Frame-based analysisof synesthetic metaphors in PolishMagdalena ZawisławskaMarta FalkowskaUniversity of Warsaw

SYNAMETMicrocorpus of Synaesthetic Metaphors. Towards a Formal Description and Efficient Methods of Analysis of Metaphors in Discourse. UMO/2014/15/B/HS2/00182, financed by the Polish National Science Centre.

Magdalena Zawisławska

(principal investigator)

Marta Falkowska (investigator)

Maciej Ogrodniczuk (investigator)

Marta Chojnacka-Kuraś (annotator)

Jakub Kozakoszczak (annotator)

THE TEAM

What is a synesthetic metaphor?

A metaphor is synesthetic only when at least one of domains pertains to perception (visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, or gustatory). If one of the domains does not evoke perception, we can talk of a weak synesthetic metaphor. If both the source and the target domain evoke perception, we deal with a strong synesthetic metaphor. (cf. Werning, Fleischhauer, Beşeoğlu 2006)

Sources of the corpusTexts excerpted from blogs devoted to perfume (SMELL), wine, beer, cigars, Yerba Mate, tea, or coffee (TASTE, SMELL, VISION), as well as culinary blogs (TASTE, VISION), music blogs (HEARING), art blogs (VISION), massage and wellness blogs (TOUCH).

The method of analysis—frame semantics

Meaning of lexical units, phrases, grammatical and syntactic constructions resides in frames – schematic phenomena, such as our beliefs, experiences or typical actions. (cf. Fillmore 1982).

Metaphorization process is seen as frame shifting. i.e. a „semantic reanalysis process that reorganizes existing information into a new frame.” (Coulson, 2001).

DO

MAI

NConcept is specified with respect to several domains (Langacker).Emphasis on the human conceptual system – focus on thought not language (Lakoff).Internal structure of a domain is unclear.

FRAM

EConcept is specified with respect to one frame. Integration of u-knowledge and grammar in analysis – focus on thought and language. Organized structure with hierarchic slots filled by specific values.

cf. (Ziem, 2014: 25), (Steen, 2013: 30).

amber chord (of perfumes)

amber

FRAME SMELLElement:

component of a sensation

chordFRAME

HEARINGElement: a

combination of tones

Frames in Synamet

Utilization of the studies devoted to various aspects of perception: seeing (Dobaczewski 2002, Zawisławska 2004, Zielińska 2011, Dyszak 1999, 2010, Tokarski 2004), hearing (Żurowski 2012, Kładoczny 2012), smell (Bugajski 2004, Badyda 2013), touch (Bronikowska 2007) and taste (Mitrenga 2009, 2010, 2011).

First attempt

SMELL

PARTICIPANTS

SUBJECT OF PERCEPTION

QUASI_INSTUMENT TARGET OBJECT OF

PERCEPTION

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVE VALUE

NEGATIVE VALUE

ACTIVE OBJECT OF PERCEPTION

NEUTRAL VALUE

NEGATIVE VALUE

PASSIVE OBJECT OF PERCEPTION

RELATIONS

SENSATION

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVE VALUE

NEGATIVE VALUE

Results:• frames too detailed, • too abstract, • too meny irrelevant

elements,• not enough elaborated in

some essential aspects.

New, improved frames• Frames are understood as an analytical tool not as

real conceptual knowledge units. • They are derived from lingusitic data therefore they

are not universal. • Frames are not closed—annotators can propose a

new frame or a new element in the existing frame if they need it for metaphor analysis.• Frames are shallow and flat due to the limitation of

the corpus annotation tool.• Every frame element is marked with a typical lexical

example.

SUBJECT OF PERCEPTION

AGENT (perfume maker)

ORGAN OF PERCEPTION(nose/smell)

OBJECT OF PERCEPTION (perfumes)

MAIN OLFACTORY SENSATION • NEUTRAL VALUE (scentless)

• POSITIVE VALUE (aroma)

• NEGATIVE VALUE (stink)

SECONDARY OLFACTORY SENSATION

TYPE OF SENSATION

(jasmin)

SENSATION COMPONENT (essential oil)

LOCATION (perfumery)

AGENT ACTION (to create perfumes)

SUBJECT ACTIONS• looking for smell (to scent)

• checking smell (to smell)

STATE OF OBJECT• giving off smell• permeating a place with smell

• changing smell (to be pervaded with a stench)

Number of frames in SynametFRAME TYPE

NUMBER

PERCEPTUAL

6 (VISION, HEARING, TOUCH, SMELL, TASTE, MULTIMODAL PERCEPTION)

NON-PERCEPTUAL

48 (e.g. MAN, ANIMAL, PLANT, ELEMENTS, MACHINE, WEATHER, UNIVERSE, SPORT, INDUSTRY, ART, LANGUAGE, ARMY ect.)

ATOSThe Annotation TOol

for Synamet

Main attributes of a metaphor

• Text phrase: tannin smooth.

• Full phrase (non-elliptical): tannin is smooth.

• Referent: *taste.• Phrase type: nominal predicate.

• Strength: strong. • Category: simple synesthesia.

• Semantic head of the phrase: tannin.

Frames description The source frame• Phrase element: smooth.• Frame: TOUCH.• Frame element: texture.• Frame evoking expression:

smooth.• Part of speech: adjective.

The target frame• Phrase element: tannin.• Frame: TASTE.• Frame element: taste component.• Frame evoking expression: tannin.• Part of speech: noun.

Problematic metaphorsARE ALL MATEPHORS ALWAYS DUAL ENTIETES?

Ta płyta to mroczna podróż przez 20 utworów.This record is a dark journey through 20

songs.płytato

mroczna podróż

płytato

mroczna podróż

SYNTAX SEMANTICS

HEARING• (music on the

record)• (20 songs)

JOURNEY VISION (dark)

SOURCE FRAME 1 THE „MEDIATOR” SOURCE FRAME

2

TARGET FRAME

nuta sercathe heart note

nuta

serca

nuta (note)(zapachu/scent)

serca (heart)

SYNTAX SEMANTICS

HEARING (note)

HUMAN BODY

(heart)

[SMELL]• (scent

element)• (scent

intensity)

SOURCE FRAME 1 THE MEDIATOR

TARGET FRAMESOURCE FRAME 2

References Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction.

Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Diedrich, C. (2015). Sensory Adjectives in the Discourse of Food. A frame-semantics approach to language

and perception. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul, South

Korea: Hanshin Publishing Co. Sullivan, K. (2014). Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company. Steen, G. (2013). The contemporary theory of metaphor—now new and improved! In F. Gonzálvez-García,

M.S. Pena Cervel, L. Pérez Hernández (Ed.), Metaphor and Metonymy revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor (pp.27-66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Werning, M., Fleischhauer, J., & Beseoglu, H. (2006). The Cognitive Accessibility of Synaesthetic Metaphors. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2365–2370). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ziem, A. (2014). Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse. Theoretical foundation and decriptive applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.Magdalena Zawisławskazawisla@uw.edu.plMarta Falkowskam.falkowska@uw.edu.pl

SYNAMEThttp://synamet.uw.edu.pl/