Advertisement

Conceptual Spaces at Work in Sensory Cognition: Domains, Dimensions and Distances

  • Carita ParadisEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 359)

Abstract

This chapter makes use of two data sources, terminological schemas for wine descriptions and actual wine reviews, for the investigation of how experiences of sensory perceptions of vision, smell, taste and touch are described. In spite of all the great challenges involved in describing perceptions, professional wine reviewers are expected to be able to give an understandable account of their experiences. The reviews are explored with focus on the different types of descriptors and the ways their meanings are construed. It gives an account of the use of both property expressions, such as soft, sharp, sweet and dry and object descriptors, such as blueberry, apple and honey. It pays particular attention to the apparent cross-sensory use of descriptors, such as white aromas and soft smell, arguing that the ontological cross-over of sensory modalities are to be considered as symptoms of ‘synesthesia’ in the wine-tasting practice and monosemy at the conceptual level. In contrast to the standard view of the meanings of words for sensory perceptions, the contention is that it is not the case that, for instance, sharp in sharp smell primarily evokes a notion of touch; rather the sensory experiences are strongly interrelated in cognition. When instantiated in, say smell, soft spans the closely related sense domains, and the lexical syncretism is taken to be grounded in the workings of human sensory cognition.

Keywords

Vision Smell Taste Touch Sensory perceptions Cross-sensory descriptions Sense Ontologies Construals 

References

  1. Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beveridge, M. E. L., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Perspective taking in language: Integrating the spatial and action domains. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 277. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00577.Google Scholar
  3. Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caballero, R. (2009). Cutting across the senses. Imagery in winespeak and audiovisual promotion. In C. Forceville & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal metaphors (pp. 73–94). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  5. Caballero, R., & Díaz Vera, J. (Eds.). (2013). The embodied soul – Explorations into human sentience – Imagination, (e)motion and perception. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2013). Perceptual landscapes from the perspective of cultures and genres. In R. Caballero & J. Díaz Vera (Eds.), The embodied soul – Explorations into human sentience – Imagination, (e)motion and perception (pp. 77–105). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2015). Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language. 22(1), 1--19Google Scholar
  8. Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma. The cultural history of smell. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive lingusitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruse, A. (2002). The construal of sense boundaries. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 12, 101–119.Google Scholar
  11. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gluck, M. (2003). Wine language. Useful idiom or idiot-speak? In J. Aitchinson & D. Lewis (Eds.), New media language (pp. 107–115). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Herdenstam, A. (2004). Sinnesupplevelsens estetik. Vinprovaren, i gränslandet mellan konsten och vetenskapen. Stockholm: Stockholm Dialoger.Google Scholar
  16. Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine: The rhetoric of Robert Parker. Växjö: Linnaeus University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hommerberg, C., & Paradis, C. (2014). Constructing credibility through representations in the discourse of wine: Evidentiality, temporality and epistemic control. In D. Glynn & M. Sjölin (Eds.), Subjectivity and epistemicity. Stance strategies in discourse and narration (pp. 211–238).Google Scholar
  18. Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations. Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  19. Howes, D. (2013). Postscript to Senuous Cognition: The language of the senses. In R. Caballero & J. Díaz Vera (Eds.), Senuous cognition: Explorations into human sentience: Imagination, (E)motion, and perception (pp. 293–299). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  20. Huang, H. W., Lee, C. L., & Federmeier, K. D. (2010). Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence for distinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts. NeuroImage, 49, 1116–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, C. (1999). Metaphor vs. conflation in acquisition of polysemy: The case of see. In M. K. Hiraga, C. Sinha, & S. Wilcox (Eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2012). Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kerren, A., Kyusakova, M., & Paradis, C. (2013). From culture to text to interactive visualization of wine reviews. In F. T. Marchese & E. Banissi (Eds.), Knowledge visualization currents: From text to art to culture (pp. 85–110). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K. (2012). Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain and Language, 120(3), 416–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehrer, A. (1978). Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua, 45, 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The senses in language and culture. Senses and Society, 6(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The color of odors. Brain and Language, 79, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noble, A., Arnold, R., Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E., Schmidt, J., & Stern, P. (1987). Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38(2), 143–146.Google Scholar
  33. Osgood, C. E., & Richards, M. M. (1973). From Yang and Yin to and or but. Language, 49(2), 380–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15, 541–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paradis, C. (2009). This beauty should drink well for 10–12 years: A note on recommendations as semantic middles. Text & Talk, 29(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: Key mechanism in language change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), What is metonymy? An attempt at building a consensus view on the delimitation of the notion of metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paradis, C. (in press). Meanings of words: Theory and application. In U. Hass & P. Storjohann (Eds.), Handbuch Wort und Wortschatz (Handbücher Sprachwissen-HSW Band 3). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  41. Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory perceptions: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor & Symbol, 28(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paradis, C., & Hommerberg, C. (in press). We drink with our eyes first: Multiple sensory perceptions and mixed imagery in wine reviews. In R. Gibbs (Ed). John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  43. Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2011). Antonymy: From conventionalization to meaning-making. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Jones, S. (2009). Good and bad opposites: Using textual and psycholinguistic techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 380–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paradis, C., van de Weijer, J., Willners, C., & Lindgren, M. (2012). Evaluative polarity of antonyms. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 199–214.Google Scholar
  46. Plümacher, M., & Holz, P. (Eds.). (2007). Speaking of colors and odors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Popova, Y. (2003). ‘The fool sees with his nose’: Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell in Patrick Süskind’s Perfume. Language and Literature, 12, 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Popova, Y. (2005). Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 1–26). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  49. Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen, Y., & Gadir, O. (2009). Target and source Assignment in Synaesthetic Possessive Constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  54. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2005). Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge studies in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ullman, S. (1945). Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. PMLA, 60(3), 811–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Viberg, Å. (1984). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.Google Scholar
  59. Williams, J. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wittgenstein, L. (1977). Remarks on colour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  61. Zucco, G. M. (2007). The unique nature of a memory system. In M. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 155–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Languages and LiteratureLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations