CHAPTER 9

The lexical groups established in Chapter 4 will be analysed in this and the following chapters at the levels of the lexicon, syntax and semantics, using the criteria described in Chapter 5-8. For this purpose I shall use the data from the English Corpus (EC) and the Portuguese Corpus (PC), which were collected and prepared by myself. Each group suggests specific problems, the significance of which will be considered within the relevant section.

The relative conscious awareness and differentiation of the PHENOMENON shown by the emotion groups will be examined. There will also be an analysis of the data on the patterns of SFoc and PFoc frequency in order to discover whether the psychological interest is primarily in the SENSER, in the emotional processes or state, or in the relationship of the PHENOMENON to the SENSER. Predictably, it appears that there is more psychological interest in the SENSER and the emotional processes or state, although the degree to which this is true varies from one lexical group to the other. In most cases, the EC and the PC showed strong similarities in SFoc and PFoc usage, but there are differences, and the breakdown into verb, adjective and noun patterns demonstrates this point. All this provides interesting insights into the way we express emotion.

At the more general level, I shall be looking for linguistic information which might help the analyses of philosophers, psychologists and others on Emotion and the emotions. This type of analysis also has a parallel function - that of showing how these non-linguistic analyses of Emotion may have been affected by the presuppositions inherent in the language used by the researchers.

Ortony et al. begin by looking at those emotions which they describe as Reactions to Events. The Well-being, or Joy and Distress emotions are probably the most universally recognized types of Emotion, as they even fit into those theories which see Emotion as two simple sets of reactions - positive and negative. For those who require some physical indication of emotion, there are facial expressions, like smiling and weeping, which are so similar in all cultures that they are probably genetically programmed. The internal physical sensations are also easily recognizable and can be controlled artificially with the use of drugs.

Ortony et al.'s description of these emotions is one of the simplest they make. They insist (1988: 89) that "The important point about Joy and Distress emotions is that they result from focusing only on the desirability or undesirability of the event". However, they do admit that their definitions are often too simple to describe what happens, and elaborate on grief (ibid: 90), for example, which they agree is "much underspecified by the type specification of being displeased about an undesirable event". The analysis into 11 PH. types show that Ortony et al's notion of EVENT is deliberately simplistic. At a linguistic level, these include reference to both simpler and more directly focused PHENOMENA, like individual people or things, rather than the actions or EVENTS they were involved in, as well as weaker examples, like despondent, which involve a PH. type 1, and which Ortony et al. might dismiss as moods and not emotions. The scenarios they propose for these two groups are, therefore, rather vaguely defined.

The Well-being, or Joy emotions are those which they describe as being the ones we have when we are [PLEASED ABOUT A DESIRABLE EVENT]. These are seen as fairly simple emotions, with the only variable affecting their intensity being:

(9.1) (Joy) The man was pleased when he realized he was to get a small inheritance from an unknown distant relative.

Normally speaking these events are in the realm of accomplished or on-going facts, although they might take in future events, as in Ortony et al.'s example of the joy a couple might experience on learning that they are going to have a baby. However, on these occasions, as they warn, "care has to be taken to distinguish Well-being emotions from the Prospect-based emotions, such as Hope, that might also arise". Other examples are close to the Appreciation and Liking groups, but in the end the Joy group was the fourth most popular group with 10,8%(E) and 9,8%(P) of the total examples, and accounted for 11,7% (E) and 7,7% (P) of all the lexemes analysed.

Joy is the word chosen here by Ortony et al., but a more commonly used lexeme, both at an everyday level and at that of the literature on the subject, is happiness. Perhaps they chose joy because it usually expresses a stronger, and therefore more transitory, emotion. Apart from this notion of duration, the main difference between lexemes would seem to be the way in which they express a lesser or greater degree of feeling.

The EC yielded examples of 48 different lexemes, whereas the PC produced only 24. There is no one dominating lexeme in this group, although in both corpora the three main ones account for about 40% of the total. Happy, pleasure and glad were the most frequently used ones in the EC, but 25 lexemes, over half, account for only 8,3% of the total. In the PC the most popular lexemes are alegre, feliz and prazer, then come sereno and contente, and only 4 lexemes yielded under 1% each, or a total of 2,1% of the group. It would seem that, at a medium frequency level - 1 > 10% frequency of occurrence in the group - the PC uses a wider selection of lexemes, with 18, than the EC, with 15.

This is an area of the lexicon where, largely because of the variety of lexemes on offer, individual choice of words will vary widely, as shown by Fillenbaum and Rapoport (1971), but one can classify the lexemes roughly into which are habitually connotated with greater or lesser degrees of Joy, as shown in TABLE 9.1. The evidence from this table shows a similar distribution of examples among the three groups, although the PC offers a higher percentage of the stronger Group 3 lexemes, 27,2%(P) as against 25,9%(E), and lower percentages in the other groups.

In group 1, although lexemes such as content and contente describe a degree of Joy, the inclusion of lexemes such as peace or paz may be questioned. However, the examples chosen reflected the peace of mind which indicate a form of happiness, the more political ones being excluded. Serene and sereno, tranquil, and at ease and á-vontade, reflect a similar frame of mind. At first sight, tranquilo would seem to be a candidate for this group but, in context, it behaves differently to tranquil, all of which are PFoc. Good-humour and bem-humorado refer more generically to a positive frame of mind and, in context, the examples of equanimity (equanimidade was not found in the PC) are similar to those of serenity. Brighten, encourage and enliven, as well as encorajar are rather marginal, but often refer to processes which induce greater happiness in the SENSER.

The second group of Joy lexemes accounts for over half of the examples in both corpora, and it is here that we find the three main lexemes in both cases. Although happy and feliz, and pleasure and prazer, are the more central lexemes and usually translate each other, the same is not true of the other words. Glad, nearly always used predicatively, translates feliz and contente in similar syntactic circumstances, but is also close to pleased (classified under Appreciation). The Portuguese alegre is similar to happy when it is PFoc. Otherwise it is best translated by cheerful, merry, and the former sense of gay. Cheer, as a PFoc verb, is similar to encourage but it is a more central Joy lexeme. Enthusiasm and entusiasmo are less central and imply a degree of conscious appreciation. Close to them are certain uses of animated and animado, although the Portuguese cognate is more relevant than the English one. Optimism (optimismo was not found in the PC) is also marginal and more easily seen as a pre-disposition to being happy about an event.

Although the third group only accounts for about 25,9%(E) and 27,2%(P) of the examples, it contains the widest variety of lexical choices, few of which pose problems of marginality, although triumph and triunfar combine the element of Joy with the idea of success, usually at someone's else's expense. Several of them have cognates in both languages, but few of them are suitable translations of each other. Exult and exultar and ecstasy and extâse are fairly close, and euphoria, which did not appear in the EC, is close to euforia. However, delight and deleite, and radiant and radiante, and the emotional senses of delirium and delírio, are not easy equivalents, either in meaning or in relative popularity. In the EC, although delight takes pride of place, followed by joy, in the PC all the lexemes show similar levels of popularity.

However, deleite is not frequently used, even in literary Portuguese and, therefore, although it can usually be translated as delight, delight cannot usually be translated by deleite. For example, She tried the little golden key in the lock, and to her great delight it fitted! (W) was translated as com grande alegria by one translator and as com grande satisfação by another. Radiante is often used in modern Portuguese to express the notion of delight, but radiant is limited to facial expression. Although we might say she looked radiant, it is unlikely that we would say she felt radiant. Delirious is used once in the EC with the idea of Joy but otherwise it seems to be confined to its more medical sense. Delírio has this more medical sense, but it is often used to mean a strong form of Joy, rather like ecstasy.

