Pardaeva Farangiza Husniddin Qizi (1)
General Background: Lexical valuation is a key component in understanding language’s affective and cognitive impact across different contexts. Specific Background: Despite extensive research in semantic processing and sentiment analysis, there is limited integration of nuanced lexical perception with value-based interpretation models. Knowledge Gap: Most existing approaches overlook the dynamic interplay between lexical items and their perceived social, cultural, and emotional values. Aims: This study aims to develop a framework for lexical valuation that captures subjective, contextualized interpretations of words beyond traditional sentiment scales. Results: Findings indicate that lexical items carry varying degrees of perceived utility, prestige, and emotional resonance, which are not always aligned with their semantic neutrality or frequency of use. Novelty: The proposed valuation model introduces multi-dimensional scoring that incorporates social, psychological, and functional parameters into lexical assessment. Implications: The framework contributes to linguistics, psycholinguistics, and computational language studies by offering a refined method for modeling word perception, with applications in AI-driven language tools, educational content design, and sociolinguistic analysis.Highlight :
Proposes a novel lexical valuation approach combining distributional and curated semantic resources.
Emphasizes accurate assessment of word similarity using hybrid models.
Benchmarks performance using standardized datasets and evaluation metrics.
Keywords : Lexical Valuation, Semantic Resources, Language Modeling, Word Similarity, Evaluation Metrics
The function of language extends beyond communication because it reveals cultural elements and individual characteristics and mental processes. The study of language depends fundamentally on the notion of the lexical unit which contains elements of meaning together with social-cultural interpretations. The semantic elements that link to valuation in both English and Russian languages maintain meaningful linguistic as well as cultural implications in language usage. The research analyzes the effects of distinct cultural backgrounds on linguistic valuation by examining English together with Russian due to their different historical and philosophical foundations.
The language system uses valuation elements to show support or disapproval along with what deserves admiration and emotional or moral assessments via particular linguistic expressions. The expressions work through language as both linguistic and cultural tools to encode what communities recognize as vital or ethical matters. English valuation contexts involve both standard adjectives (brilliant, terrible) as well as idiom expressions (a blessing in disguise, не по себе) alongside metaphorical comparisons (cloud nine, duša ne na месте).
The value-based meanings in English and Russian languages exist in fundamentally different structural patterns. The pragmatism rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture combined with Enlightenment rationalism in English language leads to value expressions that focus on individual perception and personal agency and abstract evaluations. The valuation methods in Russian language emerge from its union of Orthodox spiritualism with collectivist philosophy and emotional expression traditions that create deeply contextualized value judgments. The English language uses detached adjectives such as “smart” and “inspiring” to discuss situations yet Russian lies in describing value through the emotional state of the speaker (e.g. родной [native/beloved] and противный [disgusting])
The research evaluates the ways conceptual along with cultural distinctions express themselves through valuation terminology within English and Russian. The study employs qualitative surveys to gather natural speech from native English and Russian speakers when they participate in value-sensitive situations and imagined evaluation tasks and emotional triggers. Thus the methodology maintains that lexical units need to stay in context as elements of communicative discourse.
This research project has three main goals.
1. The investigation establishes a classification system for valuation language elements in both English and Russian languages.
2. This research provides an analysis of the cultural roots behind the selected lexical options.
3. Through research we can understand how speakers from English and Russian languages perceive and use their valuation lexicons in relation to each other.
The strong reason to conduct this research pertains to its direct connection with intercultural communication studies. The incorrect understanding of value in communication can produce erroneous interpretations regarding speaker motivation along with voice tones and emotional expressions which are central factors in translation work and actions of diplomatic officials and educational staffs and researchers in cross-cultural psychology fields. This investigation enhances present academic debates in cognitive linguistics while providing theoretical knowledge and practical uses to cultural semantics and cross-linguistic pragmatics.
The mental representation of lexical units exceeds mere dictionary definitions because they form psychological constructs between linguistic patterns and cultural data. In Russian speaking vocabularies use emotional strength associated with cultural heritage yet the English language prioritizes both accurate definitions and adaptable expressions. The Russian word щедрый adds moral evaluation and feelings of warmth together with religious virtue to describe generosity although English people use the term only to indicate free givers. English speakers perceive the term “assertive” as suitable for leadership yet Russians may interpret the Russian equivalent word “самоуверенный” as overconfidence and arrogance.
A research approach requiring multiple disciplines becomes essential to understand value-based lexical units in a linguistic-cultural context. Both linguistics and anthropology together with psychology and philosophy must support this investigation. Successful research conceptualization bases on the theoretical elements of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and cognitive metaphor theory (Lakoff & Johnson) and cultural scripts (Wierzbicka). The examined theories demonstrate how language serves as a catalyst for thinking by actively forming human cognition especially while expressing judgments and values.
This study makes use of an online survey that collects evaluative feedback from both English and Russian speakers when they respond to social, ethical, and emotional situations. I will analyze the responses through the combination of semantic field analysis and metaphor analysis and cultural discourse evaluation techniques. The research data analysis will show standard valuation principles shared by all humans combined with cultural-specific valuation perceptions.
The research results will demonstrate essential discoveries regarding how speakers of English and Russian make their way through linguistic value domains. This investigation creates new knowledge about emotional and moral conceptualization across different cultures which can benefit translation processes and cross-cultural teaching as well as artificial intelligence language systems.
The study evaluates how linguistic-cultural concepts associated with valuation-related lexical units define our understanding of value transactions between people across English and Russian language domains.
According to lexical semantics language elements carry more value than simple meaning transfer as they harbor conceptually complex social understanding that varies per culture [1]. The most influential lexical items determine value-related meaning since these terms frequently contain both emotional along with social components. The English word “fair” shows its meaning as justice or beauty or neutrality based on context but the Russian term "справедливый" (spravedlivyi) maintains social moral and community ties which standardize the public's ethical perception.
According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis the basic premise states that languages direct mental processes by dividing conceptual aspects differently [4]. Cultural praise and criticism show linguistic restrictions because of the specific element structure each culture uses.
According to Lakoff and Johnson the theory of conceptual metaphor demonstrates that metaphors function deeply within our cognitive processes. Researchers find that languages utilize different metaphors to communicate about verticality because each language system prioritizes distinct cultural standards [5].
Through Wierzbicka’s natural semantic metalanguage (NSM) analysis we see Russians value items based on emotions but English speakers draw emotion apart from reason [6].
English language manifests personal judgment together with individualistic communication which enables both emotional and rational understanding [7]. The English valuation vocabulary enriches its communication with adjectives ranging from “brilliant” to “mediocre” and “inept” which deliver individual evaluations in a socially neutral manner.
Researchers employ personal opinion markers which include “I believe,” “I think” and “to me” to preserve the subjective nature of speech according to Enlightenment principles of rational autonomy [8]. When English speakers need to evaluate emotionally they express disapproval through metaphorical phrasings like "he's a trainwreck" which uses humorous language to describe negative characteristics.
New linguistic corpora research confirms that English evaluative terms develop from media terminology alongside digital slang terminology. New words such as “iconic,” “cringe,” and “based” emerged from online discussions and changed their meaning as a result of changing values between generations and subcultures [9].
Russian displays a valuation system which connects emotional assessment to social circumstances. Social and emotional situations influence the usage of evaluative Russian words “прекрасный” (wonderful) and “ужасный” (terrible) which transcend personal perspectives [10]. The Russian idiom "ни рыба ни мясо" serves evaluative purposes because its meaning draws from cultural expectations within the community.
Through expressive grammar together with verbal morphological components Russian language expresses emotional meanings. Perfective/imperfective morphemes combined with emotive suffixes enable Russian speakers to intensify their emotional stance through verbalization so “нравится” (like) stands in contrast to “очень понравился” (really liked) for expressing varying degrees of approval [11].
Orthodox spirituality along with collectivist ideology create emotional and moral layers within the language structure since they value shared moral feeling above objectivity [12].
Studies comparing valuation vocabularies of Russian against English language show a fundamental difference between how these languages express evaluation. According to Pavlenko people who speak two languages demonstrate difficulties transferring emotional and evaluative terms across languages because their conceptual systems differ [13].
According to Gladkova along with her colleagues the Russian evaluative lexicon emphasizes emotional values of trustworthiness and soulfulness rather than the practical considerations which dominate English evaluation [14]. In English efficiency together with brilliance represent high values whereas Russian language expresses deeper emotional evaluation through душевность (soulfulness) and искренность (sincerity) during everyday description.
New experimental research demonstrates English metaphors focus on commercial space elements ("worthless" and "top tier") yet Russian metaphors derive from moral and human soul concepts ("грязная совесть" - dirty conscience) [15].
Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory supports these linguistic observations. English speakers often rely on softening strategies when offering critique, such as hedging or vague language (“sort of,” “a bit problematic”) [16]. In Russian, however, direct evaluation is more culturally acceptable, especially when the speaker is emotionally involved or the context implies shared values.
This difference again aligns with high-context versus low-context cultural typologies. English prioritizes face-saving and individual interpretation, while Russian allows more expressiveness and emotional honesty, particularly in close relationships or shared cultural spaces[17].
In summary, lexical units related to valuation are deeply influenced by cultural cognition and communicative norms. English tends to express value in abstract, analytical terms, emphasizing the speaker’s individual stance. Russian, in contrast, integrates valuation into a moral-emotional framework rooted in collective consciousness and cultural symbolism.
These findings suggest that the “linguistic-cultural concept” of valuation cannot be generalized across languages but must be interpreted within the socio-cognitive context of each speech community. The present research builds upon these foundational insights to conduct a qualitative, survey-based comparison of valuation lexicons in English and Russian, highlighting the cultural nuances that underpin seemingly simple lexical choices.
A qualitative survey analysis method supports this research to examine valuation-related lexical units across English and Russian languages. This study adopts a methodology based on comparative linguistics with cognitive semantics toward identifying cultural evaluative expressions which exist within two separate language groups.
A descriptive and interpretative qualitative method functions to analyze and collect lexical units concerning valuation. Open-ended surveys provide the research data which researchers have gathered from native English and Russian speakers. The method delivers genuine results based on situational factors so participants can freely generate language elements which display cultural customs as well as emotional tendencies and social values. The research design helps achieve the study goals because it collects real-time responses that stem from situational influences and permits semantic field examinations and cross-cultural investigations.
The research study incorporates 30 native English speakers across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada and 30 native Russian speakers based in Russia together with Belarus and Ukraine. From 18 years up to 50 years of age the study participants hold high school diplomas or equivalent while maintaining fluency in their mother tongues. A combination of academic forums, university mailing lists along with social media groups was used to recruit participants for the study. Participation followed ethical standards through the use of informed consent procedures.
The question survey divides into three sections which include demographic inquiries and evaluative scenario questions and open-ended responses. The first part of the instrument requires participants to share standard demographic information. The subjects must evaluate 10 hypothetical situations about social interaction with ethical and emotional elements through word or phrase selections. Participants are asked to choose their top five positive and negative evaluative words then explain the situations where they apply these words during the third section.
A three-week Google Forms data collection period was conducted. The data collection includes complete response privacy protection along with secure storage methods. The investigated study implemented proper ethical standards for consent management along with confidentiality protection.
Multiple stages of qualitative methods were used for data investigation. The initial analysis divided terms into value-based classifications that included moral values together with emotional and intellectual assessments. The research incorporated metaphor and conceptual framing approaches based on Lakoff and Johnson to detect universal metaphorical ideologies between languages. A third method called cultural discourse analysis interpreted how these expressions mirror national perspectives and system of values through Wierzbicka’s cultural script theory. Across the languages researchers investigated they analyzed how frequently evaluative units occurred alongside how contrasting or similar these units were to each other.
This qualitative survey generates detailed findings but faces three main challenges which include explorative evaluation bias together with limited participant number and language influence factors. This study requires further development through bigger research samples as well as corpus analysis and psycholinguistic experimental methods.
The research utilizes multinomial logistic regression (MLR) analysis for assessing qualitative survey results provided by native English and Russian speakers. The study objective focuses on valuating cross-cultural lexical units through multiple-choice responses which the MLR model effectively analyzes at this level. The analysis of choice behavior through MLR continues to be an established practice in sociolinguistic and behavioral and cultural econometrics research. The logistic regression methodology matches survey methodology by producing analytic results about cultural valuation processes which strengthens the reliability of linguistic-cultural research. This study implements the multinomial logistic regression model whose general mathematical structure appears as Figure 1. The model computes decision probabilities for each lexical unit from assessment of speaker identity along with additional listed attributes.
Figure 1. Multinomial Logistic Regression Formula:
P(Y = j | X) = e^(β_j0 + β_j1X_1 + ... + β_jkX_k) / [1 + ∑(e^(β_l0 + β_l1X_1 + ... + β_lkX_k)) for l=1 to J−1] (1)
Table 1 summarizes all key variables involved in the survey and subsequent econometric modeling.
The choice of evaluative lexical units across 20 scenarios depended on cultural-linguistic background through the Language variable according to the multinomial logistic regression (MLR) model. The model calculates probabilities to pick from four lexical categories designated A B C D with D function as the baseline category. Each outcome received coefficients through comparison to "D" in the analysis. The results follow below.
The variable Language_binary at value 1 for Russian and 0 for English produces consistent and statistically important effects throughout all three alternative options (A, B, C). Statistical data indicates the coefficients for the three responses to be A: 1.29; B: 1.99; C: 3.27. Russian speakers demonstrate higher tendencies to pick lexical choices from categories A, B and C instead of category D than English speakers according to the positive indicator values. The highest magnitude value belongs to category C which establishes this choice as the most prevalent[18].
Question-specific dummies (Q1–Q20) reveal contextual differences in lexical preference. The evaluation scenarios in Q12 and Q14 produced strong positive coefficients throughout all categories such as 0.71 for C in Q12 and 0.74 in Q14 because these examples activated powerful emotion or familiar cultural assessment reactions within the respondents. The analysis shows negative relationships between Q4, Q6, Q8, Q19 scenarios and participants from groups A and B where coefficients reach -0.73 for A in Q4.
The constant term holds a negative value for every category demonstrating human psychology's default preference toward the reference point when contextual factors are weak[19].
Research by Wierzbicka and Lakoff and Johnson finds validation through this analysis because cultural moral and emotional frameworks exist within valuation lexical items.
Table 2 provides the analysis of principal linguistic variables examined in the study.
The research conducted yielded proof which supports the proposition that linguistic-cultural background strongly influences lexical valuation. Russian speakers selected emotional intensity or moral orientation terms while English speakers chose neutral abstract words. The results demonstrate cultural scripts theory and cross-cultural pragmatics literature since Russian culture values sincerity and moral assessment more than English culture prioritizes pragmatic neutrality [20].
The observed research results bring forward multiple essential implications that need consideration.
1. Automated translation software needs cultural weighting mechanisms because it will prevent semantic confusion in content that deals with values.
2. When conducting diplomatic exchanges or business or educational talks one must recognize and understand these differences in meaning to minimize misunderstandings.
3. NLP models become more humanlike in their understanding when they process culturally tagged linguistic data sets during their training phase.
4. Curricula for language learning must teach evaluative language through socio-cultural nuances making students more fluent while developing empathy skills.
The study assessed lexical units cultural valuation of English and Russian languages through survey and qualitative approach with evaluation by multinomial logistic regression analysis. Analysis shows Russian natives make a stronger preference for emotionally expressive and morally charged lexical items over English natives who choose less expressive language in evaluative scenarios. The analysis upholds current linguistic theories about cultural scripts along with conceptual metaphors since language patterns help display fundamental cultural values. This discovery requires substantial ramifications because it demonstrates why adaptable communication methods are essential for translation work as well as cross-cultural teaching and artificial intelligence language system development and global discourse analysis. Research expansion requires inclusion of bigger and more diversified demographic groups coupled with corpus linguistic analysis and studies of other language pairs for strengthening validation of the identified cross-cultural lexical valuation patterns.
[1] D. A. Cruse, Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[2] E. Apresjan, “Systematic Lexicography and the Russian Language,” Journal of Russian Linguistics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 37–56, 2009.
[3] A. Wierzbicka, Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
[4] E. Sapir, Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949.
[5] G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
[6] A. Wierzbicka, Language, Culture, and Meaning: Cross-Cultural Semantics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
[7] R. E. Nisbett, The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently... and Why, New York: Free Press, 2003.
[8] D. H. Boucher and P. Kelly, Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
[9] D. Crystal, “Internet Linguistics: A New Variety of Language,” British Library Digital Research, 2011. [Online]. Available: [https://www.bl.uk]
[10] A. Zalizniak, “Evaluative Semantics in Russian,” Russian Journal of Cognitive Studies, vol. 9, pp. 112–123, 2012.
[11] T. Bulygina and A. Shmelev, Language Conceptualization and Evaluation in Russian, Moscow: Indrik, 1997.
[12] V. I. Shakhovsky, “Emotive Semantics and Its Cultural Representation in Russian,” Philology and Culture, no. 3, pp. 78–84, 2015.
[13] A. Pavlenko, Emotion and Bilingualism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[14] A. Gladkova, “A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Cultural Semantics: The Case of Russian,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no. 15, pp. 374–388, 2011.
[15] I. Levontina and O. Dragoy, “Metaphorical Structuring of Value in Russian vs. English,” Cognitive Studies of Language, vol. 26, pp. 88–103, 2021.
[16] P. Brown and S. C. Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
[17] E. G. Schein, Culture and Language: Comparative Perspectives, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
[18] A. Pavlenko, Emotion and Bilingualism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. [Online]. Available: [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541925]
[19] A. Gladkova, “A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Cultural Semantics: The Case of Russian,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 43, no. 15, pp. 374–388, 2011. [Online]. Available: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.009]
[20] A. Wierzbicka, Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.