{"title":"Adverbs of Evaluation: Correlation of Semantic and Syntactic Properties (The Case of General and Hedonistic Evaluation)","authors":"I. Kobozeva","doi":"10.25205/2307-1737-2022-1-90-109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considering evaluation adverbs of Russian expressing two types of evaluation we argue that the syntactic properties of adverbs are determined by their meaning. The hypothesis is that adverbs of general evaluation (the type good – bad) should have more syntactic functions, than the ones of particularized evaluation, and for this purpose adverbs of hedonistic evaluation (e.g. tasty) are studied. We briefly expose the main insights of linguistic-oriented evaluation theory of N. D. Arutyunova, and discuss syntactic functions of хорошо ‘good’, typical of general evaluation adverbs. Section 2 is devoted to adverbs of hedonistic evaluation. We argue that adverbs of the type приятно – неприятно ‘pleasant – unpleasant’ should be excluded from this class, because in their lexical meaning only the general sensory evaluation is fixed, while its specification as hedonistic or psychological is conditioned by syntactic and/or semantic context. We show that hedonistic evaluation adverbs possess lesser number of syntactic functions than general evaluation adverbs. We demonstrate syntactic differences in the degree of acceptability of the explicit experiencer and the implicit causing factor with the hedonistic evaluation adverbs, conditioned by the channel of perception encoded in adverb’s lexical meaning, and give them the cognitive explanation. The results of our analysis bring into question the syntactic criterion of adverbs with floating scope proposed by M. V. Filipenko (2003). According to this criterion the adverbs of taste and smell evaluation should have floating scope because they have predicative function, but as all hedonistic evaluation adverbs they have the fixed scope over the semantic predicate ‘feel’ implicit in their meaning. We argue that the only syntactic property that guarantees the floating scope for an adverb is its ability to govern the subordinate complement clause with the complementizer chto ‘that’.","PeriodicalId":36800,"journal":{"name":"Kritika i Semiotika","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kritika i Semiotika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2022-1-90-109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Considering evaluation adverbs of Russian expressing two types of evaluation we argue that the syntactic properties of adverbs are determined by their meaning. The hypothesis is that adverbs of general evaluation (the type good – bad) should have more syntactic functions, than the ones of particularized evaluation, and for this purpose adverbs of hedonistic evaluation (e.g. tasty) are studied. We briefly expose the main insights of linguistic-oriented evaluation theory of N. D. Arutyunova, and discuss syntactic functions of хорошо ‘good’, typical of general evaluation adverbs. Section 2 is devoted to adverbs of hedonistic evaluation. We argue that adverbs of the type приятно – неприятно ‘pleasant – unpleasant’ should be excluded from this class, because in their lexical meaning only the general sensory evaluation is fixed, while its specification as hedonistic or psychological is conditioned by syntactic and/or semantic context. We show that hedonistic evaluation adverbs possess lesser number of syntactic functions than general evaluation adverbs. We demonstrate syntactic differences in the degree of acceptability of the explicit experiencer and the implicit causing factor with the hedonistic evaluation adverbs, conditioned by the channel of perception encoded in adverb’s lexical meaning, and give them the cognitive explanation. The results of our analysis bring into question the syntactic criterion of adverbs with floating scope proposed by M. V. Filipenko (2003). According to this criterion the adverbs of taste and smell evaluation should have floating scope because they have predicative function, but as all hedonistic evaluation adverbs they have the fixed scope over the semantic predicate ‘feel’ implicit in their meaning. We argue that the only syntactic property that guarantees the floating scope for an adverb is its ability to govern the subordinate complement clause with the complementizer chto ‘that’.
考虑到俄语中表达两种评价类型的评价副词,我们认为副词的句法性质是由其意义决定的。假设一般评价副词(good - bad)应该比特殊评价副词具有更多的句法功能,并为此研究了享乐主义评价副词(如tasty)。本文简要地揭示了N. D. Arutyunova的以语言为导向的评价理论的主要见解,并讨论了典型的一般评价副词хорошо“good”的句法功能。第二部分是关于享乐主义评价的副词。我们认为,приятно - неприятно“愉快-不愉快”类型的副词应该被排除在这一类之外,因为在它们的词汇意义上,只有一般的感官评价是固定的,而其作为享乐主义或心理的规范是由句法和/或语义语境决定的。结果表明,享乐主义评价副词的句法功能少于一般评价副词。本文论证了享乐主义评价副词对外显体验者和内隐导致因素的可接受程度在句法上的差异,并对其进行了认知解释。我们的分析结果对M. V. Filipenko(2003)提出的浮动范围副词的句法标准提出了质疑。根据这一标准,味觉和嗅觉评价副词应具有浮动范围,因为它们具有谓词功能,但与所有享乐主义评价副词一样,它们在其意义中隐含的语义谓词“感觉”上具有固定范围。我们认为,保证副词的浮动范围的唯一语法属性是它能够用补语chto“that”来控制从属补语从句。