Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction

3.5 Suggestions of intrafield extension
We turn, finally, to a handful of cases that reveal another layer of complexity in the conversational data (see also Supplementary Materials: S38–S39). A close cousin to the phenomenon of multi-sense verbs are moread-hoc cases of intrafield polysemy, where a verb that usually refers only to a single modality is extended to refer to other perceptual experiences — for example, the use of a vision term with an aural percept as its object. One can view multi-sense verbs and intrafield polysemies as being at different points on the same continuum, as for both phenomena we see a single verb that is used in reference to more than one sensory modality. For comparative purposes, we have talked about multi-sense verbs where a multi-sense interpretation is relatively routine (e.g., speakers accept the word can refer to different perceptual modalities), and is not restricted to highly specific constructions or contexts. However, cross-modal interpretations can also be the spontaneous product of a specific context rather than a (relatively) stable feature of the verb’s meaning. Such examples suggest bridging contexts for the development of multi-sense terms in a language’s perception lexicon (cf. Evans and Wilkins 2000).
In six languages a vision verb was used with someone speaking (or speech itself) as the object of perception, as in (14) from Siwu. In such cases, we can readily interpret the sight verb as conveying auditory as well as visual sensory experience. (These potential intrafield extensions are expressed in the translation line in square brackets.)
(14)

ɔ-ɔ̀-nya	gɔ́	tá	mà	ɣéré	mɛ̀
2sg-pfv-see	how	prog	3pl	tell	1sg

sɔ	kà	mà	ɖí	mɛ̀	fótò!
quot	ing	3pl	take	1sg	picture

‘Have you seen [heard] that they are telling me that they are taking my picture?’ (Siw_091/MD)
The situation exemplified in (14) suggests one plausible bridging context for how a sight verb could start to take on a hearing meaning. Speech is an activity that, for non-signed languages, has audition as its most salient property, and it is possible that referring to direct (visual) perception of speech could shade into reference to aural perception. However, the question of why a speaker actually uses a sight verb in this context remains open. A plausible hypothesis is that in an example like (14) what is evoked is not (just) perceptual meaning, but also a transfield meaning, for example, relating to knowledge or attention.
In support of this, other intrafield extensions of sight verbs in the database also appear to come about through transfield polysemies, as in (15) from Semai.
(15)