In academic research the term “type” or “personality” is defined as “figure-personage with peculiar traits of character, own way of thinking, distinctive outlook and who is absolutely individual and unique” [1; p.689].
Accordingly, “speech personality” of a personage is defined as “a particular selection of linguo-expressive units: words, expressions, syntax which reflect both significant traits of personage’s speech of a certain social domain he belongs to and his individual character” [2; p.12]. Thus linguistic typification is a process of selecting expressive linguistic units which characterize significant traits of the personage’s speech.
In the 19th century characters’ direct speech was singled out from author’s narration. It became the particular literary tool of introducing various speech norms like literary, dialectical and others. In such way general evolution of character’s speech was developing through its individualization aimed at depicting character’s “linguo-stylistic repertoire”, taking into consideration a variety of sociolinguistic factors [3; p.40].
According to N.D. Arutyunova lexicon of inner world is a result of verbal work [4; p.7]. If we pay attention to the work of literature we can see that author reflects both reality and spiritual life of the character. Consequently, V.P. Belyanin suggests that in the writer we should recognize not only a narrator, but also a psychologist, interpreter of other people’s behaviour according to his own moral values [5; p.20].
The authors try not to describe the speech of their characters, but render it in form close to spoken language. Every literary character as well as ordinary man has his or her personal-social behaviour, and individual speech peculiarities of this character are connected with his or her social status, gender, age, physical state, temper, intellect, level of education, occupation, sphere of interests, etc. Thus it plays crucial role in creating literary and artistic image of character.
According to V.Kukharenko, in order to carry out such analysis of artistic language, it has to be done in two stages:
1) analysis conducted according to the principle of language levels( units of syntactic, lexical, morphological and phonetic levels);
2) research which presupposes deciphering the author’s intention and decoding of artistic information [6].
Similarly we are not able to study the language seperately from a person, taking into consideration that without personality, speaking the language, the very language would be just a simple system of signs [7; p.134]. This view is also corraborated by V. Vorobiov, who believs that personality should be spoken about only as a speech personality, as implemented in the language [8; p. 29].
List of references:
- Hawthorn J.A Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory.-Oxford University Press,2000. – 400p.
- Майстерність мовного портрета у Франковій прозі(суспільно психологічна студія “На дні” ) // Vivat academia: Матеріали І Всеукр. наук. конф. молодих учених-філологів (25 – 26 квітня 2001р.). – Львів: Видав. центр ЛНУ ім. Івана Франка, 2003. С. 214 – 217.
- Чижевская М.И. Язык, речь и речевая характеристика: (Вопросы изучения речи персонажа). – М.: Изд-во МГУ им. В.М.Ломоносова, 1986. – 69с.
- Логический анализ языка. Образ человека в культуре и языке / Вступ. ст. Н.Д. Арутюновой. М.: Наука, 1999.
-
Белянин В.П. Психолингвистические аспекты художественного текста. М.: Изд-во Моск. ин-та, 1988. –121 с.
- Караулов Ю.Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. – М.: Наука, 1987. – 263с.
- Московская Н.Л. Формирование профессиональной компетенции лингвиста-преподавателя в интегрально-коммуникативном образовательном пространстве. – Ставрополь: Изд-во СГУ, 2003. – 375с.
- Караулов Ю.Н. Предисловие. Русская языковая личность и задачи ее изучения//Язык и личность. – М.: Наука, 1989. – С. 3–11.
