 I should say a few brief words, but every very brief I think my understanding is that we have the room just for one hour. I want to on one place much of it. I should also add now if anybody wants to join us for a little drink or dinner or do something more for the discussions. Everybody is very welcome. I'm Lutz Martin. I'm half in the Africa section, half the Linguistic section, and it's my great pleasure to introduce Tanja Kutheba, who is a well-known guest here, so she's a research associate of the department for many years. She's been here many times. There was an interruption during COVID, but they couldn't travel, so we kept in touch online. But now I think this is the first time you're back in London after a while. That's true. This is last year. Yes. Oh, no, here we have last year. That's true, but still, but we're sort of still gathering place. Tanja is in the English department at the Heinrich-Henry University, and Düsseldorf so her background is in English linguistics, but she has worked extensively across a range of languages, in particular on the theories of grammatization, language change, language contact, and she is a very well-known person in the field. One of the books I really like is worked with Van Thijne on language change and language contact in 2005. You've also got an auxiliaries quite extensively, and most recently on discourse grammar or interactional grammar. I think you also talked a little bit about that in that talk. With that, I think I leave the floor to Tanja. It's a great pleasure to have you here. It's also actually the inaugural talk of the new linguistics seminar series. We're going to continue Wednesdays every two weeks, I think we're saying, to have groups of speakers. It's really nice to start the series with Tanja. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much. I'm always delighted to be back, and thanks a lot for this wonderful introduction. Well, so this is actually a very, very much of a pilot study. It is a joint study with my two Korean co-authors, Professor Sampani and Professor Sunki Yahe. Ben Tsaragane is somebody from, actually, the scholar from Isfahan University, Iran, and also associated with the Hand-of-the-Kind University, which is also the university of which I am based, and Dana Chandra Menendez, who is associated with the Hand-of-the-Kind University. As you can see, I mean, we have several quite different languages here with native speakers, Korean, myself, Bulgarian, Persian, and then Dana is a speaker of Spanish and Indonesian. So she's a bilingual speaker. Right, so it's a very fearful title, fear, across languages. Let me very quickly walk you through the structure of the presentation. After a brief introduction, we will talk about the theoretical preliminaries that we're using in this study. Then we'll take a look at the expression of fear across languages in what we've termed sentence grammar, and then it will be interactive grammar, maybe these two terms are new for you, so I'll take some time to explain them. And then we'll go on to section five in which we'll try to give you a bigger picture about how the emotion of fear is expressed in language, and then we'll come to the conclusion section. So here, I mean, in the literature, there have been two major series of emotions, so two major views on emotions. On the one hand, we have the classical view of emotions, which was proposed by Paul Ekman and his associates decades ago, according to which there are at least five, some called basic emotions. Of course, you can all guess, I mean, for us in Western, I mean, here in this part of the globe, at least joy and sadness, fear, anger and disgust, at least these two are considered to be basic in this framework. And interestingly enough, each of these emotions, I just claim, has a distinct fingerprint or signature. So what does that mean? It means that each of these emotions is experienced in the same way, not only is it experienced in the same way by all human beings, but also the representation of each of these emotions is universal. So the same facial expression is used to express each of them, fear included, everywhere in the world, and these are recognizable everywhere in the world. This view, the classical view of emotions predicts that each basic emotion correlates with a particular body-related physiological pattern, thank you very much, physiological pattern of behavior, and also a particular brain activity circuitry. Now, opposing to this is the more recent so-called construction theory of emotions, which has been elaborated by Lisa Feldman Barrett and her associates in a number of actually over 200 articles and more recently in two books, one in 2017, how emotions are made, the secret life of the brain, and the more recent one, 2020, seven and a half lessons about the brain. So according to this theory, the standpoint taken is actually radically different here, namely, emotions are not universal. There are no basic emotions. I mean, there are no universal so-called basic emotions. What an emotion is is different for different people and different cultures. In some cultures, there is no real distinction between thinking and feeling. And actually, I'm going to give you an excerpt from an interview with Lisa Feldman Barrett several months ago, which I think is very interesting. So what she says is, not everybody has emotions, even more shockingly, in some cultures, there is no real distinction between thinking and feeling. In such cultures, thoughts and feelings are part of a unified whole experience. There is no distinction between them. And actually, the neuroscience seems to suggest that that's probably more correct. So I can already see on my expressions on your face, this is extremely counterintuitive, isn't it? Anyway, in her work, and also the work of her associates, there is this attempt to build, let's call it a window on emotions from the perspective of psychological neuroscience. Okay, we are linguists and as linguists, the question is, can we, from a linguistics point of view, also have some kind of a window on the reality of emotions? So our goal here is to test the classical and the construction theory of emotions, these two theories, opposing theories, from a linguistic perspective. As you can imagine, this turned out to be an extremely humbling experience, very intriguing, fascinating area of research, but very, very challenging and difficult. And I have to say once again, it is very much a pilot study. So the question that we are asking here is, does the linguistic realization of emotions support the views that they're universal, that each has a distinct fingerprint, as the classical view would have it, or are they cultural constructs as argued in the construction theory of emotions? Object investigation here is one particular emotion, which has traditionally assumed to be basic and universal, and also automatically triggered, may be fear, hence the title. A basic assumption, emotions and cognition cannot be separated, this is not even an assumption, it has been established already in a number of works, so they are to get emotions and cognition. But we assume that cognition is manifested by language, also somehow very ready, a very great assumption to make. We assume that language reflects how we conceptualize the world, and language reflects cognition and emotions, as they cannot be separated anyway, fear included. But is this the whole story or only half of it? Does language play a crucial role in how we conceptualize the world, and how we experience our construct emotions? Our claim is that from a linguistic point of view, the emotion with fear has no specific fingerprint, rather variation is than normal. Because what we observe is that different expressions can be used to express the same emotion, and the same expression can be used to express different emotions. So to this extent, the expression of fear in language is compatible with the construction theory of emotions. There is a caveat, the variation in the linguistic expression of fear is not unconstrained, it's not a random mess, nevertheless. So let me now very quickly go through the theoretical preliminaries, through the theoretical concepts that we'll be using here. So the concepts that I need to introduce at this point are three, actually. Discourse grammar. Discourse grammar is the overall amount of all linguistic resources that are available for constructing spoken, signed, or written texts, everything that language users have at their disposal. And within this overall amount of linguistic expressions, we make a distinction between two domains of linguistic organization, namely, everyone has sentence grammar, and on the other hand, surgical grammar. This is a distinction that we've made in several words since 2011, actually, that the first word was, I came from, no, I came here 2009. But 2011 is the first publication that we had on this particular theoretical framework. And so here you have a, in figure one, a sketch of discourse grammar. As I said, this is about the linguistic organization operating on at least two different place, sentence grammar, the one hand, ethical grammar, and sentence grammar is actually what is the object of investigation in mainstream linguistic literature. It's organized in terms of parts of speech, acoustician types, sentences, words, morphemes, et cetera, and the syntactical and morphological rules that relate them. And physical grammar comprises physical categories, and they can be a word, a phrase, a clause, or chunk of text, which is extra-clausel, which is independent from the clause structure. Here we distinguish between three types. They can be instantaneous, they can be instructional and formulaic. For us, what will be relevant is the last type, third type formulaic seticles. So this is the contents of what has been also proposed and elaborated most recently in the framework of interactive grammar, which Matt Heiner has proposed and it will come out in the Oxford University Press in 2023. So we'll be talking about discourse grammar, sorry, we'll be talking about, actually, we'll take a look at sentence grammar and then interactive grammar, because this is, you know, about these are the planes at which linguistic, we can expect linguistic realization of the emotion of fear. But we come now to interactive grammar as a distinct domain of language organization. With an interactive grammar, Matt Heiner makes a distinction between 10 main types of interactive, so you have expressions which are attention signals like, hey, directives, discourse markers, for example, indeed, evaluatives, great, brilliant, ideal thoughts, thought, interjections, out, wow, response elicitors, right, response signals, yes, no, social formerly, like bye, bye bye, vocatives like mom, sir, ladies and gentlemen, etc. So as you can see, there's quite some diversity here, even though they differ, however, each of these can occur on their own. So they're not integrated into the causal structure. They are extra causal constituents. And here's the definition of interactives. An interactive is an invariable, the ictic form. Why the ictic? Because it is embedded in a concrete discourse, but not a situation. So an interactive is an invariable, the ictic form that is in some way set off from the surrounding text, semantically, syntactically, and prosodically, and can neither be negated nor questioned. So you cannot negate it. What is your question? Now, we're passing on to the linguistic expression of fear. And first, we'll take a look at sentence graph of the ordinary orthodox grammar. So what do we find across languages? We find what we've termed transparent, or straightforward, fear morphemes, right? Like in English, you have words like to fear, to be frightened of, to be afraid of, to have fear of, for fear of. So is it fear afraid? These are the lexical, the lexives. In English, fear can be expressed in different word classes. You can have it as a noun, a terrible fear struck his heart. Adjective, he was afraid, of a John Fjord Mary. In French, this is an example of no fewer than 16 different lexines for different subtypes of fear. Of course, here we can, you can say that this is a language with a very high granularity of the emotion of fear, very, very fine distinctions. My favorite ones are, you can even have a fear of books, also a fear of knowledge, and even fear of beautiful women. But of course, as you can imagine, if we go to that level of specificity, right, which is a very low level of generality, of course, you can expect, you know, large number of words for fear. But we are actually interested in basic level, so to say, no, basic level, in expressions of fear, basic level expressions. So even if we look at basic level categories of fear, the way that they expressed in language, even then, even in related, in closely related languages, geographically and genetically, we see that languages can behave differently regarding the way that they encode fear. For instance, in English, you have the basic level word, fear. In German, for fear, you have two counterparts for English, we have angst and furcht. And here I have, you know, because words came to Dusseldorf several months ago, and he gave a wonderful lecture with an analysis of the expressions of fear in Bantu languages. And here I have selected five different leg seams that was identified in Swahili, that express fear, so you can see how the adjective be fearful. Then from that adjective, if there is a noun derived, then there is a verb derived, but then there is a totally different leg seam, cha, which is to fear, to revere, then we have another different leg seam, fear, be scared, be frightened. And then you have two more words to nouns, which are loan words from Arabic, right? So you see, there is a difference in the number of fear as basic level notions. So this is what we observe when it comes to straightforward or transparent, I would say, expressions of fear. Now, very often, fear is expressed by means of expressions, which are somehow related to the body, to the physiology or to body parts, right? So these are also called physiological metonyms, right? So a number of linguistic expressions of fear relate to the physiology of the human body. Frequently, it is verbs like tremble, shiver, that we find in such expression. Now we have a Chinese speaker here and also another one, all right? But anyway, as you see, I mean, one, this is a co-author from another book, from another study, hyping long. So he gave us this example, it should be correct, right? So you see, in Mandarin Chinese, you can use the verb for tremble as well. And interestingly, body-related expressions, which involve physiological states like trembling and shivering, they can be called fear, but it's not only fear. Often, it is also another negative emotion, namely anger. It's really very, very often the case now. This is why people speak of fears and angers. There was a conference several years ago between Mary, and the whole conference was on fears and angers. So this is really something that you find very often. One of the same linguistic expressions can start either for fear or for anger. And here is again our Mandarin Chinese example, where you can say that being so angry that one is trembling, of course, I dare not use my Mandarin pronunciation. It'll be a fiasco. But that's the expression. But it's not only fears and angers, both of which are negative expressions. It is also very often the case that one of the same linguistic expressions which stands for something that's negative as fear and anger also can be called a positive emotion, something like excitement, like joy. So that's really interesting. Positive emotions can also be encoded by linguistic expressions for fear. Now, even more commonly, linguistic expressions for fear relate to body parts, terms to body parts, or liquids in the body. Very often you find expressions which involve the heart, then the skin, very often, goosebumps. Body fluids such as blood, sweat. So in Germany, you have Gen Zihang becoming to get goosebumps. In Korean, it is, it's not goose, it's chicken. Some kind of poultry, right? To get goosebumps, chicken skin. In Chinese, as far as I recall, it is also chicken, isn't it? Right. So irrespective of the kind of poultry, then no, it's the same notion, roughness of the skin, right, which is foregrounded. Now, interestingly, fear expressions which involve body part or liquid or liquid terms, they vary a lot across languages. With respect to the body parts that are involved, I think in Mandarin Chinese, there was something about intestines and very, very, very expressive intestines and stomach. I'm sorry, I couldn't include also this example, but very interesting. And there is also a variation when it comes to the number of body parts that the particular language chooses to use in these apresio-vortical expressions, in this learning was the expressions. And Korean is a champion here for the time being where you can have no fewer than 16 body part terms, which I have three slides with the examples, but I'm not going to give you the concrete examples here. Let me just mention the body part terms. It's about hair, hamstring, bone, sweat, all four limbs, lips, teeth, tongue, jaw, back of neck, body, hands, spine, heart, liver, and the knee, right? And then of course, so you see languages make different choices. We don't have time for the concrete examples from Korean. Now, metaphors of fear, it is possible to identify metaphors and metaphorical expressions that languages have at their disposal in order to express fear. A very common metaphor, at least recent cultures, is fear is fluid in a container. An example would be in English, the sign filled him with fear. In Turkish, you have something very similar. So in order for you to say, I'm filled with fear, you would use fear in the instrumental case, and then the verb fulfill first versus single present. Now, it turns out that metaphors of fear are based on cultural schemata. There is a lot of variation also to be observed across languages here. Manjit in 2012, a very nice study on emotions, points out that so a language spoken in the highlands of Taiwan, this is a language which has, which makes very little use of metaphors for emotions in principle. And this metaphor, fear is a liquid in a container just does not exist in soul. There is quite a variation of, I mean, when it comes to metaphorical expressions of fear. But now we're passing on to the expression of fear. We're still with this center's grammar, but we're looking now at the Dome grammar, grammaticalized expressions. Until now, it was all the lexicon, right? The transparent lexical morphemes, then we had body part, term, physiological units, metaphors. Now we're looking at grammatical categories. Are they grammatical categories? In the first place, grammatical categories are called fear. Interestingly enough, there is such a grammatical category. It has been termed, it's actually a misnomer, apprehensionals who speak of apprehensionals in the plural, because they do exist, grammatical morphemes, which can be used to express fear. And these can be found, both in the nominal domain, so with nouns, as case inflections, and also in the verbal domain, the so-called last clause construction. First, let's take a look at the aversive case, which is the grammatical morpheme in the nominal domain. So aversive case inflections are descriptive. There is this example from Yidini, which is an Aboriginal Australian language, where you have the suffix as a marker of aversive nominal case. It has scope over the noun phrase, expresses fear that is not necessarily that of the speaker, but maybe that of the agent of the main clause. And here is an example from Dixon. Mother is frightened of the dog. So as you can see, in the last word form here, Yida is the suffix marking the aversive case. Now, there is also within the verbal domain the so-called last clause construction in English. An example would be don't go to near the fire, less to get burned. This list actually goes back to a combination of three morphemes, which is thereby less than. There is a very nice study done on that. We don't have time for the details here. But the important thing is that this list, this subordinator, is the result of a long grammaticalization process. And what you have today is, oops, something happened. Did I press something? Okay. So this list construction consists of two clauses. It can encode feared or apprehension causing verb situation, which is to be avoided, whereby the feared or the apprehension causing situation is generally portrayed as counteractual. Less causes however, they're not only about fear. In fact, when they were first identified as grammatical expressions that was back in 1977 by Dixon, they were not, I mean, the first examples of the last clause construction were about undesirable situations that were to be avoided, not necessarily about fear. It was later on that more and more examples were identified. Even in an example from Kobukota actually chambers, she was a student here and then she did her PhD here. As you can see, this is a, I mean, in this example, which is current, I mean, it has nothing to do with earlier stages of language. If you want to say, I've just cooked and you'll eat, lest you be hungry. There is nothing about fear here. It's really about a desirable situation. So it was only later that less causes were identified as possible grammaticalized expressions of fear. And in fact, recent studies of apprehensionals show that expressing a feared situation is only one of at least two functions of apprehensionals. So this is what made us, I mean, Korean co-authors and myself to propose the term avoidive, instead of apprehensionals, because it's just maybe we think it's a misnomer. If we assume that the linguistic expression of fear is basing or universal, limited variation with respect to the kind of structures that come to functions apprehensionals is to be expected. But observations show that the grammaticalization paths that lead to apprehensionals show quite some variation. So what we have as grammaticalization paths to apprehensionals is you can have a construction with something negative like in English, you can have something involving a temporal marker, then you can also have a construction which involves visual perception, namely the verb to see, or the construction which involves cognition, namely the verb to think that the latter two come from Korean. And here I'm talking about more advanced grammatical morphemes of our fear, but especially if we take a look at less advanced, let's say lexical grammatical expressions, then we see even more that we observe even more a diversity of grammaticalization, lexical to grammatical developments. So it's not only negation in temple, here you have the concrete references, the concrete languages, but it's also purposive notions, manner notions, like for instance the lexicon for order, lexicon for cut, or bite, or hit, or strike, or kill, or break, come, accomplish, etc., that have started on the way of grammaticalization, but haven't reached that advanced grammaticalization starters. So the point is that there is variation, even more striking when it comes to the number of grammaticalized structures that can express fear in different languages. So there are languages with no grammatical morpheme for fear. English has no grammatical morpheme, people mentioned it less. In German, there is no such grammatical morpheme, we use the mit, but the mit is absolutely neutral. There are languages, like Korean again, which has no fewer than 10 grammatical morphemes for fear. The extent to which they have grammaticalized is not the same, some of them are more grammaticalized, more advanced, others are not. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify no fewer than 10 of them. So the variation which is observed here also indicates that there is no specific fingerprint of fear in the linguistic expression of this emotion in sentence grammar. So we're still in sentence grammar covering the lexicon and now it is the dominant of grammar. We can say that the observation is one sentence grammar unit may encode more than one emotions, one expression may encode more than one emotions, fear being one of them and fear may be encoded by more than one sentence grammar units, more than one expressions. So it is not possible to claim universality of a specific signature in the expression of fear within sentence grammar. Now I told you that within discourse grammar, if you remember this figure with discourse grammar on top and then we had sentence grammar and thetical grammar. Thetical grammar has been proposed to be evolutionary primary and in that case more basic. We have argued this in a couple of papers. So it seems more promising for us to look for universality, if we're looking for universality, in the expression of fear in thetical grammar, not in sentence grammar, especially if we look at interactives. Do you remember all these bits and pieces, extra-closal, like directives and attention signals, hey, and formulae of social exchange, bye, hello, all these little fragments which are extremely important for communication interaction. So that's where we're going to look at now, hoping to find universality. So expression of fear, interactives of fear across languages. It turns out that of all interactives, interjections. Interjections was like, wow, oh my god. Interjections occur most frequently as linguistic expressions of fear. And we clearly see like three types of interjections in this particular case. We have primary interjections. We have secondary interjections which derive from bulk tips and secondary interjections which derive from expletives. There are also some evaluatives. Evaluatives, these are still interactives like right, brilliant, responsive liciters, like right, and directives, but they're less frequently used. So let's take a look first at primary interjections. Here in Persian you have, you know, you have the counterpart of the English O. In Bulgarian, well, Bulgarian is my mother tongue, so I'm always happy to give you an example. I can read aloud and not feel uncomfortable. So primary interjection, it's a single word. You know, if you ask me, I don't know what it can be traced back to. It's quite a long word, olele, right? It doesn't mean anything actually, to me at least. And I don't think that there is anything wrong about the etymology of this. But translated in English, it'll be, oh God. Here is an example. So I'm going to read to you the translation. She saw the figures coming closer, quietly towards the bed. Oh God, what now? Her muscles were so stiff that she was afraid she will never be able to move. So this is an example of primary interjections. We have secondary interjections, which derive from vocatives. Vocative is when you, it's like a term of address, like a term to someone, you know, there is a graph, a special term for that vocative. So here's an example from English. I'm driving, the person A says, I'm driving, there is this big bag and the whole bonnet lit up, oh God, the person B says, oh God. So this is a secondary interjection, deriving from vocative. It's originally, it was like asking for help, turning to God for help. In Persian, we have the same thing. And interestingly, in Persian, you can also use the kinship terms for mother and father in the same function as the expression of fear, right? In fact, in Bulgarian, you can also use, I'm still here in Bulgarian, you can also use the word for, for mother and you use it in fact as the diminutive as an expression of fear. I know when you're telling us and saying, mama mia, also when you're in a fearful situation. The third type of interjections divide from expletives. This is a very rich source for, for expression of fear in English, you see some of them. I'm sure you know more. There is one, one example here from Spanish, also deriving from expletives in Bulgarian. Okay, so expletives, I think it's a clear case. Now, another type of interactive, in addition to interjections, is evaluatives. So that's an example of Bulgarian, from Bulgarian. Here you can use the noun horror. I mean, in a fearful situation, I'm not going to go through an example because as I can see, we don't have that much time. Then we have response elicitors. These two can be used as that's another example from Bulgarian. There is a combination of two particles, and if you want to say, you sound weird, you're sick, you don't have a cold, right? So that would be a response elicitor, but this, this is also something that can be used in a fearful situation. So what we can say is that in interactive grammar, interjections are the most commonly used linguistic realizations of fear. However, there is no one-to-one match between one particular interjection and the emotion of fear in individual languages. There are more than one interjection that can express fear. And on the other hand, the same interjection can express several emotions. So we have the same correlations here. And that's another example from Bulgarian, where you can see that there are no fewer than five nouns, which, when they're used in their vocative case form, can be used as expressions of fear. These nouns are God, and you see the vocative form for God is absolutely different. Not very different, but it's a distinctive form. Bok is the in-marked form, boge is the marked form. Anyway, it's a clear distinction that you have a vocative case. And interestingly enough, this can be used not only in fearful situations, but also in order to express joy, right? So again, we have a combination of both negative but also positive emotion encoded in one and the same interactive, in this case, interjections. So same thing with evaluative interactives and same thing with responsive visitors. So we can say that we find no evidence for the existence of a specific fingerprint within the domain of interactive grammar as well, where we actually hoped that it will be much more feasible for us to find some universality. Okay, so we're passing on to the next section, which is an attempt at a bigger picture of the situation of linguistic realisation of fear across languages. So as you could see, we examined several which are graphically and genetically related and unrelated languages here, and we observed that fear does not have a specific linguistic fingerprint or signature. Rather, it is a way to be part of a culture using the words of Vatiya Miskita in a very interesting recent book that she she wrote. But I mean, she's a cultural anthropologist and psychologist, but here we as linguists can also say that. And interestingly enough, this puts us in a position to make predictions or a verifiable hypothesis. For instance, we do not expect that the people living on the island of Bali in Indonesia have specific interactive vocalisation to express fear for the following reasons. Now when I say interactive vocalisation, you remember, we talked about interactives, when you're scared to say, oh my God, right, or something like this. Oh, wow. But in the example that I'm going to give you now from Bali, we have a very different situation. When people living on the island of Bali are afraid, they are reported to fall asleep. Or at least that's what they're supposed to do. According to Barrett, that's a construction theory, falling asleep might seem like a strange thing to do when you're afraid. If you're from a Western culture, you're supposed to freeze on the spot, widen your eyes and gasp. You can also squeeze your eyes shut and scream like a teenage babysitter in a bat horror movie. Or you can run away from whatever is scaring you. These behaviours are Western stereotypes for proper fear behaviour. In Bali, the stereotype is to fall asleep. Now, if we have this as linguists, knowing, I mean, having made the observations that we made, we actually, we can formulate this hypothesis that there you wouldn't expect a specific interactive vocalisation. We haven't checked that. But it's a little bit extremely interesting, you know, to do research there. As I mentioned, I have to repeat it again. It's a parliament study. Now, when it comes to the experience of fear, are we as analysts of language in position to either prove or disprove its universality across languages and cultures? In many cases where an individual language has a linguistic expression for fear, how can we be sure that the users of that language have the same concept of fear as the users of another language? Here is an example for the role of culture in conceptualisation of the emotion of fear. In Indonesia, there is a distinction made between two forms, two lexemes. One of them is Gary and the other one is Takut. The first one, Gary, is used for fear of things. For example, fear of heights, fear of things and objects. Then you would express Gary, are you a speaker of Indonesian? Because you're nodding so understandably. Okay. Are you like the idea? Oh, I understand. Oh, I understand. Okay. You have a very expressive face. Okay. So for fear of things and objects, you use the form Gary and for fear of people or of their actions, you use another one, namely Takut. Now, Spanish, German and English have several synonyms for fear, but no such differentiation as in Indonesian exists. But can language provide us with a diagnostic tool for the existence of fear is a basic universal emotion with specific fingerprint or signature? Our observation here is that different linguistic expressions can be used to express the same emotion and the same expression can be used to express different emotions. From a linguistic perspective, we observe no specific fingerprint for fear. And this is compatible with Barrett's view of her subject, view of emotion, because they also find that the same emotion category involves different bodily responses. None of the bodily responses are unique to one single emotion exclusively. So our observations favor definitions, the definition of emotions that Barrett proposes, which is a way for our brain to make sense of what is happening on the basis of three sources of information, the internal physiological state of the body, interception, how visceral organs are doing their state, external stimuli and individual past experience. So it's not about, it's not like our emotions are triggered by external stimuli. It's much more complex than that. And this suggests that the linguistic expression of, so our study suggests that the linguistic expression of fear is culture-based. And the role of culture can be seen even clearly, even more clearly if we consider the study that I'm going to show you now, the results of which I'm going to show you now, where there is a visualization of fear proposed for two languages, English and Lithuanian. So this study, 2006, has, we have to go. Oh, okay. Can I say, how about this? And the next one is this one. It's an animal. So this one is a human and this one is an animal with different characteristics that you can see. So that's, that these are the visualizations of fear into different languages. So what we can say is that our observations, fame of Barrett's construction theory of emotions, classification into universal basic emotions, fear included is Western based culture plays critical role in how fear is constructed and expressed in language. People of the same culture express themselves in similar ways. People from different cultures may express feelings or thoughts differently. This does not contradict the fact that there are also similarities between the fears across languages. And the reason is that there are similarities between the historical, religious and cultural elements of different cultures. And I'm done.