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

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 45
discussion, at least by way of de ning a set of names.
Brief List of Senses
Let us consider brie y the senses that we would like to distinguish and examples
of each. The example sentences given in this section are constructed, for the sake ofbrevity
and clarity, but are similar to those found in real corpora.
Rather than refer to these senses by arbitrary numbers, we will use a name for
each sense, which should be easier to remember in later discussion. Unfortunately, choosing
common words as mnemonic labels for senses inevitably creates other problems; e.g., the
potential names themselves are often ambiguous (such asrealize and state), and near-
synonyms for senses (such asregard and witness) mayhave patterns of valences which are
di erent from those senses. (cf. Alm-Arvius (1993), who uses de nitions like \see as a
near-synonym of experience").
The list is divided into three sections:
Basic Senses
Semi-Collocations
Compositional Uses
The basic senses are those that are the least bound to any particular syntax or
lexical forms (aside from see itself). The \semi-collocations" are separate senses that tend
to co-occur with a small number of lexical forms or syntactic patterns, but are not as xed
as real collocations; the range of words they require as part of their context is usually best
described intensionally rather than extensionally.
Ihave used the term \compositional uses" for patterns which may be partly con-
ventional, but whose semantics follows entirely from the regular composition of the meaning
of one of the basic senses of see with the meanings of the arguments. (I will discuss true
collocations in Section 2.6.)
Within each section senses are listed in alphabetical order, except that I list two
particularly important senses, eye and recognize rst. (All of these senses will be dis-
cussed in much greater detail in Section 2.5.)