CC BY
12
Научни трудове на Съюза на учените в България - Пловдив. Серия A. Обществени науки, изкуство и култура. Том V, ISSN 1311-9400 (Print); ISSN 25349368 (Online), 2019, Scientific works of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria - Plovdiv. Series А. Public sciences, art and culture. Vol. V, ISSN 1311-9400 (Print); ISSN 25349368 (Online), 2019
ОБРАЗУВАНЕ НА ДЕКРИПТОРИ ЗА ХРАНИ И НАПИТКИ: ТРАПЕЗА С БИРА И СИРЕНА Цвета Луизова-Хорева1, Благой Айвазов2 Университет по хранителни технологии - Пловдив 2Медицински университет - Пловдив
FORMATION OFFOOD ANDDRINK DESCRIPTORS: A BEER AND CHEESE PARTY Asveta Luizova-Horeva1, Blagoy Ayvazov2 University R Fead TechnologiA, plovdie 2МеШса1 University, Plovdiv
Abstract: The terms used in the description of food and drink products are related to different areas of human knowledge and experience. Structural, functional and semantic classification of these descriptors will be offered. Special emphasis will be placed on the concepts involved in their formation.
Key words: term formation, food descriptors, frame semantics, concept, metaphor, image schema
I. Introduction
Beer is often regarded in connection with the earth, its colours being a reflection of the different seasons which mark the progress from the dark soil to the golden harvest. Cheese is made all over the world, and while the taste of its main raw material, milk, is the same, cheese comes in an infinite variety of tastes, textures and flavours. Although it is traditionally regarded in combination with wine, it makes a perfect companion for beer.
The terms used to describe beer and cheese can be grouped along various dimensions: overall appearance, colour, texture, nationality, taste, flavour (mainly as a combination of taste, smell and mouthfeel), smell, shape, composition, and technology for their production. A wide range of concepts from different domains of human experience are involved in their semantics. The meaning of terms is constructed on a semantic and conceptual level, the terminological component being contributed by the function of these units in specialised discourse. Terms in different areas of knowledge have been the focus of a number of recent studies (Dagnev 2018, Dagnev, Saykova 2015, Choroleeva 2014, inter alia).
Food descriptors can be classified with regard to their structure, function or semantics. In this paper, emphasis will be placed on their semantic analysis, which will be approached from the standpoint of Frame Semantics (e.g. Fillmore 1985, Barsalou 1992). A frame includes concepts of different ranking. A co-occurring set of attributes constitutes its core, an attribute being "a concept that describes an aspect of at least some category members" (Barsalou 1992, 30). The subordinate concepts of an attribute which inherit information from it but also contain additional information that makes the respective attribute more specific are referred to as its "values".
II. Material
For the purpose of the present study, a mini-corpus of beer and cheese terms was compiled. The sources included specialised dictionaries, encyclopaedias and learning materials in the area of food science and beverage technology. The analysis has been based on the methodological and theoretical framework built up of the main ideas of Frame Semantics.
III. Structural classification
Terminological concepts surface as either simplex words or longer units. The beer and cheese descriptors constitute constructions of varying nature and complexity.
1. Adjectives
• simplex adjectives: supple, dry
• suffixed adjectives: crumbly, crystalline
• affixoids plus adjectives: semi-soft; semi-hard
• compound adjectives: golden-brown, brownish-yellow
2. Participles
• past participles: aged, blended
• present participles: engaging
3. Nouns
• simplex nouns: whey, rice, lager, ale
• nouns in the possessive form: goat's, cow's
4. Multicomponent descriptors
• noun phrases: monastery-style, white-mould;
• adjective-noun phrases: dry-rind, ripe pineapple, raw onion;
• participle-noun phrases: washed-rind, mouth-watering; smear-ripened;
• multicomponent adjectives: pink-and-white, oily-yet-dry, close-textured.
IV. Functional classification
The basis of the functional classification of beer and cheese descriptors is the function that they perform with regard to the main concept they are related to:
1. Classificatory:
a) names: cheese: Camembert; beer: Bock
b) colour-related: cheese: bluelwhitelgreen; beer: light/dark
c) technology-related: cheese: aged, blended, smear-ripened; beer: lagerl bitter/ale l stout; fresh
d) texture-related: cheese: hard semi-hard semi-soft soft
2. Specifying: golden-brown; dry-rind
3. Expressive: mouth-watering, supple; engaging
4. Comparative: chalky, flaky, stringy, rubbery.
V. Semantic classification
Linguistic expressions are generally related to either of two types of conceptual categories: things or relations (Langacker 2008: 67). Beer and cheese are both conceptualised as physical objects, hence these concepts belong to the things category. The frames structuring them include the concepts of material, location, overall appearance, colour, shape, composition, and function. When objects are intended to be used as food, they are conceptualised as products and concepts such as source, production method or technology, taste, flavour, smell, texture and body will also feature in their frames. The semantic prototypes of nouns and verbs determine the salience of the relations in the respective frames and the selection of elements which surface in a linguistic expression. Some of the verb-related concepts can be described through semantic roles, such as Agent, Patient, Instrument, Experiencer, etc. (Langacker 2008: 356).
