جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « معناشناسی قالبی » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Frame Semantics was first proposed by Charles Fillmore (1982). Frame Semantics states that word meaning is constructed within a system of knowledge which is deeply rooted in the socio-cultural experiences of humans. In this theory, the conception of 'Frame' is deemed to be an approach towards semantic analysis of natural languages. "Verbs" as the most important construction of the languages are present in most of the states and occurrence of the events and play an important role in semantic change. The aim of this study is evaluating the efficiency of Frame Semantics in Lori Mamasani and providing the semantic frames of certain verbs of this dialect. The data in this study consists of 32 verbs out of 128 verbs collected from Lori Mamasani which were analyzed through descriptive-analytical approach. Analyzing the semantic frames of these verbs, our findings suggest that there are significant differences between the semantic frames of these verbs with their corresponding verbs in standard Persian. We shall argue that these differences originate from social and individual experiences of societies. These verbs, in their utility range, have more meaning inferences and more concepts compared to standard Persian. In other words, they have undergone semantic variation and have lost their meaning components in standard Persian over time.

Moving toward more scientific lexicography in Iran requires lexicographers and researchers to pay closer attention to and develop deeper understandings of the interaction between theory and practice in lexicography. If lexicographers ignore theories in their analysis while creating an entry's microstructure, the result will be inconsistency in the microstructures as well as a negligence of some aspects of the words' behaviors (Atkins, 2001, pp. 1-2). In addition, since the microstructure of bilingual dictionaries has directly to do with the quality of translators' finding the right equivalents, such inconsistency and weakness may be problematic for translators. The analysis of bilingual dictionaries is one of the areas of lexicography that seems to require more scholarly work. One way to do so is by evaluating the microstructures of dictionaries. It goes without saying that such studies can result in optimizing the process of lexicography in general and more efficient use of bilingual dictionaries in particular, especially by translators as specialized users of such dictionaries. Therefore, drawing on Fillmore's semantic frames, the present descriptive-analytical research paper, that analyzed corpus data, aimed to compare three bilingual English-Persian dictionaries in order to identify some of their microstructural differences and postulate some ways for the improvement of such dictionaries. The author argues that there is a reciprocal relationship between the development of lexicography and by extension dictionaries on the one hand and the improvement of language and translation on the other hand. One of the approaches to lexicography is the cognitive one in which frame semantics is a prominent theory. This theory can, among others, illuminate the relationships between the senses of lexical entries and lexical units. Moreover, this can cast light on how senses can be best structured within a single entry. Despite its rather long history, frame semantics has recently been used in semantic tagging and in compiling corpus-based dictionaries (Fontenelle, 2009, p. 38). It has also been applied in lemmatization and parsing. This theory is the central part of the FrameNet project started in 1997 in the University of California, Berkeley (Boas, 2009, p. 16; Fontenelle, 2009, p. 38). Frame semantics is different from similar approaches to lexical meaning in that the meanings of words are realized though comparing them with the common bodies of knowledge, i.e. frames. In other words, words are only related to each other through the frames they share (Fillmore & Atkins, 1992, pp. 76-77). In Fillmore's theory, the notion of frame replaces concepts such as scene, scenario, meme, schema, etc. (Fillmore & Baker, 2010; Fillmore, 1982). To explain his theory, as Rojo López (2002) points out, Fillmore has frequently given the example of two English synonymous words, those of coast and shore, which considering the conceptualization situations of words, evoke different semantic fields (water in case of shore and land in case of coast). However, this depends on the viewer's view from the sea/lake etc. or the land.    The corpus of this research consisted of, using their short popular titles, Aryanpour, Moaser-e Hezareh and Moaser-e Pouya English-Persian dictionaries from each of which 17 entries, related to the two frames of MOTION (6 entries) and KINSHIP (11 entries), were selected based on the information available in FrameNet online database. The corpus dictionaries were compared and contrasted with Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD) (2002) as the comparand dictionary. The categories selected for comparison comprised collocations, examples, inflections, parts of speech, synonyms/antonyms, valency, and the number of senses and equivalents. These categories in corresponding entries of the corpus dictionaries were compared with each other and with OALD. The data collected contained both quantitative (as in the number of examples, senses and equivalents) and qualitative (for collocation, valency) information. The findings indicated weak hierarchical structuring and differences in differentiating senses, dissimilarity in the inclusion of different parts of speech in and across entries, a lack of correspondence between some proposed equivalents and the selected frames, and more importantly defects in considering important parameters such as collocations, examples, and valency. Specifically, the entries analyzed in the corpus dictionaries did not include specific parts devoted to collocations, nor did enough examples for each sense, while OALD provides users with a large number of examples that at least indirectly help learners to notice collocations of the given words. This shows that to enrich bilingual English-Persian dictionaries, compilers should be advised to start using Persian corpora. Another defect found was that the corpus dictionaries do not generally seem to care for valency. Due to the important characteristic of Frame Semantics in defining relations, valency can play a substantial role in the microstructures of dictionaries and in helping translators to find the right equivalents. Yet, the dictionary of Moaser-e Hezareh has marked transitive and intransitive verbs, which has to do with the description of valency. What is more, in the entries studied, even though the dictionary of Moaser-e Pouya provides a higher number of senses, this might not guarantee a more efficient use of the dictionary mainly because of examples shortage, valency description, and insufficient number of equivalents.

