Dialogue about the meaning of the Russian language. How to write a live speech and dialogue in the text? Incorrect use of foreign expressions

Dialogue is A conversation between two or more persons in a drama or prosaic work. Or a philosophical-journalistic genre, which enters the interview or dispute of two or more persons; Received in antiquity: Plato's philosophical dialogues, Lukiana ("conversations of the gods", "Talk of heter", "Talk in the kingdom of the dead"). It spread in 17-18 centuries in France: "Letters to Provincial" B. Pascal, "Dialogues of the Ancient and New Dead" F. Funelon, "Ramo nephew" D. Didro. As a genre, the dialogue usually does not have a concomitant epic text, approaching this regard with drama.

In the works of M.M. Bakhtin Termin "Dialog" significantly expanded its importance. The word "dialogue" and derivatives are used by Bakhtin in the following senses:

1. composition-speech form of a life statement (conversation of two or several persons);
2. any speech communication;
3. speech genre (dialogue household, pedagogical, cognitive);
4. secondary genre - dialogue philosophical, rhetorical, artistic;
5. constitutive trait of a certain type of novel (polyphonic);
6. vital philosophical and aesthetic position;
7. the forming principle of the Spirit, the incomplete oppositeness of which the monologue is.

The spiritual selection of the meaning is its own locus of the dialogic relations, which "are completely impossible without logical and subject-semantic relationships", but for this they "have to come true, that is, enter into another scope of being: to become a word, that is, the statement, and get the author, then There is a creator of this statement, whose position it expresses. " This makes a clear interpretation of dialogue and dialectics at M.M. Bakhtin. Dialectics - this is an extracting attitude, transferred to the area of \u200b\u200bmeaning, and a dialogue - personifier in this spiritual area. According to Bakhtin, dialogic relations are not logical, and historical. Ignoring this provision most promoted the erosion (and devaluation) of the meaning of the category of "dialogue" in the lips of Bakhtin interpreters. As a dialogical, it is still customary to consider object and subject-object relations - humans and cars, different logic or linguistic units, even neurophysiological processes - and not subject-subjective. Personality, personism, subjectivity - the second (after the "meaning-spirit") differential feature of a dialogic relationship. Participants of these relations, according to Bakhtin, are "I" and "Other", but not only they: "Each dialogue happens, as it were, on the background of a response understanding of the invisibly present" third ", standing on the participants of the dialogue (partners). The third participant of the event of the dialogue is Bakhtin and the empirical listener reader, and at the same time God.

The Bakhtinsky approach, while maintaining the status of a real life relation, not distracted (not abstracted) from an empirical situation that does not turn it into conventions (not metaphorizing it), gives rise to a special kind of expanding the meaning of the word "dialogue" at the same time. So an understood dialogue covers a wide sphere of relations and has different degrees of severity. To determine the lower limit of dialogical relations, the concepts of "zero" degree of dialogue and "unsighted dialogue" are introduced. An example of "zero dialogic relations" - "The situation of two deaf dialogue used in the comic, where there is a real dialogic contact, but there is no semantic contact between the replicas (or the imaginary contact) - here" reveals the point of view of the third in the dialogue (not participating in the dialogue, But his understanding. Understanding a whole statement is always dialogically. "To the lower stage," unsighted dialogue ", arising between the whole statements and texts," distant from each other in time and space, who knows nothing about each other "-" If between them There is at least some meaning convergence. In this case, as at zero degree, the role of the explicator of dialogic relations performs the "third", understanding. In another case, bakhtin consumes the "dialogical shade" to identify the "special uninimed dialogue".

The upper limit of the dialogue is the attitude of speaking to his own word. They are becoming possible when the word acquires double intentions - it turns out to be directed not only for the subject, but also "on someone else's word" about this subject. Such a statement and the word Bakhtin calls twitch. Only when applying the author to a dialogue word, the composite-speech form of the dialogue ceases to be an external form and becomes internally dialogic, and the dialog itself becomes the fact of poetics. The spectrum of the dialogic relations implemented by a twin-haired word is not reduced to the confrontation and struggle, but assumes both the disagreement and mutual conversation of independent votes and the consent ("comparison", "solubility"). The highest degree of its development dialogical word and a dialogical position found in the Polyphonic novel of Dostoevsky, but a certain degree of dialogue, according to Bakhtin, is a prerequisite for the authorship: "The artist and there is an able to be obstaciously active, not only a certain life and inside her understanding, but also loving Her outside is where it is not for himself, where she is facing himself and needs an incomparatory activity. The divineness of the artist is in his admission to the nominativeness of the highest. But this draft event of the life of other people and the world of this life is, of course, a special and justified type of involvement of the Event of Genesis. " Here we are not talking about abstraction from the event, not about one-sided ("monological") of the vulnerability, but about a special kind ("dialogic") of the author at the same time inside the event, and outside of it, about its immanence and at the same time transcendence of the Event of Genesis.

The word dialogue happened from Greek Dialogos, that in translation means - conversation.

greek. Dialogos - conversation) conversation; In ancient philosophy - a literary form used to present problems with the help of dialectics, he started from the sophists; Socrates and his students, primarily by Plato, brought to a high degree of perfection. Through a conversation, the presentation of philosophical problems is made visual and enlivened. The "dialogues" of Plato reflects the method of teaching his teacher, Socrates. In antiquity, the form of dialogue has always distinguished preference when discussing philosophical problems.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Dialogue

The form of speech, the conversation, in K-Rom the spirit of the whole arises and makes itself the road through the distinction of replicas. D. may be a form of development of poetic. plan (especially in drama, where he confronts the monologue and mass scene); Form of study: Then the truth is assumed to be known to the conversation, the way it is known for its explanation; D. can be a form of philos. Research (eg, Plato) and Relig. Revelation. Sometimes all these aspects coincide. Solves the presence (or absence) of the spirit of the whole (at least in some participants D.). If the whole does not add up, we are talking about D. Deaf, indirectly determining this genuine dialogue as a conversation with an attempt to understand the interlocutor. The conversation of the Mitya Karamazov with Alesh - D., the conversation of Mitya with Khokhlakova, two faces also participate in the rum, approaching the mass scene, to the favorite Dostoevsky scandal, when everyone screams and no one listens to anyone. The second Vatican Cathedral decided to go to D. with noncatolic. Confessions of Christianity and non-Christian religions. It is understood as an end to the end of one-sided propaganda and an attempt to talk on an equal footing, an attempt to convince and learn at the same time. In perfect D. All interlocutors listens to the truth of the whole; Hegemony belongs to the one who least seeks to her who does not burn with the desire to approve their prevailing confession of truth, who keeps the gate of truth open. When several votes echoes in D., you can call it in Russian conversation. In classic. A dialogue or conversation is achieved without a sharply pronounced hegemony of one vote. So written Platonovsky "PIR". The truth is disclosed gradually, common effort, and in its entirety remains as if floating in pauses between replicas. On the contrary, in the "state" Platon uses the usual shape of D., expecting the theory, internally not a dialogic, theory-system, natural. The opposition to the swarm would be a monologue. D. Formation is found in folklore (for example, in context of riddles) and in all high cultures. We find elements D. in Upanishads. Confucius conversations with his students entered the whale treasury. Thoughts. The least dialogic culture islam. The conversations of Mohammed with his contemporaries were not recorded as a whole; From the context, the judgments of the prophet broke out and became the source of the right (Hadith). Underwinement D. is one of the reasons for the unwillingness of Islam to contacts with the West and the perception of pluralism as a threat of order. The origins of Zap. D. - in the Allenian theater, in the dispute as well as worthy principles (as the parent and fatherly law in Orestsey). The spirit of the tragedy correspond to D. Plato, the Spirit of Comedy - D. Lukian. On Wednesday. century D., for the most part, is used in a ped. purposes; However, internally dialogic "SIC ET NON" Abelar, an analysis of open scholastic issues. The shift of the philosophy of the new time to the scientific method displaces D. in essay and philos. Roman ("Magic Mountain" Thomas Manna). In Russia, the Spirit D. is in disputes of Westerners and Slavophiles. Deeply dialogically creativity Dostoevsky. Internally dialogic thinkers who have experienced the influence of Dostoevsky (Berdyaev, Sixtov, Rozanov). Dialogical "Milestones" (deposited articles of the collection can be read as replicas equal). In the form of D. Some experiments S. Bulgakov written. Bakhtin explored internal. The form of D. cultural worlds in the "Polyphony" of Dostoevsky. Polyphony and D. equally opposite to the dialectic claiming. The truth of each stage in the development of the idea. D. Rather, argues the image of a whole on the other side of the signs. The search for lost integrity was summoned in Europe 20 V. Features dialogic. philosophy. The creators of her, Bubebubes and Marseille, separated the relationship I - you are from the relationship I-it. The usual division on the subject and the object mixes you and it in the object, subordinating the attitude towards you to the standards of attitude to it. It turns the interlocutor in the subject, debugs and disquisies the world. The concentration of thought on the world as an item "leads to a technocrat. Development, increasingly disastrous for human integrity and even for its physical. existence "(Marseille). The integrity of human. The spirit is destroyed by the displacement of God into the world, where God, by conviction of the buber, is unthinkable. Buber acquires God only like you, like an invisible interlocutor in the inner D., denying the opportunity to talk about God in the third person. And the love of nature, and the love of a person to a person follows from the relationship I - you collapse, if the interlocutor becomes a third party, other. In philos D. "None of the ardings should not give up their convictions, but ... they come to something called the Union, enter the kingdom, where the law of belief does not have the strength" (Bubeber), including in d . Religions. D. - the basis of the Sovar. Zap. Equilibrium reached after two world. wars. The efficiency of the economy is impossible without a sustainable order, but a stable order without social protection. Conversely: Social protection is ineffective if the economy is ineffective. Every principle, consistently carried out to the extermination of the opposite, becomes absurd, sow debris. "Too much consciousness is a disease" (Dostoevsky). Consciousness here means an unconditional loyalty to the principle, habit to build logic. Schemes and subordinate to them life. In "Logic Philos. Treatise "Wittgenstein wrote:" Mystics are right, but the right thing cannot be expressed: it contradicts grammar. " The right thing here is a sense of whole. The eyes of our mind are unable to look at the focus. All that can be formulated rationally takes away from life. The objection is always decent to be listened, even if it is inexpressive. Speaking of principle, you need to think about the opposite, about the counterweight, in order for a moment when the principle is in the abyss, to discard it. Linear thinking is unilateral and carries the inevitability of a false result. This, apparently, had in mind the cf.-century. Monks, creating a proverb: "Devil - Logic". Approximately the same Krishnamurti says in his parable: "Once a person found a piece of truth. The devil was upset, but then said himself: "Nothing, he will try to bring the truth to the system and will come back to me." D. - Attempt to deprive the devil of its prey. Lit.: Buber M. I and you; Dialogue // Buber M. Two images of faith. M., 1995; Wittgenstein L. Logico-Filos. treatise. M., 1958; Heidegger M. from dialogue about language. Between the Japanese and asking // Heidegger M. Time and Genesis. M., 1993; Tishchenko V.P. Philosophy of culture dialogue. Novosib., 1993; Dialogue in philosophy: traditions and modernity. St. Petersburg, 1995. G. S. Pomeranz. Culturality of the twentieth century. Encyclopedia. M.1996.truths. The initial point of discussion is the question of the meaning of any concepts(eg, courage, virtue, justice) and any initial (most often traditional, generally accepted) opinion about this concept. Further, D. is carried out as a consistent analysis of the definitions, examples, judgments expressed by its participants. In some cases, the total discussion is the overall consent about this or that wording. But the main result is not it, and the understanding, grabbing or clarification of truth, which emerged precisely thanks to a long discussion. The truth of the Socration D. is not formulated in the finished form and has no completed verbal expression. It is born from the aggregate of everything expressed during the discussion, but is not contained in any of the ultimate statements. That is why D. turns out to be the most adequate method of cognition of truth. An important presumption of Socratic D. is, however, the conviction is that the truth itself already exists. The task of discussion is to find it, achieve a full understanding. Philosophical concepts D., developed in the 20th century, partly proceed from the concept of Socratic D. General for them is the idea of \u200b\u200bD. as the only adequate form of knowledge, as a method of thinking, which allows you to reveal the truth or at least as much as possible Get close to it. An important difference is, as a rule, the truth is not considered as something preceding D. it is, rather, his result. D. appears as the main principle and method of generating meanings. Developed in the first half of the 20th century. Philosophy D. (for example, F. Rosenzweiga, M. Bakhtina, M. Bober) is repelled from the criticism of "monologism" inherent in the European philosophy of the new time. In contrast to the Cartesian "I think" the attitude of the "I-You" attitude is introduced, in which the thought is carried out. If the attitude of the subject to the object is characterized by monologic thinking ("I-it), then a dialogic approach implies dominant subject-subject links. Further development of this area is associated with phenomenology.In particular, E. Levinas The concept of D. relies on the ideas of the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl and the criticism of Gusserlevsky idealism within the phenomenological direction. The main question of this criticism is the legitimacy of "making" any reality, transcendental consciousness. Levinas comes from the fact that the Gusserlevsky methodological solipsis is a kind of illusion, since the transcendental EGO, deprived of the relationship to another, is not able to any thinking, and therefore, and does not exist as a thinking "I". Therefore, on the thoughts of Levinas, the original eidosomconsciousness is the attitude of the "face-to-face", i.e. Dialogic attitude towards another consciousness. Only in such respects are made of new meanings. Moreover, this ratio is the condition of existence consciousness. Iessential only in D., i.e. so far because there is Other. 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 entity capable of full deployment of all its semantic intents. It is full of completeness, or the limness of representing the basic meanings, forces the bibler to speak about culture, and not about a separate authore. In culture, every concept is implanted to the end, the universality of thinking is achieved. Each question made within the framework of culture should receive - in the same framework - an exhaustive answer. However, this limit of responses is possible only because every culture is repelled from other universality, from other limit answers to questions posed otherwise (but, apparently, the same). In a certain end point, every culture faces and enters the dispute with another culture, unfolding its meanings in a different way. This dispute occurs in a timeless space, in which each historically completed culture can find their answers to the thinking moves of new cultures, deploy their counterproofs about the objections presented to it. Another sphere of understanding the concept of D. is philosophical hermeneutics.At H., Gadamera, in particular, D. is considered as the main form of historical knowledge. However, describing the work of the historian, seeking to know the past, Gadamen, ultimately, speaks of a human situation at all. This situation is dialogic because the person who is in the framework of his own semantic horizon is constantly expanding it due to the semantic horizons of other people. The historian examines the past by constant D. with those who expressed their situation, their meaning horizon in sources, mainly in written evidence. The task of the historian is to merge the horizons, i.e. In the acquisition of the meanings that are expressed in the testimony of the past, to their own. But one person comes into communicating with another person. Expanding your semantic horizons, people open the world. Therefore, the professional activity of the historian is only a model that allows you to clarify the creature of knowledge at all. The idea of \u200b\u200bD. represents the type knowledge,excellent from the 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 moment of not only humanitarian, but also naturally scientific knowledge. This is due to the characteristics of science as publicity and rational criticism. Since the emergence of scientific rationalityone of its main features (in contrast, for example, from of magicor alchemy)it is publicity and, accordingly, openness for criticism from the community. Methods for obtaining and justifying the scientific result from the beginning implies the possibility of its critical discussion. IN philosophy of science20 V. The dialogic aspect of the scientific methodology, the role of consecutive justifications and refutations during scientific knowledge is discussed, for example, K. Popper and I. Lakatos. From other positions, the place of D. in scientific knowledge is discussed by K.O. Apple. It indicates that a very often spontaneous installation present by a scientist is "Methodical solipsis", i.e. The idea of \u200b\u200bthe researcher, the upcoming object "one to one" object. Cartesian paradigm is a consequence of the absolutization of such an installation within the framework of philosophical reflection. According to the appela, this approach (in late time developed, for example, in logical positivism)included with the thesis of Wittgenstein on the impossibility of a personal language (which is inevitably the language of the Cartesian subject). Therefore, the activities of the scientist are carried out exclusively within D., and all scientific methods, as well as the results, are formed under the influence of communicative standards, on which this D. is based (see also Pragmatics). GB Gutner

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Even far from the literary field, a person will not hurt to know how to make a dialogue. Students, schoolchildren studying the Russian language course, novice authors this skill is simply necessary. Another situation: your child asks to help with a homework. Suppose he is instructed to draw up a dialogue "Book in our life" or something like that. The meaningful component of the task of difficulties does not cause. But in the replicas of heroes cause serious doubts, and the replicas themselves built somehow not too successively.

This case should be aware of how to make a dialogue in Russian on a given topic. In the proposed little article, we will try to disassemble the concept of dialogue, the basic principles of its construction and punctuation features.

What is this form?

The concept of dialogue refers to the process of mutual communication. Replicas during it are interspersed with response phrases with a constant change of the roles of the listening and speaking. Communicative feature of the dialogue is unity in the expression, perception of thoughts and reactions to them, reflected in its structure. That is, the composition of the dialogue is interrelated replicas of interlocutors.

Without knowing how to make a dialogue, a starting author is doomed to failure. After all, this literary form is one of the most common in artistic works.

When dialogue is dialogue

Whenever he occurs in a specific situation, when each of the participants is alternately listen or talking. Each of the replica of the dialogue can be considered a speech act - the action implied by a certain result.

Its main features are due to focus, moderation and compliance with certain rules. Under the focusing of speech impact, hidden or clear goals of any of the participants in the dialogue are understood. We can talk about the message, question, advice, order, commandment or apology.

To achieve their own goals, interlocutors alternately implemented certain intentions, the purpose of which is to encourage the other side to specific actions of a speech nature. It is expressed by prompting information either directly in the form of a vague ignition verb, or a type: "Could you?" etc.

How to make a dialogue. General rules

1. Message feeds comes with parts. Initially, the listening prepares to the perception of information, then it is justified, after which it is directly filed (in the form of, for example, council or request). At the same time, it is necessary to comply with the necessary rules of etiquette.
2. The subject of the message must correspond to the main goal of the conversation.
3. The speech of the interlocutors is obliged to be an unequivocal, understandable and consistent.

In case of non-compliance with the indicated rules, mutual understanding takes place. An example may be incomprehensible to another speech of one of the interlocutors (with the predominance of unknown terminology or fuzzy articulation).

How the conversation begins

At the beginning of the dialogue, a greeting is meant and quite often asked about the possibility of the conversation itself: "Is it possible to talk to you?", "Allow you to distract you?" etc. Next, most often goes about affairs, health and life in general (most often it applies to informal conversations). Use these rules should be if, for example, you need to make a dialogue of friends. After that, reports are usually received about the immediate goal of the conversation.

Next, the topic is subject to development. How to make a dialogue that will look logical and natural? The structure implies information feeding information, interlocked by the replicas of the interlocutor with the expression of its reaction. At some point, the latter can intercept in conversation initiative.

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

Ideally, every theme of the dialogue should be developed before the transition to next will be performed. If a topic is not supported by any of the interlocutors, this is a sign of lack of interest in either attempt to complete the dialogue as a whole.

About culture of speech

When building speech behavior from both interlocutors, an understanding is required, a certain ability to penetrate the thoughts and the mood of another, to catch its motives. Without all this, successful communication is impossible. The technique of conducting dialogues implies various models of communication with the variability of funds to express ideas, feelings and thoughts, as well as mastering tactical communication skills.

According to the general rules, each question has requested its answer. A question is expected to answer in the form of a word or action. The narration implies response communication in the form of a counter replica or focused attention.

Under the last term, such a lack of speech is understood when listening to the help of non-verbal signs (gestures, interjections, facial expressions) makes it clear that the speech is heard and understood.

Go to writing

To make a dialogue on the letter, you need to know the basic rules for its competent construction. So, consider the basic rules for which you can create a dialogue of 4 replicas and more. Both the simplest and quite confusing with a complex plot.

It uses him very many authors in their artworks. Dialogue differs from direct speech in the absence of quotes and a new paragraph for each replica. If the replica is served in quotes, then most often meant that this is the thought of the hero. All this is written by fairly strict rules about which below.

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

By constituting the dialogue, it is very important to correctly use the punctuation marks. But at first a bit on the topic of terminology:

Under the replica is understood as the phrase, uttering characters out loud or to herself.

Sometimes without the words of the author, it is possible to do - usually when the conversation consists of a replica of only two people (for example, you have a task - to make a dialogue with a friend). In this case, before each replica is rated, and after it is a space. At the end of the phrase point, a dot, exclamation or question mark.

When each replica is accompanied by the words of the author, the situation is a little more complicated: the point should be replaced with a comma (the remaining signs remain in their places), then the gap, dash and once again. After that, the words of the author are given (exclusively with a small letter).

Options are more complicated

Sometimes the writings of the author can be located and before the replica. If at the very beginning of the dialogue they are not standing out with a separate paragraph, after them put the colon, and the replica begins with a new line. Similarly, from a new line, it is necessary to start the next (response) replica.

Make a dialogue in Russian - not the simplest task. The most difficult can be called the case when the words of the author are placed inside the replica. This grammatical design is most often accompanied by errors, especially among beginner authors. This is connected with a large number of options, the main two of them: the proposal is broken by the words of the author or these the most words are placed between neighboring proposals.

And in that and in another case, the beginning of the replica is exactly the same as in the example with the words of the author after it (dash, the gap, the replica itself, the gap again, dash, once again the gap and copyrighted words written with a small letter). Further part is already different. If the author's words intend to place inside one whole sentence, after these words it is required to put a comma and further replica continues with a small letter after dash. If it is decided to arrange the words of the author between two separate proposals, the first of them should end the point. And after an indispensable dash, another replica is written with a capital letter.

Other cases

Sometimes the option is encountered (quite rarely), when attribute verbs in the words of the author two. In the same way, they can be located before either after a replica, and everything together is a single structure recorded by a separate line. In this case, the second part of the direct speech begins with a colon and dash.

In the works of literature, sometimes you can meet the designs even more difficult, but we will not go into them now.

Having learned the basic rules of construction, you can in a similar way, for example, to draw up a language or so on.

A little about the content

Let's go from punctuation directly to the content of dialogs. The advice of experienced writers is to minimize both replicas and the words of the author. It should be removed all the extra descriptions and phrases that do not carry any useful information, as well as extra decorations (it does not only apply to the dialogue). Of course, the ultimate choice remains after the author. It is important that at the same time he has not changed a sense of measure.

Too long continuous dialogues are not extremely welcome. This unreasonably delays the story. After all, it is understood that the characters are talking in real time, and the plot of the works in general is obliged to develop much faster. If it is necessary for a long dialogue, it must be diluted with the description of the emotions of the acting persons and any concomitant actions.

Phrases that are not supportable for the development of the plot of information are able to clog any dialogue. For sound, it should be as natural as possible. The use of complex proposals or those expressions that are never found in colloquial speech (of course, if the author does not imply the opposite).

How to check yourself

To check the naturalness of the prepressed replicas is the easiest way through the reading of the dialogue out loud. All unnecessary long pieces along with coupling words will inevitably cut the rumor. At the same time, the eyes of the presence of them are much more complicated. This rule applies exactly to any text, not only to the dialogue.

Another common error is overpricing or monotony of their use. It should be removed as possible to remove the maximum author's type comments: he said, she replied, etc. It should definitely do this in cases where it is clear to whom the replica belongs from the heroes.

Attribute verbs should not be repeated, their equitability cuts the ear. Sometimes you can replace them on phrases describing the actions of the heroes with the subsequent replica. The Russian language has a huge number of verb synonyms said painted in a variety of emotional shades.

Do not mix attribution with the main text. In the absence of an attribute (or replacing it), the word dialogue turns into ordinary text and is executed separately from the replica.

Holding the rules outlined by us, you can easily create any dialogue.

1. Dialogue - Dialog (Greek. Dialogos - initial meaning - a conversation between two persons) - a verbal exchange between two, three and more interlocutors. Literary encyclopedia
2. Dialogue - Dialog (Greek. Dialogos) - 1) form of oral speech, a conversation of two or several persons; Speech communication by the exchange of replicas. As part of the verbal-artistic text dominates in the drama, present in the epic works. Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
3. dialog - dialog shape with an emphasis on the last syllable of the binding. From Franz. Dialogue or him. Dialog; Others, occasion, - through Polish. Dyalog out of lat. Dialogus from Greek. Διάλογος. Etymological Dictionary of Max Fasmer
4. Dialogue - Dialog (Greek. Dialogos is a conversation) - informative and existential interaction between the communication parties through which an understanding occurs. The newest Philosophical Dictionary
5. Dialogue - (Greek) - Actually, the conversation, a conversation of two or several persons, also a literary work in the form of a conversation. D. Philosophers of antiquity and the latest time and fathers of the Church were especially willing. Remarkable D. Socrates and Plato. So calling. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Ephron
6. dialogue - dialogue (from Greek. Dialogos - conversation, conversation; literally - speech through) - Language communication between two or more persons. D. as a literary genre and how the method of philosophizing has a long tradition, usually erected to Socrates. Encyclopedia of epistemology and philosophy of science
7. dialogue - SUB., p., Upotr. compared. Often (no) what? Dialogue, what? Dialogue, (see) What? Dialogue than? Dialogue, what? about dialogue; MN. what? Dialogues, (no) what? Dialogs, what? Dialogues, (see) What? Dialogues than? Dialogues, what? About dialogues ... Explanatory dictionary Dmitrieva
8. dialogue - dialogue /. Morphemno-spell dictionary
9. Dialogue - dialogue. The dialogue in a broad sense is called any interview; In particular, the exchange of thoughts ("Dialogue" of Plato). Drama dialogue - the exchange of dramatic remarks - has a special content. Word in drama effectively. Dictionary of literary terms
10. dialogue - ORF. Dialogue, -A. Specographic dictionary of Lopatin
11. Dialogue - Musical (from Greek. Dialogos - conversation, conversation) - type of musical outlines, reproducing the features of the conversational D. 1) Vocal D. originated in the process of the music. The incarnation of texts containing elements of the conversational ... Music encyclopedia
12. dialogue - dialogue, a, m. 1. Conversation between two persons, the exchange of replicas. Scenic d. 2. Ine. Negotiations, contacts between the two countries, parties. Political d. Constructive d. | arr. Dialogic, Aya, OE (to 1 meaning) and dialogue, Aya, OE (K 1 Sign.; Spec.). Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
13. Dialogue - (from Greek. Diálogos - conversation, conversation) Dialogical speech, 1) View of speech, characterized by situitation (dependence on the conversation situation), contextuality (due to previous statements) ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
14. dialogue - (Greek Dialogos - conversation). The form of speech at which there is a direct exchange of statements between two or several persons. Dictionary of linguistic terms Rosentyl
15. the dialogue is a form of speech, which is characterized by changing the statements of two or several speakers and direct communications with the situation with the situation of an intelligent translation dictionary / L.L. Dislike. - 3rd ed., Pererab. - M.: Flint: Science, 2003 Explanatory translation
16. dialogue - CP conversation. And tell me your whole dialogue? And describe what physiognomy will this scalded cat? KM Stanyukovich. Frank. 1, 19. Wed Dialogue. Cf. Διάλογος (Δια - once, λόγος - word) - conversation. Frameological dictionary of Michelson
17. dialogue - see \u003e\u003e Conversation Dictionary of Synonyms Abramov
18. dialogue - SUBS., Number of synonyms: 9 Audio code 1 conversation 30 Negotiations 8 Radio Label 1 Talk 53 Interview 7 Meeting 25 Teledalem 1 Fedon 1 Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language
19. dialogue - and dialogue, -a, m. Conversation between two or several persons. [Tagil] left ---. A minute dialogue in the hallway somewhat calmed the alarm of Samgin. M. Gorky, Life Klim Samgin. Small Academic Dictionary
20. dialogue - dialogue; m. [Greek. Dialogos] 1. Conversation between two or several persons. The revived d. Took place, the d. Vesti d. D. blurred in a half-word. D. between ambassadors, rivals. Explanatory dictionary of Kuznetsov
21. dialogue - dialogue, dialogues, dialogue, dialogues, dialogue, dialogues, dialogue, dialogues, dialogue, dialogues, dialogue, dialogues Grammar dictionary of Zaliznyaka
22. The dialogue is a form of speech, a conversation, in a rum spirit of the whole arises and lays the way through the distinction of replicas. D. may be a form of development of poetic. Dictionary of Cultural Science
23. dialogue - Dial'og, Dialogue, · Husband. (· Greek. Dialogos). 1. Conversation between two or several persons. | Part of the literary work consisting of conversations. Artists had a good final dialogue. 2. The literary work written in the form of a conversation (lit.). Plato dialogues. Explanatory Dictionary Ushakov
24. dialogue - dialogue, m. [Greek. Dialogos]. 1. Conversation between two or several persons. || Part of the literary work consisting of conversations. Artists had a good final dialogue. 2. The literary work written in the form of a conversation (lit.). Plato dialogues. Large dictionary of foreign words
25. - 1) the form of oral speech, the conversation of two or several persons; Speech connection by sharing words, phrases by K.L. topic; 2) negotiations, free exchange of opinions; 3) a literary work or its part written in the form of a conversation ... Dictionary of linguistic terms Jerebilo
26. dialogue - Dialog A, m. Dialogue<�лат. dialogus <�гр. dialogos. 1. Литературный жанр в форме беседы двух или более персонажей. Сл. 18. Феодорит в первом диалозе.. сия сказует. Соб. 42. // Сл. 18 6 124. Dictionary of gallicalism of the Russian language

- (Greek. Dialogos is the original meaning of the conversation between two persons) the verbal exchange between two, three and more interlocutors. The opportunity, to the room opens up such a mapping in a conversation of several persons, has long made it forced writers ... ... Literary encyclopedia

dialogue - A, m. Dialogue Lat. Dialogus c. Dialogos. 1. Literary genre in the form of a conversation two or more characters. Sl. 18. Feeodorite in the first dialose .. This is faithful. Sob. 42. // SL. 18 6 124. A dialogus in French is sent to you, which ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicalism Russian Language

The form of speech, the conversation, in the spirit of the whole spirit arises and lays the way through the distinction of replicas. D. may be a form of development of poetic. plan (especially in drama, where he confronts the monologue and mass scene); Form of training: then ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

- (Franz. Dialogue, from Greek. Dialogos). A conversation between two or several persons: the form of the draft drama. works. A dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. Dialogue conversation of two sides, two persons. Also… … Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Dialogue - DIALOGUE. The dialogue in a broad sense is called any interview; In particular, the exchange of thoughts ("Dialogue" of Plato). Drama dialogue sharing dramatic remarks has a special content. Word in drama effectively. Each scene in the drama is ... ... Dictionary of literary terms

- - Association of Economists in Russia and Germany (Dialog E.V. - Vereinigung Deutscher und Russischer ÖKonomen) ... Wikipedia

- - Association of Economists in Russia and Germany (Dialog E.V. - Vereinigung Deutscher und Russischer ÖKonomen) Type Public Association Year of foundation ... Wikipedia

dialogue - (from Greek. Dialogos) alternate exchange of replicas (in a broad sense, the replica is also considered to be the answer in the form of action, gesture, silence) of two or more people. In the psychology of research D., associated with the analysis of social mechanisms of the psyche, began in the XX in ... Big psychological encyclopedia

Cm … Synonym dictionary

Dialogue - Dialogue ♦ Dialogue conversation two or more interlocutors, concerned about the search for the same truth. Thus, the dialogue is the type of conversation marked by the desire for a universal, and not a single (unlike confession) or private (as in ... ... Philosophical Dictionary Sponville

See the philosophical dialogue. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. GL Editorial: L. F. Ilyichev, P. N. Fedoseev, S. M. Kovalev, V. G. Panov. 1983. Dialogue ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Books

• dialogue, Ivan & Anton. The book is a fragment of a personal SMS-correspondence of two friends living in different cities. This dialogue is not a dialogue in the usual understanding. This is rather space of communication. "Herbarium… electronic book