A C T A U N I V E R S I T Ä T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FO LIA L IN G U IST IC A 36, 1997
Pamela Faber, C hantai Pérez
IM A G E S C H E M A T A A N D L IG H T : A S T U D Y IN C O N T R A S T IV E L E X IC A L D O M A IN S IN E N G L IS H A N D S P A N IS H
1. INTRODUCTION
W o rd s and th eir associations, b o th on the p arad ig m atic an d sy ntagm atic axes, encode how we im pose o rd e r on reality by classifying w h at we see as one kind o f thing o r an o th er. L anguage stru ctu re and m o re p articu larly , lexical stru ctu re, encodes how we m ak e sense o f th e w orld a ro u n d us th ro u g h categorizatio n.
O u r inventory o f lexical categories to a certain ex ten t reflects o u r co n cep tu al ones, an d precisely for this reason the study o f lexical stru ctu re is im p o rta n t, because there is a close relationship betw een th e lexicalization o f concepts an d b ro a d e r know ledge structures. Essentia! to this prem ise is the fact th a t the lexicalized concepts in any sem antic d o m ain are only a p o rtio n o f those in a conceptual one. C onsequently, in lan gu age we have a selective re p resen ta tio n o f reality, th a t is we have chosen to n am e som e things, b u t n o t others. W hy do we have w ords in English fo r the bo dy o f a dead anim al (carcass) o r a dead person (corpse, cadaver), bu t n o n e for a dead p lant? W hy is eternity a w ord, b u t n o t nevernessl T his act o f nam in g things is inform ative in itself, because w hat we choose to lexicalize is w hat we need to ta lk a b o u t the m o st, o r w h at is m o st salient for us w ithin o u r perceptual environm ent.
T h u s the stru ctu re w ithin the lexicon is m ean in gful, because am o n g other things, the structures form ed by sem antic connections are representations o f categorizing relationships. L ang acker [1987: 76] underlines th e im p o rtan ce o f these stru ctu re s in h u m an cognitive org an izatio n , w hen he writes: Mapping out the various domains o f semantic space and their interrelationships, at least in rudimentary terms, is clearly prerequisite to any kind o f definitive semantic analysis.
C o nsequen tly , one o f the m o st im p o rta n t a ttrib u te s o f a tru ly viable m odel o f sem antic org an izatio n w ould be the ability to focus on sem antic dom ain s, show ing how the lexical units w ithin each do m ain are interrelated . In o rd e r to accom plish this, in tuition by itself is h ard ly sufficient. It is necessary to establish a m eans th ro u g h which an inventory o f d o m ain s can be e lab o rated , m em bership in these dom ain s determ ined, an d recu rren t stru c tu ra l p attern s interpreted.
A ccording to G . L a k o f f [1987: 333-334]:
T he lexicon involves much m ore than mere labelling concepts. [...] Even a t the level o f the individual word, language is an inseparable p art o f general cognition.
1.1. Semantic Space: The Functional Lcxematic Approach to the Structure of the Lexicon
A s we have stated previously, the lexicon is now kn o w n n o t to be a ra n d o m list, b u t a stru ctu re d w hole com posed o f in terrelated lexical item s th a t fall in to a series o f lexical dom ains o r sem antic fields. T h is is an im m ensely attra ctiv e idea fo r m any reasons. Besides ap pealin g to o u r in nate sense o f o rd e r, the ad v an tag es o f an organized lexicon are m anifold. K i t t a y and L e h r e r [1992: 14] write:
T he concept o f an organized lexicon provides a way o f looking a t the possibility o f lexical universals by grouping together conceptually related w ords th a t may not have an exact tran slatio n [or a t least an exact lexicalized counterpart] in ano th er language. W hereas word-for-w ord translations may not be available, cross-linguistic com parisons can be m ade given a com m on conceptual space.
T h e problem w ith sem antic fields seems, how ever, to be th a t th o u g h th e re is a general consensus o f o p in io n th a t th ey d o exist, th e re is som ew hat less agreem ent as to:
(1) th eir internal co n fig u ratio n
(2) the basis for determ ining the field/dom ain m em bership o f a lexical item. W e believe th a t these problem s can be solved by using a F u n ctio -nal-L excm atic a p p ro a c h to stru ctu re lexical fields. T h is lexicographic m odel e lab o rated by M a rtin M i n g o r a n c e [1984, 1987, 1990] integrates C o seriu ’s T h eo ry o f Lexem atics [ C o s e r i u 1981] and D ik ’s F u n c tio n a l G ra m m a r [1978] to analyze the d efinitional stru ctu re o f sem antic un its, an d th us o b ta in th e criteria th ro u g h which one can assign units to a specific d o m ain ,
as well as determ ine and classify th eir relevant interrelation sh ip s b o th on a m icro- an d m a cro stru ctu ral level.
E ach field has one archilexem e in term s o f which all the m em b ers o f th e field are defined. T o justify the inclusion o f a verb in the field in q u e stio n , it is lexically d ec o m p o sed , so th a t its d efin itio n co n sists o f a nuclear w ord [or a previously defined non-n u clear one] an d on e o r m o re features which differentiate it from the preceding m em bers o f th e hierarchy. T h e nuclear w ord is the definiens (or defining elem ent) w hich labels the lexical d im ension, and this w ord in tu rn contains a definiens w hich labels th e lexical field in question.
Lexical dim ensions in each field are established in term s o f o p p o sitio n s fo rm u la te d from th e d efin itio n al stru c tu re o f th e lexical units. T hese o p p o sitio n s c h a rac te rize b o th the in tern a l stru c tu re o f th e d o m a in in questio n as well as the lexical stru ctu re o f the item s it co ntain s. Lexical dim ensions are th u s directly derived from the definitional stru ctu re o f lexical units.
W orking upw ards from definitional structure and classifying approxim ately 8, 000 verbs, we have found th a t w ords fall in to the follow ing basic dom ain s: E X IS T E N C E , P O S IT IO N , C H A N G E , P O S S E S S IO N , P E R C E P T IO N (including stim ulus verbs), E M O T IO N , C O G N IT IO N , S P E E C H , an d G E N E R A L A C T IO N [com posed o f su b g ro u p s such as verbs o f co n su m p tio n , co n tac t, use, etc.]. It is interesting to n o te th a t th e do m ain s we have fou nd by w orking upw ards from the fa cto rizatio n o f definitions o f lexical item s (i.e. from specific to general term s) in E nglish an d Spanish largely co rrespon d to those established by M i l l e r [1991] to stru ctu re W o rd N ct. T his w ould seem to argue in fav o u r o f the existence o f core areas o f concep tual organization. It is o u r belief th a t in crosslinguistic com p ariso n , the search fo r sem antic universale w ould begin here w ith these basic areas o f h u m an experience.
T h e lexical dom ain s we have found are all closely in terrelated, b u t som e can be said to be m o re basic th an others. P E R C E P T IO N is one o f th e m o st basic, as m any o f its m em bers have m etap h o rical extensions in to m o re a b stra c t do m ains.
Ex. (1) Feel (T A C T IL E P E R C E P T IO N ) — *• Feel (E M O T IO N )
(2) See, regard, contem plate, observe, perceive, etc. (V IS U A L P E R C E P T IO N ) — ► idem (M E N T A L P E R C E P T IO N )
(3) H e a r (A U D IT O R Y P E R C E P T IO N ) — ► H e a r (M E N T A L P E R C E P T IO N )
2. GENERAL PERCEPTION IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH
T h e im po rtan ce o f the verbs o f P E R C E P T IO N in th e lexicon c a n n o t be overstresscd, and is in direct correlatio n w ith th e fact th a t we are all h u m an beings an d are co n stan tly receiving in fo rm atio n from the outside w orld w hich we have to process and m ak e sense o f in som e way. T his m ean s th at at som e very basic level, languages m u st be sim ilar, because they have been constructed [at least to a certain degree] o n the basis o f o u r ow n bodily experience and o u r interactions w ith o ur physical environm ent [ J o h n s o n 1987].
O ne o f the principal w ays by w hich we m a k e sense o f o u r w orld is by so rtin g objects, people, events and ideas into categories [ L a k o f f 1987]. T h e w ay we first experience them , is by perceiving them and d istin gu ishing defining characteristics ab o u t them which will help us to nam e them . W i e r z b i c k a [1980] does n o t include perception am o n g her sem antic prim itives, because she argues th a t it can be defined in term s o f o th e r prim itives. H ow ever, in o u r opinion, it is unden iable th a t the p erceptual co m p o n en t in m eaning is basic to o u r u n d ersta n d in g and co n stru c tio n o f reality, and as we shall see, th ere is a b u n d a n t evidence o f this in the s tru c tu re o f language.
Verbs o f P E R C E P T IO N , therefore, are those which encode this experience o f the outside w orld. It is fa r from coincidental th a t m an y o f these have m etap h o ric al projections to m o re ab stra ct d o m ain s such as M E N T A L Р Р О С Е З З Е З Д Н О и в Н Т / Е М О Т Ю ^ , and are th us also used to stru ctu re the experience o f o u r inside w orld. T his in itself is a reflection o f the critical ro le o f perception as a stru ctu rin g m echanism in o u r co nceptu al system . It is by exam ining lexical stru ctu re th a t we o b ta in clues as to salient aspects o f reality b o th inside and outside o f ourselves.
T he fact th a t P E R C E P T IO N is so basic to a wide variety o f interrelations b etw een d iffe re n t lexical d o m a in s is p rin c ip a lly d u e to th e fa c t th a t p ercep tio n is m a n ’s w ay o f having a w orld, in th e co n stru c tio n o f w hich he takes an active p art. St. T h o m as A quinas in his Su m m a Theologica w rote: Quidquid recipitur, secundum m odum recipients recipitur. [W hatever is received is received according to the mode o f being o f the recipient.]
J o h n s o n [1987: 124], accordingly, has recently said m u ch the sam e thing th o u g h in a m o re specific way:
T he fact o f our physical em bodiment gives a very definite character to our perceptual experience. O ur world radiates out from our bodies as perceptual centers from which we see, hear, touch, taste and smell our world.
In fact, the h u m an body conceptualized as a co n tain er is an im p o rta n t fa c to r in o u r p artic u la r in terp re tatio n /c rea tio n o f the w orld aro u n d us, som ethin g th a t is vividly reflected in o u r language. T h e dim ension s o f the d o m ain o f P E R C E P T IO N show us its im po rtan ce as a process th a t can occur from w ith o u t o r w ithin. V erbs o f general perceptio n, (o r IN - T E R M O D A L S as labelled in M i l l e r [1976:601]), such as notice, note, perceive, detect, etc. are thus callcd because they can be used to refer to an y sen sory m o d a lity o f p ercep tio n [perceptually n eu tral] so, they re fer to o u r aw areness o f th e physical w orld o r to an aw aren ess o f ideas w ithin o u r m ind. T his m irro rs the com plicated re latio n sh ip betw een physical and m ental perception, a fact th a t can be observed in the definitional stru ctu re o f these lexemes, w here the descriptive elem ent [ S n e l l - H o r n b y 1983] h a s been u n d erlin ed . T h is d escriptive elem en t d istin g u ish es one lexem e from a n o th e r an d also serves as a link, re la tin g th e physical realm to a m o re ab stra c t one:
E N G L IS H L E X IC A L D IM E N S IO N O F G E N E R A L P E R C E P T IO N . notice to becom e aw are though your senses o r in your mind.
note to notice sth (usu. m en tio n in g it/w riting it dow n/recog nizing it), perceive to notice sth /sb. through your senses o r in yo u r m ind (usu. sth n o t obvious to others).
spot to perceive sth m om entarily as a result o f attending to it. < 4 -in ten tio n , + difficulty >
identify to perceive sth, assigning it to a certain category. discern to perceive sth w ith difficulty an d know w hat it is.
< form al >
distinguish to perceive the difference between tw o o r m ore things. differentiate to distinguish, paying attention to characteristics o r details.
discriminate to distinguish tw o o r m o re things, recognizing and understanding the differences betw een them ,
feel to perceive a state o f m in d o r a condition o f the body, through m ental, em otional or physical stimulus (other th a n sight), detect to notice sth not obvious to o thers, m ak in g an effort to d o so. miss to notice the lack o f s th ./to f a i l to notice sth.
find to becom e aw are o f the existence o f sth.
discover to find sth not known before, cither by accident or after looking f o r them.
experience to have certain experiences, feelings, sensations (being affected by w h a t one m eets with).
S P A N I S H L E X IC A L D IM E N S IO N O F G E N E R A L P E R C E P T IO N pcrcibir llegar al conocim iento de la existencia o la prescncia dc algo о de alguien m ediante los sentidos о la inteligencia aux iliada p o r los sentidos.
aprchcnder percibir < form al > .
c a p ta r percibir algo a través d e los sentidos о la m en te, q u e esta distante о es de dificil percepción.
dctcctar c a p ta r la existencia d e algo/la presencia de alguien a través de indicios que no son obvios.
aprcciar pcrcibir algo, gencralm cnte su tamaiio, intensidad, im portan- cia, etc.
n o tar percibir algo, gencralm cnte p o rq u e a tra e n u cstra atención, ta n to fisica, com o m cntalm ente.
advcrtir n o ta r algo (generalm ente co n el sentido d e la vista), p o r lo general mencionândolo.
hallar (que) n o ta r sübitam ente algo, о la p resencia de alguien, casualm ente о buscândolo.
dcscubrir h allar algo que no se conocia antes, casualm ente о buscândolo.
p ercatarsc (de) percibir algo (generalm ente co n la vista), o p o r un proceso m ental, que no résulta patente.
rcconoccr percibir a través de los sentidos о la inteligencia que una persona о cosa y a se conocia.
distinguir reco nocer dos о varias cosas com o distintas (no la m ism a) o com o diferentes (no iguales).
difcrcnciar distin g u ir dos cosas, averiguando y senalando los rasgos q u e no les son com unes.
idcntificar reconocer a algo о a alguien co m o igual a o tro q u e y a se conoce (en cualidad о carâcter).
sentir pcrcibir en el organism o un estad o ca u sad o p o r un estim ulo externo o interno y resp onder a él. (fisico о em ocional).
experim enter sentir un cambio o modijicación en el o rg an ism o , el estad o de ânim o o los sentim ientos.
1 he d o m ain o f P E R C E P T IO N (to become aware/llegar a l conocim iento) is first related to th a t o f C H A N G E in b o th English an d Spanish (to become different I llegar a ser diferente) th ro u g h the use o f become / llegar a ser in its definition. T his is u n d erstan d ab le since the perceiver experiences a ch an ge w hen som ething new ap p ears on his m ental horizo n, and he subsequently goes from a state o f unaw areness to aw areness, a m ov em en t fro m on e state to a n o th er, relatin g this field to th a t o f M O T IO N .
It is significant th a t w ithin this m o re general dim ension, all o f the verbs can be used to refer to b o th o u te r and inner percep tio n. In th e d efin ition
o f the su p ero rd in ate term , notice, as well as in th a t o f its Spanish equivalent, percibir, we see th a t the process o f perception (to become aware) first specified o n a physical p lan e ( through your senses/m ediante los sentidos), is th en extended to include m en tal processes (or in your m ind/о la inteligencia auxiliada p or los sentidos). In note, we can even see a triple interface w ith the d o m ain o f S PE E C H included as well. T h is is also tru e in Spanish in the case o f advertir which d enotes the physical p ercep tio n o f som ething, either concrete o r ab stra ct, and in m any cases im plies th a t the perceiver says w h a t he has perceived.
