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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: 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 127: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 139 and 140: Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 145 and 146: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 177 and 178: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 179 and 180:
CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?