The Shared Mechanism

After having discussed the major findings and issues of the present thesis, we should first bear in mind that whether it is an ontological metaphor, a structure metaphor, or a synesthetic metaphor, each one of the aforementioned metaphors is within the categorization of conceptual metaphors because they all involve the mappings of distinctive domains from concreteness or being perceptually more comprehensible to abstractness in accordance with the relations among the inter-components of the ICM (Lakoff, 1987a).

Definition Basis

Furthermore, the basic difference between structure metaphors and synesthetic metaphors is that the former concerns the mappings between cognitive concepts, whereas the latter focuses on the comparably perceptual level of mappings between the human senses. Most importantly,

there is no hierarchical relation or correlated dependency between the two types. In sum, they are both conceptual metaphors with different standards of categorization, based on separate properties of the domains onto which they are mapped.

Synesthetic Metaphor

In the present study, the crossmodal metaphors featuring interactions across TOUCH, SIGHT,

TASTE,and SMELL are regarded as synesthetic metaphors. Although synesthetic metaphors, such as the ACIDITY IS LIGHT metaphor, lack actual pH indices and scientific numbers or data, they are perceptually more comprehensible due to their perceived relativities.

Moreover, two tendencies proposed by Williams are proved to be present. First is that the properties possessed by the lower senses tend to serve the source domain, whereas the properties of the higher senses tend to serve the target domain. Second, the lowest sensation (i.e., TOUCH) is the predominant source in terms of the accessibility of crossmodal transfers.

A modified directionality of crossmodal mappings in describing flavors is thereafter proposed in the present study to gain a precise understanding of the crossmodal interactions of flavor expressions.

As shown in Figure 5.2, flavor is believed to be the combined percept of SMELL and

TASTE, not a subtype sense. We then divide the perceptions into four categories according to the proximity between scientific receptors and linguistic expressions instead of into five categories according to the basic senses.

A distinctive sense, THALPOSIS,is proposed and categorized with TACTILITY due to their identical receptors of sensations on the skin; however, they differ in ways of stimulation. Last but not least, due to their simultaneous stimulation during the act of eating and drinking, and

their mixed expression in language, smell and taste are included in the same category.

Synesthetic Metonymy

Following the definition of synesthetic metonymization by Paradis and Eeg-Olofsson (2013), we find that the crossmodal metonymies present in our data are simply the results of zone activation. By “foregrounding” a certain aspect from the property denotation in the context

of flavor expressions can a lexicon shift its perceptual aspect to SMELL or TASTE, corresponding to the perception in the target domain.

According to the idea that “language is a representation of human embodiment” from CMT (Kövecses, 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Yu, 2008), it is obvious that the intensity of smell and taste perceptions is metaphorized by the intensity modifiers evoking the other perceptions. We thus come to the conclusion laid out in Chapter 5 that the innate conceptual metaphor of MORE IS HEAVY or MORE IS THICK is actually embedded in synesthetic metonymies, allowing the accessibility of shifting aspects.

Synesthetic Simile

The crossmodal mappings of flavor expressions present imagined scenarios through the extra cognitive resource of associating. In expressions of synesthetic similes, many perceptions are gathered and recalled from conceptions (i.e., property, event, or subject) during the description of smell and taste. However, the crossmodal interactions are rather vague and ambiguous, and are displayed as a single scenario rather than directly correspondent mappings of perceptions.

The present study states that mainly two pathways of both human cognition and emotion

are involved in synesthetic associating, and construct a unified percept of flavor, namely, the synchronic pathway of simultaneously occurring feelings during tasting, and the adjacent pathway of preceding or consequent feelings such as expectations and emotions.

The study also shows that it is the action of perspective taking that decides the orientation of crossmodal mappings in the synesthetic association of flavor descriptions. In truth, the comprehension of crossmodal similes typically requires narrative empathy from the audience to understand both cognitive and perceptive contents and feel the speakers’

emotions. Narrative empathy, proposed by Keen (2006) as a term representing the sharing of feelings and perspective taking induced by reading or hearing the narratives of another’s situation and condition, seems to serve as a mediator between speakers and listeners, allowing listeners to take on certain perspectives to understand identical contexts in this way.

In short, Table 7.1 lists the categorization of crossmodal (or synesthetic) metaphorical strategies. Compared with the fixed expressions of synesthetic metonymies and relatively connected formations of synesthetic metaphors, the synesthetic simile remains dynamic in interpreting multiple and different perceptual views to facilitate the experience of landscapes present in flavor expressions. In fact, besides synesthetic association, which relies dominantly on narrative empathy, in order to facilitate the crossmodal mappings in flavor expressions, empathetic experience in appreciating flavors is a necessary procedure.