American Journal Of Philological Sciences
8
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue01 2025
PAGE NO.
8-12
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue01-03
The history and theoretical interpretations of dialogue in
literary studies
Sadulla Matyakupov
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Nukus State Pedagogical Institute, Uzbekistan
Received:
20 October 2024;
Accepted:
22 December 2024;
Published:
12 January 2025
Abstract:
The article examines the history of dialogue in literary studies and its theoretical interpretations. On the
example of world and Uzbek literary studies, theoretical views on the issues of dialogue and its artistic function,
its significance in poetic speech are summarized. Scientific conclusions are drawn about the function and essence
of artistic dialogue.
Keywords:
Literary studies, dialogue, theory, scientific school, poetic speech, artistic function.
Introduction:
The roots of dialogue are considered to
be an ancient phenomenon, dating back to the first
periods of interpersonal communication. It existed in
the "pre-literary period," just as it existed before
philosophy. According to experts, the first form of
dialogue was social in nature. In a social environment
where two people are together, there is a need for
dialogue and mutual communication. This is the reason
why the practice of dialogue and the theoretical
interpretations related to it are diverse, numerous and
ancient. If the first examples of social dialogue
appeared in the form of communication between God
and man, man and woman, father and son, then
gradually it branched out in the form of communication
between ruler and citizen, judge and condemned,
teacher and student, preacher and listener, etc. More
precisely, dialogue has existed as a condition of social
life in every aspect of human life, and this process
continues at a consistent pace today.
METHOD
Based on the available materials, it can be said that the
initial formalized forms of dialogue emerged in ancient
Greece, particularly in interactions related to religious-
mythological, philosophical, scientific, and judicial
contexts. From a semantic perspective, the term
“dialogue” (from the Greek dialogos –
“a conversation
between two or more people, a form of verbal
communication”) [Словарь. 9:67] is not limited to
simply “a conversation between two or more
individuals,” as commonly defined in dictionaries.
Ancient Greek sources already recognized that it also
encompassed meanings such as the relationship
between two viewpoints, the interaction of opposing
forces, and debates between two poles.
The dialogue presented in Plato’s Symposium between
Socrates and Agathon illustrates the strong foundation
of this idea. Socrates, who visits the poet Agathon’s
home specifically for a conversation, is asked several
questions by his host about God and His role in human
life. Receiving satisfactory and logically inspiring
answers from Socrates, Agathon becomes inspired and
begins to ask poetic questions (which experts regard as
one of the earliest examples of poetic dialogue in
philosophy).
Socrates, admiring the meaning and metaphor in
Agafon's poem, says to him: "You praised Eroth. Does it
merely merit praise, or does it have flaws?" Agafon
cannot answer this question. Recognizing his defeat, he
said, "You're too strong. I can't argue with you!".
Socrates then responded to Agafón: "No, you cannot
argue with the truth, not with me, because it is
impossible to argue with the truth." From the given
small text, it becomes clear that during the processes
of historical formation of dialogue, it showed a number
of specific features: a) dialogue is not just a simple
conversation between two people; b) it is built on a
discussion that reflects the position of a specific
person; c) it is in harmony with poetic expression even
in ancient forms of communication; d) the leadership
of logic and observation in dialogue.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
9
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
In order to confirm this classification, we consider it
necessary to cite the following thoughts of the literary
critic U. Zhurakulov on the history of dialogue: "Even
before M. Bakhtin, the concept of dialogue and
opinions about it existed in works on philosophy,
aesthetics, and literary studies. In the early periods of
European philosophical and artistic thought - in the
works of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - it is clear that
dialogue, in addition to its use within a specific literary
genre, is the leading form of expression of philosophical
thought. When the philosopher expressed his views, of
course, he felt the need for an interlocutor who would
encourage him to think, argue, and confirm some of his
thoughts. Whether the addressee is a specific person
(Socrates) like the "naked genius" in Plato's dialogues,
or as a fictional-abstract interlocutor, he always
retained his dialogical organizational function"
[Jurakulov U. 5:74].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
According to Platonists, Plato carved an inscription on
the door of his school called "Academy" with the
words: "Do not let those who are not geometers
enter!" [see source 11: source]. This meant that Plato
demanded that every word, thought, observation, and
communication be precisely geometrically measured,
in accordance with the criterion of logic. Plato's
dialogical logic was formed by the contradiction
between two concepts - "truth" and "false" - and the
logical proof of truth. In the words of Daotima to
Socrates: "Nimaki is ugly if it is not beautiful, what is
good is evil if it is not good, but don't put too hard on
this conclusion, otherwise you will destroy the levels
between them" there is a truth about the relativity of
human judgments [see: source 11]. This aspect was
clearly manifested, first and foremost, in the dialogues
of Plato's teacher, Socrates, and this can be fully
confirmed in the debate between Socrates and the
Sophist:
Socrates: Who are you?
Sophist: Master of the word.
Socrates: What does a master of words mean?
Sophist: I don't know medicine. I'll talk to the public
about medicine and convince them of my word. Then
the doctor comes out and talks about it, but he can't
convince the crowd.
Socrates: Does your audience understand medicine?
Sophist: No. They're a crowd, they don't understand.
Socrates: So you are a master of making fools fools!
[See source 11].
This passage in the treatise "Ziyofat" proves that the
dialogue primarily served to distinguish between truth
and falsehood, to prove the superiority of truth over
falsehood. Here, the strong logic of Socrates' words
served to expose the Sophist's lies. At the same time, in
the dialogue presented, the lowest level of deceit is
vividly reflected in the adjectives "master of words,"
"foolishness of fools." Based on such processes
characteristic of the history of philosophy and
aesthetics, it can be concluded that the first
interpretations, evaluations, and relationships in the
theory of dialogue took place within dialogical
processes, as a living process. The first manifestations
of interpretation are directly related to the work of
Aristotle. Although Aristotle did not write a direct
refutation of his teacher's Socratic dialogues, he did not
express an open reaction, the innovation introduced by
him into the composition and content of the dialogue
gives the dialogues of Aristotle an interpretative
character. In a certain sense, he expresses his
assessment and attitude towards his teacher's
dialogues. Although Aristotle's dialogues do not reflect
the problems of literature in the sense we understand
today, his observations about the soul and div are
one of the eternal themes of fiction.
In general, the dialogues of Neoplatonists such as
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus reflect on God
and all the things He created. Such thoughts not only
continue and complement each other, but each new
interpretation also demonstrates its dialogic position in
relation to the previous one. The most important thing
is that they reflect the most important problems of
fiction in philosophical content, artistic form. Later, it
became known that proverbs, sayings, sayings,
aphorisms, winged words and expressions of literature
in a certain sense relied on such traditions. Indeed, in
his dialogues, Aristotle called the proverb "Remains of
Ancient Philosophy" [Makarova I. 7:103].
The similarity of Aristotle's dialogues to examples of
folk art, their approach to literature, is directly due to
the needs of the reader. To ensure the popularity of his
ideas, he used folk expressions, proverbs, sayings, and
sayings in his dialogues. In his dialogues, it is noticeable
that he effectively used the method of syllogism
(making a third logical conclusion based on two ideas):
compared to "esoteric" texts, his "exoteric" writings,
which are in our hands, are distinguished by their
serious artistry, invented composition, and elegant
syllables. Most of these texts are written in the form of
dialogues. In Aristotle's work "Rhetoric," regarding the
relationship between the speaker and the listener,
"Like dialectology, rhetoric (the art of words) is not for
some fields, but for all fields and is useful". The work of
rhetoric is not to convince a single person of an idea,
but to teach the methods and rules of how to convince
all people of an idea (beneficial and correct)... Rhetoric
is very useful for all orators (for teachers who always
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
10
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
preach to the groans, students, students) " [Arastu.
1:221]," he notes.
The main essence of Plotinus' philosophy, a follower of
Plato and Aristotle, was the interpretation and renewal
of Plato's views. In some works, influenced by the
essence and inner specifics of Plato's philosophical
ideas, Plotinus, like Aristotle, took Plato's works as the
basis in his works. Plotinus often enlivened his words
with interrogative sentences. He answers these
questions with his own statements. From this
perspective, it represents a dialogue of the Platonic
type.
According to experts, the philosophy and aesthetics of
dialogue in the 20th century refers to the theory of
dialogue put forward by M. Bubur, F. Edner, I. Levenos,
and M. Bakhtin. Among them, M. Bakhtin is
distinguished by the vitality of the theory of dialogue,
the concept of beauty in literature, and its practical
closeness to the art of speech. The architecture of the
concept of "action" in Bakhtin is dialogic. The minimum
presence of a person in the motion process is at least
two votes. The life of language, the energy that gives it
the effect of vitality, is dialogue.
Kazakh scholar N. Kenzhegaraev emphasizes that "in
literary studies, we should avoid the function of using
the concepts of "monologue" and "dialogue" only due
to their external characteristics." It is necessary to go
beyond the rule that monologue is a conversation of
one person, dialogue is a conversation of two people...
Now it is time to pay close attention to the dialogic
genesis of the monologue... Applying a question is
probably not a phenomenon within the framework of a
monologue. It contains autocommunication, created
through the participation of the author and the "lyrical
I..." The author's appeal is not only directed at the
lyrical hero, it is directed at the imaginary reader or the
reader of a specific time and period. Along with the real
reader in real life, it will also be important for the
future. Therefore, the lyrical hero has a targeted object.
This means that the poem is built on the basis of
dialogue" [Kenjegaraev N. 6:258], - he calls it a
monodialogue.
Of course, all these processes are related to the artistic
text and the driving force in it - the function of the
word. Only a literary text can be a tool for such
observations and conclusions. In this sense, the study
of M. Bakhtin's views on the literary text and the means
of creating word movement in it leads to a correct
understanding of the theory of dialogue and its
specifics. "Where there is no text, there is no thought
and object that studies it," writes M. Bakhtin [Bakhtin
M. 2:156]. According to the scientist, each text has its
own subject. Therefore, it is important to interpret the
text as a way of thinking of the speaker, syllogism in the
structure of the sentence, "commutations" in
linguistics. In this case, the analysis and understanding
of linguistic experiences between the author's subject
and "another subject" plays a key role in understanding
the essence of dialogue.
The significance of V. Zhirmunsky's research on the
style of the lyrical work in the study of issues of poetic
dialogue is unique. Most of V. Zhirmunsky's research on
artistic language, speech, and style was conducted
based on lyrical genres. According to his conclusion:
"The construction of a poetic composition is
determined not only by the systematic rhythm and
stress tacts, but also by the harmonious distribution of
syntactic groups in it" [Zhirmunsky V. 3:151]. If we look
superficially, it seems that in V. Zhirmunsky's above
conclusions, we are talking only about the linguistic
features of the lyrical composition, the formal aspects
of the lyrical style, and there is no talk of dialogue.
However, if we pay close attention to this quotation, it
becomes clear that the thought reflected in the second
part of the sentence is focused on the fact that the
connections between poetic texts (lines, columns,
stanzas) appear not only through formal means such as
rhythm and stress, but also through semantic-syntactic
means. This means that the idea of the manifestation
of dialogicity within the poetic text is expressed in a
different form. Because the syntactic relationship,
connection, and interdependence within the poetic
composition, from the point of view of content, have
the same characteristics as the occurrence of the
dialogical relationship mentioned by M. Bakhtin within
the text. According to Zhirmunsky, syntactic
connections within the poetic text create the
phenomenon of meaning transfer through sentences,
parts of sentences, phrases in sentences, and parts of
speech.
According to Uzbek happiness scholar, Professor H.
Boltaboev: "At the heart of this doctrine (the doctrine
of happiness is being considered) lies the concept of
dialogue (Greek: диалогos
- dialogos: conversation),
which consists of the speech communication of the
characters in the work as a component of the literary
and artistic text. In a literary text, dialogue is the
exchange of information in a stylistically stable verbal
form,
developed
by
the
author,
acquiring
individuality... According to M. Bakhtin, every person is
an independent subject with their own voice,
worldview, and imagination. At the same time, a
person exists only in communication with people, with
himself, with the world" [Boltaboev H. 2:8-9].
Literary scholar U. Jurakulov, M. Bakhtin, writes about
the theory of dialogue: "The novelty of M. Bakhtin's
theory of dialogue lies in the fact that he revealed the
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
11
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
pattern of the same phenomenon occurring within a
single pole based on the analysis of the work of art and
the human image in it." That is, paired phenomena
acquire dialogicity in a contradictory situation, and
even in an isolated situation, they have an internal
dialogical structure and content. In society (or in the
world of a work of art), a person who has his inevitable
antipode lives with his inner antipode even in a neutral
state. This phenomenon is observed in the form of an
internal dialogue (microdialogue) in a work of art... In
any situation, in whatever form (dialogical,
microdialogical, polyphonic) he communicates, he will
definitely feel the image of the "other" in front of
him..." [Jurakulov U. 5:75]. Based on the
interpretations of two literary scholars, it can be said
that this type of dialogue is important not only for the
forms of communication found in epic and dramatic
works, but also for revealing the laws of lyrical dialogue.
At first glance, it seems that the lyrical "I" in which
monologic speech is performed, lyrically expressing his
feelings and attitude to reality, is in a monologic
position. However, if we observe the construction and
content of the lyrical speech specific to it, we see that
the content of this monologic speech actually has a
dialogic essence.
In our opinion, the phenomenon of dialogue observed
in literary critic B. Sarimsakov's research "Ghazal-
communication forms in the lyrics of Alisher Navoi"
[Sarimsakov B. 8:7] also belongs to the "dramatic
dialogue" type of dialogue noted by Zhirmunsky.
According to the scientist, the ghazal is a new
classification form of the communication ghazal genre,
which is based on the features of its speech expression.
A. Kozikhodzhaev's research effectively applied to
Navoi's lyrics. In his article devoted to the analysis of
the first ghazal in the divan "Khazoinul Maani," Navoi
writes that not only one but several voices participate
in the lyrical work, and the author's voice, standing in
an independent position, organizes dialogical
processes in the interpretation, response, and reaction
state in the work [Kazikhodjaev A. 10:4]. The dialogue
between the author's voice and someone else's voice,
as noted by A. Kozikhodzhaev, sometimes involves a
single word, and sometimes an imperceptible gesture.
Some of the views on the history and theory of dialogue
are also connected to the issues of Eastern literature
and classical poetics of the East, and today, with regret,
it can be said that none of the Arabic sources cited by
A. Kozikhodzhaev have been translated into Uzbek.
Therefore, we and other researchers like us are limited
to working with sources from Western and Russian
scholars who have reflected on dialogue.
CONCLUSION
Observations show that in the early stages of the
history of dialogue, it acquired a social essence. The
first dialogical processes were seen as a dialogue
between God and man, man and woman, father and
son. Later, other manifestations of it appeared. Thus,
dialogue has a real life basis as a condition for the
existence of universal human life. In the next stage,
dialogue moved to the level of philosophy and
aesthetics. Initially, philosophical and aesthetic forms
of dialogue emerged, and later interpretations formed
on this basis. The first interpretations, evaluations, and
relationships related to the theory of dialogue are
manifested within dialogical processes, as a scientific
and philosophical process.
The understanding and interpretation of the questions
of the aesthetics and poetics of dialogue as a direct
artistic phenomenon began to enter scientific and
aesthetic works only from the 20th century. By this
time, the artistic functions of dialogue in epic, lyrical,
and dramatic interpretations began to be considered.
At the same time, the concepts of "I" and "you," "I" and
"other" were interpreted within the framework of
artistic dialogue. The phenomenon of dialogue, which
arose on the basis of the relationship between two
subjects, played an important role. Artistic dialogue
forms various forms and methods of speech
communication in all literary genres, including lyrical
genres, and occupies a central place in the speech
processes of the work. In general, the art of words or
related genres is understood as a living "speech
process," "speech flow." All forms of speech have their
limits. The speech boundary is defined by the
"replacement of the speech subject, that is, the
speaker." In the process of speech, the replacement of
the speaker begins with the entry of "other" speakers
or another subject of speech, which is observed in
different forms in poetic speech.
REFERENCES
Арасту. (2018) Поэтика. Ахлоқи кабир. Риторика. –
Тошкент: Ўзбекистон миллий энциклопедияси
Давлат илмий нашриёти
.
Бахтин М. (2016) Тилшунослик, филология ва бошқа
гуманитар фанларда матн муаммоси (Ҳ.Болтабоев
таржимаси) Филология масалалари. –
Тошкент. № 4.
Болтабоев Ҳ. (2016) ХХ аср адабиётшунослигида
диалогизм ва Михаил Бахтиннинг адабий
-
эстетик
таълимоти //
Филология масалалари. –
Тошкент. №
4.
Жирмунский В.М. Теория стиха. –
Ленинград:
Сов.писатель, 1975. –
665 с.
Жўрақулов У. (2015) Назарий поэтика масалалари.
Муаллиф. Жанр. Хронотоп. –
Тошкент: Ғафур Ғулом
номидаги нашриёт
-
матбаа ижодий уйи.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
12
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Кенжеғараев Н. (2011) Абай лирикаларындағы
монодиалог түрлері // Вестник КазНУ. –
Алматы. №
2 (132).
Макарова И. (2023) “Народная мудрость” в диалоге
Аристотеля “О философии” // Национальный
исследовательский университет “Высшая школа
экономики”. Платоновские исследования / Platonic
Investigations
18.1
https://publications.hse.ru/pubs/share/direct/849439
172.
Саримсоқов Б. (2004) Алишер Навоий лирикасида
ғазал
-
мулоқот шакллари // Ўзбек тили ва адабиёти.
–
Тошкент. № 2.
Словарь литературоведческих терминов. (1974) –
Москва: Просвещение.
Қозихўжаев А. (2009) Ғазалнинг серовоз олами //
Ўзбекистон адабиёти ва санъати. –
Тошкент. № 49.
