Negativity bias in language:A cognitive-
affective model of emotive intensifiers
impZHUO JING-SCHMIDT*
amac
Abstract
The repeated confirmation of the hypothesis of a negativity bias in cognitive psychology invited an assumption that the general asymmetry in the auto-matic processing of a¤ective information should bear linguistic con-quences,for language is inparable from human cognition and emotion. This paper shows that the lexical mantics of emotive intensifiers in German,English and Chine can be best explained in a cognitive-a¤ective model of negativity bias.The parallel between a higher nsitivity to poten-tially threatening events at the neural level and the predominance of emo-tive intensifiers bad on threat-relevant negative emotions at the linguistic level provides further evidence of the embodiment of linguistic conceptuali-sation.Ultimately,becau the negativity bias is a vital component of our adaptive behaviour,the corresponding linguistic behaviour must be viewed as part of our dynamic system of adaptation.
Keywords:negativity bias;emotive intensifiers;threat-relevant negative emotions;metaphorical mapping;metonymic highlighting;
adaptive behaviour.
1.Negativity bias
In the preface to his famous analysis of Yiddish psycho-ostensive expres-sions,Matiso¤(2000:119)points at the frequently encountered‘‘deep psycho-mantic similarity’’among the proverbs in very di¤erent lan-guages.He suggests,for instance,that fear bad on past experience underlies such proverbs as‘If you’re scolded by the hot,you blow on the cold’in Yiddish,‘If you’ve been stung by a bee,you fear even afly’s com-ing’in Lahu,and‘One day bitten by a snake,for ten years you fear the well-rope’in Chine.Critically,as we notice,the past experience named
Cognitive Linguistics18–3(2007),417–443 DOI10.1515/COG.2007.0230936–5907/07/0018–0417 6Walter de Gruyter
418Z.Jing-Schmidt
angry
in the metaphors is invariably unpleasant,harmful and threatening.As such it enters the victim’s‘‘emotional memory’’,or‘‘implicit memory’’, and exercis tremendous impact on future behaviour by way of fear con-ditioning(LeDoux1998:179–182;Kihlstrom et al.2000:31).The enor-mous impact of the negative experience as illustrated by the metaphors in the proverbs captures the esnce of a pervasive cognitive-a¤ective pat-tern known as the negativity bias.
Generally,the negativity bias is an automatic tendency to pay signifi-cantly more attention to unpleasant than pleasant information.To put it otherwi,negative events have a greater impact on people’s behaviour than positive events.This asymmetry has been repeatedly confirmed by empirical evidence(Peeters and Czapinski1990;Skowronski and Carl-ston1989;Pratto and John1991;Taylor1991;Cacioppo and Berntson 1994;Cacioppo et al.1997,1999).Furthermore,the negativity bias has been shown to occur at the earliest stage of a¤ective processing where the‘‘evaluative categorization’’,that is,the di¤erentiation between the negative and the positive valence,takes place(Ito et al.1998;Smith et al. 2003).In addition,two comprehensive reviews(Rozin and Royzman 2001;Baumeister et al.2001)have noted the pervasiveness of such a cognitive-a¤ective pattern in human existence.
Rozin and Royzman(2001)obrve four manifestations of the negativ-ity bias across a wide range of
phenomena:(1)negative events are more potent than the equivalent positive events;(2)‘‘the negativity of negative entities grows more rapidly with approach to them in space or time than does the positivity of positive events’’,(3)‘‘combinations of negative and positive entities yield evaluations that are more negative than the alge-braic sum of individual subjective valences would predict’’,and(4)‘‘negative entities are more varied,yield more complex conceptual repre-ntations,and engage a wider respon repertoire’’.They consider the contagiousness of negative events as the primary reason for their strength and dominance.Baumeister et al.(2001)show evidence from multiple areas including reactions to events,clo relationships,social interactions in general,emotion,learning,neurological process,child development, social support,information processing,memory,lf-concept,etc.and come straight to the conclusion that‘‘bad is stronger than good’’.They state:
By good we understand desirable,beneficial,or pleasant outcomes including states or conquences.Bad is the opposite:undesirable,harmful,or unpleasant. Strength refers to the causal impact.To say that bad is stronger than good is thus to say that bad things will produce larger,more consistent,more multifaceted,or more lasting e¤ects than good things(Baumeister et al.2001:325).
Negativity bias in language419 Baumeister ason that the pattern is so pervasive that it cannot
be maladaptive at the evolutionary level.They argue that bad is stronger than good becau bad signals the need for change which generally en-hances evolutionalfitness.This idea of the negativity bias as an adap-tively meaningful mechanism has been expresd by other scholars also. Pratto and John(1991),for example,argue that it is of evolutionary ad-vantage that our attention is lective and is directed toward negative so-cial information.They consider this attention bias towards the bad an ‘‘automatic vigilance strategy’’.
accents2.Role of emotion in negativity bias
The notion of a negativity bias is a cognitive-a¤ective concept.Most scholars writing about it emphasize the a¤ective aspect of the bias which calls for a consideration of the role played by emotion in lective atten-tion.We follow Cosmides and Tooby(2000:93)in taking an evolution-ary psychological perspective and consider an emotion as‘‘a superordi-nate program who function is to direct the activities and interactions of the subprograms governing perception;attention;inference;learning; memory;goal choice;motivational priorities;categorization and concep-tual frameworks;physiological reactions[...]and so on.’’On this view, emotion‘‘orchestrates’’all of our adaptive programs and,as Cosmides and Tooby argue,‘‘is not reducible to any one category of e¤ects,such as e¤ects on physiology,behavioral inclinations,cognitiv
隐晦是什么意思e appraisals,or feeling states,becau it involves evolved instructions for all of them to-gether,as well as other mechanisms distributed throughout the human mental and physical architecture.’’This view acknowledges the motivat-ing and coordinating function of emotion in the individual’s interaction with the world.See also Arnold(1960:182),Frijda(2004:162–163),on the motivational function of emotion.
The motivational and coordinative nature of emotion is crucial to un-derstanding the role it plays in the negativity bias.It is important to note that the greater strength,or causal impact,of bad experience is primarily due to the negative emotions unavoidably triggered by the experience. To recall the metaphors in the proverbs,being scolded by the hot,being stung by a bee and being bitten by a snake are experiences that evoke the raw emotion of fear.It is this emotion that motivates overcautious avoid-ance of any stimuli reminiscent of the cau of the previous harm as a lf-protection strategy.Cosmides and Tooby(2000:93)point out that in the emotional state of fear the thresholds of threat detection shift,which explains the low degree of remblance between the trigger of the previ-ous harm and a stimulus reminiscent of ,bee vs.fly;snake vs.wellchester
420Z.Jing-Schmidt
rope in the proverbs).They state,‘‘Less evidence is required before you respond as if there were a threat,and more true positives will be perceived at the cost of a higher rate of fal alarms.’’
Rearch on disgust by Rozin and Fallon(1987)and Rozin et al.(2000: 637–638)suggests that disgust plays a crucial part in the negativity bias. Defined as‘‘fear of oral incorporation’’,disgust is a strong emotion(a specific kind of fear!)that motivates lf-protection by means of active avoidance of contagion.
vividvideoHann and Hann(1988:922–923)found that an angry face in a crowd of benign or happy faces was more easily identified than a happy or benign face in a crowd of angry faces.They call such an asymmetry the‘‘anger superiority e¤ect’’and explain it in terms of vigilance towards threat.O¨hman et al.(2001:392–394)reconfirmed Hann and Hann’s result and emphasize the‘‘threat advantage’’as the motivating force of the negativity bias.Critically,they point out that fear-relevancy di¤eren-tiates emotional angry face from non-threatening sad face and explains the greater impact of the former.This obrvation enables an explicit claim that the negativity bias pertains to the threat potential rather than the negative valence of events.Our mind is tuned to threatening entities, i.e.,objects,persons,and events that cau fear in us,so that we can best mobilize our attention and other bodily resources to avoid potential haz-ards.In this n,we may speak more specifically of a threat bias. Psychological rearch informs us that emotions that call for high action readiness are of immediate survival relevance.This point has al-ready been made by Cannon(1929)who emphasized
the greater impact of threatening stimuli on action tendencies as compared with appetitive stimuli.Anger and fear are two threat-related emotions which motivate thefight-or-flight respon(Cannon1929;Arnold1960;Izard1977; Frijda1986).As can be inferred from the experiments conducted by O¨h-man et al.(2001),anger is eventually threat-related in that it tends to gen-erate fear on the part of the recipient(victim)at which anger is directed. Thus,in addition to its unique ability to mobilize energy for lf-defence, anger might also be regarded as a deterrence strategy from the perspective of evolution.The obvious adaptive advantage of the threat-relevant emotions anger,fear and disgust ems to give ri to the assumption that the survival relevance of the threat-related emotion associated with a negative event determines the strength of that event’s causal impact.In fact,if the negativity bias is real,it makes n to assume that threat-related emotions that motivate our lf-protection from immediate danger must be more deeply entrenched:Each time a potentially threatening event is procesd,a particular negative emotion is activated in respon to the perceived nature of the threat and with each activation,the degree
玻璃杯的英文
Negativity bias in language421 of its entrenchment increas.Given the role played by emotions in lec-tive attention,the negativity bias logically boils down to the asymmetrical entrenchment of emotions:threat-relevant negative emotions are more entrenched than positive emotions.
exhibitionist
fusion
This assumption has found physiological evidence in a number of studies(Cannon1929;Tomaka et al.1997;Cacioppo et al.2000). Cacioppo et al.,for instance,conducted moderated meta-analys of the results provided by previous studies concerned with the physiological measures of discrete emotions.The results of the meta-analys and follow-up meta-analys suggest that the negative emotions being exam-ined are associated with‘‘significantly greater activation’’of somatovisc-eral process.
Apart from the experimental evidence,subjective evidence has been found to support the greater impact of threat-relevant negative emotions than other negative emotions or positive emotions.Parkinson(1995:92–94)reports that very specific bodily changes are felt by informants to accompany threat-relevant negative emotions:Anger is felt to be accom-panied by bodily tension,rising temperature,and feeling hurt;fear is said to be associated with feeling naua(which is also a symptom of disgust!), cold sweat,and incread heart rates.Specific physiological symptoms are less related to happiness and sadness,two emotions that are less related to adaptively significant action readiness.
By now,the role of threat-related emotions in the negativity bias must have become obvious.Yet why do threat-related emotions have such cognitive-a¤ective potency that they may be held responsible f
or the prin-ciple of the negativity bias?The answer lies in the primitive mechanism called the‘‘system of defensive behaviour’’(LeDoux1998).Defence against danger,LeDoux argues,is probably the number one priority of any organism.Furthermore,LeDoux discuss the constant role played by the amygdala in defence against danger across all species posssing an amygdala.1He states:
The remarkable fact is that at the level of behavior,defen against danger is achieved in many di¤erent ways in di¤erent species,yet the amygdala’s role is constant.It is this neural correspondence across species that no doubt allows di-ver behaviors to achieve the same evolutionary function in di¤erent animals. This functional equivalence and neural correspondence applies to many vertebrate brains,including human brains.When it comes to detecting and responding to danger,the brain just hasn’t changed much.In some ways,we are emotional liz-ards(LeDoux1998:174).
The primitiveness of vigilance toward threat transcends not only species, but culture as well.Matiso¤’s obrvation of the common fear e¤ect in
