In:Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 277–310
Frames change in language contact environments
A case study of schleichen (‘to sneak’) and kommen (‘to come’)
Published online: 12 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.09hun
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.09hun
Abstract
Based on the empirical data of 97 fourth-graders from three districts of Braunschweig in Germany, this paper investigates the possibility of changing semantic frames in multilingual communities. The focus of study is the verb field of self-motion. In a free-sorting task involving 52 verbs, Turkish-speaking students, in particular, placed the verbs schleichen (‘to sneak’) and kommen (‘to come’) in the same group. When explaining the perceived similarity they also used the word schleichen (‘to sneak’), in a specific grammatical construction that is not found in Standard German. This paper suggests that semantic frames may change along with grammatical constructions when typologically distinct languages come into close contact.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Background
- 2.1.Frame Semantics and FrameNet
- 2.2Moving across languages
- 3.Methodology
- 3.1The Free Sorting Method
- 3.2Participants: Districts and background data
- 3.3The List of motion verbs
- 3.4Sorting procedure & analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Dendrograms
- 4.2Logistic regression analysis
- 5.Follow-up measure: Participant Feedback
- 5.1.Video stimuli and Procedure
- 5.2Student feedback
- 6.The suggested frame change
- 7.Conclusion
Notes References
References (22)
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In Association for Computational Linguistics (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics – Volume 1 (
COLING ’98) (pp. 86–90). Stroudsburg, PA, USA.
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). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Croft, W. (2009). Connecting frames and construction: a case study of eat and feed. Constructions and Frames, 11, 7–28.
Dirim, İ. & Auer, P. (2004). Türkisch sprechen nicht nur die Türken. Über Unschärfebeziehungen zwischen Sprache und Ethnie in Deutschland. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer, & E. Feder-Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. In Bach, & Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
(1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
(2008). Border conflicts: FrameNet meets construction grammar. In E. Bernal, & J. DeCesaris (Eds.), Proceedings of EURALEX13 (pp. 49–68). Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Goschler, J. et al. (2013). Beyond conflation patterns: The encoding of motion events in Kiezdeutsch. In A. Stefanowitsch, & J. Goschler (Eds.), Trends in Cognitive Linguistics. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 237–252). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In Braunmüller, K. & Gabriel, C. (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 13) (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
(2014). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In Åfarli, T. A. & Mæhlum, B. (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (Studies in Language Companion Series 154) (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Huenlich, D. (2015). Exploring Word Fields Using the Free-Sorting Method. In C. Brown, Q. Gu, C. Loos, J. Mielens, & G. Neveu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Texas Linguistic Society (pp. 73–90). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Huenlich, D. (2016). The Roots of ‘Multiethnolects’: Effects of Migration on the Lexicon and Speech of German-Speaking School Children. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Austin: The University of Texas at Austin.
Keim, I. (2007). Die “türkischen Powergirls”. Lebenswelt und kommunikativer Stil einer Migrantinnengruppe in Mannheim. Tübingen: Narr.
Özçalişkan, Ş. & Slobin, D. I. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development, Vol. 2 (pp. 163–174). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Roberson, D. et al. (2005). Free-sorting of colors across cultures: Are there universal grounds for grouping? Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5(3), pp. 349–386.
Slobin, D. I. (1996). Thinking for Speaking. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 271–323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2000). Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.), Evidence for linguistic relativity (pp. 107–138). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1983). Verb-descriptivity in German and English: A Contrastive Study in Semantic Fields. Heidelberg: Winter.