Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross ...

Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross-linguistic
Approaches to the Semantics of the English Verb See
by
Collin Freeman Baker
A. B. (Brown University) 1968
M. A. (University of South Carolina) 1984
M. A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1993
A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Linguistics
in the
GRADUATE DIVISION
of the
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Committee in charge:
Professor Charles J. Fillmore, Chair
Professor Andreas Kathol
Professor Eleanor Rosch
Professor Eve Sweetser
Fall 1999

The dissertation of Collin Freeman Baker is approved:
Chair Date
University of California, Berkeley
Fall 1999
Date
Date
Date

Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross-linguistic
Approaches to the Semantics of the English Verb See
Copyright 1999
by
Collin Freeman Baker

Abstract
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psycholinguistic, and Cross-linguistic Approaches
to the Semantics of the English Verb See
by
Collin Freeman Baker
Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics
University of California, Berkeley
Professor Charles J. Fillmore, Chair
This dissertation studies lexically-speci c (irregular) polysemy, using a case study of the
English verb see as the major example. Clearly, words such assee have di erent meanings
in di erent contexts, but how canwe distinguish di erent senses from mere di erent uses
(modulations) of the same sense? What are the semantic and paradigmatic relations among
the senses? Answers to these questions were sought through a series of psycholinguistic
experiments, formal analysis in terms of Frame Semantics (Fillmore 1976; Fillmore 1982;
Fillmore & Atkins 1992) and other cognitive linguistic theories, and analysis of entries
in monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. The results show that speakers can reliably
distinguish many senses of see, that the English pattern of senses is partially shared across
languages, and that frame semantics is a good way of representing the relations among
senses.
First, the relation of semantics to world knowledge and categorization is discussed,
and Frame Semantics, homonymy, polysemy, and monosemy, traditional tests for polysemy,
and other types of linguistic evidence are de ned.
Then, the semantics and syntax of see are outlined and detailed frame represen-
tations are given for 19 senses (e.g. recognize (saw that he left), ensure (see (to it) that
he leaves) and experience (saw combat)) and 6 purely compositional uses, e.g. tour and
hallucinate, including inheritance (complete or partial) among senses and from more gen-
eral frames. Representative collocations with see are discussed, along with other cognitive
linguistic representations, including mental spaces (Fauconnier 1985 [1994]).
1

Next three psycholinguistic experiments are described, involving (1) free sorting of
examples of uses of see, and (2) untimed, and (3) timed classifying of examples into a priori
categories. Results suggest that speakers can reliably access nely di erentiated senses like
those proposed above.
The sense divisions for see in entries from several English dictionaries are shown
to be problematic. Entries from bilingual dictionaries between English and Spanish, Chi-
nese, and Japanese demonstrate that there is partial overlap between the senses and sense
inheritance of English and those of other languages. The similarity of English to Spanish
is greater than to the non-Indoeuropean languages.
Finally, conclusions are drawn from all the approaches and future research is out-
lined. Includes index and experimental stimuli.
Professor Charles J. Fillmore
Dissertation Committee Chair
2

Contents
Preface vii
Outline of the Structure of the Thesis ........................ viii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Research Question.............................. 1
1.2 The Domain of Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Semantics and World Knowledge ........................ 4
Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Other Formalisms . . . . . . 5
Concepts, Categories, and De nitions ..................... 7
Folk Models of Language and the Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 Structures of the Lexicon ............................ 12
De nitions of Terms ............................... 12
Tests for Lexical Ambiguity ........................... 15
Distinguishing Monosemy, Polysemy and Homonymy ............. 18
Regular Polysemy ................................ 21
Irregular Polysemy ................................ 24
1.4 An Example of Possible Polysemy: Crawl ................... 24
1.5 Other Types of Evidence for Lexical Semantics ................ 27
Types of Linguistic Data and Collection Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Some Major Types of Evidence and Their Uses in Lexical Semantics . . . . 33
1.6 The Polysemy ofSee ............................... 36
2 AFrame Semantic Analysis 39
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 The Seeing Frame ................................ 40
2.3 A Sense-Enumerative Approach ......................... 44
Brief List of Senses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Traditional Tests for Sense Di erences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Co-occurrence of Complement Patterns with Senses ............. 55
2.4 Semantics ..................................... 58
The Event Structure of Seeing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.5 Detailed Frames and Descriptions for Senses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
iii

BasicSenses.................................... 63
Semi-collocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Compositional Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.6 Collocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Examples of Collocations ............................ 105
2.7 Some Recalcitrant Data ............................. 109
2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3 Other Cognitive Approaches 111
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2 AMental Spaces Approach to the Semantics of the seen ........... 112
3.3 The Semantics of Motion Expressions with See ................ 119
3.4 A Brief Discussion of Two Complex Idioms .................. 121
Envisionment and Classi cation as Reality ................... 121
\Would rather see him hanged" and Related Patterns ............ 123
3.5 Senses as a Function of the Semantic Types of Arguments.......... 124
3.6 Uni cation and Re exives ............................ 126
3.7 Conclusion .................................... 131
4 Psycholinguistic Experiments 132
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
On-line vs. O -line Methods .......................... 133
Previous Work on Priming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Predictions .................................... 138
4.2 Experiment 1 ................................... 139
Method ...................................... 140
Statistical Measures of Agreement ....................... 141
Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.3 Experiment 2 ................................... 144
Method ...................................... 144
Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
4.4 Experiment 3 ................................... 153
Method ...................................... 153
Results and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
5 What the Dictionaries Say 164
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.2 Monolingual English Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Webster's Third New International|Text ................... 167
Webster's Third New International|Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Small English Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.3 Bilingual Dictionaries|Introduction ...................... 179
iv

5.4 English-Spanish Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Collins English-Spanish Dictionary|Text ................... 180
Collins English-Spanish Dictionary|Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
APocket Spanish-English Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
5.5 English-Mandarin and Mandarin-English Dictionaries ............ 187
Far East English-Chinese Dictionary|Text .................. 187
Far East English-Chinese Dictionary|Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Everyday Chinese-English Dictionary|Text.................. 192
Everyday Chinese-English Dictionary|Discussion .............. 196
5.6 English-Japanese Dictionaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary|Text ................ 198
Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary|Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Small English-Japanese Dictionaries ...................... 207
5.7 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
English-English Comparisons of Entry Structure ............... 208
Cross-linguistic Comparisons of Entry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Cross-linguistic Comparisons of Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
5.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Possible Alternative Organizations for Dictionary Entries .......... 227
6 Future Research Directions and Conclusions 228
6.1 Future Research Directions ........................... 228
Psycholinguistic Experiments .......................... 228
Corpus Studies and Word Sense Disambiguation ............... 230
Cross-linguistic Survey.............................. 232
Other Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
6.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Bibliography 238
A Additional Corpus Examples of Senses 249
A.1 BasicSenses.................................... 249
A.2 Semi-collocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
A.3 Compositional Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
B Summary of Morphology and Syntax of Senses 254
C Experiment 1 256
C.1 Original nineteen senses ............................. 256
C.2 Stimuli....................................... 259
Brown Corpus Sentences (selected) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Constructed Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
D Stimuli for Experiments 2 and 3 263
Index 275
v

Acknowledgements
Careful citations are the standard academic way toshow the intellectual background of a
work such as this, but they can never tell the whole story. The ideas in this dissertation
have been developed with the bene t of many careful readings and thoughtful comments
from all the members of my committee, and of extensive discussions with George Lako ,
Jane Edwards, Christopher R. Johnson, Susanne Gahl, Kevin Moore, and other faculty,
postdocs, and graduate students at UC Berkeley. I began by trying to acknowledge each
contribution by citing it as a personal communication, but soon found that there were too
many tocount. I greatly appreciate all the suggestions that I have received and hope that
those who see their ideas used here will not be disappointed by the lack of speci c reference.
I feel fortunate to have participated in the life of the Linguistics Department at
UC Berkeley, and to have received the intellectual stimulation of faculty such asPaul Kay,
John Ohala, Jim Matiso , Larry Hyman, Leanne Hinton, Ian Maddieson, and Robin Lako
and the encouragement of fellow linguistics students such as Sarah Taub, Joe Grady, Sara
Gesuato, Matt Juge, Kyoko Hirose Ohara, Orhan Orgun, Laurel Sutton, Marvin Kramer,
Jason Patent, Mary Bucholtz, Kathleen Hubbard, Anita Liang, and many others, including
a distinguished series of colloquium speakers and visiting scholars. It has also been my
good fortune during much ofmystayatBerkeley to be associated with the International
Computer Science Institute (ICSI) and to have hadthechance to discuss natural language
and cognitive science with researchers there such as Jerry Feldman, Dan Jurafsky, Terry
Regier, David Bailey, and Srini Narayanan.
I am grateful to the taxpayers of California for the Regents' Scholarship I received
during my rstyears at Berkeley and to U.S. taxpayers for the NSF funding of the work
of the FrameNet Project at ICSI (IRI 9618838, Charles Fillmore, PI), which has made it
possible for me to be paid for work related to my dissertation research.
Looking back athowIreached this point, I feel grateful to my parents for their
concern for my education (to the point of helping to found a new school) and to a long
succession of brilliant, dedicated teachers, too numerous to name. Above all,Iwant to
thank my wife and my son (now three years old) for their support and patience throughout
this long project.
vi

Preface
From an early age, children enjoy jokes and riddles that play on language: What
has eyes but cannot see? A potato. An air conditioner can run all day and still not go
anywhere. As in many other elds, many of the simplest questions about language can lead
to profound insights. Why does the word tongue sometimes mean `language'? Why does
heart mean both `internal organ' and `courage or compassion'? Why dowesay \I see what
you mean" when there's nothing to look at?
This thesis is about some of those \simple" questions. How can we tellhowmany
senses a word has? If a word has more than one sense, how can they be related to each
other? We will examine the general problem of polysemy (Greek for `many meanings') as
exempli ed in a thorough case study of the semantics of the English verb see. Avariety of
approaches will be used to study the question of what senses see can have and how they
are related to each other.
I will not deal with the historical evolution of the senses of see except insofar as they
are relevant to understanding the relations among the senses in the minds of contemporary
adult speakers of English. In general, if current speakers believe that one sense of a word
is older than another, then they may also tend to regard it as more central or basic. For
example, people who are aware that the English word republic derives from Latin res publica,
meaning `public a airs', mayhave a di erent concept of what it means to say that the United
States is a republic than people who are not aware of this fact. There is reason to believe
that the types of meaning change found through history are likely to be similar to those
involved in contemporary processes of meaning extension, such as metaphor and metonymy,
but this thesis does not attempt a full survey of these types of meaning shift.
Nor will I examine the childhood acquisition of the senses in detail, although I
will make occasional reference to the extensive research being done on questions of lexical
vii

acquisition. Aside from needing to limit the scope of the study, there is also no guarantee
that the patterns of childhood acquisition and the structure of adult lexical semantics are
very closely related; the nature of that relation would be a fascinating study in itself.
Outline of the Structure of the Dissertation
Chapter 1. Introduction
The rst section outlines the research questions addressed in the thesis. These
questions, of course, are all applicable to any apparently polysemous word. I consider the
possibility that we might be able to treat all the uses of see as instances of a single, highly
abstract sense, along the lines of Ruhl (1989). I show that such a solution not only fails to
distinguish adequately among related words, but also contradicts psycholinguistic studies
of priming e ects.
I discuss my pre-theoretical biases and assumptions about linguistics in general,
the types of data that it should seek to explain, what constitutes an adequate explanation
of a set of facts, etc. Brie y, Ibelieve that linguistic theories should strive tocover as
broad as range of facts as possible; this calls for a very rich, expressive representation of
linguistic structures. The chapter also discusses a variety of sources of evidence that can
usefully bear on questions of lexical semantics, including traditional tests for ambiguity,
corpus data, psycholinguistic data, and cross-linguistic data.
Chapter 2. A Frame Semantic Analysis
In this chapter, I rst discuss the syntax and semantics of see and try to apply
some of the traditional tests for sense di erences. Then, I lay out a ne-grained breakdown
of senses and uses according to a Frame Semantic approach, dividing them into basic senses,
compositional uses, collocations and semi-collocations.
Chapter 3. Other Cognitive Approaches
This chapter provides an account of some of the senses of see based on Fauconnier's
(1985 [1994]) mental spaces, which provide a satisfactory way to talk about the similarities
and di erences in the conceptualization of what is seen, and thus to di erentiate certain
senses; however, not all senses can be handled in this way. Also included are a discussion
viii

of \metaphorical motion" uses of see (e.g. Ican see all the way to the bay), a typed-feature
structure treatmentoftheseer and seen, and a discussion of how to handle some problems
with re exives (e.g. He sees himself as a hero).
Chapter 4. Psycholinguistic Experiments
In this chapter I report the results of a series of experiments intended to shed
light on the psychological reality of separate senses. Avariety of tasks were used: free
categorization by sorting cards containing example sentences with see into sense categories,
forced categorization using a set of categories devised by the experimenters, and two timed
tasks measuring reaction times for lexical decision and categorial judgement for the same
example sentences.
Chapter 5. What the Dictionaries Say
This chapter compares the sense divisions given for see in a large monolingual
dictionary and several small ones, and discusses what lexicographers have tosay about how
they decide about sense divisions. I also examine bilingual dictionaries between English and
Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese, to see how well the sense divisions and the words used in
translating see match the English sense divisions based on other evidence.
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future Research Directions
This chapter summarizes the results and suggests directions for future study. While
we should not assume that all the pieces will t neatly together, if there appears to be little
or no coherence among the various types of evidence, that would bode ill for the prospect
of the establishment of an empirically-based theory of polysemy. I also discuss a number of
questions that remain to be answered and outline a program of research designed to answer
some of them.
ix

Chapter 1
Introduction
Xue er bu s, ze wang; s er bu xue, ze da.
Study without thought iswasted; thought without study is dangerous.
{Confucius, Analects. I.2.15
1.1 The Research Question
The English verb see, referring to one of the most basic of human faculties, is
correspondingly frequent in speech and writing. It is acquired relatively early bychildren, no
doubt through the association of the experience of seeing with the experience of hearing the
word in sentences like \Do you see the doggie?" One might suppose, then, that the syntax
and semantics of see would be very simple, but the opposite is true. Like most common
verbs, it occurs as the head of clauses displaying a broad range of syntactic patterns, with a
variety of senses. (The tendency of common words to have many senses is well documented;
one of the earliest clear discussions was by Zipf (1949[1965]:27-31)). This dissertation will
explore the relation between the syntax and semantics of the verb see and some of the
constructions in which it participates.
If asked to nd out how many senses a word has, the average speaker of English
would most likely turn to \the" dictionary. The Random House Unabridged (1987) lists no
fewer than thirty-four senses of see, andeven medium-sized dictionaries list more than two
dozen. 1 Having perused the long entry, he might feel a sense of satisfaction that his language
1 There are, of course, two homophonous words spelled see(s), the noun derived from Latin sedes, relating
to the \seat" of a bishop, and the common verb, which is solidly Germanic. Linguists agree that it is a
historical accident that the forms of these two words have come to partially overlap and, given the fact that
1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
is so rich in senses for this common word. The linguist who reads the same dictionary entry
could not fail to ask herself whether there are really so many distinct senses, and, if so, how
native speakers can possibly learn to distinguish them. If the linguist looks at more than
one dictionary, she will also notice that even dictionaries of about the same size di er about
how many senses the word has and how they are de ned, tending to reinforce her doubts
about the reliability of the sense divisions shown.
One of the major topics of this chapter will be the types of evidence that should be
used in deciding questions in the eld of lexical semantics. The great majority of argumen-
tation in linguistics in this area (as in most others) is based on introspective evidence, that
is, certain judgements as to grammaticality or acceptability, usually made by the author
and by the authors of references consulted. In the next part of this chapter, I will set out
some basic ideas about the proper domain of linguistics, in order to delimit the sorts of ques-
tions that linguistics tries to answer. Then, I will address some theoretical issues related to
lexical semantics in general and polysemy in particular. Next, I will discuss some di cult
lexico-semantic problems, using traditional, largely introspective, linguistic evidence. The
following section will propose a program for gathering new types of evidence that may shed
light on the issues raised so far, and the next section will attempt to draw some conclusions.
1.2 The Domain of Linguistics
In undertaking any eld of study, one of the fundamental questions is how to
delimit the eld itself. One must decide what set of facts one is seeking to explain and what
one can safely ignore or at least treat in a summary fashion. For the purpose of designing
bridges for human beings to use, quantum e ects can be ignored; in subatomic physics, the
weather outside the laboratory is irrelevant. In the humanities, such decisions tend to be
explicit, re ecting the scholar's personal and political choices; a committed Marxist is more
likely to be interested in labor relations than in Beowulf. In the sciences, it has traditionally
been assumed that the facts are independent of the experimenter (an assumption that is
increasingly being questioned); the researcher must at least be able to show that there are
no major factors that are not appropriately represented in the data on which the theories
are based.
they are di erent parts of speech with quite di erent semantic domains, it is unlikely that a native speaker
will ever confuse the two. The noun see will not be discussed further.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3
In linguistics, both of these viewpoints are found, and linguists are continually
rede ning the boundaries of the eld, often seeking to include phenomena which are of
interest to them personally on the grounds that it would be unscienti c not to do so.
For example, the eld has gone through at least one full swing of the pendulum from (1)
depending mainly on introspective evidence as to what expressions mean and what speakers
intend by them, to (2) depending almost entirely on corpus data, more or less ignoring
meaning and mental processes (at least in Bloom eldian Structuralism), and back to(3)a
mentalist position relying largely on introspective data (at least in Generative Grammar).
If linguists are to understand each other and build on each other's work, it is important to
make explicit our decisions about what facts we seek to explain and what research methods
and types of argument we ndconvincing. Therefore, I will begin by outlining some of my
own predispositions (what Lako (1990) called \commitments") regarding the proper study
of linguistics.
I believe that it is important for linguistics to pay attention to as broad a range
of facts about language use as possible. This takes precedence for me over the aesthetic
delight of producing the minimal and hence most elegant theory. This is not to say that
there is no room in linguistics for elegant, parsimonious theories, only that I consider the
coverage of a wide range of data to be more important. For example, theoretical linguistics
has made great progress by concentrating on linguistic competence and ignoring perfor-
mance errors by virtue of the competence/performance distinction introduced by Chomsky
(1965:4); nevertheless, I believe that the study of performance errors can contribute to lin-
guists' understanding of how speakers produce utterances. Finding adequate descriptions
for the full range of phenomena and making generalizations at the proper levels of abstrac-
tion should then lead us to satisfactory explanations of the phenomena, which motivate
the patterns we nd. In some cases, we mayeven be able to predict what patterns will
occur in an area where we have not gathered data, but this is usually not possible, given
the complex interaction of di erent types of organizing principles on di erent levels.
I also believe that linguists must strive tomake their theories consistent with
results in other relevant disciplines. In this dissertation, in addition to linguistics proper, I
will also be concerned with the elds of psycholinguistics, lexicography, and natural language
processing. It should be clear that even these closely related elds have somewhat di erent
assumptions, methods, and goals, which will be discussed at appropriate points below.
While it is important not to equate linguistics with cognitive science or psychology,

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 4
I believe that linguists should be concerned with the psychological processes of language
production and understanding and their underlying neurological mechanisms, and that
linguistic theories should be consistent withwhatisknown in those elds. The eld of psy-
cholinguistics undoubtedly has the most to contribute to linguistics proper; if nothing else,
it often demonstrates the di culty of experimentally studying constructs which linguists
may assumeasgiven, such as derivational complexity (Are passives really more complex
than actives?), or which linguists rarely consider in detail, such as lexical access (Exactly
what is retrieved from memory at what point insentence processing?).
Finally, linguists should be aware of developments in computer science, particularly
in areas such as knowledge representation, connectionist networks, information retrieval,
and natural language processing. Although relatively few computer scientists have based
their work directly upon contemporary linguistics, many have adapted some elements of
linguistic theory for particular purposes, and it should be instructive for linguists to see
what works and what does not in such implemented systems.
Semantics and World Knowledge
One of the most di cult questions in the eld of semantics is where (if anywhere)
to draw the line between meanings conveyed by language and knowledge of the world in
general. At one extreme, some cognitive linguists deny the possibility of delimiting lin-
guistic semantics in any clearcut way: \The distinction between semantics and pragmatics
(or between linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge) is largely artifactual, and the only
viable conception of linguistic semantics is one that avoids such false dichotomies and is
consequently encyclopedic in nature." (Langacker 1987:154) Langacker gives the example
of the noun compound buggy whip (p. 157), which cannot be explained compositionally
unless the semantics of buggy is taken to include the notions of a driver and a horse. At
the other extreme, we nd statements such as \Crucially, all aspects of meaning that are
situational must be removed from the study of Grammar, since they overload the Grammar
with redundant material and prevent the formulation of important empirical generaliza-
tions."(Bouchard 1995:16). 2
2 Situational is a tricky wordtodene. One cannot understand the concept of buggy whip without
understanding what we will call the frame in which itisused,involving at least a horse, a buggy, and a
driver. On the other hand, the meaning of buggy whip does not depend on whether or not one is riding on
a buggy at the time of speaking the words.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 5
Although Langacker and Bouchard agree to a surprising extent on the isomor-
phism of semantic structures and syntactic structures, Langacker postulates a rich \seman-
tic space" as the basis of all linguistic symbols, while Bouchard wants to nd a minimal
semantics that will map onto the required syntax, and to relegate all other meaning conveyed
by language to an ill-de ned pragmatic interpretation mechanism.
Bierwisch &Schreuder (1989) also take what is called a \two-level" approach, sep-
arating linguistic semantics from world knowledge and de ning the pragmatic, interpretive
processes in somewhat more detail. But in the long run, such an approach must either deal
with the hard problems of compositionality, conversational implicature, etc. or not. If these
problems are dealt with, the mechanisms for doing so must ultimately be as complex as
those of cognitive linguistics in any case; if they are not fully dealt with, then we willhave
just another example of sweeping the hard problems under a rug and waiting for someone
outside \linguistics proper" to take care of them.
If linguists really are concerned with the psychological reality of the constructs of
their theories, and are willing to accept psycholinguistic evidence as constraining possible
linguistic theories, then it seems that the burden of proof is on those who want to postulate a
separate set of mental mechanisms for lexical semantics, distinct from more general cognitive
abilities. On the other hand, it is obvious that most linguistic analysis does not require
the full range of world knowledge at every step. For example, deciding that a particular
situation is going to be described in a sentence by a particular noun in a particular argument
relation with a particular verb requires a considerable degree of what would be called \world
knowledge" in some schools of linguistics. But having decided this, choosing an in ectional
form of the noun, in highly in ected languages such as Latin, requires only the information
as to what declension the noun belongs to, the case and number to be expressed, and some
very schematic representations of the in ectional a xes for each declension. (This account
is adequate for \regular" nouns; additional complexity isinvolved for \irregular" nouns,
with various levels of subregularity.)
Frame Semantics, Construction Grammar, and Other Formalisms
In discussing semantics, I will assume, as is customary in cognitive linguistics,
that language does not directly re ect facts about an \objective" external world existing
independent ofhuman observers, but rather re ects the conceptual structures which people

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 6
build as a result of shared experience of the (more or less common) external world and
of their culture. De ning semantics as the relation between linguistic forms and concepts,
rather than between linguistic forms and an objective reality allows us to explain semantic
relations in terms of cognitive operations such as metaphorical and metonymic mappings.
The general approach tosemantics adopted here is based on Frame Semantics
(Fillmore 1976; Fillmore 1982; Fillmore & Atkins 1992), which analyzes situations in terms
of frames containing participants and their roles in events, and then describing lexical items
in relation to such semantic frames. Frame Semantics attempts to make the linguistically
appropriate generalizations about words related to each other by virtue of being used to
describe the same type of predicate, without trying to encode the full range of a speaker's
knowledge of events in the world. As Fillmore (p.c.) expresses it, it must be part of our
knowledge of the semantics of the word carpenter that carpenters work with wood, but the
frame should probably not include information about whether or not they are unionized.
Although I may refer to other theories of grammar at various points, in this dis-
sertation I will represent syntax using the formalism of Construction Grammar (Fillmore
et al. 1988; Fillmore & Kay 1994; Goldberg 1995; Kay & Fillmore 1999), in a compromise
among the slightly di erent notations which appear in Fillmore & Kay 1994, Fillmore &
Kay 1996 and Kay & Fillmore 1999. Construction grammar also posits that a single type
of unit, the construction, can be used to represent all the knowledge of a language which
aspeaker possesses, both syntactic and semantic. Thus, the principal senses of see and
highly idiomatic phrases like see the light at the end of the tunnel are all represented as
constructions. These lexical entries are combined through uni cation with other construc-
tions, such as the Subject-Verb Construction, to create all of the sentence patterns found
in the language.
In practice, because I will be dealing primarily with semantics, I will use mainly
attribute-value matrices to represent semantic frames and frame elements, in the style of
Frame Semantics, with the valence structure shown within them in the style of Construction
Grammar (see Section 2.5). Also, for clarity of exposition, I will deal rst with those senses
of see that do not involve the presence of any other speci c lexeme, and then brie y discuss
some of the many collocations of see with other words (Section 2.6).
Certain aspects of the semantics are also discussed in Section 3.2 in terms of Fau-
connier's (1985 [1994]) mental spaces. At several points I will also refer to the notion of
the interaction of the semantics of the verb with that of its NP complements, based in

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7
part on the de nition of qualia in Pustejovsky 1995 (Ch. 6) (without, however, subscrib-
ing to Pustejovsky's contention that all the information relevant for such interaction can
appropriately be t into the same four categories for all lexical units).
Concepts, Categories, and De nitions
For purposes of this dissertation, I will follow Rosch (1978) in de ning categories as
sets of objects sharing certain properties (equivalent to \extensional meaning") and concepts
as the supposed mental constructs underlying the division of things into categories (roughly
equivalent to\intensional meaning"). As will soon be seen, this is an oversimpli cation,
but it should be adequate for the moment. Psychologists today, while more willing than
behaviorists were to speak of the reality ofmental objects and processes, are cautious about
extrapolating from experimental results to underlying causes, hence the phrase \supposed
mental construct".
The Western philosophical tradition, stretching back to Aristotle, has generally
assumed that a concept can best be de ned in terms of necessary and su cient conditions
for membership in the category. Although anyone who has tried it knows that the art of
writing a de nition is far from easy, this tradition forms the basis not only of much of
lexicography (i.e. de nitions in terms of genus and di erentia) but also folk theories of
natural and cultural kinds, and hence, the extensions of words; e.g. \It can't be a skunk
because a skunk has a white stripe down its back."
Basic categories and Co-occurrence
It is a fundamental fact about all language that the basic pairings between form
and meaning in the lexicon are arbitrary; this had been known for centuries before Saussure
made it explicit and formal. The great contribution of cognitive linguistics has been to
remind us that we should not overstate the arbitrariness of language; that processes such
as semantic composition, metaphor, metonymy, and historical change are not only parts of
the everyday use of language, but also part of cognition in general, and therefore function
in accord with general principles that also apply to non-linguistic cognition, such as those
that govern learning and recall. With regard to lexical semantics, this implies that the
combination of meanings conveyed by a polysemous word will not be an arbitrary set;

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 8
rather, we expect to nd connections between them based on general cognitive principles.
For example, we expect that people will often classify things and events on the basis of
perceived similarity, and that to a large extent, people will agree on those similarities and
those classi cations. As Lako (1987:Ch. 6) has shown, the basis of the classi cation can
be quite complex, but it is not completely arbitrary. Wide-ranging psychological results
have also shown that certain types of categorization are more basic than others, and that
the tendency of certain events to co-occur is one of the bases of such categorization.
Category Structure and Gradation
Questions about the adequacy of Aristotelian de nitions have also raised questions
about the assumptions on which they are based, such as the \Law of the Excluded Middle",
which says that for any set X, any individual must be either in or out of the set. If X
represents the set of things having the attribute A, then we cansay that any individual
must be either A or not A; philosophers have spilled a lot of ink over what to do about
cases in which an attribute seems to be neither true nor false of an individual, but simply
inapplicable, e.g. is the number 3 blue or not?
A new spurt of interest in these questions began in the 1970s with the research
of Eleanor Rosch and her associates. They found that for many types of categories, it was
possible to measure not just whether or not an instance was a member of the category, but
whether or not the instance was a \good example" of the category; these judgements of
whether an instance is a better or worse example of a category have been called \represen-
tativeness", \exemplariness", \graded category structure", and \prototype e ects"; I will
use the last term. Prototype e ects have been found to be very robust and to be manifest
in a variety of measures (Rosch 1978; Rosch in press).
There was an initial burst of excitement after the rst discovery of prototype e ects
in which itwas assumed that they were a direct re ection of the mental representation
of the concept. It was gradually discovered that this was incorrect, but this fallacious
interpretation of the data has plagued the eld ever since. Lako (1987:136 .) claims that
the error arises from two incorrect interpretations of e ects: (1) E ects = Structure and
(2) Prototype = Representation. The former assumes that if there is variation in ratings of
\goodness of example" over a group of items that this means that the category in question

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9
is not classical, but fuzzy 3 , and the items rated as better examples are members to a greater
degree.
Lako (1987:77-90) gives an extended series of examples of how prototype e ects
can arise with regard to even classical categories and exemplars that are indisputably mem-
bers of them. For example, one type of prototype is the \Ideal"; the Ideal husband is \a
good provider, faithful, strong, respected, attractive" (p. 87). Of a group of men all of
whom are legally married and live with their wives, some may be judged better examples
of husbands than others depending on their similarity to the Ideal husband, but all of them
are 100% members of the category \husband".
The other error (Prototype = Representation) involves the assumption that the
mental representation of the category is simply the best example, or prototype, i.e. that a
single exemplar is what de nes the category. Degree of category membership would then
be determined by degree of similarity to the prototype. The Ideal husband example also
disproves this error; it would be perfectly possible to have an Aristotelian de nition of the
category \husband" in terms of necessary and su cient conditions (as for example is needed
in law to refer to the rights and responsibilities of a husband vis-a-vis his wife), and still
to record prototype e ects when people are asked to rate individuals as better or worse
examples (for more discussion see Medin 1989).
Thus prototype e ects do not in themselves prove anything about the structure
of categories, as Rosch and other psychologists have been at pains to point out. Of course,
there are categories with fuzzy boundaries and graded membership, such as the set of tall
people, and they will inevitably show prototype e ects. But the measurement of prototype
e ects is not the royal road to understanding human categorization. Barsalou (1983) found
that even categories de ned in such away that the subject had never conceived of them as
a category before (e.g. things that might fallonyour head, things to take on a picnic) also
display prototype e ects, even though they are not pre-existing and do not have names.
One of the strongest experimental proofs of the E ects = Structure error was the study by
Armstrong et al. (1983) which showed that the same subjects would claim to believe the
opinion that a particular category was crisply de ned (the categories used in the experiment
were male, female, odd, and even), and still give better/worse example judgements on a
3 Fuzzy is used here as a technical term, rst used by Zadeh (1965), which describes a category whose
membership function can have values intermediate between true and false, i.e. that individuals can be
members of a category to some degree. Classical categories, which do not allow partial membership, can
also be described as crisp, the opposite of fuzzy.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 10
scale, whichwould correlate well with those of other such subjects! Armstrong et al. consider
that their results call into question the whole concept of de ning categories by features, and
admit that \the sum of the features is not the whole concept". In fact, they conclude \. . . we
ourselves are not optimistic that a general theory of categorization, one that will answer to
the serious problems . . . is just around the corner. To the contrary, the continuing failure of
the search for such units leads us to doubt whether there is a general psychological domain
encompassing `all concepts' . . . ." (See Lako 1987 for a criticism of their views and a
reinterpretation of their results).
The variety and reproducibility of the fundamental experiments in this area prove
that prototype e ects are, in some sense, a real fact about human categorization. However,
prototype e ects vary from subject to subject, from context to context, and even from time
to time for the same subject. As Barsalou (1987) concludes:
The graded structures within categories do not remain stable across situations.
Instead a category's graded structure can shift substantially with changes in
context. This suggests that graded category structures do not re ect invariant
properties of categories but instead are highly dependent on constraints inherent
in speci c situations. (p. 107, quoted in Schutze 1996)
Anumber of linguists have argued that linguistic categories (notably the basic
syntactic categories, or parts of speech, such as noun, verb, and adjective) display prototype
e ects; Lako (1987:289-92) and Taylor (1995:Ch. 10) argue that both syntactic categories
and syntactic constructions display such e ects. 4
Folk Models of Language and the Lexicon
In Chapter 4 we will be discussing the results of psycholinguistic experiments in
which subjects are asked to make decisions about the senses involved in various examples
of uses of see, and in Chapter 5, we will be discussing how dictionaries divide examples
into senses. It is therefore useful to consider what theories speakers typically have about
lexical semantics and how this might in uence their thinking about the semantics of see
and (indirectly) the way lexicographers write entries for non-specialist dictionaries.
The usual folk theory of language use is based on the communication is object
exchange metaphor (Sweetser 1987, also called the Conduit Metaphor (Lako & Johnson
4 Langacker (1987:189-208) argues that although these syntactic categories display prototype e ects they
are still crisp, because all members of each category \instantiate a single, abstract schema subject to reasonably
explicit characterization."(p.189).

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 11
1980:10-12), based on Reddy 1979), which runs something like this: ideas are objects, and
language is a means of transmitting them from speaker to hearer. The forms of language
are containers (\packaging") for ideas; the speaker takes some of her ideas, wraps them up
in words and sends them to the hearer, who opens the package and \takes out" the ideas,
thus coming into possession of them. This implies that the container (language) and the
contents (ideas) are functionally distinct, and that (barring a failure of transmission), the
hearer, by a relatively simple process, \takes out" exactly the same ideas that the speaker
\put in".
There also exists a di erent folk theory of lexical semantics (which mayeven con-
ict sometimes with the communication is object exchange metaphor), which runs
like this: words are linguistic objects connected with conceptual objects (ideas, meanings);
there are proper words to use for each meaning, possibly more than one word per meaning
(synonymy); producing language consists of putting together a string of words that corre-
sponds to to one's ideas, and understanding language consists of recovering the meanings
attached to the words one hears or reads. Like thecommunication is object exchange
metaphor, this metaphor implies that the hearer comes into possession of the identical ideas
that the speaker has, but the conventional connection between words and meanings is em-
phasized; there is some limited number of words to express each idea. The converse relation,
that a word might express more than one idea (i.e. homonymy and polysemy), is usually
not considered very much by most people, if only because the process of disambiguation
while understanding one's native language(s) is, under normal circumstances, unconscious.
On those occasions when the question arises of what ideas a word might properly
express, a dictionary may be consulted, which obliges with a list of appropriate de nitions for
eachword, sometimes with examples of use; this list is usually assumed to be unquestionably
accurate and complete. Two of the most likely reasons for consulting a dictionary de nition
are to settle an argument about whether a particular word can be appropriately used with a
given sense, and to nd the meaning of an unfamiliar word encountered (usually in reading).
For the rst purpose, if one of the de nitions listed corresponds with the idea in question,
then the word is appropriate; otherwise, it is not. For the second purpose, if one of the
de nitions in the dictionary ts in the context of the unknown word, then the user concludes
that that sense must be the one intended. In either case, each de nition tends to be regarded
as a discrete, more or less independent entity, without much attention to the lexicographer's
attempts to express the relations between them using devices such asahierarchical system

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 12
of numbers and letters for the senses, or words like hence, especially, usually, etc. orto
indicate limitations of usage, suchasarchaic, o ensive,andchie y Brit. As the experiments
of Fellbaum et al. (1998) suggest, naive users are likely to start at the rst de nition and
read down only until they nd one which seems to t, ignoring the rest of the entry.
The two ways of using the dictionary mentioned above, starting from a mean-
ing and seeking an appropriate form and starting from a form and seeking an appropri-
ate meaning are more formally known as onomasiological and semasiological, ormore
transparently, asencoding and decoding (Makkai 1966). A thesaurus is probably a better
resource for encoding, but most people have even less experience with and understanding
of thesauri than dictionaries.
1.3 Structures of the Lexicon
In this section, I try to de ne a set of terms to be used in this dissertation. In
general, I will follow Cruse (1986:Ch. 3), but with certain modi cations in the directions
of Frame Semantics and cognitive grammar. One of the most confusing terms in lexical
semantics is the word word itself; it will be avoided as much as possible.
De nitions of Terms
A word form is a particular written or spoken form, such asrunning. Alexical
form is a set of in ectionally related word forms, e.g. frun, runs, ran, runningg; itcan
also include idioms consisting of several word forms occurring in a construction, including
in ectional variants, e.g. the tail that wags/is wagging/wagged the dog. A lexical unit
(LU) is an association among (1) a lexical form, (2) a single meaning, and (3) a set of
grammatical properties, including part of speech.
Cruse (1986:77) de nes the lexical unit as \the union of a lexical form and a
single sense", i.e. equivalent to Saussure's sign, but it is clear elsewhere in the book he
considers that some syntactic information is also attached to LUs. Most of the rest of this
chapter will be devoted to discussing what \a single meaning" might mean. A lexeme is a
set of lexical units. Figure 1.1 on page 13 shows graphically the relations among the units
described above.
Lexical ambiguity can basically be de ned as the association of two distinct
senses with one word; intuitively, we feel that arriving at the meaning of an ambiguous

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13
L.U. Lexical Unit
L. U.
Lexical form Semantics Syntax
Word Forms
Sem. Reg.
Lexeme 1
Uses
context_token_context context_token_context
context_token_context
Sem.Reg.
Syn. Patterns
Lexeme 2
L. U. L.U. L. U. L.U.
Semantic Spectrum
Groupings
Generalizations (Schematicization)
Semantic Regularities
Metaphorical Leaps
Metaphorical
Extension
Figure 1.1: Lexical Units and Lexemes
Lexeme 3
word in a given context context is not merely the result of the constraining of the meaning
by the context, but the activation of a sense already associated with the word. More
precisely, anentire lexical form may may be associated with more than one lexical unit (of
the same part of speech), as in bat/bats `animal' vs. `baseball bat', or a single ambiguous
word form may be associated with more than one lexical unit as in saw `saber saw' vs.
`viewed'. (Both of these are examples of homonymy). Tests for ambiguity will be discussed
below in Section 1.3.
Generality refers to the phenomenon of a lexical unit having a range of uses
without the sort of quantal structure that would indicate ambiguity. In this case, we say
that the context of use modulates the sense of the unit, rather than selecting a sense
(and thus, a lexical unit) from among those associated with the form. In other words,
the variation across the uses of a general sense is continuous, and di erences between uses
are not speci ed as part of lexical semantic structure at any level; generality corresponds
roughly to what Langacker calls schematicity. A standard example is kick, which speci es
thatafootisinvolved, but says nothing about which foot of the kicker is involved. For
human agents, this means that, rather than saying that there is ambiguity between two

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 14
senses `kick with the left foot' and `kick with the right foot', we want tosay that kick is
general with regard to which footisinvolved. This saves us a great deal of trouble if we
want to talk about a centipede kicking a leaf.
I will use the term fuzzy to refer to categories whose boundary is di cult to de ne.
A classic example is color terms, which donothave well-de ned boundaries, even though
they form part of a well-de ned and tightly interrelated semantic eld. Other examples are
tall, young, andbeautiful; speakers will agree to a great extent on who is tall, young, or
beautiful and who is not, but there is no way to de ne the boundary so that everyone will
agree on who is inside and who is outside. I will avoid using the word vague because it is
sometimes used to mean general and sometimes to mean fuzzy (as I am using them).
The basic de nitions of the terms homonymy, polysemy, and monosemy are de-
ceptively simple; homonymy is the situation in which one form has two or more unrelated
meanings; polysemy, one form having two or more related meanings, and monosemy, one
form having only one meaning. 5 In other words, homonymy and polysemy are both types
of lexical ambiguity, and both can occur at the level of individual word forms or at the level
of lexical forms. As a rst approximation, we can talk about a continuum from homonymy
to monosemy, with polysemy occupying a middle ground.
At the homonymous end, we have relatively clearcut cases like box (`container'
vs. `a blow with the hand'), pool (`billiards' vs. `small lake'), and squash (`vegetable'
vs. `sport'). These examples have comeaboutbychance intersections of unrelated roots
through historical change.
If the meanings of the LUs are su ciently di erent, speakers will rarely think of
the words as related, and they will persist as homonyms. This is especially true if the
meanings are of di erent syntactic categories, as in pine (`long for' vs. `evergreen tree'),
rose (`went up' vs. ` ower'), and saw (`viewed' vs. `saber saw').
Note that in written languages, word forms and lexical forms can refer to either
spoken or written entities; homographs refers to two (or more) di erent LUs that are asso-
ciated with a single written form, and homophones refers to two (or more) di erent LUs
that are associated with a single spoken form. In languages with poor sound-writing corre-
5 Note that the word homonymy comes from the Greek `same name', while the words polysemy and
monosemy come from Greek roots meaning `many meanings' and `one meaning'. This nomenclature implicitly
takes the position that there are two words that have the same form in homonymy but there is only
one word that has several meaings in polysemy. Ihave tried to state my de nitions without recourse to the
slippery notion of word.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 15
spondences, like English and French, non-homophonic homographs (e.g. tear `weep'/`rip')
and non-homographic homophones (e.g. main/mane/Maine) are not uncommon; even so,
most homographs are also homophones and conversely. (The complexity of the situation in
Chinese and Japanese is of a di erent order.) I will use the term homonymy tocover both
homography and homophony.
Many of the best examples of monosemy are relatively technical terms, like eu-
calyptus, expropriate, intestine, monogamous, andstalactite, because they are precisely
de ned and do not easily lend themselves to metaphorical uses. As relatively clear exam-
ples of polysemy we can cite late for an appointment vs. the late Mary Gonzalez and high
tea vs. herbal tea.
Tests for Lexical Ambiguity
Arguments based on parsimony require that we assume that a word is monosemous
unless wehave evidence for more than one sense. An array of constructions to license various
types of combinations of lexical units (e.g. noun compounding, modi cation, apposition)
will be needed in any construction-based grammar, so the general mechanisms whereby the
general meaning associated with one LU is constrained by the meanings of the other LUs
in the context must be worked out in any case.
To take a common example, cousin in English is general with regard to the sex
of the person referred to; in contexts such asMy cousin helped himself to the cake or My
cousin got pregnant, the meaning is restricted to one gender, but I want to call this a case
of modulation 6 of a general sense, not selection between senses. Modulation also occurs
with fuzzy categories such astall; varying the context (e.g. tall for a sixth-grader/for an
adult/for a professional basketball player) canmove the fuzzy boundaries up and down the
scale of height, but I still want to call this modulation, not an indication of ambiguity.
We will use the following tests to distinguish ambiguity from generality; the dis-
cussion is based both on Geeraerts (1993, 1994a, 1994b) and on Cruse (1986).
The De nitional Test
This test is founded on the notion of de nitions in terms of necessary and su cient
conditions; the basic idea is that a lexical form is monosemous so long as a single de nition
6 I am using the terminology of Cruse 1986; Alm-Arvius 1993 distinguishes between pragmatic exten-
sion and pragmatic restriction.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 16
can cover all of its uses and not those of any other lexical form. If more than one de nition
is required, then each de nition is proof that the lexical form has a corresponding sense,
i.e. participates in that number of LUs.
This test actually dates back to Aristotle (cf. Geeraerts 1993:230); its most vig-
orous modern proponent is probably Wierzbicka (1996:242-244). Wierzbicka's program is
based on the assertion that it is possible to write de nitions that clearly de ne the meanings
of all LUs in all languages by building them up from a set of atomic semantic universals.
We will see how thisworks in speci c cases in Section 1.4.
Yes/No Tests
These are originally based on Quine's (1960) discussion of polysemy in terms of
truth-theoretic semantics, but it is possible for proponents of other semantic theories to
make use of similar tests.
In their original form, these tests are basically assertions of the form \X is Y but
not Y"; if we can truthfully make such an assertion, the argument goes, then there must be
two senses of Y, by the Law of the Excluded Middle. Although this sounds very simple, it
is actually di cult to nd simple, acceptable sentences of this type.
(1) a. She's rich, but she's not really rich.
b. She's rich, but she's not rich.
(with lengthening and higher volume on the second rich),
In actual speech, we often nd sentences like Ex. (1-a), containing the hedge really, meaning
that on a scale from poor to rich, she is closer to the rich end, but she is not near or at the
end, i.e. the second occurrence picks out a more extreme point. As (Kay 1983:135) points
out, \. . . a hedged sentence may contain a metalinguistic comment regarding the way in
which aword or phrase of the sentence is being used in the sentence." Thus, we need not
conclude that rich is polysemous on the basis of Ex. (1-a). The intonation contour on rich
in Ex. (1-b) (which is usually more dramatic than the contrastive stress that \Y but not
Y" would require in any case) probably serves a similar function, so that we cannot regard
either sentence as simply using rich in two di erent senses.
On the other hand, a sentence like \I'm happy, but I'm not happy" can be inter-
preted as meaning that I feel two contradictory emotions or that di erent parts of me feel

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 17
happy and not happy respectively; both of these situations seem to be perfectly plausible
given the complexity ofhuman emotions, and sentences of this type are actually fairly com-
mon in everyday conversation. 7 In this case, we would be wrong to assume that there are
two meanings of happy based on this evidence.
Cruse o ers a number of clear examples of this test, such as:
(2) a. X: Has Charles changed his position?
b. Y: Yes, he's now sitting next to the chairman.
c. Y: No, he still supports capital punishment.
It is not hard to imagine a meeting to discuss some question of criminal law in which the
question in Ex. (2-a) could be appropriate answered either with Ex. (2-b) or Ex. (2-c); in
fact genuine ambiguity in conversation could easily arise.
Identity Tests
These tests are closely related to the yes/no tests, in that they involve judgements
of the acceptability ofsentences given real world contexts. They were particularly popular
with Generative Grammarians, and the fullest account of them, Zwicky & Sadock 1973, is
closely related to a framework that has been largely superseded, even in the minds of its
former fervent advocates. We can, however, omit much of the theory-speci c detail and still
keep the essentials of a useful test for ambiguity. Basically, the argument revolves around
sentences in which one predication is applied to two participants; the question is whether
the predication can only be appropriately applied to both participants in the same sense.
If it is easy to imagine di erent extra-linguistic contexts in which the predication could
apply to each participant in a di erent sense, such a reading for the sentence is usually not
acceptable, as shown in the examples in Ex. (3). All are considered bad on the \crossed
reading" in which Charles moved around the room and Nancy adopted a new philosophical
point of view, but good if both changes are physical or both are mental.
(3) a. \Conjunction reduction": Charles and Nancy both changed their positions.
b. \Pro-verb": Charles changed his position and so did Nancy.
7 Not all words for emotions allow this pattern; I'm enraged/furious/stunned, but I'm not stunned. Those
that do allow it seem to be \topic-oriented" emotions: happy/excited/worried/delightedabout A, but not about
B.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 18
c. \VP deletion": Charles has already changed his position and Nancy might.
d. \Gapping": Charles changed his position and Nancy hers.
The \bad" combinations are instances of what is called zeugma in rhetoric; it is
sometimes done deliberately for humorous e ect, e.g. Her spirits rose with the temperature,
and by noon she was actually cheerful.
\Extra Information" Tests
The basic conception here is that the selection of one or the other of a pair of
alternative LUs immediately carries with it a lot of information that is not otherwise in-
ferable from the context. Modulation within a general sense, on the other hand, adds only
the information that results from the composition of the semantics of the context.
The test, therefore, consists in trying to nd a synonym that will cover both cases
in question, and observing whether there is a considerable \loss" of information when it is
substituted. The e ect is clearest (as usual) for homonyms:
(4) a. The object ew out from under the roof.
b. The object hit the ball.
c. The bat ew out from under the roof.
d. The bat hit the ball.
In Ex. (4), sentences a. and b. give us only the most general kind of image of the
processes, while c. and d. give ustwo quite distinct images. In the rst place, we have to
go all the way up the taxonomy to a term as general as object to nd a synonym, itself a
suggestion that ambiguity isinvolved. Having done so, we have little idea about the manner
of the ying motion or the hitting action. As soon as we go back tosentences c. and d.,
much more becomes clear, and the images of the bat in c. and d. are quite distinct. This
must be due to the ambiguity ofbat.
Distinguishing Monosemy, Polysemy and Homonymy
Even though the di erences between monosemy and polysemy on the one hand
and between polysemy and homonymy on the other seem intuitively clear, it has proven ex-
traordinarily di cult to make each of these distinctions reliably and convincingly. Table 1.1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19
shows the distinctions to be made.
Ambiguity? No =) Monosemy
+ Yes
Related senses? No =) Homonymy
+ Yes, Polysemy
Rule? Yes =) Regular, one lexeme (Cruse)
+ No
Two lexemes (Cruse)/ Idiosyncratic Polysemy (Cognitivists)
Table 1.1: Decision Tree for Structure of a Lexical Item
The rst distinction is between ambiguity and generality. If wehave ambiguity,
we must decide what the sources of ambiguity inagiven sentence are. Ambiguity can be
pragmatic, e.g. Why don't you talk about it? can be a true question, a polite suggestion,
or command, depending on the extra-linguistic context; this would be of interest mainly to
sociolinguists, not to lexical semanticists. Distinguishing syntactic and lexical ambiguity is
sometimes easy; consider the following:
(5) a. He learned about the problem in the prison.
b. We all like squash.
c. They saw her duck.
In Ex. (5-a), the ambiguity is purely syntactic, having to do with where the PP
is attached, i.e. whether the problem is in the prison and the learning might have taken
place elsewhere, or the learning took place in the prison and the problem might have taken
place elsewhere. None of the ambiguity is due to the semantics of the words. Conversely, in
Ex. (5-b), there is no syntactic ambiguity, onlysemantic ambiguity associated with squash.
But very often lexical and syntactic ambiguity interact, so that one reading of a word ts
with one syntactic pattern and another with another, as in the standard example Ex. (5-c),
where the syntax and semantics of both her and duck are involved. This kind of interaction
is the basis of many of standard tests for ambiguity.
The rst question is whether a particular word form is ambiguous in a particular
context; if there is only one possible interpretation of a sentence, given all the possibilities
of each lexical form, then the lexical forms in it must be monosemous. This does not mean
that it must refer to a very restricted domain. In the sentence All vertebrates have central

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 20
nervous systems, the lexical form vertebrate refers to an enormous variety of mammals,
birds, and shes and central nervous system to a corresponding variety of things inside
them, but both of them are monosemous. Nor are their senses particularly fuzzy; for the
vast majority of animals in the world, virtually every biologist will agree on their status as
vertebrate or invertebrate.
If a word form is ambiguous in a given context, the question as to whether wehavea
case of polysemyorhomonymy depends on whether the two senses are related. Traditionally,
this has been considered to depend on whether one of the two senses is historically derived
from the other (avoiding for the moment cases with more than two senses); this is in accord
with another popular cognitive model of the lexicon, which states that words have meanings
\in perpetuity". Thus, if one wants to determine, what a Latinate English word means, for
example, one should nd out what the corresponding Latin word (if any!) or its component
morphemes would have meant to Cicero. Although the idea is seldom stated so baldly, itis
not uncommon to hear people saying things like \Sympathy really means the same thing as
compassion, they both mean `feeling with' somebody else", or \The root meaning of senator
is `old man' ". Of course this is contrary to the division of linguistics into diachronic and
synchronic; if homonymy is to be de ned in terms of semantic unrelatedness, then we must
mean \in the minds of present-day speakers of the language".
Paradoxically, for those speakers who believe in the unchanging meanings of lin-
guistic forms down through the centuries, the more they learn about the etymology of forms
which had a common origin but have diverged greatly in semantics, the more likely they are
to think of them as related! There is also a constant tendency to construct folk etymologies
that will \explain" perceived relations among senses, whether they bear any relation to
historical fact or not.
This holds even for some parade-ground examples of homonymy. The two lexical
units bank, asinbank of a river and Bank of America, actually are related historically
(Geeraerts 1994a), and one might say that, to the degree that an individual remembers the
intervening steps in the etymology, the words have become synchronically related for that
person. Of course, only a tiny fraction of the speakers of a language will know about most
such etymological facts, and learning them will usually not a ect peoples' understanding
of the meanings of the words in question, so this process will not have much e ect on the
lexical semantics of the language as a whole.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21
Regular Polysemy
There are a number of types of polysemy in which regular relations exist among
LUs; since we will be concerned in this study about the irregular polysemy that is unique
to see, let us rst look at some common types of regular polysemy. (This discussion will
be based in part on Cruse 1986.)
One type of regular polysemy can be described through various types of rules
or relations among lexical items. These have been analyzed in di erent ways by di erent
authors under di erent names: regular polysemy (Apresjan 1974), lexical implication rules
(Ostler & Atkins 1991), semi-productive polysemy (Copestake & Briscoe 1995), and lexical
functions (Mel'cuk 1996). Examples of lexical relations are listed below.
Unit/Type alternation
The request in Ex. (6-a) might receive the reply in Ex. (6-b), treating that jacket as
an instance (unit) of the type, but the more probable reply, in Ex. (6-c), treats it as
expressing a type.
(6) a. A: I want to buy that jacket in the window.
b. B: Fine, I'll take it o the mannequin.
c. B': Fine, what size do you wear?
Membership in di erent contrast sets (a.k.a. Neutralization)
(7) a. dogs and cats vs. dogs and bitches (Cruse 1986, Sect. 11.5)
b. lions and tigers vs. lions and lionesses
c. alcohol and drugs vs. alcohol and glycerol
quality of opus - quality ofauthor
Patterns of the form brilliant/witty/stupid book/play/poem :
brilliant/witty/stupid person, i.e. where the properties of the author are ascribed to
the work 8 (Cruse 1986:78)
feeling-evoking
8 This may be distantly related to the metonymy of author for work, e.g. Shakespeare is di cult for
students today.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 22
She's sad/happy/angry/nostalgic about it. :
It was a sad/happy/angry/nostalgic day. (Ostler & Atkins 1991)
food item - mass
Here's an egg./He won't eat egg. (Ostler & Atkins 1991)
Another, more complex type of relation has to do with a continuum of senses
(which Cruse (1986:72 ) calls a \sense spectrum") connected with the same lexical form,
e.g. the mouth (of a human | of a sea squirt | of a bottle | of a cave |ofariver) (an
example apparently originally from Lyons (1977:550)). This is a series of meanings such
that each \adjacent pair" are near-synonyms, but the ends of the series are quite di erent
from each other; although the relation among these senses can be considered metaphorical,
there is no sudden leap from one domain to another, but rather a series of small steps that
are hard to di erentiate.
In all ve of the above examples of relations, the LUs involved are of the same
syntactic type and have the same valences. Many authors have also discussed other reg-
ularities which involve di erentsyntactic types and di erent valences, as well as semantic
di erences; I will call these alternations.
Cruse gives examples (p.80) of three alternations, Causative/Inchoative (Jmoved
the rock./The rock moved.), Count/Mass (Have some apple./Have an apple.), and Put them
in a can./Can them., which we could call \Cognate Container"; the last example shows that
LUs of di erent syntactic categories can be part of the same lexeme, in Cruse's terminology.
These types of regular relations have been studied extensively by various scholars,
e.g. recently for English verbs by Levin (1993), who has produced an extensive classi cation
of English verbs on the basis of such alternations. The work of Pustejovsky (1995) on the
qualia structure of nouns is also relevant, although he uses a particularly rigid system of
relating di erent aspects of nouns together, based on an Aristotelian world view, and the
system seems to be more suitable for arti cial kinds than natural ones. On a wider scale,
we can think of Sweetser's (1990) workontheevolution of verbs of knowing from verbs of
perception, particularly seeing. Although she is looking at it from a historical perspective,
there are quite real synchronic relations which result in systematic polysemy between these
semantic domains.
There are many cases in which a noun and a verb both belong to the same semantic
frame. In English, it is fairly common for some of the word forms to be identical; i.e. the

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23
base form and the base \plus s" of the plural noun and the third singular present verb
are orthographically and phonologically identical, so that they are ambiguous as to part of
speech. In such cases, where both the lexical forms overlap and the senses are part of the
same semantic frame, di ering only by syntactic category, Ido want to call this a case of
polysemy, in accord with Cruse (1986) and Fillmore & Atkins (1992:100-101), and contrary
to most dictionaries, which always give separate main entries (or at least sub-entries) for
di erent parts of speech, regardless of how closely related they are semantically.
Pattern Levin
1993
Examples
N one instance
of Ving
bump, charge, hit, jar, step, walk
N is a social
dance, lecture, talk
event consistingprominently
of Ving
V install N(s)
light, roof, wire
in/on
V remove N 10.7 Pit dust (clean house), peel, shell, string
from
verbs (beans, celery), weed
V apply N to 9.9 Butter paint, stain, varnish, lacquer, caulk,
verbs spackle, grout, paper, dust, spray,
salt, butter, oil
V expose to N steam, smoke, air, sun
V using N tool hammer, iron, plane, saw
V fasten by 22.4 Tape cement, clip, glue, hook, nail, paste,
means of N verbs pin, screw, staple, strap, tape
V place in a 9.10 Pocket bag, bottle, box, can, case (mail in
container or verbs post o ce), crate, le, rack (balls in
storage
tion N
loca-
pool), shelve
V split to form
a con guration
like aN
branch, fork, fan (out)
Table 1.2: Zero-relations between English Verbs and Nouns
These kinds of regularities occur on all scales, such as that between the abstract
unit of currency and the physical cash, as in He pulled a dollar out of his pocket vs. It's not
worth a dollar. Table 1.2 lists a few everyday alternations, including references to Levin

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 24
1993 for those that she has included.
Irregular Polysemy
Beyond regular polysemy, however, we nd a considerable amount of polysemy
that is speci c to individual lexical forms. For example, in their study of risk, Fillmore &
Atkins (1992) nd a unique pattern of relations between the noun and the verb, as shown
in Ex. (8).
(8) a. Take a great/huge/enormous risk in the stock market.
b. Risk *greatly/*hugely/*enormously in the stock market.
c. Risk everything in the stock market.
Cruse would presumably not want to group the LUs into a single lexeme in this case, since
he requires that all the LUs in a lexeme be related either by an more general alternation (i.e.
one shared by other lexemes) or by being members of a sense continuum (Cruse 1986:76-79).
There are many such lexically speci c alternations; a few examples are given in Table 1.3.
V surround with N fence
V conduct through N to pipe
V form an N around ring
V ow out like anN stream
V to follow the Ns of track
Vchase up intoaN tree
V supply active ingredient
sothatDOcontains
N
charge
Table 1.3: Some Lexically Speci c Noun/Verb Alternations
1.4 An Example of Possible Polysemy: Crawl
Consider the following examples of the verb crawl:
(9) a. Ants were crawling all over the kitchen table.
b. The kitchen table was crawling with ants.
c. The ant crawled across the table.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25
d. The injured man crawled to the road.
e. The ants crawled up one side of the fence and down the other.
f. The baby quickly crawled over to the couch.
g. The tra c was just crawling along.
h. If you run out of money, don't come crawling back tome!
i. ?The dog crawled quickly down the walk to greet his master.
It seems likely that we want to postulate separate LUs for Ex. (9-a) and Ex. (9-b),
which would be linked in a single lexeme by regular polysemy, demonstrated by the Swarm
subtype of the Locative Alternation (Levin 1993:2.3.4,47.5.1). Other verbs participating in
the alternation are bustle, swarm, andteem.
Ex. (9-c) is clearly an instance of the same LU as Ex. (9-a), although the plurality
and the words all over in the latter modulate the sense to give a rather di erent image,
given our knowledge of the relative sizes of typical ants and tables. But ants normally crawl;
adult humans do not. We might want, therefore, to suppose that Ex. (9-d) is a di erent
LU; the motor programs involved for ants and humans are quite di erent.
What do our tests indicate? Starting with the de nitional test, we face some
immediate di culties. In trying to cover Ex. (9-a), Ex. (9-c), Ex. (9-d) and the obviously
related sense of Ex. (9-f) (i.e. babies, injured people, and ants on table tops), we might
come up with something like `tomove with the body close to a horizontal surface, making
contact with it with more of the body than (the) two feet'. But in order to incorporate
Ex. (9-e), we have to omit horizontal from the de nition. If we try to include Ex. (9-g),
we are left with nothing but `move close to a surface', which is clearly unsatisfactory, as
it is not su ciently delimited from other verbs in the motion domain, such asglide and
run. (This is also the fundamental problem with Ruhl's (1989) venture in monosemy.) If
we try to add Ex. (9-h), where the motion may notbephysical at all, we will be left with
no de nition at all.
We could try to deal with the metaphorical senses (Ex. (9-h) and Ex. (9-g)) as
Wierzbicka apparently does, by appealing to \a general principle which allows us to use
words of di erent kinds in the sense `like x' (where `x' stands for the word's literal meaning)."
(1996:244), but this seems likecheating. If wetake the rst attempt at de nition given above
as the \literal" meaning and claim that the \like x" device can account for Ex. (9-e) by
picking out the multiple-footed contact and ignoring the orientation of the surface, what is

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 26
to prevent usfromusing\like x" to license Ex. (9-i) to describe a cocker spaniel bounding
down the walk to greet his master, bypicking out the horizontality and multiple-foot-contact
and ignoring the proximity to the surface? We nd ourselves asking what experience tells
us are the wrong kinds of questions|how many features do two things have to share to be
\similar"?
So we conclude that there must be polysemy, and we try to devise multiple de ni-
tions; this is also problematic. In fact, weseemtohave a good example of the kind of \family
resemblance" situation that Wierzbicka claims \never had any empirical basis" (1996:245).
That is, di erent sets of the examples share di erent sets of features (e.g. [low ], [slow ],
[multiple-feet ], [horizontal ]), and we have no justi cation for preferring a de nition
that groups them one way over one that groups them another way.
Trying the Identity tests, we produce sentences like the following:
(10) a. The ant was crawling on the sidewalk and so was the wounded man.
b. The ant was crawling on the sidewalk and so was the baby.
c. ?The ant was crawling on the road and so were the cars.
d. ??The ant was crawling on the sidewalk and so was the repentant spouse.
e. The oor of the restaurant was crawling with babies and the tables with ants.
f. The table was crawling with ants and the road with cars.
Ex. (10) d. is basically impossible with the `grovel' reading, but c. is better,
because at least the cars are physically moving. Even Ex. (10) a. and b., however, will
probably strike some speakers as zeugmatic. With regard to the other form of the alterna-
tion, both the gapped sentences (Ex. (10) e. and f.) sound zeugmatic, with e. marginally
better, probably due to the pragmatic plausibility of the scene described.
The Yes/No test gives us patterns like Ex. (11) and Ex. (12), which delimit the
literal and gurative senses prettywell, and also Ex. (13), which suggests that we do not have
two separate senses for vertical and horizontal motion, even though prototypical crawling
is clearly horizontal.
(11) a. A: Was the baby crawling?
b. B: Yes, she was on all fours.
c. B': No, she was moving right along.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 27
(12) a. Was her car crawling?
b. Yes, it was in rst gear.
c. No, it was rolling on wheels.
(13) a. A: Were the ants crawling?
b. B: Yes, they were walking on the table.
c. B': ?No, they were walking up the wall.
Thus it seems that we have another instance of a gurative extension (slow move-
ment of tra c) from one of the literal senses (probably the injured man, although someone
who had never had a baby might wrongly suppose that they crawl slowly, also). `Grovel'
must come from the injured person (or possibly the baby), since the ants are in their normal
body posture. These cases of extension from a single sense of a lexeme to a metaphorical
sense are parallel to that mentioned by Taylor (1995) of John got round his mother as an
extension of one sense of spatial motion round, `get round an obstacle'.
1.5 Other Types of Evidence for Lexical Semantics
The divisions among academic disciplines have traditionally had to do not only
with di erences in content but also di erences in what counts as evidence and howitistobe
gathered; indeed di erences in methodology may be more important in separating disciplines
than di erences in content, as in the case of certain overlapping areas of anthropology and
sociology. Schools and movements within linguistics, likewise, have often dealt with the same
problems but reached quite di erent conclusions because they appealed to di erent types
of evidence and used di erent types of argumentation. For example, one of the hallmarks
of the transition in America from Structuralism to Generative Grammar was the virtual
abandonment of the study of texts in favor of constructing examples and making intricate
arguments on the basis of their grammaticality, even though both schools were grappling
with many of the same problems about how to delimit morphological and syntactic units
and how tocharacterize their relations to each other.
The rst section of this chapter appealed in general terms for the use of a wider
range of evidence and a greater variety ofresearch method in linguistics; this section will
describe in more detail what is being suggested. I will rst discuss the range of types of
data and data collection methods, and then focus on speci c studies and what value they

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 28
have for the study of lexical semantics.
Types of Linguistic Data and Collection Methods
Since the methods of data collection and the nature of the data obtained are
inextricably linked, they must be discussed together. Let us consider rst the features that
are common to all data collection, and then move on to those that are largely or exclusively
associated with linguistics.
Selection of Informants and Sample Size
The study of language is inextricably bound up with human behavior; as Lako
(1987:157-218) has convincingly argued, the attempt to study semantics in terms of truth-
conditions relating language to an objective external world is fundamentally awed. There
thus can be no point in trying to study language without the involvement ofhuman factors,
but it is essential to recognize the subjective elements in our methodology. A striking case
is the use of the researcher's own individual judgements as the basic data to be explained.
The initial hope in Generative Grammar was that the data for the new enterprise
would consist of sentences that were uncontroversially grammatical or ungrammatical and
that a rigorous theory that would account for uncontroversial judgements could itself be
used to decide whether or not certain marginal cases were grammatical (Chomsky 1957:14).
If this had always been the case, if the data for Generative Grammar had always consisted
only of truly uncontroversial sentences, then the question of who supplied the judgements
of acceptability would not matter very much. (For discussion of the di erence between
grammaticality and acceptability, see Schutze (1996).)
In practice, however, grammatical theory has developed on the basis of judgements
about more and more di cult cases; this has cast increasing doubt on two fundamental
assumptions: (1) that the individual acceptability judgements of the linguist herself are
adequate evidence of the grammatical system shared by an ideal speech community, and (2)
that the linguist's judgements of examples are not in uenced by the theory that she is trying
to construct. There is no external way toevaluate the truth of the latter assumption, but
it is obvious that data from someone without an interest in the results would be preferable.
The problem, of course, is not just that consulting oneself about sentences in a language
of which one is a speaker is the easiest way to get judgements, but that the use of truly

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 29
linguistically naive informants begs the question as to whether they can make judgements on
the basis of grammaticality atall. Wemay not agree with McCawley (1982) in saying \The
alleged ability ofspeakers of a language to distinguish `grammatical' and `ungrammatical'
strings of words is about as rare and as perverse as the ability to construct puns, an
ability to which I believe it is closely related." (p.78), but the problem of asking questions
which non-specialists can reasonably be expected to answer is a real one. An excellent
demonstration of precisely how to go about this in the case of acceptability judgements is
to be found in Cowart (1997). Schutze (1996) is a detailed discussion of the theoretical basis
of gathering such data; he says \While I most often talk about grammaticality judgements
in this book, I treat this as a cover term. . . It should be understood that wherever possible,
Iintend the discussion to extend to other sorts of intuition, and I do not wish to imply
that grammaticality judgements in the narrow sensehave any special status." (p.2) Some
methods for collecting data on lexical semantics will be discussed below.
The other assumption, about the uniformity of the speech community, is also
quite relevant for gathering data on lexical semantics. On the one hand, the thrust of
most of the work on color naming and basic-level categorization is that some aspects of
categorization are relatively independent of language and culture. On the other hand, there
can be no doubt that (1) much ofany lexicon consists of words for cultural kinds, both
objects and actions, and (2) even natural, non-culture-speci c objects and actions (sky,
ocean, rain, walking, eating, sleeping) are categorized and lexicalized quite di erently in
di erent languages, as seen in linguistic studies of epistemic expressions (Traugott 1989),
manner of motion, etc.
If we can demonstrate di erences in patterns of lexical semantics between lan-
guages, we can hardly assume that they don't exist within languages; in fact, there are
obvious dialect di erences, such asbetween British and American, or those re ected in
the lexical portions of dialect atlases. We must assume some variation between individu-
als, as well; as Cowart (1997) shows (at least for grammaticality judgements), statistically
sound conclusions can be drawn even from data containing a high level of variation between
subjects.
Worse yet, the multiple redundancy of the lexicon (Sadock 1984) and the creative
power of the interpretive process, involving both the ability to make metaphorical leaps and
the contribution of pragmatics, means that A maywell understand what B means by a given
sentence in context, even if one of the important lexical units it contains is unknown to A.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 30
The novel LU may be permanently added to A's mental lexicon immediately (i.e. \one-
shot learning" from context) or it may spring into existence only brie y and be forgotten
moments later, depending upon a host of poorly-understood factors.
For example, suppose you are standing in a harbor in a hurricane, watching a ship
tugging on a large chain that moors it to the dock. A sailor on the ship looks over at the
chain and yells to his mate, \That cable could break any minute now!" You will probably
immediately grasp the sense of cable that includes what are more commonly called chains,
even if you had never heard it before; you might or might not remember this sense a month
later.
Although these issues are not often considered in \mainstream" linguistics, it
would seem, then, that the prudent course would be to adopt at least some of the methods
used by other social scientists in similar situations. This means, at least for the collection
of relatively intuitive types of data (Section 1.5), we must collect an adequate sample of
speakers by appropriate means of selection, and make generalizations about our ndings
with the appropriate caution. Obviously, the linguist's intuition and practiced judgements
play a vital part in directing the inquiry and setting up the hypotheses; if, however, we want
to make statements about, e.g. \all speakers of American English", we must base them on
data drawn from a suitable sample of that population.
Methods of Data Collection
The methods listed here are intended to cover the gamut of ways of obtaining
linguistic information, including those not normally called \data collection"; the uses and
abuses of each will be brie y sketched.
Intuitive and casual elicitation is the dominant source of data for contempo-
rary linguistics. This is not in anyway to suggest that linguistic analyses are not the product
of considerable re ection over long periods of time, or that no intellectual skill is involved.
On the contrary, doing good linguistics generally requires careful thought, a highly system-
atic consideration of alternate linguistic forms and alternative analyses, a lively imagination
to produce plausible contexts and convincing (counter-)examples, and an attention to very
subtle di erences in meaning. At the same time, it requires a sort of \innocence" in making
acceptability judgements; as expressed above, it does not seem that the same person should
be expected to jump back and forth between these two roles.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 31
Introspection, in the sense of conscious attention to and reporting of one's own
mental processes was important in the early period of psychology, e.g. Wundt, but is not
usually considered a credible source of linguistic data. A notable exception to this opinion
is Wierzbicka (1985), who is clearly within the philosophical tradition when she claims that
\. . . to understand the structure of the concept means to describe fully and
accurately the idea [of the prototype]. And to describe it fully and accurately we
have to discover the internal logic of the concept. This is best done not through
interviews, not through laboratory experiments, and not through reports of
casual, super cial impressions or intuitions (either of `informants' or the analyst
himself), but through methodical introspection and thinking. (p.19, emphasis in
the original)
Monolingual corpus data can be an invaluable counterpoise to the analyst's
own judgements, as eloquently expressed in Ruhl 1989:
Actual data without intuition hardly qualify as data at all. But intuition without
su cient supporting actual data is barren; both are necessary. The debate
on relative merits has been at best short-sightedness, at worst a barrier to genuine
semantic research. The greatest need presently in semantic research is for
abundant actual data with which our intuitions can do their work well. (p.16)
In any serious work with a corpus, one invariably nds discrepancies in both di-
rections, i.e. one expects things one does not nd in the corpus and one nds things one
did not expect. Finding the unexpected simply provides more linguistic data to explain.
Failing to nd an expected pattern might mean either that one's hypothesis was wrong, or
(supposing that one has other attestations proving that the pattern is part of the language)
that the corpus is too small or wrongly selected for one's purposes 9 . For example, most
large corpora are compiled predominantly from written texts; failing to nd (e.g.) certain
kinds of slang in such corpora is by no means proof that they are not part of the spoken
language.
An inherent problem in working with a corpus is the tradeo between uniformity
of the dialect represented and the total size and coverage of the corpus; the larger the corpus
and the more varied its sources, the more likely one is to nd examples that are unacceptable
in the dialect under investigation (usually by default the researcher's own) but acceptable
in some other dialect. Obviously, the better corpus searching tools at one's disposal and
the more fully (and accurately!) annotated the corpus, the more one can discover.
9 Fillmore (1992) has a good description of how linguists should use corpora. For a well-reasoned discussion
of the need to balance introspection and corpus studies, see also Ruhl (1989:13-16)

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 32
Multi-lingual corpora, speci cally aligned parallel corpora are, in e ect, a
source for translations. The automatic alignment programs themselves work by nding
regular equivalences on a rough, statistical basis. The researcher can nd many more sub-
tle kinds of equivalence. Parallel corpora can be particularly helpful in lexical semantic
research, because di erent senses of a word will often be translated di erently, in essence
automatically dividing the examples into senses. Of course, one should not assume this
simplistically; the existence of a translation di erence in language B does not prove a sense
di erence in language A. For example, English put on will be translated by di erent verbs
in Japanese depending on whether the item in question is a hat, a coat, pants, belt or wrist-
watch; the motor programs involved in putting these items on are distinctive, but in the
context of English, wear should be considered general rather than ambiguous; for example,
there is no zeugma in He put on his necktie, coat, and hat. A simple de nition that will
cover all the cases is a little tricky, however; AHD has \to clothe oneself with; don" (?she
donned her watch). Of course, put on does have other senses which can lead to zeugma, as
in ?He put on his overcoat and an air of indi erence.
Cross-linguistic elicitation: Given the usefulness of translations, it is often
helpful to be able to actively elicit them rather than to merely look for them in a corpus. The
usual problems can arise when serving as one's own informant for purposes of translation,
but even when relying on others, one must be careful to elicit truly idiomatic, natural
expressions rather than word-for-word calques.
Surveys can be used to gather many types of lexico-semantic information quickly
from a large number of informants; it is common to elicit both onomasiological and sema-
siological data in the same survey, e.g. for a study of student slang, one would ask both
\What do you call a guy who is mainly interested in sports?" and for the de nition of jock.
To ensure valid data, it is helpful to have acontext that discourages frivolous answers,
although instructions may sometimes specify to give \the rst answer you think of", if too
much re ection may actually interfere with a natural answer.
A good example of the use of a survey to gather semasiological information is
Coleman & Kay 1981.
Laboratory experiments allow the collection of many kinds of data simultane-
ously, including many that cannot be collected in any otherway, such as response latency,
which can sometimes o er insights into cognitive processes. The laboratory setting can
reduce extraneous variation and allow informants to concentrate on a task for a long time;

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 33
on the other hand, it is an extremely \unnatural" setting for language use, and often makes
people nervous, so that the normal use of language is very di cult. Setting up a psycholin-
guistic experiment tovary only one factor of interest without varying other related factors
can be exceedingly di cult.
Consultation, either in-person with experts or indirectly by the use of references
(including dictionaries and thesauri, both printed and automated) is of course indispensable.
Even if one is convinced that much of what is in a dictionary is misleading or even wrong
with regard to the semantic structure of a lexeme, it can still be invaluable for purposes
such as suggesting rare or archaic senses of a word that would otherwise not come to mind,
o ering synonyms (and distinguishing among them), providing examples of use and giving
etymologies.
This method of data collection is one of the few that does not lend itself to statis-
tical analysis. In the rst place, there are usually only a few possible sources of information
available, so that, e.g. one would not necessarily come to believe something more because
one more reference book listed it. In the second place, the value of this kind of evidence is
based on the reputation of its source; one may know, for example, what book is generally
acknowledged to be the \best" source for the meaning of Indo-European roots, and not
bother to consult any others.
Table 1.4 on the following page lists some of the more common types of data that
can be collected for semantic research, together with their classes, i.e. nominal, ordinal,
interval, or ratio.
Some Major Types of Evidence and Their Uses in Lexical Semantics
Time does not permit a full discussion of the following studies, but they are in-
dicative of what seems to be the increasing use of more varied sources of data in linguistics:
Corpus Evidence The FrameNet Project will be a major application of Frame Semantic
principles to corpus data.
Psycholinguistic Evidence Some examples include Coleman & Kay 1981, Sandra &
Rice 1995, Jorgensen 1990, Gibbs 1980 and 1990 (studies of idiom processing), and
(Williams 1992), a study which demonstrates the prototype e ect between senses of
polysemous adjectives

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 34
Type Class
acceptability judgements (not\grammaticality judgements") N/O
similarity rating or ranking O
de nition or context ! lexeme N
lexeme ! de nition or example of use N
category ! giving examples N
examples ! naming category N
lexeme ! paradigmatically related lexeme (synonym, antonym, etc.) N
categorization of items (items ! grouping ) N
classi cation (items + category names ! grouping) N
categorial judgement (items + category names ! judgement) N/O
representativeness rating/ranking O
zeugma judgement N/O
historical relatedness judgement N/O?
timed reading R
response latency priming and probing R
Table 1.4: Types of data collected
Studies of Language Acquisition Johnson (1996), for example,proposes the Con ation
Hypothesis: that children acquire at least some concepts in a manner opposite to Lan-
gacker's idea of acquisition of examples, i.e. that they rst acquire an undi erentiated
sense and later subdivide it.
Let us look in some detail at Fillenbaum & Rapoport (1971), one of the most
interesting uses of similarity judgements. The researchers elicited similarity judgements
for words in nine semantic domains, chosen mainly on the basis of previous work having
been done on them: color names, kinship terms, pronouns, emotion names, prepositions,
conjunctions, HAVE verbs, Verbs of Judging, and Good-Bad terms. They used two di erent
techniques (one rather innovative, involving drawing labeled trees connecting the words) to
derive a ranking of all possible pairs of words in each domain, and then performed some
rather sophisticated statistical analysis on the data. It would take us too far a eld to discuss
the analysis in detail, but results for two domains will be summarized. In the case of the
color terms, the data basically reproduced the color wheel, with somewhat di erent results
for the two elicitation techniques.
In the case of the verbs of judging, Fillenbaum and Rapoport compare their nd-
ings with two linguistic analyses, Osgood (1970) and Fillmore (1969); regarding the latter,

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35
they conclude:
In some measure the present results would appear to be consistent with Fillmore's
analysis, although one could hardly claim that they reveal in any clear
way the subtleties exhibited by that analysis. This, of course, is hardly surprising,
given the necessarily coarse and crude means the subjects had to indicate
their understanding of the similarities in meaning among the 30 terms judged,
and also given that Fillmore's analysis. . . constituted a rather deep analysis of
the semantic eld, something probably not within the power of our subjects. (p.
206)
The greatest weakness of the study is undoubtedly that, since subjects were asked only the
judge similarity, they had no way of indicating that, e.g. acquit and forgive are alike in
one way and acquit and convict in another. Furthermore, like many other psycholinguistic
studies, it dealt only with single words in isolation; sentential contexts might have helped
make meanings of many words more precise, but the single-word task already took most
subjects more than an hour to complete for the 30 verbs of judging.
Historical Evidence
The diachronic/synchronic distinction, like many idealizations used in linguistics,
is in some respects an oversimpli cation. For example, an idiolect will inevitably change over
the course of an adult speaker's lifetime, mainly in response to changes in the surrounding
speech community; the most noticeable of these changes is undoubtedly the acquisition of
new vocabulary (and changes in the meanings of everyday words), but there is also likely to
be some atrophy, aswords become less common or disappear from the living language. We
may be conscious, for example, of an older speaker's continued use of the word icebox, since
it has been substantially replaced by refrigerator, but not conscious of other words which
that same speaker once used but no longer does. New words spread across populations
irregularly, over varying periods of time, in a manner quite parallel to lexical di usion of
sound change; this can be clearly seen in the case of slang and technological innovation, since
the spread is quite rapid, but similar changes occur at slower rates throughout the lexicon.
We assume that existing words similarly acquire and lose senses, becoming monosemous or
polysemous (or more polysemous or less polysemous).
Insofar as speakers are aware of the etymology of the expressions they use, records
of historical change may give us clues as to the notions speakers have about the relations

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 36
between expressions. Of course, speakers will vary greatly in their awareness of the true
etymology of words they use.
The other use of records of historical change is as a collection of documented
examples of meaning shifts over which generalizations can be made. We presume that the
kinds of meaning shifts which individual speakers creatively produce are likely to be similar
to those that have been common throughout history. Consider the processes that produce
some of the vocabulary associated with cultural innovations e.g. metaphorical extensions
such asdrive acar,kill a (computer) process, click on an icon with a mouse. Each coining
or sense extension is a speci c response to a speci c set of circumstances, but mechanisms
such as metaphorical extension are unlikely to have changed over recorded history. This
presumes that such linguistic mechanisms are stable, probably by virtue of being special
cases of general cognitive processes which themselves change on an evolutionary time scale
rather than a merely cultural one.
There seem to be, however, cultural or linguistic preferences for one innovative
mechanism over another; for example, some languages, such as English, coin or borrow
words and expressions rather freely, while others, such as Chinese, tend to compose new
words from existing morphemes. We might also note that (apparently in all languages)
the use of novel extensions with no overt marking (metaphors) alternates with the use of
overt comparisons (e.g. similes) (He's a pig vs. He eats like a pig); one or the other may
be preferred depending upon the language, register, milieu, etc. Careful historical research
might nd that an new meaning passed through a stage of being a common simile before
being acceptable as a metaphorical extension in one language, while in another language
the metaphorical extension came into being directly.
1.6 The Polysemy ofSee
It should by now not seem surprising that linguists disagree even about the idea
that the word see is polysemous. On one extreme, radical monosemists would claim that
the word has only one sense, and that the apparent di erences found in di erent sentences
are the result of interaction with elements of the linguistic and extra-linguistic context (as
in Ruhl's (1989) treatment of the verbs bear, hit, kick, and slap; see also Bouchard 1995).
At the other extreme, some recent approaches (e.g. Sinclair forthcoming) would attribute
meaning only to words used in a context and claim that it is impossible to discuss the

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37
meaning of see asasingleword.
In this dissertation, I will adopt a position between these extremes. One could
suppose that there are simply several verbs to see in English, i.e. that there is not only
homonymy between the noun see and the verb see but among the several verbs as well. But
that would be odd, since all the senses of see are related to the \same" lexeme, e.g. all of
them have the same irregular past and past participle forms.
There are cases of verbs which seem to be related in meaning but are in ected
di erently, (e.g. They hung the picture vs. They hanged the rustler); that this does not
happen with see argues for fundamental unity on morphological grounds. On semantic
grounds, we nd considerable overlap of meaning among the senses, but no simple set of
necessary and su cient criteria for all of them.
It therefore seems logical to claim that the word see is polysemous (that it has
more than one sense), and that at least the majority of its senses are related in meaningful
ways that make it easier to learn the entire constellation of senses.
Throughout most of this dissertation, the vexed question of what is a separate
sense and what is merely a speci c use of a more general sense will be dealt with only
in passing. Instead, the aim will be to look for the nest distinctions which seem to be
justi ed, and, near the end, to try to reach some conclusions about which deserve the
status of separate senses and which can be grouped together.
In other words, I will assume that \. . . di erent constructions are typically, possibly
always, accompanied by slightly di erent semantic interpretations. . . " (Goldberg 1995:8)
This principle is familiar from the diachronic point of view; whenever language changes so
that there are two competing forms in the same general semantic domain, speakers tend
to associate some (possibly novel) semantic distinction with the di erence in form. This
accounts for the well-known fact that there are rarely or never any exact synonyms in a
language (Cruse 1986:265-270), but does not imply that there is one and only one sense per
grammatical form|the pairing actually seems to be many-to-many, aswe will see below.
Methodological Note
Despite the admitted importance of the larger linguistic and non-linguistic context,
I will for the most part consider sentences in isolation in the manner of many traditional
linguistic analyses; if we believe that the meaning of a sentence is derivable from the mean-

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 38
ings of the words in it, and their relations to one another, then it should be possible to
learn something about the meanings of words by studying them at the level of the sentence.
Where relevant, however, pragmatic and discourse-level phenomena will be mentioned.

Chapter 2
A Frame Semantic Analysis
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I will introduce an analysis of the senses of see using Frame
Semantics, an approach to lexical semantics which describes lexical items in relation to
gestalts based on the speaker's experience of entire situations in which the items are used
(Fillmore 1976, 1982, and 1985, Gruber 1986, Fillmore & Atkins 1992, Fillmore 1994,
Petruck 1995, Lowe et al. 1997, Baker et al. 1998). I will discuss the especially varied
syntax of VPs headed by see, the di culty of applying some traditional tests for sense
di erences, and the event structure of seeing; I will also develop a set of senses, rst in brief
outline and then in greater detail using a new frame notation.
Most of the examples given in this chapter have been constructed speci cally to
exemplify clearly and simply the meanings and patterns under discussion; when one begins
to deal with real language use, things are rarely so simple or so short. To avoid unnecessary
multiplication of sentence patterns, we will consider mainly active forms, not passives,
although we will note certain senses that do not occur in the passive. Where possible,
corpus examples (showing the source) have also been given; some have been shortened by
omitting irrelevant material. The corpora used are the Brown corpus, a balanced million-
word corpus of American English compiled in the mid-1960s, and the British National
Corpus (BNC) a balanced 100-million word corpus compiled from 1991 to 1994.
39

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 40
2.2 The Seeing Frame
Let us suppose that instead of depending upon the authority of \the" dictionary as
suggested in the introduction, we examine a few hundred sentences containing the word see
and determine the senses of the word from this data. In almost half the instances, we nd
an NP representing a human being as the subject of see and an NP representing a physical
object as its direct object. As we look closely at the remainder, however, we nd that see
occurs in a somewhat bewildering variety ofsentence patterns. For example, although most
subjects of the verb are rather straightforward NPs, there is great syntactic variation in
the complements; Table 2.1 shows a fairly complete list of the patterns of complements in
clauses headed by see, except for the more speci c patterns related to collocations, which
will be dealt with in Section 2.6. (Some of these patterns may be considered equivalent to
each other by many linguists, but I am simply listing the patterns at this point.)
Complementation Pattern Example Sentence
1 none He could barely see.
2 NP She saw the table.
3 NP AP/PP He saw her rich and in love.
4 NP NP He saw her a successful entrepreneur.
5 NP V-ing They saw him running down the street.
6 NP Vbrst We never saw her be kind to her mother.
7 bare clause Alice could see the dog was lost.
8 that clause Alice saw that the keys were missing.
9 if/whether clause Iwant to see if it's stopped snowing.
10 WH-headed Indirect Let's see whether he wants to go with us.
Question
11 PP[to] I unpacked the suitcase while he saw to
dinner.
12 to it that clause Please see to it that the house is clean
when you leave.
13 NP PP[to] The butler saw the doctor to the door.
14 (passive) V-to They had been seen to take bribes.
15 NP PP[as] They see the contract as a liability.
16 PP[in] NP or NP He saw in her the beginning of a sense of
PP[in]
loyalty.
17 BE seeing NP He's seeing a girl in Des Moines every
weekend.
Table 2.1: The 17 Major Complement Syntactic Patterns (after Fillmore and Kay 1994:6.5)

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 41
Although we are considering mainly active sentences, not passives, we should note
that there is an interesting alternation between actives with bare verb complements and
passives with to-in nitives (i.e. between patterns 6 and 14 in Table 2.1), as in Ex. (1). Fill-
more & Kay (1994:6.6) mention this alternation and Declerck (1983) gives a more detailed
discussion of it.
(1) a. Pat saw Jan write a letter.
b. *Pat saw Jan to write a letter.
c. Jan was seen to write a letter (by Pat).
d. *Jan was seen write a letter (by Pat).
With regard to clauses introduced by WH-phrases (including how), many of these are free
relatives, which can lead to some interesting ambiguities. In Ex. (2-a), what their parents eat
is a free relative, and could be paraphrased with whatever their parents eat or the food that
their parents eat. In Ex. (2-d), the WH-clause is an indirect question, the answer to which
is what the children want to nd out (this is the sense of see which we will call determine
below). Ex. (2-b) and Ex. (2-c) are ambiguous between the two types of WH-clause, and
hence, between two di erent sensesofsee; Ex. (2-c) could be paraphrased either as The
children want to see thefood that their parents eat or The children want to nd out the
answer to the question \What do my parents eat?". Therefore, in evaluating the sense of
see in sentences in which its complement is a WH-clause, we must take suchambiguities
into account; the presence of a word such aswant may suggest that the sense of see which
is more volitional or intentional is to be preferred, or other sentence context may help to
resolve the question.
(2) a. The children eat what their parents eat.
b. The children see what their parents eat.
c. The children want to see what their parents eat.
d. The children want to see whether their parents eat.
The only thing that the 17 patterns in Table 2.1 (except the rst one) have in
common is expressed in the minimal valence requirement for an experiencer and either a
stimulus for or a content of the experience. In fact, as we will see later in this chapter,
even these thematic roles are too restrictive for some uses; all that we can really say is that

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 42
the verb normally takes two arguments, which we can call a seer and a seen. Thus, the
minimal lexical entry for the verb see should contain only that information. In Fillmore &
Kay (1994:5.17), the minimal lexical entry for see was shown as in Fig. 2.1 (cf. Section 1.2).
syn
sem []
2 3
6cat
v 7
4 5
lex +
CPL #1 [ #2
ADJ #1
ARG #2 [seer],[seen]
lxm see
Figure 2.1: Minimal Lexical Entry for See (after Fillmore and Kay (1994))
In the rst pattern in Table 2.1 (representing the sense whichwe will call faculty),
even the second argument is usually not expressed; one must still see some physical object(s)
but exactly what one sees is not relevant. In Construction Grammar terms, this is called
\inde nite null instantiation" (INI).
If we ask the question \What types of NPs can be direct objects of see?", we are
thinking in terms of selectional restrictions (called \selectional rules" in Chomsky 1965);
even if we allowvarious transformations to generate di erent \surface structures" from a
single \deep structure", this approach is too tied to syntactic con gurations to capture the
appropriate semantic generalizations.
If we ask instead, what sorts of arguments (both subjects and complements) are
associated with clauses headed by the verb see, and how these are related to the semantic
frames for events like distant perception, coming to know, judging, etc., we are thinking in
terms of Frame Semantics. Leaving aside the human-SEE-physical-object cases, we nd that
the seen can also be abstract entities, states and events of various types, and propositions.
In addition to humans, seers are animals (usually \sentient", higher animals), and even
inanimate objects, such as radar systems and ships.
There is also considerable variation in the \epistemic stance", i.e. implications

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 43
about the reality or unreality of the seen; in addition to conventional unreal objects, as
in see a unicorn or see pink elephants, we nd patterns that clearly do not involve simple
visual perception, even though the objects perceived are in principle easy to see:
(3) a. I can just see her face when she opens the package.
b. Every time she closed her eyes she saw her father's face.
Ex. (3-a) removes the event from the present (via the clause which expresses futurity even
though the tense of both verbs is \simple present"!) and also adds the words can just,
which are frequent collocates of this sense 1 . Ex. (3-b) contradicts a presupposed condition
for physical vision. These senses will be discussed in more detail in Sections 2.5 and 3.2.
Another area of variation that is not represented in the table above is the relative
frequency of di erent forms of the verb. Some senses of see require or strongly prefer certain
tenses and aspects (e.g. pattern 17 in Table 2.1, used especially in the sense dating), some
lend themselves more readily to passivization or the formation of reduced relatives, etc. 2
In the remainder of this chapter, we will follow the traditional linguistic practice
of noting what syntactic and semantic combinations are required, possible or impossible,
but we will not make further mention of frequencies; this will be discussed as a topic for
future research in Section 6.1.
Finally, we also note the presence of prepositional phrases expressing sources and
goals similar to those used with motion verbs, as in Ex. (4).
(4) a. From my o ce, I can see the bay.
b. From my o ce I can see to the bay.
c. From my o ce I can see all the way to the bay.
Ex. (4-a) and Ex. (4-b) are similar in meaning 3 , and Ex. (4-c) seems to be merely a more
emphatic form of Ex. (4-b). These expressions and their origin will be discussed in detail
in Section 3.3.
1 cf. Ex. (41) for detailed discussion.
2 For some of the details, see Table B.1 on page 255.
3 For some speakers Ex. (4-b) implies that one can see things at intermediate distances as well, while
Ex. (4-a) does not.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 44
2.3 A Sense-Enumerative Approach
One of the problems with using dictionary de nitions as the basis of a discussion
such as this is that it is not at all certain that speakers of English will agree on or be able
to access consciously such a ne categorization of meaning. Nevertheless, it seems useful to
create some list of senses as a starting point, which will be ne enough to capture most of
the important distinctions but coarse enough that people can generally agree (after a bit of
training) about which sense occurs in a particular sentence. Therefore, the more than 1,300
sentences containing a form of the verb see were extracted from the Brown corpus, and a
list of senses of see was created on the basis of intuitive judgements of these examples.
Then, my colleague Chris Johnson and I, working independently, categorized the
senses occurring in a portion of the corpus according to the provisional list of senses. We
reviewed together sentences on which ouranswers di ered, revised the list of senses, and
again independently classi ed another batch of examples. We continued through several
repetitions of this process, on the assumption that if we had listed all the major senses of
see and the de nitions were clearcut, we should be able to agree on the classi cation of
previously unseen instances. The result was a list of senses on which wewere able to reach
80 to 90% agreement on the classi cation of new instances.
As far as possible, the sense di erentiations have been made on on purely semantic
grounds, although we usually nd corresponding di erences in syntactic patterns among
senses; the complex relations between semantically de ned categories and their syntactic
realizations will be displayed in Table 2.2 on page 57 and described in more detail beginning
on page 55 and again in Section 2.5. Further analysis, to be discussed in the rest of this
dissertation, has resulted in the list of senses given below in Section 2.3, which isintended
to be the nest breakdown of senses of see that can reasonably be justi ed.
The limitations of simply listing senses are well known; Kilgarri (1997) criti-
cizes computational linguists for assuming the accuracy of dictionary lists of senses, and
Pustejovsky (1995:Ch. 4) devotes an entire chapter to the \Limitations of Sense Enumer-
ative Lexicons", focusing mainly on the fact that a list implies a number of senses stored
discretely. The only relation among senses which a list represents is a sequence with a
beginning and an end, which is certainly not the right sort; I do not intend to suggest
that this list is a good representation of how humans store their knowledge of the lexicon.
Nevertheless, listing a relatively ne set of senses (or \uses") will be useful in the following

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 45
discussion, at least by way of de ning a set of names.
Brief List of Senses
Let us consider brie y the senses that we would like to distinguish and examples
of each. The example sentences given in this section are constructed, for the sake ofbrevity
and clarity, but are similar to those found in real corpora.
Rather than refer to these senses by arbitrary numbers, we will use a name for
each sense, which should be easier to remember in later discussion. Unfortunately, choosing
common words as mnemonic labels for senses inevitably creates other problems; e.g., the
potential names themselves are often ambiguous (such asrealize and state), and near-
synonyms for senses (such asregard and witness) mayhave patterns of valences which are
di erent from those senses. (cf. Alm-Arvius (1993), who uses de nitions like \see as a
near-synonym of experience").
The list is divided into three sections:
Basic Senses
Semi-Collocations
Compositional Uses
The basic senses are those that are the least bound to any particular syntax or
lexical forms (aside from see itself). The \semi-collocations" are separate senses that tend
to co-occur with a small number of lexical forms or syntactic patterns, but are not as xed
as real collocations; the range of words they require as part of their context is usually best
described intensionally rather than extensionally.
Ihave used the term \compositional uses" for patterns which may be partly con-
ventional, but whose semantics follows entirely from the regular composition of the meaning
of one of the basic senses of see with the meanings of the arguments. (I will discuss true
collocations in Section 2.6.)
Within each section senses are listed in alphabetical order, except that I list two
particularly important senses, eye and recognize rst. (All of these senses will be dis-
cussed in much greater detail in Section 2.5.)

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 46
Basic Senses
eye: To perceive aphysical object or motion with the eyes
She saw the cat on the mat.
He saw many armed soldiers in the streets.
He saw the uttering of butter ies in the garden.
recognize: To recognize a fact, understand a situation
They saw the di culty of winning, but still insisted on bringing it to a vote.
She saw that nothing would change his mind about it.
accompany: To accompany someone on some part of their journey, usually to a departure
point; see out, see to[the door, the bus stop, etc.]
I'll see you to the door.
I o ered to see him home, but he said he'd be ne.
Jeeves, please see Mr. Johnson out and Miss Romano in.
condition: to recognize something/ someone as being in a condition
He saw her hungry and cold on the street corner.
I only want tosee you happy again.
consult: To visit with an expert or authority in the hope of advice or action
You should see a doctor about that cough.
Going to see adivorce lawyer is a major decision.
dating: To visit with repeatedly for romantic reasons
They'd been seeing each other for a couple of years.
He had a girlfriend last year, but he's not seeing anybody now.
determine: To nd out, determine
I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
Let's see what happens to the reaction at 250 degrees.
ensure: To act to ensure that a situation obtains
We'll see to it that he never bothers anybody again.
She always saw that there was a fresh pot of co ee ready for the meeting.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 47
envision: To envision a counterfactual situation, often the future or past
Thank heavens they didn't try the north face; I could just see them on the cli at
midnight, freezing and exhausted.
I don't see the Republicans nominating him this year.
faculty: The faculty of vision in general without any particular object.
He came home so drunk he couldn't see.
They operated on her eyes, and she can see much better now.
news: To learn about news by seeing a newspaper or TV newscast
I see that Congress nally passed the budget.
I see that the Governor is running for President again.
process: To see something/someone perform a process
He saw her notice an item, pick it up, look at it, and then decide not to buy it.
She saw him gaining more political power month by month.
read: To read a short piece of text
Did you see Herb Caen's column this morning?
I saw the memo, but I couldn't believe theywould really do it.
setting: (Of a time period or a place) To contain, be the site or occasion of
The 16th century saw an unprecedented owering of literary talent.
California has seen its share of natural disasters in the last few years.
visit: To meet with, visit (a person/persons)
Will you see Fritz while you're in Pocatello?
She's been to see her twice since her operation.
Semi-collocations
classify: To regard or interpret something as something else.
Do you see this o er as the rst step in a hostile takeover?
In her he saw the possibility of escape from the boredom of his daily life.
experience: To undergo, to witness and be a ected by
He saw combat in Libya and Morocco.
I've seen lonely times when I could not nd a friend.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 48
gambling: To equal another player's bet in order to be allowed to see his or her cards.
I'll see your twenty and raise you ten.
He said he'd see me; his face fell when I turned up the kings.
Compositional uses
hallucinate: Tohave the sensation of seeing without the usual external physical stimulus.
The exhausted soldiers saw enemies behind every tree.
Hallucinogens can make people see the walls breathing and hear trees talking.
scan: A process analogous to eye or recognize, but performed by amachine.
The new satellite sees a larger area of North America.
When the monitor sees a sudden change in the heart rate, it alerts the nurses.
spectate: To witness the occurrence of an event (including performances)
He saw the accident and rushed over to help the injured people.
She saw the sack of the city by the Romans.
Have you ever seen acricket match?
She went toNewYork to see Angels in America.
tour: To visit a place in order to learn about it or for pleasure
After years of dreaming about it, she nally saw Italy last year.
If you're going to buy their products, you really should see the factory.
vide: To look at a speci c location in printed matter in order to learn something.
See Appendix C for the mechanical speci cations.
The megaliths were arranged in a nearly perfect circle (see Fig. 3, p. 48).
Traditional Tests for Sense Di erences
Having gone through such a long list, the reader mightbewondering what evidence
there is to justify such ne distinctions, and which might be considered di erent uses of
the same underlying sense. Lexical semanticists have usedavariety of tests to determine
whether a word has more than one sense (see Cruse (1986:Ch. 3) for a more thorough
discussion). Let us consider four of them as evidence for the distinctness of some of the
senses shown above: synonymy, separate negation, zeugma, and identity of senses.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 49
Substitution of Synonyms
The synonymy test is quite simple in principle; if we can nd two words, each of
which serves as a synonym for one type of use but not for another typeofuse,wehave reason
to suppose that the two uses represent di erent senses. In clear-cut cases of homonymy,
this is easy to do. e.g. ball has two senses, `a spherical object' and `a formal, elegant dance';
we can treat sphere and dance as synonyms for the two senses respectively, and paraphrase
sentences to demonstrate the di erence:
(5) a. The sound of the leather sphere/ball hitting the bat electri ed the fans.
b. Cinderella was the most beautiful one at the dance/ball.
Even in the best case, however, true synonymy is extremely rare (Cruse 1986:265-70); in
Ex. (5-a), sphere is too precise and formal for this context (although perhaps allowed by a
special \literary license" enjoyed by sports reporters), while in Ex. (5-b), the connotation of
elegance is lost when we substitute dance for ball. Likewise, it is unusual to nd a synonym
that will perfectly t all contexts even for a single sense of see; that is why the senses listed
above were named with keywords, many of which were not intended to be synonyms for the
sense.
For example, visit is named with a word that is sometimes substitutable for see
in the contexts in which it has that sense, e.g.
(6) On my way to London, I want to stop in Boston to see/visit my old friend Richard.
But see by itself is relatively neutral about how the two parties come to be in contact with
each other, while visit implies that the visitor moves toward the the visited:
(7) I'll see/?visit my sister when she comes here for the convention next month.
Visit with may sound a little better than just visit in this context, suggesting a more equal
participation, but see can express a more casual occurrence than either visit or visit with.
The frequent use of the collocations come to see and go to see suggests that speakers feel a
need to clarify which party ismoving in such situations. Note that in Ex. (7) see should be
considered as visit, rather than eye; ifwe try to negate some the entailments of visit, as
in Ex. (8), most people would nd the result odd (cf. Separate Negation of Senses, below).

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 50
(8) I'll see/?visit my sister when I go there for the convention next month, but I won't
have time to talk with her.
In many cases, a likely synonym will t one or several of the argument patterns of a sense,
but not others, e.g. the ensure sense can take either a PP with to or a clause introduced
by that; the partial synonym attend to allows the former but not the latter:
(9) a. You warm up the car and I'll see to/attend to the luggage.
b. I'll see (to it) that the house is properly closed up for the winter.
c. *I'll attend (to it) that the house is properly closed up for the winter.
Likewise, for classify, there are two common argument patterns, one with NP 1
as NP 2 and one with NP 2 in NP 1, but not NP 1 NP 2; one or the other of the NPs must
be oblique. Other semantically similar verbs in the Categorization frame (p. 93) license
di erent patterns of arguments, as shown in (10).
(10) a. She saw him as
b. She saw in him
c. *She saw him
d. She regarded him as
e. *She regarded in him
f. *She regarded him
g. She considered him as
h. *She considered in him
9
>=
>;
an ally in her struggle.
i. She considered him
These examples could be multiplied for nearly every sense. In short, the match
between partial synonyms and word senses is not good enough to make this a reliable way
to discriminate senses.
Separate Negation of Senses
In this test, we nd sentences that seem paradoxical until we realize that the same
word is being used in di erent senses:
(11) A: Did you see Dr. Ramos yesterday?

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 51
B: Yes, but only at the country club.
Here, B believes that A is asking about consulting with the doctor, and answers
with regard to both consulting and visiting; the reply could be paraphrased \I met
socially with Dr. Ramos, but I didn't consult him professionally."
The basic idea of this test is to coordinate two such clauses, one with negative
polarity and the other with positive polarity with the same verb. It is possible to get a
simple positive and a simple negative clause together, but usually hedges are added to signal
what is going on:
(12) Isaw Alice at work today, but I didn't really see her, because I was so busy.
This is most likely to be interpreted with the rst see in the sense eye and the second in
the sense visit or consult. This test can be useful in di erentiating senses that allow the
same argument structures (such aseye, visit, and consult, all of which can take a simple
NP referring to a person as a direct object).
If the arguments are of di erent semantic types for the two senses, we are dealing
with the third type of test, zeugma.
Zeugma
The basic principle of zeugma is that coordination of two arguments that require
di erent senses of the same word produces a sentence that is somehow odd, sometimes
comically so, sometimes as a literary device. Consider an example from Cruse (1986:13),
(13) Arthur and his driving license expired last Thursday.
The oddness of this sentence is due to the simultaneous use of two distinct senses of expire
(roughly `come to the end of the valid period' and `die'); syntactically similar sentences that
involve only one of these senses are not odd: 4
(14) a. Arthur and his sister both expired last year.
b. Arthur's car insurance and his driving license both expired Thursday.
4 Note that coordination of two NPs which have di erent thematic relations to the verb can produce a
similar feeling of oddness, as shown in the coordinated subjects of The logger and his chainsaw cut down the
tree. We must be careful not to confuse these two issues.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 52
We can test for distinctness of senses by trying to invent sentences that produce
zeugma; I will not create the thousands of sentences necessary to test all possible combi-
nations of the 23 senses listed above, but will give a few representative examples (15)-(21),
varying the syntax where possible so that it will not interfere with the semantics. In each
case, the rst (a) sentence of a pair uses the same sense of see twice, while the second (b)
sentence uses di erent senses. The reader may nd some of the (b) sentences stranger than
others, but none of them seem as natural as the corresponding (a) sentences that do not
combine di erent senses.
(15) a. determine + determine:
Let's see if she's interested in a picnic and, if so, where she suggests we go.
b. visit + determine:
Let's see Mom and if she's interested in a picnic.
(16) a. consult + consult:
Next week I have to see my doctorandmylawyer.
b. consult + visit:
Next week I have toseemy doctor and my mother.
(17) a. experience + experience:
Bill saw combat in Vietnam and hard times after he returned to America.
b. experience + eye:
Jim saw combat in Kuwait and the Pyramids on his way home.
(18) a. envision + envision:
I see a tall, dark woman in your future and an important meeting at which
you will be presented with an award.
b. eye + envision:
I see the red Miata across the street and a tall, dark woman in your future.
(19) a. recognize + recognize:
Mary saw the sincerity of his a ection for her, but also that he would never be
the kind of husband she needed.
b. eye + recognize:
Mary saw the pile of work on her desk and the impossibility of going home
on time.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 53
(20) a. setting + setting:
Japan and California have both seen quite a few earthquakes recently.
b. setting + experience:
California and its residents have both seen quite a few earthquakes recently.
(21) a. news + news:
I see that the President is going to be in town tomorrow and (that) they're
going to close Main Street for the afternoon.
b. news + recognize:
I see that the President is going to be in town tomorrow andwhyyou don't
want togodowntown tomorrow afternoon.
Identity of Senses (Crossed readings)
A fourth test for sense di erences, closely related to zeugma, uses sentences in
which \VP deletion" produces gaps. Supposed we believe that there are two senses of
teacher, one meaning `male teacher' and the other `female teacher' (corresponding to those
morphologically marked in many languages with grammatical gender). Then suppose that
John has written a letter to his high school math teacher Bill Smith, and Joe has written
a letter to his math teacher Sally Jones; we still would nd nothing odd in Ex. (22). This
indicates that our supposition of two separate senses is wrong, that teacher is general,
covering both male and female, rather than ambiguous between two distinct senses.
(22) John wrote to his teacher and Joe did, too.
Now let us apply this test to see. Ex. (23) can be considered to contain two instances of
seeing, one where the experiencer was Jan, and one where the experiencer was Chris. If see
has two senses, visit and eye, either of which could be occurring here, we might expect
there to be four acceptable readings of the sentence, one for each combination of senses.
There is certainly nothing wrong with Ex. (23) in a context in which Jan and Chris both
went to visit Pat, or in a context in which both of them caught eeting glimpses of Pat. But
we nd Ex. (23) unacceptable in a situation in which Jan visited with Pat for ten minutes
and Chris only sawPat through the window of a passing train; the single word saw \resists"
interpretation as visit in the rst clause and eye in the second.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 54
(23) Jan saw Pat and so did Chris.
Suppose a memo is written in a language that Isabel can understand but Alicia cannot.
Then Ex. (24) is odd, because we suppose that Isabel read and understood the memo
(sense read), while Alicia just saw incomprehensible letters on a page (sense eye).
(24) Isabel saw the memo and so did Alicia.
Summary
Unfortunately, as many authors have noted, conclusions about sense di erentiation
based on one of these tests often di er from those based on another, and many other factors
may in uence judgements.
For example, Ex. (25-a), which should be an instance of setting + setting may
be questionable because of general semantic constraints on coordination, regardless of the
zeugma problem. But there cannot simply be a rule against coordinating a place and a
time; other factors seem to be at work, also, e.g. Ex. (25-b) seems fairly acceptable, but
Ex. (25-c) seems worse.
(25) a. ?The fteenth century and northern Italy saw a owering of the visual arts.
b. When we think of great painting, we think of the fteenth century and Italy.
c. ?The fteenth century and Italy were Jeri's primary research interests.
Furthermore, there is considerable disagreement among speakers in their judgements on
these tests, such as whether Ex. (26) is acceptable in a \crossed readings" situation (e.g.
when John had a physical examination and Mary had a date). Ex. (16-a) (above) also elicits
di ering judgements.
(26) John saw Dr. Jones today and Mary did, too.
Thus, the apparently simple question of exactly how many senses there are and
how we can test for divisions between them probably has no simple answer. It may bemore
productive totake the rather ne breakdown given above as a starting point and look into
the semantic and syntactic relations among these putative senses.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 55
Co-occurrence of Complement Patterns with Senses
As an introduction to considering the relation between the semantics of the senses
of see and the syntax of the various types of complements, we should discuss brie y the
broader question of the relation between syntax and semantics. Strictly speaking, predict-
ing all of syntax from semantics or all of semantics from syntax is impossible; each sub eld
has its own raison d'^etre. Many linguists, however, tend to regard one of these two sub elds
as more important, basic, or interesting than the other, so they may have a tendency to
de ne the domain of the \more important" sub eld more inclusively, at the expense of the
\less important".
In the recent history of linguistics, Chomsky 1957 (which marks what Wasow
(1985) calls the rst phase of the Chomskian revolution) represents a high-water mark of
syntax:
Grammar is best formulated as a self-contained study independent ofsemantics.
I particular, the notion of grammaticalness cannot be identi ed with meaningfulness
. . .
. . . one result of the formal study of grammatical structure is that a syntactic
framework is brought to light which can support semantic analysis. Description
of meaning can pro tably refer to this underlying syntactic framework, although
systematic semantic considerations are apparently not helpful in determining it
in the rst place. (1957:106,108)
Since that time, there has been a steady movement invarious schools of linguistics
toward increased emphasis on the lexicon, with more and more semantic marking in the
lexicon 5 , and the gradual ascendance of the view that the structure of a phrase is largely
the result of projection from its head lexeme. As Wasow (1985:203) puts it, \Much of what
was stipulated in grammars of earlier theories is taken to be a function of lexical semantics."
(For the history of the most radical movement toward semantics-based syntax, Generative
Semantics, see Lako 1989 and Harris 1993.)
Verb phrases present the most prominent and clear-cut examples of the projection
of the properties of the lexical head onto the larger syntactic structure, and linguists have
long noted that the syntax of argument structure seems to be related to the semantics of the
verbs involved. Levin (1993) is the most ambitious recent work on the argument structure
of English verbs and contains extensive references to earlier, more speci c studies. Levin
5 It is striking that Chomsky 1965 introduces features such as animate and human as part of the
lexicon, but insists on calling them syntactic rather than semantic features.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 56
uses patterns of alternation of argument structure to group verbs and then attempts to
describe these groups in semantic terms. She says,
This work is guided by the assumption that the behaviorofaverb, particularly
with respect to the expression and interpretation of its arguments, is to
a large extent determined by its meaning. Thus verb behavior can be used effectively
to probe for linguistically relevant pertinent aspects of verb meaning.
. . . [This book] should help pave the way toward the development ofatheoryof
lexical knowledge. Ideally, such a theory must provide linguistically motivated
lexical entries for verbs which incorporate representation of verb meaning and
which allow the meanings of verbs to be properly associated with the syntactic
expressions of their arguments. (p.1)
Let us then consider, for the verb see, which participates in so many of Levin's
(1993) alternations, what connections there might bebetween the semantics of its senses
and the syntax of its arguments. The relation between the senses listed in the \Brief List
of Senses" (p. 45 ) and the complement patterns given in Table 2.1 (p. 40) is summarized
in Table 2.2 on the next page. Each dot indicates that a particular sense can occur with a
particular syntactic pattern.
As Table 2.2 suggests, the situation is complex, but not hopeless. In an ideally
simple world, there would be exactly one dot in each row and one dot in each column; that
is, each sense would have exactly one syntactic form of expression. In fact, by looking across
the rows, we can see that this is the case for all of the senses which require physical vision
(eye, faculty, news, read, visit, vide, and audience). 6 The other senses of see have
more diverse forms of expression, largely because many of them refer to states and events,
which canbeexpressedinavariety ofsyntactic forms.
Looking down the columns of Table 2.2 instead, we nd that most syntactic pat-
terns are ambiguous among two or three senses. Unfortunately, the most basic argument
structure, the simple transitive use of the verb with a single NP direct object, can express
more than a dozen meanings. In part this is a re ection of the semantic exibility of the
transitive sentence type, independent of the verb see. Another reason is the greater seman-
tic complexity of nominals (cf. Fillmore 1994); they can express not only objects of physical
perception and facts apprehended by cognition, but also facts to be investigated (deter-
mine, e.g.Let's see the temperature), people to be called upon (visit, consult), situations
6 Many other senses allow physical vision as the source of evidence for a proposition, but do not require
it. For example, process does not require physical vision; in She saw him gaining political power month by
month, the source of information can be what she heard just as well as what she eyeed. A similar argument
holds for determine, recognize, condition, etc.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 57
eye
recognize
accompany
condition
consult
dating
determine
ensure
envision
faculty
news
process
read
setting
visit
classify
experience
gambling
vide
audience
discourse
hallucinate
scan
spectate
tour
none
NP
NP AP/PP
NP NP
NP V-ing
NP Vbse
S n
Swhether
Basic Senses
WH Indirect Question
Semi-Collocations
Compositional Uses
PP[to]
to it that clause
(passive) V-to/Ving
(passive) to be NP/AP
Table 2.2: Senses by Complement Syntactic Patterns
NP PP[as]
PP[in] NP/NP PP[in]
BE seeing NP

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 58
to be imagined (envision), items to be read, performances to be watched, etc. Abstract
states and processes can also be expressed as nominals, with accompanying arguments (e.g.
see the di culty of doing it perfectly, see her success as a stockbroker).
(27) a. determine: Let's see what he does.
b. recognize: She saw what he had done.
c. envision: I can just see what he must be doing now.
VPs that take WH-complements can express an unusual combination of senses as in Ex. (27)
but that is because they are often free relatives, usually functionally equivalent to NPs, as
in Ex. (27-b) and Ex. (27-c). True indirect questions, including clauses introduced by if or
whether work only for the sense determine.
Ihave included in classify the patterns see X as Y, see Y in X, and see inX
Y, as they are very similar semantically (cf. Ex. (10) on page 50). All three patterns are
speci c constructions for this sense, although the latter two are of course identical in form
with a simple locative, e.g. to see hisgrandmother in his daughter vs. to see hisgrandmother
in his garden. The order of the NP and the PP[in] seems to be determined by \heavy NP
shift", and the PP[in] can also be located at the beginning of the clause.
2.4 Semantics
Merely presenting a list of senses like the one given in Section 2.3 above, while a
useful rst step, does little to elucidate their interrelations. Yet there does seem to be some
structure to the senses; for example, understanding something about how the senses are
related to each other should help us understand what a learner of English (as either a rst
or second language) must learn separately about each sense of the verb and what is more
general. 7
There can be little doubt that the most common sense is eye; as noted above,
more than a third of the corpus examples fall into this category. recognize is another
frequent sense. Thus we would predict, for example, that if speakers of English were asked
to give examples of a typical sentence with see, examples of eye would be the most frequent,
recognize would be somewhat less frequent, and sentences with senses such assetting
7 Later in this chapter, I will make some of these relationships much more explicit in terms of inheritance
among frames; Chapter 4 will provide evidence about central vs. peripheral senses.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 59
would be quite rare.
The most typical senses will also be those that are shared by the largest number of
speakers, while some of the less common senses may not even be familiar to all members of
a speech community. For example, speakers who rarely play card games may not be familiar
with the gambling sense, and some speakers with less formal education are unfamiliar with
the setting sense.
As Rhodes (n.d.) has noted, the less typical senses not only tend to have many
restrictions on their use but also carry with them more presuppositions. For example,
the gambling sense is normally used only in speaking, in the midst of a card game on
which money is wagered, the subject is normally the speaker, the direct object is a sum of
money, the tense is usually present or future, it is a performative, cannot be negated, etc.
Conversely, the most basic sense, eye, can be used in any tense or person, in the a rmative
or negative, with or without modals, the object can be almost any physical object, etc. In
discussing the relations among the senses, we will start with the most typical ones and work
gradually away from them.
The Event Structure of Seeing
From our common experience as human beings, it seems reasonable to assume
that the prototypical use of see is to describe an event in which the following are true: a
human being sees a physical object with the eyes, the seer is aware of seeing, the image
or percept corresponds directly with a physical object present in the real world within the
seer's visual eld, the eyes of the seer function normally, there is adequate light and no
obstruction of vision, the seer correctly categorizes (recognizes) the object seen, and comes
to hold some true beliefs about the world (e.g. that seen exists in a certain location and
has certain properties such as a color and a size) as a result of this process.
At the very least, we can consider this event to be composed of two sub-events,
perceiving and coming to know; the former is typically punctual, telic, and resultative,
while the latter is inchoative, a transition into the state of knowing or believing. Many
senses contain something of both of these sub-events, but senses will di er with regard
to the relative importance of the two; in particular, when the latter is emphasized, as
in senses like recognize and condition, the direct object of the verb is more abstract
(e.g. a proposition or state) and more mental processing is implied, which requires the

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 60
experiencers (seers) for these senses to be humans, or at least sentient beings. Thus, the
\simple" recognition of objects and processes is ne with subjects fairly low on the scale of
sentience (Ex. (28-a)) but not the recognition of more complex states of a airs(Ex. (28-b)),
yet the latter is ne with more \intelligent" subjects (Ex. (28-c)).
(28) a. The gold sh saw the food oating on the surface of the water.
b. ?The gold sh saw that the mesh was to ne too swim through.
c. Fido saw that his master would die unless pulled from the ames.
(See Table B.1 on page 255 and Section 3.5 for a more complete treatment of these restric-
tions.) When the rst sub-event (visual perception) is emphasized, there is no implication
about the resulting beliefs, as will be discussed in the following section.
2.5 Detailed Frames and Descriptions for Senses
Introduction
As we look more closely at the syntax and semantics of each sense,we nd a wealth
of detail that will not t into any chart or list of atomic features. In this section, I will show
a frame for each sense, followed by some example sentences for each sense, from corpora
where possible (some of the long corpus examples are abbreviated). These are followed by
a prose detailed description of the sense. The subdivisions and order of presentation are
the same as in Section 2.3.
Most of the frame notation should become clear from the examples, but it may be
helpful to discuss some of the concepts brie y here.
Frame Inheritance and Scenes (Sub-frames)
Twotypes of inheritance are shown in the frames, partial and complete. For partial
inheritance, the attribute \Uses" is given, followed by the name of the frame inherited from;
in this case, all the semantics of the ancestor frame is used, but not all of its roles. The
relation between the roles in one frame and those which it uses from another frame are made
explicit through role equations, usually with the name of the ancestor frame abbreviated.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 61
Only those roles which appear in an equation in the daughter frame are used by it. 8 For
complete inheritance, the attribute \Inherits" is given, followed by the name of the frame
inherited from; in this case, all the semantics and all the roles are inherited.
Within the entry for each sense of see, frames are listed in order of inheritance; this
means that the frame for the sense of see itself may be preceded by several more general
frames from which it inherits. The frames for senses of see all have names of the form
see eye, see recognize, etc. to distinguish them from the more general frames.
More general frames have been postulated not only where they are shared by two
senses of see, but also at levels where certain generalizations are best stated. In most cases,
there is a prose statement of the reasons for setting up each general frame, with a list of
some words that I believe will need that frame as part of their own description.
Where one event frame is must be described in terms of sub-events, these are listed
under the attribute \Scenes" in the frame. Scenes, like frames, have types and may use or
inherit from other frames, in addition to any inheritance of the frame as a whole.
Semantic Speci cations
The semantics of frames and their participants are expressed in several ways,
formally through types, predications, and equations, and informally in prose description. It
is hoped that eventually all the information contained in the prose description can also be
expressed in the Frame Semantic formalism. Obviously, the choice of names for frames and
roles is also intended to be meaningful, although it is sometimes necessary to invent names
for them.
Frames themselves may beoftwo broad semantic types, event or state, indicated
by the \type" attribute. Roles also generally have semantic types, and these types are in-
herited along with the role. Frequently the daughter frame will further restrict the type of
an inherited role. For example, see eye uses perception distant which in turn uses per-
ception basic; perception basic has a role for the body part involved in the perception,
without restriction as to what body part is involved, perception distant requires that the
body part be eyes, ears, or nose (the distant senses), and see eye further restricts the body
8 This mechanism might serve several functions. For example, it can represent Fillmore & Atkins's (1998)
frame blending, as when one sense of argument inherits some structure from the frame for contention
and another sense inherits from the frame for reasoning, while both inherit from the talk frame. Partial
inheritance may also allow representation of Turner & Fauconnier's (1995) blended spaces, but this has
not been worked out in detail.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 62
part to eyes. A tree showing part of the type hierarchy presupposed in these descriptions
is found in Fig. 3.8 on page 125.
Semantic restrictions are also expressed in the form of predications on roles, with
the attribute \Restr", in cases in which it seems inappropriate to call the restriction a type;
the following predicates are used in these frame descriptions:
a ects(X,Y) Situation X a ects Y.
authority(X) Person X is in a position of authority, possesses special knowledge, etc.
familiar(X,Y) Person X is familiar with Y.
partOf(X,Y) X is a part of Y|not necessarily a proper subpart.
temporalOverlap(X,Y) Events X and Y overlap in time.
Other Attributes
In some cases, valence descriptions of the standard type in Construction Grammar
link the roles to syntactic patterns in which they can be expressed. If no such valence
description appears, the assumption is that there are no syntactic restrictions speci c to
the sense in question, and the syntaxofthesentence will be built up by uni cation with
more general frames and constructions. The frames for senses of see themselves also have
the attribute \Category" (Cat) with value \V", and the attribute \Lexeme" (Lexm) with
value see, i.e., they are lexically speci c frames.
The standard construction grammar thematic roles stimulus and content (based
on thematic roles) are used in some places, even though the names are not entirely felicitous
in this context. Stimulus is used to refer to the physical objects or actions that are
perceived, while content refers to the mental interpretation resulting from the perception 9 .
Typographic Conventions
Frames are displayed as attribute-value matrices with the attributes down the left
side and the values down the right. Atomic values are shown in boldface; values which are
themselves AVMs are in large square brackets. Names of roles are capitalized, names of
9 These correspond roughly to the base space and the belief space, respectively, in the mental spaces
analysis in Section 3.2.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 63
frames and types are lowercase. Types are displayed to the bottom right of the object in
small italics. At the beginning of the discussion of each of the senses involving inheritance,
Ihave inserted a small diagram showing which frames inherit from (or \use") which. Where
a frame is used by a scene within another frame, the arrow showing this relationship goes
inside the boundary of the latter, directly to the inheriting scene.
Basic Senses
Sense EYE
perception basic
perception distant
see eye
Inheritance for see eye.
Frame perception basic
type event
roles:
2
3
Perceiver
6
sentient7
6
7
6
6Phenomenon
7
4
5
Body part
The Body part role is appropriately called the \organ of perception" in the case
of see, hear, and smell, but the organ of perception is a little harder to de ne in the case
of taste, and amounts to the entire surface of the body in the case of touch.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 64
Frame perception distant
type event
Uses perception basic [pb]
2
3
roles:
6Perceiver
=
6
6Phenomenon
=
6
6Body
part
6
eyes _ ears _ nose =
6
6Loc
perceiver
4
Path
pb.Perceiver 7
pb.Phenomenon
7
pb.Body part 7
5
Frame see eye
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses perception distant [pd]
2
3
roles:
Seer =
6
6Seenphys
obj _ phys motion =
4
pd.Perceiver
7
pd.Phenomenon 7
5
Body parteyes = pd.Body part
val:
82
>< 6
4
>:
role Seen
syn nuc
pt NP
39
7>=
7
5
>;
The usual implicatures about physical vision described in Section 2.4 apply to
see eye. Ordinarily, ifseen is a person, we would assume that a more speci c sense can
be inferred, i.e. visit or consult, unless there is some indication to the contrary.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 65
Sense RECOGNIZE
cognition inchoative
see recognize
Frame cognition inchoative
type event
roles:
2
3
6Cognizersentient
7
4
5
Contentproposition Words that use the cognition inchoative frame include: see recognize, learn,
nd out, realize, recognize, ascertain, and discover.
Frame see recognize
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses cognition inchoative [ci]
2
3
roles:
6Seerhuman
=
4
Seen =
ci.Cognizer7
5
ci.Content
val:
82
39
><
>=
6role
Seen 7
4
5
>:
>;
pt S n _ NP
(29) a. Brown: . . . , we see 14 major problems which fall into three broad groups|the
market place itself, marketing methods, and marketing management.
b. Brown: Despite a too long sustained declamatory ight, this nal speech is
convincing, and we see why British audiences apparently were impressed by
\Roots".
c. BNC: I don't see there's anything to explain.
d. I don't believe there's anything to explain.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 66
The seer is a conscious, sentient being, the seen is a state of a airs, seer comes to know
seen. recognize implies that seen is true of the world. seen is typically an abstract
NP (Ex. (29-a)) oranembedded clause with or without a complementizer (Ex. (29-b)).
Sometimes there may be just a bare S; Ex. (29-c) illustrates such a situation. It is combined
with \negative raising", a phenomenon which is also common with other verbs of judging
and knowing, as in Ex. (29-d); the negative is logically part of the lower clause, so that these
two sentences could be paraphrased \I see/believe that there isn't anything to explain.")
When content is expressed as an NP, itmust be of the sort capable of expressing
a proposition (cf. cognition inchoative). With see, this is usually a de-adjectival noun with
a possessive expressing the argument of the predicate as in Ex. (30-a); hence, this means
essentially the same thing as Ex. (30-b).
(30) a. She saw the futility of opposing them.
b. She saw (that) it was futile to oppose them.
Sense ACCOMPANY
directed motion
accompany
M1 M2
see accompany
Frame directed motion
aktionsart activity
type event
roles:
2
3
6Trajector7
6
7
6
7
6Source
7
6
7
6
7
6
6Path
7
4
5
Direction

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 67
The directed motion frame is very general, with a set of roles that are very
widely used by other frames.
Frame accompany
aktionsart activity
presupps 1
profiles Part1
type event
roles:
scenes:
restr:
2
3
6Part1
= m1.Trajector7
4
5
Part2 = m2.Trajector
2
3
6 event [m1]
7
6
4
5 7
6 Inherits directed motion [dm] 7
6
7
62
37
6
7
6 event [m2] 1
7
7
4
5
Inherits directed motion [dm]
2
3
6partOf(m1.Path,m2.Path)
7
4
5
temporalOverlap(m1,m2)
As mentioned in the de nition on page 62, the partOf relation need not denote a
proper subpart|one can accompany someone all the way from their starting point to their
destination, or just part of the way.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 68
Frame see accompany
aktionsart accomplishment
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses accompany [acc]
2
3
roles:
6Seerhuman
=
6
6Seen
6
human =
6
6Goal
=
4
acc.m1.Src =
acc.Part1 7
acc.Part2 7
acc.m1.Goal 7
5
acc.m2.Src
restr: protect(Seer,Seen)
(31) BNC: \It'll be no trouble at all to see you to your door," he had lied.
see accompany means to accompany someone who is leaving or arriving on some part
of their journey, often to some departure point. seer and seen are both human, goal is
the point of departure or arrival. The accompany sense implies a polite social situation,
and that the seer is \protecting" or \guiding" the seen. See outtreats the entrance of
the building as the point of leave-taking. See [a person] to always speci es the point of
leave-taking; see you home is essentially a more idiomatic way ofsaying see you to the door
of your house (cf. Ex. (31)).
These uses must inherit some of their meaning from the more general frame ac-
company (shown above) which also licenses VPs such aswalk you home, walk you to your
car, show her up (i.e. to the parlor on the second oor). Take someone home and bring
someone home can also be included, provided that we are clear that home is treated here
strictly as a destination. All of the patterns for the sense accompany of see (and similar
senses of walk, drive, take, run and bring) are therefore distinct from those in Ex. (32);
in Ex. (32), the object of the PP-to is an expression for something that is metonymic for a
conventional activity; di erent types of metonymy are used in each of three examples (cf.
Norvig & Lako 1987 on the semantics of take).

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 69
(32) a. take someone to a movie/the movies
b. take someone to the doctor
c. take someone to church/school
Sense CONDITION
bare state
see condition
state
Frame bare state
type state
roles:
val:
8
2
>< 6
4
>:
2
3
6Part
7
4
5
Staterelational role Part
gf ext
pt NP[acc]
3
9
2
3
7
>=
7 6role
State 7
7,
4
5
5 pt AjP _ NP
>;
The state is predicated of the Participant; note the semantic type of the state
must be relational or scalar, not intrinsic, what Lako (1987:498-501) calls a \non-inherent,
nonpersistent predicate" 10 , cf. Ex. (33).
(33) a. him old/successful
b. *him Russian/good/brave/tall
c. him a father/king/a tyrant
d. *him a Japanese/?a coward
10 There is a similar distinction in Spanish as to which which adjectives can be complements of ser and
which ofestar; the former are inherent and stable, the latter temporary and \accidental".

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 70
Frame see condition
type event
cat V
lexm see
roles:
scenes:
2
3
6Seer
7
4
5
Seen = 1
2
3
6 state 1
7
4
5
Uses bare state [bs]
(34) a. Brown: He was delighted to see them so happy.
b. He hopes to see her a member of Congress next year.
c. Brown: \. . . We see a nation that traditionally values sovereignty above all else
willing to give up its economy, placing this authority inContinental hands."
This sense is much less frequent than process. The types of states that can occur in this
sense are restricted by the inheritance from bare state. In this sense, the verb see can
be described as having two complements, NP XP, where XP is either AP or NP. The XP
represents a state predicated of the ( rst) NP, e.g. Ex. (34-a), Ex. (34-b).
Sense CONSULT
consultation with authority
see consult

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 71
Frame consultation with authority
type event
roles:
restr:
2
3
6Consulterhuman
7
6
7
6
7
6Consultant
6
human 7
6
7
6
6Problem
7
4
5
Purpose
2
3
6authority(Consultant)
7
4
5
a ects(Problem,Consulter)
(35) a. He went to the doctor for his back pain.
b. I think you should consult a specialist.
c. You should ask John about your transmission.
d. Iwant tocheck with someone at the consulate about renewing my visa.
e. You should see someone about your cough/tax problems/parking ticket.
f. The Parties agree to consult with each other before taking any action which
might a ectthevalue of the Property.
Words that use this frame include see, consult, talk (with/to), ask, and check
(with). The Problem is typically realized as PP[about], sometimes PP[for] in a medical
context (Ex. (35-a)); it is often inferred from context (called \de nite null instatiation"
(DNI) in Construction Grammar) as in (Ex. (35-b)) or via metonymy (Ex. (35-c)). The
Consultant includes not only doctors and lawyers, but also political leaders and anyone in
a gate-keeping position (Ex. (35-d)). The Consultant cannot be DNI, but can be expressed
by an inde nite pronoun, relying on discourse context (Ex. (35-e)). Note that the verb
consult itself can also be used in situations of equality, such as Ex. (35-f), which isnot
an example of this frame. In naming the roles, we are implying a situation of inequality,
calling the authority the consultant and the person seeking help the consulter.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 72
Frame see consult
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses consultation with authority [ca]
2
3
roles:
Seer =
6
6Seen
=
4
ca.Consulter
7
ca.Consultant 7
5
Problem = ca.Problem
val:
82
><
6
4
>:
role Seen
gf obj
39
>=
7
5
>;
(36) a. You should see a doctor about that cough.
b. You should have a doctor see about that cough.
c. ?You should get a doctor to see about that cough.
d. *Have alawyer see [you] about writing your will.
The simplest and most common pattern is seen in Ex. (36-a), but seer and seen can some-
times be swapped by adding a causative without much change in meaning, as in Ex. (36-b)
or Ex. (36-c) (the latter is pragmatically odd because of the high social status of doctors).
But this causativization seems to work only for visits to the doctor; Ex. (36-d) is bad,
perhaps because a visual examination of the patient's body is an inherent part of a medical
consultation, but not of consultations with other experts. The situation in which a person
of higher social status sees one of lower social status is treated as a separate sense of see,
i.e. audience (q.v., p. 100). Furthermore, some common expressions like this, such as
Ex. (36-b) are ambiguous among several readings, consult, ensure, and perhaps even
determine, if one is mainly concerned with diagnosis rather than cure.
The uses with Problem appearing as PP[about] may be related to the sense de-
termine and frame ascertain. For example (37-a) can be interpreted as ensure (move it
before I get a parking ticket) or determine ( nd out why itkeeps stalling at stoplights).
We would probably call (37-b) sense consult, but, as with consulting the doctor, the

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 73
purpose can still be either just getting a diagnosis of the problem or having the problem
solved.
(37) a. I need to see about my car.
b. Ineedtoseeamechanic about my car.
Sense DATING
perception basic
recip event perception distant
social interaction see eye
romantic involvement see visit
see dating
State 1 State 2
Frame romantic involvement
type state
roles:
scenes:
2
3
6Part1
=
4
Part2 =
si.Part17
5
si.Part1
22
33
6 event
66
66
66
66viewpt
44
Uses
77
77
iterated
77
77
57
5
social interaction [si]
Obviously, romantic involvement is not merely social interaction, even if repeated.
For our present purposes, we will assume that the Western concept of romance is understood,
without attempting to de ne it.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 74
Frame see dating
denotes 1
entails 2
type event
cat V
lexm see
roles:
scenes:
2
3
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
sv.Seer =
sv.Seen =
ri.Part17
5
ri.Part2
2
3
6 state 1
7
6
4
5 7
6 Uses romantic involvement [ri] 7
6
7
62
3 7
6
7
6 state 2
7
7 7
6
7 7
6
7
6 6aktionsart
activity
7
7 7
6
7 7
6
7 7
6
6 6viewpt
iterated 7 7
7 7
4
5 5
Uses see visit [sv]
restr: temporalOverlap( 1, 2 )
(38) He saw her on and o for a yearorso.
The iteration of the visiting allows it to be construed as a state, over the same time
span as the romantic involvement. The social interaction of visit is necessarily reciprocal
(often expressed by seeing each other); one could debate whether it is best to treat romantic
involvement asalways reciprocal (as shown here) or to allow for the possibility of unrequited
love, but in any case, the inheritance from visit guarantees that dating will be reciprocal.
The fact that this sense has the activity aktionsart and the iterative viewpoint
makes it compatible with the progressive form of the verb. For some speakers the progressive
is required, while other speakers nd sentences such as Ex. (39) acceptable, so long as the
durativity is expressed in some way.
(39) Federico and Olga saw each other for a couple of years but that ended when they
went o to college.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 75
Sense DETERMINE
ascertain
see determine
Frame ascertain
aktionsart accomplishment
type event
roles:
val:
2
3
6Cognizersentient7
4
5
Factssoa 82
39
><
>=
6role
Facts
7
4
5
>:
>;
pt S n _ NP _ IndQn
Some words that use the ascertain frame are: ascertain, discover, learn. The
cognizer comes to know the facts of the situation. 11
11 The careful reader will have noticed a substantial overlap between the ascertain frame and the cognition
inchoative frame, not only in the formal notation, but also in the list of words that use the two frames.
Both involve a cognizer and a content and inchoative cognition. Nevertheless, we need to distinguish
ascertain because it is volitional, involving the seer's intention to learn something. There is also a complex
relation between the possible syntactic realizations of the facts, factivity, andvarious readings of indirect
questions, but these also involve other verbs of cognition and communication, and would take us too far
a eld.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 76
Frame see determine
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses ascertain [asc]
2
3
roles:
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
asc.Cognizer7
5
asc.Facts
val:
82
39
><
>=
6role
Seen
7
4
5
>:
>;
pt IndQn _ DNI _ NP
The seer intends to learn seen as the result of a purposive action. Although
this sense no doubt originated in situations where the seer nds out something by eyeing
something, the visual modality is not required now, as in Let's see how the piano sounds
after it's tuned.
Sense ENSURE
Frame cause
type event
roles:
intend cause
intentional causation
State 1 Event 3
2
3
6Cause
7
4
5
E ectsoa see ensure

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 77
Frame intend
type state
roles:
2
3
6Intendersentient7
4
5
Intention
Frame intentional causation
backgrounds 2
entails 2
type event
roles:
scenes:
2
3
Intender
6
7
6
7
6
6Action
= 7 2 7
4
5
E ect
22
33
6 state 1
6
77
6
77
6
6 6Inherits
intend [int]
77
77
6
2
377
6
77
6
6
6int.Intender
= Intender 77
7 77
64roles:
4
5
7
6
int.Intention = 2 and 3 7
6
62
3
7
6
7
6
66
event 2
7
7
66
7
7
64
5
7
6 roles:
7
Agent = Intender
7
6
7
6
62
3 7
6 event 7
3
66
7 7
66
7 7
66
66Inherits
cause [c]
7 7
7 7
66
2
37
7
66
7 7
66
66
6c.Cause
= 2 7 7
7 7
44roles:
4
5 7
5
c.E ect = E ect

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 78
Frame see ensure
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses intentional causation [ic]
2
3
roles:
6Seerhuman
=
4
Seen =
ic.Intender7
5
ic.E ect
val:
82
role Seen
>< 6
4
>: pt S n
82
><
6
4
>:
gf comp
role Seen
pt PP[to]
39
7>=
7
5
>;
39
>=
7
5
>;
(40) a. BNC: Sarah will see to the hens and the milking.
b. I'll see that the house is properly closed up for the winter.
c. See that he gets home before dark.
d. *See that the sky is blue.
e. Iwant you to see clearly that the sky is blue.
f. ?I want you to see clearly that he gets home before dark.
The seer is a human being, the seen is a state of a airs; seer makes sure that seen
obtains, either by doing what is necessary to bring it about or by causing others to do so.
Some uses of the form see toNP are good candidates for explanation in terms of
metonymy along the lines of Pustejovsky's (1995) qualia; e.g. in Ex. (40-a), our knowledge
of hens enables us to understand the hens as metonymic for the actions associated with
caring for hens, especially in the context of the milking. (However, it would be di cult to
characterize the feeding, watering, etc. as either a Telic or Agentive quale of hens; the
concept of qualia works better where the NP refers to an artifact, in which case we can
felicitously speak of its Telic quale.)

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 79
The form see [that] S with the ensure sense (as in Ex. (40-b)) is distinguishable
from recognize mainly on pragmatic/discourse level evidence. There are, however, some
syntactic di erences, as well; ensure can be an imperative (Ex. (40-c)), while recognize
cannot (Ex. (40-d)), likewise, certain adverbs of manner are appropriate with recognize
(Ex. (40-e)) but not with ensure (Ex. (40-f)). All of these follow naturally from the
agentiveness of intentional causation.
The variety ofsyntactic realizations for see ensure might suggest that we will
need several constructions linked to this sense, but I believe that the single syntactically
underspeci ed construction given here will cover most uses. 12
(41) a. A: The cow needs milking.
b. B: I'll see to it.
c. I'll see to it that the cow gets milked.
d. I'll see to the milking of the cow.
e. I'll see to the cow.
Sense ENVISION
imagine
see envision
Frame imagine
type event
roles:
2
3
6Cognizerhuman
7
4
5
Contentthing _ soa
restr: irrealis(Content)
This frame includes both \forming a mental image of", related to the use of see,
hear, smell, taste and feel with irrealis objects, as in Ex. (42) (a-e), and more abstract
12 Wewillhave to list separately the collocation see to it S n, which uses this sense, because of the unique
syntax and the speci city of the lexical items involved. Some interesting things happen when part of this
pattern is omitted; in Ex. (41), given the two conversational turns in (a) and (b), speaker B could intend
Ex. (41-c), Ex. (41-d), or Ex. (41-e). In Ex. (41-e), the it functions like an \expletive" (It is important that
...); in Ex. (41-d), its antecedent istheVPing, and in Ex. (41-e), its antecedent isthe cow, which in turn
is metonymic for the actions needed to take care of the cow. All three can lead to the proper understanding
of the reply in the given context.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 80
kinds of cognition (Ex. (42)).
(42) a. I can just see my great-grandmother now, crossing the prairie in a wagon train.
b. I can hear Ronald Reagan now, saying, \There you go again."
c. I can smell her perfume now, just as if she were here.
d. Icantastemy grandmother's biscuits now.
e. I can feel that rst kiss even today.
f. Can you imagine a world in which the only armed forces would be those of a
world government?
Frame see envision
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses imagine [img]
2
3
roles:
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
img.Cognizer7
5
img.Content
(43) a. Brown: Wagner replied, \Can't you just see the headline: `City Hooked for
$172,000'?"
b. BNC: \I can just see her dripping with tears of anxiety."
c. Whenever I read the poem, I can hear Dylan Thomas speaking.
d. Brown: He was again tingling with pleasure, seeing himself clearly in Slater's
shoes.
This sense often co-occurs with can/could just (Ex. (43-a), Ex. (43-b)), in [one's] mind's
eye, etc. The seen can be a state of a airs or just a simple noun. The state of a airs is
\envisioned" in an irrealis mental space.
There is a close parallel with some other verbs of vision, e.g. glimpse the future,
and there is even a related verb that speci cally means \envision the future", foresee; there
is also a similar sense of hear (Ex. (43-c)). The other sense modalities are less commonly

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 81
used to come to know states of a airs, but one can nd a few examples such asget a taste
of the future. Ex. (43-d) is a collocation in its own right which uses this sense.
This sense is also similar to at least some uses of what Brugman (1996) calls the
depictive sense of have, cf. Ex. (44-a) vs. Ex. (44-b).
(44) a. Mary has herself running for Congress next year.
b. Mary sees herself running for Congress next year.
Sense FACULTY
perception basic
perception faculty
see faculty
Frame perception faculty
type event
Uses perception basic [pb]
2
3
roles:
Perceiver =
6
6Phenomenon
=
4
pb.Perceiver
7
pb.Phenomenon 7
5
Body part = pb.Body part
val:
82
><
6
4
>:
role Phenomenon
pt INI
39
>=
7
5
>;
The perception faculty frame denotes the ability to perceive byagiven modal-
ity, rather than the perception of something in particular. Pragmatically, this frame is only
invoked when there is some question about or change in one's general ability to see (eye),
hear, smell, etc., but it is di cult to represent this fact in terms of frames.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 82
Frame see faculty
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses perception faculty [pf]
2
3
roles:
Seer =
6
6Seen
=
4
pf.Perceiver
7
pf.Phenomenon 7
5
Body parteyes = pf.Body part
Often occurring with can/could, this sense usually pro les some sort of di culty or
limitation of vision. In traditional syntax, faculty would be considered intransitive, since
no object is expressed in the sentence. Semantically, we can consider the seen to be `any-
thing' or `physical objects in general'; this is represented in the frame perception faculty
by the requirement that the seen be inde nite null instantiated (INI).
This sense often occurs with adjunct PPs expressing either a path as an explanation
for a failure of vision (I couldn't see through the dense jungle), or a goal as a description of
the range of vision (From the dormer window, you can just see tothebay). It is not clear
whether that should be treated as a separate sense or a role goal should be added to this
sense to allow for the \metaphorical motion" uses (cf. Section 3.3).
Sense NEWS
cognition inchoative
see eye see recognize
Event
see news

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 83
Frame see news
profiles Seen
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses see recognize [rec]
2
3
roles:
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
eye.Seer =
rec.Seen =
rec.Seer
7
5
eye.Seen.Content
22
33
scenes:
6 event
66
66
66
66Uses
66
44
roles:
77
77
see eye [eye] 77
77
77
57
5
Seenvisual medium
val:
82
39
><
>=
6role
eye.Seen 7
4
5
>:
>;
pt DNI _ PP
(45) a. I see that the governor has nally decided to support the university.
b. I hear that the President isintown.
c. I can hear (by/from your voice) that you have a cold.
Content isnotaroleinsee eye, but because of the semantic restriction to visual medium,
we can be sure that it will have a content to which we can refer here 13 . When the medium
is expressed, it selects for speci c prepositions:
(46) Isaw in the Chronicle/on the ten o'clock news/?from the newspaper/?by the news-
paper that Congress has adjourned.
This sense can be considered an extension of the \ordinary" visual evidential use,
which wehave called recognize, and Alm-Arvius (1993:122-128) treats both read and
news as \pragmatic expansions" of eye. However, because so much of our knowledge of
13 Cf. Pustejovsky's (1995) treatment of the qualia for books.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 84
the world depends upon the news media, this use seems to be so conventionalized that it
will be treated here as a separate sense. Unless one knows the full context, the distinction
is sometimes hard to make, e.g. Ex. (45-a) could be said on the basis of a tour of the
campus, noticing improvements in the buildings (recognize), or on the basis of reading a
newspaper (news).
There is a corresponding expression with hear which takes the same types of
complements (Ex. (45-b)). The uses with see are more or less limited to news acquired
from the media proper, while those with hear may refer ambiguously to news broadcasts,
gossip, story-telling, etc. Note also that, unless the context makes it clear, the pattern see
that Sisambiguous between news and recognize; suchambiguity is less common for hear
that S, but possible (Ex. (45-c)).
Both read and news incorporate both the idea of learning of a state of a airs
and also a speci cation of the sense modality.
Sense PROCESS
Frame bare event
type event
roles:
val:
82
>< 6
4
>:
82
><
6
4
>:
2
3
6Part
7
4
5
eventevent
role Part
gf ext
pt NP[acc]
role Event
pt NP[deverbal?]
3
9
2
3
7
>=
7 6role
Event
7
7,
4
5
5 pt VPing _ VPbrst
>;
39
>=
7
5
>;
In bare event, the Event is predicated of the Participant, without the de nite
time of a nite verb. Transitive events, with two participants, are still relatively simple
when the event is expressed with VPing or VPbrst, as the patient is in the usual position
(Ex. (47-a), Ex. (47-b)).
With NPs, there are more possibilities; we can have (1) the same order as with ac-

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 85
tive VPs, the agent genitive preceding the N and the patient following in PP[of] (Ex. (47-c)),
or (2) the patient preceding and the agent optionally following in a PP[by], on the model
of the passive VP (Ex. (47-d)). Ex. (47-e) is therefore ambiguous between active (army as
agent) and passive (army as patient) readings. When the event is expressed as an NP, the
Participant is not a constituent of the frame directly, but may be either a constituent of
the NP or null instantiated, along with other participants, if any (e.g. Ex. (47-f)). A full
treatment of the syntax and semantics of event NPs is beyond the scope of this discussion,
but see Fillmore 1994 for an outline of the complexities.
(47) a. me upsetting Mary
b. me upset Mary
c. the army's destruction of the city
d. the city's destruction (by the army)
e. the army's destruction
f. his gift of $50 to the Red Cross
Frame see process
type event
cat V
lexm see
roles:
scenes:
2
3
6Seer
7
4
5
Seen = 1
2
3
6 event 1
7
4
5
Uses bare event [be]
In the condition sense, nearly all of the semantics is inherited from the more
general frame bare condition; inprocess, the same is true for the bare event frame.
The event is a process of which the participant is a patient or an action of which the
participant is the agent.
The VP can be headed by either a present participle or a bare verb stem (naked
in nitive); there are semantic di erences between these two patterns, but they do not seem
to represent a di erent sense of see. Rather, these di erences follow from the di erence

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 86
in aspect expressed by the subordinate verb. This is probably best explained by Lan-
gacker (1991); in discussing the examples We saw the ship fsink/sinkingg, Iheard him
fcall/callingg, andShe felt the earth fshake/shakingg, hesays:
. . . An episode of direct, physical perception has a limited duration that can be
thought of as a temporal viewing frame; if based on perception alone, apprehension
is restricted to that portion of an event which temporally coincides with
the frame (cf. Vol. I, p 193).
It is generally recognized the the zero form (as in We saw the ship sink) indicates
that the entire subordinate event is perceived, whereas -ing (We saw the
ship sinking) conveys that only part of it is. The notion of a viewing frame
allows us to describe this contrast with reference to independently established
values of -ing and zero. We can attribute to -ing precisely the same value that
it has in the progressive construction (Fig. 5.5) and in certain adverbial clauses
(Fig. 10.1(b)): on the processes it imposes an immediate scope of predication
comprising a representative series of internal states; the pro le is necessarily
con ned to these states, which it construes holistically and as being e ectively
homogeneous. . . . the perceptual verb's viewing frame is identi ed as being
responsible for the restricted, \internal perspective" imposed by -ing on the
subordinate process.
The contrast between zero and -ing resides in the relationship between the immediate
scope they impose and the overall pro le of the subordinate verb: in
the case of -ing, the immediate scope falls within the boundaries of of the verb
stem's processual pro le, whereas with zero the immediate scope coincides with
those boundaries. (p. 442-3)
Semantically, theseer comes to know about the state or action of the entity repre-
sented by the NP. The syntax and semantics of this sense are very close to those of depictive
predication (Rothstein 1983; Brugman 1996), but here there is also a strong presumption
that the state holds in reality. The process sense is distinguished from recognize in
not completely encapsulating the event as a proposition, even though the content of the
knowing can be expressed as a proposition. For example, Ex. (48-a) foregrounds the propo-
sition, emphsizing that it it a fact in the speaker's opinion; Ex. (48-b), on the other hand,
presupposes the running event and gives us the point of view of the seer, foregrounding
Frances, even though the seer presumably does become aware of the running event asa
result of seeing.
(48) a. recognize: HesawthatFrances was running up the hill.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 87
b. process: HesawFrances running up the hill.
Sentences such asThe only time I saw Monk play, he was stinking drunk and Seeing Hideo
Nomo pitch a no-hitter was the thrill of a lifetime, could be considered either as examples
of spectate if we think of the event perfectively as a single performance, or as condition
and process with the NP+bare-VP pattern.
Sense READ
see eye
see read
event
Frame see read
profiles Seen
type event
cat V
lexm see
roles:
scenes:
2
3
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
eye.Seer
7
5
eye.Seen.Content
22
33
6 event
66
66
66
66Uses
66
44
roles:
77
77
see eye [eye] 77
77
77
5
7
5
Seentext restr: short(Seen)
seen.
The seen is text, short enough that it can be read in a few minutes; seer reads
There is an interesting interplay between see and read in regard to long and short
printed matter: I saw her latest novel typically means that I haven't read it (yet), but Isaw
your column in the paper or I saw your memo usually means that I have read it. In the
case of the novel, see implies `not read' by scalar implicature (since the stronger term read

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 88
is available), but apparently for very short texts, seeing is tantamount to reading|they are
treated as being at the same point on the scale. Thus, in answer to the question \Did you
read the paper this morning?" one could say \No, I only saw the headlines", since reading
the headlines is not equivalent to reading the entire paper. One could not, however, intend
by this that one had looked at the headlines without reading them.
read is very similar to see news but we cannot assume that the content isa
proposition in this case. We may need to use some abstract frame for understanding to
express the result of the reading, but cognition inchoative is not suitable, for the same
reason.
Sense SETTING
container
see setting
Frame contain
type event
roles:
2
3
6Container7
6
7
6
6Contents
7
6
7
6
7
6Interior
7
6
7
6
7
6
6Exterior
7
4
5
Boundary

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 89
Frame see setting
type state
cat V
lexm see
Uses contain [cnt]
2
3
roles:
6Seer
=
4
Seenevent =
cnt.Container7
5
cnt.Contents
(49) a. BNC: He believed that Paris was seeing a forward surge in the arts.
b. The 1940s saw the beginning of the Cold War.
c. Brown: The years 1812 and 1813 saw him in Germany and France again, but
on this visit to Berlin he did not seek out the philosophers as he had on his
rst journey.
d. The Cambrian saw an explosion of speciation.
e. Brown: . . . the Italian painters, by universal consent, were the most brilliant
group of geniuses any art has seen.
The seer is a place or a period of time, and the seen is an event orcombination of
events. The seen occurs within the seer, so that the seer contains the seen or is
the \setting" for it. Note that Ex. (49-b) and Ex. (49-c) are not simply metonymic for
\people living during the 1940s" or \people living in Europe in 1812", as shown by the
acceptability of Ex. (49-d). Such a metonymy maywell have been the origin of this sense,
but it is not necessary synchronically. Ex. (49-e) seems to represent avariant, in which
the \container" is neither a place nor a time, but something that might becharacterized
as a professional community; it may thus be closer to a true metonymy, with the name
of the profession standing for all the members, in this case, all artists of all times. Note
also that it is desirable to postulate several other roles in the contain frame, as these are
needed for other metaphorical containers, as in There isn't room in this town for both of
us. (interior) and He's on the verge of a nervous breakdown (boundary), but only the
container and contents are used by see setting.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 90
Sentences with the sense setting can often be paraphrased with the word wit-
ness (The 1940s witnessed the beginning of the Cold War). Unfortunately, as previously
mentioned, the problem of polysemy is rampant|the word witness itself can have senses
similar to those we have labeled spectate, process, etc.
Sense VISIT
perception basic
recip event perception distant
social interaction see eye
Frame recip event
type event
roles:
scenes:
restr:
see visit
2
3
6Part1
=
4
Part2 =
e1.ProtoAgent =
e2.ProtoAgent =
e2.ProtoPatient7
5
e1.ProtoPatient
2
3
6 event [e1]
7
6 2
3 7
6
7
6
6 6ProtoAgent
7
7
64roles:
4
5 57
6 ProtoPatient
7
6
7
62
37
6
7
6 event [e2]
7
7
6 2
3 7
6
7
6
6 6ProtoAgent
7
7
7
4 4roles:
7
4
5
ProtoPatient
2
3
6
7
4
5
e1.type = e2.type

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 91
Frame social interaction
type event
Uses recip event [re]
2
3
roles:
6Part1human
=
4
Part2human =
re.Part17
5
re.Part2
This frame represents a very basic concept, what people do when they see each
other and either know each other or want tocommunicate something. Typically involves
face-to-face conversation, but neither seeing each other nor use of language is necessary,
although one or the other must occur. Who is designated Part 1 and Part 2 is arbitrary,
since it's reciprocal; this does not mean that they are social equals or friends, only that an
unsuccessful attempt by one party does not constitute interaction.
Frame see visit
type event
cat V
lexm see
Uses see eye [eye]
Uses social interaction [si]
2
3
roles:
6Seer
=
4
Seen =
eye.Seer =
eye.Seen =
si.Part17
5
si.Part2
restr: familiar(Seer,Seen)
Note that in this frame, we have multiple inheritance, from both see eye and
social interaction; this causes no problems, but only makes the semantics more speci c.
seer and seen are both conscious beings physically present in same place and time, who see
(eye) each other; some minimal amount ofsocialinteraction takes place (not necessarily an
intentional formal visit), which is usually friendly, and usually involves some conversation.
A clear example of a common use is Nice toseeyou! visit includes eye, and implies that
the person is correctly recognized.
The social interaction is clearly primary, but eyeing seems to be required as well,

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 92
at least for participants with normal vision. The last constraint expresses the fact that one is
more or less required to use meet for the rst social meeting with an unfamiliar social equal,
although this constraint may be defeasible for some speakers(Ex. (50-a)). Most apparent
counter-examples are probably consult (Ex. (50-b)) oraudience.
(50) a. ?I'm going to see our new neighbor for the rst time this afternoon.
b. I'm going to see my new dentist for the rst time this afternoon.
Note that blind people use this sense quite comfortably; this seems to con ict with the
description of this sense as using eye, as shown in the frame above. What is intended is
that for normally sighted people, the sense visit requires that physical vision take place|
such people cannot use this sense, for example, in describing a telephone call, however long
or friendly it may be. It will be interesting to see what happens to this use if television
telephones become common.
Semi-collocations
Here we consider senses that are intermediate between those listed above aBasic
Senses, which do not require any particular lexical items to co-occur with them (although
they may have quite speci c syntactic requirements), and true collocations, discussed in
Section 2.6, which do impose requirements on lexical items around them. What we here
call \semi-collocations" require some lexical item(s) to co-occur, often drawn from a small
set of semantically related words, usually in one of several syntactic patterns.
Sense CLASSIFY
categorization
see classify

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 93
Frame categorization
type event
roles:
2
3
Cognizer
6
human7
6
7
6
6Item
7
4
5
Category
Frame see classify
type event
Uses categorization [cat]
2
3
roles:
Seer =
6
6Seen
=
4
cat.Cognizer
7
cat.Item 7
5
Category = cat.Category
val:
8
2
><
6
4
>:
82
><
6
4
>:
2
3
6
4
role Seer7
5,
syn DA
3 2
role Seer7
5,
syn subj
6
4
role Seen
syn nuc
pt NP
3
2
7 6
7,
4
5
role Category7
5,
syn obj
role Category
pt PP[as]
3 2
6
4
role Seen
9
3
>=
7
5
>;
pt PP[in]
This frame is still not complete, since we canhave an AP after the as (see this
one as important).
(51) a. We see line A as shorter than B, even though they are really the same length.
b. recognize She saw that Sandy was brilliant.
c. classify She saw Sandy as brilliant.
d. I only saw her as an old woman, so it was hard for me to imagine her as a
young heart-breaker.
seer is a conscious being, seen a stimulus, and category is a state predicated of seen,
39
>=
7
5
>;

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 94
usually expressed as an NP or an AP. seer comes to regard seen as an instance of cate-
gory, a fact which is not immediately obvious.
classify can be considered as related to recognize and condition. The choice
of classify rather than either of these creates a scalar implicature that the seer's belief
is at least a matter of opinion and possibly not true, as in Ex. (51-c) vs. the much stronger
Ex. (51-b). This sense is semantically very similar to regard X as Y, or view X as Y, but
the syntactic patterns are di erent for each word (cf. Ex. (10) on page 50). Some of the
same forms can also be used to express the e ects of an optical illusion (Ex. (51-a)).
There are also sentences of the pattern see X as Y which mean something like `at
the time when he/she/it was/will be' (e.g. Ex. (51-d)). Distinguishing these cases, which
should probably be classi ed as condition, from occurrences of classify will almost
certainly require inferencing based on knowledge of the world. For more discussion of the
valence alternations, see Levin (1993:181-2) on Appoint Verbs, including consider (which
hardly belongs there semantically), and Characterize Verbs, including regard and see.
Sense EXPERIENCE
service as
see experience

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 95
Frame service as
type event
roles:
2
3
Undergoer
6
phys obj 7
6
7
6
6Service
7
4
5
Role
val:
8
lexm use _ service _ action _ combat _ duty
>< 2
6
4
>:
3 2
role Service7
5,
pt NP
role Role
3
6
7
4
5
pt PP[as] _ DNI
8
9
lexm
>< 2
6role
4
pt
>:
use _ service _ action _ combat _ duty
2
3
3
>=
role Role
6
7
Service7
6
7
5, 6
6gf
mod 7
NP 4
5
>;
pt AjP _ N
This frame appears in \undergoer BE in service (as role)", \put undergoer
in service (as role)", and \undergoer's service (as role)", as well as experience.
There is clearly a further generalization be made to include the corresponding verbs (use
undergoer as role, andundergoer act/serve as role), but it is omitted here, as not
directly relevant tosee.
DNI for role is very common, and adjuncts of place and time frequently provide
the context allowing the inference required for this omission, e.g. The aircraft was in action
in the Gulf War i.e., ying combat missions, as a combat plane. Each of the lexemes
for the service role is subtly di erent. The word combat itself partially or completely
incorporates the role, and is equivalent tosaying \service as a combatant". The second
valence set covers expressions such asmilitary service, civilian use, andsea duty.
9
>=
>;

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 96
Frame see experience
type event
Uses service as [svc]
2
3
roles:
Seer =
6
6Seen
=
4
svc.Undergoer
7
svc.Service 7
5
Role = svc.Role
val:
82
><
6
4
>:
3 2
role Seer7
5,
gf ext
6
4
role Service
gf obj
39
>=
7
5
>;
(52) a. Brown: Friend is o to a great start with a 4-0 record but isn't likely to see
action here this week.
b. BNC: He had seen service in the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion. . .
c. BNC: The FR.4 was too late to see service in World War Two. . .
d. BNC: In addition, there is a single HST Mk 3 saloon, which. . . has seen use by
both the Queen and the Prime Minister.
e. BNC: Charlotte, who has seen more than 20 prime ministers come and go in
Britain since she was born in 1877, received her 15th telegram from the Queen.
f. The company has seen pro ts fall even while revenues rose.
seer undergoes seen and is a ected by it.
Some of these examples are based on a sort of collocation with the small set of
nouns shown in the service as frame (service, combat, duty, use, action, and possibly
others), e.g. Ex. (52-a), Ex. (52-b). In this pattern, seer need not be a person, but still
\undergoes" the experience and is a ected by it (Ex. (52-c), Ex. (52-d)); in this respect it
is distinct from setting, inwhich seer is a place or time which is not a ected per se by
the events. There is also a more open pattern with events generally, as in Ex. (52-e) and
Ex. (52-f), which verges on process, except that the seer is a ected by the event, not
merely a passive witness. Another construction closely related to experience is Have seen
better/worse times/days/years/etc., which has a restricted type of NP in the direct object

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 97
role.
Sense GAMBLING
gambling
gambling cards
see gambling
Frame gambling
type event
roles:
2
3
6gamblerhuman
7
6
7
6
7
6opponenthuman
7
6
7
6
7
6
6outcomeproposition
7
4
5
stakesmoney

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 98
Frame gambling cards
type event
Uses gambling [gam]
2
3
roles:
gambler =
6
6opponent
=
4
gam.gambler
gam.opponent
7
5
outcome = 1 = gam.outcome
2
3
scenes:
6 event drawcards 7
6
7
62
3 7
6
7
6 event betmoney1
7
7 7
6 2
37
7
6
7 7
6
6 6bettor
= gambler 7
7
7
7
64roles:
7
4
5 7
6 bet
7
6
7
62
37
6
7
6 event betmoney2
7
7
6 2
37
7
6
7
7
6
6 6bettor
= opponent 7
7
7
7
64roles:
4
5 7
57
6 bet
7
6
62
3
7
6
7
6
66
event compare 1
7 7
66
2
37
7
66
7 7
66
66
6hand1playing
cards
7 7
7 7
4 4roles:
4
5
7
5
hand2playing cards
Frame see gambling
type event
Uses gambling cards [gc]
2
3
roles:
6seer
=
4
seen =
gc.gambler 7
5
gc.bet money2.bet
(53) a. I'll see your twenty and raise you ten.
b. He said he'd see me; his face fell when I turned up the kings.
c. BNC: \I'll see your `buggered' and raise you a `shagged out'."

