On the ways of implementing the category of argumentativeness in online English-language movie reviews

O.R. Galiullina a*, S.I. Dubinin b**

aSamara State Technical University, Samara, 443100 Russia

bSamara National Research University named after Academician S.P. Korolev, Samara, 443011 Russia

E-mail: *galiullina_olesja@rambler.ru, **dubinin.si@ssau.ru

Received September 29, 2021


ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Full text PDF

DOI: 10.26907/2541-7738.2022.1-2.101-115

For citation: Galiullina O.R., Dubinin S.I. On the ways of implementing the category of argumentativeness in online English-language movie reviews. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 2022, vol. 164, no. 1–2, pp. 101–115. doi: 10.26907/2541-7738.2022.1-2.101-115. (In Russian)

Abstract

This article discusses how the category of argumentativeness is employed in online movie reviews written in English. The objectives of the study were to consider the concepts of argumentation and argumentativeness, to define the categories of argumentativeness and evaluativeness as the constituents of a movie review, as well as to identify the lexical-semantic, stylistic, and structural-syntactic parameters of the argumentative discourse expressed in an online movie review. The validity and reliability of the ways used to process the material under study were ensured by the correct application of the following modern methods of linguistic analysis: structural-semantic, interpretative, and functional-stylistic. A number of examples were provided, all proving that the development of the author's thesis occurs both explicitly (owing to the presence of the thesis and at least two arguments, linking words, introductory phrases, parenthesis) and implicitly (through to the question-answer form of presentation, irony, sarcasm, and using of numerous personal pronouns). The results obtained show that conjunctions play a significant role in the development of the argumentative discourse: firstly, coordinating conjunctions (such as and, so, but) introduce the thesis; secondly, subordinating conjunctions (for example, because, since, as) introduce arguments serving to put forward the thesis. It was concluded that the argumentative discourse in the text of a movie review explicitly manifests itself through such lexical means used to express the category of cohesion (transition from one segment to another while maintaining both structural and semantic unity) as in the first place, for example, then, plus, finally, etc. It was also revealed that any “incorporations” of other discourses, which are markers of a causal interdiscursive strategy, have an argumentative potential in the text of a movie review and fall into two categories: references to the director's previous works; references to films of other directors. The results of this study are important for developing modern genre studies and the theory of speech acts.

Keywords: argumentativeness, argumentative discourse, movie review, thesis, argumentation scheme, perlocutionary effect

References

  1. Morozova O.N. The informativity of public speech and the addressee factor. In: Informativnost' teksta i ego komponentov: sb. nauch. tr. MGPIIYa im. M. Tereza [The Informativity of Text and Its Components: A Collection of Articles Published by Maurice Thorez Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages]. Moscow, MGPIIYa, 1986, pp. 95–103. (In Russian)
  2. Shelestyuk E.V. Textual categories of argumentativeness, suggestiveness, and imperativeness as a reflection of linguistic persuasion techniques. Vestnik ChelGu. Seriya: Filologiya, Iskusstvovedenie, 2008. no. 6, pp. 25–39. (In Russian)
  3. Tertychnyi A.A. Zhanry periodicheskoi pechati [Genres of Periodicals]. Moscow, Aspekt Press, 2017. 320 p. (In Russian)
  4. Kulikova O.V. Linguostylistic means of argumentation in a publicistic text (using parliamentary speeches as an example). Cand. Philol. Diss. Moscow, 1989. 181 p. (In Russian)
  5. Medvedev S.A. An online review with respect to the evolution of the review genre. Filologiya i lingvistika v sovremennom obshchestve: materialy III Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. [Philology and Linguistics in Modern Society: Proc. III Int. Sci. Conf.]. Moscow, Buki-Vedi, 2014. pp. 77–79. (In Russian)
  6. Alekseev A.P. Argumentatsiya. Poznanie. Obshchenie [Argumentation. Cognition. Communication]. Moscow, Izd. . Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1991. 150 p. (In Russian)
  7. Maksimov V.I. Russkii yazyk i kul'tura rechi [Russian Language and Speech Culture]. Moscow, Gardariki, 2001. 413 p. (In Russian)
  8. Ruzavin G.I. Logika i argumentatsiya [Logic and Argumentation]. Moscow, Kul't. Sport, YuNITI, 1997. 351 p. (In Russian)
  9. Veretenkina L.Yu. Manipulation strategies, tactics, and techniques. Lingvokul'turologicheskie problemy tolerantnosti: Tezisy dokladov Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. [Linguoculturological Problems of Tolerance: Proc. Int. Sci. Conf.]. Yekaterinburg, Izd. Ural. Univ., 2001. pp. 177–179. (In Russian)
  10. Grigor'eva V.S. Diskurs kak element kommunikativnogo protsessa: pragmalingvisticheskii i kognitivnyi aspekty [Discourse as an Element of the Communicative Process: Pragmalinguistic and Cognitive Aspects]. Tambov, Izd. Tambov. Gos. Tekh. Univ., 2007. 120 p. (In Russian)
  11. Kotel'nikova L.A., Ruzavin G.I. A systematic approach to the process of persuasion and argumentation. In: Gerasimova I.A. (Ed.) Teoriya i praktika argumentatsii: Sb. st. [Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Collection of Articles]. Moscow, IFRAN, 2001, pp. 7–27. (In Russian)

The content is available under the license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.