Systematic Polysemy in Cognitive Approach: Studying the Polysemy of “see” in Persain

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student of Linguistics, Payame- Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Payame- Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Department of Linguistics, Payame- Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The present descriptive-analytic research uses the semantic model (Antonano, 1999 and 2002) and the semantic network of perception verbs (Afrashi & Asgari, 1396) to describe and analyze the polysemy of the perception verb “see”. For this purpose, the meanings of the verb “see” in Persian were compiled using Dehkhoda dictionary, Moein dictionary, and Persian language databases. At this stage, 4500 sentences were used from the Persian language database, classified on the basis of extended meanings. Analyzes of this paper, which take more into account the capabilities of the human senses and the way we perceive the world around us, show that 'embodiment' is the source of the metaphorical conceptualization and semantic extension of 'see'. The polysemy of “see” is the result of the interaction of the semantic content of the verb with other elements of the sentence level. The findings of this study are in line with Antonano (1999) and Afrashi and Asgari (1396). There were also cases that Antonano (1999 and 2002) did not mention. On the other hand, the findings of this study are in line with the ideas of Antonano (2002), Evans & Wilkins (2000), and Koveceses, (2005) that have challenged Sweetser's (1990) idea of the “universality of the semantic extension of perception verbs”.
 

Keywords

References

اصفهانی، میرزا حبیب (1351). حاجی­بابا اصفهانی. تهران: نشر مرکز.
افراشی، آزیتا و صامت جوکندان (1393). چندمعنایی نظام­مند با رویکردی شناختی: تحلیل چندمعنایی فعل حسّی شنیدن در زبان فارسی. ادب­پژوهی، 8 (30)، 29-59.
---------- و ساناز عسگری (1396). چندمعنایی فعل حسّی دیدن در زبان فارسی: پژوهشی شناختی و پیکره­ای. پژوهش­های زبان­شناسی تطبیقی، 7 (14)، 61-73.
پزشک­زاد، ایرج (1349). دایی­جان ناپلئون. تهران: صفی­علیشاه.
حافظ، شمس الدین محمد(1378).دیوان حافظ. تهران. طلوع.
چوبک، صادق (1356). سنگ صبور. تهران: لک­لک.
حجازی، محمد (1339). پریچهر. تهران: امیرکبیر.
دهخدا، علی­اکبر (1325). لغت­نامه. تهران: مؤسّسة لغت­نامۀ دهخدا.
روزنامۀ ایران. پایگاه دادگان زبان فارسی (1-1380). http://pldb.ihcs.ac.ir/.
روزنامۀ ایران – اجتماعی. پایگاه دادگان زبان فارسی (1-1380). http://pldb.ihcs.ac.ir/.
روزنامۀ ایران – ادبی. پایگاه دادگان زبان فارسی (1-1380). http://pldb.ihcs.ac.ir/.
روزنامۀ همشهری. (02/81 الف). /.https://images.hamshahrionline.ir
نغزگوی کهن، مهرداد و راسخ­مهند، محمد (1391). دستوری­شدگی و بسط استعاری. پژوهش­های زبانی، 3 (1)، 117-134.
هدایت، صادق (1356). پروین دختر ساسان. تهران: لک­لک.
References
Antuñano, I. I. (1999). Polysemy and Metaphor in Perception Verbs: a Cross-linguistic Study. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.
---------------- (2002). Mind-as-body as a cross-linguistic conceptual metaphor. Miscelánea, A Journal of English and American Studies, (25), 93-119.
----------------- (2008). Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, (30), 15-33.
Crystal, D. (1991). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge University Press.
Evans, N. & D. Wilkins (2000). In the mind's ear: the semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian. Language (76), 546-592.
Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Sensation and perception.(8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wads worth, Cengage Learning.
Gunnarsdóttir, A. B. (2013),Conceptual metaphors in perception verbs A comparative analysis in English and Icelandic. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Iceland School of Humanities Department of English.
Heine, B., U. Claudi & F. HÜnnemeyer (1991). Grammaticalization: A onceptual Framework. Chicago: Chicgo University press.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: the bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Koveceses, Z. (2002): Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP.
----------------- (2005). Metaphor in Culture. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
-------------- & M. Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: Chicago UP.
----------------------------------- (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh, The Embodied Mind and its Challenges to Western Thought, New York: Basic Books.
Lehrer, A. (1990). Polysemy, Conventionality, and the Structure of the Lexicon. cognitive linguistics, 1 (2), 207-246.
Neagu, M. (2013). What is universal and what is language specific in the polysemy of perception verbs, RRL, LVIII, 3, p. 329-343, Bucureşti.
Sekuler, R. & R. Blake (1994). Perception. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sjöström, S. (1998). From vision to cognition a study of metaphor and polysemy in Swedish. John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Sweetser, E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (1995). Linguistic Categorization, Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Viberg, A. (1983). A universal lexicalization hierarchy for the verbs of perception. In: F.Karlsson (Ed.), Papers from the Seventh Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. (pp. 260-275). Helsiniki: University of Helsinki.
-------------- (1984). The Verbs of Perception: A Typological Study. In: B. Butterworth, B. Comrie & Ö. Dahl (Eds.), Explanations for LanguageUniversals, (pp. 123-162). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
-------------- )2008( Swedish verbs of perception from a typological and contrastive perspective. In: J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Elsa M. González-Álvarez (Eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison, María de los Ángeles Gómez González, (pp. 123-172). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamin.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics