Goddard (2014) proposes a three-partite division of emotive interjections, which is helpful in delineating this heterogeneous set of phenomena. The distinction also explains inconsistencies between Goddard’s and previous findings: While his study demonstrates variability across languages in word-like primary interjections, previous work investigating noise-like interjections has found evidence for universality. Such cross-culturally consistent, categorical perception of emotional signals can be explained as emerging from bottom–up information without the need for top–down learning via language or interjections.
AmekaF. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 101–118. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-G
2.
DaileyM. N.CottrellG. W.PadgettC.AdolphsR. (2002). EMPATH: A neural network that categorizes facial expressions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1158–1173. doi: 10.1162/089892902760807177
3.
EkmanP. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 169–200. doi: 10.1080/02699939208411068
4.
GoddardC. (2014). Interjections and emotion (with special reference to “surprise” and “disgust”). Emotion Review, 6, 53–63.
5.
RobersonD.DamjanovicL.KikutaniM. (2010). Show and tell: The role of language in categorizing facial expression of emotion. Emotion Review, 2, 255–260. doi: 10.1177/1754073910361979
6.
SauterD. A.EisnerF.EkmanP.ScottS. K. (2010). Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 2408–2412. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908239106
7.
SauterD. A.Le GuenO.HaunD. B. M. (2011). Categorical perception of emotional facial expressions does not require lexical categories. Emotion, 11, 1479–1483. doi:10.1037/a0025336
