Германские языки | Филологический аспект №10 (126) Октябрь 2025

Лингвистические особенности выражения оценки в контексте автостереотипов англичан

Исхакова Рита Фанисовна
канд. филол. наук, доцент кафедры английского языка в сфере наук о Земле, Факультет иностранных языков, Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, РФ, г. Санкт-Петербург, ritaiskhakova@gmail.com

Аннотация: В статье рассматриваются особенности языкового выражения оценки в ситуациях нарушения неписаных правил, соотносимых с автостереотипами англичан. Материалом исследования послужили примеры из книги Кейт Фокс «Watching the English», проанализированные с точки зрения типов оценки, их лексических, грамматических и прагматических средств выражения. Выявлено, что в английской культуре оценка характеризуется стратегией косвенности, доминированием негативной реакции при нарушении норм и культурной значимостью иронии и самоиронии как способов смягчения коммуникативного напряжения. Показано, что лингвистические средства оценки не только фиксируют отклонение от нормы, но и выполняют важную культурно-регулятивную функцию, поддерживая автостереотипы и формируя представления о национальной идентичности.
Ключевые слова: оценочность, автостереотипы, косвенность, прагматика, английская культура

Iskhakova Rita Fanisovna
PhD in Philology, assistant professor of The Department of English Language in the sphere of Earth sciences, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Saint Petersburg State University, Russia, Saint Petersburg, ritaiskhakova@gmail.com

Abstract: The article examines the linguistic features of evaluation in situations where unwritten rules associated with English autostereotypes are violated. The research material consists of examples from Kate Fox’s Watching the English, analyzed in terms of types of evaluation, their lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic markers. The study reveals that English evaluative practices are characterized by indirectness, the predominance of negative reactions to norm violations, and the cultural importance of irony and self-irony as strategies for mitigating communicative tension. It is shown that evaluative expressions not only indicate deviations from norms but also serve as a cultural regulatory mechanism, reinforcing autostereotypes and shaping national identity
Keywords: evaluation, autostereotypes, indirectness, pragmatics, English culture

In the process of perceiving the surrounding reality, an individual acquires representations of the objective world around them. Throughout their life, the process of cognition provides memory with data, which are subsequently subjected to selection, constant revision, and reworking in accordance with the existing experience, values, attention, and emotions. In this way, a person’s worldview, including their linguistic worldview, is formed and continuously enriched.

The linguistic worldview constitutes the core of an individual’s perception of the world. It encompasses a set of personal knowledge, evaluations, and interpretations of reality, bears its essential features, and, in essence, is identical to the linguistic portrait of the speaker [1, p. 192]. In the course of cognition, a person also acquires the experience of previous generations, including folklore, proverbs, and sayings; stereotypes may also be included in this category [2, p. 133]. The Polish anthropologist J. Bartmiński classifies the stereotype as a unit of the worldview, alongside the concept [12, p. 38].

The aim of this study is to analyze and describe the linguistic expression of evaluation when unwritten rules, correlated with English autostereotypes, are violated. The notion of stereotype was introduced by W. Lippmann, who defined stereotypes as ordered, schematic, culturally determined “pictures” of the world “in the head” of an individual. They save effort in perceiving complex social objects and protect one’s values, positions, and rights. Since stereotypes are based on feelings and emotions, they are inherently evaluative, and they do not function merely as simplifications [4].

Stereotypes have been of great interest and have been studied from different perspectives across many disciplines: sociology, psychology, ethnography, linguistics, ethnolinguistics and ethnopsychology.

In this article, we follow the definition given by V.V. Krasnykh, according to whom a stereotype is a fragment of the conceptual worldview that exists in one’s consciousness [2, p. 231]. Concerning typology, modern researchers propose classifications on various grounds; some of them include:

• by the object of stereotyping: racial, ethnic, geographic, gender, social, political, professional, etc. [6, p. 285];
• by the subject of stereotyping: collective and individual;
• by the dichotomy “us vs. them”: autostereotypes (representations of one’s own social group) and heterostereotypes (representations of other nations) [13, p. 134]. In many studies, heterostereotypes are referred to as “ethnic stereotypes” or “national-cultural stereotypes.”

The latter classification is of particular importance to us, since our objective is to examine unwritten rules associated with English autostereotypes.

In intercultural communication, stereotypes allow an individual to form preconceived notions about a given nation before actual interaction with its representatives. They reflect stable, emotionally colored standards of perception – both of one’s own ethnocultural group (autostereotypes) and of others (heterostereotypes) [6, p. 130]. These standards may be seen as sets of expectations “imposed” on members of a culture, which may be either confirmed or refuted during communication. Such representations are often one-sided, simplified, or even distorted.

Stereotypes may therefore be regarded as expected scenarios, or models of behavior [4, p. 232], predictable responses to life situations. Alongside stability and generalization, ethnoregional stereotypes are also characterized by emotional coloring [7, p. 56]. Moreover, auto- and heterostereotypes ensure the continuity of traditional images of both one’s own and foreign peoples.

Autostereotypes, on the one hand, describe how an ethnoregional community views itself, sometimes with ironic self-mockery [7, p. 57]. On the other hand, they exert a serious influence on members of that community, fostering the development of the very traits ascribed by the stereotype – thus, autostereotypes tend to reinforce themselves [14, p. 58].

Autostereotypes frequently imply the existence of a set of unwritten rules or behavioral codes. Following these rules serves to mark one as an insider and distinguish outsiders or becomes the ground for other types of evaluation.

This article attempts to examine and describe the linguistic expression of situations in which a particular stereotypical scenario – namely, an unwritten rule – is violated by participants, and the type of evaluation that follows.

The research material consists of 247 excerpts obtained through continuous sampling from the anthropologist Kate Fox’s book Watching the English. The selection criterion was the presence of descriptions of unwritten rules typical of English culture and evaluative reactions to their violation.

The unit of analysis is a situation illustrating a typical scenario in which one of the participants violates an unwritten rule. Within each situation, the following components are identified:

• the subject – the person performing the action within a standard scenario, yet violating the rule either unintentionally or deliberately;
• the action – the act performed within the scenario that involves breaking the unwritten rule and thereby triggers evaluation;
• the evaluation – the assessment the subject receives from other participants for violating the unwritten rule; thus becoming the object of evaluation;
• the reaction – the possible communicative or behavioral response to the violation from others.

In linguistic research, evaluation is conventionally divided into rational and emotional, since any evaluation is subjective. Moreover, in natural language, purely emotional evaluation is impossible, as language itself always implies a rational aspect; therefore, this opposition is rather arbitrary [8, p. 53].

Therefore, we will proceed from the premise that the concept of evaluation, broadly understood, includes not only rational (logical, intellectual) qualification of what is communicated but also various kinds of emotional (irrational) reactions [9, p. 97].

The main function of rational evaluation is to indicate whether the object corresponds to the subject’s notion of a standard or norm, established by rational comparison within a given category. Rational evaluation may be described as “thought evaluation.” Based on this, we can assume that when a familiar scenario is followed without deviation, i.e., when the expected action consistent with the unwritten rule occurs, the evaluation tends to be rational. It fits into a recurrent situation to which individuals are accustomed within their native culture. Such an evaluation is predictable, expected, and devoid of spontaneity, for example, it serves to mark the object as “one of us.”

Emotional evaluation, by contrast, involves the speaker’s experience of their relation to the object of discourse, their affective impression of it. It is directly connected to the situation in which it is expressed [10, p. 88]. Emotional evaluation highlights those characteristics of the object considered “facultative,” unnecessary, or indicators of deviation from expectation.

Consequently, we can hypothesize that in cases where a familiar scenario is violated, wholly or partially, the evaluation will include not only rational categorization of the object (e.g., as “other”) but also an emotional dimension. Furthermore, positive and negative evaluations are asymmetrical: negative assessments are more finely differentiated than positive ones, which is linked to the psychological predisposition to regard the good as the norm [11, p. 121]. Thus, adherence to unwritten rules tends to be taken for granted, while violation of such rules provokes noticeable evaluative and reactive responses.

In analyzing the material, we classified the examples illustrating situations of unwritten rule violation according to the following parameters:

• the type of unwritten rule;
• the subject of the situation and linguistic means of its expression;
• the evaluation and possible reaction, along with their linguistic realization.

We distinguish between explicit evaluation, expressed lexically through evaluative units, and implicit evaluation, conveyed metaphorically or through irony, which acquires evaluative meaning depending on context.

By reaction, we understand a particular response to violation of an unwritten rule, which may be expressed verbally (direct remark, comment, verbal condemnation) or nonverbally (facial expression, gesture, ignoring, topic change). Unlike evaluation, reaction represents an immediate communicative act directed at another participant. Thus, evaluation demonstrates a value-laden perception of the phenomenon, while reaction represents a behavioral response to it.

Let us now consider a selection of examples that are representative in terms of rule types, linguistic markers of evaluation, and illustrative value for demonstrating English autostereotypes. We also consider the pragmatic aspect of evaluation and offer cultural interpretations, i.e., how evaluative reactions reinforce English autostereotypes.

1) The pantomime rule: There is, however, a strict etiquette involved in attracting the attention of bar staff: this must be done without speaking, without making any noise and without resorting to the vulgarity of obvious gesticulation. The object is to make eye contact with the barman. But calling out to him is not permitted, and almost all other obvious means of attracting attention, such as tapping coins on the counter, snapping fingers or waving are equally frowned upon.

This example illustrates the so-called “pantomime rule”, an unwritten rule of behaviour in the pub whereby the attention of the barman is to be attracted only through eye contact, without words or gestures. The subject of the situation is expressed indirectly, through passive constructions and impersonal sentences, which corresponds to the general strategy of indirectness in British culture.

The normative character of the rule is emphasized by the phrase strict etiquette, the modal verb must, and the additional categorical force is created by the triple repetition of the prepositional phrase with without. Negative evaluation of violations is verbalized by the noun vulgarity and by passive constructions with the verb permit and the phrasal verb frown upon, which convey alienation, although the manner of presentation still remains indirect.

Pragmatically, the indirect evaluation of rule violation serves to mitigate communicative tension and to preserve harmony, while at the same time clearly indicating the unacceptability of transgression. Culturally, the example confirms the English autostereotype of valuing non-interference and restraint in public interaction.

2) Weather-speak greetings or openers such as “Cold, isn’t it” must be reciprocated, but etiquette also requires that the response express agreement, as in “Yes, isn’t it?” or “Mm, very cold”. Failure to agree in this manner is a serious breach of etiquette. […] If you deliberately break the rule, you will find that the atmosphere becomes rather tense and awkward, and possibly somewhat huffy. No one will actually complain or make a big scene about it, but they will be offended, and this will show in subtle ways. There may be an uncomfortable silence, then someone may say, in piqued tones, “Well, it feels cold to me,” or “Really? Do you think so? – or, most likely, they will either change the subject or continue talking about the weather among themselves, politely, if frostily, ignoring your faux pas.

This example illustrates an unwritten rule prescribing that weather-related greetings or openers must be reciprocated with agreement. It highlights the important role of this rule in etiquette: ostensibly about the weather, it actually serves to ease awkwardness at the beginning of an interaction, to demonstrate goodwill and to establish contact.

The subject of the situation is marked explicitly by the pronoun you and also implicitly through passive constructions. Grammatically, the normative force is stressed by the modal verb must; lexically, by the verb require in the third-person singular, producing the effect of an objective rule independent of the speaker.

Negative evaluation is verbalized by the expressions a serious breach of etiquette, faux pas, an uncomfortable silence, by adjectives such as tense, awkward, somewhat huffy, and by the adverb frostily. Together, these lexical items frame the violation as socially significant, though conveyed indirectly. The reaction takes both non-verbal form (they will be offended, and this will show in subtle ways; an uncomfortable silence) and indirect verbal form (change the subject or continue talking about the weather among themselves, politely, if frostily, ignoring your faux pas).

Pragmatically, the indirect evaluation and the passive-aggressive responses (silence, ignoring, topic change) aim to reduce communicative tension, maintain politeness, and yet express disapproval. Culturally, the example reflects the autostereotype of the English ritual of talking about the weather as a fundamental tool of social bonding and harmony, along with their reliance on restraint and indirect forms of sanction.

3) Paradoxically, it is only in England, where queue-jumping is considered immoral, that the queue jumper is likely to get away with the offence. We huff and puff and scowl and mutter and seethe with righteous indignation, but only rarely do we actually speak up and tell the queue-jumper to go to the back of the queue.

This example describes an unwritten rule according to which queue-jumping is perceived in England as immoral and socially unacceptable. The rule constitutes a cornerstone of English culture and appears unquestionable, its violation being so unthinkable that occasional offenders sometimes get away with it: people simply cannot believe someone would dare break it.

The subject is expressed explicitly by the noun queue-jumper, which lends categorical force to the statement and makes the violator a central figure.

Strong negative evaluation is verbalized by the adjective immoral and by a series of verbs denoting physical manifestations of irritation (huff, puff, seethe with righteous indignation), expressing non-verbal reaction. Rare direct verbal reactions are represented by the verbs speak up and tell … to go to the back of the queue. The opposition only rarely highlights that verbal confrontation is exceptional.

Pragmatically, the indirect negative reaction allows dissatisfaction to be expressed without moving into open confrontation, thereby preserving politeness and minimizing the risk of escalation. Culturally, the example confirms the English autostereotype of the queue as a sacred institution, as well as the capacity to suppress emotions and avoid open clashes even in the face of obvious injustice.

4) We don’t mind people being “brainy” or clever, as long as they don’t make a big song-and-dance about it, don’t preach or pontificate at us, don’t show off and don’t take themselves too seriously. If somebody shows signs of any of these tendencies – all unfortunately rather common among intellectuals – the English respond with our cynical national catchphrase, “Oh, come off it!” We may use whatever slang equivalent is currently favoured, such as “Get over yourself”, “Oooh – get you!” or “Could he be more up himself?” (often muttered under our breath, as is our custom, rather than addressed directly to the speaker), but the meaning is the same.

This example reflects an unwritten rule whereby displays of intellectual superiority or excessive seriousness are regarded in England as violations of communicative norms. The rule applies across all domains of life and is tightly interwoven with the pervasive English sense of humour.

The subject is expressed explicitly through nouns (people, speaker) and pronouns (they, somebody). Evaluation takes the form of direct verbal reactions in mocking condemnations, expressed through negatively charged remarks: Oh, come off it! Get over yourself! Oooh – get you! Could he be more up himself? These idiomatic expressions belong to the colloquial register. The use of the imperative mood (Get over yourself! Come off it!) enhances the effect of censure and sets a condescending tone. Such remarks are often muttered under one’s breath, aligning with the English strategy of indirectness.

Pragmatically, this evaluative practice serves to diminish excessive seriousness and arrogance, equalizing the status of the interlocutors and reducing communicative tension. Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of the English value of ironic self-awareness, intolerance of pompous self-importance, and the role of humour as a social regulator.

5) Most people observe this rule, but when an occasional rogue ostrich ignores the signs, nobody dares to confront the offender. Even in a designated “quiet” carriage, the worst an ostrich can expect is a lot of glares and pointed sighs.

This example illustrates an unwritten rule prescribing that one must not draw attention to oneself in public places, for instance by loud phone conversations.

