Words of Qualitative Evaluation of a Person in Oscar Wilde's Novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal state autonomous educational institution for higher professional education

National research university higher school of economics

School of Foreign Languages

Bachelor's project

Field of study: 45.03.02 "Linguistics"

Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication

Words of Qualitative Evaluation of a Person in Oscar Wilde's Novel "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

Telegina Polina Dmitrievna

Reviewer:

Doctor of Sciences Gumovskaya, G.N.

Supervisor:

Associate Professor Yakovenko E.B.

Moscow, 2019



Introduction

linguistic vocabulary expressing

In the last decade, the interest of researchers and scholars in evaluation as a language phenomenon has noticeably increased. A large number of works have been written by Russian linguists. These works directly or indirectly highlight the problems and peculiarities of evaluation in various aspects, this phenomenon is no less relevant in works written by various foreign linguistics.

The sphere of emotions along with the sphere of evaluations is the subject of study not only for psychologists, but also literary critics, linguists and scholars who analyse various language means expressing emotionality and evaluation in relation to the writer or literary character. Moreover, over the years of studying the field of expressions conveying the evaluative meaning, many approaches to phenomenon and concept of evaluation have appeared in modern science: the logical aspect of evaluation was investigated by I.A. Ivin; the semantic aspect was a sphere of study of E.M. Wolf and N.M. Lukyanova. The psycholinguistic aspect was investigated by E.I. Kolodkin. The pragmatic one by Y.D. Apresyan, E.A.Stolyarova and M.A. Yagubova. The functional semantic aspect of the concept was examined by Ò.V. Markelov; national-cultural by A. Wezhbitskaya, Y.D. Apresyan, and I.N. Gorelov. This list of those who studied the problems of evaluation also indicates and highlights the complexity and versatility of the phenomenon under study.

Therefore, the relevance of this paper is due to the interest of modern linguists in the category of evaluation and the ways of its speech realization.

The concept of evaluation itself is taken into account when studying and analyzing emotive lexis in literary compositions. The definition of evaluation as a linguistic category is a matter of discussions, ÷òî ïîä÷åðêèâàåò ïðîáëåìàòèêó èññëåäîâàíèÿ. According to Akhmanova (2004), evaluation in linguistics is "the speaker's assessment, his attitude - approval or disapproval, desire, encouragement, etc." (p. 305). Chernyavskaya (2001), in contradistinction to Akhmanova, interprets the evaluation as "a language category reflecting a logical category, thought processes leading to the establishment of the value of all kinds of objects" (p. 147). The vocabulary layer that falls into the category of qualitative evaluation is complex, multidimensional and insufficiently studied, which also determines the relevance of this study.

In the context of this work, attention will be paid to the functioning of vocabulary expressing a qualitative evaluation of a person in the context of a work of fiction, namely the novel written by the English writer Oscar Wilde - “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, first published in 1890. The same work accordingly serves as the object and the main literary source of this study. The subject of this study is 96 of lexical units expressing a qualitative evaluation. All of units are taken from the novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by using the method of continuous sampling.

The aim of this work is to explore and describe the vocabulary layer expressing the qualitative evaluation of a person and also to include the examination of linguistic and stylistic peculiarities of the transmission of evaluation in O. Wilde's novel using linguistic analysis, classification and definition of stylistic functions of the various lexical units expressing evaluation.

To achieve the objectives listed above, the following tasks were set, firstly, to consider the concept of evaluation paying particular attention to its qualitative aspect, as well as to relate these concepts with the category of emotionality; secondly, to analyze the lexical units expressing a qualitative evaluation used in the text. The third task is to consider belonging of these units to one or another part of speech, and to examine the quantitative ratio of lexical units with an ameliorative or non-pejorative and pejorative assessment in the speech of the literary characters. Pejorative elements can also be called derogators or derogatory terms (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

The practical significance of this paper consists in the possibility of using these research materials in various English language and English literature courses, as well as in academic courses devoted to linguistic analysis and stylistic differentiation of vocabulary.

In the course of the work, the following questions will be answered: how the choice of lexical units influences the image and perception of a literary character, how the means of evaluation are implicated in various contexts within a single novel.

The aims and objectives of this course work are correlated with the choice of research methods, which are the following:

During the first stage of this work, the method of analysis of the sources created by Russian and foreign linguists, scholars and literary critics on the relevant topic is used to compile the theoretical and methodological basis of the study. In the second part of the first stage, the method of vocabulary definitions analysis using various linguistic-oriented dictionaries is carried out. The second stage includes the method of continuous sampling of different lexical units from O. Wilde's novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, containing linguistic features of a qualitative evaluation of a person. Also, the classification and division of the lexical units mentioned above into several categories according to the rating scale and the opposition between ameliorative and pejorative connotation. The third stage focuses primarily on the generalization of the results of the analysis conducted during the previous stages and synthesis of classification of the lexical units with the certain evaluative features.

This work includes an introduction, a theoretical chapter, a practical chapter, a conclusion, a list of references and an appendix. The introduction includes a description of the relevance and problems of research, the subject and object, the description of aims and objectives, research methods, as well as its theoretical and practical significance. Within the first theoretical chapter the concept of evaluation as the object of linguistic research will described, also we will focus on different categories of text and their specific features peculiarities. In the second part of the first chapter, the status of relationship between the concepts of “emotionality” and “evaluation” will be stated along with determination of their interconnection and mutual influence. The last part of the first chapter is dedicated to the ways of expression of the category of evaluation in the artistic text, on the basis of the novel written by O. Wilde. The second practical chapter contains the practical part of the study, where 96 units will be analyzed and categorized. The study material is the novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, composed in the genre of philosophical fiction and literature of decadent movement. This book was chosen as a research material due to the fact that is main theme and motif is aestheticism, which is expressed through a large number of vocabulary units conveying emotional and evaluative meaning. The hard copy of the book analyzed was published by KARO, St. Petersburg publishing house in 2017 with comments and vocabulary section compiled by K.Y. Mikhno. The book consists of 20 chapters and 400 pages.

The practical significance consists in the possibility of using these research materials in various English language and English literature courses, as well as in academic courses devoted to linguistic analysis and stylistic differentiation of vocabulary.

In the course of the work, the following questions will be answered: how the choice of lexical units influences the image and perception of a literary character, how the means of evaluation are implicated in various contexts within a single novel.



Chapter 1. Evaluation as the object of linguistic research

1.1 Evaluation and its types

The category of evaluations was considered from different points of view in the works of philosophers, logicians, psychologists and linguists throughout the historical development of the concept itself. The points of view of representatives of the different science fields are undoubtedly different from each other, but the fact that the evaluation is based on a certain sample or standard is common to researchers of all scientific fields. Therefore, when considering this category, it is legitimate to study not only the views of linguists on this problem, but also the points of view of representatives of such sciences as philosophy, logic, psychology, who contributed to the development of assessment as a category of pragmatics. The essence of the concept of evaluation is also presented as a category in philosophy. Evaluation is defined as a philosophical category denoting a person's attitude to the entire normatively presented diversity of objective incarnations of human life activity and the possibilities of their cognitive and practical development (Bryanik, 2007).

Currently, there is a wide variety of approaches to defining evaluation as a category of science. The complexity and versatility of the assessment generates a variety of approaches to its characteristics, a wide range of points of view on its nature. The issue of evaluation and evaluation is reflected in numerous fundamental studies - the works of Y.D. Apresyan, I.V. Arnold, N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, M.R. Zheltukhina, A.A. Ivina, T.V. Markelova, G.Y. Solganika, V.N. Telia, V.I. Shakhovsky and others.

In the stylistic encyclopedic dictionary edited by M.N. Kozhina, the category of evaluation is characterized as a set of multi-level language units united by evaluative semantic component and expressing the author's positive or negative attitude to the content of speech (Kozhin, 2006). According to O.S. Akhmanova, evaluation -- the speaker's assessment, his attitude -- approval or disapproval, desire, encouragement, etc. -- as one of the main parts of stylistic connotation (Akhmanova, 1966). In the dictionary by V.V. Matveyeva, evaluation is indicated as the speaker's attitude, his approval or disapproval as a component of the lexical meaning of a word, the meaning of the utterance, the content of the text (Matveyeva, 2010).

M.R. Zheltukhina defines evaluation as an act of human consciousness, consisting in comparing objects, putting their properties in juxtaposition, determining the language in the form of a positive, negative or neutral attitude. The evaluative component, like the emotive one, reduces itself to the expression of two opposite evaluations: positive or ameliorative and negative or pejorative (Zheltukhina, 2003). The greatest difficulty is their distinction, as they most often come together and are closely related within the meaning. Emotions and evaluations have a single common object. However, according to some scholars, the evaluation is the basis of emotions, but not every evaluative component of the meaning is accompanied by emotiveness, whereas emotiveness is always evaluative (Shakhovsky, 1988).

Thus, the existence of different approaches to the definition of concepts category evaluation indicates the complexity of the phenomenon under consideration and the wide diversity of approaches to its study.

Speaking about the categories of evaluation, it is impossible not to mention the very structure of evaluation, which serves as a basis for researchers to categorize the concept itself. In her monograph “Functional semantics of evaluation”, E.M. Wolf considers evaluation as one of the types of modalities that are superimposed on the descriptive content of a language expression (2002). The structure of evaluation is presented as a modal frame, the main elements of which are the subject of the assessment and its object, connected by an evaluative predicate. Thus, according to E.M. Wolf, the subject of evaluation, explicit or implicit, is a person or a society from whose point of view an assessment is given (2002). The object of evaluation can be a person, object, event or state of affairs to which the evaluation relates. The subject or object of evaluation is often connected by predicates, primarily predicates of opinion, sensation, or perception.

As it was mentioned previously, in the language of evaluation is materialized in the form of evaluation judgments. However, the question of recognition of particular statements as the evaluation proper is to some extent controversial. M.Ya. Blokh and N.V. Ilina clearly indicate that “not any construct containing the lexical unit of evaluative semantics can be recognized as an evaluative construct, but only the one in which the lexical unit is in the predicative position”. In other cases, the category of evaluation is transmitted as a fact already known, and not attributed by the subject according to the basic semantic task of the statement (1996).

At the same time, such a narrow understanding of evaluative statements (as sentences-judgments with an evaluative lexeme in a predicate position) seems to us to be insufficiently valid. In this matter, the position of A.N. Baranov seems more convincing, asserting that from a linguistic point of view, a narrow understanding of assessment is unlikely to be justified, since in this case a number of natural language phenomena that implement the “periphery” of the cognitive assessment procedure are excluded from the scope of analysis (2001). Often, the evaluation in a statement is transmitted using lexical units that are not strictly evaluative - for example, when a redundancy of a feature is ascertained. The category of evaluation covers a wide range of language units. It can be considered as a universal category. The category of evaluation N.D. Arutyunova defined as establishing the correspondence between the world and its idealized model (1988). The evaluation is distinguished by the diversity of its connections and functions.

These connections N.D. Arutyunova distributes to the following aspects:

ontological (according to which the evaluation is relevant to some valid properties of objects, their compliance or non-compliance with the norm);

psychological (focuses on the perception of objects along with sensations caused by them, active psychological aspect of a human personality: his desires, will, etc.);

functional (where the decision and choice of a number of alternatives, the ideals and the life program of the person);

communicative (presupposes that the concept of evaluation is implemented in certain speech acts).

These are aspects that, according to the researcher, determine the functions of the category of evaluation: characterizing, coordinating (between man and the world), stimulating (directing activity), didactic and regulating.

These communications and functions appeared the main aspects when analyzing vocabulary expressing the quantitative evaluation in the novel by O. Wilde within the practical chapter of this paper.

Moreover, it is undoubtedly worth paying attention to the classification suggested N.D. Arutyunova. This classification is based on the nature of the evaluation, its base along with its motivation.

Among the evaluative units three groups are distinguished, these three groups accordingly include seven classes:

Group 1. Sensory evaluation units related to sensations, sensory experiences - physical and mental. They are divided into:

1) sensory, this is the most individualized type of evaluation, e.g. pleasant, tasty, fragrant;

2) psychological, among which can distinguish:

a) intellectual: interesting, fascinating;

b) emotional: joyful, pleasant, desired.

Group 2. Absolute evaluation units:

1) aesthetic evaluation units, which are based on the synthesis of sensory and psychological: beautiful, good-looking;

2) ethical, implying norms: moral, good.

Group 3. Rationalistic evaluation units:

1) utilitarian: useful, harmful, favorable;

2) regulatory: right, correct, standard;

3) teleological: effective, successful, expedient.

Thus, the analysis of evaluation in its own linguistic terms also relies on an understanding of the subjective and objective aspects of the meanings of evaluative words and statements in their relationship.

D.Yu. Dron and S.E. Tokmakova give in their works classifications of the evaluative category according to different characteristics, which allows considering it from different sides. The following is their generalized classification (Dron, 2013; Tokmakova, 2015):

1. By type of evaluation we can distinguish positive and negative types: He is clever vs He is stupid. Nevertheless, according to E.M. Wolf, not all words have a definite sign. The meanings of “good” or “bad” can be traced in statements and contexts (2002).

2. By the place of the evaluation component in the structure of meaning: they identify words with conceptual evaluation content and words with evaluation connotations.

3. Depending on the context: Context affects the implementation of the semantics of the evaluative units, respectively, there are two types of evaluation: inherent (ordinary, linguistic) and adherent (occasional, speech) evaluation types.

4. According to the degree of correlation between objective and subjective in evaluation: subjective and objective evaluation types: I think he is clever. vs He is considered to be clever. In connection with this classification, there are general-grade (general) and private-grade (private) ones. In the phrases the big screen, the red apple has its own attributes of the objects - these are descriptive adjectives, and in the phrases a good computer, a tasty apple are observed the signs given by the subject to the object are evaluative adjectives. Descriptive adjectives relate to private evaluations, but they may also contain their own characteristics of the items with the appraisal, and evaluative adjectives refer to general evaluations.

5. By the nature of the basis: absolute and comparative types, where absolute evaluations are, as a rule, about one evaluative object, and comparative evaluations - there are at least two objects or two states of the same object. According to E.M. Wolf, evaluation is inseparable from comparison, since it is based on direct comparison of objects with each other, and absolute assessment is also based on comparison, but implicitly (Wolf, 2002). He is a clever person. vs Jim is smarter than John. In axiology, the problem of the primacy of evaluation is investigated. There is no answer to the question what grade is the original.

6. By the presence of the emotive component: emotional and rational types, where the emotional evaluation is usually expressive, it conveys an emotional attitude to the object of evaluation, while expressiveness is not peculiar to a rational evaluation, it is based on logical judgments; for example, what is a fool he is! Moreover, it may be a momentary emotional reaction of the speaker to the addressee's behavior or a conclusion made as a result of prolonged observation of his actions and actions (Dron, 2013; Tokmakova, 2015).

In addition to the classification proposed by N.D. Arutyunova, it is worth also taking into account the systematization of the units expressing evaluation and the methods of their selection, reflected in the work of E.F. Petrishcheva. In addition to that, in the classification suggested by A.N. Schramm (1979_ there is an extensive coverage of evaluative adjectives, which are divided into three groups:

1) The content of the lexical meanings of adjectives is reduced to the expression of evaluation: good, bad, beautiful;

2) Meaning of the adjectives includes a concept of evaluation as one of components, but is not limited to the expression of evaluation;

3) The evaluative characteristic of a subject is not included in the meaning, but stemmed from their paradigmatic oppositions.

The presented classifications reflect the system of human values, having considered which on the basis of “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, we can identify certain qualities of a person expressed by vocabulary with an evaluative sense and analyze them.



1.2 The relationship between the concepts of "emotionality" and "evaluation"

Emotions are multifaceted: they relate to feelings, experience, and physiology. The study of emotions, their interpretation relate to one of the challenges in any of the sciences, including linguistics. The difficulty of interpreting emotions, in particular, is indicated by the psychologist K. Izard. Recently, studies on the expressions of emotions, emotional processes in language and speech, means of expressing emotions, their description and systematization have become increasingly topical.

The initial stage of the study of this category is associated with the names of A.A. Potebnya and other scholars, who paid great attention to the subject associations underlying the nomination of any emotion (1922).

At the beginning of the 20th century in the works of A.A. Shakhmatov, A.M. Ieshkovsky the foundation for the study of individual groups of vocabulary expressing emotions was laid. Researchers mainly considered the semantic aspect of the predicates of feelings. It should be noted that linguistics has repeatedly addressed the problem of expressing emotions in a language. The term “emotionality” is common for the modern science. This term entered the scientific field in the 1920s thanks to the work by B.A. Larin. The term "emotiveness" was proposed in linguistics to refer to emotionality as a mental category. Emotiveness is “the semantic property inherent in language to express emotionality by the system of its means as a fact of the psyche, social and individual emotions reflected in the semantics of language units. It has two plans: a plan of content and a plan of expression, through which the emotional relationships of the speakers are manifested”. (Shakhovsky, 1987).

Accordingly, we can state that “a linguistic unit, in the semantic structure of which there is an emotional share in the form of a semantic attribute, seme, meaning, thanks to which this unit is adequately used by all native speakers to express the emotional attitude or the state of the speaker,” is called “emotive unit”. Thus, emotiveness is a linguistic category, and emotionality is a psychological category. It is a fact that emotionality can occupy a different place in the structure of the meaning of a lexeme: “The emotive share of semantics can to be relevant and match or be identical with the entire lexical meaning of a word (in the case of an emotive meaning) or to be a part of it, or its component (connotation). Emotive vocabulary is traditionally studied in linguistics taking into account such categories as evaluation, figurativeness, expressiveness, and its connections with evaluation are particularly close: emotion performs the function of evaluation (Babenko, 1989), and V.Ê. Viliunas notes the ability of an emotion to produce evaluative effect (1976). The problem of conjugation of emotions and evaluation still does not lose relevance.

The question of the interaction of emotionality and evaluation remained controversial for a long time and was solved differently in the works and studies of numerous linguists. In earlier studies, there is a clear tendency to create a strict differentiation of such concepts as emotionality, evaluation, expressiveness. In the works of the 1980s (Lukyanova, 1986; Ivanina, 1984) and in recent studies (Vasilyev, 1985; Hack, 1997; Arutyunova, 1999.) thoughts about the close connection between emotionality and evaluation have already been expressed. In addition to that, these two concepts are quite often considered as a single emotionally-evaluative component.

V.C. Kharchenko and N.A. Lukyanova considered emotionality and evaluation as components included in the semantic composition of the concept of expressiveness, thereby emphasizing the connection between these concepts (Kharchenko, 1976; Lukyanova, 1986)

Therefore, according to the first point of view, evaluation and emotionality are indissoluble unity. "Evaluation, presented as a correlation of a word with an assessment, and emotionality associated with emotions, feelings, do not constitute two different components of meaning, they form a unity" (Lukyanova, 1986). O.N. Lukyanova believes that evaluation and emotionality do not constitute two different components of meaning, they form a unity, in dissociation at the extra-linguistic level. A positive evaluation, according to the researcher, can only be transmitted through a positive emotion, a negative one - only through a negative emotion. The linguist emphasizes the close connection, interaction, interpenetration of these components, and considers it appropriate to talk about "emotional evaluation." “The semantics of the expressive word reflects not so much the “subject” as the attitude of the person towards it.” (Lukyanova, 1986). Another linguist, V.I. Shakhovsky, shares the same opinion.

According to another position on the topic, evaluation and emotiveness - are the two components, although implying each other, appear different. The distinction between these components are confirmed by the fact that the individual subclasses of emotional phenomena do not have the same degree of evaluative function. E.M. Wolf separates these concepts both at the level of mental processes and at the level of the composition of the emotive-evaluative meaning of a lexical unit (Wolf, 1979). Similar thoughts are expressed in the works of G.A. Zolotova. According to supporters of this position, evaluative component is not equally peculiar to emotional vocabulary, as it contains, along with the evaluative modality, the designation of emotion (1979).

Many researchers have noted the fact of close, inseparable connection between the emotive and evaluative components of connotation. Although emotive vocabulary is closely related to evaluative, but for the study of emotive vocabulary, we take all the evaluative words, based on the premise that emotive vocabulary includes in its meaning the evaluative component and that the evaluative structure of different classes of emotive vocabulary is not the same, can be considered generally accepted, but it is impractical to choose evaluative words as a central criterion when choosing material for emotional vocabulary, as N.V. Gridin suggests, since the functional nature of the evaluation is different (1983). In this paper we will adhere to the position according to which the emotionality and the evaluation are categories that are interconnected. However, not all evaluative vocabulary will convey an emotional state. Following some researchers (D.E. Rosenthal, S. Bally), it is believed that the stylistic identity of the word indicates emotionality, therefore it should be analyzed mainly focusing on the stylistically marked vocabulary.

The study of evaluative vocabulary does not yet have a firmly established technique in linguistics. Traditionally, in lexicology and other linguistic fields, there is a distinction between emotional-evaluative and rational-evaluative vocabulary. In the language, we see not only a rational reflection of the world, but also its experience, and the language of artistic works is determined by the author's worldview, his personal characteristics.

The emotional and evaluative vocabulary used in a literary work of art is difficult to observe. Evaluative meanings of words in a work of art should be investigated consistently from several points of view: the image of the author, the development of the theme of the work, the image of the character and the actions of the character himself, primarily his speech actions (Andreeva, 2006). Thus, only by comparing all the semantic layers, one can get the linguistic meaning of evaluative vocabulary in a work of art.

1.3 Categories of text

The problem of text as an object of study in linguistics attracts the attention of an increasing number of representatives of Russian and foreign linguistics. Despite the appearance of numerous works in this area, the term "text" has not yet been given a final definition. Attempts to define the text as a speech product did not reveal all aspects of this way of existence of the language. So, in linguistics, this term is used in various meanings:

1. Text as a linked sequence, completed and properly executed;

2. A common model for a group of texts;

3. A sequence of statements belonging to one communication participant;

4. Written variety of speech work.

According to Galperin, the text is a completed moment of the language-making process, presented in the form of a concrete work, processed in accordance with the stylistic norms of this type of written variety of language, also it is a work that has a title completed in relation to the content of the title, which consists of interdependent, integrated parts and has a purposeful and pragmatic attitude. One of the tasks of text linguistics is to build systematic categories of text, as well as finding ways to translate these categories available to all native speakers (1981).

The category of text refers to a certain type of relationship between units in the text, corresponding to certain communicative attitudes of the text.

Despite the existence of different approaches to the identification of categorical features of the text and the absence of their final classification, there is no doubt the existence of a number of structural and semantic categories, such as the continuum, the integration of units in the text, on the one hand, and the information content, implication, modality on the other.

Most researchers involved in the issue of the text cites the definition of I.R. Halperin or refer to it: Z.Y. Turaeva (Turaeva, 1986), T.M. Voiteleva (Voiteleva, 2013), A.A. Karamova (Karamova, 2013 ), L.H. Tsiku (Tsiku, 2008). In her work, E.V. Beloglazova (Beloglazova, 2001) even calls this definition the most complete, and approach of A.A. Strizhenko can be named as one of the most productive (Strizhenko, 2010). I.R. Galperin states the text is “the work of speech-making process, having completeness, objectified in the form of a written document, literary processed in accordance with the type of this document, the work consisting of the name (title) and a number of special units (superphrase unities), united by different types a lexical, grammatical, logical, stylistic connection that has a certain purposefulness and a pragmatic attitude.” (2006). The author also writes that the text given, has its own parameters and categories inherent only in it. Among such categories they include information content, articulation, cohesion (inter-textual connections), continuum, auto-avantation of text segments, retrospection and prospecting, modality, integration and completeness of the text (Galperin, 2006). In his opinion, all categories are fully manifested only in a written text.

Following Halperin, Z.Y. Turaeva excludes oral speech in her definition. The text, in her opinion, is “a kind of ordered set of sentences, united by various types of lexical, logical and grammatical communication, capable of transmitting in a certain way organized and directed information. The text is a complex whole, functioning as a structural-semantic unity.” (Turaeva, 1986).

Other scholars, such as, for example, I.V. Arnold (Arnold, 2002), L.M. Vasilyev (Vasilyev, 2012), A.A. Karamova (Karamova, 2013), encompass both written and oral forms of speech realization with the concept of text. I.V. Arnold writes that it shares the point of view of M. Halliday, who gives the following definition: “A text is an operational unit of a language, just as a sentence is its syntactic unit; text may be written or oral; it includes as a specific kind of literary and artistic text. The object of the stylistic study is precisely the text, and not a super-phrasal unity, the text is a functional-semantic concept and is not defined by size.” (Halliday, 1974).

O.N. Kopytov, in his work on text categories, writes about the latest research trend to single out modus as a textual modality or an author's modality (2011) and gives N.S. Valgina's definition from the “Theory of Text”, where the text is “functionally, meaningfully and structurally complete speech unity, fastened by the author's modality” (2003). A.F. Papin, according to the opinion of O.N. Kopytov, by generating ideas from the works of T.A. Van Dyck, N.D. Arutyunova, E.M. Wolf, E.S. Kubryakova, E.S. Yakovleva and other scholars, identified the following five global text categories:

1. Participants of the communicative act.

2. Events, processes, facts.

3. Time.

4. Space and Location of objects.

5. Category of evaluation (axiological: qualitative and quantitative; as well as rational, utilitarian, normative, theological; logical: epistemic, deontic) (Papina, 2002).

In relation to artistic texts, researchers identify and single out 14 text-forming categories, namely:

1. Integrity

2. Connectivity

3. Completeness

4. Absolute anthropocentricity

5. Sociology

6. Dialogicity

7. Deployment

8. Sequence

9. Static character

10. Dynamism

11. Tension

12. Aesthetics

13. Figurativeness

14. Interpretability.

It is emphasized that integrity and coherence are fundamental text-forming categories that “attract to themselves and group around themselves the categories correlated with them” (2002). Foreign textologists consider in their works seven criteria of textuality, among which include cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativeness, situationality and intertextual connection.

The linguistic literature also presents various points of view regarding the selection of main and optional categories of text. According to some authors, "the leading textual properties are integrity, articulation and modality, which “can be called the main categories of the text, subordinating to itself its more particular features”. (Matveeva, 2003). Some authors believe that “the basis of the universal categories of the text is integrity (plan of content) and coherence (plan of expression), entering into relations of complementarity, diarchy with each other.” (Shmeleva, 2006)

Choosing the category of evaluation as the object of study and as one of the text categories, the definition of the text of Z.Y. Turaeva is used as the working definition, according to which the text is a complex whole, functioning as a structural-semantic unity, i.e. a certain ordered set of sentences, united by various types of lexical, logical, and grammatical connections, capable of transmitting in a certain way organized and directed information (1986).

1.4 The expression of the category of evaluation in the artistic text

Evaluation as a linguistic category is expressed through various means, with each level of the language being able to express an assessment in its own specific way. Evaluation category researchers usually distinguish lexical, syntactic, graphic, phonetic (intonational), and morphological means (Tokareva, 2005; Kolesnik, 2008; Tokmakova, 2015). S.A. Seyfulina also considers phraseological, textual and complex means. The stylistic level is not highlighted, but its means belong to the lexical and syntactic levels (1999).

Scope of phonetic means - oral speech, but while analyzing the written speech, one can rely on syntactic structures that have a certain intonation pattern or on the author's remarks, indicating an evaluative nature of the utterance, as well as graphic means. In addition to that, the category of evaluation may be expressed by accent or orthoepic abnormalities, stretching of the discourse, etc.

As for the morphological means used to express evaluation, most of the modern scholars consider in detail various methods of word formation, such as affixation and word composition (Kolesnik, 2008; Seyfulina, 1999, etc.), but few scholars and linguists pay attention to grammatical forms of words. The use of grammatical categories for expressing assessment is carried out in cases where there is a discrepancy with the normative usage.

The stylistic means expressing the evaluation in the artistic text include figurative means or tropes, expressive means or figures of speech, as well as phonetic and graphic means. These tropes include: metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, irony, antithesis, comparison, etc. These are mainly lexical figurative means in which words or phrases are used in the transformed meaning. Expressive means or figures of speech do not create images, but increase the expressiveness of speech and enhance its emotionality through the use of special syntactic structures: inversion, rhetorical question, repetitions, etc. (Arnold, 2002). These means expressing the evaluation can be divided into two groups: with an excess of components (various repetitions, parallel and emphatic constructions, inserted sentences, inversion, litotes, etc.) and the absence of a component in speech (ellipsis, break-in-the-narrative, simple sentences, asyndeton, zeugma, etc.) (Arnold, 2002).

Graphic expressive means contribute to the external organization of the text or the ways of placing elements and text fragments, as well as the use of calligraphic tools. Evaluation is mainly expressed in typefaces: italics and capitalization (Arnold, 2002). The choice of stylistic means in each particular case depends on the situation, style of speech and, of course, on the addressee who has psychological and personal characteristics, shares one's life experience and gives evaluative judgments to what is happening in the context of the fiction work.

In the English language, not only lexemes, but also morphemes, phrases, intonation, irony, and context are used to express the evaluation. When analyzing texts of fiction, it is especially important to distinguish between evaluative elements within speech (contextual, situational, individual) and linguistics, listed in the language meaning of this lexeme. Speech individual evaluation is expressed in the author's usage of linguistic units, thus, in autobiographical texts, the study of just such appraisal allows us to describe and characterize the image of the narrator. The evaluative vocabulary by distinguishing between good and normal and bad creates a subjective vision of the world by the narrator or the speaker. In this case, the subject of speech appears as a thinking person, who ascribes values on the basis of what is known and comprehended by others; or a feeling (experiencing positive, negative emotions or indifference) and acting -- speaking (expressing his value attitude and influencing others).

Emotional evaluation allows to express approval or disapproval in varying degrees: for example, disapproval can imply not only the negative, but also the contempt or neglect of the narrator to the object of the utterance.

One of the main levels, expressing evaluation through various means, is lexical. The lexical layer can be considered the core of the semantic category of evaluation. The researchers of the assessment category R.M. Yakushin and E.N. Tokarev cite Academician V.V. Vinogradov: “The word not only has grammatical and lexical, subject meanings, but at the same time expresses the assessment of the subject of assessment” (Vinogradov, 1986; Yakushin, 2003; Tokarev, 2005). The evaluative component, which is based on the attribute “good / bad”, can be contained in the denotative or connotative values, as well as occur occasionally.

It is also necessary to identify the place of the evaluation component in the structure of the word meaning. Modern scientists recognize that the lexical meaning of a word is a system consisting of inseparable components, which are divided into types only conditionally, for purposes of analysis. The denotative and connotative components are usually distinguished. Denotative meaning of a word is a conceptual core of a meaning, a subject-logical meaning of a word that calls a concept. Connotation is associated with the conditions and participants of communication, it includes the emotional, evaluative, expressive and stylistic components of meaning (Arnold, 2002). Denotative and connotative components contain semes that characterize individual aspects of the subject of a nomination or relationship to it. The grade of the evaluation may belong to the core of the word meaning, i.e. its denotative component. In this case, the whole nomination as a whole is evaluative and this is an inherent (usual, language) evaluation. The evaluation grade is the property of the core of the meaning of those lexical units, the definitional analysis of which records the presence of constant evaluation components. R.M. Yakushina cites as an example the following nominations, which are entirely evaluative, since if you deprive them of the underlined elements that carry an estimate, they will no longer exist as units (2003): good - of the right kind, having qualities that are worth praising (Longman, 1995); skrungy (sl.) - disgusting (Richard, 1991).

Conclusion for Chapter 1

Thus, after analyzing the work of the Russian and foreign scientists on the topic of the category of evaluation in the artistic text, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The text as an object of linguistic analysis is studied and considered from different perspectives, and its definition causes a lot of controversy among scientists. As a working definition, the text definition is used coined by Z.Y. Turaeva, according to which, the text is a complex whole, functioning as a structural-semantic unity. Despite the differences of scientists in the opinion on the number and names of categories of text, the category of evaluation is a universal category (1994).

The category of evaluation and the category emotiveness are the two closely related components of linguistic study, moreover, although they implying each other in the course of speech, appear different. The distinction between these components are confirmed by the fact that the individual subclasses of emotional phenomena do not have the same degree of evaluative function.

Based on the analysis of different approaches to the definition of evaluation, the working definition of this category is derived. In this paper, the evaluation is understood as a positive or negative attitude of the subject to the object of reality, due to its correlation with the norm, where the evaluative judgment is always anthropocentric.

In present times, there is no single generally accepted classification of the category of evaluation. It can be classified according to various criteria depending on the purpose of the study. For the purposes of this study, several signs are used. The typology based on the evaluation mark is basic. In addition, in this paper, when analyzing the category of evaluation, a classification by location of the evaluation component is applied in the structure of meaning and depending on the context.

The linguistic aspect of the category of evaluation is a set of means of its expression. Evaluation tools are found at all levels of the language. Morphological and stylistic means are allocated separately, but the latter are divided into: graphic and expressive means, as well as phonetic and graphic. For the purpose of the study, this paper studies the lexical means of expressing the category of evaluation.

Evaluation is one of the most important linguistic categories and is recognized as the main way to reflect the human value system in the language. Therefore, the study of this category from the point of view of the fiction literature is of undoubted interest.



Chapter 2. Vocabulary expressing the qualitative evaluation of a person

Before we classify linguistic units that express a qualitative assessment of a person, it is necessary to give a more detailed description of the material on which the research will be conducted and the research methods along with the methods for identifying units for classification.

The material of this study is the work of Oscar Wilde. The name of Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) in the history of literature has always caused lively discussions, the ambiguity of his personality and work attracted the attention of the reading public and critics. The literature on the life and work of Wilde is great, diverse, international and constantly updated. At different times, depending on the ideological, philosophical and aesthetic quests, literary criticism has assessed Wilde differently.

At the early stage of the study of the writer's work (from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century), the problems of the writer's prosaic, poetic and dramatic art were considered, as a rule, from an ethical, moral and religious point of view. The works of the following authors are published in Russian literature: N.Y. Abramovich (“Religion of Beauty and Suffering. O. Wilde and Dostoevsky”, 1906); N. Berg (“The Poet of Good and Evil. O. Wilde's Literary Characteristics”, 1905); I. Axerold (“Morality and beauty in the works of O. Wilde”, 1923) and J. Eichenwald in the book “Studies on Western Writers” pays attention to Wilde's work. A major role in the spread of Wilde's fame in Russia belongs to K.D. Balmont (“The Poetry of O. Wilde”, 1904). S.A. Vengerov was one of the first scholars to start studying the problems of Wilde's creativity in the book “English Writers” (1913). K.I. Chukovsky wrote a lot of works concerning life of the writer (“Faces and Masks”, 1914), where he summarizes the experience of Western and domestic critics in the description of Wilde as the artist. In our country, interest in the writer's work is revived in the second half of the 20th century. Russian literary critics begin to study in detail the features of Wilde's poetics (problems of a character, author, hero, character, style, plot, etc.), starting from the 1960s when they start researching the dramatic legacy of the author. The prose of the writer, which is practically unexplored at that time, is of great interest. S.A. Kolesnik wroyr the articles “On the tales of O. Wilde” (1971) and “The Prose of O. Wilde” (1973). A wide range of issues (problems of interaction between the author and characters, style, etc.) were touched upon in the work of T.A. Porfirieva, “Peculiarities of O. Wilde's Poetics (short stories, novel, fairy tales)” (1983), in the articles “The Problem of the Author in O. Wilde's novel in The Portrait of Dorian Gray”(1978), also “O. Wilde and the traditions of neo-romanticism” (1989). O.M. Valova also explores O. Wilde's Tales (1999). The work by M. G. Sokolyansky “Oscar Wilde: An Essay of Creativity” (1990) and introductory articles for Wilde's various publications, which are written by E.A. Stekvashev (1986), A.M. Zverev (1986), V., enjoy deserved attention. N.A. Paltsev (1993) and others. At the present stage, after more than a hundred years after his death, it becomes necessary to consider O. Wilde's work in a new way, applying modern literary and linguistic apparatus.

The most famous work of the writer is the novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, the only published novel by Oscar Wilde. It exists in two versions - in 13 chapters (1890) and in 20 chapters (1891). It became the most successful work of Wilde, and was filmed more than 30 times.

The novel was written in three weeks. It was first published in July 1890 in the American Lippincott's Monthly Magazine. In April 1891, a separate book was published in London, supplemented by a special preface, which became the manifesto of aestheticism, as well as six new chapters. Some chapters in the second version are completely redesigned. After the publication of the novel, the scandal in society erupted. Literary critics condemned the author's novel as an immoral work, and some of the critics even demanded to subject him to a ban, and the author of the novel - to judicial punishment. Wilde was accused of insulting public morality. However, the usual readers of the novel accepted the novel enthusiastically.

The main source of inspiration for Wilde served the Balzac's allegorical novel “La Peau de chagrin”. The decadent spirit of the work goes back to Huysmans' naturalistic novel “A rebours” (1884). This is probably the book that Lord Henry gives to Dorian. The gothic novel “Melmot the Wanderer” was known to Wilde since childhood, since his author, Charles Robert Matyurin, was his great-uncle. The idea of a mysterious portrait, the prototype of which does not age, and in part a hero who can afford everything, goes back to “Melmot the Wanderer”. Wilde was also inspired by a fantastic psychological story, The Strange Story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In the novel there are numerous allusions to the works of William Shakespeare (“The Tempest”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “Hamlet”). There is no doubt that Edgar Allan Poe's influence on the novel “The Oval Portrait” (1842) was significant. Five years before the novel was published, Wilde commented on the expressiveness of the works of Po. All in all, as we provided a brief overlook on the author of the novel, the nature of the work, its main sources and the history of creation. Next, we will focus on methods for selecting lexical units for further analysis. The vocabulary of a qualitative evaluation of a person is directly associated with a more general and broad concept of the character of a person, including a literary hero.

Based on the fact that the character of a person appears as a combination of moral and ethical qualities, personal traits and certain peculiarities of human behavior. J.H. Gergokova and O.V. Konyakhina identify the following subgroups in the block containing units aimed at transferring the characteristics of various individual personal qualities of a person: featured and properties of a person, social behavior and lifestyle, temperament, volitional qualities, quality of speech, attitude to things, attitude to work and the ability to perform work (2001). G.A. Bagautdinova considers the characteristics of a person's character traits in the “will” group, which has “independence”, “volitional passivity”, “decisiveness”, “indecision”, “persistence”, “stubbornness” subgroups, and in the “personality traits” group which includes the subgroups “the attitude of a person towards the collective and individual people”, “the attitude of a person towards work”, “the attitude of a person towards different circumstances” (2007). Analyzing the views of linguists, we come to the conclusion that the component “individually and personality traits” is the most voluminous and extensive. It includes the moral characteristics of a general plan, character traits (positive and negative traits of character), abilities, qualities, behavioral traits, a person's attitude to people, work, religion, things, life, and evaluative components.

...