Chapter published in:
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 105–126

Synaesthetic metaphors are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical

Speakers often use metaphor when talking about the contents of perception. For example, a word such as sweet can be used to talk metaphorically about sensory impressions that are not directly related to taste, as in so-called “synaesthetic metaphors” such as sweet fragrance and sweet melody. In this chapter, I present arguments against the synaesthetic and metaphorical nature of such expressions. First, a look at the neuropsychological literature reveals that the phenomenon commonly called “synaesthesia” bears little resemblance to the metaphors investigated by linguists. Moreover, in contrast to synaesthesia as a neuropsychological phenomenon, most “synaesthetic” metaphors involve mappings between highly similar and perceptually integrated sensory modalities, such as taste and smell. Finally, combinations of words that involve dissimilar sensory modalities, such as sweet melody, appear to perform largely evaluative functions. Thus, evaluation might be driving the use of these terms, more so than “synaesthetic” perception. I will then compare my analyses to the idea that many metaphors are grounded in primary metaphors and/or metonymies. All in all, this paper suggests that many and perhaps most “synaesthetic metaphors” are neither synaesthetic nor metaphorical. From a broader perspective, the case study of synaesthetic metaphors presented here fleshes out the way language and perception are related and how sensory content is encoded in the lexicon of human languages.
Keywords: synaesthesia, the senses, perceptual metaphors, primary metaphor
Published online: 21 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.06win
References

References

Auvray, M., & Spence, C.
(2008) The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 1016–1031.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bagli, M.
(2016) “Shaking off so good a wife and so sweet a lady”: Shakespeare’s use of taste words. Journal of Literary Semantics, 45(2), 141–159.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barcelona, A.
(2003) On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads (pp. 31–58). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In C. Alm-Arvius, N., Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Stockholm 2008 Metaphor Festival (pp. 3–42). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
Bond, B., & Stevens, S. S.
(1969) Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-olds. Perception & Psychophysics, 6(6), 337–339.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buck, C. D.
(1949) A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages: A Contribution to the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, N. R.
(2010) Physiology of Behavior (10th Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Casati, R., Dokic, J., & Le Corre, F.
(2015) Distinguishing the commonsense senses. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its Modalities (pp. 462–479). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Classen, C.
(1993) Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and across Cultures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cytowic, R. E.
(1993) The man who tasted shapes. New York: Putnam Press.Google Scholar
Day, S.
(1996) Synaesthesia and synaesthetic metaphors. Psyche, 2(32), 1–16.Google Scholar
Davies, M.
(2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990- present. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
(2008) The corpus of contemporary American English. BYE, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
de Araujo, I. E., Rolls, E. T., Kringelbach, M. L., McGlone, F., & Phillips, N.
(2003) Taste olfactory convergence, and the representation of the pleasantness of flavour, in the human brain. European Journal of Neuroscience, 18(7), 2059–2068.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D.
(2011) A sharp image or a sharp knife: Norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 145-154.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., & Randell, T.
(2004) Robust affective priming effects in a conditional pronunciation task: evidence for the semantic representation of evaluative information. Cognition & Emotion, 18(2), 251–264.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delwiche, J. F., & Heffelfinger, A. L.
(2005) Cross-modal additivity of taste and smell. Journal of Sensory Studies, 20(6), 512–525.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deroy, O., & Spence, C.
(2013) Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 643–664.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erzsébet, P. D.
(1974) Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3(3), 23–44.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fainsilber, L., & Ortony, A.
(1987) Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(4), 239–250.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F.
(1880a) Visualised numerals. Nature, 21(533), 252–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1880b) Visualised numerals. Nature, 22, 494–495.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J.
(2002) The anthropology of the senses and sensations. La Ricerca Folklorica, 45, 17–28.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Ávila, C.
(2006) Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage, 32(2), 906–912.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J.
(1997) Theories are buildings revisited. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 267–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Primary metaphors as inputs to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1595–1614.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grady, J., Oakley, T., & Coulson, S.
(1999) Blending and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs & G. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 101–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guest, S., Catmur, C., Lloyd, D., & Spence, C.
(2002) Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Experimental Brain Research, 146(2), 161–171.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holz, P.
(2007) Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity: Linguistic synesthesia as a poetic device in cologne advertising. In Plümacher, M., & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howes, D.
(1991) (Ed.). The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S.
(2011) Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(1998) Parchment-skin illusion: sound-biased touch. Current Biology, 8(6), R190–R191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Julius, D., & Basbaum, A. I.
(2001) Molecular mechanisms of nociception. Nature, 413(6852), 203–210.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(2013) The metaphor–metonymy relationship: Correlation metaphors are based on metonymy. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(2), 75–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lederman, S. J.
(1979) Auditory texture perception. Perception, 8(1), 93–103.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A.
(1978) Structures of the lexicon and transfer of meaning. Lingua, 45(2), 95–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Wine & Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levänen, S., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(1998) Vibration-induced auditory-cortex activation in a congenitally deaf adult. Current Biology, 8(15), 869–872.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J.
(2015) Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, M., & Connell, L.
(2011) A taste of words: Linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 381–398.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L.
(2009) Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majid, A.
(2012) Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review, 4(4), 432–443.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marks, L. E.
(1978) The Unity of the Senses: Interrelations Among the Modalities. New York: Academic Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E.
(2001) Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 61–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, D. H.
(1986) Taste, smell, and flavor terminology: Taking the confusion out of the fusion. In H. L. Meiselman, & R. S. Rivkin (Eds.), Clinical Measurement of Taste and Smell (pp. 117–125). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., & Johnson-Laird, P. N.
(1976) Language and Perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Møller, A.
(2012) Sensory Systems: Anatomy and Physiology (2nd Edition). Richardson: A. R. Møller Publishing.Google Scholar
Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M.
(2013) Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W.
(2003) Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pink, S.
(2011) Multimodality, multisensoriality and ethnographic knowing: social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 261–276.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prandi, M.
(2012) A plea for living metaphors: Conflictual metaphors and metaphorical swarms. Metaphor & Symbol, 27(2), 148–170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rakova, M.
(2003) The Extent of the Literal: Metaphor, Polysemy and Theories of Concepts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M.
(2001) Synaesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.Google Scholar
Rolls, E.
(2008) Functions of the orbitofrontal and pregenual cingulate cortex in taste, olfaction, appetite and emotion. Acta Physiologica Hungarica, 95(2), 131–164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, C. E., Lindsley, R. W., Specht, C., Marcovici, A., Smiley, J. F., & Javitt, D. C.
(2001) Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85(3), 1322–1327.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schürmann, M., Caetano, G., Jousmäki, V., & Hari, R.
(2004) Hands help hearing: facilitatory audiotactile interaction at low sound-intensity levels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115 (2), 830–832.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shams, L., Kamitani, Y., & Shimojo, S.
(2000) Illusions: What you see is what you hear. Nature, 408(6814), 788–788.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y.
(1997) Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Aisenman, R.
(2008) Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 107–121.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gadir, O.
(2009) How to interpret the music of caressing: Target and source assignment in synaesthetic genitive constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 357–371.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Y., & Gil, D.
(2007) Sweet fragrances from Indonesia: A universal principle governing directionality in synaesthetic Metaphors. In W. van Peer, & J. Auracher (Eds.), New Beginnings in Literary Studies (pp. 49–71). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Shibuya, Y., Nozawa, H., & Kanamaru, T.
(2007) Understanding synesthetic expressions: Vision and olfaction with the physiological = psychological model. In M. Plümacher, & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 203–226). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J.
(2012) Defining synaesthesia. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 1–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., Scott, K., & Ward, J.
(2006) Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. Perception, 35(8), 1024–1033.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorabji, R.
(1971) Aristotle on demarcating the five senses. The Philosophical Review, 80(1), 55–79.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spence, C.
(2011) Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971–995.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spence, C., & Bayne, T.
(2015) Is consciousness multisensory? In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its Modalities (pp. 95–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spence, C., Smith, B., & Auvray, M.
(2015) Confusing tastes and flavours. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its Modalities (pp. 247–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey, M.
(2007) The Continuity of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strik Lievers, F.
(2015) Synaesthesia: A corpus-based study of cross-modal directionality. In R. Caballero, & C. Paradis (Eds.), Functions of Language, Sensory Perceptions in Language and Cognition (pp. 69–95). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2016) Synaesthetic metaphors in translation. Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 54(1), 43–70.Google Scholar
(2017) Figures and the senses. Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K., & Jiang, W.
(2013) When my eyes are on you, do you touch my eyes? A reclassification of metaphors mapping from physical contact to perception. In T. Fuyin Li (Eds.), Compendium of Cognitive Linguistics Research Volume 2 (pp. 189–200). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Suzuki, Y., Gyoba, J., & Sakamoto, S.
(2008) Selective effects of auditory stimuli on tactile roughness perception. Brain Research, 1242, 87-94.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
(1995) Linguistic Categorization (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsur, R.
(2012) Playing by Ear and the Tip of the Tongue: Precategorical Information in Poetry. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S.
(1945) Romanticism and synaesthesia: A comparative study of sense transfer in Keats and Byron. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 60, 811–827.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1959) The Principles of Semantics (2nd Edition). Glasgow: Jackson, Son & Co.Google Scholar
Wilce, J. M.
(2009) Language and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(1976) Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52, 461–478.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B., Marghetis, T., & Matlock, T.
(2015) Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number. Cortex, 64, 209–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B.
(2014) Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors. Metaphor & Symbol, 29(3), 151–170.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016a) Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016b) The sensory structure of the English lexicon. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of California Merced.Google Scholar
Yu, N.
(2003) Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32, 19-34.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], Crossref logo
No author info given
2019.  In Sensory Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 20], ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
CABALLERO, ROSARIO & CARITA PARADIS
2020. Soundscapes in English and Spanish: a corpus investigation of verb constructions. Language and Cognition 12:4 ► pp. 705 ff. Crossref logo
HARTMAN, JENNY & CARITA PARADIS
2020. Figurative meaning in multimodal work by an autistic artist: a cognitive semantic approach. Language and Cognition ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Nuckolls, Janis B.
2019.  In Ideophones, Mimetics and Expressives [Iconicity in Language and Literature, 16], ► pp. 167 ff. Crossref logo
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco José
2020. Understanding figures of speech: Dependency relations and organizational patterns. Language & Communication 71 ► pp. 16 ff. Crossref logo
Zawisławska, Magdalena
2019. Narrative metaphors in Polish perfumery discourse. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6:2 ► pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo
Zhao, Qingqing
2020.  In Embodied Conceptualization or Neural Realization [Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics, 10], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Zhao, Qingqing
2020.  In Embodied Conceptualization or Neural Realization [Frontiers in Chinese Linguistics, 10], ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.