Emotive Lexical Units as Cognitive-Discursive Resources for Representing Human Psychology
https://doi.org/10.56225/jmsc.v4i2.498
Keywords:
Emotive lexical units, Cognitive linguistics, Human psychology, Discourse analysis, Conceptual metaphorAbstract
This study examines how emotive lexical units function as linguistic resources for representing human psychology, situating the analysis within cognitive linguistics and discourse studies. Language is increasingly understood not merely as a medium of expression but as a mechanism that actively constructs and mediates psychological experience. Accordingly, this research aims to identify and classify emotive lexical units, analyze their cognitive and discursive functions, and compare their distribution across different communicative contexts. A multi-method corpus-based approach was employed, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis. The dataset consists of literary texts, journalistic articles, and social media posts collected between 2023 and 2024. Emotive lexical items were identified and categorized, with metaphorical expressions analyzed using the Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP), while frame analysis and content analysis were applied to examine their functions and distribution. The findings reveal that emotive lexical units are systematically structured rather than random, with clear variations across genres. Negative emotions, such as anger and fear, dominate journalistic and social media discourse, whereas literary texts emphasize positive, prosocial emotions, such as compassion and hope. Emotive lexis performs key functions including evaluation, intensification, intersubjective stance-taking, and metaphorical framing, supported by recurring conceptual metaphors such as ANGER IS HEAT and HOPE IS LIGHT. These results demonstrate that emotive lexical units operate as integrative cognitive-discursive mechanisms that shape emotional meaning and social interpretation. The study concludes that language plays a central role in constructing psychological realities, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between language, cognition, and emotion across diverse communicative environments.
Downloads
References
Abdou, M., Sahi, R. S., Hull, T. D., Nook, E. C., & Daw, N. D. (2025). Leveraging large language models to estimate clinically relevant psychological constructs in psychotherapy transcripts. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.04.25323338
Atzil-Slonim, D., Eliassaf, A., Warikoo, N., Paz, A., Haimovitz, S., Mayer, T., & Gurevych, I. (2024). Leveraging natural language processing to study emotional coherence in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 61(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000517
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Springer.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2008). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). (2009). Multimodal metaphor (Vol. 11). Walter de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107762350
Haro, J., Calvillo, R., Poch, C., Hinojosa, J. A., & Ferré, P. (2022). Your words went straight to my heart: The role of emotional prototypicality in the recognition of emotion-label words. Psychological Research, 87(4), 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01723-6
Iyengar, S. (1994). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
Ji, Q., & Raney, A. A. (2020). Developing and validating the self-transcendent emotion dictionary for text analysis. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0239050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239050
Liu, D. Y., Gilbert, K. E., & Thompson, R. J. (2020). Emotion differentiation moderates the effects of rumination on depression: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 20(7), 1234–1243. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000627
Muratkhodjayeva, F. (2024). Cognitive linguistics theory in anthropocentric paradigm. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Technology & Operations Management, 2(2), 63–70.
Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
Nandwani, P., & Verma, R. (2021). A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-021-00776-6
Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
Semino, E. (2021). “Not soldiers but fire-fighters”: Metaphors and COVID-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989
Starr, L. R., Hershenberg, R., Shaw, Z. A., Li, Y. I., & Santee, A. C. (2020). The perils of murky emotions: Emotion differentiation moderates the prospective relationship between naturalistic stress exposure and adolescent depression. Emotion, 20(6), 927–938. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000630
Syrjämäki, A. H., Ilves, M., Isokoski, P., Kiskola, J. A. J., Rantasila, A., Olsson, T., Bente, G., & Surakka, V. (2023). Emotionally toned online discussions evoke subjectively experienced emotional responses. Journal of Media Psychology, 35(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000341
Tang, D., Fu, Y., Wang, H., Liu, B., Zang, A., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2023). The embodiment of emotion-label words and emotion-laden words: Evidence from late Chinese–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1143064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1143064
Teixeira, A. S., Talaga, S., Swanson, T. J., & Stella, M. (2020). Revealing semantic and emotional structure of suicide notes with cognitive network science. Scientific Reports, 11, 18654.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
