Content uploaded by Tim Lomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tim Lomas on Feb 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
2
Abstract
Linguists have often remarked upon the polysemous nature of love, whereby the term
encompasses a wide diversity of emotional relationships. Several typologies have been
constructed to account for this diversity. However, these tend to be restricted in scope, and
fail to represent the range of experiences signified by the term ‘love’ in discourse. In the
interest of generating an expanded typology of love, encompassing its varied forms, an
enquiry was conducted into relevant concepts found across the world’s cultures, focusing on
so-called untranslatable words. Through a quasi-systematic search of published and internet
sources, 609 relevant words were identified. These were organised through a version of
grounded theory into 14 categories, representing 14 different types of love. The result is an
expanded theoretical treatment of love, allowing us to better appreciate the nuances of this
most cherished and yet polysemous of concepts.
Keywords: love; linguistics; theory; typology; cross-cultural
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
3
Few experiences are as cherished as love, with surveys consistently reporting it to be among
the most sought-after and valorised of human emotions (Wilkins & Gareis, 2006). At the
same time though, few concepts are as contested, with the label encompassing a vast range of
phenomena – spanning diverse spectra of intensity, valence, and temporal duration, and being
used in relation to a panoply of relationships, objects and experiences. Indeed, Murstein
(1988, p.33) described love vividly as “an AustroHungarian Empire uniting all sorts of
feelings, behaviors, and attitudes, sometimes having little in common.” As such, while most
words are polysemous, linguists suggest that love is “polysemous in the extreme,” as
Berscheid (2010, p.6) puts it.
Given its polysemous nature, scholars have attempted to create theoretical typologies
of different forms of love. One early and particularly influential effort was by John Lee
(1973, 1977), who drew on distinctions elucidated in the classical age to identify six ‘styles’
of loving. (Five of these types were adapted from classical Greek, while the sixth, ludus, is
Latinate.) Lee suggested there were three ‘primary’ forms of love: érōs (romantic,
passionate), ludus (flirtatious, playful), and storgē (filial, fraternal, companionate). By pairing
these, three further types arose from the permutations: prâgma (rational, sensible – a
combination of ludus and storgē), mania (possessive, dependent – a combination of érōs and
ludus), and agápē (charitable, selfless – a combination of érōs and storgē). Lee’s typology
subsequently received experimental validation, particularly from Hendrick and Hendrick
(1986), who devised a 42-item self-report scale and corroborated the six factor structure
through factor analysis. Further work then sought to elucidate patterns of association between
the types and other factors, For instance, exploring personality attributes, Mallandain and
Davies (1994) reported that self-esteem was positively correlated with érōs, and negatively
with mania, storgē and agápē. Conversely, emotionality and impulsivity were both positively
linked to mania and ludus, while emotionality was negatively associated with érōs.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
4
Around the same time, an alternative theoretically-derived typology was developed by
Robert Sternberg (1986). His ‘triangular’ theory of love suggested it arises from the presence
and interaction of three principle components: intimacy, passion, and decision/commitment.
Their permutations then give rise to seven types of love: liking (intimacy alone); infatuated
love (passion alone); empty love (commitment alone); romantic love (intimacy and passion);
companionate love (intimacy and commitment); fatuous love (passion and commitment); and
consummate love (all three). As with Lee (1977), Sternberg also developed his model into a
psychometric scale, for which he obtained a measure of factor analytic validation. Likewise,
there were empirical efforts to link his types of love with other psychological processes and
outcomes, such as personality. For instance, examining the model’s relationship to Costa and
McCrae’s (1992) 5-factor model, Engel, Olson, and Patrick (2002) found that of all the five
factors, conscientiousness was – perhaps surprisingly – the strongest predictor of love (for
both passion and intimacy in males, and for commitment in females), while factors such as
agreeableness appeared to have no particular relation. (The authors speculated that this may
be because conscientiousness is associated with people having the drive and skill to ‘work at’
relationships, which may be a precondition of lasting love.)
However, given that the two models do not totally overlap, arguably each is
somewhat incomplete or partial. It would appear that the theories only have one definite
primary element in common, where Sternberg’s (1986) passion component can perhaps be
equated with Lee’s (1977) notion of érōs. Beyond this, there are some close parallels; for
instance, Sternberg’s primary component of commitment can possibly but incompletely be
equated with Lee’s primary type of storgē, and perhaps also with the secondary type of
prâgma. Then there are elements that appear specific to one model only: Sternberg’s primary
component of intimacy does not map easily or exclusively on to any of Lee’s styles, whereas
Sternberg does not view ludus and prâgma as types of love (Shaver & Hazan, 1988).
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
5
However, one could further argue that, even taking the two models together, these do not
exhaust the polysemous nature of love. In particular, both models tend to mainly depict
different varieties of romantic relationships, i.e., between two people who identify as being
‘partners.’ There are therefore many different uses of the word love that are not represented
by these models.
For instance, a person might speak of their love for their country, or swimming, or a
Mozart symphony, or ice cream, or their cat, and so on. These types of love are an awkward
presence in the context of the models above, where it becomes necessary to either, (a) deny
that these forms strictly constitute love per se, or (b) stretch the models uneasily so that their
romantically-inclined styles of love extend into unusual areas. An example of the former is
work around brand loyalty by Shimp and Madden (1988), who adapted Sternberg’s (1986)
work to formulate a conceptual model of ‘consumer–object relationships,’ in which
Sternberg’s components are reconfigured as liking, yearning, and decision/commitment. In a
similar consumer context, a case of (b) can be found in Whang, Allen, Sahoury, and Zhang
(2004), who directly apply Lee’s (1977) components to a motorcycle, suggesting that bikers
genuinely feel érōs, mania and agápē in relation to it. However, without denying the value
and validity of such studies, they appear to be straining to make the data – the real-world
phenomena – fit the theory.
Part of the problem stems from the fact that both Lee (1977) and Sternberg (1986)
formulated their models on the basis of only three primary components. This necessarily
limits the permutations that can be derived to six or seven (depending on whether one allows
a permutation of all three, as Sternberg does). However, there is no a priori reason that love
should only comprise three such components. Indeed, as this paper will show, it is possible to
identify at least three further candidates that merit the status of ‘primary’ components: care;
connection; and appreciation. These could be considered primary in that their presence alone
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
6
– in the absence of Lee’s or Sternberg’s primary components – warrant ‘legitimate’ uses of
the word love. For instance, I may experience a surge of compassionate yet abstract love
towards humanity ‘in general.’ This love is not characterised by any of Sternberg’s trio of
passion, intimacy or commitment, nor Lee’s trio of érōs, ludus and storgē, but rather is an
expression of care. Likewise, one might love a certain novelist due to a feeling of shared
sensibilities, or love a possession – a painting, say – based on its aesthetic properties. Neither
example requires Lee’s or Sternberg’s primary components, but instead involve connection
and appreciation respectively. All these cases are genuine and indeed familiar examples of
the way ‘love’ gets used in common discourse; as such, any comprehensive theory of love
ought to be able to accommodate these. To this end, this paper seeks to develop an expanded
taxonomy of love, doing so through the innovative device of exploring ‘untranslatable’
words, as the next section outlines.
Untranslatable words
This paper draws on recent work by Lomas (2016), who is developing a lexicography of
untranslatable words. While untranslatability is a contested phenomenon, it essentially refers
to a word that appears to lack an exact equivalent in a given other language (in the present
case, English). The interest in such words is manifold.
First, they can assist in understanding other cultures, offering insights into their
values, conceptualisations, traditions, and ways of being (Wierzbicka, 1999). The theoretical
context here is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – developed by Sapir (1929) and Whorf (1940) –
which holds that language influences how people experience, understand, and perceive the
world. The stronger version of this hypothesis is linguistic determinism, whereby language
inextricably constitutes thought. By contrast, the milder version simply asserts that language
shapes thought and experience. In relation to untranslatable words, the stronger deterministic
view holds that only people enmeshed within the culture that produced a given word can truly
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
7
understand or experience the phenomenon that the word refers to. Conversely, the milder
relativistic perspective suggests that such words are to an extent accessible to people outside
the culture, holding some potential universal relevance.
This latter point highlights a second element of interest regarding untranslatable
words. Beyond just being informative vis-à-vis the culture that created them, such words can
enrich other lexicons. This phenomenon of cultures ‘borrowing’ words is central to language
development. Indeed, of the more than 600,000 lexemes in the Oxford English Dictionary,
the percentage of borrowed words is estimated to be as high as 41% (Tadmor, 2009). Such
borrowings are known as ‘loanwords,’ although more specific terminology has also been
developed to reflect varying levels of assimilation into the host language. In fact, we can see
this very process at work in Lee’s (1977) typology, where he retained the classical words in
their original form, rather than seeking an approximate English equivalent (as Sternberg
sought to).
Of particular interest here is why words are borrowed. Haspelmath (2009) identifies
two main reasons: core versus cultural borrowings. Core borrowings are when a loanword
replicates a word that already exists (i.e., with a similar meaning) in the recipient language.
The tends to happen for sociolinguistic reasons, e.g., cultural capital associated with using
foreign words (Blank, 1999). This type of borrowing is not of concern here. However, the
second category of cultural borrowing is central. Haspelmath refers to these as ‘loanwords by
necessity,’ where the recipient language lacks its own word for a particular referent. Thus, the
loanword is used for pragmatic reasons: it is cognitive and socially useful, allowing speakers
to articulate concepts they had previously been unable to. In Lehrer’s (1974, p.105)
terminology, such words fill ‘semantic gaps,’ i.e., “the lack of a convenient word to express
what [one] wants to speak about.” It is such semantic gaps that makes a word untranslatable,
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
8
suggesting the existence of phenomena that have been overlooked or undervalued by one’s
own culture, but which another culture has noticed, identified and labelled.
Thus, a central premise of Lomas’ (2016) lexicography is that such words can enrich
the English lexicon, and moreover enhance the nomological network in psychology. There
are numerous reasons why that would be desirable, most notably the critique that academic
psychology tends to be Western-centric (Becker & Marecek, 2008; Lomas, 2015a). As a
result, one could argue that the current nomological network in psychology is incomplete,
having been largely founded upon concepts that happen to have been identified in English.
The aim of the lexicography is therefore to augment this network with constructs which have
not yet been identified, as signalled by the existence of an untranslatable word. Clearly, there
is a wide range of phenomena that could potentially be of interest. As such, to narrow down
the focus of the lexicography to a manageable area of enquiry, its focus is on wellbeing
specifically. A key aspect of this love, which constitutes one of the six core thematic
categories in the lexicography. (The other five are positive emotions (Lomas, in press c),
ambivalent emotions (Lomas, in press a), spirituality (Lomas, in press b), prosociality, and
character development.) Thus, the current paper aims to provide a more comprehensive
understanding of this topic through the study of relevant untranslatable words.
Methods
In order to develop a more extensive typology of forms of love, following the example of
Lomas (2016), a quasi-systematic review of untranslatable words pertaining to love was
undertaken. As per the original paper, it is quasi-systematic in that there was insufficient
source material in academic journals, meaning that a conventional systematic review,
utilising standard academic databases, was not feasible. The review involved several stages.
The first stage involved searching for relevant words. This stage featured two main
search strategies. First, 30 websites and blogs devoted to untranslatable words were explored.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
9
These were located by entering “untranslatable words” into google, and picking the first 30
such websites and/or blogs. Examining these, any word pertaining to love was selected, using
love in an expansive sense to incorporate diverse spectra of intensity, valence, and temporal
duration, and in relation to a wide variety of relationships, objects and phenomena. This
search strategy generated 97 words. Second, there was a process of searching google one
language at a time. This involved entering “_____ concept of” and “love” into the search
engine, with a different language in the underlined space each time. Proceeding through the
first ten pages for each search, there was an effort to identify words relating to love that were
presented as being unique to a particular culture. This generated a further 512 words, mainly
because of a vast number of constructs created – often as recent neologisms – via the prefix
‘philo-’ or the suffix ‘-philia’ (with one website alone featuring 457 such words). As a result,
609 potentially relevant terms were located. However, around three-quarters of these were the
various ‘philo-/-philia’ derived terms. While these were not discounted, they were not
prioritised, since it is theoretically possible to construct such terms with respect to any
phenomenon. Moreover, in contemporary usage, many philia words are used to delineate
unusual or deviant sexual proclivities, which is tangential to the purposes of this paper.
