**6. Conclusions**

The model we have introduced takes into account the four main features when describing evaluative expressions:


Our findings and research provide the basis for creating a lexicon of evaluative expressions for future computational applications. Furthermore, we have expanded the trichotomous expressions, extracting new ones from a sentiment analysis corpus by experts.

Additionally, we outline the following aspects related to some of the theoretical criticism this model might receive.


language input will have a degree of membership of a specific grammar according to the number of satisfied and violated constraints of such specific grammar. Therefore, the degree of grammaticality is defined as the degree of belongingness of an input, with regards to specific natural language grammar. For further information, see Torrens-Urrutia [19].

•FPGr and FNL do not consider extra-linguistic interpretations, since such a case would entail pragmatics. Therefore, it cannot generate from an input such as "*I love your food*" an output as: "*I love the fact that you cooked for me, regardless of the quality of the food*". Such an interpretation is considered pragmatic due to extra-linguistic reasons, i.e., theory of politeness, context, intention, implicatures, etc. (see Figure 2). Semantics in FPGr only focuses on the essential part of the meaning, the most primitive one, that is why we defend the notion of semantic primes as a hypernym, and the system defines constraints of evaluations regarding a prime. These constraints are *vR*, *vS*, *vL*.
