Category of Dialogue in the Text: Communicative and Pragmatic Aspect
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog2021.03.013Abstract
Abstract. The modern linguistic science studies text as a communicative act of interaction between the author and the recipient (Addresser↔Text↔Addressee), considering it as a mediator and at the same time as a result of language communication.
Article is devoted to the representation of dialogicity as a fundamental category of textual communicative activity of speakers, because this category for a long time has not been not distinguished comparing with other typological features of the verbal whole, as well as the description of linguistic means of its expression. The aim of the study is to describe both intratextual means of manifestation of the analyzed category at different linguistic levels (lexical, morphological, syntactic, etc.) texts of the post-totalitarian era, and ex-textual, expressed in connection with the semiotic universe of national culture, other texts).
The purpose of the work involves solving the following tasks: 1) to explore the linguistic means of expression of the category of dialogicity at the intratextual level; 2) to trace how the representation of dialogicity in intertextual relations is carried out. The object of research is the verbal goals of the post-totalitarian era (folk tales of the Holodomor in 1932-1933). The subject of research is represented by lexical units, evaluative expressions, words-concepts, metaphors, comparisons, symbols, syntactic constructions (appeals, motivations, etc.), which are the expressions of the textual category of dialogicity at different language levels.
The material for the study is the testimonies of living people about the crimes of the communist regime, collected and compiled by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory («National Book of Remembrance for the Victims of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine»). The method of study is descriptive.
Conclusion. The category of dialogicity in the texts of folk tales devoted to the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932–1933 is realized as subject-text and intertextual. The first type is described by actualization of factors of the addressee and the addresser, and the second - by categories of intertextuality and precedent. At the intertextual level the analyzed texts are connected as follows: 1) with the universe of Ukrainian culture, national codes, mythological concepts, symbols (horse, cow, grain), axiological concepts (death, us/them), precedent expressions (God save, God defend) , religious texts (prayer); 2) with the cultural-historical epoch (Stalinism, Soviet times, years of famine, era of communism, era of collectivization); 3) precedent names, proper names of historical personalities (Joseph Stalin); 4) the names of dishes prepared by peasants of plants, roots, leaves to survive (splashes, sawdust cakes, cereals, mamaliga, malai, pancakes with a mixture of pulp, herbs); 5) words and established expressions that mark the chronotope and are typical of the communist regime (blackboard, Law of Three Spikelets, detours, informers, podkulachniks, etc.); 6) Russianisms - markers of the era and foreign, aggressive culture, used with hidden irony (Stand aside! Izvestiya); 7) toponyms - places of communist crimes (Andriivka, Balky, Berestove, Vesele, Vasylivka, Verkhnia Krynytsia, Zlatopil, Verkhnia Tersa, Fedorivka, Malynivka, Mykolaiivka, Novovasylivka, etc.). Frequently used in the analyzed texts are key words-markers that reflect the era of communist terror: famine, bread, grain, collective farm, kulak, well-off, death, blackboard, Stalin, black crow, Siberia. Intratextual means of linguistic expression of the textual category of dialogicity include syntactic (insert units, which function to express the emotional assessment of the message (unfortunately, unluckily); appeals aimed at expressing the subjective and evaluative attitude to the person of the interlocutor; interrogative sentences; utterances; rhetorical questions and appeals; quotes; indirect speech; negative constructions, persuasive statements; dialogic units that are characteristic of the interview genre; inserted and interjectional constructions, contain the author's assessment of what is said in the basic sentence; exclamatory constructions); morphological (pronoun-verb forms of the 1st person singular and plural, distinctive particles focus on separate pieces of statements (namely, only), modal words (obviously, of course, may, indeed, it seems true), lexical (I think convinced, seems to like, dislike, appreciate, disapprove, love, despise, hate, respect, adore, rejoice in something).
The prospect of further research consists of the analysis of the text category "anthropocentrism" on the example of post-totalitarian texts of an extremely painful period for Ukrainian nation.
References
Batory A. Dyalohycheskaya samost': yssledovanye y prymenenye. Rekonstruktsyya sub’ektyvnoy real'nosty [The Dialogic Self: Research and Application. Reconstruction of subjective reality]. Psykholohyya y lynhvystyka. Kh.: Yzd-vo «Humanytarnyi tsentr» (O. V. Svynchenko), 2010. pp. 11-29.
Yeshchenko T. Linhvistychnyy analiz tekstu [Linguistic analysis of the text]: navch. pos. K.: Akademvydav, 2009. 264 p.
Naumenko A. M. Filolohichnyy analiz tekstu (osnovy linhvopoetyky) [Philological analysis of the text (fundamentals of linguopoetics)].Vinnytsya: Nova knyha, 2005. 416 p.
Natsional'na knyha pamʾyati zhertv Holodomoru v Ukrayini. Zaporiz'ka oblast' [National book of memorials to the victims of the Holodomor in Ukraine. Zaporizhzhia region]. Zaporizhzhya: Dyke pole, 2008. 1080 p.
Oleksiy K. B. Dialohichnist' tekstovoyi komunikatsiyi: avtor – tekst – chytach [Dialogue of the text communication: author - text - reader]. Naukovi pratsi Kam'yanets'-Podil's'koho natsional'noho universytetu imeni Ivana Ohiyenka. Filolohichni nauky. 2013. issue. 34. pp. 234-237.
Poberezs'ka H., Volynets' I. Linhvistychni osnovy dokumentoznavstva ta informatsiynoyi diyal'nosti [Linguistic fundamentals of document production and information activity]: navch. pos. K.: Znannya, 2008. 351 p.
Selivanova O. Suchasna linhvistyka: napryamy ta problem [Modern linguistics: direct problems]. Poltava: Dovkillya. K., 2008. 712 p.
Khorovets' V. S. Katehoriya «dialohichnist'» u teoretychnomu vysvitlenni [Category "dialogue" in theoretical visibility]. Visnyk Mariupol's'koho derzhavnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser.: Filolohiya. 2008. Issue 1. pp. 62-67.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).