1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 米飯的感知及其在中文及日文的語言表達
The Perception of Rice and Its Linguistic Expression in Chinese and Japanese
作者 謝明哲
Che, Hsieh Ming
貢獻者 戴智偉
Rik De Busser
謝明哲
Hsieh Ming Che
關鍵詞 知覺語言
語言相對論
料理語言學
Language of perception
Linguistic relativity
Culinary linguistics
日期 2016
上傳時間 1-Jul-2016 14:51:37 (UTC+8)
摘要 無庸置疑，人類的每一項知覺都一樣重要。因為我們仰賴這些知覺接收來自周遭的訊息，只要有一個消失不見，我們在生活上便會遇到困難。然而，在語言表達上，知覺並非一樣重要。嗅覺看似是最難表達的知覺，因為人們常常依賴物體來表達嗅覺，例如「草的味道」。另一方面，我們無需依賴物體、並使用顏色來表達視覺。當我們想陳述對於「天空」的想法時，我們會使用「藍色」而不是「天空的顏色」。不同的語言有無可能把重點放在不同的知覺上？如果是，是什麼原因造成不同的語言現象？
觀察人們如何表達對食物的看法非常適合用來討論知覺表達，因為品嚐食物的過程和視覺、嗅覺、味覺、及口感息息相關。本研究搜集來自中文及日文母語者有關食物的知覺表達，包括職業廚師及料理新手。米飯在中國及日本文化扮演著主食的角色，這項文化地位讓米飯成為與發音人面談上的主題。假設所有的知覺在不同文化都一樣重樣，人們應該會以相似的方式來表達知覺。研究結果發現在知覺表達中，中文母語者主要強調口感，但日語母語者強調視覺。透過比較職業廚師及料理新手也能找到知覺表達上的差異：職業廚師主要著重視覺，新手則重視味覺。人們亦使用不同的認知策略來表達不同知覺，但職業廚師及新手都依賴對食物的評價來表達知覺。從生理學上來看，人類的知覺一樣重要，但中文及日文的知覺表達卻不一樣。本研究認為文化及社會因素了影響語言的知覺表達。
Senses are undoubtedly important to people because they allow us to experience our world and we would face difficulties when any of them were absent. However, senses are not equally important in linguistic expressions. It seems that expressing odors is difficult in some languages because people often rely on concrete objects to make olfactory expressions, such as cǎo de weìdào ‘the smell of grass.’ Making use of color rather than concrete objects for visual expressions, we often choose lán ‘blue’ rather than tiānkōng de yánsè ‘the color of sky’ when expressing what we feel from sky. Is it possible that different emphasis of senses can be observed in different languages? If so, what is the reason leading to the differences in languages?
Observing how people express their feeling toward food is an appropriate method to discuss sensory expressions, because the procedure of tasting food is strongly correlated with multiple senses like vision, odor, taste, and mouthfeel. This study collects sensory expressions of food from both Chinese and Japanese speakers, including both experts and novices of cooking. Acting as the main dish in Chinese and Japanese cultures, rice is regarded as the theme of interview due to the cultural importance. If all senses are important in different cultures, they should be expressed in similar ways. Our results suggest that Chinese mainly focuses on mouthfeel, while Japanese mainly focuses on vision when performing sensory expressions. The differences in sensory expressions can also be observed through comparing experts with novices: experts mainly focus on vision, and novices firstly choose taste. People also make use of different cognitive strategies to express different kinds of senses, but both experts and novices rely on the evaluative type to create sensory expressions. Sensory expressions are different between Chinese and Japanese although senses are physiologically identical for people. This study suggests that both culture and social factors influence sensory expressions in languages.
參考文獻 Alonso, L., Capilla, J. A., Castellón, I., Fernández, A., & Vázquez, G. (2007). The Sensem Project: Syntactico-Semantic Annotation of Sentences in Spanish. In N. Nikolov, K. Bontcheva, G. Angelova, & R. Mitkov (Eds.). Recent advances in natural language processing (Vol. IV, pp. 89–98). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Athanasopoulos, P., Damjanovic, L., Krajciova, A., & Sasaki, M. (2011). Representation of colour concepts in bilingual cognition: the case of Japanese blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 9-17.
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Dedre Getner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 61-79). Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Buck, L. B. (2004). Unraveling the sense of smell (Nobel Lecture) [pdf]. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2004/buck-lecture.pdf
Burenhult, N., & Majid, A. (2011). Olfaction in Aslian ideaology and language. Senses and Society, 6(1), 19-29.
Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the Kappa statistics. Computational Linguistics, 22(2), 249-254.
Chafe, W. L. (2004). Masculine and feminine in the Northern Iroquoian languages. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, K. C. (1977). Introduction. In K. C. Chang (Ed), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives (pp. 1-21). New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Chang, R. C. Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. N. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annuals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 989-1011.
Clark, A. (1993). Sensory qualities. Oxford: Oxford University Express.
Copeck, T., Barker, K., Delisle, S., & Szpakowicz, S. (2000). Automating the measurement of linguistic features to help classify texts as technical. In R. L. Libres (Ed), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Automatic NLP (TALN-2000), 16-18, October (pp. 101-110). Lausanne, Switzerland.
Croijmans, I., & Majid, A. (2015). Odor naming is difficult, even for wine and coffee experts. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015), 23-25, July (pp. 483-488). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
De Busser, R. (2015). The influence of social, cultural, and natural factors on language structure. In R. de Busser & R. J. Lapolla (Eds.), Language Structure and Environment (pp. 1-28). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Taste in two tongues: a Southeast Asian study of semantic convergence, Senses and Society, 6(1), 30-37.
Gao, J., & Sutrop, U. (2014). The basic color terms of Mandarin Chinese: a theory-driven experimental study. Studies in Language, 38(2), 335-359.
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., Mangun, G. R. (2014). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Giunchiglia, F., Dutta, B., Maltese, V. (2009). Faceted lightweight ontologies. In A. T. Borgia, V. K. Chandhri, P. Giorgini, & E. S. Yu (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. Springer.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2012). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Guinard, J., & Mazzucchelli, R. (1996). The sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel. Trend in Food Science and Technology, 7, 213-219.
Hahn, E. (1973). The Cooking of China. Nederland: Time-Life International.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-135.
Hong, J. F., & C. R. Huang. (2015). A study of Chinese sensation verbs used in linguistic synaesthesia. In Q. Lu, H. H. Gao (Eds.), Chinese Lexical Semantics. Paper presented at the 16th Workshop, CLSW 2015, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 9-11, May (pp. 62-73). Springer.
Hossain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistics Implication for Linguistic Relativity: A Case Study of Chinese. Psychology Press.
Jurafsky, D. (2014). The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu. W. W. Norton & Company.
Kaeppler, K., & Mueller, F. (2012). Over classification: a review of factors influencing perception-based odor arrangements. Chemical Senses, 38, 189-209.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2011). It’s boiling hot! On the structure of the linguistic temperature domain across languages. In Dessì Schmid Sarah, Ulrich Detges, Paul Gévaudan, Wiltrud Mihatsch and Richard Waltereit (Eds.), Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zur Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kognitiven und Historischen Semantik (pp. 379-396). Tübingen: Narr.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-74.
Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine and conversation. New York: Oxford University Express.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2011). The senses in language and culture. Senses and Society, 6(1), 5-18.
Levinson, S. C. (2012). The original sin of cognitive science. Trend in Cognitive Science, 4, 396-403.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and senses. Mind and Language, 29(4), 407-427.
Malt, B. C., & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 583-597.
Majid, A., Senft, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). The language of touch. In A. Majid (Ed), Field Manual Volume 10 (pp. 32-35). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266-270.
Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The color of odors. Brain and Language, 79, 309-320.
Newman, J. (1997). Eating and drinking as sources of metaphor in English. Cuadernos de Filogía, 6(2), 213-231.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., and Stevens R. (2002). Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 489-495.
Qureshy, A., Kawashima, R., Imran, M. B., Sugiura, M., Goto, R., Okada, K., Inoue, k., Itoh, M., Schormann, T., Zilles, K., & Fukuda, H. (2000). Journal of Neurophysiology, 84(3), 1656-1666.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Stanlaw, J. (1997). Two observations on culture contact and the Japanese color nomenclature system. In Hardin, C.L. & Maffi, L., (Eds), Color categories in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, R. (1974). The Cooking of Japan. Nederland: Time-Life International.
Talmy, L. (2014). Relating language to other cognitive systems – an abridged account. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 10 (1), 211-226.
Tono, Y., Yamasaki, M., & Maekawa, K. (2013). A Frequency Dictionary of Japanese. Routledge.
Upton, G. J. G. (1992). Fisher’s exact test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 155(3), 395-402.
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: a possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461-478.
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limit of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131, 125-138.
Wolff, P. & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 253-265.
Xiao, R., Rayson, P., & McEery, T. (2009). A Frequency Dictionary of Mandarin Chinese: Core Vocabulary for Learners. Routledge.
Xing, Z. (2009). Semantics and pragmatics of color terms. In Xing (Ed), Studies of Chinese Linguistics: Functional Approaches (pp. 87-102). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Cwiertka, K. J. (2009). 飲食、權力與國族認同：當代日本料理的形成（陳玉箴譯）。台北縣：韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
宮崎正勝 (2012)。你不可不知的日本飲食史（陳心慧譯）。台北縣：遠足文化。（原著出版於2009）
張鋐閔（2015年11月24日）。阿姨神比喻：哈密瓜有種＿味，網友創意爆發。蘋果日報。取自appledaily.com.tw。
 
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
101555005
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101555005
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 戴智偉zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Rik De Busseren_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 謝明哲zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsieh Ming Cheen_US
dc.creator (作者) 謝明哲zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Che, Hsieh Mingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2016en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2016 14:51:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Jul-2016 14:51:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2016 14:51:37 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0101555005en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/98524-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101555005zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 無庸置疑，人類的每一項知覺都一樣重要。因為我們仰賴這些知覺接收來自周遭的訊息，只要有一個消失不見，我們在生活上便會遇到困難。然而，在語言表達上，知覺並非一樣重要。嗅覺看似是最難表達的知覺，因為人們常常依賴物體來表達嗅覺，例如「草的味道」。另一方面，我們無需依賴物體、並使用顏色來表達視覺。當我們想陳述對於「天空」的想法時，我們會使用「藍色」而不是「天空的顏色」。不同的語言有無可能把重點放在不同的知覺上？如果是，是什麼原因造成不同的語言現象？
觀察人們如何表達對食物的看法非常適合用來討論知覺表達，因為品嚐食物的過程和視覺、嗅覺、味覺、及口感息息相關。本研究搜集來自中文及日文母語者有關食物的知覺表達，包括職業廚師及料理新手。米飯在中國及日本文化扮演著主食的角色，這項文化地位讓米飯成為與發音人面談上的主題。假設所有的知覺在不同文化都一樣重樣，人們應該會以相似的方式來表達知覺。研究結果發現在知覺表達中，中文母語者主要強調口感，但日語母語者強調視覺。透過比較職業廚師及料理新手也能找到知覺表達上的差異：職業廚師主要著重視覺，新手則重視味覺。人們亦使用不同的認知策略來表達不同知覺，但職業廚師及新手都依賴對食物的評價來表達知覺。從生理學上來看，人類的知覺一樣重要，但中文及日文的知覺表達卻不一樣。本研究認為文化及社會因素了影響語言的知覺表達。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Senses are undoubtedly important to people because they allow us to experience our world and we would face difficulties when any of them were absent. However, senses are not equally important in linguistic expressions. It seems that expressing odors is difficult in some languages because people often rely on concrete objects to make olfactory expressions, such as cǎo de weìdào ‘the smell of grass.’ Making use of color rather than concrete objects for visual expressions, we often choose lán ‘blue’ rather than tiānkōng de yánsè ‘the color of sky’ when expressing what we feel from sky. Is it possible that different emphasis of senses can be observed in different languages? If so, what is the reason leading to the differences in languages?
Observing how people express their feeling toward food is an appropriate method to discuss sensory expressions, because the procedure of tasting food is strongly correlated with multiple senses like vision, odor, taste, and mouthfeel. This study collects sensory expressions of food from both Chinese and Japanese speakers, including both experts and novices of cooking. Acting as the main dish in Chinese and Japanese cultures, rice is regarded as the theme of interview due to the cultural importance. If all senses are important in different cultures, they should be expressed in similar ways. Our results suggest that Chinese mainly focuses on mouthfeel, while Japanese mainly focuses on vision when performing sensory expressions. The differences in sensory expressions can also be observed through comparing experts with novices: experts mainly focus on vision, and novices firstly choose taste. People also make use of different cognitive strategies to express different kinds of senses, but both experts and novices rely on the evaluative type to create sensory expressions. Sensory expressions are different between Chinese and Japanese although senses are physiologically identical for people. This study suggests that both culture and social factors influence sensory expressions in languages.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Chapter 1. Introduction...................................1
1. 1. Research background and motivation................1
1. 2. Purpose...........................................3
1. 3. Research questions................................5
1. 4. Structure of this thesis..........................5

Chapter 2. Literature review..............................7
2. 1. Physiological perspectives of senses..............7
2. 2. Linguistic relativity............................10
2. 3. The language of perception.......................14

Chapter 3. Methodology...................................21
3. 1. Participants and data collection.................21
3. 2. Categorization...................................26
3. 3. Senses...........................................27
3. 3. 1. Vision..................................27
3. 3. 2. Odor....................................29
3. 3. 3. Taste...................................31
3. 3. 4. Mouthfeel...............................33
3. 4. Cognitive types..................................34
3. 4. 1. Descriptive.............................36
3. 4. 2. Evaluative..............................40
3. 4. 3. Combinatorial...........................45
3. 4. 4. Derivative..............................47
3. 5. Statistical analysis.............................51
3. 5. 1. Multiple regression.....................53

Chapter 4. Results and discussions.......................56
4. 1. Distribution.....................................56
4. 2. Cognitive types..................................58
4. 2. 1. Odor....................................59
4. 2. 2. Taste...................................64
4. 2. 3. Mouthfeel...............................68
4. 2. 4. Vision..................................72
4. 3. Profession.......................................78
4. 4. Further discussion...............................80

Chapter 5. Concluding remarks............................85
5. 1. Does culture influence sensory expressions.......85
5. 2. Do different language users use different cognitive
types............................................85
5. 3. Do social factors influence linguistic patterns....86
5. 4. Directions for future studies......................87

References...............................................90
Appendix I: Sample of questionnaire (Chinese senses).....95
Appendix II: Sample of questionnaire (Chinese cognitive
types)......................................97
Appendix III: Sample of questionnaire (Japanese senses).100
Appendix IV: Sample of questionnaire (Japanese cognitive
types).....................................102
Appendix V: Example of sensory expressions (Chinese)....105
Appendix VI: Example of sensory expressions (Japanese)..135		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 11887405 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101555005en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 知覺語言zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言相對論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 料理語言學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Language of perceptionen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Linguistic relativityen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Culinary linguisticsen_US
dc.title (題名) 米飯的感知及其在中文及日文的語言表達zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Perception of Rice and Its Linguistic Expression in Chinese and Japaneseen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alonso, L., Capilla, J. A., Castellón, I., Fernández, A., & Vázquez, G. (2007). The Sensem Project: Syntactico-Semantic Annotation of Sentences in Spanish. In N. Nikolov, K. Bontcheva, G. Angelova, & R. Mitkov (Eds.). Recent advances in natural language processing (Vol. IV, pp. 89–98). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Athanasopoulos, P., Damjanovic, L., Krajciova, A., & Sasaki, M. (2011). Representation of colour concepts in bilingual cognition: the case of Japanese blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(1), 9-17.
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Dedre Getner & Susan Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (pp. 61-79). Cambrige, MA: MIT Press.
Buck, L. B. (2004). Unraveling the sense of smell (Nobel Lecture) [pdf]. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2004/buck-lecture.pdf
Burenhult, N., & Majid, A. (2011). Olfaction in Aslian ideaology and language. Senses and Society, 6(1), 19-29.
Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the Kappa statistics. Computational Linguistics, 22(2), 249-254.
Chafe, W. L. (2004). Masculine and feminine in the Northern Iroquoian languages. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chang, K. C. (1977). Introduction. In K. C. Chang (Ed), Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives (pp. 1-21). New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.
Chang, R. C. Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A. H. N. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists. Annuals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 989-1011.
Clark, A. (1993). Sensory qualities. Oxford: Oxford University Express.
Copeck, T., Barker, K., Delisle, S., & Szpakowicz, S. (2000). Automating the measurement of linguistic features to help classify texts as technical. In R. L. Libres (Ed), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Automatic NLP (TALN-2000), 16-18, October (pp. 101-110). Lausanne, Switzerland.
Croijmans, I., & Majid, A. (2015). Odor naming is difficult, even for wine and coffee experts. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015), 23-25, July (pp. 483-488). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
De Busser, R. (2015). The influence of social, cultural, and natural factors on language structure. In R. de Busser & R. J. Lapolla (Eds.), Language Structure and Environment (pp. 1-28). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Enfield, N. J. (2011). Taste in two tongues: a Southeast Asian study of semantic convergence, Senses and Society, 6(1), 30-37.
Gao, J., & Sutrop, U. (2014). The basic color terms of Mandarin Chinese: a theory-driven experimental study. Studies in Language, 38(2), 335-359.
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., Mangun, G. R. (2014). Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind (4th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Giunchiglia, F., Dutta, B., Maltese, V. (2009). Faceted lightweight ontologies. In A. T. Borgia, V. K. Chandhri, P. Giorgini, & E. S. Yu (Eds.), Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. Springer.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2012). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Guinard, J., & Mazzucchelli, R. (1996). The sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel. Trend in Food Science and Technology, 7, 213-219.
Hahn, E. (1973). The Cooking of China. Nederland: Time-Life International.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-135.
Hong, J. F., & C. R. Huang. (2015). A study of Chinese sensation verbs used in linguistic synaesthesia. In Q. Lu, H. H. Gao (Eds.), Chinese Lexical Semantics. Paper presented at the 16th Workshop, CLSW 2015, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 9-11, May (pp. 62-73). Springer.
Hossain, R. (1991). Psycholinguistics Implication for Linguistic Relativity: A Case Study of Chinese. Psychology Press.
Jurafsky, D. (2014). The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu. W. W. Norton & Company.
Kaeppler, K., & Mueller, F. (2012). Over classification: a review of factors influencing perception-based odor arrangements. Chemical Senses, 38, 189-209.
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2011). It’s boiling hot! On the structure of the linguistic temperature domain across languages. In Dessì Schmid Sarah, Ulrich Detges, Paul Gévaudan, Wiltrud Mihatsch and Richard Waltereit (Eds.), Rahmen des Sprechens. Beiträge zur Valenztheorie, Varietätenlinguistik, Kognitiven und Historischen Semantik (pp. 379-396). Tübingen: Narr.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-74.
Lehrer, A. (2009). Wine and conversation. New York: Oxford University Express.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and Space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2011). The senses in language and culture. Senses and Society, 6(1), 5-18.
Levinson, S. C. (2012). The original sin of cognitive science. Trend in Cognitive Science, 4, 396-403.
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and senses. Mind and Language, 29(4), 407-427.
Malt, B. C., & Majid, A. (2013). How thought is mapped into words. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4, 583-597.
Majid, A., Senft, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2007). The language of touch. In A. Majid (Ed), Field Manual Volume 10 (pp. 32-35). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266-270.
Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The color of odors. Brain and Language, 79, 309-320.
Newman, J. (1997). Eating and drinking as sources of metaphor in English. Cuadernos de Filogía, 6(2), 213-231.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O’Neill, L., Yau, N. J. N., and Stevens R. (2002). Motives for food choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, and New Zealand. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 489-495.
Qureshy, A., Kawashima, R., Imran, M. B., Sugiura, M., Goto, R., Okada, K., Inoue, k., Itoh, M., Schormann, T., Zilles, K., & Fukuda, H. (2000). Journal of Neurophysiology, 84(3), 1656-1666.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Stanlaw, J. (1997). Two observations on culture contact and the Japanese color nomenclature system. In Hardin, C.L. & Maffi, L., (Eds), Color categories in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Steinberg, R. (1974). The Cooking of Japan. Nederland: Time-Life International.
Talmy, L. (2014). Relating language to other cognitive systems – an abridged account. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 10 (1), 211-226.
Tono, Y., Yamasaki, M., & Maekawa, K. (2013). A Frequency Dictionary of Japanese. Routledge.
Upton, G. J. G. (1992). Fisher’s exact test. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: Statistics in Society, 155(3), 395-402.
Williams, J. M. (1976). Synaesthetic adjectives: a possible law of semantic change. Language, 52(2), 461-478.
Wnuk, E., & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limit of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131, 125-138.
Wolff, P. & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 253-265.
Xiao, R., Rayson, P., & McEery, T. (2009). A Frequency Dictionary of Mandarin Chinese: Core Vocabulary for Learners. Routledge.
Xing, Z. (2009). Semantics and pragmatics of color terms. In Xing (Ed), Studies of Chinese Linguistics: Functional Approaches (pp. 87-102). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Cwiertka, K. J. (2009). 飲食、權力與國族認同：當代日本料理的形成（陳玉箴譯）。台北縣：韋伯文化國際出版有限公司。
宮崎正勝 (2012)。你不可不知的日本飲食史（陳心慧譯）。台北縣：遠足文化。（原著出版於2009）
張鋐閔（2015年11月24日）。阿姨神比喻：哈密瓜有種＿味，網友創意爆發。蘋果日報。取自appledaily.com.tw。
 		zh_TW