Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:38:55.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimensions of empathy in relation to language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2016

Ilona Herlin  and
Laura Visapää
Ilona Herlin
Affiliation:
Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, P.O.Box 4 (Vuorikatu 3), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. ilona.herlin@helsinki.fi
Laura Visapää
Affiliation:
Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, P.O.Box 3 (Fabianinkatu 33), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. laura.visapaa@helsinki.fi
Get access

Abstract

This article approaches the relationship between empathy and language, describing the ways in which different dimensions of empathy can be attested in naturally occurring interactional data. The authors adopt the definition of empathy as a multidimensional phenomenon: emotional contagion, as well as the cognitive and affective dimensions of empathy, are all understood to be central to the empathetic process. The article promotes the view that studying the relationship between empathy and language should be grounded in the analysis of real-life interactions. Language evolves in social interaction both phylogenetically and ontogenetically, and is not only an important product but also a means of human sociality. The authors suggest that the best approach for analyzing the empathy–language interface combines the theoretical insights of cognitive grammar with the method of conversation analysis. The paper shows that when empathy is analyzed in natural conversation, we can do sequential and linguistic analysis of the ways in which affect is shown, and through a careful analysis of grammatical devices, offer an explanation of whether the displays of affect are derived from the other person's situation. By analyzing the complex ways in which the interactants orient to the different dimensions of empathy, the paper shows how linguistic analysis can give us concrete tools for forming a deeper understanding of how empathy takes place in real-life encounters.

