Dialogical unities as units of dialogical speech. Minimum units of discourse

Dialogue is the main form of the existence of a language, it is no coincidence that its study is constantly addressed from various scientific positions. The existing research approaches to dialogue, the scope and nature of the problems associated with its study, testify to the complexity and versatility of this form of speech. Understanding the diverse and diverse approaches to the study of dialogue was the starting point in creating the linguistic foundations of the study. First of all, it was necessary to find out what is meant by the term "dialogue", "dialogical speech".

Ancient Greek philosophers believed that dialogue is speech, consisting of questions and answers. In philosophy, and later in logic and rhetoric, dialogue was considered, first of all, as a process of controversy, confrontation between two points of view, proof of the truth of ideas, views; as a logical and communicative process of interaction between people through the expression of their semantic positions. Dialogue, as an act of social and speech interaction, an act of direct communication between people, is also considered in linguistics.

Linguists, referring dialogue to one of the forms of coherent speech, emphasize that, unlike a monologue, it is created by two or more speakers. Replication (alternation of remarks) is called as the main formal organizing feature of a dialogue: a change in the statements of two or more speakers, a regular exchange of statements-replicas, a series of replicas replacing each other, an alternating exchange of sign information ..

At the same time, the researchers of the dialogue note the organic connection of all replicas. It is no coincidence that one of the first researchers of the dialogue, L.V. Shcherba characterized the dialogue as a "chain of remarks". The relationship of replicas was also noted by L.P. Yakubinsky. The linkage of replicas ensures the coherence of this form of speech. In addition, complete and complete information is extracted from the totality of all elements of the dialogue, including extralinguistic factors (pauses, gestures, facial expressions, intonation) and the features of its flow.

Separate replicas in a dialogue can be understood only in unity with other replicas and taking into account the situation in which the communication takes place. This, according to researchers, is due to the fact that in each subsequent replica everything that is known from previous replicas is reduced, and due to the fact that the linguistic composition of each utterance is mutually influenced by the direct perception of the speech activity of the speakers. All this speaks of the situational and spontaneous nature of the dialogue.

According to methodologists in the field of teaching native and non-native languages, the process of teaching dialogic speech requires knowledge of the nature and factors of generating a dialogic act and, most importantly, a clear understanding of the structure of dialogic speech and its basic units.

The smallest structural element of dialogic speech, its unit is defined in linguistic literature in different ways. In some sources, a replica stands out as such an element, as a link in a "chain of replicas", as a building material for a dialogue.

In the studies of D.I. Izarenkov, a speech action is taken as the main unit of the structure of the dialogue - a statement that has a single goal, designed as a sentence or a combination of logically connected sentences (not exceeding the size of a conclusion in form and content), addressed to the interlocutor, causing him to respond.

Allocation of a unit of dialogue D.I. Izarenkov connects with the question of the volume and boundaries of the dialogue: “You cannot teach that, the boundaries of which are not known.” In the studies of A.R. Balayan, D.I. Izarenkov, it is noted that the minimum dialogue can consist of two replicas (stimulus - reaction), and the maximum limit of its volume can practically remain open. Considering the motives for generating and deploying a dialogue (solving a problem), D.I. Izarenkov distinguishes microdialogues (simple and complicated) and macrodialogues.

It should be noted that for methodological purposes, the allocation of dialogues of the minimum volume is extremely fruitful, they are the speech material that should be taught at the initial stage. Macrodialogues become an object of assimilation only when children are already familiar with microdialogues (“stimulus-response”).

Recognizing as a unit of dialogue a separate statement (remark), which has completeness, an expression of the position of the speaker, M.M. Bakhtin characterized the various relationships that exist between replicas and singled out pairs of interrelated replicas.

Later, a combination of replicas that are related to each other according to certain rules of syntactic dependence. N.Yu. Shvedova will call "dialogical unity". Other terms that are synonymous in meaning are also used to designate a “combination of replicas”. So, for example, T.G. Vinokur uses the term "semantic whole", "dialogical minimum". .

Characterizing the composition of dialogical unity, researchers also resort to various nominations. The replica that opens the dialogic unity is called: T.G. Vinokur proactive, P.S. Pustovalov - “relatively independent replica”, G.M. Kuchinsky - "appeal", "share". The semantic content of the nominations makes it possible to use them as synonyms and does not require the selection of any one pair. But the short names of the replicas were considered more convenient for use: stimulus - reaction.

Thus, the unit of dialogue (dialogical speech) can be considered a dialogic unity, consisting of one initiative replica (stimulus) and one reactive (reaction). Describing the dialogic unity, the researchers pointed out that the stimulus and response are interconnected by certain relationships. If the function of the stimulating cue is a request for information, then the reactive cue associated with it performs the function of a response. These relations are expressed in the dialogical unity "question - answer".

A stimulus-message is informing another person (interlocutor) about his thoughts, decisions, views, opinions, feelings, etc., carried out on his own initiative. Stimulus remark by T.G. Vinokur, G.M. Kuchinsky is called a "message", D.I. Izarenkov - "reporting speech action".

The reaction to the "message", as the analysis of linguistic sources shows, is most often considered in the form of two replicas that are polar in function. For example, M.M. Bakhtin calls the reaction to a “message” (his “statement”) either an “objection” or a “consent.” And G.M. Kuchinsky refers to the reaction to the message as an expression of a positive or negative attitude towards it. And T.G. Vinokur distinguishes five options for responding remarks to the "message": clarification, addition, objection, agreement, assessment.

The third type of dialogic unity is "incitement - fulfillment (refusal to fulfill)". It should be noted that this value is implied by almost all the authors of the analyzed sources, but it is included in different nominations. Initiative remarks highlighted by M.M. Bakhtin (suggestion, order), inherently perform the functions of motivation, and the replicas associated with them - the functions of reactions to motivation. These pairs of replicas can also be attributed to dialogic unity. It can be attributed to this dialogic unity and the formulas of speech etiquette, named in the classification of T.G. Vinokur. Most of the formulas of speech etiquette contain a polite impulse, which allows them to be attributed to the considered dialogic unity.

So, despite the different understanding of the unit of dialogue in the described approaches, they have a common indication of the presence of initiative and response replicas, interconnected by functional relationships. The selected replicas differ only in names. However, the nominations used by scientists are quite comparable in meaning and functional significance.

Summarizing the analyzed data, we can distinguish the following functional pairs of dialogic replicas (dialogical unities):

- question answer;
- motivation (offer, order, request, wish, apology, etc.) - reaction to motivation (fulfillment or refusal to fulfill);
- message (informing, approval) - reaction to the message (clarification, addition, objection, consent, evaluation, etc.).

The next question in studies of dialogue concerns the features of its replicas. The situational nature of the dialogue, especially the dialogue of the colloquial style, determines the brevity and simplicity of syntactic and lexical means. Many researchers have pointed out the typicality of short, concise statements. For dialogue, communicatively expedient replicas are considered normative, therefore, most often, dialogic replicas contain mostly rheme. This provision is of fundamental importance for the methodology for the development of dialogic speech, since there is a vicious practice of demanding “complete” answers from children. Non-verbal components play an important role in the dialogue. L.V. wrote about this feature. Shcherba. Complex sentences, he noted, are absolutely not characteristic of replicas in dialogue: "the situation, gesture, facial expression, intonation - all this helps mutual understanding so much that speech can easily be reduced to one word."

Dialogue is not only a form of speech, it is also "a kind of human behavior." As a form of verbal interaction with other people, it is subject to certain rules that have developed in society for its conduct. These rules determine the social behavior of people in a dialogue. The basic rules of dialogue contribute to the socialization of a person who enters into verbal interaction with other people. The rules of dialogue are mediated by moral and speech norms. Since dialogue is a change of statements related to one topic, the expediency of such rules as: following the order in the conversation is quite understandable; listening to the interlocutor without interrupting; maintaining a common topic of conversation. Situation is a feature of dialogue as a form of speech, therefore, in a dialogue, gestures or facial expressions often replace a verbal replica, hence another rule for conducting a dialogue arises: look into the interlocutor's eyes or face.

Moral norms regulate the behavior of people in society. Their main purpose is to live in peace and harmony. As soon as dialogue is the interaction of people (albeit verbal), then it obeys the rules of collective existence. Participation in the dialogue presupposes the observance of the main rule: to show respect and attention to the interlocutor. Its implementation is associated with the implementation of general speech rules: speak calmly, kindly, with moderate volume; build your statement so as not to offend the interlocutor and so that it is clear to him; use literary vocabulary.

All these rules are somehow reflected in folklore. Domestic linguist Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky systematized proverbs regarding the rules of dialogue into three groups:

1) proverbs that define the relationship of people in a dialogue (learn politeness from an ill-mannered person; a horse is recognized in riding, a person in communication) and contains recommendations for polite speech (one good word is better than a thousand words of abuse);
2) proverbs about the order of dialogue (smart with language, stupid with hands; chew before swallowing, listen before speaking; silence is also an answer);
3) proverbs about typical mistakes in organizing a dialogue (answers when he is not asked; grandfather talks about a chicken, and grandmother talks about a duck; a deaf person listens to a dumb person speak)

Dialogue often proceeds or begins in typical, frequently repeated situations of communication. The rules of conduct in these situations are determined by speech etiquette. Speech etiquette is considered in linguistics as a particularly significant characteristic of the culture of dialogue. It is defined as a microsystem of national-specific verbal units accepted and prescribed by society to establish contacts between interlocutors, maintain communication in the desired tone in accordance with the rules of speech behavior.

The main functions of speech etiquette are the contact-establishing function and the function of politeness (cognitive). Both of these functions are necessary for establishing and maintaining friendly contacts, friendly or official-polite, respectful treatment with each other.

Each typified situation in the Russian language is served by a group of formulas and expressions that form synonymous series. Within each synonymic series, formulas differ: the most common, stylistically neutral (goodbye, thank you, hello); formulas with shades of meaning (until tomorrow, until the evening, goodbye, good morning); formulas with various stylistic shades (let me say goodbye, bye, kisses to the hands; thank you, thank you).

The choice of speech etiquette formula for each case depends on where a person lives (city, village), on his age, social affiliation, as well as on the circumstances in which communication takes place, on the social and emotional parameters of the addressee. The right choice ensures polite treatment, and mistakes in choosing a unit of speech etiquette can destroy polite treatment, and even the contact itself.

Any standardized situation of verbal communication is concretized and acquires specific forms and content depending on the linguistic and social experience of communicating people. Naturally, each specific act of farewell, greeting, gratitude, etc. adds many private "increments" or "expansions" to the standard stable formulas of speech etiquette.

Any phrase of speech etiquette is addressed to a certain person or group of people, therefore, an appeal will be a natural and desirable “increment” to the formula of speech etiquette. It enhances the appellative and conative functions of the utterance. The actualization of the conative function of speech etiquette formulas also occurs due to the “increment” of motivations to them. Deployment, addition of phrases of speech etiquette with appeals and motivations makes the remarks warmer and more convincing. In addition, the deployment of phrases individualizes a person's speech, creates a certain emotional background, and emphasizes the meaning of the spoken phrase. Non-verbal means of communication are closely related to speech etiquette; they supplement and clarify the verbal phrase, emphasizing or destroying its polite content. The most polite appeals will not make the desired impression if they are spoken casually, coldly, arrogantly.

Topic4 . Dialogue as an object of interdisciplinary research: dialogue in psychology, linguistics, cultural studies, literary criticism

1Dialogue as a means of communication.

1.1 The concept of dialogue.

Dialogue - (French dialogue, English dialog, from Greek dialogos "conversation, conversation"; lit. "speech through"), the process of communication, usually linguistic, between two or more persons. More particular meanings of the term "dialogue": 1) a conversation between the characters of the play; 2) a literary work written in the form of a conversation between characters (for example, Plato's dialogues); 3) interaction aimed at achieving mutual understanding, especially in politics (for example, a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition).

Ancient Greek philosophers believed that dialogue is "a speech consisting of questions and answers." In philosophy, and later in logic and rhetoric, dialogue was considered, first of all, as a process of controversy, confrontation between two points of view, proof of the truth of ideas, views; as "a logical and communicative process of interaction between people through the expression of their semantic positions". Dialogue, as an act of social and speech interaction, an act of direct communication between people, is also considered in linguistics.

