The relevance of research. The problem of appraisal seems to be extremely relevant. Evaluation is one of the most important linguistic categories involved in the organization of language communication. In modern linguistic literature, different aspects of the study of evaluation are presented, there are various approaches to understanding evaluation. The complexity of this issue is related to the versatility of human evaluation activity.

Download:

Preview:

FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION

GOU VPO "NOVOSIBIRSK STATE

PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY"

INSTITUTE OF PHILOLOGY, MASS INFORMATION AND

PSYCHOLOGY

Faculty of Philology

Department of Modern Russian Language

Gergel Irina Anatolievna

Adjectives expressing positive

person rating:

functional-semantic aspect

(graduate work)

Supervisor:

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor O.A. Novoselova

Work admitted

to the defense "____" _______________ 2010

supervisor

___________________________________

Head department _______________________

Job protected

"___" _________________ 2010

rated "________________"

Chairman of the SAC ___________

Members of the SAC_________________

__________________________

__________________________

Novosibirsk

2010

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

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

1. Evaluation definition………………………………………………………..4
2. Assessment Structure………………………………………………………..10
3. Types of assessments……………………………………………………………...15
4. Metaphor and evaluation………………………………………………………….22

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

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

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

2.2. Particularly evaluative adjectives of a positive assessment……………..36

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

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

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

References………………………………………………………………..56

Introduction

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

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

The relevance of research.The problem of appraisal seems to be extremely relevant. Evaluation is one of the most important linguistic categories involved in the organization of language communication. In modern linguistic literature, different aspects of the study of evaluation are presented, there are various approaches to understanding evaluation. The complexity of this issue is related to the versatility of human evaluation activities.

Objective: consider adjectives expressing a positive assessment of a person in a functional-semantic aspect.

Tasks:

1. Consider the concept of language assessment, its structure, classification of assessment types.
2. Reveal the place of the evaluative component in the semantic structure of adjective names.
3. Describe general and specific adjectives.
4. Consider polysemantic evaluative adjectives from the point of view of the possibility of manifestation of verbal ambiguity.

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

Material for workexplanatory dictionaries served as texts of fiction of the 19-20 centuries. A total of contexts were analyzed.

Novelty consists in the principles of description and systematization of the estimated values ​​of the adjective, as well as in the nature and volume of the studied material. 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 the seme of a positive evaluation is considered.

Research methods.The main method used in the work is the method of primary linguistic description, which consists in the selection, systematization and description of linguistic material. The semantic characteristics of evaluative tools determines the use of component analysis techniques (based on dictionary entries and contextual realization of the meaning of the 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". The factual material can be the object of study in the 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 evaluation. The main provisions of the study.

1.1. The definition of the score.

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 [Katsnelson, 1972], when “the ontology of what is happening is modeled as a system of concepts reconstructed according to the data of the language” [Arutyunova, 1988], the study of assessments that develop in practical activities people is of particular importance.

For the first time, the range of problems associated with the study of evaluation was identified by Aristotle. In his opinion, in order to describe the category of evaluation, it is necessary, firstly, to identify the types of objects that can receive evaluation qualifications, and secondly, to identify contexts for evaluation concepts (“good”, “happiness”, “pleasure”), and thirdly, to explicate the meanings of evaluative predicates. In the future, these problems were tried to be solved in the light of various research approaches.

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

Representatives of the functional-semantic direction [Wolf, Klobukov, Markelova] consider the category of evaluation as functional-semantic and aim to study the system of linguistic means that perform the evaluation function.

Proponents of the functional-pragmatic approach [Shakhovsky, Telia, Apresyan, Sklyarevskaya and others] solve a whole range of problems related to the functioning of evaluative language tools

In recent decades, in connection with the emergence and development of new scientific paradigms, there have been other approaches to the study of evaluation. Thus, the 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, evaluation is considered as a factor structuring its core (N.V. Ufimtseva, O.A. Golubkova) and forming a “value picture of the world” (Yu.N. Karaulov, E.S. Yakovleva).

Summarizing the above, it can be noted that the assessment has been sufficiently studied in the lexico-semantic system of the language, but remains little studied in its cognitive mechanisms, in terms of the correlation of 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 language processes can be studied only with the help of the psychological theory of language. At the same time, “the features 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 that takes place in a linguistic form, but also participate in its creation” [Sergeeva 2003: 3].

The most important feature of the assessment is that it always contains a subjective factor that interacts with the objective. An evaluative statement, even if the subject of evaluation is not directly expressed in it, implies a value relationship between the subject and the object. Any 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 refers. “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 implies 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/dislike, approve/disapprove, etc.), while the objective (descriptive, indicative) component of the assessment is guided by the own properties of objects or phenomena, on the basis of which the assessment is made.

Evaluative definitions always assume object properties; compare:This film is good; This road is bad; This is an unsuitable 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 evaluation presuppose the existence of both factors - subjective and objective. So, when it comes towarm/cold waterboth the properties of the water itself and the sensations of the subject are implied. sayingsI learned wonderful, amazing news and I learned sensational, interesting newsinclude both actual evaluative (subjective) and descriptive (objective) meanings, and in the first example, the relation of the subject 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 are inseparable. This applies both to the semantics of individual words and to whole statements containing evaluation [Wolf 2002:22].

The attitude of the subject to the object can be very different, the object can be assessed from the point of view of its compliance or non-compliance with the standard, or the aesthetic ideal, or ethical norms, from the point of view of its fame-obscurity, need-uselessness, usefulness-harmfulness, convenience-inconvenience, the point of view of the emotion it evokes, and so on.

The assessment itself, like no other category related to a person, is conditioned 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. taking place around him, and interacts with them in a complex way. The interaction of a person with the outside world necessarily presupposes and includes a variety of human relationships to the objects and phenomena surrounding him. Awareness of these relations 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 the attitude of a person to something expressed in verbal form (to an object, phenomenon, process, state, to oneself, to another person, etc.) [Schramm 1979:39]

Usually, in various works of a linguistic, philosophical, logical nature, evaluation is associated with the establishment of a value relationship between subject and object. Understanding value as everything that has human, social and cultural significance, we define evaluation as a positive or negative characteristic of an object, due to the 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 attribute "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 object with a chosen standard” [Kruglikova 1991:81]. Thus, the concept of evaluation in the broad sense also includes quantitative evaluations, evaluations of quantities.

Evaluation as a value aspect of meaning is present in different linguistic units (expressions), covers a wide range of linguistic units, and each level of the linguistic 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 view of the world, scientists began to talk about the presence of a third, intermediate area, separated or separating from the ontology of the world - the sphere of life. It is with the latter that the evaluation is connected. 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 temporal 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, evaluating, a person correlates the real state of affairs with some idealized model of the world and expresses his own opinion about the facts, his perception of them.

Evaluation is due not to the primary (ontological), but to the secondary (subjective) division of the world, “which is based not 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 life. » [Vasiliev 1996:56].

Any assessment is someone's assessment, and in this sense it is subjective. The inclusion in the cognitive process of the needs, tastes, interests of a person, his mental, physical and intellectual capabilities 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 relation is not yet a condition of evaluation. So, many types of subjective attitudes - surprise, distrust, etc. - are not associated with the assessment. Evaluation is the result of the manifestation of a special, value-based attitude of the subject to the 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 assessment is made [Ivin 1970: 25; Vichev 1972:150; Markelova 1996 and others].

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

An assessment can be considered only such an opinion about an object that expresses the characteristics of the latter through its correlation with the 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. Summarizing the diverse approaches to the analysis of assessments, she identified two areas. The first reflects the "breadth" and "narrowness" of points of view: from "omnipresence" (N.D. Arutyunova) and a comprehensive character: "any 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 the estimated value (N.N. Kholodov). The second direction reflects the coexistence in the language system of onomasiological and modus approaches to evaluative meaning. 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 continuity, interrelation 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 evaluation, emotionality and expressiveness as categories of functional, psychological and reflective (V.K. Kharchenko).

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

1.2. Assessment structure.

The assessment is characterized by a special structure containing a number of mandatory and optional elements. This structure in the logic of evaluations is presented as a modal frame that is superimposed on the statement and does not coincide with either its logical-semantic construction 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 evaluation structure is much more complex and includes a number of other components: classifiers, various means of intensification and de-intensification, comparison motivations, etc., which reflect its complex structure [Wolf 2006:11].

Under the subject a certain assessment is understood as a person (a 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.

For example, there are no houses that are suitable or good at all, but only suitable for someone, one person or many, or almost all people who evaluate them.

The need to assign each evaluation to a subject or, as this operation is sometimes called, the relativization of evaluation, should not be considered as an argument in favor of the idea of ​​relativity of evaluations or relativism in evaluation. 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 exactly something is good, i.e. relativize the assessment by indicating the person expressing it.

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

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

To what exactly is a positive value attributed in an evaluation? For example, in the evaluation expressed by the words "this apple is good"? An apple has many properties, and each of them can be the subject of evaluation. A positive assessment of an apple expressed by some subject may not be in conflict with another subject's assessment, according to which the same apple is bad, because when they talk about an apple, they really mean its 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 apple itself is not the subject of assessments, but its individual properties or a combination of properties, which, however, may not find expression in the formulations of assessments.

All estimates can be divided into two groups. The first of these includes absolute evaluations, in the formulations of which such terms as "good", "bad", "good", "evil", "indifferent" are used. In the second - comparative evaluations expressed using such terms as "better", "worse", "equivalent".

