CHAPTER 12

Although love and hate are among the first words which spring to the mind of the average layman when one talks of Emotion, this is not the case with certain theorists, particularly Behaviourist psychologists. There seems to be a general preference to attribute what we call love and hate to some more observable PHENOMENON. Plutchnik (1962 > 1982), for example, whose classification is fairly comprehensive, prefers the more neutral acceptance to liking or loving, and the facially observable disgust to hate. Johnson-Laird and Oatley (1989) classify like and love as relations in which happiness is experienced in relation to the OBJECT, and hate is the experience of disgust towards the OBJECT. Although James himself (1884) and Watson (1930) classified Love as one of the 4/3 basic emotions they propose, it only re-surfaces as a respectable emotion after Behaviourism, with theorists like Arnold (1960) who were beginning to move in a Cognitivist direction. For example, Fridja (1987) does not include love or hate among his 'emotions proper' because they involve object evaluation. In this respect Ortony et al. follow Fridja's lead, describing these as Attraction emotions, based on the appealingness of the OBJECTS.

The Attraction emotions, which Ortony et al. see as reactions to OBJECTS, are seen as a structurally simple group consisting of one positive and one negative emotion type - the liking and disliking emotions. However, they hasten to point out that, “in reality, these emotions are among the most complex of human reactions”. They distinguish between 'dispositional' liking or disliking as, for example, a disposition to like vodka, and 'momentary' liking or disliking, as liking an instance of vodka. Only the latter fits strictly into their definition of an emotion, because it is transitory. The former are described as mental representations, or schema, which form our attitudes and tastes, and subsequently affect our reactions to specific instances of the objects.

The reasons for either the dispositional or momentary liking or disliking are rarely easy to formulate clearly, and some may even be innate, as a tendency to like sweet things and dislike bitter ones appears to be, although a taste for Campari can be acquired culturally. The more complex the object of our liking or disliking, however, the more likely we are to be able to provide an explanation, but the fact remains that many different factors may contribute to the mental representation we have of something, and this complex schema also underlies our momentary experiences of liking and disliking.

In the analysis I shall make here of the Liking and Disliking lexicons, it would be quite impractical to distinguish between the dispositional and momentary examples in the corpora, with the purpose of eliminating all examples that appeared to belong to the former. Therefore, all the examples of Liking and Disliking I could find in the corpora will be analysed, although it is obviously useful to bear in mind the distinction made by Ortony et al. when analysing certain points in more detail.

One linguistic problem which arises when collecting the examples for these groups is that of the value of the negative with emotion verbs. This problem was examined for other groups, and one of the most interesting points that emerged was that the negative very rarely appears. It would seem that we do not often feel the need to mention an emotion merely to negate it. When negation is used, though, the result is simply to deny the existence of the emotion, as in I am not afraid of ghosts, or He is not angry with you. However, with the Liking and Disliking groups there is a certain polarisation which allows the verbs like and gostar de to be used in the negative. In many cases one may deduce from this negative use of like that Disliking exists instead. However, this is not necessarily so. We can say I don't like Mary and mean I dislike Mary, but one can also say it and then add I love her, or I am simply indifferent to her.

More than one interpretation is quite possible with several of the examples found, and this poses the problem of separating the more from the less negative examples. Because of the element of subjectivity implicit in such a judgement, I decided in the end to consider the negative examples within the like and gostar de lexemes. Even if all the negative examples had been considered in the Disliking group, an unrealistic solution, this fact would not have made a very significant difference to the overall data. It would have decreased the number of SFoc verbs in the Liking group by 2,4%(E) / 2,2%(P) and increased the number in the Disliking group by 7,8%(E) 11,8%(P). This means that the Disliking group suffers in comparison with Liking, but when the two groups are considered as a pair in relation to the other groups, the difference becomes less important.

Ortony et al. describe the Liking emotion as [LIKING AN APPEALING OBJECT], and the variables involved are:

The first variable they choose would seem obvious to most people, but the second one might pose some problems. What they are trying to cope with here is the fact, recognized by psychologists, that familiarity with the object is one of the few measurable variables that can be analysed fairly satisfactorily out of many less well understood ones. For example, as any mother knows, children react negatively to being presented suddenly with new types of food, but as they become familiar with the sight and smell of them, their reactions sometimes change. At a less basic level, one could point to the normally negative reaction by the general public to avant-garde forms of art (I am not considering here the type of person who has internalized the schema which says that 'new'/ 'unfamiliar' = 'good' as far as art is concerned). In order to be acceptable, it has to have some quality which appeals to something already understood, no matter how deep in the subconscious.

The EC is dominated by like and love. As can be seen in Table 12.1 the nearest competitor is affection, followed by fond of, tender, prefer, devoted, favour, fancy and adore, the remaining 12 lexemes having a total of 3,5% between them. The situation is not quite so extreme in the PC, although amar and gostar de are the most popular After these more important lexemes come enternecer, paixão, preferir, adorar, simpatia, afecto, atracção, carinho and devoção , with a further 6 lexemes with a total of 1,2%. Yet again we find that the PC has a wider vocabulary at a medium level of usage.

An uninformed look at the basic uses of like and love, amar and gostar de would lead one to think that like was the same as gostar de and amar the same as love. However, although like and gostar de can be used in similar situations, amar is much more restricted in usage than love. The history of my personal interest in the linguistics of Emotion, and in the relativity of languages in general, dates from my realization of this point. Whereas in English one can love virtually anything one feels affection for, from God to your parents, your sweetheart, your child, and from there to your dog, your car and a cup of coffee, the verb amar is strictly reserved for God and, on serious occasions only, for the people nearest to you. To use it frequently or indiscriminately is to risk appearing embarrassingly sentimental, or as suffering from over-exposure to soap operas. In literary works a little more licence is given, as in the description of Afonso da Maia:

(12.2) Não, não era Meneses, nem Albuquerque; apenas um antepassado bonacheirão que amava os seus Iivros, o conchego da sua poltrona, o seu whíst ao canto do fogão. M

and this describes a serious, honourable affection for things; sometimes it can describe a somewhat idealized love, as in:

(12.3)- Que pena que isto não pertença a um artista! - murmurou o maestro. - Só um artista saberia amar estas flores, estas árvores, estes rumores. . .

Carlos sorriu. Os artistas, dizia ele, só amam na Natureza os efeitos de linha e cor; M

(12.4) Mas Quina amava o mundo, as suas manifestações de poder, de grandeza e superficiais européis; amava, se não a multidão, os que venciam, o espalhafato e a exterioridade. Si

In more everyday language, however, gostar de would be normal in these situations.

When someone wants to declare affection on a day-to-day basis in Portuguese, s/he is more likely to use Gosto de ti than Amo-te. This is not just because the stronger lexeme might be embarrassing. In English it is possible to say, I love him, but I don't like him, meaning that one has a strong, probably sexual, attraction for, or strong family ties with someone, while being unable to find any sensible reason for approving of their personality. Conversely, the implication of Gosto de ti is that you feel a strong, and well-founded, affection for the person, rather different from the much more reserved I like you. Another interesting distinction that can be made is between the use of the Imperfeito o João amava a Maria, and that of the Pretérito in o João amou a Maria - the former can be translated as a simple statement about the fact in the past that John loved Mary, but the latter is best translated as John made love to Mary.

The use of I love you in English on an interpersonal basis is also restricted, but not to the same extent as Amo-te, and it has been de-valued in the last few decades by the love-you hippy phenomenon, and the type of situation in which most pop stars, like Michael Jackson, greet his/her fans on stage with I love you. Besides these distinctions, there is that made by the expressions I am in love with you and estou apaixonado por ti which definitely refer to romantic or sexual love and a more transitory situation.

The noun amor, however, is not quite so restricted, and one might well hear Ela tem um grande amor aos animais, and there are no problems in talking about something like amor da liberdade or amor à vida. Conversely the noun love is, in practice, more restricted than the verb. However, whether it is in the novels which form the corpora, the soap operas we watch on television, articles in women's magazines, songs, or general conversation, there is little getting away from the fact that what some would describe as romantic love occupies our attention far more than any other form of love, be it religious, parental, or filial, or for ideals, animals or things, in English or Portuguese.

Liking is the noun form of like, although the plural likes, can be found. Again it is translatable by gosto, but gosto is often more similar to taste, in the sense of he has good / bad taste, (Tem bom / mau gosto) or pleasure as in it was a pleasure to watch him (dava gosto ver-lo). These uses draw attention to the close link between the Liking group and both pleasure and the processes of perception.

Given the restrictions on amar, one would expect it to be less frequent than gostar de, particularly since love is less frequent than like, but the reverse is true. One could try and explain this by saying that romance is more popular in the PC than the EC, but that would probably be difficult to prove. It is more likely that the other lexemes, which occur in 45% of the PC examples, as opposed to 30% of the EC ones, were chosen instead.

Table 12.1 shows yet again that the PC favours the usage of the stronger type of lexeme. It was not always easy to allocate the different lexemes to 3 different categories. To place gostar in level 2 because it is sometimes stronger than like, or amar in level 3 because it is stronger at times than love, would be to distort the evidence beyond comparison. Prefer does not really express weak or strong emotion, just liking one thing more than another. Others like cherish, care for and carinho express the treatment of the loved one as much as the emotion, and affection, afeição, tenderness and enternecimento also have a behaviour component, which is evident in the fact that most of the few examples tagged for behaviour are of these lexemes. Patriotism was included as a very specific kind of love, but no examples of its Portuguese cognate were found in the PC.

There are quite a few cognates in the two groups, some of them false friends. amorous does not match amoroso, the former being SFoc and describing a rather sexual feeling, or the consequent behaviour, and the latter is more frequently used as an PFoc adjective to describe the PHENOMENON's attractive qualities. Simpatia is a form of mutual liking, and not related to sympathy, which is in the Sorry For group. The examples of paixão nearly all gave a Liking interpretation, whereas most of the examples of passion were more suitably classified as Generic. Not all examples of favour were included - only those which reached a high enough level of emotion to do so, and favorecer did not provide such examples. Infatuated, with its connotation of misguided and unreasoning passion, does not match enfatuado which seems, at least in context, to refer rather to stupid pride in oneself.

The EC examples which are difficult to transfer into Portuguese are fancy, which is usually felt to be a little superficial and definitely transitory, fond of and keen on - which might be translated rather neutrally by gostar muito de - and crush, which usually refers to adolescent passions. The PC lexemes which draw attention to a difference in semantic focus are enamorar and apaixonar. Although they roughly correspond to the English expression fall in love, these Portuguese lexemes and the frequent use of paixão , draw attention to the distinction made by the PC at both a lexical and pragmatic level between romantic love and sexual attraction / passion.

Querer is usually translatable by want, but it is also sometimes used in a way which can only be interpreted as love, and these examples were classified separately for this group. Querido is used a lot in the way English would use dear or darling as terms of endearment, but neither the Portuguese nor the English examples of these words have been included in the corpora. Querido can be used as an PFoc adjective / past participle to express the lovablility of an object in modern conversational Portuguese, but examples were not recorded in the PC.

The company kept by these lexemes showed that, in general, they liked to appear with other members of the group. Like, perhaps because of its rather neutral meaning, did not combine with other lexemes. Neither did fond of because its statute as a predicative only adjective makes combination difficult. Love attracted very few companions for such a popular lexeme, and these were either other items from the group, or more general words suggesting topics, like sex, life, art, marriage and money. Adore, being one of the stronger lexemes, combined with other strong emotion words like amazement and despair. Affection/ate, which describes both emotion and the behaviour related with it tends to combine with lexemes like cheerful, loyalty, respect, tolerance and kindness which express similar notions of behaviour. A similar situation exists with care, which combined with attention and devotion, and cherish, which liked comfort, understanding and nurture. However, tenderness, also associated with behaviour, preferred notions like joy, respect and understanding.

