Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction

cm
clause marker
c_number
noun class
dat
dative
erg
ergative
evnt.pl
event plural
icp
incompletive aspect
imp
imperative
incl
inclusive
ing
ingressive
int
intentive
lat
lative case
nc
numeral classifier
neg
negation
npst
non-past
pl
plural
plt
polite
p.foc
predicate focus
pfv
perfective
pot
potential
prog
progressive
prox
proximal demonstrative
prt
particle
pst
past
quot
quotative
refl
reflexive
sg
singular
sns.impl
impersonal sensory evidence
spec
specific
subj
subjunctive
tpc
topic
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2010. Imperatives and commands. Oxford. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y & Anne Storch. 2013. Perception and cognition in language and culture. Leiden. Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Alm-Arvius, Christina. 1993. The English verb see: A study in multiple meaning. Göteborg. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Search in Google Scholar
Backhouse, A. E. 1994. The lexical field of taste. A semantic study of Japanese taste terms. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62(2). 384–414.Search in Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2001. From matrix clause to pragmatic marker: The history of look-forms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 2(2). 177–199.Search in Google Scholar
Burenhult, Niclas & Asifa Majid. 2011. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The Senses & Society 6(1). 9–29.Search in Google Scholar
Chodorowska-Pilch, Marianna. 2008. Verásin Peninsular Spanish as a grammaticalized discourse marker invoking positive and negative politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 1357–1372.Search in Google Scholar
Christodoulouplos, Christos & Mark Steedman. 2015. A massively parallel corpus: The Bible in 100 languages. Language Resources and Evaluation 49. 375–395.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using language. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Classen, Constance. 1997. Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. International Social Science Journal 49(153). 401–412.Search in Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language 77(2). 245–291.Search in Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1). 37–77.Search in Google Scholar
Depperman, Arnulf. 2011. The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies34. 115–128.Search in Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2015. Exploring the grammar of perception. A case study using data from Russian.Functions of Language 22(1). 44–68.Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‘Open’ class repair initiators as responses to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 69–101.Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Engelbretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse, 139–182. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas. 2003. Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London. Routledge Curzon.Search in Google Scholar
Enghels, Renata & Marlies Jansegers. 2013. On the cross-linguistic equivalence of sentir(e) in Romance languages: A contrastive study in semantics. Linguistics 51(5). 957–991.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1992. Multiple semiotic systems, hyperpolysemy and the reconstruction of semantic change in Australian languages. In Günter Kellermann & Michael D Morrissey (eds), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and cognition, 475–508. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & David Wilkins. 2000. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3). 546–592.Search in Google Scholar
Fagard, Benjamin. 2010. É vida, olh … : Imperatives as discourse markers and grammaticalization paths in Romance. Languages in Contrast 10(2). 245–267.Search in Google Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, Chiara Ghezzi & Daniel Van Olmen. 2012. Perception verbs as attention-getting devices: A typological study. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Stockholm University, 29 August – 1 September.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. & Beryl T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing polysemy: The case of crawl. In Yael Ravin & Claudia Leacock (eds), Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches, 91–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid. In press. Smell is coded in grammar and frequent in discourse: Cha’palaa olfactory language in cross-linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology.Search in Google Scholar
FrameNet. Search in Google Scholar
François, Alexandre. 2008. Semantic maps and the typology of colexification: Intertwining polysemous networks across languages. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, 163–215. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan & Justyna A Robinson (eds). 2014. Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. Polysemy. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar S. Divjak (eds), Handbook of cognitive linguistics, 472–490. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan, Th. 2006. Corpus-based methods and cognitive semantics: The many meanings of to run. In Stefan Th. Gries & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, 57–99. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2015. Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective.Journal of Pragmatics 88. 88–104.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68. 15–38.Search in Google Scholar
Horie, Kaoru. 1993. A cross-linguistic study of perception and cognition verb complements: A cognitive perspective. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Howes, David (ed.). 1991. The varieties of sensory experience: A sourcebook in the anthropology of the senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. 2006. Cross-linguistic polysemy in tactile verbs. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed.),Cognitive linguistics investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries, 235–253. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Ibarrexte-Antuñano, Iraide. 2008. Vision metaphors for the intellect: Are they really cross-linguistic?.Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies 30(1). 15–33.Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies & Stefan Th Gries. 2017. Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication.Search in Google Scholar
Jansegers, Marlies, Clara Vanderschueren & Renata Enghels. 2015. The polysemy of the Spanish verb sentir: A behavioral profile analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3). 381–421.Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. In press. Evidential vindication in next turn: Using the retrospective “See?” in conversation. In Laura Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid (eds), Perception metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., Penelope Brown, Mark Dingemanse, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Kaoru Hayano, Elliott Hoey, Gertie Hoymann, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi & Stephen C. Levinson. 2014. Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for action. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Conversation Analysis. University of California at Los Angeles, CA, 25–29 June.Search in Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew. 2016. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 1–19.Search in Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2008. Approaching lexical typology. In Martine Vanhove (ed.), From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations, 3–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2010. Questions and responses in Yélıˆ Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island.Journal of Pragmatics 42. 2741–2755.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human ‘interaction engine’. In N. J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds),Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. & Asifa Majid. 2014. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind and Language 29. 407–427.Search in Google Scholar
List, Johann-Mattis, Thomas Mayer, Anselm Terhalle & Matthias Urban. 2014. CLICS: Database of cross-linguistic colexifications. Marburg: Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas. Version 1.0, online available at. Search in Google Scholar
Lynott, Dermot & Louise Connell. 2009. Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods 41. 558–564.Search in Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa. 2013. Making semantics and pragmatics “sensory”. Journal of Pragmatics 58. 48–51.Search in Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa & Stephen C. Levinson. 2011. The senses in language and culture. Senses and Society 6(1). 5–18.Search in Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa, Seán G. Roberts, Ludy Cilissen, Karen Emmorey, Brenda Nicodemus, Lucinda O’Grady, Bencie Woll, Barbara LeLan, Hilário de Sousa, Brian L. Cansler, Shakila Shayan, Connie de Vos, Gunter Senft, N. J. Enfield, Rogayah A. Razak, Sebastian Fedden, Sylvia Tufvesson, Mark Dingemanse, Ozge Ozturk, Penelope Brown, Clair Hill, Olivier Le Guen, Vincent Hirtzel, Rik van Gijn, Mark A. Sicoli, & Stephen C. Levinson. In press. The differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Search in Google Scholar
Mapping Metaphor. 2015. Mapping Metaphor with the Historical Thesaurus. Metaphor Map of English. Glasgow: University of Glasgow (last accessed 8 July 2018)Search in Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2004. A universal constraint on the sensory lexicon, or when hear can mean ‘see’?. In Aleksandr P. Volodin (ed.), Tipologičeskie obosnovanija v grammatike: K 70-letiju professora Xrakovskogo V.S. [Typological knowledge in grammar: On the occasion of Professor Khrakovsky’s 70th birthday], 300–312. Moscow: Znak.Search in Google Scholar
Matisoff, James A. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison. Philadelphia: ISHI.Search in Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie & Mike Huiskes. 2001. Dutch but as a sequential conjunction. Its use as a resumption marker. In Margret Selting & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds), Studies in interactional linguistics, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Hiroshi. 2012. The importance of taste verbs in some Khoe languages. Linguistics 50(3). 395–420.Search in Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte & David D. Clarke. 2001. Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1–20.Search in Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1994. Kalam exponents of lexical and semantic primitives. In Cliff Goddard & Anna Wierzbicka (eds), Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings, 387–421. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Pollner, Melvin. 1987. Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 1998. Oye y mira a los límites de la connexion. In Maria Antonia Martín Zorraquino & Estrella Montolío Durán (eds), Los marcadores del discurso. Teoría y análisis, 213–228. Madrid: Arco Libros.Search in Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina, Rodolfo Llinás & Gregory L. Murphy. 2006. The representation of polysemy: MEG Evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18(1). 97–109.Search in Google Scholar
Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Pylkkänen Liina. 2010. Shifting senses in lexical semantic development.Cognition 117(1). 17–37.Search in Google Scholar
Regier, Terry, Alexandra Carstensen & Charles Kemp. 2016. Languages support efficient communication about the environment: Words for snow revisited. PLoS ONE 11(4). e0151138.Search in Google Scholar
Romero Trillo, J. 1997. Your attention, please: Pragmatic mechanisms to obtain the addressee’s attention in English and Spanish conversations. Journal of Pragmatics 28(2). 205–221.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm, Andrew Pawley & Meredith Osmond (eds). 2016. The lexicon of Proto-Oceanic, Vol. 5. People: Body and mind. Canberra: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila, Kobin H. Kendrick, Elisabeth Norcliffe, Penelope Brown, Rebecca Defina, Tyko Dirksmeyer, Mark Dingemanse, N. J. Enfield, Simeon Floyd, Jeremy Hammond, Giovanni Rossi, Sylvia Tufvesson, Saskia van Putten & Asifa Majid. 2015. Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics 26. 31–60.Search in Google Scholar
San Roque, Lila & Bambi B. Schieffelin. In press. Perception verbs in context: Perspectives from Kaluli (Bosavi) child-caregiver interaction. In Laura Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque & Asifa Majid (eds),Perception metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 1992. Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology 97(5). 1295–1345.Search in Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’ questions in repair initiation. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Margret Selting (eds), Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. “Look”-prefaced turns in first and second position: Launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies 9(3). 387–408.Search in Google Scholar
Storch, Anne. 2013. Knowing, smelling and telling tales in Luwo. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Anne Storch (eds), Perception and cognition in language and culture, 47–68. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tanghe, Sanne & Marlies Jansegers. 2014. Marcadores del discurso derivados de los verbos de percepción: Un análisis comparativo entre el español y el italiano. Revue Romane 49(1). 1–31.Search in Google Scholar
Thanassoula, Marilena. 2013. Perception in Lusesse (Bantu). In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Anne Storch (eds), Perception and cognition in language and culture, 251–270. Leiden: Brill.Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1945. Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 60. 811–827.Search in Google Scholar
Vanhove, Martine (ed.). 2008. From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Vesterinen, Rainer. 2010. The relation between iconicity and subjectification in Portuguese complementation: Complements of perception and causation verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 21(3). 573–600.Search in Google Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics 21. 123–162.Search in Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2016. Non-specific, specific and obscured perception verbs in Baltic Languages. Baltic Linguistics 7. 53–135.Search in Google Scholar
Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Imperatives, interruption in conversation, and the rise of discourse markers: A study of Italian guarda. Linguistics 40(5). 987–1010.Search in Google Scholar
Wilkins, David. 1981. Towards a theory of semantic change. Canberra: The Australian National University BA Honours thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Joseph. 1976. Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language 52(2). 461–478.Search in Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo, Marcus Perlman & Asifa Majid. 2018. Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition 179. 213–220.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Yang, Barbara C. Malt & Mahesh Srinivasan. 2017. Evolution of word meanings through metaphorical mapping: Systematicity over the past millennium. Cognitive Psychology 96. 41–53.Search in Google Scholar
Youn, Hyejin, Logan Sutton, Eric Smith, Jon F. Christopher Moore, Ian Maddison Wilkins, William Croft & Tanmoy Bhattacharya. 2015. On the universal structure of human lexical semantics. PNAS 113(7). 1766–1771.Search in Google Scholar
Zariquiey, Roberto. 2015. The encoding of addressee’s perspective in Kakataibo (Panoan, Peru). Language Typology and Universals (STUF) 68(2). 1–22.Search in Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1945. The meaning-frequency relationship of words. The Journal of General Psychology 33(2). 251–256.Search in Google Scholar