Cover not available
Part of
The Language of Food in Japanese: Cognitive perspectives and beyond
Edited by Kiyoko Toratani
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 25] 2022
► pp. 231–260

Chapter 8
A frame-semantic approach to Japanese taste terms

| Tohoku Gakuin University
This chapter offers a frame-semantic account of the meanings of Japanese taste terms, analyzing 5,620 instances of collocations, consisting of an adjectival taste term and a noun, such as shibui kao ‘lit. astringent face’. It first defines the literal sense of the taste terms, identifying what frame is evoked by not only using but also adjusting the definitions and set of arguments from FrameNet (an English resource) to fit the case of Japanese. It then considers the sense extensions. The findings include the following: both the literal and the extended senses can imply (un)desirability; the semantic change can be accounted for by identifying frames of both literal and figurative uses that prop up the lexical meanings.
Keywords: taste terms, adjectives, frame semantics, metaphor, pejoration
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Framework: What does it mean to take a frame-semantic approach?
    • 3.1Two types of frame: Cognitive and linguistic
    • 3.2Components of frames
    • 3.3Words-frames-meanings relation and frame-to-frame relation
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1A frame for taste terms
      • 4.1.1Literal usage
      • 4.1.2Delicious face and delicious restaurant?
    • 4.2Implicit (un)desirability of taste terms
    • 4.3Preservation of (un)desirability in figurative usages
    • 4.4A case of semantic pejoration
    • 4.5A case of melioration
  • 5.Figurative usage of taste terms and patterns of semantic extension: Listing the frames for the figurative meanings of Japanese taste adjectives
    • 5.1Oishī ‘delicious’
    • 5.2Amai ‘sweet’
    • 5.3Shibui ‘astringent’
    • 5.4Suppai ‘sour’, nigai ‘bitter’ and shoppai ‘salty’
  • 6.The pattern of semantic extension and conceptual metaphor
    • 6.1Simplified summary of the patterns of semantic extension
    • 6.2Conceptual metaphors of Japanese taste terms
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 9 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.25.08sak
References (45)
References
Andor, J. (2010). Discussing frame semantics: the state of the art (An interview with Charles J. Fillmore) In Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 8(1), 157–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, A. E. (1994). The lexical field of taste: A semantic study of Japanese taste terms. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. California: University of California press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Where have all the adjectives gone?: and other essays in semantics and syntax (pp. 1–62). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. (Original work published 1977). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feist, J. (2016). Semantic structure in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In the Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6(2), 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., & Baker, C. (2009). A frames approach to semantic analysis. In H. Bernd and H. Narrog (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp.313–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R., Meibauer, J., & Wiese, H. (Eds.). (2016). Pejoration. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
FrameNet. Retrieved from [URL]
Hasegawa, Y., Lee-Goldman, R., & Fillmore, C. J. (2016). On the universality of frames: Evidence from English-to-Japanese translation. In M. Hilpert, & J-O. Östman (Eds.) Constructions across grammars (pp. 35–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jantra, J. (1999). An analysis of the meaning extension of the Japanese adjective “amai” and its double meaning in advertisements-Contrasted with English “sweet” and Thai “wăan.” Departmental Bulletin Paper of University of Kyoto, 3, 142–193.Google Scholar
Japanese FrameNet. Retrieved from [URL]
Kihara, M. (2010). The Japanese adjective ‘amai’ and the English adjective ‘sweet’: Antonymous transfer of ‘amai’. Bulletin Paper of Nakamura Gakuen University, 42, 55–61.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. M. (2018). Mikaku o hyōgen suru keiyōshi no imi kōzō to goi taikei [Semantics and the lexical organization of adjectives expressing taste] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Chuo University, Tokyo.
Kunihiro, T. (1982). Imiron no hōhō [Methodology of semantics]. Tokyo: Taishūkan shoten.Google Scholar
Kusumi, T. (1988). Comprehension of synaesthetic expressions: Cross-modal modifications of sense adjectives [in Japanese]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 58(3), 373–380. Retrieved from [URL]
Lakoff, G. (1993). Contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Orthony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 202–251. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., Espensen, J. & Schwartz, A. (1991). Master metaphor list. Second draft copy. Technical report, Cognitive Linguistics Group, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minashima, H. (2005). Nichieigo no mikaku keiyōshi: amai and sweet [Taste adjectives in English and Japanese: amai and sweet]. Departmental Bulletin Paper of Faculty of Education and Regional Studies of University of Fukui I, 60, 11–29.Google Scholar
Muto, A. (2001). Mikaku keiyōshi amai to karai no tagi kōzō. [The semantic structure of the taste adjectives amai and karai]. Journal of Japanese language teaching Nihongo Kyōiku, 110, 42–51.Google Scholar
(2002a). Oishī no atarashii imi to yōhō: umai mazui to hikaku shite. [On the meaning of the taste adjective oishī--compared with umai and mazui]. Nihongo Kyōiku (Journal of Japanese language teaching), 112, 25–34.Google Scholar
(2002b). Mikaku keiyoushi suppai no imi. [On the meaning of TASTE adjective suppai]. Bulletin of Nagoya Meitoku Junior College, 16, 73–89.Google Scholar
(2015). Nihongo no kyōkankakuteki hiyu. [Synesthetic Metaphors in Japanese].Google Scholar
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. (2018). Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese (BCCWJ). Retrieved from [URL]
. (2018). Corpus of Historical Japanese. Retrieved from [URL]
Nishio, T. (1972). Keiyoushi no imi yōhō no kijutsuteki kenkyu: [A descriptive study of the meaning and uses of Japanese adjectives]. Tokyo: Shūei Shuppan.Google Scholar
Odani, M. (2012). Sōtei yōhō ni okeru keiyōshi heichi kōbun ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu: Sōgōtekininchi to risantekininchi no kanten kara [On the construction of concatenative use of adjectives in attributive use: From a viewpoint of integrate/discrete schema]. In Yamanashi, M. (Ed.) Ninchi gengogaku ronkō [Studies in Cognitive Linguistics], 10 (pp. 105–141). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
Radden, G. P., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In K-U. Panther & G. P. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 17–59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, C. R., Baker, C. F., & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. Berkeley, California: International Computer Science Institute.Google Scholar
Sakaguchi, K. (2014). The polysemy of Japanese adjectives “oishī”, “umai” and “mazui” revisited: Frame semantics approach to the description of polysemy. Papers from the National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 14, 323–335.Google Scholar
(2015). Frame semantics based contrastive studies of Japanese and English adjectives. Papers from the National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 15, 458–470.Google Scholar
(Forthcoming). Figurative meanings of sensory and emotional adjectives in Japanese: Semantic patterns of [-i adjective + noun] constructions. In Papers from the National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association, 20.
Sakai, A. (2008). Examination in “One direction hypothesis of ‘Synesthesia metaphor’”: From the result of preliminary research on “Words indicating sight” in seven different languages [in Japanese]. In Bulletin of University of the Ryukyu, 5, 1–18.Google Scholar
Seto, K. (2003). Gokan-de ajiwau [Tasting with five senses]. In Seto, K. (Ed.)., Kotoba-wa aji-o koeru [Words exceed taste] (pp. 62–78). Tokyo: Kaimeisha.Google Scholar
Shinohara, K., & Nakayama, A. (2011). Modalities and Directions in Synaesthetic Metaphors in Japanese. Cognitive Studies, 18(3), 491–507. Retrieved from [URL]
Spence, C., Wan, X., Woods, A., Velasco, C., Deng, J., Youssef, J., & Deroy, O. (2015). On tasty colours and colourful tastes? Assessing, explaining, and utilizing crossmodal correspondences between colours and basic tastes. Flavour, 4(1), 23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synesthetic adjectives: A possible law of semantic universals. In Language, 52(2), 461–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Sensory linguistics: language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yakame, H. (2008). Nihongo keiyōshi no kijutsuteki kenkyū [A descriptive study of contemporary Japanese adjectives: From a typological view]. Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.Google Scholar
Yamada, S. (1972). Gendai miyako hōgen mikaku goi kō: tōkyō hōgen tono hikaku o chūshin ni. [Taste terms in the contemporary Miyako language]. Okinawa Bunka, 39, 30–37.Google Scholar