1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 11, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper examines metaphors in perfume reviews in four languages, namely Polish, English, Russian, and French. Some typical features of the perfumery discourse, similar across the four languages, have been highlighted, such as clustering, extension, and mixing metaphors. The authors also discuss the most typical schemata used in the conceptualization of perfumes. Although the analyzed texts exhibit a certain similarity, a statistical analysis of the reviews identifies some interesting discrepancies between the languages, that is: unequal distribution of metaphorical types, preferences in usage of perceptual and non-perceptual source frames, and variance in perfume conceptualization ( vs. ).

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
2021-09-08
2023-10-02

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barkat-Defradas, M., & Motte-Florac, E.
    (Eds.) (2016) Words for odours: Language skills and cultural insights. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W.
    (2003) Sex, syntax, and semantics. InD. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in the mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp.61–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Cain, W. S.
    (2012) History of research on smell. InE. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Volume VIa: Tasting and smelling (pp.197–229). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Chastrette, M.
    (2002) Classification of odors and structure–odor relationships. InC. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp.110–116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511546389.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546389.012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A.
    (2003) Aroma: The cultural history of smell. First published 1994 byRoutledge, London; this edition published in Taylor & Francis e-Library.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Crisp, P.
    (2008) Between extended metaphor and allegory: Is blending enough?Language and Literature, 17(4), 291–308. 10.1177/0963947008095960
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947008095960 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dodge, E. K.
    (2018) A deep semantic corpus-based approach to metaphor analysis. InM. R. L. Petruck (Ed.) MetaNet (pp.127–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistics Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibbs, R. W.
    (2016) Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2017) Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107762350
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350 [Google Scholar]
  13. Gibbs, R. W., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 64–75. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  14. Golub, I. B.
    (2010) Stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Ajris Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Holz, P.
    (2007) Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity. Linguistic synesthesia as poetic device in cologne advertising. 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]
  16. Howes, D.
    (2002) Nose-wise: Olfactory metaphors in mind. InC. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp.67–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511546389.010
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546389.010 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hudson, R., & Distel, H.
    (2002) The individuality of odor perception. InC. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition. (pp.408–420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511546389.034
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546389.034 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kimmel, M.
    (2010) Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 97–115. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.05.017 [Google Scholar]
  19. Knudsen, S.
    (2003) Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(8), 1247–1263. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00187‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00187-X [Google Scholar]
  20. Koller, V.
    (2004) Businesswoman and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious?’Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(1), 3–22. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2004.00249.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2004.00249.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Köster, E.
    (2002) The specific characteristics of the sense of smell. InC. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition. (pp.27–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511546389.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546389.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. Kövecses, Z.
    (2005) Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511614408
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2007) Variation in metaphor. Iha do Desterro. A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 53, 13–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) A view of “mixed metaphors” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. InR. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.6.01kov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.6.01kov [Google Scholar]
  25. Kozhina, M. N., Duskaeva, L. R., & Salimovsky, V. A.
    (2008) Stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Flinta-Nauka.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kurkowska, H., & Skorupka, S.
    (1959) Stylistyka polska: zarys. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (2008 [1980]) Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lakoff, G.
    (2014) Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 958, 1–14. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar]
  29. Le Guérer, A.
    (2002) Olfaction and cognition: A philosophical and psychoanalytic view. InC. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp.3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511546389.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511546389.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Marhula, J., & Rosiński, M.
    (2017) Co oferuje MIPVU jako metoda identyfikacji metafory?Polonica, 37, 23–36. 10.17651/POLON.37.10
     https://doi.org/10.17651/POLON.37.10 [Google Scholar]
  31. Martinez, I. M., & Shatz, M.
    (1996) Linguistic influences on categorization in preschool children: A crosslinguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 23, 529–545. 10.1017/S030500090000893X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090000893X [Google Scholar]
  32. Moore, K. E.
    (2011) Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759–776. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Müller, C.
    (2016) Why mixed metaphors make sense. InGibbs, R. W. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp.31–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2017) Waking metaphors: Embodied cognition in multimodal discourse. InB. Hempe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp.297–316). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108182324.017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108182324.017 [Google Scholar]
  35. Petersen, W., Fleischhauer, J., Bücker, P., & Beseoglu, H.
    (2008) A frame-based analysis of synaesthetic metaphors. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pragglejaz Group
    Pragglejaz Group (2007) MIP: A 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]
  37. Rączaszek-Leonardi, J.
    (2011) Zjednoczeni w mowie: Względność językowa w ujęciu dynamicznym. Warsaw: Scholar.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from: https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Rey-Debove, J., & Rey, A.
    (2000) Le nouveau petit Robert: Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue francaise. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Ritchie, L. D.
    (2017) Metaphorical stories in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316717172
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316717172 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Retrieved from: https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sera, M., Berge, C., & del Castillo-Pintado, J.
    (1994) Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 9, 261–292. 10.1016/0885‑2014(94)90007‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(94)90007-8 [Google Scholar]
  44. Simpson, P.
    (2004) Stylistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203496589
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203496589 [Google Scholar]
  45. Snævarr, S.
    (2010) Metaphors, narratives, emotions: Their interplay and impact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789042027800
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042027800 [Google Scholar]
  46. Steen, G.
    (2015) Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  47. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, 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]
  48. Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E. K., & Hong, J.
    (2016a) Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory. Constructions and frames, 8(2), 166–213. 10.1075/cf.8.2.03sti
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.8.2.03sti [Google Scholar]
  49. Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E.
    (2016b) Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. InA. Healey, R. N. de Souza, P. Peškov, & M. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the High Desert Linguistics Society (pp.317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sullivan, K.
    (2006) Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32(1), 387–399. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3476
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3476 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2019) Mixed metaphors. Their use and abuse. London: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350066076
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350066076 [Google Scholar]
  53. Velasco-Sacristán, M., & Fuertes-Olivera, P. A.
    (2006) Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 217–252. 10.1075/arcl.4.09vel
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.09vel [Google Scholar]
  54. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., & Dworzynski, K.
    (2005) Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 501–520. 10.1037/0096‑3445.134.4.501
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.501 [Google Scholar]
  55. Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H.
    (2006) The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. InR. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.2365–70). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Werth, P.
    (1994) Extended metaphor – A text-world account. Language and Literature, 3(2), 79–103. 10.1177/096394709400300201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709400300201 [Google Scholar]
  57. White, R. M.
    (1996) The structure of metaphor. The way the language of metaphor works. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Winter, B.
    (2016) The sensory structure of the English lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Merced.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2019) Sensory linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.20
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.20 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zawisławska, M.
    (2019) Metaphor and senses: The Synamet Corpus: A Polish resource for synesthetic metaphors. Berlin: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak, D.
    (2010) Wykłady ze stylistyki. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ziem, A.
    (2014) Frames of understanding in text and discourse: Theoretical foundations and descriptive applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.48
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.48 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
Loading
Metaphors in Polish, English, Russian, and French perfumery discourse
Metaphor and the Social World 11, 143 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): metaphor; perfumery discourse; 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