Source: http://just-affair.ru/?page_id=1341
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 01:01:51+00:00

Document:
Even a brief survey of theoretical sources would suffice to ascertain that evaluation as the subject matter of research has long seemed appealing both to philosophers and to linguists [e.g.: Уфимцева 1974; Колшанский 1975; Арутюнова 1988]. This importance attached to evaluation in linguistic research is still strengthened by the viewpoint that any verbal act may be considered as an act of evaluation [e.g.: Колшанский 1975: 142]. In the present paper, however, we will confine our pursuits to a specific means of expressing evaluation – to adjectives of positive evaluation; to be more precise – to their pragmatic potential. To our knowledge, no specific research has been dedicated to this particular issue.
In our research the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation is viewed as their communicative potential, their ability to convey the speakers’ attitude, contribute to the emotivity of discourse, and perform other discursive functions.
Our research therefore aims at exploring the discursive and pragmatic functions of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse. To that effect we are carrying out theoretical and practical surveys that consider the previous treatments of the subject matter in question and offer our interpretation of the issue.
The material for our practical research was borrowed from 12 sources by such British and American writers as Agatha Christie, John Steinbeck, William Golding, John Priestley, John Fowles, Evelyn Waugh, and Katherine Mansfield. Altogether we have analysed about 90 examples of adjectives of positive evaluation.
It appears that the treatment of adjectives of positive evaluation offered in this research may have a potential theoretical application. The conclusions and observations obtained in the course of our research may also have a practical application in discourse analysis.
Chapter-I (Positive evaluation in adjectives (overview of linguistic research) summarizes the major lines of research dedicated to evaluation in general and to adjectives of positive evaluation in particular, and brings out the topicality of the present research.
Chapter-II (Pragmatic potential and discursive function of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse) explores the discursive properties of adjectives of positive evaluation, and considers certain regularities in their pragmatic potential.
This paper also contains a Bibliography, a list of Dictionaries and Reference, a list of Sources and Abbreviations, and an Appendix. The latter includes some of the examples from our research material.
1.1. Evaluation in linguistic research. Adjectives of evaluation.
The category of evaluation is known to have received a comprehensive treatment in multifarious researches by such world-famous philosophers and logicians as T. Hobbes, J. Lokk, B. Spinoza, and I. Kant [Кувинова 2005: 13-14]. The present research, however, is mostly concerned with a linguistic treatment of evaluation offered by G. V. Kolshanski [Колшанский 1975], N. D. Arutunova [Арутюнова 1988], A. A. Ufimceva [Уфимцева 1974], E. M. Volf [Вольф 1985], and other linguists.
The major aspects of evaluation considered by various researchers appear to be: evaluation and the functions of the language [Колшанский 1975], evaluation and semantics [Уфимцева 1974], evaluation and its linguistic expression through different parts of speech, evaluation and pragmatic context of communication [Кувинова 2005: 126-151], cultural aspects of evaluation [Писанова 1997], the character (polarity) [Вольф 1979: 278] and intensity [Шаховский 1975: 9; Nida 1975] of evaluation, etc. For the purposes of our research we suggest putting a special emphasis on adjectives of evaluation.
Although any act of cognition reflected in the language may by and large be considered as an act of evaluation [e.g.: Колшанский 1975: 142], the primary part of speech conveying evaluation appears to be the adjective, because by definition [e.g.: Hrouda 2000] it denotes a quality of the characterized object, and therefore evaluates it. According to A. A. Ufimceva, the meaning of adjectives is based on one extremely generalized semantic component, which brings the semantic structure of adjectives close to that of universal signs [Уфимцева 1974: 149].
It is noteworthy that linguistic research works contain a number of attempts to make a direct connection between an adjective’s categorial meaning and evaluation. While I. V. Gubennet believes, that «all adjectives almost without exception can be involved positive or negative evaluation» [Gubennet 1973], E. M. Volf notices, that “only the adjectives, which have qualitative characteristics can designate an evaluation, however not all qualitative adjectives are included in evaluative structures” [Вольф 1978: 30].
Many linguists marked the capacity of qualitative adjectives to express evaluation [Шаховский 1975; Вольф 1979]. They also specified, that, being a predicate inherently, an adjective can combine two aspects: a designation of a sign and a designation of evaluation. It is known, that relative adjectives in the English language are relatively not numerous, in comparison, for example, with Russian, French and other languages. It is because of the wide use of attributive nouns. In view of this phenomenon, according to E. I. Frenkel, the part of evaluative units in the general body of adjectives makes up one third [Frenkel 1981: 81].
Researches dedicated to adjectives of evaluation explore various aspects of such adjectives. Among the most extensively covered aspects are: adjectives of positive, negative, and neutral evaluation [Вольф 1979; Кувинова 2005: 25], the intensity of evaluation (weak, strong, medium) [Шаховский 1975: 9; Nida 1975], the semantic structure of adjectives of evaluation [Nida 1975].
In her research N. B. Kuvinova stresses that by using an adjective of positive or negative evaluation the speaker directly or indirectly compares the object of evaluation with other objects of the same group or class and with “the norm”. Adjectives of evaluation consequently indicate that the qualities of the evaluated object are superior or inferior to those considered as “normal” [Вольф 1985; Арутюнова 1988; Кувинова 2005: 25-26]. It is noteworthy that “the norm” (i.e. the reference point of evaluation) itself may be established both by convention and by the context [Кувинова 2005: 26].
