Skip to main content

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

  • Chapter
Book cover Applications of Conceptual Spaces

Part of the book series: Synthese Library ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I am grateful to Mr Robert Parker for providing the database which facilitated the work immensely (http://www.erobertparker.com/members/home.asp). I am also grateful to Mats Eeg-Olofsson who carried out the computational work and made the relevant searches. A description of the corpus can be found in Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson (2013). The database has also been the basis for the creation of an interactive visualization tool (Kerren et al. 2013).

  2. 2.

    The scope of this chapter does not allow for a discussion of Construals of Comparison, such as similes and metaphorizations. For treatments of that see Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson (2013) and Paradis and Hommerberg (in press).

  3. 3.

    It should be noted that long may also evoke positive or negative evaluation (Paradis et al. 2012).

  4. 4.

    A domain is a context for the characterization of a semantic unit. Domains are mental experiences, representational spaces, concepts and concept complexes. There are basic domains and abstract domains. Basic domains cannot be reduced to more fundamental but interrelated structures. Basic domains are primitive representational spaces such as time, space, visual sensations (color), auditory sensations (pitch), touch (temperature, pressure, pain), taste/smell. Langacker (1987:147–150) notes that all human conceptualization is presumably grounded in basic domains, mediated by chains of intermediate concepts. Any other concept or conceptual complex that functions as a domain is referred to as non-basic, or abstract.

  5. 5.

    For information, see www.deutscheweine.com.

  6. 6.

    Please, note that this does not only apply to monochromatic but also to chromatic descriptions, see Fig. 3.1.

  7. 7.

    For a similar argument against a metaphor/polysemy account of cross-modal sensory word meanings, see Johnson (1999). In a study of the acquisition of see he argues for a (first acquired) general meaning of see for both vision and understanding, rather than the metaphoric extension of vision to cognition and knowledge.

References

  • Barsalou, L. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2015). Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. Functions of Language. 22(1), 1--19

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma. The cultural history of smell. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive lingusitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruse, A. (2002). The construal of sense boundaries. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 12, 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language and understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Herdenstam, A. (2004). Sinnesupplevelsens estetik. Vinprovaren, i gränslandet mellan konsten och vetenskapen. Stockholm: Stockholm Dialoger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hommerberg, C. (2011). Persuasiveness in the discourse of wine: The rhetoric of Robert Parker. Växjö: Linnaeus University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations. Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2012). Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K. (2012). Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain and Language, 120(3), 416–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, A. (1978). Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua, 45, 95–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The senses in language and culture. Senses and Society, 6(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The color of odors. Brain and Language, 79, 309–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Osgood, C. E., & Richards, M. M. (1973). From Yang and Yin to and or but. Language, 49(2), 380–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1), 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, C. (2004). Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(4), 245–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15, 541–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, C. (2008). Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory perceptions: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor & Symbol, 28(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2011). Antonymy: From conventionalization to meaning-making. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 367–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradis, C., van de Weijer, J., Willners, C., & Lindgren, M. (2012). Evaluative polarity of antonyms. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2, 199–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plümacher, M., & Holz, P. (Eds.). (2007). Speaking of colors and odors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, Y., & Gadir, O. (2009). Target and source Assignment in Synaesthetic Possessive Constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2005). Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge studies in linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, S. (1945). Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. PMLA, 60(3), 811–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viberg, Å. (1984). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1977). Remarks on colour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carita Paradis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Paradis, C. (2015). Conceptual Spaces at Work in Sensory Cognition: Domains, Dimensions and Distances. In: Zenker, F., Gärdenfors, P. (eds) Applications of Conceptual Spaces. Synthese Library, vol 359. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15021-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics