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 pol ysemy and semantic extension in the domain of perception verbs. Utilizing d ata from a broad range (approx. 60) of Australian languages, we address two hypothesized universals. The first is Viberg's (1984) proposed unidirectio nal pattern of extension from higher to lower sensory modalities (i.e. INTR AFIELD extensions, like 'see' > 'hear'). The second hypothesized universal is that put forward by Sweetser (1990) regarding the extension of perceptio n verbs to cognition readings (i.e. TRANSFLELD extensions, like 'see' > 'kn ow'). She suggests that vision has primacy as the modality from which verbs of higher intellection, such as 'knowing' and 'thinking', are recruited, a nd proposes that verbs meaning 'hear' would not take on these readings, alt hough they often extend to mean 'understand' or 'obey'. Though both hypothe ses assign primacy to vision among the senses, the results of our Australia n study show that Viberg's proposal remains intact, while Sweetser's is pro ved false. Australian languages recruit verbs of cognition like 'think' and 'know' from 'hear', but not from 'see'. It appears that, at least as far a s perception verbs are concerned, transfield semantic changes are subject t o greater cultural variability than intrafield semantic changes. We argue t hat the same semantic domain can have its UNIVERSAL and its RELATIVISTIC si de, a foot in nature and a fool in culture, and conclude by demonstrating t hat there are good social and cultural reasons driving the extension of 'he aring', but not 'seeing', to 'know' and 'think' in Australian Aboriginal so cieties.*