The subject is expressed explicitly through the nouns people, an occasional rogue ostrich, the offender. Negative evaluation is marked lexically: the noun offender – a legal term intensifying negative perception; the phrase rogue ostrich – a metaphor creating an ironic image of the violator defiantly ignoring the signs. In addition, the phrase most people observe this rule frames compliance as the default norm, reinforcing the perception of violation as deviant.

The reaction is indirect: the worst an offender may expect is a lot of glares, pointed sighs. From a pragmatic perspective, this conveys strong dissatisfaction while avoiding open conflict and maintaining politeness. Culturally, the example highlights the autostereotype of English restraint and reluctance to attract attention, along with reliance on passive sanctions and indirect forms of social control.

6) The “brash American” approach: “HI! I’m Bill, how are you?” particularly if accompanied by an outstretched hand and beaming smile makes the English wince and cringe. The American tourists and visitors I spoke to during my research had been both baffled and hurt by this reaction. “I just don’t get it,” said one woman. “You say your name and they sort of wrinkle their noses like you’ve told them something a bit too personal and embarrassing.

This example reflects an unwritten rule of English etiquette – the value of privacy and distance, particularly at the initial stage of acquaintance. Violating this rule, especially through American-style greetings (Hi! I’m Bill, how are you?), provokes evident displeasure among the English.

The subject is represented collectively (the American tourists) and individually by the pronoun you in direct speech. Negative evaluation is expressed by the adjective brash, which in the British cultural code connotes excessive bluntness and pushiness, as well as by verbs denoting reactions of disgust or discomfort (wince, wrinkle their noses, cringe).

Pragmatically, this passive sanction without verbal explanation serves as a marker of rejection without open conflict. It signals rule violation but leaves it to the offender to interpret what was done wrong. Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of English restraint and formality in first contacts, as well as sensitivity to invasions of personal space in communication.

7) At the most basic level, an underlying rule in all English conversation is the proscription of “earnestness”. Although we may not have a monopoly on humour, or even on irony, the English are probably more acutely sensitive than any other nation to the distinction between “serious” and “solemn”, between “sincerity” and “earnestness”.

This example demonstrates a fundamental rule of English interaction – the proscription of excessive seriousness devoid of humour, especially in its pompous or solemn form (solemn, earnest). The rule functions as a marker of identity: the inability to grasp the distinction between permissible seriousness and pompous earnestness immediately reveals an outsider, regardless of their linguistic competence.

The author contrasts pairs of concepts: serious ↔ solemn, sincere ↔ earnest. Linguistically, the rule is reinforced by parallel antonymic pairs, categorical intensifiers (never, entirely, full of glaring errors), and the metaphor of “behavioural grammar,” transferring linguistic norms to norms of conduct. The phrase never feel or appear entirely at home in conversation indirectly conveys social exclusion, while full of glaring errors provides direct negative evaluation of “behavioural” mistakes.

Pragmatically, the evaluative form plays a key role: indirect evaluation through the metaphor of “behavioural grammar” and direct evaluation via the phrase full of glaring errors stress that these are not minor slips but systematic breaches of the cultural code. Such evaluation both marks boundaries between insiders and outsiders and sanctions the unacceptability of excessive seriousness without self-irony. Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of the English placing central importance on self-irony and lightness of tone, perceiving their absence as a violation of a fundamental norm and a direct threat to communicative comfort.

8) The problems arise when we English attempt to play this game with people from outside our own culture, who do not understand the rules, fail to appreciate the irony, and therefore have an unfortunate tendency to take our self-deprecating statements at face value. We make our customary modest noises, the uninitiated foreigners accept our apparently low estimate of our achievements and are duly unimpressed. 

This example illustrates one of the key unwritten rules of English interaction—the habit and readiness to joke in a typically self-deprecating manner, deliberately downplaying one’s own achievements or importance. The rule functions to ease tension and maintain equality within the in-group; however, in intercultural interaction it may backfire, as outsiders take such ironic modesty literally and underestimate English achievements.

The subject is represented by phrases such as people from outside our own culture, uninitiated foreigners, set in opposition to we English. Foreigners are characterized ironically as those who do not understand the rules.

Negative evaluation is indirect, verbalized through expressions like fail to appreciate the irony, have an unfortunate tendency to take at face value, are duly unimpressed, all portraying a cultural barrier whereby foreigners miss the subtext. Pragmatically, evaluation plays a dual role: on the one hand, indirect negative formulations mark outsiders as unable to appreciate the subtle game; on the other, the ironic phrase customary modest noises simultaneously self-labels the English, demonstrating their ability to ritualize modesty. Thus, evaluation serves both as a tool of in-group/out-group differentiation and as reinforcement of the autostereotype, where ironic self-deprecation becomes the norm of behaviour.

Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of the English as a nation unable to abandon irony even at the expense of their own image and emphasizes their deep aversion to open self-promotion.

9) Although conversations about house prices have become a staple at middle-class dinner parties, they are conducted in accordance with a delicate etiquette. It is absolutely forbidden to ask directly what smb paid for their house (or indeed any item in it): this is almost as unforgivably rude as asking them what they earn. […..] Raised eyebrows and a bit of embarrassed throat-clearing are probably the worst that can happen to you when you commit breaches of English diver-party etiquette, so my experiments might not sound particularly heroic. Maybe you have to be English to know just how wounding those eyebrows and coughs can be.

This example illustrates one of the key taboos of English etiquette: direct questions about money, prices, or income (including the price of a house) are deemed unacceptable. The rule corresponds to the overall strategy of demonstrative modesty and apparent social equality: discussing personal finances undermines this stance.

The subject is expressed implicitly, via passive constructions (it is forbidden), reflecting the generalized and impersonal nature of the rule, and explicitly through the generic pronoun you, representing any potential violator.

Violation is evaluated in absolute terms: absolutely forbidden, unforgivably rude – framing it as a grave breach of etiquette. Yet, typical English reactions are minimalistic and non-verbal: raised eyebrows, a bit of embarrassed throat-clearing, coughs. These carry strong pragmatic force but only for those familiar with the cultural code: insiders recognize them as severe condemnation, whereas outsiders may underestimate their significance.

Pragmatically, the evaluation lies in the fact that direct questions about money are placed in the category of “serious offences.” Yet the form of reaction highlights the unique specificity of English evaluation: minimalist and outwardly mild but functioning as harsh sanction within the cultural frame. Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of the English as avoiding displays of material superiority and relying on silent disapproval rather than open confrontation.

10) If you do not indulge in the customary convivial moaning about work, there is a danger that you will be seen as too keen and earnest, and labelled a “sad geek”, a sycophantic “suck” or “brown nose”, or a self-important “pompous git”. […..] You must moan in a relatively good-humoured, light-hearted manner. However genuinely grumpy you may be feeling, this must be disguised as mock-grumpiness.

This example illustrates an unwritten rule of English workplace communication – the obligatory participation in ritualized, good-humoured complaining about work (customary convivial moaning). It is a social ritual requiring display of dissatisfaction, but in a humorous, parodic manner. Genuine, excessive complaining, by contrast, is unwelcome. Ritual moaning functions as social glue, offering a shared conversational topic and reinforcing an ironic atmosphere, while also preventing excessive seriousness that might disrupt the group balance.

The subject is marked by the generic pronoun you, highlighting the universal applicability of the rule. Evaluation is expressed conditionally: failure to moan in the prescribed way risks one being labelled with culturally loaded adjectives (keen, earnest) and social epithets (sad geek, suck, brown nose, pompous git), marking the violator as an outsider.

Pragmatically, evaluation operates through sanctions and labels: refusal to take part in ritual moaning results in immediate negative marking, excluding the violator from the group. At the same time, positive evaluation is implicitly assigned to those who successfully follow the rule: the ability to moan in an ironic manner is the marker of in-group membership. Culturally, the example confirms the autostereotype of the English as avoiding excessive seriousness and using self-irony, including mock-grumpiness, as a key marker of belonging.

