Multilinguals' Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions 9781788920049

Citation preview

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Associate Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Salzburg, Austria This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policy-makers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 124

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions Pia Resnik

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

To my academic superheroes, Georg, Jean-Marc, Sarah & Vivian Thank you for your support. DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/RESNIK0032 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Resnik, Pia, author. Title: Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions/Pia Resnik. Description: Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, [2018] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 124 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018001654| ISBN 9781788920025 (softcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788920032 (hardcover : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781788920049 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788920056 (epub) | ISBN 9781788920063 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Multilingualism. | Language and emotions. | Emotive (Linguistics) | Psycholinguistics. Classification: LCC P115 .R48 2018 | DDC 404/.2019—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018001654 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-003-2 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-002-5 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2018 Pia Resnik. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Figures and Tables

viii

Abbreviations

xiii

Acknowledgements

xiv

1

Introduction Many Languages and a Few Feelings Aim and Scope of the Book How the Book is Arranged Societal Implications Who This Book is Written For

1 1 2 5 6 7

2

Emotion Categorising Emotions An Affective Neuroscientific View on Emotion Regulation and Processing Concluding Remarks on the Difficulty of Defining Emotions

8 9

3

4

Language and Emotion: The Two Basic Components of Human Communication Emotion: An Under-Researched Field in Linguistics The Relationship between Language and Emotion The Language–Culture–Emotion Nexus: The Question of Universality or Cultural Variance Language, Emotion and Gender Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion The Difficulty of Defining Bi-/Multilingualism Refining important dimensions Bi-/Multilinguals and Native Speakers: The Question of Comparability The controversy of a ‘holistic’ vs. ‘monolingual’ view: The idea of linguistic multi-competence v

21 28

30 30 30 32 36 45 45 48 54 54

vi

Contents

The multi-competence model in the context of SLA and emotion research: The approach taken in this book Emotions across Languages: The Challenges for Multilinguals The Representation of Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words in the Bi-/Multilingual Mental Lexicon Emotion and emotion-laden words Introducing a new dimension: Emotionality Concluding remarks on (the mental representation of) the bilingual lexicon Implications for emotion research in the context of SLA Emotions in Multilingual Contexts The perceived degree of emotionality of languages, language preference for verbalising emotions and expressing one’s deepest feelings Communicating love Expression of anger: Swearing and arguing Code-switching and emotions The multilingual self Concluding remarks on emotions in multiple languages 5

6

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design Research Questions and Hypotheses Independent Variables Research Design Participants Procedure Differences in Feeling?: Multilinguals’ Own Views on Verbalising Emotions in the L1 and L2 Results: Perceived Degree of Emotionality of the L1 and L2 Results: Language Preference for Verbalising Emotions – the L1 or L2? Results: Expressing Deepest Feelings in Various Situations in the L1 and L2 Results: Communicating Love in the L1 and the L2 Results: Swearing in the L1 and the L2 Results: Arguing in the L1 and the L2

58 62 63 64 66 67 67 68

75 76 78 81 84 88

90 90 95 96 104 112

115 116 120 131 142 151 165

Contents

Results: Code-Switching and Emotions Results: The Multilingual Self Results: Gender, Emotion and Language 7

8

vii

169 185 193

Feeling the Difference?: Verbalising Emotions in ESL Comparison of Tokens, Types, Lexical Diversity and Overall Time Comparison of Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words in ESL: Cross-Cultural and L1-Based Differences Gender-Based Differences in Expressing Emotions in ESL Summing It Up

212

226 236 240

Conclusions and Implications A Summary Suggestions for Future Studies Pedagogical and Social Implications

243 243 247 248

213

Appendix Examples from the Survey Summary of Results: Frog Story

251 251 253

References

254

Index

281

Figures and Tables Figures Figure 2.1

Primary emotions (adapted from Ekman & Friesen, 1976) Figure 5.1 Triangulation of research methods in the present study Figure 5.2 Step model of inductive category development (adapted from Mayring, 2000: 4) Figure 5.3 Female and male participants (Study A; percentage) Figure 5.4 Age of participants (Study A; boxplot diagram and descriptive statistics) Figure 5.5 Participants’ L1 including descriptive statistics (Study A) Figure 5.6 Number of languages known (Study A; percentage) Figure 5.7 English: Age of onset of acquisition (Study A; boxplot diagram and descriptive statistics) Figure 5.8 English: Context of acquisition (Study A; percentage) Figure 5.9 Participants’ current location (Study A; percentage) Figure 5.10 Age of participants (Study B; boxplot diagram) Figure 5.11 Context of acquisition of ESL (Study B; percentage per group) Figure 6.1 Language preference for expressing feelings (percentage) Figure 6.2 Language preference for expressing feelings: L1, L2, other (percentage) Figure 6.3 Likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 or L2 in three contexts Figure 6.4 Likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in English depending on the overall number of languages known Figure 6.5 Difference in the emotional weight of the sentence ‘I love you’ in the languages concerned Figure 6.6 Emotional weight of the sentence ‘I love you’ in the L1 and English Figure 6.7 Language preference for arguing (percentage) Figure 6.8 Feeling like a different person when using the different languages (frequency of answers given) Figure 6.9 Attitudes towards women being more emotional than men (bar chart; percentage) viii

14 97 102 105 106 106 107 108 108 109 110 111 120 121 131 136 142 143 165 185 194

Figures

Figure 6.10 Attitudes towards women being allowed to express their emotions more openly in public than men (bar chart; percentage) Figure 6.11 Attitudes towards gender-based differences in emotional content of language use (bar chart; percentage) Figure 6.12 Impact of gender-based stereotypes in the context of emotions on actual linguistic output (bar chart; percentage) Figure 7.1 Comparison of the number of tokens Figure 7.2 Comparison of the number of types Figure 7.3 Comparison of lexical repetition (STTR; in percentage) Figure 7.4 Comparison of lexical diversity (vocd-D) Figure 7.5 Comparison of lexical diversity (MTLD) Figure 7.6 Comparison of total time Figure 7.7 Overall number of emotion and emotion-laden expressions Figure 7.8 Variety of emotion and emotion-laden expressions per group Figure 7.9 Density of emotion and emotion-laden expressions per group (expressions/tokens) Figure 7.10 Density of emotion and emotion-laden words per group (variety/types) Figure 7.11 Intra-group variation in word types and further stylistic means (percentage) Figure 7.12 Between-group differences in word types and further stylistic means (Σ) Figure 7.13 Emotion and emotion-laden tokens: Female and male participants Figure 7.14 Variety of emotion and emotion-laden expressions: Female and male participants Figure 7.15 Density of emotion and emotion-laden expressions: Female and male participants Figure 7.16 Richness in variety of emotion and emotion-laden expressions: Female and male participants Appendix. Web questionnaire, set 1: Linguistic information Appendix. Web questionnaire, set 3: Categorising the degree of emotionality Appendix. Web questionnaire, set 5: Swearing Appendix. Web questionnaire, set 9: The emotional weight of the sentence ‘I love you’ in the respective languages

ix

196 197

200 213 215 218 220 222 224 227 230 230 231 232 232 237 239 239 240 251 251 252 252

Tables Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9

Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14

Table 6.15 Table 6.16 Table 6.17

Web questionnaire: Set of questions Categories for the qualitative content analysis Statistics: Age of onset of ESL (Study B) Links between demographic variables and the degree of emotionality of the L1 and L2 Links between language-related variables and the degree of emotionality of the L1 and L2 Likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 in three contexts (mean values) Difference in likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 Effect of residence on the likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 Effect of frequency of using English on the likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 Links between demographic variables and the likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 Likelihood of expressing one’s deepest feelings in English depending on the overall number of languages known (mean values) Links between language-related variables and the likelihood of expressing deepest feelings in the L1 and L2 Effect of type of L1 on the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2 Links between demographic variables and the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2 Links between language-related variables and the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2 Emotional weight of swear and taboo words in the L1 and L2 Links between demographic variables and the emotional weight of swear and taboo words in the L1 and L2 Links between language-related variables and the emotional force of swear and taboo words in the L1 and L2 Difference in the frequency of CS when talking to family members/friends and to strangers/in public Links between demographic variables and the frequency of CS depending on familiarity with the interlocutor x

99 103 111 116 118 131 132 133 134

135 136 137 152 152 154 156 156 158 169 169

Tables

Table 6.18 Table 6.19 Table 6.20 Table 6.21

Table 6.22 Table 6.23 Table 6.24 Table 6.25

Table 6.26 Table 6.27

Table 6.28 Table 6.29 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9

Links between language-related variables and the frequency of CS depending on familiarity with the interlocutor Difference in the frequency of CS when talking about emotional and neutral matters Links between demographic variables and the frequency of CS when talking about emotional and neutral matters Links between language-related variables and the frequency of CS when talking about emotional and neutral matters Attitudes towards women being more emotional than men Links between demographic variables and cultural background and multilinguals’ attitudes towards women being more emotional than men Attitudes towards women being allowed to express their emotions more openly in public than men Links between demographic variables and cultural background and multilinguals’ attitudes towards women being allowed to express their emotions more openly in public than men Attitudes towards gender-based differences in emotional content of language use Links between demographic variables and cultural background and multilinguals’ attitudes towards women’s language differing from men’s emotionwise/on the level of emotional content Links between demographic variables and cultural background and gender differences when expressing anger, fear and sadness to different interlocutors Impact of gender-based stereotypes on people’s actual linguistic output according to gender Between-group differences in the number of tokens depending on L1 Differences in the number of tokens Between-group differences in the number of types depending on L1 Differences in the number of types Effect of independent variables on STTR Effect of independent variables on vocd-D Effect of independent variables on MTLD Effect of independent variables on overall time Descriptive statistics of group differences in emotion expression

xi

171 173

173

175 194

195 195

196 197

198 199 200 214 214 216 216 219 221 223 225 228

xii

Tables

Table 7.10 Table 7.11 Table 7.12

Between-group differences in emotion expression Effect of self-perceived language proficiency, STTR, LD according to vocd-D and MTLD on the expression of emotion and emotion-laden words Gender-based differences in emotion expression

229 235 238

Abbreviations

AAC ANOVA ANS AoA β BEQ CoA CS EFL ELF ESL FLL LX L1 L2, L3, L4, L5 M Mdn MTLD PFC rP rS R 2 Adj. SCR SLA STTR TTR

anterior cingulate cortex analysis of variance autonomous nervous system age of onset of acquisition beta coefficient Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion Web Questionnaire context of acquisition code-switching English as a foreign language English as a lingua franca English as a second language foreign language learning any language acquired after the fi rst (AoA >3) fi rst language second language, third language, etc., in order of acquisition mean median measure of textual lexical diversity prefrontal cortex Pearson’s rho Spearman’s rho R 2 adjusted skin conductance response second language acquisition standardised type token ratio type token ratio

xiii

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank the participants of the studies for taking the time to help me make this project feasible. A special thankyou goes to the 24 interviewees who agreed to spare time on this project twice. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Annemarie Peltzer-Karpf for her kind support and for raising my interest in research into multilingualism. I am also very grateful to Professor Jean-Marc Dewaele. Without him, my research visit to Birkbeck College, University of London, would not have been possible and the studies included in this book would not have been feasible. Additionally, his encouragement and thoughtprovoking comments challenged me and let me grow as a researcher and improve my work. He was certainly a rich source of information on the topic and his work has been a great inspiration to me. I would also like to thank Professor Vivian Cook for helping me fi nd participants for my studies and for giving me great advice. He contributed substantially to my perception of and interest in multi-competent language users during a research visit to Newcastle University, for which I am truly grateful. I also wish to thank Professor Eva Eppler for her support during my  research visit in London. Special thanks are also due to Professor Georg Marko, Professor Ineke Mennen, Professor Sarah Mercer, Eva Triebl and my supportive colleagues in Vienna for providing me with comments and suggestions for this book and, most of all, for making me believe in its feasibility. Additionally, I would like to thank the reviewer and Dr Helen Heaney, who read the book and made excellent suggestions for improvement, and Professor Sven Strömqvist for providing me with a free version of the program ScriptLog for my research. Special thanks are also due to Laura Longworth from Multilingual Matters, who has done an excellent job in guiding me through the publication process. Finally, I wish to thank my family, Dominik, Christina, Elisabeth, Eva, Gunnar, Judith, Julia, Laura, Michael, Patrick, Tine and Vera for supporting me throughout this journey, which was emotional indeed. Above all, I would especially like to thank my mother for her kind support while writing this book. xiv

1 Introduction Languages have emotion terms, and people across the world engage in talk about the emotions – though not necessarily to the same degree and with the same obsession and reflexivity as in the so-called Western world. Bamberg, 1997: 309

Many Languages and a Few Feelings

When asked what makes us fundamentally human, one of the core aspects mentioned by many people is probably language. In addition, many would presumably subscribe to Birch’s (1995: 2) view that ‘[f]eelings are what matter most in life’. Thus, both language and emotion are crucial and so is investigating their links. Language not only expresses emotions, it also reflects them. In addition, it helps show indirectly how to understand, clarify and explain emotions (Bamberg, n.d.). These aspects become even more complex in the case of multilingual speakers. Since, according to Wierzbicka (1992a, 1995), ‘every language imposes its own classification upon human emotional experiences, English words such as anger and sadness are cultural artefacts of the English language, not culture-free analytical tools’ (Wierzbicka, 1995: 236). Consequently, the expression of emotions in a language other than one’s fi rst is often seen as the ultimate challenge to highly proficient (second) language users (see also Fussell, 2002b). Interacting linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of emotional communication are shaped by culture-specific display rules (Reilly & Seibert, 2009). The fact that culture-specific influence plays an important role in this respect becomes clear when looking at infants’ development: at the time they start producing their first words (at the age of 12 months approximately), ‘they are already skilled affective communicators’ (Reilly & Seibert, 2009: 535). They use both vocal prosody and facial expression to interpret and convey emotionally charged information and by the age of four, the cognitive representation of emotions – including children’s use of emotional words – can be described as sophisticated (Reilly & Seibert, 2009). Thus, socialisation clearly plays a crucial role in the way we learn to express emotions. Communicating feelings in a language other than one’s fi rst language (L1) is, consequently, demanding, especially if there are only partial equivalents or even no linguistic translations for the concepts and words of one’s L1 (Dewaele, 2010a; see also Farrell, 2006; Panayiotou, 2004a, 2004b,

1

2

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

2006; Shweder, 2008; Wierzbicka & Harkins, 2001). As has been shown in several crosslinguistic studies, there are differences in the conceptual and structural organisation of emotion lexicons as well as lexical strategies to express emotions (Pavlenko, 2002, 2005; Semin et  al., 2002 cited in Pavlenko, 2008a: 91). Hence, the acquisition of the (verbal) expression of emotions is indeed challenging, yet it is central to successful cross-cultural communication. Even though language and emotion are both described as the ‘two basic systems involved in communication’ (Reilly & Seibert, 2009: 535), investigating their interplay was ignored for a long time in linguistics – partly due to the false assumption that cognitive functions are uninfluenced by emotions. Its neglect in scientific investigations was even more prominent in research into multilingualism, which is interesting given that emotions are highly relevant to multilinguals, who are understood here as people with ‘more than one language in the same mind’ (Cook, 1991; see also Cook, 1992, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2012a, 2016). Only within the last 15 years has the comparably new research area of the relationship between language(s) and emotion(s) in a multilingual context gained more attention in scholarly discourse in applied linguistics (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2013, 2015, 2016a, 2016b; Dewaele & Nakano, 2013; Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–2003, 2002, 2004; Lorette & Dewaele, 2015; Pavlenko, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2011; Pavlenko & Driagina, 2007). Until recently, most theoretical and/or empirical approaches to emotion research only focused on a small number of aspects and even these have been fiercely criticised: ‘[r]eading the history of emotion research is a somewhat frustrating experience. Most of the theoretical and research efforts have been directed toward a small number of controversies’ (Scherer, 2010: 3). To meet the frequently stated need for a broader approach to the subject, this book provides both an overview of the field and a profound analysis with a special focus on language, emotion and gender in multilingual and multicultural contexts – on a theoretical and empirical level. Hence, it offers a new perspective. Aim and Scope of the Book

The book attempts to present a kaleidoscopic picture of research on emotions in the context of multilingualism, an understanding of which is crucial in today’s globalised, multilingual world in which migration frequently creates the need to express one’s feelings in an LX (referring to any language attained after the first, i.e. after the age of 3 [Dewaele, 2016a, 2017a]). It examines the interrelationships of the aforementioned aspects, focusing on LX users of English from an interdisciplinary perspective. By triangulating research methods in an innovative way (investigating the

Introduction 3

meta-level of self-reflexivity, but also analysing the level of performance), the book provides answers to two general research questions: (1) To what extent do cross-cultural, crosslinguistic and individual differences, including demographic (gender, age and education) and  language-related variables (language learner history, selfperceived proficiency and frequency of use), have an impact on the perceived degree of emotionality of the L1 and second language (L2), the self-rated frequency of verbalising emotions in the L1 and  L2, code-switching (CS) in various situations and the perception of L2 users’ selves? (2) To what extent do cross-cultural, crosslinguistic and gender differences have an impact on the frequency and way of expressing emotions when writing a story in the L2? Thus, the book offers a fresh approach to the phenomenon of emotions in multilingual contexts by including the dimensions of gender and crosslinguistic and intercultural comparisons on the one hand and by combining a meta-level of self-reflexivity with the level of performance on the other. It calls for a change towards a holistic approach to multilingualism and emotion research and aims at contributing to a better understanding of the mechanisms and influences underlying LX users’ verbalisation of emotions and the obstacles faced by them in this respect (e.g. structural, conceptual and lexical differences). It seeks to investigate the possibility of intercultural, crosslinguistic, languagerelated, gender-based and individual differences in order to avoid, or at least minimise, the risks of miscommunication. The book clearly stresses that ‘le langage a un côté individuel et un côté social, et l’on ne peut concevoir l’un sans l’autre’ [Language has both individual and social aspects, and one cannot conceive of one without the other] (de Saussure, 1916: 24), a fact that needs to be taken into account when attempting to adequately investigate emotions in multilingual contexts. In this book, I also aim to show that research in this context needs to be a crossdisciplinary endeavour drawing on a range of methodologies to deepen our understanding of the topic. Methodology and rationale

Besides providing the reader with an exhaustive, up-to-date review of previous work in this field, the book answers the general research questions drawing on data from two studies. Due to the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the field, taking a triangulation approach is considered essential as it allows an investigation of the topic from various

4

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

angles, thereby giving rich insights into the phenomena at play. The focus of both studies was multilinguals’ verbalisation and perception of emotions in their L1 versus their L2. The first study (also referred to as Study A) was based on adaptations of the Bilingualism and Emotions Web Questionnaire (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–2003): a comparatively high number of multilinguals (349) participated in the online survey and shared their views. To be able to draw reliable conclusions regarding the above-mentioned research questions, the answers from a selected group of 167 L2 users of English are taken into account in this book (i.e. those multilinguals who mentioned using English as their third language [L3] or fourth language [L4] were discarded). Even though it is acknowledged that a proper understanding of emotional processes also requires, for instance, indirect means of measuring these on the level of facial expressions or physiological reactions (see, e.g. Berridge & Winkielman, 2003; Cacioppo et  al., 2000; Caldwell-Harris et al., 2010), it is still important to stress that, especially in the field of emotion research, an inclusion of the participants’ own thoughts on their subjective feelings is just as important. The second study (Study B) was conducted in London, UK, and involved 24 multilinguals with either L1 German or Chinese and English as their L2. Data were collected by means of a pencil-and-paper questionnaire on the participants’ demographic profile, language history and present language use. In-depth interviews were conducted and the participants were also asked to write a story in English. The rationale of this study was twofold: as ‘questionnaires are by nature incomplete’ (Wilson & Dewaele, 2010: 117) for various reasons (for a detailed discussion, see Chapter  5), the interviews allowed more nuanced explanations, complementing the (mostly quantitative) analyses of the web survey data. The interviews stressed once more the relevance of including an emic perspective (Dewaele, 2010a; Pike, 1954) for a valid interpretation of the data. Of course, using verbal reports is not only advantageous but also has its shortcomings (Ogarkova et al., 2009). Still, Scherer (2005: 712) is right when stating that ‘there is no access other than to ask the individual to report on the nature of the experience’ to measure ‘the subjective experience of an emotional episode’ (Scherer, 2005: 699; see also Feldman-Barrett, 2006). Thus, in Study B too, the topic of multilingualism and emotion was approached on a meta-level of self-reflexivity. The second aim of this study was to analyse the level of performance as well. The participants were asked to write a story (Mayer, 1969) in their L2 (English) in ScriptLog, a program developed by Karlsson and Strömqvist (2002). The stories were analysed with regard to the frequency and type of emotion and emotion-laden expressions. The analysis was based on categories developed by Pavlenko (2008b: 148). The aim was to identify possible effects of the L1 as well as the participants’ cultural background, gender and proficiency on verbalising emotions in English as a second language (ESL).

Introduction 5

How the Book is Arranged

The book begins with a general introduction to the field, where basic tenets of emotions in multilingual contexts are provided and questions are addressed. Focusing on the complex phenomenon of emotions, the second chapter provides the reader with an overview of possible categorisations, neuroscientific aspects and underlying difficulties linked to the phenomenon of emotions. After clarification of the basic aspects relevant to a proper understanding of emotions, the relation between language and emotions and the relevance of this under-researched field in linguistics are explained in Chapter  3. This is where the question of universality or cultural variance of emotions is tackled as well. When discussing the two basic components of human communication and cross-cultural differences in expressing emotions, it is also important to explore the role of gender. Stereotypes clearly exist in this respect and, consequently, the concept of ‘doing gender’ (West & Zimmerman, 1987, 2002) is highly relevant too. This subsection also presents a rationalisation of the dynamic approach taken in this book and summarises previous research, giving reasons underlying the predominant stereotypes. In Chapter  4, the topic is on the even more complex level of bi-/multilingualism: starting off with a general discussion of the difficulty of defi ning the term and different approaches to it, the chapter then introduces the question of the comparability of native speakers and L2 users. Cook’s (1991, 2016) multi-competence model is discussed in depth, offering an understanding of the implications of the model for research on emotions in the context of second language acquisition (SLA) and the approach taken in this book, which is explained in the next section. The focus then shifts to the representation of emotion and emotion-laden words in the bi-/multilingual mental lexicon, which is a prerequisite for an understanding of the aspects explained in the following subsection, namely the perceived degree of emotionality of the languages known, language preference for verbalising emotions and differences in verbalising specific emotions, such as love or anger, in a language other than one’s L1. The question as to whether multilinguals sometimes feel like a different person when using the different languages is addressed, as is CS, a phenomenon central to the multilingual self. The section titled ‘Emotions in Multilingual Contexts’ in Chapter 4 mirrors the structure of the presentation of fi ndings in Chapter 6 to make the book more accessible to the reader. Chapter  5 starts with a presentation of the research questions and hypotheses, which are proposed based on previous work discussed in Chapters 2–4, followed by a rationale for investigating the effects of the proposed independent variables. The research design is then explained in detail. As a first step, the importance of triangulating research methods in SLA research on emotions is discussed, followed by an explanation of the

6

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

methodology used in the two studies (Study A and Study B) and an in-depth description of the participants of both studies as well as the procedures. Because direct reporting from multilinguals themselves reveals the most reliable data (Feldman-Barrett, 2006), their own views on the aspects explained in the previous chapters are presented in Chapter  6. As the participants in both studies all shared English as their L2, but differed in their L1, they were divided into two groups depending on the typological proximity/distance of the L1 and English. Thus, the effect of the L1 and the participants’ cultural background on using the L2 (and vice versa) could be investigated in addition to individual variation. As stated above, the presentation and discussion of the results mirrors the structure of the section titled ‘Emotions in Multilingual Contexts’ in Chapter 4 to make it easier for the reader to compare previous work on the topics to the present studies. In Chapter  7, the question as to whether differences can be ‘felt’ and seen on the level of actual linguistic output is answered by analysing a story that the 24 multilinguals from Study B wrote in their L2 English. The stories were written in ScriptLog, a program developed by Karlsson and Strömqvist (2002), which allows a dynamic analysis of the whole text production process. Besides examining general aspects, such as lexical diversity and the overall time it took the participants to write the story, an analysis of emotion and emotion-laden words in the stories produced is included in this chapter. Possible influences of several variables on the use of emotion and emotion-laden expressions, such as the participants’ gender and L1, are also investigated. The book concludes with a summary of the key issues addressed, discussing obstacles in designing studies in this context and giving ideas for future research. Societal Implications

Gaining a deeper understanding of multilinguals’ verbalisation and perception of emotions is highly relevant these days as, of the approximately 2 billion users of English today, LX users outnumber its L1 users (Graddol, 2006; Mauranen, 2012). LX users of English frequently need to express their feelings in this language; understanding to what extent this differs from doing so in their L1 is beneficial in many ways. Not only does it help prevent possible instances of cross-cultural miscommunication, but the contents of this book might also be useful for classroom contexts, in which multilingualism rather than monolingualism is the norm these days. In these contexts, a deeper understanding of how people feel when using different languages gives valuable insights into possible obstacles faced by students. Furthermore, LX learners’ emotions are influential in (un-)successful LX attainment (see, e.g. Dewaele & Dewaele, 2017; Dewaele et  al., 2016, 2017; Mercer, 2009) and so are teachers’ (see, e.g.

Introduction 7

Mercer & Gkonou, 2017). Being a competent user of a foreign language also involves pragmatic competence (Dewaele, 2010a), even more so in English as a lingua franca (ELF) contexts, where ‘speakers cannot rely on much shared linguistic or cultural knowledge with their interlocutors’ (Mauranen, 2010: 13). Thus, this book is also relevant to contexts where English is the ‘communicative medium of choice’ (Seidlhofer, 2011: 7) to bridge linguistic gaps. As many people live with more than one language in today’s globalised world and often communicate their feelings in LX rather than L1 contexts, the results from the two studies presented in this book might also be useful to a better understanding of migration contexts, for instance, and may provide insights into migrants’ lives (see also Panicacci & Dewaele, 2017). Who This Book is Written For

As a wide range of themes and applications are addressed and a range of methodologies applied, the book is written for those involved or interested in (research on) emotions in multilingual contexts or SLA as well as anyone teaching or learning multiple languages. As I attempt to give a clear and comprehensive overview of a range of issues addressed in research in the field and include an extensive discussion of methodological issues, the book is meant to give rich insights into the complexities of the phenomena at play and should, consequently, also appeal to undergraduate and graduate students of applied linguistics and related fields. It can improve the reader’s understanding of the relationship between the languages of L2 users on multiple dimensions and, by raising interesting questions, I hope to generate ideas for future study designs and research directions.

2 Emotion To raise questions about emotion and affect is to open many cans of worms, for they force us to consider the relation of body, action, and mind; of embodiment and society; of biology and culture; of brain, body, action, and cultural meaning. They force us to ask what it is to be human. Wilce, 2009: 28

The study of emotions in scholarly discourse in various disciplines is scarce. This is striking given the influential status of emotions in human life. This obvious discrepancy between relevance for humanity and its irrelevance/neglect in scientific investigations leads to the question as to why this was (or, in some research areas, still is) the case (SchwarzFriesel, 2007). One of the main reasons for the neglect of emotions in scientific discourse in the Western world was the influence of René Descartes’ dualistic model of thinking about mind and body that dates back to the 18th century. As a consequence, numerous dichotomies affected the predominant way of thinking and what followed were strict juxtapositions, such as culture–nature, masculine–feminine, public– private, reason–emotion as well as feeling–thought, to name but a few. This division of the world into binary opposites dominated for a long time, with emotion and feeling regarded as the exact opposite of thought and reason. Hence, the attribution of emotions and feelings to the body and thought to the mind fitted in perfectly (Wilce, 2009). Potential nonconformities within this strict division were not even considered and as emotion was held for the exact opposite of reason and regarded as irrational, research on emotions was considered unscientific as well and remained rare for a long time due to this Enlightenment bias (Sludds, 2009; see also Schwarz-Friesel, 2007). Generally speaking, it took quite a while until emotions and feelings no longer appeared in a bad light and until science put this research area into perspective. According to Zajonc (Pugmire, 1998: 11 cited in Sludds, 2009: 30–31), even as late as the 1980s, affect, emotion, attitude, feeling and sentiment were still disregarded in major works on cognition research and, hence, ignored in cognitive psychology at that time. According to Holland (2007) and Stets and Turner (2006), it took just as long in the field of sociology to rethink the relevance of emotions. In the US, the sociology of emotions did not emerge until the 1970s and 1980s, and in the UK it took until the 1990s to reconsider the fundamental dualisms that had so long restricted researchers’ thought in the Western world and

8

Emotion 9

to transcend the predominant dichotomies (Bendelow & Williams, 1998; Williams & Bendelow, 1996 cited in Holland, 2007: 197). This changed with Jaggar, a sociologist of emotions, who argued for the rethinking of predominant mindsets. As early as 1989, he showed evidence of being ahead of many researchers of his time: [R]ather than repressing emotion in epistemology it is necessary to rethink the relation between knowledge and emotion and construct conceptual models that demonstrate the mutually constitutive rather than oppositional relations between reason and emotions. Far from precluding the possibility of reliable knowledge, emotion as well as value must be shown as necessary to such knowledge. (Jaggar, 1989: 156–157)

Nowadays, it is widely accepted that ‘having a capacity for emotion is as much an essential part of being human as is being capable of rational thought’ (Goldie, 2002: 17) and research on emotions and feelings is no longer considered irrational and irrelevant. According to Schwarz-Friesel (2007), this change in perspective is mainly due to research in cognitive neuroscience (see also Damasio, 1997; Roth, 2003) that debunked the longheld belief of a rationally determined human being and combatted the view that cognition was autonomous and separate from emotion. This led to an acceptance and analysis of emotions as constitutive of and determinant in cognitive processes as ‘[e]motion, feeling and biological regulation all play a role in human reason’ (Damasio, 1995: xiii). There is indeed complex interaction between emotional and cognitive components both on the neuronal and the mental level (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007). All in all, interest in emotion research is growing. Stets and Turner (2006), for example, even go as far as to state that in sociology, interest has accelerated to the extent that sociologists have clearly compensated the lost decades of the 20th century research-wise and examining emotions is now on the cutting edge of theoretical sociology. Linguists, though, remained quite resistant to fi ndings from the above-mentioned disciplines, as explained in detail in Chapter 3. As a thorough understanding of emotions is a prerequisite for any discussion of the interplay of language and emotion, this will be the focus of the following sections. Categorising Emotions

Just like other phenomena, such as bi-/multilingualism (see Chapter  4), researchers have tried to pin down and defi ne the term emotion, endeavouring to divide it into several categories. Still, there is little consensus (Schwarz-Friesel, 2008). As emotion is such a pervasive human quality, its meaning seems to be so obvious that everyone thinks that they know what it is. Still no one has managed to propose a widely

10

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

acknowledged defi nition so far. More than 50  years ago, Wenger et  al. (1962: 3) had already pointed out that we all think we understand emotions as we all experience them, but when it comes to defi ning the word or concept, we still fail and have to accept that its meaning is much harder to grasp than we actually thought. Little has changed since then with regard to a possible ‘universally valid’ defi nition and, hence, the term emotion has often been described as one with many connotations but still has no ultimately defi nable denotative meaning, or no ‘essence’, and cannot, therefore, be used for any proper explanation of phenomena connected to it (Heringer, 1999). The underlying tenor of the general discussion about the controversies surrounding the term emotion is characterised in the following: ‘[e]motions are a basic component of human experience, but their exact nature has been elusive and difficult to specify’ (Corsini, 1994: 478). Or, to put it in other words, People believe that they know an emotion when they see it, and as a consequence assume that emotions are discrete events that can be recognized with some degree of accuracy, but scientists have yet to produce a set of clear and consistent criteria for indicating when an emotion is present and when it is not. (Feldman-Barrett, 2006: 20)

Still, questions arise as to why the phenomenon of emotion is so difficult to grasp and why categorising it is such a difficult undertaking, especially as everyone is concerned with it, affected by it and knows what it involves. On the level of scientific investigations, one answer is found in its interdisciplinary character. According to Wilce, for instance, [t]he ideal scholar in this area would [...] be well acquainted with fi ndings from various fields, from biophilosophy (Maturana, 1997) to neurobiology (Damasio, 1995, 2003), personality theory (Tomkins, 1995), developmental psychology and psychiatry (Feldman & Greenbaum, 1997; Hobson, 1993; Schore, 2001; Trevarthen & Daniel, 2005), political science and international relations (Saurette, 2006), law and philosophy (Nussbaum, 2004), cognitive linguistics (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 2001; Kövecses, 2000), history (Reddy, 2001), sociology and evolutionary psychology (Turner, 2000), and the humanities and cultural studies (Massumi, 1995, 2002). (Wilce, 2009: 28)

This list underlines just how many disciplines are involved in the study of emotion. Hence, agreement is difficult due to different viewpoints in the various disciplines represented by researchers investigating the phenomenon. Transgressing boundaries is not only typical of the research domain itself, but also of the individual emotions that researchers have tried to divide it into. One of the core problems with any attempt to categorise them is that

Emotion 11

the boundaries of emotion categories are not discrete, rather, they are fuzzy and overlapping, so that some events, displays, or scripts fit into more than one category. [...] This [...] may signify that a person is experiencing more than one emotion simultaneously, but it also suggests that emotion displays are not necessarily subject to categorical perception. (Pavlenko, 2005: 82)

Clearly, the topic is marked by high complexity and it is, therefore, very difficult to fi lter out single categories as, quite often, aspects in the domain of emotion are intertwined. When it comes to describing the single components that emotion contains, the main question is whether this is possible at all due to the aforementioned co-existence of elements. Not only Pavlenko (2005) poses this question, but several other researchers, such as Oakley, doubt it when stating: While it may be analytically useful to speak of separate ‘elements’ or ‘components’ of emotion, we might well wonder at the extent to which the elements [...] involved in emotion are really separable at all, at least in a mentally and morally healthy individual. (Oakley, 1992: 34)

Even though the strict separability of emotions into independent categories is debatable, attempting to do so is typical of human beings in their attempt to make the world and certain phenomena graspable and discussable. This process of categorisation is often more difficult than previously assumed though because the world not only consists of black and white, but the shades of grey need to be taken into consideration as well when attempting to grasp the multifacetedness of reality – or, as Kinsey et al. once put it, The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. (Kinsey et al., 1948/1966: 641)

Clearly, when it comes to the attempt to divide emotion into its constituents, it is necessary to bear in mind that the single co-existing categories – or at least the terminology – are constructed and no ontological givens. Foucault (1972: 22 cited in Lovaas et  al., 2006: 26), too, highlighted the constructedness of classifications when saying that ‘divisions […] are always themselves reflexive categories, principles of classification, normative rules, institutionalized types’. He continues by explaining the importance of discourse in this context and states that

12

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

the categories are facts of discourse. It is important to acknowledge that ‘they are not intrinsic, autochthonous, and universally recognizable characteristics’ (Foucault, 1972: 25). Hence, when it comes to describing, classifying and/or researching emotions, it is essential to keep in mind that the terms are always invented and shaped by the society that uses them. Nevertheless, the usefulness of emotion categories is not questioned here, as without them, discussing the phenomena at play would be a difficult, if not impossible, undertaking. Still, it is important to point to their socio-cultural constructedness and discuss the possibility of the impossibility of actually breaking them down into strictly separable sub-categories. According to Schwarz-Friesel (2007), the principles underlying modern assumptions about categories date back to the Aristotelian notion of the nature of categorial theory. Categories are thus the attempt to defi ne the essential, fundamental – the entitative. Schwarz-Friesel (2007: 65) offers a summary of a few characteristics that can be derived from this stance. First, categories are mental, abstract representations of concepts that are marked by strict boundaries. Second, a category’s distinctive features can be clearly defi ned and described. Third, categories are unambiguous and associated with specific extensions (meaning further entities) and, fi nally, these extensions are, again, clearly defi nable. When reconsidering these aspects in the context of emotion, the following becomes obvious: due to the vagueness of emotion and the single categories attached to it (that are presumed to be easily graspable), the societal demand for generally acceptable explicit defi nitions of single emotion categories can hardly (or maybe not at all) be met for the following reason, among others: Categorization is a fundamental cognitive activity. A category is a class of things that are treated as equivalent. To categorize something is to determine what it is, why it is, and what to do with it. A concept can be thought of as a collection of mental representations for a category that people draw on during the process of categorization. Once conceptual knowledge is brought to bear to categorize something as one kind of thing and not another, the thing becomes meaningful. It then becomes possible to make reasonable inferences about that thing, predict about how best to act on it, and communicate our experience of the thing to others. (Feldman-Barrett, 2006: 27)

Of relevance here, as linked to the context of categorisation, is the notion of concepts. Even if there might be a broad consensus (maybe even in a cross-cultural way) concerning ‘core categories of emotion’, or what kind of behaviour falls into a certain emotion category and what does not count as emotion-laden, the fact that the process of categorisation is linked to mental

Emotion 13

representations itself already contains some vagueness. This fuzziness only permits categorisation if blurred boundaries are acknowledged because we are all individuals shaped by our own experiences and, even if similar in some ways, are still different – due to multiple influences – in others and, hence, never alike. Although useful and facilitative with regard to analyses if done reliably and validly, it is therefore very difficult to generalise and establish universal emotion categories, especially as emotions are not completely observable from the outside. Interestingly, emotion researchers have still frequently attempted to determine possible, universally valid emotions (often also referred to as primary emotions) that can be found in different cultures. In psychology, certain core emotions have often been regarded as entities, despite several arguments to the contrary (Ortony & Turner, 1990 cited in Feldman-Barrett, 2006). In other words, researchers (have) assume(d) that at least certain emotion categories can be seen as natural givens (see also Städtler, 2003). According to Pavlenko (2005: 78), three dominant perspectives are discernible in the context of the nature of emotion and the categories it can be subdivided into: a nativist, a universalist and a relativist perspective. Followers of the nativist approach are convinced of the idea of universal grammar and, consequently, view both concepts and language ‘as innate and universal’ (Pavlenko, 2005: 79). Crosslinguistic differences are merely conventions of language usage and actual words themselves only reflect pre-existing mental concepts. In other words, they are reflections of ‘mentalese, [...] the innate language of thought, which is prior to and independent of language’ (Pavlenko, 2005: 79; see, e.g. Fodor, 1975, 1998; Pinker, 1994, 1997). According to researchers convinced of this paradigm, all emotion concepts are universal, very basic, primary and the same across cultures, independent of crosslinguistic variation on the level of emotion lexicons. Supporters of this point of view are quite contradictory in their argumentations and, hence, the number of followers in the area of emotion research is rather small (Pavlenko, 2005). Many more researchers support the universalist approach. Proponents are convinced that ‘emotions are a product of our evolution, with some biological givens’; still, they do ‘not deny the important role of culture and social learning processes in every aspect of emotion’ (Ekman, 1992: 550). Language and concepts are not viewed as primary in this approach, as words themselves are only regarded as ‘representations of emotions’ (Ekman, 2003: 13 cited in Pavlenko, 2005: 79) and, therefore, play a minor role in the explanation of the origin of emotions. Researchers taking a universalist approach argue that these biologically determined processes show experiential similarities and their facial expressions are commonly understood (Ekman, 1980, 1992, 2003; Izard, 1977; LeDoux, 1996 cited in Pavlenko, 2005: 79). Ekman and Friesen (1975), for example, postulated

14

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

that there are six basic emotions, also referred to as primary emotions, which we experience, regardless of the language output connected to them and to which specific, universally recognisable facial expressions are attached. In these six cases, the activation of various facial muscles is quantifiable by means of an electromyogram (EMG) (Karl & Dettmar, 2004). Figure 2.1 shows the six primary emotions of anger, fear, disgust, surprise, happiness/joy and grief, with the corresponding facial expressions associated with them. Other scholars are partially in line with the universalist stance: they also believe in the existence of basic, primary emotions but are still convinced of cultural variability regarding mental representations of so-called ‘secondary emotions’. According to them, cross-cultural variation is reflected in crosslinguistic differences in emotion lexicons (Boucher, 1979; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1989; Kövecses, 2000; Levy, 1984a; Myhill, 1997; Russel, 1991a; Scherer, 1994; Shaver et al., 1987 cited in Pavlenko, 2005: 80). Although they agree on the main assumptions underlying the universalist paradigm, they disagree regarding the number, quality and characteristics of basic emotions. Furthermore, they disagree regarding the

Figure 2.1 Primary emotions (Adapted from Ekman & Friesen, 1976)

Emotion 15

extent to which emotion concepts are culture-specific and/or universal and the structure of these concepts themselves (Pavlenko, 2005: 80). The third paradigm is also known as ‘social constructionist’ or ‘relativist’ (Pavlenko, 2005: 80) and, as the terms themselves already denote, scientists following this approach question the assumption of primary emotions (e.g. Ortony & Turner, 1990; Schachter & Singer, 1962). Social constructionists argue that the so-called primary emotions as we know them are to be understood as constructions of Western societies and the terms in use are therefore rather problematic as they are not culture-free and, thus, not universal (Abu-Lughod & Lutz, 1990; Bamberg, 1997; Edwards, 1997; Heelas, 1986; Lutz, 1988; Myers, 1979; Rosaldo, 1980, 1984; Shweder, 1993, 1994; Wierzbicka, 1986, 1992b, 1999 cited in Pavlenko, 2005: 80). Proponents do not assume that emotion concepts and bodily experiences precede corresponding lexical realisations but rather are convinced of the opposite: that language shapes and influences the acquisition of concepts and concepts in turn have an influence on the understanding and awareness of bodily states. This approach highlights the importance of affective socialisation as intrinsic, crucial to the way human beings are socialised language-wise. In this way, children are socialised emotion-wise and learn to decode culture-specific ways of expressing and experiencing emotion and, accordingly, to judge emotion-laden behaviour in an appropriate way, in others as well as themselves (Pavlenko, 2005: 80). In this book, no fi nal defi nition of emotions will be provided due to the great complexity of the topic. Consequently, refi ning them is considered more appropriate than restricting them to a defi nition that can only cover some aspects while missing out on others. Therefore, the view on emotions is an eclectic one, no strict ‘either/or’, but rather an ‘as well as’ view, acknowledging universalist aspects to some extent alongside relativist ones. Following Pavlenko (2005), a ‘componential or process view of emotions’ is adopted and emotions are, hence, seen not only as relational, but also as inner states. The focus lies on emotion concepts, seen [...] as prototypical scripts that are formed as a result of repeated experiences and that involve causal antecedents, appraisals, physiological reactions, consequences, and means of regulation and display (Fehr & Russel, 1984; Kövecses, 1986, 1990, 2000; Lakoff, 1987; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Russel, 1991a, b; Shaver et  al., 1987). [...] [C]oncepts involve the ability to categorize events and phenomena in language- and culture-specific ways, to appraise these events and phenomena as negative, positive, and personally relevant or irrelevant, and to respond to these phenomena in linguistically and culturally appropriate ways, comprehensible to other members of the speech community in question. As such, concepts include: (a) experientially learned and thus culture- and language-appropriate event and emotion categories and the

16

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

autobiographic memories linked to them, encoded in episodic memory; (b)  connections between these categories and somatic states associated with them, encoded in the limbic system [...]; (c) action patterns and display rules encoded in procedural memory. (Pavlenko, 2005: 81)

Clearly, it is important to regard emotions as multiply determined, dynamic processes and to accept the high level of complexity inherent in them. Schwarz-Friesel (2007: 55) describes them as multidimensional, internally represented categories that are experienced subjectively and registered by an individual on both a bodily and a mental level. On a very basic level, they are identifiable as either positive or negative experiences, and are also evaluated as such. They can also be realised in expressions that are identifiable by other members of a society. The processes of evaluation are concerned with appraisals of one’s own body condition, mental state, impulses to act and cognitive capacity or within a wider societal context. Furthermore, it is important to stress that emotions are not to be seen as static, isolated categories but rather along a continuum with general tendencies underlying the single concepts. If, for example, someone is happy, there is a general tendency underlying the experience of this particular kind of emotion that enables us to interpret it as happiness. Still, there are many different kinds of happiness and everyone might experience it in a similar, yet different way; even an individual per se knows many different realisations of the ‘same’ emotion within themselves. Feldman-Barrett (2006) compares emotion categories with colour categories fi ltered from the light spectrum. According to her, this comparison enables a better understanding of the role of categorisation and conceptual knowledge in experiences of emotion. The English words blue, green, red and yellow correspond to actual wavelengths and are regarded as qualitatively different. The colour we experience for a certain wavelength is shaped by our conceptual knowledge about it. At an early stage in life, we learn what constitutes a certain colour category and which hues belong to it. Even if there are general tendencies to judge them in (nearly) the same way, conceptual knowledge may still vary and people might experience certain wavelengths as different colours. The way we view the colours is influenced and shaped by our knowledge about them. Most often, this process happens on a subconscious level. When applied to the context of emotion, the aforementioned ideas can be understood in the way that conceptual knowledge about emotions acquired since early childhood allows us to understand them in terms of categories that can be seen rather as concepts with no clear boundaries and several realisations: When a state of core affect is categorized with knowledge from the conceptual system, the result is the experience of discrete events that

Emotion 17

people (at least in English) characterize as anger, sadness, and fear. What people know about emotion and how they use what they know during the categorization process will influence what they feel [and the perception of emotion in others]. (Feldman-Barett, 2006: 32)

An emotion concept is thought to contain something like a feature list that can be ‘read’ by members of a culture who share similar knowledge about emotion categories. Feldman-Barett’s ideas, additionally, highlight the aspect that knowledge and reflection on experiences made throughout our lives influence the way we judge ourselves, others and the world around us with regard to emotion. To conclude, we all know about emotion categories (although not necessarily to the same extent), use them to articulate our own and to interpret others’ emotions, experience them and are (most often) able to recognise and correctly interpret the general tendencies in the emotional behaviour of others, yet we are still confronted with limitations when it comes to fi nding suitable categories and defi ning them (see, e.g. LeDoux, 1996). Especially, as emotions themselves are partially influenced by society, fi nding widely accepted defi nitions is problematic if not illusive in this context, partly due to cross-cultural differences in emotion concepts and crosslinguistic differences in emotion lexicons. As it seems to be a very difficult undertaking to describe exactly what emotions are, it is a good idea to shift the focus towards what they are not, to at least set some boundaries in this way. This is what will be done in the following section. Emotion vs. feeling vs. affect vs. instinct vs. appetite vs. sensation

Whenever it is difficult to pin something down to the ultimate defi nition, an appropriate way to refi ne it is to highlight the differences to similar, close-by terms and mark the boundaries. To put it simply: if it seems impossible to say exactly what something is, then try to refi ne it by stating explicitly what it is not. Therefore, this section aims to distinguish emotion from similar terms that are often mentioned alongside or in association with it but which are still different. As a fi rst step, it is important to be aware of the distinctness of emotion and feeling. At fi rst glance, they might seem synonymous. But these terms cannot be used interchangeably as, although linked in some way, they still refer to something different. According to Schwarz-Friesel (2007: 55), feelings can be understood to be the part of emotion that can be experienced subjectively. Hence, feelings are a subjective appraisal of one’s own emotional state. Their introspective capturing requires the conscious experience of those emotions as representations, which, again, calls for previously made conceptualisations. Hence, feelings can be understood as cognitively influenced emotional states. Whereas an emotion is largely

18

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

considered subconscious, the feeling that is associated with it is conscious and can, consequently, be experienced consciously as well: ‘[t]he experience of emotion is presumed to emerge when the feeling state is attended to, whether by deliberate introspection, or because the feeling state has rapid onset or intensity’ (Feldman-Barrett, 2006: 22). Although we often tend to think of feelings as ‘veridical indicators of the presence of emotional states’ (Sludds, 2009: 31), we still need to be careful as, even if it seems to be true that some feelings as well as physiological changes are more likely to indicate one particular emotional state rather than another, a particular feeling still cannot be regarded as evidence for a particular emotional state. In some cases, emotions are also controversially linked to feelings and it is, therefore, impossible to generalise that a particular emotion is always accompanied by a particular set of feelings (Sludds, 2009). All in all, it is crucial to be aware of the difference between the terms emotion and feeling and to bear in mind that feelings can be understood as the subjective awareness and conscious experience of an emotion. It is also important to stress the difference between emotion and affect. Again, the two terms share a relation but are still not the same. According to Wilce (2009), the evolutionary, universal grounds of affect have often been foregrounded (Damasio, 1995, 2003 cited in Wilce, 2009:  28). What is characteristic of affect is that human beings cannot influence it. Affect is understood as a component of experience and is an intense, irrepressible and uncontrollable emotional state. Similar to reflexes, instincts and appetites, affect is basic and essential to human life. In addition, none of these can be shaped by previously made experiences or socially influenced, which makes them different from emotions (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007; see also Manstead et  al., 2004; Tomkins, 1962 cited in Schwarz-Friesel, 2007). Additionally, a clear distinction must be made between emotion, feeling and sensation. Although sensations accompany feelings (pain might go along with being afraid, for example), they cannot be put on the same level. Sensations can be understood as reactions to sensory stimuli that are perceived consciously via sensory receptors in a tactile, olfactory, visual, aural or gustatory manner. Whereas feelings are attached to cognitive input, sensations involve sensorimotor components of experience, which are more basic. Hence, they can be understood as primary states of experience. In exceptional cases of highly intense emotional states, human beings might not realise or forget about their sensorimotor experiences. An example would be that shock or rage might prevent us from feeling pain. Clearly, sensations cannot be equated with emotions (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 49–50). To conclude, it is important to realise the difference between these similar, yet different terms as they are somehow all related to each other but still not at all synonymous. Whereas it is quite obvious that emotional

Emotion 19

processes and states are most often tied to bodily sensations, there is no clear, simple relationship between a bodily state and a particular feeling (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 61). Apart from context dependence, individual differences (e.g. socialisation and genetics) are also influential. Due to the complexity of the relationship between the above-mentioned terms, generalisations regarding the relationships between the factors are indeed difficult to make. The core components of emotion: Influential parameters

The attempts to identify characteristics of emotions also include fi nding core components in which emotions either resemble each other or differ. In this context, three influential parameters need to be considered: quality, duration/permanence and intensity (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 69; see also Birbaumer, 1993; Debus, 1977; Otto et  al., 2000; Rost, 2001; SchmidtAtzert, 1996 cited in Schwarz-Friesel, 2007). Quality covers the feature that an emotion or emotional state is rated along a scale ranging from positive to negative, allowing us to evaluate various emotions as either being pleasant or unpleasant, as Schlosberg (1952, cited in Städtler, 2003: 233), for example, stated (see also Holodynski, 2006; Mees, 2006, cited in Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 67). Along this spectrum, anger, fear, grief and disgust are rated as primary emotions with a negative, unpleasant quality. In contrast, joy and love, for instance, are evaluated as positive and pleasant. Of course, further examples and innumerous sub-categories can easily be found and categorised in a similar way. Even though the classification of emotions into positive and negative ones seems quite easily applicable to any emotional state at fi rst glance, there are defi nitely problematic cases in which it is more difficult to decide how to rate them as they are quite ambivalent. Love–hate would be an obvious example. Clearly, positive and negative components intermingle with each other in this case and it is, consequently, impossible to identify love–hate as either pleasant or unpleasant. Another problematic example is surprise, which can be rated as positive or negative depending on the situational context, the individual and other factors. Indifference, too, is difficult to classify in this way. Clearly, there are cases that limit the applicability of mapping emotions with regard to their quality (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 68). Still, the tendency seems to hold true for many cases, exceptions notwithstanding, and it may be appropriate to stress that the quality of an emotion is often classifi able as positive or negative, with the two poles representing only the extremes. Nevertheless, it is also important to acknowledge the existence of ambivalent emotions as people can feel both negative and positive emotions simultaneously. Aaker et al. (2008: 269), for instance, refer to these cases of ‘a blend of positive and negative’

20

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

as ‘mixed emotions’. Furthermore, MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012: 193) stress that positive and negative emotions ‘are not opposite ends of the same spectrum’ as they have different functions and the presence of certain positive emotions does not necessarily imply the lack of negativity (see also Fredrickson, 2001 cited in Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). Another parameter of relevance when refi ning emotion variants is the duration or permanence with which emotions are experienced, referring both to the fact that emotions may be permanent or non-permanent and the time course during which an emotion is experienced (SchwarzFriesel, 2007: 70). In this context, Sludds (2009: 22) distinguishes between ‘occurrent and dispositional emotional states’. According to him, the former do not simply refer to an individual’s proneness to experiencing a particular emotion, but to the concrete period of time when it is experienced. Whereas some emotions are occurrent states only, others can be experienced both in a dispositional and occurrent way. Rage is exemplary for the former while anger is a good example of the latter. Emotional states or patterns can also be altered due to interpersonal and environmental changes or circumstances, even if experienced over a long period of time. Love is a good example for that: even if a person has been in love with someone for years, it is still possible to fall out of love and/or to fall in love with someone else (Sludds, 2009). On the level of continuity, a common distinction is also made between state and trait. Even though this perception is rather new, its systematic elaboration dating back to Cattell and Scheier in 1961, as mentioned by Battacchi et  al. (1996), similar differentiations were already made thousands of years ago by Cicero and Aristotle (see, e.g. Chaplin et al., 1988; Eysenck, 1983). The basic assumption underlying this viewpoint is that, generally, states are reversible and more sensitive to changes. Hence, states are more likely to be altered than traits as the latter are tied to someone’s personality and are, consequently, marked by individual tendencies and variation as well as influenced by the individual’s former experiences. A person’s trait has an impact on their state or likelihood/proneness to experience a certain state, but the relationship between those two is non-linear and subject to situational modulations (Battacchi et  al., 1996; see also Schwenkmezger, 1985; Spielberger, 1966 as mentioned in Battacchi et al., 1996). Even though there is no easily identifiable relationship between the two, this differentiation adds to our understanding of the different levels of emotion variants. When distinguishing between core components of emotions, a third parameter is their level of intensity. Intensity is related to the degree of activation, which can, of course, vary and is best explained to range from fierce to moderate and from aroused to tranquil/calm (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 69; see also Debus, 1977; Mandl & Huber, 1983 cited in SchwarzFriesel, 2007). Additionally, in the course of an emotion’s development,

Emotion 21

different stages of activation can be observed ranging from a certain trigger that somehow releases an emotion to a stage of focusing. All stages lead to a certain effect (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007). All in all, almost any emotion can generally be described along the aforementioned parameters. Consequently, an emotion may be described as more or less positive, mixed or negative (there are ambivalent cases too) (Aaker et al., 2008), whether or not it is marked by permanence and with regard to its degree of intensity (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007: 72). Even though there is an immense variety of emotional states, factors, processes and aspects that need to be considered and may even overlap, there are – as can be shown – still some features or dimensions along which most emotional realisations can be described, compared and/or distinguished. Although there is no consistent, uniform way of describing an emotion, the aforementioned parameters offer useful possibilities. An Affective Neuroscientific View on Emotion Regulation and Processing ‘What is matter? – Never mind!’ ‘What is mind? – No matter!’. (Key, 1855)

A shift in focus to affective neuroscience, ‘the subdiscipline of the biobehavioral sciences that examines the underlying neural bases of mood and emotion’ (Davidson et  al., 2009: 8), brings Key’s (1855) quote into question as it advocates the importance of the brain/mind connection and its relationship to emotion. Researchers in this discipline examine the brain circuitry underlying emotion-related phenomena to better understand the neural mechanisms that are often beneath the level of consciousness but still so central to understanding core cognitive functions. Affective neuroscience pursues aims that are similar to cognitive neuroscience but differ in the importance of affective processes. In the former, they are at the centre of attention while often disregarded in the latter (Davidson et  al., 2009; see also Davidson, 2000; Davidson et  al., 2000). Berridge (2009: 25) effectively summarises the discipline’s underlying aim when stating, ‘[a]ffective neuroscience seeks a better understanding of affect and emotion at both psychological and neurobiological levels’. This undertaking is far from easy and involves researchers from various disciplines, such as philosophers of mind and neurologists as well as other neuroscientists, biopsychologists, psychiatrists and psychologists of cognition and emotion (Berridge, 2009). Reaching consensus is, consequently, often no small task. When dealing with human beings and emotions, exploring how and where these emotions are processed in the brain provides important insights. As Turner (2000: 89–90 cited in Wilce, 2009: 29) once put it, we ‘need to learn something about the emotion systems of the brain in order to develop

22

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

more accurate and robust theories of emotion’. Not only do emotions play a central role in social interactions, but they also impact on body systems and the brain. To grasp the ‘essence’ of emotion (or better: the basic functions underlying an emotion), it is essential to understand the brain areas involved in the process. On a general level, emotion ‘is an interindividual process that alters the momentary functional organization of the brains of the interactants, configuring and activating certain multiunit functional systems and dismantling and deactivating others’ (Wexler, 2006: 34). The brain plays a crucial role when it comes to emotions. To investigate the brain structures relevant to emotion processing, brain imaging techniques are commonly used. In affective neuroscience, either healthy human subjects or clinical patients after focal brain damage are studied. In the case of the latter, the focus mostly lies on emotional deficits. Among the techniques applied are electroencephalography (EEG) measurement, positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). These non-invasive measures are used to analyse changes in the blood flow in specific brain regions or changes in large-scale electric potentials that correlate to emotion-related reactions in human beings (Berridge, 2009). The results of these studies regarding specific brain regions involved in the processing and/or regulation of emotion are discussed in continuation. Brain regions involved in the processing and/or regulation of emotion

Taken together, most of the brain sections involved in the processing and/or regulation of emotions are referred to as the limbic system. Often used as a synonym for the ‘emotional brain’, it is not without controversy. LeDoux (1996), for instance, criticises the label itself as being too flawed to remain in use in that he claims that it is impossible to predefi ne the emotional brain based on anatomical connections. More appropriately, the mediation of emotions by certain brain structures needs to be explained on the basis of neurobehavioral evidence, functional studies being a prerequisite when explaining the emotional brain. Furthermore, he doubts that there is only one system responsible for emotions in the human brain ‘since different emotions are involved with different survival functions’ (LeDoux, 1996: 103). Even though LeDoux’s argumentation may hold true to a certain extent, it is likely that Berridge’s (2009) prediction will prevail, namely that the term limbic system is too entrenched to be replaced and the ‘objectivity’ of neuroanatomical concreteness will remain attractive for neuroscientists. For this reason, the parts of the brain involved in emotion processing will be referred to as the limbic system throughout this book, despite the controversy underlying the label.

Emotion 23

Disagreement regarding which sections the limbic system includes still remains. Originally, the system was developed by Broca, MacLean and Papez and it covered subcortical and cortical structures alike, including the thalamus, hypothalamus, hippocampus and the cingulate cortex (Broca, 1978; MacLean, 1955; Papez, 1937/1995 cited in Berridge, 2009: 27; see also LeDoux, 1996). Even though the current defi nitions of the constitution of the limbic system vary, most differ from the original system, which was based on the neuroanatomical knowledge available prior to 1950. Enhanced knowledge has led researchers to remove some structures included in the original list while adding others (Berridge, 2009). Hence, the following list is rather eclectic as it gives readers a comprehensible overview of relevant brain structures only. The limbic system covers, among other brain regions, the amygdala, part of the thalamus and hypothalamus, the hippocampus, the cingulate gyrus/limbic cortex, the so-called fornix and the septal area. Additionally, parts of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) play an important role in emotion regulation (Berridge, 2009; Wilce, 2009). Their relevance to emotion processing and/or regulation is briefly summarised in continuation  to give a basic understanding of the pertinent mechanisms, functions and structures. The amygdala

One of the most important and best-known brain sections linked to emotion regulation is the amygdala (see, e.g. Cacioppo et  al., 1999; Damasio, 1995; Davidson et al., 1999; Gallagher & Chiba, 1996; Gray & McNaughton, 1996; Kagan & Schulkin, 1994; Toates, 1994; Zajonc, 1998). The term amygdala refers to two nuclei – one in each hemisphere – in the frontal, lateral part of the temporal lobe anterior to the hippocampus. Thus, it should not be wrongly interpreted as being one single structure (Schandry, 2003). Predominantly, the amygdala has been associated with negative affect in the literature (see, e.g. LeDoux, 2000), but recent fi ndings have suggested a broader view of its role in emotion regulation. Its association with negative affect is only a ‘special case of its more general role in directing attention to affective salient stimuli and issuing a call for further processing of stimuli that have major significance for the individual’ (Davidson et  al., 2009: 15). Hence, ambiguous stimuli fall into this category (Taylor, 1991 cited in Davidson et al., 2009). Berridge (2009) claims that the amygdala controls and sometimes activates emotional behaviours such as fear and aggression. It also plays a significant role as an integrating structure for other emotion-relevant processes mediated by various other brain regions (Schandry, 2003). Due to its high number of multi-functional subnuclei, it plays many important roles in emotion regulation. Disorders in emotion, such as depression, have

24

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

often been associated with functional and structural differences in this brain region as well (Davidson et al., 2009). Bilateral lesions in this region may, for example, also lead to a loss or impairment of one’s recognition of facial expressions of emotion (see, e.g. Adolphs et al., 1994, 1995) as well as deficits in auditory perception of vocal fear expression (see, e.g. Scott et al., 1997). Still, there is no defi nite answer as to whether, for instance, amygdala lesions lead to a complete loss of emotional reaction or emotional learning (Berridge, 2009). The cingulate gyrus or limbic cortex

The cingulate gyrus forms the intersection between the allocortex and the isocortex and is located in the middle of the brain. It can be described as consisting of ‘a longitudinal strip running front to back along the midline of each hemisphere’ (Berridge, 2009: 30). It extends from the frontal lobe to the occipital lobe of the human brain and receives multiple projections from the neocortex. Efferences move on to the hippocampus, the septal area and the amygdala (Schandry, 2003). The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), i.e. the front region of this longitudinal strip, plays a central role in human emotion regulation as shown by neuroimaging studies. Even though no defi nite function of the ACC has been specified, numerous theories have proposed that the ACC functions as a bridge between emotion and attention (see, e.g. Devinsky et al., 1995; Ebert & Ebmeier, 1996; Mayberg, 1997; Vogt et al., 1995 cited in Davidson et al., 2009). A proper understanding of the ACC’s role in emotion regulation includes the recognition that it is not at all functionally homogeneous, consisting as it does of at least two subdivisions, also referred to as the ‘cognitive subdivision’ and the ‘affect subdivision’. The latter, in particular, is extensively connected to the paralimbic and other limbic regions and is responsible for the regulation of autonomic responses to stressful emotional as well as behavioural events, social behaviour and emotional expression (Öngür et al., 1998 cited in Davidson et al., 2009: 11). With its numerous interconnections, the cognitive subdivision in contrast, is relevant for processing cognitively demanding information and response selection (Davidson et al., 2009). The septal area

In early reports (see, e.g. Heath, 1972), the septum was linked to positive affect. Heath (1972 cited in Berridge, 2009), for example, reports that patients (some of whom were schizophrenic) who had injection cannulae or electrodes implanted in their brain reported pleasure and positive mood shifts when stimulated near the septal nuclei. Still, ‘the relevant neural substrate for sensory pleasure has simply not yet been clearly identified for this general region of the brain’ (Berridge, 2009: 36).

Emotion 25

The hippocampus

The hippocampus is a curved, rather large and highly wired structure that includes various brain sections in its formation, such as the so-called gyrus hippocampalis, the gyrus dentatus and the cornu ammo. Large parts are adjacent to the cingulate gyrus. Efferences of the hippocampus mainly run to other parts of the limbic system, as well as to nearly all neocortical regions. Numerous neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine are effective in this area of the human brain. The hippocampus consists of highly sensitive nerve tissue and sophisticated wiring and interconnections, making it an extraordinarily important control centre of the whole brain (Schandry, 2003). It plays a crucial role in contextual, declarative, spatial and episodic learning and memory (Fanselow, 2000; Squire & Knowlton, 2000 cited in Davidson et  al., 2009). However, recent fi ndings have increased the relevance of the hippocampus in emotional processes, especially regarding stress (Schandry, 2003). The hypothalamus

The role of the hypothalamus in emotion regulation was mentioned as early as the 1950s and 1960s, making it the fi rst brain area to be regarded as being relevant to emotions. Both stimulation studies and investigations of the behavioural consequences of brain lesions showed its crucial status regarding emotional displays and motivations, such as hunger and sex (Stellar, 1954; Teitelbaum & Epstein, 1962 cited in Berridge, 2009). It controls endocrine and autonomic functions and regulates the body’s so-called fight-or-fl ight response (Linden, 2007 cited in Dewaele, 2010a). The thalamus

Only parts of the thalamus are relevant to emotion regulation. Sensory information is transmitted between the body’s muscles and the cerebrum via this specific section of the brain (Linden, 2007 cited in Dewaele, 2010a). It shares a neural node with the hippocampus and relays sensory impulses from various systems to the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex in turn transfers messages back to it. Information in the brain is not only one-way but rather bi-directional (Bentivoglio, 2003). The nucleus accumbens

Another section relevant to emotion regulation is the nucleus accumbens. Located in the front part of the subcortical forebrain, this particular brain structure is known for its relation to positive affect. Being rich in opioid neurotransmitter systems as well as in dopamine, it is commonly associated with pleasure, reward and addiction (Berridge, 2009).

26

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

The fornix

The so-called fornix is a curved pathway running from the hippocampus to the mammillary bodies, which are part of the hypothalamus. This rather thick bundle of nerve fibres gives the limbic system direct access to and contact with hypothalamus functions (Schandry, 2003). Therefore, this U-shaped bridge between many of the brain sections of the limbic system explained above also plays a central role in emotion regulation as it connects relevant parts and transmits information. (Parts of) the prefrontal cortex

Even though the PFC is not exactly part of the limbic system, it still needs to be mentioned in this context due to its relevance to emotion processing and, hence, its regulation (see, e.g. Damasio, 1995, 1997, 1999; Rolls, 1999 cited in Berridge, 2009). As its name suggests, it is located at the front of the human brain. One third of it (the ventral third located at the bottom) is especially involved in emotion regulation. Due to its position right above the eyes (orbits), it is referred to as the orbitofrontal cortex. This brain section is developed in a highly elaborate way in human beings and other primates. Less elaborate forms are still present in other mammals though (Berridge, 2009). It is assumed that the left-sided PFC plays a crucial role in the experience of positive emotions. Right-sided PFC regions, in contrast, seem to be involved in the experience of negative emotions, such as fear/anxiety, as can be found in EEG and neuroimaging studies investigating healthy individuals. Thus, it is presumed that the PFC has hemisphere-specific functions regarding emotion regulation (Schandry, 2003). Concluding remarks on emotion regulation in the brain

As the previous sections show, ‘[n]eural substrates of feeling and emotion are distributed throughout the brain, from front to back, and top to bottom’ (Berridge, 2009: 42). The description of the brain regions involved in emotional processing and regulation is far from simple as the literature varies enormously regarding this matter. There still seems to be no consensus among affective neuroscientists as to which areas of the human brain should be included in the limbic system. Disagreement can possibly also be traced back to the fact that there is still disaccord regarding what the choice of the parts included in the limbic system is really based on, namely anatomical aspects or functional ones. To summarise, the human brain plays a crucial role when examining emotions. It is therefore of tremendous importance to understand (at least to some extent) what role specific sections in fact play and what functions these fulfi l. With regard to emotions, a proper way of describing the human brain would probably be as a control centre.

Emotion 27

Another question of interest in this context is that of a possible, general hemispheric specialisation. Attitudes towards the role of lateralisation in emotion processing seem to differ (Berridge, 2009; see, e.g. Habib, 1998): one prominent view is in line with the well-known, larger cognitive lateralisation hypothesis. According to proponents, the right hemisphere is responsible for the recognition and expression of emotions (as well as holistic and spatial tasks) while analytic and linguistic tasks are among the responsibilities of the left hemisphere. However, when investigating split-brain patients, it has been shown that the left hemisphere does not necessarily show emotional deficits (Berridge, 2009; see, e.g. Stone et al., 1996). The second view is quite different from the first. Its best-known proponent is Davidson (1992, 1998) who suggests that positive affect is mainly mediated by the left hemisphere and its negative counterpart by the right hemisphere. Several studies have been in line with his suggestion and, according to Berridge (2009: 38), it seems that the hypothesis might hold true indeed and ‘emotional lateralization may extend at least in primates’. (For an extensive review of studies in this context, see Berridge, 2009.) From what has been stated in this section, it can clearly be seen that the limbic system plays a central role in emotion regulation. Being part of the vegetative/autonomous nervous system (ANS), it interacts with the periphery of the body, sending efferent signals and receiving afferent signals. In general, extensive changes take place throughout the body when emotionally aroused. Profound changes that occur are caused by the ANS, which consists of two opposing subsystems, the parasympathetic and the sympathetic nervous system. Both play a decisive role in emotion regulation. The latter is responsible for exciting us when we are in danger and activating us to cope with the dangerous situation at hand, for example, whereas the former supports us calming down afterwards (Sludds, 2009). Alongside the endocrine system, the autonomous nervous system is responsible for maintaining the ‘internal milieu of the body’ (Jänig, 2009: 135). Among the first considering vegetative mechanisms important to emotional processes were Darwin (1872/1998) with his biological–natural account, James (concentrating on the physiological perspective) and Lange (including psychological aspects as well). The ideas of the latter culminated in the well-known ‘James–Lange theory’ of emotions (James & Lange, 1920), which indicates a close relationship between afferent feedback and the experience of primary emotions. Doubting its plausibility, Jänig (2009: 176) adds in this context: ‘[t]his afferent activity may be generated by activation of the efferent autonomic systems’ (see also Schandry, 2003). In general, controversy remains as to which physiological processes accompany emotions. In this book, a link between physiological processes (e.g. a high skin temperature or heart rate), emotions (see, e.g. Ekman et al., 1983) and language is assumed.

28

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Concluding Remarks on the Difficulty of Defining Emotions

This chapter provided an insight into the complexity characterising emotions. In order to be able to clarify what an emotion really is and what aspects need to be considered in this context, it is indeed necessary to approach it in an interdisciplinary way. This is far from easy as expertise in all disciplines involved in the study of emotion is impossible, making basic knowledge and understanding of emotion very challenging. After having dealt with the core components of an emotion, possible categorisations and having approached emotion from an affective neuroscientific perspective, Wilce’s comment at the beginning of this chapter may be comprehended in a better way at this point. To deal with emotion is challenging indeed as the question of ‘what it is to be human’, as Wilce (2009: 28) puts it, is no small task at all. Still, any clarification in this context reveals, bit by bit, the fascinating aspects that account for us being human and what makes us different from other species, such as the expression or conveyance of emotion in a certain language. Clearly, the two domains most relevant to this book, namely a linguistic and a cross-cultural perspective on emotions, are still missing at this point. These disciplines have deliberately not been considered so far as this chapter was meant to give a basic understanding of emotional phenomena only and the two disciplines put these on a higher, more complex level for which a proper understanding of the aforementioned is a prerequisite. With regard to language and emotion, this is a good point to mention that in this book, language is seen both as a mirror of society and as an influence on society. As a consequence, the linguistic expression of emotions and the relevant cultural background are also seen as sharing a circular causal impact. This means that language and culture influence each other mutually – also emotion-wise. This is why the focus will be shifted to their interplay in Chapter  3. In summary, it needs to be acknowledged that Forms of human emotion are not, and never have been purely personal or biological. Always social in context, emotions and the semiotic forms that help bear and reproduce them are responsive to the forms of our shared life. More than straightforwardly revealing psychological processes, forms of discourse [...] help constitute social understandings and apparently internal processes. To be a person is to belong to a group; participation in all human communities entails sharing genres of performance and cultural sensibilities guiding reflections on them. (Wilce, 2009: 8)

Due to the interdisciplinary character of the topic, Wierzbicka suggests that it is not about choice or the ‘either/or’ but more about ‘as well as’ when

Emotion 29

it comes to investigating the culture–language–emotion nexus (even more so in the context of multilingualism, of course). As she points out, there is absolutely no reason why we should have to make such ‘choices’, linking ‘emotion’ either with bodily processes, or with feelings, or with thoughts, or with culture. The very meaning of the English word emotion includes both a reference to feelings and a reference to thoughts (as well as a reference to the body), and culture often shapes both ways of thinking and ways of feeling. All these things can and need to be studied [....] But to study all these, we need a clear and reliable conceptual framework, and the English word emotion cannot serve as the cornerstone of such a framework. (Wierzbicka, 1999: 5)

Wierzbicka (1999) even questions the appropriateness of the term emotion. What should be accepted in this context is that ‘defi ning or delimiting “emotion” is itself a cultural activity. The term itself has a rich social life’ (Wilce, 2009: 19). Therefore, it may be more appropriate to refi ne several aspects surrounding the concept rather than pinning it down to one fi nal defi nition, thereby limiting it. Ultimately, the concept of emotion has multiple layers, is not static and defi nitely not unidirectional and must, therefore, be seen from an interdisciplinary perspective in order to grasp its multifacetedness.

3 Language and Emotion: The Two Basic Components of Human Communication the two basic human systems involved in communication: language and emotion. Reilly and Seibert, 2009: 535

Emotion: An Under-Researched Field in Linguistics

According to Schwarz-Friesel (2007), the relationship between language and emotion was a widely neglected topic in linguistics until recently. It had taken far more time to become an accepted research area than in other disciplines, such as neuroscience or psychology (see Chapter  2), as it had been regarded as rather exotic or even acroamatic due to the longheld belief that cognitive functions were uninfluenced by emotions. Even though other fields were influenced by and, consequently, adapted to the changes that followed new fi ndings due to research progress, linguistics seemed to remain generally resistant to such new viewpoints. Only within the last 15–20  years has the comparatively new research area of the relationship between language(s) and emotion(s) gained more attention, with an accompanying increase in the number of studies and publications on the topic (see, e.g. Athanasiadou & Tabakowska, 1998; Fries, 2000; Niemeier  & Dirven, 1997; Weigand, 2004; Wierzbicka, 1999). What is worth mentioning at this stage is that text linguistics has so far remained widely untouched by research into emotions (Schwarz-Friesel, 2007), a state of affairs that is investigated more closely in Chapter 7. The Relationship between Language and Emotion

One of the fi rst questions that arises in this context is what sort of relationship language and emotion share. Researchers in this field focus on the possibilities of expressing emotions language-wise and/or how people convey emotional states (para-)linguistically. The question as to whether language mirrors and/or shapes emotional states is also of interest here. Linguistic variation, especially, makes generalisations in this context quite difficult (see Chapter  4). Still, some general tendencies of how language and emotions intersect are observable: as already mentioned briefly in

30

Language and Emotion 31

the introduction to this book, language is certainly not only a means to express emotions, but people can, for instance, also reflect on emotions via language. Additionally, emotions can be understood indirectly with the help of linguistic channels and language may be used to explain, clarify or even (try to) defi ne what emotions are (Bamberg, n.d.). Clearly, there are multiple ways in which the two interconnect. One very basic, common feature that both – language and emotion – share is that they can be understood as ‘the two basic human systems involved in communication’ (Reilly & Seibert, 2009: 535). Philosophers have been interested in both for centuries and, as early as the 7th century BC, studies dealing with the origin of the human language were conducted (e.g. by Psammetichus, an Egyptian king). Plato, too, for instance, investigated the origin of words in the 4th century BC. Not only has language been of interest, but so has the field of emotions. Even though in modern times Darwin is probably best known for his impact on this research area, the Ancient Greeks had already dealt with emotions. In other words, ‘from the oldest available records, language and emotion have been central themes in human behavior’ (Reilly & Seibert, 2009: 535). Compared to the vast literature available on either topic, their intersection has hardly ever been of interest though, with very few publications on either side crossing the divide. This is especially striking considering their basic communicative links (Reilly & Seibert, 2009). Wilce (2009) explicitly discusses their relation and shows that it is indeed hard to separate emotions from language due to both mutually influencing each other, at least to some extent: All speaking and writing is inherently emotional to a greater or lesser extent [...] Emotion is not confi ned to the outskirts of linguistic civilization but pervades its core [...], by which I mean that nearly every dimension of every language at least potentially encodes emotion, and that this language–emotion relationship is crucial to what we call ‘culture’. (Wilce, 2009: 3)

Even though seldom considered in relation to each other, language and emotion are of relevance in the interactions of members of any kind of community or culture on a daily basis. Everyday, natural discourse is, for example, not only produced but also interpreted in a specific emotional context. Most utterances convey emotional content – linguistically/lexically encoded as well as paralinguistically (e.g. gesture, facial expression or vocal prosody) – sometimes in a more obvious way while at other times more subtly. There is clearly a great range of possibilities to ‘colour’ one’s utterances and, in this way, to reflect a specific emotional stance (Reilly & Seibert, 2009). One option is to deliberately encode a certain emotional state lexically by making use of certain words (e.g. verbs), such as ‘adore’

32

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

or ‘detest’, or by using emotion-laden phrases, such as ‘to be over the moon with sth.’ to show one’s excitement about something, which is more indirect/subtle, but still rather unambiguous. Additionally, paralinguistic features may give interesting insights into someone’s emotional state. A facial expression can, for instance, reveal a person’s true feelings, even if the spoken utterance stands in contrast to what the addressee conveys paralinguistically. It can, therefore, be informative as well in the sense that it allows the interlocutor to understand the ‘true’ meaning underlying the linguistic output. Non-verbal behaviour, such as gestures, facial expressions or prosody, clearly plays a crucial role in these matters (for a detailed discussion, see Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2017). To conclude, ‘[u]ltimately, most of what we know about people’s inner feelings comes to us via language’ (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 1997: 319). Even though this initially sounds somewhat extreme, there is certainly some truth behind it. It would be interesting to know what exactly is meant by ‘language’ in this particular citation. In case body language/ non-verbal communication and other paralinguistic features, such as facial expressions, gestures and vocal prosody, are included as well, language can defi nitely be described as an important key – if not the most important – to understanding and accessing other people’s feelings. All in all, ‘language is crucial in the study of emotions, whatever the disciplinary orientation of the researcher: however, it is also highly problematic even within a single cultural group, let alone across cultures’ (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 1997: 320). This citation very well illustrates and summarises the role of language in emotion-related contexts, but also broaches another topic central to this book: the language–culture–emotion nexus, which will be discussed in continuation. The subsequent section discusses the conveyance and/or expression of emotions and their interpretation in a (cross-)cultural context. The Language–Culture–Emotion Nexus: The Question of Universality or Cultural Variance

As widely known, language and culture share an interrelation; they influence each other. Not only is a certain language a product or mode of expression of a certain culture, but also culture is influenced by language itself. Hall (2009a: 1) describes the role of language with regard to culture in an easily understandable way when saying ‘culture is about “shared meanings”’ and ‘language is the privileged medium in which we make sense of things, in which meaning is produced and exchanged’. According to him, language is to be understood as some sort of ‘representational system’. It means that speakers of a certain language use specific signs and symbols to communicate with one another. Not only do people belonging to the same culture most often share the same

Language and Emotion 33

language but, additionally, the same norms and values or, as Hall puts it, the same meanings. Of course, there is a diversity of meanings in each culture due to individual variation; nevertheless, certain meanings that are produced and conveyed in a society are shared for the purpose of mutual understanding (S. Hall, 2009). He furthermore stresses that it is people who give things meaning. Things do not inherit meaning (S. Hall, 2009: 3). Among members of a linguistic community, these meanings are usually decodable as they are conventionalised and shared by (almost) all members of the group. Additionally, it is crucial to keep in mind that it is meaning – which is in constant creation, recreation and exchange – which allows us as human beings to obtain knowledge about who we are and what it is that makes us members of a certain culture. Hence, it gives us insight into and a better understanding of our own identity (Woodward, 1997 cited in S. Hall, 2009). It becomes obvious that language, culture and identity are strongly bound to each other and interdependent. Quite clearly, they cannot or at least should not be investigated separately or, as Hamers and Blanc put it, The phenomenon of language behaviour cannot be studied in isolation, as it is in constant interaction with other phenomena, namely with culture. Although language is part of culture there is no simple cause-and-effect relation between the two; rather, they are in constant interplay. (Hamers & Blanc, 2000: 2)

This circular causal impact means that language not only mirrors a certain society that shares some cultural background and, along with it, ‘meanings to “make sense” of things’ (S. Hall, 2009: 1), but language is, at the same time, influenced by the people belonging to the same culture, too. Language, thus, not only shapes society but is also shaped by society. Even though individual variance is, of course, acknowledged in this book, language is still seen ‘as the key repository of cultural values and meanings’ that guarantees mutual understanding among the members of a specific culture (S. Hall, 2009: 1) – also regarding the expression, conveyance and/or interpretation/perception of emotions. According to Hamers and Blanc (2000), it is crucial to acknowledge their permanent interplay in order to be able to fully grasp the constant, dynamic creation and recreation of the phenomena concerned – hence the need to investigate both factors – language and culture – with regard to emotions. Wilce (2009: 1) establishes a link to emotions in this context, understanding the importance of explaining this language–culture– emotion nexus in a very simplified and general way when stating ‘this coming together, this fusion of language and feeling, is the very stuff of culture’. Because plainly put, the message is easily graspable and the relevance of both language and emotion in the cultural context is quite clear.

34

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

One of the very basic questions regarding emotional expression, conveyance and/or perception is that of cultural variance versus universality. Researchers’ opinions on this matter differ tremendously. Prior to explaining the viewpoints and clarifying argumentation along these lines, the following quotation from Freeman et al. illustrates the complexity and issues arising in this research area: Humans are biological phenomena. We are made up of cells, hormones, and genes; we have a nervous system and neurons within it. All our perceptions, cognitions, and behaviours have a biological basis; they are instantiated in the brain and body. Yet we are also sociocultural phenomena. We see, think, and act in the context of others, within a society and culture, in particular times and spaces, among environments where specific meanings, practices, and institutions arrange and determine our everyday lives. (Freeman et al., 2009: 191)

Clearly, explaining emotion-related phenomena is difficult as they can never simply be explained either on the basis of biological predispositions or cultural influences as both factors contribute to us being human in every sense. Hence, providing valuable insights into the topic and offering useful answers certainly require an ‘as well as’ stance instead of strict ‘either/or’ positions. While acknowledging some neurological predispositions that are a prerequisite in order to express, convey, experience and perceive emotions in a human way (see Chapter 2), the assumption underlying this book is that, clearly, also our cultural background(s) shape(s) us in this respect and influence(s) our ways of expressing and understanding emotions. The question here is not necessarily whether or not the social environment has an impact in this respect at all, but rather to what extent. A prominent debate on the level of the language–culture–emotion intersection has been – or rather was – the question of universality versus cultural variance. Proponents of the former argue(d) that at least some basic/primary emotions are recognisable cross-culturally (e.g. when judging facial expressions) and may, therefore, be regarded as universals. Classic studies by Ekman et al. (see, e.g. Ekman, 1972; Ekman et al., 1969; Izard, 1971 cited in Elfenbein et al., 2002: 75), for instance, suggested that facial expressions associated with some basic emotions were recognisable crossculturally in preliterate and literate cultures alike at an accuracy that lay above chance (see also Chapter 2). However, the same studies also pointed to cross-cultural differences, such as on the level of performance. According to Elfenbein et  al. (2002), these two fi rm stances (i.e. accepting universality or cultural variance) have been ceding to integrative attempts that combine both perspectives (see, e.g. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Mesquita et  al., 1997;

Language and Emotion 35

Scherer & Wallbott, 1994) due to evidence that has been found for both cross-cultural similarities and differences. Furthermore, many studies in this context have been criticised for having used ‘“forced-choice” experimental designs’ (Elfenbein et  al., 2002: 76). By offering a limited range of possibilities to answer a question, they somehow falsified (or controlled) the results. Additionally, even researchers who have proposed universality for at least some basic emotions in the past, such as Ekman, for instance, acknowledge that besides other social factors, such as the degree of familiarity of individuals, ‘culture clearly shapes how emotion is expressed […] and how it is interpreted (Keltner et al., 2009)’ (Keltner & Ekman, 2009: 413). According to Marsh et al. (2003), emotional expression resembles, at least to some extent, some sort of universal language and seems to be persistent across cultures. Hence, the assumption of universal prototypes of emotional expression is understandable. Still, they argue that ‘there can still exist subtle cultural differences in the appearance of these universal emotions’ (Marsh et  al., 2003: 375) and, apart from basic commonalities, regional variations may occur. Hence, regarding the question of universality versus cultural variation, the view supported in this book is in line with the following thoughts: ‘Frequently, when two […] theories compete, the answer lies somewhere in the middle’ (Marsh et al., 2003: 373). Additionally, attention needs to be paid to the level of modality. It makes a tremendous difference if, for example, the expression of emotions is analysed on the level of verbal output, facial expression, gestures or vocal prosody. Furthermore, the focus can, for instance, also be placed on the perception instead of the expression of emotions, which makes a clear difference too (Keltner & Ekman, 2009). Not only does the modality affect the study design itself (as well as its results, of course), but also the degree of cross-cultural variability, for example. Due to (so far assumed) different levels of variance, studies and cross-cultural meta-analyses have, for instance, hypothesised that with regard to primary emotions, crosscultural variance is lower on the level of recognition of facial expressions than on the level of the actual facial expression itself (Van Hemert et al., 2007). While acknowledging the important role of the above-mentioned contributing factors, such as facial expression (for further information, see, e.g. Keltner et  al., 2009; Marsh et  al., 2003) or gestures, this book aims to investigate language use with a focus on perception and expression as, particularly in the field of linguistics, it holds true that ‘the study of expression is really still in a nascent state and awaits basic research on the issues that have been identified [...] and on additional matters that await discovery’ (Keltner & Ekman, 2009: 414). Even among culturally and linguistically close languages, such as French and English, striking differences can be revealed by linguistic evidence, also on the level of primary/basic feelings, such as ‘disgust’ and

36

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

dégout. Compared to the English word, the French word, for instance, is closely linked to the context of eating and directly associated with it. In this respect, the English word ‘dislike’ would probably be the more appropriate translation (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 1997). This is only one of many examples that clearly show that, crosslinguistically speaking, there are differences in the way that emotions are expressed verbally in various languages and, obviously, there are often no one-to-one translations or equivalents for emotional concepts (see, e.g. Doi, 1973, 1992), which makes cross-cultural communication sometimes rather difficult. Hence, according to Harkins and Wierzbicka (1997: 321), ‘[a]lthough in most cases […] [there] are reasonably good translations, something is indeed lost in translation’. These mismatches become more striking in the case of less related languages. Additionally, it is not only words themselves that may lead to crosslinguistic differences in the verbal expression of emotions, but also grammatical differences and other linguistic aspects that may reflect a culture’s attitudes to emotions (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 1997). Apparently, the issue of interplay between language and culture becomes even more fascinating and complex when discussed in multilingual contexts as then, different languages and different cultures all influence each other leading to interesting outcomes and giving important insights into their nexus. This will be done in Chapter 4. Language, Emotion and Gender

Another element that influences the question of variability is gender, a term coined by Stoller (2006), an American psychoanalyst, in 1968. It is understood here as ‘the term used to describe socially constructed categories based on sex’ (Coates, 2004: 4). Whereas sex covers the differentiation of women and men on a somatic level and is thus expected to be relatively stable and constant across cultures, gender is not. In fact, both concepts are complex and multi-layered and neither sex nor gender is an ontological, unidimensional factor; both consist of various dimensions (for detailed information on the biological category, see Beier et  al., 2001; for detailed information on the social category, see Bräutigam & Clement, 1989 cited in Kockott, 1995; Myers, 2008; Richter-Appelt, 2006; Stoller, 2006). Gender dimensions are not always consistent with our Western cultural background and way of thinking (see, e.g. Hall, K., 2009; Hall  & O’Donovan, 1996), but may vary, including gender roles and gender identity. It is, consequently, very much culture- and society-dependent what members of a society perceive as typically feminine or masculine. Likewise with regard to the verbal expression of emotions, the underlying assumptions may vary crossculturally. The results of Wood and Eagly’s cross-cultural analysis of

Language and Emotion 37

gender differences in emotion expression have, for instance, shown that the expression of emotions also varies due to cross-cultural variation in gender roles (Wood & Eagly, 2002 cited in Fischer et al., 2004). A study by Fischer et al. (2004: 92) further supports ‘the idea that the male pattern of restrictive emotionality is a typical Western phenomenon’ (see also Jansz, 2000 cited in Fischer et al., 2004). Whether this is really the case will be of interest in the studies included at a later stage (see Chapters 6 and 7). Clearly, stereotypes surrounding language, emotion and gender exist – at least in the so-called Western world. Still, studies have shown different outcomes in this respect so far; therefore, further research is needed to clarify whether or not gender-based differences are observable regarding the linguistic expression of emotions. To summarise, gender refers to anything a person says or does – consciously/deliberately or unknowingly – in order to demonstrate to themselves and/or society at large that they belong to a certain sex. Language plays a crucial role in the construction and display of gender, covering not only spoken or written language, or verbal communication, but also non-verbal or body language (Wex, 1979). In this book, a so-called dynamic or social constructionist approach to language and gender will be taken, in which gender is seen as something dynamic rather than static, meaning no trait (for an overview of different approaches applied in the field, see Coates, 2004; Litosseliti, 2013). In the following, the concept of ‘doing gender’, which was developed by West and Zimmerman (1987) in the 1980s will be briefly explained, as it serves as the basis of the dynamic approach. Afterwards, its relevance for linguistics will be elaborated on. The concept of ‘doing gender’

The concept of ‘doing gender’ has had a tremendous influence on research in this context, also in the field of language and gender. It dates back to an article with the same title – ‘Doing Gender’ – written by West and Zimmerman, which was fi rst published in 1987. The starting point of their thoughts is the following: in Western society we assume that there are two and only two genders that form some sort of binary opposition. This distinction between women and men is deeply rooted in our society and, of course, also in us as individuals being part of it. It, consequently, influences our whole way of acting and thinking. It affects the way we view ourselves, the way we would like to be seen by others, how we perceive others and how others would like to be perceived by us (West & Zimmerman, 2002: 5): ‘[t]hings are the way they are by virtue of the fact that men are men and women are women – a division perceived to be natural and rooted in biology, producing in turn profound psychological, behavioral, and social consequences’. All in all, it means that we behave in certain ways as

38

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

women or men, influenced and shaped by the cultural background(s) we are embedded and socialised in and we are, therefore, very experienced users of the societal norms and conventions of gender-specific behaviour. The distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ made it possible to highlight the social constructedness of ‘gender’, but this does not suffice, according to West and Zimmerman and others, such as one of the best-known poststructuralists or deconstructivists in the field of gender studies, Butler (1989/2004, 1991, 1993). Why does it not suffice? According to them, the answer is obvious as, in this way, ‘sex’, or the dualism of being a woman or a man, simply remains a natural, ontological category, a given or essence. Hence, there remains some sort of differentiation, which is somehow unavoidable (West & Zimmerman, 2002). But, according to West and Zimmerman (2002), the cultural reality of the two and only two sexes cannot be solely deduced or concluded from the difference in genitals, as these only count as markers of sex in a certain socially constructed context. The well-established distinction between two sexes and two socially constructed genders derived from these and, hence, based on organic differences is based on interactive social construction only, they say. To put it in their words, ‘[w]e argue that gender is not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings of some sort [...]. We claim that gender itself is constituted through interaction’ (West & Zimmerman, 2002: 6). West and Zimmerman’s point of view stands in stark contrast to the difference approach, which had long been a major strand in language and gender research in the 1980s. Proponents of the latter, such as Tannen (1991), ‘emphasise [...] the idea that women and men belong to separate subcultures’, a ‘fact’, which is supposedly also reflected in their talk (Coates, 2004: 6). This approach runs the danger of perpetuating stereotypes and is, therefore, disregarded in this book. A dynamic approach to the study of language and gender is considered more realistic as its main focus is the development of gender in interaction. An individual belongs to a certain gender only as soon as that individual does so for others as well. Consequently, ‘a person’s gender is not simply an aspect of what one is, but, more fundamentally, it is something that one does, and does recurrently, in interaction with others’ (West & Zimmerman, 2002: 16). In this context, they also refer to Goffman (1976), who speaks of ‘gender display’ and compares this display of gender with a theatre performance: ‘[i]n his view, gender is a socially scripted dramatization of the culture’s idealization of feminine and masculine natures, played for an audience that is well schooled in the presentational idiom’ (West & Zimmerman, 2002:  7). Referring to the display of gender as dramatisation gives the ‘actor/actress’ a deliberate choice in the way that they present themselves so that their behaviour is perceived in a gender-adequate way (as feminine or masculine) in the eyes of the ‘audience/spectatorship’ (i.e. society).

Language and Emotion 39

Moral and societal values, norms and ideals that propagate the ideal of a ‘masculine and feminine nature’ (West & Zimmerman, 2002: 7) per se serve as ‘scripts’ according to which one orients oneself. The spectators always bear these ideals in mind (also subconsciously) and measure and interpret others’ behaviour along these lines. Therefore, the goal frequently is to reach these ideals. According to Goffman (1976), the degree or the extent of this so-called ‘gender display’ is optional. West and Zimmerman (2002) agree with him only to some extent as, from their point of view, it is true that people can choose how to present themselves, but, still, we have no defi nite influence on the way others in fact perceive us. This criticism was, in fact, the main trigger for the development of the concept called ‘doing gender’. The concept is based on Garfi nkel’s (1967) investigations of transsexuals in the 1970s. In 1967, he conducted a now famous case study investigating Agnes, a he-to-she transgender. Agnes had to learn in every respect what it means to be a woman, how to behave and display oneself as a woman in order to be perceived as female and feminine by others as well. In this way, her case reveals what is usually disguised by everyday routine: gender is an interactive process and nothing static. It refers to the ‘intersubjective validation in interactional processes on the basis of situation-adequate behaviour regarding normative rules and with the consideration of actions considered as typical of one’s category’ (translated from Gildemeister, 2004: 133). In other words, this sub-category refers to us all behaving as women or men in a gender-specific way knowing exactly the societal norms, conventions and ‘rules’ attributed to the categories. The aforementioned, so-called ‘intersubjective validation’ plays a significant role in this respect: what is meant by it is everyday processes, everyday interactions, in which we display our gender – also linguistically – and in which we ourselves affirm the gender of others. In this way, gender is a constant doing, a constant interaction of behaviour that is considered appropriate and adequate for the relevant sexual category. What is decisive is that the actual behaviour can be experienced, interpreted and understood in the right way. To put it in West and Zimmerman’s (2002: 12) words: someone’s gender needs to be ‘accountable’. To summarise, the two researchers state that the differences between the sexes and, along with such differences, the existing dichotomy and binary thinking are constructed – meaning neither natural nor essential, nor some sort of biological given. Once constructed, the differences are constantly being reproduced and, consequently, seem to be natural and a sort of ‘given’, which they are actually not. Only we no longer realise it. This means that gender-specific differences appear to be constitutive and very basic, but, apparently, they are merely the results of cultural constructions (West & Zimmerman, 2002). Such binary thinking – this oppositional comparison of women and men – seems so natural due to socialisation. The ‘doing gender’ or, in other

40

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

words, the ‘creating of differences between girls and boys and women and men, differences that are not natural, essential, or biological’ (West  & Zimmerman, 2002: 13), starts in childhood. Gender is the first social category that children acquire and they already show gender awareness on the level of gender roles and identity as early as the age of two to three – which is also reflected in their language use, of course. In the fi rst years of life, they are mainly influenced by their parents’ often differential treatment of girls and boys which also has an impact on the expression of emotions (Chaplin et  al., 2005). As they grow older, children show an increasing ability to judge linguistic expressions on the level of gender appropriateness. At fi rst, they overgeneralise these and then, later on, need to readjust them to ‘gender-preferential’ rather than ‘gender-exclusive’ expressions (Coates, 2004). These typical gender-role stereotypes also seem to be quite persistent in adulthood. To what extent the aforementioned is relevant with regard to linguistics will be explained in what follows. A dynamic approach to the study of language and gender

‘Doing gender’ plays a highly important role in the way we interact language-wise as well and the concept’s implications are strong in this respect. Also in this field, many stereotypes are quite persistent, perpetuated and reinforced in the media, especially (Jule, 2008; Litosseliti, 2013). These stereotypes certainly do not hold true for everyone. Still, they are deeply rooted in our society and our belief systems and expectations. It is likely that reflections of these stereotypes – or parallels – can be found in real life as well due to the fact that, for instance, women might think that they are ‘allowed’ to be emotional in their language use in the Western world, whereas men might think that they are not but are, on the contrary, expected to be tough and factual. To shed more light on these yet under-researched aspects in the context of the verbal expression of emotions is one of the aims of the studies included in this book (see Chapters 6 and 7). Currently, linguists most often take a social constructionist approach to language and gender issues (Cameron, 2009). This approach deals with gender ‘as emerging in interaction, as being “done” or “performed” by speakers in specific contexts’ (Pichler & Eppler, 2009: xi) rather than being seen as an ontological factor, essence or biological given. In other words, ‘[c]ontemporary research sees gender, not as a prior category that affects how people speak, but as a highly contextualised process of identification’ (Swann, 2009: 19). The interdependence and mutual influence of macro (societal) and micro (individual) levels are acknowledged, leading to gender being viewed as dynamic and defi nitely not static. This means that societal expectations and norms have an influence on us, as individuals, on the way we speak and we ourselves also have an influence on societal expectations. The latter is something relatively new: ‘[r]ecent thinking [...] accords people

Language and Emotion 41

a more agentive role: they are seen as actively shaping themselves rather than passively being shaped’ (Cameron, 2009: 11). Litosseliti (2013: 45) concludes that linguists nowadays are more likely to investigate ‘gender as an effect of language use, rather than as a determinant of different uses of language’. Even though not analysed in this book, this, of course, not only applies to the level of actual linguistic output (meaning either spoken or written words), but also to non-verbal behaviour/body language (Wex, 1979). Linguists consequently view gender as being discursively constructed depending on context and it is, thus, viewed as dynamic and variable (Litosseliti, 2013). Gender–emotion–language: Previous research

Concerning the relevance of this approach to expressing and/or conveying emotions, at least in Western cultures, stereotypes surrounding women, men and emotions exist. According to these beliefs, women are said to be the emotional gender, whereas men, by contrast, are perceived as rational. In other words, ‘[s]tereotypes of women as being more “in touch” with their emotions and as more emotionally responsive and sensitive are endorsed by both men and women’ (Germans Gard & Kring, 2007: 429; see also Belk & Snell, 1986). Even though research has revealed inconsistencies with regard to gender and emotion expression, it seems that gender differences are observable on the level of emotional responding. Whereas women tend to report more guilt, fear, sadness and shame, men, in contrast, claim to experience, and also express, anger and hostile emotions, in general, more frequently than women. Genderspecific differences are more obvious when focusing on emotion expression (LaFrance & Banaji, 1992 cited in Fischer et al., 2004: 87). According to Germans Gard and Kring (2007: 429), ‘[a] good deal of evidence supports the notion that women are more expressive than men (for a review, see Brody & Hall, 2000)’ in this context. Barrett et al. (1998 cited in FeldmanBarrett & Bliss-Moreau, 2009: 649), for example, found that women themselves report on expressing their emotions to a far greater extent than men. Thus, the self-perceived frequency of doing so seems to differ too. Barrett et al. (1998: 575) also found in their research that ‘sex differences in emotional experience are not as pervasive as the stereotype suggests’, and they conclude from their fi ndings that the assumption of women being more emotional might actually be culturally constructed and self-reports ‘may provide a skewed picture […] in the direction of supporting genderbased stereotypes about emotion’. Research has revealed that women report more intense and more frequent negative and positive emotional experiences alike (see, e.g. Barrett et al., 1998; Grossman & Wood, 1993; Tobin et al., 2000; Vrana & Rollock, 2002; but see also Kring & Gordon, 1998 cited in Germans Gard & Kring, 2007: 429). Other studies have

42

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

shown that women tend to experience negative emotions more frequently than men (see, e.g. Bradley et al., 2001; Fischer et al., 2004; Hillman et al., 2004; Tobin et al., 2000 cited in Germans Gard & Kring, 2007: 430). With regard to facial expressions of emotions, research has shown genderbased differences on the level of emotion recognition: studies by Hall and Matsumoto (2004), for example, revealed that women outperform men in this respect. Even though previous research has often shown gender-specific differences in the perception and expression of emotions, the results often contradict each other or lack any level of significance. Therefore, further research is much needed. When focusing on linguistic analyses, inconsistencies can also be found in this discipline: whereas the results of Dewaele’s (2004a, 2006, 2010a) investigations into multilinguals’ reports on code-switching habits and language preferences for emotion expression (in particular anger and swearing) showed no clear gender effect, Dewaele (2004b) found genderspecific differences in the perception of swear words in the languages involved in the study: female participants rated the emotionality of swear words as stronger than their male counterparts. Additionally, his study revealed that female participants also reported code-switching more when talking about emotional and personal topics as well as when speaking to friends, whereas men reported doing so more often when speaking to strangers (Dewaele, 2010a). Gardner-Chloros (2009 cited in Dewaele, 2010a: 191), on the other hand, states that code-switching is not directly linked to gender, but it intersects with many intervening factors that are themselves linked to gender. She herself was unable to reveal a link between the frequency of code-switching and gender when investigating multilinguals living in London (Gardner-Chloros et  al., 2005 cited in Dewaele, 2010a). All in all, the results from different studies show various inconsistencies and further research is still required to gain a better understanding of the complex topic. Emotional = ♀, rational = ♂?: The reasons underlying the predominant stereotypes

‘In Western popular culture, conventional wisdom holds that women are the more “emotional” gender’ (Germans Gard & Kring, 2007: 429), giving rise to the question as to why this stereotype is being perpetuated when studies have shown controversial outcomes and inconsistencies. Feldman-Barrett and Bliss-Moreau offer a useful explanation in this respect when stating, It is possible that people believe that women are the more emotional sex because they are treating women’s emotional behaviour as evidence of an emotional nature, whereas men’s emotional behaviour is evidence that the

Language and Emotion 43

situation warrants such behaviour. (Feldman-Barrett & Bliss-Moreau, 2009: 650)

Thus, the interpretation of women as being more emotional than their male counterparts could be due to different explanation patterns in this context: women are not necessarily intrinsically more emotional than men, but society interprets their emotional behaviour in a different way, namely by attributing it to their emotional nature. Men, in contrast, react emotionally due to situations and contexts that make them act this way. Perceivers are thus biased by features they view as an essential part of a target person’s behaviour (Feldman-Barrett & Bliss-Moreau, 2009). In other words, emotional behaviour may be interpreted as typically feminine as emotions are seen as characteristic of their nature. With regard to men, emotions are interpreted as context driven and not bound to traits. Even the outcomes of two studies by Feldman-Barrett and Bliss-Moreau (2009: 654–655) confi rm this by demonstrating ‘that the stereotype of the overly emotional female is linked to the belief that women express emotion because they are emotional creatures, but men express emotions because [of] the situation’. A reasonable explanation for this is offered by Klinger (2000), who states that by perpetuating the belief that gender-based differences are natural/given, the possibility of their ahistorical development is erased – which is in fact not true as the binary thinking and stereotypes attributed to a certain gender have their roots in the development of the bourgeoisie in the 18th century. From then on, society was structured in a public, ‘male’ sphere and a private/domestic, ‘female’ sphere (Klinger, 2000: 3) and, along with this division, responsibilities and attributes were associated with each gender, leading to women being associated with nature, subjectivity and being passive as opposed to men being associated with culture, innovation, objectivity and being active. Another pair of opposites born at that time was to associate emotions with women and reason with men (Klinger, 2000). This binary thinking has been reinforced ever since, leading to the common belief that holds the aforementioned attributes as given/natural, completely ignoring their self-made nature. The view taken in this book is that women are not genetically predisposed to expressing their emotions more frequently than their male counterparts. If gender-based tendencies are observable (on the level of verbal expression of emotions and/or on the level of stereotypes and beliefs held in this context), the underlying explanations can be found in the abovementioned concept of ‘doing gender’ by West and Zimmerman (1987). It is assumed that gender-based differences can mainly be traced back to ways of socialisation and the subsequent gender display everyone is performing to be perceived as either masculine or feminine by society at large.

44

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Concluding remarks on language, emotion and gender

To summarise, this book takes a dynamic or social constructionist approach as it highlights the social/cultural constructedness of gender and thus explains societal influence on attributes associated with each gender. We learn from the very first years onwards how to behave and (inter-)act – including linguistically – in order to be perceived as women or men. This binary thinking has a deep impact on our social structure and the way we act and talk and the way we expect others to use verbal and non-verbal language. The extent of the impact on adults, and the extent to which crosscultural differences are observable, will be addressed in Chapter  6. The latter is of utmost importance given ‘that language and culture mediate gender effects in both production and perception [, which] challenges any simplistic assumptions of universal gender differences in verbal communication’ (Pavlenko, 2005: 42). In summary, studies in the context of emotions, language and gender have shown contradictory results. Further research is needed to deepen our understanding of their interplay. Being the first social category we acquire, gender is also reflected in our linguistic behaviour (see, e.g. Labov, 1972; Milroy, 1980), which is socially constructed and context dependent. Even though biological differences, such as differences in brain structure, which supposedly make women more apt to be emotional (Brizendine, 2006 cited in Feldman-Barrett & Bliss-Moreau, 2009: 649), have not been ruled out, it is assumed that language, culture and, along with these, socialisation play a decisive role.

4 Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion The nexus between culture, language and emotions increases in complexity when put into the context of bi-/multilingualism. According to Dewaele and Pavlenko (2004), this area of linguistics has also been widely ignored until recently. This is striking considering the fact that emotions and verbalising them play an important role in many bi-/multilinguals’ lives. The discrepancy between their relevance to bi-/multilinguals on the one hand and their neglect in scientific investigations raises the question as to why. One reason for ignoring the topic in scientific investigations is the long-held false assumption that bi-/multilingual speakers are kind of ‘incomplete’, ‘impure’ users of either of the languages involved (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2004: ii). Another reason is that many disciplines intertwine in research on bi- and multilingualism, especially when considering emotions. Hence, an interdisciplinary methodology is a prerequisite for approaching any investigation in an adequate way. To put it in Dewaele and Pavlenko’s (2004: ii) words, ‘bilingualism and emotions [...] are situated at the intersections of linguistics, cognitive, social, and cultural psychology, anthropology, and second language acquisition [and] cannot be handled in any other way’. Hence, researchers must stop the monolithic judging of approaches from their own disciplines and accept the topic’s multifacetedness, which demands an interdisciplinary perspective. Before being able to link the topic of emotions to the yet more complex level of bi-/multilingualism, this chapter will start with a general discussion of the difficulty of defi ning the terms bi-/multilingualism and the different approaches to their defi nition. The reader will then be introduced to the question of comparability of native speakers and bilinguals and, accordingly, to Cook’s (1991) multi-competence model. This groundwork is crucial for a proper understanding of the model’s implications for research on emotions in the context of second language acquisition (SLA) and the approach taken in this book. The Difficulty of Defining Bi-/Multilingualism

Researchers have come up with various defi nitions of this highly complex term, ranging from narrow to very broad defi nitions. Some even resort to giving a description rather than a defi nition. This section provides an overview and a basic understanding of how the term bilingualism (which

45

46

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

often used to refer to anyone knowing more than one language, i.e. also people knowing three or more) was understood in the past, how researchers presently approach the topic and how problematic, if not even impossible, it is to fi nd a suitable defi nition. Certainly, when confronted with the question of how to describe bilingualism, a majority of people would think of two native speakers in one person or, in other words, someone who is ‘perfect’ in two languages on all levels involved, such as listening, speaking, reading and writing. Maybe even a common-sense understanding of bilingualism exists, with only slight variation among individual interpretations. This widespread idea very much resembles linguists’ notion of balanced bilingualism, which Romaine (2008: 19) describes as ‘an artefact of a theoretical perspective’ as it is an exception rather than the norm. Problems arise when aiming to fi nd a universally valid defi nition of this intricate term. One reason for it being a difficult undertaking is the fact that, throughout history, bilingualism has become an issue that touches upon a multiplicity of disciplines, such as sociology, psychology, linguistics and neuroscience. Consequently, hardly anyone investigating the topic is an expert in all areas and much research done so far has only concentrated on certain aspects, often neglecting its interdisciplinary character (Lambert, 2000: xi; see also Dewaele, 2010a). Linguists, for example, mostly concentrated on describing the term with a focus on language proficiency in one way or another. Bloomfield (1935: 56), for instance, defi nes bilingualism as ‘the native-like control of two languages’. Not only does his defi nition focus on language, but he does not clearly say what is meant by ‘native-like control’. What exactly is the prerequisite for being called bilingual? If it implies being as proficient in one’s second language (L2) as in one’s first, bilingualism would be an exception rather than the norm, which it certainly is not. Numerous researchers presently favour the view, already put forward by Mackey (1967: 11) half a century ago, that ‘bilingualism, far from being exceptional, […] affects the majority of the world’s population’ – only nowadays, it is no longer viewed negatively. Mackey (1967: 11), for instance, back then described it as a ‘problem’ affecting us. On the contrary, knowing more than one language is perceived in a highly positive way and is seen as an asset in educational contexts, for instance. There were further early attempts, such as Haugen’s in 1969, focusing like Bloomfield on fluency as the main criterion for describing the term: Bilingualism […] may be of all degrees of accomplishment, but it is understood here to begin at the point where the speaker of one language can produce complete, meaningful utterances in the other language. From here it may proceed through all possible gradations up to the kind of skill that enables a person to pass as a native in more than one linguistic environment. (Haugen, 1969: 6–7 cited in Grosjean, 1982: 232)

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 47

Haugen’s early attempt at finding a possible definition seems to be more progressive than Bloomfield’s, although it certainly has its weaknesses too. His description of the point at which bilingualism begins is, for example, imprecise. According to this definition, even people who are capable of uttering only a small number of sentences in a given language would be considered bilingual. Today, due to globalisation and numerous other factors, it could probably even be interpreted that the majority of the world’s population is multilingual. A positive aspect of Haugen’s early attempt to define bilingualism is that he explicitly mentions the continuity of fluency, as fluency should certainly not be understood as a matter of black or white only. Macnamara (1967) even states that only some competence in a language other than one’s mother tongue – no matter whether in listening, reading, speaking or writing – suffices to describe a person as being bilingual. His attempt can probably be understood as a counterpart to Bloomfield’s defi nition and, quite obviously, both are rather unrealistic extremes (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Thus, early attempts to defi ne this term were rather universal. As Hornby (1977: 3) concluded though, ‘bilingualism is not an all-or-none property’. While linguists have come to accept that there is still need for further research and further specifications, consensus regarding an ultimate defi nition will probably never arise due to the fact that the term itself can only be refi ned but not defi ned. Up until now, numerous linguists, such as Baker (2011), Fishman (1965) and Grosjean (1982), have come to take the view that fluency is not the sole factor determining whether someone is considered bilingual or not as language cannot be totally separated from the context it is spoken in: One person may have limited linguistic skills but, in certain situations, be successful in communication. Another person may have relative linguistic mastery, but through undeveloped social interaction skills or in [a] strange circumstance, be relatively unsuccessful in communication. The social environment where the two languages function is crucial to understanding bilingual[ism]. (Baker, 2011: 5)

According to Baker (2011: 5), ‘functional bilingualism’ deals with the bilingual as an individual using their languages in certain circumstances in everyday life rather than measuring the proficiency in the languages on the basis of school or academic success. Taking the context, or the ‘Who is speaking to whom about what, where, why and when?’, into consideration is also necessary. A focus on individual variation increases the difficulty in defi ning the term though, as generalisations are impossible. Romaine (2008:  320), for instance, states that ‘[b]ilingualism is not a unitary phenomenon. It is shaped in different ways depending on a variety of social and other factors, which must be taken into account when trying to assess the skills of bilingual speakers’. This leads Baker (2006: 16) to the overall

48

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

conclusion that an exact defi nition of ‘who is or is not bilingual is essentially elusive and ultimately impossible’. Even if there is no ultimate explanation or definition of the term, there have been useful ways of refining it. Hamers and Blanc, for instance, distinguish between ‘societal bilingualism’, also called ‘bilingualism’, and ‘individual bilingualism’ or ‘bilinguality’, which is an essential differentiation as there is a significant difference between the two. Whereas ‘societal bilingualism’ refers to a bilingual community that has two different languages in use, ‘individual bilingualism’ describes an individual speaker who uses two different linguistic codes. ‘Bilinguality’ can therefore be seen as varying from person to person along various dimensions, including socio-cultural, socio-linguistic, linguistic and many more (Hamers & Blanc, 2000:  6). In this book, only the second variety, namely individual bilingualism, or rather multilingualism, is of relevance. Additionally, the view taken here is similar to Reichholf-Wilscher’s (2006: 16) when saying that ‘a definition of bilingualism should not ask for perfection, but for basic knowledge and basic understanding’. She also highlights that the focus should lie on the ability to communicate in two languages rather than being ‘native-like’ in both. Her view that being bilingual or multilingual might be understood as a synonym for living with two or more languages is favoured here (Reichholf-Wilscher, 2006). Additionally, the term bi-/multilingualism is used in this book to refer to people with ‘knowledge of more than one language in the same mind’ (Cook, 1991). The model underlying this idea is explained at a later stage in more detail (see the section titled ‘The controversy of “holistic” vs. “fractional”: The idea of linguistic multi-competence’). The term bilingual is only used when it is necessary to denote the exact number of languages known by an individual (in this case, two languages). In all other instances, multilingual or LX user are the preferred terms, for reasons elaborated on in the aforementioned section. Even if there is no defi nition that reflects reality in its totality, there are classifications that aid in specifying the terms and, consequently, in providing an understanding of influential variables in multilingual contexts. The following ways of describing multilinguals are not meant as a general survey as they are restricted to their relevance for the studies included in this book (see Chapters  6 and 7). They provide necessary background knowledge for a thorough understanding of the research questions and the LX users who participated in the studies. Refining important dimensions Age of onset of acquisition

A very basic distinction, which is nevertheless crucial with regard to multilingualism, is concerned with the age of onset of acquisition (AoA). It distinguishes bilinguals according to when they actually started acquiring

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 49

their L2. Baker (2006: 96), for example, subdivides bilinguals into ‘simultaneous’ and ‘sequential bilinguals’. The term simultaneous bilingualism refers to children who acquire and live with two different languages early in life or, as Hamers and Blanc (2000: 369) describe it, it means ‘[i]nfancy bilinguality in which the child develops two mother tongues [...] from the onset of language’. Simultaneous bilingualism, for instance, occurs when the mother and the father of a child speak two different mother tongues to the child and, as a consequence, the child ideally becomes fluent in both languages. Ronjat (1913 cited in Baker, 2006: 104) was the fi rst to introduce this idea of ‘one person, one language’, which is very effective as it is a rather naturalistic approach towards bilingualism. Early research focused on the simultaneous acquisition of two languages for a long time (see, e.g. Leopold, 1939–1949; Saunders, 1988; Schinke-Llano, 1989; Swain, 1972). The focus of this book, however, will be elsewhere, namely on sequential bilingualism or late bilingualism. It stands in contrast to simultaneous bilingualism as it refers to acquiring two languages successively. McLaughlin (1984 cited in Baker, 1993: 71–72) suggests the age of three as marking its starting point as by then the child has already gained some basic knowledge in their fi rst language (L1). Here, the term is used in a broader sense than by several other researchers, including Baker (2006: 96), who uses it to refer to sequential childhood bilingualism. In this book, it is meant to cover several states of multilingualism in which the L2 is/was acquired after the L1, meaning consecutively, including adolescent as well as adult bilingualism. This is also in line with Dewaele’s (2017a) concept of the LX user, LX standing for any language acquired after the fi rst after the age of three, a term that is considered more appropriate in this book as it avoids the debatable term bilingualism altogether (for a detailed discussion, see the section titled ‘The controversy of “holistic” vs. “fractional”: The idea of linguistic multi-competence’). Quite commonly, two or more languages are acquired consecutively rather than simultaneously and in many of those cases language acquisition is no longer purely naturalistic but often also involves formal instruction. Children, for instance, often acquire their L1 at home and start learning the L2 at school. Also migrants often acquire an LX consecutively (i.e. when embedded in a different culture using a different language after having left their home country). Although it is important to consider the AoA when investigating multilinguals, it is not the sole determining factor in becoming a proficient user of an L2. There are numerous other decisive factors, such as exposure to the language as well as attitudes to it and how it is valued. Grosjean (1982) states that considering the AoA as the sole relevant factor regarding proficiency should rather be seen as a myth as it is not true to claim that the sooner a language is acquired, the more proficient the learner will become

50

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

in it in any case. This is also supported by fi ndings from studies focusing on instructed LX learning, such as a longitudinal study by Pfenninger and Singleton (2016, 2017). They investigated 200 learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in secondary schools in Switzerland, 100 of them being early starters of learning EFL (AoA = 8–9 years), the second half starting to learn English in an instructed setting five years later (AoA = 13–14 years). The results demonstrated that the latter caught up relatively quickly and performed on similar levels to the former in the long run, which clearly supports Grosjean’s (1982) claim. According to Bialystok and Hakuta (1999 cited in Birdsong, 1999), it cannot be denied that children tend to acquire an L2 with less effort than older learners. Age-related biological constraints are not the single decisive factor though. Abutalebi et al. (2001: 179), having approached the topic by reviewing positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) investigations, for example, come to the conclusion that ‘[c]onsistent results indicate that attained proficiency, and maybe language exposure, are more important than the age of acquisition as a determinant of the cerebral representation of languages in bilinguals/ polyglots’. Ongoing research in the area of developmental cognitive neurosciences has furthermore led to the abandonment of the long-held belief that neuronal plasticity, which is a key factor in successful SLA, stops at a certain age and that ‘nervous pathways are fi xed, fi nite and immutable’ (y Cajal, 1909 cited in Peltzer-Karpf, 2003: 371). According to Brown et al., for instance, In the adult brain the excess connections that were not used during development are gone, but the mechanisms that led to the competition between the connections may still operate on the more limited connections that remain and thus contribute to adult plasticity. (Brown et al., 1991: 106)

Levi Montalcini (1998: 51) also rejects the idea of neuronal plasticity being restricted to young age and, consequently, being fi nite. According to her, neuronal plasticity may still be ongoing ‘nella fase senile’ [in old age]. The existence of neuronal plasticity among adults has a tremendous effect on our understanding of L2 users as well. Clearly, ‘the brain’s capacity to get organized and to reorganize itself as a reaction to internal or external changes’ (Peltzer-Karpf, 2003: 370; see also Li et  al., 2014) changes a lot throughout our lifetimes and also slows down after several growth spurts that take place until early adolescence. Nevertheless, older L2 learners still show acquisition patterns in the early stages of SLA which resemble those of young learners. Of course, their neural networks differ from the latter but they seem to be able to compensate for age-related disadvantages (Peltzer-Karpf, 2003). Peltzer-Karpf (2012) stresses that an understanding of neuronal plasticity as a dynamic process is required.

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 51

Following Selkoe (1992) and Montalcini (1998), Peltzer-Karpf (2003: 391) states that ‘though the human brain may have to suffer the loss of certain neurons and to undergo biochemical alterations at an advanced age these changes do not bring about a noticeable loss of cognitive and creative capacities’. Zhang and Wang (2007) also mention that over time, research has shown that it is linguistic experience rather than maturational or biological constraints that changes language-related cortical responses and influences the way that a language is acquired (see Best, 1995; Binder, 1999; Flege, 1995; Gaillard et  al., 2000; Hernandez et  al., 2005; Kuhl, 2000; Yetkin et  al., 1996). According to them, neural plasticity is still present in adulthood as long as there is enriched linguistic experience. Adults may even acquire new phonetic categories under certain circumstances. The results of various studies ‘support the view that language learning is not a strictly timed developmental process with rigid cut-off points’ and therefore ‘not an irreversible age-bound event’ (Zhang & Wang, 2007: 154; see also Bongaerts et al., 1997; Flege, 1995; Hakuta et al., 2003). Additionally, differences in input between older and younger learners may be decisive. Acquiring an L2 is certainly easier for children in that they tend to receive input in a simplified way. In the case of immigration, for example, children are very often the ones who are provided with professional education and the social environment surrounding them is most often cooperative (Bialystok & Hakuta, 1999 cited in Birdsong, 1999). Whatever reasons there might be, there are studies revealing that highly successful older learners are able to overcome maturational disadvantages by compensating for these. How this is done exactly remains uncertain, although motivation and other socio-psychological factors are probably highly influential. Additionally, some young learners who are in an advantageous position so to speak are in some cases still unable to attain high proficiency levels in an L2. Therefore, Moyer (2004 cited in Bongaerts, 2005: 263), for instance, argues ‘ultimate attainment […] [is] multiply determined, AoA being one, and not the most important, of the determining variables’. It is important to disentangle possible confounds between AoA and other influential variables (Moyer, 2014). Hence, further classifications are introduced in the following. Cognitive organisation

The state of living with ‘more than one language in the same mind’ (Cook, 1991) can also be described according to cognitive organisation. In 1953, Weinreich was the fi rst to do so, dividing bilinguals into three different categories: compound, coordinate and subordinate, which differ according to their cognitive organisation. The crucial factor that determines whether a person is a compound or coordinate type of bilingual is the way in which the bilingual combines and stores words in the different

52

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

languages and their underlying concepts (Weinreich, 1953). Additionally, Ervin and Osgood (1954 cited in Hamers & Blanc, 2000) focused on the differentiation of bilinguals into compound and coordinate ones. According to them, ‘for compound bilinguals a verbal label and translation equivalent have one conceptual representation common to both languages, whereas for coordinate bilinguals there are two distinct representations, one for each language’ (Hamers & Blanc, 2000: 163). The difference in cognitive organisation among multilinguals is often said to result from the difference in AoA and the different contexts in which the languages concerned are acquired. Hamers and Blanc (2000) consider this a misinterpretation, however, as although a strong link between those factors is undeniable, there is certainly no one-to-one correspondence and the terms refer solely to differences in semantic representation. Nevertheless, researchers have found that the simultaneous acquisition of two languages is more likely to lead to compound bilingualism and that, generally, people acquiring their languages consecutively in different contexts tend to become coordinate types. At least to some extent, it can probably be traced back to consecutive multilinguals most often not being balanced (see the section titled ‘Proficiency’) whereby one of the languages usually dominates the other(s) (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Furthermore, childhood bilingualism does not necessarily result in compound bilingualism and the representational system of a bilingual may also change over time (Opoku, 1983 cited in Hamers & Blanc, 2000: 166). Classifying bilinguals based on the cognitive organisation of semantic representation within their mind is much debated and Weinreich’s (1953) ideas have been developed further. Bassetti and Cook (2011: 172), for instance, describe four possibilities of cognitive organisation in anyone knowing more than one language based on the example of a person using Italian and English in which the concepts of lunch (or pranzo) differ: whereas this person might associate, for instance, a sandwich and a packet of crisps with both the English and the Italian word (‘the one-concept scenario’), the person might also develop two concepts, each of which is associated with the word in a specific language (‘double-concept scenario’). Furthermore, this person might also develop a ‘one-merged concept’ in which pranzo and lunch are associated (e.g. a packet of crisps and pasta). Another possibility discussed by them, but which was not considered by Weinreich, is the ‘original-concept scenario’ (Bassetti & Cook, 2011: 172), which refers to an individual concept underlying both words, not associated with a specific language, but based on individual experience. As it is quite reasonable to assume that multilinguals who attained their languages consecutively might develop unique concepts (or different concepts) for emotion and emotion-laden words in the different languages, describing these possibilities is highly interesting. In Chapter 6, for instance,

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 53

the semantic representations of emotion and emotion-laden words will be investigated closely, as will the extent to which they overlap or differ and the effect these similarities or differences have on LX users’ language choice for verbalising emotions. Proficiency

A very common and basic way of distinguishing multilinguals according to their proficiency level is to label them as balanced or dominant bilinguals. The term balanced bilingualism, also referred to as being ‘equilingual’ (Baetens-Beardsmore, 1982: 9) or ‘ambilingual’ (Halliday et  al., 1968 cited in Romaine, 2008: 15), is often used to ‘describe persons who are equally skilled in two languages in all aspects and all styles of the language skills he [or she] possesses’ (Macnamara, 1969: 83). Hence, according to Macnamara, a balanced bilingual is someone who is as proficient in their L1 as they are in their L2. But, as Fishman (1971 cited in Baker, 2006: 9) stated, being equally proficient in two languages in all skills is rather idealised and hardly ever occurs in reality as multilinguals tend to use their languages for different purposes, such as in the context of a job or home. This classification contains another problematic aspect as it includes people whose language skills are rather poor but, nevertheless, similar or equal in both languages. Usually, the term is associated with high proficiency though (Baker, 2006). Of course, this refi nement is also debatable as questions arise, such as what it means to be proficient in a language and how proficiency can be assessed. Furthermore, the comparability of language proficiency in two different languages is questioned. As these questions are also of relevance to the studies included in this book (see Chapters 6 and 7), they will be addressed in more detail in the section titled ‘The controversy of “holistic” vs. “fractional”: The idea of linguistic multi-competence’. The majority of the multilinguals investigated in both studies are dominant in one of the languages they know. Thus, the effect of language dominance on the expression and perception of emotions in the relevant languages will also be taken into account in Chapters 6 and 7. The socio-cultural level

Lambert (1973, 1974) was the first to comment on the influence of a language’s valuation and prestige on a person’s success at acquiring it. The way that a language is perceived by an individual speaker as well as by the society that the speaker is embedded in will influence their attitude towards it and, consequently, their interest and motivation in acquiring it. Taking these dimensions into consideration, Lambert (1976) distinguishes two different types of bilingualism, an additive and a subtractive form. In the case of additive bilingualism, the two different languages and cultures are both highly valued by the speaker and, therefore, have a positive influence on them. Instead of competing, languages and

54

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

cultures complement one another and help language users develop into multilingual and multicultural selves. With subtractive bilingualism, the situation is reversed. Both languages and cultures are competing and, possibly, one even displaces the other (Baker, 1993). Immigrants who are not able to preserve the culture of their home country due to it not being valued would be examples of subtractive bilingualism. In these cases, the host country’s language and culture have a strong influence on the L1 and may eventually even replace it (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Children of minority groups who are taught the host country’s language at school and are highly influenced regarding societal attitudes and norms are likely to be affected in this way. Language is an important part of culture and both are interdependent. Therefore, embracing or rejecting a new culture greatly influences one’s ability to acquire a language. Wilscher (2003: 40) states in this respect that ‘[t]he bilingual’s cultural identity is formed and characterized by his [her] bilingual experience and his [her] bilinguality, in turn, is influenced by his [her] cultural identity. Thus, the relationship between bilinguality and cultural identity can be considered to be reciprocal’. Although early research (see, e.g. Genesee & Bourhis, 1988; Hamers, 1994; Lambert et al., 1970) leads to the conclusion that there is a relation between the valuation of and identification with cultural backgrounds and language proficiency, whether the link is causal or not has not yet been identified (Hamers & Blanc, 2000). Recently, research on the effect of the degree of acculturation on multilinguals’ perception of self and their language behaviour has experienced an increase in interest (see, e.g. Hammer, 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d; Panicacci & Dewaele, 2017). Still, investigations into its possible links to actual language proficiency are scarce. Bi-/Multilinguals and Native Speakers: The Question of Comparability The controversy of a ‘holistic’ vs. ‘monolingual’ view: The idea of linguistic multi-competence

A basic controversy underlying SLA research is linked to the question of comparability of native speakers and multilinguals, which is merely a question of point of view, namely how multilingual speakers are viewed or perceived compared to (or as opposed to) monolingual native speakers of the languages concerned. According to Cook (1992, 2002b cited in Baker, 2006: 9; see, e.g. also Cook, 2007, 2009, 2016) and Grosjean (1985, 1994, 2001a cited in Baker, 2006: 9), two different approaches can be distinguished in this respect: a ‘fractional’ or ‘monolingual’ (Baker & Wright, 2017: 9) and a ‘holistic’ view of bi-/multilingual speakers. Generally speaking, proponents of the fractional view do not question the comparability of native and non-native speakers of a language as, according to them,

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 55

native speakers are somehow demonstrators of ‘perfect’, ‘pure’ language use and can, therefore, be seen as the ultimate goal to be reached for nonnative speakers regarding their LX usage. Hence, following this approach, bilingual speakers can be perceived as two monolingual speakers combined in one person (Baker, 2006; Baker & Wright, 2017). Recently, Cook (2016: 1) has referred to it as the ‘monolingual perspective’, from which L2 users are seen from ‘the point of view of the monolingual first language (L1) user’. In this book, a holistic view or, in Cook’s (2016: 1) words, a ‘bilingual perspective’, is adopted, which considers the comparison of bi-/multilinguals with monolinguals problematic. According to proponents of this approach (see, e.g. Cook, 1991), doing so would be similar to comparing apples and oranges and equating them is, thus, ultimately impossible. From this point of view, the uniqueness of bi-/multilingual speakers is fully recognised, as they are ‘independent persons in their own right rather than the shadows of native speakers’. Thus, the ‘distinctive qualities of apples’ (Cook, 2016: 4) are of interest in what follows. The next section focuses on the holistic approach to bi-/multilingualism, which forms the basis of the two studies included in this book (see Chapters 5 and 6), a concept which is also known as linguistic multi-competence (Cook, 1991; for a discussion of a holistic view of bilingualism, see also Baker & Wright, 2017). The idea of linguistic multi-competence

The terms bi-/multilingualism are used here to refer to people with ‘knowledge of more than one language in the same mind or the same community’ (Cook, 2012a: 3768), also known as a linguistic perspective called ‘multi-competence’ (Cook, 2009). This idea was first proposed by Cook (1991) in the context of SLA in the early 1990s, as using the term bilingualism to refer to mastery of one language (or even more) in addition to the first is considered inadequate, as L2 users’ lives, experiences and situation are as varied as human lives can be. At one level all second language learners are the same: they’re all human beings with human minds. Whatever human beings have in common as mental potential is shared with L2 users [...] In everything else, L2 users reflect the amazing diversity of humanity. [...] For SLA research and language teaching the lesson is that there are many groups of second language users, not one standard type, and that these differ in the functions that they use the second language for. (Cook, 2009: 54)

Two important aspects can be derived from this quotation: the fi rst is that there is great variation among bi-/multilingual speakers and it is nearly impossible to fi nd two speakers of multiple languages that are like two peas in a pod on the level of language proficiency. This is not necessarily specific to speakers of multiple languages though. It is characteristic of any

56

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

kind of linguistic community; in other words, ‘a linguistic community is never homogeneous and hardly ever self-contained’ (Martinet, 1953: vii). Still, it has to be acknowledged that in the case of bi-/multilinguals, the situation is more complex, which makes Canagarajah (2007: 95) state that ‘[l]inguistic diversity is at the heart of multilingual communities. There is constant interaction between language groups, and they overlap, interpenetrate, and mesh in fascinating ways’. This clearly points to the dynamic underlying linguistic systems. It is indeed important to consider that, ‘all language knowledge is socially contingent and dynamic’ (Kelly Hall et  al., 2006: 229 cited in Cook, 2009: 55). Hence, according to dynamic systems theory (see, e.g. De Bot et al., 2005; Herdina & Jessner, 2002), ‘all is change. [...] The balance and form of the two [or more] languages changes over time and shifts dynamically’ (Cook, 2009: 56). To summarise, not only do SLA researchers need to take into account that language is always changing in an individual as well as in the community, but in the case of bi- and multilinguals, on whom the focus of this book lies, these changes are even more complex: the languages are not to be regarded as isolated from each other and neither are the changes. They are in constant interplay, which makes the situation of bi-/multilingual speakers unique (Cook, 2006a). Another aspect that is contained in the above quotation (Cook, 2009: 54) and requires further discussion is the term L2 user. This word choice is well considered as its use highlights the functional aspect of an L2. Hence, the focus is shifted away from the attained or attainable proficiency level and the process of learning. Cook prefers the term L2 user to bilingual due to the high number of different attempts to defi ne the latter which all somehow refer to the native-like attainment of an L2 (see, e.g. Bloomfield, 1935), which is, according to Cook (2007: 240), unrealistic: ‘[i]n the literal sense it is impossible for an L2 user to become a native speaker, since by defi nition you cannot be a native speaker of anything other than your fi rst language’. Due to it being seemingly inextricably linked to the concept of the native speaker (or native-like proficiency), the term bilingual often conveys the notion of using language in a deficient way as well, deviating from a monolingual native speaker standard. Even if there are a small number of highly exceptional L2 users who are capable of using their L2 at (near) native-like levels, the majority of the world’s population are incapable of doing so. Furthermore, the term bilingual conveys the assumption of a speaker who lives with two languages even ‘when there may be an indefi nite number’ (Cook, 2016: 5). As discussed in the previous section, the term was frequently used to refer to anyone living with more than one language, irrespective of the number of languages known, which is, of course, inadequate given that the term as such suggests two languages. Thus, Cook states that the term multilingual resembles his idea of the L2 user more due to not excluding anyone with

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 57

three or more languages in their mind. Furthermore, it is not linked to a certain level of proficiency (Cook, 2016). As already mentioned, in cases where the term bilingual is used to describe participants of both studies included in this book, it is used to refer to the overall knowledge and use of two languages while multilingual refers to people with various languages in their mind. This means that whenever it is necessary to point out the precise number of languages that a person knows (e.g. to calculate the possible effects of the number of languages known on certain variables), bilingual, trilingual, quadrilingual or pentalingual is used and so is L2, L3, L4, L5 or LX user (LX referring to any language except the L1; see Dewaele, 2010a, 2016a, 2017a). The uniqueness of multilinguals or LX users is fully acknowledged and, thus, no comparison with monolingual native speakers is implied in any way. So why is it that in most cases of SLA, ultimate attainment at nativelike levels remains ultimately unattainable? The multi-competence model provides insightful answers to this question: according to Cook (2006b, 2007), the nature of the L2 user is different from that of a monolingual speaker. Not only do L2 users use their L2 in a different way to monolingual native speakers of the same language, but the languages in use also mutually influence each other. Hence, Selinker’s (1972) assumption of a so-called ‘interlanguage’ – a term that denotes the special (non-native) way in which an L2 is spoken by the L2 user – has to be reformulated as the interlanguage is not isolated from and independent of the L2 user’s L1. The two languages in use are, so to say, intertwined and also influence the L2 user’s mind leading to different processes of cognition (see, e.g. Bassetti & Cook, 2011), language awareness and language use in multilingual speakers (as opposed to monolinguals) (Cook, 2006b, 2007; Cook & Singleton, 2014). Then what do we fi nd in an L2 user’s mind? Besides other mental processes, both the knowledge of the L1 and the so-called ‘L2 interlanguage’ can be found. The ‘L2 interlanguage’ refers to the unique way of multilingual language use and points to the fact that the L2 and L2 interlanguage are not the same as the L2 is clearly outside the L2 user’s mind, which means, ‘pure’ L2 usage is exemplified by a monolingual native speaker of the language concerned (Cook, 2007, personal communication). Following the model, the L1 and the L2 interlanguage influence each other. According to Cook (2003, 2004), this mutual influence is to be understood along a continuum ranging from being rather distinct and separate to fully merged. Neither of these ‘endpoints’ is to be preferred and different language aspects, such as vocabulary (and/or the underlying concepts) or phonology may be affected to a different extent by the other language(s) the multilingual knows (see also Cook, 2016). Over the years, the fi ndings of studies in this context have supported the multi-competence model: not only do multilinguals show ways of thinking that are different from monolinguals’ when, for instance, categorising the

58

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

world (Lucy, 1992 cited in Cook, 2012b), but, sometimes, concepts – for example, colours (Athanasopoulos, 2009; Bassetti & Cook, 2011; Cook, 2002b; Cook & Singleton, 2014) and also emotions (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2010a, 2016a; Pavlenko, 2005, 2008b) – and their perception go with a certain language. Additionally, multilinguals also use the languages concerned for different purposes and in different ways to monolinguals. They are able to code-switch from one language to the other (for detailed information, see the section titled ‘Emotions in Multilingual Contexts’ and Chapter 6), for example, and also to translate from one language into another. Monolinguals are obviously incapable of doing so (Cook, 2012b). Not only is the L2 affected by the L1, but more recent fi ndings have also shown the opposite: multilinguals’ L1 usage also differs from monolinguals’ as the additional language(s) has (have) an impact on the L1, too (Cook, 2003). The effect has been reported in several areas, such as pronunciation (see, e.g. De Leeuw et al., 2012, 2013; Mayr et al., 2012, 2014; Mennen, 2004) and pragmatics (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2004c, 2010a, 2016a, 2016b; Pavlenko, 2003, 2008a, 2008b), just to name a couple. Furthermore, knowing more than one language increases one’s ability to communicate in the L1 too as it increases meta-linguistic awareness. Or, to put it in Cook’s (2012b) words, ‘[l]earning a[n] L2 is not just adding an extension to the exterior of your house; it is rebuilding most of the interior walls’. As a consequence, multilingual speakers are not to be blamed for using the languages they know in a different way to monolingual native speakers of the languages concerned as it has nothing to do with failure on their part. It is very likely that it is constitutive of their multilinguality: ‘Whichever language they are using, they are still to some extent affected by the other language they know – its rules, concepts and cultural patterns. An L2 user is essentially a product of métissage’ (Cook, 2007: 243; see also Lionnet, 1989). It can therefore be concluded that ‘[a]ny model based on distinct separable languages in the mind is inadequate’ (Cook, 2006b), as it simply fails to grasp the full picture. The multi-competence model in the context of SLA and emotion research: The approach taken in this book

To conclude, a multilingual speaker is not simply to be treated as speaking further languages in addition to and isolated from their first, but their situation is unique: not only are the languages of multilingual speakers constantly changing as well as the knowledge of the individuals themselves, but so are the different communities they are part of (Cook, 2006a). Nevertheless, it is essential to be aware of the fact that language, being among other things one of the core values of a community, depends on a community, which is in the case of multilinguals unique in itself (Smolicz et al., 2003).

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 59

When explaining the usefulness of the multi-competence model, one of the most important aspects is contained in the following: ‘L2 users are different kinds of people from monolingual native speakers, and need to be measured as people who speak two languages, not as inefficient natives’ (Cook, 2007: 241). This concept is also adopted in this book, for it is not deficit-oriented: ‘[f]rom a multi-competence perspective, the boot is on the other foot: the monolingual uses restricted forms of the language functions available to the L2 user’ (Cook, 2007). By taking this perspective, clearly, the positive aspects of multilingual beings are highlighted rather than their linguistic incompletenesses. Acknowledging that it is all about difference rather than weakness is a first, important step. Being shaped by different social environments with different languages and values, which are not static and are shaped and changed by the individual language users, of course, leads to a unique kind of language use, too. Following the multi-competence model, the answer to the question as to whether or not to compare multilingual speakers to monolingual native speakers of the languages concerned is quite clear: the two groups do not use a language in the same way and it is therefore not a good idea to measure, for example, a Japanese–English bilingual speaker against an English monolingual native speaker. Their ways of using English will hardly be alike and the Japanese–English bilingual’s language abilities in the L2 would probably appear as imperfect and deviating from ‘the norm’, even if it is in fact only a matter of difference. While I fully agree with Cook (2016) on this point, it is also important to include an important comment made by Li (2007a: 499), namely that ‘[t]here is no one method that is intrinsically better than others. Good methods are those that are appropriate for the research agenda and can provide evidence for answering the research questions’. There are research designs that allow for a comparison of native and non-native speakers of a language, such as cases in which the native speaker control group serves to compare the data and not to test the non-native speakers of English against the native speakers. This form of comparison also enables a researcher to identify multilingual-specific differences in LX usage of English compared to English as an L1, for instance. Consequently, a comparison can be useful and make sense as well. Researchers must be aware of the difference though as, if they are not, they clearly run the risk of misinterpreting their results. At this point, the focus will shift briefly towards another aspect that falls within the dilemma of comparability: the native speaker. Do English monolinguals really exemplify ‘pure’ usage of Standard English? Is their language use in itself comparable at all? Are they themselves a homogeneous group? They most certainly are not. There is also great variation and diversity among native speakers and, consequently, their language use is not alike. English monolinguals, for example, are also influenced by their environment language-wise and adapt to changes and react to influences

60

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

in this respect, too. Globalisation and the acceleration of the pace of life lead to this dynamic meshing, overlapping, interpenetrating and constant interaction or interplay between language groups that Canagarajah (2007) speaks of. These mechanisms are, of course, stronger in multilingual and multicultural societies but they are also prominent among English L1 users themselves, for example. Geordie ‘marras’ [mates, friends] (people from the area of Newcastle) are, for instance, very likely to tone down their northern dialect features and adjust their own language use when moving southwards (e.g. to London) to ensure mutual understanding. Adapting to the situation helps to avoid miscommunication (Young, 2011, personal communication). All in all, it is hardly realistic to think of English monolingual speakers as speaking the same language variety as their language use is influenced by other factors such as age, gender, education and regional variation, too. In this light, Dewaele (2017a), for instance, has recently suggested substituting the term ‘native speaker’ for ‘L1 user’ as this way, any superiority would be avoided and L1 and LX users could fi nally attain equal status. Furthermore, these newly proposed terms illustrate ‘that variation can exist within both L1(s) and LX(s) and that all individuals can be multi-competent users of multiple languages’ (Dewaele, 2017a: 4). In sum, multifacetedness among language users in general can be seen as obstacle, fascination and gain at one and the same time in SLA research. The following quotation very well summarises some of the basic ideas underlying the previous chapters as it once again broaches the issue of the multiplicity of English language varieties: the notion of ‘a language’ is to some extent a reification, given the dynamism of language processes. Today, various groups of speakers around the world use many Englishes, such as those spoken in India or Australia (Kachru 1997) [...] Even speaking of any national variety of English – or any national language, for that matter – elides tremendous variation among dialects and registers used in various regions and speech situations. Notions of language, or of ‘a language’, are always shaped by ideologies (Kroskrity, 2000; Schieffelin et al., 1998). (Wilce, 2009: 22)

Although it is true that ‘English is linking the world’ (Rothkopf, 1997 cited in Phillipson, 2008a: 255) and has a somewhat hegemonic status language-wise, it is still essential to bear in mind that ‘[g]lobal English is not a reality’ (Phillipson, 2008a: 260). Thus, the common assumption in SLA research and foreign language teaching of ‘a standard native homeland monolingual variety believed to be good for all purposes and all people’ is wrong (Cook, 2009: 70). Therefore, this book also aims at enabling a better understanding of the mechanisms and influences underlying cross-cultural communication in this context (with a particular focus on expressing emotions) in order to, consequently, avoid or at least minimise the risks

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 61

of miscommunication and misinterpretation among LX and (possibly monolingual) L1 users of English as ‘the overall system of a mind or a community that uses more than one language’ (Cook, 2016: 3) differs in the way they use English from that of monolinguals. To sum up, three important premises underlie this conceptualisation of multilingualism: even though Cook frequently refers to the L2 user in his work and explains the concept based on someone who knows two languages (presumably for practical reasons), of course, the idea of multi-competence applies to all languages in an individual’s mind and the dynamics and interplay underlying this knowledge. In Cook’s (2016: 7) words, ‘[a]t the highest level of all, the languages must be an interconnected whole within a single mind, an eco-system of mutual interdependence’. Of course, the question arises as to whether one of the languages in a multilingual’s mind can ever be switched off or if, when and how the languages in one mind separate. The fi rst premise automatically leads to the second: multi-competence is independent from any native speaker ‘norm’ (if there even is one). Third, it needs to be acknowledged that multi-competence affects the totality of mental processes (including cognitive as well as language systems) (Cook, 2016). In SLA research, the focus needs to be on individual differences rather than trying to (over-)generalise and come up with unrealistic universal rules. Multi-competence is also something dynamic – on an individual and societal level (see also Cook, 2016). Thus, one aim is to understand and grapple with the multiplicity and variability of life with various languages in the same mind (Cook, 2003) on a societal and individual level as, clearly, ‘we can learn from the variety of language users what is special about each’ (Cook, 2016: 19). The fi nal question then is: why is multi-competence of relevance to the investigation of (the expression of) emotions of L2 users of English? Cook’s conceptualisation of linguistic multi-competence is not restricted to the level of knowing a language as such. As it is based on one’s mind, mental processes and their interplay with the language systems known, it inevitably also plays an important role in the context of pragmatics (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2010a, 2016a, 2016b; Pavlenko, 2005), even more so when investigating emotions from a cross-cultural and linguistic perspective, as will be done in what follows. As languages and cultures differ with regard to emotion expression on various levels, it is assumed that this variation has an impact on multilingual minds and the way they feel and express their feelings, too (see also Dewaele, 2016a). In the following, the focus will thus be narrowed down to expressing emotions in various languages and its implications on multi-competent LX users. As a fi rst step, crosscultural and crosslinguistic differences will be elaborated on. Afterwards, their consequences on multilinguals’ attitudes towards and likelihood of expressing their feelings will be discussed.

62

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Emotions across Languages: The Challenges for Multilinguals

Several crosslinguistic studies (Pavlenko, 2002, 2005; Semin et  al., 2002 cited in Pavlenko, 2008a: 91) have demonstrated differences in the conceptual and structural organisation of emotion lexicons. Distinct cultural norms may, for example, be reflected in differences in conceptual organisations in the emotion domain; hence, these may be represented in various ways ranging from salient to very differentiated and codable. On the level of structural organisation, the dominant encoding patterns of emotions may differ as well. Whereas Dutch speakers tend to favour nouns to express/convey emotions (Semin et  al., 2002 cited in Pavlenko, 2008a: 91), Russian speakers prefer verbs while English speakers, in contrast, tend to use predominantly adjectives (Pavlenko, 2002, 2005). Pavlenko (2008a) consequently draws a conclusion similar to that of Harkins and Wierzbicka referred to in Chapter 3: as a result, some emotion words may have no translation equivalents in other languages, while others may have two or three partial equivalents (Panayiotou, 2006; Pavlenko, 2005; Schmidt-Atzert & Park, 1999; Stepanova Sachs and Coley, 2006; Wierzbicka, 1992[b], 1999). (Harkins & Wierzbicka, 1997: 321)

Additionally, crosslinguistic differences are evident at a morphopragmatic level. Likewise grammatical morphological phenomena are capable of adding autonomous pragmatic meaning with regard to emotion expression. Languages vary tremendously in this respect: German, for instance, has a higher number of morphopragmatic devices than English, but Italian has even more than German. Diminutives are a good example of such morphopragmatic devices, which may signal and/or add emotionality (Barbaresi & Dressler, 1994). Thus, also at this level, multilinguals are faced with the difficult task of non-transferability of strategies from the L1 to the LX. As mentioned in Pavlenko (2008b: 147), the size of emotion lexicons in different languages frequently varies tremendously: whereas some languages are reported to have a very small number of emotion words, such as Chewong, a language spoken in Malaysia that is said to have only seven emotion words (Howell, 1981), others, such as German, Malay, Filipino and Indonesian, are said to include approximately 230–250 words for the expression and conveyance of emotions (Boucher, 1979; Church et al., 1998; Gehm & Scherer, 1988; Heider, 1991). Dutch, in contrast, is said to have a much higher number of these words (~1500 words) (Heelas, 1986) as does English, in which 1000–1200 words out of more than 2000 in total are used by its speakers on a regular basis (Wallace & Carson, 1973). All these estimates (for a detailed discussion, see Pavlenko, 2008b)

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 63

can be criticised for being incomparable due to dissimilar criteria on which their choices were based. Even if the divergence and corresponding results are somewhat incorrect, the underlying tendencies still allow for general assumptions, such as that languages vary with regard to the size of their emotion lexicon. The (verbal) expression of emotions is, consequently, hard to acquire when learning an LX. As already referred to in Chapter  3, Wierzbicka (1992a: 456, 1995: 236) claims that emotions are defi nitely no ‘culturefree analytical tools’ and often are even regarded as the ultimate challenge to highly proficient language users (Fussell, 2002), even more so in the context of the LX. Interestingly, even though the topic of emotions is of great relevance to every multilingual, according to Dewaele (2010a), only a few pragmaticists have taken steps to cross linguistic and disciplinary borders in order to unravel the unsolved mysteries in the field of multilingualism and the expression of emotions. Crossing boundaries leads to higher degrees of complexity and meeting scientific demands is a difficult challenge, partly also due to different methodologies applied in various disciplines, different types of data and different types of analyses. Not only are researchers in this context required to be bi-/ multilingual themselves and have some expertise or knowledge in the area of multilingualism, but the degree of bilinguality extends to the extent of their academic language/knowledge. Pavlenko (2008c) states that a researcher dealing with emotions and language in the field of bi-/ multilingualism is also asked to be more or less an academic bilingual (if not multilingual), meaning ‘fluent’ in several disciplines, which is advantageous and disadvantageous at the same time as it enriches and restricts a researcher at one and the same time. Still, it is a necessity to gain insights into this highly complex research area. As a fi rst step, it is essential to take a closer look at the way emotion words are mentally represented in bi-/multilinguals in order to understand the purpose of the studies included at a later stage. The Representation of Emotion and Emotion-Laden Words in the Bi-/Multilingual Mental Lexicon

Viberg (2008) states that studies concerning the mental representation of emotions have been rare. One reason may be that ‘[e]motion is to a great extent a hidden dimension of the lexicon’ (Viberg, 2008: 189). Pavlenko (2008b), too, stresses the necessity of paying more attention to affective aspects in future models dealing with the bilingual lexicon. According to her, another problematic aspect of previous studies, which was already pointed to in the previous chapter, is ‘the continuing lack of clarity as to what count[s] as emotion words’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 148). Hence, a decisive fi rst step would be consensus on this level.

64

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

In her groundbreaking article on emotion and emotion-laden words and their representation in bi-/multilinguals’ mental lexicons, Pavlenko (2008b) also claims that this inclusion of affective aspects of the lexicon needs to happen on three levels. First of all, she argues, ‘emotion and emotion-laden words need to be considered as a separate class of words in the mental lexicon, because recent research shows that these words are represented and processed differently from abstract and concrete words’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 147). She continues by stating that crosslinguistic differences on the conceptual level (i.e. in emotion concepts) need to be addressed and that the differences to monolingual speakers in this context need to be highlighted. Likewise, the dimension of affective processing needs to be included in future models dealing with the mental representation of the bilingual lexicon in an adequate way. Finally, the crosslinguistic differences in emotionality on the level of word types also need to be acknowledged. Emotion and emotion-laden words

According to Pavlenko (2008b: 148), ‘emotion words’ directly refer to affective processes (e.g. ‘to worry about something’) or states (e.g. ‘to be sad, angry, happy’). These words either express these affective processes/ states (e.g. ‘I feel happy’) or describe them (e.g. ‘she is happy’). Occasionally, emotion words may function like abstract words whereas in other contexts, they may elicit emotions. So-called ‘emotion-related words’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 148) – or words that do not actually name an emotion, but only describe some sort of behaviour associated with a specific emotion – are not included in this category. ‘Emotion-laden words’, in contrast, do not directly refer to particular emotions but rather elicit emotions from the interlocutor. In this context, Pavlenko names six sub-categories with blurred boundaries. Swear words, expletives or taboo words form one of these sub-categories (e.g. ‘shit’) and insults, such as ‘idiot’, another, while reprimands (in childhood) (e.g. ‘behave’) are another class of words that fall into this category. Besides endearments (e.g. ‘darling’) and interjections, such as ‘ouch’, aversive words, such as ‘death’, for example, complete the list of emotion-laden words offered by Pavlenko. Some words generally are not seen as being emotion-laden, but may evoke emotional connotations in certain contexts: the word ‘liberal’, for example, can be used in a factual/descriptive way, but can suddenly acquire emotional connotations when used as an insult. Additionally, an emotion-laden word may fall into one category in a specific context and fall into another in a different context. Hence, the boundaries of the six dimensions are fuzzy indeed (Pavlenko, 2008b: 148). As studies have shown (see, e.g. Altarriba, 2003, 2006; Altarriba et al., 1999; Altarriba & Canary, 2004 cited in Pavlenko, 2008b), both categories

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 65

seem to be ‘represented, processed, and recalled differently from abstract and concrete words in the mental lexicon […] [and] future models of the bilingual lexicon should consider emotion and emotion-laden words as a distinct class of words’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 149). On the level of structure and content, Pavlenko points out that conceptual representations of emotion vary across cultures and languages (as do those of concrete and abstract words). Some languages, for example, do not even have an umbrella/superordinate term ‘emotion’ per se, which makes a comparison of this category difficult. Languages also differ on the level of grammatical categories that are preferred for encoding emotion. Similarly, cross-cultural differences are also observable on the level of emotion concepts (see Chapter 2 for a more detailed defi nition). Basically, Pavlenko (2008b: 150) interprets ‘emotion concepts as scripts’ and ‘distinguishes between emotions, emotion concepts, and emotion words’. She focuses on conceptualisations of emotions and avoids focusing on emotions per se, which is a useful approach when dealing with cross-cultural analyses of emotion lexicons. Still, a basic knowledge and understanding of the prominent debates and general (interdisciplinary) approaches in the area of emotion research per se (such as the universalist versus the relativist stance) are crucial to a proper understanding and a prerequisite to dealing with their conceptualisations in an adequate way. On the level of salience, encoding and function, emotion lexicons vary cross-culturally and crosslinguistically (see also Mesquita & Frijda, 1992; Scherer et al., 1986). Differences here may, of course, have consequences for bi-/multilingual speakers. Comparisons show that emotion scripts may vary regarding the extent of overlap, with concepts in any language pair not overlapping at all, overlapping partially or even completely. In the fi rst two cases, there are seven processes that may be revealed in the bilingual lexicon, evidence for which may be found in non-verbal and verbal behaviours, namely the ‘co-existence of L1 and L2 concepts, L1 conceptual transfer, internalization of new concepts, conceptual restructuring, conceptual convergence, conceptual shift, and conceptual attrition’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 155). In the case of the English term ‘anger’, for example, German has three different words (Durst, 2001) and Mandarin Chinese even has five (Kornacki, 2001). Consequently, ‘models of bilingual representation and processing need to acknowledge conceptual nonequivalence across languages and the possibility that L1 and L2 translation equivalents may be linked to distinct or only partially overlapping concepts’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 153). Hence, the bi-/multilingual (emotion) lexicon is far from static. Likewise, its emotion conceptualisations that are not independent of language are highly dynamic, and that may vary according to several aspects as well, such as contexts and the speaker’s experience (Pavlenko, 2008b). Paradis (2008) adds that similar phenomena and experiences may also be found in monolinguals, only in a less salient way. Still, L1 users differ substantially

66

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

from LX users in general. From the linguistic point of view taken in this book, a multilingual’s use of German, for instance – even if it is their L1 – and a monolingual native speaker’s use of German are incommensurable as different (see the section titled ‘Bi-/Multilinguals and Native Speakers: The Question of Comparability’). Therefore, the dynamics underlying the multilingual lexicon and the seven processes explained by Pavlenko (2008b) in this context are unique indeed. Even if it is possible to speak of continuities between mono- and bilinguals in this context (Pavlenko, 2008c), their linguistic ‘basis’ is fundamentally different. Introducing a new dimension: Emotionality

By introducing emotionality as a new type of affective processing, Pavlenko (2008b) opens up new perspectives (Schrauf, 2008). The term itself refers to ‘autonomic arousal elicited by particular languages or words and [it is] examined directly, through changes in skin conductance response, and indirectly, through speakers’ verbal and non-verbal behaviors and self-perceptions’ (Pavlenko, 2008b: 155). Two dimensions are involved in this type of affective processing: the power that specific phrases or words have to evoke emotions in a specific situation and multilinguals’ more or less deliberate choice of a particular language in a specific context as a matter of (subjective) (in-)adequacy. On this level, the ‘relation can run in either of two directions: language can produce emotion(s) or emotion(s) can produce language’ (Schrauf, 2008: 185; see also Pavlenko, 2008b, 2012). Regarding the second dimension, research has shown that in the case of both bi- and multilinguals, the L1 seems to be perceived as the more emotional language. Factors, such as language dominance, age of onset and in which setting (i.e. naturalistic, instructed or both) the languages concerned are acquired, are clearly of relevance, too (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2010, 2013; Dewaele, 2006, 2010a; Harris, 2004; Harris et al., 2006; Pavlenko, 2004, 2008b, 2012). However, no matter how experienced an LX user may be, there is always the possibility of deliberately avoiding a particular emotion script for reasons such as simply disliking it. It is therefore important, according to Dewaele (2008b), to differentiate between avoidance and incompleteness in this respect: whereas the fi rst is a matter of choice and has nothing to do with lack of resources, the second indicates the need for further instruction. In terms of power of a word, categories vary on the level of emotionality. The aforementioned six sub-categories that are distinguishable regarding their level of emotionality show differences in experienced and perceived arousal. Of the six, swear words and taboo words appear to be the most emotional in both languages involved (Dewaele, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Still, they seem to be perceived as being more emotional in the L1 than

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 67

in the L2 (Dewaele, 2011a). Whereas childhood reprimands are generally felt to be more emotional in the L1, endearments seem to be perceived as being emotional in both languages, and sometimes even more so in the L2 (Pavlenko, 2008b, 2012). Schrauf (2008: 186) notes that adequate research in this context requires the investigation of natural talk or, to put it in his words, examination of the phenomenon ‘in the wild’. Even though this would be ideal, it is also somewhat idealistic in its realisability. When ‘looking at bilingual emotion in vivo’ (Schrauf, 2008: 186) and asking bilinguals to explain their language choice in a specific situation on the spot, it is doubtful that their awareness would be high enough to provide answers on this meta-level of self-reflexivity. Concluding remarks on (the mental representation of) the bilingual lexicon

Cross-cultural comparability in the context of emotion lexicons is a very difficult undertaking. Although challenging to pursue cross-culturally, it is important to advance research to solve as yet unsolved riddles. To put it in Caldwell-Harris’ (2008: 169) words, Pavlenko’s ideas and her review of the relevant literature stand for ‘a break with tradition, but a break that’s long overdue. Language researchers are behind the curve, since the “emotion revolution” occurred in the cognitive sciences a decade ago’. Even though Pavlenko’s approach may be criticisable at some points due mainly to its great complexity, it is an invaluable first step in the right direction. Implications for emotion research in the context of SLA

Emotion and emotion-laden words are often not the same in the languages that a multilingual knows and neither are the experiences gained in each language. Clinical studies, for instance, have demonstrated that these words may not be processed in the same way in the L1 as in an LX, supported by results from introspective approaches when investigating multilinguals’ perceived emotionality of expressions in their various languages. Especially in LX users, ‘ratings of words and languages may tap into different sources of cognitive judgments’ (Pavlenko, 2012: 412) and words usually tend to be more deeply entrenched in the L1. Highly emotional stimuli (e.g. swear and taboo words) have also been shown to elicit a stronger skin conductance response (SCR) in the L1, for instance (see, e.g. Caldwell-Harris et al., 2010), which illustrates that differences in processing also seem to be observable on the physiological level. However, this does not necessarily lead to a clear L1 preference for expressing emotions (for a detailed discussion, see Chapter  6). Often, these factors also imply a certain distance in the LX when, for instance, communicating in emotional contexts, which is not necessarily perceived as negative.

68

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

According to Pavlenko (2012: 421), this leads to a clear ‘L1 advantage effect’ as well as a ‘parallel L2 [or LX] advantage effect’. The former refers to ‘increased automaticity of affective processing’, reflected in higher SCRs, and frequently perceiving stimuli in the L1 as being more emotional. The latter ‘refers to decreased automaticity of affective processing’, lower SCRs and being able to distance oneself in an LX context. This suggests that at least in LX users the various languages ‘may be differentially embodied, with the later learned language processed semantically but not affectively’ (Pavlenko, 2012: 405). Of course, variables such as AoA or context of acquisition (CoA) play an important role too and may also initiate change in experience and processing, which again shows that ‘the time has come, at least in the fields of bilingualism and second language acquisition, to discard the narrow search for evidence for or against linguistic relativity and to engage in broad explorations of thinking and speaking in two or more languages’ (Pavlenko, 2011: 252). Emotions in Multilingual Contexts

After having extensively dealt with unique (and sometimes also challenging) aspects that accompany the fascinating yet highly complex field of multilingualism and emotion in general, these are now specifi ed with a focus on the studies included in this book (see Chapters  5–7). Clearly, the communication of feelings in an LX is a challenging task, especially if there are only partial equivalents or even no linguistic translations for the concepts and words the speaker is familiar with from the cultural background of their L1 (Dewaele, 2010a; see also Farrell, 2006; Panayiotou, 2004a, 2004b, 2006; Shweder, 2008; Wierzbicka & Harkins, 2001). A closer look at Western and Eastern cultures, especially, reveals clear differences (see, e.g. Besemeres, 2004; CaldwellHarris et  al., 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Ye, 2004). The following two answers to an open-ended question in a questionnaire on ultimate attainment in late bilingualism (Resnik, 2007: 94) illustrate the basic difference between ‘East’ and ‘West’ with a particular focus on communicating love: In Japan, we don’t usually express emotions. So I fi nd it hard to do so in Japanese. Thus I prefer doing so in L2 [English]. But in Japan, boys don’t use the phrase ‘I love you’ so often. So when I hear it, I feel they really mean it. (Female, L1 Japanese, L2 English) We don’t express emotions in our L1 culture. The sentence ‘I love you’ seems to me personally stronger in L2 [English] as ‘I love you’ is only used on TV shows at home. We have hundreds of ways to demonstrate love to people but not saying it. (Female, L1 Mandarin, L2 English)

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 69

These statements suggest a difference between the way that people from an Asian background and the English-speaking world verbalise certain emotions. This fi nding is also in line with Ye (2004), an Australian immigrant from Shanghai who had trouble coping with the comparatively open and direct use of linguistic expressions of affection and endearment in public when she came to Australia. She reports that during the first years especially, she struggled enormously because in China, feelings are viewed as personal and, hence, are generally not shared in public. Ye (2004: 140) describes the Asian way of expressing one’s feelings as ‘subtle, implicit and without words’. She, for instance, also states that her parents and herself have never said ‘I love you’ to one another, which is also in line with the statements of the Japanese and Chinese women above (Ye, 2004: 141; see also Resnik, 2007: 94). There is a tremendous difference between many Eastern and Western countries in this respect and the danger of misunderstanding or misinterpretation is, consequently, great in contexts of cross-cultural communication. Before being able to focus on the communication of specific feelings, a very general difference between East and West has to be tackled at this point as it ensures the comprehensibility of the subsequent sections. It is nicely illustrated by Ye’s words: We do not place so much emphasis on verbal expressions of love and affection, because they can evaporate quickly. For a Chinese, love and affection are embodied in care and concern, in doing what we believe are good things for the other party. (Ye, 2004: 140)

Clearly, a very basic distinction can be made on a general level, namely between that of self and other. In order to understand the cultural difference on the level of self and other on which the verbal expression of emotions is often grounded, it is important to bear in mind that, to some extent, the very basis of cultures is built upon socially shared meanings for the purpose of mutual understanding (Geertz, 1973; Shweder & LeVine, 1984 cited in Mascolo et al., 2009: 384). Therefore, ‘[e]motions are critical for guiding interpersonal relationships’ (Butler et  al., 2007: 30; see also Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Shiota et al., 2004 cited in Mascolo et al., 2009). When focusing on cross-cultural contexts, awareness of the differences between the cultural backgrounds involved is necessary to avoid running the risk of misunderstanding. In this respect, we are all shaped by the environment(s) we grew up in and, even when using English as an L2 to communicate, for instance, the way we use it may differ depending on our cultural background, including our L1. As Dewaele (2016a: 462) phrased it, ‘[i]t is in fact quite difficult to separate these intertwined variables [i.e. language and culture]. They can be considered separate sides of the same coin’. Thus, socialisation plays an influential role in this context, as does the cultural context:

70

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Emotions undergo successive transformation as they are shaped toward culturally defi ned ideals and endpoints. To the extent that different cultures are organized around different motive-relevant values and beliefs, emotions will develop along different pathways en route to different culturally valued endpoints. (Mascolo et al., 2009: 384)

Clearly, emotions are valued in different ways in different cultures, which, again, shapes our own identities to some extent. As a consequence, we also tend to express emotions in a different way verbally depending on the language systems involved as well as our cultural backgrounds. This demonstrates that ‘knowing a language involves more than purely linguistic knowledge’ (Dewaele, 2016: 462). Before focusing on the way that people in the Eastern world tend to communicate and/or view particular emotions compared to Westerners (or rather, on what general cross-cultural differences are observable), the source of the differences still needs to be clarified as the languages as such are not the sole influence. As mentioned previously, a remarkable, overarching difference between many Asian countries and Western ones is observable on the level of self and other. This has a clear impact on belief systems, too. Mascolo et  al. (2009) investigated the difference between Asians and Americans. The latter show similar tendencies to Western and central European cultural core values and attitudes (even though individualism may be of greater importance to Americans than Europeans, for example). Americans generally believe that people belonging to the ‘Western’ culture are brought up as unique individuals, relying on themselves and clearly distinguishing between mine and me as opposed to yours and you. Hence, the focus in many Western societies lies on individualism, with people clearly distinguishing between self and other and separating both from each other (Bellah et  al., 1985; Dumont, 1992; Johnson, 1985; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Sampson, 1994 cited in Mascolo et  al., 2009: 384). As originally mentioned in Mascolo et  al. (2009), the belief systems of members of the Western world are based on justice, equality before the law and individual rights (Kohlberg, 1981). Even though it is important in these societies not to harm the other, sacrificing the self on behalf of other people is no moral obligation (Miller & Sperry, 1987). Apart from caring about family members, close friends, employers or the nation, for instance, service to others is certainly no requirement (Mascolo et al., 2009). Many Asian countries, such as China, where Confucian cultural frameworks are at work, can be described as collectivist. In these, conceptions of social life and of self are quite different (Tu, 1985 cited in Mascolo et  al., 2009). The predominant idea of self-perfection is viewed as a relational process, a lifelong process developing along the way, perceiving the self as ‘a nexus of social relationships’ (Mascolo et al., 2009: 384; see also Tu, 1979, 1985; Wu, 1996; Yu, 1996). Confucianism,

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 71

for instance, sets clear goals and principles by which members organise their lives in order to reach the utmost goal, namely ‘to become the most benevolent, sincere, and humane person possible’ (Mascolo et al., 2009: 384). In order to lead one’s life this way, much effort, discipline and, often, putting others fi rst are required. In this way, social harmony is maintained, based on the clear hierarchical structures into which its members are born. Hence, individual human beings are not seen as isolated units but the self is always to be viewed in relation to others: people are aware of others’ essential role in the process of self-cultivation throughout their lives. All in all, according to Tu (1985: 233), ‘a Confucian self devoid of human-relatedness has little meaningful content of its own’. Putting the self behind the other on the level of needs and wishes is important, so as to maintain face and familial honour (Mascolo et al., 2009). There are two main aspects of face in Chinese society: lian and mianzi (Hu, 1944 cited in Mascolo et  al., 2009). While the fi rst refers to the way an individual is perceived morally by others, the latter refers to one’s social prestige or reputation. In the case of a person who is said not to save face in the sense of lian, that person is said to be ‘immoral’ or ‘shameless’, which is one of the worst ways of insulting someone in many Asian societies. Even though members of Western societies at least share concepts similar to mianzi, the moral implications of failure in this respect are not as significant and strong. In China, for instance, face is seen as the driving force underlying social relations. Children are taught these moral values and beliefs from an early age, but socialisation becomes even stricter and much discipline is asked of children from the age of five onwards, which is seen as ‘the age of reason’ or dongshi (Mascolo et al., 2009: 386; see also Ho, 1986; Wu, 1996). In order to make children learn cultural values and beliefs on the level of emotional behaviour, parents commonly draw on several shaming techniques (e.g. telling the children they lost their face and everyone will make fun of them) to teach them the principles underlying a relational self (Wu, 1996; Wu & Tseng, 1985 cited Mascolo et al., 2009). In Western societies, in contrast, children are normally praised and, for example, encouraged to be proud of themselves on accomplishing something. Embarrassment and shaming techniques are certainly not common methods to teach children societal values and beliefs in the Western world (Chen, 1993; Mascolo & Harkins, 1998; Stipek, 1995 cited in Mascolo et al., 2009). Interestingly, studies have shown that ‘shame’ is one of the fi rst emotional expressions of Chinese children. They, thus, tend to use it early in development, whereas English-speaking children tend to produce words for any other emotional concept but shame (Bretherton & Beeghly, 1982; Dunn et al., 1987; Fischer et al., 1990 cited in Mascolo et al., 2009). According to Mascolo et  al. (2009), shame seems to be a hypocognised emotion in the Western world, whereas it is hypercognised among Chinese speakers (Levy, 1984b; Marsella, 1980; Russel & Yik, 1996; Shaver et al.,

72

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

1992; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). This leads to a much greater and more refi ned emotion lexicon for shame than in other societies, such as Englishspeaking ones (Fischer et  al., 1998; Wang et  al., 2000), illustrating the central role that shame plays in China. This may play a decisive role with regard to verbalising emotions, too. Studies have also found cross-cultural differences in the context of happiness and unhappiness. According to Uchida and Kitayama (2009: 441), ‘cultures differ substantially in terms of what people seek to do in both attaining happiness and avoiding unhappiness’ and the nuances and meanings of the two are not necessarily distributed evenly across cultures. Cultural folk models of un/happiness also affect social behaviour (including linguistic output) and cognition, of course (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). As Americans and Western Europeans tend to view the self as being independent of the other, members sharing these values are also likely to perceive happiness with an emphasis on internal and personal aspects (Kitayama & Markus, 2000; Uchida et  al., 2004 cited in Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). Happiness is seen as attainable if sought and it is up to every individual to perceive this hedonic state that depends mostly on personal motivation and aspirations. Even though the data derived from previous studies focused on a comparison of American Western European culture with East Asian cultural backgrounds, the aforementioned is likely to be similar in the case of people living in Western and central Europe, who also orient more towards individualism than collectivism. As mentioned previously, in Asian societies the self is mostly viewed as relational and interdependent, which has clear effects on the way that happiness and unhappiness are perceived and expressed (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). To put it in Uchida and Kitayama’s (2009: 442) words, ‘[h]appiness may then be conceptualized as positive feelings associated with or imbued and interwoven into harmonious patterns of social relations’. Again, caring about the other and taking others and their feelings into consideration play a crucial role in perceiving happiness oneself. It can consequently be said that Asian conceptualisations of happiness are more social than, for instance, English or German ones. Unless they share happiness with others, Asian people are unlikely to achieve it. Therefore, happiness is to be seen as a holistic concept in this case (Kitayama & Markus, 2000 cited in Uchida & Kitayama, 2009). As originally mentioned in Uchida and Kitayama (2009), adapting to cultural norms and fulfi lling moral obligations, which are always seen in relation to the other, increase people’s happiness in collectivistic countries (Suh et al., 1998). Additionally, in many (East) Asian countries, people strongly believe in ying and yang based on Confucian belief systems (Kitayama & Markus, 1999; Peng & Nisbett, 1999). As a consequence, positive feelings such as happiness are always thought of as automatically containing negative aspects as well, such as jealousy or envy of others. Conversely, it is the same with negative

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 73

feelings: according to Asian belief systems, there is always something good and positive about unhappiness. In Europe and American European cultures, in contrast, the situation is entirely different. Here, people view negative and positive emotions as bipolar opposites and their ‘counterparts’ are not experienced simultaneously as in Asia (for a discussion of amae in this context, see Kitayama et al., 2000; Niiya et al., 2001). Uchida and Kitayama (2009) investigated the concepts of happiness and unhappiness in Japan and in American Western European culture, systematically analysing free descriptions of the two emotions. Their fi ndings are in line with what has been described so far. Additionally, they found that Americans rated happiness as being almost exclusively positive, whereas only 66.6% of the descriptions by Japanese were positive. Clearly, this can be seen as an indicator for a holistic view of emotions. Furthermore, gender had an impact, with women producing more features than men when describing happiness and unhappiness. On the level of happiness, it can be concluded that ‘[w]hereas Western cultures sanction high-arousal positive emotions (e.g. excited and elated) as normatively more desirable, Asian cultures value low-arousal emotions (e.g. calm and relaxed) as normatively more desirable’ (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009: 447). In the context of unhappiness, Uchida and Kitayama’s (2009) study also confi rmed the previously stated assumptions. One main difference between the two feelings is that unhappiness is more likely to require coping strategies, and these vary tremendously in the two cultures. The fi ndings of their study show that Americans […] [are] far more likely than Japanese to mention externalizing behaviour such as aggression, whereas Japanese […] [are] far more likely than Americans to refer to transcendental reappraisal and self-improvement. As a consequence, Japanese […] [are] more likely than Americans to produce nonnegative features of unhappiness. (Uchida & Kitayama, 2009: 451)

One implication of the fi ndings is that if Western cultures tend to react to unhappiness by blaming others or by using channels such as anger and aggression, this should be reflected on the level of linguistic output as well. As Asian people tend to blame themselves for their unhappiness and, consequently, try to reflect on themselves in order to self-improve instead of explicitly expressing their anger or sadness, a difference in emotional expression on the level of frequency and strength should be observable on the level of negative feelings, too (see the section titled ‘Expression of Anger: Swearing and Arguing’ and Chapter 6). When taking what has been previously stated into account, it comes as no surprise that Shaver et  al. (1992) found cross-cultural differences in the way that people organise emotions into emotion families. Again,

74

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

people living in the United States holding Western European values were compared to Asian people and the outcomes revealed both similarities and differences: while both groups differentiated between positive and negative emotions on a very general level, differences could be found in the way that they organised emotions into families and also with regard to how these were perceived by the participants of the study (as either positive or negative) depending on their cultural backgrounds. While Americans put sadness, fear and anger under the heading of ‘negative emotions’, they rated love and happiness as positive. In stark contrast, one of the fi rst negative emotions mentioned by Asian people was shame, which as stated previously, plays an important role in their cultural backgrounds. Another important difference in this context found by Shaver et  al. (1992) is the valuation of love: whereas Americans rated it as positive without a doubt (which also holds true for Western and central European cultures), Chinese participants of the study interestingly viewed it as a negative rather than a positive emotion, thinking mainly of sorrowful and unrequited love and, in general, as something rather sad. According to Mascolo et al. (2009), the negativity connected to love makes sense culturally, also because in China, marriages can be arranged and romantic love is devalued as it is seen as a disruptive emotion holding the potential to evoke conflict (Jankowiak, 1993; Potter, 1988; Russel & Yik, 1996). A further cross-cultural difference in emotional expression – or rather suppression – was revealed by Butler et al. (2007): as emotional exchanges play a crucial role in maintaining relationships, they investigated crosscultural differences in emotional suppression between people holding Asian values and people who were living in the United States at the time of gathering the data. As a consequence of the different emotional values and attitudes towards expressing them, Asian and Western cultures also differ substantially with regard to emotional suppression. Additionally, the degree of negativity that is associated with emotional suppression varies depending on the cultural background. Western ideals and values encourage people to express their emotions openly in many situations and, consequently, people tend to suppress their emotions – also linguistically – most often in contexts in which suppression helps them to protect the self. Of course, emotional suppression can also happen for prosocial purposes, such as not stating one’s anger with a friend in order to preserve the relationship (Tavris, 1984 cited in Butler et  al., 2007). In stark contrast, Asian people, as already mentioned, tend to take the other in relation to the self more into account and, hence, tend to suppress their feelings when they fear the danger of hurting someone else. In Asian countries, emotional suppression is quite common for the purpose of maintaining relationships (Wierzbicka, 1993, 1994 cited in Butler et al., 2007). Thus, in Asia, emotional suppression is not necessarily seen as negative but is rather typical of Asian cultural values and norms. Friesen

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 75

(1972), for instance, also found cross-cultural differences between Japan and Europe in this respect and explained them in the same way: ‘this difference arose because the Japanese suppressed their emotions more than the Europeans’ (cited in Butler et al., 2007: 31). Obviously, what has been stated in this section clearly has an impact on the way that people convey and express their emotions verbally as well and also influences their attitudes towards verbalising emotions. In other words, ‘[p]eople describe their emotions in the language[s] [sic!] they know, and the categories of their culture undoubtedly influence the emotions they feel’ (Niya et al., 2006: 293). Therefore, it is necessary at this point to take a closer look at what effect the aforementioned differences have on the perceived degree of emotionality of the languages that multilinguals know and whether a language preference for verbalising emotions is observable. Additionally, a more thorough investigation is required of how the communication of particular emotions, such as anger (including swearing as a means to vent it) and love, varies across languages and cultures and when communicating feelings in a language other than one’s L1. The perceived degree of emotionality of languages, language preference for verbalising emotions and expressing one’s deepest feelings

As multilinguals are hardly ever equally balanced in the knowledge and use of their languages (Grosjean, 2008), they also share different experiences in the different languages. This might have an impact on the perceived degree of emotionality of the languages involved, even more so in LX users who acquired their additional languages after having gained a profound knowledge of the L1 (Ortega, 2009). Various studies have revealed important aspects regarding the perceived emotionality of specific emotions, such as swear and taboo words (see, e.g. Bond & Lai, 1986; Dewaele, 2010b; for a detailed discussion, see the section titled ‘Expression of Anger: Swearing and Arguing’), but hardly any study to date has investigated multilinguals’ attitudes to the emotionality of their languages from a global perspective. Altarriba’s (2003: 318) study investigating Spanish–English bilinguals, for instance, made her conclude that ‘emotion words in the fi rst language may carry a broader range of expression and may be more highly associated to specific contexts than their presumed counterparts in a second language’. The question that arises is whether this also leads to differences in the perceived degree of emotionality of the languages a person knows. Harris et al. (2003) did indeed fi nd differences on the level of physiological reactions to reprimands and taboo words in L2 users of English with Turkish as their L1. The results indicate a stronger resonance of the stimuli in the L1. Pavlenko (2004) also found a strong

76

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

attachment to parents’ use of their L1 when talking to their children in emotional contexts when she analysed a selected sample of the participants of Dewaele and Pavlenko’s (2001–2003) Bilingualism and Emotions Web Questionnaire (BEQ) study. In one study analysing the BEQ data, Dewaele (2010a) reported a stronger degree of emotionality of swear words in the L1. In a second study, Dewaele (2011a: 48) investigated 386 L2 users who described themselves as maximally proficient in the L2 and who were also frequent users of both the L1 and L2. This one ‘revealed systematic differences in the use and perception of the languages’ and supported the stronger emotional resonance of the L1 described above. This ‘did not automatically translate into a preference for the L1’, however (Dewaele, 2011a: 25). A weaker degree of emotionality in an LX might, for instance, allow multilinguals to distance themselves from an emotional situation. Furthermore, a whole range of variables might have an impact on language choice in emotional contexts, making generalisations difficult. When investigating multilinguals’ language choice for verbalising their deepest feelings, Dewaele (2010a) found effects of age, AoA, CoA and the overall number of languages known, for instance. The current use of an LX also showed a significant effect, as did gender with regard to L2 use. This suggests that a differentiated view on the topic is inevitable. Not only does the effect of various variables need to be taken into account, but also the expression of different emotions needs to be investigated closely. This will be done in the following sections. Communicating love

Dewaele (2010a: 11) states that ‘[t]he one thing that nobody would wish to get wrong is a declaration of love’. Yet, communicating love in a foreign language is not necessarily easy, especially if the related emotion concepts differ from what the user is used to from their fi rst. Non-verbal and verbal expressions and manifestations of this feeling may vary across cultures and languages (Altarriba, 2003; Caldwell-Harris et  al., 2013; Derné, 1994; Dewaele, 2008a). Hence, communicating love in an LX (as well as understanding the related emotion script in the right way) can be very challenging. The social appropriateness of emotion scripts of the feeling of love is much more difficult to judge than the appropriateness of rather formulaic speech acts as it may stretch from a sound to several speech acts and utterances in a row without any recognisable communicative intention behind the words (Dewaele, 2008a). Therefore, Dewaele (2008a: 1757) concludes, ‘for emotion scripts of love it seems that more is needed than just a judgment of the researcher or the NS [native speaker] control group on the perceived appropriateness of the L2 user’s efforts. Such an etic perspective provides only a partial view of a complex reality’. Dewaele clearly stresses that in this context, the

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 77

inclusion of an emic perspective is much needed in order to grasp the full picture and to understand the true communicative intentions of LX users. As mentioned previously, the difference between Western and Asian countries is tremendous in this respect (Besemeres, 2004; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Ye, 2004 cited in Dewaele, 2008a). Markus and Kitayama (1991) observed that the cross-cultural differences between the Eastern and Western world with regard to self and other also led to different ways of communicating feelings, including the communication of love. Socialisation, of course, plays a crucial role: it has clear effects on language use in general, but also on the awareness of the cross-cultural (and, along with it, linguistic) difference between the communication of love in English as one’s L2, for example, and a multilingual’s L1(s). Multilingual speakers with a non-English background are likely to perceive the expression of love differently in their L1 and English, as the scripts may not overlap completely. This assumption is based on the fi ndings of a study carried out by Dewaele and Pavlenko (2001–2003), in which participants fi lled out the BEQ consisting of open-ended and closed questions. One of the open-ended questions dealt with how the multilinguals themselves perceived the emotional weight of the phrase ‘I love you’ in the different languages. The sample consisted of 1459 participants speaking 77 different L1s. In the following, some examples will be cited and explained as they illustrate differences in perception. The first example clearly shows that the perceived weight of the phrase may even vary greatly in cases where both Japanese and English are dominant languages: XX (male; L1 English; L1 Japanese; L2 Spanish): I love you is stronger in Japanese I think. ... it has such a strroooong meaning that people rarely use it. On the other hand ...I love you in English does have a strong meaning to it but you can say I love you to your parents, friends, boyfriends/girlfriend and so on. You rarely would say ‘aishiteru’ to your family and friends …you would more likely say ‘I like you’ …which is ‘suki’. (Dewaele, 2008a: 1768)

The following example also clearly illustrates this cross-cultural difference, which is reflected in language use as well. Apparently, Japanese tend to show rather than verbalise their feelings, which is also in line with the example mentioned above: YT (L1 Japanese, L2 English): I love you does not exist in Japanese. Even though we can translate it to ‘Aishiteimasu’ ‘Aishiteiru’ ‘Aishiteru’. This word is translation from English word. The feeling is there. Why should we have to say that? It seems that you have a doubt in love. Even if I heard that in English the word does not move me. Sounds sweet but this is just

78

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

a word. Maybe next day the word will transform into ‘I hate you’. So any language does not sink in my feelings. (Dewaele, 2008a: 1768)

Another participant states similar aspects and also mentions that it is more important to show one’s feelings in Japanese society than to actually explicitly state them: Rie (L1 Japanese, L2 English): In Japan we tend to avoid expression emotion direct (sic). Furthermore silence is beautiful in Japanese society. We try to read an atmosphere. In contrast, in case of English direct expressions have been regarded as logical thinking. In order to reduce misapprehensions I try to use clear expression. As a result I never say I love you. In both languages [i.e. Japanese and English] I seldom say I love you. (Dewaele, 2008a: 1768)

Caldwell-Harris et  al. (2013) found similar differences between Chinese and American English participants when investigating intergroup differences in the verbalisation of ‘I love you’ or wo ai ni, its Chinese equivalent: ‘[t]he Chinese were more reluctant to verbally express love feelings than the Americans for all categories of addressees’. Their fi ndings showed that indirect communication ‘is favored by Chinese respondents’ (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2013: 67). To conclude, there seems to be a tremendous difference in the frequency and directness/subtlety of the communication of love depending on the languages/cultural backgrounds involved. Additionally, a comparison can be drawn to the emotion concept of anger mentioned by Pavlenko (2008b; see also Durst, 2001; Kornacki, 2001): certain languages, such as German, seem to differ from English in the sense that the concept of love is divided into several concepts, leading to more differentiated terms. In return, the phrase ‘I love you’ takes on a more restricted meaning and it is thus likely to be used less frequently than in English in these cases. Still, a recent study by Dewaele and Salomidou (2017) showed that romantic relationships in an LX may lead to the LX having ‘the potential to become the language of the heart’ (Dewaele & Salomidou, 2017: 128). Even though communicating feelings to a partner in an LX is often perceived as challenging at fi rst, this difficulty is usually overcome after a few months and ‘love in an LX is perfectly possible’ (Dewaele & Salomidou, 2017: 129). Expression of anger: Swearing and arguing

Expressing anger is always challenging as expressions may come across as being too harsh. The illocutionary force behind an utterance can easily be mistaken when, for example, the perlocutionary effect was actually not

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 79

intended in such an extreme way. In certain contexts, such as a formal register, swearing may be perceived as totally inappropriate, for instance, and, thus, expressing anger, of which swearing is a common method, can be described as ‘skating on thin ice’ (Dewaele, 2004b: 84). In multilingual contexts, venting one’s anger is even more difficult as the nuances of appropriateness are not easily identifi able and are also difficult to apply in a language other than one’s L1. To put it in Dewaele’s (2016b: 113) words: ‘LX learners who become LX users will have gaps in their pragmatic competence’. Graham et  al. (2001) and Rintell (1984), for instance, investigated how easy/difficult it was for foreign language learners to judge the degree of emotionality of swear words in EFL, with their cultural background and language proficiency playing a decisive role. People with Arabic and Asian backgrounds experienced greater difficulty than European learners when doing the tasks. Bearing the previous sections in mind, this comes as no surprise as Asian cultural backgrounds often vary substantially from European ones in this respect. Toya and Kodis (1996: 280), for example, came to the following conclusion when investigating very advanced Japanese learners of English: when acquiring English as an LX, people from Asian backgrounds have to ‘master two different norms of expressing emotions, especially Western and Oriental norms’. When being rude or angry in a language other than one’s fi rst, misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the addressee can easily be the consequence. When expressing extreme anger verbally, swearing or cursing is often a means to vent it, at least in the European context. Jay and Janschewitz summarise reasons for why people actually behave in this way: Taboo words communicate emotional information more effectively than non-taboo words. Fuck you! tells you immediately that I am frustrated or angry and permits me to vent my anger at the same time. There is no other way to say fuck you and convey the same level of contempt in polite language. […] Cursing is unique in this respect; it allows us to express a strong emotional state in symbolic form without getting physical. (Jay & Janschewitz, 2007: 215)

Multilinguals usually prefer swearing in their L1 (or rather, the dominant language, which is frequently the L1) and swear words are often also perceived as stronger in it (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2011a). As a rule of thumb, the sooner you start learning an LX, the more likely you are to also express anger in it. People furthermore tend to fear the danger of being misunderstood or appearing ridiculous when arguing in an LX with a native speaker (Dewaele, 2004b, 2010a). Results from Dewaele and Pavlenko’s (2001–2003) research again indicate tremendous cross-cultural differences between East and

80

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

West though. One subject with an Asian background explicitly mentions them when saying: Ryoko (L1 Japanese, L2 English): I tend to use English when I am angry, Japanese when I’m hurt or sad, both when I am happy or excited […]. My other bilingual friends who are all returnees like me said the same thing about using English when they’re angry. I guess I like the sound of the swearing words since I heard it so many times during my stay in the U.S. This swearing doesn’t happen so often in Japan. It’s a cultural difference. (Dewaele, 2004b: 99)

In fact, various LX users of English with a Japanese background explained that in Japan, anger is shown rather than explicitly stated. Chinese participants also frequently stated that it is clearly a taboo to swear in their L1 whereas this is not the case in English. Consequently, people from cultural backgrounds in which swearing, cursing or expressing anger verbally is generally unacceptable, tend to prefer an LX in which it is more acceptable to do so (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2004b: 96, 2010a: 120, 2013). Interestingly, some participants from the above-mentioned backgrounds pointed out that due to its inappropriateness in their L1, they tend to avoid expressing anger when using English, too (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2004b: 95). Caldwell-Harris et  al. (2010) reported similar fi ndings when investigating the physiological reaction of 64 Mandarin–English bilinguals to emotional phrases in the L1 and L2. They also interviewed them using questions based on the BEQ (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001– 2003). By doing so, they aimed at bridging the gap between self-report and physiological arousal with a focus on the role of ‘cultural display rules’ (Caldwell-Harris et  al., 2010: 330). Even though the bilinguals were shown to rate swear and taboo words as slightly stronger in the L2 in this study, which was also reflected on the level of skin conductance (even though the values were actually almost identical in both languages on this level), the participants mentioned that they still prefer English (the L2) to express anger and taboo words. They also explained their language preference based on cultural conventions, namely ‘the greater social constraints in Chinese culture to minimize emotional expression’ (Caldwell-Harris et al., 2010: 348). Due to verbalising anger often being a taboo in L1 contexts, people from various Asian backgrounds seem to be in a special position in this context. When having grown up in cultures in which it is typical to swear, multilinguals usually tend to favour expressing anger (one way of which is cursing) in the L1 though, as it has a deeper meaning and feels more real and natural to them than doing so in the L2. This even seems to hold true for very advanced learners from such backgrounds (Dewaele, 2011a). Consequently, these multilinguals tend to report a preference for expressing strong emotions in their L1 as they

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 81

feel more secure in it (Dewaele, 2004b, 2010a). Dewaele’s (2010a) largescale study, for example, in which LX users from various L1 backgrounds participated, showed a stronger overall emotional resonance to emotional expressions in the L1, possibly also due to experiences made in an L1 context (see also Dewaele, 2017c). Feeling more secure in one’s L1 also appears to be relevant in a more recent study by Dewaele (2016b): when investigating 1165 LX users and 1159 L1 users of English regarding the perception of English swear and taboo words, it was shown that LX users differ significantly from native speakers in their judgement of the emotional force of swear words in English. Furthermore, LX users of English differ substantially in their understanding of the meaning of these words from native speakers’ understanding (see also Dewaele, 2017c). One important reason for these differences is the abovementioned greater number of experiences gained in one’s L1 as having lived in an English-speaking country or not, the context of acquiring the language and the (self-perceived) proficiency in it result in clear differences among LX users. Dewaele (2004b) additionally mentions that it is important to consider that English swear words, such as ‘shit’, have often become borrowings in other languages. This is also the case in German, for instance, which will be investigated in more detail in Chapter 6. To conclude, the cultures that multilinguals are brought up in clearly have an impact on the way they express anger, whether or not they curse or swear at all and if they do, to what extent. Additionally, multilinguals’ cultural backgrounds may affect their language choice for venting their anger. Furthermore, language dominance/proficiency as well as other factors, such as age, play a crucial role in this context. Previous studies have shown that younger people tend to express their anger more openly and tend to swear more than older people do, and even gender seems to play a role regarding the communication of anger (Bayard & Krishnayya, 2001; Rayson et al., 1997 cited in Dewaele, 2004b: 86). Dewaele (2004b) mentions that some studies found gender differences, such as males using (and knowing) more swear and taboo words (Register, 1996), whereas other studies did not confirm a significant gender effect (Stenstrom, 1995). A possible explanation might be that different variables affect our language use, and gender is just one of them. All in all, much is still to be discovered in this context, some of which will be the focus of Chapter 6. Code-switching and emotions

When discussing bi-/multilingualism and emotion, another crucial aspect is the topic of code-switching (CS). Before discussing its role in the context of expressing emotions, the term and multiple possible reasons underlying the phenomenon need to be explained. It can be understood as the ‘changing from one language to another in the course of conversation’

82

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

(Li, 2007b: 14) or ‘the alternate use of two languages’ (Grosjean, 2010: 51). This ability can be seen as a feature typical of multilinguals as clearly, monolinguals would not be able to do so. Switching languages can be done with single words, but may also occur on the phrase or clause level. Even though for a long time it was perceived in a negative way, as it was often associated with laziness and an inability to use a language proficiently (Grosjean, 2010), today researchers acknowledge the fact that CS is ‘an ordinary fact of life in many multilingual societies’ (Cook, 2008: 175) and is consequently neither abnormal nor unusual. It simply belongs to the unique state of mastering several languages and also requires a certain degree of linguistic competence (Holmes, 2013). Numerous researchers have investigated the phenomenon (see, e.g. Auer, 1998; Basnight-Brown & Altarriba, 2007; Dewaele & Li, 2014a, 2014b; Gardner-Chloros, 2009; Milroy & Muysken, 1995; Myers-Scotton, 1993) and much knowledge has been accumulated. Even though Heredia and Altarriba (2001 cited in Altarriba, 2008: 165) point out that ‘bilinguals may code switch simply because they find it difficult to express the same concept by means of a set of translation equivalents across languages’, this is only one of the many reasons for CS in multilinguals’ conversations. If a multilingual person reports what someone else said, they might switch to the language the person used (Grosjean, 2010). Another reason could be that someone capable of speaking various languages tries to highlight information by switching to another language. Doing so could also help qualify the topic under discussion or switch to a completely different topic for which a certain language is considered more appropriate. The choice of language and switching between various languages also depends on the addressee and which languages they know as well as language proficiency, as a loss of words, for example, could also lead to CS (Dewaele, 2010a; Dewaele & Li, 2014a; Grosjean, 2010; Poplack, 1980). In general, the context (the ‘who is speaking to whom about what, where and when’) plays a crucial role in CS (Dewaele & Li, 2014a). In their investigation using the BEQ, Dewaele and Pavlenko (2001–2003) found that self-reported CS is significantly higher when speaking to people the speakers know well, such as colleagues at work and friends, for example, and significantly lower when speaking to strangers in public. Dewaele (2010a) suggests that the underlying reason may actually be quite simple: when speaking to an audience we do not know, we never know what languages they are in fact capable of speaking, whereas we most certainly do when speaking to people who are rather close (Dewaele, 2010a). The central role of context is also what underlies Grosjean’s Complementarity Principle. According to Grosjean (2008: 23), people who are capable of using several languages are unlikely to use them to the same extent and for the same purposes. The context in which the specific languages are used may vary, which could lead to different proficiency levels or degrees of fluency in the languages concerned.

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 83

In communicative interactions, multilinguals’ languages are activated to different degrees. Following Grosjean (2001b), a person who is capable of speaking several languages always has to make a choice about which one to use at a particular point in time (see also Grosjean, 2010); the other languages can either be highly activated or almost completely deactivated depending on several factors, such as the following: the participant(s), that is the person(s) being spoken or listened to (this includes such factors as language proficiency, language mixing habits and attitudes, usual mode of interaction, kinship relation, socio-economic status, etc.), the situation (physical location, presence of monolinguals, degree of formality and intimacy), the form and content of the message being uttered or listened to (language used, type of vocabulary needed, amount of mixed language), the function of the language act […] and specific research factors (the aims of the study taking place) […], the type and organisation of the stimuli, the task used etc.). (Grosjean, 2001b: 5 cited in Dewaele, 2010a: 193–194)

Clearly, many factors have an impact on whether or not multilinguals switch between languages and investigating these is a complex task. Even though it seems as if at least in most cases the above-mentioned factors play a decisive role, there are circumstances in which multilinguals code-switch without, for example, even being aware of it, such as in highly emotional conversations. In other words, even though CS can be explained as ‘an illustration of shifting language preferences’, it is still ‘something that often escapes the bilingual speaker’s conscious attention, especially when they get emotional’ (Dewaele, 2010a: 190). Thus, in highly emotional situations, CS may not be strategic or happen on purpose, but can simply be the result of an uncontrollable outburst. Under circumstances like these, multilinguals may use single words or utterances in a different language, even if this language is unknown to the addressee (Dewaele, 2010a). Hence, when highly emotionally aroused, CS may serve a multilingual’s own needs and may be used only as a means to express themselves in a satisfying way (Pavlenko, 2005). Dewaele and Pavlenko (2001–2003) also concluded from their fi ndings that the phenomenon occurs more frequently in talk about emotional topics than when speaking about neutral matters (Dewaele, 2010a). Even though emotional arousal seems to play a decisive role regarding CS, relatively little research has been carried out on the topic so far. One possible reason may be that emotional matters are private speech acts and, therefore, hard to investigate. Still, it is important to be aware of the fact that CS may serve the purpose of emotional expression, too: switching to the L1, for instance, was found to serve the purpose of establishing group membership and intimacy, whereas switching from the L1 to the L2 is often done to create distance (Pavlenko, 2005).

84

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Especially in cultural backgrounds where verbal emotional outbursts are perceived in a negative way, CS to another language may help escape social constraints. Bond and Lai (1986), for instance, came to the conclusion when investigating 48 female Chinese students living in Hong Kong that the participants were more likely to switch to their L2 (English) to talk about embarrassing topics as well as topics such as sex that are taboo in their culture in order to distance themselves from seemingly awkward matters. They also talked about them in greater detail when using the L2 as opposed to their L1 (Cantonese). In his BEQ study, Dewaele (2010a, 2010b) found that, usually, bi-/ multilinguals preferred switching to the L1 when highly emotionally aroused. However, some participants stated the opposite, namely that they preferred the LX to speak about strong emotions. This was mainly the case for multilinguals in whose cultural background (L1) strong verbal expression of emotions (such as swearing, for example) was perceived negatively or even as taboo. Frequently, participants who mentioned aspects like these were L1 users of either Mandarin, Cantonese or Japanese. The following example of Michelle (L1 Chinese, L2 English) illustrates the line of argumentation: I just think English is much more, if you like if you speak something like emotions in Chinese sometimes, you don’t feel comfortable but I think that’s a cultural reason, it’s not because of the language itself, of course I can say those words but I don’t intend to do that so much, although I do, that’s because my personality I think, ehm I try to be quite transparent to my friends you know, also my family, but English is something about English I fi nd easier to express, but I think that could be cultural not because of language. (Dewaele, 2010a: 208)

What this short interview extract shows is that especially people who have been socialised in cultures in which the verbal expression of (strong) emotions is not appreciated and, consequently, not taught, frequently prefer code-switching to the LX as it often seems the more appropriate language in these contexts. Furthermore, research has shown that the frequency of self-reported CS also depends on one’s personality (Dewaele & Li, 2014b; Dewaele & Zeckel, 2016), which again influences one’s attitude towards CS too (Dewaele & Li, 2014b). The multilingual self

Research into emotions in multilingual contexts also involves investigating how multilinguals feel when using an LX. As already mentioned, emotions and, along with them, ‘an individual’s sense of self in relation to a particular social context or community of practice’ (Mercer,

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 85

2012: 12) have only recently been ‘discovered’ in multilingualism research. This is surprising given the well-known fact that L2 users’ emotions play a decisive role in SLA. The only variables that have been dealt with extensively so far are the role of motivation and attitudes (Dai & Sternberg, 2004 cited in Dewaele, 2010a; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972) which can actually also be linked with emotion. Emotion may be the basis for learning or not doing so (see, e.g. MacIntyre, 2002) and is therefore crucial for successful or unsuccessful LX acquisition (Dewaele, 2010a). Schumann (1997) states that what has been found regarding the role of motivation in SLA may actually fundamentally relate to appraisal. Appraisal plays an important role not only in the motivation to acquire an L2, but also regarding relationships in contexts connected to it (e.g. teachers, students, native speakers/cultures). Mercer (2009), too, came to the conclusion that self-beliefs and self-concepts affect people’s attitudes and behaviour when acquiring a foreign language when she investigated the role of tertiary-level learners’ self-concept on language acquisition. Even though self-concept should not be used interchangeably with identity or the perception of self in relation to others (which it frequently is) as they are not synonymous (Mercer, 2012), these constructs are clearly interconnected and overlap. The sense of self is approached here from the perspective of answering the question ‘Who am I?’ when using the different languages (Morita, 2012). This question can be answered in multiple ways. Tajfel (1981: 255), for instance, describes it as ‘that part of an individual’s self-concept, which derives from his [her] knowledge of his [her] membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership’. As this knowledge is never static and a certain sense of belonging is always multiply determined, the following is implied in the attempt to defi ne this highly complex term: the development of self is a dynamic, relational process which is constantly being negotiated, underlies historical change and is highly context-sensitive (see also De Fina, 2007: 355). Frequently, studies have foregrounded the personal, subjective aspects of the self while ignoring the social ones. Clearly, the former are an essential part of one’s identity, but identity is certainly not only individual: this leads to a differentiation of various forms, such as one’s social or group identity and one’s personal/individual identity. Hence, it needs to be acknowledged that identity operates on various levels or, as Clark puts it, identity is as much a social and cultural phenomenon as an internal and psychological one. As well as being something constructed or emanating from within ourselves, or as fi xed social categories, identity is also a sociocultural phenomenon that comes from and within local, interactional discourse contexts that are social and cultural in nature. (Clark, 2013: 7)

86

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Being established and negotiated in reference and relation to others, identity, far from being static or a trait/given, underlies dynamic processes of interaction and change. To sum up, ‘[s]ocially speaking, identity is as much the product of the gaze of others as it is of our own making’ (Riley, 2007: 87). By emphasising the comparison of identity construction with a process embedded in practices of social communities (Foucault, 1984 cited in De Fina et al., 2007) and acknowledging the crucial role of discursive practices in this context (Fairclough, 1989 cited in De Fina et al., 2007), the complex dynamics underlying it are highlighted. Identity construction in the context of LX users is very topical nowadays. Due to intensified migration and globalisation, multiple interactions and contact with ‘the other’ have led to an increasing interest in and need for investigating the issue of the negotiation, development and formation of one’s self (De Fina, 2007). Acculturation processes and being surrounded by various identities and world views are to be seen as natural consequences of that and, according to Costa and Dewaele (2012: 18), ‘permeate contemporary communities’. Language is a powerful and influential tool in this respect as the aforementioned aspects are frequently communicated and negotiated by means of language. Identity development is consequently clearly also shaped by language, and language use, in turn, is shaped and influenced by identity markers. They therefore share a reciprocal relationship with each other. Nowadays, the neglect of the central role that language plays in relation to identity seems far away indeed and in the last two decades, the number of studies and publications on the topic has increased tremendously (De Fina et  al., 2007). In SLA research, interest in the role of self is widespread as well (see, e.g. Mercer & Williams, 2014). In the context of multilinguals’ perception of self, an interesting aspect was revealed by Pavlenko (2006b) in her groundbreaking work: when analysing data gathered with the BEQ (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–2003), an open-ended question about the possibility of feeling different when using the different languages led her to the conclusion that a majority of the participants in fact reported sometimes feeling like a different person when they used a language other than their L1. Pavlenko (2006b: 10) mentions four main reasons listed by their participants: ‘(1) linguistic and cultural differences; (2) distinct learning contexts; (3) different levels of language emotionality; (4) different levels of language proficiency’. She draws the conclusion that different discourses of self are drawn on by a majority of multilinguals, regardless of the languages they speak. This perception of feeling different was not restricted to late bilinguals in her study, but seems to be ‘a more general part of bi- and multilingual experience’ (Pavlenko, 2006b: 27 cited in Dewaele & Nakano, 2013: 110). This is interesting as different viewpoints can be found regarding the role that AoA plays in this respect: whereas Pavlenko did not fi nd any impact on multilinguals’

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 87

likelihood of feeling different, McWhorter (2014 cited in Dewaele, 2015a), for instance, assumes the opposite, a claim which was not based on any evidence though. When re-analysing the data gathered with the BEQ and carefully quantifying the originally qualitative data, Dewaele (2015a) was able to confirm Pavlenko’s (2006b) fi ndings. The perception of different selves when using two (or more) languages may have a different effect on an individual level, as it ‘may be interpreted differently by people who draw on different discourses of bi-/ multilingualism and self’ (Pavlenko, 2006b: 27 cited in Dewaele & Nakano, 2013: 110). When further investigating the data derived from Dewaele and Pavlenko’s (2001–2003) study, Wilson (2008) found that participants reported that they felt more confident and were, in fact, more outgoing when using their LX, which points to an overall positive effect. According to Dewaele and Nakano (2013), whether feeling different is perceived in a negative or positive way is likely to depend on a bi-/multilingual’s perception of the language concerned as such. In Dewaele and Nakano’s (2013) study, for instance, in which 106 multilinguals from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds participated, Pavlenko’s (2006b: 27) fi nding that a majority of multilinguals report feeling different in different languages was also confirmed. In this study, however, respondents explained feeling increasingly fake and significantly less serious, emotional and logical when using a language other than their L1, which is clearly different from what Wilson (2008) found. Dewaele and Nakano (2013: 109) conclude from Koven’s (2001, 2007) studies in this context that ‘learning to operate in a second or foreign language has the ability to affect the behaviour of the individual’. This may be partly due to the fact that language acquisition is not merely about learning grammar and lexicon: mastering an additional language also requires behaving, performing or acting appropriately in it (Ogulnick, 2000 cited in Dewaele & Nakano, 2013). All in all, much is still to be discovered in this comparatively new, yet vibrant field of study, as ‘a large amount of variance [has] remain[ed] unexplained [so far], possibly because language use is confounded by various contextual factors’ (Dewaele & Nakano, 2013: 119). Because language is always changing in an individual as well as in the community, as are the discourses of self in relation to others, the perception, formation, negotiation and development of selves is indeed difficult to investigate in multilingual contexts. Even though it is probably impossible to grasp the ‘full’ picture, approaching the topic by means of triangulating research methods is viewed as highly appropriate to do justice to the complexity of the multilingual self. Including an emic perspective is considered crucial because the sense of self can never be ‘measured’ or captured merely from the outside. Thus, it is highly important to let people with ‘the possession of two [or more] languages’ (Li, 2000: 7) speak for themselves, which will be the case in Chapter 6. To conclude, the high degree of complexity resulting

88

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

from the concept’s multidimensionality should certainly not be viewed as an obstacle only, but as fascination and gain at the same time. Concluding remarks on emotions in multiple languages

Clearly, emotions play a central role in multilinguals’ lives. Not only do people living with two or more languages engage in talk about their emotions to a different extent, but they also often express them differently. People of Asian origin, for instance, tend to show their emotions rather than verbalise them explicitly according to previous studies. As mentioned in Dewaele (2008a: 1760), when expressing their emotions, LX users face various obstacles, such as incomplete transferability of emotion scripts from the L1 onto emotion scripts in the LX. Additionally, their language competence is likely to put them at a disadvantage when arguing, for example, with a native speaker as the latter will be able to express their feelings with more nuance and also in a more subtle way by, for instance, using metaphors (Gibbs et al., 2002; Lakoff, 2016). Furthermore, when expressing emotions, LX users usually tend to rely on rather controlled processing, whereas native speakers do not, as in their case it happens automatically and they can, thus, concentrate more on the content (Paradis, 2004; see also Pavlenko, 2012). Emotion words in an LX are also likely to activate fewer associations than in the dominant language. Often, those words are stored at a more profound level in the L1 because language users have often applied and experienced them in various contexts, which is often not the case in the LX (Altarriba, 2003). To sum up, the use of emotional vocabulary in an LX, such as in relation to love, is often linked to variables such as language proficiency, language exposure, extraversion and even gender (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2002). The age of onset is also of relevance in this context and, frequently, the L1 is experienced as the more emotional language of the two, as the context in which it is acquired is often consistently emotional. Of course, language proficiency/dominance also plays a role with regard to which language is perceived as more emotional (Harris, 2004; Harris et al., 2003). To conclude, ‘[e]motion words have unique association patterns across languages. Bilinguals react differently to emotion and emotion-laden words in their L1 and L2 and this variation has been linked to age of acquisition of the L2 and socialization in both languages’ (Dewaele, 2008a: 1761). Furthermore, research into the other side of the coin is necessary, too. In other words, it is essential to investigate multilinguals’ own perspectives on how they feel when using the different languages. Including an emic perspective is generally relevant as emotions are something personal and cannot solely be measured from the outside. As Feldman-Barrett (2006: 24) puts it, ‘[v]erbal report, even with all of its failings, may be the only means of assessing the experience of emotion. If we want to know whether a

Bi-/Multilingualism and Emotion 89

person is experiencing an emotion, we have to ask them’. This will be the focus of Chapter 6, in which bi-/multilinguals will be given a voice. In this chapter, their attitudes and perception of verbalising emotions in their L1 versus their L2 will be investigated, as will their perception of themselves when using the different languages. The following chapter presents the overall research questions to be answered in Chapters 6 and 7 and explains the independent variables taken into account in the analyses of the data. It also presents the research design, including a description of the test tools, participants and procedure in both studies.

5 Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design In this chapter, the general research questions will be presented and refi ned into sub-questions and hypotheses. The independent variables taken into account in the two studies included in this book will also be explained. This is followed by a detailed description of the research design, discussing the methodological choices made in both studies. Additionally, the participants of both studies and the procedure will be described in detail. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Based on research presented and discussed in the previous chapters, two overall research questions can be proposed. Chapter 6 seeks to answer the following general research question: (1) To what extent do cross-cultural, crosslinguistic and individual differences including demographic (gender, age and education) and language-related variables (language learner history, self-perceived proficiency and frequency of use), have an impact on the perceived degree of emotionality of the fi rst language (L1) and second language (L2), the self-rated frequency of verbalising emotions in the L1 and L2, code-switching (CS) in various situations and the perception of L2 users’ selves? Chapter  7, investigating LX users’ verbalisation of their emotions on the level of performance, seeks to answer the following general research question: (2) To what extent do cross-cultural, crosslinguistic and gender differences have an impact on the frequency and way of expressing emotions when writing a story in the L2? The general questions were then broken down by topic and divided into various sub-questions and hypotheses, which are listed below. In Chapters  6 and 7, the results are also presented by topic. To improve 90

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 91

the comprehensibility of the chapters, I decided to only include some of these hypotheses here, to highlight them, summarising the possible link between the remaining independent variables and the dependent variable in the form of research questions. The underlying assumption for each independent variable becomes clear from the choice of statistical analyses and the subsequent fi ndings. Perceived degree of emotionality of the L1 and the L2

Hypothesis I: Higher degree of emotionality of the L1 over the L2 The L1 is perceived as significantly more emotional than English. Research Questions Ia + b: Links between background variables and perceived degree of emotionality of the L1 and L2 To what extent do the following factors influence the perceived degree of emotionality of the L1 and L2? (a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, frequency of using English, self-perceived language proficiency, language dominance, context of acquisition, typological proximity of the L1 and the L2. Language preference for verbalising emotions

Research Questions IIa  +  b: Language preference for verbalising emotions (a) Do bi-/multilinguals prefer one language over all others to express their feelings? (b) If so, which language is it and why? Language preference for expressing deepest feelings

Hypothesis II: L1 preference for expressing deepest feelings Sequential multilinguals are more likely to express their deepest feelings in the L1 than in the L2. Hypothesis III: The effect of residence on the likelihood of choosing a particular language to express deepest feelings People living in an English-speaking country express their deepest feelings significantly more often in English than others. Hypotheses IVa  +  b: The effect of frequency of use of the L2 on the likelihood of choosing a particular language to express deepest feelings (a) The more often people use English, the more often they express their deepest feelings in English. (b) The less often people use English, the more often they express their deepest feelings in the L1.

92

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Research Questions IIIa + b: Links between other background variables and the likelihood of choosing a particular language to express deepest feelings To what extent do the following factors influence the likelihood of people expressing their deepest feelings in the L1 and L2? (a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, self-perceived language proficiency, language dominance, context of acquisition, typological proximity of the L1 and L2. Communicating love in the L1 and the L2

Research Questions IVa  +  b: Difference in the emotional weight of ‘I love you’ (a) Is there a difference in the emotional weight of the sentence ‘I love you’ in the different languages? (b) If so, in which language does it feel strongest? Swearing in the L1 and the L2 Frequency of swearing

Hypothesis V: Greater amount of swearing in the L1 than in the L2 The amount of swearing is significantly higher in the L1 than in the L2. Hypothesis VI: The effect of the L1 on the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2 The cultural and linguistic background of the L1 user has a significant impact on the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2. Research Questions Va + b: Links between other background variables and the frequency of swearing in the L1 and L2 To what extent do the following factors influence the frequency of swearing in the L1 and the L2? (a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, self-perceived language proficiency, residence, language dominance, context of acquisition. Emotional force of swear words

Hypothesis VII: Greater emotional weight of swear and taboo words in the L1 than in the L2 The emotional weight of swear and taboo words is significantly higher in the L1 than in the L2 (English).

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 93

Research Questions VIa + b: Links between background variables and the emotional force of swear and taboo words in the L1 and L2 To what extent do the following factors influence the emotional force of swear and taboo words in the L1 and the L2? (a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, self-perceived language proficiency, residence, language dominance, context of acquisition, typological proximity of the L1 and L2. Arguing in the L1 and the L2

Research Questions VIIa + b: Language preference for arguing (a) Do bi-/multilinguals prefer a certain language to argue in? (b) If so, which language and why? Code-switching and emotions CS with different interlocutors

Hypothesis VIII: The frequency of CS according to familiarity with the interlocutor The frequency of CS varies significantly according to the speaker’s familiarity with the interlocutor. Research Questions VIIIa  +  b: Links between background variables and the frequency of CS with different interlocutors To what extent do the following factors influence the frequency of CS depending on the speaker’s familiarity with the interlocutor? (a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, self-perceived language proficiency, residence, language dominance, context of acquisition, typological proximity of the L1 and L2. CS in emotional and neutral situations

Hypothesis IX: The effect of the emotionality of the topic on the frequency of CS The degree of emotionality of a topic has a significant influence on the frequency of CS. Research Questions IXa + b: Links between background variables and the frequency of CS in emotional and neutral situations To what extent do the following factors influence the frequency of CS in emotional and neutral situations?

94

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

(a) Demographic variables: Age, gender, education level. (b) Language-related variables: Age of onset (English), number of languages known, self-perceived language proficiency, residence, language dominance, context of acquisition, typological proximity of the L1 and L2. The multilingual self

Research Questions Xa + b: Feeling different in different languages (a) Do bi-/multilinguals sometimes feel like a different person when using the different languages? (b) If so, in what way and to what extent do they feel different? Gender, emotion and language

Hypothesis X: Gender-based stereotypes of emotionality Women are said to be more emotional than men. Hypothesis XI: Gender-based stereotypes of expressing emotions openly in public Women are allowed to express their emotions more openly in public than men. Hypothesis XII: Gender-based stereotypes of emotional content of language use Women’s language is said to differ from men’s on the level of emotional content. Research Question XI (and Hypotheses X–XII): Links between demographic variables and cultural background and gender-based stereotypes To what extent do the cultural context, age, gender and education level play a role in these contexts? Research Question XII: Cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards gender-based differences in the expression of negative emotions Does the attitude towards possible gender-based differences on the level of linguistic expression of negative emotions (anger, fear, sadness) vary cross-culturally in various situations? To what extent do gender, age and education level play a role? Research Questions XIIIa + b: Existence of stereotypes in the context of language, emotion and gender and their effect on language use (a) Do stereotypes surrounding language, emotion and gender exist? (b) If so, do these have an impact on people’s actual way of speaking?

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 95

Emotion and emotion-laden expressions in English as a second language (ESL)

Research Questions XIVa + b: Cross-cultural, L1-based and proficiencybased differences in emotion and emotion-laden expressions in ESL (a) Does the cultural background of the L1/socialisation have an impact on the use of emotion and emotion-laden vocabulary in ESL? If so, in what way? (b) Are the bilingualism index, the standardised type token ratio (STTR), vocd-D and measure of textual lexical diversity (MTLD) measurements of lexical diversity good predictors of the emotional density of a story in the L2? Research Question XV: The effect of gender on the use of emotion and emotion-laden expressions Are stereotypes surrounding language, emotion and gender reflected in women producing more emotional stories in the L2 than men? Independent Variables

As summarised in the research questions above, the effects of a number of independent variables on the perception and verbalising of emotions in the L1 and L2 will be investigated in the following chapters. The demographic variables taken into account in the two studies are gender, age and education level. The results from previous research on gender-based differences in this context are contradictory (Dewaele, 2010a). Still, some studies did show an effect of gender on emotion expression (see, e.g. Barrett et  al., 1998; Brody & Hall, 2000) and recognition (see, e.g. Bradley et al., 2001; Fischer et al., 2004; Hall & Matsumoto, 2004; Hillman et al., 2004; Tobin et al., 2000; for a detailed overview, see the section titled ‘Language, Emotion and Gender’ in Chapter 3). Thus, there is clearly a need for further investigation of the possible links to the phenomena concerned. Age also has frequently been described as ‘a factor in language variation’ (Stilwell Peccei, 2011: 135, see also Chapter 4) and the role of participants’ level of education was taken into account in previous research, too (Dewaele, 2010a). When investigating L2 users, the role of the age of onset of acquiring English is considered crucial as ‘the sooner the better’ was frequently suggested in the past (Peltzer-Karpf, 2003) and the age of onset of acquisition (AoA) might lead to differences in the perception and frequency of verbalising emotions in the L2 (for a detailed discussion of the role of AoA, see the section titled ‘Refining Important Dimensions’ in Chapter  4). Previous analyses have also shown crosslinguistic and intercultural differences in expressing emotions. Thus, the possible effects of the participants’ L1 will also be investigated (see, e.g. Besemeres, 2004; Caldwell-Harris et  al., 2010, 2013; Dewaele, 2004c, 2010a; Friesen, 1972;

96

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Levy, 1984a, 1984b; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Toya & Kodis, 1996; for a detailed overview, see the sections titled ‘Emotions across Languages: The Challenges for Multilinguals’ and ‘Emotions in Multilingual Contexts’ in Chapter  4). As multilinguals are also said to show increased metalinguistic awareness (Cook & Singleton, 2014), possible links to the overall number of languages known will be analysed. Likewise, the history of language learning (naturalistic or instructed settings or a mixture of both) and the frequency of using the L2 are likely to lead to differences on the level of language use and perception (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2010a), so possible effects will be taken into account. Language proficiency and dominance (for a detailed discussion, see the section titled ‘Refining Important Dimensions’ in Chapter  4) need to be considered because differences on these levels affect, for instance, the level of performance and processing (Paradis, 2004). Regarding the former, it is important to point out that language proficiency was measured using self-perceived proficiency. The participants were asked to rate their proficiency in the different skills (listening, reading, speaking, writing) on a scale ranging from 1 (least proficient) to 5 (fully proficient) and their overall competence was then calculated as the sum of their evaluations. As Dewaele (2010a: 69) convincingly demonstrates by drawing on the results of previous studies (MacIntyre et al., 1997), ‘[i]t […] seems that measures of perception of proficiency are acceptable indicators of actual proficiency’. As the idea of linguistic multi-competence is embraced in this book (Cook, 1991, 2016), the decision was made to calculate a second-order variable too, denoted the bilingualism index. It is based on Dewaele and Stavans’ (2014: 10) ‘global multilingualism measure’ and is the sum of a participant’s overall self-perceived proficiency in the L1 and L2, thus acknowledging their mutual influence. Both the L1 and L2 are part of the L2 user’s mind. Thus, when investigating the L1 or L2 in an L2 user, their interplay should also be reflected. Still, the effect of self-perceived proficiency in the various languages will be investigated separately too, as it allows the analysis of which language has a stronger impact on a dependent variable. The operationalisation of these independent variables is illustrated in this chapter in the section titled ‘Participants’, in which the samples of both studies are described in detail. Research Design

One way of approaching such a complex topic empirically is by mixing methods. Mixed methods approaches are understood here as ‘the type of research in which a researcher […] combines elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches […] for the purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration’ (Johnson et  al., 2007: 151). Both approaches are considered of equal value here, which means ‘the sum of QUAL and QUAN research is [considered] greater than either approach alone’ (Creswell, 2010: 59; see also Hall & Howard, 2008). In this particular

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 97

case, the research methods were triangulated, which is a common design of mixed methods approaches (Creswell, 2010). Triangulation refers to the empirical investigation of a research topic from different angles, which enables a better description and understanding (Kelle & Erzberger, 2000). Methodologically speaking, this means approaching a topic from at least two (research) perspectives by applying and combining different methods (Flick, 2000). Consequently, the study design presented here consists of a combination of methods enabling qualitative and quantitative analyses. In addition to a web survey, which made it possible to reach a large group of participants and consisted of mostly closed but also some open-ended questions, the guided in-depth interviews included in the second study add detailed, complementary qualitative analyses and nuanced aspects to the results from the first study. Furthermore, Mayer’s (1969) picture story Frog, Where Are You? was used to draw comparisons between what the participants stated on a meta-level in the interviews and the questionnaire and their actual linguistic output. Chapter 6 presents the findings from the web survey and the interviews, focusing on a meta-level of self-reflexivity; Chapter 7, in contrast, analyses the level of performance of the participants in Study B, presenting the results of the frog story task. Figure 5.1 illustrates the triangulation of research methods applied. As the topic is highly personal, the mix of these approaches is seen as appropriate in order to reveal various aspects relevant to the context of multilingualism and emotions. Additionally, qualitative and quantitative approaches alike have their strengths and weaknesses (Dörnyei, 2007) and by

Research topic

Web survey (quantitative approach)

Interviews (qualitative approach)

Study A

Figure 5.1 Triangulation of research methods in the present study

Frog story

Study B

98

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

combining both, I believe that a better understanding of the topic is possible, especially when shedding light on a still under-researched field. Due to the (intersection of a) high number of relevant variables, careful consideration is required regarding methodological choices though. Different approaches may shine a light on different aspects and there is clearly no best method to approach the topic. What is crucial is that the selected approach can test the hypotheses and answer the research questions (Li, 2007a). In this particular case, the quantitative and qualitative approaches are designed to ‘support and inform each other’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 310). By choosing this particular approach, I aim ‘to reduce the inherent weaknesses of individual methods by offsetting them by the strength of another, thereby maximising both the internal and external validity of research’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 43–44; see also Denzin, 1978). Thus, the methodological choices made are also meant to complement each other to deepen our understanding of the processes under investigation. In the following, the test tools will be described to explain the mixing of methods in detail and their relevance to second language acquisition (SLA) research. Study A: The web survey – a (mostly) quantitative approach

In SLA research, questionnaires are among the most frequently used methods to collect data (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). Indeed, as Dörnyei (2007: 102) mentions, ‘the frequency and use of self-completed questionnaires as a research tool in applied linguistics is surpassed only by that of language proficiency tests’. Web surveys, especially, have various advantages, such as reaching a large number of participants almost anywhere in the world in a short period of time, involving relatively little effort and costs. Quite simply, questionnaires are without doubt a highly efficient way to collect data (Dörnyei, 2007). Still, designing adequate ones requires careful consideration to ensure the reliability and validity of the data (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010). The web questionnaire used in the first study (also referred to as Study A) is based on an adaptation of the Bilingualism and Emotions Web Questionnaire (BEQ) which was used to investigate 1579 bi-/multilingual speakers all over the world (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–2003), with additional questions focusing on the topic of language, emotion and gender. After the purpose of the study has been explained and relevant personal data (age, gender, highest education level, occupation and current location) have been collected, the questions in the survey consist of various sets, ranging from ‘factual questions’ asking for the participants’ language history to ‘behavioural questions’ to investigate respondents’ past habits and ‘attitudinal questions’ to fi nd out about people’s attitudes and opinions on certain matters (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010: 5). These questions were arranged thematically and divided into three parts: Linguistic Information;

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 99

Language(s) and Emotions; and Language, Emotion and Gender. An additional part allowed the participants to give a fi nal statement on the questionnaire and/or the topic. The individual groups of questions covered various sub-questions as well as different response formats depending on the information requested, but with the aim of improving the participants’ concentration when fi lling in the survey. Another aim of mixing the question formats was to gather quantitative and qualitative data. The topics covered by the various sets of questions are listed in Table 5.1. As stated above, the sets of questions have different item formats ranging from open-ended to closed questions, the latter being mainly 4-point Likert-type or tick-off questions. Examples of those formats are included in the Appendix. The original BEQ is included in full in Dewaele (2010a). This survey was web-based only for various reasons: despite the limitations of web-based research, its advantages clearly outweigh its disadvantages for the purposes of the present study. As originally mentioned in Wilson & Dewaele (2010), web surveys pose the danger Table 5.1 Web questionnaire: Set of questions Part I: Linguistic information Set 1

Knowledge of languages Age of onset of acquisition Context of acquisition Dominant language(s) Self-perceived proficiency ratings Frequency of use

Set 2

Self-reported frequency of code-switching (in relation to the addressee and topic); parts of this set of questions belong to the following section too (self-reported frequency of CS in emotional and neutral situations).

