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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 20 nervous systems, the lexical form vertebrate refers to an enormous variety of mammals, birds, and shes and central nervous system to a corresponding variety of things inside them, but both of them are monosemous. Nor are their senses particularly fuzzy; for the vast majority of animals in the world, virtually every biologist will agree on their status as vertebrate or invertebrate. If a word form is ambiguous in a given context, the question as to whether wehavea case of polysemyorhomonymy depends on whether the two senses are related. Traditionally, this has been considered to depend on whether one of the two senses is historically derived from the other (avoiding for the moment cases with more than two senses); this is in accord with another popular cognitive model of the lexicon, which states that words have meanings \in perpetuity". Thus, if one wants to determine, what a Latinate English word means, for example, one should nd out what the corresponding Latin word (if any!) or its component morphemes would have meant to Cicero. Although the idea is seldom stated so baldly, itis not uncommon to hear people saying things like \Sympathy really means the same thing as compassion, they both mean `feeling with' somebody else", or \The root meaning of senator is `old man' ". Of course this is contrary to the division of linguistics into diachronic and synchronic; if homonymy is to be de ned in terms of semantic unrelatedness, then we must mean \in the minds of present-day speakers of the language". Paradoxically, for those speakers who believe in the unchanging meanings of lin- guistic forms down through the centuries, the more they learn about the etymology of forms which had a common origin but have diverged greatly in semantics, the more likely they are to think of them as related! There is also a constant tendency to construct folk etymologies that will \explain" perceived relations among senses, whether they bear any relation to historical fact or not. This holds even for some parade-ground examples of homonymy. The two lexical units bank, asinbank of a river and Bank of America, actually are related historically (Geeraerts 1994a), and one might say that, to the degree that an individual remembers the intervening steps in the etymology, the words have become synchronically related for that person. Of course, only a tiny fraction of the speakers of a language will know about most such etymological facts, and learning them will usually not a ect peoples' understanding of the meanings of the words in question, so this process will not have much e ect on the lexical semantics of the language as a whole.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 21 Regular Polysemy There are a number of types of polysemy in which regular relations exist among LUs; since we will be concerned in this study about the irregular polysemy that is unique to see, let us rst look at some common types of regular polysemy. (This discussion will be based in part on Cruse 1986.) One type of regular polysemy can be described through various types of rules or relations among lexical items. These have been analyzed in di erent ways by di erent authors under di erent names: regular polysemy (Apresjan 1974), lexical implication rules (Ostler & Atkins 1991), semi-productive polysemy (Copestake & Briscoe 1995), and lexical functions (Mel'cuk 1996). Examples of lexical relations are listed below. Unit/Type alternation The request in Ex. (6-a) might receive the reply in Ex. (6-b), treating that jacket as an instance (unit) of the type, but the more probable reply, in Ex. (6-c), treats it as expressing a type. (6) a. A: I want to buy that jacket in the window. b. B: Fine, I'll take it o the mannequin. c. B': Fine, what size do you wear? Membership in di erent contrast sets (a.k.a. Neutralization) (7) a. dogs and cats vs. dogs and bitches (Cruse 1986, Sect. 11.5) b. lions and tigers vs. lions and lionesses c. alcohol and drugs vs. alcohol and glycerol quality of opus - quality ofauthor Patterns of the form brilliant/witty/stupid book/play/poem : brilliant/witty/stupid person, i.e. where the properties of the author are ascribed to the work 8 (Cruse 1986:78) feeling-evoking 8 This may be distantly related to the metonymy of author for work, e.g. Shakespeare is di cult for students today.
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: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 19 shows th
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 83 and 84:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
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?