The nature of the absolute evaluation is determined by whether it qualifies its subject as "good", or as "bad", or as "indifferent". The subject of an absolute assessment may be another absolute or comparative assessment: “I did a bad thing by condemning this”, “it’s good that good is better than evil”, etc.

The nature of comparative evaluation depends on whether it establishes the superiority in value of one item over another, or whether it says that one of the compared items has a lower value than the other, or whether it characterizes the compared items as equivalent. Some assessments can also be the subjects of a 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 denote (expressed in the language) the establishment of a value relationship between the subject and the object. By value, or good, it is customary to understand everything that is the object of desire, need, aspiration, interest, etc.

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

Heraclitus argued that the same thing can be in opposite relations 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: “Each assessment is not only an assessment of something, but also an assessment that takes something into account” [Ivin 1970:27].

Under the basis of evaluation is understood the position or those arguments that incline the subjects to approve, condemn or express indifference in connection with different things.

A.A. Ivin proposes to divide the bases of assessments into several types.

A large group of estimates has as its basis somefeeling or feeling.A typical example of this kind of evaluation is the "I love it" evaluation. It is usually understood as an expression of pure feeling. Another example would be an evaluation such as "This item is good because it gives me pleasure." Estimates that are expressions of feelings of sympathy, antipathy, inclination, indifference, etc., could be called internal.

The basis of the assessment can be not only a feeling, but also somemodel, ideal, standard.Usually, when we say about a certain knife that it is good, without any further qualification, we evaluate it precisely in terms of some standard that we think every knife must meet in order to be judged positively.

The basis of the estimate may be some other estimate. Some of the estimates of this type are calledexternal or utilitarian:the subject under consideration is assigned a positive, negative or zero value not in itself, but as a means of achieving or eliminating some other things that are evaluated positively or negatively [Ivin 1970: 21-31].

The basis of the assessment is the most general and essential side of a particular assessment. It depends on him, he determines the scale of assessments from which the word expressing the assessment is selected. In other words, the nature of the assessment is its particular manifestation within the framework determined by this basis of assessment. For example, an assessment in terms of the feeling of pleasure / displeasure caused by the object (the basis of assessment) is expressed using the wordsdelightful - pleasant - unpleasant - disgusting;and the nature of the assessment - a delightful evening, a pleasant memory, an unfortunate error - is determined by the choice of one of the words of this scale.

A word with an evaluative meaning does not name an attribute that objectively belongs to the object, but such a characteristic of it that determines how the subject of evaluation relates to the object. Therefore, an assessment is always a subjective-objective category, the criteria of truth or falsity are not applicable to it. The same subject can be evaluated differently by different people. Moreover, one and the same person can evaluate the same object based on its own different features (for example:he is a good worker but a bad father). Estimates of the same subject may change in different periods of his life.

A necessary condition for this or that assessment of a particular 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 certain assessment of specific objects of a particular class [Shramm 1979:40].

The above elements of the scoring structure correspond to the scoring components in the logical view. However, in natural language, the evaluation structure is much more complex and includes a number of other components. Thus, the subject and object are often connected by axiological predicates, primarily the predicates of opinion, sensation, perception (count, put, seem, regard and etc.); compare: I find this unacceptable; Your act 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 (the main variable), which determines the features of the object by which it is evaluated: good cook, the aspect is related to the function; good weather, aspect of the assessment - a number of signs of the situation "weather". An evaluative statement may also include optional elements - motivations, classifiers, various means of intensification and de-intensification. In a comparative assessment, additional elements are included in the modal frame - what it is being compared with, the sign by which the comparison is made, the motivations for the comparison, etc. As can be seen, the evaluation structure consists of many elements that reflect its complex structure [Wolf 1978:12].

1.3. Types of assessments.

Few types of assessments were usually distinguished in early works on ethics and axiology. The general classification of good in Aristotle was reduced 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 a desired end, and good as a means; what do we mean by the words “useful, beneficial”; we have just 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: goodness as a means and goodness as an end, or otherwise, relative and absolute.

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

The most complete classification of estimates was proposed by von Wright. It is made in line with the 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 skill assessments (good administrator, bad specialist), 3) favorable assessments (bad, unhealthy), 4) utilitarian assessments (the previous type can be considered as a special case of utilitarian assessments): good advice, bad plan, 5) medical assessments 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 favorable environment. Von Wright does not believe that his classification exhausts all the diversity of the use of evaluative predicates. We are talking about the allocation of support categories [Arutyunova 1998:187].

The classification of evaluative predicates can be based on 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 value nature of the object being evaluated. The value picture of the world does not include all objects, phenomena and especially events that exist in reality, since not all of them are included in the sphere of human vital interests. In this regard, good means “corresponding to an idealized model of the macro- or microworld”, which is perceived as the goal of a person’s being, and, consequently, his activity; bad - means "does not correspond to this model in one of its inherent parameters"; 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 a positive and negative assessment, an indifferent attitude towards the object is distinguished. Sometimes it is called neutral [Wolf: 1985], or zero [Khidekel, Koshel 1981:7] estimate.

The zone of positive and negative assessments is located on opposite sides of a certain starting point on the assessment scale. At the same time, emotional-subjective assessments prevail within the positive zone, while negative assessments are more often assessments “from the object”, since they usually contain indications of the properties of the object being evaluated [Wolf 1985:20], which is reflected in the values ​​representing them.

The distinction between positive and negative evaluations is conceptual in nature: concepts that are incompatible with each other cannot be evaluated in the same way, 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 close connection between positive and negative assessments and the category of negation: the denial of a positive assessment gives a negative one and vice versa, however, this provision is true only in relation to a rational assessment - in the field of emotional assessments, antonymic relations, like synonymic ones, are traced inconsistently.

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

The second line of conceptual differences between estimated values ​​is related to the distinction between general and particular estimates. As already mentioned, the estimated values ​​ultimately have an axiological nature. They reflect various aspects of values:useful / harmful, good / badetc. or their psychological perception:interesting / uninteresting, pleasant / unpleasantand others. In turn, the psychological perception of values ​​can be colored by the modality of obligation (to act properly). All these types of values ​​are referred to as private estimates, i.e. to those that reflect the criteria (grounds) of assessments. On the other hand, values ​​representing a general assessment are distinguished, they do not reflect the basis of the assessment and therefore can have either an axiological or psychological interpretation:good/bad, delightful/disgustingetc. - often they are called actual evaluation.

General and particular 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 able to characterize a variety of objects. In this case, the assessment is given on the basis of a set of heterogeneous properties and should be a kind of balance of positive and negative factors. General assessments more clearly than private ones express the accompanying utterance illocutionary force of recommendation or approval, prohibition or condemnation.

Partial evaluations 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 the general ones, and are not capable of qualifying all types of objects [Gibatova 1996: 7].

General evaluative words are only the most general and comprehensive interpretation of evaluative meanings, which are conditioned by the relation 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 of evaluation (pleasant - unpleasant, useful - harmfuletc.) or object properties (scoundrel, shamelessetc.) [Sergeeva 2003:106].

Estimates are thus divided into general and particular. In addition, there are rational and emotional assessments.

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 ideas of the subject of assessment about the standard, the norm; rational assessment is an assessment-thought:immoral behavior, harmful work, immoral act, bad products.

Emotional assessment is associated with the subjective-personal perception of the object, the emotional impression of it, it is determined by the “unusualness of the object”, “protrusion” [V.N.Telia] of it from the usual series:not a man, but a sourdough; amazing performance.The phrase "emotional evaluation" refers to multi-level phenomena. At the extralinguistic level, emotional evaluation 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 some object reflected and fixed in the semantics of a linguistic sign as its micro-meaning, or seme.

Evaluation, presented as the correlation of a word with an assessment, and emotionality, associated with the emotions, feelings of the speaker, do not constitute two different components of meaning, they are one, just as assessment and emotion are inseparable at the extralinguistic 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. Evaluation, as it were, “absorbs” the corresponding emotion, and the parameters of emotion and evaluation coincide: “pleasant” - “good”, “unpleasant” - “bad”. Dictionary labels approved, affectionate, disapproved, neglected, contempt. etc. denote the corresponding emotional reactions of the speaker in relation to the subject of speech, and the assessment is, as it were, hidden in emotions, and in specific statements they “unfold” to a greater or lesser extent [Lukyanova 1986:45].

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

In natural language there can be no purely emotional evaluation, since language as such always presupposes a rational aspect. Nevertheless, the ways of expressing the two types of evaluation in the language differ, showing which principle underlies the judgment about the value of an object - emotional or rational.

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

According to E.M. Wolf, there are at least three opinions about the ratio of rational (or intellectual) and 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 the position that the emotional side in speech is primary, and the rational side is secondary. The second opinion [N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf et al.] boils 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 being actualized in speech. According to the third opinion, these two types of assessments are "intertwined" only in ontology, in language mapping they are quite clearly separated along two semantic poles - the rational one tends to 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 some 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 actual emotional assessment, "filmed" in the language in the form of feelings-relations. This assessment is called emotive. Emotivity has as its content such a feeling-attitude that has illocutionary power, 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 both to the names themselves and to the statements in which they are included [Telia 1996:31,37].

In natural language, there can be no purely emotional evaluation, since language always implies a rational aspect. Thus, the division of purely emotional and purely rational in language is conditional. Nevertheless, the ways of expressing the two types of evaluation in the language differ, showing which principle underlies 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 the solution of a whole range of problems. Firstly, it is necessary to answer the question of what processes occur during the metaphorization of estimated values, which of them are capable of metaphorization, and which are not. Secondly, it is necessary to identify the types of non-evaluative metaphorical meanings that are capable of acquiring the value of an evaluation, and to describe the patterns of the process of producing an evaluative meaning. Next, it is necessary to identify the types of mental metaphorical structures and ways of their linguistic interpretation, i.e. to answer the question of how the nature of metaphorized concepts and their lexical representation influence this process. Answers to these questions can be obtained only by considering the essence of metaphor.

