CC BY
13OLFACTORY INFORMATION PROCESSING CHANNEL IN MEDICINAL PLANTS' NAMES (BASED ON GERMANIC AND WESTERN SLAVIC LANGUAGES)
DrSc., Professor Panasenko Nataliya Slovakia, Trnava, University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava
Abstract. In the medicinal plants' names, five information-processing channels (vision, touch, smell, taste and hearing) are distinctly traced as well as the stages of sensual knowledge of the world. There are four stages of human cognitive activity: receiving primary information, its processing, involving background knowledge, which has cultural specific value and final estimation. These stages and channels are interrelated. In the languages under consideration, some plants' names reflect presence / lack of smell, its intensity, evaluating component (pleasant: fragrant, sweet-scented; unpleasant: stinking, fetid, odoriferous, suffocating); complementary properties (sweet, sour); existence ofperception standard of vegetable, animal or other origin (lily of the valley, fir, rosemary, bug, goat, vinegar, lime, honey, etc.). Standards of vegetable and animal origin may have positive or negative evaluation.
Keywords: cognitive linguistics, medicinal plants' names, information-processing channels, smell, stages of human cognitive activity.
1 Introduction
Medicinal plants' (MP') names have been traditionally analyzed from semantic and structural point of view. In my research, I have combined traditional approach with onomasiological and cognitive methods. Here I present results of cognitive analysis, which reflects stages of human cognitive activity and information-processing channels, which can be found in MP's names.
The results of my research (Панасенко, 2010) show that in the vocabulary of the languages under consideration MP' names form a special layer, which has a long history of its development, somewhat looking like a particular term system united by its content. The specificity of this layer is a set of names, which are synonyms to one referent. In one language there may be more than one hundred common names belonging to different layer of the vocabulary (colloquial, dialectal, archaic, etc.) identifying the same plant (Панасенко 2007).
2 Cognitive linguistics, designation and perception modi
Cognitive science or cogitology has resulted from the studies undertaken by philosophers, psychologists, physiologists, mathematicians and linguists whose objective was to establish how there goes the process of perception of the information, its processing, storage, transformation and structuring.
Cognitive linguistics takes interest in all the displays of human speech and language behaviour (the communicative act, writing, reading, and translation). The person has verbal and nonverbal knowledge received by sensory and communicative channels. Verbalized knowledge forms the linguistic worldview and is the research object of cognitive linguistics.
Human perceptive and designation activities are closely interconnected. We derive it from the fact that object names, especially referential ones, include in their nominative content not only concepts, but also elements of a sensual stage of knowledge: visual, acoustic and spatial concepts of things and subject matters (Языковая номинация, 1977: 16).
The analysis of language units from the positions of cognitive linguistics assumes not only revealing ways of verbalized information storage. We may also speak about the stages of human cognitive activity and information-processing channels, which are reflected in our language material.
It is well-known that feelings, perceptions, representations and concepts are person's source of knowledge about the world around. As Ludmila Lesceva claims (1994: 51), the part of knowledge is formed by daily experience as a result of direct interaction with environment on the basis of feelings (heat - cold); part of knowledge is acquired on the basis of more difficult cognitive process -perception, which gives the information about subject properties in its direct impact on sense organs.
Perception modi has many a time been in the focus of research conducted not only by linguists, but by psychologists, anthropologists, and ethnographers. We may speak about different approaches to perception modi study: those, which have general character and touch upon many perception problems (Ананьев, 1961; Плужников, Рязанцев, 1994; Рузин, 1994; Sensory
communication 1961); physiological (Doty et al., 2006); psychological (Bartram 1974; Lederman 1979; Paivio, Begg 1981; Snyder, 1972) and linguistic ones (naHaceHKO, 2010; Panasenko 2012). Studies carried out by scholars from different schools make their contribution into the nature of human visual, tactual, olfactory and other sensations, at that very often taste and smell are analyzed simultaneously, as the whole (Barrett et al. 2010; Beidler, 1961; Doty, 2015). Studies highlighting only smell, which is object of my research will be presented below.
3 Information procession channels
My aim is to show how knowledge obtained via sensory perception channels is reflected in the language, namely in Germanic (German and English) and Western Slavic languages (Polish, Czech and Slovak) in the form of nouns, i.e., bases, or attributes, i.e. features. Some MPs' names reflect the source of their designation, as it comes from my study, information-processing channels (vision, touch, smell, taste and hearing). I tried to clear out what interrelation between bases and features and perception modi exists. In different languages, the frequency of these channels varies, but the priority belongs to vision, which allows to describe the outlook of the plant and to localize it in space. I am also concerned with different features established in the course of the onomasiological analysis, which have been received by the visual, olfactory, tactile, gustatory and acoustical channels; in what language in MPs' names this or that channel is most important.