Keywords

affectcognitive grammarconversation analysisemotional contagionempathygrammargroundintersubjectivitytroubles-telling
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 39 , Special Issue 2: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity , October 2016 , pp. 135 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Nordic Association of Linguistics 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arbib, Michael. 2012. How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blair, James. 2005. Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociative forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric population. Consciousness & Cognition 14 (4), 698–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2012. Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 113–146.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Pourcel, Stéphanie (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. 1998. Empathy, sympathy, care. Philosophical Studies 89 (2–3), 261–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John & Giora, Rachel 2014. From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25 (3), 359–410.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Nancy & Fabes, Richard A.. 1990. Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion 1 (2), 131–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Nancy. 2010. Empathy-Related Responding: Links with Self-Regulation, Moral Judgment, and Moral Behavior. Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature, 129–148.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. 2013. Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja. 2009. The Finnish demonstrative pronouns in light of interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 25–46.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Herlin, Ilona, Jaakola, Minna & Visapää, Laura. 2009: Kielioppi käsitteistyksenä ja toimintana. Kognitiivista kielioppia ja keskustelunanalyysia yhdistämässä [Grammar as conceptualization and as action]. Virittäjä 113, 162–187.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja & Visapää, Laura. 2014. Why blend cognitive grammar with conversation analysis? In Ritva Laury, Etelämäki, Marja & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Pragmatics: Approaches to Grammar for Interactional Linguistics 24 (3), 477–506.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2012. Being equivocal: Affective response left unspecified. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 147–173.Google Scholar
Hari, Riitta & Kujala, Miiamaaria. 2009. Brain basis of human social interaction: From concepts to brain imaging. Physiologial Reviews 89, 453–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hepburn, Alexa & Potter, Jonathan. 2007. Crying receipts: Time, empathy and institutional practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction 40 (1), 89–116.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Potter, Jonathan. 2012. Crying and crying responses. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 195–211.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Emphatic moments in interaction. In Tanya Stivers, Mondada, Lorenza & Steensig, Jakob (eds.), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, 159–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Lindström, Anna. 2012a. Knowledge, empathy, and emotion in a medical encounter. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 256–273.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Lindström, Anna. 2012b. Advice giving – terminable and interminable: The case of British health visitors. In Holger Limberg & Locher, Miriam A. (eds.), Advice in Discourse, 169–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Herlin, Ilona & Visapää, Laura. 2011. Mitä on empatia ja mikä sen suhde kieleen? [What is empathy and what is its relationship to language?]. In Ilona Herlin, Laukkanen, Emmi, Salminen, Jutta, Mäkinen, Maria & Visapää, Laura (eds.), Kieli ja empatia [Language and empathy], 7–28. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, Robert. 1969. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hrdy, Sarah. 2009. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2008. Concerning the role of consciousness in linguistics. Journal of Consciousness Studies 15 (6), 15−33.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa. 2009. The true nature of typological linguistics. In Jordan Zlatev, Andrén, Mats, Johansson Falck, Marlene & Lundmark, Carita (eds.), Studies in Language and Cognition, 19–29. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In Atkinson, Maxwell J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 191–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35 (4), 418–441.Google Scholar
Kimmel, Michael. 2007. Properties of cultural embodiment: Lessons from the anthropology of the body. In Frank, Roslyn M., Dirven, René, Ziemke, Tom & Bernárdez, Enrique (eds.), Body, language and mind, vol. 2, 77–108. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koski, Sonja & Sterck, Elisabeth. 2010. Empathic chimpanzees: A proposal of the levels of emotional and cognitive processing in chimpanzee empathy. In Sterck, Elisabeth H. M. & Begeer, Sander (eds.), Theory of Mind: Special issue of European Journal of Developmental Psychology 7 (1), 38–66.Google Scholar
Kupetz, Maxi. 2014. Empathy displays as interactional achievements: Multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 61, 4–34.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Lyle Campbell & Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa (eds.), Grammar from the Human Perspecvtive: Case, Space, and Person, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization (Cognitive Linguistics Research 14). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2014. Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. In Visapää, Laura, Kalliokoski, Jyrki & Sorva, Helena (eds.), Contexts of Subordination, 17–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lauranto, Yrjö. 2013. Suomen kielen imperatiivi – yksi paradigma, kaksi systeemiä [The imperative in Finnish: One paradigm, two systems]. Virittäjä 117, 156–200.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi. 2012. Epilogue: What does the study of interaction offer to emotion research? In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 274–289.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (eds.). 2012. Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9, 219–229.Google Scholar
Preston, Stephanie. 2007. A perception-action model for empathy. In Tom Farrow & Woodruff, Peter (eds.), Empathy in Mental Illness, 428–447. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Preston, Stephanie & de Waal, Frans. 2002. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate basis. Behavioral Brain Science 25 (1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, Giacomo & Graighero, Laila. 2004. Mirror neuron: A neurological approach to empathy. Research and Perspectives in Neurosciences 2005, 107–123.Google Scholar
Rogers, Carl R. 1975. Empathic: ‘An unappreciated way of being’. The Counceling Psychologist 5 (2), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico. 2012. Gaze in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, 308–329. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2005. ‘Empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ in action: Attending to patients’ troubles in Finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly 68, 204–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2007. Managing affect: Integration of empathy and problem-solving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies 9 (5), 597–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna & Peräkylä, Anssi. 2009. Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (4), 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. On doing ‘being ordinary’. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 413–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey.1992. Lectures on Conversation (edited by Gail Jefferson). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Scheler, Max. 1973. Wesen und Form der Sympathie. Bern & München: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1998. Body torque. Social Research 65 (3), 535–596.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and Grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, vol 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEP = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . 2010. Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy (read 1 November 2010).Google Scholar
Singer, Tania. 2006. The neuronal basis and ontogeny of empathy and mind reading: Review of literature and implications for future research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, 855–863.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1), 31–57.Google Scholar
Stotland, Ezra. 1969. Exploratory investigations of empathy. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 4, 271–314. New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, vols. I–II. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda, Call, Josep, Behne, Tanya & Molly, Henrike. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28, 675–735.Google Scholar
Violi, Patricia. 2008. Beyond the body: Towards a full embodied semiosis. In Frank, Roslyn M., René Dirven, Ziemke, Tom & Bernárdez, Enrique (eds.), Body, Language and Mind, vol. 2, 241–264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Voutilainen, Liisa. 2012. Responding to emotion in cognitive psychotherapy. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen (eds.), 235–255.Google Scholar
Voutilainen, Liisa, Peräkylä, Anssi & Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2015. Sharing the emotional load: Recipient affiliation calms down the storyteller. Social Psychology Quarterly 78 (4), 301–323.Google Scholar
Zahavi, Dan. 2014. Self & Other: Exploring Subjectivity, Empathy, and Shame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, Jordan. 2008. The co-evolution of intersubjectivity and bodily mimesis. In Jordan Zlatev, Racine, Timothy, Sinha, Chris & Itkonen, Esa (eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, 215–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar