METADATA

Title: Frame semantics and verbs of motion. The case of enter and go into. A corpus-based study

 

Vol. 3, 2018, pp. 45-61.

DOI: 10.46687/SILC.2018.v03.004

 

Author: Svetlana Nedelcheva

About the author: Svetlana Nedelcheva is an Associate professor of English linguistics at Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen, Department of English Studies. She has published two monographs Cognitive Interpretation of the English Preposition ON and Space, Time and Human Experience: A Cognitive View on English and Bulgarian Prepositions, two course books English Morphology – Traditional and Cognitive Perspective and Essential English Syntax for University Students, and research articles in the field of cognitive linguistics, contrastive linguistics, translation studies and foreign language teaching. She has specialized in a number of universities, e.g., the University of Bangor, UK (Post-Doctoral Research Program) and Georgetown University, USA (as a Fulbright researcher).

e-mail: s.nedelcheva@shu.bg

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1614-8758

 

Author: Mariana Todorova

About the author: Mariana Todorova is a PhD student at the Department of English Studies at Konstantin Preslavsky University of Shumen. She is a lecturer in English at the Technical University of Varna, Bulgaria.

 

Citation (APA style): Nedelcheva, S., & Todorova, M. (2018). Frame semantics and verbs of motion. The case of enter and go into. A corpus-based study. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 3, 45-61. doi: 10.46687/SILC.2018.v03.004

 

Link:

https://silc.fhn-shu.com/images/issues/2018/SILC_2018_3_45-61_17_EN.pdf

 

Abstract: The article studies the verbs enter and go into in a corpus of technical texts on a comparative basis. We apply the methodology of Frame semantics with the purpose of showing foreign learners of English an indicative characteristic of the language, i.e. the various constructions, in which enter and go into participate, as well as the semantic network of their distinctive meanings. In this research we rely on the usagebased approach and provide evidence for the importance of context in the semantic analysis and frame profiling. The analysis contributes to constructing a theoretically and empirically coherent approach to technical corpus data and investigating its specificities to help students acquire English constructions and use them efficiently and effortlessly in written and spoken communication.

Key words: enter vs. go into, Frame semantics, corpus of technical texts, polysemy       

 

References:

Alan K. 2001. Natural language semantics. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.

Baker C. F., Fillmore C. and Lowe J. B. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. Proceedings of ACL-COLING, 86-90.

Evans V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(4): 491-534.

Fellbaum Ch. (ed). 1998. WordNet: an electronic lexical database, language, speech, and communication series. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

Fellbaum Ch. and Baker C. 2013. Representing verb meaning in complementary resources. Linguistics, 54(1): 707-728.

Fillmore C. 1977. Scenes-and-frames semantics. Zambolli A. (ed). Linguistic structure processing. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 55-82.

Fillmore C. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistic Society of Korea (ed). Linguistics in the morning calm. Hanshin, Seoul, pp. 111-138.

Fillmore C. 2006. Frame semantics. Geeraerts D. (ed). Cognitive linguistics: basic readings. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 371-400.

Fillmore C. 2007. Valency issues in FrameNet. Herbst T. and Götz-Votteler K. (eds). Valency: theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues. Mouton de Gruyter, New York, pp. 129-160.

Fillmore C. J. and Atkins B. T. S. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Lehrer A. and Kittay E. (eds). Frames, fields and contrasts: new essays in semantic and lexical organization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 75-102.

Fillmore C. J. and Atkins B .T. S. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: the challenge for computational lexicography. Atkins B. T. S. and Zampolli A. (eds). Computational approaches to the lexicon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 349-393.

Fillmore C. J. and Atkins B. T. S. 2000. Describing polysemy: the case of ‘crawl.’ Ravin Y. and Leacock C. (eds). Polysemy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 91-110.

Fillmore C. and Baker C. 2000. FrameNet web site. <http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/framenet>

Goffman E. 1974. Frame analysis: an easy on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Goldberg A. 2010. Verbs, constructions and semantic frames. Rappaport Hovav M., Doron E. and Sichel I. (eds). Syntax, lexical semantics and event structure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 39-58.

Herbst et al. (eds). 2004. A valency dictionary of English: a corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

Herbst Th. (2010). English linguistics. A coursebook for students of English. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York.

Oxford Dictionary of English. <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com>

Ruppenhofer J., Ellsworth M., Petruck M. R. L. and Johnson Ch. R. (2005). FrameNet: Theory and practice. <http://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu>