=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1347/paper36
|storemode=property
|title='Taste' and its conceptual extensions: the example of Croatian root kus/kuš and Turkish root tat
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1347/paper36.pdf
|volume=Vol-1347
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/networds/RaffaelliK15
}}
=='Taste' and its conceptual extensions: the example of Croatian root kus/kuš and Turkish root tat==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1347/paper36.pdf
'Taste' and its conceptual extensions: the example of Croatian root
kus/kuš and Turkish root tat
Ida Raffaelli Barbara Kerovec
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
iraffael@ffzg.hr bkerovec@ffzg.hr
This paper deals with the concept of 'taste' and structures of Croatian root kus/kuš “taste” and
its importance in the formation of Croatian Turkish root tat “taste”. The model of
and Turkish lexicon. ‘Taste’ as one of five morphosemantic patterns (MP model) as
basic sensory concepts serves as a source developed by Raffaelli and Kerovec (2008)
domain in conceptualizing various abstract and Raffaelli (2013) regards the lexicon as
domains, mostly related to human internal morphologically and semantically related, i.e.
sensations (Sweetser, 1990). However, within each motivated lexeme is related to a root with
the research of perception vocabulary, lexical respect to the word-formation processes and to
structures related to the concept of 'taste' have the semantic (cognitive) processes. Moreover,
been among the least investigated areas, the MP model regards the lexicon as a
especially according to different parts of constructional continuum with no clear-cut
speech and their correlation in building of boundaries between grammatical and lexical
vocabulary. A comparative analysis of the structures (cf. Langacker, 1987; Goldberg,
taste vocabulary in two typologically different 1995; Booij, 2010). It means that
and genetically unrelated languages like constructions such as okušati se “to try; to
Croatian and Turkish could reveal the give it a go”, okušati se u “to try out (a certain
differences and similarities in processes that activity)” and okušati se kao “to try (out) as”
come into play in building their vocabulary. are regarded as separate lexical units since
This is the reason why these two languages they differ with respect to their usage, and
are chosen for the analysis. According to the exhibit differences in their meanings and their
embodiment hypothesis within Cognitive syntactic realizations. The MP model is a
Linguistic theoretical framework, it can be usage based model, thus conclusions about
expected that Croatian and Turkish share lexical structures and meanings are based
conceptual extensions towards the same upon a detailed analysis of lexical realizations
abstract domains. However, since the two in different contexts.
languages are typologically different and Meanings and contextual realizations of all
immersed in different cultures, some analyzed lexical units in Croatian and in
differences in conceptual mappings are also Turkish have been checked in the Croatian
expected. Thus, one of the main goals of the National Corpus, Croatian Web Corpus and
present research is to provide a more fine METU Turkish Corpus.
grained analysis of semantic extensions of the As pointed out by Viberg (1984), concept
taste vocabulary in the two languages. Besides of 'taste' is in general extended towards
examining similarities and differences in domains 'like'/'dislike'. Moreover, some cross-
conceptual mappings, the aim of the paper is linguistic evidence (cf. Viberg, 1984; Evans
also to see to what extent the two languages and Wilkins 2000) shows a regular and
differ with respect to lexicalization patterns frequent extension of taste verbs towards the
that influence formation of the ‘taste’ meanings “to try”, “to experience”, “to enjoy“.
vocabulary. Although some cross-linguistic regularities of
Croatian and Turkish taste vocabularies are conceptual extensions of the concept 'taste'
described with respect to the morphosemantic have already been established, the
Copyright © by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
In Vito Pirrelli, Claudia Marzi, Marcello Ferro (eds.): Word Structure and Word Usage. Proceedings of the
NetWordS Final Conference, Pisa, March 30-April 1, 2015, published at http://ceur-ws.org
158
comparative study of Croatian and Turkish tadını görmek “to taste/experience life”, (lit.
taste vocabulary shows that there are some “to see the taste of life”). Turkish verbs do not
other abstract domains conceptualized by the extend their meanings to all abstract domains
domain of taste. Such domains are for Croatian prefixed verbs do: they do not share
example ‘ambience’, ‘mood’, ‘atmosphere’, meanings with Croatian verbs pokušati “to try;
‘charm’, ‘enchantment’, that are all to attempt”, okušati se, okušati se u, okušati se
conceptualized by the domain of taste in kao “to try (out) (as)”, nor can they be related
Turkish, but not in Croatian, as showed in to the abstract domain of temptation (as with
some examples below. Croatian iskušavati ”to tempt; to test”,
In Croatian the root kus/kuš is a basis of iskušenje ‘temptation’, kušnja ‘temptation;
the verb kušati “to taste” that, by the process crucible”). Similarly, Turkish root tat cannot
of prefixation, enabled formation of various relate to the domain of aesthetic judgement
verbs and constructions such as pokušati “to (Croatian ukus), but when morphologically
try; to attempt”, iskušati/iskušavati/iskusiti “to extended by suffixes –li “with” or –siz
try; to experience”, prokušati se “to try; to try “without”, it extends to some domains
out”, okušati se (u/kao) “to try (out) (as)” that Croatian root does not: tatlı (lit. „with taste“)
differ with respect to prefixes (and does not mean “tasty”, but “sweet”.
