Narrative Voice and Female Subjectivity: A Socio-linguistic Inquiry into Violence in Tarantino's Cinema

Andrew Schopp argues that the representation of morality and history in Inglorious Basterds (2009), Django Unchained (2012) and The Hateful Eight (2015) is a particularly complicated and distinctly post-modern one, inherently connected to the American vision of the world after 9/11. His analysis of Tarantino's texts from the perspective of justice, civilisation and revenge make an invaluable contribution to existing commentaries on Tarantino's work. He also considers their status as allohistorical narratives (commonly referred to as alternative history) which encompasses an awareness of the fact that Tarantino’s films are seemingly divided into a unified diegetic world in which a significant number of his characters reside (see Reservoir Dogs [1992], Pulp Fiction [1994], Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight) and the films that these characters might go to see in this alternate universe (Death Proof [2007], Kill Bill: Volume One [2003], Kill Bill: Volume Two [2004]). On the surface a range of interrelated strands connect his films like the branding of Red Apple cigarettes, characters being related to each other i.e. the Vega brothers in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, Sergeant Donny Donowitz in Inglourious Basterds being the father of filmmaker Lee Donowitz in True Romance (1993), and recently ‘English’ Pete Hickox in The Hateful Eight being an ancestor of Archie Hickox in Inglorious Basterds, but this fluidity is complicated even further both by Tarantino’s liberal appropriation of material from other sources as inspiration and they way the films seem to both reflect, engage and even comment on each others' narratives.

El objeto de estudio de este trabajo es el imaginario racial en el discurso literario estadounidense. El objetivo es determinar cómo el discurso de actantes ilocutivos y sujetos valoradores femeninos negros refleja el imaginario racial del sujeto de la enunciación. Se desarrolla la base teórica de la investigación, que incluye el discurso, el Análisis Crítico del Discurso, los imaginarios y la ideología. Para ejecutar las tareas se utilizaron los métodos de revisión de la literatura especializada, el histórico-lógico, el inductivo-deductivo, análisis literario, Análisis Crítico del Discurso, y analítico-sintético. Se estudiaron varias obras de la literatura estadounidense con temática racial escritas por autores blancos y negros para entender sobre las dificultades para escribir sobre el “otro”. Finalmente, se escogió como muestra el discurso de sujetos valoradores femeninos negros de la novela The Help, que ha sido objeto de controversia desde su publicación. Se realizó un análisis dimensional que demostró que efectivamente el imaginario racial tiene un gran impacto en la descripción de los personajes, aunque la novela comparte elementos positivos con algunas obras de la literatura afroamericana.

RESISTING THROUGH CITIZEN JOURNALISM: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT ON TWITTER

Critical Policy Discourse Analysis bridges the literature on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and critical policy analysis to provide a practical guide on how to combine these major approaches to critical social science. The volume gives a clear introduction to concepts and analytical procedures for critical policy discourse analysis. Utilising ten international case studies, the authors explain and critically reflect upon the methods and theories that they have used to successfully integrate CDA with critical policy studies across a diverse range of policy issues. Case studies are used to explore issues in economics, health, education, crisis management, the environment, language and energy policy. Analysing these through discursive methodological approaches in the traditions of CDA, social semiotics and discourse theory, this book connects this discursive methodology systematically to the field of critical policy studies. This is an essential read for researchers wishing to practically combine methods of CDA with critical policy studies. It provides key insights for politics scholars looking to gain a more in-depth understanding of the impact and analysis of discourse.

This research aims to investigate the relationship between critical reading abilities and critical discourse analysis (CDA) competencies among future 21st century educators, emphasizing the critical necessity for these educators to possess such skills in today's demanding educational landscape. A sample of 70 prospective teachers was analyzed to determine the interconnection between their abilities in critical reading abilities and CDA, with an exploration into how one skill may influence the other. Additionally, the study examines the role of cognitive style—specifically, field-independent and field-dependent thinking—as a moderating factor in this relationship. Findings indicate a significant positive impact of CDA capabilities on critical reading abilities, suggesting that proficiency in analyzing discourse critically enhances one's ability to read with a critical eye. Furthermore, the study reveals no significant difference in CDA and critical reading abilities between participants categorized as field-independent thinkers versus those identified as field-dependent thinkers. These outcomes highlight the need for further research to explore additional factors that may affect the development of critical reading and discourse analysis skills. The study concludes with a call for educational strategies that integrate both critical reading and CDA competencies, considering the varied cognitive styles of learners.

SUMMARY Using critical discourse analysis, this paper examines how the female entrepreneurial subject is constructed/produced within entrepreneurial discourses, how this subject is racialized, gendered and classed, and examines what practices contribute to the shaping of the female entrepreneurial subject. I specifically look at four areas/discourses central to entrepreneurship; that of independence, self-definition/self-monitoring, networking, and women's abilities as businesswomen. I contend that contemporary self-employment discourses mirror those of neo-liberalism/modernization where the notion of the independent liberal subject has the ability to self-determine and self-monitor, which is a sign of autonomy and mastery of the self. I also argue that the space of women's entrepreneurship legitimizes white middle-class women's experiences and excludes women of color from becoming active subjects in entrepreneurial discourses.

This paper contributes to the development of a critical realist approach to discourse analysis by combining aspects of ‘critical discourse analysis’ (CDA) and ‘the morphogenetic/morphostatic approach’ (M/M). Unlike poststructuralist discourse theory, CDA insists on the maintenance of two distinctions: (i) between discourse and other aspects of social reality; (ii) between structure and agency. However, CDA lacks clarity on these distinctions. M/M, on the other hand, offers a coherent modelling of these distinctions that can underpin the application of CDA. The paper begins by introducing CDA, M/M and the existing literature on critical realist discourse analysis. It then establishes the M/M model of social change within CDA’s existing social theory by focusing on ‘analytical dualism’ and ‘social practice’. Finally, the paper locates the concept of discourse within M/M’s model of social change by theorizing discourse as one of four objective structures of meaning.

This book is divided into two parts, "Argumentation in Critical Discourse Analysis" and "Questions and Doubts about Visual Argumantation", each part containing two chapters. In the first chapter, "Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis", I am concerned with how topoi are used (and misused) in the Discourse-Historical Approach. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), pioneered by Ruth Wodak (see Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999; Wodak, van Dijk 2000; Wodak, Chilton 2005; Wodak, Meyer 2006; Wodak 2009), is one of the major branches of critical discourse analysis (CDA). In its own (programmatic) view, it embraces at least three interconnected aspects (Wodak 2006: 65): 1. 'Text or discourse immanent critique' aims at discovering internal or discourse-internal structures. 2. The 'socio-diagnostic critique' is concerned with the demystifying exposure of the possibly persuasive or 'manipulative' character of discursive practices. 3. Prognostic critique contributes to the transformation and improvement of communication. CDA, in Wodak's view, is not concerned with evaluating what is 'right' or 'wrong'. CDA ... should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent.1 It should also justify theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem more valid than others. One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of triangulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing features of the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, multi-methodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as well as background information. (Wodak ibid.) One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In the first chapter, I am concerned with the following questions: how and in what way are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g., Fairclough (1995, 2000, 2003) or van Leeuwen (2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006)) do not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being biased, and, consequentially, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the principle of triangulation? Judging from the works we analysed in the first chapter, there are no rules or criteria how to use topoi or how to detect topoi in the discourse/text; the only methodological precept seems to be, »anything goes«! If so, why does CDA need triangulation? And what happened to the principle stipulating that CDA »should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent? « We have seen identical and similar bundles of topoi for different purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for identical and similar purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for different occasion; and we have seen pretty exotic bundles of topoi for pretty particular and singular purposes. Which leads us to a key question: can anything be or become a topos within DHA? And, consequentially, what actually, i.e., historically, is a topos? If a topos is supposed to connect an argument with a conclusion, as all the relevant DHA publications claim, one would expect that at least a minimal reconstruction would follow, namely, what is the argument in the quoted fragment? What is the conclusion in the quoted fragment? How is the detected topos connecting the two, and what is the argumentative analysis of the quoted fragment? Unfortunately, all these elements are missing; the definition and the quoted fragment are all that there is of the supposed argumentative analysis. And this is the basic pattern of functioning for most of the DHA works. At the beginning, there would be a list of topoi and a short description foreach of them: first, a conditional paraphrase of a particular topos would be given, followed by a short discourse fragment (usually from the media) illustrating this conditional paraphrase (in Discourse and Discrimination, pp. 75-80), but without any explicit reconstruction of possible arguments, conclusions, or topoi connecting the two in the chosen fragment. After this short "theoretical" introduction, different topoi would just be referred to by names throughout the book, as if everything has already been explained in these few introductory pages. It is quite surprising that none of the quoted DHA works even mention the origins of topoi, their extensive treatment in many works and the main authors of these works, namely Aristotle and Cicero. Even the definition, borrowed from Kienpointner (mostly on a copy-paste basis), does not stem from their work either: it is a hybrid product, with strong input from Stephen Toulmin's work The Uses of Argument, published in 1958. All this is even more surprising because today it is almost a commonplace that for Aristotle a topos is a place to look for arguments (which is true), a heading or department where a number of rhetoric arguments can be easily found (which is true as well), and that those arguments are ready for use – which is a rather big misunderstanding. According to Aristotle, topoi are supposed to be of two kinds: general or common topoi, appropriate for use everywhere and anywhere, regardless of situation, and specific topoi, in their applicability limited mostly to the three genres of oratory (judicial, deliberative, and epideictic). With the Romans, topoi became loci, and Cicero literally defines them as “the home of all proofs” (De or. 2.166.2), “pigeonholes in which arguments are stored” (Part. Or. 5.7-10), or simply “storehouses of arguments” (Part. Or. 109.5-6). Also, their number was reduced from 300 in Topics or 29 in Rhetoric to up to 19 (depending on how we count them). Although Cicero's list correlates pretty much, though not completely, with Aristotle's list from the Rhetoric B 23, there is a difference in use: Cicero's list is considered to be a list of concepts that may trigger an associative process rather than a collection of implicit rules and precepts reducible to rules, as the topoi in Aristotle's Topics are. In other words, Cicero's loci mostly function as subject matter indicators and loci communes. Which brings us a bit closer to how topoi might be used in DHA. In the works analysed in the first chapter, the authors never construct or reconstruct arguments from the discourse fragments they analyse – despite the fact that they are repeatedly defining topoi as warrants connecting arguments with conclusions; they just hint at them with short glosses. And since there is no reconstruction of arguments from concrete discourse fragments under analysis, hinting at certain topoi, referring to them or simply just mentioning them, can only serve the purpose of »putting the audience in a favourable frame of mind. « »Favourable frame of mind« in our case – the use of topoi in DHA – would mean directing a reader's attention to a »commonly known or discussed« topic, without explicitly phrasing or reconstructing possible arguments and conclusions. Thus, the reader can never really know what exactly the author had in mind and what exactly he/she wanted to say (in terms of (possible) arguments and (possible) conclusions). In Traité de l'argumentation – La nouvelle rhétorique, published in 1958 by Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, topoi are characterised by their extreme generality, which makes them usable in every situation. It is the degeneration of rhetoric and the lack of interest for the study of places that has led to these unexpected consequences where »oratory developments«, as Perelman ironically calls them, against fortune, sensuality, laziness, etc., which school exercises were repeating ad nauseam, became qualified as commonplaces (loci, topoi), despite their extremely particular character. By commonplace- es, Perelman claims, we more and more understand what Giambattista Vico called »oratory places«, in order to distinguish them from the places treated in Aristotle's Topics. Nowadays, commonplaces are characterised by banality which does not exclude extreme specificity and particularity. These places are nothing more than Aristotelian commonplaces applied to particular subjects, concludes Perelman. And this is exactly what seems to be happening to the DHA approach to topoi as well. Even more, the works quoted in the first part of the articlegive the impression that DHA is not using the Aristotelian or Ciceronian topoi, but the so-called »literary topoi«, conceptualized by Ernst Robert Curtius in his Europaeische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (1990: 62- 105, English translation). What is a literary topos? In a nutshell, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilisations, religious texts, art, and even more modern stories. These recurrent and repetitive motifs or leitmotifs would be then labelled literary topoi. The same year that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca published their New Rhetoric, Stephen Toulmin published his Uses of Argument, probably the most detailed study of how topoi work. Actually, he does not use the terms topos or topoi, but the somewhat judicial term “warrant”. The reason for that seems obvious: he is trying to cover different “fields of argument”, and not all fields of argument, according to him, use topoi as their argumentative principles or bases of their argumentation. According to Toulmin (1958/1995: 94-107), if we have an utterance of the form, “If D then C” – where D stands for data or evidence, and C for claim or conclusion – such a warrant would act as a bridge and authorize the step from D to C. But warrant may have a limited applicability, so Toulmin introduces qualifiers Q, indicating the strength conferr

The last chapter brings together different threads examined throughout the book, engaging with critical debates about the representation of gender, history and violence in postmodern cinema, and its role in shaping the viewer’s experience. This theme is explored by emphasising the direct links between Tarantino’s cinema and Carol Clover’s psychoanalytical theory of the horror genre. The chapter first introduces key ideas in Clover’s seminal book Men, Women and Chain Saws (1992), highlighting in particular its focus on the viewer’s sensory and psychological experience and the role of the audience’s masochistic enjoyment. It then looks at how these issues are addressed in four films written and directed by Tarantino: Kill Bill (2003–2004), Death Proof (2007), Inglourious Basterds (2009) and Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019).

Quentin Tarantino’s films, renowned for their stylized violence has long provoked debates over their aesthetic innovation and accusations of gratuitous brutality. This article analyses how Tarantino transforms violence into a postmodern aesthetic strategy in Kill Bill: Volume 1 & 2 (2003–2004), Inglourious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained (2012). Drawing on Jean Baudrillard’s hyperreality, Fredric Jameson’s pastiche and Slavoj Zizek’s typology of violence, the study situates Tarantino’s work within discourses of postmodernism and cinema. Through close textual analysis, the article argues how imagery of violence in Tarantino’s films is used as spectacle and the aesthetics of the violence prioritises irony and performance over realism. At the same time, the analysis interrogates tensions surrounding historical revisionism and ethical spectatorship in Tarantino’s approach. The article argues that Tarantino’s cinema navigates the paradox of postmodern violence where it challenges moral panics about media effects while deploying violence as a hyper-stylized, symbolic language that reframes cultural narratives.

Quentin Tarantino, a renowned filmmaker known for his distinctive style and thought-provoking themes, has captivated audiences and critics with his groundbreaking films. This study aims to analyze the ontological psychological features present in Tarantino's filmography, focusing on the complex interplay between narrative structure, character development, and the human psyche. By employing a qualitative methodology, the research conducts a thematic analysis of Tarantino's key films, such as "Reservoir Dogs," "Pulp Fiction," "Kill Bill," "Inglourious Basterds," "Django Unchained," and "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood." The study identifies several central themes, including existentialism, vengeance, memory and temporality, language and communication, and metafiction. Through an in-depth exploration of these themes, the research reveals how Tarantino's work challenges conventional perceptions of reality and the human experience, ultimately probing the depths of human emotion, motivation, and identity. Furthermore, the study investigates the broader cultural and historical context of Tarantino's films and their psychological impact on audiences. By examining the various thematic and stylistic elements, the study seeks to shed light on the ways in which Tarantino's films transcend traditional cinematic boundaries, stimulating deeper reflections on the nature of reality, morality, and the human condition. This comprehensive analysis contributes to a greater understanding of the intricacies of the human experience and the transformative power of cinema.

This study aims to analyse power, dominance, racial discrimination, and power exercise that is narratively established through a subtle network of metaphors in a fiction work, The Kite Runner. The Kite Runner exposes the socioeconomic conditions in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan, revealing the differences between power manipulation and the domestic performance of powerful social groups. The work also explores how religious and status dichotomies circumvent the progress of minority groups and align their physical features with their receding power and financial features. An adopted model of critical discourse analysis (CDA) indicates power, economic, and racial dichotomies in the book while revealing the shades of metaphors through conceptual metaphor theory (CMT) in a post-colonial text. Dogmatic ideographs are perpetuated in every public sphere through language and established gradually through unprovoking tools of metaphors. The metaphors are uncovered through CMT, providing a helpful understanding of different conceptual domains. Rhetorically, CDA helped reveal the racial discrimination, human rights violations, and hatred against minorities embedded in the selected metaphors. This investigation is very significant in connection with the current scenario of cross-cultural studies, as it mainly depicts the prevailing social trends regarding two different settings. The study may benefit intelligentsia interested in post-colonial and decolonial discourse and diaspora literature. Keywords: Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis, Metaphor, Power Expansion, Racial Discrimination Agbo, I. I., Kadiri, G. C., & Ijem, B. U. (2018). Critical metaphor analysis of political discourse in Nigeria. English Language Teaching, 11(5), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v11n5p95 Burke, K. (2017). A rhetoric of motives. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 154–164). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315080925-15 Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press. Fairclough, N. (2000). Discourse, social theory and social research: The case of welfare reform. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 163–195. Fairclough, N. (2012). Critical discourse analysis. International Advances in Engineering and Technology, 7, 452–487. Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/special/endsandbeginnings/foucaultrepressiveen278.pdf Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA21964742 Gill, S. (1998). European governance and new constitutionalism: Economic and monetary union and alternatives to disciplinary neoliberalism in Europe. New Political Economy, 3(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563469808406330 Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Hosseini, K. (2003). The kite runner. New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Jawaid, A., Batool, M., Arshad, W., Kaur, P., & ul Haq, M. I. (2024). English language pronunciation challenges faced by tertiary students. Contemporary Journal of Social Science Review, 2(04), 2104-2111. https://contemporaryjournal.com/index.php/14/article/view/361 Jawaid, A. (2014). Benchmarking in TESOL: A Study of the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 23-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p23 Jensen, D. F. N. (2006, April). Metaphors as a bridge to understanding educational and social contexts. International Institute for Qualitative Methodology. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/5_1/HTML/jensen.htm Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). Cambridge University Press. Talib, N., & Fitzgerald, R. (2016). Micro–meso–macro movements: A multi-level critical discourse analysis framework to examine metaphors and the value of truth in policy texts. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(5), 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2016.1182932 Van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News analysis: Case studies of international and national news in the press. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 249–283. Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse and racism in Spain and Latin America. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 62–86). London: Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about: A summary of its history, important concepts and developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1–13). London: Sage Publications. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and discourse analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

تحلیل فمینیستی ـ انتقادی گفتمان یکی از شاخه‌های تحلیل گفتمان است که وجه ممیزۀ آن تمرکزش بر کشف و آشکارسازی روابط نابرابر قدرت جاری میان زنان و مردان در مناسبات و نظم‌های اجتماعی‌ است. مقالۀ حاضر پیشنهاد می‌کند که نظریۀ سیمون دو بووار در کتاب جنس دوم در باب چگونگی شکل‌گیری هویت جنسیتی و سوژۀ مؤنث، زمینۀ نظری مناسبی برای تلفیق میان فمینیسم و تحلیل گفتمان فراهم می‌سازد. جنس دوم به رغم تقدم زمانی چشم‌گیری که بر مطالعات گفتمانی دارد، از بسیاری جهات سازگاری قابل توجهی با مفروضات فلسفی (معرفت‌شناختی، هستی‌شناختی) غالب رویکردهای تحلیل انتقادی گفتمان دارد. در این پژوهش، جنس دوم از حیث دید انتقادی، مفهوم‌سازی از قدرت و ایدئولوژی، نسبت آن با برساخت‌گرایی اجتماعی، نگاه انتقادی به دانش پذیرفته‌شده، ارزیابی تحول تاریخی و نقش نهادها و نظم‌های گفتمانی در شکل‌گیری سوژه بررسی شده است

Reviewed by: The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics ed. by Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, Ceil Lucas John Baugh The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Ed. by Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas. (Oxford handbooks.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. xxv, 884. ISBN 9780199744084. $150 (Hb). The editors of the Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics are mindful of other encyclopedias devoted to sociolinguistic inquiry. They describe four factors that distinguish this volume from [End Page 283] other comprehensive surveys of the field: new methodological developments, global inclusion of previously neglected speech communities, greater emphasis on bilingual and multilingual circumstances, and insights from innovative sign language research. Despite these new directions, the editors are keenly aware of classical studies in sociolinguistics, and their introduction begins with references to iconic research by William Labov, Dell Hymes, and John Gumperz, among others. The first section is titled ‘Disciplinary perspectives’, and it begins after a brief account of the organization of this handbook, chapter by chapter, under the heading ‘The study of language and society’. The editors outline the volume, which is substantial, consisting of nearly nine hundred pages, with laconic depictions of the entire text. These opening remarks are quite useful, and will allow the specialist to pinpoint alternative approaches to sociolinguistics—broadly defined—that may be of primary interest to different readers. ‘Variationist sociolinguistics’ is the first chapter of the book, and it provides an account that begins with Labov’s groundbreaking study on Martha’s Vineyard, and then moves on to describe an array of foundational sociolinguistic studies centered largely on research in the United States. The remaining sections of the chapter explore the case of null pronoun variation in Spanish, and the extension of the variationist paradigm within and beyond the United States. Readers who are familiar with the field will recognize references to some iconic sociolinguistic analyses, and the novice will be provided with a succinct depiction of some of the major global applications of variationist sociolinguistics that have helped to define the field. ‘Linguistic anthropology’ (Ch. 2) opens with a quotation from Michael Silverstein that affirms the intricate connections between language and culture. Indeed, the first sentence asks, ‘Can we ever understand language without understanding the culture?’ (31). As with the opening chapter, the authors describe major pioneering studies by Hymes and Gumperz before turning to ‘language beyond linguistic form’. The chapter then explores a variety of relevant research that builds toward consideration of how linguistic anthropology will be encompassed within the future of sociolinguistic research. Devoted to ways in which sociology is related to the study of language, Ch. 3, ‘Doers and makers: The interwoven stories of sociology and the study of language’, includes many references to classical sociological and philosophical figures, such as Jürgen Habermas, David Émile Durkheim, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill; I was struck, however, by the absence of any references to Joshua Fishman’s formulation of ‘the sociology of language’ or Erving Goffman’s influential analyses of ‘talk’. Readers who are unfamiliar with early connections between sociology and studies of language will nevertheless find this chapter to be highly informative. ‘Critical discourse analysis’ (Ch. 4) contains several useful diagrams showing interconnections with highly complex topics related to the entire sociolinguistic enterprise, while conversation analysis (CA) is described in Ch. 5, including references to foundational formulations by Harvey Sacks, as well as the procedures and methods that are distinctive to CA research. The remaining chapters in this section explore language socialization, psycholinguistics, and interdisciplinary approaches; each of these three concluding chapters accounts for ways in which sociolinguistic inquiries overlap and intersect by drawing upon insights, methods, and analyses from diverse research practices. Part 2, ‘Methodologies and approaches’, consists of Chs. 9–14, and the authors of each chapter devote concentrated attention to alternative sociolinguistic methods, including studies of communities and individuals in Ch. 9, and experimental methods to study the intelligibility of closely related language varieties in Ch. 10. Quantitative analysis is emphasized in Ch. 11, while qualitative methods utilized in multilingual circumstances are presented in Ch. 12. The remaining two chapters in Part 2 concentrate on longitudinal studies and methods for studying sign language respectively. Each chapter in this section contains a wealth...

Language and cinema make use of distinctive tools to interpret and reflect external reality. While signs in language consist of signifiers and signified(s), in cinema they are fiction, sound, image, and most importantly, discourses within the screenplay. A discourse is a unit of communication value that, for the most part, includes the social and production conditions of language beyond utterances. Examinations of discourse can be done from a linguistic perspective that engages grammar, sentence structures, and voice, or from a non-linguistic perspective. Critical discourse analysis approaches its object of study from a broad perspective. It aims to critically examine texts and speeches on subjects such as racism, sexism, colonialism, and other forms of social inequality. Critical feminist discourse analysis focuses on the complex structures of hidden power relations and the ideologies that support gender regulations in discourse, though it is separate from critical discourse analysis in various ways. In this study, the film Marriage Story, written and directed by Noah Baumbach, undergoes critical feminist discourse analysis. By constructing the character Nicole, the female protagonist who attempts to exist in a masculine public sphere and, in the process, becomes a liberated individual who makes a series of decisions in line with her desires and needs and self-expression, Baumbach criticizes the dominant ideology of his own cinematic making.