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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 landmark, 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.
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:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126:
CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
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: CHAPTER 5. WHAT THE DICTIONARIES SA
Page 241 and 242: CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
Page 247: CHAPTER 6. FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIO
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 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?