1887
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Employing Frame Semantics as implemented in the Berkeley FrameNet database, this paper analyzes English sentences expressing concerns of risk derived from the British National Corpus and their Japanese translations (created for the purposes of the current study). It introduces the ideas of content and interpretation predicates, frame integration, and head-switching as effectual devices for recognizing obscure constructional equivalences across languages. Our findings shed light on the development of a new contrastive framework for verbal predicativity: that is, a framework based on the recognition of content and interpretation predicates and how it intersects with the categorical distinction in lexicalization patterns between verbs and adverbs.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00068.has
2023-10-19
2024-07-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, C.
    (2019) Beyond N, V, and Adj: Frame semantics and the closed-class lexicon. Paper presented atICLC15, Nishinomiya, Japan.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Berlin, B., & Kay, P.
    (1969) Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H.
    (2013) Frame semantics and translation. InA. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp. 125–158). Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110302943.125
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110302943.125 [Google Scholar]
  4. British National Corpus
    British National Corpus. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
  5. Crystal, D.
    (2008) A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 10.1002/9781444302776
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302776 [Google Scholar]
  6. Czulo, O.
    (2013) Constructions-and-frames analysis of translations: The interplay of syntax and semantics in translations between English and German. Constructions and Frames, 5(2), 143–167. 10.1075/cf.5.2.02cul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.2.02cul [Google Scholar]
  7. (2017) Aspects of a primacy of frame model of translation. InS. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 465–490). Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, C.
    (1975) An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123–131).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C.J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InLinguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Reprinted inD. Geeraerts (Ed.) (2006) Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C.
    (1992) “Corpus linguistics” vs. “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. InDirections in corpus linguistics: Proceedings from a 1991 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics (pp. 35–66). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110867275.35
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867275.35 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. S.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. InA. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (1994) Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. InB. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., & Petruck, M.
    (2003) Background to framenet. Special issue: FrameNet and Frame Semantics. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C., & Baker, C.
    (2009) A frames approach to semantic analysis. InB. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 791–816). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0013 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hasegawa, Y.
    (1996) A study of Japanese clause linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. CSLI Publications; Kurosio Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C.
    (2010) On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. InH. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 169–200). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.10.08has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.10.08has [Google Scholar]
  17. Hasegawa, Y., & Ohara, K.
    (2006) Interview with Charles Fillmore [in Japanese]. Rising Generation, 1521, 354–359.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hasegawa, Y., Ohara, K., Lee-Goldman, R., & Fillmore, C.
    (2006) Frame integration, head switching, and translation: RISK in English and Japanese. Paper presented at the4th International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, Japan, September 1–3.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hopper, P., & Thompson, S.
    (1980) Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 561, 251–299. 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0017 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lounsbury, F.
    (1956) A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship usage. Language, 321, 158–194. 10.2307/410664
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410664 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ohara, K.
    (2009) Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: The case of risk and kakeru. InH. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications (pp. 163–182). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110212976.2.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110212976.2.163 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ohara, K. & Hasegawa, H.
    (2022) Interpretation predicates and content predicates: An analysis of English and Japanese sentence structures involving the Run_risk frame. [In Japanese]. InY. Matsumoto & K. Ohara (Eds.), Contributions of Frame Semantics: Verbs and their surroundings (pp. 20–41). Kaitakusha.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Padó, S., & Erk, K.
    (2005) To cause or not to cause: Cross-lingual semantic matching for paraphrase modelling. InProceedings of the cross-language knowledge induction workshop. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Petruck, M.
    (1986) Body part terminology in Hebrew: A study in Lexical Semantics. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1986) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Technical report. ICSI.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00068.has
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00068.has
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error