To feel and talk in a language of conflict: distinct emotional experience and expression of bilinguals among disadvantaged minority members
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research conducted on emotionality in bilinguals suggests that language use modulates emotional expression. The current study examines bilingual disadvantaged minority members’ emotional experience and expression as shaped by the group relations in a conflict area. We hypothesised that, in general, greater emotionality will be found in one’s native language. Moreover, since the second language is imposed and acquired in a negative context, there may be differential effects on negative and positive language. A novel ecological paradigm was used: Twenty-eight Palestinian citizens of Israel were videotaped while recounting emotional stories in both Arabic (L1) and Hebrew (L2), resulting in 212 videos. Two studies followed: In Study 1 we compared participants’ emotional ratings (1a) and analyzed the content of emotional expression (1b). In Study 2, American participants rated emotional expressiveness. In Study 1, an interaction effect was found between language and valence, with less positive emotions and expressions in L2. In Study 2, a general difference in expressiveness was found in favour of L1. These studies show an effect of power disparities on the emotional load of the second language, thus highlighting the emotional costs of using a second language acquired in a conflict area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it