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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. à 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. èvergreen 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 associated 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 òne 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 examples 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.
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: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 13 L.U. Lex
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 77 and 78:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
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:
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?