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. 319–343

Chapter 11
Applying force dynamics to analyze taste descriptions in Japanese online columns

 | Middlebury College
This chapter analyzes taste descriptions, applying force dynamics (Talmy, 1988), which uses a schematic structure to characterize force relations. I extracted 90 descriptions from online food columns to examine causal interactions in which Food acts upon Taster or on another Food, to find that they can be classified into four basic force relations. The influenced entity can: undergo a change (caused); overcome a blockage (overcoming); be prevented from changing (blocked); or remain unchanged despite a force acting against it/her (persevering). The classification reveals that the caused pattern is predominant, indicating that Food or Taster tends to be conceptualized as a malleable entity that “gives in” to (another) Food.
Keywords: causation, change, nonliteral motion, gastronomy, force relation, sensory quality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Force dynamic patterns in food descriptions
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Overview
    • 4.2Food-on-food patterns: Food as an agonist
      • 4.2.1“Enhanced” (caused)
      • 4.2.2“Overflowing” (overcoming)
      • 4.2.3“Confined” and “supported” (blocked)
      • 4.2.4“Robust” (persevering)
    • 4.3Food-on-Taster: Taster as an agonist
      • 4.3.1“Affected” (caused)
      • 4.3.2“Managing” (overcoming)
      • 4.3.3“Trapped” (blocked)
      • 4.3.4“Patient” (perseverance)
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Response to Question 1
    • 5.2Response to Question 2
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 February 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.25.11abe
References (26)
References
Abe, S. (2007). Space, time, subjectivity and beyond: The cognitive semantic development of the Japanese marker te-shimau (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
(2016). An L2 corpus study of the Japanese grammatical marker -te-simau: An application of force dynamics. In K. Kabata & K. Toratani (Eds.), Cognitive-functional approaches to the study of Japanese as a second language (pp. 203–236). Boston, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N., Essegbey, J., & Kita, S. (2010). The macro-event property. In J. Bohnemeyer, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representation in language and cognition (pp. 43–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R. (2007). Manner-of-motion verbs in wine description. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2095–2114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copley, B. (2019). Force dynamics. In R. Truswell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of event structure (pp. 137–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ikegami, Y. (1981). Suru to naru no gengogaku [Linguistics of “do” and “become”]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (2014). The language of food: A linguist reads the menu. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Kageyama, T. (1996). Dōshi imiron: Gengo to ninchi no setten [Semantics of verbs: The interface between language and cognition]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Kawachi, K., Bellingham, E., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2018). Different types of causality and clause linkage in English, Japanese, Sidaama, and Yucatec Maya. Papers from the 18th National Conference of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000a). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000b). Force and emotion. In L. Albertazzi (Ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 145–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1990). The Invariance Hypothesis. In Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nabeshima, K. (2011). Nihongo no metafā. [Metaphors in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.Google Scholar
Nishimura, Y. (1998). Kōisha to shieki kōbun [Actors and causative constructions]. In M. Nakau & Y. Nishimura (Eds.), Kōbun to jishōkōzō [Constructions and event structure] (pp. 107–203). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Rodman, J. (2018). The 2018 restaurants of the year. Food and Wine, 41(5), 63–89.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1976). Semantics causative types. In M. Shibatani (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: The grammar of causative constructions, 6, (pp. 43–116). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Sensory linguistics: Language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 82–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P., & Thorstad, R. (2017). Force dynamics. In M. R. Waldmann (Ed.), Oxford handbook of causal reasoning (pp. 147–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar