1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Cognitive Linguistic Studies
  4. Volume 13, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Synesthetic expressions are generally taken to be metaphorical phenomena involving a mapping across distinct perceptual domains based on cross-modal commonalities between them. The present paper seeks to supplement this view so far as to point out that some synesthetic expressions are essentially metonymic since they do not involve any cross-modal similarities or correspondences and are rather based either on the co-occurrence of stimuli from different sensory modalities, and/or on similarities within a single sensory modality. In order to find out how pervasive the metonymic motivation of synesthetic expressions might be, the study focuses on attribute-noun constructions combining with in Hungarian. The results of the corpus investigation suggest that a considerable portion of the synesthetic expressions under scrutiny are in fact metonymic, yet the frequency of taste adjectives describing smells, as well as that of the metonymic cases is unequally distributed across nouns designating pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant smells.

© 2026 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
2026-04-17
2026-05-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agerri, R., Barnden, J., Lee, M., & Wallington, A.
    (2007) Default inferences in metaphor interpretation. InB. Kokinov, D. C. Richardson, T. R. Roth-Berghofer, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Modeling and using context: 6th international and interdisciplinary conference (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑74255‑5_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74255-5_1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahrens, K.
    (2002) When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. InProceedings of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273–302). Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, China.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Mapping principles for conceptual metaphors. InG. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in the real world (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.26.12ahr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.26.12ahr [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcelona, A.
    (2003a) On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. InA. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110894677.31
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677.31 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2003b) Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.2.207
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.2.207 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2008) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. InN.-L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (pp. 13–46). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barnden, J. A.
    (2001) Application of the ATT-Meta metaphor-understanding approach to various examples in the ATT-Meta project databank. Technical Report CSRP-01-02, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2016) Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 75–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.6.05bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6.05bar [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., Lee, M. G., & Wallington, A. M.
    (2003) Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. InA. Copestake & J. Hajič (Eds.), 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 57–61). Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary. 10.3115/1067737.1067748
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1067737.1067748 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cacciari, C.
    (2008) Crossing the senses in metaphorical language. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 425–444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.026
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.026 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, I.-H., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Lu, Q., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2019) Mandarin Chinese modality exclusivity norms. Plos One, 14(2), e0211336. 10.1371/journal.pone.0211336
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211336 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chernigovskaya, T. V., & Arshavsky, V. V.
    (2007) Olfactory and visual processing and verbalization: Cross-cultural and neurosemiotic dimensions. InM. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 227–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.8.13che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.8.13che [Google Scholar]
  13. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. de Ullmann, S.
    (1945) Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60(3), 811–827. 10.2307/459180
     https://doi.org/10.2307/459180 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1951) The principles of semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Digonnet, R.
    (2018) The linguistic expression of smells: From lack to abundance?. InA. Baicchi, R. Digonnet & J. L. Sandford (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology (pp. 177–191). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91277‑6_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6_10 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dirven, R.
    (1985) Metaphor as a basic means of extending the lexicon. InW. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 85–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.29.06dir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.29.06dir [Google Scholar]
  18. Dombi, E.
    (1974) Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3(3), 23–44. 10.1016/0304‑422X(74)90021‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(74)90021-7 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dorst, A. G.
    (2011) Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature, 20(2), 113–135. 10.1177/0963947010395522
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010395522 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dorst, A. G., Mulder, G., & Steen, G. J.
    (2011) Recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. Metaphor and the Social World, 1(2), 174–201. 10.1075/msw.1.2.04dor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.1.2.04dor [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. Forceville, C. J., & Renckens, T.
    (2013) The good is light and bad is dark metaphor in feature films. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 160–179. 10.1075/msw.3.2.03for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.03for [Google Scholar]
  23. Geeraerts, D.
    (2002) The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–468). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.435
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.435 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goossens, L.
    (2002) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.349
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.349 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holz, P.
    (2007) Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity: Linguistic synesthesia as poetic device in cologne advertisement. InM. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.8.11hol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.8.11hol [Google Scholar]
  26. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (1999) Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.03iba
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.03iba [Google Scholar]
  27. (2019) Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics: Scope, motivation, and lexicalisation. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 43–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.03iba
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.03iba [Google Scholar]
  28. Kövecses, Z.
    (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) Perception and metaphor: The case of smell. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 327–346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.16kov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.16kov [Google Scholar]
  30. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kumcu, A.
    (2021) Linguistic synesthesia in Turkish: A corpus-based study of crossmodal directionality. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 241–255. 10.1080/10926488.2021.1921557
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1921557 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
    (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. 10.1111/mila.12057
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12057 [Google Scholar]
  33. Littlemore, J.
    (2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107338814
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338814 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. (2013) Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 451, 516–526. 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0267‑0
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J.
    (2020) The Lancaster sensorimotor norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 521, 1271–1291. 10.3758/s13428‑019‑01316‑z
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z [Google Scholar]
  37. Majid, A., & Burenhult, N.
    (2014) Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., de Valk, J., & Hansson, B. S.
    (2018) Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3731, 20170139. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0139
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0139 [Google Scholar]
  39. Martino, G., & Marks, L. E.
    (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]
  40. O’Meara, C., Speed, L. J., San Roque, L., & Majid, A.
    (2019) Perception metaphors: A view from diversity. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.01ome
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.01ome [Google Scholar]
  41. Paillard, M.
    (2002) From figures of speech to lexical units: An English-French contrastive approach to hypallage and metonymy. InB. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches (pp. 175–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.7.12pai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.7.12pai [Google Scholar]
  42. Paissa, P.
    (1995) La sinestesia: Storia e analisi del concetto [Synesthesia: History and analysis of the concept]. Brescia: La Scuola.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Panther, K.-U.
