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

CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 86
in aspect expressed by the subordinate verb. This is probably best explained by Lan-
gacker (1991); in discussing the examples We saw the ship fsink/sinkingg, Iheard him
fcall/callingg, andShe felt the earth fshake/shakingg, hesays:
. . . An episode of direct, physical perception has a limited duration that can be
thought of as a temporal viewing frame; if based on perception alone, apprehension
is restricted to that portion of an event which temporally coincides with
the frame (cf. Vol. I, p 193).
It is generally recognized the the zero form (as in We saw the ship sink) indicates
that the entire subordinate event is perceived, whereas -ing (We saw the
ship sinking) conveys that only part of it is. The notion of a viewing frame
allows us to describe this contrast with reference to independently established
values of -ing and zero. We can attribute to -ing precisely the same value that
it has in the progressive construction (Fig. 5.5) and in certain adverbial clauses
(Fig. 10.1(b)): on the processes it imposes an immediate scope of predication
comprising a representative series of internal states; the pro le is necessarily
con ned to these states, which it construes holistically and as being e ectively
homogeneous. . . . the perceptual verb's viewing frame is identi ed as being
responsible for the restricted, \internal perspective" imposed by -ing on the
subordinate process.
The contrast between zero and -ing resides in the relationship between the immediate
scope they impose and the overall pro le of the subordinate verb: in
the case of -ing, the immediate scope falls within the boundaries of of the verb
stem's processual pro le, whereas with zero the immediate scope coincides with
those boundaries. (p. 442-3)
Semantically, theseer comes to know about the state or action of the entity repre-
sented by the NP. The syntax and semantics of this sense are very close to those of depictive
predication (Rothstein 1983; Brugman 1996), but here there is also a strong presumption
that the state holds in reality. The process sense is distinguished from recognize in
not completely encapsulating the event as a proposition, even though the content of the
knowing can be expressed as a proposition. For example, Ex. (48-a) foregrounds the propo-
sition, emphsizing that it it a fact in the speaker's opinion; Ex. (48-b), on the other hand,
presupposes the running event and gives us the point of view of the seer, foregrounding
Frances, even though the seer presumably does become aware of the running event asa
result of seeing.
(48) a. recognize: HesawthatFrances was running up the hill.