Having compiled a list of words, they and their descriptions were checked for
accuracy by consulting online dictionaries, as well as peer-reviewed academic sources (if
such were available for a given word). The words were then analysed using grounded theory
(GT) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), a qualitative methodology which allows theory to emerge
inductively from the data. GT involves three main stages: open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding. First, open coding involves examining the data – which in this study was the
list of words – for emergent themes. As noted above, priority was given to the 152 words
which were not a type of ‘philo-/-philia.’ The words were examined carefully for their
thematic content. The next stage was axial coding, in which the words were grouped together
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
10
into categories based on their thematic similarity. Here, 14 separate categories – 14 types or
‘flavours’ of love – were identified, as outlined below. (The use of the term ‘flavours’ is to
avoid the implication that a given relationship necessarily just constitutes one of these types
exclusively. It is possible that a romantic partnership, say, might be a blend of multiple
flavours, and moreover that this mix may change dynamically over time.) For the purposes of
consistency, each category was labelled using one of the Greek words placed it. The final GT
stage is selective coding, in which a single core category is identified, which in this case was
love. Attempts are then made to elucidate how the main categories relate to this core
category, thus telling a narrative which makes sense of the data. The 14 categories (or ‘types’
or ‘flavours’) are introduced in turn below, including a sample of the words that helped shape
the category.
Results
The first three categories pertain to love not oriented towards people per se, but towards other
phenomena. This in itself distinguishes the approach here from Lee (1977) and Sternberg
(1986), who restricted themselves to love of people. Obviously, it is possible to love, or to be
drawn towards, a bewildering array of non-human phenomena, as attested to by the many
hundreds of words coined using the philia prefix, from ablutophilia (relating to bathing) to
zoophilia (relating to animals). However, it was possible to group these phenomena into three
main forms – experiences, objects, and places – which thus constitute the first three
categories outlined below. The remaining 11 categories depict forms of love relating to other
people, featuring the six types identified by Lee, together with five additional types.
Meraki: Experiential love
The first ‘non-personal’ category is a love of activities and experiences. This is a catch-all
category for a deep fondness for any type of action or endeavour, from ambulophilia (love of
walking) to gephyrophilia (love of crossing bridges). It should right away be emphasised that
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
11
in classical Greece, philia did not signify anything sexual per se, as indeed neither does it
necessarily today (as per, for instance, Francophilia, a love or admiration for France). The
term selected to represent this all-encompassing class of experiences is the Greek verb (and
sometime adverb) meraki. This could be loosely translated as ardour, specifically with respect
to one’s own actions and creations. As a verb, meraki can express desire or longing for a
specific activity, whereas as an adverb, one might undertake a task with a spirit of ardour,
care and love. Besides the various philias that fall within the ambit of this term, other words
helped shape this category. Some capture a passion and zest for life generally, including the
Spanish nouns duende and vivencia, and the French phrase joie de vivre, with the latter an
excellent example of an untranslatable phrase that has already been imported into English.
Other words denote appreciation or fondness for specific activities. For instance, numerous
words extoll the virtue of savouring aspects of nature, such as the Japanese noun shinrin-yoku
which refers to the therapeutic act of ‘bathing’ in the quietude of a forest (figuratively and/or
literally).
Érōs: Aesthetic love
The second non-personal category pertains to a love of objects, from physical items (e.g., a
work of art) to abstract concepts (as reflected in philosophy, literally the love of wisdom). As
with meraki, this category encompasses a wide range of philias. This time though, the love is
for the ‘object,’ rather than the experience of engaging with it. This is the type of affection
alluded to in the aforementioned research exploring love for consumer brands (Albert,
Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2008). Selecting an apposite Greek term to represent this form
of love was tricky, due to ambiguities and shifts in the meaning of terms over time and across
contexts. Ultimately, érōs was selected, though not without reservations. In classical usage,
the term tended to denote desire, often – but not exclusively – for people. Moreover, it did not
specify sexual desire, as it frequently tends to today (hence the reservation over its selection).
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
12
Rather, in the writings of Plato and others, it was more commonly invoked in the context of
aesthetic appreciation of beauty, in which one loves an object because it partakes in the
perfection of the divine Forms/Ideas. As Plato writes in Phaedrus (249E): “he who loves the
beautiful is called a lover because he partakes of it” (cited in Hofstadter & Kuhns, 2009,
p.61). Thus, érōs is used here to capture a strong appreciation or yearning for non-personal
phenomena, with sexual desire instead represented by epithymia below.
Chōros: Rooted love
The third ‘non-personal’ category is love of particular places, and especially the feeling of
being rooted in such places. One might regard this as a potent combination of meraki and
érōs, in that one might love a place due to a combination of the ‘objects’ (including people)
and experiences associated with it. The word selected for this category is chōros, one of two
main words used in classical Greece to refer to a place, alongside topos. As elucidated by
Walter (1988, p.120), whereas topos generally referred to the layout of a place, writers such
as Ptolemy (90-168 CE) would use chōros signify its quality, and moreover the affection and
significance attached to it. Sometimes such affection would be denoted through the philia
suffix (i.e., chōrophilia), but this sense was retained when the suffix was omitted, such that a
sacred place might be termed a chora. In the present analysis, this category was formed
through the identification of various conceptually similar words – all valued in their
respective cultures – that describe a deep, heartfelt connection to certain locales, particularly
one’s homeland. These include toska, hiraeth, and saudade, which articulate a complex sense
of belonging and/or yearning that are specifically tied to Russia, Wales, and Portugal/Brazil
respectively (Wierzbicka, 1999). For instance Coupland, Bishop, and Garrett (2003, p.164)
define hiraeth as “a Welsh cultural longing for Wales,” and discuss how it is intimately
connected to feelings around cultural heritage and national identity. Not all relevant words
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
13
pertain to one’s homeland though; for instance, German has Fernweh and Wanderlust to
depict a desire to travel to, or the “call of,” distant places (Gabriel, 2004, p.155).
Philia: Friendly love
Turning to the first form of love directly specifically towards people, there is the ‘Platonic’
love that defines close friendship, denoted here by the label philia. Of course, as has been
noted already, philia is a contested, polysemous term, used in multiple ways. In classical
Greece, it tended to depict fondness, appreciation and loyalty – in contrast to the passionate
desire and yearning of érōs – which might not only be bestowed upon friends, but also one’s
family, job, community and country (Hofstadter & Kuhns, 2009). By contrast, in
contemporary usage, as a suffix it is sometimes (though by no means always) used to
represent sexual desire. However, its selection here is guided by its usage in classical Greece,
particularly Aristotle’s emphasis on friendship. This is exemplified by his description of
‘things that cause friendship’ in Rhetoric as being; “doing kindnesses; doing them unasked;
and not proclaiming the fact when they are done” (Aristotle, 1954, II. 4). Nestled within this
category are various other words which pertain to close, affectionate friendship. For instance,
Greek also includes the derivation philotimo, a culture-defining characteristic of respecting
and honouring one’s friends. Similarly, friendships imbued with Platonic love are captured by
terms like cariño and confianza in Spanish.
