Treasure Legends vs TES

Methodological Caveats

Lexical drift: Words may have shifted emotional valence over 100+ years. A word classified as an emotion term in Vainik's modern TES may have carried different connotations in 19th-century dialectal usage, or vice versa.
Dialectal vs. standard form mismatch: Treasure legends use dialectal forms not found in Vainik's standard Estonian lemmas. Low overlap may reflect orthographic or morphological divergence rather than true absence of the emotion concept.
Genre effect: Treasure legends are a narrow narrative genre with formulaic patterns. Low overlap with TES may reflect genre constraints on emotional expression rather than historical absence of emotion vocabulary.

797

Treasure emotion lemmas

299

Also in TES (overlap)

498

Treasure-only (archaic/dialectal)

4,533

TES-only (not in treasure)

37.5%

Treasure → TES coverage

Null Model Comparison

Do treasure emotion words overlap with TES at a higher rate than random corpus words?

Emotion word TES overlap rate	37.5% (299/797 lemmas)
Random baseline mean overlap	2.4% (sd=0.004)
p-value (one-sided)	0.0000
Permutation iterations	1,000
Non-emotion pool size	2,060 words

The emotion word overlap rate is significantly higher from the random baseline (p=<0.001). This suggests that TES coverage of treasure emotion vocabulary is meaningful and not an artifact of general lexical overlap.

Treasure Legends vs TES

Methodological Caveats

Null Model Comparison

TES Overlap by Emotion Domain

Coverage Gaps by Domain