Chetan Sharma- Department of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
It is assumed that the human sense of smell is inferior to vision. This framework of underdeveloped human olfaction can be mainly attributed previously to its historical demotion of it by the Western, quasi-scientific ideas, and evolutionary narratives or differences in reference to other animals, such as rats or mice. However, this notion of a comparatively poor sense of smell may have derived from the narrowly focused pseudoscientific practices of the past and needs to be revisited under more recent findings. Similarly, the generalization of language as poorly connected with the olfactory system needs more cross-cultural references to support or abolish this hypothesis. Humans’ olfactory system is not inferior, but certainly different from other species and humans have excellent olfactory abilities. Humans are exceptional in detection and discrimination; in fact, they are more sensitive than rodents and dogs to some odors. Language does not constrain the naming of odors due to cognitive architecture, and the mapping of language on the senses is culturally related. Jahai hunter-gatherers were found naming odors as easy as colors. Plasticity and culture were found to have a huge influence on odor naming. No universal hierarchy of senses, such as if vision is more codable than odor, was found imposing on languages.
1 Introduction
The relationship between odors and language coincides with the relationship that language has with color as both strive for object1 information similarly (Olofsson and Gottfried, 2015) and subsequent similar strategies are used to express both (Majid and Kruspe, 2018). Familiar odors are known to be processed as perceptual objects (Wilson and Stevenson, 2003; Gottfried, 2010). Nevertheless, colors or visual perception can also be both objective and subjective as well (Brynjarsdóttir, 2010), like how the combinations of visual features are perceived as objects (Olofsson and Wilson, 2018). Advancing this idea, Smell-X, a sensory installation at the Figment New York City (NYC) festival, offered the visitors to create a shape out of clay based on one of the accords they smelled (Ataman, 2018). The recent findings debunked 19th-century Paul Broca’s pseudoscientific belief that humans have a poor sense of olfaction due to phylogenetic reasons. In the context of the inadequacy of the human mind, olfaction has been considered the least significant of the human senses until now (McGann, 2017), but recent work will lead to a more nuanced view of the principles governing olfactory-language interactions. Among the phylogenetic reasons cited for the poor human olfaction ability were that vison supplanted olfaction as humans became upright (Majid and Kruspe, 2018); large frontal lobes and smaller olfactory bulb (McGann, 2017); position of the bulbs in humans and rodents (underneath the frontal lobe and at the very front, respectively), smaller olfactory bulb volume in proportion to rest of the brain in humans versus mouse (0.01% and 2%, respectively) (McGann, 2017); proportionally smaller surface area of the nasal cavity is covered with olfactory epithelium (Majid and Kruspe, 2018); negative relation between smaller olfactory bulb size and odor-compelled behavior, smaller fraction of functional genes for receptor proteins in humans compared to mouse (390–400 and 1,000, respectively), higher fraction of functionally inactive olfactory receptor genes, i.e., pseudogenes (>60% or 600) (Gilad and Lancet, 2003); negative correlation between olfactory and visual brain structures (Barton et al., 1995); convergence of the orbits, stereoscopic vison (McGann, 2017); and the acquisition of full trichromatic vision at the loss of olfactory receptor genes (Gilad et al., 2004). Although the human olfactory system has turned out to have some biological differences, such as the large size of the olfactory bulb in absolute terms (vs. mouse), the large olfactory epithelium (5 cm2 vs. 1.4 cm2 in mice), higher glomeruli for information processing (16 vs. 2 in rodent), lack of “accessory olfactory system” and large, intricate orbitofrontal cortex, it is generally similar in its neurobiology and sensory capabilities (McGann, 2017). In fact, the often-touted reason for ‘the smaller size of the olfactory bulb, in relative terms for human’s impoverished olfactory system, found little support (Laska et al., 2005). Irrespective of phylogenetic differences, olfactory receptor genes are linked to perceiving odors, and not to name them (Majid and Kruspe, 2018). Odor-naming difficulties have been attributed instead to brain connectivity, either olfactory and language areas of the brain are too weakly connected (Engen, 1987), or too directly connected (Olofsson and Gottfried, 2015; Raspet, 2016), or their neural signals interfere with each other (Lorig, 1999). This suggests that if we were to look for a genetic basis for odor naming, the relevant genes would regulate neuroanatomical connectivity rather than odor perception, per se (Majid and Kruspe, 2018). Thus, the inability to name smells is not a biological limitation but a cultural domain.
