An Investigation of Motivations behind Collocations based on Frame Semantics: The Case Study of ‘dast’

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 8, Volume 11, Issue 1, May 2019, Pages 193-225   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/lj.v11i1.67640

Authors

Seyed Hamzeh Mousavi^{* 1}; Mohammad Amouzadeh²

¹Shahrood University of Technology

²University of Isfahan

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Collocation is defined as the combination of two or more words, which generally go together in a specific context (Lyons, 1995). As an illustration, only one of the synonymous lexemes such as big and large fill the blank space in Example (1).

You are making a ____big_____ mistake.
* You are making a ___large___mistake.

Example 1 indicates that mistake only collocates with big on a syntagmatic axis, and not large.
The study aimed at investigating certain semantic and pragmatic motivations behind lexical collocations based on frame semantics demonstrating what words collocate with certain words such as ‘dast’ (hand) and what motivates their constructions. In other words, the question is whether it is the frame correspondence that brings two or more words together. This research aimed to answer the following questions:

What motivates specific words to go together?
How does frame semantics provide us with information about collocations?
What cultural, metaphorical and metonymic factors play roles in lexical collocations?

The argument is that what motivates collocations reside in the speakers’ background knowledge and their ability to use syntactic and semantic phenomena properly.

Theoretical Framework

Frame semantics was introduced by Charles Fillmore in 1970s. It aimed to explain the configuration processes of encyclopedical knowledge of words (Ungerer & Schmid, 2006). This framework was primarily used for designing dictionaries which include our background knowledge, whether structural or semantic (Fillmore, 2007).
Fillmore (1982, p. 111) defines ‘frame semantics’ as “a particular way of looking at word meanings, as well as a way of characterizing principles for creating new words and phrases for adding new meanings to words, and for assembling the meaning of elements in a text into the total meaning of the text”. By the word ‘frame’ he means all other previously known terms such as ‘schema’, ‘script’, ‘scenario’, ‘ideational scaffolding’, ‘cognitive model’, or ‘folk theory’.
Croft and Cruse (2004) believe that words are not randomly saved in our memory. But they are not only organized based on relations within structural semantics, but also they are connected based on experience. For example, a “restaurent”  is not just a place to eat food, it is related to other concepts such as customer, waiter, ordering, eating, and bill. They mention that these concepts are not connected to RESTAURENT by structural semantic relations such as hyponymy, antonymy and etc., but they are connected to restaurent by our daily experiences.
Furthermore, Fillmore (1982) elaborates how frame semantics can help us explain the subtle differences between various synonymous words. For instance, the words “shore” and “coast” are considered to be synonymous; however, within frame semantics they are different because a person that is at the deck of a ship may say ‘We are close to the shore’, and a person that is on land may say ‘This is the coast of France’.

Method

For conducting the present research, a corpus consisting of 2000 sentences was used. Most of the data were collected from the website The Persian Database and Sokhan Persian Dictionary. All data included the word dast (hand) as a subpart of the Body-Part Frame. For the investigation of collocations with dast, two types of data were found: nominal collocations and verbal collocations.
A kind of analytical-descriptive method based on frame semantics was used to carry out the current study. In this method, series of collocates with dast were collected to be compared with their near synonyms to discover the compatibility of bases, collocates and the whole construction. In nominal collocations, Body-Part Frame should be compatible with the frame in which the collocation is defined. In verbal collocations, the Body-Part Frame may literally or metonymically affect the verbal element. Moreover, cultural concepts might influence the quality of the collocation.

Results and Discussion

Mel’čuk (1998), and Gelbukh and Kolesnikova (2013) used the lexical-functional approach to study collocations. They do not, however, look at the semantic motivations behind their combination. Since lexical-functional appach is not based on our experiences and background knowledge, it appears to be difficult to find a way to the nature of lexical concatenations.
Fillmore (1975, 1977a, 1982, 1985) aimed to use frame semantics for describing lexemes and preparing FrameNet. However, Ruppenhofer, Baker and Fillmore (2003) believe that it is possible to use FrameNet for collecting information about the collocations and multi-word phrases. In fact, such information is hidden and this paper aims at dicovering motivations behind collocations based on such a theory.
Explaining motivations behind collocations without defining the terms collocations, metaphor and metonymy based on frame semantics becomes very difficult. Collocation is defined as combination of a word from one frame with another word from the same or a different frame, wich creates a construction wich can be defined within either of each elements’ frames or a completely new frame. Metaphor is defined as mappring from a frame into another frame. Metonymy is a frame-to-frame mapping, in which on frame is the subpart of the other frame.

Conclusion

In verbal collocations the verbal element is dominated by the frame in which the nominal elemenet is defined, whereas in nominal collocations the nominal elements should be defined in compatible frames. If they are not literally compatible, then they must be fixed metaphorically, metonymically or culturally.
 
 

Keywords

Frame semantics; lexical collocations; metaphor; Metonymy; cultural frame

References

1. افراشی، آزیتا (1379). نگاهی به مسئلة باهم آیی واژگانی. زبان و ادب (7 و 8)، 73-81.

2. پناهی، ثریا (1379). فرآیند باهم آیی در زبان فارسی و نقش ترکیبات باهم‌آینددر آموزش فارسی به غیر فارسی‌زبانان (پایان نامة کارشناسی ارشد). تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

3. شهریاری، زهرا (1378). محدودیت باهم آیی واژگان و ترجمه و تحقیق. پایان‌نامة کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی.

4. راسخ مهند، محمد (1390). درآمدی بر زبان شناسی شناختی: نظریه‌ها و مفاهیم. تهران: انتشارات سمت.

5. رسام، میرمحمدحسین (1375). طرح فرهنگ بافتی افعال فارسی. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد: دانشگاه تهران.

6. مدرس خیابانی، شهرام (1384). بررسی مسئله باهم آیی واژگانی در زبان فارسی. مجموعه مقالات نخستین همایش انجمن زبان شناسی ایران به کوشش دکتر مصطفی عاصی، (صص. 305-322). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

7. ملانظر، حسین (1369). نقش باهم آیی در ترجمه. پایان نامة کارشناسی ارشد آموزش زبان انگلیسی. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

8. موسوی، سید حمزه؛ محمد عموزاده و والی رضایی (1394). بررسی واژه "دیدن" بر اساس معناشناسی قالبی. مجله جستارهای زبانی 6(7)، 219 -236.

9. میرعمادی، سیدعلی و مهناز کربلایی صادق (1388). بررسی باهم‌آیی واژگانی در آثار منظوم و منثور مولانا. مجله زبان و زبان‌شناسی 10 (2)، 115-133.

10. نایب لویی، فاطمه و سید مصطفی عاصی و آزیتا افراشی (1394). شبکه معنایی قالب‌بنیاد (فریم-نت) در زبان فارسی. پژوهش های زبان شناسی تطبیقی 5 (9). 261-282.

11. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.

12. Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

13. Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

14. Bednarek, M. A. (2005). Frames revisited - the coherence-including function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 685-705.

15. Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge.

16. Charniak, E. (1975). Organization and inference in a frame-like system of common sense knowledge. Castagnola: ISCS.

17. Cowie, A. P. (1998). Phraseological dictionaries: Some east-west comparisons. In A. P. Cowie, Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 209-28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

19. Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics . Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

20. De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics . New York: Longmans.

21. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

22. Fellbaum, C. (2007). Introduction. In C. Fellbaum, Idioms and Collocations (pp. 1-19). London: Continuum.

23. Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings to the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123-131). Amesterdam: Holland.

24. Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). The case for case reopened . In P. Cole, & J. Sadock, Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations (pp. 59-81). New York: Academic Press.

25. Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli, Linguistic Structures Processing (Fundamental Studies in Computer Science 5) (pp. 55-81). Amesterdam: North Holland.

26. Fillmore, C. J. (1977c). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. W. Cole, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

27. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. The Linguistic Society of Korea: Linguistic in the Morning Calm, 65-137.

28. Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding . Quaderni di Semantica 6, 222-254.

29. Fillmore, C. J. (2006). Frame semantics . In K. Allan, Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics (pp. 613-620). Oxford/ Amesterdam: Elsevier.

30. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors . In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay, Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

31. Firth, J. R. (1935). The technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society 34 (1), 36-37.

32. Firth, J. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. In F. R. Palmer, Papers in Linguistics (pp. 190-215). London: Oxford University Press.

33. Firth, J. R. (1968). Linguistic analysis as a study of meaning. In F. R. Palmer, Selected Papers of J. R. Firth (pp. 1952-1959). London: Longmans.

34. Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (2007). The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens, Introducing cognitive linguistics (pp. 3-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

35. Gelbukh, A., & Kolesnikova, O. (2013). Semantic analysis of verbal collocations with lexical functions. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

36. Halliday, M. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. Bazell, J. Catford, M. Halliday, & R. Robinss, In Memory of J. R Firth (pp. 148-62). London: Longman.

37. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming. London: Routledge.

38. Lakoff, G. (1983). Categories: an essay in cognitive linguistics. In L. S. Korea, Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 139-194). Seoul: Hanshin .

39. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

40. Langacker, R. (1984). Action zones . In "BLS" 10, (pp. 172-188). Berkeley, CA : Berkeley Linguistics Society .

41. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: an introduction. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

42. McEnery, A. M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

43. Mel’čuk, I. A. (1998). Collocations and lexical functions. In A. Cowie, Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp. 23-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

44. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. Winston , 211-277.

45. Palmer, H. E. (1931). Embarks on eight-month 'world tour'. Second Interim Report on Vocabulary Selection.

46. Palmer, H. E. (1933). Second interim report on English collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.

47. Partington, A. (2004). Utterly content in each other's company: semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), 131-56.

48. Poulson, S. (2005). Collocations as a language source. A functional and cognitive study in English Phraseology. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Denmark: University of Southern Denmark.

49. Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for theories. In Bobrow and Collins (pp. 211-236).

50. Ruppenhofer, J., Baker, C. F., & Fillmore, C. J. (2003). Collocational information in the FrameNet database. Proceedings of the Tenth EURALEX International Congress (pp. 359-369). Copenhagen, Denmark: EURALEX 2002.

51. Sandomirskaya, I., & Oparina, E. (1996). Russian restricted collocations: an attempt of frame approach. Euralex 96 proceedings , (pp. 273-282).

52. Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans and understanding. Hillsdale N. J. : L. Erlbaum.

53. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

54. Stubbs, M. (2002). Word and phrases. Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Melbourne: Blackwell.

55. Telia, V., Bragina, N., Oparina, E., & Sandomirskaya, I. (1994). Lexical collocations: denominative and cognitive aspects. In W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland, E. Pas, P. Sterkenburg, & P. Van Vossen, Euralex 1994. Proceedings papers submitted to the 6th Euralex International Congress on Lexicography in Amesterdam (pp. 369-377). Amesterdam.

56. Wilks, Y. (1980). Frames, semantics, and novelty. In Metzing (pp. 134-163).

57. Winogard, T. (1975). Frame representations and the relative-procedural controversy. In Bobrow and Collins (pp. 185-210).