Article In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First Articles

touch in language

ORCID logo | University of Castilla-La Mancha
ORCID logo | Lund University
This study reviews the literature on touch to establish an analytical framework for the study of touch in communication through language. Two questions are at the heart of the study — an ontological and a methodological one: What counts as touch, and how can we investigate the way we talk about touch? Within the broad framework of cognitive semantics, we offer a general approach to touch and identify two main types of Gestalt profiles related to the dynamicity in the Gestalt formation, namely activity and experience, in which case the former is related to external stimulation only, while the latter may be the result of external or internal stimulation.
Keywords: sensory modality, perception, touch, cognitive semantics, tactile, texture, pain
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What counts as a sensory modality?
  • 3.What may count as touch?
  • 4.Descriptions of sensory experiences in language
  • 5.Exploring the data
  • 6.Analysing descriptions of touch
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Declaration of interest statement
  • Note
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (39)
References
Bianchi, I., Actis–Grosso, R., & Ball, L. J. (2024). Grounding cognition in perceptual experience. Journal of Intelligence, 12 (7), 66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, I., Paradis, C., & van de Weijer, J. (submitted). Perceptual structure of opposites across sensory modalities.
Biggs, S., Matthen, M., & Stokes, D. (2015). Sorting the senses. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 1–22). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caballero, R., & Paradis, C. (2018). Verbs in speech framing expressions: Comparing English and Spanish. Journal of Linguistics, 54 (1), 45–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Soundscapes in English and Spanish: a corpus investigation of verb constructions. Language and Cognition, 12 (4), 705–728. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Sharing perceptual experiences through language. Journal of Intelligence, 11 (7), 129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., Suarez Toste, E., & Paradis, C. (2019). Representing wine — Sensory perceptions, communication and cultures. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C. (2008). Crossing the senses in metaphorical language. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook on metaphor and thought (pp. 425–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A., & Mondada, L. (2020). Touch in social interaction. Touch, language, and body. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2016). Lessons of synaesthesia for consciousness: Learning from the exception, rather than the general. Neuropsychologia, 88 1, 49–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Jaén, J. (2014). Aspectos cognitivos y constuccionales de evolución semántica del verbo tocar . Anuari de filologia estudis de lingüística, 4 1, 93–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fulkerson, M. (2010). The sense of touch. Unpublish doctoral thesis. University of Toronto.
(2014). Rethinking the senses and their interactions: the case for sensory pluralism. Frontiers in psychology, 5 1, 14–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). What counts as touch? In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 191–204). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2020). Perception, Emotion, and the Interconnected Mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27 (7–8), 7–30.Google Scholar
Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2014). In touch with the future. The sense of touch from the neurosciences to virtual reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mufflin.Google Scholar
Hartman, J. & Paradis, C. (2023). The language of sound: events and meaning multitasking of words. Cognitive Linguistics, 34 (3–4), 445–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe Atuñano, I. (2006). Cross-linguistic polysemy in tactile verbs. In J. Luchjenbroers (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics investigations across languages, fields, and philosophical boundaries (pp. 235–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41 1, 558–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGlone, F., & Spence, C. (2010). The cutaneous senses: Touch, temperature, pain/itch, and pleasure. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (2), 145–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Meyer, C., & Streeck, J. (2020). Ambivalences of touch: An epilogue. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, language, and body (pp. 311–325). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, C., Streeck, J. & Jordan, J. S. (2017). (Eds.) Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Callaghan, C. (2015). Not all perceptual experience is modality. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 133–165). New York: Oxford Academic.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (2009). This beauty should drink well for 10–12 years: A note on recommendations as semantic middles. Text & Talk, 29 (1), 53–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Conceptual spaces at work in sensuous cognition: Domains, dimensions and distances. In F. Zenker & P. Gärdenfors (Eds.), Applications of conceptual spaces: The case of geometric knowledge representation (pp. 33–55). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Two layers of modal grounding of recommendations. In V. Kloudová, M. Šemelik, A. Racochová & T. Koptik (Eds.), Spielräume der modernen linguistischen Forschung (pp 112–127). Prag: The Karolinum Press.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, I., & Kerovec, B. (2018). The concept of ‘touch’ in the formation of the Croatian and Turkish lexicon: The example of tactile verbs. Linguistics Beyond and Within, 4 1, 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rock, I., & Jack, V. (1964). Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 143 (3606), 594–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2020). Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 37 (5–6), 363–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spence, C., & Bayne, T. (2015). Is consciousness multisensory? In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 95–132). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spence, C., Smith, B., & Auvray, M. (2015). Confusing tastes and flavours. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities (pp. 247–274). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, D., Matthen, M., & Biggs, St. (Eds.). (2015). Perception and its modalities. New York: Oxford Academic. New YorkGoogle Scholar
Tzimopoulou, E., Hartman, J., van de Weijer, J., & Paradis, C. (submitted). Perspectives on soundscapes: Uses of verb constructions in descriptions of everyday sounds.
van de Weijer, J., Bianchi, I., & Paradis, C. (2023). Sensory modality profiles of antonyms. Language and Cognition, 1–15.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. (2015). Sensation, perception and cognition: Swedish in a typological–contrastive perspective. Functions of Language, 22 (1), 96–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Phenomenon-based perception verbs. An overview from a typological and contrastive perspective. Syntaxe et Sémantique, 20 1, 17–48.Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Sensory linguistics: language, perception and metaphor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar