Dialogical unity as a structural and semantic unit. Demonic version of the game The term demonic is the opposite of the term monic
Dialogical Unity is the largest structural and semantic unit dialogical speech. It consists of two, less often three or four replica sentences, 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, etc., so that only in a combination of replicas is the completeness of this part of the dialogue necessary for understanding found, for example:
1) Who is speaking?
Non-commissioned officer Turbin.
2) - Congratulations! - he said.
With victory...
In the first example, the content and form of the second response replica-sentence are determined by the content and form of the first interrogative sentence: the second incomplete sentence consists of one subject, since in the first interrogative sentence it is the subject of the action that is asked (the interrogative pronoun who); the predicate in the second sentence is omitted, since it is named in the first.
In the second example, all replicas are incomplete sentences: the first one lacks an addition, what caused the second replica - an interrogative sentence (the predicate is omitted, since it is in the first replica); finally, the third replica is an incomplete sentence, consisting of one addition, which is missing in the first replica and which is the answer to the question contained in the second replica.
Thus, in both the first and second cases, the full meaning of the message is extracted precisely from the combination of replica-sentences, and not from one of them.
In terms of meaning and formal features, including intonation, dialogic units are divided into a number of types. Such, for example, are the most common question-answer dialogic unities (see above); units in which the second replica continues the unfinished first; units in which the replicas are connected by one subject of thought are statements about it; unity in which the second replica expresses agreement or disagreement with the statement contained in the first, etc., for example:
1) Melanie. You don't have to fight, but...
R i b and i and n. Fight. That's right, mother. Wall to wall.
2) Tatyana. He is beautifully dressed... Black grouse. And oars
3) - You can go crazy ... - I whispered.
No, you don't have to go. You just don't know what theater is.
The intonational and semantic incompleteness of the first replica (1), the connecting union in the second (2), the lexical repetition (pickup) in the second replica (3), etc., as well as the parallelism in the structure of replicas characteristic of most dialogic units and the natural incompleteness of the second replica - all this most closely links one replica to another, turns their combination into a single structure.
However, not all successive replicas have these features. There are replicas that are complete sentences, each of which contains its own message, for example:
Comrade Maksudov? the blond asked. - Yes, I ... - I'm looking for you all over the theater, - a new acquaintance spoke up, - let me introduce myself - director Foma Strizh.
In this part of the dialogue, out of three replicas, only the first two represent a dialogic unity; the third, although closely related to the first, represents a new stage in the conversation: the director first made sure that this was the person he was looking for, and then moved on to the conversation he needed.
PUNCTUATION
1. THE CONCEPT OF PUNCTUATION
3. FUNCTIONS OF PUNCIATION
1. THE CONCEPT OF PUNCTUATION Punctuation is, firstly, a collection of punctuation rules and, secondly, the punctuation marks themselves ( graphic images) used in writing to indicate its division.
It is generally accepted that punctuation marks are used to denote such a division of written speech that cannot be conveyed either by morphological means or by word order. More difficult is the question of what kind of dismemberment of speech is fixed by punctuation - declamatory-psychological? syntactic and semantic? both together?
An analysis of modern Russian punctuation indicates the absence of any strict system, although a certain internal organization in the application of various principles of punctuation marks certainly exists. Punctuation serves the needs of written communication, punctuation marks are part of the graphic system of the language, conventionally accepted notations for dismembering speech in its written form, notations that help the reader to comprehend the meaning of what is written.
2. THREE PRINCIPLES OF RUSSIAN PUNCTUATION
Russian punctuation, currently a very complex and developed system, has a fairly solid foundation - a formal grammatical one. Punctuation marks are primarily indicators of the syntactic, structural articulation of written speech. It is this principle that informs modern punctuation of stability, general acceptance and obligatory nature. On this basis, the largest number of signs is put.
Grammar signs include such signs as a dot, fixing the end of a sentence; signs at the junction of parts of a complex sentence; signs highlighting functionally diverse structures introduced into the composition simple sentence, but not grammatically related to it (introductory words, phrases and sentences; inserts; appeals; interjections); signs with homogeneous members of the sentence; signs highlighting post-positive applications, common definitions, standing after the word being defined or located at a distance, etc.
Such signs are structurally significant, they are placed without regard to the specific meaning of the sentences and its parts; they divide sentences into structurally meaningful parts, regardless of their specific lexical content.
The structural principle contributes to the development of solid commonly used rules for punctuation. Signs placed on such a basis cannot be optional, author's. This is the foundation on which modern Russian punctuation is built. This, finally, is that necessary minimum of the use of signs, without which unhindered communication between the writer and the reader is unthinkable. "Grammatical" signs are currently quite regulated, their use is stable. The division of the text into grammatically significant parts helps to establish the relation of some parts of the text to others, indicates the end of the presentation of one thought and the beginning of another.
The syntactic articulation of speech ultimately reflects a logical, semantic articulation, since the grammatically significant parts coincide with the logically significant parts, with the semantic side of speech, since the purpose of any grammatical structure is to convey a certain thought. But quite often it happens that the semantic articulation of speech subjugates the structural, that is, the concrete sense dictates the only possible structure.
In cases where a different combination of words is possible, only a comma helps to establish their semantic and grammatical dependence. For example: Three in front of the photo, tense. The comma here divides the sentence into two parts: three in front of the photo and three tense. Compare, with a different shade of meaning and a different distribution of grammatical connections and functions in the variant without a comma: The three are tense in front of the photograph. Or else: There was an inner lightness. Freely walks the streets to work. A sentence without a comma has a completely different meaning: walks the streets to work (designation of one action). In the original version, there is a designation of two different actions: walks the streets, i.e. walks, and goes to work.
Such punctuation marks help to establish the semantic and grammatical relationships between words in a sentence, clarify the structure of the sentence.
The ellipsis also performs a semantic function, which helps to put logically and emotionally incompatible concepts at a distance. For example: The history of peoples ... in dolls; On skis... for berries. Such signs perform an exclusively semantic role (moreover, often with emotional overtones).
An important role in understanding the text is also played by the location of the sign that divides the sentence into semantic and, therefore, structurally significant parts. Compare: And the dogs became quiet because no stranger disturbed their peace (Fad.) -And the dogs became quiet because no stranger disturbed their peace. In the second version of the sentence, the reason for the named state is more emphasized, and the rearrangement of the comma helps to change the logical center of the message, draws attention to the cause of the phenomenon, while in the first version the goal is different - a statement of the state with an additional indication of its cause. However, more often the lexical material of the sentence dictates only the only possible meaning. For example: A tigress named Orphan lived in our zoo for a long time. They gave her such a nickname because she really was orphaned at an early age. The dismemberment of the union is obligatory, and it is caused by the semantic influence of the context. In the second sentence, the designation of the reason is necessary, since the fact itself has already been named in the previous sentence.
On a semantic basis, signs are placed in non-union complex sentences, since it is they who convey in written speech desired values. For example: The whistle blew, the train started moving; The whistle blew and the train started moving.
Often, with the help of punctuation marks, they clarify the specific meanings of words, that is, the meaning contained in them in this particular context. Thus, a comma between two definitions-adjectives (or participles) brings these words semantically closer, i.e., makes it possible to highlight the general shades of meaning that emerge as a result of various associations, both objective and sometimes subjective. Syntactically, such definitions become homogeneous, since, being close in meaning, they alternately refer directly to the word being defined. For example: The crown of spruce needles is written in thick, heavy oil; I saw her off at a cozy little station. If we take the words thick and heavy, cozy and small out of context, it is difficult to catch something in common in these pairs, these possible associative convergences are in the sphere of secondary, non-primary, figurative meanings, which become primary in the corresponding context.
In part, Russian punctuation is also based on intonation: a dot at the site of a large drop in voice and a long pause; interrogative and exclamation marks, intonation dash, ellipsis, etc. For example, an appeal can be distinguished by a comma, but increased emotionality, that is, a special excretory intonation, dictates another sign - an exclamation point. In some cases, the choice of sign depends entirely on intonation. Wed Examples: Children will come, let's go to the park. - Children will come - let's go to the park. In the first case, enumerative intonation, in the second - conditional intonation. But the intonational principle acts only as a secondary, not primary. This is especially evident in cases where the intonation principle is “sacrificed” to the grammatical one. For example: Morozko lowered the bag and, putting his head into his shoulders, ran to the horses; The deer digs the snow with its foot and, if there is food, begins to graze. In these sentences, the comma is after the union and, since it fixes the border structural parts sentences (participle turnover and subordinate clause). Thus, the intonational principle is violated, because the intonational pause is before the union.
The intonation principle operates in most cases not in its pure form, i.e., although any intonational stroke (for example, a pause) is fixed by a punctuation mark, in the end this intonation itself is a consequence of a given semantic and grammatical division of a sentence. Let's compare the examples that are usually placed in reference books in paragraphs devoted to the intonation dash: Walk - could not walk for a long time; I couldn't walk for a long time. Indeed, the dash here fixes a pause, but the place of the pause is predetermined by the structure of the sentence, its meaning. So, the current punctuation does not reflect any single, consistent system. However, it can be said with confidence that the formal-grammatical principle is now the leading one, while the semantic and intonation principles act as additional ones, although in some specific manifestations they can be brought to the fore. As for the history of punctuation, it is known that pauses (intonation) served as the initial basis for the articulation of written speech.
Modern punctuation represents a new stage in its historical development, and the stage characterizing a higher level. Modern punctuation reflects the structure, meaning, intonation. Written speech is organized quite clearly, definitely and at the same time expressively. The greatest achievement of modern punctuation is the fact that all three principles operate in it not in isolation, but in unity. Separate principles can be singled out only conditionally. In most cases, they act inseparably, although with a certain hierarchy.
3. FUNCTIONS OF PUNCIATION
Punctuation marks in the NPC have functions assigned to them. They either separate parts of the text from each other, or highlight any segments within the parts. Separating punctuation marks are period, exclamation point and question marks, semicolon, colon, ellipsis, paragraph (in this case, the term is used in the meaning of paragraph indentation). Emphasis marks include brackets and quotation marks. The comma and dash signs can act both as separating (when used singularly) and as highlighting (when used in pairs, for example, when separating, when highlighting introductory and plug-in structures).
Separating punctuation marks divide the written text into semantic and grammatically significant parts. Functionally close are the comma (separating), semicolon, period. Their difference is purely “quantitative”: they fix pauses of varying degrees of duration, but in a semantic sense, the parts divided by a comma and a semicolon are less independent, they are segments within one sentence; the dots mean the completeness of the thought. These signs are placed when listing syntactically equivalent parts of the text: members of a sentence, parts of a sentence (comma and semicolon), individual sentences (dots). The qualitative similarity of the enumerated signs is easily comprehended by comparing the examples, designed in different ways: The crowd rushed forward. Hats and caps flew into the air. A furious cheer exploded near the podium. Wed: The crowd rushed forward, hats and caps flew into the air, a frantic “cheers” exploded near the podium. - The crowd rushed forward; hats and caps flew into the air; a frantic cheer exploded around us. The general functional significance of these signs and, at the same time, their difference in the degree of articulation of the text they denote, make it possible to use them in complex sentences as a certain gradation system. For example: Hedges ran across the cleared place, stacks and haystacks became, small smoky yurts grew; finally, like a victorious banner, on a hillock from the middle of the village, a bell tower shot up to the sky (Kor.) - in this union-free complex sentence there are four syntactically equivalent parts, but the first three are separated by commas, and the fourth is separated by a semicolon; such an arrangement of signs makes it possible, firstly, to emphasize the great semantic solidarity of the first three parts of the sentence and, secondly, the isolation and semantic independence of the fourth part of the sentence. In addition, such signs are also justified from the point of view of the structural organization of the sentence: the first three have a common member that unites them into a single whole - in a cleared place, and in the fourth part there is an introductory word at last, and referring it to this part of the sentence is possible only if the presence of a semicolon that separates the leading part of the text.
A single comma, like a semicolon, always stands between syntactically equivalent parts of the text or words equivalent in syntactic function.
Paired commas, as distinguishing marks, perform a different function: their purpose is to highlight especially significant parts of it in a sentence; such commas are used when separating, when highlighting words and phrases that are not grammatically related to the members of the sentence - appeals, introductory constructions, interjections. Distinguishing commas sharply diverge in function from a dot and a semicolon, in this case they are included in a different system of punctuation values, those that are characteristic of highlighting characters, in particular, a double dash and brackets. A new gradation is observed here: commas, dashes, brackets (commas highlight parts of the sentence less significant and complex; dashes - parts are more significant and common; brackets - especially sharply exclude parts from the composition of the sentence). The distinguishing role of such signs is especially clearly revealed, given the possibility of their interchangeability. Compare, for example: Kutuzov listened to the report of the general on duty (the main subject of which was criticism of the position) just as he listened to Denisov - Kutuzov listened to the report of the general on duty, the main subject of which was criticism of the position, in the same way ...
The ellipsis, colon and dash, along with the separating function, perform a variety of semantic functions: they fix certain semantic relationships that arise between parts of a sentence under the influence of a communicative task.
The ellipsis conveys the understatement of thought, reticence, discontinuity and even difficulty in speech, for example: - Yes, life ... - he said after a pause. - He... don't think... He's not a thief or anything... just...
The ellipsis can also convey the significance of what was said, indicate the subtext, the hidden meaning contained in the text. For example: A giant ship quietly sailed past the island at that very time. The flag splashed in the wind and seemed to be creeping at the feet of a copper woman who was holding her torch over it ... Matvey watched the ship pushing the waves apart with his chest and tears begged to his eyes ... How recently he had looked from the same ship until dawn on this statue, until the lights went out on it and the rays of the sun began to gild its head ... And Anna slept quietly, leaning on her bundle ...
The colon is a sign that warns of further clarification and explanation. The explanatory function is specified by the following meanings: causation, justification, disclosure of content, specification of the general concept. For example: I rushed at him, but could not hit him even once: some two types jumped up and grabbed my arms from behind; And our parents all shouted: so that we take care of ourselves, so that we write letters; He kept singing his favorite song: “The fire of Moscow was noisy and burning”; In flooded meadows, islands began to mark the highest places: mounds, hillocks, ancient Tatar graves.
A dash is a sign with a very capacious meaning. First of all, it means all kinds of omissions - the omission of a link in the predicate, the omissions of sentence members in incomplete and elliptical sentences, the omissions of opposing unions; the dash, as it were, compensates for these missing words, “retains” their proper place. For example: The eagle is a free bird; Ilyusha - to the gate, but the voice of his mother was heard from the window; We part at the semaphore: he - to the right, I - to the left; Not the heavens of someone else's homeland - I composed songs for my homeland.
The dash conveys the meaning of the condition, time, comparison, consequence in cases where these values are not expressed lexically, that is, by unions. For example: If he wanted it, the guy would feel bad; I woke up - my grandmother was gone; He says a word - the nightingale sings.
A dash can also be called a sign of "surprise" - semantic, intonational, compositional. For example: Nobody was allowed to see Tanya - only letters were sent to her in a stream (unexpected joining); What do you regret now - I believe (unusual location of the explanatory clause); Many times I sat in a tree under the fence, expecting that they would call me to play with them - but they did not call (unexpected result).
Finally, the dash can also convey a purely emotional meaning: the dynamism of speech, sharpness, the speed of change of events. For example: A moment - and everything again sank into darkness; The dry crackle of a rocket launcher - and two crumbly green fires flare up in the sky; You fly - and the horse cuts the grass, and the dew splashes.
Question and exclamation marks mark the end of a sentence, and also convey interrogative and exclamatory intonation.
So, with all the variety of specific meanings and uses of punctuation marks fixed by the rules, they, the signs, have generalized functional meanings, have common patterns of use.
Dialogic speech, as you know, is bilateral in nature and has its own characteristic features. The linguistic characteristics of the dialogic form of communication include: brevity, ellipticity, reticence, inconsistency, abruptness, sometimes the simultaneity of the exchange of replicas, deployment, inclusion of replicas, a change in the nature of replicas-stimuli and replicas-reactions under the influence of the will and desire of the interlocutor or the conditions of communication, reservations, repeated questions , pickups, accompanying cues, non-union, widespread use of paralinguistic means.
The basis for the emergence of semantic relationships between the statements of partners in a dialogue is the situation and the subject of communication, taking into account extralinguistic factors.
The thematic-informational basis in the dialogue is represented by a sequence of structural-semantic components of various informational and semantic richness.
One of the types of pragmatic connections between the replicas of the dialogue is their coordination according to the communicative function. This type of connection is manifested in the fact that each type of question corresponds to certain type response.
The connection of replicas in a dialogue can be carried out with the help of a presuppositional connection. Presuppositions as a common fund of knowledge of the speaker and listener acquire a leading role in the semantic structure of the dialogue and provide mutual understanding in speech communication.
Depending on the degree of cohesion and coherence of the replicas, several levels of communicative units of dialogic speech are distinguished:
- a cue that is realized within the boundaries of almost any communicative unit of the language;
- dialogical unity, combining at least two replicas semantically and structurally;
- dialogic paragraph - a complex of two or more dialogic units united by a thematic community;
- dialogue-text, if it meets the characteristics of coherence and integrity.
One of important features Dialogic speech, as you know, is the principle of constructing speech as a chain of stimuli and reactions, that is, each statement is a certain action that causes and conditions a replica-reaction. Therefore, the basic unit of dialogue is dialogic unity, considered as two, less often three or four replicas, connected semantically and structurally, while the content and form of the first replica determine the content and form of the second, and so on.
The system of questions and answers is one of the most common types of communicative communication characteristic of the dialogical form of speech, since a separately posed question does not contain a complete judgment. It should also be noted that only when semantic connection between the question and the answer is supplemented by grammatical and intonation connections, the combination of two replicas forms a dialogic unity.
Within the framework of one dialogic unity, the following models of interaction of replicas are observed:
I. question - answer;
(1)- PCFЪјёµg?
II. offer - acceptance;
(2) - DgєIIIiVr?
KZЈ¬R "R" DgЎЈ.
III. command/order - response to a command/order;
(3) - ZlyoshOTAґ±L®Ј¬єGVR?
IV. approval/statement - confirmation;
(4) -PCFЪКЗБЅµgЎЈ
We single out the following pairs of dialogic unities:
I. call (call / start of conversation) - reaction to a call;
(5) - FјєІЈЎ
II. greeting (greeting/starting a conversation) - reaction to a greeting (greeting/picking up a conversation);
(6) - »ШН·јыЎЈ
III. exclamation (reaction/start of conversation) - reaction to exclamation (reaction/pickup of conversation);
(7) - I "KZ P" °!
IV. offer (exchange of information / offer of goods/services) - acceptance of an offer (exchange of information / acceptance of an offer of goods/services);
IGOTeshD'DGZHЎѕZHЎЈ
V. order/command (demand for goods/services) - response to an order/command (pick up of a conversation);
(8) - ёshOTDGZhЎѕZHAґЎЈ
- єФТвЎЈ
VI. approval (information exchange / conversation start) - confirmation (information exchange / conversation pickup);
(9) - LyU®BLЎЈ
Among the dialogic units, symmetrical pairs (greeting formula - greeting formula) and complimentary pairs (apology - acceptance of an apology; expression of gratitude - minimization of the occasion) are distinguished. At the same time, some formulas, as a rule, are initial, others are predominantly reactive.
There are several classifications of dialogic units for various reasons.
1) In terms of meaning and formal features, including intonation, dialogic units are divided into a number of types.
a) unity, where the second replica continues the unfinished first;
b) units in which the replicas are connected by one subject of thought, represent statements about it;
c) unity, in which the second remark expresses agreement or disagreement with the statement contained in the first, and others.
d) units in which the content and form of the first replica determine the content and form of the second
a) incentive (initiating);
b) reactive (reactive);
c) reactive-motivating (reacting) initiating combined nature.
Thus, the question-answer unity as a functional-speech unit is characterized by the following features:
1) the main functional-structural core of a question-answer speech unit is an interrogative cue, the stimulating nature of which is determined by the discrepancy between the functionally dominant and structural-forming elements in the interrogative sentence.
2) The response remark does not respond to the entire composition of the interrogative sentence, but only to that member of it, which either expresses an element of the thought that is in question, or indicates the missing part of the judgment. At the same time, the response remark often duplicates the structural and grammatical features of the question.
3) Despite the psychological and physical dissection of the composition of the question-answer speech unit between the two interlocutors, in the interrogative and response replicas, interdependent and response members are distinguished, forming the functional center of the speech unit, which determines its communicative content.
4) Each question-answer speech unit has its own intoation-structural model, which is revealed at the level of constant elements in the composition of the grammatical and functional centers of the entire question-answer unity.
5) In speech practice, the question-answer speech unit functions mainly in the dialogic form of speech in a variety of its lexical, grammatical, structural and intonation variants.
6) The motivation for a question as part of a dialogue may be a desire or need to obtain some information from the previous statement of the interlocutor.
From the foregoing, we can draw certain conclusions. Firstly, dialogical speech has characteristic features - brevity, ellipticity, reticence, inconsistency, abruptness, sometimes simultaneous exchange of replicas, deployment, inclusion of replicas, a change in the nature of replicas-stimuli and replicas-reactions under the influence of the will and desire of the interlocutor or communication conditions , reservations, repeated questions, pickups, accompanying remarks, non-union, widespread use of paralinguistic means. Secondly, several levels of communicative units of dialogical speech can be distinguished: a replica, dialogic unity, dialogic paragraph and dialog-text. Thirdly, dialogic unity acts as a unit of dialogue, considered as two, less often three or four replicas, connected semantically and structurally. Also in this chapter, several classifications of dialogic units are considered for various reasons.
Thesis
Polyakov, Sergei Mikhailovich
Academic degree:
Candidate of Philology
Place of defense of the dissertation:
VAK specialty code:
Speciality:
Germanic languages
Number of pages:
CHAPTER I. STRUCTURAL FEATURES
COMPLEX DIALOGICAL UNITIES WITH ONE-SIDE
ORGANIZATION.
Section I. Structural features of complex dialogical units with one-sided organization.
1. The structure of the thematic components of unilateral unities
2. Structure of non-thematic components of unilateral unities
3. Types of one-sided units by the number of components.
Section II. Compositional-speech forms of complex dialogical units with one-sided organization
1. Compositional-speech form as an object linguistic research
2. Dialogue-narrative
3. Description dialog
4. Dialogue-explanation
5. Dialogue notification
6. Dialogue-motivation
6.1. Request dialogue.
6.2. Dialogue instruction.
6.3. Dialogue command
7. Dialogue question
8. Mixed types of one-way dialogue. 94"
B y v o d s.
CHAPTER II. COMMUNICATION FACILITIES OF SINGLE-WAY COMPONENTS
DIALOGICAL UNITS.
1. Contact intercomponent connections
1.1. Correlative connection.
1.2. Introductive connection
2. Distant intercomponent connections.
2.1. Retrospective connection
2.1.1. conjunctive connection
2.1.2. Correlative connection
2.2. prospective connection
2.3. Mutual connection
Findings.
Introduction to the thesis (part of the abstract) On the topic "Complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization (based on the material of modern English)"
As you know, language exists in the form of oral speech and written speech. Written speech, unlike oral speech, is characterized by a stricter observance of the literary norm of a given language. Nevertheless, the author of a work of art, in the course of depicting events, also reproduces the speech of people who take part in the development of these events. The text is based, in particular, on the reproduction of people's speech. dramatic works. The speech of the characters of a dramatic work is carried out in a dialogical form and reflects the main linguistic and paralinguistic features of oral communication. Thus, observing dialogic speech in the transmission of a writer and especially a playwright, we can obtain significant data on its objective structural properties. Therefore, as a material for research in this work, we have chosen plays by contemporary British and American authors.
An important achievement of the theory of dialogue was the inclusion of dialogic unity in the research field of syntax. Dialogical unity was defined by N.Yu. Shvedova as "an exchange of two statements, of which the second one depends on the first one, is "generated" by needles and directly reflects this dependence in its linguistic form" /1Pvedova, 1960:280/.
The concept of dialogic unity has become firmly established in linguistic the theory of dialogue, a number of works are devoted to it / Svyatogor, 1960a; Markina, 1973a; Alimuradov, 1981 etc./. The possibility of isolating such a syntactic-communicative unit follows from the experience linguistic analysis of dialogic speech in both Russian and other languages.
The greatest illumination in linguistic literature received dialogic units, consisting of two components: question-answer units and units based on lexical repetition and pickup. However, upon closer examination, it turns out that a number of speech complexes cannot be reduced to two-component dialogic unities. For example, the following complex dialogical unity cannot be represented as a simple juxtaposition of binomial unities:
Pamela. What games did you play in Germany?
walter. I - I used to walk.
Pamela. You mean on hiking parties, all dressed up in those leather shorts?
walter. no. By myself. I liked it better. (Drama, p. 99) All replicas of this complex dialogic unity are connected with the initial replica by means of zero forms, implication, pronominalization, etc.; they are all built around a single semantic center "games
Complex dialogic unity with one-sided organization is a special type of complex dialogic unity. Therefore, considering in the introduction the problem of highlighting a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization as a unit of text, we are talking about a complex dialogic unity in general, since all types of complex dialogic unity will obey general patterns construction and functioning of this significant unit of language.
When defining a complex dialogic unity, we follow the position proposed by O.I. Moskalskaya that "the division of a detailed dialogue-conversation into dialogic units has, in principle, the same grounds as the division of monologue speech, namely, the simultaneous consideration of indicators of semantic / thematic /, communicative and structural integrity and, moreover, in those of its manifestations that are most characteristic of dialogic speech" / Moskal'kaya, 1981:50/.
However, it should be noted here that dialogic speech is fundamentally different from monologue in the sense that it is a speech product of more than one communicant / two or more /, and this fact leaves a certain imprint on the nature of the use of language means in dialogue. Dialogue is characterized by reciprocal connections, while monologue is connecting. In addition, the dialogue is characterized by the use of special forms of communicative attitudes that serve language dialogical communication /Bloch, 19736: 198/. Thus, being distributed between two or more communicants, the topic of dialogue differs sharply from the topic of a monologue statement. The theme of the dialogue has great dynamism, activity, while the monologic statement is more complete, closed semantically /Gelhardt, 1971:145/.
Traditionally, it is customary to consider any segment of dialogic speech as consisting of a certain number of replicas. The latter are defined as segments of the dialogue from the beginning of the speech of one partner to the change of the speaker / Trofimova, 1964: 4; Vinokur G.O., 1948:35/. However, such a division does not allow us to see the true picture of the linguistic organization of dialogic speech.
Dialogue as a language category is an exchange of such statements that are naturally generated by one another in the process of conversation. This interconnectedness of statements in dialogue is always a semantic and communicative interconnectedness; within the limits of this micro-theme, it is fixed by means of linguistic supra-propositional connections. Some replicas are in such a close relationship with the replicas surrounding them that, in isolation from the environment, they lose their independence as communicative units. "The linguistic boundaries between such replicas are largely erased, the statements belonging to different participants in the conversation are so closely connected and structurally interdependent here that they cannot be considered otherwise than as a special communicative and structural-grammatical association, which is called. Dialogic unity" / Svyatogor , 1960a:3/.
Most linguists, when defining dialogic unity, indicate the grammatical /structural/ and communicative interconnectedness of the components as the main criterion /1Pvedova, I960; Glagolev, 1969; Svyatogor, 1960a/. However, a number of works convincingly show that the semantic aspect is inseparable from the utterance and that it must be taken into account when determining the dialogic unity /Penysova, 19726; Teshshtskaya, 1975/.
According to K. Marx, "a form is devoid of any value if it is not a form of content" /Marx and Engels, 1955:159, v.1/. So, if there is some content / semantics /, then it must be designed in a certain way, i.e. should have its own form - grammar. That is why we are studying dialogic unity along the path of revealing certain patterns of reflection in linguistic forms of some semantics of this dialogic unity. Naturally, the semantic-thematic integrity of unity will always be expressed syntactic or lexical indicators of the connectedness of the components of this unity.
The dialectical unity of content and form presupposes the leading role of content in relation to form. Therefore, when defining a complex dialogic unity, we will use the semantic-thematic integrity of unity as the main criterion, and we will conduct research from establishing the generality of the topic to identifying grammatical means of expressing this generality.^/
Connectivity is one of the main features of text units - superphrasal units and dialogic units. Connectivity follows from the unity of the theme. Connected can be considered "such a segment of the text that contains the information contained in the previous components of the text" /Brchakova, 1979:250/.
Taking semantic coherence, determined primarily by the unity of the topic, as one of the main selection criteria! complex dialogic unity, we come to the conclusion that each complex dialogic unity is characterized by the presence of some semantic center around which this unity is built. M.Ya.Blokh notes that the general idea of the sequence of sentences that form the text implies the presence of a single informative goal of the components of this coherent semantic complex, or a clearly defined thematic segment of speech. "Only in this sense, the text can be considered as a linguistic element with two characteristic features for it: firstly, semantic / thematic / integrity; secondly, semantic-syntaxic coherence" / Bloch, 1983a: 363 /.
A complex dialogic unity can be roughly defined as a structural-semantic unit of a dialogic text, consisting of three or more components / counter statements of different participants in the dialogue / adjacent to a single semantic center and interdependent semantically, structurally and communicatively. J
The semantic center of a complex dialogic unity can be found with the help of a descriptor analysis of the components of the unity. A descriptor is a "sign for expressing a concept that is of the greatest importance for revealing the essence of the described phenomenon, its scientific interpretation and classification" /Akhmanova, Nikitina, 1965:112/, or "the name of a class of words of conditional equivalence" /Pevzner, 1976:7/. The descriptors included in the semantic center of a complex dialogic unity are present in each component of this unity either explicitly or implicitly.
Thus, a complex dialogic unity is singled out by us in the flow of dialogic speech according to the principle of semantic connectedness of the components that form its internal structure and are connected according to certain grammatical rules. All these components are grouped around the semantic core of unity, which can be identified by descriptor analysis.
One of the central questions of the theory of dialogical unity is the question of its boundaries and boundary signals. We will attempt to address this issue with descriptor analysis. Descriptor analysis of a coherent monologue text was first carried out by N.I. Serkova /Serkova, 1968/. The emotional aspect of dialogic unities was studied using the method of descriptors in N.Yudina's Ph.D. thesis /Yudina, 1973/. A general descriptor analysis of the components of complex dialogic units has not yet been carried out.
We distinguish two main groups of descriptors - nomenclatural and relative. The former name / designate / "an object, a property, a process "statically", as an abstract given" /Akhmanova, Nikitina, 1965:112/. The latter serve to transmit relative
10 information, since "a descriptor language must have not only a "nomenclature", but also a "grammar", that is, a set of indicators of the links of units in the text and their functions in it" / Akhmanova, Nikitina, 1965: 114 /.
As noted above, a complex dialogic unity is built around a single semantic center. We will call the descriptors included in the semantic center of a complex dialogic unity the main nomenclatural descriptors. The change in the main nomenclature descriptor signals the boundary of a complex dialogic unity. Relative descriptors cannot act as the main ones, since the theme of unity is set by means of a nominative nature. Relative information acts as secondary in relation to nominative information.
Consider these positions on specific example. For analysis, we use an excerpt from G. Pinter's play "The Birthday Party":
Stanley. What "s it out like today? Petey. Very nice. Stanley. Warm?
Petey. Well, there's a good breeze blowing. Stanley. Cold? -Petey. No, no. I wouldn't say it was cold. [-Meg. What are the cornflakes Stan? Stanley. Horrible.
Meg. those flakes? Those lovely flakes? You "re a liar, a little liar. They are refreshing. It says so. For people when they get up late.
Stanley. The milk "s off. Meg. It" s not. Petey ate his, didn't you, Petey? Petey. That's right. L Meg. There you are then.
Stanley. All right, I "ll go on to the second course. Meg. He hasn" t finished the first course and he wants to go on to the second course! 4 Stanley. I feel like something cooked.
Meg. Well, I "m not going to give it to you. Petey. Give it to him. ^Meg. I"m not going to. (Party, p. 15)
This segment of the dialogue is divided into four complex dialogic units, distinguished according to the principle of thematic connection of components. The main nomenclatural descriptors for units will be, in sequence: it / indefinite personal pronoun with the meaning "state of the atmosphere" in constructions like It is warm. /, cornflakes, milk, second course.
The change in the main nomenclature descriptor signals the boundary of a complex dialogic unity. For example, components No, no. I wouldn't say it was cold. - What are the cornflakes like, Stan? contain different basic nomenclature descriptors and therefore refer to different dialogic units /it - cornflakes/.
The main nomenclature descriptor of the third complex dialogic unity is noun milk , the content of which is represented by a number of options milk - it - his - 0. The main nomenclature descriptor milk is necessarily included in the semantic core of the unity The milk is off.
The boundary signal of a complex dialogic unity will be the change of this basic nomenclature descriptor. Having carried out a descriptor analysis of the replicas adjacent to the given dialogical unity, we will see that they do not contain the milk descriptor either explicitly or implicitly: Those flakes? Those lovely flakes? You "re a liar, a little liar. They are refreshing. It says so. For people when they get up late. - All right, I"ll go on to the second course.
Being the "class name of words of conditional equivalence", the basic nomenclature descriptor can be expressed by the terms synonymous series or paraphrases / second course - something cooked /, substitute words or representatives/milk -it -his/, "zero" substitute /Warm? /, where the word it, which is the main nomenclature descriptor of a complex dialogic unity, is null.
The main nomenclature descriptor, which is part of the semantic /thematic/ core of a complex dialogic unity, has the broadest contextual connections within the microcontext of this unity. For example, the nomenclatural descriptor it of the first dialogic unity is present in all its components (explicitly and implicitly) and is thus contextually linked to all other descriptors of the unity.
When looking at the dialogue, it is immediately evident that the replicas have an unequal length in terms of the number of their components. Some replicas consist of a single word, others - of a sentence and even several sentences. In the case when a replica consists of two or more sentences, the question arises: What are the semantic relationships between them? Are they semantically/thematically/homogeneous or are they a simple juxtaposition of two or more semantically diverse statements?
A review of the material shows that a replica, consisting of more than one sentence, can be both one-dimensional and diverse in terms of thematic integrity. In the first case, it constitutes a cumulative /see: Bloch, 19736:211/, and in the second part it is included in different, albeit adjacent to each other, units of the supraphrasal level. For example:
Admiral. When I took my first ship to sea I used to skip rope around the quarter deck for two hours before breakfast. That "s how I got that stomach you call a beer barrel. Barrel of nails. Give it a punch. You, young girl. Try it. Go on. Don" t be shy. There. See.
It is easy to see that this replica, which includes ten sentences of different lengths, constitutes a single cumulative.
On the other hand, if the replica includes two thematically heterogeneous statements, then one sentence will refer to the previous dialogic unity, and the second to the next ^:
O "Keef. That all you got to eat. Dangerfield. Kenneth, you are welcome to whatever I possess. O" Keef. Which is nothing.
Dangerfield. I wouldn't put it that way.
I think you wear too many tight clothes in this town of temptation. O "Keef. I haven't had these clothes off for three months. etc. (Man, p. 60)
The boundary between the dialogic units in the above example runs within a two-sentence replica and is clearly defined through observation of the main nomenclatural descriptors.
If the replica consists of two cumulatives, then the boundary between the cumulatives will be the boundary of a complex dialogic unity: Jimmy. And have my enjoyment ruined by the Sunday night yobs in the front row? No, thank you. (Pause.) Did you 1 2 read Priestley's piece this week? . (Anger, p. 40) The topic of the dialogue can change not only at the junction of two replicas or within a replica consisting of more than one sentence, but also within a replica , which includes only one sentence. In such cases, the dialogic units partially overlap each other. For example:
Stanley. Anyway, this isn't my birthday. McCann. No?
Stanley. No, it's not till next month. -McCann. Not according to the lady. Stanley. Her? She's crazy. Round the bend. (Party, p.32) The above segment of the dialogue is subdivided into two complex dialogic units /the second unity is not given in full/. The Not according to the lady component is common to the two entities. The main nomenclatural descriptor of the first complex dialogic unity will be the noun birthday, and the second - lady. Both descriptors are contained in the same component Not according to the lady / birthday is implied by the context /, but their significance for neighboring dialogic units is different. This is easy to see if we consider complex dialogic units separately: in the first, the common component is final, and in the second, it is introductory.
Such a phenomenon is possible in a dialogue due to its main distinguishing feature - the two-dimensionality / or multi-dimensionality / of the communication process / the presence of more than one communicant /. The communicative significance of one or another element of the utterance can be changed by the recipient of information, who outlines a new thematic and communicative perspective within the framework of a remark that completes some dialogic unity.
The presence of a common boundary zone for two neighboring complex dialogic units can also be caused by the fact that the speaker does not react to the entire statement of the interlocutor, but only to part of it. This kind of reaction contributes to the emergence of thematic heterogeneity or "thematic swell" /Brchakova, 1979: 259/ as one of the characteristic features dialogic speech, which distinguishes it from monologue.
So, often the division into dialogic units does not coincide with the division of dialogue into replicas. In linguistic literature, replicas are divided into two large classes - monologic and dialogic. The former are defined as more complex syntactic constructions that are not designed for a direct verbal reaction of the interlocutor, covering extensive thematic content, while dialogic cues are characterized as statements directly addressed to the interlocutor and simpler in thematic composition and syntactic construction /Akhmanova, 1969:239,132/.
R.R. Gelgardt proposes to subdivide the replicas into dialogic and monological on the basis of synsemanticity / autosemanticity. The dialogical remark belongs to the synsemantic, compositionally open units, and the monologue - to autosemantic, compositionally closed units of organized speech /Gelhardt, 1971:145/.
A detailed analysis of the replicas of Russian dialogic speech in terms of their communicative orientation and syntactic structure was carried out by I.P. Svyatogor, who writes that "the replica is the main unit of the dialogue and - in most cases - integral part dialogic units and other complex speech complexes that combine several adjacent replicas or parts of these replicas" / Svyatogor, 1967: 19, our detente - S.P. /.
In connection with the problem of establishing the boundaries of a complex dialogic unity, a number of questions arise that require further clarification.
Firstly, it was noted above that dialogical replicas can consist of either one construction or several. Quite often, a dialogical cue consists of two superphrasal units separated by a cumulatively long pause and intonation. However, such a replica cannot be called a monologue, since its parts are included in neighboring dialogic units /see examples above/.
Secondly, the monologue remark in most cases is heterogeneous in its semantic-syntactic structure, part of it is part of the dialogic unity and either begins or ends it. The initial or final position of a part of a monologue in dialogic unity is due to the fact that a monologue remark is characterized by polytemy, while a change in topic is a boundary signal of a complex dialogic unity, since dialogic unity must be monotem. Therefore, only the extreme / initial or final / construction or cumulative monologue can be included in the dialogic unity.
Thus, taking into account all of the above, it becomes obvious that it is necessary to clarify such concepts as a replica and a component of dialogic unity. We conclude that the dialogue consists of the following units:
I/ independent, autosemantic replicas / monologue replicas or their parts not included in the dialogic unity /;
2/ components of dialogic units: a/ coinciding with the replica; b/ less replica.
In the conditions of oral or written communication, all statements will be divided into relatively autosemantic / monologue / and synsemantic- components of dialogic units. In what follows, we will adhere to the terms "complex dialogic unity" and "component of dialogic unity". The relation of the occursive, i.e. dialogic unity, to cumulative, i.e. component of dialogical unity, consisting of more than one sentence, is the relation of the whole to its part.
In this regard, it is necessary to establish the place of the occursive and cumulative in the hierarchy of means of expression supra-proposal areas of syntax. M.Ya. Bloch writes that "... if the cumulative includes two or more sentences combined by joining, then the occursive may consist of two or more cumulatives, since the statements of the interlocutors can be formed not only individual proposals, but also cumulative sequences of sentences" / Bloch, 1983a: 364-365 /. Therefore, the occursive as an element of the system from the point of view of the hierarchy is an element of a higher order and is above the cumulative.
As already noted, dialogic speech is fundamentally different from monologue in the sense that the semantic structure of the dialogue is the result of the speech creation of two or more individuals, and this fact gives us the opportunity to classify complex dialogic unities in terms of the nature of the participation of communicants in revealing the topic of dialogic unity.
The complex dialogic unity in this regard has not yet been studied in detail.
I. Aksenov made an attempt to classify the replicas of the drama depending on the nature of the information they convey or, more precisely, on the nature of participation in the development of the theme of the dialogue /Aksenov, 1934: 21-29/. However, the criteria for dividing replicas into certain groups were not developed by the author clearly enough, and the classification itself was more of literary criticism than linguistic character.
In some works on the dialogue, it is noted that the replicas may be heterogeneous in their thematic significance / see: Vinokur T.G., 1955; Sedov, 1961/, however, the authors consider the replicas in isolation, outside of dialogic unity, which did not allow them to more clearly see their diversity in terms of their contribution to the formation of the semantic-thematic structure of unity.
A number of valuable observations on the features of dialogic units, which differ in the degree of activity of one or another speaker, were made by G.A. Penkova / 1972a; 19726/ on the material of modern French.
R. Posner / Posner, 1972 / distinguishes one-way dialogue, active dialogue, reactive dialogue and direct dialogue based on the type of commenting in the subsequent remark. The author understands the dialogue in broad sense of this term as a speech aimed at the perception by the recipient, and therefore refers to one-sided dialogue such types of speech as a sermon, lecture, etc. However, according to the fair remark of G. Helbig, the sign of being intended for perception by a partner cannot contribute to the identification of a monologue text and dialogue, since any text is ultimately intended for someone to perceive / see: Helbig, 1975:67 /.
Thus, the analysis of the semantic structure of the dialogue shows that speakers can make different contributions to the development of the theme of dialogic unity. Understanding dialogic unity as a linguistic unit with semantic / thematic integrity and semantic-syntactic coherence leads us to the need to study, firstly, the means of forming such integrity and coherence and, secondly, determining the contribution of the statements of different communicants to the development of the theme of this unity.
According to the principle of what contribution to the development of the theme and the establishment of the semantic coherence of unity is made by components belonging to different participants in the dialogue, we divide all complex dialogic units into three large groups:
I. A complex dialogical unity, both /all/ of which communicants actively participate in the disclosure of this unity:
Kate. What about McCabe?
Anna. Do you really want to see anyone?
Kate. I don't think I like McCabe.
Kate. He "s strange. He says some very strange things to me.
Anna. What things?
Kate. Oh, all sorts of funny things.
Anna. I "ve never liked him. (Drama, p. 37 * 1)
2. A complex dialogic unity, the theme of which is developed in the components of only one communicant:
Arthur. I remember working here with you.
Arthur. Stocking. harvesting. Days of yore.
Jenny. Yes. (Farm, p. 48)
3. Quasi-dialogue - a complete discrepancy between the thematic plans of the communicants:
Sophie. Why won't he let me go?
Toby. Whiskey? Have a whisky.
Sophie. It's just as awful for him.
Toby. Do have a whisky.
Sophie. But he can't let me go.
Toby. I "m going to have one.
Sophie. And I can't get away - can't get away anywhere.
No refuge. no peace.
Toby. Come and watch the children.
Sophie. There may be a way to escape, but I can't see it.
Toby. Are you all right?
Sophie. I can't see anything. (Dance, p. 32)
Of particular interest is the complex dialogic unity of the second type - a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization.
The theme of the reduced one-sided unity of working develops only in Arthur's remarks. The main nomenclature descriptor, represented by the working, stooking, harvesting options, is contained in unity components belonging to only one communicant. Jenny's utterances do not participate in the thematic development of dialogic unity. However, they are included in the general semantics of a complex dialogic unity. The second and fourth components of unity have a retrospective communicative orientation and express the attitude of the listener to the information received.
The theme of dialogic unity with a one-sided organization will always develop only in the components of the first communicant, since statements that are irrelevant for the thematic deployment of unity cannot act as introductory statements. They can only follow.
The speech activity of the second communicant can perform various functions: signaling the presence of contact, expressing agreement / disagreement, surprise, anger, pain, etc., asking again for various purposes, expressing a subjective assessment of what was heard, prompting to continue the conversation, changing the communicative perspective of the dialogue, etc. .d. All of these features are non-thematic, i.e. such statements practically do not participate in the development of the topic in the sense of communicating new intellectual information.
If, for research purposes, we isolate the components of one-sided dialogic unity belonging to one communicant in the order in which they are given in the unity, then we will see that one group of components will constitute a coherent monologue statement in which the theme of unity develops. The other group of components does not form such a unity. It will be only a set of units necessary for the formation of a structure of a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization, practically not participating in the thematic development of unity.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that a one-sided dialogical unity is in no way different from a monological utterance, except for the distant arrangement of its parts. All components are included in the semantic structure of unity, although in varying degrees participate in the development of his theme.
Thus, the analysis of a complex dialogic unity from the point of view of the contribution of communicants to the formation and development of its thematic integrity allows us to single out a one-sided dialogue as a special type of dialogic text, the theme of which develops in the components of only one speaker. We call this type of text a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization.
The subject of this dissertation research is a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization in modern English. The relevance of the chosen topic stems from the fact that, despite the rather extensive literature on the theory of dialogue / for a review of the works of Soviet linguists on the study of dialogue, see the book: Valyusinekaya, 1979 /, a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization has not yet been studied enough. In fact, it still remains undefined either from the side of the structure /number of components, the form of their connection, etc./, or from the side of semantics /character semantic relations between components, content-thematic integrity or disunity of the whole unity /. The study of connectivity within the framework of a complex dialogic unity is carried out from the standpoint of the theory paradigmatic syntax developed in the works of M.Ya. Eloha.
The purpose of the study is to reveal certain patterns of reflection in linguistic forms of the semantics of a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization, which is due to the thematic integrity and semantic syntactic coherence of its components.
Achieving this goal necessitated the solution of the following specific tasks:
I/ Establish features of the structure of the components of unilateral unities;
2/ to explore the characteristic features of various compositional and speech forms of complex dialogic units with a one-sided organization;
3/ to identify the means of communication between the components of one-sided dialogic unities.
The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that the material of the modern English language for the first time shows the possibility of highlighting a number of compositional and speech forms of one-way dialogue as communicative and semantic types of text. The study of connectedness in unities has shown that a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization is characterized by the presence of connectedness both between contact and distantly located components. Distant links cover only thematic components. In the course of the study, it was revealed that contact connections are of a reciprocal nature, and distant ones are connected. Opening of counter and connecting intercomponent connections in the semantic-syntactic structure of unity led to the conclusion that a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization is a transitional type of text from dialogue to monologue.
The theoretical significance of the presented work is determined by the application of the theory of paradigmatic syntax to clarify the position of dialogic unity in the hierarchy of meaningful units of the language as a system. This approach made it possible to carry out a consistent analysis of the categories of semantic-syntactic coherence and thematic integrity of a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization.
The practical significance of the dissertation lies in the fact that the solution of theoretical issues related to the study of complex dialogic units has a wide outlet in the practice of teaching a foreign language in secondary and higher schools. The materials and conclusions of the study can be used in teaching courses of theoretical and practical grammar, stylistics of the English language, as well as when reading special courses on the theory and interpretation of the text, when writing term papers and student theses.
The material of the study was the plays of contemporary British and American authors with a total volume of about 18 thousand pages. 1100 examples of complex dialogic units with one-sided organization were drawn and analyzed from the textual material using the method of continuous sampling.
The dissertation uses a comprehensive research methodology, including contextual, descriptor and transformation analysis.
The work was tested at the scientific conference of young scientists "Linguistic status of colloquial speech and methods of its teaching" at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages named after M. Torez on May 17, 1984. The dissertation materials are used in the course of lectures on the theoretical grammar of the English language and a special course on text linguistics at the Faculty of English of the Moscow State University. Pedagogical Institute named after V.I. Lenin.
1. A complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization. - The manuscript was deposited in the INION of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, No. 16684. New Soviet literature on the social sciences. Linguistics, M., 1984, No. 10. - 56 p.
2. Complex dialogic unity. - In the book: functional aspects of words and sentences. - M.: MGSH im. V.I. Lenin, 1985.
The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and a list of references.
Dissertation conclusion on the topic "Germanic languages", Polyakov, Sergey Mikhailovich
144 - CONCLUSIONS
1. An analysis of intercomponent connections in a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization showed that they are divided, first of all, into two large headings: contact and distant. The first group is represented by counter connections, and the second - connecting.
2. Contact intercomponent connections are subdivided by us into correlative and introductive, the latter are considered a kind of conjunction connections.
Of all the varieties of correlative contact connections most widespread in a one-way dialogue, functional, recurrent, reductive, and appellative connections are obtained. Substitutional and representative communication is limited in one-sided unities as a means of forming a contact connection.
3. The most common type of contact in the unities of the type under study is functional-correlative. This connection is based on the principle of communicative insufficiency of the subsequent statement, due to which it can only act as a reacting one. These are sentence words Tes, No; interjection statements; modal sentence words and responses for standard situations communication. All of the above statements are highly synsemantics.
4. Recurrent communication based on lexico-syntactic parallelism, reduction and appellative relations reflect the main trends of dialogic speech: simultaneous participation of two or more speakers in a speech act, the desire to save language resources and the focus of speech on the interlocutor.
5. The actual conjunction / allied / connection is not used to combine the contact located components of one-sided unities. It appears here in its dialogic variety - in the form of an articulation of text elements by means of introductors. The introducing particles of the interjection character Oh, Ah, Why, etc. function as introductors; the input particle Well; set phrases All right; As a matter of fact, etc. 6. Distant intercomponent connections are established between the thematic components of complex dialogic unities with a one-sided organization. Distant connections reveal a number of differences from contact ones. Firstly, distant connections can be not only retrospective, but also prospective and mutual /retrospective-prospective/. Secondly, conjunctional connections are represented by both allied and introductory types. Thirdly, there is a redistribution in terms of significance and nomenclature of certain types of correlative connection.
7. Distant correlative connection is represented by substitutional, representative, substitutional-representative, recurrent and associative varieties. All of them are quite widespread in a one-way dialogue. Unlike contact connections, distant ones do not use functional and appellative connections, while substitution and representation are widely used here.
8. Differences between contact /counter/ and distant /connection/ connections in a one-way dialogue are due to fundamental differences in the semantics of thematic and non-thematic components. If in the first case the combined components differ sharply in their content, the thematic ones contain
146 all intellectual information on the topic, and non-thematic ones represent all kinds of modal and communicative reactions to what was said - then in the second articulation semantically homogeneous components are subject to.
9. As you know, reciprocal connections are characteristic of dialogic speech, and connecting- for monologue. A complex dialogical unity with a one-sided organization is characterized by both. This allows us to conclude that one-way dialogue occupies an intermediate place between the actual dialogue and the monologue. The transitional nature of a one-sided dialogue is fixed in the system of overphrasal connections of its components.
CONCLUSION
The subject of this dissertation work was a complex dialogical unity with a one-sided organization. The study of one-way dialogue is carried out from the standpoint of the theory paradigmatic syntax developed in the works of M.Ya.Eloha. According to this theory, the linguistic semantics of super-prepositional feminine connections in the text is interpreted as syntactic, since when displaying all kinds of relationships between situations, some typical, constantly repeating semantics is expressed, transmitted by special, specialized language forms.
The dialectical unity of content and form presupposes the leading role of content in relation to form. Therefore, when defining a complex dialogic unity, we use the semantic-thematic integrity of unity as the main criterion, and we conduct research from establishing the generality of the topic to identifying the grammatical means of expressing this generality.
A complex dialogic unity is defined by us as a structural-semantic unit of a dialogic text, consisting of three or more components / counter statements of different participants in the dialogue / adjacent to a single semantic center and interdependent semantically, structurally and communicatively.
The semantic center of a complex dialogic unity is revealed through descriptive analysis of its components. The descriptors included in the semantic center of a complex dialogic unity are called by us the main nomenclature descriptor-rushes. The change in the main nomenclature descriptor signals the boundary of a complex dialogic unity.
A descriptive analysis of dialogic replicas consisting of more than one sentence showed that if a replica consists of two sentences, then one sentence can refer to the previous dialogic unity, and the second to the next one. If the cutter consists of two superphrasal units, then the boundary between the niches will also be the boundary of a complex dialogic unity. Part of a monologue in a number of cases can be included in a complex dialogic unity and either begin or end it.
So, often the division into dialogic units does not coincide with the division of dialogue into replicas. In this regard, there is a need to clarify the concepts of "replica" and "component of dialogic unity." We conclude that the dialogue consists of the following units:
I/ independent, autosemantic replicas / monologue replicas or parts thereof not included in dialogic units / "";
2/ components of dialogic units: a/ coinciding with the replica; b/ less replica.
In terms of oral or written communication, all statements are divided by us into relatively autosemantic / monologue / and synsemantic- components of dialogic units. In this paper, we adhere to the terms "complex dialogic unity" and "component of dialogic unity". The relation of the dialogic unity to its component, which constitutes the supraphrasal unity, is the relation of the whole to its part.
The semantic structure of the dialogue is the result of the speech-creativity of two or more individuals, and this fact gives us the opportunity to classify complex dialogic units in terms of the nature of the participation of communicants in revealing the topic of dialogic unity.
According to the principle of what contribution to the development of the theme and the establishment) of the semantic coherence of unity is made by components belonging to different participants in the dialogue, we divide all complex dialogic units into three large groups: ; complex dialogic unity, the theme of which develops in the components of only one communicant; quasi-dialogue - a complete discrepancy between the thematic plans of the communicants.
Unity of the second type, a complex dialogical unity with a one-sided organization, has undergone a special study in this work.
The components of complex dialogic units with one-sided organization fall into two groups with pronounced distinctive features. The first group includes thematic components in which the theme of unity is developed; to the second - non-thematic components of a reactive nature. Differences: the components of these two groups in terms of content cause significant differences in terms of expression - in their grammatical structure.
Thus, the components of the first group have a relatively simple grammatical composition compared to monologue speech - no more than five constructions in 98.5 $ cases, however, for dialogic speech, the constructions included in them have a relatively large volume in terms of the number of components and their length. This is due to their thematic nature.
The second group of components is represented by utterances of a reactive character. They practically do not participate in the development of the theme of unity. Features of the transmitted meaningful information leave their mark on the structure of these components: 89$ of examples fall on components consisting of one structure, 9.5$ - of two and 1.5$ - of three structures. More than three components of ours are not registered.
Isolation of a complex dialogic unity creates the prerequisites for studying the composition and semantics of segments of thematic connection. Parts of the text, characterized by semantic-thematic integrity and built along different lines of syntactic coherence, are called compositional-speech forms in stylistics. Based on the analysis of the linguistic material, we have identified six pure compositional-speech forms of one-sided dialogue and one with mixed communicative attitudes of the com-shshents included in it.
Four compositional-speech forms of one-sided dialogue are built on the basis of declarative sentence. These are dialogue-narrative, dialogue-description, dialogue-explanation and dialogue-notification.
We define dialogue-narrative as a compositional-speech form of a dialogic text, the transition from one thematic element of which to another is determined by temporal features. Verbal characteristics play a paramount role in this type of text, therefore sentences of the verb type predominate in the narrative dialogue.
The rheme highlighting function of the narrative is manifested in the fact that the predicative element /often the verb-predicate itself/ is necessarily included in the communicative and semantic center of the utterance.
A dialogue-description can be defined as a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization, aimed at a more or less complete depiction of different aspects of one object, phenomenon, process. The description reveals the qualitative aspects of the referent.
The rheme highlighting function of the description as a compositional speech form is manifested in the fact that in most cases the predicate is included in the communicative and semantic center of the utterance, leaving the verbal element outside the rheme. The description dialogue is characterized by a high percentage of sentences with a compound nominal predicate.
We define dialogue-explanation as a special kind of dialogic text, each thematic component of which either follows from the previous one or causes the next one, establishing the cause, meaning, regularity of the statements of the entire unity. The compositional elements of the dialogue-explanation are in a causal relationship with each other.
A dialogue-notification is defined by us as a compositional-speech form of a dialogical text, the purpose of which is to report on any event, phenomenon or process, without dwelling on its characteristics. This is one statement, divided by the partner's remark or represented by two transformations of the same sentence.
The motivational dialogue is built on the basis of incentive constructions. These include a purely imperative sentence and transitive! types: narrative-incentive and interrogative-incentive.
In the semantic field "inducement" there is a triple gradual opposition: request - instruction - order, the members of which are opposed on the basis of the degree of imperativeness of the statement. The smallest degree of imperativeness is contained in the request and the highest - in the order. Accordingly, such a segmentation distinguishes a dialogue-request, a dialogue-instruction and a dialogue-order.
We single out a special type of complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization, including an interrogative construction in the beginning, the communicative task of which is either not realized at all, or is realized in thematic components - the speaker answers himself. The degree of semantic completeness of such unity depends on the nature supra-proposal connections between its components.
In the real conditions of live communication, the compositional and speech forms of dialogue that we have identified are often combined within the framework of one unity. Such unities are called by us mixed. The semantic structure of this type of dialogue reflects the natural dynamics human thought and perception of reality in all its diversity.
An analysis of intercomponent connections in a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization, carried out from the standpoint of the theory of paradigmatic syntax, showed that they are divided, first of all, into two large headings: contact and distant. The first group is represented by counter connections, and the second - by connecting ones.
Contact links operate between semantically heterogeneous components - thematic and non-thematic- which determined their characteristic features. First, contact links have only a retrospective orientation; secondly, correlative connections are most widespread here, namely, functional, recurrent, reduction and appellative. Substitution and representation are rather limited, in contrast to monologue sequences. The conjunction connection in its pure form is not found here, it appears in its dialogic variety - as introductive.
The most common type of contact communication is functional-correlative, based on the principle of communicative insufficiency of the subsequent statement.
Distant connections are established between the thematic components of unilateral unities. Unlike contact relationships, they can be not only retrospective, but also prospective and mutual /retrospective-prospective/.
Distant correlative connection is represented by substitutional, representative, substitutional-representative, recurrent and associative varieties. Substitution and representation are widely used here.
Conjunctive distant connection acts both in its pure form and in the form of introductive connection.
Differences between contact / counter / and distant / connecting/ connections in a one-way dialogue are due to fundamental differences in the semantics of thematic and non-thematic components. If in the first case the combined components differ sharply in their content - the thematic ones contain all the intellectual information on the topic, and the non-thematic ones represent all kinds of modal and communicative reactions to what has been said - then in the second case, semantically homogeneous components are subject to articulation.
As you know, reciprocal connections are characteristic of dialogic speech, and connecting connections are characteristic of monologue. complex dialogue
A logical unity with a unilateral organization is equally characteristic of both. This allows us to conclude that the one-sided dialogue occupies an intermediate place between the actual dialogue and the monologue. The transitional nature of a one-sided dialogue is fixed in the system of overphrasal connections of its components.
Thus, the analysis of a complex dialogic unity with a one-sided organization from the standpoint of the theory of paradigmatic syntax made it possible to study the semantic-syntactic coherence in unity as a reflection of its internal organization, determined by thematic integrity.
List of references for dissertation research candidate of philological sciences Polyakov, Sergey Mikhailovich, 1985
1. K. Marx and F. Engels. Works, ed. 2: in 30 volumes - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1955.
2. Abramov B.A. Text as a closed system of linguistic means. In: Text Linguistics. Materials of scientific conference. Moscow: MGPII them. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 3-4.
3. Abramovich A.V. Features of the structure of the description and its compositional role in the genres of journalism. In: Questions of Stylistics. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1966, p. 202 - 214.
4. Aksenov I. The language of Soviet dramaturgy. Theater and Dramaturgy, 1934, No. 6, p. 21-29.
5. Alimuradov A.R. Semantic and compositional structure of modern English dialogue as a communicative form of text: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Pyatigorsk, 1981. - 201 sheets.
6. Antipova E.Ya. Verb substitution in modern English. Bulletin of Leningrad State University, 1962, no. 2, no. I, p. 137 - 149.
7. Arinshtein V.M. 0 structural conditionality of super-phrasal unities. In: Problems of General Linguistics and English Philology. Scientists app. Kalinin: KSPI im. M.I. Kalinina, 1969, v. 64, issue. I, part I, p. 103 - 142.
8. Arnautova A.G. Complex syntactic unities. In: Grammar and lexico-semantic studies in synchrony and diachrony. Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1974, p. 171 186.
9. Arnold I.V. Implication as a technique for constructing a text and a subject philological study. Questions of linguistics, 1982, no. 4, p. 83 - 91.
10. Arutyunova N.D. Some types of dialogical reactions and "why" remarks in Russian. Scientific reports of higher school. Philological Sciences, 1970, No. 3, p. 44 - 58.
11. Arutyunova N.D. The concept of presupposition in linguistics. - Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Literature and Language Series, 1973, vol. XXXII, no. I, p. 84 90.
12. Arutyunova N.D. The sentence and its meaning: Author. diss. . Doctor of Philology Sciences. M., 1975. - 45 p.
13. Afanasiev P.A. The expression of confirmation and denial in response remarks in modern English language: Abstract. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1966. - 30 p.
14. Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1966. - 608 p.
15. Akhmanova O.S., Nikitina S.E. 0 some linguistic questions of writing descriptor languages. Questions of linguistics, 1965, No. 6, p. Ill-115.
16. Bakareva A.P. On the question of sentence structure as a means of communication between sentences in superphrasal unity. - 13 books: Issues of the grammar of Germanic languages. Collection of scientific papers. Moscow: MGPII them. M. Torez, 1980, no. 161, p. 181 192.
17. Bakun V.M. Isolation of the communicative center in the dialogic unity. In: Questions of the Syntax of the Russian Language. Scientific notes. Ryazan: Ryazan state. ped. in-t, 1975, no. 2, p. 60 - 68. - a.
18. Bakun V.M. "Binding" of valence to the question of studying the structural interaction of replicas of dialogic unity. - In the book: Questions of the Syntax of the Russian Language. Scientific notes. Ryazan: Ryazan state. ped. in-t, 1975, no. 3, p. 35 44. - b.
19. Barkhudarov L.S. The structure of a simple sentence in modern English. M.: Higher school, 1966. - 199 p.
20. Barkhudarov L. S. Text as a unit of language and unit of translation. In: Text Linguistics. Materials of scientific conference. M.: MGSHIA im. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 40 - 41.
21. Barkhudarov L.S. Sentence structure and text structure. In the book: Linguistic and stylistic text problems. Collection of scientific papers. M.: MGSHIA im. M. Torez, 1980, no. 158, p. 51-58.
22. Batalova T.M. Some semantic aspects of text coherence. In: Collection of scientific papers. M.: MGSHIA im. M. Torez, 1977, no. 116, p. 3 - 26.
23. Berkash G.V. Logical and grammatical nature of the question and its implementation in the question-answer structures of English dialogic speech: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1969. - 333 sheets.
24. Berkner S. S. on the interaction of replicas in English dialogic speech. In: English Philology. Scientific notes. Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk state. ped. in-t, 1959, v.15, issue 2, p.3-40.
25. Berkner S.S. Some phenomena of the interaction of replicas of English dialogic speech: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., I960. - 19 p.
26. Berkner S.S. Problems of the development of spoken English in the 19th and 20th centuries. - Voronezh: Publishing House of the Voronezh University, 1978. - 230 p.
27. Berkner S. S. To the question of the transformation of an oral-colloquial text into a written-colloquial one. In: Text Linguistics. Materials of scientific conference. Moscow: MGPII them. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 45 - 50.
28. Bloch M.Ya. The problem of syntactic connection of independent sentences. In: Problems of Syntax, Vocabulary and Methods of Teaching English. Abstracts of reports. Rostov-on-Don: Rost. n/a state un-t, 1966, p. 7 - 8.
29. Bloch M.Ya. Questions of classification of syntactic links in sequences of sentences. In: Issues of German Linguistics and Methods of Teaching Foreign Languages. - Irkutsk: Irkutsk GPIIA, 1968, vol. I, p. 66 - 73.
30. Bloch M.Ya. Dichotomy "language-speech" and the theory of transformational grammar. - In the book: Issues of English Grammar. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI igl. V.I. Lenina, 1969, No. 367, p. 17 37. - a.
31. Bloch M.Ya. Suggest to the problem of connecting connections. In: Questions of English Grammar. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1969, B 367, p. 38 - 55. - b.
32. Bloch M.Ya. On the problem of the syntax of monologue speech. In: Questions of Linguistics. Scientific notes. Tomsk: Tomsk State University. ped. in-t, 1969, no. I, No. 27/a/, p. 27 - 34. - v.-159
33. Bloch M.Ya. On the problem of syntactic paradigmatics. In: Problems of the Syntax of the English Language. Scientific notes, M.: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1970, No. 422, p. 20 - 42. - a.
34. Bloch M.Ya. Finite automaton grammar in the theory of the syntactic structure of a language. In: Problems of the Syntax of the English Language. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1970, No. 422, p. 43 - 74. - b.
35. Bloch M.Ya. Optional positions and zero forms in paradigmatic syntax. In: Problems of the Syntax of the English Language. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1970,422, p. 75 105. - c.
36. Bloch M.Ya. The Kernel Level in Paradigmatic Syntax. In: Syntactic Studies in English. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenin, 1971, No. 416, issue. I, p. 41 54, - a.
37. Bloch M.Ya. On the informative and semantic value of language elements. In: Syntactic Studies in English. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenin, 197I, Jfe 473, no. 2, p. 3 - 27. - b.
39. Bloch M.Ya. Overphrasal syntax and syntactic paradigmatics. In: Problems of Grammar and Stylistics of the English Language. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1973, p. 195 - 225. - b.
40. Bloch M.Ya. Problems of paradigmatic syntax: Diss. . Doctor of Philology Sciences. M., 1976. - 444 sheets. - a.
41. Bloch M.Ya. Questions of studying the grammatical structure of the language. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenin, 1976. - 107 p. - b.
42. Bloch M.Ya. Communicative types of sentences in terms of actual articulation. Foreign languages at school, 1976, No. 5, p. 14 - 23. - c.
43. Bloch M.Ya. Types of communication and actual division of the sentence in colloquial speech. B book: Theory and practice linguistic descriptions of spoken language. Gorky: GGSh them. M. Gorky, 1976, issue. 7, part I, p. 55-62. - G.
44. Bloch M.Ya. Predicative functions of a sentence and the concept of a syntactic paradigm. Book B: Seventh Scientific Conference on German Linguistics. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1977, p. 20 - 24.
45. Bloch M.Ya. Theoretical grammar of the English language. Y.: Higher School, 1983.-383 p. - a.
46. Bloch M.Ya. Communicative syntactic paradigmatics and the logical aspect of the utterance. In: Structure and Function of Syntactic Units in Germanic Languages. Gorky: GGPI im. M. Gorky, 1983, p. 3 - 12. - b.
47. Borisova M,B. 0 types of dialogue in Gorky's play "Enemies". - In the book: Essays on lexicology, phraseology, stylistics. Scientific notes. Leningrad: Leningrad State University im. A.A. Zhdanova, 1956, 198, series of philological sciences, no. 24, p. 96 124.
48. Brandes M.P. Syntactic semantics of the text. In: Issues of Romano-Germanic Philology. syntactic semantics.
49. Collection of scientific papers. M.: MGSHIA im. M. Torez, 1977, issue 112, p. 145 153.
50. Brandes M.P. Stylistics of the German language. M.: Higher school, 1983. - 271 p.
51. Brchakova D. On connectivity in oral communications. In the book: Syntax of the text. M.: Nauka, 1979, p. 248 - 261.
52. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Dialogic functions of some types of interrogative sentences. Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, a series of literature and language. M., 1982, vol. 41, no. 4, p. 314 - 326.
53. Weiss M.Ya. Syntactic Structures of German Dialogic Speech and Their Stylistic Use in Modern German Literature: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. -I., 1964. 24 p.
54. Valimova G.V. Complex sentence and combination of sentences. In: Theoretical Problems of the Syntax of Modern Indo-European languages. L.: Nauka, 1975, p. 183 - 190.
55. Valyusinskaya Z.V. Issues in the Study of Dialogue in the Works of Soviet Linguists. In the book: Syntax of the text. M.: Nauka, 1979, p. 299 - 313.
56. Veikhman G.A. To the question of syntactic unities. - Questions of linguistics, 1961, No. 2, p. 97 105.
57. Veikhman G.A. Syntactic unities in modern English: Diss. . cand. filial. Sciences. M., 1963. - 463 l.
58. Veikhman G.A. Structural models of spoken English. M.: International relationships, 1969. - 223 p.
59. Veikhman G.A. Higher syntactic units /on the material of modern English/: Diss. . doctor, philal. nazts. M., 1980. - 430 sheets.
60. Vinogradov V.V. 0 in the language of fiction. - M .: Goslitizdat, 1959. 652 p.
61. Vinogradov V.V. The syntactic concept of Academician L. A. Bulakhovsky. Russian language at school, 1965, No. 4, p. 79 - 83.
62. Vinogradov V.V. Russian language. M.: Higher school, 1972.- 613 p.
63. Vinokur G.I. "Woe from Fragility" as a monument of Russian artistic speech. In: Proceedings of the Department of the Russian Language. Scientific notes. M.: Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, 1948, issue. 128, p. 35-69.
64. Vinokur T.G. 0 some syntactic features, dialogic speech in modern Russian: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1953. - 16 p.
65. Vinokur T.G. 0 some syntactic features of dialogical speech. In: Studies in the grammar of the Russian literary language. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1955, p. 342 - 355.
66. Gavrilova Z.F. Structural principles monologues and their structural types in English colloquial speech. - In the book: Uchenye zapiski 1TPISh im. N.A. Dobrolyubova. Gorky, 1967, no. 34, p. 322 346.
67. Gavrilova Z.F. Some features of monologue statements in dialogic speech /on the material of the English language/: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1970. -23s.
68. Gak V.G. Russian language in the mirror of French. The structure of dialogic speech /part I/. Russian language abroad.
69. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1970, J6 3, p. 75 80.
70. Gak V.G. Russian language in the mirror of French. The structure of dialogic speech /part 2/. Yassy language abroad.
71. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1971, No. 2, p. 63 69.
72. Gak V.G. On the semantic organization of the text. In book: Lygpgaistics of the text. Materials of scientific conference. M.: MGSHIA im. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 61 - 66.
73. Gak V.G. 0 semantic organization of the narrative text. In: Text Linguistics. Collection of scientific papers. M.: Mishin im. M. Torez, 1976, IS 103, p. 5 - 14.
74. Galkina-Fedoruk E.N. On some features of the language of Gorky's early dramatic works. Bulletin of Moscow State University, series: social sciences, 1953, No. I, issue. I, p. 105 - 120.
75. Galperin I.R. Text as an object of linguistic research. M.: Nauka, 1981. - 139 p.
76. Gelhardt P.P. Discussing dialogues and monologues. /On the general theory of utterance./ In the book: Collection of reports and messages of the linguistic society. Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1971, II, no. I, p. 28-153.
77. Gindin S.I. Internal organization of the text. Elements of theory and semantic analysis: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1972. - 22 p.
78. Glagolev N.V. Language economy and linguistic redundancy in the syntax of colloquial speech: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1967. - 324 sheets.
79. Glagolev N.V. On the main types of interconnection of dialogue proposals. Foreign languages at school, 1969, No. 2, p. 18-26.
80. Gorshkova I.M. Controversial issues of text organization in Czechoslovakian linguistics. In the book: Syntax of the text. M.: Nauka, 1979, p. 341 - 358.
81. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. - M .: Nauka, 1970. 767 p.
82. Guzeeva K.A. Some cases of interaction of replicas of English dialogical speech. In: Grammar Studies. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1975, part I, p. 64 - 75.
83. Guzeeva K.A. The role of substitution in the organization dialogically?: unity. In: Theory and methods of text research. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1977, issue. I, p. 3 - II.
84. Gulnga E.V. Autosemantics and synsemantics as signs of ■ the semantic structure of a word. Scientific reports of higher school. Philological Sciences, 1967, No. 2, p. 62 - 72.
85. Dal V.I. Dictionary of the living Great Russian language: In 4 vols. M .: State. foreign publishing house and National Dictionaries, 1956.
86. Devkin V.D. Features of German colloquial speech. - M .: International relations, 1965. 318 p.
87. Devkin V.D. Echo sentences in German dialogic speech. In: Questions of German Philology. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenina, 1975, p. 153 - 163.
88. Devkin V.D. German Colloquial: Syntax and Lexicon. M.: International relations, 1979. - 254 p.
89. Devkin V.D. Dialog. German colloquial speech in comparison with Russian. M.: Higher school, 1981, - 160 p.
90. Dmitrieva V.T. Some syntactic features of German dialogical speech. In: Issues of Syntax and Stylistics of the German Language. Scientific notes. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1963, v. 255, p. 107 - 112.
91. Dudetsky A.Ya. Some features of the recreative imagination. Questions of psychology, 1958, no. 3, p. 61 - 73.
92. Evgen'eva A.P. ed. Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes - M .: Yassky language, 1981.
93. Ezhov V.L. On the classification of reciprocal remarks in modern English dialogic speech. Gorky: GGPII them. N.A. Dobrolyubova, 1968, p. 289 291.
94. Ezhov V.L. Types of response remarks in modern English dialogic speech. In the book: 0 some problems of the theory and methods of teaching Germanic languages. Scientific notes. Sverdlovsk: Sverdlovsk State. ped. in-t, 1969, vol. 94, p. 60 - 76.
95. Zhelonkina N.P. Reactive replicas of German dialogic speech /reactions to the message and motivation/: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1980. - 16 p.
96. Zanko S.F. The main questions of the linguistic theory of dialogue: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kazan, 1971.- 19 p.
97. Zeltser V.I. Isolated parts of a complex sentence as part of replicas of a dialogical unity of a question-answer type. In: Principles and methods of lexical and grammatical research. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1972, part 2, p. 73-78.
98. Znamenskaya T.A. Structural and semantic features of a complex sentence in a dialogue /on the material of the English language/: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1980. - 191 sheets.
99. Ivanchikova E.A. Lexical repetition as an expressive method of syntactic distribution. In: Thoughts on the modern Russian language. M.: Enlightenment, 1969, p. 126 - 139.
100. Infantova G.G. Essays on the syntax of modern Russian colloquial speech. Rostov-on-Don: Rost. n/a state ped. in-t, 1973. 135 p.
101. Yotov Ts. Some structural and functional characteristics of the dialogue /on the material of the modern Russian language/: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1977. - 25 p.
102. Kozhevnikova N.A. Speech varieties of narration in Russian prose: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1973. - 27 p.
103. Konrad N.I. 0 "linguistic existence". In book: Japanese linguistic collection. M.: Publishing House of Eastern Literature, 1959, p. 5 - 16.
104. Kopnin P.V. The nature of the judgment and the form of its expression in language. In: Thinking and Language. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1957, p. 276 351.
105. Kotlyar T.R. 0 complex syntactic whole in colloquial and book-monologic speech. In: Theory and Practice of Linguistic Description of Colloquial Speech. Gorky: GGPII them. N.A. Dobrolyubova, 1968, p. 246 - 249.
106. BUT. Krylova O.A. The concept of multi-tiered actual articulation and some syntactic categories. Scientific reports of higher school. Philological Sciences, 1970, 5, p. 86-91.
107. Kryuchkov S.E. About connecting connections in modern Russian. In: Questions of Syntax of the Modern Russian Language. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1950, p. 397 - 411.
108. Kryuchkov S.E., Maksimov L.Yu. Modern Russian language. The syntax of a complex sentence. M.: Enlightenment, 1969.- 189 p.
109. FROM. Kucher A.V. On the Structure of English Dialogic Speech. - Book: Issues of Romano-Germanic and General Linguistics. Minsk: Minsk State University. ped. in-t in. yaz., 1973, p. 86 100.
110. Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. M.: Nauka, 1976. - 397 p.
111. Leonova-Eliseeva L.A. Recurrent sentences in modern English literary dialogue: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kalinin, 1969. - 25 p.
112. Leonova L.A. Register of "ready-made" sentences of modern English everyday dialogue. Kalinin: Publishing House of the Kalinin State. un-ta, 1972. - 142 p.
113. Leonova L.A., Shubin E.P. "Ready-made" sentences in modern English everyday dialogue. Foreign languages at school, 1970, th 5, p. II - 21.
114. Leontiev A.A. Signs of coherence and integrity of the text. - In the book: Linguistics of the text. Materials of scientific conference. Moscow: MGPISH igl. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 168 G72.
115. Leontiev A.A. Statement as a subject of linguistics, psycholinguistics and communication theory. In the book: Syntax of the text. M.: Nauka, 1979, p. 18 - 36.
116. Loseva L.M. The text as a single whole of a higher order and its components /complex syntactic integers/. Russian language at school, 1973, 16 I, p. 61-67.
117. Loseva L.M. 0 syntactic and semantic aspects of the study of entire texts. B book: Linguistics of the text. Materials of scientific conference. Moscow: MGSHSH im. M. Torez, 1974, part I, p. 176 184.
118. Malchevskaya L.M. Some language means of communication between sentences: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. nauk.- M., 1964. 28 p.
119. Markina L. S. Four-term DE / DE 4 / in modern English: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. nauk.- L., 1973. 16- p. - a.
120. Markina L. S. Constructive analysis of four-term dialogic unity /on the material of modern English language/. Lecture. Leningrad: LGSH them. A.I. Herzen, 1973. - 39 p. - b.
121. Maslov B.A. The problem of linguistic analysis of a coherent text /supra-phrasal level/. Textbook for special. course. - Tallinn: TSPI im. E. Vilde, 1975. 104 p.
122. Milchin A.E. Methods and techniques of text editing. - M .: Book, 1972. 320 p.
123. Mikhailov L.M. 0 some types of one-component response sentences in German dialogic speech. In: Issues of Syntax and Lexicology of the German Language. Scientific notes. M.: MGSH im. V.I. Lenina, 1964, No. 226, p. 115 - 126.
124. Mikhlina M.L. From Observations on the Syntax of Dialogic Speech: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1955.-16s.
125. Mordvinov A.B. Formation of temporal semantics in the text of reasoning. In the book: Syntax of the text. M.: Nauka, 1979, p. 214 225.
126. Moseyko A.N. Ways of expressing inferences in the language: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1955. - 15 p.
127. Moskalskaya O.I. Grammar of the text. M.: Higher school, 1981. - 183 p.
128. Moskalskaya O.I. Actual problems of text grammar. - Foreign languages at school, 1982, No. 2, p. 3-8.
129. Nevizhina Z.V. Structural and semantic organization of superphrasal units in modern English: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kyiv, 1971. - 219 sheets.
130. Nevizhina Z.V. Parcellation and types of superphrasal units. - In the book: Studies in Romance and Germanic Philology. Kyiv: Vshtsa school, 1975, p. 108 NO.
131. Nechaeva O.A. functional semantic types of speech /description, narration, reasoning/. Ulan-Ude: Buryat book publishing house, 1974. - 260 p.
132. Nozdrina L.A. Composition and grammatical means of coherence of a literary text: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1980. - 26 p.
133. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M.: Yassky language, 1981. - 816 p.
134. Paramonova I.P. Perespros in German colloquial speech. - In the book: The structure of a simple sentence in modern German. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1972, p. 67 87.
135. Pevzner BR Information retrieval systems and information retrieval languages /lecture/. M.: MTsNTI, 1976. - 49 p.
136. Penkova G.A. Two-membered and three-membered supraphrasal dialogic units /SDE/. In: Principles and methods of lexical and grammatical research. Leningrad: LGPI im. A.I. Herzen, 1972, part 2, p. 69 73. - a.
137. Penkova G.A. Dialogical units in modern French literary language: Abstract. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. JI., 1972. - 22 p. - b.
138. Pershikova V. A. Unmotivated-completely compound replicas in the structure of dialogic unity: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. L., 1982. - 211 sheets.
139. Petina S.M. Text-forming parcelling function. In: Problems of Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Germanic Languages. Stavropol: Stavropol State. ped. in-t, 1978, no. 3, p. 62 - 72.
140. Petrashevskaya Zh.E. Parceling of a simple sentence in modern English: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1974. - 25 p.
141. Pimenov A.V. Dialogue as a two-vector communication. - In the book: Proceedings of the VIIA. Foreign languages. M., 1969, No. 5, p. 244-255.
142. Ponomarchuk V.A. Types of dialogic units containing repetition. In: Problems of Interaction of Literary Trends. Dnepropetrovsk: Dnepropetrovsk state. un-t, 1975, no. 3, p. 126 - 131.
143. Popov P.S. Judgment and suggestion. In: Questions of Syntax of the Modern Russian Language. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1950, p. 5 - 35.
144. Pospelov N.S. A complex syntactic whole and features of its structure. In: Reports and messages of the Institute of the Russian language. M.-L.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1948, p. 43 - 68.
145. Pocheptsov O.G. Question presupposition. In: New trends in the study of the grammar of the Romance and Germanic languages.
146. Kyiv: Vshtsa shkola, 1981, p. 112 120.
147. Ratova T.E. O exclamatory sentences: Abstract. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Kalinin, 1973. - 27 p.
148. Referovskaya E.A. Super-phrasal unity. In: Theoretical Problems of the Syntax of Modern Indo-European Languages. L.: Nauka, 1975, p. 194 - 199.152. Russian colloquial speech. Ed. E.A. Zemskoy. M.: Nauka, 1973. - 485 p.
149. Svyatogor I.P. On some features of the syntax of dialogic speech in modern Russian /dialogical unity/. Kaluga: Book publishing house, I960. - 39 p. - a.
150. Svyatogor I.P. Repetitions as a means of syntactic connection of replicas in modern Russian. In: Russian language. Articles and research. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPI im. V.I. Lenin, I960, v. 148, no. 10, p. 257 - 281.
151. Svyatogor I.P. Types of dialogic remarks in modern Russian: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1967. 20 p.
152. Sevbo I.P. The structure of the connected text and automation of referencing. M.: Nauka, 1969. - 134 p.
153. Sedov V.V. Some Features of Dialogic Speech /Based on O.Balzac's Dramaturgy/. In: Questions of the Theory of Language. Scientific notes. Leningrad: Leningrad State University im. A.A. Edanova, 1961, issue. 56, B 283, p. 129 - 139.
154. Serkova N.I. About one method of research of superphrasal unity. In: Materials of the Interuniversity Scientific Conference on Romano-Germanic Linguistics. Pyatigorsk: Pyatigorsk state. ped. in-t in. yaz., 1967, p. 139 - 141.
155. Serkova N.I. Supra-phrasal unity as a functional-speech unit: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1968. - 16 p.
156. Serkova N.I. Supra-phrasal unity as a semantic-syntactic problem. In the book: Scientific notes of the Khabarovsk state. ped. in-ta. Khabarovsk, 1969, v. 19, p. 197 - 213.
157. Silman T.I. The structure of the paragraph and the principles of its deployment in artistic text. In: Theoretical Problems of the Syntax of Modern Indo-European Languages. L.: Nauka, 1975, p. 208 - 216.
158. Sirotinina O.B. Russian colloquial speech and its features. M.: Enlightenment, 1974. - 144 p.
159. Skrebnev Yu.M. General linguistic problems of describing the syntax of colloquial speech: Diss. . Doctor of Philology Sciences. - Gorky, 1971. 581 sheets.
161. Solganik G.Ya. About one type of connection between independent sentences. Russian language at school, 1965, No. 3, pp. 59-63.
162. Solovieva A.K. 0 some general questions of dialogue. - Questions of linguistics, 1965, No. 6, p. 103 software.
163. Sukhomlinova T.R. On the question of the recurrence of one-component sentences in modern English. In the book: Lexico-grammatical studies /Romano-Germanic languages/. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1981, p. 31 - 40.
164. Teplitskaya N.I. To the question of the actual articulation of the dialogic text. In: Issues of Romano-Germanic Philology. Collection of scientific papers. Moscow: MGPII them. M. Torez, 1974, issue. 82, p. 289 - 299.
165. Teplitskaya N.I. On the structure of the dialogic text. In: Issues of Romano-Germanic Philology. Collection of scientific papers. Moscow: MGPIYA im. M. Torez, 1975, issue. 84, p. 314 - 330.
166. Todorov Tsv. Grammar of a narrative text. In: New in foreign linguistics. M.: Progress, 1978, issue 8, p. 450 - 463.
167. Trofimova E.A. Techniques for expressing the relationship of replicas of dialogic speech: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. M., 1964. - 15 p.
168. Trofimova E.A. Structural features of English colloquial speech. Rostov-on-Don: Rost. n/a state ped. in-t, 1972. - 99 p.
169. Trofimova E.A. Syntactic constructions English colloquial speech. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing House of the Rostov State. unta, 1981. - 159 p.
171. Philosophical Dictionary. M.: Politizdat, 1975. - 496 p.
172. Foster Dk. Automatic parsing. M.: Mir, 1975. - 71 p.
173. Fridman L.G. On the issue of super-phrasal units /on the material of the German language/. In: Theoretical Problems of the Syntax of Modern Indo-European Languages. L.: Nauka, 1975, p. 216 221.
174. Fridman L.G. Grammatical problems of text linguistics: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . Doctor of Philology Sciences. L., 1979. - 52 p.
175. Khlebnikova Y.B. The main structural features of English dialogic speech. In: Uchenye zapiski MOPI im. N.K. Krupskaya. M., 1970, v. 268, no. 27, p. 157 - 213.
176. Khlebnikova I.B. On the problem of means of communication between sentences in the text. Foreign languages at school, 1983, No. I, p. 6 II.
178. Kholodovich A. A. 0 typology of speech. In: Historical and Philological Studies. M.: Nauka, 1967, p. 202 - 208.
179. Chuvakin A.A. 0 structural classification of incomplete sentences. Scientific reports of higher school. Philological Sciences, 1974, L 5, pp. 104 - 108.
180. Sharoiko O.I. The Structure of Dialogic Speech in Soviet Prose. Odessa: Publishing House of the Odessa State. un-ta, 1969. - 69 p. - a.
181. Sharoiko O.I. The structure of a simple sentence in dialogic speech: Diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Odessa, 1969.- 290 l, b.
182. Shvedova N.Yu. Essays on the syntax of Russian colloquial speech. M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, I960. - 377 p.
183. Shendels E.I. Polysemy and synonymy in grammar. - M .: Higher School, 1970. 204 p.
184. Schukin A.A. Text as an object of linguistic research. Bulletin of Moscow State University. Oriental studies, 1976, ge 2, p. 69 - 75.
185. Shchur G.S., Malchenko A.A. 0 connections and relationships in linguistics and one means of textual connection in modern English. In: Text Linguistics. Scientific notes. Moscow: MGPYIA im. M. Torez, 1976, issue. 103, p. 273 - 289.
186. Yudina N.E. To the question of emotional constructions as part of dialogic unities: Diss. . cand. philology ^ nauk. - M., 1973. 162 sheets.
187. Yuzovsky I.I. Maxim Gorky and his dramaturgy. Moscow: Art, 1959. - 779 p.
188. Yukht B.L. Some questions of the theory of incomplete sentences. Scientific reports of the higher school, prelogical sciences, 1962, L 2, p. 59 - 69.
189. Yukht B.L. On the syntactic nature of dialogue replicas. - Bulletin of Kharkov University, 1969, No. 42 / Foreign languages /, no. 2, p. 80 83.
190. Yakubinsky L.P. 0 dialogic speech. In the book: Russian speech. Petrograd: Phonetic. in-t practical learning languages, 1923, p. 96 - 194.
191. Yartseva V.N. Substitute words in modern English. In the book: Scientific Notes of Leningrad State University. A.A. Dtsanova, a series of philol. Sciences. L., 1949, 1U, p. 190 - 205.
192. Yashchenko L.A. Syntactic and stylistic characteristics of German dialogic speech /everyday, judicial, scientific/: Abstract of the thesis. diss. . cand. philol. Sciences. Dushanbe, 1967. - 27 p.
193. Bellert I. On a Condition of the Coherence of Texts.- Semiotica. The Hague: Mouton, 1970, v. 2, no. 4, p. 335 363.
194. Coulthard M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Ld.: Longman, 1977-195P
195 Coulthard M. Studies in Discourse Analysis. Ld.: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. - 198 p.
196 Dressier V/. Textgrammatische Invarianz in tlbersetzung-en? In: Giilich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 98 - 106.
197. E*ries Ch.C. The Structure of English. Ld.: Longmans, Green and co., 1957. - 304 p.
198. Francis W.N. The Structure of American English. N.Y.: The Roland Press Company, 1958. - 614 p.
199. Gleason H.A. Jr. Linguistics and English Grammar. -N.Y.: Holt, Reinehart and Winston, 1965. 519 p.
200. Gutwinsky V/. Cohesion in Literary Texts. A Study of Some Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. - The Hague Paris: Mouton, 1976. - 183 p.
201. Gulich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972. - 241 s.
202. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in iiiglish. Ld.: Longman, 1976. - 374 p.
203. Harnisch H., Schmidt W. Kommunikationsplane und Kommu-nikationsverfahren der rhetorischen Kommunikation. In: Rede -Gesprach - Discussion. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut, 1979, s. 36 - 47.
204. Helbig G. Zu Problemen der linguistischen Beschreibung des Dialogs im Deutchen. Deutsch als Eremdsprache. Leipzig, 1975, H. 2, s. 65 - 80.
205. Henne H., Rehbock H. Einfiihrung in die Gesprachsanaly-se. Berlin - New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. - 330 s.
206. Hinds J. Aspects of Conversational Analysis. Linguistics. The Hague - Paris: Mouton, 1975, N 149, p. 25 - 40.
207. Karlsen R. Studies in the Connection of Clauses in Current English. Zero, Ellipsis and Explicit Forms. Bergen: J. W. Eides, 1959. - 322 p.
208. Kayser W. Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. Bern: Francke, 1951. - 437 s.
209. Kummer W. Aspects of a Theory of Argumentation. In: Gulich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/J: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 25 49.214. beech G., Svartvik J. A Communicative Grammar of English. M.: Prosveshcheniye, 1983. - 304 p.
210. The Oxford English Dictionary: In 12 volumes. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1933.
211. Sandig B. Zur Differenzierung gebrauchssprachlicher Textsorten im Deutschen. In: Giilich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 113 - 124.
212. Schmidt S.J. 1st "Fiktionalitat" eine linguistische oder eine texttheoretische Kategorie? In: Giilich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 59 - 71.
213. Searle J.R. What is a Speech Act? In: Black M. - ed. Philosophy in America. Ithaca - N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press, 1965, p. 221 - 239.
214. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary: In 2 volumes. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1933.
215. Stempel W.D. Gibt es Textsorten? In: Giilich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 175 - 179.
216. Wienold G. Aufgaben der Textsortenspezifikation und Moglichkeiten der experimentellen tJberprufung. In: Giilich E., Reible W. Textsorten. Frankfurt/M: Athenaum Verlag, 1972, s. 144 154.
217. Taylor C. Bread and Butter. In: New English Dramatists, 10. Ld.: Penguin Books, 1967.- Pinter H. The Caretaker. Ld.: Methuen, 1963.- 78 p.- Williams T. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. N.Y.: New Directions, 1955. - 197 p.
218. Nichols P. Chez nous. Ld.: Faber and Faber, 1974. - 83 p.
219. Chips Weaker A. Chips with Everything. - In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. L.: Prosveshcheniye, 1970.
220. Cigar Osborne J. The End of Me Old Cigar and Jill and
221. Jack. Ld.: Faber and Faber, 1975. - 79 p.
222. City Wesker A. Their Very Own and Golden City. -Ld.:1. Cape, 1966. 92 p.
223. Confusions Ayckbourn A. Confusions. - Ld.: French, 1977"18. Cotton21. Day "s22. Death24. Dillon25. Donkey- 68 p.- Williams T. 27 Wagons Full of Cotton. In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. L .: Prosveshcheniye. 1970.
224. Dance Browne F. The Family Dance. - Ld.: French, 1976.- 60 p.
225. Desire Williams T. A Streetcar Named Desire. - N.Y.:
226. Pinter H. The Dumb Waiter. In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. L.: Prosveshcheniye, 1970. Ayckbourn A. Ernie's Incredible Illucinations.- Ld.: French, 1969. 22 p.
227. Wilde 0. Lady Windermere's Fan. In: Wilde 0. Plays. M .: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961.
228. Storey D. The Farm. Ld.: Cape, 1973. - 95 p. Bingham J. To Father with Love. - Macclesfield (Cheshire): New Playwrights" Network, 1976.- 86 p.
229. Greene G. The Ministry of Fear. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1982. - 221 p. Nichols P. Born in the Gardens. - Ld.; Faber and Faber, 1980. - 74 p.
230. Coburn D.L. The Gin Game. N.Y.: French, 1977-74 p.
231. Bagnold E. A Matter of Gravity. Ld.: Heinemann, 1978. - 103 p.
232. Ayckbourn A. Season's Greetings. Ld .: French, 1982. - 86 p.
233. Kops B. The Hamlet of Stepney Green. In: Penguin Plays. PI 50. Bristol: Penguin Books, 1964. Storey D. Home. The Changing Room. Mother "s Day. - Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978. 269 p. - Pinter H. The Homecoming. - Ld .: Methuen, 1965. 83 p.
234 Modern Theatre. L.: Prosveshcheniye, 1970.
235. Restoration Storey D. The Restoration of Arnold Middleton.- Ld.: Cape, 1967. 104 p.
236. The Root McCarthy C. The Root. - In: Playwrights for
237. Tomorrow. Vol. 12. Minneapolis: The Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1975*
238. Roots Wesker A. Roots. - In: Modern English Plays.
239. M.: Progress Publishers, 1966. 57 Samual Donleavy J.P. The Saddest Summer of Samual S.- In: Donleavy J.P. The Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974.
240. Shaw Shaw B. Pour Plays. - M.: Foreign Languages
241. Publishing House, 1952. 354 p.
242. Singular Donleavy J.P. A Singular Man. -In: Donleavy
243. Wilde 0. Plays. M.: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961.- Plays by and about Women. N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1974. - 425 p.60. Stand61. Summer62. View63" Wilson64. Woman65. Women
244. Year, 17 Plays of the Year. Vol. 17. - bd.: Elek, 1958.- 429 p.
245. York Donleavy J.P. Fairy Tales of New York. - In:
246. Donleavy J.P. The Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974.
247. Zoo Albee E. The Zoo Story. - In: Plays of the Modern Theatre. L.: Prosveshcheniye, 197o.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for review and obtained through recognition of the original texts of dissertations (OCR). In this connection, they may contain errors related to the imperfection of recognition algorithms.
There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
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 formally 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, dialogue researchers note organic connection 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 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 on language composition 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.
Least structural element 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, the main unit of the structure of the dialogue is a speech action - 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 speech material which should be taught at an early 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 remarks related to each other. 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 conversational style dialogue, 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 entering into speech 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 common theme 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 common 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 to establish and maintain 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 indeed the contact itself.
Any standardized situation of verbal communication is concretized and acquires peculiar 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 specific 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.
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 field of colloquial speech, however, dialogue is 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. 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.
Two heads and six legs; four walk, and two lie still
Self-esteem - what is it: concept, structure, types and levels
Cassandra's Path, or Pasta Adventures War on Earth and Underground