2 Language role in olfaction
Biologically, individual differences in verbal and non-verbal responses to smell for intensity, pleasantness, or description were attributed to the polymorphic nature of functional genes (Ferdenzi et al., 2017). However, the olfactory gene repertoire is not the only source of variation. Instead, many other factors, such as age, sex (McGann, 2017), personality, beliefs (Herz and von Clef, 2001), exposure or experiences (McGann, 2017), culture (Ferdenzi et al., 2017), and so on, related to the individuals and their interactions with the environment play a significant role in odor perception. Similarly, the evolutionary development of sight at the expense of smell intrinsically gave more accessibility to consciousness and object recognition, but the notion of language is not constrained only to the intrinsic cognitive architecture instead mapping of language onto senses is also culturally driven (Majid et al., 2018b). Recently, it was found that olfaction abstraction (Majid et al., 2018a) and patterns of brain activation (Reilly et al., 2020) do vary across cultures and languages, foremost contradicting the previously suggested notion of universal disposition (White et al., 2020). Language is not a sheer recapitulation of brain structure, in fact, it drives evolutionary changes in brain structure by language-brain feedback mechanisms (Reilly et al., 2020). English speakers used more source-based descriptions for culturally salient and pleasant odors (Poulton, 2020). On contrary, Amis language speakers were found using more abstract odor terms for the strong and repulsive smells (Lee, 2015). A similar trend of greater differentiation for unpleasant smells was observed in Thai odor terms (Wnuk et al., 2020). This further infers that abstract odor terms may be primed by psychological effects triggered by abrupt unpleasant smells (Lee, 2015), but again depending upon the culture fewer abstract terms were provided for unpleasant smells by English speakers (Poulton, 2020). The deeply rooted fear of the invisible vis-à-vis odors in Western societies, its frantic urge to clean the surroundings (Bingham, 2020), smell good and taboo culture (Poulton, 2020) kept it away from unpleasant smells (Allan and Burridge, 2006; Poulton, 2020), which could be a reason for less communication. Unpleasant smells have been perceived as less familiar and more intense (Pichon et al., 2015).
Jahai is an Aslian language that belongs to the Austroasiatic family and Jahai speakers of the hunter-gatherer community in the Malay peninsula demystified the often-tout claim of ‘olfactory-abstraction is impossible’ by providing the faster (2.7 s versus 17 s) and shorter responses in the abstract language (Majid et al., 2018a). The Aslian-speaking communities have been termed ‘smell cultures’ (C. V. Classen et al., 1994) and Jahai is not the only example among these languages with smells as a prominent cultural feature (Lee, 2015). Another genetically related language, Semai, uses ‘expressives’ (ideophones or mimetics), a distinct category of words in the form of a string of consonants serving as a template for describing sensory phenomena (Lee, 2015). Agreed-upon nature in hunter-gatherers’ vocabulary gave them a communication advantage over hidden dangers in the jungle, which could otherwise cost their life. On contrary, western societies with slash-and-burn metaphors do not rely much on an integral part of their communication to avoid hidden danger, which could be a possible reason for longer and different descriptors used for odor identification. The Jahai language terms abstract away from the actual sources typically associated with them, enabling them to use for any source whose odor approximates such a quality (Burenhult and Majid, 2011). Besides, Jahai odor verbs were found monolexemic, i.e., the meaning is not predictable from the meaning of its parts, psychologically salient, and abstract-based (Burenhult and Majid, 2011). In contrast to the fluent abstract response of Jahai speakers, western participants predominantly tried to find a source or a situation corresponding to the aroma. This difference in reference identification (concrete versus abstract) was a sharp contrast between cultures. The same authors found that odors were initially treated similarly to facial expressions across cultures and this finding contradicts the previous notion of abstract concepts are more detached from sensory experience.
3 Dimensions of the olfactory lexica
Initial affective responses to odors, measured by odor pleasantness, have been found supporting valence theory and these pleasantness judgments were consistent across cultures (Khan et al., 2007; Majid et al., 2018a). Similar findings were reported for Thai and Maniq languages, where alike odors were grouped, suggesting a primary semantic dimension of pleasantness (Wnuk et al., 2020). However, the notion of pleasantness varies significantly across cultures, for instance, the odor of fresh cow dung could be pleasant for some while unpleasant for others. Cow dung is frequently used to purify (emphasizing, purify but not cleanliness) the floor and walls for devotional ceremonies in the north India region of Punjab state, and it is a pleasant odor for locals, including myself but may not be so for Western or indeed the urban population of India. Mud walls and grounds with freshly smeared cow dung cakes drying lazily have a rustic beauty and exude an earthy essence. A shred of buttressing evidence can be located elsewhere (Sahu et al., 2021). This could be attributed to what Cerulo (2018) stated in her work non-declarative culture, a concept that does not involve conscious awareness and is acquired slowly from everyday activities. Here, non-declarative culture may be associated with quick, automatic, and unconscious association of first impressions of smell, such as pleasantness. Cow, being a sacred symbol of life in a demarcated boundary, the use of cow dung, auto qualifies it to be a symbol of purity, and associates it with “public culture” which one might use to organize his/her cultural meanings independent of personal beliefs. The “everybody knows” quality of these initial reactions to scents or aromas illustrates the relationship between non-declarative culture and public culture and its importance in deciphering smells. Public culture provides people with a consensual definition of relative values of smells, here in this case, of cow dung. Similarly, clove and cardamom, which are pleasant odors for northern Indians, and used regularly in chai or kheer (pudding), were found unpleasant for native English speakers of Australian origin (Poulton, 2020). These cultural capitals challenge generalizations of odor space to generate collective odor space, and for the same reasons, others suggested a non-paradigmatic conceptual space of more locale scope rather than otherwise (Jraissati and Deroy, 2021). In contrast to the earned status of ‘most repulsive in the world,’ the smell of fermented herring as a delicacy for the Swedish populous would be a fitting illustration of locale scope (Nygaard, 2019). The frame of references evoked at the moment of smelling is often get manifested by individual subjectivity and can provide very distinct objects of conceptual identity (Barwich, 2019). The olfactory definition of the space, which we inhabit as human beings, depends on the prevailing culture of the inhabiting humankind, their sanctioned cosmology that further manifests topography, flora, and fauna of the geography, and together they construct an olfactory landscape, where the smell of wintergreen may evoked a strikingly distinct frame of reference, i.e., of ointment (medicine/not edible, e.g., Iodex™, India), rather than that of the mints (Excitemint™ wintergreen mints, a brand of German supermarket chain—Aldi Inc.). . Relatedly, a panelist of Asian origin was referring to mustard green as a frame of reference for a boiled potato type while others of North American origin were to cauliflower (Sharma et al., 2020). Both cauliflower and mustard share the same taxonomy and sulfurous compounds, still, both ethnicities were differing in a very specific or narrow way. It may evoke an impression of high intersubjective agreement that can be achieved with the chemicals, but the same chemical may appear as medicine to one whereas a mouth freshener to another, especially in cross-cultural studies (below mentioned). Likewise, whether butyric acid is characterized as part of comestible (parmesan cheese) or vomit also depends on the subject in question.
Hedonic valence (degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness) has been closely linked to familiarity (Moss et al., 2016; Poulton, 2020). Though the patterns of brain activation for the respective senses precede the ontogeny of the language (Reilly et al., 2020), the cultural guidance of first impression allows one to move back and forth between first impression and culturally connected valued settings to build olfactory meaning (Cerulo, 2018). Odor classifications have been found particularly affected by the linguistic or semantic arrangements of (supposed) odor sources rather than the sensory characteristics of odors (Chrea et al., 2005; Kaeppler and Mueller, 2013). The most basic attribute of an odor, i.e., pleasantness (Kaeppler and Mueller, 2013), may be an aftereffect of innate prenatal learning. Mammals begin learning how to classify visual information in the womb because of spontaneous retinal activity (Garson, 2014). Prenatal chemosensory experience of anise flavor was found to influence oral and facial expressions in newborns, with a preference for anise odor (Schaal et al., 2000). Given that previous exposure and learning play crucial roles (Lee, 2015; Olofsson and Wilson, 2018), it would be no wonder the typicality and salience of odors play roles in odor categorization (Poulton, 2020). Active olfactory training based on cultural obligations shapes not only olfactory language but also odor perception (Olofsson and Wilson, 2018) and categorization (Chrea et al., 2004). In fact, cultural salience was identified as a secondary semantic dimension of the olfactory conceptual space followed by hedonic valence (Poulton, 2020). By looking at Thai and Kapsiki languages’ shared primary semantic dimension and salience, it may be concluded that smell terms might in fact be a relatively common feature within the linguistic area of Mainland Southeast Asia (MSEA) and further research would help establish a typology of smell terms, consonant for that suggested for color (Wnuk et al., 2020).
Though higher cultural convergence has been shown for unpleasant odors, such as decaying organic matter, feces, and body odors, higher cultural variability drives the hedonic ratings of pleasant odors, such as nature, cosmetics, and food (Ferdenzi et al., 2017). In the series, Dogon of Mali rubs fried onions, all over their bodies, as a highly desirable perfume (Fox, 2006). The essence of onion could never enjoy success as a perfume in the West, although it does in Senegal and elsewhere in Africa. This example underlines the fact that the categories of the fragrant and the foul are not given in nature, but rather derive from culture (Classen et al., 1994). The perception of odor and pleasantness is a complex process and involves both innately tuned and learned components (Khan et al., 2007). Thus, the Western notion of aesthetically pleasing fragrances is by no means universal (Fox, 2006).
Following pleasantness, alertness or dangerousness has been recognized as the second dimension of olfactory perceptions (Wnuk and Majid, 2014). Toxicity, a concept closely related to dangerousness was likewise reported elsewhere (Haddad et al., 2010) as being the other dimension of olfactory perceptions. Similarly, another study reported soft/active and rich/fresh dimensions (Zarzo and Stanton, 2009). These 2-dimensions can instantaneously provide a coarse categorization of smells in question, but simultaneously these dimensions seem not to suffice enough to capture the phenomenal differences between, say two equally pleasant and equally edible smells. For instance, following coarse categorization, further odor identification may involve diverse factors, especially if we consider humans as cultural beings. One can refer to a particular place (grandmother’s closet, geography—jungle, village), experience (bright yellow colored mustard fields of Punjab, India), source (flora and fauna—guava, java plum), properties (dark fruit, brown, sweet, etc.), etc. Together, they make it hard to build a general odor categorization scheme. However, considering the small number of odor terms reported in cross-cultural studies, say 14 for Wanzi (Mouélé, 1997), 21 for Totonac (Enríquez, 2004), 15 for Maniq (Wnuk and Majid, 2014), and 12 for Jahai, Jraissati, and Deroy (2021) suggested that odors can be compared only if the size of odorants is closed or determined, which actually is, in a local way. A low dimensional space, i.e., 2-dimensional in nature, was suggested rather than a complex multidimensional one. The smells in Wanzi olfactory culture are sorted between domestic and wild contexts, for instance of a total of 14 smell terms, five refer to domestic odors, two to wild odors, and eight for both domestic and wild odors (Mouélé, 1997).
Ethnographic data illustrate that smell terms have detailed semantics tapping into broader cultural constructs. Contrary to the widespread view that languages cannot encode odors, the Maniq speakers showed that odor can be a coherent semantic domain (Wnuk and Majid, 2014). For example, the term lsp∂s denotes a fragrant smell quality characteristic of a wide range of different objects, such as wild yams, bearcats, medicinal plants, forests, various trees, and fruit (Wnuk et al., 2017). Gilad and Lancet (2003) found significant differences in the size of the intact olfactory repertoire between Pygmies and Caucasians, as the former has more intact alleles or higher functional genes. Similarly, non-African individuals were reported to have significantly fewer functional olfactory receptors than did African American individuals and these results substantiate previous reports suggesting that different evolutionary pressures may have shaped the chemosensory repertoire in different human populations (Menashe et al., 2003). Genetically, this highly diverse repertoire of olfactory receptors across species and individuals can contribute to unique olfactory experiences.
Physiologically, the inability to name objects based on their olfactory compared to appearance may be explained by the brain circuitry involved in associating olfactory and visual object features to lexico-semantic representations (Olofsson and Gottfried, 2015; Olofsson and Wilson, 2018). It was reported that incoming olfactory signals are primarily directly connected to the higher (associated with highest functions of consciousness and intellect) neocortical centers (other senses are first processed by the thalamus of the brain), which causes a delay in sending information to the language center of the neocortex (Raspet, 2016). Secondly, the aroma (say, cherry) may enable less distinctive features (sweet, fruity) than its visual counterpart (small, round) before the object is mapped onto a source name via designated sensory-specific language hubs (Olofsson et al., 2014; Olofsson and Wilson, 2018). This biologically limited olfactory feature extraction may be explained by physiology, but the explanations citing physiology do not exclude roles for culture and plasticity (Olofsson and Wilson, 2018; Reilly et al., 2020). The push and the prevalence of the use of concrete (referential) words over abstract, especially in the case of olfaction in Western dialogue could also be a reason for this so-called inability. For example, most of the aroma or flavor wheels or in other words lexicons are based on concrete words, where abstract words are intentionally and consciously replaced with concrete words. Thirdly, the commodity of interest (or disinterest) has a huge influence on whether one can extract distinctive features or not, for instance, if one wishes to compare mango with guava or alphonso mango with dasheri mango. Likewise, one can easily sniff or extract distinguishing features of a hint of asafetida among garam masala (a blend of ground spices - cumin, black pepper, cinnamon, coriander, etc.).
Rather, sensory-cognitive systems can be best characterized as biological systems that develop under genetic as well as an environmental influence (Olofsson and Wilson, 2018). Language-brain feedback mechanism found driving the evolutionary changes in human brain structure, which may convey firstly that language could reiterate the sensory hierarchy framework in the brain or secondly that language and brain function could mirror one another through co-evolution (Deacon, 1998; Reilly et al., 2020). Linguistically, access to odor labels is known to facilitate identification (Cain, 1979). This abovementioned bio-cultural interaction is observed in Semaq Beri hunter-gatherers (Majid and Kruspe, 2018) who have extraordinary olfactory capabilities. Aforesaid recent findings contradict the idea of White and co-workers (2020) that language and chemosensory perception appear poles apart and there is a “weak link” between language and olfaction. This “weak link” notion was supported by the statements/findings that: 1) language is unable to effectively interact with the olfactory system, 2) odors presented without verbal cues are notoriously difficult to name, 3) people found it profoundly difficult to name familiar smells, 4) describe odors in terms of their sources, 5) easily conjure up appearance with the label compared to odor, 6) easier to match a name to an odor than vice versa 7), and generalization of abovementioned reasons to conclude that it may be a universal disposition. Despite its fame as an elusive domain, the claims about smell do not generalize to all languages (Wnuk et al., 2020), as the inability to name odors is a culturally contingent fact related to subsistence mode (Majid and Kruspe, 2018). Jahai and Maniq appeared to have the most elaborated odor lexicons, with 12 (Jahai) to 15 (Maniq) terms, yet the highest number, 21 terms, was observed in Kumam speakers (O'Meara and Majid, 2016). Aforesaid examples of Jahai, Semaq Beri, Maniq, and Thai speakers support cultural influence on odor-language interaction. Many reasons could be responsible for the absence of smell lexica in English, such as deodorization of the environment (Wnuk et al., 2020), the rise of civilization (Burenhult and Majid, 2011), derogation of smell in the West by the 18th and 19th-century philosophers (Fox, 2006; Wnuk et al., 2020). The intellectual elite of the 18th and 19th centuries decreed sight to be the all-important, an index of the civilized world while the sense of odor was deemed to be of a lower order, an index of uncivilized, ill-mannered, primitive, aboriginal people (Adivasi). In the theory of psychosexual development, Sigmund Freud described the anal and oral stages of early childhood, which centered on smell, taste, and touch, as ‘harkening back to early animal forms of life’ (McGann, 2017). Indeed, the emotional potency of smell was felt to threaten the impersonal, rational detachment of modern scientific thinking, and eventually, this demotion of smell has had a lasting effect on academic research, with the result that we know far less about our sense of smell than about more high-status senses such as vision and hearing (Fox, 2006). Just now, it was found that smell lexica, which was considered restricted to a handful of small languages of (linguistic rarum), is in fact more common than suggested previously (Wnuk et al., 2020). The Thai language, with millions of speakers, challenged this assumption and the prevalence of smell-related terms reflects the importance of smell in the everyday life. The high incidence of smell-related vocabulary in the Thai National Corpus and the relevance of smell across several cultural domains question the weak-link notion between olfaction and language. Similar findings were reported in Amis, an Austronesian language spoken in Taiwan, which exhibits abundant odor terms (Lee, 2015).
A direct test of Aristotle’s claim that sensory hierarchy is dominated by vision and audition was only recently made possible in 2020, where it was empirically proved that English word ratings, the world’s most-spoken language, reflected the consistency with Aristotle’s claim of sensory hierarchy: vision > audition > haptic > olfaction ≈ gustation (Reilly et al., 2020). However, odor lexicons in other languages such as Jahai, Thai, Farsi, etc., are contradictory to this hierarchy, suggesting that this distributional linguistic evidence is not a human universal. The implications from the foregoing studies suggest that despite the weak neural connections between the limbic system and the language processing areas, the sensual dominance of vision in Western societies over the other senses may be culturally biased (Lee, 2015). Cultural contexts and social constraints play vital roles in olfactory responses, which tend to trigger a mnemonic process while describing a perceived odor (Lee, 2015). Thus, we will be taking a step further into understanding just how our conceptualizations and our cultural preoccupations affect how we verbalize our sensory experiences (Poulton, 2020).
4 Other cultural insights on olfaction
Both, language and food habits are cultural capitals, and consequently, both are deeply interiorized as the very basic values by the members of every nation. Like most other forms of non-verbal communication, the reliance on smell is cultural (Griffin and Bone, 2013). Freud (1978: 318) famously proclaimed “the organic sublimation of the sense of smell is a factor in civilization.” Olfaction has been relegated to a merely rudimentary function in the human sensorium by many great Western thinkers over the centuries (Burenhult and Majid, 2011). However, the connections among odor, creator, desire, space, time, memory, and loss have been emphasized in indigenous societies and texts. Furthermore, the ancient science of Ayurveda speaks about the deeper holistic science behind the exhilaration of senses when individuals met fragrances and experience their healing properties (Marathe, 2009; Iyengar, 2017a; Iyengar, 2017b). The significance of fragrance in worship, as a vehicle of spiritual connection, has been explained in classical Indian texts. In Hinduism, the odor of earth, in Mahabharata (महाभारत), has been characterized as nine-fold, namely, desired, undesired, sweet, pungent, diffusive, compact, smooth, rough, and pure (McHugh, 2007). This nine-fold characterization could imply to intensity as noted by one of the reviewers. Similarly, in Hitopadesha (हितोपदेशः) fables, betel nut was described as a bitter, hot, sweet, spicy, binding, alkaline, demulcent, and astringent. Similar examples can be found in other holy texts, such as ਧੂਪੁ ਮਲਆਨਲੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਚਵਰੋ ਕਰੇ ਸਗਲ ਬਨਰਾਇ ਫੂਲੰਤ ਜੋਤੀ || in Guru Granth Sahib (गुरु ग्रंथ साहिब). It is believed that the art of honing the magic of scent through creating perfumes and incense was first pioneered in ancient India (Iyengar, 2017a). Incense sticks and dhoop are the paragons of this age-old practice. Moreover, fragrance plays a role in not only beautifying Sufi practices but also in providing the mystical powers of healing (Sahu et al., 2021) and spiritual inspiration through its myriad avatars (Iyengar, 2017b). Jalaluddin Rumi, one of the loftiest Sufis/Dervish and mystic of all times, characterizes “love” as a “bore the fragrance of musk!”
The Önge, Andamanese indigenous people, are highly attuned to odor, their Universe, and everything in it is defined by smell (Fox, 2006). Their calendar is based on the odors of flowers that come into bloom at different times of the year and indeed each season is named after an odor and possesses its distinctive aroma force. Indeed, Classen (2005, p. 156) sums up, “the heart of Önge cosmology is ordered by an olfactory model: the inhaling and exhaling of breath” (Classen, 2005). In contrast to the western world, where space is static, within which things happen, Andamanese conceives space as a dynamic environmental flow (Classen et al., 1994), where the sense of smell is highly valued, and odor is the essence of personal identity, interpersonal exchanges or mixing of odors is often carefully regulated (Fox, 2006). In comparison to the English language in which vision has been a prominent source domain for metaphor (O’Meara and Majid, 2020), olfaction has been found serving, metaphorically, in a variety of ways in other languages. For example, in Punjabi, Hakim Mirza Allah Yar Khan Yogi, a Punjabi poet, portrayed the creator (ਕਰਤਾਰ) as a pleasant odor (ਸੁਗੰਦ), ਕਰਤਾਰ ਕੀ ਸੁਗੰਦ ਹੈ ਨਾਨਕ ਕੀ ਕਸਮ, ਜਿਤਨੀ ਭੀ ਹੋ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਕੀ ਤਾਰੀਫ਼ ਵਹਿ ਹੈ ਕਮ ||—wrote in the devotion of Guru Gobind Singh, last human guru of Sikhism. Unlike English where the word ‘smell’ is supposed to have a dual-purpose (bad and good smell), the Punjabi language has two separate words for positive and negative connotations for odor (ਗੰਧ), such as bad odor (ਬੋ, ਬਦਬੂ, ਮੁਸ਼ਕ, ਦੁਰਗੰਧਿ), good odor (ਖੁਸ਼ਬੋ, ਸੁਗੰਧ, ਵਾਸ਼ਨਾ). In sharp contrast to the English language’s discourteous status of the nose (schnozzle, conk, hooter, snoot, snout) (Fox, 2006), the Punjabi language gave the nose a huge admiration in literature and folklore, indeed it has been used in a variety of contexts (Table 1).
TABLE 1. A few examples of using nose as a metaphor of positivity in the Punjabi culture.
5 Future trends
In the light of expanding cross-cultural understandings of the nature of smell and the way locales use or communicate them, many bright spots can be traced, which would be less Anglocentric and broader in scope. The rise of crowdsourcing marketplaces, such as MTurk, Prolific, etc., is paving the way for more linguistically diverse engagements along with cross-cultural field studies that can provide critical data about the smell.
6 Conclusion
Olfactory perception is a heavily learned process that critically depends on exposure, past, and ongoing experiences. The dynamics of this dominant aspect of olfactory perception will put biological limitations in the olfactory system into question. Learned components get influenced by several aspects such as culture, subsistence, and multisensory convergence, to name a few. Thus, deciphering smells involves a fully entwined system including neural operations, corporeal experience, and the cultured environments in which bodies are embedded. We have seen that culture and language play a major role in odor description; where odors are used in subsistence and ways of life, this facilitates a higher odor description frequency, degree of abstraction, and codability. Finally, based on the abovementioned more recent findings would not it be very tempting to suggest that there is a “weak link” between olfaction and language?
Author contributions
CS compiled the whole work.
Funding
This work is a part of the project supported by the Cotswold Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1Adjectives were italicized as they get easily confused with their counterparts.
References
Jraissati, Y., and Deroy, O. (2021). Categorizing smells: A localist approach. Cognitive Sci. 45, e12930. doi:10.1111/cogs.12930
Allan, K., and Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ataman, D. (2018). The shape of smell: Exploring the Smell-X installation. available at: https://www.perfumerflavorist.com/fragrance/regulatory-research/news/21.
Barton, R., Purvis, A., and Harvey, P. (1995). Evolutionary radiation of visual and olfactory brain systems in primates, bats and insectivores. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 348 (1326), 381–392. doi:10.1098/rstb.1995.0076
Barwich, A. S. (2019). A critique of olfactory objects. Frontiers in psychology. Front. Psychol. 10, 1. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01337
Bingham, K. P. (2020). The foul and the fragrant in urban exploration: Unpacking the olfactory system of leisure. Int. J. Sociol. Leis. 3 (1), 15–36. doi:10.1007/s41978-019-00045-z
Brynjarsdóttir, Eyja M. (2010). Stuck in the middle: Colors between the subjective and the objective. Riv. Estet. 43, 47–65. doi:10.4000/estetica.1790
Burenhult, N., and Majid, A. (2011). Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. Senses Soc. 6 (1), 19–29. doi:10.2752/174589311x12893982233597
Cain, W. S. (1979). To know with the nose: Keys to odor identification. Science 203 (4379), 467–470. doi:10.1126/science.760202
Cerulo, K. A. (2018). Scents and sensibility: Olfaction, sense-making, and meaning attribution. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83 (2), 361–389. doi:10.1177/0003122418759679
Chrea, C., Valentin, D., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Mai, H. L., Nguyen, D. H., and Abdi, H. (2004). Culture and odor categorization: Agreement between cultures depends upon the odors. Food Qual. Prefer. 15 (7-8), 669–679. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.10.005
Chrea, C., Valentin, D., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Nguyen, D. H., and Abdi, H. (2005). Semantic, typicality and odor representation: A cross-cultural study. Chem. Senses 30 (1), 37–49. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjh255
Classen, C. (2005). “McLuhan in the rainforest: The sensory worlds of oral cultures,” in Empire of the senses: The sensual culture reader. Editor D. Howes (London: Taylor & Francis), 147–163.
Classen, C. V., Classen, C., Howes, D., and Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma: The cultural history of smell. London: Taylor & Francis.
Deacon, T. W. (1998). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: WW Norton & Company.
Enríquez, H. (2004). La categorización de los olores en totonaco. Dimens. Antropológica 30, 103–128. Avaialble at: https://www.dimensionantropologica.inah.gob.mx/?p=722.
Ferdenzi, C., Joussain, P., Digard, B., Luneau, L., Djordjevic, J., and Bensafi, M. (2017). Individual differences in verbal and non-verbal affective responses to smells: Influence of odor label across cultures. Chem. Senses 42 (1), 37–46. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjw098
Fox, K. (2006). The smell report - the psychology and anthropology of scent. Soc. Issues Res. Centre, 1–33.
Gilad, Y., and Lancet, D. (2003). Population differences in the human functional olfactory repertoire. Mol. Biol. Evol. 20 (3), 307–314. doi:10.1093/molbev/msg013
Gilad, Y., Przeworski, M., and Lancet, D. (2004). Loss of olfactory receptor genes coincides with the acquisition of full trichromatic vision in primates. PLoS Biol. 2(1)(1) 2, E5. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020005E5
Gottfried, J. A. (2010). Central mechanisms of odour object perception. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11 (9), 628–641. doi:10.1038/nrn2883
Griffin, C., and Bone, J. E. (2013). in Invitation to human communication. Editors C. Griffin, and J. E. Bone (Boston: Cengage Learning), 67.Nonverbal communication
Haddad, R., Weiss, T., Khan, R., Nadler, B., Mandairon, N., Bensafi, M., et al. (2010). Global features of neural activity in the olfactory system form a parallel code that predicts olfactory behavior and perception. J. Neurosci. 30, 9017–9026. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0398-10.2010
Herz, R. S., and von Clef, J. (2001). The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: Evidence for olfactory illusions? Perception 30 (3), 381–391. doi:10.1068/p3179
Iyengar, K. (2017a). Fragrances in the vedic tradition. Available at: https://www.perfumerflavorist.com/fragrance/application/multiuse/Scent-and-Spirit-Fragrances-in-the-Vedic-Tradition-45.
Iyengar, K. (2017b). Scent and the spirit - sufism’s fragrance of love. Available at: https://www.perfumerflavorist.com/fragrance/application/multiuse/Scent-and-the-Spirit–-Sufisms-Fragrance-of-Love-44.
Kaeppler, K., and Mueller, F. (2013). Odor classification: A review of factors influencing perception-based odor arrangements. Chem. Senses 38 (3), 189–209. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjs141
Khan, R. M., Luk, C. H., Flinker, A., Aggarwal, A., Lapid, H., Haddad, R., et al. (2007). Predicting odor pleasantness from odorant structure: Pleasantness as a reflection of the physical world. J. Neurosci. Official J. Soc. Neurosci. 27 (37), 10015–10023. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1158-07.2007
Laska, M., Genzel, D., and Wieser, A. (2005). The number of functional olfactory receptor genes and the relative size of olfactory brain structures are poor predictors of olfactory discrimination performance with enantiomers. Chem. Senses 30 (2), 171–175. doi:10.1093/chemse/bji013
Lee, A. P. (2015). Lexical categories and conceptualization of olfaction in Amis. Lang. Cognition 7 (3), 321–350. doi:10.1017/langcog.2014.32
Lorig, T. S. (1999). On the similarity of odor and language perception. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 23 (3), 391–398. doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(98)00041-4
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., De Valk, J., and Hansson, B. S. (2018a). Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373 (1752), 20170139. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0139
Majid, A., and Kruspe, N. (2018). Hunter-gatherer olfaction is special. Curr. Biol. 28 (3), 409–413.e2. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.014e2
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O'Grady, L., et al. (2018b). Differential coding of perception in the world's languages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115 (45), 11369–11376. doi:10.1073/pnas.1720419115
Marathe, P. M. (2009). Cosmetics & perfumes in Sanskrit literature. Doctoral dissertation. India: Mangalore University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10.
