The article focuses on evaluation-type connotation, expressed by a theoretically triple opposition (positive neutral negative, as in plump+, stout neut, obese -) which is more often represented by only two members (as in dismiss neut fire -), though even cases with no opposition can be spoken about (e.g., bald -). Though to speak about connotative opposition we basically need denotative synonyms (like high-flown +?? â€œpompousâ€ -), words like â€œwarmâ€ + and â€œcoldâ€ (especially in metaphoric meanings) may be viewed as both denotative and connotative antonyms. As evaluation depends on taste, it is subjective (depending on historic period, personality of the speaker, situational and linguistic context) and therefore difficult to study or teach. This situation, anyway, should not prevent researchers and language teachers from its careful treatment as ignorance of connotation on the language users' part may cause serious problems in communication

Åžaban Ã‡epik

English

Research Papers in Economics

Positive  Neutral  Negative evaluation in connotation
                                                                                           ªaban ÇEPÝK*
Abstract
The  article  focuses  on  evaluation-type  connotation,  expressed  by  a 
+ neut theoretically triple opposition (positive  neutral  negative, as in plump , stout  , 
- neut obese ) which  is more often represented by only two members (as in dismiss    
- - fire  ), though even cases with no opposition can be spoken about (e.g., bald  ). 
Though  to  speak  about  connotative  opposition  we  basically  need  denotative 
  +?? - +   synonyms (like high-flown   “pompous”  ), words like  “warm”   and “cold” 
(especially  in  metaphoric  meanings)  may  be  viewed  as  both  denotative  and 
connotative antonyms.  As evaluation depends on taste, it is subjective (depending 
on historic period, personality of the speaker, situational and linguistic context) 
and therefore difficult to study or teach. This situation, anyway, should not prevent 
researchers and language teachers from its careful treatment as ignorance of 
connotation  on  the  language  users'  part  may  cause  serious  problems  in 
communication.   
Two  essential  aspects  of  word  meaning  are  studied  by  lexicology: 
denotative (factual, intellectual) and connotative (emotional, evaluative). There 
are at least three types of connotation mentioned in linguistic literature (Cruse, 
1997): evaluative, power-solidarity and associative (metaphor). In this article we 
will deal with evaluative connotation.                      
Positive or pleasant connotations are also called honorific, while negative 
ones are called pejorative. Pejorative connotations, besides dealing with negative 
evaluation of the phenomenon as a whole (e.g., negative burden vs. neutral load ), 
may also refer to a “polite” word versus an “impolite” word (“not tall” vs. “short”),  
though both mean a  fairly negative  phenomenon (Gowers, 1987). 
One of the basic principles of linguistics is that to be able to speak about a 
category we need at least a double opposition (dichotomy) of both meaning and 
form. In the evaluative type of connotation there is a triple opposition, though 
examples  of  connotatively  different  synonyms  with  all  three  members  of 
opposition are difficult to find, such as in “plump (+)  stout/overweight (neutr.)  
fat/obese (-)” or “aroma/fragrance  smell/odour  stink/stench”. Generally we deal 
with pairs with positive-negative (partner - accomplice), positive-neutral (friend - 
acquaintance; talent - ability) and neutral-negative (single -spinster/old maid; 
alone - lonely; dismiss - fire) relations. If mishandling of a positive/neutral pair 
may make you sound pompous (“high-flown” is a neutral/positive equivalent!), 
erroneous usage of the other two types may have a more dramatic effect. 
Sometimes we have a feeling that a single word (and not a double or triple 
opposition)can have both a negative or a positive connotation, e.g., “authority.” 
This  may deal with zero (but theoretically possible) connotative opposition (bald / 
?? = having hair, “hairy” would be the wrong word here since its connotation is also 
negative. Besides the denotation of “hairy” is also different: having much hair on 
*Assoc. Prof. Dr., Director of School of Languages, IBSU, scepik@hotmail.com
IBSU International Refereed Multi-diciplinary Scientific Journal
144the face / body) or be connected with association / metaphor type of connotation 
where the images that the word brings to our mind are generally subject to positive 
or negative evaluation (e.g., “bill” or “beetle”). In the case of zero opposition for 
words with positive connotation lack of the quality denoted by the word is often the 
theoretically possible opposition (such as ambition, common sense, conscience +).
Most cases of positive-neutral-negative connotation deal with denotative 
synonyms, but it is not necessarily so, for example, “suburbs” (+)  “centre” (-) 
meaning a living place where the words in connotation opposition are  denotative 
antonyms as well. Generally, among denotative antonyms a large group has 
denotatively positive / negative relationships: good-bad, kind-evil, beautiful-ugly, 
etc. The example of suburbs / centre is not of this kind, as positive and negative 
evaluation  does  not  constitute  part  of  their  denotative  meaning.  For  some 
antonyms positive / negative denotation and connotation more or less coincide: 
warm (weather, character) (+) - cold (weather, voice) (-). Warm temperature is 
objectively good for people|, thus the positive evaluation in the trite metaphor 
“warm relationships” may be accepted as basically denotative.  For some pairs of 
antonyms  it  is  difficult  to  judge  whether  we  deal  with  positive  /  negative 
denotation, connotation or both, as the denotative basis is too subjective, such as in 
“hard” (more often negative) - “soft” (more often positive): a “hard chair” (-), 
“hard life” (-), “work hard” (?); “a soft bed” (+), a” soft voice “(+), a “soft 
character” (?).
Some words in connotative opposition are in fact used synonymously, 
though no thesaurus give them as synonyms, e. g., savage (-) - aboriginal, native, 
indigene (neut.) “Savage” (adj.) taking into consideration its strongly negative 
connotation, is given as a synonym to “wild,” “untamed,” “barbarous,” etc. 
Moreover, words that denotatively are not even roughly synonymous can 
be used as  connotative synonyms. We often say that something is “unusual,” 
“original”  or  “strange”  meaning  it  is  just  “bad”  or  “tasteless”.  Politicians 
sometimes choose the word “order” to deceive the electorate   frightened of 
“dictatorship” but who would vote for “strong authority.” 
   Some words have two types of evaluative oppositions:
? between denotative antonyms: mean (-)  generous (+);
?  within denotative synonymy: economical (basically +)  mean, greedy (-); or 
generous (+) -  prodigal, spendthrift, extravagant, wasteful (-).
Racial,  nationalistic or sexist language is in fact “negative,” at least from the 
perspective  of minorities. The example with “savages”- “natives” illustrates the 
first two. Also remember the wonderful episode in the “Pocahontas” cartoon 
where  the  Native Americans  and  the  Settlers  (we  are  trying  to  use  neutral 
language!) are calling each other “savages”!  The same offensive or infuriating 
effect may have a text using “businessmen” instead of “business people” ignoring  
contemporary emancipated ladies.
It is a bit doubtful whether to view words with evaluative sub-meaning as cases 
of connotation if they have no connotatively different denotative synonyms at all. 
For example, the word “imagination” is generally used positively  probably when 
the person's imagination is too rich and causes problems for the environment and 
for the person herself / himself   it is used ironically or negatively, as a soft 
IBSU International Refereed Multi-diciplinary Scientific Journal
145substitute for “madness”. Anyway, if from a linguistic point of view it is doubtful, 
we deeply believe that for language teaching purposes these  cases need to be 
treated as connotation. 
     It is obvious that evaluation depends on taste and thus is very subjective. 
Subjectiveness of word (and phenomena) evaluation can be illustrated by the word 
(and the phenomena) “enthusiasm,” for example,  which is viewed sometimes 
positively and sometimes negatively. This word, by the way, has a connotatively 
different pair “fanatism” evaluation of which is always negative (except, probably 
the derivative “fan” which is basically neutral / positive). Different denotative 
meanings  of  a  polysemantic  word  may  also  have  different  connotations: 
e.g.,”understanding” most often is used as just “comprehension” (neutral), but also 
as  an  amicable  relation  (a  sympathy,  community,  or  agreement    positive 
connotation) between persons. The word “mistress” may mean “owner” (feminine 
equivalent of “master”), in which case the word is neutral, but it also can mean 
“lover” which tends to have a negative connotation (depending on the culture and 
individual speaker). 
   It is interesting that the connotation of a word may depend on collocation. For 
instance, while “honour” is positive practically in any context, “reputation” used 
with no attribute (she's got a reputation in business) is normally positive (= fame or 
a good name), However a negative  attribute  collocates fits with it, changing the 
word's  meaning  to  “being  known  as.”   And,  vice  versa,  collocation  usually 
depends on connotation: e.g., encourage (+) to start a business, but trigger (-) 
anger; do (+/-) a favour or a foolish thing, but commit (-) a murder.  
   In some connotation oppositions one word has a stable connotation and the other  
a  changeable  one:    “mad”  (always  negative)  -  “crazy”  (generally  negative, 
sometimes highly positive). 
   One and the same word may have positive or negative connotations according to 
the speaker / listener (sociolinguistic factors of age, gender, education level, social 
class, nationality, religion, political and general views have to be taken into 
consideration) and situational context. .Gairns and .Redman (1991), for example, 
illustrate this thesis with examples of usage of the word “liberal”:
1. It's probably the most liberal regime in the area rife with dictatorships.
2. I find Thatcher's government policy on immigration far too liberal.
3. He's a typical liberal  says he supports the pay claim, but he won't come out 
on strike with us.
   The first example deals with positive connotation (our explanation is that 
“liberal” is in opposition with obviously negative “dictatorships” here) The words 
“far too” and refusal to take part in practical actions in the other two examples 
demonstrate the negative attitude of the speakers towards liberals (here “liberal” is 
probably in opposition with “democratic”).  
    Unfortunately, too often the connotation meant by the speaker and the one 
perceived by the listener differ even in cases of communication between two 
native speakers. Here, besides the above-mentioned sociolinguistic factors,   the 
linguistic factor (ironic or friendly intonation) and such extralinguistic factors as 
glances, facial expression, gestures and relations between the interlocutors are 
essential. It is impossible to teach these subtleties in a language course, but luckily 
IBSU International Refereed Multi-diciplinary Scientific Journal
146they are more or less international. 
Basic subjectiveness has most likely stifled linguistic research on connotation and 
its pedagogical applications until recently. Another reason is the instability of 
connotation through time and cultures. Phenomena and words (e.g. “sex”) are 
periodically banned but then come into fashion again, relationship towards them 
varies (“aggressive” and “ambitious”).     Who if not us   non-native English 
teachers  know that difference in values between cultures may cause not just trivial 
lexical interference but a real culture shock. There is no denying the fact that 
teaching connotation deals with a lot of disadvantages.  But the counter-arguments 
are very strong: ignorance of connotation causes misunderstandings which can be 
funny or dramatic in result and  eventually - cause failure in communication.
References:
? Cruse, D.A.1997. Lexical Semantics, CUP. 
? Gairns, R and S. Redman. 1991. Working with Words. CUP.  
? Gowers, E. 1987. The Complete Plain Words (revised by S.Greenboum and J. 
Whitcut). Penguin Books.  
 
IBSU International Refereed Multi-diciplinary Scientific Journal
147

The Complete Plain Words (revised by S.Greenboum

Working with Words.

Positive, Neutral, Negative Evaluation in Connotation

http://journal.ibsu.edu.ge/index.php/ibsusj/article/download/16/16

Positive, Neutral, Negative Evaluation in Connotation

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics