A Frame-Semantic Approach of English Spray/Load Verbs: Argument Structure and Event Construal
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study reexamines Levin’s (1993) classification of English spray/load verbs by combining corpus-based data (COCA) with Fillmore’s (1982, 1985) frame-semantic approach. Levin proposed that verbs with similar meanings exhibit comparable syntactic alternations, identifying 49 verbs as members of the spray/load class. However, The present study demonstrates that this categorization is excessively broad. Analysis shows that 26 verbs (e.g., spray, load, pour) fully satisfy the conditions of the alternation, allowing both theme-object and goal-object variants within frames such as [Applying] or [Surface Contact]. In contrast, 19 verbs (e.g., cultivate, dab, drizzle, dust, plant, sew, string, wash) fail to meet these criteria. Some lack a clear Theme or Goal, others violate the partitive/holistic distinction, and many are rarely attested in goal-object variants. Frame-semantic analysis further reveals that these verbs align with alternative frames such as [Removing], [Manufacturing], or [Granting]. The results highlight the need to refine Levin’s classification by integrating corpus-based distribution with frame-semantic distinctions. This approach provides a more precise taxonomy of verb behavior and offers pedagogical benefits for explaining English verb alternations in applied contexts.
Abstract
This study reexamines Levin’s (1993) classification of English spray/load verbs by combining corpus-based data (COCA) with Fillmore’s (1982, 1985) frame-semantic approach. Levin proposed that verbs with similar meanings exhibit comparable syntactic alternations, identifying 49 verbs as members of the spray/load class. However, The present study demonstrates that this categorization is excessively broad. Analysis shows that 26 verbs (e.g., spray, load, pour) fully satisfy the conditions of the alternation, allowing both theme-object and goal-object variants within frames such as [Applying] or [Surface Contact]. In contrast, 19 verbs (e.g., cultivate, dab, drizzle, dust, plant, sew, string, wash) fail to meet these criteria. Some lack a clear Theme or Goal, others violate the partitive/holistic distinction, and many are rarely attested in goal-object variants. Frame-semantic analysis further reveals that these verbs align with alternative frames such as [Removing], [Manufacturing], or [Granting]. The results highlight the need to refine Levin’s classification by integrating corpus-based distribution with frame-semantic distinctions. This approach provides a more precise taxonomy of verb behavior and offers pedagogical benefits for explaining English verb alternations in applied contexts.