Categories of evaluativity and casuality in bisituational statements: Russian political text of the 16th century

The author of the article believes that the problem of the relationship between two semantic categories, namely, the categories of evaluativity and causality, does not lose its relevance at present. A number of linguistic studies have revealed that the semantics of causality closely interacts with the category of evaluativity. The reality reflected in the statement is, as a rule, conceptualized and qualified from the standpoint of one and the same subject of speech. The purpose of the articlewas to identify the specificity of the use of categories of causality and evaluativity to manifest political ideas in the texts of Russian journalism in the middle of the 16 th century. The article analyzes the journalistic texts of Old Russian writers of the 16 th century, containing two-part constructions with the semantics of the description of cause and effect, the semantics of the description of evaluativity associated with its cause. A continuous analysis of the texts of I.S. Peresvetov, Ivan IV, A.M. Kurbsky has been done. The article gives the most characteristic contexts of the wellknown authoritative editions of Old Russian texts. Based on the general classification of contexts on the semantics of the relationship between the tsar and his subjects, four groups of fragments with the semantics of “good” and “bad” interaction of the tsar and his nobles and the consequences of such an interaction are identified. The author comes to the conclusion that causative constructions due to their conceptualizing nature show a number of ideological representations of the authors belonging to the Moscow political culture of the 16 th century. The specificity of bi-situational statements allows us to trace with sufficient confidence the logic of the arguments of Old Russian authors devoted to the subject of power. In them, the author of the article finds confidence in the strict dependence of causes and effects, and this confidence can be called common for Ivan IV, A. Kurbsky, I. Peresvetov.