{"id":2424,"date":"2022-10-06T10:57:19","date_gmt":"2022-10-06T08:57:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/?p=2424"},"modified":"2022-10-06T18:12:19","modified_gmt":"2022-10-06T16:12:19","slug":"cognitive-emotional-framing-situation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/cognitive-emotional-framing-situation\/","title":{"rendered":"Structuration lines of the cognitive-emotional world of \u03a8"},"content":{"rendered":"

Str<\/span>ucturing lines of the cognitive-emotional world of \u03a8<\/span><\/h1>\n

<\/h1>\n

A situation<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

A small group of people, adults and children, enters the subway.
\nThey are different: their skin, their face, their physique are Other.
\nTheir language is Other
\nTheir smell is Other
\nTheir behavior is Other.<\/p>\n

Reactions \u2014 This group can be percieved as<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0a gang of well organized thieves ; people who will provoke incidents; assaulting other travelers => urgent fear
\n<\/strong>\u2014 refugees, probably needing help => solidarity
\n<\/strong>\u2014 potential terrorists – reminiscent of the terrorists seen on TV =>\u00a0 reinforcement of an anxious mood<\/strong>
\n=> feeling threated<\/strong>
\n\u2014\u00a0nothing special => indifference<\/strong><\/p>\n

The\u00a0Emotion syndrome<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

According to Scherer, any emotion can be analyzed in five \u00ab\u00a0components\u00a0\u00bb (or \u00ab\u00a0systems\u00a0\u00bb) (Scherer 1984a, p. 99):<\/p>\n

a component of cognitive evaluation of the stimuli or situations;
\n<\/strong>a physiological component of activation;
\na component of motor expression;
\na component of draft of action and preparation of the behavior;
\nand a subjective component, or \u201cfeeling\u201d.<\/p>\n

These last four components are traditional.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201cSituation\u201d, \u201cStimuli\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

External source of emotion<\/span> <\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Situation = the world-around-the-experiencer
\nStimuli = the situation (world-around-the-experiencer) as perceived-analyzed-understood by the experiencer
\n<\/strong>=> <\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 as the world \u00ab\u00a0experienced\u201d\u00a0by the experiencer.
\n=><\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 as the world described and told by the experiencer
\n=><\/strong> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 as the world the speaker wants to share with the other participants<\/p>\n

External sources as a montage elaborated from the surrounding world.
\nMontage<\/strong>: the technique of selecting, editing, and piecing together separate sections of film to form a continuous whole.<\/p>\n

Internal source of emotion<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Internal sources can be any kind of mental montage
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

An anecdote told by L\u00e9onore Qu\u00e9ff\u00e9lec daughter of Brigitte Engerer<\/em>
\nBrigitte Engerer was giving a masterclass
\nA student wanted to play the second concerto of Rakhmaninov.
\nBE threw the partition in her face.<\/p>\n

As a student, BE was deeply impressed by one of her teachers, who died while\u00a0 playing the second concerto of Rakhmaninov.
\nBE never played this concerto.<\/p>\n

The cognitive component of the emotion syndrome<\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The detailed introduction of a cognitive evaluation component opens up very interesting perspectives.<\/p>\n

\u2014 This component concerns practically all emotions:
\nThere are hardly any emotional states that do not presuppose a significant number of cognitive processes<\/strong><\/span>
\n(Scherer 1993\/1984, p. 107).<\/p>\n

\u2014 It \u00ab\u00a0guarantees a permanent control of internal and external stimuli\u00a0\u00bb,<\/strong><\/span>
\nand assesses \u00ab\u00a0whether they are harmful or useful for the organism<\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0<\/span>
\nby relating them to the individual’s \u00ab\u00a0needs, plans or preferences<\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0<\/span>
\n(id., p. 103; p. 110; p. 101).<\/p>\n

\u2014 This component is of central importance to the processing of emotion because
\nthe nature of the emotion seems to be determined primarily by the cognitive processes of<\/strong> evaluation<\/strong><\/span> (id., p. 114).<\/p>\n

