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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 construction 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
Page 1 and 2:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 3 and 4:
Seeing clearly: Frame Semantic, Psy
Page 5 and 6:
Next three psycholinguistic experim
Page 7 and 8:
BasicSenses........................
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements Careful citations
Page 11 and 12:
acquisition. Aside from needing to
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Introduction Xue er bu s,
Page 15 and 16:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3 In lingui
Page 17 and 18:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 5 Although
Page 19 and 20:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 7 part on t
Page 21 and 22:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 9 is not cl
Page 23 and 24:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 11 1980:10-
Page 25 and 26:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13 L.U. Lex
Page 27 and 28:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 15 spondenc
Page 29 and 30:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 17 happy an
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19 shows th
Page 33 and 34:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21 Regular
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23 base for
Page 37 and 38:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25 d. The i
Page 39 and 40:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 27 (12) a.
Page 41 and 42:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 29 linguist
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 31 Introspe
Page 45 and 46:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 33 on the o
Page 47 and 48:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35 they con
Page 49 and 50:
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37 meaning
Page 51 and 52:
Chapter 2 A Frame Semantic Analysis
Page 53 and 54:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 113: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 139 and 140: Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 145 and 146: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 165 and 166:
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239 Bierwisch, Manfred
Page 253 and 254:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 ||, & B.T.S. Atkin
Page 255 and 256:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 ||. 1990. The inva
Page 257 and 258:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 Osgood, C.E. 1970.
Page 259 and 260:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247 Wasow, Thomas. 198
Page 261 and 262:
Appendix A Additional Corpus Exampl
Page 263 and 264:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 265 and 266:
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL CORPUS EXAMP
Page 267 and 268:
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF MORPHOLOGY A
Page 269 and 270:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 257 Recogn
Page 271 and 272:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 259 to lea
Page 273 and 274:
APPENDIX C. EXPERIMENT 1 261 At the
Page 275 and 276:
Appendix D Stimuli for Experiments
Page 277 and 278:
APPENDIX D. STIMULI FOR EXPERIMENTS
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Index activation, 13, 136, 137, 231
Page 289 and 290:
INDEX 277 description, 82 see proce
Page 291:
INDEX 279 173{178, 186, 190{192, 20
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?