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 99
d. SJM91: I'll see your billion and raise you two. What fun!
Most dictionaries list this sense, but unfortunately, perhaps because it is mainly
used in conversation, I have found only two corpus examples, one from the BNC Ex. (53-c)
and one from the LDC corpus of the San Jose, California Mercury newspaper Ex. (53-d).
Although these examples are very colorful, neither is very typical; more typical examples are
Ex. (53-a) and Ex. (53-b). Wethus must depend on personal communication with several
speakers who have this sense in their idiolects. The direct object is usually the amount
of the bet being matched. Since the expression is apparently used mainly in rst person
(except in reported speech), and the speaker usually accompanies the utterance with the
action of placing the matching bet on the table; this use is, in fact a performative, even
though the verb is usually in future tense, since the simultaneous speaking and placing of
a bet constitute the act in question. Given the limited semantic range of possible subjects
and objects, this use also verges on being a collocation, but the object is not limited to a
particular set of words.
Sense VIDE
see eye
see vide
Frame see vide
type event
Uses see eye [eye]
2
3
roles:
6seer
=
4
seenvisual medium =
eye.seer =
eye.seen
the reader7
5
syn: mood imper
val:
82
>< 6
4
>:
role seer
gf ext
pt DNI
39
7>=
7
5
>;

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 100
This is in part simply compositional; it can largely be understood as inheriting
eye, and adding the restrictions that the seen is text or graphical material (hence not
inheriting read), and the verb must appear in the imperative. But there is also typically
a compressed, \telegraphic" style in the clause (e.g. See chart, p. 37.) and apparently a
rather limited set of nouns that can express the seen: page, section, chapter, appendix,
chart, table, diagram, etc. These facts, taken together, suggest that it should be regarded
as a sense in its own right.
Compositional Uses
Sense AUDIENCE
(54) a. The doctor will see you now.
b. The King will see the Ambassador tomorrow.
c. Mrs. Riggs-Aston will see no-one today.
This is visit with the further restriction that the seer is of higher social rank
than the seen, meaning something like `grantaninterview to'. 14 The di erence in social
rank may be con ned to the particular situation in question; e.g. a millionaire or a state
governor may have towait until the doctor is ready to see him or her. The syntax of seer
and seen are the inverse of those of consult, yet something more formal than a simple
social interaction (i.e., visit) is usually intended.
Stereotypically a set phrase used by receptionists (Ex. (54-a)), it also occurs in
more varied syntax and social settings (Ex. (54-b), (54-c)). In the last case, there is not
necessarily a great di erence in social rank between the hostess and her guests, but the
situation is so formal, that the decision not to see anyoneforaday is clearly the hostess'
prerogative.
14 This is one of the places where the use of common words as names of senses may unfortunately cause some
confusion. The sense visit is by de nition reciprocal, since it uses (indirectly) reciprocal event. Therefore,
it is correct to say that audience is just a further restriction on the social ranks of the participants. But
the ordinary verb visit has a speci c directionality, which happens to run counter to the facts for the sense
audience. Mrs. Riggs-Aston stays at home and people come to visit her, she does not go to visit them, in
the ordinary sense of the word visit. But when they come to her house, they see (sense visit) each other,
and because it is such an unequal relationship, we can say that she sees (sense audience) them; they do
not see (sense audience) her.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 101
Sense DISCOURSE
cognition inchoative
see discourse
Frame see discourse
type event
Uses cognition inchoative [ci]
2
3
roles:
seerhuman =
6
6seen
=
4
discourse context
ci.Cognizer
7
ci.Content 7
5
val:
82
>< 6
4
>:
82
>< 6
4
>:
role seer
syn DA
person 2
role seer
syn DA
person 1
39
7>=
7
5
>;
39
7>=
7
5
>;
(55) a. Brown: As we have seen, Methodism early took a stand against slavery.
b. Brown: Second, we willseehow Sidney answered the charges, . . . .
c. As seen in Chapter 3, the war did not unfold as the General Sta had planned.
d. You'll see that this is necessary when I come back to this point inafewminutes.
e. As the reader will see in the following section, . . .
The seer is rst or second person, the seen is a situation, and there is a reference,
either direct or indirect to the (written or spoken) discourse context. This may bemarked
simply on the verb, using past or perfect for discourse up to the present, or future for
following parts of the discourse, (Ex. (55-a), Ex. (55-b)) oritmay be more explicit, as in
Ex. (55-c) and Ex. (55-d).
A wide range of registers is possible; in casual conversation, Isee is a complete

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 102
turn, with both seen and seen de nite null instantiated (DNI), i.e. completely recoverable
from context. In formal writing, the \editorial we" is common Ex. (55-b); invery formal
writing, the subject of see can sometimes be third person, although still standing for the
addressee: (Ex. (55-e)).
Sense HALLUCINATE
(56) a. BNC: Drinkers at a new pub may see more than pink elephants hovering over-
head if they have one too many this weekend.
b. Brown: He had been \seeing things".
c. He has been seeing things that upset him.
d. BNC: \Does that mean they'll be seeing green monkeys and blue snakes up
the rigging?"
e. BNC: He would be seeing shadows around every corner next.
f. The exhausted soldiers saw enemy troops everywhere.
This sense is unique in presupposing that an image is experienced, but implying that there
is no physical stimulus of the usual sort which could serve as the cause of the image. It is
syntactically very similar to eye, but is distinguished from it by virtue of the fact that the
seen is irrealis. Thus, we can use the same frame as for eye, except that the semantic type
of the seen will be irrealis, rather than phys obj _ phys motion, or add this restriction as
a predicate, so that the seen is an unreal physical object or motion.
As noted in the introduction to this chapter, some of the NPs that serveasseen are
conventional expressions for unreal entities, such aspink elephants (Ex. (56-a)). Likewise,
the collocation BE seeing things has the idiomatic meaning hallucinate, but only when
not further modi ed (cf. Ex. (56-c)). In other cases, conversational implicatures must be
computed (Ex. (56-d), (56-e)), and there are real possibilities for ambiguity between eye
and hallucinate, as in Ex. (56-f).

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 103
Sense SCAN
Frame see scan
type event
roles: Seer nonsentient
val:
82
><
6
4
>:
role Seer
syn subj
39
>=
7
5
>;
This is a metaphorical extension from the process that animate beings perform
with their eyes to similar processes performed by machines, computer systems, etc. The
seen may be either the immediate physical stimulus or the content, i.e. scan may imply
some sort of \cognitive" processing as well. When the seen is a physical object, the con-
struction for scan will be identical to that for eye; when the seen is a state of a airs,
the construction would be like that for recognize, except that the semantics of the seer
would not be restricted to sentient beings.
The idea is that this can unify with other senses, mainly eye, recognize, deter-
mine, and possibly ensure, and override their type \sentient" on the seer, which would
have to be made a default, rather than absolute. The alternative istokeep the sentient
type and de ne a metaphorical mapping (a.k.a. \type coercion" in this context) that treats
non-sentient seers as though they were sentient.
Sense SPECTATE
The seen is an event, typically a concrete event, including performances for en-
tertainment. This sense prototypically requires the spectator to be physically at the event,
seeing the participants or performers. With the advent ofmovies and television, spectate
no longer requires physical presence in the same place. spectate is distinguished from
process in that it pro les the entire performance; I could say that I had seen Bill ironing
even if I had only stayed long enough for him to nish the collar of one shirt, but to say that
Isaw My Fair Lady, Ihave tohave beenwatching for almost all of the show. Rather than
make a general speci cation that spectate is always telic, we might be able to have this
follow from the Telic quale of artistic performances, that they are normally to be viewed in

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 104
their entirety. This is a special case of the more general fact that to see a bounded event
implies to see (sense process) itentirely, unless there is some evidence to the contrary,
either linguistically marked or derivable from the context.
classify might be considered to overlap with spectate in a special \theatrical"
sense (I only regret that I never saw Olivier as Prospero.) However, it is better to regard this
as a construction based on the word as alone, since this theatrical sense can also occur with
the other major sense modality hear (I heard Olga Borodina as Carmen) or without either
(Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh is unforgettable). Thus, the theatrical as construction
would have valence elements for a performer and a role, and its outer semantics would be
\performance", a subtype of \process" with perfective aspect.
Sense TOUR
Uses which involve visiting for the purpose of seeing the sights may be considered
to constitute a separate sense which we will call tour, but it is di cult to decide whether
this is really lexicalized in English, or merely the result of the regular semantic composition
of eye with direct objects which are the sorts of places that people tend to take tours of.
(I will discuss this sense further when we look at bilingual dictionaries in Section 5.3).
2.6 Collocations
In this section, we will discuss collocations of other lexical items with see which
are lexicalized to varying degrees. More than one hundred such collocations are listed in
dictionaries of English idioms (e.g. the entries headed by see in Urdang & Abate 1983);
we will deal here only with a representative sample. All of these are \encoding idioms"
(Makkai 1966), in that, given a knowledge of the rest of the language, it is not predictable
that the particular meaning would be expressed in this particular way.
From a \decoding" point of view, many of the idioms with see are relatively easy
to understand on rst hearing, as the sense of see involved is clearly one of those already
discussed, and the meaning of the constituents produces the meaning of the collocation by
normal rules of composition; examples are:
(57) a. can't see one's hand in front of one's face
b. see the sights

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 105
c. see at a glance
In others (which Fillmore (1996) calls decoding idioms), the collocation as a whole has
a meaning that cannot be produced by the composition of the parts, although the internal
syntax is quite ordinary, asinEx.(58).
(58) a. see a man about a dog
b. see the color of someone's money
Many, probably most, collocations are intermediate cases, in which the semantics
of the collocation is only partly compositional, so that the remainder must be regarded as
attached to the collocation as a whole, as in Ex. (59).
(59) a. so angry (drunk, etc.) one can't see straight
b. can't see the forest for the trees
c. can't see beyond one's nose
Examples of Collocations
Let us examine a few more relatively common collocations in more detail; although
of course not exhaustive, the following list is intended to be at least representative ofthe
range of collocations using see. I will not attempt to give full frame de nitions for each
of these, since they are for the most part elaborations of senses already discussed above,
with some of the arguments xed as speci c lexical items and some additional meaning
attributable to the construction as a whole. I will, however, give examples of each.
let's see
(60) a. Let's see, the jewelry will be unguarded for at least ve minutes. . .
b. Let's see, there should be another box of staples here somewhere. . .
c. BNC: `Let's see, have I got this right?
d. Brown: \Let's see," Cousin Ada said.
This means `to consider carefully'. The lexical form is xed, with no variation. This is a
\pure" pragmatic expression; no vision is involved, and no other person need be present; it
may be an extension of determine.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 106
see one's way clear
(61) a. I hope you will see your way clear to give ittoher.
To come to the conclusion that one can (or should) do something. This is a very xed
metaphorical extension from the experience of walking on a path and seeing the path ahead.
see fit
(62) a. Pat had it for a week before seeing t to tell me about it.
b. You can handle the situation however you see t.
c. They never saw t to visit us until we moved to Hawai'i.
d. You can sell it or hang on to it as you see t.
e. Brown: \I should . . . be honored and grati ed should the Democrats see t to
nominate me."
The seer is a conscious being, seen a to-in nitive. In the basic syntactic pattern (seer
sees t to B), the subject of the in nitive phrase is the subject of see, sowe can regard this
sense as a verb of the type exempli ed by endeavor, fail, refuse, anddare, which undergo
what has been called Subject-Equi-NP-deletion, but do not allow the alternative in which
the embedded verb has a di erent subject marked with for, asshown below:
(63)
Ms. Ding hated [for Ms. Ding] to go out with Igor.
for Natasha
saw t [for Ms. Ding]
for Natasha
The seen must involve a process, not a pure stative ( They saw t to live in Spain
for ve years). There is another common syntactic pattern with a free relative, (They can
exercise their stock option whenever they see t), which blocks the extraction.
see fit may be related to classify (i.e. see X as tting) orcondition (i.e. see
X tting, where tting functions as an AP). see fit is often used ironically, implying that
someone's actions are grudging and slowed by sel shness. Heather Jones (p.c.) has noted
that there is a similar expression in Welsh, equivalent to `please', that means literally `if
you see well'.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 107
see off
(64) a. Ihave to go to the airport tomorrow to see my brother o .
b. Sorry I won't be able to see you o to France, but bon voyage, anyway.
c. We went to the airport to see them o on their trip to Hawai'i.
d. The entire family came to the station to see o Francesca and her sister.
e. Brown: After a dinner party for which she had come down to New York, Mrs.
Lewis and Casanova arrived to see them o , . . .
To be present at the time of leave-taking on a journey in order to wish someone a good
trip. seer and seen are both human. This sense is often followed by adjuncts giving the
location of the leave-taking and/or the path of the journey.
see reason
(65) I hope they'll see reason before things get ugly.
This means to come to what the speaker regards as a reasonable position, i.e., his or her
own; variations include the (cool) light of reason, etc.
see through x
(66) a. She soon saw through his bluster and realized that he was actually afraid of
what she might know about him.
b. The very rich are targets for all sorts of con games and often become skilled
at seeing through them.
c. I didn't see through the con man in time.
The seer comes to recognize the reality underlying some false impression which has been
deliberately created. The seer is a human, the seen is almost always null instantiated,
and the object of the PPthrough is some kind of deception or, metonymically, a person who
deceives, as in Ex. (66-c). This use is only distantly related to see x through; there, the
metaphorical motion is through some process, extended in time. Here, the gaze itself is
what moves, from the seer through the deception, to the reality that lies \behind" it. The
entire sense is a metaphorical mapping from the physical domain (She couldn't see through

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 108
the trees) to an abstract, interpersonal domain (She couldn't see through the scheme). 15
see x through
(67) a. We had enough wood to see us through the winter.
b. Do you really have the courage to see such an audacious plan through?
c. Friends will often see you through (hard times).
d. Our country will see the war through to victory.
e. Brown: Theresa had seen him through the right college, into the right frater-
nity, and . . . safely married to the right sort...
This collocation means to carry out a task until it is complete, or to help someone until the
end. It is based on the life is a journey (Lako 1987:439) metaphor, which implies that
di culties in life are obstacles on the path, and overcoming di culties is passing through
the areas of obstacles. The second NP (the object of through) can be omitted in cases of
de nite null instantiation. In one variant, the seer is either a consumable resource (often
money, but not time) or a person who provides such a resource, the seen(x)isahuman,
andtheNPobjectofthrough is some sort of di culty, which may be DNI in appropriate
contexts (Ex. (67-c)). In another variant, the seer is a person, the seen(x) is a task,
and the NP is either an expression meaning `the end' or `success' (Ex. (67-d)) oraDNI
with the same meaning. Ex. (67-e) is an interesting example of conjoining senses without
creating the feeling of zeugma, or perhaps better said, the skillful literary use of zeugma;
we have see x through followed by what are probably best considered two examples of
condition.
y'see
(68) a. You see, there's only so much medicine can do in this case.
b. I've been there before, y'see, so I know myway around.
c. Brown: You see, she's on a diet.
d. Brown: . . . \You see, both of them, I mean the President and Je Lawrence,
are romantics.
e. BNC: \You see," he said, \all bureaucracies are one bureaucracy."
15 Cf. Section 3.3 for discussion of the notion of metaphorical motion of the gaze.

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 109
The seer must be a phonetically reduced form of you, theseen is a situation.
Also, the phrase y'see is intonationally marked as an interjection, usually with a relatively
high, level pitch ifsentence initial; this is re ected in writing by setting it o with commas,
although the reduced form of you is often not shown in writing, as in Ex. (68-d).
2.7 Some Recalcitrant Data
In the exposition of the senses and uses above, I have naturally tried to select clear
examples from the corpora where possible. But not all of the sentences in the corpus are
easy to classify, even given the extensive listofsenseswehave already discussed; here are
a few problematic cases.
(69) Brown: Not until the words had been spoken did Abel suddenly see the old house
and the insistent sea, and feel his contrition blotted out in one shameful moment
of covetousness.
This sentence is ambiguous between eye and envision, because it is out of context;
if wewere to see even few sentences of context, the ambiguity could undoubtedly be resolved.
No other senses are plausible, so the situation is one of simple ambiguity.
(70) Brown: This last was probably not in Brumidi's palette, but was needed to take
the chill, bluish look o the new work next to the old, where softening e ects of
time were seen, even after thorough cleaning.
This example represents a more subtle problem; as in many other real-world examples,
the author has blended physical perception and inference based upon it. This is a natural
re ection of cognition; we arevery often conscious only of our conclusions, not of the
evidence that leads up to them. Very likely the rst impression of the people looking at the
paintings was simply that the new work and the old were clearly distinguishable by sight;
the only part that is directly perceptual is that the new work is bluer than the old. The
\chill" of the new work and the \softness" of the old work (and the idea that the latter is
due to the passage of time) are all the results of inference.
A striking example of our unconsciousness of what goes on in visual processing and
related inference is the recognition of faces, for which humans have a specially developed

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 110
area of the brain. We recognize friends almost instantly, with no conscious processing, yet
most people have di culty in describing even very familiar faces accurately. We simply
don't know what cues we are using to recognize our friends.
2.8 Conclusions
I hope that the reader has been convinced of the original premises of this chapter,
that see is highly polysemous and that most of the various senses of see are related to
each other in ways that are motivated, if not wholly predictable. The Frame Semantic
representation allows us to express clearly the relation of the senses to each other and to
other lexical items, especially verbs of perception and cognition.

Chapter 3
Other Cognitive Approaches
3.1 Introduction
Although the Frame Semantic analysis of the uses of see given in Chapter 2 allows
us to make many useful generalizations about the relations among the participants in various
situations which we talk about using the word see, there are some points which are handled
in a somewhat unsatisfactory fashion. In particular, the use of the feature irrealis as part
of the semantics of envision and hallucinate doesn't really tell us everything we need to
know about these senses, and this feature appears only with regard to these two senses|we
are left with just the stipulation that all the other senses are realis by default. Another
way of explaining the relation between perception and cognition in the event structure of
the various senses is to represent the semantics of the seen in terms of Fauconnier's (1985
[1994]) mental spaces. This approach is complementary to Frame Semantics; as Lako &
Sweetser (1985:x-xi) point out, Idealized Cognitive Models or frames can be used to express
conceptual structure (relations among roles), while mental spaces can be used to express
referential structure (relations between roles and their llers). 1
In this chapter, I will show how a mental spaces notation can express and clarify
the relations among some of the senses de ned in the previous chapter (only those senses
where mental spaces seems to reveal something substantive will be discussed). I will also
1 I am using the term \referential structure" in a very broad sense here. The llers may themselves
be frames, as in Weddings always make me cry, where the whole wedding event is the cause of the tears.
The llers may also be mappings, as in His description of his job history was less than truthful, which
describes a relationship of \inequality" between two mappings (descriptions) from actual events in his past,
an idealized (truthful) one and the one \he" gave. Mental spaces can also be used to represent these sorts
of \meta-referential" mappings, but I will not discuss them here.
111

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 112
discuss brie y some uses that I have lumped under the faculty sense but which have
additional complements connected with paths; these situations can be understood in terms
of metaphorical motion. Next, I will show that many of the sense distinctions can be closely
related to the semantics of their arguments, using a semantic type hierarchy which is, for
the most part, needed for independent reasons. Finally, I will discuss what happens when
two roles are to be lled with the same referent (She saw herself in the mirror) and what
needs to be added to the frames for re exives to work properly.
3.2 A Mental Spaces Approach to the Semantics of the seen
Fauconnier (1985 [1994]:xxxvii) introduces the idea of mental spaces as follows:
The simple idea behind the approach explored in this book is that when we
engage in any form of thought, typically mediated by language . . . , domains
are set up, structured and connected. The process is local. Amultitude of
such domains|mental spaces|are constructed for any stretch of thought, and
language (grammar and lexicon) is a powerful means (but not the only one) of
specifying or retrieving key aspects of this cognitive construction. Reference,
inference, and, more generally, structure projection of various sorts operate by
using the connections available to link the constructed mental spaces. Technically,
such connections are cross-domain functions that specify counterparts
and projected structure from one space to another. In simple cases, two spaces
are connected by only one function, and intuitively this function seems to re ect
some form of identity of the connected counterparts.
The theory is thus very general, and applies to the relations between many types of domains
such as:
objects in the world (\base space") and their counterparts in paintings and movies,
aspeaker's conception of a portion of the real world 2 and a counterfactual mental space
containing corresponding objects, such as that set up by the introductory clause \If I
had been born in the Middle Ages. . . ", and
2 IfollowFauconnier (1985 [1994]:15) in ignoring the philosophical questions about the relation between
the speaker's belief space and some \external", \absolute" reality. However, to avoid suggesting that the
starting point for a mental space mapping is \external reality", I will not follow Fauconnier (1985 [1994]) in
using the term \reality space", but will use the term \base space", as in some of the papers in Fauconnier &
Sweetser 1996. This also has the advantage that mental spaces and their mappings can be embedded within
each other without changing the terminology.

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 113
a past-time space set up by a phrase such as \Before I was married. . . " (which also
contrasts with the reference time).
Using the theory of mental spaces, we can say that a verb of perception sets up two
spaces in addition to the base space (B), a perceptual space (P) and a conceptual (belief/
interpretive/ judgemental) space (C). In the simplest sort of seeing (sense eye), all three
spaces are completely congruent; each object, property, and relation in base space has a
corresponding unique counterpart in each of the other spaces. Thus, the relation between
the entities in the base space, the percepts, and the concepts in the sentence Jan sees the
cat on the mat could be represented graphically as in Fig. 3.1:
C
M
B
C’
M’
Figure 3.1: Mental spaces for Jan sees the cat on the mat.
P
The circles represent the three mental spaces, and the lines connecting entities in
them can represent various kinds of relations between them, as mentioned above. Where
a correspondence exists between two entities, they will not only be connected by lines,
butalsobegiven the same name, using primes to distinguish among the members of the
correspondence. Thus, in Fig. 3.1, the cat, the mat and the on relation all exist in all three
spaces. In other words, besides the real cat really on the real mat, there is (in perceptual
space) a mental image of the cat (C') and the mat (M') and the former is \on" the latter,
and the seer correctly interprets the image, thus coming to believe that there are a cat and
a mat and that the relation on holds between them, i.e. she sets up corresponding entities
(C" and M") and relations in her conceptual space. The sentence says nothing per se about
the existence of the cat and the mat in the base space, but by asserting that they exist
in Jan's perceptual space, it triggers the transfer of the structure to both Jan's conceptual
space and also (normally) base space, by the \strategic principles" discussed in Fauconnier
(1985 [1994]:Ch. 3); i.e., the base space is the \parent" of the perceptual space and unless
there is some reason (from the context of the utterance) to do otherwise, the structure of
C’’
M’’
C

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 114
the child space will \ oat" up to the parent space.
This may seem to be too much \multiplication of entities" for such a simple case,
and, in fact, our usual experience is that these spaces all cohere completely, forming a much
simpler gestalt than the above analysis. But as we shall soon see, we need a fairly complex
representation to account for other cases, in which there is less coherence among the spaces.
Most of the senses that require physical vision will include at least this much structure and
also add some presuppositions, such as the social interaction of visit, and the news medium
of news. (In each diagram, I will draw all circles for three spaces, evenifoneortwo are
empty, to emphasize when there are not corresponding entities across spaces.)
Now consider the sense hallucinate, (Sandy saw pink elephants while using that
drug). Pink elephants is a conventional name for some things that do not exist in the real
world, but which people in strange states sometimes think they see. Therefore, the usual
connections between the perceptual space and base space will presumably not be made by
the hearer of the sentence. As for the conceptual space, without more context, the sentence
does not indicate whether Sandy was su ciently compos mentis to realize that there were
not really pink elephants present. If Sandy was aware at the time that the elephants were
merely an illusion caused by the drug, then the elephants are only in the perceptual space
(cf. Fig. 3.2).
B
P
elephants’
Figure 3.2: hallucinate (\Undeceived")
If Sandy believed that the room was lled with pink elephants, we have the situ-
ation shown in Fig. 3.3, with links from the perception space to Sandy's conceptual space,
but not to base space, since only Sandy is deceived, not the speaker. This di erence, while
clear, does not rise to the level of a sense di erence, and does not a ect the unreality of the
pink elephants from the speaker's point of view. (I ignore for the moment the space-building
implied by the use of the past tense.)
C

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 115
B
P
elephants’
Figure 3.3: hallucinate (\Deceived")
elephants’’
envision is related to hallucinate in that there is no transfer of the structure of
the conceptual space back to base space, but it can occur either when the seer really has a
mental image or when the seer has no such mental image. For example, in Sandy sees lots
of problems, the problems may ormay not be the sorts of which a visual image can exist.
If they are of the sort can be pictured \in the mind's eye" (e.g. envisioning problems in a
garden, or with the design of a house), we would have a mental space diagram like Fig. 3.3;
if the problems are more abstract, we will have structures only in the conceptual space, as
shown in Fig. 3.4.
B
P
C
problems
Figure 3.4: envision: Sandy sees lots of problems.
Now consider the sense recognize as in She saw that nothing would change his
mind about it. Here the focus or foreground is the conceptual space. The seen is abstract,
and there is no implication that the concept is based upon any kind of visual perception.
There is nothing to block the transfer of entities and relations back to base space, but there
is some question about the existence of a anything in (visual) perceptual space. Since the
conclusion is presumably based on some sort of evidence, we can set up a more general
\evidence" space (represented by a dashed circle marked \E" in the diagram), with some
C

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 116
vaguely de ned entity in it that triggers the conclusion|in any case, the reason for the
belief is not given in the sentence.
B
him
mind
evidence
E
him’
mind’
Figure 3.5: recognize: She saw that nothing would change his mind.
discourse, which doesnotinvolve physical perception, would be represented like
recognize, but without setting up the perceptual space at all.
The sense which Ihave labeled news is an extension of recognize, which carries
an additional presupposition that the seer has learned of the situation from a visual news
medium; example sentences are Isee that Congress wants to pass a tax cut, Did you see
where Microsoft is suing IBM? ,andHe saw that the price of his stock had fallen again.
The general case can be represented schematically as in Fig. 3.6.
B
medium
SOA
image
P
Figure 3.6: news
C
content
There is no presumption as to the exact type of the news medium, but it is
presumed to be visual, because the word see is used in preference to hear. This sense is
triggered when the hearer supposes that the speaker is not likely to have direct knowledge
of the state of a airs. It is di cult to nd words that will cover both the case of reading
a newspaper and the case of seeing a television news program, but we could describe the
process like this: perception of the image leads to setting up some notion of the content
SOA’
C

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 117
(with luck, the same as the intended message) in conceptual space. Then, depending on the
degree to which theseer believes the content to be true, a state of a airs (SOA') is set up
in conceptual space (the correspondence between the message and the believed SOA' is the
dashed line inside conceptual space). The usual default mapping into base space causes us
to set up the both physical news medium and the state of a airs depicted by it in base space.
The conceptual space is foregrounded; the visual percept is backgrounded and consequently
less speci c. (I have symbolized this by the dashed circle around the perceptual space.)
read is in some ways similar to news, except that there is a restriction that the
physical source of the image is a text, and the type of processing from percept to conceptual
space can be speci ed as reading. Depending on the nature of the writing, there may or
may not be any other entities set up in conceptual space or base space. Here base space
is foregrounded, so that the object of see is the text. Consider the di erences among the
following:
(1) a. ?I saw theChronicle this morning. read
b. I see that there's going to be a parade today. news
c. IsawintheChronicle this morning that there's going to be a parade today.
news
Ex. (1-a) presupposes that the seer read at least the usual portion of the newspaper, but
has nothing to say about whether he or she believed anything written there. Ex. (1-b) talks
only about the concept; it would be most appropriate when the source of the concept is
either known from context (e.g. the newspaper is in front of the speaker).
Ex. (1-c) foregrounds the concept (assumed to be true) and also gives the source,
perhaps by way of corroboration; a mental spaces diagram for this would add the Chronicle
to the base and perceptual spaces, with an in relation between the Chronicle and the article
in both spaces.
Note that Ex. (1-a) is marginal for some speakers, probably because of the di culty
of knowing how much of the newspaper the speaker is claiming to have read. On the other
hand, the negative Ex. (2-a) and the question Ex. (2-b) are ne, since the hearer doesn't
need to estimate the portion read. Because of this uncertainty, in reply to the question, a
\no" is acceptable, but a simple \yes" Ex. (2-c) is too little to satisfy the Maxim of Quantity
(Grice 1975; Grice 1978). A cooperative responsemust further specify the amount read, as

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 118
in Ex. (2-d) or Ex. (2-e).
(2) a. I didn't see the Chronicle this morning.
b. Did you see the Chronicle this morning?
c. Yes, I did.
d. Not really, I just glanced at the sports page.
e. Yes, but I only glanced at the sports page.
Finally, we note that, like envision, recognize can also occur in contexts which
do set up a perceptual space that contains some clue that leads to the concepts in the
conceptual space. Usually the hearer must also do some inferencing to understand the
connection. Consider the following example from an American folksong:
(3) Iseebyyour out t that you are a cowboy.
The out t is the clothes that the addressee is wearing, the physical source of the perception,
but it is expressed by an oblique in the sentence; instead, the conclusion is foregrounded,
and forms the complement ofsee. The speaker has had to do some inferencing to connect
the boots, hat, chaps, etc. with the addressee's occupation, and the hearer must reverse the
process to imagine what the speaker saw. The situation can be represented as in Fig. 3.7.
outfit
you
cowboy
B
outfit’
you’
P
b
outfit’’
a
you’’
c
cowboy’’
Figure 3.7: recognize: Isee by your out t that you are acowboy.
The perceptual space contains the person (you) and the out t; in the conceptual
space, we have the person, the out t and the role cowboy. In both of these spaces, you and
out t are linked by dashed line (a) representing the \wearing" connection; from the image
of the body partially covered by clothes,theseer knows that the addressee is wearing a
particular kind of out t. But in the conceptual space, the out t and the role \cowboy" are
C

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 119
also linked (dashed line (b)), representing the pre-existing knowledge of what kind of out t
cowboys wear. From this the seer deduces that the addressee has the role cowboy (dashed
line (c) in the conceptual space). (Expressions of the form see byX that Y are will be
discussed further in the following section on page 121.) There is no reason to suppose that
the seer is wrong, in fact, the rst person pronoun shows us that the seer is the speaker,
so we can con dently copy everything in the conceptual space to the base space. Note that
the term \base space" is not equivalent to \reality space"; the whole process expressed by
the sentence could be embedded in a dream, with someone dreaming of seeing a person
in an particular out t and concluding that he was a cowboy; this conclusion would still be
\true" within the dream, and therefore spread to the appropriate space.
3.3 The Semantics of Motion Expressions with See
Although it has been known to scientists for centuries that light travels from in-
candescent objects to the experiencer, either directly or by re ection, expressions of motion
connected with seeing do not always accord with this fact. On the one hand, many percep-
tion situations (both visual and other) are expressed in terms of motion from the stimulus
to the experiencer. In discussing this phenomenon, Lako (1995) gives the sentences in
Ex. (4) as examples of the metaphor perception is reception. 3
(4) a. A comet came into my sight.
b. The noise came through the walls.
c. The smell of the bay came through the fog.
On the other hand, there is also a metaphor involving motion in the opposite direction, also
applied both to vision and to other sense modalities (examples from Lako ).
(5) a. From my o ce, I can see the bay. (=Ex. (4-b) on page 43)
b. From my o ce, I can see all the way to the bay. (=Ex. (4-c) on page 43) 4
c. From my o ce, I can hear the trains.
d. From my o ce, I can smell the bay.
e. From the mountain, I can pick up broadcasts from Moscow onmy radio.
3 Ihave omitted some of Lako 's question-begging examples. Note also that it is di cult to construct
examples with the verb see and this direction of \motion".
4 In our sense divisions, this is faculty, since all the way to the bay is a path, not something seen.

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 120
f. Through the piles of leaves . . . , the dogs picked up the scent of the escaped
prisoner.
Thus we could say that there is a folk theory of vision which is \extramissive", in which
vision or the \gaze" travels from the eyes to the seen. Let us agree with Lako that this
is an example of the more general metaphors perception is touch and perceptual
organs are limbs, and further that, since we have found that the motion can be con-
strued in either direction, that both directions can be subsumed under the more general
metaphor perception is contact between perceiver and perceived. We need not
agree exactly with Lako that the prepositional phrases in Ex. (5) make the main verbs
metaphorical, but the examples in Ex. (4) and (5) do suggest that perception events can
be construed as metaphorical motion, and that this metaphorical motion can be in either
direction.
When we look at perception which is per se metaphorical, such asrecognize, we
often nd these combined with metaphorical motion as well, but the mappings are somewhat
di erent. As Lako (1995:141) points out, what is usually the content of perception as
in Ex. (5-a) also can be a metaphorical goal, as in Ex. (5-b).
Furthermore, the experiencer can be construed as a goal and the stimulus as
a source, both of the physical perception and of the knowing. This mapping works best
when the metaphorical motion is from stimulus to experiencer, as in Lako 's example,
(6) John looks sick to me from the pictures.
There are many other ways to express judgements of this sort without the to and
from, and hence, the suggestion of motion, as in Ex. (7).
(7) a. When I saw the pictures, I was convinced John was sick.
b. Judging by the pictures, John must be sick.
c. Based on how he looks in the pictures, I'm sure John is sick.
When the main verb is see, the direction of motion is presumably from experiencer
to percept, yet we still get blends with a PPfrom; thus these can be either a physical starting
place for eye, or the abstract starting place for the mental event that leads to knowing;

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 121
evidence is a cause for belief, and reasoning is a journey from evidence to belief 5 (Icould
see from the calluses on his hands that he did a lot of manual labor).
With see as the main verb, there is a tendency for the contenttomaptogoal; ifwe
wanttousesee as a causative, as in sense ensure, we cannot mark the goal of the causation
with the most common preposition for goals, to (Ex. (8-a)). But Ex. (8-b), without the
preposition, is ambiguous between cognition (recognize) and causation (ensure). To
make it clearly causal, we can use the \empty" pronoun it as the object of the goal-marking
proposition to and follow itby the clause that expresses the caused state or event.
(8) a. *She sees to (that) they're busy/them busy/their business.
b. She sees that they're busy.
c. She sees to it that they're busy.
We can also treat the evidence as a means to the goal of knowing, and mark it with by
(I could see bythecalluses on his hands. . . ). Similar patterns exist with tell and know,
which can also be verbs of cognition. (Cf. Lako (1995) and Sweetser (1990:Ch. 2) for more
details of verbs of perception used in the cognition frame with metaphorical movement
expressions.)
Furthermore, see participates in other semantic and syntactic patterns that are
partially shared by otherverbs (and nouns) of perception. (For discussion of these verbs
in English see Fillmore (1994), Atkins (1994) and Declerck (1982); for cross-linguistic com-
parisons, see Viberg (1983).) Many of these generalizations can probably best be captured
in a typed feature structure hierarchy, as I will discuss in Section 3.5.
3.4 A Brief Discussion of Two Complex Idioms
Envisionment and Classi cation as Reality
(9) Brown: As far as he could see there was no hole to climb through it.
In the Brown corpus, we nd the very problematic sentence shown in Ex. (9). We
assume that as far as he could see is intended literally, i.e. to refer to physical perception
(eye), as suggested by hole and climb. Without looking at a larger context, it is not clear
5 Cf. Sweetser (1987:450) on the path inherent indeduce (< Lat. de+ducere `lead out/from')

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 122
whether \he" could see all of the area of \it" in which a hole would be useful, or whether
his range of vision was limited, and a climbable hole might actually exist just out of his
range of vision. The former interpretation is possible because the construction as far as NP
can/could see is frequently used with abstract objects (i.e. recognize), and there is also a
question of the scope of the negation.
But Ex. (9) is also part of a larger pattern. Toanticipate Chapter 5 slightly, we also
nd similar sentences in the Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary, shown in Ex. (10).
(10) a. I see a great danger in that sort of thing. (401-h-iii)
b. I don't see any harm in what he is doing. (401-h-ii)
c. I cannot see myself submitting to it. (401-n-ii)
d. He won't see being made use of. (401-o-i)
There are also many similar sentences in the BNC; a search forsee followed by no
turned up more than a thousand examples, a few of which are shown in Ex. (11).
(11) a. BNC: I see no reason why this could not apply to di erent sizes of swimming
pool.
b. BNC: They see no possibilities of widening the issues beyond their congrega-
tions.
c. BNC: Dot could see no way out.
d. BNC: I can see no point in reacting to it.
e. BNC: [On hearing] of what the Tans had done Churchill said he could see no
harm in it.
The construction seems to be SEE + Quanti er + fuse, need, point, reason,
cause, . . . g + PP/VPto, where the quanti er is usually of negative polarity and the use of
preposition or VPto depends on the lexical item. This use may be based on a metaphorical
extension of what Lako (1987:128) calls the \idealized cognitive model (ICM) of seeing":
A. You see things as they are.
B. You are aware of what you see.
C. You see what's in front of your eyes.

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 123
The metaphorical extension is to the categorization frame, which can be expressed with
the pattern \see X in Y". The X in Y pattern is based in turn on the Container metaphor,
according to which objects are containers and their qualities are their contents; thus, if Y
has the quality X,thenXis in Y. Since part A of the ICM states that you see things as
they are, if you see Y and see X in Y, then X is in Y. Conversely, according to the ICM,
if you see Y and don't seeXinit,thenXisnot in Y. Then by the Container metaphor,
Ydoesnothave the quality X.Hence,ifyou see no harm in something, there is no harm
in it, and you can conclude that it is not harmful, and likewise for the other sentences in
Ex. (11).
\Would rather see him hanged" and Related Patterns
Many examples of these sorts of sentences are found in corpora such as the BNC;
a few are shown in Ex. (12).
(12) a. BNC: . . . I'm warning you, I'll see you dead rst, before you take that girl.
b. BNC: I won't let him carry out his plan, whatever it is. I'll die, or I'll see him
dead rst!
c. BNC: You can tell that old bag I'll see her stu ed before I move an inch in her
direction.
d. BNC: I may be old-fashioned, but I'd rather see them married than indulging
in a sordid little a air.
These can be analyzed as uni cations of several constructions. In broad outline, the ele-
ments are as follows:
(I) Preference, expressed in any ofseveral ways:
(13) a. will/would rather A than B
b. will/would A before will/would B
c. will/would A rst
d. NP1 before NP2
A and B are XPs expressing states or actions, either VPbrst, VPs with will/would
or NPs expressing states. Pattern (13-d) allows only the last of these, as in Ex. (14-d).

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 124
(II) The use of \extreme values" of A to express strong unwillingness to do B.
Many of these are conventionalized, such asdie, face a ring squad, be damned.
(14) a. I'd rather die than go to the prom with Billy!
b. I'd go broke before I'd sell to your company!
c. I'd die rst!
d. Death before dishonor! 6
e. Over my dead body!
f. I suppose that's a compliment. . . though I had rather have had a plague of
boils, if I'd uv had my druthers. (Robert Heinlein, Citizen of the Galaxy 1957
Del Rey [1978] pp.57-8)
(III) Finally, one or both of the VPs in the comparison can use see + AdjP to
express a state, i.e., the condition sense, yielding the patterns we started with in Ex. (12)
All languages have ways of expressing preferences; the use of negative extreme
values (especially death) for strong unwillingness is found in many languages.
(15) a. Chinese
Ta nng s yebu xiang.
He would rather die than surrender.
b. Japanese
Sonna koto ni kane wo tsukau gurai nara suteta hou ga mashi da.
It would be better to throw your money away than to spend it on that sort of
thing.
However, since the condition sense of see is not common across languages, the full com-
bination, as in Ex. (12) seems to be unique to English.
3.5 Senses as a Function of the Semantic Types of Arguments
If we were to try to devise an algorithm capable of di erentiating the senses of see
as part of a natural language understanding system, it might be considerably easier to learn
6 A closely related pattern, as in Give me liberty or give me death! , is included by Lako (1971:144) in
what she calls \rhetorical disjunctions" among other examples of asymmetric or.

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 125
NON-SENTIENT SENTIENT
TEXT
PHYS. OBJ
HUMAN
ENTITY EVENT PROPOSITION
ABSTRACT
PLACE TIME
T
Figure 3.8: Minimal Type Hierarchy
STATE PROCESS QNED PROPOSITION
something about the semantics of the arguments rst and then nd out what this might
enable us to deduce about the sense of see. Even so, I will have tomake a few simplifying
assumptions to keep the problem within reasonable bounds. First, let us set aside for the
moment sentences in which metaphorical motion is expressed, i.e. those discussed in the
preceding section. Second, let us assume that we already have ways of deriving something
about the semantics of the arguments; I assume that the system can recognize that in both
saw the destruction of the city by the army and saw the army destroy the city, theseen
is a process, which happens to be syntactically realized as an NP in the former and as an
NP+VP in the latter.
The output from such an analyzer could be a semantic type, organized within a
typed feature structure (Carpenter 1992; Koenig & Jurafsky 1994), for both the seer and
the seen. Most of the types are fairly commonly used within the eld of lexical semantics
and should not be controversial. Fig. 3.8 shows the sort of type hierarchy that will be
needed; the terminology varies from author to author, such as whether events are included
in entities, whether one uses the term thing, etc. but the general idea should be clear from
the gure. One unusually detailed typeofphysical object, text, is included in the tree, as
well as Questioned Proposition as a subtype of Proposition. We will also need to add at
least one other semantic/pragmatic feature besides the semantics of the arguments, realis
vs. irrealis (cf. Section 3.2).
Most of the senses of see can then be represented as the join of two types, one for
the seer and one for the seen, at the appropriate level of generality. The basic distinctions
between senses involving physical vision and those not necessarily involving it largely follow
from the type of the seen. Senses that foreground more complex and abstract contents of

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 126
perception, suchasnews and classify, require not merely sentient seers, but human ones.
Because so many relations need to be represented, the diagram becomes very di cult to
read; I have therefore separated it, purely for expository purposes, into two parts. Fig. 3.9
on the next page shows such a representation for those senses involving human seers and
Fig. 3.10 on page 128 shows the senses involving other types of seers. These gures can
be interpreted as follows:
The semantic type hierarchies of the seer and the seen are shown at the left and
right of the diagram, respectively, in the trees drawn with heavy lines. The light lines show
the joins of the types, with the names of the corresponding senses written near the angles.
In two cases (envision and classify), it has been necessary to show senses as having two
possible types of seen; in this case the two alternates are marked with a dashed arc. Thus,
for both envision and classify, theseer must be human and the seen can be either an
entity oranevent; the di erence between these two depends upon the fact that envision
is marked irrealis, while classify has two non-subject arguments, one an oblique, usually
marked with as.
Note that the sense scan has only the semantics of the seer speci ed; it can take
a seen of any type. We could also directly represent the fact that all the senses of see
are related to the same set of irregular past and past participle forms; this is not shown,
however, as doing so would add another dimension to our gure and make itmuch harder
to read.
3.6 Uni cation and Re exives
The mechanism of uni cation that underlies Construction Grammar (and Frame
Semantics) is completely general; anything can unify with anything so long as there are no
con icting speci cations. This is how re exives are handled within these frameworks. For
example, in Ex. (16-a), there is a cooking frame, with Matilda as the cook, dinner as the
food, and her mother as the beneficiary; in Ex. (16-b), the same frame is involved, but
Matilda is both cook and beneficiary.
(16) a. Matilda has to cook dinner for her mother.
b. Matilda has to cook dinner for herself.
c. Matilda human has to cook dinner for herself sentient .

Semantics
of Seer
entity
setting
phys. obj.
sentient
non-sentient
human
irrealis
CONSULT
ENVISION
READ
ACCOMPANY
VISIT
CLASSIFY
DATING
CONDITION
PROCESS
SPECTATE
NEWS
ENSURE
text
phys. obj.
human
state
entity
abstract
Figure 3.9: Senses in Relation to Types of Arguments (seer = Human)
event
process
Semantics
of Seen
T
proposition
Qned proposition
CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 127

Semantics
of Seer
entity
sentient
place/time
human
phys. obj.
(FACULTY)
non-sentient
SCAN
irrealis
HALLUCINATE
EYE
RECOGNIZE
DETERMINE
EXPERIENCE
CONDITION
SETTING
PROCESS
text
phys. obj.
human
state
Figure 3.10: Senses in Relation to Types of Arguments (seer 6= Human)
entity
abstract
Qned proposition
event
Semantics
of Seen
process
T
proposition
CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 128

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 129
Since the cook must be of type human, and the beneficiary of type sentient (at
least), there is no con ict in having the same human ll both roles; we can represent this
more fully by marking the types in the sentence, as in Ex. (16-c). If, for some reason, one
thing cannot ll two roles in a frame even if they are of similar semantic types, this must
be stated, either in that frame or in some more general, inherited frame. For example, all
comparative constructions presuppose that there are two distinct individuals (or groups)
to be compared, even though they are often of the same semantic type (He's taller than
his brother), so this must be speci ed at a fairly general level for all comparatives in all
languages.
Although sentences like those in Ex. (17) look like comparisons of very di erent
things, they are not.
(17) a. He's taller than he used to be.
b. He's taller than I thought.
Both are really comparisons of two heights, of the same person at di erent times
(17-a) and of a real person and of a mental image of that person (17-b). Mental space
diagrams might make this clearer by linking entities representing the same person in two
spaces (created by a tense di erence in the rst case and by imagining in the second case).
With regard to see, for many senses, the types of the roles will prevent the same
individual from lling more than one role, e.g., recognize, determine, ensure, and
news all require a sentient (or human) seer and a proposition or state of a airs as the
seen, so there is no possibility ofanoverlap between them. Other type con icts prevent
re exives with read, setting, experience, vide, discourse, hallucinate, spectate,
and tour.
But some re exive uses of see do occur, and in general, the types on the roles
proposed thus far will work as they should. (It is not clear why Ex. (18-d) is bad for some
speakers, unless the problem is ambiguity withenvision. In Ex. (18-g), thecategory is
not just herself but herself only smarter.)
(18) a. eye She sentient saw herself phys obj in the mirror.
b. envision He sentient sees himself ve years from now getting rich running his
own company. SOA

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 130
c. process He sentient saw himself entity becoming stronger day byday.
d. condition I sentient don't want toseemyself entity working until after mid-
night again. relational
e. scan+eye ?The video camera nonsentient can see itself phys obj in the mirror.
f. classify They sentient see themselves as advocates for their clients.
g. classify She sentient sees her sister as herself, only smarter.
The problem arises in the case of senses where seer and seen are both human; as shown
in Ex. (19), most of these re exives are bad. Three of these cases can be suitably handled
by requiring that the the two participants in the reciprocal event frame be distinct; that
will take care of dating, visit, andaudience, all of which use these roles from recip-
rocal event, and follows from the concept of reciprocity. In addition, we will need to
block the re exive consult (Ex. (19-c)) by specifying that, in its ancestor frame consul-
tation with authority, the consulter and consultant are distinct; this will also be
needed for words other than see which use that frame (cf. p. 70). A similar requirement will
be needed for one of the valence patterns with gambling (Ex. (19-g)); the names gambler
and opponent in the gambling frame imply as much. Finally, we need to ensure that the
two participants in the accompany frame are distinct, so that their counterparts in the
accompany sense of see will also be; unfortunately, wemust also make an exception to
even this generalization for the idiom see oneself out (Ex. (19-b)). See oneself out means
something like \Icantake care of myself here, I know the way out"; it may be using the
\protection" concept from accompany, but that's about all.
(19) a. *accompany She'll human see herself human to the bus stop.
b. I'll human see myself human out.
c. *consult Dr. Jones human decided to see himself human about his sore throat.
d. *dating Bill human has been seeing himself human for six months now.
e. *visit Sarah Jane human saw herself human for three hours this afternoon.
f. *audience The Chair human will see herself human Wednesday afternoon.
g. *gambling Mario human saw himself human and raised himself ve.

CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACHES 131
3.7 Conclusion
There is nothing contradictory in any of the approaches discussed in this chap-
ter, or between them and Frame Semantics; rather, they are complementary. As so often
happens in linguistics, we nd that di erent approaches including Frame Semantics, mental
spaces, analysis in terms of metaphor, and semantic type hierarchies handle di erent pieces
of the puzzle well. I will continue to use frame semantics as the basis of most of my analysis,
but we must bear in mind that no one theory provides a really good account of all the facts.

Chapter 4
Psycholinguistic Experiments
4.1 Introduction
After seeing the arguments in Chapter 2 for an analysis of the semantics of see
which postulates many senses, connected with each other in complex ways, the reader might
naturally have questions as to whether the proposed senses have any psychological basis.
A psychologist might be tempted to say, \Such a complex lexical semantics is purely a
theoretical construct, invented by linguists for linguists, in uenced by what is printed in
dictionaries. It bears no relation to any mental representation of the word see that English
speakers mighthave. Speakers' mental representations of the word probably have just one or
two senses, with all the subtleties you have talked about arising from cognitive processing
`on the y'". This chapter details a series of experiments 1 intended to respond to such
objections and to seek answers to questions such as:
Given examples of various uses of see, what sort of sense divisions will speakers make
on their own, without any guidance?
Given an a priori set of categories based on our linguistic analysis, how well will
speakers agree with each other on which example falls in which category?
How will their level of agreement be a ected by the number of categories they are
1 This is joint work with Jane A. Edwards, who has taken part in the design, running, and analysis of the
experiments. My colleague Chris Johnson also participated in the initial establishment of the list of senses,
and I have received innumerable suggestions from the members of my committee, other UCB graduate
students and faculty, and audience members at presentations on this topic at the The Linguistic Society of
America (Baker 1999) and the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Baker forthcoming).
132

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 133
given?
Will they make the same sorts of categorization decisions when forced to do so quickly?
Will they make certain categorization decisions more quickly and accurately than
others? If so, can such di erences in response time tell us anything about their own
mental representations or processes? 2
On-line vs. O -line Methods
Psycholinguistic experiments can be divided into those that ask the subjects to
make high-level, conscious decisions about linguistic questions and those that ask subjects
to make quick responses to relatively simple questions but measure reaction times, seeking
clues as to the moment-to-moment processing of sentences; we can refer to these as \o -line"
and \on-line" methods respectively. The term \on-line" is fairly standard in this eld; I am
using \o -line" to refer to all experimental designs in which the speed of response is not
a factor. 3 O -line methods allow us to construct experiments relatively easily that seem
to answer some fundamental linguistic questions directly (\Is this sentence grammatical?",
\Are these words synonyms?" \What is the antecedent of this pronoun?"), but the data
they provide is often hard to interpret, because so much higher-level cognition may be
involved in the decision; e.g. in a grammaticality judgement, the subject may actually have
time to remember some rule that she was taught in the sixth grade, rather than relying
on a purely intuitive judgement. On-line tasks have amuch betterchance of discovering
something about the semantic representation used in actual sentence understanding, but
the experiments are much harder to construct and a great many factors need to be carefully
controlled to produce valid results.
O -line experiments in which subjects estimate semantic relatedness of words may
produce a great many numbers which in some sense re ect the subjects' semantic maps of
the world. But the subjects have time to consider many dimensions on which words may be
similar, even though the response is a single number for each trial. Also, judging semantic
similarity on a scale is arguably an even more \unnatural" task than grammaticality judge-
ments; most people have at least some experience in school of proofreading, either their own
2
Di erent mental representations are very di cult to distinguish from di erent processing strategies, cf.
Section 4.5.
3
See Section 1.5 in Chapter 1 for a more general discussion of types of data and collection methods.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 134
writing or that of others, looking for grammatical errors, but the task of rating similarity on
a scale seems to be con ned to psychological experiments 4 .Nevertheless, such experiments
do produce some intriguing results; for example, in their second step, Durkin & Manning
(1989) asked their subjects to rate the semantic relatedness of pairs of uses of ambiguous
words (some homophonous, but mostly polysemous); they found that the similarity judge-
ments distinguished well between the homonyms and the polysemous words and provided
a good measure of the relative salience of the senses of the latter. (Durkin & Manning also
went on to do a priming task on related data.)
Free sorting experiments have better face validity than similarity judgments, but
the resulting categories are hard to compare. For example, Jorgensen (1990) gave subjects
cards containing low-polysemy nouns and high-polysemy nouns, as measured by the number
of dictionary senses. In the rst task, they did completely free sorting; in the second, they
were told to divide the cards according to a set of dictionary de nitions they had been
provided with. She found that subjects basically produced approximately 3 categories for
the low-polysemy words in both tasks, but created an average of 5.6 categories on the
free sorting and 9.1 on the dictionary-guided sorting. This was still less than the average
numberofsensesgiven in the dictionary (14.6), but the increase was signi cant. Jorgensen
uses measures of the number of categories produced by her subjects and the amount of
agreement between them on the classi cation of individual items, but has nothing to say
about the relation between the semantics of the categories produced by one subject and
those of other subjects or those of the dictionary.
Previous Work on Priming
Various experiments have demonstrated that priming e ects between related words
can provide information as to the structure of semantic elds (de Groot 1984, Meyer &
Schvanenveldt 1971). Other experimenters have used priming techniques to study the rela-
tions between the separate senses of homonyms. Swinney (1979) used cross-modal priming,
with an auditory stimulus consisting of two sentences with the ambiguous noun occurring
in the predicate of the second sentence, and a visual probe related to one of the senses
presented either (1) at the o set of the ambiguous word or (2) three syllables later. For
4 Subjects making grammaticality judgements apparently make the same grammaticality judgements
whether they are asked to apply their own standards or what they believe to be \academic" standards.
(Cowart 1997:56-59)

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 135
example, one pair of sentences referred to a government building containing bugs, probed
with either spy or ant; the context could either be carefully ambiguous or deliberately
biased (. . . spiders, roaches, and other bugs. . . ). Ambiguous sentences alternated with un-
ambiguous controls, e.g. ones in which bugs was replaced with insects. When the probe
was immediate, Swinney found that both senses of the ambiguous noun were primed even
if the context was strongly biased toward one or the other of the readings. When the probe
was presented three syllables later, however, only the contextually appropriate sense was
primed. These results suggest that the lexical access process is not guided by contextual
information, but retrieves all of the senses of ambiguous items. However, contextual infor-
mation is used very soon thereafter to select the appropriate sense from those that have
been retrieved.
Seidenberg et al. (1982) conducted a methodical series of ve experiments on two
types of homonyms, both noun-noun (e.g. ball dance/baseball) and noun-verb (a tire/to
tire), using auditory primes. In each case the last word of the auditory prime was either a
homonym or a control word. A visual probe consisting of a single word was presented either
zero milliseconds or 200 milliseconds after the end of the auditory prime. For example given
the noun-noun homonym spade, the following four sentences were used as primes:
(1) a. You should have played the spade.
b. You should have played the part.
c. Go to the store and buy a spade.
d. Go to the store and buy a belt.
If the following probe is the word card, Ex. (1-a) is congruent with it, using spade. Ex. (1-b)
is congruent using a control word, Ex. (1-c), using the homonym, is incongruent with the
probe, and Ex. (1-d) is also incongruent, using a control word.
Over the course of the ve experiments, Seidenberg et al. carefully varied the
extent to which the context selected for one of the senses, either syntactically, semantically,
or pragmatically. Consistent di erences between the e ects of probing at zero milliseconds
and at 200 milliseconds demonstrated that lexical access per se was not in uenced by
context but that all the senses of the ambiguous words were retrieved \instantaneously"
and then a rapid selection process based on the context occurred. Apparentcounterexamples
seem to the result of lexical priming caused by earlier words within the prime (The auto

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 136
workers protected the plant, The football player fumbled the ball). Their results generally
lend support to the idea of a more or less autonomous lexical access process, followed by a
rapid process of selection of the appropriate meanings on the basis of context.
Williams's (1992) experiments also have important implications for those described
here. Williams notes the work of Swinney 1979, Seidenberg et al. 1982, and others on
homonyms, and points out that polysemous words raise somewhat di erent questions. Since
the various senses of a polysemous word are, by de nition, more closely related than the
senses of homonymous words, it is not clear whether or not the model based on homonyms,
i.e. rapid simultaneous activation of all the senses followed by rapid selection of a contex-
tually appropriate sense, will work. Williams also cites the work of Durkin & Manning
(1989) measuring the relatedness of the senses of polysemous words using a questionnaire
technique and notes that the authors are correct in saying that the results of such survey
techniques cannot be assumed to apply to the moment tomoment processing of language.
Williams' experiments sought tocombine information about the relative importance and
degree of relatedness of the senses of polysemous words (such as that found in Durkin and
Manning's work) with priming experiments like those of Seidenberg et al. (1982).
Williams' rst experiment was based on eight polysemous adjectives. For each
of them, a more central sense and a less central sense were determined, based on the
entries in the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, inwhich more frequent and/or
more concrete senses are listed rst; a one-word synonym was found for each reading, e.g.,
awkward (clumsy (central) or embarrassing (non-central)), strong (mighty or intense).
All of Williams' stimuli were presented visually, with the prime disappearing and being
replaced (either immediately or after an interval) by the probe; timing of stimulus onset
asynchronies (SOAs) is from the onset of the display of the last part of the prime to the
onset of the probe. The task was a lexical decision task.
First, a group of subjects were shown just single words as primes followed by the
probes at an SOA of 250 ms. There was signi cant priming of the probes when the prime
was related to the probe, and this priming e ect was approximately equal, whether the
sense of the probe was central or non-central, e.g. a prime of the ambiguous word rm
facilitates a probe of either solid or strict about equally.
Next, as in other experiments, sentences were constructed as primes, with the word
of interest as the last word in each sentence:

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 137
(2) a. The schoolteacher was criticized for not being rm. solid
b. Nobody went to the pub because the music was so loud. solid
c. The couple wanted a bed that was rm. strict
d. The orchestra hated the symphony because it was so long. strict
These represent the combinations [related prime + central probe], [unrelated prime + central
probe], [related prime + non-central probe], and [unrelated prime + non-central probe].
Another group of subjects were tested using these sentences and probes at SOAs of 250,
750, and 1100 ms. In this case, there was signi cant priming (about 40 ms.) of central senses
even up to 1100 ms., but only slight priming (about 20 ms., not statistically signi cant) of
non-central senses. Williams concludes, \It does not appear to be possible to suppress the
irrelevant meanings of a polysemous adjective in the same way as it is possible to suppress
the irrelevant meanings of a homonym." (Williams 1992:202)
Finally, a second experiment was conducted, using the same adjectives, but each
sentence ended with an adjective modifying a noun. In this case, the subjects were asked
to press a button to indicate whether or not the probe was related to the meaning of the
sentence as a whole. The expectation was that, aside from yes responses for probes which
match the meaning of the sentence, no responses should be slower for probes representing the
inappropriate reading of the ambiguous adjective than for irrelevant controls. Furthermore,
a larger percentage of yes responses were expected, even for the inappropriate reading, due
to the semantic relatedness of the senses.
The results of the second experiment were more mixed; the analysis involved drop-
ping the data from the subjects who took, on average, more than 1 second to respond. But
for the \fast" responders, there was a signi cant increase in yes responses and a signi cant
inhibition of no responses for irrelevant but related probes vs. neutral controls, despite
the intervening noun and a 250 ms. delay. This e ect occurred for probes for the central
sense, but not for the non-central sense, i.e. contexts which bias for the non-central sense
apparently activate the central sense, but the converse is not true.
Unfortunately, asinsomany other researchers' work, both Williams' sense distinc-
tions and his decision as to which constituted the central sense were based on a dictionary,
rather than empirical investigation. The Cobuild dictionary may be better than some in
terms of ordering senses on the basis of frequency and conceptual centrality, but it is not
immune to the commercial constraints and other linguistically irrelevant factors (discussed

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 138
in Section 5.1) which in uence the number and type of senses listed in dictionaries. Ex-
amining the stimulus materials (commendably listed in an appendix) shows that some of
the words used as probes for senses are not very good cues, or are themselves ambiguous,
e.g. for tight, taut vs. ?compact. The choice for deep is especially confusing, profound,
which isambiguous in exactly the same way asdeep, vs. low, which is highly polysemous:
physically not tall or high/ vulgar or depraved/ de cient, lacking (low in intelligence, vita-
mins, saturated fats, low birth weight/ at the \bottom" end of various scales (low rate of
crime, taxes, low-pitched (=deep), low (radio) frequency, lower (military) rank, etc.).
On the basis of this prior work, we chose to combine free sorting with two other
methods, a forced classi cation task and a priming experiment, in the hope that the
strengths of each method would o set the weaknesses of the others. In the classi cation
task, subjects were forced to classify uses into many predetermined categories, which were a
subset of those de ned in Chapter 2. As stated there, this set of senses represents what we
believe to be the nest breakdown which is logically defensible, considerably ner than that
available to most people through introspection. If we nd that a substantial proportion of
subjects agree on distinctions in the free-sorting task which cross-cut ours, then we have
failed in our e ort. If, on the other hand, we have succeeded, we would expect to nd that
any distinction which subjects reliably make should be representable as a combination of
the ner ones. We would also expect such combinations to be more or less systematic, that
is, motivated by concepts which would be postulated on independent grounds.
Of course, carrying the grouping process to its logical conclusion, by collapsing
all the categories together would produce complete \agreement" of the unsatisfactory sort
posited in the strong version of monosemy (Ruhl 1989). As Cruse (1992) points out, claiming
that a single highly abstract, unde nable \sense" accounts for all the uses of a highly
polysemous word is not only ipso facto unprovable but also fails to distinguish such words
from each other.
Predictions
On the basis of the study so far, we would predict the following:
Since see seems to be highly polysemous, we would expect that non-linguist native
speakers of English will be able to distinguish many di erent senses when tested on
tasks involving similarity judgements, categorization (using either prede ned or their

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 139
own spontaneous categories), etc. There is no reason to suppose that all speakers
have exactly the same set of senses, but it is likely that there will be a great deal of
overlap, which is essential to communication in general.
Since see is a highly polysemous, high-frequency word, we expect that our subjects
will produce more senses than Jorgensen's subjects, on average.
Since the senses appear to have a complex structure, some senses being more cen-
tral than others, we would expect to nd broad, although not necessarily perfect,
agreement among speakers as to which are the central senses.
In a cross-modal priming experiment using a lexical decision task, in accord with
Williams's (1992) ndings, we would predict that sentences which provide a context
for one sense of see would facilitate (prime) responses to a probe consisting of the
keyword for that sense of see, compared to a non-word probes; e.g., after the sentence
Maria saw the cat on the couch, wewould expect subjects to respond to the keyword
eye more quickly than to a non-word.
Likewise, on cross-modal priming using a categorial judgement task, we would predict
that sentences which provide a context for one sense of see would facilitate responses
to a probe consisting of the keyword for that sense of see, relative to probes consisting
of keywords for other senses.
Also on the basis of Williams (1992), we would predict di erential cross-sense priming
e ects, so that sentences biased toward non-central senses of see would facilitate
probes for central senses more than conversely.
4.2 Experiment 1
As a rst step toward testing these hypotheses, we conducted an experiment to
answer the following questions:
If non-linguist native speakers of English are given a set of sentences containing see
randomly selected from a corpus, and asked to sort them into their own categories,
to what degree will their categorizations be similar to each other? Will there be
\lumpers" and \splitters", that is, some subjects who tend to make few distinctions
and other subjects who tend to make many ne distinctions?

