Chapter published in:
Sensory Experiences: Exploring meaning and the senses
Danièle Dubois, Caroline Cance, Matt Coler, Arthur Paté and Catherine Guastavino
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 24] 2021
► pp. 505–536

Chapter 14
Making sense of the outcomes

Article outline
  • 14.1Data as constructs
    • 14.1.1The quantitative/qualitative opposition
    • 14.1.2Beyond the quantitative/qualitative opposition
      • 14.1.2.1New perspectives and growing alternatives
        • Mixed methods and the inheritance of sensory sciences
      • 14.1.2.2Quantitative research, yes! … but after semantic control!
  • 14.2Numbers and words as embedded knowledge
    • 14.2.1Numbers as amodal symbolic representations
    • 14.2.2Words as forms and meaning
      • Iconicity of the linguistic sign and categorization
      • Motivation and morphological similarity in categorization
  • 14.3Linguistic expressions for sensory experiences
    • 14.3.1How can a word account for sensory experience?
      • 14.3.1.1Iconicity as the sensory relation between signifier and the world
      • 14.3.1.2Morphological similarities within linguistic systems
    • 14.3.2Words as signified: Lexical resources for sensory analysis
      • 14.3.2.1Source names as sensory words: Metonymy
      • 14.3.2.2Morphosyntactic devices
    • 14.3.3Sensory experiences and words (meanings) in context
    • 14.3.4Sensory experiences and knowledges in discourse
      • 14.3.4.1When one word is a discourse: The locutoire/délocutoire opposition
      • 14.3.4.2Personal marks
      • 14.3.4.3Modality and evidentiality
  • 14.4Tracking the objectivity of sensory experiences in discourse
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 01 December 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.24.14can
References
Aikhenvald, A.
(2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aschmann, H.
(2016) Totonac categories of smell. Tlalocan, 2(2), 187–189. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Authier-Revuz, J.
(1998) Enonciation, méta-énonciation. Hétérogénéités énonciatives et problé-matiques du sujet. In R. Vion (Ed.), Les sujets et leur discours. énonciation et interactïon (pp. 63–79).Google Scholar
Avenier, M. J., & Thomas, C.
(2011) Mixer quali et quanti pour quoi faire ? Méthodologie sans épistémologie n’est que ruine de réflexion. In Journée de l’atelier méthodologie de recherche de l’AIMS. Caen, France.Google Scholar
Barbot, B., Lavandier, C., & Cheminée, P.
(2008) Perceptual representation of aircraft sounds. Applied Acoustics, 69 (11), 1003–1016. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E.
(1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale [1]. Gallimard.Google Scholar
(1973) Problems in General Linguistics (Miami Linguistic, No 8). University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bieler, L. M.
(2011) On Understanding Taste. Cooperative Strategies of Meaning Constitution in Conversations about Taste. In Proceedings of Talking about taste – Sensory semantics and the language of taste. Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Cance, C., Delepaut, G., Morange, S., & Dubois, D.
(2009) Des adjectifs construits pour qualifier le monde. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire. Concepts et méthodes en psychologie et linguistique cognitives (pp. 279–308). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cance, C., & Dubois, D.
(2015) Dire notre expérience du sonore: Nomination et dénomination. Langue Française, 188 (4), 15–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheminée, P.
(2006) Vous avez dit “clair” ? Le lexique des pianistes, entre sens commun et terminologie. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Dénomination, désignation et catégories (Vol. 7, pp. 49–66). Paris, France: LCPEGoogle Scholar
(2009) Est-ce bien “clair” ? Stabilité, instabilité et polysémie d’une forme lexicale en contexte. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le Sentir et le Dire (pp. 309–338). L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cheminée, P., Gherghinoiu, C., & Besnainou, C.
(2005) Analyses des verbalisations libres sur le son du piano versus analyses acoustiques. In Colloque interdisciplinaire de musicologie (CIM05). Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
Classen, C.
(1993) Worlds of senses: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conklin, H.
(1955) Hanunoo color categories. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in culture and society: a reader in linguistic and anthropology (pp. 189–192). New York: Harper & Row. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V.
(2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.Google Scholar
Damourette, J., & Pichon, E.
(1968) Des mots à la pensée. Editions d’Artrey.Google Scholar
David, S.
(1997) Représentations sensorielles et marques de la personne : contrastes entre olfaction et audition. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Catégorisation et Cognition : De la perception au discours (pp. 211–242). Paris, France: Kimé.Google Scholar
(2000) Certitudes et incertitudes dans les domaines olfactif, gustatif et auditif. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Espaces sensoriels et formes lexicales (Vol. 4, pp. 77–108). Paris, France: LCPE.Google Scholar
(2002) Linguistic Expressions of Odors in French. In C. Rouby, B. Schaal, A. Holley, D. Dubois, & R. Gervais (Eds.), Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition (pp. 82–99). London, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
David, S., & Rouby, C.
(2002) Groupements d’odeurs ou catégories ? Questions de méthodologie. In J. Poitevineau (Ed.), Arbres, classes et distances (Vol. 6, pp. 29–70). LCPE.Google Scholar
Delepaut, G.
(2009) Questionner : comment et pourquoi ? Le choc des questions, le poids des mots ! In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le Sentir et le Dire : concepts et méthodologies en linguistique et psychologie cognitive (pp. 157–188). Paris, France: L Harmattan.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M.
(2017) Expressiveness and system integration: On the typology of ideophones, with special reference to Siwu. STUF-Language Typology and Universals, 70 (2), 363–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Blasi, D. E., Lupyan, G., Christiansen, M. H., & Monaghan, P.
(2015) Arbitrariness, iconicity, and systematicity in language. Trends in cognitive sciences, 19 (10), 603–615. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doke, C. M.
(1935) Bantu linguistic terminology. Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Dubois, D.
(2009) Le Sentir et le Dire – Concepts et méthodes en psychologie et linguistique cognitives. Paris, France: L Harmattan.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Coler, M., & Wörtche, H.
(2014) Knowledge Sensory Experience, and Sensor Technology. In B. J. C. Rangacharyula, E. Haven (Ed.), The world in prismatic views (pp. 97–133). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D., & Fritz, C.
(2015) Questions (Vol. 122).Google Scholar
(2018) Projection du violon : analyse sémantique. In C. Fritz & S. Moraly (Eds.), Le violon en France du XIXe siècle à nos jours (pp. 219–235). Paris, France: Collegium Musicae.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A.
(1997) Anthropological linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Malden/Blackwell Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. H.
(1957) Egyptian grammar: being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, O.
(2005) Where is metaphor?: Conceptual metaphor and alternative classification in the hieroglyphic script. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(2), 95–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grinevald, C.
(2000) A morphosyntactic typology of classifiers. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of Nominal Classification (pp. 50–92). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guastavino, C., & Cheminée, P.
(2003) Une approche psycholinguistique de la perception des basses frequences : Conceptualisations en langue, representations cognitives et validité écologique. Psychologie Française, 48(4), 91–101.Google Scholar
Guentchéva, Z.
(1996) L’énonciation médiatisée (Vol. 35). Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(2018) Ideophones and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howes, D.
(1991) The Varieties of Sensory experience: A source book in the Anthropology of the Senses. Toronto, Canada: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Kossachka, M., Mzali, M., Quétin, F., Dubois, D., & Morel, M.-A.
(2006) Une approche psycholinguistique et cognitive du sentiment de confort : de l’analyse linguistique à la physique. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Dénomination, désignation et catégories (Vol. 7, pp. 79–94).Google Scholar
Kristol, A.
(1978) Color. Les langues romanes devant le phénomène de la couleur. Bern, CH: Francke.Google Scholar
Levitin, D. J.
(2002) Foundations of cognitive psychology: core readings. MIT press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, C.
(1996) La formation de la pratique scientifique. Paris, France: La découverte. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
(1997) Linguistic relativity. Annual review of anthropology, 26(1), 291–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maxim, L.
(2009) Du méta-discours aux métaconnaissances : quand l’expertise sensorielle se forge dans la parole. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire (pp. 339–356). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mlodinow, L., & Hawking, S.
(2010) The grand design. Random House.Google Scholar
Morange, S.
(2009) Expert ? Vous avez dit expert ? In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire (pp. 137–157). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mzali, M.
(2002) Perception de l’ambiance sonore et évaluation du confort acoustique dans les trains (PhD Thesis). Université Paris 6.
Mzali, M., Dubois, D., Polack, J.-D., Létourneaux, F., & Poisson, F.
(2001) Mental representation of auditory comfort inside trains: Methodological and theoretical issues. In Proceedings of Internoise (pp. 1691–1696). The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Pluye, P., & Hong, Q. N.
(2014) Combining the Power of Stories and the Power of Numbers: Mixed Methods Research and Mixed Studies Reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 29–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poitou, J., & Dubois, D.
(1999) Catégories sémantiques et cognitives. Une étude expérimentale en sémantique lexicale. Cahiers de lexicologie, 74 (1), 5–27.Google Scholar
Raimbault, M.
(2003) Simulation des ambiances sonores urbaines : intégration des aspects qualitatifs (PhD Thesis). Université de Nantes.
(2006) Qualitative judgments of urban soundscapes : Questionning questionnaires and semantic scales. Acta Acustica united with Acustica, 92(6), 929–937.Google Scholar
Reuchlin, M.
(1962) Les méthodes quantitatives en psychologie. Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M.
(1976) Colors and culture. Semiotica, 16(1), 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selz, G. J., Grinevald, C., & Goldwasser, O.
(2016) The Question of Sumerian “Determinatives”. Inventory, Classifier Analysis, and Comparison to Egyptian Classifiers from the Linguistic Perspective of Noun Classification. In D. A. Werning (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Egyptian-Coptic Linguistics (Crossroads V) (pp. 281–344). Berlin.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A.
(2015) Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Sage.Google Scholar
Souza Cruz, M. O.
(2005) Fonologia e gramática ingarikó (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Spinelli, S.
(2018) Semiotics and Sensory Sciences: Meaning Between Texts and Numbers. In Quantitative Semiotic Analysis (pp. 75–100). Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vassiliadou, H.
(2016) Sémantique des odeurs dans le discours culinaire grec et français. Cahiers balkaniques, Hors Série: Manger en Grèce, 353–377.Google Scholar
Vion, R.
(2004) Modalités, modalisations et discours représentés. Langages, 156(4), 96–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) De la subjectivité en discours aux discours sur la subjectivité. In D. Dubois (Ed.), Le sentir et le dire (pp. 367–391). Paris, France: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(2008) Why there are no “colour universals” in language and thought. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 14 (2), 407–425. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P.
(2015) Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar