Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: a cross-linguistic study
Download 1.39 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
PhD-Thesis-99
|
5.2.3. TYPOLOGY OF 2
ND ORDER PROPERTIES A ‘2 nd order property’ is a property that is composed of some 1 st order properties. All 2 nd order properties are ‘B level properties’; that is, they are only applicable to some senses. There are two 2 nd order properties > and 125 I would like to thank Antonio Barcelona for suggesting this property. B. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs 153 • hypotheses formulated about the OP in the P are in comparison with the real object of P. This property is composed of to apply to vision, hearing and smell. When we perceive with these three senses, we formulate hypotheses about the nature and characteristics of the OP. Depending on the sense we use these hypotheses correspond more or less to the nature of the real object. The hypotheses about the OP formulated on the basis of the information gathered by the three senses seem to be more correct in the case of vision, followed by hearing 126 and then by smell. The reasons for this hierarchy in reliability must lie in the values that the two 1 st order properties that compose These are reproduced in Table 5.2. VISION HEARING SMELL yes no yes yes yes no Table 5.2: Distribution of 1 st order properties in As is seen in Table 5.2, vision has a positive value for both fact that the identification of what we see is very accurate, make the hypotheses resulting from vision the ones that correspond best to the real object. Hearing is also very good at identifying what is heard, however its hypotheses are not as correct as vision because the P depends on the source of sound. Smell has a positive value for discussed in the previous section, it is very difficult to identify exactly what is being perceived by this sense accurately. The distribution of the values in these properties and the perceptual processes in these senses are illustrated in the following figures. The smiley represents the PR, the box the OP, and the arrow the P. 126 In fact, this is very clear in court cases; the testimony given by an eyewitness is considered to be more reliable than hearsay evidence (Dundes 1972: 12; Danesi 1990: 222). B. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs 154 Figure 5.1: Vision Figure 5.2: Hearing Figure 5.3: Smell In Figure 5.1 and 5.3, the direction of the arrow (P) goes from the PR to the OP, whereas in Figure 5.2, the direction is the other way round, from the OP to the PR. The direction of the arrow represents the property box that represents the OP has continuous lines meaning that it is easily identifiable. The discontinuous lines in the box in Figure 5.3 show the difficulty of identification of the OP in the case of smell. A common characteristic of the three figures is that the arrow does not have a contact with the OP. If we recall the typology of 1 st order properties, these three senses are all >. Another property that is shown in these figures is >. Consequently, the arrow (P) does not come inside the smiley (PR). In hearing and smell the property is > and as such, the arrow (P) goes inside the smiley (PR). Similar figures can be applied to the other two senses: taste and touch. Figure 5.4: Taste Figure 5.5: Touch Contrary to vision, hearing and smell, both taste and touch have >, as represented by the arrow (P) in Figures 5.4 and 5.5. The difference between these two senses seems to lie on the fact that whereas taste is >, touch is >. If we compare the properties and the values attached to them in each of the five senses, we come to the conclusion that the only property that seems to be decisive when distinguishing between the senses in relation to the 2 nd order property smell, and a positive value in taste and touch. Based on this observation, we can state the following constraint: B. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs CONSTRAINT: > incompatible with 2 nd order As we shall see in the following chapter (Section 6.1), this constraint applies to the way in which we use vocabulary from the semantic domain of perception, and to the inferences that we can draw from such perception vocabulary. • This property is composed of apply to smell and taste. Although not everybody perceives the stimuli in the same way in vision (colour, see Sekuler and Blake 1994: 181), hearing (loudness, see Sekuler and Blake 1994: 337) and touch (Sekuler and Blake 1994: 382), the information gathered by these senses is more consistent than that in smell and taste. To start with, smell and taste are perceived as OP be perceived as attached to the PR himself. When looking at a round table all PRs will perceive the table as being of a rounded shape, although PRs may not agree on whether its shape is that of a perfect circle or more like a oval. In taste and smell, the PR’s perceptions of the stimuli vary a great deal. Smells and tastes are different for people. A nice smell or taste for one person could be bad or simply neutral for another. Smell and taste are both cultural phenomena (Classen et al. 1994). Smells and tastes are context dependent, that is, the same substance can be perceived in different ways depending on the smells and tastes in the same environment, a property widely used in the art of cuisine. That is why the property application of this property to smell and taste only is the fact that part of the brain region that analyses the input of these two senses is the limbic system, which plays an important role in emotional reactions (Sekuler and Blake 1994:444). The fact that perception with smell and taste varies a great deal depending on the PR is reflected in the positive value that the two 1 st order properties that compose st order properties in the senses. 155 B. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs VISION HEAR TOUCH SMELL TASTE no yes no yes yes no no yes yes yes Table 5.3: Distribution of 1 st order properties in As seen in Table 5.3, although these two 1 st order properties are also positive in other senses, the fact that both of them are positive in smell and taste seem to be the decisive factor for the restrictive application of property second property Therefore, the constraint that restricts the application of this property to smell and taste is the following: CONSTRAINT: if yes It is important to notice that although this property applies to both smell and taste, the kind of subjectivity in each sense is different. This depends on how the OP is perceived by these senses. In smell, the identification of the OP is not very accurate. Whereas in the case of taste the subjectivity refers more to the description of the OP itself, in smell it seems to apply more to the whole act of perception itself. For example, sentences (8) and (9): (8) His taste in clothes is very good (9) I smell something fishy around here In (8), the OP refers clearly to the clothes, whereas in (9) the OP remains blurred, the PR does not really know what the source of the smell is, he only detects that there is something wrong there (see the representation of the OP in Figures 5.3 and 5.4). This difference in the perception of the OP refers to the property property – as discussed in Section 5.2.1 – takes a negative value in smell and a positive value in taste and seems to be what makes the property two senses. 156 B. Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs 157 Download 1.39 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|