Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
\
.,'--
FrameStllWltics
Charles J. Fillmore
llnivcrsllY of Califomla, Berkeley
1.101'-101I
With the term 'frame semantica' r have in mind I research prolrtm inempirical &emantics Ind. descripllve framework for presenclal the multsor 5uch research. Fflme lemanliet oft"e,. I perdcular wly of lookln, ••word me.ninp, .. well •• I wly of chlracterizin. principles ror creal in, newworda and phri1eS, ror add in. new !DeIIRlnp to woro., and ror auemblinaIhe meanings of elemenll iD 0 t.. 1 Into the total meanln. of the tell. Bythe term '(rame' I have in mind aay s)'Item O(COnceptl rellted in luch. wlythat to undentand In)' one of them you have to undentand the who:structure in which It IHI: when one or the thinas in luch I ttNCture II in.troduced into I text, or into I converutlon,.n althe othen Ire lutomatallymado IVlil,ble. J intud the word 'frame' u used hera to be. ae~' M.er !
term rOt the let of eoncepll nriou.ly known, in the litenture on n.turollanguage undentandina. u 'schema', 'Kript\ 'aceRario', 'ideltional teaf.(oldin.', 'colnilive model'. or 'rotk theory'.1
Frame .emantica COmet out or tndltions of empirical semantica nthetthan formal .. montiCi. III. moot akin to ethnolllphic .. miotic&, tb. workof Ihe onthropolo,ilt who move. Into an olien cultu,," ODdub .ud! q.....tions I', 'Whit Cltelorie. of experienee are encoded by the memben or thl,.pecch community throulh the IIn",lltic chom thot they moh whoa they.a1kr A frame .. mantico outlook I. not (or I. not n......nly) looompatiblowi.h work and rCiull. ,In formal ..... ntico; but it ditr... ImpartlDlly (romformal temantics in emphuizin, (hecantlnuilla, rather tbaD the dilCOtltinui·lies, between 10naUiae .nd "perie""". The Ide.. I will be _tlnllD thl,paper represent not .0 much. ,engine theory or empiricll temlDticl I ••set of waminp about the kinds of problema luch • theory will have to dellwith. rr we wish, we can think or the remarks I make u 'prc-ronnlll' ntherthan 'non·rormalist'j I tlalm to be IIltin,. and al well.1 r can to be describ.ing, phenomena which mUll be well undentood ond ca,.,fully describedberore serious formal theorizjnl about them can become poslible.
[III)
Tho Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 1982,Lingui.lic. in the Morning Calm, Seoul: Han.hin Publishing Co .
.,-,112
In the view I am presenti"£!. words represent calc,orillitions or experience,and each of these categorics is underlain by a motivating situation octurringdgainsl a background of knowledge and uperience. With respect to wordmeanings, frame semantic research can be thought or as the etrort to under-stand what reason a speech community might have found ror creating thecategory represented by the word, and to explain the word's meaning hypresenting and clarifying that reason.
An"analoD Ihat 1 Hnd helpful in distinguishing the operation and the goabof frame semantin from those of standard views of rompositional semanticsis between a lrammar and I set of tools-tools like hammers and kniv~,but abo like clock! and .hoes ,nd pencils. To know about tools is to knowwhat they look like and what the)' are made of-the phonology and morphol-ogy. so to speak-but it is also to know whit people use them for, whypeople Ire interested in doinl the thin~ that they use them for, and maybeeven what kinds of people use them. In this analogy, it is po5sible to thinkof a linguistic text, not as a rKord or 'small meaninp' which give theinterpreter the job of assemblinl th~e into a 'big meaning' (the meaning ofthe containinllut). but rather as a record of the tools Ihal somebody used
Q in carrying out a particular aClivity. The job of interprelinl a text, then, ise..:; analogous to the job of figuring out what aetivhy the peorle had to bet..:;- engaged in who used these tools in this order.
2. A Prlflte Hblary of thf C~ 'Frame'
Ilrace my own interest in semantic frames throu8h my career-long infertstin lexical structure and lexical semantics_ As a Jraduate student (at theUnivenity of Michigan in the late fifties) J spent I lot of time exploring thecO-oC'Currence prlvilegel of words, and I Iried to develop distribution classesof English wordl usinl Itrings of words or strings of word classes as the'framel' within which I could disco\ler appropriate classes of mutually sub-stitutable elementl. This way of working, standard for a lonl time in phono·logical and morphologk:al innstisations, had been developed with particularrigor ror purpotn or .yntlclic description by Oarlcs Frio. (Frie. 19S2)Dnd played an important role in the development of ·t.pnemic formulas'in the .. ork of Kenneth Pike (Pike 1967), the scholan who most dirctllyinfluenced my think ins durinl this period. Substitutability within the same'slot' in such a 'frame' was subj«t to certain (poorly articulated) conditionsof meaning-prncrntion or structure_preserVation, or sometimes merelymeaningfulness-preservation. In this conception, the 'frame' (with its sin!!,lcopen 'slot') was conside~d capoble of lending to thc discovery of imJ"Ortnntfunctioning word clanes or grammaticltl categories- As In eumple of theworkin~~ of such a procedure, we can take the frame conlisting of twocomrlcte clauses and 8 gap hetween them, as in "John is Mary's husband-
113
he doesn't live .. lth her," The .ubstllution in Ihi. frame of BUT ond YETsuggests thlt these two words han (by thil diagnostic at lcalt) very limilarrunclion.: Insertion or MOREOVER or HOWEVER ,uuest the .. loteoee ofconjunction. functioning semantically ,Imllarly to BUT ond YET but ....quiring senlence boundarie •.The conJunclion. AND ond OR can ..... oloafull,be inserted into the frame, but in each case (and in each case with differenteffect) the logical or rhetorical 'point' of the whole utterance difren impor.'anlly rrom thlt broulht about by BUT or YET, In each orthese ....... whItone came to know about these words was the kind of Itructures wllh which,hey could Decur and .. hit funcllon they hod wi'hln those atruc1um.
In the tilly ,i.,ie., together .. lth William SoY. Wan. Ind .. en,u.II, D.Terence Lan&endoen and a number of other colle.sun, I WII IIlaclated withIhe Project on Lin,ui"ic Analy.ls at 'he Ohio StIle Unlvenlty. My work onthat project wa. 'arsely devoted to the classification of Enllflh verbs. butnow not only accordinl to the lurface.syntactic frame! whicb were hotpltabfeto them, but also .ccordins to their «r1mmatlcal 'behavior" thoulhf of interms of the lensitivlty of Itructure. conllinins them to ~!!iu~l~or~:::.-"ical 'transrormations." Thll project was whofe~heartedl 'tran.fomledsRalllt,basins its operations .t fint on the earliett work on Enlll sformad,,rammar by Chomsky (19S7) ond Lecs (1961), ond in ill Iller 110,.. onadvances within the theory lugested by the work of Peter Rosenbaum _(Rosenbaum 1967) ond 'he book .. hich cstablish.d the Itond.rd workiD,paradigm for transformationltist Itudiel of English. Chomlky (1965). Whatanimated Ihis work W/IS the belief thai discoyeries in the 'behavior' of poIrtic-ular classes or words led to discoveries in the structure of the ".mmar ofEnglish. This .... so because It .... believed that the diotribullonolproperties of individual words discovered by thil retearch could onl, beaccommodated if the grammar of the 'anlUare operated under particularworkins principles. My own work from this period Included I Iman mono-Vaph on Indirect object verbs (Fillmore 1961) and I paper which pointed tothe c\lentual recognition of the tnnarormatioMl cycle at an openti",prioeiple In a fonnlll'lmmar of En,llth (FilllIIOR 1963).
The proj«t', .. ork on verbs .... ot ftnt completely ayntoctlc, IDtbe ......that what was loulht was, (or elch verb, I fullacc:oual (elprnsed In IttmI orsubcategorilition (fealures) of the deep Itructure Iyntactic fnmes wbicbwere hospitlble to it, and a full account (expressed in terms of rule rttturn)of the \larious palhs or 'Iflnsformatlonll histories' by which ICtItenca COIl-
~.tning them could be transformed into lurfate senfences. The kind of wort.I hne in mind W8I carried on with much greater thoroulhneu by Fred'-fou!eholder and his collClfjues at Indiana Univenity (Householder et al1964), and wllh ex'reme eore and aophi.tlcllion by Maurice Oros. aod hi,team in Paris on the verM and adjectives of F~nch (Gross J9lS).
,.
r"'"<::)
o
114 CMrta J. Fill*"
In the late li.'ies r belan to btl inc that cer.ain kinds of ,roupings or-verbs and classifications or clause types could be Ilaled more meaninlfullyif the IlrUclurti with which verbs were initially luocialcd were described interms Of the semlntlc roles of their Issociated .,sumen ... I hid becomeIWlre Clfterliin American and European work on dependency .rammarand \'.I~nc:e theory, Ind it seemed clear to me that whit wu really importlnt.bout • ~.rbwiliu 'oemantic y.Ie...,· (II on. miaht .. 11it)•• description ofthe .. m.Dtic role oflu .,...menu. V.lence theory .nd depcndeDcy anmmor
. did not auip. tbe lime clauifk:atory role to the 'predicate' (or 'VP') thatODefound IDtnllwormationalilt work (.... e.•.• Tnniere 1959); the kind of.. m.ntic CluaificotioDl that I needed could be mode more compl.,e .ndsensible, J believed. If, instead of relyin. on thtorcdcally separate kinds ofdistributional .tatementa luch II 'strici lubcatelorization feature.' and'Kteclionll features,' one could take into account the acmlntic roles of allarauments of I predication, that oC the 'subject' beinl.imply one oC them,QUHlionin., ultimately, the reJevlnce or the I..umed be.le immediate-constituency cut between .ubject and predicate, Iproposed that nrbs couldbe seen ubuiCilly hl~ln. two kind. oC (eaturH relevant to their di.tributionIn ICntenoes: the fint a deep-ttnlClure valence description elpreued in termso( what I called 'cue (ramea', the second I description in tennl oC rulefeatures. What I called 'cue frames' amounted to description. oepredicttingwords that communicated such inCormation a. the Collowin,: 'Such ....nd·suchI verb OCCUR in expressionl contain in, three nominlls, one delilnating anactor who performl the act delfanated by the verb, one desianatin, an objecton which the Ictor'. act hu a I.alt<hanain. 'nnuence, and one dcaianatingIn object throuah the m.nlpul.tlon of whicb the actor brlnp .bout thementioned ltate chanae.' In symboll this Ilatement could be represented as[_ A P I). the &ellen.l8ndln. for 'Aaent', 'Pallent' and "nstrument', Actually,the kind of descriptloD IlOuaht dlltlnsullhed ..... from.. ' ., the ItructUrelIn Ictual Indlyldual oent...... In which the verba eould appear from '....frame features' u representatioN of the clus or "cuo framet' into whichpardcular verbl could be inserted. In the description or 'CAse frame Ceatures'it wu pouible 10 notice whk:h of the "cases' were obligatory, which wereoptional. whit selectional dependenciel obtained amon, them, and 10 on(.... Fillmore 1968).
We were developing a kind of mixed syntlctic-semantic valence descrip-tion of verbt, and wo noticed that the sepante valence patterns teemed tochancteriz.e semantic typet or \lerm, .uch II verbl oC perception, CAusation,movement, etc. Within these Iyntactic valence t)'peI, however, it seemedthat lOme semantic leneralizatlons were lou. There seemed to be imporlantdilferencel betw.en GIVE IT TO JOHN and SEND IT TO CHICAGOt~at could not be illuminated merely by showln, what syntactic rules SCPll4
~-.Jj L --', ,--J_ _ '-----' .'--
115
rate GIVE Crom SEND. just as there seemed to be semantic commonilltletbetw.en ROB .nd STEAL, BUY and SELL, ENJOY .nd AMUSE. etc.•which were lost in the synllclic cl.... separation or these vcr".
My ultimate ,011 in Ihil work in 'clle .... mm.r· (u the rl'llmework cameto be called) WIS the development or I 'vaJence dtction.ry' which WII, todilfor Importantly from the kindl orv.I •..., dlctlonariea .ppearln.'n Europc(e.•.• H.lbi •• nd Schenkel 1973) by h.yID, lu semutic nle..., Ilbn ubalic .nd by h.yins al much .1poulble of lu oyatoclic yaleDc:eICCOUDtedfor by sener.1 rul ... (Thul, It wu nO! lhouaht to be -.ory 10 elplaln,in IndiylduallCllea1 .ntrl ... which of the ar ......... U In a [V A P I) pRdIca.tlon of the typc described abeye wu to be the IUbjocI Ind which _ to liethe object, II..., luch m.tten wae lutomatleaUy predicted by tbe ......... ,with reference to • set of sen.nl principles coac:cml •• lhe moppiq fromconflrunlionl of .. mlntic eo... Into eonfl",raUonl of annunatlcal relo·tionl,)
Allhou,h the concept of 'fnme'ln yorioui fieldl witbln c:opollivepoydool.OIY.ppc.n to h.y. ari.IDI quite indepcndent of Jln",lttlea. lu \lie ID....If"Immlf w.s continuoul.ln my own thinkin .. with the Ule to which Ihaveput It In 'rrame sem.nllea': In plrdcula" Ithouaht of' eacbc:ue f'rame &Icharaclerizin, a .mall at.tract 'Kene' or '.ituation',"so that to undenllne'the semantic Ilructure of the y.rb it wal "......ry 10undentand the proper.tiOl of luch ICh.moU.. d ICOnOl. .
The lCene ICh.m.t. d.fin.bl. by the IY'tem of .. mantic ..... (a aytIenof oem.nllc role nOlionl which I held to he maximally seneraland deftnln••minimal .nd poIIibly unly.nol repcrtory) wol lulllci.Dt. I believed. foundel'ltlndin. thOle aspect. or the semantic IlNCIure of I verb whk:h wel'llinked to the yerb'l ba.lc Iyntactic propcrties .nd to .n unclenlandln. 0the waY' In which dilf.rent I.n.u .... dilf.rently Ihapcd Ih.lr miDI...CI.U.OI, but th.y were clearly not adequ.te for delCribin. willi any compI.t.nOlI the .. manUc Itruclure of the cl..... cont.IDln. Indlyldual verbs
Thll theory of .. m.ntic rol .. fellihon of proyidln. the detlll aeeded fosemantic deacrlptlon; it Clme more and more to seem th.t notbel' independent lent or role ,tructure wa. needed (or tho semantic detcription or YerbIn particular limited domain •• One pouible w.y or devisin. a (uUer ICCOUTIor lelical sem.ntlcs II to auocllte lOme mechlni.m (or derivin. sctl (truth conditions Cora clause rrom semantic inronn.don individually attache10 li\len predicate.; but it seemed to me more profitable to believe thlt thetare larICr cOlnitive .tructurel ClJNlb&e of provldin. a new I.yer or semlatirole notions in term. oC whtch whole domain. orvocabul.ry could. be Kmll
lically characteriud.My finl aHempt 10 des.c:ribeone luch cognitive llructure WII In a pap
on 'Verbs of judging' (Fillmore 1971~YCfbs like BLAME, ACCUSI
I •--
I--r-
-". "f -, . -I
116 C1Iorttt J. _
CRITICIZE-for which I n.. dcd to be able to imagine a kind of '"",neschematitatlon' that was e-ssenlially different from the lort associated with'case frlme,', In devisi"1 a frame-work for descrlbins the elements in thisclass of verbs, 1 found it useful to distinguish a penon who formed or e..·pressed lome IOrt of judgment on the worth or behavior of lome siluation orindiyidual (and r Cllled luch a penon the Judse);' penon concerni", whosebehaylor or character it ....as releYint for the Jud,e to make a judsment (Icalled this penon the Defendant); and lome liluation concerninl which itseemed relevant for the Judge to be makin, I Jud,}.1ent (and this f called.imply the Situation). In term. of this framework, Ihen, I chM< to de>cribeACCUSE a•• verb usoble for a... rtlng that the Judge, pre.upposing Ih.badness of.he Situation, claimed tblt the Defendant WII responsible ror theSiluatlon: I described CRmCIZE a. usable for ""rling that the Judge,presupposinS the Defendant'l mponsibiJit)' for the Situation, prmntedaf!umentl for befievinl that the Situation was in lome WI)' blamewonhy.The delill. of my description ha.e been 'criticized' (... e.p. McCawley 1971),but the point remainl that we hive here not jUlt a group or Individualwords, but a 'domain' or vocabulary whose elements somehow preluPr>Osea schematitallon or human judsment and behavior involvlnl notions ofworth, rnponslbility,. judgment, etc., such that one would want to say thatnobod)' ean reall)' understand the meanings or the words in that domainwho does not understand the social Institutions or tKe structures or uperi-enee which they presuppose.
A second domlln In which I Illemptcd to chlnclerize I cognitive 'scene'wilh the same function was that or the tcommercial event' (see FillmoreJ977b). In particular, I tried to .how thlt • larle and important set ofEnllilh ver'" could be Iftn .. aemantieall)' related to each other b)' virtueor the different WI,.. In which the)' tindexed' or tevoked' the lame ,eneral'rane" The element. or this schematic S('tne included a penon interested inuchlnafnl money for loods (the Buyer), 0 penon inlere.led in uehanglnggood. for mOllty (the Seller), the JOO4. which IheJIuyd'did or C<)uldacquire
(t Oood.), and the mo red (or sought) by the seller (the Money)..1 the tenns o. • f_~ ..... then pou~. y that the verb.µ (OCURI on tbe action. ot the Buyer with rei to t e Ooods, back.·
BfO dinl the Seller ond the Money: that the YO foeu ... on the• Ion. of the Seller with respeet to Ihe Oood., back8fCltlrlding Ihe Buyerand the Money; that the verb PAY rocuses on the actions of the Buyer whh... peet 10 both the Money and the Seller, bockaroundinl Ihe Oood., .nd50 on. with luch verbs •• SPEND, COST, CHARGE, and a number or otherssomewhat more peripheral to these. Apln, the point of the description wasto argue that nobody could be said to know the meanlnp ofthne verbs whodid not know the detaila or the kind or scene whIch provided the backvound
t-..:;~...
117
and motivation ror the cltegories which these words reprnent. Usln, theword 'rrame' ror the SlruclUred way in which the scene is presented orremembered, we can say that the (rame structures the word-meaninp, andthat the word 'evokes' the frame.
The .tructura t have mentioned so rlr cln be thoulhl o( .s motlYaUnithe eateBoriei speakers wish to brlnl into pia)' when describinl .itvatfonsthlt milht be Independent or the Ictuilipeech Iltulfion, the convcnationatconle>l. A .eeond .nd equally important kind .of (ramlnll. the (remlnl ofthe actu.1 communication situation. When we undmtand I ·plece of lin ..£1I'ge, we brlnl to the ta.k both our ahilily to ."Ian schernotlzatlon. of thephases or componenu or the 'world' that the text somehow chlflcterim,and our abilit)' to scheml,jze the .ituation in which thl. pttee ofllnJUl1Cis beinl produced. We have both tcognitive (rames' Ind 'interactlona'rrames', the laller ha\linl to do with how we conceptualize what is ,olna onhetwetn the speaker and the heartr, or between the arChar and 'be ",eff
118 119
>-- .
Itood il. f.irly huge sltcc of the lurroundi"1 cullure, and this backlroundundentlndinl il best undentood I' • tprololype' 'Ither than II • aenuinebody or assumptions about what the world II like. II il frequently useful.when tryi", to Itlte truth conditions tor the .ppropriateneu or predicatingthe word or IOmtthin,. to conltruct Ilimp~ definition or'he word, allowingthe complexity of ftt between usn of the word Ind real world .ilultionl tobe .ttributod to the det.ils of tbe prototype bockaround frame rather thanto the de'lila of the word'. meanin,. nUl we could define an ORPHAN II• child whole parenti Ire no lonaer Ii~in .. and then understand the Cllc,oryII mOlivalcdIpinlt I background or • partkulu kin~: in thl, .ssumedbaclcllound world, children depend on their plrentl (or care and ,uidance.nd pa .. nt. a,"pI the responsibility of provldin, thl. ca .. Ind ... ido"""wilhout question; I penoD without plRntl hiS I lpecillslltw, (or soeiety,onl)' up to I pinkul., lse. becaUICI durina this period a lOCiely needs toprovide lOme special way o( providin, are and inuNCtion. The alcoayORPHAN doa not have 'built into It' any .peeift .. tlon of the .10 an.rwhichit is no lonser relevant to ,peak of somebody U In orphln. because thatundentlodins il • put of the backlf'Dund prototype; I boy in hil twentini... n.rally .. prded 01 beinl.bI.,o toke .... ofhinuclflnd to hay. passedthe a.. where the main ... idlnc:e i. expected to come from hi' family. It I.tb.t backlfOUDd I.formatlon which delmnlnn tho f.CI th.l·tho word OR·PHAN would no! be Ippropri.tely used of .uch • boy, rather th.n Infonna.tion that II to be septu.tel)' built into I dHCriptlon of the word's meanlnl.Jn the prototype ,ituation, In orphln is teen .. aomebody dtservin. of pityand concem; hence Ih. point of the joke about the youn, m.n on trial forthe murder of hi. ~renll who laked the court Cormercy on the arounds thathe WI. In orphan: the prototype Kene 1.. lnst which sociel)' hUI realOn 10clleaonu lOme children I' orphln. does not take into Iccount the cue inwhich. child orphans hinuclf.
A, I teCOnd eumpte oC a alelor)' Ihat hIS to be fined onlo I back,roundof Inltitutiono and pro<:tica we con con.ider the word BREAKFAST. Toundentand this word Is to understlnd the pracla: in our culture or hninathree mull a dl)'. at more ur Itli conventionally ntabliahed limet oC theday. and for one ot thne mull to be the one which is tlten early in thedlY. Iner I period o(.letp, and ror il to conlill oC.tomewhlt unique menu(th. detail. of which .. n vary from community to communiIY). What I. Inter·eslin,.bout the word BREAKFAST I. that each ofth. three condilion. mosttypically ... ociated wilh It can be independently Iblent Itillillowin, nativespeakers to usc the word. The flcl thlt someone can work throulh the nllhlwithout sleep. Ind then It lun·up have a metl or eus. tOlSl, cotru andoranac juice. Ind all that meal 'bruUn", .howl clearly that the 'posl-sleep' character of the category I. not criterill; the rael thll someone Cln
sleep Ihroulh the morninl. Wlite up at thret: o'cltXk in the dlcmoon. andIii down to I meal of ell'. toast. coffee and oranae juke. and call that mal'breakrll", thoWl that the 'tlrly morninl' character or the Qtcaory II .lsonot crlteria'i and I1I1Iy. the ract that. penon can ,kcp throuah the IIlahl.waite up in the momin,. have cabblae IOUp aDd chocolate pic 'ror brak ..fOil', ,hoWl that the 'breokfOlt menu' oharacter 01 the ........ pI Is .100 notcrit.rill, (Thi.'n .pil. of the fact tba.an America. mlaurant that ad_linill .. illin' ..... to ..... breakfut .t .ny II 10 .. ferri., pr<cioely to thoIte .. otypod breokfOlt inarediOlltJ.) What wont to .. y, wboo we oIIaeneu.... ph.nomenl like th.t, II not that we have 10 r.r railed to "pI_ thetrue c.ore of the word', meanin., but nther that tlte word ,Iva uti c:a.tetorYwhtch an be wed in mlny different conlcllI, this ran. of contol. deter-mined by the multiple •• peell of III prototypic Ul&-tho UN It haa wboo theC<lndltlon. of the backJl'ound .Ituation more or I", .uctly match the de-finln, protolype.
The deocriptlve framework which I. In the proc:eu of ovol,I., out oI.nof the above con.id.ratlona it one In which wordo .nd other 1I.... lotlc r_Ind .. t.l0rin Ire oeen a. Indnln, .. mantic or eopltlve calepiet wbleb.re themoelvn rtOO,nlr.ed •• ponlclpotin, In 10.............. ptuaJ Ilnoc1_ 01lOme IOn,.n ofthl. mode Int.malble by knowln, _hl",.bout the klndoof .. uings or oontextJ In whlcll I commu.lty round a need to ..oe ltacbcat.loriea .valloble to ItJ ponicipantJ, tho boctpound or uperieDoea Indpractica within which .lIth cont oould .rite, the cot.aort ... the_ta.and the boctaround. themltl 11u.dmtood I. lontll of protolypeo.
J. r... llIIIItnt_ ... s..e Tam' s' V,I PI ; h
A 'frame', u the nollon plaY' a role In the delcriplion oIlinaulotlc_In.. , I•• ')'Item of .. tolone. Itructured In a«otdanc:e with 101M_1fttJ ••cont.xt. Som. word. nlot in order to provide ...... to k_1edfe 01 IUdlfro",., to the paniciponllin the communication -..nd Ihllullo-4-It"'. to perronn a calo,orlzatlon which tokel .utII framl., for IrInIed.
The motiv.llnl conlext I. IOmo body 01 un_nell .... lOme pattent 01practices, or lOme hillory of lOCI. I Inltltudona, Ipinat whkh we find hMelli--Bible the ereilion of I perdcular cate,ory In the hlltory or the 'lftIUIlDcommunily. Th. word WEEK·END conve.,.. what It convO)'l both becI...of the calendrlc .... n-<lIY eyc:le .nd beclult of. poniculor pnlClIce 01devoliftl a relatively raraer continuoul block of days within .uch • cydeto public work and two continuous dlytto one'l privlte liCe.• (we had only·one 'day ot rest' there would be no need tor the word fweek.-end': one eouJdIlimply use the nlme oClhlt dlY. Ifwe had three dl,.. of work and (ourclaJi
, or rtlt. then too it &eeml unlikely thlt the name (or Ihe period devoted toonel
, private life would have ~en ,Iven thlt nlme. (It the work wed: ,.
I ", ! II " '..,""
-..Jo
120 o.rttt J. flit..., 121
gradually shonened, the word 'week..end' might stay; but il Is unlikely thatthe category could have developed nllurally if (rom the lIart the number ofday. devoted to work were shorter than the number or the remaining days.An acquaintance of mine who works only on Wednesdays, pleased at beingable 10 enjoy 'I long week-end\ reco,nize5 that the word Is here being usedfacetiously.)
The word VEGETARIAN mean. what It mean •• when u.ed of people inour culture, because the calC,ory of 'someone who eals only vegetables' Isa relevant and inleralin, catcgory onty og.inst the backjround or. com-munity many or most of whose members rerul.r1y eat meat. Notice thaithe word deaisn1tet, not Just someone who eat! plant food, but someonewho elt. only plant rood. Furthermore, it it used most appropriately forsituallons in which the individulllO delianated lVoldl mut deliberately and(or. purpose. The purpose mllht he one of belief. obout nutrition. or It maybe one ofconceml for animillife; but the word is not used(ln I lenience like"John i•• ve,etariln!') to describe people whose diet does not Include meatbecause they Ire unable to find Iny, or because they cannot Ifford to buy it.Occallonally one comes upon I lenn whOle mOlintin, contut is very
.peciflc. One .uch I. the compound FLIP STRENGTH. u.. d. [ om told. Inthe pomo,",phic IIt.rature budn .... Some publi.hen ofpomoanphle novel.instruct their authors to Include I cer1aln quat. of hlah interest words onevery paae, 10 that a potential cultomer. in a bookstore, white Iftlppin,' thepaaes of the book, will, no mltter where he open. the book. find evidencethot the book I. fliled with wonderfUl and .. citlnl.oln....,n. A book whichh.. 0 hilh ratio ofnalty worn. per PO.. hu hi,h ftip ItrenJlh; 0 book whichh•• th .. e word. more widely di.tributed hll low flip .trenJlh. A. [ under.stand the word, In editor of such a publication nnture milht reject a mlnUeocript. requntinlthat It boretumed only .nerlt. nlplt .. nlth hll been roised.
With thi. lilt eumple. It I... t .. mely clear th.t the bocklround conle.ti. obsolutely ...."tlol to undentondinl the calesory. It I. not thl! the condl.tiona for u.'n, the -.r cannot be .toted without thl. bocklTOund under..tondinl (relotlve nip .t .. nath of novel. could e.,lIy be det.rmlned by acomputer). but thotthe worn'. meonlnl cannot be truly understood bysomeone who is unaware of those humin conte"" Ind probleml whichprovide the realOn for the cate,ory·' .xI.tence.
We can lOy thot. In Ihe prOCftl of utlnl a Ian." .... a .pe.k .. ·applle.· aframe to a ,ituation, Ind IhOWIthat he intends this frame to be Ipplied byusin@:wordl rttO",ir.ed al Jfounded In luch I frame. Whit il JOin. on hereseems to correspond, within the ordinary vocabullry or a lanJUa~,.Iolexical material in Klenlinc dlscoune that II describable IS 'theory laden':the word 'phlosiston' i, 'theory-laden'; the realon it II no lenrer uacd in!erioul discourse il that nobody acceptl the theory within which it Is a cone
cept. That is, nobody schemltius the physical world in , wlY that wouldgive a rtlson to speak of part of it as 'phloBisto,,'.To illustrate the point with items rrom everydlY lanBUase, we can COfto.
.ider the word. LAND and GROUND (whleh I have described elsewherebut clnnot foreBo mentlonin« here). The difference between these two wordsappears to be best e.prm,d by .. yln8 thlt LAND d"I,nat .. the dry .urfaceor the earth II It I. diuinct from the SEA. where a. GROUND dealsnlt ..Ihe dry .urflee of the earth II it I. di.tinct from the AIR .bovelt. The word.'land' and 'ground', then, differ not 10 much in what It I, that they can beused to identll'y, but in how they lituate that thinl in I larrer fnme. It Isby our recosnilion or this rramecontrast that we Ire Ible to undentand thata bird that ·'pend.lulife on the l.nd·l. belns described neptively II 0 birdthat does not spend Iny time in wlter; • bird that 'spendl ill lire on thevound' i. beinl described n.ptively os 0 bird that does not ny.
Though the detoil. are 0 bit tricky. the two Ensli.h word. SHORE andCOAST (not differently translltable in mlny lan@:uages)leem to differ fromeach other In that while the SHORE I. the boundary between lond ond woter(rom the water's point of view, the COAST is the boundary between lind andwater rrom the land', point or view. A trip' that took four houn 'from shoreto shore' I, I trip IcrOiI I body of water; I trip that took four houn 'fromcoast to COlst' I•• trip IcrOIl I land ml". "We will loon reach the coast"is a natural way to Ily lomethlng about a journey on lind; "we will soonreach the shore" il I nltural way to lay something about I sea journey.Our perception or thete nuances derives from our recornltlon of the differentwaYI In which the two word. Khemalize the world.
The Jlponese odjective NURUI i. Inother .. ample of. fromin, word.Allhou,h not III J'panese ••peokln, Informont •• upport thi. judament.enough do to inlke the eumple wor1h livlnl. In the ullae thlt IUpport.my point. NURUI •• ,.d to describe the temperotu .. of 0 liquid. meon.'at room t.mperatu .. •• but It I... Id moinly of liquid. tbot 0" Ideally hot."Kono OChlll nurut" (this tea 1.lukewlrm) il In acceptable sentence In theidiolect. that .upport my point. but "kono bilru p nurul" (thb beer 1.luh·wlrm) I. not. It will be notlc<odth.t the Enlli.h word LUKEWARM doesDOt 'frome' ill object In the .. me woy..A cold liquid ODd0 hot liquid canboth beeomelukeworm when len Itondlnllonlenoulh; but only the liquidtha\ wu .upposed to be hOI can he deseribed as 'nurui',
A lar .. number of frominl word. oppear only ID hlShly .peciollzed con-te~u,lueh IS the term FLIP STRENGTH discuued eu'icr. The lepJ remDECEDENT Ilvel UI Inother example or such context speclaliDtion. Ac·cordi"! to my 1~lalinrormanll (and my available IIW dictionaries) the wordDECEDENT II used to IdentiFYa dead ptrson in the contut of I dilCuulonor the inheritance or that person's prof'Crty.(The word DECEASED, IS in
122 123
the phrase 'the decelKd', is abo limited 10 Je.11 or journalistic contexls,but it i. not limited to any panj.cu'u lubdomain within the law.) Anothere.. mple i. MUFTI. MuOi. In the Itnlt It one< hid in the military se",ice.refen 10 ordinary cloth in, when worn by somebody who rc,ularly weln amilitary uniform. If we sec two men wearin, idcntiealluill, 'Ne can, rererringto their clothi" .... y thlt one or Ihem ia 'in muOi' if that one i•• militaryofficer. The property of btinl 'in muOI' I. obvioulfy • property thot ho.relevance only in the conlClt or. military communily.
Given an theM examples or clear cues of terma linked 10 hilhly lpecificcoanitlve rrameo, we can ... th.t the proceu ofundenl.~diDla tnt involves,.trievln. or percelvi •• the fromes evoked by the te"', lexlcol content Ind.... mblin. thl. kind of schem.tic knowled .. (in lOme w.y which un not bteuily formalized) inlo lOme sort or 'envi.ionment' or the 'world' or thetnt. If I tell you (to he IOmewhlt rldiculou.) thlt the decedent .. hlle onI.nd and in muOllut .... kend .te • typleal breakf .. t .nd read I novel hi.hin flip lirenath, you know that , 1m t.'kin, about I now.ftad nlnl oflk:er.. ho durin. the period Ineludin,l .. t Saturd.y .nd SundlY read • porno"".phic novelj and you know a rew other Ihinp about the min, lbout how he.pent hi. time. and .bout the settin.ln which thl. "pon of hi•• ttlvltles I.• iven. The sentence did not live you thil informltion directly; you had to·compute'lOme oflt by conltructin., in your imarinillon, a compJix oonfutwithin .. hich each of the lexically .i.naled fromln,. .... motivated. We seeIn this way that there I. a very lilht connmlon between lulcalsemandCllndte., .manticl, or, to .peak more carefUlly, between rnicer semlnttea andthe proceu or telt comprehension. The rrlmin, wordl in a tnt revell themultiple woytln which the .peaker or aUlhor schematl ... the .ltu.tlon .ndinduce .he hearer to conslNet that envislonmcnt of the tnt wortd whk:hwould rnocin'l or I.plein the Clteloril.ltion aet. elpressed by the Jukalchoicet 0......... In the tnt.
The IDlerpreter·. envl.ionment of the texl world aul.n. th.t world bolh •penpective .nd a hlatory. A report of IOmebody buylnl.omelhin. evok..the (rime or the commercial event, but let. that event, ror the moment atIe.II. (rom Ih. point ohlew of one of It.partlclpanfl. o..cribinllOmebodyos hein. ON LAND I_tes the ocene in the hl.tory of I se. voyl ... bynotlcln. lhot II I. rele.. nt to deocribt the location In this ... y only if thl.perind II seen a. an Interruption of a period of ... trove!. Sayinllhat 10m..body I. AT BAT I_tot an event .. one part ofa particular bueballpme.Describin. coffee, In Japancsc, as NURUI recoanlm that it WII once hotand hu been allowed to 'cool', One knowl that the coffee i. currently Itroom tempentuR, but also thl. it did not ret that WI)' by Illrtin, out IIiced oalf",.
Sometimes the penpective whi<:h I word liS II"I I. not I perspective on
the current scene-somcthina that m1aht be vllible in I plctorill representa· .lion of the seeM-but i. that of. much Ilraer framework, Thus, the detcrip-tion or someone II I HERETIC prtlUpposa In eatlbll.hed rclilton, or.reli,iou. community which hoi a well-deft.ed notion or doctrinal oamct·n.... In a commuDlty l.. kln•• 1Kh btliefl or proct'-, the word boa no pur-pose. Sometlm .. a word .Ituot .. an .... t I. a hiliOf)' wider tho. the hlolOf)'of the on.oInl narrative. In .peakln. of Iocotlon. wlthiIo NOC1hAmalea.the ex."..,ion. OUT WEST and BACK EAST .n (""I_t1y uoed. Thelerm. h... the form they do _UK (or .1.... portion of AmerIc:onr.mllleothe .. ttlement hl.lory or the country lraced IlIwoy (rom the ... t cout to lhewest COl.1. European immi.rlntJ flnt liDded on the cut cout; some oftbent.or lOme of Iheir descend.nll. ""duolly "" .... ed _wan!. The ......part of the country ... he,. these Imml.... nll or their • .-tOrl .- wn.WII BACK EAST; the w.. tern part of the eountry. not yet rudIetI. WI'OUT WEST. The exp .... iOftS.re used todoy by people .. hOM f..,,1I1esdidnot share In thilaenerll WtllWlrd movement themselvCl, but the terml recallthe historical bO.1I of their creation .
Earlier '.poke of the notioD o( deep euea .. olferin. an locount of the.. mantic Upectl of linaJe-ctau .. predlca~o .... hieh n..,red In the buIcg,ammiticalllruclure of CIaIllCl. A broader .Ie .. of the ICtrIOntleoof ........mar. OtIC .. hich 0WtI •• reat deal to lhe .. ork of Leonord Talmy (100 Talmy1980) .nd Ronald Lanpcker (Lanpcker fonheomlna). .- Iexleal f ,••provldln. the 'oontent' upon "hich ""lIUIIItical ,truc:ture perfOC1llO ......fiJUrinl' function. Thlnkln. In thl. way. we can 100 thol lOy .... mmadealcatesory or patlern Impoon It. own 'frame' on lhe m.I .... 1 It Itruettmtl.For eumple. the En,li.h pluperfect can bt _bed u hovln. u III role.In .Iruclurinl the ·hi.,ory· of the tell world. thot of choroc:terltl •• the oltua·tion It • particular time (the n.rr.tlve time) ubtln. portly •• plaIDed by.heoccurrence of In event or situltlon that OCC\Irredor ellilted earlier on. 11tepro, .... I.... pect. In Itl tum. schema~ ... I lituotlon u one which I, con-tinuina nr iterltin, aCrosI I Ipln of time. Thu.,. sentence In a a.urati .. ofthe form "She had been runnln ••" I rorm which comblnea the pnltreIIiftand the pluperfect form •• can ha•• the /ltnctlon of nplalnln. why. at thenuratlve time point. uahc" wa. pant In,. or lweatlna. or tired. nus we seeIhlt the cosnitive from.. whlc:h Inform .nd .h.pe our undentandl •• ofl.n,uI.e un dilfer .re.lly In reopect to their .. nerolity or.peciflc:lty: .Iexlealverb like RUN un aiva u••• peclflc: kind of physleol activily lma ... wbllethe pluperfect .nd tbt pros .... lve combl.e. eoch In ... nerol and abatnoctway. to ahlpe the imaac of runnin, in a WI' thlt flu the current .ilUitlonand to .ituate the eYent of nlnnin. botb temporall)' Ind In 'reICVInce' fntothe onloi •• hlltory of the text world.
It II neceuary to dillin,ul.h two Importantly dift"erent ways in whkh thc
!'I
125
-, - -,124
,....o'-1
cognitive frames we call on to help UI interpret 'insuistie lext'eet introduced,into the interpretation procesl. On the one hand, we have cases in which thelexical and grammatical materi.1 observable in the text 'evokes' the relevanl(rames In the mind of the interpreter by virtue of the facllhat Illese lexical(orms or these IrammaticalltructurtS or atclOries nisi as indicts or theseframes; on the other hand, we have cases In which the interpreter assignscoherence to alext by 'invokfn.' I particular interpretive frame. ADextremelyimportant difference between frames thlt are e\loked by materi.1 in the Ie",.and frames that ate Invoked by the Inte;preter Is Ihat In the tatter clSe an'outslder' hll no realOn to IUSpect. beyond a teneral.cnse of imlevance orpointlessness in the text, thlt anythlnl i.milSi"s. To repeat an example thatJ have used elsewhere. I Japanese penona' leiter in the traditional style issupposed to besin with I comment on the currenl selson. Somebody whoknows this tradition i. able to sense the relevance of In open ins sentence in• Jetter which lpeaka or the prden noor co ...ertd with leaves. The kind .ofundentandlns which aliowl such an interprtillion comel from outside ofthe t•• t It.. lf.
In ...oked frames can come from senenl lnowredre, knowledge that e~islsindependently of the tut at hind, or from the onsoins text itself.
4. F,,""-o ..1t F..... lotloM orbtplrlnl s...01l!1t O"",",,tloM
In this section J examine. number or obs.ervations about lelical meaningor tut interpretation which permit formulations in terms of notions fromframe lemanlies. In the rollowinl seclion I eumine a number of traditionaltopics In standard lemantlc theorizinsand raise questions lboUI the impor.tance they would be alven In In IcCount of linl!uistic meaning of the sort wehave been elplorin,. .
Poir-J ~ rr- A"... II.. p,""",.. of lilt Some Inlall II...
