Linguoсognitive Features of Film Discourse based on Teenagers' English-Language Dialogues
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-2-513-520
Abstract
The research objective was to identify linguo-cognitive features of teenagers` discourse recorded in the form of a filmscript. The relevance of the study is based on the fact that child speech is a self-valuable linguistic object, opposed not to the virtual language system, but to an array of real language messages perceived by a child. The main methodological technique used in the work is a multidisciplinary critical discourse analysis. It was used to study both linguistic features and ideological, socio-cultural, and cognitive features, latently embodied in the film text. The study employed English-language dialogues of teenagers who starred in the TV series "Stranger Things" (2016). The texts of the dialogues were considered as the units representing the corresponding fragment of the film discourse. The study proved that the teenagers` dialogues fixed in the form of the written text, or filmscripts, adequately reflect a wide range of possible situations of communication and serve as a representative source of relevant information. The analysis of the linguocognitive features of teenagers` discourse allowed the authors to establish the specificity of the regulatory function of the selection of language units by teenagers, which depends on the communication environment or consituation. The paper describes some features of the formation of teenagers` worldview, as well as some reasons for the distortion of cognitive reality. The interdisciplinary nature of the study makes it possible to apply the results in the field of linguistics, sociolinguistics, cognitive linguistics, etc.
About the Authors
Nataliya N. KislitsynaRussian Federation
4, Acad. Vernadsky Ave., Simferopol, Russia, 295007
Anna G. Slujbina
Russian Federation
4, Acad. Vernadsky Ave., Simferopol, Russia, 295007
References
1. Slyshkin G. G., Efremova M. A. Film text (linguistic and cultural analysis experience. Moscow: Vodolei Publishers, 2004, 153. (In Russ.)
2. Vinnikova T. A. Cinematext research features in different scientific frameworks. Omskii nauchnyi vestnik, 2015, (2): 58–61. (In Russ.)
3. Ivanova E. B. Intertextual links in art films. Cand Philol. Sci. Diss. Volgograd, 2001, 178. (In Russ.)
4. Zaretskaya A. N. Features of the subtext in film discourse implementation. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Chelyabinsk, 2010, 22. (In Russ.)
5. Kolodina E. A. The status of film dialogue among the related concepts: film dialogue, film text, film discourse. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2013, (2-1): 327–333. (In Russ.)
6. Gorshkova V. E. Translation in the films. Irkutsk: IGLU, 2006, 278. (In Russ.)
7. Kozloff S. Overhearing Film Dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000, 335.
8. Lotman Iu. M. Film semiotics and problems of film aesthetics. Tallin: Eesti Raamat, 1973, 135. (In Russ.)
9. Tsivian Iu. G. To the metasemiotic description of the narrative telling in the films. Works on landmark systems. Iss. 17. The structure of the dialogue as the principle of the semiotic mechanism. Tartu: Tartuskii gos. un-t, 1984, 109–121 (In Russ.)
10. Nazmutdinova S. S. Harmony as a translation category (based on Russian, English, French film discourse). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Tyumen, 2008, 21. (In Russ.)
11. Zaichenko S. S. To the question of film discourse sign heterogeneity. Vestnik Cheliabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2013, (2): 96–99. (In Russ.)
12. Samkova M. A. Film text and film discourse: to the problem of notions differentiation. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2011, (1): 135–137. (In Russ.)
13. Lavrinenko I. N. Film discourse classification criteria. Visnik KhNU, 2012, (1003): 41–44. (In Russ.)
14. Lyulcheva E. M. Linguistic and extralinguistic aspects in analyzing film discourse. Kultura i tsivilizatsiia, 2017, 7(5A): 70–80. (In Russ.)
15. Osokina S. A. Children''s speech development in the aspect "self-and-otherness". Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 2018, (55): 88–105. (In Russ.)
16. Van Dijk T. A. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 1993, 4(2): 249–283.
17. Wodak R., Meyer M. Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage, 2009, 1–33.
18. Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis. The critical study of language. Longman Group Publishing, 1995, 265.
19. Gee J. P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, 3rd ed. N. Y.: Routledge, 2011, 218.
20. Dukhovnaya T. V. Subtitles as film discourse element: linguistic and paralinguistic aspects. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Krasnodar, 2018, 215. (In Russ.)
21. Nelyubina Yu. A. Film Text in the Field of Related Concepts. Gumanitarnyi vector, 2014, (4): 26–29 (In Russ.)
22. Dynel M. Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English, 2011, 37(1): 41–61.
23. Dukhovnaya T. V. Structural components of film discourse. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2015, (1-1): 64–66. (In Russ.)
24. Konetskaia V. P. Sociology of communication. Moscow: Mezhdunar. un-t biznesa i upravleniia, 1997, 304. (In Russ.)
25. Ferdinand V., Kirby S., Smith K. The cognitive roots of regularization in language. Cognition, 2019, vol. 184, 53–68.
26. Kaiurov P. A. The status of "fictitious ontology": reference and fictional reality. Cand. Philos. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Ekaterinburg, 2005, 24. (In Russ.)
27. Lyonz J. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Blagoveshchensk: BGK im. I. A. Boduena de Kurtene, 1999, 536. (In Russ.)
28. Dubrovskaya T. V. "Only mother and Gelendwagen 5.5 is worth of love": boy's lyrics as a genre of youth Internet discourse. Zhanry rechi, 2019, (1): 56–65 (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Kislitsyna N.N., Slujbina A.G. Linguoсognitive Features of Film Discourse based on Teenagers' English-Language Dialogues. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019;21(2):513-520. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-2-513-520