U n i v e r s i t ä t P o t s d a m

Barbara Krahe

Personality and language

first published in:Modern personality psychology : critical reviews and new directions / ed. byGian-Vittorio Caprara; G. van Heck. - New York [u.a.] : HarvesterWheatsheaf, 1992. - S. 282-294

Postprint published at the Institutional Repository of Potsdam University:In: Postprints der Universitat PotsdamHumanwissenschaftliche Reihe ; 76http://opus.kobv.de/ubp/volltexte/2009/3407/http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-34073

Postprints der Universitat PotsdamHumanwissenschaftliche Reihe ; 76

Personality and language

Gün R. SeminFree University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Barbara KraheFree University of Berlin, Germany

Introduction

The relalionship belween personalily anti language can be conceplualizetl in manyways. al\(l even lhe way in which the Iwo wortls lal/glwge anti per.wJl/oliry arejllxlaposeu in a lilie or a quest ion JIlay channel the different approaches anti answersIn how Ihe two are relatetl to each other or what is regaruetl as inlluendng whal:does language inlluence personality. 01", viee versa, is it persunality that inllucnceslanguage? Is language anti ils use an index of personality, ur can une rcgartllanguagemercly as a 'Ircasure Imuse' where the sec reIs of personality are buried?

What lileralure Ihere is on thc subjcct is nol parlieularly eonsislent anti, sumewhalsllrprisingly, Ihe queslion has not evoketl any systematie of longstanding intereslin psychology. Althuugh there are some reviews on personality antllanguage (suchas Brown anu Braushaw, 1985; Furnham, 1990a; Scherer, 1979), Ihese preduminantlyaudress specilic aspecls of this interface rather than raising broatler quest ions orauvancing a more general fral11ework within whieh the relationship between languageal\(l personalily can be consiuereu.

To an overview uf the work on language anti personality, one shuultl autllhe faclIhal there exist a number of systematie research trauitions in personality which canhe regartletl as illlimately tieu up wilh language. 1nlerestingly, Ihis is not Iheperspeclive from whieh Ihe researchcrs in Ihese fjelds neeessarily presenl Iheir work,and allem pIs 10 injeel a language-basetl perspeetive are somelimes regarued asinlrllsive, unconslruelive, anti 'tle-psyehologizing' the phenomena untier exalllinalion.An example or one such syslelllalie research domain is the work on taxonomie mouelsuf personal ily, which has aduresseu the quest ion of how best to represent thelInderlying stnu.:lure of trait terms (cr. Semin, 1(90). Another broad uOlllain to befOlllld in sm:ial psyehology serves as a further example of research wh ich is onlangllage hut not identilietl as such; namely, Ihe work 10 do with whal are idenlilietlas 'structural difTcrences among traits' (SchneitIer, Il)l) I, p. 5481'1). The researchwork inthis sodal psychologieal framewnrk is concerned wilh itlentirying sys!ematicdilTcrcnces helwecn lraits (atljectives) in terms of the differenl types of eognitive

/283

inference they mediate. Such traditions, the former more directly anchored in thedomain of personality and the lalter in social cognition, can be regarded as workconcerned with a systematic analysis of the properties of terms used in everydaylanguage in the description and commentary on persons; in other words, what onemay, broadly speaking, refer to as 'personality language'. The aim of this chapteris to furnish one possiblc analytic framework to chart questions that have beenaddressed on the subject of personality and language, as well as quest ions that haveas yet not been systematically addressed. The main part uses this framework andprovides examplcs of the type of research conducted to date. The conclusions providean outline of a potential research agenda in this domain, listing, among other things,research items that remain open.

Towards a framework for personality and language

There are a nUlllber 01" di fl"erent ways in which personality and language have beenregardcd as the subject of research, but to our knowledge, there has not been asystelllatic framework that has been used to examine the different facets of therclationship between language and personality. One such possible framework isprovidcd below with the intention of bringing some order into this field.

The very first question that one can start with is about where and in which formlanguage makes provisions for the 'person'. lt is undoubtedly the case that the categoryof the person is marked in language at the first and most basic level, in terms ofpersonal pronouns, and with different indices to distinguish betweell persons as entities(although this may not necessarily be a universal - see below). Such markers canbe seen as indices which reOect the category of the person as such. The next setor markers in language consists of those linguistic indices or terms that give colourand shape to this category. Thus, there are a large number of verbs that are availableto deseribe the aetions of a person as distinct from other actions as well as a numberuf verbs tn describe the cognitive, emotional states that people experience in relationto eaeh other. Thcse verbs can be referred to as interpersonalterms and they constitutean integral part of what can be regarded as personality language. Another set 01'terms, describing persons in a lcss contextualized manner than verbs, are adjeetives,to the extent that they abstract from the here and now of the person by identil"yinga person's 'cnduring' qualities. Adjectivcs (also known more popularly in personalityas dispositions or traits) have been the bread and butter of a considerable amountor personality work (some of which is described below), generally with a view toexalllining the selllantic properties of adjectives.

These partieular linguistic catcgories (pronouns, interpersonal verbs, adjectives)have generally been examined without any focused eoncern about speeifie linguisticfeatures thatmay systematically dislinguish between and within such categories. Suchfeatures may actually contribute to an improved understanding 01' the regularitiesthat olle observes in studies examining the semantic properties of these terms, andthe allelllpts to apply such categories as psychologically meaningful properlies or

2841

dimensions capluring 'conslilulive' features of persons. The same crilicislll applies(0 wmk Ihal is ~oncerned wilh Ihe cognilive, represenlalional properlies of adjeclives(fm l'xample, lIampson ('/ (/1., 19H6; John c/ (/1.,1991, in/al//ia). There is sOlllerl'Cl~nl work. however, Ihal allem pis 10 inlroduce a mure syslclllalic underslandingof Ihe linguislic properlies or Ihese lerms independent of the psychological implicalionsthaI Ihey Illay carry (for exalllple, Sell1in and Fiedler, 1991).

