The Features Of Phraseological Structures Functioning In The Dialogic Text, Based On German Prose

Abstract

The article deals with the study of the specificity of the functioning of phraseological structures, particularly, fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word in a dialogic text based on the German prose material, since a dialogue is a familiar and integral part of any communication. The research relevance is determined by the continuing interest of linguists in the dialogical texts phraseology problems and the poorly studied object of this research, which is represented by the fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word in the modern German prose dialogues. The article studies dialogicality as a property of modern German prose. The peculiarity of the German prose dialogical text is due to the presence of the studied fixed phrase schemes, in which the negative meaning prevails. As a result of syntactic structures phraseologization the emotional layers appear in them, which are typical for oral speech recorded in a literary text. To convey any (positive/negative) semantics of the studied fixed phrase schemes the corresponding lexical context and the specific situation in the characters' dialogues play a significant role. The methods of observation and linguistic research description, of multi-aspect analysis and others have been used. This work determines the importance of correct use of the studied fixed phrase schemes in a dialogic text for the appropriate decoding of the author's intentions and also gives the comparative analysis samples of the studied phraseological structures revealed in these contexts.

Keywords: CommunicationdialogueGermanphraseologyphraseologizationprose

Introduction

The existence of modern people is impossible without everyday participation in dialogues, since a dialogue is a form of human speech behavior in natural communication and an integral part of any communication. “The only adequate form of verbal expression of genuine human life is an incomplete dialogue. Life is dialogical by nature. To live means to participate in a dialogue: to question, to listen, to respond, to agree, etc. In this dialogue a person participates with all his life: with his eyes, lips, hands, soul, spirit, whole body and actions” (Bahtin, 1979, p. 204).

Problem Statement

The study of dialogue as a form of language has been actively developing since the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, still being carried out now on the material of different languages (Bakhtin, 1979, 1981; Craveri, 2002; Golovinova & Kudrjashov, 2015; Klemenova & Kudrjashov, 2015; Kotova & Kudrjashov, 2015; Yermolenkina & Smirnova, 2018; Smirnova, 2018; Ostrikova & Kolesnikova, 2019; Melnik & Topolskaya, 2019; Watanabe & Swain, 2019; Doane, 2020 et al.). The study of dialogue as a form of speech communication in an artistic work occupies a special place in linguistics, since “the speech of artistic works consists of different types of monologue and dialogue, from a mixture of various forms of oral and written speech” (Vinogradov, 1959, p.54).

The multidimensional analysis of dialogical literary texts is given in the works of prominent linguists (Bakhtin, 1979, 1981; Bibler, 2018, et al.; Buber, 1970; Golanova, 2008; McNeil, 2017). For example, Golanova (2008) believes that “dialogue as a form of speech activity, speech interaction”, which was studied through fiction, has led to “many interesting and important observations about the structure of the dialogic text, structural and semantic types of replicas, ways of their connection, their stylistic originality in the artistic work” (p. 415).

Bakhtin (1979) tried to understand the essence of a person, a specific individual and the way of thinking in general, using his theory of dialogism. Dialogicality as a text category is realized in the process of giving the text the certain language properties that affect the obtaining of dialogic features. According to Bakhtin (1979) dialogicity is a general property of language and speech.

Buber (1970) considered dialogue to be the structure of existence (life). The idea of the dialogical nature of human mind and culture is due to the ideas of Bibler (2018). Dialogicity allows us to interpret language and speech as a socio-cultural phenomenon, in the basis of which there is the dialogue of characters in a certain language environment due to a certain situation of interaction.

According to researchers, the category of dialogicality is expressed by the language means of dialogization, aimed at actualizing dialogic connections both within the text itself and beyond it. Dialogization is the deliberate empowerment of monologue speech with the features of dialogue (dialogicity), explication of speech interaction of communicants during monologue speech communication. The composition and speech layers of the artistic prose text include the author's speech, the speech of the characters and the internal (depicted) speech of the character (Skorik, 2010).

The focus of this research is presented by the process of phraseologization of dialogical speech of characters in the text of fiction, since the real addressee of any dialogue is the reader, who must decode a certain moment of the author's intention, due to his artistic tasks. The analysis of the linguistic data has revealed that one of the manifestations of phraseological dialogic utterances is the use of phraseological structures, in particular the fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word.

The language material of the given study was the literary prosaic texts of the XIX-XXI centuries, which are the part of the national corpora of German (COSMAS, DWDS). In the result, the language material consisted of more than 1000 contexts with the use of the studied phraseological structures – further fixed phrase schemes in dialogical texts.

Research Questions

The given research attempts to answer the important questions: is dialogicality a property inherent in modern German prose and what are the features of the functioning of phraseological structures in a dialogic text based on the material of German prose. It is necessary to determine whether the correct use of the fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word in a dialogic text is important for the appropriate decoding of the author's intentions.

Purpose of the Study

The study aims to outline the features of the functioning phraseological structures in a dialogic text based on the material of German prose on the example of the fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word.

Research Methods

The traditional methods of observation and linguistic research description, method of component analysis, method of syntactic modeling, method of multi-aspect (phraseological, etymological, and contextual) analysis have been used in this work. The choice of methods has been determined by the object and subject of research specifics.

Findings

The comparative analysis of the contexts of phraseological structures usage revealed in dialogues on the example of the fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word has shown a different degree of phraseologization of prose texts. It can be more or less expressed due to the intention of the author and it manifests itself in varying degrees of deactualization of questionability seme of the compulsory component of the studied fixed phrase schemes. It happens also due to the punctuation mark placed at the end of the sentence with the studied fixed phrase schemes. A question mark is rarely placed at the end of a sentence in the studied fixed phrase schemes, although all the analyzed fixed phrase schemes in dialogues are similar in form and etymology to the question sentence. Such constructions are exclamations due to the purpose of the utterances, so an exclamation mark needs to be put. For example:

“– Rolf? – sagt Riesenfeld. – Was für ein blöder Name! Hast du den immer? – Ich habe das Recht, ihn in Schaltjahren und nach dem Dienst zu tragen.” /E. М. Remarque. Der schwarze Obelisk/.

The fixed phrase scheme Was für ein blöder Name! reveals the semantics “this is a stupid name combined with surprise and negative assessment of the subject of speech, condemnation, indignation, censure, etc.”.

Compare it with the following example:

“– Verdammt! – schrie Strohschneider. – Was ist das für eine Sauerei? – Rasch, Bucher! Noch einmal! – flüsterte Berger.” /E. М. Remarque. Der Funke Leben/.

Here the fixed phrase scheme Was ist das für eine Sauerei? conveys the meaning “this is a great mess combined with indignation, etc.”. The highly expressed phraseology of this dialog is due to the high degree of phraseologization of the fixed phrase scheme Was ist das für eine Sauerei? within the dialog. This fact is confirmed by the complete deactualization of the questionability seme in a combination of lexemes was für within the fixed phrase scheme. But for the question mark at the end of such a sentence, while preserving the interrogative sentence syntax structure, a degree of phraseologization would also be high, which is observed in the following example:

“– Wie geht es dir? – murmelte ich. Was für eine dämliche Frage. – Bin ein bisschen bedröhnt.” /S. Meyer. Biss zum Mittagsstunde, translated by Sylke Hachmeister/ (The meaning is “Very stupid question + frustration, outrage, etc.”).

The traditional composition of the studied fixed phrase schemes is as follows:

1) compulsory unchangeable component (question word);

2) compulsory changeable component (the elements of the structure of the general type question – subject and predicate).

Sometimes the fixed phrase scheme can be expanded by having an optional element in its structure, which may be or may not be present.

Let`s consider this linguistic phenomenon on the example of the following fixed phrase scheme within the dialogue of the characters, where the scheme Was für ein Kind du noch bist reveals the meaning “you are a child + surprise combined with a negative assessment of the subject of speech, condemnation, indignation, censure, etc.”:

“– Ich glaube, du bist wirklich eingeschnappt. Was für ein Kind du noch bist! – Darin möchte ich auch ganz gerne eins bleiben, – sage ich.” /E. М. Remarque. Der schwarze Obelisk/.

In the given case of the fixed phrase scheme Was für ein Kind du noch bist its structure is extended by having an optional component, represented by a modal amplifying adverb noch , expressing the speaker's special interest to the subject of speech.

The optional component can be expressed and located at the beginning of the fixed phrase scheme, when it is represented by interjections and particles, which are the characteristics of dialogic colloquial speech that enhance the utterance communication value ( ach, oh, nun, wow, etc.):

“– Sie werden doch nicht drauβen stehen! – Stӧre ich nicht? – fragte Karl. – Ach, wie werden Sie denn stӧren! – Sind Sie ein Deutscher? – suchte sich Karl noch zuversicher.” /F. Kafka. Amerika/.

In this example the fixed phrase scheme transmits the meaning of “you will not interfere” in combination with a high degree of confidence, perplexity and so on, and the interjection Ach gives the dialogue an emotional character. Thus, amplifying words, interjections and particles in such examples have a logical accent in statements, which gives dialogic speech greater expressiveness, helping the author to convey the speaker's vivid emotions and showing the relation to the speech issue and the interlocutor. The structural version of the fixed phrase scheme due to its expansion, significantly increases the scope of its use and gives this unit a more specific communicative meaning than in the initial version of the construction.

The important issue for the use of fixed phrase schemes in dialogues is the pragmatic aspect of their use, which is of a manipulative nature, which is manifested in influencing the interlocutor and encouraging him to act/not to act. For example:

“– Weil ich gar nicht singen kann! – Warum tust du es dann? – Ciara prustete vor Lachen. Da Declan sowieso wild entschlossen schien, die Wahrheit aus ihr herauszuprügeln.” /C.Ahern. P. S. Ich liebe Dich, translated by Christine Strüh/ (The semantics is “Don't do it + censure, etc.”). In the given context the scheme Warum tust du es dann? carries the meaning of “inducement to the imperfection of an action in combination with disapproval, indignation, censure, etc.”.

Fixed phrase schemes can express the enantiosemic meanings, that are the opposite meanings while having the same form, but the implementation of enantiosemic values in speech imposes special requirements on the context (Ostrikova & Kolesnikova, 2019). These fixed phrase schemes are constructions that are etymologically related to interrogative sentences, but are formed as exclamation sentences. The structure of the question sentence is preserved, and the question group Was für ein undergoes a deactualization of its meaning. As a result of enantiosemic reinterpretation, utterances acquire a special expressiveness with a negative meaning that does not have a grammatical form.

Phraseological meaning can express:

1) “a positive assessment of the speech issue with admiration or approval, etc.”;

2) “a speech subject negative assessment as inappropriate to the actual affairs state with disapproval or indignation, etc.”

The following scheme has the enantiosemic values:

“– Wenn du nicht vorbereitet bist, dann verschieben wir vielleicht den Besuch besser für nächstens, – meinte der Onkel. – Was für Vorbereitungen! – rief Herr Pollunder. – Ein junger Mann ist immer vorbereitet.” (Franz Kafka, Amerika, Kapitel 7).

Compare.:

“Hast du über deine Vorbereitungen nicht vergessen? – Was für Vorbereitungen? – fragte der Junge.” (Aus dem Gespräch).

Or, for example:

“Denn im Grunde ist sie schon bald ziemlich desillusioniert. Was für ein Leben! Ein Hasten von einem Termin zum nächsten in oft grässlichen Betonklötzen.” (DIE ZEIT. 13.03.2008. Nr. 12).

Compare.:

“Was für ein Leben! Lebendiges Leben. Ein Leben das lebenswürdig ist. Mit Würde das Leben zu leben, das ist es!” (Stefan Wittlin, Schweizer „Medicus-Canis“).

In the first example the fixed phrase scheme Was für Vorbereitungen! reveals the meaning “no need in training”, and in the second example the fixed phrase scheme Was für ein Zirkus das ist! is understood as “not a serious procedure” that compares the elections with the performances in a circus. The positive values “what kind of training is needed?” and “what kind of circus is this?” are presented in both cases by examples from the corresponding dialogues.

All the phraseological structures studied above (fixed phrase schemes) have in their structure a compulsory unchangeable component expressed by an interrogative word, and a compulsory changeable component expressed structurally by a general question. There may be an optional component represented by interjections or particles that enhance the meaning of the utterance in terms of communication ( ach, wow, oh, nun and so on).

Conclusion

Obviously, dialogue is a usual form of communication in German prose. The analysis of dialogical speech in the studied works has shown that the correct use of fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word in the dialogues of German modern literary texts is important for the correct decoding of the author's intentions.

The phraseological structures, functioning in the form of fixed phrase schemes in German prose, have prominent features. The peculiarity of the dialogical text of German prose is due to the presence of fixed phrase schemes with a compulsory component expressed by a question word, in which the negative meaning prevails. In addition, the emotional layers appear in them due to phraseologization of syntactic structures, which is typical for oral speech recorded in a literary text.

To convey any (positive/negative) semantics of the studied fixed phrase schemes the corresponding lexical context and the specific situation in the characters' dialogues play a significant role. The setting of an exclamation mark in the sentence, which has the structure of a special question, is also a manifestation of phraseologization of the studied units in the communicative and functional aspects. The structure of the researched fixed phrase schemes is characterized by the compulsory changeable and compulsory unchangeable components and the presence of the optional components. The fixed phrase schemes, being a variety of phraseological units of the language, actively function in the dialogic speech of modern German artistic works, act as a kind of “helpers” in the process of phraseologization of syntactic structures for the effective communication in the form of a dialogue.

References

1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1979). Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal art]. Iskusstvo.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
3. Bibler, V. (2018). Kultura. Dialog kultur [Culture. Dialogue of cultures]. Dukh i litera.
4. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. Simon and Schuster.
5. Craveri, B. (2002). L’Âge de la conversation [The Age of conversation]. Gallimard Publ.
6. Doane, M. (2020). The dialogical text: filmic irony and the spectator [Doctoral dissertation]. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=7274750
7. Golanova, E. I. (2008). Sovremennyj russkij yazyk: Aktivnye processy na rubezhe XX-XXI vekov [Modern Russian language: Active processes at the edge of the XX–XXI centuries]. Yazyki slavyanskoy kul’tury.
8. Golovinova, P. A., & Kudrjashov, I. A. (2015). Kosvennyj ekspressivnyj akt kak otrazhenie emocional'nogo opyta govoryashchego sub"ekta v dialogicheskom vzaimodejstvii [Indirect expressive act as the reflection of speaker’s emotional experience in dialogic interaction]. V mire nauchnyh otkrytij, 11.2(71), 1020-1028.
9. Klemenova, E. N., & Kudrjashov, I. A. (2015). Dialogicheskoe dvizhenie v sovremennoj lingvistike: pragmaticheskoe issledovanie lichnosti v informacionnom obshchestve [Dialogic movement in contemporary linguistics: personality pragmatic investigation in informative society]. Social and cultural environments and communicative strategies of information society: Proceedings of the international scientific-theoretical conference (pp. 281-289). Saint Petersburg: The Publishing House of Polytechnic University].
10. Kotova, N. S., & Kudrjashov, I. A. (2015). Epistemicheskij status sobesednikov i evidencial'nye sredstva ego manifestacii v dialogicheskom vzaimodejstvii [Interlocutors’ epistemic status and evidential means of its manifestation in dialogic interaction]. V mire nauchnyh otkrytij [In the world of scientific discoveries], 11(71), 1084-1095.
11. McNeil, L. (2017). Languaging about intercultural communication: the occurrence and conceptual focus of intracultural peer collaborative dialogues. Language Awareness. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1377723
12. Melnik, A., & Topolskaya, I. (2019). To the issue of research in syntactic phraseology. 6th SWS International Scientific Conference on Arts and Humanities 2019. 835-842. https://doi.org/10.5593/SWS.ISCAH.2019.1
13. Ostrikova, G., & Kolesnikova, O. (2019). Interrogative German sentences with the opposite meanings. 6th SWS International Scientific Conference on Arts and Humanities 2019 (pp. 691-696). https://doi.org/10.5593/SWS.ISCAH.2019.1
14. Skorik, K. V. (2010). Dialogizaciya hudozhestvennogo teksta: tipy i sposoby ee aktualizacii v angloyazychnoj proze [Dialogization of literary text: types and ways of its actualization in English-language prose] [Doctoral dissertation]. St. Petersburg State University of Economics and Finance.
15. Vinogradov, V. V. (1959). O yazyke hudozhestvennoj literatury [About the fiction language]. Goslitizdat.
16. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2019). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1-8). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0664.pub2
17. Yermolenkina, L. I., & Smirnova, A. Y. (2018). Dialog kak forma reprezentacij diskursivnogo vzaimodejstviya: na materiale religioznoj internet-kommunikacii [The dialogue as the form of the representation of discursive interaction (a case study of the religious dialogues on the internet)]. Vestnik TGPU, 2(191), 116-120. https://doi.org/10.23951/1609-624X-2018-2-116-120