[Affect and mimetic behavior]

The relationship between facial expression and experienced affect presents many problems. The two diametrically opposed positions proposing solutions to this problem are exemplified using the conceptions of Mandler u. Izard. The underlying premises of both conceptions still prevail in various forms. The authors reject the concepts according to which facial expression is merely correlated to the affects (see Mandler 1975) as well as the view that facial expression controls the affects (see Izard 1977). The relationship between affect and facial expression is reexamined, subjecting it to a semiotic, essentially semantic analysis similar to the Ogden and Richards' language and meaning approach. This analysis involves a critical discussion of Scherer's attempt of a purely communicational interpretation using Bühler's organon model. In the author's approach, facial expression is seen not simply as a system of signals, but as a system of representative signs which signify the affects and refer to the emotive meaning of things for the subject. The authors develop the thesis that human beings are not born simply with the ability to speak, but also with the abstract possibility of performing facial expressions. This ability develops by way of coordinating patterns of expressions, which are presumably phylogenetically determined, with affects that take on a socially determined individual form, similar to language acquisition during socialisation. The authors discuss the methodological implications arising for studies investigating the affective meaning of facial expressions.