Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

Such relations between dialogical cues promote the formation of metonymic shifts as the basis of dialogical coherence. Such construction of dialogue became the commonplace of detective novel where it acquires the outlook of interrogation. The samples of the kind can be found also in the dialogues for the elucidation of the circumstances (as in Ch. Dickens’ “Bleak House” or “Our Mutual Friend”). In its turn interrogation can be regarded as a special case of discussion reduced to a kind of catechism. The essential remains that partial negations unite the utterances in metonymic way.

In its turn metonymic negative relations between quotations promote the conversion of a genuine dialogue to soliloquy or the conversation with one’s own self. Conversational partners become the single entity disputing with itself. The case of such soliloquy or inner dialogue is exemplified with the famous scene of Ch. Dickens’ “The Cricket on the Hearth” (3) where the hero talks with himself and rejects the provoked suspicions of jealousy in the name of preserving the peace in home. The preceding scene of arousing these suspicions (2) is also represented as a soliloquy where the pretended detection of the conjugal trial has the outlook of seduction. The hero is here put before a puzzle and must to conduct a discussion of the voices uttering for and against the supposed suspicion. Another case of the development of soliloquy can be found in “Little Dorrit” (2.18) in the meeting of Mr. Dorrit with John Chivery – the last before the madness. The abrupt transition from anger to conciliation is caused not only with the evident mental illness but also with the view to the partner as alter ego entailing the situation of soliloquy. That the conversation is perceived by Dorrit just as a soliloquy is attested with the frequently used word “remembrance” so that he imagines the conversation to be conducted in his memory. Moreover this possible illusion is supported with the speech of his partner who uses Dorrit’s own idioms, in particular, the word “liberty” that had been obstinately repeated by him earlier (2.5). Besides, direct speech becomes here the device of portrayal with the respective idioms identified as personal marks. Therefore direct speech as the series of quotation gives rise to the development of the problem of textual integration with the stratification into speech registers and respective functional differentiation.

Each communicative act includes selection and segregation (with the succeeding aggregation as the preparatory stage to synthesis). As the fulfillment of intentions it proceeds to the accomplished purpose. In this respect as the teleological procedure it imparts hierarchy to a text and discloses the code standing behind. Code’s monumentality can be said to arise from the ephemeral communicative polishing. Respectively one can say of textual topology where spatial and temporal parameters are to be taken into account as those correlated with personal intentions and positional conditions of utterances. Such dependence is to be found in A.P. Chekhov’s works where due to the contradiction between the spatial stability and disharmony the doctrine of classical triune can be conceived as inverted⁹²⁰. The grounds give the proper intentions of the dramatis personae that determine the make of space⁹²¹. As the consequence of this approach the confrontation of the spatial center and periphery arises (the last being conceived as a “berth”, lit. “corner”)⁹²². Thus functional destinations displayed inevitably in direct speech’s register come inevitably to codification.

Meanwhile here the controversies arise. As far as direct speech demonstrates the reproducibility of the cited locutions it implies also the moment of reducibility. While being reproduced as a quotation the locution approaches code as something capable of becoming an artistic convention. It is already with being repeated in the act of “parroting” or “organ-grinding” that the reproduced locution acquires qualities of an alienated object to be affiliated to a taxonomic class. Meanwhile idioms resist to codification of a common tongue as far as it entails reduction. In particular this resistance becomes apparent when it goes about the affiliation of categories as taxonomic classes displaying thus their reducibility. Such reduction with the respective resistance becomes observable when the disagreement as to the meanings of idiomatic locutions arises so that idiomatic peculiar code comes into play. A very shrewd observation concerning such effects can be found in J. Conrad’s “Typhoon” (Ch. 2) where an eloquent series of cues exchanged between Captain Mac Whirr and Jukes delineates the divergence of their viewpoints. It is notable how the objections intensify themselves reciprocally so that it comes to a perfect quarrel: “J.: It’s the heat. The weather’s awful. It would make a saint swear. Even up here I feel exactly as if I had my woolen blanket. C.: D’ye mean to say, Mr. Jukes, you ever had your head tied up in a blanket? What was that for? J.: It’s a manner of speaking, sir. C. Some of you fellows do go on! What’s about saints swearing? I wish you wouldn’t talk so wild…”. The captain deciphers here the enunciations of Jukes. There arises a row of idiomatic motifs WEATHER – BLANKET – SWEARING SAINT that does actually foresee the future chain of events connected with the storm. Further as the storm approaches his commands (necessarily consisting of direct meanings only) get the features of telegraph style: “Light air – remained – bridge – sudden…”. Such is the explanation of “storm strategy” to the sailors so that the reduction becomes apparent as the grammatical structure of isolation type (as well as those of incorporation) becomes revived. One can easily recognize here the mentioned effect of jingloisms that’s of telegraph style as the means of making idioms.