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.

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’.

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.

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.

Abstract The purpose of the current research is to investigate the Polysemy of the verb break in Farsi language based on Fillmore's Frame Semantics (1982).The research methodology that is qualitative would be descriptive-analytical. The data were analyzed through Fahang-e- Sokhan (2003) and interviewing with speakers. The present study seeks to answer these questions, which are the semantic frames of the verb "break" first. And how do these semantic frames are obtained when combined with other phrases? Also the authors have distinguished its primary meaning and also peripheral meanings of this verb. The research findings show that this intended verb has 40 different semantic frames. The meaning of "crack and stroke" as the prototypical frame and meaning and its other semantic frames in seven sub-frames such concepts as "Sadness" , "Value and Respect", "End", "Semantic Reduction", "Polysemy", "Pressure" and "Metaphoric" are used as peripheral meanings by Persian speakers.

Although translators are a major group of users of bilingual dictionaries, they have been regarded by lexicographers as identical to other users and their needs have been largely neglected. Over the recent years, the development of translator dictionaries has become an important trend in both theory and practice. In this context, the present paper reports on a study to compile a bilingual dictionary of Persian and English in the field of road transportation with an emphasis on translators as the main audience. This dictionary is based on a bilingual comparable corpus which was annotated using semantic frames. A user interface was then designed to search the database with several options including meaning-oriented, as opposed to alphabetic, search. This provides translators facing an increasingly transforming job profile with another route to access more natural ways of expressing a concept in the target language. In the end, the results of this project are discussed in the context of translation-oriented lexicography.

The current study attempted to investigate ‘VinflVinfl’ construction in Persian based on construction grammar (Lakoff, 1987; Goldberg, 1995; 2003; 2006) and distinguish it from similar constructions. Since construction grammar seeks to categorize various constructions prototypically, it uses numerous syntactic-semantic pieces of evidence to differentiate different constructions from each other. The data (around 1300 sentences) were collected from stories, movies and some websites. For each construction a Sem(antic)-Syn(tactic) table was put forward to connect their features together. Furthermore, semantic constraints on these constructions such as negation and kinds of participant verbs were shown clearly. It was found that, in ‘VinflVinfl’, the former verb modifies the latter, which is a verb of movement. Its idiosyncratic feature is that it is not negated and is different from ‘Vinfl & Vinfl’. Moreover, ‘VinflVinfl’ is differentiated from other constructions such as ‘dāštan.infVinf’, ‘dādan.inf1Vinf2’, ‘VimperativeVimperative’ and idiomatic constructions such as ‘Vimperativebebinam’ and ‘zadan.infVinf’. Finally, it was observed that ‘dāštan.inflVinfl’ is a polysemous construction meaning progression, inchoation, and futurity depending on the context.

