Speaking of Colors and Odors (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research)

252 Pages·2007·2.333 MB·

by  Martina Plumacher, Peter Holz

Speaking of Colors and Odors
Converging Evidence in Language
and Communication Research (CELCR)
Over the past decades, linguists have taken a broader view of language and are
borrowing methods and findings from other disciplines such as cognition and
computer sciences, neurology, biology, sociology, psychology, and anthropology.
This development has enriched our knowledge of language and communication,
but at the same time it has made it difficult for researchers in a particular field of
language studies to be aware of how their findings might relate to those in other
(sub-)disciplines.
CELCR seeks to address this problem by taking a cross-disciplinary approach
to the study of language and communication. The books in the series focus on a
specific linguistic topic and offer studies pertaining to this topic from different
disciplinary angles, thus taking converging evidence in language and communi-
cation research as its basic methodology.
Editor
Marjolijn H. Verspoor Wilbert Spooren
University of Groningen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Advisory Board
Walter Daelemans Leo Noordman
University of Antwerp Tilburg University
Cliff Goddard Martin Pütz
University of New England University of Koblenz-Landau
Roeland van Hout
Radboud University Nijmegen
Volume 8
Speaking of Colors and Odors
Edited by Martina Plümacher and Peter Holz
Speaking of Colors and Odors
Edited by
Martina Plümacher
Technical University Berlin
Peter Holz
University of Bremen
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / Philadelphia
TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
8
American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of
Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Speaking of colors and odors / edited by Martina Plümacher and Peter Holz.
p. cm. (Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research,
issn 1566-7774 ; v. 8)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Language and color. 2. Language and smell. I. Plümacher, Martina, 1958-
II. Holz, Peter.
P120.C65S68 2007
418--dc22 2006048028
isbn 978 90 272 3895 5 (Hb; alk. paper)
© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any
other means, without written permission from the publisher.
John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands
John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa
JB[v.20020404] Prn:3/11/2006;14:57 F:CELCR8CO.tex / p.1(49-117)
Table of contents
Speakingofcolorsandodors 1
MartinaPlümacherandPeterHolz
Color,smell,andlanguage:Thesemioticnatureofperceptionandlanguage 19
WolfgangWildgen
Howcanlanguagecopewithcolor?Functionalaspectsofthenervoussystem 35
ManfredFahle
Colorperception,colordescriptionandmetaphor 61
MartinaPlümacher
Attractivenessandadornment:ReferencetocolorsandsmellsinPapuan
speechcommunities 85
VolkerHeeschen
Colortermsbetweeneleganceandbeauty:Theverbalizationofcolor
withtextilesandcosmetics 113
SiegfriedWyler
Colornamesanddynamicimagery 129
AndreaGraumann
Frombluestockingstobluemovies:ColormetonymiesinEnglish 141
SusanneNiemeier
Odormemory:Theuniquenatureofamemorysystem 155
GesualdoM.Zucco
Frompsychophysicstosemiophysics:Categoriesasactsofmeaning.
Acasestudyfromolfactionandaudition,backtocolors 167
DanièleDubois
Cognition,olfactionandlinguisticcreativity:Linguisticsynesthesia
aspoeticdeviceincologneadvertising 185
PeterHolz
JB[v.20020404] Prn:3/11/2006;14:57 F:CELCR8CO.tex / p.2(117-134)
 Tableofcontents
Understandingsynestheticexpressions:Visionandolfactionwiththe
physiological=psychologicalmodel 203
YoshikataShibuya,HajimeNozawaandToshiyukiKanamaru
Olfactoryandvisualprocessingandverbalization:Cross-culturaland
neurosemioticdimensions 227
TatianaV.ChernigovskayaandVictorV.Arshavsky
Contributors 239
Index 241
JB[v.20020404] Prn:26/01/2007;14:21 F:CELCR801.tex / p.1(44-151)
Speaking of colors and odors
MartinaPlümacherandPeterHolz
. Introductiontothetopic
Weareconfrontedwithahugemanifoldofdiversesensoryimpressionswhichwe
havetoclassifyandinterpretin regardtoourformerexperiencesandintentions
in acting. We also have to coordinate our sensory impressions with other indi-
vidualsinordertoperformpurposefuljointactionsandmeaningfulinteractions.
Categorization is a cognitive activity that serves both to develop personal expe-
rience to an extent that makes quick orientation in new situations possible and
toestablishinter-individualunderstandinginprocessesofjointaction.Language
is involvedin these processes of categorization. What exactly is its specific part?
Thisisthecentralquestionofthisbook.Mostofitscontributionsstartfromthe
assumptionsthat languageis complementorytootherformsofcommunication,
suchasjointattention,regularformsofjointaction,gesturesandothernon-verbal
semioticforms,andthatlinguisticformsofcategorizationarebasedonperceptual
discernmentandnon-linguisticformsofclassifyingthings,eventsandproperties.
Thearticlesofthisbookoriginatefromaninternationalandinterdisciplinary
conference dealing with the question “How can language cope with color and
smell?”. ‘Color’ and ‘smell’ were chosen as subjects to compare the extensively
studied field of color perception and color categorization with the less investi-
gated fields of perception and categorization of odors. The neurobiological and
neurophysiological conditions of color perception are known to a large extent,
and cross-linguistic research on color categorization and lexical coding of color
has developed since the 1950s. The sensory system of olfaction and categoriza-
tionofodorshavebeenofcomparativelyminorinterest.–Thiscanbeassertedat
leastwithregardtoscience.Withinthelargefieldsofindustrialproductionofper-
fume,scentsofcosmeticsandflavoroffood,theinterestisimmense,andahuge
amountofmoneyisspentonresearch,evaluationandadvertising.–Wesupposed
thatcomparingthesedifferentlyinvestigatedfieldsofsensorysystemsandlinguis-
ticrepresentationofsensoryimpressionscouldbroadentheviewonthe issue.It
mighthelptoclearcontroversies,especiallyastotheprevailingthesesthatcolors
JB[v.20020404] Prn:26/01/2007;14:21 F:CELCR801.tex / p.2(151-178)
 MartinaPlümacherandPeterHolz
can be considered a quasi-continuous spectrum of hues that is completely rep-
resentedin languages,althoughindifferentways,whereasthemanifoldofodors
cannot be conceived in a systematic arrangementand is not linguistically repre-
sented. As the contributions of this book show, this opposition does not grasp
thesemioticreality.Inmanycontexts,thelinguisticrepresentationofcolorsrefers
to colored objects, to practices of color production or to specific experiences of
particular colors, just as much as linguistic descriptions of odor refer to objects
assourcesofodorandtoodorexperiences.Theideaofasystematicallyarranged
spectrumofcolorsisarelativelylateproductinthehistoryofideas.Itcouldalso
be established that, despite the lack of ‘basic terms’ of odors, there is linguistic
practice of odor description. The fact that many odors are not consciously per-
ceivedmight be causedboth byspecific characteristics of the neurophysiological
olfactorysystemandbyalessdevelopedculturalneedtoreflectodors.Thisfact,
however, does not preventus from analyzing the different strategies to describe
olfactory experiences and the forms of categorization that this linguistic repre-
sentationreveals.Especiallystudiesonlinguisticrepresentationofodorsindicate
the functional role of language within the spectrum of diverse cognitive activi-
ties. Languagedoesnotexpresseach act of discerningnordoesit representeach
formofcategorization.Insomecontexts,therearejointactivitiesofdiscriminat-
ing odor experiencesbetween subjects. Unless there is no need to communicate
linguistically about a particular type of odor, specific lexemes do not have to be
established.Languageseemstobeinvolvedwhennon-linguisticactivitiesbecome
subject to reflection. This reflection, however, applies to particular aspects with
regardtotasksorproblemsofactivitiesortospecialpurposesofcommunication.
Itisanintrinsicallyperspectivalactivity.Thosecontributionstothisbookwhich
dealwithdescriptionsofodorsandcolorsinadvertisingfocusonaspecificpower
of language, namely its power to compose complex images of multiple sensory
experienceinconnectionwithidealsofwhatcountasbeautifulordesirable.
