Типологія британських та українських діалогових дискурсивних практик

Abstract

У дисертації розроблено нову теоретико-методологічну концепцію для встановлення форматної, генезисної і жанрової типології британських та українських діалогових дискурсивних практик. Реконструйовано концептуальні моделі діалогу, представлені етнокультурними й етноментальними модифікаціями фреймів DIALOGUE / ДІАЛОГ в англійській та українській мовах. Обґрунтовано базовий статус усного формату природно-побутового типу діалогу, первинними мовленнєвими жанрами якого є розмова, бесіда, суперечка, сварка і який є джерелом для інших типів: соціально-політичного типу усного формату з вторинними мовленнєвими жанрами – інтерв‟ю, ток-шоу, політичними дебатами; соціально- побутового типу писемного формату з вторинними мовленнєвими жанрами, до яких належать листи-відгуки, листи-запитання, листи-зізнання; соціального типу віртуального формату з вторинними мовленнєвими жанрами – блогом, чатом, форумом. Установлено типологічні закономірності й національно-культурні відмінності в мовних засобах конструювання різноформатних, різногенезисних і різножанрових британських та українських діалогових дискурсивних практик. Доведено гіперсистемний характер діалогу як універсальної когнітивно- дискурсивної моделі людської свідомості.

The thesis is devoted to typological categorization of British and Ukrainian dialogical discourse practices and ascertaining of their characteristic features. The dialogue is viewed as a universal complex dynamic cognitive-communicative-discourse construct that finds its realization in various social situations of information exchange between language speakers. In particular, it reveals its linguocultural specificity in discourse practices of British and Ukrainian ethnic groups. Dialogical discourse practice proves to be a hypersystem that consists of the interconnected open subsystems of the oral, written and virtual communication that differ in their qualitative, quantitative and procedural parameters. The comparative analysis reveals that among the common features of these subsystems are their structure (component, level and module), “stimulus-reaction” pattern, and an access to the inventory of language, speech and non-verbal means of communication elaborated within the particular linguoculture. It has been established that the subsystem of the oral natural communication is the basic one for the oral, written and virtual social communication types, thus its genres (the conversation, the talk, the argument and the quarrel) generate all the other genres of the social interaction formats. The typology of British and Ukrainian dialogical discourse practices has been established via dialogue parameterization. The latter is a polyparadigm methodological procedure of decomposition and classification of the national dialogical systems. The procedure presupposes three stages: 1) reconstruction of the prototypical verbal and non- verbal components of the frame structures of the ethnic dialogues of different formats and genres; 2) calculation of the prototypical interactional dominance in the dialogues of the primary speech genres; 3) establishment of the constitutive features of the ethnic dialogical situation and its module informational model development. The information models of the British and Ukrainian dialogue reveal themselves in the meanings of the lexemes naming ethnically modified invariant DIALOGUE and ДІАЛОГ frames that possess a common action-possession structure. Yet in the British lingual mind the concept DIALOGUE contains the information about the dialogue being a means of some problem solution, whereas in the Ukrainian language cognitive space the facts about the object of the dialogue are foregrounded in the concept ДІАЛОГ. The oral format of the British and Ukrainian natural everyday dialogical discourse practices is realized in such primary genres as the conversation, the talk, the argument and the quarrel. In the dialogues of the both cultures simple declarative sentences predominate. Colloquial and vulgar lexical units are employed to gain a necessary stylistic effect and influence the communication partner. Ellipsis, lexical and syntactical repetition are the most frequently used among the means of stylistic syntax. The diverse features are a greater activity of adjectives characterizing the same noun in British dialogical discourse practices and of the lexical units with the suffixes of subjective evaluation in the Ukrainian ones. Moreover, a greater number of emotional utterances are used in the Ukrainian dialogue. The oral format of socio-political dialogical discourse practices represents itself in such secondary genres as the interview, the talk-show and the political debates. In comparison with the oral natural format the number of composite