1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 3, Issue 1-2
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Tasting sessions constitute a perspicuous setting that reveals how a community of practice uses and shapes specialized lexicons and semantics within a situated and embodied activity. The activity aims at associating words and sensations: Participants engage with material objects (samples to taste), and utter/write down words corresponding to the way they experience them through their senses. This association between words and sensorial qualities constitutes an endogenous semantic task. This task can be seen as a respecification of various semantic problems, addressing within social interaction several semantic issues, such as the embodied grounding of sensory semantics, , sensory lexicons, and specialized terminological repertoires. The paper is based on video recordings of training tasting sessions for professional cheese tasters in Italy and Italian Switzerland. The analyses show how participants engage not only in describing sensorial features, but also in normatively assessing the descriptors used, categorizing them as well as the features described as more or less standard. Moreover, the descriptive task is also guided by the use of several artefacts, such as tasting sheets to fill in and official repertoires of terminology available to read, which further socialize the participants. The analysis shows the reflexive mutual shaping of lexicons and sensations as well as the way participants address the semantics of taste in situ.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.22011.mon
2024-01-11
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.22011.mon
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albirini, A.
    (2011) The sociolinguistic function of codeswitching between Standard Arabic and Dialectal Arabic. Language in Society, 401, 537–562. 10.1017/S0047404511000674
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000674 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baldinger, K.
    (1964) Sémasiologie et onomasiologie. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 28(111–112), 250–272.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Barsalou, L. W.
    (2008) Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilmes, J.
    (2008) Generally speaking: formulating an argument in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Text & Talk, 281, 193–217. 10.1515/TEXT.2008.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.009 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2009) Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1600–1610. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2011) Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 129–153. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9183‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9183-z [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) The structure of meaning in talk. Explorations in category analysis. Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. Manoa: University of Hawaii.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2021) Organizing talk with contrasts. Journal of Pragmatics, 1751, 1–13. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chumley, L. H., & Harkness, N.
    (2013) Qualia. Anthropological Theory. 13(1–2), 3–11. 10.1177/1463499613483389
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499613483389 [Google Scholar]
  10. Croijmans, I., & Majid, A.
    (2016) Not all flavor expertise is equal: the language of wine and coffee experts. PLoS ONE11(6): e0155845. 10.1371/journal.pone.0155845
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155845 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Stefani, E., & Sambre, P.
    (2016) L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Langages204(4), 27–42. 10.3917/lang.204.0027
     https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.204.0027 [Google Scholar]
  12. De Stefani, E.
    (2023) Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning: The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 40–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dennett, D. C.
    (1988) Quining qualia. InA. Marcel & E. Bisiach (Eds.). Consciousness in Modern Science (pp.42–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Deppermann, A.
    (2005) Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp.289–306). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.15dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.15dep [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9187‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9187-8 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2020) Interaktionale Semantik. InJ. Hagemann & S. Staffeldt (Eds.). Semantiktheorien (Vol.21, pp.172–215). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. (2023) Meta-semantic practices in social interaction: Definitions and specifications provided in response to Was heißt X (‘what does X mean’). Interactional Linguistics3 (1/2), 13–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E.
    (2019) Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T.
    (Eds) (2002) Be-deuten. Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Diederich, C.
    (2015) Sensory Adjectives in the Discourse of Food: A Frame Semantic Approach to Language and Perception. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.16
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.16 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fele, G.
    (2019) Olfactory objects: Recognizing, describing and assessing smells during professional tasting sessions. InD. Day and J. Wagner (Eds.). Objects, Bodies and Work Practice (pp.250–284). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781788924535‑013
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788924535-013 [Google Scholar]
  22. Garfinkel, H.
    (2002) Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodwin, C.
    (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1997) The blackness of black: color categories as situated practice. InL. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, B. Burge (Eds.). Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition (pp.111–140). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03362‑3_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_6 [Google Scholar]
  25. Greco, L., Traverso, V.
    (Eds.) (2016) Définir les mots dans l’interaction. Un essai de sémantique interactionnelle. Special Issue of Langages, 2041.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Harjunpää, K., Deppermann, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L.
    (2021) Constructing the Chekhovian inner body in instructions: An interactional history of factuality and agentivity. Journal of Pragmatics1711, 158–174. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.034 [Google Scholar]
  27. Harkness, N.
    (2015) The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annual Review of Anthropology. 441, 573–589. 10.1146/annurev‑anthro‑102313‑030032
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102313-030032 [Google Scholar]
  28. Harnad, S.
    (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 421, 335–346. 10.1016/0167‑2789(90)90087‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hauser, E.
