. The modern linguistic science studies text as a communicative act of interaction between the author and the recipient (Addresser↔Text↔Addressee), considering it as a mediator and at the same time as a result of language communication. A rticle is devoted to the representation of dialogicity as a fundamental category of textual communicative activity of speakers, because this category for a long time has not been not distinguished comparing with other typological features of the verbal whole, as well as the description of linguistic means of its expression. The aim of the study is to describe both intratextual means of manifestation of the analyzed category at different linguistic levels (lexical, morphological, syntactic, etc.) texts of the post-totalitarian era, and ex-textual, expressed in connection with the semiotic universe of national culture, other texts). The purpose of the work involves solving the following tasks: 1) to explore the linguistic means of expression of the category of dialogicity at the intratextual level; 2) to trace how the representation of dialogicity in intertextual relations is carried out. The object of research is the verbal goals of the post-totalitarian era (folk tales of the Holodomor in 1932-1933). The subject of research is represented by lexical units, evaluative expressions, words-concepts, metaphors, comparisons, symbols, syntactic constructions (appeals, motivations, etc.), which are the expressions of the textual category of dialogicity at different language levels. The material for the study is the testimonies of living people about the crimes of the communist regime, collected and compiled by the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory («National Book of Remembrance for the Victims of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine»). The method of study is descriptive. Conclusion . The category of dialogicity in the texts of folk tales devoted to the Holodomor in Ukraine in 1932–1933 is realized as subject-text and intertextual. The first type is described by actualization of factors of the addressee and the addresser, and the second - by categories of intertextuality and precedent. At the intertextual level the analyzed texts are connected as follows: 1) with the universe of Ukrainian culture, national codes, mythological concepts, symbols (horse, cow, grain), axiological concepts (death, us/them), precedent expressions (God save, God defend) , religious texts (prayer); 2) with the cultural-historical epoch (Stalinism, Soviet times, years of famine, era of communism, era of collectivization); 3) precedent names, proper names of historical personalities (Joseph Stalin); 4) the names of dishes prepared by peasants of plants, roots, leaves to survive (splashes, sawdust cakes, cereals, mamaliga, malai, pancakes with a mixture of pulp, herbs); 5) words and established expressions that mark the chronotope and are typical of the communist regime (blackboard, Law of Three Spikelets, detours, informers, podkulachniks, etc.); 6) Russianisms - markers of the era and foreign, aggressive culture, used with hidden irony (Stand aside! Izvestiya); 7) toponyms - places of communist crimes (Andriivka, Balky, Berestove, Vesele, Vasylivka, Verkhnia Krynytsia, Zlatopil, Verkhnia Tersa, Fedorivka, Malynivka, Mykolaiivka, Novovasylivka, etc.). Frequently used in the analyzed texts are key words-markers that reflect the era of communist terror: famine, bread, grain, collective farm, kulak, well-off, death, blackboard, Stalin, black crow, Siberia. Intratextual means of linguistic expression of the textual category of dialogicity include syntactic (insert units, which function to express the emotional assessment of the message (unfortunately, unluckily); appeals aimed at expressing the subjective and evaluative attitude to the person of the interlocutor; interrogative sentences; utterances; rhetorical questions and appeals; quotes; indirect speech; negative constructions, persuasive statements; dialogic units that are characteristic of the interview genre; inserted and interjectional constructions, contain the author's assessment of what is said in the basic sentence; exclamatory constructions); morphological (pronoun-verb forms of the 1st person singular and plural, distinctive particles focus on separate pieces of statements (namely, only), modal words (obviously, of course, may, indeed, it seems true), lexical (I think convinced, seems to like, dislike, appreciate, disapprove, love, despise, hate, respect, adore, rejoice in something). The prospect of further research consists of the analysis of the text category "anthropocentrism" on the example of post-totalitarian texts of an extremely painful period for Ukrainian nation.
Read full abstract
Nov 1, 2021
Kseniya Yur'Evna Vavilova 
Open Access
