37 18 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) TATIANA SZCZYGŁOWSKA1 DOI: 10.15290/CR.2022.38.3.02 University of Bielsko-Biala, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5051-4080 The lexico-phraseological profile of professional film reviews published by the British media: A corpus-linguistic study Abstract: Using corpus linguistic techniques, this exploratory study is intended to provide a descriptive in- sight into frequent lexical bundles, keywords and key terms as well as selected lexical markers of style used in a corpus of professional film reviews. The research material includes 210 domain-specific texts from the years 2020-2021, extracted from the websites of six British newspapers, magazines and institutions offering guides for moviegoers. The results show that the analyzed reviews make frequent use of general cinematic terms and more specific lexis denoting the different types and (sub)genres of cinematic productions repre- sented by the reviewed films. Other salient lexical features include a high concentration of referential but low concentration of stance bundles, though attitudinal items, particularly evaluation adjectives, signifi- cantly enrich the lexical inventory of the reviews. The presented data may have important pedagogic appli- cations in the area of teaching authentic English to future film reviewers and film journalists. Keywords: corpus linguistics, film reviews, keywords, key terms, lexical bundles. 1. Introduction Film reviews can be defined as short texts which provide basic information about a film, while simultaneously assessing its various merits and weak points. Those written by professional reviewers seem to be particularly interesting to the public, as their authors are usually among the first to see new films. In the US, for instance, eight out of ten viewers declare they consult film reviews when making a film choice (Ford 2014). As Gemser et al. (2007: 44) claim, “film reviews can actively influence consumers in their 1 Address for correspondence: Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna, Instytut Neofilologii, ul. Willowa 2, 43-309 Bielsko-Biała, Poland. Email: tszczyglowska@ath.bielsko.pl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5051-4080 19 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) selection process” but they also “forecast whether a movie will become a success or not”. The impact of film reviews is thus twofold: they assess the value of a film for audi- ences, which influences their decision process, and pre-shape opinions about that film, which influences the films̓ box-office performance. Topa-Bryniarska (2020: 237) claims that there has been relatively little research so far on the genre of film reviews, though as Bieler et al. (2007: 76) suggest, the genre “has become relatively popular in computational linguistics”, which mostly aims to classify “an entire review as either positive or negative”. Admittedly, reviews have been studied to establish that the critical ones affect late and cumulative box office receipts, but seem to have no effect on early box office receipts (Eliashberg & Shugan 1997). Reviews have also been reported to be different from pieces of film criticism (e.g. O'Regan & Walms- ley-Evans 2015), to have become standardized and taxonomic to the detriment of their essayistic value (Grue 2006), to possess persuasive traits typical of advertising discourse (Topa-Bryniarska 2020) and to be composed of a fixed number of components (Bordwell 1989). It seems that less attention has been devoted to the lexical and phraseological aspects of reviews, though some passing remarks on the language and style of film reviews can be found in Clayton and Klevan (2011), who are critical of larding the texts with superlatives, hyperbole and well-worn adjectives; on multi-word verbs, in Zelenka (2017), who concludes that the written reviews make frequent use of prepositional verbs and the spoken ones rely mainly on phrasal verbs; and on premodification, in Paul (2019), who lists adjectival classifiers and descriptors as the most common types of premodification in film reviews. Added to that is Zheltukhina et al.̓s (2020) study of the verbal specifics of American film reviews from the magazines Esquire and GQ. This paper aims to identify and examine salient lexical and phraseological units in a specialized corpus of professional British film reviews, attempting to classify these units semantically and functionally as well as to analyze their naturally occurring patterns of use. The focus is on recurrent lexical bundles, keywords and key terms, and addition- ally, on the high frequency keyword film and three lexical markers of style (i.e. but, why, don’t). It is hoped that the findings of this research will not only offer a better insight into the lexico-phraseological profile of professional film reviews published in the British media, but also provide authentic descriptive data in the area of domain-specific language and style, familiarity with which may be sought for by those studying to become film reviewers, critics or journalists. 2. The film review genre The film review is a journalistic genre which provides a brief description of a film – usually a new one – and states the reviewers̓ opinion on it. It is thus subjective in its nature, as the author uses their own “knowledge, taste, artistic familiarity, intellectual level and sensitivity” not simply to evaluate the film, but rather to comment of the films̓ 20 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) merits and weaknesses (Jelonkiewicz 2010: 312, translation mine). Apart from its infor- mative, analytical and evaluative value, the film review also serves as an effective tool of persuasion which can either attract or repel viewers from particular films. The latter is possibly the reason why film reviewers are sometimes considered “as adjuncts of the film marketing process” whose recommendations can contribute to the box office success of movies (McArthur 1985: 81). This seems to be particularly the case with professional reviews, which have been selected as the focus of this study and which are written by trained journalist or professional film critics, not by ordinary members of the audience. Despite the common goal of providing an accurate summary of a film that helps to understand its meaning and technical virtuosity, according to many scholars, film reviewing should not be confused with film criticism (e.g. O'Regan & Walmsley-Evans 2015; Maras 2020). Generally, reviews are more informative in their nature, as well as more consumer-oriented and sensitive to the audiencesʼ immediate tastes and prefer- ences, whereas pieces of criticism are more elitist in their nature, also in terms of the films chosen for analysis, as well as more concerned with the aesthetic, cinematic and cultural criteria (Holbrook 1999: 148). The former, as forms of journalistic criticism, are usually shorter and reactive, as well as written with the use of more general vocabulary and printed in newspapers; the latter, as forms of scholarly criticism, are typically longer and reflective, as well as written with the use of academic lexis and printed in journals and magazines (see Brown 1978: 32 and Grue 2006: 44). Yet, as Bordwell empha- sizes (1989: 21), it is has to be remembered that “film criticism was born from reviewing, and the earliest prototypes of the ʻfilm criticʼ were journalists charged with discussing, on a daily or weekly basis, the current output of the film industry”. O'Regan and Walmsley-Evans (2015) attribute the rhetorical origin of film reviews to 19th century theatre criticism, which they explain by common circumstances of both art forms, such as “mass circulation daily and weekly publications, national circuits and defined seasons, and an interest in discussion of the object in advance of, and subse- quent to, its performance/exhibition”. The literature on the topic is less definite about the candidate for the first film review. Iampolski (1998: 58) writes about New York Timesʼ “first article on a motion picture”, which was the 1909 review of D. W. Griffith's film adaptation of Robert Browning's play Pippa Passes, but does not make it clear whether it was actually the first review ever. Roberts (2010: 20), writing about American cinema, points to the New York Times anonymous piece from 1896 reporting on the first public exhibition of a film at Koster and Bials̓ Music Hall in New York. In turn, O'Regan and Walmsley-Evans (2015) claim that in the context of Australian cinema, the very first film review was written even earlier – it reviewed a private screening of Edison Kinetoscope films and was published in 1894 in the Sydney Morning Herald. What, however, raises no doubt is that film reviews were first published in newspapers, which made them 21 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) function as “a type of journalism”, with “a sort of news value” and publication regularity (Bordwell & Thompson 2011: 54-55). Regarding the formal characteristics of the genre, Bieler et al. (2007: 75) argue that a typical review contains formal and functional elements. The former are characteristic for the genre and include a conventionalized constellation of linearly ordered details, such as the title, the name of the reviewer, list of cast and copyright notice. The latter are closely linked with the communicative goal of the writer whose intention is to present the contents of the film to the reader and offer a personal evaluation, both of which are provided in the main paragraphs of a review. Bordwell (1989: 38) summarizes the typical structure of a review in the following way: “Open with a summary judgment; synopsize the plot; then supply a string of condensed arguments about the acting, story logic, sets, spectacle, or other case-centered points; lace it all with background information; and cap the review by reiterating the judgment”. He elaborates further on this issue, adding that the plot summary should highlight pivotal moments without revealing the ending; background information about the film should indicate its genre, source, director, stars and anecdotes about production or reception; whereas the advanced arguments should be concise and compelling, and followed by a clear recommendation. Depending on the place of publication, film reviews may range in length and detail, as for instance, Bull (2010: 335-336) advises that a typical review should be around 500 word long, whereas Brown (1978: 34) reports that the majority of reviews are between 500 to 1000 words. The latter seems to be true for the reviews analyzed here, which are on average 731.53 word long, with the longest consisting of as many as 1374 words and the shortest, of only 281 words. Some additional details that can be discussed in a review include the cinemas̓ resources (e.g. lightning or camera placement and movement) (McArthur 1985), photographs or trailers of the film (Gemser et al. 2007), or even “prematurely dismissed pictures or those that could not find immediate audiences” (Roberts 2010: 12). What helps the reviewer to cover all essential features of a film are its multiple viewings, accountability to the audience as well as familiarity with the art form reviewed and good writing ability2. For a review to be effective, it definitely takes the use of the right language and style. In their analysis of film reviews published in the Esquire and GQ, Zheltukhina et al. (2020: 13) conclude that reviewers rely heavily on nouns (46%) and adjectives (28%) as well as on “epithets, comparisons, metaphors, lexical repeats, homogeneous members of the sentence, various grammatical structures, and other expressive means”. Corrigan (2015: 129-134) explains that successful writing about film is largely dependent on 2 The hints on how to write a film review can be found on websites dedicated to this matter, specifically: How to Write Film Review (n.d.), 9 Tips for Writing a Film Review (2017) and 7 Tips for Writing a Film Review (Nichol 2007-2021). 22 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) concreteness, that is, on the accuracy with which a writer linguistically visualizes a films̓ scenes or sequences. He adds that other rhetorical tools include the skilful use of denotations and connotations, precision of meaning, avoidance of empty words like thing or aspect, employment of a moderate amount of professional terminology, adop- tion of a tone devoid of sarcasm, irony or blatant humour, finding a balance between a casual and formal voice, restraint in using clichés and repetitions other than those involving key words, reliance on varied vocabulary and sentence structures, remaining economical and focused on the main purpose of the review, which is to inform about and evaluate a film. Topa-Bryniarska (2020: 240-243) also emphasizes that film reviews constitute a form of mock dialogue between the writer and the reader and should, there- fore, contain strong evaluative lexis, questions and direct reader appeals. 3. Material and methodology The present study is part of an ongoing project aimed at disentangling the intricacies of recurrent lexis and phraseology in professional review texts that has so far investigated restaurant reviews published in British and American newspapers (Szczygłowska 2021). Capitalizing on the approach adopted in this earlier work, here the focus is on film reviews published by the British media. In addition to keywords, key terms, and lexical bundles, all of which have been analyzed in the previous work, in this study attention is also devoted to three lexical markers of style (i.e. but, why, don’t) and the high frequency keyword film. The research material encompasses a specialized corpus of 210 professional film reviews extracted from six British internet websites: the platform BBC Culture (BBC), the British Film Institute website (BFI), The Spectator magazine (TS), and three newspapers: The Guardian (TG), The Telegraph (TT) and The Independent (TI). These sources were selected to ensure that the reviews were authored by film critics and film journalists working as regular columnists, as confirmed by their online profiles, not by ordinary members of the audience. For this reason, however, multiple reviews by the same authors had to be included in the corpus, as the above mentioned media institutions employ a fixed number of professional reviewers. Each source contributed 35 reviews: 15 from the year 2020 and 20 from 2021. The movie genre factor was not considered, similarly as reviews devoted to several films simultaneously. Multiple reviews of the same film (i.e. two reviews – each culled from a different source) constituted only 10 per cent (21) of all the corpus texts, and the remaining 90 per cent (189) were devoted to different films. The corpus size is 153,622 word tokens (18,523 word types), which yields a standardized type/ token ratio of 49.64, indicating a reasonably diverse vocabulary (Baker 2006: 52). The small size of the corpus may help to closely “reflect contextual features”, thus giving “insights into patterns of language use in particular settings” (Koester 2010: 67). Addi- tionally, the English web 2020 (enTenTen20), containing over 36 billion words crawled from the Internet, was used as a reference corpus. 23 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) The research methodology also involved the extraction of frequent lexical bundles (LBs) with the help of WordSmith Tools 6.0 (Scott 2012). The focus was on 4-word sequences3 occurring at least 4 times in the research corpus. Following Hyland (2008: 8), bundles of this length are more common than 5-word items and represent clearer struc- tures and functions than shorter strings. The initial list included 123 items and was filtered out to remove fragments of film titles (e.g. A Call to Spy) and bundles which did not reach the distribution threshold that was set at 4 texts. The remaining 75 bundles were classified into functional (sub)categories, some of which were taken from Biber et al. (2004), while others were created to reflect the specific functions performed by them in the analyzed texts. Additionally, the analysis involved the extraction of keywords and key terms (i.e. multi-word expressions, typically noun phrases or nominalizations), that is, lexis occur- ring with unusual frequency in the target corpus, compared to the reference corpus. Such lexical items “provide information about the keyness or specificity of a given corpus in terms of what it is about” (Szudarski 2018: 25). They were identified using Sketch Engine (Kilgarriff et al. 2014), with the minimum frequency set at 5, the focus value set at 0.00001 and the keyword attribute defined as word. Considering the rela- tively small size of the corpus, the criterion of range (i.e. frequency understood as the number of texts an item appears in) was not applied, mainly because some of the items occurred in only one or two corpus texts. This decision was motivated by the belief that if such low-range items were excluded from the analysis, some of the semantic cate- gories to which they were assigned would be reduced to a minimum. This could make that certain interesting aspects of the analyzed reviews would be lost, such as references to film characters or details of the storyline, both of which tend to be unique, often typical of a single film. Yet, to signal that some of the discussed keywords and key terms may possibly be of idiosyncratic nature, those that occurred in only one review were italicized. Top frequency items (by keyness) were scanned to remove proper names, which are often incidental to the analyzed texts (Scott 2012), and compile two refined lists of the most common 100 keywords and key terms. These items were then classified into semantically and functionally related categories of words and terms, typical for the research corpus and its domain, that were developed intuitively after examining the relevant concordances. The discussion of keywords and key terms is supplemented by a closer scrutiny of the grammatical and collocational behaviour of the high frequency keyword film and three lexical markers of style: but, why and don’t. 3 Following the approach adopted by Kim (2013), the apostrophes used for contracted and possessive forms are treated as a separate unit, which means that sequences such as and there’s a as well as is the film’s are treated as 4-word bundles. 24 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Lexical bundles Drawing on the functional typology proposed by Biber et al. (2004), 75 target LBs, totalling 431 tokens, were assigned to three categories: referential, discoursal and expressing stance. These categories were further modified by incorporating more specific subcategories to closely reflect the specificity of the studied film reviews. The LBs were categorized based on their primary functions fulfilled in most of the contexts in which the they occurred. Referential bundles constitute the largest category comprising 50 items (66.67%), totaling 290 tokens, which were used to convey content by referring to concepts, entities and ideas, as well as their attributes. Referential bundles served seven distinct functions shown in Table 1. Table 1. Referential bundles in film reviews Subcategory Freq No Bundle Identification/focus 81 14 is one of the, one of the most, this is a film, and theres̓ a, the film is a, one of the film, one of the great, is a film that, is the films̓, it s̓ one of, then theres̓ the, theres̓ also a, there is also a, ʻs adaptation of the Attributes of the film 57 7 of the films̓, written and directed by, of the film is, is written and directed, the film doesnʼt, a film that is, the film isnʼt Specifying attributes 56 9 the rest of the, much of the film, a bit of a, in the form of, to the point of, as a kind of, in a state of, is a bit of, of the same name Referring to the plot 43 9 at the centre of, the centre of the, the film begins with, the story of a, a film about the, at the heart of, film is set in, is based on the, the film is set Temporal 25 6 at a time when, and a half hour, for the first time, over the course of, two and a half, in the middle of Location 24 4 in the films̓, in a film that, in one of the, into the middle of Multifunctional 4 1 at the end of 25 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Film reviews are dominated by identification/focus bundles, which help to point out important aspects on which the author wants to elaborate, such as specific film scenes (1) or people involved in filmmaking (2). Some bundles also direct readersʼ attention to key points, including the reviewed film itself (3), its characters (4) or their character traits (5). (1) In one of the most affecting scenes, Fern talks to a friend named Swankie, a woman in her seventies in failing health, […] (BBC_15 Sept 2020) (2) But Bong has never made a straightforward film in his life – that’s why he’s one of the great masters of the cinematic game […] (TI_6 Feb 2020) (3) This is a film of quiet, cumulative power, which has much to say about serial sexual predators in the Harvey Weinstein mould, […] (TS_2 May 2020) (4) Then there’s the Park family, settled in a quiet suburban home that’s halfway between an art installation and a fortress. (TI_6 Feb 2020) (5) But there’s also a strange sense of empowerment in Claire’s ability to un-write and then re- write her life at will, […] (TG_12 Apr 2020) Bundles referring to attributes of the film identify its main filmmakers (6), title (7) or such partly overlapping details as various qualities (8), characteristics (9) and aspects (10). (6) The film is written and directed by Chinonye Chukwu, a Nigerian-American and the first black woman to win the Grand Jury prize. (TS_18 Jul 2020) (7) The same can be said of the film’s title: while Fire Will Come suggests a prophecy or a threat, the Galician O que arde simply means “that which burns”, […] (BFI_20 Mar 2020) (8) The film isn’t realistic in the sense that we can say any of it happened, yet it’s otherwise intensely realistic. (TS_27 Mar 2021) (9) The film doesn’t reinvent the spy genre, but uses it effectively, creating suspense and near- misses whenever the Nazis approach. (BBC_4 Nov 2020) (10) A highlight of the film is the meet-cute at a friend’s wedding between her and Matt […] (BFI_23 Nov 2021) Bundles specifying attributes describe various characteristics of the entities mentioned in film reviews, including their type (11), part (12), quantity (13), condition (14), manifestation (15) or some other details (16). Attributive bundles are the most popular referential expressions in the corpus, both in terms of the number of distinct forms (N = 16) and their cumulative frequency of use (Freq = 113). (11) Waves rapidly descends into a repetitive cycle of black trauma, playing horror as a kind of cruel irony. (TI_16 Jan 2020) 26 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (12) And will the rest of the community support her? (TS_23 May 2020) (13) Much of the film is shot in natural light, with plenty of sensual close-ups of sweat and grime. (BBC_2 Sept 2021) (14) In fact, no – it simply left us in a state of permanent suspense about his fate. (TT_21 Sept 2021) (15) Meanwhile, reality intrudes in the form of a nationwide fuel shortage: […] (TT_30 Dec 2021) (16) Alma, his father’s housekeeper, even to the point of a drunken attempted rape. (TS_18 Apr 2020) Bundles referring to the plot indicate various details linked directly with the main events of a film, such as the specific time (17) and location (18) where the story happens or the films̓ main theme (19), opening scene (20) and background inspiration (21). Inter- estingly, the bundles at the centre of, the centre of the and at the heart of, which give the impression of referring to location, are also concerned with aspects of the plot, as illus- trated by (22) and (23). (17) The film is set in 1870, as Kidd travels from town to town reading newspapers aloud to groups of people who drop coins in a bucket to hear him. (BBC_11 Dec 2020) (18) The new Disney-Pixar film is set in and around an idealised Riviera village, a rustic paradise of trattorias, vineyards, and crumbling town squares with fountains in the middle. (BBC_16 Jun 2021) (19)Waves is a film about the rapid and shocking destruction of an upper-middle-class black family, written and directed by a white man. (TI_16 Jan 2020) (20) The film begins with a voiceover from Murray over a black screen. (BBC_25 Sept 2020) (21) Military Wives is based on the true story of an ensemble of servicemen’s spouses who formed a choir and later enlisted the help of TV choirmaster Gareth Malone. (TT_25 Feb 2020) (22) At the centre of the story is Selah’s relationship with her young new protégée […] (BFI_1 Jun 2020) (23) But at the heart of the film is the developing relationship between Mahiro and the father she believes is her father but isn’t, […] (TS_4 Jul 2020) Two less common subcategories of referential bundles include time/place reference. Those tied to the concept of time indicate the duration of a film (24) or refer to particu- lar points in time mentioned in the review, as in (25). In turn, location bundles mark either particular places (26) or more abstract locations, such as the film itself (27), its scenes (28) or even script (29). 27 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (24) But over the course of two hours, the flaws are all too visible. (BBC_26 Feb 2020) (25) It's possible that some more magnetic actors might have helped, but for the first time, Marvel's sharp eye for casting has gone awry. (BBC_24 Oct 2021) (26) A lonely, spoilt girl is plonked into the middle of a decaying estate, left to explore its corridors and its secrets. (TI_22 Oct 2020) (27) Steadman and Dave Johns are mostly wasted in a film that’s less a pleasant meander than a gruelling hike. (TT_24 Sept 2020) (28) Their differences are stated out loud in the film’s final scene, as they drink and clink glasses. (BBC_6 Oct 2020) (29) The question of what initially compels Robert to consider firing into his own ranks by taking on the case as a class-action suit is never quite crystallised in the film’s script, [...] (BFI_26 Feb 2020) The subcategory of multi-functional bundles comprises only one item, which either indicates location (like Gatsby mesmerised by the light at the end of Daisy’s dock) or time (film was shot around the city’s San Fernando Valley suburbs at the end of last year). Discourse-organizing bundles include 15 items (20%), totaling 79 tokens, which served two main functions shown in Table 2. Table 2. Discourse-organizing bundles in film reviews The majority of discourse organizers are concerned with topic clarification or elabo- ration. This may involve paraphrasing the authors̓ opinion about a film (30), making it harsher (31), more argumentative (32) or more detailed (33). An interesting bundle is at the same time, which despite its direct reference to time, expands on a topic, as in (34). (30) […] you’ll have a fair idea of what to expect from Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things. To put it another way, you won’t really know what to expect at all, because Kaufman’s films are always weirder, gloomier, and more unsettling than you might assume, […] (BBC_1 Sept 2020) (31) This being a Kaufman film, though, nothing is as it should be. It’s not that anyone behaves outrageously or threateningly. It’s just that everything is... wrong. (BBC_1 Sept 2020) Subcategory Freq No Bundle Topic elaboration/ clarification 74 14 but it s̓ a, turns out to be, as well as the, but it s̓ also, out to be a, at the same time, it s̓ just that, on the other hand, or to put it, put it another way, to do with the, to put it another, turned out to be, what to do with Topic introduction 5 1 when it comes to 28 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (32) It's not as if you get to watch surreal, avant-garde rock operas very often. On the other hand, you might think that that's for the best. (BBC_7 Jul 2021) (33) The murder scene itself is expectedly horrific, but it’s also short. (TI_28 Jul 2020) (34) It is a testament to Thomasin McKenzie’s performance that she manages to maintain a lightness while at the same time suggesting a woman who could also be slipping into madness. (BFI_31 Oct 2021) The subcategory of topic introducing bundles comprises only one item, which serves as a signal implying that the author is about to undertake a new idea, as in (35). (35) Whatever small contrivances or inconsistencies might dwell in this story of a husbandʼs secrets […], they melt away as soon as the camera cuts to the face of its star. When it comes to convincing an audience that the terror is real, a horror film can try all the tricks in the book […] (TI_20 Aug 2021) Stance bundles constitute the least numerous category, with 10 items (13.33%) shown in Table 3, totalling 62 tokens, that have been grouped into four subcategories. They all express attitudes and judgements towards the information presented in film reviews. Table 3. Stance bundles in film reviews It is not surprising that evaluative bundles are the most popular in the research corpus, since one of the main aims of any review is to “evaluate the product” (Blank 2007: 8). Such bundles usually convey attitudes towards the film (36), its story (37) or actors (38). (36) It’s hard to imagine a Terence Davies film that’s not deeply personal in some way, […] (TT_15 Oct 2021) (37) Annette Bening and Bill Nighy star as a British couple whose 29-year marriage has run dry – yet it’s hard to make ourselves care. (TT_27 Aug 2020) Subcategory Freq No Bundle