Philautia: Self love
There is one form of philia which does warrant its own category, since it is not a love of
others, nor of experiences, objects or places. Rather, it is the unique phenomenon of loving
oneself. As with the three non-personal types of love above, this does not sit easily within
Sternberg’s (1986) conceptual triad of intimacy, passion and commitment. Rather, we are
concerned here with various positive qualities prefixed by the term self, including -esteem, -
compassion, -regard, and -respect. Indeed, Aristotle argued in the Nichomachean Ethics that
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
14
this was the precondition for the other forms of love (NE, IX.8). However, the term philautia
admits positive and negative varieties. Aristotle was referring to its more benevolent type, a
secure form of self-esteem in which this self-regard is not at the expense of other people (who
are equally respected and cherished). His ideal of self-love is a reflective pursuit of virtue,
and the desire to cultivate one’s character, to thereby be better able to extend affection and
help to others. By contrast, its darker variant encompasses notions such as narcissism,
arrogance and egotism. (Indeed, narcissism itself is an untranslatable word of sorts, derived
from the legend of the self-absorbed Narcissus.) In a related, but slightly different way,
French has two words for self-love. Held in higher regard by the likes of Rousseau (1762) is
amour de soi, literally ‘love of oneself,’ which depicts self-esteem that is unconditional and
secure (Cooper, 1998). On the other hand, amour proper, or ‘self-love,’ is comparatively
fragile and contingent on the validation of others.
Storgē: Familial love
The next category is storgē, which in classical Greece depicted care and affection, usually
between family members (Isaacs, 2015). For instance, Browning (2002, p.335) describes it in
terms of the ‘deep and preferential investment by parents’ in their children. Admittedly, there
is a fuzzy boundary between storgē and philia – as there is between many categories here –
given that some friendships can be so close that the person is essentially considered family.
Indeed, in Lee’s (1977) typology, storgē was characterised more as a companionate love.
Nevertheless, it is useful to differentiate between the love one may have for one’s closest
friends, and the kind of deep familial love that can exist between kin (Montgomery & Sorell,
1997). In terms of the words uncovered in the analysis, storgē is captured by the verb
kanyininpa, from the Aboriginal Pintupi language. Myers (1991) suggests it refers to “an
intimate and active relationship between a “holder” and that which is “held,”” capturing the
deep feeling of nurturance and protection a parent usually feels for a child (p.146). Such love
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
15
is quite different to the companionship between friends, encompassing powerful sentiments
of care, protection, and unconditional (i.e., non-contingent) responsibility.
Epithymia: Passionate love
We now move into the first of five categories pertaining to what might be called ‘romantic’
love. (One should note though that romantic relationships may also involve some of the other
‘flavours’ included in the typology, particularly storgē and philia.) Romantic love refers
generally to the more or less exclusive bond – with some exemptions, like polygamy –
between two people who identify as ‘partners.’ This first type, epithymia, pertains to
passionate love, encompassing qualities such as sensual desire and physical attraction. In
Lee’s (1977) and Sternberg’s (1986) theories, passion was one of the three primary forms of
love (labelled by Lee as érōs). However, epithymia is preferred here, enabling érōs to be used
more generally for non-sexual appreciation and desire, as outlined above. For instance,
Tillich (1954) argues that érōs ‘transcends’ epithymia, precisely because érōs is not merely
about basic physical desire, but is imbued with higher values (e.g., an appreciation of beauty).
An alternative title for this category was erotikos, as per Plutarch’s dialogue on passion of
that name (more commonly referred to as the Amatorius) (Brenk, 1988); however, epithymia
arguably renders the distinction with érōs clearer. As with the other categories, various words
pertained to this feeling. For instance, in Chilean Yagán, mamihlapinatapei refers to a look
between people that expresses unspoken but mutual desire, while in Tagalog, kilig captures
the butterflies in the stomach arising from an interaction with (or a thought of) someone one
desires or finds attractive.
Paixnidi: Playful love
The second category of romantic love is labelled here as paixnidi. This was one of Lee’s
(1977) three primary forms of love, for which he used the Latin cognate, ludus. However, for
consistency, the Greek paixnidi is preferred here. Both are nouns, meaning game or play.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
16
Moreover, both are multifaceted, capable of being deployed in positive or negative ways. In
their positive inflection, they can refer to playful gestures of flirtation, to coy, game-based
strategies (e.g., playing ‘hard to get’), or to cheeky displays of affection. An example of the
latter is found in Tagalog, where gigil describes the irresistible urge to pinch/squeeze
someone because they are loved or cherished. At a deeper level, in Western contemplative
mystery traditions, the phrase ludus amoris depicted the divine play of God, in which God
eludes and yet also entices the spiritual seeker (Underhill, 1941). Comparable concepts, and
concomitant terms, are found in other traditions, such as the Hindu notion of lila (Kinsley,
1974). However, paixnidi and ludus can also have negative connotations, such as describing
scheming and deception in relation to love. Indeed, many studies drawing on Lee’s typology
emphasise this darker ‘gamefulness’ (rather than a more benevolent ‘playfulness’). For
instance, Sarwer, Kalichman, Johnson, Early, and Ali (1993, p.265) define ludus as “a
manipulative, game-playing orientation towards intimate relationships,” finding that this was
the best predictor of coercion among Lee’s six styles. This negative side of paixnidi/ludus is
reflected in the Boro verb onsay, which has been rendered as ‘to pretend to love.’
Mania: Possessive love
Related to the negative aspects of paixnidi/ludus is mania, the darkest category of love in this
typology. Mania is already a loanword of course, but was also specifically deployed by Lee
(1977) as one of his three secondary styles, a possessive, dependent form of love arising from
a noxious combination of érōs (as Lee deployed the term) and ludus. It has its parallel in
Sternberg’s (1997) notion of ‘fatuous/infatuated love,’ which he conceived as a problematic
conjoining of passion and commitment (thus minus intimacy). A modern English equivalence
might be ‘limerance,’ coined by Tennov (1998) to depict this intense, somewhat unstable
feeling. Similarly, it has been conceptualised by Sperling and Berman (1991) as ‘desperate
love,’ and by Hindy and Schwarz (1994) as ‘anxious romantic attachment.’ This type of love
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
17
has its versions among the words/phrases analysed here, like the French notion of amour fou,
which literally translates as ‘mad love.’ Indeed, scholars have argued that this darker form of
love is worryingly common, in which positive feelings are intermingled with emotions like
anger, jealousy and anxiety, to the extent that Spitzberg and Cupach (1998) claim
provocatively – in their book The Dark Side of Close Relationships – that “love and hate are
indeed impossible to disentangle” (p.xiii).
