The article purpose is to analyze the historical basis of the psycholexical taxonomy of natural languages, to consider the results of the conducted psycholexical studies, as well as to reveal the prospects of studies of individual differences in Ukrainian lexicon and their importance. The assumption that personal psychological differences are encoded in language goes back to the days of Galton, and the ideas formulated by Goldberg became the basis of psycholexic research. By conducting psycholexical studies of a particular natural language, it is possible to identify the structure of the lexicon used to describe an individual, identify the specific features of a particular language, and the similarity of a structure obtained with the components of psycholexical structures of other languages in order to determine the level of their universality.
The first psycholexical studies of the Ukrainian lexicon, according to the principles of typical psychological research, performed classification of the terms describing people’s individual differences. As a result of the performed analysis of the universal Ukrainian dictionary, 20 024 such descriptors were identified. Through semantic analysis, 1 634 distinct morphemes were identified among them, describing differences between people in the sphere of personality. This opens up the prospect for quantitative psycholexical studies in different parts of the language containing personality descriptors. The richest part of the language for such terms in many languages is the group of adjectives that have identified the Big Factors (e.g., the Big Five).
Other parts of the language, such as attributive and typological nouns, adjectives, and verbs, are also of great value for lexical studies because they complement the adjective structure due to the specific terms contained exclusively in those parts of the language. Typological nouns constitute a special group, since among the identified unique morphemes, 22,0% of the morphemes are from typological nouns that describe individual differences, accounting for 13,0% of the total unique morphemes of personality, and also have several advantages in interpersonal relationships. The least studied group is the personality-descriptive verbs. They are also important for lexical research because they describe a temporary action that characterizes an individual, whereby, naming specific behaviours, they do not contain estimates. The use of a more widespread restrictive approach in lexical studies makes it possible to compare the results of lexical research in many other languages.
For a deeper study of the Ukrainian vocabulary structure in the future, it is necessary to pay attention not only to personality descriptors, but also to individual differences in worldview, cognitive, emotional and motivational reactions to other people, social evaluations and emotional states. The results of the quantitative psycholexical research will promote discussion about the universality of personality measurements, as well as reveal specific personal traits of Ukrainian speakers and create a basis for elaboration of cultural-specific models and research tools.
Allport, G. W., Odbert, H. S. (1936) Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychology Monographs, 47(1), 160–171. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093360
Angleitner, A., Ostendorf, F., John, O. P. (1990). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors in German: A psycholexical study. European Journal of Personality, 4, 89–118. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.2410040204
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707–721. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1247
Ashton, M. C., Perugini, M., De Vries, R. E., Boies, K., Lee, K., Szarota, P., Di Blas, L., & De Raad, B. (2004). A Six-Factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 356–366. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1996
Barelds, D. P. H & De Raad, B. (2015). The role of word-categories in trait-taxonomy: evidence from the Dutch personality taxonomy. International Journal of Personality Psychology 2015, 1(1), 15–25. URL: http://jdbsc.rug.nl/index.php/ijpp/article/view/19316
Brooks, G. R., & Elder, W. B. (2016). History and future of the psychology of men and masculinities. In Y. J. Wong, S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. DOI:10.1037/14594-001
Busel, V. T. eds. (2009). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoyi ukrainskoyi movy [A large explanatory dictionary of modern Ukrainian]. Kiev-Irpin, Ukrainian: Perun [in Ukrainian].
Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in a factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 69–90. DOI: 10.2307/1417576
Cattell, R. B. (1947). Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors. Psychometrika, 12(3), 197–220. DOI: 10.1007/BF02289253
Chen, Z. J., Hsu, K. Y., Zhou, X., Saucier, G. (2017). Chinese isms dimensions in mainland China and Taiwan: Convergence and extension of American isms dimensions. Journal of Personality, 86(3), 555–571. DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12336
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Jónsson, F. H. (2002). Validity and utility of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Examples from Europe. In B. De Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big Five assessment (pp. 61–77). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: A cluster analytic approach. Journal of Gerontology, 31(5), 564–570. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1093/geronj/31.5.564
De Raad, B. D., Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. European Journal of Personality, 94(2), 347–364. DOI: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.527
De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Levert, E., Ostendorf, F., Mlačic, B., Di Blas, L., et al. (2010). Only three factors of personality description are fully replicable across language: A comparison of 14 trait taxonomies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 160–173. DOI: 10.1037/a0017184
De Raad, B., Barelds, D. P. H., Timmerma, M. E., De Roover, K., Mlačić, B., Church, A. T. (2014). Towards a pan-cultural personality structure: Input from 11 psycholexical studies. European Journal of Personality, 28(5), 497–510. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.1953
De Raad, B., Hoskens, M. (1990). Personality-descriptive nouns. European Journal of Personality, 4, 131–146. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.2410040206
De Raad, B., Mulder, E., Kloosterman, K., & Hofstee, W. K. (1988). Personality‐descriptive verbs. European Journal of Personality, 2(2), 81-96. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020204
De Raad, B., Mlačic, B. (2017). Psycholexical studies of personality structure across cultures. In T.A.Church (ed.), The Praeger Handbook of Personality Across Cultures, 1, 161–192. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
De Raad, B., Mulder, E., Kloosterman, K., Hofstee, W. K. B. (1988). Personality-descriptive verbs. European Journal of Personality, 2, 81–96. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020204
De Raad, B., Ostendorf, F. (1996). Quantity and quality of trait-descriptive type nouns. European Journal of Personality, 10, 45–46. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199603)10:1<45::AID-PER245>3.0.CO;2-6
De Raad, B., Oudenhoven, J. P. V., Hofstee M. (2005). Personality terms of abuse in three cultures: type nouns between description and insult. European Journal of Personality, 19(2), 153–165. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.540
Di Blas, L. (2005). Personality-relevant attribute-nouns: A taxonomic study in the Italian language. European Journal of Personality, 19, 537–557. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.569
Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179–185. URL: http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1884-fort-rev-measurement-character.pdf
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 141–165.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. DOI: doi.org/10.1037//0022-35184.108.40.2066
Goldberg, L.R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In C. D. Spielberger, J. N. Butcher (Eds). Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Erlbaum: Hillsdale. URL: https://projects.ori.org/lrg/pdfs_papers/acetozombie.pdf
Gorbaniuk, O., Korczak, A., Ivanova, A., Czarnejko, A., Toruj, N. (2018). What is beyond of adjective personality lexicon? Evidence from the Polish personality taxonomy. 19th European Conference on Personality, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia July 17–21, 2018.
Gorbaniuk, O., Korczak, A., Toruj, N., Czarnejko, A., Macheta, K., Jałoszewska, M., Charęzińska-Nowocień, M., Karpiński, R., Garwoliński, Ł., Misiuro, T., Zygnerska, M., Bojan, I., Rykowska, K., Wawrzaszek, P., Jeliński, J., Hawryluk, M. (2019). Comprehensive Psycholexical Classification of Polish Person-Descriptive Terms. Current Issues in Personality Psychology. 7(2), 142–154. DOI: doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2019.82792
Gorbaniuk, O., Kulewicz, P., Gorbaniuk, J., Kordon, A., Leoszko, W., Ivanova, A., Suchomska, M. (2014). Taksonomia psycholeksykalna języka białoruskiego [Psycholexical taxonomy of the Belarusian language]. Current Problems of Psychiatry, 15(2), 89–95 [in Polish]. URL: https://www.kul.pl/files/155/public/2014-gorbaniuk-taksonomiapsycholeksykalnajezykabialoruskiego.pdf
Gorbaniuk, O., Mirowich, A., Leoszko, W., Gorbaniuk, J., Kordon, A., Świderska, M., Kuts, O., Korczak, A., (2018). A psycholexical classification of ukrainian descriptors of individual differences. Current Problems of Psychiatry, 19(2), 1–8. DOI: doi.org/10.2478/cpp-2018-0007
Guilford, J. P., Guilford, R. B. (1939). Personality factors D, R, T, and A. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 34(1), 21–36. DOI: doi.org/10.1037/h0056344
Guilford, J. P., Zimmerman, W. S. (1956). Fourteen dimensions of temperament. Fourteen dimensions of temperament. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(10), 1–26. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093719
Henss, R., (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness. Replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 479–488. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00093-L
Henss, R., (1998). Type nouns and the five factor model of personality description. European Journal of Personality, 12, 57–71. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/1099-0984
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1976). Dutch traits: The first stages of the Groningen taxonomy study of personality descriptive adjectives. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Hrebıckova, M., Ostendorf, F., Oseka, L., & Cermak, I. (1999). Taxonomy and structure of Czech personality-relevant verbs. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 51–66). Germany: Tilburg University Press.
