CHAPTER 10

These emotion groups depend very largely on the semantic fields of Hope and Fear. That these are bona fide emotions would seem fairly obvious to the layman. Fear is an emotion which has served the evolutionary purpose of protecting us from danger. Hope is that positive reaction, "that springs eternal in the human breast", that serves to keep us from despair and self-destruction, and Christians are taught to believe that Hope, like Faith, defies rationality.

Hope, however, is not often found in the lists of emotions drawn up by psychologists. Arnold (1960) is one of the few that includes it in her list, but then her view of emotion recognises a more conscious interpretation of the emotions than others. Otherwise, the emotion Ortony et al. call Hope has been subsumed under Expectancy (Panksepp, 1982), Anticipation (Plutchnik, 1980) and, possibly, Interest (Izard, 1972). One reason for this is that some psychologists consider part of the emotional state as being 'action readiness', by which they mean that, once appraisal of the situation has occurred, the resultant emotional state prepares the individual to take appropriate action - to run away if s/he is frightened, or to throw her/his arms round the person s/he loves. In this sense, Ortony et al.'s notion of Hope goes a little beyond this (pre-?) emotional phase when arousal has taken place, and is at the stage where something positive is anticipated. Whether or not it differentiates into a more specific emotion depends on events in that future, and they provide for the emotions which result from these events with their Satisfaction, Fears-Confirmed, Relief and Disappointment groups.

Ortony et al. describe the Hope group of emotions as referring to when one is [PLEASED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF A DESIRABLE EVENT], and the variables affecting their intensity are:

(10.1) As she thought about the possibility of being asked to the dance, the girl was filled with hope.

They think of Hope in conjunction with Fear, although they do not claim that “the ordinary language terms hope and fear” are antonyms. In fact, having discussed the various possibilities of hope and hopefulness, they end up by saying that “probably the expression that maps onto [their Hope emotion type] most accurately is that of anticipatory excitement”. This attitude fits in with the point of view of the psychologist which requires some form of physical reaction for an emotion to be definable as such. However, it in no way solves the problem posed by language.

The lexical width of meaning of hope, and the nearest Portuguese equivalent verb esperar, only highlights the whole language problem that Ortony et al. are trying to avoid. This is particularly noticeable with the meaning of the verb esperar which covers a wide gradient, as can be seen in the following examples and their translations:

Ortony et al.'s notion of Hope refers to the last two examples, in each language, leaving (10.2c) in a doubtful position. I hope to see you tomorrow case focusses the Speaker's desire to see someone, and I expect to see you tomorrow the certainty based on information received or a polite order. In Espero vê-te amanhã, however, one may only establish a difference by using intonation.

In English there is a close relationship between hope and expect, and expectant /cy can reasonably be considered almost as much of an emotion as hopeful. However, although expect/ation has been included in other lexicons, I agree with Johnson-Laird and Oatley (1989) that it is better classified as "a cognitive attitude that may cause emotion", as in the example from a news bulletin:

(10.3) The Japanese foreign minister arrived in Washington with high hopes but low expectations about reaching a trade agreement.

The noun esperança covers a far narrower scope that esperar and corresponds quite closely to the English noun hope. One could therefore arrive at decisions over the use of esperar as a Hope lexeme by testing the verb in paraphrases that involved esperança and expectativa (similar to expectancy / expectation ). As an English speaker, one could also select the corpus examples for esperar by choosing only those translatable by hope. However, to deny the existence of a notion of esperança in the examples with esperar, simply because English requires one to establish expect or hope in the situation, would be chauvinistic.

Esperar can be seen to run from the factual, through the intellectual to the emotional, and the syntax does not help us decide which. I can imagine that it might be difficult for a monolingual Portuguese to decide which were the more 'emotional' examples. To illustrate how difficult the choice is, here are two examples, starting with a look at the expression, à espera, with translations:

(10.4) Que estúpidas horas Carlos ali arrastara, com a "Revista dos Dois Mundos", na espera vã dos doentes, cheio ainda de fé nas alegrias do trabalho!.. M

(10.4) How many hours had Carlos stupidly dragged out there with the Revista dos Dois Mundos waiting in vain for patients and still believing in the joys of work!

In (10.4), Carlos spent hours in his doctor's consulting room waiting for patients to appear. In the context of the novel, he also hoped they would come and, in the early days, even expected it, but the physical fact of his being in the room requires the translation with wait. However, using the test of nominalisation of esperar, one could convert na espera vã dos doentes to na esperança vã de doentes (the vain hope of patients arriving). In (10.4), we have the answer of the policeman to the prisoner's surprised questioning of the information that she is to be transferred to the PIDE prison. Here there is no waiting situation, and the context would not lead one to expect that she hoped, or had hopes or esperanças, that this might happen. The policeman is asking why, given her understanding of all that has happened, she didn't expect it.

Let us now turn to some examples of the verb esperar, in order to see how the context affects translation:

(10.6) - Então, sem avisar, Vilaça? - exclamava Afonso da Maia, chegando de braços abertos. - Nós só o esperávamos para a semana, criatura! M

(10.6) "Well, how is it you've come without warning, Vilaça?" exclaimed Afonso da Maia, coming up with open arms. "We didn't expect you until next week, old man." M Tr

(10.7) Não esperava nada, não desejava nada. Não sabia se a veria, talvez ela tivesse já partido. M

(10.7) He hoped for nothing, he desired nothing. He did not know if he would see her; perhaps she had already left. M Tr.

(10.8) Só então, está certo, a sua filha se apresentará às autoridades. Espera desde já que lhe sejam devidamente garantidos os direitos facultados pela lei. BA

(10.8) Once the facts are established, his daughter will come forward, and he trusts her legal rights will be safeguarded. BA Tr.

In (10.6), Afonso da Maia is referring to the fact that Vilaça's visit had been planned for a later date, and that he was expecting rather than just hoping he would come. (10.7) was translated by hope, because the subject simply does not know enough about the situation to be able to expect anything. Hope is often used in formal wishes, but in (10.8) trust is considered more suitable, since expect would not be tactful when dealing with the Law, and hope would show signs of weakness.

Hope, in Ortony et al.'s example, obeys their criteria of being [PLEASED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF A DESIRABLE EVENT]. However, one wonders how they would view:

The event is presumably no longer desirable - or is it the prospect of the event that is no longer desirable? Or does one classify this under Fear which they see as [DISPLEASED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT], a description which might suit the situation? If that is so, how does one go on to distinguish between these examples and:

Another point that is worth noticing is that it is not normal to use hope or esperar in the negative, as in:

except, perhaps, as marked semantically, for example, as an indignant response to an accusatory:

However, if there is no information on which to base our statement, or information to the contrary, it is normal to say:

Expect, therefore, would seem to behave like other more intellectual verbs, like think and believe, and few would attribute strong emotional meaning to it. Yet hope, even when used merely to express a polite wish, still maintains a grain of emotional meaning. Ortony et al., as psychologists, will only be able to decide which examples to choose or discard by measuring the individual's blood pressure. The linguist may make an informed guess by looking at the context, or the intonation, but it is safer to give all examples of hope the benefit of the doubt, rather than argue about subjectively measured degrees of emotion.

It should by now be clear that context is very important in the decisions taken here. I hope, (but do not necessarily expect!) that Portuguese readers will not object to my having reduced the examples of esperar to those which pass the test with esperança or can be translated by expect or hope. The verb hope is already well within the area of the conscious appraisal, so let us therefore agree that there is an area here, where the distinctions of meaning are necessarily very fuzzy, and that, as so often in language, rule-making is difficult. This means that there is one very dominant lexeme in both languages in the analysis of this group - hope, with 70,1%(E), and esperar, with 71,4%(P).

The other Hope lexemes fit rather more easily into Ortony et al.'s group. The most important are excite with 21,4%(E) and excitar with 13,5%(P). At first these lexemes seemed to be more Generic in nature, but on examining the corpora, it became clear that they described Ortony et al.'s notion of 'anticipatory excitement', although they are possibly further back along the gradient towards the pre-emotional phase described as 'action readiness' than hope and esperar. Anticipation, expectancy and look forward to, in English, and antecipação and expectativa, in Portuguese, lexicalise Ortony et al.'s basic notion well. Aspire and aspirar are similar, but are usually used in contexts on a grander and, therefore, less attainable level than the other lexemes. Sanguine is rarely used but it implies a rather rational and optimistic type of hope.

The semantics and syntax of these examples also posed a series of problems about the classification made by Ortony et al.

The analysis of PHENOMENON type in this group often varied according to the form of the lexeme. As can be seen in Table 10.1, although the overall choice of Ph. type 1 was 29,5% in the EC and 35,9% in the PC, the nouns accounted for 48,5%(E) and 57,3%(P) of the examples. This is because they do not need a PHENOMENON in the same sentence, and one often has to deduce it from the general context. The excite / excitar lexemes also showed 40%(E) and 63%(P) PH. type 1, so this factor was not peculiar to hope / esperar.

The EC showed more interest than the PC in hoping about the prospects of both the Self and the Other, 40%(E) as against 21,7%(P). There are 17,9%(E) and 13,8%(P) of the Self orientated PH. types 2 - 5, usually with 'b' type clauses. Although Hope is not usually directed immediately at the Other, the two corpora differ quite markedly in the way in which they choose types 7-9 - 19,3%(E) and 5,3%(P). The PC would seem to prefer PH. types 10 and 11 with a total of 53,6%. The results for the EC show a total of 21,9% with these groups.

The first thing to be noticed about the syntax of Hope is the low proportions of PFoc lexemes. Excite is the only one in the EC with the familiar PFoc verb + SFoc past participle + PFoc present participle type adjective combination, and it provides all the PFoc examples. Similarly, excitar provides most of the PFoc examples in the PC, with the exception of two rather unusual examples of the past participle, esperado, as in:

(10.14) Esperado como um Messias, perseguido como o velocino de oiro, começava a faltar-lhe a paciência. AQ

Most of the rest of the lexemes, bar the SFoc past participles excited and excitado, are to be found among the SFoc nouns and verbs. In the EC the number of nouns, although well above the corpus average, still accounted for considerably fewer of all the examples, 31,4%, than that of the verbs, 46,9%, whereas the PC yielded almost 49,3% nouns and 35,9% verbs, and the vast majority of the noun forms belong to hope and esperar. The larger proportion of noun examples in the PC may be due to the need for Portuguese to clarify the Hope scenario, by using the noun esperança. The proportion of countable nouns is higher than the average, and in the PC this is partly due to the frequent use of the plural esperanças, as in:

(10.15) O médico tirara-lhe todas as esperanças. A doença avançara de mais.. A

(10.16) I know that Brown hated Jim at first sight. Whatever hopes he might have had vanished at once. LJ

The idea of countability was not, however, limited to these plurals. By adding the examples which took a defining complement in the form of a noun phrase or a clause, we found that this group of nouns was exceptionally countable, with 45,1%(E) and 53,3%(P). All these examples suggest that they are rather parallel in nature to examples with the more intellectual thought.

The verbs, and the complementation they take, are perhaps the most interesting syntactic clue to the nature of hope and esperar, and of the difference between them. There are token intransitive examples for both lexemes, of the ellided variety which imply an understood PHENOMENON in the context, as in:

(10.18) É esta a mais grandiosa história dos homens, a de tudo o que estremece, sonha, espera e tenta, sob a carapaça da sua consciência, Si

Esperar also has a small number of esperar-se examples, of the Subject-less Espera-se... type which in English would be rendered by the Passive It is hoped....

Most of the verbs are transitive but, whereas about 50%(P) of the esperar examples take a simple noun phrase, none of the hope ones do. These examples with esperar are those which may arguably be substitutable by a phrase with esperança, but which would largely be translated by expect, or perhaps hope for. Other than these, the PC verbs show a 12%(P) proportion of examples complemented by 'b' type infinitive clauses and 26%(P) proportion of 'g' type QUE clauses.

In the EC, the examples with 'a' objects in this group, 6%(E), appear largely with look forward to. The hope verb can only take a simple noun phrase if it combines with the preposition for, as in:

(10.19) I knew too much already to hope for the grace of a single uplifting touch, for the favour of hinted madness, of shadowed horror. LJ

and these examples account for only 6,5%(E) of the verb examples. The hope verb requires clausal complementation and accounts for 60%(E) of the examples with 'g' type clauses and a smaller one of 'f' ones, 12,5%(E), with a further 12,5%(E) of 'b' type clauses.

Hope and esperança are seen as well defined basic concepts, with eight examples of nominals being found in the EC and three in the PC. Then there was a large proportion of PH. type 1 examples, but one cannot deduce from this that emotions in the Hope group are something undirected, like a mood. There is always the idea that the SENSER hopes for his/her current situation or prospects to improve in the future. It is perhaps this type of situation which has encouraged the consideration of Hope as an emotion.

The analysis of the rest of the corpora begs a lot of questions over both Ortony et al.'s psychological classification, and the more linguistic adaptation I have made. The Hope emotion group, according to them, focuses on “Fortunes of Self, prospect-based emotions”. The lexical extension of the group did not contest this focus, but merely enlarged the semantic variation of emotional or intellectual responses to the prospect-based fortunes of Self. How, therefore, can one explain why the PHENOMENON may not only involve the Self but also the Other, and a variety of other things?

It is possible that one could suggest a small new co-feeling category for Ortony et al. called, perhaps, “Fortunes of Others, prospect-based” formed by those examples in which the Other forms (part of) the PHENOMENON. This might even be possible in a psychological approach which depended on the analysis of whole situations. However, it would be difficult at a more linguistic and contextual level to decide on which of these examples were truly altruistic, and which reflected hoping about the Other's fortunes only insofar as they affected the Self's. However, providing a wide enough view of Ortony et al.'s EVENTS is understood, these examples can be seen as 'prospect-based events'. The fact that the EC specifies the role of the Self and Other more than the PC may be due to the greater specificity, and level of conscious appraisal, which is a feature of the clausal complementation more frequent in the EC.

It should be noted that, despite all my attempts to collect examples in both corpora which occurred only within a certain semantic gradient, the results in this group have been rather uneven. For a start the EC contains a higher proportion of examples in this group in relation to the total of all the lexical groups considered, 4,4%, making it seventh in numerical importance, and the PC accounts for only 2,5% of the total, which leaves it in the eleventh position in the PC. Besides this, there are the differences in PH. types mentioned above.

To opt for some big cultural difference which showed the PH. types of the EC as more interested in people and those of the PC in things, would be to speculate wildly. What we may be looking at here, however, is a difference in the lexical-cultural way in which the hope > expect and hope > want gradients, as well as the hope > liking gradient, are expressed.

As we have seen, a lot of the examples of esperar accepted for analysis were arguably translatable by expect. I would suggest, therefore, that there may be some Politeness Principle here which makes it more acceptable for Portuguese speakers to esperar something than to expect it. However, the relatively larger numbers of Portuguese examples in the Desire and Liking groups may indicate different conventions for the use of all the relevant lexemes when they are used in social formulae.

One type of emotion whose status as such is accepted by virtually everyone is that of Fear. It can be defined by evolutionists as essential to survival in all animal species, and can be shown to produce both externally noticed and internally felt physical reactions by the Behaviourist psychologists. Even the reductionists will accept it within their group of negative emotions.

The Fear group of emotions is described by Ortony et al. (ibid : 112) as referring to when one is [DISPLEASED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT], and the variables affecting their intensity are:

(10. 20) The employee, suspecting he was no longer needed, feared that he would be fired.

They thus see the sense of these lexemes as varying according to how likely the event is, quoting dread as an example from this group which presupposes that the event will occur (ibid : 114). They also believe that there is some correlation between the intensity of the emotion and the extent to which the event is perceived as inevitable.

The notion that Fear is directed towards the future, or is prospect based, is essential to the analysis of this group. This way of viewing the situation also allows for one to re-interprete the linguistically expressed Mary's fear of snakes as the EVENT to which Ortony et al. refer. Although Mary's fear is linguistically directed at snakes, a psychologist might point out that what she is really afraid of is what the snake might do to her in a hypothetical future.

Fear and medo are the lexemes which seem to satisfy both the psychologists and the linguists as the central words for expressing this emotion, and as noun forms they usually translate each other quite easily.. According to the corpora, they are also the most popular in this group, fear accounting for 15,1%(E) and medo for 19,5%(P), as can be seen in Table 10.2. Other cognates which are central to Fear and are similar in meaning are the stronger lexemes like terror, panic or pânico and alarm or alarme.

Table 10.2 lists lexemes on a three level scale of weak > strong. However, there is a scale of immediacy which should be taken into account. The lexemes of the less immediate type describe the SENSER on a scale from being predisposed to Fear by nature, to being in a state of Fear of a certain duration in a given situation, and tend to be largely in group 1, with some, like anxious, in group 2. The more immediate type usually refer to specific situations, as with alarm, frighten, and terrify, and alarmar, asustar, perturbar and preocupar. As we shall see, the immediacy scale can explain certain syntactic patterns, but the interesting point is that the more central lexemes fall in the middle of the immediacy scale.

Among the weaker and less immediate lexemes, shy is very similar to timid and together they are close quantitatively to tímido, expressing character traits predisposing a person to fear, or describing behaviour associated with fear.. Bashful and acanhado are less popular synonyms and more usually applied to behaviour than character. Nervous and nervoso, stronger lexemes, can refer both to reactions to situations and character traits, sometimes of a more pathological or abnormal nature. One can be naturally pessimistic about life in general or about a specific situation. It is possible to have negative intuitions about future events but few of these lexemes, except foreboding and misgiving, necessarily imply Fear. Several lexemes refer to a rather unspecified weaker feeling of Fear, such as disquiet, ill-at-ease, insecure and uneasy, and inquieto, this latter lexeme accounting for 7,6% of the PC group and being rather broader in scope than the EC lexemes. Others express a well-specified fear of the PHENOMENON, as with threatened, harrassed and daunted, and intimidado and acobardado.

A substantial number of the weaker and medium strength lexemes imply involvement with the PHENOMENON in a way which implies a certain duration of the situation and a considerable degree of conscious appreciation. In the EC, the most popular of these is worry, and others are apprehensive, care about, concerned, fret, perplexed, perturbed and preoccupied. Inquietar-se, preocupar-se, and perturbar-se, are of interest, and there are a few examples of apreensivo and perplexo. The problem with cognates here is due not so much to lack of similarity about the basic meaning of the words, but to the strength attributed to them. For example, preoccupied is both infrequently used and weak, in that it usually means that the person is interested in some problem and fails to notice what is happening around him, but preocupado is used a lot in the stronger sense of worry. Perturbed is also used little, and tends to need qualification from an intensifier like very to give it force, but perturbado contains a strong element of Distress as well as Fear.

There are quite a few more central medium strength lexemes in the EC, such as the popular frightened, and, to a lesser degree, scared, the more formal trepidation, the more informal creeps, funk and jitters, and that mixture of fear and respect, awe. The PC has temer, receio and others like assustado, atemorizado and amedrontado.. These lexemes fall in the middle in terms of immediacy.

Some lexemes for Fear, like afraid, are not so simple as they at first appear. Afraid poses a problem because, although afraid of fits into this type, afraid that can usually only be considered within Fear if the tense of the subordinate clause refers to present or future possibility in relation to the tense of the main clause. When the subordinate clause refers to a past event, afraid that is usually classifiable as similar to regret, in the (Self-) Reproach group[1]. If one examines the following examples closely, one can see how this distinction can be made:

Whereas a) clearly expresses Fear and c) Regret, one may hesitate over the interpretation of b). This is because the subordinate clause seems to refer to something that has already happened. However, the may makes the 'pastness' of the event hypothetical and, therefore, the Speaker is expressing Fear that this hypothesis will be confirmed in the future.

Worry, too, poses problems of analysis, as it can be used both as an SFoc verb, as in She worried about him, and as a PFoc verb, as in His behaviour worried her . Anxious also cannot always be classified under Fear. Constructions with TO or (THAT) clauses more often than not classifiable under Desire, as in They are very anxious to have your co-operation in the publishing section which deals with Africa. The Portuguese ansioso por behaves in a similar fashion, although, interestingly, at the level of nouns we have ansiedade, which, like anxiety, belongs to the Fear group, and ânsia which, usually belongs to the Desire group, but has a strong element of Distress.

Cowardice and courage, covardia and coragem, and their synonyms, despite the fact that some psychologists consider them emotions, were not included here because they indicate an outsider's moral judgement on someone else's behaviour in circumstances that might cause Fear, rather than direct reference to emotional processes. All the same, craven and acobardado crept into the corpora because of the strong element of Fear associated with them in context.

At the stronger end of the scale in Table 10.2, the EC includes items such as frantic, frenzy and petrified because, although not necessarily related to Fear, they appeared in appropriate contexts in the corpus. In the PC, the cognate, frenesim, did not appear in this sort of context, whereas petrificado did. Dread and pavor stand out in the corpora as strong lexemes, but the inevitability of the event sometimes implicit in dread described by Ortony et al. does not seem to be implicit in pavor. The PC presents a wider variety of past participles of lexemes in this area than the EC.

The lexical company kept by lexemes in this group reveal clues as to how one can interpret them. Afraid, because of its unusual syntactic behaviour was found to reject any combinations in the BC, but most of the more central lexemes liked to appear with each other, or with the stronger items from other negative groups like Distress and Anger. Occasionally they combined with a contrasting idea, as when dread appears with delight and relief, fear with love and pleasure , and anxious with hopeful and admiration. Panic likes association with its possible causes, and awe occurs largely with admiration, respect and wonder. The weaker lexemes like shy, tend to occur with others that are similar, but outside the Fear field, such as sensitive, unassuming and reserved, and timid with diffident, soft-spoken and dependent. Uneasy, with its notions of Fear and Distress, tends to combine with tense, restless, suspicion, and several unrelated words whose relevance is only understandable in context.

Examples of the semantic and syntactic behaviour of Fear are often quoted to demonstrate points about this area of our experience, so a careful look at what actually happens in a quantitative analysis is interesting.

Although this is an area where one would expect a PHENOMENON to be identifiable, the fact is that, in context, 32,1%(E) and 39,4%(P) take PH. type 1, as can be seen in Table 10.3. PH. types 2-5 are fairly low in number, 18,8%(E) and 11,8%(P). This leaves 48,6% for types 6-11 for both corpora, but whereas the EC shows 30,9% for types 6-9 and 17,8% for types 10-11, the PC has only 25,3% for types 6-9 and 22,3% for types 10-11. However, there is a definite tendency for certain types of lexeme to favour certain PHENOMENA.

In the EC, the PH. type 1 is favoured by apprehension, fear, frantic, nervous, shy, timid, and uneasy. There are a relatively high number of the usually poorly represented PH. type 2, most of them being the more obviously character describing lexemes of nervous, shy and timid . There are also examples of PH. type 2 which refer to a form of emotion focused directly on the Self, or personality, with fear and uneasy, as in:

(10.22) And even for those who do not believe this truth there is fear all the same--the fear of themselves. LJ

Afraid, anxious, frighten, terror, and uneasy are the only lexemes which show significant percentages of the PH. types 3-5. The PH. types 6-11 tend to dominate the lexemes afraid, alarm, awe, care, concern, dread, fright, scared, terror, threatened, and worry. The Other, or the Other's behaviour, accounts for 30,9% of all the PHENOMENA, other objects for 15% and only 2,8% belong to type 11.

The evidence from the PC gives a similar picture. Type 1 is favoured by ansioso, apreensivo, atarantado, enfiado, inquieto, nervoso, perplexo , and tímido. There are a few type 2 examples describing character traits with medroso, nervoso and tímido. Again few lexemes show much interest in types 3-5, except for preocupação, and receio. Types 6-11 are favoured by assustado, aterrado, medo, pavor, perturbado, preocupado, recear, sobressalto, temer and terror, although, as with the EC, there seems to be no particularly unusual tendency to favour specific PHENOMENA within the types.

The proportion of SFoc examples in this group are 5-6% above the corpora averages at 84,4%(E) and 78,7%(P), and the number of examples tagged for behaviour is slightly higher than normal. Unlike the Joy and Distress groups, this group showed little tendency to use adjectives ambivalently, except with fearful and fretful.

There is one obvious difference between the the two corpora in the SFoc data - the EC has a unusually high percentage of adjectives and the PC has a correspondingly high level of nouns. This is easily explainable as what is expressed in English by afraid can only usually be said in Portuguese with phrases like ter medo. The afraid adjective is unusual in that it is exclusively predicative in nature, and it should also be noted that the ter + noun structure is unusually frequent in this group, 17,9% of the noun examples against the corpus average of 6,9%.

The SFoc adjectives in the EC are dominated by the predicative afraid. However, the number and level of attributive adjectives in both corpora is also above average. with the less immediate adjectives anxious, uneasy, nervous and shy and nervoso, inquieto, tímido, ansioso and perplexo being the most important.

In the EC there are more SFoc nouns than the corpus average, with fear alone accounting for 35,6%, and the most important other nouns being terror, anxiety, dread, panic, fright, perplexity, apprehension and shyness. There is a noticeable tendency towards countability, or the non-singular / plural group, and noun complementation is above average, with fewer adverbial noun phrases. One noticeable difference here is the high percentage of BEHAVIOUR tagged examples, about 10% more than normal.

The percentage of SFoc nouns in the PC reaches 39,4%, 5% above average, and medo accounts for 41,5% of the examples, with terror, receio, inquietação / inquietude, preocupação, ansiedade, timidez, alarme, perturbação, sobressalto and pavor making up most of the rest. Unlike the EC, however, there is a 8% increase in non-countable examples at the expense of the other two groups. Complementation is 15% higher than usual and the number of adverbial phrases is 7,7% more frequent.

The SFoc past participles are only slightly above the average number of examples for the group, although the lexical variety is fairly wide, particularly in the PC. The EC shows decided preference for the more immediate type lexemes which favour specific PH. types, frightened, worried, and scared being the most popular, others being concerned, alarmed, terrified, awed and threatened. In the PC the examples are distributed more evenly among perturbado, aterrado, preocupado, assustado, espavorecido, alarmado, atarantado, pavorado and acanhado. The type of copula used in the EC is normal, but in the PC the immediacy of the nature of the lexemes used is clear in that there are more zero copulas than usual, 69,1%, more examples of ficar, 12,2%, and estar and ser could only raise 6,5% between them. Some of the more doubtful copula-types appear here, with abalar, acordar, fugir and vir.

Complementation of SFoc adjectives and past participles is high for this group in the EC, reaching 75% with adjectives. This fits in with the need for afraid and other adjectives for complementation, and with their tendency to favour explicit PH. types This type of complementation is generally far rarer anyhow in the PC, but in this group it is still below average.

The SFoc verbs are about 8%(E) and 5%(P) less frequent in this group than the corpora averages, with 10,5%(E) and 9,3%(P). In the EC, 69,4% of these are transitive verbs, 19% take prepositional objects and 11,6% are intransitive. Worry provides 41,6% of the examples, with fear, care, dread and fret providing most of the rest. In the PC, 76,7% are transitive, 19,4% are verbs + -SE, and 3,9% are intransitive. Temer-se (44,6%) and recear (40,5%) are the most important verbs with a few examples of others like preocupar-se .

There was a problem in deciding which of certain PFoc adjectives to include in the analysis because several of the apparent candidates have lost their original Fear-inspiring meaning. Words like awful, dreadful and terrible, and medonho and terrível, have become devalued with usage and are used more often as general intensifiers, particularly in their adverbial form. The examples that were collected were those in which an element of Fear was still detectable.

The PFoc adjectives were 2,5% lower than average in the EC and, as is normal, most of them were attributive and central in meaning. Terrible / terrifying, frightful / frightening, alarming, dreadful and fearful accounted for most of them. In the PC the average was 2,2% above average and 65% of them were due to terrível, with medonho, temível and pavoroso making up most of the rest. The few examples of PFoc nouns, except for one or two examples of threat, were of the ambivalent kind, alarm, anxiety and terror, and alarme and terror.

Although slightly above the corpus average in the EC, the PFoc verbs are less than half as frequent as their corresponding SFoc participles, and frighten, scare and threaten account for most of them. In the PC, the situation is a little different with the SFoc past participles covering 11,2% of the group and the PFoc verbs 8%. This difference in balance is probably explicable by the tendency of Portuguese to prefer the PFoc -SE verb, often used with no further Object, to the copula + past participle construction.

Although Fear is so acceptable as an emotion, the lexical group can be seen to less homogenous than some of the others. For example, if one were to eliminate the examples with the anxious / shy type lexemes and the examples of fear and medo which favour the PH. type 1, the balance would swing heavily towards the evaluation of this group as one in which the cognitive processes display a high degree of conscious appraisal, however rapidly and apparently sub- or unconsciously it may be occur. This may be why so much argument has gone on around James' example as to whether the man sees the tiger, runs away and then realises he felt fear, or whether he sees the tiger, appraises the situation, and is prompted by fear to run away.

James' interpretation presumes that the self-defence mechanism is merely intuitive and requires no reasoning powers. However, now that the fear of tigers would be described as being acquired culturally and not genetically, it can be seen as the result of complex cognitive processes. After all, if the man does not have some cognitively stored information about the tiger qua tiger, how will he know whether to run, or in which direction? If fear is to fulfil its practical and evolutionarily necessary role of protecting a person from danger, the PHENOMENON must be identified easily and quickly, and the greater and more immediate the danger, the stronger the emotion and the more essential the correct recognition of the PHENOMENON.

The only problem that arises when considering the type of situation exemplified by the tiger, where quick identification of the dangerous object is urgently necessary, is whether Ortony et al.'s definition of Fear as the reaction to an undesirable EVENT is still cognitively defensible, or whether the notion of 'object' is a better analysis in these cases. One can argue, as I did with Mary's fear of snakes above, that the cognitive scenario involves a projection from the immediate object to the prospect of the event in which the object behaves dangerously. However, as Penrose points out, the time span necessary for such complex reasoning to take place before possibly life-saving action is taken does not comply with the known laws of the physics of perception. If one wants to analyse the situation in terms of perception and cognition, the question is whether the brain stores a simple image of a tiger, strongly marked for danger, which is easily and rapidly accessed, or whether it stores information of a more propositional and complex type, the processing of which would probably not allow the man to escape in time. We cannot answer this sort of question at present, so while we wait for Penrose to prove his theory of correct quantum gravity, we must either accept some sort of non-physical explanation, or opt for identifying the PHENOMENON in such cases as an OBJECT rather than an EVENT.

However, the situations in life which need such rapid identification of danger do not occur with much frequency outside a Rambo type film, so the notion of EVENT is still applicable to most cases of fear. As we move away from the more immediate types of fear, one can view the situations involved as requiring greater or lesser action readiness, and the analysis by those who see an emotion like Fear as the function which prepares us to solve problems that arise in life, becomes more relevant for a broader analysis of this field. Therefore, however, undirected shyness, anxiety or even fear may seem, they still essentially perform the function of preparing us to take positive future action even if it is against some ill-defined unpleasant prospect in the future.

The linguistic analysis made here would seem to reflect certain aspects of a wider analysis of the biological function of Fear. However, it is possible to see why at least English-speaking psychologists theorize about fear in the way they do. Although they are not used with great frequency, the wide variety of lexemes of the PFoc verb + SFoc past participle type probably encourages people to generalise from these about the nature of Emotion and Fear in particular. However, although most of the few examples marked DELIBERATE, signifying that the PHENOMENON is a deliberate and intentional action by an Other, are to be found with these PFoc verbs in Fear, the point that both psychologists and linguists usually miss is that, even in this lexical group, they are very rare.

Ortony et al. define as the Satisfaction group that in which the SENSER is [PLEASED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PROSPECT OF A DESIRABLE EVENT], and the variables they suggest as affecting its intensity are:

(10.24) When she realized that she was indeed being asked to go to the dance by the boy of her dreams, the girl was gratified.

However, they readily admit that this group is hard to realize lexically in English because, like the Fears-Confirmed group it pairs with, these emotions “may not be experientially very salient because they are often masked by other emotions” (ibid : 119). In the example they have given, gratified could easily be substituted by pleased or happy without much change in the meaning of the situation, although the resulting examples would belong to the Appreciation and Joy groups respectively.

Satisfaction is closely related to both the Joy and Appreciation groups. The definition for the Joy group is a simplified form of that given here, being simply [PLEASED ABOUT A DESIRABLE EVENT], and does not describe the greater complexity conveyed either by the psychological or lexical concepts of Satisfaction discussed here. Johnson-Laird and Oatley (1989) consider satisfy to be “Causative: to please someone by an action that meets their desires”, so one could then interpret the SFoc past participle as [PLEASED BY SOMEONE'S ACTION WHICH MEETS ONE'S DESIRES]. This definition would bring satisfied very close to Ortony et al.'s Appreciation definition as [APPROVING OF SOMEONE ELSE'S PRAISEWORTHY ACTION], although it lacks the almost moral connotations of approve and praiseworthy. As we shall see below, there is a distinct discrepancy between Ortony et al.'s psychological interpretation and appropriation of the lexeme satisfaction and that given in the dictionaries. I suppose I could have extracted only the relevant examples for this group, and some of the more explicit examples from the Joy and Appreciation groups that fitted the complex type of situation envisaged, but this work would have led to a result that would have conformed more to psychological and textual than more strictly linguistic criteria.

Given the complexity of the lexemes involved and undesirability of relegating them to another group, therefore, the analysis of satisfy and the other lexemes contemplated here has often been carried out with a view to examining the lexemes involved, and the rather limited emotional content associated with them, rather than the psychological situation described by Ortony et al.

