LINGUO-COGNITIVE PECULIARITIES OF QUENTIN TARANTINO’S FILM DISCOURSE (ON THE MATERIALS OF THE FILM “INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS”)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2410-0927-2020-12-20Keywords:
film discourse, subtext, suspense, intertextuality, language codeAbstract
The article deals with the means of analysing of peculiarities and specific features of Quentin Tarantino’s film discourse on the materials of the film “Inglourious Basterds”. The term “film discourse” is treated as a complex one, which includes plenty of aspects, i.e. verbal, non-verbal and extralinguistic. The article analyses and draws attention to the specific film discourse characteristics, which are taken individually and as those forming the original directing style and being present in most of the director's films. Authors argue that film discourse itself and the fact that it is distinguished among other discourse types is crucial to the understanding of plenty of communication factors, since cinematography as an art is a tool for the reflection of reality and social cognition. The latter, on their turn, are easily influenced by film discourse. The article proves that the main and the most particular film discourse features of this film are intertextuality, cohesiveness, wide use of the subtext, creation of the effect of suspense, while most of these features stand as interconnected and as a result of the influence of some language phenomena. These characters and features stand as a tool for the transmission of information (verbal, non-verbal, extralinguistic), assist in the correct interpretation of the speaker's feelings in a certain situation and to understand their vision of this situation, other speakers and the object of discussion. The authors note that all the previously mentioned features one way or another influence and form the structure, style and the perception of the film, and the film text itself is an important milestone in the complex synthetic film structure, alongside with such extralinguistic components, which are crucial to meaningful and aesthetic completeness, as visual information, sound, visual and mechanical special effects, computer graphics, etc. The article explores and draws attention to the importance of the analysis of film discourse and the concept of “film text” in the light of increasing popularity, relevance, influence, and therefore the importance of the art of cinematography, which is treated currently not only as an entertainment, or a part of popular culture, but also as a tool of influence on communication and social cognition, and therefore individually taken movies are an important part of the world film resource and film discourse.
References
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2012. “Introduction: Language and Society in Cinematic Discourse”. Multilingua 31: 139–154. Accessed February 3, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2012-0007.
Bart, Roland. 1994. Ot proizvedeniya k tekstu. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika. Moskva :Progress. 413–423
Belykov, Vladimir and Leonid Krysyn. 2001. Sotsyolynhvystyka : uchebnyk dlia vuzov. Moskwa : Ros. hos. humanyt. un-t.
Bozhko, Olena. 2017. “Atmosfera «saspens» yak dominantna oznaka literaturnoho zhanru «fentezi»”. Naukovi zapysky Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Filolohichna» 67: 51–54. Accessed February 3, 2020. doi: 10.25264/2519-2558-2017-67-51-54.
Dijk Van, Teun A. 2000. Yazyk. Poznanye. Kommunykatsyia. Blahoveshchensk: BNK im. Y. A. Boduena de Kurtene.
Hrydasova, Olena. 2014. “Kinodyskurs yak obiekt navchannia kinoperekladu”. Visnyk Zhytomyrskoho derzhavnoho universytetu 74: 102–107.
Jaeckle, Jeff. 2013. Film Dialogue. Edited by Jeff Jaeckle. London; New York : Wallflower Press.
Kovalenko, Iryna. 2011. “Intersemyotycheskyi perevod v mezhkulturnom aspekte: postanovka problem”. Izvestyia Volhohradskoho hosudarstvennoho pedahohycheskoho unyversyteta 2: 50–53. Accessed February 3, 2020. doi: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-2399-414
Kovaliv, Yurii. 2007. Literaturoznavcha entsyklopediia. U 2-kh t. Kyiv : VTs «Akademiia».
Kristeva, Julia. 1974. La Révolution du langage poétique. L’avant-garde à la fin du XIXe siècle:Lautréamont et Mallarme. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.
Krysanova, Tetiana. 2014. “Osnovni pidkhody do rozuminnia poniattia «kinodyskurs»”, Naukovyi visnyk Skhidnoievropeiskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Lesi Ukrainky 4: 98–102.
Kukharenko, Valeria. 1988. Interpretatsyia teksta. Moscow: Prosveshchenie.
Samkova, Maryya. 2011. “Kynotekst i kynodyskurs: k probleme razgranychenyia ponyatyi”. Fylologycheskye nauky. Voprosy teoryy y praktyky 1: 135–137.
Schmidt, Johann and Markus Kuhn. 2014. “Narattion in Film”. In Handbook of narratology, edited by Peter Hühn, Jan Christoph Meister, John Pier, Wolf Schmid. Volume 1: 384–405. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Slyshkyn, Gennadyi and Marya Efremova. 2004. Kynotekst: opyt lingvokulturologycheskogo analyza. Moskwa: Vodolei Publishers.
Tarantino, Quentin G. 2009. Inglourious Basterds. Film script. IMSDb. https://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Inglourious-Basterds.html (accessed September 11, 2020).
Tsyvyan, Yuryi. 1984. “K metasemioticheskomu opisaniyu povestvovanyia v kinematografe”. Trudy po znakovym systemam. Uchenye zapiski. Tartus. gos. un-ta 17: 109–121.
Voroshylova, Marya. 2007. “Kreolizovannyi tekst : kinotekst”. Politicheskaya lingvistika 22: 106–110.
Wollen, Рeter. 1976. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 116–154.
Zaichenko, Svetlana. 2013. “K voprosu o znakovoi neodnorodnosti kinodyskursa”. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 2: 96–99.
Zaretskaia, Anna. 2012. “Osobennosti realizatsyi podteksta v kinodiskurse“. PhD diss., Cheliabynsk: Abrys.
Zviereva, Olha. 2006. “Suchasnyi kinodyskurs: spetsyfika ta osoblyvosti katehorialnoho potentsialu”. Naukovi zapysky KhEPU 4: 114.