Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • FILLMORE Framesemantics76 PDF

    Cargado por

    Roberto Flores
    27 vistas7 páginas
    Clásico artículo de Charles Fillmore sobre la Teoría de los Marcos

    Título original

    FILLMORE framesemantics76.pdf

    Derechos de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Clásico artículo de Charles Fillmore sobre la Teoría de los Marcos

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    27 vistas7 páginas

    FILLMORE Framesemantics76 PDF

    Cargado por

    Roberto Flores
    Clásico artículo de Charles Fillmore sobre la Teoría de los Marcos

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 7
    FRAME SEMANTICS AND THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE* Charles J. Fittmore Depurtment of Linguistics Universi of California} Berk Berkeles, California 94720 om to ehedule sessions on “formulating the arg” or the es day of this conference, based undoubtedly onthe simple wisdom that Lnowing what thing is ie isa prereuiteto aking How got that nay, wat probeby thom ie hope that the agora Conbtans tight seeoty ed eye ae omens on the salar of tngoage Schaar ingeing ita soto eh eee silatrey want aye on ie some he dea the hat sen a Evolutionary sent they sre tying to conta. Unlonunales he elena describing this tust scene isa notoriously difficult one: maki clear thee nature of language mo teva igen 281 tnnkevesbody Hers ease ‘Ast contibuton attests parol he undeatanuing we ted iil eet for your coniderationa way af taing abou one aspen a he psc commen tog ia human Language something! wt tle toasting Tae ae Secite I find tansy move Iprtn! than the formal spuctenee ae oeet OF meaning oF moe inporam than he many global proper Be who ees Inte purely compara prapectn, human ngage eae ee an ee aie communtae noe tchaae fing hela Tk pean suse supe that might nt ge mean or tatu mph nthe cae highhghted, in the other papers 10 be read at this eanleiensas een teen by traning the ppe in pescvng hinge an Comnunicaing a eas of irpicing expen Ian aerate Tote si that uncats ar eateguriey ac teed rough he prosersof eaeheg saat peepit teat mth), words plan thc opet tone the eee hut of ean monty am Engh fie ina ame Stat ferent and mtu, how te ame concent coh Sea eke cee if the communication sn comprehension praccessndte eed ey tom helgedspeultions on ow the tly et eae igh area ne ‘Noluion toward language and on te eon of lenges Thinkers who lucked tue evolutionary ue ssoluionay perspective coud find questions ke What is the rin of Lngunge? ncn ins way tha ne canoe Ween en the sinphity and admire the reasonableness of Sanne! Johtnon'sspeculsions os the ucon Bs Junnson atgucd a flows, Wlngunge wor ieee aan inven either by chien of Sd Gould not have been mente ines bess clhlron do not haus enough to invents language: eld nar hone he imsented by aul, becuse alls sre nor phable enough to aed a tangoeee divine inspiration, “ Ne edi orsin 4> spond a past by the National Sees Fauna, grant ny SOLIS » Filmore 19764 Fillmore: Frame Semantics 2 ‘When the question of the origin of language is considered from an evolutionary perspective st loses much ofits clarity and simplicity, Should we be looking for the Fist step in the chain of events that led to what we now see as human language? The frst siep away (rom what? Or should we be tying to determine the fast step. the step by which the Binal crtetial property of language was acquired? What might that have been? Or is t perhaps some kind of kev step in this development that we need, that step by which sas overcome the last serious barrier to the natural and inevitable fequence of changes that ended in the kind of language we have today” Or, are these the right alternatives? Since there is no evidence whatever on the nature of any of the intermediate stages along. the great distance separating present-day language and ven the most elaborated of the call systems, and since communication systems fappear to have had different histories in different branches ofthe evolutionary tee, fone of these questions may twen out to be useful. Ultimately, I believe, we ean be satisfied with nothing short of the whole story, and for that we may need 10 Feconsiruct a long and complex chain of events. ‘Linguistic scholars, who have seldom fet called on to make anything more than slight lip-service acknowledgments of the problem of the origin of language. have [generally not troubled themselves very much about these uncertainties. For example, ‘one cominion suggestion (ound in the standard treatises and textbooks is that speech ‘ultimately goes back to the involuntary cries of animals; to Sir Alan Gardiner the prototype was the squeal of a trapped rabbit? A part of this story, as im Sapir's Yersion, is that the expressive vocalization, initially inseparable rom the experience ‘that caused it, came by some leap of imagination to be used as 2 name for the ‘experience. This story gives the origin of language an account somewhat similar 10 the way ritualized movements among some animals are traced back to more directly functional movements appearing in acts of combat or surrender. ‘AL least since the time of Gabclents (1891)! there has been, in treatises on language. a standard ls of factors in the development of man that were hospitable 10 tie bith of language: the upright gait, the enlarged brain, the infant's long Aaelpkssness, and all the rest. Building pieces of a language-origin scenario around fone or another of these has been a favorite and inexpensive pastime of grarmarians and philologists for a long time, One such account, using the enlarged brain as the explanatory principle, is given by C. D. Buck.* Buck tells us that while many animals, including primitive man, had eres that expressed emotion, primitive man, because his brain was lager than thal of any of his competitors, was alone able to gain “an Awareness of a connection between the sound and something expressed by i” This Account Seems 10 require two magic wands. one for explaining why the size of the brain ts relevant (o the ability Lo perceive relationships, and the other for explaining hhow “an awareness of a connection” makes it possible to go further ‘One of the miost imaginative of the language-origin stories is found in Otto Jespersen’s 1921 book om the nature, origin, and development of language.* Jes- Dpersemany have been the est to usc wetual ingwistc data in guiding his spceulations He compared what be called “savage” langusges with civilized languages, imputing 0 the primordial Lunguage features that predominate in “savage” languages; and he uber of wellelocumented principles of language change and applied them forms wend in time to get regularized; the primitive tangwge backwards. Irregul ‘therefore lacked regular or eecurring patterns of word formation, Long words tend in to get shortened, and complex phonetic systems tend to get simplified; the Primitive Lingwage abounded in very long words pronounced with an exuberant Variety of dificult sounds, “Savage” languages tend (0 have tones, the long and Phowctically intricate words in the primitive language were sung, not spoken. Many Words for abstract or general concepts in modern languages originally 2 Annals New York Academy of Sciences or specific meanings: words inthe primitive language were names of highly specie objet ithe Jespersen scenario begins with people devising individual courtship and battle songs. vsing in them as wide a variety of sounds as their vocal equipmem and their inventiveness would allow them. To the members ofa farilanty proup, cach of ‘hee personal songs came (be asociated with its singst as a kind af Wagocrin Jeumone, Within the group. one person could ttet io another by imitating he soce ‘The song, thus, became a proper name—and what, Jespetven asks, could te moots conetete and specific than a. proper name? Onet this naming. Telatonship: got Established within a group, it became possible (or people to use a proper make fel to some tat ofthe owner of that mime, oF 0 femind the group of somc reat that indiidua's history. On this base, thn, the processes of analogy and sinpien tion did their work Just one ofthe reasons why all ofthese stoves are unsats(ying is that they end too z00n The las scene hs got 10 be mote shana state in wbich people name things and Svagestions about the origin of language ace equently embedded in discussions of the essential or evteia features of language, And in the way that many langonoe, iin stories have concentrated on single critcal events, many inguin ino language essentials are concerned with the discovery of some single alton caster of Arts hat separates human language from everything ele The aeempt toe sic feature" defintion of language has had some ofthe same kind of srory thot we oe in the definition of man, namely one in which the offial defnition undereece

    También podría gustarte