Text monologue and dialogic

A monologue (Greek monos - one and Greek logos - speech) is a form of speech (text), a detailed statement of one person.

Dialogue (Greek. Dialogos ) - a form of speech, representing the conversation of two or more persons. In the latter case, the term "polylog" is used.

A monologic text is a text submitted from the first person or a person - an observer from the outside; also text submitted on behalf of the indefinite or impersonal.

The dialogue text is usually presented as a combination of replicas belonging to different persons.

The dialogue also exists as an independent journalistic or philosophical genre (for example, Plato’s dialogues).

Actually, dialogue is the main form of speech in dramatic works, however, in principle, a monologue text (from the author) may include dialogical fragments. Dialogue interspersed as characters are often accompanied by prose texts. This is a direct use of dialogue.

Here is an example of a combination of monologue and dialogue form of speech in fiction.

Beyond the door stood Blagov. I verified his identity. Zhora let him into the store and said that in about two hours he would come to us to warm up and drink some boiling water.

“That's what, ” said Blagov. “I’m all thinking about this Sobol story.” Talented thing. It can not be gone. You know, like the old newspaper horse, I have a habit of not letting go of good stories.

- What can you do! - I replied.

- Give me a manuscript. I swear on my honor, I will not change a word in it. I will stay here because it is impossible to return home to Spar — they will certainly be undressed. And with you I will go through the manuscript.

- What does it mean to "walk"? - I asked. “Going through” means straightening.

- I told you that I will not throw out and I will not enter a single word.

- And what will you do?

- But you will see.

In the words of Blagov I felt something mysterious. Some mystery entered this winter stormy night at Alschwang's store along with this calm man. It was necessary to learn this secret, and therefore I agreed. [...]

Blagov finished work on the manuscript only in the morning. He did not show me the manuscript until we came to the editor’s office and the typist did not rewrite it completely.

I read the story and was numb. It was transparent, cast prose. Everything became convex, clear. There was no shadow left from the old crumpling and verbal disorder. In this case, not a single word was actually thrown out or added.

I looked at Blagova. He smoked a fat cigarette made of black, like tea, Kuban tobacco and grinned.

- This is a miracle! - I said. - How did you do that?

- Yes, just put all the punctuation marks correctly. At Sable with them just a uniform mess. Especially carefully I dotted. And paragraphs. This is a great thing, my dear. Pushkin also talked about punctuation marks. They exist to highlight the idea, to bring the words into the correct ratio and to give the phrase lightness and sound. Punctuation marks are like note marks. They firmly hold the text and do not allow it to crumble (K. Paustovsky. Golden Rose).

Along with this, the classical way of including dialogue in a monologue narrative, special forms of inclusion increasingly appear when the prose monologic text borrows them from another kind of literature, in particular from the drama. Such combinations of forms are found, for example, in A. Bitov, V. Makanin.

In the novel "The Garden" A. Bitov combines the forms of the prose and the dramatic. This is reflected in the fact that the dialogical speech is presented in different ways: as a change of non-initiated replicas of characters, separated from one another by a paragraph indent (as in classical prose), and as an initiated dialogue with author's remarks (as in a drama).

Wed examples:

1. And here it is already clear what the further conversation is about the meeting. Now, if he stumbles a little more in conversation and does not ask , she will ask. And if she does not stand it and asks him - she, perhaps, will say that she cannot today, she is busy. And who knows how she is busy there. And he says:

- Well, I'll come.

- No, Alesha, I'm busy today. - So he knew!

- What is it? - again the words are liquid, then solid.

- Lord, Alyosha ... Well, washing. New Year is the same ...

- So I will not bother you - just sit.

- Do not, Alyosha. And everyone will be at home today.

- I'll still come.

- And your mom ...

And now everything was clear. Of course, he will come. Although he is up to now. Session. And mom will be sure that he is leaving again. But the more Asya rests, the more truly that he will come.

2. Garden Corner of it. Bench between the barn and the garden.

She is. But this is no longer possible. Winter, you know? .. And I want it to be warm. So I can come somewhere. It is necessary. And yet, dine for money, what does mom give you for breakfast? And to wait for you in the morning, when at last I am alone: ​​will you come or will you not come? You, of course, will come ... And kiss here. And on the stairs, too, kissing ... It's cold after all. This is warm for you. I'm cold ...

