A Cross-Linguistic Study of Near Synonymy of Visual Verbs in Persian, English, German and French Based on Frame Semantics

Document Type : Research

Author

Shahrood University of Technology, Shahrood, Iran

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 differences and similarities. Results indicate that “see” and its equivalents in German and French as well as Persian are the most unmarked words 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, are languages’ tendency 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 for 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 from others. Lastly, from grammatical point of view, Persian tends to make more complex verbs than French and German.

Keywords

References

Amid, H. (2011). Amid comprehensive Persian dictionary. Tehran: Amir Kabir [in Persian].
Anvari, H. (2003). Sokhan comprehensive dictionary. Tehran: Sokhan [in Persian].
Assi, M. (2005). PLDB: Persian linguistic database in internet. Pažūhešgarān, 2, 13-17 [in Persian].
Atkins, B. T. (1995). Analyzing the verbs of seeing: a frame semantics approach to corpus lexicography. In S. Gahl, C. John & A. Dolbey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session Dedicated to the Contributions of Charles J. Fillmore (1994) (pp. 42-56). Berkeley: University of California.
Au, O., Chin, R., Fung, P., Mak, B., Shi, B., Siu, M., & Wu, D. (2015). BiFrameNet.  [Online]:
           < http://www.cs.ust.hk/~hltc/BiFrameNet/.>
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Baker, C. F. (1999). Seeing clearly: frame semantics, psycholinguistic, and cross-linguistic approaces to the semantics of the English verb 'see' (unpublished thesis). University of California, Berekeley, California, U.S.A.
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bijankhan, M., Sheykhzadegan, J., Bahrani, M., & Ghayoomi, M. (2011). Lessons from building a Persian written corpus: Peykare. Language Resources and Evaluation, 45(2), 143–164.
Boas, H. C. (2015). German FrameNet. [Online]: <http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gframenet.>
British National Corpus (2007). Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium (version 3 (BNC XML Edition)). [Online]: 
        <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.>
Charniak, E. (1975). Organization and inference in a frame-like system of common sense knowledge. Castagnola: ISCS.
Clark, M., & Thyen, O. (1998). The concise Oxford-Duden German dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Corréard, M. H., Grundy, V., & Ormal-Grenon, J. B. (2001). The Oxford-Hachette French dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics . New York: Longmans.
Deh Khoda, A. A. (1998). Deh Khoda comprehensive Persian dictionary (16 Vol.s).Tehran: University of Tehran Publications [in Persian].
Duden, K., Berger, D., & Scholze, W. (1980). Duden (Vol. 2). Mannheim/Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut.
Evans, N. (2011). Semantic typology. In N. Evans (Ed.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 504-532). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Fararuy, J. (2008). Thesaurus dictionary. Tehran: Hermes Publishers [in Persian].
Fayyazi, M. (2010). An investigation of polysemy in Persian based on cognitive linguistics (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran [in Persian].
Fayyazi, M., & Kambozia, A. Z. (2009(. The metaphorical origin of the Polysemic perceptive verbs in Persian: a cognitive semantic approach. Adab Pazhuhi, 6, 87-110 [in Persian].
Fillmore, C. J. (1969). Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 1(1), 91-117.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen, H. Tompson, G. Thurgood, K. Whistler & J. Wright (Eds,). Proceedings to the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123-131). Amesterdam: Holland.
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20-32.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977a). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole, & J. Sadock (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 8: Grammatical Relations (pp. 59-81). New York: Academic Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977b). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Eds.), Linguistic Structures Processing (Fundamental Studies in Computer Science 5) (pp. 55-81). Amesterdam: North Holland.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977c). Topics in lexical semantics. In R. W. Cole (Ed.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm (pp. 65-137). Hanshin: Seoul.
Fillmore, C. J. (1986a). U-semantics, second round. Quaderni di Semantica, 7, 49-85.
Fillmore, C. J. (1986b). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 95-107). Berkeley & California: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Fillmore, C. J. (2007). Valency issues in FrameNet1. In T. Herbst, & K. Götz-Votteler (Eds.), Valency: theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues (Vol 187) (pp. 129-160). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J. (2015). English FrameNet. [Online]:
               <https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal.>
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. S. (2000). Describing polysemy: the case of 'crawl'. In Y. Ravin, & C. Leacock (Eds,). Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches (pp. 91-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors . In A. Lehrer, & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields, and Contrasts (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: the challenge of corpus lexicography. In B. T. Atkins, & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational Approaches to the Lexicon (pp. 349-393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haghshenas, A. M., Samei, H., & Entekhabi, N. (2005). Millennium English-Persian dictionary (5nd ed.). Tehran: Farhang Moaser [in Persian].
Hesabi, A. (2017). Radial categories of head body parts: a cognitive study. Zabanpazhuhi, 9 (3), 87-109 [in Persian].
Hornby, A. S., Wehmeier, S., & Ashby, M. (2000). Oxford advanced learner's dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2015). The linguistics of temperature (typological studies in language). Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G. (1983). Categories: an essay in cognitive linguistics. In L. S. Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 139-194). Seoul: Hanshin.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Larousse, P. (1867). Grand dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle. Paris: Larousse.
Lamy, M. (1998). The cambridge French-English thesaurus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (1984). Active zones. In C. Brugman & M. Macaulay (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. (pp. 172-188). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Lehman, C. (1990). Towards lexical typology. In W. &. Croft (Ed.), Studies in typology and diachrony. Papers presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th birthday (Typological Studies in Language, 20) (pp. 161-185). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishers.
New, Boris & Pallier, C. (2001). [Online]:
         <http://www.lexique.org.>
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. Winston, 211-277.
Moeen, M. (2010). Moeen Persian dictionary (6 Vol.s).Tehran: Amir Kabir Publications [in Persian].
Mousavi, S. H. (2015). An investigation of lexical collocations based on frame semantics theory (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis). University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran [in Persian].
Mousavi, S. H., Amouzadeh, M. & Rezai. V. (2016). Analysis of the word “Didan” based on frame semantics. Language Related Research, 6 (7), 219-236 [in Persian].
Narayanan, S., Fillmore, C. J., Baker, C., & Petruck, M. R. (2002). Framenet meets the semantic web: A DAML+OIL frame representations. Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligenece. Edmonton: Alberta.
Ohara, K. H., Saito, H., Fujii, S., Sato, H., Suzuki, R., Ishizaki, S., & Ohari, T. (2015). Japanese FrameNet. [Online]:
             <http://jfn.st.hc.keio.ac.jp/index.html.>
Proust, M. (2006). Swann's way (Webster's German thesaurus edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for theories. In D. E. Bobrow and A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science (pp. 211-236). London: Academic.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). Framenet II: theory and practice. California: International Computer Science Institute.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans and understanding. Hillsdale N. J.: L. Erlbaum.
Schmid, H. (1997). Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In D. B. Jones & H. L. Somers (Eds.), New Methods in Language Processing (pp. 154-164). London: Routledge.
Shamsfard, M., Hesabi, A., Fadaei, H., Mansoory, N., Famian, A., Bagherbeigi, S., Fekri, E. Monshizadeh, M., & Assi, M. (2010). Semi-automatic development of Farsnet; the Persian Wordnet. Proceedings of 5th Global WordNet Conference (GWA2010). Mumbai, India.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soltani, R., & Amouzadeh, M. (2012). A cognitive approach to polysemy: case study of ‘avardan’. In S. Abdalkarimi (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Congress of Semantics. Tehran: Nevisee Parsi [in Persian].
Trustler, J. (1766). The difference between words, esteemed synonymous in English language, and the proper choice of them determined together with, so much of Abbe Girard's treatise, on this subject, as would agree with our mode of expression (Vols 1 &2). Michigan: University of Michigan Library.
Wilks, Y. (1980). Frames, semantics, and novelty. In D. Metzing (Eds.), Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding (pp. 134-163). De Gruyter: Berlin.
Winogard, T. (1975). Frame representations and the relative-procedural controversy. In D. G Bobrow and A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and Understanding (pp. 185-210). New York: Academic Press.
 
Websites
www. parsijoo.ir
www. gorgor.ir
www. google.com
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 11, Issue 30
August 2019
Pages 227-262

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics