Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 15:1 (2023) ► pp.91–118

Frame integration and head-switching

RISK in English and Japanese

| University of CaliforniaBerkeley,
| Keio University,
Employing Frame Semantics as implemented in the Berkeley FrameNet database, this paper analyzes English sentences expressing concerns of risk derived from the British National Corpus and their Japanese translations (created for the purposes of the current study). It introduces the ideas of content and interpretation predicates, frame integration, and head-switching as effectual devices for recognizing obscure constructional equivalences across languages. Our findings shed light on the development of a new contrastive framework for verbal predicativity: that is, a framework based on the recognition of content and interpretation predicates and how it intersects with the categorical distinction in lexicalization patterns between verbs and adverbs.
Keywords: adverbial, content predicate, frame integration, FrameNet, Frame Semantics, head-switching, interpretation predicate, predicative abstraction, predicativity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Frame integration between interpretation and content predicates
    • 1.2Frame Semantics as implemented in FrameNet
  • 2.The Run_risk frame
  • 3.Three profiles of the Run_risk frame and head-switching
    • 3.1The Jeopardizing profile (English)
    • 3.2The Incurring profile (English)
    • 3.3The Daring profile (English)
  • 4.Translating Risk.v sentences into Japanese
    • 4.1The Jeopardizing profile (Japanese)
    • 4.2The Incurring profile (Japanese)
    • 4.3The Daring profile (Japanese)
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00068.has
References (26)
References
Baker, C. (2019). Beyond N, V, and Adj: Frame semantics and the closed-class lexicon. Paper presented at ICLC15, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Boas, H. (2013). Frame semantics and translation. In A. Rojo & I. Ibarretxe-Antuñano (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and translation: Advances in some theoretical models and applications (pp. 125–158). Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus. [URL]
Crystal, D. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Aspects of a primacy of frame model of translation. In S. Hansen-Schirra, O. Czulo & S. Hofmann (Eds.), Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting (pp. 465–490). Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123–131).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Reprinted in D. Geeraerts (Ed.), (2006). Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp. 373–400). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1992). “Corpus linguistics” vs. “computer-aided armchair linguistics”. In Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings from a 1991 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics (pp. 35–66). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Atkins, B. T. S. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1994). Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In B. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C., & Petruck, M. (2003). Background to framenet. Special issue: FrameNet and Frame Semantics. International Journal of Lexicography, 16 (3), 235–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., & Baker, C. (2009). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 791–816). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y. (1996). A study of Japanese clause linkage: The connective TE in Japanese. CSLI Publications; Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., Ohara, K., Fujii, S., & Fillmore, C. (2010). On expressing measurement and comparison in English and Japanese. In H. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in Construction Grammar (pp. 169–200). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., & Ohara, K. (2006). Interview with Charles Fillmore [in Japanese]. Rising Generation, 152 1, 354–359.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y., Ohara, K., Lee-Goldman, R., & Fillmore, C. (2006). Frame integration, head switching, and translation: RISK in English and Japanese. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar, Tokyo, Japan, September 1–3.
Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56 1, 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, F. (1956). A semantic analysis of Pawnee kinship usage. Language, 32 1, 158–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. (2009). Frame-based contrastive lexical semantics in Japanese FrameNet: The case of risk and kakeru. In H. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual FrameNets in computational lexicography: Methods and applications (pp. 163–182). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohara, K. & Hasegawa, H. (2022). Interpretation predicates and content predicates: An analysis of English and Japanese sentence structures involving the Run_risk frame. [In Japanese]. In Y. Matsumoto & K. Ohara (Eds.), Contributions of Frame Semantics: Verbs and their surroundings (pp. 20–41). Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Padó, S., & Erk, K. (2005). To cause or not to cause: Cross-lingual semantic matching for paraphrase modelling. In Proceedings of the cross-language knowledge induction workshop. Cluj-Napoca, Romania.Google Scholar
Petruck, M. (1986). Body part terminology in Hebrew: A study in Lexical Semantics. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1986). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Technical report. ICSI.Google Scholar