DIALOGUE in literature - a conversation between two characters, their reproduced direct speech. When three or more people talk, this is called a polylogue, but the word “dialogue” is also understood broadly, as an exchange of verbal cues between people in general.

Dialogues are the constructive basis of drama, which, however, historically early literatures consistently endure only in comedies: tragedies in no small measure turned out to be chains of solemn monologues. Over time, the dialogue in them became more lively. This was facilitated by the displacement of tragedy by the genre of drama. On the stage, the dialogue is conditionally excluded from the dialogue, designated by the remarks "to the side", as in "The Inspector General" N.V. Gogol, or “to myself”, as in the “Forest” by A.N. Ostrovsky: the actor says what the character thinks (analogue in the movie - voice-over). Dialogue was one of the means of plot movement. At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. their role and coherent dialogicity was generally weakened: the characters of Gorky's drama At the Bottom (1902) or Chekhov's Cherry Orchard (1903) speak as if to themselves, not listening to others, often not answering them, and they do not expect an answer ... This is an exaggerated (according to the laws of theater) reproduction of the mutual alienation of people, their immersion in themselves.

In early narrative literature, dialogue was either reduced to a minimum (almost all attention was paid to events), or it tended, as in tragedy, to the combination of ritual-conditioned monologues without individualization and endowing the characters' speech with signs that would distinguish it from the author's, i.e. direct speech was actually equal to indirect speech (“he said” = “he said that ...”). The emergence of "discord" MM Bakhtin connects with ancient prose genres, and above all with the novel | 1, p. 88-144]. The individualization of the dialogue contributed to its greater dissemination. In European literatures, this process has developed over many centuries. In the 19th century, dialogue was actively used in a romantic poem: it includes scenes with the speakers' designations and remarks that fall out of the poetic size, like a drama (for example, "The Gypsies", 1824, by Pushkin). Now the monologue is being "dialogized" in a number of respects. So, the lack of an answer is motivated by the psychological state of the interlocutor. In "Eugene Onegin" there is also "complete silence, sometimes very significant: Tatiana is silent, listening to Onegin's rebuke, Onegin is also silent during her monologue, which ends Pushkin's novel ...". Most of Lermontov's poem "Mtsyri" is never an interrupted monologue of the protagonist, but he never forgets that there is a listener in front of him, and constantly addresses the old monk, mainly at the beginning of chapters: "You have come to listen to my confession / I came here, thank you" , “Old man! I have heard many times, / That you saved me from death ... "," You see on my chest / Deep claw marks ... ", etc. In realistic literature, very lengthy monologues are at least occasionally interrupted by narrative pauses and remarks from the listener (for example, in The Fate of a Man by MA Sholokhov).

In the Russian novel, beginning with Goncharov's Ordinary History (1847), dialogues are often given no less, and often much more, space than the presentation and presentation of events. According to the émigré literary critic D.P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, the social significance of Turgenev's works "is achieved by including in the novel very numerous conversations between characters on burning topics ... These conversations differ Turgenev's novels from his stories" 1. In Dostoevsky's speech, the characters' speeches are especially clearly oriented towards the interlocutor, his position, hence the numerous reservations and remarks like “I knew that you would shout ...” (Svidrigailov to Raskolnikov), “Well, so to speak, so to speak, and an example for the future - that is, do not think that I dared to teach you: after all, what kind of articles about crimes you publish! " (investigator Porfiry Petrovich - to him). Inner speech is also dialogized, i.e. the character argues with an imaginary opponent and with himself.

The newest prose can convey dialogues and polylogs in the perception or memories of the character without punctuation separation of remarks. This is a sign that the dialogue is not being reproduced literally: either the character listened to it absentmindedly, or, after a long time, forgot it. In the "Old Man" Yu.V. Trifonov, this is how the dispute between the lawyer Konstantin Ivanovich Igumnov and the revolutionary Shura, which took place at the beginning of the revolution (started with the usual remarks in quotation marks), which took place at the beginning of the revolution: “And Shura says: every person has seconds of fear that burns through and darkens his mind ... It is impossible to define everything in the world by laws and paragraphs ... No, you can. Moreover, it is necessary. This is the guarantee of the stability of the world. Do you call a rotten society a lasting peace? It rotted precisely because the laws determine little. They are too weak. Damn it, everything is falling before our eyes! This temple is crumbling, and you are talking about some laws! Only laws can save him. ” Etc.

In poetry, there are rather long “character” poems in dialogical form: “The Poet and the Crowd” by Pushkin, “The Journalist, Reader and Writer” by Lermontov, “The Poet and the Citizen” by Nekrasov. hands under a dark veil ... ") Dialogues have been practiced in lyro-epics for a long time, especially in the ballad genre (Zhukovsky's" Svetlana ").

This article answers the question: "What is dialogue and monologue?" It presents the characteristics of these two forms of speech, definitions, the varieties of each of them, punctuation and other features are given. We hope that our article will help you to understand the differences between them in as much detail as possible, to learn something new for yourself.

Dialogue: definition

Conditions for the initiation of a dialogue

For a dialogue to arise, on the one hand, an initial common base of information is needed, which the participants will share, and on the other hand, it is necessary that there is a minimum difference in the knowledge of the participants in this speech interaction. Otherwise, they will not be able to convey to each other information about the corresponding subject of speech, which means that the dialogue will be unproductive. That is, uninformativeness negatively affects the productivity of this form of speech. A similar factor can appear not only with low speech competence of the participants in the conversation, but also in the absence of their desire to start a dialogue or develop it.

