Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 11:1 (2024) ► pp.58–94

Bold colors, sweeping melodies, offensive smells

A corpus-based analysis of the figurative representations of visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli in English and Hungarian

| Eötvös Loránd University
This paper presents a corpus-based exploratory study of the figurative conceptualizations of visual, auditory, and olfactory stimuli in English and Hungarian. Through a manual semantic analysis of altogether 6,800 occurrences of 18 sensory nouns (three per sensory modality in each language) in the TenTen corpora, the following conceptualization types of perceptual stimuli have been examined: reification, agentification, animization, and personification. The paper presents the relative frequencies of these conceptualizations along with their subtypes and concrete linguistic manifestations in English and Hungarian. Among a number of interesting observations that call for further investigations, the following findings merit special attention: (1) visual stimuli have the lowest values in every category; (2) in both languages, agentification is the most typical in the case of olfaction; (3) with the exception of representations of olfactory stimuli as living beings, every conceptualization type is more frequent in the Hungarian data.
Keywords: figurative language, visual perception, auditory perception, olfactory perception, English, Hungarian, TenTen corpora
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Sensory experiences, embodiment, and culture
    • 2.2Figurative construal
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1The data
    • 3.2The annotation
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Reification
      • Sensory stimuli as objects
      • Sensory stimuli as materials
      • Physical effects
    • 4.2Agentification
    • 4.3Animization and personification
      • Specific animizations
      • Generic animizations
      • Conventionalized and novel personifications
      • Metonymic personifications
      • Conceptualizations as living beings summed up
    • 4.4Above humans in the Great Chain of Being
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00046.gal
References (78)
References
Bagli, M. (2021). Tastes we live by. The linguistic conceptualisation of taste in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A., Digonnet, R., & Sandford, J. L. (Eds.) (2018). Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baş, M., & Kraska-Szlenk, I. (Eds.) (2022). Embodiment in cross-linguistic studies. The ‘eye’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, F. (1879). Über die Bezeichnungen der sinnlichen Wahrnehmungen in den indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: H. Böhlau.Google Scholar
Benczes, R., & Tóth-Czifra, E. (2014). The Hungarian colour terms piros and vörös. A corpus and cognitive linguistic account. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 61 (2), 123–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. (2012). Louder than words. The new science of how the mind makes meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
(2015). Embodiment, simulation, and meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 142–157). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112 (1), 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R. (2007). Manner-of-motion verbs in wine descriptions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (12), 2095–2114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Sensory experiences, meaning and metaphor: The case of wine. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 127–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cayeux, I., Saint-Léger, C., & Starkenmann, C. (2023). Trigeminal sensations to enhance and enrich flavor perception – Sensory approaches. Clinical Nutrition Open Science, 47 1, 64–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change. An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1971). Agency. In R. Binkley, R. N. Bronaugh, & A. Marras (Eds.), Agent, action, and reason (pp. 1–37). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vignemont, F., & Massin, O. (2015). Touch. In M. Matthen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception (pp. 294–313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Digonnet, R. (2016). Métaphore et olfaction : une approche cognitive. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
(2018a). The linguistic expression of smells: from lack to abundance? In A. Baicchi, R. Digonnet, & J. L. Sandford (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology (pp. 177–191). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Le sens hédoniste ou le principe de polarisation dans le discours sensoriel. In R. Digonnet (Ed.), Pour une linguistique sensorielle (pp. 247–273). Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2018c). Pour une linguistique sensorielle. Paris: Éditions Champion.Google Scholar
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, Sh., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24 1, 613–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorst, A. G. (2011). Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature, 20 (2), 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorst, A. G., Mulder, G., & Steen, G. J. (2011). Recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. Metaphor and the Social World, 1 (2), 174–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D. (2000). Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 1 1, 35–68.Google Scholar
Fernández Jaén, J. (2008). Modalidad epistémica y sentido del olfato: la evidencialidad del verbo oler . ELUA, 22 1, 65–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galac, Á. (2020). Semantic change of basic perception verbs in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Hungarian. Argumentum, 16 1, 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Basic-level multimodal perception verbs in French, Spanish, and Hungarian: a contrastive corpus study of Fr. sentir, Sp. sentir, and H. érez. Alkalmazott Nyelvtudomány, 21 (2), 62–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Megszemélyesítő konceptualizációk a látás, hallás és szaglás fogalmi tartományában. Egy kontrasztív empirikus vizsgálat eredményei. Jelentés és nyelvhasználat, 9 (1), 155–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2015). Sense individuation. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 233–247). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Bowdle, B. F. (2001). Convention, form, and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol, 16 (3–4), 223–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Taking metaphor out of our heads and putting it into the cultural world. In R. W. Gibbs, & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 145–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes [Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley]. eScholarship. [URL]
Grimm, J. (1848). Die fünf sinne. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum, 6 1, 1–15.Google Scholar
Győri, G. (2002). Semantic change and cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (2), 123–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2019). Perception metaphors in cognitive linguistics. Scope, motivation, and lexicalisation. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 43–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Ł., & Staniewski, P. (Eds.) (2021). The linguistics of olfaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Julich, N. (2019). Why do we understand music as moving? The metaphorical basis of musical motion revisited. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhász, J., Szőke, I., O. Nagy, G., & Kovalovszky, M. (Eds.) (1972/2003). Magyar értelmező kéziszótár [Concise Hungarian explanatory dictionary]. Second, revised edition. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2008). Properties of cultural embodiment: Lessons from the anthropology of the body. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Volume 2: Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 77–108). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2019). Perception and metaphor. The case of smell. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 327–346). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I. (Ed.) (2020). Body part terms in conceptualization and language usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30 1, 607–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuzeev, S. (2022). Ineffability as a linguistic problem. Studia Linguistica Hungarica, 34 1, 139–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The 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. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Z. (2004). Figurative language in anger expressions in Tunisian Arabic: An extended view of embodiment. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (1), 51–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). The heart and cultural embodiment in Tunisian Arabic. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu, & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualisations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 395–428). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The senses in language and culture. The Senses and Society, 6 (1), 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’Grady, L., Woll, B., LeLan, B., de Sousa, H., Cansler, B. L., Shayan, Sh., de Vos, C., Senft, G., Enfield, N. J., Razak, R. A., Fedden, S., Tufvesson, S., Dingemanse, M., Ozturk, O., . . . Levinson, S. C. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. PNAS, 115 (45), 11369–11376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Julich, N. (2014). Let’s talk music: A corpus-based account of musical motion. Metaphor and Symbol, 29 (4), 298–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). A practical and flexible method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, A. (1971). Three kinds of physical perception verbs. 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 206–222.Google Scholar
Rundell, M., & Fox, G. (Eds.) (2002). Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners. London: Macmillan Education.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2008). Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation and language. In R. M. Frank, R. Dirven, T. Ziemke, & E. Bernárdez (Eds.), Body, language and mind. Vol 2. Sociocultural situatedness (pp. 109–136). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (Eds.) (2008). Culture, body, and language. Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, G. (2022). Identification and analysis of personification in Hungarian: The PerSECorp project. In N. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 2730–2738). Marseille: European Language Resources Association. URL: [URL]
Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2019). Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37 (5–6), 363–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speed, L. J., O’Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.) (2019). Perception metaphors. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staniewski, P. (2016). Das Unantastbare beschreiben. Gerüche und ihre Versprachlichung im Deutschen und Polnischen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23 (4), 213–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T. & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szwedek, A. (2011). The ultimate source domain. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (2), 341–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tóth, M. (2023). A case for metonymic synesthesia. Describing olfactory stimuli in terms of taste adjectives in German. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 21 1, in press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trojszczak, M. (2019). Grounding mental metaphors in touch. A corpus-based study of English and Polish. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 209–230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, Å. (1983). The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21 (1), 123–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Verbs of perception. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Language typology and language universals (pp. 1294–1309). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Why is smell special? A case study of a European language: Swedish. In Ł. Jędrzejowski, & P. Staniewski (Eds.), The linguistics of olfaction (pp. 35–72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019a). Sensory linguistics. Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019b). Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque, A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 105–126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, F. A. (1899). The semasiology of words for ‘smell’ and ‘see’. PMLA, 14 (3), 299–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and reference. A cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, N. (2015). Embodiment, culture, and language. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 227–239). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zawisławska, M. & Falkowska, M. (2021). Typology of metaphors with the olfactory target domain in the Polish perfumery discourse. In Ł. Jędrzejowski, & P. Staniewski (Eds.), The linguistics of olfaction (pp. 449–474). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar