View
213
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
1/23
[PRE-PUBLICATION DRAFT]
Seeing is trying: The relation of visual perception
to attemptive modality in the worlds languagesVitaly Voinov
University of Texas at Arlington
vovoinov@hotmail.com
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 spokenin 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 involvingmetaphorical 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 themind-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 allowsattempted 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 involvingmultiverbs, such as serial verbs or converbs.
Keywords: attemptive modality, grammaticalization, metaphor theory, visual perception, Altaic,
Ewe, Papuan, Tuvan
1. Introduction
One type of modality that is understudied in the linguistic literature is that of modal
constructions indicating that someone is trying to perform an action. This type of modal meaning
has several different names in the literature, including attemptive modality(Anderson 2004:31),
conative modality(Foley 1986:152), and incomplete modality(Bybee et. al. 1994:320). The term
attemptive is preferred in this paper because the other terms are less clear and also have
additional meanings related to aspect or aktionsart in some publications, e.g., Rice (2000:262),
who describes conative affixes in Athabaskan languages as nondurative, referring to a point in
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
2/23
2
time and classes them with other aspectual morphemes.1 Despite the abundance of names for
this concept and the fact that it is mentioned in a good number of works on specific languages or
language families, e.g., Ewe (Ameka 2008), Korean (Lee 1993), Japanese (Henderson
2011[1945]), Mongsen Ao (Coupe 2007), Papuan (Foley 1986), Sayan Turkic (Anderson 2004),
and Tariana (Aikhenvald 2003), almost no attention has yet been paid to it in broader typological
studies of modality.
The present paper examines a specific co-lexification2in which attemptive modality is
associated with a basic verb that means see. Commenting on the semantic notion of trying in
the Ewe language, Ameka (2008:169) generalizes that In many languages of the world, the verb
see or its grammaticalized form tends to be used for the expression of such a meaning. It may
however be an overstatement to say that this is the case in many languages of the world; besides
Ewe, Ameka himself adduces only the Papuan languages, following Foley (1986). To these we
can now add the Turkic languages, other members of the Altaic macro-family, and some South
Asian languages such as Hindi, Urdu, and Mongsen Ao. Moreover, as we shall see, in several of
these languages, a politeness implicature is attached to the see/try verb when it functions as a
directive.
To explore this semantic relationship, I first establish a cross-linguistic sample of
languages that have the see/try co-lexification in Section 2. Then in Section 3, I propose the
cognitive mechanism that I believe is responsible for associating the basic meaning of see with
the meaning try/attempt. The explanation offered in this paper consists of three parts: the first
part, in Section 3.1, is an extension of Lakoff and Johnsons (2003[1980]) Metaphor Theory, as
1Cook (1984:294), however, says that the conative category of Athabaskan affixes is probably a mode rather than
an aspect.2This useful term appears to have been introduced by Alexandre Franois (2008), who defines it as involving two or
more functionally distinct senses that are associated with the same lexical form. Closely related (and often
synonymous) to co-lexificationare the somewhat better known termspolysemyand conceptual network.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
3/23
3
applied by Sweetser (1990); the second part, in Section 3.2, is an application of Bybee et al.s
(1994) grammaticization approach which focuses on the gradual loss of specific semantic
features and on semantic generalization; the third, in Section 3.3, focuses on the syntactic context
of multiverb constructions in which this meaning extension is typically found. When combined,
these approaches provide a plausible explanation for the process by which see can come to
mean try in various languages. I conclude the paper in Section 4.
2. Seeing, trying and politeness: A cross-linguistic sample
2.1. Tuvan
I take as my starting point the Tuvan language of south Siberia, a member of the Turkic language
family, because this is the language and language family with which I am best acquainted. In the
Tuvan language, the verb krmeans see, look when functioning as a main verb (Tuvan
examples in this paper are taken from Tuvan literature unless otherwise indicated):
(1) a. d-m-de seni kr-d-mdream-1s-LOC 2s.ACC see-PST.I-1s
I saw you in my dream (Arzla)
b. r deer-e kr-p-keabove sky-ALL see-PRF-CV
Having looked up at the sky above ... (Agr-ool)
When functioning as an auxiliary verb, krconveys attemptive modality (designated by this term
in Anderson 2004:181). The subject of the verb attempts, whether successfully or unsuccessfully,
to perform the action indicated by the semantically contentful verb that precedes it in the form of
an (I)p converb (i.e., non-final, conjunctive verb).
(2) a. karanda-bile bii-p krpencil-with write-CV AUX.IMV
Try writing with a pencil
b. bo xem-ge balkta-p kr-d-vsthis river-DAT fish-CV AUX-PST.I-1p
We tried fishing in this river
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
4/23
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
5/23
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
6/23
6
(8) Yakut: keten krput.on AUX.IMV
try to put on (clothes)(Sleptsov 1972:180)
It will be noticed that unlike in Tuvan, the lexically contentful verb preceding the auxiliary see
is encoded with the (I)p converb form in only a subset of these languages (e.g., Chagatay and
Yakut do not use an (I)p converb in this context).
A directive becomes more polite when co-occuring with the auxiliary see in at least two
Turkic languages besides Tuvan, namely the closely related Bashkir and Tatar languages (in both
of which the see verb is kr-):
(9) Bashkir: haqlan-a krbe.careful-CV AUX.IMV
please be careful(Uraksin 1996:318)
(10) Tatar: bar-a krgo-CV AUX.IMV
please go
(Ganiev 1998:199)
Although the dictionaries consulted for Bashkir and Tatar do not indicate that the auxiliary use of
see in these languages also has the more basic meaning of attemptive modality, this fact was
corroborated for me by scholars working with these two languages. It seems that the dictionary
makers simply missed the attemptive function when writing their entries. An example of kr- as
attemptive modality can be seen in the following Tatar example:
(11) Tatar: libretto jaz-p kr-m-gnlibretto write-CV AUX-NEG-PTCP.PST
one who has not tried writing a libretto
(example provided by Teija Greed, p.c.,from a work by Tatar writer Musa Dzhalil)
As for Bashkir, example (9) above was confirmed as having the more literal meaning try to be
careful by Bashkir writer Gulnara Mustafina by email correspondence.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
7/23
7
Looking beyond the Turkic family to its more distant genetic relatives in the Altaic
macro-family, we find see-derived auxiliaries signaling attemptive modality in Mongolian and
Kalmyk (Mongolic languages), as well as in Korean and Japanese, which are believed by many
scholars to belong to macro-Altaic, although this is a hotly contested point (see Georg et al. 1999
for a good overview of the issue).
(12) Mongolian: xel z! (z-see)speak AUX
Try to speak!(Hangin 1986:572)
(13) Kalmyk: ktsd z-x (z-see)accomplish AUX-FUT.PTCPtry to accomplish (it)(Muniev 1977:547)
(14) Korean: i chayk ilk-e po-a (po- see)DEM book read-INF AUX-IMV
Try to read this book(Lee 1993:249-250)
(15) Japanese: tabe-te mi-ru (mi- see)eat-NMLZ AUX-NPST
try eating3
(Henderson 2011 [1945]:286)
Of these languages, at least Korean and Japanese also have the added politeness implicature
when using the see auxiliary as a directive. Lee (1993:249) says that in Korean using thepo-
auxiliary (as in ex. 14 above) makes the directive mild and indirect and thereby leaves some
room or options for the addressee to choose. Likewise, in Japanese, sentences such as (15) have
a softening effect, especially in the polite imperative form (Henderson 2011 [1945]:286).
3According to Lee (1993:245), in Korean, the see auxiliary is ambiguous between two readings: try to see if one
has the ability to carry out the action denoted by the verb (ability not presupposed, e.g. I tried to walk) and try
doing something to see the results or consequences of the action or process (ability presupposed, e.g. I triedwalking). Japanese appears to not share this ambiguity, with only the presupposed ability reading possible (Jeff
Witzel, p.c.).
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
8/23
8
Table 1 below summarizes the languages in the Altaic macrofamily that have been found
to associate seeing with trying and/or politeness in making a request.
Table 1: Shared similarities in attemptive modality and polite directive use
of see verbs in macro-Altaic languages
It is likewise possible that some or all of the languages listed above as having the attemptive
modal function of see also have a polite implicature which was missed by the dictionary
compilers, but this requires further research.
2.3. Languages in other families
The see verb, or a morpheme historically derived from the see verb, is likewise associated
with trying in some languages and language families that have no demonstrated genetic
affiliation with Turkic or Altaic. These include the Papuan languages, the Indo-Aryan and
Tibeto-Burman languages in India, Ewe in West Africa, and English.
See
Attemptive Polite directive
Altai Bashkir Chagatay Karakalpak Kazakh Khakas
Kyrgyz Shor Tatar Tofa Turkmen Tuvan Yakut Kalmyk Mongolian Korean
Japanese
TURKIC
MONGOLIC
ACRO-
TAIC
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
9/23
9
In describing the Papuan languages, Foley (1986) uses the term conative modality (the
word conative is derived from Latin conatusattempt, effort, according to http://www.latin-
dictionary.org). He notes that conative modality (the actor triesto perform the action) is almost
universally signaled in Papuan languages with a serial verb construction involving the verb stem
see (Foley 1986:152), and produces the following examples from various Papuan languages.
(16) Asmat (Asmat family): yitim-porarise-see
try to awaken somebody
(17) Barai (Koiarian family): akoegathrow see
try throwing it
(18) Yimas (Lower Sepik family): na- mp- kwalca-tay-ntut3SG U.3.DL A.arise-see-RMPAST
they both tried to wake him up
Since, according to Foley (1986), these languages are not known to be related to each other
genetically, this association is likely due to areal spreading through language contact.
Several languages in India also exhibit the same type of co-lexification pattern between
attemptive modality and seeing. Shown below are sample uses from Hindi and Urdu, both
belonging to the Indo-Aryan family (examples provided by Namrata Dubey, p.c.).
(19) Hindi: paaniim kuud kar dekh
water LOC jump DO SEE
Try jumping in the water
(20) Urdu: abbaako muttalaa karke dekhfather ACC inform DO SEE
Try to inform dad
An unrelated Indian language that has the see/ try co-lexification is the Mongsen
dialect of the Ao language (Tibeto-Burman) in northeast India. For example:
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
10/23
10
(21) tsti kupaphin i-t th-hnihi-tswoven.bamboo.wall hole ABL PROX-thus do-SEQ peep-CON.PST
From a hole in the wall, doing it like this, he tried to peep(Coupe 2007:332)
(22) tm-ts-adrink-CON-IMP
try a sip(Coupe 2007:333)
The historical source of the conative morpheme -tsis explained by Coupe (p. 333) as most
likely being the root of the verb atslook witness, seek proof. It is unclear whether this co-
lexification is common to Hindi/Urdu and Mongsen Ao due to areal spreading or typological
affinity.
Shifting our gaze to yet other parts of the world, we find that Ewe, a Niger-Congo
language (Gbe branch) spoken in West Africa, has a particle derived from the verb kpsee,
with the additional meaning of trying to do something:
(23) dzil-w a-ga-fo nu n w v l kpparent-PL POT-REP-strike mouth DAT 3PL child DEF PFV
The parents will (try to) speak again to their child.(Dogoe 1964:13, cited in Ameka 2008:169)
(24) no aha sia kp
drink alcohol PROX PFV
Have some of this wine (and see)/Try some of this wine.(Ameka 2008:169)
In English as well, the verbseeis used in certain contexts that signal attemptive modality,
such as in the following sentence:4
(25) See if you can do this today
Example (25) can be paraphrased as Try to do this today. However, it becomes clear that the
semantic component of trying does not derive merely from lexical properties of the verbsee
4This approach to English see was earlier suggested by Joan Bybee, according to Heine et. al (1991:274, note 37).
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
11/23
11
when we compare (25) to the following sentences, neither of which conveys attemptive
modality:
(26) See if Bill can do this today
(27) See that you do this today
In (26),Bill is the subject of the embedded clause, instead ofyouas in (25). Here,see ifconveys
ascertaining but not trying, because the subject of the embedded clause (3rd
person) is
different from the subject of the main clause (2nd
person). In (27), the verbseeis present, but
this sentence is a strong directive that does not contain any attemptive modality. The Oxford
English Dictionary says that thesee thatconstruction means To ensure by supervision or
vigilance that something shall be done or not done (OED, see, sense 8). What is missing in
(27) but present in (25) are the words ifand can. Thus, the hedging attemptive modality of (25)
seems to be produced by a combination of separable items:see+ an irrealis complementizer (if)
+ same subject as main clause + a general ability modal (can). When this collocation is
decomposed by taking away any of the elements, the semantics of attemptive modality disappear
in the English construction.
The important point that examples (25)-(27) show us is that attemptive modality does not
flow out of the English wordseeby itself, but rather from a concrete environment in whichsee
co-operates with other parts of the grammar to produce this semantic interpretation. The specific
construction, not the freestanding lexical item, is responsible for this extension of the basic visual
perception meaning of Englishseeto include try/attempt. This observation is in line with the
arugments made by Lehmann (1982, 1993), Traugott (2003), and other scholars to the effect that
grammaticalization of meaning in language is generally context-dependent, not driven by the
meaning of isolated lexemes. As Bybee (2003:602) concisely puts it, it might be more accurate
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
12/23
12
to say that a construction with particular lexical items in it becomes grammaticized, instead of
saying that a lexical item become grammaticized. Thus, it is important that we pay attention to
the morphosyntactic environment in which see verbs come to mean try/attempt in the other
languages in our sample as well.
3. Proposed mechanism
How exactly is it that the meaning of trying has become attached to the sense perception of
seeing in languages around the world? In the literature on grammaticalization (e.g., Eckardt
2006:23), there are at least three major approaches that are used to explain how meaning change
occurs when a lexical morpheme is grammaticalized the semantic bleaching approach, the
metaphor-based approach, and the metonymy-based approach (although not all linguists would
agree that metaphor and metonymy are mutually exclusive processes). I will argue below that
bleaching and metaphor (grounded in the neurobiological makeup of human cognition) work
together as the prime movers on the grammaticalization path by which try comes to be co-
lexified with see in our language sample, with multiverbal constructions serving as the primary
syntactic environment in which this meaning shift takes place.
3.1. Metaphorical extension
The approach that seems best as a starting point for explaining the see/try association is that
of metaphor, based on Lakoff and Johnson (2003 [1980]). Their work demonstrates that a
substantial part of language is fundamentally organized by metaphors that use one domain of
human existence for describing another. The English language, for example, is subconsciously
structured by such widespread metaphors as HAPPY IS UP;SAD IS DOWN (e.g., Her spirits
rose/Shes feeling down),THE MIND IS A MACHINE (e.g., Were grinding out a solution to this
problem),and LIFE IS A CONTAINER (e.g., Ive had such a full life).Of the many metaphors
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
13/23
13
that Lakoff and Johnson note, the most pertinent one for our examination is the SEEING IS
TOUCHING metaphor, also expressed as EYES ARE LIMBS. Two of the examples offered by Lakoff
and Johnson (2003:50) of this metaphor in English are:
(28) a.He wants everything within reach of his eyes.b. She never moves her eyes from his face.
These examples show that, at least in English, eyes are often talked about as though they were
hands that touch the object they are perceiving. This resonates with the findings of cognitive
researchers that the [mental] representation of a visual object includes not only description of its
visual properties, but also encodings of actions relevant to that object (Gibbs Jr. 2006:60, citing
Ellis and Tucker 2000).
Eve Sweetser (1990:28-32) considers SEEING IS TOUCHING to be part of a wider
conceptual metaphor that she calls MIND-AS-BODY, which maps physical actions onto mental
activities (Yu 1998:101). Sweetser grounds this metaphor in the following cognitive principle:
more abstract domains of meaning tend to derive their vocabulary from more concrete
domains ... in some cases there is a deep cognitive predisposition to draw from certain particular
concrete domains in deriving vocabulary for a given abstracted domain (1990:18). She goes on
to propose that the MIND-AS-BODYmetaphor is historically responsible for associating the
domain of physical contact in Latin source words with the domain of vision in English daughter
words. Two examples are given below (both taken from Sweetser 1990:32):
(29) a.perceive < Lat. -cipioseize
b.scrutinize < Lat.scrutaripick through trash
Thus, touching or manipulating an object can be metaphorically described as seeing it because
vision can focus on a specific stimulus, unlike, say, taste or smell, which cannot pick out one
stimulus amid a multitude of input stimuli (p. 32). For example, if I eat some food that is
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
14/23
14
simultaneously spicy, sweet, and salty, my taste buds cannot focus their attention on only one of
these qualities; rather, my taste experience is holistic. But if I am reading a book, my vision is
focused on the letters and my mind can temporarily ignore visual stimuli outside the book. Thus,
I am metaphorically holding the letters with my eyes.
Another historical development of the MIND-AS-BODYMetaphor can be seen in English
words that describe control or personal influence and are etymologically derived from the
process of visual monitoring in an earlier Indo-European language. Alternatively, there are also
English words that describe visual monitoring and are derived from Indo-European source words
describing control. Sweetser (1990:32-33) describes this as follows: keeping control often
involves visual monitoring of the controlled entity ... the limited domain of physical vision is
further analogous to the domain of personal influence or control and points out the following
examples:
(30) a. IE *weg- be strong, lively > Eng. watch, vigil, surveillance
b. Gkskopossight, aim > Eng.scope= sphere of control(as in That problem is beyond my scope)
An additional example can be added from the Russian language, in which the verb usmotretto
ensure that something is done is derived from the stemsmotr- look, watch.
In the language sample in section 2, the cognitive pre-disposition is to derive the more
abstract meaning try (body-related) from the more concrete meaning see (mind-related).
Although the semantic relationship between see/control in Indo-European and see/try in
these languages is not exactly the same, I am suggesting that the same underlying cognitive
process is in fact responsible for producing both sets of metaphorical transfers. Thus, in the
see/try languages, the word see is metaphorically used to describe the process of controlling
an action in an attempt to perform it. This fits very well with the integrated view of perception
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
15/23
15
and action held by many cognitive scientists, according to which there is a necessary
interaction between visual cognition and visually guided embodied action (Gibbs, Jr. 2006:57-
58). Thus, there is substantial evidence (e.g., Tucker and Ellis 1998; Chao and Martin 2000;
Witt et al. 2010; Gallivan et al. 2011) that merely focusing ones visual attention on an object
that is used typically as a manipulable tool actually accesses the neural program for taking this
object in ones hand. Seeing an object is equated in our brains with physically doing something
with this object. The fact that the connection between sight and action is already made
automatically for us on the neurophysiological level makes it quite understandable that this
connection could also come through on the linguistic level in at least some languages.
3.2. Semantic feature loss and generalization
But the metaphor approach by itself is not completely satisfactory for explaining several other
facets of the association between see and try. For example:
- Why is the literal sense perception part of seeing no longer present in the
attemptive modal use of the word?
- How does an action that is attempted come to be grammatically equated with a
physical object that is seen?
To better resolve these issues, we may turn to Bybee et al.s (1994) Grammaticization
Theory.5Bybee et al. agree with Sweetser (1990) in their premise that certain grammaticization
paths are common in diverse genetic and areal groups [due] to the existence of common
cognitive and communicative patterns underlying the use of language (1994:15). But although
they recognize metaphor as playing a role in the early stages of the grammaticalization process,
they also argue that the actual formation of metaphors is not the major mechanism for semantic
5Bybee et al. prefer to use the term grammaticization over grammaticalization for reasons of elegance (1994: 4,
fn. 2). There is no difference in meaning between the two terms.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
16/23
16
change in grammaticization (pp. 24-25). For Bybee et al., semantic bleaching is even more
important than metaphor; they explain that Meaning change in grammaticization may be
characterized as the loss of specific semantic features (1994:191).
Bybee et al. go on to propose a model of how an English modal construction has
historically changed in meaning from mental ability to general possibility by the loss of semantic
features. They trace the historical stages by which the meaning of the English auxiliary canwas
semantically generalized from specifically mental ability (I can speak Russian) to
general/physical ability (Jane can run fast) to root possibility (You can find that sort of thing at
Walmart).
(31) Can predicates that(i) mental enabling conditions exist in the agent [mental ability]
(ii) enabling conditions exist in the agent [general ability](iii) enabling conditions exist [root possibility]
(adapted from Bybee et. al 1994:192)
We see that this model proceeds by steps,6and that at each step of the process, a specific
semantic feature of the original meaning is lost. The generalization from mental ability (i) to
general ability (ii) involves the loss of the feature mental. The further generalization to root
possibility (iii) involves the loss of the feature that specifies the agent of the action as the one in
whom the enabling condition must exist; the enabling condition may now be external to the
agent, i.e., in the external world regardless of whether the condition is also internal to the agent.
We can apply this model of a step-by-step loss of semantic features to the case of see
verbs that have become grammaticalized as attemptive modals in our language sample.
6As Traugott (2003:626) points out, Grammaticalization phenomena ... proceed by minimal steps, not abrupt leaps
or parametric changes.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
17/23
17
(32) See predicates that:i) an object is perceived with ones eyes
ii) an object is manipulated with ones eyes [SEEING IS TOUCHING metaphor]
iii) an object is manipulated [Loss of semantic feature of vision]
iv) an action is manipulated [Entity generalized to include events]
The main addition that needs to be made to an explanation modeled on Bybee et al. is at stage
(iv), where the physical object of see is replaced by an attempted action. This is not really a
loss of a semantic feature, but rather the application of a generalization that objects do not
necessarily have to be physical items, but can also be noetic (mind-oriented) experiences.
This generalization/extension of physical entity to noetic entity or event is shown to be all
the more possible when we take into account another important semantic feature of see verbs in
many languages. This is the fact that the meaning see is often co-lexified with the meaning
experience something personally, as shown by the following examples from Korean and Tuvan.
(33) Korean: caymi-lul po-tafun-ACC see-DCL
enjoy oneself, have a good time (lit. see fun)(Martin 1992:756)
(34) Tuvan: xilinek krsuffering see.P/F
suffer (lit. see suffering)(Teniev 1968:476)
The direct object of the verb meaning see in both of these examples is an abstract noun
encoding an internal sensation that is perceived without the use of physical eyesight. Both fun
in (33) and suffering in (34) are noetic entities, not physical ones, although they are of course
usually experienced by means of physical sensation. In his discussion of Ewe, Ameka
(2008:169) also points out the relation of personal experience to the attemptive sense of kp
see/try: it can be argued that the main point about trying something is that at the end of it the
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
18/23
18
one who performs the trial will have had the experienceof the event (italics mine).7 Thus, an
existing conceptual network that relates experience with see can facilitate the generalization
by which events are treated the same way as entities in a languages grammar.
3.3. Constructional analysis
A likely candidate for the environment or felicitous construction in which see becomes
try/attempt in the language sample of Section 2 is found in an observation about Ewe made by
Heine et al. (1991), who point out that a major typological characteristic of this language is verb
serialization. Thus, the Ewe verb kpsee has been grammaticalized with try/attempt as one
of its meanings specifically when it occurs as the second verb (V2) in a series of two verbs (V1-
V2): it now behaves like an adverb, that is, a word that is invariable following the verb (V1) it
qualifies (Heine et al. 1991:199). The multiverb construction seems to be the most promising
candidate for the other languages in our sample as well. Both the Papuan languages and the
Altaic languages, for instance, are well-known for their multiverb constructions (variously
designated as serial verbs or conjunctive verbs or converbs, as seen in the discussion of examples
in Section 2).8
7Amekas (2008) approach to see/try in Ewe differs somewhat from that of Heine et al. (1991), who believe the
attemptive modality of kpsee/try to be a semantic extension of its underlying grammaticalized function as a
counterexpectation marker. For Ameka, the particles attemptive modality rather comes as an extension of kpas aperfective marker. Although Ameka does point out the relationship of having perfectively experienced an event to
the meaning see/try in Ewe, he seems hesitant to fully endorse this experiential analysis, reasoning that inanimate
entities can also be the subjects of kpclauses whereas experience is possible only for sentient beings. However, thisis not exactly true. In English, we say things like Last year saw some tough times for the economy even though
the subject last year is inanimate. Inanimate entities can easily be talked about as though they were animate. Ameka
would have done well to follow his intuition on this.
8In languages where the see/try component is actually an affix on the verb, such as Mongsen Ao
(examples 21-22 above), it can be reasonably assumed that the particle had more of a verbal character earlier in the
languages history, given the standard grammaticalization cline on which affixes can be descendants of auxiliaryverbs.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
19/23
19
A further observation on the potential relevance of multiverb constructions comes from
SOV languages such as Tuvan and Korean, in which the lexically contentful converb and the
auxiliary verb (35a) are in the same surface syntactic position with relation to each other as are
the direct object and verb of a sentence (35b). Frequently, these elements are adjacent to each
other, with no intervening elements.
(35) a. CV AuxVb. DO V
In other words, in these languages, an auxiliary verb controls a converb just like a verb controls a
direct object, as seen in the following examples (repeated from earlier in the paper).
Dir. Obj. Verb
(36) Tuvan: a. seni kr-d-m2s.ACC see-PST.I-1s
I saw you
Converb Aux. Verb
b. balkta-p kr-d-vscatch.fish-CV see-PST.I-1p
We tried fishing
(adapted from Teniev 1968:256)
Dir. Obj Verb(37) Korean: a. cintallaykkochul po-ass-ta
azalea-ACC see-PST-DCL
I saw azaleas(adapted from Lee 1993:243)
Converb Aux. Verb
b. na-nun kel-e po-ass-ta1S-TOP walk-INF AUX-PST-DCL
I tried to walk(adapted from Lee 1993:245)
If the syntactic position of a physical direct object and a lexical converb are the same in the
sentence, it does not seem radical to suggest that these two forms (entity and event) can come to
be associated in speakers minds as varieties of a single category (one physical, the other noetic).
Heine et al. (1991:205) calls this agrammatical metaphor: [syntactic] categories stand in a
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
20/23
20
relation to one another that is suggestive of metaphorical transfer. The relevance of this
grammatical metaphor to the co-lexification of see/try is all the more likely since certain direct
objects controlled by the see verb can already be noetic entities, as we have seen in 3.2 to be
the case when see = experience.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, I have examined the co-lexification of verbs that mean see with modal words that
mean try, attempt in various languages of the world. Languages that have this co-lexification
include many of the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolic, Korean, Japanese), the Papuan
languages, several South Asian languages (Hindi, Urdu, Mongsen Ao), at least one African
language (Ewe), and English. I am sure that with more research other languages with this co-
lexification can be found in other genetic families as well. Besides cataloging these languages, I
have argued for what I believe to be the deeper cognitive processes responsible for this co-
lexification, in three parts: 1) the application of the MIND-AS-BODYmetaphor that treats seeing
as doing; 2) a grammaticalization path involving the loss of the semantic feature of vision and a
generalization that events are a type of object; and 3) the specific syntactic context of multiverb
constructions that promotes such grammaticalization.
Even if the present account of the relation between seeing and trying is accepted as
valid, I am aware that I have looked at only one of the possible ways that languages express
attemptive modality. Broader research is needed to learn what other means are used among the
worlds languages to encode this modality (including co-lexifications with concepts other than
see and syntactic contexts other than multiverb constructions). Such research will surely
uncover other interesting facets of how our minds perceive and structure reality.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
21/23
21
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Namrata Dubey, K. David Harrison, Gunsoo Lee, Mohamed Mwamzandi, LoriMcLain Pierce and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on a draft of this
paper. Thanks are also due to an audience of linguists at the 2011 DFW Metroplex Conference
for their comments on a related presentation of mine that led to substantial revisions culminatingin this paper.
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2003. A grammar of Tariana. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ameka, F. K. 2008. Aspect and modality in Ewe: a survey. In F.K. Ameka & M. E. KroppDakubu (eds.),Aspect and modality in Kwa languages, 135-194. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Anderson, G. D. S. 2004.Auxiliary verb constructions in Altai-Sayan Turkic. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz.
Anderson, G. D. S. & K. D. Harrison. 2003. Tuvan dictionary. Munchen: Lincom Europa.
Baskakov, N. A. (ed.) 1958.Karakalpaksko-russkij slovar[Karakalpak-Russian
dictionary]. Moscow: GIINS.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson. 1987.Politeness: Some universals inlanguage usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In B. D.
Joseph & R. D. Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 602-623. Malden,MA: Blackwell.
Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar:Tense, aspect and
modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chao, L. L. & Martin, A. 2000. Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsalstream.NeuroImage 12.478-484.
Clark, L. 1998. Turkmen reference grammar. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.
Cook, E. 1984.A Sarcee grammar. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Coupe, A. R. 2007.A grammar of Mongsen Ao. (Mouton Grammar Series 39). Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Dogoe, E. Y. 1964.Nya zz. [Know how to walk]. Accra: Bureau of Ghana Languages.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
22/23
22
Eckmann, J. 1966. Chagatay manual. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Ellis, R. & M. Tucker. 2000. Micro-affordances: The potentiation of components of actionby seen objects.British Journal of Psychology91.457-471.
Foley, W. A. 1986. The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Franois, A. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification. In M. Vanhove (ed.),From
polysemy to semantic change, 163-215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gallivan, J. P., A. McLean & J. C. Culham. 2011. Neuroimaging reveals enhanced activation ina reach-selective brain area for objects located within participants' typical hand
workspaces.Neuropsychologia 49.3710-3721.
Ganiev, F.A. (ed.) 1998. Tatarsko-russkij slovar[Tatar-Russian dictionary]. Kazan:Tatarskoe knizhnoe izdatelstvo.
Georg, S., P. A. Michalove, A. M. Ramer & P. J. Sidwell. 1999. Telling general linguists about
Altaic.Journal of Linguistics 35(1). 65-98.
Gibbs, Jr., R. W. 2006.Embodiment and cognitive science. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Hangin, G. 1986.A modern Mongolian-English dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University.
Henderson, H. 2011.Handbook of Japanese grammar. New York: Routledge. (Originally
published in 1945).
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. Hnnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: a conceptual framework.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Judakhin, K. K. 1965.Kirgizsko-russkij slovar [Kyrgyz-Russian dictionary]. Moscow:Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 2003.Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(Originally published in 1980.)
Lee, K. 1993.A Korean grammar on semantic-pragmatic principles. Seoul: HankwukMunhwasa (Korea Press).
Lehmann, C. 1982. Thoughts on grammaticalization: A programmatic sketch. Vol. 1.
Cologne: Universitt zu Kln. (Re-published in 1995 as Thoughts on grammaticalization.Munich: Lincom Europa.)
Lehmann, C. 1993. Theoretical implications of grammaticalization. In M. Gerritsen & D. Stein
(eds.), The role of theory in language description, 315-340. Berlin: Mouton.
8/11/2019 Seeing is Trying Submission Libre
23/23
Martin, S. E. 1992.A reference grammar of Korean. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.
Muniev, B. D. (ed.). 1977.Kalmytsko-russkij slovar [Kalmyk-Russian dictionary].Moscow: Russkij jazyk.
Rice, K. 2000.Morpheme order and semantic scope: Word formation in the Athapaskan verb.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3:Speech acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Sleptsov, P. A. (ed.). 1972.Jakutsko-russkij slovar [Yakut-Russian dictionary]. Moscow:
Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.
Sweetser, E. E. 1990.From etymology to pragmatics:Metaphorical and cultural aspects ofsemantic structure.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teniev, E. R. (ed.). 1968. Tuvinsko-russkij slovar[Tuvan-Russian dictionary]. Moscow:
Sovetskaja entsiklopedija.
Traugott, E. C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In B.D. Joseph & R.D. Janda (eds.),
The handbook of historical linguistics, 624-647. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tucker, M. & R. Ellis. 1998. On the relations between seen objects and components ofpotential actions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance 24(3).830-846.
Uraksin, Z. G. (ed.). 1996.Bashkirsko-russkij slovar [Bashkir-Russian dictionary].Moscow: Digora.
Witt, J. K., D. Kemmerer, S. A. Linkengauer & J. Culham. 2010. A functional role for motor
simulation in identifying tools.Psychological Science21.1215-1219.
Yu, N. 1998. The contemporary theory of metaphor: A perspective from Chinese.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tuvan literature cited in examples
Agr-ool Sarg-ool, S. A. 1961.Agr-ooldu toouzu. Birgi nom[The story of Angyr-ool.Book one]. Kyzyl.Arzla Badra, I. 2005.Arzla Kderek.Iyigi nom[Kuderek the Lion. Book two]. Abakan.irgilinner Miit, E. B. 1995. irgilinner[Mirages].Kyzyl.Tanaa-Xerel Kuular, N. Sh. 2004. Tanaa-Xereldi urtunda[In Tanaa-Kherels land]. Kyzyl.Tad Kuda, K. K. 1984. Tad keii[Gift of the mountain taiga]. Kyzyl.
Recommended