Attitudinal/modality – evaluative 28 4 it's hard to, ʻt help but feel, it feels as if, it s̓ as if Epistemic 14 3 I donʼt know, Iʼm not sure, may or may not Attitudinal/ modality – obligation/directive 13 2 don't have to, you donʼt have Attitudinal/modality – Ability 7 1 canʼt help but 29 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (38)The actor’s so present, so enthralling, that it’s as if she’s beckoned the audience to climb inside another self with her and have a look around. (TI_1 Oct 2020) In the subcategory of epistemic stance bundles, two items are personal and serve to express the authors̓ uncertainty regarding some aspects of the film under review, as illus- trated by example (39). There is also one bundle that is concerned with possibility (40). (39) I don’t know why Stanfield wasn’t nominated for his role. (TS_13 Mar 2021) (40) As for Enrico, he may or may not understand the truth about his wife – but we, the audience, understand the terrible irony. (TG_23 Jul 2020) Bundles expressing obligation convey the lack of necessity on the part of viewers to do something to gain a specific impression about a film (41), which is also the case with the bundle expressing ability (42). (41) You don’t have to analyse the camera angles or edits to feel that immediacy […] (BBC_6 Oct 2020) (42) […], this is set in a rural, remote part of the country amid a farming community who are just about getting by but do wear great knitwear, you can’t help but notice. (TS_23 May 2020) 4.2. Keywords Top 100 keywords (in order of keyness), totalling 1978 tokens, were assigned to nine semantic-functional categories shown in Table 4. Table 4. Semantic-functional categories of keywords in film reviews Subcategory Freq No Bundle general cinematic keywords 972 8 screenplay, off-screen, film, voiceover, filmmaking, rereleased, camerawork, big-screen film (sub)genres 220 7 biopic, thriller, melodrama, dramas4, psychodrama, romcom, drama 4 The list was not lemmatized, following Bakers̓ (2004: 355) claim that “a lemma-based analysis may not always be a useful strategy as particular word forms can contain specific collocations or senses that would be lost when combining word forms together.” 30 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) The analysis revealed that film reviews are marked by the frequent mention of general cinematic terms, that have been developed for professional and disciplinary needs. The category comprises eight words, including the most frequent content word in the corpus: film (905 occurrences in 199 texts). Its direct left-hand modifiers, identi- fied by analyzing the concordances of the noun, serve to evaluate the film (e.g. best, little), refer to its version (e.g. new, latest, previous, first, second), type (e.g. feature, original, debut) or (sub)genre (e.g. horror, political, action, war) as well as to denote its country of origin (e.g. French) or the location of the festival where it premiered (e.g. London,Sundance, Cannes, Venice). In the latter case, the keywordfilm is actually part of the name of a film festival, as illustrated by example (43). (43) Now the film of the play – directed by Regina King (…) – has premiered at the Venice Film Festival. (BBC_8 Sept 2020) Subcategory Freq No Bundle evaluation keywords 215 31 watchable, fascinatingly, enjoyably, dreamlike, disturbingly, undemonstrative, weirdly, hallucinatory, creepy, gripping, queasy, eerily, nightmarish, wistful, likeable, eerie, empathetic, outlandish, blandly, crass, descriptors 144 18 claustrophobic, cinematic, curdled, traumatised, climactic, slow-burning, sombre, wide-eyed, heavy-handed, well- -intentioned, sinewy, glib, self- conscious, real-life, doomed, black-and- white, middle-aged, ripped-from-the- headlines people in film industry 105 9 writer-director, cinematographer, non- -actor, screenwriter, film-maker, co- -writer, mime, non-professional film types 93 6 satire, blockbuster, fairytale, remake, must-watch, arthouse film elements 92 9 lashback, set-piece, monologue, trope, close-up, shoot-out, meet-cute, shtick, backstory references to a film character 79 4 heroine, protagonist, matriarch, merpeople other 58 8 conceit, grout, knitwear, fictionalised, contrivance, charisma, clichés, blah-de-blah 31 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Additional information about the discussed keyword can be obtained by exploring other typical lexico-grammatical patterns in which it is used that are presented in Figure 1. The visualization has been generated using the Word Sketch function of Sketch Engine that summarizes the grammatical and collocational behavior of the selected word. As can be seen in Figure 1, the noun film typically takes be, do, have and begin as its predicates as well as often serves as the object of the verbs make, be, set and shoot. It also commonly functions as the head of such prepositional phrases as of film, in film, film of and film about, takes his and her as its pronominal possessors, and modifies the nouns: version, land and review. Figure 1. Common lexico-grammatical patterns of the keyword film in film reviews Other clearly domain-specific categories of keywords include film type and (sub) genre that determine the class of cinematic productions to which a given film belongs. What the words denoting film (sub)genres have in common is their close link with the “conventions, iconography, settings, narratives, characters and actors” as well as aesthetic approach, main theme or even the films̓ audience and emotional response to it (Grant 2007: 2). Two probably less familiar words in this category are biopic and 32 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) romcom, where the former is a clipping for a biographical film (44), whereas the latter is a blend for a romantic comedy (45). By comparison, the words classified as film type involve a more general reference, which may be related to the films̓ artistic form (e.g. satire, fairytale), version (e.g. remake) or merit (e.g. blockbuster, must-watch). (44) The Geiger counter is ticking moderately for this forthright biopic of Marie Curie, born Maria Skłodowska: […] (TG_15 Jun 2020) (45) This thin romcom rejects meaningful speeches in favour of throwaway comments, but fails to compensate for its lack of profundity with laughter or charm. (BFI_21 Feb 2020) Keywords labelled as film element, people in film industry and reference to a film character are also markedly domain-specific. Terms such as cinematographer, film- maker or set-piece, which is a part of a film designed to have an imposing effect, raise no doubts as to their connection with cinematography. In the case of some of the other words this link becomes clear upon a close examination of their context and co-text, as illustrated by the examples below. (46) The sensibility of this piece, though, comes more from co-writer/director Will Sharpe, a Bafta-winning actor […] (TT_30 Dec 2021) (47) The film is written and directed by Chinonye Chukwu, […]. It opens with our protagonist, Bernadine (Woodard), preparing for an execution. (TS_17 July 2020) (48) When the other band members accuse him of pandering to the white owner of the studio, he launches into the film’s central monologue. (BBC_20 Nov 2020) Evaluation keywords and descriptors, mainly adjectives, constitute two most diverse, but also relatively frequent categories which comprise terms that despite being univer- sal, give an excellent idea of the lexical variety of the analyzed film reviews. Both sets of keywords refer either to a given film (49), or to its different aspects (50), yet the former convey opinion that is usually positive (51) and only sometimes negative (52), while the latter simply denote some attribute. (49) Oscar-winning Chloé Zhao directs the latest Marvel superhero movie, which is watchable but ultimately unmemorable. (BBC_24 Oct 2021) (50) Sangok is a middle-aged, smartly dressed sometime actress. (BFI_4 Aug 2021) (51) As Otis, Peters is his usual gripping presence on screen. (BBC_10 Jun 2020) (52) Indeed, what separates this film from its predecessor is exactly what you’d expect of Hollywood – it’s more sensational and, in parts, more emotionally crass. (TI_1 Oct 2021) 33 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) The least frequent is the category comprising other keywords, the contextual use of which was too general to assign them to one of the more specific categories. This is best illustrated by example (53), where blah-de-blah is used to mean ʻand so on, and so forth,̓ implying simultaneously that those additional details are only chatter rather than some- thing of substance. (53) It’s now up to Raya to find the last surviving dragon, Sisu (Awkwafina), and heal all divisions and blah-de-blah you know the rest. (TS_6 Mar 2021) 4.3. Key terms Top 100 key terms (in order of keyness), totalling 447 tokens, were assigned to ten semantic-functional categories shown in Table 5. Table 5. Semantic-functional categories of key terms in film reviews Subcategory Freq No Bundle film types 113 19 new film, feature debut, debut feature, origin story, live-action remake, directing debut, first film, character study, father-daughter story, first feature, chamber piece, British film, third feature, new adaptation, film of the year, movie in the series, story of a woman, kind of film, directorial debut film elements 70 16 set piece, opening scene, final act, action scene, third act, action sequence, musical sequence, single scene, opening moments, sex scene, opening shot, plot twist, final scene, plot strands, rest of the film, part of the film general cinematic key terms 53 11 running time, production design, streaming platform, film review, cinematic universe, awards buzz, visual style, other films, film version, small screen, course of the film film (sub)genres 49 12 period drama, superhero movie, rock opera, political thriller, war movie, crime thriller, family drama, indie dramas, action movie, political film, horror movie, action film 34 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Seven of the above categories coincide with those distinguished for keywords, hence the key terms included in these sets mostly record more subtle aspects of the cinematic world. This is particularly noticeable in the category of film (sub)genre, where semantic distinctions are made between different types of drama (e.g. period, family, indie), thriller (e.g. political, crime) or movie (e.g. superhero, war, action). A similar tendency is observed in some other of the shared categories. For instance, regarding film type, details are added to the nouns film (e.g. new, British, of the year), feature (e.g. first, third) or story (e.g. origin, father-daughter, of a woman); regarding film element, mention is made of different kinds of film scenes (e.g. opening, sex, final), sequences (e.g.action, musical) or fragments (rest of the, part of the); regarding reference to a film character, such general words as heroine, figure or character become more specific, owing to their frequent modifiers which are, respectively, young, historical and iconic. The latter mechanism is also visible in the category of people in film industry, where the word director is supplemented with such fine-grained details as working (today) and exhilarating. Other interesting cinematic details can be found in the category of general cinematic key terms, with items referring to the films̓ duration (e.g. running time, Subcategory Freq No Bundle details of the storyline 50 12 price of milk, inner life, righteous fury, moral panic, second world, black trauma, lakeside retreat, suburban home, police brutality, nuclear holocaust, age gap, holiday park references to a film character 37 10 male colleague, Russian assassin, young heroine, blackjack player, historical figure, iconic character, leading man, middle-aged woman, young daughter, fashion designer people in film industry 31 8 director working, exhilarating director, mime artist, production designer, black woman, exhilarating director working today, director working today, first black woman other 26 8 period detail, grout drama, great knitwear, resonance today, talking heads, working today, skin colour, sort of way types of acting role 9 2 central performance, lead performance places related to filmmaking 9 2 recording studio, other studio 35 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) course of the film), overall look (e.g. production design) or medium through which it is made available (e.g. small screen, streaming platform). Regarding the three categories of key terms that do not overlap with those applied to keywords, it becomes clear that the cinematic universe depicted in the film reviews under scrutiny would not be made complete withoutawards buzz for thecentralor lead performanceof actors starring in thedirectorialor feature debuts filmed in arecording or some other studio. In other words, film reviewing is not simply limited to specifying the films̓ type or (sub)genre, just as it does not end with devoting some attention to various technical aspects of a film or people responsible for its production. In a captivat- ing film review, the reviewer “reveals the stars, the director, the sets, and the plotline, in addition to his or her own overall assessment of the film—details that can bring viewers to the theaters or cause them to stay away” (Boatwright et al. 2007: 402). Obviously details of the storyline may sometimes involve police brutality, nuclear holocaust or black trauma, but at other times they may be more concerned with something more mundane like the price of milk or a holiday park. In any case, however, film reviewing “should provide some useful entrée into the experience and textual meaning of a movie” (Hodsdon 2001: 145). 4.4. Lexical markers of style in film reviews Since both keywords and key terms are prominent in the research corpus in relation to a general language corpus (i.e. enTenTen20), they reveal not only what the authors of the analyzed film reviews actually focus on, but also how they formulate their ideas. Accord- ing to Della Giusta et al. (2021: 77), these items can be thus “considered useful indicators of topics and style”. Yet, as Charteris-Black (2012: 154) argues, what actually provides true insight into rhetorical style are those words that relate to “the purpose of explaining and arguing”, such as but, why or donʼt. They were not identified as keywords by Sketch Engine but can be found on the wordlist generated by WordSmith, where butwas ranked as high as 15th (1991 tokens), why – 163rd (92 tokens) and donʼt – 181st (82 tokens). But is a coordinating conjunction that combines two contrasting ideas and most often appears in the corpus in the pattern but it s̓/it is (61 tokens). Its role is to build an argu- ment by highlighting the unexpectedness of what is introduced after but in view of what precedes it, as in (54); by softening one, often critical, comment with another, as in (55); or by combining positive and negative comments in one sentence, as in (56). (54) Settlers isn’t perfect: some of the storytelling beats aren’t hit as clearly as they could have been. But it’s a quietly impressive piece of work. (TG_28 Jul 2021) (55) The film feels like a circuitous, effortful mess, but it’s usually deliberate. (TT_30 Jan 2020) (56) This death-row film is certainly a tough watch but it is also a masterwork. (TS 18 Jul 2020) 36 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Why helps to create a dialogic style that enables the authorial voice to engage with the readers but also compels authors to respond to their own comments, owing to which they can introduce their own explanations and arguments in support of the expressed opinions (Charteris-Black 2012: 157-160). In more than one third of its occurrences (35 tokens), why is used to ask a rhetorical question through which the author tries to persuade some viewpoint while simultaneously attracting the readersʼ attention by making them think about how they would answer the question. This can be seen in example (57), where the author expresses a critical opinion about the dubbing in a film rather than expects any answer. A more explicit way of promoting the reviewers̓ own views is illustrated in example (58), where the author rhetorically poses a question to simply answer it in a sentence that follows. (57)Why are the actors so overdubbed? (TS 25 May 2020) (58) You may have noticed that the phrase “the film we need right now” is being thrown around by critics these days on a near-weekly basis. Why? Well, for one thing, we currently need a lot more films than usual: […] (TT 20 Oct 2020) Donʼt is a contraction of do and not which obviously accompanies many different words in the research corpus, but it is frequently found in the clusters you donʼt (14 tokens) and I donʼt (11 tokens). The former phrase is concerned with addressing the readers – often to suggest that the viewer will easily form the same opinion as the reviewer, as in (59). The latter phrase, in turn, “conveys conviction and represents the firm stance of the speaker”, which makes it persuasive (Patrick and Hagtvedt 2012: 393). In the corpus, it most often appears in the sequence I donʼt know, whose role is to declare insufficient knowledge on the part of its user. I donʼt know is often pragmatically moti- vated by “a concern to save the face of self and other” that is achieved by averting poten- tial contradictions from addressees (Tsui 1991: 607). The authors of reviews use it to admit their lack of knowledge of some specified matter and simultaneously make a conjecture about it, as in (60), which is achieved owing to the use of but in the same sentence. The sentence seems to convey the reviewers̓ reluctance to make a definite statement that could easily be put into question by the reader, thus they use I donʼt know as a kind of hedging device that is meant to soften their opinion so as to avoid potential criticism. (59) You don’t have to analyse the camera angles or edits to feel that immediacy. (BBC 6 Oct 2020) (60) I don’t know what the best lyric is but ‘Harry, my ginger-haired son, you’ll always be second to none’ has to be up there. (TS 9 Oct 2021) 37 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) 5. Conclusion This exploratory study employed corpus linguistic techniques to examine the lexico- phraseological profile of professional British film reviews. The results revealed a marked presence of lexis representing general cinematic terms, which is a very frequent category of keywords and key terms, though not particularly diverse. The importance of domain-specific vocabulary for the analyzed text variety is enhanced by the recurrent reference to a number of aspects which make up the cinematic universe, particularly film types and (sub)genres as well as people and locations involved in film production, but also characters, scenes, roles and details of the storyline. This densely woven web of movie vocabulary is linked together by discourse-organizing bundles that facilitate the logical development of argumentation. Film reviewers establish a discur- sive dialogue with the readers, as part of which they promote their own comments – positive and negative – often indirectly through whys and I don’t knows. It seems that by asking questions which the readers may answer themselves and by admitting gaps in knowledge which potentially may be filled in by the readers, film reviewers attempt to show they are not forcing their own opinions through. Yet, this apparent objectivization of the cinematic experience is implicitly counteracted by a wide lexical range of assess- ments and evaluations, mostly in the form of adjectives and surprisingly infrequently in the form of longer sequences like stance bundles. It generally seems that reviewers try to embrace the totality of the reviewed films, aiming to help diverse viewers decide whether to see the movie or not, even if they may be inclined to honour “the known proclivities of their audience by anticipating what its members would like and making recommendations accordingly” (Holbrook 1999: 148). Inevitably, the present study has its limitations. First, somewhat different results might have been obtained with a different reference corpus and sample of film reviews. Second, the semantic-functional categories applied to the analyzed lexis were developed intuitively and thus in a somewhat subjective manner, based on a careful reading of context and co-text, rather than by adopting any potentially existing taxonomies. Third, due to the limited scope of this study, only three lexical markers of style were examined more closely. Despite these shortcomings, the reported findings may have pedagogical implications. They can inform the design of authentic teaching materials for film reviewers, critics and journalists who try to gain expertise in domain-specific vocabu- lary, phraseologies and persuasion patterns. The investigated lexical means can consti- tute the focal vocabulary of various activities intended to develop the lexico-phraseolog- ical inventory needed to present the nuances of the cinematic arts. Teachers can also instruct novice review writers to analyze texts similar to the ones explored here in order to identify four-word lexical bundles and the discourse functions performed by them. After familiarizing themselves with these salient lexical items, students can then be instructed to write their own reviews and reflect on their own texts to gain a deeper 38 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) understanding of the practice of film reviewing. Future research can extend the present study by exploring the co-text of selected lexical items with respect to preferred co-oc- currences and grammatical structures. It could be also worth examining whether the lexico-phraseological profile of film reviews is dependent on the (sub)genre of the reviewed films. References 9 Tips for Writing a Film Review. 2017. https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/ 9-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/ (15 March 2022). Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: Questions in difference, frequency, and sense in keyword analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346-359. Baker, P. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Continuum. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortes, V. 2004. If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371-405. Bieler, H., Dipper, S. & Stede, M. 2007. Identifying formal and functional zones in film reviews. In: H. Bunt, S. Keizer & T. Paek (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 75-78. East Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. Blank, G. 2007. Critics, Ratings, and Society: The Sociology of Reviews. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Boatwright, P., Basuroy, S. & Kamakura, W. 2007. Reviewing the reviewers: The impact of individual film critics on box office performance. Quantitative Marketing and Economics 5: 401-425. Bordwell, D. 1989. Making Meaning. Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. 2011. Minding Movies. Observations on the Art, Craft, and Business of Filmmaking. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Brown, T. 1978. Reviewers on reviewing. Journalism Quarterly 55(1): 32-38. Bull, A. 2010. Multimedia Journalism: A Practical Guide. London/New York: Routledge. Charteris-Black, J. 2012. Comparative keyword analysis and leadership communication: Tony Blair – a study of rhetorical style. In: L. Helms (ed.), Comparative Political Leader- ship, 142-164. London: Palgrave Macmillan, London. Clayton, A. & Klevan, A. (eds.). 2011. The Language and Style of Film Criticism. London/ New York: Routledge. Corrigan, T. 2015. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. 9th ed. London, UK: Pearson. Della Giusta, M., Jaworska, S. & Vukadinović Greetham, D. 2021. Expert communication on Twitter: Comparing economistsʼ and scientistsʼ social networks, topics and communicative styles. Public Understanding of Science 30(1): 75-90. 39 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Eliashberg, J. & Shugan, S. M. 1997. Film critics: Influencers or predictors? Journal of Marketing 61(2): 68-78. Ford, R. 2014. CinemaCon: Film Critics Still Have Clout, Study Finds. The Hollywood Reporter 24 March. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/ cinemacon-film-critics-still-have-690579/(28 September 2022). Gemser, G., Van Oostrum, M. & Leenders, M. A. A. M. 2007. The impact of film reviews on the box office performance of art house versus mainstream motion pictures. Journal of Cultural Economics 31: 43-63. Grant, B. K. 2007. Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology. London: Wallflower Press. Grue, J. 2006. Newspaper film reviews: a critical discourse analysis. Masters̓ Thesis. Univer- sity of Oslo. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/26350/1/ Newspaperxfilmxreviews.pdf (25 March 2022). Hodsdon, B. 2001. Straight Roads and Crossed Lines: The Quest for Film Culture in Australia? Shenton Park: Berndt Porridge Group. Holbrook, M. T. 1999. Popular appeal versus expert judgments of motion pictures. Journal of Consumer Research 26: 144-155. How to Write Film Review. n.d. https://www.ukfilmreview.co.uk/how-to-write- a-film-review (15 March 2022). Hyland, K. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 2(1): 4-21. Iampolski, M. 1998. The Memory of Tiresias: Intertextuality and Film. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jelonkiewicz, M. 2010. Autorska recenzja filmowa przygotowana na zajęcia z cudzoziem- cami. [Authors̓ film review prepared for classes with foreigners]. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis17: 311-315. Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. & Suchomel, V. 2014. The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography, Journal of Asialex 1(1): 7-36. Kim, J. 2013. Lexical bundles in Korean college studentsʼ English essays: A corpus-based comparative study. English Language & Literature Teaching 19(3): 157-179. Koester, A. 2010. Building small specialized corpora. In: M. McCarthy & A. OʼKeefee (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 66-79. London: Routledge. Maras, S. 2020. Revisiting the distinction between criticism and reviewing: practices, functions, rhetorics, and containers. Continuum 34(1): 32-43. McArthur, C. 1985. British film reviewing: A complaint.Screen 26(1): 79-84. Nichol, M. 2007-2021. 7 Tips for Writing a Film Review. https://www.dailywriting tips.com/7-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/ (15 March 2022). https://books.google.com/books?id=tCQOwvI9vsAC 40 ............................................................................... CROSSROADS. A JOURNAL OF ENGLISH STUDIES 38 (2022) (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) O'Regan, T. & Walmsley-Evans, H. 2015. Towards a history of Australian film criticism. Screening the Past 39. http://www.screeningthepast.com/issue-39-first- release/towards-a-history-of-australian-film-criticism/ (8 April 2022). Patrick, V. M. & Hagtvedt, H. 2012. How to say “no”: Conviction and identity attributions in persuasive refusal. International Journal of Research in Marketing 29(4): 390-394. Paul, V. 2019. Premodification in Film Reviews. Bachelor Thesis. University of Pardubice. https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/10195/74033/PaulV_Premodifica- tion_Nouns_PH_2019.pdf?sequence=1 (29 March 2020). Roberts, J. 2010. The Complete History of American Film Criticism. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Press. Scott, M. 2012. WordSmith Tools version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software. Szczygłowska, T. 2021. Recurrent lexis and phraseology in English restaurant reviews: A data-driven analysis. Discourse and Interaction 14(2): 105-125. Szudarski, P. 2018. Corpus Linguistics for Vocabulary. A Guide for Research. London/New York: Routledge. Topa-Bryniarska, D. 2020. Recenzja filmowa jako narzędzie perswazji: aspekty retoryczno-pragmatyczne gatunku. [The film review as a tool of persuasion: rhetor- ical and pragmatic aspects of the genre]. Academic Journal of Modern Philology 10: 237- 246. Tsui, A. B. M. 1991. The pragmatic functions ofI don’t know. Text 11: 607-622. Zelenka, T. 2017. Colloquial Language in Film Reviews. [Unpublished Bachelor Thesis. University of Pardubice. At: https://dk.upce.cz/bitstream/handle/ 10195/68842/Colloquial_Language_in_Film_Reviews.pdf?sequence=1&is- Allowed=y (11 March 2022). Zheltukhina, M. R., Slyshkin, G. G., Gumovskaya, G. N., Baranova, E. A., Sklyarova, N. G., Vorkina, K. S., & Donskova, L. A. 2020. Verbal features of film reviews in the modern American media discourse. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 10(3): 1-16. *** Tatiana Szczygłowska works at the Institute of Neophilology, University of Bielsko- -Biala, Poland, where she lectures on translation theory and text analysis to students of English philology. Her main research and teaching interests lie in linguistics and trans- lation with a special focus on academic discourse and corpus linguistics. She has also conducted studies in the area of studentsʼ attitudes to target language culture and pronunciation. https://portal.upce.cz/portal/studium/prohlizeni.html%20(29 https://portal.upce.cz/portal/studium/prohlizeni.html%20(29 https://portal.upce.cz/portal/studium/prohlizeni.html%20(29 https://portal.upce.cz/portal/studium/prohlizeni.html%20(29 Tatiana Szczygłowska DOI: 10.15290/CR.2022.38.3.02 The lexico-phraseological profile of professional film reviews published by the British media: A corpus-linguistic study