Часть дипломной работы на тему «Языковые средства и способы создания комического эффекта на материале сериалов»

Содержание:

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAPTER 1. AMERICAN COMIC DISCOURSE AND TV SERIES AS A CATEGORY OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION 5

1.1 English entertainment discourse in the general linguocultural system 5

1.2 The main features of American humour 10

1.3 The category of “comic” in audiovisual text 15

1.4 Levels of realization of comedy in the context of a television series 20

1.5 Summary of results 26

CHAPTER 2. MEANS OF REALIZING THE COMIC IMAGE THROUGH THE PRISM OF VARIOUS SOCIAL GROUPS IN THE AUDIOVISUAL DISCOURSE OF THE TV-SERIES 27

2.1 Social sphere «Colleagues» 28

2.2 Social sphere «Friends» 33

2.3 Social sphere «Family» 37

2.4 Social sphere «Romance» 40

2.5 Results and Discussion 44

REFERENCES 47

List of Sources 51

Введение:

The appearance of television announces the postmodern stage of development of modern society, which is entering a new stage of individualization and visualization of consumption. Revealing the nature of the products of the information age, it is important to take into account that their aesthetics itself acquires a new meaning, completely different from the traditional one. The work of art, its eternal nature or the process of creation no longer appears in the center. It becomes important how this product is served to the viewer, how it affects him.

The relevance of the work. Accordingly, the aesthetic and artistic significance of the works coincides with the history of their success, which depends on the strength of the impact, the ability to amaze, shock, capture the viewer’s attention. This makes the process of creating a media product close to a sociological study, in which an audiovisual text acts both as a result and as an analysis tool. In this regard, the process of studying the means of realizing the comic in a modern audiovisual text as a reflection of the main thinking attitudes of the English-speaking linguoculture is of particular interest.

The degree of theoretical development of the problem. The essence of the comic at the present stage of knowledge development is actively studied in pragmalinguistics (L.G. Popova, V.L. Naer, and V.I. Karasik) and cognitive linguistics (A.E. Boldyreva, N.V. Shiryaeva, and E.M. Radina). The issues of the implementation of various linguistic aspects of the audiovisual text are investigated by A.V. Kozulyaev, V.E. Gorshkova, R.A. Matasov, and K.E. Kostrov.

The novelty of this study lies in the identification and comparative analysis of the means of implementing the comical in modern American business-themed television series, which was not covered earlier.

The objective of the work is a comparative analysis of stylistic, lexical, syntactic and phonetic means of implementing the comical in English-language entertainment discourse based on the material of business-themed TV series. Accordingly, the following work tasks were set:

1. To characterize the English-language entertainment discourse in the general linguistic and cultural system;

2. To highlight the main features of American humor;

3. To analyze the nature of the expression of the philosophical category of «comic» in an audiovisual text;

4. To determine the levels of comic realization in the context of a television series.

5. To conduct a comparative analysis of the means of implementing the comic in the modern American business-themed TV series «Silicon Valley» and «Parks and Recreation».

The object of the work is the philosophical category of the comic. The subject of the study is the means of implementing comedy in an English-language audiovisual text.

The material of this work was the original fragments of the modern American television series «Silicon Valley» (2014) and «Parks and Recreation» (2015).

The methods of work include the study of scientific literature on the topic, the descriptive method in the theoretical part of the study, the method of comparative analysis, semantic interpretation, continuous sampling in the practical part.

This study in its structure will consist of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion and a list of references.

 

Фрагмент текста работы:

CHAPTER 1. AMERICAN COMIC DISCOURSE AND TV SERIES AS A CATEGORY OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION

1.1 English entertainment discourse in the general linguocultural system

Entertainment is an integral part of a TV show. In nowadays Russia watching foreign entertainment programs, movies, and TV shows has long been the norm. At the same time, cross-cultural communications are often characterized by misunderstandings due to the difference in mental and linguistic features.

Entertainment discourse plays a role in the construction of national identity. The discourse of humor as its component acts as a semantic field in which a mental image of reality is formed. This gives reason to believe that humorous characteristics reflect the everyday experience of subjects of communicative interactions.

Discursology, as well as linguoculturology, emerged relatively recently, in the second half of the XX century and introduced a new object of study in linguistics — discourse, a phenomenon much deeper and more diverse than language or text culture. According to T. Van Dijk, discourse is a complex phenomenon, with many levels and structures, each of which has its own categories and elements that can be combined in countless ways. The British linguist R. McKee interprets discourse a bit differently: «discourse is any coherent sequence of sentences, either orally or in writing» [48, p. 143].

Linguist N. F. Alefirenko, who has devoted many of his works to the study of discourse, first of all understands by discourse the formation of an event character in combination with pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological, paralinguistic and other factors. In addition, N. F. Alefirenko in his research considers discourse as a special form of language existence, a way of expressing the mentality of the people. This approach focuses on a broader vision of the discursive existence of a language than its identification with a «living language» [1, p. 11]. E. A. Ogneva also connects discourse and culture; she considers discourse in the form of a complex matrix socio-model, the study of which is located at the junction of three scientific spheres: linguoculturology, linguocognitivistics and sociolinguistics [24, p. 687].

After analyzing the numerous definitions given by scientists, it is worth paying attention to the fact that most researchers associate discourse with socio-cultural factors. Indeed, language and culture are closely linked, and the discourse most fully reflects cultural realities in the language, which vary depending on the historical epoch, geographical and social position of linguistic personalities, as well as their gender and age aspects. And, since, according to some linguists, discourse is communication through texts, and the ability to communicate and generate texts, the specifics of which depend on the national language picture of the world-the main feature of the language personality, the close connection of the concepts of language personality, culture and discourse is not in doubt [24, p. 687].

A. N. Zaretskaya defines entertainment film discourse as a coherent text, which is a verbal component of the film, in conjunction with nonverbal components-the audiovisual series of this film and other significant extralinguistic factors for the semantic completeness of the film, that is, a creolized formation that has the properties of integrity, coherence, informative, communicative-pragmatic orientation, media and created collectively by a differentiated author for viewing by the recipient of the message (moviegoer) [9, p.116].

The film discourse is intensively studied by psychology, philosophy, sociology, semiotics, pedagogy, theory and practice of translation. In linguistics, the complex language of a movie is considered as a special type of text. In the scientific literature, the corresponding terms «film discourse», «film text», » film plot», » film dialog» are used. Film discourse is the most succinct concept in this series, and «entertainment film discourse» is part of it.

Y. G. Soroka studies entertainment film discourse from the point of view of sociology, deals with its functional component. She believes that film discourse is a discourse of liberal values, ideas of modernization and Human Rights, a form and means of spreading liberal ideology on a global scale. The researcher notes the supranational nature of film discourse, its impact on modern man with the help of audiovisual means that objectify the perception of reality and are a form of social knowledge, despite the virtual reality being created [32, p. 48].

Linguists raise questions concerning the distinction between the concepts of «film text» and «film discourse», the role and features of subtext in the film discourse, the classification of film discussions, the genre typology of film discourse, practical problems of translating film discourse, the significance of film text as an object of linguoculturology, etc.

S.S. Nazmutdinova defines film discourse as a semiotically complicated dynamic process of interaction between the author and the film specialist, occurring in the interlanguage and intercultural space with the help of means of film language, which has the properties of syntactic, verbal and visual unity of elements, intertextuality, multiplicity of the addressee, contextuality of meaning, iconic accuracy, synthetics. In addition, the researcher interprets as an object of linguistics the related concept of «film plot», in her opinion, it is a form of verbal and iconic behavior that correlates with a certain situation, culture, time, space and has the main functions inherent in the language, which influences the film specialist. The author also notes that film discourse as a communicative situation is created by a polyphonic author, that is, a screenwriter, director, actors, editors, cameramen [23, p. 87].

G.G. Slyshkin and M.A. Efremova devoted their research to the analysis of entertainment film text. According to their point of view, the film text is a staged film or, in a naive classification, a feature film, except where it is specifically stated that it is an entertaining cinematic text. It consists of moving and static images, speech, oral or written, noise, music, organized in a special way and located in an indissoluble unity.

G. G. Slyshkin proposed the following definition of this concept: “entertainment film text is a clear, complete message expressed with the help of verbal (linguistic) and nonverbal (iconic and / or index) signs, organized according to the plan of a collective functionally differentiated author with the help of cinematic codes, fixed on a material medium and intended for reproduction on the screen and audiovisual perception by moviegoers” [31, p. 89]. I. N. Lavrinenko understands film discourse as a polycode cognitive communication education, a combination of various semiotic units in their indissoluble unity, which is characterized by coherence, integrity, completeness, and targeting. Film discourse is expressed with the help of verbal, nonverbal (including cinematic) signs in accordance with the idea of the collective author; it is fixed on a material medium and is intended for reproduction on the screen and audiovisual perception by moviegoers [13, p.12].

Many researchers consider entertainment film text as a creolized text, that is, a text that has both verbal and nonverbal components (while it is impossible to talk about settling the problem of which of these two components is a priority in film discourse). The same authors claim that a movie text is primarily a media text. Thus, the growing interest of linguists in the study of film discourse has become an indisputable fact due to the great influence of cinema on the peculiarities of modern man’s perception of the world.

Entertainment film discourse is a polyparadigmic object of study, and its systematic description requires data from a number of Sciences. They are transformed dramatic texts in combination with a video sequence as the basis for transmitting emotions. There is no talking about the identity of the concepts of «film discourse» and «screenplay», because; first, there can be several scenarios (the first, second, third) plus various forms of script (preliminary, director’s, object-by-object, etc).

Secondly, although the film will be based on the screenplay, but deviations from it are quite common and acceptable. For example, when the director makes changes to the script, if the joke conceived by the screenwriter turns out to be funny to anyone, or the actor stumbles upon an excessively complex phrase.

Third, the verbal information of the screenplay is not fully implemented in the film discourse: it is partially transmitted in sound form (the speech of the film’s characters sounds), partially turns into a video sequence (actions, acting), and something turns into subtext. A screenplay is one of the case-law discourses for a film discourse that participates in the formation of its vertical context, which, along with various versions of the screenplay, may include other films representing the work of the same director or related to the same genre, books whose film adaptation is a film or which it mentions, alternative versions of various scenes, critic reviews, etc.

Based on the script, the film discourse is created using the tools of cinematography, which include the entire range of expressive means of cinematography: frame, editing, musical accompaniment, noise effects, large, long and panoramic plans, tempo, facial expressions and gestures, speech of characters and / or announcers, and so on [20, p. 11].

Within the framework of semiotic theory, an entertainment film is considered as an author’s «film text» created with the help of «film language». The most developed aspect of this language in theoretical terms is its syntax, the expression of which is recognized as editing. The foundations for studying editing were laid by artists, who were the first to indicate that the minimum unit of film syntaxes, the «editing center», should be considered a frame. There are two main types of editing: in-frame editing (editing in the camera), which uses the frame space and camera movement capabilities, and inter-frame editing (shot editing). The transition from one frame to another can be performed directly (straight cut) or using visual effects (optical cut) [29]. Existing definitions of film discourse describe it as a complex, capacious, multidimensional, heterogeneous entity with an expanded structure.

Linguists who deal with the problems of film discourse talk about its relationship with the concepts of «screenplay», «film text» and «film dialog», the latter of which, in turn, is assigned the role of a fragment of film discourse. However, a clear picture of the constituent components of this heterogeneous formation has not yet been constructed. The film dialogue does not have absolute independence, because it is closely connected with the video sequence, which significantly complements and explains the verbal material. It should be clarified that the concept of «movie dialogue» is identified with the term «language of cinema».

S. Kozloff interprets the «language of cinema» (film / filmic speech, cinematic speech) as a cinematic dialogue that sounds in the film [45, p. 208]. Until the end of the 90s of the XX century, the «language of cinema» was not the subject of linguistic research, but mainly affected the interests of art historians. The beginning of scientific coverage of the «language of cinema» was laid by teachers of the Department of film drama at VGIK (1963-1967), and after 1997 a number of philological dissertations devoted to the study of this phenomenon appeared.

Dialogue is the most important component of a screenplay, which, in addition to unfolding the plot, performs a number of functions in the discourse of an entertainment film. First of all, it builds the image of characters and relationships between them, and also serves as a means of revealing characters. According to the American expert in the field of socio-and gender linguistics, D. Lakoff, language is an integral component of individuality much can be understood about a person by the way they speak [14].