Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper investigates the synaesthetic constructions in Persian with the aim of finding out what motivates them despite their incongruous syntactic-semantic assignments. It is argued that these paradoxical elements require a metaphoric/metonymic frame to assign appropriate lexical units (LUs) to their corresponding syntactic categories ( and . The discrepancy derives from the semantic aspects for which frame semantics provides two types of explanations: internal and external frame factors. Internal factors deal with the metaphoric/metonymic compatibility or similarity between frames, while external factors underline the use of lexical items from one subframe to fill the vocabulary gap of a different subframe. The argument is that this gap owes much to the indirect contact between the Phenomenon (e.g., an odorous substance) and the Body-part (e.g., nose) that perceives it. In short, the analysis of our data reveals that synaesthesia is not only an economical strategy for modifying the senses, but also a natural mental strategy for interpreting vague experiences. A configuration of the incongruent construction of ‘smell’ and ‘hearing’ will be proposed to generalize such an analysis.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. InI. Kwon, H. Pritchett & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.49–59). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bretones Callejas, C. M.
    (2001) Synaesthetic metaphors in English. Technical Reports, TR 01–008. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cytowic, R. E.
    (2002) Synaesthesia: A union of the senses. Massachusetts: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6590.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6590.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M.
    (2009) Wednesday is indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synaesthesia. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Day, S.
    (1996) Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elias, L. J., Deborah, M., Saucier, D. M., Hardie, C., & Sarty, G. E.
    (2003) Dissociating semantic and perceptual components of synaesthesia: Behavioural and functional neuroanatomical investigations. Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 232–7. 10.1016/S0926‑6410(02)00278‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00278-1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InI. Yang (Ed.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981 (pp.111–137). Hanshin, Seoul.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbours. InA. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C. A., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L.
    (2003) Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250. 10.1093/ijl/16.3.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.235 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fried, M., & Östman, J. O.
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. InM. Fried & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–24. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2005) Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. InJ. O. Östman & M. Fried, Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3) (pp.17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3.03gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.03gol [Google Scholar]
  16. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D.
    (2006) English constructions. InB. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. (pp.343–355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470753002.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753002.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L.
    (2010) Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(14), 468–477.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014) Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  22. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive applications (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (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]
  26. Moore, K. E.
    (2006) Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199–244. 10.1515/COG.2006.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.005 [Google Scholar]
  27. (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]
  28. (2013) Frames and the experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor. InM. Fried & N. Nikiforidou (Eds.), Advances in frame semantics (pp.85–107). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.58.03moo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.58.03moo [Google Scholar]
  29. Östman, J. O., & Fried, M.
    (2005) Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3 [Google Scholar]
  30. Perception frame
    Perception frame (2001) In FrameNetRetrievedAugust 7, 2014, fromhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/index.php?q=frameIndex
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rogowska, A. M.
    (2015) Synaesthesia and individual differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316156230
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316156230 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2010) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. California: International Computer Science Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Simner, J.
    (2007) Beyond perception: synaesthesia as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 23–9. 10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sullivan, K.
    (2006) Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. InProceedings of the thirty-second annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v32i1.3476
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v32i1.3476 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sullivan, K., & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Is “generic is specific” a metaphor?InF. Parrill, V. Tobin & M. Turner (Eds.), Meaning, form and body (pp.309–328). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar; Frame Semantics; Persian; senses; synaesthesia
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