This paper attempts to describe the Theft Frame and concentrate on its Persian Lexical Units (LUs). As it is mentioned in Fillmore and Atkins (2000), lexical differences between synonyms in monolingual dictionaries are underestimated. In this research, within the ‘Theft’ frame, we aim at showing how synonymous LUs in Persian are distinguished despite the fact that they exist within a single frame. Meanwhile, our more general purpose is to define the ‘Theft’ Frame. To do this research, lexical entries for lexemes related to Theft Frame such as ‘dozdidan’, serqat kardan’, dastbord zadan’ and ‘extelas kardan’ are extracted from Sokhan Dictionary. The data and examples are collected either from Bijan Khan Corpus or from some Websites, movies and stories. Frame elements such as Perpetrator, Goods and Victim are not only active in defining lexical differences, but also are Frame-to-Frame Relations to a Crime Frame essential for determining the type of crimes.

A Cross-Linguistic Study of Near Synonymy of Visual Verbs in Persian, English, German and French Based on Frame Semantics Abstract Linguistic typology tries to investigate the linguistic universals and linguistic variation simultaneously. Lexical typology is significant since it shows how lexical varieties are shaped. Accordingly, the present paper aims at showing how Persian, English, French and German languages categorize words within the Perception-Visual subframe and uncover what similarities and differences exist between equivalent words in each of the mentioned languages. In order to find perception-visual lexical units, monolingual dictionaries are used; while for comparing words cross-linguistically, bilingual dictionaries and corpora are used. It is concluded that frame semantics is a suitable approach for explaining cross-linguistic variation and similarity since it simultaneously considers varieties and similarities. Results indicate that ‘see’ and its equivalents in German and French as well as Persian are the most unmarked word because it is almost used to express verities of visual concepts. The more marked the words are, the more variant the words are for a special feature. For the feature ‘looking stupidly’ or ‘viewing secretly’ as more marked domains compared to passive seeing, lexical variation is more considerable. 1. Introduction Linguistic typology tries to consider linguistic similarities and differences simultaneously. Lexical typology tries to compare lexical variety within languages (Croft, 2003). Although linguistic typology compares a large number of languages from different language families, the present paper used its critical tools for comparing languages from the same language family, i.e. Persian, English, French and German. This paper aims at uncovering how similar and different these languages are regarding the verbs related to the visual sense. For this purpose, frame semantics is used since it focuses on both language similarities (via frames) and linguistic differences (via Lexical Units). Based on frame semantics and lexical typology, the following questions are posed: (i) For each of these languages, how are near synonymous lexemes classified? (ii) Within the perception frame, do languages’ tendency are towards the universals or differences? (iii) What is the most unmarked word within the Perception Frame? How is linguistic variety connected to markedness? 2. Frame Semantics Frame semantics is a cognitive approach that searches for speakers’ background knowledge and experiences to define lexemes. In fact, this theory shows that linguistic elements invoke a frame (schema) in speakers’ mind based on their experiences and background knowledge. Within frame semantics, each word is defined within a particular frame. For instance, the radius is not comprehensible without referring back to the concept, circle (Fillmore, 1977a, b, c; 1986a, b; 1969; 2007; Fillmore & Atkins, 1992; 1994). Fillmore borrowed the concept frame from Minsky (1975). He (Fillmore, 1986a) mentions that frame semantics controls word and phrasal rules. Therefore, senses depend on frames (Fillmore, 1977c) and frames are the abstract perception, memory, experience and action (Fillmore, 1977a). This paper focuses on the perception frame that is borrowed from the English FrameNet. 3. Methodology For comparing purposes, firstly, the perception, perception-passive and perception-active frames are defined. Secondly, different words within the perception frame are extracted from the following monolingual dictionaries: - Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Hornby et al., 2000) - Oxford Duden German Dictionary (Duden et al. 1980) - Grand Dictionaire universal du XIXe siècle (Larousse, 1867) - Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary (Anvari, 2002) Thirdly, for a more accurate comparison, some simple words are selected from the English language. Then, their equivalents are searched within both the following bilingual dictionaries and thesaurus: Bilingual dictionaries: - Millenium English Persian Dictionary (Haghshenas et al., 2005) - The Concise Oxford-Duden German Dictionary (Clark & Thyen, 1998) - The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (Corréard et al., 2001). Thesaurus: - Oxford Concise Thesaurus (Haweker & Waite, 2007) - The Cambridge French-English Thesaurus (Lamy, 1998) - Swann’s way (Webster’s German Thesaurus Edition) (Proust, 2006) - Persian Thesaurus (Fararuy, 2008) Fourthly, examples of different words are extracted from corpora to indicate what a word carries but is not mentioned in dictionaries. For this aim, the following corpora are used: - British National Corpus (2007) - Huge German Corpus (HGC) (Schmid, 1994) - Français Lexique (2001) - Bijan Khan Corpus (2011) Lastly, the words are compared about markedness to obtain a typological position of the mentioned languages, i.e. Persian, French and German. Note that the English language is omitted from our typological views since it is considered as constant. 4. Conclusion This paper concluded that, firstly, frame semantics is appropriate for cross-linguistic comparisons since it considers both similarities and differences. Secondly, via frame semantics, it is possible to redefine typological concepts such as markedness and economy which are simpler than the available definitions. Languages are not only internally and cross-linguistically different, but they are sometimes extra-linguistically different. Fourthly, languages have not defined language concepts based on other languages, but some concepts are culturally various than others. Lastly, from grammatical point of view, Persian tends to make more complex verbs than French and German.

