Framenet and its Limitations. The Case of Entity-Specific Change-of-State Verbs

Authors

  • Andreea Rosca University of Zaragoza

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20139224

Keywords:

Old FrameNet, entity-specific change-of-state verbs, frame elements, metaphor, metonymy

Abstract

This article examines the proposals made by the FrameNet project (Atkins, Fillmore and Johnson 2003; Fillmore, Johnson and Petruck 2003) with regard to Levin’s (1993) entity-specific change-of-state verbs. We have identified several limitations in this database: (i) only a small number of entity-specific change-of¬state verbs were listed in FrameNet (eight out of twenty-one verbs); (ii) there is a separation of the causative and inchoative uses of a verb into two different frames; (iii) in some cases no examples are provided for the Frame Elements of a particular verb (e.g. there are no examples for the verb swell in the ‘expansion’ and ‘change of position on a scale’ frames); (iv) usually FrameNet includes literal instantiations of the predicates under consideration and when figurative uses are listed no cognitive motivation is given for these metaphorical expressions; (v) often frames are incomplete owing to the use of a small size corpus (i.e. the British National Corpus), which offers a limited number of examples for a given verb. It will also be shown that metaphor and metonymy play a crucial role in regulating the subsumption processes between predicates and constructions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Atkins, Sue, Charles Fillmore and Christopher Johnson. 2003. “Lexicographic relevance: Selecting information from corpus evidence”. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 251-280.

Baicchi, Annalisa and Clara Benedetti. 2010. “Intra- and Inter-Constructional Variation in events of displacement”. Paper delivered at the 10th ESSE Conference. Turin, 24-28 August.

Boas, Hans. 2010. “The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24:54-82.

—. 2011. “A frame-semantic approach to syntactic alternations: The case of build verbs”. In Guerrero Medina, P. (ed.) Verbal Alternations in English. London: Equinox: 207-234.

Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.

Dik, Simon. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: The Structure of the Clause. 2nd ed. by Kees Hengeveld. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fillmore, Charles, Christopher Johnson and Miriam Petruck. 2003. “Background to Framenet”. International Journal of Lexicography 16 (3): 235-250.

Gibbs, Raymond, Josephine Bogdanovich, Jeffrey Sykes and Dale Barr. 1997. “Metaphor in idiom comprehension”. Journal of Memory and Language 37:141-154.

Grady, Joseph. 1997. “THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited”. Cognitive Linguistics 8(4):267-290.

—. 1999. “A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor: Correlation vs. Resemblance”. In Gibbs, R. and G. Steen (eds.) Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 79-100.

—. and Christopher Johnson. 2002. “Converging Evidence for the Notions of Subscene and Primary Scene”. In Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 533-554.

Kövecses, Zoltan. 1990. Emotion Concepts. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

—. and Günther Radden. 1998. “Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view”. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 37-77.

Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Meier, Brian, Michael, Robinson, and Gerald Clore. 2004. “Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness”. Psychological Science 15:82-87.

Osgood, Charles, George Suci, and Percy Tannenbaum. 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Peña, Sandra. 2003. Topology and Cognition: What Image-Schemas Reveal about the Metaphorical Language of Emotions. Münich: Lincom Europa.

Peña, Sandra. 2008. “Dependency systems for image-schematic patterns in a used-based approach to language”. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (6):1041-1066.

Radden, Günther. 2002. “How metonymic are metaphors?”. In Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 407-434.

Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco José. 2011. “Metonymy and cognitive operations”. In Benczes, R., A. Barcelona and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.) Defining Metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a Consensus View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 103-124.

—. and Olga Díez. 2002. “Patterns of conceptual interaction”. In Dirven, R. and R. Pörings (eds.) Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 489-532.

—. and Olga Díez. 2004. “High-level action metonymies in English and Spanish”. In Panther, K.U. and L. Thornburg (eds.) Jezikoslovlje 4, Special issue: How universal are conceptual metonymies? Croatia: University J. Strossmayer, Osijek: 121-138.

Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam Petruck, Christopher Johnsonand Jan Scheffczyk. 2010. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Technical Report, International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley. <http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/>.

Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic Categorization, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford U.P.

Williams, Lawrence and John Bargh. 2008. “Experiencing physical warmth influences interpersonal warmth”. Science 322:606-607.

Wright, Sandra. 2002. “Transitivity and Change of State Verbs”. In Larson, J. and Paster, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, California: Berkeley Linguistics Society: 339-350.

Downloads

Published

2014-01-07

How to Cite

Andreea Rosca. (2014). Framenet and its Limitations. The Case of Entity-Specific Change-of-State Verbs. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 47, 13–29. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20139224

Issue

Section

ARTICLES: Language and linguistics