[MUSIC] So this is the last topic of our course. The topic is quite difficult. The lecture will be quite long. It contains lots and lots of linguistic effects described. And so we divided it into two parts, both devoted to linguistics of pain. And really linguistically pain is one of the most complex domains. By the way, it is considered to be a uniquely complex domain not only linguistically but also ontologically. Ontological specificity is due to the fact that pain is highly subjective, and it is private. So there is no access to our painful sensations since pain is not visible. And this is how Wittgenstein put it. This means that the only way to share one's painful sensations is to verbalize them. And the importance of language description of the pain domain is evidenced by the official definition of pain by the International Association of the Study of pain. So an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage or described in terms of such damage. So pain is not visual. Pain is highly subjective. Pain is conventionally described. And so we can speak about pain language. And this pain language, since it is language, should be described linguistically. However, it is described philosophically, there was a vast bibliography of philosophers like Wittgenstein, Kripke, and others and the great amount of medical papers. So it is well described medically but not linguistically. Just look at the list of papers and it is quite short, including several works of Anna Wierzbicka like, is pain a human universal? So just a linguistic view at pain sensations. Most of these works are devoted to, the so-called primary pain predicates like English 'hurt'. And so some languages, for example, English, German, Greek, or Thai – they are thoroughly described with respect to these words. So these pain terms are quite, well, investigated in these languages. Anna Wierzbicka looked at them typologically, generally. So, she insisted that the semantics of primary pain-verbs in different languages is different. And therefore, their definitions in her theoretical framework in natural semantic metalanguage should be different too. So here are the examples of these primary predicates like English hurt, ache, pain, as a verb and the corresponding verbs in Mandarin Chinese. And one of the Dagestanian languages – in Aghul. And then Russian has only one, it's bolet'. So not many of them in these languages and all the others have just similar systems. So you see three verbs in English, two verbs in Mandarine Chinese, two verbs in Aghul, and only one in Russian. Well, it is not many as compared, say, with verbs of motion, especially if we take into account manner of motion. Yes, we have already studied motion verbs and we know that if we count all the possibilities to express manner of motion in a language, then we'll get, well, not less than 50 verbs, or perhaps up to 100 because, well, all kinds of falling, all kinds of swimming, all kinds of flying and so on, yeah? Well, we have a lot of pain types. Pain is not homogenous, there could be pain in our ears, pain in our eyes and so on, but we have only three, two, one, perhaps sometimes four, not more predicates in a language. It is strange, isn't it? Because the reason for it is that the major part of the pain domain is constituted by lexical units which are borrowed from the other domains. And they are applied to pain situations due to a sort of semantic shift from the source domain to the goal domain, and the goal domain is pain. So they could be called secondary pain predicates. So originally they had another meaning. And finally, they obtain this pain meaning, so they became pain verbs. For example, like English, 'my eyes are burning' or 'my ears are ringing'. In German, 'my head buzzes', 'my eyes bite'. Russian, literally 'legs hoot' and 'heart whimpers'. And Chinese, 'stomach screams', 'side pricks'. Aghul, 'my heart is pressed', and 'my head bursts'. So you see, just even these examples show us that the situation is quite complicated, there are many sources, not only one for this final domain. So there are many sources of these semantic shifts for different languages. And the question is how it is organized. Now, the semantic space of PAIN consists of, first, few predicates of pain per se. So, primary predicates, like hurt. And second, metaphorical uses, so there are many of them. Yeah, they are quite numerous. So normally, there are about 50 lexical items like this, borrowed from other domains and having different sources. By the way, among them, there are predicates that have already lost their basic meaning like Czech trnout. So, etymologically it was related to the noun meaning thorn. So, somehow associated with a sharp instrument, sharp object. And now, it has lost this semantic connection and it describes only two things. So in a way, it became just an ordinary pain predicate with a very narrow meaning by the way, only toothache. But anyway, it has lost the idea of this destruction or a sharp instrument effect. We are interested in the second class. So you see that the second class is [LAUGH] in a way, much more interesting that the first one. So there are different sources, and there is a sort of linguistic history, it has a sort of linguistic history. And it has a sort of a linguistic future. So in this lecture, we'll concentrate on the second type on the secondary pain predicates. [MUSIC]
