Chapter

On olfactory terminology in Georgian and other Kartvelian languages

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

The chapter is a study of the system of olfactory expressions in Georgian, Megrelian, and other Kartvelian languages, including questions of etymology and semantic extensions. Olfactory expressions in the Kartvelian languages are explored with Viberg (1984) as a point of departure, making a division into activity, experience and copulative (source-based) expressions. The study largely relies on data from text corpora of Standard Georgian as well as Georgian dialects. The Kartvelian languages are shown to exhibit specific olfactory terminology, but show numerous examples of expressions being used in several perception modalities. Keywords: olfactory perception, etymology, Georgian, Megrelian

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Chapter
Sensory anthropologists have described societies that, compared to Western ones, attribute to the sense of smell a more prominent cultural role, and linguists are bringing evidence that a higher sociocultural status of smell tends to be reflected in language by a richer and more elaborated olfactory lexicon. Given that the relative prominence of one sense within the sensorium has been shown to vary not only across societies, but also over time, such variation may be expected to have linguistic reflections. This study explores whether and how the olfactory lexicon has changed from Latin to Italian. Is the alleged increased “deodorization” of contemporary Western societies associated with changes in the lexicon? The data show that, contrary to expectations, the overall size of the olfactory lexicon did not undergo appreciable changes. However, it progressively became more oriented toward the negative pole of evaluation (i.e., the expression of unpleasant smells). Implications and possible explanations are discussed in the light of the linguistic and sensory-historical literature.
Article
Verbs of perception have been typically classified into three semantic groups. Gisborne (2010) calls the three categories agentive (listen class), experiencer (hear class), and percept (sound class). Examples pertaining to the sense of smell in English use the same lexical item (smell), while in Polish, the three senses of smell are expressed with different verbs: wąchać (agentive), czuć zapach (experiencer), and pachnieć (percept). In metaphorical extensions of the verbs of sensory perception these verbs often stand for mental states, as meaning shifts typically involve the transfer from concrete to abstract domains. I show that the metaphorical extensions of pachnieć and percept to smell are quite different. Not only does pachnieć not suggest bad character or dislikeable characteristics, it actually conveys the opposite, as in the expression coś komuś pachnie ‘something is attractive to someone’ or when used without a modifier. These differences stem from the positive meaning of pachnieć and the negative meaning of to smell. Since the percept verbs of smell seem to be intrinsically positively or negatively valued, they do not lend themselves to universal Mind-as-Body extensions. I also consider some of the dramatic frequency contrasts between Polish and English smell constructions and show they can have their root in different cultural scripts underlying modes of speaking (pachnieć jak vs. smell like), framing of experiences (czuć zapach vs. experiencer to smell), polysemy, and different constructional capabilities (wąchać vs. to sniff). Abstract Verbs of perception have been typically classified into three semantic groups. Gisborne (2010) calls the three categories agentive (listen class), experiencer (hear class), and percept (sound class). Examples pertaining to the sense of smell in English use the same lexical item (smell), while in Polish, the three senses of smell are expressed with different verbs: wąchać (agentive), czuć zapach (experiencer), and pachnieć (percept). In metaphorical extensions of the verbs of sensory perception these verbs often stand for mental states, as meaning shifts typically involve the transfer from concrete to abstract domains. I show that the metaphorical extensions of pachnieć and percept to smell are quite different. Not only does pachnieć not suggest bad character or dislikeable characteristics, it actually conveys the opposite, as in the expression coś komuś pachnie ‘something is attractive to someone’ or when used without a modifier. These differences stem from the positive meaning of pachnieć and the negative meaning of to smell. Since the percept verbs of smell seem to be intrinsically positively or negatively valued, they do not lend themselves to universal Mind-as-Body extensions. I also consider some of the dramatic frequency contrasts between Polish and English smell constructions and show they can have their root in different cultural scripts underlying modes of speaking (pachnieć jak vs. smell like), framing of experiences (czuć zapach vs. experiencer to smell), polysemy, and different constructional capabilities (wąchać vs. to sniff).
Book
Perception verbs - such as look, see, taste, hear, feel, sound, listen, and observe - present unresolved problems for linguistic theories. This book examines the predictability of relations between their semantics and syntactic behaviour, the different kinds of polysemy they exhibit, and the role of evidentiality in verbs like seem and appear. After an opening chapter explaining the nature of the issues, there is a concise introduction to Word Grammar. Chapter 3 considers the implications of the approach for a general theory of event structure, and looks at how Word Grammar can be applied to causation, argument linking, and the modelling of polysemy. Chapter 4 explores the polysemy of see; chapter 5 looks at relations between verbs of active perception like listen, and verbs of involuntary perception such as hear; chapter 6 explores the semantics of non-finite predicative complementation; and chapter 7 discusses verbs of appearance. Chapter 8 presents some conclusions.
Article
The aim of this sketch is to provide the reader who is not familiar with Georgian with a brief introduction to Georgian grammatical structures and to illustrate some of the specific features of Georgian that are dealt with in some of the articles in this volume.
Grdznoba-aghkmis zmnebi kartulši (Perception verbs in Georgian)
  • Loladze
Semantik’is gramat’ik’uli k’vali (Kartuli sinonimuri zmnebis magalitze)
  • Apridonidze
Über einen n/r Wechsel im Georgischen
  • Deeters
Verbs of sensory cognition: A semantic analysis of a lexical field in the lexicon of ME
  • Kopytko
T’radiciuli medicinis sak’itxebi
  • Kashia
Aghkmis sxvadasxva modalobis gamomxatveli x-dziris šemcveli zogi pudze kartulši
  • Kobaidze
A note on an asymmetry in the hedonic implicatures of olfactory and gustatory terms
  • Krifka