    (2011) Generalizations: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 183–198. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9184‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9184-y [Google Scholar]
  30. Helmer, H.
    (2020) How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German y heißt y (‘x means y’). Discourse Processes, 57(3), 278–299. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646567 [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R.
    (1979) Formulations as conversational objects. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp.123–162). New York: Irvington.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hindmarsh, J.
    (2010) Peripherality, participation and communities of practice: examining the patient in dental training. InLlewellyn, N. & Hindmarsh, J. (Eds). Organisation, Interaction and Practice. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. London: Ashgate. 10.1017/CBO9780511676512.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676512.011 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction, inG. H. Lerner (Ed.). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp.13–31). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  34. Kittay, E. F., & Lehrer, A.
    (1992) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Latour, B.
    (2004) How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body and Society, 10(2–3), 205–229. 10.1177/1357034X04042943
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lave, J., & Wenger, E.
    (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lawless, H. T.
    (1984) Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 491, 120–123. 10.1111/j.1365‑2621.1984.tb13686.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1984.tb13686.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Lawless, L. J. R., & Civille, G. V.
    (2013) Developing lexicons. Journal of Sensory Studies281, 270–281. 10.1111/joss.12050
     https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12050 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, Y., & Mlynář, J.
    (2023) “For Example” Formulations and the Interactional Work of Exemplification, Human Studies, 1–27. 10.1007/s10746‑023‑09665‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-023-09665-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lehrer, A.
    (2009[1983]) Wine and Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195307931.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195307931.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Liberman, K.
    (2013) The phenomenology of coffee tasting. In: More studies in ethnomethodology. New York: SUNY. 10.1353/book23160
     https://doi.org/10.1353/book23160 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2022) Tasting coffee. An inquiry into objectivity. New York: SUNY.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Majid, A., & Burenhuit, 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]
  44. Majid, A., Roberts, S., Clissen, L. & Levinson, S.
    (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]
  45. Maynard, D.
    (2011) On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34(2), 199–207. 10.1007/s10746‑011‑9188‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9188-7 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mehan, H.
    (1979) Learning lessons. Harvard: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
     https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  47. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2019) Rethinking bodies and objects in social interaction: A multimodal and multisensorial approach to tasting. InU. Tikvah Kissmann & J. van Loon (Eds.), Discussing new materialism (pp.109–134). Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑22300‑7_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22300-7_6 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2020a) Audible sniffs: Smelling-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 140–163. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1716592
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1716592 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2020b) Orchestrating multi-sensoriality in tasting sessions: Sensing bodies, normativity, and language. Symbolic Interaction, 441, 63–86. 10.1002/symb.472
     https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.472 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2021a) Sensing in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108650090
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108650090 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2021b) Language and the sensing body. How sensoriality permeates syntax in interaction. Frontiers Communication, 51, 664430. 10.3389/fcomm.2021.664430
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.664430 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mondada, L., & Fele, G.
    (2020) Descrittori visivi per l’assaggio professionale: lessico, sensorialità e standardizzazione. Rivista Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, XLIX(3), 651–681.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Muniesa, F., & Trébuchet-Breitwiller, A.-S.
    (2010) Becoming a measuring instrument. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(3), 321–337. 10.1080/17530350.2010.506318
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2010.506318 [Google Scholar]
  55. Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Masuda, B. M., Pecore, S. D., Schmidt, J. O. & Stern, P. M.
    (1984) Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 351, 107–109. 10.5344/ajev.1984.35.2.107
     https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1984.35.2.107 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A.
    (2005) Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511499968
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499968 [Google Scholar]
  57. Riemer, N.
    (2015) Internalist semantics. Meaning, conceptualization and expression. InN. Riemer (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Sacks, H.
    (1992) Lectures on Conversation. London: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Silverstein, M.
    (2006) Old wine, new ethnographic lexicography. Annual Review of Anthropology35(1), 481–496. 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123327
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123327 [Google Scholar]
  60. Spackman, C.
    (2018) Perfumer, chemist, machine: gas chromatography and the industrial search to ‘improve’ flavor. The Senses and Society, 13(1): 41–59. 10.1080/17458927.2018.1425210
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17458927.2018.1425210 [Google Scholar]
  61. Svensson, H.
    (2020) Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings. Repairing and Correcting in Public. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003004110
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003004110 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wikforss, Å.
    (2008) Semantic externalism and psychological externalism. Philosophy Compass, 31, 158–181. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2007.00107.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00107.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Wnuk, E. & Majid, A.
    (2014) Revisiting the limits of language: the odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 1311, 125–38. 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.008 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.22011.mon
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversation analysis; EMCA; interactional semantics; multimodality; sensoriality; taste

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