Учебное пособие 1427

non-trivial means of expression when institutionalizing this kind of communication.Communicative imposition is traditionally considered from the point of view of communicative pressure and inequality, and aggravation of imposition is associated with an increase in this pressure (as opposed to mitigation, lessening of communicative pressure). Obtaining

“communicatively dangerous” material in the immediate academic environment is often reduced to a minimum and is often associated with privacy and non-disclosure due to increased conflict potential. Modeling conflict discourse also seems problematic in this situation: taking into account possible tactical and strategic characteristics, interpreting of what is happening and reflexivity, subjectivity and uncertainty do not allow us to model conflict discourse in the form of, for example, a discourse questionnaire. A detailed literary text, however, with ready-made and prescribed reactions and interpretations, leaves for researchers only a field to analyze and describe the obtained results.

Research Methodology.

The object of the research is speech acts with elements of aggravation of imposition, which have been revealed in the university novel “The Department” by I. Grekova.

The subject of the research is the communicative and pragmatic peculiarities of the implementation of aggravation of communicative imposition in Russian-language university prose.

The aim of the study, therefore, is to identify the frequency and productive tactics of implementing the category of communicative non-imposition in Russian-language university prose (based on the story of I. Grekova "The Department").

The research material was the university story “The Department” by I. Grekova (1978).

By means of a continuous sample, we selected speech acts containing elements of aggravation of imposition. The use of Russian-language material is caused, first of all, by the lacunarism of research on this topic. Thus, university prose in the linguistic aspect is traditionally considered on the material of the already classical English-language university novels, the small spread of the genre in the Russian-speaking field affects researches, most often of a literary nature.

The choice of modern fiction as a research material is due, on the one hand, to the fact that the speech of the protagonists of fiction books and colloquial speech belong to the subsystems of the literary language, on the other hand, possible stylization can bring originality to the analysis.

The general scientific methods used in this work include analysis and synthesis. The selection of material was carried out using a continuous sample. Further, the material was analyzed taking into account the use of linguistic techniques: the contextological technique was used along with the admission of a continuous sample to take into account the macroand micro-context of the situation, the methods of linguistic and pragmatic description were used in the analysis of speech acts in which elements of aggravation and / or mitigation of positivity were identified.

Research Results.

Aggravation and mitigation of imposition has different frequency and productive means of implementation. Given that the main means of realizing (non)imposition are identical for the most types of discourse, not only within the framework of one language, but, often, within the framework of the languages of one group (for example, the languages of the IndoEuropean group). Nevertheless, the opposite statement is also true - within the framework of each language, each communicative culture, each type of discourse, there are specific means of expressing mitigation and aggravation of communicative imposition.

Within the framework of the subject of the research, it is possible to distinguish “borderline” types of discourse, with which the investigated type of discourse intersects – fictiondiscourse, but stylized as academic. On the one hand, it gravitates towards an academic institutionalized discourse on the subject and object of communication, roles, topics (e.g.,

«Слишком велика была дистанция, жестокая дистанция между преподавателем и

74

студентом, преодолеть которую трудно и той, и другой стороне [1*]»), while styling can make some adjustments. The difference between fictiondiscourse and academic (for example, when obtaining results using a questionnaire –a discourse questionnaire) allows us to trace, among other things, some prosodic characteristics that would be indistinguishable when modeling (academic) discourse.

The analysis of imposition tactics shows productive means of realizing imposition (aggravation of imposition, i.e. aggravating of communicative pressure). Here, it is worth making one more remark regarding the author’s idiostyle and the volume of the work: a limited number of examples does not allow to extrapolate the research findings to the entire university prose but highlights some specific means of implementation. So, aggravation of communicative pressure is realized due to the colloquial interrogative particle "but", which intensifies, aggravates the pragmatic potential of the statement:

Им созданы все условия для работы, –заметил Кравцов, разглядывая свои ногти.

Все условия?! А в общежитие номер два вы ходили? [1*]

Another example of a similar usage of a particle (both options are in the reactive function, however, it is possible to use this particle in the initial position of the initial remark, which, according to our assumptions, performs a rhetorical function):

-А почему нельзя? Говорите же вы “сопромат”, а не “сопротивление материалов”, “комсомол”, а не “коммунистический союз молодежи”? [1*]

In both examples, there is a complex usage of means of aggravating imposition: the usage of an interrogative particle only intensifies the pragmatic potential of a series of interrogative statements. The usage of this particle is traditionally considered a characteristic feature of speech communication, and not of fictiondiscourse, as a result of which we see the stylization of speech activity and its approximation to sounding speech.

It should be noted that the question of the only possible interpretation of interrogative statements is subject to doubt. The pragmatic potential of interrogation is extremely wide and can include a wide range of meanings both mitigating a statement and aggravating it. In most of the cases, interpretation occurs situationally, contextually: it is generally believed that the mitigating potential of an interrogative utterance is manifested in its combination with modal verbs or hedges (hedges-mitigators in their function).

In the examples above, it can be seen that the impulsive potential of a conversational intensifying particle is aggravated by an interrogative statement in its form. A single interrogative utterance can be further reinforced by other interrogative utterances, aggravating not only the rhetorical and emotional components of the utterance, but also the imposition:

– Какого же черта вы меня посвящали во всю эту белиберду? Битую неделю я ухлопала на вашу с Яковкиным продукцию! Что я вам, научный ассенизатор? Думаете, мне это интересно? Черта с два! [1*]

In this example, the emotional, face-threatening component is aggravated by colloquial, evaluative, emotional vocabulary (“какого черта”, “белиберда”, “битую неделю”, “ухло-

пать”, “научный ассенизатор”), undoubtedly, it influences the addressee of the message. The pragmatic feature of this speech act is the status-role characteristics of the communicants: the initiator of the remark is anolder person and higher in status (the addressee and the addresser are included in the same institutional group). Stylistically, the question “Do you think I’m interested in it?” is quasi-negative. It can be interpreted as: “I’m not interested in it at all.”

75

Similar examples can be seen further in the text, however, there are status-role characteristics of communication. As in the above example, the communicants are representatives of one communicative group (in this case, it is not institutionalized in the full sense of the word, since the communicants, although they belong to the “students” group, communication takes place in an informal setting). In general, the genre of a university novel predisposes the presence of not only an academic theme in the plot, often the plot unfolds against the background of an academic context, and the protagonists are involved in this context. Let us consider three examples:

–Тоже мне Сикстинская мадонна, – сказал он. –Из самой Дрезденской [1*].

In this sentence, not only the general message of arrogance is realized (due to references to the uniqueness and elitism of the work of art “Sistine Madonna”), but also a hint of intellectuality - knowledge of the museum in which the painting is located. Thus, we see the formula

“You are not X, I have to do with X”.

А ты ничего гирла, –сказал он небрежно[1*].

Не возникай, – спокойно сказал он [1*].

Non-institutionalism is realized through you-communication, informal arrogant addresses and the use of colloquial vocabulary. Undoubtedly, these communication factors have an impact on the positive face of the addressee, are of a face-threatening character (with the status equality of communicants, the initiator of the remarks shows by lexical means his communicative priority).

The use of the marked vocabulary in the academic environment in interpersonal communication is presented by a single example. A group of two interrogative sentences has a reproach character, which inherently threatens a positive face and is of an imposition character, which is aggravated by the lexeme “human flesh” and appeals to cannibalism, which is condemned in a modern society. In a metaphorical sense, the addresser speaks of the addressee’s cruelty:

–Добились своего? – спросил меня на другой день Лева Маркин. – наелись человечи-

ны? [1*]

Rare enough for university novels is an illustration of the university realities and communication features. In the examples below, there is anaccusatory fragment from the defense of a doctoral dissertation, in which the candidate is asked provocative (i.e., on default, posing a threat to the addressee’s positive face) questions, thereby calling into question the research, the contribution of the candidate and aggravating the imposition:

Я подняла руку. Несколько членов совета повернулись в мою сторону: что за личность? Я спросила:

– В вашей работе, выполненной совместно с Карпухиным, утверждается, что … (И далее ряд специальных терминов.) Вы по-прежнему придерживаетесь такого мнения?

Кот-ворюга насторожился [1*].

The example illustrates formal equal status institutional communication (youcommunication, use of neutral vocabulary). However, the imposition is aggravated by an interrogative construction with the contextual aggravating lexeme “as before”. Through the use of the lexemes by thespeech subject a pragmatic assessment of the addressee is given, his actions

76

within the framework of a specific situation. The next example is similar in its communicative characteristics, also has an interrogative form, intensified by lexical elements (the particle

“but”), opposition (today – three years ago), contextual intensifier “literally”. Such a multistage modification of an interrogative in its form statement serves to increase the communicative pressure, i.e. aggravates the imposition of the statement:

– Почему же тогда на странице сто тридцать второй вашей диссертации, которую вы защищаете сегодня, а не три года назад, буквально повторяется то же самое утверждение [1*]?

The analysis shows the frequency of use of interrogative in their form constructions – interrogative speech acts with various modifications, which, in our case, threatened the positive face of the addressee, aggravating the imposition. Thus, the range of contextual-intensifying particles used by the author expands:

– Ну а с вашей точки зрения [1*]?

The particle “well” is used in an interrogative in its form statement, focusing on an impatient urge, an insistent call to action. A similar simple particle in the text of the book is the particle “and”, also intensifying the statement, adding notes of perseverance and impatience to it:

– А в чем была ошибка вашего? – безжалостно спросила я [1*].

And further in the text follows the continuation of a series of face-threatening questions that occurred during the defense of the thesis:

– Еще вопросы?– спросил председатель, не скрывая неудовольствия. Это уже становилось неприличным.

– А как же, есть, – сказала я залихватски. – Я бы попросила диссертанта уточнить, какова доля его личного участия в работах, приведенных в литературе под номерами сорок семь, сорок восемь, сорок девять, пятьдесят и опубликованных им в соавторстве с Карпухиным [1*]?

Let us define the face-threatening, imposition nature of the analyzed speech act by means of contextual analysis: the heroine is rather aggressive and skeptical about the doctoral dissertation of the colleague who is defending his thesis. The imposition is also illustrated by the author’s commentary – the use of the lexeme “dashing” – with boldness, recklessly, the utterance has an interrogative form (frequent use within the analyzed material), the initial remark is aggravated by the emotionally expressive particle “but”.

A certain feature of university prose (like any other form of fiction) is a partial reflection of the prosodic features of speech. So, the features of prosody cannot be reflected in a discourse questionnaire. In this case, the author’s comments (and emphatic punctuation) help to differentiate and define the speaker’s communicative intentions:

Что это такое?! – грозно[1*]

The lexeme грозно “threateningly” naturally expresses imposition since it implies the idea of instilling fear and horror. Similarly:

Я обозлилась:

77

– Случайно я по образованию математик, посвящена в тонкости этого аппарата и хочу услышать от вас здесь, а не в кулуарах, правильно это положение или нет

[1*].

In this case, we see an illustration of not a prosodic element, but a direct naming of the mood of the addressee, who is resolutely opposed to the dissertation candidate and wants to convict him of using the results of the research of his co-author. The pragmatic weight of the statement is enhanced by the “randomness” (that is, non-randomness) of the addressee in mathematics, as well as the peremptory request, reinforced by the adversative conjunction “but” (“here, but not ...”). Such persistence, regardless of the communicative situation, reduces the communicative freedom of the addressee of the message, aggravates his/her imposition character.

The interpretation of a speech act to a threatening face often happens contextually: a public didactic reprimand of a student (the difference in status, the institutionality of the situation aggravates the face-threatening effect) in front of the department staff:

– Вот перед нами, сказал Кравцов, картинно протянув руку, – одна из тех двоек, о которых сегодня шел разговор. Причем типичная. Вот что, девушка. У нас идет заседание кафедры. Если б не такие, как вы, оно бы кончилось много раньше. Подождите-ка в коридоре, пока мы кончим [1*].

The aggravation of imposition occurs due to the “picturesque” gestures, the opposition between us and them (“we have a meeting of the department” – “if not for the people like you”), an indefinite “wait in the corridor.” This remark not only jeopardizes the positive face of the addressee, but minimizes it. In addition to this, let us pay attention to the particle “just”, the main meaning of which is the mitigation of the requirement, but contextually, as a result of the difference in status, it can be assessed didactically.

Conclusion.

The result of the analysis of the university novel “The Department” by I. Grekova shows the complex usage of linguistic means for the aggravation of communicative imposition.

Traditionally, interrogative statements (or, in terms of pragmatics, interrogative speech acts) are considered as mitigators of imposition statements and are traditionally interpreted as the implementation of means of negative politeness. Undoubtedly, exclusively the form of utterance, both in the case of mitigation and aggravation of imposition, is modified by the totality of linguistic components. The research material shows the following productive dominants that aggravate the communicative imposition of the utterance:

frequent use of interrogative statements in their form, reinforced by various components. There are also frequent groups of interrogative in the form of statements that serve to intensify. Additional components determine the nature of intensification – aggravation or mitigation;

the face-threatening component is aggravated by the use of emotionally evaluative vocabulary (with a negative evaluative component);

aggravation of communicative pressure is realized by means of colloquial vocabulary

(interrogative particles, particles “but” in the initial position, “but”, “well”, “just” of contextual intensifiers;

the genre of university prose makes it possible to partially trace the prosodic features of imposition (author’s remarks, emphatic punctuation);

imposition (more often in different status communication) can be aggravated by the opposition “we-they”.

The analyzed examples show the diversity of the use of imposition statements (equal and different status communication, institutional and non-institutional communication) in the university novel genre – based on the story “Department” by I. Grekova. Undoubtedly, the ques-

78

tion arises about the possibility of extrapolating the obtained results directly to the academic discourse. The possibility of this research will be attributed to the further research perspective. We see the continuation of further work within the framework of fiction discourse, in particular, within the framework of university prose: on the one hand, deepening and expanding the analysis of the pragmatic characteristics of the Russian-language university novel, on the other hand, comparing the linguo-pragmatic (in particular, speech act) peculiarities of the English language and Russian-language books in the genre of university prose.

References

[1]Smirnova, M. N. Kommunikativnye neudachi v neoficial'nom dialoge (na materiale anglijskogo jazyka) [Communication failures in a non-official dialogue (based on the English language)] : special'nost' 10.02.04 "Germanskie jazyki" : dissertacija na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata filologicheskih nauk / Smirnova Marina Nikolaevna. – Moskva, 2003. – 165 s.

[2]Kozhukhova I. V. Interrogativnyye kosvennyye rechevyye akty: realizatsiya kommunikativnoy neimpozitivnosti (na materiale angliyskogo i russkogo yazykov): monografiya [Interrogative indirect speech acts: the implementation of communicative non-impositivity (based on the material of the English and Russian languages)] // Chelyabinsk. REKPOL. – 2012. – 144 s.

[3]Austin J. L. How to Do Things with Words / J.L. Austin // Oxford University Press. New York. – 1962. – 168 p.

[4]Searle J. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language / J.R Searle // Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. – 1969. – 203 p.

[5]Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage / P. Brown, S. Levinson // Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. – 1987 – 345 с.

[6]Larina T. Directness, imposition and politeness in English and Russian / T. Larina // Cambridge ESOL. Research Notes –2008 – PP. 33-38.

[7]Larina T. V. Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil' kommunikatsii: sopostavleniye angliyskikh i russkikh lingvokul'turnykh traditsiy [Category of politeness and communication style: comparison of English and Russian linguocultural traditions] // M. Rukopis. Pamyatniki drevney Rusi. – 2009 – 512 s.

[8]Ancyferova, O. Universitetskij roman: zhizn' i zakony zhanra [University novel: life and functioning of the genre]/ O. Ancyferova // Voprosy literatury. – 2008. – № 4. – S. 264295.

[9]Zabolotneva O. L., Kozhukhova I. V. Likougrozhayushchiye rechevyye akty v universitetskikh romanakh [Face-threatening speech acts in university novels] // Nizhniy Novgorod. Izdatel'stvo DEKOM. – 2019. – S. 984-988.

[10]Irina V. Kozhukhova, Oksana L. Zabolotneva. Pragmatic peculiarities of insincere speech acts in Z. Smith’s “On beauty” / Kozhukhova Irina V., Zabolotneva Oksana L. // The

European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS: PhR 2019 – Philological

Readings, Orenburg, 2019. – Orenburg: The Future Academy. – Volume XXXIX, Pages 1-797 (30 April 2018). – PP. 271-280. ISSN/ISBN 2357-1330, url (https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.04.02.30).

[11]Zabolotneva O. L., Kozhukhova I. V. Likougrozhayushchiye rechevyye akty v akademicheskoy srede (raznostatusnaya kommunikatsiya) [Face-threatening speech acts in academic discourse (different-status communication)] // Filologicheskiye nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. – Tambov: Gramota. – 2020. – vyp. 11 (13). – S. 226-231. ISSN/ISBN 1997-2911

[12]Plotnikova, S. N. Lingvisticheskie aspekty vyrazhenija neiskrennosti v anglijskom jazyke [Linguistic aspects of insincerity in the English language]: special'nost' 10.02.04 "Ger-

79

manskie jazyki" : dissertacija na soiskanie uchenoj stepeni doktora filologicheskih nauk / Plotnikova Svetlana Nikolaevna. – Irkutsk, 2000. – 382 s.

[13]Antsyferova O. YU. Universitetskiy roman Dzh. M. Kutzeye: Postkolonial'naya modifikatsiya zhanra [The University novel by J.M. Coetzee: A Postcolonial Modification of the Genre] // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. – 2009. – № 1. – S. 72-78.

[14]Marakhov P. V. Kritika politkorrektnosti i feminizma v romane Fr. Prouz «Goluboy angel» [Criticism of political correctness and feminism in the novel by Fr. Prose "Blue Angel"]

//Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Russkaya filologiya. – 2012. – № 4. – S. 62-69.

[15]Blum-Kulka, Sh. Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Culture Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns / Sh. Blum-Kulka, E. Olshtain // Applied Linguistics 5. – 1984. – P. 196213.

Analyzed sources

[1*] Grekova I. Kafedra [Department] // Novyy Mir. 1978. № 9. Available at: URL: http://lib.ru/PROZA/ GREKOWA/kafedra.txt (In Russ.).

80

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2021.20.57.008

UDC 81-119

RESEARCH METHODS FOR STUDYING EVALUATION:

ACADEMIC DISCOURSE PERSPECTIVE

A.A. Vodyanitskaya

Moscow City University Institute of Foreign Languages

PhD in Philology, Associate professor of the Department of Linguistics and Translation Studies Albina Aleksandrovna Vodyanitskaya

e-mail: avodyanickaya@yandex.ru

Problem statement. The paper focuses on the study of traditional approaches evaluations and innovative methods of their study.

The objective of the research. is to analyze the methods of studying evaluation that could be applied in identifying the evaluative specifics of academic discourse.

Results. The research has revealed that evaluative meanings attract the attention of researchers in various fields of knowledge, various discourses. The question of differentiating emotion, expressive language means and evaluation is still open. The close relationship of assessment with the values of the individual making a value judgment suggests the possibility of studying it from the standpoint of axiology, while the relationship with psychology allows one to approach assessment from the point of view of psychology (for example, evaluative styles).

