addressee, evaluation, evaluative response, fiction, manipulation, pragmalinguistics, speech act theory


The process of communication implies information exchange, mutual influence, and evaluation of speakers. An addressee is an important participant of this process, yet little is known about him as a person who receives and evaluates an addresser’s utterance. This is particularly significant because the addressee influences the further course of communication by his/her own responses due to the rules of turn taking. An evaluative response is thus an evaluative speech act that serves as the perlocutionary effect of an addresser’s utterance and simultaneously expresses some intention concerning an interlocutor. The present paper aims to identify, classify and analyse the types of evaluative responses from a pragmatic perspective. The empirical material consists of 30 modern American and British novels, or 3400 dialogues containing evaluative responses. The theoretical basis of the investigation integrates the main principles of pragmalinguistics and speech act theory. In view of this, we suggested a pragmatic typology of evaluative responses based on an addressee’s speech reaction to the received stimulus. The study claims the universality of an evaluative response as a speech act. It may provide not only emotional perception of reality but also contribute to its adequate comprehension and even exert direct or hidden influence on verbal and nonverbal actions of an interlocutor. 

Author Biography

Tetiana Myroniuk, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Research and Educational Center for Foreign Languages

PhD, Senior Lecturer at Research and Educational Center for Foreign Languages, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine



Arutyunova, N. (1999). Yazyk i mir cheloveka [Language and the World of a Man] (2nd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Yazyki russkoi kultury.

Arutyunova, N. (2012). Logicheskij analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa [Logical analysis of the language. Discourse addressing]. Moscow, Russia: Indrik.

Austin, J. (1975). How to do things with words (2nded.). Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001

Baker, A. (2002). Goodbye Liverpool. North Yorkshire, England: Magna.

Barr, E. (2006). Plan B. London, England: BCA.

Bednarek, M. (2009). Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition, 17(1), 146-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed

Breeze, R., & Olza, I. (2017). Evaluation in media discourse. European perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang. http://dx.doi.org/10.3726/b10531

Childress, M. (2003). Crazy in Alabama. New York, USA: Ballantine Books.

Dotsenko, E. (1997). Psikhologiya manipulyatsii [Psychology of Manipulation]. Moscow, Russia: CheRo.

Fielding, H. (2000). Bridget Jones. The Edge of Reason. London, England: Picador.

Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York, USA: Academic Press.

Grisham, J. (2002). The Summons. London, England: BCA.

Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London, England and New York, USA: Routledge.

Honcharova, N. (2002). Аksiolohichna struktura anhlomovnoho dialohichnoho dyskursu (na materiali hudozhnoi prozy) [Axiological structure of English dialogical discourse (based on the fiction)]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Kyiv National Linguistic University.

Ishchenko, N. (2010). Otsinnyi komponent leksychnoho znachennia slova [Evaluative component of the lexical meaning of a word]. Filolohichni Traktaty, 2(3), 47-50.

Kalita, А., & Taranenko, L. (2012). Rechevaya manipulyatsiya: opredelenie, funktsiya, mekhanizm realizatsii [Speech manipulation: definition, function, mechanism of realization]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriia “Romano-hermanska filolohiia. Metodyka vykladannia inozemnykh mov”, 1022, 10-19.

King, C. (2007). Silk and Steel. London, England: Sphere.

Kosmeda, T. (2000). Aksiolohichni aspekty prahmalinhvistyky: formuvannia i rozvytok katehorii otsinky [Axiological aspects of pragmalinguistics: forming and developing the category of evaluation]. Lviv, Ukraine: Ivan Franko Lviv National University.

Krysanova, T. (1999). Vyslovliuvannia z nehatyvnoiu otsinkoiu adresata v suchasnii anhliiskii movi (komunikatyvno-prahmatychnyi aspekt) [Utterances with a negative evaluation of the addressee in modern English language (communicative-pragmatic aspect)]. Unpublished PhD thesis, Kyiv State Linguistic University.

Kubryakova, E. (1995). Evolyutsia lingvisticheskikh idej vo vtoroj polovine XX veka [Evolution of linguistic ideas in the second half of XX century]. In Y. Stepanov (Ed.), Yazyk i nauka kontsa XX veka [Language and science at the end of XX century] (pp.144-238). Moscow, Russia: Institut yazykoznania RAN.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London, England: Longman.

Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910

Montefiore, S. (2005). Last voyage of the Valentina. London, England: BCA.

Pocheptsov, G. (2009). Izbrannye trudy po lingvistike [Selected works in linguistics]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv national university.

Prihodko, A. (2016). Cognitive-communicative organization of the evaluative frame. Lege Artis, 1(1), 275-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/lart-2016-0006

Prykhodko, H. (2016). Katehoriia otsinky v konteksti zminy linhvistychnykh paradyhm [The category of evaluation in the context of the change of linguistic paradigms]. Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine: Kruhozir.

Rhodes, E. (2005). Mixed blessings. London, England: BCA.

Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(1), 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837

Shkitska, I. (2012). Manipuliatyvni taktyky pozytyvu: linhvistychnyi aspekt [Manipulative positive tactics: a linguistic aspect]. Kyiv, Ukraine: Publishing house of Dmytro Buraho.

Thompson, G., & Alba-Juez, L. (Eds.) (2014). Evaluation in context. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242

Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 7(3), 359-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250

Volʹf, E. (2006). Funktsionalʹnaya semantika otsenki [Functional semantics of evaluation] (2nd ed.). Moscow, Russia: Editorial URSS.

Wang, Y., & Xu, J. (2013). The interrelation between evaluative categories and evaluated items. Linguistics and the Human sciences, 8(1), 29-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v8i1.29

White, P. (2016). Evaluative contents in verbal communication. In A. Rocci & L. Saussure (Eds.), Verbal communication (pp. 77-96). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110255478-006

Wright, G. (1997). The varieties of goodness (2nd ed.). Bristol, England: Thoemmes Press.

Wright, D. (2006). The History of Lucy’s Love Life in 10 ½ Chapters. London, England: Sphere.

Zirka, V. (2005). Yazykovaya paradigma manipulyativnoj igry v reklame [Language paradigm of the manipulative game in advertising]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Dnipropetrovsk National University.