Lexicalization or stability of word meaning and reference is another aspect
inthe comparisonof descriptionsof colorsandodors.Atfirstglance,the differ-
enceseemstobeenormous.Withrespecttocolor,speakershaveattheirdisposal
lexicalized color wordsas well as commonstrategiesto describe more particular
huesofcolor.Incontrasttothis,manytypesofodorsarewithoutaspecificname,
and there is no common strategy of description. How should we, for instance,
speakaboutwell-knowndifferencesbetweenodorsofperspiration?Ifsubjectstry
to articulate their experiences, they are aware of the lack of common linguistic
expressionsas well as of the individuality of perception and its evaluation.They
often emphasize personal experience, expressthe vaguenessof descriptions, and
resorttometaphors.The problemismoredifficult:asempiricalstudiesonodor
identification and description show, subjects identify the same odor differently
intime,andtheirdescriptionsdifferconsiderably.Differencesbetweencolorand
JB[v.20020404] Prn:26/01/2007;14:21 F:CELCR801.tex / p.3(178-244)
Speakingofcolorsandodors 
odor experiences and their descriptions diminish a little when one looks at de-
scriptions of specific hues of color and color effectson subjects. With respect to
the latter, metaphors are frequentlyused, descriptions diverge,and subjects also
refer to their personal experience. Comparative analyses of speaking about col-
orsandodorsbringintoquestionfactorsoflanguagestabilization.Whatenables
peopletosharelinguisticexpressionsandunderlyingcategories?
Thecontributionsofthisbookareapproachestothetopicfromdifferentdis-
ciplinary angles. They stress diverse aspects of the relation between perception,
cultural activity and linguistic representation. Neurobiologists point to biologi-
cal individuality which indicates differences between individuals in the process-
ingofsensoryinformation,neuropsychologistsconfirmtheindividualityofodor
experiences,whereaslinguistsemphasizethefunctionoflanguagetoestablishin-
terpersonal forms of categorization. This leads to the question of how to relate
individualperception,individualabilitiestodifferentiatephenomena,individual
formsofcategorizationandinterpersonalformsofcategorizationwhicharemedi-
atedbylanguageandjointactivities.Thecontributionsofthisbookarepioneering
inthesensethattheyshowimportantfactorsthatshouldbeaddressedinfurther
researchinordertoanswerthisquestionsufficiently.
. Thecontributionsinthecontextofpreviousresearch
Inthepast,studiesonspeakingaboutsensoryimpressionsconcentratedoncolor
words.Formsofspeakingaboutothersensoryimpressionshavebeenlessinvesti-
gated(withrespecttoodors,exceptionsareHarperetal.1968;Davidetal.1997;
Dubois1997a,1997b,2000;Gschwind 1998;Roubyetal.2002;Holz2005).One
reason for this concentration is the order which has been already established in
theareaofcolor:thephenomenon‘color’isexplainedtoalargeextent,andcolors
aresystematicallyorderedinschematicrepresentations,suchasthecolorsphere.
Schematic representationsdonotshow the realtotality of hues, northose prop-
ertiesofcolorwhicharecharacteristicofcoloredsubstances,suchasshine,luster,
texture or structures of color application. They serve the purpose of presenting
an overview of the set of possible colors that, strictly speaking, is a concept of
color order. In psycholinguistic research on linguistic representations of colors
and language and thought relations, these schematic representations were used
asaninstrumentofobjectivization,especiallywith respecttointer-culturalmeth-
ods. Colored chips seemed to be perfect reference objects to compare the scope
ofapplicabilityofcolorwordsincross-linguisticstudies.Afirststepwasmadeby
RogerW.Brown,EricH.Lennebergandcolleagueswho methodologicallybased
their studieson codability of colorson the Munsell arrayof colors (cf. Brown &
Lenneberg 1954; Lenneberg & Roberts 1956). Brent Berlin and Paul Kay, whose