Email this article 
Euphemisation and Incongruity as the Discourse Strategies in Cinematic Comedies
- Authors: Serozeeva D.N.1
-
Affiliations:
- Moscow State Linguistic University
- Issue: No 3(884) (2024)
- Pages: 95-102
- Section: Linguistics
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2542-2197/article/view/316264
- ID: 316264
Cite item
Abstract
In the study, we explore euphemisation and incongruity as two cognitive strategies of discourse construal in cinematic comedies. Their distribution in three discourse levels and three semiotic modalities (speech, sound and dynamic image) indicates that it is mediated by each of the cognitive strategies. The analysis shows euphemisation as prevalent in speech on the levels of Sociocultural situation and Communicative situation, while incongruity is found on all three levels, predominantly in dynamic image and speech.
About the authors
Diana Nailevna Serozeeva
Moscow State Linguistic University
Author for correspondence.
Email: avisliberan@gmail.com
Senior Lecturer at the Department of English Faculty of Translation and Interpreting Moscow State Linguistic University
Russian FederationReferences
- Dijk, T. A van. (1990). Issues in Functional Discourse Analysis. In Pinkster, H. (ed.), Liber Amicorum for Simon Dik (pp. 27–46). Dordrecht: Foris.
- Hart, Ch. (2015). Discourse. In Dąbrowska, E., Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 322–345). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Reisigl, M., Wodak, R. (2017). The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In Flowerdew, J., Richardson, J. E. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 44–59). London: Routledge.
- Crespo-Fernández, E. (2018). Euphemism as a discursive strategy in US local and state politics. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(6), 789–811.
- Asseel, D. A. (2020). Seeing the unseen: Euphemism in animated films: A multimodal and critical discourse analysis [Ph.D. Thesis]. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
- Hempelmann, Ch. F., Attardo, S. (2011). Resolutions and their incongruities: Further thoughts on Logical Mechanisms. Humor, 24(2), 125–149.
- Dijk, T. A. van, Kintch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse. New York: Academic Press.
- Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic Structures. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Kiose, M. I. (2023). Iconicity of multimodal discourse as an instrument of its analysis: space in speech, gesture, eye movement and film frame. Cognitive studies of language, 5(56), 107–116. (In Russ.)
- Burridge, K. (2012). Euphemism and Language Change: The Sixth and Seventh Ages. Lexis, 7, 65–92.
- Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. (2008). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
- Iriskhanova, O. K. (2014). Focus games in language: semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing. Moscow: LRC Publishing House. (In Russ.)
- Porokhnitskaya, L. V. (2014). Kontseptual’nye osnovaniya ehvfemii v yazyke (na materiale angliiskogo, nemetskogo, frantsuzskogo, ispanskogo i ital’yanskogo yazykov) = Conceptual foundations of euphemy in language (a case study of English, German, French, Spanish and Italian languages): abstract of Senior Doctorate in Philology. Moscow. (In Russ.)
- Costanzo, W. V. (2020). When the World Laughs: Film Comedy East and West. Oxford–New York: Oxford University Press.
- Zykova, I. V. (2020). Linguistic-creative thinking and the poetics of cinematic discourse: towards the theory of linguistic-aesthetic impact. Cognitive studies of language, 4(43), 267–300. (In Russ.)
- Shmid, B. (2003). Narratologiya = Narratology. M.: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury. (In Russ.)
- Lotman, Yu., Tsiv’yan, Yu. (1994). Dialog s ehkranom = Dialogue with the screen. Tallinn: Aleksandra. (In Russ.)
Supplementary files
