Thesis "Adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person: functional-semantic aspect." What is the lexical meaning of a word? Let's give another example - “paper”

Every person, including a child, constantly forms assessments of the outside world, self-esteem and is constantly influenced by the assessments of other people. Assessments are necessary for a person to organize interaction with the world, with other people, with society. In the assessment process, such logical operations as analysis, comparison, generalization are formed; children master the skills of coherent speech. This determines the importance of the ability to create an evaluative statement.

Do 6-7 year old children know how to construct evaluation statements?

We examined 160 children. During the diagnostics, evaluative statements created by children were recorded in a relaxed atmosphere(in communication between peers - on a walk, in joint play activities). Observation of children's speech was also organized in a learning situation(in speech development classes, in literacy classes, in art classes, in literacy classes).

Research methods such as observation, individual conversation, which motivates the creation of an evaluative statement, and an individual conversation, which does not motivate the creation of an arbitrary evaluative statement, were used.

The topic “Who am I friends with” was proposed as a topic that does not motivate an evaluative statement; motivating the evaluative statement - “Why am I friends with...”.

What are the results of our observations?

An analysis of the evaluative statements of older preschoolers and younger schoolchildren showed:

in free, relaxed communication, children’s evaluative statements more emotional and rich from the point of view of the intonation, lexical and syntactic means used, rather than in a learning situation (arbitrary);
structurally all statements are poorly developed, they contain the actual assessment and her reasoning is missing and recommendations;
some children were unable to create an arbitrary evaluative statement at all.

IN relaxed atmosphere Many children use to express evaluation:

non-verbal means (83.6%);
children's vocabulary is richer than in arbitrary evaluative statements;
unfortunately, it includes some swear words ( fool, idiot, stupid - 61.3%), and jargon ( amazing, cool, cool, cool - 78,4%);
Children do not use vocabulary with evaluation suffixes as often as we expected ( braggart, poor thing, sunshine - 39%).

Means of expressing evaluation in children's evaluative statements include:

Verbs ( love, like, dislike, liked);
adverbs and adjectives ( good / bad, good / bad, beautiful / ugly, correct, correct, true, normal - 86% of statements);
evaluative vocabulary ( dirt, kind, neat, calm - 28%).

In general, it should be noted the uniformity of the evaluative means of language used by different children.

When correlating a word with its interpretation in some cases children made mistakes. Thus, a person who always wears clean, ironed clothes, whose shoes are polished, whose books are in their covers, unworn: 1.9% of the subjects named cultural. And a person in wrinkled clothes, unclean shoes, whose books are tattered, painted on, toys scattered, 1.25% of children named careless. 58% of children interpretation of the meaning of the word defenseless correlated with words weak, unsure of himself, can't do anything. 63% of children correlated the meaning of the word responsive with lexeme good; 12% correlated it with the lexeme Kind, and 9% - with the lexeme sympathetic, although in speech, according to the frequency dictionary, the word sympathetic not used as often as responsive.

How do children understand the figurative meaning of zoomorphisms?

It should be noted that the figurative meaning of zoomorphisms when naming a person updated by all children. To the question: “Who are they talking about? fox ? - all subjects answered: "About a Cunning Man", 1.25% of children added: who deceives, does dirty tricks. The figurative meaning of zoomorphism bear 5.6% of children misunderstand how slow, quiet. Zoomorphism hare has a number of figurative meanings; in 98.1% of children the value is updated cowardly (coward), 1.9% have a value stowaway.

How do children understand the meaning of a word with evaluative semantics?

Our study also showed that not all children understand the meaning of words with evaluative semantics. After presenting the words neat, excellent, silly, jubilant to the experimenter’s question: “What does this word mean? How do you understand its meaning? - the following responses were received:

silly- fool(1,9%); no mind, stupid(94%); doesn't know something ( 4,1%);
excellent - very good(94,4%); beautiful, people like it(5.6%) - this answer indicates that the child is not aware of the excellent degree of manifestation of quality;
neat - careful (98,15%); well-groomed (0,6%); nice(1.25%) - children do not actualize the value meaning expressed in words, but their own attitude towards a neat person; this, apparently, reveals the egocentrism of children’s perception;
rejoices - very happy(46%); panics(0.6%); 53.4% of children answered: “I don’t know.” We can explain this by the fact that the word “adult”, of high style, is used mainly in poetic and journalistic speech; it is not relevant for the children's vocabulary and speech environment of a child of this age.

How do children create evaluative statements in a free environment?

As a task that did not motivate the creation of an evaluative statement, children were asked to compose oral history “Who am I friends with”. Most utterances are a judgment expressed by a declarative sentence in which vocabulary with the meaning of evaluation is not used:

I am friends with Olya, with Ksyusha, with Masha, with dad, with mom (Katya S.);
Roma, Sasha, and I go to the same group and are friends (Vova Sh.);
I am friends with Anton, with Ilya, with Vanya (Misha D.).

To the experimenter's question: “How are you friends?”- the children answered:

“Very good... Sometimes we quarrel... More often with Masha” (Katya S.);
“We play together, talk. Well... We’re not fighting” (Vova Sh.);
“We run around and play different games. And... We also go to preparatory school together” (Misha D.).

Some children construct a statement from several sentences, explaining how they are friends, without prompting from the experimenter (5.6%), in some of them there is associative-evaluative vocabulary (0,47%):

I am friends with the girls who live in the same yard with me. Their names are Lena, Valya, Anya and Nastya. We walk together, visit each other. We never quarrel (Masha R.);
I'm friends with Andrei and Seryozha. We go to kindergarten together and live close. We tell different stories, horror stories, play together... We also go to each other’s birthday parties... We go for walks (Anton T.).
Used in only one statement (0.2%) vocabulary with evaluative meaning, expressing the value priorities of the speaker: “I am friends with my girlfriends... With Katya, Alina... Who is similar in character to me... With whom I have fun, interesting.” (Nastya I.).

How do children create evaluative statements when motivated?

As a task motivating the use of vocabulary with an evaluative meaning, children were asked Question: Why are you friends with... ? The children's answers presented vocabulary with both a general (100%) and a private assessment (62%).

As can be seen from the examples presented, the experimenter’s question “ How do you make friends?" - an attempt to “push” the child to evaluate his relationships with peers. Only 24% of children after this included the word « Fine» with overall rating, 12.3% of children used words rational- and associative-evaluative (we quarrel / we don’t quarrel, we don’t fight). The remaining children outlined only a circle of joint activities.

How do children construct evaluative statements?

Analysis of the structure of children's OB shows that in all arbitrary utterances there is introduction(beginning), present arguments, revealing the thesis. If we talk about the structure of assessment, the following pattern emerges here: in a learning situation, when a standard of assessment is given, children’s evaluative statements are more detailed, in addition to the assessment itself (most often general “ liked/disliked, good/bad") presents her argumentation (86%).

Recommendations we found only in 33 statements out of 480 (7.3%), although in arbitrary evaluative statements there are non-verbalized recommendations ( “I forgot to finish the story”, “I glued the parts unevenly”, “he spoke inexpressively, quietly” and so on.). Absolute general assessments prevail.

Normal story. He spoke loudly (Ilya N.).
I liked the story, it's good. Masha spoke beautifully, in interesting words. She told everything in order (Sveta S.).
I didn't like the story. Vova spoke slowly and thought for a long time. He came up with a short story. He didn't tell everything. He spoke quietly (Stas A.).
Anya had a good answer. She spoke everything in order, but Natalya Alexandrovna helped her. Anya correctly named all the sounds in the word, but forgot to put the emphasis (Olesya Sh.).
Katya has a neat applique. I like her work, it’s beautiful (Masha E.).

conclusions

1. Analysis of the evaluative statements of older preschoolers and first-graders revealed their structural and linguistic imperfections.

2. We have become convinced that the speech of 6-7 year old children in casual communication situations is characterized by the use of value judgments.

3. Expanded evaluative statements in children’s speech appear mainly in situations that motivate their creation.

4. The arsenal of linguistic means with which children express their assessments is poor.

5. The identified patterns allow us to conclude that it is necessary to enrich the speech of children 6-7 years old with evaluative means of language and specially teach the construction of evaluative statements.

In addition to the nomination of individual objects, phenomena and the designation of concepts, a word can also express the speaker’s attitude towards the named object: a positive or negative assessment, various shades of emotions. For example; demagoguery: 1. Deception with false promises, flattery and deliberate distortion of facts to achieve any goals; worthy: 4. obsolete. Possessing high positive qualities, respected, respectable; inflated: 3. Untrue, deliberately exaggerated, false (cf.: “inflated figures”, “inflated celebrity”); consumer: 3. unapproved. Characteristic of someone who strives only to satisfy their needs (cf.: “consumer attitude”, “consumer sentiment”); euphoria: An elevated, joyful mood, a feeling of contentment, well-being that does not correspond to objective circumstances.

The highlighted words and combinations of words in the dictionary interpretations of the meanings of exaggerated, demagoguery, etc., as well as the markings that accompany some of them, clearly indicate that these words indicate a positive or negative attitude of the speakers towards the named phenomena.

Evaluation can be different and manifest itself differently in language. Words can represent names of phenomena as good and bad from a generally accepted point of view in a given linguistic community: good - evil; good bad; humane - cruel; altruist - egoist; hero is a coward, etc.

Let us recall, for example, one of the author’s digressions from the poem by N.V. Gogol’s “Dead Souls”: “It is very doubtful that the readers will like the hero we have chosen... But the virtuous man is still not taken as a hero. And one can even say why he was not taken. Because it’s time to finally give rest to the poor virtuous man, because that the word idly revolves on the lips: a virtuous man, because they have turned a virtuous man into a workhorse, and there is no writer who would not ride him, urging him on with a whip and with anything else... No, it’s time to finally hide the scoundrel too. So, Let's harness the scoundrel!" In this case, the assessment can be said to be limited to the lexical meaning of the word. However, most often the evaluative nature of a word arises and is typified in context due to the fact that the word begins to be regularly used in contexts of a positive or negative nature. Thus, the word citizen, which was still evaluatively neutral in the first half of the 18th century and was used in the meaning “resident of the city”, “subject of any state”, in socio-political texts of the late 18th - early 19th centuries began to be used to designate a person who is "socially useful, devoted to his fatherland." Compare: “The citizen takes precedence for the common good” (Karamz.); “Fulfilling the office of a man and a citizen” (Radishch.); “All differences in status will lose their side where there is one and only political virtue, where everyone will unite, everyone must stand under the famous name of citizen” (Fonv.). And as a result of this use, the word acquired a pronounced positive-evaluative character (cf.: “I am not a poet, but a citizen” (K. Ryl); “You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen” (N. Nekr.) Later, during the years of Soviet power, the noun citizen began to be used as a word of address, and in this syntactic function it very quickly lost its expressive and evaluative nuances. Nowadays, if it is used as an address, it is perceived as a purely official name of the interlocutor, excluding even a hint of any kind of friendly relationship.

Regular use in contexts where negative or positive phenomena are discussed determines the evaluation of such, for example, active words in modern speech as: declare, conjuncture (about works of art, socio-political contexts), rally, impose, propagandized, incompetence, regime (about the political system), etc.

Evaluative words are used in different styles of speech, in texts of different genres. Thus, in the oral-colloquial style we encounter words such as jalopy (joking: about an old, sloppy carriage, car); scurry (rude - simple: hastily retreat, run), tall (simple: a tall person."); nag (disparaging: bad, tired horse); shabby (colloquial, np.: nondescript, pathetic in appearance); to pin down (rude, simple.. to come, to arrive, to appear somewhere), etc., which not only name a person, object, sign, action, but also express the speaker’s attitude towards what is called: in all the above cases, negative .

Evaluative words are no less often used in artistic speech. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the epilogue to the novel by I.S. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons”, where the author, talking about the destinies of Kukshina and Sitnikov and unambiguously expressing his ironic attitude towards them, among other means, uses evaluative vocabulary: “And Kukshina ended up abroad. She is now in Heidelberg and is studying non-natural science, but architecture, in which, according to her, she discovered new laws. She still hobnobs with students, especially with the young Russian physicists and chemists who fill Heidelberg and who, at first, surprising the naive German professors with their sober view of things , subsequently surprise the same professors with their complete inaction and absolute laziness. With such two or three chemists who do not know how to distinguish oxygen from nitrogen, but are filled with denial and self-respect... Sitnikov, also preparing to be great, hangs around in St. Petersburg and, "According to his assurances, Bazarov's "case" continues. They say that someone recently beat him, but he did not remain in debt: in one dark article, squeezed into one dark magazine, he hinted that the one who beat him was a coward." The words highlighted here, mingle, hustle, dark are disapproving words, and article, magazine are derogatory synonyms for the words article, magazine.

Finally, most often words that carry evaluation are found in journalistic texts, where the task of the writer/speaker is not only to convey information, but also to unambiguously express his own attitude towards it. Moreover, some of the evaluative words are used primarily in works of a socio-political and journalistic nature, becoming their peculiar sign: declare, dictate, politician, politicking, machinations, fabricate, baiting, phrase (a pompous, beautiful expression devoid of internal content or covering up the falsity of this content ). See also temporary worker, hireling, leveling, etc., which were very common in the journalism of previous years.

Here are some examples of the use of evaluative words in newspaper texts: “When an idea fails and former supporters turn away from it with shame and embarrassment, the time of epigones comes” (Og. 1989. No. 28); “The publishing house “Ardis” (USA), the largest in the West in publishing Russian literature, took part in International Book Fairs in Moscow three times... Our correspondent Elena Veselaya talked with the publisher of “Ardis”, Mrs. Ellendea Proffer: “For a long time, you and your publishing house was not mentioned in our press without the word “notorious”. Two years ago, the newspaper "Soviet Russia" published angry letters from workers... of the Lenin Library, in which you were accused of almost stealing from Bulgakov's archive..." (Moscow news, 1989. No. 40); "Career of a newly minted political leader instructive... During his four months as minister of privatization, Mr. Polevanov became famous for practically destroying the well-functioning mechanism of the State Property Committee” (Moscow news, 1995. No. 36).

Rakhmanova L.I., Suzdaltseva V.N. Modern Russian language. - M, 1997.

In this article we will look at some buzzwords and their meaning. Many of them are probably familiar to you. However, not everyone knows what they mean. We took the most from various areas of human knowledge.

Quintessence

Quintessence - in medieval and ancient alchemy and natural philosophy - the fifth element, ether, the fifth element. He is like lightning. This is one of the main elements (elements), the most accurate and subtle. In modern cosmology, quintessence is a model of dark energy (its hypothetical form, which has negative pressure and uniformly fills the space of the Universe). Quintessence in a figurative meaning is the most important, essential, main essence, the purest and subtlest essence, extract.

Onomatopoeia

Onomatopoeia is a word that is an onomatopoeia that arose as a result of phonetic assimilation to various non-speech complexes. Onomatopoeic vocabulary is most often associated directly with objects and creatures - sources of sound. These are, for example, verbs such as “meow”, “croak”, “rumble”, “crow”, and nouns derived from them.

Singularity

Singularity - which represents a certain point at which the mathematical function in question tends to infinity or has some other irregular behavior.

There is also a gravitational singularity. This is a region of space-time where the curvature of the continuum turns to infinity or suffers a discontinuity, or the metric has other pathological properties that do not allow physical interpretation. - a short period of rapid technological progress assumed by researchers. The singularity of consciousness is a globally generalizing, expanded state of consciousness. In cosmology, this is the state of the Universe in which it was at the beginning of the Big Bang, it is characterized by infinite temperature and density of matter. In biology, this concept is used mainly to generalize the evolutionary process.

Transcendence

The term "transcendence" (the adjective is "transcendent") comes from the Latin word meaning "to step over." This is a philosophical term that characterizes something inaccessible to experimental knowledge. B was used together with the term “transcendental” to denote God, soul and other concepts. Immanent is its opposite.

Catharsis

“Catharsis” is a term from modern psychoanalysis that denotes the process of relieving or reducing anxiety, frustration, conflict through emotional release and their verbalization. In ancient Greek aesthetics, this concept was used to express in words the impact of art on a person. The term “catharsis” in ancient philosophy was used to designate the result and process of ennobling, purifying, and facilitating the impact of various factors on a person.

Continuum

What other smart words should you know? For example, continuum. This is a set equal to the set of all real numbers, or a class of such sets. In philosophy, this term was used by the ancient Greeks, as well as in the works of the scholastics of the Middle Ages. In modern works, due to changes in the “continuum” itself, it is often replaced by the noun “duration”, “continuity”, “continuity”.

Nigredo

"Nigredo" is a term of alchemy that denotes the complete decomposition or first stage of the creation of the so-called philosopher's stone. This is the formation of a homogeneous black mass of components. The next stages after nigredo are albedo (the white stage, which produces the small elixir, which turns metals into silver) and rubedo (the red stage, after which the great elixir is obtained).

Entropy

“Entropy” is a concept that was introduced by the German mathematician and physicist Clausius. It is used in thermodynamics to determine the degree of deviation from an ideal real process, the degree of energy dissipation. Entropy, defined as the sum of reduced heats, is a function of state. It is constant in various reversible processes, and in irreversible processes its change is always positive. We can highlight, in particular, This is a measure of the uncertainty of a certain message source, which is determined by the probabilities of the appearance of certain symbols during transmission.

Empathy

In psychology, there are often smart words, and their designations sometimes cause difficulties in definition. One of the most popular is the word “empathy”. This is the ability to empathize, the ability to put oneself in the place of another (object or person). Also, empathy is the ability to accurately identify a particular person based on actions, facial reactions, gestures, etc.

Behaviorism

Clever words and expressions from psychology also include a direction in this science that explains human behavior. It studies the direct connections existing between reactions (reflexes) and stimuli. Behaviorism directs the attention of psychologists to the study of experience and skills, as opposed to psychoanalysis and associationism.

Enduro

Enduro is a style of riding on special trails or off-road, racing over long distances over rough terrain. They differ from motocross in that the race takes place on a closed track, and the lap length ranges from 15 to 60 km. Riders cover several laps per day, the total distance being from 200 to 300 km. Basically, the route is laid in mountainous areas and is quite difficult to pass due to the abundance of streams, fords, descents, ascents, etc. Enduro is also a mixture of city and motocross motorcycles.

They are easy to drive, like road vehicles, and have increased cross-country ability. Enduros are close in a number of characteristics to cross-country skis. You can call them jeep motorcycles. One of their main qualities is unpretentiousness.

Other smart words and their meanings

Existentialism (otherwise known as the philosophy of existence) is a movement in the 20th century in philosophy that viewed man as a spiritual being capable of choosing his own destiny.

Synergetics is an interdisciplinary area of research in science, the task of which is to study natural processes and phenomena based on the principles of self-organization of various systems that consist of subsystems.

Annihilation is the reaction of the transformation of an antiparticle and a particle upon collision into some particles different from the original ones.

A priori (literal translation from Latin - “from what precedes”) is knowledge that is obtained independently of and before experience.

Modern smart words are not understood by everyone. For example, “metanoia” (from the Greek word meaning “rethinking”, “after the mind”) is a term that means repentance (especially in psychotherapy and psychology), regret about what has happened.

Compilation (otherwise known as programming) is the transformation by some compiler program of text written in a complex language into a machine-like, similar or objective module.

Rasterization is the conversion of an image, which is described in a vector format, into dots or pixels for output to a printer or display. This is a process that is the inverse of vectorization.

The next term is intubation. It comes from the Latin words for "into" and "pipe." This is the insertion of a special tube into the larynx in case of narrowings that threaten suffocation (with swelling of the larynx, for example), as well as into the trachea in order to administer anesthesia.

Vivisection is the performance of surgical operations on a living animal in order to study the functions of the body or individual removed organs, to study the effects of various drugs, to develop surgical treatment methods, or for educational purposes.

The list of “Smart words and their meaning” can, of course, be continued. There are a lot of such words in various branches of knowledge. We have highlighted only a few that are quite widespread today. Knowing buzzwords and their meaning is useful. This develops erudition and allows you to better navigate the world. Therefore, it would be nice to remember what smart words are called.

The relevance of research. The problem of assessment seems extremely relevant. Evaluation is one of the most important linguistic categories involved in the organization of linguistic communication. Modern linguistic literature presents different aspects of the study of assessment, and there are different approaches to understanding assessment. The complexity of this issue is associated with the versatility of human evaluation activity.

Download:

Preview:

FEDERAL EDUCATION AGENCY

GOU VPO "NOVOSIBIRSK STATE"

PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY"

INSTITUTE OF PHILOLOGY, MASS INFORMATION AND

PSYCHOLOGY

Faculty of Philology

Department of Modern Russian Language

Gergel Irina Anatolevna

Adjectives expressing positive

person's assessment:

functional-semantic aspect

(graduate work)

Scientific adviser:

Ph.D., Associate Professor O.A.Novoselova

Work accepted

to the defense of “____” _______________ 2010

Scientific director

___________________________________

Head department_______________________

Job protected

"___"_________________2010

with a rating of "________________"

Chairman of the SAC___________

Members of the SAC_________________

__________________________

Novosibirsk

2010

Introduction……………………………………………………………………...2

Chapter I. The concept of evaluation in linguistic research…………………4

Definition of assessment……………………………………………………..4
Assessment structure………………………………………………………..10
Types of assessments……………………………………………………………...15
Metaphor and evaluation……………………………………………………….22

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………...26

Chapter II. Adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person…………………………………………………………………………………….28

2.1. General evaluative adjectives of positive evaluation………………28

2.2. Partial evaluative adjectives of positive evaluation……………..36

2.3. Polysemy of adjectives with positive seme……………48

Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………53

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………..54

References……………………………………………………………..56

Introduction

Evaluation, as a logical-philosophical category, was expressed already in the works of ancient thinkers, but still continues to be a source of interest and attention of scientific researchers. The category of evaluation became the object of close attention of linguistics in the 20th century. The problem of evaluative meaning has become especially relevant since the second half of the 20th century as part of the general problem of meaning.

Evaluative adjectives are a complex and very interesting object of study.

The relevance of research.The problem of assessment seems extremely relevant. Evaluation is one of the most important linguistic categories involved in the organization of linguistic communication. Modern linguistic literature presents different aspects of the study of assessment, and there are different approaches to understanding assessment. The complexity of this issue is associated with the versatility of human evaluation activity.

Goal of the work: consider adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person in a functional-semantic aspect.

Tasks:

Consider the concept of language assessment, its structure, classification of assessment types.
Identify the place of the evaluative component in the semantic structure of adjectives.
Describe general and particular evaluation adjectives.
Consider polysemantic evaluative adjectives from the point of view of the possibility of manifestation of speech polysemy.

Object of study- adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person.

Material for workExplanatory dictionaries served as texts of fiction of the 19th and 20th centuries. A total of contexts were analyzed.

Novelty consists in the principles of description and systematization of the estimated meanings of the adjective, as well as the nature and volume of the material being studied. The work provides a functional-semantic description of adjectives, which are classified according to the principle of positive evaluation of a person; The polysemy of adjectives with a positive seme is considered.

Research methods.The main method used in the work is the method of primary linguistic description, which consists of selecting, systematizing and describing linguistic material. The semantic characteristics of evaluative tools determine the use of component analysis techniques (based on dictionary entries and contextual implementation of the meaning of a word).

Practical significance.The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the materials and conclusions of the study in the practice of teaching the course “Lexicology”, “Linguistic text analysis”. Factual material can be the object of study in vocabulary lessons at school.

Work structure.The work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

Chapter I. The concept of assessment. Main provisions of the study.

1.1. Definition of assessment.

Evaluation belongs to those categories of linguistics that have attracted the attention of philosophers, logicians and linguists for many centuries. However, in recent decades, when the subject-spatial description of the world is replaced by the study of its procedural characteristics [Katznelson, 1972], when “the ontology of what is happening is modeled in the form of a system of concepts reconstructed from language data” [Arutyunova, 1988], the study of assessments that develop in practical activities people, is of particular relevance.

For the first time, the range of problems associated with the study of assessment was outlined by Aristotle. In his opinion, in order to describe the category of evaluation, it is necessary, firstly, to identify the types of objects capable of receiving evaluative qualifications, and secondly, to identify contexts for evaluative concepts (“good”, “happiness”, “pleasure”), and thirdly, to explicate the meanings of evaluative predicates. Subsequently, attempts were made to solve these problems in the light of various research approaches.

Thus, representatives of the logical-philosophical direction [J. Moore, Sorokin, Ivin, Arutyunova] made the object of their study the connection between linguistic and axiological structures, which is revealed in the process of analyzing language usage.

Representatives of the functional-semantic direction [Wolf, Klobukov, Markelova] consider the category of evaluation as functional-semantic and set the goal of studying the system of linguistic means that perform an evaluative function.

Supporters of the functional-pragmatic approach [Shakhovsky, Telia, Apresyan, Sklyarevskaya, etc.] solve a whole range of problems associated with the functioning of evaluative means of language

In recent decades, in connection with the emergence and development of new scientific paradigms, other approaches to the study of assessment have emerged. Thus, assessment begins to be considered in the context of consciousness - personal or linguistic. In the context of personal consciousness, namely in terms of identifying the role of the evaluative parameter in the psychological structure of meaning, evaluation is studied in modern psycholinguistics [A.A. Zalevskaya, E.Yu. Myagkova, E.N. Kolodkina]. In the context of linguistic consciousness, assessment is considered as a factor that structures its core (N.V. Ufimtseva, O.A. Golubkova) and forms a “value picture of the world” (Yu.N. Karaulov, E.S. Yakovleva).

Summarizing the above, it can be noted that evaluation has been sufficiently studied in the lexical-semantic system of language, but remains poorly studied in its cognitive mechanisms, in terms of the relationship between linguistic and mental categories. Meanwhile, the language system is based on mechanisms that are common to all languages and reflect the principles of organization inherent in consciousness, as a result of which deep linguistic processes can be studied only with the help of the psychological theory of language. At the same time, “the peculiarities of the semantics of linguistic units that have developed in the process of the historical development of any one language not only do not become an obstacle to a single and universal process of cognition occurring in linguistic form, but also participate in its creation” [Sergeeva 2003:3].

The most important feature of assessment is that it always contains a subjective factor that interacts with an objective one. An evaluative statement, even if it does not directly express the subject of evaluation, implies a value relationship between the subject and the object. Every value judgment presupposes the subject of the judgment, that is, the person from whom the assessment comes, and its object, that is, the object or phenomenon to which the assessment relates. “The expression or attribution of value is the establishment of a certain relationship between the subject or subjects of evaluation and its object” [Ivin, 1970:8].

The subjective component presupposes a positive or negative attitude of the subject of evaluation to its object (sometimes it is presented in the form of relations “like/dislike”, “appreciate/disappreciate”, “approve/disapprove”, etc.), while The objective (descriptive, indicative) component of the assessment is focused on the own properties of objects or phenomena on the basis of which the assessment is made.

Evaluative definitions always presuppose properties of the object; compare:This movie is good; This road is bad; This is not a good option; This is a great move.

It is important to emphasize that the opposition of subject/object in the evaluation structure and subjectivity/objectivity in the semantics of evaluation is not the same thing. Both the subject and the object of assessment presuppose the existence of both factors – subjective and objective. So, when it comes to whatwarm/cold water,both the properties of the water itself and the sensations of the subject are implied. StatementsI learned wonderful, amazing news And I learned sensational, interesting newsinclude both evaluative (subjective) and descriptive (objective) meanings, and in the first example the subject’s attitude to the event is expressed primarily, and in the second the descriptive properties of this event are also explicated; however, in both cases something is communicated about both the subject and the object. In natural language expressions that attribute certain properties to an object, the evaluative and descriptive components are inextricably linked and in many cases inseparable. This applies both to the semantics of individual words and to entire statements containing an evaluation [Wolf 2002:22].

The attitude of a subject to an object can be very different, an object can be assessed from the point of view of its compliance or non-compliance with a standard, or an aesthetic ideal, or ethical norms, from the point of view of its familiarity-unknown, necessity-uselessness, usefulness-harmfulness, convenience-inconvenience, with from the point of view of the emotion it evokes, etc.

The assessment itself, like no other category related to a person, is determined by the life, thinking and activity of a person.

A person lives in a certain social and natural environment, he is connected by thousands of threads with various people, with objects located next to him, with processes, phenomena, etc. occurring around him, and interacts with them in a complex manner. Human interaction with the surrounding world necessarily presupposes and includes a variety of human relationships to the objects and phenomena around him. Awareness of these relationships is an assessment of an object or phenomenon, which is expressed in an evaluative statement, for example:It's a good weather today. What a beautiful butterfly!

Evaluation, therefore, is a person’s attitude towards something expressed in verbal form (to an object, phenomenon, process, state, to himself, to another person, etc.) [Schramm 1979:39]

Typically, in various works of a linguistic, philosophical, logical nature, evaluation is associated with the establishment of a value relationship between subject and object. Understanding by value everything that has human, social and cultural significance, we define evaluation as a positive or negative characteristic of an object, conditioned by recognition or non-recognition of its value in terms of compliance or non-compliance of its qualities with any value criteria. Obviously, it is necessary to distinguish an assessment in the narrow sense of the word, associated with the sign “good/bad”, which corresponds to the definition given above, from an assessment in a broad sense, or qualification, which can be defined “as a judgment of a cognizing subject about an object, based on a comparison of this an object with a selected standard" [Kruglikova 1991:81]. Thus, the concept of assessment in a broad sense also includes quantitative assessments and estimates of quantities.

Evaluation as a value aspect of meaning is present in different language units (expressions), covers a wide range of language units, and each level of the language structure has its own specific means of expressing evaluation [Gibatova 1996].

In the methodology of science, it is customary to distinguish two spheres - ontological and epistemic. In connection with the emergence of a new, functional idea of the world, scientists began to talk about the presence of a third, intermediate area, separated or separated from the ontology of the world - the sphere of life. It is the latter that is associated with the assessment. To evaluate means to include a phenomenon in the sphere of human life. As N.D. Arutyunova notes, the picture of the world and the picture of life are painted in different colors and from different angles of view. For the first area, the spatial dimension remains more important, for the second – the time dimension. The first can be likened to a panorama, the second is more natural to compare with a film [Arutyunova 1988:199]. Finally, the picture of life is largely painted in idealized tones. In particular, when assessing, a person correlates the real state of affairs with a certain idealized model of the world and expresses his own opinion about the facts, his perception of them.

The assessment is determined not by the primary (ontological), but by the secondary (subjective) division of the world, “which is not based on the real properties of objects and phenomena, but only on our subjective impressions of them, our emotional reactions to them and mental conclusions about their role in our lives.” "[Vasiliev 1996:56].

Every assessment is someone else's assessment, and in this sense it is subjective. The inclusion of a person’s needs, tastes, interests, mental, physical and intellectual capabilities in the cognitive process is a manifestation of his subjective attitude to the reflected phenomenon. It is no coincidence that many linguists define evaluation as an expression of a subjective attitude towards an object.

However, this relationship is not yet a condition for evaluation. Thus, many types of subjective attitude - surprise, distrust, etc. - are not associated with assessment. Evaluation is the result of the manifestation of a special, value-based attitude of a subject to an object, the specificity of which is the presence of a certain position of the subject that determines the nature of this relationship, that is, certain “points of view” from which the evaluation is made [Ivin 1970:25; Vichev 1972:150; Markelova 1996, etc.].

Thus, we can say that an assessment is a statement of fact from a certain angle. But this understanding of assessment also requires clarification, since as a result of such a broad understanding of assessment, the circle of assessment vocabulary turns out to be essentially not closed. In particular, the interpretation of assessment leads to an expansion of the understanding of this term to the concept of a relationship in general, as a result of which a vast spectrum of subjective, emotional, modal, rational, parametric, temporal and other relations interpreted as assessments has been revealed. Therefore, it seems fundamentally important to limit the actual “points of view” that are the evaluation criterion.

An assessment can only be considered an opinion about an object that expresses the characteristics of the latter through its correlation with a category of value. The category of value is studied in philosophy, psychology, sociology, cultural studies, logic and other sciences [Sergeeva 2003:47].

T.V. Markelova argues that assessment is a functional-semantic category implemented in speech activity by a system of multi-level linguistic means. Having summarized different approaches to the analysis of assessments, she identified two directions. The first reflects the “breadth” and “narrowness” of points of view: from “omnipresence” (N.D. Arutyunova) and comprehensive nature: “every verbalization, in a certain sense, is already an assessment” (M.V. Lyapon) to the globality of the evaluative mode ( N.D.Arutyunova, E.M.Wolf, T.V.Shmeleva), to the predicative essence of evaluative meaning (N.N. Kholodov). The second direction reflects the coexistence of onomasiological and modus approaches to evaluative meaning in the language system. The linguistic semantic interpretation of the content of the evaluation category, on the one hand, generalizes the similar content of linguistic units and forms, on the other hand, it is embodied in the sphere of multi-level linguistic means, united by a common semantic dominant - a value attitude.

When approaching assessment as a perspective, view, point of view, the problem of its interaction with emotional and expressive meanings arises. The following research positions are known: 1) their weakly differentiated definition as “co-meanings” (O.S. Akhmanova); 2) recognition of their inseparability, interconnection in the meaning of expressive lexical units and statements (N.A. Lukyanova); 3) determination of the leading role of emotivity in the triad “emotive-evaluative-expressive” (V.I. Shakhovsky); 4) a complete distinction between assessment, emotionality and expressiveness as functional, psychological and reflective categories (V.K. Kharchenko).

According to T.V. Markelova, approaches to assessment do not distinguish between the meanings of “the speaker’s attitude to the subject of speech” and “value attitude”, based on the semes “idea, judgment about someone, something” and, accordingly, “recognition of merits, positive qualities, values of someone, something” intersecting with each other in one seme of the generating verb estimate (to evaluate and value) [Markelova 1996].

1.2. Assessment structure.

The assessment is characterized by a special structure that contains a number of mandatory and optional elements. This structure in the logic of evaluations is represented as a modal frame that is superimposed on the utterance and does not coincide with either its logical-semantic structure or its syntactic one. The components of the assessment are the subject, object, basis and nature of the assessment (A.A. Ivin). However, in natural language, the evaluative structure is constructed much more complexly and includes a number of components: classifiers, various means of intensification and deintensification, motivations for comparison, etc., which reflect its complex construction [Wolf 2006:11].

Under the subject some assessment is understood as a person (group of persons) who attributes value to a certain object by expressing this assessment. It is generally accepted that an assessment is always someone else's assessment.

There are no houses, for example, that are suitable or good in general, but only those that are suitable for someone, one person or many, or almost all the people who evaluate them.

The need to attribute each assessment to a subject or, as this operation is sometimes also called, relativizing the assessment, should not be considered as an argument in favor of the idea of relativity of assessments or relativism in assessment. The usual formulation of relativism says that what is good for one may not be good for another, and therefore one should always indicate for whom something is good, i.e. relativize an assessment by specifying the person expressing it.

Under objects evaluations are understood as those objects to which values are assigned, or objects whose values are compared. In other words, the subject of assessment is the subject being assessed.

For example, the subject of the assessment “a knife is good” is a knife, the assessment “pleasure is good” is pleasure, the assessment “health is better than illness” is health and illness, the assessment “it is better to travel by train than by bus” is ways to achieve a certain point, etc.

What exactly is a positive value attributed to in an assessment? For example, in an evaluation expressed by the words “is this apple good”? An apple has many properties, and each of them can be the subject of evaluation. A person's positive assessment of an apple may not conflict with another subject's assessment that the same apple is bad, because when they talk about an apple, they actually mean different properties. One and the same subject can justifiably call a given apple both good and bad at the same time, attributing these characteristics to its various properties. In these cases, the proper subject of assessment is not the apple itself, but its individual properties or a set of properties, which may, however, not find expression in the formulation of assessments.

All estimates can be divided into two groups. The first of them includes absolute assessments, in the formulation of which terms such as “good”, “bad”, “good”, “evil”, “indifferent” are used. In the second - comparative evaluations expressed using terms such as “better”, “worse”, “equal”.

The nature of an absolute evaluation is determined by whether it qualifies its subject as “good,” or “bad,” or “indifferent.” The subject of an absolute assessment can be another absolute or comparative assessment: “I did not do well by condemning this,” “it is good that good is better than evil,” etc.

The nature of a comparative assessment depends on whether it establishes the superiority in value of one item over another, or whether it says that one of the items being compared is of lesser value than the other, or whether it characterizes the items being compared as being of equal value. Some assessments can also be the subject of comparative assessment: “good is better than evil”, “it is preferable to condemn a given action than to praise it”, etc.

Both absolute and comparative evaluative concepts form triplets: good-indifferent-bad; better-equal-worse.

The word “assessment” is usually used to designate (expressed in language) the establishment of a value relationship between a subject and an object. By value, or good, we usually understand everything that is an object of desire, need, aspiration, interest, etc.

The fourth component of assessment is its base , that is, from the point of view of which the assessment is made.

Heraclitus argued that one and the same thing can be in opposite relationships to various other things, and in particular, that the same sea water is beneficial to fish and harmful to humans. In this statement of his one can see the germ of the idea that there is a basis for any assessment.

Each assessment has a basis: “Every assessment is not only an assessment of something, but also an assessment that takes something into account” [Ivin 1970:27].

The basis of evaluation is understood as that position or those arguments that incline subjects to approve, condemn, or express indifference in connection with various things.

A.A. Ivin suggests dividing the basis for assessments into several types.

A large group of estimates is based on somefeeling or sensation.A typical example of this type of evaluation is the “I love it” evaluation. It is usually understood as an expression of pure feeling. Another example would be an assessment such as “This item is good because it gives me pleasure.” Evaluations that are expressions of feelings of sympathy, antipathy, inclination, indifference, etc. could be called internal.

The basis for evaluation can be not only a feeling, but also somesample, ideal, standard.Usually, when we say that a knife is good, without any further qualification, we evaluate it precisely from the point of view of some standard that we think every knife must satisfy in order to be judged positively.

The basis for the assessment may be some other assessment. Some of the estimates of this type are usually calledexternal or utilitarian:the object in question is assigned a positive, negative or zero value not in itself, but as a means of achieving or eliminating certain other things that are valued positively or negatively [Ivin 1970:21-31].

The basis for an assessment is the most general and significant aspect of a particular assessment. It depends on it, it determines the rating scale from which the word expressing the evaluation is selected. In other words, the nature of the assessment is its particular manifestation within the framework determined by the given basis of assessment. For example, an assessment in terms of the feeling of pleasure/displeasure caused by an object (the basis of assessment) is expressed using wordsdelightful – pleasant – unpleasant – disgusting;and the nature of the assessment - delightful evening, pleasant memory, annoying error - determined by choosing one of the words on this scale.

A word with an evaluative meaning does not name a feature that objectively belongs to an object, but a characteristic of it that determines how the subject of evaluation relates to the object. Therefore, evaluation is always a subjective-objective category; the criteria of truth or falsity are not applicable to it. The same item can be assessed differently by different people. Moreover, the same person can evaluate the same object based on its various characteristics (for example:he is a good worker but a bad father). Assessments of the same subject can change at different periods of his life.

A necessary condition for a particular assessment of a specific object - a representative of a given class of objects - is the presence in the mind of the subject of a certain basis for assessment for a specific assessment of specific objects of a particular class [Schramm 1979:40].

The above elements of the evaluation structure correspond to the evaluation components in the logical representation. However, in natural language the evaluation structure is much more complex and includes a number of components. Thus, subject and object are often connected by axiological predicates, primarily predicates of opinion, sensation, perception (count, put, seem, estimate and etc.); compare: I find this unacceptable; Your action seems strange to me; You look tired; I don't feel well.

The semantic connection of evaluative words and designations of the object of evaluation is carried out on the basis of the aspect of evaluation (main variable), which determines the characteristics of the object by which it is evaluated: good cook, aspect is related to function; good weather, assessment aspect – a number of signs of the “weather” situation. An evaluative statement may also include optional elements - motivations, classifiers, various means of intensification and deintensification. In a comparative assessment, additional elements are included in the modal frame - what is being compared with, the attribute by which the comparison is made, the motivation for the comparison, etc. As can be seen, the evaluation structure consists of many elements, reflecting its complex construction [Wolf 1978:12].

1.3. Types of assessments.

In early work on ethics and axiology, a few types of assessments were usually distinguished. Aristotle's general classification of good came down to three main types: 1) external goods, 2) goods related to the soul, 3) goods related to the body. Hobbes identified three types of good: “good in promise, good in action as the desired end, and good as the means; what do we mean by the words “useful, beneficial”; we have as many kinds of evil: evil in promise, evil in action and result, and evil as a means” [Hobbes 1964]. Most authors sharply distinguished two categories of values: good as a means and good as an end, or otherwise, relative and absolute.

However, as axiological studies became more semantized, the classifications of good became more and more fragmented. The new systems were not concerned with the ontology of goodness, but with the meaning that evaluative predicates acquire in different contexts of use.

The most complete classification of assessments was proposed by von Wright. It is carried out in line with conceptual analysis and is based on the use of the English adjective good and its antonyms.

Von Wright distinguishes the following types of assessments: 1) instrumental assessments (good knife, good bloodhound), 2) technical assessments, or assessments of skill (good administrator, bad specialist), 3) assessments of favorability (bad, harmful to health), 4) utilitarian evaluations (the previous type can be considered as a special case of utilitarian evaluations): good advice, bad plan, 5) medical evaluations characterizing physical organs and mental abilities (good taste, good dinner). Ethical assessment (good will, good intention, bad deed) is considered by von Wright as secondary, derived from the assessment of favorability. Von Wright does not believe that his classification exhausts all the variety of uses of evaluative predicates. We are talking about identifying supporting categories [Arutyunova 1998:187].

The classification of evaluative predicates can be based on the similarities and differences in their representation of evaluative meanings. The first important difference is due to the interpretation of the assessment, which, in turn, is associated with the recognition/non-recognition of the valuable nature of the valued object. Not all objects, phenomena and especially events that exist in reality are included in the value picture of the world, since not all of them are included in the sphere of a person’s vital interests. In this regard, good means “corresponding to an idealized model of the macro- or microworld,” perceived as the goal of human existence, and, consequently, of his activity; bad means “not corresponding to this model according to one of its inherent parameters”; the indifferent “is not involved in the idealized idea of life” and therefore is not evaluated [Arutyunova 1988:59].

In addition, for many types of things there are no social standards at all, due to which “the statement that these things are good or that they are bad does not make sense” [Ivin 1970:44].

Along with positive and negative assessments, an indifferent attitude towards the object is distinguished. Sometimes it is called a neutral [Wolf: 1985], or zero [Khidekel, Koshel 1981:7] assessment.

The zone of positive and negative assessments is located on opposite sides of a certain starting point on the rating scale. Moreover, within the positive zone, emotional-subjective assessments predominate, while negative assessments are more often assessments “from the object”, since they usually contain indications of the properties of the object being assessed [Wolf 1985:20], which is reflected in the values that represent them.

The distinction between positive and negative evaluation is of a conceptual nature: concepts that are incompatible with each other cannot be evaluated equally, for example, if the concept of “honest” in the picture of the world is evaluated positively, then the concept of “dishonest” can no longer be interpreted as “good” [Ivin 1988 :98]. This is confirmed by the presence of a close connection between positive and negative assessments and the category of negation: the negation of a positive assessment gives a negative one and vice versa, however, this situation is only true in relation to a rational assessment - in the field of emotional assessments, antonymic relations, as well as synonymous ones, are traced inconsistently.

Positive and negative evaluations determine functional differences in the meanings representing them: on the one hand, they differ in types of emotiveness, on the other, in illocutionary forces (advice, prohibition, threat, etc.), and on the third, in different types of behavior - from preference to rejection.

The second line of conceptual differences between evaluative values is related to the distinction between general and specific evaluations. As already indicated, evaluative values ultimately have an axiological nature. They reflect various aspects of values:useful/harmful, good/badetc. or their psychological perception:interesting\uninteresting, pleasant\unpleasantetc. In turn, the psychological perception of values can be colored by the modality of obligation (to act properly). All these types of values are classified as privately valued, i.e. to those that reflect the criteria (grounds) for assessments. On the other hand, values that represent the general assessment are highlighted; they do not reflect the basis of the assessment and therefore can have either an axiological or psychological interpretation:good\bad, amazing\disgustingetc. - they are often called evaluative ones.

General and specific assessments differ in a number of conceptual features that have semantic relevance and are reflected in linguistic meanings and syntactic structures [Sergeeva 2003:103-106].

General assessments express only the attitude of the subject to the object on the basis of “good/bad” and do not report anything about the properties of the object. They are capable of characterizing a wide variety of objects. In this case, the assessment is given based on a set of heterogeneous properties and should constitute a kind of balance of positive and negative factors. General evaluations more clearly than specific ones express the illocutionary force of recommendation or approval, prohibition or condemnation accompanying the statement.

Private assessments combine description and evaluation. They characterize an object from a certain point of view. There are ethical, aesthetic, hedonistic and utilitarian assessments. They are more numerous and varied than general ones, and are not able to qualify all types of objects [Gibatova 1996:7].

General evaluative words are only the most general and comprehensive interpretation of evaluative meanings, which are determined by the relationship of phenomena and objects to an idealized model of the world and reflect their value aspects.

Private evaluation as a conceptual phenomenon reflects some element of the evaluation structure - the motive for evaluation (pleasant - unpleasant, useful - harmfuletc.) or object properties (scoundrel, unscrupulousetc.) [Sergeeva 2003:106].

Assessments are thus divided into general and specific. In addition, a distinction is made between rational and emotional assessments.

A rational assessment reproduces the essential characteristics of the assessed object that determine the assessment, indicates whether the object corresponds or does not correspond to the subject’s ideas about the standard or norm; rational assessment is an assessment-thought:immoral behavior, harmful work, immoral act, bad product.

Emotional assessment is associated with the subjective and personal perception of an object, the emotional impression of it; it is determined by the “unusuality of the object”, “protruding” [V.N. Teliya] it from the usual series:not a person, but a kneading bowl; amazing performance.The phrase “emotional assessment” refers to multi-level phenomena. At the extralinguistic level, an emotional assessment is the subject’s opinion about the value of some object, which is presented not as a logical judgment, but as a sensation, feeling, emotion of the speaker. At the linguistic level, emotional evaluation appears as the subject’s opinion about the value of a certain object, reflected and enshrined in the semantics of a linguistic sign as its micro-meaning, or seme.

Evaluativeness, represented as the correlation of a word with an evaluation, and emotionality, associated with the emotions and feelings of the speaker, do not constitute two different components of meaning, they are one, just as evaluation and emotion are inseparable at the extra-linguistic level. A positive assessment can only be conveyed through a positive emotion: approval, praise, affection, delight, admiration, etc.; negative – through negative emotion: disapproval, rejection, condemnation, annoyance, irritation, etc. The assessment, as it were, “absorbs” the corresponding emotion, and the parameters of the emotion and assessment coincide: “pleasant” - “good”, “unpleasant” - “bad”. Dictionary marks approve, affectionate, disapprove, neglect, contempt. and so on. indicate the corresponding emotional reactions of the speaker in relation to the subject of speech, and the assessment is, as it were, hidden in the emotion, and in specific statements they “unfold” to a greater or lesser extent [Lukyanova 1986:45].

“Emotional and rational in assessment imply two different sides of the subject’s relationship to the object, the first is his feelings, the second is his opinion,” wrote E.M. Wolf in one of her last books [Wolf 1985:42].

In natural language there cannot be a purely emotional assessment, since language as such always presupposes a rational aspect. Nevertheless, the ways of expressing the two types of evaluation in language differ, showing which basis underlies the judgment about the value of an object - emotional or rational.

This opinion is also confirmed by the observations of psychologists who claim that there cannot be a “direct” reflection of emotion in language, but only one that is “captured” in linguistic expressions in the forms of experienced emotion or feeling.

According to E.M. Wolf, there are at least three opinions regarding the relationship between the rational (or intellectual) and the emotional, i.e. associated with feelings. The first opinion, known as emotivism, integrates all the psychological states of the subject that can be expressed in a statement/text, and postulates that the emotional side of speech is primary, and the rational side is secondary. The second opinion [N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, etc.] comes down to the priority of rational assessment over emotional: the latter is considered either as a type of psychological assessment, or in general as one of the signs of rational assessment, capable of actualization in speech. According to the third opinion, these two types of assessments are “intertwined” only in ontology; in the linguistic display they are quite clearly separated into two semantic poles - the rational one gravitates towards the descriptive aspect of meaning and is a judgment about the value of what is isolated and designated as an objective given, and the emotional one is oriented to a certain stimulus in one or another “internal form” included in the linguistic essence (word, phraseological unit, text).

It can be assumed that in addition to rational assessment, which appears in two forms - intellectual and psychological assessment, there is also an emotional assessment itself, “captured” in language in the form of feelings-attitudes. This assessment is called emotive. Emotivity has as its content a feeling-attitude that has illocutionary force, i.e. the ability to influence the interlocutor, causing a certain effect. The addition of two types of subjective-modal relations - evaluative and emotive - gives expressiveness to both the names themselves and the statements in which they are included [Teliya 1996:31,37].

In natural language there cannot be a purely emotional assessment, since language always presupposes a rational aspect. Thus, the division of the purely emotional and the purely rational in language is conditional. Nevertheless, the ways of expressing the two types of evaluation in language differ, showing what basis lies at the basis of the judgment about the value of an object, emotional or rational [Wolf 2002:39].

1.4. Metaphor and evaluation.

The study of evaluative metaphor involves solving a whole range of problems. Firstly, it is necessary to answer the question of what processes occur during the metaphorization of evaluative meanings, which of them are capable of being metaphorized and which are not. Secondly, it is necessary to identify the types of non-evaluative metaphorical meanings that are capable of acquiring the meaning of evaluation, and to describe the patterns of the process of producing evaluative meaning. Next, it is necessary to identify the types of mental metaphorical structures and methods of their linguistic interpretation, i.e. answer the question of how the nature of metaphorized concepts and their lexical representation influence this process. Answers to these questions can only be obtained by considering the essence of metaphor.

A metaphor is created by attributing to the main subject the characteristics of an auxiliary subject, and it itself is focused on the position of the predicate [Arutyunova, 1999]. For example, in metaphorical expression blind rain The main subject of the metaphor is rain, and the auxiliary subject is man.

In the presence of some universal mechanisms of the functioning of the word in the individual consciousness and, accordingly, unity in the choice of an identifying feature, there is a national-cultural specificity of standards - carriers of different connotative features. Connotations are stable qualifying characteristics fixed in the image (physical, consistent, functional, dynamic, relational, subjective psychological, etc.). For example, milk, snow are the standards of the prototypical trait “white”. Thus, connotation is a conceptual-figurative analogue of a certain predicative meaning. Connotations form the conceptual basis for subsequent metaphorical transfers. Evaluative connotations are semes that are included in the semantics of linguistic units as indicators of the positive or negative status of an object or phenomenon, for example, the meaning “white” has a connotation indicating the positive status of the object characterized by this word:white envy, white magic.And the antonym “dark”/“black” has a negative connotation:dark deeds, black envy, dark thoughts[Sergeeva 2003:85].

In modern linguistics, interest in metaphor has flared up in connection with the discussion of the problems of semantic correctness of a sentence and the identification of different types of deviations from the norm. Metaphor is considered from this point of view in the circle of phenomena of semantic irregularity, which arises as a result of deliberate violation of the patterns of semantic connection of words. At the same time, it is sometimes noted that the interpretation of a metaphor requires the use of extralinguistic knowledge: to understand it, a dictionary is as necessary as an encyclopedia. Some researchers, on the contrary, reject or minimize the role of the extralinguistic factor in the formation of metaphor and build a theory of metaphor only in terms of the semantic structure of the word [Arutyunova 1998]. D. Bickerton relies on the concept of a specific attribute - a special quality attributed to the denotation of a linguistic sign. Thus, in English, iron (iron) is considered the bearer of the attribute of hardness, and, for example, in Spanish this attribute is attributed to steel (acero). Lexemes, the meaning of which includes an indication of such attributes, are subject to metaphorization.

The linguistic theory of metaphor, as N.D. Arutyunova argues, should apparently take into account not only the lexical-semantic, but also the functional-syntactic characteristics of this phenomenon.

Metaphor is, first of all, a way to capture the individuality of a particular object or phenomenon, to convey its uniqueness. Specific vocabulary has more individualizing possibilities than predicates. A metaphor individualizes an object, referring it to a class to which it does not belong. She works on a category mistake

[Arutyunova 1998:348].

The structure of a metaphor includes 4 components: 1) the main subject of the metaphor; 2) auxiliary subject of metaphor; 3) some properties of the main subject; 4) some properties of the auxiliary subject.

All 4 components are involved in the formation of evaluative metaphors: in the absence of any of them, the metaphor is impossible. So, for example, words with a general evaluative meaning cannot develop metaphorical meanings due to the lack of indication in their semantics of the properties of the auxiliary subject, as well as the subject itself. The figurative meanings of general evaluative words, such asok, greatetc., in the presence of ironic intonation, they can only change the sign of assessment. On the other hand, many originally metaphorical meanings became basic due to the loss of an auxiliary subject, the properties of which motivated the meaning of the metaphor.

It is necessary to distinguish between two types of evaluative metaphors. The first type includes antonymous pairs of meanings that have a constant connection with one of the evaluation signs:light/dark, high/low.In this case, evaluative connotations are characteristic of the adjectives themselves as lexical units, and evaluation is included in the metaphorical concepts of such adjectives. Some adjectives originally exist as metaphors, for example: die-hard.

The second type of evaluative metaphors is represented by adjectives, which in direct meanings indicate the descriptive properties of objects and acquire evaluative meanings only in combination with certain nouns: the tea is lukewarm (this is bad, because normally the tea should be hot). In such cases, direct (neutral) meanings can provoke different evaluative associations in texts, and the metaphorical concept provides only the basis for evaluative rethinking. In many cases, the same figurative device in combination with units of different semantics forms metaphorical meanings of different evaluative or neutral nature. It is not the adjective itself that acquires an evaluative meaning, but the noun group to which it is included, and in this case the denotation of the name must be included in the value picture of the world - these are people, their properties and relationships, as well as artifacts:yellow press - yellow spots, inedible plants - inedible cabbage soup[Sergeeva 2003:86, 92].

If the noun in a metaphorical phrase is evaluative, then the metaphorical adjective most often serves as an intensifier, strengthening the evaluative seme of the defined:subtle mind, good reputation.On the other hand, some "innate" estimates, e.g.hot Cold, which have a minus sign on the rating scale, can be used as intensifiers of phenomena that are positively assessed in the linguistic picture of the world, for example:warm approval[Wolf 1998:56].

Metaphor is a sensory projection of analogy because it includes not only propositional knowledge, but also visual characteristics. It “fixes... places of separation from rational rationality, testifies to the need for imagination, fantasy for any cognition, any understanding,” including the understanding of evaluative representation by linguistic means of evaluative metaphors [Sergeeva 2003:85].

In our speech, we very often use words in a metaphorical sense, sometimes without even knowing it. The ability to use a word in a metaphorical sense is a wonderful property of language. Metaphors allow you to express the subtlest shades of thought in a bright and figurative form.

Conclusions.

In linguistics of the 20th century. views on the assessment category changed. In the first half of the 20th century, assessment was associated with the expression of the emotional attitude of the speaker (A.A. Shakhmatov, V.V. Vinogradov, etc.), as a result of which only words expressing an emotional-subjective assessment were classified as evaluative vocabulary. By the end of the century, linguistic assessment began to be considered as a representation of the corresponding logical category by the facts of explicit and hidden grammar (I. Katz, E.M. Wolf, etc.) and assessment began to be studied in a complex of axiological, psychological, and speech-cognitive problems.

The assessment is conceptual in nature, since it correlates the phenomena of real reality with an idealized model of the world or includes them in human life [Sergeeva 2003:121].

Considering the structure of assessments, you can see that the assessment is presented as a modal frame, including a number of mandatory and peripheral elements. The assessment has its own structure and its own structural components, which are divided into the subject of assessment, the object of assessment, nature and basis.

The types of evaluative vocabulary are varied and therefore they were systematized. There are: general evaluative and particular evaluative (according to the degree of correlation between the objective and subjective), rational and emotional (according to the nature of the assessment), positive, negative and neutral (conceptual nature).

A figurative metaphor plays a special role in the interpretation of evaluative meanings. The image in these cases serves as a kind of analogue of the basis for assessment. Some figurative linguistic evaluative means initially exist only in a figurative meaning [Sergeeva 2003:121].

Chapter II. Adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person.

2.1. General adjectives of positive evaluation.

The complexity of the semantic structure of evaluative adjectives is due to their versatility. The content of an evaluative adjective as a sign cannot be considered outside the sphere of its use, in other words, it (content) depends entirely on the sphere of its use. The breadth of the semantic structure of adjectives has been noted more than once by linguists; in a number of works they are called “universal signs.” The breadth of the sign content of adjectives, its semantic diversity, prompted a number of researchers to raise the question of the degree of dependence of the semantics of the adjective on the semantics of the noun and to draw a conclusion about the semantic independence of adjectives or, in other words, about its synsemantics. Another position boils down to the recognition of the mutual influence of the semantics of the adjective and the noun: “...if we analyze attributive constructions from the point of view of their role in the semantics of individual specific contexts, it turns out that the adjective in most cases is not just a semantic addition to the meaning expressed by the noun. His role in the text is much more significant. There are a large number of contexts where the adjective is obligatory for semantic reasons” [Lifshits 2001:26].

The name adjective denotes a feature of an object - often a very general, abstract property of it, and this property usually has very few features of its own, and they are often common to entire series of meanings, therefore the formation of figurative meanings in adjectives more often occurs on the basis of potential semes, on the basis associative representations.[Schramm 1979:39]

In linguistic evaluative structures, subjective and objective properties are in complex interaction. If we consider expressions such as, for example,red, ripe, round apple; large square antique painting,then it is obvious that they are talking about those attributes of objects that are their own properties. On the contrary, combinations such asgood apple, wonderful picture,They report not about the properties of the objects themselves, but about those that the subject of evaluation attributes to them. The first row of adjectives can be called descriptive, the second – evaluative.

The designations of the first row may also contain an evaluative component; compare:talented, diligent, kind, stupidetc. They are called descriptive-evaluative, or private-evaluative. Second row words ( bad, good etc.) are called general assessments.

The question of differentiation of two series of characteristics and their relationship with each other is very controversial.

The subjective and objective components of evaluative meaning in language represent a dialectical unity with very complex and changing relationships within each series of linguistic units. The connection between the descriptive and the actual evaluative meaning in the meanings of words is most obviously manifested in the system of adjectives, for which attribute semantics is the main one. Among the adjectives, one can distinguish descriptive words that do not contain any evaluation (Portuguese, copper, morning, two-legged, etc.,Most relative adjectives belong to this type), and evaluative adjectives proper (good, excellent, bad, nasty, etc.),which indicate only a rating with a “+” or “-“ sign.

Adjectives that in one way or another combine an evaluative meaning with a descriptive one form a continuous series where these two meanings are combined in different proportions. The process characteristic of adjectives—the acquisition of qualitative features by relative adjectives—means a shift along the scale of the ratio of objective and subjective, descriptive and evaluative. Evaluative meanings especially often arise when the object of evaluation is somehow connected with the sphere of a person, since almost any sign of a person can imply evaluation; compare:stone house and stone look, round table and round eyes, red pencil and red nose[Wolf 2002:29].

Von Wright built a classification of forms, or concepts, of good based on an analysis of the use of the adjective good. In most cases, it was meant to be used in such a way that it is equivalent to more specific synonyms, such as useful, beneficial, pleasant, efficient, healthy. However, replacing the general assessment with a private one is not always acceptable. It is especially difficult to find an equivalent adjective good (we will further keep in mind Russian word usage) when the assessment is given based on a set of heterogeneous properties. This is the main use of adjectives. good and bad. They are called general assessments.

The use of general evaluative adjectives as equivalents of private evaluations is, in a certain sense, secondary. It is determined by two factors: firstly, by the fact that even in a particular assessment its basis is not reducible to one attribute, but usually covers a number of properties, and secondly, by the fact that general evaluative adjectives more clearly than private assessments express the illocutionary meaning accompanying the statement the force of recommendation or approval, prohibition or condemnation.

The overall assessment is a kind of balance of positive and negative factors. Like any balance, it is achieved by the ratio of quantities. To derive an overall assessment, you need to convert quality into quantity, that is, assign one or another number of points or points to different properties, relationships, facts and circumstances, in accordance with the price list adopted in the given field, that is, as is done in sports and card games, at olympiads, exams, competitions and other types of regulated axiological human activity. [Arutyunova 1998:198]

So, axiological meanings are represented in language by two main types: general evaluative and particular evaluative. The first type is realized by adjectivesgood and badas well as their synonyms with different stylistic and expressive shades (wonderful, excellent, magnificent, excellent, bad, bad, etc.).

The overall score is awarded based on a combination of characteristics: good tea implies that it is of high quality (fragrant), and that it is freshly brewed, and that it is hot, and that it is strong enough, and sometimes that it is moderately sweet. When a hotel room is classified as good, it means that the room is equipped with the necessary amenities, is bright, not too cramped and not noisy.

Native speakers also feel the complexity of the content of general evaluative predicates, for example:But don’t I want to say: the best memoirist is the one who writes about himself? Of course not. Although the best memoirist is the one who writes well (and the concept of “good” includes truth, skill, and sincerity)(A. Latynina, Lit. newspaper. 1982)

Different categories of objects, to varying degrees, imply those requirements that must be satisfied for their generally positive qualification. Wed. Khodasevich's observations:The very manner of playing the game, even dealing, taking cards from the table, the whole style of the game, all this says a lot about the partner to a sophisticated eye. I must only point out that the concepts of “good partner” and “good person” do not completely coincide: on the contrary, they contradict each other in some ways, and some traits of a good person are unbearable beyond the cards; on the other hand, observing an excellent partner, sometimes you think that you need to stay away from him in life.A good friend, however, can hardly be a bad person.

The most specific requirements are those for specialized objects - tools, tools, devices, machines designed to fulfill a specific practical purpose. An evaluative adjective in combination with an instrumental name or a name of a nominal class receives a fixed content (cf.:good chess player, good goalkeeper, excellent camera). Differences in interpretation and, accordingly, in the requirements are relativized not so much with respect to the subject of assessment, but rather with respect to the era (time of assessment). In this case, the particular and general evaluative values come closer, since a specific name contains an indication of the basis for the evaluation.

In general, positive properties, as well as negative ones, are mutually independent. But between the two, a relationship of fairly regular co-occurrence often develops. The requirements for objects of fuzzy specialization and individual consumption vary depending on the “consumer”. Accordingly, the volume of content of the general evaluative predicate also fluctuates. This can be seen in the following example. One of the heroes of Shakespeare's theater says:“Until I meet a woman who is attractive in every way at once, I will not be attracted to anyone. She must be rich - this is a prerequisite; smart - or I don’t need her; virtuous - or I won’t give a penny for her; beautiful - otherwise I wouldn’t even look at her; meek - otherwise let him not come close to me; noble - otherwise I won’t take her for any money; she should speak pleasantly, be a good musician, and let her hair be the color God pleases.”("Much ado about nothing"). If, having considered his demands, Benedict said about a particular girl:“This is a good bride!”, then this would mean:“rich, intelligent, virtuous, noble, beautiful, meek, musical, possessive graceful speech" . Of course, not all grooms set so many conditions. As the number of requirements is reduced, the number of components introduced into the concept of good is reduced. For example, another Shakespeare character exclaims:“This is the best girl in the world! Seven hundred pounds sterling in pure money and a lot of family gold and silver.”

So, the features that motivate assessments are not only variable, but their very volume is unstable, as well as the nature of the properties that remain outside its limits.

When they say, for example,Masha is a good girl, then this could mean: obedient, kind, sympathetic, not capricious, helps her mother, loves her parents and friends, is a good student. Another set of features and their different volume are also possible. However, no set, apparently, will include such qualities as health, beauty, athleticism, and talents. A “non-specialized” personality is determined, first of all, by the totality of moral qualities and norms of behavior. However, although the above-mentioned properties are not included in the concept of a “good girl,” they are axiologically marked and can participate in the derivation of the child’s overall assessment as a kind of “makeweight” that helps the “plus” side of the scale go down. [Arutyunova 1999:200]

Expressing this or that assessment, a person determines the objects of the surrounding reality according to a normative scale of values. The object of the relationship can be any “section” of reality: an object, a person, a sign, an action-process, an event, etc.; compare, for example:Oh, the gardens beyond the fiery river are beautiful (V. Khodasevich); Zametov is a most wonderful person. (Dostoevsky).

The essence of the overall assessment specification lies in its taxonomic interpretation. During the specification process, a particular estimate is derived from the general estimate. Its type depends on the semantics of the evaluation object. This line of conceptual differences manifests itself in the specification of the general evaluative meaning and, first of all, is interpreted by different meanings of polysemantic words that denote different aspects of value and its psychological perception. Consider, for example, the specification of overall positive evaluation.

Thus, V.I. Dal identified the following evaluative meanings of the word good : “Sculpted, red, beautiful, handsome, deep-voiced, prominent, attractive, handsome, attractive, handsome, stately, good-looking \\ kind or worthwhile, well-behaved, capable, sound, dear, valued for internal qualities, useful properties, dignity " In fact, this dictionary entry reflects, firstly, different types of assessments, which differ in the choice of evaluative points of view, i.e. grounds - aesthetic, ethical, etc. Secondly, the subjective aspect of evaluation is noted here - “valued by internal qualities, useful properties, dignity,” which reflects the psychological perception of value.

Modern dictionaries note an even greater number of evaluations expressed by the word good. Thus, the IAU gives the following interpretation of this word.

1. Possessing positive qualities, properties; fully suited for its purpose:good hearing, good book, good rest, good tools\\One in which only positive aspects are manifested, delivering satisfaction and pleasure:good mood, good traits \\Useful, necessary, contributing to something:good advice, thought, impression \\Possessing some or greater advantage over others of the same type:He put on his good suit; They were given good places.

2. Achieved skill, mastery in his field, specialty.“Sit down,” said Kutuzov and, noticing that Bolkonsky was hesitating, “I good you need officers yourself.”L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.

3. Possessing positive moral qualities.He was a witty conversationalist, a little frivolous, but always a good friend.F.Iskander, Summer day.

\\ Approximately, exemplarily fulfilling his duties, obligations in relation to someone - something:good husband, good mother.

4. That which is positive, significant, worthy, worthy of recognition: everything is good.

5. Bound by mutual affection, short relationship with someone: Good friends.

6. Quite worthy, respectable:Their family is good and hardworking.

7. Quite large, significant in size:good portion of meat; they pay good money.

8. Only in kr.f. Very beautiful. She has never been so wonderful good . Gogol, The Night Before Christmas.

If you turn to BAS and the “Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I. Ozhegov and look at the meaning of 1 word good, then we can say that this value is optimal. From S.I. Ozhegov: 1. Positive in its qualities, quite satisfactory, as it should be. In BAS: 1. One that is completely satisfactory (in terms of quality, properties). In this meaning the word good means that the characterized object has qualities, properties that it should have from our point of view, i.e. its qualities and properties correspond to our idea of a set of mandatory characteristics for objects of a given class.

In the dictionary entries of these dictionaries you can see the following definition of the word good. In S. Ozhegov: 6. Used. in a remark that has the meaning of objection, denial of something, as well as in general when expressing irony. relationship to someone. (colloquial). IN BAS: “of very dubious merits (with a tinge of ironic disapproval). Usually in short form.They'll sound the alarm, and you'll be without boots you'll be good. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. A.N. Schramm notes: “It seems that this meaning was highlighted erroneously as a result of confusing the meaning of the word and the meaning of the sentence. After all, an ironic, disapproving meaning is inherent in the entire sentence in which good performs a predicative function, and it is expressed with a special intonation” [Sergeeva 2003:114].

Development of figurative, secondary meanings of the word good goes in the direction of narrowing, concretizing the general initial meaning. Some meanings are with the first in relation to inclusion, because each of them can be represented like this: good, because beautiful; good because big; good because worthy.

All aspects of the word good can be considered from the point of view of ethical, aesthetic, sensory and other assessments. Evaluative determinants of a general nature can be assigned to almost any object or phenomenon. The positive seme “good” is carried by such adjectives ashandsome, attractive(aesthetic assessment), moral (ethical assessment),useful, necessary(utilitarian assessment).

Thus, the overall assessment has a variety of criteria: moral and ethical standards (a good person), the interests and tastes of a person (a good dress), etc.

2.2. Partial evaluative adjectives of positive evaluation.

The second group of adjectives expressing a positive assessment is more extensive and varied. It includes units that evaluate one of the aspects of an object from a certain point of view. In the proposed N.D. Arutyunova’s [Arutyunova 1998:198] classification takes into account the nature of the basis for the assessment and its motivation. The groups of particular valuation values identified below differ from each other in terms of the range of compatibility, that is, in what types of objects they are capable of qualifying.

Partially estimated values can be divided into the following categories: 1)sensory-gustatory, or hedonic,evaluations (pleasant-unpleasant, tasty-tasteless, attractive-unattractive, fragrant-smelly; what you like, what you don’t like, etc.); This is the most individualized type of assessment; 2)psychologicalassessments in which a step is taken towards rationalization, comprehension of the motives for assessment: a) intellectual assessments (interesting, fascinating, exciting, deep, smart - uninteresting, uninteresting, boring, banal, superficial, stupid), b) emotional assessments (joyful - sad , cheerful - sad, desired - unwanted, pleasant - unpleasant), 3) aesthetic assessments resulting from the synthesis of sensory-gustatory and psychological assessments (beautiful - ugly, beautiful - ugly, ugly), 4) ethical assessments (moral - immoral, moral - immoral, good - evil, virtuous - vicious), 5) utilitarian assessments (useful - harmful, favorable - unfavorable), 6) regulatory assessments (correct - incorrect, correct - incorrect, normal - abnormal, standard - non-standard, defective, benign - substandard, healthy - sick), 7)teleologicalassessments (effective - ineffective, appropriate - inappropriate, successful - unsuccessful).

The listed categories form three groups. The first group includes sensory assessments, that is, assessments associated with sensations, sensory experience - physical and mental. They orient a person in the natural and social environment, promoting his accommodation and achieving comfort. This group includes the first two categories of assessments: hedonic and psychological. The predicates of this group, regardless of what they refer to, characterize to a greater extent the tastes of the subject of evaluation (person) than its object. The subject of assessment acts in this case as a physical and mental receptor and as such is characterized by the subtlety or roughness of perception, on the one hand, and the depth or surface of experiences, on the other.(cf.: subtle taste, subtle person, subtle observer, deep impressions, deep person, deep experience, deep insight into the essence of the matter, deep understanding).

Von Wright emphasizes that hedonic evaluation refers to the sensation itself, regardless of what category of objects it is caused by. In this regard, you need to pay attention to the following. The feeling is usually not indicated in the statement. Evaluation relates itself directly to what causes the sensation. The causative agent of sensation can be conceptualized as a state, process or action, which is pleasant or unpleasant to carry out, a property of an object or the object itself. Accordingly, three types of constructions arise: 1)It's nice to eat an apple (picking mushrooms, lying on the beach); 2) The taste of this apple is pleasant; This apple has a pleasant taste; 3) The apple is delicious.

A person axiologically marks objects of the external world that are included in the circle of his rotation. However, although sensory predicates can be attributed directly to an object, they are not semantized, that is, they do not imply descriptive characteristics. Predicate delicious cannot even be partially translated into descriptive language: delicious when applied to an apple, it does not at all mean ‘juicy, aromatic, crispy’. These properties may also be present in a tasteless apple.

Sensory evaluation predicates are widely used to characterize a subject's inclinations. It `s naturally. Sensory perceptions, and therefore the assessments related to them, are individual. Kozma Prutkov concludes the fable “Difference of Tastes” as follows:Reader! The world has been like this for a long time: we differ in fate, in tastes, and even more so; I explained this to you in a fable. You're going crazy about Berlin: I like Medyn better. For you, my friend, bitter horseradish is raspberries, and for me and blancmange - wormwood.It is no coincidence that people find out the inclinations of their new acquaintances. Nothing brings people closer together than common tastes. In a love letter to Mrs. Page, Falstaff wrote: “You love sherry, and I love sherry. What can connect two people more closely? (Shakespeare).

Evaluative definitions of an object differ according to the communication channel. They contain an indication of the parameter of the object that corresponds to the way it is perceived by a person: delicious (palatable; expressing appetite, pleasure, feeling pleasant); fragrant (has a pleasant strong smell); harmonious (pleasant to the ear); fragrant (fragrant, spreading aroma), etc.Arkady went up to his uncle and again felt his touch on his cheeks. fragrant mustache. Turg. Fathers and Sons.

As we see, the sensory-evaluative predicate is universal nice , as well as a general evaluative predicate good , used in the meaning of hedonic evaluation.

Consider the LZ words nice in the Dictionary of the Russian Language S.I. Ozhegova.

1. Pleasant. (nice smell, nice meeting).

2. Attractive, liked....and with these people Prince Andrei was simple and pleasant . L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.

