Cover not available
Article published In:
Food and terminology: Expressing sensory experience in several languages
Edited by Rita Temmerman and Danièle Dubois
[Terminology 23:1] 2017
► pp. 9–37

How words for sensory experiences become terms

A cognitive approach

| Université Pierre et Marie Curie |
Given the double nature of experiencing food as individual as well as shared experience and knowledge, the question is how to connect the observed variability of expressing such a sensory experience with a normalized requirement for developing (food) terminology. On the basis of descriptions of food experiences in actual practices involving the way food is consumed, evaluated and expressed by individuals – experts or not – in all their diversity, we propose to contribute cognitive (psychological and linguistic) expertise to terminology research. We analyze terms as cognitive units, defined within a psychological theory of natural categories as acts of meaning. In tracking the processes of terminological meaning construction in discourse we find intersubjective experience within the complex process of terminologization.
Keywords: sensory experience, situated cognition, lexical resources, cognitive categories, word meaning constitution
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Positioning
    • 2.1From food to taste as sensory experience of food
    • 2.2Experiencing food: Knowledges and discourses
    • 2.3Experiencing food, linguistics and terminology
    • 2.4Terminology and cognitive sciences
    • 2.5Terminology and sensory sciences
  • 3.Empirical contributions
    • 3.1Language resources for taste and other senses
      • 3.1.1Colors vs smell
      • 3.1.2Goût or Saveur ? Taste or flavor?
    • 3.2Sensory experiences and knowledges in wine descriptions
    • 3.3Terms: Word meaning constitution in discourse
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/term.23.1.01dub
References (99)
References
Amilien, V., and A. E Delavigne (eds). 2003. Crispy, Crunchy: A Dream of Consistency…. Special issue of Anthropology of Food 1.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. 1999. “Perceptual Symbol Systems.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221: 577–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Grounded Cognition.” Annual Review Psychology 591: 617–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barthes, R. 1961. “Pour une psycho-sociologie de l’alimentation contemporaine.” Annales, Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 16 (5): 977–986. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bende, M., and S. Nordin. 1997. “Perceptual Learning in Olfaction: Professional Wine Tasters versus Controls.” Physiology & Behavior 62 (5): 1065–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bieler, L. M., and M. Runte. 2010. “Semantik der Sinne. Die lexikografische Erfassung von Geschmacksadjektiven.” Lexicographica. Series maior 261: 109–128.Google Scholar
Bieler, L. M., and D. Dubois, 2011. “Communicating Taste: A Dialogical Perspective on Meaning Constitution in Conversation about Taste.” In Proceedings Les descripteurs du vin, Vino lingua , Dijon.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meanings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (French translation (1991) Car la culture donne forme à l'esprit : de la révolution cognitive à la psychologie culturelle. Paris: Eshel).Google Scholar
Cabré, T. 1999. Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. “Terminologie et linguistique: la théorie des portes.” Terminologies nouvelles RIFAL 211: 10–15.Google Scholar
2003. “Theories of Terminology: Their Description, Prescription and Explanation.” Terminology 9 (2): 163–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. “La terminologie, une discipline en évolution: le passé, le présent et quelques prospectives.” (In French from A Terminologia, uma disciplina em evolução: passado, presente e alguns elementos de futuro). Debate Terminologico 41: 1813–1867.Google Scholar
2009. “La Teoría Comunicativa de la Terminología, una aproximación lingüística a los Términos.” Revue Française de linguistique appliquée 14 (2): 9–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cance, C. 2009. “Stimuli, dispositifs expérimentaux et mondes construits.” In Le Sentir et le Dire, ed. by D. Dubois, 107–136. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Cance, C., and D. Dubois. 2015. “Dire notre expérience du sonore: nomination et référenciation.” Langue Française 188 (4): 15–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. submitted. “Diversité des ressources linguistiques et des discours dans différentes modalités sensorielles: de l’expression de l’expérience sensible à la construction de l’objectivité.”
Chollet, S., and D. Valentin. 2000. “Le degré d'expertise a-t-il une influence sur la perception olfactive? Quelques éléments de réponse dans le domaine du vin.” L'Année psychologique 100 (1): 11–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Impact of Training on Beer Flavor Perception and Description: are Trained and Untrained Subjects really Different?” Journal of Sensory Studies 16 (6): 601–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Civille, G. V., and H. T. Lawless. 1986. “The Importance of Language in Describing Perceptions.” Journal of Sensory Studies 11: 203–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
David, S. 1997. “Représentations sensorielles et marques de la personne: contrastes entre olfaction et audition.” In Catégorisation et Cognition: De la perception au discours, ed. by D. Dubois, 211–242. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
2000. “Certitudes et incertitudes dans les domaines olfactif, gustatif et auditif.” In Espaces sensoriels et formes lexicales, ed. by D. Dubois, 77–108. Paris: LCPE (INaLF-CNRS).Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. 2012. “How does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences 34 (6): 746–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diki-Kidiri, M. 2007. Eléments de terminologie culturelle. Special issue of Cahiers du RIFAL 26.Google Scholar
Diki-Kidiri, M., S. David, D. Dubois, and J. Poitou. 2000. “Terminologies nouvelles.” Cahiers du RIFAL 211: 7–9.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. (ed). 1991. Sémantique et cognition – Catégories, prototypes, typicalité. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
(ed). 1997. Catégories et cognition. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
2000. “Categories as Acts of Meaning: The Case of Categories in Olfaction and Audition”. Cognitive Science Quarterly 11: 35–68.Google Scholar
2002. “Informations, représentations, connaissances, et significations: des objets en question dans les sciences cognitives.” In Du sujet : théorie et praxis, ed. by J. B. Berthelin, 97–106. Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.Google Scholar
2006. “Les 'mots' et les catégories cognitives du sensible: des rapports problématiques”. Cahiers du LCPE 71: 23–48.Google Scholar
2007. “From Psychophysics to Semiophysics: Categories as Acts of Meaning.” In Speaking of Colors and Odors, ed. by M. Plümacher and P. Holz, 167–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Sens communs et sens commun: Expériences sensibles, connaissance(s) ou doxa?” Langages 1701: 41–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2009. Le sentir et le dire : concepts et méthodologies en linguistique et psychologie cognitive. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., and A. Giboreau. 2006. “Descriptors: Attributes? Labels? Terms? Names? A Contribution of Psycholinguistics to Sensory Evaluation.” Food Quality and Preference 17 (7/8): 669–667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D., and C. Cance. 2012. “Vers une sémiologie du sensible: des couleurs en discours et en pratiques”. Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage XXXIV (1): 63–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, D., and C. Rouby. 2002. “Names and Categories for Odors: The Veridical Label Revisited.” In Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition, ed. by C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, and A. Holley, 47–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2005. “Discursive Psychology.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, ed. by K. L. Fitch and R. E Sanders, 257–273. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R. 2016. “The Empty Brain.” Aeon. [URL]. Accessed 18 May 2016.Google Scholar
Faber, P. (ed.) 2012. A Cognitive Linguistics View of Terminology and Specialized Language. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. “Frames as a framework for Terminology”. In Handbook of terminology, Vol 11, ed. by H. Kockaert and F. Steurs, 14–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischler, C. 1990. L’homnivore : le goût, la cuisine et le corps. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Gaudin, F. 1993. “Sémioterminologie: du signe au sens, construction d’un champ.” Meta 38 (2): 293–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Socioterminologie: une approche sociolinguistique de la terminologie. Bruxelles: Duculot. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gautier, L., and E. Lavric (eds). 2015. Unité et diversité dans les discours sur le vin en Europe. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawel, R. 1997. “The Use of Language by Trained and Untrained Experienced Wine Tasters.” Journal of Sensory Studies 12(4): 267–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giboreau, A., and L. Body. 2007. Le marketing sensoriel – De la stratégie à la mise en oeuvre. Paris: Vuibert.Google Scholar
Giboreau, A., C. Dacremont, C. Egoroff, S. Guerrand, I. Urdapilleta, and D. Candel. 2007. “Defining Sensory Descriptors: Towards Writing Guidelines based on Terminology.” Food Quality and Preference 181: 265–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. 1999. Rewriting the Soul. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Howes, D. 1991. “Sensorial Anthropology.” In The Varieties of Sensory experience: A Source Book in the Anthropology of the Senses, ed. by D. Howes, 167–191. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Hughson, A. L., and R. A. Boakes. 2002. “The Knowing Nose: the Role of Knowledge in Wine Expertise.” Food Quality and Preference 13 (7–8): 463–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humbley, J. 2009 “Terminologie : orientations actuelles.” Revue française de linguistique appliquée XIV (2): 5–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
ISO AFNOR 13299. 2003. Sensory Analysis – Methodology – General Guidance for Establishing a Sensory Profile. La Plaine St Denis: AFNOR Editions.Google Scholar
Jaffré, J., D. Valentin, C. Dacremont, and D. Peyron. 2009. “Burgundy Red Wines: Representation of Potential for Aging.” Food Quality and Preference 20 (7): 505–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerremans, K. 2014. Terminologial Variation in Multilingual Europe. PhD. Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
Kerremans, K., R. Temmerman, and P. De Baer. 2008. “Construing Domain Knowledge via Terminological Understanding.” Linguistica Antwerpiensa – New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 71: 177–191.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langlois, J., J. Ballester, D. Peyron, and C. Dacremont. 2010. “Combining Olfactory and Gustatory Clues in Wine Professionals’ Judgment of Aging Potential of Red Wine.” American Journal of Oenology and Viticulture 61 (1): 15–22.Google Scholar
Langlois, J., C. Dacremont, D. Peyron, D. Valentin, and D. Dubois. 2011. “Lexicon and types of Discourses in Wine Expertise: the Case of Vin de Garde.” Food quality and preference 221: 491–498. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsson, B. 2008. “Le sens commun ou la sémantique comme science de l’intersubjectivité humaine.” Langages 1701: 28–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, H. T. 1984. “Flavor Description of White Wine by ‘Expert’ and non-Expert Wine Consumers.” Journal of Food Science 491: 120–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawless, H., and H. Heymann. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and practices. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1975. “Talking about Wine.” Language 51(4): 901–923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lelièvre, M., S. Chollet, H. Abdi, and D. Valentin. 2008. “What is the Validity of the Sorting Task for Describing Beers? A Study using Trained and Untrained Assessors.” Food Quality and Preference 19 (8): 697–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1964. Mythologiques, Tome I : Le Cru et le cuit. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. 1996. La formation de la pratique scientifique. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Linell, P. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Majid, A., and S. Levinson. 2011. “The Senses in Language and Culture.” Senses & Society 6 (1): 5–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meilgaard, M., G. Civille, and T. Carr. 2007. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Melcher, J. M., and J. W. Schooler. 1996. “The Misremembrance of Wines Past: Verbal and Perceptual Expertise Differentially Mediate Verbal Overshadowing of Taste Memory.” Journal of Memory and Language 35 (2): 231–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1955. Les aventures de la dialectique. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Mushin, I. 2000. “Evidentiality and Deixis in Narrative Retelling.” Journal of Pragmatics 321: 927–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Normand, S. 2002. Les mots de la dégustation du champagne: Analyse sémantique d'un discours professionnel. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Parr, W. V., D. Heatherbell, and K. G. White. 2002. “Demystifying Wine Expertise: Olfactory Threshold, Perceptual Skill and Semantic Memory in Expert and Novice Wine Judges.” Chemical Senses 27 (8): 747–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parr, W. V., K. G. White, and D. A. Heatherbell. 2004. “Exploring the Nature of Wine Expertise: what Underlies Wine Experts' Olfactory Recognition Memory Advantage?” Food Quality and Preference 15 (5): 411–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rastier, F. 1993. “La sémantique cognitive.” Histoire, Epistémologie, Langage 15 (1): 153–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. “Sémiotique du cognitivisme et sémantique cognitive: Questions d’histoire et d’épistémologie.” Texto! [URL]. Accessed 2 May 2017.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. R. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by E. Rosch and B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rossi, M. 2009. “L’emploi de la métaphore comme ressource pour la néologie terminologique: le cas du langage de la dégustation du vin.” In Atti del Convegno Internazionale La métaphore en langues de spécialité, 199–227. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
Sauvageot, F. 1996. “Sait-on en 1996 décrire le goût d’un aliment ou d’une boisson.” Psychologie Française 411: 289–300.Google Scholar
Sauvageot, F., and C. Dacremont. 2001. L’évaluation sensorielle à la portée de tous – Les premiers pas en évaluation sensorielle, 4th ed. Dijon: Ensbana – Université de Bourgogne.Google Scholar
Sauvageot, F., I. Urdapilleta, and D. Peyron. 2006. “Within and between Variations of Texts elicited from nine Wine Experts.” Food Quality and Preference 17 (6): 429–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savatovsky, D., and D. Candel. 2007. “Présentation.” Langages 1681: 3–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. 1991. “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by L. Resnick, J. Levine, and S. Teasley, 150–171. Washington: American Psychology Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schifferstein, R., and P. Hekkert. 2008. Product Experience. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Solomon, G. 1990. “Psychology of Novice and Expert Wine Talk.” American Journal of Psychology 103 (4): 495–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. “Conceptual Change and Wine Expertise.” The Journal of the learning sciences 6 (1): 41–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
SSHA. 2009. Évaluation sensorielle: manuel méthodologique, 3rd ed. Paris: Lavoisier, Coll. Tec & Doc.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description. The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. “Revisiting Subjectiviction and Intersubjectivication.” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte, and H. Cuyckens, 29–70. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valentin, D., S. Chollet, and H. Abdi. 2003. “Les mots du vin: experts et novices diffèrent-ils quand ils décrivent des vins ?” Corpus 21: 183–200.Google Scholar
Vion, R. 2009. “De la subjectivité en discours aux discours sur la subjectivité.” In Le sentir et le dire, ed. by D. Dubois, 367–391. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Webster, J. (dir.). 2004. The Language of Science. The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Dubois, Danièle
2022. Towards a Situated Cognitive Approach of Olfactory experiences and Languages. In Olfaction: An Interdisciplinary Perspective from Philosophy to Life Sciences [Human Perspectives in Health Sciences and Technology, 4], ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Du, Jiali, Christina Alexandris, Yajun Pei, Yuming Lian & Pingfang Yu
2021. Meeting the Growing Needs in Scientific and Technological Terms with China’s Terminology Management Agency – CNCTST. In Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications IV [Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1378], ► pp. 239 ff. DOI logo
Dubois, Danièle & Caroline Cance
2021. Chapter 8. Taste as a holisensory experience. In Sensory Experiences [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research, 24], ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
López Arroyo, Belén & Roda P. Roberts
2020. What wine descriptors really mean A comparison between dictionary definitions and real use. Journal of Wine Research 31:4 ► pp. 301 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 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.