დიალოგის პრაგმატული ფუნქციები და ზოგიერთი ენობრივი მახასიათებელი მხატვრულ ტექსტში /გ. დოჩანაშვილის მოთხრობების მიხედვით/

Abstract

Dialogues are one of the most complicated widely used forms of human communication. Indeed, modern time linguistics is mostly interested in real-time spontaneous dialogues, but the dialogues from the prosaic literary pieces are also very interesting. They represent one of the most dynamic means of interpretation and description of the interrelations, behaviour and varieties of the actions of the literary characters. The diversification and character of the dialogues are conditioned by the contents they are delivering and the aims of the author. Differences between the real and modelled by a writer dialogue are evident, but their main linguistic features do not diff er very much. The specifics of any dialogue building and its linguistic style depend on social status, interrelations of the communicants and the situation in which the given communication takes place, but a real, everyday style dialogue is spontaneous, not previously prepared and as for the fiction, it is modelled, a fiction which subordinates to the author’s idea. In the pieces of the different Georgian writers both types of dialogues – official and non-official are represented as multisided by their content, language or structure; especially, symmetric and asymmetric dialogues are very interesting; their division by types is based on the social characteristic features and mutual estimation and relations of the participants. We have studied the dialogues in some literary pieces by Guram Dochanashvili and we discovered a lot of varieties among them. The virtuosity of the writer is clear; sometimes, a story begins with a dialogue from the very beginning; talk is going on not only the participants, but the author often uses his remarks to appeal to a reader and makes them a participant of the given story. Especially interesting, from that point, is the story “Water( po)loo or the Recovery Work.” The so-called dialogue signals have to also be named– structural-compositional and content-modification ones. Asymmetric dialogues are also very interesting; they contain phatic lexical units. One more interesting example is also the case of asymmetrical dialogue when a personage of one story (“Johannes Sebastian Bach”) utters some phrases in Megrelian, and this is used as a means of expressing the estrangement by the author. We have discussed the dialogues from the following literature pieces by Guram Dochanashvili, with their linguistic characteristics: “The Case”, “The Man Who Loved Literature Very Much,” “The Love of One Thing that Needs Hiding,” “Johannes Sebastian Bach” and “Water(po)loo or the Recovery Work”.