For mony imtollC<l of polysemy It I. possible to say Ihat 0 liven lui",,'item property fltl either of two different cognitive rrames. One possibility isthat a word hu I aen ... 1Ute In the ev.rydoy lonlulae bUI h.. been Biven aseparate use in t«hnaltanBUlre. For enmpte. we misht wish to say thatthe Enlli.h word ANOLE ,. und.ntood in connection wilh 0 peroeptlIOlframe IS I flJUrc made by two linea joined at I point in I way sugGested hya bent stick. Presented in lenni of I competlns I'Irocedurl' frame, an anBleis thoURht or in lenns of the rotation of. line about I point, the ansle iuelfvisually represented as the line berore and aner jl~ roillion. In the rroceduritlframe the nolion or a 180 devee angle is intellilible. as is the notion of II
360 de~rte angle. Within the perc:eptuII frame such nolion5 do not fit, (Theexample is from Arnhelm 1969, p. 182f.)
Allt"tNItt Frlm'"" at • SInt:te Slt.,kM't
From a frame semantics point of view. it is frequently possible to show thatthe same 'fRCts' can be presented within different fumings, framin" whichmake them out u.dilTerent 'faCIS'. Somebody who shows an unwillin«ness to
, Five out mone~in I particular situation might be described by one penon asSTINOY (In which e".'he behavior is contrasted with beinl OENEROUS).and by another IS THRIFTY (in which cise. contrast is mlde with beln,WASTEFUL). The .peak" who opplies the STINOY: OENEROUS ODn·trast to a way or boh....in« anumes that it is 10 be evaluated "ilh rapect tothe behaver'l treatment or rellow humans iwhereas the lpelter who evalu-ates the behavior by opplying to It a THRIFTY: WASTEFUL eont .. stU5umes that what is most important Is • measure of the skill or wisdom dis"played in the use or money or other resources .
'Contrut Wlt"'" FnlIMt' "rfnI 'CoMrut Acros:s f'raIM1'
The ract that a .inlle situation can be 'framed' in contrast!n, wa,. mikesf'05sible two ways of presentins a neption or an opposition. Usin, thecontrasts introduced in the last plra8f1ph. If I lay of .omebody, uHe', notstinty-he'. really senerous", I hive accepted the scale by which you chooseto measure him, and I inform you that in my opinion your application ofthis scale was in error. If on the other hand I say uHe's not stinlY-he'.thriny", what I am doinS is proposins ttlat the behavior in question i. notto be evaluat.d alonl the STlNOY: OENEROUS dim.nslon but Ilonl theTHRIFTY:WASTEFUL dim.nslon. In the ftnt cos. I hove .r .... d for.radicular standard in the application of an Iccepted scale; in the secondcase my utterance ar~ues for the irrele ....nce of one scale nnd ttle appropriate-ness of another~
Wn s..... er..IIoo hy F..... ~""
Wh.n a .peak.r wishes to talk obout lom.thlnl for which on·appropriat.cosniti ...e frame has not been establiShed, or ror which he wishn to introduce• novel Ichematilltion, he can sometimes accomplish this by Innsrenin,the Iin8uistie material associated with I frame which mikes the di.tinctlonshe'llnterested In onto the new lilu.tion, relyin« OD the interpreter to tee theappropriateness of the transfer. Certlin new seniti or words can be bestunderstood as having orittinated in this way; we mi@:hte.pecithat.uchwisthe ca~e in the importalion of the term BACHELOR into the termlnololYappropriate to fur seal society, to use the eumple made common in re.tical&ertHllrrticsdiscussion from the reminder, in Katz find Fodor (1963). of the useoflh. word BACHELOR to d.signat. '. mal. (ur l.alwllhoUI. male durin,the mating season'. LRkofTand Johnson (1980) have made us aware of Ihe
126
-..JW
.... Iue or metaphor in conceptualiZAtion and communication, mllkina thepenu •• ivc case that in a afnl min)' domains or uperlenee meta phon pro--vide UI with the only wly or communicalina about those experiences. (Somedetail. a.. to ~ found elsewhere in this .olume.)
..".... • Lal.oI Sot,VarioUi kJlIdj or ltII1antic chon .. can be illuminated by con.lderinl the
phenomena In (rune temlDdc tennl. One Important type or chlnp conlillli......... titutl •• lhe mOllvotin. clrc:umslOnctI ...hilo _",In. the 1.. lcalitem .nd I.. buIc fit with tho .uocIoted scene. PoopIo o~in ... rt.inUlaan otEnJli,h with In eyo to reminl •• concem. haw noticed tcndenca onthe part or mony .peake .. to ho.o .. mi ••• ymmetrl<t In lhe .. IIof condi·tions for usln. the word. I. the proportion BOY:MAN::OIRL:WOMAN.In partlcul.r, in tho ..... pattern thot I have in mind, m.les .ppelred to bedaultled "' MEN It .n eorller "" than tUt at whleh females .ro clouifledI. WOMEN. A number of people, .... In. th.t this u.... pattern ..... led.ttltudea to .... rd females (or • history or .ttitudes tOW1lrdfemolel .. "..,.din cumnt convention.' Ullat pouibly in Independence ol the uscrt, own.ttltudea) ...hich ou,ht to be correCled. A numberohpooh .. h.... _dedin modlfyln, their u.... lna .... y ...hlch ell.bli.hed the "" boundlry betweentbe BOY to MAN tnn.itlo •• t tbe lOme pll ... 1th.t between tho OIRL 10
'"" WOMAN trln,itlon. The .. m.ntic chan .. in thl, .... II I ... 1one, ...hicho needa to be explained. But It ...ould not be IOtisfyin. to lee the .. plollltion::':l IOlelyln diaD", or the meanin. of the word, OIRL .nd WOMAN; the flJlI
e.pll .. tlon mUit usl .. the chan .. to lhe underlyln. aehematlution on thopart of the I......... ler. The ... Iltles (or potpie of both Ie'es .. ttln. older)ha .. not chanaed, nor hIVe the available choices of lin.. istic material;what hal c....... d (i. lOme ,peake .. ) I, the underlylnl .. hem.,iutlon, theclrcumatlncea motJ".tin, the (;Itclory contraslt.
.... h" • ..,......."...A second klDd of .. mantic chanae, which oddly can be iIIu'trated with
the ume word" II one in ,.,hic:h the links between words and their framesIre chlnaed, but lbe undertyinl schematiulion remains unchanacd. Theell'on to respond to ooclely'. new It1IIlti.lty to Ihe connection. betweenI.n ...... od attltudea I, perb.po .. IIeat to malll,,'n Iho ,hort run If It doesnot requl .. IOmclhln. II deeply coanltl ... 1 ..... hemali .. tion of thedomaIn. A ,uperfidol rul.... f.. humb for brlnain •• bout the .ppe.nnce of.nited coRJCiousnca in the realm of Ilnauap and sexllm il • mech.lnk:alprinciple like "Where I am inclined to lOy OJRL I ,houlel in,l .. d lOyWOMAN". A person who .doptl thll rule m.y find th.t in moot ..... itperform, .ery well; but one IOmetimca flnd, oneself tnpped-u in lhe e.·
L..J _.~ IlA__ I ,r:-'~ L..-! --________ .--x.. ;::;......•..•• __ ~._ ....:..._._...,......,.
127
periencc or In acqulintance of mine-when talklnl about very younSfemales; my rriend round himself. levenl times, UIiDa the word WOMANwhen 1.lkln. about .nellht.ye .. ..,ld .lrI. Tho roc! that thll rrlead wouldnever aceldenlOlly u.. the word MAN ...hen lOlkln•• bout an elJht.yeor-oldboy shoWi that the chante In question J. not of the nlchm,tlutioft typedilCUllOd IDtho preyJou, panaroph. A. equally dear _pie 0( the ......pheDOmenon (II I ho.. dilcuued er..wr.a.-Filloooro 1m)10I. the 0(tho word SUSPEcr whe.. the lpooter or writer MlJId .... _,nclined tou.e luch I word a' BURGLAR, MURDERER, ARSONIST, or •.lIy, CULPRIT. eo... loUi of the le.. 1cIoeIri .. lhol • penon II I<> be ......idered InnoceDI until pro.e ... lIty, and COnldoUi 100 or the do of<ommittln. libel, joum.lIst, .Dd pollee ollloe.. ha.. leamed to ldefttlfyperson, aceuoed or crimea but not (yet) r... lly helel to he .. illy or thml .1SUSPECTS. A chan .. In usare ...hlch would deorly .. 1Iect the adoption ofthele,.1 doc:trine mentioned .bovo .bout .. lit and Innocence II tho uadcriy·in, co,nltlvo fnme would DOt... ullin some of the freq .... t -- peoplemike In the UN of tho word SUSPECT. The ...ord SUSPECT Illuppooed tobe uoed of a porIOn who I" .. poet'" of ODmmlttl•• the crime I. q .... lon;for it to be u.. d .ppropriately, the", hal to be lOme lpeellic perso. of whomit un be lOid th.t that perlOn I, ,u,poet'" by IOmeoot of committi •• the<rime. The C1Irrent joumlli,tic u.. of SUSPEcr ... n w.... nobody halbeen .oeuaed of the crime 'ho .... lhat Ihe cha ... Ia 0( tho luperllcilll kJnd,followinl tho appllcotlon of a rule of thumb that lOY'>"Wherner I aminclined to .. y CULPRrr (etc.), I Ihould Inlteod lOy SUSPEcr." I ha..in mind ,uch u..... al un be found In .. portillto "Pollee In... tl.. tln. themurder h•• e found no clu.. II to the Identity of the 'Ulpoet."
The law provides mlny contextl in which lpeciftc new framlnp need tobe conltMl<led for familiar word,. The noIlon INNOCENT mentloaed abovei•• n ... mple. In both e.eryd.y lan.. a.. ODd1... II.n ...... the .. 1a • con·tradictory oppo.ltlon betwe.n INNOCENT .nd GUILTY. I. nerydoylanlulle, the dill'e.. nce depend, on whether tho lodi.lduallD q.... tlon didor did not commit the crime in question. In lepl lanpap', by contnlt.the dill'e.. nce depend' on whether th.l.dlyJdual in q .... tlo. hal or hal notbeen declared quillY by the coun II. result o(le .. 11ld1onwltbi.lhecrimin.1ju.tice ')"Ilem. Thi, di.parity of .. hemoti .. tlo. I, ... poaaiblo for frequentmitundentlndlnp in the use or these wordl. Au cumple or luch milunder·st.ndings (which I hIVe di ...... d In Fillmore 1978) w.' in • con ..... tion
. between I proopectlve juror .nd I.wye .. ' ••• olr dire heorin. in • municipalcourt In Berkeley. The .ttorney for the defen .... ked the prospective juror"00 you .... pt Ihe American Jel.J doetrln. lhot I m.n I, innocent until
..
-. , --.,. ,
128 129
proven guilty?" The citizen answered that a penon should be trealed '"innocent until proven «'lilly. but that it would be strange to !,Iy that he wasactually innocent. The aUomey asked III in, sayin,. "I'm talking about thedoctrine that a man IS Innocent until flroven SUilty. Do you or do you notaccept that doctrine'" The citizen answered that ir the man IS innocent,
. then there is no need for. trial. (ThIs rude answer excused the man fromjury duty.) Thll litlle bit of miscommunieating could ealily have beenavoided. The citizen was not really being I.ked whether or not he accepteda particul.r legal doctrine, but whether or not he wa, willinK 10 adopt for thepurpose of discussion in the trial which WI5 about 10 start the rraming orIhe word. INNOCENT and GUILTY provided by the criminal justiceinstitutions in place of the everyday use of the!e same 'Words.
Ii~hl. I would lose), Ihen Ino you C3n be charged wilh FORCIRLE ENTRY.A third example is ORAL AGRFEMENT. Basically aJ' ORAL AGREE.MENT is a contract or agreement which two parties entered into orilly,that is, without putting the agreement in a writlen ronn and without li",inlour nam" 10 it. The importance of the nOlion ORAL AGREEMENT In thelaw Is that the conditions or its authenticity and its bindingness dl,tinpishit rrom agreements that are fully written out and ,igned. The critieal ditreraenee, ror the given legal purposes, is the preJenee or Ibsence orthe .ignature.or the principals, The important part or the contrast, then, is thl. betweenheing signed and not being signed. Accordingly, provisions made in the rawror ORAL AGREEMENTS .1.0 apply 10 written arr«ments .. hleh hoppennot to be signed. The prototype background in which the notion ORALAGREEMENT i. motivaled. i. one In which .~ements ... either made byword of mouth or by means or documents which Ire written and .iantd.In situations which depart rrom the prototype the Jaw ha. needed to deter ..mine which aspect or the prototype conlnst Is leplly the most Sllient (thepresence or aMence or the sil!natures supporting a written document) andlet that be the criterion which specifies the Conlrast.
Fnlt'lf1 rOlf Enhaltlon
One important area in which semantic interpretation dependl cruciallyon le~ical rramin! is that oCattributions oCvalue. Enluatiye adjectl,," eancontain in their meanings rererence to the dimensions, scales, or standardsaccording to which lomethins is evaluated, as ...ith adjectivel like FAA.GRA NT, TASTY,EFFICIENT.INTELLlGENT.ctc.ln many c.... ,ho .... er.An adjective is abstractly eyaluatlve (DS with the English word. GOOD andBAD) and inter~retalions or their atlribulive use depend on knowledtt orthe ideational rrames to which they are indexed. The ract that speakm or~ngli.h .re able 10 inlerprel such ph.. se... A GOOD PENCIL. GOODCOFFEE. A GOOD MOTHER, A GOOD PILOT. etc .•• ho ... that theynre able to call into their consciousness ror tbis purpose the raet tbl ••pencil is used ror writin« and cln be eYaluated ror how ea.y or emelent It I.to write with it, or how clearly its trices appear on the paper, the fact thltcoffee is a drink and can be evaluated ror its laste, it. coDtrlbutlon to thodrinker's alertness, etc., that moth en and pilots do what they proreulonallyand conventionally do and can be evaluated for how el.ily, how efl"ectlvely.and how efficiently they do it, The point wa. made earlier that carnltlvoframes calltd on to a!5i~t in te,;! inttrpretfltion may derive rrom reneral beck ..ground knowJ~dge or may be brou,ht into play by the textual context. Thisis particularly true in the case of the interprelation or evaluative adjectives,since some nouns have frames 15socinfed with them whose evaluative dimena,liion~are prnvided in adv:Jnce, while others designate thin~ that could be
Rtf...... t""" III T.... 1eoI ~IO
Legal contexts live us rurther ",a)'1 or seelns changes between general andspeclal.purpose rramings or word •. In m"any cases fhis is because the every-day tense of a word doe. not cover all cases in which it Ihould be appropriate10 use the word, In the protolype cue of event. fittins Ihe .. ord MURDER,one penon (A), Intendinl 10 kill a second penon (0), acts in such a way as
f'-4" to cause that penon 10die. Thi. prototype does not coYer a case in which A,,:.) intendinl to kill B. aims hi. gun at 8, and kills C (who is standinl nut to 0)~ instead. Some or the properties or MURDER relate A and Bj olhers relate
A to C. The question somebody needs to an,wer, of course, Is whether,ror the purposes or the law, it is proper to say that A murdered C. The lawdoes this, not by modiryinlthe definition or MURDER 10 that It will coYerthis 'wrons-tlfltl' cue, but by addlns to the 'Yltem or le881 semantics astatutory interpretation principle called 'Transfer or fntent' according 10which A's intent to kill 8 Is fictitiously transrerred to C so that the definitionof MURDER con rully fit what A did to C, Wilh respect 10judgmenl. orreprehensibility ondlepl provl.ion. for puni.hment. A'. killins ofC shouldbe t.. ated In Ih... me ... y II A'I .uccessful killinl of B would have been.The Tran.fer of IDteot principle makes it possible for the non·prololypicco.e to raU under the .. me definition.
Other .uch .. Inte"""t.tlon. In the law a.. equally founded on Inlenllonsassociated with the prolotypical co... The concept of FORCIBLE ENT~R yinvolvel one penon pinin, entry to another penon's pfIJl"ICrtyby oYer-cominlthe resistance or penons tryln! to prevent that person'. enlry. Theu!ual definition or FORCIBLE ENTRY, however, includes not only thesituation In which the intruder physically overpo",en the other, but alsothe situation in which, as It J, ulually put. uresillance would be unavailing".If you, being twice my .Ize and ttrenatb, inllst on belnl admitted to my apart-ment, and 1 meekly let you enter (on the reasonable grounds that if we had a
. I
1)0 n.ran J. t'lIImul(' FrI_ St'MUUtl III
eVlllualetl only if the COlileXI provitled scmI.' b:uis for the (\luIU:lIioll. Whcnwe come IIcroSilhe phrase A GOOD STICK we expect to lind in the confullome cxpltlnltion oC. situation within which one ,tid could function belletthan ,"olher ((or propping I window open, ror rcpellinl I ,.ccoon, forskewering mlnhmalioWl, etc.). A general concept orOftaminl' involvtl con-tCltu.'iling or .itualin. event. in the broadest tenle poslible; within IInsu;, ..de:aemlDlia proper 1M concern il with patlcml or (ramina thl.lre alreadyntabli.hed and which Irc Ipecifi.calJ), IlSOClllcd wllh siven lexlCiI item.or .ramfMlical cate.ories.
S. "·unw--Stm •• Uc fornlldalloa or IUUH I. Trdulkal Scnl .. tKI
In this lection I cumint a smlllll number of lopict thal one trudltionull)'finds in standard trutises on technical semantica: proportionality, pin ..
digms. tDlonomiel, syncateJorematicily, the suppoKd conlnnt between'diclionary' Ind tencyclopedia', the loal o( dHCTipCin .impliclty and redun ..daney elimination, and,III!lly, the troubled noli on o('lexical presupposition'.
~1oooIhJOne or the molt rrequently used heuristic <levas ror diloCoverinl Ind
demOnllrltina the ni.tence or wmandc relturn in the ~ocabulary or alanguage II thlt or Kllina up • proportionality Involvin. rour warda Indaskin. ror intuitive I.r«ment about tbe identity or plirwise dltrerwcetamana them. Believin. chat man i, to woman at boy i, to airl, we lid up thoralio MAN:WOMAN: : BOY :OIRL. Othc:n frequently uoed ore COME:GO: : BRING: TAKE, LOOK: SEE: : GLANCE: GLIMPSE,INUAU!:EXHALE: :SNIFF: SNORT,ond MAN:WOMAN: :BACHELOR: SPIN·STER. The approach which Ket the basic ttmlntic relit Ions u hoIdJnsamana words.lken in llClalion rill. to help UI become a .. arc oHhe poaiblyquite separlte way. in which Individual membcn or thne proportlOBI arefitted onlo, or (rime, their ruUty. ) have .Iready pointed out that in mlnypeople'. speech the ditrerentiatin. criterion (or BOY \' •. MAN mlsht beimportantly different (rom that (or GIRL vs. WOMAN: BRINO i, separateenough in Its SCft13nliCi (rom COME (or it to have acquired quite aepal'ltepatterns or dialect varialion: and the moti~.lion (or the cale,orles BACHE ..LOR nnd SPINSTER appear to be conliderably different, in .pite or one'.Inclination, al •• y.tematiltr, 10 put the two word. tOlether. One mllht wish10 propose that Ihe obstnet struetunl pattern. underlyinl these word pupsarc simple .nd .Iralahtrorward, in Ihe WIYS lugretled by tbe proportion.,even though certain (acu lboutthe world make the domain look leu orderly .I think such D proposal il not help(ul, because it i. not OM which ub theanHlys. to look (or the backlround and mOllvltinl .ituations fthich tepa·rately give reasons ror Ihe cxistence or the Individual Cltelories, Cine by one.
ScrtptE_ \
I said earlier about colnilive (ramet that to .peak o( one o( its elementsil to lpeak of the othen .t the same time. More carerully put. 10 speak o(one put or. (rime i. to brin,lo conlCloulnell, or to rlile inlo qUeltion,itl other components. Thi. effect il panicularly Itrlkln8 in connection withthe kind. o( (timet known II 'scripts', ('Imts whose element. are sequencedtyPH o( event •. Text undentandin. that mdts uae or Kripta! knowledgl.!(on whkh see Schank. and Abelson, 1977) involves the Icllvation o( whole-JC.Ile script/", or event I on the presentation or In event that cln be Wen topart or luch • script. Thua, in • tutlet like
"He pushed .... inst the door. The room WII emply."we make the two aentences cohere by wumin, Ihilihe g011 somebodymiShl hln In pUlhinla,.inlt a door il to ,et thlt door open, and Ihat i(one succeeded in reninl the door open by such In 'CI, one could then bein I posilion to notice whether the room WIS empty. Readin. between thelines, we expand the tnt to mean:
"He pu,h,d opinl! Ihe door. THE DOOR OPENED. HE LOOKEDINSIDE. HE SAW THAT The room WI! empy."