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 140
If they are shown the same set of sentences again in a random order and are also
provided with an a priori set of categories,
{ to what extent will their categorizations be similar to each other?
{ to what extent will their categorizations be similar to those of the experimenters
for the same sentences?
We chose actual sentences from a corpus as the best approximation to natural uses
of see which could conveniently be used as experimental stimuli.
Method
Subjects
The subjects were 9 undergraduates at the University of California at Berkeley,
who received credit toward their introductory psychology courses for their participating in
the experiments. All subjects were native speakers of American English with little or no
training in Linguistics.
Materials
The stimuli for Experiment 1 consisted of two blocks of 100 sentences selected
at random from the Brown corpus, together with 44 constructed example sentences. (All
the constructed sentences, along with a random sample of 50 corpus sentences are listed
in Appendix A.) For the sorting task, each block of 100 sentences was printed on 3x5 inch
cards, forming two sets, Set 1 and Set 2. A set of cards was also prepared for the 44
constructed example sentences.
For the classi cation task, a set of Perl programs and web forms were written to
display the material. Nineteen senses were used in the classi cation task; the de nitions
and examples are given in the Appendix on page 256, along with the names we used for
them at that time. The same pool of corpus and constructed sentences were used in both
tasks.
Procedure
Each subject participated in two tasks, Sorting and Classi cation. One hour was
allocated for each task.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 141
Task 1: Sorting
In this task, subjects were given cards with one sentence containing see and asked
to read each sentence one at a time and place it in a pile with sentences containing the
same sense of see. They were instructed to ignore grammatical factors such as tense and
voice, and to use as many piles as they wanted. Subjects were also asked to write a brief
de nition or characterization of each group.
Each subject sorted 100 corpus examples, followed by the 44 constructed examples,
followed (if time permitted) by the remaining 100 corpus examples. To control for the
in uence of the particular examples in the rst part of the sorting, the rst 100 sentences
given to each subject were either all from Set 1, all from Set 2, or half from each set.
Task 2: Classi cation
Each subject sat at a computer on which the materials were displayed using HTML
and a web browser. First the subjects read the directions and saw the list of de nitions and
examples. Then the sentences were presented one at a time at the top of the screen, with
the list of senses displayed below. Subjects chose the sense which best matched the use in
the sentence by clicking next to it and then clicked again to go on to the next sentence.
Both the response and the response latency were recorded, but the task was not paced, and
subjects could refer back to the de nitions and examples whenever they wanted, either on
screen or on a printed handout. All subjects completed the same 99 sentences (1 block of
trials) within one hour.
Statistical Measures of Agreement
Three di erent measures of agreement were used in analyzing the results of the
experiments reported here, simple agreement, kappa, and omega.
Simple proportion of agreement with a \gold standard" is obviously the easiest to
interpret, but it has serious limitations. It does not re ect agreements among raters that
do not match the standard.
For example, suppose in an experiment on perception of dialects, recordings of
three speakers, A, B, and C, are played to a total of 12 subjects (called \raters"), who must
decide which speakers are from New York, which from Chicago and which from Philadelphia.
Several possible outcomes of such an experiment are shown in the four parts of Table 4.1.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 142
The rows represent the speakers, and the columns represent the frequencies of the subjects'
judgements (called \ratings"). Suppose further that Speaker A is really from New York, B
from Chicago, and C from Philadelphia; then the numbers on the diagonal represent the
number of agreements between the ratings and the actual dialects of the speakers.
In Table 4.1 (b), the simple agreement between the actual dialect and the ratings
is 2/3, or 0.67. But (c) will have exactly the same simple agreement, even though it is
clear that the raters are agreeing among themselves in ways that do not match the actual
dialects. In Table 4.1 (d), the simple agreement is 1/3 (0.33), even though the data do not
show any relation at all between the actual dialects and the ratings.
(a)
(c)
NY Chi Phil
A 10 0 2
B 2 10 0
C 0 2 10
simple= 0:83
K= 0:55
NY Chi Phil
A 8 0 4
B 0 8 4
C 4 0 8
simple= 0:67
K= 0:24
(b)
(d)
NY Chi Phil
A 8 2 2
B 2 8 2
C 2 2 8
simple= 0:67
K= 0:18
NY Chi Phil
A 4 4 4
B 4 4 4
C 4 4 4
simple= 0:33
K= ,0:09
Table 4.1: Examples of Measures of Agreement
Because of the limitations of simple agreement, it is often preferable to use the
kappa statistic (Scott 1955, Cohen 1960), which is corrected for chance agreement. This is
the standard statistic for inter-rater reliability when the number of categories is xed for
all raters. The basic formula is
K =
P (A) , P (E)
1 , P (E)
where P(A) is the proportion of actual agreement, and P(E) is the proportion of expected
agreement. Since the numerator is the di erence between the actual and the expected,
results no better than chance will give kappas around 0. Returning to Table 4.1, (a) shows
that kappa drops o quite sharply when even a little disagreement occurs, and (c) gives a
higher kappa (0.24) than (b) (0.18) because of the greater agreement of the raters among
themselves, even if they are incorrect. As expected, kappa is near 0 (actually slightly
negative) when there is no agreement among raters, as in (d). (For further discussion of the

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 143
logic of the statistic, see the excellent introduction in Siegel & Castellan (1988:284-91).)
The omega statistic (Morey & Agresti 1984) is based on whether or not two raters
classify each pairofstimuli in the same category or not, without regard to the classi cation
of other pairs. Like kappa, it is corrected for chance agreement, so that it varies from 0
for chance agreement to 1.0 for perfect agreement. Omega is inherently less powerful than
kappa, since it considers each pair of stimuli in isolation, however, it has the great advantage
that it can be used in cases in which the number of categories di ers from rater to rater.
We will therefore use omega to measure agreement among subjects on the Sorting task,
where di erent subjects created di erent numbers of categories.
Both kappa and omega are insensitive to the number of categories involved, or the
type of distribution of instances into categories. The variance of the sampling distribution
is known for both, so that the probability of a particular outcome can be calculated.
Results and Analysis
Task 1: Sorting
The number of categories per subject ranged from 6 to 21, with a mean of 11.
The proportion of examples in the categories varied greatly, from 33% for eye and 15% for
recognize to 0 for some categories. The omega coe cient of agreement ranged from 0.09
to 0.49, with a median of 0.245.
Task 2: Classi cation
All subjects nished 99 sentences of the rst set. Some subjects continued on to
other sets, but the order of the sets was randomized across subjects, so that there was little
overlap beyond the rst set. The overall agreement among raters, measured by the kappa
statistic, was .38 5 . This value is low, but understandable; not only were a large number of
senses listed, but also many of the sentences were ambiguous when presented out of context.
Discussion
In evaluating the results of Experiment 1, the strengths and weaknesses of using
corpus examples became apparent. On the one hand we had learned something about the
5 This and all of the values of kappa reported in this study are statistically signi cant at p

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 144
distribution of the senses in naturally occurring texts. On the other hand, many ofthe
corpus examples were ambiguous, which made the task more di cult for the subjects and
added noise to our results. Also, the very uneven distribution of the senses meant that we
had more data than we needed on eye and too little data to draw conclusions about many
of the less common senses. Furthermore, the tasks used in Experiment 1were both o -line,
metalinguistic judgements; we and others to whom we reported our ndings had doubts
as to whether the distinctions that subjects made in these tasks were relevant to on-line
sentence processing.
At the same time, as a result of continuing linguistic analysis, we had revised and
expanded the list of senses from 19 to 23 senses and 9 collocations (names and examples
are given in Sections 2.3 and 2.6). Some of what we had called senses in Experiment 1were
reclassi ed as collocations, since they involve the presence of other speci c words; among
these are: see x through, see through x, andlet's see. On the other hand, senses
such asaccompany, although \idiomatic", place semantic restrictions on their comple-
ments, but do not require any speci c syntax, (I'll see you as far as the bus stop, I'll see
you home, I'll see you to your door).
It was therefore decided to construct a new experiment which would contain only
examples of seven clearcut senses which should be relatively easy to distinguish from each
other. Two online tasks were also added to the sorting and classi cation tasks, to help us
investigate possible di erences between o -line and on-line processing.
The names (keywords) for the 14 senses used in the remaining experiments are
shown (in alphabetical order) in Table 4.2 on the next page for convenience, as they will be
used hereafter without further explanation.
4.3 Experiment 2
Method
Subjects
ment 1.
Subjects were 21 UC Berkeley undergraduates with quali cations as in Experi

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 145
Keyword Example
accompany He saw her home.
condition She saw him happy atlast.
consult You should see the doctor.
determine I'll see if I can open the jar.
ensure I'll see to it that he's on time.
envision I just can't see living in Podunk all my life.
experience The freighter saw use as a troop carrier in the war.
eye She saw him through the window of the train.
faculty She doesn't see as well as she used to.
hallucinate He saw stars for a few minutes after hitting his head.
process He saw her dancing with the football hero.
recognize She saw thathewas working too much.
setting The 1960s saw a construction boom in Japan.
visit Ihaven't seen my sister since Christmas.
Materials
Table 4.2: Names of Senses used in Experiments 2 and 3
The seven senses chosen for this experiment were: eye, faculty, recognize,
determine, ensure, experience, andsetting.
Example sentences were constructed for each of the seven senses, systematically
varying other factors such as tense and aspect, question vs. statement, negation, voice, and
domain of discourse. (The three broad domains of discourse were \academic", \personal",
and \entertainment".) In practice not all combinations of these factors produced reasonable
sentences, but as many as possible were created. Appendix D contains the entire set of
stimuli used in Experiments 2 and 3.
Task 1: Sorting
The instructions were the same as those in Experiment 1, except that subjects
were also asked to choose the sentence which best exempli ed each sense and to place it on
the top of the pile at the end of the hour.
Task 2: Classi cation
The method was the same as that used in Experiment 1, except that a thoroughly
randomized order of presentation was used both for stimuli and for the list of senses, to

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 146
eliminate any possible ordering e ects 6 .
Timed Tasks
The stimuli in these tasks were presented by use of the PsyScope program (Co-
hen et al. 1993) on Macintosh computers. In each case the subjects saw one of the same
example sentences as in the previous tasks, displayed in large text near the center of the
screen, and then heard an auditory prime consisting of a single word (or sometimes, in the
Lexical Decision task, a single non-word). The subjects then pressed one of the keys on the
keyboard to respond; they were instructed to use the index nger of their dominant hand
for positive responses and the middle nger of their dominant hand for negative responses.
The sentences were displayed for up to 4 seconds, although subjects could end this and go
on to the probe by pressing the space bar. This was followed by the auditory probe which
lasted approximately 500 ms. Subjects had 1500 ms. from the beginning of the auditory
probe to respond; responses after this time period were not used in further analysis.
Blocks of 40 trials of each task (Lexical Decision and Categorial Judgement) were
administered randomly across subjects, so not all subjects did the same amount of each
task, but all subjects participated in both. Subjects worked for one hour altogether on the
two tasks, and were allowed to rest after each block.
Task 3: Lexical Decision
In Lexical Decision blocks, the probe was either a keyword for the primed sense,
akeyword for another sense, or a non-word. The task was a word/non-word judgement.
Task 4: Categorial Judgement
In Categorial Judgement blocks, the probe was either a keyword for the primed
sense or a keyword for another sense, and the task was to decide whether the probe was an
instance of the primed sense.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 147
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Freq.
H
HH H
HH
HH
HH
HH
H
HH H
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Figure 4.1: Experiment 2. Number of Categories used by each subject
Results and Analysis
Task 1: Sorting
Figure 4.1 shows the number of categories created by each subject in the Sorting
task. The median is 6, with 5 and 7 being the next most common numbers of categories;
this is a fair approximation to the 7 categories intended by the experimenters. (One subject
produced 19 piles of cards; after reading the de nitions he wrote and looking at the cards
contained in each pile, we can nd no regular basis for the distinctions made.)
A calculation of the omega statistic between each pair of subjects showed that there
was substantial agreement among subjects even before any instructions as to categorization
were given; the mean = 0:57. There was considerable variation among subjects, but there
was no cluster of subjects who agreed with each other and disagreed with the experimenters'
initial categorization. This suggests that, although there may be agreement among subjects
and disagreement with the experimenters on individual pairs of senses, there is no other
well-de ned \dialect" for the senses of see among our subjects.
As a test of the e ectiveness of our manipulation of the experimental variables,
the omega statistic was used to compare the subjects' initial sortings with the values of
the manipulated variables, including the intended sense. Table 4.3 on the next page shows
the results for a representative group of nine subjects; the agreement for the irrelevant
manipulated factors is essentially zero (because of the correction for chance agreement, the
value of omega can sometimes be less than zero). The agreement with the intended sense
ranges from a low of .36 for subject number 30 to a high of .82 for subject number 33; this
variation in agreement seems to be due to individual di erences. These results suggest that
the subjects were able to follow the instructions to pay attention only to the sense of see
occurring in each sentence and to ignore the other syntactic and semantic factors.
6 Fellbaum et al. (1998) found such e ects in a similar classi cation task.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 148
Factors 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Tense/Asp. 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02
Qn/State. 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Negation 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Voice -0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.01
Domain 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Sense 0.36 0.40 0.75 0.82 0.62 0.46 0.50 0.71 0.61
Table 4.3: Agreement (Omega) between Subjects' Sorting and Manipulated Variables
Task 2: Classi cation
In addition to recording subject responses, the response latency on the Classi ca-
tion task was also recorded; the distribution has a strong right skew, as is typical of such
measurements. The median latency was 19 seconds, with the rst quartile at 13 seconds
and the third quartile at 26 seconds. Latencies longer than 80 seconds were considered
errors, since it seems unlikely the subjects were actually attending to the current item for
so long.
In terms of simple agreement, 84% of the items were classi ed as intended by the
experimenters; the mean kappa for agreement among all subjects on the seven categories
was .74. This is much higher than Experiment 1, presumably due to the smaller number of
senses and clearer example sentences.
Responses !
Intended #
eye
faculty
determine
eye 623 49 3 2 8 0 0 685
faculty 65 381 1 0 3 0 0 450
determine 46 11 394 25 2 2 2 482
ensure 19 7 33 444 13 3 1 520
recognize 11 9 25 7 597 3 0 652
experience 10 3 4 5 4 388 131 545
setting 11 1 1 6 1 73 335 428
Total 785 461 461 489 628 469 469 3762
ensure
recognize
experience
setting
Total
Table 4.4: Experiment 2.Intended Senses vs. Responses

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 149
Table 4.4 on the preceding page shows the relation between intended senses and
responses for all of the items on the Classi cation task. The senses have been arranged so
that those which frequently overlap are in adjacent rows and columns. Thus, while eye and
faculty were \correctly" classi ed most of the time, 49 instances of intended eye were
classi ed as faculty, and 65 instances of intended faculty were classi ed as eye. The
asymmetry between the two \errors" may be due to the general bias toward the response
eye.
There is also some overlap among the three senses determine, ensure, and
recognize. We note that all three of these senses involve a relation between the seer and
a proposition; in the case of ensure, the seer brings the proposition about; in determine,
the seer nds out if the proposition is true; in recognize, the seer becomes aware of the
truth of the proposition.
Finally also we noteoverlap between experience and setting, especially in the
direction from intended experience to response setting. It may seem surprising that
these two senses overlap, especially as the setting sense is unique with respect to the
semantics of its subject. The similarity between the senses is that both of them allow non-
animate subjects (The house saw use as a barracks during the Revolutionary War). In the
Sorting task, several subjects created a category for non-animate seer, and this may be
the reason for the relation found between these two senses.
Clustering of Classi cation Responses
One way of thinking about the disagreements between the intended senses and the
responses is to consider what would happen if we collapsed certain pairs of senses. If we
collapse senses where there is a good deal of overlap, we should increase the kappa; if we
collapse senses which were well distinguished, we could actually decrease the kappa. Doing
this collapsing systematically produces a clustering algorithm, based on the kappa statistic.
The steps are as follows:
1. For each pair of categories, compute the kappa that would result if they were combined
into one.
2. Actually combine the pair which produces the greatest increase in agreement.
(This represents the distinction which was hardest for the subjects to agree upon.)

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 150
3. Repeat this procedure, until combining categories produces no more improvement.
Depending on the data, this may be before all categories are merged.
The order of combining can be represented as a tree, with the branchings at the
bottom of the tree representing the categories with the most overlap. The height of each
branching represents the new level of agreement produced by combining the categories
below. The clusters can be thought as re ecting the speakers' hierarchy ofmental represen-
tations in this semantic space. That is, distinctions within clusters are more di cult than
distinctions between them.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.85
EXPERIENCE SETTING
0.80
.92
DETERMINE
.88
ENSURE
EYE FACULTY Initial kappa = 0.74
.90
RECOGNIZE
Figure 4.2: Experiment 2. Clustering of Senses Based on Increasing Agreement
Fig. 4.2 shows the results of clustering on the basis of overall agreement between
subjects (measured bykappa). Three clusters are noticeable (in order of decreasing overlap),
eye/ faculty, experience/ setting, anddetermine/ ensure/ recognize. While

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 151
these clusters were not foreseen by the experimenters, they can be motivated on the basis of
the semantics of the arguments of the verb. experience and setting are the only senses
in the experiment which allow non-sentient seers (which must be the subjects of the verb).
determine, ensure, and recognize are the only senses which allow propositions as the
seen. eye and faculty, of course, both require physical vision and a physical object as
the seen, while none of the other ve senses do.
Timed Tasks (Lexical Decision and Categorial Judgement)
The data for the Lexical Decision task and the Categorial Judgement task are
still being analyzed, but some preliminary results can be stated here. First, regarding the
accuracy of responses, we have found quite a high percentage of \correct" responses in the
Categorial Judgement task, i.e. simple agreement between the subjects' response and the
category intended by the experimenters; the median is 92% agreement (Q1 = 87%, Q3 =
96%).
With regard to reaction time measurements, the priming e ects expected on the
basis of Williams (1992) and similar experiments are very small (less than 50 milliseconds).
Our measurement of reaction times is subject to an error of approximately 16 ms., due to the
polling frequency of the Macintosh keyboard. This error will tend to be random, masking
the e ects we are seeking, but accumulating data from a su cient number of subjects should
overcome this problem.
All reaction time data was rst standardized on the basis of all the scores of that
subject on that task, either Lexical Decision (LD) or Categorial Judgement (CJ), so that
the mean of the standardized scores would be 100 and the standard deviation 10. This
allows comparisons of scores adjusted the individual subjects' overall reaction speeds and
variability.
First, let us look at the standardized reaction times for \correct" responses to the
situation in which the prime and the probe match foreach of the 2 tasks, which are shown
in Table 4.5 on the following page. The rows are sorted to put the standardized RTs on the
categorial judgement task in ascending order. Since there are clearly di erences according
to sense, paired t-tests were performed to test the signi cance of the di erence between
each pair of senses, using two di erent methods of handling missing cases, listwise deletion
and analysis-by-analysis. Looking rst at the categorial judgement task, the values of t

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 152
Sense CJ LD
eye 93.14 98.05
faculty 95.29 98.97
ensure 97.18 107.41
determine 98.07 95.19
recognize 98.57 100.80
setting 101.45 99.32
experience 101.97 103.68
Table 4.5: Mean Standardized RT for \IN" Responses
are shown in Table 4.6, with signi cant results marked with an asterisk and trends marked
with a T. (All statements of signi cance are based on one-tailed t-tests at the p

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 153
cussed in the preceding section, i.e., (1) eye-faculty, (2)ensure-determine-recognize,
and (3)setting- experience. T-tests were then performed to test the signi cance of di er-
ences between these groups, using both methods of handling missing cases. Using listwise
deletion, signi cant di erences are found between groups 1 and 2 and between2and3;
signi cant di erences are found between groups 1 and 3 using either deletion method. No
signi cant di erences are found between senses within the proposed clusters with either
deletion method.
Returning to Table 4.5 on the preceding page, the pattern of results from the
lexical decision task is not so clear, and grouping as before does not yield the same pattern
of signi cant di erences. We note that, with the exception of determine, the two senses
having to do with physical vision (eye and faculty) are faster than the others; this
makes sense from a cognitive point of view, with \concrete" senses accessed faster than
\metaphorical" ones. The reason for the unexpectedly speedy reactions to determine and
setting is still being sought. There may be additional noise in this task due to perceived
similarities between some of the keywords and some of the non-words, despite our e orts
to create a set of uniform, unrelated, English-sounding non-words.
Discussion
In general, the subjects distinguished among the senses reliably on at least three
out of the four tasks. They were able to understand and follow the instructions and their
unrestricted categories (from the Sorting task) were generally in accord with those used by
the experimenters.
Since the results showed that the subjects were able to handle 7 senses well, we
decided carry out a new experiment, adding 7 more senses to the stimuli, to bring us closer
to the numbers of senses hypothesized on linguistic grounds in Chapter 2.
4.4 Experiment 3
Method
Subjects
ments 1 and 2.
Subjects were 39 UC Berkeley undergraduates with quali cations as in experi

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 154
Materials
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Freq.
H
HH H
H
HH H
H
H
H
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Figure 4.3: Experiment 3. Number of Categories used by each subject
The seven new senses were visit, consult, process, condition, envision, hal-
lucinate, and accompany. In order to keep the total set of stimuli small enough, only the
5 clearest examples of the seven senses used in Experiment 2were retained in Experiment 3.
As before, not all combinations of the manipulated factors with the senses produced good
sentences.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 2.
Results and Analysis
Task 1: Sorting
The number of categories created by each subject in the Sorting task is shown in
Figure 4.3. The median number of categories is 10, which is signi cantly larger than the
median of 6 on Experiment 2 (using the median test, 2 =26:09, p

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 155
accompany. Most of the de nitions were short, but one subject wantedtoleave no doubt
in our minds that he meant eye, writing this de nition:
to actually visualize something. To have an impulse that travels to the brain via
the optic nerve so that the brain actively con rms the existence of the object
you visualize.
Task 2: Classi cation
We found that the 10 sentences with the lowest level of agreement were causing a
disproportionate amount ofmismatches between the response and the intended sense, and
most of these also had no more than about 50% of agreement among the subjects' responses,
so we eliminated them from further consideration, reducing the numberofstimuli from 115
to 105. (There had been no comparable problems in the data for Experiment 2.)
Even a total of 14 senses, 75% of the responses agreed with the experimenters'
categorization. The mean kappa among all subjects fell only to .70; after the elimination of
the 10 weakest items, it rose to .75.
Table 4.7 on the following page shows the relationship between intended senses and
responses for Experiment 3, after the 10 weakest items have been eliminated as described
above. Once again, we nd the general bias toward the response eye, and some of the
same overlaps as noted in Experiment 2. In addition, the newly added senses create new
combinations; the most striking result is that the majority of examples of intended process
receive the response eye. Although some of the subjects created a separate category in the
sorting task for what we callprocess, the predominance of eye responses for intended
process stimuli suggests that most subjects regard perceiving a person performing an
action as a simple physical perception (i.e. eye), notwithstanding the secondary predication
associated with it. The newly introduced sense condition also creates considerable overlap,
although the vast majority of cases are \correctly" recognized.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 156
Responses !
Total
accompany
ensure
determine
recognize
hallucinate
envision
setting
experience
condition
consult
visit
faculty
process
eye
Intended #
eye 175 4 11 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 197
process 239 174 18 4 0 7 8 2 16 0 10 1 0 1 480
faculty 20 0 153 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174
visit 35 0 4 382 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 424
consult 1 0 1 25 487 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 515
condition 30 32 16 2 0 279 14 0 3 0 5 0 1 0 382
experience 0 6 1 0 0 2 122 6 6 0 1 1 0 0 145
setting 0 0 0 0 0 3 33 108 6 0 0 0 1 0 151
envision 9 9 2 0 0 0 1 1 335 2 1 0 0 0 360
hallucinate 19 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 397 1 0 0 0 421
recognize 1 4 1 0 0 30 4 0 3 0 168 7 1 0 219
determine 3 2 0 5 9 4 0 0 9 0 3 210 15 2 262
ensure 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 222 2 231
accompany 6 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 416 430
Total 538 231 211 423 497 329 183 118 380 399 194 225 242 421 4391
Table 4.7: Experiment 3.Intended Senses vs. Responses

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 157
sight, but altered or not real (maybe a subsection of the other sight category)
seeing stu in your mind; things that don't actually exist
possible hallucinations
look at (imaginary)
to perceive imaginary objects, colors, etc
hallucinate
imagine a stimulus, involuntarily
seeing something not really there; inside your head or imagining an image
to hallucinate visual image. to visualize something that seems real only to you
because it is in your mind
visual delusions
hallucination; create/picture an image not really there
internal physical perception, internal cognitive (distorted), (hallucination), (use of
imagination)
visual (unreal); hallucinations
Table 4.8: Subjects' de nitions for hallucinate
The categorization in the rest of the table is remarkably clearcut, but let us discuss
the 19 cases of intended hallucinate which were classi ed as eye. This should in principle
bearelatively clear-cut distinction, between seeing a physical object and seeing \something
that is not there". In fact, 13 of the 39 subjects spontaneously listed senses in the sorting
task that clearly refer to our sense hallucinate, asshown by their own de nitions in
Table 4.8. On the other hand, seeing hallucinations can be thought of as a kind of physical
visual experience, in which the physical source (the stimulus) is inside the the body of the
perceiver. (To delve any further into the actual cause of hallucinations would lead us into
clearly non-linguistic questions about neurology and mental illness.) Thus, in Chapter 2,
we treated hallucinate as a composition of eye and an irrealis seen.
The 19 instances of intended hallucinate which were classi ed as eye arise from
the 6 sentences shown in Table 4.9 on page 159. As the table indicates, all of these examples
were usually classi ed as hallucinate, and the 19 instances of eye donotseemtobepart
of a regular pattern. Furthermore, the highest proportion of eye responses is found in the
rst sentence, which is also inherently problematic, since spots in front of your eyes can
sometimes refer to \ oaters" (loose blood cells in the vitreous humor), and sometimes result
from low blood pressure or low blood sugar, all of them physical causes with which people
are generally familiar.
As in Experiment 2, agreement among subjects on the Classi cation task was

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 158
1.0
0.9
EXPERIENCE SETTING .83 VISIT
0.8
0.7
.78
.85
EYE PROCESS
.80
FACULTY
.87
Initial kappa = .75
.86
STATE
.89
ENVISION
.91
RECOGNIZE
.93
.92
ENSURE
DETERMINE
.95
CONSULT
.96
HALLUCINATE
Figure 4.4: Experiment 3: Clustering of Senses Based on Increasing Agreement
ACCOMPANY

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 159
eye fac hal Sentence
7 2 58 Don't you sometimes sees spots in front ofyour
eyes if you stand up suddenly?
5 0 32 I didn't exactly see dragons ying in the living
room, but I did notice that colors and smells
seemed more intense.
2 0 19 It took him a few minutes to recover after being
tackled so hard, but he wasn't seeing stars or
anything.
2 0 62 If this drug is as dangerous as they say, should I
start to see the walls breathing sometime soon?
1 0 35 How long after you took the drug did you see
the unicorn in your backyard?
2 0 66 If he keeps drinking like that, he's gonna be seeing
pink elephants soon.
Table 4.9: Distribution of Responses For Problematic Instances of hallucinate
also calculated (after the elimination of the 10 unsatisfactory items) and the clustering
algorithm was applied to that data. Fig. 4.4 on the page before shows the resulting tree;
unfortunately, the clustering is not nearly as clear-cut as in Experiment 2. Except for the
pair experience/setting, each new sense is an added to a single growing cluster. The
overlap between eye and process is shown by the fact that these are the rst to merge,
and the eye/faculty cluster seen in the preceding tree is re ected in the close proximity
of faculty. The newly introduced senses condition and visit also merge soon thereafter.
The three senses which formed a cluster of their own in the preceding experiment, i.e.
envision, recognize, and determine, merge one after the other, but do not form a
separate cluster in this tree. The position of accompany at the top of the tree is in accord
with its relatively di erent meaning. It is, however, hard to explain why envision and
hallucinate are so far apart, and why consult should be so far from visit.
Timed Tasks
Because of the way the stimuli were randomized, there were many combinations
of prime and probe for which wehave only a small numberofresponsesoreven none. This
is particularly true for Experiment 3, with its larger numberofsenses;we are lling a 14 x
14 table rather than just a 7 x 7 table, and would need four times as much data to achieve
the same coverage. The large number of gaps in the data have made it impossible to do

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 160
the sort of statistical analysis which was done on the timed tasks of Experiment 2. We
can, however, calculate the simple agreement between the subjects' categorial judgements
and the intended senses: after eliminating one subject who pressed the \yes" key on all of
his responses, the median is 94% agreement (Q1 = 89%, Q3 = 97%), even with the larger
number of senses.
4.5 Conclusions
Experiment Senses Stimuli N Subjects Tasks
1 20 Corpus 9 1&2
2 7 Constructed 21 all
3 14 Constructed 39 all
Table 4.10: Summary of the Experiments
Table 4.10 shows a summary of the stimuli, tasks, and number of subjects in each
of the experiments.
We must recognize that not all the interesting questions about the polysemy ofsee
can be resolved using experiments of this type. For example, nothing in this experimental
setup will help to resolve the well-known problem of distinguishing retrieval of di erent xed
representations from di erences in processing strategies, with which cognitive psychologists
have been so concerned. There are also the ever-present dangers of generalizing from an
unrepresentative sample; UC Berkeley undergraduates are certainly not a representative
sample of English speakers in general. On the other hand, we have no a priori reason
to suppose that their mental representations of the semantics of see are systematically
di erent from those of other speakers, since it is such a common word, and most of its
senses are very common as well.
Also, as with most psychological research, there is no way to distinguish inter-
subject di erences due to di erent mental representations (or processing) from those caused
by subjects' di ering interpretations of (or attitudes toward) their duties in the experiment.
(One exception is that data from subjects whose performance is obviously contrary to
the instructions can legitimately be omitted from further analysis, as we have done in a
few cases described below.) If, for example, some subjects tried to divide senses as they

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 161
imagined a dictionary would have and others did not, but simply tried to construct their
own categories in their own way, this might produce variation across subjects in the type of
categorization. It seems unlikely that enough subjects carried out one such aninterpretation
of the instructions consistently enough to substantially a ect our results.
As noted earlier in this chapter, we expect to nd individual variation in internal-
ized semantic structures for see across speakers; these patterns would be expected to follow
the usual lines of geographical and social dialects, with educational level playing a major
role, but we were not able to determine anything about such distribution in this study. To
do so would require many more subjects from much more diverse backgrounds. Nor do these
experiments provide any evidence as to the relative importance (or temporal precedence)
of semantic vs. syntactic factors. As noted in Chapter 2, many senses have quite speci c
restrictions (syntactic and/or semantic) on their arguments, such asaccompany or deter-
mine. The subjects may be learning to distinguish at least some of senses from relatively
straightforward cues which are primarily syntactic (although the assumptions that syntactic
cues (a) can be easily separated from semantic cues and (b) are more straightforward than
semantic cues may becharacteristic of some linguists rather than most other speakers).
Even given these caveats, there are still a number of signi cant conclusions to be
drawn; let us review our predictions in the light of our results:
1. Since see is highly polysemous, we predicted that our subjects would produce more
senses on the sorting task than the subjects in Jorgensen 1990.
In Experiment 1, the mean number of categories per subject was 11.6, substantially
higher than the mean of 5.6 found by Jorgensen (1990), as we had predicted. For
Experiments 2 and 3, the median numbers of categories produced were 6 and 10,
which approximate the number of senses intended by the experimenters, i.e. 7 and
14 respectively. The di erence between the two medians is signi cant, meaning that
subjects recognized that more senses were present in Experiment 3 on the basis of the
stimuli alone.
2. We predicted broad agreement among our subjects as to what the central sense(s) of
see is.
Most of the subjects chose as a central sense either a category corresponding to
eye+faculty, oreye alone if they separated faculty from it.

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 162
3. We predicted that, although there would be individual variation, subjects would be
in basic agreement regarding the sense structure.
In Experiments 2 and 3, our subjects were able to distinguish 7 and 14 senses respec-
tively as shown by the results on the Classi cation and Categorial Judgement tasks.
This suggests that the relatively low rateofagreement in Experiment 1was due to
the ambiguous and unbalanced stimuli rather than to inherent di culty of the tasks.
The level of agreement among subjects on both the sorting task and the classi cation
task suggests that the categories which we used in the classi cation task matched fairly
well with the categories which the subjects had at the beginning of the experiments.
The very high accuracy found on the Categorial Judgement task under timed con-
ditions might beinterpreted as proving that the subjects actually use the categories
which they displayed on classi cation task in understanding natural language sen-
tences. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that subjects have merely learned
the categories created by the experimenters extremely well by that point. In any case,
the high level of accuracy obtained after a short training period suggests that the a
priori categories used in the experiment were easy for the subjects to learn. There are
also relatively good correspondences between many of the subjects' own spontaneous
de nitions and those of the experimenters. It is di cult to quantify either of these sit-
uations, but, taken together, they suggest that the experimenters' a priori categories
and the subjects' own initial representations match reasonably well.
4. We made three relatively speci c predictions regarding cross-modal priming experi-
ments. Our data have not provided convincing evidence to support those predictions,
primarily due to gaps in the data. We have found tendencies in the expected directions
for speci c senses, and fairly strong evidence of priming in the predicted directions
when the data for individual senses are clustered in ways that are in accord with our
ndings from inter-subject agreement.
In addition to the hypotheses we began with, we have also found that, at least in
Experiment 2, clustering of senses on the basis of inter-subject agreement produces group-
ings that, while not predicted in advance, can be motivated on the basis of independently
supported semantic types. It is an empirical question whether these results would also hold
true in an expanded version of Experiment 3, gathering more data. An agenda of research

CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIMENTS 163
designed to answer some of these remaining questions will be discussed in Chapter 6.

Chapter 5
What the Dictionaries Say
5.1 Introduction
It is important to study the semantics of see based directly on primary data,
whether in the form of introspection, corpus searching or experiments. But it would also
be foolish to ignore the e orts of professional lexicographers to de ne the word; we should
now be able to look at dictionaries and to compare them with the results of the study so
far. The rst part of this chapter discusses what English lexicography has to say about
the senses of see and the sense divisions that occur in a number of major monolingual
English dictionaries; the second part gives some comparisons between the sense divisions
in monolingual English dictionaries and those which appear in several bilingual dictionaries
(sometimes called translating dictionaries). The relevant sectionsofseveral dictionaries are
included in this chapter and discussed in detail; most of the original typography has been
preserved, but line breaks have beenintroduced and (in many cases) numbering added so
that the reader can follow the discussion more easily. Sincewe are discussing only the sense
divisions, the etymologies, pronunciation, and word forms (saw/seen/seeing) are omitted
from the entries. For the bilingual dictionaries, we use regular orthography in the case of
Spanish, and the national standard romanizations for Chinese and Japanese.
Wemust remember that, even though almost every new dictionary is compiled with
reference to many existing dictionaries, there are severe constraints on the amount of time
and e ort which professional lexicographers can spend on the writing of individual entries
for words; the writing of dictionaries (whether mono- or bilingual) is a commercial enterprise
in which time spent on lexicographic analysis is a cost and productivity is measured in terms
164

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 165
of words per day. AsPatrick Hanks puts it,
\. . . The enormous cost of compiling a new dictionary, the absurdly long periods
for which theinvestment istiedupbeforeany return on it can be expected,
the terrible fear that the risk may notpay o , and the resulting pressure to
keep the book to a predetermined length (predetermined by marketing considerations,
rather than by what needs to be said) are just some of the factors that
can all too often combine to sti e initiative in lexicography.. . . " (1992:110)
Students of lexical semantics can spend a potentially unlimited amount of time on
precise distinctions, but most users of dictionaries will be satis ed if they nd a de nition
which applies to the context in which they found the word, without too much concern for
omissions and overlaps among senses.
Since seeing is a central part of human experience, all languages have words to
express varieties of seeing. What is interesting linguistically is what similarities and di er-
ences we nd in the patterns of lexicalization across languages. In the domain of motion,
for example, it is well known that some languages tend to have motionverbs (or their equiv-
alent) that incorporate the direction of motion, while the manner of motion is expressed
by another word, whereas other languages have motionverbs that incorporate manner, and
the direction of motion is expressed by separate words (Talmy 1985).
Other studies have looked at the main verbs of perception across languages. For
example, Viberg 1983 examines a wide range of languages, but depends largely on bilingual
dictionaries for data. Some of the work of the DELIS project deals with verbs of perception
(Heid & Krueger 1994) and is based on a substantial body of corpus data, but is limited
to a few European languages, all Indo-European (although substantial variation in lexico-
semantic patterning with regard to the complements of verbs of perception is found among
those languages). While evidence across two or three languages (especially if they are his-
torically or culturally related) does not prove very much, evidence of lexicalization patterns
from a range of unrelated languages may o er glimpses of semantic universals in this eld.
Since perception and consequent knowledge are part of the shared experience of
all people, we would expect to nd generally similar senses across languages. This does not
mean that each language will have a single verb of visual perception that will have senses
matching all of the senses of English see; wehave already observed that this in not the case.
Rather, we expect to nd the notion of inchoative knowing of both concrete and abstract
entities and events being conveyed by verbs of (primarily visual and auditory) perception,

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 166
with or without intentionality (i.e. corresponding roughly to English see, look, hear, and
listen).
Because the breakdown of senses given in Chapter 2 is rather detailed, I do not
expect to nd many languages making many ner sense distinctions along these same
lines. 1 There will undoubtedly be many cross-cutting distinctions which English does not
have, such as honori cs, di erent tense/aspect divisions, etc., but it would be surprising
to nd, for instance, a language which used di erent verbs of perception for animate and
inanimate seen within the eye sense. On the other hand, it would not be surprising to
nd that many languages do not allow their common verb for see to be as a translation
of the verb in Isee why he's happy, since, on our analysis, eye and recognize represent
di erent senses of see in English.
5.2 Monolingual English Dictionaries
Buyers of English dictionaries have certain expectations as to what a dictionary
should contain, and dictionary writers must inevitably follow these traditional expectations
in order to satisfy their customers. Part of this tradition involves the notion of substi-
tutability, i.e., that the de nition should include a synonym or paraphrase which can be
directly substituted for the word to be de ned in the sense in question with no change of
either syntax or meaning (Hanks 1992:103). There may well be, in fact, no good semantic
substitute with the right part of speech in the language, but this tradition is still strong.
For example, when elementary school children are asked to write de nitions for words, and
they write Tennis is when two people take rackets and hit a ball over a net. . . , they may be
criticized and told that they must write instead Tennis is a game in which two people. . . ,
i.e., that the noun tennis should not be de ned by a clause, but by another noun game
(although the di erentia may be expressed by a clause.) 2
Readers of dictionaries have also come to expect some sort of sense divisions for
high frequency words with many sorts of uses, i.e., there seems to be a folk concept of
polysemy. However, this concept is apparently extremely vague; readers write to publishers
with many sorts of complaints about dictionaries, but never to complain about the sense
1 Of course, speakers of any language can make semantic distinctions as ne as they like by use of
appropriate devices such as modi ers, in ections, syntactic variation, etc. I am referring here to the set of
senses shared by all speakers when they use the word.
2 Cf. Fillmore & Atkins (1992:101) on the relation between substitutability and Frame Semantics.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 167
divisions for polysemous words (B.T.S. Atkins, p.c.).
Some monolingual dictionaries simply list a series of senses separated by semicolons
with no indication of the relations among them. This maygive the impression that the senses
are supposed to be completely distinct, although in fact, the lexicographers are perfectly
aware that one may include another, or be related to it in a varietyofways (Hanks 1992:102).
Other dictionaries try to specify the major and minor sense divisions and give examples
of each. In some cases the relations among senses may be indicated by connectives and
anaphoric expressions, such asentries that start with \hence", \especially", etc. In some
dictionaries, entries are in the form of hierarchical outlines, and the numbering and lettering
indicate subdivision of senses (Atkins 1992:19).
Webster's Third New International|Text
vt
1. (a) to perceive by the eye, apprehend through sight
opens his eyes to see the sunlight coming in through the window
(b) to perceive asifby sight
it was wonderful what that boy saw who was blind|Stuart Cloete
(c) to detect the presence of
the supersonic streamlining of this vehicle makes it di cult to see byradar|
L.N.Ridenour
2. (a) to have experience of: UNDERGO
saw sea duty on a minesweeper|Current Biog.
if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death|Jn 8:51 (RSV)
openings for keen, practical, nal year student to see dairy cattle and small-
animal practice|Veterinary Record
seen better days; see life
(b) to learn or nd by observation or experience: come to know: DISCOVER
apoint of view which I have since seen cause to modify|John Buchan
(c) to nd out by investigation: ASCERTAIN
see if the hat ts; see if the car needs oil
see who's at the door

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 168
(d) to give rise to: be marked by
the late glacial times saw the complete triumph of our ancestral stock|Jacquetta
& Christopher Hawkes
(e) to serve as the setting for : be the scene of : WITNESS
that house saw more worry and unhappiness|Virginia D. Dawson & Betty D.
Wilson
3. (a) to form a mental picture of: VISUALIZE
can still see her as she was twenty years ago
saw her in his dreams
(b) to perceive the meaning or importance of : COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND
because the frontier gives shape and life to our national myth, we have preferred
to see its story in romantic outline|Dayton Kohler
(c) to be aware of: recognize
planning to re you tomorrow, because you just can't see agood news story|
Sinclair Lewis
sees the folly of further resistance|T. B. Costain
sees only his faults
(d) to form a conception of: imagine as a possibility: SUPPOSE
can you see me knowing how to furnish a house|Edith Sitwell
was never whipped. . . she was so digni ed and superior you just couldn't see her
across my mother's lap|Myron Brinig
(e) to have presented for observation or consideration: be made aware of
we saw, in the previous lecture, how the problem arose
(f) to look at from a particular point of view
see oursels as others see us|Robert Burns
(g) to look ahead to: FORESEE
can see the day when a college will not try to cover the whole eld of liberal
arts|Time
4. (a) to direct one's attention to; put under observation : EXAMINE, SCRUTINIZE
want to see how he handles the problem

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 169
(b) i. to inspect or read understandingly (something written or printed) have you
seen the story of yesterday's game
let me see yourpass, soldier
seen and allowed
ii. to read of
(c) to refer to
I saw your appointment in the newspapers
for further information, see thedocuments printed in the appendix
see the explanatory notes at the beginning of the book
(d) to attend or visit as an observer or spectator
see aparade, see aplay, see the sights of the city
5. (a) to take care of: provide for
would like him to have enough to seehimeasily to the end of his days|T.B.Costain
(b) to take care or heed: make sure
see thou say nothing to any man|Mk 1:44 (AV)
see that your wet umbrella is not placed between your seat and the next|Agnes
M. Miall
will see thatheisbrought up properly
6. (a) to regard as: CONSIDER, JUDGE
the electorate did not see ttoratify the new frame of government|B.W.Bond
did not see it right to ask for special favors
(b) to prefer to have: allow to happen: WELCOME
would probably see himself shot before hetoldadeliberate falsehood|J.G.Cozzens
I'll see youdead before Iaccept your terms
(c) to regard with approval or liking: nd acceptable or attractive
still can't see the portholes but this is our only complaint in an otherwise clean
design|Walt Woron
hope you'll be abletomakeherseeit|W. S. Maugham
can't understand what he sees in her
7. (a) i. to make acallupon:visit
stopped o at the o ce tosee his former employer

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 170
ii. to call upon or meet with in order to obtain help or advice
see adoctor; see a lawyer
(b) i. to be in the company of regularly or frequently esp. in courtship or dating
had been seeing each other for a year before theybecame engaged
ii. to grant aninterview to or accept the visit of: meet with: RECEIVE
the president of the bank will see you in a few minutes
sees only a few old friends these days
iii. to meet with for the purpose of in uencing esp. by bribery or pressure
charged that the witness had been seen by the defense
8. (a) accompany, escort
young men would wait to see the young ladies home|Agnes S. Turnbull
(b) to wait upon: be present with
saw her onto the plane
saw him o at the station
(c) to give continued attention, assistance, or guidance to|used with through
saw a new edition of his book through the press
the sympathy of his friends saw him through this period of grief
9. to meet (a bet) in poker or to equal the bet of (a player): CALL
vi
10. (a) to give orpay attention
see, the train is coming
(b) to look about
stood up and red his pistol in the air, and the naked Indians came out on the
shore tosee|Meridel Le Sueur
11. (a) to have the power of sight: have vision
whereas I was blind, now I see|Jn 9:25 (AV)
he sees poorly with his left eye
(b) to apprehend objects by sight
it was so foggy that he could hardly see

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 171
(c) to perceive objects as if by sight
the butter y lightness that was teaching his ngers to see|Marcia Davenport
12. (a) to grasp something mentally: have insight: UNDERSTAND
this fundamental bias of all thinking. . . is what enables us to see, gives thought
its real use|H. J. Muller
(b) to take note
these aren't ordinary trout, you see|Corey Ford
(c) CONSIDER, THINK
when can I nish this|let me see
13. (a) to make investigation or inquiry
you'll see about the rates, won't you|Agnes S. Turnbull
(b) to arrive at a conclusion through observation and experience
Ican't give you an answer yet, but we shall see
[Discussion of relation of see to its near-synonyms behold, descry, espy, view, survey,
observe, notice, remark, note, perceive, and discern omitted.]
Collocations
14. see about
(a) to attend to
I'll see about parking if you buy the tickets
(b) to think over before deciding
we can't give you an answer now, but we'll see about it
15. see after to attend to or care for
see after the baggage; see afterthebaby
16. see daylight
(a) to get over the initial di culties of a problem or undertaking
after ve years of trying, he began to see daylight

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 172
(b) slang, of a bronco rider: to bounce high in the saddle so that daylight can be
seen between the rider and the saddle
17. see for dial chie y Eng. to look for
18. see one's way to nd a course of action possible or reasonable
think I can see my way to lending you 10 dollars
19. see red to become enraged: lose control of oneself
has an insulting manner that makes others see red
20. see the elephant slang. to gain experience of the world
21. see through to see the true meaning, nature, or character of
pride themselves on seeing through the motives of politicians|Times Lit. Supp.
we have seen through the environment theory as we saw through the race theory|
A.J.Toynbee
22. see to to take care of : attend to
saw to the education of the children|Nancy Mitford
23. see to it to make certain by taking necessary or appropriate action
saw to it that the men in the armed services received higher pay|Current Biog.
Webster's Third New International|Discussion
We will rst study Webster's Third New International Dictionary (W3NI, Gove
1993), as an example of a monolingual dictionary, because it is one of the most authoritative
dictionaries of English, and the entry for see is one of the longest and most detailed to be
found. We nd that most of the senses and \sub-senses" listed in the entry correspond to
senses which wehave described in Chapter 2, although the relationship is far from one-
to-one. The reasons for the imperfect correspondence between the W3NI and our earlier
analysis will become clear as we discuss the entry in detail. As noted in Section 2.6, see
participates in dozens of collocations (some of which were discussed in that chapter); even
this large unabridged dictionary includes only ten of them. We will discuss only those whose
de nitions and/or examples are linguistically interesting.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 173
The rst sense (1a), corresponds to our eye, the most basic sense. The de nition
of the next sub-sense begs the question of exactly what sort of perception is meant; it is
obviously not simple vision, but is it the recognition of physical objects with the hands or
amarvelous sensitivity to social relations? Neither the example sentence nor the de nition
makes it clear. The next sub-sense, however, (1c), probably is lexicalized, our sense scan.
Although no de nition is given for the top level sense which includes all three of these
sub-senses, we note that all involve physical vision, with eyes or other systems.
No such unity can be found among the senses listed under (2). (2a) corresponds
closely to our sense experience, and (2c) corresponds to our sense determine. (2b) seems
rather similar to (3c), corresponding to our sense recognize, except that the example which
is given for (2b) is itself idiomatic (re ected in the omission of the article before the count
noun cause), perhaps related to the family of uses/senses see noreason to, see noneed to,
etc., discussed in Section 3.4 on page 121.
(2d) and (2e), at least to judge by the examples, are temporal and locative versions
respectively of our sense setting; the semantics of the temporal and the locative seem close
enough not to require separate senses. The example given in (2d) could be an example of \be
marked by", but it does not seem to t the de nition \give rise to", unless one conceives of
\glacial times" as actively fostering human evolution. There may well have been a stage in
the development ofthesetting sense in which \PLACE saw EVENT" was metonymic for
\PEOPLE in PLACE saw EVENT". But it now has an independent existence, as shown by
this example; by de nition, there were no people outside of our \ancestral stock" to witness
its triumph. Also, note that in (2e), the synonym WITNESS is itself ambiguous between
a sense like eye/process and a sense like setting, in addition to its legal senses. Such a
range of meaning seems to be language speci c; the nearest equivalents in Spanish, Chinese,
and Japanese do not have a similar range.
(3) can be considered mainly a mixture of examples of our senses envision and
recognize. (3a), (3d), and (3g) are all envision. Note that the irrealis semantics charac-
teristic of envision can be expressed in various ways, by can plus the negative, metaphor-
ically by the day when, use with the future tense (will not try), in his dreams. etc. The
choice of one out of several linguistic forms to express a given situation conveys additional
information by conversational implicature (Levinson 1983:132-147). In this case, the use
of can at all rather than nothing suggests that the ability to see something is in doubt.
Furthermore, one of the non-negated can's is clearly a rhetorical question (can you see

