Диплом

MINISTRY FOR EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION

MOSCOW STATE LINGUISTIC UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF HUMANITARIAN AND APPLIED SCIENCES

Department of English Stylistics

GRADUATION PAPER

PRAGMATIC POTENTIAL OF adjectives of positive evaluation IN ENGLISH FICTIONal discourse

Trusova M.

Group 506

ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR

PhD, Senior Lecturer

V. L. Sokolova

Reviewer

Doctor of Philology, Professor

E. E. Golubkova

Department of English Stylistics

PhD, Professor

K. M. Iriskhanova

Moscow

2009

МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ

РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ

Государственное образовательное учреждение

высшего профессионального образования

«МОСКОВСКИЙ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ»

Факультет гуманитарных и прикладных наук

Кафедра стилистики английского языка ф-та ГПН

Дипломная квалификационная работа

Прагматический потенциал Прилагательных, содержащих положительную оценку

в англоязычном художественном дискурсе

Трусова М.

Группа 506

Научный руководитель

к. филол. н., ст. преп. В. Л. Соколова

Рецензент

д. филол. н., проф. Е. Е. Голубкова

Зав. кафедрой

к. филол. н., проф. К. М. Ирисханова

Москва

2009

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….……………………4

CHAPTER-I

Positive evaluation in adjectives (Overview of Linguistic Research)

1.1. Evaluation in linguistic research. Adjectives of evaluation.…………………6

1.2. Classifications of adjectives of evaluation.…………………………………12

1.3. Positive evaluation and context.……………………………………………18

1.4. The notion of pragmatic potential.……………………………………..……20

CHАPTER-II

Pragmatic potential and Discursive function of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse

2.1. Positive evaluation and emotivity.……………………………………..……21

2.2. Positive evaluation in author’s speech.……………………………….…….22

2.3. Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue……………………………….25

2.3.1. Place of dialogue in fictional discourse. …………………………….25

2.3.2. Adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional dialogue………………26

2.4. Adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devices and expressive means..28

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………35

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………37

APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………….46

Introduction

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.

The general direction of our research is portrayed in the structure of the paper. The latter contains two chapters which in their turn are subdivided into sections:

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.

Chapter-I

Positive evaluation in adjectives (Overview of Linguistic Research)

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.

Settling down in both directions from norm or from the zero evaluation, the degree of the evaluation can vary both in polarity (from meliorative to derogatory), and in intensity:

« 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].

The intensity of positive evaluation can range from excellent / the best to good (e.g. splendid/ outstanding/ extraordinary – excellent – very good – good), and can be displayed directly in context:

“Is it sо good?”

“Magnificent” [Christie 1961: 153].

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].

J. Nida points out that gradational groups of evaluative words also form oppositions (excellent — good — fair — average — poor — bad), where neutral evaluation can be located between extreme points. Neutral evaluation can be strongly attracted either to the positive or to the negative pole, and that finds its expression in dictionary definitions:

mediocre — (Н) not very good, neither very good nor very bad; second rate; not of the best quality, inferior.

Certain differences in the intensity of evaluation are indefinable through dictionary definitions (“beautiful is usually the richest in significance…”; “lovely, like beautiful, usually suggests a more than sensuous pleasure, … it implies keen emotional delight…”; “handsome … carries little connotation of emotional or spiritual pleasure”, “good-looking is a less expressive word than handsome or pretty…” (H), and in various contexts:

“They say I’m handsome”.

“You’re lovely, Bella!”

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.

While examining the group of words beautiful — handsome – lovely — pretty, J.Nida notes, that though their intensity is basically similar (beautiful — pretty), they differ in their collocability. For example, one can say: a handsome man, woman, building; but not handsome lake, scene, jewel. A pretty skyscraper is also impossible [Nida 1975: 163]. To account for this phenomenon J. Nida [Nida 1975: 163] identifies gradation within one degree of positivity, for example:

magnificent

m ajestic imposing

grand

august noble

stately grandiose

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.

Researchers of adjectives of positive evaluation also stress that grammatical forms are not the only means of conveying an intensity of evaluation [Кувинова 2005: 133]. Thus, according to N. B. Kuvinova, a high intensity of positive evaluation may also be expressed:

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).

(cf. Russ.: «Работа не хорошая, а отличная», «Она не симпатичная, а красивая»)

2) By creating a chain of adjectives of evaluation:

Не’s a clever, ambitious, fortunate man … (I. Murdоch, 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.

3) By using intensifying adverbs (such as: ‘very’, ‘extremely’, ‘exceptionally’, ‘extraordinarily’, ‘perfectly’):

“Look! What a perfectly good up-to-the-minute handset!” (I. Murdoch 1975, p. 91) [Кувинова 2005: 133-134].

A number of researches [e.g., by Вольф 1985, Шрамм 1979, Lee 1957] indicate that any evaluation, including, positive evaluation, is characterized by the presence of some of the parameters making up its logical structure. In this structure five key parameters are usually distinguished:

• evaluating subject;

• object of evaluation;

• aspect of evaluation (“polarity” of evaluation);

• basis of evaluation (or reference point of evaluation);

• 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].

According to another classification based on a set of evaluative scales offered by C. Osgood [Osgood 1957; Кувинова 2005: 75], terms of evaluation form seven major groups (evaluative clusters):

• Morally evaluative

• Emotionally evaluative

• Intellectually evaluative

• Aesthetically evaluative

• Socially evaluative

• Physically evaluative

• Empirically evaluative

It appears that when applied to adjectives of positive evaluation Osgood’s classification may be superimposed on the one by N. D. Arutunova in the following manner:

Table-1

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).

Another classification of adjectives of positive evaluation is based on the thematic groups that adjectives of positive evaluation fall into [Кувинова 2005: 98; 163]. These thematic clusters are grouped around such notions as: love (loving, affectionate), friendship (devoted, friendly, cordial), pleasure (pleasing, enjoyable, satisfying), intelligence (clever, intelligent, smart), harmony (harmonious), respect (respectable, respectful).¹

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).

This correlation between logical and emotive aspects of positive assessment may be graphically reflected as follows:

Table-2:

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.

Based on our analysis of theoretical sources and on our own the research of the language material, this relationship may be summed up as follows:

(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.

An interesting example from fictional discourse shows how fictional context may add a positive coloring to otherwise neutral adjectives²:

“ His paintings had a technical precision, a sound architectonic quality inherited from his parents` predilection, and marked subtlety of tone.” (John Fowles, p. 44)

In this example the otherwise neutral adjectives – technical and marked – acquire a positive coloring in a combination with nouns derived from adjectives of positive evaluation (precision, from precise and subtlety from subtle). Thus, it appears that the aj. + noun collocations (technical precision and marked subtlety) become semantic equivalents of adv. + adj. collocations (technically precise and markedly subtle). We attribute this transformation to the identical semantic ties formed in technical precision and technically precise on the one hand and marked subtlety and markedly subtle – on the other (aspects of positive evaluation in the semantic structure are highlighted in bold):

technical/ technically precision/precise

marked/markedly subtlety/ subtle

(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=81641&dict=CALD)

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.

Chapter-II

Pragmatic potential and Discursive function of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse

In Chapter-II the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in English fictional discourse is going to be explored along the following lines:

• Positive evaluation and emotivity;

• Adjectives of positive evaluation in author`s speech;

• Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue;

• 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.

To illustrate this connection between evaluation and emotivity we suggest turning to some of the examples from our survey:

— General Macarthur said:

“Ha! Delightful spot!” (Agatha Christie-1, p.168)

— Unwillingly Ralph turned away from the splendid, awful sight (William Golding)

— Lake a myriad of tiny teeth in a saw, the transparencies came scavenging over the beach. This was fascinating to Henry. (William Golding)

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).

“ Before these fantastically attractive flowers of violet and red and yellow, unkindness melted away.” (William Golding, p.127)

“The next four weeks of his solitary confinement were among the happiest of Paul`s life.” (Evelyn Waugh, p. 163)

In J. Updike`s novel “The Witches of Eastwick” positive evaluation is also conveying the characters’ attitudes and eventually serves the characterization purposes:

“…and Oak Street at right angles to it was where the lovely big old homes were.” (John Updike, p. 4)

Sometimes positive evaluation is used in author’s speech which characterizes the impression a certain character produces:

“He was personable and quick-minded <…> He could pass very well as rich, trendy young man about town <…> His impeccable family background also helped greatly” (John Fowles, p. 169)

“She was a handsome young woman, build on Junoesque lines, with dark flashing eyes and such a general air of resemblance to M. Papopolous that it was easy to see they were father and daughter.” (Agatha Christie-3, p.15)

“…he was a man who <…> would have done very well as a model of his kind : the successful City man who is also a country landowner and village squire.” (John Fowles, p.159)

“ The politicians gave the impression, rather like Miss Parsons, that he was a better man than any of them – a top–class rural constituency member, sound party man, always well-briefed when he spoke, very pleasant fellow, very reliable…”(John Fowles, p.176)

“ 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).

“That was all. The awful “young man” question was, of course, in his favourite vein, but apart from that, he was much quieter and pleasanter than usual in this little talk. For once he had dropped the jeering and leering style that made her so uncomfortable. He was friendlier.” (John Priestley, p.195)

In other cases adjectives of positive evaluation in author’s speech convey objective facts relevant for the narration (good, fit, etc.):

“he was in good health, a fit man for his age – no heart trouble, nothing like that.” ( J.Fowles, The Enigma, p.161)

“… and the police confirmed that to the best of their knowledge the MP was a completely law-abiding citizen.” (John Fowles, p. 168)

“Alice had always been a good and tractable child.” (John Steinbeck, p. 59)

“The long fingers of his hangs were more dexterous and stronger than most men`s fingers.”( John Steinbeck, p.74)

“ Edna had worn a wonderfully good imitation of an engagement-ring out of a cracker.” (Katherine Mansfield -1, p.271).

“And Richard knew that he had found his home. In this wandering about, the country he had come upon many beautiful places, but none of them had given him this feeling of consummation.” (John Steinbeck, p. 212)

“ – Thanks, -he said. Then with an accent of pleased surprise – Thanhs!” (William Golding, p.205)

“ The aluminium blinds shot up, and the sun poured in through the vita- glass, filling the room with beneficent rays.” ( Evelyn Waugh, 129)

Other cases of adjectives of positive evaluation contain the author’s assessment of a character:

“Jennings was astute enough to guess that something was being hidden….” (John Fowles, p.181)

“ The Saving Man and the small Investor in Mr. Smeeth went down before the affectionate husband and the proud male.” (John Priestley, p.235)

Sometimes one sentence may include adjectives of positive evaluation containing both the author’s/ characters’ and the objective assessment of a certain thing or phenomenon:

“Perhaps the most remarkable thing about him as a student was that he was on the whole quite popular.” (John Fowles, p.43)

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.

Finally, adjectives of positive evaluation may contain a commentary on a character’s emotional condition:

“Then they stepped back, laughing with triumphant pleasure, so that immediately Ralph had to stand on his head.” (William Golding, p.84)

“Ralph`s lips parted in a delighted smile and Piggy, taking this smile to himself as a mark of recognition, laughed with pleasure” (William Golding, p.50);

“Eyes shining, mouths open, triumphant, they savoured the right of domination”(William Golding, p.70)

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].

Preliminary statistics shows a 54.3% prevalence of adjectives of positive evaluation in the speech of female characters. In the following examples women appear to be more emotional than men and use adjectives of positive evaluation with a high intensity of quality:

“— Has he discussed your article with you?

• Only to claim he`s never heard their names. Beyond Pisanello.

• Don`t believe him. He`s got an incredible memory for paintings.” (John Fowles, p.89)

“ — Not in the least. He said Peter looked well. What a charming girl his new friend was”. (John Fowles, p.173)

“ – Oh, Mr. Golspie,- she cried, when he had finished signing the letters, — I forgot to thank you for the lovely box of chocolates. I don`t know why you gave them to me – so suddenly, like that.” (John Priestley, p.195- 196)

• How do you feel now?

• Marvellous!” (John Priestley, p.204)

“ – 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.

• I`ve just thought what it reminds me of, — Mae continued. Do you remember the post card of that lovely house in Vermont?” (John Steinbeck, p. 200)

“ – Still, we`ve had a very enjoyable evening, haven`t we, Tom? — said Mrs. Dalby.” (John Priestley, p.242)

Our research shows that the gender identity of characters is not the only aspect revealed with the help of adjectives of positive evaluation. A number of examples confirm that the use of adjectives of positive evaluation may be conditioned by the age of the characters. Thus the usage of adjectives of positive evaluation in children’s speech outnumber their use in the speech of adults by at least 13%:

“— This is real exploring,” said Jack. — I bet nobody`s been here before.” (William Golding, p.66)

“— You`re hindering Ralph. You are not letting him get to the most important thing.” He paused effectively. (William Golding, p.75)

“ – But this is a good island. We – Jack, Simon, and me – we climbed the mountain. It`s wizard. There`s food and drink… (William Golding, p.76)

“ – I agree with Ralph. We`ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we are not savages. We are English; and the English are best at everything. So we`ve got to do the right things.” (William Golding, p.88)

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.

It is noteworthy that the dialogue of younger characters is marked not only by the quantitative abundance of adjectives of positive evaluation, but also by their stylistic register. Thus, generally adjectives of positive evaluation used by younger people are more likely to be slangish than those used by older characters:

“ Two smashing girls like us. We must be out of our tiny minds.<…>She`s such a smashing girl, David.” (John Fowles, p.103)

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.

Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue can also be a sign of the characters’ emotional condition. Namely – excitement:

Vera. This is exciting! (Agatha Christie -2, p. 6)

Vera. What a lovely evening! (Agatha Christie -2, p. 15)

Vera. …Aren’t they [the little china figures] sweet? (Agatha Christie -2, p. 19)

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.

Irony is traditionally treated as a stylistic device based on a simultaneous realization of two logical meanings (the dictionary meaning and the contextual meaning) that stand in opposition to each other [Galperin 1977: 146]. So, like many other stylistic devices, irony does not exist outside the context. Prof. I. R. Galperin cautions researchers against confusing irony with humour, because “the function of irony is not confined to producing a humorous effect… It rather expresses a feeling of irritation, displeasure, pity or regret” [Galperin 1977: 147]. In the following example an ironic attitude manifested through non-verbal means (laughter) inverts positive evaluation in such adjectives as duty-loving and law-abiding:

“ Lombard laughed – a sudden ringing laugh. He said:

“What a duty-loving law-abiding lot we all seem to be! Myself excepted.”

(Agatha Christie-1, p. 188)

In most cases, however, irony is rendered through the verbal context:

(A) «She turned with the sweet smile of an alligator.» (John Steinbeck)

(B) “The agenda of that ominously appropriate day and date was perfectly normal.” (John Fowles, p. 160)

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]).

In another example of an “oxymoronic” functioning of an adjective of positive evaluation an adjective of positive evaluation “improves” the meaning of its collocant (hardness)³:

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.

In the following example a sustained metaphor is based on a similarity between a phenomenon (a crisis) and an object (a tall building):

«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.

Another example of a sustained metaphor which incorporates adjectives of positive evaluation is based on the similarities between a young girl and “a young female animal”:

“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.

Still another metaphoric image which includes an adjective of positive evaluation sweet is based on an analogy between the night and a tangible object:

“The night was clear and sweet and heavy with stars.” ( John Steinbeck, “The Pastures of Heaven”, p. 65)

It is noteworthy that adjectives of positive evaluation can also be incorporated into trite or dead metaphors fixed in dictionaries. When being incorporated into trite metaphoric expressions, adjectives of positive evaluation become an inseparable part of such expressions and may not be replaced by any synonymous word or expression:

“He was good as gold for the first twenty minutes. Then that heavenly looking boy appears. …Impossible, you can`t imagine. He starts arguing about whether it`s a girl or a boy. In a loud voice.” (John Fowles — 1, p.90)

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 fictional discourse adjectives of positive evaluation may also be involved in repetition defined as “an expressive means of language used when the speaker is under the stress of strong emotion” [Galperin 1977: 211]. This means helps the author to convey the excited state of mind of a character to the reader:

“ – Well, I was just looking through my Virgil and I thought I`d try my head at a verse, because I didn`t want to – oh, well, it`s almost impossible to read a fine thing without wanting to do a fine thing”. (John Steinbeck, p. 231)

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).

As follows from the above examples, adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devises may serve two distinct pragmatic purposes:

1. convey the author’s attitude (as in the examples of irony, oxymoron, epithet, sustained metaphor considered above);

2. 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.

Conclusion

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.

In Chapter-II we have conducted a practical research of the discursive function and pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in fictional discourse which allows us to conclude that the pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation

1. consists in:

• conveying a generally positive, appreciative attitude of the author or character towards the characterized person or object;

• conveying objective facts relevant for the narration;

• contributing to the general emotivity of fictional discourse;

• conveying the speech characteristics of characters (which may reflect their age, gender identity, emotional condition, etc.);

• conveying the author’s attitude (through adjectives of positive evaluation in author’s speech and in stylistic devises and expressive means in both the author’s and the characters’ speech);

• conveying the characters’ attitude and consequently speech characteristics through adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devises and expressive means.

2. is higher in:

• dialogical discourse;

• the speech of children, emotional characters, female characters, etc.

3. is contingent upon:

• 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.

Bibliography

1. Арутюнова Н.Д. Аномалии и язык (К проблеме языковой «картины мира») // Вопросы языкознания. – 1987. №3. – С. 3-11.

2. Арутюнова Н.Д. Номинация, референция, значение // Языковая номинация. Общие вопросы / Под общ. ред. Б.А.Серебренникова и др. – М.: Наука, 1977. – С. 188-206.

3. Арутюнова Н.Д. Типы языковых значений. Оценка. Событие. Факт. – М.: Наука, 1988. – 338 с.

4. Баранов, А. Н. Иллокутивное вынуждение в структуре диалога / А. Н. Баранов, Г. Е. Крейдлин // Вопросы языкознания. – 1992a. – №2. – С.84-99.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Вольф Е.М. Грамматика и семантика прилагательного ( на материале романо-иберийских языков). – М.: Наука, 1978. – 200 с.

8. 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.

9. Вольф Е.М. Функциональная семантика оценки. – М.: Наука, 1985. – 228 с.

10. И. Р. Гальперин Очерки по стилистике английского языка. – М.: «Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках», 1958. – 460 с.

11. 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.

12. Гридин В.Н. К вопросу о систематизации эмоциональной лексики // Переводная и учебная лексикология. – М.: Русский язык, 1979. – С. 112-124.

13. О. Н. Гришина Соотношение повествования, описания и рассуждения в художественном тексте: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 1983. – С.1-82.

14. Гюббенет И.В. Проблема словесной реакции на ситуацию (на материале прилагательных в современном английском языке): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1973. – 207 с.

15. Девкин В.Д. К проблеме немецкой разговорной речи (лексики и синтаксиса): Дис. … д-ра филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 240 с.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Д. С. Зоненашвили Диалог в драме и диалог в прозе: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. — М., 1980. – С.1-157.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Кибрик, А. А. Когнитивные исследования по дискурсу / А. А. Кибрик // Вопросы языкознания. – 1994. – №5. – С. 126-139.

24. Колшанский Г.В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке. – М.: Наука, 1975. – 230 с.

25. Кривонос С.М. Лингвостилистические средства выражения категории оценки (на материале произведений Кл.Цеткин): Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1980. – 26 с.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. Лук А.Н. О чувстве юмора и остроумии. – М.: Искусство, 1968. – 190 с.

29. Медникова Э.М. Оценочные прилагательные в современном английском языке: Автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1954. – 16 с.

30. Михайлов, Л. М. Коммуникативная грамматика немецкого языка: учебник для институтов и факультетов иностранных языков / Л. М. Михайлов – М.: Высшая школа, 1994. – 256 с.

31. 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.

32. В. Г. Никонова Взаимодействие фразеологических конфигураций и их смысловых коррелятов в диалогической речи: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1987. – 24 с.

33. Одинцов, В. В. Стилистика текста / В. В. Одинцов – М.: Наука, 1980. – 263 с.

34. Писанова Т.В. Национально-культурные аспекты оценочной семантики (эстетические и этические оценки): Московскй государственный лингвистическй университет. – М., 1997. – 320 с.

35. Седов, К. Ф. Становление дискурсивного мышления языковой личности (Психо-и социолингвистические аспекты): монография / К. Ф. Седов. – Саратов: Изд-во Саратовского университета, 1999b. – 180 с.

36. А. А. Стриженко Взаимодействие авторской речи и речи персонажей в современной драматургии: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1972. – 32 с.

37. Н. И. Теплицкая Некоторые проблемы диалогического текста: Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 253 с.

38. Л. Ундерко Некоторые структурно-композиционные формы диалога в пьесах Шекспира: автореф. дис. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 30 с.

39. Уфимцева А.А. Типы словесных знаков. – М.: Наука, 1974. – 205 с.

40. Френкель Е.И. Парадигматика оценочных семем в современном английском языке ( на материале разных частей речи): Дис. … канд. филол. наук. – Пятигорск, 1981. – 206 с.

41. Хализев, В. Е. Драма как род литературы (поэтика, генезис, функционирование) / В. Е. Хализев. – М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1986. – 260 с.

42. Хомяков В.А. Структурно-семантические и социально-стилистические особенности английского экспрессивного просторечия. – Вологда, 1974. – 104 с.

43. Хундснуршер, Ф. Основы, развитие и перспективы анализа диалога / Ф. Хундснуршер // Вопросы языкознания. – 1998. – №2. – С. 38-50.

44. Н. Е. Юдина, К вопросу об эмоциональных конструкциях в составе диалогических единств: автореф. дис. … филол. наук. – М., 1974. – 18 с.

45. 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.

46. Шаховский В.И., Проблема разграничения экспрессивности и эмоциональности как семантической категории лингвистики // Проблемы семасиологии и лингвистики, вып. 2. – Рязань, 1975. – С. 3-25.

47. Шведова, Н. Ю. Очерки по синтаксису русской разговорной речи / Н. Ю. Шведова. – М.: Издательство Академии наук СССР, 1960. – 377 с.

48. Шрамм А.Н. Очерки по семантике качественных прилагательных ( на материале русского языка). – Л.: ЛГУ, 1979. – 132 с.

49. 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.

50. Языковая номинация. Виды наименований / Под общ. ред. Б.А.Серебренникова и др. – М.: Наука, 1977. – 357 с.

51. Яковлева, Э. Б. Специфика немецкой полилогической речи: монография / Э. Б. Яковлева. – М.: Изд-во «ООО Типография Сарма», 2004. – 200 с.

52. 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.

53. Brown, G. Discourse Analysis / G. Brown, G. Yule. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. – 288 p.

54. 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.

55. Fillenbaum S., Rapoport A. Structures in the Subjective Lexicon. – New York, 1971. – 251 p.

56. Galperin I.R. Stylistics. – M., 1971. – 341 p.

57. Hrouda, C. Practical Natural Language Processing/ H. Caroline, M. Rossi // CPSC 533 Artificial intelligence. – Calgary: University of Calgary, 2000. Режим доступа: pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~jacob/Courses/Winter2000/CPSC533/Slides/09.2.2-

58. Katz J.J. Semantic Theory and Meaning of “good”. – In: Journal of Philosophy, 1964, vol. 61, №23. – P. 739-776.

59. 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.

60. Nida E.A. Componential Analysis of Meaning. An Introduction to Semantic Structures. The Hague-Paris-Mouton, 1975.– 272 p.

61. 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.

62. Osgood C.E. Focus on meaning. Explorations in Semantic Space. – The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1976. vol. 1. – 235 p.

63. Osgood, Ch. E. The Measurement of Meaning / Ch. E. Osgood, G. J. Suci, Percy H. Tannenbaum. – Urbana, 1957. — 346 p. Режим доступа: http://books.google.ru/books?id=Qj8GeUrKZdAC&pg=PA70&dq=osgood+evaluation+evaluative+clusters

Internet resources:

Allwords.com.

http://www.allwords.com/word-dialogue.html

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=81641&dict=CALD

Кибрик, А. А. Проблема сегментации устного дискурса и когнитивная система говорящего / А. А. Кибрик, В. И. Подлесская, Ю. В. Дараган, З. В. Ефимова, Н. А. Коротаев, А. О. Литвиненко, В. Л. Цуканова. – Казань, 2004. – Режим доступа: www.ksu.ru/ss/cogsci04/science/cogsci04/107.doc

Blackadder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

———————————

Dictionaries and Reference

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.

Sources and abbreviations

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.

3. Agatha Christie-3 Christie Agatha The Mystery of the Blue Train. London., 1994

3. John Steinbeck Steinbeck John The Pastures of Heaven // The Pastures of Heaven and Other Stories. – Moscow: Raduga Publishers, 1984. – P. 29 — 249

4. William Golding William Golding Lord of the Flies // Lord of the Flies. The Pyramid. Envoy Extraordinary. — Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1982.- P. 39- 297

http://artefact.lib.ru/library/golding.htm

5. J.B. Priestley J.B. Priestley Angel Pavement // a novel — Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1974

6. John Fowles — 1 John Fowles The Ebony Tower // The Ebony Tower. Eliduc. The Enigma. — Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980. P. 33- 133

7. John Fowles — 2 John Fowles The Enigma // The Ebony Tower. Eliduc. The Enigma. — Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980. P.159-209

8. Katherine Mansfield- 1 Katherine Mansfield Honeymoon // English short storues of the 20^th century.- Moscow: Raduga Publishers.1988. P. 264-274

9. Katherine Mansfield- 2 Katherine Mansfield Sixpence // English short storues of the 20^th century. — Moscow: Raduga Publishers.1988. P. 264-274

10. Evelyn Waugh Evelyn Waugh Decline and Fall // a novel — Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980

—————

Appendix

Pragmatic potential of adjectives of positive evaluation in English fictional discourse

Positive evaluation in author’s speech.

Adjectives of positive evaluation in dialogue.

Adjectives of positive evaluation in stylistic devices and expressive means.