Conclusion. The combination of traditional and innovative methods will reveal the ontological properties of assessment in academic discourse. We are talking about verbalized value judgments made by various participants in academic discourse. Issues of evaluative categorization, differentiation of emotion and evaluation, evaluative styles of participants in academic discourse, corpus-based analysis seem to be relevant aspects in the study of the evaluative component of academic discourse.

Key words: evaluative meanings, methods of studying evaluation, academic discourse, digital methods, traditional methods, innovative methods, evaluative triad, emotions.

For citation: Vodyanitskaya A.A. Research methods for studying evaluation: academic discourse perspective / A.A. Vodyanitskaya // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2021. -

№ 2 (33). – P. 81-88.

Introduction.

Currently, research into evaluation functioning is one of the most widely represented areas in the scientific landscape of modern linguistics and related sciences [1; 2; 3; 4]. This work examines the methods for studying evaluative means in the text and discourse, and also draws conclusions as to which methods seem to be the most relevant in the study of the evaluative component of academic discourse. The latter “acts as an informative plane, uniting the individual and the discipline, the scientific direction in which the author works”, and is part of the “institutional practices characteristic of a certain community” [5, p. 77], and also represents “an activity that regulates the process of generating meaning and represents special social relations and ways of seeing and describing the world around us” [ibid.]. The evaluative activity of representatives of academic discourse is multifaceted and multi-layered – we are talking about both grades-marks and verbalized evaluation that teachers voice to students at various stages of their scientific and educational work. Students evaluate their own contribution to the problem being studied, for example, within the framework of a term paper or thesis, express an evaluative attitude towards the works of researchers, and verbalize this attitude. Along with various systems for assessing the quality of teachers' activities, there is a reflection of each individual

_________________________

© Vodyanitskaya A.A., 2021

81

teacher about various aspects of the past lesson, his / her pedagogical achievements, etc. In this regard, the study of methods for the study of estimated values in order to apply them within the framework of academic discourse, namely, in the analysis of various genres of this type of discourse (lecture, review of the supervisor, term paper, thesis, students' reflective essays on studying at the university, dissertation, article, etc.) appears to be relevant. Note that “institutional discourses are formed by the picture of the world of the carriers of culture and reflect the values of society and its communicative traditions” [5, p. 77]. As the researchers note,

“Evaluation is perhaps society’s most fundamental discipline; it is an essential characteristic of the human condition; and it is the single most important and sophisticated cognitive process in the repertoire of human reasoning and logic [6, cited by: 1, p. 3].

This statement reflects three approaches to the study of evaluation: from the standpoint of the established social norm, from the point of view of human interaction with other representatives of society and with the surrounding reality, finally, evaluation is considered as a tool of cognition.

It seems that when studying evaluation in the framework of academic discourse, it is important to take into account both individual hypostases of the functioning of evaluation and their totality.

Research methodology.

The object of this study is traditional and innovative methods of researching estimated values.

The subject of the research is the evolution of methods and their significance in relation to the analysis of academic discourse.

The purpose of the study is to identify how different methods of studying evaluative means reveal the ontological properties of evaluation and which of them are appropriate to use when analyzing various genres of academic discourse.

The material of the research is the work of scientists on the problems of studying evaluation and discourse, as well as the corpus of texts of various genres of academic discourse, collected by the author of this paper and considered for the functioning of evaluativeness.

The results of the research.

1. Traditional methods of evaluation research.

The study of evaluation in the traditional sense can be roughly divided into the following stages

-identification of its structural features, the specifics of functioning [7; 8];

-evaluation logic [9; 10]. Scientists note the high dependence of the evaluation on the preferences of the speaking subject, on the object of evaluation, context, time; indicate its appeal to the addressee, and, consequently, its high pragmatic potential [9, p. 6]. Moreover, “the maximum of contextual dependence makes evaluation one of the most difficult to define types of pragmatic meaning. This is a tough nut to crack, although it lacks a semantic core. For centuries, the mystery of the evaluation worried philosophers, logicians and linguists, who put forward a number of important hypotheses and concepts” [9, p. 7]. Studying various evaluation theories, N.D. Arutyunova considers the following aspects:

“1) the principle and formal structure of the definitions of evaluative and deontic predicates, 2) the relativity of good and bad (the good and the bad), 3) the relationship of evaluation with the natural properties of the object, and value and normative judgments with actual ones,

4)the modality of evaluation, 5) evaluative and normative vocabulary in the act of communication, 6) consistency of the text containing evaluative and deontic concepts, 7) the structure and specifics of practical reasoning, 8) speech functions of evaluative predicates” [9, p. 11]. It seems that the imposition of such a matrix on both traditional and innovative concepts would allow one to get closer to solving the mystery of valuation.

82

1.1. Distinguishing between emotion and evaluation

The problem of differentiating emotion and evaluation remains relevant to this day. Let us cite in this connection the views of D.N. Shmelev, who emphasized the fundamental difference between words that name emotions, and, therefore, devoid of an expressive charge, and words, in the denotation of which an emotional attitude to a particular phenomenon is already embedded: “there are words whose lexical content is the designation of emotions: joy, melancholy, love, hate, darling, etc. The emotional coloring of words such as love, hate, etc., is entirely determined by their objective orientation, namely, the fact that these words directly denote various emotions, moods, etc. If we consider these words, as such, emotional, then such an understanding of emotional moments in vocabulary will be based not on linguistic categories, but on the characteristics of the objects and phenomena themselves.

The selection of emotional, vocabulary with this approach is the result of subjectthematic classification of words” [11, p. 163]. The scientist especially emphasizes that “it is necessary to distinguish, firstly, words that denote certain emotions and experiences, have emotional and evaluative meanings, etc. (the selection of these words is made in connection with the subject-thematic classification of vocabulary); secondly, words, the emotional significance of which is created with the help of word-formation means; thirdly, words, in the proper lexical meaning of which there is a certain evaluation of the phenomena designated by them. Only in relation to the last two groups of words would the name "emotionally colored vocabulary" be justified, since words denoting emotions, etc., are not colored by these (or some other) emotions, but directly reflect them with their meanings” [11, p. 164].

The emotional in language and speech attracts scientists from the point of view of psycholinguistics: the emotional-sensory component in the meaning of the word is studied using a psycholinguistic experiment [2]. Researchers of the manifestation of the emotional in the linguistic picture of the world study, for example, emotional concepts in the philosophical picture of F. Bacon [12].

1.2. Evaluation and lexicography.

Researchers aim to identify ways to “designate an evaluation in explanatory dictionaries, to show how the reception of evaluations and values recorded in lexicographic sources” occurs, while using “various methods and operational procedures, including definition analysis, component analysis, transformation of contexts, equivalent replacement, modeling, linguistic experiment, etc.” [13, p. 729].

The ideographic approach also contributes to understanding of evaluation [14; 15].

1.3. Cognitive basis for evaluation

Cognitive linguistics explores evaluative categorization, i.e. “Mentally correlating an object or phenomenon with a certain evaluative category, or grouping objects and phenomena by the nature of their evaluation into the corresponding evaluative classes and categories. In a static sense, evaluative categorization is a system of evaluative categories” [3].

As part of the study of evaluative categorization in academic discourse, it seems possible to consider it from the point of view of the algorithm proposed by O.A. Suleimanova. According to this algorithm, the categorization process occurs as follows: “the speaker chooses a general categorization strategy – either to specifically designate a category (is) or a categorization process (to classify), or“ indirectly”, practically through adverbial metonymy, to carry out categorization, designating a different cognitive operation accompanying categorization , the result of which can be considered categorization (count). At the same time, from the point of view of the peculiarities of categorization, most likely, the part-of-speech affiliation of the word is irrelevant, cf. to appear – being. Further, the speaker focuses on the properties of the cognitive situation and chooses one of the properties, which acts as a representative of the entire cognitive situation. This could be an emphasis on:

- the opinion formed in the speaker as a result of the performed cognitive operation: count, refer to;

83