Seiko Yamaguchi Fujii (Tokyo University), Paula Radetzky (National Tsing-Hua University, Taipei) and Eve Sweetser (UC, Berkeley)
Sunday, May 20th
Buchanan A201
Recent crosslinguistic work on separation verbs has used video scenarios which systematically vary physical parameters (e.g., shape or texture of the theme, blade-like instrument or blunt instrument or none, presence/absence of an agent) and ask native speakers to name the scenarios (e.g., Majid et al. 2007) — in English, CUT, BREAK and TEAR are high on the list of labels chosen. However, polysemy patterns of separation verbs in English, French and Japanese pose problems for this approach. First of all, parameters do not in fact vary orthogonally, but cluster in ways that reflect frame-based correlations (Fillmore 1982, 1985; Bouveret and Sweetser 2009). For example, in actual frames of experience, clean separation correlates well with a bladelike instrument (English CUT), and so does division for apportionment (particularly of food), as opposed to intentional destruction. Force exertion without a blade correlates well with less tidy separation lines (English BREAK) and also with loss of functionality of the whole.
It is particularly suggestive that many languages have verbs referring to the overlap between the correlated frames of (1) (caused) loss of integrality, and (2) loss of function in a complex functional entity. Japanese KOWASU refers almost exclusively to (caused) loss of function (of a computer, an ecological system, or even a person’s digestion or health), but it can certainly involve physical damage and destruction as the cause of function loss. If loss of function is not saliently involved, other Japanese verbs (depending on shape/class of theme) must be used. English BREAK and French CASSER refer to general loss of integrality of a rigid object (a cup, a bone) and also to loss of function of a complex object without necessary loss of physical integrity (a non-functioning computer or bicycle). A frame-based semantics allows us to posit polysemy patterns which are structured by frame correlations, rather than by changes in specific parameters. Correlations would give rise to added parameters — e.g., Japanese ORU ‘fold/break’ (as in (1)- (2)) refers primarily to exertion of force causing the theme to bend (and maybe break as a result).
(1a) purasutikku-ban o (kanetu site) otta (1b) napukin o otta
plastic-sheet OBJ heat.and ORU.PAST napkin OBJ ORU.PAST
‘[I] folded the plastic sheet (by heating it).’ ‘[I] folded the napkin.’
(2a) purasutikku-ban o (pakin-to) otta (2b) koeda o otta
plastic-sheet OBJ with.a.snap ORU.PAST twig OBJ ORU.PAST
‘[I] broke the plastic sheet (with a snap).’ ‘[I] broke the twig.’
Clearly, the “bending” frame is sometimes correlated with loss of integrality, and hence the verb covers BREAK scenarios as well as FOLD ones.
Constructions, as well as verbs, evoke frames (Goldberg 1995, 2006). The English intransitive focuses on the theme change of state (It broke) without specifying lack of human participation in the scene; however, the frame of “spontaneous” breakage or tearing normally involves an (unintentional but observable) actor or force. Video clips showing breakage or tearing, with no visible cause, may formally vary parameters (agent/lack of agent) but do not correspond to actually experienced frames, or (therefore) to ordinary uses of the intransitive construction.
In sum, lexical verbs do not refer to single frames, such as clean separation, but to polysemy patterns structured by multiple-frame correlation clusters (such as clean separation, blade use, and food preparation). Languages may refer to different frame clusters; Japanese focuses on the bending/breaking correlation, while English does not. The frame-cluster linking loss of integrality with loss of function is common crosslinguistically, but even that is differently manifested in English and Japanese.
References.
Bouveret, Myriam and Eve Sweetser. 2009. Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions and grammar. BLS 35
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea, ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.
_____. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6:2, 222-53.
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_____. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Majid, Azifa, Melissa Bowerman, Miriam van Staden, and James S. Boster. 2007. The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: Crosslinguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 18:2 (special issue on separation verbs), 133-152.
Majid, Azifa, James S. Boster and Melissa Bowerman. 2008. The crosslinguistic categorization of everyday events: A study of cutting and breaking. Cognition 108:2, 175-294.