Dramaturgic and oral conversational dialogues: category correlation
AbstractThe article deals with comparative analysis of oral dialogue and dramaturgic dialogue as a typed version of speech. Linguistic categories with specific detection in oral and dramaturgic dialogues were identified; in particular, categories of spontaneity, imagery, narratee, information capacity were analyzed; their verbalization in dramatic discourse was illustrated. The goal of the proposed research is comparative analysis of dramatic linguistic categories and oral dialogue. The goal involves the following tasks: to determine correlation of dramaturgic and oral dialogues; to explore categories of spontaneity, imagery, narratee, information capacity, which possess specific detection in oral and dramaturgic dialogues. Analyzing dialogue as a typed version of speech, linguists prove the increased concentration of specific features of natural language in it. Comparing artistic and oral conversational dialogues, researchers propose a series of oppositions: oral/ written communication character, spontaneity/ preparedness, importance/ periphery of paralinguistic means. The category of spontaneity characterizes oral and dramaturgic dialogues in different ways: for oral conversational speech the category of spontaneity is crucial, in dramaturgic dialogue stylized spontaneity is created. Spontaneous speaking is generally devoid of imagery, while for dramaturgic dialogue, artistically complicated for the purpose of aesthetic impact on the reader, the category of imagery is dominant. The category of narratee contrasts dramaturgic and oral dialogues. Oral conversational dialogues are one-dimensional (built along the line narratee - narrator), the dramaturgic dialogue is multidimensional (built along several lines: character - character, author - character, author – reader). Within the category of information capacity paralinguistic means, in particular prosodic, are meaningful to oral conversational dialogue. In a nutshell, dramaturgic dialogue is a communicative interaction of characters, that verbalizes author’s activity the author with a view to a potential indirect impact on reader and which characterizes absence of spontaneity, imagery, information capacity. Further research could be performed in the sphere of structural analysis of dramaturgic dialogue. Keywords: dramaturgic dialogue, oral dialogue, categories of imagery, spontaneity, information capacity, narratee.
Vaniashkin, S. G. (1985) Speech imagery in English newspaper text, Ph. D. Thesis, Germanic languages, Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, USSR, Moscow.
Vinokur, T. G. (1977) On the language of modern drama, Jazykovye processy sovremennoj russkoj hudozhestvennoj literatury, pp. 130–197.
Vinokur T. G. (1993) Govorjashhij i slushajushhij. Varianty rechevogo povedenija [Speaker and listener. Options of verbal behavior], Nauka, Moscow, Russia.
Kolokol'ceva T. N. (2001) Specificheskie kommunikativnye edinicy dialogicheskoj rechi [Specific communication units of dialogical speech], Volgogradskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, Volgograd, Russia.
Lagutin V. I. (1991) Problemy analiza hudozhestvennogo teksta (k pragmalingvisticheskoj teorii dramy) [Issues of literary text analysis ], ShTIINCA, Kishinev, Moldavia.
Sirotinina O. B. (91974) Sovremennaja razgovornaja rech' i ee osobennost' [Modern spoken language and its feature], Prosveshhenie, Moskva, USSR.
Ukrains'ka mova : entsyklopediia (2007) [The Ukrainian language: encyclopedia], Ukrains'ka entsyklopediia im. M. P. Bazhana, Kyiv, Ukraine
Han N. A. (2013) Spontannye monologi raznogo tipa v kommunikativno-diskursivnom aspekte, Ph. D. Thesis, Russian language, Saint Petersburg State University, Russia, Saint Petersburg.
Abstract views: 16 PDF Downloads: 40