1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Language and Culture
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a corpus-based exploratory study of the figurative conceptualizations of visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli in English and Hungarian. Through a manual semantic analysis of altogether 6,800 occurrences of 18 sensory nouns (three per sensory modality in each language) in the TenTen corpora, the following conceptualization types of perceptual stimuli have been examined: reification, agentification, animization, and personification. The paper presents the relative frequencies of these conceptualizations along with their subtypes and concrete linguistic manifestations in English and Hungarian. Among a number of interesting observations that call for further investigations, the following findings merit special attention: (1) visual stimuli have the lowest values in every category; (2) in both languages, agentification is the most typical in the case of olfaction; (3) with the exception of representations of olfactory stimuli as living beings, every conceptualization type is more frequent in the Hungarian data.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
2024-02-08
2024-12-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00046.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. Bagli, M.
    (2021) Tastes we live by. The linguistic conceptualisation of taste in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110630404
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110630404 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R., & Sandford, J. L.
    (Eds.) (2018) Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91277‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baş, M., & Kraska-Szlenk, I.
    (Eds.) (2022) Embodiment in cross-linguistic studies. The ‘eye’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1163/9789004498594
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004498594 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bechtel, F.
    (1879) Über die Bezeichnungen der sinnlichen Wahrnehmungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: H. Böhlau.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Benczes, R., & Tóth-Czifra, E.
    (2014) The Hungarian colour terms piros and vörös. A corpus and cognitive linguistic account. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 61(2), 123–152. 10.1556/ALing.61.2014.2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.61.2014.2.1 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergen, B. K.
    (2012) Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) Embodiment, simulation, and meaning. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp.142–157). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D.
    (2005) The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. 10.1037/0033‑295X.112.1.193
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 [Google Scholar]
  9. Caballero, R.
    (2007) Manner-of-motion verbs in wine descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2095–2114. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2019) Sensory experiences, meaning and metaphor: The case of wine. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.07cab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.07cab [Google Scholar]
  11. Cayeux, I., Saint-Léger, C., & Starkenmann, C.
    (2023) Trigeminal sensations to enhance and enrich flavor perception – Sensory approaches. Clinical Nutrition Open Science, 471, 64–73. 10.1016/j.nutos.2022.11.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutos.2022.11.007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Croft, W.
    (2000) Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Davidson, D.
    (1971) Agency. InR. Binkley, R. N. Bronaugh, & A. Marras (Eds.), Agent, action, and reason (pp.1–37). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442656963‑002
     https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442656963-002 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. Digonnet, R.
    (2016) Métaphore et olfaction : une approche cognitive. Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2018a) 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). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑91277‑6_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91277-6_10 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2018b) Le sens hédoniste ou le principe de polarisation dans le discours sensoriel. InR. Digonnet (Ed.), Pour une linguistique sensorielle (pp.247–273). Paris: Honoré Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (Ed.) (2018c) Pour une linguistique sensorielle. Paris: Éditions Champion.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dolscheid, S., Shayan, Sh., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D.
    (2013) The thickness of musical pitch: psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 241, 613–621. 10.1177/0956797612457374
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374 [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. Dubois, D.
    (2000) Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 11, 35–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fernández Jaén, J.
    (2008) Modalidad epistémica y sentido del olfato: la evidencialidad del verbo oler. ELUA, 221, 65–89. 10.14198/ELUA2008.22.04
     https://doi.org/10.14198/ELUA2008.22.04 [Google Scholar]
  25. Galac, Á.
    (2020) Semantic change of basic perception verbs in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Hungarian. Argumentum, 161, 125–146. 10.34103/ARGUMENTUM/2020/9
     https://doi.org/10.34103/ARGUMENTUM/2020/9 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2021) Basic-level multimodal perception verbs in French, Spanish, and Hungarian: a contrastive corpus study of Fr. sentir, Sp. sentir, and H. érez. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány, 21(2), 62–79. 10.18460/ANY.2021.2.005
     https://doi.org/10.18460/ANY.2021.2.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. (2022) Megszemélyesítő konceptualizációk a látás, hallás és szaglás fogalmi tartományában. Egy kontrasztív empirikus vizsgálat eredményei. Jelentés és nyelvhasználat, 9(1), 155–183. 10.14232/jeny.2022.1.7
     https://doi.org/10.14232/jeny.2022.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  28. Geeraerts, D.
    (2015) Sense individuation. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp.233–247). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F.
    (2001) Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3–4), 223–247. 10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2001.9678896 [Google Scholar]
  30. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1999) Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. InR. W. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp.145–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.175.09gib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.175.09gib [Google Scholar]
  31. Grady, J. E.
    (1997) Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley]. eScholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3g9427m2
  32. Grimm, J.
    (1848) Die fünf sinne. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, 61, 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (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]
  35. Jackendoff, R. S.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jędrzejowski, Ł., & Staniewski, P.
    (Eds.) (2021) The linguistics of olfaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.131
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.131 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson, M.
    (1987) The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226177847.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Julich, N.
    (2019) Why do we understand music as moving? The metaphorical basis of musical motion revisited. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.09jul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.09jul [Google Scholar]
  39. Juhász, J., Szőke, I., O. Nagy, G., & Kovalovszky, M.
    (Eds.) (1972/2003) Magyar értelmező kéziszótár [Concise Hungarian explanatory dictionary]. Second, revised edition. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kimmel, M.
    (2008) Properties of cultural embodiment: Lessons from the anthropology of the body. InR. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp.77–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199116.1.77
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199116.1.77 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kövecses, Z.
    (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]
  42. (2020) Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108859127
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859127 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kraska-Szlenk, I.
    (Ed.) (2020) Body part terms in conceptualization and language usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.12 [Google Scholar]
  44. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W.
    (1970) Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 301, 607–610. 10.1177/001316447003000308
     https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kuzeev, S.
    (2022) Ineffability as a linguistic problem. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 341, 139–149. 10.54888/slh.2022.34.139.149
     https://doi.org/10.54888/slh.2022.34.139.149 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, G., & Turner, M.
    (1989) More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226470986.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Maalej, Z.
    (2004) Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An extended view of embodiment. Metaphor and Symbol, 19(1), 51–75. 10.1207/S15327868MS1901_3
     https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1901_3 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2008) The heart and cultural embodiment in Tunisian Arabic. InF. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualisations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp.395–428). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199109.4.395
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199109.4.395 [Google Scholar]
  53. Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2011) The senses in language and culture. The Senses and Society, 6(1), 5–18. 10.2752/174589311X12893982233551
     https://doi.org/10.2752/174589311X12893982233551 [Google Scholar]
  54. Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’Grady, L., Woll, B., LeLan, B., de Sousa, H., Cansler, B. L., Shayan, Sh., de Vos, C., Senft, G., Enfield, N. J., Razak, R. A., Fedden, S., Tufvesson, S., Dingemanse, M., Ozturk, O., . . . Levinson, S. C.
    (2018) Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. PNAS, 115(45), 11369–11376. 10.1073/pnas.1720419115
     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720419115 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Julich, N.
    (2014) Let’s talk music: A corpus-based account of musical motion. Metaphor and Symbol, 29(4), 298–315. 10.1080/10926488.2014.948800
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948800 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) A practical and flexible method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rogers, A.
    (1971) Three kinds of physical perception verbs. 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 206–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Rundell, M., & Fox, G.
    (Eds.) (2002) Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners. London: Macmillan Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharifian, F.
    (2008) Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language. InR. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol 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]
  60. Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S.
    (Eds.) (2008) Culture, body, and language. Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199109 [Google Scholar]
  61. Simon, G.
    (2022) Identification and analysis of personification in Hungarian: The PerSECorp project. InN. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp.2730–2738). Marseille: European Language Resources Association. URL: https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.292/
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 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]
  63. Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A.
    (Eds.) (2019) Perception metaphors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19 [Google Scholar]
  64. Staniewski, P.
    (2016) Das Unantastbare beschreiben. Gerüche und ihre Versprachlichung im Deutschen und Polnischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑07044‑6
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-07044-6 [Google Scholar]
  65. Steen, G. J.
    (2008) The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23(4), 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  66. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T. & Pasma, T.
    (2010) A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 [Google Scholar]
  67. Szwedek, A.
    (2011) The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(2), 341–366. 10.1075/rcl.9.2.01szw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.2.01szw [Google Scholar]
  68. Tóth, M.
    (2023) A case for metonymic synesthesia. Describing olfactory stimuli in terms of taste adjectives in German. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 211, in press. 10.1075/rcl.00151.tot
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00151.tot [Google Scholar]
  69. Trojszczak, M.
    (2019) Grounding mental metaphors in touch. A corpus-based study of English and Polish. InL. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp.209–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.19.11tro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.11tro [Google Scholar]
  70. 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]
  71. (2001) Verbs of perception. InM. Haspelmath (Ed.), Language typology and language universals (pp.1294–1309). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110194265‑030
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110194265-030 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2021) Why is smell special? A case study of a European language: Swedish. InŁ. Jędrzejowski, & P. Staniewski (Eds.), The linguistics of olfaction (pp.35–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.131.02vib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.131.02vib [Google Scholar]
  73. 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]
  74. (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]
  75. Wood, F. A.
    (1899) The semasiology of words for ‘smell’ and ‘see’. PMLA, 14(3), 299–346. 10.2307/456640
     https://doi.org/10.2307/456640 [Google Scholar]
  76. Yamamoto, M.
    (1999) Animacy and reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.46
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.46 [Google Scholar]
  77. Yu, N.
    (2015) Embodiment, culture, and language. InF. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp.227–239). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Zawisławska, M. & Falkowska, M.
    (2021) Typology of metaphors with the olfactory target domain in the Polish perfumery discourse. InŁ. Jędrzejowski, & P. Staniewski (Eds.), The linguistics of olfaction (pp.449–474). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.131.15zaw
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.131.15zaw [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
Loading
Bold colors, sweeping melodies, offensive smells
International Journal of Language and Culture 11, 58 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): auditory perception; English; figurative language; Hungarian; olfactory perception; TenTen corpora; visual perception

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