Linguist Dariusz Galasiński has recently directed his academic expertise towards the interplay of language and wine, igniting a discussion about the complexities of wine writing. In a piece published in WineMag, he poses the question: Is wine truly difficult to articulate?
There are fundamentally two aspects of wine writing: the general narrative surrounding wine—such as experiences in vineyards and interactions with producers—and the specific act of describing wine’s taste and aroma. Galasiński seems to conflate both, implying that the challenges of wine writing stem from its inherent complexity. However, while conveying sensory experiences through language is undeniably tough, most wine drinkers can discern complexity without extensive skill. The challenge isn’t that wine eludes description but rather the difficulty lies in translating sensory experiences into words, a plight that extends beyond just wine.
Galasiński argues that wine’s richness makes it hard to render in language and suggests that framing complexity in simpler terms is insufficient. Yet, equating the ability of philosophers and authors to articulate complex ideas to the task of wine writers is misleading. Writing an articulate description involves distinct challenges from scoring wine, which, according to him, is often just a quick means of conveying quality rather than a true representation of taste.
He also points out inconsistencies in aroma vocabulary, attributing this to modern society’s limited reliance on scent rather than a failure of language itself. While our lexicon falls short in describing flavors, this is a broader cultural issue rather than one unique to the wine industry. People often struggle to name smells in general, highlighting a noteworthy gap in linguistic resources for taste and odor descriptions.
The discussion shifts to cultural differences; certain groups, like the Jahai of Malaysia, possess a richer vocabulary for smells, correlating with their environmental immersion in aromatic experiences. This indicates that a cultural context can influence one’s ability to articulate sensory experiences effectively.
Galasiński’s critiques of the current state of wine writing dismiss the evolving nature of the industry. Although some wine writing may seem redundant, the ongoing changes in producers, styles, and vintages mean that there remains much to explore and express about well-known regions.
He concludes by expressing frustration at the perception of wine writers, suggesting they often position themselves as superior and create unnecessary barriers between themselves and average consumers. Nevertheless, most wine writers are not self-declared experts but rather strive to share insights while navigating the complexities of language and flavor.
Overall, the discussion serves as a reminder of the intricate relationships among language, sensory experience, and the challenges of communicating about wine. While there is merit in Galasiński’s observations, it remains essential to appreciate the breadth of wine writing and the continuous evolution within the field.