tat- Eyleminin Anlam Genişlemesi Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Abstract

İmgesel dilin temelini oluşturan bedenlerimiz ve fiziksel deneyimlerimiz aynı zamanda metaforik kavramlaştırmaların oluşumunda rol oynayan duyusal kanallar ile ayrılmaz bir şekilde bağlantılıdır ve bedenleşmiş bilişin özünde yer almaktadır. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma, beş temel duyudan biri olan tatma duyusunu ifade etmek için kullanılan tat- eyleminin derlem verisinden elde edilen eşdizimlilik örüntülerine ve bağımlı dizinlere odaklanarak söz konusu eylemin kullanım bağlamında sunduğu çokanlamlı doğasına dair bilgi sahibi olmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, Türkçe Ulusal Derlem v3’ten elde edilen eşdizim oluşturduğu ilk yüz sözcük anlam alanlarına göre sınıflandırılmış ve bağımlı dizin satırları incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonuçları, tatma duyusunun ‘yemek’ kavram alanının yanı sıra, duygular, soyut kavramlar, bilişsel durumların ifadesinde kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca, farklı duyuların (görme, işitme, koklama, dokunma) ifadelerinde sinestezik bir anlam taşıdığı da tespit edilmiştir. Çalışmada elde edilen DENEYİMLEMEK TATMAKTIR, FARKINA VARMAK / BİLMEK / ÖĞRENMEK TATMAKTIR ve BİR DUYGUYU HİSSETMEK TATMAKTIR metaforları, BİLİŞ ALGIDIR üst-metaforu ile örtüşmekte ve önceki çalışmaların bulgularına paralellik göstermektedir.

Keywords

• algı eylemleri
• tatma duyusu
• eşdizim
• sinestezi
• metafor

An Investigation on the meaning extension of the verb taste

Abstract

Our bodies and physical experiences, which form the basis of figurative language, are inseparably connected with the sensory modalities involved in the formation of metaphorical conceptualizations and are at the core of embodied cognition. By focusing on the collocation patterns and concordance lines obtained from the corpus data, this study seeks to address the polysemous nature of the verb taste, which is used to express the gustatory sense as one of the five basic sense modalities. For this purpose, the first one hundred collocations obtained from Turkish National Corpus v3 were classified according to their semantic fields and the concordance lines were examined. The results of the study show that the sense of taste is used in the expression of emotions, abstract concepts, and cognitive states in addition to the conceptual domain of ‘food’. Additionally, the data reveals that it has a synesthetic meaning transfer in the expression of different senses (sight, hearing, smell, touch). The metaphors EXPERIENCING IS TASTING, REALIZING / KNOWING / LEARNING IS TASTING, and FEELING AN EMOTION IS TASTING obtained in the study overlap with the generic metaphor of COGNITION IS PERCEPTION that show parallelism with the findings of previous studies.

Keywords

• perception verbs
• taste sense
• collocation
• synesthesia
• metaphor

References

1. Aksan, Y. (2021). Derlem temelli sözlük yazımı. Baş, M. (Ed.), Anlambilimde Güncel Çalışmalar (s. 200-215). Anı Yayıncılık.
2. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., Demirhan, U. U., Yılmazer, H., Kurtoğlu, Ö., Atasoy, G., Öz, S., & Yıldız, İ. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012). İstanbul.
3. Baş, M., & Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N. (2019). Sadness metaphors and metonymies in Turkish body part idioms. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, 273-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.18492/dad.591347
4. Caballero, R., Suárez-Toste, E., & Paradis C. (2019). Representing wine - sensory perceptions, communication and cultures. John Benjamins.
5. Classen, C. (2019). Words of senses. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.), Perception metaphors (s. 17-41). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.02cla
6. Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and corpus linguistics. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6
7. Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592.
8. Gibbs, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.

9. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2002). MIND-AS-BODY as a cross-linguistic conceptual metaphor. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies, 25, 93–119.
10. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2013). The power of the senses and the role of culture in metaphor and language. Caballero, R., & Diaz-Vera, J. (Eds.), Sensuous cognition: Explorations into human sentience-imagination, (e)motion and perception (s. 109–133). Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110300772.109
11. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2019). Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics: Scope, motivation, and lexicalisation. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.), Perception metaphors. (s. 43-64). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.03iba
12. Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge University Press.
13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books.
14. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (2007). Polysemy, prototypes and radial categories. Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (s. 139-169). Oxford University Press.
15. McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
16. O’Meara, C., Speed, L. J., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (2019). Perception metaphors: A view from diversity. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.),
17. Perception metaphors (s. 1-16). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.01ome
18. Sinclair, J. M. (1996). The search for units of meaning. Textus IX, 1, 75-106.
19. Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. Routledge.
20. Smith, S. T., & Smith, K. D. (1995). Turkish emotion concepts: A prototype analysis. Russell, J. A., Fernandez-Dols, J., Manstead, A. S. R., & Wellenkamp, J. C. (Eds.), Everyday conceptions of emotion: An introduction to psychology, anthropology and linguistics of emotion (s. 103-119). Kluwer.
21. Steinbach-Eicke, E. (2019). Taste metaphors in Hieroglyphic Egyptian. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.), Perception metaphors (s. 145-164). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.08ste
22. Strik Lievers, F. (2015). Synesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. Functions of Language, 22(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.1.04str
23. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press.
24. Ullmann, S. (1959). The principle of semantics (2. baskı). Jackson.
25. Viberg, A. (1984). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., & Osten, D. (Eds), Explanations for language universals (s. 123–62). Mouton.
26. Williams, J. M. (1976). Synesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language 52(2), 461–478.
27. Winter, B. (2016a). Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1193619
28. Winter, B. (2016b). The sensory structure of the English lexicon. [Doktora Tezi, University of California Merced]. ProQuest ID: Winter_ucmerced_1660D_10206. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m5q28mx5. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/885849k9
29. Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001