Oleg H. Hirnyak, oleh.h.hirniak@lpnu.ua

Ph.D. student

Lviv Polytechnic National University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/StudLing2023.22.48-63



Words used to identify ethnic groups, nationalities, or nations are called ethnonyms. These terms come from different sources and represent various aspects of a particular group’s culture and history. Ethnonyms can affect how an ethnic group sees themselves and how others perceive them, as they often contain auto-stereotypes and reflect perceptions of other communities. These names are essential to the language of each group and help shape their worldview based on the linguistic community’s stereotypes. Stereotypes and associations related to ethnonyms are deeply rooted in society and culture. The effect of wartime experiences has significantly altered the stereotypes of the Ukrainian-speaking community, indicating their flexibility over time.

This article discusses the evaluation concept in linguistics, which involves expressing one’s subjective attitude toward a particular topic in speech. Objective and subjective factors play a role in the evaluative activity, including elements like axiological predicates, motivation, classifiers, and intensifiers. Categorization is an essential aspect of human cognitive activity, as it allows us to organize knowledge into distinct categories based on similarities and differences between objects and phenomena. Each category is multifaceted and interdependent with others. The article applies these concepts to the analysis of the ethnonym moskal” and its derivatives, which have negative connotations and emotional associations in the Ukrainian segment of the Internet. Using these terms in different contexts can elicit positive or negative reactions, which should be considered when analyzing their usage.

Keywords: Emotions, communication, national identity, ethnicity, Internet environment, axiological predicates.


  1. Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017).
  2. Cesco, D., & Dijk, T. A., van. “Emotionalizing media discourse: Emotion expressions in newspaper texts.” Journal of Language and Politics 18 (1) (2019): 66-88.
  3. Lenets’, K. V. «Sufiksy uvyraznyuyut’ [Expression with suffixes].» Kul’tura slova15 (1978).
  4. Dijk, Teun van. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach (GB, Cambridge University Press, 2014).
  5. Haugh,, & Chang, W. L. “Theorizing and analyzing the dynamics of power and solidarity in language use: A conversation analytic perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 139 (2018): 66-82.
  6. Lazarovych, O. «Movni stereotypy i movna kartyna svitu [Language stereotypes and the linguistic picture of the world].» Kul’tura narodov Prychernomor’ya32 (2002): 79-81.
  7. Hirnyak, O. “Approaches to the understanding of the concept of ‘emotional vocabulary’ in modern linguistics.” Actual problems of philology and translation studies: a collection of scientific papers 16 (2019): 30-34.
  8. Hirnyak, O. “Sentiment analysis of emotionally expressive ethnicity assessment (based on the internet posts).” Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Systems. Proceedings, 2022. Proceedings of the 6th International conference ‘Computational linguistics and intelligent systems’ COLINS 2022 (Gliwice, Poland, May 12-13, 2022), vol. II: workshop: 57-70.
  9. Koller, V. “Analyzing evaluative meaning in media discourse.” Discourse, Context & Media29 (2019): 1-8.
  10. Kryva, U., & Dilai, M. “Automatic Detection of Sentiment and Theme of English and Ukrainian Song Lyrics.” CSIT: Proceedings of IEEE 14th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Information Technologies (Lviv, 2019): 20-23.
  11. Lippman, U. Public Opinion, trans. by T. Barchunova, ed. by K. Levinson & K. Petrenko (Institute of the Foundation “Public Opinion”, 2004).
  12. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English (Springer, 2019).
  13. Musolff, A. Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries, No Cake, No Jam (Palgrave Macmillan, 2020).
  14. O’Halloran, K. L. “Multimodal discourse analysis.” In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., & Sandel, T. (eds.). The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2018): 1-13.
  15. Rosch, E., & Thompson, E. “The categorization of experience: A review essay.” In Semin, V. A., & Gigerenzer, G. (eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Social and Emotional Development (Routledge, 2017): 15-28.
  16. Xu, F. “Evaluation in academic discourse: An analysis of research article introductions.” English for Specific Purposes 55 (2019): 20-32.
  17. Heneralnyi rehionalno anotovanyi korpus ukrainskoi movy (HRAK),Shvedova, R. fon Valdenfels, S. Yaryhin, A. Rysin, V. Starko, T. Nikolaienko ta in. (Kyiv, Lviv, Yena, 2017-2023), uacorpus.org.