This article studies 14 semantic frames of external body part words in Persian. Semantic frame is a knowledge structure required for understanding the meaning of a word or related set of words. Unlike internal body parts (e.g. heart, brain and bones), external body parts (e.g. arm, leg. head and trunk) are observable and can be delineated, therefore their referential meanings seem perfectly clear. Frame semantics is an approach to the study of word meaning or lexical semantics, which holds that lexical meaning can only be properly studied and described considering a particular body of knowledge, known as frames. This theory provides a powerful tool to study lexical meaning. As Evans (2007: 193) puts it “a given word foregrounds a particular part of the semantic frame to which it is relativized, and yet cannot be understood without the other elements which make up the frame. One consequence of this is that a word provides a route through a particular frame. That is, as words relate to slots in the frame, they directly relate certain elements within a frame”. Two questions then arise: 1) how are the principal frames pertaining to body parts are represented in Persian language in terms of syntactic or morphological structures? 2) What are the semantic elements of these frames? The aim of this study is to recognize semantic domain of body part terms in Persian and to present its realizations in morphology and syntax. For this purpose lexicographic data is mainly used. Considering the body part frames of English on FrameNet as a model, the same frames extracted for Persian language using a Persian dictionary. As a rule of thumb, if a word was defined by reference to a body part, it was concluded that it was related to body frame (e.g. blink: involuntary shutting and opening of the eye). The Findings reveals that among the body-related frames, one of them is the central frame (containing core elements like hand, arm, foot, leg and head), through which other frames are related to body parts, including: 1) body decoration (nail varnish, tattoo), 2) body harm (slap, kick), 3) body part description (black-eyed, ponytail), 4) disease (leprosy, acne), 5) cloth and clothing (gloved, put on a hat), 6) holistic body description (muscular, bony), 7) posture (cross-legged, lying down), 8) body movement (nodding, limp), 9) sense (smell, touch), 10) accessory (belt, earring), 11) body-based sign (handshake, wink), 12) body surface (mole, scar), 13) body care (brushing, shaving). The study also reveales that body frame manifestation is either explicit (e.g. eye, head, lip, foot, hand) or implicit (e.g. kick: foot, brush: tooth, hear: ear). The explicit manifestation of body frame includes a body part word used in word formation processes to make a new word (e.g. eye in eyelash, finger in fingerprint). It is also possible for body frame to be implicitly present in the sense of a word which becomes explicit in the definition of words (kick: to hit someone or something with your foot, smell: something that you notice by using your nose). The main explicit morphological and syntactic structures representing body frame are 1) in phrases and sentences describing an action or an entity related to body, e.g. češme žaponi (Japanese eye). 2) in noun formation as in gardan-band (lit. neck-tie) (necklace), dahanšuјe (lit. mouth-washer) (mouth lotion). 3) in adjective formation as in češmi, an adjective meaning related to the eye, Gatreјe češmi (eye drop), labsuz (lit. lip-burner), an adjective meaning the quality of a liquid which is very hot and enjoyable. 4) in compound verb formation as in gush dadan (lit. ear-giving) (to listen), pa kardan (lit. foot-doing) (put on shoes). The data also reveales the implicit presence of body frame. The main morphological and syntactic structures representing body frame implicitly are: 1) simple nouns as in the definition of mesvak (toothbrush): an oral hygiene instrument used to clean the teeth, gums, and tongue. 2) simple verb as in the definition of xarandan (to scratch): to rub your finger nail hard on part of your skin. 3) simple adjectives as in the definition of Guz (hump): a round raised part on a person's or animal's back. 4) compound adjectives as in the definition of siјahčorde (dark skin). The same study may be carried out for internal body part words. The universality of body part terminology across languages of the world has made it an interesting domain of research. The present article sheds light on some aspects of this domain in Persian language.

In this paper, we are suggesting a website, which we have called ColloNet, for explaining lexical collocations based on frame semantics.It is going to be connected to FrameNet that is a network drawing frames of lexemes. This network not only helps us comprehend the nature of collocations, but also is an introduction to more computational linguistics researches. We have considered the word ‘dast’ to explain different functions and applications of this website. The data are collected from two Persian corpora: Bijan Khan and Persian Database. A descriptive-comparative-analytic approach has been used to compare and analyze the frames, in which the collocates, the base and the whole construction are being defined. Consequently,by comparing frames and analyzing the relations between elements, we can not only understand the type of collocation (such as simple, metaphoric or metonymic), but also obtain some information regarding historical, political, social and cultural motivations behind collocations.

This paper focuses on a descriptive study of the verb “xordan” from the frame semantics view point. First synonyms of “xordan” were gathered and their differences were explained. Then using different sources such as Hamshahri corpus, some e-books, weblogs, documents and sentences -gathered from daily discussions, different occurrences of “xordan” were collected and studied based on frame semantics. The following questions were addressed in this study: What are the differences between the verbs referring to “taking something into the mouth” and “swallowing it”?; What are the different frames of “xordan”?; And can these frames be used for explaining the semantic aspects of compound verbs in Persian? Results of this study indicate that there are specific differences between synonyms of “xordan”. Occurrences of “xordan” reveal 31 frames for this verb which can be classified and hierarchically grouped. Using these frames, formation of some compound verbs is also explained.

This paper sets up to investigate the word didan (‘to see’) based on the frame semantics. The model provides a scientific tool enabling us to explore how the sense of words can be traced back through human’s experiences and background knowledge. The main purpose of this paper is to clarify delicate meaning distinctions, which are mainly overlooked in dictionaries. To this end, we started this study by searching different texts and corpora in order to find the semantic frames for didan from one hand, and to extract differences between the verb didan and the other partially synonymous verbs such as moshahede kardan (‘to observe’), and tamasha kardan (‘to watch’), on the other hand. Then, we try to determine how polysemous verb of didan is analyzed in terms of semantic frames. By analyzing data, we have found out that the relationship between different frames with that of Perception frame is the cause of polysemy. Furthermore, the partially synonymous verbs are differentiated from the verb “didan” based on ‘aim’, ‘target’, and other variables. Last but not least, we have put forward a model showing how didan and its different frames are related and how partially synonymous words are differentiated from it.