The BC showed how the lexical cohesion described by Halliday helped in the understanding of lexemes by the company they kept. Happy/happiness occurred with synonyms or complementary emotions, but also with the causes of these emotions, like freedom, health, harmony, peace and champagne. Joy combined with stronger notions like vitality, hope, creativity and triumph, and delight with love, awe, wonder and dread, as well as surprise, excitement and astonishment. Pleasure associated more easily with more worldly notions such as power, privilege, and pride. Cheerful combined with words more indicative of external behaviour, like smiling, flushed and lively, or with emotions apparent in facial expression, like relieved and enthusiastic. On the other hand, content/ment combines more easily with lexemes expressing interiorly experienced feeling, like relaxed, tranquil, satisfied and comfortable. Glad, being predicative, hardly ever co-occurred with other lexemes.

TABLE 9.2 shows that there is a high proportion of the PH. type 1, and types 2-5, which demonstrates that Joy is a central emotion of the less consciously assessed, and SENSER-focusing variety. Although clearly defined PHENOMENA also occur, particularly with certain lexemes, this group is one in which an exterior PHENOMENON occurs least frequently. The EC and PC differ in that they show 25,9%(E) and 38,7%(P) for the PH. type 1, and 33,4%(E) and 26,4%(P) for the Self-orientated types 2-5. However, they show a relative degree of similarity in the quantity of exterior types 6-11, with 41,3%(E) and 39,3%(P).

The central lexemes in both corpora, happy, which is 86% SFoc, and feliz, which is 93% SFoc, both favoured type 1, 34,2%(E) and 68%(P), with types 2-5 - 37,7%(E) and 12%(P) - leaving the exterior PH. types with only 28,1%(E) and 20%(P). However, the other lexemes vary quite considerably and the type of PHENOMENA they favour is a good guide to the differences between them. In the EC, with cheer, which is 73,5% SFoc, 65,6% of the examples took type 1, usually referring to mood, with 3 examples of type 2, referring to temperament. The 25% which took types 9-10 correspond to PFoc examples of cheerful. Content, almost entirely SFoc, favours types 3-5 - nearly 50% - the rest being divided equally type 1 and types 9-11. Delight, being a 'strong' lexeme, always took an identifiable Phenomenom, with 36% for types 3-5 and 50% in the 9-11 groups. At ease and enthusiasm favoured type 1 - 56% and 43% - often reflecting a mood or attitude. Encourage, however, is 89% PFoc, and naturally favours types 9 (68%) and 10 (14% ).

Only one Ph. type1 example was recorded for the central lexeme glad, which, being predicative, usually requires the PHENOMENON to be specified, favouring the Self orientated types 3-5 (57%), but also types 7-9 (29%), and types 10-11 (13,7%). Although nearly all the examples of joy are SFoc, they seem to be fairly evenly distributed between types 1, 3-10. Peace, 59% PFoc, seems to favour either the multiple stimuli of type 1 (28%), or the specific type 10 (36%), with 22% in the 3-5 group, showing the Self also as generating peace. Pleasure, 46% PFoc, favours specification - types 3-5(34%), 6-9 (29%) and 10 (26%) - and only 11% are type 1. Type 5 (71%) is the natural PHENOMENON for the more marginal triumph.

In the PC, the 35% PFoc examples of alegre largely refer to type 10 (31%), but 33% of the SFoc examples are tagged for BEHAVIOUR, contributing to the overall 37% for type 1. An unusually large percentage were labelled type 2 - 7% - indicating that alegre is sometimes seen as a character trait, and relatively small percentages, 11% and 14%, took types 3-5 and 6-9. With animar, the 43% PFoc verbs explains the 25% of type 9 examples, but there is also a 45% tendency towards type 1, especially with -SE PFoc verbs or SFoc past participles. Contente seems more likely to specify the PHENOMENON than its cognate content, and has only 14% of type 1, with types 3-5(44%), and types 6-9(44%). The existence of type 1 examples shows that contente and content are similar, but the more specific nature of the PHENOMENON with contente shows why it is stronger than its cognate, and a good translation of glad.

Encorajar is too infrequently used to allow any evaluation of its nature here, but 26% of the entusiasmar examples are type 1 - largely with the phrase com/sem entusiasmo - type 10(33%), and types 6-9 (25%). Paz typically likes type 1(70%), with types 3-5(21%). Prazer favours types 3-5(62%), with type 1(16%), and types 6-9(only 14%). Radiante is 50% type 1 and most of the rest are types 3-5. The sereno examples are 80% type 1, but 12% are type 10. 55% of the examples for triunfar focus types 3-5 and only 23% types 6-10, with 22% type 1.

The EC has rather fewer SFoc items for Joy, 76,7%(E), than the corpus average, but the PC has quite a lot more, 80,8%(P). Despite the fact that this is an area where one might expect a high number because of the psychologists' association of it with facial expression, the number of examples tagged for BEHAVIOUR is near the average. If, however, one takes into consideration the fact that this behaviour has its own vocabulary, with lexemes like smile and laugh, sorrir and rir, one realizes that this average is, in fact, relatively high.

The distinction between SFoc and PFoc lexemes in this group was often difficult to make, particularly with the attributive adjectives. It is easy enough to classify delightful and pleasant as PFoc, and glad, content and contente, by virtue of their almost obligatory predicative position, are nearly always SFoc. However, cheerful, gay, happy, serene and tranquil in the EC, and alegre, radiante and sereno in the PC, can all be either SFoc or PFoc in a roughly 70/30%(E) or 73/27%(P) ratio. With the main lexemes, happy and feliz, the PFoc percentage is rather lower, as it is with radiante and sereno, but cheerful, gay and tranquil and alegre are primarily PFoc.

Typically PFoc adjectives, like delightful, usually describe a quality that is presumed to be fairly generic or valid for anyone, but the PFoc examples of adjectives like happy indicate specific situations. Collocation restrictions also mean that the PHENOMENON tends to vary according to the sense of the PFoc adjective. For example, PFoc uses of serene and sereno and tranquil tend to appear with places and meteorological phenomen, cheerful, gay, and alegre with the behaviour of others, and happy and feliz with events or periods of time.

A similar but less pronounced pattern can be found with the SFoc/PFoc classification of the nouns. Several nouns in both corpora, particularly delight, peace and serenity in the EC, and alegria and regalo in the EC, can be analysed both ways, but the general ratio is lower than for the adjectives, 90/10%(E) and 85/15% (P). One or two verbs in the EC also reflect this double usage, but the situation is more ambiguous, and, in the PC, the verbs with -SE pronouns are almost twice as high as the average, 37,4%.

In both corpora the proportion of SFoc nouns - 30,9%(E) and 41,8%(P) - is the most significant of any of the lexeme types. The SFoc nouns in the EC are about average in terms of countability, the percentage of preposition + emotion noun constructions, usually adverbial noun phrases, is a little higher at 34,4%(E) and complementation of the noun is lower at 9%(E). In the PC the notion of countability varies considerably from the averages, although, interestingly, these percentages show more similarity to those for the EC in this group than to those of the PC averages. The type of adverbial phrase suggested by a preceding preposition occurs with 29,8%(P) of the examples and there is a low percentage of complementation, 5%(P). The most popular EC SFoc Joy noun is pleasure (21%), with triumph, joy, happiness, at ease, delight and enthusiasm accounting for most of the rest. Prazer (17%) was also the most popular, with felicidade, alegria, paz and entusiasmo following close behind.

There are high proportions of SFoc predicative adjectives in both corpora, 25,6%(E) and 17,8%(P), but the numbers of SFoc past participles, 4,2%(E) and 5,2%(P) are considerably lower. The proportionately large number of Joy SFoc adjectives in the EC is largely made up of predicative adjectives, although the percentage of attributive ones is also a little higher than average. Of these, glad made up 43% and happy 34%, content 9%, with ecstatic, enthusiastic, serene and triumphant accounting for a few each, and the use of copulas is normal. Delighted accounts for 39% of the SFoc past participles in the EC, the rest being distributed fairly evenly among 11 other lexemes. Some of these, like high-spirited and overjoyed have no real PFoc verb form and were included here more for their form than their function, which is more strictly adjectival.

In the PC, both the attributive and the predicative adjectives are above average by 2,1% and 12% respectively. Although contente accounts for 20% and feliz 25%, there is a fairly even distribution through alegre (3,5%), radiante (6,7%), sereno (8,5%), and triunfante (5,7%), and a few examples of others. The behaviour with copulas shows some differences from the average, because there are only 45,7% zero copulas (the corpus average is 67%), estar takes 10,5%, ficar 5,7%, and there are fair number of other copula type structures. The most interesting difference is the frequency of ser, with 19,5%, and, although there are a few examples with alegre and the odd example with others, the vast majority are with feliz, accounting for about a third of the examples with this adjective. In the PC, the distribution is more evenly distributed between 10 lexemes, the most important being animado, enlevado, entusiasmado and regalado.

The EC SFoc adjectives and past participles show an exceptionally high level of complementation because of glad which accounts for 72% of the complemented adjectives in the EC, Content and happy are responsible for most of the rest, and delighted is the past participle most often complemented. However, the opposite is true of those in the PC[1], where feliz and contente, and entusiasmado account for most of the complementation.

There are no major SFoc verbs in this group, 3,2%(E) and 4,7%(P)[2] and even the PFoc verbs do not belong to the more central lexemes. This is particularly true of the EC. When a SFoc verb is used in either corpus in this group, it tends to focus the SENSER's emotional processes to the extent that the PHENOMENON is either unmentioned, because the verb is intransitive, or is represented by a -SE pronoun, or is of the less direct quality of a prepositional object. These verbs, like exult, therefore allow an interpretation of non-directed, or internally focused, emotion, and favour a PH. type 1 of the multiple and indefinite variety. The SFoc verbs in the EC are brighten and cheer up, (both of which are more often used in an PFoc sense), one unusual intransitive example of jubilate, and examples of both intransitive (12), and either preposition + prepositional object (14), or normal transitive use (7) with exult, rejoice, relish, revel and triumph. In the PC, the SFoc verbs are delirar, enlevar, exultar, jubilar and comprazer, with 32 interesting intransitive examples, 5 verbs + preposition + prepositional object, and 19 verbs + -SE pronoun. The lower than average number of PFoc verbs are largely represented by encourage in the EC and alegrar(se) andcontentar(se) in the PC.

A large proportion of the PFoc examples in the EC are adjectives and adverbs describing Joy provoking qualities, like the ambivalent ones already mentioned, and others like encouraging and peaceful. They appear in greater frequency than the average for the corpus, particularly the attributive ones. Apart from the nouns already mentioned, most of the PFoc nouns were accounted for by encouragement and enthusiasm.

In the PC, all the PFoc types are lower than average. The PFoc adjectives also are largely represented by the ambivalent ones and deleitoso, usually used predicatively. The number of PFoc nouns is few and those already mentioned, prazer and triunfo account for most of them.

Several factors would suggest that this group is central to notions of emotion described by psychologists. The large number and variety of lexemes allows it to cover a wide range from moods to violent emotions, with a few examples describing temperament. There are also clear lexical connections with other emotion groups, such as Liking and Appreciation.

The semantic analysis shows that the focus is generally on the SENSER and the emotional state or processes, and the PHENOMENON is often of little interest with the more central lexemes, which favour the PH. type 1. The symbiotic relationship which often exists between the SENSER and the perceived PHENOMENON can also be seen clearly in the ambivalent SFoc/PFoc behaviour of the normally SFoc attributive adjectives and, to a lesser extent, the SFoc nouns.

At a syntactic level, the low level of complementation of the SFoc Joy nouns, and the higher number of examples in adverbial phrases, particularly in Portuguese, referring either to states of emotion, introduced by in or em, or behavioural or internal processes, introduced by with or com, supports the view that they focus the emotional state, or processes, of the SENSER, rather than the specific relationship between SENSER and PHENOMENON..

One of the main indicators that this is a less consciously processed area is the rarity of both SFoc and PFoc verbs. This factor, together with the high proportions of SFoc predicative adjectives and low numbers of SFoc past participles in both corpora, also underlines the focus on the SENSER's internal processes or state.

The PC offers us further syntactic clues to the psychology of Joy through the finer tuning of Portuguese, with its use or non-use of copulas. First if all, the lower ratio of zero copulas, which often indicate a situation in which the emotion is additional, rather than central, information, shows that the SENSER’s centrality with the Joy emotion is better focused than is usual in the PC. Secondly, the unusually high level of ser copulas, particularly with feliz, allows for a longer time duration, or a more definite or stronger interpretation of the emotion, to be attributed to these examples than to the estar examples. However, there were only a few examples of the type 2 personality trait analysis.

The fact that the complementation of the adjectives and past participles is so different between English and Portuguese would be more significant if glad and delighted, with their specific lexical characteristics, mentioned above, did not dominate the figures so much. Their high percentages of explicit types 2-5 also contribute to the disparity between the balance of PH. type 1 and types 2-5 between the languages.

The Distress emotions are those which are described as being the ones we have when we are [DISPLEASED ABOUT AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT]. The only variable affecting their intensity is:

It was not always easy to allocate some lexemes because of their strong connections with other groups, Fear and Dislike. However, once these decisions had been taken, Distress emerged as the most numerous group in the corpora, accounting for 18,8%(E) and 18,5%(P) of the examples, and 21,1% (E) and 20,6% (P) of the lexemes.

The number of examples and the number of lexemes would seem to bear out the type of evidence described by Oatley (1992: 362) which suggests that negative emotions are reported far more frequently than positive ones. Distress itself is a strong lexeme, roughly translatable by aflição, and not often used. Triste, numerically the most important lexeme in either corpus, and sad, its nearest translation equivalent and the second most important one in the EC, are probably the most central lexemes in the groups. They are the nearest antonyms to feliz and happy and, as such, figure as the opposite to happiness in psychologists' research, as in Izard (1991).

The EC provided 82 lexemes and the PC 67. Several of these lexemes are represented by very few examples, 57,3%(E) and 61,2%(P) of them accounting for only 15,2%(E) and 18,3%(P) of the total. However, in the EC, the maximum for any individual lexeme is 5,9%, for horror, then comes sad, pain, shock, suffer, bored, hurt and lonely, followed by 10 lexemes with 2-3%, and 17 with 1-2%. In the PC, triste dominates with 11,5% followed by desesperado. sofrer, horror, dor, saudade, aflito, angústia, and a further 15 lexemes with 1-2% each.

