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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 proposition, 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.
CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSIS 87 b. process: HesawFrances running up the hill. Sentences such asThe only time I saw Monk play, he was stinking drunk and Seeing Hideo Nomo pitch a no-hitter was the thrill of a lifetime, could be considered either as examples of spectate if we think of the event perfectively as a single performance, or as condition and process with the NP+bare-VP pattern. Sense READ see eye see read event Frame see read profiles Seen type event cat V lexm see roles: scenes: 2 3 6Seer = 4 Seen = eye.Seer 7 5 eye.Seen.Content 22 33 6 event 66 66 66 66Uses 66 44 roles: 77 77 see eye [eye] 77 77 77 5 7 5 Seentext restr: short(Seen) seen. The seen is text, short enough that it can be read in a few minutes; seer reads There is an interesting interplay between see and read in regard to long and short printed matter: I saw her latest novel typically means that I haven't read it (yet), but Isaw your column in the paper or I saw your memo usually means that I have read it. In the case of the novel, see implies `not read' by scalar implicature (since the stronger term read
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 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 97: CHAPTER 2. A FRAME SEMANTIC ANALYSI
Page 123 and 124: Chapter 3 Other Cognitive Approache
Page 125 and 126: CHAPTER 3. OTHER COGNITIVE APPROACH
Page 139 and 140: Semantics of Seer entity setting ph
Page 145 and 146: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
Page 149 and 150:
CHAPTER 4. PSYCHOLINGUISTIC EXPERIM
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?