To sum up the cited examples one has again to remind a wondrous and miraculous property of inverted commas: they designate not only the segments of speech conceived as alien but also the deviations from direct meaning (including those ensuing from speech’s alienation). It means that each quotation refers to implications standing behind. There are always implicit statements that are to be detected and disclosed for a quotation to be perceived adequately. Therefore both direct speech and idioms are marked with the same signs attesting the mutuality of these textual phenomena. Together with idiomatic shift the motifs are designated that belong to the latent contents of narration and provide its integration. Numerous examples of the interplay between direct and idiomatic meanings are to be found in Ch. Dickens’ “Pickwick” in the cues of Weller and Jingle. In particular colloquialisms are converted to idioms that become a code’s conventions due to their use within the tissue of direct speech. In particular such a marvelous transfiguration is promoted with the discussion where the antithetic enunciations are confronted taken directly from colloquial practice as the already discussed Admoni’s “casual enunciations”. It is known that G. Flaubert “used to be involved in the game of ‘garçon’ where the players had to use in a conversation the banalities only” [Реизов, 1955, 255]. This device of restricting speech with colloquial commonplaces is widely applied by Dickens in such a way that they turn into local idioms. One can remind the above discussed psychological “aha-phenomenon” or illumination (insight) in such cases.

Direct speech as a corpus of quotations builds up a kind of anthology that can be conceived as a background of lyrical digressions within an epic narrative. Subsequently such enunciations are regarded as alien and promote textual stratification in the same manner as speech registers where generalities and particulars are segregated and confronted. Besides, direct speech can be regarded as the device of textual division into parcels and therefore as the excerptions from some previously existent alien text. In this respect such a textual corpus of a portrayal can be regarded as a verbal mask put upon the face of a person. The idea of mask has been introduced in the theory of semantic nets as “the neighborhood within an ordered set of parameters” and as “an excerpt from a matrix of direct product” [Клир, 1990, 103-104] so that being applied to lexical units it represents their compatibility within the given text: “Each mask represents a viewpoint for the restrictions put upon the basic variables” [Клир, 1990, 106]. Respectively it means inevitably bringing forth irony as the consequence of the discrepancy with the genuine portrait. Thus the conflict of portrayal vs. disguise arises that becomes the necessary concomitant satellite of each direct speech entailing the constant presence of ironical hue. In it turn it is the strategy of metonymic drift that prevails both in the referential ties between the distant enunciations and between the adjacent cues of discussion. Direct speech as a corpus of quotations ascribed to identical character builds up a verbal mask. The comprehension of a dialogical cue’s meaning presupposes the involvement of the whole set of a partner’s utterances. Colloquial casual enunciations become idioms as well as pseudo-sentences do (to use B.Yu. Norman’s term) entailing the effect of illumination or insight (aha-phenomenon).

Besides, it is to be taken into account that while using a sentence disguised as a quotation an author gets an opportunity of uttering the own statements that are quite different from the earlier developed viewpoints. Thus quotation as a mask enables multiplying viewpoints and respective derivative meanings arising in the cited statements. This disguising effect demands also the concordance with the portrayal of the character the statement is ascribed to. Here it is to remind that any portrayal (involving mask as the attribute concerning the represented person) belongs to the mimetic activity in particular as the imitation and reproduction of the depicted character’s essential features (returning thus to the broad topic of mimesis), At the same time direct speech represents the person’s conduct in a given situation and thus discloses situational attributes.

As far as the replicas of direct speech within a dialogue do not represent a mere exchange of phrases but delineate a whole portrayal of persons and attest the position of their situation, it is the interaction of personalities that takes place in dialogue; therefore it is not single occasional cues but members of the sets of utterances ascribed to a person that are to be born in mind in dialogues and confronted together. Dialogue can be described with what has been called “semantic resolution” [Вагин, 1988, 123] as far as the references acquire the outlook of ramification (branching) in opposite to concatenation proper for monologues. In each dialogue one has to deal with the intersection of position & person as the textual corpuses. It entails the problem of identity of the person to whom all enunciations are ascribed. In particular the experience common to the both partners is supposed to be known that enables these enunciations being integrated. Procedural semantics [Вагин, 1988, 104] can here become the alternative to declarative semantics. It means that the referential net of direct speech promotes interpretative activity that correlates to transitory meanings of the content represented with procedural description of a given situation.

These peculiarities of direct speech can be exemplified with Ch. Dickens’ works. Their convenience for direct speech’s analysis ensues not only from the abundance of characters’ enunciations but also from the melodramatic simplification, exaggeration of a puppet-like portrayal taken from theatre. The chaotic conglomeration of cues (ensuing from the fact that novels are overcrowded with secondary persons) makes up a dense tissue that is a certain encumbrance for the detection of the action’s filament. It has already been stressed that “there’s nothing problematic for the writer himself” [Елистратова, 1972, 119] so that problematic complications are replaced with melodramatic puzzles to be solved; respectively the characters are taken as constant in the manner of masks’ theatre (as that of Pecksniff from “Chuzzlewit”) [Елистратова, 1972, 210]. As the precursor of naturalism with its inclination towards the ugliness Dickens demonstrates the same bestial approach to human nature [Сильман, 1941, 212] that Balzac has declared but the bestiality becomes here the bridge to still aggravated vision of infernality⁹²³. Apparently Dickens has paved the path towards the flourishing of detective novel of nowadays with its peculiar dialogues of interrogation that come back to the initial form of catechism. Murder’s investigation is the obligatory element in the majority of Dickens’ texts in contrast to “pure” adventures of earlier times. In this respect one can say of the so called Balzac’s paradox in regard to Dickens, that’s of the contradiction between the initial intentions and terminal results so that “the creation educates the creator” and “the previous pre-artistic attitude towards the object becomes refuted” [Вайман, 1981, 29, 66]. It concerns attempts to reconcile the characters that turn out to be overthrown with their own words. That is why the verbal masks are convenient devices for disclosing the concealed intentions and respective conduct. The scheme of detective story with this outlook can be traced in particular in Beaumarchais’ main hero’s transformations from picaroon to the proper detective “investigator” in the last part of trilogy (“The Guilty Mother”). All detective characters are marked with hellish seal attesting the development of the species from the maps of infernality.

As to the peculiarities of the characters’ communicative strategies ensuing from such aesthetic approach they concern first of all the motivational problem, A spontaneous chaotic conglomeration of enunciations can be regarded as the zero level of motivation within a dialogic speech. The seeming disparateness of speech represents actually the strict order of inferno concealed under melodramatic mask. As an example one can take “Oliver Twist” that has appeared simultaneously with E. Sue’s “The Mysteries of Paris” where the underground of urban society as the genuine wellspring of detective criminal background was scrutinized. It is the inner societal chaotic disorder that endangers the life as the continuation of the old images of vanity and quite different from those of adventurous perturbations as the plot-making events. Such environment is conceived as hell so that the old and widely explored motif of VANITY becomes intensified to the degree of INFERNALITY.

Such is for example the scene with Nancy’s hysteric fit (“Oliver Twist”, Chapter 39) that precedes her repentance as the decisive turning point of narration. It begins with ill Sikes’ complaints and demands for help with the phrase of “lend us a hand and let me get off this thundering bed anyhow” As the girl has given the help he replies with curses of her awkwardness and provokes her cry. Then the exchange of cues follows introducing Nancy’s tirade. Sikes expresses himself with exclamation “Whining, are you?” and forbiddance of “sniveling” retorted with Nancy’s rhetoric question of the “fancy” in his “head”. Sikes replies that it is she who “thought better of it” with her suggesting him “be hard upon me to-night”. It becomes here that Nancy’s overt words follow: “Such a number of nights as I’ve been patient with you, nursing and caring for you as if you had been a child: and this the first that I’ve seen you like yourself: you wouldn’t have served me as you did just now”. Here the concealed experience is half-opened so that Sikes’ callousness and ingratitude become disclosed. The person is not only dissatisfied with Nancy’s attendance; he demands her keeping silence as a slave. Thus first seemingly casual phrases acquire deeper explanation as the traits of character. There seems nothing to be uttered but spontaneous colloquial phrases, and the consequences they entail are fatal. Nancy’s words on NURSING & CARING are here clearly confronted to those of Sikes on WHINING & SNIVELLING. Thus mere colloquial means delineate the moment when Nancy becomes ready for radical transfiguration. HARD is the retort to her being PATIENT at night, and it inevitably provokes her turning from her former comrades and future perishing. The situation displays the function of [EXPIRED PATIENCE] that results in the future unexpected deeds of the heroine rebelling against Sike’s implied demand of [* humbleness to arbitrary caprices].

One finds here also the sample of organizing direct speech quotations with the structure of a discussion as in the conversation between Fagin and Sikes (Ch. 44). The remarks of Sikes that there’s “a good night” for a thievish business because it is “dark and heavy” are retorted by Fagin with the objections that “what a pity” because “none quite ready”, and the partner agrees to. The next couple of cues again is initiated by Sikes: he appeals to “make up for lost time” with the full approval of Fagin (“the way to talk”). Meanwhile the further Fagin’s attempts of adulation («like yourself») now only irritate his partner who calls no too politely the companion’s hand “withered old claw on my shoulder”. Fagin tries to ask about the reasons for this irritation using an awkward idiom (“nabbed”), and it provokes the chain of invectives and insults where such attributes are mentioned as “father singeing his grizzled red beard” (the hellish flame is meant) and Fagin’s birth “without any father at all” (that’s from the devilish forerunner). Thus the metonymies’ chain claw – nab – beard (of the parts of body) arises. The semantic net of the discussion can look like that of the actual predicate (“rheme”) NIGHT (dark and heavy) that leads to FATHER (*in the hell) with the intermediary link of LOST TIME –CLAW – NAB.

Another example of spontaneous flow of colloquialisms becoming idioms can be found in “Martin Chuzzlewit” – a story of the examination of heirs with happy end and suicide of the rascal Jonas. Meanwhile this plot affords evolving the portrayal of a perfect hypocrite Pecksniff whose speeches are built as a sento of commonplaces with the destination of concealing his genuine purposes. One finds a bright example of communicative strategy in a kind of a “dialogue between a liar (Pecksniff) and a robber (Jonas)” (Ch. 20). The rascal begins trice with a stupid repetition of the same question – “what do you mean to give your daughter”. The liar avoids answer with references to “singular inquiry”, “many considerations”, “the kind of husbands”. Then Jonas calls “me” as “son-in-law”, and again Pecksniff retorts with the reference to “years” that “tame down” his daughter so that Jonas is constrained to agree that the partner “not obliged” to reply. At last after a silence Jonas addresses “Why the devil don’t you talk?” giving thus a pretext for Pecksniff to attempt at mentioning “your departed father” whom the rascal is suspected to kill. After the short retort of “drop it” he tries to say of “tender strings” and obtains resolute warning of not “to be crowed over”. Brutality can be said to be confronted with perfidy in this dialogue. The strategy of diverting conversation from direct answers used by Pecksniff betrays the wide use of metonymic transition (HUSBANDS – *TIME and then *DEATH – TENDERNESS): the seemingly spontaneous flow of commonplaces is directed towards the searches of circumstances that would conceal the secret.

Obviously the dialogues as the discussions and collisions of opposite opinions can be represented with frames as far as the interchange of quotations is to be reduced to a predictable transaction. Meanwhile as a rule the entire codex of quotations ascribed to a character remains irreducible to such schemes. “Barnaby Rudge” can here serve as a sample. From one side there are cases of predictable conversational strategies as in the interrogation of Dolly (Emma’s friend) entrapped by Haredale (Emma’s uncle) with the letter for Chester (Ch. 20): he asks about the letter, is answered with the denial, than informs Dolly about the letter’s existence and proposes t her to become a servant. Such frame can be described as [elucidation (of the visit’s task) – demand – admonitions]. The respective taxis could be described as {BRING (letter) – ANSWER (from Emma)} – GIVE UP (to show the letter) – PROVIDE A COMPANION (for Emma). Meanwhile within the greater scope one can’t reduce the direct speech to a scheme of the kind. Moreover the similar scene takes place between the older Chester and Hugh who has just robbed Dolly of this letter and delivered it to him (Ch. 23). This dialogue can’t be reduced to the frame of interrogation because here the motif of the mystery of Hugh’s birth appears with the words of his own narration concerning his childhood: “They hung my mother up at Tyburn”, “I never knew about a father”. The mystery is disclosed only with the novel attaining its termination (Ch. 75) when it becomes clear that the Lord has had a conversation with his son (executed then already after her mother seduced and betrayed by the Lord too). Such distant referential net prevents contents from being compressed within a simple frame and promotes the formation of a grotesque of a Saturn’s type of the so called father.

The samples of distant metonymic references are to be found in the novel “Great Expectations” that has a typical melodramatic plot of mysterious heritage: a certain boy, Pip, is beneficiated with the unknown person who turns out to be the imprisoned criminal Magwich (Provis) to whom he once happened to give an aid while his escape. After the illegal return of the benefactor is disclosed and he perishes, all the miracle of richness disappears as well. Meanwhile this plot (that has also attachments to a known tale of “a king for a night” as the examination of character) gives only the pretext for mapping the world as a latent hell. The genuine axial personality of the novel is Estella who is gradually disclosed as the daughter of the mentioned Magwich and the woman who has been rescued by the lawyer Jaggers (Magwich’s attorney) from gallows and who is now his maidservant. This circumstance has somewhat common with the fate of Barnaby Rudge who was also the “illegal” son of the mother condemned to death and of a lord. In its turn Estella has been adopted (while being three years old) and brought up by a certain lady Havisham once seduced by Compeyson (Magwich’s antagonist). This pair of feminine personalities represents feminine vampires. The overt hint towards such approach is especially stressed in the very beginning with the description of Havisham’s desolate place (with a table) destined for her future burials: “An epergne or center-piece… was so heavily overhung with cobwebs that its form was quite undistinguishable… I saw speckled-legged spiders with blotchy bodies running home to it, and running out from it…” (Ch. 11). This map of ugliness is resonant with the first impression of Havisham as an embodiment of death – “a skeleton in the ashes of a rich dress” (Ch. 8). Such exposition of vampirism is to be taken in consideration as the initial point of reference for all enunciations of these characters. Moreover, this motif of COBWEB returns in the portrayal of the lawyer (who becomes Estella’s bridegroom) in the dialogue between Pip and Jaggers: “– Who’s the Spider?– The spider? – The blotchy, sprawly, sulky fellow. – That’s Bentley Drummle”. Thus the same words of BLOTCHY SPIDER reappear twice with apparent reference to infernal attributes.

The attributes of infernal vampirism are overtly represented in direct speech. To begin with, Havisham introduces herself to the boy Pip as “a woman who has never seen the sun” (Ch. 8) and then asks him: “– What do I touch? – Your heart. – Broken!” And it is the same words that are repeated in the dialogue with Estella immediately afterwards: “You can break his heart” (concerning Pip). Thus the two motifs appear – HEARTBREAK & SUNLESS. They dominate in the utterances of the both feminine persons. They also return in Estella’s own self-portrayal: “… I have no heart – if that has anything to do with my memory” (Ch. 29). In this respect the words about love uttered by Havisham acquire a perverted meaning: “If she tears your heart to pieces – … love her…! I adopted her to be loved” (Ch. 29). Actually such love designates a LURE for a victim. Such motif is to correlate with the initial image of cobweb. This attitude to potential victims gives grounds for the respect attitude towards laughter. Estella says about “satisfaction it gives to me to see those people thwarted, or what an enjoyable sense of the ridiculous I have when they are made ridiculous”, and in particular she refers to the sunless and nightly mood of life of Havisham as “that impostor of a woman who calculates her stores of peace of mind” (Ch. 33). It is the final scene of Havisham’s desperation where the transformation of human beings into vampires is disclosed. After the sincere talk with Pip she addresses him: “I meant to save her from misery like my own… But as she grew, and promised to be very beautiful, I gradually did worse…, I stole her heart away and put ice in its place” (Ch. 49). It goes about *GOOD INTENTIONS that plaster the way to hell – be here the proverb mentioned. It is here that the confirmation of the birth of Estella is given: “– But Mr. Jaggers brought her here, or sent her here? – Brought her here. … – Might I ask her age then? – Two or three”. Thus the decisive proof of Estella’s is obtained by Pip in view of his competence: it is the motif of AGE known for him that has the fatal significance.

That Jaggers becomes the forerunner of detective authorities is attested with his monologue (Ch. 51). One of the peculiarities of direct speech in detective stories is an obligatory explanatory monologue that terminates the narration, and here one deals with an early specimen of the kind. Jaggers’s solemn harangue arises as a retort to Pip’s audacious remarks concerning Estella: “I have seen her mother… And you have seen her still more recently… Perhaps I know more of Estella than even you do. I know her father, too”. The harangue is built as anaphoric construction: each sentence is introduced with the initial apostrophe “put the case that…”. And then the awful infernal picture of the world is evolved seen with the lawyer’s eyes: “…all he saw of children was, their being generated in great numbers for certain destruction… here was one pretty little child out of the heap who could be saved”. This picture represents the motif of INFANTICIDE together with that of MIRACULOUS SALVATION: let the apparent hints to Malthusian phraseology put apart, it becomes quite obvious that the mentioned motifs can refer to the fate of the Innocents from the Gospel (as opposed to Malthusianism). And the conclusion attests the importance of latency: “The secret was still a secret, except you have got wind of it”. Here Jaggers obviously confronts with his vocational regularities (mentioning with despise “wind” that Pip has managed to “get of”) and warns against brutal intrusion into privacy.

The significance of the words used in direct speech can be demonstrated with the story of the meeting of the principal hero with his benefactor retold to Mr. Jaggers (Ch. 40). It begins with meaningful warnings “don’t commit anyone” and “don’t tell me anything” on the reasons of the addressee not being “curious”. Then a very notable pair of cues follows – those between Pit (“I merely want […] to assure myself what I have been told, is true”) and Jaggers (“But did you say told or informed? Told would seem to imply verbal communication. You can’t have verbal communication with a man in New South Wales, you know”). It comes to a remarkable advice of Jaggers: “take nothing on its looks; take everything in evidence” that easily can be transformed into a proverbial sentence as a typical trace of insight with evident irony.

“Bleak House” gives a story of a woman from high society (Lady Dedlock) who is persecuted and chased to death for the passion of sincere love and therefore is comparable to Madame Bovary or Anna Karenina. At the same time it is the distinctive feature of detective novel that makes a difference to its counterparts: the final persecution of the woman is carried out with the participation of the detective officer Mr. Bucket. The first cues of Lady Dedlock introduce the principal motif of TEDIOUSNESS which is a counterpart to VANITY as the properties of infernal infamy. “Bored to death” is the Lady’s first enunciation and then while the fatal recognition of the manuscript of her former lover her remark follows: “Anything to vary this detestable monotony” (Ch. 2). Meanwhile in reality it goes about opposition to the motif of PASSION that is to be referred to the Lady’s confession at her last (and the first overt) conversation with daughter: “… think of your wretched mother conscience stricken, underneath that mask” (Ch. 36). Thus the motif of MASK vs. genuine PORTRAIT appears to be represented with the mentioned opposition of TEDIOUSNESS vs. PASSION.

The Lady’s inadequate reaction to the handwriting couldn’t elope from the observant look of Tulkinghorn who initiates the persecution and then cooperates with such overt rascals as Snagsby and Bucket. He does also bear verbal mask of a devoted servant in the manner of pereat mundus fiat iustitia for whom “sparing the girl, of what importance… is she?” (Ch. 48). Meanwhile it is in the conversation with Hortense (the Lady’s servant having given them an aid in their persecutions) where he becomes disrobed as a petty rogue and hypocrite forgetting completely pathetic phrases: “You are a vixen, a vixen! Well, whench, well. I paid you” (Ch. 42). The staunch lord puts aside all his eloquence and uses the most vulgar phrases. Hortense accuses Tulkinghorn with the particular locution: “You have attrapped me” (Ch. 42). The motif of TRAP refers not only to the sphere of hunting. Tulkinghorn’s meanness and vulgarity reveal themselves also in the menaces that he begins to express overtly in regard to women. A very meaningful remark sounds in the conversation with Hortense. She discloses the genuine contents of Tulkinghorn’s activity and calls it with appropriate names: “… employ me to pursue her, to chase her… It is what you do. Do I not know that?” His answer refers to an overt threat: “You appear to know a good deal” (Ch. 42). Another menace is addressed to the Lady: “It is no longer your secret. It is my secret…” (Ch. 48). “Miserable wretch” – it is the most appropriate definition of Tulkinghorn made by Hortense (Ch. 42). Paradoxically the tragedy of Hortense accused with the murder of Tulkinghorn consists in the same passionate and affectionate vital attitude that moves the Lady. That is why in spite of the writer’s obvious intentions Hortense appears to be a protestant feminine personality as well as Bucket belongs to the gallery of detestable and perfidious characters. “You are a devil”, Hortense says to Bucket, and it becomes true in view of the world’s infernality.

With the death of the Lady’s sweetheart and Esther’s father Hawdon (Nemo) and the appearance of Jo the motif of CONNECTION is introduced that refers to the societal entirety. For the first time it is mentioned by Tulkinghorn in his account of his searches for the copyist: “I speak of affording some clue to this connexion” (Ch. 12). Then it appears in the author’s narration together with the motifs of MUD and POWDER (Ch. 16). All these images are summed up in the Lady’s utterance: “O what a scene of horror!” (Ch. 16) that almost repeats that used after Tulkinghorn’s account – “Certainly, the collection of horrors” (Ch. 12). The motif appears later in “Our mutual friend” designated as that of DUST that becomes there the source of enrichment referring apparently to Ecclesiastes. A very meaningful dialogue attests the invisible connection arising between the Lady and Jo: “ – I am not a lady. I am a servant. – You are a jolly servant!” (Ch. 16). It obviously refers to the images of a Dame and a Page. It is Jo’s voice that introduces the motifs of hunting and chasing, it is his complaints that foresee the future fate of his Dame: “they’re all a-watching and a-driving me” (Ch. 26); “I’m a-moving on to the berrying (= burying) ground” (Ch. 46). Ecclesiastical dust of this “burying ground” devours then the Lady. Still more mendacious become then the words of the policeman Bucket who confesses himself (in the conversation with Esther) to be the cause of Jo’s death with “having warned him out of London” (Ch. 57). What he calls WARN Jo has felt as DRIVE. And it is this motif of PURSUIT that again has united the fates of the Lady and Jo as those of PERPETUAL FLIGHT.

Mr. Bucket as the prototype of the future “omniscient” detective deserves special attention as the embodiment of abstract idea in the manner of baroque personified allegories. Such evaluation would be justified with the abounding rhetoric devices imparted to his portrayal. The samples of his official “politeness” are demonstrated when he first arrests George as the suspected of Tulckinghorn’s murder: “Duty is duty, and friendship is friendship. I never want the two to clash, if I can help it […] be careful what you say […] (he takes from his pocket a pair of handcuffs) […] Are they comfortable?” (49). The similar specimen of a policeman’s eloquence is to be found in the moment of arresting Hertense: “Don’t you think any more […] of throwing yourself out of window […] I’ve been lady’s maid to a good many before now” (50). The particular sense of humiliation is to be traced on his remarks while presiding the Lady’s affair: “I am surprised that you should think of making a noise [to Mr. Smallseed]” (50).

A portrait of a protestant and vindictive personality is to be found in Alice Marwood from “Dombey”. It is her voice that accuses the society (Ch. 34) in her recollections of the judicial trial where “it has always been of my duty” and there were no mention as to “whether no one ever owed any duty to me”. She “was sent to learn her duty. Where there was twenty times less duty and more wickedness”. Such overt confidence is a rare case in the writer’s texts. The motif of DUTY is here revealed as the power that makes further her mother become the conscious force of retribution. It obviously implies the unmentioned antonym *RIGHT, therefore it gives grounds to esteem the further conduct as righteous deeds. The decision of the righteousness of revenge finds its substantiation at the encounter with Carker (Ch. 46). The exchange of cues between the mother and the daughter leads to the decision: Mrs. Brown’s notice of “not changed!” is replied with the notice “what has he suffered?” as for Alice there were “changes enough for twenty”; then the motif of envy is expressed by the mother (“And him so rich! And us so poor!”) and resolutely refuted by the daughter (“not being able … to pay the harm we owe”). It is essential that the mother’s proposal to “wring money” is rejected with anger by the daughter because “penny … gone through his white hands – I could poison it and send back”. It shows the uninterestedness and purity of the motives of revenge. One could come to the conclusions *to change means to suffer & *poverty is inability to revenge so that the chain arises SUFFER – POISON (*money) - *REVENGE (OWED (= DUTIED) HARM). Thus the motif of FEMININE VINDICATION appears that throws a bridge to Alice’s encounter with Dombey (Ch. 52) where any supposition of envy is overtly refuted: “more powerful than money” is “woman’s anger”, therefore although “you should pay her” as the mother is concerned, “that is not motive”. The use of the last term attests here Alice’s full unselfishness of the planned revenge where the old Mrs. Brown becomes only the tool.

The succeeding conversation between Mrs. Brown and Carker’s servant Rob is especially interesting as the example of metonymic shifts in interrogation. First of all the “birdcage” with “our parrot” that “belongs to… Master” as the conversation’s topics are mentioned. Then follow Rob’s warning against “stroking feathers the wrong way” and Mrs. Brown comes to immediate questions about Carker: both “out of place” and “didn’t take you with him” are failed (Rob denied to talk), so the attack of invectives followed with the curses of “insulting dog”, “ungrateful hound” mentioning “talk no more”, “talk at all”. Rob has become afraid and consents to be “careful of talking” and at last gives the answers. Here the transition is traceable of BIRD - FEATHERS – MASTER – HOUND – TALK. Rob hesitates between the fears to be dismissed by Carker and chased by Mrs. Brown, and it is his irresoluteness that provides success. Although the writer makes further all his best to blacken Alice as he does with Hortense making her extravagant person, the Balzac’s paradox reveals in the fact that Alice remains one of the brightest characters of Dickens’ gallery.

“Our mutual friend” is a story of a heir (John Harmon) who wants to examine the conditions of the inheritance and, in particular, to test the person (Bella Wilfer) predestined as a bride to him. Therefore he pretends to vanish and to appear under alien name (Rockesmith). One takes John Harmon for the killed person found in Thames but finally the mysteries are disclosed with happy end. This plot gives only a pretext for another and much more serious narration of the fate of those who were only partly involved in these adventures: the genuine heroine of the novel is Lizzy Hexam, the daughter of the person who has found the mentioned killed person identified as Harmon. First persecuted, then protected by the detective Eugene Wrayburne, she delineates the axial line of the novel.

In its turn she enables mapping one of the most wonderful portraits of Dickens’ gallery – that of a little doll’s dressmaker Jenny Wren who continues such feminine images as Nell from “Old Curiosity Shop” or “Little Dorrit”. Here the motif of PATIENCE comes into play. It is by no means of masochistic humility. Vice versa, the unlucky cripple remains a very risible girl full of humor and wit. Her cues attest her as a very observant person revealing the wisdom of the use of the plainest colloquialism in appropriate moment. What’s of importance, they attest her opposition to what she repeatedly calls “tricks and manners” of cruel and derisive children. While retelling her childhood to Wrayburn she “used to see early in the morning” (that’s after a sleep) “the children” that were “all in white dresses” and “never mocked me” (Ch. 2.2). This apparent hint to the unmentioned *ANGELS (as well as the further praises to the dead in Ch. 2.5) gives witness for conceiving the reality as an inferno or at least as a purgatory.

One finds here an excellent example of reference to intertextual sources designated with the direct speech. After being rescued from the collision of the boat with the steamer, the “Rogue Riderhood” instead of thanking demonstrates an eloquent exchange of cues with one of his rescuers: “(R.:) Where is my cap? – In the river. – And warn’t there no honest man to pick it up?”. It overtly makes us remind of the parable about the niggard who accused his rescuers of theft.

Such cases are often to be found in the utterances of Dickens’ characters. For instance in “Nicolas Nickleby” (57) Squeers pronounces the Gospel’s words inserted in his own cynic sentence in addressing his accomplice Peg just in the moment as they have found the debtor’s obligations after sorting the papers and a minute before being captured: “We know what the camel and the needle’s eye means; no man as can’t live upon his income, must expect to go to heaven at any price”. The irony consists here in the fact that these words on the impossibility of living over means and ascending to heaven concern himself who has pronounced them.

To sum up, it is numerous implications that are generated with those skimpy words that the characters are entrusted to pronounce. The surface of their enunciations conceals latent contents to be comprehended and to give rise to sometimes unexpected conclusions. Each cue is only a nod of the invisible semantic net and as such it provokes reader for continuing them with own conjectures. Besides, it is here to remark that the obvious prevalence of metonymic shifts must not conceal their restrictions. Together with partial ties arising within semantic nets of immediate dialogical relations within direct speech the integrity of text must always be taken into account as the explanatory source of contextual references.

Direct speech is the most apparent medium that imparts discontinuity to a text thus enabling the segregation of its subdivisions and promoting its stratification. The same concerns the so called