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”.