Du fait grammatical au fait cognitifFrom Gram to Mind:

Grammar as Cognition

Presses Universitaires de BordeaUx

Edité par / Edited by

Jean-Rémi LapaireGuillaume Desagulier

Jean-Baptiste Guignard

ISBN : 978-2-86781-xxx-x ISSN : 1275-0522

PRIX 00 e9 782867 814495

Du

fait

gram

mat

ical

au

fait

cogn

itif

Fr

om G

ram

to M

ind:

Gram

mar

as

Cogn

ition

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

Svetlana Martinek National University of Kiev, Ukraine

1. INTRODUCTION

Cognitive linguistics has created new opportunities for investigat-ing the conceptual structures of human consciousness via their lan-guage manifestations. Yet, the method used is largely introspective and many claims are based on the observer’s intuition alone. An ambitious “theory of semantics” which “takes conceptual organiza-tion into account” (Sweetser 1996: 6) should adopt a more cautious attitude to introspection:

Like any method in a scientific endeavor, introspection must be employed with rigor. For example, it must include such procedures as the controlled manipulation of the linguistic material whose meanings are being assessed. Further, the findings resulting from introspection must be correlated with those resulting from other methodologies. Such other methodologies include the analysis of introspective reports by others, the analysis of discourse and corpora, crosslinguistic and diachronic analysis, the assessment of context and of cultural structure, the observational and experimental techniques of psycholinguistics, the impairment studies of neuropsychology, and the in-strumental probes of neuroscience. (Talmy 2003: 5)

One way of improving research methodology and acquiring stronger cognitive evidence is to use experimental methods as this article purports to show.

2. JUSTIFICATION OF THE AE METHOD

As Newman (1996: XI) notes, cognitive linguistics hardly has any one methodology which it can call its own; instead, “the data which figure in cognitive linguistic analyses might be drawn from published

Svetlana MARTINEK

84

grammars, historical texts, original field work, dictionary entries, psycholinguistic experiments, questionnaires, introspection etc., just as one finds with virtually every other linguistic theory”.

The method of an associative experiment (AE) borrowed from psycholinguistics has been used for studying verbs in several recent research studies (Gries, Hampe, Schönefeld 2005; Martinek 2004; Newman 2004). However, even though the method of AE conforms to the requirements of psychological relevance and gives a secure and reliable foundation for the theoretical assumptions of the investi-gators, it would be a mistake to surmise that we can completely avoid the use of introspection: the interpretation of the obtained results necessarily challenges the introspection based on the linguistic intui-tion of the researcher. In actuality, we alternate using the experimen-tal method and introspection to interpret the obtained results.

As language data is “a unique and amazing source of information for reconstructing deeper cognitive processes” (Fauconnier 1997: 5), the working hypothesis is that the associative network is not arbitrary but, to a large extent, is a reflection of hierarchical conceptual struc-tures in the consciousness of speakers. This isomorphism (but not the identity!) of conceptual structures and their external manifestations makes it possible to investigate conceptual structures within the con-sciousness of speakers via the data of the AE method. As a lexical sign is included into the associative network, after a word-stimulus is perceived, an appropriate fragment of the complicated conceptual structure with its specific features becomes fully or partially acti-vated. Thus, the responses evoked by a certain stimulus can be seen as the external manifestation of corresponding conceptual structures and their specific traits.

According to the pivotal principle of cognitive grammar, which states “that grammatical structures do not constitute an autonomous formal system or level of representation: they are claimed instead to be inherently symbolic, providing for the structuring and conventional symbolization of conceptual content” (Langacker 2002: 16), even subtle differences between the meanings of the words-stimuli must result in a different set of obtained responses; as such it is expected that the specific meaning of each word and corresponding conceptual structure may be revealed via the

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

85

experiment. Furthermore, as meaning is sought “in the realm of cognitive processing” (Langacker 2002: 61), it is possible to interpret the responses obtained via the AE in accordance with the revealed cognitive domains. Hence, the problem of the interpretation of the responses evoked by stimuli via the AE and their further classification may be plausibly solved if the theoretical assumptions of cognitive grammar are employed.

The results described here were obtained via the AE with Ukrain-ian native speakers. The traditional way to conduct such an experi-ment is to show or say a word to respondents, then ask to them to say the word that first comes to their minds after receiving the stimulus. Each stimulus word was presented to 200 respondents, who were native speakers of Ukrainian of different age (from 18 to 60 years old) and of both sexes in equal quantities.

3. THE VERBS OF VISUAL PERCEPTION WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF LANGUAGE

The notion of Aktionsart was introduced by Agrell (1908), who juxtaposed the verb’s Aspekt and Aktionsart and defined the latter as a specification of the means of action realization expressed by pre-fixed verbs. Later, the notion was widened to include not only pre-fixes, but also some suffixes and other derivational elements, which started being considered as carriers of Aktionsart meanings. Apre-sian, considering the difference between pairs of verbs with different roots like oboniat’ ‘to perceive (a smell) by inhaling through the nose’ -- niukhat’ ‘to inhale through the nose for the purpose of iden-tifying a scent’, vidiet’ ‘to perceive by eyesight’ – smotriet’ ‘to direct a look at smth to see it’, and slyshat’ ‘to perceive by hearing’ – slushat’ ‘to direct a hearing to smth to listen to it’, noted that it is easier to describe and analyze them from the perspective of analogi-cal pairs, and remarks that “these three pairs constitute a rather exact semantic proportion” (Apriesian 1995: 103). Therefore he claims that “the more similarities in semantic structures of units we will dis-cover, the more fully the systemic organization of lexis will be de-scribed” (Апресян 1995: 118).

Svetlana MARTINEK

86

Many languages contain such pairs of verbs with different roots that express different aspects of visual perception. In the Ukrainian language there is also a pair of verbs with different roots: bachyty ‘to see’ and dyvytysia ‘to look (at)’. This paper seeks to come to a better understanding of the semantic structures of the given verbs, especially concerning the problem of their polysemy as motivated by underlying conceptual structures.

Taylor (2003: 28-29), emphasizing that “ostension can play hardly any role at all” in differentiating meanings of the English verbs (to) see, (to) look, and (to) watch, proposes to attempt to de-scribe the differences between the words appealing to the (broadly understood) context in which the words are used. In this regard, the sets of the responses evoked by Ukrainian verbs bachyty ‘to see’ and dyvytysi’a ‘to look’ may be considered as the specific contexts.

The responses evoked by stimuli bachyty ‘to see’ (1a) and dyvytysia ‘to look (at)’ (2) clearly reveal their relation to the notion of eyesight, but for the former this connection is stronger (see also 1b) than for the latter.

(1a) bachyty ‘to see’: zіr 4% ‘eyesight + Nom/Acc’ 100% zіr 0,5% ‘100% eyesight + Nom’

(1b) bachyty ‘to see’: ne buty slіpym 0,5% ‘not to be blind’ ne bаchyty 0,5% literally ‘not to see’

vydnо 0,5% literally ‘one can see; something is visible; it is clear’ (impersonal form)

(2) dyvytysia: zіr 2,5% ‘eyesight’

Part of the responses evoked by the given stimuli most probably denote the organ of visual perception (3a), but due to the complica-tion of the corresponding conceptual structure the problem of the interpretation of the obtained results arises here. This problem is very difficult since the pair of stimulus and response forms the minimal context, which sometimes is not sufficient for understanding.

(3a) bachyty ‘to see’: оkо 4% ‘eye + Nom/Acc’ оchі 1,5% ‘eyes + Nom/Acc’

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

87

dyvytysia ‘to look’: оchі 8,5% ‘eyes + Nom/Acc’ оkо 0,5% ‘eye + Nom/Acc’ bаn’ky 0,5% low colloquial ‘eyes + Nom/Acc’

(3b) bachyty ‘to see’: оchymа 0,5% ‘eyes + Instr.’ dyvytysia ‘to look’: оchymа 0,5% ‘eyes + Instr.’

(3c) dyvytysia ‘to look’: v оchі 7%, v vіchі 1%, u vіchі 1,5% ‘into eyes + Acc’

Some of the above-mentioned responses are ambiguous because the Nominative and Accusative Cases of these nouns have the same outward forms. Correspondingly, the intentions of the respondents remain unknown, and we cannot exactly identify whether these re-sponses denote the organ of visual perception or its object. In con-trast, the (3a) other responses, which were received in the form of Instrumental Case (3b), clearly reveal the function of eyes in the process of visual perception. Besides, the important role of eye con-tact in the communication process is attested to by rather frequent responses (3c) evoked by stimulus dyvytysia ‘to look’.

4. AN OBJECT OF VISUAL PERCEPTION

4.1. As the semantic structures “are characterized relative to ‘cognitive domains’, where a domain can be any sort of conceptuali-zation” (Langacker 2002: 3), the obtained responses also confine specific domains and reveal appropriate scopes of predication. Be-sides, as “predication typically invokes multiple domains, which characterize different aspects of the profiled entity” (Langacker 2002: 62), the AE consequently makes it possible not only to reveal corresponding cognitive domains and to rank them accordingly to their relative prominence, but also to discover the traits that are pecu-liar to certain conceptual structures.

A salient difference between the verbs bachyty ‘to see’ and dyvytysia ‘to look’ is that if the things perceived are mentioned, these participants in the situations appear as the direct objects of the

Svetlana MARTINEK

88

former and most frequently as the prepositional objects with the latter.

4.2 The verb-stimulus bachyty ‘to see’ most frequently evokes

responses signifying an object of seeing. Grammaticalized responses (4) mention the persons or things (it concerns only the nouns or pro-nouns of feminine gender in the singular, both animate and inani-mate), which might be perceived as the direct objects of seeing.

(4) bachhyty ‘to see’: blyzhniоhо 1% ‘neighbor + Acc’ druhа 0,5% ‘friend + Acc’, druzіv 0,5% ‘friends + Acc’ kаrtynu 0,5% ‘picture + Acc’ kоhоs’ 1% ‘somebody + Acc’ liudey 1% ‘people + Acc’ liudynu 0,5% ‘human, person + Acc’ mаshynu 0,5% ‘car + Acc’ sestru 0,5% ‘sister + Acc’ tebe 0,5% ‘you + Acc’ yiyi 0,5% ‘her’ zіrky 0,5% ‘stars + Acc’

Other responses (5) enumerate things that also can be the objects of visual perception. In so far as inanimate nouns of masculine and neuter gender in the Nominative and Accusative Cases, as well as inanimate nouns of feminine gender in the plural, have the same flexions, there is some ambiguity here because the intentions of the respondents remain implicit. But most probably the responses denot-ing inanimate objects are also used in the Accusative Case, which is the archetypal form for the direct object (see Langacker 2002: 236-239).

(5) bachyty ‘to see’: shchоs’ 1% ‘something + Nom/Acc’ derevо 0,5% ‘tree + Nom/Acc’ dzerkаlо 0,5% ‘mirror + Nom/Acc’ dаlechіn’ 1% ‘farness + Nom/Acc’ hоryzоnt 1% ‘horizon + Nom/Acc’

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

89

kоmpyuter 0,5% ‘computer + Nom/Acc’ krаyevyd 0,5% ‘landscape + Nom/Acc’ nebо 1,5% ‘sky + Nom/Acc’ nаvkоlyshnie 0,5% ‘surroundings + Nom/Acc’ оzerо 0,5% ‘lake + Nom/Acc’ peizаzhі 0,5% ‘scenery, landscapes + Nom/Acc’ svіtlо 2,5% ‘light + Nom/Acc’ sоntse 1% ‘sun + Nom/Acc’ (compare also bаhаtо 0,5% ‘a lot’, vse 2% ‘all + Nom/Acc’)

Part of the responses (6a and b) was obtained in the form, which can be clearly defined as the Nominative case and as such these re-sponses were received in the non-grammaticalized form. The inter-pretation of these responses necessitates recourse to extra-linguistic knowledge. If the response denotes the inanimate thing (6a), which is obviously the object of visual perception, we are dealing with a non-grammaticalized reaction. The response denoting an animate being is ambiguous because it might be considered either as a subject of vis-ual perception or as the name of an object of visual perception in its initial form.

(6a) bachyty ‘to see’: kаrtynа 0,5% – picture + Nom

(6b) bachyty ‘to see’: kоzа 0,5% – she-goat + Nom

All in all, the obtained responses most frequently reveal the direct object – the participant lying ‘downstream’ on the chain, which is the archetypal role for the Accusative Case; the ‘upstream’ part of the chain that is correspondingly the Agent and the first prominent par-ticipant is often not revealed (cf. Langacker 2002, 236-239). The animate responses (7) in the Nominative case, and therefore Agents, are rare and most probably reveal the secondary meaning of the verb (see section 6).

Svetlana MARTINEK

90

(7) bachyty ‘to see’: іntelіhent 0,5% ‘intellectual, cultured person + Nom’

vіruiuchyi 0,5% ‘religious person, believer + Nom’ rоzumnyi 0,5% ‘clever, intellectual + Nom (with inani-

mate noun – Acc)’

Thus, despite the verb bachyty ‘to see’ representing a specific means of conceptualising visual perception, which is why it may be considered a verb of perceptual ability of an Agent who just passive-ly registers the presence of an object in the visual field (cf. Taylor 2003:30), responses evoked by this stimulus chiefly reveal partici-pants lying ‘downstream’ on the chain.

4.3 Since the verb dyvytysia ‘to look’ represents another way of

conceptualising visual perception, it is associated with quite different contexts. Taylor (2003: 29-30) notes that with the English verb look, the use of a preposition is required; besides, “[w]hat these preposi-tions have in common is that they are all directional prepositions, and contribute the idea of directed motion. They profile not a location, but a path; typically, the path is characterized with respect to its end point”.

The biggest part of the responses evoked by stimulus dyvytysia ‘to look’ enumerates different objects with directional prepositions na ‘on, upon’ (8) and v ‘into’ (9).

(8) dyvytysia ‘to look’: nа 0,5% literally ‘on’ nа kоhоs’ 0,5% literally ‘on somebody +Acc’ nа nebо 2% literally ‘on sky + Acc’ nа niоhо 0,5% literally ‘on him + Acc’ nа svіtlо 0,5% literally ‘on light + Acc’ nа zоrі 0,5% literally ‘on stars + Acc’

(9) dyvytysia ‘to look’: u dzerkаlо 0,5% literally ‘into mir-ror + Acc’

u vіknо 1% literally ‘through, into window + Acc’ v dаlechіn’ 1% ‘into the distance + Acc’

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

91

v nebо 2% literally ‘into sky + Acc’ v televіzоr 0,5% literally ‘into TV + Acc’

All of the responses in (8) express the idea that an Agent of a hy-pothetical situation sends its gaze in the direction of a target entity, which terminates at the perceived object. Instead, responses with preposition v ‘in, into’ (9) express the idea of the penetration of one’s gaze into something, which in this case is a far more salient property than the ‘arriving’ of a gaze at an end point. Use of the verb dyvytysia ‘to look’ with different prepositions profiling distinct tra-jectories of a gaze generates corresponding ‘extended’ meanings of the verb, as will be shown in section 6.

Some of the responses (10) were obtained in non-grammaticalized form but obviously signify the objects of visual perception or the path of a gaze characterised with respect to its end point.

(10) dyvytysia ‘to look’: dаlech 1, dаlechіn’ 1, dаl’ 0,5% ‘distance + Nom/Acc’

dzerkаlо 0,5% ‘mirror + Nom/Acc’ ekrаn 0,5% ‘screen + Nom/Acc’ knyhа 0,5% ‘book + Nom/Acc’ kvіtkа 0,5% ‘flower + Nom/Acc’ lіs 0,5% ‘forest + Nom/Acc’ оdiah 0,5% ‘cloth + Nom/Acc’ nebо 0,5% ‘sky + Nom/Acc’ pryrоdа 0,5% ‘nature + Nom/Acc’ prоstіr 0,5% ‘space + Nom/Acc’ vulytsia 0,5% ‘street + Nom/Acc’

The non-grammaticalized responses (11) are ambiguous because they might denote either a direct object of visual perception or some obstacle/gate for a gaze revealing its specific trajectories.

