CC BY
15
АПФ&ПЛ
тематический выпуск ЖАНРЫ РЕЧИ: ИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ДИНАМИКА И СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ТРАНСФОРМАЦИИ
CIP&PL
Thematic issue SPEECH GENRES: HISTORICAL DYNAMICS AND MODERN TRANSFORMATIONS
http://philjournal.ru 2022 No 3 222215-233
ЖАНРЫ МУЛЬТИМОДАЛЬНОЙ КОММУНИКАЦИИ
GENRES OF MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION
Original Paper
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2022-3-225-233
Verbal and Non-Verbal Modes to Mark Stance in a Cinematic Text
Olga D. Prasolova1, *Svetlana Yu. Pavlina2
Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, 31a, Minin Str., Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation, 603155;
'ORCID ID 0000-0001-9304-5918; 2 ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8304-795X; 2Scopus Author ID: 57223936963;
2 Web of Science Researcher ID: AAS-6556-2021; *e-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: This empirical study focuses on stance representation in a cinematic text, which is treated as a semiotically complex construct. The stance is viewed as the manifestation of the author's feelings, attitudes and values. Studies on stance to date have largely examined its expression in linear texts based on the natural language. However, the way stance is marked in multimodal texts, specifically in cinematic ones based on the interaction of verbal and non-verbal modes, remains an underexplored area. To fill the gap in scholarship the present research aims to identify linguistic, paralinguistic and non-verbal markers of stance in a film dialogue. The film "The Man who Knew Infinity" serves as the material for analysis. The study employs the stylistic and contextual analyses as well as the Multimodal Discourse Analysis. The research shows that stance is expressed verbally both on lexical and grammatical levels and is supported by paralinguistic and non-verbal means. The main linguistic means used to express objective stance in the sample multimodal text is the morphological category of mood. The subjective stance, on the other hand, is mainly marked with the help of various lexical items. In reference to stance expression, syntactic means proved to have very limited use in the cinematic text. It can be explained by the colloquial nature of a film dialogue, which makes it syntactically simple. The research elucidates the way the interaction of verbal and nonverbal modes, that include gestures and facial expressions, affects stance building in a cinematic text, which opens avenues for further studies of marking stance in other types of multimodal texts.
Keywords: multimodal text, verbal mode, non-verbal mode, audial and visual channels, stance, cinematic text, stance markers.
For citation: Prasolova O.D., Pavlina S.Yu. Verbal and Non-Verbal Modes to Mark Stance in a Cinematic Text. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2022, no 3, pp. 225-233 (In Engl.).
* © Прасолова О.Д., Павлина С.Ю., 2022.
ф I This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ¿^^■ESl^H https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/
Оригинальная статья УДК 811.111'373:32
DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2022-3-225-233
Использование вербального и невербального кодов для создания модальности в кинематографическом тексте
О.Д. Прасолова1, *С.Ю. Павлина2
Нижегородский государственный лингвистический университет им. Н.А. Добролюбова, 603105, Российская Федерация, Нижний Новгород, ул. Минина, 31а;
'ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9304-5918; 2 ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8304-795X; 2Scopus Author ID: 57223936963;
2Web of Science Researcher ID: AAS-6556-2021; *e-mail: [email protected]
Резюме: В статье представлены результаты эмпирического исследования способов манифестации модальности в кинотексте как семиотически сложном конструкте. Модальность рассматривается как средство, при помощи которого автор выражает свое отношение, чувства и ценностные установки. В современных лингвистических исследованиях акцент делается на том, как модальность маркируется в линейных, монокодовых текстах, построенных на основе естественного языка. В то же самое время ее выражение в полимодальных текстах, основанных на взаимодействии вербального и невербального семиотических кодов, к которым относится кинематографический текст, не получает достаточного освещения. Целью настоящей статьи является определение лингвистических, паралингвистических и невербальных маркеров модальности в кинодиалоге. Материалом послужил фильм "The Man who Knew Infinity", который исследуется с применением методов стилистического и прагматического анализа, а также с использованием мультимодального дискурс-анализа. Полученные результаты позволяют утверждать, что модальность выражается вербально на лексическом и грамматическом уровнях и поддерживается с помощью просодических и невербальных элементов. Основным языковым средством манифестации объективной модальности выступает морфологическая категория залога, в то время как субъективная модальность эксплицируется главным образом при помощи лексических единиц. В кинотексте синтаксические средства маркирования модальности находят ограниченное применение. Объяснением этому может служить коллоквиальная природа кинодиалога, не предполагающая использования сложных синтаксических конструкций. Полученные результаты позволяют рассмотреть создание модальности в кинематографическом тексте в ракурсе взаимодействия лингвистических, паралингвистических и нелингвистических элементов, включающих мимику и жесты, что может найти свое применение при исследовании модальности применительно к другим видам семиотически осложненных текстов.
Ключевые слова: полимодальный текст, вербальный код, невербальный код, аудиальный и визуальный каналы, модальность, кинотекст, маркеры модальности.
Для цитирования: Прасолова О.Д., Павлина С.Ю. Использование вербального и невербального кодов для создания модальности в кинематографическом тексте. Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2022. № 3. С. 225-233.
Introduction
The last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century saw a massive shift in media production and consumption. The essence of that shift was that written texts were to a large extent replaced by media that encompassed several semiotic systems, films being the most sophisticated of them [1]. In the course of time films gained voice and colour, turning into a complex entity that uses speech, music and visual imagery to engage with the viewer.
Today films are studied from psychological, sociological, cultural and philosophical perspectives. They have also become a centrepiece of linguistic and semiotic research [2] [3] [4].
The first attempts to study the phenomenon of film from a semiotic perspective were made in the 1960's and the 1970's. As it was the time of the 'linguistic turn," the researchers were naturally inclined to seek language-like structures in film and treat them as a language of its own. However, film was fundamentally different from language in that it apparently could not be segmented into clearly defined units, apart from purely mechanical ones, such as frames and shots [5].
Bateman argues that the Hallidayan semiotic model brings clarity to the way linguistically oriented approaches can be applied in film studies and shows how it can be used to improve a previously existing framework [5]. There is a considerable body of research centred around Halliday's "theories of language as a social semiotic" [6: 2]. The field built around his works bears the name of social semiotics and is based upon a set of preconceived assumptions, namely the ones stating that multiple modes are used to create meanings and that these modes are used in a particular social context [6]. The model of social semiotics has been employed to analyse visual materials (educational leaflets, advertisement, post stamps, etc.) to explore such complex issues as gender and national identity [6] [7]. As Bateman's work demonstrates, it can also be applied to films. Social semiotics generated new approaches, one of them being Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) which seeks to discover the ways in which various semiotic resources or 'modes' interact to create meanings [8].
When investigating films, modern scholars tend to use the terms 'text' and 'discourse'. According to Bateman, viewing film as discourse was a way to move from the linguistically inclined approaches prevalent in 1970's [5]. The Russian researchers Slyshkin and Yefremova describe films as 'creolised texts' and define the cinematic text as a cohesive message which employs verbal (linguistic) and non-verbal signs (icons and/or indices) and is organized with the help of cinematographic codes [1]. At the same time, Kress makes a distinction between text and discourse, arguing that a text is a "material site of emergence of immaterial discourse(s)" [9: 36]. Following Kress's ideas, it is logical to use the term 'cinematic text' when talking about some specific cinematographic work.
The analysis of semiotically divergent signs and their interaction proved to be effective when considering the meaning-making process in films and other visual media. However, some areas of research remain understudied; namely the work of particular functional semantic categories within the verbal component of a cinematic text requires further consideration. The focus of the present study is on the category of stance. The study is novel as it explores not only the linguistic means of expressing stance but also paralinguistic and non-verbal parameters that correlate with certain types of stance. The aim of this research is to identify the verbal and paralinguistic means that help create stance within the film dialogue as a part of a cinematic text. The present research is grounded in stance decoding based on Multimodal Discourse Analysis.
Literature review
For the purposes of the study, it is necessary to determine, firstly, which systems or networks constitute a cinematic text as a multimodal entity, providing material for analysis, and secondly, what is meant by linguistic stance.
The complex semiotic structure of a cinematic text relies on heterogenic semiotic elements, a certain arrangement of iconic and symbolic signs. These elements are combined to form meaningful coding systems aligned with the author's purpose, they provide sophisticated means for artistic expression and creativity. The language is used in cinematic texts in two forms: the audial one encompasses a film dialogue, the other form is written, it includes elements that support the cinematic narrative [10; 11].
The research treating a cinematic text as a combination of different semiotic modes was carried out by Slyshkin and Yefremova [1]. The authors describe a variety of semiotic resources incorporated in a cinematic text and establish dichotomies of 'linguistic vs. non-linguistic' and 'audial vs. visual' codes. This allows them to establish four categories of semiotic resources: linguistic audial (songs and characters' speech), linguistic visual (captions and on-screen inscriptions), non-linguistic audial (noises and music) and non-linguistic visual (characters' images, visual effects, etc.) [1].
Another strand of research is pioneered by O'Halloran, who studied semiotic resources within cinematic texts, elaborating the principles of Multimodal Discourse Analysis (MDA) [8]. According to them, MDA is described as a paradigm in which the language is studied "in combination with other resources, such as images, scientific symbolism, gesture, action, music and sound" [8: 1]. An example of the MDA practical application is O'Halloran's analysis of a talk show which explores the participants' speech, kinetic features (gaze, gesture and body posture), as well as the cinematographic features (camera angle and movement, frame size) of the show [8]. With some slight modifications, namely with the addition of facial expressions, this framework was adopted for our analysis.
Another key term used in the study is stance which we view as the manifestation of "attitudes, feelings, judgments, or comments concerning the propositional content of a message" [12: 93]. The book "Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse" is devoted to the way authors express their attitudes, feelings and values. The term evaluation is used to discuss the areas that are also called stance and modality. The research encompasses different types of written texts and explores the way stance is analysed on the lexical, grammatical and textual levels [13].
In their seminal work, Biber and Finegan examine evidentiality and affect as two primary types of stance [12]. In his later works, Biber introduces the terms 'epistemic stance' and 'attitudinal stance', the former referring to the credibility of knowledge, its source and "mode of knowing", the latter applying mainly to emotional attitude [14]. One more approach was introduced by Paducheva who proposed a classification in which 'objective' and 'subjective' types of stance are singled out. The objective stance reveals the speaker's attitude to the reality of the proposition and can be 'real', 'contrafactual' or 'neutral'. The subjective stance is subdivided into 'epistemic' stance (expressing certainty, assumption or doubt), 'deontic' stance (related to meanings of obligation, permission and prohibition) and 'ontological' stance (expressing physical ability or objective necessity). Evidentiality is excluded from Paducheva's classification [15]. We augmented her classification with the 'evaluative' stance, which expresses a positive or negative assessment of an object or action. As Paducheva's classification of stance types has a complex structure and accounts for various semantic nuances, it was deemed appropriate for this study.
While in the original article Paducheva uses the term 'modality' to describe a broad range of attitudes which a speaker attaches to an utterance, in research set in Multimodal Discourse Analysis framework the terms modality and mode are used interchangeably. To avoid confusion, we will employ the term 'stance' (in line with Biber and Finegan) to denote lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings and judgments [12].
Methodology and Material
For our analysis, we chose the film entitled "The Man who Knew Infinity" (2015), directed by Matthew Brown. It tells the story of an Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan who comes to Britain to share his work with the scientific community. The sample used in the study includes 230 utterances containing 1352 words of the protagonist, as well as 50 film fragments selected specifically for MDA.
The methods used in the research encompass linguastylistic and linguapragmatic analyses, as well as Multimodal Discourse Analysis.
The first stage of the study included the examination of 230 utterances of the protagonist from the standpoint of their content and communicative goal to determine the type of stance they refer to and the linguistic means which are employed to express it.
The next stage of the research involved the selection of 50 fragments containing the protagonist's utterances with various types of stance with the aim to analyse the use of kinesic and paralinguistic modes for marking stance, namely gestures and facial expressions, posture and prosodic parameters (pitch, loudness, tempo and prevalent nuclear tones). To this end, we employed MDA, building on O'Halloran's work [8]. The pattern was augmented with the analysis of facial expressions. It allows for placing more emphasis on the non-verbal behaviour of the main character than on the way it is framed by cinematographic means, which was mainly explored in O'Halloran's study. In addition to that, the fragments selected for MDA were studied from the acoustic perspective. To establish their prosodic features, we employed the software Speech Analyzer 3.1.
The extracts were grouped according to the type of stance expressed in the utterances they contained. Some extracts had the combination of different types of stance, e.g. real stance and positive evaluation, so they fitted more than one category.