sentences increases both in the British and Ukrainian lingual spaces. Common is also an active use of terminology and colloquialisms as well as homogeneous parts of the sentence, stylistically used 1 st person plural pronouns, lexical and syntactical repetition. The dialogues of the format are cooperative in both linguocultures, the Ukranian ones tending to be more cooperative and emotional. The written format of social everyday dialogical discourse practices develops such secondary genres as the question letter, the comment letter and the confession letter. It‟s one of the least emotionally coloured among the formats of Ukrainian and British dialogical communication. The common features of such dialogues are high cooperativity and the absence of such speech acts as the promisive and the menacive. Common is also the use of colloquial and terminological lexicon as well as stylistic functioning of 1 st person plural pronouns, homogeneous parts of the sentence and ellipsis. Dissimilar is the fact that British dialogues contain vulgarisms and are characterized by the absence of the units with the suffixes of subjective evaluation, which are extensively used in Ukrainian letters. The virtual format of social dialogical discourse practices is realized in such secondary speech genres as the blog, the chat, and the forum. The format is the most cooperative in both linguocultures. Characteristic of it is the usage of colloquialisms and slangisms. The interactions are formatted by simple sentences with specific visual means (letter multiplication, font change, emoticons, pictures etc.). They often violate the norms of mechanics, spelling and punctuation. The communication is filled with 1 st person plural pronouns used for stylistic purposes. The syntax stylistics demonstrates dissimilarity in the proportions of ellipsis, aposiopesis, adverbs of colloquial speech, units with the suffixes of subjective evaluation. The Ukrainian virtual dialogue is more emotionally coloured in comparison to the British one. The level of interactional dominance of the primary speech genres is not great. First of all, it concerns the conversation (the dominance is within the diapason of IR- difference=0-0,5 (Engl. IR-difference=0-0,4, Ukr. IR-difference=0-0,5)) and the talk (the diapason similarly expands: IR-difference=0-1 (Engl. IR-difference=0-0,9, Ukr. IR- difference=0-1)). Common is also the fact that the diapason of this level in the argument (IR-difference=0,2-1,5 (Engl. IR-difference=0,2-1,2, Ukr. IR-difference=0,2-1,5)), and, especially, in the quarrel (IR-difference=0,1-1,6 (Engl. IR-difference=0,1-1,6, Ukr. IR- difference=0,1-1,5)) is more expanded, which testifies to the greater activity of one of the interlocutors as for grasping communicative initiative. A number of common features of the oral, written and virtual dialogue in the British and Ukrainian linguocultures have been revealed. Among them are the basic action- possession cognitive model that determines the organizational, regulative and dynamic peculiarities of dialogue interaction; and the dominance of cooperation tactics, as well as the speech act of assertion, ellipsis and colloquial units. The distinguishing is the fact that the British dialogue is less emotive, saturated with stylistically elevated lexemes (terminology and bookish words) and adjectives characterizing the same noun, whereas the Ukrainian dialogue is more emotive and filled with the lowered lexicon (namely colloquial, slang, dialectal and vulgar words), as well as units with the suffixes of subjective evaluation.

В диссертации разработана новая теоретико-методологическая концепция построения форматной, генезисной и жанровой типологии британских и украинских диалоговых дискурсивных практик. Реконструированы концептуальные модели диалога, представленные этнокультурными и этноментальными модификациями фреймов DIALOGUE / ДІАЛОГ в современных английском и украинском языках. Обоснован базовый статус усного формата природно-бытового типа диалога, первичными речевыми жанрами которого выступают разговор, беседа, спор, ссора и который является источником для других типов: социально-политического типа устного формата с его вторичными речевыми жанрами – интервью, ток-шоу, политическими дебатами; социально-бытового типа письменного формата со вторичными речевыми жанрами, к которым относятся письма-отзывы, письма- вопросы, письма-признания; социального типа виртуального формата со вторичными речевыми жанрами – блогом, чатом, форумом. Установлены типологические закономерности и национально-культурные отличия в языковых средствах конструирования разноформатных, разногенезисных и разножанровых британских и украинских диалоговых дискурсивных практик. Доказан гиперсистемный характер диалога как универсальной когнитивно-дискурсивной модели человеческого сознания.