A dialogue in which there is only one of the forms of speech etiquette, called etiquette forms, has a formal meaning, in other words, it is uninformative. At the same time, the participants have no need or desire to receive information, but the dialogue itself is formally generally accepted in some situations (for example, when meeting in public places):

Hello!

How are you?

OK, thanks. And you have?

Everything is fine, I work slowly.

Well, bye, happy!

An indispensable condition for the emergence of a dialogue aimed at obtaining new information is the need for communication. This factor arises as a result of a potential gap in the possession of information and knowledge between its participants.

Dialogue types

According to the tasks and goals, the roles of the interlocutors and the communication situation, the following types of dialogues are distinguished: business conversation, everyday dialogue and interview.

Distinctive features of everyday dialogue - a possible deviation from the topic, unplannedness, lack of goals and the need for any decision, a variety of topics for discussion, personal expression, widespread use of non-verbal (non-verbal) means and communication techniques,

A business conversation is communication mainly between two participants in the conversation, which is therefore largely interpersonal in nature. At the same time, various techniques and methods of verbal and non-verbal influence of the participants on each other are used. A business conversation, although it always has a specific subject, is more personally oriented (in contrast, for example, to and occurs mainly between representatives of the same company.

An interview is the communication of a press representative with someone whose personality is of public interest. Its distinctive feature is biaddressing, that is, the interviewer (the one who conducts the interview), when directly addressing the addressee, builds a special drama of the conversation, relying primarily on the peculiarities of its perception by future readers.

Punctuation marks in dialogue

Spelling of dialogues in Russian is not a difficult topic at all. If the speakers' lines start with a new paragraph, a dash is written before each of them, for example:

What is dialogue and monologue?

These are two forms of speech.

How do they differ from each other?

The number of participants.

If the replicas go by selection without indicating belonging to a particular person, each of them is drawn up in quotation marks and separated from the next with a dash. For example: "What is dialogue and monologue?" - "Forms of speech". - "Thanks for the tip!"

If the statement is followed by the words of the author, before the next of them a dash is omitted: "How are you?" Maria Petrovna asked. “Nothing, little by little,” Igor Olegovich replied.

Knowing these simple rules and applying them in practice, you can always competently draw up a dialogue.

Monologue: definition

The monologue has a relative length in time (it consists of parts of different volume, which are related in meaning and structure of statements), and is also distinguished by the diversity and richness of the vocabulary. The themes of the monologue are very different, which can spontaneously change during its development.

Types of monologue

It is customary to distinguish two main types of monologue.

1. Monologue speech, which is a process of purposeful, conscious communication and appeal to the listener, is mainly used in the oral form of book speech: scientific oral (for example, a report or educational lecture), oral public and judicial speech. The most developed was the monologue in artistic speech.

2. A monologue as a speech alone with oneself, that is, directed not to a direct listener, but to oneself. This kind of speech is called "internal monologue". It is not designed to elicit a response from this or that person.

A monologue, examples of which are numerous, can be either spontaneous, unprepared (most often it is used in colloquial speech), or pre-planned, prepared.

Types of monologue by goals

According to the goal pursued by the statement, there are three main types: informational speech, persuasive and motivating.

The main goal of information is the transfer of knowledge. The speaker in this case takes into account, first of all, the intellectual and perception of the text by the listeners.

A variety of informational monologue are various speeches, reports, lectures, reports, messages.

A persuasive monologue is aimed primarily at the emotions and feelings of the listener. The speaker first of all takes into account the receptivity of the latter. This type of speech includes: solemn, congratulatory, parting.

An encouraging monologue (examples of which are political speeches that are very popular in our time) is primarily aimed at encouraging listeners to different actions. It includes: speech-protest, political speech, speech-call to action.

Compositional form of a monologue

In its structure, a human monologue is a compositional form that depends either on a functional-semantic or genre-stylistic affiliation. The varieties of genre-stylistic monologue are distinguished by the following: oratorical speech, official-business and artistic monologue in the Russian language, as well as other types. The functional-semantic includes narration, description, reasoning.

Monologues vary in degree of formality and preparation. So, for example, an oratorical speech is always a pre-planned and prepared monologue, which is certainly delivered in an official setting. But to some extent it is an artificial form of speech that always strives to become a dialogue. Therefore, any monologue has various means of dialogization. These include, for example, rhetorical questions, addresses, question-and-answer form of speech, etc. In other words, this is all that speaks about the desire of the speaker to increase the speech activity of his addressee-interlocutor, to cause his reaction.

A monologue distinguishes between the introduction (in which the subject of the speech is determined by the speaker), the main part and the conclusion (in which the speaker sums up his speech).

Conclusion

Thus, it can be noted that monologue and dialogue are the two main forms of speech, differing from each other in the number of subjects participating in communication. Dialogue is the primary and natural form, as a way of exchanging opinions and thoughts between its participants, and a monologue is a detailed statement in which only one person is the narrator. Both monologue and dialogical speech exist both in oral and in writing, although the latter is always based on and dialogical - at the basis of the oral form.

Dialogue

Dialogue

DIALOGUE (Greek dialogos - the original meaning is a conversation between two persons) - a verbal exchange between two, three or more interlocutors. The possibility that such a comparison opens up in a conversation between several persons has long compelled writers to turn to dialectic as a special form of development of philosophical or generally abstract topics in terms of their broad significance (moralistic, etc.). So the philosophical doctrine of Plato is known to us from his dialogues (Plato has 28 dialects - "Feast", "Phaedo," dialogues on specific everyday material. In new Europe, this genre especially flourished during periods of heightened ideological struggle between various social groups, contributing to the development of eloquence. The latter is largely due to the dialogical genre for its origin. In Germany, for example, in the era of the Reformation, the richest dialogical literature grows. A particularly large number of dialogues appeared in 1524-1525 (with only 30 D. falls to 1524 alone). It is characteristic that the wave of D., which subsided after the reformation, rises again in the 18th century, in the era of the so-called. Enlightenment (here you can, for example, call Klopstock with his moralistic D., Herder - "Gesprach zwischen einem Rabbi und einem Christen" (Conversation between a rabbi and a Christian) about the "Messiada" Klopstock, Lessing - "Freimaurergesprache" (Conversations of free masons ), Wieland - "Gottergesprache" (Conversations of the Gods), etc.). In the period following the Enlightenment, dialectic as a genre gave way in Germany to fictional philosophical correspondence (for example, Schiller's "Philosophical Letters"). We meet with almost a similar phenomenon in France. So in part of his "Lettres provinciales" (Provincial letters), which were of tremendous importance in the struggle of the Jansenists with the Jesuits, Pascal resorts to D .; Fenelon in the famous "Dialogues des morts" (Dialogues of the Dead), forcing a number of historical characters to speak, uses D. as a means of moralistic education in the spirit of Catholicism; there is D. in such writers as Montesquieu, and later Renan ("Dialogues philosophiques" - "Philosophical dialogues"), nowadays - especially in P. Valéry, etc.
In Russia, dialects are often found in magazines of the 18th century. ("All sorts of things", "There were also fables", etc.) during the period of "liberal" trends of Catherine II. Later, Belinsky, advocating a new literary school ("natural") that responded to the "motives of modernity," used D. as a weapon in the struggle against his literal enemies (for example, "A Literary Conversation Overheard in a Bookstore"); somewhat earlier, in Pushkin's brightly polemical Thoughts on the Road, we come across a sketch of A Conversation with an Englishman about Russian Peasants, while Pushkin is the author of D. labor, when the "free poet" begins to oppose the bookseller. Of the larger dialogues of a later time, one can mention "Three Conversations" by Vladimir Solovyov, then "Dialogue about Art" by A. V. Lunacharsky. A. V. Lunacharsky's preface to his D. can serve as a starting point for evaluating D. as a genre. "Dialogue makes it possible," Lunacharsky writes in the above-mentioned preface, "to objectively present a number of opinions that mutually raise and complement one another, to build a ladder of views and lead to a complete idea." Here, the most important compositional principles of the dialogue are noted quite correctly - the clearly perceptible dynamism of thematic development and the individual stages of this thematic development, in which the participants in dialectic should introduce variety. The artistry of D. is also determined by the extent to which the interlocutors complement each other in the sense of a dynamic modification of the theme, that is, to what extent they are "needed" in a particular D. As a defining component of the dramatic works D. differs significantly from D. as a genre. In the dialogical genre, there is a focus on the strength and persuasiveness of the statement, on the completeness and diversity of the development of the topic; dialogue in drama is a means of struggle between certain persons, placed in a certain position of self-defense and attack. It is important for the playwright to show not the convincing vitality of a certain structure of thought as the author of the dialogical genre, but the subjective use of some truth by a certain hero for defense or attack. The interlocutors in the drama are established not simply for the joint disclosure of a certain thought, but are related to one another either as enemies or as accomplices. In a drama, through the remarks uttered by the participants of the dialectic, we must capture the dramatic tension, the state of mind, and in the dialogical genre, interlocutors are needed only as a tool for the development of thought. Therefore, schematic "anonymous" A, B, C can participate in a dialectic, while in the drama - only one way or another characterized and "named" personalities. In those cases when D. in the drama is an abstract reasoning, he violates its effectiveness and becomes, as it were, a foreign body. A distinctive feature of D. in the drama, in addition, is the heterogeneity of the language of the interlocutors. True, we must make a reservation that in ancient and classical French drama, all the characters speak almost the same language. The dialectal language reaches the greatest individualization in Shakespeare, in Russian literature - in Ostrovsky.
Dialectic, in turn, is completely different from dramatic dialectic as a component of an epic work. Actually, from a theoretical point of view, the introduction of dialogue into an epic work destroys the pure epic tonality: the essence of the epic is that everything communicated is perceived as the narration of a certain person - the author; the latter is supposed to stand outside or above events; from what he knows, he can only reveal a part, he is a purely objective person. Of course, such objectivity is a fiction, but the perception of an epic work is possible only with the assumption of this fiction. Therefore, in the epic, D. can play either a predominantly characterological or plot role. By forcing these or those heroes to talk to each other, instead of transmitting their conversation from himself, the author can add appropriate shades to such a D. By the subject and manner of speech, he characterizes his heroes from the mental, everyday and class side. It is known that a person's mental makeup is reflected in the nature of his speech: "A person lives with words," said Leskov, a master of epic dialogue, "and you need to know at what moments of psychological life which of us will have which words."
Each class has its own vocabulary, its own images (one vocabulary for the peasant, another for the worker, the bourgeoisie). Speech ex. Dostoevsky's heroes (decadent intellectuals) are uneven, awkward, sometimes too verbose, as if looking for and not finding the right word and phrase, sometimes abrupt and so short that the thought does not fit into words (Pereverzev). The language of Turgenev's heroes is elegant, finished, which is typical for educated people of his class. It should only be noted that the insufficient characterological integrity of the epic dialogue can be successfully compensated for by the author's remarks about the conditions in which the conversation takes place, about the gestures made by the interlocutors, etc. Where they are only a guide for the director or artist, but do not play an independent role. In an epic work, they are fully-fledged components of an artistic whole, as if restoring the balance between epic and non-epic tonality, disturbed by the input of D.. Such a violation is manifested, for example, in a sudden, seemingly unmotivated introduction of D. into the narrative (for example, in Dostoevsky, in contrast to the classical epic of Homer, in which D. is sometimes introduced according to the following scheme: “and said such and such, answering .. . "). The author is overwhelmed by the events about which he narrates, instead of confronting them. Here we turn to the second function of epic dialectic — the plot function. Developing the plot partly narratively, and partly dialogically, the epic distinguishes individual plot nodes from the whole, thereby putting forward some stages of plot development, noting the special significance of the plot functions of certain characters. Plot dialectic requires a great deal of "fullness", the simultaneous participation of several characters: this is its difference from characterological dialectic, where the task of characterizing a certain person makes him to be brought to the fore. Compositionally important for the epic D. is the very place where he is placed: whether in the beginning, in the end, in a neutral descriptive environment, etc. For example, in the works of the Russian natural school, as he points out in his book "Studies on the Style of Gogol" V. Vinogradov (edition "Academia", L., 1926), the dialogue is the plot key, that is, there is a tendency to dialogically begin plot development; the same example can serve as an illustration of the combination of the characterological (aiming to create a "type") and plot functions of the dialogue, which in general can be completely disunited only purely theoretically. Bibliography:
Literature on dialogue - especially the epic one - is extremely scarce. So you can call: individual remarks in the article by V. Gippius, On the composition of Turgenev's novels, in collection. "Wreath for Turgenev", Odessa, 1919; Volkenstein V., Dramaturgy, M., 1923; ed. 2nd, 1929; Yakubinsky L.P., On dialogical speech, in collection of works. Under the editorship of L. V. Shcherba, "Russian speech", L., 1923; Balukhaty SD, Problems of dramatic analysis, L., 1927; Gabel M. O., The form of dialogue in the epic, "Naukovi notes of Nauk.-Doslіdchoi kathedri іstorіi Ukrainian culture", 1927, No. 6; Wolf H., Dialogues and monologues, N.-Y., 1929.

Literary encyclopedia. - In 11 volumes; Moscow: Publishing House of the Communist Academy, Soviet Encyclopedia, Fiction. Edited by V.M. Fritsche, A.V. Lunacharsky. 1929-1939 .

Dialogue

(from the Greek dialogos - conversation), a type of oral speech, conversation, conversation between two (or more) persons, in which the participants change roles the author and addressee(Unlike monologue where each plays only one role). Fragments of speech of each of the participants in the dialogue are called replicas. In everyday speech, the dialogue is made up of short remarks with the active use of gestures and facial expressions. In various types of dialogue (scientific dispute, business negotiations, etc.), remarks can be lengthy speeches, speeches. Correspondence is an epistolary dialogue, where a replica is a letter. Dramatic text is a dialogue of characters. The monologue text is a dialogue of characters. A monologue text can be built with elements of dialogue (dialogized), for example. with questions to the addressee: And what do you think, dear listeners?
In fiction it is used as one of the elements of a work, most often it is a fragment of a prose work; dramatic works consist almost entirely of dialogues; in poetry it is less common, although it is also possible. Dialogue adds drama to the narrative, allows to reveal the character of the hero through his remarks, shows the ideological and moral position of the heroes and the author. As an independent literary work, dialogue is one of the genres of philosophical prose, in which the author's thought is presented in the form of a conversation with several persons, during which the author (or the hero expressing his point of view) convinces everyone of the correctness of his opinion. The first philosophical dialogues are written Plato based on the tradition of oral "Socratic dialogue" invented by Socrates.

Literature and language. Modern illustrated encyclopedia. - M .: Rosman. Edited by prof. A.P. Gorkina 2006 .

Dialogue

DIALOGUE ... Any interview is called a dialogue in a broad sense; in particular - the exchange of thoughts ("Dialogue" by Plato). Dramatic dialogue - the exchange of dramatic remarks - has a special content. The word is effective in the drama. Each scene in the drama is a scene of a struggle — a "duel," as Julius Baba put it; a replica and a counter-replica is a blow and a counter-blow (parrying a blow). The strong-willed core of a dramatic remark can be covered by a lyrical exclamation; a replica can take the form of an abstract thought, maxim or syllogism; however, both the lyrics and the reasoning have a tool purpose in the dramatic dialogue - all the speeches of the characters in the dramatic scene are directed towards some specific goal. The strong-willed nature of the dramatic remark is clearly manifested in plays with violent and impetuous action - in the dramas of the Shakespearean school, for example, in small plays - the tragic sketches of Pushkin. On the contrary, in plays with sluggish action, as, for example, in Chekhov, volitional striving is very often masked by lyrical exclamations or reasoning, as if irrelevant. However, if Chekhov's dialogues were devoid of volitional dynamics, they could not be reproduced on stage. When Trigorin says to Nina Zarechnaya: “When they praise, it's nice ... A plot for a short story,” etc., with these words he is courting her. In other words, Chekhov's dialogue is very often allegorical. There are many examples of dramatic dialogue in the form of theoretical reasoning, pursuing the most specific, practical goal. When Guildenstern and Rosencrantz talk with Hamlet about Denmark, about ambition, and so on, they, through a secular exchange of aphorisms, try to figure out whether Hamlet is really crazy or not; Hamlet, for his part, understands their intention and tries to completely confuse them, scoffing at them. Since abstract thought in dramatic dialogue is a weapon of struggle, the dramatic hero cannot be taken at his word; his language is the language of passion, this is his truth and his lies. In order to understand the replica of the actor, you need to unravel his conscious or unconscious desire. In dramas, where the hero is carried away by self-contained abstract reasoning, the action is instantly interrupted - and the play becomes boring. So, for example, in some remarkable German playwrights, for example, in Goebbel, we find an overload of the dialogue with abstract thoughts, no longer caused by the conditions and situation of the dramatic struggle. In Goethe's Torquato Tasso, the secondary characters keep sprinkling superb aphorisms, which is inappropriate and tiresome. Shakespeare's dialogue is magnificent: the sharpness of thought in it is a manifestation of a strong and spiritualized passion. But in Shakespeare we sometimes find pointless reasoning that falls out of the plan of the dramatic struggle (like, for example, Juliet's monologue: "Oh, horses of fire" ... etc.). A dramatic dialogue is built as an exchange of speeches that affect a partner, sometimes it is an impact of a direct, direct order, request or question; such a replica can be called effective par excellence. Where a dramatic replica takes on the character of a persuasive speech, saturated, for the sake of persuasiveness, images, comparisons and maxims, it is rhetorical speech. Fighting the solemn rhetoric of the French classics, romantic and later realistic criticism rejected the rhetoric in the drama, demanding a more direct dialogue. However, since any persuasive speech inevitably resorts to rhetorical figures, Ostrovsky's dialogue can also be considered rhetorical - rhetorical in a somewhat broader sense.

V. Volkenstein. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M .; L .: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925


Synonyms:

See what "Dialogue" is in other dictionaries:

    dialogue- a, m. dialogue lat. dialogus c. dialogos. 1. Literary genre in the form of a conversation between two or more characters. Sl. 18. Theodorite in the first dialose .. this will tell. Own. 42. // Sl. 18 6 124. Dialogue is sent to you in French, which ... Historical Dictionary of Russian Gallicisms

    The form of speech, conversation, in which the spirit of the whole arises and makes its way through the differences of remarks. D. can be a form of development of poetry. design (especially in drama, where he opposes a monologue and a mass scene); form of training: then ... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

Greek dialogos - conversation) conversation; in ancient philosophy - the literary form used to present problems with the help of dialectics, originates from the sophists; Socrates and his students, especially Plato, brought to a high degree of perfection. Through conversation, the presentation of philosophical problems is made vivid and animated. Plato's Dialogues reflect the teaching method of his teacher, Socrates. In ancient times, the form of dialogue was always preferred when discussing philosophical problems.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Dialogue

a form of speech, conversation, in which the spirit of the whole arises and makes its way through the differences of remarks. D. can be a form of development of poetry. design (especially in drama, where he opposes a monologue and a mass scene); a form of teaching: then the truth is assumed to be known before the conversation, a way to clarify it is sought; D. can be a form of philosophy. research (for example, Plato) and relig. revelations. Sometimes all of these aspects are the same. It is the presence (or absence) of the spirit of the Whole that decides (at least for some of the participants in D.). If the whole does not add up, we talk about D. of the deaf, indirectly defining by this a genuine dialogue as a conversation with an attempt to understand the interlocutor. The conversation between Mitya Karamazov and Alyosha - D., the conversation between Mitya and Khokhlakova, in which two persons also participate, are approaching the mass scene, to Dostoevsky's favorite scandal, when everyone is shouting and no one is listening to anyone. The Second Vatican Council decided to pass to D. from a non-Catholic. confessions of Christianity and non-Christian religions. This is understood by all as the end of one-sided propaganda and an attempt to talk on equal terms, an attempt to persuade and learn at the same time. In ideal D., all interlocutors listen to the truth of the Whole; hegemony belongs to the one who least of all strives for it, who is not eager to establish his previously established confession of truth, who keeps the gates of truth open. When several voices echo in D., one can call it a conversation in Russian. In the classic. in dialogue or discourse, agreement is reached without the pronounced hegemony of one voice. This is how Plato's "Feast" is written. The truth is revealed gradually, by common effort, and in its entirety remains, as it were, floating in the pauses between replicas. On the contrary, in the "State" Plato uses the usual form of dialectic, setting out a theory that is not internally dialogical, a theory-system of natures. the presentation of a swarm would be a monologue. The form of D. is found in folklore (for example, in the competition in riddles) and in all high cultures. We find elements of D. in the Upanishads. Confucius's conversations with his disciples entered the whale's treasury. thoughts. The least dialogical is the culture of Islam. Muhammad's conversations with his contemporaries were not recorded as a whole; the judgments of the prophet were taken out of context and became a source of law (hadith). The underdevelopment of Denmark is one of the reasons why Islam is not ready for contacts with the West and the perception of pluralism as a threat to order. The origins of the app. D. - in the Hellenic theater, in a dispute of equally worthy principles (as maternal and paternal rights in "Oresteia"). The spirit of tragedy corresponds to D. Plato, the spirit of comedy - D. Lucian. On Wednesday. century D., for the most part, is used in ped. purposes; however, Abelard's Sic et non, an analysis of the open questions of scholasticism, is internally dialogical. The shift of philosophy of modern times to the scientific method supplants D. in essays and philosophy. novel (The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann). In Russia, the spirit of dialectic is formed in the disputes between Westernizers and Slavophiles. Dostoevsky's work is deeply dialogical. Internally dialogical thinkers who were influenced by Dostoevsky (Berdyaev, Shestov, Rozanov). "Vekhi" are dialogical (separate articles of the collection can be read as replicas of equals). Some experiments by S. Bulgakov are written in D.'s form. Bakhtin investigated internal. D. form of cultural worlds in Dostoevsky's “polyphony”. Polyphony and dialectic are equally opposed to dialectics, which asserts attribution. the truth of each step in the development of an idea. D. rather asserts the image of the Whole on the other side of the signs. The search for the lost integrity caused in Europe in the 20th century. dialogic experiments. philosophy. Its creators, Buber and Marcel, separated the I-Thou relationship from the I-It relationship. The usual division into subject and object confuses You and It in the object, subordinating the relation to You to the norms of relation to It. This turns the interlocutor into an object, dehumanizes and de-gods the world. The concentration of thought on the world as an object “leads to technocratic. development, more and more disastrous for the integrity of man and even for his physical. existence ”(G. Marcel). Integrity is human. spirit is destroyed by the displacement of God into the world of It, where God, according to Buber's conviction, is inconceivable. Buber finds God only as you, as an invisible interlocutor in inner D., denying the possibility of speaking about God in the third person. Both love for nature and love of a person for a person follows from the I - You relationship and collapses if the interlocutor becomes a third person, others... In philosophy. D. “none of the disputants should give up their convictions, but ... they come to something called union, enter a kingdom where the law of conviction has no force” (Buber), - including in D . religions. D. - the basis of modern. app. balance reached after two peace. wars. Economic efficiency is impossible without sustainable order, and sustainable order without social protection. Conversely, social protection is ineffective if the economy is ineffective. Any principle, consistently carried out until the destruction of the opposite, becomes absurd, sows debris. “Too much consciousness is a disease” (Dostoevsky). Consciousness here means unconditional loyalty to the principle, the habit of building a logical one. schemes and subject life to them. In “Logical Philosophy. treatise "Wittgenstein wrote:" The mystics are right, but their rightness cannot be expressed: it contradicts grammar. " Rightness here is a sense of the whole. The eyes of our mind are unable to look at the Whole point-blank. Anything that can be formulated rationally takes you away from life. An objection is always worthy of being heard, even if it is out of date. Speaking about the principle, one must think about the opposite, about the counterbalance, so that at the moment when the principle leads into the abyss, we should discard it. Linear thinking is one-sided and carries with it the inevitability of a false outcome. This, apparently, was meant by the Middle-century. monks, having created the proverb: "The devil is a logician." Krishnamurti says approximately the same in his parable: “Once a man found a piece of truth. The devil was upset, but then he said to himself: "Nothing, he will try to bring the truth into the system and come to me again." D. is an attempt to deprive the devil of his prey. Lit.: Buber M. I and You; Dialogue // Buber M. Two images of faith. M., 1995; Wittgenstein L. Logical Philosophy. treatise. M., 1958; Heidegger M. From the Dialogue about Language. Between the Japanese and the Questioner // Heidegger M. Time and Being. M., 1993; V.P. Toshchenko Philosophy of the culture of dialogue. Novosib., 1993; Dialogue in Philosophy: Tradition and Modernity. SPb., 1995. G. S. Pomerants. Culturology of the XX century. Encyclopedia. Moscow 1996 truth. The starting point of the discussion is the question of the meaning of any concepts(for example, courage, virtue, justice) and any initial (most often traditional, generally accepted) opinion about this concept. Further, D. is carried out as a sequential analysis of definitions, examples, judgments expressed by its participants. In some cases, the outcome of the discussion is general agreement on a particular formulation. But the main result is not it, but the understanding, grasping or clarification of the truth that arose in the course of a general conversation, which arose precisely due to a long discussion. The truth of Socratic D. is not formulated in a finished form and does not have a complete verbal expression. It is born from the totality of all that was said during the discussion, but is not contained in any of the final statements. That is why dialectic is the most adequate method of knowing the truth. An important presumption of Socratic D. is, however, the conviction that truth itself already exists. The task of the discussion is to find it, to achieve a full understanding. Philosophical concepts of dialectic, developed in the 20th century, partly proceed from the concept of Socratic dialectic. Common to them is the idea of ​​dialecticism as the only adequate form of cognition, as a way of thinking that allows one to reveal the truth, or at least to the maximum get closer to her. An important difference is, as a rule, in the fact that truth is not considered as something antecedent to D. It is, rather, its result. D. appears as the main principle and method of generating meanings. Developed in the first half of the 20th century. philosophy D. (for example, F. Rosenzweig, M. Bakhtin, M. Buber) starts from the criticism of "monologism" inherent in European philosophy of modern times. In contrast to the Cartesian “I think”, the “I-you” relation is introduced, in which thought is realized. If monological thinking is characterized by the relationship of the subject to the object (“I-it), then the dialogical approach presupposes the dominance of subject-subject connections. Further development of this direction is associated with phenomenology. In particular, E. Levinas's concept of dialectic is based on the ideas of Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and on the criticism of Husserl's idealism within the framework of the phenomenological direction. The main issue of this criticism is the legitimacy of the "brackeing" of any reality that is transcendental to consciousness. Levinas proceeds from the premise that Husserl's methodological solipsism is a kind of illusion, since the transcendental ego, devoid of relation to the other, is not capable of any thinking, and therefore does not exist as a thinking “I”. Therefore, according to Levinas, the initial eidos consciousness is a "face-to-face" relationship, i.e. dialogical attitude to other consciousness. Only in this respect is the generation of new meanings realized. Moreover, this relation is a condition for the existence consciousness. I AM I exist only in D., that is, insofar as there is Another. Another important direction in the philosophy of dialectic is the concept of dialectic cultures, developed by W. Bibler. The main category of this concept is culture as a specific subject capable of fully deploying all its semantic intentions. It is the completeness, or limitation of the presentation of the main meanings, that makes Bibler talk about culture, and not about an individual author. In culture, every concept is thought out to the end, the universality of thinking is achieved. Every question posed within the framework of culture must receive - within the same framework - an exhaustive answer. However, this limit of answers is possible only because every culture repels itself from a different universality, from other ultimate answers to questions posed differently (but, apparently, the same). At a certain endpoint, every culture collides and enters into a dispute with another culture, which unfolds its meanings in a different way. This dispute takes place in a timeless space, in which each historically completed culture can find its answers to the mental courses of new cultures, develop its counter-arguments regarding the objections presented to it. Another area of ​​understanding the concept of dialectic is philosophical hermeneutics. In H.E. Gadamer, in particular, D. is considered as the main form of historical knowledge. However, in describing the work of the historian seeking to know the past, Gadamer is ultimately talking about the human situation in general. This situation is dialogical because a person who is within the framework of his own semantic horizon constantly expands it at the expense of the semantic horizons of other people. The historian studies the past through constant D. with those who have expressed their situation, their semantic horizon in sources, mainly in written evidence. The historian's task is to merge horizons, i.e. in the introduction of those meanings that are expressed in the testimonies of the past, to their own. But every person who comes into communication with another person does the same. Expanding their semantic horizons, people open up the world. Therefore, the professional activity of the historian is only a model that makes it possible to clarify the essence of knowledge in general. D.'s idea represents the type knowledge, different from natural science, but deeply rooted in human life, in the practice of communication. At the same time, it can be argued that dialectic is an essential aspect of not only humanitarian, but also natural science knowledge. This is due to such characteristics of science as publicity and rational criticism. Since the emergence of scientific rationality one of its main features (in contrast, for example, from of magic or alchemy) is publicity and, accordingly, openness to criticism from the community. Methods for obtaining and substantiating a scientific result from the very beginning imply the possibility of its critical discussion. V philosophy of science 20th century the dialogical aspect of scientific methodology, the role of successive substantiations and refutations in the course of scientific knowledge are discussed, for example, by K. Popper and I. Lakatos. From a different standpoint, D.'s place in scientific knowledge is discussed by K.O. Apel. He points out that very often the spontaneous attitude of a scientist is "methodical solipsism", that is, the idea of ​​the researcher, the forthcoming object under study "one-on-one". The Cartesian paradigm is a consequence of the absolutization of such an attitude within the framework of philosophical reflection. According to Apel, this approach (later developed, for example, in logical positivism) contradicts Wittgenstein's thesis about the impossibility of a personal language (which inevitably turns out to be the language of the Cartesian subject). Therefore, the activity of a scientist is carried out exclusively within the framework of D., and all scientific methods, as well as results, are formed under the influence of the communicative norms on which this D. is based (see also Pragmatics). G.B. Gutner

