Differences In Nature And Purpose Of Dialogue In Fiction And That In Real And Everyday Life - Essay Example

? DIFFERENCES IN NATURE AND PURPOSE OF DIALOGUE IN FICTION AND THAT IN REAL AND EVERYDAY LIFE by University name City, State Date of submission Introduction Dialogue is one of the most important forms of communication. There are several definitions of dialogue according to the context in which dialogue is used. In real life, Dialogue can simply be defined as the conversation or the communication by word of mouth between two or more people. Hence, dialogue in reality will require two people or more, and words from the mouth. There are other forms and variations in communication between two people. For example, when a person who cannot talk communicates with another person, he will use sign language. This is not dialogue per se. but this is a form of communication. In fictional writing, communication between two characters is primarily done by use of dialogue. Dialogue is written down by the author to express sentiments between two characters. The role of dialogue in fiction takes a major stage in creating the character, the environment, the emotions, and the themes of the conversation. The role of dialogue in fictional writing brings out the creativity of the author or writer. Each writer has his own way of presenting dialogue in fictional works. The nature of fiction and its role in fiction and real life have always had divergent and convergent variations. Real life dialogue is heavily characterized by non-verbal and Para-linguistic controls. These are only observed and appreciated by the eye and other senses. It is hard to represent these forms in fictional dialogue. However, fictive dialogue always comes as close as possible in simulation of real life dialogue. A reader may find the dialogue in the text to be normal. However, on careful analysis and reading of the same text, the reader will discover that there are major differences that are found in fictive and real dialogue. It is because of this that this paper will discuss the nature and purpose of dialogue in fiction and the differences of dialogue from that in real and everyday life. Nature and purpose of dialogue in real life Dialogue has always served multiple functions in literature. In fictional writing, there is a great difference between dialogue and monologue. Monologue is whereby a character in the text is seen to talk to himself/herself. Dialogue involves two or more people. In fictional writing, each writer has his own signature way of presenting dialogue. However, the most effective dialogue in a fictional literary text should be able to continue and never to detract from the progress, the purpose or even the plot of the story. Dialogue in fictional literature, not only stimulates the reality to the reader but also expounds on the writers ability to create effectively. Dialogue is used in fiction to serve several purposes. The first major purpose of dialogue is to advance a story. Dialogue is also used to develop character. Through dialogue, the author has the ability to moves plot. Another role of dialogue is to illuminate the theme or meaning of the story. A major aspect of dialogue in fiction is to create time transition, which it usually does in a subtle way. Dialogue is also used to build conflict in many fictional writings hence changing the direction of the works plot. Through dialogue, the reader has a better understanding of the tone of the story or even the tone of the character in the stories. Dialogue provides an advancement of enlighten of the character while at the same time giving the reader the basic insight into the writers mind and creative thinking. It is also through dialogue that we understand certain desires and motivations by characters in a text towards a certain action. Dialogue is followed by description and hence helps create the environment while providing movement and ideas of the plot in a story. Lastly, through dialogue, drama in a story can be clearly anticipated and visualized. The last aspect of dialogue has been critical in adaptation of various fictional writings into films. Differences between dialogue in fiction and real talk dialogue Characters in fictional account discourse have dialogue as portrayed by the author. Interaction between characters is pseudo (Sinclair, 1981), as it is not interactive in the existent sense but created in the author mind and then represented intra-textually or the dialogue only exists on a page in a book. Imagined dialogue consequently, has characteristics that differentiate it from actual talk. However, an author bases his representation of dialogue on a replica of what they consider conversationalists do. When reading a conversation between two characters in a text, it is hard to actually pinpoint and recognize that the conversation is made up. However, authors embellish and simplify features of actual communication. There are several examples of differences between dialogue in real life and dialogue in fiction. Real life communication is primarily meant for purposes of communication. Communication is an essential part of everyday dialogue between human beings. When critically analyzing real life communication, it emerges clearly that the dialogue is always meant to pass some form of information. Communication in these instances is not really supposed to be serious. Small talk is one of the characteristics of real life communication. In comparison with dialogue in fiction, the author may use dialogue with a certain purpose, which is not necessarily for purposes of communication. From the previous description of dialogue in fiction, it is clear that an author always uses dialogue with a certain purpose. It emerges that dialogue in fiction has a certain purpose. This purpose is confined to the advancement of certain aspects of the narrative. However, communication is not necessarily of dialogue in a fictional work. In reality dialogue, has its major nature as a form of communication. In fictional writing, dialogue is used to advance a certain purpose and this purpose is usually reported or stated before or after the dialogue has stated. A good example is as shown in the excerpt below: I must have been pretty desperate too, for without a loss of time, after a few indifferent and friendly sentences, which he answered with languid readiness... (Conrad,J. (1969) lord Jim,p.44) The above excerpt is used to show how dialogue the dialogue that will follow will serve its purpose. The reporting of the purpose of dialogue before the dialogue itself occurs gives the reader an insight into what the dialogue should do. This is unlike in real life discourse where the dialogue between two people does not need to be contextualized. The purpose of the dialogue in real life will eventually come to suffice in the dialogue. In actual converse, people commune for a range of motives: to exchange information, to convince, to control and to make interactions. In fiction, by contrast, dialogues are super meaningful as everything that is talked has a precise implication. Reports of phatic communion, are uncommon in dialogues in fiction as the major principle of this type of dialogue is the aperture of channels of communique. In most cases, in fiction, the initial contact between characters is assumed or reported. Phatic communion characterizes real life communication. Phatic communion or communication is a term coined by Bronislaw Malinowski to describe what is commonly known as small talk. Phatic communion is used to create an atmosphere that is sociable, shared feelings or good willed rather than to pass certain information. Phatic communion is generally referred to as conversation on what is perfectly obvious. Another major differences of fictive dialogue and real dialogue comes in the overall organization of dialogue. Openings and Closings are some of the two major characteristics of real Conversations. According to Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) there is an adjacency pair format when it comes to real talk openings and closing. Words like ‘well, okay, so, and alright’ usually preclose a terminal exchange when the speaker is no longer willing to contribute or develop the topic in the real conversation. However, in fictive dialogue, there is a noted absence of this opening and closing interjections. In case these closing and opening sequences appear in a conversation, the author tends to report them instead of putting them in dialogue format. However, openings are rarely even reported in fictive writing. This may be due to the complexity and technicality of using openings and closings, as if they are not carefully used, they may appear to force a participant out of the conversation. in many cases, the fictive stories begin with an inform or an elicit which have been viewed as item that are critically significant in the development of the fictive storyline. Hence, in fictional writing, most cases of the dialogue will have a sequence where characters just start talking without an opening and also they just stop talking and the author continues with the rest of the reported story. An example of how openings are introduced in real life is as reflected in the passage below. We exchanged a few words that I no longer remember. At the end, he said: 'I am homeless and sleep wherever I can. I have travelled the length and breadth of this land of the Saxons.' (Borges, J.L. (1980) 'The Disk', p.84) In this excerpt, the opening of the conversation is reported so as to introduce or open the dialogue. The opening that is reported in the above dialogue is ‘at the end, he said’. Contrary to real dialogue, openings are not reported. The conversation will however start with an opening as shown in the dialogue below. “Well, I am happy to meet you. It is a great pleasure to make your acquaintance. I hope that today will serve as an eye opener into our future dealings…” Well, is the opening of the conversation seen in the dialogue above. It is hard to describe this dialogue as this can only be observed in real life. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) also characterize the process of real life dialogue between two individuals in what they refer to as the turn-taking system. In fictional narratives, characters take a very basic way of speaking. One party speaking at a time, while the other keeps quiet, characterizes this. The other party will then speak while the first party listens or keeps quite. Unlike in real life conversations, interjections occur and in arguments or debate, two parties may speak at the same time. In fictional dialogue, interjections and same time speaking is usually reported. This is a major difference when it comes to fictive versus real dialogue. There are other rules of the system that need to be reconsidered for fictive dialogue to appear as real as possible. In written dialogue, turns of dialogue are clearly demarcated and this is done for purposes of clarity. A good example of how the turn taking example is used in fiction literature is in the example below. He sighed and then said, “Where can we go and have a real conversation?” “Let’s have coffee at the Mall tomorrow at ten” she replied in a husky tone “Tomorrow is okay with me. However, it will have to be short timed. I have an appointment with the dentist at noon.” John said as he smiled. The above is an example of how turn taking is used by the author in trying to keep the conversation neat and at the same time very clear. In a real dialogue, this will not be the case as interject6ions may occur or even simultaneous speech may be observed. In their ethnographic studies, Jefferson and Schegloff, 1975 report that fictional dialogue is smartly prearranged. Face-to-face features like hedges, initiators, reformulations, backtracks and fillers, which characterize the speaker’s speech procedures, are always identified. However, these are rarely found in fictional dialogue, as it is hard to simulate such features on paper unless since they require a lot of descriptions and reporting. When these features are reported in fictive dialogue, the general arrangement of the composed dialogue will then loose its neatness leading to a lack of clarity. They further allege that Repetitions, hesitations, interruptions, pauses, false starts which are identifiable in real talk, can be included in simulated communication but under exceptional instances. In real time exchanges, the partakers in dialogue establish consistency in the discourse through linguistics, Para-linguistic and nonverbal controls. These non-verbal controls include, the pitch of the voice, inflection, and kinesics. These are some of the characters of real life dialogue that are rarely simulated in fictional dialogue unless they are reported. However, in long fictional conversations, the author will not report these conversations as it offers challenges to the consistency and neatness of the pre-arranged work. Participants in real life conversations also maximize use of outside circumstances and shared information in humanity leading to meaning being implied rather than declared. Real life dialogue also maximizes disconnected sequences to bring meaning and usefulness in their speech. However, in most instances of fictional communion, the author will always gloss over explicit background information to show how dialogue is allegedly delivered. This indication of how speech is presented is usually outside the discourse markings. While an oral act of dialogue is syncretic, or has both verbal and non-verbal rudiments occurring at the same time, imaginary dialogue is characterized by dispersed element. Dispersed elements refer to components occurring in linear succession. The linearity of in print texts practically forces tidiness in simulated dialogue. The example that has been illustrated under the discussion on turn taking can also be used to show how Para-linguistic and non-verbal controls are used in fictional dialogue. The tone of the female speaker in the voice is reported to be husky. On the other hand, the facial expression by John is also reported. We are told that John Smiled. This helps the reader to get a clue of how the action of dialogue in the conversation takes place. Unlike in real dialogue, these aspects of communications are hugely observed. However, in reporting the tone and facial variations in the conversations, other controls cannot be reported due to the complexity involved. Most authors will always try to minimize the use of non-verbal controls as these will not only create too much description but may hinder the purpose of the dialogue in its context. Conclusion From the above discussion, it is clear that there are major differences in the nature of fictive dialogue and that of real life discourse. Fictive dialogue is majorly simulated from real life dialogue as discussed in the previous paragraphs. Illustrations of these differences have been clearly indicated to give a clear comprehension of these two forms of dialogue. Dispersion, non-fragmentation, the author's control of turn-taking mechanisms and simplification/ exaggeration of some of characteristics of actual dialogue by the author are the key differences between simulated and real communication. In many circumstances, a reader of fictional work will have an impression of normality or realness when confronted with a fictional dialogue text. This is because eloquent writers are those who try to produce dialogue as real as they occur. However, a more critical review of the fictional dialogue will offer insights into how complex the process of presenting dialogue can turn out to be. Critical analysis and comparison of real life dialogue and simulated dialogue will give a clear indication of how these two forms of dialogue are different. References Borges, J.L. 1980. The Disk. London: Cambrige University Press p.84 Conrad,J. 1969. Lord Jim London: Cambrige University Press p.44 Sacks, H, Schegloff, E A. and Jefferson, G. 1975. "A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation." In Schenkein 1978 1–55. Sinclair, J.M. 1981. Trust The Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. New York: Routledge Read More