1\ different type of analysis that one can identify in Ihis domain is at a moredcscriplive level. This work consists of approaches Ihal atlempl to identify lay orcveryday theories of personalily as Ihey are expressed and found in ordinary language.Examples of Ihis type of research can oe found in sludies on, for inslance, everydayCllIlceplions or ordinary language Iheories of the genotypic and phenotypic basesof exlraversion-introversion (cf. Semin and Krahe, 1987). These descripliveappwaches generally pursue Ihe objeclive of contrasting everyday conceplions orpersonalily as Ihey are (ound or manifested in ordinary language wilh 'scienlilic'Iheories of persunality. The interesling quesliun that such descriplive research posesis whelher scientific Iheories in personality constilule anylhing more than Ihedescriplive Iheories Ihal one encounlers in ordinary language. Here, the concernis with Ihe conlenl of represel1lations that are socially shared (possibly in Muscovici 's,1984. sense) nJlher Ihan wilh language in the narrower sense, as in Ihe Iype ofl'mphasis on personality and Ianguage noled carlier, which is concerneu wilh linguislicmarkers of persons, Iheir aclions, Slales, and personalily.

The final range of research in Ihis lield Ireals language as a diagnoslic instrument(from \1olh a lay and a scienlilic perspeclive) in orucr 10 idenlify whelher and howlanguage use (for exalllple, in speech) can be taken as an index of syslelllalicdi 'Terences in personal ily. Thus, language is used in this conlext as praclice (orparole). :Illd Ihe inlerest is certainly not in distincI properties of language as suchin lIlarking persons and personalily, bUI in individual dilTerences in speech. ThisIhreefold tlislinctiun (sec Table 10.1) characlcrizes Ihe possible range uf researchin the dOlllain of personalily anti language.

Tahll' W. t I'ossihlc dOlllaills or prrsollalily language

Aspecl ur languagc E)(alllpks or propeniesc)(alllined

Inl"ormation yicld

Lingllislk calegorics

Wurld knOlvkdgl' asscdinll'lllcd illlallgllagc

Speech

Personal pronoulls, aetion all(l slalcverbs, adjeclivcs

Ordinary language theorics orpcrsonalily

Acecnl. speed. vocablllmy. cle.

Psychological impl ical ionsror the rcprescnlal ion 01"pcrsons and inrormalionproecssing

Allalysis ur dislillcliveill(Jividual dil"fcrcnccmodcls

Diagnoslie 1(0) (tlrindividual dillcrcnccs

/285

Personality and language

Language and markers of persons

There are a number of different ways in which persons and their features are Illarkedin language. A variety of approaches within social psychology, cross-culturalpsychology, anthropological psychology, and personality have addressed differentfacets of specific linguistic categories. One instance is work concerned with the cross­cultural illlplications of the availability of personal pronouns for the culturalconstitution of the category of the person (for example, Heelas and Lock, 1981).

Personal pronouns

Indeed, one of the fundamental ways in which persons are marked in language isby personal pronouns. A very important one is the linguistic marking of 'self' withthe personal pronoun 'I' as distinct from non-self (cf. HalloweIl, 1971, p. 90). Mauss(1938/1985), for instance, suggests that all linguistic cOlllmunities (cultures) musthave the personal pronoun 'I' and other related personal pronouns, or positiollalsuffixe.1" dealing with relationships that exist between a speaker and the object thatis heing spoken aboul. II is by no means c1early established (despite what Maussand HalloweIl maintain) lhat personal pronouns and the use of 'I' are a univcrsallyestablished and distinct eategory. For instance, Best writes (in relation to the earlier.Maori) that 'it is weil to bear in Illind that a native so thoroughly identifies withhis tribe that hc is ever employing the first personal pronoun rwhen rcferring to histribel' (1924, vol. I, p. 397; cf. also Johanson, 1954, pp. 35-9).

Personal pronouns constitute one of the categories that can be seen in Tablc 10.2.Aside from personal pronouns and positional or possessional suffixes, there aredistinct eategories in language (illlerpersollal terms) which refer to persons, theirdoings, and their feelings as weil as their qualities or properties. The distinet devieesthat are meant are: illterpersollal verbs, which refer to actions (such as, help, cheat,kiss, phonc, ete.) and states (such as, love, hate, despise, ete.) and adjectives, whichare essentially deviees that are used to describe properties of persons - traits ordispositions (such as, eharismatic, friendly, lovable, introverted) (cf. Semin andFiedler, 1988, 1991). These linguistic devices mark different features ofpersonality,ranging fwm behaviours, to states, to traits or dispositions. There are a number

Tahle 10.2 Lingllislic calegorics with implicalions ror personality

I.ingll ist ic calegory Psychologieal i111 pi ieal ions!rcrcrcnl

Personal pronollns Calegory or personVerhs of aClion ßehaviourVerhs of stall' Affeclive!cognitive relationsAdjcCI ives Disposil ions!lrails

286/

I" ll'sL':lI'l'h tradilions within sodal psychology ami personalily Ihal foeus onillll"IH'lsolial vcrhs altd adjL'l'IivL's wilh difTerenllheorelieal ami empirieal slralegies.111 'lI!' folltlwing, hril'l' tlvl'rvil'wS tlf lhese appro:u.:hes are provided.

