Cultural Factors Shape Olfactory Language

How (and why) languages became more complex as we evolved more prosocial: the human self-domestication view

This paper aims to re-examine the problem of the emergence of present-day languages from the specific perspective of the self-domestication account of human evolution. According to this view, our species went through an evolutionary process that parallels the changes experienced by domesticated mammals. Relying on evidence of diverse kind (from paleogenetic to clinical), the paper argues that our self-domestication might have potentiated the cognitive and behavioral features of the human phenotype with an impact on language acquisition and use. Specifically, it might have facilitated the creation of the cultural niche that favors the complexification of languages via a cultural mechanism. The paper further proposes a model of language complexification in the past under the effects of human self-domestication, including the complexification of the structural aspects of language (grammar, prosody, and semantics) and the potentiation of its functional properties (pragmatics). The paper concludes with some suggestions for any future research aimed to test and improve this view.

"What is this?": Multisensorial explorations of food with and without sight

The relationship between sensorial experiences and language during food consumption has been investigated in a diversity of settings and activities, showing a variety of sensorial practices and possible ways of discursively expressing them. In this paper, we focus specifically on activities where individuals encounter unfamiliar food, suspending expected synaesthetic associations between sensory features. Using audio and video recordings of dinner interactions in restaurants offering high-end creative cuisine and dining experiences in complete darkness, we show how the participants move from eating to tasting and engage in a multisensorial exploration of the food, where sight is either absent or insufficient to solve the puzzle of what it is they are eating. We find that this exploration commonly begins with a recurring interactional practice: the question "what is this?", initiating a sequence that reveals a public collective engagement with the food among participants. Drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, we investigate the sequential environments in which "what is this?" prototypically occurs, the various actions it implements, its turn design (displaying a more or less unknowing stance), as well as how it is subsequently responded to within the participants' project of identifying the food. We examine how the "what is this?" inquiry mobilizes various linguistic resources, in a way that is deeply embedded in multisensorial examinations of the food that are (made) available to co-participants, publicly seeable in high-end gastronomic restaurants, and publicly hearable in dark restaurants. Our findings contribute to naturalistic interactional research on commensality and multisensoriality, with particular relevance for scholarship addressing the primacy and limitations of sight.

Psychology Within and Without the State

Psychological research in small-scale societies is crucial for what it stands to tell us about human psychological diversity. However, people in these communities, typically Indigenous communities in the global South, have been underrepresented and sometimes misrepresented in psychological research. Here I discuss the promises and pitfalls of psychological research in these communities, reviewing why they have been of interest to social scientists and how cross-cultural comparisons have been used to test psychological hypotheses. I consider factors that may be undertheorized in our research, such as political and economic marginalization, and how these might influence our data and conclusions. I argue that more just and accurate representation of people from small-scale communities around the world will provide us with a fuller picture of human psychological similarity and diversity, and it will help us to better understand how this diversity is shaped by historical and social processes. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 73 is January 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Duality of Smell: Route-Dependent Effects on Olfactory Perception and Language

Olfactory research in humans has largely focused on odors perceived via sniffing, orthonasal olfaction, whereas odors perceived from the mouth, retronasal olfaction, are less well understood. Prior work on retronasally presented odors involves animal models and focus mainly on odor sensitivity, but little is known about retronasal olfactory perception and cognition in humans. In this study, we compared orthonasal and retronasal odor presentation routes to investigate differences in odor descriptions and evaluations. Thirty-six individuals participated in a within-subjects study using twelve odors (varying in pleasantness and edibility) in perceptual and semantic tasks. Orthonasal presentation was associated with a better ability to identify odors, and with more concrete (and source-based) language. Exploratory analyses revealed that whereas orthonasal odors were described with words that had visual associations, retronasal odors were described with words that had interoceptive associations. Interestingly, these route-dependent differences in descriptor usage were not explained by differences in sensitivity and intensity, suggesting instead a cognitive and linguistic processing difference between odors presented orthonasally and retronasally. Our results indicate that olfaction is, in fact, a dual sense, in which the routes change the perception of an odor.

Accounting for Subjectivity in Experimental Research on Human Olfaction

Although olfaction is a modality with great interindividual perceptual disparities, its subjective dimension has been let aside in modern research, in line with the overall neglect of consciousness in experimental psychology. However, following the renewed interest for the neural bases of consciousness, some methodological leads have been proposed to include subjectivity in experimental protocols. Here, we argue that adapting such methods to the field of olfaction will allow to rigorously acquire subjective reports, and we present several ways to do so. This will improve the understanding of diversity in odor perception and its underlying neural mechanisms.

Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology

The human sense of smell can accomplish astonishing feats, yet there remains a prevailing belief that olfactory language is deficient. Numerous studies with English speakers support this view: there are few terms for odors, odor talk is infrequent, and naming odors is difficult. However, this is not true across the world. Many languages have sizeable smell lexicons - smell is even grammaticalized. In addition, for some cultures smell talk is more frequent and odor naming easier. This linguistic variation is as yet unexplained but could be the result of ecological, cultural, or genetic factors or a combination thereof. Different ways of talking about smells may shape aspects of olfactory cognition too. Critically, this variation sheds new light on this important sensory modality.

A computational model of language functions in flexible goal-directed behaviour

The function of language in high-order goal-directed human cognition is an important topic at the centre of current debates. Experimental evidence shows that inner speech, representing a self-directed form of language, empowers cognitive processes such as working memory, perception, categorization, and executive functions. Here we study the relations between inner speech and processes like feedback processing and cognitive flexibility. To this aim we propose a computational model that controls an artificial agent who uses inner speech to internally manipulate its representations. The agent is able to reproduce human behavioural data collected during the solution of the Wisconsin Card Sorting test, a neuropsychological test measuring cognitive flexibility, both in the basic condition and when a verbal shadowing protocol is used. The components of the model were systematically lesioned to clarify the specific impact of inner speech on the agent’s behaviour. The results indicate that inner speech improves the efficiency of internal representation manipulation. Specifically, it makes the representations linked to specific visual features more disentangled, thus improving the agent’s capacity to engage/disengage attention on stimulus features after positive/negative action outcomes. Overall, the model shows how inner speech could improve goal-directed internal manipulation of representations and enhance behavioural flexibility.

Linguistic features of fragrances: The role of grammatical gender and gender associations

Odors are often difficult to identify and name, which leaves them vulnerable to the influence of language. The present study tests the boundaries of the effect of language on odor cognition by examining the effect of grammatical gender. We presented participants with male and female fragrances paired with descriptions of masculine or feminine grammatical gender. In Experiment 1 we found that memory for fragrances was enhanced when the grammatical gender of a fragrance description matched the gender of the fragrance. In Experiment 2 we found memory for fragrances was affected by both grammatical gender and gender associations in fragrance descriptions - recognition memory for odors was higher when the gender was incongruent. In sum, we demonstrated that even subtle aspects of language can affect odor cognition.

Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming

People from Western societies generally find it difficult to name odors. In trying to explain this, the olfactory literature has proposed several theories that focus heavily on properties of the odor itself but rarely discuss properties of the label used to describe it. However, recent studies show speakers of languages with dedicated smell lexicons can name odors with relative ease. Has the role of the lexicon been overlooked in the olfactory literature? Word production studies show properties of the label, such as word frequency and semantic context, influence naming; but this field of research focuses heavily on the visual domain. The current study combines methods from both fields to investigate word production for olfaction in two experiments. In the first experiment, participants named odors whose veridical labels were either high-frequency or low-frequency words in Dutch, and we found that odors with high-frequency labels were named correctly more often. In the second experiment, edibility was used for manipulating semantic context in search of a semantic interference effect, presenting the odors in blocks of edible and inedible odor source objects to half of the participants. While no evidence was found for a semantic interference effect, an effect of word frequency was again present. Our results demonstrate psycholinguistic variables—such as word frequency—are relevant for olfactory naming, and may, in part, explain why it is difficult to name odors in certain languages. Olfactory researchers cannot afford to ignore properties of an odor’s label.

Odor-color associations differ with verbal descriptors for odors: A comparison of three linguistically diverse groups

People appear to have systematic associations between odors and colors. Previous research has emphasized the perceptual nature of these associations, but little attention has been paid to what role language might play. It is possible odor-color associations arise through a process of labeling; that is, participants select a descriptor for an odor and then choose a color accordingly (e.g., banana odor → "banana" label → yellow). If correct, this would predict odor-color associations would differ as odor descriptions differ. We compared speakers of Dutch (who overwhelmingly describe odors by referring to the source; e.g., smells like banana) with speakers of Maniq and Thai (who also describe odors with dedicated, abstract smell vocabulary; e.g., musty), and tested whether the type of descriptor mattered for odor-color associations. Participants were asked to select a color that they associated with an odor on two separate occasions (to test for consistency), and finally to label the odors. We found the hunter-gatherer Maniq showed few, if any, consistent or accurate odor-color associations. More importantly, we found the types of descriptors used to name the smells were related to the odor-color associations. When people used abstract smell terms to describe odors, they were less likely to choose a color match, but when they described an odor with a source-based term, their color choices more accurately reflected the odor source, particularly when the odor source was named correctly (e.g., banana odor → yellow). This suggests language is an important factor in odor-color cross-modal associations.

Spatial Semantics, Cognition, and Their Interaction: A Comparative Study of Spatial Categorization in English and Korean

This study has two goals. First, we present much-needed empirical linguistic data and systematic analyses on the spatial semantic systems in English and Korean, two languages that have been extensively compared to date in the debate on spatial language and spatial cognition. We conduct our linguistic investigation comprehensively, encompassing the domains of tight- and loose-fit as well as containment and support relations. The current analysis reveals both cross-linguistic commonalities and differences: From a common set of spatial features, each language highlights a subset of those features for its principal categorization, and those primary features are importantly different between English and Korean: English speakers categorize events predominantly by containment and support relations (and do so with prepositions), whereas Korean speakers categorize them by tight-fit and loose-fit relations (and do so with verbs), with a further distinction of containment and support within the loose-fit relation. The analysis also shows that the tight-fit domain is more cross-linguistically diverse in categorization than is the loose-fit domain. Second, we test the language data against the nonlinguistic categorization results reported in Choi and Hattrup (2012). The results show a remarkable degree of convergence between the patterns predicted from the current linguistic analysis and those found in C&H's nonlinguistic study and thus provide empirical and strong evidence for an influence of language on nonlinguistic spatial cognition. At the same time, the study reveals areas where the two systems closely interact with each other as well as those where one is independent from the other. Taking both parts of the study together, we identify the specific roles that language and spatial perception/cognition play in spatial categorization.

An Exception to Mental Simulation: No Evidence for Embodied Odor Language

Do we mentally simulate olfactory information? We investigated mental simulation of odors and sounds in two experiments. Participants retained a word while they smelled an odor or heard a sound, then rated odor/sound intensity and recalled the word. Later odor/sound recognition was also tested, and pleasantness and familiarity judgments were collected. Word recall was slower when the sound and sound‐word mismatched (e.g., bee sound with the word typhoon). Sound recognition was higher when sounds were paired with a match or near‐match word (e.g., bee sound with bee or buzzer). This indicates sound‐words are mentally simulated. However, using the same paradigm no memory effects were observed for odor. Instead it appears odor‐words only affect lexical‐semantic representations, demonstrated by higher ratings of odor intensity and pleasantness when an odor was paired with a match or near‐match word (e.g., peach odor with peach or mango). These results suggest fundamental differences in how odor and sound‐words are represented.

On the Communicative Function of Body Odors

Humans use multiple senses to navigate the social world, and the sense of smell is arguably the most underestimated one. An intriguing aspect of the sense of smell is its social communicative function. Research has shown that human odors convey information about a range of states (e.g., emotions, sickness) and traits (e.g., individuality, gender). Yet, what underlies the communicability of these states and traits via smell? We fill this explanatory gap with a framework that highlights the dynamic and flexible aspects of human olfactory communication. In particular, we explain how chemical profiles, associative learning (i.e., the systematic co-occurrence of chemical profiles with state- or trait-related information), and top-down contextual influences could interact to shape human odor perception. Our model not only helps to integrate past research on human olfactory communication but it also opens new avenues for future research on this fascinating, yet to date poorly understood, field.

What Makes a Better Smeller?

Olfaction is often viewed as difficult, yet the empirical evidence suggests a different picture. A closer look shows people around the world differ in their ability to detect, discriminate, and name odors. This gives rise to the question of what influences our ability to smell. Instead of focusing on olfactory deficiencies, this review presents a positive perspective by focusing on factors that make someone a better smeller. We consider three driving forces in improving olfactory ability: one’s biological makeup, one’s experience, and the environment. For each factor, we consider aspects proposed to improve odor perception and critically examine the evidence; as well as introducing lesser discussed areas. In terms of biology, there are cases of neurodiversity, such as olfactory synesthesia, that serve to enhance olfactory ability. Our lifetime experience, be it typical development or unique training experience, can also modify the trajectory of olfaction. Finally, our odor environment, in terms of ambient odor or culinary traditions, can influence odor perception too. Rather than highlighting the weaknesses of olfaction, we emphasize routes to harnessing our olfactory potential.

Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts

People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more “codable”, then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too.