Dec 21, 2023 (Medium.com)
When we convey our thoughts with language, we typically also express our emotions along with our thoughts. And the way this happens tells us a lot about the logic of emotions.
Take this Dad with his kid. They see a Bernese mountain dog. Dad is really into Bernese mountain dogs. He thinks they are sooo cute… so he goes, “Look! A doggy”.
But the kid is a little nervous. The Bernese mountain dog is quite big.
Unbeknownst to the Dad and his little kid, Mr. Spock is listening in. And with his Vulcan heritage, which makes him “all-logical-and-not-emotional,” he is fascinated.
Mr. Spock does not understand why they use “doggy” for a big dog. It seems quite illogical. By his logic:
A big dog is simply a “dog”. Only a little dog should be a doggy. It doesn’t make sense to call a big dog “doggy”.
So let’s see why Mr. Spock would think that way. What’s the logic behind that?
The ‘-y’ suffix in “doggy” and “puppy” is a diminutive. And the meaning of a diminutive should simply be … “small.”.
So why can you use the diminutive for a big dog, too?
This is where the emotions come in.
Diminutives belong to the emotive dimension of language, which contrasts with its rational aspect — or what Mr. Spock would call the logical aspect of language
So … because the Dad has a warm fuzzy feeling towards the Bernese mountain dog, he refers to him as “doggy”. This allows him to express that emotion. It does not mean that he thinks the dog is small. He is simply expressing an emotion—in this case, the emotion of a warm, fuzzy feeling towards the dog.
And that is why Mr. Spock finds diminutives illogical. They ARE illogical. They belong to the emotive part of language, which Mr. Spock, as a Vulcan, supposedly lacks.
Now, diminutives are not the only forms that belong to this emotive aspect of language. After all, we don’t always have warm, fuzzy feelings towards what we are talking about.
Sometimes, we get angry. And sometimes we express that anger. And language has ways to do that.
Yes. Swearing is a form of emotive language; when we swear, we are expressing our emotions! (Quite intensely sometimes!)
And we can put these expressions of anger right inside a sentence. So we can have rational thought combined with an emotional reaction.
Now, another illogical thing about these emotive expressions is that one and the same form can express all sorts of emotions: you can use “damn,” even if you are not angry. It can also express amazement or joy.
What these emotions have in common is… that they ARE emotions.
Many emotive expressions simply express a heightened emotional state, independent of the kind of state it is.
Take ‘Ugh!’ for example. It can express disgust or exasperation, but it can also be used to dismiss a worry.
While these experiences don’t have much in common, “ugh” can be used in all of them. Again, it looks like the core purpose is to express the fact that there is an emotion.
Same with “wow,” which seems to express surprise. But surprise itself comes in different flavours. You can be surprised combined with fear, happiness, or bliss. And you can always say “wow,” even with very different emotions.
Why is that? What does “wow” really mean?
To answer this question and to understand the logic of emotive language, we should know what an emotion is. We should understand the logic of emotions!
Well, there is a reason why Mr. Spock is surprised that there might be a logic to emotions. The view that emotions are irrational is deeply embedded in our way of thinking.
The ancient Greek philosophers were kind of down on emotions, and that’s mainly because they were big on rational thought.
The Greek philosophers thought that there was pure rational thought that represents the world as it is. So, if something bad were to happen,
like your laptop not working properly, with pure reason you could probably find a solution. But humans just get carried away by their feelings. And these feelings cloud their thoughts. And no rational solution can be sought anymore. That’s what they thought.
And therefore, they thought that emotions get in the way of rational thought by colouring them along with our language.
So, is Mr. Spock right? Is there no logic to emotions?
Well, logic dictates that we first have to figure out what exactly is happening here. What is this emotional cloud?
And how does it relate to our thoughts? And to our language?
We could say that this emotional cloud is divided into different types of ‘basic emotions’, like sadness, happiness, fear, anger, and disgust, and maybe some more. (You may have heard of this theory of basic emotions. It’s quite popular.)
But if it were really like this, then why don’t we get emotive words that correspond exactly to these basic emotions? Words like “ugh,” “wow,” and “damn” don’t correspond to a single emotion. Yet they convey emotions.
But… there is another way to think about emotions, namely that they are composed, just like thoughts are composed. (That’s another theory of emotions, the theory of constructed emotions)
Many of our thoughts are based on our experience of perceiving the world around us. Like looking at a dog. So our thoughts are influenced by our perceptions. And by our own unique perspective on this perception. And by other people with whom we might share these thoughts.
Emotions are not that different. You can think of them as starting off as sensations or perceptions of your physical experiences (like that warm, fuzzy feeling you get when you see that cute dog). Our emotions are triggered by such sensations. The actual emotion depends on whether the sensation feels good or bad (valence). And how strong the sensation is (arousal). And it can also depend on who is with us at the time (empathy).
These are factors that contribute to the composition of an emotion.
So words like “ugh,” “wow,” and “damn” don’t express basic emotions. Instead, they simply express arousal, one of the components of emotions.
So, you see, emotions are composed just like thoughts are.
There really is a logic to emotions and their expressions!
Written by Martina Wiltschko
I am a linguist. I study the knowledge that underlies language and how it allows and constrains social interaction. And I really like communicating my findings.