Smell - Linguistic Relativity / Cross-Modal Associations Flashcards
History of olfactory studies
Unlike domain of colour, a paradigmatic example of linguistic relativity, olfaction relatively new so linguistic relativity studies are scare (Majid, 2021), although there are some, with majority assessing cross-modal associations
Speed and Majid (2016) - Grammatical Gender and Odour Cognition
Native French and German speakers read descriptions of fragrances containing ingredients with feminine or masculine grammatical gender, and then smelled masculine or feminine fragrances (determined by how they were marketed, and selected according to online ‘bestseller’ list), then completed odour recognition test
Fragrances remembered better when descriptions’ grammatical genders matched marketed gender of fragrance, suggesting grammatical manipulations of odour descriptors can affect odour cognition
Herz (2003)
Within same language, same odour experienced as pleasant or unpleasant depending on label it’s given, raising question of whether cross-cultural differences in naming strategies may likewise affect perceived pleasantness of odour
Conceptual link to English words like stinky which are based on subjective experience (Majid & Burenhult, 2014)
Majid et al (2018) Odour-Emotion Associations
Jahai (abstract basic terms) and Dutch (overwhelmingly source-descriptors) vary, and proposals that predict that abstract concepts are more valenced whereas others suggest they are more detached from sensory experiences
Compared facial expressions elicited by monomolecular odours while pps engaged in odour-naming task, finding that both groups had initial affective responses to odours, regardless of odour language used, particularly the case for unpleasant emotions
Perhaps important that greater saliency in unpleasant stimuli in general (in all domains), perhaps predicated on evolutionary need to avoid them, and in everyday situations, unlikely that anyone will be naturally smiling when smelling something nice > asymmetry in affective response and experience
Also found Jahai take 2s and Dutch 13s to name on average, but if waiting until giving contentful response (e.g., not “I don’t know”) then around 30s > establishes attested cross-linguistic differences in odour cognition, but universal reaction to odour-affective experiences
Odour-Colour Associations Background
People associate colours with odours, but source of them unknown (Majid, 2021) > could it be (1) odour perceptual representations could link directly to colour due to statistical cooccurrences in experience/environment, or (2) mediated by language
Speed and Majid (2018) showed that synaesthetes of colour-odour more accurate and more consistent over time in naming odours than non-synaesthetes, and better at discriminating between odours, suggesting strong link between odour and colour perception
Language-mediation account predicts that if people use basic smell words to name abstract odour qualities, should show weaker odour-colour associations than those who refer to the source (de Valk et al., 2017)
de Valk et al (2017)
Compared urban-dwelling Thai and hunter-gatherer Maniq (both basic smell vocab) with urban-dwelling Dutch (mainly source-descriptors) and found odour-colour associations mediated by language > weaker (less consistent) odour-colour associations when using basic smell vocab but colour choices more accurately reflected source when using source descriptors, supporting language-mediated account
Odours in opaque jar, and experientially familiar in Netherlands, Thailand, or both countries, and given grid of colours and chose which colour matched odour best, completing task twice, at least two hours apart (to ensure robust associations)
However, Maniq, unlike Dutch and Thai speakers, not consistent in how they matched odour to colours > may be down to statistical power (small sample size) but perhaps it is their hunter-gatherer culture that is responsible, not language use solely (with descriptions of ethnobiographical data rich in hunter-gatherers and use odour in plant and animal identification; Majid, 2021)
Speed et al (2023)
Interference paradigm to prevent verbalisation of odours during odour-colour matching task on Dutch pps, and showed that, even when ensuring performance accuracy on verbal interference task was low (ensuring it was disrupting verbal processing; Alvarez, 2012), verbal interference seemed to not disrupt consistent odour-colour associations (which were attributed to source; de Valk et al., 2017)
Used same interference task as Winawer et al (2007) which successfully showed elimination of effects of online language effects on colour perception
Suggests that although colour associations related to semantic factors, not generated by recruiting odour labels in the moment > consistent with claim that experience with language of source-descriptors for smell may make colour-odour associations more salient (language as spotlight; Wolff & Holmes, 2010)
Odour-Colour Associations in Development
Goubet et al (2018) shows colour-odour associations observed throughout development, suggesting they are down to experience (done in source-descriptor speakers)
Speed et al (2021) showed children of very young age in source-descriptor languages did not show a consistent odour-colour association attributed to source of colour, but present in adults
Supports language as spotlight (Wolff & Holmes, 2010)
Odour-Colour Associations Down to Language?
Analogous evidence in odour naming data that shows progression of ideas from it being culture that explains cross-cultural variations (Majid & Kruspe, 2018) to showing it is indeed language (Kruspe & Majid, 2022)
Language seems to act as spotlight, and developmental evidence, but perhaps mediated by cultural practices or subsistence also in development, explaining fine-grained distinctions as seen in de Valk et al (2017) between Maniq and Thai
