Talk:dialogue tag

RFV discussion: August 2018

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

dialogue tag

This term doesn't appear in dictionaries that I have access to. Accordingly, the definitions lack authoritative lexicographical support. A superficial look at Google Books did not provide obvious support to either of the definitions IMO. Further, this term is intended to be used in usage notes. I would think we would be well advised to limit use of the expression in entries to either an SoP use or to an established use, preferably one generally accepted. DCDuring (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

From the first page of a google books search:

• The Language of Fiction: A Writer's Stylebook: "If a line of dialogue is followed by a dialogue tag (he said, she commented, etc.), then"
• Writing Young Adult Fiction For Dummies: "An alternative style forsakes italics altogether and assigns a dialogue tag: This is going nowhere, he thought."
• Grammar for Writing (snippet, in the quote only a mentioning): "The words that identify the speaker (he said, she said) are called a dialogue tag."
• Wordsmith: Essentials of College English (snippet): "In a split sentence, commas set off the dialogue tag (such as "she said") that tells who said, thought, or wrote the quoted words."

That's only sloppy quoted but sense 2 looks attestable.

If sense 3 is (also) known by another name? "dialogue tag verb" gets some google web results but doesn't seem to be common. -84.161.23.222 17:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

First one's cited now. Second one is more informal, harder to find usable cites for (just to show I'm not making it up, here's some unusable cites from the web: [1] [2].) I'll try to check out usenet or other sources later. GaylordFancypants (talk)

I came across this term all the time while researching fiction-writing. Anyway, I've added the term said-bookism to the entry. Khemehekis (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Faintly related: Tom Swifty. Equinox ◑ 01:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion(, Tom said suggestively)! I've added it in the "related terms" section. Khemehekis (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Related doesn't mean semantically related; it means etymologically or morphologically related. So it would go under "See also". DCDuring (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

They're now both cited. GaylordFancypants (talk)

The 2004 citation doesn't illustrate meaning. Other quotes from the same url do. DCDuring (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

What is a good label for the restricted context in which they are understood, which seems to be discussion about writing fiction? Something more vague like literature or something more specific? Literary criticism, rhetoric? DCDuring (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not lit crit (they seem to be mostly about how to write books, for people aiming to harness their imagination etc.) nor rhetoric (which suggests speech-making with an eye to persuading an audience); but the good old "fandom slang" tag would seem a bit cruel here. The books often have "writing" in the title. I would say "fiction writing" but of course you could use dialogue tags to colour your violent father in an autobiography too... Equinox ◑ 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Literary composition? Direct reported speech can appear in many literary genres: journalism, law, fiction, lit crit, history, humor, eulogies, etc. But only professional and would-be professional writers would seem likely to use or understand the term. The citations include some that find it necessary to define the term, even for those who buy books on writing. DCDuring (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We are hijacking the RFV but yeah I like "literary composition": it suggests putting words together for a reward (might be an A-grade at school, might be £4,000 from Mills & Boon). Haw. Snobbery is underrated. Equinox ◑ 04:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The cites provide evidence of the context. If that evidence is misleading then we need other cites to demonstrate different usage contexts. DCDuring (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How 'bout narratology? Khemehekis (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I might call it "written composition", since it can be used in non-literary contexts like a transcript. GaylordFancypants (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have seen it used in a sociological study that analyzed dialogue. I would expect to be able to find it in some discussion of text-based natural-language understanding from an AI perspective. Maybe linguistics too. But not enough for attestation. I guess either of the two labels will do. DCDuring (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Relatedly, I wonder what categorization will result from the label. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

How about authorship as a label. DCDuring (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. GaylordFancypants (talk)

After some thought I decided to move my recently-created appendix to Appendix:Glossary of authorship, and I am going to use that as a context tag and category unless anyone objects. GaylordFancypants (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We need more craft vocabulary. Authorship has an edge on many other crafts because we rely on attestation in print. In contrast we don't have too much on, say, chimney-sweep vocabulary. DCDuring (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved - the verb alone fails, the combination of verb and actor passes. Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)