The article discusses the question of the types of assessment in the humanities, identifies the main functions of assessment in linguistics, describes the invariant properties of the assessment. The material of the research is English paremias, considered within the framework of the phraseological fund of the English language and a representative of the psychology of native speakers.
appraisal, positive appraisal, negative appraisal, paremias
In one way or another, such prominent scientists as: N.D. Arutyunova, N.A. Lukyanova, V.V. Krasnykh, V.M. Mokievich, M.V. Nikitina, M. Fortescue, V. Russel, et al. Initially, the humanities laid the foundation for the concept of assessment, which was further developed in philology.
The purpose of this article is to investigate the ways of expressing assessment on the material of English proverbs and sayings and to identify assessments of various phenomena of life inherent in Angloculture.
From the point of view of aesthetics, the main type of assessment is the beautiful, from the ethical point of view - good and evil. An important type of values - aesthetic value - exists along with moral, utilitarian values, etc. The connection between the values of aesthetics and other types of values is due to their general axiological nature: all types of values characterize the importance of an object for a subject, which is determined by the role of this object in the life of society, class, social group of people or individual. In this regard, in the aesthetic sphere, the concept of "value" is correlated with the concept of "evaluation". They characterize from different sides the system of subjective-objective value relations.
Linguistic science has made a great contribution to the development of the category of assessment. The central works in the category of assessment are the works of N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, N.N. Boldyreva, A.A. Ivina, M.V. Nikitin.
M.V. Nikitin notes that evaluation can be found at five levels of description of denotations: ontological, epistemic, pragmatic, emotive and representational [Nikitin 2004: 62]. Hence, evaluation is associated with a person's thinking, which is mainly evaluative.
The fundamental properties of assessment, highlighted and described in the works of scientists, are its anthropocentricity, cognitiveness, diversity and multidimensionality of assessment, its intuitiveness and subjectivity.
M.A. Minina distinguishes the following evaluation functions:
- epistemological, aimed at the relationship between the subject and the object of assessment in relation to the ideal, normative picture of the world;
- communicative - the assessment in a particular statement is perceived by the addressee of the speech, including as information about the subject;
- expressive, having a cumulative character, which is expressed in the fact that the assessment contained in the connotation of words preserves for a long time the system of values operating at a certain time in a given community [Minina 1995: 4].
Pragmatics of assessment in the concept of N.N. Boldyreva correlates with the logic of anthropocentrism; for the study of assessment, a person is important as a native speaker and as a speaking subject in the knowledge of the world [Boldyrev 2003: 104].
When a person interacts with the surrounding world, the phenomena and objects of the latter have an impact on him, which may not correspond to the complex of influences of these phenomena and objects on another person. The subjective nature of evaluative statements is irresistible: otherwise they will cease to fulfill their axiological function [Wolf 2002: 224]. According to M.V. Nikitin, "value judgments refer to judgments of opinion. The latter lie in the area intermediate between doubt and conviction, between assumption and established knowledge, between faith and proof"[Nikitin 2004: 70]. Assessment in connection with its intuitive nature gives knowledge not complete and not accurate, but only preliminary, approximate, entirely dependent on the pragmatic ideas of the subject of assessment.
The motive for the assessment is usually objective. The number of motives may include the observed properties of an object, facts and forecasts associated with a given object, attitude to the goal, patterns and features of the empirical perception of an object, various reactions of a person to different types of objects. It must be emphasized that the motive of the appraisal is not found with the appraisal itself either in causal relations or in the relations of logical inference. There is no direct connection between the assessment motive and the assessment itself, although they are in constant empirical interaction in the minds of people.
Evaluation, as follows from philosophical and linguistic concepts, is associated with the concept of norms and values. It qualifies and classifies, identifies and equates on the basis of value concepts in the picture of the world of a person in the form of dichotomies: "good - bad", "beautiful - ugly", "useful - not useful", etc. [Nikitin 2004: 73]. M.V. Nikitin reduces all value patterns to two large principled groups: modal-truth and value. Moreover, the modal-truth patterns relate to the cognitive-rational sphere of thinking, and the value patterns - to the cognitive-emotional sphere of the subject.
In our study, we turned to the paremias of the English language as the material on which the score is clearly revealed.
In the history of the study of paremias, there have been several opinions about their status; some linguists consider paremias as part of the phraseology of a particular language, some as a separate layer of vocabulary. Most researchers attribute proverbs and sayings to phraseological units due to the presence of the following features: coherent (phraseological, idiomatic) meaning, stability of the component composition, reproducibility in finished form, expressive-evaluative coloration [Shansky 1996: 23; Maximov 2003: 31; Mokienko 2007]. We will consider paremias (proverbs, sayings) as part of the English phraseological fund.
The term "paremias" is regarded as a synonym for proverbial and conversational formations [Parmenova 2001: 153]. Paremias are a special kind of utterances that express moral norms in a concise form and are figurative in nature. The content of paremias covers all aspects of nature and society: relief, heavenly bodies, animal breeds and plant species, lifestyle, social groupings and religious institutions, all natural and cultural objects [Meletinsky 2000: 173]. The proverbial fund can be viewed as a certain moral code intended for the structuring of all forms of human life: physical, mental, social and natural.
Researchers of paremias identify a number of functions inherent in the linguistic phenomena under consideration: nominative, cumulative, didactic, cognitive-pragmatic, socially-regulating, religious-magical.
The nature of paremias is associated with human cognitive activity - human cognition of the world and experience accumulated as a result. V.A. Pirogov interprets paremias as national-cultural utterances, which are generalized-figurative, syntactically closed semantically integral constructions that express the specifics of life and everyday life of each individual community of people and the directive function they perform [Pirogov 2003: 7]. They give an assessment of a person's knowledge of the world, and through it a certain life attitude of the individual is built.
The paremialogical picture of the world is an integral part of a broader education - a naive or prescientific picture of the world. Each natural language reflects a certain way of perceiving and organizing the world. The meanings expressed in it add up to a certain unified system of views, a kind of collective philosophy, which is mandatory for all native speakers.
V.P. Anikin believes that the system of views and representations of the linguistic community, forming a picture of the world, is expressed using various lexical and stylistic means, including paremial. Modern scientists are introducing the concept of "proverbial picture of the world", which is understood as a picture of the world, objectified in proverbs and reflecting the intellectual and emotional-value attitude of the people to the world [Anikin 2001: 25]. Works of oral folk art are the fruit of collective labor. The Paremial Foundation is popular both in the style of content and in the form of conveying the content. It is easy to single out the plots, images, themes, etc. characteristic of folklore.
Paremias with evaluation semantics are considered in this article as units that realize the axiological potential of the language. One of the most important elements of the value of the units under study is the modus of the overall assessment along the line "positively - negatively" [Karasik 2002: 243]. Evaluative and emotionally expressive elements in the semantics of paremias constitute the essence of.
Researcher S.E. Nikitina considers paremias as the property of each member of the traditional society. The author of these works is a collective linguistic personality, folklore society, a subject of a special kind, creating his own universe, his aesthetics, his axiology and his collective cultural texts [Nikitina 1993: 13]. Based on the concept of the evaluation mechanism in axiological paremias, it is the subject of evaluation. The subject of an evaluative action is rarely expressed directly, which is facilitated by the syntactic structure of the proverb: don't put the cat among the canaries.
In a number of paremias with the semantics of operational preferences, a superlative is used for emotional-evaluative amplification of statements: he works best who knows his trade.
It should be noted that the semantics of "anti-preferences", expressed by the evaluative markers "worse" and "worst", as well as their synonyms, is presented in the paremialogical picture of the world very poorly. This is due to the focus of a person, first of all, on the selection and reflection in the consciousness of the positive. An example of such units is the paremias: debt is the worst poverty; false friends are worse than bitter enemies.
Sentences with operational preference semantics can be complicated by various syntactic units: adverbial elements: a bit in the morning is better than nothing all day; attributive elements: a bad compromise is better than a good lawsuit.
Estimates in paremias make extensive use of adjective semantics. Instead of the form better or best, another adjective is used in a comparative degree with a pronounced comparative-evaluative meaning. For example: the eye is bigger than the belly; the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence; one father is more than a hundred schoolmasters; the noblest vengeance is to forgive.
A significant number of paremias with a preference value are built according to the principle expressed in paremia: the best is often the enemy of the good.
Preference for adverbial feature: better have a mouse in the pot than no flesh at all; better be the first in the village than second in Rome.
The purpose of intensifying the assessment in paremias of operational preference in English is lexical and grammatical repetition. Repetition - a figure of speech, consisting in the repetition of words, phrases or sentences in one utterance, accompanied by the expression of the speaker's subjective-evaluative attitude to the subject of speech.
The better N1 than N2 model in paremias with the semantics of operational preferences is built on the principle of verbatim repetition of a syntactic construction; the form of the comparative degree and the comparative union or the adjective good are repeated: good acts are better than good intentions.
Here are some examples:
- with verbatim repetition: better a husband with a beetle brow than a husband with a beetle head; good acts are better than good intentions; better to do nothing than to do ill;
- with synonymous repetition: a clean feast is better than a dirty breakfast; better an open enemy than a false friend; a sparrow in the hand is better than a pheasant that flies by;
- with antonymous repetition: better one word in time than two afterwards; better be an old man's darling than an old man's slave.
The not particle in the negative predicate form denies part of the content of the evaluative statement. For example: the tongue is not steel but it cuts; health is not valued till sickness comes.
The negation, expressed by the particle not in combination with the auxiliary verb do, in many paremias can be combined with the imperative mood. For example: don't bite of more than you can chew; don't judge others and God will not judge you; don't make a rod for your own back.
The pronoun nothing, describing inanimate objects, is most often found at the beginning of paremial units: nothing stings like the truth; nothing should be bought, that can be made or done without; nothing is certain but death and taxes. In some cases, this form occurs in the final position: he that knows nothing, doubts nothing; a wise man wonders at nothing.
Estimated values within the framework of specific statements can be combined, intersected, layered on semantics of a different kind. Expressive-emotional assessment can be expressed in a negative construct. Comparative models containing evaluation can be layered on denial models. In a number of cases, paremias, combining comparability and negation, perform the pragmatic function of clarifying the properties of the object of general assessment, revealing them through some kind of situationalism, for example: a good archer is known not by his arrows, but by his aim; a handsaw is a good thing but not to shave with.
Evaluation in English paremias in interaction with negation explicates normative-evaluative concepts, for example: all bread is not baked in one oven; there is no royal road to learning.
The meaning of a generalized subject in paremias can be expressed in complex constructions with the subordinate determinant one who (those who ... he who). For example: he who says what he likes shall hear what he doesn't like.
English paremias often operate with nominees denoting parts of the human body:
- tongue - compared with a weapon that can be used for defense, in an ambivalent unit: a good tongue is a good weapon; he who says what he likes shall hear what he doesn't like; such a trait as talkativeness is condemned: let not your tongue cut your throat; silence receives a positive rating: a closed mouth catches no flies.
- hand - the pragmatic function of prohibition is present in the semantics of units: don't put one's arm out further than you can draw it back again (ERPD: A 338/48) (literally: “do not reach out your hand if you cannot return it to previous position "); stretch your arm no further than your sleeve will reach;
- eyes - the axiology of preferences in paremias highlights vision as one of the priority values. The pragmatics of wishes in the proverb: better one-eyed than stone-blind carries out an evaluative gradation of the senses, describes the principle of "lesser evil";
- heart – sanctimony is condemned: religion is in the heart, not in the knees.
English paremias express the attitude of a native speaker to certain phenomena: love for the homeland (dry bread at home is better than roast meat abroad), attitude to drunkenness (Bacchus has drowned more men than Neptune), to patriotism (dry bread at home is better than roast meat abroad), to a reasonable waste of money (money spent on the brain is never spent in vain).
The paremias represent stereotypical values that are vital for a person, associated with his social role. Such values are family (in connection with which the role of choosing a spouse increases), love, friendship, life experience, obedience, the ability to be content with little, work. At the same time, the anti-values of youth are condemned, which means inexperience, a bad spouse, enmity, insincerity, excessive wealth, stupidity: a good husband makes a good wife; youth and age will never agree; a friend in court is better than a penny in purse; he laughs best who laughs last; the noblest vengeance is to forgive; wealth and content are not always bedfellows; he that has no money needs no purse.
Thus, the analysis of the English paremias, containing the assessment, showed that in the English picture of the world, values such as kindness, love, devotion, friendship, responsibility, etc. are relevant and evaluated positively. Stupidity, betrayal, the severity of poverty, human vices, etc.
1. Anikin V. P. Russian oral folklore / V. P. Anikin. - M.: Higher school, 2001.
2. Boldyrev N. N. Formation of evaluative concepts based on quantitative parameters in the language // Literary criticism. Linguistics. Linguodidactics: Sat. scientific. works / ex. ed. N. L. Potanina: Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation; Tamb. state un-ty n.a. G. R. Derzhavin, 2003.
3. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of assessment / E. M. Wolf. - 2nd ed., add. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2002.
4. Karasik V. I. Language of social status / V. I. Karasik. - M.: ITDGK "Gnosis", 2002.
5. Maksimov V. I. Phraseologisms and adjacent constructions / V. I. Maksimov // Russian speech. - 2003. - №4.
6. Meletinsky E. M. Poetics of myth / E. M. Meletinsky. - 2nd ed., rev. - M.: Publishing company "Eastern Literature" RAS, 2000.
7. Mokienko V.M.In depth of sayings: Stories about the origin of winged words and figurative expressions / V. M. Mokienko. - 3rd ed., rev. —SPb.: "Avalon", "Alphabet- classic",2007.
8. Nikitin M.V. Expanded theses on concepts / M.V. Nikitin // Questions of cognitive linguistics. - 2004. - №1.
9. Nikitina S.E. Oral folk culture and linguistic consciousness / S.E. Nikitina. - M.: Science, 1993.
10. Parmenova T. V. Interaction of functional-semantic categories in Russian proverbs and sayings with hypothetical modality / T. V. Parmenova // Theoretical problems of functional grammar: mater. All-Russian scientific conference / ed. A. V. Bondarko. - SPb.: 2001.
11. Pirogov V. A. Structure and semantics of paremialogical units in Japanese, English, Ukrainian and Russian languages: abtr. diss. ...cand. philol. sci./ V. A. Pirogov. - Kiev, 2003.
12. Shansky N.M. Phraseology of the modern Russian language: Textbook for universities on spec. "Russian language and literature" / N. M. Shansky. — 4th ed., rev. and add. - SPb.: Special literature, 1996.