Multilingualism and Emotions

JEAN-MARC DEWAELE

Introduction

Wierzbicka (2004) notes that “emotions are central to human life, and bilingualism provides
a new perspective on emotions which promises to lead to new insights, as well as to offer
crucial evidence for the old debates” (p. 94). One of these debates opposes researchers
who defend a more universalist perspective on emotions and researchers who favor a
more relativist perspective. Wierzbicka (2004) defends the latter position, arguing that the
vocabulary of emotions differs from language to language, which means “that the set of
concepts by means of which the speakers of any given language make sense of their own
and other people’s feelings is specific to a particular language” (p. 94). She points to the
different set of conceptual categories for Polish and English emotion concepts which means
that Polish and English speakers classify and interpret their own and other people’s
feelings differently and that their emotional lives are likely to be different, to some extent
(p. 95). Reflecting on her language preferences when talking to—and about—her baby
granddaughter, she explains that she definitely prefers Polish, her first language (L1),
rather than English, her second language (L2), because of the emotional force of the L1
words with multiple diminutives and the fact that the Polish words fit the way she thinks
and feels about the baby. The English emotion words leave her cold and do not feel “true”
(p. 101). She feels that Polish emotion scripts are much more emotional than English ones.
When she speaks in English about her baby granddaughter, she makes a conscious effort
not to sound excessively emotional, which restricts her ability “to speak freely as much as
the lack of adequate English words does” (p. 101).
Wierzbicka’s observations raise a number of crucial questions on the link between multi-
lingualism and emotions, which will be considered in more detail:

1. Are basic emotions universal, or are they shaped by local culture and language?
2. Do multilinguals prefer to express strong emotions in their L1?
3. What is the status and nature of emotion words and emotion-laden words in the
bilingual lexicon?

Emotions: Universal or Relative?

Pavlenko (2008) offers a way out of the difficult debate linked to the first question by
proposing a definition of emotion concepts that combines both biological and sociocultural
elements. For her, emotion concepts are “prototypical scripts that are formed as a result
of repeated experiences and involve causal antecedents, appraisals, physiological reactions,
consequences, and means of regulation and display” (p. 150).
She argues that these concepts are embedded within larger systems of beliefs about
psychological and social processes (p. 150). The fact that concepts may be different in two
languages does not imply that speakers of these languages have distinct physiological
experiences: “Rather, it means that they may have somewhat different vantage points from
which to evaluate and interpret their own and others’ emotional experiences” (Pavlenko,

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0795
2 multilingualism and emotions

2008, p. 150). Her own work on Russian–English bilinguals has shown that some emotion
concepts vary across these two languages in terms of function, encoding, and salience
(Pavlenko, 2002). She found that in English emotions are viewed as states and expressed
by means of adjectives while in Russian emotions are viewed as processes and expressed
with verbs. A study on American learners of Russian showed that, despite their awareness
of the core meaning of the language-specific Russian emotion verb perezhivat ‘to experience
things keenly’, they did not use this verb in the narrative tasks (Pavlenko & Driagina,
2007). This suggests that they had not yet internalized the new conceptual category and
needed to acquire new lexicosyntactic frames. They had to learn to use verbs and adverbial
constructions, presenting emotions as processes, while the Russian learners of English
needed to use adjectival constructions, presenting emotions as states (Pavlenko & Driagina,
2007, p. 228).

The Language of the Heart

Much of the early work in the field has pointed to the more limited emotional resonance
of the L2 compared to the L1. Marcos (1976) named the emotional detachment that bilin-
guals often have in their L2 as the “detachment effect.” According to him, the L2 fulfills
an intellectual function and is relatively devoid of emotion; whereas the L1 clearly expresses
emotions.
Bond and Lai (1986) examined language choices of female Chinese students in a Hong
Kong university who had been asked to interview each other in L1 Cantonese or L2 English
on two neutral and two potentially embarrassing topics. The first topic was economic, the
second was political, the third was sociological (differences in sexual attitudes between
Chinese and Westerners), and the fourth was potentially more emotional, namely a personal
story about a recent embarrassing episode. The study showed that more English was used
in the discussion of the latter two topics. The authors interpret this as an indication that
the use of the L2 allowed participants to distance themselves more from the embarrassing
topic. In a similar vein, Javier and Marcos (1989) reported that code switching to an L2
allowed participants to distance themselves from what they were saying, hence reducing
their anxiety. Both studies have been widely cited as evidence of the existence of a “detach-
ment effect” of the L2.
There is abundant evidence from the autobiographical works of bilingual writers that
the L1 typically has the strongest emotional connotations. Rosario Ferré, for example, a
Puerto Rican writer, describes Spanish (her L1) as her language of the heart:

Spanish still makes me suck faster at life’s breast . . . I can roll on the ground and frolic
in Spanish because I don’t have to worry about anything; words always mean what they
say. I love to make love in Spanish; I’ve never been able to make love in English. In
English, I get puritanical. (Quoted in Kellman, 2003, pp. 137–8).

Schrauf (2000) noted that memories from childhood and adolescence that were experienced
in the L1 are typically richer in terms of emotional significance when recalled in that
specific language. When immigrants recall L1 memories from childhood in an L2, some
emotional intensity is lost (Schrauf & Rubin, 1998). Schrauf and Durazo-Arvizu (2006) have
argued that bilinguals recalling a particular memory engage unconsciously in the mental
reconstruction of an event that was originally encoded into memory in a determined
sociocultural and linguistic environment. The emotional tone of the event and perhaps
some explicitly remembered words or phrases in the L1 or L2 are encoded as well.
Pavlenko (2005) argues that different languages can have different affective meanings
depending on the interlocutors and the situation. In other words, the L1 is not always the
 multilingualism and emotions 3

language of intimacy and the L2 the language of detachment: “Speakers may use these
languages to index a variety of affective stances, and they may also mix two or more
languages to convey emotional meanings” (p. 131).
Her own study on language choice in emotional exchanges between multilingual parents
and their children (Pavlenko, 2004) showed that language dominance is the key factor
affecting language choices, overall and in emotional expression. Parents who were domin-
ant in the L1 reported a preference for L1 in communication with the children, but those
dominant in an LX (any language which is not the L1) were less likely to use the L1. She
found a strong emotional tie of many parents to their L1 and hence their preference to use
that language with their children. However, some parents reported feeling perfectly com-
fortable communicating in their L2 with their children, though they reported switching
occasionally to their L1 when feeling very emotional. Other parents reported the opposite
pattern, using their L1 with their children, but switching to the L3 (the partner’s L1) to
scold the children because they would react faster. Positive and negative emotions were
linked to different language choices.
In a series of studies based on a corpus of data collected through the Bilingualism and
Emotions Questionnaire (BEQ; Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001–3) from more than 1,500 multi-
linguals on their different languages and a corpus of interviews with 20 multilinguals
(Dewaele, 2011), a number of interesting patterns emerged concerning language choices
and perceptions (Dewaele, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011).
Dewaele (2008) looked specifically at the perceived emotional weight of the phrase I love
you in the multilinguals’ different languages. A majority of speakers reported that I love
you was strongest in their L1, a third reported that the phrase was equally strong in their
L1 and an LX, and the remaining quarter of participants said that the phrase was stronger
in an LX. This is an indication that the language of the heart can shift. Statistical analyses
revealed that the perception of emotional weight of the phrase I love you was associated
with self-perceived language dominance, context of acquisition of the L2, age of onset of
learning the L2, degree of socialization in the L2, nature of the network of interlocutors in
the L2, and self-perceived oral proficiency in the L2.
Dewaele (2010) presented a systematic analysis of the effect of three clusters of independ-
ent variables (participants’ linguistic history, present language use, sociobiographical and
psychological variables) on language perception and language choice for the communication
of feelings in general, for anger and swearing, as well as self-perceived proficiency and
foreign-language anxiety. Later starters reported lower levels of self-perceived competence
in oral and written skills. They also tended to use the LX less frequently to communicate
emotions; they rated the positive characteristics of the LX lower and reported higher levels
of foreign-language anxiety in different situations. LXs that had been acquired only through
formal classroom instruction were used less frequently to communicate emotions than LXs
that had been learned naturalistically or which had also been used in authentic interactions
outside the classroom (mixed context). The same pattern emerged for self-perceived com-
petence and FLA in different situations: Instructed learners felt less competent and more
anxious than mixed and naturalistic learners. It thus seems that context of acquisition
resonates for years after the end of the active “learning phase” of the LX.
Frequency of use of the LX was the independent variable with the strongest effect on
self-perceived proficiency, language choice to express emotions, perception, and foreign-
language anxiety. Data from the interviews suggested that frequent users of an LX gained
confidence and stopped worrying about their accent or possible errors.
LX socialization was linked to increased use of the LX to express emotions. The highly
socialized LX user can express emotions in the LX competently and confidently, but it
takes years before the positive language characteristics and emotional strength of swear-
words in the LX equal those of the L1. Some Asian participants reported that it took them
4 multilingualism and emotions

many years living in an LX environment before they dared to use some of the swearwords
in that LX, and typically only mild swearwords. There was also considerable variation
between individuals, with cultural background playing an important role in perception
and use of emotional language. Participants with larger networks of interlocutors in an
LX were also more likely to use that LX for the communication of emotions, and their
perceptions and foreign-language anxiety evolved toward that of their native-speaker
interlocutors.
The knowledge of more languages was linked to lower levels of foreign-language anxiety
and higher self-perceived proficiency in the different languages. Language knowledge also
had a positive effect on the communication of emotion and the perception of characteristics
of the LX.
Participants who scored high on trait emotional intelligence reported lower levels of
foreign-language anxiety across situations which could be linked to a stronger belief
in the ability to communicate in different languages and a stronger ability to judge the
emotional state of their interlocutor and to adapt their linguistic behavior if necessary
(Dewaele, Petrides, & Furnham, 2008). An analysis of participants’ comments suggested
that many speech acts are culture-specific (Dewaele, 2010). Raising the voice in anger may
be considered acceptable in southern Europe, but it is taboo in Asia. Bicultural multilinguals
have a unique capacity to navigate between the taboos and sometimes conflicting socio-
pragmatic norms. They reported strategic use of code switching with other multilinguals,
especially when talking about more emotional topics with familiar interlocutors. However,
multilinguals also reported uncontrolled code switching in cases of strong emotional arousal.
It seems that multilinguals can exploit their multicompetence to develop multilingual
speech acts and emotion scripts that are quite unique to them, or shared by their partner,
family, or ethnic group. A striking finding was also the dynamic aspect of language choice
to express emotion (Dewaele, 2010). A growing awareness of sociocultural and socioprag-
matic norms in the LX is linked to an evolution in users’ repertoire for expressing emotions
in the LX.
Because multilinguals tend to feel most proficient in their L1 (Dewaele, 2010), it is dif-
ficult to distinguish proficiency effects in language preference from other possible effects.
In order to control the proficiency variable, Dewaele (2011) focused on a subsample of
bi- and multilingual adults from the BEQ who declared to be maximally proficient in their
L1 and L2, and used both languages constantly. The analysis revealed that, despite their
maximal proficiency in the L1 and L2, participants preferred the L1 for communicating
feelings or anger, swearing, addressing their children, performing mental calculations, and
using inner speech. The L1 was also perceived to be emotionally stronger than the L2 and
participants reported lower levels of communicative anxiety in their L1. Interview data
from 20 multilinguals confirmed the finding that the L1 is usually felt to be more powerful
than the LX, but this did not automatically translate into a preference for the L1. Longer
immersion in the LX culture was linked to a gradual shift in linguistic practices and per-
ceptions where the LX started to match the L1 in their hearts and minds.

The Nature and Status of Emotion Words

in the Bilingual Lexicon

Pavlenko (1999) argued against the conflation of semantic and conceptual levels of repre-
sentation in contemporary models of the bilingual lexicon and proposed to distinguish
between lexical, semantic, and conceptual levels of representation. Referring to her research
on the English emotion concept of privacy that is absent in the Russian of monolinguals
but starts appearing in Russian–English bilinguals, she emphasized the dynamic nature
 multilingualism and emotions 5

of the bilingual conceptual store and called for more attention to crosslinguistic and cross-
cultural differences in conceptualization of different phenomena (p. 225). Pavlenko’s call
was answered by Caldwell-Harris and associates who started investigating the link between
emotion words in the two languages of bilinguals and their physiological responses. Harris,
Ayçiçeki, and Gleason (2003) found that different types of words elicit different galvanic
skin responses in both monolingual and Turkish–English bilingual speakers, with taboo
words and reprimands eliciting the strongest responses. Several bilinguals commented in
the debriefing session that they could hear, in their mind, family members addressing
reprimands to them. A comparison of the adult offspring of Latin American immigrants
in the USA, for whom English was considered L2 but was the dominant language, and
more recently arrived immigrants from Latin America to the USA showed that only the
latter group reacted more strongly to reprimands in Spanish. The early learners of English
had similar patterns of electrodermal responding in their two languages (Harris, 2004).
A follow-up study with Turkish–English bilinguals residing in Istanbul showed that
emotional phrases presented in an L1 elicited higher skin conductance responses than
emotional phrases in an L2 (Caldwell-Harris & Ayçiçeki-Dinn, 2009). The researchers also
looked more specifically at emotion memory effects (i.e., the fact that emotion words are
more frequently recalled than neutral words) among Turkish–English students from Istanbul
University (Ayçiçeki-Dinn & Caldwell-Harris, 2009). They found that overall emotion-
memory effects were similar in the two languages, with reprimands having the highest
recall, followed by taboo words, positive words, negative words, and finally neutral words.
The authors have advanced the “emotional contexts of learning hypothesis,” arguing that
language emotionality is independent of age of onset of acquisition, but linked to the
emotional context in which the language was acquired and used (Harris, Gleason, & Ayçiçeki,
2006, pp. 276–7).
Altarriba and Canary (2004) used the word-priming paradigm to investigate the effect
of word arousal on the priming effect in bilinguals. The authors found evidence of affec-
tive priming in both English monolinguals and Spanish–English bilinguals. However,
bilinguals had longer reaction times and a reduced priming effect in some conditions when
compared to monolinguals. The authors suggest that this difference might be linked to the
fact that the bilinguals had learned and used English in educational and work-oriented
environments and that their English emotion words had fewer emotional connotations
and reduced affective priming (Altarriba & Canary, 2004).
The emotional Stroop task has also been used to investigate bilinguals for differences
in processing emotion words. The emotional Stroop task is similar to the traditional Stroop
task but the printed words are emotionally charged and do not label specific colors.
Participants are asked to report the color of each word instead of the actual words. Emotions
typically have an interference effect resulting in an increase in reaction times on the color-
naming task. Sutton, Altarriba, Gianico, and Basnight-Brown (2007) used this method with
highly proficient Spanish–English bilinguals. The researchers found evidence of interference
in emotion words on the emotional Stroop task: Participants had shorter reaction times
with neutral words as compared to emotion words in Spanish and English, illustrating
that emotion words captured attention regardless of the language in which they appeared.

Conclusion

The picture that emerges from research on multilingualism and emotions is a complex
and highly dynamic one. It suggests that multilinguals’ language choices to communicate
emotions and their perceptions of their various languages are partly linked to their past
experience with these languages, partly linked to their current use of various languages,
6 multilingualism and emotions

and partly linked to a range of sociobiographical and psychological factors. All these
factors interact and may cause conceptual shift reflected in different linguistic behavior.
Moreover, emotion words and emotion-laden words can gain or lose their power over
time. Finally, it seems that, while the L1 is the language of the heart for many multilinguals,
it is not necessarily a permanent one.

SEE ALSO: Affect and Language Teaching; Code Mixing; Code Switching; Cultural
Hybridity; Multicompetence; Multilingualism and Attitudes; Multilingualism and Identity;
Pavlenko, Aneta; Pragmatic Socialization; Second Language Pragmatic Development

References

Altarriba, J., & Canary, T. M. (2004). Affective priming: The automatic activation of arousal.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 248–65.
Ayçiçeki-Dinn, A., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2009). Emotion memory effects in bilingual speakers:
A levels-of-processing approach. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 291–303.
Bond, M. H., & Lai, T. M. (1986). Embarrassment and code-switching into a second language.
Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 179–86.
Caldwell-Harris, C. L., & Ayçiçeki-Dinn, A. (2009). Emotion and lying in a non-native language.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 71, 193–204.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004a). Blistering barnacles! What language do multilinguals swear in?! Estudios
de Sociolinguistica, 5, 83–106.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004b). The emotional force of swearwords and taboo words in the speech of
multilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 204–23.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2006). Expressing anger in multiple languages. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual
minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 118–51). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). The emotional weight of “I love you” in multilinguals’ languages. Journal
of Pragmatics, 40, 1753–80.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2010). Emotions in multiple languages. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dewaele, J.-M. (2011). The differences in self-reported use and perception of the L1 and L2 of
maximally proficient bi- and multilinguals: A quantitative and qualitative investigation.
International Journal of Sociology of Language, 208, 25–51.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2001–3). Web questionnaire Bilingualism and Emotions.
University of London.
Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The effects of trait emotional intelligence
and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety
among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58,
911–60.
Harris, C. L. (2004). Bilingual speakers in the lab: Psychophysiological measures of emotional
reactivity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 223–47.
Harris, C. L., Ayçiçeki, A., & Gleason, J. (2003). Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater
autonomic reactivity in a first than in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24,
561–79.
Harris, C. L., Gleason, J. B., & Ayçiçeki, A. (2006). When is a first language more emotional?
Psychophysiological evidence from bilingual speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds:
Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 257–83). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Javier, R., & Marcos, L. (1989). The role of stress on the language-independence and codeswitching
phenomena. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 449–72.
Kellman, S. (Ed.). (2003). Switching languages: Translingual writers reflect on their craft. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
 multilingualism and emotions 7

Marcos, L. R. (1976). Linguistic dimensions in the bilingual patient. American Journal of

Psychoanalysis, 36, 347–54.
Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition, 2, 209–30.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Bilingualism and emotions. Multilingua, 21, 45–78.
Pavlenko, A. (2004). “Stop doing that, ia Komu Skazala!”: Language choice and emotion in parent–
child communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 179–203.
Pavlenko, A. (2005). Emotions and multilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2008). Emotion and emotion-laden words in the bilingual lexicon. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 11, 147–64.
Pavlenko, A., & Driagina, V. (2007). Russian emotion vocabulary in American learners’ narratives.
The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 213–34.
Schrauf, R. W. (2000). Bilingual autobiographical memory: Experimental studies and clinical
cases. Culture & Psychology, 6, 387–417.
Schrauf, R. W., & Durazo-Arvizu, R. (2006). Bilingual autobiographical memory and emotion:
Theory and methods. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression,
and representation (pp. 284–311). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. (1998). Bilingual autobiographical memory in older adult immigrants:
A test of cognitive explanations of the reminiscence bump and the linguistic encoding of
memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 437–57.
Sutton, T. M., Altarriba, J., Gianico, J. L., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). The automatic access
of emotion: Emotional Stroop effects in Spanish–English bilingual speakers. Cognition and
Emotion, 21, 1077–90.
Wierzbicka, A. (2004). Preface: Bilingual lives, bilingual experience. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 25, 94–104.

Suggested Readings

Altarriba, J. (2003). Does cariño equal “liking”? A theoretical approach to conceptual non-
equivalence between languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 305–22.
Besemeres, M. (2004). Different languages, different emotions? Perspectives from autobiographical
literature. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25, 140–58.
Gonzalez-Reigosa, F. (1976). The anxiety-arousing effect of taboo words in bilinguals. In
C. D. Spielberger & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (pp. 89–105). Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Hoffman, E. (1989). Lost in translation: A life in a new language. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Huston, N., & Sebbar, L. (2006). Lettres parisiennes. Paris, France: Éditions J’ai Lu.
Javier, R. (2007). The bilingual mind: Thinking, feeling and speaking in two languages. New York,
NY: Springer.
Koven, M. (2007). Selves in two languages: Bilinguals’ verbal enactments of identity in French and
Portuguese. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ye, V. Z. (2004). La double vie de Veronica: Reflections on my life as a Chinese migrant in
Australia. Life Writing, 1, 133–46.