How to write direct speech and dialogue in the text? What is dialogue and monologue in Russian All about dialogue in Russian.

from the Greek dialogos - a conversation, a conversation of two) - a type (type) of speech in which there is an exchange of interdependent statements-replicas (with visual and auditory perception of the interlocutor). All features of D. - speech structure are associated with its specificity as an education that occurs as a result of intermittent, mainly oral spontaneous speech of interlocutors, occurring under certain conditions. The very nature of D. suggests its complexity. D.'s dimensions are theoretically unlimited, and its lower limit may seem open. However, in fact, every D. has a beginning and an end. The unity of D. in its theme, content, sense. The specificity of the D. as a complex unity is most closely connected with its thematic integrity, with the nature of the development of content, with the movement of thought. Dialogic unity is the basic unit of dialectic. The question of the boundaries of D. and its internal structural features is connected with the difference between the concepts of D. as an integral structure and dialogic unity. The replica, as a component of dialogical unity and the dialectic as a whole, has a two-pronged character, combining the meaning of action and reaction, as a result of which the dialectic is a complex chain of interrelated utterances. With the study of D. as a complex complex, which often includes a chain of intertwining or parallel replicas of several persons, the identification of various structural types of D. (paired D., parallel D., polylogue) is connected. The study of D. is impossible without taking into account a number of extra-verbal moments: the purpose and subject of statements, the degree of preparedness of the speakers, the relationship between the interlocutors and their attitude to what was said, the specific situation of communication. The nature of the disease is determined by the action of all these factors in the aggregate, and as a result of the specific manifestation of each of them, a disease of a certain structure is created. The immediate social situation and the wider social environment determine the structure of the utterance, reflecting the nature of the dialogic behavior. It is the situation that forms the utterance in the form of a request or an assertion, in a florid or simple style, confidently or timidly pronounced. The nature of the logical-semantic relations between the parts of the dialogic unity is connected with the situation of communication, the attitude of the participants in speech to the content of speech, and in this regard, various types of remarks and types of speech are distinguished, the nature of the reaction, the speaker's assessment of the facts of the situation and speech, the modal characteristic of speech are established. The cue that starts the conversation, defines its topic and purpose, is built relatively freely. This cue is called a stimulus, as it encourages the interlocutor to a response cue or action. The response cue, the cue-reaction, in its lexical composition and syntactic structure depends on the cue-stimulus. D. usually consists of alternating stimulus replicas and response replicas. It is important to study the features of both components. From the structural and compositional side, reciprocal replicas-pickups, replicas-repetitions, etc. are distinguished. At the same time, attention is drawn to the logical and semantic meaning of the replica and its corresponding relation to one stimulating statement. An important type of D. in this respect is the question-answer complex. Great importance is attached to the nature of the reactions. In this regard, replicas-contradictions, agreements, additions, replicas accompanying the topic, transferring the topic to another plane are distinguished. According to the nature of the reaction, the corresponding types of D. are determined: D.-contradiction, D.-synthesis (E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk), D.-spore, D.-explanation, D.-quarrel, D.-unison ( A.K. Solovieva), D.-message, D.-discussion, D.-conversation (O.I. Sharoiko). At the same time, the structural and grammatical features of D., extralinguistic moments associated with the implementation of speech, embodied in D. of various types, are clarified. The specificity of D. is also associated with such a phenomenon as the degree of preparedness of the speaker for speech. L.P. Yakubinsky noted the fast pace of pronunciation of remarks and their change as one of the properties of D., during which preparation for the statement goes simultaneously with the perception of someone else's speech. This is reflected in the structure of dialogical statements, being one of the factors in the formation of its syntax. The structure of D. is also affected by the degree of awareness of the interlocutors about the subject of the conversation. L.P. Yakubinsky emphasized that the understanding of someone else's speech is determined by the experience of the interlocutors, who make up the apperceiving mass of speakers, that each subsequent speaking falls on prepared ground, pointing out the great role of conjecture with the identity of the apperceiving masses of interlocutors. The general experience of the interlocutors, its permanent and transient elements determine the possibility of decoding in speech exchange. Speech always needs a listener. An additional means of transmitting information in direct communication are facial expressions, gestures, various body movements, socially determined and corresponding to the intellectual and emotional state of the speaker. One of the important aspects of D. is intonation, with the help of which certain information is transmitted and dialogic units are formed as part of a complex structure. The informative and connecting role of intonation in dialectics is noted in the analysis of dialogic units with replicas of various types - repetitions, pickups. Various functions of intonation can be intertwined, since the replicas simultaneously represent a sentence (or a combination of sentences) with its own internal intonation and an element of speech. The actions of all extra-speech factors in the aggregate are decisively reflected in the structure of speech and, above all, on its grammatical features. The choice of certain structures is associated with the specifics of oral speech and the specifics of speech as a speech interaction. Ellipsis, simplicity of syntactic construction, the use of sentences of various functional types, modal words, repetitions, connecting constructions, and other characteristic features owe their origin in D. to its specificity as a special speech construction. The word order characteristic of dialogic sentences, the peculiar actual articulation of sentences in D., are also associated with the action of the diverse conditions in which dialogue proceeds as the embodiment of intermittent oral speech. The cohesion of the replicas leads to the question of the relation of D. to the concept of a complex syntactic whole, since D., as a product of speech exchange, is ultimately a sounding and often recorded single text of a special kind, belonging to more than one person. It is important to compare the structure of such a text, the development of thought, the modal characteristics of statements and other features of such a complex whole with the characteristics of non-dialogical texts. For the first time, D. as a complex syntactic whole was paid attention to in the works of N.Yu. Shvedova, G.A. Zolotova. Lit .: Valyusinskaya Z.V. Issues in the Study of Dialogue in the Works of Soviet Linguists (Text Syntax). - M., 1979; Vinokur T.G. Dialogic speech // LES. - M, 1990; Lapteva O.A. Russian colloquial syntax. - M., 1976; Radaev A.M. On some components of the speech impact of dialogic and monologue texts and witty statements // Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic determinants of speech. - M., 1978; Yakubinsky L.P. On Dialogic Speech // Izbr. work. Language and its functioning. - M., 1986. L. E. Tumina

- (Greek dialogos, the original meaning is a conversation between two persons) a verbal exchange between two, three or more interlocutors. The possibility, which opens up such a juxtaposition in a conversation of several people, has long forced writers ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

dialog- a, m. dialogue lat. dialogus gr. dialogos. 1. A literary genre in the form of a conversation between two or more characters. Sl. 18. Theodoret in the first dialosis .. this one says. Inc. 42. // Sl. 18 6 124. A dialogus is sent to you in French, which ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

The form of speech, the conversation, in which the spirit of the whole arises and makes its way through the differences of replicas. D. can be a form of poetic development. intention (especially in drama, where he opposes monologue and mass scene); form of education: then ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

- (French dialogue, from Greek dialogos). A conversation between two or more persons: a form of presentation of drama. works. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. DIALOGUE conversation between two parties, two persons. Also… … Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Dialog- DIALOG. Dialogue in a broad sense is called any interview; in particular, the exchange of thoughts (Plato's Dialogue). Dramatic dialogue The exchange of dramatic lines has a special content. The word in drama is effective. Every scene in the drama has… … Dictionary of literary terms

- - Association of Economists of Russia and Germany (dialog e.V. - Vereinigung deutscher und russischer Ökonomen) ... Wikipedia

- - Association of Economists of Russia and Germany (dialog e.V. - Vereinigung deutscher und russischer Ökonomen) Type Public association Year of foundation ... Wikipedia

dialog- (from the Greek dialogos) an alternating exchange of remarks (in the broad sense, a response in the form of an action, gesture, silence) of two or more people is also considered a replica. In psychology, D.'s research, related to the analysis of the social mechanisms of the psyche, began in the 20th century ... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

Cm … Synonym dictionary

Dialog- Dialogue ♦ Dialogue A conversation between two or more interlocutors concerned with the search for the same truth. Thus, dialogue is a type of conversation marked by a desire for the universal, and not for the individual (unlike confession) or the particular (as in ... ... Philosophical Dictionary of Sponville

See Philosophical Dialogue. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ch. editors: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983. DIALOGUE ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Books

• dialogue, Ivan & Anton. The book is a fragment of a personal SMS-correspondence of two friends living in different cities. This dialogue is not a dialogue in the usual sense. It is rather a SPACE of communication. "Herbarium… electronic book

Wandering around the Internet, I found a wonderful article.
The original source is here https://www.avtoram.com/kak_pisat_dialogi/

Main problem

Dialogue is one of the most problematic places in the manuscripts of novice writers.

The most common type of error is redundancy: unnecessary attribution, unnecessary cues, unnecessary embellishments.

In dialogue, it is especially important to observe the principle of "brevity is the sister of talent": a few extra words can make the conversation of the characters sluggish or ridiculously pretentious.

Tightness

Continuous dialogue should not be too long, otherwise it slows down the dynamics of the piece. The conversation of the characters implies a real flow of time, while in general the plot develops much faster. If a long dialogue is still necessary, then it should be diluted - for example, with a description of the actions, emotions of the hero, etc.

Do not litter the dialogue with phrases that do not carry useful information.

The girls said goodbye
- Goodbye!
- Good luck!
- I was very glad to see you!
- Come to visit us!
- We'll definitely come. We really liked it last time.
- Well, really, it's not worth it. Well, goodbye!

It could be limited to one phrase: The girls said goodbye.

A similar problem is repetitions of the same thought:

“Is that what she said: go away?”
- Yes exactly.
- I can not belive it.
— I swear! I gave you everything word for word. So she said, go away.
- I do not believe. You must have confused something.

Of course, there can be exceptions to this rule, but it should still be remembered that empty dialogue is boring, and the reader skips boring.

Unnatural

Dialogue should sound natural. You should not use compound sentences for five lines or expressions that are not used in live speech in a conversation.

- You need to water the sprouts regularly, because otherwise they will have nowhere to get the moisture that is so necessary for their nutrition and full development.

This is not the way to say it. The sentence is better rephrased:

Don't forget to water the sprouts, otherwise they will dry out.

An exception to this rule: the hero deliberately tries to speak in a bookish way, and it is clear that this is not a stylistic mistake, but the author's idea.

- Thousand devils! exclaimed the office manager, turning off the computer. "Ah, I'll be damned if I don't get my revenge on those rascals!"

To check the dialogue for natural sounding, read it aloud. Extra words will cut the ear.

Inconsistency between the dialogue of the situation or the character of the characters
In the novels of beginners, there are often scenes in which the villains in the heat of battle talk with the heroes about Good and Evil - long sentences with participial turns.

If you think this is normal, try bashing a pillow for five minutes while retelling the story of Kolobok.

Did you get something connected? Taking off my hat.

A runner immediately after a marathon cannot give lengthy interviews, a firefighter in a burning building will not ask: “Be kind, Vasily Ivanovich, give me a hose!”

Bust with attribution

Ivan looked into Masha's face.
“What a fine fellow you are,” he said.
“If it wasn’t for you, I wouldn’t have succeeded,” she said.
“Come on, it’s not worth it,” Ivan said.

We remove “he said”, “she responded”, “Ivan said” - and the meaning is not lost. The reader is absolutely clear who said what.

Extra adverbs and other clarifications

- This is unfair! the girl whimpered.
In this case, the adverb duplicates the meaning of the verb. The word "sobbed" is enough.

Stamps look even worse:

"Now I'll deal with you!" The Emperor grinned ominously.
“I beg you, let me go!” the girl screamed heartbreakingly, wringing her hands.

Same type attribution

“Don’t forget to buy dryers,” Grandma said, counting out the money for her.
- And I candy! Dad said from behind the door.

You should not repeat the same attributive verbs over and over again, otherwise the reader's attention will be fixed precisely on these words. If you find it difficult to find an attributive verb, insert a phrase that will describe the action of the hero, and then - his remark.

“I went to the store,” Masha said.
Grandmother counted her money.
Don't forget to buy dryers.
- And I candy! Dad's voice came from outside the door.

Speaking verbs and labels

If possible, try not to supply the characters' lines with excessively speaking attributive verbs. Emotions should be conveyed by the very essence of the scene, and not by glued labels.

An example of such "steroid-pumped" attributive verbs is given by Stephen King in How to Write a Book:

"Drop the gun, Utterson!" Jekyll rasped.

- Kiss me, kiss me! Shaina gasped.

- You are teasing me! Bill pulled back.

The reader should also not be constantly reminded: this character is a scoundrel, but this one is a handsome prince. When the scoundrels "grin maliciously" and the princes "raise their eyebrows contemptuously" - this is a sure sign that the author wrote, "arrogantly ignoring common sense." Characterize the hero should be his words and deeds.

Long dialogue in short sentences

- Where are you going?
- To the village.
- And what's in there?
- Nothing.
- What for?
- Tired.
- Why?
- You will not understand.

Such a dialogue turns off figurative thinking. The reader begins to see not a mental picture, but letters. If a monosyllabic throwing of words is absolutely necessary for the plot, then it must be diluted with descriptions.

Accent and speech distortion

With the transfer of accent and speech distortion, you must be very careful. If the reader, even for a moment, has difficulty reading phrases like “’evolution is cool”, then it’s better to just mention that the hero is burr.

Name use in dialogue

— Hello, Masha!
— Hello, Petya! I'm so glad to see you!

What is wrong? During a conversation, we rarely call people by name, especially if no one is around. Therefore, this dialogue sounds false.

Retelling someone else's words

- I met Masha. She said: “Petya, why do you come to visit me?” “Because I don’t have time,” I replied.

Try to avoid direct speech in direct speech or convey other people's words as they sound in everyday conversation.

- Today I met Masha. She asked where I had gone, and I lied that I didn't have time.

Retelling what the characters already know

“You know, a couple of years ago orcs attacked our northern borders and burned down five cities. And then King Sigismund the Fifteenth singled out three hundred thousand warriors on fighting dragons ...
- Yes, this battle is not without reason entered into the annals. Do you remember when they took the Omniscience Magic Stone?
- Of course I remember.

Incorrect use of foreign expressions

Foreigners in novels of beginners often speak their native language with wild mistakes. If you are not sure how to spell a phrase, consult a professional translator or native speaker.

Bust with slang and obscenities

If your hero "boats" exclusively "on the hair dryer", the reader may "not catch up" with him.

Mat in the literature is permissible only in small doses and only to the point. The exceptions are "avant-garde" novels, which are published in a circulation of 500 copies.

Remember that no one will judge us for the lack of profanity, but it is quite possible to lose readers due to the abundance of obscenities.

What properties should a well-written dialogue have?

1. It must be absolutely necessary, that is, without it, the development of the plot or the disclosure of the personality of a particular hero is impossible. Example: a conversation between Chichikov and Nozdrev (N. Gogol. "Dead Souls")

2. Each of the characters must speak their own language. He must be endowed with his favorite words, think in advance how he will build phrases, what is his vocabulary, what level of literacy, etc. This technique will allow not only to speak the information necessary for the plot, but also to create a reliable image.

- Nymph, swing her there, does it give goods? said the coffin-master vaguely. - Can she please the buyer? The coffin - it requires as much as one forest ...
- What? asked Ippolit Matveyevich.
- Yes, here is the "Nymph" ... Their three families live with one merchant. Already they have the wrong material, and the finish is worse, and the brush is liquid, there it swings. And I'm an old company. Founded in one thousand nine hundred and seven. I have a coffin - a cucumber, selected, amateur ...
I. Ilf and E. Petrov. "Twelve Chairs"

At the same time, it should be remembered that the heroes cannot behave the same way with everyone and talk in the same manner with both the queen and the port loader.

3. Heroes shouldn't talk in a vacuum. Create a living world around them - with smells, sounds, environments, weather, lighting, etc.

Evening at the end of June. The samovar has not yet been removed from the table on the terrace. The hostess cleans the berries for jam. A friend of her husband, who has come to visit the dacha for a few days, smokes and looks at her well-groomed round hands, bare to the elbows. (A connoisseur and collector of ancient Russian icons, a graceful and dry-built man with a small trimmed mustache, with a lively look, dressed as for tennis.) Looks and says:
“Kuma, can I kiss your hand?” I can't watch calmly.
Hands in juice, - substitutes a shiny elbow. Lightly touching his lips, he says with a stutter:
- Kuma...
- What, godfather?
- You know, what a story: one man's heart went out of hand and he said to his mind: goodbye!
- How did this "heart get out of hand"?
- This is from Saadi, godfather. There was such a Persian poet.
I. Bunin. "Kuma"

4. Let the characters not only speak, but also gesticulate, move, make faces, etc.

- Oh no no no! - the artist exclaimed, - did they really think that these were real pieces of paper? I do not admit the thought that they did it consciously.
The barman looked around in a wry and wistful way, but said nothing.
- Are they scammers? - the magician asked the guest anxiously, - are there really swindlers among the Muscovites?
In response, the barman smiled so bitterly that all doubts disappeared: yes, there are swindlers among Muscovites.
M. Bulgakov. "The Master and Margarita"

5. Make sure that the speech of the characters corresponds to the place, time, mood and individual characteristics of the characters. If a person woke up with a hangover, he is unlikely to be able to joke with girls; if a sledgehammer fell on a lumberjack's leg, he would not exclaim: "Oh, how it hurts!"

6. The length of the sentences in the dialogues should be correlated with the speed of events. In crisis situations, a person speaks briefly; at home by the fireplace can afford flowery phrases and poetic comparisons.

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 disciples, especially Plato, brought to a high degree of perfection. Through conversation, the presentation of philosophical problems is made clear and enlivened. Plato's Dialogues reflects the teaching method of his teacher, Socrates. In ancient times, the form of dialogue was always preferred when discussing philosophical problems.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Dialog

a form of speech, a conversation, in which the spirit of the whole arises and makes its way through the differences of remarks. D. can be a form of poetic development. intention (especially in drama, where he opposes monologue and mass scene); a form of education: then the truth is supposed to be known before the conversation, a way of explaining it is sought; D. can be a form of philosophy. research (eg, Plato) and religion. revelations. Sometimes all these aspects coincide. It decides the presence (or absence) of the spirit of the Whole (at least for some participants in D.). If the whole does not add up, we speak of D. deaf, indirectly defining a genuine dialogue as a conversation with an attempt to understand the interlocutor. Mitya Karamazov's conversation with Alyosha-D., Mitya's conversation with Khokhlakov, in which two persons also participate, approaches the mass stage, Dostoevsky's favorite scandal, when everyone is shouting and no one is listening to anyone. The Second Vatican Council decided to go to D. with non-Catholic. confessions of Christianity and non-Christian religions. This is understood by everyone as the end of one-sided propaganda and an attempt to talk on an equal footing, an attempt to convince and learn at the same time. In an ideal D., all interlocutors listen to the truth of the Whole; hegemony belongs to the one who aspires least to it, who does not burn with the desire to confirm his previously established confession of truth, who keeps the gates of truth open. When several voices call to one another in D., one can call it in Russian a conversation. In the classic In dialogue or conversation, agreement is achieved without the pronounced hegemony of one voice. This is how Plato's "Feast" is written. The truth is revealed gradually, by a 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 D., expounding a theory that is not internally dialogic, a theory-system, natural. a presentation of which would be a monologue. The D. form is found in folklore (eg, riddle contests) and in all high cultures. We find elements of D. in the Upanishads. Conversations of Confucius with his disciples entered the treasury of whales. thoughts. The culture of Islam is the least dialogical. 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 D. is one of the reasons for the unpreparedness of Islam for contacts with the West and for 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 (like 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 dialogic. The shift in the philosophy of modern times to the scientific method displaces D. in essays and philosophy. novel (“Magic Mountain” by Thomas Mann). In Russia, the spirit of D. takes shape in the disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles. Dostoevsky's work is profoundly dialogical. Internally dialogic thinkers who have been influenced by Dostoevsky (Berdyaev, Shestov, Rozanov). "Milestones" are dialogical (individual articles in the collection can be read as replicas of equals). Some experiments of S. Bulgakov were written in D. form. Bakhtin explored the internal the form of D. of cultural worlds in the “polyphony” of Dostoevsky. Polyphony and dialectics are equally opposed to dialectics, which affirms the relation. the truth of each step in the development of an idea. D. rather affirms the image of the Whole beyond the signs. The search for lost integrity caused Europe in the 20th century. dialogic experiences. philosophy. Its creators, Buber and Marcel, separated the I-Thou relationship from the I-It relationship. The usual division into subject and object confuses Thou and It in the object, subordinating the relation to Thou to the norms of relation to the It. This turns the interlocutor into an object, dehumanizes and deifies 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). Human integrity. spirit is destroyed by the displacement of God into the world of It, where God, according to Buber, is unthinkable. Buber finds God only as You, as an invisible interlocutor in the inner D., denying the possibility of talking about God in the third person. Both the love for nature and the love of a person for a person arise from the relationship I - You 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 a union, they enter a kingdom where the law of persuasion has no force” (Buber), - including in D .religions. D. - the basis of modern. app. balance reached after two worlds. wars. The efficiency of the economy is impossible without sustainable order, and stable order without social protection. And vice versa: social protection is ineffective if the economy is inefficient. Any principle consistently applied to the destruction of the opposite becomes an absurdity, sows debris. “Too much consciousness is a disease” (Dostoevsky). Consciousness here means unconditional fidelity to the principle, the habit of building a logical. schemes and subordinate them to life. In "Logico-Philos. treatise" Wittgenstein wrote: "Mystics are right, but their correctness cannot be stated: it contradicts grammar." Rightness here is the feeling of the whole. The eyes of our mind are incapable of looking straight at the Whole. Everything that can be formulated rationally leads away from life. An objection is always worthy of being heard, even if it is untimely. Speaking of principle, one must think of the opposite, of a counterweight, so that at the moment when the principle leads into the abyss, discard it. Linear thinking is one-sided and carries the inevitability of a false outcome. This, apparently, had in mind the Middle Ages. monks, having created a proverb: "The devil is a logician." Approximately the same is said by Krishnamurti 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 a system and come to me again." D. - 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. Logico-Philos. treatise. M., 1958; Heidegger M. From the dialogue about language. Between the Japanese and the questioner // Heidegger M. Time and being. M., 1993; Toshchenko V.P. Philosophy of the culture of dialogue. Novosib., 1993; Dialogue in Philosophy: Tradition and Modernity. SPb., 1995. G. S. Pomerants. Cultural studies of the twentieth century. Encyclopedia. M.1996 truth. The starting point of the discussion is the question of the meaning of any concepts(eg, courage, virtue, justice) and some initial (most often traditional, generally accepted) opinion about this concept. Further, D. is carried out as a consistent analysis of definitions, examples, and judgments expressed by its participants. In a number of cases, the outcome of the discussion is a general agreement on one wording or another. But the main result is not it, but the understanding, grasping or clarification of the truth that arose during the general conversation, which arose precisely due to a long discussion. The truth of Socratic D. is not formulated in finished form and does not have a complete verbal expression. It is born from the totality of everything expressed in the course of the discussion, but is not contained in any of the final statements. That is why D. 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 delusions, developed in the 20th century, partly proceed from the concept of Socratic delusions. What they have in common is the idea of ​​delusions as the only adequate form of knowledge, as a way of thinking that allows one to reveal the truth or, at least, to the maximum get close to her. An important difference is, as a rule, that truth is not considered as something preceding D. It is, rather, its result. D. appears as the basic principle and method of generating meanings. Developed in the first half of the 20th century D. philosophy (for example, F. Rosenzweig, M. Bakhtin, M. Buber) is repelled by criticism of the “monologism” inherent in European philosophy of modern times. In contrast to the Cartesian “I think”, the relation “I-you” is introduced, in which thought is realized. If monological thinking is characterized by the relation of the subject to the object (“I-it”), then the dialogical approach assumes the dominant of subject-subject relations. The further development of this direction is connected with phenomenology. In particular, E. Levinas's concept of D. is based on the ideas of Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and on the critique of Husserl's idealism within the framework of the phenomenological direction. The main question of this criticism is the legitimacy of "bracketing" any reality that is transcendent to consciousness. Levinas proceeds from the fact 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 original eidosome consciousness is the relation "face-to-face", i.e. dialogical relation to another consciousness. Only in this respect is the generation of new meanings. Moreover, this relation is a condition for the existence consciousness. I I exist only in D., i.e. insofar as it exists Another. Another important trend in the philosophy of dynamism is the concept of dynamism of cultures, developed by V. Bibler. The main category of this concept is culture as a specific subject capable of full deployment of all its semantic intentions. It is the completeness, or the limiting of the presentation of the main meanings, that makes Bibler speak about culture, and not about an individual author. In culture, each concept is thought out to the end, universality of thinking is achieved. Every question posed within the framework of culture must receive - within the same framework - an exhaustive answer. However, this limiting of answers is possible only because every culture starts from a different universality, from other limiting answers to questions posed differently (but, apparently, the same). At some end point, every culture collides and enters into an argument with another culture that unfolds its meanings in a different way. This dispute takes place in a timeless space, in which each historically complete culture can find its own answers to the thinking of new cultures, develop its own counterarguments about the objections presented to it. Another area of ​​understanding the concept of D. is the 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 who seeks to know the past, Gadamer is ultimately talking about the human situation in general. This situation is dialogic because a person who stays 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 by means of constant D. with those who expressed their situation, their semantic horizon in sources, mainly in written testimonies. The task of the historian is to merge horizons, i.e. in the attachment of those meanings that are expressed in the testimonies of the past to their own. But so does every person who enters into communication with another person. Expanding their semantic horizons, people open up the world. Therefore, the professional activity of a historian is only a model that makes it possible to clarify the essence of knowledge in general. The idea of ​​D. 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 D. is an essential moment not only in the humanities, but also in the natural sciences. This is due to such characteristics of science as publicity and rational criticism. Since the advent of scientific rationality one of its main features (unlike, 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. AT philosophy of science 20th century the dialogical aspect of scientific methodology, the role of consistent justifications and refutations in the course of scientific knowledge are discussed, for example, by K. Popper and I. Lakatos. From other positions, the place of D. in scientific knowledge is discussed by K.O. Apela. He points out that very often the spontaneous attitude present in a scientist is "methodical solipsism", i.e. idea of ​​the researcher coming to the 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) comes into conflict with 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 communication norms on which this D. is based (see also Pragmatics). G.B. Gutner

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Dialogue is one of four possible ways to include someone else's speech in the author's text. We talked about the first three ways of transmitting someone else's speech in.

Other people's sentences, written in this way, completely retain both form and content. Direct or indirect speech is used by authors when it is necessary to reproduce a phrase belonging to any one character, and dialogue (from the Greek dialogos - conversation) is used when it is necessary to convey several lines of characters talking to each other.

We will talk about the punctuation design of dialogic speech.

In the text above, one can easily distinguish the author's words and the characters' replicas: the first and last sentences represent the author's speech, inside which are two replicas belonging to different characters. But one important difference between dialogue and direct and indirect speech is that the dialogue may not contain the words of the author at all. Read the following dialogue.

In order to remember how punctuation marks are placed when recording replicas of a dialogue, we can compare this form of recording someone else's speech with direct speech already familiar to us. The design of the dialogue differs from the design of direct speech in that the replicas are not enclosed in quotes, but begin with a new line and a dash. In the following examples, the same words are written in two ways. For the design of the dialogue, as well as for recording direct speech, there are four rules, each of which corresponds to the diagram in the illustration.

Legend:

R- a replica starting with a capital letter;
R- a replica starting with a lowercase letter;
BUT- words of the author, starting with a capital letter;
a- words of the author, beginning with a lowercase letter.

–Do you need dead souls? Sobakevich asked simply, without the slightest surprise...(Gogol)

"Do you need dead souls?" Sobakevich asked simply, without the slightest surprise...

He said:

- Hello! - and went to the window ...(Dragoon)

He said: "Hello!" - and went to the window.

Exercise #1

Good evening_, _ _ showed the Little Prince just in case.

Good evening_, _ _ the snake tweeted.

What planet am I on?_

To Earth, _ _ said the snake. _ To Africa_ .

Here's how. Are there no people on Earth?_

This is a desert. Nobody lives in the deserts. But the Earth is big.

(Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

Exercise #2

May I ask the artist Woland? _ _ Varenukha asked sweetly.

They are busy, _ _ the receiver answered in a rattling voice, _ and who asks?

Administrator Varenukha variety.

Ivan Savelievich? _ _ exclaimed the pipe in a dreadful voice. _ Terribly glad to hear your voice! How is your health?

Mercy, _ _ Varenukha answered in amazement, _ _ who am I talking to?

Assistant, his assistant and translator Koroviev, _ _ the pipe was calling, _ _ are at your service, dearest Ivan Savelyevich! Deal with me as you please.

(Bulgakov)

Exercise #3

I said_

Well, how?

Monstrous! _ _ praised Boris Sergeevich.

Good song, right? _ _ I asked.

Good, _ _ Boris Sergeevich said and covered his eyes with a handkerchief.

It’s only a pity that you played very quietly, Boris Sergeevich, _ _ I said, _ _ it could be even louder.

Okay, I'll take it into account, _ _ said Boris Sergeevich. _ _ didn't you notice that I played one thing, and you sang a little differently?

No, _ _ I said, _ _ did not notice it! Yes, it doesn't matter. I just needed to play louder.

Well, _ _ Boris Sergeevich said, _ _ since you didn’t notice anything, we’ll give you a three for now. For diligence.