Al li(~divcs ns disposilional rnarkers

()II!' of tlw longesl-slamling Iraditilllls in personalily language is research wh ich has:f(ldll'ssed the fealures of adjeclives wilh a view 10 providing taxonomie1l'l'll'Sl'ltlalions of pl'rsonality, The idea is 10 examine how personalily eharaelerislieshaVl~ hL'L'n coded in language. Thus. one has approached Ihis problem in Ihis Iradilionhy in\'csligaling lraillerms and olher personalily deseriplive lerms. Thc guiding vicwwas I'Hlvidcd hy Callell:

'1"11(' positioll \VC shall :Idopl is a vcry dirccl OIlC .,. making only Ihc olle aSSlll11pliollIhal all aspL'c1s of humau pcrsonality which are or have becll or il11portal1\;c, illteresl01 ul ilily Iwvc alrcady hecn rceorded in lhe sllbstance or langllage. For. lhrollghollthistory . lhe mosl fascin:lling suhject of gcncral discourse, ami also lhat in which ilhas heen most vitally necessary 10 havc adcqualc, reprcselllalive symbols, has beeilhunHlIl hehavior. Neeessily could nol possibly have beeil barren where so IiUle:Il'pamlus is relluired 10 permit lhe hirth or invention. (1943, p. 483)

This stlcallnl'sl'dimclllalion' or 'Icxil'al hypolhesis' «(Joldherg. 19HI) has provideda )!l'lIeral illlclkL'lual framework filr nllu.:h resean.:h lilcusing on examinalions (lf howIn rl'JHcsenl inlerrclalionships helween l.-ail lerms (adjeclives) (sec HofsIel' and OeI{aad, Chapler 3 in this volullle; Oslendorf and Angleilner, Chapler 4 in Ihis volumcami Krahe, 1992, Chapter 3). As Slll1le (such as, Goldberg, 1989) poinl oul, Ihcorigins of this hypothesis may bc even older (Gallon, 1984). The currenl wmk lileusesOll whal may he regarded as a mainly methodologieal enlry (essenlially factm analYlie)10 rilld lhe dimensions by which one may havc lhe besl possihle represenlalion ofIhe lrail lenns, This essenlially consists 01' linding properlies eommon 10 a varielyof lrail terms lhal allow a simpler represcntation 01' Ihc enormous variely Ihal oner:ln find in a dictionary (for exalllple, Allporl and Odbert, 1936. exlracledapproximalely IH.OOO lerms uescriplive of personalily).

The active research line on this lheme whieh linds ils modern origins in the earlysi xt ics (Norman, 1963; Tlipes and Chrislal, 1961) employing di fferenl dala collectionIl1cthods with dilTercnl subjeels and condilions, yielded a consistent and slable faelorialsi ntctllre. The precise lahelling 01' Ihese faelors is a maller 01' debale. One consensusprl'senlL'd hy Goldherg ami his colleagues (fm example, Peabody and Goldberg. 1989)sIlggest lhe Iilliowing descriptive lahels fm lhese faelms: I surgency (bold-limid).11 agreeahlcncss (warm-cold). III conseienliousness (lhorough -earcless); IVl'lllolional stahilily (rclaxcd-lense); and V cullure (inlclligenl-uninlclligenl). MoreITl'l'ntly, Ihis work has provided an inleresling advanee hy combining faelmial wilhcirclll11plex models (fm example, HofsIel' er al" 1992). The inleresling andpmhlcmalic issue in lhis cnnlexl is what Ihese represenlalions 01' adjeclivcs in facl1I1l':1I\ (cf. Mlilaik, 19(4). Earlicr wmk oseillaled belween ascribing the slable pallcrns10 propL'r1ics of language amI properlies 01' personalily (fm example. live meaning

1'l.87

eonecpls lhal arc fundamenlaI to thc pcrson domain versus five robust factors ofpcrsonalily). The laller view has gained some aeeeplanee in reeeni years (cL Digmanand Takel1lo(o-Chm:k. I\)1{ I; Peahody. 1l)1{7. inler lIlill).

The llIore radieal views have argued lhal the syslelllatic pallern lhal emerges inthe diverse analyses is mcrely one llIediated by the semantie relalionships helweenthe lrailterms under examination (for example. O'Andradc, 1965; Mulaik, 1964;Shwedcr, 1982). This argumeni föeuses on lhe view lhat language conventionsmediate lhc judgments lhal subjecls provide, and thatlhe interrelationships betweentraittcrms have 10 do with conceplual associations rather than being retlective eilherof pcrsonal ily or properlies or personal ily.

Irrespeclive of which side of lhe argument one lakes, it is undoubtedly the caselhal what is being examined is lhe semanlics of adjcetives, and lhal these displaysome regular and slable properlies lhal are uneovcrcd by faelor-analytic approaches.The queslions lhal have nol been addresscd are whclhcr lhe scmanlic faetorialSolulions: (I) have any linguislic fcalures lhal dislinguish one from anolher - lhiswould allow one to anehor the syslematic relalionships that are found in somedislinclive and objeclive properlies of language; (2) eorrespond 10 any psychologiealrealily in lerms 01' eilhcr behaviour or language use (dcseriplions of persons ineveryday life); or (3) have any psychologieal rcality for the make-up of persons.Esscnlially, (his work can he regarded as a eoneern wilh lhe sell/flll/ies f~r lill!?uislicdevicC'.I' in l!Te dOI/Ulill o./per.wl/lIlily (for llIon.: deluil see Semin, Il)l)(».

Cognitive properties 01 trai! terms

There is a very extensive lradilion of research which is mainly loeated in the socialcognilion lradilion (für example. Recder and Brcwer, 1979. ROlhbart and Park, 1986)and which examines systemalie differences between trait terms (adjeetives) wilhrespecl 10 lhe differential inferenlial processcs thai lhcy mediate. An example isROlhbarl and Park 'I' (1986) suggestion thatlherc are systematie differenees belweenadjeelives in lerms of the casc or diflieulty with which their presenee or absencein a person can be eonfirmed or diseonfirmed. Generally, adjeetives with negativeeonnotalions are easy 10 aequire and hanl to get rid of. The reverse is found to applyfor lraits with positive eonnolations. For inslanee, one observation of dishoneslbehavillur is surticient 10 idenlify lhe presence of a property (dishonesty), bul youneed a large number of diseonfirmations of dishonesty or a large number ofeonfirlllalory inslanees 10 infer lhal lhe pcrson is honest. This work, which has inparl oeen confirl1led (cf. Funder and Oobrolh, 1987), is dcrived from earlier workoy Reeder and his colleagues (for example, Reeder, 1979; Reeder and Brewer, 1979).This work shows lhal montlily-rclaled behaviours wilh negalive eonnotations havea higher diagnoslie vaille lhan behaviours wilh positive eonnotalions in lhe sallledomain. A conlrasting pallern is observed für abilily-relaled bchaviours, whereposilive evidenee is regarded as more diagnoslic lhan negativc evidenee.

A rllrlher relaled fleld is concerned with lhe rcpresenlational properties ofadjcctives, anu this work. eondlleled by Hampson, Goldberg, and their eolleagues

2881

(tiu' cxamplc, Humpson el al., 1986, 1987; John el uf., 1991) is based on the argumentlhal lmils exisl in hicmrchieal slruclurcs, wilh broml traits suhsuming narrowcr truitsin Ihl' same hehavioural domain. Truit (or adjeclivc) breaulh is uclined in terms 01'lhe Inllllher 01' hehaviours Ihat a Irait encompasses. A broad Irail encolllpasscs u largeIlIlIlIher 01' bchaviours allli a narrow one only a sub-seI 01' those subsullled in a broad­trail category. A lypical instunce they use to illustrale this argument is the relationhet ween 'rcl iable' and. ·punclual'. The former refcrs to a range 01' behaviours acrossa I1Ilmher 01' situations and occasions, whereas Ihe laller refers to only a sub-set oflhe same or relaled behaviours. One 01' Ihe types 01' quest ion that arise in this typeor work is how choice 01' narrow or broad terms is innuenced in descriptions 01'olhers (1'01' example. Hamilton cl 01., 1992; John el 01., 1991).

The main prohlem with this type 01' work is the inevituble impression 01' circularity01' hierarchieul relations or inferential properties. To the extent that there are noindependent und external unchors in language by which differences between adjectivescan he iuentilied. research and theory on, for instance. trait hierarchy relations willalways arouse the possible critique 01' circulurity: if I choose broad and nurrow traitson (/ "r;m'; empirical grounds than I shal1 always prove my theory! Although thiswork is highly informative it stil1 requires some conceptual auvance.

Final1y. Ihere are lhe beginnings 01' some work which is more linguisticallyanchored. suggesling diffcrenlmorphologieal origins lilr specific pcrsonalily referentIl'nllinology. This linds ils origins in early personalily work. such as aClivily, slale,and trait tenlls. The first category cun be shown to be derived from verbs 01' action(hl'lp-helpful), thc midule category dcrives from verbs 01' stale (Iike-likeable). undlhe last category consists or adjectivcs which uo not havc a verb stcm (such as,frien<!ly. extraverted. etc.). This argument. devcloped by Semin anu Fiedler (1991).also cxtcnds to uillcrcntial inlluence implications 01' inlerpersonul verbs forpersonality. where it is shown that verhs 01' aclion in uescription 01' interpersonalrelalions givc rise to slrong dispositional inferences, in contrasl with verbs 01' state(Sclllin ami Marsll1an, 1991).

Fveryday language and personality

Anothcr concern that has enjoyed a growing interest is the relationship betweenlhcorics or pcrsonality as they are rcpresenteu in everyday language and so-called'scient if'ic' Iheories 01' personality (cf. Furnhall1, 1990b; Semin, 1987. 1990). Here(hc notion or language is used with a broader reference to coml11on-scnse theoriesof pcrsollalily (lS they are representeu in lallguagc as the reposilory uf worldkllowlcdge.

Thc counterpart 10 examinations 01' how pcrsonalily is rcpresentcu in languagc(al diff'crclll levels 01' analysis or language) is thc quest ion 01' how Ihese terms,calcgorics. conccpts, 01' theories are elllployed and deployed in discourse. How dowc cxplain our own and other people's behaviours? Wh ich types 01' personalily theory.In wc hrinl! 10 bear upon certain types of behaviour that wc witness. in orucr 10

/289

make them meaningful? When do we utilize personality theories and when not? Inu sense. lhese are all qllestions that have enjoyed a !ong research history in socialpsychology. parliclilarly ullder the rubric 01' 'uttribution theory' (I'or arecent reviewand synthesis, sec Hewstolle. 1989). More recently, there has been a re-cmphasis01' the role played by commullicatioll and language lIse in how such attributiollalinferences are l11ediated (cf. Fiedler and Semin. 1992). The more specific questionaddressed by the research in this rubric is about the types 01' systematic everydaytheory about personality that one finds in ordinary language and the status 01' sucheveryday theories. It is to this that we now turn.

With ordinary language, the refe'rence is to knowledge that is stored in languageas the product of cultural evolution and passed on in socialization (cf. Berger, 1966).Obviously, there are diverse facets 01' knowlcdge that are fou~d in ordinary language,also terllled 'collllllon-sense knowledge'. The aspect that is relevant in the eontext01' this chapter is the representation 01' persons and personality. The particular researchtradition that has examined 'collllllon-sense knowledge' with respect to howpersonality is represented has grown chieny with the aim 01' empirically contrastingthe silllilarities and differences between 'scientific' knowledge and 'everydayknowledge' (cf. Selllin, 1987, 1990). The general argument guiding this work isthe following: 'psychological realities must always refer to the corresponding culturaland hislorical background upon' which they are predicated' (Semin, 1990. p. 164).To lhal exlelll. Ihe appropriatclless of 'scielllific' lheories depellds upon the degreeto wh ich lhey accuralely rellect soeially shared theories (namely, l:OlllmOIl-Senscknowlcdgc). There is a sllbstantial alllount of evidenee which comes from empiricalinvestigalinns of diverse facets 01' the person. ranging from different features 01'persollality tn aspccts 01' intelligence, that suggests considerable overlap betweenconceplions developcd within a 'scientific tradition' and common-sense knowledge.These sludies delllonstrate that lay conceptions of intelligence and creativity (forexamplc. Sternberg, 1985), extraversion-introversion (for a review, see Semin,1987). comlllon-sense abilities to discriminate the different facets 01' multiphasicpersonal ity inventories (cf. Krahe, 1989; Sem in, 1990), lay conceptions 01'neuroticism (Furnhalll. 1984, 1990b), and genotypic assumptions about the basisof cxtraversion-introversion (Semin and Krahe, 1987) are no different from'scielltilie cOllceptions·. Indeed, the conclusion 01' these diverse studies is that thediverse lllethmJologies elllployed in personality under the term 'scientific method'have essenlially reprodueed systelllatic knowledge that is available in ordinarylangllage or in cOllllllon sense.

Thc Illost interesting aspect 01' this work is probably the fascinating mllltitude 01'conceptions that exist simultaneously in everyday language, whereby the scientificwork I'ocllses Oll slices 01' these conceptions as and when scientilie intcrest is raisedOll a specilic feature 01' psychological reality. What has atlracted lillic intcrest ishow people lIse these theories about personality and different facets 01' the personin evcryday t1iscollrse and how such usc cffects self- and other-perception, as weilas the fllnctiolls of such theories 01' pcrsonalily in terms 01' predictive and retrodictiveexplanations or accoullts in ordinary discourse.

;lYOI

Spnecll end personality

I\llolhn way of lookillg Oll pcrsollalily alld lallguagc is 10 cxalllillC lhc dilTcrcnccsill spL'cch as a flillclion of (hL' disposilions 01" spcakers, or allcrnalively (0 cxalllineIlIl\v adoplillg dislinct Slll'cdl hahils IllaY inllucm:c pcrsonalily. Thc qucslion Ihatlias hcen addrcsscd is lI10re speci l"iL'ally Ihc I"ollowing: how do dislinct personality1ypes IIse language ami can one use language as a diagnostie tool to discriminatehl'IWL'l'n dil"rcrenllypes of personality? This queslion aboul how personality innuencesSPI'lTh can he exalllined by showing Ihe relalionship belween individual uifferences:md systcll1aliL' dilTerences inlanguage use, sueh as linguislie cooe in use (for example,l'Iahnraled or restricted), grammar, vocabulary, accent, anu speeu, among otherohservable linguistic phenomena. Indeeu, 1110s1 previous reviews of the personality,md language dOll1ain (for example, Brown and Braushaw, 1985; Furnhal11, 1990a;Sehner. 1979) have consiuered this specilic foeus as the locus of Ihe personality­langllage dOll1ain al Ihe expcnsc 01' olher considcrations.

Tllc rcview lhal Scherer (1979) provided of the existence of personalily markersin specch slill remains valid. He argues lhat 'Il is not sheer scienlific curiosilY whichslillllllales funher ill4uiry inlo the origins, funclions and mechanisl11s of personalityIllarking. 11 has becollle painfully c1ear in the course oflhis review that mosl researchdOllc in Ihis area has beeil earrieu oul in lhe spiril of a drag-net fishing expedition'(p. 144). 111 general, he idelllilied four aspects of speech in lheir relalion 10pnsollalily. The lirsl is lhe ji'el/lie//l'Y. i///C'//.\'i/)', and l/lIl1li/)' oJ voiC'C' as a funclion01" disposiliollal characlerislics. The eviuence 01' an association between, for exampleexlraversion anu voice illtensity, or higher frequency and competence and dominance,rCll1ain lendenlious finuings. The seconu aspect is j7ue//cy, namely the presence orahsem:e 01" pauses ami speech rale. EXlraverts, for inslance, appear 10 show a higherspccch rale than inlroverts anu fcwer pauses. The Ihiru aspect refers 10 II/Of]J/IO/ogicalal1ll S\'///(/c/im/ proper/iC'.\' in lheir relalion 10 personality. One could, for inslance,spcnllale lhal cognitively I11me cOlllplex people woulu be 1110re likcly 10 generateIIlmc l'olllpiex sentence struclures. Again, the research in this fielu. as Scherer (1979)prcscnls il, seel11s 10 be illcondusive. Finally, ('ollvC'r.l'a1i(}/w/ behlll'io//r conslilulestlw liHlrlh lüclor. '('he seelllingly collsislenllinuing here is lhe high corrclalion belweenlarge alllounl of verbaloutpul and extraversion.

()verall. lhe research in Ihis field is rclalively ineondusive and unsyslelllalic. Thereis, 01" course, the olher side of lhe win, which is coneerned wilh whal the lypesof Ill'rsollalily in(crencc are Ihal peoplc l1lake on lhe basis 01' specilic speech styles.This wmk 11<Is alreauy been extellsively revieweu (cf. Brown unu Bradshaw. 1985;Sehncr, 1474).

Conclusions and directions

(·haraL'lcriSlically. lhe research on personalily amI language in ils lliverse I"acelslksnihcd ahove lakes a lIon-dynamic ami synchronic approach. Ils olher shorlcollling

/291

is the decontextualized focus on language, as in the case of studies on the semanticpropcrtics of thc adjcctival (tmit) dOl1lain. This is not 10 unucrvaluc this work, huttn uraw allcnlinnto thc ('('%Rica/ conuitions of thc interl'acc hclwccn languagc auupcrsonalily. 11 is in convcrsation that wc usc pcrsonality languagc In ucscribcoursclvcs, our fricnus, or our encmies. II is wilhin such uynamic contexls lhat wcstralegically cmploy uilTercnl inlerpcrsonalterms, depemJing on the demands 01' Ihesituation and our interlocutors. Other types 01' siluation involving personalily languageinclude lhose in which we form il1lpressions about others, and there is substantialresearch in social cognilion about how people use category mcmbership, for instance,10 form il1lpressions (for example, Allporl, 1954; Fiske and Neuberg, 1990; Tajfel,1981). There is precious lillie on how we use language in mediating personalityimpressions and how such impressions are shaped in Ihe course of social inleraclion.

If one wcre to employ the distinction between 'langue' and 'parole' advanced bySaussurc, lhen one would locale the majority of the work to date on the subject onthe sidc of 'langue', because this research has little to reporl on interaction andcommunication as a dialogical, processual, and negotiated activity in which centra!aspects of personality language are manifested. This includes, in our case, the useof the knowledge about persons, as manifested in studies on ordinary languageanalyses 01' personality, and theories guiding the inferences people make aboutpersonalily from speech in discourse about persons. The idealized knowledge wehave abOltt language and pcrsonality, represented in Table 10.1, refers to work onworld knowledgc as sedimcnted in language with particular referem:e to personality,on the onc hand. On the olher, it refers to 1inguistic categories such as personalprollouns, interpersonal vcrbs, and adjectives. Finally, it refers to speech, whichhas becn cxamined as a diagnostic tool. Sut none of this research examines pcrsonalitylanguage in thc sense 01' how world knowledge that is sedimented in languagc isdeployed in discourse, through the strategic use of specific, persona1ily-referentlinguistic categories. The examination 01' how and whell people apply person termsis an important question, which follows from the distinctions introduced in thischapter. Such analyses 01' personality language in dialogue would help to elucidatethe processes involvcd in thc interpretation of actions and the ncgotiation 01'intcrpretations. Thus, the direction of research that is regarded as a field in need01' cxal11ination is the analysis of how person terms are used in ordinary discourse,wherc they feature naturally, and 01' how they influence the reception andIllalli festation 01' personal ity.

References

Allporl. Ci.W. (1954), /71<' NI/II/rl' of I'rl'jlldice, Reading. MI\: Addison-Wcsley.Allporl. G. W. and Odhcrl. H .5. (1936), 'Trait names: a psycholexical study'. Psych%Kica/

MOIwgraplts, 47 (I, whole 110. 211).Berger, P. (1966), 'Idclltity as a problem in the sociology of knowledge'. Ar,hil'e.\' Ellropeelllles

dl' SoC'io!rWil'. 7, 105 - 15.

292/

llesl. F. (1 1)24). n//, Maori, 2 vols. Wcllington. N7.: Polyncsian Sm:icly Memoir Tomhs.IIlo\\'n. 11. :lnd IImdshaw . .I. (11J11.';/. 'Tow:lrds:l sm:i,,1 psychology 01' voice varialions·. in

11. ( i iks ami I{. SI (,la ir (nls.). UI'I'/'1I1 11"1'(///('1'.1' ill 1.lIllKII(/}:l'. ((llIIlIlIlIIi('(/lioll. (///11 SIIl'i1l1I ',I"rd" ,1".':.1'. I.ondon: Erlh:ulll1. PI'. 1,1..j·-H I.

(':lIlell. R. B. ll')..jJ). 'The desl'l' ipi ion 01' Ix'rsonalily: hasil' lraits revolwu intllcillsters·. llll/mal"lfl/ll/orlll<ll 1111" SIIl'i1l1 P.lycll/lillgl', -'H. 476-506.

1>' I\ndr:lde. R. CI. ( 19(5). 'Trail psydllliogy anu componcnlial analysis'. III11('/'i('(/1IAIIIIIl'IIllolllgi..." 67. 215 - 21!.

I )igllllll1. J. M. ami Takemolo-Chock. N. K, (191!1), 'Faclors in lhe nalural langllagc ofpl'I'sonality: re-analysis. comparison. anu intcrprclation 01' six major sluuics', MI/llivarialeIlcl/lll'iol'lll RI'.I'I·(/}'(·II, 13, 475-82.

Fiedler. K. anu Semin. G.R. (1992). 'Langllagc as a socio-cognilivc ecology·. in G.R, Scminami K. Fiedlcr (eds.). L(ll/gl/agl'. 'I/Ieracliollallli Sol'ial Cogl/iliol/. London and NcwburyPark. CI\: Sage. pp, 79-101.

Fiske. S.T. ami Neuhcrg. S.L. (1990). 'A'conlinullm ofimprcssion formal ion from calcgoryhased to individualiug processcs: inllucnces of information and motivation on atlcntionami inlerpretatiou'. in M.P. 7.anna (cd.), IIdl'llllcl'.I' il/ EI/ierilllel/Ial Sodal P...ycll/JlIIgy,San I>iego. CI\: I\cadcmil' Press. vol. 23, pp. 23-48.

Fuuder. D.C. ,md Dobrolh, K.M. (1987). 'lJiffcrenecs bctwcen traits: propcrtics associatedwilh intcljlldge agrccmcnt'. llll/mal 0/ Pl'r.l'ol/alilY II//(I Sodal P.I'ydwlllgy. 52, 409-18.

FlIl'Ilh:lIl1. 1\. (1984). 'Lay theories 01' neurolicism·. P(·rslJ//11lil." a//(I '//(liridl/lIllJijJc·rellcl!.I'.~. 95-10.1.

FlI1'l1h:llll. 1\. (I 1)9()a). 'Langllagc ami personality·. in H. Giles ami W. P. Rohinsou (eds.).IIrIl/llh""k IIllmlgl/llgl' (//1" .\'lIl'ial P.I'ydwlog\'. Chil'heslcr. UK: Wiley. I'p. 73-1)H.

"'""haul, 1\. (ll)I)tlh), 'Conlll1ouscnsc Ihclll'ics orpersonalily·. in (LR. Semin allli K.J. (,crgenleds.), 1':"/'1'.1'1/11.1' Ulldl'l'.I'I(//Idillg: SlIdlll (///lls('il'lIl!fit' illll)lil'llli/lIl.I·. Lonuon amI NewhllryPark. CI\: Sage. pp. 176-203.

('alton. F. (11!1!4). 'Measurelllent 01' charm:ler', FII"llIighlly Re\'iell', 36, 179-H5.(joldherg. L.R. (1981). 'Langllagc ami indivillual dilTcrcnees: the seareh for universals in

personality Icxicons', in L. Wheelcr (cd.), Re\'icll' 0/Per.wllalil." II//(I Sodlll P,I'ycllology,Ikvcrly Hills. CI\: Sage. vol. 2. pp. 141-65.

(ioldherg. L.R. (1l}1!9), 'Standard markers ofthe Big Five raetor slruclure', paper prescnleual lhe Workshop on Personalily Language. UniversilY or Groningen, Groningen, TheNl't hc rI and s.

Ilallowell. 1\.1. (1971). Cill'/l,.e (///11 Er[lcriellCl' (sel:llnd edition). Philadelphia. 1'1\: University01' Pennsylvania Press.

1I:lIl1illon. 1>.1. .• Gibbons. P.I\ .. Stroessncr. S.J. and Sherman. l.W. (1992), 'Stereolypesami langllage usc'. in G. R. Semin and K. Fiedler (eds.). Ll/llgl/age. IlIlel'llcliol/ I/lld SodlllC"g"ili,,", Lonllon anll Newhury Park, CI\: Sage, pp. IOIl-21!.

lIall\pson. S.E., lohu. 0.1'. ami Uoldberg. L.R. (1986). 'Catcgory hrcadth and hierarchiealsllllclllrc in personalily: stuuics 01' asymllletrics in judglllcnls 01' tmil illlplicalions' , lOl/mal"/ I'I'I'.I'/I//alil." /llId Sodal P,I')'cholo!:y. 51, :n - 54.

lleelas. P. ami Lock, 1\. (1981). II/digel/IIII.I' 1'.lyclllllogie.l'. Londou: I\\.'auclllic Press.Il1'Ivstone. M. (191!9). CIII/.I'III 1I",.i/ll/lilll/, Oxroru: Blackwell.lIorsll'l'. W.K.B .. DeRamI, B. ami Goldberg. L.R. (1992), 'Integration 01' Ihe hig five anu

l'irl'lnnJ1lex approaches to trait strllcturc', lO/lmal 111' 1'(·",I'lIIl/Ilil." II//(I Sodal 1'.I'."cII"logl'.(,J. 14h-6J.

.lohanson . .1.1'. (1954). '/7/1' Mllllri I/lld his Reiigillll ill il.l· Nm/-rill/ali.l'lic AS[lI·cls. Copenhagen:Mnnksgaard .

.Iohll. <1.1' .. lIalllpson. S. E. ami Goldherg, L. R. (1991). 'Thc hasic Icvel in pcrsonality-Iraithicrarchics: stIldies 01' tmiluse al1ll :H:ccssibilily in diffcrcnl conlexls'. lOI/rt/al 11/ Pa.wl/lllilY(/I/ti Sodal 1'.I'.I'I'I/IIllIg\', 69, 348-61.

Kr:thl:. 11. (11J1!9). 'Faking personalily proliles on a standard pcrsonality invenlory·. I'I'r.I·/lII/IIill'

/293

a//(I IIlIlil'idllal Di!Jer('lIces, 10, 437-43.Kraht:, 11. (1992), 1'I'r.l'IJIllIlity a//(I Sodal P.I·ye/wlo};y: TOII'CI/·tI.I' a .l'yll/I/{,.I'i.l', Lomlon ami

Newhury Park, CA: Sage.MiJtlSS, M. (193H/1911.'i), 'A e'ilegory or the human mind: lhe nOlionor person; Ihe Ilolioll

01' self', in M. Carrilhers, S. Collins ami S. Lukes (eds.), nw Cate)lory oI tile P('rso/l,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-25.

Moscovici, S. (1984), 'The phenomenon 01' sodal representations', in R.M. Farr and S.Moscovici (cds.), Sodal Represelltatiolls, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,pp. 3-70.

Mulaik, S.A. (1964), 'Are pcrsonality factors raters' conceptual factors?', Journal OfCOlIsultillgPSycllOlo};y, 28, 506-11.

Norman, W. T. (1963), 'Toward an adequate taxonomy 01' personality attributes: repl icatedfactor struclure in peer nomination personality ratings', Joumal ofAbnormal and SocialP.I'yclwlog\' , 66, 574-83..

Peabody, D. (1987), 'Selecting representative trait adjectives', Jöumal of Persollality alldSodal Psycilology, 52, 59-71.

Peabody. D. and Goldberg, L. R. (1989), 'Some determinants 01' faetor struetures frompersonalily trait descriptors', JOll/'l/al ofPer,wlIlalily and Social PsycllOloMY, 57. 552-67.

Recder. G. D. (1979). 'Context effects 1'01' attributiöns 01' ability', Persollality ami SodalPSycllOlogy Blll/('lill, 5, 65-8.

Reeder. G. D. and ßrcwer. M. (1979), 'A schematic model 01' dispositions attribut ion ininterpersonal perccption'. PsycllOlo)lical Review, 86, 61-79.

ROlhhart. M. ami Park. ß. ()91\6). 'On the conrirmability and disconlirmability 01' traitcOIll.:cpls·. JOll/'l/al oIl'l'I'.wl//ality CII/ci Soeial PsyclwloKY, 50. 131-42.

Schen:r. K. (1979). 'I'ersonalily markers in speech'. in K, Scherer ami 1-1. Gilcs (eds.), SoeialMark('rs il/ SiJ('c'cil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147-210.

Schneider, 1). (1991). 'Social cognition', A/IIllwl Review of Psyc!l%gy, 42. 527-61.Scmin. G. R. (1987). 'On the relalionship between theories in ordinary language and

psychology·. in W. Doise and S. Moseovici (eds.), Currelll Jssues ill Europeall SodalPsycilaloKY. Call1bridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 307-48.

Scmin. G. R. (1989), '1lllprcssions or personality revisited: the contribution 01' linguistic factors10 allribulc infercnccs·. Ellropeall JOllmal of Social Psychology, 19,85-101.

SCl1lin, G. R. (1990). 'Everyday assulllptions, language, and psychology', in G.R. Selllin andK.J. Gcrgen (cds.). El'eryclay Ullderst(/)u/illg: Sodalalld scielltific illlplicatiofls. Londonanu Newbury Park, CA: Sagc, pp. 151-75.

SCl11in. G. R. (1992). 'Thc linguislic calegory model and personality language', in J. Siegrried(cu.). 7],(' .'italUJ oI COIIlJllO/l S('lIse ill P.I'yc!rology, New York. NY: Plenum Press.

SCl11in. CI. R. and Ficulcr. K. (1988). 'The cognitive runctions 01' linguislic categories indcscrihing pcrsons: social I:ognilion and language', Journal of Per.l'cmality alld SodalP.I'ydwlogl'. 54. 558-(l7.

SCl11in. G.R. anti Ficuler. K. (1l)9)). 'The linguistic category model, its bascs, applicalionsanu rangc', in W. Slroehe and M. Hewslone (eds.), Europeun Review ofSodal Psyc!rology.Chil:hcstcr. UK: Wiley. vol. 2. pp. 1-30.

SCl11in. G. R. and Fieulcr. K. (1992). 'The configunltion ur social inleraclion in inlerpersonaltcnns·. in G.R. SClllin and K. Fieuler (eus.), ulIl)luage, JlIlel'llctiolllllld Sodal Cogllitüm,London and ßcvcrly Hills. CA: Sage.

Selllin. G.R. and Krahe. B. (1987). 'Lay conceplions or personalily: eliciling tiers 01' a scientifieconccplion ur pcrsonal ily'. Erll'lJfJ(,wl Joumal of Social P.I'yc!rology, 17, 199-209.

SCl11in, G. R. and Marsl11an, G. (1991). 'Taal en cognilie' ILanguage and cognitionl. in N .K.Dc Yrics and J. Yan der Pligl (eds.). Cogllitieve Sociale Psychologie ICognitive SocialPsychologYI. Mcppcl, The NClheriands: Boom, pp. 237-54.

SClllin. G.R. amI Ruhini. M. (1990), 'Unrolding lhe calegory 01' pcrson by verbal abuse',/:'III'f)I'C'CII/ '/0/1,.,,(/1 of Sodal P.I'yclwlogy, 20, 463-74.

l\vcdcr, R.A. (1982), 'racl anu artiract in Imit pcrccplion: Ihc systcmalil: uistorlionhypolhcsis', in ß.A. Maher anu W.ß. Mahcr (cus.), ProXrl'.f.\· ill Experill/l'lItli/ Pa.I'I}//a/ityUt'SCIII·t·". New York, NY: Al:auclllk Press, vul. 2, pp. 65-100.

Cl'IIlll'r~, RJ. (1985). '1Illpikil Iheories ur intcll i~cnl:c, crcalivily, amI wisuol11', }ou,."a/01' l't'f.wlla/ity al/(l Soda/ P,\'ydlO/oKY, 49, 607 -27.

"jl'cl, H. (1981 l, /lUllItII' Gmups emd Soc:ia/ Cate'Wlrie.f, Call1hridgc: Cumbriugc UniversilyPress.

IlpCS, E.C. anu Christal, E.E. (1961). ReClerrellt Per.w}//a/ity FactClr,\' Ba.\ec! ClII Tm;t Rat;IIK,\'.Tech. Rep. ASD-TR-61-97. Lacklanu Air Force ßase. TX: US Air Force. Reprinlcu in}Cll/mal CI! PersOIwlily, 1992,60,225-51.