Linguopragmatics of the speech act of accusation in American English (using the example of the film "Green Book")

Drozdova Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Senior Lecturer; Department of Social Pedagogy; Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya str., 6 drozdova_ea@pfur.ru

The present scientific study is devoted to the identification of linguopragmatic strategies of the speech act of accusation in English based on the material of the film text. The relevance of the study of linguistic pragmatics of speech acts of a foreign language is due to the fact that in translation and communication, a person learning a foreign language cannot always correctly read the speaker's communicative intention and correctly interpret his words. In modern conditions, it is especially important for translator training to focus on the ability to read and interpret negatively oriented speech acts: along with open, explicit accusation, in international communication there is a hidden accusation, the communicative intention of which can be read only through a deep understanding of context, implication and extra-linguistic factors (gestures, body language, context).

The purpose of this study is to identify the frequency strategies of speech acts of accusation in English. The object of the study is a set of speech tactics and linguistic pragmatic strategies, the subject of the study is the refraction of the speech act of accusation in film discourse, using film text as research material, in which the "friend–foe" opposition is clearly expressed. The scientific novelty of the study is due to the identification of a close relationship between the speech act of accusation and the antithesis of "one's own" and "someone else's" in speech tactics: when making an accusation, the speaker rarely represents himself as a speaker, most often he associates with a certain group of people on whose behalf he makes the accusation.

The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study include sources on linguopragmatics: for example, in Russian linguistics, the issues of linguopragmatic neutralization of negatively labeled speech acts ^[1], linguopragmatics of political discourse ^[2], the discourse of the financial press ^[3] and media texts in general ^[4] are studied. The linguopragmatic approach to the study of various linguistic phenomena implies “the study of language in its pragmatic function – as a means of influencing the behavior and consciousness of people in the process of communication. Special attention is paid to the factors that determine the choice of options for expressing a communicative intention; the conditions that determine the understanding of the communicative purpose of the statement” ^{[5, p. 109]} (learning language in its pragmatic function as a means of influencing people's behavior and consciousness in the process of communication. Special attention is paid to the factors determining the choice of options for expressing a communicative intention; the conditions determining the understanding of the communicative purpose of the utterance – our translation – E.D.). Z. Alikhasanova also notes that the study of linguistic pragmatics allows us to establish both universal patterns of dialogue and those varying depending on the linguistic and cultural background.

Speech acts that contain a negative message have been studied on the basis of the English language in terms of disagreement ^[6], refusal ^[7;8], threats ^{[9; 10]}. The direct speech act of accusation is considered in domestic and foreign science in the modern period in the aspect of political discourse on the material of videos posted on video hosting sites ^[11], on the material of English and Farsi in newspaper discourse ^[12]. It should also be noted that speech acts of accusation attracted much attention in Russian science in the early 2000s: for example, the study ^[13] (2007) examined speech acts of accusation in parliamentary discourse, the study ^[14] (2006) - the dialogical unity of speech acts of accusation and justification, etc. The fundamental monograph by T.V. Dubrovskaya ^[15] was published in 2003. In the 2010s and 2020s, interest in the speech act of accusation decreased: in the 2020s, unfortunately, only two works were identified, which makes it extremely relevant to address the topic of acts of accusation in modern speech practice.

T.V. Dubrovskaya, the author of a fundamental study of speech acts of accusation in English based on the material of English-language works of fiction, refers to the widespread tactics of accusation:

1. the explicit designation of a "tort" (offense, crime), as well as the presentation of a "number" of torts;

2. The performative act of accusing ("I accuse");

3. Generalizations using words such as "again", "never", etc.;

4. Presenting guilt for the future;

5. Disguising guilt under the guise of a fake positive attitude;

6. presentation of the consequences of the tort;

7. Presenting an alternative to wrong actions as a way to implicitly point to the right ones.;

8. presentation of guilt in a form that is abstract from the addressee.

Summing up the analysis of Russian–language and English-language accusatory speech tactics, T.V. Dubrovskaya points out that "the analysis of the material allows us to identify eight accusatory tactics that have varying degrees of explicitness - from the greatest, expressed in vocabulary with the meaning of tort and qualifying verbs, to the least, when the true meaning must be derived from linguistic forms and knowledge of the situation."" ^{[15, p. 152]}. The material for the analysis of speech tactics of accusation in the monograph cited above in English-language speech practice was excerpts from works of fiction in English. This seems to be due to the detailed description of the context characteristic of fiction: the reader understands what the characters' relationships are, knows the specifics of the communicative situation, etc.

Based on T.V. Dubrovskaya's representative classification, taking into account the latest research in the field of linguopragmatics, we consider it necessary to consider speech acts of accusation using the example of cinema, since the film models a real discursive situation, there is visual support, and the act of accusation is often accompanied by vivid mise-en-scenes and musical accompaniment.

Let's take the film "Green Book" directed by Peter Farrelly ^[16] as a material for analysis. The film "Green Book" was released in 2018 and was awarded three Academy Awards - in the nominations "best film", "best screenplay" and "Best supporting actor" ^[17]. He raises topical issues of racial discrimination in the United States in the middle of the twentieth century and overcoming racial prejudice. It is also a source of information about the linguistic pragmatics of the speech act of accusation, viewed through the prism of modern ideas about racial prejudice and attitudes towards people of a different skin color. D.V. Mulikova notes that the speech act of accusation is inextricably linked to the opposition of "one's own" and "someone else's": When accusing, an individual is opposed to the whole society, one There is a division of the world into "one's own" and "someone else's". The analysis of the linguistic material showed that the accusation either does not speak out loud against a loved one, or the accuser is looking for an event reason as the object of the accusation. Such behavior is conditioned by the laws of nature, which require protection of their own" ^{[12, p. 189]}. Since in this film the juxtaposition of "one's own" and "someone else's" is embedded at various levels, the speech acts of accusation in his discourse are of particular interest.

The film's script is based on a true story. When creating it, the authors consulted with the main character's son, clarifying the details. The plot is based on a black pianist's tour of the states, which have various laws restricting the movement of blacks, prohibiting them from using certain hotels, restaurants, etc. The name "Green Book" refers to a travel guide for these states, which indicated where to stay and order food for people who do not belong to the white race.

The conflict of the film "Green Book" is that the black virtuoso pianist is the greatest master of music, he plays in elite concert halls and restaurants, which he himself cannot enter as a visitor. The main character of the film is the pianist's bodyguard and driver, a representative of the Italian diaspora, who at the beginning of the film is extremely aggressive towards blacks, but during the events of the film his attitude changes, he becomes more tolerant. The solidarity of "friend/ foe" changes more than once throughout the development of the plot: for the main character, the driver, his employer, depending on the development of the situation, becomes either "his own" or "someone else's", and the employer himself experiences a similar metamorphosis. Both communicants carry out a verbal act of accusation both towards each other and towards other people.

The film presents the maximum concentration of acts of accusation at the moments of the pianist's journey with a bodyguard through various American cities: through the accusation, the authors of the film draw attention to issues of racism and the need to address them. Interestingly, in most cases, the act of accusation in the discourse of the analyzed film is reactive, that is, it occurs as a reaction to a word/ action (which is typical, among other things, for the speech act of consent / disagreement ^[18]), but at the end there is a speech act of "global accusation" when the two main characters argue about essential things.

The first act of the accusation, which sounds in an implicit format, occurs in the movie at the moment of the interview of the main character (bodyguard and chauffeur Tony Vallelong) with his potential employer, pianist Don Shirley. Realizing the complexity of the task assigned to him and possible problems, Tony begins to bargain (00-18-03):

So if you want me, it’s a buck and a quarter a week. Or go hire the little Chink that just pranced out of here, see how far you get.

(If you need me, then a hundred and a quarter a week. Or go ahead, hire that Chinaman who just jumped out of here, let's see how far you can go with him.)

Tony Vallelonga refers to the moment of his appearance at the interview: before him, a Chinese man passed a similar interview, whom he bumped into at the door. Since potential problems will be related to racial issues, a Chinese person is unlikely to be able to cope with them, and realizing this, Tony uses the pattern of "accusations for the future", articulating it through the slang "Chink" instead of the literary "Chinese", and also uses the verb of the movement "to dance", meaning "to walk or dance in a proud way, often because you want people to look at you" ^[19]. The translation of "jump out" used above does not accurately convey the semantics of this verb, however, it emphasizes the fact that the speaker negatively characterizes the way an applicant moves for a vacancy.

In his speech, the main character of the film, Tony Vallelonga, in general, often uses slang words, rude, obscene vocabulary. His employer, Don Shirley, is almost always impeccably polite and expresses the accusation through pointing out the consequences of the tort (00-30-03):

- Could you put out the cigarette please?

- Why?

- I can’t breath back here.

- What are you talking about? Smoke’s going into my lungs. I’m doing all the work here.

- Thank you.

(Could you put out your cigarette?

Why?

I can't breathe here.

What are you talking about? All the smoke goes into my lungs. I have everything here.

Thank you. – our translation is E.D.)

In fact, Don Shirley does not even accuse Tony, but immediately removes the entire act of accusation into implication, noting that he cannot breathe (which is logically related to the previous remark "Could you put out your cigarette?"). His speech is structured as a polite formulation using the conditional mood.

Next, Don formulates his speech act of accusation through an indication of an alternative behavior. He gets annoyed by how much his partner talks, and he asks (00-31-45):

- Tony. How about some quite time?

- Sure. It’s amazing you said that. How about some quite time? Dolores, my wife, she used to say that all time, well not all the time, but you know... She says it when I come off from work some time, you know, she’s been with the kids all that day. And she would say, Tony... How about some quite time? Exactly like how you said it. It means... amazing.

(Tony, how about a little silence?

Yes, of course. It's amazing that you said that. Dolores, my wife, says that all the time, well, not all the time, but you understand… She says that when I come home from work, you know, and she's been with the kids all day. And she says, Tony, how about a little silence? That's exactly what you said. I mean... amazing. – our translation is E.D.)

In this, as in the previous speech act, Tony's reaction to the implicit accusation is interesting. He doesn't seem to accept it, doesn't react to it by canceling the tort: so, in the first case, he eventually throws away the cigarette, but first he bursts into a tirade that all the smoke is going into his lungs. In the second case, he does exactly the opposite: in response to a request for silence, he continues to speak (this pattern of communication with the Don is repeated several times throughout the film).

A dialogue is also being built in a similar way about Tony's communication style. He speaks with a noticeable Italian accent, uses reduced and slangy vocabulary, and throughout the journey Don tries to reorient him (00-35-51):

We will be attending many events before and after the concerts interacting with some of the wealthiest and most highly-educated people in the country. It is my feeling that your diction however charming it may be in the tri-state area, could use some finessing.

(We will attend various events before and after the concerts, and communicate with various very rich and most educated people in the country. And I have a feeling that your diction, no matter how great it sounds in the southern states, needs to be honed. – our translation is E.D.).

Don Shirley uses long phrases with subordinate clauses and lots of epithets and introductory constructions (however charming it may be). He emphasizes that his bodyguard's manner of speaking does not correspond to the society in which he will have to visit, and suggests "finessing" – "honing", "clarifying".

The film raises the difficult topic of integrating the "alien" into a society characterized by racial prejudice. Both main characters live in the north of the United States, where racial restrictions are not so strong, and they will have to travel through the southern states, which are characterized by low tolerance. It is curious that Tony Vallelonga is as alien to this society as Don Shirley, which is emphasized by their dialogue regarding Tony's last name (00-36-47):

- In my humble opinion Vallelonga may be difficult to pronounce. So, I was thinking... Valle would be more appropriate. Tony Valle. Short and sweet.

…

- All these high-class people, so much smarter than me, with their intelligence and speaking abilities, you’re telling me they can’t pronounce my name? They don’t like it, they can shove it up their ass, I’ll just wait outside.

(In my humble opinion, "Vallelonga" is difficult to pronounce. So I thought… The Valle will do better. "Tony Valle." Briefly and clearly.

All these high-ranking people who are much smarter than me, with all their intelligence and ability to speak, won't be able to pronounce my name, do you think? Then let them go to the ass, I'll wait outside. – our translation is E.D.).

The whole situation is future–oriented: Don is worried that visitors to his concerts will not be able to handle Tony's name, Tony blames them in response, comparing Don's words “with their intelligence and speaking abilities”, “so much smarter than me” with pragmatics - their potential inability to pronounce his Italian surname. In this case, Don is "their own" for them, and Tony is "someone else's", the owner of a surname that is difficult to pronounce. This refers to a conflict in the life of actor Arnold Schwarzenegger: actor Mark Hamill advised the aspiring actor to change his last name, as it was difficult to pronounce ("When Arnold Schwarzenegger was just starting out, he asked me for advice. I told him to correct his accent for more roles, and advised him to change his last name since no one could pronounce it. He did the opposite and became one of the biggest stars IN GENERAL" ^[20]). It is noteworthy that Schwarzenegger's last name contains an element of "black" - Schwarz, which makes it possible to read in the dialogue between Tony and Don an implicit reference to the famous actor's story.

Further, the film uses accusations built through the antithesis: for example, at 00-40-46, Don accuses Tony of unfair gambling, again referring to the opposition "you are these people" and emphasizing that Tony could have built his life differently, he is not at all obliged to make money through cheating and fraud.

Shirley turns to an open tort charge when Tony steals a souvenir from a store in front of him (00-44-55):

- You stole a jade stone from the store.

- No I didn’t.

- He watched you do it.

- I didn’t steal no stone.

- You picked it up and you put it in your pocket.

- I picked up a rock up off the ground. I didn’t steal from the box.

(You stole the jade from the store.

No, I didn't steal it.

He saw you do it.

I didn't steal any stone!

You took it and put it in your pocket.

I put a stone from the ground in my pocket. I didn't steal from the box. – our translation is E.D.)

Don Shirley bluntly says "You stole," explicitly denoting a crime, and Tony tries to clear himself of the charge, first claiming that he did not do it, then that he took a stone from the ground and it is a very ordinary stone, not a jade souvenir. He refuses to explicitly accuse,

In general, the accusatory speech acts indicate the sophistication of Don Shirley: he is much more widely educated than Tony, is better versed in good manners, and tries to teach Tony not to commit bad deeds. Tony gradually immerses himself in Don's world and begins to understand what things are important to him.: so, in the next scene, he accuses the receiving party of violating the contract and makes sure that the Steinway grand piano (00-47-44) is taken out for the performance. Tony uses obscene language, assessing the piano provided as “a piece of shit" and referring to the terms of the contract. The tort itself becomes implicit again: the phrase "You are violating the terms of the contract" does not sound explicit in the dialogue.:

- Does it really matter?

- Yeah, it does, to this contract.

- Come on man, these coons can play on anything you put in front of them.

- But it’s a piece of shit. And there is garbage in there.

(Is it really important?

Yes, it is specified in the contract.

Come on, man, these assholes will play on anything you give them.

But it's a piece of shit. He belongs in the trash. – our translation is E.D.)

The climax associated with the speech act of the accusation concerns the theme of "two worlds" running through the entire film, the confrontation of "friends" and "strangers". Almost every accusation in the text of the film "Green Book" boils down to the antithesis: "you" (the accused) – "they" (other people). At the same time, the main characters themselves are opposed by two key parameters: race and wealth. The unusual thing about the situation in the film is that Don, being black, is very rich. He rejects reading his personality through the stereotypes of a "typical black man", refuses to eat "typical" food, listen to "their" music, etc. As a result, at the end of the tour, this leads to the following emotional explosion (01-31-35):

- Christ, I’m blacker than you.

- Excuse me?

- You don’t know shit about your own people!

(God, I'm blacker than you!

I'm sorry, what?

You don't know anything about your own! – our translation is E.D.)

Tony claims that he is "blacker" than Don, explicitly accusing Don of not knowing anything about "his" culture. He then accuses Don of his wealth and luxury (01-32-04):

I’m the asshole who’s gotta hustle every goddamn day to put food out on table. You? Mr. Big Shot? You live on top of a castle traveling around the world doing concerts for rich people... I live on the streets, you sit on a throne.

(I'm an asshole who runs back and forth every fucking day to earn food. and you? Mr. Big Shot? You live in a castle, travel all over the world, give concerts for the rich… I live on the street, and you sit on the throne. – our translation is E.D.)

Tony "does not understand" Don, because he has not encountered in his life the limitations that are shown in detail in the film: he can have lunch at any restaurant, go to the bathroom wherever he wants. Don "doesn't understand" Tony because he lives in luxury and doesn't have to "spin" every day to earn his own food. The conflict situation of mutual accusation is resolved: Don explains how hard it was for him to get a musical education and what he had to go through to achieve the standard of living shown in the film.

The act of accusation is thus used to reveal the story of the characters: as part of the film's plot, the juxtaposition of two worlds is demonstrated, which communicate through accusation, but are essentially more similar than they appear at the beginning of the film. From mutual accusation, the parties come to mutual respect. The film "Green Book", which actively uses the scenario of confrontation between two worlds, two cultures and two different social strata, is. In our opinion, it is a representative example of the implementation of various acts of accusation in speech. By formulating an accusation, the speaker thereby establishes solidarity with some and opposes others, which is repeatedly reproduced in the context of the film.

There are differences in the design of the act of accusation in the speech of the Italian Tony and the American Don, representing different cultures. Tony, a descendant of migrants who communicates closely with the Italian diaspora, uses abusive and obscene language extensively, includes slang lexemes in his speech, and uses short syntactic constructions. Don, a virtuoso pianist, is an encyclopediically educated person who builds complex sentences, uses constructions with adjectives, and includes words characterized as sublime and rarely used in his speech. At the same time, both characters often do not use explicit accusation, but hide the tort itself in the implication of the dialogue and constantly turn to the idea of an antithesis ("I" - "they", "you" - "they", "we" - "they"). The climactic dialogue with mutual accusation and the juxtaposition of "I" and "you" on the part of both interlocutors ends with a peaceful resolution of the film's leitmotif: there are no more accusatory dialogues until the end of the tape, and both characters change internally. Tony condemns unpleasant statements about blacks, Don supports Tony and the other characters in their quest to be with their family.

The film also plays out an interesting way of accusing through implicit information: when Tony discovers his employer on a date with a man (which generally jeopardizes the continuation of the concert series), they both do not discuss this situation and do not utter a word about what happened. Don reproaches Tony for bribing the police, Tony retorts that he does not want to interrupt the concert tour, and the reason that provoked this reaction is not discussed at all. The analysis of a continuous sample of dialogues from the film "Green Book" allowed us to establish that the most commonly used options for building linguistic pragmatics of the speech act of accusation are the implicit opposition of "friend" and "stranger", as well as an indication of an alternative behavior ("I accuse you of not behaving the way you should") and the consequences of the tort.

Thus, the analysis of the film discourse revealed the typical implication of the linguistic pragmatics of the speech act of accusation and its most common tactics. The practice of formulating a speech act through accusation and implicit information presented in cinema can most likely be found in real life, when communicants have general information about the communicative situation surrounding them and the idea of contrasting themselves with others, often characteristic of the implication of dialogue. The film, which was analyzed in this study, is a film text in which, due to the peculiarities of its collision, various variants of accusations, confrontations of different types of communicants and their dynamic change of roles in the dialogue are concentrated. This allows us to consider the linguistic pragmatics of various speech acts of accusation on his material.