno de ellos destaca un aspecto concreto de esa escena, ya sean los participantes o las relaciones conceptuales entre ellos. Los participantes de la predicación se denominan frame elements en la aplicación práctica de la Semántica de Marcos: el proyecto FrameNet . En la [53]Figura 1, se muestra cómo FrameNet describe el marco Condition_symptom-relation (relación entre enfermedad y síntomas), en el que los elementos imprescindibles (Core Frame Elements) son paciente, enfermedad y síntoma, que funcionan como argumentos de verbos como manifest o present.

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines577 - : Although, as noted, the discourse style of the proposals relies on features that make texts cognitively dense (e.g. the presence of nouns, prepositional phrases as nominal post-modifiers and dependent clauses, particularly relative clauses, non-finite relative clauses, that-noun complement clauses), this study also brings in the issue of colloquialisation in written texts in the Internet. The proposals contained linguistic features associated with academic written registers, such as verb phrases, action verbs, lexical verbs, modals and semi-modals (^[157]Biber & Gray, 2016), as well as colloquial features (deictics, person pronouns, intensifiers) encapsulated in nominal structures. These colloquial features even appeared in definitions of scientific terms were and descriptions scientific facts and procedures to construct “a mutual frame of reference” (^[158]Hyland, 2010: 213 ), as also happens in other digital genres such as science blogs and popularisations, online comments and reviews in

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines596 - : The articles have been organised considering these textual compilations and the metadiscourse elements under focus. The first two articles -by Alonso-Almeida and by Álvarez-Gil and Domínguez Morales- aim to shed light on the use of modal verbs in academic writing. In the first article, the author reports on the use of modal verbs with dynamic senses in historical texts from a diachronic perspective. The second article focuses on a corpus of academic articles in the field of tourism in order to describe the use of modal verbs to indicate the authors’ stance towards the information they offer in the introduction and conclusion sections of their papers. The next two studies -by Skorczynska and Carrió-Pastor and by del Saz- have been conducted within the frame of the *IAMET project, which is a competitive project granted by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity (Proyecto: FFI2016-77941-P) entitled: Identification and analysis of rhetoric elements in Spanish and in English: study of

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines99 - : La inscripción textual del eje comunicativo, considerado como marco o frame de enunciación posee como función específica:

Evaluando al candidato frame:


1) discourse: 6 (*)
3) setting: 6
4) topic: 6 (*)
5) clauses: 5 (*)
6) marco: 5 (*)
7) apple: 5
8) verbs: 5 (*)
11) marcos: 4 (*)
16) lexical: 3 (*)
17) identified: 3
18) comments: 3
19) consider: 3

frame
Lengua: eng
Frec: 65
Docs: 36
Nombre propio: 1 / 65 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 7
Frec. en corpus ref. en eng: 102
Puntaje: 7.963 = (7 + (1+5.78135971352466) / (1+6.04439411935845)));
Rechazado: muy común;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
frame
: Azevedo, M. T. (2005). Veja o MST! –Um frame revelado. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada, 152(5), 141-153.
: Baker, C. (2014). FrameNet: A knowledge base for natural language processing. In Proceedings of Frame Semantics in NLP: A workshop in honor of Chuck Fillmore (1929-2014) (pp. 1-5). Baltimore, Maryland.
: Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. En Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seúl, Hanshin Publishing Co.
: Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Londres: Harper and Row.
: Hughes, C. (2009). Assessment as text production: Drawing on systemic functional linguistics to frame the design and analysis of assessment tasks. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 553-563. DOI: 10.1080/02602930802187316
: Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant. Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.