Pages Navigation Menu

ISSN 2227-6017 (ONLINE), ISSN 2303-9868 (PRINT), DOI: 10.18454/IRJ.2227-6017
ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80772, 16+


Скачать PDF ( ) Страницы: 57-59 Выпуск: № 8 (110) Часть 4 () Искать в Google Scholar


Электронная ссылка | Печатная ссылка

Скопируйте отформатированную библиографическую ссылку через буфер обмена или перейдите по одной из ссылок для импорта в Менеджер библиографий.
Моисеева А. В. ОЦЕНОЧНЫЙ И ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ КОМПОНЕНТЫ ЯЗЫКОВОГО ЗНАКА / А. В. Моисеева // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. — 2021. — № 8 (110) Часть 4. — С. 57—59. — URL: (дата обращения: 28.09.2021. ). doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2021.110.8.124
Моисеева А. В. ОЦЕНОЧНЫЙ И ЭМОЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ КОМПОНЕНТЫ ЯЗЫКОВОГО ЗНАКА / А. В. Моисеева // Международный научно-исследовательский журнал. — 2021. — № 8 (110) Часть 4. — С. 57—59. doi: 10.23670/IRJ.2021.110.8.124




Научная статья

Моисеева А.В.*

Башкирский государственный университет, Уфа, Россия

* Корреспондирующий автор (mo_link[at]


В статье рассматривается проблема соотношения объективного и субъективного в языке посредством категорий оценочности и эмотивности, проявляющихся на уровне семантики языкового знака. Хотя традиционный подход к данному вопросу объединяет оценочность, эмотивность и экспрессивность в единый коннотативный блок семантики слова, указанные компоненты значения реализуют разную по своей сути информацию, что находит отражение в их распределении в структуре лексической единицы.

Оценочность, являясь результатом интерпретативной деятельности сознания, дает информацию о содержательных признаках объекта, тогда как эмотивность представлена в языке средствами, выражающими эмоциональное отношение говорящего, следовательно, оценку можно отнести к денотативному блоку (передающему содержательные свойства объекта речи), а эмотивность к коннотативному (отражающему дополнительную информацию об объекте).

Ключевые слова: оценочность, эмотивность, когнитивные процессы, рациональная оценка, коннотативный компонент значения.


Research article

Moiseeva A.V.*

Bashkir State University, Ufa, Russia

* Corresponding author (mo_link[at]


The article examines the problem of the relationship between the objective and the subjective in the language through the categories of evaluativeness and emotiveness, manifested at the level of semantics of a linguistic sign. Although the traditional approach to this issue combines evaluativeness, emotiveness and expressiveness into a single connotative block of word semantics, these components of meaning implement information that is different in nature, which is reflected in their distribution in the structure of the lexical unit.

Evaluation, being the result of the interpretative activity of consciousness, provides information about the meaningful features of the object, while emotivity is represented in the language by means that express the emotional attitude of the speaker, therefore, the assessment can be attributed to the denotative block (transmitting the substantive properties of the object of speech), and emotivity to the connotative (reflecting additional information about the object).

Keywords: evaluativeness, emotiveness, cognitive processes, rational assessment, connotative component of meaning.


At the heart of most theories of language and reasoning, two directions are traditionally distinguished, conventionally designated as objectivist and subjectivist, depending on belonging to the external, i.e. the objective world or the inner world – lying in the field of individual human consciousness. In accordance with the first direction, a person’s consciousness is determined by the external world, creating its image based on the data from the environment. According to the second, the inner world of a person is so different from the outer world that the outer world, in principle, is not cognizable, therefore, our idea of it is rigidly conditioned by metaphysical categories.

In philosophy and linguistics, the subjective and the objective are opposed as the emotional and the rational. This opposition is connected with the question of the primacy of the emotional or rational principles in the value judgment. This question is due to the point of view from which the nature of the definition of the external – the surrounding and internal – mental world of a person is considered. Equally important is the difference in understanding the relationship between the emotional and the rational in language from the point of view of considering the nature of emotions.

The division into cognitive (reasoning) and emotional (feelings) spheres is based on the European cultural tradition: the generalized image of a modern person is largely formed by a cardinal duality between spirit and body, mind and feeling. Feelings are often defined as elementary basic reactions that arise within a person, while reasoning is considered as a reflexive process that stands above feelings and contains conscious components.

It is generally accepted that emotions, if they affect any cognitive processes, have an extremely negative, chaotic effect
[2, P. 215]. The process of cognition is described in principle as rational, and emotions are mostly attributed to irrationality.

Despite the fact that the significant influence of emotional factors on cognitive processes has been proven [10], the opinion continues to prevail that the cognition process should be understood as independent of emotional components, that language processing and cognitive processes are presented as autonomous and independent of feelings.

Nevertheless, emotions can be both the result of a cognitive process and a trigger of mental activity. The cognitive and emotional spheres are different areas, but this does not mean that they cannot intersect, be independent of each other, and also interact, revealing the same mechanisms for storing information in memory and governing the concentration.

The axiological activity of the individual, as well as the assessment as its result, are based on the interpretation of the event by consciousness, this is a mental process during which objects, their characteristics are compared with the attitudes and norms existing in the person’s consciousness, representing a variant of the cognitive activity of the individual.

Domestic linguistics examines the relationship between the emotional and the rational from the emotivity theory point of view, and is reflected in the language through the connection between emotion and evaluation.

E.M. Wolf, having analyzed the use of emotive and mental predicates, notes that there are no clearly emotional predicates, since they all contain some degree of rational [2, P. 217-219]. In this regard G.V. Kolshansky suggests that the rational evaluative component is primary, and the emotional component is secondary, because language always presupposes a rational aspect [3].

Having conducted an in-depth study of the conceptualization of evaluation in fiction, I.A. Solodilova believes that the very problem statement of the rational and emotional components correlation in language is not entirely correct. On the one hand, the language opposes the categories of evaluativeness and emotionality / emotivity as ways of expressing, respectively, the evaluative or emotional attitude of a person to the object of expression, on the other hand, it is in the category of evaluativeness that the predominance of emotional or rational components is considered, thus, making the category of emotionality an integral part of the category of evaluativeness [ 6].

At the same time, distinguishing emotion as a person’s reaction to the impact of the environment and assessment as a result of cognition of the surrounding world, we can assume that there is an assessment as such and an assessment as an emotional reaction of a person [4]. If we assume that a rational assessment is more common in a person’s life than an emotion in its pure form, not burdened with evaluativeness, then we can speak of an emotional assessment, because emotions are based on the evaluative functioning of consciousness in terms of “good / bad”.

A clear distinction between assessment and emotion is also hampered by their close relationship when expressed by linguistic means. According to some scholars, evaluativeness, in contrast to emotionality, has a connotative nature, others distinguish between evaluativeness, emotionality and expressiveness, while still others believe that emotionality and evaluation are merged together, forming a single emotional-evaluative component of meaning and there is no need to differentiate between them.

The place of the evaluative component in the structure of a linguistic sign is difficult to determine due to the ambiguity of understanding the status of the connotative macrocomponent within the framework of the theory of the lexical meaning of the word, as well as the status of the connotation itself. Some scholars define connotation as a component of the semantic structure of a word, while others define it as a stylistic phenomenon.

It should be noted that some researchers characterize connotative information as secondary, additional to the subject-logical element of meaning. Connotations are not part of the denotation and are not logically motivated. In the structure of the meaning, a descriptive-oriented block of information is distinguished as basic, in contrast to the rest of the elements of the meaning, designated as pragmatically oriented and united by the term “connotation”. V.N. Telia subsumes to the connotative components of the content plan of linguistic units along with information related to the background associative knowledge of the speakers and stylistic indicators, information related to the rational-evaluative and emotional-evaluative attitude of the speaker to the designated object. The researcher at the same time emphasizes that the rational assessment belongs to the descriptive aspect of meaning (denotative component), and the emotional one is expressed in the connotative component [8].

While V.I. Shakhovsky emphasizes the equality of the connotative component in the semantic structure of a linguistic unit, since the processes of understanding and evaluation proceed simultaneously and it is impossible to talk about the object of evaluation without experiencing emotions [9, p. 175].

The reason why evaluative meaning is most often attributed to both denotative and connotative components is associated with the tendency to combine emotion and evaluation into a single entity, emotional evaluation, and opposing it to rational evaluation. I.A. Solodilova, studying evaluativeness and emotiveness as independent linguistic units, attribute evaluativeness to the denotative-significative sphere of the semantics of a linguistic sign, since it conveys data on the properties and characteristics of the designation object [5]. N.F. Alefirenko also relates evaluativeness to a denotative meaning, since the features presented in the semantics of the word by evaluative semes are inherent in the very subject of the nomination
[1, P. 168].

As opposed to the evaluative one, the emotive component of meaning does not carry information about the subject of designation, but is exclusively associated with the expression of the speaker’s emotional attitude, therefore, refers to connotation.

V.N. Telia divides the general emotional assessment into a proper emotional one – a direct expression of emotions (interjections, intonation markers) and an emotive one – generating a certain feeling-attitude through an image-stimulus [7].

Another component related to connotation is expressive component, which is referred not to the conceptual content of the sign, but to its formal expression, characterizing emotional speech.


Thus, despite the conventionality of the division in the lexical meaning of conceptual, evaluative and emotional content, evaluativeness, as a set of data about an object, is still more connected with the referential side of a linguistic sign, which is due to the connection between evaluation and the qualifying function of consciousness, while the emotive component more like about the emotional state of the speaker, without directly touching the essential features of the object of the nomination, and as such belongs to the connotative component.

Конфликт интересов

Не указан.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.


Список литературы / References

  1. Алефиренко Н.Ф. Спорные проблемы семантики: монография / Н.Ф. Алефиренко. – Москва: Гнозис, 2005. – 326 c.
  2. Вольф Е.М. Функциональная семантика оценки / Е.М. Вольф. – Москва: КомКнига, 2006. – 280 с.
  3. Колшанский Г.В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке / Г.В. Колшанский. – Москва: КомКнига, 2005. – 232 с.
  4. Мирошников Ю. И. Ценностное сознание и его структура / Ю. И. Мирошников // Научный ежегодник Института философии и права. – Уральск, отд. РАН, 2003. – № 4. – C. 66-83.
  5. Солодилова И.А. Оценка как вид когнитивной деятельности и компонент лексического значения/ Вестник ОГУ №11 (117) 2010. – Оренбург: ФГБОУ ВО «Оренбургский государственный университет», 2010.- С. 86-89.
  6. Солодилова И.А. Способы концептуализации оценки в немецком языке (на материале немецкоязычной художественной прозы): дис. … д-ра филол. наук: 10.02.04: защищена 29.12.2014 / Солодилова Ирина Анатольевна. – Уфа, 2014.- 540 с.
  7. Телия В.Н. Коннотативный аспект семантики номинативных единиц / В.Н. Телия. – Москва: Наука, 1986. – 143 с.
  8. Телия В.Н. О различии рациональной и эмотивной /эмоциональной оценки / В.Н. Телия // Функциональная семантика: Оценка, экспрессивность, модальность. In memoriam Е.М. Вольф. – Москва: Институт языкознания РАН, 1996. – с. 31 – 38.
  9. Шаховский В.И. Категоризация эмоций в лексико-семантической системе языка / В.И. Шаховский. – Воронеж: Воронежск. ун-т, 1987. – 208 c.
  10. Шаховский В.И. Обоснование лингвистической теории эмоций / В.И. Шаховский // Вопросы психолингвистики №1 (39) 2019. – М.: Институт языкознания РАН, 2019. – С.20-37.

Список литературы на английском языке / References in English

  1. Alefirenko N.F. Spornye problemy semantiki [Controversial problems of semantics]: monografija / N.F. Alefirenko. – Moskva: Gnozis, 2005. – 326 p. [in Russian]
  2. Vol’f E.M. Funkcional’naja semantika ocenki [Functional semantics of assessment]/ E.M. Vol’f. – Moscow: KomKniga, 2006. – 280 p. [in Russian]
  3. Kolshanskij G.V. Sootnoshenie sub’ektivnyh i ob’ektivnyh faktorov v jazyke [The corelation of subjective and objective factors in the language] / G.V. Kolshanskij. – Moscow: KomKniga, 2005. – 232 p. [in Russian]
  4. Miroshnikov Ju. I. Cennostnoe soznanie i ego struktura [Value consciousness and its structure]/ Ju. I. Miroshnikov // Nauchnyj ezhegodnik Instituta filosofii i prava [Scientific yearbook of the Institute of Philosophy and Law]. – Ural’sk, otd. RAN, 2003. – № 4. – P.66-83. [in Russian]
  5. Solodilova I.A. Ocenka kak vid kognitivnoj dejatel’nosti i komponent leksicheskogo znachenija [Assessment as the type of cognitive activity and the component of lexical meaning] / I.A. Solodilova // Vestnik OGU [Bulletin of Orenburg State University] №11 (117) 2010. – Orenburg: FGBOU VO «Orenburgskij gosudarstvennyj universitet», 2010.- P. 86-89. [in Russian]
  6. Solodilova I.A. Sposoby konceptualizacii ocenki v nemeckom jazyke (na materiale nemeckojazychnoj hudozhestvennoj prozy) [Ways of assessment conceptualization in the German language (based on the material of German-language fiction)]: dis. … of DSc in Phylology: 10.02.04: defense of the thesis 29.12.2014 / Solodilova Irina Anatol’evna. – Ufa, 2014. – 540 p. [in Russian]
  7. Telija V.N. Konnotativnyj aspekt semantiki nominativnyh edinic [The connotative aspect of the nominative units semantics] / V.N. Telija. – Moscow: Nauka, 1986. – 143 p. [in Russian]
  8. Telija V.N. O razlichii racional’noj i jemotivnoj /jemocional’noj ocenki [On the difference between rational and emotive / emotional assessment]/ V.N. Telija // Funkcional’naja semantika: Ocenka, jekspressivnost’, modal’nost’. In memoriam E.M. Vol’f [Functional semantics: Assessment, expressiveness, modality. In memoriam E.M. Wolf]. – Moscow: Institut jazykoznanija RAN, 1996. – P. 31 – 38. [in Russian]
  9. Shahovskij V.I. Kategorizacija jemocij v leksiko-semanticheskoj sisteme jazyka [Categorization of emotions in the lexical-semantic system of the language]/ V.I. Shahovskij. – Voronezh: Voronezhsk. Un., 1987. – 208 p. [in Russian]
  10. Shahovskij V.I. Obosnovanie lingvisticheskoj teorii jemocij [Rationale for the linguistic theory of emotions] / V.I. Shahovskij // Voprosy psiholingvistiki [Journal of Psycholinguistics] №1 (39) 2019. – M.: Institut jazykoznanija RAN, 2019. – P.20-37. [in Russian]

Оставить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Лимит времени истёк. Пожалуйста, перезагрузите CAPTCHA.