The ratio of the categories "assessment" and "friend-foe" in English travel notes of the XIX century

Gladkova Ol'ga Khvtisovna Postgraduate Student, Department of European Languages and Cultures, Pskov State University 180000, Russia, Pskovskaya oblast', g. Pskov, ul. Pl Lenina, 2 olga.lexter@gmail.com

A person learns about the world by asking philosophical questions "who am I?", "what place do I occupy?", "what can I know?". The definition and search for oneself are the basis of cognition of the other, while the actualization of one's own "I" is the starting point of systematization of the external world. The binary nature of the inner and outer worlds underlies the opposition "I am not me". The position of the "I" in relation to the other set the tone not only for the development of the philosophical paradigm, but also clearly formed an ontological constant – subject-object relations are the basis of cognition.

Subjectivization of personality is carried out through communication or dialogue. The concept of dialogicity as a key to understanding the nature of personality is most deeply considered in the works of M.M. Bakhtin ^[3]. The "I" of a person, according to M.M. Bakhtin, manifests itself only on the way to dialogue with others. This category is also considered in a number of philosophical works (J. P. Sartre, J. Lacan, J. Deleuze, E. Levinas, etc.), the main essence of which is the statement about the possibility of being only "paired with another". ^[20] At the same time, the main component of such being is the perception of the "I" through the "other". Against the background of comparing and comparing the world of "one's own" and "the other", a certain picture of the world is created in a person's mind.^[5],[24]

The universal basic dominant "I am the other" is implemented in the language. Traditionally in linguistics, the opposition "I am the other" is analyzed as in: 1) communicative linguistics (A.P. Sadokhin, D.V. Kulikova, M.L. Dubossarskaya, E.P. Zakharova, Y. Y. Kislyakova, V.V. Bogomazova) so in 2) linguoculturology (S.V. Ivanova, T.V. Aliyeva, I.M. Hasanova, O.G. Orlova). Within the framework of this study, the category "I am another" is considered in the linguoculturological paradigm.

It is important to note that in linguistics there is an expansion of the components of the opposition "I" ("my")- "other" by using the terms "other", "alien". Let us turn to the problems of the conceptual apparatus in order to clarify the semantic load of each of the opposition terms. 

M.L. Dubossarskaya offers a ternary system "own: alien, other", which assumes different models of perception of what is not included in the circle of "own". The "other", according to M.L. Dubossarskaya, arouses interest and does not pose a threat, is not "one's own", but also not "someone else's". Nevertheless, there is a mobility of relations between "one's own" and "the other". The perception of what is different from one's own goes through a number of stages and on this path is able to change from an attitude towards something hostile - "alien", and vice versa:  there may be interest in the "alien" and, as a result, acceptance of the "other" rather than the alien. In this case, the blurring of the boundaries of subjective perception depends on certain circumstances (religious, ideological, social or political systems of another society), which set the direction vector of acceptance / rejection of the object. ^[10]

E.Y. Kislyakova also speaks about the instability of members of the opposition, refuting in her research the statement of E.P. Zakharova about the rigidity of the category "friend-foe". ^[11] The category "friend-foe" is unstable and has a graduated character. The graduated type of opposition is actualized in the form of a scale "one's own-another-someone else's". Categorical instability is caused by the peculiarities of human cognition. The linguistic realization of cognition is reflected by the category of "otherness", which is included in the assessment, since the perception of the other is inevitably associated with a diverse range of human emotions and feelings: curiosity, fear, alienation or acceptance. ^[13]

The principle of the gradality of the opposition "one's own" - "someone else's" is reflected in the work of M.Y. Svinkina, devoted to a detailed examination of the category of "otherness" in the media discourse. According to M.Y. Svinkina, the experience of human communication is not limited to the representation of "one's own" and "someone else's".  Perception of the surrounding reality requires a more detailed interpretation. The opposition is represented by the largest number of its constituent members: "own: other, other, alien". The starting point for determining what is not included in the circle of "own" is the "other", objectifying otherness, i.e. non-identity. The tone of interpretation of the other is neutral or moderately positive. The basis of the quadriadis is represented in the form of a "friend-stranger" relationship, where the stranger is an "extreme degree of otherness". ^[21] A "stranger", as a rule, is given a negative assessment. In speech, it expresses "social distance and intolerance" ^[21], while the lexeme "other", i.e. not like "I" has rather a neutral semantic connotation. However, a member of the opposition "other" is mobile, and depending on the circumstances can move into the sphere of "alien". Therefore, "other" is a broader concept. "Alien" is a priori "other", while "other" is not always "alien".  

Thus, in the linguistic literature, the opposition "friend-foe" is presented as asymmetric. "One's own" is immutable, while "not one's own" can be "other", "other" or "alien". Within the framework of the opposition under consideration, otherness, otherness and alienness are related concepts; their semantic differences can be leveled when it comes only to the differentiation of the concepts of "one's own" and "not one's own". In this case, the common component of the meaning for all members of the semantic series is "not-one's own", therefore, further in the text we allow the use of the term "one's own-someone else's", implying at the same time all the components of the second member of the opposition. Thus, in the framework of this study, the analysis of empirical material used the quadriad "own: other, other, alien", which allows you to display the full range of possibilities of the author's perception of not his own culture. According to the fair remark of M.Y. Svinkina, the concept of "other" "removes the sociality and evaluativeness inherent in the concept of "alien". ^[21] When analyzing the description of someone else's culture, one should not neglect the shades of meanings. So by "other" is meant a neutral or positive assessment, "other" is a neutral assessment, "alien" is a negative assessment. The degree of axiological intensity is actualized with the help of the quadriad components - "other" and "other" (the intensity of alienness decreases and is neutralized).

The gradual "distance" from one pole of the gradual opposition "one's own" to the other - "someone else's" indicates the presence of an axiological sign. The linguistic category of gradality, as an integral sign of the opposition "friend-foe", expresses the "measuring" attitude of the speaker to the subject of speech. Consequently, this opposition forms evaluativeness in the text. The evaluation category was considered in the most detail in the works of N.D. Arutyunova and E.M. Wolf, when analyzing theoretical and practical material, we will use the classification of evaluation proposed by these scientists. Evaluation as a key concept of linguistic axiology assumes an attitude towards an object and is formed on the basis of an evaluation scale (good/bad) when the subject of evaluation believes that the object of evaluation is good or bad. ^[1],[7]

The ambivalent nature of the evaluation category coincides with the instability of the category "own: other, other, alien". Subjective assessment can change: "one's own" can acquire a negative connotation, and "someone else's", moving into the sphere of "other", can become evaluatively neutral or positive (interesting, unusual, unusual, etc.) Thus, it is necessary to solve two tasks: first, to trace the axiological potential of the opposition "one's own-someone else's" ("own" = "good", "alien" = "bad", "own" = "bad", "alien" = "good"); secondly, to trace the graded nature of the evaluation categories and "own: other, other, alien".

In the framework of this study, we will consider the ratio of the categories of "evaluation" and "friend-foe" based on the material of English-language travel notes of the XIX century.  The analysis of domestic (N.M. Maslov, M.G. Shadrin, O.M. Skibin, I.F. Golovchenko) and foreign (K. Turner, B. Korte, J. Borm) literature allows us to define travel notes as a kind of travel genre. Travel notes are a description of a real journey undertaken by the author through unknown or little-known countries and regions. The text of the travel notes contains information about nature, everyday life, traditions and other realities of a different culture. The image of the author is a mandatory element of travel notes. He is a participant, observer and active commentator of events. The author appeals to "his" reader, who shares with him the general picture of the world. The universal opposition of "friend-foe" is a formative category of travel literature in general and travel notes in particular. The very purpose of the trip - to know something other than "one's own", determines the significance of the category "one's own-another's" in the texts of travel notes, where "one's own" is the author and potential reader of the notes, and "alien" ("other", "other")- the object being described is Russian. The author comprehends and evaluates what is happening on the basis of contrasting and delineating clear internal and external boundaries: "no "we" can exist if there are no "they". ^[15]

The organization of the text space is caused by the movement of the author following his route in time and space, which determines the dynamics of the subjective assessment of the author. So, the status of the object of evaluation "not your own" can change, become "different" or "alien". The intensity of the evaluative component of the perception of what is not included in the "own" circle can be considered according to a number of parameters: "territorial factor, cultural and religious affiliation, social status, mismatch of value / worldview attitudes, divergence in political views." ^[21] With the similarity of cultural codes, the degree of alienness will decrease, and vice versa increase, if the personal and cultural values of the author do not coincide with the surrounding reality.

When traveling, the image of an "alien world" is primarily created by "verbalized components of culture." ^[6] Travel involves immersion in another culture, where the boundaries between "one's own world" and "someone else's world" in the mind of the traveler's author are "outlined" by describing other national features (cultural realities): household items, national cuisine and clothing, traditions, holidays, etc. Based on the analysis of English–language travel notes about Russia, it can be concluded that the lexical level of the language is the most obvious when expressing the opposition "friend - foe".

The estimated labeling of the "alien" category can be illustrated by the text of travel notes "Travels from Riga to Crimea", in which the author Mary Holderness describes in detail the socio-economic life, political structure and national characteristics of the population. «The costume of the Russian peasant is very different to the English, and consequently very striking to English eyes. Whatever it may want in appearance it is substantially good, and well adapted to the severity of the climate. The man’s dress consists of a shirt of very coarse linen …, large pair of boots or sometimes very coarse stockings,… and when the weather is very cold, another coat of extremely coarse woolen cloth…. Thus equipped, they travel at all hours and in all kinds of weather, and might, but for their own imprudence, travel with impunity, and without fear of the cold; but they are extremely addicted to drunkenness, and it is said, many hundreds of them perish in a year». ^[27] In the analyzed passage, it is clearly traced how the description of the appearance of peasants passes from the sphere of "alien" to the sphere of "other" and back. This instability of perception also affects the evaluation marking, which changes from negative to positive and again to negative. Comparing one's own the English costume with not one's own – the Russian in this example corresponds to the opposition "friend-stranger": the dissimilarity of the appearance of Russians is marked with the lexemes different and striking, and is reinforced by the adverb of the degree very. However, at the same time, there is a description of Russian clothing, which is verbalized by lexical units with a conventional positive evaluative value: good, well. The author points out that such clothes are good in the harsh climate of Russia. Thus, utilitarian and aesthetic assessments acquire a positive vector. ^[1] Consequently, the image of the Russian peasant is presented to the reader as "different", not similar to "his", but at the same time not negative. Then again there is a "movement" of evaluation, and the author again expresses his disapproval, describing the way of life of the peasants. Negative evaluation is achieved by using lexical units with negative connotation: repeated repetition of the word coarse (-) (enhanced by intensifiers very, extremely); very cold (-); impudence (-); with impurity (-); extremely addicted to drunkenness (-).

The description of traditional Russian drinks also expresses negative ratings:  «The brandy in common use here is distilled from corn, and is something like English gin, but more fiery spirit, and less agreeable to the taste .  … They have but little knowledge in brewing, except at Petersburgh and Moscow, and few brewers elsewhere; at these places they brew both ale and porter, but neither are at all equal to what is brewed in England. The common drink of the Russian is kvass, which is not so good as our small beer». ^[27] The degree of "foreignness" is expressed using the category of comparison: like English, less agreeable to the taste; neither are at all equal to what is brewed in England; is not so good as. Comparing his own and other people's drinks, the author contrasts the quality of some with others, explicitly labeling the general evaluation (not so good (-)) and private evaluation (less agreeable (-), neither are equal (-)) values: brandy (-) vs. gin (+), (Russian) ale and porter (-) vs. (English) ale and porter (+), kvass (-) vs. small beer (+). The author's position boils down to the model "one's own is good" and "someone else's is bad".

A positive description of the area along the route, which is represented by the epithets: beautiful and romantic (parts of the country (+)), flourishing town (+), pretty church (+)  contrasts with the squalid life of the peasants, which amazes and depresses the traveler. «I could feel extreme disgust (-) and abhorrence (-) at this barbarous race (-) of beings, who in all respect live more like herds of swine (-), than like rational creatures…. " , "... filthy clay floors (-), smoked walls (-)", "...little dirty children (-), women with uncombed locks (-) and unwashed hands (-)". These linguistic units not only explicate the life of Russians as an image of an "alien world" that does not correspond the author's ideas about the norm familiar to him, but also implement the author's negative assessment in the text. Thus, these examples reflect the evaluation model of "one's own is good", "someone else's is bad", and also indicate the gradation and instability of the category of "one's own", where "someone else" becomes "other" due to a change in axiological direction.

In confirmation of the above, it is worth giving an example from the travel notes of another traveler Robert Liala. In his description of the peasant market, an invisible barrier is created between "one's own" and "someone else's". Despite the absence of an obvious comparison of "one's own" and "someone else's", the image of Russians, more precisely, their actions, is presented negatively: "Groups of rudely habited peasants, male and female, were occupied in buying and selling all sorts of provision: coarse cloth, sheep-skin shoobs, wool, common sorts of fruit, vegetables, ...ready made windows, lapti, and live animals, were all huddled together in the greatest confusion.^[29] There is no negative connotation in the meaning of the words "cloth", "shoobs", "wool", etc., however, the accumulation of all these goods in one market seems inappropriate to the traveler: huddled together in the greatest confusion (-). The combination of the verb huddle (per. folded randomly) and the noun confusion (per. mess or chaos) reflect a negative subjective assessment. ^[31] The development of the textual situation aggravates the author's dislike of the picture he saw by describing the sale of coffins among products and clothing. On the example of this and the following passages, a contextual increment of meaning is traced, when a negative meaning is actualized in a specific statement of the author. The negative assessment is reinforced by the rather intensifier, which is usually used for a negative (undesirability, rejection) assessment of the situation ^[31]: “... but what had rather a disgusting (-) effect was, a number of coffins (-), painted and unpainted, very prominently displayed up on a cart, which met with a ready sale." So, the image of a "stranger" is endowed with a negative assessment of "bad", while in the absence of comparison, "own" is not explicitly labeled as "good", but it is assumed to be so.

Nevertheless, traveling in Russia, the author does not seek only criticism. The image of the "alien world" acquires both negative and positive coloring.  Against the background of squalid peasant dwellings (rooms are very uncomfortable (-), dirty(-), miserable (-)), the opposite image of the nobility appears (extremely hospitable (+), luxurious bath (+), excellent supper(+), luxurious feast (+)); the gloomy atmosphere of the surrounding reality (bad roads (-), miserable gloomy town (-), muddy river (-), melancholy impressions (-)) is replaced by a colorful landscape (rich, beautiful and extremely fertile (+); nature is seen in her fantastic wildness and sterility (+), varied and pretty (+)). These examples confirm not only the versatility of individual assessment, but also the axiological flexibility of the category "alien". The outside world can be both repulsive ("alien") and worthy of a certain interest ("other").

In this sense, the travel notes about Russia by the American journalist Charles Anderson Dan are of particular interest. Otherness  Russia is represented in an exceptionally positive way and the opposition "own-other" in this case is stable. Also, in the description of everyday life, architecture, transport and residents of Russia, there is an inverse evaluation: "own" neutral or negative, "other" good.

Charles Anderson describes in detail his journey to Rostov by rail: "railways are safe, comfortable and agreeable", "sleeping seems to be better that in our most luxurious cars", "The journey ... landed us at our destinations with less fatigue and less disturbance of the nerves than we should be likely to experience in going from New York to Chicago or to Omaha" ^[25].

It is also possible to trace the reverse evaluation by the example of an excerpt describing a trade exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod. According to the author, the goods (metal, silk, wood, etc.) presented by Russia are not only distinguished by their skillful manufacture (admirable, astonishing, magic, amazing), but thereby surpass European and American in quality: "just as admirable as in any of the older and more practiced countries". ^[25]

Aesthetic evaluation is verbalized when describing the national Russian cuisine, which also could not leave the author of the notes indifferent: "stchy and borsh ...-works of art". «Tea is something ecstatic, …tea of such beautiful, inexplicable, delightful, living excuisitness». ^[25]

The image of the "other" in these travel notes about Russia is realized with the help of adjectives with a positive evaluative meaning (safe (+), "comfortable" (+), most luxurious (+), admirable (+), ecstatic (+)), etc.; epithets work of art, living exuisitness, etc.

Russian Russians, in addition to other cultural realities of Russia, Charles Dana describes the image of the Russians themselves, expressing an ethical assessment of the Russian character: "Peculiarity of Russian character, namely, kindness and generosity towards strangers, "the most kind-hearted people in the world."The author has to admit that he hardly behaved the same way in a similar situation: "I was ashamed of myself; for I could not imagine devoting a whole half hour to the service of three or four unknown foreigners at the Grand Central Station." ^[25] On the example of this passage, the reverse evaluation is traced: "I" is negative, "other" is positive. The positive image of the Russian character is explicitly expressed by the author with the help of nouns: kindness (+), generosity (+), and the superlative of the adjective the most kind-hearted (+). While "I" (my own) is represented negatively due to the reflexive form of the verb ashamed of myself (-) and the negative form of the verb couldn't imagine (-).

Using the example of these passages, it is possible to trace not only the axiological potential of the category "other", but also the linguistic representation of the opposition "own-other" itself. So "one's own" and "other" are explicated by a complex of linguistic means: 1) pronouns our, we, I (own)–they, their, these (alien); 2) with the adjective English (one's own) – Russian (alien); and 3) with the actual toponyms England, the Grand Central Station (one's own) –Russia (alien).

Thus, the analysis of scientific literature allows us to establish the presence of an ambivalent assessment ("good" or "bad") of the category "friend-foe". Finding the author in a different, new cultural space for him is the factor that sets the evaluation orientation of the category and fixes it on the evaluation scale ("other" - "neutral", "other"- "good", "alien"-"bad"). However, as empirical material has shown, the "friend-foe" opposition and its gradual character are highly subjective. In the travel notes of Mary Holderness and Robert Liala, the image of Russians is revealed with the help of a full evaluative potential. The picture of the world consists not only of the "extreme" values ("friend-foe", "good-bad") of the gradual opposition, but also of those that are in the continuum of the author's perception. So, on the material of these travel notes, the image of a Russian ("not his own") is presented in many ways: as "other" (positively), "other" (neutrally) and "alien" (negatively).

Of particular interest are the travel notes of Charles Anderson Dan. The positive degree of evaluation of Russians does not change throughout the trip. With the help of various evaluative values, the image of Russians is explicitly presented to the reader as "different", exceptionally positive, sometimes surpassing "their own". The image of Russians is fixed by the author on the evaluation scale and does not lend itself to changing the influence of extralinguistic factors. 

In the course of the study, a set of lexical means was identified that explicitly or implicitly axiologically mark the opposition "friend-foe". Most often, the author's subjective assessment is expressed at the expense of adjectives, which, depending on their lexical meaning, can express a general or particular assessment. Nouns, adverbs, verbs and pronouns are used less frequently. The choice of certain lexical means is individually determined. As the empirical material shows, there is no single model of the author's perception that would correspond to the idea that "one's own" is always "good" and "someone else's" is "bad". In the relations of the two categories "assessment" and "friend-foe", the only invariant is the opposition, where "friend" is the author of travel notes and their reader, and "stranger" ("other", "other")- this is the described image of Russians. At the same time, the status of the object of evaluation is not stable and may change due to the high degree of author's subjectivity. Thus, in different texts, there is an axiological diversity of the category "friend-stranger": "friend" can be both exclusively positive and negative, while the labeling of "alien" can change from negative (actually "alien"), neutral ("other") to positive ("other").