.-- f.. Tn ..
DllCuuion of tnt Itructure on the part o( Robert lon,ocre and others.howl thatlanlulJCS Dr culturet can differ with respect to the way. in whichtntl wilh partk:tJlar communkative loa'i can have particular convention-.Iiud rorma.lledpet in EnJlish makecon.i.tent Ute orimpcratl~el. In Hun-JAnln recipes.. fint person plural deSCriptions Ire the norm. And Longacrehal described (in COftnrulion) a 'ansulae lackin. in procedural discourseUSCI nlrrative (arm ror luch purposes. Here it would be difficult to believethat lanJWIJCt differ (rom each other in lhe presence o( 'material usable rorparticular kind. of diacoune, it leeml rtlher to be the case thlt traditionsor language Ule within the culture develop in ditrerent wa)'s in telts withdifferent communicative goal!.
Psnd"""A prime example o( semantic Itructure .monglcxic.l item. is (hc 'para.
cJigm'; .and the best example or I lexical-semantic paradigm is the kind o(display of livc510d terms represented by Table I.
cattle sheep horsecow ewe marebull ram stallionsteer weIher g~lding
T.ble I
swine'owbolfbarrow
,--I. '--"\ --- , ,--,... ~
-
/ C'
Il2 etta,," J. FllfwIort
.. ",ricne". VERTEBRATE ond MAMMAL ore term. whose employment'fits a ",articular kind or intcractlonnl or contcltlual schema (that or scientincdiscou~e).whilc RETR IEVE R 85 D category occurs most naturatlya! an answerto 8 question about what kind of a dog one has. Suppose that you, hearinla splltsh In my back yard, were to ask me what that noise weSt and supposethe fact is that my pet retriever fell in the family swimmlnl pool. As a WIYore~f'lainlng the source of the noisc, it would be natural (or me to say "Ananimal felt In the POD'" or "A dog fetl In the pool", but it would be \"Cl')'unnatural (or me to say lOA vertebrate fetl in the pool" or UA mammal feUin the roo"" and unnatural in a different way fot me to II)'''A retriever fellin the poo,,,, The lauer three terms seem to appear more nltunl in uttenncaused in acts or ChlSairying, but seem unnalural when used in acts or rtfemnl·This runctional difference is not revealed within the logic of a standardta~onomic tree.
lIere the rrol'O!iul IIll1t we hnve II cto~t!d system or terms lied tocether by!iueh renlure!' us General, Femule, Male, and Neuler, crou-cul by featuresidentifying !ipecies (Bovine, Ovinc, Equine, Porcine), §cems very attractive.Unrortunntcly the displny disguises many facls IIhout both these words Dndthe domnin which they appear to cover. CATIlE And SWINE Ire plura's;SHEEP and HORSE are not. The word. WETHER ond BARROW areknown only 10,,,,ciatiSl'. In thee.,e of CATILE. COW and BULL op",ar10 haye thc stntus of'baslc level objects' (in the sense of Rosch 1973), whereasIhe general term. hRve Ihat function in Ihc case of SHEEP ond HORSE.In l.hccnseorSWINE, 0 word not in the table, namely PIG, is the best candj~date for 'basic level object' Iialus.
In Ihort, the regullritits Ipparent in the paradilm (and this set of tenns-together with terms for younS, newborn, etc.-make up what is sene rallynC'C"Cptedas the best example of a semantic paradlsm) ate misleading. Towhich we ought 10 add the Neuter category of the words in the bollomrow is not just i 'neutral' catesory operlting in the lime line or business asthe categories Female and Male. The category is diffcrently motivated in thedifferent species. which is another way of.ayin«that one has different reasonsror castrating a bull and a horse, one misht do it at different (relative) Dges,etc.
TllIOMend"
The next most common kind of le~ical semantic formol structure is the'semlntic taxonomy', a semantic network founded on the retation 'is a kindor. Scientific taxonomiea have obvious uses In ~ientific discoune, andresearch that has led to the uncoverln. o! folk tuonomics has been amongthe most important empirical semantic research yet done. But there are twoaspects or taxonomic structures that arsue asainst resarding them as rcrre·sentln, merely a fonnal system of relationships founded on a lin,le clearsemantic relation. The fint is that at different levels in a taxonomy the com·munity mlsht have hid dift'erent reasons for introducing the categorics; thesecond is that the ulual tr«~form display of the elements or a tuonomydOC'Snot .how how it il that particular elements In the tnonomy are 'cot;ni·tively priyjle~d catesoriC'l' in imrorlant ways. Both of these points can beillustrated with a 'poth' in a taxonomy ofzoological term! In English, nnmrly
ANIMALVERTEBRATEMAMMALDOORETRIEVER
Of this set of words, DOO and ANIMAL leem 10 be the cotlnitively privi.ICfledcntegorlc" privileged in the lense that they are the words that wouldmo~t ordinllrily hoe used whtn in e\'eryday nntural talk one is descrjhin~ one's
5,...., .......... lIe T"",'It has frequently been discussed (c., .•Austin 1964. Lecture VII) that. word
like IMITATION doe. not oem.ntie.lly modify 0 word it IT3mmatleallymodifies in the standard 'set intersection' way. Rather. It combines with themeaning or its partner to form a fairly comple~ concept. Somethins tOrf't'Ctlydescribed as IMITATION COFFEE looks like coffee and tastes like eoffee,And it looks and tastes like coffee not by accident, but because lomebodymanuractured it 10 that it would have these properties: bul, whatever it Is.i! is not made or corree beans. Undentanding the catesory, in fact. ft'quimundtntanding the role or coffee In our lives and (perhaps) the reasonssomeone might havc ror mnkins a coffee substitute.
By contr,!!' a word like REAL appears to contribute nolhln, It .11 tothe noun to which it Is aUached as a modifier. To describe somethlnl IIREAL COFFEE is todo nothi"J more than to assert that something iltoft"ee,agAinst the background or (the possibility of) somcbody'l luspicion that itis imitation coffee. A, with IMITATION •• part of. rull undentanding ofan e~pression with REAL is knowing the reasonS one might hive ror pro-viding substitutes for the thing in question. The notion REAL COFFEEmalees sense to us because we know that In some seHlnp coffee's K'ftftt,and we know thflt some people lind coffee damasinl to their hellhh or heldofTeMiveby their ~1i8jon. We can understand a cateSOJ)' like REAL OOLDor REAL DIAMOND because we can imaglnc a ~a50n why somebodymi(!ht choose to produce fake gold or fake diamonds, and we can imal!:'newhy ~omeone might hAvedoubts about the authentic:ly of particular Simples.Bycnnlrllst.l'I notion like REAL PANTS js unlntelli,lble, MC8use it II fmpos-sihle to imAgine somelhins lookinl like pants and functioning like pantlwhich do not, by virtue or tho~e rrnrcrlies nlnnl':. count A~ being genuine
," ,.., '.,'.
134 l"htJtsJ. Fill.., IJS
pants.
Rcdund.MY 1!:II11tlnwrion
A common g031 in structural ~emantics i,sthe eliminatiun ur minimizationof redundant inform;lIion in the &.emanlicdescription or lexical items, Fre-quentlya semantic Iheorist will declare thai the ,oal ora '~mtlnlicdiclionary'is that of sayin, just enough about each word in the lansuage to ,uwrantecthat il il semantically in conlrast with each other word in the language(Bendix 1966), It il a gODIwhich presupposes the Inlllysl', obility 10 haveIn ovef"\liewof the entire luic..1 repertory of the Ilngu8.e, Such a loal iscompletely tlnlilhelicallo the ,oal. OrrrlO'1esemantlC1..since (rame &em:tnl~.im, II dilCOverin. whitt cate.oriun, ('unctionl the word serves in the con.ttll. in which iI. use il motivaled. This kind of knowledge is in principleanainlble Independently or knowledre about olher words in the language,elcept ror thOle relatively few Clift in ...hkh the "mos.aic' image is appro-priate, the im.ae by which Ihe me.nin, ,iven to anyone word is dependenton the meaninas or itl nei.hborin, word. (a. in Trier 1931).
DicI"-'7 ... Eatydopoollo
The various structurali.t approaches th •• find a goal of redundancy. eli-mination relevant. also find it intelliaible to draw a clear distinction between'dictionaries' .nd ·encyclopedi •• •• In particular, «rt.ln scholln Insist on adislinetion betWHn purely semantic intonnation lbout wordl Ind encyclo-pedtc inform.tlon .bout the desi",at. orwordl. Somebody holdinalh;s viewmi.ht CXpttl 10 be .ble to juslify certain characteriltics of c:arpenlen (or theconcept CARPENTER) al belonlln, 10 the .. mantle catelory of the noun,other distinct characteristics o( carpetllen II limply beinglrue of the indivi-duals who IIlilry the crileri. auociated with the Cltegory, A frame-t.emanttcapprOich would fllher lIy that eommunilies of men conlain individuals wboby trade make things oul of wood, ulins particulu kinds or tools, etc" elc.,ond would not. that these people 0", coiled CARPENTERS. The possibilityof lepar!tin, acme fealures or. full description or what carpenten do D$ re-lated to the concept .nd olhera II related to the people does nol &cemimpor-tlnl. There is. distinction to be made between knowledge about words andknowledre .bout thinp, but il il nol to be made in I w.y that servc! theinlemts or the ternlnikisis f have just been describing, True 'encyclopedic'information about carpenters IS people ml.ht uy som(thin,lboul woges,union Iffiliatlons, job related diseases, etc,: luch informution is nol a matleror dispute,
Slr.pUdt)' 0( Dnttlptloa
While in rt1ptct 10 redundancy elimln:ttion it has HpJ)(llr(d thiJl stOllidard
uprroachet nlue limplicity .nd rrlme-s.emuntic arproaches do nol, there isanother senlt In which simplicity of dCKription i, enhancetl by the frame>emlllnlicsapproach. A recent lively dilCunion between P.ul Kay and UndaColeman on the one hind (Coleman and K.y 1981) .nd Eve Sweetler on lheother hand (Sweet~' 1981) concerns Ihe potlibility of a prototype back·Braund of Issumption. (or, u Swtthcr calls it, • 'folk theory') u providin.the .roundin, (or a simplified definition of the noun LIE, On the Kay'Colem.n .oeount, 0 LIE II lomethin."hich II (I) robe in r.ct, (2) belie-<e<!by tho lpeaker to be rol.. , ond (3) lIid In ordtr to deceive, SwtellCT'IIU,-lion Is th.t if we can characterize. folk theory of human communicationinvolvin. Cooperation. e.preuin .... hlt one believtl. CIC,. then it is pouibleto describe a LIE .1 limply a 'raise statement" those other undemandinp wehllve about tho concept f.llinl out Ihrou.h In undentandin. of why OMwould bother to produce a false sfalement,
" " 115_Cr.lm. about 'prCluPpolition.r' inrormation beinS allocialed wilh indi-
vidullluiCiI items hIVe not rt«lvtd • load preu, I find thai within (ramesemantics. the concept or ledell prelupposition don not It'Cm unjustlfitd.Conlider the case or a verb like En.lish CHASE, I verb ror whkh • Icxk:alpresupposltionllt milht be Inclined to IIY that "hen it i. uoed of two belnpmovin.ln tho limo coune. the mo'lemcnt of the OM In fronlll pteluppoled.independently of whether the movement of the individu.1 dnipated by thesubject or the nrb is UlCrtcd. denied. questioned. or suppoc.ed.ln I Itttlni inwhich one penon I. runnin •• especially where it is undtntood thlt thlt ptnOais fteein'l it Is relevant to conlider whether lOme other penon il or is not,oinl to try to prevent that flnl person from !Cllin •• WI)'. (My iIIUllrationil with people, but that's not In important condition.) The verb CHASEexill' •• I cate.ory by rcco.nilion of such relevance. If I ask, "Did Inybodychase him?", or if J IIY IIWedldn'l chue him". our reason (or undentandin.IhJtt 'he' WII runnln. ("eei"a) is that we know the kind of shUition Ipinslwhich the Cltelory CHASE hall rellon for bein., It is in that sense, it aeems
, to me, that one can t.lk aboul lexical prt1uppottions.
6. C_11lCl1aaRnurbIn this paper I have Irgued (or a view ofthe description of m(aning-bcarina
clements in alanlu.le aC'Cordinlto which words (elc.) come inlo bein. onlyfor I reason, that realon bein. Inchof'\!d in human experiences and humaninstitutions. In this view, the only way in which people can truly·be said toundentand the use to which these meanina-be.rin. elemenls are bein. putin aclual utterances il 10 understand thaie expcricncn .nd inltitulions and
. to know why such experiences and inst itulions gave people rtasons to create
L_ -_ .. ---, --" L.J
1361
131
tht- eat~~ries C'JlI"rcssed by IJ~ wMds. TM JCmanlicis"s job is to lense outthe preci!e n!.llure oflhc rtlaliorishir belYt'een the word and the calel!,ory. ilodthe precise nuture or the reJalion~hips hetween the calc,"ory I'Ind the back.,round. I believe that some of the cum,,'es I hDve offered have shown theadvnntages of 'ookint allangu8te in Ihis way.
\
Currenl hsues in Unluklk TMofy.' BIoomI"atOft: Indlona Uniwnhy ~~.
Fillmore. ChatSe5 J. (1978), On the orpnlltllon or 5CmIndc intonnalton In thek:dcon. In hpen from the Pnl!l$e'Ssion on the Ltdcon. Chb,o: 1M OlicalOUn,uislk. Sodety.
Fries. o,.rlM C. (19.52), The S'rUC!VTt or EnA;lish.New YOft: Htrrottrt. Brace AWorld.
Gross. ......urke (1975). M~lhodes en Synlue. Plris: HermtM.Helbi,. Gerhard and. Wotr .. n, Schtnbl (1973),Wor1tTbfidt ZUf V.ltnz und
DrstrlbulJon de\ltJchet Verbtn. Lclplll: YE8 Verla, EnzytlopaHousehohkf, Fred·W., el al (1964), LinlU1stk: Ana'ysls of Enslkh. FiNlI Report
on NSF O,.nl No. OS-lOB.Katz., Jenokll. and Jerry A. Fodor (1963), Th~ struet~ of. s.ernantk: lheory,
Lanl\l'''' l~.J1O-210.lakoR'. Geor. Ind Mark John~on (19SO). Mellphon We Live By. ChicaIO:
Unlvenily of CIIk:qo Pr....Lanpcker. RMild W. (ronhcominc), Foundlt1om of CosnIUw: Orlmmar.l...t:e\. ROMI B. (1960), The Grammar or EnsHsh NomlMlilatiom. The Hapt:
MoutonMcCawSey, ,limes D. (197'), Verbs or bhc:hlns. In DlYid Hackney ~ al. (eds.).
Conlempora.ry R~ in Philosophkallogk: and Linruj,Ik: Semantics. Dof·dreeht: Reidel. 1'1'. lU-ll2.
Pike, Kenneth L. (l961),l.an1Ul1t in Relation to • Unified Theory orlhc SlructlMor Human .hrf~.The Harue: Mouton.
Rotch, EleatlOf' H. (1"3). On the ln1etnll atrueture or pe1'Oe'Ptual aMi ternandecat~ies. In Timothy e.. Moore (ed.), COlT1IIiw: Development Ind the Acquk~lion or UflIUIlt. New York: Aeademlc Pres.s.
Rosenbaum, Pelrr S. (l967), 1be Ol'lmmar or Enatish Prtdkate CompJemtnlConmuctiom. Camtwidae (MIss.): M.tT. Pms
Schlink, R.otet C. Ind Robert P. Abekon (1977), Scripts., pt.... GMb .rMl Undn'·standln.: An Inquiry Inlo Human Knowledsc Struetures. Hillsdale-: Lawrmc:eErlbaum.
Sweel~, EYe E. (191:1), 'The definition or lk: Ao enmfnatton of the rotk theoriesunden,.illl ... mantic I".,ot1l'<. Unpublhhel mo.
Talmy, leonard (1980'), OtIImmar and co,nhlon. MS.U~, orClllromia..tSon DieIo. C.,.,illve Selenoe Prosrom.
Te1niere. lucien (l9S9). EJemenls de Syntlle Structurale. ParIs: klinJbIed.Trt«. )0~1 (19)1). Ocr dtutsche WoflSchall im Smnbe:titt::des Venlude'. Heldrt.
betS·Wil,on. [)eln!rc (l97J), PmUppo!ltl.m .nd Non-TMh-ConditIonol _mia.
London: Academic: Press.timmer, Kart E. (1971), Snme ~rli oMtnaliom about ooml,.1 compovndI.
In War. in, 'Ipe" on LanJU'se Unl\ItfU:b. S. l..IntUaJfl UnlvttsaJt Project,Commlllt'e em UnSUrs1ia, St.nrord Uni"enil)" pp. '-2.f. Rqwinled In Wor1·bikJ~nll: (I~fll), W~w:nKh.nlkhe Buch~lf~hart Otrrml.dl, Pl'· 23,)-2".
No1t
fo For tI rtunl.tfm)pt 10dirrmnlhlle I~ Itrn'It, seeB~u".nde /981. p. ~O,l.
Am~im. Rudorr( 1969), VIsUIllhinkin,. Btrkeky: Unhoenlty or Clliromla PI't'Sl.Austin. John L (1964). Sense .nd Semibili .. CR.econstructed rrom man~l ...ipi
notes b)' O. J. W.mock.) o,.rord Unlwnhy Preu.a.......n<le. Robm <Ie (19811, Des;" c:riltfla for proer!' models of mdinS.
RudlnS R.... n:h Quonerly 16~261-lIJ.Brndi., Edward H. (l966~ Compo_llial An.lysls or Gmetol Vocabulary: The
Semantk: StftJClure or. Set of V~bs In E,.lkh, Hindi and J.pane5e. nloom.inlfon: Jndllftl Uniwnily PYas.
Berlin, Brent .nd Paul K.y (1969). BaSfe CoJM Terms. Berte)ey: Unlwrsity orCalifornia Pms.
Otomsk" NOI:m A. (19m, SyntlC:lk: Structures. Tht "1«tIe: MoutonCbomsky, NOim A. U!J6S). Aspec1Sor the 1beoty or S",tn. C.mbrid&e (Mas~.):'!'" I.UT. Pm. .
""'coI.mon, Undo .nd PII.I K.y (1981). Prot.,y". ..... ntia.La ...... ,., 57,2&-44.,.....,.OO."dn.. Parnela (1911), On the enatlrtn .nd Use or EnSlish CompoorK! Nourt1.
La J). Ilo.M2.fillm CIIorles J. (I96Il.lndirm Object C"",'ruct;"", In Ensthh.nd.hO o.de<.
ht. of Transformations. T1te HaJUt: Mouton.Fnt ....... CIIo.1os J. (l96l). The "",Ilion or emb<ddlnl" .. "rormll;"'" In • BTII"'". mo •. Won! 19.208-:101.
Fit ...... C'borIeo J. (19681. The cas< ror ..... In E. _ .nd R. H,nn,. cd •.•Un;""'h In Unrunlle 'TheoTy. New Yon: HolI, Rinehart A WIMIOfl.
filmore, Cbartes J. (1911), Verbs 0( JudJina: In eJlerc:iJe in ttmlntlc decri~jon.In C. J, Fillmore and D. T. Lan,endom, rds., Studies in Un,uktk: Sm1anliC1.NC'W yort: Hott, RI .... " .nd Wimfon.
FiJlmore. Otarln J. (1m). On Jtntrltivlly. fn Stlnley Peten, ed., The Goals orU .... ;,11eThtooy. Enate-ood Olfr" ""nlia: H.II.
F/nmon::,Chl~ J. (191'), Santa Crm: lec1u~ on Dej~h. B100minJfon: rndian.l.Univmll)' Linlukt~ Club.
Fillmore. Ot.~ J. U917.), ~ C.St' ror ~~~, In P. Colt and J. S.dock,Ink), 'Syntn nnd Semanl~ R: GT3n1mlticnl Relaliom. ~ Von:: Ac..ckmic"r"~.
Fillmore. Ch.rlM J. (l9nb). TopfC1 in UlI.tclli ~lntic1. In R~ W. Cole (cd.).
![(1982) Test-Score Semantics for Natural Languages [Zadeh]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577cc89d1a28aba711a31882/1982-test-score-semantics-for-natural-languages-zadeh.jpg)
