December 13, 2017

It wouldn’t hurt even a person far from the literary field to know how to compose a dialogue. For students, schoolchildren studying the Russian language course, and aspiring authors, this skill is simply necessary. Another situation: your child asks for help with homework. Suppose he is tasked with composing the dialogue “A Book in Our Lives” or something similar. The semantic component of the task does not cause any difficulties. But the punctuation marks in the characters’ remarks raise serious doubts, and the lines themselves are somehow not structured very consistently.

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

What kind of form is this?

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

Without knowing how to write dialogue, a new writer is doomed to failure. After all, this literary form is one of the most common in works of art.

When dialogue is appropriate

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

Its main features are determined by purposefulness, moderation and adherence to certain rules. The purposefulness of speech influence refers to the hidden or explicit goals of any of the participants in the dialogue. We can talk about a message, a question, advice, an order, a command or an apology.

To achieve their own goals, the interlocutors alternately implement certain intentions, the purpose of which is to induce the other side to specific actions of a verbal nature. Inviting information is expressed either directly in the form of an imperative verb, or indirectly with questions like: “Could you?” etc.

Video on the topic

How to compose a dialogue. General rules

1. Messages are sent in parts. First, the listener is prepared to perceive information, then it is substantiated, and then it is directly presented (in the form, for example, of advice or a request). At the same time, it is necessary to comply with the necessary etiquette standards.
2. The subject of the message must correspond to the main purpose of the conversation.
3. The speech of the interlocutors must be unambiguous, understandable and consistent.

In case of non-compliance with these rules, a violation of mutual understanding occurs. An example would be the speech of one of the interlocutors, which is incomprehensible to the other (with a predominance of unknown terminology or unclear articulation).

How a 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: “Can I talk to you?”, “May I distract you?” etc. Next, most often there are questions about business, health and life in general (most often this refers to informal conversations). These rules should be used if, for example, you need to compose a dialogue between friends. After this, messages about the immediate purpose of the conversation usually arrive.

The topic is subject to further development. How to create a dialogue that will look logical and natural? Its structure involves the speaker's information being presented in portions, interspersed with remarks from the interlocutor expressing his reaction. At some point, the latter may seize the initiative in the conversation.

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

Ideally, each topic of dialogue should be developed before moving on to the next. If any of the interlocutors does not support the topic, this is a sign of a lack of interest in it or in trying to end the dialogue as a whole.

About the culture of speech

When building speech behavior, both interlocutors are required to have understanding, a certain ability to penetrate the thoughts and mood of the other, to grasp his motives. Without all this, successful communication is impossible. Dialogue techniques involve different communication models 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. An incentive response is expected in the form of a word or action. Narration involves response communication in the form of a counter-remark or focused attention.

The latter term refers to such an absence of speech when the listener, with the help of non-verbal signs (gestures, interjections, facial expressions), makes it clear that the speech is heard and understood.

Let's move on to writing

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

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

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

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

A line is a phrase spoken by the characters out loud or to themselves.

Sometimes you can do without the words of the author - usually when the conversation consists of replicas of only two people (for example, you have a task - to compose a dialogue with a friend). In this case, each statement is preceded by a dash and followed by a space. At the end of a phrase there is a period, an ellipsis, an exclamation point or a 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 remaining characters remain in their places), then a space, a dash and again a space should be added. After which the words of the author are given (exclusively in small letters).

More complicated options

Sometimes the author’s words can be placed before the replica. If at the very beginning of the dialogue they are not highlighted as 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 should begin on a new line.

Composing a dialogue in Russian is not the easiest task. The most difficult case is when the author's words are placed inside a replica. This grammatical construction is most often accompanied by errors, especially among novice authors. This is due to a large number of options, two main of which: the sentence is broken by the author’s words, or these very words are placed between adjacent sentences.

In both cases, the beginning of the remark is exactly the same as in example with with the author’s words after it (a dash, a space, the remark itself, again a space, a dash, another space and the author’s words written in small letters). The further part is already different. If the author’s words are intended to be placed inside one whole sentence, a comma is required after these words and the further remark continues with a small letter after the dash. If it is decided to place the author’s words between two separate sentences, the first of them should end with a period. And after the obligatory dash, the next remark is written with a capital letter.

Other cases

Sometimes there is an option (rather 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 everything together represents a single structure, written on a separate line. In this case, the second part of direct speech begins with a colon and a dash.

In works of literature you can sometimes find even more complex constructions, but we won’t go into them now.

Having mastered the basic rules of construction, you will be able to similarly, for example, compose a dialogue in English, etc.

A little about the content

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

Too long continuous dialogues are highly discouraged. This unnecessarily drags out the story. After all, it is understood that the characters are having a conversation in real time, and the plot of the work as a whole must develop much faster. If a lengthy 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 up any dialogue. It should sound as natural as possible. The use of complex sentences or those expressions that are never found in colloquial speech is highly discouraged (of course, unless the author’s intention suggests otherwise).

How to check yourself

The easiest way to check the naturalness of the composed lines is by reading the dialogue out loud. All the extra long pieces along with pretentious words will inevitably hurt the ear. At the same time, it is much more difficult to check their presence with your eyes. This rule applies in the same way to any text, not just dialogue.

Another common mistake is the excess of attributive words or the monotony of their use. If possible, you should remove as many author’s comments as possible like: he said, she answered, etc. This should definitely be done in cases where it is already clear which of the characters the line belongs to.

Attributive verbs should not be repeated, their sameness hurts the ear. Sometimes you can replace them with phrases describing the actions of the characters followed by a 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 mixed with the main text. 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 we have outlined, you can easily compose any dialogue.

Dialogue is conversation between two or more persons in a drama or prose work. Or a philosophical and journalistic genre that involves an interview or argument between two or more persons; was developed in antiquity: the philosophical dialogues of Plato, in Lucian (“Conversations of the Gods”, “Conversations of Hetaeras”, “Conversations in the Kingdom of the Dead”). Distributed in the 17th and 18th centuries in France: “Letters to a Provincial” by B. Pascal, “Dialogues of the Ancient and New Dead” by F. Fenelon, “Ramo’s Nephew” by D. Diderot. As a genre, dialogue usually does not have an accompanying epic text, being closer in this regard to drama.

In the works of M.M. Bakhtin the term “dialogue” has significantly expanded its meaning. “dialogue” and its derivatives are used by Bakhtin in the following senses:

1. compositional speech form of life utterance (conversation between two or more persons);
2. all verbal communication;
3. speech genre (everyday, pedagogical, educational dialogue);
4. secondary genre - philosophical, rhetorical, artistic dialogue;
5. a constitutive feature of a certain type of novel (polyphonic);
6. vital philosophical and aesthetic position;
7. the formative principle of the spirit, the incomplete opposite of which is monologue.

The spiritual sphere of meaning is its own locus of dialogical relations, which “are completely impossible without logical and subject-semantic relations,” but for this they “must be embodied, that is, enter another sphere of being: become a word, that is, a statement, and receive an author, then there is the creator of a given statement, whose position it expresses.” This makes M.M. Bakhtin’s interpretation of dialogue and dialectics clear. Dialectics is a reifying relationship transferred to the realm of meaning, and dialogue is a personifying relationship in this spiritual realm. According to Bakhtin, dialogical relations are not logical, but personological. Ignoring this provision most of all contributed to the erosion (and devaluation) of the meaning of the category of “dialogue” in the mouths of Bakhtin’s interpreters. It is still customary to consider object and subject-object relationships - man and machine, different logics or linguistic units, even neurophysiological processes - as dialogical, rather than subject-subjective. Personality, personology, subjectivity are the second (after “meaning-spirit”) differential features of dialogical relationships. The participants in these relationships, according to Bakhtin, are “I” and “the other,” but not only them: “Each dialogue takes place, as it were, against the background of a reciprocal understanding of the invisibly present “third” standing above the participants in the dialogue (partners).” For Bakhtin, the third participant in the dialogue event is both the empirical listener-reader and, at the same time, God.

The Bakhtinian approach, while preserving the status of a real life relationship for dialogue, not abstracted from the empirical situation, not turning it into a convention (not metaphorizing it), at the same time gives rise to a special kind of expansion of the meaning of the word “dialogue”. Dialogue understood in this way covers a wide sphere of relations and has different degrees of expression. To determine the lower limit of dialogic relations, the concepts of “zero” degree of dialogicity and “unintentional dialogicity” are introduced. An example of “zero dialogical relations” is “a situation of dialogue between two deaf people, widely used in comedy, where there is real dialogical contact, but there is no semantic contact between the replicas (or imaginary contact) - here “the point of view of a third person in the dialogue (not participating in the dialogue, but the one who understands it. The understanding of a whole utterance is always dialogical." The lower level also includes "unintentional dialogism" that arises between entire utterances and texts, "remote from each other in time and space, knowing nothing about each other" - "if between them there is at least some semantic convergence." In this case, as with the zero degree, the role of the explicator of dialogical relations is played by the “third,” the understander. In another case, to identify “a special form of unintentional dialogicity,” Bakhtin uses the formula “dialogical shade.”

The upper limit of dialogicity is the speaker's attitude towards his own word. They become possible when the word acquires double intention - it turns out to be directed not only at an object, but also “at someone else’s word” about this object. Bakhtin calls such a statement and word two-voiced. Only when the author turns to a two-voiced word does the compositional speech form of dialogue cease to be an external form and become internally dialogical, and the dialogue itself becomes a fact of poetics. The range of dialogical relationships realized by the two-voiced word does not boil down to confrontation and struggle, but presupposes both disagreement and mutual appeal of independent voices, as well as agreement (“rejoicing”, “co-loving”). The dialogic word and the dialogical author's position were found in the polyphonic novel of Dostoevsky to their highest degree of development, but a certain degree of dialogicity, according to Bakhtin, is a necessary condition for authorship: “An artist is one who knows how to be extra-vitally active, not only involved in life and understanding it from within, but also loving it from the outside - where it does not exist for itself, where it is turned outside itself and needs extra-local and non-semantic activity. The divinity of the artist lies in his participation in the highest externality. But this non-existence with the event of other people’s lives and the world of this life is, of course, a special and justified type of participation in the event of existence.” Here we are not talking about abstraction from the event, not about one-sided (“monological”) extra-location, but about a special kind of (“dialogical”) presence of the author simultaneously both inside the event and outside it, about his immanence and at the same time transcendence to the event of existence.

The word dialogue comes from Greek dialogos, which means conversation.

Interactive list. Start typing the word you are looking for.

DIALOGUE

DIALOGUE, -a, m.

1. Conversation between two persons, exchange of remarks. Stage d.

2. trans. Negotiations, contacts between the two countries, parties.

| Political village. Constructive village. adj.~ic , -th, -oe (to 1 value) and~new

, -th, -oe (to 1 value; special). What's happened, What's happened DIALOGUE What's happened this is the meaning of the word What's happened, origin (etymology) What's happened, synonyms for What's happened, paradigm (word forms)

in other dictionaries What's happened Paradigm, word forms

+ What's happened- Complete accentuated paradigm according to A. A. Zaliznyak

- T.F. Efremova New dictionary of the Russian language. Explanatory and word-formative

what is DIALOGUE

dialogue dial O

G

m.

b) Exchange of remarks between the characters of a literary work as the main way of depicting characters and developing action in drama and one of the methods in prose.

2) A literary or philosophical essay in the form of a conversation between two persons.

a) transfer

Diplomatic negotiations between the governments of two countries or groupings (blocs) of countries in order to reach an agreement, peaceful settlement of relations between them, etc.

+ What's happened b) Business contacts between smb. social, professional, etc. groups of people.

- T.F. Efremova New dictionary of the Russian language. Explanatory and word-formative

DIALOGUE

- Modern explanatory dictionary ed. "Great Soviet Encyclopedia"

+ What's happened(Greek dialogos), 1) a form of oral speech, a conversation between two or more persons; speech communication through exchange of remarks. As part of the literary text, it dominates drama and is present in epic works. It also exists as an independent journalistic and philosophical genre (for example, Plato’s dialogues). 2) In a figurative sense - negotiations, free exchange of opinions, for example. political dialogue.

- Dictionary of foreign words What's happened Etymology

- Etymological dictionary of the Russian language. Vasmer Max

what is DIALOGUE

etymology DIALOGUE

dialogue

+ What's happened Form with stress on the last syllable of borrowings. from French dialogue or German Dialog; others, possibly, through Polish. dialog from Lat. dialogus from Greek. διάλογος.

- Small Academic Dictionary of the Russian Language

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

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

a form of speech, a 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. concept (especially in drama, where it is opposed to monologue and mass stage); form of teaching: then the truth is assumed to be known before the conversation, a way to explain it is sought; D. can be a form of philosophy. research (for example, Plato) and religion. revelations. Sometimes all these aspects coincide. 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 talk about the D. of the deaf, thereby indirectly defining genuine dialogue as a conversation with an attempt to understand the interlocutor. Mitya Karamazov's conversation with Alyosha - D., Mitya's conversation with Khokhlakova, in which two persons also participate, approaches the mass stage, Dostoevsky's favorite scandal, when everyone shouts and no one listens to anyone. The Second Vatican Council decided to switch to D. from non-Catholics. confessions of Christianity and non-Christian religions. This is understood by everyone as the end of one-sided propaganda and an attempt to talk as equals, an attempt to convince 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 strives for it, who is not eager to confirm his previously established confession of truth, who keeps the gates of truth open. When several voices echo in a conversation, it can be called a conversation in Russian. In classic In a dialogue or conversation, agreement is achieved without the pronounced hegemony of one voice. This is how Plato's Symposium was written. The truth is revealed gradually, through a common effort, and in its entirety remains, as it were, floating in the pauses between remarks. On the contrary, in “The Republic” Plato uses the usual form of D., presenting a theory that is internally non-dialogical, a theory-system, natural. the presentation would be a monologue. The form of D. is found in folklore (for example, in competitions with riddles) and in all high cultures. We find elements of D. in the Upanishads. The conversations of Confucius with his students were included in the treasury of China. thoughts. The culture of Islam is the least dialogical. Muhammad's conversations with his contemporaries were not recorded as a whole; The prophet's judgments were taken out of context and became a source of law (hadith). The underdevelopment of Islam is one of the reasons for Islam's unpreparedness for contacts with the West and the perception of pluralism as a threat to order. Origins of Western D. - in the Hellenic theater, in the 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” and the analysis of open questions of scholasticism are internally dialogical. The shift of modern philosophy to the scientific method displaces D. in essays and philosophy. novel (“The Magic Mountain” by Thomas Mann). In Russia, the spirit of D. takes shape in the disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles. Dostoevsky's work is deeply dialogical. Thinkers who were influenced by Dostoevsky (Berdyaev, Shestov, Rozanov) are internally dialogical. “Vekhi” is dialogical (certain 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. cultural worlds in Dostoevsky’s “polyphony”. Polyphony and D. are equally opposed to dialectics, which affirms relative. the truth of each stage in the development of an idea. D. rather affirms the image of the Whole beyond the signs. The search for lost integrity caused 20th century Europe. dialogical 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 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 deifies the world. The concentration of thought on the world as an object “leads to technocratic. development, increasingly disastrous for the integrity of man and even for his physical. existence” (G. Marcel). Human integrity. the 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 internal D., denying the possibility of speaking about God in the third person. Both the love of nature and the love of man for man follows from the I-You relationship and collapses if the interlocutor becomes a third party, Dialogue. In philosophy D. “none of the disputants should renounce 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 zap. equilibrium reached after two worlds. wars. Economic efficiency is impossible without sustainable order, and sustainable order without social protection. And vice versa: social protection is ineffective if the economy is ineffective. Any principle consistently pursued until the opposite is destroyed becomes absurd and sows debris. “Too much consciousness is a disease” (Dostoevsky). Consciousness here means unconditional loyalty to the principle, the habit of building a logical. schemes and subordinate your life to them. In “Logical-Philos. 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 directly. Everything that can be formulated rationally takes away from life. An objection is always worth hearing, even if it is untimely. When talking about a principle, you need to think about the opposite, about a counterweight, so that at the moment when the principle leads into the abyss, you discard it. Linear thinking is one-sided and carries with it the inevitability of a false result. This, apparently, was meant by the Middle Ages. monks, creating a proverb: “The devil is a logician.” Krishnamurti says roughly the same thing 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 will 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. Logical-philosophical. 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 a culture of dialogue. Novosibirsk, 1993; Dialogue in philosophy: Traditions and modernity. St. Petersburg, 1995. G. S. Pomerantz. 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(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, and judgments expressed by its participants. In some cases, the result of the discussion is general agreement on a particular formulation. But the main result is not this, but the understanding that arose in the course of a general conversation, the grasping or clarification of the truth, which arose precisely thanks to a long discussion. The truth of Socratic dialogue is not formulated in a ready-made form and does not have a completed verbal expression. It is born from the totality of everything expressed during the discussion, but is not contained in any of the final statements. That is why D. turns out to be the most adequate method of knowing the truth. An important presumption of Socratic discourse, however, is the conviction that truth itself already exists. The task of discussion is to find it, to achieve a full understanding. Philosophical concepts of discourse, developed in the 20th century, are partly based on the concept of Socratic discourse. What remains common to them is the idea of ​​discourse 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 extent possible. get closer to her. An important difference, as a rule, is 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.'s philosophy (for example, F. Rosenzweig, M. Bakhtin, M. Buber) is based on 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 relationship of the subject to the object (“I-it”), then the dialogical approach assumes the dominance of subject-subject connections. Further development of this direction is associated with phenomenology. In particular, E. Levinas's concept of D. is based on the ideas of Husserl's transcendental phenomenology and on criticism of Husserl's idealism within the framework of the phenomenological direction. The main question of this criticism is the legitimacy of “bracketing” any reality transcendental 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 another, 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 relationship to another consciousness. Only in this respect is the generation of new meanings possible. Moreover, this relation is a condition of existence consciousness. I I exist only in D., i.e. insofar as it exists Another. Another important direction in the philosophy of D. is the concept of D. cultures, developed by V. Bibler. The main category of this concept is culture as a specific subject capable of the full development of all its semantic intentions. It is the completeness, or the extreme presentation of the main meanings, that makes Bibler talk specifically about culture, and not about an individual author. In culture, every concept is thought out to its fullest, and universality of thinking is achieved. Every question posed within the framework of culture must receive - within the same framework - a comprehensive answer. However, this ultimateness of answers is possible only because every culture starts from a different universality, from other ultimate answers to questions posed differently (but, apparently, the same ones). At a certain end point, every culture collides and enters into dispute with another culture that unfolds its meanings differently. This dispute takes place in a timeless space, in which each historically completed culture can find its answers to the mental movements of new cultures, develop its counterarguments regarding the objections presented to it. Another area of ​​understanding the concept of D. is philosophical hermeneutics. In H.E. Gadamer, in particular, history is considered as the main form of historical knowledge. However, in describing the work of a historian seeking to understand the past, Gadamer is ultimately talking about the human situation in general. This situation is dialogical because a person, staying within his own semantic horizon, constantly expands it at the expense of the semantic horizons of other people. The historian studies the past through constant dialogue with those who expressed their situation, their semantic horizon in sources, mainly in written evidence. The task of the historian is to merge horizons, i.e. in attaching those meanings that are expressed in the evidence of the past to one’s own. But every person who enters into communication with another person does the same. By 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. Idea 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 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 justifying a scientific result from the very beginning imply the possibility of its critical discussion. IN philosophy of science 20th century the dialogic 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. Apel. He points out that very often the spontaneous attitude present in a scientist is “methodological solipsism,” i.e. the idea of ​​a researcher approaching the object being studied “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 discourse, and all scientific methods, as well as results, are formed under the influence of communicative norms on which this discourse is based (see also Pragmatics). G.B. Gutner

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

Great definition

Hello! Competent writing of direct speech (DS) and dialogues allows you to increase the visibility of information and better convey the general meaning of what is written. In addition, basic adherence to the rules of the Russian language can be appreciated by the target audience.

The question of correct formatting in the text (TP) will not cause difficulties if you understand a number of important points in time. First of all, it is worth understanding that there is a difference between the concepts of direct and indirect speech (KS). The first one repeats verbatim the original statements introduced into the story or narration of the author without changing the individual character and style (dialectal features, repetitions and pauses).

PR is introduced into the text without the use of conjunctions or pronouns, which greatly simplifies the use of KS.

ETC: The teacher suddenly remarked: “Time is up.”

KS: The teacher noticed that time had expired.

In the PR text most often:

• written in quotation marks;
• stands out as a separate paragraph, starting with a dash.

Questions regarding how to correctly write direct speech in a text arise when its structure becomes more complex. For example, interruptions with the words of the author.

You can view free introductory courses in 3 popular areas of remote work. Details see the online training center.

PR begins or ends a sentence

Direct speech at the beginning of a sentence must be enclosed in quotation marks, including question marks, exclamation marks and ellipses. The period is placed outside the quotation marks. A dash highlights the author's words and stands in front of them.

“The train has left, now I’ll definitely be late!” - the girl exclaimed with disappointment.

PR at the end of a sentence is highlighted with a colon instead of a comma and a dash, while the words of the author are written with a capital letter.

The girl said with disappointment: “I came too late - the train has left, and I need to run to the bus!”

Let's finish with the examples for now. Schematically, the rules can be depicted as follows:

“PR (!?)” - a. “PR” - a.

A: “PR(!?..).” A: “PR.”

The author's words are included in the PR

“The train has left,” the girl thought sadly, “now I’ll definitely be late!”

If the beginning of the PR is a logically completed sentence, the author’s words should be limited to a period, and the final part should begin with a dash.

“Well, the train managed to leave,” the student thought sadly. “Now I definitely won’t make it to college!”

The conditional diagrams are:

“PR, - a, - pr.”

“PR, - ah. - ETC".

PR is included in the author’s narrative

The man sadly thought: “The train has left, now I’ll definitely be late,” and quickly ran to the bus stop.

If the PR is at the beginning of the sentence, it is followed by a dash:

“The train has left, now I’ll definitely be late!” - thought the man, and hurried to the bus stop.

Conditional design schemes:

A: “PR,” - a.

A: “PR (?! ...)” - a.

Rules for writing dialogues

In dialogues:

• quotes are not included;
• Each of the lines is moved to a new line and begins with a dash.

Example dialogue:

- Father has arrived!

“And now for a long time,” Yuri answered joyfully. - The expedition is over.

Often in one sentence the PR with a certain verb is used twice. This means that there must be a colon before the end of the PR.

“Father has arrived,” Vova said slowly, and suddenly cried out loudly: “Dad, how long will you stay?”

If the remarks are short, they can be written on one line using a dash as a separator:

- Son? - Mom shouted. - It's you?

Having the knowledge described above, I think it will not be difficult to correctly write direct speech in texts in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. A schematic representation of the rules can be rewritten on a piece of paper and the information can be used as needed until it is firmly fixed in memory.

There is only one interesting question left. You know, like good money? Attention, this means normal work, not cheap work. I hasten to please you. This topic is widely covered on this blog. Look at the publications, there are a lot of interesting things. Subscribe. The publication of new materials continues. See you later.