(11) dyvytysia ‘to look’: vіknо 1,5% ‘window + Nom/Acc’ vіknа 0,5% ‘windows + Nom/Acc’

Svetlana MARTINEK

92

As the Ukrainian verb dyvytysia ‘to look’, like the English to look or to watch, “can designate situations that are construed both as in-ternally homogeneous and as temporally circumscribed” (Taylor 2003: 31), this verb can be used without a preposition to designate a scanning process that is confirmed by the obtained responses (12).

(12) dyvytysia ‘to look’: televіzоr 16% ‘TV + Nom/Acc’ fіl’m 2% ‘film + Nom/Acc’ kіnо 0,5% ‘movie’ (compare also kаrtky 0,5% ‘cards+ Nom/Acc’)

As Langacker claims (2002: 236), “archetypal notions derive from recurrent aspects of our everyday experience, and represent deeply ingrained categories organizing our conception of participant interaction” and may be viewed “as part of our general conceptual apparatus”. An absence of responses revealing the ‘upstream’ part of the chain -- an Agent or the first prominent participant -- may be explained by the assumption that the participant of the AE identifies himself with the Viewer or the Agent of some hypothetical (or bor-rowed from personal experience) situation. Besides, it is possible to draw a conclusion that “numerous and multifarious schemas pertain-ing to types of participants” extracted from our richly varied experi-ence (see Langacker 2002: 236) may be plausibly revealed via the experimental data.

5. USE WITH ADVERBIAL MODIFIERS

The compatibility of the given verbs with adverbial modifiers can be studied with respect to the specificity of their conceptualization.

The Ukrainian verb bachyty ‘to see’ like the English see, “desig-nates a process over which a person has no real control” and that “simply ‘happens’, with no assumptions about its beginning or end points” (Taylor 2003: 31). Due to this specificity of its conceptuali-zation, the verb bachyty ‘to see’ evokes only a few adverbial re-sponses (13a, b, c). As it is strongly associated with the notion of eyesight and designates, in particular, the capacity for visual percep-tion, the response (13a) may be interpreted either as an evaluation of

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

93

this ability itself or an evaluation of the ability to see of a person. The next example (13b) is important because it construes a specific tra-jectory of a gaze, considering both its origin and its end point as measures of the ability to see from a distance. The response (13c) most probably reveals the ‘extended’ meaning of this verb as desig-nating the capacity for comprehension.

(13a) bachyty ‘to see’ 0,5% dobre ‘well’

(13ba)bachyty ‘to see’ 0,5% zdaleka ‘from a distance, from afar’

(13c) bachyty ‘to see’: nаskrіz’ 2% ‘through, completely’

Besides, as bachyty ‘to see’ means the ability to see or visual perception as something that just happens, its use with adverbials that presupposes intentional activity is impossible and, so far, there were not any responses of this kind.

On the contrary, the Ukrainian verb dyvytysia ‘to look’ construes visual perception in terms of directed motion. Since “the idea of a person actively investigating something with their gaze, rather than just passively registering its presence in the visual field” (see Taylor 2003, 30), is also peculiar to the verb dyvytysia ‘to look’, it results in numerous adverbial responses.

A significant number of the adverbial responses evoked by this stimulus designate possible directions of a gaze (14). The starting point of the gaze was not revealed via the experiment and, as such, this part of the chain remains implicit.

(14) dyvytysia’to look’: vhоru 1% ‘upward’ vdаlechіn’ adv 0,5% ‘into the distance’ vpered 1% ‘forward’ dаlekо 0,5% ‘far away’ kudy 0,5% ‘to where’ kudys’ 0,5% ‘to somewhere’ nа vsі bоky 0,5% ‘all around’ prоstо 0,5% ‘straight; simply’ priamо 0,5% ‘straight; frankly’

Svetlana MARTINEK

94

Moreover, the stimulus dyvytysia ‘to look’ evokes adverbial re-sponses (15) consistent with its ‘volitional’ character (see Taylor 2003: 31).

(15) dyvytysia ‘to look’: pyl’nо 2% ‘steady’ trebа 0,5% ‘(it is) necessary, one must’ userdnо 0,5% ‘zealously’ uvаzhnо 0,5% ‘attentively’ v оbа 0,5% ‘to be on ones guard’, literally ‘by both (eyes)’

6. VISUAL PERCEPTION, KNOWLEDGE, AND ATTITUDE

It has been argued in several recent studies (Sweetser 1996; Tay-lor 2003) that the “verbs of visual perception have a range of ‘ex-tended’ uses having to do, not with visual perception per se, but with nonvisual cognitive processes” (Taylor 2003: 32). It is also interest-ing to consider notion of ception proposed by Leonard Talmy (2003: 139), which covers “all the cognitive phenomena, conscious and unconscious, understood by the conjunction of perception and con-ception”, and thus “would include the processing of sensory stimula-tion, mental imagery, and currently experienced though and affect”. With regards to the interconnections between vision and knowledge, the need for an approach that takes corresponding conceptual struc-tures into account as an entire system is obviously important.

Some of the responses, both grammaticalized (16a) and non-grammaticalized (16b), clearly reveal the ‘extended’ use of the verb bachyty ‘to see’ not only for visual perception, but also for non-visual cognitive processes. The responses (16c) are polysemous be-cause they can designate not only visual perception but also under-standing of other persons or oneself (compare to 16d).

(16a) bachyty ‘to see’: dushu 0,5% ‘soul + Acc’ fаkt 0,5% ‘fact + Nom/Acc’ krаsu 1,5% ‘beauty + Acc’

mаibutnie 2,5% ‘future adj - n + Nom/Acc’, mаibutnіi 0,5% ‘future adj + Nom/Acc’

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

95

nedоlіky 0,5% ‘defects + Nom/Acc’ nemоzhlyve 1,5% ‘impossible n+ Nom/Acc’ nаdіyu 0,5% ‘hope n + Acc’ nаikrаchshe 0,5% ‘the best n + Nom/Acc’ peklо 0,5% ‘Hell + Nom/Acc’ peremоhu 0,5% ‘victory + Acc’ pryiemne 0,5% literally ‘pleasant n+ Nom/Acc’ pіdtverdzhennia 0,5% ‘confirmation + Nom/Acc’ pоstup 0,5% ‘progress + Nom/Acc’ svіt 0,5%5 ‘world + Nom/Acc’ sytuаtsіyu 1% ‘situation + Acc’

(16b) bachyty ‘to see’: krаsа 0,5% , krаsоtа 0,5% ‘beauty +Nom’

(16c) bachyty ‘to see’: blyzhniоhо 1% ‘neighbor + Acc’ sebe 1,5% ‘oneself + Acc’

(16d) rozumity ‘to understand’: blyzhniоhо 1% ‘neighbor + Acc’

Some of the responses (17) are ambiguous and therefore their in-terpretation is quite difficult: they can be considered either as the expression of emotional attitudes toward the ability to see, or as the designation of experienced thought and affect. Consider also the above-mentioned (13c) adverbial response nаskrіz’ 2% ‘through, completely’ most probably designating deep comprehension. Con-sider also the specific kind of seeing in the set of examples (18).

(17) bаchyty ‘to see’: rаdіst’ 0,5% ‘gladness + Nom/Acc’ chshаctia 0,5% ‘happiness + Nom/Acc’

(18) bаchyty ‘to see’: spаty 0,5% ‘to sleep’ sny 1% ‘night dreams + Nom/Acc’ sоn 0,5% ‘night dream + Nom/Acc’

The stimulus dyvytysia ‘to look’ evokes responses that reveal ‘extended’ uses designating either cognitive activity (19a, b) or atti-tudes towards somebody/something (20a, b). The specific means of

Svetlana MARTINEK

96

conceptualization results in the ‘extended’ meaning of the verb, in particular, example (19b) contributes the idea of penetration for deep comprehension of something.

(19a) dyvytysia ‘to look’: nа svіt 0,5% literally ‘at the world + Acc’ svіt 0,5% ‘world + Nom/Acc’

nа svіt nаїvnymy оchymа 0,5% literally ‘on the world + Acc by naïve eyes + Instr’

(19b) dyvytysia ‘to look’: prаvdі u vіchі 2% literally ‘(to) truth + Dat into eyes + Acc’

v kоrіn’ 0,5% ‘into root + Acc’ kоrіn’ 0,5% ‘root + Nom/Acc’

Further, the responses signifying the attitudes towards some-body/something and realized mostly by idiomatic expressions (20) are consistent with the idea of directed visual perception and its ‘vo-litional’ character.

(20) dyvytysia ‘to look’: krіz’ pаl’tsі 0,5% ‘to wink; to con-nive’, literally ‘through fingers’

kоsо 0,5% ‘sidelong’ (which usually expresses negative attitude towards somebody)

z lyubоv’yu 0,5% ‘with love + Instr’ zverkhn’о 0,5% ‘down on (smb/sth)’, literally ‘from above’

In addition, the verbs bachyty ‘to see’ (21) and dyvytysia ‘to look’ (22) evoke as responses other polysemous verbs either of per-ception or cognitive activity.

(21) bachyty ‘to see’: chuty 1% ‘to hear’ dyvytysia 3,5%, dyvytys’ 1,5% ‘to look’ hliadіty 0,5% ‘to look; to look after’ myluvаtys’ 0,5% literally ‘to look with pleasure’ pоmіchаty 0,5% ‘to notice’ rоzumіty 0,5% ‘to understand’ see 0,5%

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

97

spоhliadаty 0,5% ‘to contemplate’ spоsterіhаty 0,5% ‘to observe, to watch’ uiavliaty 0,5% ‘to imagine’ vbаchаty 0,5% ‘to find, to perceive’ vydіty 3% ‘to see’ vіdchuvаty 0,5% ‘to feel’ zrіty 0,5% ‘to contemplate’ zоryty 0,5% low colloquial ‘to look’

(22) dyvytysia ‘to look’: bаchyty 6% ‘to see’ hliadіty 2,5% ‘to look (at/after)’ hliadіty nа 0,5% literally ‘to look on’ hlаzіty 0,5% low colloquial ‘to look’ i myluvаtysia 0,5% ‘and (to look) with pleasure’ klіpаty 0,5% ‘to blink’ rоzhliadаty 1,5% ‘to look’, ‘to scrutinize; to consider’ spоcterіhаty 2% ‘to watch’ spоhliadаty 1% ‘to contemplate’

The interconnection and metaphorical interchange between these two domains is stipulated by conceptual organization and the human experience ingrained in it. Wierzbicka (1990) writes that the notion of vision is the key to the semantics of the words dark and light, and so far the prototypical use of these words is connected with the envi-ronment. The AE data confirm this observation, as the most frequent responses evoked by stimuli svitlyi ‘lightadj’ and temnyi ‘darkadj’ are correspondingly den’ 22,9% ‘day’ and nich 5,7% ‘night’ (and dimi-nutive nichka 0,5% ‘night’).

Besides, stimulus svitlyi ‘lightadj’ evokes responses rozum ‘mind, intellect’ 7%, and stimulus temnyi ‘darkadj’ evokes responses durnyi ‘stupid’, lyudyna ‘person’, ne rozumity zhyttia literally ‘not to under-stand the life’, nenachytanyi literally ‘(somebody) who has read not enough’, nepiznavanyi ‘not cognizable’, nerozumnyi ‘not clever’, rozum ‘mind’, tupyi ‘dull’, uchen ‘pupil’ – each for 0,5%. As svitlyj ‘light adj’ evokes a synonymous response yasnyi ‘clear’ 4,3%, rozum

Svetlana MARTINEK

98

‘mind’ is not only svitlyi ‘light’ 1,9% but also yasnyj ‘clear’ 0,5% or, on the contrary, zatumanenyi ‘veiled in mist’ 0,5% or zat’marenyi ‘darken’ 0,5%.

As Sweetser notes, “relationships between linguistic form and function reflect human conceptual structure and general principle of cognitive organization” (1996: 4). Thus, we can assume that the above-mentioned metaphorical responses are strongly motivated, firstly, by our ability to see in light and darkness and, secondly, by the fact “that much – perhaps most – of our knowledge of the outside world (for sighted people!) comes from vision” (Taylor 2003: 33).

Considering further FRONT–BACK and UP-DOWN schemas de-scribed by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), we can make a conclusion about the existence of a whole set of image-schemas which create a rich background for metaphors that might be called oppositional.

7. CONCLUSION

The method of the AE meets the requirement of psychological relevance and provides a secure and reliable foundation for the theo-retical assumptions of the investigators. Moreover, as the semantic structures are characterized relative to ‘cognitive domains’ (Lan-gacker 2002: 3), the evoked responses reveal corresponding cogni-tive domains and make it possible to rank them according to their relative prominence. It is claimed that as “for human actions, the goals are usually more important than the path” (Vespoor, René, and Radden 1998: 89). But the responses obtained via the AE -- in which the goal of a ‘virtual’ situation hardly can play any role -- most fre-quently reveal the participants lying ‘downstream’ on the chain, whereas the ‘upstream’ part of it, which is correspondingly the Agent and the first prominent participant, most frequently remains implicit. Thus, we can assume that the archetypal ‘viewing arrangement’, most frequently revealed via the AE, is by nature egocentric (cf. Langacker 2002: 316-317).

Moreover, the Verb’s Aktionsart, which specifies the means of action realization, gives rise to the appropriate ‘extended’ meanings of the verbs. Furthermore, as “cognition is structured, not chaotic –

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

99

and the apparently disorderly domain of linguistic meaning can often be shown to be structured around speakers’ understanding of a given cognitive domain” (Sweetser 1996: 12), the metaphorical interchange between corresponding cognitive domains can be explained via the peculiarity of their conceptualisation, and therefore analyzed as forming an entire system.

REFERENCES

Agrell, Sigurd

1908 Aspektanderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polni-schen Zeitworte. Ein Beitrag zum Studium der Indogerma-nischen Proverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfuktionen. Lund.

Apriesian, Jurij D.

1995 Leksicheskaja semantika. Sinonimicheskije sredstva jazyka. In: Apresian, Jurij D. Izbrannyje trudy. (Lexical Semantics. Synonymic Means of Language. In: Apriesia, Jurij D. Selected Works). In 2 vol. Moscow: Shkola ‘Jazyki russkoj kultury’. Vol. 1.

Fauconnier, Gilles

1997 Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate, and Schönefeld, Doris.

2005 Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and construc-tions. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 635–676.

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark

1980 Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.

Svetlana MARTINEK

100

Langacker, Ronald W.

2002 Concept, image, and symbol: the cognitive basis of grammar. 2nd ed. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Martinek, Svetlana

2004 The role of the associative experiment in the profil-ing of concepts. In: B. Lewandowska–Tomaszczyk and A. Kwiatkowska (eds.). Imagery in Language. Festschrift in Honour of Professor Ronald W. Langacker Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 489–498.

Newman, John and Rice, Sally

2004 Patterns of usage for English sit, stand, and lie: A cognitively inspired exploration in corpus linguistics. Cog-nitive Linguistics 15, 351–396.

Newman, John

1996 Give: a cognitive linguistic study. (Cognitive linguis-tics research; 7) 2nd ed. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Sweetser, Eve

1996 From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Talmy, Leonard

2003 Concept structuring systems. In: Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge (Mass.); London: A Bradford Book: The MIT Press.

Taylor, John R.

2003 Meaning and context. In: H. Cuyckens, Th. Berg, R. Dirven and K.-U. Panther (eds.), Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Guenter Radden. Benjamins, 27-48.

A Verb’s Aktionsart through the Prism of an Associative Experiment

101

Vespoor, Marjolijn, Dirven, René, and Radden, Günter

1998 Putting concepts together: Syntax. In: R. Dirven and M. Verspoor (eds.) Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 79-105.

Wierzbicka, Anna

1990 The meaning of colour terms: semantics, culture, and cognition. In: Cognitive linguistics, 1, 1: 99-150.