Conceptual Spaces at Work in Sensory Cognition: Domains, Dimensions and Distances

Abstract

This chapter makes use of two data sources, terminological schemas for wine descriptions and actual wine reviews, for the investigation of how experiences of sensory perceptions of VISION, SMELL, TASTE and TOUCH are described. In spite of all the great challenges involved in describing perceptions, professional wine reviewers are expected to be able to give an understandable account of their experiences. The reviews are explored with focus on the different types of descriptors and the ways their meanings are construed. It gives an account of the use of both property expressions, such as soft, sharp, sweet and dry and object descriptors, such as blueberry, apple and honey. It pays particular attention to the apparent cross-sensory use of descriptors, such as white aromas and soft smell, arguing that the ontological cross-over of sensory modalities are to be considered as symptoms of 'synesthesia' in the wine-tasting practice and monosemy at the conceptual level. In contrast to the standard view of the meanings of words for sensory perceptions, the contention is that it is not the case that, for instance, sharp in sharp smell primarily evokes a notion of touch; rather the sensory experiences are strongly interrelated in cognition. When instantiated in, say SMELL, soft spans the closely related sense domains, and the lexical syncretism is taken to be grounded in the workings of human sensory cognition.

Chapter 9. We drink with our eyes first

“…In a study concerned with the categorization of odors, Dubois (2007) notes that there is no prior categorization to build on, and what is more, olfactory sensations do not have names, at least not in Indo-European languages. It should, however, be noted that the differences across cultures may be greater than we think due to the fact that very little research on these things has been carried out in cultures other than Western cultures (Classen 1993;Howes 2004Howes , 2011Majid & Levinson 2011;Díaz Vera & Caballero 2013;Majid & Burenhult 2014;Caballero & Paradis 2015;Paradis 2015a Paradis (2015b) offer a semantic analysis of the cross-modal descriptors for properties and objects, construed through synesthetic metonymizations. They argue for a monosemy view of the meanings of those descriptors, which means that, while the type of construal is one of metonymization (a salience phenomenon), they are not metonyms proper but rather zone activations within senses (Paradis 2004(Paradis /2011 that the majority of the responses to the olfactory test items by the participants include the name of the source of the odor, such as LEMON, ORANGE and APPLE.…”

“…It has been shown in the linguistics literature that descriptions of perceptions are characterized by synesthesia (Viberg 1984: 136;Sweetser 1990;Shen 1997). Olfactory experiences are described in terms of things and events that we perceive through our eyes (Lehrer 1975;Morrot et al 2001;Popova 2003Popova , 2005Plümacher & Holz 2007;Paradis & Eeg Olofsson 2013;Paradis 2015b). In the psychological literature, there is evidence that suggests that verbal descriptions are not essential, or even necessarily activated, for successful odor-guided cognition.…”

“…Most of the descriptors which, for instance, are used in the part of the text describing smell, are clearly crucial for our understanding of the color, taste and touch of the wine. Paradis & Eeg-Olofsson's (2013) and Paradis (2015b) argue that synesthetically flexible notions map onto the same primitive concepts for the different sensory perceptions, or put differently, no conceptual primacy exists in the realm of sensory perceptions. The contention is that it is not the case that SOFT smell is primarily a notion of touch.…”

“…This does not mean that we fail to acknowledge the physiological differences between the various specific sensory modalities, but what we do acknowledge in the context of wine assessment is that, at the conceptual level and at the level of the transformation of sensory perceptions into conceptual structure and subsequently into language, there is the flexibility of the uses of the descriptors. Conceptual structure in the domain of sensory experiences appears to be a supramodal representation, expressed through syncretic word forms, which do not pertain to a single type of experience but to an overarching representation capable of capturing modal convergences and similarity structures that define categories, such as properties of objects and imagery (Binder & Desai 2011, Paradis 2015b.…”

“…Shesgreen (2003) however, observes that "the language of social class and gender", which used to be popular in wine reviews during the latter half of the 20th century, is more or less out of fashion among today's most influential wine critics. Instead, what he refers to as "the language of fruit and vegetables" (extending into the domain of wine through a process of metonymization, or more precisely zone activation as discussed by Paradis & Eeg Olofsson (2013) and Paradis (2015b) is currently more widespread, at least among American wine writers.…”