Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:2 (2020) ► pp.397–427
‘I hear the smell of roses’
Semantic aspects of synaesthetic constructions in Persian
Published online: 4 December 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00065.mou
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00065.mou
Abstract
This paper investigates the synaesthetic constructions in Persian with the aim of finding out what motivates them despite their incongruous syntactic-semantic assignments. It is argued that these paradoxical elements require a metaphoric/metonymic frame to assign appropriate lexical units (LUs) to their corresponding syntactic categories (NP + rɑ +VP and NP + AP). The discrepancy derives from the semantic aspects for which frame semantics provides two types of explanations: internal and external frame factors. Internal factors deal with the metaphoric/metonymic compatibility or similarity between frames, while external factors underline the use of lexical items from one subframe to fill the vocabulary gap of a different subframe. The argument is that this gap owes much to the indirect contact between the Phenomenon (e.g., an odorous substance) and the Body-part (e.g., nose) that perceives it. In short, the analysis of our data reveals that synaesthesia is not only an economical strategy for modifying the senses, but also a natural mental strategy for interpreting vague experiences. A configuration of the incongruent construction of ‘smell’ and ‘hearing’ will be proposed to generalize such an analysis.
Keywords: synaesthesia, Frame Semantics, senses, Construction Grammar, Persian
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical frameworks
- 2.1Construction Grammar
- 2.2Frame Semantics
- 3.Data and methods
- 4.Analysis of data
- 4.1Synaesthetic constructions in Persian
- 4.2The semantic behaviour of synaesthetic constructions
- 4.3The compatibility of elements in synaesthetic constructions
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (35)
Bouveret, M., & Sweetser, E. (2009). Multi-frame semantics, metaphoric extensions, and grammar. In I. Kwon, H. Pritchett & J. Spence (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 49–59). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Bretones Callejas, C. M. (2001). Synaesthetic metaphors in English. Technical Reports, TR 01–008. Berkeley: International Computer Science Institute.
Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M. (2009). Wednesday is indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synaesthesia. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Elias, L. J., Deborah, M., Saucier, D. M., Hardie, C., & Sarty, G. E. (2003). Dissociating semantic and perceptual components of synaesthesia: Behavioural and functional neuroanatomical investigations. Cognitive Brain Research, 161, 232–7.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In I. Yang (Ed.), Linguistic in the Morning Calm. Selected Papers from SICOL-1981 (pp. 111–137). Hanshin, Seoul.
Fillmore, C. J., & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbours. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.
Fillmore, C. A., Johnson, C. R., & Petruck, M. R. L. (2003). Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(3), 235–250.
Fried, M., & Östman, J. O. (2004). Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–24.
(2005). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J. O. Östman & M. Fried, Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3) (pp. 17–43). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. (2006). English constructions. In B. Aarts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics. (pp. 343–355). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Goldberg, A. E., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(14), 468–477.
Hilpert, M. (2008). Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Descriptive applications (Vol. 2). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Moore, K. E. (2006). Space-to-time mappings and temporal concepts. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 199–244.
(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.
(2013). Frames and the experiential basis of the Moving Time metaphor. In M. Fried & N. Nikiforidou (Eds.), Advances in frame semantics (pp. 85–107). Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Östman, J. O., & Fried, M. (2005). Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (Vol. 3). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perception frame. (2001). In FrameNet Retrieved August 7, 2014, from [URL]
Rogowska, A. M. (2015). Synaesthesia and individual differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., & Scheffczyk, J. (2010). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. California: International Computer Science Technology.
Simner, J. (2007). Beyond perception: synaesthesia as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 23–9.
