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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 24 1993 for those that she has included. Irregular Polysemy Beyond regular polysemy, however, we nd a considerable amount of polysemy that is speci c to individual lexical forms. For example, in their study of risk, Fillmore & Atkins (1992) nd a unique pattern of relations between the noun and the verb, as shown in Ex. (8). (8) a. Take a great/huge/enormous risk in the stock market. b. Risk *greatly/*hugely/*enormously in the stock market. c. Risk everything in the stock market. Cruse would presumably not want to group the LUs into a single lexeme in this case, since he requires that all the LUs in a lexeme be related either by an more general alternation (i.e. one shared by other lexemes) or by being members of a sense continuum (Cruse 1986:76-79). There are many such lexically speci c alternations; a few examples are given in Table 1.3. V surround with N fence V conduct through N to pipe V form an N around ring V ow out like anN stream V to follow the Ns of track Vchase up intoaN tree V supply active ingredient sothatDOcontains N charge Table 1.3: Some Lexically Speci c Noun/Verb Alternations 1.4 An Example of Possible Polysemy: Crawl Consider the following examples of the verb crawl: (9) a. Ants were crawling all over the kitchen table. b. The kitchen table was crawling with ants. c. The ant crawled across the table.
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 25 d. The injured man crawled to the road. e. The ants crawled up one side of the fence and down the other. f. The baby quickly crawled over to the couch. g. The tra c was just crawling along. h. If you run out of money, don't come crawling back tome! i. ?The dog crawled quickly down the walk to greet his master. It seems likely that we want to postulate separate LUs for Ex. (9-a) and Ex. (9-b), which would be linked in a single lexeme by regular polysemy, demonstrated by the Swarm subtype of the Locative Alternation (Levin 1993:2.3.4,47.5.1). Other verbs participating in the alternation are bustle, swarm, andteem. Ex. (9-c) is clearly an instance of the same LU as Ex. (9-a), although the plurality and the words all over in the latter modulate the sense to give a rather di erent image, given our knowledge of the relative sizes of typical ants and tables. But ants normally crawl; adult humans do not. We might want, therefore, to suppose that Ex. (9-d) is a di erent LU; the motor programs involved for ants and humans are quite di erent. What do our tests indicate? Starting with the de nitional test, we face some immediate di culties. In trying to cover Ex. (9-a), Ex. (9-c), Ex. (9-d) and the obviously related sense of Ex. (9-f) (i.e. babies, injured people, and ants on table tops), we might come up with something like `tomove with the body close to a horizontal surface, making contact with it with more of the body than (the) two feet'. But in order to incorporate Ex. (9-e), we have to omit horizontal from the de nition. If we try to include Ex. (9-g), we are left with nothing but `move close to a surface', which is clearly unsatisfactory, as it is not su ciently delimited from other verbs in the motion domain, such asglide and run. (This is also the fundamental problem with Ruhl's (1989) venture in monosemy.) If we try to add Ex. (9-h), where the motion may notbephysical at all, we will be left with no de nition at all. We could try to deal with the metaphorical senses (Ex. (9-h) and Ex. (9-g)) as Wierzbicka apparently does, by appealing to \a general principle which allows us to use words of di erent kinds in the sense `like x' (where `x' stands for the word's literal meaning)." (1996:244), but this seems likecheating. If wetake the rst attempt at de nition given above as the \literal" meaning and claim that the \like x" device can account for Ex. (9-e) by picking out the multiple-footed contact and ignoring the orientation of the surface, what is
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: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 23 base for
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 87 and 88:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?