    (2005) The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. InF. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197716.4.353
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197716.4.353 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2022) Attribute transfer: A figurative interpretation of shifted modifiers. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 130–155. 10.1075/rcl.00104.pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00104.pan [Google Scholar]
  45. Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L.
    (2023) Hypallage is a rare bird. Not. Lingua, 2891, 103511. 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103511
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103511 [Google Scholar]
  46. Paradis, C.
    (2011) Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. InR. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.28.04par
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.04par [Google Scholar]
  47. (2015) Conceptual spaces at work in sensory cognition: Domains, dimensions and distances. InF. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case for geometric knowledge representation (pp. 33–55). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑15021‑5_3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15021-5_3 [Google Scholar]
  48. Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M.
    (2013) Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22–40. 10.1080/10926488.2013.742838
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2013.742838 [Google Scholar]
  49. Popova, Y.
    (2005) Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. InB. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197532.5.395
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197532.5.395 [Google Scholar]
  50. Radden, G.
    (2002) How metonymic are metaphors?. InR. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219197.407
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219197.407 [Google Scholar]
  51. Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z.
    (1999) Towards a theory of metonymy. InK.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  52. 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]
  53. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M.
    (2001) Synesthesia — A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J.
    (2020) Ten lectures on cognitive modeling: Between grammar and language-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Sadamitsu, M.
    (1999) Synaesthesia: A study from a cognitive viewpoint. Conference Book of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, 171, 121–124.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. (2002) A cognitive account of synaesthetic metaphor. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 61, 115–130. 10.18910/72934
     https://doi.org/10.18910/72934 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2003) Synaesthesia re-examined: An alternative treatment of smell related concepts. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 81, 109–125.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Shen, Y.
    (1997) Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–72. 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1997.8.1.33 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2008) Metaphor and poetic figures. InR. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 295–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.019
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802.019 [Google Scholar]
  60. Shen, Y., & Cohen, M.
    (1998) How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: A cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7(2), 123–140. 10.1177/096394709800700202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709800700202 [Google Scholar]
  61. Shen, Y., & Eisenman, R.
    (2008) “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter”: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 101–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Siahaan, P.
    (2022) Indonesian basic olfactory terms: More negative types but more positive tokens. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 447–480. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0092
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0092 [Google Scholar]
  63. Speed, L. J., & Brysbaert, M.
    (2022) Dutch sensory modality norms. Behavior Research Methods, 541, 1306–1318. 10.3758/s13428‑021‑01656‑9
     https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01656-9 [Google Scholar]
  64. 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]
  65. (2017) Figures and 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]
  66. (2018) Synaesthesia and other figures. What the senses tell us about figurative language. InA. Baicchi, R. Digonnet & J. L. Sandford (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology (pp. 193–207). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91277‑6_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6_11 [Google Scholar]
  67. Strik Lievers, F., Huang, C.-R., & Xiong, J.
    (2021) Linguistic synaesthesia. InX. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 372–383). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034708‑25
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034708-25 [Google Scholar]
  68. Taylor, J. R.
    (2003) Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  69. Tóth, M.
    (2018) Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag. 10.3726/b14806
     https://doi.org/10.3726/b14806 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2024) A case for metonymic synesthesia: Describing olfactory stimuli in terms of taste adjectives in German. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 70–99. 10.1075/rcl.00151.tot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00151.tot [Google Scholar]
  71. Turner, S., & Littlemore, J.
    (2023) The many faces of creativity: Exploring synaesthesia through a metaphorical lens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108974813
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108974813 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vogt, S.
    (2013) Die analyse ‘synästhetischer’ metaphern mittels frames [The analysis of ‘synesthetic’ metaphors using frames]. Metaphorik.de, 231, 19–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., & Glasbey, S. R.
    (2003) View-neutral mapping adjuncts in real text: A preliminary investigation. Technical Report CSRP-03-06, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., & Lee, M. G.
    (2006) Metaphorical reasoning with an economical set of mappings. DELTA. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 221, 147–171. 10.1590/S0102‑44502006000300011
     https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502006000300011 [Google Scholar]
  75. 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]
  76. Winter, B.
    (2016) Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988. 10.1080/23273798.2016.1193619
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1193619 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2019a) 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]
  78. (2019b) Sensory linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.20 [Google Scholar]
  79. Yeshurun, Y., & Sobel, N.
    (2010) An odor is not worth a thousand words: From multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 611, 219–241. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163639
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163639 [Google Scholar]
  80. Young, B. D.
    (2020) Smell’s puzzling discrepancy: Gifted discrimination, yet pitiful identification. Mind & Language, 35(1), 90–114. 10.1111/mila.12233
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12233 [Google Scholar]
  81. Yu, N.
    (2003) Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. 10.1515/jlse.2003.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2003.001 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2022) Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583. 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0098
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0098 [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhong, Y., Wan, M., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R.
    (2022) Sensorimotor norms for Chinese nouns and their relationship with orthographic and semantic variables. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(8), 1000–1022. 10.1080/23273798.2022.2035416
     https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2022.2035416 [Google Scholar]
  84. Vámos, M.
    (2000) Apák könyve [The book of fathers]. Budapest: Ab Ovo.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Vámos, H.
    (2009) The book of fathers (electronic edition). English translation byP. Sherwood. New York: Other Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Sketch Engine
    Sketch Engine, URL: https://www.sketchengine.eu/ (28 June 2023)
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
Loading
The taste of smells
Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13, 171 (2026); https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00145.tot
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): gustation; metaphor; metonymic synesthesia; metonymy; olfaction; synaesthesia

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