Fundamental Sciences /
Cognitive Linguistics
УДК 811.111 (73) `27`06
Oleg V.Kharchenko (candidate of philology)
Interregional
Academy of Personnel Management (Ukraine, Kyiv)
The
Butterfly Effect in American Comedy Films
О.В.Харченко.
Ефект метелика в американських комедіях. Стаття
фокусує свою увагу на когнітивному механізмі американського кінодискурсу комічного – “ефекті
метелика”. Проведене дослідження виявляє, що цей когнітивний механізм семантичного
зсуву значення найчастіше реалізується через рефреймінг логічних та
маловірогідних (можливо алогічних) інференцій та такі стилістичні фігури як
каламбур та double entendre.
Ключові
слова: ефект метелика, кінодискурс комічного, стилістична
фігура double entendre, когнітивний патерн,
гіперболізація тощо.
О.В.
Харченко. Эффект бабочки в американських
комедиях. Статья фокусирует своё внимание на когнитивном
механизме американського кинодискурса комического – “эффекте
бабочки”. Проведённое исследование показывает, что этот когнитивный механизм
семантического смещения значения чаще всего реализуеться через рефрейминг
логических и маловероятных (возможно аллогических) инференций и такие
стилистические фигуры как каламбур и double entendre.
Ключевые
слова: эфект бабочки, кинодискурс комического, стилистическая
фигура double entendre, когнитивный паттерн, гиперболизация etc.
O.V. Kharchenko The Butterfly Effect in
American Comedy Films. The article focuses its attention on such cognitive mechanism of American Comedy Film Discourse as “The
Butterfly Effect”. The conducted research reveals that more often such cognitive mechanism
of semantic change is realized through reframing of logical and hardly possible
(probably illogical) inferences and
such stylistic figures as puns and double entendre.
Key
words: Butterfly Effect, Comedy
Film Discourse, stylistic figure double entendre, cognitive pattern, hyperbole etc.
The purpose of the article is to determine some cognitive mechanisms of
American Comedy Film Discourse.
The purpose raises the following tasks: 1) determination of ‘the
butterfly effect’ as one of the cognitive mechanisms of comism;
2) disclosure of its connection with a number of stylistic figures; 3)
depiction of the above mentioned cognitive effect and its realization in a
number of American comedy films.
The novelty of the proposed analysis is defined with synthesis of
theoretical and practical studies of American Comedy Film discourse,
introduction of such linguo cognitive terms as ‘The Butterfly Effect’ and ‘The
Determined Chaos’.
The theoretical value of the study is reasoned with the definition of
such cognitive mechanism of humor as ‘The Butterfly Effect’ and the disclosure
of the basic methods of the analysis of American comedy film discourse.
The practical importance of the article, which may be used in cognitive
linguistic, discourse analysis and
other studies, is determined by the introduction of a number of modern terms relating to the research of American
comedy film discourse through the cognitive prism.
The proposed research
is based on the works of V.I. Karasyk [2,p.10-120], M.L.Makarov
[5,p.20-55], V.O.Samohyna [4, p.7-220], V.Y. Propp [5. p.15-155], M.M.Bakhtin [1,p.20-125], who analyzed the problems of discourse analysis
and humor in the most comprehensive way.
For the first time the term ‘the butterfly effect’ was introduced in
natural sciences by E.Lorentz in 1963. In the opinion of the weather researcher, some small fluctuations in the initial state of some system could lead to large or even unpredictable changes in
a later state [8]. Soon the scientific metaphor of E.Lorentz was used by R.D.Bradberry, an American sci-fi author, in his short story “A Sound of Thunder”, where the main hero had crushed some butterfly during his tourist trip to the past but in the present of the hero it caused
considerable changes.
From our point of view, “the butterfly effect” is represented in cognitive linguistics and is connected directly with the cognitive mechanism of “determined chaos” [6, c.91], which is displayed in the fact that, in
spite of the apparent randomness of comedy film discourse flow, the cognitive frames of such
type of discourse are limited by the application of some definite cognitive patterns (illusionary superiority, extraordinarity,
clear contrast etc), and the stylistic means are limited by the
exploitation of a number of stylistic
figures and tropes. Besides, “the butterfly effect” is connected with the
cognitive theory of reframing, according to which, in comedy film discourse the comic effect is caused by the complication
of meaning, which
occurs through unexpected reframing of inferences, situations, explicit and
implicit word senses, and through the activation of addressee’s priming
mechanism it permits to determine the opposition of logic and illogic, expected
and unexpected, real and unreal, logic and figurative, decent and dirty. Also
it is accompanied by the reframing of cognitive patterns and leads to the
actualization of the intentions of fun, profanation, possible libido and
aggression, as well as the culminant laughter [6, c.27]. ‘The butterfly effect’ means some little semantic shift in the meaning of some word or phrase that leads to significant changes of discourse flow and suddenly
switches serious or neutral tonality to humorous.
We single out two variants of the realization of the cognitive
‘butterfly effect’:
1) in comedy films
containing Brick Joke and in dramatic films using Chekov`s gun device, when some
insignificant event early in the film turns out very funny (Brick Joke) or very
significant (Chekov`s gun) at the end of the
film;
2) in Comedy Film discourse fragments, when some slight semantic shift in the meaning of some word or phrase directs to significant changes of discourse flow, what happens
typically through the application of puns, innuendoes and double entendre
figure.
The comic situation Brick Joke is observed in ‘Monsters University’ a 2013 American animated comedy film
directed by D.Scanlon [12], where some slug monster moves
to the Monster`s college to become a first year student. At the end of the film it turned out that one year later at long last this slug-monster just crawled in the audience room of the
first course. In another fragment one of the student-monsters hung a poster on a wall, where he asked to help him to find his own eyeball. At the end of the film a new poster appeared. It said that finally the eyeball was found out.
In ‘Airplane!’ a 1980 comedy-parody film directed by J.Abrahams, there is the Brick Joke comic situation too, when Striker, the main hero and former pilot, who started to work as a
taxi driver, dropped a passenger in the airport in his
taxi and ran to his girlfriend flying away at that moment. After the flight and numerous adventures, Striker together with his girlfriend came back to the airport and met the same passenger who was waiting for him in Striker`s taxi. At this moment Striker exclaimed: "Well, I'll give him another twenty minutes. But that's it!" [7].
Puns also illustrate the cognitive ‘butterfly effect’. In ‘Duck Soup’ a 1933 slapstick comedy film directed by McCarey we come across a number of following fragments.
1) “Prosecutor: That's irrelevant. Chicolini: Irrelephant? Hey, that'sa
that answer. There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus” [11]. In this fragment the key comic mechanism is Socratic irony. Chicolini resorts to phonetical deformation (that`sa), coins a neologism (irrelephant), which combines two lexical units
irrelevant and elephant“. After that he uses comic insult, making an innuendo that in this circus
(at this court) there is a lot of low IQ people (irrelephants). From the cognitive point of view we observe ‘the butterfly effect’ realized through the reframing of logical and illogical inferences, the application of illusionary superiority and extraordinarity patterns, the actualization of fun and pejorativeness intentions.
2) “Rufus: How would you like a job in the mint? Chicolini: Mint? No, no. I no
like a mint. Uh, what other
flavor you got?”[11]. The comic effect of this fragment is caused by
the pun based on the polycemy of mint lexical unit and Socratic irony. The first meaning
is mentha (a kind of herbs), the
second is the industrial facility to manufacture coins. In terms of cognitive linguistics we single out ‘the butterfly effect’ implemented through the reframing of
logical and hardky
possible inferences, the actualization of clear contrast and extraordinarity
patterns, the explication of fun
and pejoritiveness intentions.
In ‘She Done Him Wrong’ a 1933 criminal comedy film directed by L.Sherman there is the following dialogue between
two women: “Old Woman: Ah, Lady Lou, you're a fine gal, a fine woman. Lady Lou: One of the finest women ever walked the streets” [13]. Here comism is caused by
the stylistic figure double entendre, because the phrase of Lady Lou is
ambiguous. Lady Lou makes an innuendo that she is a
woman of easy virtue. The comic effect is intensified with
hyperbolization (One of the finest women…).
In cognitive terms one can observe ‘the butterfly effect actualized through the
reframing of logical and hardly possible inferences, the exploitation of extraordinarity pattern and the explication of fun
and pejoritiveness intentions.
In ‘Singing in the Rain’ a 1952 musical comedy
film directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donnan there is a fragment, where Lina, one of
the main film characters, was supposed to speak to Don about her love, turning
her head towards some big bush with a mike hidden there: “Rosco: Lina! We're missing every other word! You've got to talk
into the mike! Lina: WELL I CAN'T MAKE LOVE TO
A BUSH!" [10]. In this fragment comism is caused by the
ambiguous phrase of Lina, which
evidences the combined exploitation of double
entendre stylistic figure,
sexual innuendo and gradation. Cognitively there
is ‘the butterfly effect’ realized through the reframing
of logical and illogical inferences, the application of illusionary superiority
and extraordinarity patterns, the actualization libido and
annoyance.
In ‘To Catch a Thief’ a 1955 romantic comedy directed by A.Hitchcock the main character John
enclosed implicit sexual innuendoes not only in his own remarks, but also in
the phrases of Francie, his love interest: “Francie: (sharing a chicken meal) Do you want a leg or a breast? John: You make the
choice. …Francie: (before watching the
fireworks) I have a feeling that tonight you`re going to see one of the
Riviera's most fascinating sights... I was talking about the fireworks. John: I
never doubted it” [9]. During his first communicative
exchange Francie speaks about the choice of food. As for John he resorts to double entendre figure,
hinting implicitly that Francie for John is an attractive Chick. In the following communicative exchange Francie just informs about the
forthcoming fireworks as the most fascinating sight of Riviera. While
commenting this phrase John applies double
entendre once again. The explicit meaning of his phrase is innocent and neutral
but implicit meaning contains a metaphoric sexual innuendo – John is sure that in the evening
Francie will be with him and it will be the most fascinating event in his life. The appearance of ‘the butterfly
effect’ occurs through the reframing of explicit and implicit word senses used
by John and Francie, through the combining of clear contrast and
extraordinarity cognitive patterns, through the explication of fun and libido
intentions.
Conclusion. ‘The
butterfly effect’ is an important cognitive mechanism in American comedy film
discourse, which leads to the reframing of inferences and well-defined
switching from serious (neutral) tonality to humorous tonality through small
semantic shifts in some words and phrases. Stylistically this cognitive effect is often realized
through puns, innuendoes and double entendre figure.
Література
1.Бахтин
М.М.Творчество Франсуа Рабле и народная культура Средневековья и
Ренесаннса./Михаил Михайлович Бахтин. —М.:Мысль. —1979. —280с
2.Карасик
В.И. Язык социального статуса./В.И.Карасик. —М.:Гносиз. 2002. —389c.
3. Макаров М.Л. Основы теории дискурса / Михаил
Льович.Макаров.- М.:ИТДГК Гносиз, 2003.-280с.
4.
Самохина В.А. Современная англоязычная шутка. Монография. /Виктория
Афанасьевна.Самохина—Харьков: Харьковский национальный университет имени
В.И.Каразина, 2008. —355с.
5.
Пропп В. Я.Проблемы комизма и смеха. Ритуальный смех в фольклоре (по поводу
сказки о Несмеяне) / Владимир Яковлевич Пропп. —М.: Лабиринт, 1999. —
288 с.
6.Харченко О.В. Феномен комічного у комунікативному просторі США. Монографія.
/Олег Валентинович Харченко—-К.:МП Леся, 2014.-460с.
7.Abrahams J. Airplane!1980 [Electronic resource]: comedy film / Jim Abrahams. –87 Mn –Paramount Pictures. USA.
1980. – Режим
доступу: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaXvFT_UyI8 (14.12.09) – Airplane.
8.Devaney R.Butterfly Effect. 2003
[Electronic resource]: article /Robert Devaney – Mode of access: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect (1.10.2015) - Buterfly
Effect.
9. Hitchcock A. To Catch a Thief. 1955[Electronic resource]: romantic
thriller/
Alfred Hitchcock.
–106Mn– Paramount Pictures. – Mode of access:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048728/ (10.0213). – To Catch a Thief.
10. Kelly G., Stanley D. Singing in the Rain. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.1952 [Electronic
resource]: musical comedy/ Gene Kelly– Mode of access: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singin'_in_the_Rain
(10.12.2010). – Singing in
the Rain.
11.McCarey L. Duck Soup. 1933 [Electronic resource]: comedy film / Leo McCarey. –68Mn –Paramount Pictures.USA.
– Mode of access: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Soup_(10.10.2013).
– Duck Soup.
12. Scanlon D. Monsters University
2013 [Electronic resource]: animated comedy film / D.Scanlon – 104Mn – Walt
Disney – Mode of access: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 (1.10.2015) – Monsters University
13.Sherman L. She Done Him Wrong.1933. [Electronic resource]: crime comedy film / Lowell
Sherman–66Mn –Paramount Pictures.USA.
– Mode of access:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024548/quotes?ref_=tt_ql_3(10.10.2015). –
She Done Him Wrong