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 174
me knowing . . . ), probably to be answered in the negative; some related constructions are
discussed in Section 3.4 on page 121.
(3c) and (3e) are both instances of recognize; the latter is a formal use associated
with the rhetoric and pragmatics of formal discourse, but we need not consider it a separate
sense (but cf. (4c) below). (3b) is an example of classify. (3f) is di cult to classify; it
might be considered an example of eye or recognize, depending on how literal we take
the poet to be; it could also be considered classify, although the clause introduced by as
is not equivalent to the phrase introduced by as in the construction see X as Y.
(4) also combines several senses. In (4a), the example would fall under determine,
and does not imply any action on the part of the seer. The other three sub-headings do
involve intentionality on the part of the seer, although they contain a mixture of senses.
The distinction between (4(b)i) and (4(b)ii) is an important one whichwehave distinguished
as read and news, since the complement of the former is the physical object which isread
or its topic, while the complement of the latter is the event or proposition expressed by the
written material. (4c) is a specialized use of read typical of formal writing, and invariably
in the imperative. (4d) we have treated as two separate senses, the rst two examples as
spectate, and the third as tour.
(5b) is clearly our ensure, but (5a) is not covered by any of the senses we have
discussed so far, unless we treat it as a metaphorical extension of accompany. A similar
extension from the collocation see out is noted in the New Oxford Dictionary of English
(NODE, Pearsall & Hanks 1998) as meaning \(of an article) last longer than the remainder
of someone's life" in British English. This metaphorical extension may well be lexicalized
for some U.S. speakers, too.
It is di cult to see the rationale for the grouping we nd in (6). (6a) contains
two examples, the rst an instance of the collocation see fit, which may be related to
classify, but is best treated as a construction in its own right. The second example did
not see it right to ask special favors is not attributed, and no examples of this pattern
are found in the BNC; given the syntactic di erence from see t, these two should not be
grouped together, and the latter may not really exist.
(6b) seems to be identical with the collocation listed in the NODE (see someone
damned rst), except for the order of the two conditions. These are combinations of con-
structions, as discussed on page 123. The use of the word welcome is at best misleading
as to the meaning of the examples. (6c) is also dubious; the rst two examples are highly

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 175
ambiguous, but may well represent envision and recognize respectively. The third is an
idiomatic use of classify.
The senses in (7) all have to do with meeting socially. (7(a)i) is our visit and
(7(a)ii) our consult; (7(b)i) is dating. The rst example under (7(b)ii) is audience,
discussed on page 100 as a compositional use; several dictionaries use the example of re-
ceiving an ambassador for this use. The second example, however, along with the second
de nition \meet with", is ambiguous between visit and audience. (7(b)iii) seems to be
an instance of visit or consult which hasbeenover-interpreted by the lexicographer; the
word see in this sentence conveys only the \meet with" part of the de nition. The rest of
the de nition was no doubt clear in the larger context which the lexicographer could see,
but is mysterious to the readers who see only the phrase cited in the dictionary.
(8a) is a use of accompany, as is the rst example in (8b). The following example
is the collocation see off, and (8c), the collocation see x through. (9) is a sense wehave
called gambling; it is found in all the large dictionaries, but is extremely rare in actual
corpora, probably because it occurs primarily in dialogue during a card game.
Many of the senses listed separately under the heading \vi" in W3NI are identical
to those listed under \vt"; this is a result of a fundamental problem in methodology. While
syntactic factors must be given due weight in distinguishing senses, it is also important to
recognize that some of the senses listed here as transitive can also occur where the com-
plement is understood in context but unexpressed. In Construction Grammar terminology,
they represent either de nite null instantiation (DNI) or inde nite null instantiation (INI).
For example, in (10b), the \naked Indians" presumably did not come out on the shore
merely to \look about" but to determine what had happened, or what had caused the
noise; this is DNI, because the complement ofsee can be rather clearly inferred from the
context. (11b) is an instance of eye with INI, the complement understood as something
like \anything around him"; likewise, (13b) can be treated as determine with INI.
(10a) seems to be a reduction of the question \Do you see?", pronounced with rising
intonation; the DNI complement is either \that the train is coming" (i.e., recognize), \the
train coming" (process) or \the train" (eye). Note that in the de nition, \to give orpay
attention", the object attended to is also null instantiated. (11a) is our sense faculty,
while the example in (11c) seems to be a metaphorical extension of eye, not a separate
sense.
(12a) is our sense recognize. The examples given in (12b) and (12c) are both

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 176
collocations in our treatment, y'see and let's see respectively. As discussed in Chap-
ter 2, both these senses inherit the basic semantics of recognize but have very di erent
pragmatics. (13b) seems to be identical to (14b), and should be classi ed as instances of
determine.
With regard to the collocations at the end of the entry, there are no examples of
see after (15) in the BNC; it may be a blend of look after and see tooccurring in speech
but not actually lexicalized. There are 290 examples of the collocation see for (17) in the
BNC, but only seven could possibly have the meaning indicated here, and all of those are
ambiguous with other known senses. There are no examples of see the elephant (20). Given
the fact that speakers must have knowledge of vast numbers of very low frequency lexical
items, it is di cult to say in what sense these collocations exist as lexical units in the
language, shared by a speech community.
Clearly, see to(22) and see toit(23) are both instances of ensure, the latter
taking a that-clause (which can be null instantiated) as its complement, and the former
an NP, in circumstances in which the action to be performed is clear in context (e.g. in
(22), the equivalent that-clause would be something like see to it that the children receive a
good education, which mightentail intermediate actions such as registering the children in
appropriate schools, reading to them, paying their tuition, helping them with homework,
training them in the family trade, etc.). But ensure can also be expressed without the
words to it before the that-clause (cf. 5b).
In summary, we nd that the sense divisions and subdivisions in the W3NI seem to
have quite di erent statuses. One of our senses may be scattered across several dictionary
senses or one dictionary sense may include several of ours. The de nitions themselves are
often not very helpful; it would be daunting to distinguish among \to learn or nd by
observation or experience" (2b), \to nd out by investigation" (2c), and \to perceive the
meaning or importance of" (12a). Usually, the examples make clear what is intended by
the de nition, rather than the other way around. The reader can learn something from
the dictionary, but it is a highly interactive process, depending heavily on what the reader
already knows. While lexicographers must obviously depend on reader's general world
knowledge in many ways, explicitly providing information about both the semantics and
the syntax of each sense is helpful for readers from very di erent cultural backgrounds and
will be essential for dictionaries to be used in NLP.
We note that this process is very di erent forentries de ning less common words,

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 177
especially technical terms. If one looks up petasus and nds the de nition \a broad-brimmed
hat worn by ancient Greek travelers and hunters, often represented in art as a winged hat
worn by Hermes or Mercury", one has been informed very succinctly of exactly what one
needed to know. This is also in part due to the fact that nouns are generally easier than
verbs to de ne (and when necessary to draw a picture of, as might be done for petasus).
Small English Dictionaries
We already noted that the lexicographer is inherently constrained to produce con-
cise entries, even for highly polysemous words such assee. The extreme case of this is the
pocket dictionary; when constrained to produce a very short list of senses, will the lexicog-
rapher be able to express the major distinctions? Let us examine, by way of examples, the
sense divisions in three small English dictionaries. The rst is Merriam-Webster's Pocket
Dictionary (1995) in which we nd the following entry: 3
(151) Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary
a. perceive by the eye
b. have experience of
c. understand
d. make sure
e. meet with or escort
The rst two correspond to eye and experience. Understand presumably encompasses
our senses recognize, process, andcondition. Make sure is ambiguous between ensure
and determine. Finally, the two social senses visit and accompany are combined in the
last item as a disjunction.
shown below:
The entry from the second dictionary, Webster's New World Dictionary (1997), is
(152) Webster's New World Dictionary
a. look at
b. understand
3 In the remainder of this chapter, I will leave gapsinthenumbering of examples to mark transitions
between languages and between large and small dictionaries.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 178
c. nd out
d. make sure
e. escort
f. meet; visit with
g. consult
h. have thepower of sight
Even in this brief entry most of the major senses are listed. determine and ensure are
distinguished, as are accompany, visit, and consult, and faculty is added. Although
we may consider understand to be too broad, as in the dictionary above, this entry covers
the ground very nicely.
Finally consider the Concise Oxford Dictionary (Allen et al. 1990), shown below:
(153) Concise Oxford Dictionary.
a. perceive with the eyes.
b. deduce after re ection or from information.
c. regard in a speci ed way.
d. meet (someone one knows) socially or by chance.
e. escort to a speci ed place.
f. attend to.
g. ensure.
h. (in poker or brag) equal the bet of (an opponent) and require them to reveal
their cards to determine who has won the hand.
Like the Webster's New World, there are eight sense divisions,but they are much
less clear; (153-b) is vague and confusing; (153-c) may beintended to mean classify or
condition, but it is hard to tell which. In (153-d), one assumes that the intended sense
is visit; by the de nition we're using, one can do this either by appointment orbychance;
therefore, the words socially or by chance do not seem to add any meaning. The distinction
between (153-f). and (153-g) is also unclear. It is surprising to nd the gambling sense in
such a small dictionary.
All three dictionaries attempt to cover something of the broad semantic range of
see, and none has space for examples or discussion. Although the lengths of the entries

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 179
are comparable, the Webster's New World Dictionary does a much better job on the sense
divisions.
5.3 Bilingual Dictionaries|Introduction
Most bilingual dictionaries apparently try to make all and only the sense divisions
that will be relevant in translating to the target language. But they do not provide just
one translation or paraphrase for the sense divisions which they make; each sense division
in a bilingual dictionary typically corresponds to several possible translations in the target
language. For example, consider the use of see which occurs in (154).
(154) a. The last time I saw Paris. . .
b. You must go up there and see the factory before you decide.
We treat this as a use of physical vision (eye), and consider that the tour sense which
see has in the sentences is the result of the composition of the meaning of the verb with its
object, i.e., a place which istobeseeninitsentirety, especially a tourist destination. One
can argue, however, that this should be treated as a separate sense, on the basis of separate
negation, as in Ex. (155).
(155) I've never really seen Paris, although I saw it from an airplane as I ew to Frankfurt
once.
In the New English-Chinese Dictionary (Editing Group 1988) for example, the fourth sense
division in the entry for see includes tour along with spectate. Three examples are given:
(156) a. see a play
b. go and see our new workshop
c. see the sights of Hangzhou
The rst two are translated with phrases using kan, (156-c) with youlan. But the rst is
translated by an idiom in Chinese, a verb-object compound kanx (`look drama'|go to a
play or opera), and (156-b) is translated by kankan, the reduplication indicating intention-
ality or purposiveness. Youlan is a two-verb compound which can be glossed as `tour-view'.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 180
Finally, a good bilingual dictionary will have idiomatic translations of its exam-
ple sentences, but a good translation of a sentence does not necessarily include a good
translation of each sense of each word in it. It is important for students to learn that
word-for-word translations are often clumsy and sometimes impossible, and the bilingual
dictionary is supposed to demonstrate that fact.
It may help to think of the problem in terms of Frame Semantics. In some cases,
there are very similar semantic frames across two cultures and the translation problem
is a matter of nding equivalent linguistic forms for them. For example, the commercial
transaction frame and many more speci c frames derived from it will be found in the
cultures of all developed countries; we just need to learn that English for rent is French a
louer and Chinese chuzu, and we will be able to recognize advertisements for apartments.
In other cases, the frames are quite di erent across cultures, and the problem of translation
are much deeper; e.g. it is very unlikely that the American culture-speci c sh story can
be simply translated as ` sh' + `story' anywhere else in the world, and the culture-speci c
Japanese term yagou `house/room-tag/number' has to be rendered by an explanatory phrase
in English, `Kabuki actor's stage name'.
5.4 English-Spanish Dictionaries
Collins English-Spanish Dictionary|Text
(201) |vt
a. (gen) ver
(i) see page 8 vease la pagina 8
(ii) he's seen a lot of the world ha visto mucho mundo
(iii) he'll not see 40againlos 40 ya no los cumple
(iv) Ican see toread veo bastante bien para poder leer
(v) to see sb do sthg ver a uno hacer algo
(vi) I saw him coming lo vi venir
(vii) he was seen to fall se le vio caer
(viii) I saw it done in 1968 lo vi hacer en 1968
(ix) I'll see him damned rstantes le vere colgado
(x) there was not a house to be seen no se veia ni una sola casa

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 181
(xi) this dress is not t to be seen este vestido no se puede ver
(xii) he's not t to be seen in public no se le puede presentar a los ojos
del publico
b. (accompany) acompa~nar
(i) to see sb to the door acompa~nar a uno a la puerta
(ii) to see a girl home acompa~nar una chica asucasa
(iii) may I see you home? >puedo acompa~narte a casa?
(iv) he was so drunk we had to see him to bed estaba tan borracho que
tuvimos que llevarle a la cama
c. (understand) comprender, entender, ver
(i) Idon't see why no veo por que, no comprendo por que
(ii) I fail to see howno comprendo como
(iii) as far as I can see segun mi modo de entender las cosas; a mi ver
(iv) this is how I see iteste es mi modo de entenderlo. yo lo entiendo as
(v) the Russians see it di erently los rusos lo miran desde otro punto
de vista, el criterio de los rusos es distinto
(vi) I don't see it ( g) no creo queseaposible; no veo comosepodr a
hacer
d. (look, learn, perceive) mirar; observar; percibir
(i) I saw only too clearly that ...percib demasiado bien que . . .
(ii) Isee in the paper that . . . veo enelperiodico que . . .
(iii) Did you see thatQueen Anne is dead? >has oido que ha muerto
la reina Ana?
(iv) Isee nothing wrong in it no le encuentro nada indebido
(v) Idon't know what she sees in him no se lo que ella le encuentra
e. (ensure)
(i) to see (to it) that. . . procurar que + subj; asegurar que + subj
(ii) see that he has all he needs cuida que tenga todo la que necesita
(iii) see thatitdoes not happen again que no vuelva a ocurrir
(iv) see that you have it ready for Monday procura tenerlo listo para
el lunes
(v) to see that sth is done procurar que algo se haga
f. (visit. frequent) ver, visitar

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 182
(202) |vi
(i) to see the doctor consultar al medico
(ii) Iwanttosee you about my daughter quiero hablar con Vd. acerca
de mi hija
(iii) what did he want to you about? >que asunto quer a discutir con-
tigo?; >que motivo tuvo su visita?
(iv) we don't see much of them nowadays ahora les vemos bastante
poco
(v) we shall be seeing them for dinner vamos a cenar con elias
(vi) to call (or go) and see sbir a visitar a uno
(vii) the minister saw the Queen yesterday el ministro se entrevisto con
la Reina ayer
(viii) I'm afraid I can't see you tomorrow lamento no poder verle man-
ana
(ix) see you soon!, see you later!

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 183
(iii) see for yourself me entiendes?
(v) as far as I can see amiver,segun mi modo de entender las cosas
a. see about vt
(i) (attend to) atender a, encargarse de
(ii) (consider)
b. see invt
I'll see about it lo hare, me encargo de eso
he came to see about our TV vino a ver nuestra television
(and repair) vino a reparar nuestra television
I'll see about it lo vere, lo pensare
we'll see about that

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 184
en la estacion
(iii) (send away) the policeman saw them o el polic a los acompa~ne a
la puerta; el polic a les dijo que se fueran
(iv) (defeat) vencer, cascar; deshacerse de; acabar con the minister saw
e. see outvt
the miners o el ministro acabo con los mineros
(i) (person) acompa~nar a la puerta
(ii) to see a lm out quedarse hasta el n de una pel cula, permanecer
sentado hasta que termine una pel cula
(iii) we wondered if he would see the month out nos preguntabamos si
vivir a hasta el n del mes
f. see overvtvisitar, hacer la visita de, recorrer
g. see through vt
(i) (deal) llevar a cabo don't worry, we'll see itthrough no te preocupes,
nosotros lo haremos todo
(ii) to see sbthrough ayudar a uno a salir de un apuro, ayudar a uno en
un trance di cl $100 should see you through tendras bastante con
100 libras, con 100 libras estaras bien
h. to see through sb calar a uno, conocer el juego de uno to see through a
mystery penetrar un misterio
i. see tovtatender a; encargarse de
(i) (repair) reparar, componer
(ii) he sees to everything se encarga de todo, lo hace todo
(iii) the rats saw to that las ratas se encargaron de eso
(iv) to see toitthat... procurar que + subj, asegurar que + subj
Collins English-Spanish Dictionary|Discussion
This large, standard, well-known translating dictionary (Alvarez Garcia 1998) does
a rather good job of separating word senses. Thus we nd sense divisions for our senses
accompany (201-b), ensure (201-e), visit (201-f), and experience(201-h), all marked
with the same keywords which wehave chosen for these senses, and, for the most part, the
examples within the sub-entries clearly fall within our de nition of the sense. Our sense

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 185
consult is included within visit (201-f), which it inherits; our sense envision is found
with the label \imagine" (201-g).
The rst sense given (201-a), includes, but goes beyond, our sense eye; it seems
to include several otherwise unrelated senses all of which can be translated by Spanish ver.
Since the purpose of the dictionary is translation, this may not be an unreasonable practice.
However, it might be confusing to many users to nd very general uses such as (201-a-vi),
(201-a-vii), and (201-a-viii), all of them instances of our sense process mixed in with very
idiomatic uses such as (201-a-ix) and (201-a-iii). (201-a-ii) seems misplaced here; it belongs
in sense experience (201-h).
Like the monolingual English dictionaries, Collins distinguishes the transitive and
intransitive uses of the same sense in a way which wewould not nd necessary. The
examples in the rst sense in the intransitive section (202-a), like those in (201-a), seem
to have in common only that most of them are translated by the Spanish word ver. In
particular,(202-a-i), (202-a-iv), and (202-a-v) do not typically involve physical vision. The
metaphorical motion uses appear here ((202-a-vi) and (202-a-vii)) because they do not have
direct objects.
The two senses labeled \understand", ((201-c) and(202-b)), include examples of
our senses recognize(201-c-i) and classify (201-c-v) and the\conversation" senses related
to recognize ((202-b-iii)(202-b-i)). AsfarasIcan see mysteriously appears in both the
transitive and intransitive groups. The uses listed under (201-d) are our sense recognize
((201-d-i) and (201-d-iv)) and our sense news ((201-d-ii) and (201-d-iii)).
As noted above, a number of idiomatic uses appear in examples for the major
senses. The converse is also true; a number of the items listed as idioms belong with
the major senses such assee in(203-b-i) and see out (203-e-i) which belong under the
accompany sense and see toitwhich appears both as a separate collocation (203-i-iv) and
under the sense ensure (201-e) (where it belongs). At least one of the senses of see about
(203-a-i) belongs under ensure also, although the dictionary is probably right fromthe
translator's point of view to treat \consider" as a separate sense; note that the phrase I'll
see about it, without further context, is ambiguous between the two. The treatment of the
other senses of see out,aswell as see o , see through X and see X through is good.
In general then, the sense divisions of the Collins dictionary are reasonable, and
where they havechosen to combine uses that wehave regarded as separate senses, they have
generally followed the relations represented by inheritance in our description. In many cases

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 186
it must be a di cult decision for lexicographers whether to treat an idiom as an example of
a more general sense or to list it separately among the collocations at the end of the entry.
The most noticeable omission is the sense we have called determine, which does appear in
some other English-Spanish dictionaries, usually translated averiguar. Is also notable that
there is no treatment of uses such assee combat and see use as, which wehave grouped
under sense experience.
APocket Spanish-English Dictionary
By way of comparison, let us consider a very small Spanish-English dictionary, the
University of Chicago Spanish-English Dictionary (Castillo & Bond 1972). The entire entry
is shown below:
(251) ver
(252) Collocations
a. see that you do it no deje Vd. de hacerlo; tenga Vd. cuidado de hacerlo
b. I'll see toitme encargare deello
c. let me see a ver
d. to see aperson home acompa~nar a una persona a casa
e. to see aperson o ir a la estacion para despedir a una persona
f. to see aperson through a di culty ayudar a una persona a salir de un
apuro
g. to see through a person adivinar lo que piensa una persona; darse cuenta
de sus intenciones
h. to see to one's a airs atender a sus asuntos
i. to have seen military service haber servido in el ejercito
The treatment of collocations is fairly good, considering the limitations of space
involved, but it seems surprising that only the single Spanish word ver has been given in the
main entry. The collocations suggest the existence of some senses, such asensure (in three
syntactic patterns: (252-a) (252-b), and (252-h)), accompany (252-d), andexperience
(252-i). But there is nothing to suggest that see also has the senses recognize, visit, and
envision; note that ver will cover some but not all of the uses of visit, asshown by the

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 187
examples in the Collins English-Spanish Dictionary above. The addition of just the four
words comprender, entender, visitar, and imaginar after the rst occurrence of ver would
have greatly improved the entry.
5.5 English-Mandarin and Mandarin-English Dictionaries
Far East English-Chinese Dictionary|Text
(301) { v.t.
a. kan; jian; sh `look; see; view'
(All translated kan jian except as noted)
(i) Do you see that tree?
(ii) Isaw some people in the garden.
(iii) Have you seen today's paper? kandao
(iv) Ilooked but saw nothing.
(v) Ihave never seen a man hanged. wei jian guo
(vi) Isaw something move (ormoving).
(vii) I saw that the box was empty. kan ne hezi sh kongde
(viii) to see a tennis match. kan y chang wangqiu bsai
b. liaojie; l ng hu . (=understand); chajue (=perceive).
(i) I see what you mean. m ngbai
(ii) I don't see the use of doing that. kanbuchu `can't see'
(iii) Don't you see how todoit? bum ngbai
c. faxian; xue zh. `discover; nd out'
(i) I will see what needs to be done.
Wo hu chakan xuyao zuo shemma.
(ii) See if the postman has come.
Qu kankan youchai laiguo mei you.
d. j ngyan; yuel `experience'
(i) He has seen a lot in his life. yuel hen duo
(ii) He has seen better days. youguo dey shhou
(iii) Inever saw such rudeness. wei j ngguo
(iv) That coat has seen hard wear. chuande hen jiule `wear-DE very old-

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 188
(302) { v.i.
PERF'
e. hu mian; wujian (=meet); fangwu (=call on); shangtan (=talk with); jiejian
(= receive a call from).
(i) It's a long time since I saw you last. jianmian
(ii) I used to see much ofmy neighbor. jiandao
(iii) I'll see Thomas about it. zhao... tantan
(iv) He wishes to see you alone. tany tan
(v) I think you ought to see a doctor. zhao... kankan
(vi) He is too ill to see anyone. jiejian
f. husong; zhaogu `escort; care for'
Who's going to see Miss Green home? song
g. canjia; canguan `participate in; take a tour of'
We saw the World's Fair. canguan
h. rang; yunxu `let; allow'
You can't see your sister starve without trying to help her! rang
i. zhuy ; fuze `pay attention to; take responsibility for'
(i) See that the defect is made good. zhuy
(ii) See (to it) that the door is fastened before you go to bed. zhuy
(iii) I will see that you are paid. wo b fuze sh n nadao qian
j. q dai; dengdai dao zu hou `hope; wait until the very last'
He said that whatever happened, he would see the struggle through.
fendou dao d `struggle to the end'
k. (paix ) ('Card games') xia tongyang duode duj n `put down an equal bet'
a. kan; jian; sh `look; see'
(i) It's dark; I can't see. kanbujian
(ii) On a clear day, we can see miles and miles from this hilltop. kandao
hen yuan
(iii) Can you see to write? kandedao
b. juyou shl `have thepower of sight'
The blind do not see. kanbujian
c. chakan `observe'

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 189
Go and see for yourself if you don't believe me! chakan
d. kaolu `consider'
Now, then, let's see. rang wo kaolu kaolu
e. liaojie `understand'
(i) I see. m ngbaile
(ii) See? dongbudong
f. zhuy ; liux n `pay attention; take care'
(303) Collocations
a. to see about
(i) zhuy He promised to see about the matter.
(ii) kaocha; chaxun
b. to see after (=look after).
c. to see into
Imust see into it.
d. to see one's way
e. to see out wancheng; guanche `to complete; to adhere to (principles, etc.)'
f. to see over
We want toseeover the house before we decide to rent it.
g. to see red
(i) shengq ; fanu `to be angry, enraged'
(ii) `desirous of damaging or attacking other people'
h. to see service
(i) `to become an expert through much experience'
(ii) `worn out due to long use'
i. to see somebody o
We went to the station to see him o .
j. to see the back of
I shall be glad to see the back of that fellow, he is a nuisance.
k. to see the last of
I shall be glad to see the last of this job.
l. to see things
m. to see through

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 190
(304) {interj.
(i) kantou; zhenzheng liaojie
I see through your little game.
(ii) `to hold on until the very end'
n. to see to (=to take careof).
o. She will see to everything herself.
p. He would see to it that his sons took a livelier interest in politics.
q. to see visions
See, here he comes!
Far East English-Chinese Dictionary|Discussion
The partial text of the entry for see in the Far East English-Chinese Dictionary
(FEECD, Liang et al. 1975) is given beginning on page 187; rather than include a transliter-
ation of all the Chinese de nitions, we have translated them back to English again, except
where it is necessary to discuss the choice of Chinese lexical item in detail. The sense
divisions are relatively straightforward:
(301-a) has to do with physical vision; besides eye, it includes condition, pro-
cess (301-a-v) and spectate (301-a-viii). (301-a-vii) is probably recognize, but with
emphasis on physical vision as the source of knowledge.
(301-b) is recognize, and the most common word for inchoative cognition,
m ngbai, is used to translate two of the examples. Note that (301-b-ii) is translated by
kan in a negative resultative compound, directly parallel to English \can't see the use".
(301-c) is determine; the word shemma `what' and and the pattern V mei
you (Yes/No Question) can be used to form either direct or indirect questions. (301-d)
is almost exactly our experience, with both human and inanimate experiencers. Two of
the examples, (301-d-i) and (301-d-iii) have words that directly translate `experience', but
the other two express the concept di erently, with `have-GUO' (301-d-ii) and a resultative
complement `wear-old' (301-d-iv).
(301-e) is a group of social interaction senses, including our visit and consult
(301-e-v) and the use we noted previously, `to receive visitors' (301-e-vi). Several are simply
rendered `to talk with', shangtan or (less formally) tantan.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 191
Many of the other sense divisions correspond nicely to ours: (301-f) is accom-
pany, (301-i) is ensure, (301-j) is the collocation see x through, and (301-k) is gam-
bling. (301-g) is the tour sense; the translation canguan is a compound of `participate'
and `see', meaning `to take a tour of, inspect'.
(301-h) is an instance of condition, but translated with rang `allow', which
makes sense in this example, but would not work more generally (I just want to see you
happy again). As mentioned in Section 5.3, a good translation of a sentence containing see
does not always include a good translation of that sense of the verb see per se.
As with the monolingual dictionaries, many oftheintransitive sense divisions are
exactly equivalent to transitive ones, except for the null instantiation of the complement.
Thus (302-a) = (301-a) eye with DNI (but includes the metaphorical motion discussed in
Section 3.3), (302-c) = (301-c) determine, and (302-e) = (301-b) recognize. (302-b) is
faculty and (302-d) is the collocation let's see. It is hard to tell what (302-f) means
without an example.
Most of the collocations are similar to those in monolingual dictionaries, including
some British idioms e.g. (303-f). (303-g-ii) is puzzling, and there seems to be some confu-
sion about (303-h); experience does not necessarily imply either expertise in persons or
wear and tear on objects, although both of these may result from long service. There also
seems to be a tendency to restrict both see something through and see something out to
`maintaining one's principles to the very end', not allowing for cases where, e.g. money is
su cient for one's trip. Thus, we see that, in general, the sense divisions of the FEECD
are quite reasonable and are either equivalent to ours or to groups of our senses. The table
below summarizes the organization of the FEECD entry in terms of our sense names; the
sense divisions of all the bilingual dictionaries will be discussed in Section 5.7.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 192
(305) {v.t.
(306) { v.i.
a. eye, condition, process, spectate
b. recognize, classify
c. determine
d. experience
e. visit, consult, audience
f. accompany
g. tour
h. condition
i. ensure
j. see x through
k. gambling
a. eye, faculty
b. faculty
c. determine
d. let's see
e. recognize, discourse
f. ??pay attention; take care
{ 16 collocations, including see x through,
see through x, see off, see about
(= determine) and see to (it that) (= ensure).
Summary of Sense Divisions in the Far East English-Chinese Dictionary
Everyday Chinese-English Dictionary|Text
kan
(351) a. see; look at; watch
(i) kan diany ng see a lm; go to the movies

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 193
b. read
(ii) kan dianshi watch TV
(iii) kan qiusai watch a ball game
(i) kan bao read a newspaper
(ii) kan shu read (a book)
c. think; consider kan q ngx ng sh make a correct appraisal of the situation
d. look upon; regard
e. treat (a patient oranillness)
f. look after kangu take care of
g. call on; visit; see m ngtian qu kan ta go and see him tomorrow
h. depend on kan tianqi depend on the weather
(352) Compounds and collocations
jian
a. kanb ng (of a doctor) see apatient /(of a patient) consult a doctor
b. kanbuguan cannot bear the sight of; frown upon
c. kanbuq scorn; despise
d. kancheng look upon as
e. kanchu make out; see
f. kanchuan see through
g. kanfa view [n. {CFB]
h. kan feng sh duo trim one's sails [lit. look wind use rudder {CFB]
i. kanjian catch sight of; see
j. kanlai it seems; it appears; it looks as if
k. kanq ng underestimate, look down upon
l. kanshang take a fancy to (a girl, etc.); settle on
m. kantai bleachers; stand
n. kanwang call on; visit; see
o. kanzhong regard asimportant; value
p. kanzuo look upon as; regard as
(353) a. see; catch sightofsuo jian suo wen what one sees and hears
b. meet with, be exposed to

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 194
c. show evidence of; appear to be jianzh yuxngdong betranslated into action
d. refer to; see
e. jianshang see above
f. jianxia see below
g. meet; call on; see n jiandao ta meiyou did you meet him
h. view; opinion
(354) Compounds and Collocations
kan
a. y wozh jian in my opinion
b. jian ch insight; judgment
c. jian duo sh guang experienced and knowledgeable
d. jian guai mind; take o ence
e. jian j as the opportunity arises; according to circumstances
f. jian j xng sh do as one sees t
g. jianjie view, opinion; understanding
h. jian mian meet; see
i. jian sh mian see the world; enrich one's experience
j. jianshi widen one's knowledge; enrich one's experience/experience; knowl-
edge; sensibleness
k. zhang jianshi widen one's knowledge
l. jianwen knowledge; information
m. jinax learn on the job
n. jianx jshuyuan technician on probation
o. jianx sheng probationer
p. jianx ysheng intern
q. jianxiao become e ective; produce the desired result
r. jianzheng witness; testimony
s. jianzhengren eyewitness, witness
(355) a. look after; take care of; tend
(i) kan haizi look after children
(ii) kan gua keep watch in the melon elds

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 195
guan
(iii) kan niu tend cattle
(iv) kan j q mind a machine
b. keep under surveillance keep an eye onsb.
(i) kanguan look after, attend to/watch; guard (prisoners, etc.)
(ii) kanhu nurse (the sick)/hospital nurse
(iii) kan jia mind the house
(iv) kan men guard the entrance/look after the house
(v) kanshou watch; guard (storehouse prisoners, etc.)/turnkey, warder
(356) a. look at; watch; observe guan r chu see the sunrise
b. sight; view waiguan outward appearance
c. outlook; view; concept
(357) Compounds and Collocations
a. guancha observe; watch; survey
b. guancha dongj ng watch what is going on
c. guanchajia observer
d. guanchasuo observation post
e. guanchayuan observer
f. guandian point of view, viewpoint; standpoint
g. guangan impressions
h. guanguang sightseeing; visit; tour
i. guanguangtuan visiting group
j. guanguangzhe sightseer
k. guankan watch; view
l. guanl attend a celebration or ceremony
m. guanl tai reviewing stand
n. guanmou view and emulate
o. guannian sense; idea; concept
p. guannian x ngtai ideology
q. guanshang view and admire; enjoy the sight of
r. guanwang wait and see; look on

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 196
s. guanzhong spectator; viewer; audience
Everyday Chinese-English Dictionary|Discussion
In this section, we take a brief look at the translation process in reverse, looking
at the entries for four of the Chinese characters most commonly used to translate English
see and the range of meanings they show in a medium-sized Chinese-English dictionary
Everyday Chinese-English Dictionary (Changyong Han-Y ng C d an) (1986). The entries
are for kan `look' j an `perceive', kan `look after' and guan `observe'.
One di culty inworking with most Chinese-English dictionaries is in nding all
the words and phrases which include a particular character, but do not begin with it. Since
they are organized strictly bycharacter, words and phrases whichhave a particular character
as their second, third, etc. member will not be easy to nd. A similar di culty occurs with
English dictionaries, e.g., if one wanted to nd out the range of meanings of suit, it is unlikely
that one would nd the collocation birthday suit `naked' unless one already knew it. The
problem is more acute in Chinese, both because of the analytic character of the language
(many more words are transparent compounds of two or more morphemes) and because of
the Chinese penchant for proverbs (chengyu) consisting of three or four morphemes. Thus,
looking at the entries for kan, jian, andguan will not lead us to phrases such ashuo jian
gu `living see ghost|imagining things' and ge an guan huo `other bank.of.river observe
re|look on others' problems with indi erence'.
Since Chinese is more analytic than English, it is not surprising that the most usual
way to express `see' in Mandarin is with the compound kanjian (352-i), `look perceive'. The
many compounds that express aspects of the meaning of see will generally use either kan
or jian (depending on which aspect of the event is pro led, the volitional or the passive
experience). But the choice of kan or jian also involves a di erent event type; kan is an
activity with no implied accomplishment, whereas jian is the telic, punctual reception of a
sense impression.
Kan is thus basically closer to English look than to see, as most of the examples in
(351) demonstrate. But kan expresses some of the senses of see involving conscious mental
activity, suchasclassify (352-d) `look-become', (352-p) `look-make' as well as more speci c
verbs of judging, such as (352-k) `look-light|underestimate', (352-o) `look-heavy|regard
as important' and even (352-c) `look NEG rise|despise'. The mental activities associated

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 197
with judging extend the use of kan to a variety ofwords such as (352-f) `look-pierce|
see through x' and (352-g) `look-way|point of view, opinion'. Kan as mental \looking"
leads to (351-h) `it depends on' (N.B. not I depend on).
visit is also often expressed by kan, asisconsult, bothinvolving agents, rather
than just experiencers. The dictionary says that (352-a) `look-sick' can be used in either
direction, but at least some speakers nd it more natural in the sense `consult a doctor'
than `see a patient'.
Jian emphasizes the experience of perception and the knowledge thus gained. In
(354-g) `see-understand' and (354-j) `see-be.acquainted', the perception and the knowledge
are represented by the rst and second morphemes; (354-l) combines `see' and `hear' to mean
`knowledge', relation that is made more explicit in (353-a). (354-m) `see-study' combine to
mean `apprentice', `intern' ((354-p) for medical interns).
The most common wayofsaying `meet with, encounter' is jian mian (354-h) which
is necessarily explicitly reciprocal; the participants are expressed as \A with B" or a plural
(usually dual) subject such as\you two". Why jian should be preferred to the more active
kan to express the vide sense is not clear.
Kan is written with the same character as kan, but pronounced with a di erent
tone. There are an number of such pairs of words, sharing a written form, somewhat
semantically related, and di ering only in tone. Although the process is no longer productive
in Mandarin, these are apparently the result of su xation in Old Chinese of which only the
tone di erences remain. As the examples in (355) make clear, kan usually means `watch,
tend, guard' and forms a verb-object compound with the thing or place guarded.
Finally, guan is an older verb, which meant simply `look at' in Middle Chinese, but
now has a more formal sense `observe, view'. It is rather tightly bound in these compounds
and does not readily simple resultatives as kan and jian do as shown in Ex. (358)
(358) a. N^ kan/jian/*guan dao ta mey^ou?
b. You see reach him YN-QN
c. Did you see him?

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 198
5.6 English-Japanese Dictionaries
Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary|Text
(401) | vt.
a. miru, . . . ga mieru (perceive by the eye); (ki o tsukete) miru (look at):
(i) Isee some people in the garden. niwa ni sunin no hito ga mieru
(ii) What do [can] you see? Nani ga miemasu ka
(iii) See page 5 [ch. 10]. 5peeji [10 sho] o miyo (cf. vide)
b. (Yume nado ni miru): I saw him in a dream.
(i) see things genkaku (hallucinations) o okosu
(ii) see snakes ☞ snake (n.)
(iii) see stars ☞ star (n.) (idiom)
c. (geki, eiga, meisho nado o) miru (view), kanran [kenbutsu] suru (be aspecta-
tor of), mi ni iku (visit):
(i) go to see a show misemono o mi ni iku
(ii) He has gone to Italy to see Rome. Roma kenbutsu ni Itaria e itta
(iii) Have you ever seen (=been to, visited) France? Fransu e itta
koto ga arimasu ka
(iv) see the sights meisho o kenbutsu suru
d. (hito ni) au, deau (meet:), kaiken suru, menkai suru (interview):
(i) Ihaven't seen you for ages. Zuibun nagaiaida oai shimasen deshita
ne (Hisashiburi desu ne)
(ii) Iamtoobusytosee you now. Ima wa isogashikute omeni kakarenai
(iii) I'm very pleased [glad, happy] to see you.Oai shite taihen ure-
shii(yokoso irasshai mashita)
(iv) I have seen nothing of you these days; let's see agreat deal of
each other. Chikagoro sappari omikake shinai ga, kongo wa tabitabi
aimasho yo
(v) see company kyaku o otai suru.
e. (hito ni) ai ni iku, mimau, tazuneru (call on); (isha ni) mite morau (consult);
(i) I think he ought to (go and )see adoctor. Kare wa isha ni mite
morawanakereba naru mai

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 199
(ii) I shall be seeing him tomorrow. Asu kare o tazunete [mimatte]
miyo.
f. (jiken nado o )miru, mokugeki suru; . . . ni sogusuru (undergo), keiken suru
(experience):
(i) That year saw many changes. Sono toshi wa kawatta koto ga okatta
(ii) He couldn't live to see his son's marriage. Musuko no kekkon o
mizu ni shinda
(iii) He has seen a lot in his life [a lot of life]. Nakanaka yononaka
no keiken o tsunde iru
(iv) He will never see 50 again. Ano otoko mo goju no saka o koshita
yo.
g. shiru, satoru, rikai [ryokai]suru (comprehend, understand):
(i) see thepoint of the argument ronten ga wakaru
(ii) Don't [Can't] you see whatImean? Watashi no iu koto ga wakaranai
ka
(iii) Idon't see why he doesn't come. doshite konai ka wakaranai
(iv) see the use [good, fun] of . . . . . . no neuchi [yosa, okashisa] ga
wakaru
(v) see a joke jodan ga wakaru
(vi) Iseeyou.(Amer.) Kimi no iu koto wa wakaru yo
(vii) see it(colloq.) ryokai suru, wakaru (understand, comprehend)
(viii) Do you see? [See?] wakarimashita ka
(ix) Isee. Naruhodo wakarimashita.
h. mitsukeru (descry), miwakeru (discern), kidzuku, mitomeru (notice);
(i) He saw at once that he had made a mistake. Machigai o shita
koto ni sugu kidzuita.
(ii) Idon't see any harm in what he is doing. Kare no shiteiru koto
ni nani mo warui koto o mitomenai.
(iii) Iseeagreat danger in that sort of thing. Soiukotoniwahijona
kiken ga aru.
i. mite miru, yoku shiraberu, kensa[kenbun] suru (examine):
(i) see a house before taking it kariru mae ni ie o miru

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 200
(ii) I have in a man to see the drains. Hito o yonde gesui o mite
moratte iru.
j. (torishirabe nado ni yotte) tashikameru (ascertain), shiru (learn, nd out):
(i) Go and see who it is. Daredaka itte mite goran
(ii) Ibelieve you, but I'd rather see it for myself. Kimi no kotoba o
shinjinai wake dewa nai ga, jibun de tashikamete mitai.
k. [tsurei that-clause matawa kakobunshi-kei no hogo o tomonatte ] (. . . suru
[sareru]yo) ki o tsukeru, tehazu o suru, torihakarau (attend to, take care),
kitto . . . suru (make sure) (cf. vi 4):
(i) See (that) you don't catch your foot. Tsumazukanai yoni chui
shinasai
(ii) See that the work is done. Kitto shigoto ga owaru yoni se yo.
(iii) see a thing done kantokushite yaraseru
(iv) see justice donekoto no kohei o kisuru; fukushu otogeru.
l. kangaeru (think, consider):
(i) asIseeitwatashi no miru tokoro dewa
(ii) I see things di erently now. Watashi wa ima de wa mono no
kangaekata ga izen to wa chigau
(iii) Idonotsee it in that light. Watashi wa soiu fu ni wa minai [kan-
gaenai]
(iv) Well, I'll see whatIcan do. Do dekiru ka kangaete miyo.
m. tsukisou, okuri todokeru (escort), miokuru
(i) I saw him home [to the door, as far as the station]. ie [genkan,
eki] made miokutta
(ii) see aperson o hito o miokuru
n. omoi ukaberu, sozosuru (imagine):
(i) Poets see many things in the ordinary. Shijin wa heebon na mono
no naka ni iroirona mono o sozosuru
(ii) Icannot see myself submitting to it. Watashi ga sore ni fukujusuru
nado to wa omoi mo yoranai.
o. damatte mite iru, mokunin suru (recognize as tolerable):
(i) He won't see being made use of Kare wa dashi ni tsukawarete
damatte wa imai.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 201
(402) |-v.i.
p. [zoku] wairo nojujunikarande (hito ni) kaiken suru, . . . ni wairo o tsukau
(bribe), baishusuru: see an inspector
q. (poker nado de, kake ni) ojiru (meet); (aite to) dogaku no kake ni ojiru.
a. miru (look); mieru, me ni suru, me ga kiku:
(i) as far as one can see miwatasu [mieru] kagiri (cf. 2)
(ii) Ican't see toread. Kurakute [me ga kikanakute] yomenai
(iii) A puppy cannot see till the ninth day. Inu no ko wa kokonokame
made wa me ga mienai
(iv) Owls see best at night. Fukuro wa yoru ga ichiban yoku me ga mieru
(v) He sees no further than his nose. Kare wa osaki makkura da, ikou
mesaki ga kikanai
(vi) Seeing is believing. ☞ seeing.
b. wakaru, rikai suru, etoku suru
(i) (discern, understand):
(ii) Isee. wakarimashita, naruhodo
(iii) You see, gozonjinotori, owakarideshoga, nee, sora; ohanashi shi-
nakereba narimasen ga (I must explain)
(iv) You shall see ato de hanashimasho
(v) See? owakari desho
(vi) as you see goran no yo ni
(vii) as far as I can see watashi no miru tokoro de wa, watashi no kangae
dewa (cf. 1).
c. minuku, kanpa suru, shosatsu suru (have insight into, through).
d. chui suru, i o kubaru (give attention or care) (cf. vt. 11):
(i) See to it that the work is done before dark. Kuraku naranai uchi
ni shigoto ga dekiagaru yo nichui shinasai.
e. tashikameru, shiru ( nd out), shiraberu (make inquiry):
(i) The post has come; I'll go and see. Yubin ga kita, itte mite koyo
(ii) Go and see for yourself, if you don't believe me. Watashi no iu
koto ga shinyo dekinakereba jibun de itte shirabete [tashikamete] mina-
sai.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 202
f. kangaeru (consider, think), jukukosuru (deliberate) (whether, if).
g. hito ni au, menkai o yurusu:
(403) Collocations
(i) Can you see for a few minutes? nisanpun ome ni kakarasete
itadakemasen ka. [This seems to be an error |CFB]
a. have seen (one's) better [best] days (Ima wa ochiburete iru ga) mukashi
wa yoi toki mo atta
b. She must have seen better days. Mukashi wa kitto shiawasena mibun de
atta ni chigainai
c. He was dressed inanoldcoat that had seen its best days. Mukashi
wa rippa datta furui fuku o kite ita.
d. let me see kangae sashite kure, sosana, eto, hatena,
e. see (a person) blowed [damned, hanged] ( rst [before]) Donna koto
ga atte mo sonna koto dake wa mappira da
f. see (aperson) further rst = see (aperson) blowed.
g. see (aperson) o (hito o) miokuru (cf. send o ):
h. I saw my friend o at the station.
i. see (aperson) o the premises (usan kusai mono nado o) yashikigai e
okuri dasu [oidasu]
j. see about . . . no koto o kangaeru (consider, think about); . . . ni tsuite nan-
toka shudan o kojiru; . . . no koto o shiraberu, ki o tsukeru: I [We] shall
see about it. Sore wa nantoka shimasho [shirabete mimasho] (often used as
xed expression if one refuses to take action immediately ).
k. see after . . . ni ki o tsukeru (more often look after); . . . o sewa suru.
l. see t [good] (to do) (. . . suru) ho ga (tsugo ga)yoitoomou: Doitifyou
see t.
m. see here (Amer.) moshimoshi (I say) oi, kore (look here) (said to scold
and to get someone's attention)
n. see the old year out and the new year in Kyunen o okuri shinnen o
mukaeru.
o. see into...ni chosa suru; . . . o minuku (see through).
p. see out

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 203
(i) owari made miru; (shukyoku o) mitodokeru, kansee suru: see out a long
play Nagai geki o owari made miru.
(ii) (zoku)makasu (defeat).
(iii) genkan made miokuru.
q. see over ... o mimawaru, kenbun suru.
r. see through . . . no shinso o minuku (penetrate), . . . o kanpa suru (detect)
s. see through a ladder miyasui, wakarikitta koto da
t. see through a brick wall ganshiki ga surudoi.
u. see. . . through . . . o saigo made mitodokeru [tasukete yaru]:
v. see aperson through his troubles komatte iru hito o saigo made tasukete
yaru
w. see a thing through koto o yari tosu (carry out).
x. see to... ni chui suru, ki o tsukeru (take care of),oteire suru, junbi suru
(provide) (hand vi.4; cf. vt.11):
(i) Leave it to me; I'll see to it [I'll have it seen to] omakase nasai,
watashi ga torihakaraimasu [torihakarawasemasu]
(ii) see to one's business jibun no shigoto o chui suru.
y. see well and good (zoku) yoi to omou, sashitsukaenai to omou (think t).
Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary|Discussion
Iwasaki et al. (1960) is a large, standard dictionary, one of several catering to the
lucrative market of Japanese-English translators, college students, and high-school students
in Japan facing rigorous college entrance examinations which include an EFL component.
It is densely packed with information and cross references; we have tried to preserve as
many of these as possible while rendering it more readable.
Before discussing the sub-entries, let us rst introduce the verbs miru and mieru.
Miru basically means `to look at' and mieru is used to express `see'. Their syntax, however,
is di erent. Miru is a regular transitive verb, with the direct object in the accusative and
the agent marked with either wa or ga (depending on several factors which are not relevant
here). Mieru, on the other hand, which can be regarded as a special potential form of miru,
marks the experiencer with wa or ni wa (which wewe will consider topic markers, the latter
combined with a dative) and the stimulus with ga, as shown in Ex. (404) (cf. Makino &

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 204
Tsutsui (1986) for a comparison between mieru and the regular potential form mirareru).
A similar pattern occurs with kikoeru `hear', as shown in Ex. (405).
(404) a. Watashi wa mainichi yama o miru.
b. I TOP every.day mountain ACC look
c. I look at the mountain(s) every day.
d. Watashi (ni) wa mainichi yama ga mieru.
e. I(DAT) TOP every.day mountain GA see.POT
f. I (can) see the mountain(s) every day.
(405) a. Watashi (ni) wa torinokoe ga kikoeru.
b. I(DAT) TOP bird POS voice GA hear.POT
c. I (can) hear the bird.
We will nd that senses of English see that are simple experiencer-stimulus situations will
usually be expressed with mieru, those that emphasize active looking will use miru, and
those that do not require physical vision will usually use neither.
Like other dictionaries, the entry for see is divided into three sections, transitive,
intransitive, and collocations, apparently for reasons of tradition. As in other dictionaries
discussed above, we nd that the rst sense under \v.i." (402-a) is our faculty, while
most of the others are distinguished from corresponding senses under \v.t." only by virtue
of the null instantiation of their direct objects. In the case of (402-d) the equivalence to
(401-k) is noted by the lexicographers, but (402-e) and (401-j) are equally close.
Most of our senses are represented in this entry, aswecanseeinTable 5.1. As
before, however, we also nd a considerable variety within the sub-entries; I will discuss
them in order:
In (401-a), the rst two examples are eye, but the last is vide, with the imperative
form of miru. (401-b) is our sense hallucinate, with cross-references to the entries for
conventional hallucinated NPs, \things", snakes and stars. (401-c) combines spectate and
tour, both basically eye composed with the semantics of the seen.
Sub-entry (401-d) covers our sense visit, withavariety of expressions. In fact,
Japanese has a large variety of expressions for types of social interaction; it is di cult to
quantify, but there seem to be ner distinctions than English customarily makes with regard
to the relative social status of the participants, the pre-arrangement orlack thereof, the

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 205
Sense Sub-entry
accompany (401-m)
audience (401-d)
classify (401-l)
consult (401-e)
determine (401-j)
ensure (401-k)
envision (401-n)
experience (401-f)
eye (401-a),(401-i)
faculty (402-a)
hallucinate (401-b)
discourse (402-b)
recognize (401-g),(401-h)
setting (401-f)
spectate (401-c)
tour (401-c)
vide (401-a-iii)
visit (401-d)
Table 5.1: Senses and Sub-entries in Kenkyusha English-Japanese Dictionary
purpose of the visit, etc. Thus, our senses visit, consult, and audience will correspond
to many Japanese expressions, some of which appear in (401-d) and (401-e). Without going
into too much detail, we can take note of the following: the simple verb au `meet' (401-d), a
polite form derived from it oai suru `HON.meet do' (401-d-i), and the humble verb omikake
suru `HON.eye.attach do' (401-d-iv), all of which would generally have to be translated
into English using the word see and expressing the social connotations periphrastically,
i.e., have the honor of seeing, have the pleasure ofseeing, etc. 4 In (401-e) we nd mimau
`to visit someone who is in distress' (in a hospital, refugee camp, etc.), tazuneru `make a
social visit' and mite morau. The last of these is morphologically `see-TE receive', where
TE can indicate progressive aspect, sequential actions, or a number of other meanings. It
appears that see adoctor gets translated with mite morau, but not see my lawyer or see
the manager, because it is not necessary for them to physically examine the consulter (cf.
Chapter 2, senses consult on page 70 and audience on page 100).
4 Some very polite Japanese may bevery di cult to express; attempts at \literal" translation are often
ludicrous, your honorable grandson, We are deeply obligated to you for the honor of your presence atour
poor shack, etc.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 206
Included in (401-f) are setting (401-f-i) and three examples of experience, all of
which are idiomatic in di erent ways, and none of which involve the usual direct objects for
this sense, such ascombat, use, service, etc. Although the rst two translations given, miru
and mokugeki suru both involve physical vision, only one of the examples does (401-f-ii);
the last two translations will t most examples of this sense better.
Most of the examples in (401-g) are of discourse or recognize. (401-g-vi) and
(401-g-vii) appear to be obsolete slang. The worst example of this is found in (401-p),
meaning `to bribe', which also appears in the OED entry for see, which in turn cites a
1911 edition of Webster's Dictionary! (401-g-iv) is an instance of classify; this sense is
scattered across the sub-entries, e.g. (401-h) contains one example of recognize and two of
classify, which participate in a larger pattern to be discussed below.
Sub-entry (401-i) provides the clearest cases of miru, where the pragmatics of the
situations requires active looking. (401-j) is our determine, (401-k) ensure, and (401-m)
accompany. In (401-l), the rst three examples have to do with making judgements, and
can probably be considered classify even though they are not of the patterns see X as Y
or see Y in X . (401-l-iv) is wonderfully ambiguous and deserves its own discussion along
with the collocation see about it (403-j); bothhave many uses depending on pragmatics.
Example (401-n-i) is probably envision, but could be recognize if we believe
that poets see a reality that most people overlook.
Most of the \intransitive" sub-entries have already been discussed in passing, so
we will only note a few more points here. (402-b) consists mainly of examples of recog-
nize; the null instantiation of the seen means that many of them refer to the immediate
context, especially the discourse context, and so they can be further categorized as dis-
course. (402-c) is really a combination of see through and see into. (402-f) also seems to
be determine, like (402-e); (402-g) is apparently an error|at least it is not acceptable or
familiar to any of the American or British speakers I have consulted.
One might quibble about some of the more obscure collocations that have been
included, such as (403-f) and (403-s), but at least a fair selection has been made from the
hundreds which could have beenchosen. See the old year out and the new year in (403-n)
is found here (and in some other bilingual dictionaries) but not in the much larger W3NI.
It is odd to nd see here (403-m) agged as \American", since it seems at least as common
in British English as in American.
In summary, the Kenkyusha treatment ofsee is remarkably complete and, except

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 207
for following lexicographic custom by making the major division between transitive and
intransitive, predominantly organized according to the semantics of the English uses rather
than the syntax of the Japanese translation. Such an organization is probably the most
informative for students, even though it frequently results in the same Japanese term being
scattered across many sub-entries.
Small English-Japanese Dictionaries
Yohan English-Japanese Japanese-English Dictionary. (Kaneda 1997)
see v
(451) a. (look at) miru
b. (meet) au
c. (understand) wakaru
d. (consider) kangaeru
e. (take care) ki o tsukeru
f. (undergo) keiken suru
g. ( nd out) mitsukeru
h. (make sure) tashikameru
i. Collocations
(i) see o miokuru
(ii) see through mi-yaburu; mi-nuku
(iii) Isee wakarimashita
Toei's English-Japanese Japanese-English Dictionary. (Fujikake 1984)
(452) a. (perceive with the eyes) miru, nagameru
b. (understand) rikai suru, wakaru
c. (imagine, think) . . . to omou, . . . to kangaeru
d. (view) kenbutsu suru
e. (visit) au
f. (ascertain) shirabe tashikameru
Both of these entries have

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 208
1. a basic sense (eye) translated miru
2. a social sense like visit, translated au,
3. a sense characterized as \understand" in English and wakaru in Japanese, which can
be used for our sense recognize, but is probably more frequent in the discourse
sense,
4. a \cognition" sense translated by kangaeru `think, consider', which is usually closer
to our sense recognize or classify than to imagine,
5. a sense translated by tashikameru. The Toei dictionary uses the English guide word
ascertain, which is better because it is unambiguous, as opposed to the guide word
in the Yohan dictionary, make sure, which isambiguous between determine and
ensure.
Although both dictionaries are very small, both cover most of the basic senses of
the English word see, and both give the most common Japanese equivalents. The Yohan
is preferable, because it adds the senses experience and ensure, in addition to giving
two English translations for wakaru, one of them extremely common in ordinary discourse.
The second translation for her sense eye in the Toei is also misleading, meaning something
more like `stare at' than see. A language learner would be better o most of the time
with the Yohan dictionary; only at a fairly advanced stage would one need to consult the
Kenkyusha, except that many of the collocations listed in the Kenkyusha will be encountered
even by intermediate students. As we have noted previously in regard to other languages,
neither small dictionary distinguishes transitive from intransitive uses, which is a blessing
in disguise. Otherwise, the sense divisions given in the Yohan agree rather well with those
in the Kenkyusha.
5.7 Analysis
English-English Comparisons of Entry Structure
Table 5.2 on page 210 shows a summary of sense divisions for the four monolingual
English dictionaries we have examined. The numbers and letters in the cells refer to the
sense divisions (and, in the case of the W3NI, subdivisions) used in printing the texts in

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 209
this chapter. There are only three senses distinguished by all four, eye, accompany, and
visit, but another three senses are distinguished by at least three of the four, recognize,
determine, andensure. All of these six are among those I have called \basic senses",
although it could be argued that accompany is less basic, being much more specialized.
W3NI distinguishes sharply between transitive and intransitive uses, but none of
the smaller dictionaries have the space to do this. This prevents them from recognizing a
sense faculty, but saves them from splitting several of our senses, as W3NI does. None
of the dictionaries, not even the much larger W3NI, distinguishes among recognize, con-
dition and process. Nor does W3NI distinguish between envision and hallucinate,
despite discussing envision in three places. Overall, the agreement between the smaller
dictionaries and our sense divisions is reasonably good, but the organization of the entry in
the W3NI is quite di erent.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 210
Dictionary W3NI
Basic Senses
MWP WNW COD
eye 1a a a a
recognize 3c c b
accompany 8a, 5a e e e
condition ? c? b? c?
consult 7a(ii) e? g
dating 7b(i) e?
determine 2c,4a,13a-b d c
ensure 5b, 14a, 15, d d
22, 23
envision 3a,d,g
faculty 11a,b h
news 4b
process ? c? b?
read 4b c? b?
setting 2d,e
visit 7a(i) e f d
Semi-collocations
classify 3b?,f?, 6a c
experience 2a b
gambling 9 h
vide 4c g?
Compositional Uses
audience 7b(ii)
discourse 3e
hallucinate
scan 1c
spectate 4d
Collocations
let's see 12c
see one's way clear 18
see fit =6a
see off 8b
see reason
see through x 21
see x through 8c
y'see 10,12b
Table 5.2: Summary of Sense Divisions in Four Monolingual Dictionaries

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 211
Cross-linguistic Comparisons of Entry Structure
Next, we examine the structure of the entries in the major bilingual dictionaries in
more detail, with a view to comparing across languages. For this purpose, for each language,
we show a table with rows representing our usual list of senses (in a di erent order) and the
columns representing the sense divisions of the dictionary in question. The rows have been
ordered so that related senses are grouped together, and groups are separated by horizontal
lines. Then for each sense division, we have classi ed the de nition into one of our senses,
and counted the examples (if any) which fallinto each of our senses. Each such table is
followed by another table listing the de nitions for each of the the sense divisions; these are
taken from the full listings on previous pages, but are repeated here for convenience.
Let us begin by looking at Table 5.3 on page 213, which shows the sense divi-
sions for the Collins Spanish dictionary. The column on the left shows our sense divisions.
The rst group of senses are those that have to do with physical vision, eye, process,
spectate, tour, faculty, hallucinate, read, and vide. The next is the cognition
group, recognize, classify, envision, discourse, andnews, followed by a small group
having to do with human complements, visit, consult, andaudience. The fourth group
is a heterogeneous collection of fairly speci c senses, accompany, determine, ensure,
experience, setting, andgambling. The last two rows represent collocations already
discussed in the cognitive chapter, and idioms not elsewhere discussed.
The columns represent the sense divisions in the dictionary; those numbered 201
are the transitive senses, and those numbered 202 are the intransitive senses. Above the
numbers is a classi cation of the de nition according to our sense divisions; thus, 201-a is
our sense eye, 201-b, our sense accompany, etc. The numbers within the Collins represent
classi cation of the examples under each sub-sense. For example, looking at sense a. of the
Collins dictionary, on page 180, we note that the rst example under the rst de nition
is see page 8 , which would be our sense vide, and this is represented by the number 1 to
the right of the word vide in the rst column of Table 5.3. Of the 12 examples under this
heading, only one is our sense eye, 4 are our sense process, 1faculty, 2experience,
and 3 are idiomatic. But seven of the 12 are clearly \visual" senses, and to the senses
we have called \idiomatic" do involve physical vision (201-a-xi and 201-a-xii). Example
201-8-ix has nothing to do with physical vision, and the last two examples are only slightly
related.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 212
All four examples in 201-b are clearly accompany, asintended; 11 of the 12 exam-
ples in 201-c and 201-d are in the cognition category, although their translations vary. The
rest in the transitive senses are also well focused; note that 201-f contains 10 \social" senses,
divided among visit, consult, andaudience. As previously noted the intransitive senses
are related to the transitive senses through null instantiation, so the senses in 202-a and
202-b are spread over a large range. As with the monolingual dictionaries, several examples
of intransitive eye are our sense faculty, and discourse deixis is also well represented here.
In general, then, most of the examples under each sense fall in the same general category
as the sense intended. Most exceptions to this pattern fall in the categories of collocations
and idiomatic expressions, which a good bilingual dictionary will include as part of its job.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 213
201-a eye
201-b acom
201-c rec
201-d rec
201-e ens
201-f visit
201-g envis
201-h expr
202-a eye
202-b rec
eye 1 2
proc 4
spec
tour
facl 1 2
halu
read
vide 1
rec 2 1
class 2 2
envis 1 3
disc 1 2
news 2
visit 5
cons 4
audi 1
acom 4
detr 2
ens 5
expr 2 3
setg
gamb
coloc 1 2
id 3 1 2 1 1
Table 5.3: Sense Divisions in Collins Spanish Dictionary

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 214
201-a: (gen) ver
201-b: (accompany) acompa~nar
201-c: (understand) comprender, entender, ver
201-d: (look, learn, perceive) mirar; observar; percibir
201-e: (ensure)
201-f: (visit. frequent) ver, visitar
201-g: (imagine)
201-h: (experience)
202-a: (gen) ver
202-b: (understand) comprender
Table 5.4: De nitions from Collins Spanish Dictionary

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 215
301-a eye
301-b rec
301-c detr
301-d expr
301-e visit
301-f acom
301-g tour
301-h id
301-i ens
301-j id
301-k gamb
302-a eye
302-b facl
302-c detr
302-d coloc
302-e rec
eye 5
proc 1 1
spec 1
tour 1
facl 3 1
halu
read
vide
rec 1 1
class 1
envis
disc 1 1
news
visit 2
cons 2
audi 2
acom 1
detr 2 1
ens 3
expr 4
setg
gamb
coloc 1 1
id 1
Table 5.5: Sense Divisions in Far East Chinese Dictionary
The sense divisions in the Far East Chinese Dictionary are shown in Table 5.5, with
the de nitions repeated in Table 5.6 on the following page. The correspondence between
the sense divisions indicated by the de nitions and the examples if quite good; for the
\minor" senses, accompany (301-f), determine (301-c and 302-c), ensure (301-i), and
experience (301-d), all of the examples are of the corresponding sense. Most of the visual
senses are in 301-a (eye, process, spectate) and 302-a (intransitive, faculty). 301-e
gives two examples of each of the \social senses", visit, consult, andaudience, and most
of the cognitive senses are found in 301-b and 302-e, both with clearly cognitive de nitions.
302-f ens

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 216
301-a: kan; jian; sh `look; see; view'
( All translated kan jian except as noted )
301-b: liaojie; l ng hu . (=understand); chajue (=perceive).
301-c: faxian; xue zh. `discover; nd out'
301-d: j ngyan; yuel `experience'
301-e: hu mian; wujian (=meet); fangwu (=call on); shangtan (=talk with); jiejian (=receive
a call from).
301-f: husong; zhaogu `escort; care for'
301-g: canjia; canguan `participate in; take a tour of'
301-h: rang; yunxu `let; allow'
301-i: zhuy ; fuze `pay attention to; take responsibility for'
301-j: q dai; dengdai dao zu hou`hope;wait until the very last'
301-k: (paix ) ('Card games') xia tongyang duode duj n `put down an equal bet'
302-a: kan; jian; sh `look; see'
302-b: juyou shl `have the power of sight'
302-c: chakan `observe'
302-d: kaolu `consider'
302-e: liaojie `understand'
302-f: zhuy ; liux n `pay attention; take care'
Table 5.6: De nitions from Far East Chinese Dictionary

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 217
Finally, let us turn to the Kenkyusha English-Japanese dictionary, with de nitions
in Table 5.8 on page 219 and sense divisions in Table 5.7 on the following page. The
pattern here is much more complex than in the Spanish and Chinese dictionaries. A few
of the sense divisions, such as401-j(determine), 401-k (ensure) and 402-a (faculty),
are represented by a set of examples that are clearly \on point", and others are nicely
within the larger categories, such as 401-a (eye/vide), 401-d (visit/audience), and 401-c
(spectate/tour). But many of the sense divisions made by the dictionary are unclear,
such as the distinction between 401-g and 401-h, which seems to be mainly aspectual,
between stative and inchoative cognition; both include examples of both recognize and
classify. The distinction between 401-a and 401-i may be re ected in their very di erent
de nitions in Japanese, yet the examples in the latter use the simple verb miru, `see', as in
401-a.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 218
402-g consult
402-f detr
402-e detr
402-d ens
402-c rec
402-b-ii rec
402-b rec
402-a eye
401-q gamb
401-p id
401-o id
401-n envis
401-m acom
401-l class
401-k ens
401-j detr
401-i eye
401-h rec
401-g rec
401-f expr
401-e cons
401-d visit
401-c spec
401-b halu
401-a eye
eye 2 2 1
proc
spec 1
tour 3
facl 3
halu
read
vide 1
rec 2 1
class 1 2
envis 2
disc 4 3
news
visit 3
cons 2
audi 2
acom 1
detr 2 1 2
ens 4 1
expr 2
setg 1
gamb
coloc 1 2
id 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1
Table 5.7: Sense Divisions in Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 219
401-a: miru, . . . ga mieru (perceive by the eye); (ki o tsukete) miru (look at):
401-b: (Yume nado ni miru): I saw him in a dream.
401-c: (geki, eiga, meisho nado o) miru (view), kanran [kenbutsu] suru (be aspectator of),
mi ni iku (visit)
401-d: (hito ni) au, deau (meet:), kaiken suru, menkai suru (interview)
401-e: (hito ni) ai ni iku, mimau, tazuneru (call on); (isha ni) mite morau (consult);
401-f: (jiken nado o) miru, mokugeki suru; . . . ni sogusuru (undergo), keiken suru (experience):
401-g: shiru, satoru, rikai [ryokai]suru (comprehend, understand)
401-h: mitsukeru (descry), miwakeru (discern), kidzuku, mitomeru (notice);
401-i: mite miru, yoku shiraberu, kensa[kenbun] suru (examine)
401-j: (torishirabe nado ni yotte) tashikameru (ascertain), shiru (learn, nd out)
401-k: [tsurei that-clause matawa kakobunshi-kei no hogo o tomonatte ] (. . . suru [sareru]yo)
ki o tsukeru, tehazu o suru, torihakarau (attend to, take care), kitto . . . suru (make sure)
(cf. vi 4)
401-l: kangaeru (think, consider):
401-m: tsukisou, okuri todokeru (escort), miokuru
401-n: omoi ukaberu, sozosuru (imagine)
401-o: damatte mite iru, mokunin suru (recognize as tolerable)
401-p: [zoku] wairo no juju ni karande (hito ni) kaiken suru, . . . ni wairo o tsukau (bribe),
baishusuru
401-q: (poker nado de, kake ni) ojiru (meet); (aite to) dogaku no kake ni ojiru.
402-a: miru (look); mieru, me ni suru, me ga kiku
402-b: wakaru, rikai suru, etoku suru
402-b-ii: (discern, understand):
402-c: minuku, kanpa suru, shosatsu suru (have insight into, through).
402-d: chui suru, i o kubaru (give attention or care) (cf. vt. 11)
402-e: tashikameru, shiru ( nd out), shiraberu (make inquiry)
402-f: kangaeru (consider, think), jukukosuru (deliberate) (whether, if).
402-g: hito ni au, menkai o yurusu
Table 5.8: De nitions from Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 220
Cross-linguistic Comparisons of Translations
As I discussed in Section 1.2, certain groups of events tend to co-occur everywhere
in the world, and the resulting correlations in human experience form the basis of much
linguistic categorization; I further argued in Chapter 2 that such a natural tendency to
co-occur lies behind the connection between eye and recognize. Now, with translations
of separate senses in bilingual dictionaries, we can look at how the di erent senses are
lexicalized in di erent languages, and perhaps answer the question as to which relations
among senses are natural extensions based on natural co-occurrences of events which would
be true for all cultures, and which are language-speci c facts.
Unfortunately, aswehave seen, just as in the monolingual English dictionaries, the
example sentences under a sense heading in a bilingual dictionary do not necessarily belong
to that sense according to our de nition. I have therefore analyzed the material from the
bilingual dictionaries in a second way, by categorizing each of the example sentences into
one of our senses, regardless of where it appears in the entry, and creating tables showing
the translations given for each example. Such a table for the Collins Spanish dictionary is
shown in Table 5.9 on page 222; the columns represent our sense divisions, and the rows,
the various translations given in the 64 examples in this dictionary. Wehave organized the
senses into four broad categories:
1. basic vision (faculty, process, vide)
2. visiting (audience, consult, visit)
3. ensure (ensure)
4. cognitive (classify, discourse,recognize)
The remaining senses are shown in the next division of the table, and example
sentences whose meaning depends on collocations we have previously discussed or other
idioms are shown in the last division. The vertical lines in the tables show these divisions,
with the double line in the middle of the table dividing the four meaningful divisions on the
left from the arbitrary ones on the right. Insofar as possible, we have tried to to make the
same divisions according to the meanings of the translation equivalents, which are shown
in the rows of table. Those example sentences which do not contain any word or phrase

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 221
which can be properly said to be a translation of the English word see appear in the row
entitled \No equivalent".
Now let us consider the extent to which the patterns of sense extension found in
the English verb see are found in Spanish. First we notice that all of the examples of basic
vision, including eye itself, are translated with ver, and the majority of the instances of ver
are in this category. There can, therefore, be no question as to the basic meaning of ver.
But we also nd two instances of ver in the visit category, three in the cognition category,
and examples under our senses determine, experience, andnews, a range of meaning
not unlike that of see in English. Two of the expressions for \point of view" also use ver
and the related noun, vista. (At least two more examples, the last two in the visit some
entry, could also be expressed informally with ver, as

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 222
Totals
idiom
coloc
news
expr
envis
detr
acom
rec
disc
class
ens
visit
cons
audi
vide
proc
facl
eye
mirar 1 1
ver 3 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 24
consultar 1 1
entrevisarse con 1 1
visitar 1 1
cuidar 1 1
procurar 3 3
comprender 1 1 1 3
conocer 1 1
creer 1 1
encontrar 2 2
entender 1 1 1 3
percibir 1 1
acompa~nar 3 3
imaginar 2 2
llevar 1 1
oir 1 1
No equiv. 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 3 14
Totals 3 3 4 1 1 4 5 5 4 3 3 4 2 4 5 2 3 8 64
Table 5.9: Frequencies of Spanish Translations by Senses.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 223
Table 5.10 on the following page shows the distribution of translations for the
Far Eastern English Chinese dictionary. We run immediately into the question of which
morpheme we mean. The resultative compound kanjian (lit. `look-see') is found only in
the sense eye 5 , but many of the other senses have either kan or jian. determine (301-
c), emphasizing agentiveness has kan, while visit (301-e) has jian in various combinations
(note that various more formal words are given as de nitions, but the rst two examples
give more common words for this sense jianmian) `see face', and jiandao `see reach'. The
consult example (301-e-v) uses the more agentive kan, but the phrase zhao y sheng kankan
`seek doctor look look' is actually ambiguous as to who is the agent ofkan. faculty is
expressed by the combinations kandejian and kanbujian, the usual resultative compound
combined with de and bu for positive and negative ability.
Again we nd the concept of `viewpoint' translated with morphemes related to
vision, either as a noun kanfa `look way' or guandian `view point' or as an idiom wo kan. . .
`I look' ! `as I see it,. . . '. Note also that tour gets a separate sub-entry; the compound
canguan `participate view' is speci c to this sense, although it contains the morpheme guan
`see' (cf. Section (357) on page 197). Even if we include all of the combinations containing
either of the morphemes jian and kan as examples of verbs of perception, we still nd that
only half of the example sentences are expressed by averb of perception. We have only38
examples here, but it appears that the distribution of the Chinese verbs jian and kan is
somewhat more limited than that of English see.
5 This is only true of four of the ve examples translated with kanjian; one example under the rst sense
division, I saw that the box was empty is translated kanjian, but this is actually recognize, although the
fact recognized and the percept that leads to the recognition are quite physical.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 224
Totals
idiom
colloc
expr
detr
acom
rec
disc
class
ens
visit
cons
audi
tour
spec
proc
facl
eye
canguan 1 1
chakan 1 1
jian 1 1
jiandao 1 1
kan 1 1 2
kanbuchu 1 1
kanbujian 2 2
kandao 1 1 2
kandejian 1 1
kanjian 4 1 5
kankan 1 1
jiejian 1 1
jianmian 1 1
fuze 1 1
zhuy 2 2
dong 1 1
m ngbai 2 1 3
j ng 1 1
kaolu 1 1
rang 1 1
song 1 1
you 1 1
yuel 1 1
No equiv. 1 2 1 1 5
Totals 5 4 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 1 38
Table 5.10: Frequencies of Chinese Translations by Senses.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 225
Finally let us consider our other non-Indo-European language, Japanese, shown in
Table 5.11 on the following page. In this case we have 66 examples to work from, so that
better generalizations may be possible. The relatively large number of equivalents used in
the Japanese translations is primarily due to variations in politeness, which mayinvolve
the choice of a di erent basic morpheme, di erent in ectional or derivational morphology,
and/or the addition of honori c forms. The situation is further complicated by the presence
of many English idioms and collocations among the examples (shown in the righthand
columns of Table 5.11). The general conclusion is that the basic Japanese equivalent of
see, miru, hasamuch more limited range than see. None of the senses in the Cognitive
division can be expressed by miru, norcanany of the senses in the Visit division, although
mite morau, like the Chinese equivalent, means `to be seen by a doctor', and ome ni kakaru
contains a morpheme meaning `eye'.
The usual way of writing these words, using a combination of Chinese characters
and Japanese syllabics, raises other interesting questions. In all of the translations mit-
sukeru \descry", miwakeru \discern", minuku \have insight into", and mimau \call on",
the rst syllable, mi, is written with the Sino-Japanese character pronounced jian in Man-
darin, meaning `see'; does this re ect accurately the morphology of these words? If so,
can we conclude that mitomeru \notice" does not contain the same morpheme, because
it is written with a di erent character? The question of the extent to which the Chinese
characters adopted by the Japanese for their (fundamentally unrelated) language re ect the
underlying morphology of the Japanese language at that time is fascinating, but delving
into this would take us too far a eld. For the moment, we simply observe that most of
the senses of see other than eye are expressed most of the time with words unrelated to
miru, but that there is also a signi cant minority of translations using words which may
be related to miru.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 226
Totals
id
coloc
setg
expr
envis
detr
acom
rec
disc
class
ens
visit
cons
audi
vide
tour
spec
facl
eye
ga mieru 2 2
goran 1 1
kenbutsu 2 2
me ga mieru 2 2
miru 2 1 1 2 1 4 11
miwatasu 1 1
au 1 1
mite morau 1 1
oai suru 2 2
ohtai suru 1 1
ome ni kakaru 1 1 2
tazuneru 1 1
chui suru 1 1
kisuru 1 1
yaraseru 1 1
you ni chui suru 1 1
you ni suru 1 1
kidzuku 1 1
mitomeru 1 1
owakari de aru 1 1
ryoukai suru 1 1
wakaru 1 5 2 1 9
miokuru 1 1 2
souzou suru 1 1
tashikamete miru 2 2
No equiv. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 16
Totals 5 3 1 3 1 2 2 3 5 3 7 3 1 5 2 2 1 3 14 66
Table 5.11: Frequencies of Japanese Translations by Senses.

CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SAY 227
5.8 Conclusions
In summary, there seems to be a tendency across historically unrelated languages
for verbs meaning `see' to be used also to mean (a) `visit', (b) something like `understand',
and (c) ` nd out'. This might be related to a natural tendency for events involving these
concepts to co-occur. On the other hand, the fact that the pattern of translations in
Spanish resembles English more closely than the patterns of Chinese and Japanese suggests
that these relations among senses may be stronger among Indo-European languages, and
therefore, inherited rather than universal. In any case, it is di cult to generalize on the
basis of a small amount of evidence from just four languages.
Possible Alternative Organizations for Dictionary Entries
As wehave noted with regard to several of the dictionaries discussed in this chapter,
many of the examples given for intransitive uses are in fact semantically identical to those
given for transitive uses; the di erence has to do with the pragmatics of the situation and
whether the direct object can be null instantiated. Many dictionary entries could be made
much clearer by eliminating the transitive/intransitive distinction, provided that the readers
understand something about null instantiation.
We have also pointed out several cases where what are, properly speaking, collo-
cations appear as part of the regular entry, and vice versa. 6 Maintaining the distinction
between these two might be easier if the listing of collocations indicated which of the regu-
lar senses was involved in each collocation. In fact, particularly in learners dictionaries, it
would be very helpful if lexicographers could indicate by means of some compact notation
which senses are extensions of, elaborations of, or otherwise derived from other senses. If
the senses are numbered, this need not occupy very much space. For example, to show
that sense 7 is derived (in some way) from sense 5, one could simply write (

Chapter 6
Future Research Directions and
Conclusions
In the rst part of this chapter, I will outline the research that needs to be un-
dertaken to answer some of the remaining questions Finally, I will attempt to synthesize
the contributions of the various approaches discussed in the last four chapters, to see what
generalizations can be made about the results.
6.1 Future Research Directions
Psycholinguistic Experiments
Further Analysis of Existing Data
There is certainly room for more analysis of the data already collected. My col-
league Jane Edwards and I are continuing to work on analyzing the data from the timed
tasks on both Experiments 2 and 3, eliminating outliers and nding appropriate ways to
standardize the measurements. As noted in Section 4.4, however, a good analysis of the
Experiment 3 reaction time data will probably not be possible unless we gather more data
to reduce the number of missing values.
One of the questions which wewanted to answer was, \What is the nature of
individual variation in the semantics of see? For example, can speakers be categorized on
the basis of cognitive style (such as \lumpers" vs. \splitters")? (This might be a stable
personality trait, not limited to the particular range of senses in question.) Is there an
228

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 229
implicational hierarchy oflevels of sense di erentiation, so that any individual who makes
distinction A would also make distinction B? 1 We are not ready to make any claims on this
point, but there are some indications that our subjects do vary on such a dimension.
The technique of clustering on the basis of agreement statistics, described in Sec-
tion 4.3 above, is useful in revealing certain aspects of the underlying structure of the senses.
It is, however, one-dimensional, and thus cannot reveal the complexity underlying the sense
divisions; in this respect, it has the same weakness as was noted above with regard to ex-
periments using similarity judgements. Several approaches for further, multidimensional
analysis are being considered.
One way of getting at the larger number of dimensions that are assumed to underly
the sense judgements would be to consider the responses on the classi cation tasks as
(partially) independent dimensions, and to nd a method to reduce their dimensionality.
The most conservative approach might be to consider each category as orthogonal to all
the others and look for responses to the same item in two or more categories that could
be reduced to a single dimension based on their relative frequencies. We are currently
considering the relative merits of discrete vs. continuous-valued representations, and of
various methods of reduction of dimensionality.
New Experiments
In accordance with Williams 1992, we expect that probes for senses closely related
to the prime will be facilitated more than probes for relatively distant senses. The distance
between senses might be measured along trees based on clustering by cross-rater agreement
(Section 4.3) or based on inheritance of frames (Section 2.5). However, we will probably need
to collect much more reaction time data (especially for the 14 senses used in Experiment 3)
before we can prove or disprove this hypothesis.
One question that naturally arises with regard to our data (especially from the last
two tasks) is whether, by the end of the experiment, the subjects have simply learned the
categories that we de ned a priori and are responding on the basis of what they have learned
in the last hour, rather than on the basis of sense divisions which they had coming into
the experiment. It may be that the only way to resolve this question would be to create
1 This might in some ways be similar to Kay & McDaniel's (1978) discovery of an implicational hierarchy
for distinctions of color terms across languages. In that case, however, the cross-linguistic di erences have
to do with the existence of names for categories, which ismuch easier to prove than the discrimination of
categories which donothave names, like those for the senses of see.

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 230
several sets of a priori categories, some of them \natural" and some of them including
what we really believe to be disparate examples. Presumably a set of categories which are
closer to those which subjects had initially will be easier to apply, and will produce higher
agreement on categorization of examples, both among subjects and with the experimenter's
categorizations. This would be a procedure similar to that used by Rosch (1973), in which
subjects were taught color names with two di erent sets of exemplars, one containing focal
colors and one containing non-focal colors.
We would expect other verbs (and nouns) of perception to have similar semantic
structures, but most of them to be somewhat less elaborated, since see is one of the most
important. Thus, we expect to nd at least a physical perception sense and a non-physical
cognition sense for verbs such asglimpse, look at, perceive, and hear and phrases such as
get a glimpse of , get/have a taste of , the smell of , etc. Many of these examples are easy
to construct or to nd in corpora. It might be instructive to run similar experiments using
avariety of these perception words, to test what sense divisions speakers have for them,
whether this two-way distinction is reliable, and whether any other senses are similar to
the kinds of elaborations found with see, such as discourse deixis (e.g. Ihear you, brother
`I understand and sympathize with both your intended message and its implications'),
classi cation (He perceives the proposal as just a delaying tactic), etc.
We would also predict other sorts of prototype e ects in addition to those tested
so far, with more central senses more likely to be spontaneously produced and sentences
containing them to be better remembered. Standard experimental techniques could be used
for eliciting \best examples" and testing recall.
Corpus Studies and Word Sense Disambiguation
From Senses to Statistical Pro les
The frame semantic description of the senses given in Section 2.5 is intended to be
precise and to contain all the appropriate information about the syntax and semantics of the
arguments of each sense at the appropriate level of generality. But all of this information
is discrete and categorical: a sense can occur with exactly the two arguments listed, the
phrase typeoftheseen can be either S n or NP and nothing else, the semantic type of the
seer is human (not merely sentient), etc.
It seems clear from a variety ofpsycholinguistic experiments that speakers' knowl-

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 231
edge of language includes some knowledge of the relative frequencies of alternate forms for
the same meaning and alternate meanings for the same form. This need not be seen as
an additional \burden" on the language learner, a separate \coe cient" to be stored along
with all the other syntactico-semantic knowledge. Rather, it should be a natural conse-
quence of a spreading-activation model of language learning and language processing. It
is probably premature to try to describe in much detail the relation between connectionist
mental models and the patterns of preferences displayed by speakers, but a realistic model
of the speaker's knowledge of senses should also include knowledge of the statistical pro les
of the senses.
There have been a number of corpus-based studies on inducing the possible ar-
gument structures for various verbs from large corpora (e.g. Manning 1993), but most of
them have not had adequate sources of semantic knowledge about the arguments. Al-
though part-of-speech tagged corpora have been available for some time, we are just now
beginning to have parsers that are robust enough to allow ustorecordthesyntax of the
argumentsofaverb in adequately (i.e. beyond a bigram or trigram grammar based on
part-of speech tagging). At the same time, resources such asWordNet (Miller et al. 1990;
Fellbaum 1998) are enabling us to do at least limited semantic typing of the heads of the
argument NPs. 2
We should therefore be in a good position to undertake a corpus study of the
argument structure of see, using the frame descriptions as a starting point and inducing
statistical pro les of the syntax and semantics of the arguments of each sense. A similar
study is being undertaken by Dan Jurafsky and his associates for several thousand words,
many of them polysemous, in connection with the FrameNet project (Lowe et al. 1997;
Baker et al. 1998).
For the reasons just mentioned, we would expect that a careful study of corpus
examples of see will show that even though there is a considerable overlap in the syntax and
semantics of the arguments of di erent senses, the relative frequencies of di erent argument
patterns will be quite di erent for di erent senses (as shown in similar studies of other
2 For the present, however, natural language processing systems must use primarily syntactic frames and
relatively \shallow" semantics, because \real" semantics not only involves more world knowledge than any
current NLP system incorporates, but also requires too much processing time. This is not necessarily a bad
thing; the time constraints on human language processing suggest that people also do a very broad, \shallow"
sort of processing, (cf. Jurafsky 1992), rather than performing a \deep" logical sort of deduction such as
that envisioned by Hobbs et al. (1993). People do, however, integrate more types of evidence, especially
semantic evidence, more rapidly than current AI systems.

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 232
words, e.g. Resnik 1993).
From Statistical Pro les to Senses
A statistical pro le of this sort is interesting in its own right from the linguistic
point of view, but for those working on NLP, it is only a means to the end of word sense
disambiguation, which is increasingly recognized as a key problem in building practical NLU
systems (witness the fact that an entire issue of Computational Linguistics was recently
devoted to the topic). The statistical study of FrameNet words mentioned above istypical
of the sorts of work now being done, in that it will use the hand-tagged examples of senses
of words from FrameNet as a training set for an algorithm that will then look through the
whole BNC for sentences containing those words and make a guess as to the sense of the
word and the roles of its arguments, based on the statistical similarity of the contexts to
those in the training set. (For an overview of current word sense disambiguation techniques,
see Ide & Veronis 1998, and Light 1997.)
The real test of the statistical pro les of the senses see developed in the rst step
would therefore be how well they can be used to predict the sense from the syntax and
semantics of the arguments. Standard evaluation procedures such as cross-validation can
then be used to judge the accuracy of this method in comparison with other word-sense
disambiguation algorithms currently in use.
Cross-linguistic Survey
The purposes of a cross-linguistic survey would be (1) to test whether native
speakers of various languages actually use the terms listed in bilingual dictionaries to convey
the various meanings of see and (2) to nd out the relative frequencies of the words used
in such cases.For this purpose, we could use a translation task; this is less than ideal from
a psycholinguistic point of view, since we aretestingavery high-level skill (translation),
rather than a more direct meaning to form correspondence. However, it is much simpler to
gather cross-linguistic data in this way than to try to replicate a psychological experiment
in each of the countries, especially when dealing with meanings that are very di cult to
depict, such as those of see.
The survey would include at least 40 English sentences containing see, covering
the range of senses. For each target language, at least 10 subjects would translate all of

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 233
the sentences into their native language, so that some idea could be obtained about variant
expressions for each sense.
As in the dictionary study, it is expected that some of the instances of see will be
uniformly (or nearly uniformly) translated by the basic verb for `see' in the target language.
Those uses could then be argued to constitute universal parts of human visual experience 3 ,
and hence, plausibly grouped together as one general sense or at least a few related senses,
perhaps related by event metonymy, pro ling of di erent participants, etc. Other uses,
which are lexicalized in a variety ofways, would have a better claim to be treated as
separate, less related senses.
Other Methods
In addition to those mentioned above, other research methods would be required
to investigate predictions such asthefollowing:
We would expect that core senses of see such aseye and recognize will be older
historically and more likely than peripheral senses and collocations to serve as sources
for new extensions.
We would expect that core senses would be acquired earlier and more completely than
than peripheral senses. (But note that Johnson's (1996) work on acquisition data
suggests that the earliest-acquired senses of see are more general, and the acquisition
process involves splitting larger semantic areas into ner senses, rather than adding to
a collection of distinct senses.) We would also expect the central senses to be retained
better in vocabulary loss, whether due to disuse (as in language death), senility, or
external agents (such as brain damage or drugs).
By combining syntactic and semantic information in our frame de nitions and
corpus studies, we may also in a sense be modeling the actual process of rst language
acquisition. As Naigles et al. (1993:60) have suggested,
...the child confronts the problem of acquiring a verb lexicon from two imperfect
data bases. Both situations (extra-linguistic observation) and utterances
(linguistic observation) provide only probabilistic evidence for the determination
of verb meanings. Yet we know that children acquire categorical (or close to
3 Cf. Wierzbicka's (1996) language-universal semantic primitives, which now include see (eye).

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 234
categorical) knowledge of the verb lexicon. Our hypothesis is that they succeed
by playing o these two imperfect data bases against each other, seeking the
simplest t between them.
Although I am certainly not proposing a serious attempt to model the richness of rst
language acquisition, the complexity of linguistic phenomena suggests that many of these
problems can only be solved more or less as humans do, by making e cient and concurrent
use of the full range of information available.
6.2 Conclusions
In some ways, we have barely begun to answer our initial research question, \How
many senses does see have, and how are they related to each other?" But the evidence
accumulated so far does allow ustoreach certain conclusions. Although we have concen-
trated on a very small area of syntax and semantics, we have inevitably been involved in
many larger theoretical questions.
There can be little doubt that see is in fact, highly polysemous, that it is unrealistic
to postulate only one (or even a few) more general senses, with all of its uses as
being created or understood \on the y" by means of processes such as metaphor,
type coercion, etc. The psycholinguistic evidence suggests that speakers have mental
representations (or processing strategies) that are at least partially separated for at
least a dozen senses, and several of the most distinctive senseswere not even tested in
the experiment, to prevent the tasks from becoming too time-consuming. The variety
of translations for the various uses in bilingual dictionaries also leads to the same
conclusion.
More generally, although models of the lexicon which minimize the number of senses
have a certain theoretical appeal, the preponderance of evidence suggests that people
do store quite a number of relatively speci c senses for highly polysemous words.
On the other hand, the situation is very far from homonymy; most of the relations
among the senses of see are well motivated, even though particular senses are not
predictable. For example, even though the senses recognize, visit, and determine
cannot be reduced to mere uses of eye, the experiential basis of co-occurring events
relating them to eye helps explain both their likely historical development and the

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 235
acquisition of these senses by individuals. The partial sharing of the commonest
words for see in other languages suggests that this experiential basis is not limited to
English, although there are language-speci c di erences from English as well.
Some of the less predictable senses such asaccompany and experience must be
learned individually. Their connections with more central senses such aseye and
recognize are probably too distant tomake them transparent in most contexts even
to native speakers. At least one sense, setting, being used only infrequently and
mainly in formal writing, may noteven be learned by all speakers.
Nothing in what we know about the mind or language requires that all words or all
concepts be learned in the same way. The varied relations we have found among
senses of see in this study demonstrate that abstraction over examples, metaphorical
mapping between domains, and analogical development of patterns of alternation, to
name just a few processes, can all play a part in the development of lexico-semantic
structures.
There are numerous collocations which cover the entire range from frequent but com-
pletely compositional patterns such asIseewhatyoumean to truly opaque, decoding
idioms (see the handwriting on the wall, see a man aboutadog). An adequate theory
of lexical semantics must treat this as a continuum, rather than a dichotomy; most
collocations fall somewhere in the middle, with their semantics derived partially by
the composition of their parts and partially from the construction itself. Recognizing
and explaining the partial regularities is also helpful for second-language learners who
must learn (e.g.) to recognize variations on such constructions (We can see a very dim
light at the end of a very long tunnel.), and it will be essential for natural language
understanding systems. Any theory of linguistics which tries to separate language
into a highly regular syntax and a completely irregular lexicon will not be able to
properly represent what speakers know about these collocations.
Ihave taken more or less for granted that there is great value in both introspective
and data-based approaches to these questions, and, indeed, the use of di ering ap-
proaches in this study, including experimentation, has been fruitful. I believe that
this demonstrates that researchers in lexical semantics should use methods involving
more informants, corpus data, and, where appropriate, quantitative analysis together

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 236
with intuitive/introspective data. Other new types of evidence should be sought and
used when proven reliable; at the same time, linguists should avoid expectations that
one more bit of evidence from a related eld will resolve all the major controversies
within linguistics.
We have not, however, really answered the question of how many senses of see we
should postulate, in part because di erent criteria lead us to di erent conclusions. If we join
the camp of the \splitters" and postulate separate senses for every form-meaning pair which
behaves di erently syntactically, we will have more than the twenty-odd senses discussed
above, exclusive of collocations. If we side with the \lumpers" and make maximal use of
the interaction of the verb with its arguments and the surrounding context (i.e., Cruse's
(1986) modulation and contextual selection, Pustejovsky's (1995) type shifting, co-
ercion, co-composition, andsemantic selection, or Alm-Arvius's (1993) Pragmatic
Expansion, Diversion, and Restriction), we might be able to get by with far fewer,
perhaps, like Alm-Arvius, with eight or nine senses.
There is also the question of possible di erences between the receptive lexicon
and the productive lexicon; although we would like to think (for reasons of economy) that
they are one and the same, it is clear that speakers understand much more than they can
produce, both in their rst and second languages. Consider, for example, what we called
\Compositional Uses" in Section 2.5. Some of these, such astour, are encoding idioms
(Makkai 1966), i.e. they can be understood (decoded) immediately in context on the basis
of regular composition of the verb with its object. Speakers must learn, however, that this
is one of the ways that English encodes the idea of `touring' or `seeing the sights', which in
some other languages cannot be expressed by such a simple combination of the basic verb
for see and a place name. Thus, they need not be included in the receptive lexicon in order
to be understood, but they must be in the productive lexicon if they are to be used.
Ultimately, wemay nd that to ask the question \How many senses does see
have?" is to fall prey to what Langacker (1987:29) calls the Rule/List Fallacy:
. . . the assumption, on grounds of simplicity, that particular statements (i.e.
lists) must be excised from the grammar of a language if general statements
(i.e. rules) that subsume them can be established. . . . I have argued (Langacker
1982a) that this is a specious kind of simplicity for anyone taking seriously the
goal of \psychological reality" in linguistic description. ...We do not lose a
generalization by including both the rule and the speci c plural forms in the

CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 237
grammar of English, since the rule itself expresses the generalization. To claim
on an a priori basis that the rule precludes the list, or conversely, is simply to
embrace the exclusionary fallacy.
Later in the same book, Langacker gives the sentences in Ex. (1) as an example
of variants of teach which share a common base but di er in their choice of primary land-
mark, and comments \In the usage-based model I propose, the variants in [Ex. (1)] are all
listed in the grammar, together with a schema representing their commonality (thisschema
speci es trajector status for the agent but is neutral in regard to the choice of primary
landmark)." (p. 270 fn.11)
(1) a. Sally teaches handicapped children.
b. Sally teaches mathematics.
c. Sally teaches third grade.
d. Sally teaches Sunday school.
(pp. 269-70, my numbering)
Langacker suggests that in most cases, we develop more abstract schemata for
linguistic objects, which are real, but secondary, evolving over time on the basis of a collec-
tion of like items. 4 Sadock (1984) also gives some linguistic evidence that some idiomatic
expressions must be listed in the lexicon, even though they are completely compositional
and transparent; he gives examples such ascheeseburger and If you've seen one , you've
seen 'em all.
Certainly, some of the senses of see are more di erent from each other than those
of teach in Ex. (1), so that the only generalization they share seems to be the lexical forms.
But for some of the agonizing questions about listing separate senses versus regarding them
as due to regular rules of composition and more abstract senses, the right answer may well
be \both". The mind/brain is \big" enough and exible enough to encompass multiple,
redundant representations.
4 This is in accord with a well-known language acquisition phenomenon (Bloom 1994:32-3). Children
typically (1) learn a pattern in a restricted context and begin using it correctly, then (2) begin to generalize
and use the pattern incorrectly as a result of overgeneralization, and then (3) learn the appropriate
restrictions on the use of the (generalized) pattern, at which pointthenumber of errors decreases again.
The percentage of appropriate uses is high at rst (within a narrow context), then low, then high again,
giving a U-shaped learning curve.

Bibliography
Allen, R.E., H.W. Fowler, &F.G. Fowler (eds.) 1990. The Concise Oxford Dictionary
of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press, 8th edition.
Alm-Arvius, Christina. 1993. The English verb see. Gothenburg studies in English.
Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Alvarez Garcia, Teresa. 1998. Collins Spanish-English, English-Spanish dictionary
= Collins diccionario espa~nol-ingles, ingles-espa~nol. New York: HarperCollins, 3rd
edition.
Apresjan, Ju. D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142.5{32.
Armstrong, Sharon L., Lila R. Gleitman, &Henry Gleitman. 1983. What some
concepts might notbe. Cognition 13.263{308.
Asher, R.E. (ed.) 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. New York:
Pergamon Press, 1st edition.
Atkins, B.T.S. 1992. Theoretical lexicography and its relation to dictionary-making.
Dictionaries 4{43.
|| 1994. Analysing the verbs of seeing: a frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography.
In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed.
by Susanne Gahl, Andy Dolbey, & Christopher Johnson. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Baker, Collin F., 1999. Experimental mapping of sense structures of polysemous words.
Presentation at the annual meeting of the Linguistics Society of America, Los Angeles.
|| forthcoming. Proving basic polysemy: Subjects reliably distinguish several senses of
See. In Proceedings of the Twenty- fth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics
Society, February, 1999 ,volume 25. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
||, Charles J. Fillmore, &John B. Lowe. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet Project.
In COLING-ACL '98: Proceedings of the Conference.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad-hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11.211{227.
|| 1987. The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In
Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization,
ed. by Ulric Neisser, 101{40. Cambridge, U.K.: CUP.
238

BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
Bierwisch, Manfred, &R. Schreuder. 1989. From concepts to lexical items. Cognition
42.23{60.
Bloom, Paul. 1994. Overview: Controversies in language acquisition. In Language
Acquisition: Core Readings, ed. by Paul Bloom, 5{48. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax : a minimalist approach to grammar.
Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Brugman, Claudia. 1996. Mental spaces, constructional meaning, and pragmatic ambiguity.
In(Fauconnier & Sweetser 1996), 29{56.
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures, with applications to unication
grammars, logic programs, and constraint resolution. Cambridge tracts in
theoretical computer science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Castillo, Carlos, &Otto F. Bond (eds.) 1972. University of Chicago Spanish-English
English-Spanish Dictionary. NewYork: Pocket Books, revised edition.
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Janua linguarum nr. 4. 's-Gravenhage:
Mouton.
||. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Cohen, J. 1960. A coe cient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological
Measurement 20.37{46.
Cohen, Jonathan D., Brian MacWhinney, Matthew Flatt, & Jefferson
Provost. 1993. Psyscope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling
experiments in the psychology laboratory using macintosh computers. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 25.257{271.
Coleman, Linda, &Paul Kay. 1981. Prototype semantics: the english word Lie. Language
22.26{44.
Copestake, Ann, &Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension.
Journal of Semantics 12.15{67.
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence
Judgments. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Cruse, D. Alan. 1986.Lexical Semantics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
||. 1992. Monosemy vs. polysemy. Linguistics 3.577{599.
de Groot, A.M.B. 1984. Primed lexical decision: Combined e ects of the proportion
of related prime-target pairs and the stimulus-onset asynchrony of prime and target.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 36A.253{280.
Declerck, Renaat. 1982. The triple origin of participial perception verb complements.
Linguistic Analysis 10.1{26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 240
||. 1983. On the passive of in nitival perception verb complements. Journal of English
Linguistics 16.27{46.
Durkin, Kevin, &Jocelyn Manning. 1989. Polysemy and the subjective lexicon:
Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. JPLR 18.577{612.
Editing Group (ed.) 1988. A New English-Chinese dictionary. Seattle: University of
Washington Press, second revised and enlarged edition.
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1985 [1994]. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in
Natural Language. NewYork: MIT Press [reprinted by Cambridge University Press].
||, & Eve Sweetser. 1996. Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Fellbaum, Christiane (ed.) 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database and some of
its applications. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
||, Joachim Grabowski, Shari Landes, &Andrea Baumann. 1998. Matching words
to senses in wordnet: Naive vs. Expert di erentiation of senses. In (Fellbaum 1998).
Fillenbaum, Samuel, &Amnon Rapoport. 1971.Structures in the subjective lexicon.
New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1969. Verbs of judging: An exercise in semantic description.
Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 1.91{117.
|| 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. In Conference on the Origin and
Development of Language and Speech, volume 280 of Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences, 20{32. New York Academy of Sciences.
|| 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from
SICOL-1981 , 111{137. Seoul, South Korea: Hanshin Publishing Co.
|| 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica: Rivista
Internazionale di Semantica Teorica e Applicata 6.222{254.
|| 1992. \Corpus linguistics" vs. \Computer-aided armchair linguistics". In Directions
in Corpus Linguistics, 35{60. Mouton de Gruyter. Proceedings from a 1992 Nobel
Symposium on Corpus Linguistics, Stockholm.
|| 1994. The hard road from verbs to nouns. In In Honor of William S-Y. Wang:
Interdisciplinary Studies on language and language change, ed. by Matthew Y. Chen
& Ovid J.L. Tseng, 105{130. Taipei: Pyramid Press.
||, 1996. Notes on idiomaticity. Unpublished course materials for Linguisitcs 181 (Lexical
Semantics).
||, & B.T.S. Atkins. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of risk and
its neighbors. In Frames, Fields and Contrasts, ed. by Adrienne Lehrer & Eva Feder
Kittay. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 241
||, & B.T.S. Atkins. 1998. FrameNet and lexicographic relevance. In First International
ConferenceonLanguage Resources and Evaluation, Proceedings, ed. byAntonio Rubio,
Natividad Gallardo, Rosa Castro, & Antonio Tejada, 417{423, Granada, Spain.
||, & Paul Kay. 1994. Reading materials for Linguistics X20. Course reader at U.C.
Berkeley.
||, & Paul Kay, 1996. Causative ABC constructions. Presentation at Cognitive Science
Seminar at U.C. Berkeley, Jan. 26, 1996.
||, Paul Kay, &Mary Catherine O'Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in
grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone. Language 64.501{538.
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Fujikake, Eizo (ed.) 1984. Toei's English-Japanese Japanese-English Dictionary. Tokyo:
Toei Shuppan.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1993.Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics
4.223{272.
||. 1994a. Homonymy. In (Asher 1994), 1595{6.
||. 1994b. Polysemy. In (Asher 1994), 3227{8.
Gibbs, Raymond. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in
conversation. Memory and Cognition 8.449{456.
||, & J. O'Brien. 1990. Idioms and mental imagery: The metaphorical motivation fo
ridiomatic meaning. Cognition 36.35{68.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gove, Philip Babcock. 1993. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the
English Language, unabridged. Spring eld, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole & J.L.
Morgan, volume 3 of Syntax and Semantics, 41{58. New York: Academic Press.
||. 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole,
volume 9 of Syntax and Semantics, 113{27. New York: Academic Press.
Gruber, Jeffery S.1986. Frame information and lexically-based inference. Quaderni di
Semantica 58{78.
Hanks, Patrick. 1992. Lexicography: Theory and practice. Dictionaries 97{112.
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993. The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 242
Heid, Ulrich, &Katja Krueger. 1994. On the DELIS corpus evidence encoding schema.
Deliverable D-III-0 of DELIS LRE 61.034, DELIS. EC Document.
Hobbs, Jerry, J.M. Stickel, P. Martin, &D. Edwards. 1993. Interpretation as
abduction. Arti cial Intelligence 63.69{142.
Ide, Nancy, &Jean Veronis. 1998. Introduction to the special issue on word sense
disambiguation: The state of the art. Computational Linguistics 24.1{40.
Iwasaki, Tamihei, Jujiro Kawamura, &Sanki Ichikawa. 1960. Kenkyusha's new
English-Japanese dictionary on bilingual principles. Tokyo: Kenkyusha, new, revised
and enlarged edition.
Johnson, Christopher. 1996. Learnability in the acquisition of multiple senses: Source
reconsidered. In Proceedings of the Twenty-SecondAnnual Meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society, ed. by Matthew L. Judge Jan Johnson & Jeri L. Moxley, volume 22,
469{480. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Jorgensen, Julia C. 1990. The psychological reality ofword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research 19.167{190.
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation:
A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Technical
Report 92/676, UC Berkeley Computer Science Department. Reprint of UCB Ph.D.
Dissertation.
Kaneda, Fujihiko (ed.) 1997. Yohan English-Japanese Dictionary. Tokyo: Yohan Publications.
Kay, Paul. 1983. Linguistic competence and folk theories of language: Two English
hedges. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
volume 9, 128{137, Berkeley, Calif. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
||, & Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations:
The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1{33.
||, & Chad K. McDaniel. 1978. The linguistic signi cance of the meanings of basic
color terms. Language 54.610{46.
Kilgarriff, Adam. 1997. \I don't believe inword senses". Computers and the Humanities
31.91{113.
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, &Daniel Jurafsky. 1994. Type underspeci cation and online
type construction in the lexicon. In Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on
Formal Linguistics.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
||. 1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reasoning based on image schemas?
Cognitive Linguistics 1.
||. 1995. Re ections on metaphor and grammar. In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics,
ed. byMasayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson, number 32 (new series) in Pragmatics
and Beyond, 131{143. John Benjamins.
||, & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
||, & Eve Sweetser. 1985. Foreword. In (Fauconnier 1985 [1994]), ix{xvi.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 1971. If's, and's and but's about conjunction. In Studies in
Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Charles J. Fillmore & D. Terence Langendoen, 114{149.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
||. 1989. The way wewere; or, the real actual truth about generative semantics: A
memoir. Journal of Pragmatics 13.939{88.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
|| 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Liang, Shih-ch'iu, Jeffrey C.H. Tung, &C.H. Wang. 1975. Far East English-Chinese
dictionary = Yuandong Ying Han Da Cdian. Taipei: Far East Book Co.
Light, Marc (ed.) 1997. Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why, What and How? .
Special Interest Group on the Lexicon, Association for Computational Linguistics. Proceedings
of the SIGLEX Workshop held April 4-5, in Washington, D.C., USA in conjunction
with ANLP-97.
Louw, Johannes P. 1995. How many meanings to a word? In Cultures, Ideologies, and
the Dictionary: Studies in Honor of Ladislav Zgusta, ed. by Braj B. Kachru & Henry
Kahane, number 64 in Lexicographica: Series Maior, 357{65. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Lowe, John B., Collin F. Baker, &Charles J. Fillmore. 1997. A frame-semantic
approach tosemantic annotation. In (Light 1997). Proceedings of the SIGLEX Workshop
held April 4-5, in Washington, D.C., USA in conjunction with ANLP-97.
Lyons, John. 1977.Semantics, volumeI&II. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 244
Makino, Seiichi, &Michio Tsutsui. 1986.A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar.
Tokyo: The Japan Times.
Makkai, Adam, 1966. Idiom Structure in English. New Haven, Conn: Yale University
dissertation. DAI 27.195A.
Manning, Christopher. 1993. Automatic acquisition of a large subcategorization dictionary
from corpora. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, 235{242.
McCawley, James D. 1982. How far can you trust a linguist? In Language, Mind, and
Brain, ed. by Thomas W. Simon & Robert J. Scholes, 75{88. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Medin, Douglas L. 1989. Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist
44.1469{1481.
Mel'cuk, Igor A. 1996. Lexical functions: A tool for the descrition of lexical relations in a
lexcion. In Lexical Functions in Lexicography and NLP, ed. by Leo Wanner, volume 10
of Studies in Language Companion Series, 37{102. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Meyer, D.E., &R.W. Schvanenveldt. 1971.Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words:
Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology
90.227{234.
Miller, George A., Richard Beckwith, Christiane Fellbaum, Derek Gross, &
Katherine J. Miller. 1990. Introduction to wordnet: An on-line lexical database.
International Journal of Lexicography 3.235{312. Special issue, George Miller, ed.
Morey, Leslie C.,&Alan Agresti. 1984. The measurement of classi cation agreement:
An adjustment to the rand statistic for chance agreement. Education and Psychological
Measurement 44.33{37.
Naigles, Letitia G., Henry Gleitman, &Lila R.Gleitman. 1993. Children acquire
word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In Language and cognition: a
developmental perspective, ed. by Esther Dromi, volume 5 of Human development.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
no author given. 1986. An Everyday Chinese-English dictionary (= Changyong Han-
Ying Cidian). New York, N.Y.: Hippocrene Books.
||. 1995. Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary. Spring eld, Mass.: Merriam-Webster,
Inc.
||. 1997. Webster's New World Dictionary. NewYork: MacMillan.
Norvig, Peter, &George Lakoff. 1987. Taking: A study in lexical network theory.
In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
volume 13, 195{206, Berkeley, California. Berkeley Linguistics Society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 245
Osgood, C.E. 1970. Where do sentences come from? In Semantics: An interdisciplinary
reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, ed. by D.D. Steinberg & L.A.
Jakobovits. Cambridge, U.K.: CUP.
Ostler, Nicholas, &B.T.S. Atkins. 1991. Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic
properties of lexical implication rules. In Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation,
ed.by James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler, 76{87. Association for Computational
Linguistics. Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on
the Lexicon.
Pearsall, Judy, &Patrick Hanks. 1998. The New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Petruck, Miriam R.L. 1995. Frame semantics and the lexicon: Nouns and verbs in
the body frame. In Essays in semantics and pragmatics: in honor of Charles J. Fillmore,
ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson, number 32 (new series) in
Pragmatics & beyond, 279{97. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Pustejovsky, James. 1995.The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Quine, Willard V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Reddy, Michael. 1979. The conduit metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by
A. Ortony, 284{324. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Resnik, Philip, 1993. Selection and Information: A Class-Based Approach to Lexical
relationships. University ofPennsylvania dissertation.
Rhodes, Richard Alan, n.d. Some comments on the polysemy ofsee. Unpublished ms.
UC Berkeley Linguistics Dept.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4.328{50.
||. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor
Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, 27{47. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
||. in press. Reclaiming concepts. In Reclaiming Cognition: The primacy of action,
intention and emotion, ed. by R.Nu~nez & W.J. Freeman. Thorverton, U.K.: Imprint
Academic.
Rothstein, S., 1983. The Syntactic Forms of Predication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
dissertation. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1984.
Ruhl, Charles. 1989. On monosemy: a study in linguistic semantics. Albany, N.Y.:
State University ofNewYork Press.
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1984. The poly-redundant lexicon. In Papers from the Parasession
on Lexical Semantics, ed. by David Testen, Veena Mishra, & Joseph Drogo, 250{269,
Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 246
Sandra, Dominiek, &Sally Rice. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning:
Mirroring whose mind|the linguist's or the language user's? Cognitive Linguistics
6.89{130.
Schutze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality judgments
and Linguistic Methodology. University of Chicago Press.
Scott, J. 1955. Reliability ofcontent analysis: the case of nominal scale coding. Public
Opinion Quarterly 19.321{325.
Seidenberg, M.S., M.K. Tannenhaus, J.M. Leiman, &M. Bienkowski. 1982. Automatic
access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations on
knowlege-based processing. Cognitve Psychology 14.489{532.
Siegel, Sidney, &N. John Castellan, Jr. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition.
Sinclair, John, forthcoming. The search for units of meaning.
Sweetser, Eve. 1987. Metaphorical models of thought and speech: A comparison of
historical directions and metaphorical mappings in the two domains. In Proceedings of
the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by Jon Aske,
Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, & Hana Filip, volume 13, 446{459, Berkeley, California.
Berkeley Linguistics Society.
||. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic
structure. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Swinney, David A. 1979. Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (re)consideration
of context e ects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18.645{59.
Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In
Grammatical categories and the Lexicon, ed. by Timothy Shopen, volume 3 of Language
typology and semantic description, 57{149. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University
Press.
Taylor, John R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory.
Oxford University Press, 2nd edition.
Traugott, Elizabeth. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example
of subjecti cation in semantic change. Language 65.31{55.
Turner, Mark, &Gilles Fauconnier. 1995. Conceptual integration and formal expression.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10.183{204.
Urdang, Laurence, &Frank Abate. 1983.Idioms and phrases index. Detroit, Mich.:
Gale Research Co., 1st edition.
Viberg, Ake. 1983. The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics 21.123{162.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
Wasow, Thomas. 1985. Postsript. In Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories,
number 2 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, California: CSLI.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985.Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Karoma Publishers, Inc.
||. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press.
Williams, John N. 1992. Processing polysemous words in context: Evidence for interrelated
meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 21.193{218.
Zadeh, Lotfi. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8.338{353.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949[1965]. Human behavior and the principle of least e ort:
an introduction to human ecology. NewYork: Hafner Pub. Co.
Zwicky, Arnold M., &Jerrold M. Sadock. 1973. Ambiguity tests and how tofail
them. Working Papers in Linguistics (Columbus, Ohio) 16.1{34.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 248

Appendix A
Additional Corpus Examples of
Senses
A.1 Basic Senses
(1) eye
a. BNC: I had seen her face before, but only in silhouette. . .
b. BNC: May I see the room now?
c. BNC: I could not see the heap; it was hidden by brambles nowadays.
d. BNC: I saw him in the forest a couple of days ago.
(2) recognize
249
a. Brown: . . . the low-wage textile-producing countries in Asia and Europe will see
that \dumping" practices cause friction all around and may result in import
quotas.
b. BNC: If there is to be a conspiracy, at least everyone will see that it exists and
will know who is involved.
(3) accompany
a. BNC: \No need to see me to my room, Alec," she said, reaching for the candlestick.
b. BNC: \I'll see you home again on Friday, love," she said to Susan.
c. BNC: I'm sure your sister can see us to the gate.
(4) condition
a. BNC: The daughterofSamuel Roberts, quite simply, could not be seen to be
involved.
b. BNC: \Can't you understand that he's the last person on the sta I want to see
upset?"
(5) consult

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMPLES OF SENSES 250
a. Brown: After his pains got worse, Tom decided to see a real doctor, from whom
he learned he was su ering from cancer of the lung.
b. BNC: . . . Ruud Gullit, who is seeing a doctor on Monday about his cartilage
injury.
c. BNC: You've been seeing your social worker regularly, have you, Vernon?
d. BNC: . . . she had a child . . . and a husband called Bernard who was seeing a
fertility specialist.
(6) dating
a. Brown: Against my folks' wishes, we'd been seeing each other for short rides in
the truck.
b. BNC: . . . he broke it o and confessed to Sarah that he had been seeing someone
else.
c. BNC: My boyfriend and I are both 24 and have been seeing each other for three
years.
d. BNC: . . . \Your son has been seeing my sister clandestinely."
e. BNC: He had been seeing Molly on and o for about six months.
f. BNC: \She is seeing other men."
g. BNC: Meanwhile Mick is reported to have been seeing glamorous 21-year-old
Aussie model Peta Wilson in Los Angeles.
(7) determine
a. Brown: \. . . I used to follow Williams every day in the box score, just to see
whether he got a hit or not".
b. BNC: They make parachute drops \to see what it's like".
c. BNC: Let's see how you rate in that area.
d. BNC: There were two engines, \Carlisle" and \No 1", and we would look eagerly
to see which was heading the train today.
e. BNC: Try your local stamp dealer and see if he has any on his lists.
f. BNC: She peeped at him to see the e ect of her words.
(8) ensure
a. Brown: \I shall see about getting you a tent," he said.
b. Brown: In order to see that this hindering situation remained e ective, Washington
detached several bodies of his troops to the periphery of the Philadelphia
area.
c. Brown: You should see to it that the trap, the dirt-catcher in front of the lter,
is always clean.
d. BNC: We won't be disturbed for an hour and a half at least|Kate's out, and
then she'll be seeing to the meal.
e. BNC: `You see to the drinks.
(9) envision
a. Brown: In Arthur Clarke's Childhood's End [1953], . . . , we can see the bright

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMPLES OF SENSES 251
(10) faculty
(11) news
vision of science ction clearly de ned.
a. Brown: \How canyou tell an insane man to reason or a blind man to see"?
b. Brown: He could see in almost total darkness.
(12) process
(13) read
a. BNC: The meeting was opened by the chairman, who welcomed those present
and was pleased to see so many attend.
b. BNC: He was layering a hedge in one of his top elds when he saw the party
riding along the road towards the forest.
c. Brown: Despite his yearning, the colonel would not go down to see the men
come through the lines.
d. BNC: He's seen me talking to the great Walter Schellenberg.
e. BNC: . . . \Is that why you'd been drinking, the night before you saw the robbery
on Handley Plain?"
f. BNC: Through half-closed eyes he saw Alice rise from the bench and come
towards him.
g. BNC: I mean, you've never actually seen anyone going in or out of them, have
you?"
a. Brown: Andy did not see the newspapers the next day.
(14) setting
(15) visit
a. Brown: She hadn't seen him since.
b. BNC: The Chirwas say they came to see a sick relative.
c. BNC: \It's wonderful to see you."
d. BNC: It's best I don't see Anna.
e. BNC: \I'll see you about six this evening."
f. BNC: \I'm always pleased to see old friends, Doreen."
A.2 Semi-collocations
(16) classify
a. Brown: Pope John sees the renewal and puri cation of the Church as an absolutely
necessary step toward Christian unity.
b. Brown: The indignant crusader sees in the nude or semi-nude human form a
threat and danger. . .

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMPLES OF SENSES 252
c. BNC: . . . he does not see himself as a romantic orphan.
d. BNC: He may have seen her death as a judgement.
e. BNC: She looked at them, and saw dupes.
(17) experience
(18) gambling
(19) vide
a. Brown: The range is from 14 to 25 inches; . . . [see chapter on Laying, Brooding,
Hatching, and Birth], the latter on a \normal" newly born individual.
b. BNC: (See use of ap on take-o on pages 93 and 94.)
c. BNC: . . . (see, for example, Hatim, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989; Hatim and Mason,
1990), . . .
d. BNC: For a detailed discussion of information structure, see section 5.1.2. below.
A.3 Compositional Uses
(20) audience
a. BNC: \Nurse Dungarvan, why didyou not explain at once that Mr Leland was
seeing a patient in here?"
b. BNC: The servants say the doctor's been three times but been forced to leave
again without seeing him.
c. BNC: . . . more teeth were being extracted because dentists were seeing more
patients.
(21) discourse
a. BNC: Can you see the point I am trying to make?
b. BNC: A rm basis for the study of Oriental art came more slowly, and as
we shall see, some of the di erences of approach between East and West still
require wider recognition.
c. BNC: \I see what you're getting at," he said.
d. BNC: He does, however, modify this position slightly in his later writings as
we shall see shortly.
(22) hallucinate
(23) scan
a. Brown: SAMOS will be hard put to see through clouds|and to see in the
dark.
b. Brown: The total picture is only seen by the camera which integrates the many
sector scans over the entire 90-degree rotation period.
c. BNC: Where the camera sees white it sends to the output monitor the picture

APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMPLES OF SENSES 253
seen by Camera A, where it sees black it sends out Camera B's picture.
d. BNC: . . . the right hemisphere may recognise genuine words when it sees them,
. . . which suggests that . . . the right half of the brain is not inferior to the left.
e. BNC: Each shape it sees is compared to a set of stylised representations of the
alphabet, . . .
f. BNC: Again, the view nder image will alert you to the problem by showing
you how the camcorder is seeing the scene.
(24) spectate
(25) tour
a. Brown: Later, a bus will carry members to the Chicago Stadium to see Jack
Kramer's professional tennis matches at 8 p.m.
b. Brown: So I went to see \La Dolce Vita".
c. BNC: \You should see his impersonation of Ray Bradbury," Cecil added.

Appendix B
Summary of Morphology and
Syntax of Senses
Some of the syntactic and semantic restrictions on senses discussed in Chapter 2
are summarized in Table B.1 on the next page.
The second column indicates for each sense whether physical vision is presupposed,
impossible, or unspeci ed. We should note that blind people use senses very similar to many
of those listed here to mean `perceive bytouching', `visit', `consult', etc. without the usual
entailment ofphysical vision, so the items in this column may only apply when the seer
possesses normal vision. This may constitute a dialect di erence for blind speakers, but at
least one such use is common to virtually all speakers, Let me see it, accompanied by holding
out the hand to receive a small object. The universal children's trick of responding to this
request by holding up the object but not handing it over and the resulting frustration of the
speaker, suggest that what is intended by the request is not only a closer visual inspection,
but also a tactile one.
The next column shows whether a passive form exists for each sense, while the
last column tells whether or not the sense can occur with progressive aspect.
The items marked with (,) in the column for Progressive usually cannot occur in
the progressive, but can be \coerced" to take the progressive in the rightcontext (Ex. (1-a)),
just like many other verbs which normally resist the progressive (Ex. (1-b)) (also cf. Frawley
(1992:147) on converting statives to actives by making them progressive).
(1) a. As the mist clears, he's gradually seeing more and more of the trees on the ridge.
b. As she matures, she's liking candy and ice cream less and co ee more.
It is unclear how the facts represented by this table can be motivated from the analysis
presented so far.
254

APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF MORPHOLOGY AND SYNTAX OF SENSES 255
Sense Vision Subject Passive Tense Prog.
eye + A + any (,) a
recognize , A + any (,) a
process u A , any (,) a
visit + H , any any
classify u H + any (,) a
determine u A , any any
read + H + any any
spectate + H + any any
condition +/u A , any (,) a
envision , H , any (,) a
ensure u A? + any any
consult + H + any any
setting , place/time , ? any
see t , H , any (,) a
esperience , b , any any
dating + H ? any (+) c
let's see , 's d , pres ,
news + H , any (,) a
see through x , H ? any any
see x through , e , any any
see o ? A + any any
faculty + A , any any
gambling ? H + pres? ,
hallucinate ,? A + any any
y'see , H , pres ,
scan ,? inan. + any any
a Usually not progressive, but see the text for exceptions.
b Must be a physical object; may behuman.
c Usually progressive but there are exceptions in the right context.
d The colloquial form must be contracted; let us see is di erent, i.e., sense discourse .
e See the discussion in the text for details of the semantics of the subject of this sense.
Table B.1: Syntactic Restrictions on Senses

Appendix C
Experiment 1
C.1 Original nineteen senses
eye
(With de nitions and examples seen by the subjects)
Perceive anobjectoraphysical action with the eyes
She saw the cat on the mat.
He could see something moving in the bushes.
visit
Meet, go to visit (a person/persons)
Will you see Fritz while you're in Pocatello?
She's been to see her twice since her operation.
determine
Find out, determine
I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.
Let's see what happens to the reaction at 250 degrees.
see as
Regard something as something else
Do you see this o er as the rst step in a hostile takeover?
In her he saw the possibility of escape from the boredom of his daily life.
recognize
256

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 257
Recognize a fact, understand a situation
They saw the di culty of winning, but still insisted on bringing it to a vote.
She saw that nothing would change his mind about it.
see state
To recognize something/ someone as being in a condition
He saw herhungry and cold on the street corner.
I only want toseeyou happy again.
see process
To see something/ someone perform a process
He saw her remember an item, pick it up, look at it, and then decide not to buy it.
She saw him gaining more political power month by month.
envision
Envision a counterfactual situation/ the future
Thank heavens they didn't try the north face; I could just see them on the cli at midnight,
freezing and exhausted.
I don't see the Republicans nominating him this year.
read
Read, consult a written reference
Did you see Herb Caen's column this morning?
See page 37.
spectate
Be a spectator at/of a performance/event
Have you ever seen a cricket match?
She went to New York to see \Angels in America".
service
To undergo, to witness and be a ected by
He saw combat in Libya and Morocco.
I've seen lonely times when I could not nd a friend.

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 258
contain
(Of a time period, a place, etc.) to contain, be the site or occasion of
The 16th century saw an unprecedented owering of literary talent.
California has seen its share of natural disasters in the last few years. (lexical Construction)
let's see (consider carefully)
Let's see, the jewelry will be unguarded for at least ve minutes...
Let's see, there should be another box of staples here somewhere...
see to
(lexical Construction) see to / see to it that/ see that{to take charge of:
We'llseetoitthathenever bothers anybody again.
She always saw that there was a fresh pot of co ee ready for the meeting.
you see
you see, I see (discourse markers)
As we will see in the next chapter, various solutions have been proposed.
You see, there's only so much medicine can do in this case.
see t
to see t (to V)
Pat had it for a week before seeing t to tell me about it.
You can handle the situation however you see t.
consult
To visit with an expert or authority, asking questions
You should see a doctor about that cough.
Going to see a divorce lawyer is a major decision.
dating
To visit with repeatedly for romantic reasons, BE seeing
They'd been seeing each other for a couple of years.
He had a girlfriend last year, but he's not seeing anybody now.
see news

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 259
to learn about news by seeing a newspaper or TV newscast
I see that Congress nally passed the budget.
I see that the Governor is running for President again.
C.2 Stimuli
Brown Corpus Sentences (selected)
(1) (50 sentences randomly selected out of 200)
De nition of the thighs at the uppermost part is quite commonly SEEN in most
championship Olympic lifters which is easily understandable.
In the afternoon Miss Hosaka and her mother invited me to go with them and
young Mrs. Kodama to SEE the famous Spring dances of the Geisha dancers.
ISAW that I would soon run out of buildings at this rate, so I decided to take
another measure|the whole state of Pennsylvania.
Here he couldn't be SEEN by Blue Throat and his gang.
It must have hurt her even to walk, for the sole was completely o her left foot
and Morgan SAW that it was bruised and bleeding.
Hereby, the external object viewed by theeyes remains the thing that is SEEN,
not the retinal image, the purpose of which would be to achieve perceptive
cooperation by stirring sympathetic impulses in the other sensory centers, motor
tensions, associated word symbols, and consciousness.
Nowasyou step inside, instead of SEEING particles orbiting around like planets,
you SEE waves and ripples very much like the ripples that you get on the surface
of a pond when you drop a stone into it.
Iwould try to memorize landmarks and SAW in a half-hour that it was hopeless.
Now turn around so I can SEE your face.
The next time the police SAW her she was dead.
He went down the hall to Eugene's bathroom, to turn on the hot-water heater,
and on the side of the tub he SAW a pair of blue wool swimming trunks.
I wish you could have SEEN the crests fall on these two sparring coxcombs when
I told them that obviously the pasture belonged to their wives jointly.
Evidence of this trend can best be SEEN in the recent activities of such leading
companies in the eld as Advance Neon Sign Co., Los Angeles, Calif.
Do you SEE that pretty girl standing next to the car with slacks on?
On the other side of the ledger is the fact that he did SEE his niece and the
woman with whom she was staying.
Third, the process of calci cation is SEEN to begin later and to continue much
longer for these boys than for the girls, a fact which con rms data for other
groups of children.
You'll have togototown to SEE the doc.
You don't SEE me stretched out on the deck, do you?

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 260
There was a tap at the door and Oliver entered with the word that Heiser wished
to SEE the Captain.
Lying awake atnight, he could SEE them, laid out on the oor of his mind.
Apparently he was not a participant in the college or university theatricals,
which he once attacked as utterly unworthy performances [SEE Apology, 3:300];
but even in that famous passage, Milton was aiming not at the theatricals as
such but at their performance by `persons either enter'd, or presently to enter
into the ministry'.
In contrast to the nuclear changes described above, another change in muscle
nuclei was SEEN, usually occurring in bers that were somewhat smaller than
normal but that showed distinct cross-striations and myo brillae.
He lived in the dawn; he could only SEE the light coming over the horizon.
At rst I did not know what she meant; I thought she must be SEEING me as
some one who had just come from SEEING her grandmother, in their distant
home-city.
Chandler, looking to right and left to SEE how his men were faring, suddenly
SAW another gure bounding up the hill, hurling grenades and hollering the
battle cry as he ran.
But in order to keep Letch in the public eye and out of trouble, I wrote in a
part especially for him|that of a dashing ru an who \SEES the light" and is
saved by the inspiring example of Mother Cabrini.
I didn't SEE her till several days later at the wedding, and her face looked like
it had never had a blemish on it.
Not until the words had been spoken did Abel suddenly SEE the old house and
the insistent sea, and feel his contrition blotted out in one shameful moment of
covetousness.
ISAW holes in planes at the airport and in cars in the streets.
The manager sat behind the group so he could SEE and count the hands that
went up, and the director wrote the numbers on the blackboard.
I never SAW him.
Somehow our contemporary Moloch must be induced to SEE reason.
He could not SEE objects as uni ed, self-contained, and organized gures, as a
person does with normal vision.
Havana was lled with an excitement which you could SEE in the brightness of
men's eyes and hear in the pitch of their voices.
He provoked outraged editorials when, after a post-Inaugural inspection of the
White House with Mrs. Kennedy, heremarked to reporters, \We just cased the
joint to SEE what was there".
\Well"|I didn't|I didn't ever want to SEE that woman again.
The ledger was full of most precise information: date of laying, length of incubation
period, numberofchick reaching the rst week, second week, fth week,
weight of hen, size of rooster's wattles and so on, all scrawled out in a hand
that looked more Chinese than English, the most jagged and sprawling Alex
had ever SEEN.

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 261
At the same time he watched carefully to SEE how one attached pegboards to
stone walls, but Mr. Blatz was usually standing in his line of vision and it all
seemed so simple that he didn't like to disclose his ignorance.
The meaning of this, as we shall SEE, is that he had no fund of visual memoryimages
of objects as objects; and, therefore, he could not recognize even longfamiliar
things upon SEEING them again.
But there's one thing I never SEEN or heard of, one thing I just don't think
there is, and that's a sportin' way o' killin' a man!
\Would you like to SEE my work?" Helva asked, politely.
The Chicago contingent of modern critics follow Aristotle so far in this direction
that it is hard to SEE how they can compare one poem with another for the
purpose of evaluation.
This would mean, it can readily be SEEN, that, again, for each new visual experience,
the tracing motions would have to be repeated because of the absence
of visual imagery.
He SAW no life, but still stood there for a time peering at the unlovely hills, his
gaze continually returning to Papa-san.
That is, it is literally a picture window: you don't SEE into the viscera; you
SEE a picture|trees, or owers.
Charity as she knew it was complex and reciprocal, and almost every roof she
SAW signi ed charity.
At last they SAW Calcutta, largest city of Bengal and the Caravan's destination.
Some have SEEN revivalism and the search for Christian perfection as the
fountain-head of the American hope.
With distaste I SAW him assume a pompous air.
\I never SAW him so anxious before", I said, lighting my pipe and o ering her
a cigarette.
Constructed Sentences
(2) She's been seeing him for years, but it doesn't look like anything will come of
it.
She saw her working in the garden almost every day.
I can see why they put him under house arrest.
I've seen better days, but I'm not dead yet.
Did you see Seinfeld last night?
Modern ri es saw use on the battle eld beginning with the Crimean War.
W.W. II saw the use of Navajo as a secret code.
Let's see, what time can you be at the station?
Icanseeitnow, in few more years there will be warning labels on ice cubes
about breaking a lling.
If you have these kinds of feelings often, perhaps you should see a psychiatrist
and talk about them.
You see, the production of ivory has been outlawed for many years.
You should see a lawyer before you sign anything.

APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 262
I see that Macy's is having a sale on sheets.
Did you see that they're going to raise bus fares again?
They saw the snow swirling through the trees falling silently and gently into the
lake.
He often drank a great deal, but I never saw him drunk.
The school sees to it that every child gets a hot lunch every day.
The year 1723 saw Bach in Leipzig, in his new post at St. Thomas' Church.
Ihaven't seen her for more than a year.
Have you seen the new comet?
You'll be needing some help to see to the plowing in the spring, won't you?
He saw the keys hanging on the wall, just out of reach.
He saw the sign that said he had to walk ve more miles to reach the beach and
groaned.
He said hello to her everyday, but never really SAW her.
See what you can nd out about the chances of getting a job there.
She hasn't been seeing anyone since she moved to New York.
You can re him if you see t; I'll back you up.
Isaw the headlines at the train station, but I haven't gotten the whole story.
He wants to see her a success in her own right, not always depending on others.
When we get their response, we'll see whether they're really willing to negotiate
and make some progress or they're just stalling.
The justices saw ttomake their ruling extremely narrow.
Let's see, I'm about ve foot ten, and she's a little taller than me...
Can't you just see his face when he opens this package and tries to gure out
what to do with them?
Despite the obstacles, his con dence and character will see him through.
I only saw Monk once, and he was so drunk he could hardly play.
You can see mold is coming through the paint again.
When you see an old friend for the rst time in years, you usually spend a little
time catching up on the news of each other's lives.
She saw him as an ally in her struggle for justice.
Iseemuch happiness in your future.
He feigned innocence, but she saw right through him.
You see what you're doing to yourself?
Seeing that she's corporate vice president, it's not surprising that her o ce is
so big.
I see it as a golden opportunity foryou, and I wish you'd do it.
Isaw her in the ower of her youth, beautiful, generous, and con dent of the
future.

Appendix D
Stimuli for Experiments 2 and 3
(1) Stimuli for Experiment 2.
263
061 modl stmt + determine acad actv
You should see if you can nish all your required courses by next spring.
055 past stmt + determine acad actv
We wanted to see whether the use of a catalyst would allow the reaction to take
place at lower temperatures.
092 will ques - determine acad actv
Won't you please see if Prof. Williams is in?
090 none stmt - determine acad pass
The committee doesn't always see whether the credentials are valid before reaching
its decision.
042 modl ques - determine entr actv
Shouldn't we see whether the full orchestra will t on that little stage rst?
057 modl stmt - determine entr actv
The people in the top rows won't be able to see who has the ball.
150 past ques - determine entr actv
Why didn't they see if they could get a eld goal at that point?
014 past stmt - determine entr actv
I assumed it was sold out, so I didn't even see if there were any tickets left.
075 modl ques + determine pers actv
Could you see if the oven is hot yet?
040 none stmt + determine pers actv
He always sees if she needs anything from the store before he comes home.
091 will stmt + determine pers actv
Let's call Mary and see if she's free for lunch.
095 past ques + ensure acad actv
Who saw to the posting of the nal grades for the course?
106 modl ques + ensure entr actv
Does the coach have to see that all the players are on the bus on time?
088 none ques - ensure entr actv
Doesn't the coach see that the players get a good night's sleep before the game?

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 264
008 none stmt + ensure entr actv
They see that the car is in perfect condition before every race.
013 will ques - ensure entr actv
While I slice the cake, won't you see that everyone has something to drink?
124 will stmt - ensure entr actv
Their manager is useless{he won't even see to it that the band arrives on time.
074 modl ques - ensure pers actv
Can't the baby sitter see to it that the kids have their baths on time?
012 modl stmt + ensure pers actv
Parents should see that their children learn basic safety rules at an early age.
127 modl stmt - ensure pers actv
Without a job, he could no longer see to it that his children had enough to eat.
122 past stmt - ensure pers actv
No one saw to the livestock for several days, so they were in bad shape.
064 will ques + ensure pers actv
Who will see that the lawn gets mowed during your vacation?
097 past ques - ensure pers pass
Why wasn't his injury seen to right away?
112 modl ques - experience acad actv
Shouldn't this beautiful old building see some new use rather than being torn
down?
079 none ques + experience acad actv
Does this room see use for both humanities and science lectures?
101 none stmt + experience acad actv
Many new Ph.D.s see several years of part-time teaching before landing a permanent
job.
006 none stmt - experience acad actv
Academic robes don't usually see use except at graduations.
069 past stmt + experience acad actv
Prof. Ramirez saw service as Dean of Humanities before becoming Chancellor.
089 will stmt + experience acad actv
I'm sure you'll see better days once you've gottenyour degree.
067 modl ques + experience entr actv
In fact, the eld might see a lot of use this summer as a baseball camp.
027 none ques - experience entr actv
Don't most players see a few years in the minor leagues before they get their
rst chance at the majors?
109 past ques + experience entr actv
Why did the women's swim team see its best season in years, while the men's
team did so poorly?
041 will ques - experience entr actv
Won't the old stadium see use again for track and eld events?
100 modl stmt + experience pers actv
He would've seencombat if the war hadn't ended suddenly.

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 265
139 past ques - experience pers actv
Didn't you see duty in Italy during the War?
071 past stmt - experience pers actv
He was in Vietnam for a year, but he didn't see combat there.
068 modl ques - eye acad actv
Can't you see the book the professor is holding?
020 modl stmt +eye acad actv
You might seeacheatsheetonachair in the exam room.
060 modl stmt -eye acad actv
After taking biochem, I couldn't see a green leaf without thinking of photosynthesis.
117 none stmt +eyeacadactv
I always see a lot of delivery trucks on campus in the morning.
065 will stmt -eye acad actv
She won't see the new computer until she comes into the o ce.
062 modl ques + eye acadpass
Can the people at the front of the procession be seen by those at the rear?
056 none ques + eye acad pass
Is a di erent color seen as a result of these contaminants?
099 will ques - eye acad pass
Won't the new lab equipment be seen by anyone who walks in?
126 none ques - eye entr actv
Don't they see the same oats in the parade every year?
148 none stmt -eyeentr actv
I don't see anything in his sleeves, but he keeps pulling birds out of somewhere.
132 past stmt -eyeentr actv
The other team didn't see the ball until it was too late.
050 will ques + eye entr actv
Will the audience see both their faces all during the ght scene?
053 past ques - eye entr pass
Weren't a lot of red tee-shirts seen in the streets just before the Big Game?
070 past ques + eye pers actv
Did you see that ashy red coat they had in the window lastweek?
043 past stmt +eye pers pass
Two suspicious-looking men were seen near the back door of the bank shortly
before the robbery.
138 will stmt +eye pers pass
You'llbeseenby the neighbors if you sneak over the fence.
098 modl ques + faculty acad actv
If he could see better, would he be doing better academically?
145 modl stmt + faculty acad actv
As long as she can see well, she can continue doing library research.
141 modl stmt - faculty acadactv
If I can't see better tomorrow, I'll go to the health center.

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 266
017 none ques + faculty acad actv
Does Prof. Willams still see well enough to use a computer?
093 none stmt - faculty acadactv
He doesn't see very well any more, but he somehow keeps up with publications
in his eld.
007 past stmt + faculty acad actv
He saw well enough to drive to campus, but only during the day.
123 past stmt - faculty acad actv
She didn't see very well during the last few years of her life, but she continued
to teach courses.
114 none ques - faculty persactv
Doesn't your son see better now thathewears glasses?
130 none stmt + faculty pers actv
Since her operation, she sees much better.
086 will ques - faculty pers actv
Won't she see much better with her new glasses?
019 modl ques - recognize acad actv
Don't they see the library should be open longer hours?
024 modl stmt + recognize acad actv
Surely she must see that this student should have gotten a better grade.
044 past stmt - recognize acad actv
At rst I didn't see that the result of the experiment could be interpreted in
two ways.
009 will ques + recognize acad actv
When will they see that we need to o er at least two semesters of physical
chemistry?
084 will ques - recognize acad actv
Won't they see that the committee is opposed to the idea?
108 none stmt - recognize entr actv
He doesn't see that she really cares about him.
015 past ques + recognize entr actv
At what point did the manager see that he just had to change pitchers?
066 modl ques + recognize pers actv
Could they see the cat was mad at them?
031 modl stmt - recognize pers actv
She might not see that he's having a bad e ect on her, but all her friends do.
051 none stmt + recognize pers actv
I see that he loves his job, but I don't understand why.
134 past ques - recognize pers actv
Didn't you see that you were bound to get into trouble hanging around with
people like that?
021 past stmt + recognize pers actv
He saw that she was serious about setting up her own company.
128 will stmt + recognize pers actv

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 267
Eventually he'll see that this isn't what he wants to do for the rest of his life.
023 will stmt - recognize pers actv
She'll never see what a great guy he is unless she spends time with him outside
the o ce.
144 modl ques + setting acad actv
Should the campus see a larger entering class next year?
005 past ques - setting acad actv
Why didn't the nineteenth century see as many wars as the twentieth?
036 past stmt + setting acad actv
1985 saw the establishment of Cognitive Science programs at four major universities.
046 will ques + setting acad actv
Will next year see another drop in minority enrollment?
085 will stmt - setting acad actv
The campus won't see that many demonstrations again unless there's another
war.
034 none ques + setting entr actv
Does o -Broadway see as many talented writers now as it did in the 70s?
001 none stmt + setting entr actv
This weekend sees ve new major movies opening across the country.
058 none stmt - setting entr actv
Pittsburgh doesn't see musicals of this caliber very often.
063 will ques - setting pers actv
Won't Ohio see more oods this spring after all that snow?

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 268
(2) Stimuli for Experiment 3.
050 past stmt + determine acad actv
We wanted to see whether the use of a catalyst would allow the reaction
to take place at lower temperatures.
052 will ques - determine acad actv
Won't you please see if Prof. Williams is in?
048 modl ques - determine entr actv
Shouldn't we see whether the full orchestra will t on that little stage
rst?
053 past ques - determine entr actv
Why didn't they see if they could get a eld goal at that point?
051 will stmt + determine pers actv
Let's call Mary and see if she's free for lunch.
099 will stmt - ensure entr actv
Their manager is useless{he won't even see to it that the band arrives
on time.
098 modl ques - ensure pers actv
Can't the baby sitter see to it that the kids have their baths on time?
103 modl stmt + ensure pers actv
Parents should see that their children learn basic safety rules at an
early age.
107 modl stmt - ensure pers actv
Without a job, he could no longer see to it that his children had
enough to eat.
120 will ques + ensure pers actv
Who will see that the lawn gets mowed during your vacation?
080 none stmt + experience acad actv
Many new Ph.D.s see several years of part-time teaching before landing
a permanent job.
074 will stmt + experience acad actv
I'm sure you'll see better days once you've gotten your degree.
073 none ques - experience entr actv
Don't most players see a few years in the minor leagues before they
get their rst chance at the majors?
078 modl stmt + experience pers actv
He would've seencombat if the war hadn't ended suddenly.
071 past ques - experience pers actv
Didn't you see duty in Italy during the War?
042 modl stmt -eye acad actv
After taking biochem, I couldn't see a green leaf without thinking of
photosynthesis.
043 none ques - eye acad actv
Don't you see the book the professor is holding?
041 none ques + eye acad pass

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 269
Is a di erent color seen as a result of these contaminants?
037 past stmt +eye pers pass
Two suspicious-looking men were seen near the back door of the bank
shortly before the robbery.
039 none stmt +eye acad actv
Ialways see a lot of delivery trucks on campus in the morning.
121 modl ques + faculty acad actv
If he could see better, would he be doing better academically?
127 past stmt - faculty acad actv
She didn't see very well during the last few years of her life, but she
continued to teach courses.
123 none ques - faculty pers actv
Doesn't your son see better now thathewears glasses?
133 none stmt + faculty pers actv
Since her operation, she sees much better.
126 will ques - faculty persactv
Won't she see much better with her new glasses?
054 modl ques - recognize acad actv
Don't they see the library should be open longer hours?
057 will ques - recognize acad actv
Won't they see that the committee is opposed to the idea?
059 none stmt - recognize entr actv
He doesn't see that she really cares about him.
070 past ques - recognize pers actv
Didn't you see that you were bound to get into trouble hanging
around with people like that?
069 past stmt + recognize pers actv
He saw that she was serious about setting up her own company.
086 past ques - setting acad actv
Why didn't the nineteenth century see as manywars as the twentieth?
094 past stmt + setting acad actv
1985 saw the establishment of Cognitive Science programs at four
major universities.
097 will stmt - setting acad actv
The campus won't see that many demonstrations again unless there's
another war.
085 none stmt + setting entr actv
This weekend sees ve new major movies opening across the country.
096 will ques - setting pers actv
Won't Ohio see more oods this spring after all that snow?
|The preceding were retained from Exp. 2.
|The following are new in Exp. 3.
117 past stmt + accompany acad actv
After the lecture, they had dinner with the speaker and saw him back

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 270
to his hotel.
131 past stmt - accompany acad actv
If you work late in the lab, you should phone for an escort to see you
to your car.
116 will stmt + accompany entr actv
I promise I will see her to her apartment after the movie.
061 modl ques + accompany pers actv
May I see you to your car?
093 modl ques - accompany persactv
Why couldn't your mother see Mrs. Latrobe to the door?
146 modl stmt - accompany persactv
You should not see her home unless she asks you to.
067 none ques - accompany pers actv
Doesn't he usually see visitors to the door when they leave?
035 past stmt + accompany pers actv
A crowd of well-wishers saw the newly-weds to the door of their new
house.
104 will ques - accompany pers actv
Aren't you at least going to see him to the bus stop?
134 none ques + condition acad actv
How often does one see an important question de nitively answered
by a single experiment?
063 none stmt - condition acad actv
I never see Prof. Liu stumped by students' questions.
088 past ques + condition acad actv
Did you ever see him in a good mood?
143 will stmt - condition acad actv
You're not going to see her relaxed and enjoying life again until after
she graduates.
065 will stmt + condition entr actv
I hope we'll see him fully recovered in time for the next game.
136 none stmt + condition entr pass
In the nal minutes of the lm, they are seen happy and satis ed
with their relationship.
044 modl ques + condition pers actv
Do you think we might see Madeline rich and famous within the next
few years?
075 modl stmt + condition pers actv
If you can really rest for a few days, we should see you in good shape
again by Monday orTuesday.
110 modl stmt - condition pers actv
We might not see her cheerful again for a long time.
036 none ques - condition pers actv
How come I never see you angry or upset?

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 271
122 past stmt + condition pers pass
He was often seen drunk in one of the little cafes around closing time.
125 modl stmt - consult acad actv
You should see Prof. Johansen if you want suggestions about what
to read on this topic.
111 none ques + consult acad actv
Did you see the dean to talk about hiring more teaching assistants
for that new course?
101 none ques - consult acad actv
Don't you see your advisor before you register for the next term?
135 past ques - consult acad actv
Why didn't you see someone in the Registrar's o ce about your problem
with registration?
076 past stmt + consult acad actv
She saw alawyer to nd out if she could sue the university for sexual
harassment.
068 modl ques + consult entr actv
Should he see a lawyer before he signs the contract to play for them?
105 none stmt + consult pers actv
Whenever he's sick for more than a day, he sees his doctor and follows
his instructions.
130 none stmt - consult pers actv
She never sees a doctor until she's almost too sick to get out of bed.
087 past ques + consult pers actv
Did she see a lawyer before she rewrote her will?
049 past stmt - consult pers actv
I think she didn't see the minister to talk about her problem because
she was afraid of what he would tell her.
109 will ques - consult pers actv
Aren't you going to see a doctor about that cough?
077 will stmt - consult pers actv
I'm not going to see my academic advisor until after the end of the
term.
070 modl ques - envision acad actv
Can't you just see him now, getting his Ph.D. from Bill Gates University
in the year 2025?
092 none stmt +envision acad actv
Within the next ve years, I see the University o ering at least half
of its courses on the Internet.
066 past ques - envision acad actv
Before they hired her, didn't the department see her teaching both
undergraduate and graduate courses?
033 modl ques + envision entr actv
Can you see Robin Williams playing George Washington in a comedy

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 272
about the U.S. Revolution?
032 none ques + envision entr actv
Do you see any Indian lms winning at the Cannes Film Festival next
year?
137 none ques - envision entr actv
You don't see him making the team anytime soon, do you?
060 past ques + envision entr actv
When the band rst started, did you see yourselves winning a grammy
within two years?
031 past stmt -envision entr actv
When he closed his eyes, he did not see his father's angry scowl, but
his mother's welcoming smile.
072 modl stmt +envision pers actv
I can see myself now, sipping champagne and watching the sunset
from my yacht.
034 none stmt -envision pers actv
Somehow, I don't see the Green Party winning the presidency in the
year 2000.
089 past stmt +envision pers actv
I originally saw myself graduating in four years, but I still haven't.
055 modl ques - hallucinate entr actv
If she'd gotten a concussion, wouldn't she be seeing things and hearing
voices?
083 past stmt - hallucinate entr actv
It took him a few minutes to recover after being tackled so hard, but
he wasn't seeing stars or anything.
091 modl ques + hallucinate pers actv
If this drug is as dangerous as they say, should I start to see the walls
breathing sometime soon?
030 modl stmt + hallucinate pers actv
If his fever rises again, he might see people who aren't there or fail
to recognize even you.
028 none ques - hallucinate pers actv
Don't you sometimes see spots in front ofyour eyes if you stand up
suddenly?
040 none stmt + hallucinate pers actv
Alcoholics who suddenly stop drinking often see snakes or bugs crawling
around them.
100 past ques + hallucinate pers actv
How long after you took the drug did you see the unicorn in your
backyard?
029 past stmt + hallucinate pers actv
I didn't exactly see dragons ying in the living room, but I did notice
that colors and smells seemed more intense.

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 273
141 will stmt + hallucinate pers actv
If he keeps drinking like that, he's gonna be seeing pink elephants
soon.
045 will stmt - hallucinate pers actv
If he'll stay on his medication, he won't see monsters hiding in the
shadows everywhere.
142 modl ques - process acad actv
If he were really interested in this kind of research, wouldn't we see
him attending conferences on the topic?
138 modl stmt + process acad actv
The teacher can see some students falling behind schedule early in
the semester.
114 will stmt - process acad actv
We're not going to see her working in the lab much, now that she's
nished that experiment.
128 will ques + process acad pass
Do you think it's likely that we'll see him lecturing again next semester?
112 none ques - process entr actv
Doesn't the audience see the soldiers warming around the camp re
as soon as the curtain opens?
047 none stmt - process entr actv
You almost never see a quarterback kick a eld goal.
058 past ques + process entr actv
How many times did Americans see Rock Hudson kiss Doris Day on
screen?
064 none stmt + process entr pass
Out elders are often seen jumping for a ball just before it goes over
the fence.
081 modl ques + process pers actv
How soonmightwe see the rst cars rolling o the production line?
124 modl stmt - process pers actv
He might not see himself getting older, but his friends can certainly
tell the di erence.
147 none ques + process pers actv
Do you see her jogging around the lake every morning?
084 past ques - process pers actv
Didn't you see her getting into a car with him shortly before midnight?
062 past stmt + process pers actv
He saw them laughing together and asked what the joke was.
038 past stmt - process pers actv
Ihaven't seen him walking the dog lately{I hope he's OK.
132 will ques - process pers actv
Won't the boss see me walking across the parking lot?

APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS 2 AND 3 274
113 will stmt + process pers pass
He'll probably be seen raising money for good causes for many more
years.
082 modl stmt + visit acad actv
If I went tomy high school reunion, I could see all the people who
never left my hometown.
129 modl stmt - visit acad actv
If she goes to France for her sabbatical, she might not see her students
for a whole year.
108 none stmt - visit acad actv
We don't usually see our colleagues very much when they're on sabbatical.
095 past ques - visit acad actv
Didn't you see some of your former students while you were at the
annual conference?
056 past stmt + visit acad actv
Isaw an old classmate of mine when I visited New York last summer.
102 past stmt - visit acad actv
She's been holed up writing her thesis and hasn't seen any of her
friends for weeks.
118 will ques - visit acad actv
Aren't you going to see all your friends at the college while you're in
town?
090 none ques + visit entr actv
Do you think movie stars see their parents during the holidays, or are
they always o skiing in Europe?
079 modl ques + visit pers actv
Could I see you and your husband next time I'm in the neighborhood?
115 modl ques - visit pers actv
Shouldn't you see your sister if you're going to be in L.A. for a week?
119 will stmt - visit pers actv
Iwon't have time to see Alice in Denver unless I miss my plane.

Index
activation, 13, 136, 137, 231
Allen et al. 1990, 178
Alm-Arvius 1993, 15, 45, 83, 236
Alvarez 1998, 184
Apresjan 1974, 21
Armstrong et al. 1983, 9, 10
Atkins 1992, 167
Atkins 1994, 121
Baker et al. 1998, 39, 231
Baker, C. F. 1999a, 132
Baker, C. F. 1999b, 132
Barsalou 1983, 9
Barsalou 1987, 10
Bierwisch &Schreuder 1989, 5
Bloom 1994, 237
Bouchard 1995, 4, 36
Brugman 1996, 81, 86
Carpenter 1992, 125
Castillo & Bond 1972, 186
Chinese, 15, 36, 164, 173, 179, 180, 187{
197, 215{217, 223{225, 227
Chomsky 1957, 28, 55
Chomsky 1965, 3, 42, 55
Cohen 1960, 142
Cohen et al. 1993, 146
Coleman & Kay 1981, 32, 33
collocations with see
let's see, 105, 144, 176, 191, 210
see t, 106, 174, 210
see o , 106, 175, 192, 210
see one's way clear, 105,210
see reason, 107,210
see through x, 107, 144, 192, 197, 210
see x through, 107, 108, 144, 175, 191,
192, 210
275
y'see, 108, 176, 210
audience, 100
compositional uses of see
audience, 56, 57, 72, 92, 130, 175,
205, 210{212, 215, 217, 220
discourse, 57, 116, 129, 205, 206,
208, 210, 211, 220
hallucinate, 48, 57, 102, 111, 114,
115, 129, 154, 157, 159, 204, 205,
209{211
scan, 48, 57, 103, 126, 173, 210
spectate, 48, 57, 87, 90, 103, 104,
129, 174, 179, 190, 204, 205, 210,
211, 215, 217
tour, 48, 57, 104, 129, 174, 179, 191,
204, 205, 211, 217, 223, 236
Copestake & Briscoe 1995, 21
corpus, 3, 31{33, 39, 44, 45, 58, 60, 99,
109, 121, 123, 124, 139{141, 143,
144, 164, 165, 175, 230, 231, 233,
235
Cowart 1997, 29, 134
Cruse 1986, 12, 15, 21{24, 37, 49, 51, 236
Cruse 1992, 138
Declerck 1982, 121
Declerck 1983, 41
deGroot 1984, 134
Durkin & Manning 1989, 134, 136
elaboration, 105, 227, 230
Everyday Chinese-English dictionary 1986,
196
Fauconnier 1985, 6, 111, 112
Fauconnier & Sweetser 1996, 112
Fellbaum 1998, 231
Fellbaum et al. 1998, 12, 146

INDEX 276
Fillenbaum & Rapoport 1971, 34
Fillmore 1969, 34
Fillmore 1976, 6, 39
Fillmore 1982a, 6, 39
Fillmore 1985, 39
Fillmore 1992, 31
Fillmore 1994, 39, 56, 85, 121
Fillmore 1996, 105
Fillmore & Atkins 1992, 6, 23, 24, 39, 166
Fillmore & Atkins 1998, 61
Fillmore & Kay 1994, 6, 41, 42
Fillmore & Kay 1996, 6
Fillmore et al. 1988, 6
frame semantics, 230
de nition, 5{6
re exives in, 126{130
FrameNet Project, vi, 33, 231, 232
frames
accompany, 68, 130
description, 67
ascertain, 72, 75
description, 75
bare condition, 85
bare event, 84, 85
description, 84
bare state, 70
description, 69
categorization, 123
description, 92
cause
description, 76
cognition inchoative, 75
description, 65
consultation with authority, 130
description, 70
contain, 89
description, 88
contention, 61
directed motion, 67
description, 66
gambling cards
description, 97
gambling
description, 97
imagine
description, 79
intend
description, 76
intentional causation
description, 77
perception basic, 61
description, 63
perception distant, 61
description, 63
perception faculty, 81, 82
description, 81
reasoning, 61
reciprocal event, 100n, 130
description, 90
romantic involvement
description, 73
see accompany, 68
description, 67
see classify
description, 93
see condition
description, 69
see consult
description, 71
see dating
description, 73
see determine
description, 75
see discourse
description, 101
see ensure, 79
description, 77
see envision
description, 80
see experience
description, 95
see eye, 61, 63, 64, 83, 91
description, 64
see faculty
description, 81
see gambling
description, 98
see news

INDEX 277
description, 82
see process
description, 85
see read
description, 87
see recognize, 61
description, 65
see scan
description, 103
see setting, 89
description, 88
see vide
description, 99
see visit
description, 91
service as, 96
description, 94
social interaction, 91
description, 90
talk, 61
Fujikake 1984, 207
Geeraerts 1993, 15, 16
Geeraerts 1994a, 15, 20
Geeraerts 1994b, 15
Gibbs 1980, 33
Gibbs & O'Brien 1990, 33
Goldberg 1995, 6, 37
Gove 1993, 172
Grice 1975, 117
Grice 1978, 117
Gruber 1986, 39
Hanks 1992, 165{167
Harris 1993, 55
Heid & Krueger 1994, 165
historical linguistics, vii, 35{36
Hobbs et al. 1993, 231
homonymy, 11, 13{15, 18, 20, 37, 49, 134{
137, 234
Ide&Veronis 1998, 232
Iwasaki et al. 1960, 203
Japanese, 15, 32, 122, 164, 173, 180, 197{
208, 217{219, 225{227
Johnson 1996, 34, 233
Jorgensen 1990, 33, 134, 161
Jurafsky 1992, 231
Kaneda 1997, 207
Kay 1983,16
Kay & Fillmore 1999, 6
Kay & McDaniel 1978, 229
Kilgarri 1997, 44
Koenig & Jurafsky 1994, 125
Lako & Johnson 1980, 10
Lako , G. 1987, 9, 10, 28, 69, 108, 122
Lako , G. 1990, 3
Lako , G. 1995, 119{121
Lako , G. & Sweetser 1985, 111
Lako , R. 1971, 124
Lako , R. 1989, 55
Langacker 1987, 4, 10, 236
Langacker 1991a, 86
language acquisition, vii, 233, 234
Levin 1993, 22, 23, 25, 55, 56, 94
Levinson 1983, 173
Liang & Tung 1983, 190
Light 1997, 232
Louw 1995, 227
Lowe et al. 1997, 39, 231
Lyons 1977, 22
Makino & Tsutsui 1986, 203
Makkai 1966, 12, 104, 236
Manning 1993, 231
McCawley 1982, 29
measures of agreement, 141{143
kappa, 141{143, 148{150, 155
omega, 141, 143, 147
Medin 1989, 9
Mel'cuk 1996, 21
mental spaces, 6, 62, 111{113, 117, 131
de nition, 112
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary 1995,
177
metaphor, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 22, 25, 27,
29, 82, 89, 106{108, 112, 119{123,
125, 131, 153, 173{175, 185, 191,
234, 235

INDEX 278
metaphorical extension, 36, 103, 106,
122, 174, 175
Meyer&Schvaneveldt 1971, 134
Miller et al. 1990, 231
monosemy, 14, 15, 18{20, 25, 35, 138
Morey & Agresti 1984, 143
Naigles et al. 1993, 233
natural language processing (NLP), 3, 176,
231, 232
New English-Chinese dictionary 1987, 179
Norvig & Lako 1987, 68
Osgood 1970, 34
Ostler & Atkins 1991, 21, 22
Pearsall & Hanks 1998, 174
Petruck 1995, 39
Pustejovsky 1995, 7, 22, 78, 83, 236
Quine 1960, 16
Reddy 1979, 11
Resnik 1993, 231
Rhodes ms, 59
roles
beneficiary, 126, 129
boundary, 89
category, 93, 94, 129
cognizer, 75
consultant, 130
consulter, 130
container, 89
contents, 89
content, 75n, 120
cook, 126, 129
event, 85
experiencer, 120
facts, 75
food, 126
gambler, 130
goal, 68, 82, 120, 121
interior, 89
opponent, 130
participant, 85
role, 95
seen, 42, 43, 59, 64, 66, 68, 72, 76,
78, 80, 82, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96,
100{103, 106{109, 111, 112, 115,
120, 125, 126, 129, 130, 151, 157,
166, 204, 206, 230
mental spaces account of, 112-119
seer, 42, 59, 60, 66, 68, 72, 75n, 76,
78, 86, 87, 89, 91, 93, 94, 96, 100,
101, 103, 106{109, 113, 115{119,
125, 126{129, 130, 149, 151, 174,
230
service, 95
source, 120
stimulus, 120
undergoer, 95
Rosch (in press), 8
Rosch 1973, 230
Rosch 1978, 7, 8
Rothstein 1983, 86
Ruhl 1989, 25, 31, 36, 138
Sadock 1984, 29, 237
Sandra & Rice 1995, 33
schema, 5, 10, 237
Schuetze 1996, 10, 28, 29
Scott 1955, 142
Seidenberg et al. 1982, 135, 136
senses of see
accompany, 46, 57, 68, 130, 144, 154,
155, 159, 161, 174, 175, 177, 178,
184{186, 191, 205, 206, 209{211,
215, 221, 235
classify, 47, 50, 57, 58, 94, 104, 106,
126, 174, 175, 178, 185, 196, 205,
206, 208, 210, 211, 217, 220
condition, 46, 56, 57, 59, 85, 87, 94,
106, 108, 124, 154, 155, 159, 177,
178, 190, 191, 209, 210
consult, 46, 51, 56, 57, 64, 72, 92,
100, 130, 154, 159, 175, 178, 184,
190, 197, 205, 210{212, 215, 220,
223
dating, 43, 46, 57, 74, 130, 175, 210
determine, 41, 46, 56{58, 72, 103,
105, 129, 145, 149{153, 159, 161,

INDEX 279
173{178, 186, 190{192, 205, 206,
208{211, 215, 217, 221, 223, 234
ensure, 46, 50, 57, 72, 78, 79, 103,
121, 129, 145, 149{153, 174, 176{
178, 184{186, 191, 192, 205, 206,
208{211, 215, 217, 220, 221
envision, 46, 56, 57, 109, 111, 114,
115, 118, 126, 129, 154, 159, 173,
174, 185, 186, 205, 206, 209{211,
221
experience, 47, 57, 95, 96, 129, 145,
149{153, 159, 173, 177, 184{186,
190, 191, 205, 206, 208, 210, 211,
215, 221, 235
eye, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56{59,
76, 81, 83, 91, 92, 100, 102{104,
109, 113, 120, 121, 139, 143{145,
149{155, 157, 159, 161, 166, 172{
175, 177, 179, 185, 190, 191, 204,
205, 207{212, 215, 217, 220, 221,
223, 225, 233{235
faculty, 42, 47, 56, 57, 82, 112, 119,
145, 149{154, 159, 161, 175, 178,
191, 204, 205, 209{212, 215, 217,
220, 223
gambling, 47, 57, 59, 130, 175, 178,
191, 210, 211
news, 47, 56, 57, 83, 84, 114, 116,
117, 126, 129, 174, 185, 210, 211,
221
process, 47, 56, 57, 70, 85{87, 90, 96,
103, 104, 154, 155, 159, 173, 175,
177, 185, 190, 209{211, 215, 220
read, 47, 54, 56, 57, 83, 84, 88, 100,
117, 129, 174, 210, 211
recognize, 45, 46, 48, 56{59, 66, 79,
83, 84, 86, 94, 103, 115, 116, 118,
120{122, 129, 143, 145, 149{154,
159, 166, 168, 173{177, 185, 186,
190, 191, 205, 206, 208{211, 217,
220, 223, 233{235
setting, 47, 54, 57{59, 89, 96, 129,
145, 149{153, 159, 173, 205, 210,
211, 235
vide, 48, 56, 57, 129, 197, 204, 205,
210, 211, 217, 220
visit, 47, 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 64, 74, 91,
92, 100, 114, 130, 154, 159, 169,
175, 177, 178, 184{186, 190, 197,
204, 205, 208{212, 215, 217, 220,
221, 223, 234
Siegel & Castellan 1988, 143
Sinclair forthcoming, 36
Spanish, 69, 164, 173, 180{187, 211, 213,
214, 217, 220{222, 227
Sweetser 1987, 10, 121
Sweetser 1990, 22
Swinney 1979, 134, 136
synonymy, 11, 18, 22, 33, 34, 37, 45, 48{
50, 133, 136, 166, 171, 173
Talmy 1985, 165
Taylor 1995, 27
Traugott 1989, 29
Turner & Fauconnier 1995, 61
Urdang & Abate 1983, 104
Viberg 1983, 121, 165
Wasow 1985, 55
Webster's New World Dictionary 1997, 177
Wierzbicka 1985, 31
Wierzbicka 1996, 16, 25, 26, 233
Williams 1992, 33, 136, 137, 139, 151, 229
Zadeh 1965, 9
zeugma, 18, 26, 32, 34, 48, 51{54, 108
Zipf 1949, 1
Zwicky & Sadock 1973,17