5 5E v a l u a t i v e L a n g u a g ethe word “good” functions in the same way in all three cases: It invokes
standards that are relevant in a given context and indicates that something
adequately satisfies these standards.
Because evaluative statements invoke standards, they stand in con-
trast to utterances that merely express personal feelings. If I say that I like a
particular singer, then I am expressing a personal taste. It would normally
be very odd for someone to reply, “No, you don’t like that singer.” On the
other hand, if I call someone a good singer (or the best singer in years), then
I am going beyond expressing my personal tastes. I am saying something
that others may accept or reject. Of course, the standards for judging singers
may be imprecise, and they may shift from culture to culture. Still, to call
someone a good singer is to evaluate that person as a singer, which goes be-
yond merely expressing feelings, because it invokes standards and indicates
that the person in question meets them.
The words “good” and “bad” are general evaluative terms. Other
evaluative terms are more restrictive in their range of application. The word
“delicious” is usually used for evaluating the taste of foods; it means “good-
tasting.” A sin is a kind of wrong action, but, more specifically, it is an action
that is wrong according to religious standards. A bargain has a good price.
An illegal action is one that is legally wrong. Our language contains a great
many specific terms of evaluation like these. Here are a few more examples:
beautiful dangerous wasteful sneaky cute
murder prudent nosy sloppy smart
Each of these words expresses either a positive or a negative evaluation of a
quite specific kind.
Positive and negative evaluations can be subtle. Consider a word like
“clever.” It presents a positive evaluation in terms of quick mental ability.
In contrast, “cunning” often presents a negative evaluation of someone for
misusing mental abilities. It thus makes a difference which one of these
words we choose. It also makes a difference where we apply them. When
something is supposed to be profound and serious, it is insulting to call it
merely clever. Prayers, for example, should not be clever.
Sometimes seemingly innocuous words can shift evaluative force. The
word “too” is the perfect example of this. This word introduces a nega-
tive evaluation, sometimes turning a positive quality into a negative one.
Compare the following sentences:
John is smart. John is too smart.
John is honest. John is too honest.
John is ambitious. John is too ambitious.
John is nice. John is too nice.
John is friendly. John is too friendly.
The word “too” indicates an excess, and thereby contains a criticism.97364_ch03_ptg01_041-058.indd 55 11/14/13 1:53 PM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.