T h e underlined descriptive elem ents also em phasize the different m en tal processes related to these verbs. One g ro u p is concerned w ith categorization o f th e perceived object (identifyjidentificar), b u t this ca teg o rizatio n is m o re specifically defined in the follow ing lexemes:
C ategorization plus:
• already know n object — ► recognize/reconocer • p erception o f differences — *• distinguish)distinguir • focus o n details — *■ differentiate/diferenciar • distinctive features — ► discriminate/discrim inar
(Discriminar is m o re restricted in use to eith er scientific/technical contexts o r to the sense o f “ social d iscrim in atio n ” th an the E nglish lexeme, alth o u g h in som e co ntexts it m ay also refer to general perception).
In E nglish, w hen p ercep tio n (eith er physical o r m en tal) en tails an elem ent o f difficulty, discern is used. O n the o th er h an d , spot focalizes the m o m e n ta ry a tte n tio n paid by the subject.
In S panish, apreciar focuses on the perception o f the characteristics o f som ething, im plying a strong elem ent o f evaluation o n the p a rt o f the pcrceiver, o f som ething, either concrete o r ab stract. In b o th instances, a m en tal process o f know ledge and u n d erstanding is required. T h e evaluative elem ent serves as a basis for its m etaphorically m otivated secondary use [cf. S w e e t s e r 1990: 8], when it is used to convey a positive evaluation o f som eone. Its use is th u s extended to the dom ain o f F E E L IN G S , w here its m ean in g focalizes the positive em otions (respect, ad m ira tio n , etc. ) th a t the perceived object elicits in the perceiver.
In b o th E nglish and S panish, th ere are fo u r lexical item s th a t focus on the object, which again can either be a concrete o r an ab stra c t entity: fin d /h a lla r d en o te the physical and m en tal perception o f an object (already k now n o r un k n o w n ), w hereas discover/descuhrir focus on th e p erceptio n o f an object n o t know n before.
C aptar and detectar in Spanish and detect in English a p p e a r m o re frequ ently w ith in an im ate objects (artifacts o r m achines). W hen they arc used in reference to h u m an subjects, they are exam ples o f an ontological metaphor [L ak o ff and Jo h n so n 1980: 25; Jo h n so n 1987: 131] th a t can be
prov isionally labeled the mind-as-a-machine m etap h o r. T h e m ind is th u s conceptualized as a m ach ine th a t is able to perceive th e existence o f an object o n the basis o f w eak signals: in this sense, th e m ind is able to becom e aw are o f the existence o f som ething eith er concrete o r a b stra c t on th e basis o f som e stim ulus n o t obvious to o th er people by m ean s o f in tu itio n o r wit.
In b o th languages tw o lexical item s focalize th e state o f the percciver: fe e l/se n tir are used to convey the effect o f the physical stim ulus on the perceiver. B oth verbs are clear instances o f th e close re latio n sh ip betw een the physical and the non-physical dim ensions o f experience, as th ey are used to den ote the inner perception o f a non-physical stim ulus. C onsequently th e ir m ean in g is extended into the field o f E M O T IO N . E xperience in E nglish and e x p e r im e n ts in S panish focus n o t only on th e perceiver’s state, b u t on th e internal proccss undergon e by the subject o r o n th e modification caused by the stim ulus, relatin g again the physical percep tio n d o m ain to th a t o f C H A N G E .
T hese interfaces in G E N E R A L P E R C E P T IO N underline th e very close re la tio n sh ip th a t exists betw een the d om ain s o f T H O U G H T / S P E E C H / P E R C E P T IO N . T his is u n d ersta n d ab le because in o rd e r to be able to classify th o u g h t, u n d ersta n d in g an d know ledge, w ords have been tak en from o th er closely related dom ains. T his extension o f w ords describing experience in the physical w orld o n to m o re a b stra c t d o m ain s is a sign th a t we u n d ersta n d the activities in q uestion as inherently sim ilar, an d it is also a m ean s by which we m a n ag e to u n d ersta n d u n d ersta n d in g and th in k a b o u t thinkin g. S w e e t s e r [1990: 18] writes:
It seems clear th a t m ore abstract dom ains tend to derive their vocabulary from m ore concrete dom ains (rather than vice versa) and, furtherm ore, that in some eases there is a deep cognitive predisposition to draw from certain particular concrete dom ains in deriving vocabulary for a given abstract dom ain.
3. PH Y SICA L PE R C E PT IO N
T h e verbs o f P E R C E P T IO N are divided into five m a jo r groups: those referring to S IG H T , H E A R IN G , T O U C H , T A S T E , and S M E L L . A lth o u g h each verb h as as its m o st salient m eaning th a t o f physical p ercep tio n via th e relevant sense org an , each verb has ad d itio n al senses extending into m o re a b stra c t dom ains. T h e stru ctu re o f physical p erception is th u s used to stru ctu re m o re ab stra c t experience.
4. VISUAL PE R C E P T IO N IN EN G LISH AND S P A N ISH
Vision is o u r m o st central perceptual experience and th e o ne u p o n w hich we depend the m o st fo r know ledge a b o u t th e w orld. F o r exam ple, o f the verbs o f general perception, only f e e l restricts vision as p erceptu al m o d ality . C onsequently, it is n o t surprising to find th a t this lexical field is larger and m o re com plex th a n those o f the o th er senses. It is also the one th a t has th e m o st extensive range o f extensions in to m o re ab stra c t dom ains.
A s is w ell-know n, see can also m ean know o r understand. S w e e t s e r [1990: 5-6] considers th a t the choice o f see for extension to th e sense o f know ledge is a well m o tiv a te d one, and h as to do w ith co ncep tu al o r g anization, as we are instinctively aw are o f th e sim ilarity betw een know ledge an d vision.
O u r p ro to ty p ical way o f perceiving is w ith o u r eyes (75% o f o u r in fo rm atio n a b o u t the w orld is perceived visually), som ething evidenced in the degree o f lexicalization w ithin this dim ension, and also by th e greater n u m b er o f sight-perceived differentiation features in the verbs in o th er d o m ain s (i.e. walk).
A s we have already m entio n ed , S w e e t s e r [1990] underlines th e co n nectio n o f vision with intellectual activity. As we will later see, verbs o f visual perception, such as see, glimpse, notice, contem plate, an d regard arc exam ples o f a m etap h o rical u n d ersta n d in g o f vision, projected o n to the d o m a in o f m en tal processes. Vision can thu s be projected o u tw ard s tow ard th e concrete w orld o r inw ard to w ard s o u r m ind. T h erefo re o u r m ind acquires a visual capacity (in the m in d ’s eye) and m an y o f o u r th o u g h ts are conceptualized as pictures/im ages. Seeing is o u r p rim ary source o f d a ta a b o u t the w orld, and th o u g h th ere are o th er know ledge m e ta p h o rs from o th e r d om ain s related to V IS IO N , (i.e. L IG H T - w ithin field o f stim ulus verbs) none is as d o m in an t as vision.
A ccording to M iller [1976: 585], see has the follow ing three senses. (1) to perceive w ith the eye
(2) to have a m en tal im age o f
(3) to u n d e rsta n d ; co m p re h en d [ M i l l e r a nd J o h n s o n - L a i r d , 1976: 585]
O f the three possible m eanings for see, (1) refers to vision o f objects in the concrete w orld, (3) refers to m ental aw areness o f ab stra c t thing s (feelings, ideas, concepts, etc.), an d (2) is a tran sitio n defin ition betw een the o th er tw o. A ctual vision is involved, but it is projected intern ally to see/create pictures/im ages o f concrete objects w ithin o u r m inds.
inside w orld « - EYE - » outside w orld concepts ideas images pictures (see2) objects (see3)
(seej)
4.1. D ifferentiation param eters
T h e th ree different m eanings distinguished by M iller relate, a lth o u g h they d o n o t cover the stru ctu re given to the lexical field we are going to study here. T h e lexical field o f vision verbs in E nglish and S panish has been divided into th ree m a jo r subdim ensions (w ith s e e s c c 2 an d lo ok as p artia l archilexem es).
W ithin each sub-dim ension the verbs have been arran ged acco rd in g to p aram eters derived from the repetition o f descriptive elem ents fo u n d in the d efinitio nal stru ctu re o f th e lexemes them selves. Som e o f these p aram eters are vision-specific, (i.e. p artial vision o f the perceptual object), while o th ers, such as difficulty, duration and manner can be considered cross-field dif fe ren tiatio n p aram eters which a p p e ar in a wide rang e o f lexical fields, such as C H A N G E , M O V E M E N T o r S PE E C H .
A side from s e e w hich expresses the physical ability o f perceiving by using o u r eyes (an intransitive and purely stative use), th e m ain differentiation p a ra m e te rs fo u n d in th e d efin itio n al s tru c tu re o f th e lexem es arc the follow ing [sec also A ppendix II, diagram s 1 and 2 (a)/(b)]:
D escriptive P aram eters: 1. In ten tio n 2. D u ra tio n 2.1. S h o rt d u ra tio n 2.2. L ong d u ra tio n 2.2.1. Explicit tim e (a) steadiness
(b) facial expression: anger and surprise 2.2.2. Im plicit tim e
(a) carefulness/higher intentions (b) au th o rity
3. M a n n e r 3.1. Q uickness
3.2. D ifficulty/D ifficulty + d istan ce/+ partial vision 3.3. Secrecy
4. “ T o see sth in y our m in d ” — ► from the o u ter to th e inner p ercep tu al field.
T h e p aram eters o f intention and duration are intim ately related to each other. T his is the case, because m o st o f the verbs belonging to the -duration g ro u p are hyponym s o f see2, th o u g h there are som e exceptions such as sk im o r the Spanish ojear, w hich are hyponym s o f look/m irar respectively. T h e verbs g rouped under + duration, can be fu rth e r divided in to those w hich b e a r a n explicit tim e c o m p o n e n t and th o se in w hich th e tim e c o m p o n e n t is stated im plicitly, as a con sequ ence o f o th e r d escrip tiv e p aram eters such as carefulness or au th o rity .
T his p aram eter is the clearest exam ple o f th e lack o f iso m o rp hism betw een the tw o languages in q u estio n, as th e English verbal lexicon is m u ch richer th a n the Spanish one. In the lexical fields we have been w ork ing on, som e instances o f descriptive verbs [ S n e l l - H o r n b y 1983] have to be rendered in Spanish by m eans o f p erip h rastic co n stru c tio n s (i.e. verb + adverbial m odification). It is also tru e th a t certain descriptive p aram eters are n o t lexicalized a t all in Spanish (i.e. fa c ia l expression).
A n o th e r im p o rta n t p aram eter is th a t o f m an n er. In English three m ain m a n n e r param eters have been distinguished: secrecy o f perception, fa c ia l expression and difficulty o f perception.
In Spanish the relevant manner param eters found are: quickness in the perceptual event, distance o f the perceptual object ru n n in g to g eth er w ith difficulty o f perception (w ith a su b -p aram eter o f pa rtia l vision o f the object) an d secrecy.
4.1.1. Non-intentional vs. intentional visual perception: see2 vs. look
T h e distinction between see as a n o n -intention al verb, w ith an experiencer subject, and look as an intentional verb w hose subject is th e agen t o f the actio n is a controversial m a tte r; as such, it h as received a great deal o f atte n tio n , and it has been a source o f d eb a te am o n g scholars d ealin g w ith perception from various standpoints: philosophy, psychology, psycholinguistics, [c.f. K o l i n s k y 1989; H e l d 1989; E i m a s and G a l a b u r d a 1989].
In re la tio n to th e o p p o sitio n betw een see an d look M i l l e r and J o h n s o n - L a i r d , [1976: 604] write:
...yet it m ay be argued th a t looking implies seeing. This im plication may hold for some statem ents, like “ I’m looking a t the fram e rather than the picture” or “They spent the
m orning looking at the Picassos” . But it is not invariably true. You can look a t som ething w ithout seeing it. I t may also be argued th a t there should be an intentional com ponent to looking: you look in order to see. A lthough there is often an intention to see, there often is n o such intention. . R ather, as a result of looking, you come to perceive whatever you happened to look at. Statem ents o f the form “He accidentally looked at it” are n o t self-contradictory...
T h e ab o v e q u o ta tio n w ould seem to co n tra d ict the d efinition o f look as “to d irect y o u r eyes in a certain direction in o rd e r to see” , o r “ to see by in ten tio n ally d irecting y our eyes” . H ow ever, the c o n tra d ic tio n is only a p p a re n t, since look in som e instances can lose the in ten tio n a l ch a rac te r explicit in its d efinition. F o r this to h appen , it h as to be stated overtly by m ean s o f an adverbial m od ificatio n , as ca n be seen in the exam ple given by M iller: “ I ac cid en tally lo o k ed a t it ” . In th is ex am ple, it is “ accidentally” th a t gives look its n o n -in ten tio n al ch a racter, neu tralisin g th e in te n tio n a l value in its d efin itio n . T h erefo re, + intentional ca n be considered a d efau lt value for look, except w hen th ere is m o d ificatio n specifying otherw ise. T h e q u estio n o f the in ten tio n ality o f vision as we sh all see is also closely re la ted to p a ra m e te rs such as ca refu ln e ss o r a u th o rity .
R o d r i g u e z F e r n a n d e z [1990: 97] considers th a t the o p p o sitio n intentional/non-intentional can be established betw een mirar an d ver in S panish. She considers ver as a dynam ic in stan tan eo u s state o f affairs co n tro lled by an agent, w hereas in mirar, th e state o f affairs is extended in tim e, an d th e action specified can be considered an activity ra th e r th a n a n act. M o re revealing fo r o u r purposes is th e resultative/non-resultative o p p o sitio n betw een the tw o verbs:
M irar m arca el inicio de un proceso en cuyo fin puede eslar о n o la percepción visual,
cuando este se quiere especificar aparece ver2 que m arca el fin de dicho proceso. [...]
Pensar-entender poscen la mism a relation secuencial que mirar-ver: pensar es no-resultativo; entender es resultativo. [ R o d r i g u e z F e r n à n d e z 1990: 104].
M ira r (-resultative) c a n n o t be m odified by ad verbs such as bien o r m a l th a t evaluate the actio n o f sight in itself, w hereas ver2 ( + resultative) does accept this type o f m odification. O n the o th er h an d , m irar (-(-in tentio nal) perm its adverb ial m o d ificatio n th a t describes the a ttitu d e o f the subject or the m an n er in which the action is carried o u t, som ething w hich is im possible w ith ver2, because it is u n iten tio n al. In b o th English and S pan ish, yo u can look w ith o u t actually seeing (just as you can think w ith o u t actually under standing).
T his is also tru e o f o u r d ifferen tiatio n p aram eters, since, in a sense they are a type o f adverbial m odificatio n em bedded in the lexical stru c tu re o f the verb. All the lexical item s w ithin the p aram eters o f secrecy, steadiness,
facial expression and carefulness are hyponym s o f look/m irar, an d it is no accident th a t these p aram eters characterize b o th th e a ttitu d e o f th e subject and the w ay the verbal actio n is carried out.
T h e p aram eters for the hyponym s o f see/ver are distan ce o f the p e r cep tu al object an d difficulty o f perception (including th e Spanish p a ra m e te r o f p artia l vision). T h ere are only tw o exceptions to this: p eer is included in the g ro u p o f difficulty o f perception, bu t it also im plies effo rt and carefulness in th e subject as a consequence o f th e difficulty. T h u s, the ad v e rb ial m o d ific a tio n relates to b o th verbal ac tio n an d th e a ttitu d e o f the subject. T h e o th er exception is the S panish lexem e otear, included in th e g ro u p o f *Лл/алсе + d ifficu lty, b u t again, th is can be exp lained as th e focus o f this verb is placed on the d istance o f th e subject from the p ercep tu al object, and th e difficulty elem ent ap p e ars as a consequence o f this.
M o re com plicated is the relation betw een the + / — d u ra tio n c o m p o n en t an d th e hyponym s o f look an d see. In Spanish nearly all th e lexemes im plyin g sh o rt d u ra tio n belong to th e ver/(see) su b d im en sio n , b u t in E nglish this is n o t so. It w ould thu s be safer to affirm th a t th e see hypony m s p rototypically im ply a sh o rt d u ra tio n o f the perceptual act, an d the look hyponym s pro to ty p ically im ply som e so rt o f tim e span . T his tim e sp an m ay be long o r short, b u t in b o th cases, the subject decides o n an d co n tro ls the d u ra tio n o f th e perceptual action.
T h is leads us to an in tere stin g co n c lu sio n co n c ern in g th e re la tio n betw een m irar/look ( — resultative) vs. ver/see ( + resultative) an d the verbs o f m en tal perception, pensar/think ( —resultative) vs. entender/understand ( + resultative). O u r initial thesis is th a t there is a cross-linguistic tendency to use physical d o m ain s o f experience to conceptualize m o re ab stra c t ones, a fact clearly d em o n strate d by the m etap h o ric al extensions o f these verbs. T h e follow ing po in ts are w orth m en tio n in g to d e m o n strate the consistency an d coherence o f this cross-language phenom en on :
(1) A s we alread y observed in re la tio n to light (F ab er, Pérez H e rn an d ez , in press), w hen a verb o f visual perception is m etaph orically extended to convey either th in k in g o r und erstan d in g , w h at changes is the act-nucleus (i.e. the d o m ain o f experience: from light to em otions, from visual perception to m en tal perception, etc.) b u t the m o d iflcan t o r th e descriptive p a ra m e te r rem ains co n stan t. F o r exam ple, if a verb d enotes carefulness in vision, it will d en o te carefulness in thinking.
(2) T h is consistency also extends to the aspectual c h a ra c te r o f th e lexem es in v o lv ed . T h e re su lta tiv e vs. n o n -re s u lta tiv e c h a ra c te r o f th e lexemes is also m ain tain ed in the m etap h o ric al p rojections o f th e lexemes:
(a) S ee /v er ( + resultative) an d all th eir hyponym s are m etap h o ric ally extended to convey som e kind o f understanding/comprehension (the + resultative
m en tal p air). Seeing as a m en tal event focalizes the act ra th e r th a n th e action , th e sam e as understand in the do m ain o f M E N T A L P E R C E P T IO N .
(b) L ook I mirar ( —resultative) and all their h yponym s are m etap h o rically extended to thoughtjpensam iento (the non-resultative m en tal pair). Since looking is a physical process, it is logical th a t th e targ e t d o m ain o n w hich it is m etap h o rically projected is th a t o f m ental process o r thinking.
T h is is striking evidence th a t “m e ta p h o r is pervasive in everyday life, n o t ju s t in language, b u t in th o u g h t and ac tio n ” [ J o h n s o n 1987: 65], and can be a m ean s to explain how con ceptual categories are organized, how they in terrelate and how the lexical stru ctu re o f langu age is a reflection o f o u r m etap h o ric al u n d ersta n d in g o f reality.
4.1.2. The Parameter o f Duration (see ap pend ix II, d iag ram s 1(a) an d (b))
As has been previously stated , the durative/non-durative o p p o sitio n is an im p o rta n t fa cto r in the lexical stru ctu re o f the verbs o f vision, an d stand s in close re latio n to the previous p aram eter. T h e basic lexical o p p o sitio n we have d ra w n is the one betw een verbs d en o tin g a sh o rt d u ra tio n o f th e perceptual act and tho se in w hich the act o f p ercep tio n is extended over a certain tim e sp an con tro lled by the subject.
4.1.2.1. S hort D uration
In b o th E nglish and S panish, th ere is an im p o rta n t g ro u p o f verbs belonging to the sub-dim ension o f see2/ver2 th a t involve m o m e n ta ry visual perception. In m o st cases this elem ent ap p ears in co m b in atio n w ith o th ers, such as difficulty o f perception, partial vision or distance o f the perceptual object. It is the co m b in atio n o f these p aram eters th a t supplies us w ith th e too ls to establish the lexical o ppositions b o th a t in ter an d in tra-la n g u ag e levels. As can be seen in D iag ram 1 (a) an d (b), th e E nglish verbs im plying a sh o rt d u ra tio n o f th e perceptu al act arc spy, glim pse, spot, and sight. T h e Spanish ones are divisar, avistar, atisbar, vislumhrar, entrever, and guipar.
W ithin the sub-dim ension o f look j mirar, glance, peek, peep and scan also im ply a sh o rt d u ra tio n o f the perceptual activity. T h e S panish lexem es included in this g ro u p are reparar en and ojear. Since this p a ra m e te r is n o t sufficient in itself to establish co n tra st an d co rrespo nd ences, we will discuss these in relatio n to the p aram eters th a t follow.
4.1.2.2. Long D uration
All the lexical item s w hich indicate an activity w ith a lo ng tim e sp an belong to th e sub-dim ension o f look\mirar. T his tim e sp an can eith er be explicit w ithin the definition o f the verbs (as in those d en o tin g steadiness o r facial expressions) o r be a consequence im plicit in som e o th er m ean in g co m p o n en t o f the verb, such as carefulness or au th o rity .
4.1.2.2.1. Explicit Tim e
In this g ro u p the d u ra tio n o f the action is explicitly stated w ithin the definitional structure o f the lexemes, and it is controlled by th e subject/agent. W ithin this g ro u p the lexical item s are subdivided in to tho se w hich p o in t to the contin u ed intensity o f the perceiver’s look, an d tho se w hich describe the facial expression o f the perceiver.
a) Steadiness:
All th e lexical item s in this su b g ro u p focus o n the steadiness o f the perceiver’s loo k, an d im ply at th e sam e tim e a m en tal process p arallel to th e p e rc e p tu a l one, w hich in m o st cases involves also som e k in d o f in ten tio n . Observe/observât is a good exam ple o f this, as it focuses on the m en tal process parallel to physical perception, em phasizing the n eu trality o f the perceiver in relatio n to w hat he is seeing. In ad d itio n , w h a t he h as perceived (b o th physically and m entally) is often re p o rted , th u s ad d in g a n o th e r elem ent to the sequence: P E R C E P T IO N + M E N I A L P R O C E S S + S P E E C H . B oth verbs can den o te as well a sudden physical p ercep tio n o f so m eth in g , parallel to a m en tal aw areness o f th e existence o f th e perceived object.
T h e definition o f watch includes the m eanin g com p o n en ts o f steadiness, attention and intention, as one usually w atches in o rd e r to learn w h at so m eo n e is d o in g o r w h a t h a p p e n s to so m eth in g (eith er co n c re te o r ab stra ct). W hen the focus is placed on the p u rp o se o f the actio n , vigilar is its nearer Spanish equivalent. H ow ever, there is only partial correspondence, because in som e contexts the Spanish verb also implies secrecy o f perception.
In b o th contem plate an d gaze th ere is an em o tio n al o r e v a lu a tiv e elem ent on th e p a rt o f the perceiver. B oth verbs generally convey th e a ttra c tio n felt by the perceiver to w ard s w hat he is seeing. In contem plate this a ttra c tio n is aesthetic, as it is m ainly used in re latio n to so m ething b eautiful in an artistic way. T his positive evaluative elem ent is shared by
admirar, w hich can be m etaphorically projected o n to the d o m a in o f F E E L IN G . W hen contem plate is m etap h o rically projected o n to the field o f M E N T A L P R O C E S S E S (T h o u g h t), it is m o re neu tral. F o r exam ple, if som eone is contem plating a course o f action, he is th in k in g a b o u t w heth er to d o it o r n o t. C ontem plate n orm ally co rresp o n d s to contem plar w ith the difference th a t contem plar m ay im ply in certain con texts th a t the subject arrives at som e conclusion as a result o f his perception .
In gaze, there m ay be a “ sep a ratio n o f the perceiver’s m in d ” while th e visual p ercep tio n is tak in g place. Som eone m ay be deep in th o u g h t, bu t these th o u g h ts m ay o r m ay n o t be related to th e p erceptu al object, while stare im plies a fixed lo o k a t som ebody o r som ething. Since th ere is no eq u iv ale n t term in S p an ish , these verbs hav e to be re n d ere d by th e su p ero rd in ate term plus adverbial m odificatio n: m irar fija m en te.
b) F acial Expression: M anner-of-looking verbs.
In this g roup all the English verbs are used to convey a facial expression, w hich is in tu rn perceived by a second perceiver w ho sees an d evaluates th e facial expression o f the first. T h e descriptio n o f the facial expression im plicit in verbs such as goggle, gape, ga w k, etc. im plies th e presence o f a second perceiver w ho is necessarily looking a t and ev alu atin g th e act o f p ercep tio n being carried o u t by the subject o f the u tteran ce. It is evident th a t if som eone is gaping at som ething (looking a t it w ith an op en m o u th an d very w ide open eyes), he ca n n o t see his ow n face and realize th a t he is gaping, unless he hap p en s to be lookin g in a m irro r. T h erefo re the d escrip tio n o f his face is necessarily being carried o u t by som eo ne else w hose presence th o u g h no t explicitly stated is very real.
N eedless to say, w hat is lexicalized is w hat catches the perceiver’s a tte n tio n . T his varies according to the actio n being realized. F ro m the s tru c tu re o f this dim ension, we can deduce certain d efau lt values fo r the actio n observed by analyzing w h at features arc lexicalized. D ev iatio n s from the n o rm create a bigger “ sp lash ” in the perceiver’s sensory en v iro n m en t, an d co n se q u en tly becom e lexicalized. O nce th e p erceiv er’s a tte n tio n is ca u g h t, the activity is observed and categorized as one ty pe o r a n o th er. H ow ever, in this process, there are o th e r facto rs th a t are being ju d g ed as well. W ithin the lexicalization o f the verbs o f m an n er-o f-lo o k in g we find in fo rm a tio n encoded as to how the physical activity is perceived as well as an ev alu atio n o f physical/em otional characteristics o f the p erson w ho is seeing.
In this su b g ro u p , all the E nglish have to be rendered in S pan ish by m ean s o f p erip h rastic co n stru c tio n s, due to the g reater verbal deseriptivity o f the English language as com p ared w ith the S panish. T h e E nglish verbs glare a n d glow er are used to d en o te an angry facial expression b u t they
differ in th e degree o f intensity o f the em o tio n conveyed. Glare is w eaker th a n (glow)er. T h e ex p lan a tio n can be found in the do u b le field m em b ersh ip o f these verbs. B oth belong eith er directly o r indirectly to th e lexical field o f L IG H T , and this is reflected in th eir definitions. W hile glare co n tain s th e m ean in g o f a strong, u n p leasa n t light, glower ad d s also th e elem ent o f b u rn in g , because glow is strongly associated w ith fire. T h e m o st a p p ro p ria te p erip h rastic equ ivalents in Spanish w ould be:
stare — ► m irar fijam ente.
glare — ► m irar cefiudamente. echar fu e g o p o r los ojos, fu lm in a r con
la mirada. 1
glow er — *- m irar fero zm e n te , con ira.
T h re e o th e r verbs in English convey the expression o f som e em o tio n in th e face o f the subject, focusing o n th e eyes: T h e first is goggle which d en o tes surprise, o r lack o f u n d ersta n d in g o f w hat is being perceived, and the subject has his eyes wide open. Its Spanish equivalent w ould be m irar sin comprender, о m irar con ojos desorbitados; th e second is gape w hose m ean in g adds the fact th a t the subject has his m o u th open. T h u s in S panish this m ean in g w ould be conveyed by the p h rase m irar boquiabierto, an d the last is gaw k, w hich is a colloquial term w ith a decidedly negative ev alu atio n . A s such, it can be related to the in fo rm al Spanish expression estar en babia.
4.1.2.2.2. Im plicit Time
All the verbs belonging to this g ro u p im ply in som e way o r a n o th e r a kind o f in te n tio n involved in th e p erceptual activity. W h at varies is the way in w hich th e process is carried o u t, th e n a tu re o f the object, o r the final goal o f th e perceiver. In th e first g ro u p , th e visual d esc rip tiv e p a ram eter focuses on the carefulness o f the actio n p erfo rm ed , as well as on the com pleteness o f the process; w hen the lexemes are m o ved from vision to thought, the p a ram eter rem ains co n stan t, and they d en o te an analytical w ay o f thinking, fo r w hich b o th care and atte n tio n is req uired . T his fact ca n acco u n t fo r the co m m on d iap h asic feature o f these verbs. F o r exam ple, they are m o re likely to a p p e a r in reference to intellectual activities, such as research, study or w ork w here som e so rt o f detailed analysis is required.
T h e verbs in th e second g ro u p also possess the p ra g m a tic fe a tu re o f the a u th o rity th a t the subject exercises over th e perceived object. In b o th gro u p s a canonical view point is assum ed. A s L a n g a c k e r [1987: 123]
p o in ts o u t, in any given visual experience the subject perceives th e object from a vantage p o in t, in o th e r w ords, from a definite po sitio n, and w ith a certain o rie n ta tio n in relatio n to the object. In verbs such as censor, inspect, and review, the subject is in a hig her po sitio n th a n th e perceived object, w hich he is therefore looking dow n on. T h e physical experience o f the subject being above th e object, accounts for th e co n c ep tu alizatio n o f h u m an relatio n s in terins o f the scale schema. A s Jo h n so n convincingly argues [ J o h n s o n 1987: 125], scalarity perm eates th e w hole o f h u m an experience: w e m easu re o u r d istan ce { т о т th e p e rc e p tu a l ob ject, an d superim pose an o rien ta tio n over it. C orrespondingly, w hen we refer to so m eo n e’s au th o rity over som ething, we conceptualize him in term s o f a scale in which the higher the subject is placed, the m o re pow erful h e is. I f we consider this, it is n o t surprising th a t we use th e expression social scale to refer to th e pow er relatio ns betw een people in o u r culture.
(a) C arefulness / H igher In ten tio n s
R eg ard conveys a m en tal or em o tional evalu ation on th e p a rt o f the perceiver (positive o r negative evaluation o f the perceived object). Such a n axiological ev alu atio n is n o t conveyed by view, w hich d eno tes carefu l ness and interest, usually because o f the necessity o f m ak in g a decision. W hen w h a t is being viewed is concrete, it is generally a n area o r so m et hing spread over a spatial extension. W hen the o bject in q u estio n is an a b stra c t entity, view is one o f the clearest instances o f a m etaphorically m o tiva ted secondary use. View, d eno tin g som eone’s way o f thinking, is so em bedded in everyday lan guage th a t no one considers it to be an exten sion o f its p rim ary sense o f visual perception. In S panish, “la vision” (the view) som eone h as o f n o n -con crete things, such as facts o r events, also d e n o te s his w ay o f th in k in g , w ith an im p o rta n t elem ent o f p erso n al ev a lu a tio n (cf. the expression “point o f view" and its Spanish correlate “pun to de v iita ''.)
S urvey and its Spanish equivalents inspeccionar an d reconocer im ply careful an d th o ro u g h o b serv atio n on the p a rt o f the perceiver, w hose p u rp o se is to check o u t the “ state o f affairs” in relatio n to so m ething. T h is use o f the Spanish verb reconocer has to be distinguished from the one we saw in relatio n to the verbs o f general perception, w here it d eno tes the sudd en percep tio n o f som e object w hich has already been perceived before. In exam ine/exam inar, the object perceived is b o th checked and ev alu ated , and in m ost cases the perceiver form s an op in io n o f it. In b o th verbs, w h a t is perceived can be either concrete o r ab stra ct. W hen it is a b stra c t, the basic visual activity is tran slated into intellectual activity, and accordingly, the field changes from V IS U A L P E R C E P T IO N to M E N T A L P E R C E P T IO N (T H O U G H T ).
In this group, there are tw o Spanish verbs which show interesting characte ristics. T he first is fijarse, which denotes great concentration on the p a rt o f the perceiver, usually in order to learn something. This verb can be used as well to convey a sudden m en tal aw areness o f the existence o f som ething. T his aw areness m ay be b ro u g h t on by a visual or m en tal stim ulus, an d w hen it is thus used it is synonym ous with reparar en. T he reflexive use (-se) o f this verb is m etaph orical in itself, as it is an extension o f fija r (to f i x , fa sten , secure). In a sense, it im plies th a t the subject w ants to fa sten his m ind o n to som ething in o rd e r to achieve greater und erstan d in g . T his verb, in th e sam e w ay as its archilexem e mirar, is widely used in Spanish as an expletive, m ean in g “ pay a tte n tio n ” : “F ijate, estàn todos los libros aqui".
T h e second verb is desojarse w hich, in co n son an ce w ith the Spanish tendency to exaggerate, can be said to be the lexicalization o f th e result o f a virtually su p erh u m a n visual effort: the priv ativ e suffix, des-, com bined w ith th e verbalized form o f ojos (ojear) literally m eans to become w ithout eyes. In o th er w ords, this verb m eans to look a t so m eth ing so closely and w ith such a care th a t this effo rt causes you to “ lose” y o u r eyes.
Scrutinize im plies paying a tte n tio n to tiny details w ith the p u rp o se o f extracting som e inform ation from or about the object. Its m eaning corresponds to th a t o f escrutar, w hich in m o st instances ap p ears w ith an explicit reference to purpose. T h ere is also a m eaning overlap w ith the m o re intensive escudrinar. It is interesting to n o te th a t w hen these lexical item s arc m etap h o rically projected o n to the field o f M E N T A L P R O C E S S E S (T H O U G H T ), all o f them m ain tain the sam e focus on details.
b) A u th o rity
T h e lexical item s in this g roup all im ply th a t th e perceiver carries o u t the actio n carefully, an d above all, is in a positio n o f a u th o rity . H is action s are generally oriented to o b ta in som e conclusion or m a k e som e ju d g em en t. C ensor d en o tes a m o ral or political ju d g em en t m ad e by som eone in an official capacity. W hen the object o f p erception is an ab stra c t entity, (for exam ple, som eone else’s a ttitu d e s, b eh a v io u r o r feelings) th e n eg ativ e axiological w eight increases. T he sam e is tru e fo r censurar, w hich im plies m en tal an d em o tio n al evaluatio n at the sam e tim e, an d even action , as the subject m ay d o som ething to show his rejection. T his verb, how ever, in Spanish is rarely used fo r visual perception.
Inspectlinspeccionar im ply a careful look to ascertain th a t everything is the w ay it should be. In m o st cases, the perceiver is in a p o sitio n to pu nish w hen his ev alu atio n is n o t favourable. Review /revisar b o th involve an intellectual an d evaluative judgem ent. H ow ever, w hen review is used in its sense o f inspecting soldiers, ships, etc., then the Spanish c o n stru c tio n pasar revista is its n earer sem antic equivalent.
4.1.3. T he P ara m e ter o f M anner (see A ppendix II, d iag ram s 2(a) an d (b))
4.1.З.1. Q uickness
G lim pse, sp y a n d sp o t are all h y p o n y m s o f s e e 2 fo c u sin g o n th e quickness o f the p erceptual act. Glimpse suggests the m o m e n ta ry percep tio n o f som ething w hile the subject is often engaged in som e o th er activity. O n the o th er h a n d , spy m eans to catch sight o f som ething. S p o t, on th e o th er h a n d , im plies th e m o m e n ta ry p ercep tio n o f so m eth in g as a re su lt o f a tte n d in g to it, a tte n tio n req u ired in m o st cases by th e d ifficu lty o f percep tio n.
W hen glim pse is used to describe th e perceptio n o f som ethin g ab stra c t, the su p ero rd in ate term w ithin its definition w ould be see2 d e n o tin g “ to h ave a m en tal im age o f ’ (F o r co-hyponym s o f this sense o f glim pse, see 4.1.4). D espite the change o f field (V ISU A L P E R C E P T IO N — * M E N T A L P E R C E P T IO N ), the adverbial m odificatio n o f quickness rem ains co n stan t.
Glimpse and spot co rresp ond to avistar and atisbar in S pan ish, b o th o f w hich focus o n the difficulty o f p erception an d th e distan ce o f th e perceiver from the object o f perception. W hen atisbar ap p e ars w ith an ab stra c t co m p lem ent, it ten d s to be som ething o f a positive n a tu re such as esperanza (hope) o r solución (solution). T his is related to th e ontological m etaphor, L I G H T I S L IF E , conceptualizing the fo rth co m in g positive event as th e p ercep tio n o f a flash o f light in the d a rk [ F a b e r , P é r e z H e r n a n d e z , to appear].
W hen spot focuses o n the m ental aw areness p ro v o k ed by a su dd en stim ulus, either physical o r m ental, its Spanish tra n sla tio n is reparar en, w hich usually refers to details or sm all things. Glance d en o tes a q u ick loo k a t som ething concrete, its nearest Spanish equ iv alen t being the expression “echar un vistazo". S k im is used in reference to th e q uick an d in atten tiv e re ad in g o f a b o o k o r new spaper. In this sense it c o rresp o n d s to ojear, derived from ojo (eye), an d indicating a quick, superficial loo k a t som ething. A n o th e r equivalent w ould be its h o m o p h o n e hojear, derived from “ h o ja ” (sheet o f p aper). W hen the object o f ojear is a b o o k o r a n ew spaper, there seem s to be n eu tra liz atio n o f the lexical o p p o sitio n w ith hojear, as it m ean s to lo o k at som ething and tu rn pages a t the sam e tim e, th u s becom ing interchang eable, and fo r m an y native speakers, indistinguishable.
Scan is clearly goal-directed, the p u rp o se o f the perceiver being to extract key inform ation from the object o f perception. T his verb is am bivalent w ith respect to m a n n e r, since it can be used eith er to im ply a q u ick lo ok o r a careful one. Browse, on the o th er h a n d , does n o t have quickness am o n g its m eaning co m po nents. R a th e r it focuses on th e m o v em en t o f the
perceiver w h o looks an d m oves a t the sam e tim e as he goes from o ne th in g to a n o th e r w ithin th e sam e general area. Curiosear is its nearest equivalent, b u t in certain contexts th e Spanish verb has a negative axiological value, indicating disapproval o f the action being carried o u t by the perceiver.
4.1.3.2. D ifficulty/D ifficulty + D ista n c e /+ P a rtia l Vision
W ithin the g ro u p d en o tin g difficulty, the English verb sight im plies th a t th e perceptual object com es in to the visual field suddenly, as does divisar in Spanish. N early all the Spanish verbs in this g ro u p also im ply d istance from the p erceptual object: divisar is used only in reference to concrete objects an d bears an elem ent o f directionality (forw ard) o r o f perception from a high place; Like divisar, avistar also co ntain s this explicit elem ent o f “ fo rw ard p ro jectio n ” , b u t is m ainly used in “ sailing” . T h e S pan ish verb otear conveys the visual process o f looking over an a re a o r surface from a high place, usually for a long tim e, and w ith a fixed look.
Discern in its m o re specific sense o f visual p erceptio n, im plies the identificatio n o f an object, m ainly in c o n tra st w ith its b ac k g ro u n d . Its nearest equivalent w ould be distinguir w hich also, can be tra n sla te d as distinguish w hen it im plies the identification o f differences o r details.
A n im p o rta n t difference betw een the tw o languages can be fo u n d in the fact th a t in Spanish there is a g ro u p o f verbs w hich convey p artia l vision o f the object, a p aram eter not found in the English lexical field. W h at distinguis hes these verbs is the cause th a t m akes to tal p erception im possible. In vislumhrar the obstacles to to tal vision are d istan ce and lack o f th e light, necessary fo r th e perception. In entrever, there is som e sort o f barrier (such as a curtain or a wall) between the perceiver and the perceptual object, and in the case o f trasver, perception is m ad e difficult because th e perceiver is loo king th ro u g h som ething, (such as piece o f gauzy m aterial).
B oth vislumhrar and entrever share the m etap h o rical use we have seen in relatio n to atisbar, referring to the (partial, o r intuitive) m en tal p erceptio n o f fo rth c o m in g positive events such as solutions o r aim s w hich will p u t an end to problem s o r b ad situations.
4.1.3.3. Secrecy
A n o th e r im p o rta n t p aram eter w ithin the field o f visual p ercep tio n is th a t o f secrecy. P eek and peep im ply th a t th ere is a b a rrie r (i.e. a c u rta in )
betw een th e perceiver an d the object perceived, and th a t con sequ ently the p erson carrying o u t the action is hidd en from o thers, usually a t his ow n wish. W h a t he perceives is n orm ally som eth in g he has m ixed feelings a b o u t. It is so m ething he greatly desires to see, b u t at the sam e tim e he feels ash am ed , because he th in k s he should n o t be lo ok in g a t it.
This elem ent o f sham e does n o t exist in spy on, which is m o re inten tio nal, p rem ed itated an d durative; it is also goal-directed, since such an actio n is perform ed to learn som ething. In Spanish, th e sam e d istin ctio n can be d ra w n betw een fisgar/fisgonear on the one h a n d , an d espiar o n th e other. T h e first tw o d en o te a reprehensible, bu t u n im p o rta n t secretive q u ick look a t som ething o r som eone, w hereas espiar im plies a m o re p re m e d ita te d , co n tin u o u s an d disguised series o f perceptions. Acechar d en otes steadiness o f perception, as the perceiver is w aiting to d o som ething usually b ad , such as m ak e an a tta c k o n som ebody.
4.1.4. To see sth in y o u r m in d — ► from the O u ter to the Inner P erceptual Field
In th e analysis o f all the previous verbs in th e field, we have been d istingu ishing between: (i) the visual perception o f a n en tity from th e ou tsid e w orld, (an entity w hich m u st be w ithin o u r visual field an d h aving certain physical p ro p erties such as shape, co lo u r an d size and (ii) th e m en tal p erception o f som ething w ith o u t these prop erties: an ab stra c t entity , the percep tio n o f w hich can be achieved only th ro u g h o u r m en tal abilities. W e have posited th a t in b o th E nglish and S panish, w hen we use a verb o f visual percep tio n to refer to the perception o f such ab stra c t entities, they are conceptualized as visible ones, an d the m en tal p ro cess/act required to perceive them is conceptualized as a m etap h o ric al exten sion o f the physical one.
L a n g a c k e r [1987: 111] w rites in relatio n to this distinction:
...The sensation directly induced by stim ulating a sense organ is an instance o f a peripherally connected event; the corresponding sensory image, evoked in the absence o f such stim ulation, is an autonom ous but equivalent event. F o r large classes o f autonom ous events, o f course, there are no equivalent events th a t are peripherally connected (consider em otions or abstract concepts).
B ut w h a t we are dealing w ith in this subdim ension o f visual p ercep tio n is a different m atter: in these verbs actual vision is involved, b u t th e visual stim ulus is n o t in the outside w orld, b u t is created w ithin o u r m inds. F o r exam ple, verbs such as imagine allow the object w hich we create in o u r
m in d s to have a concrete m atch in g in th e o utside w orld, b u t ju s t as often it is som ething a b stra c t (i.e. “ Imagine a cat on the table" o r “Im a gine a good reason to stop sm oking/ I imagine that you don't m ean what yo u are really saying..." O th er verbs, such as visualize/visualizar in S pa nish, im ply the converse process: to give (in o u r m inds, o f co u rse) a c o n crete shape, size... to som ething w hich often is lacking in such visible p roperties.
T hese are “ au to n o m o u s m en tal events” , thus explained by L a n g a c k e r [1987: 113]:
...Through these m ental operations and others, we are capable o f constructing conceptual worlds of arbitrary complexity involving entities and phenom ena th at have no direct counterpart in peripherally connected experience. Such are the worlds o f dream s, stories, m athem atics, predictions about the future, flights o f the im agination, and linguistic theories...
In this subdim ension, the hierarchical stru ctu re as well as the descriptive p aram eters found in the verbs arc q u ite sim ilar in E nglish and Spanish; in b o th languages dream /sonar can refer to the sub ject’s c reatio n o f m en tal im ages w hen he is sleeping and also w hen he is aw ake. 1 his seco nd ’ possibility is w hen the subject sees in his mind a situ atio n or event th a t he wishes w ould h ap p e n in the futu re, and con sequently w ould like to sec with his eyes.
D aydream in E nglish co rresp o n d s to ensonarse in S panish in th a t b o th refer to th e “ au to n o m o u s m en tal experience” o f im agining a b etter o r m o re p leasa n t situ atio n th a n the real one, b u t they differ in th eir d efinitio nal structure: w hereas the Spanish verb is a hyponym o f see (thu s defined as “to see in y o u r m ind, things or situ atio n s w hich arc m u ch b etter th a n they really a re ” ), th e English verb is a hyponym o f think (thu s “ to think a b o u t p leasa n t things fo r a period o f tim e” ). F o r this reaso n , this verb has n o t been included w ithin the lexical field o f V IS U A L P E R C E P IIO N , alth o u g h b o th verbs cover a sim ilar, and in m o st contexts, equivalent sem antic area, so m eth in g w hich serves ag ain to u n d erlin e th e close re la tio n betw een V IS IO N and T H O U G H T .
5. VISION AND LIGHT
A cco rd in g to T a y l o r [1990: 83], m eanings d o n o t exist in them selves, b u t are “ cognitive stru ctu res, em bedded in p attern s o f know ledge and b e lie f ’. C onseq uently any com prehensive sem antic analysis m u st necessarily ta k e into ac co u n t how h u m an beings organize their p a tte rn s o f know ledge
