[Lexicog] semantic domains AND frames?

[Wayne Leman]

--- In lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com, "Ron Moe" <ron_moe at s...>
wrote:
The subcategorization of fauna (and flora) reflect some universal
tendencies
and some language specific variation. (Sound familiar?) For instance
most
languages have a category corresponding to the English
category 'bird'. Its
membership varies depending on whether the domain is defined
as 'flying
animal' in which case it will include bats and possibly some insects,
or as
'feathered animal' in which case bats and insects will be excludes
but an
ostrich and penguin will be included. The same is true of the category
'fish', which can be defined as 'water dweller' and include dolphins,
shrimp, and clams, or as 'animals with fins and scales'. Animals are
also
subject to other classification dimensions such as 'edible'
vs. 'inedible',
'domesticated' vs. 'wild', 'carnivore' vs. 'herbivore', etc. The
English
biological classification differs from the folk classification. These
dimensions are not organized in binary hierarchy. Each dimension can
cut
across the others. When it comes to a practical methodology, first
elicit
all the super category terms and then find out what particular animals
belong to each. In English 'dog' belongs
to 'Animal' 'Mammal' 'Domesticated
animal' 'Pet' 'Carnivore' and 'Inedible animal'. Other languages may
put
'dog' under 'Wild animal' or 'Edible animal'. To each his own.

Ron Moe

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Leman [mailto:wayne_leman at s...]
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 3:07 PM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] semantic domains AND frames?


Isn't it possible for semantic domains used for lexical entries to be
defined by indigenous semantic taxonomies?

For instance, in Cheyenne we can say Ehovaheve 'He is an animal,'
using an
indigenous superordinate semantic category. Then when we come to the
name of
some animate being, we can ask Ehovahevehe? 'Is he an animal?" Well,
if I
ask that of voaxaa'e 'bald eagle,' I will get the answer "Hova'hane,
eve'keseheve" ('No, he is a bird.'; reflecting another indigenous
semantic
category). If I ask of the word hetane 'man', "Ehovahevehe?", I will
get the
Cheyenne answer, "Hova'hane, evo'estaneheve," ('No, he is a person,'
reflecting the Cheyenne vo'estane 'person' superordinate semantic
category
and not the "scientific" Western-oriented category of "animal" where,
at
least for some English-speaking individuals, a "man" is an animal--of
course, some men are!! But that is a different semantic issue, which
requires a different kind of lexical categorization.)

I have been exposed to frames and scripts over the past years, but
I'm not
immediately familiar with what the concept of semantic frame would be
here,
as opposed to semantic domain. Please explain further. Thanks.

Wayne Leman

> I was reading an article recently that suggested that all lexical
entries
should be keyed to semantic domains so that the entries can be sorted
by
them. What about keying them to frames as well, as defined by
cognitive
linguistics? This would make just as much sense to me, as semantic
domains
are (arguably) defined arbritrarily by linguists, whereas frames are
more
directly related to real life...
>
> sozlukyazajy




Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End forwarded message ---