DESCRIPCION DETALLE DE ACTIVIDADES POR COMPONENTE ACTIVIDADES COMPONENTE 1:

Several studies have indicated that individuals prefer to express their emotion in L1 (Dewaele, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2011b, 2013, 2017a; Pavlenko, 2006, Harris, 2004). Moreover, the emotional resonance of L1 has been reported to be higher than in languages learned later in

life (Dewaele, 2004a, 2011b; Caldwell-Harris et al., 2011; Harris, 2004; Harris et al., 2003; Hammer, 2017b). Numerous studies have shown that the types of interlocutors bi-/multilinguals interact with affect the language which is used for expression of emotions (Dewale, 2004c, 2006, 2008c, 2013, 2015c; Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2002; Ożańska-Ponikwia, 2013). Specifically,

speaking with strangers may affect anxiety levels (Dewaele, 2016) and bi-/multilinguals may even code-switch to choose the language which suits the emotional needs of a particular

situation, suggesting access to multiple cultural meanings (Hong et al., 2000; Benet-Martinez et al., 2002) and a gradual internalization process to a new language (Pavlenko, 2006, 2014). Moreover, research has indicated the strong effect of socialization (i.e., having wider network of interlocutors, higher frequency of the use of LX) on the language used to express emotions (Dewaele, 2013, 2016e; Hammer, 2016, 2017a; Dewaele & Nakano, 2013; Celenk & Van de Vijver, 2011). For instance, Dewaele (2004c) conducted a study among 1039 multilinguals on language preference for emotional expressions. The results indicated that language dominance had a significant effect on expressing feelings, including anger and swearwords with different interlocutors, and that L1 was the preferred language for inner speech. In a more recent study, Dewaele (2015c) analysed the feedback of 1454 adult multilinguals and the result were in line with his previous research; namely, participants reported using L1 more frequently for their inner speech and for emotional inner speech. Also, inner speech and self-perception were strongly related. There were some participants who reported using LX for their inner speech and Dewaele (2015c) concluded that the choice of using emotional inner speech in LX is an indication of a “conceptual restructuring and repositioning of the self” (p. 14).

Other research highlighted several characteristics of interlocutors, largely related to their language use, which influence language choice in bi-/multilinguals. For instance, Pavlenko (2004a) indicated that factors such as interlocutors’ linguistic competence, social context, and language dominance affect multilinguals’ language choice for expression of emotion. Dewaele (2008c) also conducted another study to examine multilinguals ‘perception of the emotional weight of “I love you”. The results showed that the perception of the emotional weight of “I love you” was significantly related to self-perceived language dominance, LX socialization, and LX categories of interlocutors. He asserted that strong socialization in the LX, indicating high frequency of the use of LX with different interlocutors over a long period of time, had a

interlocutors and having authentic interactions with LX speakers and socialization had positive correlation with individuals feeling dominant in their LX. In addition, multilinguals who have a wider network of interlocutors show a stronger ability to avoid or overcome linguistic iceberg (Dewaele, 2013). De Leersnyder et al. (2011) declared that emotional patterns convey and emphasize the dominant meanings and practices in their culture, therefore they imply migrants’ socio-cultural affiliations. In other words, participants’ attachments to LX culture and affective socialization have a significant effect on their choice of LX for expressing emotions with different interlocutors.

Similar results emerged from Ożańska-Ponikwia (2013) study, which showed that sociable individuals, who seemed to have a wider network of interlocutors and actively engaged in social interactions in LX, tend to use LX for a wider range of emotional terms. Dewaele and Pavlenko (2002) also showed that personality traits of Extraversion had a significant effect on the development of emotional scripts and wider use of colloquial terms in LX. Moreover, proficiency and frequency of the use of multiple languages were related to multilinguals’ ability to see the world from their interlocutors’ perspective. This was interpreted as evidence of multi- competence, since knowledge of multiple languages provided multilinguals with something more than mere knowledge and proficiency - they showed higher Cognitive Empathy (Dewale & Wei, 2012). In a different study, migrants’ longer length of residency was related to increased

awareness that their beliefs, norms, and values are not necessarily shared by interlocutors from different cultures, which showed a positive effect of their tolerance of ambiguity (Dewaele & Wei, 2013).

In the same vein, numerous studies revealed that bi-/multilinguals normally have linguistic preferences to communicate specific types of content and negative emotions with certain interlocutors (Dewaele, 2004b, 2006, 2008c, 2017a; Hammer, 2017a). Bilinguals showed clear linguistic preference when expressing specific content or when communicating with

particular interlocutors, such as friends or colleagues. Dewaele (2017a) participants reported using swearing significantly more with friends, followed by swearing alone, and, less frequently, with family members, colleagues, and strangers. Beers Fägersten (2007) conducted a study among 60 undergraduate students of University of Florida. Results indicated that there was tendency among participants to swear more frequently with interlocutors of similar age, gender

and ethnicity. This finding illustrates the inter-individual function of swearing, which depends on the specific interpersonal context (e.g., the group in which swearing happens). This is consistent with the idea that swearing can be used as a sign of group bonding and solidarity, which was emphasized by numerous studies, (Allan & Burridge, 2009; Dewaele, 2006; Beers Fägersten, 2007, 2012; Brandes, 2017; Stapleton, 2003, 2010; Stenström, 2006; Vingerhoets et al., 2013). Similarly, Stenström (2006) study showed that swearing can function as a marker of group identity among teenagers and young participants also could be a marker of gender identity as well. Along the same line, avoidance of swearing can represent social distance between speaker and interlocutors (Beers Fägersten, 2012; Dewaele, 2013).

Other research pointed out the effect of additional characteristics of the interlocutors, highlighting the complexity of swearing. The relative status of the interlocutors, and not only the style of usage, was suggested to have a significant effect on the perception of swearing (Allan & Burridge, 2006). Relative status was conceived to come from two sources: the relative power of the interlocutors and the social distance between them” (Allan & Buridge, 2006, p. 361). The relative power is explained by the social factors present in a specific situation of utterance. For example, the relative power of a policeman and a dentist is not the same in all situations. It highly depends on where they meet one another. If a dentist is stopped by a policeman due to impaired driving, the relative power between them is different relative to a situation in which a policeman is a patient in a dentist office. Social distance between interlocutors is regulated by factors such as age, gender, and socio-cultural background. Swearing at someone of lower status may not lead to loss of status, however swearing at someone with higher status may result in more serious consequences for the swearer (Allan & Burridge, 2009). Similarly, Jay (1992) showed that students hardly swear in official contexts such as the Dean’s office since there is a risk of losing their status and respect. He concluded that swearing in an inappropriate context may lead the swearer to face loss of credibility, showing that, overall, swearing is highly dependent on its context. Also, it can be used to create informal mood and atmosphere (Jay, 1992, 2009).

More recently, Su (2016) conducted a study with 120 college students and showed that, among advanced learners, the interlocutor’s relative power for apology in Chinese language has been blurred among Chinese (L1) and English (L2) speakers. Participants used apologizing

repertoires from the English language, which does not express the power relation concept, instead of the Chinese one. This was interpreted to be evidence for conceptual restructuring (instead of using the apology system in Chinese (L1), participants used their English (L2) apology system, which was based on egalitarian system), the effect of L2 on L1, and an indication of multi-competence. Dewaele (2013) used a subsample of 486 pentalinguals

extracted from BEQ, his study showed significant link between rich network of interlocutors, LX socialization, frequent use of LX and swearing in LX. Also, in his studies (Dewaele, 2016a, 2017a) among total of 1159 English L1 and 1165 English LX language users, participants showed that they used swearing significantly more with their friends followed by the situation where they were alone. Also, younger AOA, higher frequency of the use of LX, higher

proficiency in LX, and use of LX outside school were significantly related to swearing in English with different interlocutors.

In sum, the literature in this section (2.2.3) showed the influence of several characteristics of the interlocutors and their relationship with the speakers (e.g., formality, social distance between speaker and interlocutor, having wider network of interlocutors, and interlocutors age and gender) on the language used by bi-/multilinguals for expressing emotions, including swearwords. Swearing is defined as a multi-functional pragmatic unit, which can be used to express different emotions and different discourse functions. Swearing was shown to be affected by pragmatic variables like social distance and formality between speaker listener and location (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). Also, swearing can be used to indicate group identity, and solidarity, suggesting that both the intra-individual and inter-individual functions of swearing are important to consider when doing research. In the next section, the attempt is to provide insight into the relationship between gender and swearwords through a review of the literature from previous studies.