Without an indication of the causal agent of the sensation, the judgment of hedonic evaluation suffers informational damage. The absence of mention of the fact that evaluation ultimately relates to sensation does not undermine the meaning of the statement. This follows from the meaning of adjectivespleasant and unpleasant, tasty and tasteless, fragrant and foul.

Evaluative adjectives express or clarify (weakening or strengthening) the attribute “pleasant,” which is established on the basis of the subjective perception of the speaker.

In judgments of hedonic evaluation, there is a tendency to lower the logical status (level) of the subject, to make it more concrete. The peculiarity of Russian sentences with a predicative is that the “state category” in them simultaneously characterizes a person’s sensation (“receptor”) and the process (or action) that causes this sensation. The action or state denoted by the infinitive becomes the object of evaluation (what is being evaluated):It's nice to swim in the sea[Arutyunova 1998:192].

In the same group, psychological assessments are distinguished, among which are intellectual and emotional. Let's look at intellectual assessments using examples of wordsinteresting, smart, fresh and their synonyms. Let's turn to the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S.I. Ozhegova. Word interesting has the following meanings here.

Interesting. 1. Exciting interest, entertaining, curious.- Reimer! - said Stilton, - here is an opportunity to play a joke. appeared to me interesting idea. A. Green, Green Lamp. 2. Handsome, attractive.Interesting appearance.In the 2nd LZ of the word “interesting” it is considered from the point of view of aesthetic evaluation.

Curious. 1. Characterized by curiosity.And Tanya is not so terrible,\\ And, curious , now \\ The door opened a little...Pushk., Evgeny Onegin. 2. Interesting, arousing curiosity.Interesting point of view.

Smart. 1. Possessing intelligence, expressing intelligence.My father was a very kind man, smart, educated. Turg., Asya. 2. Born of a clear mind, reasonable.Major Teplov had a kind and smart face, kind eyes, curly hair.A. Zhigulin, Black stones.

Wise. 1. Having a great mind. And to the wise Oleg drove up to the old man.Pushk., Song about the prophetic Oleg. 2. Based on great knowledge and experience. A wise decision.

Fresh. 5. Has not lost its clarity and brightness.Varenka's father was very handsome, stately, tall, fresh old man L. Tolstoy, After the ball.

Emotional assessments include those that describe the emotional state of the subject experienced by him in relation to the object of designation. Consider the adjectives “joyful”, “happy”, “beloved”.

Glad. 1. Full of joy, cheerfulness, expressing joy.At this time she ran up to them with with a joyful cry from the Tatar. Gogol, Taras Bulba. 2. Bringing joy.

Funny. 1. Imbued with fun, full of fun, expressing it.Her face suddenly flared up, expressing despair and cheerful determination. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. 2. Challenging and fun.A fun performance.3. Pleasant to the eye, not gloomy.

Happy. 1. Full of happiness, one who is favored by happiness, luck, success; expressing happiness. Everyone is happy families are similar to each other, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.L. Tolstoy, Anna Karenina. 2. Bringing happiness, good luck. He has a lucky hand. 3. Prosperous, successful. Happy thought.

Light. 6. transfer Clear, insightful.Do you love their harmonious melody\\ Russian mind, light and calm,\\ Simple-hearted and straightforward.P. Vyazemsky, The British.

Darling. The most loved one. After all, for the beloved A person can change the whole world, but I asked you for so little.A. Kuprin, Duel.

There are two types of psychological assessment related to the emotional sphere of a person. One of them describes feelings, and the other encourages one to experience some feeling-attitude about the signified by stimulating the recipient with a figurative or equivalent representation of the signified. [Teliya 1996:34].What kind of people are they, mon cher?! Juice of smart youth! Griboyedov.

As we see, hedonic and psychological assessments (primarily those based on physical experience) are usually not motivated. Evaluation arises from the feeling that a person experiences, regardless of will and self-control.

The central position among positive hedonic assessments is occupied by predicates with the meaning “giving pleasure”:pleasant, gratifying, etc.

The second group consists of sublimated assessments. These include two categories: aesthetic and ethical assessments. They rise above sensory assessments, “humanizing” them. The first are associated with the satisfaction of the sense of beauty, the second with the satisfaction of the moral sense. These two types of feelings constitute the core of a person’s spiritual nature, modeled, in accordance with his bodily orientation, vertically. At the same time, a positive aesthetic assessment excludes strict normativity. The aesthetic sense cannot be satisfied by the standard. High aesthetic appreciation implies the uniqueness of a work of art. Meanwhile, a positive ethical assessment in the general case requires orientation towards an ethical norm, adherence to a moral code, that is, more or less rules and commandments. The requirement of uniqueness, therefore, is not a necessary condition for morality (a positive ethical assessment), but it is necessary for works of genuine art [Arutyunova 1998].

Aesthetic evaluations are formulated in terms of “beautiful” and “ugly.” They attribute aesthetic values to their objects. An object, a bearer of aesthetic value, is characterized by the ability to produce aesthetically pleasing impressions. The vocabulary expressing aesthetic assessment is very diverse: it presents positive and negative assessments, assessments of an emotional and rational nature. [Gibatova 1996:10].

Let's consider the LZ of adjectives with the meaning of aesthetic assessment in the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S.I. Ozhegova.

Beautiful . 1. Bringing pleasure to the eye, pleasing in appearance, harmony, harmony, beautiful.Prince Bolkonsky was short in stature, very Beautiful young man.L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. 2. Full of internal content, highly moral (beautiful deed, beautiful deeds).3. Attention-grabbing, impressive, but empty. I was often amazed by the confident beautiful , the impressive intonations of people who said stupid things.L. Tolstoy, Diary. 1895.

Beautiful . Very beautiful. His daughter, Princess Helen, walked between the chairs, and the smile shone even brighter on her beautiful face. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.

Charming. Full of charm.Erast felt an extraordinary excitement in his blood - Liza had never seemed so lovely. Karamzin, Poor Liza.

Lovely. 1. Charm, charisma, attractiveness. 2. Pleasant, captivating phenomena, impressions. 3. About someone charming, enchanting. 4. External features of female beauty; female body (obsolete and ironic)

Charming. Capable of charming, beautiful, delightful.Fickle Adorer charming actresses. Pushkin.

Attractive. One that attracts and wins over you.This head was very beautiful, strange and sad andattractivethe beauty of an ancient, real breed and degeneration. M. Bulgakov, White Guard.

Charming. Enchanting, enchanting.Natasha is half-young lady, half-girl, sometimes childishly funny, sometimes girlishlycharming. L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.

Cute. 1. Nice, attractive, pleasant.Gagin had just such a face, cute , affectionate, with large soft eyes.Turg., Asya. 2. Dear, beloved.When she passed us, she smelled that inexplicable aroma that a note sometimes breathes sweet woman. Lerm., Hero of our time.

The core of the positive pole of aesthetic evaluation consists of predicateshandsome, charming and their synonyms: wonderful, delightful, etc.The opposite meaning is expressed by predicatesugly, ugly.Within lexical groups expressing aesthetic appreciation, synonymous pairs and series, and antonymic oppositions are outlined. Without adjectives of aesthetic evaluation, it is impossible to describe the specific characteristics characteristic of a certain object and distinguishing it from other characteristics; adjectives of aesthetic evaluation clarify and deepen the characteristics of a person.

The specificity of ethical assessment is that it is always social and anthropological, since the principles and norms of morality are focused only on humans. A positive ethical assessment in general requires an orientation towards an ethical norm, adherence to a moral code, that is, more or less rules and commandments.

It is no coincidence that metaphors and intensifiers of “height” and “lowness” are involved in these types of assessment, cf.:high moral person, low personality, high impulses, low suspicions, high morale, high ideals.

Moral. 1. Highly moral, corresponding to the rules of morality (moral act, moral person). 2. Internal, spiritual (moral satisfaction, moral support).

Moral. 1. Complying with moral requirements (moral person). 2. Relating to the inner, spiritual life of a person (moral satisfaction).

Virtuous. Highly moral, exhibiting virtue, full of virtue.I would find a friend after my heart,\\ I would have a faithful wife\\ And virtuous mother. Pushk., Evgeny Onegin.

Virtue. Positive moral quality, high morality.

Noble. 1. Highly moral, selflessly honest and open.There are cases in which noble a person must marry...Lerm., Hero of our time. 2. Exceptional in its qualities, grace.Her pale face was beautiful, noble , young and excited...Turg., Rudin. 3. Noble origin, related to the nobility.Ivan Dmitrich Gromov, a man about thirty-three, from noble , suffers from persecution mania.Chekhov, Ward No. 6.

Kind. 1. Doing good to others, being sympathetic, and also expressing these qualities.He was a soldier, not a judge, a grunt, generous, reckless, brave, but kind, fair. A. Rybakov, Heavy sand. 2. Bringing goodness, goodness, well-being.I was not only cheerful and contented, I was happy, blissful, I was kind , I was not me, but some unearthly creature, knowing no evil and capable of only good.L. Tolstoy, After the ball. 3. Good, moral. ( good deeds ). 4. Friendly close, dear.Old man Spiridon Samoilovich, who kept bragging that the lawyer of the district housing department was his Kind acquaintance turned out to be just a liar.Yu. Trifonov, Exchange. 5. Good, impeccable, excellent. (He is in good health).6. Impeccable, honest.He wanted to destroy these papers, which could cast a shadow on Kind the name of his teacher, his friend.V. Kaverin, Two captains.

Good-natured. Kind and gentle in character, not malicious.She was alone with him\\ Good-natured , cheerful,\\Joked with him affably. Pushkin.

Responsive. Easily responsive to other people's needs, ready to help.Kinder, more attentive and responsive I have never known a man in my entire life.Memories of Shklovsky.

From the contexts one can see that the predicates of ethical assessment can be divided according to three criteria: 1) the moral qualities of a person (virtuous, highly moral, ethical, etc.); 2) attitude towards the work sphere (sympathetic, responsive, etc.); 3) attitude to lifestyle - attitude to the law, family, speech activity, content of speech; interpersonal relationships in a team, etc. (attentive, sensitive, good-natured, etc.).

Utilitarian, normative and teleological assessments are included in the group of rationalistic assessments. Their main criteria are: physical and mental benefit, focus on achieving a specific goal, performing a certain function (including the one for which the item is intended), and compliance with the established standard.

According to von Wright, utilitarian evaluations do not apply to specialized objects. They are based on the choice of what may be useful or conducive to the completion of some task.

It is interesting to compare the infinitive sentences of hedonistic and utilitarian evaluation:Apples are delicious to eat; It's good to eat apples.In the latter case, it is also difficult to determine what is actually healthy: apples on their own or eating apples in a certain way, and not for all people and not always:Eating apples is good (for you), Eating apples is good for you; Apples are good (for you).

Considering the LP of adjectives of utilitarian assessment, one can see their connection with practical activities and practical interests of a person.

Useful. 1. Beneficial."Your Excellency, I would like to be useful Here. Let me stay in the prince's detachment.L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.His father taught him that one should not feel sorry for the weak, the weak are like bugs. We must feel sorry for the strong useful. Gorky, Foma Gordeev. 2. Suitable for a specific purpose, useful (usable living area).

Necessary. 1. Required, necessary.The guest, forced to admire the family scene, considered necessary take some part in it.L. Tolstoy, War and Peace. 2. Useful, one that is difficult to do without. The right person.

Healing. Useful, helping to strengthen and maintain health.Tears are not always beneficial. Otradna and healing they, when, having boiled in the chest for a long time, they finally flow - at first with effort, then more and more easily, more and more sweetly. Turg., Rudin.

G.F. Gibatova writes that “utilitarian assessments are used to characterize the practical significance of objects, their impact on the human body or his worldview. They are based on the choice of what may be useful or conducive to the completion of some task. The main difference between utilitarian assessments and others is that, while attributing a positive value to an object, they do not say that this thing is a good representative of things of this class, but can serve well in terms of realizing the goal in question and therefore has utilitarian value. Adjectives are at the center of utilitarian evaluationuseful - harmful[Gibatova 1996:11].

From the adjectives of normative evaluation, let us consider the words LZcorrect, real and their synonyms.

Correct. 1. Not deviating from rules, norms, proportions.My brother didn’t like society at all and didn’t go to balls, but now he was preparing for the candidate’s exam and taught the most right life. L. Tolstoy, After the ball. 3. True, true, as it should be.Correct understanding of something.

Loyal. 1. Corresponding to the truth, correct, accurate.One of the crowd took him for one of their own, the same poor fellow who had failed the exams, sat down, sympathized, gave loyal advice: submit documents urgently.A. Azolsky. Burlap. 2. Undoubted, inevitable.His gait was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he did not wave his arms, - loyal a sign of some secrecy of character.Lerm., Hero of our time. 3. Reliable, durable, durable. I would be faithful wife and virtuous mother.Pushk., Evgeny Onegin.

Real. Indeed, as it should be, representing the best example, the ideal of something.I dare say that everyone knows me as a liberal person who loves progress; but that is precisely why I respect aristocrats - real ones. Turg., Fathers and Sons.

True. Valid, real, undoubted.The white warrior was so slender,\\ His lips were red, his gaze was calm,\\ He was true leader. N. Gumilyov, Lake Chad.

The central position among positive normative assessments is occupied by the predicate “correct”. Adjectives of normative assessment have a common theme “norm, rule”.

Thus, private assessments, in contrast to general assessments, characterize an object based on one aspect.

2.3. Polysemy of adjectives with a positive seme.

Most linguists recognize polysemy as one of the most striking properties of words. J. Maruso gave a definition of polysemy as “the ability of a word to have different meanings... words that are polysemically related represent cases of modification of the meaning of the same word, in contrast to homonymy, where there is a coincidence in the same sound of different words” [Lifshits 2002].

The central problem of polysemy can be called the question of identifying types of polysemy.

If we take the method of transferring a name as a basis, we can distinguish three main types of polysemy: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche [Lifshits 2002:21].

Metonymy of an adjective usually represents a transfer of definition from the name of one object to the name of another by contiguity, i.e. whether they have any connection. Metonymy draws attention to an individualizing feature, allowing the addressee to isolate the subject of speech from the area of observation. N.D. Arutyunova writes: “Metonymy also includes shifts in the use of characteristic words based on different types of contiguity of the objects they characterize (secondary metonymization of meaning)” [Arutyunova 1998:349].

One of the characteristic features of the semantics of polysemantic words combined into a lexical-semantic group is the regularity of meaning transfers within this group. When new meanings of a word are formed on the basis of metonymic transfer, the meanings of the word remain as if they had a common point of contact, and at the same time they acquire distinctive features. In cases of metonymic transfer, secondary meanings can arise on the basis of adjacent connections, which appear, for example, when one word denotes a material and an object made from this material. Metonymic transfers fit into certain patterns more easily; they are the most regular and productive compared to other types of transfers.

Evaluative adjectives are characterized by a number of regular metonymic transfers.

Many general and privately evaluative adjectives can form a regular metonymic transfer, based on the transfer of characteristics from a person possessing certain positive qualities to an object that reveals this quality. For general adjectives:a good person – a good impression, a wonderful writer – wonderful books, a great child – a great character.A similar type of transfer is inherent in most categories of privately evaluative adjectives. For example:interesting person - interesting character, cheerful person - cheerful atmosphere, wonderful person - wonderful impression, kind person - good character, useful person - useful work, correct person - correct behavior[Lifshits 2001:45].

In general evaluative adjectives and in a number of particular evaluative adjectives, a metonymic transfer is also observed, going from the assessment of a person who has a certain skill, to the assessment of the skill itself. For general adjectives:an excellent rider - excellent riding, a wonderful pianist - wonderful playing, a wonderful translator - wonderful translation, a wonderful poet - wonderful poetry.For private assessments:an interesting storyteller - an interesting story, a wonderful poet - wonderful poems.

“And I would like to believe that here, as in his other beautiful translations, he, despite his bold declaration, made every effort to convey this proud Magyar song as accurately as possible.”(K. Chukovsky)

“I realized that a good translator deserves honor in our literary environment, because he is not a craftsman, not a copyist, but artist" (K. Chukovsky).

Regular metonymic transfer of meanings for adjectives can also be carried out in the following direction: from the assessment of a person who has certain moral qualities, properties, to the assessment of the qualities themselves or individual character traits.A good person has good traits(character) cheerful person - cheerful traits.

Generally evaluative and a number of privately evaluative adjectives that characterize a person who deserves approval can also be used to characterize the reason for approving the activities of this person. For general adjectives:an excellent investigator means an excellent investigation, an excellent master means excellent skill.Particularly evaluative adjectives are involved in this kind of transfersa virtuous person is a virtuous act.

If metonymic transfers of meaning are quite easy to organize and reduce to certain schemes, then with metaphorical transfers the situation is much more complicated, since in a metaphor one object (phenomenon) is likened to another, and the “imagery” of such a metaphorical name turns out to be different in different cases. Not to mention the fact that individual metaphors constantly appear in speech, and “linguistic metaphors” themselves vary in the degree to which the corresponding figurative meanings are attached to them.

If a metaphor is a transfer of a name based on similarity, then the measure of similarity is not limited; with a metaphorical transfer, the new meaning of the word becomes semantically multifaceted than the original one, since in addition to the initial one it acquires an additional meaning (and often a whole range of shades of meaning). In this regard, metaphorical transfers are much more difficult to classify.

For evaluative adjectives, several models of relatively regular metaphorical transfers can be distinguished.

A number of adjectives are characterized by transfers based on the association of a certain attribute of an object with the assessment of intellectual, emotional and other qualities. Such transfers involve adjectives for which the meaning of assessment is derivative: with the meaning of psychological - intellectual and emotional - assessment: fresh (recently mined or cooked, not spoiled) – fresh (new, new or updated):fresh bread - fresh thought. That's right, it was a song, and a woman's, fresh voice - but from where? Lerm., Hero of our time; thin (small in diameter, in girth) – thin (sharp, insightful, smart):thin layer – subtle connoisseur;with the meaning of ethical assessment: high (large in extent or far located in the direction from bottom to top) – high (very significant, sublime in content):high house - high aspirations.

Some adjectives form evaluative meanings due to metaphorical transfer such as “relating to a certain object, made of a certain material - similar to this object, material.” Such transfers involve adjectives with the meaning of sensory-gustatory evaluation: honey (made from honey) – honey (sweet, pleasant):honey gingerbread - honey voice;with the meaning of psychological assessment: gold (made of gold) – gold (wonderful, pleasant):golden ring - golden man;with the meaning of ethical assessment: knightly (related to a knight) – knightly (noble): knightly armor - a knightly act.

Some adjectives with the basic meaning of color designation form an evaluative meaning due to a metaphorical transfer such as “having a certain color - having a characteristic associated with this color.” Such transfers are inherent in adjectives with the meaning of psychological assessment: pink (color designation) – pink (pleasant, promising joy):pink dress - pink dreams.

Some adjectives with the meaning of sensory-gustatory evaluation (denoting taste sensations) form a metaphorical transfer of the type “having a certain taste - causing a certain evaluation”: sweet (having a taste characteristic of sugar, honey) – sweet (pleasant, pleasurable):sweet tea - sweet voice. Landowner Manilov, who had sweet eyes , like sugar, and squinting them every time, he was out of his mind.Gogol, Dead Souls. Lulled sweet hopes, an hour later he was fast asleep... Chekhov, Vanka.

Metaphor performs a characterizing function in a sentence and is focused primarily on the position of the predicate. The characterizing function is carried out through the meaning of the word. Metonymy performs an identifying function in a sentence and is focused on the position of the subject and other actants. This function is carried out through the reference of the name. Therefore, metaphor is, first of all, a shift in meaning, metonymy is a shift in reference. Metaphor and metonymy can be co-present in a sentence and are in a relationship of contrast with each other [Arutyunova 1998:370].

Conclusions.

Summarizing the analysis of the semantic structure of adjectives, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. Evaluative adjectives have a complex semantic structure.

2. Axiological meanings are represented in language by two main types: general evaluative and private evaluative.

3. Evaluative adjectives are united by certain regularities in the structure of meanings.

4. Generally evaluative adjectives are characterized by the breadth of metonymic connections, which is determined by the breadth of the scope of their use and the largest range of compatibility. Most private evaluative adjectives are also characterized by a wide range of metonymic connections.

5. Metaphorical semantics is inherent mainly in partial evaluative adjectives, for which the meaning of evaluation is derived.

Conclusion.

The study of evaluative meanings is of particular interest at the present stage of development of linguistic science, when the problem of the relationship and interaction of semantics and pragmatics has become one of the central ones.

In assessment, subjective and objective factors constantly interact, and each of them affects both the subject and the object of assessment. Thus, the subject expresses an assessment, both on the basis of his own emotions and taking into account social stereotypes, the object of assessment also implies objective properties and properties that can be assessed based on the preferences of the individual subject [Wolf 2006:203].

Assessment is connected with a person’s life activity, it crystallized as a result of his relationship with the real world, therefore, the study of assessment is impossible without turning to Man - his emotional, mental and spiritual spheres, value systems, processes of perception and cognition of the world [Sergeeva 2003:124].

In order to evaluate an object, a person must “pass” it through himself: the nature of evaluation corresponds to human nature. An idealized model (picture) of the world does not cover all of its components and parameters. This determines the boundaries of the evaluated reality, that is, those objects to which evaluative predicates are applied. What is needed (physically and spiritually) by man and Humanity is assessed. Evaluation represents a person as a goal towards which the world is directed. Its principle is “The world exists for man, not man for the world.” In this sense it is teleological. The world appears to be assessed as an environment and means for human existence. It cannot be independent of a person, and if life has a goal, evaluation is explicitly or implicitly subordinated to this goal.

Since the idealized model of the world is not as stable, reliable and tangible as the world of reality, value judgments not only participate in its creation, they also contribute to its knowledge. In this knowledge, as in the knowledge of reality, intuition plays a significant role: through a sense of goodness, a person recognizes the ideal in the real.

The concept of “good / bad” stands out among other categories due to the extreme diversity of its connections and functions. What a general evaluative predicate denotes has to do with the actual properties of objects, their compliance or non-compliance with the norm, the perception of objects, the sensations they evoke (pleasant or unpleasant), the active psychological principle of a person (his desires, aspirations, will, duty, responsibilities), to a decision and choice from a number of alternatives, to a person’s life program and the ideals of humanity, to the prescriptive function of speech, realized in certain types of speech acts (approval, encouragement, recommendation, advice, order, etc.). The concept of value performs a coordinating (between man and the world of objects), stimulating (directing activity), didactic and regulatory functions in the mechanisms of life. Evaluation is as much in the realm of reactions as it is in the realm of stimuli. It is as elusive as it is omnipresent [Arutyunova 1998:182].

Bibliography.

Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. M., 1998
Arutyunova N.D. Functional types of linguistic metaphor // Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1978
Arutyunova N.D. Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation. Event. Fact. M., 1988
Wolf E.M. Grammar and semantics of the adjective. M., 1978
Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. M., 2002
Wolf E.M. Metaphor and evaluation. M., 1988
Gibatova G.F. Semantic category of evaluation and means of its expression in modern Russian language: abstract of dissertation. ...candidate of philological sciences. – Ufa, 1996
Donetskikh L.I. Semantic originality and stylistic functions of adjectives: abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. – L., 1966.
Zainuldinov A.A. Vocabulary of positive emotional assessment in modern Russian: abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. – 1995.
Ivin A.A. Foundations of the logic of assessments. M., 1970
Kruglikova G.G. On the semantics of quantitative assessment // Language units in speech communication. L., 1991
Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology. M., 1982
Lifshits G.M. Types of polysemy in modern Russian language. M.: Max Press, 2001
Lukyanova N.A. Current problems of lexicology. Novosibirsk, 1986
Lukyanova N.A. Expressive vocabulary of colloquial use. Novosibirsk, 1986
Lyustrova Z.N. Skvortsov L.I. The world of native speech. M., 1972
Markelova T.V. Semantics of evaluation and means of its expression in the Russian language: abstract. diss. ...Dr. Philol. Sci. – M., 1996
Markelova T.V. Semantics and pragmatics of means of expressing evaluation in the Russian language. M., 1995
Nikitin M.V. Lexical meaning of the word. M., 1983
Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982
The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. M., 1988
Sergeeva L.A. Qualitative adjectives with the meaning of evaluation in modern Russian: abstract. diss. ...cand. Philol. Sci. – Saratov, 1980
Sergeeva L.A. Problems of evaluative semantics. M., 2003
Sergeeva L.A. Adjectives expressing the abstract assessment “good”, “bad” in modern Russian. M., 1986
Telia V.N. Metaphor in language and text. M.: Nauka, 1988
Telia V.N. Functional semantics. Evaluation, expressiveness, modality. M., 1996
Telia V.N. Human factor in language. Language mechanisms of expressiveness. M., 1991
Theory of metaphor / Ed. N.D.Arutyunova M., 1990
Khidekel S.S., Koshel G.G. The nature and character of language assessments. M., 1975
Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977
Schramm A.N. Essays on the semantics of qualitative adjectives. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1979

Dictionaries

32. Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1995

33. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M., 1984

34. Dictionary of synonyms / Ed. Evgenieva A.P. L., 1975

As is known, the concept of evaluation in linguistics is based on a logical-philosophical concept and comes down to the expression of a positive or negative (as well as neutral) attitude of a subject to an object (Anisimov, 1970; Vasilenko, 1964; Granin, 1987; Drobnitsky, 1978; Ivin, 1970; Kislov, 1985; Korshunov, 1977).

The logical structure of assessment assumes the presence of four main components: subject, object, basis and content of assessment (Ivin, 1970, pp. 21–27).

Let us dwell on the characteristics of each of them in relation to HIV/AIDS.

Evaluation, more than any other meaning, depends on the speaking subject. It expresses the personal opinions and tastes of the speaker, which are distinguished by diversity due to the individual preferences, feelings, acceptances and rejections of the subject.

Individual assessment is often conflicting: the speaker’s desire may conflict with duty. In other cases, the assessment is in harmony with the will of the speaker: need or necessity does not weigh on it. And although the personal factor in assessment is extremely strong, it cannot but be determined to one degree or another by the social factor: a person, being a social being, looks at the world through the prism of norms, habits, and stereotypes formed in the team. In other words, when evaluating objects or phenomena, the subject relies, on the one hand, on his attitude towards the object (“like/dislike”), and on the other, on stereotypical ideas about the object and the rating scale on which the characteristics inherent in the object are located. At the same time, the evaluative object combines subjective (subject-object relationship) and objective (properties of the object) features (Wolf, 1985, pp. 22–28).

Each cultural community has its own ideas about the norm and ideal, its own criteria for assessing a person. The different value orientations on which different cultures are based are reflected in national languages. Analysis of literary and non-fiction texts shows what kind of person this or that culture is oriented towards, what the human ideal is and how different human manifestations are assessed in this or that national cultural group.

For example, if Western culture is aimed at a person, “natural, so to speak, as he is now,” then traditional Russian culture, as a reflection of Christian Orthodox traditions, is focused on the ideal of a person. “Hence the difference in the hierarchy of values. In moral and civil terms, the top of this hierarchy in the West is human rights, a category external to the individual; in Eastern Christianity, in this highest place are the duties of a person, an internal value provided by the individual himself - primarily in the fulfillment of the commandments. In general cultural terms, the Western type strives for the success of civilization as a material sphere, while the Eastern type strives for culture as a spiritual sphere” (Nepomnyashchiy, 1999, p. 454).

In the Russian language, the object of evaluation more often becomes the “inner man,” in particular, the thinking person – homo sapiens. The basis for assessing a person’s intellectual manifestations are the criteria established in the Russian language community, which are guided to a greater or lesser extent by native speakers. These criteria are partly universal, partly nationally specific.

Of course, the evaluation criterion, like the evaluation itself, is not established once and for all, but depends on many subjective factors. “Worldview and attitude, social interests and fashion, prestige and unquotability form and deform assessments” (Arutyunova, 1984, p. 6).

In general, it must be recognized that the basis for assessing a person is a complex conglomerate of samples, ideals, norms, stereotypes existing in society, feelings, likes and dislikes of the subject.

Evaluation is about comparison and choice. In logic, all assessments are usually divided into absolute and comparative. The nature of an absolute evaluation is determined by whether it qualifies its subject as “good,” or “bad,” or “indifferent.” The nature of a comparative assessment depends on whether it establishes the superiority in value of one item over another, or whether it says that one of the items being compared is of lesser value than another, or whether it characterizes the compared items as equivalent (Ivin, 1970, p. 24). However, both assessments equally involve comparison. The only difference is that in a statement containing an absolute assessment, the comparison is implied, and in a statement with a comparative assessment, an explication of the comparison is observed.

EAT. Wolf talks about implications and explications that are typical for evaluative statements. Thus, the object of evaluation, as a rule, is expressed. On the contrary, the evaluation scale and stereotypes (and therefore comparison), which are always present in the mind of the speaker, do not find direct linguistic expression. The subject of evaluation is sometimes indicated, but is often only postulated on the basis of the form of the evaluative statement and the context.

Thus, the evaluative modal frame includes elements of three types: 1) those that are usually made explicit (object of evaluation); 2) elements, as a rule, implicit (rating scale, evaluative stereotype, aspect of evaluation); 3) elements that are implemented both explicitly and implicitly (subject of evaluation, axiological predicates, motivations for evaluations). (Wolf, 1985, p. 47).

In statements with explicit evaluation, the central component is the evaluative predicate (the content of the evaluation). A predicate is a constitutive member of a judgment, something that is expressed about an object. Its semantics contains such assessment indicators as its sign, or quality (positivity, negativity, plus or minus positivity), and quantity (degree of intensity). In most cases, quantity and sign of assessment are interrelated, since the comparison underlying the assessment involves not only identifying the opposite signs of “plus” and “minus”, but also greater or lesser saturation of the sign of a given sign of one object in comparison with another.

Subjective and objective meanings in explicit evaluative structures are in complex interaction. Yes, in statements Smart man, Talented researcher, Stupid proposal contains both descriptive and evaluative components. These two components in the description of the semantics of statements and individual words (predicates) can be separated. For example, smart V He's a smart man means “having a mind” (Ozhegov, 1984, p. 723) - this is a descriptive (describing) component of meaning. This quality in the “picture of the world” is assessed as “good”, therefore, the statement (and predicate) also contains an evaluative component (“and this is good”).

The nature of the interaction between description and evaluation in specific communication situations may be different. For example, description (description of an objective state of affairs) is the main goal of the speaker - then evaluation in relation to the descriptive meaning is secondary. Purely descriptive statements can also have an evaluative meaning if the state of affairs described in them in the speaker’s picture of the world is regarded as good or bad. On the other hand, evaluative intention can be basic, and then evaluation becomes primary in relation to description. Thus, evaluative meaning is present in both evaluative and descriptive statements.

There are various classifications of estimated values.

Depending on the sign of the assessment, that is, on the nature of the subject’s relationship to the object, assessments are divided into positive, neutral and negative. The invariant of the value of a positive assessment should be considered the value “plus positivity”, the invariant of the value of a negative assessment – the value “minus positivity” (Pocheptsov, 1976, pp. 199–200). The equilibrium between these invariants can be considered a neutral assessment.

Depending on the number of objects being assessed and the presence or absence of comparison, assessments are divided into absolute and comparative. Absolute assessments are expressed by the basic operators “good – neutral – bad”, comparative – “better – equivalent – worse”. With an absolute assessment, comparison is present in the mind of the subject and does not receive explicit linguistic expression.

Depending on the nature of the basis - sensual or rationalistic - assessments can be emotional and intellectual (rational). S. Bally notes that the transition between emotional and intellectual assessments is almost imperceptible (Bally, 1955, p. 209). At the same time, emotional assessment is characterized by spontaneity, while intellectual assessment is the result of a thinking process.

Depending on the number of comparisons, assessments can be general or specific. For general assessments, only the sign is important; they are indifferent to all other components of evaluative reasoning and allow a basis that includes several norms at the same time, without naming any of them. For example, good report - this and interesting, And smart, And logical etc.

To express a general assessment in the Russian language there are special means, which include words whose main meaning is “axiological result” (Arutyunova, 1984, p. 12): good - bad, good - bad and their synonyms.

Private assessments are numerous and varied. For them, the basis of assessment is important, which is unique (as opposed to general assessments) and is determined by individual and social stereotypes of native speakers.

Depending on the nature of the bases, private estimates are divided into groups, the number of which varies in the studies of different linguists (see: Arutyunova, 1988a, pp. 64–77). “The classification of privately assessed values is difficult due to the unclear boundaries separating concepts such as object, basis and method of establishing an assessment” (Arutyunova, 1984, p. 12).

Some assessments of a person’s intellectual manifestations are rationalistic assessments, and some are emotional. At the same time, these estimates can be expressed as general ( The student is good. – In meaning: smart) and private ( The student is smart; He's talented), absolute ( He is a great student) and comparative ( He is worse than other students) and have a different sign: positive ( He is smart), negative ( He's stupid) or neutral ( Normal student, more or less). Assessment of intelligence can be expressed spontaneously or be the result of thinking, analysis, long-term observation of the subject’s manifestations (Cf.: Class! Good girl! in a situation of everyday communication as a reaction to human actions. – Personality is not only a rational being, but also a free being(N. Berdyaev) as a result of philosophical understanding of human nature).

Explicit evaluation is expressed at all levels of the language system. But the most common means of its representation are lexical and syntactic.

Lexical means of expressing evaluation include unambiguous words (nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs) that have a direct evaluative meaning, which, according to their semantics, is the main one (for example, smart, stupid); polysemous words that can have several evaluative meanings (for example, words with the same signs: bad, unprofitable etc. and words with opposite signs: impudent, rollicking etc.), and also have an evaluative value along with another, non-evaluative one (for example, close-minded, golden and so on.).

The evaluative meaning in words that have a non-evaluative meaning along with the evaluative one can be basic or non-basic. For example, in the word great the basic evaluative meaning in the word windy - not the main thing.

According to the observations of scientists (S. Akopova, L.A. Devlisupova, E.M. Emelyanenko, L.V. Lebedeva, Ya.I. Roslovets, V.I. Senkevich, G.A. Bobrova, etc.) the estimated value as figurative is expressed by nouns that name characters in literary works and historical figures ( Tartuffe, Judas), birds, fish, animals, trees, etc. ( dog, snake, oak etc.), household items ( rag, cork etc.), food products ( cucumber, morel etc.).

Evaluative nouns in a figurative meaning, as N.D. writes. Arutyunov, are used not so much to identify an object, but to give the referent some characteristic, express one’s attitude towards it or influence it. N.D. Arutyunova explains this by the fact that the main part of their semantic content indicates not the objective characteristics of a person, but the speaker’s attitude towards him, that is, an assessment (Arutyunova, 1976, p. 343). Among polysemantic words that, in addition to other meanings, have evaluative meanings, there are many adjectives (for example, world, heavenly and etc.).

Polysemantic words in which the evaluative meaning appears only as part of certain constructions (for example, It's good to be able to hit the target; It's bad when you can't grasp the main thing).

Lexical means of expressing evaluation, in addition to words with an evaluative meaning, include words that do not have an evaluative meaning in their semantics, but acquire it in the context, in a specific communicative situation. In principle, any word in certain communicative conditions with the participation of paralinguistic means can acquire an evaluative meaning. For example, a higher register and rising intonation indicate a positive assessment, a lower register and descending intonation indicate a negative assessment (see: Roslovets, 1973, p. 73); Facial expressions and gestures contribute to the acquisition of evaluative meaning by words and statements in general (it is known that they can generally replace statements). For example: But what talent, what strength!(A.P. Chekhov) – positive assessment; What kind of talent am I? Squeezed lemon(A.P. Chekhov) – negative assessment; gesture of twirling a finger at the temple - negative assessment; a raised thumb when the rest are clenched into a fist is a positive assessment. Along with intonation, the appearance of an evaluative meaning is signaled by function words ( Well, what a book! Report to me too).

Communication and speech context, intonation, gestures and facial expressions can change the sign of assessment to the opposite (for example, It's called a good report!; Genius!– in a situation of negative assessment).

Not only the qualitative side of the assessment is expressed through various means, but also the quantitative side, that is, the degree of its intensity. Intensifiers and deintensifiers of assessment are various linguistic (lexical, word-formative, morphological, syntactic), paralinguistic and non-linguistic means (cf.: slow-witted - stupid, smart - the smartest, weak - the weakest, Fool in situations of everyday and official business communication).

Thus, the means of expressing explicit evaluation in Russian are varied. Evaluative meaning is formed by the action of multi-level units of language, as well as paralinguistic and non-linguistic satellites of speech.

However, the content of the assessment in speech may be hidden, not expressed by linguistic and paralinguistic means, that is, the assessment may be the result of indirect, meaningfully complicated communication, “in which the understanding of the utterance includes meanings not contained in the utterance itself and requires additional interpretative efforts on the part of the addressee , being irreducible to simple recognition (identification) of a sign” (Dementyev, 2000, p. 4).

In modern linguistic research, indirection is associated, firstly, with the intentional level of utterance (indirect utterances in the theory of speech acts, indirect tactics and speech masks of genres in modern genreology, etc.); secondly, some ways of representing reality in words (figurative meanings, imagery) are called indirect; thirdly, they talk about indirection as a constitutive feature of certain types of texts (proverbs, parables, fables). There are points of intersection between these types of indirection: any indirection presupposes a hint on the part of the speaker, which must be heard and interpreted by the addressee (Orlova, 1999, p. 92).

An indirect assessment of a person, in particular, an assessment of his intelligence, also requires additional interpretative efforts on the part of the addressee.

Indirect evaluation “is derived from the explicit content of a linguistic unit as a result of its interaction with the knowledge of the recipient of the text, including information drawn by this recipient from the context and situation of communication” (Fedosyuk, 1988, p. 12).

If, during an explicit assessment, the evaluative predicate is verbalized and the conjugation of dictum and mode is observed, then there is a proposition, according to T.V. Shmeleva, has the double ability to compose both a dictum and a mode of an utterance (Shmeleva, 1988, p. 39), then with an implied assessment, a non-verbalized, “inferred” evaluative predicate, the dictum and modus sides of the utterance do not formally touch: the mode, in contrast to the dictum , is present invisibly in the statement (Cf.: He's stupid. – He can’t solve a single problem).

The problem of explicit and implicit expression of evaluation is directly related to the issue of direct and indirect evaluative speech acts.

We call an utterance constructed on the basis of an evaluative proposition and having evaluative illocutionary force direct evaluative statement(For example: He's a fool; He is smart. – The speaker's goal is to evaluate the person's intelligence). Indirect evaluative statements we will consider those in which the evaluative proposition is not expressed, in which, according to J. Searle, the speaker “has in mind both the direct meaning of what is being expressed and, in addition, something more... In such cases, a sentence containing indicators of illocutionary force for one type illocutionary act, can be pronounced to carry out, in addition, an illocutionary act of another type” (Searle, 1986 a, p. 195). Yes, the statement There are many inaccuracies in your reasoning contains two illocutionary forces: 1) the speaker reports the presence of shortcomings in the answer; 2) the speaker negatively evaluates the intellectual actions of the addressee; the assessment is indirect, it is veiled by the illocution of the message; message is an explicitly expressed presupposition of an implicit assessment.

Obviously, the indirectness of an evaluative statement is based on the fact that the addressee can extract from the statement “significantly more information than is contained in it as a language education” (Dolinin, 1983, p. 37).

There is no consensus among linguists about whether an indirect statement realizes only a pragmatic meaning or retains its own meaning. The problem of the relationship of indirect communication to language is considered in detail by V.V. Dementiev (Dementiev, 2000).

Since the derivation of the implicit meaning of a statement is carried out through correlating it with the explicitly expressed meaning, it is advisable, in our opinion, to say that an indirect statement does not completely lose its own meaning (for example, a statement I need to look at my textbook more often. qualifies both as advice and as an implicit assessment of intellectual manifestations).

So, the evaluative meaning of a statement can be either explicit or implicit, which is associated with the verbalization/non-verbalization of the evaluative predicate. The implicit assessment is, as a rule, in a post-supposition, being a consequence of an explicitly designated situation (cf.: He defended his doctoral dissertation. - He is a smart man; He failed all his exams at school. – He has low intelligence). The evaluation in a direct evaluative statement is located in the proposition (dictum), in an indirect one it forms the modus part of the statement (cf.: The boy is smart. – The boy can’t cope with the school curriculum).

The form of expression of assessment (directly or indirectly) is determined by non-linguistic factors: the communication situation, cultural traditions, personal characteristics of the speaker.

Intersecting with the problem of direct and indirect expression of evaluation is the question of the representation of a person as an object of evaluation in statements.

It is known that the human sphere is characterized by partitive nominations (see: Ufimtseva, 1986; Sedova, 1999), the use of which in statements of different types shows that a person is perceived by speakers not only holistically, but also partially (cf.: person - eyes, face, action). And the assessment can relate to a person as a whole or to a separate manifestation of him: to an action, words, result of activity, appearance, etc. ( His action is stupid; The speech is smart; He has a smart face; The essay is smart).

A positive or negative assessment of a “whole” person is not equivalent to a corresponding assessment of his individual “parts” ( Clever boy does not necessarily imply that He has a smart face, His writing is smart etc.), and vice versa, a positive or negative assessment of a particular manifestation does not mean that the assessment of the same quality applies to the person as a whole ( He did a stupid thing not equivalent He is stupid; Report smart not equivalent Smart man).

We can say that this or that assessment of individual manifestations of a person is not a sufficient basis for attributing it to the person as a whole; it only indirectly characterizes a holistic personality, suggesting that a separate manifestation of a particular quality is not accidental and is determined by the general characteristics of a person (for example: A stupid person is unlikely to write an intelligent essay; A smart person cannot act so stupidly. But: A smart person sometimes commits rash acts; A stupid person can sometimes be smart).

These observations led us to the need to outline a circle of evaluative statements on the basis of which we can make generalizations and conclusions regarding the image of homo sapiens in language.

Let's define these statements.

A direct evaluative statement about a person's intelligence - this is a statement of an evaluative propositional structure organized by the evaluative predicate IS, which defines a “whole” person (POV).

We call the utterance of an evaluative propositional structure organized by an evaluative predicate IS defining a “partial” person a direct evaluative statement that indirectly characterizes a person’s intelligence (POV-K).

We define a statement with a non-verbalized, “inferred” evaluative predicate IS as an indirect evaluative statement about a person’s intelligence and intellectual manifestations (IW). We also include as indirect evaluative statements those statements in which the verbalized evaluative predicate is included in unreal modal structures ( You should wise up!; If only you were a little smarter!; Don't be stupid!).

Direct and indirect evaluative statements are distinguished by the degree of intensity of evaluation. If you arrange these statements in accordance with the intensity scale, you will get the following gradation chain:

The above can be presented in table form:

In POV, the evaluative predicate IS can be not only a central, but also a peripheral component of the content structure (cf.: He's stupid. “Everyone is tired of him with his stupid speeches.”), which is determined by the actual division of the sentence. If the evaluative predicate is in the topic, that is, it is included in the “starting point of the statement” (Kovtunova, 1976, p. 6), then we can talk about the peripherality of the evaluation. When the evaluative predicate is included in the rheme, that is, it is the “communicative center of the utterance” (Kovtunova, 1976, p. 8), the evaluation qualifies as the central component of the utterance.

The central and peripheral location of the evaluative predicate is directly related to the question of whether the evaluative illocutionary goal of the utterance is dominant or whether it accompanies the speaker's other main goals. If the speaker's main goal is evaluation, the evaluative predicate is located at the center of the utterance. The peripheral position of the evaluative predicate, as a rule, indicates that the speaker puts other goals in the foreground, and the evaluation accompanies them (cf.: The remark is stupid. - Everyone is tired of his stupid remarks).

The choice of direct or indirect form of HHIV is made by the speaker depending on the conditions of communication. People talk about intelligence in different situations, both programmed for assessment and those not related to the need for this kind of assessment: it becomes the subject of discussion in fiction and journalism, in scientific articles and everyday dialogues. This explains the stylistic diversity of the observed statements, which in turn ensures the reliability of conclusions about the characteristic features of the image of homo sapiens in the Russian YKM.