Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse

OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-6244-5473 Fields of research: teaching English and Chinese to future translators/interpreters (teaching tools and socio-political background for developing skills in listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing); Translation Studies (discourse analysis, adequacy of translation, translatorial competence, tactic and strategic issues of translation); General Linguistics; Comparative Linguistics, etc. ILONA M. DERIK The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0002-8979-4745 Fields of research: Translation Studies, General Linguistics, Stylistic Interpretation, Discourse Studies, Germanistics. NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” ORCID id: orcid.org/0000-0003-3382-0155 Fields of research: Discourse Analysis, Text Linguistics, Translation Studies. DOI: doi.org/10.35321/all88-12 REPRODUCTION PECULIARITIES OF THE MODERN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Šiuolaikinio politinio diskurso vertimo ypatumai 254 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse ANNOTATION The article deals with the issues related to the concept of evaluative–attitudinal category represented in linguistics and its manifestation in political discourse. The authors investigate the structure of addressee’s positive and negative attitudes towards a certain situation, which generates emotional component of connotation. Special attention is given to the semantic structure of evaluative attitudes and means of their expression. The notions “evaluative–attitudinal category”, “political discourse” and “political communication” are considered from different viewpoints. The functions of the political text alongside translation strategies (the strategy of tertiary translation) and tactics (translational grammatical transformations – permutations, substitutions, additions and omissions) are determined. The authors give examples of how interlocutors’ particular feelings arise by means of emotional structure of exclamatory and rhetorical questions, exclamations, expressions of gratitude, praise, condemnation, etc. on the material of Ukrainian political texts. The ways of their reproduction in English are presented. KEYWORDS: political discourse, evaluative attitudes, translation strategies and tactics, emotional connotation, semantics. ANOTACIJA Straipsnyje analizuojami su vertinamojo požiūrio kategorijos sąvoka kalbotyroje susiję klausimai ir šios kategorijos apraiškos politiniame diskurse. Autoriai tiria teigiamo ir neigiamo adresato požiūrio į tam tikrą situaciją struktūrą, kuri sukuria emocinį konotacijos komponentą. Daug dėmesio skiriama vertinamojo požiūrio semantinei struktūrai ir raiškos priemonėms. Sąvokos „vertinamojo požiūrio kategorija“, „politinis diskursas“ ir „politinė komunikacija“ yra vertinamos įvairiais aspektais. Straipsnyje nustatomos politinio teksto funkcijos, vertimo strategijos (vertimo tretiesiems asmenims strategija) ir taktikos (vertimo gramatinės transformacijos – pakeitimai, sukeitimai, pridėjimai ir praleidimai). Autoriai pateikia Ukrainos politinių tekstų pavyzdžių, iliustruojančių, kaip tam tikri pašnekovų jausmai kyla naudojant šaukiamųjų ir retorinių klausimų emocinę struktūrą, sušukimus, dėkingumo, pagyrimo, pasmerkimo ir kitas frazes. Pateikiami jų vertimo į anglų kalbą būdai. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: politinis diskursas, vertinamasis požiūris, vertimo strategijos ir taktikos, emocinė konotacija, semantika. 1. INTRODUCTION Evaluative attitude is considered a rather generalized phenomenon that can be equated with cognitive activity. Evaluative activity is characteristic of human Straipsniai / Articles 255 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA nature, since the entire environment perceived by a person correlates with the existing evaluative picture of the world. Evaluative attitude as a category has firmly entered the field of diverse linguistic studies. The term “attitude” has been widely used in articles, monographs and dissertations for a long time. The evaluation category was studied by many domestic and foreign scientists (Kosmeda 2000; Prychod’ko 2001; Ostrovs’ka 2001; Kolšanskij 2018; Arutjunova 1984; Vol’f 1985; et al.). The interaction between a person and his/her environment contributes to the development of an evaluative vision of the world. The evaluative nature of human cognition is highlighted in many studies. It is generally accepted that the decisive function of communication is given to vocabulary. Aleksander I. Iliadi (2022: 30–63) focuses on etymological features of Slavic–Iranic compound words which have transformed their semantics. Thus, ancient and modern semantics of lexis must be taken into account while communicating under today’s conditions. The interaction between a person and his/her environment contributes to the development of an evaluative vision of the world. The evaluative nature of human cognition is highlighted in many studies. Nina D. Arutjunova (1984) attributes the evaluative attitude to pure human categories. On the one hand, the evaluation is determined by the physical and mental nature of a person, his/her being and feelings; on the other hand, it determines a person’s way of thinking, his/her activity, attitude to other people and objects of reality, perception of art (Arutjunova 1984). Evaluative attitude as a category is studied in various fields of knowledge like philosophy, logics, ethics, and psychology. Modern psychology claims that attitude is closely related to the cognitive function. Evaluative attitudes arise within communication which can be of different nature: social, interpersonal, cultural, political, mass-oriented (Lasswell 2006; McLuhan, Fiore 1967; Powell, Cowart 2016; Shannon 1948). The aim and course of communication are substantiated by social components (Habermas 2000; Motrenko 2005; Sosnin, Mychnenko, Lytvynova 2011). Communication is realized via language signs, a common system of symbols, as well as extralinguistic means (facial expressions, gestures, etc.) which may generate manipulation in compliance with speakers’ aims and goals (Oleškov 2006). Hence, we can assume that during information exchange communicants are inclined to change their ways of thinking (Harre, Smith 1995; Parygin 1999). The process of transferring information is classified into verbal, non-verbal, emotional, cognitive. Psychologists and language philosophers consider that communication must have persuasive tools, including manipulation techniques, for achieving positive effects and developing social consciousness (Andreeva 2000; Černova, Slotina 2012; Holovatyj 2006; Chmiljar 2017). 256 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse Political discourse, alongside other types of discourse (administrative, legal, military, pedagogical, religious, medical, economic, advertising, sports-related, scientific, media-based, etc.) belongs to institutional discourse (Van Dijk 1995). It is revealed, to a great extent, in social environment and involves the use of particular verbal and attitude-provoking means. The contextual background of each particular discourse should be analyzed in order to cognize how it functions and be able to model its process and outcomes (Harris 1952; Schiffrin, Tannen, Hamilton 2001; Бaceвyч 2010; Karasik 2010; Shymko 2021). It should be noted that nowadays Ukraine is living through complicated times connected with the military actions. Therefore, political activity plays an essential role in all spheres of life: social, cultural, educational, economic, diplomatic, etc. The Ukrainians’ perception of the Government’s decisions depends upon their means and ways of rendering socially important information to the citizens of Ukraine. Since Ukraine is integrating into the European Union, the translator’s/interpreter’s mission has gained its significance. These are translators/interpreters who represent Ukraine on the world arena and their understanding of denotative and connotative semantics reflects on the results of transmitting political “messages” to partner countries. In view of the above, the relevance of the work is determined by the need for a more in-depth study of the problems related to reproduction of the evaluative-attitudinal category within the framework of political discourse in the translation studies aspect, as well as an analysis of the peculiarities of its reproduction when translating the designated texts from Ukrainian into English. The speeches of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi contain evaluative and attitudinal connotations which are endowed with negative and positive semantics. Under the designated conditions, it is of great importance to adequately decode them, on the one hand, and to transform their essence into English, on the other hand. Thus, the linguistic and extralinguistic framework of Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s original speeches and their actualizations in the target language (English) are our research objects; the means of translating evaluative and attitudinal vocabulary from Ukrainian into English within the material under study are the research subject. The aim of the current research is to reveal the meaning of the concept of evaluative-attitudinal category in linguistics and its manifestation in political discourse. The aim is based on the following goals: • to analyze the means of expressing attitudes in the source language (Ukrainian); • to detect translation means of rendering attitudes in the target language (English). Straipsniai / Articles 257 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA Research material and methodology. The Ukrainian texts of the speeches and daily addresses of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi within the period from March 2022 to December 2022 as well as their translations into English were chosen as the research material. These materials were posted on the official website of the Office of the President of Ukraine (available at: https://www.president.gov.ua/news/speeches), in Twitter, and Facebook. The volume of the source texts accounts for 65 conditional printed sheets. Comprehensive analysis of the Ukrainian public discourse in our case involves the integrated application of scientific research methods, in particular: • sampling method – to form the empirical material within political discourse; • linguistic analysis – to identify linguistic and extralinguistic evaluative and attitudinal markers of political discourse; • the method of theoretical generalization of the material under focus – to detect the adequate translation means to be used while reproducing the speeches of the Ukrainian political leader – the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi – into English taking into consideration linguistic features of Ukrainian and English; • the method of translation analysis – to identify translation peculiarities of rendering the material under study into English. 