Cover not available

Article In: Metonymic Thinking All the Way Down: From discourse to the lexicon, and beyond
Edited by Carmen Portero-Muñoz, Antonio Barcelona and Almudena Soto Nieto
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 13:1] 2026
► pp. 171–204

Section 3. Metonymy in the lexicon

The taste of smells

Metonymically motivated synesthetic expressions in Hungarian

ORCiD logo with link | University of Debrecen
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Synesthetic expressions are generally taken to be metaphorical phenomena involving a mapping across distinct perceptual domains based on cross-modal commonalities between them. The present paper seeks to supplement this view so far as to point out that some synesthetic expressions are essentially metonymic since they do not involve any cross-modal similarities or correspondences and are rather based either on the co-occurrence of stimuli from different sensory modalities, and/or on similarities within a single sensory modality. In order to find out how pervasive the metonymic motivation of synesthetic expressions might be, the study focuses on attribute-noun constructions combining taste with smell in Hungarian. The results of the corpus investigation suggest that a considerable portion of the synesthetic expressions under scrutiny are in fact metonymic, yet the frequency of taste adjectives describing smells, as well as that of the metonymic cases is unequally distributed across nouns designating pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant smells.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The conceptual background of synesthetic expressions and perceptual domains as metaphoric targets
  • 3.The metonymicity of some synesthetic expressions
  • 4.The domain of smell
  • 5.Taste-smell adjective-noun combinations in Hungarian
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Source of the examples
References (86)
References
Agerri, R., Barnden, J., Lee, M., & Wallington, A. (2007). Default inferences in metaphor interpretation. In B. Kokinov, D. C. Richardson, T. R. Roth-Berghofer, & L. Vieu (Eds.), Modeling and using context: 6th international and interdisciplinary conference (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ahrens, K. (2002). When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. In Proceedings of the first cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 273–302). Cheng-Chi University, Taipei, China.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Mapping principles for conceptual metaphors. In G. Low, Z. Todd, A. Deignan & L. Cameron (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor in the real world (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2003a). On the plausibility of claiming a métonymie motivation for conceptual metaphor. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective (pp. 31–58). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003b). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Metonymy is not just a lexical phenomenon: On the operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse. In N.-L. Johannesson & D. C. Minugh (Eds.), Selected papers from the 2008 Stockholm Metaphor Festival (pp. 13–46). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A. (2001). Application of the ATT-Meta metaphor-understanding approach to various examples in the ATT-Meta project databank. Technical Report CSRP-01-02, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Mixed metaphor: Its depth, its breadth, and a pretence-based approach. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 75–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., Lee, M. G., & Wallington, A. M. (2003). Domain-transcending mappings in a system for metaphorical reasoning. In A. Copestake & J. Hajič (Eds.), 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 57–61). Association for Computational Linguistics, Budapest, Hungary. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cacciari, C. (2008). Crossing the senses in metaphorical language. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 425–444). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, I.-H., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Lu, Q., & Huang, C.-R. (2019). Mandarin Chinese modality exclusivity norms. Plos One, 14(2), e0211336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chernigovskaya, T. V., & Arshavsky, V. V. (2007). Olfactory and visual processing and verbalization: Cross-cultural and neurosemiotic dimensions. In M. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 227–238). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de 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(3), 811–827. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1951). The principles of semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Digonnet, R. (2018). 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). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1985). Metaphor as a basic means of extending the lexicon. In W. Paprotté & R. Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought (pp. 85–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dombi, E. (1974). Synaesthesia and poetry. Poetics, 3(3), 23–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dorst, A. G. (2011). Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature, 20(2), 113–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishman, A. (2022). The picture looks like my music sounds: Directional preferences in synesthetic metaphors in the absence of lexical factors. Language and Cognition, 14(2), 208–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, C. J., & Renckens, T. (2013). The good is light and bad is dark metaphor in feature films. Metaphor and the Social World, 3(2), 160–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–468). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (2002). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 349–378). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holz, P. (2007). Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity: Linguistic synesthesia as poetic device in cologne advertisement. In M. Plümacher & P. Holz (Eds.), Speaking of colors and odors (pp. 185–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (1999). Metaphorical mappings in the sense of smell. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. & G. J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Extended conceptual metaphor theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumcu, A. (2021). Linguistic synesthesia in Turkish: A corpus-based study of crossmodal directionality. Metaphor and Symbol, 36(4), 241–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 411, 558–564. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 451, 516–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2020). The Lancaster sensorimotor norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 521, 1271–1291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., de Valk, J., & Hansson, B. S. (2018). Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 3731, 20170139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2001). Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 61–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Meara, C., Speed, L. J., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (2019). Perception metaphors: A view from diversity. In L. J. Speed, C. O’Meara, L. San Roque & A. Majid (Eds.), Perception metaphors (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paillard, M. (2002). From figures of speech to lexical units: An English-French contrastive approach to hypallage and metonymy. In B. Altenberg & S. Granger (Eds.), Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches (pp. 175–185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paissa, P. (1995). La sinestesia: Storia e analisi del concetto [Synesthesia: History and analysis of the concept]. Brescia: La Scuola.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U. (2005). The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza & M. S. Peña Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 353–386). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Panther, K.-U., & Thornburg, L. L. (2023). Hypallage is a rare bird. Not. Lingua, 2891, 103511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2011). Metonymization: A key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Conceptual spaces at work in sensory cognition: Domains, dimensions and distances. In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case for geometric knowledge representation (pp. 33–55). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paradis, C., & Eeg-Olofsson, M. (2013). Describing sensory experience: The genre of wine reviews. Metaphor and Symbol, 28(1), 22–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popova, Y. (2005). Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors?. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther & G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rakova, M. (2003). The extent of the literal: Metaphor, polysemy and theories of concepts. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synesthesia — A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2020). Ten lectures on cognitive modeling: Between grammar and language-based inferencing. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sadamitsu, M. (1999). Synaesthesia: A study from a cognitive viewpoint. Conference Book of the English Linguistic Society of Japan, 171, 121–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). A cognitive account of synaesthetic metaphor. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 61, 115–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Synaesthesia re-examined: An alternative treatment of smell related concepts. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics, 81, 109–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y. (1997). Cognitive constraints on poetic figures. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 33–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Metaphor and poetic figures. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 295–308). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y., & Cohen, M. (1998). How come silence is sweet but sweetness is not silent: A cognitive account of directionality in poetic synaesthesia. Language and Literature, 7(2), 123–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shen, Y., & Eisenman, R. (2008). “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter”: Synaesthetic metaphors and cognition. Language and Literature, 17(2), 101–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siahaan, P. (2022). Indonesian basic olfactory terms: More negative types but more positive tokens. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 447–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speed, L. J., & Brysbaert, M. (2022). Dutch sensory modality norms. Behavior Research Methods, 541, 1306–1318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Figures and senses: Towards a definition of synaesthesia. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Synaesthesia and other figures. What the senses tell us about figurative language. In A. Baicchi, R. Digonnet & J. L. Sandford (Eds.), Sensory perceptions in language, embodiment and epistemology (pp. 193–207). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strik Lievers, F., Huang, C.-R., & Xiong, J. (2021). Linguistic synaesthesia. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 372–383). London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tóth, M. (2018). Linguistic metonymy: Implicitness and co-activation of mental content. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turner, S., & Littlemore, J. (2023). The many faces of creativity: Exploring synaesthesia through a metaphorical lens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vogt, S. (2013). Die analyse ‘synästhetischer’ metaphern mittels frames [The analysis of ‘synesthetic’ metaphors using frames]. Metaphorik.de, 231, 19–48.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., & Glasbey, S. R. (2003). View-neutral mapping adjuncts in real text: A preliminary investigation. Technical Report CSRP-03-06, School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, U.K.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wallington, A. M., Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., & Lee, M. G. (2006). Metaphorical reasoning with an economical set of mappings. DELTA. Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 221, 147–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yeshurun, Y., & Sobel, N. (2010). An odor is not worth a thousand words: From multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 611, 219–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young, B. D. (2020). Smell’s puzzling discrepancy: Gifted discrimination, yet pitiful identification. Mind & Language, 35(1), 90–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2003). Synesthetic metaphor: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics, 32(1), 19–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, Q., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2022). Linguistic synesthesia is metaphorical: A lexical-conceptual account. Cognitive Linguistics, 33(3), 553–583. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhong, Y., Wan, M., Ahrens, K., & Huang, C.-R. (2022). Sensorimotor norms for Chinese nouns and their relationship with orthographic and semantic variables. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 37(8), 1000–1022. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Source of the examples
Vámos, M. (2000). Apák könyve [The book of fathers]. Budapest: Ab Ovo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vámos, H. (2009). The book of fathers (electronic edition). English translation by P. Sherwood. New York: Other Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sketch Engine, URL: [URL] (28 June 2023)
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue