1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232

Abstract

Abstract

Verbs of perception are known for their prolific use in various non-literal functions that are usually argued to have developed from their denotational semantics (San Roque, Kendrick, Norcliffe & Majid 2018). In this study we document interactional practices involving the Estonian 2nd person verb form ’you see’ to demonstrate that its usage is anchored in face-to-face situations where the speaker guides a co-present other’s visual attention. Through multimodal analysis we show how is coordinated with the participants’ body orientations, gestures, and gazes to point to visually available proof for one’s current arguments, rendering it an evidential meaning even in its most “literal” uses of seeing, when a co-participant is invited to consider the visual evidence. We argue that the spatially anchored uses constitute a natural habitat of verbs of seeing, as visual perception is a mutually calibrated interactional accomplishment. Relevant syntactic constructions emerge in real time conversation where , calling for a visual orientation, is either preceded or followed by clausal specifications of what is to be seen, which makes it look like a particle. This challenges the argument that perception verbs start out as syntactic predicates in full clauses to then develop other uses.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.23003.kee
2023-10-23
2025-02-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/il.23003.kee.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.23003.kee&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Alm-Arvius, C.
    (1993) The English verb “see”: A study in multiple meaning. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H.
    (1989) Les verbes de perception : étude sémantique. InD. Kremer (Ed.), Actes du XVIIIe Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. (pp.282–294). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolly, C.
    (2009) Constructionalisation et structure informationnelle. Quand la grammaticalisation ne suffit pas pour expliquertu vois, Linx, 611, 103–130. 10.4000/linx.1342
    https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.1342 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) Pragmaticalisation du marqueur discursif « tu vois ». De la perception à l’évidence et de l’évidence au discours. InF. Neveu, F. V. Muni-Toké, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.) Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2010, New Orleans, United States) (pp.673–693). 10.1051/cmlf/2010243
    https://doi.org/10.1051/cmlf/2010243 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brinton, L. J.
    (2001) From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics2(2), 177–199. 10.1075/jhp.2.2.02bri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.2.2.02bri [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, L.
    (2006) Pathways in the Development of Pragmatic Markers in English. InThe Handbook of the History of English (pp.306–334). 10.1002/9780470757048.ch13
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757048.ch13 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinton, L. J.
    (2008) The Comment Clause in English. Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  8. Broth, M., Keevallik, L.
    (2020) Multimodal interaktionsanalys: att studera mänskligt samspel. InM. Broth & L. Keevallik (Eds.), Multimodal interaktionsanalys (pp.19–40). Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Combettes, B.
    (1998) Les constructions détachées en français. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2021) Language over time: Some old and new uses of OKAY in American English. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1), 33–63. 10.1075/il.20008.cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20008.cou [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, A.
    (2011) The Study of Formulations as a Key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. www.jstor.org/stable/41478654. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, A. & Schmidt, A.
    (2021) How Shared Meanings and Uses Emerge Over an Interactional History: Wabi Sabi in a Series of Theater Rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 203–224. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899714 [Google Scholar]
  13. DuBois, J.
    (2007) The stance triangle. InR. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse (pp.139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  14. Erman, B.
    (1987) Pragmatic expressions in English: a study of you know, you see, and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm Studies in English691. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, N. & Wilkins, D.
    (2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language76(3), 546–592. 10.2307/417135
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fagard, B.
    (2010) É vida, olh ...: Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticalization paths in Romance. Languages in Contrast10(2), 245–267. 10.1075/lic.10.2.07fag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.10.2.07fag [Google Scholar]
  17. Hopper, P.
    (1987) Emergent Grammar. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 139–157. 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1834 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hopper, P., Traugott, E. C.
    (2003) Grammaticalization (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gibson, W., Vom Lehn, D.
    (2020) Seeing as accountable action: The interactional accomplishment of sensorial work, Current Sociology, 68(1), 77–96. 10.1177/0011392119857460
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392119857460 [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, C.
    (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 Practices of Seeing: Visual Analysis – An Ethnomethodological Approach, InT. van Leeuwen & J. Carey (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis (pp.157–182). London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H.
    (1996) Seeing as a Situated Activity: Formulating Planes. InY. Engeström & D. Middleton (Eds.) Cognition and Communication at Work (pp.61–95) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174077.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174077.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grossmann, F. & Tutin, A.
    (2010) Evidential markers in French scientific writing: The case of the French verb “voir”. InE. Smirnova & G. Diewald (Eds.), Evidentiality in European Languages (pp.279–308). Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223972.279
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972.279 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hilmisdottir, H. & Wide, C.
    (2000) Sko – en mångfunktionell diskurspartikel i isländskt ungdomsspråk. InU.-B. Kotsinas, A.-B. Stenström & E.-M. Drange (Eds.) Ungdom, språk och identitet: Rapport fra et nettverksmøte (pp.101–121). (Nord 1999:30), Nordic Council of Ministers Editors.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hockey, J., Allen-Collinson, J.
    (2006) Seeing the way: Visual sociology and the distance runner’s perspective. Visual studies21(1), 70–81. 10.1080/14725860600613253
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860600613253 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2008) Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies30(1), 15–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2019) Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics. Scope, motivation and lexicalization. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphor (pp.43–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.03iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.03iba [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaltenböck, G., López-Couso, M. J. & Méndez-Naya, B.
    (2020) The dynamics of stance constructions. Language Sciences, 821, 101330. 10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101330
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101330 [Google Scholar]
  29. Keevallik, L.
    (2003) From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala: Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2008) Internal development and borrowing of pragmatic particles: the Estonian vaata/vat ‘look’, näed ‘you see’ and vot. Finnisch-Ugrische Mitteilungen30/311, 23–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kendrick, K. H.
    (2019) Evidential vindication in next turn: Using the retrospective “See?” in conversation. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphor (pp.253–274). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.13ken
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.13ken [Google Scholar]
  32. Laury, R.
    (2008) Cross-Linguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.80
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.80 [Google Scholar]
  33. Laury, R. & Suzuki, R.
    (2011) Subordination in Conversation: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.24
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.24 [Google Scholar]
  34. Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A.
    (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language291, 407–427. 10.1111/mila.12057
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindström, J.
    (2001) Inner and outer syntax of constructions: the case of the x och x construction in Swedish. (Paper presented in thepanel on Pragmatic aspects of frame semantics and construction grammar, 7th International Pragmatics Conference, BudapestJuly 9–14, 2000). Preliminary version published at project siteGrammar in Conversation: a Study of Swedish.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lindström, J. & Karlsson, S.
    (2005) Verb-first constructions as a syntactic and functional resource in (spoken) Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 28(1), 1–35. 10.1017/S0332586505001332
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586505001332 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lindström, J. & Wide, C.
    (2005) Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of historical pragmatics6(2), 211–236. 10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin [Google Scholar]
  38. Maschler, Y., Pekarek Doehler, S., Lindström, J. & Leelo Keevallik, L.
    (2020) Emergent syntax for conversation: clausal patterns and the organization of action. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/slsi.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.32 [Google Scholar]
  39. Mondada, L.
    (2003) Working with video: how surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies, 18(1), 58–73. 10.1080/1472586032000100083
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586032000100083 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2012) Organisation multimodale de la parole-en-interaction : pratiques incarnées d’introduction des référents. Langue Française175(3), 129–147. 10.3917/lf.175.0129
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.175.0129 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018) Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
  42. Nevile, M.
    (2013) Collaboration in crisis: pursuing perception through multiple descriptions (how friendly vehicles became damn rocket launchers). InA. De Rycker, Z. Mohd Don (Eds.), Discourse and Crisis: Critical Perspectives (159–183). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.52.05nev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.52.05nev [Google Scholar]
  43. Nishizaka, A.
    (2000) Seeing What One Sees: Perception, Emotion, and Activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity7(1–2), 105–123. 10.1080/10749039.2000.9677650
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2000.9677650 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2017) The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(2), 110–128. 10.1080/10749039.2017.1296465
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1296465 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pekarek Doehler, S., De Stefany, E. & Horlacher, A.-S.
    (2015) Time and Emergence in Grammar: Dislocalization, Topicalization, and Hanging Topic in French Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.28 [Google Scholar]
  46. Polak-Yitzhaki, H., Amon, M., Keevallik, L. & Maschler, Y.
    (2022) Verbs of seeing as evidentials: Hebrew ’ata ro’e’ and Estonian näed ’YOU SEE’, [Presented Paper] Knowint22: Sources of knowledge in talk-in-interaction, 07–09.02.2022Lugano.
  47. San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dirksmeyer, T., Dingemanse, M., Enfield, N. J., Floyd, S., Hammond, J., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., van Putten, S. & Majid, A.
    (2015) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics261, 31–60. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0089 [Google Scholar]
  48. San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E. & Majid, E.
    (2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics29(3), 371–406. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0034
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0034 [Google Scholar]
  49. Seppänen, E.-L. & Hakulinen, A.
    (1992) Finnish kato: from verb to particle. Journal of Pragmatics181, 527–549. 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90118‑U
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90118-U [Google Scholar]
  50. Sidnell, J.
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(4), 377–409. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2007) “Look”-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies9(3), 387–408. 10.1177/1461445607076204
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076204 [Google Scholar]
  52. Siitonen, P., Rauniomaa, M. & Keisanen, T.
    (2019) Kato. Hulluna puolukoita. Kato vuorovaikutuksen resurssina luontoilussa. Virittäjä123(4), 518–549. 10.23982/vir.71162
    https://doi.org/10.23982/vir.71162 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2021) Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology121. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661784
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661784 [Google Scholar]
  54. Skogmyr Marian, K.
    (in press). Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction: The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French. Interactional Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sweetser, E.
    (1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  56. Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A.
    (1991) A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English. InE. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol.21, (pp.313–329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  57. Traugott, E. C.
    (2010) (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: a reassessment. InK. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.) Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp.29–74), Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2018) Rethinking the Role of Invited Inferencing in Change from the Perspective of Interactional Texts. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 19–34. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tuncer, S. & Haddington, P.
    (2019) Looking at and seeing objects: Instructed vision and collaboration in the laboratory. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 201, 435–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Vaiss, N.
    (2020) Verbide transitiivsuse kontiinumist eesti keeles. (On the continuum of transitivity of Estonian verbs). Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat661, 344–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Viberg, Å.
    (1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 211, 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  62. Waltereit, R.
    (2002) Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics40(5), 987–1010. 10.1515/ling.2002.041
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.041 [Google Scholar]
  63. Willems, D. & Blanche-Benveniste, C.
    (2010) Verbes ‘faibles’ et verbes à valeur épistémique en français parlé : il me semble, il paraît, j’ai l’impression, on dirait, je dirais. InM. Iliescu, H. M. Siller-Runggaldier & P. Danler (Éds.), Actes du XXVe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, IV (pp.565–579). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110231922.4‑565
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110231922.4-565 [Google Scholar]
  64. Whitt, R.
    (2010) Evidentiality, polysemy, and the verbs of perception in English and German. InG. Diewald & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages (pp.249–278). Berlin-New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223972.249
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972.249 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2011) (Inter)Subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics431, 347–360. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.23003.kee
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error