After much deliberation, only satisfy and a few examples of gratify were examined for this group, the past participle versions of gratified being included in the Gratification group, which in turn was assimilated into the Pride group, given its similarity and the sense of the lexemes in context. If one consults the dictionaries on satisfy , one will find that there is a general consensus that satisfaction, when it describes human emotions, involves a feeling of happiness or pleasure from something one is doing or has done oneself, or which someone else has done for you. It is here that one can find the reason why satisfaction, the lexeme, does not map onto Ortony et al.'s Satisfaction, the emotion. The lexical definition refers to something desirable that has happened already, whereas the psychological definition refers to the “prospect of a desirable event” in the future, real or hypothetical.

A similar analysis to that given for satisfy / satisfaction can be given for satisfazer / satisfação. Saciar is a very doubtful contestant for this classification, but I decided to include it to give some comparison with satisfazer which it resembles lexically, if not within Ortony et al.'s classification. The English cognate satiate is slightly different in meaning, being more physical in connotation, and did not appear in the EC. In fact, the aspects of the lexical satisfy and satisfazer which are common to gratify and saciar show the shortcomings of the name Ortony et al. give to this group.

The type of PHENOMENA that can be found with the examples in this group are fairly predictable, as can be seen in Table 10.4. There is a fair percentage of PH. type 1 examples, most of which would seem to occur with past participles which refer to situations in the context which suggest a multiple type 1. There are a few type 2 examples of being satisfied with oneself. Otherwise the 33,3%(E) and 41,2%(P) examples belong to types 3-5, the distribution being fairly even in the PC, but focusing on type 5 in the EC. The EC shows 47,8% in the types 9-11, and the PC shows 41,2%. Although the corpora differ on whether they focus things more than the Other's behaviour, the fact remains that a high percentage of both corpora belong to the more explicit types 9-11 and type 5.

The syntax of this group is fairly similar in certain respects in both corpora. The division into SFoc/PFoc is very close and both show a fairly normal level of BEHAVIOUR examples. The SFoc examples show strong preferences for the past participle form and both corpora also have a fair number of SFoc. There are no SFoc verbs. The EC showed a preference for the PFoc adjectives, but the PC more than made up for this with its PFoc verbs, and each showed a small percentage of nouns. The PFoc verbs in the EC included 3 examples of the reflexive construction with satisfy , and 7 examples in the PC with satisfazer-se.

Although examination of the examples and their general context would suggest that they answer the criteria of [BEING PLEASED] about an EVENT and sometimes an OBJECT, there seem to be hardly any examples which fit Ortony et al.'s future biased 'prospect', as most of them refer to the past or immediate present. The examples seem to show a fairly high degree of conscious appraisal of the PHENOMENON, despite the lack of SFoc verbs. This is probably because there would seem to be a definite cause-effect relationship between the PFoc verb and the SFoc past participle.

Satisfaction would seem to be associated with emotion, but it does not easily fit into either the category provided for it by Ortony et al., or any of the others except, if we stretch a point, to Appreciation. This analysis is included here, but I feel that Ortony et al. need to modify their use of lexical tokens and the title they give to the group if they wish to include it in the area they define for it. The need for a re-assessment is also borne out by the fact that lexemes for the next group, which would parallel them, are also non-existent in both languages.

The Fears-confirmed emotions are specified as being those in which the SENSER is [DISPLEASED ABOUT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PROSPECT OF AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT] and the related variables are:

(10.25) The employee's fears were confirmed when he learned that he was indeed going to be fired.

However they make no attempt to lexicalise this notion in English and nothing was forthcoming in Portuguese. No doubt we could find examples of this type of situation at the level of the text, but the process would not involve normal linguistic analysis.

The emotions in this group are described by Ortony et al. as being [PLEASED ABOUT THE DISCONFIRMATION OF THE PROSPECT OF AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT], and the variables affecting their intensity are:

For reasons that will be explained below, I decided to extend Ortony et al.'s definition and include examples that could more appropriately be defined as [LESS DISPLEASED ABOUT THE DISCONFIRMATION OF THE PROSPECT OF AN UNDESIRABLE EVENT].

One of the difficulties with deciding on which lexemes to include in this group was that, whereas relief alone produced a large proportion of the EC examples, the PC was poorly represented by alívio. In similar contextual situations and in translations of relief and its synonyms, the notion was sometimes represented by calmar, tranquilizar and sossegar. These lexemes seem to use the PFoc verb and SFoc past participle far more frequently than their cognates, calm and tranquil, which prefer the more ambivalent adjective form, and, although we have the phrasal verb calm down, tranquilize is usually only used in a medical sense. To use all the examples of these lexemes was impractical, so I decided to opt for the rather imperfect decision to omit the more marginal calmar and tranquilizar and their cognates, but to include sossegar which seemed to conform more closely to the Relief scenario.

All of the lexemes analysed here can function as PFoc verbs, and the overall emphasis is on the causative function of the lexemes. Strictly speaking, only relief and reassure, and alívio and sossegar can be usually interpreted as a direct reaction to the removal of Fear. Appease, mollify and pacify, and apaziguar and aplacar are more related to the cessation of Anger, and comfort, console and soothe, and confortar, consolar, and descansar to the removal of Distress. However, since these emotions are related, I decided to opt for this rather broader analysis.

Relief dominates the EC group, with 43,7% of the total, followed by comfort (22,7%), reassure and soothe with 10,9% each, console (8%) and the rest with only 3,8% between them. Alívio, although central, accounts for only 23,1%, and sossegar (32,1%) and consolar (26%) are more popular, confortar has 9% and the remaining 5 lexemes account for 9,6% between them.

The PH. type 1 appears only in 5,1% of the examples in the EC, as can be seen in Table 10.5. However, there are 20,6% in the PC, thanks to sossegar, and in contexts where the reasons for Relief are multiple. 26,6%(E) and 20,3%(P) of the examples are in the type 3-5 groups, but the majority in both cases belong to the 6-10 groups, 68,4%(E) and 59,2%(P), with a large proportion of type 9 cases.

This is one area in which the SFoc/PFoc balance is actually weighted heavily towards the PFoc side in the EC, and a little less so in the PC. There are no SFoc verbs in the EC but sossegar appears in the unusual forms of an intransitive verb and as an imperative in the PC. However, on these occasions, the meaning is similar to calm down, so the examples are very marginal and unrepresentative of the group.

The nouns, both SFoc and PFoc, form one of the most numerous groups. All the PC nouns are ambivalent on a 51/49 SFoc/PFoc ratio, although only comfort and relief are like this in the EC, comfort being nearly all PFoc and relief more SFoc.

The PFoc verbs and adjectives correspond lexically to the SFoc past participles although, unlike most other groups, the verbs are more numerous than the latter. Relief is the only one of the lexemes which does not fall into this pattern, its past participles being nearly three times as numerous as the verbs and adjectives.

The group as a whole seems to focus on the PHENOMENON and this is well-defined and frequently the S of the PFoc verb. The central lexeme in the EC, relief, would seem to be the exception in preferring the SFoc syntactic feature, but the type of PHENOMENON that occurs with it is usually well-defined. The other lexemes tend to focus the PHENOMENON more than the SENSER, but although the PHENOMENA are defined the process of feeling Relief is still up to the SENSER.

Although this is an emotion which can be related to a welcome decrease in physical tension and can be noted in facial expression, there is no doubt that the cognitive processes involved are quite complex and require the type of scenario described by Ortony et al. above.

This group, which is smaller than Relief, is described by Ortony et al. as being [DISPLEASED ABOUT THE DISCONFIRMATION OF THE PROSPECT OF A DESIRABLE EVENT], and the variables which affect its intensity are :

(10.27) The girl was disappointed when she realized that she would not be asked to the dance at all.

The lexemes from this group include several easily defined ones like disappoint itself, dismay, dispirited, and more marginally, discontented, disenchanted and dissatisfied in the EC. The PC favours desanimar, desapontar with smaller numbers of desalento, desiludir and insatisfeito. The interesting point, for the EC, is that certain lexemes that function in other groups also have examples which belong to this group. Afraid, pity and regret, also associated with the Fear, Sorry for and Remorse groups, all have examples which had to be grouped under Disappointment. Lamentar and a few examples of pena, were considered for this group, but the reference in context was too often not specific enough and so they were classified in the Remorse group.

Although disappoint (28,2%) is the most popular lexeme in the EC, afraid (27,7%) accounts for nearly as many, pity (13,6%), and the rest for smaller percentages. In the PC, the most popular are desiludido (26,8%), and desanimado (25,4%). Desapontado (18,3%) is less frequent.

There are difficulties with assessing this group. It is small for both corpora, particularly the PC. This was largely due to decisions on whether to include examples here or under Remorse. Whereas Ortony et al. make the distinction between 'prospects of events' in this group, and EVENTS, which are usually interpreted as people's (past) actions, in the Remorse group, several lexemes seem to be able to fulfil both scenarios. Whether or not they were classified as Disappointment or Remorse, therefore, depended on what they actually did in the contexts in the corpora.

The types of Phenomenom vary considerably between the corpora, with PH. type 1 producing only 13% for the EC but 50,7% for the PC, as can be seen in Table 10.6. Although the balance is partly redressed by an 18% proportion of types 3-5 in the EC, with only 2,8% in the PC, this still leaves the EC with 64% of the examples orientated towards the exterior, and the PC with only 46,5%.

Unlike Relief, which describes the opposite type of scenario, this group is largely SFoc, although the corpora differ in their SFoc / PFoc ratios. The examples marked for BEHAVIOUR are fairly low for both corpora. Therefore, the PH types reflect the syntactic trends. The EC is more PFoc than usual, has more clearly defined PHENOMENA, and a higher proportion of complementation with both nouns and past participles. On the other hand, the PC is less clear about its PHENOMENA and is much more focused on the SENSER and the emotional processes, as can be seen by the high proportion of SFoc nouns.

The EC has a high number of SFoc adjectives because of afraid, and over half of the past participles are disappointed, making a total of 56%. The PC has fewer examples in this area, all of them past participles from several lexemes. Both corpora have a fair number of SFoc nouns coming from most lexemes, and the only noun which shows signs of being ambivalent is disappointment.

The syntactic distribution of the PFoc lexemes differs for reasons linked to the nature of the lexemes themselves. Whereas the EC examples are largely noun forms from pity of the It is a pity that.... type, the PC ones are mostly a rather sparse number of the PFoc verbs desapontar and desiludir.

The imbalance between the two corpora makes it difficult to get a clear profile of the two language patterns, but this might well be corrected if bigger corpora were consulted. However, one cannot ignore the fact that disappoint, with its more specific PHENOMENON, is much more popular than desapontar, and my experience would suggest that this would be reflected in normal everyday usage. On the other hand, the less specifically PHENOMENON-orientated desanimar and desiludir account for 52% of the examples, whereas their nearest counterparts in the EC, disenchant and disillusion, only give us 2,9%. Therefore, perhaps the specification of this emotion is, for some pragmatic reason, less important in Portuguese than in English.

[1] Note that the distinction that is made on a linguistic level here is supported by Ortony et al.'s suggestion that Fear is about 'prospects', i.e. which belong to the present or the future, whereas (Self)Reproach is about "disapproving of.... actions" which, normally, belong to the present or past.