• S. V. Tkhorovska
Keywords: discourse analysis, thematic group, implicitly evaluative lexis, explicitly evaluative lexis, valuation, seme


The article is dedicated to the analysis of positive and negative semes actualization in lexical units, which collectively constitute several lexicalthematic groups of words. The nature of lexemes, their function in influencing the addressee and the role in the communicative strategies of ideological discourse have been considered. Ideological valuation has a propensity to manifest itself in any unit of speech. The choice of nomination reveals the pragmatic intention of the addresser – a collective speaker, which is to convey the attitude to the event, phenomenon or person and convince the addressee of the validity of this view. The valuation indicators can be represented both by lexemes which explicitly express the addresser’s stance and contain an ameliorative or a pejorative seme, and by implicitly evaluative words whose positive or negative connotations are actualized in the context. Evaluation is expressed through the use of informationally insufficient abstract nouns, which open up too much space for interpretation; through the use of verbs which implicitly add evaluative nature to the utterance (propositional, performative, and parenthetical verbs); through the phenomenon of reification, when abstract concepts are assigned the qualities of physical objects. All lexemes interact closely with each other and with units of other levels while functioning as a single mechanism in the realization of the addresser’s communicative goals. Lexical units, which have been identified by their frequency and presence of an explicit or implicit positive or negative seme triggering a certain emotional resonance in the addressee, constitute four lexical-semantic thematic groups, which can be broadly labeled as terrorism, democratic standards, dictatorship, poverty / squalor. Nominative units with ameliorative connotation and pejoratively marked units prevail in the selection of lexemes for evaluating the actions of “our” group and “their” groups respectively, which correlates with the realization of the key strategies of ideological discourse – to present “our” group in a positive light and “their” group in a negative one.


1. Тхоровська С.В. Дискурс-аналіз як метод дослідження дискурсу. Науковий зб. Кам’янець-Подільського у-ту ім. Івана Огієнка: Філологічні науки. Вип. 29. Т. 3. Кам’янець-Подільський : Аксіома, 2012. С. 254–257.
2. Бондарко А.В. Лингвистика текста в системе функциональной грамматики Текст. Структура и семантика. Т. 1. Москва, 2001. С. 4–13.
3. Загнітко А.П. Сучасні лінгвістичні теорії. Донецьк : ДонНУ, 2006. 338 с.
4. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1995. 489 р.
5. Сороченко В.И. Энциклопедия методов пропаганды. Как нас обрабатывают СМИ, политики и реклама. URL: (дата звернення 05.05.2020).
6. Корнєєв В.М. Роль маркованої лексики у створенні емоціогенної структури тексту. Наукові записки Інституту журналістики. К., 2002. Т. 07. URL: (дата звернення 05.05.2020).
7. Кобозева И.М. Интенциональный и когнитивный аспекты смысла высказывания. Москва : МГУ, 2003. 95 с.
8. Стриженко А.А. Роль языка в системе средств пропаганды. Томск, 1980. 210 с.
9. Шейгал Е.И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва : «Гнозис», 2004. 326 с.
10. Белова А.Д. Лингвистические аспекты аргументации. Київ : Киев. нац. университет, 1997. 311 с.
11. Карасик В.И. Язык социального статуса. Москва : ИТДГК Гнозис, 2002. 333 с.
12. Дейк Т. А. ван. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация. Москва : Прогресс, 1989. 312 с.
13. Морозова Е.И. Ложь как дискурсивное образование: лингвокогнитивный аспект. Харьков : Экограф, 2005. 300 с.
How to Cite
Tkhorovska, S. V. (2020). PRAGMA-FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICS OF LEXICAL UNITS IN IDEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE ORGANIZATION OF AN EDITORIAL (BASED ON THE NEW YORK TIMES). Bulletin of Zaporizhzhia National University. Philological Sciences, 2(1), 59-64.