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

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 49
Substitution of Synonyms
The synonymy test is quite simple in principle; if we can nd two words, each of
which serves as a synonym for one type of use but not for another typeofuse,wehave reason
to suppose that the two uses represent di erent senses. In clear-cut cases of homonymy,
this is easy to do. e.g. ball has two senses, `a spherical object' and `a formal, elegant dance';
we can treat sphere and dance as synonyms for the two senses respectively, and paraphrase
sentences to demonstrate the di erence:
(5) a. The sound of the leather sphere/ball hitting the bat electri ed the fans.
b. Cinderella was the most beautiful one at the dance/ball.
Even in the best case, however, true synonymy is extremely rare (Cruse 1986:265-70); in
Ex. (5-a), sphere is too precise and formal for this context (although perhaps allowed by a
special \literary license" enjoyed by sports reporters), while in Ex. (5-b), the connotation of
elegance is lost when we substitute dance for ball. Likewise, it is unusual to nd a synonym
that will perfectly t all contexts even for a single sense of see; that is why the senses listed
above were named with keywords, many of which were not intended to be synonyms for the
sense.
For example, visit is named with a word that is sometimes substitutable for see
in the contexts in which it has that sense, e.g.
(6) On my way to London, I want to stop in Boston to see/visit my old friend Richard.
But see by itself is relatively neutral about how the two parties come to be in contact with
each other, while visit implies that the visitor moves toward the the visited:
(7) I'll see/?visit my sister when she comes here for the convention next month.
Visit with may sound a little better than just visit in this context, suggesting a more equal
participation, but see can express a more casual occurrence than either visit or visit with.
The frequent use of the collocations come to see and go to see suggests that speakers feel a
need to clarify which party ismoving in such situations. Note that in Ex. (7) see should be
considered as visit, rather than eye; ifwe try to negate some the entailments of visit, as
in Ex. (8), most people would nd the result odd (cf. Separate Negation of Senses, below).