Seeing is Trying Submission Libre

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

[email protected]

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


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.


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


4/23


5/23


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.


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.).


8/23

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


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:


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).


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

Documents

Seeing is Trying Submission Libre