Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Visual perception verbs in Old Anatolian Turkish

ORCID logo | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
ORCID logo | Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
This study aims at describing the verbs of the visual sensory domain in Old Anatolian Turkish (oat), including basic and compound verb forms. We shall specifically focus on intra-field and trans-field meaning extensions of visual perception verbs such as baḳ-, naẓar et-, gör-, and görin-/gözük-. Our findings are based on a corpus consisting of 11 texts both in prose and poetry from the 13th to 15th centuries. There are mainly two types of verbs that conceptualise mental and emotive states through visual perception: one pertains to idiomatic expressions with göz ‘eye’, such as göz-(ün) aç- (eye-poss.acc open), göz-den düş- (eye-abl fall), and göz dut- (eye hold). The second form includes basic verbs including baḳ- (to look at), gör- (to see), naẓar et- (to look at) and gör-in-/göz-ük- (to appear). We shall show that visual perception constitutes a rich source for expressing emotive states, and the use of vision verbs for the expression of emotions is as productive as it is for mental states. Similar to Sweetser’s body is mind metaphor, we suggest that vision is emotion. The domain of visual perception in oat texts displays a strong connection to intellection; however, there is no evidence in our data indicating that the verbs gör- and baḳ- have meaning extension to ‘to know’. The phenomenon-based verbs görin- and gözük- have mainly two meaning extensions: one is related to physical existence, as in ‘occur’ and ‘appear’ in English. When these verbs co-occur with nouns and adjectives, they reflect the speakers’ judgements and beliefs by means of a metaphor.
Keywords: visual perception verbs, Old Anatolian Turkish, conceptual metaphors, evidentiality, epistemic stance
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Visual perception verbs in oat
    • 3.1Intra-field and trans-field meaning extensions
    • 3.2Trans-field meaning extensions
    • 3.3Phenomenon verbs: görin- and gözük-
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note in Memoriam
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Sources
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 13 May 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.00017.erk
References (49)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. Seem and evidentiality. Functions of Language 681, 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baş, Melike. 2022. A Corpus Study of the Semantic Extensions of the Eye in Turkish. Embodiment in Cross-Linguistic Studies, ed. by Melike Baş & Iwona Kraska-Szlenk, 70–92. Leiden Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin. 2015. Embodiment. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. By Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak, 10–30. Berlin & München & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, David. 1973. A note on the abstract readings of verbs of perception. Cognition 2(3), 269–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clauson, Gerard Sir. 1972. An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, Bert. 2007. Evidentiality and Epistemic Modality in Spanish (Semi-)Auxiliaries: A Cognitive-Functional Approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dilçin, Dehri (ed.). 1946. Şeyyad Hamza. Yusuf ve Zeliha. (Türk Dil Kurumu C. 11. 28.) İstanbul: Klişecilik ve Matbaacılık T.A.Ş.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erk Emeksiz, Zeynep. 2021. Visual perception verbs and degrees of certainty in Turkish: The case of görünmek and gözükmek. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 32(2), 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firestone, Chaz. 2016. Embodiment in perception: Will we know it when we see it? Goldman and His Critics, ed. by Brian McLaughlin & Hillary Kornblith, 318–336. London: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs Jr., Raymond W. (ed.). 2008. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nicholas. 2010. The event structure of perception verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2016. Seeing is Believing: Evidentiality and Visual Perception Verbs in Early Modern English Witness Depositions. Studies in the History of the English Language VII: Generalizing vs. Particularizing Methodologies in Historical Linguistic Analysis, ed. by Don Chapman, Colette Moore & Miranda Wilcox, 153–172. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Richard & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-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.Google Scholar
. 2019. Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics: Scope, motivation, and lexicalization. Perception Metaphors, ed. by Laura J. Speed Carolyn O’Meara & Roque et al., 43–64. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1982. Word-Formation: A Functional View. Folia Linguistica XVI1. 181–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2015. Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2020. Experiential Verbs in Homeric Greek. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matisoff, James. 1978. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman: The ‘organic’ approach to linguistic comparison. Philadelphia: ISHI.Google Scholar
Merriam Webster: [URL] (1 March 2023).
Ning, Yu. 2008. Metaphor from body and culture. The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. by Raymond Gibbs, 247–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putten, Saskia van. 2020. Perception verbs and the conceptualization of the senses: The case of Avatime. Linguistics, 58(2), 425–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rentzsch, Julian & Zeynep Erk Emeksiz. 2022. Perception verbs in Old Anatolian Turkish. Turkic Languages, 26 (1), 60–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schepping, Marie-Theres. 1985. Sehen und Betrachten. Beiträge zu einem kontrastiven Wortfeldlexikon Deutsch-Französisch, ed. by Christoph Schwarze. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Strik-Lievers, Francesca & Irene de Felice. 2019. Metaphors and perception in the lexicon: A diachronic perspective. Perception metaphors. (Converging Evidence in Language Research 19.), ed. by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O’Meara, Lila San Roque, & Asifa Majid, 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. 1936. Essai d’une théorie des oppositions phonologiques. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 331, 5–18.Google Scholar
Vanhove, Martine (ed.). 2008. From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Åke. 1983. The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Sensation, perception and cognition. Swedish in a typological-contrastive perspective. Functions of Language 22(1), 96–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Phenomenon-based perception verbs in Swedish from a typological and contrastive perspective. Syntaxe & Sémantique 201, 17–48.Google Scholar
Whitt, Richard. 2010. Evidentiality, polysemy, and the verbs of perception in English and German. Linguistic realization of evidentiality in European languages, ed. by Gabriele Diewald & Elena Smirnova, 249–278. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. (Inter)subjectivity and evidential perception verbs in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics 431, 347–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willett, Thomas. 1988. A cross-linguistic survey of the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Studies in Language 121, 51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
Akdoğan, Yaşar and Nalan Kutsal (eds.). 2019. Ahmedî, İskendername. Ankara: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu.Google Scholar
Demirci, Ümit Özgür & Şenol Korkmaz (eds.). 2008. Şeyyâd Hamza, Yûsuf u Zelîhâ (Destân-ı Yûsuf Aleyhi’s-selâm ve Hazâ Ahsenü’l-Kasasi’l-Mübârek). İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.Google Scholar
Dilçin, Cem (ed.). 1991. Süheyl ü Nev-Bahār. Atatürk Kültür, Tarih ve Dil Yüksek Kurumu.Google Scholar
Kocabaş, Yasemin (ed.). 2007. Minhācü’ş Şehāde. Yüksek Lisans Thesis, Anadolu Üniversitesi.
Korkmaz, Zeynep (ed.). 1973. Sadru’d-dîn Şeyhoğlu, Marzubân-nâme Tercümesi. İnceleme, Metin-Sözlük, Tıpkıbasım. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.Google Scholar
Özkan, Mustafa (ed.). 1993. Mahmud b. Kadi-i Manyas, Gülistan Tercümesi. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.Google Scholar
Tulum, Mertol (ed.). 2014. Tazarru‘-nâme. İstanbul: Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı.Google Scholar
Uzel, İlter & Kenan Suveren (eds.). 1999. Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddin, Mücerreb-nâme. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.Google Scholar
Yavuz, Kemal (ed.). 1991. Şeyhoğlu, Kenzü’l-Kübera. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Tarih ve dil yüksek Kurumu.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2000. Aşık Paşa, Ġarībnāme. İstanbul: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
Yılmaz, Emine, Nurettin Demir, & Murat Küçük (eds.). 2013. Ḳıṣaṣ-ı Enbiyā Türk Dil Kurumu Nüshası, İnceleme, Metin, Sözlük. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar