SPEECH OVERLAPS IN THE DIALOGUES OF BRITISH DRAMAS OF THE 20TH CENTURY (USING TOOLS OF CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2024.4.28Keywords:
conversational analysis, interaction, drama, drama discourse, overlapsAbstract
The article examines the dramatic texts of British authors of the 20th century, using the methodology and tools of Conversational analysis. Conversational analysis is a scientific discipline that combines pragmatics and sociolinguistics. It focuses on the peculiarities of speech interaction, such as the structure and formal properties of speech, which help interlocutors interpret each other's behavior. The roots of Conversational analysis can be traced back to the theory of social order of ethnomethodology by Harold Garfinkel. Sociologists and linguists, such as Harvey Sacks, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson, have made significant contributions to the development of this method of dialogue and polilogue research. The methodology of Conversational analysis involves collecting and recording research material in situations of reallife daily communication, mainly in everyday situations. The categorical apparatus of Conversational analysis includes concepts such as turn-taking, reparations, overlaps, sequences, adjacent pairs, and preferences. The subject of research in Conversational analysis is expanding. Modern researchers focus on live spoken language in both everyday and institutional settings, as well as on written types of discourse, which are a certain representation of language. This research method can be applied to analyze the organization of discourse in dramatic works. From the perspective of Conversational analysis theory, the dramatic text is considered as a separate linguistic environment, where features of speech are present in situations of real communication. Differences in the structure of dialogue (polilogue) in drama and real communication are due to the necessity of realizing the author's intention – expressing the idea and the theme of the play, depicting the characters, defining their status and relationships, and the development of the action. The construction of a dramatic text depends on several factors, such as the principle of exchange of characters' lines, definition of the characters through interactions, and the main idea of the play. The aforementioned indicates the benefit of applying Conversational analysis to study dramatic works to discover and analyze the characters' traits, their social roles, status, and their relationships.
References
Матіяш-Гнедюк І.М. Дискурс п’єси у ракурсі теорії конверсаційного аналізу (на матеріалі творів британських драматургів ХХ ст.). Folium. Одеса : Видавничий дім «Гельветика», 2023а. С. 48-55. https://doi.org/10.32782/folium/2023.1.7
Матіяш-Гнедюк І. М. Конверсаційний аналіз як інструмент дослідження дискурсу п’єси (на матеріалі творів британських драматургів ХХ ст.). Мова. Література. Фольклор, (1), 2023б. C. 34-41. https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-9594-2022-1-5
Матіяш-Гнедюк І.М., Юрчишин В.М. Суміжні пари та організація преференцій у діалогах британських драм ХХ ст. (крізь призму інструментарію конверсаційного аналізу). Науковий вісник Міжнародного гуманітарного університету. Сер.: Філологія. 2023. № 59. Том 2. С. 102-107. https://doi.org/10.32841/2409-1154.2023.59.2.23
Barthes R., Berthet F. Présentasion. Communications. 1979. № 30. P. 3-5.
Beckett S. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1998. 98 p.
Bowles H. Storytelling and drama: Exploring narrative episodes in plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. 216 p.
Bowles H. The contribution to the study of literary dialogue URL: http://www.novitasroyal.org/Vol_5_1/bowles.pdf (дата звернення: 15.12.2022)
Churchill C. Blue heart. London: Nick Hern Books, 1997. 73 p.
Couper-Kuhlen E., Selting M. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge University Press, 2017. P. 620
Culpeper J., Short M., Verdonk P. Exploring the language of drama: From text to context. London: Routledge, 1998. 183 p.
Deppermann A. Social Actions. In M. Haugh D. Kádár, M. Terkourafi (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2021. pp. 69-94
Garfinkel H. Ethnomethodological studies of work. New York: Routledge, 2005. 204 p.
Garfinkel H. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967. 304 p.
Gefferson G. Another Failed Hypothesis: Pitch/Loudness as Relevant to Overlap Resolution. Tilburg: Tilburg University, Department of Language and Literature, 1983. 24 p.
Gefferson G. Harvey Sacks: Lectures 1964-1965. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989. 266 p.
Gefferson G. Two explorations of the organization of overlapping talk in conversation. Tilburg: Tilburg University, Department of Language and Literature, 1982. 61 p.
Goffman E. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-toface behavior. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2005. 270 p.
Goffman E. The representation of self in everyday life. Gloucester: Peter Smith Pub Incorporated, 1999. 259 p.
Goldkuhl G. Conversational Analysis as a Theoretical Foundation for Language Action Approches URL: http://infolab.uvt.nl/research/lap2003/goldkuhl.pdf (дата звернення: 15.12.2022)
Harwood R. Equally divided. London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1999. 156 p.
Have P. Doing Conversation Analysis. 2nd edition. London: Sage, 2007. 246p.
Hepburn A., Bolden G. B. Transcribing for social research. SAGE Publications, London, 2017. P. 206
Heritage J. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984. 336 p.
Herman V. Dramatic discourse: Dialogue as interaction in plays. London: Routledge, 1998. 331 p.
Hilbert R. A. The classical roots of ethnomethodology: Durkheim, Weber and Garfinkel. The University of North Carolina Press, 2001. 278 p.
Jacobs W. W. The monkey’s paw. Tales of Terror. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995. P. 5 - 32.
Kopytko R. Against rationalistic pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics. 1995. No 23. P. 475-491.
Kopytko R. From cartesian to non-cartesian pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics. 1995. No 33. P.783-804.
Levinson C. S. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1989. 240 p.
Macdonald S. When I was a girl, I used to scream and shout … London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1995. 355 p.
Mandala S. Twentieth-century drama dialogue as ordinary talk. Adelshot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007. 141 p.
Markee N. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers, 2009. 216 p.
Mondada L. Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51:1, 2018. Pp. 85-106.
Ogden R. The Phonetics of Talk in Interaction. The Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics. 2022. pp. 657–681.
Person R. In conversation with Jonah: Conversation analysis, literary criticism, and the Book of Jonah. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, 1996. 204 p.
Sacks H. Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. 818 p.
Schegloff E. Discourse, pragmatics, conversation analysis. URL: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/pubs/index.php?action=abs&-file_id=19 (дата звернення: 15.12.2022)
Schgegloff E. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 300 p.
Sidnell J. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 296 p.
Singwongsuwat K. Conversation Analysis (CA): An Introduction from a Linguist’s Perspective URL: http://www4.nida.ac.th/lc/journal2007/4.pdf (дата звернення: 15.12.2022)
Traverso V. L’analyse des conversations. Paris: Nathan, 1999. 254 p.
