Explicit and implicit offensiveness in dialogical film discourse in Bridgit Jones films

Pub Date : 2022-06-23 DOI:10.1163/18773109-01402003
A. Bączkowska
{"title":"Explicit and implicit offensiveness in dialogical film discourse in Bridgit Jones films","authors":"A. Bączkowska","doi":"10.1163/18773109-01402003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The paper discusses the concept of offensiveness, both explicit and implicit, in film dialogical discourse based on three parts of a romantic comedy. The differences between explicitness and implicitness on the one hand, and between implicitness and (in)directness on the other are presented in the theoretical part. Indirectness and implicitness are treated in the study as independent concepts that instantiate covert meaning. On the other hand, explicitness and implicitness are viewed as gradual concepts that allow some overlap; thus, direct implicitness and indirect explicitness emerge as possible options. Furthermore, the category of offensiveness is presented as a broad category, a superordinate term that subsumes offensive language, typically realised through explicitly offensive words, such as swearwords, and (non)offence, encoded by rhetorical devices. Offensive language can have the function of offending the target addressee, i.e., to cause offence, or to build, inter alia, a jocular, intimate or friendly atmosphere. Offensiveness can thus embrace propositions that lead to offence or convey other, non-offensive meanings. Examples of both offensive language (explicit/direct forms) and subtypes of offence (figurative forms), as well as a combination of both (e.g., figurative forms such as ironic comments that contain swearwords), are gleaned from the corpus of three parts of the eponymous romantic comedy. The analysis has shown that figurative forms are often conflated (to create metaphorical irony, ironic hyperbole, and the like), the implicit forms of offensiveness occur almost as frequently as explicit forms and are distributed equally across gender, varying forms of offensiveness play the whole gamut of functions, disparagement being only one of them.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01402003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The paper discusses the concept of offensiveness, both explicit and implicit, in film dialogical discourse based on three parts of a romantic comedy. The differences between explicitness and implicitness on the one hand, and between implicitness and (in)directness on the other are presented in the theoretical part. Indirectness and implicitness are treated in the study as independent concepts that instantiate covert meaning. On the other hand, explicitness and implicitness are viewed as gradual concepts that allow some overlap; thus, direct implicitness and indirect explicitness emerge as possible options. Furthermore, the category of offensiveness is presented as a broad category, a superordinate term that subsumes offensive language, typically realised through explicitly offensive words, such as swearwords, and (non)offence, encoded by rhetorical devices. Offensive language can have the function of offending the target addressee, i.e., to cause offence, or to build, inter alia, a jocular, intimate or friendly atmosphere. Offensiveness can thus embrace propositions that lead to offence or convey other, non-offensive meanings. Examples of both offensive language (explicit/direct forms) and subtypes of offence (figurative forms), as well as a combination of both (e.g., figurative forms such as ironic comments that contain swearwords), are gleaned from the corpus of three parts of the eponymous romantic comedy. The analysis has shown that figurative forms are often conflated (to create metaphorical irony, ironic hyperbole, and the like), the implicit forms of offensiveness occur almost as frequently as explicit forms and are distributed equally across gender, varying forms of offensiveness play the whole gamut of functions, disparagement being only one of them.
分享
查看原文
布里奇特·琼斯电影对话性电影话语中的显性与隐性冒犯
本文以一部浪漫喜剧的三个部分为背景,探讨了电影对话话语中显性和隐性冒犯的概念。在理论部分阐述了外显性与内隐性、内隐性与直接性的区别。在研究中,间接性和隐含性被视为独立的概念,体现了隐含意义。另一方面,显性和隐性被视为渐进的概念,允许一些重叠;因此,直接隐含性和间接明确性成为可能的选择。此外,冒犯性这一范畴被视为一个宽泛的范畴,是一个包含冒犯性语言的高级术语,通常通过明确的冒犯性词汇实现,如脏话和(非)冒犯,通过修辞手段编码。冒犯性语言可以具有冒犯目标收件人的功能,即引起冒犯,或者营造一种诙谐、亲密或友好的气氛。因此,冒犯性可以包含导致冒犯或传达其他非冒犯性含义的命题。从同名浪漫喜剧的三个部分的语料库中收集了攻击性语言(明确的/直接的形式)和冒犯的子类(比喻形式),以及两者的组合(例如,比喻形式,如含有脏话的讽刺评论)的例子。分析表明,比喻形式经常被合并(以创造隐喻的反讽、讽刺的夸张等),隐性冒犯形式几乎与显性冒犯形式一样频繁,并且在性别中分布均匀,各种形式的冒犯发挥了全部功能,贬低只是其中之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信