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. 327–346

Perception and metaphor

The case of smell

The general issue I address in the paper is this: How is the concept of smell linguistically coded in English, as examined from a cognitive linguistic perspective? I break down this larger theoretical issue into three sub-issues: One sub-issue concerns what the lexis of smell in English reveals about the conceptual organisation of smell. What is the conceptual prototype of smell? Another has to do with which lexical items are used from the domain of smell to structure other, more abstract concepts. Indeed, I show, partly based on previous work by others, that there are several conceptual metaphors that involve the concept of smell as their source domain. However, and this is the third sub-issue, I also argue that smell can also occur as a target domain in conceptual metaphors. This possibility presents a challenge to conceptual metaphor theory, which claims that perceptual experiences (and the concepts corresponding to them) are understood in a direct, literal way and that concepts that are not based on perceptual experiences (i.e., are not concrete) are understood figuratively by making use of such direct, literal conceptualisations. I conclude that smell is a fairly richly coded concept in English, but whose degree of “linguistic codability” can only be established relative to counterpart concepts in other languages and relative to other sense modalities in studies conducted by means of the same methodology and cognitive linguistic machinery as employed in the present one.
Keywords: metaphor, smell, smell metaphors, linguistic codability, conceptual structure of smell, smell as source, smell as target, conceptual metaphor theory, smell and emotion, prototype of smell as a concept
Published online: 21 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.16kov
References

Online sources

References

Barcelona, A.
(2000) 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
Barsalou, L. W.
(1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google Scholar
Chu, S. & Downes, J. J.
(2000) Odour-evoked autobiographical memories: psychological investigations of Proustian phenomena. Chemical Senses, 25(1), 111–116.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C., Howes, D. & Synnott, A.
(1994) Aroma: the cultural history of smell. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ekman, P.
(1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 6 (3/4), 169–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N. & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76(3), 546–592.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In the linguistic society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Frijda, N.
(1986) The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J.
(1999) A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphors: Correlations vs. resemblance. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holland, D. and Quinn, D.
(Eds.) (1987) Cultural Models in Language and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
(1999) Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. In R. W. Gibbs & G. J. Steen (Eds.) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (p. 29–45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z.
(1986) Metaphors of anger, pride, and love. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Emotion Concepts. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
(2000) Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2002/2010) Metaphor: A practical introduction. (Second edition 2010) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Methodological issues in conceptual metaphor theory. In S. Handl & H-J. Schmid (Eds.), Windows to the mind: Metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 23–39). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015a) Surprise as a conceptual category. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2), 270–290.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Metaphor and emergentism. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 147–162). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. & Ambrus, L. & Hegedűs, D. & Imai, R. & Sobczak, A.
in press). The lexical vs. the corpus-based method in the study of metaphors. In M. Bolognesi & K. Despot & K. Štrkalj & M. Brdar Eds. Fantastic metaphors and where to find them: traditional and new methods in figurative language research Amsterdam John Benjamins
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1999) Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Kövecses, Z.
(1987) The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 195–221). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind and Language, 29(4), 407–427.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neagu, M.
(2013) What is universal and what is language-specific in the polysemy of perception verbs? Revue roumaine de linguistique LVIII 3, 329–343.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. J.
(2006) Is emotion a form of perception? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Volume 36, Supplement [vol. 32], 137–160.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E.
(1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Soriano, C.
(2005) The Conceptualization of anger in English and Spanish: A Cognitive Approach. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Murcia.Google Scholar
Soudry, Y. & Lemogne, C. & Malinvaud, D. & Consoli, S.-M., & Bonfils, P.
(2011) Olfactory system and emotion: Common substrates. European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases, 128(1), 18–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willander, J. & Larsson, M.
(2007) Olfaction and emotion: The case of autobiographical memory. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1659–1663.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Winter, B.
(2016) Taste and smell words form an affectively loaded and emotionally flexible part of the English lexicon. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(8), 975–988.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, N.
(1998) The contemporary theory of metaphor. A Perspective from Chinese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In The Linguistics of Olfaction [Typological Studies in Language, 131], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In The Linguistics of Olfaction [Typological Studies in Language, 131], Crossref logo
Scott, Penelope
2020. Holiness in Old English: The Construction of the Sacred in Ælfric’s Lives of Saints. Neophilologus 104:4 ► pp. 547 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.