Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:25:04.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Seeing’ is ‘trying’: The relation of visual perception to attemptive modality in the world's languages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Vitaly Voinov
Vitaly Voinov*
Affiliation:
University of Texas at Arlington, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between the concepts of ‘seeing’ and ‘attempting/trying’ in various languages. These concepts have so far been found to be co-lexified in languages spoken in Eurasia, Papua New Guinea, India and West Africa, with an added implicature of politeness present in some languages when this lexical item is used in directives. After establishing a cross-linguistic sample, the paper proposes a specific grammaticalization mechanism as responsible for producing this semantic relationship. The explanation centers on a process involving metaphorical transfer, the loss of semantic features, generalization, and a specific syntactic context conducive to this meaning shift. First, the Mind-as-Body metaphor is applied to the mind-related notion of ‘seeing an object’ to derive the body-related notion of ‘controlling an object’, as has previously been demonstrated to be the case in the history of certain Indo-European languages. Second, semantic bleaching causes the meaning component of physical sight to be lost from the overall meaning of the morpheme, and semantic generalization allows attempted actions to be mentally treated the same as physical objects that are manipulated. Finally, the context in which this meaning shift occurs is posited as constructions involving multiverbs, such as serial verbs or converbs.

Keywords

attemptive modalitygrammaticalizationmetaphor theoryvisual perceptionAltaicEwePapuanTuvan
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 61 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. K. 2008. Aspect and modality in Ewe: A survey. In Ameka, F. K. & Dakubu, M. E. Kropp (eds.), Aspect and modality in Kwa languages, 135–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. 2004. Auxiliary verb constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Anderson, G. D. S. & Harrison, K. D.. 2003. Tuvan dictionary. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Baskakov, N. A. (ed.) 1958. Karakalpaksko-russkij slovar' [Karakalpak-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: GIINS.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602–623. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chao, L. L. & Martin, A. 2000. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12. 478–484.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, E. 1984. A Sarcee grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Coupe, A. R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. (Mouton Grammar Series 39). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dogoe, E. Y. 1964. Nyazozo. [Know how to walk]. Accra: Bureau of Ghana Languages.Google Scholar
Eckardt, R. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization. An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckmann, J. 1966. Chagatay manual. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. & Tucker, M.. 2000. Micro-affordances: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology 91. 457–471.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
François, A. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. In Vanhove, M. (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change, 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gallivan, J. P., McLean, A. & Culham, J. C.. 2011. Neuroimaging reveals enhanced activation in a reach-selective brain area for objects located within participants' typical hand workspaces. Neuropsychologia 49. 3710–3721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganiev, F. A. (ed.) 1998. Tatarsko-russkij slovar' [Tatar-Russian dictionary]. Kazan': Tatarskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Georg, S., Michalove, P. A., Ramer, A. M. & Sidwell, P. J.. 1999. Telling general linguists about Altaic. Journal of Linguistics 35(1). 65–98.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. 2006. Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hangin, G. 1986. A modern Mongolian-English dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Henderson, H. 2011. Handbook of Japanese grammar. New York: Routledge. (Originally published in 1945).Google Scholar
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F.. 1991. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Judakhin, K. K. 1965. Kirgizsko-russkij slovar' [Kyrgyz-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. 1993. A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul: Hankwuk Munhwasa (Korea Press).Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Vol. 1. Cologne: Universität zu Köln. (Re-published in 1995 as Thoughts on grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa.)Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1993. Theoretical implications of grammaticalization. In Gerritsen, M. & Stein, D. (eds.), The role of theory in language description, 315–340. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Martin, S. E. 1992. A reference grammar of Korean. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.Google Scholar
Muniev, B. D. (ed.). 1977. Kalmytsko-russkij slovar' [Kalmyk-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Russkij jazyk.Google Scholar
Rice, K. 2000. Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 59–82. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sleptsov, P. A. (ed.). 1972. Jakutsko-russkij slovar' [Yakut-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tenišev, E. R. (ed.). 1968. Tuvinsko-russkij slovar' [Tuvan-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. D. & Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tucker, M. & Ellis, R.. 1998. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24(3). 830–846.Google Scholar
Uraksin, Z. G. (ed.). 1996. Bashkirsko-russkij slovar' [Bashkir-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Digora.Google Scholar
Witt, J. K., Kemmerer, D., Linkengauer, S. A. & Culham, J.. 2010. A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science 21. 1215–1219.Google Scholar
Yu, N. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tuvan literature cited in examples

Aŋgïr-ool — Sarïg-ool1, S. A. 1961. Aŋgïr-oolduŋ toožuzu. Birgi nom [The story of Angyr-ool. Book one]. Kyzyl.Google Scholar
Arzïlaŋ — Badra, I. 2005. Arzïlaŋ Küderek. Iyigi nom [Kuderek the Lion. Book two].Google Scholar
Abakan.Čirgilčinner — Mižit, E. B. 1995. Čirgilčinner [Mirages]. Kyzyl.Google Scholar
Tanaa-Xerel — Kuular, N. Sh. 2004. Tanaa-Xereldiŋ čurtunda [In Tanaa-Kherel's land]. Kyzyl.Google Scholar
Taŋdï — Kudažï, K. K. 1984. Taŋdï kežii [Gift of the mountain taiga]. Kyzyl.Google Scholar