In the Mind's Ear: The Semantic Extensions of Perception Verbs in Australian Languages

This article tests earlier claims about the universality of patterns of polysemy and semantic extension in the domain of perception verbs. Utilizing data from a broad range (approx. 60) of Australian languages, we address two hypothesized universals. The first is Viberg's (1984) proposed unidirectional pattern of extension from higher to lower sensory modalities (i.e. intrafield extensions, like ‘see’ > 'hear'). The second hypothesized universal is that put forward by Sweetser (1990) regarding the extension of perception verbs to cognition readings (i.e. transfield extensions, like 'see' > 'know'). She suggests that vision has primacy as the modality from which verbs of higher intellection, such as 'knowing' and ‘thinking’, are recruited, and proposes that verbs meaning ‘hear’ would not take on these readings, although they often extend to mean ‘understand’ or ‘obey’. Though both hypotheses assign primacy to vision among the senses, the results of our Australian study show that Viberg's proposal remains intact, while Sweetser's is proved false. Australian languages recruit verbs of cognition like ‘think’ and ‘know’ from ‘hear’, but not from ‘see’. It appears that, at least as far as perception verbs are concerned, transfield semantic changes are subject to greater cultural variability than intrafield semantic changes. We argue that the same semantic domain can have its universal and its relativistic side, a foot in nature and a foot in culture, and conclude by demonstrating that there are good social and cultural reasons driving the extension of ‘hearing’, but not ‘seeing’, to ‘know’ and ‘think’ in Australian Aboriginal societies. Milyilyi-lu kulirninpa, langa kulirninpa-lu brain-erg hear/think, ear hear-at him/her ‘Our brain thinks/hears, our ears think/hear’ Kukatja, from Peile 1997