We carried out the quantitative analysis of the obtained data which aimed at establishing the way stance is expressed and marked in the film. We also employed qualitative analysis to see how linguistic and non-linguistic means work together to express stance, as some details of this process might not be revealed by the application of the quantitative analysis. Thus, the research focused on some specific usage of posture, gestures and facial expression in the film fragments which were selected for examination.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of the protagonist's speech has shown that on the grammatical level stance is mainly expressed with the help of the category of mood. It is especially productive when used to convey reality and unreality, or, in Paducheva's terms, the objective stance [15].
In our analysis, we used the traditional approach which encompasses Indicative, Imperative and Subjective mood, as it was deemed appropriate for the study's purpose, even though some researchers assume that the Subjunctive mood is "virtually extinct" in modern English [16] [17].
In the study, 276 clauses were analysed separately to determine to what extent the stance expressed in them depends on the category of mood. It has been shown that 88.4% of the clauses expressing the so-called 'real' stance (i.e. presenting the contents of an utterance as a real fact) use verbs in the Indicative mood. Clauses with 'neutral' stance (not stating the reality or unreality of the described event) contain verbs with all the three types of mood: Indicative (47%), Imperative (17.6%) and Subjunctive (2.4%). The so-called 'contrafactive' stance, opposite to the 'real' one in its meaning, proved to be the rarest type of stance, as it occurs only in three clauses, two of which (66.6%) contain a verb in the Indicative mood. Thus, the research has revealed a strong correlation between the type of mood used in an utterance and the type of stance expressed.
Objective stance is also expressed by various syntactic means including conditional clauses, emphatic do, pseudo-cleft sentences, etc. For instance, emphatic do is used in the utterance You see, you do exist. One of the examples is the use of the so-called what-clause in the utterance What I need is a job. However, the examples of the syntactic expression of stance are rare in the cinematic text sample. Lexical means are far more frequent stance indicators. They are employed to express epistemic, deontic, ontological and evaluative stance. This type of stance markers includes modal verbs, semi-modals, modal words (namely, modal adverbs) and words conveying evaluation.
The fact that syntactic means of expressing stance have a limited use in "The Man who Knew Infinity" can be explained by the very nature of film dialogue. The verbal part of the cinematic text relies heavily on other modes (namely, the visual mode) and to a certain extent is designed to imitate real-life speech; therefore, it is quite logical to assume that long, syntactically complex structures will not fit the film dialogue. The empirical data proves it, as 80% of all the film main character's utterances are structurally simple sentences.
Table 1. The MDA application to a film fragment
Visual Frame 1 2
Shots PH m
Characters' speech Ramanujan: You've never even seen me... Ramanujan: ...letalone know me.
m Kinetic features Gaze Off-screen, engaged, directed at the opponent
¡3 о гл (U Posture Straight (the protagonist is sitting in his chair).
_ О О s u и Gestures Before speaking, the protagonist turns his head away (anger). As he speaks, he shakes his head. Before speaking, the protagonist turns his head away (anger). As he speaks, he shakes his head.
Facial expressions The protagonist frowns, the corners of his mouth are turned down.
Cinematographic features Close-up, horizontal angle. Close-up, horizontal angle.
Epistemic stance is often expressed by modal verbs, namely must, will, might and can (or can't), as in He must be a very kind man to bring me all this way. Modal adverbs, such as certainly, maybe and perhaps are also commonly used to express this type of stance: Perhaps we can start over. Deontic stance is connected with modal verbs can and should as well as the semi-modal had better. For example, in one of the scenes the protagonist says: Then he better start counting very high, expressing his opinion about what another character of the film should do. Similarly, ontological stance is expressed by various modals (can) and semi-modals (need, have to), as in the utterance I have to go back to work now, expressing objective, 'external' necessity.
The primary means of expressing evaluative stance is evaluative lexis, i.e. words which have an evaluative component in their denotative or connotative meaning as well as words that become contextually evaluative.
They include adjectives (beautiful, exceptional, kind), adverbs (perfectly) and to a lesser extent nouns (fate, honour) and verbs (waste, value). In some cases, words that do not have any evaluative components in their semantic structure, acquire affective connotation in the context, as is the case with the noun diamond in the following utterance: What you might see now is ordinary glass, I promise you will soon remain to see a diamond. Here the word is used in its figurative meaning to convey the idea that the protagonist is a gifted mathematician.
Amplifiers, such as most, very and highly, though devoid of evaluative meaning, add to the expressiveness of evaluative lexis: <...> I would very highly value any advice you give me; Very nice paper.
The analysis of non-verbal communication signs has shown that gestures play an important role in marking stance. They are revealed in the majority of film extracts that were analysed in the course of our study. Meaningful gestures are found in 87.1% of the fragments with evaluative stance, this parameter for extracts with epistemic and real stance being 92.3% and 91.7% respectively. Their function in the cinematic text is manifold. For instance, gestures were found to mark particular words which express stance in utterances. One of the examples can be drawn from the fragment where the protagonist uses the utterance Perhaps, we can start over, raising his head the moment the word perhaps is pronounced. This word expresses epistemic stance and is additionally marked by the rising intonation. Another function of gestures is to make utterances more expressive, which is especially visible in case with evaluative stance. An example of this is found in the fragment where the protagonist says It S an honour, sir to Mr. Hardy and nods, which emphasizes his respect for his interlocutor.
Table 2. Co-occurrence of non-verbal signs with different types of stance
Non-verbal signs Evaluative stance (31 fragments) Epistemic stance (13 fragments) Real stance (12 fragments)
Posture 3.2% 23.1% -
Gestures 87.1% 92.3% 91.7%
Facial expressions 83.9% 61.5% 83.3%
Facial expressions are also found in most of the extracts covered in our analysis. To be more exact, they are present in 83.8% of the extracts with evaluative stance, 61.5% extracts with epistemic stance and 83.3% extracts with real stance. Their main function is to signal the protagonist's emotions and attitudes. For instance, the protagonist smiles when saying In maths, these patterns reveal themselves in the most incredible form, which makes his positive attitude towards the object of the discussion more prominent, and his frown in 6 out of 12 fragments containing real stance indicates the seriousness of the matter.
The protagonist's posture, on the other hand, seems to have very little value in terms of marking stance in the film dialogues. Postures that are meaningful in terms of stance expression are found in 3.2% of the extracts with evaluative stance and 23.1% fragments with epistemic stance. The possible explanation of this is the limited number of distant shots and the dominance of close-ups in the film under analysis.
Table 3. The relation between type of stance and prosodic characteristics of the utterance
Evaluative stance: positive Evaluative stance: negative Epistemic stance Real stance
Tempo Fast 31.25% Fast. 26.7% Fast. 7.7% Fast. 16.7%
Medium 43.75% Medium 73.3% Medium 76.9% Medium 66.8%
Slow. 25% Slow. - Slow. 15.4% Slow. 16.7%
Pitch High 31.25% High 6.7% High 7.7% High 16.7%
Medium 56.25% Medium 20% Medium 38.5% Medium 58.3%
Low 12.5% Low 73.3% Low 53.8% Low 25%
Volume High - High 20 % High 7.7% High 8.3%
Medium 93.75% Medium 26.7% Medium 46.15% Medium 83.4%
Low 6.25% Low 53.3% Low 46.15% Low 8.3%
The paralinguistic markers of stance have also been identified. They include speech tempo, pitch, volume and nuclear tones. The experimental acoustic methods revealed that certain prosodic parameters correlate with the type of stance expressed in the utterance. For example, the use of the real stance is connected with medium
volume (83.4%) and pitch (58.3%) as well as the frequent use of falling nuclear tones, which makes the statement sound certain and categorical, while utterances with the epistemic stance are characterized by low pitch (53.8%), which reflects the speaker's tentativeness. Positive evaluation tends to correlate with the high pitch (31.25%) and significant diversity in tempo, unlike negative evaluation, which correlates with some lower pitch (73.3%) and is not variable in terms of tempo (Table 3).
Conclusion
The analysis of 230 utterances and 50 fragments of the film has shown that stance in the film dialogue is created by linguistic means of lexical, morphologic and syntactical levels and is supported by non-verbal and paralinguistic means.
The research has established that the main linguistic means used to express objective stance is the morphological category of mood. The subjective stance, on the other hand, is mainly expressed with the help of various lexical items. Epistemic, deontic and ontological stance rely on the use of modal verbs and other words with modal meaning, while the linguistic means of evaluative stance expression belong to the lexical level.
In reference to stance expression, syntactic means proved to have very limited use in the cinematic text. It can be explained by the colloquial nature of a film dialogue, which makes it syntactically simple. The question whether it holds true for other media that rely on the visual mode requires some special investigation.
The use of MDA helped demonstrate that among other kinetic features, the main role in marking stance in the film dialogue belongs to gestures and facial expressions, while the characters' postures were found to be almost irrelevant in this respect. The prosodic features that contribute to marking stance are speech volume, tempo, pitch and, to a certain extent, nuclear tones.
Thus, the present study gives insight into the way linguistic categories, such as stance, are expressed within multimodal media. The representation of stance in a cinematic text is to a large extent determined by the text multimodal nature. The interaction of verbal and nonverbal modes involved in stance building is a two-way process: the linguistic means of expressing stance are supported by the non-verbal and paralinguistic ones, at the same time the multimodal nature of a cinematic text affects the choice of linguistic means. It is mainly due to its reliance on visual imagery that lexical means of expressing stance prevail over syntactic ones. This specific nature of a cinematic text needs to be taken into account when studying language in films.
References
1. Slyshkin GG, Yefremova MA. Cinematic text: an experience in linguacultural analysis. Vodoley Publishers, Moscow, 2004. (In Russ.).
2. Nelyubina YA. Film discourse as an object of linguistic research. Chelyabinsk Humanitarian. 2013; 3: 71-73. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kinodiskurs-kak-obekt-lingvisticheskogo-izucheniya. Accessed 20.05.2022. (In Russ.).
3. Hanich J. Mise En Esprit: One-Character Films and the Evocation of Sensory Imagination. Paragraph. 2020; 43 (3): 249-264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2020.0339 Accessed 25.05.2022. (In Eng.).
4. Hanich J. Suggestive verbalization in film: on character speech and sensory imagination. New review of film and television studies. 2022. Ahead-of-print, 1-24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2022. 2033067Accessed 20.05.2022. (In Eng.).
5. Bateman JA. Hallidayan systemic-functional semiotics and the analysis of the moving audiovisual image. Text &Talk. 2013; 33(4/5): 641-663. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0029 Accessed 20.04.2022. (In Eng.).
6. Wong M. Multimodal Communication: A social semiotic approach to text and image in print and digital media. Palgrave Pivot. 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15428-8 Accessed 21.05.2022. (In Eng.).
7. Van Leeuwen T, Jewitt C. The Handbook of Visual Analysis: Visual Meaning: a Social Semiotic Approach. SAGE Publications. 2004. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062 Accessed 20.05.2022. (In Eng.).
8. O'Halloran KL. Multimodal discourse analysis, The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, in: K. Hyland andB. Paltridge (Eds.). Continuum, London and New York. 2011: 120-137. http://multimodal-anal-ysis-lab.org/_docs/pubs14-OHalloran(in%20press%202011)-Multimodal_Discourse_Analysis.pdf. Accessed 20.04.2022. (In Eng.).
9. Kress G. Multimodal discourse analysis, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Routledge. 2011: 35-50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068 Accessed 20.05.2022. (In Eng.).
10. Leontovich OA. Western narrative film about the Battle of Stalingrad through the eyes of Russian spectators. Volgograd State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2015; 3 (98): 163-171. Available at: http://izvestia. vspu.ru/jurnal/346 Accessed 20.04.2022. (In Russ.).
11. Nikolskaya TE, Pavlina SYu. Ethno-Cultural Influences on Multimodal Text Perception. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2019; 18 (1): 132-145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15688/ jvolsu2.2019.1.11 Accessed 12.05.2022. (In Russ.).
12. Biber D, Finegan E. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk. 9(1); 1989: 93-124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 Accessed 22.05.2022. (In Eng.).
13. Hunston S. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000. (In Eng.).
14. Gray B, Biber D. Current conceptions of stance, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012:15-32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825 Accessed 20.05.2022. (In Eng.).
15. Paducheva EV. Modality. Materials for corpus-based study of Russian grammar. 2016. Available at: http://rusgram.ru/Модальность#212 Accessed 20.04.2022. (In Russ.).
16. Barkhudarov LS. Notes on Morphology of the Modern English Language. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola. 1975. (In Russ.).
17. Palmer FR. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. (In Eng.).
Список литературы
1. Слышкин Г.Г., Ефремова М.А. Кинотекст (опыт лингвокультурологического анализа). М.: Водолей Publishers. 2004.
2. Нелюбина Ю. А. Кинодискурс как объект лингвистического изучения. Челябинский гуманитарий. 2013; 3: 71-73. Доступно по: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n7kinodiskurs-kak-obekt-lingvistichesko-go-izucheniya. Ссылка активна на 20.05.2022.
3. Hanich J. 2020. Mise En Esprit: One-Character Films and the Evocation of Sensory Imagination. Paragraph. 43 (3): 249-264. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.3366/para.2020.0339. Ссылка активна на 25.05.2022
4. Hanich J. Suggestive verbalization in film: on character speech and sensory imagination. New review of film and television studies. 2022. Ahead-of-print, 1-24. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.1080/17400309.2022. 2033067. Ссылка активна на 20.05.2022.
5. Bateman J.A. Hallidayan systemic-functional semiotics and the analysis of the moving audiovisual image. Text &Talk. 2013; 33(4/5): 641-663. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0029. Ссылка активна на 20.04.2022.
6. Wong M. Multimodal Communication: A social semiotic approach to text and image in print and digital media. Palgrave Pivot. 2019. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15428-8. Ссылка активна на 21.05.2022.
7. Van Leeuwen T., Jewitt C. The Handbook of Visual Analysis: Visual Meaning: a Social Semiotic Approach. SAGE Publications. 2004. Доступно по: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857020062. Ссылка активна на 21.05.2022. Ссылка активна на 20.05.2022.
8. O'Halloran K.L. Multimodal discourse analysis, The Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis, in: K. Hyland and B. Paltridge (Eds.). Continuum, London and New York. 2011: 120-137. Доступно по: http:// multimodal-analysis-lab.org/_docs/pubs14-OHalloran(in%20press%202011)-Multimodal_Discourse_Analy-sis.pdf. Ссылка активна на 20.04.2022.
9. Kress G. Multimodal discourse analysis, The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Routledge. 2011: 35-50. Доступно по: https://www.academia.edu/36763275/Routledge_Handbook_of_Discourse_Anal-ysis. Ссылка активна на 20.05.2022.
10. Леонтович О.А. Западный кинотекст о Сталинградской битве глазами русского зрителя: опыт нарративного анализа. Известия Волгоградского государственного педагогического университета. 2015; 3(98): 163-171. Доступно по: http://izvestia.vspu.ru/jurnal/346. Ссылка активна на 20.04.2022.
11. Никольская Т.Е., Павлина С.Ю. Национально обусловленные аспекты восприятия поликодового текста. Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2, Языкознание. 2019; 18 (1):
132-145. Доступно по: https://doi.Org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2019.1.11 Ссылка активна на 12.05.2022.
12. Biber D., Finegan E. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk. 9(1); 1989: 93-124. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93. Ссылка активна на 22.05.2022.
13. Hunston S., Thompson J. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000.
14. Gray B., Biber D. Current conceptions of stance, Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Palgrave Macmillan. 2012:15-32. Доступно по: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825. Ссылка активна на 20.05.2022. (In Eng.).
15. Падучева Е.В. Материалы для проекта корпусного описания русской грамматики. На правах рукописи. М., 2016. Доступно по: http://rusgram.ru/Модальность#2. Ссылка активна на 20.04.2022.
16. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. Москва: Высшая школа, 1975.
17. Palmer F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. (In Eng.).
История статьи:
Получена: 18.07.2022 Принята: 11.08.2022 Опубликована онлайн: 25.09.2022
Article history:
Received: 18.07.2022 Accepted: 11.08.2022 Published online: 25.09.2022
Сведения об авторах:
Прасолова Ольга Дмитриевна, магистрант Высшей школы перевода НГЛУ им. Н.А. Добролюбова, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация; e-mail: [email protected].
Павлина Светлана Юрьевна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры теории и практики английского языка и перевода, НГЛУ им. Н.А. Добролюбова, Нижний Новгород, Российская Федерация; e-mail: [email protected].
Bionotes:
Olga D. Prasolova, Master Student at the Higher School of Translation and Interpreting, Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation; e-mail: [email protected].
Svetlana Yu. Pavlina, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation; e-mail: [email protected].