11) The anti-earnestness rules state that you can talk with colleagues or workmates about an important project or problem in the pub, but pompous, self-important or boring speeches are not allowed. You may, if you are senior enough, get away with those in workplace meetings (although you will not be popular), but in the pub, if you become too long-winded, too serious or too “up yourself”, you will be summarily told “to come off it” or “put a sock on it!’

This example illustrates an unwritten rule of informal communication with colleagues in the pub: it is permissible to discuss serious work topics, but pompous or self-important speeches are prohibited. In the workplace, senior colleagues may still indulge in such behaviour (at the cost of popularity), but in the pub the anti-earnestness rule applies categorically. The rule performs a levelling function, maintaining equality: even senior staff are stripped of hierarchical privilege in this setting.

The subject is expressed through the generic pronoun you, which marks the rule as universal and binding on all. Negative evaluation is conveyed by adjectives (pompous, self-important, boring) and the triple repetition too long-winded, too serious, too “up yourself”, fixing the boundaries of unacceptable behaviour. Direct reactions take the form of colloquial idiomatic imperatives (come off it, put a sock on it). While brusque, they retain a humorous tone, softening censure.

Pragmatically, evaluation here consists in immediate and rather strict social control: behaviour that breaches the rule is swiftly marked as unacceptable through sharp idiomatic responses. Even with humorous colouring, these utterances function as public censure and signal collective disapproval of excessive seriousness. Culturally, the rule confirms the autostereotype of the English as intolerant of pompous seriousness in informal communication, and as willing to sanction it openly, albeit in a humorous key.

12) What is distinctively English, and often baffling or even frightening even for foreigners, is the immense almost religious significance attached to the practice among English pubgoers. Obeying the rules of round-buying is not just good manners, it is a sacred obligation. Failing to buy your round is not just a breach of drinking etiquette, it is heresy.

This example reflects the unwritten rule of pub culture: the “sacred obligation” of each participant to buy a round for the whole group, after which the turn passes to the next. To fail to follow this rule is not merely to breach etiquette but to commit an act on the level of heresy, highlighting the quasi-sacred status of the practice. The rule maintains both equality and trust: each participant demonstrates willingness to belong. Moreover, the ritual reduces the risk of conflict: it is difficult to quarrel seriously with someone you are about to treat.

The subject is represented by the noun phrase English pubgoers and implicitly by impersonal constructions, which convey universality.

Negative evaluation is expressed both indirectly – through metaphors of near-religious significance (almost religious significance, a sacred obligation) – and directly, via expressions such as not just a breach of drinking etiquette, it is heresy. The hyperbolic form intensifies perception of the rule as absolute.

Pragmatically, evaluation is built upon maximized social condemnation: violation is not framed as minor negligence but is hyperbolized to sacrilege, leaving the offender no excuse. Culturally, the rule confirms the autostereotype of the English regarding the central role of the pub: a special space governed by laws of equality and solidarity, where even the purchase of drinks acquires “sacred” meaning.

The analysis of all the examples reveals a complex of linguistic mechanisms and features in expressing evaluation of violations of unwritten rules, correlated with English autostereotypes.

In English culture, evaluation is manifested through lexis with strong ethical and social connotations. Negative evaluation tends to be explicitly verbalized, while positive evaluation is more often implicit, registered through the absence of sanctions or by marking behaviour as “the norm.” Metaphorical and figurative means are widely employed, enabling emotional attitudes to be conveyed in a softened, ironic way.

A key characteristic is indirectness, realized through passive constructions, modal verbs, and nominalizations. This strategy shifts focus from the subject to the action, reducing confrontational force and preserving neutrality.

Negative reactions are often mitigated by irony, self-irony, euphemism, and non-verbal means. These mechanisms support social equilibrium and minimize interpersonal conflict.

Evaluation not only records deviation from the norm but also serves as a marker of belonging, distinguishing insiders from outsiders by mastery of subtle communicative norms. Linguistic means of evaluation reinforce English autostereotypes, define the boundaries of acceptability and consolidate notions of national identity.

Thus, evaluation functions not merely as emotional or rational stance, but as a cultural instrument of social control.

1. Хомякова Е.Г. Прагматика информационной миграции в рамках когнитивно-информационной ситуации с глаголами памяти // XXXIV Международная филологическая конференция. Выпуск 14. Филологический факультет СПбГУ, 2005. – С. 187 – 194.
2. Душенко К. В. «Лях» и «Москаль»: взаимные стереотипы поляков и русских // Человек: Образ и сущность. Гуманитарные аспекты. 2003. №1. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/lyah-i-moskal-vzaimnye-stereotipy-polyakov-i-russkih (дата обращения: 10.10.2025).
3. Липпман Уолтер. Общественное мнение. – М.: АСТ, 2025. – 448 с.
4. Красных свой среди чужих «Свой» среди «чужих»: миф или реальность?.— М.: ЙТДГК «Гнозис», 2003. – 375 с.
5. Леонтович О.А. Русские и американцы: парадоксы межкультурного общения. М.: Гнозис, 2005. – 352 с.
6. Хубешты, А.Ф. Стереотипизация как механизм социальной перцепции в условиях межкультурного и межэтнического взаимодействия // Общество: социология, психология, педагогика, 2020 г. №6. С. 127-130.
7. Миньяр-Белоручева А. П., Покровская М. Е. Этнические стереотипы в англоязычном пространстве: визуальные образы-персонификации и вербальные образы-антропонимы // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 14. Психология. 2013. №1. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/etnicheskie-stereotipy-v-angloyazychnom-prostranstve-vizualnye-obrazy-personifikatsii-i-verbalnye-obrazy-antroponimy (дата обращения: 10.10.2025).
8. Пантеева К.В. Рациональная и эмоциональная оценка: все дело в экспрессивности? [Текст] / К.В. Пантеева // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия «Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация». 2020. Т. 18. № 3. С. 47–58.
9. Блохина Т.Р. Особенности рационального и эмоционального типов оценки в речевом жанре «онлайн отзыв» (на материале русского, английского и французского языков. // Филология. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2022. №6. С. 96–99.
10. Паничева П.Н. Характеристика эмоциональной оценки и ее реализация в восклицательном предложении // Вестник Пятигорского государственного лингвистического университета. Молодежное приложение. – Пятигорск, 2003. С. 86-91.
11. Кезина С.В., Киселева Л.А., Сергеева Л.А. Репрезентация эмоциональной сферы человека в диалектной картине мира (на материале русских говоров Башкирии) // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики Тамбов: Грамота, 2020. Том 13. Выпуск 11. C. 119-122.

Список источников
12. Маслова, В. А. Лингвокультурология. Введение: учебник для вузов / В. А. Маслова ; ответственный редактор У. М. Бахтикиреева. — 2-е изд., перераб. и доп. — Москва: Издательство Юрайт, 2025. — 208 с. — (Высшее образование). — ISBN 978-5-534-06586-2. — Текст : электронный // Образовательная платформа Юрайт [сайт]. с. 44 — URL: https://urait.ru/bcode/564014/p.44 (дата обращения: 10.10.2025).
13. Тер-Минасова, С.Г. Язык и межкультурная коммуникация: учебное пособие для студентов, аспирантов и соискателей по специальности «Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация». М.: МГУ им М. В. Ломоносова, 2022. – 262 с.
14. Маслова В.А. Когнитивная лингвистика: Учебное пособие / В. А. Маслова. - Мн.: ТетраСистемс, 2004. – 256 с.
15. Kate Fox. Watching the English. – Hodder & Stoughton, 2014. 592 p.