1887
image of Visual perception verbs in Old Anatolian Turkish

Abstract

Abstract

This study aims at describing the verbs of the visual sensory domain in Old Anatolian Turkish (), including basic and compound verb forms. We shall specifically focus on intra-field and trans-field meaning extensions of visual perception verbs such as , and . Our findings are based on a corpus consisting of 11 texts both in prose and poetry from the 13th to 15th centuries. There are mainly two types of verbs that conceptualise mental and emotive states through visual perception: one pertains to idiomatic expressions with ‘eye’, such as (eye- open), (eye- fall), and - (eye hold). The second form includes basic verbs including (to look at), (to see), - (to look at) and - (to appear). We shall show that visual perception constitutes a rich source for expressing emotive states, and the use of vision verbs for the expression of emotions is as productive as it is for mental states. Similar to Sweetser’s metaphor, we suggest that . The domain of visual perception in texts displays a strong connection to intellection; however, there is no evidence in our data indicating that the verbs and have meaning extension to ‘to know’. The phenomenon-based verbs and have mainly two meaning extensions: one is related to physical existence, as in ‘occur’ and ‘appear’ in English. When these verbs co-occur with nouns and adjectives, they reflect the speakers’ judgements and beliefs by means of a metaphor.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk
2024-05-13
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk/jhl.00017.erk.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2009 Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language, –. 10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2004Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baş, Melike
    2022 A Corpus Study of the Semantic Extensions of the Eye in Turkish. Embodiment in Cross-Linguistic Studies, ed. byMelike Baş & Iwona Kraska-Szlenk, –. Leiden Boston: Brill. 10.1163/9789004498594
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004498594 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen, Benjamin
    2015 Embodiment. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. ByEwa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak, –. Berlin & München & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Caplan, David
    1973 A note on the abstract readings of verbs of perception. Cognition(), –. 10.1016/0010‑0277(72)90035‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90035-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Clauson, Gerard Sir
    1972An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cornillie, Bert
    2007Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110204483
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110204483 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dilçin, Dehri
    (ed.) 1946 Şeyyad Hamza. Yusuf ve Zeliha. (Türk Dil Kurumu C. 11. 28.) İstanbul: Klişecilik ve Matbaacılık T.A.Ş.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins
    2000 In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language(), –. 10.2307/417135
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417135 [Google Scholar]
  10. Erk Emeksiz, Zeynep
    2021 Visual perception verbs and degrees of certainty in Turkish: The case of görünmek and gözükmek. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi(), –. 10.18492/dad.932329
    https://doi.org/10.18492/dad.932329 [Google Scholar]
  11. Firestone, Chaz
    2016 Embodiment in perception: Will we know it when we see it?Goldman and His Critics, ed. byBrian McLaughlin & Hillary Kornblith, –. London: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118609378.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118609378.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gibbs Jr., Raymond W.
    (ed.) 2008The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gisborne, Nicholas
    2010The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577798.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grund, Peter J.
    2016 Seeing is Believing: Evidentiality and Visual Perception Verbs in Early Modern English Witness Depositions. Studies in the History of the English Language VII: Generalizing vs. Particularizing Methodologies in Historical Linguistic Analysis, ed. byDon Chapman, Colette Moore & Miranda Wilcox, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110494235‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110494235-008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Huddleston, Richard & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    2002The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide
    2008 Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies(), –.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2019 Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics: Scope, motivation, and lexicalization. Perception Metaphors, ed. byLaura J. Speed Carolyn O’Meara & Roque , –. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.03iba
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.03iba [Google Scholar]
  18. Kastovsky, Dieter
    1982 Word-Formation: A Functional View. Folia Linguistica. –. 10.1515/flin.1982.16.1‑4.181
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.1982.16.1-4.181 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kövecses, Zoltan
    2015Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1999Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Luraghi, Silvia
    2020Experiential Verbs in Homeric Greek. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004442528
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004442528 [Google Scholar]
  23. Matisoff, James
    1978Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison. Philadelphia: ISHI.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Merriam Webster
    Merriam Webster: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/see (1 March 2023).
  25. Ning, Yu
    2008 Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. byRaymond Gibbs, –. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Putten, Saskia van
    2020 Perception verbs and the conceptualization of the senses: The case of Avatime. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2020‑0039
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0039 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rentzsch, Julian & Zeynep Erk Emeksiz
    2022 Perception verbs in Old Anatolian Turkish. Turkic Languages, (), –. 10.13173/TL.26.1.60
    https://doi.org/10.13173/TL.26.1.60 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schepping, Marie-Theres
    1985 Sehen und Betrachten. Beiträge zu einem kontrastiven Wortfeldlexikon Deutsch-Französisch, ed. byChristoph Schwarze. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Strik-Lievers, Francesca & Irene de Felice
    2019 Metaphors and perception in the lexicon: A diachronic perspective. Perception metaphors. (Converging Evidence in Language Research 19.), ed. byLaura J. Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque, & Asifa Majid, –. 10.1075/celcr.19.05str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.05str [Google Scholar]
  30. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From 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]
  31. Trubetzkoy, N.
    1936 Essai d’une théorie des oppositions phonologiques. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Vanhove, Martine
    (ed.) 2008From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.106
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.106 [Google Scholar]
  33. Viberg, Åke
    1983 The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 Sensation, perception and cognition. Swedish in a typological-contrastive perspective. Functions of Language(), –. 10.1075/fol.22.1.05vib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.1.05vib [Google Scholar]
  35. 2019 Phenomenon-based perception verbs in Swedish from a typological and contrastive perspective. Syntaxe & Sémantique, –.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Whitt, Richard
    2010 Evidentiality, polysemy, and the verbs of perception in English and German. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, ed. byGabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, –. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110223972.249
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223972.249 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2011 (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.015 [Google Scholar]
  38. Willett, Thomas
    1988 A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language, –. 10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.04wil [Google Scholar]
  39. Akdoğan, Yaşar and Nalan Kutsal
    (eds.) 2019Ahmedî, İskendername. Ankara: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Demirci, Ümit Özgür & Şenol Korkmaz
    (eds.) 2008Şeyyâd Hamza, Yûsuf u Zelîhâ (Destân-ı Yûsuf Aleyhi’s-selâm ve Hazâ Ahsenü’l-Kasasi’l-Mübârek). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Dilçin, Cem
    (ed.) 1991Süheyl ü Nev-Bahār. Atatürk Kültür, Tarih ve Dil Yüksek Kurumu.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kocabaş, Yasemin
    (ed.) 2007 Minhācü’ş Şehāde. Yüksek Lisans Thesis, Anadolu Üniversitesi.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Korkmaz, Zeynep
    (ed.) 1973Sadru’d-dîn Şeyhoğlu, Marzubân-nâme Tercümesi. İnceleme, Metin-Sözlük, Tıpkıbasım. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Özkan, Mustafa
    (ed.) 1993Mahmud b. Kadi-i Manyas, Gülistan Tercümesi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tulum, Mertol
    (ed.) 2014Tazarru‘-nâme. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Uzel, İlter & Kenan Suveren
    (eds.) 1999Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddin, Mücerreb-nâme. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Yavuz, Kemal
    (ed.) 1991Şeyhoğlu, Kenzü’l-Kübera. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Tarih ve dil yüksek Kurumu.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (ed.) 2000Aşık Paşa, Ġarībnāme. İstanbul: Türk Dil Kurumu.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Yılmaz, Emine, Nurettin Demir, & Murat Küçük
    (eds.) 2013Ḳıṣaṣ-ı Enbiyā Türk Dil Kurumu Nüshası, İnceleme, Metin, Sözlük. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk
Loading

Data & Media 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