Mapping Emotion Terms into Affective Space: Further Evidence for a Four-Dimensional Structure

Recent empirical work on the semantics of emotion terms across many different cultures and languages, using a theoretical componential approach, suggested that four dimensions are needed to parsimoniously describe the semantic space of the emotion domain as reflected in emotion terms (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007; Fontaine, Scherer, & Soriano, 2013). In addition to valence, power, and arousal, a novelty dimension was discovered that mostly differentiated surprise from other emotions. Here, we further explore the existence and nature of the fourth dimension in semantic emotion space using a much larger and much more representative set of emotion terms. A group of 156 participants each rated 10 out of a set of 80 French emotion terms with respect to semantic meaning. The meaning of an emotion term was evaluated with respect to 68 emotion features representing the appraisal, action tendency, bodily reaction, expression, and feeling components of the emotion process. A principal component analysis confirmed the four-dimensional valence, power, arousal, and novelty structure. Moreover, this larger and much more representative set of emotion terms revealed that the novelty dimension not only differentiates surprise terms from other emotion terms, but also identifies substantial variation within the fear and joy emotion families.

Semantic, perceptual and number space: relations between category width and spatial processing.

Coarse semantic encoding and broad categorization behavior are the hallmarks of the right cerebral hemisphere's contribution to language processing. We correlated 40 healthy subjects' breadth of categorization as assessed with Pettigrew's category width scale with lateral asymmetries in perceptual and representational space. Specifically, we hypothesized broader category width to be associated with larger leftward spatial biases. For the 20 men, but not the 20 women, this hypothesis was confirmed both in a lateralized tachistoscopic task with chimeric faces and a random digit generation task; the higher a male participant's score on category width, the more pronounced were his left-visual field bias in the judgement of chimeric faces and his small-number preference in digit generation ("small" is to the left of "large" in number space). Subjects' category width was unrelated to lateral displacements in a blindfolded tactile-motor rod centering task. These findings indicate that visual-spatial functions of the right hemisphere should not be considered independent of the same hemisphere's contribution to language. Linguistic and spatial cognition may be more tightly interwoven than is currently assumed.