Is he. Do not be so ... And you're wrong. This is so, of course ... But I love you <...>

She is. Honey, well ... you love. I forgot. Let me see you. Well, how not to love this! <...>

Further, the dialogue continues with interspersed copyright remarks (just like in a dramatic text prepared for stage performance):

She is. Honey, well, where are you going? Why, the main thing? For me? Why should I? And why, in fact, will you leave? (Laughs.) But you ... You can lead me? .. (All laughs louder and thinner.) Well, yes, to yourself. You have a separate room! Little, really ... (Loudly laughing.) You will lead me and you will say: here we decided ... (Laughs, swaying.) Imagine what her face will be like! (Laughs as she sobs, subsides.) You are silent! Why are you silent? What, you will not bring? Poor, isn't it? And then bring, eh? We will live. Separately, legally ...

Is he. Do not. Do not be so, please. You know, do not you...

She is. What do you know? What do I know! What can I not come to you? And if I want! And why is it that I can not come? P-why?

Is he. Do not be so ... You know yourself. It will not be life ...

Further, the replicas are made again with the help of paragraphs, but the remarks are kept as in drama:

“Why not life?” After all, she is smart, reserved, she won't say a word too much. Noble ... Why not life? .. (Pause.) But I sometimes dream that she was a bitch. To be fat, sloppy, unrestrained. To consider, for example, sugar ... How much easier it would be! Yes, I would be happy ... (Pause.) Good? What is it good? I know I know! But this is not good to be such a good one! Profitable! She's ... Why would I not be so? You're afraid of her! No, huh? Do not love - you are afraid. (Pause.) If I take you away! Here, after all, no more than that, if you look. You are not here. Why are you keeping silent? Are you silent what? I know you think the same way she does now. You look like. You don't know what you look like. And I know.

- I do not look like.

- And you do not hide. I'm not talking about the face. And you understood perfectly.

- Yes.

- No, you're an amazing person! It is only you who can say so "yes" ... (Laughs, as if blinking.)

Something similar is found in V. Makanin in the novel “Portrait and around”:

And my Anya shot me a look; translated into family language, the look meant the following: don't joke ... and remember - Aunt Pasha and Aunt Valya will leave, but I will stay.

Further so:

I. Does Uncle Benjamin's life know?

Aunt Pasha. He knows.

Aunt Valya. I think I know.

Anya. Do not pretend to be silly. If Uncle Benjamin did not know life, why would Aunt Pasha bring him to us?

I. How - will he come too?

Aunt Pasha. Will come.

Aunt Valya. And there is nothing to be surprised. Once we came, it means he will come.

Aunt Pasha. But not today...

I. Why not today?

Aunt Valya. Do not be afraid. He will come necessarily - will not deceive.

And then comes the usual dialogue with the standard form of the presentation of direct speech (with paragraph indentation of each replica):

Finally, putting an end to our long conversation, Aunt Pasha and Aunt Valya assured that Uncle Benjamin would save me, no matter how bad it was, he would save and bring me back to life. I said nothing. The joke about the intensive care unit could be too expensive.

- Why aren't you listening? - And Anya painfully kicked me with her foot under the table.

- I'm listening to.

“He knows a lot, he performed heroism, and was in prison, ” Aunt Pasha sighed, “but in general he works as a mechanic.

And then Anya kicked me so that I almost screamed.

- You are asked in Russian - will you write about Uncle Benjamin or will you not?

- Tale?

- Yes. Great tale.

This, it turns out, was supposed to save me. Business. A specific case that you benefit.

In open form, the dialogue can be used in popular science texts, in which for the sake of entertaining, creating some plot, the author turns to direct speech - either as a citation of someone's words, or by constructing a conditional dialogue with the reader.

For example:

When the Oklahoma state police destroyed the poppies in Miss Peoples' garden, National Geographic magazine reports, the indignant mistress exclaimed: “I have never seen anything like flower beds on my land!” Nevertheless, the police acted in strict accordance with the law - not simple flowers bloomed in the beds of MissPersons, it was an opium, or hypnotic, poppy, the breeding of which in the United States is strictly prohibited (S. Titov. Sirens singing in the brain // Science and Life. 1998. No. 10. S. 108).

In a hidden form, a dialogue can permeate a monologue text of different types: artistic, newspaper, scientific, educational.

The question of dialogue, in particular, written scientific speech was repeatedly considered in a number of publications [1].

The same can be said about the texts of newspaper genres.

Dialogue is peculiar to any scientific and popular science texts, although, of course, the dialogical forms are more densely represented in debatable, polemical texts. Explicit or hidden dialogue always accompanies the presentation of new knowledge (theory, concept), as there is a need to refute the old. In the popular scientific text, the appeal to dialogization pursues other goals related to the popularizing tasks of communication. Educational and instructional literature also refers to the forms of a peculiar dialogue, guided by their goals - didactic nature.

Of course, the forms of dialogue, used in the texts of scientific, popular science, educational, instructive, are qualitatively different from the forms of dialogue of the artistic text. As a rule, they are not peculiar to the personification of speech, as in an artistic text. Dialogue of a non-artistic text is represented by special means of expression that help the author direct his text to the reader, often these speech means serve the purpose of establishing contact with the reader, they imitate the sincerity of conversation with him, enable the author to focus the reader’s attention on important issues.

There are many means of dialogization [2]: these are question-answer complexes; various appeals to the reader; introducing him to joint reflection, action; various forms of expression of motivation; ways of expressing prescriptions, recommendations directly aimed at the reader; explications of the reader's alleged reactions to the reported by the author, etc.

Various means of dialogization are fundamentally suitable for different texts, the differences relate only in their distribution in the text, in their saturation of certain texts.

The most commonly used syntactic means of dialogization (question-answer complexes, rhetorical questions, exclamations; introductory and in-line constructions, various forms of addressing the reader), another group consists of textual means (references, footnotes, appeals to someone else's opinion).

Here are some examples:

So what are these mysterious substances, called scientists in different ways - drugs, hallucinogens, fiction, psychotomimetics, psychodisleptics (lawyers, of course, have a strict list of substances that are narcotic).

Why do not talk about them remain silent for centuries? Why are newspapers and magazines all over the world writing about drug addiction as one of the main social ills now?

It is possible to cause a violation of behavioral and mental processes with the help of a wide variety of compounds, the action of which is not necessarily directed strictly to the function of the brain. Virtually poisoning with any poison leads to some changes in consciousness, mood, ability to navigate the environment. However, psychopharmacologists pay special attention to compounds that cause changes in the mental and emotional spheres (S. Titov. Sirens singing in the brain).

Why is it that among the vast number of chemical compounds a few dozen occupy a very special position? Why is addiction to them so powerful that a person is willing to sacrifice well-being, health, even life? Why do these substances in such small doses cause such profound changes in the body? Has evolution specifically prepared biochemical and physiological processes in the body, knowing which substances will be artificially synthesized or found in exotic plants? Yes, indeed, evolution has prepared our organism, but not for these, but for completely different substances, without which our very existence is impossible. Each cell of our body is nothing but an incredible complexity chemical plant, where every second there are many syntheses and decays of numerous compounds (ibid.).

In these examples, question-answer complexes are actively used, concentrating reader's attention, the author introduces the reader to thinking, adjusts him to active perception.

Further in the text, when the communion has already taken place, the author directly addresses the reader, inviting him to the joint action:

Let us see, for example, what creates in the LSD brain. He skillfully disguised as one of the most important neurotransmitters - serotonin (ibid.).

Recall the hippie movement, one of its essential attributes was LSD. Hippies tried to isolate themselves from society, using a psychotomimetic (ibid.).

Dialogization accompanies newspaper and journalistic text even more vividly, directly. To such an activation of the literary form, the author is motivated by the very determination of the text - to influence the reader, to make him an active participant in the events described, to influence his public consciousness. All the means of dialogization mentioned here in such texts are accompanied by direct author's estimates, which, undoubtedly, influences the reader: he either agrees with the author, or mentally enters into polemics with him, refutes him. This is how the author-reader dialogue is created.

As an example, we present an article by V. Serdyuchenko from the Literary Gazette. The article is placed under the rubric “Point of View”. This alone indicates the “personality” of the opinion expressed here. And, of course, the author seeks to convince the reader of the correctness of this opinion, counts on the consent and support of the reader. To achieve this, the author needed to bring the reader as close as possible to himself, “talk to him heart-to-heart”. He does not stint on questions to the reader, but the questions themselves already contain an answer, they are meaningfully filled. But this is not enough, the author, for the sake of persuasiveness, further explains this content and gives it an estimate. Even direct appeals to the reader are spread with evaluative information (see the text: talk to any of them ...; send them ... and you will find ... ). Sometimes the author seems to flirt with the reader (see paragraph: It would seem that literature ... ) makes it possible to present a different opinion, but immediately abruptly interrupts this reflection ( Nothing like this! ). The text contains many introductory and plug-in constructions that tune the reader to the right key for the author: they are full of irony (see: While Illuminated ) or contain a clarification made by the way (see: By the way, Turgenev's glory ... ). Interesting in terms of the deployment of the author-reader dialogue and the ending of the article: the author is sure that he convinced his interlocutor of the correctness of his opinion, the dialogue led to agreement, doubts have disappeared, the reader is conquered, he is already like-minded. The author condescendingly, no longer doubting the reader’s solidarity, declares: Let us give them [modern writers] to ourselves. The literary swoon of a nation cannot last forever ...

Here is the text:

Have you noticed, reader, that descriptions of nature have completely disappeared from modern Russian literature? That is, it collapsed, one of the generic components of Russian literature ordered to live for a long time, giving a unique, inherent fragrance to it. Can today's domestic reality be so urbanized that nature has become, as it were, superfluous in the life and spiritual practice of our contemporaries? By no means. Just today, the multi-million Russian multitude goes through the field of the great Tolstoyan forgiveness, comprehends the lost wisdom of the times of Abraham and its herds. Myriads of compatriots rushed into the fields, forests and gardens in search of food for themselves and their loved ones. Talk to any of them on any topic that is arbitrarily abstract - and from the second sentence he will go to predictions for the autumn harvest, predictions of good or bad weather, will amaze you with the knowledge of the vegetation secrets of the tomato seedlings or the cabbage garden philosophy, and then shouting “I missed evening watering! ”rushes for the present while the train is still running, squeezing the beloved seedling to its chest.

Эта вынужденно-добровольная пантеизация целого поколения, его приобщение к первичным, эллинским истинам жизни представляют собою высшее, почти онтологическое достижение новых властей, о чем сами они скорее всего не подозревают. На необъятных пространствах миллионы соплеменников роют, удобряют, выращивают, высаживают ягодно-грибные десанты и, таким образом, эволюционируют к «Homo agraricus» – на фоне более общей тенденции остального человечества к «Homo industriales».

Казалось бы, литература, являющаяся, по определению старомодного Белинского, формой национального и общественного самосознания, должна бы направиться вослед.

Туда, где мой народ, к несчастью, был.

Ничего похожего! Новейшая писательская генерация двинулась в прямо противоположную сторону, сгрудившись на освещенных (пока еще освещенных) пятачках городского пространства. И добро если бы речь шла об осознанном, концептуальном урбанизме, уверенности в том, что «Записками охотника» тема «природы» окончательно изжила себя в русской литературе и ничего поучительного дать обитателю конца второго тысячелетия уже не может. Увы, дело не в природе, а в самих сочинителях.

Современный среднепишущий автор слеп, как крот, глух, как тетерев, и безводен, как пень. И, добавили бы мы, похотлив, как обезьяна, но опять-таки какой-то чернильной, гомункулообразной похотливостью. Отправьте их, подобно лермонтовскому Мцыри, в дебри и чащи языческого леса – и через неделю вы обнаружите на обочине проселочной дороги кучку зеленых от холода и голода недотеп, требующих на разные голоса, чтобы их немедленно доставили на твердь столичного асфальта, желательно в пределах Садового кольца. Таково именно население сегодняшнего Парнаса.

Западная культура с самых своих истоков была запрограммирована на городскую, «полисную» цивилизацию. Даже пантеизм одного из его главных апостолов, Жан Жака Руссо, литературен и умозрителен; по свидетельству современника, автор «Новой Элоизы» позорно путал ольху с липой. Но такова ментальностъ западного писателя. Она изначально антропоцентрична, ориентирована на окультуренную зону человеческого существования, и мы рискнем предположить, что восхищениеевропейских мэтров русской культурой было вызвано еще тем, что она путеводительствовала по миру природы с таким же воодушевлением и пристальностью, как и по миру человека. (Кстати, слава Тургенева на Западе началась именно с «Записок охотника».) Сухая, картезианская натура европейца страдала и продолжает страдать недостатком стихийного, почвенного осязания жизни – и русская литература ему эту недостаточность восполняла. Когда же на постсоветскую печатную поверхность вылезли джойсы и миллеры отечественного разлива, они оказались не нужными ни «там», ни «здесь», если не считать специфического, космополитичногоинтеллектуально-клошарного дна, присутствующего в любой цивилизации у любого народа. Это – мертвая вода искусства, и емкости ее суть гробы повапленные. Здесь свои авторитеты и идолы, мамлеевы и ерофеевы, своя, отравленная этой же водою литературная критика, «здесь птицы не поют, деревья не растут» и только слышатся завывания гипсового ветра пополам с ернической матерщиной по адресу всего, в чем Бог, природа и общество отказали этим несчастным по-своему людям.

Предоставим их самим себе. Литературный обморок нации не может длиться вечно. И потом, волею исторического случая нашими писательскими современниками оказались Владимир Набоков и Гайто Газданов – каждой их строки достаточно, чтобы восполнить зияющую пустоту, созданную сексуально-филологическими усилиями всех этих концептуалистов, метаметаморфистов, сатанистов, постмодернистов и как там еще они сами себя называют (В. Сердюченко. Мертвая вода. Лит. газ. 1997. 6 августа).

Полемически построенные тексты особенно густо пронизаны скрытой диалогизацией, переходящей в прямые вопросы и ответы:

Меня тошнит от заявленной нынешней книжной критикой сверхзадачи: как можно книжечку продать? не издать (это слишком просто), а именно продать.Впарить. Один уважаемый критик на «круглом столе» в одной уважаемой газете так и сказал: не важно, кто и что написал. Это дело десятое. Важно, как издано и продано. Цинизм? Цинизм. Но и новая литературная реальность (П. Басинский. Литературные гадания. Лит. газ. 2001. 5–11 дек.).

Так скрытый диалог «автор – читатель» может присутствовать в монологически построенном тексте, когда возникает желание и необходимость активно воздействовать на читателя. Автор словно рассчитывает на реакцию читателя, она нужна ему – и не только для того, чтобы убедить в чем-то читателя, но и для того, чтобы укрепиться самому в своем собственном мнении. Отсюда и прямые обращения и апелляция к мнению читателя.

С другой стороны, монологический и диалогический тексты могут совмещаться в рамках иных литературных форм. Например, драматургические тексты могут включать в себя монологи, которые встраиваются в систему реплик, являя собой своеобразный жанр в жанре (вспомним хотя бы монологи Чацкого в «Горе от ума»Грибоедова).

Приведенные примеры совмещения диалогического и монологического текстов в основном касаются формальных способов вкрапления диалога в монологический текст, это относится и к тем случаям, когда имеется в виду скрытый диалог, имеющий направленность от автора к читателю.

However, fiction gives examples of a particular type of dialogue, when it, the dialogue, permeates the entire text of the work as a whole, becoming a through literary technique, on the basis of which the work is built - both meaningfully and compositionally. For example, in M. Bulgakov’s novel Master and Margarita, the relationship of Yeshua (Christ) and Woland develops as the relations of opposing forces, which manifest themselves through a hidden dialogue of good and evil [3].

Both individuals privately argue with each other, despite their temporal and spatial incompatibility in the plot line of the novel [4]. Their positions are incompatible, their reactions to similar situations are opposite. Such opposition can be perceived as a kind of dialogue in the construction of the text. But this dialog is seen at a different textual level - at the level of ideological and substantive, rather than formally structural.