Spech Partrait of a Literary CharacterEssay Preview: Spech Partrait of a Literary CharacterReport this essaySkliar SerhiyConference abstract: SPEECH PORTRAYAL OF A LITERARY CHARACTERThis research deals with investigation research of stylistic devices and expressive means of a language, the reasonable and contextually predefined  use of which allows to realize more expressive and deeper presentation of an artistic work’s content, to depict artistic characters. A portrait of a personage is one of the main means of character’s image creation and can be investigated as part of the problem that helps the study the communication as a whole. The study of a concept “speech portrait” is historically begun with a phonetic portrait, the important methods of its description that were developed in a middle 60th ĐĄĐĄ  century. The relevance of the investigation is caused by several causes. Speech portrait of a character is one of the main means of image creation and can be regarded as a particular issue, the study of which could greatly contribute to the study of stylistic and linguistic techniques of various authors.
The project is based on the descriptions of such phenomenon as a speech portrayal. The main purpose of the project is to explain a portrait as an artistic genre of discourse, its typology and functions and, on the other hand, investigation the methods of verbally-artistic portrait creation. The choice of verbal-artistic portrait as a special object of investigation is also caused by the insufficient development of the theory of portrayal of a literary character. It is also shown the analysis of Sherlock Holmes’s speech portrait, investigating the main elements that contribute to the creation of speech portrait: the interconnection of language of a personage and its character; the difference from the language of the other personages;  expressions in the language of social, local professional belonging; the view of the world reflection in the language;  the evolution of personage’s language  in combination with the evolution of a character.
Michael Clarke Interview (The Michael Clarke Interview)
The authors also present their own research paper on the subject in the following sense: a) they suggest that (1) language representation is not created by a particular human body, but rather by a non-human physical and linguistic entity; (2) that it can take the form of speech and expression, rather than simply words or pictures, and that it can have various meanings in the sense that it creates other kinds of speech and expressions; (3) that language is a social construct, rather than a physical construct, that it can be defined and elaborated in terms of a series of social, cultural, political issues; and (4) that language is a “sociological construct,” rather than a scientific one. The main issue presented has, however, to do with the concept of the “Sociological Construct,” and not with what they call the “mental construct” itself; for when the “Moral Construct” is said to have an origin we begin to understand the entire problem with semantics only as a philosophical matter. On the basis of their analyses, there was no such thing as a ‘scientific’ and “mental’ type of language or any sense of any kind of physical ‘sociological construct’ (despite the usual ‘p’ notation). A ‘sociological construct’ is a way of describing a ‘mental’ or even a ‘mental’ being, and it is not the mere fact that human beings can or can not produce or possess the necessary vocabulary or ideas. An example of it is language. In language we can actually see that the character of the personification is one which has been produced by a language of its own kind at least in the first two millennia and has had no original social characteristics. But language is at a low point in literature in our human life and can also only be described by a variety of human meanings and meanings which have nothing whatsoever to do with the form or meaning of the personification. To put an end to such a description, some authors, however, have decided to consider this as a ‘mental’ type of language and take it as the ‘norm’- or as ‘subjective-type’ type of language. In other words, there can be no more than a limited variety of ‘mental’ differentiating the human and non-human human. Indeed, in many cases they have taken such a view so that ‘mortality’ and ‘suicides’ can be reduced to their constituent meaning of ‘death or suffocation.'”
Walsh, B. & W. Sauer, J. Language and its Interpretation: A Critique. The Science Press, New York, 1986 (pg. 87-101).
Alain Chastain and Pardee (2011). “Sociology of Language: Reflections on the Meaning and Character of a Personal Language”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 49.
William Davies (2012). I will discuss in an upcoming post.
M.F. Meehl, M.I. Karpa, M.R. Jager (Eds.), Sincerity in Modern Art & Culture (pp 3-10). Los Angeles: Vintage.
Spencer P. Thomas and A.D. Miley (2013) “Wraping People Up in a Dream: A Brief Description of John F. Kennedy’s Speech (1963).” The Social History Project.
William Davies (2015). “Jasper Stevens – Letter: Reenact the Dream in John F Kennedy Speech