Another important aspect pertaining to the polarity of evaluative adjectives reflects the distribution of adjectives of positive and negative evaluation in the language. Here researchers point to the fact that negatively connotative lexical units prevail over the positively connotative ones. For example E.I. Frenkel adduces the following figures: 74% of units of the corpus under analysis are negatively connotative and only 26% are positively connotative [Френкель 1981]. Asymmetry of positively and negatively connotative word-stock attracts the attention of many researchers who try to find the explanation of this phenomenon in natural and social circumstances surrounding people and in the peculiarities of their perception. V. D. Devkin and N. D. Arutunova, for example, state that something good is often considered as normal/ taken for granted, and something bad is perceived as a deviation from the norm, and it is just natural that bad events evoke more response and adjectives of negative evaluation prevail over the positive ones [Девкин 1974: 131; Арутюнова 1987: 12]. An interesting explanation of the predominance of lexical units of negative evaluation is offered by A. N. Luck [Лук 1968: 21]. He deduces the origin of evaluation from the expression of emotions. A. N. Luck believes that the initial biological task of emotions is showing if something is pleasant or unpleasant, safe or dangerous. Apparently the “danger” signal is way too important and acute both for a human and an animal, and it predetermines its behavior in critical situations.
« Excellent / the best – good – average – unimportant – bad ». This sequence can be divided into two groups – adjectives of positive and negative evaluation, and in each of them the gradation of evaluation will be maintained [Вольф 1979: 278].
Researchers also identify «normative» (good, tasty, pleasant, etc.) and «excellent» (excellent, delicious, exquisite, etc.) degrees of positivity [Шаховский 1975: 9]. For example, in the group of units evaluating beauty of human appearance comely, good-looking, pretty, handsome refer to the normative degree of positivity, and lovely, beautiful refer to the superlative degree. It is also noteworthy that the gradation of evaluation is said to be more typical for words of «universal» evaluation (for example in good — fine — wonderful — marvellous, excellent, “good” is generally accepted as a reference point shared by all other members of this group) [Шаховский 1975: 9].
mediocre — (Н) not very good, neither very good nor very bad; second rate; not of the best quality, inferior.
She drank in his homage.
“Sarah Drew might be rather called comely, than beautiful” [Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms 1951: 110].
According to Shahovsky, it is impossible to define a precise intensity of evaluation in each member of a group of words containing evaluation [Шаховский 1975: 9]. In some cases it is possible to establish only sharp degrees of gradation inside the groups of positive evaluation.
For some group units the quantitative correlation of the same feature has been made possible due to the so-called definition-taxonomic (дефиниционный-таксономический) method offered by V. I. Shahovsky [Шаховский 1975: 9]. This method involves the identification of a shared quality in a target group of words (e.g.: good – having desirable quality, wonderful – of very good quality). Thus an exploration of the intensity of evaluation may involve the analysis of the semantic structure of evaluative adjectives.
Words containing evaluation in the given group convey an identical degree of positivity, but they differ from each other by the additional features of the evaluated object (in stately, magnificent, grandiose objective qualities are being evaluated), or by the types of these features (in august and imposing a strong emotional impression made by the subject of the evaluation is being highlighted). At the same time, the combination of the two above-stated features in the semantic structure of one word is possible, for example, in majestiс (very big, impressive, or beautiful (L)).
As follows from the above examples drawn upon by V. I. Shahovsky and J. Nida, explorations of the intensity of evaluation involve an appeal to the internal structure of evaluation.
1) By opposing the “normative” degree of intensity to the superlative degree: “It’s not good – it’s great! Tell Dan he’s got a deal” (J. Susann, цит. по: Кувинова 2005).
Oh my darling, my sweet, my dear love (Sh. MacLaine, цит. по: Кувинова 2005).
N. B. Kuvinova points to the effect that the degree of intensity of members of such chains need not increase from member to member, and may remain more or less similar within one sequence (as in the above example from I. Murdoch).
As follows from the above example from Sh. MacLaine, an intensifying repetition of adjectives may be synonymous.
“Look! What a perfectly good up-to-the-minute handset!” (I. Murdoch 1975, p. 91) [Кувинова 2005: 133-134].
means of evaluation [Вольф 1985, Шрамм 1979, Lee 1957].
Thus, most researchers dealing with adjectives of positive evaluation address the semantic and logical structure of adjectives.
Adjectives of positive evaluation also seem to differ along other lines. For example, in different stylistic register (while excellent is defined as “extremely good or of very high quality”, great is defined as a synonym to excellent used in spoken English (L)). The stylistic markedness of emotive lexical units has been pointed out in a number of researches [e. g., Хомяков 1974; Кривонос 1980; Кувинова 2005], which consider evaluative lexical units belonging to various stylistic registers.
1.2. Classifications of adjectives of evaluation.
Classifications of adjectives of evaluation are proposed in various researches dedicated to this subject. The most elaborate ones feature the nature of an evaluated object [Арутюнова 1988] or the reference point of assessment [Osgood 1957], while the most general ones address the “sign”/ polarity of evaluation (positive, negative or neutral evaluation) and the intensity of evaluation (weak, strong, medium) [Языковая номинация 1977: 43] or the thematic groups that adjectives of positive evaluation fall into [Кувинова 2005: 163].
Considering that in Section 1.1. the degree and intensity of evaluation have already been touched upon, we suggest considering the classification based on the nature of an evaluated object. Researches show that among the most commonly evaluated objects can be: a person, a person’s activity and its results, a concrete concept (or “a thing”), an abstract concept, emotional condition of a person, situation or the previous statement as a whole, etc. [Арутюнова 1988].
According to N. B. Kuvinova, adjectives which have a person as an evaluated object, make up 5.9 % of the general body of adjectives of positive evaluation [Кувинова 2005: 72]. For example, good-looking — (L) (of people) pleasant to look at; buxom — (H) (of women) good-looking, healthy-looking and well covered with flesh. To this group belong such adjectives as: able, bright, competent, capable, intelligent, qualified, smart, skilful, cultured, agile etc.
Lexical units indicating a person’s activity and its results (both mental and physical) account for 58.7 % of adjectives of positive evaluation. To this group belong such adjectives as wise (wise (man, judgment), clever, conscientious, equitable, discreet, modest (man, statesman), etc.) [Кувинова 2005: 72].
Some adjectives of positive evaluation have a concrete concept as an evaluated object, for example, livable — (COD) (of house, room, place, etc.) fit to live in; (of life) worth living, companionable, easy to live with, luxurious (hotel, habits, house, furniture) (H), luxurious (sable coat, cargo, things) (WS); benign (soil, planet, phenomenon) (WS); comfortable (chair, room, clothes) (WS); cosy (fire, chair) (WS); favourable (conditions) (WS); palatial (residence) (H); balmy (air) (H); handy (things, place) (H); restorative (medicine) (H) etc. This group makes up 13.4 % of the general body of adjectives of positive evaluation [Кувинова 2005: 72].
Adjectives, which have an abstract concept as an evaluated object can be, according to N. B. Kuvinova, subdivided into «mental» and «sensual» [Кувинова 2005: 73]. This group is not numerous and makes up 7% of all the adjectives of positive evaluation. These are such adjectives, as auspiсious — (SHOED) of good omen, (auspicious (omen, morning) (F); favourable, prosperous (beginning, news) (WS)); advantageous (position) (F); felicitous (remark) (БАРС); glorious (opportunity); splendid (vision) (WS), (victory) (H); gorgeous (sunset, weather) (H); illustrious (name) (WS); propitious (fate, morning) (F); Сp. potent (spells) (WS); potent (reasons, сharms, remedies ) (БАРС); effective (thinking, rebuke) (WS); effectual (measure, refutation) (WS); deathless (glory, fame) (H); dazzling (career) (WS); immortal (poetry) (H); luminous (style, exposition, production, sentence) (F); sparkling (wit) (WS) etc.
The group reflecting a person’s emotional condition contains a reference to a certain object which is evaluated as the object which has a good (pleasant) emotional impact on the subject of the evaluation [Арутюнова 1988, Вольф 1985], e.g.: agreeable (to the taste, to the touch), pleasant, content, delightful, enjoyable, thankful, warm etc. This group makes up 7% of all the adjectives of positive evaluation. For the given group absence of direct markers of positive evaluation in definitions is typical, as names of emotions and feelings do not contain good as the basic component of their semantics [Кувинова 2005: 74]. The presence of positive evaluation in this group is proved, as a rule, by expansion of definitions.
According to N. D. Arutunova and E. M. Vulf, among the most interesting specific features of adjectives of positive evaluation in the English language appear to be their capacity to evaluate the situation or the previous statement as a whole. These researchers do not interpret the universality in an absolute sense as it is practically impossible to find an evaluative word which could be applied to all the evaluative units in a language, as certain phenomena sometimes cannot be qualified along the “good-bad” guidelines. It is therefore assumed that a “universal” evaluative adjective can refer to the most typical units of evaluation (e.g.: a person; a person and their activity; abstract concept, etc.).
E. M. Vulf singles out a small amount of “universal” evaluative adjectives (e.g.: good, splendid, magnificent, gorgeous, sumptuous, glorious, brilliant, fine, excellent, very good, admirable, marvelous, perfect, pleasant, remarkable, superb, wonderful etc.), which constitute about 6% of all the adjectives of positive evaluation considered by this researcher [цит. по: Кувинова 2005: 72].
As we see, C. Osgood’s classification identifies the reference point of assessment. This reference point may be based on the generally accepted moral, aesthetic or social standards (in adjectives of moral, aesthetic or social evaluation), the emotional impact produced or conveyed by the object of evaluation (in adjectives of emotive evaluation), the intellectual capacity, physical or emperical characteristics of the evaluatee or object of evaluation (in adjectives of intellectual, physical or emperical evaluation).
For the purposes of our research we also think it possible to classify adjectives of positive evaluation along the lines of logical assessment identified in researches dedicated to evaluation as emotional (or emotive/ subjective) and logical (or intellectual/ objective/ rational) [e.g.: Кунин 1980: 168; Вольф 1985; Кувинова 2005: 16, 51, 56]. Adjectives of positive evaluation containing emotional assessment draw upon the impact made on the evaluator’s emotional sphere (e.g.: striking is defined as attractive in an unusual way that is easy to notice (L), and it conveys the evaluator’s emotional assessment of the object or thing in question, regardless of its compliance with the generally accepted standards and reasoning). Adjectives of positive evaluation containing logical evaluation provide a rational assessment of the object or person being evaluated (e.g.: reasonable is defined as fair and sensible (L), and this assessment is positive because it is generally accepted that being fair and sensible is good; healthy is defined as physically strong and not likely to become ill or weak (L), which is also generally accepted as good).
Sometimes adjectives containing logical/ objective evaluation may carry an additional emotive load (e.g., delicious defined as very pleasant to taste or smell (L) conveys both an objectively positive quality and the speaker’s subjective attitude to the object of evaluation: the food is not merely tasty, but delicious). Here we may suppose that the emotional component of the assessment will be conditioned by the intensity of emotion (as shown in the above example), and by the stylistic register of the lexical unit in question (e.g., yummy marked as informal (L) contains a higher degree of emotional assessment than tasty or delicious).
Another noteworthy correlation between logical and emotive aspects of adjectives of evaluation has been observed in relation to their stylistic register. Thus, in her research dedicated to the expression of positive evaluation in the English language N. B. Kuvinova observed that emotive adjectives of positive evaluation tend to belong to the informal speech register, while evaluative adjectives containing logical evaluation tend to be more formal. In the example provided in N. B. Kuvinova’s research the adjective of positive evaluation rewarding containing a logical assessment is used in an official speech: We need the gift of courage so we will not bе afraid of this process of conflict resolution. The journey will be like giving birth – a long painful yet very rewarding process [Кувинова 2005: 156-157].
1.3. Positive evaluation and context.
In 1.1. we have pointed to the effect that linguistic researches show that the reference point of evaluation may be established by the context. A closer scrutiny of linguistic works dedicated to evaluation reveals a more complicated relationship between evaluation and context, specifically between positive evaluation and pragmatic context of communication.
In her survey dedicated to adjectives of positive evaluation, for example, N. B. Kuvinova [Кувинова 2005: 124] mentions the relationship between positive evaluation and such constituent parts of the pragmatic context as: the speakers’ communicative intension, social status, physical and emotional condition, relationship to each other, etc.
(1) The broader context may influence the meanings of adjectives of positive evaluation by “worsening” their dictionary meanings. For example, the positive aspect of evaluation may be “lost” in conventional forms of address (such as ‘dear’ in ‘Dear sirs’). Sometimes a combination with ‘too’ may reverse the positive evaluation, as in ‘it’s too exquisite for my taste’.
(2) The broader context may imbue an otherwise neutral adjective with a positive connotation. For example, if a Labor or Socialist party member refers to someone’s views as “socialistic”, it may show his appreciation or admiration. Conversely if a Conservative party member uses a similar attribute, it may testify to the speaker’s disapproval and even contempt.
Figuratively speaking, the intrinsically neutral adjectives/ adverbs shown above (technical/ technically nor marked/markedly) “shine by reflected light” (like the Moon “shines” by reflected sunlight) by sharing in the positive evaluation of their collocants — precision/precise and subtlety/ subtle.
1.4. The notion of pragmatic potential.
A plunge into linguistic studies shows that the term pragmatic may be interpreted differently by different researchers. In the research by N. B. Kuvinova considered above, for example, the word pragmatic is used in reference to a pragmatic context of communication which may involve such characteristics of the communicants as their communicative intension, social status, physical and emotional condition, relationship to each other, etc. [Кувинова 2005: 224-225]. T. V. Pisanova attaches a slightly different meaning to the term pragmatic: in her research the term pragmatic (in reference to her approach to the cultural aspects reflected in the language) is used interchangeably with the term communicative [Писанова 1997].
In our treatment of the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation we tend to share the approach represented by T. V. Pisanova, and consider the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation primarily as their communicative potential in fictional discourse, namely as their ability to convey the speakers’ attitude, contribute to the emotivity of discourse, and perform other discursive functions. In this connection we believe that from our survey of theoretical research works provided in this chapter follows that the previous treatments of adjectives of positive evaluation have not yet offered a detailed scrutiny of their pragmatic potential and discursive functions.
Adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devices and expressive means.
2.1. Positive evaluation and emotivity.
The relationship between evaluation and emotivity appears to be fertile ground for researchers of both these aspects of discourse. Although some researchers stress that lexical units containing evaluation are inherently emotive [see e. g.: Гридин 1976, Шаховский 1969], and others point to the fact that emotivity is by definition evaluative [Квасюк 1983: 10], the link between evaluation and emotivity appears undubitable.
Adjectives of positive evaluation in the above examples contain both emotivity and positive evaluation. They convey the emotional condition of the characters, and their involvement and interest in the object of assessment. It appears remarkable that, though devoid of high emotivity, two out of three neutral equivalents of the emotionally charged adjectives of positive evaluation in the above examples (pleasant for delightful and very good for splendid) still mostly convey emotional evaluation. The “neutral” equivalent of fascinating is very interesting, which may be referred to logical assessment (i.e.: arousing interest).
It is noteworthy that about 70% (63 out of 90) of adjectives of positive evaluation in our preliminary research are emotionally charged, which appears to be indicatory of a high emotive potential of adjectives of positive evaluation.
2.2. Positive evaluation in author’s speech.
For the purposes of our research of the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation we oppose author’s speech (which may include both the author’s narration and commentary) to the characters’ dialogue.
Research shows that a great number (58%) of adjectives of positive evaluation in the author’s speech represent the protagonist’s rather than the author’s perspective. Thus in W. Golding`s novel “Lord of the Flies” the main characters are boys. They are young, full of energy and ready for adventure, we can follow this in the author’s description: “the dazzling beach and the water” (p.44); “the island ran true to form and the incredible pool…” ( p.47); “ a golden light danced” (p.47); “ The air was bright” (p.64).
More examples of the protagonist’s perspective: “Beautiful, treacherous Mediterranean. There it lay curled before them, it’s white, silky paws touching the stones and gone again…(Katherine Mansfield,Honeymoon,p.265).
“ And even Mrs. Dersingham would have been compelled to admit that they were very charming features. Lena Golspie still remained, after closer inspection, a very pretty girl. She had reddish-gold hair, large brown eyes, an imprudent little nose, and a luscious mouth…”(John Priestley, p.117-118).
“ Edna had worn a wonderfully good imitation of an engagement-ring out of a cracker.” (Katherine Mansfield -1, p.271).
In this example remarkable (thing) conveys the author’s assessment aimed at drawing the reader’s attention to a certain fact, and popular – an objective assessment of a fictional character.
Sometimes, the objective assessment and emotive evaluation may be combined in one word. For example, in “ They faced each other on the bright beach, astonished at the rub of feeling.” (William Golding, p.102) bright seems to actualize two meanings – well-lit (objective characteristic) and appealing (emotive evaluation). And in “The greatest ideas are the simplest.” (William Golding, p.202) great denotes both distinguished, prominent (objective evaluation) and splendid, magnificent (emotive evaluation).
In still another example (His face was dark with the violent pleasure of making this stupendous noise, and his heart was making the stretched shirt shake. The shouting in the forest was nearer (William Golding)) stupendous conveys both the importance of the character’s action and the characters’ emotive attitude attached to it.
In these examples the adjectives of positive evaluation triumphant and delighted convey the emotional condition of the characters.
It is noteworthy that in such cases adjectives of positive evaluation may point to the emotion itself (as in “they were triumphant”) or to visible manifestations of this emotion (as in “a delighted smile”).
2.3. Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue.
2.3.1. Place of dialogue in fictional discourse.
It appears that linguists have a diversity of opinions about dialogue in fictional discourse. According to Golubcova E. E. [Голубцова 1991:8], a representation of everyday speech in drama is an imitation of “real” everyday speech which is changed quantitatively and qualitativly. According to D. S. Zonenashvily everyday speech is changed by the author, becomes literary, it is processed and typified [Зоненашвили 1980:16]. In our research we share the view expressed by a number of linguists [e.g., Teplitskaya, Odintsov, Belyaevskaya, Underco] who believe that fictional dialogue is more than precise representation of characters’ speech, but an essential part of fictional discourse [Теплицкая 1974: 25; Ундерко 1974:5; Одинцов 1980: 226; Беляевская 2006: 240].
2.3.2. Adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional dialogue.
It appears that in dialogue the most obvious pragmatic purposes of the adjectives of positive evaluation are various aspects of speech characterization. According to our original assumptions (based both on practical observations and theoretical research [e.g.: Кувинова 2005: 122]), adjectives of positive evaluation are indicatory of the characters’ emotional (and even physical) condition, gender identity, age, social status, his relationship with other characters etc. Some of these assumptions have been indubitably confirmed, others should still be subject to closer scrutiny.
The most obvious of the original assumptions appears to be a predicted high degree of adjectives of positive evaluation in female discourse. It fully conforms with the generally accepted assumptions about a higher emotivity of female discourse emphasized by a number linguists [e.g.: Земская 1993: 111; 130; Ягубова 1998: 54; Седов 1999b: 50].
“— Has he discussed your article with you?
Only to claim he`s never heard their names. Beyond Pisanello.
“ – Mama, look at that,- Pat ceased his work to listen.- Did you ever see such a beautiful rose in your life, Mama?
It`s pretty, all right, — Mrs Munroe said.
Considering that most adjectives of positive evaluation are (as mentioned above) generally considered to be more or less emotive, our findings about the abundance of such adjectives in children’s speech are in conformance with the common knowledge that children are intrinsically more emotional than adults.
The presence of slangish adjectives of positive evaluation in the speech of younger characters does not, however, appear to be a peculiar feature of adjectives of positive evaluation, but is consistent with the general tendency: younger people generally tend to use slang and colloquialisms in informal speech.
It seems remarkable that examples of adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogical discourse are not only vivid, but also quite numerous: they account for 68% of all of the examples considered in our preliminary research thus testifying to a high pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in English fictional dialogue. The high pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogical discourse appears to be due to their significant pragmatic function considered above – the need to convey the characters’ speech characteristics.
2.4. Adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devices and expressive means.
A close scrutiny of adjectives of positive evaluation shows that adjectives of positive evaluation while fulfilling their evaluative function may be incorporated into stylistic devises and expressive means.
For the purposes of our research we share the treatment of stylistic devices and expressive means proposed by Prof. I. R. Galperin, and consider a stylistic devise to be “a conscious and intentional intensification of some typical structural and/or semantic property of a language unit (neutral or expressive) promoted to a generalized status and thus becoming a generative model” [Galperin 1977: 29-30], and expressive means as “those phonetic, morphological, word-building, lexical, phraseological and syntactical forms which exist in language-as-a-system for the purpose of a logical and/or emotional intensification of the utterance” [Galperin 1977: 27]. The ability to function within stylistic devices and/or expressive means appears therefore to be a feature that expands the pragmatic potential of any language unit into the domain of expressiveness and imagery.
In our paper we are going to consider the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation within the framework of such stylistic devices and expressive means as: irony, oxymoron, epithet, metaphor, hyperbole, repetition.
In example (A) the positive evaluation of the adjective sweet is annulled through reference to the smile of an alligator: an alligator is a ruthless reptile, and it is unlikely to bare its teeth in a smile. The “smile of an alligator” attributed to the character is therefore far from being sweet.
In example (B) the adjective of positive evaluation appropriate changes the polarity of its meaning to the opposite one due to the “negative” influence of its collocant – ominously (“suggesting that something unpleasant is likely to happen”) (Cambridge Dictionary of American English http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=55294&dict=CALD).
Examples (A) and (B) thus show that the meaning (and consequently pragmatic purpose) of adjectives of positive evaluation can be altered by their negative collocants. It appears that this alteration of meaning is not only ironic, but also oxymoronic in nature. (According to Prof. I. R. Galperin, «oxymoron is a combination of two words (mostly an adjective and a noun or an adverb with an adjective) in which the meanings of the two clash, being opposite in sense.» [Galperin 1977: 162]).
He was harder than the grandmother, but it was a nice hardness (Katherine Mansfield, p.146).
A similar improvement of the “negative” meaning is observed in one of the most vivid instance of an oxymoron referred to by I. R. Galperin, namely – sweet sorrow. While sorrow is defined as “(a cause of) a feeling of great sadness or regret” (Cambridge Dictionary of American English), the adjective of positive evaluation sweet commonly referred to something “very pleasant and satisfying” (Cambridge Dictionary of American English) “improves” the meaning of sorrow, and evokes a notion of “a pleasant and satisfying sadness or regret”.
Based on our observations of adjectives of positive evaluation within the stylistic devises of irony and oxymoron we can therefore conclude that they can be both subjects (“improving” the meaning of their collocants) and objects (affected by their collocants) of the changes brought about by the stylistic devises of irony and oxymoron.
Another stylistic devise under consideration – the epithet – is defined by I. R. Galperin as “is a stylistic device based on the interplay of emotive and logical meaning in an attributive word, phrase or even sentence, used to characterize an object and pointing out to the reader… some of the properties or features of the object with the aim of giving an individual perception and evaluation of these features and properties” [Galperin 1977: 157]. I. R. Galperin stresses that unlike logical attributes epithets are subjectively evaluative [Galperin 1977: 157]. Epithets therefore convey the speaker’s emotional assessment of the object of evaluation and are more likely to contain adjectives of (positive) emotional rather than logical evaluation. (“But in the boundless sky the evening star shone…” (Katherine Mansfield, p.161)).
Another most frequently used stylistic device that we propose to consider in connection with adjectives of positive evaluation is metaphor. Russian and Soviet linguists view metaphor as a most widely used trop based upon analogy or the transference of some quality from one object to another that unlike the simile does not contain any formal element to indicate comparison [Galperin 1977: 140]. According to Prof. Galperin I.R., “a metaphor becomes a stylistic device when two different phenomena (things, events, ideas, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the imposition of some or all of the inherent properties of one object on the other which by nature is deprived of these properties. Such an imposition generally results when the creator of the metaphor finds in the two corresponding objects certain features, which to his eye have something in common” [Galperin 1977: 140]. It is also noteworthy that a metaphor can be sustained or prolonged [Galperin 1977: 142] and contain an elaboration on the principal metaphoric image related to the source image by analogy. Such sustained images appear to be a fertile ground for adjectives of positive evaluation.
«This is a crisis. A large crisis. In fact, if you’ve got a moment, it’s a twelve-story crisis with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour porterage and an enormous sign on the roof saying ‘This Is a Large Crisis.'» (Blackadder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor).
Within this sustained metaphor an adjective of positive evaluation (magnificent entrance hall) contributes to the central image of an impressive building that a crisis is likened to.
“Her neck, shoulders, and arms were slenderly, even too delicately, fashioned but she had she had strong, well-shaped legs; and she was indeed the complete attractive young female animal” (John Priestley, p.117-118).
In this example adjectives of positive evaluation (strong, well-shaped legs; attractive young female animal) contribute to the image of an animal created in the sustained metaphor.
In the above example an adjective of positive evaluation good is an inseparable part of an idiomatic (or a trite metaphoric) expression good as gold which is normally used in reference to a child and means “to behave very well” (Cambridge Dictionary of American English). This example appears to confirm that adjectives of positive evaluation still do serve expressive purposes not only when included into genuine metaphors, but also when being part of trite metaphors and idiomatic expressions in particular.
Adjectives of positive evaluation may also be incorporated into another stylistic devise – hyperbole which is defined as “a deliberate overstatement or exaggeration of a feature essential to the object or phenomenon” [Galperin 1977: 176].
When forming a hyperbole adjectives of positive evaluation are used to exaggerate the quality of the object in question. In this case adjectives of positive evaluation are either proceeded by intensifying adverbs (e.g.: incredibly/ unbelievably) or are included into a comparative construction: “…you were the prettiest girl I’d ever spoken to in all my life.” (John Priestley-1, p. 264).
“When he looked up, Molly saw that he had at once the kindest and the sternest eyes she had ever seen, and the whitest hair, too.” (John Steinbeck, p. 151).
Research shows that hyperbolic adjectives of positive evaluation add emotivity and expressiveness to fictional discourse.
In this example an adjective of positive evaluation fine is used as part of a repeated collocation fine thing. This repetition appears to render the character’s emotional condition (excitement).
convey the characters’ attitude and consequently speech characteristics. Thus, the above example of irony (What a duty-loving law-abiding lot we all seem to be!) is indicatory of an ironic attitude of the speaker, and could possibly testify to such traits of character as cynicism and quick wit; the use of metaphor (even a trite one, such as good as gold), hyperbole (the prettiest girl I’d ever spoken to in all my life) or a repetition testify to the characters’ desire to be expressive and/ or to the depth of the feeling they are trying to convey.
It also appears quite essential that while conveying the characters’ attitude to a person or thing the author may express his/her attitude to this character. For example we can sense an affectionate irony on the part of John Priestley as he makes a young man tell the object of his admiration that she is the prettiest girl he had ever spoken to in all his life.
As stated in the Introduction, our research was aimed at exploring the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse. To this end we have conducted a theoretical research and a practical survey.
In Chapter-I we have provided an overview of research works exploring the previous treatments of adjectives of positive evaluation, and have identified the major research lines of adjectives of positive evaluation that have mainly proceeded from their semantic structure reflecting the object, “polarity”, intensity, logical structure and the reference point of evaluation. One or several of these properties have often been used as the basis for classification of adjectives of positive evaluation. A number of (relatively) recent researches of adjectives of positive evaluation are dedicated to surveys of their stylistic register and contextual functioning. In Chapter-I we have also introduced the notion of pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation, which is viewed here as the communicative potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse, namely as their ability to convey the speakers’ attitude, contribute to the emotivity of discourse, and perform other discursive functions.
conveying the characters’ attitude and consequently speech characteristics through adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devises and expressive means.
the speech of children, emotional characters, female characters, etc.
the context which may actualize positive evaluation in otherwise neutral lexical units or invert the “positive” pragmatic function of a given adjective of positive evaluation (as within the stylistic devises of irony or oxymoron).
It is noteworthy that for the purposes of this study we did not aim at scrutinizing all the possible aspects of the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation. This may provide a subject for further research.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Аномалии и язык (К проблеме языковой «картины мира») // Вопросы языкознания. – 1987. №3. – С. 3-11.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Номинация, референция, значение // Языковая номинация. Общие вопросы / Под общ. ред. Б.А.Серебренникова и др. – М.: Наука, 1977. – С. 188-206.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. – М.: Наука, 1988. – 338 с.
Баранов, А. Н. Иллокутивное вынуждение в структуре диалога / А. Н. Баранов, Г. Е. Крейдлин // Вопросы языкознания. – 1992a. – №2. – С.84-99.
Беляевская, Е. Г. Коммуникативная лингвистика: путь к когнитивной парадигме лингвистических исследований (использование фреймовых структур при анализе диалога) // Колшанский Геннадий Владимирович (1922-1985) Статьи разных лет. Развитие идей ученого в трудах его соратников и учеников. Коммуникативно-деятельностный подход к обучению языкам на основе идей Г. В. Колшанского. – М.: Изд-во МГЛУ «Рема», 2006. – С. 227-244.
Виноградов В.В. Основные типы лексических значений // В.В.Виноградов. Избранные труды. Лексикология и лексикография / Отв. ред. тома В.Г.Костомаров. – М.: Наука, 1977. – С. 162-189.
Вольф Е.М. Грамматика и семантика прилагательного ( на материале романо-иберийских языков). – М.: Наука, 1978. – 200 с.
Вольф Е.М. Варьирование в оценочных структурах. // Семантическое и формальное варьирование/ Под общ. ред. В.Н. Ярцевой и др. – М.: Наука, 1979. – С. 273-294.
Вольф Е.М. Функциональная семантика оценки. – М.: Наука, 1985. – 228 с.
И. Р. Гальперин Очерки по стилистике английского языка. – М.: «Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках», 1958. – 460 с.
Е. Е. Голубцова Поэтическая функция языка в стилизованной повседневной речи (на материале англо-американской драмы и прозы): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1991. – 204 с.
Гридин В.Н. К вопросу о систематизации эмоциональной лексики // Переводная и учебная лексикология. – М.: Русский язык, 1979. – С. 112-124.
О. Н. Гришина Соотношение повествования, описания и рассуждения в художественном тексте: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 1983. – С.1-82.
Гюббенет И.В. Проблема словесной реакции на ситуацию (на материале прилагательных в современном английском языке): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1973. – 207 с.
Девкин В.Д. К проблеме немецкой разговорной речи (лексики и синтаксиса): Дис. … д-ра филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 240 с.
Дементьев, В. В. Фатические и информативные коммуникативные интенции: проблема коммуникативной компетенции и типология речевых жанров / В. В. Дементьев // Жанры речи: межвуз. сборник статей / под ред. В. Е. Гольдина. – Вып.1. – Саратов: Изд-во ГосУНЦ «Колледж», 1997.– С. 34-44.
Жалагина, Т. А. Коммуникативный фокус в диалогических событиях / Т. А. Жалагина // Языковое общение: единицы и регулятивы: сб. науч. тр. – Калинин: Изд-во КГУ, 1987. – С. 107-115.
Земская, Е. А. Особенности мужской и женской речи / Е. А. Земская, М. А. Китайгородская, Н. Н. Розанова // Русский язык в его функционировании: коммуникативно-прагматический аспект. – М.: Наука, 1993. – С. 90-136.
Зернецкий, П. В. Единицы речевой деятельности в диалогическом дискурсе / П. В. Зернецкий // Языковое общение: единицы и регулятивы: сб. науч. тр. – Калинин: Изд-во КГУ, 1987. – С. 89-95.
Д. С. Зоненашвили Диалог в драме и диалог в прозе: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 1980. – С.1-157.
Зубов А.В. О языковых средствах выражения категории оценки в современном английском языке (на материале англо-американской прессы): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 193 с.
Квасюк И.И. Структура и семантика отрицательно-эмотивной лексики (на материале разных частей речи современного английского языка): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1983. – 234 с.
Кибрик, А. А. Когнитивные исследования по дискурсу / А. А. Кибрик // Вопросы языкознания. – 1994. – №5. – С. 126-139.
Колшанский Г.В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке. – М.: Наука, 1975. – 230 с.
Кривонос С.М. Лингвостилистические средства выражения категории оценки (на материале произведений Кл.Цеткин): Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1980. – 26 с.
Кувинова, Н.Б. Семантика и прагматика смыслового пространства положительной оценки в современном английском языке: дис. … канд. филол. наук 10.02.04/ Кувинова Наталья Борисовна; МГЛУ. – М., 2005. – 184 с.
Кунин А.В. Механизм окказиональной фразеологической номинации и проблема оценки // Вопросы фразеологии: Сб. науч. трудов / МГПИИЯ им. М.Тореза; Редкол. А.В.Кунин (отв. ред.) и др. – М., 1980. – Вып. 168. – С. 158-185.
Лук А.Н. О чувстве юмора и остроумии. – М.: Искусство, 1968. – 190 с.
Медникова Э.М. Оценочные прилагательные в современном английском языке: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1954. – 16 с.
Михайлов, Л. М. Коммуникативная грамматика немецкого языка: учебник для институтов и факультетов иностранных языков / Л. М. Михайлов – М.: Высшая школа, 1994. – 256 с.
Недобух, А. С. Вербальные сигналы мены коммуникативных ролей / А. С. Недобух // Языковое общение: процессы и единицы: сб. науч. тр. – Калинин: Изд-во КГУ, 1988. – С. 107-117.
В. Г. Никонова Взаимодействие фразеологических конфигураций и их смысловых коррелятов в диалогической речи: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1987. – 24 с.
Одинцов, В. В. Стилистика текста / В. В. Одинцов – М.: Наука, 1980. – 263 с.
Писанова Т.В. Национально-культурные аспекты оценочной семантики (эстетические и этические оценки): Московскй государственный лингвистическй университет. – М., 1997. – 320 с.
Седов, К. Ф. Становление дискурсивного мышления языковой личности (Психо-и социолингвистические аспекты): монография / К. Ф. Седов. – Саратов: Изд-во Саратовского университета, 1999b. – 180 с.
А. А. Стриженко Взаимодействие авторской речи и речи персонажей в современной драматургии: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1972. – 32 с.
Н. И. Теплицкая Некоторые проблемы диалогического текста: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 253 с.
Л. Ундерко Некоторые структурно-композиционные формы диалога в пьесах Шекспира: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 30 с.
Уфимцева А.А. Типы словесных знаков. – М.: Наука, 1974. – 205 с.
Френкель Е.И. Парадигматика оценочных семем в современном английском языке ( на материале разных частей речи): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Пятигорск, 1981. – 206 с.
Хализев, В. Е. Драма как род литературы (поэтика, генезис, функционирование) / В. Е. Хализев. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1986. – 260 с.
Хомяков В.А. Структурно-семантические и социально-стилистические особенности английского экспрессивного просторечия. – Вологда, 1974. – 104 с.
Хундснуршер, Ф. Основы, развитие и перспективы анализа диалога / Ф. Хундснуршер // Вопросы языкознания. – 1998. – №2. – С. 38-50.
Н. Е. Юдина, К вопросу об эмоциональных конструкциях в составе диалогических единств: автореф. дис. … филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 18 с.
Шаховский В.И. Некоторые способы выражения эмотивно-субъективной оценки в сфере имен существительных современного английского языка: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1969. – 25 с.
Шаховский В.И., Проблема разграничения экспрессивности и эмоциональности как семантической категории лингвистики // Проблемы семасиологии и лингвистики, вып. 2. – Рязань, 1975. – С. 3-25.
Шведова, Н. Ю. Очерки по синтаксису русской разговорной речи / Н. Ю. Шведова. – М.: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 1960. – 377 с.
Шрамм А.Н. Очерки по семантике качественных прилагательных ( на материале русского языка). – Л.: ЛГУ, 1979. – 132 с.
Ягубова, М. А. Оценка в разговорной речи мужчин и женщин / М. А. Ягубова // Языковая личность: социолингвистические и эмотивные аспекты: сб. науч. тр. ВГПУ-СГУ. – Волгоград: Перемена, 1998. – С. 43-54.
Языковая номинация. Виды наименований / Под общ. ред. Б.А.Серебренникова и др. – М.: Наука, 1977. – 357 с.
Яковлева, Э. Б. Специфика немецкой полилогической речи: монография / Э. Б. Яковлева. – М.: Изд-во «ООО Типография Сарма», 2004. – 200 с.
Якубинский, Л. П. О диалогической речи (1923) / Л. П. Якубинский // Избранные работы. Язык и его функционирование / отв. ред. А. А. Леонтьева. – М.: Наука, 1986. – С. 17-58.
Brown, G. Discourse Analysis / G. Brown, G. Yule. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. – 288 p.
Chafe, W. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow / W. Chafe // Coherence and Grounding in Discourse / Ed. R. S. Tomlin. – Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamines Publishing Company, 1987. – P. 21-51.
Fillenbaum S., Rapoport A. Structures in the Subjective Lexicon. – New York, 1971. – 251 p.
Galperin I.R. Stylistics. – M., 1971. – 341 p.
Katz J.J. Semantic Theory and Meaning of “good”. – In: Journal of Philosophy, 1964, vol. 61, №23. – P. 739-776.
Lee H.N. The Meaning of “Intrinsic Value”. – In: The Language of Value, ed. by Lepley. – New York, Columbia University Press, 1957. – pp. 178-198.
Nida E.A. Componential Analysis of Meaning. An Introduction to Semantic Structures. The Hague-Paris-Mouton, 1975.– 272 p.
Sacks, H. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for conversation / H. Sacks, E. A. Schegloff, G. A. Jefferson // Language. – 1974. –Vol. 50. – No. 4, Part-I. – P. 696-735.
Osgood C.E. Focus on meaning. Explorations in Semantic Space. – The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1976. vol. 1. – 235 p.
1. Краткий философский словарь. – М.: Политиздат, 1979.
2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. New Edition. Ed. bу A.S. Hornby. – Oxford University Press, 1977.
4. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (Longman Dictionary) / Словарь современного английского языка: в 2-х т. – Т. 2. – М.: Русский язык, 1992. – 1229 с.
5. Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms. – Springfield (Mass.): Merriam, 1952.
1. Agatha Christie-1 Christie Agatha Ten Little Niggers // Selected Detective Prose. – Moscow: Raduga Publishers, 1989. – P. 155 — 301.
2. Agatha Christie-2 Christie Agatha The Mysterious Affairs at Styles. London., 1979. – 193 p.
Positive evaluation in author’s speech.
“ The air was bright” (William Golding, p.64).
5. “Beautiful, treacherous Mediterranean. There it lay curled before them, it’s white, silky paws touching the stones and gone again…(Katherine Mansfield -1 ,p.265).
Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue.
1. “- Has he discussed your article with you?
5. — How do you feel now?
6. “ – Mama, look at that,- Pat ceased his work to listen.- Did you ever see such a beautiful rose in your life, Mama?
“ — `Lo, dad, -cried George, entering briskly. – How`s things?
He was harder than the grandmother, but it was a nice hardness. (Katherine Mansfield, p.146).
“But in the boundless sky the evening star shone…” (Katherine Mansfield, p.161).
“…you were the prettiest girl I’d ever spoken to in all my life.” (John Priestley-1, p. 264).
1 There are apparently more thematic groups of adjectives of positive evaluation, but identifying them appears to be beyond the scope of our research.
3 This example can be disputed because hardness is not intrinsically a negative feature which can not be nice. However, the apposition created in the sentence (but it was a nice hardness) suggests that the author assumes hardness to be an unpleasant characteristic.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.