2. THE EVALUATIVE–ATTITUDINAL CATEGORY: THE LINGUISTIC ASPECT, ITS SUBJECT AND OBJECT IN EVALUATIVE–ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS Language enables the reflection of human relationship with the surrounding world in various aspects. This is especially true for the attitude (evaluation). Evaluation–attitude can be considered a comprehensive category; it is worth assuming that there is hardly a language in the world which has no proper names for good or bad. This issue still remains urgent due to the diversity of the study of the evaluative and attitudinal category and various approaches to the determination of evaluative and attitudinal values as well as the analysis of evaluative and attitudinal categories. In addition, evaluability is a rather complex phenomenon for further analysis and understanding and it is studied not only in linguistics, but also in many other sciences. The interest of linguists in the in-depth study 258 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse of the evaluative and attitudinal category is only growing thanks to the presence of a wide range of its expression means. Every day, a person has to learn about environmental phenomena and express his/her attitude towards them. Evaluation is a component of the process aimed at reflecting everyday reality and establishing an attitudinal relationship between the subject and the object. Today, the study of the evaluative and attitudinal category is of particular importance, as the issue related to the relationship and interaction between semantics and pragmatics becomes relevant, both in theoretical and practical aspects. The content of evaluation and attitude has always been the subject of debate among philosophers, logicians, and linguists. The concern was caused by the lack of clear criteria for evaluation and attitude. The philosophical category of evaluation and attitude is characterized by the following functions: worldview–centered, methodological (gives a person a general orientation in the world), logical (participates in the mental process), practical, and the function oriented to the development of spiritual culture (Zagraevskaja 2007). The main direction in the study of the evaluative and attitudinal category by modern scientists is related to the definition of evaluative and attitudinal meanings and expression means. Nowadays, this research has expanded to the studies of its semantic, functional and pragmatic features, compared to the fact that scientists’ attention used to be focused only on the analysis of evaluative and attitudinal semantics and structure. There is an assumption that evaluation and attitude are closely related to pragmatics. That is, the speaker intends to influence the listener in order to form his/her appropriate reaction. In the field of linguistics, the category of evaluation causes a number of disagreements. Many authors often consider the terms “assessment” and “evaluability” to be identical. When explaining the relationship between these concepts, we should state that evaluability refers to the linguistic implementation of the logical category of evaluation, that is, the property of language units to express attitudinal significance. Evaluation is considered as an opinion about the attitude, level or property of an object. The concept “attitude” acts as a basis for evaluative judgment, that is, in the process of relating the subject of evaluation to the attitudinal picture of the world, the evaluation of the object of reality is formed. As a result, evaluation, objectified by language and expressed by linguistic means, turns into evaluability (Heleta, Žmajeva 2022: 31–43). Often, the word combinations “category of evaluation” and “category of evaluability” are used in a similar or the same context, but currently there is no clear distinction between these concepts, and in most cases, they are used interchangeably. It is important to note that the use of the term “category of evaluation” is largely related to the definition of a logical category and Straipsniai / Articles 259 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA its implementation in language, while the category of evaluability manifests itself mainly as a linguistic concept, especially as a component of connotation (Heleta, Žmaeva 2022: 31–43). Evaluation is considered the main category of reality. A person analyzes the entire surrounding world: realities, objects, phenomena, properties, ways of behavior. Person’s thoughts, actions, and feelings are also analyzed. Therefore, almost anything can be the subject of evaluation. Evaluation is a factor generating the formation of a picture of the world values and attitudes, since values and attitudes are inherent in every culture. A positive or negative attitude towards a person, object or phenomenon, due to the conformity or non-conformity of its qualities with the evaluation criteria of the evaluation subject, i.e., emotional evaluation (Markelova 1993), like any evaluation structure, is reflected by two factors: objective and subjective, and represents the subject of the evaluation to the object and the properties of the object itself to which the evaluation is directed. All evaluations are based on the human system of values and represent a complex semantic polarity to the predicate pair, i.e., good/bad, positive/negative, etc., which helps to determine the value of objects at all linguistic levels. The evaluation category has a lot in common with the modality category. Since the verbal expression of subjective attitudes and evaluations is actualized only in the process of communication, accordingly, the subjective modality is a category of communication expressing the subjective relationship to the content of the statement. Evaluation is a conscious phenomenon that reflects the result of understanding the value of environmental phenomena. Ways of evaluating life facts, perceived through person’s own or generally accepted systems of values, norms and laws, are inherent in each individual. Scientists’ attention is focused on the study of various aspects of evaluation: the correlation of expression, modality and evaluation; means of expressing evaluation, objects of evaluation, the meaning of evaluation categories in translation, gender aspects of evaluation thesaurus, classification of wordevaluation forms and evaluation: speech acts, etc. Evaluation, as a functional-semantic category, extends to all levels of language and is represented by a set of language units with an evaluative-attitudinal value which express the positive or negative attitude of the speaker to the content of the message aimed at the implementation of a certain communicative task (Krysanova 1999). Evaluation is a consequence of the functional-communicative focus of discourse. Its formation is influenced not only by its immediate operators, but also by many other factors: presupposition, cultural and social vision of the world, knowledge of psychology, habits, views of the sender of information, 260 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse knowledge of the content of the text that immediately precedes the message (Prychоd’ko 2001). Due to the fact that evaluation is cognitive in nature, it can be considered logical–subjective. Evaluative and cognitive functions of language are closely related. At the same time, they are equal, evaluating accompanies cognizing. In the process of evaluating, cognition is created. The interdependence of evaluation and cognition belongs to the field of cognitive linguistics. An exclusively cognitive approach, which regulates the relationship between language and thinking, is more appropriate for the study of the evaluation category, as it studies a person’s cognitive activities. Evaluating, as a process of perceiving and processing information, is oriented towards decision–making and helps to choose further practical actions. A person acknowledges the surrounding world and makes sense of it, therefore, in his/her everyday life, he/she has the ability to evaluate speech facts in his/her daily practice. The origin of the concept “evaluability” fixes in its meaning at least three essential elements: a description of the external properties of objects and things as objects of a person’s valuable attitude towards them; psychotypes of the person himself/herself as the subject of these relations, relationships between people and their communication. Thanks to this, values acquire a generalized meaning. Each category of values has a basic meaning of value – objective, psychological and social. By learning the nature of an object or phenomenon, a person reveals certain aspects of social relations. The importance of a thing or a phenomenon is determined primarily by the social attitude towards it, and values, both individual and universal. As the most complete expression of the life experience of a particular society, values are formed into a certain system which the individual adheres to in the process of his/her own evaluation. Individual values are a personal reproduction of general or collective values. Each person has his/her own ones, depending on the communication peculiarities of a particular person. Identification, assignment, and assimilation of social values by individuals are determined by their social identification with the values of small contact groups interlocutors belong to. Vinogradov’s opinion of that “the word shines with the expressive colors of social environment” still remains relevant. The scholar assumes that “reflecting the personality (individual or collective) of the speaker, characterizing his/her evaluation of reality, it is expedient to highlight that his/her personal evaluation qualifies him/her as a representative of one or another social group. Expression is always subjective and personal – from the most fleeting to the most stable one, from the excitement of a moment to the permanence of a Straipsniai / Articles 261 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA person alongside his/her immediate environment, class, epoch, people, culture” (Vinogradov 1986: 135). In an individual evaluation, the author reflects not only his/her attitude, but also the generally accepted principle of things that exists in this society. That is, even in the case of a subjective evaluation, there is a concept of a normative position. Thus, the stereotypical perception of the subject of the evaluation in relation to the normative state of affairs, which is accepted in this society, is one of the criteria on the basis of which the evaluation is given. The lack of a general opinion regarding the independence of the evaluative and attitudinal category prompts us to consider it as a constituent element of the comparison category, highlighting the integral category of “comparison and evaluation”. Such a generalization is not devoid of meaning, because “to compare means to express one’s attitude, to “evaluate”, “to measure”, guided by our feelings and our passions” (Karcevskij 1976: 107–112). Elena M. Vol’f believes that evaluation involves the inherent qualities of the subject, i.e., it contains an objective component. According to Vol’f, the subject of evaluation is based on both personal attitude towards the object of evaluation and stereotypical attitudes towards the object (Vol’f 1985). The selection of evaluation types is one of the problems of evaluation research. There are a number of rating classifications based on various criteria. Vol’f (1985) divides evaluations into emotional and rational ones. Emotional evaluation is primarily an individual evaluation which is a direct reaction to an object. It is based on individual stereotypes contained in the imagination of a particular speaker. The value of rational evaluation tends to remove time frames. Emotional evaluation is aimed at changing the emotional state of the interlocutor and causing an appropriate reaction, while rational evaluation is designed to agree or disagree with the expressed opinion (Heleta, Žmāeva 2022: 31–43). Depending on the number of evaluation objects, absolute or relative evaluations are distinguished. To define absolute evaluation, we can use the terms “good” and “bad” and to define the relative (comparative) one – the terms “better” and “worse”. When dealing with absolute evaluation, usually, the evaluation object is one, and when dealing with relative evaluation, there are two objects. In other words, absolute evaluation contains an implicit comparison based on the commonality of social stereotypes, whereas comparative evaluation consists in comparing objects with each other (Sapir 1985: 43–78). As a result, according to the nature of evaluation, it can be divided into positive, negative and neutral, based on approval, condemnation or the absence of pronounced characteristics. Scientists claim that different types of evaluation can be expressed differently in language (Heleta, Žmāeva 2022: 31–43). 262 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse From the viewpoint of semantics, evaluation involves a valuable aspect of the meaning of linguistic expressions, a subject of evaluation believes that an object of evaluation is good or bad (Vol’f 1985). The totality of all values, both positive and negative, constitutes a value picture of the world of society. The value picture of the world is determined by the peculiarities of culture, it has its own historically formed character, peculiar to this culture, and specifies it against the background of world culture (Pisanova 1997). Scientists distinguish universal human value systems and national-cultural ones; collective and individual (Heleta, Žmaևva 2022: 31–43). Evaluation is characterized by a specific structure. Based on the logic of evaluations, mandatory components of the evaluation structure are distinguished: evaluation subject, that is, a person who assigns value to any subject by expressing evaluation; the object is the evaluation subject (individual qualities of the subject being described can be the object); the nature of evaluation determines whether it qualifies subjects as good or bad; the basis of evaluation is understood as positions and evidence that push the subject to approval or condemnation. The linguistic category of evaluation assumes the presence of additional components in its structure, such as an evaluation predicate, an aspect, the motivation of evaluation. In particular, Telija considers the structure of evaluation in language as follows: “The subject (personality with his/her preferences and worldview) and the object (fragment of the world in its systemic connections) are connected by an evaluative judgment, in which one or another passion of the subject is expressed to the world” (Telija 1986: 16). The study of evaluability from the side of semantics helped to reveal that subjective and objective factors are closely related. It can even be noted that objective and subjective are different sides of the same phenomenon, namely cognition and reflection of reality. Subjectivity is based on objectivity. Based on the phenomena that exist in objective reality, their subjective evaluation is formed. A person, a part of society or the whole society can be the subject of the evaluation structure; evaluation may also not have a subject, it is always regulatory. According to Aleksandr A. Ivin (2015), the formulation of relativism is that “what is good for one person may not be good for another, and one should always indicate for whom exactly something is good, that is, relativize evaluation by specifying a person who expresses it” (Ivin 2015: 46–47). In linguistic studies devoted to the issues related to the subject in evaluative statements, it is distinguished that the subject of evaluation is different from the subject of speech. In the first case, it can be both the author of the text and anyone else. There are also two types of the subject: the one who expresses an evaluative point of view and the one for whom the object has value. Researchers Straipsniai / Articles 263 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA note that the subject of evaluation may not be expressed in the statement, but it still does not lose its evaluative meaning. The object of evaluation is always present in the statement, it can be a person, an object, a phenomenon or a state of things the evaluation refers to (Heleta, Žmaeva 2022: 31–43). The peculiarity of the object in the evaluation structure determines the main differences between evaluation and classification: evaluation serves to highlight the object among the like, while classification includes the object in the class composition. An integral condition for the subject to be evaluated is the fulfillment of a specific function by the subject. Evaluation becomes possible when the subject becomes functionally important, indicating at the same time the criteria for making evaluative judgments. The semantic connection of evaluative words and designations of the evaluation object is carried out on the basis of the evaluation aspect, indicating the features of the object which is to be evaluated (ibid). The evaluation structure includes elements of three types: explicit, implicit and those that are implemented in both cases. A significant feature of evaluation is the presence of a subjective factor that interacts with an objective factor. The opinions of scientists regarding the issue of subjectivity and objectivity in evaluation differ. On the other hand, evaluability is identified with the whole area of the subjective in language, any use of language by the subject is considered as evaluative. Gennadij V. Kolšanskij recognizes the presence of an evaluative factor in any cognitive act and, therefore, evaluation is contained wherever the subject of cognition collides with the objective world and the verbal expression of this collision occurs (Kolšanskij 2018). Arutjunova (1984) notes that evaluation expresses a subjective attitude to environmental phenomena but it does not reflect their objective features. The subjective nature of the evaluation category can be explained by the dependence of evaluation on the promoting factor of a certain reality, its value system and relation to the world (ibid). The correspondence between descriptive and evaluative meanings is most clearly manifested in the semantics of adjectives, since they consist of characteristic semantics. Apart from them, the same role can be performed by the semantics of particles, modal words, exclamations, nouns and verbs. Scholars urge to take into account the objective evaluation factor. The subject of evaluation relies on the properties of the evaluation object, and not only on his/her own preferences, in the process of expressing his/her attitude to the evaluation object. In addition, it is important to take into account the presence of both subjective and objective factors. In order to evaluate an object, a person must first understand its true properties and only then express his/her attitude 264 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse towards them. Thus, the subjective approach to subjects cannot precede the objective one, it follows it (ibid). The study of the subjective and objective factors in evaluating involves distinguishing between the evaluative and descriptive components of the meaning. Traditionally, it is believed that the connection between descriptive evaluative meanings is most clearly and obviously manifested in the system of adjectives, its sign semantics being the basis. Thus, among adjectives there are descriptive words that do not contain any evaluation (for example, Portuguese, copper, morning, two-legged, etc.), evaluative ones (good, excellent, wonderful, stunning, bad, etc.) and adjectives that combine evaluative and descriptive content (convenient, interesting, smart, interesting, beautiful, ugly) (Vol’f 1985). 3. POLITICAL DISCOURSE AS A COMMUNICATIVE SPACE FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE EVALUATION CATEGORY Currently, political communication is considered everywhere through the prism of discourse, as the main attention is paid to the implementation of speech influence through language expressions alongside evaluability. Evaluation is an integral component of political speech, which is reflected in relations with the people. Thanks to evaluability, it becomes possible to achieve the key goal of a political speech – to convince the addressee, trust him/her and encourage him/her to act. In other words, evaluation is the main factor of persuasion. A political text has the purpose to massively inform the reader (the listener, the viewer) about major socially important problems and events that are currently taking place in any society; this is an effective and resultative formation of social evaluation in relation to the image of real reality; it is a broad management and manipulation of public opinion through ideological influence on society. Political communication always represents not only an information space, but also evaluation of the analyzed realities. This is primarily due to the fact that the purpose of political discourse is not only to objectively evaluate the circumstances, but also to convince the addressee and encourage him/her to act. The leading factor of this belief is the evaluation of subjects of political activity, situations and actions. A political text in a broad sense covers forms of communication in which the components are part of the political lexical-semantic field: the message content, the addressee or the subject. In a narrower sense, political discourse Straipsniai / Articles 265 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA is a discourse the goal of which is the realization, storage and suggestion of political power (Kolesnikova 2011: 67–69). Anatolij N. Baranov and Evgenij G. Kazakevič study political discourse as a community of all speech acts used in political discussions, as well as the rules of public policy, sanctified by tradition and tested by experience (Baranov, Kazakevič 1991). Evaluation of political discourse can be observed both explicitly and implicitly, that is, in an open or hidden sense. Evaluation can be differentiated as follows: positive, neutral, and negative. In linguistics, these characteristics of political discourse are distinguished: dialogicity, evaluability/emotionality, predominance of the mass audience; the dominant factor of emotionality and a significant amount of actual communication; semantic uncertainty, euphemism, deliberate evasion of reality, various gossips; indirectness of political communication thanks to mass media; the need for politicians to “work for the public”, to attract it according to their image, manner of communication; the dynamism of political speech is determined by the topicality of daily realities and the variability of political circumstances. Thus, evaluability fits into the criteria of political communication. Evaluation not only refers to the main functions of political discourse, but also plays its auxiliary role. The relevance and frequency of evaluation in political texts is determined by the factor of a political situation. Evaluation helps in the implementation of the basic functions of political discourse: informational, argumentative, functional, delimitative and group distinguishing. The evaluation of political discourse and the ways of expressing direct and indirect evaluation are considered as the purpose and properties of any political text. The implementation of any informative political message is based on five main goals: informative, analytical, regulatory, evaluative, and propaganda. Political discourse directly affects the consciousness of the addressee, the change in his/her picture of the world takes place through the representation of evaluative concepts in political texts. Mironova asserts that political discourse is directly related to value orientations in society. Evaluation categories are often viewed as semantic and cognitive constructs. The latter include universal human traits: justice, good, evil, democracy, freedom. Thus, political discourse is based on evaluative concepts. That is why its indisputable belonging to evaluative discourses is beyond doubt, i.e., in political discourse, axiological strategies are the main ones (Mironova 1997: 30–45). Compared to “evaluation”, “evaluability” is a rather linguistic concept. Černjavskaja interprets evaluation as a component in the semantic structure of a language unit, evaluation is expressed by language means or information 266 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse embedded in the semantics of the unit about the positive or negative characteristics of the object, about a favorable/disapproving attitude towards the object (Černjavskaja 2001: 20–50). At the same time, it is necessary to determine the ability of evaluation to demonstrate a much greater variety of the subject’s attitude to the object of reality than the usual attitude which is based on the opposition of an approving/disapproving attitude. That is why evaluation can be expressed in a direct or a hidden sense. The other author thinks that the picture of the world should be also included in the evaluation structure – the subject’s value system which includes a value system of his/her society and the associated individual value system of the subject himself/herself (Romanova 2008). Considering evaluation from the viewpoint of its reflection through linguistic means, it is divided into explicit (obvious) and implicit (hidden). Explicit evaluation is characterized by clear, open conviction with the establishment of the problems that arise in the audience’s field of vision and the means of solving them, in most cases without any possibility of a choice. Implicit evaluation, in its turn, is due to the intention to draw recipients’ attention to their own conclusions which correspond to the author’s idea. Representations of hidden evaluation are facilitated by words with the appropriate connotation, phraseological units, special types of syntactic structures, and intonation. Explicit evaluation is reproduced with the help of a specific textual form which includes various hints and associations. It can be determined that the implementation of the regulatory function of political speech is achieved precisely thanks to evaluability. From the perspective of political discourse, special attention should be paid to the axiological (evaluative) vocabulary which is divided into five groups: 1. rational evaluative; 2. rational descriptive–evaluative; 3. emotional-expressive with an evaluative meaning (the evaluative component is presented explicitly); 4. emotional-expressive with an attached evaluative meaning (the evaluative component is expressed implicitly); 5. vocabulary with cultural and evaluative connotations. In the evaluative definitions of words, aesthetic personal experience is conveyed. The communicative goal which the speaker sets before himself/herself is to convey his/her point of view to the listener in the best way, to convince him/her of the possibility and legality of this and not another vision of the word (Černejko 1996: 42–53). In aesthetic and emotional evaluations, the reflection of the word that remains in the linguistic consciousness of the person Straipsniai / Articles 267 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA is manifested; associative phenomena are reflected in the word or through its sound form. Researchers of political discourse identify various types of communicative strategies: discursive, stylistic, semantic, pragmatic, rhetorical, dialogic, and others. Scientific literature does not define any single, generally accepted classification of strategies and tactics of political discourse. Elena I. Šejgal singles out these types of strategies in political discourse: the strategy of veiling, suppression of unwanted information (allows to suppress, make unpleasant facts less obvious); the strategy of mystification (concealing the truth, deliberately misleading); the strategy of anonymity (depersonalization) as a technique of removing responsibility (Šejgal 2004). Since power is associated with a specific person, the main goal of politicians’ activity is to challenge the trust of the population, i.e., the object of power. If politics becomes an integral part of a person’s “informational life”, then political discourse is manifested through the use of language in the socio-political and public spheres of communication (Kolesnikova 2011). Influence on the recipient, his/her beliefs and feelings is the main goal of any political speech, including speeches and appeals, as an effective means to achieve the set goal. The political image, which is created taking into account linguistic means, is endowed with a separate specificity. The pragmatic level of a politician’s linguistic personality is considered one of the main ones. The pragmatics of political discourse refers to the area of behavior of language signs in the process of political communication. It is the image of a politician that reflects his/her cognitive-linguistic strategies. No doubt that the President’s speeches and addresses are of particular importance. He faces an important task – to build a communication strategy in such a way so that he could consolidate society, coordinate the interests of various social groups and properly represent the country at the international level. A dual picture of the world is characteristic of political discourse. The creation of an axiological field of vision that lacks neutrality, the division of the world into “one’s own” and “other people’s one” where “one’s own” undoubtedly refers to the positive thing, and “other people’s one” – to the negative thing; they are achieved through the implementation of evaluation using various pragmatic means of communication: direct and indirect evaluative statements, highly specialized vocabulary with explicit and implicit evaluative, as well as lexical innovations. The main difference between political discourse and other types of discourse related to evaluability is its lexical, grammatical, structural, pragmatic and semantic content. 268 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse 4. THE SPECIFICITY OF THE EVALUATION CATEGORY TRANSFER IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Over the past decades, most research in the field of political discourse analysis has focused on the relationship between language and politics. For example, the study of political discourse by Paul Chilton (2004) reports that language and politics are closely related at a fundamental level. Similarly, Sara Rubinelli (2018: 17–29) found that language is important for politics because politicians use their power to make decisions and influence citizens through language. In other words, the connection between language and the political life of society is quite close. First, the proposed type of communication takes on the characteristics of the means of mass manipulation. Secondly, the language mechanisms used to manipulate the mass consciousness are seen as planting democratic ideas and values. Third, to trace these mechanisms, scholars need to turn to political discourse and find appropriate methods of its analysis. Indeed, understanding the argumentative nature of political texts is keynote to being able to appreciate the political strategies (Fairclough, Fairclough 2012). The translation of political discourse is a set of incompatible requirements: it must be accurate and capable to correctly and quickly perform some specific tasks, and at the same time be politically correct and accurate. The term “discourse” embodies many concepts but it is difficult to define it precisely. In the middle of the 20th century, representatives of the Oxford and Cambridge linguistic schools defined the theoretical foundations for the study of political discourse. The most promising findings in this area and its systematic research were reported by Teun A. Van Dijk (2009). Based on the concept of political discourse, the scientist showed that in addition to differences in the very construction of social situations as contexts, cultures can also differ depending on how context definitions affect a text and a conversation. The image of a politician is a reflection of his/her personal “picture of the world”, his/her axiological attitudes and evaluation. Evaluation is generally a very characteristic tool of influence on the listener, and in the political sphere it generally plays a special structuring role. It is without evaluation that the expansion of political views is impossible. Political discourse is based on utilitarian, moral, and ethnic values. For more in-depth research, discourse analysis is widely used. Its main purpose is to describe the conventions of encoding and interpreting culture in certain discursive fields, as well as the underlying assumptions of culture Straipsniai / Articles 269 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA (Fetzer, Lauerbach 2007: 3–30). In addition, it can reveal a hidden meaning and show the difference between a politician’s speech and his/her true intentions. After all, the results of such an analysis make it possible to reveal baseless promises and manipulative strategies verbalized by linguistic means. The value of this method in the study of political discourse is undeniable. Power, relationality and difference are said to be keynote characteristics of global politics in translation (Berger, Esguerra 2018: 1–21). Thus, the main goal of translation studies is to study the specific situation in which the authorities had an influence on translation activity and cultural development. Translation, which is understood as a mechanism of representation of another culture, plays an essential role in the modern world. This is not just a linguistic transfer, but also an intercultural activity (Bánhegyi 2014: 139–158). The accuracy of the translation is achieved not only due to the knowledge of the algorithms of the other language but also to the intersection of the original message and the cultural space of the translator. In this respect, translations and translators are situated in very specific social and political contexts and are inevitably subject to the changes, ruptures and upheavals these contexts undergo (Berger, Esguerra 2018: 1–21). Political discourse is an integral part of social relations. In the implementation of political discourse, the language means alongside extralinguistic factors and cognitive structures are involved. There is an opinion among translators that the translation of political texts does not require a specialist to have specific knowledge in a narrowly focused topic, when compared with a special translation which requires in-depth knowledge in the specific field of translation activity that is being carried out. It should be stressed that when translating political topics, the translator’s “background knowledge” is still an important component and the broader it is, the more adequate the translation will be. The implementation of the translation of the political discourse enables considering and analyzing the features related to the translation, as well as a high lexical level, since the vocabulary of political topics is very prone to semantic changes. A large number of scientists agree that translation is a rather complex process. In order to adequately and correctly convey the content of the original expression, it is necessary to choose the necessary version of translation and to correctly convey its grammatical construction. Sometimes it is complicated by the fact that stylistic factors are subject to translation which are also important to take into account. The success of a translated text of political discourse is determined by how effective the linguistic means of influencing the listener are and how a translated text meets the generally accepted norms of the other language within the framework of mass communication. 270 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse The primary purpose of translating political discourse is to elicit a response from the target recipient somewhat similar to that of the original speaker. In this regard, the role of the translator is growing. Since political discourse appeals to a hierarchy of values prevalent at a certain stage of social development, the translator must take a certain political position (Gentzler 2002: 195–218). Therefore, the latter must interpret the source text and find appropriate linguistic means to fully preserve its pragmatics and emotionality in the target text. In addition, political texts lack logical sophistication. As a result, certain linguistic stereotypes are involved in translating with “awkward” phrases and often conventional or meaningful phrases. It should be borne in mind that the translation process involves certain mental efforts on the part of the translator. An important feature of political discourse is its influence on the listener or audience. Therefore, it is important to understand the communicative–pragmatic attitude which is a purposeful set of linguistic means used by the subject of expression for further influence on the recipient. Discourse by its very nature is related to pragmatics, the pragmatic aspect of language and communication is related to a person’s attitude to language signs aimed at expressing his/her evaluations, emotions, intentions when performing and perceiving linguistic operations in discourse. Issues of translation strategies¹ have received considerable attention in translation studies. Some linguists have proposed different strategies to resolve the conflict between syntactic and communicative functions in translation. For example, Mona Baker (2018) lists eight translation strategies that professional translators use to transfer linguistic and pragmatic meanings from the source language to the target language. They include translation containing more general words, translation containing neutral vocabulary, translation with cultural substitution, translation using loanwords with explanations, translation-periphrasis using related words, translation-periphrasis using unrelated words, omission and addition. However, the environment in which translation takes place inevitably influences the strategies used by the translator (Baker 2018). Political discourse is created to obtain, maintain and use political power. It is aimed at expressing views on the world and convincing the audience to whom attention is directed in the undoubted correctness of such a view. Fiodorov states that “the main reason for accurate translation is the knowledge of the subject” (Fiodorov 2002: 34). It is also important for the translator of political texts to realize that “language organizes the world in its own way according to language norms. It reflects the historical development of an ethnos, people’s customs and traditions, cultural traditions that are refracted and changed at each new stage of development of this linguistic and cultural community” (Popova 2011: 105–107). Straipsniai / Articles 271 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA The translation of political discourse has a number of stylistic and functional properties that are interdependent with the features of political discourse itself. The most relevant function of political discourse is influence on the addressee. Modern translation theory sees a close relationship between translation and sociolinguistic factors. The recipient always perceives a translated text through the lens of their national culture and, accordingly, some meaningful aspects may be incorrectly interpreted or not understood at all. Political discourse can be described as a “complex form of human activity” based on the recognition that politics cannot be done without language. Politics is about people and the lives they lead in organized communities. Politics, like any other social activity, has its own characteristics, the variety of language characteristic of a certain group. The discourse needs detailed analysis. Although research on the relationship between language and power began a long time ago, a detailed and nuanced approach from a critical perspective is certainly new. The analysis of a text in the original language should not be limited to the study of syntactic relationships between linguistic units or the denotative meaning of words but it should consider the connotative meanings of the formal structure of communication. A connotative evaluation of the formal structures of a message is essentially an analysis of a communication style and discourse is the main area of stylistic concern. The nature of a message, the purpose of the author and the translator, as well as the audience can influence the type of translation. In many cases, the translator may have an imperative goal, that is, to make the action clear and convincing, and this is precisely what happens in the translation of political discourse. Translation studies and intercultural communication are closely related. Translators must be able to work at a high level of intercultural competency which is where complex problems come into play. The cultural aspect is an important indicator of the interdisciplinary nature of modern translation studies and refers to the analysis of translation in its cultural, political, and ideological context. The translator must come to recognize the ideological devices that are typical of a particular discourse and period in order to use them to restructure the semantic relations in the target text. In modern translation studies, there has been a shift in focus from language to human activity in a cultural context. The translator must be aware of the characteristics that define a discourse in which a text is located if it is to preserve any sense of historical or semantic identity. The translator must understand that the connection between a discourse and a text is of a particular importance: discourse is embodied in texts, and texts make up a discourse. Discourse goes beyond a set of texts, that is, abstract structures are connected to material conditions that underlie the articulation of meaning (Scott, Bruce 1994: 580–607). 272 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse 5. MEANS OF EXPRESSING THE EVALUATION CATEGORY IN THE UKRAINIAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE Having analyzed the actual material, based on the classification of Wolf who distinguishes between rational and emotional evaluations, some means of expressing the evaluation category were highlighted. Both rational and emotional evaluations are present in the original text. During the analysis, we also divided the evaluation into absolute or relative; positive, negative or neutral. Lexemes of positive semantics are the representatives of rational evaluation, such as adjectives, nouns, and phraseological units (available at: https://www.president.gov.ua/; Twitter, and Facebook): “Це був результативний для України тиждень. Багато різних активностей – за мою участь, за участю першої леді України, за участю Прем’єр-міністра та міністра закордонних справ.” (It was a productive week for Ukraine. Many different activities – with my participation, with the participation of the First Lady of Ukraine, with the participation of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.) “Провів сьогодні засідання Ставки Верховного Головнокомандувача. Питання зрозумілі. Передова. Забезпечення наших військових...” (Held a meeting of the Staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief today. The issues are clear. Frontline. Provision of our military. And new threats created by Russia.) “Хто насправді міцний, а хто вдає міцність. Хто справді відчуває свою силу, а хто намагається з усіх сил приховати слабкість і невпевненість.” (Who is really strong, and who pretends to be strong. Who really feels his own strength, and who tries his best to hide weakness and insecurity.) “До речі, з моменту започаткування такої відзнаки для наших військових підрозділів – а вона була започаткована у травні цього року – вже 46 військових частин відзначені за мужність і відвагу. Героїзм, мужність наших воїнів, прагнення до незалежності та справедливості [...].” (By the way, since the establishment of such an award for our military units – and it was established in May of this year – 46 military units have already been awarded for courage and bravery. The heroism and grit of our warriors, the striving for independence and justice [...].) “Наша держава демонструє безпрецедентну сміливість [...].” (Our country shows unprecedented courage [...].) Words that have an evaluative meaning, namely effective, clear, strong, help-centered, heroic, frank, courage-filled, unprecedented courageous, tangible, truth-oriented, strength-based, initiative can be attributed to rational evaluation, Straipsniai / Articles 273 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA since the speaker has no goal to provoke a reaction from the listeners, he/she only states his/her own opinion. Since the object of evaluation is the same in each of the sentences, the evaluation can be considered absolute which, in most cases, has a positive character. “Дякую за влучність нашим воїнам!” (I am grateful to our warriors for accuracy!) “Вдячний усім у світі, хто допомагає нам захищати життя і свободу!” (I am grateful to everyone in the world who helps us protect life and freedom!) “Я дякую всім нашим воїнам – від командувачів до рядових! Дякую кожному, хто допомагає нашій обороні!” (I am grateful to all our soldiers – from commanders to ordinary soldiers! I am grateful to everyone who helps our defense!”) “Дякую партнерам за ці вагомі кроки солідарності. Завдяки таким рішенням наших друзів ми зберігаємо соціальну стабільність […]” (I thank the partners for these weighty steps of solidarity. Thanks to the decisions of our friends, we maintain social resilience […].) “А зараз окремо подякую прикордонникам Чопського загону, які воюють саме на Бахмутському напрямку […]” (And now I would like to separately thank the border guards of the Chop detachment, who are fighting near Bakhmut […].) “Кожного дня здобуваємо для України нові сили, щоб пройти цю зиму, і я дякую всім, хто працює заради цього і хто допомагає нашій державі.” (Every day we gain new strength for Ukraine to get through this winter, and I thank everyone who works for this and who helps our state.) “І я ще раз дякую всім нашим партнерам, які допомагають. Дякую всім нашим героїчним працівникам ДСНС, нашій поліції, військовим, які проводять розмінування.” (And I thank once again all our partners who help. I am thankful to all our heroic employees of the State Emergency Service, our police, and the military who carry out demining.) “Це відчутний тиск. І я вдячний усім нашим воїнам, які його витримують. Вдячний і партнерам, які розуміють, що в таких умовах ми потребуємо збільшення оборонної допомоги. Я дякую всім, хто воює, працює й допомагає, захищаючи Україну!” (It’s a palpable pressure. And I am grateful to all our soldiers who endure it. I am also grateful to the partners who understand that in such conditions we need an increase in defense assistance. I thank everyone who fights, works and helps to protect Ukraine!) These sentences are an example of an expression of gratitude on the part of the speaker of the original text and by their nature, in addition to being rational, they can also be considered absolute with a positive meaning. “Коли Росія заявляє, що нібито хоче переговорів, а сама оголошує мобілізацію […]. Усім усе зрозуміло. Росія сама ховає перспективу переговорів своїми ж руками” (When Russia declares that it supposedly wants negotiations, but 274 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse it itself announces [...]. Russia itself hides the prospect of negotiations with its own hands.) “Розбиті будинки, катівні, масове поховання [...].” (Ruined houses, torture chambers, mass burial [...].) Evaluability is expressed in whole sentences; this is evidenced by the semantic load of the sentence reinforced with the help of graphic signs in writing and the corresponding falling intonation in oral speech. The evaluation can be characterized as rational, absolute and negatively expressed. A large part of the source information of these political excerpts of speeches is endowed with a certain pronounced emotional content similar to the nature of evaluation. Here are some of them: “Уже 218 днів ми захищаємося від тих, у кого більше, ніж у нас, ракет та людей [...]. І ми робимо все, щоб захистити своїх людей та незалежність України. Це наш святий обов’язок. Обов’язок перед нашими батьками. Обов’язок перед нашими дітьми. Обов’язок перед усіма поколіннями нашого народу – тими, хто жив, і тими, хто житиме на нашій землі. Нам не потрібно чужого!” (For 218 days, we have been defending ourselves against those who have more missiles and people than we do [...]. And we do everything to protect our people and the independence of Ukraine. This is our sacred duty. Duty to our parents. Duty to our children. Duty to all generations of our people – those who lived and those who will live on our land. We don’t need what’s not ours!) “Що на них усіх чекає? Ви знаєте відповідь [...].” (What awaits them all? You know the answer [...].) The speech of the speaker of the source text is oral, so thanks to the increased intonation and emphasis on individual words, we can understand which of them are evaluative. By the type of evaluation category, such words as vile, criminal, senseless, cruelty, terrible are emotional aimed at causing a certain reaction of recipients to the content of the statement. It can also be emphasized that all of them are absolute and negative in nature. “Катастрофічна ситуація в окупованому Криму. Повністю підтверджується інформація щодо кримськотатарського народу: більшість мобілізаційних повісток розписана там саме на киримли [...].це одна причина для негайної й жорстокої реакції всього світу.” (Catastrophic situation in the occupied Crimea. The information about the Crimean Tatar people is fully confirmed: most of the mobilization summonses are written there specifically for Crimeans [...] another reason for the immediate and harsh reaction of the whole world.) The adjective “catastrophic” is characterized by the negative nature of the assessment with an emotional and absolute meaning. “Депортації. Спалені міста й села, знищені повністю – нічого не залишається живого [...]. Ракетний терор. Масові поховання [...].” Straipsniai / Articles 275 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA (Deportations. Burnt cities and villages, completely destroyed – nothing remains alive after racism [...]. Rocket terror. Mass burials [...].) By nature, the evaluation of these expressions can be classified as negative and absolute with a pronounced implicit emotional content of the statement. “Очевидный контраст із нами.” (An obvious contrast with us.) “Що на них усіх чекає? Ви знаєте відповідь.” (What awaits them all? You know the answer.) “Хотите больше? Нет? Тогда протестуйте. Боритесь. Убегайте [...]. Это – варианты для вас, чтобы выжить” (Russian variant). (Want more? No? Then protest. Fight back. Run away [...]. These are options for you to survive.) “Та й коли це сталося? Одразу, як в Індонезії завершився перший день саміту «двадцятки» і найбільш помітні заяви прозвучали, основні зустрічі відбулися.” (And when did it happen? As soon as the first day of the G20 summit ended in Indonesia, the most significant statements were made, the key meetings took place.) “Чому саме Одеса? Чому саме Україна? Чому саме Чорне море? Цьогоріч Україна стала світовим взірцем сміливості [...].” (Why Odesa? Why Ukraine? Why the Black Sea? This year, Ukraine became a global example of courage [...].) “Ці слова я казав на цьому ж місці у цей же день рівно один рік тому. Що відтоді змінилось? Чимало. В нашій країні, Європі й усьому світі.” (I said these words in the same place on the same day exactly one year ago. What has changed since then? A lot in our country, Europe and the whole world.) Taking into consideration the obvious evaluative negative connotation, these sentences are endowed with a significant emotional content, since they are rhetorical questions, the answer to which is already clear to everyone. “Ми встановимо всі особистості тих, хто катував, хто знущався, хто приніс це звірство [...] на нашу українську землю.” (We will establish all the identities of those who tortured, abused, who brought this atrocity [...] to our Ukrainian land.) Thanks to the use of lexical repetitions in sentences, emotionality is enhanced. The words “tortured”, “abused”, “atrocity”, “crimes” that are negative, as well as absolute in their expression, are valuable in translation. “Світ шукає засоби для захисту людей від голоду та цінової кризи, і Україні є що запропонувати. Ми постійно збільшуємо експорт продовольства, ми допомагаємо Продовольчій програмі ООН, відправляємо зерно як гуманітарну допомогу країнам, які цього потребують – Ефіопії, Сомалі. І ніколи, ніколи Україна не провокувала жодних криз на продовольчому ринку.” (The world is looking for means to protect people from hunger and price crisis, and Ukraine has something to offer. We constantly increase food exports, we help the UN Food Program, we send grain as humanitarian aid to the countries that need 276 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse it – Ethiopia, Somalia. And Ukraine has never ever provoked any crisis in the food market.) In the original text, there is a double negation which also emphasizes the emotionality of the statement and expresses a negative attitude. “Дякую вам усім, хлопці! Молодці!” (Thank you all guys! Well done!) “Бути ракетами по території НАТО […]. Це дуже суттєва ескалація. Треба діяти.” (Firing missiles at NATO territory. This is a very significant escalation. We must act.) “І я хочу зараз сказати всім нашим польським братам і сестрам. Україна завжди вас підтримає! Перемога можлива, коли немає страху!” (I want to say now to all our Polish brothers and sisters: Ukraine will always support you! Victory is possible when there is no fear!) “Робимо все, щоб допомогти нашим хлопцям на цьому напрямку. Нашим героям, які тримають там оборону. Кожен, хто там, заслуговує найвищої подяки!” (We do everything to help our boys in this direction. Our heroes who are holding the defense there. Everyone there deserves the highest gratitude!) “Ми про це пам’ятаємо. Мусимо! І ми бачимо, що відбувається сьогодні у світі, що відбувається в Україні.” (We remember that. We have to! And we see what is happening today in the world, what is happening in Ukraine.) “Звільнили Ірпінь. Молодці! Вдячний кожному і кожній – усім, хто працював на цей результат.” (Irpin has been liberated. Well done! I am grateful to everyone who worked for this result.) The evaluation of these examples can be characterized as rational, absolute and positively or neutrally expressed. Due to the semantic load of sentences, it is possible to understand the mood of the speaker and his attitude to situations thanks to graphic meanings in the form of exclamation marks. The communication manner of the speaker has characteristic features and expresses his attitude to reality using the nouns with an evaluative component: “Допомагайте тим в окупованих районах, хто цього потребує: літнім людям, одиноким, родинам із дітьми. Україна повернеться на всю свою землю, і маємо зберегти там якнайбільше наших людей.” (Help those in the occupied areas who need it: elderly people, single people, families with children. Ukraine will return to all its land, and we must keep as many of our people there as possible.) “Відсутність масованих ракетних ударів говорить лише про те, що ворог до них готується і може вдарити в будь-який час. Хоча очевидно, що і без світла ми добре знаємо, куди стріляти та що звільняти […].” (The absence of massive missile strikes only means that the enemy is preparing for them and can strike at any time. Although it is obvious that even without light we know well where to shoot and what to liberate […].) Straipsniai / Articles 277 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA All evaluative nouns from these text passages are examples of emotional evaluation aimed at causing a certain reaction of the listener, and the evaluation is absolute, with a vivid negative meaning. 6. LINGUISTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE OBTAINED DATA In the presented work, the evaluation category was classified according to various criteria. One of the main classifications was presented by Vol’f (1985) who distinguishes emotional and rational evaluation. Other linguists and scientists distinguish evaluation as relative or absolute: they divide it into positive, negative and neutral in nature. Emotional evaluation is aimed at causing the audience a certain reaction to a specific event or circumstances; therefore, by the nature of the message of these examples of political speeches, it is mostly endowed with negative content. Rational assessment, in its turn, does not set itself the goal of changing the emotional state of the interlocutor, but involves expressing one’s own opinion aimed at agreement or disagreement on the part of the addressee. Because of this, almost all examples of rational evaluation are positive or neutral in nature. Translators/interpreters tend to use the strategy of tertiary translation (creation of a target text that satisfies the needs of the target language speaker, the purpose of a target text may be different from the one of the creator) when dealing with political texts. In the cited texts of political speeches used in this work, there is no relative evaluation at all. Then, as the absolute value occurs in all the examples given, the role of the only object of comparison is usually implicit. Many examples of both emotional and rational evaluations are expressed in whole sentences, for example: Emotional evaluation: “Вони хіба що не роблять мило з людей, не роблять абажури зі шкіри… Масштаб не на всю Європу […]!” – “They don’t make soap out of people, they don’t make lampshades out of leather… The scale is not the whole of Europe […]!” “Дякую всім, хто воює й працює заради перемоги України!” – “I am grateful to everyone who fights and works for the victory of Ukraine!” “Вдячний усім у світі, хто допомагає нам захищати життя і свободу!” – “I am grateful to everyone in the world who helps us protect life and freedom!” “Скільки разів Україна говорила про те, що нашою країною держава-терорист не обмежиться?” – “How many times has Ukraine said that the terrorist state will not be limited to our country?” 278 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse “І ніколи, ніколи Україна не провокувала жодних криз на продовольчому ринку.” – “And Ukraine has never ever provoked any crisis in the food market.” Rational evaluation: “Дякую всім, хто воює й працює заради перемоги України!” – “I am grateful to everyone who fights and works for the victory of Ukraine!” “Вдячний усім у світі, хто допомагає нам захищати життя і свободу!” – “I am grateful to everyone in the world who helps us protect life and freedom!” “Україна завжди вас підтримає! Вільних людей терор не зламає! Перемога можлива, коли немає страху!” – “Ukraine will always support you! Terror will not break free people! Victory is possible when there is no fear!” “Коли Росія заявляє, що нібито хоче переговорів, а сама оголошує мобілізацію [...]. Коли Росія знає чітку позицію України про неможливість дипломатичного процесу [...]. Усім усе зрозуміло.” – “When Russia declares that it supposedly wants negotiations but announces mobilization [...]. When Russia knows Ukraine’s clear position about the impossibility of a diplomatic process [...]. Everything is clear to everyone.” “Розбиті будинки, катівні, масове поховання [...].” – “Ruined houses, torture chambers, mass burial site [...].” Having carried out a translation analysis, it was found that the search for an equivalent or a translation counterpart was the most frequent method of translating the evaluation means of political texts at the lexical and grammatical levels. Since Ukrainian and English are structurally unrelated, they have characteristic differences that affect translation. At the grammatical level, the translator uses various grammatical transformations, such as permutations, substitutions, additions, omissions. You can familiarize yourself with the relevant results of the research regarding the translation techniques at the grammatical level in percentage terms in the presented diagram (see Figure). Grammatical transformations FIGURE. Translation techniques Straipsniai / Articles 279 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA Having analyzed the presented excerpts of political speeches, the evaluation category was considered from the side of various classifications presented by scientists. We found out which linguistic means were used to implement the evaluation category of the source language. Emotional evaluation is expressed by emotionally colored vocabulary and it is usually the result of the addressee’s individual, subjective views on the object of evaluation which intends to cause an appropriate reaction from the addressee. A rational assessment is usually expressed in neutral vocabulary and represents the speaker’s own opinion. A positive evaluation is represented by lexemes of positive semantics, whereas a negative evaluation is represented by lexemes of negative semantics. Absolute evaluation contains an implicit comparison. It is characterized by a single object of evaluation; relative evaluation is the opposite one. It can be noted that rational and emotional evaluations are represented in almost equal numbers and form a positive or negative evaluation, respectively, when comparing absolute and relative evaluation, the latter is completely absent, since there was no comparative evaluation in any of the presented examples. According to the results of the research analysis, it turned out that evaluation covers individual lexical units which are appropriately reproduced in the translation alongside whole sentences; this is evidenced by the semantic framework of the sentences reinforced with the help of graphic signs in writing and the appropriate intonation in oral speech. The translator was able to fully convey the stylistic color of the original. When translating, there is a certain regularity in the use of some translation techniques at the lexical and grammatical levels. The translation analysis showed that the search for a translation counterpart and a translation equivalent turned out to be a common method of translation related to all types of expressions of the evaluation category. At the grammatical level, due to structural differences between the source and target languages, the translator applies various grammatical transformations: permutations, substitutions, additions, omissions. 7 CONCLUSION The classifications of evaluation categories presented by Arutiunova (1984), Vol’f (1985), Ivin (2015), Krysanova (1999), Prychod’ko (2001) are correlated with positive and negative evaluations as a type of speech influence on the audience. Evaluation is aimed at evoking certain feelings of the interlocutor or the audience and it is characterized by a specific emotional structure: the use of phraseological units, rhetorical questions, exclamations, expressions of gratitude, praise, condemnation, etc. The evaluative aspect of the political 280 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse text consists of meanings that are realized at different linguistic levels – lexical, morphological and syntactic. Evaluation influence is compared to social influence, advocacy, information, and clarification. Positive evaluation is realized by means of expressing gratitude, praise, support, encouragement, etc. A negative evaluation is transmitted through anger, condemnation, despair, dissatisfaction, etc. Evaluation has its own specific structure. The main function of evaluation is to express the subject’s attitude to objective reality in the process of communication. In the semantic structure of the word, evaluation mainly covers the emotional components of connotation, including rational and emotional evaluations. Political discourse is focused not only on expressing an objective evaluation of circumstances but also on persuading the addressee and encouraging him/her to act. Political discourse affects the consciousness of the recipient, the change in his/her worldview takes place through the representation of evaluative values in political texts. Evaluation clearly fits into the criteria of political communication, since evaluation refers to the key criteria of a political text and plays its auxiliary function. The relevance of evaluation in political texts is determined by the factor of a political situation. The translation of political discourse is aimed at evoking particular reactions. The translator’s task is complicated by the fact that political discourse appeals to the hierarchy of values of the specific target audience to whom a political text is addressed. The primary purpose of any political message or speech is the speaker’s desire to elicit a response from the intended recipient. Volodymyr Zelenskyi’s statements contain lexical units and sentences endowed with evaluation. Thus, the strategy of tertiary translation is used when translating the speeches and addresses of the President of Ukraine into English, since it facilitates the creation of a target text that satisfies the needs of the target language speaker (the purpose of a target text may differ from the one of the creator). At the grammatical level, there are certain differences between the structures of the Ukrainian and English languages, so these translational grammatical transformations are observed: permutations, substitutions, additions and omissions (translational tactics). After analyzing the texts under focus, it can be noted that the stylistic characteristics of the source language were fully reflected in the target language. The analysis of the peculiarities of political discourse reproduction in the material of other types of discourse is seen as a perspective for the study of the evaluation category in the translation studies aspect. Straipsniai / Articles 281 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA REFERENCES Andreeva Galina M. 2000: Андреева, Галина М. Психология социального познания [Psichologija social’nogo poznanija], Москва: Аспект Пресс [Moskva: Aspekt Press]. Arutjunova Nina D. 1984: Арутюнова, Нина Д. Аксиология в механизмах жизни и языка [Aksiologija v mehanizmach žizni i jazyka], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Вацевич Флорій 2010: Вацевич Флорій. Нариси з лінгвістичної прагматики [Narysy z linhvistychnoji prahmatyky], Львів: ПАІС [L’viv: PAIS]. Baker Mona 2018: In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, 3rd edition, London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Bánh​egyi Mátyás 2014: Translation and Political Discourse. – Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica 6(2), 139–158. Baranov Anatolij N., Kazakevič Evgenij G. 1991: Баранов, Анатолий Н., Казакевич, Евгений Г. Парламентские дебаты: традиции и новации [Parlamentskie debaty: tradicii i novacii], Москва: Знание [Moskva: Znanie]. Berger Tobias, Esquerra Alejandro, eds., 2018: World Politics in Translation: Power, Relationality and Difference in Global Cooperation, London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Chilton Paul 2004: Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, London, New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Černejko Ljudmila O. 1996: Чернейко, Людмила О. Порождение и восприятие межличностных оценок [Poroždenie i vosprijatie mežličnostnych ocenok]. – Филологические науки [Filologičeskie nauki] 6, 42–53. Černjavskaja Elena A. 2001: Чернявская, Елена А. Оценка и оценочность в языке и художественной речи: на материале поэтического, прозаического и эпистолярного наследия А. С. Пушкина [Ocenka i ocenočnost’ v jazyke i chudožestvennoj reči: na materiale poetíčeskogo i èpistoljarnogo nasledija A. S. Puškina], Брянск: БГУ [Bryansk: BGU]. Černova Galina R., Slotina Tat’jana V. 2012: Чернова, Галина Р., Слотина, Татьяна В. Психология общения [Psichologija obščenija], Санкт Петербург: Питер [Sankt Peterburg: Piter]. Fairclough Isabela, Fairclough Norman 2012: Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students, London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. 282 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse Fetzer Anita, Lauerbach Gerda E., eds., 2007: Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Fiodorov Andrej V. 2002: Федоров, Андрей В. Основы общей теории перевода (лингвистические проблемы) [Osnovу obščeј teorii perevoda (lingvističeskie problemy)], сер. Студенческая библиотека [ser. Studenčeskaja biblioteka], Москва: ООО Издательский Дом «Филология Три» [Moskva: OOO Izdatelʹskij Dom “Filologija Tri”]; Санкт-Петербург: Филологический факультет СПбГУ [Sankt-Peterburg: Filologičeskij fakulʹtet SPbGU]. Habermas Jürgen 2000: Габермас Юрген. Структурні перетворення у сфері відкритості: дослідження категорії громадянське суспільство [Strukturni peretvorennja u sferi vidkrytosti: doslidžennja kategoriji hromadjans’ke suspil’stvo], Львів: Літопис [L’viv: Litopys]. Harre Rom, Smith Jonathan 1995: Discursive Psychology in Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Harris Zellig S. 1952: Discourse analysis. – Language 28, 1–30, 474–494. Heleta Ivanna, Žmajeva Natalja 2022: Гелета Іванна, Жмаєва Наталя. Особливості відтворення категорії оцінки при перекладі політичних промов [Osoblyvosti vidtvorennja kategoriji ocinku pry perekladi polityčnyh promov]. – Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky: Linguistic Sciences 35, 31–43. Holovatyi Mykola F. 2006: Головатий, Микола Ф. Політична психологія [Polityčna psyhologija], Київ: МАУП [Kyiv: MAUP]. Iliadi Alexander I. 2022: Slavo-Iranica: Compound Words with Slav. *Mysl- : Iran. *Mana-, *Mazda- (against Baltic Background). – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 87, 30–63. Ivin Aleksandr A. 2015: Ивин, Александр А. Основания логики оценок: монография [Osnovanija logiki osнek: monografija], Москва, Берлин: Директ-Медиа [Moskva, Berlin: Direkt-Media]. Karasik Vladimir I. 2010: Карасик, Владимир И. Языковой круг, личность, концепты, дискурс [Jazykovoj krug, ličnost’, konceptу, diskurs], Волгоград: Перемена [Volgograd: Peremena]. Karcevskij Sergej I. 1976: Карцевский, Сергей И. Сравнение [Sravnenie]. – Вопросы языкознания [Voprosy jazykoznanija] 1, 107–112. Straipsniai / Articles 283 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA Kolesnikova Svetlana N. 2011: Колесникова, Светлана Н. Особенности политического дискурса и его интерпретация [Osobennosti političeskogo diskursa i ego interpretacija]. – Вестник Челябинского государственного университета [Vestnik Čeljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta] 33(248), 67–69. Kolʹšanskij Gennadij V. 2018: Колщанский, Геннадий В. Соотношение субъективных и объективных факторов в языке [Sootnošenie subjektivnych i objektivnych faktorov v jazyke], Москва: КомКнига [Moskva: KomKniga]. Kosmeda Tetjana A. 2000: Космеда, Тетяна А. Аксіологічні аспекти прагмалінгвістики: формування і розвиток категорії оцінки [Aksiolohichni aspekty prahmalinhvistyku: formuvannja i rozvytok katehoriji ocinky], Львів: ЛНУ імені І. Франка [L’viv: LNU imeni I. Franka]. Krysanova Tetjana A. 1999: Крисанова, Тетяна А. Висловлювання негативної оцінки адресата в сучасній англійській мові (комунікативно-прагматичний аспект) [Vyslovljuvannja nehatyvnoji ocinky adresata v sučasnij anhliis’kij movi (komunikatyvno-prahmatyčnyj aspekt)], Київ: КДЛУ [Kyjiv: KDLU]. Lasswell Harold D. 2006: Лассyэлл, Гарольд Д. Yazyk vlasti [Jazyk vlasti]. – Political linguistics 20, 264–279. Markelova Tat’jana V. 1993: Маркелова, Татьяна В. Семантика оценки и средства ее выражения [Semantika ocenki i sredstva eio vyraženija], Москва: Издательство МПУ [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo MPU]. McLuhan Marshall, Fiore Quentin 1967: The Medium is the Message, Warfond: The Penguin Press. Mironova Natal’ja N. 1997: Миронова, Наталья Н. Дискурс-анализ оценочной семантики [Diskurs-analiz ocenоčnoj semantiki], Москва: Тезаурус [Moskva: Tezaurus]. Motrenko Timofej 2005: Мотренко Тимофей. Вопросы реформирования государственной службы [Voprosy reformirovanija gosudarstvennoj služby]. – Теория и практика управления [Teorija i praktika upravlenija] 7, 2–4. Oleškov Michail Ju. 2006: Олешков, Михаил Ю. Моделирование коммуникативного процесса [Modelirovanie kommunikativnogo processa], Нижний Тагил: Издательство НТГСПА [Nižnij Tagil: Izdatel’stvo NTGSPA]. Ostrovs’ka Oleksandra M. 2001: Островська, Олександра М. Лінгвостилістичні засоби реалізації категорії оцінки [Linhvостylistični zasoby realizaciji katehoriji ocinky], Львів: ЛНУ імені І. Франка [L’viv: LNU imeni I. Franka]. 284 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse Parygin Boris D. 1999: Парыгин, Борис Д. Анатомия общения [Anatomiјa obščenija], Санкт Петербург: Издательство Михайлова В. А. [Sankt Peterburg: Izdatel’stvo Michajlova V. A.]. Pisanova Tat’jana V. 1997: Писанова, Татьяна В. Национально-культурные аспекты оценочной семантики: Эстетические и нравственные оценки [Nacional’no-kul’turnye aspekty ocenočnoj semantiki: Èstetičeskie i nravstvennye ocenki], Москва: Издательство Икария [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Ikarija]. Popova Tat’jana G. 2011: Попова, Татьяна Г. Синтагматические особенности юридического дискурса [Sintagmatičeskie osobennosti juridіčeskogo diskursa]. – Инновации в преподавании иностранных языков студентам–юристам [Innovacii v prepodavanii inostrannyx jazykov studentam–juristam], материалы межвузовской научно–практической конференции [materialy mežvuzovskoj naučno–praktičeskoj konferencii], 25 марта 2011 г. [25 marta 2011 g.], Москва: Издательство Российская правовая академия Минюста РФ [Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Rossijskaja pravovaja akademija Minjusta RF], 105–107. Prichod’ko Hanna I. 2001: Приходько, Ганна І. Способы выражения оценки в современной английской мови [Sposoby vyražennja ocinky v sučasnij anglijs’kij movi], Запорожья: ЗДУ [Zaporižžja: ZDU]. Powell Larry, Cowart Joseph 2016: Political Campaign Communication: Inside and Out, 2nd edition, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Romanova Tat’jana V. 2008: Романова, Татьяна В. Модальность. Оценка. Эмоциональность: монография [Modal’nost’. Ocenka. Èmocional’nost’: monografija], Нижний Новгород: НГЛУ имени Н. А. Добролюбова [Nižnij Novgorod: NGLU imeni N. A. Dobroljubova]. Rubinelli Sara 2018: Rhetoric as a Civic Art from Antiquity to the Beginning of Modernity. – The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, ed. by R. Wodak, B. Forchtner, London, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 17–29. Schiffrin Deborah, Tannen Deborah, Hamilton Heidi E., eds., 2001: The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Sapir Edward 1985: Сепир Эдуард. Градуирование [Graduirovanie]. – Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Лингвистическая прагматика [Novoe v zarubežnoj lingvistike. Lingvističeskaja pragmatika], вып. 16 [vyp. 16], ч. 16 [č. 16], сост. Н. Д. Арутюнова [sost. N. D. Arutjunova], 43–78. Shannon Claude E. 1948: A Mathematical Theory of Communication. – Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423. Straipsniai / Articles 285 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA Scott Susanne G., Bruce Reginald A. 1994: Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. – Academy of Management Journal 37(3), 580–607. Shymko Vitalii 2021: Discourseology of Linguistic Consciousness: Neural Network Modeling of some Structural and Semantic Relationships. – Psycholinguistics 29(1), 193–207. Sosnin Oleksandr V., Mychnenko Anatolij M., Lytvynova Ljudmyla V. 2011: Сосин, Олександр В., Михненко, Анатолій М., Литвинова, Людмила В. Комунікативна парадигма суспільного розвитку [Komunikatyvna paradyhma suspil’noho rozvytku], Київ: НАДУ [Kyiv: NADU]. Šeịgal Elena I. 2004: Шейгал, Елена И. Семиотика политического дискурса [Semiotika političeskogo diskursa], Москва: ИТДГК «Гнозис» [Moskva: ITDGK “Gnozis”]. Telija Veronika N. 1986: Телия, Вероника Н. Коннотативный аспект семантики номинативных единиц [Konnotativnyj aspect semantiki nominativnych edinic], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Gentzler Edwin 2002: Translation, Poststructuralism, and Power. – Translation and Power, ed. by M. Tymoczko, E. Gentzler, Amherst, Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. Van Dijk Teun A. 1995: Esoteric Discourse Analysis. – Discourse & Society 6(1), 5–6. Van Dijk Teun A. 2009: Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo: Cambridge University Press. Vinogradov Viktor V. 1986: Виноградов, Виктор В. Грамматическое учение о слове [Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Vol’f Elena M. 1985: Вольф, Елена М. Функциональная семантика оценки [Funkcional’naja semantika ocenki], Москва: Наука [Moskva: Nauka]. Chmiljar Oleh F. 2017: Хмілjar, Олег Ф. Психологія символічної регуляції поведінки особистості [Psyhologija symvoličnoji reguliaciji povedinky osobystosti], Київ: НАПН [Kyjiv: NAPN]. Zagraevskaja Tat’jana B. 2007: Заграевская, Татьяна Б. Категория оценки как лингвистическая проблема [Kategoriја ocenki kak lingvističeskaja problema], Пятигорск: ПГЛУ [Pjatigorsk: PGLU]. 286 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII Reproduction Peculiarities of the Modern Political Discourse Šiuolaikinio politinio diskurso vertimo ypatumai SANTRAUKA Straipsnyje aptariami su vertinamojo požiūrio kategorijos sąvoka kalbotyroje susiję klausimai ir šios kategorijos apraiškos politiniame diskurse. Analizuojami kai kurie vertinimo klasifikacijos tipai. Vertinimo pagrindai analizuojami iš žmogaus vertybių sistemos požiūrio taško, apimančio modalines konotacijas, aktualizuojamas komunikacijos procese. Pabrėžiama, kad individualaus vertinimo atveju kalbėtojas perteikia ne tik savo požiūrį, bet ir visuotinai priimtinus, visuomenėje egzistuojančius principus arba, kitais žodžiais tariant, stereotipinį požiūrį į objektą. Emocinis vertinimas (asmens tiesioginė reakcija į objektą) yra priešingas racionaliam vertinimui (kuris remiasi protu, o ne emocijomis). Autoriai teigia, kad emociniu vertinimu siekiama pakeisti pašnekovo emocinę būseną ir sukelti atitinkamą reakciją, o racionalaus vertinimo tikslas yra sutikti arba nesutikti su išreiškiama nuomone. Absoliutus vertinimas yra susijęs su sąvokomis „geras“ ir „blogas“, o santykinis vertinimas išreiškiamas sąvokomis „geresnis“ ir „blogesnis“. Tyrime analizuojama teigiamo ir neigiamo adresato požiūrio į tam tikrą situaciją struktūra, kuri sukuria emocinį konotacijos komponentą. Daug dėmesio skiriama vertinamojo požiūrio semantinei struktūrai ir raiškos priemonėms: šaukiamiesiems ir retoriniams klausimams, susūkimams, dėkingumo, pagyrimo, pasmerkimo ir kitoms frazėms. Politinis diskursas yra susijęs su politine komunikacija, kurios pagrindinis tikslas yra įtikinti adresatą, pasitikėti juo ir paskatinti jį veikti, o politinis tekstas – su masiniu informavimu apie pagrindines visuomenei svarbias problemas ir įvykius, kurie šiuo metu vyksta visuomenėje. Straipsnyje analizuojami Ukrainos prezidento Volodymyro Zelenskio kalbų ir kasdienių kreipimųsi tekstai, apimantys laikotarpį nuo 2022 metų kovo mėnesio iki 2022 metų gruodžio mėnesio, ir jų vertimai į anglų kalbą. Kadangi ukrainiečių ir anglų kalbos turi tam tikrų struktūrinių skirtumų, straipsnyje aptariamos šios gramatinės vertimo transformacijos: pakeitimai, sukeitimai, pridėjimai ir praleidimai (vertimo taktikos). Įteikta 2023 m. gegužės 23 d. OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 34, Staroporofrankivska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] Straipsniai / Articles 287 OLEKSANDRA V. POPOVA, ILONA M. DERIK, NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA ILONA M. DERIK The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 34, Staroporofrankiyska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] NATALYA S. ZHMAYEVA The State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” 34, Staroporofrankiyska Str. 65020, Ukraine, Odesa [email protected] 288 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXVIII