22.03.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 18<br />

c. \VP deletion": Charles has already changed his position <strong>and</strong> Nancy might.<br />

d. \Gapping": Charles changed his position <strong>and</strong> Nancy hers.<br />

The \bad" combinations are instances of what is called zeugma in rhetoric; it is<br />

sometimes done deliberately for humorous e ect, e.g. Her spirits rose with the temperature,<br />

<strong>and</strong> by noon she was actually cheerful.<br />

\Extra Information" Tests<br />

The basic conception here is that the selection of one or the other of a pair of<br />

alternative LUs immediately carries with it a lot of information that is not otherwise in-<br />

ferable from the context. Modulation within a general sense, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, adds only<br />

the information that results from the composition of the semantics of the context.<br />

The test, therefore, consists in trying to nd a synonym that will cover both cases<br />

in question, <strong>and</strong> observing whether there is a considerable \loss" of information when it is<br />

substituted. The e ect is clearest (as usual) for homonyms:<br />

(4) a. The object ew out from under the roof.<br />

b. The object hit the ball.<br />

c. The bat ew out from under the roof.<br />

d. The bat hit the ball.<br />

In Ex. (4), sentences a. <strong>and</strong> b. give us only the most general kind of image of the<br />

processes, while c. <strong>and</strong> d. give ustwo quite distinct images. In the rst place, we have to<br />

go all the way up the taxonomy to a term as general as object to nd a synonym, itself a<br />

suggestion that ambiguity isinvolved. Having done so, we have little idea about the manner<br />

of the ying motion or the hitting action. As soon as we go back tosentences c. <strong>and</strong> d.,<br />

much more becomes clear, <strong>and</strong> the images of the bat in c. <strong>and</strong> d. are quite distinct. This<br />

must be due to the ambiguity ofbat.<br />

Distinguishing Monosemy, Polysemy <strong>and</strong> Homonymy<br />

Even though the di erences between monosemy <strong>and</strong> polysemy on the one h<strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>and</strong> between polysemy <strong>and</strong> homonymy on the other seem intuitively clear, it has proven ex-<br />

traordinarily di cult to make each of these distinctions reliably <strong>and</strong> convincingly. Table 1.1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!