A metaphor is created by attributing the attributes of an auxiliary subject to the main subject, and the metaphor itself is oriented towards the position of the predicate [Arutyunova, 1999]. For example, in a metaphorical expression blind rain the main subject of the metaphor is rain, and the auxiliary 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 and cultural specificity of standards - carriers of different signs-connotations. Connotations are stable qualification features fixed in the image (physical, consistential, functional, dynamic, relational, subjective-psychological, etc.). For example, milk, snow are the standards of the prototypical trait "white". Thus, a connotation is a conceptual and figurative analogue of a certain predicative meaning. Connotations form the conceptual base for subsequent metaphorical transfers. Evaluative connotations are semes that are included in the semantics of language 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" - a negative connotation:dark deeds, black envy, black thoughts[Sergeeva 2003:85].

In modern linguistics, interest in metaphor has flared up in connection with the discussion of the problems of the 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 terms of phenomena of semantic irregularity, which occurs as a result of deliberate violation of the patterns of semantic combination of words. At the same time, it is sometimes noted that the interpretation of a metaphor requires the involvement of extralinguistic knowledge: for its understanding, a dictionary is just as necessary as an encyclopedia. Some researchers, on the contrary, reject or minimize the role of the extralinguistic factor in the formation of a metaphor and build a theory of metaphor only in terms of the semantic structure of a word [Arutyunova 1998]. D. Bickerton relies on the concept of a specific attribute - a special quality attributed to the denotation of a linguistic sign. So, 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). Tokens, the meaning of which includes an indication of such attributes, are subject to metaphorization.

The linguistic theory of metaphor, according to N.D. Arutyunova, 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 originality. Specific vocabulary has more individualizing possibilities than predicates. Metaphor individualizes an object by referring it to a class to which it does not belong. She's running on a category error

[Arutyunova 1998:348].

The structure of the 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, a 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, indeed, of the subject itself. Figurative meanings of general evaluative words, such asgood, fineetc., in the presence of an ironic intonation, they can only change the sign of the assessment. On the other hand, many originally metaphorical meanings became the main ones due to the loss of an auxiliary subject, the properties of which motivated the meaning of the metaphor.

Two types of evaluative metaphors should be distinguished. The first type includes antonymic pairs of meanings that have a constant connection with one of the marks of evaluation:light/dark, high/low.In this case, evaluative connotations are characteristic of adjectives themselves as lexical units, and evaluation is included in the metaphorical concepts of such adjectives. Some adjectives originally exist as metaphors, such as: hardheaded.

The second type of evaluative metaphors is represented by adjectives, which in their direct meanings indicate the descriptive properties of objects and acquire evaluative meanings only in combination with certain nouns: slightly warm tea (this is bad, since tea should normally be hot). In such cases, direct (neutral) meanings can provoke various evaluative associations in texts, and the metaphorical concept only provides a basis for evaluative rethinking. In many cases, the same figurative means, in combination with units of different semantics, forms metaphorical meanings of a different evaluative or neutral nature. The evaluative meaning is acquired not by the adjective itself, but by the nominal group in which it is included, and in this case the denotation of the name should 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 a 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 fame.On the other hand, some "innate" estimates, for example,hot Cold, which have a minus sign on the rating scale, can be used as intensifiers of phenomena positively assessed in the language picture of the world, for example:warm approval[Wolf 1998:56].

Metaphor is a sensory projection of analogy, since 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 of evaluative metaphors by linguistic means [Sergeeva 2003: 85].

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

Findings.

In linguistics of the XX century. views on the category of assessment have changed. In the first half of the 20th century, the 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, speech-thinking problems.

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

Looking at the structure of assessments, one can see that assessment is presented as a modal framework that includes a number of mandatory and peripheral elements. The assessment has its own structure and its structural components, which are divided into the subject of assessment, the object of assessment, nature and basis.

The types of evaluative vocabulary are diverse and therefore they have been systematized. There are: general evaluation and private evaluation (according to the degree of correlation between the objective and subjective in them), 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 of evaluation. Some figurative language evaluative means initially exist only in a figurative sense [Sergeeva 2003:121].

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

2.1. General evaluation adjectives of a positive evaluation.

The complexity of the semantic structure of evaluative adjectives is due to their diversity. The content of an evaluative adjective as a sign cannot be considered outside the scope of its use, in other words, it (the content) entirely depends on the scope of its use. The breadth of the semantic structure of adjectives has been repeatedly noted 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 draw a conclusion about the semantic dependence of adjectives, or, in other words, about its synsemanticity. Another position boils down to recognizing the mutual influence of the semantics of the adjective and the noun: “... if we analyze the 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” [Lifshitz 2001:26].

The name adjective denotes a sign of an object - often a very general, abstract property of it, and this property usually has very few of its own signs, and they often turn out to be 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 of associative representations.[Schramm 1979:39]

In linguistic evaluative structures, subjective and objective properties are in a complex interaction. Considering expressions such asred, ripe, round apple; large square vintage painting,it is obvious that they are talking about those features of objects that are their own properties. On the other hand, combinations such asgood apple, wonderful picture,report not about the properties of the objects themselves, but about those that the subject of evaluation ascribes to them. The first row of adjectives can be called descriptive, the second - evaluative.

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

The question of the differentiation of the two series of features and their relationship to each other is highly controversial.

The subjective and objective components of the evaluative meaning in the language are a dialectical unity with very complex and changing relationships within each series of linguistic units. The connection between the descriptive and evaluative meanings in the meanings of words is most clearly manifested in the system of adjectives, for which the main semantics is indicative. Among adjectives, descriptive words can be distinguished that do not contain any evaluation (Portuguese, copper, morning, two-legged, etc.,most relative adjectives belong to this type), and evaluative ones proper (good, excellent, bad, bad, 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 make up a continuous series where these two meanings are combined in different proportions. The characteristic process for adjectives - the acquisition of qualitative features by relative adjectives - means a shift on 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 goodness on the basis of an analysis of the use of the adjective good. In most cases, it was used in such a way that it is equivalent to more specific synonyms, such as useful "useful", beneficial "favorable", pleasant "pleasant", efficient "effective", healthy "healthy". However, it is not always possible to replace the general assessment with a private one. It is especially difficult to find the equivalent of an adjective good (we will keep in mind the Russian word usage in the future) when the assessment is given by the totality of heterogeneous properties. It is this usage that is the main one for adjectives. good and bad. They are called common values.

The use of general appraisal adjectives as equivalents of private assessments is, in a certain sense, secondary. It is determined by two factors: firstly, by the fact that, even with a private 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 accompanying the statement. 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 a general assessment, it is necessary to translate quality into quantity, that is, to attribute to different properties, relationships, facts and circumstances one or another number of points, or points, in accordance with the price list adopted in this area, that is, as it is done in sports and card games, at olympiads, exams, competitions and other types of regulated axiological human activity. [Arutyunova 1998:198]

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 able to characterize a variety of objects. In this case, the assessment is given on the basis of a set of heterogeneous properties and should be a kind of balance of positive and negative factors [Gibatova: 1996].

So, axiological meanings are represented in the 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 (beautiful, excellent, excellent, excellent, bad, bad, etc.).

The overall score is awarded on the basis of a combination of features: 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, bright, not too cramped and not noisy.

The complexity of the content of general evaluative predicates is also felt by native speakers, 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 imply to varying degrees the requirements that must be satisfied for their generally positive qualification. Wed Khodasevich's observations:The very manner of playing, even dealing, taking cards from the table, the whole style of play, all this tells a lot about a 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 features of a good person are unbearable behind the cards; on the other hand, watching the most excellent partner, sometimes you think that in life you need to stay away from him.A good friend, however, can hardly be a bad person.

The most specific requirements are for specialized items - tools, tools, fixtures, machines designed to fulfill a specific practical purpose. An evaluative adjective in combination with an instrumental name or a nominal class name gets a fixed content (cf.:good chess player, good goalkeeper, excellent camera). Differences in interpretation and, accordingly, in the requirements presented 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, private - and general estimated values ​​converge, since a certain name contains an indication of the basis of the assessment.

In general, positive properties, as well as negative ones, are mutually independent. But relations of fairly regular joint occurrence often develop between the two. The requirements for objects of fuzzy specialization and individual consumption vary depending on the “consumer”. Accordingly, the volume of the content of the general evaluation 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 the same time, none will attract me. She must be rich - this is a prerequisite; smart - or I don't need it; virtuous - or I will not give a penny for her; beautiful - otherwise I wouldn't even look at her; meek - otherwise let it not come close to me; noble - otherwise I won’t take her for any money; she should talk pleasantly, be a good musician, and let her hair be the color that God pleases ”("Much ado about nothing"). If, after considering his demands, Benedict said of a particular girl:"This is a good bride!", then that would mean:“wealthy, intelligent, virtuous, noble, beautiful, meek, musical, proficient graceful speech" . Of course, not all suitors put so many conditions. As the number of requirements decreases, so does the number of components introduced into the concept of good. For example, another character in Shakespeare exclaims:“This is the best girl in the world! Seven hundred pounds sterling in pure money, and much of the family's gold and silver."

