Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology

The human sense of smell can accomplish astonishing feats, yet there remains a prevailing belief that olfactory language is deficient. Numerous studies with English speakers support this view: there are few terms for odors, odor talk is infrequent, and naming odors is difficult. However, this is not true across the world. Many languages have sizeable smell lexicons — smell is even grammaticalized. In addition, for some cultures smell talk is more frequent and odor naming easier. This linguistic variation is as yet unexplained but could be the result of ecological, cultural, or genetic factors or a combination thereof. Different ways of talking about smells may shape aspects of olfactory cognition too. Critically, this variation sheds new light on this important sensory modality

Language and Causal Understanding: There's Something About Mary

Making causal inferences is a ubiquitous property of the cognitive system. This dissertation examines how people make causal attributions in the social domain. Two cues to causality are examined. The first is the implicit causality in verbs and the second is covariation information. When people are presented with minimal sentences such as Mary fascinated Ted and then are asked what the cause of that event is, then people say something about Mary, for example, Mary was interesting. On the other hand, if they are presented with sentences such as Mary liked Ted, and then are asked about the cause, they say something about Ted, for example, Ted is nice. In the first example, cause is attributed to Mary or the first noun phrase (NP1); whereas in the second example, it is attributed to Ted, or the second noun phrase (NP2). This is called the implicit causality verb bias. The implicit causality bias is reviewed in some detail in the first two chapters. This is followed by a test of whether it is present even when no causal question is asked. The results from Chapter 3 suggest that the verb bias is present in such circumstances. Chapter 4 examined the relation between implicit causal information, such as that provided by implicit causality verbs, and explicit causal information, such as covariation theory. According to covariation theory, cause is determined by establishing what covaries with what. Chapter 4 demonstrated that both implicit and explicit sources of causal information are used to make attributions in production. However, Chapter 5 showed that while implicit causal information is also used in comprehension, the effect of explicit covariation information is weak. In order to ascertain exactly which cues people make to use attributions from covariation information Chapters 6 and 7 contrast a frequency signalling account of covariation theory with a focussing account. According to the frequency signalling account, cause is attributed to that individual which is in the smallest group; while according to the focussing account, cause is attributed to the individual who is in focal attention. It is found that both frequency and focussing influence attributions - and in very systematic ways

Semantic systems in closely related languages

In each semantic domain studied to date, there is considerable variation in how meanings are expressed across languages. But are some semantic domains more likely to show variation than others? Is the domain of space more or less variable in its expression than other semantic domains, such as containers, body parts, or colours? According to many linguists, the meanings expressed in grammaticised expressions, such as (spatial) adpositions, are more likely to be similar across languages than meanings expressed in open class lexical items. On the other hand, some psychologists predict there ought to be more variation across languages in the meanings of adpositions, than in the meanings of nouns. This is because relational categories, such as those expressed as adpositions, are said to be constructed by language; whereas object categories expressed as nouns are predicted to be “given by the world”. We tested these hypotheses by comparing the semantic systems of closely related languages. Previous cross-linguistic studies emphasise the importance of studying diverse languages, but we argue that a focus on closely related languages is advantageous because domains can be compared in a culturally- and historically-informed manner. Thus we collected data from 12 Germanic languages. Naming data were collected from at least 20 speakers of each language for containers, body-parts, colours, and spatial relations. We found the semantic domains of colour and body-parts were the most similar across languages. Containers showed some variation, but spatial relations expressed in adpositions showed the most variation. The results are inconsistent with the view expressed by most linguists. Instead, we find meanings expressed in grammaticised meanings are more variable than meanings in open class lexical items

Sensory, motor, and emotion associations for landscape concepts differ across neighbouring speech communities