1. Intra-frame relations
Several groups of adjectival descriptors, which provide access to relational, non-processual concepts result from the relation between the object concept and one of its attributes.
a) Product - Overall Appearance: supple, white, shiny, attractive, luscious, rustic-
looking;
b) Product - Colour: when the descriptors which originate on the basis of this relation are straightforward (brown, red, white, yellow, blue, green, orange, pink and white cheese), they usually serve a classificatory purpose. More often, however, they are arranged along a scale and have a specifying function: cheese: blue-grey, golden orange, bright orange, orange-brown, golden yellow; brownish-yellow; pale white, pale yellow; beer: golden, dark; white, pale, black, deep brown, golden-bronze;
c) Product - Texture: this attribute is more salient in the frame of the cheese concept (compact, dense, dry, soft, smooth, flexible, brittle, fine, rich) than in the beer concept (smooth, firm). A scale is implied with some of these terms: soft, semi-soft, hard, semi-hard. Others are parts of an opposition pair: firm vs granular, fresh firm vs fresh soft, elastic vs brittle. Individual multicomponent terms also result from this type of intraframe interaction, externalising both the attribute ((Texture)) and its values (((close))), (((fine))), (((firm))): close-textured, fine-textured, firm-textured. Regardless of the past participle in the construction, no action concept is activated.
d) Product - Taste: cheese: salty, sour, sweet; bittersweet, lactic, refreshing, savoury, tangy, subtle, powerful, piquant; tender, fresh, delicate, sophisticated; beer: dry, sweetish, sweet-and-sour. Similarly to the construction rustic-looking above, the present participle in bitter-tasting and strong-tasting externalises the relation between an attribute of the main concept and its value/s rather than highlight the action concept.
e) Product - Flavour: aromatic, mild, pungent, mellow, rich, complex;
f) Product - Smell: strong, pleasant;
g) Product - Body: this attribute is mainly in the frame of the beer concept: light, rich, firm-bodied, full-bodied;
h) Product - Strength: all descriptors in this subgroup refer to the beer concept and imply an arrangement along a scale of intensity: powerful, strong, extra-potent, mild, extra-strong.
i) Product - Location: the (Location) attribute may refer broadly to the location of the product's origin, or to the specific location of its manufacture. In the first case, the descriptor will be a nationality adjective: American cheese, and in the second case, a modifier noun: countryside cheese, abbey beer.
2. Inter-frame relations
The descriptors in this group result from the interaction of the frames of two different objects, or of an object and an action.
a) Object — Object frame interaction
• Product - Source: a particularly salient relation in the terms used in food science is that between the product and its source. The source concept is generally expressed through the modifier in N+N compound nouns: whey cheese, goat's cheese, cherry beer.
Some descriptors externalise the relation between the primary object concept (i.e. beer or cheese) and a secondary object concept which acts as a reference point for description or comparison, the comparative function being predominant in all subgroups:
• Product - Overall Appearance: cheese: velvety ; beer: cloudy ;
• Product - Taste: cheese: acidic; creamy, milky, lemony, grassy, leathery, earthy, peppery, savoury, farm-yardy, country, smoky, meaty, herbaceous, citrus, ripe pineapple, onion, raw onion, almond, almondy, woody, smokey bacon; beer: spicy, hoppy, bitter-chocolate, malty;
• Product - Texture: although there are several descriptive adjectives in this subgroup (crumbly, crystalline), most of them again highlight the relation between the two objects from a comparative point of view: stringy, chalky, flaky, fluffy, rubbery, mousse-like, silky, velvety;
• Product - Flavour: lemony fresh, nutty, floral, fruity, caramel-like, yeasty, goaty,
vegetal;
• Product - Colour: cheese: stark white, butter-yellow, creamy yellow, ivory-yellow (yellow is a salient cheese colour), glossy pale straw; beer: copper-coloured; reddish amber, pitch-black;
• Product - Shape: only with the cheese concept: barrel-shaped;
• Product - Smell: mushroomy, roast lamb, wet wool, herby, mouldy, forest, countryside;
• Product - Composition: buttery, creamy, grainy, gritty, oily, oily-yet-dry, low-acid. b) Object — Action frame interaction
The descriptors in this group result from the interaction of the frame structuring the main concept (beer and cheese, respectively) and an Action frame. They activate the general action concept providing indirect access to some of the participant roles in its frame, i.e. Agent, Instrument, and Object. Since the two frames are of different kinds, their interrelation leads to the formation of a conceptual core. They vary in structure from single-component to bi- and multi-component terms.
• Simple interaction:
o the Agent role: the descriptors in this group place the beer and cheese concepts in the Agent role of the Action: cheese: runny, spreadable, lingering, engaging, springy, sticky; beer: warming, parching.
o the Object role: The head noun highlights the Object role in the Action frame: chewy, crunchy, honeyed, blended, smoked, pressed, re-formed, caramelised, sliceable, stretchy. The Agent of the Action remains in the background.
• Complex interaction:
Some bi- and multi-component terms activate a whole scenario by simultaneously externalising more than one role in the Action frame:
o (Agent) - Action - Object: tongue-tingling (cheese), mouth-watering (cheese); o (Agent) - Action - Location: melt-in-the-mouth (cheese); o (Agent) - Action - Manner: slow-burning (cheese), well-matured (cheese); o (Agent) - Action - Location: top-fermenting (beer), bottom-fermenting (beer); o (Object) - Action - Location: bottle-conditioned (beer),
o Instrument - (Action)Result - (Object) relation: smear-ripened (cheese), mould-ripened (cheese);
o Object - (Action)Result - (Object) relation: flavour-added (cheese), washed-rind
(cheese). 3. Metaphor
Metaphor-based terms are of special interest due to the fact that the metaphorical interpretation of individual components depends on the interpretation of the whole construction. Metaphor can be regarded as the mapping of one concept (the source) onto another (the target) via linguistic units and structures (Pencheva 2001: 229). The highlighting of a particular attribute, or attributes, in the frame of the target concept results in the emergence of a metaphor-based term. In cheese and beer terms, metaphor may act either on the descriptor itself, or on the head noun concept.
a) Metaphor acting on the modifier
• the Shape attribute: brick cheese
• the Colour attribute: ivory cheese; straw cheese, pale straw cheese
• Personification: blue vein cheese, young cheese, rich/wickedly rich cheese, bold cheese.
b) Metaphor acting on the head noun
Both beer and cheese concepts may be structured metaphorically. The similarity in consistency and technology has led to the emergence of the terms head cheese/blood head cheese (a kind of terrine or meat jelly), and birch beer, ginger ale (carbonated non-alcoholic drinks).
4. Image schemas
Image schemas are schematic structures that constantly operate in our perceptions, our movements in space and the handling of objects (Johnson, 1987). In line with the LCCM postulates, abstract image-schematic concepts give rise to more specific lexical concepts, and the latter are externalised through lexical forms (Evans and Green, 2006: 180).
The concepts container and content are associated with the containment schema (Evans and Green 2006: 190), which underlies the semantics of composition-related descriptors: buttery, creamy, grainy, gritty, oily, open, white mould, dry rind cheese. Though image schemas are related to all kinds of perceptual experience, a large number of them result from data obtained through sight and touch, or a combination of the two. On this basis, Y. Popova considers verbal synaesthesia as the linguistic reflection of some cross-modal transfers of properties typical of perceptual synaesthesia (Popova, 2005). The terms sharp taste, strong taste, sharply acidic, warm flavour, mellow flavour are based on synaesthetic metaphors.
VI. Conclusion
The descriptors used in the area of food science, as illustrated by the beer and cheese terms, emerge as a result of different types of frame interaction. Most frequently, they foreground the relation between an attribute of the main concept and its value/s. They can also be the product of a relation between the frames of two or more concepts of the same or different types. Image schemas and conceptual metaphors are often involved in the structuring of their semantics.
References
Barsalou, L. 1992. Frames, concepts and conceptual fields. // Frames, Fields and Contrasts. New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. A. Lehrer, E. Kittay (eds.) Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher: 21 - 74.
Choroleeva K. 2014. Term formation via blending. // Scientific Works of the UFT Plovdiv, volume LXI: 960 - 963.
Dagnev Iv. 2018. Metaphors and Shells in Anatomy: Bulgarian-English Cross-Linguistic Study. Scholars' Press, OmniScriptum Publishing Group.
Dagnev Iv., M Saykova, M.Yaneva. 2015. Source domains for metaphors: a comparative study of Bulgarian and English anatomy. // KNOWLEDGE International Journal, Vol 11/1, 330 -332.
Evans, V., M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd..
Fillmore, Ch. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. // Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222 -
254.
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pencheva, M. 2001. Man in Language. Language in Man (in Bulgarian). Sofia: St Kliment Ohridski Publishing House.
Popova, Y. 2005. Image schemas and verbal synaesthesia. // From Perception to Meaning: Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics. B. Hampe (ed.), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 395 - 420.
