Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

 

Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie

Ed. by Polzin-Haumann, Claudia / Schweickard, Wolfgang


CiteScore 2017: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.239
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.608

Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca: Classe A

Online
ISSN
1865-9063
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 132, Issue 1

Issues

El carácter multimodal del verbo sentir: polisemia y transitividad

Dr. Marlies Jansegers
  • Corresponding author
  • Universiteit Gent, Vakgroep Taalkunde, Spaanse Vergelijkende Romaanse taalkunde, Blandijnberg 2, B-9000 Gent
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Prof. Dr. Renata Enghels / Irasema Cruz Domínguez
  • Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Circuito Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Delegación Coyoacán, 04510 México, D. F., México
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-03-12 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2016-0004

Abstract

Within the domain of perception verbs, the Spanish sentir constitutes an interesting case because of its rich polysemy. The verb is not only used to denote several modalities of direct physical perception (tactile, olfactory, gustative and auditory), but it also extends towards the semantic domains of cognition and emotion. This article examines to what extent this multimodal character of the verb sentir influences on its degree of transitivity. It is well known that perception verbs in general do not respond to the definition of prototypical transitive verbs, given that the perception process represents a mental rather than a physical contact between the perceiver/subject and the stimulus/object. It is shown, however, that the verb sentir can be situated on different positions on the scale of transitivity, ranging from high transitivity to low transitivity, in function of the semantics it conveys. The validity of the elaborated hierarchy of transitivity is verified by means of empirical data.

Keywords: Perception verbs; polysemy; transitivity; sentir

Palabras clave: Verbos de percepción; polisemia; transitividad; sentir

6 Referencias

    6.1 Corpus

    6.2 Obras citadas

    • Aijmer, Karin/Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Pragmatic markers, in: Zienkowski, Jan/Östman, Jan-Ola/Verschueren, Jef (edd.), Discursive Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 2011, 223–247.Google Scholar

    • Bogard Sierra, Sergio Eduardo, El argumento no experimentante de los verbos psicológicos: ¿un papel temático o dos?, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 43:2 (1995), 441–454.Google Scholar

    • Cano Aguilar, Rafael, Estructuras sintácticas transitivas en el español actual, Madrid, Gredos, 1981.Google Scholar

    • Croft, William, Categories and Relations in Syntax. The Clause-Level Organization of Information, Palo Alto, Universidad de Stanford, 1986.Google Scholar

    • Damasio, Antonio, Looking for Spinoza. Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain, Orlando, Harcourt, 2003.Google Scholar

    • Demonte Violeta, Transitividad, intransitividad y papeles temáticos, in: Garza Cuarón, Beatriz/Demonte, Violeta (edd.), Estudios de lingüística de España y de México, México, El Colegio de México-UNAM, 1990, 115–150.Google Scholar

    • Dowty, David, Thematic protoroles and argument selection, Language 67:3 (1991), 547–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

    • Enghels, Renata, Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive. Différences conceptuelles et répercussions sémantico-syntaxiques en espagnol et en français, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 2007.Google Scholar

    • Enghels, Renata, Transitivity of Spanish perception verbs: a gradual category?, Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2:1 (2013), 35–56.Google Scholar

    • Fernández Jaén, Jorge, Verbos de percepción sensorial en español: una clasificación cognitiva, Interlingüística 16 (2006), 391–405.Google Scholar

    • Fernández Jaén, Jorge, Semántica cognitiva diacrónica de los verbos de percepción física del español, Alicante, Universidad de Alicante, 2012.Google Scholar

    • Fillmore, Charles J., The case for case, in: Bach, Emmon/Harms, Robert T. (edd.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, 1–90.Google Scholar

    • García-Miguel, José M., Transitividad y complementación preposicional en español, Santiago de Compostela, Universidad de Santiago, 1995.Google Scholar

    • García-Miguel, José M., Aproximación empírica a la interacción de verbos y esquemas construccionales, ejemplificada con los verbos de percepción, Estudios de Lingüística 19 (2005), 169–191.Google Scholar

    • Geisler, Hans, Das Verhältnis von semantischer und syntaktischer Transitivität im Französischen, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 39 (1989), 22–35.Google Scholar

    • Glynn, Dylan, Testing the Hypothesis. Objectivity and Verification in Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics, in: id./Fischer, Kerstin (edd.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-driven approaches, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2010, 239–270.Google Scholar

    • Gruber, Jeffrey S., Look and see, Language 43:4 (1967), 937–947.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

    • Hanegreefs, Hilde, Los verbos de percepción visual. Un análisis de corpus en un marco cognitivo, tesis doctoral, Leuven, KU Leuven, 2008.Google Scholar

    • Hopper, Paul J./Thompson, Sandra A., Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language 56:2 (1980), 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

    • Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide B., Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: a cross-linguistic study, University of Edinburgh, 1999.Google Scholar

    • Iwasaki, Shoichi, Proprioceptive-state expressions in Thai, Studies in Language, 26:1 (2002), 33–66.Google Scholar

    • Kirsner, Robert S./Thompson, Sandra A., The role of pragmatic inference in semantics. A study of sensory verb complements in English, Glossa 10:2 (1976), 200–240.Google Scholar

    • Kövecses, Zoltán, Metaphor and emotion, in: Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 380–396.Google Scholar

    • Lakoff, George, Sorry, I’m not myself today. The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self, in: Fauconnier, Gilles/Sweetser, Eve (edd.): Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1996, 91–123.Google Scholar

    • Langacker, Ronald W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

    • Maldonado, Ricardo, A media voz: problemas conceptuales del clítico «se» en español, México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM, 1999.Google Scholar

    • Schmid, Hans-Jörg, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.Google Scholar

    • Scovel, Tom, A look-see at some verbs of perception, Language Learning 21 (1971), 75–84.Google Scholar

    • Sweetser, Eve, From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge, CUP, 1990.Google Scholar

    • Taylor, John, Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

    • Taylor, John, Polysemy and the lexicon, in: Kristiansen, Gitte, et al. (edd.). Cognitive Linguistics. Current Applications and Future Perspectives, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 2006, 51–80.Google Scholar

    • Van Valin, Robert D. Jr./Lapolla, Randy J., Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function, Cambridge, CUP, 1997.Google Scholar

    • Viberg, Åke, The lexical typological profile of Swedish mental verbs, Languages in Contrast 5 (2005), 121–157.Google Scholar

    • Willems, Dominique, «Regarde voir»: les verbes de perception visuelle et la complémentation verbale, in: Roegiest, Eugeen/Tasmowski, Liliane (edd.), Verbe et phrase dans les langues romanes. Mélanges offerts à Louis Mourin, Gent, Romanica Gandensia, 1983, 147–158.Google Scholar

6.1 Corpus

6.2 Obras citadas

  • Aijmer, Karin/Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Pragmatic markers, in: Zienkowski, Jan/Östman, Jan-Ola/Verschueren, Jef (edd.), Discursive Pragmatics, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Benjamins, 2011, 223–247.Google Scholar

  • Bogard Sierra, Sergio Eduardo, El argumento no experimentante de los verbos psicológicos: ¿un papel temático o dos?, Nueva Revista de Filología Hispánica 43:2 (1995), 441–454.Google Scholar

  • Cano Aguilar, Rafael, Estructuras sintácticas transitivas en el español actual, Madrid, Gredos, 1981.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William, Categories and Relations in Syntax. The Clause-Level Organization of Information, Palo Alto, Universidad de Stanford, 1986.Google Scholar

  • Damasio, Antonio, Looking for Spinoza. Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain, Orlando, Harcourt, 2003.Google Scholar

  • Demonte Violeta, Transitividad, intransitividad y papeles temáticos, in: Garza Cuarón, Beatriz/Demonte, Violeta (edd.), Estudios de lingüística de España y de México, México, El Colegio de México-UNAM, 1990, 115–150.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David, Thematic protoroles and argument selection, Language 67:3 (1991), 547–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Enghels, Renata, Les modalités de perception visuelle et auditive. Différences conceptuelles et répercussions sémantico-syntaxiques en espagnol et en français, Tübingen, Niemeyer, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Enghels, Renata, Transitivity of Spanish perception verbs: a gradual category?, Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 2:1 (2013), 35–56.Google Scholar

  • Fernández Jaén, Jorge, Verbos de percepción sensorial en español: una clasificación cognitiva, Interlingüística 16 (2006), 391–405.Google Scholar

  • Fernández Jaén, Jorge, Semántica cognitiva diacrónica de los verbos de percepción física del español, Alicante, Universidad de Alicante, 2012.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles J., The case for case, in: Bach, Emmon/Harms, Robert T. (edd.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968, 1–90.Google Scholar

  • García-Miguel, José M., Transitividad y complementación preposicional en español, Santiago de Compostela, Universidad de Santiago, 1995.Google Scholar

  • García-Miguel, José M., Aproximación empírica a la interacción de verbos y esquemas construccionales, ejemplificada con los verbos de percepción, Estudios de Lingüística 19 (2005), 169–191.Google Scholar

  • Geisler, Hans, Das Verhältnis von semantischer und syntaktischer Transitivität im Französischen, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 39 (1989), 22–35.Google Scholar

  • Glynn, Dylan, Testing the Hypothesis. Objectivity and Verification in Usage-Based Cognitive Semantics, in: id./Fischer, Kerstin (edd.), Quantitative Cognitive Semantics. Corpus-driven approaches, Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter, 2010, 239–270.Google Scholar

  • Gruber, Jeffrey S., Look and see, Language 43:4 (1967), 937–947.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hanegreefs, Hilde, Los verbos de percepción visual. Un análisis de corpus en un marco cognitivo, tesis doctoral, Leuven, KU Leuven, 2008.Google Scholar

  • Hopper, Paul J./Thompson, Sandra A., Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language 56:2 (1980), 251–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide B., Polysemy and metaphor in perception verbs: a cross-linguistic study, University of Edinburgh, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Iwasaki, Shoichi, Proprioceptive-state expressions in Thai, Studies in Language, 26:1 (2002), 33–66.Google Scholar

  • Kirsner, Robert S./Thompson, Sandra A., The role of pragmatic inference in semantics. A study of sensory verb complements in English, Glossa 10:2 (1976), 200–240.Google Scholar

  • Kövecses, Zoltán, Metaphor and emotion, in: Gibbs, Raymond W. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 380–396.Google Scholar

  • Lakoff, George, Sorry, I’m not myself today. The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self, in: Fauconnier, Gilles/Sweetser, Eve (edd.): Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1996, 91–123.Google Scholar

  • Langacker, Ronald W., Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive Application, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

  • Maldonado, Ricardo, A media voz: problemas conceptuales del clítico «se» en español, México, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, UNAM, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jörg, English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.Google Scholar

  • Scovel, Tom, A look-see at some verbs of perception, Language Learning 21 (1971), 75–84.Google Scholar

  • Sweetser, Eve, From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure, Cambridge, CUP, 1990.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John, Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

  • Taylor, John, Polysemy and the lexicon, in: Kristiansen, Gitte, et al. (edd.). Cognitive Linguistics. Current Applications and Future Perspectives, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 2006, 51–80.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D. Jr./Lapolla, Randy J., Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function, Cambridge, CUP, 1997.Google Scholar

  • Viberg, Åke, The lexical typological profile of Swedish mental verbs, Languages in Contrast 5 (2005), 121–157.Google Scholar

  • Willems, Dominique, «Regarde voir»: les verbes de perception visuelle et la complémentation verbale, in: Roegiest, Eugeen/Tasmowski, Liliane (edd.), Verbe et phrase dans les langues romanes. Mélanges offerts à Louis Mourin, Gent, Romanica Gandensia, 1983, 147–158.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-03-12

Published in Print: 2016-03-01


Citation Information: Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, Volume 132, Issue 1, Pages 90–117, ISSN (Online) 1865-9063, ISSN (Print) 0049-8661, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zrp-2016-0004.

Export Citation

© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in