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 linguisticall...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ilja Croijmans, Asifa Majid
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4913926?pdf=render
id doaj-b92a6f350e904679a334f567f713215b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b92a6f350e904679a334f567f713215b2020-11-24T20:50:51ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01116e015584510.1371/journal.pone.0155845Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.Ilja CroijmansAsifa MajidPeople 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.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4913926?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ilja Croijmans
Asifa Majid
spellingShingle Ilja Croijmans
Asifa Majid
Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Ilja Croijmans
Asifa Majid
author_sort Ilja Croijmans
title Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
title_short Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
title_full Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
title_fullStr Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
title_full_unstemmed Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts.
title_sort not all flavor expertise is equal: the language of wine and coffee experts.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2016-01-01
description 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.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4913926?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT iljacroijmans notallflavorexpertiseisequalthelanguageofwineandcoffeeexperts
AT asifamajid notallflavorexpertiseisequalthelanguageofwineandcoffeeexperts
_version_ 1716803350973906944