Set 3

Categorising the degree of emotionality of the L1 and L2

Set 4

Expressing anger in various situations in the different languages

Set 5

Swearing (preferred language and the emotional weight of swear and taboo words in the languages concerned)

Set 6

Expressing one’s deepest feelings in various situations

Part II: Languages and emotions

Set 7

(Foreign) language anxiety (in various situations with different people)

Set 8

Inner speech (preferred language)

Set 9

The emotional weight of the sentence ‘I love you’ in the languages concerned Language preference for emotion terms Preferred language for recalling bad/difficult memories Arguing Bi-/multilingual identity The ease or difficulty in talking about emotional topics in the respective languages

Set 10

Stereotypes in relation to language, emotion and gender

Set 11

Gender differences in the verbal expression of emotions (anger, fear, happiness/joy, sadness)

Set 12

The impact of stereotypes in relation to language, emotion and gender on people’s actual language choice

Part III: Language, emotion and gender

100

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

of reducing the researchers’ control with regard to sampling (as the participants are, of course, all self-selected) and, consequently, the degree of reliability and validity of the responses given (Hewson et  al., 2003). Still, Gosling et al. (2004) were able to show that responses to traditional questionnaires were no more reliable than to web surveys. Especially with regard to web-based research in the context of multilingualism, participants’ trying to deceive the researcher and deliberately giving wrong responses would not make sense as the questions asked for personal opinions and individual experiences and, thus, social desirability did not play a major role as a response bias. Furthermore, it can be argued that due to being truly anonymous, the level of honesty may be boosted in the responses. Additionally, besides the advantage of self-running administration once the survey has been transformed into an online format and its economic benefits compared to traditional surveys, the main benefit for the present study is the ease with which a large sample could be reached and the comparably high statistical power of the results gained as a result (Dörnyei, 2007). All in all, web questionnaires are a useful tool in SLA research thanks to their numerous advantages; still, they also have their limitations, one of them being that questionnaires ‘are by nature incomplete as one is forced to fi nd a fi ne balance between the number of topics covered and the amount of detail requested while keeping length under control’ (Wilson & Dewaele, 2010: 117). Overcoming some of their limitations was one of the aims of a second study, which was conducted in London, UK. The methodology used in it will be described in the following section. Study B: A mixed approach Questionnaire

A short pencil-and-paper questionnaire included in the second study accompanied the interviews and the stories the participants wrote. It collected demographic data of the participants (age, gender, place of birth, education level, present-day residence, occupation) and information on their language history. The 11 language-related questions gathered data on the languages known, dominant language(s), chronological order of language acquisition and age of onset. The seven remaining questions focused on English in particular, covering the context of acquisition, frequency and mode of use, typical interlocutors, self-rated proficiency scores in the participants’ L1 and L2 (for listening, reading, speaking and writing) and language influence. Guided in-depth interviews: A (mostly) qualitative approach

Interviews are a commonly used method to gain in-depth knowledge about the results obtained from a questionnaire. As most of us are familiar with the genre from various contexts in everyday life, this method usually

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 101

works really well and is, in fact, ‘the most often used method in qualitative inquiries’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 134). Based on the outcomes of the web questionnaire and further considerations, 17 questions were formulated functioning as a field manual for the guided interviews included in the second study. The 17 guideline questions are meant to complement and add nuances to the results of the web questionnaire (Study A) and to add qualitative aspects to the mainly quantitative data derived from the former. The questions focused on four different categories in the context of multilingualism, emotion and gender and were generated based on a qualitative content analysis approach developed by Mayring (2000). Mayring’s approach (2000) was chosen as it allows the analysis of texts in a systematic way. Even though it may be used to analyse any kind of recorded communication, it is especially applicable to the controlled analysis of guided interviews as it was originally developed for their analysis. Basically, the aim is ‘to preserve some methodological strengths of quantitative content analysis and widen them to a concept of qualitative procedure’ (Mayring, 2000: 1). The grouping of aspects into categories or content analytical units forms the core of this method. The question then arises as to how these categories are in fact established. The formulation of categories is indeed problematic and quantitative content analysis, especially, faces the problem of being unable to explain where the categories used come from: ‘[h]ow categories are defined […] is an art. Little is written about it’ (Krippendorf, 1980: 76, cited in Mayring, 2000: 3). Therefore, researchers applying qualitative approaches try to develop the categories as closely connected to the material as possible. Mayring (2000) distinguishes between inductive and deductive methods of category formulation, the former being most suitable for the purpose of this study. Figure 5.2 illustrates the process as a flow chart. As can be seen in Figure 5.2, developing categories along these lines is to be understood as a process and categories that are initially formulated on the basis of research questions and the theoretical background are then revised and specified through the various stages of qualitative analysis while taking the material into consideration as well. Hence, they are developed step by step via ‘feedback loops’ (Mayring, 2000: 3). In this way, the categories described in Table 5.2 were established for the qualitative content analysis of the guided in-depth interviews included in the present study. Writing a story in ESL: The frog story

In order to analyse the participants’ text production and writing skills, the computer program ScriptLog was chosen, which was developed by Karlsson and Strömqvist (2002). For the present study, the program was provided free of charge by Strömqvist, University of Lund, Sweden. The main reason for choosing ScriptLog as an elicitation instrument is that the program itself – unlike many other ways of assessing writing

102

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

Research question, object

Determination of category definition (criterion of selection) and levels of abstraction for inductive categories

Step-by-step formulation of inductive categories out of the material, regarding category definition and level of abstraction Subsumption of old categories or formulation of new categories

Revision of categories after 10%– 50% of the material covered

Formative check of reliability

Final working through the texts

Summative check of reliability

Interpretation of results, possibly quantitative steps of analysis (e.g. frequencies)

Figure 5.2 Step model of inductive category development (Adapted from Mayring, 2000: 4)

skills – keeps a record of the whole text production process. In other words, it allows the investigator to analyse not only the fi nal, edited version of the text that a participant produces, but it also reveals temporal patterning, hesitations/pauses and deletions (Karlsson & Strömqvist, 2002). While the process of writing plays a minor role regarding the present research, it still enables the researcher to understand and analyse the participants’ writing skills from various perspectives, including where and when the participants faced difficulties and how they solved them. The picture story Frog, Where Are You? (Mayer, 1969) was chosen as an elicitation instrument as it has been used by numerous researchers when investigating multilinguals’ language proficiency (see, e.g. ReichholfWilscher, 2006) and has also turned out to be an appropriate test tool for investigating the expression of emotion (see, e.g. Bamberg & DamradFrye, 1991; Reilly, 1992). Narratives are especially suitable for studies in the context of language and emotions, as constructing/writing them requires tying together events which would otherwise be disconnected. For narrators, the primary means of doing so is by using affective expressions to establish the relational significance of the individual events (Labov & Waletzky, 1967 cited in Reilly & Seibert, 2009).

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 103

Table 5.2 Categories for the qualitative content analysis Category

Labelling/description

Definition

Category 1

Bi-/multilingualism and emotions: Identity and language preference

Whether or not bi-/multilinguals prefer a certain language to express emotions and, if so, why?; in case there is a difference in which language it is easier for them to do so; how bi-/multilinguals identify with the languages concerned; how they feel when using them.

Category 2

Bi-/multilingualism and emotions: Specific emotions

The expression of concrete emotional states (love, happiness, anger/swearing/arguing) in the languages concerned.

Category 3

Code-switching (CS)

If they code-switch, in which situations and the reasons underlying switches; if bi-/multilinguals are more likely to do so in emotionally charged situations.

Category 4

Language, emotion and gender: Stereotypes, societal impact and general aspects

Discussing the possibility of gender-related differences when expressing emotions verbally and the interviewees’ personal opinion on that; the societal impact, the role of stereotypes and, consequently, a discussion of their possible impact on people’s actual language choice.

The story itself, which consists of 24 pictures, opens with a boy sitting in his bedroom with his dog, watching a frog that he keeps in a large jar. In the night, while the boy and his dog are asleep, the frog escapes. The next morning, the boy and his dog desperately search for it, at fi rst, in the boy’s room, then outside as well. During their search, there is a lot going on: the dog gets his head stuck in the frog’s jar and falls out of the window. The boy and the dog encounter several animals and have to face difficult situations. A beehive falls out of a tree, for example, and the bees angrily pursue the two for destroying their home. The boy gets caught on a deer’s antlers and the deer runs to a nearby cliff, offloading the boy over the edge of the cliff so that the boy and his dog land in a pond. Suddenly, they hear a familiar sound and, looking behind a log, they fi nd their frog with his wife and family. The boy then chooses one of the baby frogs as his new pet and the three of them wave the family goodbye (Mayer, 1969). As can clearly be seen from the brief summary above, the story is very dynamic, with many complications. On the one hand, this is quite supportive in keeping a participant’s attention, and, on the other hand, it makes the writing task more demanding. Additionally, a children’s picture story is generally seen as suitable for an analysis of emotion and emotionladen words because one feature of the genre is certainly a high degree of emotionality. As for the test procedure, the participant is fi rst asked to fi ll in their fi rst name, last name, age, sex and L1. The program uses this information to label and create an individual fi le for each multilingual in which the data are stored. Then, the testing procedure itself starts and the test instrument created by the researcher appears. In the present study, the writing instrument was kept simple to avoid confusion. Pressing the

104

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

‘Start’ button causes the fi rst picture of the story to appear on the left and the participant may start their writing session in the editor window next to it. The  recorder and player panel are hidden during the test to avoid distracting the participant. The control panel is only visible to the researcher for an accurate analysis of the data. In this way, the participant can concentrate on each picture of the story, take as much time as they need and can decide themselves when to proceed to the next picture by clicking the button ‘Next’ below the picture window. After having gathered the data, ScriptLog offers numerous possibilities for analysing it (Karlsson  & Strömqvist, 2002). For the purpose of the present study, which is the analysis of emotion and emotion-laden words (see also Chapter 4) in ESL with a focus on possible variation depending on language- and culture-related as well as gender-based aspects, only the full text is used. Participants Study A: Sample description

Altogether, 349 multilinguals fi lled in the questionnaire and 165 incomplete ones were discarded. The main reason for nearly half of the questionnaires being incomplete was presumably its length. Additionally, 17 surveys were discarded due to the participants’ language background. Consequently, the fi nal database covers the responses of 167 multilinguals: 63.5% (n = 106) from a German-speaking background and 36.5% (n = 61) with an Asian background. From now on, the former will be referred to as Group 1 and the latter as Group 2 due to their similarities/differences in cultural background as well as the typological proximity/distance of their L1 and L2 (English). With the female participants clearly outnumbering the male ones (Group 1: n♀ = 79; 74.53%; n ♂ = 27; 25.47%; Group 2: n♀ = 48; 78.69%; n ♂  =  13; 21.31%), the gender ratio was not evenly distributed (see Figure 5.3). This comes as no surprise as other studies using web surveys in the field of multilingualism have shown similar outcomes (Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–2003; Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). One explanation is the female predominance in language-related fields and, consequently, their interest in the topic (Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). Women may also generally be more willing to participate in surveys as further studies in other subject areas showed a significantly higher proportion of women filling them out (Joinson & Reips, 2007 cited in Wilson & Dewaele, 2010; see also Fuchs & Resnik, 2012). When analysing 205 research studies on a metalevel, Dindia and Allen (1992) also concluded that it is typical of women to disclose more  than men. Even though the gender ratio was not evenly distributed in the present study, the two groups as such were similar and, thus, comparable (see Figure 5.3).

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 105

100 Female

90

Male

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Group 1

Group 2

Figure 5.3 Female and male participants (Study A; percentage)

The two groups were also comparable in terms of their age, as illustrated in Figure 5.4, a boxplot diagram. The mean age was 33.01 years in Group 1 and 28.30 years in Group 2. When comparing the median values of 28.00  years (Group 1) and 26.00 years (Group 2), their comparability becomes even more obvious. In general, the participants were highly educated, with 15 having a doctoral degree (9.0%), 70 a master’s degree (41.9%), 41 a bachelor’s degree (24.6%), 11 having completed a certificate programme (6.90%) and 25 having a general qualification for university entry (15.0%). Three participants had done an apprenticeship (1.8%) and two had only completed their compulsory education (1.2%). There were no major differences between the two groups. As already mentioned, the sample was divided into two groups based on the similarity of the participants’ cultural backgrounds. Even though the L1s in Group 2 (with an Asian background) vary, as can be seen in Figure  5.5, studies have still shown similar outcomes with regard to the (verbal) expression of emotions and emotion categories/scripts when investigating participants from those cultural and linguistic backgrounds (see Chapter  4; see also Besemeres, 2004; Caldwell-Harris et  al., 2010, 2013; Dewaele, 2004b, 2010a; Friesen, 1972; Levy, 1984b; Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 1994; Marsella, 1980; Mascolo et  al., 2009; Pavlenko, 2005; Russel & Yik, 1996; Shaver et  al., 1992; Toya & Kodis, 1996; Wang & Leichtman, 2000). As the purpose of Study A is to investigate the emotionality of the languages and how people feel when using them as well as the verbal expression of emotions in those languages on a metalevel of self-reflexivity in terms of likelihood, extent and/or frequency, the groupings seem appropriate, also in light of the results of the previously

106

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

80.0

Statistics Age Groups

Age

60.0

n

40.0

20.0

0.0 Group 1

Group 2

Group 1

Group 2

106

61

Mean

33.01

28.30

Median

28.00

26.00

SD

11.6

8.5

Minimum

19.00

20.00

Maximum

71.00

53.00

Figure 5.4 Age of participants (Study A; boxplot diagram and descriptive statistics)

Statistics Frequency (n)

Percentage

106

63.5

4

2.4

Thai

41

24.5

Chinese

15

9.0

Filipino

1

0.6

167

100.0

L1

German

German

Japanese Japanese Thai Chinese Filipino

Total

Figure 5.5 Participants’ L1 including descriptive statistics (Study A)

mentioned studies. The fact that some L1s are tone languages (e.g. Thai and Chinese) and others pitch accents (e.g. Japanese), for instance, does not play a role here as the linguistic realisations of the emotions are not the key focus of this study. All of the participants had English as their L2; the group as a whole also mentioned 32 other languages. All in all, there were 39 bilinguals (23.4%), 59 trilinguals (35.3%), 41 quadrilinguals (24.6%) and 28 pentalinguals (16.8%), as illustrated in Figure 5.6. Among the 17 different L3s mentioned, the most frequently cited were French (n  =  62; 37.1% of all participants), Chinese (n  =  11; 6.6%) and Spanish (n = 9; 5.4%). The most frequent L4s out of the total number of 14 different ones were Spanish (n = 18; 10.8%), French (n = 14; 8.4%) and Italian (n  =  13; 7.8%), while the most frequently cited L5s (13 all in all) were Spanish (n = 5; 3.0%), German (n = 4; 2.4%) and Italian (n = 3; 1.8%). Clearly, the overall size of Group 1 is the decisive factor in this respect

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 107

l gu a

l Pe

nt al

in

gu a in dr il ua Q

Tr ili ng ua l

Bi

lin

gu a

l

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Figure 5.6 Number of languages known (Study A; percentage)

as Group 2, being smaller, obviously showed lower frequencies compared to Group 1. What can be stated on a general level is that the two groups differed in the type of additional LXs they learned (apart from the same L2). Both tended to learn additional languages that were either close to their L1 or relevant to them because of geographical proximity. A majority described themselves as dominant in the L1 (nTotal  =  89; 53.29%; n Group  1  =  41; 38.68%; n Group  2  =  48; 78.69%). Only 10.18% (nTotal  =  17) described themselves as dominant in their L2 (n Group  1  =  11; 10.38%; n Group 2 = 6; 9.84%) while 36.53% (nTotal = 61) reported that they were multidominant, i.e. they considered both their L1 and L2 as their dominant languages (n Group 1 = 54; 50.94%; n Group 2 = 7; 11.48%). Attention was also paid to the comparability of both groups regarding the age that marks the starting point for acquiring English. As can be seen in Figure 5.7, the participants all belong to the category of sequential LX users with an age of onset of >3 years (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2017a; McLaughlin, 1984 cited in Baker, 1993). This means that all participants had already gained some basic knowledge in their L1 before starting to acquire English. The median values (medianGroup  1  =  10; medianGroup  2  =  6) support this assumption. Another interesting aspect is the way in which English had been acquired. A majority of the sample had been learning English in an educational setting only, which means that all or at least most of the language input they received was either at school or at university (Figure 5.8). Roughly one third had experienced a mixture of instructed input and acquisition outside the school context. In Group 1, only two participants and in Group 2 only one individual claimed to have acquired English exclusively in a naturalistic way only. This comes as no surprise as it is very likely for consecutive multilinguals to learn an L2 at least to some extent in an educational setting. Additionally, an analysis of the participants’ current location makes it clear why roughly

108

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

17.5

Statistics AoA

15.0

Groups

English: AoO

12.5 10.0

Group 1

Group 2

106

61

n Mean

7.5

9.21

7.41

10.00

6.00

SD

1.9

3.16

Minimum

4.00

4.00

Maximum

13.00

16.00

Median

5.0 2.5 0.0 Group 1

Group 2

Figure 5.7 English: Age of onset of acquisition (Study A; boxplot diagram and descriptive statistics)

80

Statistics

40

Both

Group 2

Instructed

Group 1

50

65

42

61.3

68.9

1

1.9

Instructed

Naturalistic

2

Naturalistic

30 20

Percentage

Group 2

60

Frequency (n) Group 1

Context of acquisition

70

107

64.1

3

10

Mixture

0

39

1.8 18

57

Group 1

1.6

36.8

29.5 34.1

Group 2

Figure 5.8 English: Context of acquisition (Study A; percentage)

one third stated that the mode of acquisition was a mixture of instructed and naturalistic input (Figure 5.9). The number of people who claimed to have acquired English in a classroom setting only roughly matches the number who lived in their country of origin; the same is true for those with a mixture of instructed and naturalistic acquisition patterns and those living in an English-speaking country. A closer look at the numbers reveals that in Group 1, a higher number of participants stated that they were living in an English-speaking country than those who mentioned a mixture of naturalistic and instructed modes of acquisition, which is interesting as it is hardly possible to acquire English only in an instructed way when living in an English-speaking country. One explanation could be that some participants forgot to take into account that language acquisition as such does not stop but continues throughout their lives.

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 109

80

Statistics

50

Englishspeaking country Other

40

Group 2

60

of origin

Group 1

Country

Percentage

Group 2

70

Frequency (n) Group 1

Current location

61

43

57.5

70.5

11

41.5

7

0.9

Country of origin

English-speaking country

44

30

104

20 10

62.3

55

0

Other

Group 1

Group 2

1 8

18

32.9 11.5 4.8

Figure 5.9 Participants’ current location (Study A; percentage)

A majority of the participants use English on a daily basis (nTotal = 127; 76.04%; n Group 1 = 84; 79.24%; n Group 2 = 43; 70.49%), 73 participants even stating that they use it several hours a day (43.7%) while 15.6% of the sample (nTotal  =  26) use it on a weekly basis and only 6.6% (nTotal  =  11) claimed to use it less often than this. Hence, the sample generally consists of multilinguals who are frequent users of their L2. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that they rated their language skills in the L2 on average as fluent to fully fluent on a scale from 1 (least proficient) to 5 (fully fluent) in the different skills: speaking skills (meanGroup 1 = 4.36; SD: 0.704; meanGroup 2 = 3.69; SD: 0.821), comprehension (meanGroup 1 = 4.65; 0.604; meanGroup 2 = 3.98; SD: 0.662), reading (meanGroup 1 = 4.67; SD: 0.645; meanGroup 2 = 3.93, SD: 0.746) and writing (meanGroup 1 = 4.39; SD: 0.766; meanGroup 2 = 3.64; SD: 0.742). All in all, the two groups of multilinguals form comparable groups of highly proficient, frequent users of English (L2). They show a similar gender ratio, similar median values of age, similar modes and contexts of acquiring English as well as comparable AoAs. Study B: Sample description

Twenty-four multilinguals participated in the second study. Female participants were again predominant, the proportion being 75% (n = 18). Even though the aim would have been to reach an evenly distributed gender ratio, females’ interest in the study and willingness to participate were much greater (see also Wilson & Dewaele, 2010 and the section titled ‘Study A: Sample description’). Finding males who were willing to participate was very difficult indeed. As in the web survey study, the 24 participants of this study formed two different groups based on the typological proximity of their L1 and

110

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

L2: half of the participants (n = 12) had German as their L1. All of them shared English as their L2 and all of them were living in London, UK, at the time of the study. The amount of time spent in the UK ranged from a minimum of 6 months to a maximum of 21 years. Interesting differences in the amount of naturalistic exposure to English were revealed in the interviews in particular. Furthermore, all of them mentioned using English on a daily basis. As the focus in the second study lies, besides other aspects, on an analysis of emotion and emotion-laden words in ESL (see Chapter  7), attention was paid to having a homogeneous L1 background in Group 2. All of the participants in this group shared Chinese as their L1 (n = 12) and all of them had acquired English as their L2. Moreover, they had all been living in the UK for a while at the time of testing, ranging from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 16 years. At the time of gathering the data, the mean age of the participants in Group 1 was 33.50 years while in Group 2, the participants were 30.67 years old on average. When comparing the maximum, minimum and median values, which are illustrated in Figure 5.10 and verbalised in the table on the right, it is clear that both groups are comparable. Additionally, the majority of the participants in both groups were similar in age when they started acquiring English (for a summary of statistics, see Table 5.3): the median value in both groups is almost identical (Group 1 = 10.5 years; Group 2 = 11.0 years), the mean age marking the age of onset being 11.00 years in Group 1 and 9.67 years in Group 2. Three participants (Group 2) started acquiring English relatively early in life (Group 2 Min = 4 years) and one in each group shows a relatively high age of onset (Group 1Max = 20; Group 2 Max = 16). The explanation for the outlier in Group 1 is that Participant No. 12 (Lars G.) acquired English for his job. All others shared the same reason: compulsory education. Their variation 60.0

Statistics Age

50.0

L1 German

40.0 Age

n

30.0 20.0 10.0 Group 1

Group 2

12

Chinese 12

Mean

33.50

30.66

Median

32.00

28.00

SD

11.397

Minimum

20.00

23.00

Maximum

53.00

49.00

Figure 5.10 Age of participants (Study B; boxplot diagram)

8.227

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 111

Table 5.3 Statistics: Age of onset of ESL (Study B) L1

Mean

n

SD

Median

Minimum

Maximum

German/Group 1

11.00

12

3.075

10.50

8

20

Chinese/Group 2

9.67

12

4.658

11.00

4

16

10.33

24

3.919

10.50

4

20

Total

in AoA is to some extent based on different school systems. Table  5.3 summarises the statistics. Another relevant aspect is the context/mode of acquiring English and whether the participants had acquired English in a natural way only or as a mixture of both. As can be seen in Figure 5.11, none of them had acquired it in a naturalistic setting only. Whereas half of the participants of Group 1 (n = 6) claimed to have learned it in an instructed way, meaning that they had received all – or at least most – language input at school or university, the other half said it was rather a mixture of both. In Group 2, 83.33% (n  =  10) of the participants stated the way they acquired English was instructed only and a mere 16.66% (n = 2) mentioned a mixture of natural and instructed contexts. Some participants might have misinterpreted the question (like in the web survey study) as it is hardly possible to acquire English in an instructed way alone when living in an English-speaking country. Again, some participants seem to have forgotten the fact that language acquisition is a dynamic, ongoing process and only referred to the first years of SLA. They rated their proficiency in the L2 as relatively high on a scale from 1 to 5 in the different skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing). On average, the overall proficiency rated in it amounted to 15.67 (min  =  6; max = 20; SD = 4.469). In the L1, the self-rated proficiency was considerably higher (mean = 19.29; SD = 1.429). Still, it ranged from a total of 16–20 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Group 1

Instructed

Group 2

Both

Figure 5.11 Context of acquisition of ESL (Study B; percentage per group)

112

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

points, which clearly demonstrates that not everyone perceived themselves as maximally proficient in their L1. The additional languages the participants were familiar with might also have an impact on their linguistic output in ESL and be of relevance regarding meta-linguistic awareness and awareness of cross-cultural differences. English was the L2 of all participants. In Group 1 (L1 German), the most common L3 was French (n = 6; 50.0%), followed by Italian (n = 3; 25.0%) and Spanish (n = 2; 16.7%). In Group 2 (L1 = Chinese), the most common L3s were Thai (n  =  2; 16.7%) and Cantonese (n  =  2; 16.7%); Hokkien, Taiwanese, Japanese, Spanish and French were listed with one speaker each (8.3%). In Group 1, the most frequently listed L4s were again French (n = 3; 25.0%), Italian (n = 3; 25.0%) and Spanish (n = 2; 16.7%). One participant spoke Kurdish as her L4 (8.3%). In Group 2, the most common L4 was Japanese (n  =  2; 16.7%), followed by Fujian, Korean and French with one speaker (8.3%) each. Hardly any participants in this study listed an L5. In Group 1, there was only one speaker of Mandarin (8.3%) as an L5 and in Group 2, there was one speaker of Farsi (8.3%) and one speaker of Spanish as an L5 (8.3%). Whereas the majority of foreign languages spoken in Group 1 (L1 German) were Romance languages, the Chinese participants mainly acquired L3s, L4s and L5s that are typologically and/or geographically closer to their L1 than their L2 English. The overall number of languages known did not show such great variation (Group  1: 3 trilinguals, 25.0%; 8 quadrilinguals, 66.7%; 1 pentalingual, 8.3%; Group 2: 1 bilingual, 8.3%; 6 trilinguals, 50.0%; 3 quadrilinguals, 25.0%; 2 pentalinguals, 16.7%). All of the participants had been UK residents for a while when the data were gathered and they were all highly educated with 8.33% of Group 1 having fi nished their PhD (n = 1), 66.66% having completed an MA degree (n = 8), 16.66% (n = 2) a BA and 1 having taken his A-levels. In Group 2, the educational background was similar with 8.33% (n = 1) having fi nished their PhD and 91.66% (n  =  11) having completed a master’s degree. Thus, the two groups are quite similar on the level of educational background too. All in all, the two groups show similar patterns on the level of gender ratio, educational background, AoA, acquisition patterns in English and frequency of using English. Consequently, they are suitable for comparisons based on the differences in their cultural background and their L1. Procedure Study A

The questionnaire was put in its online format using the program LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey Project Team, 2015), an open source web survey application, and hosted on a dedicated website, making it easily accessible

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Independent Variables and Research Design 113

for multilinguals all over the world. It was advertised through forums for multilinguals (with German as their L1 who are living in the UK, for example, but an attempt was also made to reach Asian participants in this way). Additionally, the link was sent to possible participants in numerous targeted emails to colleagues and their students in the UK (University of London: Birkbeck College, SOAS – The School of Oriental and African Studies, Goldsmiths College; Roehampton University; Newcastle University), Austria (Universities of Graz, Innsbruck and Salzburg), Germany (Humboldt University), Hong Kong (Chinese University of Hong Kong) and Thailand (Kasetsart University, Bangkok). Additionally, informal contacts were used and societies for multilinguals were contacted, such as Teachers of English in Austria (TEA), and many of them were supportive and included the link in their monthly newsletter, passing it on to their members this way. As it is not known how many multilinguals received a link, it is impossible to calculate a possible return rate. Thus, the sampling strategy used was not random. Research on SLA and multilingualism necessitates the selection of participants who are users of (at least) an L2 (Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). Hence, the strategy applied in this study could be mainly described as non-probability sampling, combining the strategy of convenience sampling, which means that the convenience of the researcher is decisive in reaching participants, and snowball sampling, which refers to the researcher contacting potential participants they know and asking them to pass the link on to further potential participants they know (Dörnyei, 2007; Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). All in all, it took up to 30 minutes to complete the web survey, depending on how many languages a person knew. It was essential to adhere to this limit as research suggests that it is the maximum time for completing a questionnaire before the participant’s attention starts to wane (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010: 13). As, especially in web-based research, there is no chance for further clarification (see, e.g. Dewaele, 2010a), partly also due to the participants’ anonymity, running a pilot study was considered crucial to ensure the comprehensibility of the questions. Study B

The second study was conducted entirely in London, UK. The participants were approached via email, forums and research seminars. The main strategy used in this study was snowball sampling. The investigations were carried out all over London, either at the interviewee’s or interviewer’s home or quiet seminar rooms at various universities, depending on the participants’ preference. Thus, close attention was paid to their needs and wants in order to create a suitable atmosphere due to the topic’s sensitivity, on the one hand, but also because the testing procedure was time consuming and demanding: after having completed

114

Multilinguals’ Verbalisation and Perception of Emotions

the short pencil-and-paper questionnaire, the interview was conducted. These varied greatly in length, from approximately 12  minutes to 1  hour. The  interviews were recorded digitally and then transcribed. The full transcripts are the private property of the researcher. In order to enable a systematic analysis of the aforementioned categories, the program maxqda10 was used as the narratives yielded rich data, covering a total of 65,800 words. After the interview, the participants were asked to write the frog story. The time taken for writing it also varied greatly, depending mainly on two factors: language proficiency (fluency) and motivation. It ranged from approximately 15 minutes to 1 hour. In order to guarantee the participants’ ability to concentrate, breaks were taken whenever required. Consequently, the procedure took up to two hours on average.

6 Differences in Feeling?: Multilinguals’ Own Views on Verbalising Emotions in the L1 and L2 This chapter presents the results of the web survey study (Study A) and the interviews (Study B) according to the analysed topics. Each topic starts with a description of the dependent variables, followed by a presentation of the findings, which are arranged according to the hypotheses and research questions phrased for each topic (see Chapter 5). In continuation, the results of both studies are discussed and summarised. Certain aspects were foregrounded by phrasing these as separate hypotheses in each section (for a list of hypotheses and research questions, see Chapter  5). As the analyses are rather extensive, to make them more accessible to the reader, the possible influence of the remaining independent variables was summarised in the form of research questions. When presenting the results, the underlying hypothesis for each of these becomes clear. The quantitative data derived from the web questionnaire were analysed using SPSS 24. As a series of Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests revealed no normal distribution for the variables in Study A (all p