Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Semiotica

Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies / Revue de l'Association Internationale de Sémiotique

Editor-in-Chief: Danesi, Marcel

6 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.32

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.240
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.819

Online
ISSN
1613-3692
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 2017, Issue 215 (Mar 2017)

Issues

We like to talk about smell: A worldly take on language, sensory experience, and the Internet

Morana Alač
Published Online: 2017-01-10 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0093

Abstract

Western languages have been marked by their lack of specialized vocabulary to express odor qualities, and thus it is stated that it is difficult – if not impossible – to talk about smell. To engage the issue of olfactory ineffability, this paper turns to actual instances of textual renderings of smell by paying attention to how the olfactory language of scent enthusiasts is rendered on the Internet. The methods that enthusiasts’ texts inscribe do not rely on specialized vocabulary but constitute a language that is turned toward the world. To articulate this character of olfactory language, the paper illustrates four discursive procedures employed on the Internet: embedding knowledges that are contoured and made available through their uses by the community; borrowing professional vocabulary and adapting it through humor; providing “recipes” for practical actions; and emphasizing the subjective character of scent to provide openings for conversation. The paper traces how olfactory talk becomes available as it is practiced, challenging the opposition between sensory experiences and the semiotic realm that is inscribed in the idea of olfactory ineffability.

Keywords: olfactory semiotics; sensory practices; Internet; discourse

References

  • Ackerman, Diane. 1990. Smell. In A natural history of the senses, 5–63. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

  • Aftel, Mandy. 2001. Essence and alchemy: A natural history of perfume. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar

  • Austin, John L. 1955. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

  • Barbara, Anna & Anthony Perliss. 2006. Invisible architecture: Experiencing places through the sense of smell. Milan: Skira.Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland. 1957. Mythologies. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Barthes, Roland. 1970. S/Z. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Bedichek, Roy. 1960. The sense of smell. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar

  • Bjelić, Dušan & Michael Lynch. 1994. Goethe’s “protestant reformation” as a textual demonstration: Comment on Jackson. Social Studies of Science 24(4). 703–724.Google Scholar

  • Breu, Marlene. 2007. The role of scents and the body in Turkey. In Johnson Clay & Helen Bradley Foster (eds.), Dress sense: Emotional and sensory experiences of the body and clothes, 25–38. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

  • Burr, Chandler. 2002. The emperor of scent: A story of perfume, obsession, and the last mystery of the senses. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

  • Burr, Chandler. 2007. The perfect scent: A year behind the scenes of the perfume industry in Paris and New York. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

  • Cain, William. 1979. To know with the nose: Keys to odor identification. Science 203(4379). 467–470.Google Scholar

  • Cain, William, Rene de Wijk, Christine Lulejian, Franc Schiet & Lai-Chu See. 1998. Odor identification: Perceptual and semantic dimensions. Chemical Senses 23. 309–326.Google Scholar

  • Calvino, Italo. 1986. Sotto il sole giaguaro. Milan: Garzanti.Google Scholar

  • Classen, Constance, David Howes & Anthony Synnott. 1994. Aroma: The cultural history of smell. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Corbin, Alain. 1986. The foul and the fragrant. London: Berg.Google Scholar

  • Dalton, Pamela, Christopher Maute, Akiko Oshida, Satoshi Hikichi & Isumi Yu. 2008. The use of semantic differential scaling to define the multidimensional representation of odors. Journal of Sensory Studies 23. 485–497.Google Scholar

  • De Saussure, Ferdinand. 1983 [1916]. Course in general linguistics. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

  • Delon-Martin, Chantal, Jane Plailly, Pierre Fonlupt Alexandra Veyrac & Jean-Pierre Royet. 2012. Perfumers’ expertise induces structural reorganization in olfactory brain regions. Neuroimage 68. 55–62.Google Scholar

  • Deroy, Ophelia, Anne-Sylvie Crisnel & Charles Spence. 2013. Crossmodal correspondences between odor and contingent features: Odors, musical notes, and geometric shapes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 20. 878–896.Google Scholar

  • Doty, Richard. 1981. Olfactory communication in humans. Chemical Senses 6(4). 351–376.Google Scholar

  • Drobnick, Jim. 2005. Volatile effects: Olfactory dimension of art and architecture. In David Howes (ed.), Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader, 265–280. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1979a. The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1979b. Lector in fabula. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 1990. The limits of interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Eco, Umberto. 2001. Experiences in translation. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

  • Ellena, Jean-Claude. 2011. Perfume: The alchemy of scent. New York: Arcade.Google Scholar

  • Ellena, Jean-Claude. 2013. The diary of a nose: A year in the life of a parfumeur. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar

  • Engen, Trygg. 1982. The perception of odors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Engen, Trygg. 1991. Odor sensation and memory. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar

  • Feigel, Lara. 2006. A nosegay. London: Old Street.Google Scholar

  • Freud, Sigmund. 2010 [1961]. Civilization and its discontents. London & New York: Norton.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 1984 [1967]. Studies in ethomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Polity Press.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 2002. Ethomethodology’s program. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

  • Garfinkel, Harold, Michael Lynch & Eric Livingston. 1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy and the Sociology of Science 11. 131–158.Google Scholar

  • Gell, Alfred. 1977. Magic, perfume, dream. In Ioan Lewis (ed.), Symbols and sentiments: Cross-cultural studies in symbolism, 25–38. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Gilbert, Avery. 2008. What the nose knows: The science of scent in everyday life. New York: Crown.Google Scholar

  • Gray, Kishonna. 2012. Intersecting oppressions and online communities. Information, Communication & Society 15(3). 411–428.Google Scholar

  • Greimas, Algirdas. 1976. Maupassant – La semiotique du texte: exercises pratiques. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar

  • Guentert, Matthias. 2007. The flavor and fragrance industry: Past, present, and future. In R. G. Berger (ed.), Flavours and fragrances: Chemistry, bioprocessing, and sustainability, 1–14. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Harad, Alyssa. 2012. Coming to my senses: A story of perfume, pleasure and an unlikely bride. London: Viking.Google Scholar

  • Have, Paul ten. 2002. The notion of member is the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung 3(3), Art. 21: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/834.Google Scholar

  • Herman, Barbara. 2013. Scent and subversion: Decoding a century of provocative perfume. Guilford, CT: Lyons Press.Google Scholar

  • Hine, Christine. 2013. Internet: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Howes, David. 2010. Response to Sarah Pink. Social Anthropology 18(3). 333–336.Google Scholar

  • Iwasaki, Yoko. 2004. Art and the sense of smell. Aesthetics 11. 62–67.Google Scholar

  • Kant, Immanuel.1996. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

  • Keen, Andrew. 2007. The cult of the amateur: How today’s internet is killing our culture. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar

  • Keller, Andreas & Leslie B. Vosshall. 2004. Human olfactory psychophysics. Current Biology 14(20). 875–878.Google Scholar

  • Kristeva, Julia. 1970. Le texte du roman. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • La Ferla, Ruth. 2008. Everyone’s a critic. New York Times, April 17.

  • Latour, Bruno. 2004. How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society 10(2–3). 205–229.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen & Asifa Majid. 2014. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind and Language 29. 407–427.Google Scholar

  • Lieberman, Kenneth. 2013. More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: SUNY.Google Scholar

  • Lindstorm, Martin. 2010. Brand sense: Sensory secrets behind the stuff we buy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

  • Majid, Asifa & Niclas Burenhult. 2014. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130(2). 266–270.Google Scholar

  • Manzo, John. 2010. Coffee, connoisseurship, and an ethnomethodologically-informed sociology of taste. Human Studies 33. 141–155.Google Scholar

  • Mazzeo, Tilar. 2010. The secret of Chanel No. 5: The intimate history of the world’s most famous perfume. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

  • Niedenthal, Simon. 2012. Skin games: Fragrant play, scented media and the stench of digital games. Eludamos 6(1). 101–131.Google Scholar

  • Otero-Pailos, Jorge. 2012. An olfactory reconstruction of Philip Johnson’s glass house interior. In Kent Kleinman, Joanna Merwood & Lois Winthal (eds.), After taste: Expanded practice in interior design, 192–211. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.]Google Scholar

  • Petöfi, Janos. 1975. Vers une théorie partielle du texte. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

  • Pink, Sarah. 2010. The future of sensory anthropology/the anthropology of the senses. Social Anthropology 18(3). 331–333.Google Scholar

  • Pink, Sarah. 2011. Multimodality, multisensoriality, and ethnographic knowing: Social semiotics and the phenomenology of perception. Qualitative Research 11(3). 261–276.Google Scholar

  • Plato. 1892. The dialogues of Plato, vol. 3, B. Jowett (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Propp, Vladimir. 1958 [1928]. Morphology of the folk tale. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Rheingold, Howard. 2000 [1993]. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Rindisbacher, Hans J. 1992. The smell of books: A cultural-historical study of olfactory perception in literature. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Roudnitska, Edmond. 1977. L’esthetique en question. Introduction a une esthetique de l’odorat. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

  • Roudnitska, Edmond. 1980. Le Parfum. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Secundoa, Lavi, Kobi Snitza, Kineret Weisslera, Liron Pinchovera, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Ron Loewenthald, Nancy Agmon-Levin, Idan Frumina, Dana Bar-Zvia, Sagit Shushana & Noam Sobel. 2015. Individual olfactory perception reveals meaningful nonolfactory genetic information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(28). 8750–8755.Google Scholar

  • Shiner, Larry & Yulia Kriskovets. 2007. The aesthetics of smelly art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65(3). 273–286.Google Scholar

  • Sormani, Philippe. 2014. Respecifying lab ethnography: An ethnomethodological study of experimental physics. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

  • Stevenson, Richard J. 2013. Olfactory perception, cognition, and dysfunction in humans. WIREs Cognitive Science 4(3). 273–284.Google Scholar

  • Süskind, Patrick. 1985. Perfume: The story of a murderer. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar

  • Turin, Luca. 1992. Parfums: Le guide. Paris: Hermé.Google Scholar

  • Turin, Luca & Tania Sanchez. 2008. Perfumes: The A-Z guide. London: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Turkle, Sherry. 2012. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic.Google Scholar

  • Vigarello, Georges. 1988. Concepts of cleanliness: Changing attitudes in France since the middle ages. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Vroon, Piet. 1997. Smell: The secret seducer. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, Donald A. & Richard J. Stevenson. 2006. Learning to smell: Olfactory perception from neurobiology to behavior. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wise, Paul, Mats Olsson & William Cain. 2000. Quantification of odor quality. Chemical Senses 25(4). 429–443.Google Scholar

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Young, Helen. 2014. Race in online fantasy fandom: Whiteness on Western.org. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 28(5). 737–747.Google Scholar

  • Zelman, Tom. 1992. Language and perfume: A study of symbol-formation. In Sammy R. Danna (ed.), Advertising and popular culture: Studies in variety and versatility, 109–115. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar

  • Zucco, Gesualdo, Rachel Herz & Benoist Schaal (eds.). 2012. Olfactory cognition. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-01-10

Published in Print: 2017-03-01


Citation Information: Semiotica, ISSN (Online) 1613-3692, ISSN (Print) 0037-1998, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0093.

Export Citation

©2017 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in