As can be seen in Table 12.2, the PH. type 1 is very rare in this group and generally refers to general notions of Liking which are not quite nominals. The examples of type 2 are either Self-directed emotions or describe personality traits like being affectionate. As one would expect, a large proportion of the examples, 58,7%(E) and 62,6%(P) take types 6-9, and most of these are simple type 6 examples. Type 10 non-personal objects take fairly large percentage, with only a tiny proportion in the highly explicit type 11 category. The remaining 20,7%(E) and 11,8%(P) take SENSER-referring PH. types, largely type 5.

81,6% of types 3-5 in the EC are to be found under like, but only 3,5% for love, prefer taking 4,9%, fond of 2,5% and the remaining few being distributed generally among the other lexemes. Similarly, gostar de takes 74,8% of these examples in the PC, preferir 15,7%, and amar only 3,3%.

There is also a tendency for the same verbs to favour type 10 more than others. Like accounts for 60%, love for 13,5%, prefer for 6,5%, and fond of 4,9%, the others being distributed fairly evenly throughout the remaining lexemes. In the PC, the distribution is more generalized, but gostar de still takes 39,1%, amar (4,6%), preferir (12,9%), with several going to enternecer (7,4%) atrair (6,3%,) and adorar (4,6%). The few examples of type 11 are restricted to like, prefer, gostar de, preferir and querer.

The corpora show a difference at the SFoc / PFoc levels with the EC having more SFoc items. On the other hand, the PC has more BEHAVIOUR tagged examples. The SFoc items show a small number of adjectives and participles in both corpora, adding up to 7,9%(E) and 6,4%(P), and the usual tendency of the EC to favour the verbs instead of nouns. The adjectives which do appear are adoring, affectionate, amorous, fond of, keen on, loving, patriotic and tender, in the EC, and afectivo, carinhoso and terno, in the PC. Fond of and keen on, which together account for over 80% of the predictive adjectives, always take complementation. The past participles are attached, attracted and devoted, in the EC, and afectado, apaixonado, atraído and babado. In the EC 88% of all the adjectives and participles take complementation, which is an exceptionally high percentage. The same is true of only 23% of those in the PC, about average for this corpus.

60% of the SFoc nouns in the EC belong to love, the rest largely coming from affection (10,6%), tenderness (7,7%), fancy (5%), and a few others like liking and devotion. In the PC, amor takes 45%, with paixão (17,8%), enternecimento (10,6%), afeição (6,8%), gosto (6,6%), simpatia (5,8%) and a few examples of others like carinho, apego, adoração and devoção making up the rest. In both corpora the number of countable nouns is about average, with a higher than usual proportion in the middle group. Complementation is higher and adverbial noun phrases are fewer for both corpora.

The fascination people have for defining love or amor is borne out by the fact that 26 examples of Nominals exist for love, a third of all examples in the EC, and 40 examples for amor, or half of all examples in the PC. Several of the examples, particularly in the PC, are true Nominals, and are used as terms of address.

The SFoc verbs in the EC are largely represented by like with 69,4% and love with 21,3%, the remaining few belonging mostly to adore, care, cherish and prefer. Gostar takes 56,6% and amar 22%, with the rest being preferir (10%), adorar (5%), querer (3,6%) and a few of acarinhar, afeicoar-se and simpatizar. The interesting point with these verbs, however, lies in the different types of complementation of the more important verbs.

Although 56,5% of the examples of the verb like take normal transitive objects, a further 36,6% prefer clausal complementation, 29% alone being followed by infinitive clauses of which the SENSER is also the Subject. Love, on the other hand, much prefers a simple object to a clausal one, the ratio being 93% / 5,5%, with the remaining 1,5% being the rather unusual intransitive examples already discussed. With gostar de, there are 57,4% prepositional objects, gostar de being a verb + prepositional particle, with 39,1% taking clausal prepositional objects and a small number (2,4%) in which gostar acts without the particle DE and takes a QUE clause. Most of the examples with amar, (76,1%), are of the normal transitive kind with 16,4% intransitive examples and a few reciprocal examples with -SE. The other verbs are nearly all of the normal transitive kind, even when, as with care, they function with a particle + prepositional object.

The PFoc items in the EC are small in number but interesting. Attract accounts for about 40% of the examples, and about 15% are examples of the ambivalent tender and affectionate, and adjectives like adorable and likeable. The interesting point is, though, that over 30% are PFoc past participles, and they make up over 50% of such examples in the whole corpus. Most of them are those examples of be loved in which the PHENOMENON is usually singular and the SENSERS are multiple.

The PC took the examples of PFoc adjectives from a wider range of lexemes, with adorável, amável, apaixonante, atraente, gostoso, preferível and simpatico and the ambivalent eternecido. It also has several past participle examples of adorado, amado, apaixonado and preferido, although their presence in this group was not so marked as in the EC and altogether they accounted for only 30,7% of the examples in the PC.

The PFoc verbs are only in evidence in the EC with attract and favour, and the 2 examples of the latter are examples of the ambivalence of this lexeme. In the PC, which has a higher percentage of these verbs, we have ordinary transitive examples with atrair and enternecer, and a few examples with -SE with apaixonar, apegar, babar, enamorar, and enternecer. The PFoc nouns are restricted to attraction and favour in the EC, but in the PC they include ambivalent examples of amor, enterneciemento, paixão and preferência, as well as atracção.

When people talk about Emotion as a subject, or want to illustrate their points about Emotion words, they often use love as a typical word in this area. As one can see, however, the syntax and semantics of the Liking in general, and love in particular, is hardly representative of the overall picture of the language of Emotion lexemes, although the ways in which they diverge from the norm are interesting. There are also clues to different cultural values to be found in the lexicalisation of this emotion group.

The low level of behaviour tags indicates the reason why Liking does not fit into the classifications by those who require facial expression and gestures to be determining factors in the classification of Emotion. However, it is difficult to disassociate these emotions from strongly felt interior physical feelings, particularly when one is referring to romantic or sexual love. There have been endless arguments about whether sexual love is really an emotion, or mere physical necessity geared to the reproduction of the species, and whether romantic love is merely a 'dressed-up' version of sexual appetite or has some higher, more spiritual function.

Different cultures distinguish between the more physical and more spiritual forms of love in different ways. As we have seen, the Greeks considered sexual love as merely a biological function like hunger and thirst. Rougemont (1936) argued that the development of romantic love was peculiar to Western culture and literature, and developed in early Medieval times through the troubadours' celebration of stories of the kind typified by Rougemont as the 'Tristan myth'. Some Western anthropologists used to assume, rather naively, that romantic love did not exist in certain non-Western cultures, largely basing this theory on the idea that societies that believed in arranged marriages could not believe in romantic love. Recent research, however, seems to indicate that these societies certainly recognize romantic love, but do not see it as essential to marriage, because it is considered too transitory a basis on which to build a social contract of life-long duration. With divorce soaring, and the break-up of the family being one of the most worrying social and economic problems of modern Western civilization, the attitude of modern Western anthropologists towards those societies which still favour arranged marriages does not seem to be so condemnatory as it used to be.

The division between sexual and romantic love is reflected up to a point in the lexical differentiation between the verb to love and the phrase to be in love in English, and rather more so in the Portuguese distinctions between gostar de, amar, and apaixonar-se, referred to above, as well as the difference between amor and paixão[1] which exists in English, but which is not so frequently made, at least in the EC.

The Liking group is close to Appreciation, and it was often difficult to decide when to include the examples of certain lexemes in one group or the other. The Appreciation lexemes seemed to include the greater degree of reference to and reasoning about the situation described by Ortony et al., whereas the Liking ones simply describe the, possibly consequent, emotion. This led to please being classified under Appreciation, despite the battle that has raged for so long over the relationship between please and like. On the other hand, attract and atrair simply refer to the tendency of the PHENOMENON to cause a Liking emotion and do not seem to point to any wider interpretation. The relationship of the Liking group to Joy and to the senses of taste was shown up by uses of gosto.

The low proportion of PFoc examples were largely restricted to attract in the EC, the rest being either words which acted ambivalently, or the unusual past participle construction, particularly with loved. The PC, with its larger proportion of PFoc lexemes showed a wider use of lexemes here, and a certain amount of ambivalence among the nouns, and reflexiveness in the verbs, was to be found, all of which factors point to the symbiotic relationship between the SENSER and PHENOMENON.

The high percentage of SFoc verbs, 41,5%(E) and 21,7%(P) above the corpora averages, is an important factor in this group. Together with the high proportion of other word forms which took complementation, this shows that this group is exceptionally explicit about the nature of the PHENOMENON. The tendency of the PC to prefer nouns is more pronounced here than usual, and the EC compensates by using the verb form, and not the more neutral copula + adjective / participle form. However, these figures are influenced considerably by the relative uses of love and amar / amor, and perhaps the shyness over using the verb form, amar, accentuated the usual tendency of the PC to favour the nouns.

The data on the PH. types confirm the fact that the PHENOMENON is nearly always explicit, and the different syntactic behaviour of the PC does not seem to have hindered its identification. The fact that most lexemes seem to prefer types 6 and 10 above all, shows that these emotions tend to focus directly on an object, human or otherwise, rather than on more complex notions like their situation or behaviour. There is, therefore, a certain simplicity about these examples which define both a SENSER and a PHENOMENON, and the focus is partly on the relationship between them, and partly on the SENSER's emotional processes. The affirmative with the active voice of I love you or I like you, or nouns with determiners or possessive forms, like the love of liberty or John's love for Mary, are definitely in the realm of conscious understanding and even affirmation of the emotional process.

Earlier I speculated about the possibility that certain verbs of Emotion might be considered as quasi-modals. It is significant that so many of the examples with like and gostar de, and a few of love, prefer and preferir, should take the type of clausal complementation, usually with an infinitive clause, that is similar to that following modals. These examples also produce most of the PH. types 2-5 referring to the SENSER's situation, emotions, perceptions and actions, and this too would seem to show a quasi-modal type pattern. Although I do not argue for any strong hypothesis, I believe that these examples should be considered separately from the others, and that their function, which expresses a sort of volition towards being, feeling, perceiving or doing something, should be compared to that of other modal-type verbs.

This emotion, which is often seen as antonymic to the previous one, is defined by Ortony et al. as [DISLIKING AN UNAPPEALING OBJECT], and the variables involved are:

The division of this lexicon on a 3 level weak > strong basis in Table 12.3 shows that both the EC and the PC show a marked preference for the strongest lexemes. This would continue to be true even if one were add the examples of not like and não gostar to the examples in level 1. Both corpora have one dominant lexeme, hate (39,9%) and odiar (33,2%). In the EC we then have object to (11,5%), dislike (7,7%), not bear (6,3%), disgust (4,6%), abominate (3,6%), revulsion (3,4%), detest (3,1%) and a further 13 lexemes with smaller numbers of examples, totalling 20,6%. The PC shows the more evenly spread usage found in other areas, with enojar (15,3%) detestar (9,5%), abominar (6,9%), repugnar (6,3%), repulsar (5,2%), hóstil (4,9%), aversão (4,3%), antipatia (3,8%) and a further 7 lexemes which account for a total of 10,3%. The lexemes in the corpora can be further divided into those which contain an SFoc verb, a PFoc verb or form noun/adjective pairs. Such a division highlights a noticeable difference between the corpora. The SFoc lexeme types account for over three quarters of the EC examples but only about a half of the PC ones.

The central lexemes in the corpora are fairly similar in meaning, as are the cognates detest and detestar, although the latter seems more popular in the corpora. The English cognate of odiar, a noun/adjective combination of odium / odious is rarely used and when it is, it usually appears as an PFoc adjective. Dislike is fairly popular in the EC as a SFoc verb but has no real equivalent beyond não gostar in the PC, although the noun form can be rendered by antipatia[2]. Desgostar is a PFoc verb. Abominate and abominar resemble each other in their lexical meaning and in their syntactic behaviour, favouring PFoc adjectival forms. Object to is the second most popular EC lexeme but is difficult to translate into Portuguese, possibilities being the more intellectual contestar, não gostar, or some more PFoc lexeme like irritar, from the neighbouring Anger group.

One popular way of expressing Disliking in the EC is with the expression not bear which can be translated in Portuguese by não suportar. However, não suportar has other uses and no truly appropriate examples appeared in the PC. English also has loathe to express strong Disliking, but it is usually translated by detestar.

The PFoc type lexemes are over twice as numerous for the PC and enojar is the second most popular lexeme in the corpus. It is translatable by disgust and nauseate, and all three lexemes have a strong connection to the more physical sensations experienced with the stronger forms of Disliking. The cognates like repel and repelir both function as PFoc verbs and, in the EC, we also have certain examples of revolt, particularly in the forms revolting and revulsion, which fit into the Disliking scenario in a way which revoltar does not. Repugnar and repulsar classify as PFoc verbs but their EC cognates, repugance and repulsion, only function as noun /adjective pairs.

The remaining noun/adjective pairs include the cognates aversion / aversão, and animosity / animosidade. Asco is a strong form of Disliking best expressed as strong disgust or loathing. Distaste is a weak form of Disliking which does not match the meaning of desgosto, sometimes more readily classified under the Distress group. Antagonism, and particularly hostility, and their cognates are somewhat marginal as they tend to reflect the behaviour resultant from previously experienced Disliking, rather than the emotion itself.

The lexemes in this group also seem to like to appear with each other and with other negative emotions. Hate also can occur with love, and with words like war, rebellion and violence.

As we can see in Table 12.4, Disliking has a higher number of identified exterior PHENOMENA than the Liking group, with 82%(E) and 88,8%(P) coming in the 6-11 band. Those in the Other focused 6-9 group account for very similar percentages of the corpora 54,1%(E) and 53,5%(P), 0but whereas the PC seems to focus more on the Other per se, the EC shows a greater interest in the Other's action. There is also a greater interest of the PC in type 10.

Type 1 examples are rare and, as with Liking, tend to be examples which are not quite Nominals and there are also a few real Nominals with hate and ódio. The type 2 examples are normally of the reflexive hate oneself type. The EC shows a greater interest in the type 3-5 band, 16,6%(E) as against 10,1%(P), and this interest is spread fairly evenly among the three types in the EC but is concentrated on type 5 in the PC. The only lexemes that show a marked deviation from the general norm here are not bear and repugnar with 54% and 30% in the 3-5 band.

There is quite a difference between the corpora as far as SFoc/PFoc ratios are concerned, with the EC favouring SFoc examples. The same imbalance was noted with the Liking group, although it was not so pronounced. The number of examples tagged for behaviour is higher than with the Liking group, but still low, most of them appearing with disgust in the EC and with nojo, hóstil and ódio in the PC.

The SFoc adjectives and participles were few, with the EC only having examples with averse to, disgusted, repelled and revolted, and the PC with hóstil, enojado, mareado and repelido. The EC also produced one example of the SFoc adverb disgustedly and two of venomously.