prepositions) and thus with respect to their Accordingly, tatlı relates to a variety of
usage and meanings. The perfective verb pleasant experiences (feelings, climate,
okusiti “to taste” differs from the verb kušati activities), while tatsız means “untasty”, but
primarily in aspect, however all the others also “unpleasant”, “irritating”, “disturbing”,
verbs cannot be used in relation with tasting “annoying” etc. In addition, Croatian root
food. They exclusively have abstract kus/kuš cannot be used to express “enjoying”
meanings like nouns kušnja and iskušenje as Turkish root tat can (e.g. tatilin tadını
“temptation”. Croatian is somehow specific çıkarmak “to enjoy holidays”, lit. “to extract
with respect to the existence of two the taste of holidays”). As far as contextual
morphologically closely related nouns: okus realizations are concerned, one of the most
“taste” and ukus “system of aesthetic prominent differences between Croatian and
judgement”, differing significantly according Turkish is that Turkish root tat, besides verbs
to their semantic structures. A distinction in for visual perception, combines with verbs
usage and meanings of the two nouns will be expressing motion (Paris’in tadına varmak
analyzed and some specificities will be “to experience the spirit/charm of Paris“, lit.
pointed out. “to come to the taste of Paris”), taking (tadını
Morphosemantic field of the Turkish root almak “to taste”, “to experience”, “to enjoy”,
tat exhibits some similarities and some lit. “to take the taste of”; tadını çıkarmak “to
differences in comparison to the enjoy”, lit. “to extract the taste of”), and
morphosemantic field of the Croatian root cognitive activity (tadını bilmek “to
kuš/kus. Tat “taste” is a noun used as a basis experience”, lit. “to learn/to know the taste
in the formation of the verb tatmak “to taste” of”; tadını tanımak “to experience”, lit. “to get
and of the phrasal verbs tadını görmek “to to know the taste of”), which is not the case in
taste” (lit. “to see the taste of”) and tadına Croatian. Combining nouns and verbs derived
bakmak “to taste” (lit. “to look at the taste from the same root is also characteristic for
of”). This means that, unlike in Croatian, Turkish but not for Croatian (tadını tatmak “to
verbs for visual perception are used for taste the taste of”).
lexicalization of taste experience and taste Thus, it could be claimed that Croatian
activity. Similarly to Croatian, all three verbs verbs with extended abstract meanings are
relate to the domain of food as well as to the mostly realized in constructions such as [pref
abstract domain of experience (e.g. hayat – Vkus/kuš – prep] as okušati se u “to try out”,
159
whereas Turkish verbs with extended Åke Viberg 1984. The verbs of perception: A
meanings mostly appear in construction such typological study. In: Brian Butterworth,
Bernard Comrie, and Osten Dahl (Eds.)
as [Ntat – V] in which verbs within a
Explanations for language universals. Berlin:
construction often refer to concrete domains Mouton de Gruyter. 123-62.
based in human experience, like for example
motion.
The aim of this paper is: a) to provide an
exhaustive description of the structure of the
taste vocabulary related to the roots kuš/kus in
Croatian and tat in Turkish, b) to point to
some similarities and differences in the
conceptual extensions of the concept ‘taste’ in
the two languages and thus in the organization
of their vocabularies, c) to implement the MP
model in the description of lexical structures
of non IE languages, and thus demonstrate its
applicability in the lexical analysis of
typologically different languages, pointing to
regular and specific lexicalization patterns in
the two languages.
References:
Geert Booij, 2010. Construction Morphology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nicholas Evans and David Wilkins. 2000. In the
Mind's Ear: The Semantic Extension of
Perception Verbs in Australian Languages.
Language 76/(3): 546-592.
Adele E. Goldberg,. 1995. Constructions. A
construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press.
Ronald W. Langacker, 1987. Foundations of
Cognitive Grammar: Volume 1, Theoretical
Prerequisites. Standford: Standford University
Press.
Ida Raffaelli and Barbara Kerovec. 2008.
Morphosemantic fields in the analysis of
Croatian vocabulary. Jezikoslovlje (9.1-2): 141-
169.
Ida Raffaelli. 2013. The model of morphosemantic
patterns in the description of lexical
architecture. Linuge e linguaggio 1: 47-72.
Eve Sweetser. 1990. From Etymology to
Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural
Aspects of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
160