Relacionalidad hombre-mujer con la naturaleza

In this section, 1 present diagrammatic analyses of the other HEAR-class verbs which focuses on their physical perception senses. There are certain obvious differences (in thematic structure) between these verbs and ‘seel’, but the force-dynamics o f the verbs are all the same. They all share their aktionsart with ‘seel ’, and their behaviour with CAN is the same as that of SEE. Given the embodiment hypothesis, and given

that SEE is the most extraordinary of these verbs because of its thematic nature, I hypothesise that the senses of these verbs are all instances of ‘perceiving’ and that they are distinguished by the different physical nature o f perception. Wierzbicka (1980) makes a similar claim. In the diagrams, I detail the different physical nature o f each kind of perception using a ‘channel’ relation.

3.7.1 HEAR

HEAR is not a verb which has a theme, nor, unlike SEE is it a verb of orientation. The examples in (87) are unacceptable.

(87) a. * Peter heard into the room b. *Peter heard to the wall

‘Hear’ does involve a sensory image of the percept travelling into the hearer’s consciousness as in (88).

(88) Jane heard Peter crying through the wall

‘Hear’ involves distal perception.

(89) Jane heard Peter from miles away

The semantic structure of ‘hear’ is given in Figure 3.16.

'movi n g ' 'i mage- forming' 'perceiving' ear ' im; of' heard Peter Figure 3.16

The diagram in Figure 3.16 makes a number of claims. First, it claims that the sense of heard, c2, is an instance of ‘perceiving’, (this means that c2 inherits mits meaning from ‘perceiving’). However, although hearing is a kind of perception, it is a kind of perception with a result: the perceptual trace of the image moves and an image is formed by the perceiver.

C l is the referent of Jane. It is also the er of c2, the sense of heard. C3 is the referent of Peter and the ee of c2. The result of c2 is an instance of

‘moving’; but what moves is not the referent of Jane, nor is it the referent of Peter. The er of ‘moving’ is c4. C4 is the perceptual/trace of the referent of Peter. This relationship is captured by the fact that c4 is in an ‘image of’ relationship with c3. C3 is the referent of Peter.

C5, the instance of ‘moving’ has a result: c6, which is an instance of ‘image-forming’. The ee of c6 is c4, the perceptual trace of the referent of Peter. That is, the diagram claims that an image is formed of the perceptual trace of Peter, which is, in the case of hearing, whatever was audible about Peter. The er of c6, the image-former, is c l, the hearer, the referent of Jane. The diagram therefore states that Jane hears Peter by forming a mental image of Peter’s sound as a consequence of some sound of Peter’s entering her consciousness.

There is one part of the diagram that remains unexplained. C7 is an instance of ‘ear’ and it describes the body-part involved in this kind of perception. C l is in a ‘body-part’ relation with c2, the sense of heard. That is, the diagram claims that hearing is a kind of perceiving that involves a particular body-part, the ear.

The main claim of the diagram in Figure 3.16 is that hearing, like seeing is complex. It involves the physical world, and a mental image of the world, and what is heard is not necessarily/ the referent of the object of an instance of HEAR.

3.7.2 FEEL

FEEL is polysemous; it has a variant which isa ‘touching’ as in Jane fe lt her way to the lightswitch. The examples in (90) show that ‘feel’ has a theme.

(90) a. Jane felt to the wall b. Jane felt over her face

However, it also has a themeless variant as in Peter fe lt a pain in his side. As the examples in (90) could both be progressive and could both collocate with

DELIBERATELY, I assume that the sense of FEEL which isa ‘touching’ is part of FEEL/A and not part of FEEL/E. I assume that FEEL/E has a themeless sense.

‘Feel’ also involves a sensory image of the percept travelling into the hearer’s consciousness as in (91).

(91) the princess felt the pea through several mattresses

‘Feel’ can involve distal perception; in these cases, the sensory trace travels to the feeler.

(92) Jane felt the fire from the other side of the room

The semantic structure o f ‘feel’ is given in Figure 17.

'perceiving' 'm o v i n g ' 'image- forming' ' im< of' c5 ,e silk Ja: Figure 3.17

3.7.3 SMELL

There is no theme of ‘smell’, although there is a perceptual trace of ‘smell’.

(93) a. IJane smelt to the soup cauldron

b. Jane smelt the roses through the overpowering smell of lavender

This is also a potentially distal sense.

(94) Jane could smell the soup from her bedroom

The structure o f ‘smell’ is given in Figure 3.18.

'm o v i n g ' 'image- forming' 'perceiving' nose c2 ' imj o f " 5 T c5 C3

Jane smelt le gas

Figure 3.18

3.7.4 TASTE

There is no theme of ‘taste’ although there is a perceptual trace o f ‘taste’.

(95) a. * Peter tasted to the garlic

b. Peter tasted carrots through the overpowering garlic

‘Taste’ is not distal.

The structure of ‘taste’ is given in Figure 3.19 moving perceiving 'image- forming mouth er c2 c7 er 'arlic Figure 3.19

Chapter 4

The semantics of LISTEN-class verbs

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter I am concerned with two issues. The first is why LISTEN-class verbs are dynamic. The second is why LISTEN-class verbs differ from HEAR-class verbs so dramatically in their valency. Given that all HEAR-class verbs can be

complemented by a direct object or a direct object and xcomp when they have a physical perception meaning, it is strange that LOOK/A and LISTEN have no object, and that no LISTEN-class verb can have a direct object and xcomp pattern. I am, therefore, also concerned with the issue of which part of the semantic structure of the corresponding HEAR-class verb is included in the meaning of LISTEN-class verbs.

The first issue concerns what the sense of a LISTEN-class verb isa. There are two possible answers. First, it may be the same as the sense of its corresponding HEAR-class verb but with a slightly different force-dynamic structure so that the referent of the subject is some kind of force-dynamic participant, or agent. There is a simplified diagram of what such a structure would look like for LOOK/A in Figure 4.1. 'hearing'

T

Secondly, it could be some kind of action which embeds (part of) the sense of the corresponding HEAR-class verb as, say, its result. There is a diagram of this structure in Figure 4.2.

'doing' 'hearing' s r er I I LISTEN Figure 4.2

The evidence shows that the second account, shown in Figure 2, is preferable, and it is this account that I argue for. This account, however, raises a further issue; it proves necessary to find some means of distinguishing between agency as defined in terms o f dynamicity and agency as defined in terms o f causation. Consequently, there is a discussion of the subordination of senses that distinguishes between different force-dynamic structures in 4.2.1. One of the advantages of the subordination account is that it captures the similarities of all of the verbs concerned, namely that they are all some kind of action with dynamic aktionsart, while permitting the differences

between them to emerge by restricting part of the frame for their HEAR-class counterparts which is profiled as the result of the LISTEN-class sense.

The second matter that I discuss in this chapter, the complementation of these verbs, involves sketching an account of why LOOK/A has no complement (although it regularly collocates with AT), of why LISTEN is complemented by TO, and of why the remaining verbs in this class can only have direct objects and cannot occur with the full range of complement patterns that their related HEAR-class verbs occur with.

The chapter is organised into the following sections: 4.2 The subordination of the senses of HEAR-class verbs in LISTEN-class verbs’ senses; 4.3 The relationship between situation types and semantic relations; 4.4 Other theories’ accounts of similar phenomena; 4.5 LOOK/A + AT 4.6 LISTEN + TO.