The Facets of the Cognitive Component \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

Scherer gives two variants of his cognitive appraisal system (id., p. 115; p. 129; we have introduced the facet numbering).<\/p>\n

Scherer, K. R. (1984a): \u00abLes \u00e9motions: Fonctions et composantes\u00bb. Cahiers de psychologie cognitive. 4. 9-39. Repris dans B. Rim\u00e9, K. Scherer (\u00e9ds), 1993 Les \u00e9motions. Neuch\u00e2tel, Delachaux et Niestl\u00e9. (1e \u00e9d. 1989). 97-133.<\/p>\n

Scherer, K. R. (1984b): \u00ab\u00a0On the Nature and function of emotion: A component process approach\u00a0\u00bb. In Scherer, K. R., Ekman P., (eds) 1984, Approaches to emotion. Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrenbce Erlbaum. 293-317.<\/p>\n

The following table merges the two tables.<\/p>\n

Table 1: Facets of the cognitive component<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
F1<\/td>\nEvent intervention<\/td>\nTiming, expectation, probability, predictability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F2<\/td>\nEvaluation of the action \/ outcome of the event<\/td>\nIntrinsic agreeableness, importance of the goal, significance for goal achievement, legitimacy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F3<\/td>\nInference about the cause of the event<\/td>\nIdentity of the agent, motive\/origin, legitimacy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F4<\/td>\nAssessment of potential of control<\/td>\nPotential to influence the event or its consequences – potential for power to dominate its effects<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F5<\/td>\nComparison with external or internal standards<\/td>\nConformity to cultural expectations or norms
\nConsistency with real and\/or ideal self image.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F6<\/td>\nConsequences for self<\/td>\ngain\/loss of life, health, material goods,
\nrelationships, status, self-esteem, time experiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F7<\/td>\nExpectations<\/td>\nplans coming true\/not true, role\/norm demands satisfied\/not satisfied<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F8<\/td>\nDurations of effects<\/td>\nshort\/long term, permanent, periodic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F9<\/td>\nType of activity achievement-task<\/td>\ntransport, socio-emotional, leisure, service, basic drives, observation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F10<\/td>\nLocation of event<\/td>\nnature, street, institutions, home<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F11<\/td>\nAgent of effect<\/td>\nnatural forces, society, groups, individual, self, object<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F12<\/td>\nRelationship to agent<\/td>\nintimacy, attitude, status<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F13<\/td>\nAction of agent<\/td>\nchance, type of intention, role\/norm demands.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Discussion:<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0These facets are actually interdependant. <\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0What is an \u201cevent\u201d? <\/strong>Something salient – Diverging from the scenario of the current action in which the experiencer is actually \/ feels involved.<\/p>\n

Table 2: Facets of the cognitive component\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The following table is a re-writing of the preceding one, integrating the following contributions:
\n\u2014Rhetorical rules of dramatization of speech: (Lausberg, 1971; 1973)
\n\u2014 Rules for the construction of media discourse: \u00ab\u00a0Emotion and emotional language in English and German news stories\u00a0\u00bb (Ungerer 1995; 1997)
\n\u2014 Pragmatics of emotionive communication: \u00ab\u00a0Towards a pragmatics of emotive communication\u00a0\u00bb (Caffi & Janney, 1994; Caffi, 2000)<\/p>\n

\n

Facets of emotional structuration of the world of the experiencer<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

I \u2014\u00a0Evaluating what happens <\/strong><\/p>\n

Global evaluation of the event
\n<\/strong>Interjections: evaluating without Naming-Framing<\/p>\n

II \u2014 Name and\u00a0Frame what happens: <\/strong>What?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Framing principle : Relationship to <\/u><\/strong>\u03a8 \u201c\/<\/em>(\/\u03a8)\u201d
\n<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Framing tool<\/strong>: Analogy: Like what?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Specific Framing Lines of the event (\/<\/strong>\u03a8<\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Framing the participants: Who?
\n<\/strong><\/span>Frame the timeline: When?
\n<\/strong><\/span>Framing the space :Where?
\n<\/strong><\/span>Framing the causal machinery : Cause-Effect-Control<\/p>\n

Causality, Agency
\n<\/strong>Effect and consequences
\n<\/strong>Control<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The emotional potential of a description of a situation can be evaluated at two levels, the first corresponding to a general orientation towards an affect, the second to a more specific orientation towards a particular emotion or a particular mood.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Synthetic evaluation of the event<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong>Positioning of the event on the pleasure \/ displeasure axis<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u2014\u00a0\u00abEvaluation of the action or of the outcome of the event in terms of intrinsinc agreeableness\u00bb (Scherer)<\/strong>
    \n\u2014\u00a0\u00abEvaluation\u00bb\u00a0(Caffi et Janney)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
    Psychological categories<\/strong><\/td>\nLinguistic categories<\/strong><\/td>\nMain contrast<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    evaluation<\/td>\nevaluation<\/td>\npositive \/ negative<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    \u2014 \u00abPrinciple of emotional evaluation\u00bb (Ungerer):<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Provide evaluations based on the norms of your culture<\/strong><\/td>\nCommenting adverbs, lexical items with positive\/negative connotations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    <\/h2>\n

    Evaluation<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

    An evaluation<\/strong> is a set of reactions or operations leading to the attribution of a value (aesthetic, moral (a good action), pragmatic (a good knife) to an object, a person, a situation, an action<\/p>\n

    The evaluation can be expressed<\/p>\n

    \u2014 By a reaction of the whole body to an event (reaction of rejection \/ openness), accompanied by semi-linguistic vocal production: yes \/ no<\/p>\n

    \u2014 By a physical reaction:<\/p>\n

    approaching \u00a0\u00a0 \/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 retreating movement
    \ntaking\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 throwing<\/p>\n

    \u2014 By an interjection<\/p>\n

    ew, ew, ugh \/ hmm!
    \nberk,beu\u00fbrk, pouah<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \/ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 hmm!<\/em><\/p>\n

    Through this primary reaction, the event is \u00ab\u00a0placed\u00a0\u00bb on the evaluative axis by a reflexive movement, accompanied by minimal linguistic productions.<\/p>\n

    The evaluation can be made explicit verbally by an evaluative predicate<\/p>\n

    pleasure \/ pain
    \npleasant \/ unpleasant
    \ntrue \/ false
    \ngood \/ bad
    \ngood \/ bad
    \nbeautiful \/ ugly
    \nit’s great \/ it’s unacceptable<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    It can be accompanied by an explicit emotional declaration:<\/p>\n

    it’s unpleasant \/ it’s pleasant,
    \nI’m disgusted \/ I’m on cloud nine<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The evaluation can be deferred in other cases, where it is no longer a reflex, no longer obvious. Then the evaluastion is constructed through a long linguistic and cognitive work composing of data coming from all the axes of categorization of the emotion, and leading to an evaluative conclusion like<\/p>\n

    Finally, in fact, on reflection, all this is extremely positive and even pleasant + blooming face and opening mimic<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The evaluation can be made by any actor involved in the event, including the narrator.
    \nproducing conflicting evaluations<\/p>\n

    In an extended interaction, the emotional evaluation is repeated, carried out at several levels. It is the point of convergence of a series of co-oriented phenomena.<\/p>\n


    \n<\/em><\/strong>(ii) Framing principle: Relationship to <\/em><\/strong>\u03a8<\/em><\/p>\n

    Overhanging parameter : \u201c\/<\/em>(\/\u03a8)\u201d \u2014\u00a0<\/em>A parameter which combines with every others<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    <\/td>\nExpectations Goals<\/strong><\/td>\nplans coming true\/not true, role\/norm
    \ndemands satisfied\/not satisfiedsignificance for goal achievement, legitimacy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Relationship to <\/strong>\u03a8<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

    		Consequences for self?<\/strong><\/td>\ngain\/loss of life, health, material goods,
    \nrelationships, status, self-esteem, time experiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nExperiencer’s standards? <\/strong><\/p>\n

    internal \/ estersnal<\/strong><\/td>\n

    		Conformity to cultural expectations or norms
    \nConsistency with real and\/or ideal self image.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    F2<\/td>\nEvaluation of the action \/ outcome of the event<\/td>\nIntrinsic agreeableness, importance of the goal, significance for goal achievement, legitimacy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    F5<\/td>\nComparison with external or internal standards<\/td>\nConformity to cultural expectations or norms
    \nConsistency with real and\/or ideal self image.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    F6<\/td>\nConsequences for self<\/td>\ngain\/loss of life, health, material goods,
    \nrelationships, status, self-esteem, time experiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    F7<\/td>\nExpectations<\/td>\nplans coming true\/not true, role\/norm demands satisfied\/not satisfied<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    F12<\/td>\nRelationship to agent<\/td>\nintimacy, attitude, status<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Norms<\/h1>\n

    Emotions are fundamentally shaped by values and interests.<\/p>\n

    The emotion attached to an event affecting an experiencer varies in quantity and quality depending on how that event affects its value system.<\/p>\n

    With the exception of innate reflex emotions, such as the fear induced in the duckling by the shadow of the raptor; or the cold sweat of the motorist who has just escaped from the accident).<\/p>\n

    Given an unknown experiencer receiving a news or facing an event, nothing can be said about the intensity and nature of the emotion felt by this subject, if any.<\/p>\n

    At most, we can expect it to be consistent with the emotion socially attached to that kind of news or events.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Let’s suppose that an individual finds himself in front of another dead person, or that he is told \u00ab\u00a0So-and-so is dead\u00a0\u00bb. His feeling depends totally on the relation he had with the dead person. If it an enemy, he may feel pity<\/em> (\u201cwar is a terrible thing<\/em>\u201d or joy, (\u00ab\u00a0one less bastard<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0) consecutive to the end of his fear, or a warlike exaltation<\/em> (\u00ab\u00a0now I am the strongest<\/em>!\u00a0\u00bb).
    \nIn such a situation, the principle of complementarity of the emotions applies: \u00ab\u00a0the happiness of some makes the misfortune of others<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

    If it is a stranger, perhaps fright<\/em>, or pity<\/em>, or simply indifference<\/em>, if the scene takes place in time of war. If it is a loved one, fright, despair, sadness, depression<\/em> or other feelings associated with grief<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    If it is your child, the reaction may be the same, but also something like pride: \u00ab\u00a0my son is a hero, a martyr, a saint\u00a0\u00bb – or so it is sometimes said. T<\/p>\n

    In any case, the emotion felt may differ from the stereotypical emotion given in the official definition of the situation.<\/p>\n

    (iii) Framing Tool : Naming-and-categorizing \u2014\u00a0Analogy<\/em><\/p>\n

    Identity = same key feature<\/p>\n

    Categorical analogy = same kind of beings, same name, same emotion<\/p>\n

    Structural analogy = same kind of events, \u2014, \u2014<\/p>\n

    Metaphor<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Framing the event<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Categorization processes<\/p>\n

    \u2014\u00a0of the event itself
    \n\u2014 of the participants<\/p>\n

    (iv)\u00a0Global Framing<\/em><\/h1>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Emotion is produced according to the name and category given to the event as a whole, as well as the name and category attributed to each of its components.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The designation of certain events refers to euphoric \/ dysphoric preconstructs<\/p>\n

    life drive\/death drive<\/p>\n

    wedding \/ funeral,<\/p>\n

    attack \/ party<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Such designations immediately position the event on the negative or positive zone of the pleasure\/displeasure axis.<\/p>\n

    This positioning is done by default, that is, it can be modified by circumstantial considerations. For some participants, a wedding can be sad and a funeral an exciting event.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    In addition to the emotions integrated into linguistic pre-constructs, the inventory of emotional data includes all the antecedent reports which, in ordinary social relations, triggers emotion (Cosnier 1994, Chapter 3; Scherer, Walbott, Summerfield, 1986).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The nature of this data is obviously culture-bound.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    At the limit, the mimesic emotion is produced by making the reader hallucinate the scene.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    In the article ‘evidence’ in his Dictionary of Rhetoric, Molini\u00e9 mentions<\/p>\n

    that famous and ridiculous suppression of the screen of discourse, with the idea that the listener is transformed into a spectator’ (1992, p. 145);<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    there is obviously a difference between taking part in the battle and reading a war novel, but it remains to account, for example, for the hallucinatory effect of the narrative.<\/p>\n

    \u2014\u00a0Specific framing lines<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    (v) Participants: <\/em><\/strong>Who?<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    This category takes up Ungerer’s \u00ab\u00a0Principle of rank\u00a0\u00bb. For an \u00ab\u00a0equal\u00a0\u00bb event, the emotion varies with the identity of the people (or sentient beings) affected, some people being emotionally more \u00ab\u00a0sensitive\u00a0\u00bb than others to the same event. With the same degree of proximity (kinship), the death of a child affects \u00ab\u00a0more\u00a0\u00bb than that of an old man, that of a civilian \u00ab\u00a0more\u00a0\u00bb than that of a soldier. \u00ab\u00a0Winning the jackpot\u00a0\u00bb does not evoke the same feelings depending on whether it affects \u00ab\u00a0a bigwig\u00a0\u00bb or \u00ab\u00a0a family whose father is unemployed\u00a0\u00bb. \u00ab\u00a0A tramp\/gangster is found murdered\u00a0\u00bb induces very different feelings, indignation in one case, perplexity or delight in the other (see Study 3).<\/p>\n

    People can be categorized as<\/p>\n

    acquaintances, relatives, loved ones, neighbors \/ foreigners<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    (vi) Time line: <\/em><\/strong>When?<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
    Time? <\/strong><\/td>\nWhen? <\/strong>\u2014\u00a0Timing of the event<\/td>\n\u00a0<\/strong>Past \/ present\/ future
    \nBefore \/ Now \/ after<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Probability<\/strong>,<\/p>\n

    Predictability<\/strong>, expectation,<\/td>\n

    		Probable \/ Unlikely ?<\/p>\n

    Expected \/ unexpected ?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    According to their temporal – aspectual construction, events are excluded or included in the subjective temporal sphere of the person:<\/p>\n

    at the very moment I am talking to you…<\/em> VS \u00a0now it is all over<\/em>.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The temporal dimension is essential in the construction of urgency<\/em> as well as surprise<\/em>, a component of any emotion.<\/p>\n

    This category corresponds to Scherer’s F1 facet, and also refers to the rhetorical techniques of chronography.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    (vii) \u00a0Space: <\/em><\/strong>Where?<\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Where?<\/strong><\/td>\n\u2014\u00a0Location of event?<\/p>\n

    \u2014\u00a0Distance to the experiencer?<\/td>\n

    		\u2014\u00a0nature, street, institutions, home<\/p>\n

    \u2014\u00a0near \/ far<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Place?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The place where the emotional event occurs can be emotionally marked<\/p>\n

    murder in an empty lot vs. murder in the cathedral<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    It can be marked in relation to a given person (he was found lying in your office<\/em>).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    This category corresponds to Scherer’s F10 facet, and also refers to the rhetorical techniques of topography. Its subjectivization refers to Ungerer’s \u00ab\u00a0Principle of proximity\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n

    Overall, the categories of place and time reconstruct the event according to the spatio-temporal coordinates of the target person.<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Distance<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Emotions varies in kind and intensity with the distance of the event from the experiencer. The term is to be taken in the material sense, near \/ far<\/em>:<\/p>\n

    These tragic events take place in Srebrenica \/ somewhere in the Balkans \/ two hours by plane from Paris.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    but also in the sense of intimacy (intimacy, involvment, solidarity)<\/p>\n

    it is a question of financial mathematics \/ this concerns us all<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Thi corresponds to the F12 facet of Scherer, but also to elements entering the \u00ab\u00a0control\u00a0\u00bb dimension of Caffi and Janney. T<\/p>\n

    Les modalit\u00e9s introduites par rapport au th\u00e8me du dire ou \u00e0 la relation interviennent \u00e9galement dans sa d\u00e9finition (Caffi 2000).<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u2014\u00a0Framing the causal machinery<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    (v) Agency
    \nIdentification of the Cause or Agent<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Agency<\/u> =Agent-Causality<\/p>\n

    Agent-Causality is the idea that agents can start new causal chains that are not pre-determined<\/em> by the events of the immediate or distant past and the physical laws of nature<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Inference about the cause of the event \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Identity of the agent, motive\/origin, legitimacy<\/p>\n

    Who \/ What : identification of the agent<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    <\/td>\nWhat?<\/strong>
    \nNatural phenomenon<\/td>\n    		cause<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Agency?<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\nself<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n\u2014\u00a0Intentional action: motive \/origin, legitimacy<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\nother<\/td>\ntype of intention, role\/norm demands.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nWho?<\/strong> Human agent<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\n<\/td>\n\u2014\u00a0Non-intentional<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    This essential category refers to Scherer’s F3 and F11 facets.<\/p>\n

    The determination of a cause or agent influences emotional attitudes towards an event. In particular, it is at the origin of the variations in emotions linked to the attribution of responsibility.<\/p>\n

    The street accident is due to fatality (\u00ab\u00a0a landslide<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0) or to a deliberate act (\u00ab\u00a0a drunk driver without a license ran into them<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0); there is adness and sorrow<\/em> in the first case, anger<\/em> in the second.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Depending on whether one attributes to the desertification of the countryside an abstract cause (\u00ab\u00a0the climate crisis, the European Common Agricultural Policy<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0) or agents (\u00ab\u00a0the European Commissioners<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0), one builds resignation or political indignation (see Study 2).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \u00ab\u00a0Peter terrorizes Paul<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb induces something like indignation<\/em> towards Peter, whereas \u00ab\u00a0Peter terrifies Paul<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb may earn him pity, if Peter is a Quasimodo (see Chapter 8).<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Effect and consequences<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Effects?<\/strong><\/td>\nDurations of effects<\/td>\nshort\/long term, permanent, periodic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n\n\n\n
    Consequences for self?<\/strong><\/td>\ngain\/loss of life, health, material goods,
    \nrelationships, status, self-esteem, time experiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    This category corresponds to Scherer’s F6, F7 and F8 facets.<\/p>\n

    For example, in order to orient a person’s emotional attitude towards fear<\/em> (constructing fear), we can show him, by means of a schema similar to that of an argument by consequences, that the negative consequences of such and such an event being frightening<\/em>, so is the source.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Control?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

    For an individual, the emotion associated with an event varies with his or her ability to control that event. If the development of a fear-provoking state of affairs is out of control, the fear becomes panic.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Caffi and Janney<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    <\/td>\nLinguistic categories<\/strong><\/td>\nMain contrast<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nproximity<\/td>\nnear \/ far<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    control<\/td>\nspecificity<\/td>\nclear \/ vague<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nevidentiality<\/td>\nconfident \/ doubtful<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    <\/td>\nvolitionality<\/td>\nassertive \/ non assertive<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The \u00ab\u00a0control\u00a0\u00bb category of corresponds to the F4 facet of Scherer. For an individual, the emotion associated with an event varies with his or her ability to control that event. If the development of a fear-provoking state of affairs is out of control, the fear<\/em> becomes panic<\/em>.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Structuring lines of the cognitive-emotional world of \u03a8 A situation A small group of people, adults and children, enters the subway. They are different: their skin, their face, their physique are Other. Their language is Other Their smell is Other … Continuer la lecture →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/97"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2424"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2424\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2438,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2424\/revisions\/2438"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/membre\/cplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}