So, the signs that motivate assessments are not only variable, but their volume itself 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 it can mean: obedient, kind, sympathetic, not capricious, helps mom, loves parents and friends, studies well. A different set of features and a different scope are also possible. However, no set, apparently, will include such qualities as health, beauty, athleticism, talents. A "non-specialized" personality is determined, first of all, by the totality of moral qualities and norms of behavior. However, although the properties mentioned above 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 “appendix” that helps the “plus” scale to sink. [Arutyunova 1999:200]

Expressing this or that assessment, a person determines the objects of the surrounding reality according to the 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.; cf., for example:Oh, the gardens beyond the fiery river are good (V. Khodasevich); Zametov is a wonderful person. (Dostoevsky).

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

So, V.I.Dal singled out the following evaluative meanings for the word good : “Stupid, red, beautiful, beautiful, bassist, prominent, vzrachny, showy, attractive, handsome, stately, good-looking \\ kind or worthy, well, capable, solid, expensive, valued by internal qualities, useful properties, dignity ". In fact, this dictionary entry reflects, firstly, different types of assessments, which differ in the choice of assessment 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; well suited to its purpose:good hearing, good book, good rest, good instruments \\One in which only positive aspects are manifested, which gives satisfaction, pleasure:good mood, good features \\Useful, necessary, helpful:good advice, thought, impression \\Possessing some or more advantage over others of the same:He put on his good suit; They were given good places.

2. Achieved skills, mastery in their field, specialty.“Sit down,” said Kutuzov, and, noticing that Bolkonsky was slowing down, “I good ones officers are needed."L. Tolstoy, War and Peace.

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

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

4. Something that is positive, significant, worthy, deserving of recognition: everything is good.

5. Related by mutual location, short relationship with someone: Good friends.

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

7. Sufficiently large, significant in size:a good portion of meat; pay good money.

8. Only in kr.f. Very beautiful. Never before has she 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 see 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, such as it should be. In BAS: 1. Such that it fully satisfies (in terms of quality, properties). In this sense, 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 features for objects of this class.

In the dictionary entries of these dictionaries, you can also see the following definition of the word good. From S. Ozhegov: 6. Use. in a replica that has the meaning of an objection, a denial of something, and also in general when expressing irony. relationship to someone. (colloquial). In ALS: "very dubious merit (with a touch of ironic disapproval). Usually in short form.They will sound the alarm, and you are very without boots you will be good. L. Tolst., War and Peace. A.N. Shramm notes: “It seems that this meaning was erroneously identified as a result of mixing the meaning of the word and the meaning of the sentence. After all, an ironic, disapproving meaning is characteristic of the whole sentence in which good performs a predicative function, and it is expressed by a special intonation” [Sergeeva 2003:114].

The development of figurative, secondary meanings of the word good goes in the direction of narrowing, specifying the general initial meaning. Some meanings are with the first in terms of inclusion, because each of them can be represented as: 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 attributed to almost any object or phenomenon. The positive seme "good" is carried by such adjectives ashandsome, attractive(aesthetic evaluation), moral (ethical assessment),useful, useful(utilitarian estimate).

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

2.2. Particularly evaluative adjectives of positive evaluation.

The second group of adjectives expressing a positive assessment is more extensive and varied. It includes units that give an assessment of one of the aspects of the object from a certain point of view. In the proposed N.D. Arutyunova [Arutyunova 1998:198] classification takes into account the nature of the basis of the assessment, its motivation. The groups of privately estimated values ​​distinguished below differ among themselves in the range of compatibility, that is, in what types of objects they are able to qualify.

Privately estimated values ​​can be divided into the following categories: 1)sensory-gustatory, or hedonistic,assessments (pleasant-unpleasant, tasty-tasteless, attractive-unattractive, fragrant-stinky; what you like, what you don't like, etc.); this is the most individualized type of evaluation; 2)psychologicalassessments in which a step has been taken towards rationalization, understanding the motives of the assessment: a) intellectual assessments (interesting, fascinating, exciting, deep, smart - uninteresting, unexciting, boring, banal, superficial, stupid), b) emotional assessments (joyful - sad , cheerful - sad, desired - unwanted, pleasant - unpleasant), 3) aesthetic assessments arising from the synthesis of sensory-taste and psychological assessments (beautiful - ugly, beautiful - ugly, ugly), 4) ethical assessments (moral - immoral, moral - immoral, good - evil, virtuous - vicious), 5) utilitarian assessments (beneficial - harmful, favorable - unfavorable), 6) normative assessments (correct - incorrect, correct - incorrect, normal - abnormal, standard - non-standard, defective, benign - poor quality, healthy - sick), 7)teleologicalassessments (effective - ineffective, expedient - inappropriate, successful - unsuccessful).

These 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, contributing to his accommodation, achieving comfort. This group includes the first two categories of assessments: hedonistic and psychological. The predicates of this group, regardless of what they refer to, characterize the tastes of the subject of evaluation (person) to a greater extent than its object. The subject of evaluation in this case acts as a physical and mental receptor and as such is characterized by the subtlety or coarseness 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 hedonistic evaluation refers to the sensation itself, regardless of what category of objects it is caused by. In this regard, attention should be paid to the following. Feeling is usually not indicated in the statement. Evaluation associates itself directly with what causes sensation. A sensation causator can be thought of as a state, process or action that is pleasant or unpleasant to perform, a property of an object or the object itself. Accordingly, three types of structures arise: 1)It's nice to eat an apple (pick mushrooms, lie 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 the objects of the external world that are included in the circle of his rotation. However, although sensory predicates can be referred directly to an object, they are not semantized, that is, they do not imply descriptive characteristics. Predicate tasty cannot even be partially translated into the language of descriptions: tasty when applied to an apple does not mean at all ‘juicy, fragrant, crunchy’. These properties may also be present in an unpalatable apple.

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

Evaluative definitions of an object differ from each other by the communication channel. They contain an indication of the parameter of the object that corresponds to the way it is perceived by a person: tasty (pleasant in taste; expressing appetite, pleasure, feeling pleasant); fragrant (having 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 can see, the sensory-evaluative predicate is universal. nice , as well as the general evaluation predicate good , used in the meaning of hedonic evaluation.

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

1. Pleasing. (pleasant smell, pleasant meeting).

2. Attractive, pleasing.... and with these people, Prince Andrei was simple and pleasant . L. Tolst., War and peace.

Without pointing to the causator of sensation, the judgment of hedonistic evaluation suffers informative loss. The absence of a mention of the fact that evaluation, in the final analysis, refers to sensation, does not infringe on the meaning of the statement. It follows from the meaning of adjectivespleasant and unpleasant, tasty and tasteless, fragrant and offensive.

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 hedonistic evaluation, there is a tendency to lower the logical status (level) of the subject, to its greater concreteness. The peculiarity of Russian sentences with a predicative is that the “category of state” in them simultaneously characterizes the sensation of a person (“receptor”) and the process (or action) that causes this sensation. The action or state denoted by the infinitive becomes the object of evaluation (that which is evaluated):Nice to swim in the sea[Arutyunova 1998:192].

In the same group, psychological assessments are distinguished, among which are named intellectual and emotional. Consider intellectual assessments on examples of wordsinteresting, smart, fresh and their synonyms. Let us turn to the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S.I. Ozhegov. Word interesting has the following meanings.

Interesting. 1. Exciting interest, entertaining, curious.- Reimer! - said Stilton, - here is an opportunity to make a joke. I have appeared interesting idea. A. Green, Green lamp. 2. Beautiful, attractive.Interesting appearance.In the 2nd LZ, the word "interesting" is considered from the point of view of aesthetic evaluation.

Curious. 1. Characterized by curiosity.And Tanya is not so terrible, \\ And, curious , now \\ Slightly dissolved the door ...Pushk., Eugene Onegin. 2. Interesting, exciting curiosity.Curious point of view.

Clever. 1. Possessing the mind, expressing the mind.My father was a very kind man smart, educated. Turg., Asya. 2. Generated by a clear mind, reasonable.Major Teplov had a good 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, experience. A wise decision.

Fresh. 5. Not lost clarity, brightness.Varenka's father was very handsome, stately, tall, fresh old man L. Tolst., 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, fun, expressing joy.At this time, she ran to them with joyful cry of a Tatar. Gogol, Taras Bulba. 2. Delivering joy.

Cheerful. 1. Infused with fun, full of fun, expressing it.Her face suddenly flared up, expressing a desperate and cheerful determination. L. Tolst., War and peace. 2. Challenging, delivering fun.Cheerful performance.3. Pleasant to the eye, not gloomy.

Happy. 1. Full of happiness, one that is favored by happiness, luck, success; expressing happiness. Everyone is happy families are alike, 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. trans. Clear, insightful.Do you love the melody of their slender \\ Mind is Russian, light and calm, \\ simple-hearted and direct.P. Vyazemsky, The British.

Darling. Most loved. After all, for the beloved a person can turn the whole world, and I asked you 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 to experience some feeling-attitude about the designated by means of a stimulating effect on the recipient of a figurative or equivalent representation of the designated. [Telia 1996:34].What kind of people, mon cher! Juice of smart youth! Griboyedov.

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

The central position among positive hedonistic evaluations is occupied by predicates with the meaning "pleasurable":pleasant, pleasant, etc.

The second group is formed by sublimated estimates. These include two categories: aesthetic and ethical assessments. They rise above sensory evaluations, "humanizing" them. The former are connected with the satisfaction of the sense of beauty, the latter with the satisfaction of the moral sense. These two types of feelings constitute the core of a person's spiritual nature, which is modeled vertically in accordance with his bodily orientation. At the same time, a positive aesthetic assessment excludes strict normativity. The aesthetic sense cannot be satisfied by the standard. A high aesthetic value implies the uniqueness of a work of art. Meanwhile, a positive ethical assessment in the general case requires an orientation towards an ethical norm, observance of the 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 of aesthetic value is characterized by its ability to produce aesthetically pleasing impressions. Vocabulary expressing an aesthetic assessment is very diverse: positive and negative assessments, assessments of an emotional and rational nature are presented here. [Gibatova 1996:10].

Consider LZ adjectives with the meaning of aesthetic evaluation in the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S.I. Ozhegov.

Beautiful . 1. Pleasing to the eye, pleasant in appearance, harmonious, slender, beautiful.Prince Bolkonsky was short, very beautiful young man.L. Tolst., War and peace. 2. Full of inner content, highly moral (beautiful deed, beautiful feats).3. Attention-grabbing, spectacular, but empty. I've often been struck by the confident beautiful , the impressive intonations of people talking nonsense.L. Tolstoy, Diary. 1895.

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

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

Charm. 1. Charm, charm, attractiveness. 2. Pleasant, captivating phenomena, impressions. 3. About someone-something charming, bewitching. 4. External features of female beauty; female body (obsolete and ironic)

Charming. Capable of captivating, beautiful, delightful.Fickle Admirer charming actresses. Pushkin.

Attractive. One that attracts, disposes to itself.This head was very beautiful, strange and sad andattractivethe beauty of an old, real breed and degeneration. M. Bulgakov, White Guard.

Charming. Fascinating, charming.Natasha is half a young lady, half a girl, sometimes childishly funny, sometimes girlishlycharming. L. Tolst., War and peace.

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

The core of the positive pole of aesthetic evaluation is predicatesbeautiful, charming and their synonyms: beautiful, amazing, etc.The opposite meaning is expressed by predicatesugly, ugly.Within the lexical groups expressing an aesthetic assessment, synonymous pairs and rows, antonymic oppositions are outlined. Without adjectives of aesthetic evaluation, it is impossible to describe the specific features that are characteristic of a particular object and distinguish it from other features; 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 a person. A positive ethical assessment generally requires an orientation towards an ethical norm, observance of a moral code, that is, more or less rules and commandments.

It is no coincidence that metaphors and intensifiers of "high" and "low" are involved in these types of evaluation, 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. Inner, spiritual (moral satisfaction, moral support).

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

Virtuous. Highly moral, showing virtue, full of virtue.I would have found a friend by heart,\\ There would have been a faithful wife\\ And virtuous mother. Pushk., Eugene Onegin.

Virtue. Positive moral quality, high morality.

Noble. 1. Highly moral, selflessly honest and open.There are cases in which noble man 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, relating to the nobility.Ivan Dmitrich Gromov, a man of about thirty-three, from noble suffers from persecution mania.Chekhov, Chamber No. 6.

Kind. 1. Doing good to others, 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 good, goodness, well-being.I was not only cheerful and content, I was happy, blissful, I was kind , I was not me, but some kind of unearthly creature that knows no evil and is capable of only good.L. Tolst., After the ball. 3. Good, moral. ( good deeds ). 4. Friendly close, cute.The old man Spiridon Samoylovich, who kept boasting that the lawyer of his district housing department kind friend, turned out to be just a liar.Y. Trifonov, Exchange. 5. Good, irreproachable, excellent. (He is in good health.)6. Impeccable, honest.He wanted to destroy those papers that might cast a shadow on Kind the name of his teacher, his friend.V. Kaverin, Two captains.

Good-natured. Kind and gentle in nature, not malice.She was alone with him Good-natured , cheerful, \\ Joking with him affably. Pushkin.

Responsive. Easily responding to other people's needs, ready to help.Kinder, more considerate 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 into three categories: 1) the moral qualities of a person (virtuous, highly moral, moral, etc.); 2) attitude to the labor sphere of activity (sympathetic, responsive, etc.); 3) attitude to the way of life - attitude to the law, family, speech activity, speech content; 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 this item is intended), compliance with the established standard.

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

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

Considering the LZ of adjectives of utilitarian evaluation, 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. Tolst., War and peace.His father taught him that it is impossible to feel sorry for the weak, weak as bedbugs. We must pity the strong useful . Gorky, Foma Gordeev. 2. Suitable for a specific purpose, going to work (usable living area).

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

Healing. Useful, conducive to strengthening, maintaining health.Tears are not always beneficial. gratifying and healing they, when, having boiled in the chest for a long time, they finally flow - at first with effort, then everything is easier, everything is sweeter. 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 its attitude. They are based on the choice of what may be useful or conducive to the performance 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 it can serve well from the point of view of realizing the goal in question and, therefore, has utilitarian value. Adjectives are at the center of utilitarian evaluation.useful - harmful[Gibatova 1996:11].

From the adjectives of normative assessment, consider the LZ of wordscorrect, true and their synonyms.

Right. 1. Not deviating from the rules, norms, proportions.My brother didn’t like the world at all and didn’t go to balls, but now he was preparing for the candidate’s exam and led the most right life. L. Tolst., After the ball. 3. Faithful, corresponding to reality, such as it should be.correct understanding of something.

Loyal. 1. Corresponding to the truth, correct, accurate.One of the gossips mistook him for his own, the same poor fellow who had failed in the exams, sat down, sympathized, gave loyal Advice: apply urgently.A.Azolsky. Burdock. 2. Undoubted, inevitable.His gait was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he did not swing his arms, - loyal a sign of some secret character.Lerm., Hero of our time. 3. Reliable, durable, resistant. would be faithful wife and virtuous mother.Pushk., Eugene Onegin.

Real. Really the way it should be, representing the best example, the ideal of something.I dare to say that everyone knows me for a liberal and progress-loving person; but that's why I respect the aristocrats - real . Turg., Fathers and sons.

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

The predicate “correct” occupies a central position among positive normative evaluations. Adjectives of normative evaluation have a common seme "norm, rule".

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

2.3. Polysemy of adjectives with seme of positive evaluation.

Most linguists recognize polysemy as one of the most striking properties of words. J. Maruso defined 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 the allocation of types of polysemy.

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

The metonymy of an adjective is usually a transfer of a definition from the name of one object to the name of another by adjacency, i.e. if they have any connection. Metonymy draws attention to an individualizing feature, allowing the addressee to highlight the subject of speech from the area of ​​observation. N.D. Arutyunova writes: “Metonymy also includes shifts in the use of feature 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 united in a lexico-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 retain, as it were, 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 denoting a material and an object made from this material in one word. Metonymic transfers are easier to fit into certain schemes, they are the most regular and productive in comparison with other types of transfers.

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

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

General evaluative adjectives and a number of private evaluative adjectives also have a metonymic transfer that goes from the assessment of a person with a certain skill, ability, to the assessment of the skill itself. For generic adjectives:excellent rider - excellent riding, excellent pianist - excellent playing, excellent translator - excellent translation, wonderful poet - wonderful poetry.For private appraisers:an interesting storyteller - an interesting story, a wonderful poet - beautiful poetry.

“And I would like to believe that here, as in his other excellent translations, he, contrary to 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 respect in our literary environment, because he is not a craftsman, not a copyist, but artist" (K. Chukovsky).

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

General-evaluative and a number of private-evaluative adjectives that characterize a person who deserves approval can also be used to characterize the reason for approving the activity of this person. For generic adjectives:an excellent investigator - an excellent investigation, an excellent master - excellent skill.Particularly evaluative adjectives are involved in this kind of transfers.a virtuous person is a virtuous deed.

If metonymic transfers of meanings are quite easy to order, reduce to certain schemes, then the situation with metaphorical transfers is much more complicated, since in a metaphor one object (phenomenon) is likened to another, and the “imagery” of such a metaphorical name in different cases turns out to be different. Not to mention the fact that individual metaphors constantly arise in speech, and the actual “linguistic metaphors” differ 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 versatile of the original one, since, in addition to the initial one, it acquires an additional meaning (and often a number of shades of meanings). In this regard, metaphorical transfers are much more difficult to classify.

Evaluative adjectives can be divided into several patterns with respect to regular metaphorical transfers.

A number of adjectives are characterized by transfers based on the association of a certain attribute of an object with an assessment of intellectual, emotional, and other qualities. In such transfers, adjectives are involved, for which the value of the assessment is derivative: with the meaning of psychological - intellectual and emotional - assessment: fresh (newly mined or cooked, not spoiled) - fresh (recently emerged, new or updated):fresh bread is a fresh idea. Exactly, it was a song, and female, fresh voice - but where? Lerm., Hero of our time; thin (small in diameter, in girth) - thin (sharp, insightful, intelligent):thin layer - thin connoisseur;with the meaning of ethical assessment: tall (large in length or far located in the direction from bottom to top) - tall (very significant, sublime in content):high house - high aspirations.

Some adjectives form evaluative meanings due to metaphorical transfer such as "referring to a certain object, made of a certain material - similar to this object, material." Adjectives with the meaning of sensory-taste evaluation participate in such transfers: honey (made from honey) - honey (sweet, pleasant):honey gingerbread - honey voice;with the value of psychological evaluation: gold (made of gold) - gold (beautiful, pleasant):golden ring - golden man;with the meaning of ethical assessment: knightly (related to the knight) - knightly (noble): knightly armor - a knightly deed.

Some adjectives with the main meaning of color terms form an evaluative meaning due to a metaphorical transfer like "having a certain color - having a feature 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 like "possessing a certain taste - causing a certain evaluation": sweet (having a taste characteristic of sugar, honey) - sweet (pleasant, pleasing)sweet tea - sweet voice. The landowner Manilov, who had eyes are sweet , like sugar, and screwing them up every time, was from him without a memory.Gogol, Dead Souls. lulled sweet hopeshe was fast asleep an hour later... Chekhov, Vanka.

The metaphor performs a characterizing function in the sentence and is focused mainly 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 name reference. 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 contrast with each other [Arutyunova 1998:370].

Findings.

Summing up the analysis of the semantic structure of adjective names, we can draw the following conclusions:

1. Evaluative adjectives have a complex semantic structure.

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

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

4. General evaluative adjectives are characterized by the breadth of metonymic connections, which is determined by the breadth of their use and the largest range of compatibility. The majority of private evaluative adjectives also have a wide metonymic relationship.

5. The metaphorical nature of semantics is inherent mainly in particular-evaluative adjectives, for which the meaning of evaluation is a derivative.

Conclusion.

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

In the 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].

Evaluation is associated with human life, it crystallized as a result of his relationship with the real world, so the study of evaluation is impossible without referring to the Human - his emotional, mental and spiritual spheres, value systems, processes of perception and knowledge of the world [Sergeeva 2003: 124].

In order to evaluate an object, a person must “pass” it through himself: the nature of the assessment corresponds to the nature of a person. The idealized model (picture) of the world does not cover all its components and parameters. This determines the boundaries of the reality being evaluated, that is, those objects to which evaluative predicates are applicable. What is needed (physically and spiritually) for a person and Mankind is evaluated. Evaluation presents a person as a goal towards which the world is turned. Its principle is "The world exists for man, not man for the world." In this sense, it is teleological. The world is represented by evaluation as an environment and a means for human existence. It cannot be independent of a person, and if life has a goal, the 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 cognition. In this cognition, as well as in the cognition of reality, intuition plays a significant role: through the feeling of good, a person recognizes the ideal in the real.

The concept of “good / bad” stands out among other categories by the extreme diversity of its connections and functions. What the general evaluative predicate means is related to the actual properties of objects, their compliance or non-conformity with the norm, the perception of objects, the sensations they cause (pleasant or unpleasant), to the active psychological principle of a person (his desires, aspirations, will, duty, duties), to the decision and choice from a number of alternatives, to the life program of a person and the ideals of mankind, to the prescriptive function of speech, which is 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 (guiding activity), didactic and regulatory function 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.

1. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. M., 1998
2. Arutyunova N.D. Functional types of language metaphor// Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1978
3. Arutyunova N.D. Types of language values: Evaluation. Event. Fact. M., 1988
4. Wolf E.M. Grammar and semantics of the adjective. M., 1978
5. Wolf E.M. Functional semantics of evaluation. M., 2002
6. Wolf E.M. Metaphor and evaluation. M., 1988
7. Gibatova G.F. The semantic category of evaluation and the means of its expression in modern Russian: abstract of diss. …candidate of philological sciences. - Ufa, 1996
8. Donetsk L.I. Semantic originality and stylistic functions of adjectives: author. diss. …cand. philol. Sciences. - L., 1966.
9. Zainuldinov A.A. Vocabulary of positive emotional evaluation in modern Russian: author. diss. …cand. philol. Sciences. – 1995.
10. Ivin A.A. Foundations of the logic of assessments. M., 1970
11. Kruglikova G.G. On the semantics of quantitative assessment // Language units in speech communication. L., 1991
12. Kuznetsova E.V. Lexicology. M., 1982
13. Lifshits G.M. Types of polysemy in modern Russian. Moscow: Max Press, 2001
14. Lukyanova N.A. Actual problems of lexicology. Novosibirsk, 1986
15. Lukyanova N.A. Expressive vocabulary of colloquial use. Novosibirsk, 1986
16. Lustrova Z.N. Skvortsov L.I. The world of native speech. M., 1972
17. Markelova T.V. Semantics of evaluation and means of its expression in Russian: author. diss. ... Dr. Philol. Sciences. - M., 1996
18. Markelova T.V. Semantics and pragmatics of means of expressing evaluation in Russian. M., 1995
19. Nikitin M.V. The lexical meaning of the word. M., 1983
20. Novikov L.A. Semantics of the Russian language. M., 1982
21. The role of the human factor in language. Language and picture of the world. M., 1988
22. Sergeeva L.A. Qualitative adjectives with the meaning of evaluation in modern Russian: author. diss. …cand. philol. Sciences. - Saratov, 1980
23. Sergeeva L.A. Problems of evaluative semantics. M., 2003
24. Sergeeva L.A. Adjectives expressing an abstract assessment of "good", "bad" in modern Russian. M., 1986
25. Teliya V.N. Metaphor in language and text. Moscow: Nauka, 1988
26. Teliya V.N. functional semantics. Evaluation, expressiveness, modality. M., 1996
27. Teliya V.N. The human factor in language. Language mechanisms of expressiveness. M., 1991
28. Theory of Metaphor / Ed. N.D. Arutyunova M., 1990
29. Khidekel S.S., Koshel G.G. The nature and character of language assessments. M., 1975
30. Shmelev D.N. Modern Russian language. Vocabulary. M., 1977
31. Shramm A.N. Essays on the semantics of qualitative adjectives. L .: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 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

Every person, including a child, constantly forms assessments of the outside world, self-assessments 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 process of evaluation, 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.

Are children 6-7 years old able to build statements-assessments?

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 gaming activities). Children's speech was also monitored. in a learning situation(in speech development classes, in literacy classes, in art activities classes, in literacy classes).

We used such research methods as observation, individual conversation that motivates the creation of an evaluative statement and an individual conversation that does not motivate the creation of an arbitrary evaluative statement.

As a topic that does not motivate an evaluative statement, the topic “Who am I friends with” was proposed; motivating 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, unconstrained communication, evaluative statements of children more emotional and rich from the point of view of the intonational, lexical and syntactic means used, rather than in the educational situation (arbitrary);
• structurally all statements are underdeveloped, they contain the proper estimate and her argument is missing and recommendations;
• some children were not able to create an arbitrary evaluative statement at all.

AT relaxed atmosphere Many children use to express appreciation:

• non-verbal means (83.6%);
• the dictionary of children is richer than in arbitrary evaluative statements;
• unfortunately, it includes swear words ( fool, idiot, dumbass - 61.3%), and jargon ( awesome, cool, cool, cool - 78,4%);
• not as often as we expected, children use vocabulary with evaluation suffixes ( boaster, poor thing, the sun - 39%).

Means of Expressing Evaluation in children's evaluative statements include:

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

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

When correlating a word with its interpretation, in some cases kids make mistakes. So, a person who always wears clean, ironed clothes, whose shoes are polished, books in cover, unworn: 1.9% of the subjects named cultural. And a person in wrinkled clothes, uncleaned shoes, whose books are tattered, painted, toys are scattered, 1.25% of children named careless. 58% of children interpretation of the meaning of the word defenseless matched with words weak, insecure, unable to do anything. 63% of children correlated the meaning of the word responsive with token good; 12% correlated it with the lexeme kind, and 9% - with a 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 for all children. To the question: "Who are they talking about a fox ? All subjects answered: "About a Cunning Man", 1.25% of children added: who cheats, does dirty tricks. 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 the 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, stupid, exultant to the question of the experimenter: “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 superlative degree of quality manifestation;
• neat - careful (98,15%); well-groomed (0,6%); nice(1.25%) - children actualize not the value meaning expressed by the word, but their own attitude towards a neat person, this, apparently, manifests the egocentrism of children's perception;
• exults - very happy(46%); panicking(0.6%); 53.4% ​​of children answered: "I don't know". We can explain this by the fact that the word "adult", high style, is used mainly in poetic and journalistic speech, for the children's vocabulary and speech environment of a child of this age is not relevant.

How do children create value statements in a free setting?

As a task that did not motivate the creation of an evaluative statement, the children were asked to compose oral story "Who am I friends with". Most of the statements 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 and 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, we talk. Well... We don't fight" (Vova Sh.);
• “We run, we play different games. And... We also go to preparatory school together” (Misha D.).

Some children build a statement from several sentences, explain how they are friends, without prompting from the experimenter (5.6%), some of them contain associative-evaluative vocabulary (0,47%):

• I am friends with the girls who live with me in the same yard. Their names are Lena, Valya, Anya and Nastya. We walk together, visit each other. We never quarrel (Masha R.);
• I am friends with Andrey and Serezha. We go to kindergarten together and live close. We tell different stories, horror stories, play together ... We also go to each other's birthday ... We walk (Anton T.).
• Only in one statement (0.2%) was used vocabulary with an estimated value, expressing the speaker's value priorities: "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 value statements when motivated?

As a task motivating the use of vocabulary with an estimated value, the children were offered Q: Why are you friends with... ? The children's answers include vocabulary with both general (100%) and private assessments (62%).

As can be seen from the presented examples, the experimenter's question " How are you friends?"- an attempt to "push" the child to evaluate their relationships with peers. Only 24% of children after it included the word « well» with overall rating, 12.3% of children used words rational and associative-evaluative (quarrel / do not quarrel, do not fight). The rest of the children indicated only the range of joint activities.

How do children construct judgment statements?

An analysis of the structure of children's OB shows that in all arbitrary utterances there are introduction(starting), present arguments revealing the thesis. If we talk about the structure of the assessment, then the following pattern is revealed here: in an educational situation, when the assessment standard is set, the children's evaluative statements are more detailed, in addition to the assessment itself (most often the general " like / dislike, good / bad”) presented her arguments (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 details unevenly”, "he spoke inexpressively, quietly" etc.). Absolute overall scores 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, thought for a long time. He got a little story. He didn't tell everything. He spoke softly (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, she just forgot to put the stress (Olesya Sh.).
• Katya has a neat application. I like her work, beautiful (Masha E.).

findings

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

2. We have seen that the speech of children aged 6-7 in situations of easy communication is characterized by the use of value judgments.

3. Expanded evaluative statements in the speech of children appear mainly in situations that motivate their creation.

4. The arsenal of language means by which children express their assessments is poor.

5. The revealed patterns allow us to conclude that it is necessary to enrich the speech of 6-7 year old children with evaluative means of the language and specifically teach the construction of an evaluative statement.

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

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

Let us dwell on the characteristics of each of them in relation to OVIHR.

Evaluation, more than any other value, depends on the speaking subject. It expresses the personal opinions and tastes of the speaker, which differ in variety due to individual preferences, sensations, 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: it is not pressured by need or necessity. And although the personal factor in the 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, stereotypes formed in the team. In other words, when evaluating objects or phenomena, the subject relies, on the one hand, on his attitude to the object (“like / dislike”), and on the other hand, on stereotypical ideas about the object and the scale of assessments on which the features inherent in the object are located. At the same time, the evaluative object combines subjective (subject-object relationship) and objective (object properties) features (Wolf, 1985, pp. 22–28).

Each cultural community has its own ideas about the norm and ideal, its own criteria for evaluating a person. Different value orientations on which different cultures are based are reflected in national languages. An analysis of literary and non-fictional texts shows what kind of person this or that culture is oriented to, what is the human ideal, and what assessment are different human manifestations in a particular 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 terms of moral and civil, 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 person himself - primarily in the fulfillment of the commandments. In general cultural terms, the western type is striving for the success of civilization as a material sphere, while the eastern type is striving for culture as a spiritual area” (Nepomniachtchi, 1999, p. 454).

In Russian, the “inner man” more often becomes the object of evaluation, in particular, a thinking person – homo sapiens. The basis for assessing the intellectual manifestations of a person are the criteria that have developed 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 once and for all established, but depends on many subjective factors. “Worldview and attitude, social interests and fashion, prestige and unquote form and deform assessments” (Arutyunova, 1984, p. 6).

In general, it must be admitted that the basis for assessing a person is a complex conglomeration of samples, ideals, norms, stereotypes that exist 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 the absolute evaluation is determined by whether it qualifies its subject as "good", or as "bad", or as "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 compared items has a lower value than the other, or whether it characterizes the compared items as equivalent (Ivin, 1970, p. .24). However, both assessments equally imply comparison. The only difference is that in a statement containing an absolute assessment, the comparison is implied, while in a statement with a comparative assessment, an explication of the comparison is observed.

EAT. Wolf talks about the implications and explications typical of evaluative statements. So, the object of evaluation, as a rule, is expressed. On the contrary, the rating scale and stereotypes (and, consequently, 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 often only postulated on the basis of the form of the evaluation statement and the context.

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

In statements with the explication of evaluation, the central component is the evaluation predicate (the content of the evaluation). A predicate is a constitutive member of a judgment, something that is said about an object. Its semantics contains such indicators of evaluation as its sign, or quality (positiveness, negativity, plus or minus positivity), and quantity (degree of intensity). In most cases, the quantity and sign of the assessment are interrelated, since the comparison underlying the assessment involves not only the identification of opposite signs "plus" and "minus", but also a 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 a complex interaction. So, in statements Smart person, Talented researcher, Stupid suggestion contains both a descriptive and an evaluative component. These two components in the description of the semantics of statements and individual words (predicates) can be separated. For example, clever in He is a smart person means “possessing 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 the predicate) also contains an evaluative component ("and this is good").

The nature of the interaction between description and evaluation in specific situations of communication can be different. For example, description (description of the objective state of affairs) is the main goal of the speaker - then the assessment 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 picture of the world of the speakers is regarded as good or bad. On the other hand, the evaluative intention may be the main one, and then the evaluation becomes primary in relation to the description. Thus, evaluative meaning is present both in actual evaluative and descriptive statements.

Various classifications of estimated values ​​are known.

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

Depending on the number of objects being evaluated and the presence or absence of comparison, the estimates are divided into absolute and comparative. Absolute estimates are expressed by the main operators "good - neutral - bad", comparative - "better - equivalent - worse". With an absolute assessment, the comparison is present in the mind of the subject and does not receive an explicit linguistic expression.

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

Depending on the number of comparisons, there are general and particular estimates. 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, while at the same time not naming any of them. For example, good report - this and interesting, and clever, 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 the only one (in contrast to general assessments) and is determined by individual and social stereotypes of native speakers.

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

Some of the 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: clever) and private ( Smart student; He is 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 is stupid) or neutral ( Normal student, more or less). The assessment of intelligence can be expressed spontaneously or be the result of reflection, analysis, long-term observation of the manifestations of the subject (Compare: Class! Good girl! in a situation of everyday communication as a reaction to human actions. - A person 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.

The lexical means of expressing evaluation include single-valued words (nouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs) that have a direct evaluative meaning, which, according to their semantics, is the main one (for example, smart, stupid); polysemantic words that can have several evaluative meanings (for example, words with the same signs: stupid, bad etc. and words with opposite signs: cheeky, cheeky etc.), as well as have an estimated value along with another, non-estimated value (for example, distant, golden etc.).

Estimated value in words that have non-evaluative value along with the estimated value may be primary or non-primary. For example, in the word a great Estimated value is the main, in the word windy - not basic.

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

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

Polysemantic words can be singled out as a separate group, in which the estimated value appears only as part of certain constructions (for example, It is 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 evaluative meaning, include words that do not have 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 ascending intonation indicate a positive assessment, a lower register and descending intonation indicate a negative one (see: Roslovets, 1973, p. 73); Mimicry and gestures contribute to the acquisition of evaluative meaning by the word and the statement as a whole (it is known that they can generally replace the statement). For example: But what talent, what strength!(A.P. Chekhov) – positive assessment; What talent am I? Squeezed lemon(A.P. Chekhov) - negative assessment; a gesture of twisting a finger at the temple - a negative assessment; a raised thumb when the rest are clenched into a fist is a positive assessment. Along with intonation, the appearance of an estimated value is signaled by service words ( Well, what a book! Report to me too).

The communicative and speech context, intonation, gestures and facial expressions can change the sign of the assessment to the opposite (for example, A good report is called!; Genius!- in a situation of negative evaluation).

Various means express not only the qualitative side of the assessment, but also the quantitative, that is, the degree of its intensity. Evaluation intensifiers and de-intensifiers are various linguistic (lexical, derivational, morphological, syntactic), paralinguistic and non-linguistic means (cf.: slow-witted - stupid, smart - smartest, weak - the weakest, Fool in the situation of domestic and official business communication).

Thus, the means of expressing an explicit assessment in the Russian language are diverse. The evaluative meaning is formed by the action of multi-level language units, as well as paralinguistic and non-linguistic speech companions.

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

In modern linguistic studies, indirectness 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 genre studies, etc.); secondly, some ways of representing reality in a word are called indirect (figurative meanings, figurativeness); thirdly, they talk about indirectness as a constitutive feature of some types of texts (paremias, parables, fables). There are points of intersection between these types of indirectness: any indirectness implies a hint from the speaker, which must be heard and interpreted by the addressee (Orlova, 1999, p. 92).

Additional interpretive efforts on the part of the addressee require an indirect assessment of a person, in particular, an assessment of his intellect.

Indirect evaluation "is derived from the explicit content of a language 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, with an explicated assessment, the evaluative predicate is verbalized and the conjugation of dictum and modus is observed, then there is a proposition, according to T.V. Shmeleva, has a double possibility - to compose both a dictum and a modus of an utterance (Shmeleva, 1988, p. 39), then with an implicit assessment, a non-verbalized, “inferred” evaluative predicate, the dictum and modal sides of the utterance do not formally touch: the modus, in contrast to the dictum , is present in the utterance invisibly (Compare: He is stupid. He can't solve any problem).

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

An utterance built on the basis of an evaluative proposition and having an evaluative illocutionary force, we call direct appraisal(For example: He is a fool; He is smart. - The purpose of the speaker is to assess the intelligence of a person). Indirect value statements we will consider those in which the evaluative proposition is not expressed, in which, according to J. Searle, the speaker “means 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 perform, in addition, another type of illocutionary act” (Serl, 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 flaws in the answer; 2) the speaker negatively assesses the intellectual actions of the addressee; evaluation is indirect, it is veiled by the illocution of the message; the message is an explicit presupposition of an implied evaluation.

Obviously, the indirectness of the evaluative statement is based on the fact that the addressee can extract from the statement “significantly more information than it contains 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 by correlating it with an explicitly expressed meaning, it is advisable, in our opinion, to say that an indirect statement does not completely lose its own meaning (for example, the statement I need to look into the textbook more often. qualifies both as advice and as an implicit assessment of intellectual manifestations).

So, the evaluative meaning of the statement can be both explicated and implied, which is associated with the verbalization / non-verbalization of the evaluative predicate. An implied assessment is, as a rule, in a post-supposition, being a consequence of an explicitly indicated situation (cf.: He defended his doctoral dissertation. – He is a smart person; He flunked every exam at school. – He has a weak intellect). Evaluation in a direct evaluative statement is located in a proposition (dictum), in an indirect one it constitutes the modus part of the statement (cf.: The boy is smart. - The boy is not coping with the school curriculum).

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

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

It is known that the human sphere is characterized by partitive nominations (see: Ufimtseva, 1986; Sedova, 1999), the use of which in statements of various types shows that a person is perceived by speakers not only holistically, but also partially (cf.: man - eyes, face, deed). And the assessment can refer to a person as a whole or to his individual manifestation: to an act, words, result of activity, appearance, etc. ( His act is stupidity; 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 evaluation of a particular manifestation does not mean that the evaluation 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).

It can be said that this or that assessment of individual manifestations of a person is not a sufficient basis for attributing it to a person as a whole; it only indirectly characterizes a holistic personality, suggests that a separate manifestation of a particular quality is not accidental and is due to the general characteristics of a person (for example: A stupid person is unlikely to write a smart essay; A smart person can't do something so stupid. But: A smart person sometimes does rash things; A stupid person can sometimes reason smartly).

These observations led us to the need to outline a range of evaluative statements, on the basis of which generalizations and conclusions can be drawn regarding the image of homo sapiens in the language.

Let's define these statements.

Direct evaluative statement about human intelligence - this is an utterance of an evaluative propositive structure organized by an evaluative predicate of IS that defines a “whole” person (POV).

The statement of the evaluative propositive structure, organized by the evaluative predicate IS, which defines a “partial” person, we call a direct evaluative statement that indirectly characterizes a person's intellect (POV-K).

An utterance with a non-verbalized, “inferred” evaluative predicate IS is defined as indirect evaluative statement about the intellect and intellectual manifestations of a person (KOV). To indirect evaluative statements, we also include those statements in which the verbalized evaluative predicate is included in unreal modal structures ( You would have wised 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 the assessment. If you build these statements in accordance with the scale of intensity, you get the following gradation chain:

The above can be presented in the form of a table:

In SOV, the evaluative predicate of IS can be not only a central, but also a peripheral component of the content structure (cf.: He is stupid. - He is tired of everyone 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 utterance” (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 it accompanies other main goals of the speaker. If the main goal of the speaker is evaluation, the evaluation predicate is placed in 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 evaluation accompanies them (cf.: The comment is stupid. Everyone is tired of his stupid remarks).

The choice of direct or indirect form of OVIHR is carried out by the speaker, depending on the conditions of communication. People talk about intelligence in different situations, both programmed for evaluation and those not related to the need for this kind of evaluation: 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 the conclusions about the characteristic features of the image of homo sapiens in the Russian LCM.

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. The most taken by us 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 a negative pressure and fills evenly the space of the Universe). The quintessence in a figurative sense is the most important, essential, main essence, the purest and most subtle 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 most often is vocabulary that is directly related to objects and creatures - sources of sound. These are, for example, such verbs as "meow", "croak", "rumble", "crow", and nouns derived from them.

Singularity

Singularity - which is a certain point at which the considered mathematical function 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 into infinity or suffers a break, 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 an infinite temperature and density of matter. In biology, this concept is used mainly to generalize the evolutionary process.

transcendence

The term "transcendence" (the adjective - "transcendent") comes from a Latin word meaning "to cross over". This is the term of philosophy, which characterizes something inaccessible to empirical knowledge. B was used together with the term "transcendental" to refer to God, the soul, and other concepts. Immanent is its opposite.

Catharsis

"Catharsis" is a term from modern psychoanalysis, denoting the process of removing or reducing anxiety, frustration, conflict with the help of emotional release and their verbalization. In ancient Greek aesthetics, this concept was used to express in a word the impact on a person of art. The term "catharsis" in ancient philosophy was used to denote the result and process of ennobling, purifying, facilitating the impact of various factors on a person.

Continuum

What buzzwords do you need to know? For example, the continuum. This is a set equivalent 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 writings of the scholastics of the Middle Ages. In modern works, in connection with a change in the "continuum" itself, they often replace the noun "duration", "continuity", "continuity".

Nigredo

"Nigredo" is the term of alchemy, which denotes the complete decomposition or the first stage in the creation of the so-called philosopher's stone. This is a formation from a homogeneous black mass of components. The next stages after the nigredo are the albedo (a white stage, which produces a lesser elixir that turns metals into silver) and rubedo (a red one, after which a 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 the ideal real process, the degree of energy dissipation. Entropy, defined as the sum of reduced heats, is a state function. It is constant in various reversible processes, and in irreversible processes its change is always positive. In particular, it can be distinguished that this is a measure of the uncertainty of a certain source of messages, which is determined by the probabilities of occurrence during the transmission of certain characters.

empathy

In psychology, buzzwords are often found, and their designations sometimes cause difficulties in defining them. One of the most popular is the word "empathy". This is the ability to empathize, the ability to put yourself 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

Smart words and expressions from psychology also include such a direction in this science that explains human behavior. It studies the direct connections between reactions (reflexes) and stimuli. Behaviorism directs the attention of psychologists to the study of experience, 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 is from 15 to 60 km. Racers cover several laps per day, the total distance is from 200 to 300 km. Basically, the route is laid in a mountainous area and is rather difficult to pass due to the abundance of streams, fords, descents, ascents, etc. Enduro is also a mixture of city and motocross bikes.

They are easy to operate, like road vehicles, have increased cross-country ability. Enduro is close in a number of characteristics to cross-country. You can call them motorcycle-jeeps. One of their main qualities is unpretentiousness.

Other buzzwords and their meaning

Existentialism (in other words, the philosophy of existence) is a trend in philosophy in the 20th century 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 the previous one") is knowledge that is obtained independently of experience and before it.

Modern smart words are not clear to 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 happened.

Compilation (in other words, programming) is the transformation by some compiler program of a text written in a complex language into a machine, close to it, or an objective module.

Rasterization is the conversion of an image, which is described by 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 "in" and "pipe". This is the introduction of a special tube into the larynx when it narrows, which threatens to suffocate (with swelling of the larynx, for example), as well as into the trachea in order to conduct anesthesia.

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

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

In addition to the nomination of individual objects, phenomena and the designation of concepts, the word can also express the attitude of the speaker to the named object: a positive or negative assessment, various shades of emotions. For example; demagogy: 1. Deception with false promises, flattery and deliberate distortion of facts to achieve any goals *; worthy: 4. obsolete. Possessing high positive qualities, respected, venerable; exaggerated: 3. Untrue, deliberately exaggerated, false (cf.: "inflated figures", "inflated celebrity"); consumer: 3. fr. Characteristic of someone who seeks only to satisfy their needs (cf.: "consumer attitude", "consumer sentiment"); euphoria: Elevated, joyful mood, a sense of contentment, well-being, not consistent with objective circumstances.

The highlighted words and combinations of words in the dictionary interpretations of the meanings of exaggerated, demagogy, etc., as well as the marks that accompany some of them, unambiguously indicate that these words indicate a positive or negative attitude of the speakers to these phenomena.

Evaluation can be different and manifest itself in different ways in the language. Words can be names of phenomena as good and bad from the point of view generally recognized in a given language community: good - evil; good bad; human - cruel; altruist - egoist; the 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 hero chosen by us will be liked by the readers ... But the virtuous person is still not taken as a hero. And one can even say why he was not taken. Because it is time to finally give rest to the poor virtuous person, that the word virtuous man is idly revolving on the lips, because they have turned a virtuous man into a workhorse, and there is no writer who would not ride him, goading him with a whip and everything... No, it's time to finally harness the scoundrel too. let's harness the scoundrel!" In this case, the evaluation can be said to be exhausted by the lexical meaning of the word. However, most often the evaluativeness of the word arises and is typified in the 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 evaluatively neutral in the first half of the 18th century and was used in the meanings of "resident of the city", "subject of any state", in the socio-political texts of the late 18th - early 19th centuries began to be used to refer to a person who is "socially useful, devoted to his fatherland"*. Compare: "A citizen for the common good, who is first" (Karamz.); "Fulfillment of the position of a person and citizen" (Radishch.); "All differences of state will lose their side where there is one and only political virtue, where everyone unites, everyone must stand under the famous name of a citizen" (Fonv.) **. And as a result of such 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-address, and in this syntactic function it very quickly lost its expressive and evaluative nuances.Currently, if it is used as an address, it is perceived as a purely official name of the interlocutor, excluding even a hint of some sort of friendship.

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

Estimated words are used in different styles of speech, in texts of different genres. So, in the oral-colloquial style we meet such words as jalopy * (jokingly: about an old, lax carriage, car); drape (rude-simple: hastily retreat, run), tall (simple: a tall man. "); nag (neb.: bad, tired horse); shabby (colloquial, npezp .: nondescript, miserable in appearance); lean (rude, simple .. come, come, appear somewhere), etc., which not only name a person, object, sign, action, but also express the speaker’s attitude to what is called: in all the above cases, negative .

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

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

Here are a few examples of the use of evaluative words in newspaper texts: "When an idea fails and former adherents turn away from it with shame and embarrassment, the time of epigones comes" (Og. 1989. No. 28); The Ardis Publishing House (USA), the largest publisher of Russian literature in the West, took part in the International Book Fairs in Moscow three times... your publishing house was not mentioned in our press without the word "notorious". Two years ago, the newspaper Sovetskaya Rossiya published angry letters from workers ... of the Lenin Library, in which you were accused of almost stealing from the Bulgakov archive ... (Mosk. nov. 1989. No. 40); is instructive... During the four months he served as minister of privatization, Mr. Polevanov became famous for practically destroying the well-functioning mechanism of the State Property Committee" (Mosk. Nov. 1995, No. 36).