The usual tendency of the SFoc verbs to dominate in the EC and the nouns in the PC is very obvious here. In the EC, hate accounts for 58,7% of the SFoc verbs, with not bear (12,6%), dislike and object to (11,2%) making up most of the rest, and odiar (49,3%) and detestar (37,3%) dominate the PC. 78,4% of the EC examples are transitive verbs with simple 'a' type objects, with a further 9% taking clausal objects. Object to accounts for most of the 6,7% which take prepositional objects as well as the 4,8% intransitive examples, and there are three examples of reflexive verbs. In the PC 89,3% are transitive with 'a' type objects, the remaining few being fairly equally divided between intransitive examples and those with prepositional objects.

The SFoc nouns are more evenly spread among several different lexemes, but hate still accounts for 30%, objection 20%, and revulsion and disgust 9% each. In the PC, ódio takes 36%, nojo 20%, and aversão and repulsa 10% each. Countability is above average in the EC but below average in the PC, although in both corpora it is the middle group which show the greatest gain. Complementation is higher than average, particularly in the PC where it reaches 26,6%, but the percentage of adverbial noun phrases is lower in both corpora.

The PFoc lexemes in both corpora are largely PFoc adjectives. In the EC they appear mostly with odious, abominable, distasteful, detestable, disgusting, abhorrent and revolting, and in the PC with odioso, abominável, antipático, nojento, ascoroso, repelente, repugnante and detestável. The PFoc noun forms are very few, being largely represented by abomination in the EC, as well as loathesomeness and repulsiveness, and with one example of abominação in the PC, and 3 ambivalent examples of nojo and repugnância. The PFoc verbs are sparsely represented by alienate, antagonize, nauseate and repel, in the EC, and more numerously by repugnar and enojar in the PC. The central lexemes produce the only PFoc past participle examples, with detested, detestado and odiado, and these examples are similar in nature to those for loved in the Liking group.

This group has fewer of the lexical subtleties to be found in the Liking group. The objective of reporting such an emotion is to describe the definitely negative reaction felt, and even the physical sensations associated with them. The concentration of examples in the strongest lexical group shows that the interest is in expressing this emotion quite clearly. Apart from the not bear / abide examples, which are only used negatively, the other lexemes are notable for the absence of negation associated with them, and this confirms the general tendency of the Emotion lexemes to simply fail to report the absence of emotion.

The greater syntactic tendency to favour PFoc adjectives with Disliking matches the preoccupation with the exterior PHENOMENON, although this PHENOMENON has a strictly non-Agentive role, as can be seen by the low number of PFoc verbs and their corresponding SFoc participles. However, the SFoc nouns and verbs still account for most of the examples. The relationship between SENSER and PHENOMENON, and the conscious emotional and mental process on the part of the SENSER, are definitely affirmed, as can be seen from the high number of SFoc verbs, especially in the EC. The high percentage of complementation of SFoc nouns in the PC is also indicative of the same type of process.

Although the EC examples of Disliking show a certain interest in the PH. type 3-5 group, and the syntax shows too small a number of "b" type clauses on which to advance any hypothesis of there being any quasi-modal status for verbs in this area. The few examples which might qualify were classified as the negative of like inside the Liking group.

The Disliking group focuses more on the exterior PHENOMENON than the Liking group, rather as the Distress group does when compared with Joy. This would seem to demonstrate a psychological, and evolutionarily necessary, tendency to favour the definite identification of PHENOMENA which affect us negatively. However, apart from this point, the differences between the corpora in the way the different types are distributed is similar to those with the Liking group, and this shows that there is a certain similarity which helps to make these two groups a complementary pair.

[1] It is interesting to notice that courting, describing the type of behaviour associated with romantic love, leading possibly to marriage, is now considered old-fashioned in English, although there are phrases like going steady in popular usage which do duty for the same type of phenomenon. Its equivalent in Portuguese, namorar, however, is still going strong and its sense has changed less than one might expect in modern life.

[2] The English cognate, antipathy, did not appear in the EC, and the examples that appear in the BC suggest a weak, rather intellectualized form of Dislike.