Using opposites to describe the wine tasting experience: Naive versus expert dimensions

A good deal of research has provided evidence that opposites play an important role in natural languages (Murphy, 2003) and in perceptual organization (Bianchi, and Savardi, 2012; Bianchi, Savardi, and Kubovy, 2011). While some opposites are strongly conventionalized (e.g. good as opposed to bad), other opposites are more dependent on context (Paradis, Willners, and Jones, 2009). Our research focuses on the sensorial characteristics of wine. Expert sommeliers use conventionalized language to evaluate wine. The set of scales pertaining to the adjectives they use has an oppositional structure, e.g., Veiled/Cloudy vs Brilliant (Visual LIMPIDITY); Weak vs Pronounced (Olfactory analysis of aroma INTENSITY); Flabby vs Sharp (Palate analysis of ACIDITY). We considered it would be useful to ascertain how different these expert scales are from the primal dimensions that non-experts have in mind as the basic dimensions characterizing their experience of wine (naïve dimensions), both for the purposes of research and for any potential applications. A preliminary corpus analysis was conducted to establish a list of 63 adjectives (in Italian) to be used in two experimental studies. The corpus included the sensorial terms listed in the production specifications of 31 types of Italian wine with a protected designation of origin, the 309 corresponding descriptions in seven well-known Italian wine guidebooks and the terms used in the official tasting scales of the Italian Sommelier Association (AIS). In two elicitation experiments, participants were asked to focus either on red or white wines and to choose a term which they consider to be the opposite of each of the 63 target properties presented. Five hundred non-expert Italian participants took part and data were collected using an ad hoc software. A number of interesting phenomena emerged when we compared the results of the experiments to the AIS expert scales. a. Correspondence. For example, Heavy (It. Pesante) was elicited by the majority of participants as being the opposite of Light; these adjectives are also two of the poles in the AIS scale used by experts for ALCOHOL. b. The opposite chosen by the participants occupies an intermediate position on the expert scale and the two poles at either end of the scale are not the same. For example, in the AIS scale, Veiled (It. Velato) vs Brilliant (It. Brillante) are the two poles relating to a visual analysis concerning LIMPIDITY and Limpid (It. Limpido) is the middle term on the scale. Conversely, the participants chose Limpid as the opposite of Veiled, while Opaque (It. Opaco) was indicated as the opposite of Brilliant. c. There was a mismatch between the sensory dimensions which were being focused on. For example, on the AIS scale, Lacking (It. Carente) vs Very Intense (It. Molto Intenso) are the two poles relating to the olfactory analysis concerning INTENSITY. Participants chose Rich (It. Ricco) and Full (It. Pieno) as the opposite of Lacking, which means they had the COMPLEXITY dimension in mind, while they chose Light (It. Leggero) as the opposite of Intense, which means they were thinking of the ALCOHOL dimension.