As I have already mentioned, vision occupies priority position in all the languages under considerations. Thanks to vision we can describe such plant's properties, as size (large/ small), shape: (usual / unusual, resembling known object, resembling known plant, connected with known phenomenon); colour (monochromatics / colour combinations; intensity - light / dark); place of growing (wood, field, mountain, sea); time of blossoming, time of collection, etc. Thanks to smell we can identify plant's fragrance (presence/ absence; pleasant / unpleasant). Thanks to touch it is possible to examine the texture of the whole plant or its part - leaf, trunk, root, etc. (smooth / rough / thorny / velvet). Thanks to taste we can find out if the plant or its part is bitter / sweet / sour / salty. We have few examples connected with hearing because of the specificity or our language material, e.g.: Russian Пискмец /to squeak + suff./ -Pheasant's eye (Adonis vernalis L.); W,еnкунец /to click + suff./ - Greater celandine (Chelidonium majus L.); Czech /to squeak + suff./ - Sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.).
4 Smells and olfactory channel
Now I will highlight smell, which is the object of my research. Olfactory channel is very important. I want to mention that at the 13th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference in Newcastle-upon-Tyne (July 2015) there was a special theme session under the title "What a study of smell can tell cognitive linguistics". We are surrounded by the world of smells. Some smells cause pleasant associations (the smell of the sea, favourite flowers or perfumes). Other smells are associated with danger (smell of smoke, gas, gunpowder). According to the experts, out of all the feelings sense of smell is the most sensitive, quicker transferring an external signal to the brain (Epyg, KoHona^aa, 1996: 10).
The studies conducted by scientists from different countries contribute to understanding of the nature of human olfactory feelings. We may classify papers and studies as those, which are of general character (Cain, 1979) and those, which mainly concentrate their attention on physiology of smell (Stevenson, 2010; Vries, Stuiver 1961); on olfactory perception (Chen, Dalton 2005; Desor, Beauchamp 1974; Jonsson, Olsson, 2012); present results of various psychological experiments (Engen, Ross 1973; Ferdenzi et al., 2008; Jonsson, Stevenson, 2014; Karnekull et al., 2015). Linguistic studies of smell, connected with its naming are less numerous and in some cases they are very closely connected with psycholinguistics (Jonsson, Olsson, 2005; .HaeHKO, 2001; HaeHKO, 2002; naHaceHKO, 1998).
The history of animals' evolution, primitive people's experience and development of a civilization convincingly show that the feeling of smell was, and in many cases even now is an initial source of information. Nowadays it has been established that sense of smell plays huge role in life of many animals - from insects to mammals. However, being a part of nature, people cannot stand away from its laws of development. Possibly, such a way of information transfer is inherent also in the person, though felt unconsciously (KopnaneB, 1989: 102-103).
The modern civilization does not demand from us anymore the use of sense of smell in that volume, in which it was necessary for animals and the primitive person to survive. However, the person still reacts to new or familiar smells, tries to distinguish or remember them (Karnekull et al. 2015). It is interesting that sharpness of the human sense of smell dies away approximately in 15 minutes after the contact with odorous substance, however, influence of this substance lasts long enough (flygneHKO, 1997: 6). This phenomenon is the cornerstone of the ancient and revived nowadays direction of nontraditional medicine - aromatherapy.
As it is established by experts, smell is closely connected with taste (Beidler 1961) and when we speak about "sweet" or "sour" we must specify what we mean by this: we use either our olfactory or gustatory sensations (Лаенко, 2001).
Boris Ananyev has in detail described general olfactory features, among them there are such as quality, concreteness, intensity, duration and spatial definiteness. The quality of olfactory sensation reflects individual originality of a chemical compound. If we take intensity of smell into account, it can be very strong, moderate and weak (Ананьев, 1961: 356).
Ludmila Layenko (2002) takes into account such olfactory properties, as their evaluative features, quality, strength (intensity), stability, concentration, recognizability of smell, etc. My analysis of phytonymic lexicon is mainly based on these approaches and some others. In spite of the fact that the common olfactory features (sweet, bitter, sour, etc.) are rather unanimously described, the standard classification of smells does not exist.
Smells are capable to make powerful emotional and mental impact on the person. In relation to olfactory feelings it is important to mark more expressed sensual tone of these feelings consisting in experience of pleasure or displeasure at feeling "pleasant" (aromatic) and "unpleasant" (sickening) smells (Ананьев, 1961: 356). Pleasant smells promote health improvement of the person, and unpleasant can have the oppressing impact; cause various negative reactions (nausea, vomiting, lacrimation, rhinitis, disgust for food, etc.).
However, unlike taste, the majority of attributes of smell have no single standard: it is difficult to choose a standard for stinking, fragrant, resistant smells (Рузин, 1994). There are also difficulties at reference of smell to the category of the pleasant and unpleasant because of the subjective factor. For example, phytotherapists attribute smells of rose and bergamot to pleasant ones, and call smells of an acetic acid, ammonia, decay, etc. unpleasant ones (Дудченко, 1997: 7). At the same time, the smell of mint, mushrooms, and chrysanthemums very often causes negative reaction, and the smell of cinnamon has its supporters and opponents (Панасенко, 2010: 299).
Properties conjugated with the smell are typical of olfactory sensations of a number of various smells, such as the pricking and hot smells, warm or cold, sweet or sour, etc. (Ананьев, 1961:356).
Availability of essential oils and phytoncides plays large role in vital activity of plants. For insects and animals the smell of plants is connected with searches of food, and, therefore, with survival. For a person the presence of a specific smell in a plant helps with its identification or facilitates its collecting if it is carried out not at a daytime. Besides, the smell of many plants is intensified in the evening, at night, during a thunder-storm and so forth and this fact finds the reflection in the plants' names.
For the lack of the acceptable common classification of smells, in the analysis of olfactory attributes in phytonym's semantics we will be guided by the following principles: to take into account presence / lack of smell, its intensity, evaluating component (pleasant: fragrant, sweet-scented; unpleasant: stinking, fetid, odoriferous, suffocating); complementary properties (sweet, sour); existence of perception standard of vegetable, animal or other origin (lily of the valley, fir, rosemary, bed-bug, goat, vinegar, lime, honey, etc.).
5 Language material
Now let us have a look at some examples in the languages under consideration. First, I would like to say a few words about my language material. The study of phytonymic lexicon had several stages. The first stage was structural analysis. The next stage was onomasiological analysis with its further cognitive interpretation. As far as I have a vast corpus of examples, I use definite principle of their presentation. While processing different plants' names I differentiate between botanical names (which I give in Latin), literary names, usually included into dictionaries and familiar to many people, like Lilac or Lily-of the-valley and common (folk) names. To show the difference between them I mark all the examples, which are in italics, with "lit." for literary names; the rest of examples are common ones, which prevail. Each example is accompanied by its translation into English in angle brackets and by the scientific botanical name of the plant in round brackets, e.g. Czech lit. Horec zluty /yellow mountain dweller/ - Yellow gentian (Gentiana lutea L.). Translation may also include full or abridged comments: contorted, dial. - dialectical, arch. -archaic, etc. I also divide all the plants names into two large groups: I differentiate herbaceous medicinal plants (HMP) and medicinal plants-shrubs (MPSh).
6 The stages of human cognitive activity
The analysis of language units from cognitive linguistics positions assumes not only identification of ways of verbalized information storage. The stages of sensual knowledge of the world are also reflected in language. Results of my research (Panasenko, 2011; 2012) show that in phytonyms' semantics information-processing channels are vividly reflected as well as concomitant to
them four stages of its processing, related to the perceptible stage of cognition. In my opinion, there are universal ways of data accessing, which can be named primary. Primary information, as the reference point of human cognitive activity assumes a number of the special procedures of analysis. To describe the plant thoroughly, it is necessary to know where it grows, time and duration of its flowering, the used part, efficiency of treatment and many other things.
A person receives primary information mainly by vision at some distance from the plant, which enables one to define form, colour and size of the plant, time and flowering duration. In case the plant has specific strong smell the olfactory channel can become the basic source of its designation (Панасенко, 1998), e.g.: English Sweet scented squinacy - Woodruff (Asperula odorata L.); Russian Душица /dushitsa - smth., which has a pleasant smell/ - Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.).
The next, the second stage of human cognitive activity represents information processing. It concerns information received at a close distance or during a direct contact with the plant and further use of it. In this case, visual and olfactory channels are involved. Processing of information supposes, foremost, comparison of plants, implying discovery of likeness in a due form, original appearance, features of structure, etc., with the known objects or plants. Finally, the smell of the plant, its used part, useful and medical properties are identified in the total. The direct contact with the plant activates tactile receptors; it allows defining such physical properties of the plant, as texture of the surface (roughness, smoothness, silkiness and so forth); the use of a MP internally enables to determine its taste.
Information processing about a plant can be completed, however it may be continued, because additional information is involved. While processing information about a new MP a person usually involves background knowledge, which has cultural specific value. Actually, it is the aspect of the second stage of human cognitive activity, but because this information is very important for us, we mark it out in a separate stage, the third one, which is based not on the biologic life of the subject, but on the social one.
The fourth, the last stage of human cognitive activity is the final estimation of the MP: useful properties, its physical features, efficiency of its application, possibility of its use not only in the medical purposes, but also in everyday life and some others. This stage is complicated and important either, because on its basis a plant can be attributed to the certain class: medicinal, poisonous, edible, technical, etc.
Information processing channels are very closely connected with these stages.
I. Information about the plant received at some distance from it
Stage 1. Primary information perceiving
Channel: vision
II. Information about the plant received at an average distance from it
Stage 1. Primary information perceiving
Channel: vision
III. Information about the plant received at a short distance from it
Stage 2. Primary information processing
Channels: vision, smell
IV. Information about the plant received by the direct contact with it
Channels: touch, taste
V. Involving background knowledge, which has cultural specific value
Stage 3. Involving background knowledge
VI. Estimation (of useful properties, physical properties of the plant and efficiency of its use).
Stage 4. Final estimation
The examples I am going to present now are connected with the second stage of human cognitive activity.
7 Olfactory perception in medicinal plants' names
Thanks to onomasiological analysis, in the MPs' names, we can single out bases and features. Bases can be of two types: formal - a suffix and a lexical one. Lexical bases we divide into those, which are plants themselves or their parts and others. If we speak about smell, features, which are attributed to these bases, are connected with plant's physical properties. Very often a plant is named via another well-known plant, which is a smell standard itself, like laurel, lilac, rosemary, lily-of-the-valley, etc. To show the difference between these two plants, specifying features are attributed to the bases of such phytonyms, like features of outlook, locatives, temporal, evaluative and some others, which give possibility to state features distinguishing MP from the standard plant, compare: German Flieder - Lilac (Syringa vulgaris L.) - Schwarzer Flieder /black lilac/ - Black Elder (Sambucus nigra L.); English lit. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) - German Moorrosmarin /marsh rosemary/ -Dutch Myrtle (Ledum palustre L.), English Lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck) - Slovak Lemonka
/lemon + suff./ - Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.). In the last example we have the formal base represented by a suffix -k, to which feature of physical properties (specific smell) are attributed.
Now let us discuss how in MP's names olfactory channel is reflected. I will start with herbaceous medicinal plants (HMP).
In German, the examples below belong to the group of common ones. We can specify the following smell features:
examples with evaluating component - unpleasant smell - stinking: Stinchkraut /contorted Stinkkraut - stinking grass/ - Arnica (Arnica montana L.), evoking sneezing: Niesenkraut /contorted Nieskraut - sneezing grass/ - Common hedge hyssop (Gratiola officinalis L.), Grüne Nieswurz -Indian poke (Veratrum viride Ait.); and pleasant smell - Herzfrendeli /contorted heart joy/ - Woodruff (Asperula odorata L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: Zintalwurz /contorted cinnamon root/ - Great yellow gentian (Gentiana lutea L.); Gewürzkalmus /spice + Sweet flag/ - Sweet flag (Acorus calamus L.); of animal origin: Ziegenkraut /goat grass/ - Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum L.); the last example has negative connotation because of strong specific smell of the plant;
examples with plant's specific properties indicating smell intensity: Gelbes Mottenkraut /yellow moth grass/ - Dwarf everlast (Helichrysum arenarium (L.) Moench.) - dry flowers of this MP very often were and sometimes still are used for the decoration of the windows or walls in summer houses, but their sweet odour attracts moth.
The majority of bases name the plant itself or its part (kraut, wurz), but in Herzfrendeli the base is feeling (joy), which we consider as metaphor describing extremely positive consequence of the contact with the plant, the strong delicious smell of which evokes pleasant feelings or the state of joy.
In English, as well as in German olfactory channel is not a frequent one and all the examples in our language material belong to the group of common names. However, English examples differ from German ones, mainly thanks to their features. First of all, we have many examples reflecting complementary properties (sweet). As it is mentioned above, very often sweet smell and taste are united, but the second element in the word or the word unit shows that it is smell, like in the following examples: Sweet-scented squinacy - Woodruff (Asperula odorata L.), lit. Sweetscented bedstraw -Sweetscented bedstraw (Galium odoratum (L.) SCOP.) or Sweet smelling grass - Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: Pine root, Sweet cinnamon, Sweet myrtle - Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus L.);
examples with evaluating component - unpleasant smell - Stinkweed, Stinkwort - Jimson weed (Datura stramonium L.).
Because strong sweet smell of some plants attracts bees, we may speak about smell intensity: Beewort - Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus L.).
As far as bases are concerned, in English examples they form two groups: naming plants or their parts (root, grass, weed, wort) and others. Some artefacts denoting the form of the MP belong to the second group of bases: Sweet cane, Sweet smelling flag - Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus L.). Special notice deserves the MP's name Sweetscented bedstraw, in which artefact bedstraw metaphorically refers to the legend, according to which St. Virgin Mary used this plant as a bedstraw when she bore Jesus Christ and put Him in a manger. This example vividly reflects the 3 d stage of human cognitive activity - revealing background knowledge of cultural character, without which it is difficult or sometimes even impossible to make proper interpretation of the MP's name.
Now let us discuss examples from three Western Slavic languages under consideration. Polish phytonyms reflect the following characteristics of smell:
examples with evaluating component - pleasant smell - lit. Marzanka wonna, Barwica wonna - Woodruff (Asperula odorata L.), Przytulia wonna - Sweetscented bedstraw (Galium odoratum (L.) SCOP.) and unpleasant smell Bzducha /vulg. smth. that breaks wind/ - Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable/animal origin: Polish lit. Miodunka plamista /honey + suff./ - Lungwort (Pulmonaria officinalis L.).
In Czech phytonyms olfactory information processing channel is represented in the following way: examples with evaluating component - pleasant smell: lit. Marinka vonna, Vonavka -Woodruff Asperula odorata L.);
unpleasant smell: Asa smrduta - Asafetida (Ferula Assa-foetida L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable/animal origin, which prevail: lit. Medunka lekarska /honey + suff./ - Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.).
We come across the example of smell specificity, odour becoming stronger before the thunderstorm: Bofkove kofeni /thunderstorm roots/ - Woodruff (Asperula odorata L.). In Slovak, I have singled out the following olfactory features in HMP's names: evaluating component - pleasant smell - is represented by the following examples: Vonne kraliky - Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.), lit. Zeler vonavy - Wild celery (Apium graveolens L.), Konvalia vonna, Konvalinka vonava, Kukucka vonava - Lily-of-the-valley (Convallaria majalis L.), Marinka vonava - Sweetscented bedstraw (Galium odoratum (L.) Scop.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: Citronova zelina, Lemonika, Lemonka - Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.), Majoran divy - Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable/animal origin, which prevail: Medonica -Common comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.), Medovnica, Medun, Medunica, Medunka - Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) Medovka citronova, Medunka citronova, Medovka lekarska, Medovnica, Medun, Medunica, Medunka - Lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.), Medonica, Medunica, Medunica lieciva -Common comfrey (Symphytum officinale L.) - all these examples have the root med- - honey.
As far as strong sweet smell of some plants attracts bees, we may speak about smell intensity: Vcelanka, Vcelnik /bee + suff./ - Oregano (Origanum vulgare L.). Some plants are smell standards themselves, like Plana bazalicka - Sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.), Plana mata - Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.).
Now let us discuss names of medicinal plants-shrubs. The general feature of this group is the limited number of the examples reflecting an olfactory mode of perception, and the use as a standard the smell of a known plant.
In my language material I have found a large number of examples in German, however it should be noted that all of them belong to the colloquial layer of lexicon. In German phytonyms it is possible to mark the following olfactory features:
examples with plant's specific properties indicating smell intensity: Bienkraut /contorted Bienenkraut - strong flower smell attracts bees/, Bienenheide /bee + wasteland/ - Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.) - here the base is location, it is metonymic designation of the place of the MP's growing accompanied by the indication of its strong smell;
evaluating component - unpleasant smell - stinky - Stinkstrule /stinky (peasant) woman -derogative/ - Black currant (Ribes nigrum L.), Miefe /contorted Mief - stench/ - Dog-rose (Rosa canina L.); Scheifilorbeer /shit + laurel/ - Mezereon (Daphne mezereum L.);
examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: Gichttanne /firtree/, Kienporst /resinous, pine Mezereon/, Moorosmarin /contorted Moorrosmarin - Marsh rosemary/, Saugtanne /wet-nurse abies/ - Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.), Flieder, Fliederbaum /lilac + tree/, Schwarzer Flieder /black lilac/ - Black elder (Sambucus nigra L.), Lorbeer /laurel/ - Mezereon (Daphne mezereum L.);
examples with perception standard of animal origin: Bocksbeere /goat's berry/, Wanzenbeere /bedbug berry/ - Black currant (Ribes nigrum L.);
examples with specific perception standard: Kalkenbeerenbaum /a tree with berries, which smell of slack lime/ - Guelder-rose (Viburnum opulus L.);
examples with plant's specific properties indicating smell intensity: Mottenkraut /moth + grass/ - Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.), unlike the example given above this MP does not attract moth, on the contrary, it was used by some people in villages as a moth-repellent.
Structurally, standards of smells can be simple words (laurel, lilac, stench), however the vast majority of German examples are compound words, in which lexical basis is the plant, its part, or the person.
The examples in English phytonymic lexicon are scarce and we may discuss only few of them. All of them are examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: lit. Water elder - Guelder-rose (Viburnum opulus L.), lit. Dutch Myrtle and common Wild rosemary - Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.).
Polish examples are also not very numerous. We can sort them in the following way: examples with perception standard of vegetable origin: Wawrzynek wilcze iyko /laurel + dimin. suff./ - Mezereon (Daphne mezereum L.); Rosmarynowe drzewo /rosemary tree/ - Common sea-buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.), Rozmaryn czeski /Czech rosemary/ - Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.);
examples with evaluating component - unpleasant smell: Smorodynki, Smrodynki, Smrodzina /stench + suff./ - Black currant (Ribes nigrum L.).
In Czech, MP's names reflecting olfactory channel, form the following groups:
examples with evaluating component - unpleasant smell: Smradlawky, Smradinky /stench + suff./ - Black currant (Ribes nigrum L.); Smradinky, Smradlavy bez, Smrdibez /stench + suff./ - Black elder (Sambucus nigra L.); pleasant smell: lit. Routa vonna - Rue (Ruta graveolens L.). Slovak examples can be sorted in the following way:
examples with evaluating component - unpleasant smell: Smradinky, Smradlenka, Smrdlenky /stench + suff./ - Black currant (Ribes nigrum L.), Smerdzaca habzina - Black elder (Sambucus nigra L.).
8 Discussion and conclusions
My research shows that olfactory channel is important for human cognitive activity. Olfactory attributes, unlike those of taste, size, form, etc. have no standards. Smell is connected with subjective factor: one and the same plant has different olfactory attributes in different languages, especially if we compare languages with different structure: Germanic, Romance and Slavic, Eastern and Western, etc.
I want to illustrate it with the examples. Let us take one and the same plant, which has very strong smell. In different languages evaluations of its properties do not coincide. As far as olfactory attributes in the names of these two plants are missing in most of the languages under consideration I have added examples from Russian and Ukrainian where examples are numerous, especially in the second MP.
HMP
English lit. Sweet Flag (Acorus calamus L.)
French lit. Acore odorant, Canne aromatique, Roseau aromatique
German - no examples
English Sweet cane, Sweet cinnamon, Sweet flag acorus, Sweet flag root, Sweet grass, Sweet myrtle, Sweet rush, Sweet sedge, Sweet seg, Sweet smelling flag, Sweet smelling grass, Sweet-Scented Sguinancy, Sweetroot
Russian Вонючка, Пахучка болотная
Ukrainian Пахуча лепеха
Polish - no examples
Czech - no examples
Slovak - no examples
Judging from the examples presented above, this MP has a strong sweet smell. This property is reflected in literary names (English and French). In French and especially in English examples smell is combined with vision specifying unusual form the the plant itself: French canne, English cane, flag. In English phytonyms we see examples with the standard of vegetable origine, like cinnamon, myrtle, and sguinancy. There are no examples in German, Polish and Czech connected with the olfactory channel. Ukrainian and Russian phytonyms testify to the presence of smell without its specification and Russian Вонючка /stinky + suff./ has strong negative evaluation in its name. And now let us discuss literary and common names of another plant.
MPSh
English lit. Marsh Labrador tea (Ledum palustre L.) French - no examples
German Bienenheide, Bienkraut, Moorosmarin, Mottenkraut, Wilde Rosmarin English Wild Rosemary
Russian Багун душистый, Болотная одурь, Болотный болиголов, Головолом, Дикий розмарин, lit. Душистый багун, Душица, Душница, Клоповая трава, Клоповник, Клоповник большой, Клоповник-трава, Пйянишник, Розмарин лесной
Ukrainian Багун душистий, Головолом, Розмайрин дикий Polish Rozmaryn czeski Czech - no examples Slovak - no examples
The flowers of this bush also have very strong smell, which attracts bees: German Bienenheide, Bienkraut and are a moth-repellent - Mottenkraut. For many common people who examined this plant and admired its smell it looked like and smelled like a Rosemary (German, English, Russian Ukrainian, and Polish), but the base is sometimes accompanied by features of location (Ukrainian - forest, Polish - Czech) or estimation (German - wilde, English, Russian, Ukrainian - wild) to show that it is not a Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) but a different plant.
Notwithstanding all these positive features for some people this smell is not pleasant, moreover, judging from the examples above, it evokes headache: Russian Болиголов - exocentric word, which means smth., which evokes a headache; Головолом - smth., which "breaks" a head; may evoke suffocation because of strong smudge: Russian Душница /sultry + suff. or dizziness/,
Пйянишник /smth. that makes a person drunk/. Russian examples are very interesting not only from semantic, but from structural point of view. We have many phytonyms with the formal base (suffix), to which features are attributed, several compound words with zero root morpheme (exocentric composites) and a base meaning "state" - a case of metonymy, when the plant is named by the result of the contact with it: Болотная одурь /marsh stupor/.
Other names are connected with plant's specific odour and have perception standard of animal origin: Russian Клоповая трава, Клоповник, Клоповник большой, Клоповник-трава /клоп
- a bed-bug/.
The analysis of the literary and mainly common names of these two MPs shows that smell is very subjective and olfactory attributes characterizing the same plant are various.
It is interesting to state that phytonyms containing standards of vegetable origin (rosemary, lily-of-the-valley, lilac, jasmine, pine) have positive evaluation, whereas those of animal origin (goat, bedbug) - negative one; the exception is bee in the plant's names, which testifies to smell intensity.
In different languages, smell attributes have specific realization. Larger number of various attributes characterizes names of HMP, unlike names of MPB.
REFERENCES
1. Ананьев Б.Г. Теория ощущений. - Л.: Изд-во Ленингр. ун-та, 1961. - 456 с.
2. Бруд В.С., Конопацкая И. Душистая аптека. Тайны ароматерапии. - М.: Гитис, 1996.
- 151 с.
3. Дудченко Л. Ароматы здоровья. - Киев: Глобус, 1997. - 152 с.
4. Корпачёв В.В. Целебная фауна. - М.: Наука, 1989. - 189 с.
5. Лаенко Л.В. Национальная специфика семантической репрезентации концепта признака "кислый" в русском и английском языках // Методические и лингвистические проблемы в обучении иностранному языку. - Воронеж, 2001. - Вып. 6. - С. 39-41.
6. Лаенко Л.В. Оценочный аспект семантики одорических прилагательных английского языка // С любовью к языку: Сб. науч. трудов. Посвящается Е.С. Кубряковой. - Москва-Воронеж: ИЯ РАН, Воронежск. гос. ун-т, 2002. - C. 366-373.
7. Лещева Л.М. Когнитивная лингвистика: формирование объяснительных моделей // Словообразование и лексические системы в разных языках. Межвузовский сб. научн. трудов. -Вып.1. — Уфа: Башкирск. гос. пединститут, 1994. - С. 47-55.
8. Панасенко Н. Лексико-семантическое поле фитонимической лексики в славянских языках // Граш мов i культур / Збiрник статей, присвячений ювшею М.О. Луценка. - Донецьк: ДонНУ, 2007. - С. 35-43.
9. Панасенко Н. Нюховий канал у назвах лшарських рослин // Гумаштарний вюник. Серiя - шоземна фшолопя. Частина 1. Проблеми сучасно! лшгвютики. - Черкаси: Ч1Т1, 1998. -C. 157-164.
10. Панасенко Н. Фитонимическая лексика в системе романских, германских и славянских языков (опыт ономасиологического и когнитивного анализа). - Черкассы: Брама-Укра!на, 2010. - 452 с.
11. Плужников М., Рязанцев С. Среди запахов и звуков. - М.: Молодая гвардия, 1994. -
272 с.
12. Рузин И.Г. Когнитивные стратегии именования: модусы перцепции (зрение, слух, осязание, обоняние, вкус) и их выражение в языке // Вопросы языкознания. - 1994. - № 6. - С. 79-100.
13. Языковая номинация. Общие вопросы. - М.: Наука, 1977. - 359 с.
14. Barrett K.E., Barman S.M., Boitano S., Brooks H. Chapter 14. Smell & Taste // K.E. Barrett, S.M. Barman, S. Boitano, H. Brooks, eds. Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology. 23rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2010. Available at: http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=5240638
15. Bartram D.J. The role of visual and semantic codes in object naming // Cognitive psychology. - Vol. 6 (3), 1974. - P. 325-356.
16. Beidler L.M. Mechanisms of gustory and olfactory receptor stimulation // Sensory communication. W.A. Rosenblith (ed.). New York, London: MIT Press, 1961. - P. 143-157.
17. Cain W.S. To know with the nose: keys to odor identification // Science. - Vol. 203, 1979. - P. 467-469.
18. Chen D., Dalton P. The effect of emotion and personality on olfactory perception // Chemical Senses. - May 1, 2005. - Vol. 30, № 4. - P. 345-351.
19. Desor J.A., Beauchamp G.K. The human capacity to transmit olfactory information // Perception and psychophysics, 1974. - Vol. 16. - P. 551-556.
20. Doty R.L., ed. Handbook of olfaction and gustation. 3d ed. - Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. - 1264 p.
21. Doty R.L., Bromley S.M., Panganiban, W.D. Chapter 21. Olfactory function and dysfunction // B.J. Bailey, J.T. Johnson and S.D. Newlands, eds. Head & neck surgery -Otolaryngology. - Fourth edition. - USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. - P. 289-305
22. Engen L.T., Ross B. Long-term memory of odors with and without verbal descriptions // Journal of experimental psychology. - 1973. Vol. 100. - P. 221-227.
23. Ferdenzi C., Coureaud G., Camos, V., Schaal B. Human awareness and uses of odor cues in everyday life: Results from a questionnaire study in children // International journal of behavioral development. - September, 2008. - Vol. 32. - № 5. - P. 422-431.
24. Jonsson F.U., Olsson H., Olsson M.J. Odor emotionality affects the confidence in odor naming // Chemical senses. - January 1, 2005. - Vol. 30. - № 1. - P. 29-35.
25. Jonsson F.U., Olsson M.J. Knowing what we smell // G.M. Zucco, R.S. Herz, B. Schaal (eds.) Olfactory cognition. From perception and memory to environmental odours and neuroscience. -Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012. - P. 115-136.
26. Jonsson F.U., Stevenson R.J. Odor knowledge, odor naming and the "tip of the nose" experience // B.W. Schwartz and A.S. Brown (eds.) Tip of the tongue states and related phenomena. -Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. - P. 306-326.
27. Karnekull C.S., Jonsson F.U., Willander J., Sikstrom, S., Larsson, M. Long-term memory for odors: Influences of familiarity and identification across 64 days // Chemical Senses. - 2015. -Vol. 40. - № 4. - P. 259-267.
28. Lederman S.J. Tactual mapping from a psychologist's perspective // Bulletin of the Association of Canadian map libraries. - 1979. - Vol. 32. - P. 21-25.
29. Paivio A., Begg I. Psychology of language. - Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1981. -XII, 417 p.
30. Panasenko N. Stages of a man's cognitive activity in phytonymic lexicon // Conference programme and abstracts of the international conference "ICLC 11: Language, Cognition, Context". July 11-17, 2011. Xi'an, China. - p. 139.
31. Panasenko N. Tactile information-processing channel in the plants names // Acta Facultatis Philosophicae Universitatis Presoviensis. Jazykovedny zbornik 41. Language, literature and culture in a changing transatlantic world II (PART I: Linguistics, Translation and Cultural Studies). M. Ferencik, K. Bednarova-Gibova (eds.). - Presov: Filozoficka fakulta Presovskej university, 2012. - p. 128-153.
32. Sensory communication. W.A. Rosenblith (ed.). New York, London: MIT Press, 1961. -XIV, 844 p.
33. Snyder C.R. Selection, inspection, and naming in visual search // Journal of experimental psychology. 1972. - Vol. 3. - № 92. - P. 428-431.
34. Stevenson R.J. An initial evaluation of the functions of human olfaction // Chemical senses. - January 1, 2010. - Vol. 35. - № 1. - P. 3-20.
35. Vries M. De, Stuiver M. The absolute sensitivity of human sense of smell // W.A. Rosenblith, ed. Sensory communication. - New York, London: MIT Press, 1961. - P. 159-167.