Linguists, referring dialogue to one of the forms of coherent speech, emphasize that, unlike a monologue, it is created by two or more speakers. Replication (alternation of remarks) is called as the main formal organizing feature of a dialogue: “change of statements of two or more speakers”, “regular exchange of statements-replicas”, “a number of replicas replacing each other”, “alternating exchange of sign information”.

At the same time, the researchers of the dialogue note the organic connection of all replicas. It is no coincidence that one of the first researchers of the dialogue, L.V. Shcherba characterized the dialogue as a "chain of remarks". The "linkage" of replicas ensures the coherence of this form of speech. In addition, complete and complete information is extracted from the totality of all elements of the dialogue, including extralinguistic factors (pauses, gestures, facial expressions, intonation) and the features of its flow.

Separate replicas in a dialogue can be understood only in unity with other replicas and taking into account the situation in which the communication takes place. This, according to the researchers, is due to the fact that in each subsequent replica everything that is known from previous replicas is reduced, and due to the fact that the linguistic composition of each utterance "is mutually influenced by the direct perception of the speech activity of the speakers." All this speaks of the situational and spontaneous nature of the dialogue.

In the studies of D.I. Izarenkov, a speech action is taken as the main unit of the structure of the dialogue - “a statement that has a single goal, designed as a sentence or a combination of logically connected sentences (not exceeding the size of an inference in form and content), addressed to the interlocutor, causing him to respond”.

Allocation of a unit of dialogue D.I. Izarenkov connects with the question of the scope and boundaries of the dialogue: "You cannot teach that, the boundaries of which are not known." In the studies of A.R. Balayan, D.I. Izarenkova, I.P. Svyatogor notes that the minimum dialogue can consist of two replicas (stimulus - reaction), and the maximum limit of its volume can practically remain open. Considering the motives for generating and deploying a dialogue (solving a problem), D.I. Izarenkov distinguishes microdialogues (simple and complicated) and macrodialogues.

Later, "a combination of replicas that are related to each other according to certain rules of syntactic dependence" N.Yu. Shvedova will call "dialogical unity". Other terms that are synonymous in meaning are also used to designate a “combination of replicas”. So, for example, T.G. Vinokur uses the term "semantic whole", "dialogical minimum".

Characterizing the composition of dialogical unity, researchers also resort to various nominations. The replica that opens the dialogic unity is called: T.G. Vinokur initiative, I.P. Svyatogor and P.S. Pustovalov - “relatively independent replica”, G.M. Kuchinsky - "appeal", "action" (D.Kh. Barannik), "stimulus" (V.G. Gak), "stimulating remark" (V.V. Nurtseladze). The response cue, due to the initiative, is called a “replica - reaction” (V.G. Gak, D.Kh. Barannik), “reactive cue” (V.V. Nurtseladze), “reactive cue” (T.G. Vinokur). The semantic content of the nominations makes it possible to use them as synonyms and does not require the selection of any one pair. But the short names of the replicas were considered more convenient for use: stimulus - reaction. Thus, the unit of dialogue (dialogical speech) can be considered a dialogic unity, consisting of one initiative replica (stimulus) and one reactive (reaction). Describing the dialogic unity, the researchers pointed out that the stimulus and response are interconnected by certain relationships. If the function of the stimulating cue is a request for information, then the response cue associated with it performs the function of a response. These relations are expressed in the dialogic unity of "question - answer".

The reaction to the "message", as the analysis of linguistic sources shows, is most often considered in the form of two replicas that are polar in function. For example, M.M. Bakhtin calls the reaction to a “message” (his “statement”) either an “objection” or “agreement.” And G.M. Kuchinsky refers to the reaction to the message as an expression of a positive or negative attitude towards it. And T.G. Vinokur distinguishes five options for responding remarks to the "message": clarification, addition, objection, agreement, assessment.

The third type of dialogical unity is "incitement - fulfillment (refusal to fulfill)". It should be noted that this value is implied by almost all the authors of the analyzed sources, but it is included in different nominations. Initiative remarks highlighted by M.M. Bakhtin (suggestion, order), inherently perform the functions of motivation, and the replicas associated with them - the functions of reactions to motivation. These pairs of replicas can also be attributed to the dialogical unity "inducement - reaction to inducement". It can be attributed to this dialogic unity and the formulas of speech etiquette, named in the classification of T.G. Distiller. Most of the formulas of speech etiquette contain a polite impulse, which allows them to be attributed to the considered dialogic unity.

Summarizing the analyzed data, we can distinguish the following functional pairs of dialogic replicas (dialogical unities):

- question answer;

- motivation (offer, order, request, wish, apology, etc.) - reaction to motivation (fulfillment or refusal to fulfill);

- message (informing, approval) - reaction to the message (clarification, addition, objection, consent, assessment, etc.).

The next question in studies of dialogue concerns the features of its replicas. The situational nature of the dialogue, especially the dialogue of the colloquial style, determines the brevity and simplicity of syntactic and lexical means. Many researchers have pointed out the typicality of short, concise statements. For dialogue, communicatively expedient replicas are considered normative, therefore, most often, dialogic replicas contain mostly rheme. This provision is of fundamental importance for the methodology for the development of dialogic speech, since there is a vicious practice of demanding “complete” answers from children. Non-verbal components play an important role in the dialogue. L.V. wrote about this feature. Shcherba. Complex sentences, he noted, are absolutely not characteristic of replicas in dialogue: “the situation, gesture, facial expression, intonation - all this helps mutual understanding so much that speech can easily be reduced to one word.”

Dialogue is not only a form of speech, it is also “a kind of human behavior”. As a form of verbal interaction with other people, it is subject to certain rules that have developed in society for its conduct. These rules determine the social behavior of people in a dialogue. The basic rules of dialogue contribute to the socialization of a person who enters into verbal interaction with other people. The rules of dialogue are mediated by moral and speech norms. Since dialogue is a change of statements related to one topic, the expediency of such rules as: following the order in the conversation; listening to the interlocutor without interrupting; maintaining a common topic of conversation. Situationalness is a feature of dialogue as a form of speech, therefore, in dialogue, gestures or facial expressions often replace a verbal cue, hence another rule arises.

Speech etiquette provides for the so-called ritualized dialogues in standardized (similar) situations of verbal communication. There are several such standardized speech situations of communication in Russian: addressing and attracting attention, greeting, acquaintance, farewell, apology, gratitude, congratulations, wishes, condolences, sympathy, invitation, request, advice, approval, compliment, etc.

Dialogue is often contrasted with monologue (Greek "speech of one"). If a dialogue is a joint speech activity of two or more persons, as well as the result of such an activity, then a monologue is a speech work belonging to one speaker, as well as his own speaking. Nevertheless, a monologue, like any speech, presupposes not only the speaker, but also the addressee. The specificity of the monologue lies only in the fact that the role of the speaker does not pass from one person to another. The monologue is therefore simply a special case of dialogue, although it is highly significant that the concept of dialogue emphasizes the activity of speaking more, while the concept of monologue emphasizes its result. In literary criticism, a tradition is popular, leading from the studies of M.M. Bakhtin, according to which literary works of large genres (for example, novels), i.e. From a formal point of view, monologues are, in a deep sense, dialogues - dialogues between the author, his characters and the reader. In this case, in the novel, the voices of several subjects “sound” at the same time, and the effect of dialogue appears, or, according to Dotsenko, “polyphony”.

The opinion that the term "dialogue" implies the presence of exactly two participants is erroneous (the Greek prefix dia- "through" in the word dialogue and the Greek di- "two" are only superficially similar). There can be any number of participants in a dialogue, so there is no need for the term "polylogue", which is sometimes used in the sense of a conversation of many participants.

In its meaning, the term "dialogue" is close to the term "discourse", but the traditions of using these terms are different. Substantially important differences between them are that "dialogue" to a greater extent emphasizes the interactive nature of the use of language, while for the use of the term "discourse" it is important to understand the inclusion of communication in the social context. This paper deals with issues that are usually discussed under the rubric of "dialogue studies" - dialog(ue) studies.

2.2 Linguistic prerequisites for studying and characteristics of the dialogue.

The linguistic study of dialogue is a new research endeavor. Of course, the prerequisites for modern research approaches can be found in earlier periods of the development of science. So, in the Russian tradition, one of the most cited early works is On the Dialogic Speech of L.P. Yakubinsky (1923). However, an in-depth linguistic study of dialogue has only begun in the last few decades.

A distinctive feature of a dialogical utterance is its two-way character, which was pointed out by L.P. Ya Kubinsky, noting that “... any interaction of people is exactly interaction; it essentially seeks to avoid one-sidedness, wants to be two-sided, "dialogical" and runs away from "monologue".

Dialogic speech is characterized by ellipticity, which is caused by the conditions of communication. The presence of a single situation, the contact of interlocutors, the widespread use of non-verbal elements contribute to the emergence of a guess, allow speakers to reduce language means, resort to utterance with a hint.

Abbreviation manifests itself at all levels of the language and concerns mainly semantically redundant elements. However, this does not apply to the expression of the emotiveness of speech, it is not subject to compression and receives its full expression.

In general, abbreviation follows the principle of preserving predicativity, which L. S. Vygotsky drew attention to: “If there is a common subject in the thoughts of the interlocutors, understanding is carried out in full with the help of the most abbreviated speech with an extremely simplified syntax.”

Another distinguishing feature of dialogic speech is its spontaneity, since the content of the conversation and its structure depend on the replicas of the interlocutors. The spontaneous nature of the dialogic utterance determines the use of various kinds of clichés and colloquial formulas, as well as the fuzzy “free” design of phrases. Fast pace and ellipticity do not contribute, as you know, to strict normalization of syntax.

The spontaneous nature of speech is also manifested in pauses of indecision (hesitations), interruptions, restructuring of phrases, and changes in the structure of dialogic unity.

Dialogue is emotional and expressive. Cognitive-evaluative coloring of speech, in figurativeness, in the wide use of non-verbal means and samples, colloquial formulas, clichés.

The primary elements of the dialogue are replicas of various lengths from one to several phrases. The most typical one-phrase remark. The combination of replicas, characterized by structural, intonational and semantic completeness, is commonly called dialogic unity. This main component of the dialogue should also serve as the initial unit of teaching dialogic speech.

The close logical and semantic dependence of several dialogic units, taking into account their syntactic and communicative completeness, is usually called the structure of the dialogue.

Since detailed dialogues with a large number of components do not have high repetition in speech communication, then the training should be based on two-term units, among which the most common are: question - answer; a question is a counter-question; the message and the question it evoked, the message and the message it evoked; message and replica-pickup, continuing or supplementing the expressed thought; motivation - message; motivation is a question.

Question-answer units are most often taken as the initial units of learning, since they have the greatest speech activity.

Question-answer unities can be of three types:

1. Replicas complement each other and create an idea of the subject and the act. For example:

What have you got to-night?

nothing special. Why?

Let's go to the pictures.

That would be wonderful.

2. The answer acts as an objection or a new interpretation. For example:

Have you ever tried color film? - No, I prefer black-and-white.

3. Question and answer clarify the original statement. For example:

Will he be long? I can only wait for thirty minutes at the longest. - Oh, no. I think he'll be free in a quarter of an hour.

The above linguistic analysis of dialogue and monologue shows that there are no sharp differences between these forms of speech. The real conditions of communication testify to the fuzziness of the boundaries between them and the frequent transition of speakers from one form of speech to another.

A monologue often develops within the framework of a dialogue, representing a detailed replica of one of the interlocutors, and such a “monologic replica” should be taught already in grades IV-.V. The question of the relationship between dialogue and monologue at the initial stage of education is still the subject of discussion. Some authors recommend the widespread use of dialogic speech with its inherent colloquial formulas and ellipses in order to bring students to a natural conversation as early as possible, others favor more normative monologue speech, since it creates the foundation for further development of oral speech skills.

The second point of view seems to be more correct in determining the predominant form of oral speech at the initial stage. However, guided by psychologists' assessments of the nature of speech as a unity of logical and emotional, and taking into account the results of linguistic research, it can be assumed that after mastering the main intonation patterns with descending and ascending tones, it is easy for students to teach a simple dialogue (continue it, modify remarks, quickly respond to a question, transform narrative type of sentence into interrogative, etc.). Dialogue and monologue should therefore interact in the learning process from the very beginning of learning.

Thus, we have considered the main characteristics of the dialogue in the English discourse. The first question focuses on the use of the concept. Several approaches are considered in the study of discourse, as well as its linguistic understanding in foreign studies is presented. According to T.A. van Dyck, discourse is an essential component of sociocultural interaction, the characteristic features of which are interests, goals and styles. In addition, the discourse is presented both in the narrow and broad sense. In conclusion, we note that the category of discourse is one of the basic concepts in communicative linguistics. The definition of such a category as discourse implies some ideological orientation, one's own point of view on the study of language and linguistic communication. The second chapter covered the concept and the linguistic study of dialogue as a means of communication. In its meaning, the term "dialogue" is close to the term "discourse", but the traditions of using these terms are different. Substantially important differences between them are that "dialogue" to a greater extent emphasizes the interactive nature of the use of language, while for the use of the term "discourse" it is important to understand the inclusion of communication in the social context. The main features of the dialogue are spontaneity, brevity and ellipticity, which is caused by the conditions of communication. The primary elements of the dialogue are replicas of various lengths from one to several phrases. The most typical one-phrase remark. There are 3 types of question-answer unities. 1. Replicas complement each other and create an idea about the subject and the act. 2. The answer acts as an objection or a new interpretation. 3. Question and answer clarify the original statement. With the help of this work, it is possible to draw a clear line between dialogue and discourse.

The system of units for analysis of speech communication, or discursive acts, is quite diverse. There is no single system, since each author offers his own classification. So, G. Sachs proposes the following system: turn-pair-sequence-topic-conversation. The classification proposed by J. Coulhard and J. Sinclair is as follows: act - move - exchange - sequence - transaction - interaction. In Russian-language literature, the following elements of discourse analysis are usually distinguished: act - move - exchange - transaction - speech event. To detail them, let us turn to the main provisions of the theory of speech acts.

The speech act is recognized as an elementary unit of linguistic communication, and the main idea of the theory of speech acts is that, uttering some kind of statement in a communication situation, we perform some action determined by our intention: we mention some events and facts, we tell something to the interlocutor, we ask, we order, we promise, we apologize, etc. The structure of a speech act includes the following components: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. The locutionary act refers to the actual act of uttering the utterance ( saying that p). The illocutionary act is central to the theory of speech acts and denotes the communicative intention of the speaker ( what one does in saying that p). In a speech act, the essence of an illocutionary act is expressed by its illocutionary force or function, as well as a number of other components: the illocutionary goal and the method of achieving it, the intensity of the illocutionary force, the conditions for efficiency and success, etc. The perlocutionary act, in turn, expresses the result of the speech influence of the speaker, performing locutionary and illocutionary acts ( what one does by saying that p): promises, threatens, convinces, compliments, etc. The perlocutionary act is usually broader than the illocutionary effect, that is, the understanding of the utterance by the addressee in the function that was prescribed by the speaker. For example, the statement Would you like another cup of coffee? in addition to the question itself and offering the guest a cup of coffee, it can also have another goal, not fixed in the statement itself, but as if standing behind it: to hint to the guest that it is time to leave. Thus, the perlocutionary effect is not so rigidly connected with the statement itself, but is due to the pragmatic context.

Despite the fact that the theory of speech acts offered many interesting ideas and, undoubtedly, was a revolution in communicative linguistics, it turned out to be insufficient for interpreting live colloquial speech. It is hardly reasonable to consider a speech act as the minimum unit of communication, since its structure does not reflect the specifics of communication as an interaction. The speech act considers individual statements, messages outside the discursive context, outside its dynamics, it is static and isolated. As J. Searle writes: “ The speech act scenario is enacted by its two great heroes, ‘S’ and ‘H’; and it works as follows: S goes up to H and cuts loose with an acoustic blast; if all goes well, if all the appropriate conditions are satisfied, if S's noise is infused with intentionality, and if all kinds of rules come into play, then the speech act is successful and nondefective. After that, there is silence; nothing else happens. The speech act is concluded and S and H go their separate ways” .

Information about the development of the intended interaction is contained in the speech act only potentially, therefore the speech act is rather a minimal unit of communication and a potential unit of communication. In addition, when segmenting a speech stream into elements that would correspond to individual speech acts, a problem arises: what to consider as such elements. Most of the examples in works on the theory of speech acts are sentences, but in reality, speech acts can be carried out both in groups of sentences and in their parts.

Thus, the object of study of the theory of speech acts is rather not real statements, but their types. But if the theory of speech acts does not satisfy the task of interpreting live communication, then how to describe its structure? A great difficulty in describing the structure of discourse is the fact that units and elements of different nature and function coexist in it. In speech, phonetic units can be distinguished: sound (allophone and phoneme), syllable, phonetic word, syntagma, phrase ( phoneme, syllable, foot, tone group, paratone), grammatical units: morpheme, word, phrase, predicative unit, sentence, superphrasal unity, paragraph ( morpheme, word, group, clause, sentence, paragraph), and in addition, socially interactive units of the communication process: action (act), course, simple and complex exchanges, transaction, episode, communicative event ( act, move, interaction, transaction, episode, event).

According to T. van Dyck, a communicative act, unlike a speech act, has a more complex structure and includes the speaker's speech act, the listener's auditory act and the communicative situation. In turn, a communicative act or a sequence of several acts involved in the exchange relations of communication form a communicative course. That is, unlike a communicative act, which is realized by separate illocutionary acts, a communicative move is realized by a complex macroact.

Social Interactive Unit – discursive act, which replaced speech acts, is currently used to describe the structure of discourse and the interpretation of live communication. As M. Makarov writes, "... A discursive act is defined as a minimal communicative unit, speech or gesture-mimic in nature, which in each case of use in a conversation has its own specific significance in terms of the development of speech as a system of actions, communicative plans and strategies" .

The exchange of communicative moves forms a minimal two-way unit of communicative interaction, which is called adjacent pair, dialogical unity or exchange. According to their structure, exchanges are divided into simple ones, consisting of two components-steps, such as question - answer, request - promise / rejection, and complex, including three, four or more moves: question - answer - confirmation, question - re-question - clarifying question - answer.

For a larger segment of communication, the term is used transaction, and the largest segment of verbal communication, a macro-level unit of discourse, is speech event(other options: macro dialogue, macro text, conversation), such as a conversation, a business meeting, a school lesson, etc. .

The criteria for the listed units have not been explicitly explained and the boundaries between them sometimes seem to be blurred. M. Makarov offers the following gradation of discourse units: act - move - exchange - transaction - speech event. Moreover, he proposed to single out the boundaries of the transaction within the framework of the global theme, and the boundaries of the exchange within the framework of the local theme [ibid.]. Thus, a speech act acts as a minimal unit of discourse, and a discursive act, consisting of several speech acts - replicas of various communicants, is a unit of communication (exchange).

pragmatic valence - A specific feature of pragmatically adequate/inadequate invocations is their valency properties. Pragmatic valency is manifested in the ability of vocative remarks to evoke response speech reactions, to enter into a relationship with response statements, to generate text development, as a result of which dialogic unities of various communicative orientations are created. In the response cue, the appeal (speech material) occupies a new syntactic position, actualizing its own meaning.

The reasons and conditions for creating pragmatically adequate vocative situations are established, these are: communicative correctness, compliance with the communicative norm and communicative truth, satisfaction of the requirements and ideas of the Addressee. The positive reaction of the Addressee to the appeal, which can be both explicit and implied, determines the normative development of the communicative act, is the main criterion for determining the situation is adequate and effective. Based on the reactions of the Addressee, a typology of pragmatically adequate appeals is compiled.

Pragmatically inadequate appeals are characterized as effective / ineffective on the basis of the final communicative result. Pragmatically inadequate appeals are effective if the speaker's communicative attitude and the result of communication match. Thus, the appeal effectively implements the intentional strategy of the Speaker to offend, anger the Addressee of the speech and creates a pragmatically inadequate situation of communication. The communicative attitude of the Speaker and the reaction of the Addressee do not match, if the Speaker accidentally did not take into account any of the requirements and ideas of the Addressee, in this case, inadequate and ineffective treatment creates a conflict situation of communication. Pragmatically inadequate appeals, as a rule, cause verbal and non-verbal reactions, which, having a negative emotional and evaluative nature, represent various types of disagreement, objections, disapproval, corrections, etc.

http://diplstud.ru/09/dok.php?id=031

Dialogical Unity is a complex unit of dialogue, which is a combination of two or more speech acts on a thematic and / or psychological basis.

In material terms, it is an association of adjacent dialogue replicas on a communicative-psychological basis, where the volume of such an association is determined by the informative and psychological exhaustion of this stage of communication from the standpoint of speech partners.

For example:

– What is your education? - Higher legal. So a lawyer. – Yes, it does. - You're a lawyer, right? No, I'm an investigator. - Investigation Department, huh? - Yes!

Dialogic unity is given by the first replica-stimulus, the appearance of which depends solely on the inner motivation of the speaker.

Dialog is a conversation between two or more people. The basic unit of dialogue is dialogic unity - the thematic association of several replicas, which is an exchange of opinions, each subsequent of which depends on the previous one. The nature of the replicas is influenced by the so-called code of relations between communicants. Allocate three main types of interaction dialogue participants: dependency, cooperation and equality.

Every dialogue has its own structure: beginning - main part - ending. The dimensions of a dialog are theoretically unlimited since its bottom border can be open. In practice, any dialogue has its own ending.

Dialogue is considered as the primary form of verbal communication, therefore it has received its greatest distribution in the sphere of colloquial speech, however, dialogue is also presented in scientific, journalistic, and official business speech.

Being the primary form of communication, dialogue is an unprepared, spontaneous type of speech. Even in scientific, journalistic and official business speech, with the possible preparation of remarks, the deployment of the dialogue will be spontaneous, since usually the remarks - the reactions of the interlocutor are unknown or unpredictable.

For the existence of a dialogue, on the one hand, a common information base of its participants is necessary, and on the other hand, an initial minimum gap in the knowledge of the participants in the dialogue. Lack of information can adversely affect the productivity of dialogic speech.

According with goals and objectives dialogue, the situation of communication, the role of interlocutors, the following can be distinguished main types of dialogues: household, business conversation, interview.

Monologue can be defined as a detailed statement of one person. Distinguish two main types monologue:

monologue speech is a process of purposeful communication, conscious appeal to the listener and is characteristic of the oral form of book speech: oral scientific speech, judicial speech, oral public speech. The most complete development of the monologue was in artistic speech.

A monologue is a speech alone with oneself. The monologue is not directed to the direct listener and, accordingly, is not designed for the interlocutor's response.

The monologue can be both unprepared and premeditated.

According to the purpose of the statement monologue speech is divided into three main types:

· Informational Speech serves to convey knowledge. In this case, the speaker must take into account the intellectual abilities of information perception and the cognitive capabilities of the listeners. Varieties of informational speech - lectures, reports, messages, reports.

· persuasive the speech is addressed to the emotions of the listeners, in this case the speaker must take into account his susceptibility. Varieties of persuasive speech: congratulatory, solemn, parting words.

· motivating speech is aimed at encouraging listeners to various kinds of actions. Here they distinguish political speech, speech-call for action, speech-protest.

Monologue speech is distinguished by the degree of preparedness and formality. An oratorical speech is always a pre-prepared monologue, delivered in a formal setting. However, to a certain extent, a monologue is an artificial form of speech, always striving for dialogue. In this regard, any monologue can have the means of its dialogization.

Dialogical Unity- represents the largest structural-semantic unit of dialogic speech. It consists of two, less often three or four sentences of replicas, closely related in meaning and structure; at the same time, the content and form of the first replica determine the content and form of the second, and so on, so that only in a combination of replicas is the completeness of this part of the dialogue necessary for understanding to be found.

For example:

1) Who is speaking?

- Non-commissioned officer Turbin.

2) - Congratulations! - he said.

- With what?

- With victory...

In both the first and second cases, the full meaning of the message is extracted precisely from the combination of replica-sentences.

According to their meaning and formal features, they are divided into:

1. Question-answer DU;

2. Unities in which the second replica continues the unfinished first;

3. Unities in which the replicas are connected by one subject of thought, are statements about it;

4. Unity in which the second remark expresses agreement or disagreement with the statement contained in the first.

Buzarov Vladimir Vasilievich - PhD in Philology, Professor of the North Caucasian Federal University, Stavropol, Russia

Gribova Polina Nikolaevna - Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of the Fundamentals of the English Language, Faculty of English, Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University. ON THE. Dobrolyubov, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia

Various types of interrogative sentences that open a dialogue can stimulate structurally and functionally diverse types of interrogative replicas, many of which occur only as response replicas and do not occur in initial replicas. Interrogative replies, or, in the terminology of N.D. Arutyunova, quotation questions, “always represent a reaction to the previous statement, from which the borrowing of“ foreign words ”occurs. In English, the terms interrogative replicas-repetitions and replicas-requests (echo-questions) have been assigned to them. They not only “form a system of peculiar syntactic units of colloquial speech”, but are also characterized by a specific intonation structure that is different from the intonation of interrogative sentences that function as the initial stimulating replicas of the dialogue. In most cases, the initial interrogative cues suggest an emotionally neutral situation, and their overall melodic pattern will be calm. Interrogative replicas-reactions, repeating the material or part of it from the previous interrogative replica, are largely predisposed to expressing emotional-modal meanings, and therefore here, most likely, one should expect a special intonation that would express certain emotions. Noting in interrogative remarks-reactions (quotation questions, which are one of the types of dialogical citation) the presence of a specific intonation as a relevant feature of "reflected" speech, N.D. Arutyunova emphasizes that “intonational travesty of the replica takes place here: a super-segment (prosodic) predicate of evaluation (of a subjective attitude) is added to someone else’s statement.”

Interrogative responses, as a rule, are unpredictable, since their appearance in dialogic speech is due to non-linguistic factors. Due to psychological circumstances, in spontaneous dialogic speech, various kinds of repetitions and re-questions arise, including in the form of questions in which expressive-emotional meanings usually dominate over the meaning of interrogation, obscuring the latter sometimes completely. Repetitive interrogative responses often convey the meanings of surprise, doubt, indignation, distrust, protest, etc. and “are used as: 1) an expressive means, 2) a means of actualizing certain elements of the statement “gluing” a break in the chain of syntactic links” . In short, they, as a rule, implement an expressive function that affects the interlocutor.

Despite their unpredictable nature, these interrogative responses are very typical for spontaneous dialogic speech, they are characterized by high frequency and are of a conventional nature, so knowledge of their structural and functional types is absolutely necessary for students. Among the response responses characterized by a high degree of recurrence (occurrence), the following can be indicated: 1) a clarifying question; 2) question-request with repetition (echo-question); 3) exclamatory remark-repeat (echo-exclamation).

1) In the dialogical unity of “question-question”, the response to the question-stimulus finds its expression in the so-called clarifying question, which is a special question, extremely reduced and often consisting of one interrogative word (with or without a preposition). The main communicative function of a clarifying question is to encourage the speaker to repeat that element (or elements) of the stimulating remark, which (or which) was (or) for some reason not properly perceived (s) or was not (- i) perceived at all. In other words, the generation of clarifying questions is due to a situation of misunderstanding or misunderstanding, as well as various kinds of omissions, allusions, etc. Therefore, they always demand an answer after themselves, simultaneously performing the function of a reacting cue to the previous question and a stimulating function for the subsequent response cue. Thus, the clarifying question always acts as a connecting component between the first and third replicas of the dialogic construction. Both a pronominal and a non-pronominal question can be used as an initial remark that caused such a reaction, defined as the interlocutor's desire to clarify some element of the previous remark. For example:

1) "Arlene... what'll they do to me?"

« Who, the police?”

Yes. (J. Collier).

2) Geoffrey. … What have you done with that letter of your mother’s?

Billy. What letter?

Geoffrey. … You know what letter (K. Waterhouse and W. Hall).

"Is that Mike?"

« Who else?»

“Who really? Where are you now?"

"I'm at a party" (W. Trevor).

2) No less typical reaction to an interrogative stimulating remark is the so-called question-request (echo question - the term of W. Chafe), which is a repetition of the previous stimulus replica or part of it. Questions with follow-up questions arise when the interlocutor, for psychological reasons, was not able to properly perceive the content of the stimulating remark or it seemed incredible to him, and he wants to receive confirmation from his interlocutor whether he correctly perceived his question (or some of its elements). ). A reactive replica with a follow-up, functioning as a subjective response to the content contained in the stimulus question, can express a whole range of emotions such as: surprise, amazement, indignation, disbelief, disagreement, objection, protest, etc.

In everyday communication, the following types of dialogic units are encountered, the replicas of which are connected by “question-question” relations and in which a question with a repeating question is used as a replica-reaction:

a) re-questioning in the form of a general question (usually reduced) as a response to a general stimulus question (inverted or without inversion), for example:

1) Tyrone: Is that why you ate so little breakfast?

Mary: so little? I thought I ate a lot (E. O'Neill).

2) "Don't you get sore?"

« sore? he said. "Who's there to get sore?" (W. Saroyan).

3) Poirot said, "You don't think it's possible that she committed suicide?"

« She? Mrs. Bishop snorted. "No, indeed" (A. Christie).

4) Constance: …I can't wait any longer. Would you forgive me?

Crossman: Forgive you? For what?

Constance: For wasting all these years (L. Hellman).

b) "non-standard" question-request (usually reduced) as a reaction to a special question-stimulus of a standard type. For example:

1) Jimmy: What the devil have you done to those trousers?

cliff: Done?

Jimmy: Are they the ones you bought last weekend? Look at them (John Osborne).

2) "What seems to be the complaint?"

« Complaint? Complaint? Crime, more like it. And right under your nose. Detective indeed!" (L. Thomas).

3) Pilot officer: Then why did you ask me again?

Andrew: Again, sir?

Pilot officer: Didn't you? (A. Wesker).

4) "What's the matter?"

« The matter? Nothing! On the contrary, it's a piece of good news" (Hitch).

In questions-requests, as examples (a, b) show, the attention of the addressee is directed to that element of the stimulating remark that caused him a reaction of surprise, bewilderment, anger, etc. That is why, in most cases, the reduction of questions-requests is reduced, as a rule, to the ellipsis of all elements, except for the rheme. Question-request, being a component of a verbal reaction (often including a negative attitude) to the content of a stimulating replica, loses, to a greater or lesser extent, the significance of interrogation. Therefore, it may be followed by additional information in the form of a declarative or interrogative sentence, which provides an explanation of the opinion or position of the addressee (usually opposite to the opinion or position of the speaker) (see examples above).

c) a special question-request as a reaction to a general question of a standard type. Question-request (as a rule, reduced) has an unusual structure - in it the interrogative word occupies a position (often final), completely uncharacteristic of special questions of the usual type. For example:

1) Rose: Is he fascinating, Mr. Crossman?

Crossman: ... Is who fascinating?

Rose: Nicholas Denery, of course (L. Hellman).

2) "Did you ever see his scrapbooks?"

« His what?»

"They're in the library down at Tetbury. All bound in blue morocco.

Gilt-tooled. His initials. dates. All his press cuttings" (J. Fowles).

3) Peter: …Look here; is this something about the Zoo?

Jerry The what?

Peter: The Zoo; the Zoo. Something about the Zoo (E. Albee).

4) Cliff: Have you seen anyone?

Jimmy: Have I seen who?

Cliff: Have you seen nobody?

Jimmy: Of course, I haven't seen anyone (J. Osborne).

d) "non-standard" special question-request as a reaction to a special question of a standard type. Questions-requests here are similar in structure to those discussed in the previous paragraph. For example:

1) Cliff: What did he say?

Jimmy: What did who say?

Cliff: Mr. Priestley.

Jimmy: What he always says, I suppose (J. Osborne).

2) Mrs. Ellis: Who told you, Leon?

Leon: Told me what, Mrs. Ellis ? (L. Hellman).

e) a special question-request of a "non-standard" type as a reaction to a dividing question-stimulus. For example:

Barbara: You know that Liz is back in town, don't you?

Billy: Liz who?

Barbara: You know who. That dirty girl ... (K. Waterhouse and W. Hall).

It should be noted that the pronouns who and especially what in questions with a repeat question are characterized by an unlimited ability to be combined with almost any words that may belong to different lexico-grammatical classes (see points c, d, e). In other words, their combinability is not limited to verbs that have corresponding valences, and they do not correlate with a specific syntactic position (subject, object), as is observed in standard pronominal stimulus questions. There is no direct syntactic connection between the components in these questions-requests (His what? The what? A what? Liz who?, etc.).

3) Quite often, an interrogative replica-stimulus that opens a dialogue can be followed as a response by an interrogative replica, similar in form to an interrogative replica, but having completely lost the meaning of interrogation and expressing the emotional meaning of surprise, indignation, anger, etc. These are the so-called exclamatory replicas, or, in the terminology of N.D. Arutyunova, expressive citations. This or that emotional meaning dominating in such remarks is a kind of way to show that the addressee not only disagrees with the opinion of his interlocutor, but also rejects it. An exclamatory rejoinder can be viewed as a kind of dialogical protest against the information requirement contained in the stimulus question. For example:

1) Miss Eynsford Hill (gaily): Is it so very cynical?

Higgins: Cynical! Who the dickens said it was cynic? I mean it wouldn't be decent (B. Shaw).

2) Jimmy: … Why-why are you letting her influence you like this?

Alison (starting to break): Why, why, why, why!(Putting her hands over her ears). That word's pulling my head off! (J. Osborne).

3) Blanche: What do his people say, papa?

Sartorius: His people! I don't know.

Blanche: What does he say?

Sartorius: He! He says nothing (B. Shaw).

A similar exclamatory remark-repetition occurs after a disjunctive question-stimulus (disjunctive question). For example:

Liza (breathless) … I’ve won your bet for you, haven’t I?

Higgins: You won my bet! You! Presumptuous insect. I won't it (B. Shaw).

The exclamatory replica, being an emotional reaction to the interrogative initial replica of the speaker, reproduces, as a rule, that component (or components) of the previous replica, which (or which) caused (s) a negative reaction. In some cases, the initial replica can be repeated (with minor modifications) completely (see the last example).

In such cases, the effect of emotionality is achieved due to exclamatory intonation, which is characterized by a special phonation of the vocal organs. It can be said that such exclamatory remarks-reactions almost do not express any intellectual information, to a large extent they are “communicatively empty”, since their main function is to express a negative attitude towards the content of the previous remark in order to emotionally influence the interlocutor. Quite often, an exclamatory reactive remark is accompanied by intellectual information, in which the reason that caused the negative emotion is revealed (see examples above).

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that such a study of dialogic speech in terms of the predictability / unpredictability of the generation of certain types of response replicas should be considered as one of the possible approaches to the study of such a complex phenomenon as dialogue.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Arutyunova, N.D. Dialogue quotation. (On the problem of someone else's speech) // VYa, 1986, No. 1.

2. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. – M.: Nauka, 1960.

3. Zemskaya, E.A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. - M.: Russian language, 1979.

LIST OF USED ART LITERATURE

1. Albee, E. The Zoo Story. – In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. Leningrad, 1970.

2. Christie, A. The Case of the Distressed Lady. – In: Moscow News, 1985.

3. Collier, J. The Touch of Nutmey Makes It. – In: Baker's Dozen. – M., 1979.

4. Fowles, J. The Ebony Tower. – M., 1980.

4. Hellman, L. The Autumn Garden. – In: Three American Plays. – M., 1972.

6. Hitch, L. Live Their Own Life. – In: The Book of American Humor. – M., 1984.

7. O'Neill, E. Long Day's Journey into Night. – In: Three American Plays. – M., 1972.

8. Osborne, J. West of Suez. – In: Modern English Drama. – M., 1984.

9. Saroyan, W. Plays. – M., 1983.

10. Shaw, B. Pygmalion. – M., 1972.

11. Thomas, L. Dangerous Davies: the last detective. – London-Sidney, 1977.

12. Trevor, W. The Day We Got Drunk on Cake. – In: Making It All Right. – M., 1978.

13. Waterhouse, K. & Hall, W. Billy Liar. – In: Modern English Plays. – M., 1966.

14. Wesker, A. Chips with Everything. – In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. – Leningrad, 1970.

Portal for the student. Self-training

RELATED ARTICLES