Lexico-stylistic features of the expression of reproach in a literary work and its film adaptation: comparative analysis

Jazokova Yuliya Postgraduate student, Department of Russian as a Foreign Language, Saint Petersburg State University; Assistant, Department of Foreign Languages, Saint Petersburg State University of Veterinary Medicine 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, nab. University, 7-9 avokyzja@hotmail.com Other publications by this author

Conflicts are present in different spheres of human communication. Many researchers develop the concept of conflict: they define it, identify its constituent parts, consider the conditions of its course and explore the speech means inherent in this type of communication. Thus, within the framework of conflict communication, the verbal realization of the intention of reproach is considered ^{[6],[20],[22],[24]}. Works of fiction and cinematographic art are often used as the material of researchers studying reproach, however, researchers do not differentiate and do not compare the verbal realization of the intention of reproach in the text of fiction and in cinema (film adaptations). Interest in the question of the adaptation of works of fiction is quite high ^{[3],[7],[18],[23]}. Researchers consider the film adaptation from different sides: from the point of view of the correlation of the text of a literary work and the film adaptation, the justification and legality of changing the content, preserving the author's idiosyncrasy, and many others. All this determines the relevance of addressing the chosen topic.

The present work aims to identify the most general patterns of changing statements with the intention of reproach in the screening of fiction. Visual and other sound components of the film adaptation, including non-verbal communication, musical inserts and other sound effects, were not considered. The research focuses on lexical transformations of character dialogues with the intention of reproach in works of fiction and their film adaptations. Lexical transformations are understood as transformations of elements of the source text (the text of fiction) when they are transferred to the secondary text (film adaptation).

The material was used in the films, released between 2009 and 2019 and is the film adaptations of works of modern fiction. Works of fiction created by the authors from 1991 to 2019 were selected for analysis.

Criteria for the selection of films (produced by the site kinopoisk.ru ): 1) the rating of the film is more than 6.5; 2) the votes given to the film are more than 20,000; 3) the presence of at least one award; 4) the duration of the action in the film is from the 1970s to our time. Eccentric comedies – films based on exaggerating the actions and character traits of the characters were not used, since this creates a comic effect that is unusual for the communicative interaction of people in real life. Thus, the following factors were taken into account: the artistic value of the film, the recognition of the film by a large number of viewers and the proximity of the characters' communicative behavior to real communication. The text of the literary work was compared with the verbal component of the film that was released. It is important to note that the original script of the film and its subsequent incarnation on the screen may differ from each other for various reasons, so it seems appropriate to consider the film as a finished work.

Dictionaries, interpreting a reproach, usually define it through the concept of "accusation", cf.: reproach: "reproach, accusation, expressed to someone or in relation to someone" ^{[2, p. 1394]}; "expression of dissatisfaction, disapproval, accusation" ^{[15, p. 836]}; "expressed to whom- n. or addressed to someone-n. displeasure, disapproval, accusation, reproach" ^{[21, p. 970]}. In our opinion, the best explanation of the reproach, according to the dictionaries, is the "New Explanatory Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language" ^{[1, pp. 1213-1219]}, which explains the meaning of the verb "reproach": "X reproaches <reproaches, ...> Y-a for P = 'Y, which is part of the personal sphere of X-a, has done, is experiencing or has P, which X considers undesirable; X tells Y-y something from which it directly follows that P is undesirable; X says this so that Y understands that he should not have done, experienced or had P" ^{[1, p. 1213]}. At the same time, the reproach containing this "accusation" will differ from the accusation: the key difference is that the accusation focuses on the object – the person on whom the subject holds responsible for what happened, and the reproach focuses on the insults or other mental wounds of the subject, in which, in his opinion, the addressee is guilty ^{[1, p. 684]}.

Reproach in the work is considered as a tactic implementing a confrontational strategy. The tactics of reproach are implemented in various tactical steps, which are taken as a unit of analysis in the study. Lexical transformations are considered in coinciding tactical steps in the text of a work of fiction and in the film adaptation. A tactical step (a communicative move, a speech move, a communicative step) is "a technique that acts as a tool for implementing a particular speech tactic" ^{[8, p. 117]}. Speech tactics is a larger element in its scale in comparison with the tactical step, it obeys the general strategy of speech behavior, which is understood as "a set of speech actions aimed at achieving a communicative goal" ^{[8, p. 54]}. Communicative tactics correlate not with a communicative goal, but with a set of individual communicative intentions, i.e. if a strategy is a global goal, then tactics are a specific task.

The research focuses on lexical transformations of dialogues of characters of works of fiction and their film adaptations. Lexical transformations were divided into the following groups:

1. Preservation of lexical composition. This group seems to be the most obvious in the film adaptation of a work of fiction. In this group, the film adaptation borrows the words of the characters without any lexical changes. An example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 58]}:

– The pedagogical council for everyone starts at the same time…

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: ...the pedagogical council // Starts for everyone at the same time.

In the example given, it can be seen that the addressee's words have been transferred to the script text with full preservation of lexical units. The reproach in this example is implemented by the tactical step "reminder". However, there are few such replicas that do not have any changes in the film adaptation. In most cases, some changes occur within the tactical steps.

2. Omission of lexical units. Lexical transformations in this group are characterized by the fact that some lexical units are omitted within tactical steps. An example from a work of fiction ^{[17, p. 151]}:

– Why are you showing your ass in front of the child, you hooligan! Mom shouts.

An example from the film adaptation ^[10]:

A: Well, what are you // Showing // With a child // You are a hooligan.

In this passage, the word "ass" is omitted in the film adaptation, which is explained, firstly, by the "visual nature" of the movie (the grandmother takes off her pants and shows her ass to her daughter, next to whom is her son, the grandson of the grandmother, thereby the grandmother provokes her daughter into conflict). Also, such an omission can be explained by the desire of the filmmakers to show the boy's mother more intelligent in comparison with his grandmother.

Another example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 223]}:

– When the wife does not give, then a wonderful way to demonstrate her contempt and power over her is to put her under another. And Budkin has a good gag in his mouth. He probably got fed up with his love victories – so you trampled him into the dirt, <...> And I myself, in general, in passing, a slap for obstinacy: you don't want to sleep with me, so I won't give Budkin, bitch. Three birds with one stone at once.

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: When the wife does not give for a long time / A great way to show her your appreciation / To put her under another // Budkin's plug / He's already got you with his novels / Yes?

B: Promiscuity.

A: So you took revenge // <...> // And in the course of a slap for obstinacy // They say you don't want to sleep with me // So I won't give Budkin / Bitch // <...> / Three birds with one stone…

In the above example, the specified tokens are missing in the film adaptation. Such omissions are explained by the conciseness of oral speech. Dialogues from literary works and film adaptations are considered as stylized oral speech. Nevertheless, the film adaptation has more features peculiar to oral speech.

3. Adding lexical units. With this type of transformation, lexical units that are not present in the text of a work of fiction are added to the screen version. An example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 17]}:

– You don't want anything, - Nadia emphasized the word with feeling, – you don't want anything in life…

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: Yes, you don't want anything at all / In life / Absolutely.

In the film adaptation, the particle "yes" is added, which gives the statement more emotionality ^{[13, p. 476]}. Also, the adverb "absolutely" is added to this replica, characteristic of the colloquial style, for this lexical unit in the modern language, the value of the highest limit of the attribute is fixed ^{[14, p. 208]}.

Another example from a work of fiction ^{[16, p. 226]}:

– Tell me, where do you work? Azadovsky asked disgustedly. – In the PI-ar department of Logovaz? Or do I have compromising material in my group?

An example from the film adaptation ^[12]:

A: Hey / Tatar // Here you are / Where you work / In the PI-ar department of Logovaz / Or what? // Or all-tki I have / In the compromising group?

The particle "here" emphasizes the meaning of the reproach in the question and removes the need to give an answer to this question ^{[13, p. 479]}. Note that the reproach in the study is most often realized by a quasi-question, "quasi-" since the question does not contain a request for information, but expresses the negative reaction of the addressee, his surprise or indignation at the addressee's behavior. In addition, the colloquial particles "what is it" and "everything" are added to the above replica, the second particle is truncated.

4. Replacement of lexical units. Lexical units in the film adaptation are in most cases replaced by synonymous ones. An example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 223]}:

– When the wife does not give, then a wonderful way to demonstrate her contempt and power over her is to put her under another. And Budkin has a good gag in his mouth. He probably got fed up with his love victories – so you trampled him into the mud, <...> And I myself, in general, in passing, a slap for obstinacy: you don't want to sleep with me, so I won't give Budkin, bitch. Three birds with one stone at once.

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: When the wife does not give for a long time / A great way to show her her appreciation / To put her under another // Budkin's plug / He's already got you with his novels / Yes?

B: Promiscuity.

A: So you took revenge // <...> // And in the course of a slap for obstinacy // They say you don't want to sleep with me // So I won't give Budkin / Bitch // <...> / Three birds with one stone…

In the given example, we see a number of lexical substitutions that are considered synonymous: "wonderful" is replaced by "excellent", "fed up" is replaced by "got", "trample into the mud" is replaced by "revenge", "in passing" is replaced by "on the go", "bitch" is replaced by "bitch", the neutral expression "love victories" has been replaced with the pejorative "romances".

Many lexical substitutions occur due to changes in the elements of the content of the literature text. Here is an example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 83]}:

– Is there a dining room for you here? I'm not cooking for you!

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: Is that a restaurant for you // I didn't cook for you.

In the above example, "dining room" is replaced by "restaurant", since the novel takes place in the 1990s, and the action of the film adaptation is in modern Russia (2013). For the present, a restaurant is a more familiar form of public catering than a dining room.

Another notable feature of the film adaptation is the replacement of conjunctions, pronouns and some adverbs with colloquial analogues, often due to truncation. An example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 133]}:

– Why are you lying to me? – The servant took a sip of the jar. "I can see that.

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: You're lying to me // I can see it.

In this example, the question word "what" is replaced with a reduced "what". Other substitutions: "you" to "those", "nothing" to "nothing", "only" to "current / current", "what / what" to "che", "so" to "duck" and some others.

Let's consider another example from a work of fiction ^{[5, p. 17]}:

– You don't want anything, - Nadia emphasized the word with feeling, – you don't want anything in life…

An example from the film adaptation ^[9]:

A: Yes, you don't want anything at all / In life / Absolutely.

Let's pay attention to the expression "you ... don't want to" and "you... don't want to". G.A. Zolotova calls sentences like "you don't want to" ^{[4, p. 124]} involutive. Involution is the independence of a predicative attribute from the will of the subject. This construction is less categorical than "you don't want to".

Let us turn to another example from a work of fiction ^{[19, p. 106]}:

– Nothing matters! And the fact that for you the Volokolamsk direction is not connected with anything but traffic jams, too.

An example from the film adaptation ^[11]:

A: Yes no it doesn't matter // The fact that your Vocolamka is connected // Only with traffic jams // It doesn't matter either.

In the above example, in the tactics of reproach (begins "And that ..." in the literary work, "That ..." – in the film adaptation), the "Volokolamsk direction" is replaced by a colloquial unofficial toponym-the university "Vocolamka". Such a replacement is associated with the principle of saving speech resources, characteristic of oral speech.

Thus, the techniques of lexical transformations of utterances with the intention of reproach in the screening of works of fiction were divided into four groups: verbatim preservation of lexical composition, omission of lexical units, addition of lexical units and replacement of lexical units. These transformations are caused by: firstly, the change in the elements of the content of situations according to the director's plan; secondly, various kinds of transformations occur taking into account the differences between cinema and literature - first of all, this is the "visual" of cinema: the viewer sees what the reader can only read. The film adaptation also has more expression: cinema characters are more emotional in expressing their feelings, they are often more categorical in their statements. These transformations occur due to the desire of the creators of the film adaptations to enhance the expressiveness of the characters' speech behavior for emotional impact on the viewer. Thirdly, the film adaptation is more "conversational" and has more features peculiar to oral speech: the speech of the characters in the film adaptation is more concise, which is due to the general desire of oral speech to save speech resources. For the same reason, there is more colloquial vocabulary in the speech of the characters in the film adaptation.