Editor for this issue: Ljuba Veselinova <lveselin
emunix.emich.edu>
I missed the discussion from which Ernest compiled the list of movies that are "interesting from linguistic point of view." Is it that that they explicitly make comments on language in some way? EG that "Encino Man",a thawed-out Ice age teenager, learns English effortlessly through the "immersion" method, and that the characters in "Clockwork Orange"speak a futuristic slang, since, of course, current slang would be anachronistic in a future setting? I think all movies are interesting from a linguistic point of view. Foremost is the portrayal of colloquial speech, to those who have observed genuine colloquial speech from a linguistic point of view. Has anyone in one room ever mistaken musicless dialogue emanating from a TV or VCR in another room for a real conversation? Even if you can't hear it distinctly (intonation patterns?) Contr, picking up the receiver when the telephone in the movie rings? Oscar for the telephone! Older movies are striking for their adherence to the Gricean/Searlean, even early Scheglovian maxims for conversational turn-taking, etc. The addressee almost free2es when listening to the speaker. I forget if "Citi2en Kane" is credited for innovating overlapping speech as a technique to advance realism in portraying conversation. Of course, in old movies tough guys don't curse, but that always called for conscious suspension of (dis)belief. "Dis and dat" had to serve as understudy. The entrance of various catch expressions into the mainstream can be fairly well dated from appearance in movies (for american English at least). EG "I'm outa here" (early '80s?), "I don't THINK so" (= no way! RIP, late 80s). But there are some political considerations here. The eminently useful "X *just doesn't get it* ", or "you *just don't get it*, duya?" could have been propagated from the women's movement and extended to who-knows-how-many contexts, but apparently was considered too " abrasive" or controversial for heroic speech, and was not picked up on. (The "just" seems essential to the expression, as in Tannen's "you *just* don't understand", or is that an idiosyncratic association I'm making?) What is interesting about movies from a linguistic point of view is in the ear of the beholder (to mix metaphors?) -- BenjiMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue