1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 10, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The article focuses on the conventionalized cross-sensory uses of basic-level adjectives in a sample of eight languages: English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Hungarian, Tajik, and Uzbek. After a differentiation of cross-sensory language use (also called linguistic synesthesia) from other phenomena that combine the senses (namely, neuropsychological synesthesia and cross-sensory correspondences), it reports on a dictionary-based semantic analysis that distinguishes between three main semantic mechanisms leading to cross-sensory language use: direct cross-sensory transfer (e.g., ), more schematic generalized meanings (e.g., ‘pleasant, gentle, not too intense’), and highly figurative extensions (e.g., , in which means ‘gloomy’). It also emphasizes that these three categories are often intertwined due to the inherent fog-like nature of meaning. After summarizing every instance of conventionalized cross-sensory meaning potential that could be found in the dictionaries, it concludes that (1) the results are in line with the widely observed directional preferences also referred to as the hierarchy of the senses; (2) the evaluative dimension is present in many transfers, but it cannot account for the extended uses alone; (3) there are some obvious differences between the Western and the Central Asian languages, even though one cannot speak of fundamentally different conceptual systems regarding the language of the senses. Besides these general observations, the outcomes of this principally exploratory investigation also point to many uncharted territories to be examined in future studies.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
2023-11-17
2024-10-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Storch, A.
    (2013) Linguistic expression of perception and cognition: A typological glimpse. InA. Y. Aikhenvald, & A. Storch (Eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture (pp.1–46). Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004210127_002
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004210127_002 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bagli, M.
    (2021) Tastes we live by: The linguistic conceptualisation of taste in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110630404
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630404 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cacciari, C.
    (2008) Crossing the senses in metaphorical language. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp.425–443). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.026 [Google Scholar]
  4. Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C.
    (2012) The impact of pleasantness ratings on crossmodal associations between food samples and musical notes. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 136–140. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  5. de Ullmann, S.
    (1945) Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. PMLA, 60(3), 811–827. 10.2307/459180
     https://doi.org/10.2307/459180 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1959) The principles of semantics. Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. de Vignemont, F., & Massin, O.
    (2015) Touch. InM. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception (pp.294–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Deroy, O., & Spence, C.
    (2013) Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 201, 643–664. 10.3758/s13423‑013‑0387‑2
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0387-2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D.
    (2013) The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613–621. 10.1177/0956797612457374
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fishman, A.
    (2022) The picture looks like my music sounds: Directional preferences in synesthetic metaphors in the absence of lexical factors. Language and Cognition, 14(2), 208–227. 10.1017/langcog.2022.2
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2022.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Geeraerts, D.
    (2015) Sense individuation. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp.233–247). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Győri, G.
    (2002) Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 123–166. 10.1515/cogl.2002.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.012 [Google Scholar]
  13. Iwahashi, K.
    (2017) On the core function of English sensory adjectives. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 181, 127–146.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Lynott, D., & Connell, L.
    (2009) Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 558–564. 10.3758/BRM.41.2.558
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558 [Google Scholar]
  15. Martino, G., & Marks, L. E.
    (1999) Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28(7), 903–923. 10.1068/p2866
     https://doi.org/10.1068/p2866 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2001) Synesthesia: strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 61–65. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00116
     https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00116 [Google Scholar]
  17. Rakova, M.
    (2003) The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230512801
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230512801 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ryzhova, D., Rakhilina, E., & Kholkina, L.
    (2019) Approaching perceptual qualities: The case of heavy. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.185–207). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.10ryz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.10ryz [Google Scholar]
  19. San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A.
    (2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(3), 371–406. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0034 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sharifian, F.
    (2008) Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language. InR. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind: Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp.109–136). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199116.1.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199116.1.109 [Google Scholar]
  21. Speed, L. J., & Majid, A.
    (2019) Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37(5–6), 363–392. 10.1080/02643294.2019.1623188
     https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1623188 [Google Scholar]
  22. Spence, C.
    (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 731, 971–995. 10.3758/s13414‑010‑0073‑7
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7 [Google Scholar]
  23. Strik Lievers, F.
    (2015) Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. Functions of Language, 22(1), 69–95. 10.1075/fol.22.1.04str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.1.04str [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2017) Figures and the senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. 10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.15.1.04str [Google Scholar]
  26. Strik Lievers, F., & De Felice, I.
    (2019) Metaphors and perception in the lexicon: A diachronic perspective. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.85–104). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.05str
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.05str [Google Scholar]
  27. Strik Lievers, F., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2016) A lexicon of perception for the identification of synaesthetic metaphors in corpora. InProceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16), 2270–2277.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Suárez-Toste, E.
    (2017) Babel of the senses: On the roles of metaphor and synesthesia in wine reviews. Terminology, 23(1), 89–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Tóth, M.
    (2016) Farbige Düfte: Metonymie und verbale Synästhesie [Colorful scents: Metonymy and linguistic synesthesia]. Argumentum, 121, 152–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Viberg, Å.
    (1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21(1), 123–162. 10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1983.21.1.123 [Google Scholar]
  31. Walker, P.
    (2012) Cross-sensory correspondences and cross talk between dimensions of connotative meaning: Visual angularity is hard, high-pitched, and bright. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 741, 1792–1809. 10.3758/s13414‑012‑0341‑9
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0341-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. Williams, J. M.
    (1976) Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478. 10.2307/412571
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412571 [Google Scholar]
  33. Winter, B.
    (2019a) Sensory linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.20 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2019b) Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.06win
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhao, Q., Huang, C.-R., & Ahrens, K.
    (2019) Directionality of linguistic synesthesia in Mandarin: A corpus-based study. Lingua, 2321, Article 102744.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2022) Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster (2014) Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). Springfield, MA: Author. Online version: https://www.merriam-webster.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Rundell, M., & Fox, G.
    (Eds.) (2007) Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Online version: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Dico en ligne Le Robert [Le Robert online dictionary]: https://dictionnaire.lerobert.com/
  40. Larousse dictionnaire de la langue française en ligne [Larousse online dictionary of the French language]: https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais
  41. Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache [Digital dictionary of the German language]: https://www.dwds.de/
  42. Duden
    Duden (2019) Deutsches Universalwörterbuch [Universal German dictionary] (19th ed.). Berlin: Author. Online version: https://www.duden.de/
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Bárczi, G., & Országh, L.
    (Eds.) (1959–1962) A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára [Explanatory dictionary of the Hungarian language]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Online version: https://mek.oszk.hu/adatbazis/magyar-nyelv-ertelmezo-szotara/elolap.php
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Pusztai, F.
    (Ed.) (2003) Magyar értelmező kéziszótár [Concise Hungarian explanatory dictionary]. (2nd, rev. ed.). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Quasthoff, U., Fiedler, S., & Hallsteinsdóttir, E.
    (Eds.) (2013) Frequency dictionary Hungarian. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ozhegov, S. I., & Shvedova, N. Yu
    (2006) Tolkoviy slovar’ russkogo yazika [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Yevgenyeva, A. P., & Razumnikova, G. A.
    (1985) Slovar’ russkogo yazika, Tom 1–4 [Dictionary of the Russian language, Vol. 1–4]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Moliner, M.
    (Ed.) (2007) Diccionario de uso del español [Dictionary of Spanish language use]. (3rd ed.). Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Real Academia Española
    Real Academia Española (2014) Diccionario de la lengua española [Dictionary of the Spanish language] (23rd ed.). Madrid: Author. Online version: https://dle.rae.es/
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Mamanazarov, A.
    (2015) Farhangi Anglis’i-Toçik [Standard English-Tajik dictionary]. Dushanbe: ER-graf.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Mirboboev, A.
    (2006) Farhangi Toçik’i-Rus’i [Tajik-Russian dictionary]. Dushanbe: Pajukhishgohi Rudaki.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Nazarzoda, S., Sanginov, A., Karimov, S., & Hasani Sulton, M.
    (2008) Farhangi tafsirii zaboni toçik 1–2 [Explanatory dictionary of the Tajik language, Vol. 1–2]. Dushanbe: Tаjikistan Academy of Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Osimi, M. S.
    (1985) Lunati Rus’i-Toçik’i/Russko-Tadsikskiy slovar’ [Russian-Tajik dictionary]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the TjSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Rakhimi, V. M., & Uspenskaja, L. V.
    (1954) Lunati Toçik’i-Rus’i [Tajik-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the TjSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Shukurova, M. Sh., Kapranov, V. A., Khashima, R., & Masumi, N. A.
    (1969) Farhangi tafsirii zaboni toçik 1–2 [Explanatory dictionary of the Tajik language, Vol. 1–2]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the TjSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Akobirov, S. F., Ma’rufov, Z. M., & Xo’jaxonov, A. T.
    (1959) O’zbekcha-Ruscha lug’at [Uzbek-Russian dictionary]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Akobirov, S. F., & Mikhajlov, G. N.
    (1988) O’zbekcha-Ruscha lug’at [Uzbek-Russian dictionary]. Tashkent: Academy of Sciences of the UzSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Azizov, O., & Rizaeva, Z.
    (1989) O’zbekcha-Ruscha lug’at [Uzbek-Russian dictionary]. Tashkent: O’qituvchi.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Begmatov, E., Madvaliev, A., Mahkamov, N., Mirzaev, T., Tukhliev, N., Umarov, E., Khudoyberganova, D., Hojiev, A.
    (2006–2008) O’zbek tilining izohli lug’ati 1–2 [Explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language, Vol. 1–2]. Tashkent: National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Butayev, Sh., & Irisqulov, A.
    (2008) Inglizcha-O’zbekcha/O’zbekcha-Inglizcha lug’at [English-Uzbek Uzbek-English dictionary]. Tashkent: Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Koshchanov, M. K., Akobirov, S. F., Al’xamova, N. A., Kadirov, I. K., Kim, S. S., Ma’rufov, Z. M., … Shaabdurahmanov, Sh. Sh.
    (1983) Ruscha-O’zbekcha Lug’at/Russko-Uzbekskij slovar’ 1–2 [Russian-Uzbek dictionary, Vol. 1–2]. Tashkent: Academy of Sciences of the UzSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ma’rufov, Z. M.
    (1981) O’zbek tilining izohli lug’ati 1–2 [Explanatory dictionary of the Uzbek language, Vol. 1–2]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the UzSSR.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
Loading
Paths of linguistic synesthesia across cultures
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 10, 450 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00108.gal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): adjectives; conventionalization; cross-cultural study; cross-sensory experience; linguistic synesthesia

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error