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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 36 between expressions. Of course, speakers will vary greatly in their awareness of the true etymology of words they use. The other use of records of historical change is as a collection of documented examples of meaning shifts over which generalizations can be made. We presume that the kinds of meaning shifts which individual speakers creatively produce are likely to be similar to those that have been common throughout history. Consider the processes that produce some of the vocabulary associated with cultural innovations e.g. metaphorical extensions such asdrive acar,kill a (computer) process, click on an icon with a mouse. Each coining or sense extension is a speci c response to a speci c set of circumstances, but mechanisms such as metaphorical extension are unlikely to have changed over recorded history. This presumes that such linguistic mechanisms are stable, probably by virtue of being special cases of general cognitive processes which themselves change on an evolutionary time scale rather than a merely cultural one. There seem to be, however, cultural or linguistic preferences for one innovative mechanism over another; for example, some languages, such as English, coin or borrow words and expressions rather freely, while others, such as Chinese, tend to compose new words from existing morphemes. We might also note that (apparently in all languages) the use of novel extensions with no overt marking (metaphors) alternates with the use of overt comparisons (e.g. similes) (He's a pig vs. He eats like a pig); one or the other may be preferred depending upon the language, register, milieu, etc. Careful historical research might nd that an new meaning passed through a stage of being a common simile before being acceptable as a metaphorical extension in one language, while in another language the metaphorical extension came into being directly. 1.6 The Polysemy ofSee It should by now not seem surprising that linguists disagree even about the idea that the word see is polysemous. On one extreme, radical monosemists would claim that the word has only one sense, and that the apparent di erences found in di erent sentences are the result of interaction with elements of the linguistic and extra-linguistic context (as in Ruhl's (1989) treatment of the verbs bear, hit, kick, and slap; see also Bouchard 1995). At the other extreme, some recent approaches (e.g. Sinclair forthcoming) would attribute meaning only to words used in a context and claim that it is impossible to discuss the
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 37 meaning of see asasingleword. In this dissertation, I will adopt a position between these extremes. One could suppose that there are simply several verbs to see in English, i.e. that there is not only homonymy between the noun see and the verb see but among the several verbs as well. But that would be odd, since all the senses of see are related to the \same" lexeme, e.g. all of them have the same irregular past and past participle forms. There are cases of verbs which seem to be related in meaning but are in ected di erently, (e.g. They hung the picture vs. They hanged the rustler); that this does not happen with see argues for fundamental unity on morphological grounds. On semantic grounds, we nd considerable overlap of meaning among the senses, but no simple set of necessary and su cient criteria for all of them. It therefore seems logical to claim that the word see is polysemous (that it has more than one sense), and that at least the majority of its senses are related in meaningful ways that make it easier to learn the entire constellation of senses. Throughout most of this dissertation, the vexed question of what is a separate sense and what is merely a speci c use of a more general sense will be dealt with only in passing. Instead, the aim will be to look for the nest distinctions which seem to be justi ed, and, near the end, to try to reach some conclusions about which deserve the status of separate senses and which can be grouped together. In other words, I will assume that \. . . di erent constructions are typically, possibly always, accompanied by slightly di erent semantic interpretations. . . " (Goldberg 1995:8) This principle is familiar from the diachronic point of view; whenever language changes so that there are two competing forms in the same general semantic domain, speakers tend to associate some (possibly novel) semantic distinction with the di erence in form. This accounts for the well-known fact that there are rarely or never any exact synonyms in a language (Cruse 1986:265-270), but does not imply that there is one and only one sense per grammatical form|the pairing actually seems to be many-to-many, aswe will see below. Methodological Note Despite the admitted importance of the larger linguistic and non-linguistic context, I will for the most part consider sentences in isolation in the manner of many traditional linguistic analyses; if we believe that the meaning of a sentence is derivable from the mean-
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: CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 35 they con
Page 51 and 52: Chapter 2 A Frame Semantic Analysis
Page 53 and 54: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 99 and 100:
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
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?