Actualizing the Complex Anti-Value Concept of Insincerity in Comic Discourse of English Linguistic Culture
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-2-239-246
Abstract
The article introduces the primary and secondary functions of the anti-value concept of insincerity in the comic discourse of English culture. The anti-value concept of insincerity is considered as a complex concept. The author performed a cognitive and axiological analyses of the primary and secondary functions of this concept within comic discourse. The analysis featured 50 episodes of stand-up comedy, 40 episodes of various sketchcoms, and 500 episodes of various sitcoms. Insincerity proved to be a complex humorous concept actualized through primary and secondary functions. The primary function of the concept is realized through obvious lies or hypocrisy. In its secondary function, the concept of insincerity is actualized in making fun of various anti-values, e.g., greed, cowardice, cruelty, lust, etc. In modern English culture, insincerity is a positive means of ridiculing other anti-values. In such cases, stupidity of the deceived one is usually ridiculed, and insincerity becomes a sign of smartness or cunning.
About the Author
A. I. Bochkarev
Novosibirsk State Technical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Novosibirsk
References
1. Attardo S. Humorous texts: a semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin-N. Y.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001, 238.
2. Davies Ch. Ethnic jokes, moral values and social boundaries. The British Journal of Sociology, 1982, 33(3), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.2307/589483
3. Bochkarev A. I. The main humorous characteristics of the anti-value concept of gluttony (based on English-language stand-up and situation comedies). Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2021, 163(4-5): 109–118. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26907/2541-7738.2021.4-5.109-118
4. Mindess H. The panorama of humor and the meaning of life. American Behavioral Scientist, 1987, 30(3): 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276487030003007
5. Raskin V. Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985, 284.
6. Karasik V. I. Lingual circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002, 477. (In Russ.)
7. Kulinich M. A. Semantics, structure, and pragmatics of English humor. Dr. Cultural Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2000, 35. (In Russ.)
8. Bochkarev A. I. The anti-value concept of cowardice in humorous discourse of Anglo-Saxon linguistic culture. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2021, 23(4): 1016–1023. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-4-1016-1023
9. Plotnikova S. N. Insincere discourse in cognitive and structural-functional aspects. Irkutsk: ISLU, 2000, 244. (In Russ.)
10. Demyankov V. Z. Pragmatic foundations of statement interpretation. Izvestiia AN SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 1981, 40(4): 368–377. (In Russ.)
11. Aroutiounova N. D. Speech acts and truthfulness. Speech acts in the mirror of someone else's speech. "I" and "The Other". The human factor in language. Communication. Modality. Deixis, ed. Bulygina T. V. Moscow: Nauka, 1992, 6–52. (In Russ.)
12. Khramova Yu. A. Representation of the concept "Sincerity" in English and Russian cultures. Creative linguistics-2, ed. Stompel E. M. Astrakhan: Astrakhan University, 2010, iss. 2, 82–89. (In Russ.)
13. Philippova M. M. Studying the concept "Hypocrisy" in English-speaking cultures: what good things can we learn from it? Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 2018, (1): 365–381. (In Russ.)
14. Plaksina V. A. Cluster concept "Litsemerie" (Hypocrisy). Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 2017, 16(3): 221–226. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2017.3.23
15. Zemskova N. A. Linguistic personality and the concept "lie": problem of interpretation. Social variants of language-III: Proc. Intern. Sci. Conf., Nizhny Novgorod, 22–23 Apr 2004. Nizhny Novgorod: NSLU, 2004, 370–372. (In Russ.)
16. Panchenko N. N. Falsehood. Anthology of сoncepts, eds. Karasik V. I., Sternin I. A. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2005, vol. 1, 174–192. (In Russ.)
17. Gadamer H.-G. Truth and method: fundamentals of philosophical hermeneutics. Moscow: Progress, 1988, 704. (In Russ.)
18. Karasik V. I. Language spiral: values, signs, and motives. Moscow: Gnosis, 2019, 422. (In Russ.)
19. Serebrennikova E. F. Key terms of axiological analysis. In: Serebrennikova E. F., Antipiev N. P., Ladygin Y. A., Malinovich Yu. M., Plotnikova S. N., Tareva E. G., Khakhalova S. A., Kazydub N. N., Litvinenko T. E., Semenova T. I., Gotlib O. M., Malinovich M. V., Sharunov A. I., Kulagina O. A. Linguistics and axiology: ethnosemiometry of value meanings. Moscow: Tezaurus, 2011, 27–40. (In Russ.)
20. Serebrennikova E. F. Aspects of axiological linguistics. In: Serebrennikova E. F., Antipiev N. P., Ladygin Y. A., Malinovich Yu. M., Plotnikova S. N., Tareva E. G., Khakhalova S. A., Kazydub N. N., Litvinenko T. E., Semenova T. I., Gotlib O. M., Malinovich M. V., Sharunov A. I., Kulagina O. A. Linguistics and axiology: ethnosemiometry of value meanings. Moscow: Tezaurus, 2011, 7–26. (In Russ.)
21. Maryanchik V. A. Axiology and evaluativeness of the media-political text. Moscow: URSS, 2013, 272. (In Russ.)
22. Bréchon P. Les valeurs des Français. Paris: Armand Colin, 2003, 352.
23. Nelyubova N. Yu., Hiltbrunner V. I., Ershov V. I. The reflection of the hierarchy of values in the proverbial fund of the Russian and French languages. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2019, 23(1): 223–243. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-223-243
24. Lihachev D. S. Conceptual Framework of the Russian Language. Izvestiia RAN. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 1993, 52(1): 3–9. (In Russ.)
25. Partington A. Linguistics of laughter: a corpus-assisted study of laughter-talk. London-N. Y.: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, 262.
Review
For citations:
Bochkarev A.I. Actualizing the Complex Anti-Value Concept of Insincerity in Comic Discourse of English Linguistic Culture. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2022;24(2):239-246. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-2-239-246
Views:
327
Email this article 