Creativity of Phraseology in Contrast: Cinematic Discourse vs Discourse of Children’s Literature

The article features the results of contrastive analysis of phraseological creativity in two discourse types, cinematic discourse and discourse of children’s literature. In the study, we develop the parametric approach to linguistic creativity, with the parameter of phraseology displaying both language and discourse specific character. Two compiled subcorpora of cinematic discourse and discourse of children’s literature contingent in size, genre, creation period, addressee orientation and key pragmatic strategy, serve to explore the activity (frequency) distribution of phraseology as well as its creative language productivity. The Theory of Phraseological Creativity provides the criteria for demarcating creative and non-creative uses of phraseological units. Their further analysis in two subcorpora has shown that whilst their total activity in both discourses is similar, it is the cinematic discourse that demonstrates significant prevalence in phraseological modification, which evidences in favor of its higher discourse creativity potential. The study helped reveal the specificity in the phraseological modification strategies applied in cinematic discourse in contrast with discourse of children’s literature. Furthermore, we addressed the problem of parametric contingency which brought forward other criteria in demarcating creative and non-creative uses of phraseology in discourse. To explore the linguistic creativity parametric contingency, we assessed the joint activity of parameters correlating with phraseology use. Following the procedures of parametric activity processing in HETEROSTAT software and vector-space modelling, we received two discourse-specific phraseological contingency profiles. Their contrastive analysis revealed higher contingency values in the discourse of children’s literature. Moreover, it disclosed discourse-specific functional differences in creative and non-creative phraseology use in the discourse types contrasted. Whereas non-creative phraseological units in cinematic discourse displayed low correlation with other parameters of linguistic creativity, their creative uses displayed higher correlation. The same did not stand true for discourse of children’s literature, which demonstrated high correlation in both cases. Consequently, we concluded that the stimulating function is more typical of linguistic creativity parameters activation contingent with the creative uses of phraseology. In discourse of children’s literature apart from the stimulating function, the contingent parameters also display the compensatory function, with both functions stimulating the children’s comprehension of phraseology and simultaneously enhancing discourse creativity. The results suffice to show that the distribution of two functions – compensatory and stimulating – is discourse-specific, which extends the knowledge about linguistic and discourse creativity.

1. Arkhangelskaya, Y. V. Personal Innovations of L. N. Tolstoy: On the Way to Language. The works of V. V. Vinogradov’s Institute of Russian Language. Moldovan, A. M. (ed.). Moscow, Nestor-Istoria publ., 2019, iss. 19, p. 99–105. (in Russ.)

2. Cserép, A. Idiom variation and decomposability. Part II: Variation in the noun phrase. Yearbook of Phraseology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017, vol. 8, p. 123–144.

3. Dobrovolskij, D. О. Lexico-Syntactic Variance in Phraseology: Attribute Incorporation into Idiom. Russian Language in Scientific Light, 2007, vol. 2(14), p. 18–47. (in Russ.)

4. Gak, V. G. Linguistic Modifications: Types of Linguistic Modifications. Factors and Spheres of Linguistic Modifications Realizations. Moscow, LIBROKOM, 2016, 408 p. (in Russ.)

5. Gvishiani, N. B. To the Question of Metaphorization and Remetaphorization of Idiomatic Phraseologisms (Based of the English Language). In: Zykova, I. V., Krasnykh V. V. (eds.) Language, culture, creativity: articles commemorating 90-jubelee of V. N. Teliya. Moscow, Gnosis, 2020, p. 181–193. (in Russ.)

6. Kiose, М. I. Vector Models of Linguistic Creativity in the Instrumental Study of Discourse Variance. In: Zykova, I. V., Krasnykh V. V. (eds.) Language, culture, creativity: articles commemorating 90-jubelee of V. N. Teliya. Moscow, Gnosis, 2020, p. 113–129. (in Russ.)

7. Kiose, М. I., Efremov, А. А. HETEROSTAT. Software for Comprehensive Parametrical Discourse Analysis. Registration Date: 21.09.2020. Registration Number: 2020661240. 2020.

8. Langlotz, A. Idiomatic creativity: a cognitive-linguistic model of idiom-representation and idiom- variation in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006, 340 p.

9. Med, N. G. Possibilities of Phraseological Modelling (Based on Spanish). Saint-Petersburg Univer- sity Vestnik. Series 9. Philology. Eastern Culture Studies. Media Studies, 2007, iss. 42, p. 140–143. (in Russ.)

10. Melerovich, А. М., Mokienko V. М. Phraseologisms in Russian Spoken Language. Dictionary: appr. 1000 units, 2nd ed. Moscow, Russian Dictionaries, Astrel Publ., 2001. 856 p.

11. Moon, R. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, 338 p.

12. Nicolas, T. Semantics of Idiom Modification. In: M. Everaert, E. van der Linden, A. Schenk, R. Schreuder (eds.). Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates, 1995, p. 233–252.

13. Nikolaeva, J. La Fraseologia nella Traduzione Russa del Visconte dimezzato di Italo Calvino (1952): verso un’Analisi Bidirezionale. In: Si Dice in Molti Modi: Fraseologia e Traduzioni nel Visconte dimezzato di Italo Calvino a Cura di Sabine E. Koesters Gensini e Andrea Berardini. Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice, 2020, p. 645–665.

14. Omazić, M., Parizoska, J. (eds.) Reproducibility and Variation of Figurative Expressions: Theoret-ical Aspects and Applications. Bialystok: University of Bialystok Publishing House, 2020, 143 p.

15. Pamies-Betrán, A. Grammatical metaphor and functional idiomaticity. Yearbook of Phraseology, 2017, vol. 8, p. 59–93.

16. Stepanova, А. А. Linguocreativity of Phraseological Units in Epistolary Discourse of M. I. Tsvetayeva. In: Zykova, I. V., Krasnykh V. V. (eds.) Language, culture, creativity: articles com-memorating 90-jubelee of V. N. Teliya. Moscow, Gnosis, 2020, p. 181–193. (in Russ.)

17. Teliya, V. N. Russian Phraseology: Semantic, Pragmatic and Linguocultural Aspects. Moscow, Languages of Russian Culture Publ., 1996, 288 p.

18. Wulff, S. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach. London, New York: Continuum, 2008, 240 p.

19. Zherebtsova, Y. A., Chizhik, A. V. Text Vectorization Methods for Retrieval-Based Chatbot. Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2020, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 16–34. (in Russ.) DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2020-18-3-16-34

20. Zherebtsova, Yulia A., Chizhik, Anna V., Sadokhin, Aleksandr P. Automatic Methods for De-tecting Cultural Bias in Social Media (Based on Telegram’s Dialogs). Vestnik NSU. Series: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2021, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 54–72. DOI 10.25205/1818-7935-2021-19-2-54-72

21. Zykova, I. V. The Role of Conceptosphere of Culture in the Formation of Phaseologisms as Cultur-al and Linguistic Signs: Doctoral Thesis Annotation. Moscow, RAS Institute of Linguistics, 2014, 52 p. (in Russ.)

22. Zykova, I. V. Conceptosphere of Culture and Phraseology: Theory and Methods in Linguocultural Studies. Moscow, LENAND, 2015, 380 p. (in Russ.)

23. Zykova, I. V. Metalanguage of Linguoculturology: Constants and Variants. Moscow, Gnosis, 2017, 752 p. (in Russ.)

24. Zykova, I. V. Linguocultural Thought and Cinematic Discourse Poetics: to the Theory of Linguo- aesthetic Pragmatics. Cognitive Studies of Language, 2020, iss. 4(43), p. 267–300. (in Russ.)

25. Zykova, I. V., Kiose, М. I. Linguistic Creativity Parametrization in Contrasting Discourse Types: Cinematic Discourse vs. Discourse of Children’s Literature. Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 2, p. 26–40. (in Russ.) DOI 10.20916/1812-3228-2020-2-26-40