Magdalena Zawisławska, Mara Falkowska, Frame-based analysis of synesthetic metaphors in Polish, 6th UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, School of Linguistics and English Language at Bangor University, Bangor, 19-22.07.2016.

1. Frame-based
analysis
of synesthetic
metaphors
in Polish
Magdalena Zawisławska
Marta Falkowska
University of Warsaw

2. SYNAMET
Microcorpus 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.

3. Magdalena Zawisławska
(principal investigator)
Marta Falkowska
(investigator)
Maciej Ogrodniczuk
(investigator)
Marta Chojnacka-Kuraś
(annotator)
Jakub Kozakoszczak
(annotator)
THE
TEAM

4. 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)

5. Sources of the
corpus
Texts 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).

6. 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).

7. DOMAIN Concept 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.
FRAME
Concept 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).

8. amber chord (of perfumes)
amber
FRAME SMELL
Element: component of a
sensation
chord
FRAME HEARING
Element: a combination of tones

9. Frames in
Synamet

10. 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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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)

14. Number of frames in Synamet
FRAME 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.)

15. ATOS
The Annotation TOol
for Synamet

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Problematic
metaphors
ARE ALL MATEPHORS
ALWAYS DUAL ENTIETES?

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

20. HEARING
• (music on the record)
• (20 songs)
JOURNEY VISION (dark)
SOURCE FRAME 1
THE „MEDIATOR”
SOURCE FRAME 2
TARGET FRAME

21. nuta serca
the heart note
nuta
serca
nuta (note)
(zapachu/scent)
serca (heart)
SYNTAX SEMANTICS

22. HEARING (note)
HUMAN BODY
(heart)
[SMELL]
• (scent element)
• (scent intensity)
SOURCE FRAME 1
THE MEDIATOR
TARGET FRAMESOURCE FRAME 2

23.  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.

24.  Magdalena Zawisławska
zawisla@uw.edu.pl
 Marta Falkowska
m.falkowska@uw.edu.pl
SYNAMET
http://synamet.uw.edu.pl/