A long-standing debate centres around our mental representation of landscape: is it experienced in largely the same way across all humans or is it shaped to some extent by cultural and linguistic experience? Previous research supporting differences across cultures has often relied on introspection or qualitative ethnolinguistic methods. Departing from this, we collected systematic sensory, motor, and emotion ratings for different landscape terms from 289 native speakers of German, English and French. The results show that speakers within and across groups agree to a large extent in their ratings of landscape terms, particularly in their sensory and motor associations. However, there is cultural shaping too. This suggests more caution is required when extrapolating findings about landscape understandings and preferences across cultures and languages

Sensory, motor, and emotion associations for landscape concepts differ across neighbouring speech communities

A long-standing debate centres around our mental representation of landscape: is it experienced in largely the same way across all humans or is it shaped to some extent by cultural and linguistic experience? Previous research supporting differences across cultures has often relied on introspection or qualitative ethnolinguistic methods. Departing from this, we collected systematic sensory, motor, and emotion ratings for different landscape terms from 289 native speakers of German, English and French. The results show that speakers within and across groups agree to a large extent in their ratings of landscape terms, particularly in their sensory and motor associations. However, there is cultural shaping too. This suggests more caution is required when extrapolating findings about landscape understandings and preferences across cultures and languages

The challenge of olfactory ideophones : Reconsidering ineffability from the Totonac-Tepehua perspective

Olfactory impressions are said to be ineffable, but little systematic exploration has been done to substantiate this. We explored olfactory language in Huehuetla Tepehua—a Totonac-Tepehua language spoken in Hidalgo, Mexico—which has a large inventory of ideophones, words with sound-symbolic properties used to describe perceptuomotor experiences. A multi-method study found Huehuetla Tepehua has 45 olfactory ideophones, illustrating intriguing sound-symbolic alternation patterns. Elaboration in the olfactory domain is not unique to this language; related Totonac-Tepehua languages also have impressive smell lexicons. Comparison across these languages shows olfactory and gustatory terms overlap in interesting ways, mirroring the physiology of smelling and tasting. However, although cognate taste terms are formally similar, olfactory terms are less so. We suggest the relative instability of smell vocabulary in comparison with those of taste likely results from the more varied olfactory experiences caused by the mutability of smells in different environments

Anger stinks in Seri : Olfactory metaphor in a lesser-described language

Previous studies claim there are few olfactory metaphors cross-linguistically, especially compared to metaphors originating in the visual and auditory domains. We show olfaction can be a source for metaphor and metonymy in a lesser-described language that has rich lexical resources for talking about odors. In Seri, an isolate language of Mexico spoken by indigenous hunter-gatherers, we find a novel metaphor for emotion never previously described-"anger stinks". In addition, distinct odor verbs are used metaphorically to distinguish volitional vs. non-volitional states-of-affairs. Finally, there is ample olfactory metonymy in Seri, especially prevalent in names for plants, but also found in names for insects and artifacts. This calls for a re-examination of better-known languages for the overlooked role olfaction may play in metaphor and metonymy. The Seri language illustrates how valuable data from understudied languages can be in highlighting novel ways by which people conceptualize themselves and their world

Thematic roles : Core knowledge or linguistic construct?

The status of thematic roles such as Agent and Patient in cognitive science is highly controversial: To some they are universal components of core knowledge, to others they are scholarly fictions without psychological reality. We address this debate by posing two critical questions: to what extent do humans represent events in terms of abstract role categories, and to what extent are these categories shaped by universal cognitive biases? We review a range of literature that contributes answers to these questions: psycholinguistic and event cognition experiments with adults, children, and infants; typological studies grounded in cross-linguistic data; and studies of emerging sign languages. We pose these questions for a variety of roles and find that the answers depend on the role. For Agents and Patients, there is strong evidence for abstract role categories and a universal bias to distinguish the two roles. For Goals and Recipients, we find clear evidence for abstraction but mixed evidence as to whether there is a bias to encode Goals and Recipients as part of one or two distinct categories. Finally, we discuss the Instrumental role and do not find clear evidence for either abstraction or universal biases to structure instrumental categories