A Comparative Analysis between Walt Disney and DreamWorks Based on the Theory of Semantic Roles of Argument Nominals

Source:
By:ping Man XU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30564/jler.v4i2.4260

Abstract:

Abstract

Anchored on Yule’s categories of semantic roles, the present study examined the language of cartoon scripts with Chinese characters in Walt Disney’s Mulan 1 and 2 and DreamWorks’s Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2. Specifically it described the: (1) semantic features of the scripts in terms of semantic roles; and (2)similarities and differences in the language of the scripts semantically. Data analyzed were limited to 800 sentences which were randomly selected from the scripts of Mulan 1 and 2 and Kung Fu Panda 1 and 2. More specifically, 200 lines per film were analyzed by taxonomizing the utterances in terms of identifying the semantic roles of argument nominals in each utterance. Results revealed the roles of agent and experiencer in the subject positions are dominant in contrast with the frequency of occurrences of theme, goal, location and source. In conclusion, the language of animated film is relatively simpler, literal and direct to suit the level of the target audience who are generally children. Finally, this research suggests that more linguistic levels should be conducted to explore the language features on cartoon movies in the future. 

References:

[1]Allan, K. (1986). Linguistic meaning. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. [2]Arnheim, R., Teng, S., & Zhu, J. (1998). Art and visual perception. Sichuan: Sichuan People’s Publishing House. [3]Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B. (1998). The Berkeley Frame Net Project. Proc. 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 86-90. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3115/980451.980860. [4]Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris: Dordrecht. [5]Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. London: MIT press. [6]Dowty, David R (1986). Thematic roles and semantics. Proceedings of the twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 340-54. [7]Goldberg. A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument stricture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [8]Givone, T. (1990). Syntax: A Functiona-tpological introdiction. Amsterdam: John Beniamins. [9]Gildea,D. & Jurafsky, D. (2002). Automatic labeling of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 28(3), 245-288. [10]Jackendoff, Ray (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. [11]Leech, G. N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman. [12]Lichtman, M. (2012). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. California: Sage Publishing. [13]Liu, D., & Gildea, D. (2010). Semantic role features for machine translation. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 16-724. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C10-1081 [14]Liu, D., & Gildea, D. (2008). Improved tree-to-string transducer for machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation, 62-69. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W08-0308. [15]Mclntyre, D. (2008). Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylistics of drama: A multimodal perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III. Language and Literature, 17(4), 309-334. [16]Meyers, A., Reeves, R. & Macleod, C. (2004). The nombank project: an interim report. HLT-NAACL Workshop: Frontiers in Corpus Annotation, 24-31. [17]Palmer, M., Gildea, D. & Kingsbury, P. (2005). The proposition bank: an annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 71-106. [18]Salt, B. (2004). The shape of 1999: The stylistics of American movies at the end of the century. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 2(1), 61-85.