Prâgma: Rational love
Standing in contrast to the intensity and instability of mania is prâgma. This was another of
Lee’s (1977) secondary styles, a rational, sensible form of love arising from the conjunction
of ludus and storgē. It has a tenuous parallel with Sternberg’s (1997) notion of ‘empty’ love,
which consists of commitment only. However, the pejorative qualifier ‘empty’ – implying a
partnership in which people stay together, but feel no ‘love’ (e.g., intimacy) for each other –
fails to capture the nuances embedded within prâgma. The term can be translated as a deed,
action, or ‘a thing done.’ It thus captures the sense that love is not only the swooning feeling
of ‘falling’ for someone, but also consists in the long-term process of building a life together,
of forging a bond that does not depend upon the passing whims of desire. This aspect of love
is often overlooked, or is not even regarded as love per se, as implied by Sternberg. However,
its value has been recognised by theorists such as Fromm (1956), who argued in The Art of
Loving that people place too much importance on ‘falling in love,’ and not enough on
learning how to ‘stand in love.’ Without denying that ‘empty’ forms of commitment do exist
(Hatfield, Bensman, & Rapson, 2012), in its fullest sense, prâgma arguably exemplifies this
notion of ‘standing in love.’ It has its kinship in the Korean noun jeong, which depicts a deep
affinity or connectedness that is not necessarily accompanied by romance. It is also reflected
in the French verb s'apprivoiser, which literally means ‘to tame,’ but which in the context of
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
18
a deep relationship can depict a mutual process of accommodation, whereby both sides learn
to trust and accept each other.
Anánkē: Star-crossed love
We come to the fifth and final type of romantic love – one that might be regarded as its
deepest and most complete form, although it can also be associated with tragedy, as per the
archetype of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. While this type doesn’t feature in Lee’s (1977)
typology – though agápē comes close – it is identified by Sternberg (1997) as ‘consummate
love,’ involving the trinity of intimacy, passion and commitment. This type of love is
strongly represented among the words analysed here. Interestingly, many allude to destiny
and fate, capturing the sense that powerful forces guide its appearance in people’s lives,
hence the choice of anánkē as the overarching label. In classical Greek, anánkē represented a
binding force or necessity, and similarly implied unshakable destiny, to the extent that the
poet Simonides wrote that “Even the Gods don’t fight against anánkē” (cited in Bowra, 1958,
p.61). For instance, in Japanese, koi no yokan refers to the feeling on meeting someone that
falling in love will be inevitable, while in Chinese yuán fèn describes a ‘binding force’ that
impels a relationship ordained by destiny. These are augmented by words which, while not
invoking fate, depict unshakable ‘lifelong’ forms of love, such as sarang in Korean.
Agápē: Compassionate love
The next form of love here is agápē. This featured in Lee’s (1977) typology as a secondary
type, a combination of érōs and storgē, involving charitable and ‘selfless’ love. The term is
closely associated with Greek versions of the Bible, in which it is prominent as the kind of
unconditional love that God was depicted as holding towards humanity. (The translators of
the King James Bible chose to render agápē as charity, for various reasons, a rendering which
many scholars have suggested is not ideal (Hitchens, 2011).) As such, Jesus implored his
followers to emulate this in their relations with one another. Indeed, in the Christian tradition,
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
19
agápē is valorised as pre-eminent among the theological virtues: in the words of St. Paul, “So
faith, hope, love [agápē] abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (Revised
Standard Version, 1952; 1 Corinthians 13:13). Thus, in its truest sense, agápē is not love
directed exclusively towards select others. That is, a parent might feel unconditional, selfless
love towards their child, such that they would sacrifice themselves to protect their progeny.
However, in the fullest sense of the term, agápē depicts a more universal compassionate love,
directed towards others ‘in general.’ There are many terms which pertain to this kind of love,
including several expressing a sense of ‘loving-kindness,’ such as pittiarniq in Inuit, maitrī in
Sanskrit, and gemilut hasadim in Yiddish. Related too are words concerning the virtue of
showing kindness and hospitality to others, even (or especially) to strangers, from melmastia
in Pashto to ubuntu in Nguni Bantu.
Koinōnía: Momentary love
This penultimate type tends to be overlooked or underappreciated in discussions around love,
mainly because people usually only refer to love in the context of stable or enduring
relationships. However, in recent years, an innovative theory proposed by Fredrickson (2013)
– entitled ‘Love 2.0’ – identifies love with momentary micro-feelings of connection with
people. Indeed, Fredrickson argues that this is love, and that the other forms, as discussed
above, are rather elaborations of these fleeting intimacies. However, here this type is included
as one form among many. The word selected to represent this form of love is koinōnía, which
pertains to feelings of communion, sharing, and intimacy. However, in contrast to the
negotiated longevity of prâgma – discussed below – koinōnía is at the other end of the
temporal scale; not an absence of commitment per se, but an absence of extended duration at
all. Rather, it is a momentary spark between people, such as a meaningful flash of eye
contact, or a shared moment of ‘participatory consciousness’ (Lutz, 2009), e.g., as enjoyed by
audiences at a captivating musical event. This momentary type of love is captured by the
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
20
French noun frisson, which depicts a sudden thrill, involving a potent combination of fear and
excitement.
Sébomai: Reverential love
This final form of love is also not often included in prominent typologies, like Lee’s (1977)
or Sternberg’s (1986). However, in some ways, it is the logical counterpart to agápē. Recall
that agápē was viewed as the kind of benevolent, paternal love that God held towards
humanity, which Jesus encouraged his followers to emulate. As such, in conceiving of an
asymmetrical relationship between God and humankind, agápē expresses the love flowing
‘down’ from God. Correspondingly, this relationship has its concomitant ‘upwards’ form, a
submissive stance of reverence and devotion. This is encapsulated by the Greek term
sébomai, which means to stand in reverence, awe, and worship. This form of love combines
the utmost of respect and devotion, together with darker elements such as fear, reflecting the
power asymmetry of the dyad, which in the case of a relationship with God is essentially
infinite (Johnson, 2016). Indeed, Keltner and Haidt (2003) describe awe as a “spiritual
emotion” that exists in a powerful, rarefied zone “in the upper reaches of pleasure and on the
boundary of fear” (p.297). A somewhat similar form of devotional love, found within the
Hindu tradition, is expressed by the Sanskrit term bhakti. However, in that cultural context,
devotion can potentially take on different emotional qualities to those usually found within
Western traditions, such as intimacy; this point shall be addressed further in the discussion
below. Relatedly, there are words which pertain to other kinds of persons – aside from Gods
– that may be a focus of such love, like the Sanskrit term guru, which describes a revered
spiritual teacher or guide. This type of devotional love can also be extended to secular
persons – albeit that the love retains a quasi-religious fervour – such as music or screen idols,
a Greek-derived word which is particularly apt, given that it originally referred usually to an
image of a deity.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
21
Discussion
This paper has sought to extend the typologies of love previously formulated by Lee (1977)
and Sternberg (1986). In this present study, 14 different types (or ‘flavours’) of love were
identified. Again though, it should be emphasised that this typology does not imply that a
given relationship can necessarily be pigeon-holed as exclusively constituting just one type;
rather, partnerships may potentially be a blend of more than one flavour. To go beyond a
merely descriptive typology, it will be helpful to understand the conceptual interrelationships
between these different types. To that end, it is possible to group these 14 into four
overarching thematic categories, as shown in figure 1 below: non-personal; caring; romantic;
and transcendent. Moreover, each category can be understood as being driven by a specific
motivation: appreciation; concern; desire; and self-transcendence.
[insert figure 1 about here]
First, there are three forms of non-personal love, i.e., not directed towards people,
including love for experiences (meraki), objects (érōs), and places (chōros). With these
forms, the fundamental dynamic appears to be appreciation: above all, the person takes
pleasure or interest in the phenomenon in question (Carlson, 2002). They may of course also
care for these items, but this is not necessarily the case. Nor is it the kind of deep concern and
responsibility associated with love for family members, say. This brings us to the second
category, caring love. This involves non-romantic forms of affection that tend to be reserved
for friends (philia), family (storgē), and oneself (philautia). Here the fundamental dynamic is
arguably concern, in the sense of being vested in the other person’s welfare, with incumbent
feelings of duty and responsibility (Myers, 1991). Third, there are five forms of romantic
love: passionate (epithymia); playful (paixnidi); possessive or otherwise troubled (mania);
sensible (prâgma); and ‘star-crossed’ (anánkē). Here the main dynamic is desire, i.e.,
physical and/or mental attraction, usually involving passion and sexual excitement
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
22
(Luhmann, 1986). Finally, there are three forms of love which could be regarded as
transcendent, in which the individual abrogates their own needs or concerns: compassionate
(agápē), unitive (koinōnía), and reverential love (sébomai). With these, the main dynamic is
self-transcendence, in that the person overcomes narrow self-pre-occupation, and is instead
absorbed in feelings that yoke them to a broader or higher concern (Lomas, 2015b).
Thus, one can see that this schema considerably extends the earlier typologies of Lee
(1977) and Sternberg (1986). For as useful as their earlier efforts were, those typologies were
limited to love for people, and often (though not exclusively) romantic forms of love. As
such, they do not account for the many ways in which people use the term ‘love.’ Speaking
reflexively, I can, for instance, state that I love my wife, my parents, my brother and sister,
my friends, London, David Bowie, ice cream, and swimming outdoors. Clearly, these are all
different forms of love, as Lee and Sternberg would readily acknowledge. But there is no
room in their schemas for the love I hold for those latter four items. But I do mean it when I
say I love them, actively choosing this strong word over weaker verbs, such as ‘to like’ or ‘to
appreciate.’
One might wonder whether such an all-inclusive conception of love is necessarily
helpful. After all, it could be argued that the concept of love is enriched through a degree of
specificity and uniqueness. However, the prerogative of this paper is to reflect the way in
which the term love functions in common discourse, where it covers a wide range of
phenomena, as argued above. That said, this broader conception of love raises the question of
the extent to which it differs from related stances such as liking. Ultimately, as alluded to
previously, it seems the main way in which these can be distinguished is in terms of the
strength of the passion. According to Sternberg (1987), many theories conceive of liking and
loving as being regions along a spectrum, rather than separate, discrete categories. Both
generally denote a stance of appreciation towards a phenomenon: milder forms are labelled
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
23
liking; then, once a critical threshold is reached – which varies from person to person – a
designation of love is deemed more appropriate.
Some scholars have attempted to stretch Lee’s and Sternberg’s models so that they
can account for a greater variety of loving relationships. This is the case with Whang et al.
(2004) for instance, who, as noted above, suggested that bikers genuinely feel érōs, mania
and agápē in relation to their motorcycles. However, such attempts rather seem like they are
straining to make the data (i.e., the way people talk about ‘loving’ motorcycles) fit the theory.
Arguably, we will develop a better understanding of love if we allow the theory to emerge
out of the data. This isn’t to imply that Lee and Sternberg did not base their theories on data.
It’s just that they started with a limited conceptualisation of love, since their models were
formulated on the basis of only three primary components – components which tend to be
present in romantic love. However, as noted above, there is no a priori reason that love
should only comprise three such components. Indeed, it was possible here to identify three
further candidates that appear to warrant the status of primary components: care; connection;
and appreciation. These can be considered primary in that their presence alone might still
merit the use of ‘love.’ For instance, I might love a new song that I hear on the radio: this
feeling is not characterised by Sternberg’s components of passion, intimacy, or commitment,
but just by aesthetic appreciation. As such, I have made a preliminary attempt to categorise
the 14 types of love according to six primary components – Sternberg’s trio of passion,
intimacy, and commitment, plus care, connection, and appreciation – as outlined in table 1
below.
[insert table 1 about here]
The table also reflects the possibility that nearly all forms of love potentially have a
destructive ‘dark’ side (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998). This potentiality was discussed above in
relation to mania – which is by definition harmful – and to an extent paixnidi. However, most
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
24
of the forms can likewise have unhealthy strains. On reflection, there appear to be at least
three destructive factors that can render love as unhealthy. First, there is the potential for the
focus of one’s love to be objectified, i.e., treated as an object, without agency or dignity.
Second, and relatedly, there is the possibility of treating this target as one’s possession.
Indeed, these two tend to go hand in hand. However, they are not necessarily identical. One
could imagine scenarios in which a person is objectified but not necessarily viewed
possessively, such as when people fantasise about celebrities. Conversely, it is possible to be
possessive without objectifying, as might be found with an overbearing parent.
