Evaluativeness as a discursive characteristic: properties and typology

Zubova Taisiia Borisovna Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the RF Foreign Language Chair Teacher 14 Bolshaya Sadovaya str., Moscow, 123001, Russia taya505@yandex.ru

Kalinin Oleg Igorevich ORCID: 0000-0002-1807-8370 Doctor of Philology Professor, Department of Oriental Languages, Moscow State Linguistic University; Professor, German Language Chair Assistant, Prince Alexander Nevsky Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the RF; Senior Researcher, Department of Scientific and Innovative Activities, South Ural State University (National Research University 14 Bolshaya Sadovaya str., Moscow, 123001, Russia okalinin.lingua@gmail.com

Introduction

The scientific research is devoted to the theoretical understanding of the concept of "evaluativeness" as a discursive characteristic of media communication, the identification of the relationship between the concepts of "evaluation" and "evaluativeness" in media discourse and the differentiation of its content with the identical concepts of "modality" and "tonality".
The relevance of the topic is due to the growing influence of media discourse on various spheres of society, which determines the need for a systematic consideration of issues related to the main influencing characteristics of media discourse, including mass character and expressivity. Evaluation analysis is also significant from the standpoint of studying the influencing potential of media discourse. As is well known, evaluativeness as a property of language through discursive practices to express the addressee's subjective attitude to the object of speech is a significant characteristic of modern media associated with the formation and change of public opinion. While the role of evaluativeness is obvious as an important property of the realization of the author's subjective intention in a speech message, this concept is one of the poorly studied, especially from the standpoint of the cognitive-discursive approach, which is manifested in a large number of discrepancies in the definition of this concept. In addition, the active use of the concepts of "tonality", "expressivity", "emotionality", "modality" in a related semantic field leads to a blurring of the conceptual boundaries of the term evaluativeness, which determines the need for its concretization in relation to modern research on the linguistic and pragmatic potential of media communication. The object of the study is evaluativeness as a discursive characteristic reflecting the speaker's subjective attitude to objects and phenomena of the surrounding world. The subject of the study is the properties, characteristics, and typology of the evaluative category. The scientific novelty consists in clarifying and detailing the meaningful framework for understanding evaluation and evaluativeness from the standpoint of a cognitive-discursive approach, as well as in identifying the differences between the concepts of "evaluativeness" and the concepts of "modality" and "tonality".
In this regard, the purpose of this study is a systematic description of the concept of evaluativeness as a characteristic of discourse, which involves a consistent consideration of different approaches to defining evaluativeness, distinguishing the concepts of value and evaluation, describing the types and characteristics of evaluation, differentiating the concepts of evaluativeness, modality and tonality.

Features of the concepts of "assessment" and "value"

The conceptual meaning of "evaluation" is closely related to the concept of "value", which is usually considered within the framework of a linguo-axiological approach. Thus, according to the Large Encyclopedic Dictionary, "value is "the positive or negative value of objects of the surrounding world for a person, a social group, and society as a whole, determined not by their own properties, but by their participation in the sphere of human activity, interests and needs, and social relations" ^{[4, p. 1251]}.
In his works, I. A. Sternin argues that "values are defined as social, socio-psychological ideas and views shared by the people and inherited by each new generation" ^{[18, p. 108]}. V. V. Vinogradov considers value as "an ideal education that represents the importance of objects and phenomena of reality for society and the individual expressed in various manifestations of human activity" ^{[5, p. 93]}.
What these definitions have in common is that a value is considered as a kind of ideal entity that has importance and significance for a person or society. Value can manifest itself in relation to different criteria, for example, economic, ethical, social, psychological, etc.
Value is most often described from the standpoint of subjectivity and can be different for each person. Different values can be attached to the same things or events, depending on their needs, beliefs, and thoughts. Values can also play an important role in media discourse, as they can shape the opinions and attitudes of the audience on certain topics or issues.
Thus, values can relate to an individual's worldview, as well as to the worldview of a particular social group or the entire society. They form and simultaneously reflect the linguistic and conceptual picture of the human world, play a significant role in regulating social behavior, are part of the mentality of the people and, in general, mediate all human cognitive activity.
In our opinion, value can be considered as a kind of basis for forming an assessment. Value and valuation are linked like "soil and plants": Just as the soil directly affects what can grow on it, so basic values mediate the assessments formed in different communicative situations. Fundamental ideas about the world around us, the patterns of its development, social relations, attitudes to power, and so on directly underlie the assessment of new elements of reality. However, just as plants can change the chemical and component composition of the soil over time, so evaluation, being expressed in different multiple communication situations, can affect the content of certain values.
In this regard, one cannot but agree with L. N. Stolovich's opinion that "assessment and value are two poles of an evaluative relationship: objective and subjective, in which assessment is one of the most important means of objectification and translation of values" ^{[19, p. 7]}.
In the works of Russian linguists, we find several approaches to defining the concept of "assessment":
1. Axiological. Based on this approach, there are many definitions of this concept. Here are some of them. N. D. Arutyunova argues that "evaluation is the result of comparing the real properties of the evaluated object with an idealized model of the world, the correspondence of which is associated with the concept of good, and the discrepancy in any of its inherent parameters is the perception of bad" ^{[2, p. 5]}. And according to R. M. Yakushina, evaluation is "the attitude of native speakers towards an object, conditioned by the recognition or non–recognition of its value in terms of compliance or non-compliance of its qualities with certain value criteria" ^{[22, p. 12]}.
2. Stylistic. The dictionary of linguistic terms provides the following definition of this concept: "Evaluation is the speaker's judgment, his attitude – approval or disapproval, desire, encouragement, etc. – as one of the main parts of the stylistic connotation" ^{[3, p. 294]}.
3. Pragmatic. T.V. Markelova argues that "assessment is a functional and semantic category implemented in speech activity by a system of multi-level linguistic means: didactic, emotive, cognitive, which emphasizes the pragmatic nature of the linguistic nature of assessment, the function of which is the purpose of utterance, the main purpose of which is to influence the behavior of the addressee in the communication process" ^{[10, p. 11]}.
4. Linguocognitive. According to N. V. Ilyina, assessment is "a mental act that is the result of a person's interaction with the surrounding reality" ^{[6, p. 16]}, which implies the presence of complex mental operations for interpreting and categorizing perceived information. This process involves the activation of cognitive schemas, conceptual metaphors, and frames that help the recipient structure the experience and form value orientations. As a result, assessment acts as a cognitive mechanism that determines the perception of social and cultural phenomena through the prism of individual and collective mental models.
5. V. I. Karasik notes that in addition to the linguistic picture of the world, it is necessary to consider the value picture of the world, in which "value dominants are identified, representing the most important cultural meanings, the totality of which forms a certain type of culture, supported and preserved in language" ^{[7, p. 118]}, which implies considering the assessment as a mechanism reflecting cultural dominants.
Thus, in the broadest sense of the word, assessment from the point of view of linguistics is "a universal category that determines the author's attitude to the content of a speech message, based on a comparison of this subject with a chosen standard" ^{[1, p. 14]}. It not only conveys a positive or negative attitude towards events and phenomena, but also indirectly forms people's evaluative perception of reality. As you know, assessment is a part of human activity aimed at cognition of the objective world.
The key elements of the assessment process are:

Fig. 1. Elements of assessment formation

The diagram in the image represents the process of forming an assessment and highlights its key elements: the subject, object, evaluative relationships, as well as the motives and grounds for assessment. Let's look at each element in more detail.

1. The subject (who evaluates). Within the framework of linguistic and pragmatic analysis, the subject acts as a communicant with certain communicative intentions, which manifest themselves in the choice of linguistic means of expression. The subject of assessment is the bearer of value attitudes and cultural norms that influence the process of assessment formation, he forms and expresses an evaluative attitude based on personal or collective experience, which determines his view of the object.

2. The object (what is being evaluated). The object of evaluation is knowledge about an element of the surrounding world, that is, a concept that can be expressed by various linguistic means, and their choice is always related to the intentionality of the subject. The object serves as the semantic center of the evaluative utterance, around which the semantic structure of the utterance is built.

3. Value relations. This element represents the relationship between the subject and the object, expressed through the means of verbalization of evaluation. In linguistics, evaluative relationships are manifested through the use of emotive vocabulary, modal words, and narrative structures, which indicates the position of the subject. These relationships emphasize the pragmatic potential and axiological orientation of the text, which help the audience perceive the message with a certain emotional and value coloring.

4. Motives and grounds for evaluation. Motives are intentions and attitudes that encourage the subject to express an assessment, and grounds are socio–cultural grounds that mediate the choice of means of verbalization of assessment. Linguistically, motives and grounds are often expressed through discursive markers, logical connections, and rhetorical techniques that enhance the persuasive power of the text. This element is important for creating a coherent evaluative statement and substantiating a value judgment in the structure of the text.

Let us further consider the main characteristics of the assessment highlighted in the work of E.V. Strokan: "value basis; norm orientation; anthropocentricity; relativity; subjectivity; ambivalence; dynamism; pragmatic intention of the speaker/writer" ^{[20, pp. 22-27]}.

Thus, the assessment affects the content and structure of the speech act, determines the selection of language tools and forms a communicative relationship between the addressee and the addressee. The value basis and subjectivity of the assessment determine the choice of lexical and stylistic means through which the addressee conveys his attitude to the object of assessment and frames the recipient's perception of the object of assessment. Normality and relativity presuppose consideration of the socio-cultural context, as well as the variability of evaluative representations, which reflects the cultural and historical conditionality and flexibility of evaluation verbalization. Anthropocentricity and ambivalence emphasize the subjective, personal nature of value judgments, while dynamism indicates the ability of assessments to change over time depending on external and internal factors, affecting the pragmatic power of utterance. The pragmatic intention of the speaker/writer reflects the communicative intention to influence the addressee in order to elicit a predictable reaction from him or to form a value perception similar to the addressee.

Classification of assessment types

The classification of different types of assessment proposed in Russian linguistics is also important. In relation to the object, the assessment can be direct or indirect. A direct assessment can be easily recognized in the text, but an indirect one is not, since it is "implicit and deduced by the addressee due to his communicative competence" ^{[8, p. 111]}.
Evaluation in media discourse can be expressed explicitly or implicitly, which emphasizes its pragmatic multilayeredness and reflects "the connection between the formal characteristics of a linguistic unit and the features of the transmitted evaluative meaning" ^{[9, p. 55]}. V. A. Kulikova emphasizes that "implicitness and explicitness characterize the degree of openness/ concealment of the expression of evaluative meaning when perceiving an evaluatively labeled element the addressee, which is especially important when studying a media text in terms of its influencing function" ^{[9, p. 55]}.
Explicit evaluation is an axiological meaning embedded in the semantics of words and "objectified in their dictionary entry" ^{[12, p. 6]}. Such an assessment is expressed directly in the lexical meanings of the means of its verbalization and the surface structure of the utterance, without requiring additional semantic interpretations.
Implicit evaluation, on the contrary, contains hidden axiological meanings that are not fixed in the semantics of words and are formed in the context ^{[12, p. 6]}. This type of evaluation expression "does not have an independent explicit expression in the formal structure of the language and is revealed only in lexico-semantic paradigms, through context" ^{[21, p. 249]}. Implicit assessment arises as a result of the interaction of explicit meanings with specific conditions and context of communication, which allows the addressee to covertly influence the recipient's perception, enhancing the pragmatic impact.
The classification of assessment types proposed in Russian linguistics reflects the diversity of its forms of expression and specific pragmatic characteristics. Sensory-gustatory, psychological, aesthetic, ethical, utilitarian, normative and teleological assessments represent various axiological dimensions, that is, the basis of assessment, expressing a certain aspect of the value attitude towards the object of assessment.
In relation to the object, the assessment can be direct, that is, explicit and easily interpreted in the text, or indirect, when the assessment is "as if implied" and can be identified by the recipient due to his communicative competence.
According to the form of expression, an explicit assessment expresses an axiological meaning directly through lexical units, without requiring additional cognitive operations for its interpretation. Implicit assessment, on the contrary, includes hidden axiological components that are activated only in the context, thereby enhancing the pragmatic impact on the recipient. Implicit axiological meanings allow the addressee to flexibly control the audience's perception, providing variability in interpretation and adapting the evaluative statement to the communicative situation.
The evaluation-mediating characteristic of a speech utterance, taken in the form of a text or discourse, is evaluative. Let's consider several definitions of the concept of "evaluability".
V. A. Maryanchik argues that "evaluativeness is the ability of a linguistic or speech unit to explicate the positive and negative properties of an object, its place on the evaluation scale and in the axiological space" ^{[11, p. 101]}. According to A.M. Yakhina, evaluativeness is "a property, the ability of linguistic units to express a relatively stable, positive or negative characteristic of a person, as well as an attitude, opinion, judgment about the positive or negative value of objects, phenomena and processes for a linguistic personality" ^{[23, p. 24]}. G. Ya. Solganik also correlates evaluativeness with the characteristic a separate lexical unit, indicating that it is "a part of the lexical meaning capable of expressing the speaker's attitude to the object or concept designated by the word" ^{[17, p. 9]}.
In the work of L. G. Smirnova, evaluativeness is considered in a broader context as "a semantic category represented in a language by a system of multi-level means and a set of techniques that organize the pragmatics of a speech act and allow the speaker to convey to the addressee a qualifying characteristic of phenomena of extra-linguistic reality in accordance with the characteristic scale of good / bad, should / should not" ^{[16, p. 107]}.
So, assessment is a category that expresses the speaker's attitude to the actions and behavior of other people in a social situation. It can be positive or negative and depends on the social norms and values that are accepted in a given community and expressed by linguistic and non-verbal means such as facial expressions, gestures, intonation. If the assessment is related to the addressee, then evaluativeness can be considered in a narrow sense as a property of a linguistic unit that expresses the speaker's attitude to what he is talking about, and in a broad sense as a property of discourse. Undoubtedly, assessment is a category of speech impact in discourse, while evaluativeness is a broader concept that refers to the way in which this category (assessment) is expressed in the context of social communication.
It should be emphasized that evaluativeness as a property of discourse can be expressed both explicitly and implicitly. Explicit evaluation is characterized by emotional-evaluative vocabulary, stable phrases reflecting the assessment of the addressee of communication. Evaluation can be used as a setting for logical statements and one's own reasoning, which, in turn, is also a powerful means of influence.
According to E. N. Ovcharenko, "the most effective means of influence is the implicit evaluative value of an utterance" ^{[13, p. 21]}, since an assessment (positive or negative), which is expressed implicitly, is perceived by a person at the cognitive level, thereby having a hidden effect on him. Also, the means of expressing evaluativeness are represented at all language levels, it is known that lexical and syntactic means play the main role in the verbalization of evaluation.
As you know, assessment and evaluability are related to concepts such as tonality and modality. According to A. I. Prikhodko, "evaluation and modality are phenomena of different orders that are related to each other, modality is an attitude to reality, and evaluation involves not only an attitude to objects of the surrounding world, but also cognition, comprehension and evaluation of reality and the subject's attitude to the results of cognition" ^{[14, p. 75]}. As for the key, that is Semina argues that "the concept of tonality includes all these components, combining both evaluation and emotions, since emotional and evaluative vocabulary is fixed in tonal lexicons. A distinctive feature of tonality is the expression of opinion using factual vocabulary" ^{[15, p. 75]}.
Thus, according to the opinions of modern Russian linguists (Selezneva L. V., Lomtev T. P., Vinogradov V. V.), modality is a property of the relationship between a subject and an object, which may differ in the nature of reality, the way they exist, as well as in the presence or absence of indications of confidence in their truth. It not only characterizes reality and unreality, but also reflects the speaker's attitude to what is being said and expresses additional information about the nature of the relationship between the objects of reality, the logical status of the judgment and its characteristics (evaluative, regulatory, temporal, etc.). Modality is a multi-layered category that expresses the speaker's attitude to reality, the subjective attitude, additional characteristics of the judgment and the grammatical expression of these meanings. The grammatical and semantic category of modality is expressed by the categories of verb mood, intonation, and modal words. It not only conveys the differences between the real and the assumed, but also reflects the confidence, emotionality and temporal characteristics of the utterance, which makes this concept broader than the concept of evaluation.
According to E. M. Sheptukhina, "Tonality in linguistic research is the key to communication, the style of discourse, register, theme, composition, emotional and stylistic format of communication, the definition of the attitude and situation of communication, the way the author presents the text and the way the proposition is conveyed, etc." ^{[21, p. 248]}. Based on the definitions of scientists (T. O.Bagdarasyan, V. I. Karasika), tonality is an emotional and stylistic communication format that determines attitudes and the choice of linguistic means of communication for expressing emotions. It is also a way of presenting the text by the author and expresses his attitude to the text, the recipient, and reality. Tonality takes into account the sphere of communication and the personal qualities of communicants, determines the emotional attitude and communicative situation of communication, as well as the way information is transmitted.
As we can see, the concepts discussed overlap in many ways. It is no coincidence that in Western linguistics these three concepts are combined into one – sentiment. In the work "Opinion mining and sentiment analysis" by Bo Peng and Lillian Lee, the category of evaluation ("sentiment") includes the analysis of opinions and sentiments, which implies an emphasis on how texts can be studied to extract subjective information. Evaluation is an important part of the analysis of tonality. According to Bo Peng and Lillian Lee, "it is important not only to determine whether a judgment is positively or negatively expressed, but also to take into account a neutral assessment, since evaluative expressions depend on the context" ^[25]. The main task of sentiment analysis is not only to identify the evaluation in the texts, but also to study how the addressee of the speech message expresses his opinion. This paper also describes various programs and applications aimed at finding, extracting, and classifying value judgments. In the scientific article "Sentiment Analysis and Subjectivity" Bing Liu explores methods and approaches to the analysis of tonality. In her opinion, "tonality analysis is a computer study of opinions and emotions expressed in a text" ^[26]. This analysis is important for various practical applications, namely public safety, user feedback analysis, and marketing research. The interrelation of three identical concepts ("tonality", "modality", "evaluativeness"), which are included in the concept of "sentiment", is considered in the context of the analysis of the tonality of the text. Tonality is expressed in the emotional background of the utterance, evaluativeness implies the presence of assessments of opinions, while modality encompasses the degree of confidence of the author in his statements.
M. Taboad's work "Sentiment Analysis: An Overview from Linguistics" provides an extensive definition of the concept of "sentiment" and its role in text analysis. The author considers sentiment as an expression of subjective assessments, which can be either positive or negative. Sentiment includes not only a positive or negative attitude towards an object, but also the subjective reactions and perceptions of the speaker or writer regarding the subject of discussion. M. Taboada emphasizes that sentiment analysis explores the expressive means of language through which emotions, assessments and opinions are conveyed. For this purpose, lexical and syntactic markers are used, indicating evaluative characteristics such as the intensity and expressiveness of the utterance, subjective modality, emotional shades. Sentiment is closely related to the concepts of evaluativeness and modality, as it includes elements of subjectivity reflecting the speaker's attitude. Evaluativeness is expressed through the choice of vocabulary and constructions denoting a positive or negative attitude. At the same time, modality adds to this a degree of confidence or doubt, as well as shades of hypothetical or mandatory content of the utterance. The relationship between sentiment and tonality lies in the stylistic coloring of the utterance. Tonality, as explained by M. Taboada, "is determined by the choice of words and structures that set the overall emotional mood of the text. Tonality helps to focus on the key emotional aspects of the message, as well as creates an overall impression and communication style, which is especially important in analyzing the social context in which the utterance is made" ^[24].
As we can see, evaluative, tonality, and modality are largely identical terms, but some differences in the content of these linguistic terms can still be identified, which is important for determining the further conceptual basis of our research.

Table 1.

Comparative content analysis

concepts of "evaluativeness", "modality", "tonality"

Conclusion

In linguistics, the concepts of "assessment" and "evaluability" are categories that reflect the speaker's subjective attitude to an object or phenomenon of the surrounding reality. An assessment is an expression of a subjective opinion about an object or event that has a positive, negative or neutral character. The assessment conveys an individual's perception based on socio-cultural norms, experiences, and communicative expectations of the speaker, and plays a key role in conveying emotional and value attitudes.
Evaluation, in turn, is a broader concept than evaluation. It includes the ability of discourse to express a subjective attitude through various linguistic means at the lexical, syntactic and stylistic levels. Evaluativeness is an integrative characteristic that encompasses evaluation as a pragmatic category implemented in discourse in order to influence the recipient. Evaluativeness is manifested in the constant presence of a subjective aspect in discourse, expressed through the selection of words, the use of tropes and stylistic figures, and the semantic organization of the text.
Evaluability differs from categories such as modality and tonality, although the content of these concepts largely overlap. Modality is a category that describes a speaker's attitude to reality in terms of probability, necessity, or assumption. It expresses a degree of confidence, opportunity, or commitment, but it does not always imply an emotional attitude. Tonality refers to the emotional and stylistic format of the utterance associated with the mood or emotional attitude of the author in relation to the topic and recipient, and is mainly related to the stylistic aspect of the utterance. Thus, evaluativeness includes elements of modality and tonality, but can be considered as a more generalized category, encompassing all means of expressing evaluative attitudes in discourse.
Evaluativeness as a characteristic of discourse as a whole plays a special role in media discourse. It forms the semantic structure of a text, manifesting itself explicitly and implicitly simultaneously at the lexical, syntactic, and stylistic levels of a discursive utterance. Evaluation is especially important in media discourse, as the media actively form public opinion by providing a discursive interpretation of the reality of the recipients of the speech message.
For the purposes of our research, explicit and implicit evaluation should be distinguished. Explicit evaluation is represented by linguistic means that contain axiological meanings in the semantics of the language units used. It is transmitted through lexical units, phraseological units and other constructions that express a positive or negative assessment directly, without requiring additional interpretations. Explicit evaluation makes the author's attitude to the object of the statement obvious to the recipient.
Implicit evaluativeness, on the contrary, contains hidden evaluative meanings that are not directly fixed in the linguistic form and manifest themselves only in context. Implicit assessment requires a deeper analysis of the text from the recipient, since it is based on the social context and background knowledge, and also involves the use of cognitive processes to interpret the subjective attitude of the recipient of the message. Implicit evaluation enhances the impact on the audience due to the hidden influence that is perceived at the level of perception and cognitive processing of information.
In addition, evaluation can be direct and indirect. Direct evaluation is expressed directly in the text and is easily identified, as it is most often supported by axiologically loaded vocabulary, emotionally colored epithets or direct judgments. Indirect evaluation is less obvious and manifests itself in indirect means, such as irony, sarcasm, hints, or the use of phrases that require interpretation on the part of the recipient. Indirect evaluation allows the author to flexibly express his opinions, leaving freedom for different interpretations and making the evaluative statement multi-layered.