Ivanova, A., Gorbaniuk, O., Blėkaitytė, D., Dovydaitytė, E., Čepulienė, A. A., Mastauskaitė, G., Ramanauskas, R., Jurgelytė, U., & Slapšinskaitė R. (2018). Do adjectives exhaust the personality lexicon? A psycholexical study of the lithuanian language. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 6(3), 171–180. DOI: doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2018.73987
John O. P, Angleitner A., Ostendorf F., (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic reseach. European Journal of Personality, 2(3), 171–203. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020302
Krauss, S. (2006). Does Ideology Transcend Culture? A Preliminary Examination in Romania. Journal of Personality, 74(4), 1219–1256. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00408.x
Macheta, K., Gorbaniuk, O. (2019). Comprehensive Psycholexical Taxonomy of Emotions vs Personality Traits. XVI European Congress of Psychology, 2–5.07.2019, Moscow, Russia.
Mlačić, B. (2016). Social and reputational aspects of personality. International Journal of Personality Psychology, 2(1), 15–36. URL: https://ijpp.rug.nl/article/view/22722/20177
Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED014738.pdf
Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A. (1994). Personality dimensions and appearance. Paper presented at the Symposium Personality Dimensions, Seventh conference of the European Association of Personality Psychology, Madrid, Spain.
Oudenhoven, J. P. V., De Raad, B., Askevis-Leherpeux F., Boski, P., Brunborg, G. S., Carmona C., Barelds, D., Hill, C. T., Mlačic, B., Motti, F., Rammstedt, B., Woods, S. (2008). Terms of abuse as expression and reinforcement of cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 174–185. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.02.001
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 366–385. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.116
Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 695–708. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1685
Saucier, G. (2009). Semantic and linguistic aspects of personality. In P. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 379–399). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saucier, G. (2010). The Structure of Social Effects: Personality as Impact on Others. European Journal of Personality, 24, 222–240. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/per.761
Saucier, G. (2013). Isms Dimensions: Toward a More Comprehensive and Integrative Model of Belief-System Components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 921–939. DOI: 10.1037/a0031968
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexical perspectives on the Five Factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor model of personality (pp. 21–50). New York: The Guilford Press.
Saucier, G., Srivastava, S. (2015). What makes a good structural model of personality? Evaluating the Big Five and alternatives. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. Personality Processes and Individual Differences (Vol. 4, pp. 283–305). Washington: American Psychological Association. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-013
Saucier, G., & Skrzypinska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two independent dispositions. Journal of Personality, 74, 1257–1292. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00409.x
Saucier, G., Kenner, J., Iurino, K., Bou Malham, P., Chen, Z., Thalmayer, A. G., ...& Altschul, C. (2015). Cross-cultural differences in a global “Survey of World Views”. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46, 53-70. DOI: doi.org/10.1177/0022022114551791
Saucier, G. (2018). Culture, morality, and individual differences: Comparability and incomparability across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1744), 20170170. DOI: doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0170
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive function of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568. DOI: doi.org/10.1037//0022-3522.214.171.1248
Strelau, J., (2015). Różnice indywidualne [Individual differences]. Warsaw, Poland: Scholar [in Polish].
Thurstone, L. L. (1951). The dimensions of temperament. Psychometrika, 16(1), 11–20. DOI: 10.1007/BF02313423
Wierzbicka, A. (1986). What’s in a noun? (Or: how do nouns differ in meaning from adjectives?). Studies in Language, 10, 353–389. DOI: doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.2.05wie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/