Language and emotion: discourse-pragmatic perspectives

Размещено на http://allbest.ru

^{1National Distance Education University -- UNED}

²Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

(¹Национальный университет дистанционного образования (UNED)

²Российский университет дружбы народов)

Language and emotion: discourse-pragmatic perspectives

(Язык и эмоции: дискурсивно-прагматический подход)

Laura Alba-Juez & Tatiana Larina²

(Лаура Альба-Хуэс¹, Т.В. Ларина²)



Introduction

This special issue of our journal is devoted to a topic that is increasingly attracting the attention of linguists in the 2'^st century, namely the expression of emotion in discourse. We are addressing this subject for the second time: The first issue came out exactly three years ago (20'5-') and it was devoted to Russian studies on emotion.

This time we have invited leading scholars in the field from all over the world. The main goal of this issue is then to make the reader familiar with the main avenues of research on language and emotion that have been developed by these specialists and other scientists from different corners of the planet, as well as to build academic bridges for further collaboration.



1. An important change of paradigm in linguistics. the rise of emotion in pragmatic and discourse studies

Some people might wonder if emotion has anything at all to do with language, or think that emotion cannot be a topic for serious scientific research. In fact, this has been a common belief for many years, even among linguists and other scholars. But fortunately, this was yesterday's news. Today's news is that emotion matters in every scientific field and in particular, in linguistics, because it is a key factor not only in understanding human nature, but also in the comprehension of human language and communication.

Indeed, when people feel emotions they may not only show their internal states physically (e.g. by blushing or changing their facial expression), but also perform speech acts which are interpersonal in nature and have particular consequences. And by so doing speakers manifest, and at the same time affect, certain aspects of the cognitive, social and discourse systems they belong to. Indeed, emotion affects language and at the same time is affected by language: the way we feel may influence the way we talk and express those feelings, and at the same time, the way we name or talk about emotions can affect the way we feel such emotions.

Perhaps nothing is more human than the verbal expression of emotion, for even though other animal species may express certain basic emotions in non-verbal ways, they certainly cannot talk about them (Alba-Juez & Mackenzie, 2016: 242). Sharing emotions is a crucial social activity which forms part of everyday conversation and interaction and helps us maintain both our mental and physical health. To express and understand these emotions appropriately is therefore important to interpersonal relationships and individual well-being (Fussell, 2002). Furthermore, it can be said that human emotion lies at the root of verbal communication. As Russian emotiologists suggest, in the beginning was not the Word, but the Emotion, because the basis of primary and secondary nominations from the very beginning were the emotions of a person, not yet Homo Loquens, but already Homo Sentiens (Shakhovsky 2008: 10). If we do not have the motivation to talk about something, our speech will most surely be very restricted (Foolen, 2015). As Stern (1965[ 1931 ]: 54) put it, “If a thing were quite indifferent to me I would not say it”. Also, if a speaker feels that her interlocutor is not interested in what she is saying, it will be hard to continue speaking. Thus, emotion in communication works in both directions: not only the speaker has to have the motivation to speak, but the interlocutor should be willing (and therefore positively predisposed, showing a positive attitude) to listen; otherwise, communication will not take place.

In the 20^th century, linguistics was mainly concerned with the referential function of language and the linguistic code per se. Language was seen as an abstract and logical instrument for dealing with factual information. The also true fact that language is strongly affected by and loaded with emotion was almost completely disregarded. But towards the end of the 20^th and beginning of the 21^st centuries, the world of scientific and humanistic research started to reflect upon the fact that language/discourse is much more than a code or some grammatical, morphological or phonological rules: the pragmatic, cognitive and emotive dimensions of human communication transcend the linguistic code, and this had to be reflected upon and shown in the research. Thus the world of linguistics geared towards what has now been called “the emotional turn” (Le Doux, 2000). Linguists started to study the phenomenon from a more objective, scientific point of view and thus came to the conclusion that indeed, as Ochs and Shieffeling had already pointed out back in 1989, “language has a heart”. As several authors have now observed, emotion is undoubtedly a very important part of every kind of communication, and can be found at all the levels of linguistic description (Alba-Juez & Mackenzie 2016, Borod et al. 2000, Foolen 2016, Majid 2012, Shakhovsky 2008, 2010, 2015a) and in every discourse system (in the sense given to the term by Scollon, Scollon & Jones 2012). Moreover, as many authors have stated (e.g. Myagkova 2000, Shakhovsky 2008), any word is discursive and can be emotionally charged.

Thus, it can be said that we are currently experiencing the emergence of a new interdisciplinary field, namely emotion linguistics, or emotiology (an already well- established term in Russian), which is based on different theories of emotions coming from various disciplines, such as philosophy, biology, cognitive science, psychology, social studies, neurology, information science, or existentialism (Shakhovsky 2008: 21). The linguistics of emotion, therefore, has an interdisciplinary nature, because it encompasses and goes through a number of paradigms of modern linguistics and science in general -- communicative, cognitive, pragmatic, discursive, culturological. This multifarious nature of current research on emotion is the result of the logical and unavoidable development of psychologically oriented linguistics, which has found out that emotion affects all mental, verbal and non-verbal activity, and that it permeates all levels of human language. According to Shakhovskiy (2008: 383), this is not a thesis or a hypothesis, but an axiom.

As Ludtke (2015: ix) observes, the emotional turn in linguistics is the way “for finally conceptualizing the wholeness of language”, for advancing from “individual rational logos” into “intersubjective emotional dialogue”. However, this does not mean that the old rational paradigm has to be discarded; on the contrary, we strongly believe that the old and the new paradigms should `unite forces' in order to acquire a better understanding of what human language is and how it operates.

Thus, the rationalistic paradigm is now being supplemented by the emotion-integrating paradigm, and this involves, among other things, the consideration of linguistic heterogeneity, a certain openness to analyze and understand the transgression of linguistic norms, a spatialization of linguistic phenomena, or the consideration that, even if language shows arbitrariness in some respects, it also displays motivation in some others. Things are no longer black or white in linguistics, let alone in the subfield of discourse studies, and this is precisely what is exciting about it: language is a very complex, pragmatic dynamical system (van Gelden, 1998) and the sub-system of emotion within language is complex and dynamic as well. Thus, under this new light, we see the expression of emotion as a pragma-linguistic phenomenon which shows the relationship brain-body-world within a dynamical system (Gibbs 2010), which reflects the sequential cyclic structure sense-think-act in Dynamical System Theory Dynamical System Theory was initially a mathematical theory which was thought out to ex-plain physical phenomena such as the movement of celestial bodies, but which is nowadays also being used to explain cognitive and pragmatic phenomena (See van Gelden 1998). (Alba-Juez & Alba-Juez 2012).

And precisely because of its complexity, the concept of emotion is difficult to define, which makes the researcher inevitably ask many questions, such as What exactly is an emotion? Can emotions be measured through observation of brain, body and language? Should emotion be differentiated from cognition? How many emotions can we feel and/or express? There seems to be no consensus among psychologists, sociologists anthropologists, linguists or neurologists when it comes to answering these and other questions, and cannot give any `right' answers here. Better, these questions make us reflect upon the fact that, because of its variety and complexity, the study of emotion has to be a multi- and interdisciplinary endeavor (linking cognitive, cultural, linguistic and physiological phenomena, among others). Linguists in general have realized that they cannot comprehend such a complex phenomenon as the expression of emotion in its whole magnitude without of such a complex phenomenon as the expression of emotion without the help of other fields of knowledge. Cognitive linguists, for instance, have drawn extensively on the findings of psychology when trying to understand emotion in language, for they bear the assumption that language and cognition interact. Another discipline from which linguists have drawn for the study of emotion is that of physiology: The cognitive linguistic perspective does not reject the idea that emotions have a physiological substrate, but argues against the dangers of universal claims about language-specific categories (based on psychological theories of basic emotions such as Ekman's [2007 (2003)]). Our view in this respect is that emotion in language has both universal and language/culture-specific characteristics, and is in line with the findings of research on both sides. For instance, the results of a study on prosodic universals in discourse particles (Pistor 2016) show that prosody has the universal functions of “primarily discourse-pragmatically organizing communication, and secondarily emotionally communicating the attitude of the speaker” (2016: 872). On the other hand, and to give an example of the opposite view, there are numerous studies on the lexicon of emotion that show the culture specificity of the categories used to describe different human emotions (see, for instance, Russel 1991, Wierzbicka 1999, 2001, Harkins and Wierzbicka 2010). For example, the term disgust in English has no exact equivalent in Polish, and concepts such as Japanese Amae (, the feeling you get from surrendering to another in perfect safety) or German Schadenfreude (the pleasure derived from another's displeasure) have no equivalent terms in other languages (Russel 1991).

The English words sad and sadness do not have exact equivalents in Russian, which has three words to express different varieties of sadness which differ in duration and intensity -- grust', pechal' and toska (Wierzbicka 2001). The semantics of the English adjective happy is much broader in comparison with the Russian word schastliviy, which provokes serious misunderstandings in intercultural communication (Larina 2015).

A lot of emotional experiences, such as joy, sadness or anger are often conceptualized in Russian as inner actions in which one engages, rather than as states which one passively undergoes and so they are often expressed by verbs rather than adjectives (Wierzbicka 1999: 18). As a result, the Russian language, in contrast with English, possesses a higher number of emotional verbs. Studies on cultural semantics have pointed to the semantic differences between emotion words given in the bilingual dictionaries as translation equivalents (see for instance, Gladkova 2010). Not even the word emotion has a complete equivalent in German, French, Italian or Russian (Wierzbicka 1999: 19). That is one of the reasons why we need further research on this topic, for until very recently, lexicography studies leading to the compilation of dictionaries had not taken the valence or the emotive content of words into account for the characterization and definition of dictionary entries.

Thus, every human being, regardless of their language or nationality, experiences emotions, but the manifestation of emotions, their expressiveness, function, pragmatic meaning, or vector of orientation have their own cultural/group peculiarities that are reflected in language and discourse and shape communicative ethnostyles (Larina 2009, 2015). Each human group (in their different discourse systems) has its own culturally conditioned rules for the manifestation of emotions, both verbal and nonverbal. Some groups of people tend to welcome the free expression of emotions; others, in different discourse systems, appreciate self-restraint and self-control. To understand the pragmatics of emotions in intercultural/inter-discourse system communication, it is useful to distinguish between emotional communication -- the instinctive, spontaneous, unplanned, physical externalization of internal affective states, and emotive communication -- the conscious use of affective display for communicative purposes (Janney & Arndt 1992). By way of example, it appears to be the case (Larina 2009: 122) that emotive communication is more typical of British English communicative style, where it is broadly used as a marker of positive politeness, while in contrast, there seems to be a tendency for the Russians to engage in emotional communication, since they value sincerity and very often show a preference for direct strategies of communication.

Schwarz-Friesel (2015: 162) describes emotion as a mental state or process with three main parameters, namely 1) value (positive or negative: E.g. His love made her happy (+)), 2) Duration (E.g. His rage lasted for ever) and 3) intensity, which may be weak, medium or strong, and represented in language by different markers (E.g.: She felt awkward/very awkward/ exceedingly awkward/ as if she was an extra-terrestrial being). From this perspective, Schwarz-Friesel (2015: 161) defines emotion as “a complex internally represented knowledge system having a primarily evaluative function within the human organism”. In general, the different attempts to define emotion, be them from the field of psychology or linguistics, always have a thing in common, and that is the consideration of the evaluative component of the phenomenon. Within Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005) for instance, a systemic functional approach to linguistic evaluation, Affect (including the expression of emotion) is an important subcomponent of the subsystem of Attitude.

An interesting observation, also coming from Systemic Functional Linguistics, is the distinction that Monika Bednarek (2008) makes between emotion talk and emotional talk. The former alludes to the representation of emotion in talk, so we use it when we say things such as “He feels sad” or “She hates John” by means of which we are talking about certain feelings or emotions. For this reason, emotion talk is connected to the experiential function of language (Halliday, 1985). On the other hand, emotional talk is connected to the interpersonal function, for it alludes to the enactment of emotion, i.e. the direct expression of emotion, which is encoded, for instance, in interjections (e.g. Ouch! Yummy!), or certain prosodic features used to express strong emotion (e.g. the falling intonation on the adverb out, or a generalized high pitch in utterances such as Get the hell out of here!!).

Also from a functional perspective, but at the same time incorporating findings from psychological appraisal theories and from linguistic pragmatics, Alba-Juez (forthcoming) proposes to analyze the different dimensions of emotion by using an equation which presents a modified version of the functional relationship applied in previous work for the analysis of evaluation (Alba-Juez 2016, 2017). In particular, this author proposes to tackle the analysis of emotion processes in language by incorporating pragmatic knowledge about phenomena such as emotional implicatures (e-implicatures, Schwarz- Friesel, 2010), as well as methodological treatment and classification of emotions from the component approach (Ortony & Turner 1990), which is partially connected with the psychological concept of emotion systems (Panksepp 1982).

All of the above constitutes good proof of the fact that emotion is a topic that is worth studying in linguistics, and in particular within the subfields of discourse analysis and pragmatics, for emotive meanings are interpersonal meanings which cannot be isolated from their different possible contexts (linguistic, cultural, social, emotional, etc.), and therefore, when analyzing emotive language, it is not sufficient to look into the words used; it is also utterly necessary to examine the situation and environment in which these words were uttered, as well as how all these variables (linguistic, paralinguistic and extralinguistic) interact. Thus, many discourse-pragmatic studies show the importance of the role of emotion in phenomena such as metaphors, implicatures, irony or humor, within different text/discourse types such as electronic discourse, narrative, journalistic discourse, or political discourse, just to name a few. Below is a list of relatively recent such studies and work:

-- Gunthner (2011) examines the way in which participants in everyday German narratives construct emotions as social phenomena by using so called “dense constructions”;

-- Potts and other authors argue that expressives are indispensable to language, and include the analysis of several phenomena, such as the use of expletives, honorifics, diminutive suffixes, interjections, affective demonstratives and pragmatically negative negation (Constant, Davis, Potts & Schwarz 2009, Davis & Potts, 2009, Potts 2007a, 2007b, 2010; Potts & Schwarz 2010);

-- Blakemore (2010) studies emotive interjections in fiction as a way for authors to capture features of the different characters that may otherwise prove difficult to express;

— grammatical means which possess significant emotive potential and can express emotions in discourse, i.e. emotion at the syntactic level, is another topic of interest for some researchers (e.g. Fedorova 2005, Ozyumenko 2015, Parsieva, Gatsalova 2012);

— swearing and taboo words (which are also associated to different emotions, and play a very important part in their expression) is another area of discourse- pragmatic studies which is currently calling the attention of many scholars. See for instance Dewaele (2016), Jay (2009), Larina et al. (2012), Mackenzie (forthcoming), Sternin (2015, or Zhelvis (2002);

— many scholars explore negative emotions and their functions as part of a study of impoliteness, rudeness, aggression and intolerance in different contexts and discourses (e.g. in interpersonal communication, media and political discourse). See for instance Gornostaeva (2014), Kharlova (2015), Ozyumenko (2017), Sedov (2003, 2017), Scherbinina (2017), Vorontsova (2012). Other scholars focus on positive emotions, their pragmatic meaning and effect, which in some contexts may be negative (e.g. Ionova 2015, Larina et al. 2011, Leontovich 2015, 2017);

— meaning and functions of emotions in intercultural communication and the importance of emotional awareness are broadly discussed in the literature on intercultural pragmatics and communication (e.g. Pavlenko 2002; Besemeres & Wierzbicka 2007; Larina 2009, 2013, 2017; Leontovich, Yakusheva 2004);

— silence is another of the topics that have been treated in the literature on pragmatics as a feature of discourse conveying emotion. See, for instance, Marx's (2015) analysis of strategic silence in e-mail messages, or Kaul de Marlangeon's (2008) characterization of `overwhelming silence' as an impoliteness strategy; or Vorontsova, Kopylova's (2017) silence as a marker of aggressive verbal behavior;

-- Ortner (2015) studies emotivity in the age of information and communication technologies, and argues that the construction and sharing of emotions is one of the main functions of computer-mediated communication;

— researchers from the Swiss Center for Affective Sciences have devoted much of their work to the study of the use of emotive terms and emotive conceptual metaphors (e.g. Gillioz et al. 2016, Ogarkova et al 2016, Soriano et al. 2015; Soriano 2013, 2015, 2016); This topic has been widely studied by Russian linguists as well (e.g. Apresyan 2004, Anferova 2017);

-- The EMO-FunDETT research group in Madrid (Spain) is also producing a variety of discourse-pragmatic studies on the topic of language and emotion (See, for instance, Mackenzie's, Maiz-Arevalo's, Sancho-Guinda's or Yus' work in this volume, Carranza-Marquez's (2012 and forthcoming) studies on emotive language in parliamentary discourse, Carretero, Maiz Arevalo & Martinez's (2014) analysis of speech acts in online communication, Maiz Arevalo's (2014a and b, 2015) studies on emoticons and (dis)agreement on social network sites, Yus's (2005, 2014) work on emoticons and emotions on the internet study, or Santamaria's (2016) study on emotion in classroom discourse) The numerous other publications of this international group can be seen in the “Publications” section of the project's website: http://emofundett.weebly.com/publications.html.. This group is at present preparing a volume entitled Emotion in Discourse (Mackenzie & Alba-Juez (eds.), forthcoming), where emotion is mainly treated from a discourse-pragmatic and cross-disciplinary perspective;

-- The school of Emotiology, headed by Professor Shakhovsky, is actively developing a new field of research related to emotive ecology (Shakhovsky 2016). It is based on the proposition that verbal actions, like other types of human activity, have social importance and are closely related to the social health of the nation as well as health of every individual. They study methods of emotional balancing, avoiding and mitigation of conflict, mitigation of speech aggression, forming abilities for emotional tolerance, etc. In other words, emotive linguoecology is a socially useful theory aimed at orienting communicators to a positive vector in all kinds of communication (e.g., Volkova 2014, Volkova, Panchenko 2016, Ionova 2015, Ionova (forthcoming), Ionova, Larina 2015, Karasik 2013, Rents 2016, Shakhovsky 2013, 2015b, 2016, Trufanova 2016 and many others).

The studies mentioned above are just a few of the growing amount of works on emotion from a discourse-pragmatic perspective that reflect the change of paradigm we are experiencing in the 21^st century. In the present issue of the Russian Journal of Linguistics, we are making our modest contribution to this new way of looking into the phenomenon of emotion in verbal communication by presenting the work of some prominent scholars from different parts of the world. We now turn to them.



2. The articles in this issue of the russian journal of linguistics

All the authors presenting their work herein have payed special attention to emotive pragmatic issues, such as the semantics of emotion, irony or (im)politeness within certain types of discourse (e.g. biblical, political, or financial discourse). In the first article, Anna Wierzbicka (Canberra, Australia) examines the emotions of Jesus in the Gospels and focuses on anger in particular.

She argues that in order to fully understand Jesus' teachings about anger we need to go beyond single words in any language, and try to articulate these teachings through simple sentences, making use of universal (i.e. universally-contestable) words, for which she therefore proposes the application of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) (e.g. Wierzbicka 1999; Goddard and Wierzbicka 1994, 2002) to analyze this particular kind of discourse and thus be able to reach meaningful answers.

She concludes, after a thorough analysis, that “an important part of the answer to the question of what Jesus was like lies in the distinction between, on the one hand, “feeling something very bad” and, on the other, “feeling something very bad towards someone” -- a distinction which Minimal Language allows us to make clearly, precisely, and “cross-translatably”.

In the second article, Victor Shakhovsky (Volgograd, Russia) discusses the development of Language Personality Theory and substantiates the introduction of a new term: `emotional communicative personality'. The article describes the cognitive matrix of the emotional-communicative personality, and remarks that the new term does not reject the term `language personality' but completes it, filling a gap in its structure. The author also describes the methodology used for the study of this type of language personality, and conducts a comparative analysis of modern theories. He argues that the structural emotive component of language personality enables the researcher to explain how language personality can be ecological or non-ecological, and emphasizes that the proposed matrix may improve the ecology of communication, reduce communicative risks, and avoid communicative disturbances and failures in different communication types and genres.

In the next article, J. Lachlan Mackenzie (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) explores the use of the words sentiment and confidence in financial journalistic discourse in order to test the hypothesis that they will differ from each other in line with how they are deployed in ordinary usage. Drawing on functional semantics and Appraisal Theory (Martin & White, 2005), the study scrutinizes how these words are employed in clauses and noun phrases in the on-line Hong Kong Financial Services Corpus. The findings of this corpus analysis reveal that even though the terms sentiment and confidence are quite distinct and have a different valence in general, ordinary use, in financial discourse they are used as synonyms most of the time. Another important conclusion drawn in this article is that the way in which these terms are used reflects the fact that the journalist writers are very much aware of the role of emotions as a crucial factor in the decisionmaking process of investors.

Francisco Yus's (Alicante, Spain) article on the way feelings and emotions are attached to propositions in ironic and internet discourse reveals, from the perspective of Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986), that albeit aspects such as feelings and emotions are typically non-propositional, they play a very important part in the eventual quality of the interpretations to which they are attached. Thus the author concludes that non-propositional feelings and emotions are important in human communication, not only when intended as part of the eventual interpretation (the addresser's affective attitude) but also when leaked unintentionally from the act of communication (what he calls `affective effects').

Anna Gornostaeva (Moscow, Russia) also approaches the phenomenon of verbal irony in her study. She conducts a comparative analysis of the discourse of Russian, British and American politicians in order to identify current trends in the use of ironic metaphors and correlate them with the changes in contemporary political discourse. She develops a discursive approach to the study of ironic metaphors (Shilikhina 2008, Alba- Juez 2014, Attardo 2007, Giora 2003, Hutcheon 2005), and identifies the conceptual spheres that are the most active sources of modern metaphors. She also identifies the functions of ironic metaphors in political discourse, the results of her analysis showing a high frequency of use of ironic metaphors (including aggressive ones) in modern political discourse. Additionally, this author reveals some peculiarities in the usage of ironic metaphors in Russian, English and American political discourses, which are predetermined by culture-specific discursive features.

Carmen Sancho-Guinda (Madrid, Spain) examines emotional prosody in risk communication, and explores how emotion is induced by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States of America in order to influence the thinking and behavior of the general public and thus increase risk prevention. For that purpose, she uses an electronic corpus of over 500 online samples of fatal aviation dockets issued yearly online by the NTSB between the time span 2010--2015, and takes Stubbs' (2001) concept of `discursive prosody' as point of departure, using a blended theoretical framework that combines Narratology, Corpus Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, and Proximisation (Cap 2013) and Positioning (Harre & van Langenhove 1999) Theories. She shows that the NTSB's emotional prosody is more rhetorical than lexical, and that the narrative strategies of focalization and speech representation play a salient role in exhibiting a distinctive `emotional tone' for the sake of increasing risk prevention.

Carmen Maz-Arevalo (Madrid, Spain) analyzes emotional Self-presentation (i.e. the process through which individuals communicate an image of themselves to others) in WhatsApp profiles, using a corpus of 206 WhatsApp statuses in Spanish. The results of her study show that there is a recurrence of patterns connected to variables such as sex or age, and that these patterns play a crucial role in determining the emotions users choose to display in their profile statuses, with female users outnumbering male users in the use of emotive speech acts (hence helping to strengthen the sociocultural gender stereotype that women are more emotional than men), and younger users (in their 20s and 30s) employing emotives much more frequently than older generations (especially in their 50s and 60s). Another, non-surprising finding of this study is that positive emotions dramatically outnumber negative ones when people present themselves through their WhatsApp statuses, the prevailing emotion being love.

From a pragmatic sociocultural approach, Silvia Kaul de Marlangeon (Rio Cuarto, Argentina) explores the connection among the fustigation type of impoliteness (Kaul de Marlangeon 2005, 2008), emotions and extimacy in the discourse of the Argentine media celebrities, within the Rio de la Plata cultural context. The author characterizes the concept of extimacy as a volitional form within an aggressive relationship, used for the promotion of the speaker's ego by means of a kind of exhibitionism that shares one's and others' intimacy with the public. She analyzes numerous instances of the manifestation of extimacy in media discourse, and her findings show that fustigation impoliteness (i.e. aggressive, violent impoliteness) imbued with negative emotions appears to be a usual practice among media celebrities, and that both imposed and attributed extimacy constitute a new way of communicating with mass-media audiences which was unthinkable before. discourse emotion linguistic language

Yana Volkova (Moscow, Russia) and Nadezhda Panchenko (Volgograd, Russia) present a study on destructive emotions. They analyze the discursive variation of the conceptualization of three emotions: gnyev ('anger'), revnost' (`jealousy'), andprezreniye (`contempt'). Drawing on semantic, cognitive and discourse analysis, they explore data taken from explanatory and etymological dictionaries of the Russian language and the Russian National Corpus, both synchronically and diachronically, and revealed some changes in the conceptualization of destructive emotions. The authors suggest that the modifications of the evaluative connotations of the analyzed lexemes are due to the societal changes in emotional values associated with the attitude towards destructive emotions, which indicates a shift in the value orientation of the language personality.



Conclusion

All in all, the main aim of this issue is to present and make the reader familiar with the work of outstanding researchers who have devoted much of their time and effort to explore the fascinating relationship between language and emotion. We hope to succeed in our attempt, as well as to ignite in our readers a flame of curiosity, interest and positive emotions towards the topic.

We are most grateful to all the authors for their enlightening articles, and invite those readers who have questions or comments on the issues discussed to contact us. We will be happy to discuss them in future issues of the journal.



References / список литературы

1. Alba-Juez, Laura (forthcoming). Emotion and appraisal processes in language: How are they related? In Gomez Gonzalez, M^a de los Angeles & J. Lachlan Mackenzie (eds.), The Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2. Alba-Juez, Laura (2017). Evaluation in the headlines of tabloids and broadsheets: A comparative study. In Breeze, Ruth & Inйs Olza (eds.), Evaluation in media discourse. European perspectives. Linguistic Insights series, volume 207. Bern: Peter Lang.

3. Alba-Juez, Laura & Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (2016). Pragmatics: Cognition, Context and Culture. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

4. Alba-Juez, Laura (2016). The variables of the evaluative functional relationship: The case of humorous discourse. In L. Ruiz Gurillo (ed.) Metapragmatics of Humor: Current Research Trends. IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 11--34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

5. Alba-Juez, Laura y Alba-Juez, Fйlix (2012). Identity, Evaluation, and Differential Equations. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20:3 (2012), 570--592. John Benjamins. ISSN 0929-0907 / e-ISSN 15699943. DOI: 10.1075.

6. Bednarek, Monika (2008). Emotion Talk across Corpora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

7. Besemeres, Mary, and Anna Wierzbicka (eds.) (2007) Translating lives: Living with two languages and cultures. St. Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

8. Blakemore, Diane (2010). Communication and the representation of thought: The use of audience- directed expressions in free indirect thought representations. Journal of Linguistics, Volume 46, Issue 3, 575--599.

9. Borod, Joan C., Lawrence H. Pick, Susan Hall, Martin Sliwinski, Nancy Madigan, Loraine K. Obler, Joan Welkowitz, Elizabeth Canino, Hulya M. Erhan, Mira Goral, Chris Morrison & Matthias Tabert (2000). Relationships among facial, prosodic, and lexical channels of emotional perceptual processing. Cognition and Emotion. 14(2). 193--211.

10. Cap, Piotr (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

11. Carranza Marquez, Aurelia (2012). Diferencias de Gйnero en el Uso del Afecto dentro del Foro Parlamentario Andaluz. Discurso y Sociedad, Volumen 6(1), 98--114.

12. Carranza, Aurelia (forthcoming). Emotional Argumentation in Political Discourse. In Fuentes, C. (ed.), A Gender-based approach to parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

13. Carretero, Marta; Marz Arevalo, Carmen & Martinez M. Angeles (2014). “Hope this helps: An analysis of Expressive Speech Acts in online task-oriented interaction by university students”. In Romero Trillo, J. (ed). Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms (Vol. 2). Switzerland: Springer, 261--290.

14. Constant, Noah, Davis, Christopher, Potts, Christopher, & Schwarz, Florian (2009). The Pragmatics of Expressive Content: Evidence from Large Corpora. Sprache undDatenverareitung, 33 (1--2), 5--21.

15. Davis, Christopher & Potts, Christopher (2009). Affective demonstratives and the division of pragmatic labor. In M. Aloni, H. Bastiaanse, T. de Jager, P. van Ormondt, & K. Schulz (eds). Preproceedings of the 17^th Amsterdam Colloquium, 32--41.

16. Dewaele, Jean-Marc (2016). Thirty shades of offensiveness: L1 and LX English users' understanding, perception and self-reported use of negative emotion-laden words. Journal of Pragmatics 94, 112--127.

17. Ekman, Paul [2007 (2003)]. Emotions revealed. Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communiation and Emotional Life. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.

18. Foolen, Adrianus P. (2015). Word valence and its effects. In Emotion in Language. U. Lьdke (ed.). Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 241--255.

19. Foolen, Adrianus P. (2016a). Expressives. In The Routledge Handbook of Semantics, ed. by Leon de Stadler and Christoph Eyrich, London and New York: Routledge, 473--490.

20. Fussell, Susan R. (2002). The verbal communication of emotion: Introduction and overview. In S.R. Fussell (ed.), The Verbal Communication of Emotions: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1--22.

21. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (2010). Can there be a pragmatic theory for the entire world? Plenary talk given at the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics and Communication. Madrid, 15--17 November 2010.

22. Gillioz, Christelle, Fontaine, Johnny R. J., Soriano, Cristina & Scherer, Klaus R. (2016). Mapping emotion terms into affective space: Further evidence for a four-dimensional structure. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 75 (3), 141--148. DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000180.

23. Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.) (1994). Semantic and lexical universals: Theory and empirical findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

24. Goddard, Cliff & Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.) (2002). Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings (Vols. 1--2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

25. Halliday, Michael A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

26. Harrй, Rom & van Langenhove, Luk (1999). Positioning Theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell.

27. Harkins, Jean & Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.) (2010). Emotions in Crosslinguistic Perspective. Series: Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR] 17. De Gruyter Mouton.

