Chapter published in:
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 185–207

Approaching perceptual qualities

The case of heavy

The paper examines the properties of heavy as a perceptual concept, based on evidence from 11 languages. We demonstrate that the semantics of this concept is heterogeneous; lexemes of this field can be used in situations of at least three types: Lifting, Shifting and Weighing. These situations are either lexicalised as separate words, or they converge in a single lexeme in various combinations following certain strategies. We also argue that different metaphorical extensions correspond to different situation types; this allows us to use analysis of metaphoric shifts as an additional instrument to establish the semantic structure of direct meanings.
Keywords: lexical typology, frame approach, qualities, heavy, metaphor, perception
Published online: 21 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.10ryz
References

References

Apresjan, J. D.
(2000) Systematic lexicography. Translated from Russian by K. Windle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P.
(1969) Basic colour terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P.
(2011) Colour me bitter: Crossmodal compounding in Tzeltal perception words. The Senses & Society, 6(1), 106–116.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76, 546–592.Google Scholar
François, A.
(2008) Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In: Vanhove, M. (ed.) From Polysemy to Semantic change: Towards a Typology of Lexical Semantic Associations. Studies in Language Companion Series, 106, 163–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A.
(2007) NSM analyses of the semantics of physical qualities: sweet, hot, hard, heavy, rough, sharp in cross-linguistic perspective. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”, 31 (4) 765–800.Google Scholar
(2013) Words and meanings: Lexical semantics across domains, languages, and cultures. OUP Oxford.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2003) The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In: Tomasello, M., (ed.). The new psychology of language, vol.2. Mahwah, NJ, 211–242.Google Scholar
Kay, P., Berlin, B., Maffi, L., Merrifield, W. R., & Cook, R.
(2009) World Colour Survey. Stanford: CSLI (http://​www1​.icsi​.berkeley​.edu​/wcs/)
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M.
(Ed.) (2015) The linguistics of temperature (Vol. 107). John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., Rakhilina, E., and Vanhove, M.
(2016) The semantics of lexical typology. In: Riemer, Nick (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, 434–454.Google Scholar
Kruglyakova, V. A.
(2010) Semantika glagolov vraščenija v tipologičeskoj perspektive [Semantics of rotation verbs in a typological perspective]. Ph.D. thesis, Russian State University for Humanities.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195–208.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lander, Yu., Maisak, T., & Rakhilina, E.
(2012) Verbs of aquamotion: semantic domains and lexical systems, in: Motion Encoding in Language and Space, 67–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, S. J., & Klatzky, R. L.
(2009) Haptic perception: A tutorial. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(7), 1439–1459.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A.
(2015) Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically. In The Oxford handbook of the word, 364–379. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Staden, M. V., & Boster, J. S.
(2007) The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A cross-linguistic perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 133–152.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A. & Burenhult, N.
(2014) Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. In Cognition 130(2), 266–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C.
(2011) The senses in language and culture. The Senses & Society, 6(1), 5–18.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Senft, G., & Levinson, S. C.
(2007) The language of olfaction. Field Manual Volume, 10, 36–41.Google Scholar
Matisoff, J. A.
(1978) Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.Google Scholar
Panina, A.
2007 Vyraženie peremeščenija i naxoždenija v vode v japonskom jazyke. [The expression of motion and being in water in Japanese.] // T. Maisak, E. Rakhilina (eds.). Glagoly dviženija v vode: Leksičeskaja tipologija. [Aqua-motion verbs: a study in lexical typology.] Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Rakhilina, E.
(2010) Verbs of rotation in Russian and Рolish // V. Hasko, R. Perelmutter (eds.). New Approaches to Slavic Verbs of Motion, 115. 291–314.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rakhilina, E., & Reznikova, T.
(2016) 4. A Frame-based methodology for lexical typology. The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts, 58, 95–130.Google Scholar
Eds. The Typology of Physical Qualities Benjamins to appear
Reznikova, T., Rakhilina, E., & Bonch-Osmolovskaya, A.
(2012) Towards a typology of pain predicates. In: Linguistics, 50(3), 421–465.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Senft, G., Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C.
(2007) The language of taste. Field Manual, 1, 42–5.Google Scholar
Shemanaeva, O.
2007 Vyraženie peremeščenija v vode v nemeckom jazyke. [The expression of aqua-motion in German.] // T. Maisak, E. Rakhilina (eds.). Glagoly dviženija v vode: Leksičeskaja tipologija. [Aqua-motion verbs: a study in lexical typology.] Moscow: Indrik.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1991) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Vol. 54. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vanhove, M.
(2008) Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions. In M. Vanhove (Ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations (pp. 341–370). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1984) The verbs of perception: A typological study. In B. Butterworth, B Comrie & Ö. Dahl (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals, 123–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, P., & Regina Parameswaran, C.
(2018) Cross-sensory correspondences in language: Vowel sounds can symbolise the felt heaviness of objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Google Scholar
Williams, J. M.
(1976) Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–479.CrossrefGoogle Scholar