Dramaturgical Nature of Everyday Discourse: A Strategic Approach
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-2-30-50
Abstract
This study explores the phenomenon of the dramaturgical nature of everyday discourse. The dramaturgical aspect of discourse is examined as a planned construct, generated through the efforts of interactional subjects. It is posited that in ordinary reality, linguistic individuals recognize the presence of scripted norms when they are violated. To analyze this phenomenon, genres that emphasize the form of expression were selected, including playful exchanges of insults, witty remarks, social conversation, and compliments. The illustrative material consists of instances of everyday discourse found in literary texts from the Russian National Corpus. The search was conducted using lexical units that denote actions, forms of action execution, and titles of the chosen genres: “courteously,” “socially,” “social conversation,” “joke,” and “to joke.” The overall corpus of linguistic material comprised 91 textual excerpts. A pragmatic-linguistic, discursive, and componential analysis was performed. It was revealed that the most frequent tactic in strategically constructing dramaturgical elements is the choice of tonality, as tonality sets interpretative frameworks. The analysis indicated that the emphasis on the form of expression, as an instance of linguistic creativity in implementing dramaturgical strategies, is accompanied by the conventionalization of communicative moves, which acquire symbolic functions.
About the Author
N. N. Beloshitskaya
Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M. V. Lomonosov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nataliya N. Beloshitskaya, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of the English
Arkhangelsk
References
1. Bauman, R. (1975). Verbal Art as Performance. American Anthropologist, 77 (2): 290—311.
2. Beloshitskaya, N. N. (2024). Dramaturgy of Discourse: Cognitive-Pragmatic Potential of Metamarker ‘V TAKOM TONE’ [in such a tone]. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (2): 35—52. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-35-52 (In Russ.).
3. Bezuglaya, L. R. (2015). Insincere speech acts and insincere speech genres. Genres of speech, 1 (11): 30—37. (In Russ.).
4. Dementiev, V. V. (2006). Indirect communication. Moscow: Gnosis. 376 p. ISBN 5-7333- 0181-3. (In Russ.).
5. Habermas, Yu. (2022). Theory of communicative activity. Moscow: The Whole World. 880 p. ISBN 978-5-7777-0856-4. (In Russ.).
6. Halliday, M. A. K., Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 126 p.
7. Hoffman, E. (2009). The ritual of interaction: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Moscow: Smysl. 309 p. ISBN 978-5-89357-276-6. (In Russ.).
8. Hoffman, I. (2000). Presenting oneself to others in everyday life. Moscow: CANON-press-C, Kuchkovo Pole. 304 p. ISBN 5-93354-006-4. (In Russ.).
9. Hoffman, I. (2003). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of everyday experience. Moscow: Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 752 p. ISBN 5-93947-011-4. (In Russ.).
10. Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In: Direction in Sociolinguistics: The Enthrography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, INC. 35—71.
11. Issers, O. S. (2008). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Moscow: LKI Publishing House. 288 p. ISBN 978-5-382-00698-7. (In Russ.).
12. Karasik, V. I. (2007). Language keys. Volgograd: Paradigma Publ. 520 p. ISBN 978-5-903601- 03-5. (In Russ.).
13. Karasik, V. I. (2020). Linguistic pictures of life: a monograph. Moscow: Pushkin State Institute of the Russian Language. 468 p. ISBN 978-5-98269-222-1. (In Russ.).
14. Karasik, V. I. (2021). Linguistic plasticity of communication: a monograph. Moscow: Gnosis. 536 p. ISBN 978-5-94244-077-0. (In Russ.).
15. Matveeva, T. V. (1996). Tonality of spoken text: three ways of description. Stylistyka V. Opole. 210—221. (In Russ.).
16. Olyanich, A. V. (2004). The presentation theory of discourse: a monograph. Volgograd: Paradigma Publ. 507 p. (In Russ.).
17. Plotnikova, S. N. (2000). Insincere discourse (in cognitive and structural-functional aspects). Irkutsk: Publishing House of Irkutsk State Linguistic University. 244 p. (In Russ.).
18. Plotnikova, S. N. (2015). Discursive technologies and their role in the construction of the social world. Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University, 3 (714): 72—83. (In Russ.).
19. Plotnikova, S. N. (2018). Conceptual foundations of constructing discursive strategies. Bulletin of the Moscow State Pedagogical University. Series: Philology. Theory of language. Language education, 3 (31): 78—86. (In Russ.).
20. Plotnikova, S. N. (2018). Performance in communication: aspects of cognitive-discursive modeling. Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2, Linguistics, 17 (4): 229—239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.4.22. (In Russ.).
21. Pocheptsov, G. G. (2001). Theory of communication. Moscow: Refl-book, Kiev: Vakler. 656 p. (In Russ.).
22. Sedov, K. F. (2004). Discourse and personality: the evolution of communicative competence. Moscow: Labyrinth. 317 p. ISBN 5-87604-031-2. (In Russ.).
23. Shpilman, M. V. (2023). The phenomenon of pretense and its metaphorical representation in the Russian language. Criticism and Semiotics, 1: 73—84. DOI: 10.25205/2307-1753-2023-1-73-84. (In Russ.).
24. Sirotinina, O. B. (1999). Some reflections on the terms “speech genre” and “rhetorical genre”. In: Genres of speech, 2. Saratov: College Publ. 37—52. (In Russ.).
25. Stepanov, V. N. (2008). Provocation in social and mass communication: a monograph. Saint Petersburg: Rosa Mira Publ. 268 p. ISBN 5-85574-223-4. (In Russ.).
26. Veber, M. (1990). Selected works. Moscow: Progress Publ. 808 p. ISBN 5-01-001584-6. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Beloshitskaya N.N. Dramaturgical Nature of Everyday Discourse: A Strategic Approach. Nauchnyi dialog. 2025;14(2):30-50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2025-14-2-30-50
Views:
336
Email this article 