A third factor is the extent to which the object of love is appropriate for that type, or
whether it is ‘misdirected’ according to prevailing norms. That is, love is a relational
phenomenon, and cannot be appraised independently of its object. For each of the types, there
is arguably an implicit set of people or phenomena who would usually – i.e., according to
norms in most cultures – be deemed suitable loci for that type. If these ‘natural’ pairings are
interfered with, it is usually regarded as problematic. To appreciate this point, consider the
four overarching thematic categories, introduced above. From this schematic, one can
appreciate that all 14 forms of love are not equivalent, nor are they interchangeable with
respect to their focus. Or at least, if a person treats them as interchangeable, or the boundaries
between the categories become blurred, this tends to be seen as problematic, and indeed as
pathological. If, for instance, forms of romantic love are directed towards people or items
associated with the other three categories, this is usually considered morally wrong and/or a
classifiable pathology, with these inappropriate forms of cathexis referred to clinically as
paraphilias (Kafka, 1994). Similarly, if a person is unable to differentiate feelings towards
people from feelings towards objects, this is widely treated as characteristic of psychopathy,
being evidence of dehumanisation and detachment (Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010). As
such, while this paper explored the merits of an expanded understanding of love, it is also
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
25
vital to retain a sense of the crucial differences between its different forms. This is
particularly the case with regard to who or what is the focus of a certain type of feeling.
Overall then, this paper represents a promising initiative in terms of expanding our
understanding of love. However, there are limitations to the analysis which should be borne
in mind. First, while untranslatable words have helped to illuminate the different types of
love, the analysis does not provide a comprehensive picture of these words themselves. That
is, like the term love, many of these words are themselves polysemous, incorporating a
wealth of meanings. These meanings do not necessarily fit neatly within the specific types of
love outlined above, for which the terms were used as examples. For instance, bhakti was
included as an example of sébomai, i.e., devotional love for God. However, while it is not
inaccurate to cite this as an instance of sébomai, bhakti also embeds feelings that, in the
West, one might not usually associate with reverence for a deity, such as passion, intimacy,
care, and connection (Kumar, 2010). Thus, bhakti cannot simply be classified as a form of
devotional love, at least as far as this type of love is usually understood in Western contexts.
That said, in not fitting neatly into this conceptual schema, it could also be argued that
terms like bhakti expand our current understanding of the different types of love. That is, one
might suggest that the schema outlined here is somewhat Western-centric, being constructed
by a scholar born, raised, and working in the UK. As such, it inevitably reflects Western ideas
around love. For instance, its conception of devotional love has been influenced by Judeo-
Christian concepts and practices in this regard, which tend to emphasise qualities such as
awe, respect, and emotional distance (Johnson, 2016). This stands in contrast to devotional
ideas associated with traditions such as Hinduism, in which a greater level of intimacy is
encouraged or permitted. Indeed, in the Vedanta teachings known as Ádvaita (or ‘non-dual’),
the individual self or soul – known as ātman – is regarded as being of the same ‘essence’ or
process as the Godhead, known as Brahman (Poonamallee, 2010). In that context, one may
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
26
have a different conception of reverential love, compared to traditions like Judaism and
Christianity, where there is usually a vast ontological separation between the person and God.
However, rather than such considerations being necessarily problematic for the theoretical
schema above, these possibilities may help to enrich it. That is, over the coming years, more
comprehensive analyses of relevant untranslatable words can help enhance our understanding
of the different types of love identified here.
A second point of consideration is the assignation of specific types of love as being
variously constituted by the six components outlined in table 1. It must be acknowledged that
this assignation is merely hypothetical at this stage. It is based on a close reading of the words
that helped create the category, together with reflections based on personal experience. Future
research will be required to substantiate or otherwise refine these assignations. Relatedly, the
14 types of love identified here are not necessarily exhaustive. Indeed, given that Sternberg’s
(1986) three primary components gave rise to seven possible permutations, with six primary
components the number of theoretical combinations rises to 63! Without implying that there
are 63 different types of love, it is possible that other forms of love remain to be identified.
Indeed, it is hoped that this paper will provide the stimulus for just such a research program,
aiming to both better understand the 14 types identified here (e.g., in terms of how they load
on the six hypothesised components), and to ascertain whether these should be joined by any
other distinct types.
Thus, while the analysis above is promising, its conclusions are merely tentative at
this stage. It will be instructive to investigate these ideas further through both qualitative and
quantitative methods. Qualitative enquiry will enable a better understanding of the words
used here to generate the various types of love. For instance, in-depth interviews with people
who have experiential familiarity with the notion of bhakti will help to shed more light on
this concept, and by extension, also enrich our appreciation of reverential love. Such analyses
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
27
could then be augmented by quantitative assessment, particularly factor analysis. One long-
term goal would be to construct psychometric scales relevant to each of the types of love.
Doing so will help establish their construct validity, tease out their nuances, and facilitate an
understanding of how they interrelate. Likewise, it would be instructive to examine the
biological substrates of these different forms. As per the neural correlates of consciousness
paradigm (Fell, 2004), it is possible that these types will have different neurophysiological
patterns associated with them. Should such signatures be identified, this will help to further
establish whether these 14 types do indeed represent distinct forms (or ‘flavours’) of love. As
such, it is hoped that the current paper will stimulate a research agenda that allows us to
better understand love, thus doing justice to this most cherished and yet polysemous of
concepts.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
28
References
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When consumers love their brands:
Exploring the concept and its dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61(10),
1062-1075. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.014
Ali, F., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2010). The dark side of love and life satisfaction:
Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48(2), 228-233. doi:
10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.016
Aristotle. (350BCE/2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York: The Modern Library Press.
Berscheid, E. (2010). Love in the fourth dimension. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 1-25.
Bowra, C. M. (1958). The Greek experience. New York: W. P. Publishing Company.
Brenk, F. E. (1988). Plutarch's "Erotikos": The drag down pulled up. Illinois Classical
Studies, 13(2), 457-471.
Browning, D. S. (2002). Science and Religion on the Nature of Love. In S. G. Post, L. G.
Underwood, J. P. Schloss & W. B. Hurlbut (Eds.), Altruism and altruistic love:
Science, philosophy, and religion in dialogue (pp. 335-345). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Carlson, A. (2002). Aesthetics and the environment: The appreciation of nature, art and
architecture. New York: Routledge.
Cooper, L. D. (1998). Rousseau on self-love: What we've learned, what we might have
learned. Review of Politics, 60, 661-684.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
29
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The
NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. doi: 10.1037/1040-
3590.4.1.5
Coupland, N., Bishop, H., & Garrett, P. (2003). Home truths: Globalisation and the iconising
of Welsh in a Welsh-American newspaper. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
development, 24(3), 153-177.
Engel, G., Olson, K. R., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: Fundamental motives
and traits related to components of love. Personality and Individual Differences,
32(5), 839-853. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00090-3
Fell, J. (2004). Identifying neural correlates of consciousness: The state space approach.
Consciousness and Cognition, 13(4), 709-729. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2004.07.001
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Love 2.0. New York, NY: Hudson Street Press.
Fromm, E. (1956/2000). The art of loving: The centennial edition. New York: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Gabriel, B. (2004). The unbearable strangeness of being: Edgar Reitz’s Heimat and the ethics
of the unheimlich. In B. Gabriel & S. Ilcan (Eds.), Postmodernism and the ethical
subject. New York: McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Hatfield, E., Bensman, L., & Rapson, R. L. (2012). A brief history of social scientists’
attempts to measure passionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
29(2), 143-164.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392-402.
Hindy, C. G., & Schwarz, J. C. (1994). Anxious romantic attachment in adult relationships.
In M. B. S. W. H. Berman (Ed.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental
perspectives (pp. 179-203). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
30
Hitchens, C. (2011). Arguably: Selected prose. Atlantic Books: London.
Hofstadter, A., & Kuhns, R. (Eds.). (2009). Philosophies of art and beauty: Selected readings
in aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger: University of Chicago Press.
Isaacs, D. (2015). Parental love. Journal of paediatrics and child health, 51(3), 241-242.
Johnson, D. (2016). God is watching you: How the fear of God makes us human. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kafka, M. P. (1994). Paraphilia-related disorders—common, neglected, and misunderstood.
Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2(1), 39-40. doi: 10.3109/10673229409017112
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion.
Cognition & Emotion, 17(2), 297-314.
Kinsley, D. R. (1974). Creation as play in Hindu spirituality. Studies in Religion/Sciences
Religieuses, 4(2), 108-119.
Kumar, S. S. (2010). Bhakti - the yoga of love: Trans-rational approaches to peace studies.
Berlin: LIT Verlag Münster.
Lee, J. A. (1973). The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. Don Mills,
Ontario: New Press.
Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
3(2), 173-182. doi: 10.1177/014616727700300204
Lomas, T. (in press a). The palette of ambivalent emotions: A cross-cultural lexical analysis.
Qualitative Research in Psychology.
Lomas, T. (in press b). The dynamics of spirituality: A cross-cultural lexical analysis.
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.
Lomas, T. (in press c). The spectrum of positive affect: A cross-cultural lexical analysis.
International Journal of Wellbeing.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
31
Lomas, T. (2015a). Positive cross-cultural psychology: Exploring similarity and difference in
constructions and experiences of wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4),
60-77. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v5i4.3
Lomas, T. (2015b). Self-transcendence through shared suffering: A transpersonal theory of
compassion. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 27(2), 168-187.
Lomas, T. (2016). Towards a positive cross-cultural lexicography: Enriching our emotional
landscape through 216 ‘untranslatable’ words pertaining to wellbeing. The Journal of
Positive Psychology. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2015.1127993
Luhmann, N. (1986). Love as passion: The codification of intimacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Lutz, J. (2009). Flow and sense of coherence: Two aspects of the same dynamic? Global
Health Promotion, 16(3), 63-67. doi: 10.1177/1757975909339774
Mallandain, I., & Davies, M. F. (1994). The colours of love: Personality correlates of love
styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(4), 557-560. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90092-2
Montgomery, M. J., & Sorell, G. T. (1997). Differences in love attitudes across family life
stages. Family Relations, 55-61.
Murstein, B. I. (1988). A taxonomy of love. In R. Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The
Psychology of Love (pp. 13–37). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Myers, F. R. (1991). Pintupi country, Pintupi self: Sentiment, place, and politics among
Western desert Aborigines. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Poonamallee, L. (2010). Advaita (non-dualism) as metatheory: A constellation of ontology,
epistemology, and praxis. Integral Review, 6, 190-200.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1762/2008). The social contract. New York: Cosimo Classics.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 207-214.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
32
Sarwer, D. B., Kalichman, S. C., Johnson, J. R., Early, J., & Ali, S. A. (1993). Sexual
aggression and love styles: An exploratory study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(3),
265-275.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5(4), 473-501. doi: 10.1177/0265407588054005
Shimp, T. A., & Madden, T. J. (1988). Consumer-object relations: A conceptual framework
based analogously on Sternberg's triangular theory of love. Advances in Consumer
Research, 15(1), 163-168.
Sperling, M. B., & Berman, W. H. (1991). An attachment classification of desperate love.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 56(1), 45-55.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1998). The dark side of close relationships. London:
Routledge.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Liking versus loving: A comparative evaluation of theories.
Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 331-345. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.331
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 27(3), 313-335.
Tennov, D. (1998). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. London:
Scarborough House.
Tillich, P. (1954). Being and love. Pastoral Psychology, 5(3), 59-60.
Underhill, E. (1941/2015). Mysticism: A study in the nature and development of man’s
spiritual consciousness: Aeterna Press.
Walter, E. V. (1988). Placeways: A theory of the human environment. London: UNC Press
Books.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
33
Whang, Y.-O., Allen, J., Sahoury, N., & Zhang, H. (2004). Falling in love with a product:
The structure of a romantic consumer–product relationship. Adv Consum Res,
31(320–327).
Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42(6), 229-231, 247-248.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: Diversity and universals.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, R., & Gareis, E. (2006). Emotion expression and the locution “I love you”: A cross-
cultural study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(1), 51-75. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.003
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
34
meraki chōros storgē philia
érōs Non-personal Caring philautia
appreciation concern
LOVE
self-transcendence desire
epithymia mania
koinōnía Transcendent Romantic paixnidi
agápē sébomai prâgma anánkē
Figure 1. The 14 types of love, aggregated into 4 categories, together with their fundamental drivers.
Running head: A LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF LOVE
35
The components of love
The destructive factors
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
Care
Appreciation
Connection
Objecti-
fication
Possess-
iveness
Misdirected
Meraki
x
x
x
?
?
?
Érōs
x
x
x
?
?
?
Chōros
x
x
x
?
?
?
Philia
x
x
x
x
?
?
?
Philautia
x
x
x
?
?
?
Storgē
x
x
x
x
?
?
?
Epithymia
x
x
?
?
?
Paixnidi
x
?
?
?
Mania
x
x
x
x
x
?
Prâgma
x
x
?
?
?
Anánkē
x
x
x
x
x
x
?
?
?
Agápē
x
x
x
Koinōnía
x
x
?
?
?
Sébomai
x
x
?
?
?
Table 1. The 14 types of love, illustrating their loadings on the 6 hypothesised components,
and the 3 hypothesised destructive factors
