grammaticalization query: 'see' to 'VERIFY'

[Alex Francois]

dear Misha and Timur,

I'm aware of some languages that use the verb “see” with a conative (TRY)
or verificational (VERIF) meaning even when seeing is not involved.

One example is indeed Mandarin 看**
*​ ​*
*kàn*, cited by André Müller.

Another example is French. The infinitive *voir* (literally ‘see’) follows
certain imperative verbs to add a meaning of tentativeness or conativity:
(1)*écoute**voir***(situentendssavoix)

listenTRYifyouhearhervoice

‘(try to) listen if you can hear her voice.’


(2)*goûte**voir**!*






tasteTRY






‘Try this (to check out the taste).’


I also found the same semantic link in certain Oceanic languages of Vanuatu.
The language *Lemerig* (2 speakers, northern Vanua Lava) uses the verb
*’et*/ʔɛt/ ‘see’ as a conative postverbal particle
*ten* (TRY):
(3)Lēlqön̄e,nëm-ta*’et*wënëk‑mi'ir,paniv.
in.nightDEF1sgPRF‑doTRYCOMP1sg1sg:Irr‑sleepbutno
’Last night I *tried* to find some sleep, but
​no way
.'

Lemerig *’et* /*ʔɛt*/ ‘see/TRY’ has cognate forms in neighbouring
languages: Vera'a * ’ēn* /*ʔɪn*/ ‘see’ + Vurës *ten* /*tɛn*/ ‘TRY’.
The three forms are regular reflexes of a single protoform **teⁿde*.

In *Vurës*, the grammaticalisation process has
​reached its end:  the word *ten* has lost its original meaning ‘see’ and
is only used synchronically as a postverbal particle with conative meaning
(TRY):

(4)*Ru**tur**kal**ten****na**ēl**ten**!*
Imper:DualstandupTRY1sg:IrrseeTRY
[looking for a knife]
‘*Try* standing up so I can [*try* to] have a look!’

Yet the etymology of this *ten* is suggested by Lemerig
​ – as well as other examples of the same semantic shift in other languages
of the world.

all the best

Al
​e​
x.

​___​

Alex François
LACITO-CNRS <http://lacito.vjf.cnrs.fr/membres/francois.htm>, France
Australian National
University<http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/people/personal/frana_ling.php>,
Canberra
http://alex.francois.free.fr

​__________________________​


2013/7/28 André Müller <esperantist at gmail.com>

> Dear Michael & Timur,
>
> Although not quite as high on the grammaticalization scale as the Archi
> and Agul examples, and with a slightly different meaning, a similar
> construction does exist in Mandarin Chinese. I don't have Heine & Kuteva
> 2004 at hand, so I'm not sure if they mention this.
> The full verb 看 (kàn, lit. 'to see') is used – often in reduplicated form
> – after other verbs to convey the meaning 'to check out', so 吃看看 (chī
> kànkan, lit. 'eat see') means 'to try', referring to food, 听看看 (tīng
> kànkan, lit. 'listen see') means 'to check out by hearing'.
>
> This construction isn't verificational in the strict sense, as it doesn't
> verify a previous statement. It can be used for "checking out" something
> unknown, but it can also be used for statements. 你吃看看，那个是不是太辣。 (Nǐ chī
> kànkan, nèi ge shì bú shì tài là; lit. you eat see~see, that CLF is not is
> too spicy) "Eat and try if this is too spicy."
>
> Greetings,
> - André Müller
> (MPI EVA & Uni Bamberg)
>
>
> 2013/7/28 Michael Daniel <misha.daniel at gmail.com>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> in two Lezgic (East Caucasian) languages, Archi and Agul, there is a(n
>> apparently rare) morphological category of verificative, or verificational.
>> Its meaning is 'check whether P is true', where P is the lexical verb with
>> its dependents. Here is an Archi example, with VERIF in the infinitive:
>>
>> qalal-a          jašul      adam       i-r-k:u-s
>> palace-IN     inside   person     4.be-INTRG-VERIF-INF
>> '(He went inside) in order to see whether there was anyone inside the
>> palace. (4 is the agreement class)'
>>
>> The following Agul example with VERIF in the past tense shows that VERIF
>> introduces its own argument ('one who checks'):
>>
>> gadaji           ruš    qušunaj-čuk’-une.
>> boy(ERG)    girl    go_away.PF.RES-VERIF-AOR
>> 'The boy checked, whether the girl has gone away.'
>>
>> (See also this handout for further details:
>> http://lingvarium.org/maisak/publ/Maisak_Leipzig2009.pdf)
>>
>> In both languages, the construction seems to result from
>> grammaticalization of the verb 'see' (Archi ak:u- and its Agul cognate).
>> The development seems to be historically and areally independent.
>>
>> Although there is a number of grammaticalization paths in which this
>> verbal meaning is involved (see Heine and Kuteva 2004: 269-270; and other
>> developments, including evidential-like meanings), we are unaware of the
>> verb 'see' grammaticalizing into categories similar to Archi/Agul
>> verificative. We would be happy to learn of any comparable, in functional
>> semantics terms, evidence from other languages.
>>
>> Michael Daniel and Timur Maisak
>>
>> (if convenient, copy both of us when replying to this message)
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20130729/ced9117b/attachment.htm>