McGann, J. P. (2017). Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth. Science 356, eaam7263. doi:10.1126/science.aam7263
McHugh, J. (2007). The classification of smells and the order of the senses in Indian religious traditions. Numen 54 (4), 374–419. doi:10.1163/156852707x244289
Menashe, I., Man, O., Lancet, D., and Gilad, Y. (2003). Different noses for different people. Nat. Genet. 34 (2), 143–144. doi:10.1038/ng1160
Moss, A. G., Miles, C., Elsley, J. V., and Johnson, A. J. (2016). Odorant normative data for use in olfactory memory experiments: Dimension selection and analysis of individual differences. Front. Psychol. 7, 1267. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01267
Mouélé, M. (1997). L'apprentissage des odeurs chez les Waanzi: Note de recherche. Enfance 50, 209–222. doi:10.3406/enfan.1997.3058
Nygaard, M. E. (2019). Swedish fermented herring as a marker of rural identity: The alfta surströmmingsskiva. Food, Cult. Soc. 22 (4), 407–422. doi:10.1080/15528014.2019.1620585
O'Meara, C., and Majid, A. (2016). How changing lifestyles impact Seri smellscapes and smell language. Anthropol. Linguist. 58 (2), 107–131. doi:10.1353/anl.2016.0024
Olofsson, J. K., and Gottfried, J. A. (2015). The muted sense: Neurocognitive limitations of olfactory language. Trends Cognitive Sci. 19 (6), 314–321. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.007
Olofsson, J. K., Hurley, R. S., Bowman, N. E., Bao, X., Mesulam, M. M., and Gottfried, J. A. (2014). A designated odor-language integration system in the human brain. J. Neurosci. Official J. Soc. Neurosci. 34 (45), 14864–14873. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2247-14.2014
Olofsson, J. K., and Wilson, D. A. (2018). Human olfaction: It takes two villages. Curr. Biol. 28 (3), R108–R110. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.12.016
O’Meara, C., and Majid, A. (2020). Anger stinks in Seri: Olfactory metaphor in a lesser-described language. Cogn. Linguist. 1, 367–391. doi:10.1515/cog-2017-0100
Pichon, A. M., Coppin, G., Cayeux, I., Porcherot, C., Sander, D., and Delplanque, S. (2015). Sensitivity of physiological emotional measures to odors depends on the product and the pleasantness ranges used. Front. Psychol. 6, 1821. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01821
Poulton, T. (2020). The smells we know and love: Variation in codability and description strategy. Lang. Cognition 12 (3), 501–525. doi:10.1017/langcog.2020.11
Raspet, S. (2016). Toward an olfactory language system. Future anterior: Journal of historic preservation, history. Theory, Crit. 13 (2), 139–153. doi:10.5749/futuante.13.2.0139
Reilly, J., Flurie, M., and Peelle, J. E. (2020). The English lexicon mirrors functional brain activation for a sensory hierarchy dominated by vision and audition: Point-counterpoint. J. Neurolinguistics 55, 100895. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100895
Sahu, B., Dutta, S., Mishra, S. P., Khute, S., Kumar, L., Gupta, A. S., et al. (2021). A brief review on dhoop and its properties. J. Prev. Med. Holist. Health 7, 3–9. doi:10.18231/j.jpmhh.2021.002
Schaal, B., Marlier, L., and Soussignan, R. (2000). Human foetuses learn odours from their pregnant mother’s diet. Chem. Senses 25 (6), 729–737. doi:10.1093/chemse/25.6.729
Sharma, C., Chambers, E. I. V., Jayanty, S. S., Rajakalyan, V. S., Holm, D. G., and Talavera, M. (2020). Development of a lexicon to describe the sensory characteristics of a wide variety of potato cultivars. J. Sens. Stud. 35 (4), e12577. doi:10.1111/joss.12577
White, T. L., Thomas-Danguin, T., Olofsson, J. K., Zucco, G. M., and Prescott, J. (2020). Thought for food: Cognitive influences on chemosensory perceptions and preferences. Food Qual. Prefer. 79, 103776. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103776
Wilson, D. A., and Stevenson, R. J. (2003). The fundamental role of memory in olfactory perception. Trends Neurosci. 26 (5), 243–247. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00076-6
Wnuk, E., Laophairoj, R., and Majid, A. (2020). Smell terms are not rara: A semantic investigation of odor vocabulary in Thai. Linguistics 58 (4), 937–966. doi:10.1515/ling-2020-0009
Wnuk, E., and Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: The odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition 131 (1), 125–138. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.008
Wnuk, E., Valk, D., Huisman, J. L., and Majid, A. (2017). Hot and cold smells: Odor-temperature associations across cultures. Front. Psychol. 8, 1373. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01373
Keywords: odor, olfaction, language, smell, culture, sensory, food
Citation: Sharma C (2023) Language of smell: Tracing some cross-cultural insights from past and present. Front. Food. Sci. Technol. 3:1091355. doi: 10.3389/frfst.2023.1091355
Received: 07 November 2022; Accepted: 28 March 2023;
Published: 13 April 2023.
Edited by:
Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, The University of Melbourne, AustraliaReviewed by:
Paola Pittia, University of Teramo, ItalyRaúl Villarreal, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education (ITESM), Mexico
Copyright © 2023 Sharma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Chetan Sharma, cs3779@drexel.edu