Certain lexical tendencies can be discerned within the general framework of this group. TABLE 9.3 shows how the lexemes can be roughly divided, like the Joy lexemes, into 3 levels of weak > strong emotion, with the PC again favouring stronger language than the EC, this time by quite significant percentages.

TABLE 9.4 shows how these lexemes can also be classified into those which imply that some Other person or thing is responsible, like hurt or ferido, and those in which the lexeme implies some internal process of the SENSER, or some multiple PH. type 1 - like depressed and deprimido. In the former group the PFoc verb functions normally, but in the latter the corresponding verb either does not exist, e.g. dejected, or has a different lexical meaning, as with. distract and distracted, or is rarely used, as with bewilder .

The role of the Other is often inherent in those lexemes which imply a- PHENOMENON. For example, grief and mourn imply the Other is dead; miss and saudade refer to the absence of a loved one; shock and choque imply Surprise. Embarrassed and embaraçado indicate a certain shame, sometimes at one's own behaviour, sometimes at the Other's; disconcerted and desconcertado imply uncertainty on how to proceed; others include a definitely intellectual notion like the social, moral and psychological connotations of degraded, demoralized and humilhado; and several imply physical or psychological aggression by the Other, like hurt, injured, wounded, oppressed, and ferido and oprimido.

Although several more central lexemes do not imply a PHENOMENON at a lexical level, it is usually present at a syntactic or contextual one, particularly with the stronger lexemes. This group often overlaps with others, like Fear and Dislike, but the examples chosen largely focussed on the negative feelings of the SENSER. For example, the cognates horror include traces both of Dislike and Fear; despair and desespero include a substantial element of Fear; misery and miséria often include reference in the context to the socio-economic reasons for it; and ánsia is a mixture of Distress and Desire.

The medium and weaker lexemes in this group are often not directed at a specific PHENOMENON and - to use Johnson-Laird and Oatley's test - can give sentences like I feel sad /depressed but I don't know why. Apathy or apatia is both weak and non-directed, and some might question its inclusion. However, it is a negative enough state to indicate the type of interior psychological distress which sometimes needs psychiatric help.

There are several lexemes which are difficult to translate. For example, Portuguese does not have a single lexeme to translate grief - chorar and lamentar could be used if the context allows for expressive and noisy lamentation, but does not translate the often silent quality of grief more typical of English-speaking culture. Lonely is the negative feeling associated with being alone, but the Portuguese lexeme só or sózinho refers directly to the notion of being alone, and only contextually to the notion of loneliness or solidão [3].

There is a small number of lexemes, focussing more on the SENSER, which would seem to be more physical than emotional - like dazed and aturdido, or weary and cansado - but they were included because their interpretation in context was more psychological than physical. Although only psychological examples of pain and dor were collected, they were still quantitively significant. Suffer and sofrer, and agony and agonia reveal psychological and physical elements in an almost inseparable combination. The medical profession now gives more importance to the relationship between mind and body than it did a few decades ago, but perhaps the close relationship of these lexemes to both physical and psychological problems simply reflects the point of view of more traditional folk-medicine.

In the BC it was possible to observe that most of the more significant Distress lexemes like to co-occur with each other, and with other negative emotion words, like fear, terror and disappointment, or words indicating possible related causes, such as failure, hardship and madness. As with Joy, the tendency was for the stronger lexemes to go together but, despite this, weaker lexemes, or those which reflect behaviour, like bored, bewildered and lonely, earned their place in the group partly because they were so often associated with the more central or stronger ones. Combinations with antonymic words would seem to be unusual.

Although the sheer numbers of the Distress examples would seem to contribute to the norms and averages of the corpora themselves, there are enough differences to help distinguish this group from the others. There are also interesting differences of focus between the two corpora.

As can be seen in TABLE 9.5, the overall picture of the PH. types shows that the corpora are similar in the emphasis they give to the PH. types, particularly PH. type 1, with 29,8(E) and 29,9(P). However, there are small differences in types 2-5, 21,2(E) and 17,1%(P), and types 6-11, with 48%(E) and 52,5%(P), and within the exterior PH. groups there is a divergence between the corpora, with types 6-9 with 29,8%(E) and 24,6%(P), and types 10-11 with 19,1%(E) and 27,9%(P).

The distribution of the PH. types between the different lexemes tends to vary considerably, as the distinction between Self and Other focussed Distress made in Table 9.4 might suggest. The Self focussed lexemes favour high levels of PH. type 1, as with anguish (55%), depressed (55%), desperate (52%), despondent (88%), distress (65%), grief (50%), lonely (68%), sad (47%), sorrow (69%), strain (50%), suffer (44%), unhappy (58%), weary (60%), and wretched (49%) in the EC, and aflição (58%), agitação (45%), angustia (59%), confuso (45%), dor (53%), infeliz (88%), melancólico (53%), and triste (49%) in the PC. The Other focussed ones favour the types 6-11, confound (100%), discomposure (100%), disconcerted (75%), disturb (74%), horror (73%), hurt (79%), miserable (58%), mourn (56%), and shock (70%), in the EC, and horror (93%), humilhado (79%), impressionado (89%), magoado (72%), miserável (79%), and saudade (91%) in the PC.

Like Joy, despite the fact that this emotion is associated with definite physical expression, it has its own vocabulary to express Distress related behaviour - with lexemes cry and scream - and so the number of BEHAVIOUR tagged examples is about average. Although SFoc examples still dominate the picture, the most noticeable difference of the group from the average is the high percentages of PFoc examples, 38,9%(E) and 35,8%(P)[4], particularly for the EC, which diverges 17,6% from the norm.

As with Joy, certain adjectives can be classified as either PFoc or SFoc, the ratios being 46%/54% (E) and 55%/45%(P) in these cases, a rather more equal balance than with Joy. Like happy and feliz, the adjectives triste and sad can be either PFoc or SFoc, with a tendency for attributive ones to favour the former and predicative ones the latter. Other lexemes that show a similar pattern are unhappy and infeliz, melancholy and melancólico, and miserable and miserável. The problem of SFoc/PFoc ambivalence also arises with 44%(E) and 57%(P) of all the nouns in this area. Although the general SFoc/PFoc ambivalence ratio for both corpora is high at 63%/37%, the individual lexemes vary a lot within these figures[5].

An interesting example of ambivalence at verb level is with bother, one of the weakest of the Distress lexemes, which contributes quite substantially to the small number of SFoc verbs examples. However, it is slightly more central to the Distress lexicon when it is PFoc, as in:

(9.4) This shaft had also gone wide of the mark, and he was not the man to bother about stray arrows. LJ

(9.5) "'I didn't get brain fever, I did not drop dead either,' he went on. 'I didn't bother myself at all about the sun over my head. LJ

Despite a certain lexical variety, the SFoc verbs account for only 5%(E) and 5,4%(P) of the lexemes, and they demonstrate a low degree of conscious appraisal. 59%(E) and (50%) of them are intransitive or take prepositional objects, which indicates that the PHENOMENON is lacking in importance here, and the transitive ones belong to the more peripheral lexemes[6]. 36% of the EC examples are accounted for by suffer and 83% of the PC ones by sofrer. Both verbs can be used intransitively or transitively, depending on whether they focus on the SENSER's emotional processes, or include the PHENOMENON as well. Despair and desesperar both account for about 10% of the examples, and behave in a similar fashion.

Although the percentage of SFoc nouns is lower than the average for the corpora, the low degree of countability, up to 12,5% less in the PC, and the low complementation of nouns, particularly in the EC where it is almost half the average[7], points to a greater interest in the SENSER's emotional processes than in the PHENOMENON in this area. The lower incidence of adverbial noun phrases may indicate that the need for them to describe behaviour is substituted by more specific behaviour vocabulary, or by zero copulas with adjectives and participles which describe emotional behaviour as an additive rather than central pragmatic function.

The forms of the lexemes which are well above average in both corpora are the SFoc adjectives and past participles, whether they are used attributively or predicatively, although a far larger proportion of the attributive ones are tagged for behaviour. The variety of adjectives is smaller than that of the past participles, with lonely, miserable, sad, uncomfortable, unhappy and wretched dominating in the EC, while triste accounts for nearly half of the PC, with only desconsolado, infeliz and melancólico showing a fair number. The predicative form of the past participle appears in much the same proportions in both corpora, but is more often accepted attributively in the PC than the EC. The past partiples seem to be fairly evenly distributed among the different lexemes, although bewildered, bored, bothered, confused, disturbed, embarrassed, hurt, shocked and upset, are the most numerous in the EC, and aflito, angustiado, desesperado, embaraçado, enervado, estonteado, humilhado, impressionado and magoado stand out in the PC.

In the EC the be copula appears less with the adjectives than usual, in 53,5% of the examples, although the situation with the participles is around the average[8]. Of the other examples only feel + adjective stands out as unusual with 18%, the EC average being 4,5%. The PC adjectives show a decided decrease in zero copulas to only 37,2% (from 62.4%), and although ser accounts for 16%, estar appears less than usual, and ficar not at all. On the other hand, the PC past participles show a slightly higher than average number of zero copulas, 71%, with all other copulas, including ficar, maintaining the general averages. Complementation of the adjectives and past participles is considerably lower than average in this group in both the EC and the PC[9].

There is a significant increase in the normally small average of SFoc adverbs in both corpora, and this probably matches the increase in attributive adjectives tagged for behaviour, and compensates partly for the fall in adverbial noun phrases.

Since the levels of SFoc adjective, past participle and noun complementation, and of transitivity with SFoc verbs are so low with Distress, the tendency to identify more exterior PHENOMENA than Joy must come from the PFoc lexemes. All the syntactic groups of the PFoc examples in the EC, except the past participles, are larger than usual here, but the PFoc adjectives, particularly the attributive ones, show the greatest increase and total 21,2% of the group.

The most numerous PFoc adjectives in the EC are desperate, lonely, miserable, sad, unhappy and wretched. Triste accounted for 74% of these examples in the PC, followed by melancólico and miserável. The ambivalent type of adjective accounted for 40%(E) and 65%(P) of all the PFoc adjectives. A further 20%(E) were accounted for by present participle type adjectives ending in -ING, and 13%(E) and 19%(P) went to the cognates horrible and horrível.

Except for a slight decrease in uncountability, the situation is fairly close to the overall average for the PFoc nouns[10]. This is not surprising since the Distress PFoc nouns account for nearly a third of all PFoc nouns in both corpora and therefore contribute considerably to the general averages.

Both corpora show a slightly higher than average number of PFoc verbs, 8,4%(E) and 11,3%(P)[11]. In the EC these are nearly all (94%) transitive, with bother, disturb, shock and upset being the most important of the 19 verbs involved. One interesting point about the data for the PC is that it involves 36 different verbs, a much wider variety than in the EC, and this is reflected in the wider variety of SFoc past participles. Besides this, although 62,2% of the PC examples are transitive, most of the remaining examples, 29%, are of the -SE reflexive type and nearly all of the verbs can occur in both types of structure. Afligir, ferir, impressionar, injuriar, magoar, and torturar, account for most of the transitive examples, and afligir-se and cansar-se are the most significant in the -SE group. Although the PC has relatively more PFoc verbs than the EC, one should not forget the EC -ING PFoc adjectives which are further along the gradient towards an PFoc verb than other adjectives.

As with Joy, the lexicon of Distress covers a central and wide-ranging area of emotional experience, and covers everything from moods through to very strong emotions. The need to distinguish between lexemes which simply describe the Senser’s emotion and those which also imply the involvement of the Other is already found at the lexical level, although this division has implications at the semantic and syntactic levels.

At a semantic level, although there is still a high level of PH. type 1 in this group, there is a greater tendency to blame the exterior PHENOMENA for one's Distress than there was to give them credit for for one's Joy. This is particularly true of the PC which not only prefers exterior PHENOMENA generally, but also the more explicit and consciously assessed ones of types 10-11.

The ambivalence which suggests that there is a symbiotic relationship between SENSER and PHENOMENON is even more in evidence with Distress than with Joy, and confirms the desire to project one's interior emotion onto what is seen as an exterior cause. However, although less so than Joy, Distress is still more directly SENSER-orientated than other emotions.

The behaviour of the small number of SFoc verbs and below average SFoc nouns focuses the SENSER. The high proportion of SFoc adjectives and participles also shows that the primary focus is still on the SENSER’s emotional state or processes. Moreover, the behaviour of these adjectives and participles in a high proportion of zero copula situations, together with the unusual number of emotion adverbials, also indicate that the SENSER’s emotional state is often described in conjunction with some other behaviour for which it serves as an explanation or excuse.

The higher proportion of PFoc verbs helps explain the greater proportion of Other PH. types for Distress than Joy. However, the -SE reflexive verbs here, of which over two-thirds require no further complementation, clearly express the involvement of the Self in the emotional process of the SENSER, particularly in the PC.

The next groups contemplated by Ortony et al. are Reactions to Events as they affect the Fortunes of others. These emotions are carefully described theoretically, and are a good example of the efforts made by the authors to create a theory suitable for all possible cultural variations. However, it should be expected that a system designed by God or Nature, and developed along evolutionary lines to promote Man's Self-preservation, Self-expression and other Self-orientated goals, should focus largely on the Self. The corpora suggest, moreover, that English and Portuguese speakers are possibly not very culturally conscious of the problems of others, or do not consider them the subject of emotional response.

Milan Kundera, in his novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1984: 21-2), points out that those languages which "form the word compassion by combining the prefix meaning with (com-) and the root meaning suffering (Late Latin, passio )", differ from those which form it with a word meaning feeling. He argues that compassion and pity designate sentiments that have little to do with love, or real affection, because they imply that the SENSER looks upon the other as in some way inferior. On the other hand, with those languages in which 'co-feeling' is the meaning of compassion, to have compassion / co-feeling "means not only to be able to live with the other's misfortune but also to feel with him any emotion - joy, anxiety, happiness, pain. This kind of compassion therefore signifies the maximal capacity of affective imagination, the art of emotional telepathy. In the hierarchy of sentiments it is supreme".

Virginia Woolf also describes this type of 'co-feeling' as "community of feeling", in "To the Lighthouse" in this way:

(9.6) All that would be revived again in the lives of Paul and Minta; " the Rayleys " -- she tried the new name over; and she felt, with her hand on the nursery door, that community of feeling with other people which emotion gives as if the walls of partition had become so thin that practically (the feeling was one of relief and happiness) it was all one stream, and chairs, tables, maps, were hers, were theirs, it did not matter whose, and Paul and Minta would carry it on when she was dead. VW

As we shall see, compassion and compaixão, in English and Portuguese fit into Ortony et al.'s Sorry For category, and Kundera is right when he says there is this element of feeling superior to those for whom we feel these emotions, and it is the same with pity and pena. The interesting point is that Ortony et al. and Kundera, in their different ways, both draw attention to the notion that we can feel emotion for others, something which is not mentioned much in the psychological literature on Emotion. Ortony et al. are right in distinguishing between the cognitive processes behind the 'empathy' which enables us to appreciate others' emotions, and the actual emotion this then produces in us. I feel Kundera is right, too, in implying that (positive) emotions for the fortunes-of-others are supreme in the "hierarchy of sentiments", although some might dismiss them as vicarious, or as merely reflecting the projection of oneself into the position of those in need of compassion or co-feeling Such emotions, however, imply that the SENSER must not just be psychologically sensitive, but also consciously aware.

Ortony et al. themselves (ibid: 92-3) draw attention to the fact that it is unlikely that such emotions are really totally altruistic, and that "One's affective reaction ... depends in part on the presumed desirability of an event for another person and in part on the desirability from one's own perspective of the other person's experiencing that outcome". Of the categories proposed by Ortony et al., only Sorry For and Resentment are lexicalized in both languages, there being no satisfactory lexeme for the Happy For group in either language, only 8 examples in the EC of the Gloating group, and no lexeme with which to form a Gloating group in Portuguese.

There is, therefore, one important lexical lesson to be drawn from this as well. Had Ortony et al. been speakers of a language that had a well-developed set of co-feeling lexemes, they might have expanded their Fortunes-of-Others class to include other varieties. However, since they have simplified my task and saved me the trouble of looking for probably non-existent lexemes by not doing so, let us now turn to the groups they do define.

This group is not lexicalized in either English or Portuguese. However, Ortony et al. specify it as [DISPLEASED ABOUT AN EVENT PRESUMED TO BE DESIRABLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE], with the following variables as to the degree in which:

The notion is understandable to speakers of either language and it is perfectly possible to say things like I am so happy for you, and to sincerely believe that the reasons for saying it are perfectly altruistic. There are examples in the corpora in which the SENSER expresses happiness of this kind, but in most cases a full interpretation of the situation would include reference to the SENSER's own interests as well. I found two or three examples in the EC - other such examples can be found in the PC - which might answer the description given by Ortony et al.. One example contemplates the more abstract possibility of feeling emotions because others feel them:

(9.8) and how she would feel with all their simple sorrows, and find pleasure in all their simple joys, remembering her own child-life, and the happy summer days. W

A clearly expressed example - although perhaps it is rather a suggestion of what he should feel, than a statement of what he does feel - is in Brideshead Revisited when the Catholic priest, after Lord Marchmain's deathbed acceptance of Catholicism, says:

(9.9) "You're not a Catholic, I think, Mr Ryder, but at least you'll be glad for the ladies to have the comfort of it." BH

Another, less directly expressed but understandable from the context, is in Great Expectations when Pip expresses pleasure in watching the starving convict eat the pie, although the pleasure is also associated with pity:

(9.10) Pitying his desolation, and watching him as he gradually settled down upon the pie, I made bold to say, "I am glad you enjoy it.' "Did you speak?" "I said I was glad you enjoyed it.' GE

There is no doubt that one needs a good grasp of the context before one can assess the degree to which the emotion expressed is truly altruistic.

This group is small, both from the point of view of lexemes and actual quantity of examples. The lexemes found, however, fit fairly clearly into the group, which Ortony et al. describe as being [DISPLEASED ABOUT AN EVENT PRESUMED TO BE DESIRABLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE]. The variables they see as affecting the intensity of this emotion group are the degrees to which:

(9.11) The executive resented the large pay rise awarded to a colleague whom he considered incompetent.

Ortony et al.'s Resentment can be expressed in English by envy, grudge, and resent, and the adjective/noun jealous/y. Portuguese has invejar and ressentir-se, and the adjective/noun ciumento / ciúmes. There is a rough correspondence between envy and invejar, and ciumento and jealous, but my everyday experience is that Portuguese speakers tend to be more careful in separating the differences between inveja and ciúme than English speakers are with envy and jealousy .

This lexical field is very close to Anger and there are several examples with lexemes like bitter and amargurar which border on this latter sense of resent. In the BC, one can actually see how the company kept by the main lexemes shows how close this field is to others. Jealous/y combines with several Anger, Dislike, and Distress lexemes. Envy, on the other hand, apart from favouring its synonyms, also combines with hate and fear. The company kept by resent would seem to show that it includes an element of anger resulting from a perceived unfairness of Fate, the Other, or the-powers-that-be, and the BC confirmed this, nearly all the words co-occuring with resent being synonyms of anger. Envy and invejar include an element of desire, and with jealousy and ciúmes the SENSER also fears the loss, or non-realisation, of the relationship.

Ortony et al. are right in drawing attention to the complexity of the PHENOMENON here, as, although another person is part of the PHENOMENON, there is a third element, which, in one way or another, is related to the Other. This third element means that, whatever the syntactic form of the verb in the sentence in which these lexemes appear, the general semantic scheme is of ditransitivity and implies some sort of psychological triangle. With jealousy and ciúme, the triangle is usually made up of the SENSER, an Other with whom the SENSER has or wants a relationship, and a third person who is seen by the SENSER as threatening this actual or potential relationship. The triangle with envy and invejar is between the SENSER, something s/he desires, and the Other who has this thing. Grudge has no easily expressed equivalent in Portuguese, but it falls somewhere between resent and envy in that it can refer to something positive happening to the Other, or to something possessed by the Other. Resentful corresponds roughly to the past participle ressentido. However, the resent and ressentir lexemes do not always fit neatly into this category because they can refer rather to the SENSER's own ill-fortune, only very tenuously compared to the good fortune of others, as in

(9.12) But indeed she was not jealous, only, now and then, when she made herself look in her glass, a little resentful that she had grown old, perhaps, by her own fault. W

(9.13) Acho que ela foi sempre assim, a viver de caprichos e ordens, mas deve ter-se azedado e ressentido porque enviuvou cedo. SU

Cioso is rather similar but seems rather to be directed towards some future or hypothetical competition between the possibly unlucky SENSER and the luckier Other. In practice, the ditransitivity is usually interpretable at a contextual rather than a syntactic level.

The Resentment verbs, mostly envy and invejar, are all SFoc, account for 28%(E) and 13%(P) of the examples, and describe the most consciously processed form of emotion in this group. Not only is the SFoc verb used, but the complex nature of the PHENOMENON is more frequently explicit, and the PH. type 6 is usually recognized within the sentence, as in:

(9.14) Daintry watched him with envy. He envied him in the first place for his position. ....... Daintry also envied him his wife; she was so rich, so decorative, so impeccably American. HF

(9.15) D. Diogo, com um ar entendido, sentindo mulher, invejou-lhe os anos, invejou-lhe o vigor. M

Grudge, too is ditransitive. Resent and ressentir are syntactically monotransitive, but there is a tri-dimensional aspect of the lexemes which is probably reflected in their tendency is to favour PH. type 9. This Other's behaviour is perceived by the SENSER as showing some kind of superiority to the SENSER which is insulting or prejudicial to the latter.

Although there were no examples of passivization with envied and resented in the EC, but there were a few in the BC which imply multiple SENSERS, as in, his presence at the ceremony was resented by his political rivals. The English past partiples do not qualify the objects which belong to the Other. However there are two examples of this behaviour with invejado in the PC, one of which is:

(9.16) Dispondo da legítima materna, estava esta no direito de ostentar as jóias mais caras e os vestidos mais invejados. AQ

The adjectives in the adjective/noun pairs are SFoc, and form 17% of the examples in the EC, favouring jealous and resentful. In the PC, the adjectives, ciumento and cioso and the participle, ressentido, account for 27%. The SFoc predicative adjectives usually describe the relation in much the same way as the verbs and, although occasionally they may describe character traits, no examples were found in the corpora. The attributive adjectives usually describe the SENSER or the SENSER's behaviour.

Although the only past participle, ressentido, does not necessarily require an explicit PHENOMENON in the sentence, it can be expressed, as in:

In these cases the PHENOMENON is not an agent, and Active versions of these sentences are impossible, as ressentir is either a SFoc -SE reflexive type - three of the four examples in the corpus - or a SFoc verb.

The nouns form the largest syntactic category with 55%(E) and 30%(P), and although very few are complemented by PHENOMENA, the tri-partite relationship is always implied. Portuguese seems to use either the singular or plural of ciúmes for no particular reason, but the 4 plural examples of inveja and the only plural form of jealousy referred to various SENSERS and their problems, as in:

(9.18) He had to inspire with his own confidence a lot of people who had hidden and absurd reasons to hang back; he had to conciliate imbecile jealousies, and argue away all sorts of senseless mistrusts. LJ

As a noun, grudge is perceived as singular and as lasting over time, as can be seen in the expression bearing a grudge. Ter appears once with inveja and twice with ciúmes but not at all withestar com. There are examples of nominalisation, as in:

(9.19) Dizer-vos o que era o mundo? Misturai no almofariz a inveja, o ódio, a fome, o amor, a força, o oiro, a mentira, o sangue, a sensualidade. AQ

but otherwise the reference is to a specific relation and, even with the noun, the PHENOMENON is distinguishable at the level of the context and often at the level of the sentence.

These are not emotions which can be felt without knowing why, and they cannot be called moods. One can, however, suggest that some people tend to have jealous character traits - Portuguese will use ser with ciumento and invejoso on these occasions, although there are no examples in the PC. They can be said to be consciously processed in that the nature of the PHENOMENON, which is fairly complex, is usually clearly understood. However, as can be seen in TABLE 9.6, in the EC there are 16% PHENOMENON 1 examples, nearly all of which occur when the Speaker is unsure why the SENSER is resentful or grudging. The few examples in the PC are of a similar nature.

However, the almost total lack of PFoc elements - only the PC providing a few in the form of rather ambivalent examples of invejável - would seem to confirm that the PHENOMENON is internal to the SENSER and is rarely seen as external or deliberately causing the emotion. This is understandable if one considers that these are complex emotions, dependent on the SENSER's inner psychological processes. Although the PHENOMENON is essential to the semantic understanding of these lexemes, and is always retrievable from the co-text or context, it is not seen as Agentive in any way. An unfaithful husband may behave in a way which causes his wife to be jealous, and a nouveau-riche may display his wordly goods in a way which may even be intended to cause envy, but this behaviour is not specifically lexicalised in English and Portuguese. It would seem that the behaviour of the unfaithful husband or the nouveau-riche will produce jealousy or envy only if the SENSER is aware of the situation and psychologically affected. If the wife is also being unfaithful, or the observer of the nouveau-riche's display of wealth is even richer than he is, their respective feelings might be relief and contempt!

Jealous sometimes describes another emotion - as in phrases like jealous dismay - and this has led other theorists to have problems in classifying this group of emotions. Johnson-Laird and Oatley noted it, and they classify envy and jealousy under the basic mode of Disgust. Ortony et al.'s classification, identifying this group as having a specific valency, which allows for the Fortunes-of-others and the effect this has on the SENSER, is supported by the group's syntactic and semantic ditransitivity. Their notion of variables affecting the emotion allows these variables to account for the other types of emotion associated with this group. However, since this group is numerically small, both in lexical items and in quantity of examples, one could only make strong hypotheses of this type once rather bigger corpora had been consulted.

Lexically speaking, this is a tiny area. Portuguese, I am happy to say, does not seem to have a word like gloat, and, even in English, only 39 examples were to be found for the group in the BC, including 2 examples of the German schadenfreude quoted by Ortony et al.. This does not mean that English and Portuguese speakers do not feel [PLEASED ABOUT AN EVENT PRESUMED TO BE UNDESIRABLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE], or that this emotion is not affected by the degree to which:

(9.20) Political opponents of Richard Nixon gloated over his ignominous departure from office.

which refers to a situation which can be seen in any newspaper reporting the public disgrace of politicians, or other important figures. It is not an attitude which is approved of socially, though. Not many theorists consider it as an emotion - Johnson-Laird and Oatley do not include it in their list - but Ortony et al.'s classification requires its recognition as a parallel to the Sorry For category.

Only 8 examples were collected from only 3 books for the EC, and not all of these examples are without ambiguity. Waugh, for example, seems to regard gloating as describing a rather unpleasant, sexually orientated, observing of the object of desire, as in:

(9.21) Bridey can't take his eyes off her. He was gloating on her in the most revolting way all through luncheon.' BH

Although gloat can be used intransitively, it is usually used with over + the PHENOMENON which provokes this unpleasant reaction. It can occur with the Progressive aspect - and the noun form is gloating - which indicates a certain duration. It is also used to describe behaviour, being typically an emotion we attribute to others, rather than ourselves.

(9.22) Fred was sorry for his friend Mary because her husband was killed in a car crash.

Having said this, they point out that they are referring to the "empathic emotions in that they depend upon the person experiencing them empathizing with the other". Empathy, the understanding of someone else's feeling is not an emotion in itself, but it accompanies the emotion, which has to be felt by the SENSER for the Other[12].

The most central EC lexemes in the Sorry For group are sympathy, (42,3%), pity (36,5%), and sorry for (9,5%) and, in the PC ter pena / piedade de, which jointly account for 52,2%, lastimar (13,2%) and compadecer (11,9%).

One problem that exists for this group, in both English and Portuguese, is the existence of lexemes which also appear in the Disappointment group. Sorry usually appears + for in the Sorry For group, and with (THAT) clauses under Disappointment. Pity, which appears is this group in several forms, can also be found as an PFoc noun under Disappointment, in expressions such as What a pity! or It is a pity......, and the BC showed these constructions to account for about 44% of the total occurrences of pity . The same happens with pena, with expressions like Que pena! and É pena que... which appear under Remorse. Self-pity, which can be expressed in Portuguese as ter pena de si próprio, recognises the fact that this is an emotion in which the Other can be the Self, thus acknowledging lexically some sort of division of internal and external Self.

Most, but not all, examples of sympathize and its derivatives belong here[13]. It is important to realize that the English sympathy and the Portuguese simpatia are false cognates. Sympathy, sympathise and sympathetic, all describe some kind of empathetic Sorry For feeling, or the showing of this through one's behaviour. Simpatia, simpatizar and simpático, refer rather to the type of behaviour which allows us to like and appreciate each other.

Compassion/ate, which has no verb form, is also important(10,1%). The verbs apiedar-se and compadecer-se which are related to piedade and compaixão respectively, and condoer-se, were found in the PC, as was the noun comiseração, similar to commiseration, for which only 4 examples appeared in the EC. However, commiseration would seem to imply a show of suffering or sympathising with, rather than actually feeling any emotion. The Portuguese comiseração would seem to be rather more related to the feeling.

The type of lexical cohesion examined in the BC show that this group of lexemes, apart from combining with others from the group, also favour notions that, if not classifiable as emotions, describe the normal human attitudes and reactions associated with them. Thus, sympathetic and sympathy combined with smiling, realistic, positive, sentimental, interested, and consideration, interest, attention, help, and several other related words. There were also a couple of examples with indignant / indignation which shows anger at whatever action by a third party led the SENSER to feel for the Other person. Compassion/ate combined with humane solidarity, justice, understanding, gentleness and tenderness. Pity, which is less positive, favoured Distress and Fear lexemes.

However, many of the situations in which we feel sorry for ourselves involve other emotions, particularly of the Distress variety, and not all of us are clear-headed enough to realize when we are suffering from self-pity - or are too proud to acknowledge it as such. On the other hand, although the lexemes in the Sorry For group fit quite neatly into their own group, there are no doubt examples in other groups, particularly those of Distress and Fear, which could be re-interpreted as belonging to this group if enough of the context is understood. For example, if we say:

we need to know something about John if we are to interpret his feelings as suffering co-feelings of sadness and pity for his mother, or whether his personality and situation favours an interpretation of sadness, self-pity and fear in relation to his own future without her. Since this type of analysis transgresses the frontiers of linguistics, I have tried to avoid making it even when I am fully aware of the whole situation and can draw my own, psychological, conclusions. It is for this reason that none of these examples have been classified in the Sorry For group.

As can be seen in TABLE 9.7, Ortony et al.'s analysis of Resentment as concentrating on the Fortunes of Others is borne out by the 73,5%(E) and 51%(P) that have a straightforward Other, or PH. type 6, and a further 19,4%(E) and 32%(P) related to types 7-9, which implies fairly complex underlying cognitive processes. Some of the remaining few refer to the Self, 2,1%(E) and 8,2%(P).

There is a higher than average overall proportion of SFoc items, about 86,8%(E) and 77,3%(P), and the number of SFoc noun forms in both corpora, 51,9%(E) and 57,2%(P) indicates interest in the emotional processes. They are largely accounted for by sympathy (55,1%) and pity (31,6%), and there is a high proportion (40%) of ter + noun examples in the PC, with ter + pena de/dó/piedade, The EC produced only 3 examples of have pity. The nouns are largely uncountable, with a low level of complementation and adverbial noun phrases.

The EC has 14,3% SFoc verbs - most of them being pity, with a few of sympathize. Most of the 7% of PC verbs, whether technically SFoc or PFoc, are -SE reflexive types, like apiedar-se, compadecer-se and condoer-se, with the semantic ambiguity this entails. There is a high proportion of SFoc adjectives in the EC (16,4%), mostly represented by sorry for, the rest being sympathetic. The PC has only 10% adjectives here.

The PFoc elements in the EC were the pity adjectives - pitiful, pitiable, and piteous, and a small number of ambivalent examples of sympathetic, and lastimável, confrangente, and the rather doubtful penoso in the PC.

As with Resentment, these emotions cannot be interpreted as moods. Neither, however, do they describe character traits, except, perhaps, for sympathetic, which might be thus applied to someone with an exceptional capacity for appreciating the problems of others. Despite the fact that the PHENOMENON is usually the Other and clearly defined, the syntactic evidence seems to favour the analysis that the SENSER, and particularly the SENSER's emotional processes, still take the main focus.

This is evident in the high number of SFoc items, but there is a difference between English and Portuguese in that the EC favours the SFoc verb and adjective - expressing direct personal involvement, while the ter + SFoc noun conveys an idea of possession of an emotional process, with the consequent distinction between it and the SENSER.

The Self-referring PHENOMENA, the reflexive verbs and the parallel past participle construction also support the idea that the Self - in this case, a conscious and understanding Self - is generating the emotion in some cases.

[1] The SFoc adjectives take complementation for 56,8%(E) of the examples as compared with an average of 47,2%(E), and 10,5%(P) of the examples as compared with an average of 21%(P).

The SFoc past participles take complementation for 59%(E) of the examples as compared with an average of 47%(E), and 8,2%(P) of the examples as compared with an average of 26,8%(P).

[2] The average percentages of SFoc verbs are 18,8%(E) and 14,8%(P).

[3] Anyone who doubts this point of view should try translating Miguel Esteves Cardoso's article 'Ai, Solidão. solidão' - in Os Meus Problemas (1988). ed. Assírio e Alvim, Lisboa.

[4] The corpora averages for PFoc examples are 21,3%(E) and 26,5%(P).

[5] For example, agony - 1 PFoc and 17 SFoc examples; shock - 36 PFoc / 1 SFoc. Also Horror(E) - 33% PFoc and horror (P)-54% PFoc; Desgosto and melancolia - 33% PFoc, tristeza 25%PFoc, and miséria 75%PFoc,

[6] In the PC, sofrer dominates these verbs so much that the data is more an analysis of this verb than any other, but the syntactic pattern is similar to that of the EC.

[7] The percentages of SFoc nouns + complementation in the Distress group are 6,9%(E) and 11,2%(P). The percentage for the corpora are 13,2%(E) and 15,9%(P)

[8] The average percentages for be + adjectives is 82,8%(E) and for be + past participles it is 74%(E)

[9] Complementation of adjectives is 21%(E)/8,5%(P) as compared with an average of 47,2%(E)/21%(P) and of past participles it is 26%(E)/21%(P) as compared with 47%(E) / 26,8%(P)

[10] The averages for Distress are:

Non-count = 11,1%(E) and 14%(P) compared with the averages 19,9%(E) and 20%(P)

Count = 43,7%(E) and 42%(P) compared with the averages 41,3%(E) and 41%(P)

Non sing/pl = 45,2%(E) and 44%(P) compared with the averages 39%(E) and 38%(P)

[11] The averages of PFoc verbs for the corpora are 5,2%(E) and 9,6%(P).

[12] Empathy, however, which bears a similar relation to the co-feeling described by Kundera, is not a word which is to be found frequently in literary texts, even modern ones, and the BC only produced 22 of them, probably from a book on psychology.

[13] Only the non-emotional meanings of sympathize are translatable by the Portuguese cognate, simpatizar.

[14] The data for this section demonstrate the advantages of a large corpus when a small lexical area is being examined. In the EC, pity is probably overvalued because of Virginia Woolf's and Joseph Conrad's preoccupation with this word. These texts account for about 52% of the examples of pity, while representing only about 23% of the corpus. Since pity favours the SFoc verb and noun forms, it has influenced these percentages accordingly. In any case, although both corpora show high percentages of noun forms, 51,9%(E) and 57,2%(P), the EC has 14,3%(E) of SFoc verbs and 16,4%(E) of adjectives in this group.