28. Janney, Richard W. & Arndt, Horst (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In Watts R., Ide S., Ehlich K. (eds). Politeness in Language. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2--42.

29. Jay, Timothy (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153--161.

30. Kaul de Marlangeon, Silvia (2005). Descortes^a de fustigacion por afiliacion exacerbada o refrac- tariedad (cap.11). D. Bravo (Ed.), Estudios de la (des) cortes^a en espanol. Categorias concep- tuales y aplicaciones a corpora orales y escritos (Vol. I, pp. 299--318). Buenos Aires: Pro- grama EDICE-Dunken.

31. Kaul de Marlangeon, Silvia (2008). Tipolog^a del comportamiento verbal descortйs en espanol. Actas del III Coloquio del Programa EDICE: Cortesia y conversation: de lo escrito a lo oral. Valencia/Stockholm: Departamento de Filolog^a Espanola, Universidad de Valencia. 254--266.

32. Larina, Tatiana (2015). Culture-Specific Communicative Styles as a Framework for Interpreting Linguistic and Cultural Idiosyncrasies. In International Review of Pragmatics, Vol. 7 (5). Special Issue: Communicative Styles and Genres, 195--215.

33. Lьdtke, Ulrike M. (2015). Introduction: From logos to dialogue. In U. Lьdtke (ed.) Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vii--xi.

34. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan (forthcoming). The syntax of an emotional expletive in English. In J. L. Mackenzie & L. Alba-Juez (eds.), Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

35. Mackenzie, J. Lachlan & Alba-Juez, Laura (forthcoming). Emotion in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

36. Ma^z Arevalo, Carmen (2014a). A pragmatic and multimodal analysis of emoticons and gender in social networks. In A. Sanchez Macarro y A. B. Cabrejas Penuelas (eds.), New Insights into Gendered Discourse Practices: Language, Gender and Identity Construction. Valencia: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat de Valencia, 173--195.

37. Ma^z Arevalo, Carmen (2014b). Expressing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules? Intercultural Pragmatics, 11 (2): 199--224. Doi: 10.1515/ip-2014-0009.

38. Ma^z Arevalo, Carmen (2015). DCTs versus Naturally Occurring Data in the Realization of Disagreement by Non-Native Speakers of English. In Sara Gesuato, Francesca Bianchi and Winnie Cheng (eds), Teaching, Learning and Investigating Pragmatics: Principles, Methods and Practices. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 185--205.

39. Majid, Asifa (2012). Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review 4(4), 432--443.

40. Martin, John R. & Peter R. R. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

41. Marx, Konstanze (2015). Silences as a linguistic strategy. Remarks on the role of the unsaid in romantic relationships on the internet. In U. Ludtke (ed.) Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 325--339.

42. Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi (1989). Language has a heart. In Text 9 (1), 7--25.

43. Ogarkova, Anna, Soriano, Cristina & Gladkova, Anna (2016). Methodological triangulation in the study of emotion. The case of `anger' in three language groups. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 14(1): 73--101.

44. Ortner, Heike (2015). Mediated emotions. Emotivity in the age of information and communication technologies. In U. Ludtke (ed.) Emotion in Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 306--324.

45. Ortony, Andrew & Turner, Terence J. (1990). “What's basic about emotions?” Psychological Review, Vol. 97, N° 3, 315--331.

46. Panksepp, Jaak (1982). “Toward a general psychobiological theory of emotions”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 407--467.

47. Pavlenko, Aneta (2002). Emotions and the body in Russian and English. Pragmatics and cognition. Vol. 10 (1), 202--242.

48. Pistor, Tillman (2016). Prosodic universals in discourse particles. Speech Prosody 2016--178. Doi: 10.21437/.

49. Potts, Christopher (2007a). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 165--198.

50. Potts, Christopher (2007b). The centrality of expressive indices. Theoretical Linguistics, 33(2), 255--268.

51. Potts, Christopher (2010). On the negativity of negation. In D. Lutz & Li (eds.). Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 20, 636--659.

52. Potts, Christopher & Schwarz, Florian (2010). Affective `This'. Linguistic Inquiry, 3(5), 1--30.

53. Russell, James A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. In Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110, N° 3, 426--450.

54. Santamaria Garda, Carmen (2016). Emotions and Classroom Management. In M. F. Litzler, J. Garda Laborda and C. Tejedor Martinez (eds.), Beyond the universe ofLanguages for Specific Purposes. Alcala: University of Alcala, 27--33.

55. Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2010). Expressive Bedeutung und E-Implikaturen -- Zur Relevanz konzeptueller Bewertungen bei indirekten Sprechakten: Das Streichbarkeitskriterium und seine kognitive Realitдt. In Kultura Kak Tekst (Kultur als Text), William Rudnitzky (ed.) Moskau: SGT, 12--27.

56. Schwarz-Friesel, Monika (2015). Language and emotion. The cognitive linguistic perspective. In Emotion in Language. U. Lьdke (ed.). Amsterdam, John Benjamins. 157--173.

57. Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Susan Wong & Jones, Rodney H. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.

