Describing and Expressing Surprise

  • Agnès Celle
  • Anne Jugnet
  • Laure Lansari
  • Emilie L’Hôte
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 97)


The present paper aims to define the linguistic status of surprise, in comparison with other more prototypical emotions. Based on a sample of American spoken English (In Treatment), we argue that surprise entails an epistemic judgment whereby a specific event is connected to the speaker’s set of expectations. Our contention is that surprise can be characterized as a disconnection between emotive and emotional communication (Marty A: Untersuchungen Zur Grundlegung Der Allgemeinen Grammatik Und Sprachphilosophie. Olms, Hildesheim/New York, 1976), identified linguistically as a disconnection between expression and communication (Bally C: Le Langage et La Vie. Payot, Paris, 1926). Emotional reactions of surprise are thus expressed by the speaker’s intonation in mirative utterances, and by non-sentential elements in constructions. The second part of our study focuses on surprise lexemes (surprise (N) and surprised (Adj)). Surprise (N) cannot be classified as an epistemic state noun, nor as a prototypical psychological noun, as its prototypical sense is actually what we call its source reading. The state reading of the noun is thus identified as a metonymic extension of that prototypical sense, thereby reversing the expected structure of its semantic network. Similarly, the adjective surprised does not fall into prototypical scenarios, but rather rich and complex ones, pragmatically speaking. We show that the use of surprised (Adj) implies a comment on or an explanation of the initial emotional reaction, not the expression of it.


Surprise Epistemic modality Mirativity Psychological nouns Metonymy 



This study was funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the Emphiline Project – EMCO (Emotion(s), Cognition, Comportement) programme under contract number ANR-11–EMCO-0005.


  1. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Akatsuka, Noriko. 1985. Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language 61 (3): 625–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2: 1–23.Google Scholar
  4. Bally, Charles. 1926. Le Langage et La Vie. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  5. Barcelona, Antonio, ed. 2003. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Topics in English Linguistics 30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Barque, Lucie, Antonio Fábregas, and Rafael Marín. 2012. Les Noms D’état Psychologique et Leurs“ Objets”: Étude D’une Alternance Sémantique. Lexique.
  7. Blank, Andreas. 2003. Polysemy in the Lexicon and in Discourse. In Polysemy: Flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, ed. Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and David Clarke D., 142:267–96. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs, vol. 142. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. Blumenthal, Peter. 2009. Les Noms D’émotion: Trois Systèmes D’ordre. In Le Lexique Des Émotions, ed. Iva Novakova and Agnès Tutin, 41–64. Langues, Gestes, Paroles. Grenoble: ELLUG, Université Stendhal.Google Scholar
  9. Caffi, Claudia, and Richard W. Janney. 1994. Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics 22 (3-4): 325–373. Scholar
  10. Croft, William. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In New directions in cognitive linguistics, ed. Vyvyan Evans and Stephanie Pourcel, 24:395–420. Human Cognitive Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  11. Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1 (1).Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2001. The mirative and evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33 (3): 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Depraz, Natalie and Thomas Desmidt. This volume.Google Scholar
  15. Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of ‘Let Alone. Language 64 (3): 501–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hilpert, Martin. 2006. Keeping an eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Corpus-based approaches to metaphor and metonymy, ed. by Anatol Stefanowitsch and Stefan Thomas Gries, 123–51. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, vol. 171. Berlin: M. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Hoad, T. F. 1993. The concise Oxford dictionary of English etymology. Oxford Paperback Reference. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ibanez, Ruiz de Mendoza, and Francisco José. 2003. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective, Topics in English Linguistics 30, ed. Antonio Barcelona, 109–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan, David. 1999. What is meaning? Explorations in the theory of meaning as use. Ms. Draft 1. UCLA.Google Scholar
  21. Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language 75 (1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Second Series. Cambridge/New York/Paris: Cambridge University Press; Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.Google Scholar
  23. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lambrecht, Knud. 1990. “What, me worry?” – ‘Mad Magazine Sentences’ revisited. Annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics. Society 16 (1): 215–228.Google Scholar
  25. Lefeuvre, Florence. 1999. Les ‘Marqueurs de Prédication’ Dans La Phrase Averbale En Français. Verbum XXI, 4 (XXI, 4): 429–438.Google Scholar
  26. Legallois, Dominique, and Jacques François. 2012. Définition et Illustration de La Notion D’expressivité En Linguistique. In Relations, Connexions, Dépendances: Hommage Au Professeur Claude Guimier, ed. Claude Guimier, Nicole Le Querler, Franck Neveu, and Franck Roussel, 197–221. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
  27. Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Understanding semantics. Understanding language series. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  29. Marty, Anton. 1976. Untersuchungen Zur Grundlegung Der Allgemeinen Grammatik Und Sprachphilosophie. Hildesheim/New York: Olms.Google Scholar
  30. Mathieu, Yvette Yannick. 2000. Les Verbes de Sentiment: De L’analyse Linguistique Au Traitement Automatique. Sciences Du Langage. Paris: CNRS éditions.Google Scholar
  31. Michaelis, Laura. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, ed. Martin, 1963- Haspelmath, 1038–50. Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft. Berlin/New York: W. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Morzycki, Marcin. 2009. Degree modification of gradable nouns: Size adjectives and adnominal degree morphemes. Natural Language Semantics 17 (2): 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Novakova, Iva, Vannina Goossens, and Elena Melnikova. 2012. Associations sémantiques et syntaxiques spécifiques. Sur l’exemple du lexique émotionnel des champs de surprise et de déception. In 3e Congrès mondial de linguistique française: Lyon, 4-7 juillet 2012, ed. Franck Neveu, Valelia Muni Toke, and Peter Blumenthal, 1017–29. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ortony, Andrew, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge/New York/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Plantin, Christian. 2011. Les Bonnes Raisons Des Émotions: Principes et Méthode Pour L’étude Du Discours Émotionné, vol. 94, Sciences Pour La Communication. Bern/New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  36. Potts, Christopher. 2005. The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pragglejaz Group. 2007. MIP: a method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22 (1): 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Radden, Günter, and Zoltán Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Metonymy in language and thought, ed. Klaus-Uwe, 1942- Panther and Günter Radden, v. 4:17–59. Human Cognitive Processing, 1387–6724; v. 4. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
  39. Rett, Jessica. 2008. A degree account of exclamatives. In Proceedings of SALT 18:601–18. Scholar
  40. ———. 2011. Exclamatives, degrees and speech acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (5): 411–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rett, Jessica, and Sarah Murray. 2013. A semantic account of mirative evidentials. In Proceedings of SALT, 23:453–472. Scholar
  42. Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English abstract nouns as conceptual shells. From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Seto, Ken-Ichi. 2003. Metonymic polysemy and its place in meaning extension. In Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language, ed. Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and David Clarke D., 142:195-216. Trends in linguistics. Studies and monographs; 142. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Tutin, Agnès. 2009. Les Émotions Sont-Elles Comptables? In Le Lexique Des Émotions, ed. by Iva Novakova and Agnès Tutin, 65–79. Langues, Gestes, Paroles. Grenoble: ELLUG, Université Stendhal.Google Scholar
  46. Van de Velde, Danielle. 1998. Cet Obscur Objet Du Désir. L’objet Des Verbes de Sentiment. Travaux de Linguistique 35: 67–78.Google Scholar
  47. Van Dijk, Wilco W., and Marcel Zeelenberg. 2002. What do we talk about when we talk about disappointment? Distinguishing outcome-related disappointment from person-related disappointment. Cognition & Emotion 16 (6): 787–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnès Celle
    • 1
  • Anne Jugnet
    • 1
  • Laure Lansari
    • 1
  • Emilie L’Hôte
    • 1
  1. 1.Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, CLILLAC-ARP, EA 3967ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations