Abstract

ABSTRACTThis paper offers an experimental approach to the polysemy of the Estonian perception verbtundma‘to feel’ from the perspective of theperception➔cognitionmetaphor. First, a sorting task is used to map how native speakers perceive the different senses oftundma‘to feel’. The results show that cognition-related senses oftundmaform the most distinct and coherent group. This set was researched further by means of a second experiment, a conceptual feature rating task. The aim of this task was to assess if the cognition-related meanings oftundmadiffer from other cognition verbs of Estonian (teadma‘to know’,aru saama‘to understand’) in that they are metaphorically linked to physical perception. It was predicted that native speakers use characteristics tied to the physical perception in the conceptualisation of the type of knowledge expressed bytundma. However, native speakers did not rate sentences withtundmaas more physical than sentences with abstract cognition verbs. This result is indicative of the nature of the semantics oftundmabeing more varied than was first thought. It is argued that the semantics oftundmarefer to it being a verb of general proximal perception.

Highlights

  • Perception verbs and perception metaphors have been of interest to both linguists (Sweetser, 1990; Viberg, 1984) and anthropologists (Classen, 2005; Howes, 1991)

  • This paper has described two experiments that set out to explore and explain the polysemy around the tactile perception verb tundma ‘to feel’ in Estonian

  • This paper focused on the polysemy of tundma ‘to feel’ in Estonian, with an emphasis on its cognition-related senses

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Perception verbs and perception metaphors have been of interest to both linguists (Sweetser, 1990; Viberg, 1984) and anthropologists (Classen, 2005; Howes, 1991). Verbs of vision are the most likely to be used for expressing perception (Evans & Wilkins, 2000; Viberg, 1984), and it has been suggested that verbs of seeing and hearing have more meaning extensions than verbs of touching, smelling, and tasting (San Roque, Kendrick, Norcliffe, & Majid, 2018; Storch & Aikhenvald, 2013). Evidence from linguistics (Majid & Burenhult, 2014; Majid et al, 2018; Storch & Aikhenvald, 2013; Wnuk & Majid, 2014), as well as anthropology (Classen, 2005; Howes, 1991), shows that the language of perception is much more versatile than is generally thought, usually due to most of these conclusions being based solely on Indo-European languages

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call