UDC

81’42(045)

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V502

Authors

Nataliya N. Beloshitskaya - Cand. Sci. (Philol.), Assoc. Prof., Head of the English Language Department, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov (address: prosp. Lomonosova 4, Arkhangelsk, 163000, Russia).

e-mail: n.beloshickay@narfu.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0899-1828

Abstract

The phenomenon of discourse dramaturgy is the object of this research. Discourse modelling from the perspective of dramaturgy is one of the ways to examine the structure of discourse. This article presents a broad and a narrow approach to defining discourse dramaturgy. In a broad sense, it is the performance of social roles, which are determined by the structure of social relations. The narrow approach views discourse dramaturgy as a strategic planning of speech behaviour, maintenance and correction of one’s social persona. This research aims at revealing the main constitutive features of discourse dramaturgy. The key scientific method employed is the content analysis of studies on the dramaturgy of speech behaviour, communicative self-presentation and self-expression, presentative dimension of discourse, insincerity as a communicative concept, and indirect communication. The theoretical findings are illustrated by discourse excerpts from works of fiction found in the National Corpus of the Russian Language. They were selected using words naming speech genres or the way of performing a speech act. As a result, the following constitutive features of discourse dramaturgy were identified: intersubjective admission of the code of trust; determination of the genre of the communicative situation; profiling of the conceptual opposition between sincerity and insincerity; gradual character of dramaturgy; agency of the subject; performativity. The model of discourse dramaturgy analysis synthesizes the methodological tools of pragmalinguistics as well as cognitive and sociolinguistic studies. The scientific value and theoretical significance of this research lie in clarifying the notion of discourse dramaturgy using the example of the dramaturgy of everyday discourse as well as in determining the foundations of discourse dramaturgy typology and classification of dramaturgy indicators. The identified constitutive features allow us to distinguish the following types of everyday discourse dramaturgy: diffuse and accented dramaturgy; spontaneous and pre-designed dramaturgy. Discourse dramaturgy indicators are determined by means of linguopragmatic analysis and discourse analysis of the strategic implementation of the dramaturgy of social interactions.

Keywords

discourse dramaturgy, self-presentation, self-correction, impression management, accented dramaturgy, dramaturgy indicator, tonality