58. Soriano, Cristina (2016). El lenguaje de las emociones. In M. C. Horno Cheliz, I. Ibarretxe Antu- nano & J.L. Mendrvil Giro (Eds.). Panorama actual de la ciencia del lenguaje. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza, 243--259.

59. Soriano, Cristina (2015). Emotion and conceptual metaphor. In H. Flam and J. Kleres (Eds.), Methods of Exploring Emotions. New York & London: Routledge, 206--214.

60. Soriano Cristina (2013). Conceptual metaphor theory and the GRID paradigm in the study of anger in English and Spanish. In J. R. J. Fontaine, K. R. Scherer & C. Soriano (eds). Components of emotional meaning: A sourcebook, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

61. Soriano, Cristina., Fontaine, Johnny R. J. & Scherer, Klaus R. (2015). Surprise in the GRID. In A. Celle & L. Lansari (Eds.), “Expressing and Describing Surprise”. Special issue of Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(2): 436--460. DOI 10.1075/rcl.13.2.07sor

62. Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

63. Stern, Gustaf ([1931] 1965). Meaning and Change of Meaning. With Special Reference to the English Language. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

64. Stubbs, Michael (2001). Texts, corpora, and problems of interpretation: a response to Widdowson. Applied Linguistics 22, 149--172.

65. van Gelden, Tim (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. In Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 615--665.

66. Wierzbicka, Anna (1999). Emotions across Languages and Cultures: Diversity and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

67. Yus, Francisco (2005). Attitudes and emotions through written text: The case of textual deformation in Internet chat rooms. Pragmalingmstica, 13: 147--174.

68. Yus, Francisco (2014a). “Not all emoticons are created equal.” Linguagem em (Dis)curso (special issue on relevance theory) 14(3): 511--529.

69. Анферова К. Н. Эмоциональная и эмпатическая функции метафоры (на материале диалогов интернет-форума свободного общения) // Российский гуманитарный журнал. 2017. Том 6. № 2. С. 182--193. [Anferova K.N. (2017). Emotional and empathic functions of the metaphor. Russian humanitarian journal. Vol. 6. № 2. P. 182--193. (In Russ.)]

70. Апресян В.Ю. Семантические типы эмоциональных метафор // Эмоции в языке и речи. М.: 2005. С. 9--30. [Apresyan, V.Y. (2005) In: I.A. Sharonov (ed.). Emotions in language and speech. Moscow: RGGU Publ, 9--30. (In Russ.)]

71. Вежбицкая А. Сопоставление культур через посредство лексики и прагматики. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2001. [Wierzbicka, Anna (2001). Comparison of cultures through vocabulary and pragmatics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture Publ. (In Russ.)]

72. Волкова Я.А. Деструктивное общение в когнитивно-дискурсивном аспекте: монография. Волгоград: Перемена, 2014. [Volkova Ya.A.(2014). Destructive communication in the cognitive-discursive persoective. Volgograd:Peremena Publ. (In Russ.)]

73. Волкова Я.А., Панченко Н.Н. Деструктивность в политическом дискурсе // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2016. Т. 20. № 4. С. 161--178. [Volkova Ya.A., Panchenko N.N. (2016) Destructiveness in political discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20, 4, 161--178. (In Russ.)]

74. Воронцова Т.А. Речевая агрессия, толерантность, вежливость // Г.Я. Солганик. Язык СМИ и политика. М.: Изд-во Московского университета, 2012. [Vorontsova T.A. (2012). Speech aggression, tolerance, politeness. In: G.Ya. Solganik (ed.). Language of the media and politics. Moscow: Moscow University Publ., 2012. (In Russ.)]

75. Воронцова Т.А., Копылова Т.Р. Молчание как маркер агрессивной речи (на материале бытового общения) // Филологический класс. 2017. № 3 (49). [Vorontsova, T.A., Kopylova T.R. (2017). Silence as a marker of aggressive speech behavior (a case study of day-to-day communication). Philological Class, 3 (49). (In Russ.)]

76. Гладкова А. Русская культурная семантика: Эмоции, ценности, жизненные установки. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2010. (Язык. Семиотика. Культура). [Gladkova, Anna (2010). Russian cultural semantics: Emotions, values and attitudes. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Cultures, 2010. (Language, Semiotics, Culture) (In Russ.)]

77. Горностаева А. А. Ирония в политическом дискурсе: агрессия или развлечение? // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия «Лингвистика». 2014. № 3. C. 64--74. [Gornostaeva A.A. (2014). Irony in political discourse: aggression or entertainment? Russian Journal of Linguistics № 3, 64--74. (In Russ.)].

78. Жельвис В.И. Поле брани. Сквернословие как социальная проблема в языках и культурах мира. Изд. 2-е. М.: Ладомир, 2001. [Zhelvis V.I. (2001). Field of battle. Swearing as a social problem in the languages and cultures. 2-nd edition. Moscow: Ladomir Publ, 2001 (In Russ.)].

79. Ионова С.В. Эмоциональные эффекты позитивной формы общения // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Лингвистика. 2015. № 1. С. 20--30 [Ionova S.V. (2015). Emotional effects of positive forms of communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics. Vestnik RUDN, 1, 20--30. (In Russ.)]

...