Invective Lexicon in the Foreign Film Discourse of the Last Decade

Invectivity is an ambiguous but integral feature of modern cinema. The author used a complex linguistic approach to describe the obscene vocabulary of foreign movie discourse. The article attempts to answer the following questions: Why do films need invectives? Who they are addressed to? How many invectives fit in one movie line? How emotionally colored are invectives? How do they fit into the idiomatic composition of the language? What kind of shock power do they carry? What sacred values do they attack? Who swear more, male or female characters? Are invectives perceived literally or figuratively? How can they be avoided? The scientific novelty of the taboo studies is in tracking and maintaining the balance between two conflicting trends: the oversaturation of mass media with obscenities vs. the current purist movement. The theoretical significance lies in the comprehension of the ongoing cultural interaction. The author believes that the choice of invectives depends on the filmmaker, their sense of humor, and the style of character imagery. The method of continuous sampling from modern film scripts provided extensive exemplary material, which was subjected to cognitive-semantic, stylistic, pragmatic, and quantitative analyses. Western cinema often uses invectivity to make a line catchy. In addition, obscene vocabulary designates subgroup affiliation, encourages immediate interaction, and demonstrates a dominant social position. In a cultural society, invective vocabulary refers to criticized signs of verbal aggression, and the negative connotations of invectiveness can be eliminated in euphemisms. However, foreign cinema demonstrates and facilitates the degradation of the cultural background.

1. Antsiferova E. G. Invective expressions in the media and fiction. Molodoi uchenyi, 2021, (6): 445–446. (In Russ.)

2. Atavova R. A. Invective vocabulary as means of expression of language aggression (by the material of the Dagestan periodicals). Philology. Theory & Practice, 2016, (5-3): 78–80. (In Russ.)

3. Belova T. M. Gender metaphor as a reflection of the cultural concept "masculinity" in the French language. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Kemerovo, 2007, 22. (In Russ.)

4. Vyalyak K. E. Syntactic means of intensification of emphatic structures in the Spanish language. Almanakh sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniia, 2008, (2-2): 51–52. (In Russ.)

5. Demyankov V. Z. Understanding as interpretative activity. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1983, (6): 58–67. (In Russ.)

6. Zhelvis V. I. "Rudeness": problems of the lexis classification. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2008, (7): 109–113. (In Russ.)

7. Zhelvis V. I. Invective strategy as a national-specific characteristic. Ethnopsycholinguistics, ed. Sorokin Yu. A. Moscow: Nauka, 1988, 98–108. (In Russ.)

8. Zelenin D. K. East-Slavic ethnography. Moscow: Nauka, 1991, 507. (In Russ.)

9. Karasik V. I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2004, 477. (In Russ.)

10. Katsev А. М. Language taboos and euphemisms . Leningrad: LSPI, 1988, 80. (In Russ.)

11. Kuryanovich A. V. Invective speech genres in the space of modern interpersonal communication. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2005, (3): 106–111. (In Russ.)

12. Makovskii М. М. Phenomena of taboo in traditions and languages of Indo-Europeans: essence, forms, and development. Moscow: URSS, 2019, 278. (In Russ.)

13. Malyugina A. V. On the question of the study of the invective vocabulary in the English language. Filologicheskii aspekt, 2018, (4): 125–132. (In Russ.)

14. Meillet A. Introduction into the comparative study if Indo-European languages. Moscow: URSS, 2009, 509. (In Russ.)

15. Nikolina N. A., Petrova Z. Yu. Metaphors of everyday speech in modern Russian prose. Russkaya Rech, 2020, (4): 93–104. (In Russ.)

16. Pastukhova O. D. On euphemisms and taboo. Philology. Theory & Practice, 2017, (11-1): 141–144. (In Russ.)

17. Ponomarenko T. V. The phenomena of intertextuality, the usage of invective and colloquial lexis in the language of modern quality Russian media. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2009, 18. (In Russ.)

18. Romanov А. А., Romanova L. A. Acts of verbal aggression in professional communication. Organizational Psycholinguistics, 2019, (2): 24–44. (In Russ.)

19. Sedov K. F. Types of linguistic personalities and strategies of speech behavior: on the rhetoric of family abuse. Questions of stylistics. Iss. 26. Language and man. Saratov: Kolledzh, 1996, 22–32. (In Russ.)

20. Stepanov Yu. S. Language and method: the modern philosophy of language . Moscow: Iazyki rus. kultury, 1998, 779. (In Russ.)

21. Terent’eva V. K. Taboo language and lexical restrictions in Japanese speech. Voprosy filologii, 2015, (2): 103–116. (In Russ.)

22. Freud S. Totem and taboo . Moscow: AST, 2004, 400. (In Russ.)

23. Huizinga J. In the shadow of tomorrow: a diagnosis of the modern Distemper. Moscow: Progress, 1992, 358. (In Russ.)

24. Yaroslavova L. A., Sabanov P. A., Samikov A. A. On the problem of using taboo vocabulary in the realities of modern society. Science in Human Life, 2022, (1): 27–35. (In Russ.)