Expressing the Author's Position in the English-Language Network Film Review

Introduction. The article presents the results of the analysis of the author’s position verbalization methods in the English online professional film review addressed to the mainstream audience. The authors proceed from the position that the methods of subject verbalization are determined by functional characteristics of discourse. The relevance of the study is due to the interest of modern linguistics in the study of the subject factor in “personal” types of discourse. The paper considers the factor of the subject in the discourse, defines the concepts of authorization and its nomination, analyzes the role of identifying categories of subjective modality and describing prevalent evaluation types in the study of the author's position in evaluative genres.

Methodology and sources. Research methodology is based on the approaches to classification of modus and evaluation types developed by N.D. Arutyunova. The methodology of describing the author's position in evaluative genres is proposed, which boils down to the following steps: identifying the leading linguistic means of self-nomination; displaying main genre-typical patterns of subject modality (modus types); describing evaluation semantics specificity and linguistic means of dominant evaluative meanings verbalization. The study was conducted on the material of the corpus of texts selected on the English-language portal metacritic.com which includes 50 professional film reviews addressed to a wide audience (39,765 words in length).

Results and discussion. Based on the methods of quantitative and contextual analysis the distribution of modus types verbalized by “subject-predicate” models with personal subject-representing pronouns was carried out; the distribution of personal and possessive pronouns as the main method of self-nomination in the discourse of the network English-language professional film review was revealed; on the basis of the analysis of the semantics of evaluative adjectives of the corpus, the types of evaluative meanings in the genre under study were identified. The leading methods of discourse subject nomination were shown to involve the 1-st person pl. inclusive pronoun, which indicates the author’s intention to establish a connection with the reader and to increase the manipulative potential of the text. The main types of evaluative meanings verbalized by the corpora adjectives were identified, which are emotional, intellectual, aesthetic and regulatory types.

Conclusion. The conducted research allowed us to conclude that the specificity of the expression of the author's position in professional network film review is reduced to the following characteristics: the dominant nature of the perceptual mode and the mental mode of knowledge in the field of subjective modality of texts; the predominance of first-person plural pronouns in an inclusive meaning as a means of self-nomination of the subject discourse and the dominance of partial-evaluative meanings over general-evaluative ones. The predominance of emotional-psychological and intellectual-psychological types of evaluation indicates the author's intention to express an individualized subjective-emotional opinion about the evaluated object.

1. Garanina, E.Yu. (2013), “EVALUATION IN THE GENRE OF FILM REVIEW”, Bulletin of Kemerovo State Univ., no. 2 (54), RUS, pp. 28–31.

2. Stopa, А.V. (2020), “Genre specifics of critical and online review: comparative analysis”, Ratio et Natura. Linguistics, no. 2, available at: https://ratio-natura.ru/vypusk-no2-2-2020-g#lang (accessed 17.07.2021).

3. Eremina, М.А. (2016), “Speech genre of review in the online communicative space”, Nauchnyi dialog [Scientific Dialogue], no. 5 (53), pp. 34–45.

4. Terskikh, М.V. (2014), “INTERNET COMMENTS IN TOURIST DISCOURSE (MARKETING POTENTIAL)”, Political Linguistics, no. 4 (50), pp. 274–283.

5. Ryabko, Е.I. and Osipova, P.S. (2020), “Specifics of the English-speaking film review texts”, E-Scio, no. 12 (51), available at: http://e-scio.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/E-SCIO-12_2020.pdf (accessed 17.07.2021).

6. Khotnog, А.V. (2020), “INFORMATION STRATEGY REALIZATION IN THE TEXT OF PROFESSIONAL ONLINE FILM REVIEWS”, Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic Univ. Humanities, no.10 (839), pp. 217–227.

7. Fomina, V.А. (2011), “Film review in the system of discourse collaboration”, Izvestiâ Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo èkonomičeskogo universiteta, no. 2, pp.144–146.

8. Pobirchenko, А.М. (2008), “Evaluative genres specifics within the context of modern journalistic typology”, Bulletin of the South Ural State Univ. Ser. Linguistics, no. 1 (101), pp. 76–78.

9. Akimova, Т.P. (2009), “SPECIFIC REALIZATION OF EVALUATIVE SPEECH GENRES IN EPISTOLARYTEXT (ON LETTERS BY A.S. PUSHKIN AND L.N. TOLSTOY)”, Science J. of VolSU. Linguistics, no. 2 (10), pp. 64–69.

10. Volynkina, S.V. (2016), “ROLE REPERTOIRE OF THE PRAISE EVALUATION GENRE”, Vestnik of Lobachevsky Univ. of Nizhni Novgorod, no. 2, pp. 200–204.

11. Fedosyuk, М.Yu. (1997), “Research on methods of speech manipulation and theory of speech genres”, Zhanry rechi [Speech Genres], Kolledzh, Saratov, RUS, iss. 1, pp. 66–88.

12. Nikitina, L.B. and Malyshkin, К.Yu. (2015), “THE SPEECH GENRE OF A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: A VIEW AT THE ASSESSMENT ASSERTIVENESS”, Speech Genres, no. 2 (12), pp. 72–79.

13. Bakhtin, M.M. (1996), Problema rechevykh zhanrov [The problem of speech genres], in Savchuk, S.O. (ed.), Izd-vo «Russkie slovari», Moscow, RUS, vol. 5, pp. 159–206.

14. Shchipitsina, L.Yu. (2006), “Digital genres: the problem of differentiation and criteria for description”, Kommunikatsiya i konstruirovaniye sotsial'nykh real'nostey [Communication and construction of social realities], in Filatova, O.G. (ed.), Roza mira, SPb., RUS, pp. 377–389.

15. Akhmanova, О.S. (1969), Slovar lingvisticheskih terminov [Dictionary of linguistic terms], Sov. Enciclopedia, Мoscow, USSR.

16. Il'ina, N.V. (1982), Struktura i semantika otsenochnykh konstruktsii [Structure and semantics of evaluative models], Russkii yazik, Мoscow, USSR.

17. Karasik, V.I. (2000), “On types of discourse”, Jazykovaja lichnost': institutseonal'nyj I personal'nyj diskurs [Linguistic personality: institutional and personal discourse], in Karasik, V.I. and Slyshkin, G.G. (eds.), Izd-vo VGSPU, Volgograd, RUS, pp. 5–20.

18. Desherieva, Т.I. (1987), “On the correlation between modality and predicativity”, Voprosy Jazykoznanija, no. 1, pp. 34–45.

19. Bally, Ch. (1955), Linguistique generale et linguistique française, Transl. by Venttsel', E.V. and Venttsel', T.V., Izd-vo inostrannoj literatury, Moscow, USSR.

20. Logicheskii analiz yazyka: Znanie i mnenie [Language logic analysis: knowledge and opinion] (1988), in Arutyunova, N.D. (ed.), Nauka, Мoscow, USSR.

21. Shmeleva, Т.V. (1988), “Modus and Its Means of Expression”, Ideograficheskie aspekty russkoi grammatiki [Ideographic Aspects of Russian Grammar], Moscow, Izd-vo MSU, p. 168–202.

22. Tripol'skaya, T.A. (1992), “Modus meaning of the "importance" of an utterance and the ways of its expression”, Modal'nost' v ee svyazyakh s drugimi kategoriyami [Modality in its connections with other categories], in Mathanova, I.P. (ed.), Novosibirsk, Izd-vo NGPI, RUS, pp. 27–33.

23. Perfilieva, N.P. (2013), “The mode of remembrance: between truth and falsehood (based on the material of memoir literature)”, Diskurs lzhi i lozh' kak diskurs [Discourse of lies and lies as discourse], in Tripolskaya, T.A. (ed.), Novosib. gos. ped. un-t, In-t filologii, massovoi informatsii i psikhologii, Novosibirsk, RUS, pp. 24–33.

24. Korablina, Т.I. (2015), “Language methods of manifestation of “recollection” modus in traditional and modern lexicography”, Slovo. Slovar'. Slovesnost': Dinamicheskie protsessy v yazyke, rechi i slovare (k 50-letiyu izdaniya akademicheskogo «Slovarya sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo yazyka») [Word. Dictionary Literature: Dynamic processes in language, speech and vocabulary (to the 50th anniversary of the publication of the academic "Dictionary of the modern Russian literary language")], Vserossiisk. nauch. konf [All-Russian. scientific conf.], SPb., RUS, Nov. 11–12, 2015, pp. 97–101.

25. Bolsunovskaya, L.М. and Naydina, D.S. (2015), “THE MODES OF AUTHORS POSITION EXPRESSION IN SCIENTIFIC AND POPULAR SCIENCE DISCOURSES”, Fundamental research, no. 2 (15), pp. 3413–3416.

26. Karamova, А.А. (2016), “MANIPULATIVE POTENTIAL OF GRAMMAR RESOURSES IN THE CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL DISCOURSE”, Vestnik of Volzhsky Univ. after V.N. Tatishchev, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 84–90.

27. Norman, B.Yu. and Plotnikova, А.М. (2016), “STRUCTURES WITH THE PRONOUN МЫ: FORMATION OF ACTUAL AND OCCASIONAL COLLECTIVE IDENTITY”, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical Univ. Bulletin, no. 6 (34), pp. 126–138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2226-3365.1606.10.

28. Arutyunova, N.D. (1988), Tipy yazykovykh znachenii: Otsenka. Sobytie. Fakt [Language meanings’ types: Evaluation. Event. Fact], Nauka, Мoscow, USSR.

29. Volf, Е.М. (2002), Funktsional'naya semantika otsenki [Functional semantics of evaluation], Editorial URSS, Moscow, RUS.