[1] Another significant fraction of culinary linguistics deals with spoken language in which methodologies such as food-oriented interviews, collaborative translation, participant observation, and focus group dialogues are used and are more prominent.
Besides expressions, actions such as emptying a glass can inform interlocutors that it is the drinker's final sip, as well as indicating the end of the talk.
[2] Culinary linguistics mainly addresses persuasive writing in food politics, occurred in the processes of production, distribution, labelling, agency, responsibility, and consumption.
noun-modifiers) of labels like: "masterfully prepared sweetened real fruit juice pieces, made from a blend of pomegranate and other select concentrated fruit juices", are dipped in "our extra creamy pure dark chocolate" to create this "decadent taste sensation" (Cook 2010)[3]Potato chips - “veggie chips”; milk shakes - “smoothies”; sugary drinks - “flavored water”; etc.
For example, research on infant formula addresses fine print as a critical realization of multimodality and its effects on communication, particularly in conveying the saliency of health information.
Research have additionally expounded on the links between “the ambiguity inherent in the naming of some products”[4] and the differences in perceptions of healthfulness and taste by dieters and non-dieters.
For example, conventional marketing strategies, that appeal to emotion and self interest, have supplanted rhetorics around environmentalism “In its list of ‘Ten Reasons to Buy Organic’, The Soil Association (the main UK organic campaign group and certification body) at one time moved its alliterative slogan ‘Top for Taste’ to first position and demoted ‘Good for Wildlife’ from number one to number ten”.
[3] More closely aligned with political discourse analysis, culinary linguistics has also been applied to debates about GM food products, paying particular attention to lexical items and connotations.
Language associated with emotion and hysteria is often employed in pro-GM arguments through referencing anti-GM rhetoric, a linguistic technique that derides their opposition’s persuasions as fearmongering rather than objectively substantial.
They also used words related to tragedy or trauma, on top of using collective pronouns such as “we” to emphasize their victimisation by the poor dining experiences.
Reviews containing metaphors of sex and sensual pleasure, such as “seductively seared foie gras” were often used to describe foods served in expensive restaurants.
It involves the performance of food preparation in front of a live or television audience by a host, typically, a celebrity chef.
The use of facial expressions and body language are visual ways in which emotions arising from food preparation and consumption are communicated to the audience.
“ In humans, the characteristic facial expressions that coincide with the experience of disgust and distaste include behaviors such as gaping and nose wrinkling, are usually elicited by nausea or revulsion.
Palatable tastes, such as sucrose, are thought to induce sensory pleasure, which elicits less frequently expressed appetitive reactions, such as facial relaxation and smiling and sucking movements.”[14] In terms of verbal cues, vocal sounds such as groaning [“mmmm” sound] often denote a sense of satisfaction and pleasure towards the consumption of food.
In one of the episodes of his cooking show, Jamie Oliver "is bending the spaghettini so that they will fit tightly into the pan into the boiling water, and as he does so, he addresses the pasta as if it were one of his “mates”: We’ve got some quite good quality pasta here, right, so this is spaghettini it cooks in around 7 minutes right so this goes in boiling salted water it’s supposed to be, just bend it around, get in there, go on mate, get in there,here we go…” [15]