Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 9:2 (2019) ► pp.199–220

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Gender stereotyping

The head and sexualized body parts as fruits and vegetables

 | University of Vienna
Published online: 5 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.18007.dzi
Abstract
Across languages, the head and sexualized body parts (i.e., vagina, breasts, penis, testicles) are conceptualized in a number of ways, for example as fruits and vegetables: heads are conceptualized as cabbages, vaginas as figs, breasts as melons, penises as carrots, and testicles as olives, to only name a few. The present study draws on the theories of conceptual metaphor and metonymy by Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar to analyze the conceptualizations of the five body parts as fruits and vegetables in English, Spanish and French. For this purpose, a slang dictionary-based database of 184 conceptualizations was compiled. Research on the head and sexualized body parts is particularly interesting as they represent the core of intellect and sexuality respectively, which makes them prone to being conceptualized in a variety of expressive and euphemistic ways. The results of the present study show that female body parts are primarily conceptualized as sweet fruits, while the penis as well as the head are mostly understood of as savory vegetables. This finding suggests a case of gender stereotyping, whereby sweet-natured women are denied intelligence as the head is stereotypically seen as a male body part (i.e., as a savory vegetable).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of the art
    • 2.1Target domain body part
    • 2.2 body parts are fruits/vegetables
    • 2.3Botany vs. cuisine
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Dictionaries
    • 3.2The choice of the analyzed body parts
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Target concept head
    • 4.2Female body parts
      • 4.2.1Target concept vagina
      • 4.2.2Target concept breasts
    • 4.3Male body parts
      • 4.3.1Target concept penis
      • 4.3.2Target concept testicles
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L., & Sozzo, S. (2016). Generalizing prototype theory: A formal quantum framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(418). [ ]. Retrieved from [URL]
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2008). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F., & Bliss-Moreau, E. (2009). She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: Attributional explanations for emotion stereotypes. Emotion, 9(5), 649–658. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blank, A. (1998). Der ‘Kopf’ in der Romania und Anderswo: Ein metaphorisches (und metonymisches) Expansions- und Attraktionszentrum. In A. Gil & C. Schmitt (Eds.), Kognitive und kommunikative Dimensionen der Metaphorik in den romanischen Sprachen (pp. 11–32). Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bob: Dictionnaire d’argot, de français familier et de français populaire. (2018). Retrieved from [URL]
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 61–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, V., & Kitzinger, C. (2001). ‘Snatch,’ ‘hole,’ or ‘honeypot’? Semantic categories and the problem of nonspecificity in female genital slang. The Journal of Sex Research, 38(2), 146–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1992). Naming of parts: Gender, culture, and terms for the penis among American college students. American Speech, 67(4), 367–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crawley, S. L., Shehan, C. L., & Foley, L. J. (2008). Creating a world of dichotomy: Categorizing sex and gendering cultural messages. In S. L. Crawley, L. J. Foley & C. L. Shehan (Eds.), Gendering bodies (pp. 1–36). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, E. (2008). Sex-related euphemism and dysphemism: An analysis in terms of conceptual metaphor theory. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30(2), 95–110.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Conceptual metaphors in taboo-induced lexical variation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 241, 53–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Sex in language: Euphemistic and dysphemistic metaphors in internet forums. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deignan, A. (2010). The cognitive view of metaphor: Conceptual metaphor theory. In L. Cameron & R. Maslen (Eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities (pp. 44–56). London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckes, T. (2010). Geschlechterstereotype: Von Rollen, Identitäten und Vorurteilen. In: R. Becker & B. Kortendiek (Eds.), Handbuch Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung: Theorie, Methoden, Empirie (pp. 178–189). Wiesbaden: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernández Martín, C. (2011). Comparing sexist expressions in English and Spanish: (De)-constructing sexism through language. ES: Revista de Filología Inglesa, 321, 67–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2006). Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivistic framework: Agendas for research. In: G. Christiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 379–402). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.). (2008). The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., & Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor is grounded in embodied experience. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 36(7), 1189–1210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(3), 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Pérez, R. (2008). A cross-cultural analysis of heart metaphors. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 211, 25–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hines, C. (1999). Rebaking the pie: The woman as dessert metaphor. In M. Bucholtz, A. C. Liang & L. A. Sutton (Eds.), Reinventing identities: The gendered self in discourse (pp. 145–162). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Metaphor and culture. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica, 2(2), 197–220.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., & Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 37–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lovejoy, A. O. (1936). The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mumford, L. (1947). Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, P. F. (2001). Studs, tools, and the family jewels: Metaphors men live by. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niemeier, S. (2008). To be in control: Kind-hearted and cool-headed. The head-heart dichotomy in English. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 349–372). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Odebunmi, A. (2010). Ideology and body part metaphors in Nigerian English. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(2), 272–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partridge, E. (2013). The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Martin, G. N. (2004). Estimates of emotional and psychometric intelligence: Evidence for gender-based stereotypes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2), 149–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pragglejaz Group (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse, Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radtke, E. (1980). Typologie des sexuell-erotischen Vokabulars des heutigen Italienisch: Studien zur Bestimmung der Wortfelder PROSTITUTA und MEMBRO VIRILE unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der übrigen romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rodríguez González, F. (2011). Diccionario del sexo y el erotismo. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sharifian, F., Dirven, R., Yu, N., & Niemeier, S. (2008). Culture and language: Looking for the ‘mind’ inside the body. In F. Sharifian, R. Dirven, N. Yu & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Culture, body, and language: Conceptualizations of internal body organs across cultures and languages (pp. 3–26). Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sommer, R. (1988). The personality of vegetables: Botanical metaphors for human characteristics. Journal of Personality, 56(4), 665–683. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spang, L. (2011). Fruits and culture: A preliminary examination of food-for-sex metaphors in English-language Caribbean music [Article on website]. Retrieved from [URL]
Sutton, L. A. (1995). Bitches and skankly hobags: The place of women in contemporary slang. In K. Hall & M. Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender articulated: Language and the socially constructed self (pp. 279–296). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, F. E., Willis, G. B., Thompson, O. M., & Yaroch, A. L. (2011). The meaning of ‘fruits’ and ‘vegetables’. Public Health Nutrition, 14(7), 1222–1228. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
TuBabel. (2017). Retrieved from [URL]
Vainio, H., & Bianchini, F. (2003). Definitions and classifications for fruit and vegetables. In H. Vainio & F. Bianchini (Eds.), IARC handbook of cancer prevention 8 (pp. 1–21). Lyon: The Agency.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vonk, R., & Ashmore, R. D. (2003). Thinking about gender types: Cognitive organization of female and male types. British Journal of Social Psychology, 421, 257–280. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Stumm, S., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2011). Decomposing self-estimates of intelligence: Structure and sex differences across 12 nations. British Journal of Psychology, 100(2), 429–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, N. (2003). Metaphor, body, and culture: The Chinese understanding of gallbladder and courage. Metaphor and Symbol, 18(1), 13–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The Chinese HEART in a cognitive perspective: Culture, body, and language. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Moya-Guijarro, Arsenio Jesús & Begoña Ruiz Cordero
2020. A multimodal cognitive analysis of visual metonymies in picture books featuring same-sex-parent families. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 18:2 ► pp. 372 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue