Cover not available

Article published In: Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 11:1 (2021) ► pp.143–170

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

Metaphors in Polish, English, Russian, and French perfumery discourse

A comparative study

 | University of Warsaw
 | University of Warsaw
Published online: 8 September 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.19006.zaw
Abstract
This paper examines metaphors in perfume reviews in four languages, namely Polish, English, Russian, and French. Some typical features of the perfumery discourse, similar across the four languages, have been highlighted, such as clustering, extension, and mixing metaphors. The authors also discuss the most typical schemata used in the conceptualization of perfumes. Although the analyzed texts exhibit a certain similarity, a statistical analysis of the reviews identifies some interesting discrepancies between the languages, that is: unequal distribution of metaphorical types, preferences in usage of perceptual and non-perceptual source frames, and variance in perfume conceptualization (perfume is a woman vs. perfume is a man).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Preliminaries
    • 2.2Metaphor identification procedure
    • 2.3Metaphor structure: Sources and targets
    • 2.4Typology of verbal metaphors
      • 2.4.1Typical metaphors
      • 2.4.2Mixed metaphors
      • 2.4.3Narrative metaphors
  • 3.Results of the analysis
    • 3.1Annotators’ inter-agreement
    • 3.2Tendencies in the use of metaphorical expressions across languages
    • 3.3Patterns of source frames activation across languages
    • 3.4Overall characteristics of perfumery discourse
    • 3.5Contextual factors influencing metaphor production
    • 3.6Creative use of metaphors exploiting conventional schemata
    • 3.7Cross-linguistic variation in perfumery discourse
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (62)
References
Barkat-Defradas, M., & Motte-Florac, E. (Eds.). (2016). Words for odours: Language skills and cultural insights. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in the mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cain, W. S. (2012). History of research on smell. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception. Volume VIa: Tasting and smelling (pp. 197–229). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chastrette, M. (2002). Classification of odors and structure–odor relationships. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 110–116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Classen, C., Howes, D., & Synnott, A. (2003). Aroma: The cultural history of smell. First published 1994 by Routledge, London; this edition published in Taylor & Francis e-Library.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crisp, P. (2008). Between extended metaphor and allegory: Is blending enough? Language and Literature, 17(4), 291–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative language. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodge, E. K. (2018). A deep semantic corpus-based approach to metaphor analysis. In M. R. L. Petruck (Ed.) MetaNet (pp. 127–165). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2016). Mixing metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Metaphor wars. Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., & Cameron, L. (2008). The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1–2), 64–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golub, I. B. (2010). Stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Ajris Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holz, P. (2007). Cognition, olfaction and linguistic creativity. Linguistic synesthesia as poetic device in cologne advertising. 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
Howes, D. (2002). Nose-wise: Olfactory metaphors in mind. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 67–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hudson, R., & Distel, H. (2002). The individuality of odor perception. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition. (pp. 408–420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (2010). Why we mix metaphors (and mix them well): Discourse coherence, conceptual metaphor, and beyond. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 97–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knudsen, S. (2003). Scientific metaphors going public. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(8), 1247–1263. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2004). Businesswoman and war metaphors: ‘Possessive, jealous and pugnacious?’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(1), 3–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Köster, E. (2002). The specific characteristics of the sense of smell. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition. (pp. 27–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Variation in metaphor. Iha do Desterro. A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies, 531, 13–40.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). A view of “mixed metaphors” within a conceptual metaphor theory framework. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kozhina, M. N., Duskaeva, L. R., & Salimovsky, V. A. (2008). Stilistika russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Flinta-Nauka.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurkowska, H., & Skorupka, S. (1959). Stylistyka polska: zarys. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008 [1980]). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 958, 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Le Guérer, A. (2002). Olfaction and cognition: A philosophical and psychoanalytic view. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 3–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marhula, J., & Rosiński, M. (2017). Co oferuje MIPVU jako metoda identyfikacji metafory? Polonica, 371, 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez, I. M., & Shatz, M. (1996). Linguistic influences on categorization in preschool children: A crosslinguistic study. Journal of Child Language, 231, 529–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moore, K. E. (2011). Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: Temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 759–776. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2016). Why mixed metaphors make sense. In Gibbs, R. W. (Ed.), Mixing metaphor (pp. 31–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Waking metaphors: Embodied cognition in multimodal discourse. In B. Hempe (Ed.), Metaphor. Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 297–316). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petersen, W., Fleischhauer, J., Bücker, P., & Beseoglu, H. (2008). A frame-based analysis of synaesthetic metaphors. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 3(1), 1–22.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
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J. (2011). Zjednoczeni w mowie: Względność językowa w ujęciu dynamicznym. Warsaw: Scholar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from: [URL]
Rey-Debove, J., & Rey, A. (2000). Le nouveau petit Robert: Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue francaise. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ritchie, L. D. (2017). Metaphorical stories in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Retrieved from: [URL]
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sera, M., Berge, C., & del Castillo-Pintado, J. (1994). Grammatical and conceptual forces in the attribution of gender by English and Spanish speakers. Cognitive Development, 91, 261–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (2004). Stylistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snævarr, S. (2010). Metaphors, narratives, emotions: Their interplay and impact. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 901, 67–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification. From MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., Dodge, E. K., & Hong, J. (2016a). Formalizing contemporary conceptual metaphor theory. Constructions and frames, 8(2), 166–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stickles, E., David, O., & Sweetser, E. (2016b). Grammatical constructions, frame structure, and metonymy: Their contributions to metaphor computation. In A. Healey, R. N. de Souza, P. Peškov, & M. Allen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th meeting of the High Desert Linguistics Society (pp. 317–345). Albuquerque, NM: High Desert Linguistics Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2006). Frame-based constraints on lexical choice in metaphor. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 32(1), 387–399. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Mixed metaphors. Their use and abuse. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Velasco-Sacristán, M., & Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. (2006). Olfactory and olfactory-mixed metaphors in print ads of perfume. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 217–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Paganelli, F., & Dworzynski, K. (2005). Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1341, 501–520. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H. (2006). The cognitive accessibility of synaesthetic metaphors. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty eighth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2365–70). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, P. (1994). Extended metaphor – A text-world account. Language and Literature, 3(2), 79–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, R. M. (1996). The structure of metaphor. The way the language of metaphor works. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2016). The sensory structure of the English lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Merced.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zawisławska, M. (2019). Metaphor and senses: The Synamet Corpus: A Polish resource for synesthetic metaphors. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zdunkiewicz-Jedynak, D. (2010). Wykłady ze stylistyki. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue