Cover not available
Article published In:
Meaning in Interaction: Studies in memory of Jack Bilmes
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Elwys De Stefani
[Interactional Linguistics 3:1/2] 2023
► pp. 93–131

The semantics of taste in interaction

Body, materiality and sensory lexicon in tasting sessions

ORCID logo | University of Basel
Tasting sessions constitute a perspicuous setting that reveals how a community of practice uses and shapes specialized lexicons and semantics within a situated and embodied activity. The activity aims at associating words and sensations: Participants engage with material objects (samples to taste), and utter/write down words corresponding to the way they experience them through their senses. This association between words and sensorial qualities constitutes an endogenous semantic task. This task can be seen as a respecification of various semantic problems, addressing within social interaction several semantic issues, such as the embodied grounding of sensory semantics, qualia, sensory lexicons, and specialized terminological repertoires. The paper is based on video recordings of training tasting sessions for professional cheese tasters in Italy and Italian Switzerland. The analyses show how participants engage not only in describing sensorial features, but also in normatively assessing the descriptors used, categorizing them as well as the features described as more or less standard. Moreover, the descriptive task is also guided by the use of several artefacts, such as tasting sheets to fill in and official repertoires of terminology available to read, which further socialize the participants. The analysis shows the reflexive mutual shaping of lexicons and sensations as well as the way participants address the semantics of taste in situ.
Keywords: interactional semantics, EMCA, conversation analysis, multimodality, taste, sensoriality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interactional semantics and the semantics of taste
    • 2.1Interactional semantics
    • 2.2The semantics of taste
    • 2.3Tasting sessions and the re-specification of issues in general semantics
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Describing experienced sensory qualities
    • 4.1Telling what one senses
    • 4.2Sharing solutions: Descriptors, sensual convergences, and authority
    • 4.3Collective orientation to some descriptors as non-standard
  • 5.Using (pre-existing) repertoires of lexical sensory descriptors
    • 5.1A structured terminology
    • 5.2Navigating the material ecology, negotiating the terminology
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Transcription conventions
  • References
Published online: 11 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.22011.mon
References (63)
References
Albirini, A. (2011). The sociolinguistic function of codeswitching between Standard Arabic and Dialectal Arabic. Language in Society, 401, 537–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, K. (1964). Sémasiologie et onomasiologie. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 28(111–112), 250–272.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 591, 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, J. (2008). Generally speaking: formulating an argument in the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Text & Talk, 281, 193–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Taxonomies are for talking: Reanalyzing a Sacks classic. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1600–1610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Occasioned semantics. A systematic approach to meaning in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). The structure of meaning in talk. Explorations in category analysis. Co-categorization, contrast, and hierarchy. Manoa: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
(2021). Organizing talk with contrasts. Journal of Pragmatics, 1751, 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chumley, L. H., & Harkness, N. (2013). Qualia. Anthropological Theory. 13(1–2), 3–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croijmans, I., & Majid, A. (2016). Not all flavor expertise is equal: the language of wine and coffee experts. PLoS ONE 11(6): e0155845. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E., & Sambre, P. (2016). L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires. L’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Langages 204(4), 27–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2023). Displaying a negative stance by questioning meaning: The Italian format Che cosa vuol dire X? (‘What does X mean?’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 40–66.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1988). Quining qualia. In A. Marcel & E. Bisiach (Eds.). Consciousness in Modern Science (pp. 42–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2005). Conversational interpretation of lexical items and conversational contrasting. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 289–306). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Interaktionale Semantik. In J. Hagemann & S. Staffeldt (Eds.). Semantiktheorien (Vol. 21, pp. 172–215). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2023). Meta-semantic practices in social interaction: Definitions and specifications provided in response to Was heißt X (‘what does X mean’). Interactional Linguistics 3 (1/2), 13–39.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & De Stefani, E. (2019). Defining in talk-in-interaction: Recipient-design through negative definitional components. Journal of Pragmatics, 1401, 140–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (Eds). (2002). Be-deuten. Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fele, G. (2019). Olfactory objects: Recognizing, describing and assessing smells during professional tasting sessions. In D. Day and J. Wagner (Eds.). Objects, Bodies and Work Practice (pp. 250–284). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997). The blackness of black: color categories as situated practice. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, B. Burge (Eds.). Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition (pp. 111–140). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, L., Traverso, V. (Eds.) (2016). Définir les mots dans l’interaction. Un essai de sémantique interactionnelle. Special Issue of Langages, 2041.Google Scholar
Harjunpää, K., Deppermann, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2021). Constructing the Chekhovian inner body in instructions: An interactional history of factuality and agentivity. Journal of Pragmatics 1711, 158–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harkness, N. (2015). The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annual Review of Anthropology. 441, 573–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 421, 335–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E. (2011). Generalizations: A practice of situated categorization in talk. Human Studies, 34(2), 183–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmer, H. (2020). How do speakers define the meaning of expressions? The case of German y heißt y (‘x means y’). Discourse Processes, 57(3), 278–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. (2010). Peripherality, participation and communities of practice: examining the patient in dental training. In Llewellyn, N. & Hindmarsh, J. (Eds). Organisation, Interaction and Practice. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. London: Ashgate. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction, in G. H. Lerner (Ed.). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E. F., & Lehrer, A. (1992). Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body and Society, 10(2–3), 205–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, H. T. (1984). Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 491, 120–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, L. J. R., & Civille, G. V. (2013). Developing lexicons. Journal of Sensory Studies 281, 270–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., & Mlynář, J. (2023). “For Example” Formulations and the Interactional Work of Exemplification, Human Studies, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2009[1983]). Wine and Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, K. (2013). The phenomenology of coffee tasting. In: More studies in ethnomethodology. New York: SUNY. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Tasting coffee. An inquiry into objectivity. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Majid, A., & Burenhuit, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A., Roberts, S., Clissen, L. & Levinson, S. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. PNAS, 115(45), 11369–11376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. (2011). On “interactional semantics” and problems of meaning. Human Studies, 34(2), 199–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Harvard: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Rethinking bodies and objects in social interaction: A multimodal and multisensorial approach to tasting. In U. Tikvah Kissmann & J. van Loon (Eds.), Discussing new materialism (pp. 109–134). Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020a). Audible sniffs: Smelling-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 140–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Orchestrating multi-sensoriality in tasting sessions: Sensing bodies, normativity, and language. Symbolic Interaction, 441, 63–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021a). Sensing in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Language and the sensing body. How sensoriality permeates syntax in interaction. Frontiers Communication, 51, 664430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L., & Fele, G. (2020). Descrittori visivi per l’assaggio professionale: lessico, sensorialità e standardizzazione. Rivista Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, XLIX(3), 651–681.Google Scholar
Muniesa, F., & Trébuchet-Breitwiller, A.-S. (2010). Becoming a measuring instrument. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(3), 321–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Masuda, B. M., Pecore, S. D., Schmidt, J. O. & Stern, P. M. (1984). Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 351, 107–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pecher, D. & Zwaan, R. A. (2005). Grounding cognition: the role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riemer, N. (2015). Internalist semantics. Meaning, conceptualization and expression. In N. Riemer (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2006). Old wine, new ethnographic lexicography. Annual Review of Anthropology 35(1), 481–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spackman, C. (2018). Perfumer, chemist, machine: gas chromatography and the industrial search to ‘improve’ flavor. The Senses and Society, 13(1): 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svensson, H. (2020). Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings. Repairing and Correcting in Public. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wikforss, Å. (2008). Semantic externalism and psychological externalism. Philosophy Compass, 31, 158–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wnuk, E. & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: the odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 1311, 125–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Koole, Tom
2023. Meaning as referential work. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.