References

1. Olyanich A.V. Prezentatsionnaya teoriya diskursa [Presentational Theory of Discourse]. Volgograd, 2004. 507 p.
2. Karasik V.I. Self-Expression in Different Types of Discourse. Commun. Stud. (Russ.), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 564–574 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24147/2413-6182.2022.9(3).564-574
3. Karasik V.I. Yazykovaya plastika obshcheniya [Linguistic Plasticity of Communication]. Moscow, 2021. 536 p.
4. Karasik V.I. Yazykovye kartiny bytiya [Linguistic Pictures of Being]. Moscow, 2020. 468 p.
5. Plotnikova S.N. Neiskrenniy diskurs (v kognitivnom i strukturno-funktsional’nom aspektakh) [Insincere Discourse (in the Cognitive and Structural-Functional Aspects)]. Irkutsk, 2000. 244 p.
6. Dement’ev V.V. Nepryamaya kommunikatsiya [Indirect Communication]. Moscow, 2006. 376 p.
7. Tyupa V.I. Diskursnye formatsii: ocherki po komparativnoy ritorike [Discourse Formations: Essays on Comparative Rhetoric]. Moscow, 2010. 320 p.
8. Vostrova V.A. U istokov teatral’noy antropologii: N.N. Evreinov [At the Origins of Theatre Anthropology: N.N. Evreinov]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, 2012, no. 4, pp. 185–192.
9. Ershov P.M. Rezhissura kak prakticheskaya psikhologiya. Vzaimodeystvie lyudey v zhizni i na stsene. Rezhissura kak postroenie zrelishcha [Directing as Practical Psychology. Interaction Between People in Life and on Stage. Directing as a Construction of Spectacles]. Moscow, 2010. 408 p.
10. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, 1959. 256 p. (Russ. ed.: Gofman I. Predstavlenie sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni. Moscow, 2000. 304 p.).
11. Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York, 1967. 270 p. (Russ. ed.: Gofman E. Ritual vzaimodeystviya: ocherki povedeniya litsom k litsu. Moscow, 2009. 319 p.).
12. Habermas J. Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main, 1995 (Russ. ed.: Khabermas Yu. Teoriya kommunikativnoy deyatel’nosti. Moscow, 2022. 880 p.).
13. Edgley C. (ed.). The Drama of Social Life: A Dramaturgical Handbook. London, 2016. 356 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315615691
14. Grice H.P. Logic and Conversation. Cole P., Morgan J.L. (eds.). Speech Acts. Leiden, 1975, pp. 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
15. Romanov A.A. Sistemnyy analiz regulyativnykh sredstv dialogicheskogo obshcheniya [Systemic Analysis of the Regulatory Means of Dialogic Communication]. Moscow, 1988. 183 p.
16. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A. Regulative Markers of “Auto Forsage” Homo Digitalis Behavior in Network Communication. Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii, 2019, no. 4, pp. 62–91 (in Russ.).
17. Oleshkov M.Yu. Stsenarnyy freym kak osnova diskursivnogo analiza rechevoy situatsii [Scenario Frame as Basis for Discourse Analysis of Verbal Situation]. Lingvoritoricheskaya paradigma: teoreticheskie i prikladnye aspekty, 2011, no. 16, pp. 182–191.
18. Sedov K.F. Diskurs i lichnost’: evolyutsiya kommunikativnoy kompetentsii [Discourse and Personality: The Evolution of Communicative Competence]. Moscow, 2004. 317 p.
19. Beloshitskaya N.N. Neiskrennost’ kak kontseptual’noe osnovanie strategiy dramaturgichnosti v obydennom diskurse [Insincerity as a Conceptual Foundation of the Dramaturgy Strategies in Everyday Discourse]. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka, 2025, no. 1-1, pp. 583–587.
20. Bezuglaya L.R. Neiskrennie rechevye akty i neiskrennie rechevye zhanry [Insincere Speech Acts and Insincere Speech Genres]. Zhanry rechi, 2015, no. 1, pp. 30–37. https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2015-1-11-30-37
21. Shpilman M.V. The Phenomenon of Pretense and Its Metaphorical Representation in the Russian Language. Critique Semiot., 2023, no. 1, pp. 73–84 (in Russ.).
22. Shpilman M.V. Rechevaya maska v aspekte kommunikativnoy mimikrii [The Verbal Mask in Terms of Communicative Mimicry]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta, 2023, vol. 4, pp. 119–126 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.23951/1609-624X-2023-4-119-126
23. Austin J.L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, 1962. 167 p.
24. Bauman R. Verbal Art as Performance. Am. Anthropol., 1975, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 290–311. https://doi.org/10.1525/ aa.1975.77.2.02a00030
25. Schechner R. Performance Theory. London, 2003. 407 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203426630
26. Plotnikova S.N. Performance in Communication: Aspects of Cognitive-Discursive Modeling. Sci. J. Volgogr. State Univ. Linguist., 2018, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 229–239 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2018.4.22
27. Beloshitskaya N.N. Dramaturgy of Discourse: Cognitive-Pragmatic Potential of Metamarker ‘V TAKOM TONE’ [in Such a Tone]. Nauchnyy dialog, 2024, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 35–52 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-35-52
28. Gorbacheva E.N. Diskursivnaya performativnost’: priznaki, tipy, zhanry [Discourse Performativity: Features, Types, Genres: Diss.]. Astrakhan, 2015. 401 p.
29. Shekhovtseva E.N. Prezentatsionnyy potentsial strategiy performativnosti v obikhodnom diskurse [Presentational Potential of Performativity Strategies in Everyday Discourse]. Kul’tura. Kommunikatsiya. Diskurs: aktual’nye voprosy poliyazychnogo prostranstva [Culture. Communication. Discourse: Current Issues of the Multi-Lingual Space]. Volgograd, 2024, pp. 165–169.