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Even a person far from the literary field will not hurt to know how to make a dialogue. Students, schoolchildren studying the course of the Russian language, novice authors, this skill is simply necessary. Another situation: your child asks for help with homework. Suppose he is instructed to compose a dialogue "A book in our lives" or something similar. The semantic component of the task does not cause difficulties. But in the replicas of the heroes, serious doubts are raised, and the replicas themselves were somehow not built very consistently.

In such a case, you should know how to compose a dialogue in Russian on a given topic. In the proposed short article, we will try to understand the concept of dialogue, the basic principles of its construction and features of punctuation.

What is this form?

Dialogue refers to the process of mutual communication. Remarks during it are interspersed with response phrases with a constant change in the roles of listener and speaker. The communicative feature of dialogue is the unity in expression, perception of thoughts and reaction to them, reflected in its structure. That is, the composition of the dialogue is interconnected remarks of the interlocutors.

Without knowing how to compose a dialogue, an aspiring author is doomed to failure. After all, this literary form is one of the most frequently encountered in works of art.

When dialogue is appropriate

Each time it occurs in a specific situation, when each of the participants is alternately listening or speaking. Each of the replicas of the dialogue can be considered a speech act - an action that implies a certain result.

Its main features are due to purposefulness, moderation and adherence to certain rules. Purposefulness of speech influence is understood as the hidden or explicit goals of any of the participants in the dialogue. It can be a message, question, advice, order, command, or apology.

To achieve their own goals, the interlocutors alternately implement certain intentions, the purpose of which is to induce the other side to take specific actions of a speech nature. Incentive information is expressed either directly in the form of an imperative verb, or like: "Could you?" etc.

How to compose a dialogue. General rules

  1. Submission of messages is in parts. First, the listener is prepared for the perception of information, then it is substantiated, after which it is directly served (in the form of, for example, advice or a request). At the same time, it is imperative that the necessary norms of etiquette are observed.
  2. The subject of the message should correspond to the main purpose of the conversation.
  3. The speech of the interlocutors must be unambiguous, understandable and consistent.

In case of non-observance of these rules, a violation of mutual understanding occurs. An example is the speech of one of the interlocutors that is incomprehensible to another (with a predominance of unknown terminology or fuzzy articulation).

How the conversation starts

At the beginning of the dialogue, a greeting is implied and quite often the question is asked about the possibility of the conversation itself: "Is it possible to talk to you?", "Let me distract you?" etc. Next, most often there are questions about business, health and life in general (most often this refers to informal conversations). You should use these rules if, for example, you need to compose a dialogue of friends. After that, messages usually come in about the immediate purpose of the conversation.

Further, the topic is subject to development. How do you create a dialogue that looks logical and natural? Its structure implies the speaker's information supplied in portions, interspersed with the interlocutor's remarks with the expression of his reaction. At some point, the latter can seize the initiative in the conversation.

The end of the conversation consists of final phrases of a general nature and, as a rule, is accompanied by the so-called etiquette phrases, followed by goodbye.

Ideally, each topic of the dialogue should be developed before the transition to the next is completed. If the topic is not supported by any of the interlocutors, this is a sign of lack of interest in it or in an attempt to end the dialogue as a whole.

About the culture of speech

When building speech behavior, both interlocutors need understanding, a certain ability to penetrate the thoughts and mood of the other, to grasp his motives. Without all this, successful communication is impossible. The technique of conducting dialogues involves various models of communication with a variety of means for expressing ideas, feelings and thoughts, as well as mastering tactical communication skills.

According to general rules, each question posed requires its own answer. The prompting reply is expected to be answered in the form of a word or action. The story implies a reciprocal communication in the form of a counter remark or focused attention.

The latter term is understood as such a lack of speech when the listener, with the help of non-verbal signs (gestures, interjections, facial expressions), makes it clear that the speech has been heard and understood.

Let's move on to writing

To compose a dialogue in writing, you need to know the basic rules for its competent construction. So, let's look at the basic rules by which you can make a dialogue of 4 replicas or more. As the simplest, and quite confusing with a complex plot.

Many authors use it in their works of art. Dialogue differs from direct speech by the absence of quotes and a new paragraph for each remark. If the reply is given in quotation marks, then most often it is implied that this is the thought of the hero. All this is written according to fairly strict rules, about which below.

How to compose a dialogue on the Russian language in compliance with the laws of punctuation

When composing a dialogue, it is very important to use punctuation marks correctly. But first, a little on the topic of terminology:

A remark is understood as a phrase uttered by the characters aloud or silently.

Sometimes you can do without the author's words - usually, when the conversation consists of replicas of only two people (for example, you have a task - to make a dialogue with a friend). In this case, each line is preceded by a dash followed by a space. At the end of a phrase, a period, ellipsis, exclamation mark or question mark.

When each remark is accompanied by the words of the author, the situation is a little more complicated: the period should be replaced with a comma (the rest of the characters remain in their places), then a space, a dash, and again a space are put. After that, the words of the author are given (only with a small letter).

More complicated options

Sometimes the words of the author can be placed in front of the replica. If at the very beginning of the dialogue they are not highlighted in a separate paragraph, a colon is placed after them, and the replica begins on a new line. In the same way, the next (response) replica is supposed to start on a new line.

Composing a dialogue in Russian is not an easy task. The most difficult case can be called when the words of the author are placed inside the replica. This grammatical construction is most often accompanied by errors, especially among novice authors. This is due to a large number of options, the main of them are two: the sentence is torn apart by the words of the author, or these very words are placed between adjacent sentences.

In either case, the beginning of the replica is exactly the same as in the example with the words of the author after it (dash, space, the replica itself, again a space, a dash, again a space and the author's words written with a small letter). The further part is already different. If the author's words are conceived to be placed inside one whole sentence, after these words it is required to put a comma and the further remark continues with a small letter after a dash. If it is decided to place the words of the author between two separate sentences, the first of them must end with a period. And after the indispensable dash, the next replica is written with a capital letter.

Other cases

Sometimes there is a variant (quite rarely) when there are two attributive verbs in the author's words. In the same way, they can be located before or after the replica, and all together is a single structure, written in a separate line. In this case, the second part of direct speech begins with a colon and a dash.

In literary works, sometimes you can find constructions even more complicated, but we will not delve into them now.

Having mastered the basic rules of construction, you will be able in a similar way, for example, to compose a language or the like.

A little about the content

Let's move from punctuation directly to the content of the dialogues. The advice of experienced writers is to minimize both the lines and the words of the author. All unnecessary descriptions and phrases that do not carry any useful information, as well as unnecessary embellishments, should be removed (this applies not only to dialogue). Of course, the final choice remains with the author. It is important that at the same time his sense of proportion does not change.

Long, continuous dialogues are highly discouraged. This unnecessarily drags on the story. After all, it is assumed that the characters are conducting a conversation in real time, and the plot of the work as a whole must develop much faster. If a long dialogue is necessary, it should be diluted with a description of the emotions of the characters and any accompanying actions.

Phrases that do not carry information useful for the development of the plot can clog any dialogue. It should sound as natural as possible. It is highly discouraged to use complex sentences or those expressions that never occur in colloquial speech (of course, if the author's intention does not imply the opposite).

How to test yourself

The easiest way to control the naturalness of the composed remarks is by reading the dialogue aloud. All unnecessary long pieces, along with pretentious words, will inevitably cut the ear. At the same time, it is much more difficult to control their presence with the eyes. This rule applies in the same way to any text, not only to dialogue.

Another common mistake is the overabundance of attributive words or the monotony of their use. If possible, remove the maximum author's comments such as: he said, she answered, etc. One should definitely do this in cases where it is already clear to which of the heroes the replica belongs.

Attributive verbs should not be repeated, their similarity hurts the ear. Sometimes you can replace them with phrases describing the actions of the heroes with a subsequent remark. The Russian language has a huge number of synonyms for the verb said, colored in a variety of emotional shades.

Attribution should not be confused with body copy. In the absence of an attributive (or replacing it) word, the dialogue turns into ordinary text and is formatted separately from the replica.

By adhering to the rules set out by us, you can easily make up any dialogue.