Cover not available
Part of
Performing Metaphoric Creativity across Modes and Contexts
Edited by Laura Hidalgo-Downing and Blanca Kraljevic Mujic
[Figurative Thought and Language 7] 2020
► pp. 197–219

Chapter 9
Sensory landscapes

Cross modal metaphors in architecture

 | Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
This chapter describes the ways architects use language to evoke the visual, olfactory, tactile and interactive experiences afforded by buildings. It discusses how architects transfer their perception of space as knowledge, and how this knowledge is communicated by using figurative language in the architectural review genre. The task of reviewers is to translate those experiences into language in a form that readers can understand and, presumably, relate to through their senses, and do so using metaphorical language that combines information from domains other than architecture as well as from the senses. In this regard, the chapter is ultimately concerned with exploring the ways in which metaphor helps shape the sensory landscapes of architects as staged in architectural reviews.
Keywords: built space, architectural reviews, cross-sensory metaphor, synesthesia, multimodality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reviewing built space: The genre of architectural reviews
  • 3.Re-sensing built space through metaphor
    • 3.1Metaphor and the senses
  • 4.Multimodal, dynamic spaces
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 29 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.7.09cab
References (49)
References
Aristotle. (1976). De anima (Hicks, Robert, Trans.). New York: Arno.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beveridge, M. & Pickering, M. (2013). Perspective taking in language: Integrating the spatial and action domains. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 1–11.Google Scholar
Binder, J. & Desai, R. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomer, K., & Moore, C. (1977). Body, memory, and architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Borghi, A. M. & Cimatti, F. (2010). Embodied cognition and beyond: Acting and sensing the body. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 763–773. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R. (2006). Re-viewing space. Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). FORM IS MOTION: Dynamic predicates in English architectural discourse. In L. Thornburg, K.-U. Panther, & A. Barcelona. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 277–290). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Buildings that move: Motion metaphors in architectural reviews. Ibérica, 89–110.Google Scholar
Caballero, R., & Díaz-Vera, J. (Eds). (2013). Sensuous cognition. Explorations into human sentience: Imagination, (e)motion and perception. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2015). Making sense of sensory perceptions across languages and cultures. In R. Caballero, & C. Paradis (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language and cognition (pp. 1–19). Special issue of Functions of Language, 22(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.) 2004. Intelligent buildings: Design, management and operation. London: Thomas TelfordGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. D., & Newton, N. (Eds.). (2005). Consciousness and emotion, vol. 1: Agency, conscious choice, and selective perception. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings. A vocabulary of modern architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Grady, J. (1997). Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauptmann, D. (Ed). (2006). The body in architecture. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.Google Scholar
Heller-Roazen, D. (2007). The inner touch. Archaeology of a sensation. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Howes, D. (2003). Sensual relations. Engaging the senses in culture and social theory. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ed.). (2009). The sixth sense reader. Oxford/ New York: Berg.Google Scholar
Howes, D., & Classen, C. (2014). Ways of sensing: Understanding the senses in society. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, W. (2001). Stillness. Oz, 23, 46–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1781/1999). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason. A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (1986). Abstract motion. Proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 455–471). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
(1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T. (2004). The conceptual motivation of fictive motion. In G. Radden, & K.-U. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation [Cognitive Linguistics Research 28] (pp. 221–248). Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Trans. by Colin Smith. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin. Architecture and the senses. Chichester: Wiley-Academy.Google Scholar
(2009). The thinking hand. Existential and embodied wisdom in architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
(2011). The Embodied image: Imagination and imagery in architecture. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, S. E. (1959). Experiencing architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Seamon, D. (2007). A lived hermetic of people and place: Phenomenology and space syntax. Proceedings 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. İstanbul.Google Scholar
Seamon, D., & Mugerauer, R. (Eds). (1985). Dwelling, place and environment: Towards a phenomenology of person and world. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1996). Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 211–276). Cambridge, MA/ London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Towards a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vico, G. (1725/1999). New science (Marsh, David, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Yudell, R. (1977). Body movement. In K. Bloomer, & C. Moore (Eds.), Body, memory, and architecture (pp. 57–76). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zumthor, P. (1998). Thinking architecture. Basel/Boston/Berlin: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar