BINARY OPPOSITION OF FASCINATION VULNERABILITY/RESILIENCE IN ENGLISH CINEMATIC DISCOURSE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article examines the binary opposition of the addressee's fascination vulnerability /resilience in the diegetic space of English cinematic discourse. The aim of the study is to identify the specific influence of the addressee's communicative style on his perception of fascination, serving as a marker of fascination vulnerability / resilience. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time, the communicative styles of the addressee of a fascination communicative situation in English cinematic discourse have been identified; the author proposed new linguistic definitions “fascination vulnerability” / “fascination resilience” which make explicit the degree of fascination influence upon the recipient. The study established that the success of a fascination communicative situation is predetermined by the addressee's communicative style. An assertive listener is characterized by constructive and partner-oriented behaviour of fascination vulnerability/loyalty, which presupposes the comfortable and effective communication between the inter-locutors. The antifascinative behaviour of an aggressive addressee is characterized by destructiveness and a competitive nature, which impacts negatively on the communication indicating a high degree of fascination resilience.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Анцупов А.Я., Шипилов А.И. Конфликтология. – М.: Юнити, 2000. – 551 с.
Арутюнова Н.Д. Фактор адресата // Известия Академии наук СССР. Серия литературы и языка. – 1981. – № 4. – С. 356–367.
Винокур Т.Г. Говорящий и слушающий. Варианты речевого поведения. – М.: Наука, 1993. – 172 с.
Войскунский А.Е. Я говорю, мы говорим... Очерки о человеческом общении. – М.: Знание, 1990. – 192 с.
Головко О.В. Стратегии адресанта фасцинации в диегетическом пространстве кинодискурса // Филологические науки. Вопросы теории и практики. – 2026. – № 2. – С. 468–476.
Головко О.В. Феномен фасцинационного влияния в англоязычном кинодискурсе // Вестник Полоцкого государственного университета. Серия А, Гуманитарные науки. – 2025. – № 4(76). – С. 67–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52928/2070-1608-2025-76-4-67-70.
Дымарский М.Я. Речевая конфликтология: учеб. пособие / отв. ред. М.Я. Дымарский. – СПб.: Изд-во РГПУ им. А.И. Гер-цена, 2008. – 215 с.
Задворная Е.Г. О феномене коммуникативной резистентности // Лингвистика, лингводидактика, лингвокультурология: актуальные вопросы и перспективы развития: материалы IV Междунар. науч.-практ. конф., Минск, 19–20 марта 2020 г. / редкол.: О.Г. Прохоренко (отв. ред.). – Минск: БГУ, 2020. – С. 8–12.
Кубрякова Е.С. Модели порождения речи и главные отличительные особенности речепорождающего процесса // Человеческий фактор в языке. Язык и порождение речи / Е.С. Кубрякова. – М.: Наука, 1991. – C. 21–82.
Омельченко Е.В. Фасцинативные средства и приемы в коммуникации // Актуальные проблемы гуманитарных и социально-экономических наук. – 2013. – Т. 7, № 2. – C. 136–139.
Соковнин В.М. Фасцинология: Пролегомены к науке о чарующей, доминантной и устрашающей коммуникации животных и человека. – Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2005. – 400 с.
Стернин И.А. Фактор адресата в речевом воздействии. – Воронеж: «Истоки», 2012. – 51 с.
Шрейдер Ю.А. Логика знаковых систем (элементы семиотики). – М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2025. – 64 c.
Perspective conflict disrupts pragmatic inference in real-time language comprehension / D. J. Barr, H. Sirniö, B. Kovács, K. J. O'Shea, S. McNee, A. Beith, H. Britain, Q. Li // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. – 2025. – Vol. 51. Iss. 12. – P. 1990–2008.
Bavelas J. B., Gerwing J. The Listener as Addressee in Face-to-Face Dialogue // International Journal of Listening. – 2011. – Iss. 25. – P. 178–198.
Brennan S. E., Hanna J. E. Partner-specific adaptation in dialogue // Topics in Cognitive Science. – 2009. – Vol. 1. – P. 274–291.
Buzzanell P. M. Communication Theory of Resilience in Everyday Talk, Interactions, and Network Structures // Communication Faculty Publications. – 2019. – 983 p.
Speaker-specific cues influence semantic disambiguation / C. Davies, V. Porretta, K. Koleva, E. Klepousniotou // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. – 2022. – Vol. 51. Iss. 5. – P. 933–955.
Dawson E. “How does linguistic indifference masquerade as linguistic resistance?” // German Quarterly. – 2023. – Vol. 96. Iss.3. – P. 1–3.
Foley G., Gentile J. Nonverbal Communication in Psychotherapy // Psychiatry (Edgmont). – 2010. – Vol. 7. Iss. 6. – P. 38–44.
Gamble M., Gamble T. Kwal. Communication Works. – New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. – 503 p.
Grice H. P. Logic and conversation // Syntax and Semantics. – New York: Academic Press, 1975. – Vol 3. – P. 41–58.
Heller D., Brown-Schmidt S. The Multiple Perspectives theory of mental states in communication // Cognitive Science. – 2023. – Vol. 47. Iss.7. – P. e13322.
Horton W. S., Gerrig R. J. Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees // Journal of Memory and Language. – 2002. – Vol. 47. Iss. 4. – P. 589–606.
Katsos N., Bishop D. V. Pragmatic tolerance: Implications for the acquisition of informativeness and implicature // Cognition. – 2011. – Vol. 120. Iss.1. – P. 67–81.
Kozloff S. Overhearing Film Dialogue. – Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. – 332 p.
Mazzarella D. Politeness, relevance and scalar inferences // Journal of Pragmatics. – 2015. – Iss. 79. – P. 93–106.
Nygaard L. C., Lunders E. R. Resolution of lexical ambiguity by emotional tone of voice // Memory & Cognition. – 2002. – Vol. 30. Iss. 4. – P. 583–593.
Pozzi M., Mazzarella D. Speaker trustworthiness: Shall confidence match evidence? // Philosophical Psychology. – 2024. – Iss. 37. – P. 102–125.
Regel S., Coulson S., Gunter T. C. The communicative style of a speaker can affect language comprehension? ERP evidence from the comprehension of the use of meaning relations during spoken sentence comprehension // Neuropsychologia. – 2010. – Vol. 50. Iss.11. – P. 2659–2668.
The Internet Movie Script Database (IMSDb). DOI: imsdb.com
Tseng C. Cohesion in Film: Tracking Film Elements. – Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. – 176 р.
Villarejo A. Film studies. The basics. – London, New York: Routledge, 2007. – 172 р.
Wilson J. Pragmatics, Utterance Meaning, and Representational Gesture. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. – 87 p.
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- O. GOLOVKO, THE PHENOMENON OF FASCINATING INFLUENCE IN ENGLISH CINEMATIC DISCOURSE, Vestnik of Polotsk State University. Part A. Humanities: No. 4 (2025)