This anniversary edition was prepared in connection with the sixtieth birthday of Dr. philological sciences, professor of Voronezh state university Joseph Abramovich Sternin. The author has selected publications that represent the main stages of his scientific biography and the main linguistic ideas that have received recognition and dissemination in scientific circles.
The publication also includes responses from colleagues to the publications and speeches of the author, his social activities, as well as a help desk: various types indexes - a chronological index of I. A. Sternin’s works, a thematic index, a list of publications in which I. A. Sternin acted as a scientific editor, a list of graduate students and doctoral students, etc.
For philologists, specialists in the field of language theory, cognitive and contrastive linguistics, speech influence and speech culture.
The text is printed in the author's edition.
About this book...... 4 From the scientific editor...... 7 Preface by the rector. Leading scientist of the university...... 11 I. A. Sternin. Scientific biography...... 14 Main publications...... 20 Scientific and methodological manuals for teachers high school...... 24 Basic scientific results I. A. Sternina...... 25 Selected works...... 37 1. Theoretical problems of linguistics...... 37 About one specific manifestation of the principle of economy in language...... 37 To the problem deictic functions of a word...... 41 Problems of analyzing the structure of the meaning of a word...... 55 About three types of expressiveness of a word...... 67 Lexical meaning words in speech...... 75 Special terms in non-specialized texts and their understanding by the reader...... 118 Linguistic status of a proper name (in comparison with the term)....... 132 “The language of meaning” by A. Platonov ...... 141 Hypothesis natural origin language...... 153 Structural Components meaning of the word...... 156 Stylistic characteristics words in everyday life linguistic consciousness...... 167 About the concepts method, technique, technique...... 180 Does language belong to cultural phenomena...... 186 About the concept “ academic language"....... 188 Language in global society...... 192 2. Communicative behavior and intercultural communication...... 197 Communicative behavior and its description...... 197 About the concept of “mentality”...... 243 About the concept of “communicative consciousness” "...... 246 Experimental study categories Russian communicative ideal...... 262 Intercultural communication...... 268 Features of the Russian smile...... 280 3. Cognitive linguistics...... 291 Theoretical foundations semantic-cognitive approach to language...... 291 Cognitive semasiology and linguoconceptology...... 295 The concept of cognitive interpretation...... 297 Concept and meaning...... 306 To the problem of lacunarity of concepts.. .... 320 Structure of the concept...... 324 4. Contrastive linguistics...... 345 The concept of contrastive analysis and the methodology of contrastive description...... 345 Types of interlingual correspondences...... 360 5 . Russian language in new socio-cultural conditions...... 373 Main changes in the Russian language at the end of the 20th century. beginning of the XXI century...... 373 Crisis or development...... 390 The emergence of slang in the Russian language...... 392 Problems of forecasting the communicative and linguistic development of Russia in the first half of the 21st century...... 399 6 Linguistic forensics...... 414 Insult and indecent language form as an object linguistic expertise(everyday and legal understanding)....... 414 About the concepts of “indecent form of speech” and “ obscene language"....... 435 7. Speech influence...... 444 Speech influence as theoretical and applied science...... 444 Effective speech influence...... 473
Publisher: "Direct-Media" (2016)
Born on April 29, 1948 in the village. Kraskovo, Ukhtomsky district, Moscow region. In 1965 he graduated from evening school in Voronezh with a medal, in 1970 - English department Faculty of the Russian Geographical Faculty of VSU (diploma with honors). Graduated in absentia from graduate school at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.
The candidate's dissertation "On the problem of deictic functions of words" was defended in 1973 in Moscow (supervisor - A.A. Ufimtseva).
Doctoral dissertation “Lexical meaning of words in speech” was defended in 1987 in Minsk.
Main stages of labor activity:
1970-1975 - teacher of English, French, German and Spanish languages at evening school; from 1975 to the present - teacher, associate professor, professor of the department general linguistics and stylistics; from 1995 to the present - head of this department.
Area of scientific interests:
theory of language, general and contrastive semasiology, speech influence, rhetoric, cognitive linguistics
Main publications:
Monographs
Problems of analyzing the structure of word meaning. - Voronezh, 1979. -156 p.
Reviews: RJ “Linguistics”, 1980, p. 38 -41; Philological Sciences”, 1980, No. 6, p. 89 - 90; “Russian language at school”, 1982, pp. 92 -94; “Movoknowledge”, 1982, No. 1, p. 76 – 78.
Lexical meaning of a word in speech. - Voronezh, 1985. – 170 p.
Review: FN, 1986, No. 2, p. 87-88
Experimental methods in semasiology. - Voronezh, 1989. -193 p. (in collaboration with V.V. Levitsky)
Essays on contrastive lexicology and phraseology. - Halle, 1989.- 129 p. (co-authored with K. Fleckenstein).
Der Wortschatz der Perestrojka. Aktuelle Entwicklungsprozesse im politischen Wortschatz des Russischen. - Halle, 1989. - 85 S. (co-authored with V. Stefan).
Perestrojka, Glasnost, Novoe Myslenie... - Centaurus-Verlagsgesellschaft. – Pfaffenweiler, 1991. - 103 S. (co-authored with V. Stefan)
Studien zur kontrastiven Lexikologie und Phraseologie. - Voronez, 1994. - 114 S. (co-authored with K. Fleckenstein).
Communicative behavior junior school student. - Voronezh, 2000. - 195 p. (in collaboration with N.A. Lemyaskina).
Essay on American Communication Behavior. - Voronezh, 2001. - 206 p. (group of co-authors).
Introduction to speech influence. - Voronezh, 2001. - 252 p.
Essays on cognitive linguistics. Voronezh, 2001.191 p. 12 p.l. (in collaboration with Z.D. Popova)
American communicative behavior. Voronezh, 2001. 224 pp. 14.2 pp. (group of co-authors)
Communicative aspects of tolerance. Voronezh, 2001. 135 p. 8.5 p.l. (in collaboration with K.M. Shilikhina)
Language and national picture of the world. Voronezh, 2002. –60 p. (in collaboration with Z.D. Popova)
Languages national consciousness. Issues of theory and methodology. Voronezh, 2002.19.6 pp. (group of co-authors)
Russian communicative behavior. M., 2002.17 pp. (in collaboration with Yu.E. Prokhorov)
Communicative behavior. Essay on English Communication Behavior. Voronezh, 2003. 11.6 pp. (Co-authored by Larina T.V., Sternina M.A.)
Sternina M., Sternin I. Russian and American Communicative Behavior. Voronezh, 2003. 96 p.
Social processes and development of the modern Russian language. Essay on changes in the Russian language at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. Voronezh, 2004. 4th edition, revised. and augmented. 93 p. 5 p.l.
Review of the 1st edition: “Voronezh Courier”, 11/20/97.
Contrastive linguistics. Voronezh, “Origins”, 2004. 11.9 pp.
Communicative behavior. Issue 21. Communicative behavior of a preschooler. Voronezh, “Origins”. 2004. 210 p. 13 p.l. (Co-author: Chernyshova E.B.).
Textbooks for universities
Lexical system of language. Voronezh, 1984. –145 p. (co-author Z.D. Popova)
Essay on Russian communicative behavior. - Halle, 1991.- 59 p.
Practical rhetoric. Voronezh, 1993. Ed. 1.; 140 pp.
Practical rhetoric. Voronezh, 1996. - Edition 2. - 142 p.
Learn to communicate. Sat. tests. Voronezh, 1995. 213 p.
Russian language business communication. - Voronezh, 1995. - 200 p. (co-authors A.M. Golodyaevskaya, O.V. Dmitrina, N.A. Kozelskaya).
Russian speech etiquette. Voronezh, 1996. -125 s.
Rhetoric in explanations and exercises. Borisoglebsk, 2000. -131 p.
Business communication culture. Voronezh, 2001. - 332 pp. (co-author M.E. Novichikhina)
Rhetoric. Voronezh, 2002. 224 p. 13.5 p.l.
Rhetoric in explanations and exercises. Edition 2. revised and supplemented Borisoglebsk. 2003. 19.75 p.l.
Practical rhetoric. M., Academy. 2003.17p.l.
General linguistics. Voronezh, Central ChchKI, 2004. 18 pp. In collaboration with Z.D. Popova
Introduction to linguistics. Course of lectures. Voronezh, “Istoki”, 2004. 9.6 pp. (ed. and co-author).
Oral and public speech. Voronezh, JSC IMMiF, 2004. 214 p. 12.5 p.l. (co-author Tavdgiridze L.A.).
Practical rhetoric. Moscow, “Academy”, ed. 2, rev. and additional 2005
Department of General Linguistics and Stylistics of VSU
394693, Voronezh, pl. Lenina, 10
tel. (4732) , fax (4732)
Email: [email protected]
REVIEWS, ANNOTATIONS, ETC. ...
REVIEW
Sternin I.A. Selected works. Theoretical and applied problems linguistics / Scientific. ed.
Z.D. Popova. - Voronezh: Origins, 2008. - 596 p.
Came out great scientific work, dedicated to the 60th anniversary of one of the largest Russian scientists - Doctor of Philology, professor, head of the department of general linguistics and stylistics Voronezh University Joseph Abramovich Sternin “Selected works. Theoretical and applied problems of linguistics".
I.A. Sternin is a well-known specialist in the field of theoretical, communicative and contrastive linguistics, communication culture, psycholinguistics, speech influence, and communicative behavior.
I.A. Sternin - author of about 900 scientific works, 28 monographs, more than 50 teaching aids for schools and universities Russian Federation, scientific editor of 150 scientific and educational publications. Under his leadership, 53 graduate students and 9 doctoral students defended their dissertations.
I.A. Sternin made a significant contribution to modern philological science: seminal semasiology, speech influence, communicative behavior, communicative lexicology, contrastive linguistics, linguoconceptology, linguistic and communicative creation. He developed a method for cognitive interpretation of linguistic data and made a significant contribution to the development of a field method for describing meaning.
In this publication, the author systematizes his theoretical views on the problems he researches in the form in which they have formed in his view today, and tries to present them in the form of a specific concept.
The book includes theoretical fragments of the author's dissertations, monographs, textbooks, as well as research published in it for the first time.
“Favorites” also includes sections traditional for anniversary publications - bibliographical, scientific editing, a list of graduate students and doctoral students who defended their dissertations under the guidance of I.A. Sternina.
The anniversary edition has great scientific and educational value: along with its comprehensiveness, a certain set of scientific author's ideas is compactly presented. It is accessible and convenient for discussion and debate on the issues outlined in it.
Among selected works dedicated to theoretical problems linguistics, the articles “Linguistic status of a proper name (in comparison with a term)”, “Stylistic characteristics of a word in ordinary linguistic consciousness”, “Language in a global society” attract attention.
In the section “Communicative behavior and intercultural communications” a large article is devoted to communicative behavior and its description.
The author made a significant contribution to the theory of cognitive and contrastive linguistics, in particular, to the development of the concept (articles “Concept and meaning”, “Structure of the concept”, “The concept of contrastive analysis and the methodology of contrastive description”).
Analyzing the state of the Russian language in new socio-cultural conditions, I.A. Sternin predicts communicative and language development Russia in the first half of the 21st century.
A significant place in the “Favorites” belongs to articles related to the problems of speech influence and the formation of speech culture.
Actually scientific part The book ends with works on problems of methodology, pedagogy, and education.
The publication also includes responses from colleagues to the author’s publications and speeches, and his social activities.
“Favorites” has undoubted scientific value. It will be useful to philologists, specialists in the field of language theory, cognitive and contrastive linguistics, speech influence and speech culture.
Head of the department
Russian language and methods of teaching it Russian University Friendship of Peoples Doctor of Philology, Professor V.M. Shaklein
The study of national communicative behavior sets the following main objectives:
Form scientific presentation about communicative behavior as a component of the national behavior of a linguistic and cultural community.
Define, as a first approximation, the terminological apparatus for describing communicative behavior.
Describe the basic methods and techniques for studying and describing the communicative behavior of people.
Develop a model for describing the communicative behavior of a linguistic and cultural community.
Show the applicability of the developed model to describe the main features of the communicative behavior of a certain linguistic and cultural community.
To determine the didactic value of the description of communicative behavior for teaching a language as a foreign language, to formulate the main tasks, methods and forms of using the description of the communicative behavior of the people in language teaching of a given people as a foreigner.
We consider communicative behavior as one of the aspects of proficiency and mastery of a foreign language, along with such aspects as speaking, reading, writing, listening and translation.
Communicative behavior in itself general view determined by us as a set of norms and communication traditions people.
Description of the communicative behavior of the people now, at the end XX-beginning XXI century, has become very relevant due to a number of objective reasons:
Interethnic contacts have expanded, so many facts have now accumulated that require generalization;
Communicative and anthropocentric linguistics are actively developing, placing the problem of “Language and Man” in the center of attention;
Contrastive, comparative and cross-cultural research has intensified;
Interest intensified intercultural communication and intercultural understanding, national identity of different peoples;
The number of interethnic conflicts that require resolution is increasing, which increases the importance of research in the field of intercultural communication;
Psycholinguistics offers new experimental research methods that are effective in studying, in particular, communicative behavior.
All of the above indicates that nA scientific systematization of facts in the field of national specific communication has matured.
Systematization of facts relating to the national specifics of communication of a particular people turns out to be<…>a very difficult task, since there are no scientific traditions of such descriptions yet:
there is no clear enough definition of the phenomenon itself - communicative behavior, its structure is not described;
there is no developed terminological apparatus for system description;
there is no model for a systematic description of communicative behavior - it is unclear what and in what sequence, in what form should be described in order to obtain a complex, system description communicative behavior of the people;
Methods and techniques for studying communicative behavior have not been developed.
Communicative behavior is characterized by certain norms that make it possible to characterize specific communicative behavior as normative or non-normative.
The norms of communicative behavior can be discussed in four aspects: general cultural norms, group norms, situational norms and individual norms.
General cultural norms of communicative behavior are characteristic of the entire linguocultural community and largely reflect the accepted rules of etiquette and polite communication. They are associated with situations of the most general nature that arise between people, regardless of the sphere of communication, age, status, field of activity, etc. These are situations such as attracting attention, appeal, acquaintance, greeting, farewell, apology, compliment, telephone conversation, written message, congratulation, gratitude, wish, consolation, sympathy, condolences. These are standard situations. General cultural norms of communication are nationally specific. Thus, Germans and Americans require a smile when greeting them, but Russians do not. Gratitude for a service is obligatory among Russians, but is not necessary in Chinese communication if the interlocutor is your friend or relative. When greeting colleagues, Germans usually shake hands, but Russians do not have to, etc.
Situational norms are found in cases where communication is determined by a specific extralinguistic situation. Such restrictions may vary in nature. Thus, restrictions on the status of those communicating allow us to talk about two types of communicative behavior - vertical (superior - subordinate) and horizontal (equal - equal). The boundary between different types is fluid and can be violated. In addition, national specificity is also observed here: for example, communication between a man and a woman in the Russian cultural tradition appears as horizontal, and in the Muslim tradition as vertical; Communication between the elder and the younger among Muslims is much more vertical than among Russians, etc.
Group norms reflect the characteristics of communication fixed by culture for certain professional, gender, social and age groups. There are features of the communicative behavior of men, women, lawyers, doctors, children, parents, ‘humanists’, ‘techies’, etc.
Individual norms of communicative behavior reflect the individual culture and communicative experience of the individual and represent a personal refraction of general cultural and situational communicative norms in the linguistic personality. Violations of general and group norms characteristic of a given individual must also be described.
The science of communicative behavior appears to have three main aspects in its structure: theoretical (theory of science, terminological apparatus), descriptive (specific description of the communicative behavior of a particular people) and explanatory (explanation of the identified patterns and features of national communicative behavior).
Communicative behavior includes socially and communicatively significant everyday behavior– a set of household items people's actions that receive a semantic interpretation in a given society, in a given linguistic and cultural community, and are thereby included in the general communicative process and influence the behavior and communication of people. This is a kind of ‘language of everyday behavior’ [Formanovskaya N.I. Speech etiquette and speech culture, M., 1989, p. 123] or social symbolism.
Social symbolism is a reflection in the minds of people of the semiotic function that a certain action, fact, event, deed, or one or another element of the objective world acquires in a particular culture. All these phenomena acquire in the consciousness of the people a certain symbolic meaning, characteristic and uniform for the entire given society or for a particular social group. Social symbolism is a component national culture.
Social symbolism is often not noticed by members of society, although it is quite strictly ‘observed’ - that is, it is used, interpreted in interpersonal relationships. The symbolic meaning of this or that phenomenon may be completely unperceived in another culture, not understood, or may receive the most unexpected interpretation there, which can lead a person from a different culture to direct conflict with representatives of the ‘home’ culture.
Thus, the removal by a German hostess of wine brought by guests as a gift is considered by Russians as a manifestation of greed and stinginess; In German culture, wine is then seen as a souvenir. Thus, the same fact of ‘meaningful’ everyday behavior receives different communicative interpretation in different cultures.
A Russian student in Paris brought white chrysanthemums to her French friend’s wedding, the kind they bring to funerals in France.
Flowers are considered a polite, intelligent and etiquette gift among Russians, but among the Chinese they do not have such meaning.
Receiving a guest in the kitchen is a symbol of friendly, trusting relationships in Russia, an invitation to confidential communication; in other cultures, a meal in the kitchen does not carry such meaning.
An even number of flowers in a bouquet symbolizes the mourning purpose of the bouquet among Russians, but among many other peoples it does not.
According to American ideas, a heavily made-up woman can only be a prostitute. If a woman smells of perfume, then, according to the Germans, she is vulgar and does not know how to behave.
Shaking tablecloths and rugs out of the window onto the street is a manifestation of extreme lack of culture among Russians and is not at all such among Germans.
Serving a cold dinner by Germans is considered by Russians as a manifestation of laziness of German housewives and disrespect for guests, while among Germans it is simply a national tradition.
There are many similar examples that can be given.
Symbolic meanings can participate in a communicative act both directly - provoking a speech reaction, question, emotional remark, collective discussion, etc., and indirectly, indirectly: participants in communication in the communication process implicitly interpret, take into account certain actions, actions of the interlocutor, each other's objective activities, the 'language' of the interlocutor's social symbols and take this information into account, interpret these symbols as an informational component of the situation. The information of social symbols is included in the nonverbal information received and used by communicants in the process of communication.
Social symbolism must be described within the framework of the nonverbal communicative behavior of the people.
It is also necessary to keep in mind that the social symbolism of many phenomena and objects is rapidly changing - for example, symbols of fashion, social affiliation, prosperity, etc. Not so long ago, the symbol of prosperity in Russia was a car and a dacha, now - a foreign car and a cottage, an astrakhan hat and leather coats have ceased to be symbols of prosperity, and cell phone became, etc.
It is also necessary to dwell on the relationship between the concepts communicative behavior And speech etiquette. Communicative behavior is a broader concept than speech etiquette. The latter is associated mainly with standard speech formulas in standard communication situations, reflecting the category of politeness, and communicative behavior describes the topic of communication, the perception of certain communicative actions by native speakers, the characteristics of communication in large communicative spheres such as family, team, foreigners, acquaintances, strangers and many others. Communicative behavior describes not only polite, standard communication, but also real communicative practice. Communicative behavior includes speech etiquette as an integral part.
The theoretical apparatus for describing communicative behavior can be presented as follows.
Communicative behavior– a set of norms and traditions of communication of a certain group of people.
National communicative behavior– a set of norms and traditions of communication of a certain linguistic and cultural community.
Linguocultural community– a people united by language and culture; unity of the people, their language and culture .
Communication culture– communicative behavior of the people as a component of their national culture; a fragment of national culture responsible for the communicative behavior of the nation.
– a stable set of thought processes that ensure national communicative behavior.
Communication norms– communicative rules that must be followed in a given linguocultural community (an acquaintance must be greeted, thanked for a service, etc.).
Communication traditions- rules that are not obligatory to follow, but are observed by the majority of the people and are considered in society as desirable to follow (ask an old man about his health, inquire about the progress of a schoolchild, offer help to a woman, etc.).
Communication shock– awareness of a sharp discrepancy in the norms and traditions of communication among peoples, arising in the conditions of direct intercultural communication, accompanied by an inadequate interpretation or direct rejection of a communicative phenomenon by a representative of the guest linguistic cultural community from the standpoint of his own communicative culture.
Verbal communication behavior– a set of norms and traditions of communication related to the topics and features of the organization of communication in certain communicative conditions.
Nonverbal communication behavior– a set of norms and traditions regulating the requirements for organizing a communication situation, physical actions, contacts and the location of the interlocutors, non-verbal means demonstrating the attitude towards the interlocutor, facial expressions, gestures and postures that accompany communication and are necessary for its implementation.
Standard communication situation– a typical, repeating communicative situation, characterized by the use of standard speech means(introduction, greeting, farewell, apology, condolences, etc.).
Communication sphere– an area of reality in which a person’s communicative behavior has relatively standardized forms (communication with strangers, communication with colleagues, communication at school and university, communication in transport, clinics, restaurants and cafes, etc.). This is, in a broad sense, a communicative situation.
Social symbolism– a set of meanings (symbolic meanings) attributed to actions, deeds, phenomena and objects of the surrounding reality by one or another linguocultural community.
Foreign cultural informants– belonging to a different communicative culture than the one being studied, but familiar with the culture being studied in one form or another and capable of making a judgment about it.
Heterocultural informants– belonging to the communicative culture under study.
Communicative action– a unit of description of communicative behavior, a separate typical utterance, a speech act, a nonverbal signal, a combination of verbal and nonverbal signals, etc. – within the framework of one or another communicative parameter.
Communication behavior parameter– a set of homogeneous, same-type communicative features that characterize the communicative behavior of the people.
Communication fact– separate, specific feature communicative behavior of the people, standing out within a certain communicative parameter, a certain communicative rule operating in a communicative culture (acquaintances should be greeted, you can ask about their salary).
Communication sign– a separate feature of communicative behavior (communicative action or communicative fact), which stands out as relevant for description in the conditions of comparison of communicative cultures.
Communication circumstances – a set of signs of a communicative situation that influence the communicative behavior of communication participants (conversation on the street or indoors, walking or sitting, with or without witnesses, etc.).
Communication factor– a set of similar communicative parameters, the most generalized unit of description of communicative behavior.
Active communicative actions- actions taken on the initiative of the speaker.
Reactive Communication Actions– actions taken as a response to the communicative actions of the interlocutor.
Aspect of communicative behavior– a set of homogeneous communicative parameters (verbal, non-verbal aspects).
Communicative thinking of the people– mental stereotypes that provide communicative activities people. Represents a type of thinking (on par with such types of thinking, as figurative, subject, professional, etc.).
Mentality– a set of stereotypes of people’s perception and understanding of reality.
Productive communication behavior– verbal and non-verbal actions of the communicator within the framework of national norms and traditions of communication.
Receptive communicative behavior– understanding and interpretation of verbal and non-verbal actions of an interlocutor belonging to a certain linguistic and cultural community.
Normative communicative behavior– behavior accepted in a given linguistic and cultural community and observed in standard communicative situations mostly language community.
Abnormal communication behavior– behavior that violates accepted norms.
Communication taboos(hard and soft) – a communicative tradition of avoiding certain linguistic expressions or touching upon certain topics of communication in certain communicative situations; accordingly, the taboos will be speech (do not use with women obscene words) and thematic (do not discuss sex in front of children).
Rigid ones are described by the predicate it is forbidden, non-rigid – not accepted, not recommended, better not. Violation of a strict imperative may require an explanation (why you didn’t say hello) and may entail public sanctions.
Communication imperatives: hard (say hello to friends) and soft (ask the child how he is studying; give the hostess a compliment about the prepared dishes) - communicative actions necessary due to accepted norms and traditions in specific situation communication.
Hard imperatives are described by the predicate accepted, non-rigid – usually accepted.
There are thematic imperatives - topics that need to be touched upon (with an old man about health).
Communication Assumptions– communicative facts, signs or actions that are unacceptable in one communicative culture, but possible (although not obligatory) in another. An assumption of Russian communicative culture is, for example, the possibility of asking about personal income.
It is necessary to distinguish between theory and applied description of communicative behavior.
The theory of communicative behavior is intended to define the concept itself, identify the structure and main features of communicative behavior, develop a conceptual and terminological apparatus and a methodology for describing communicative behavior.
An applied description of communicative behavior is carried out primarily for cultural and linguodidactic purposes and should complement the teaching of oral foreign language speech.
Main principles for describing communicative behavior people are as follows.
Systematic principle
The communicative behavior of a particular linguistic and cultural community must be described holistically, comprehensively, as a system. To do this, a model for describing communicative behavior must be developed, including a set of factors and parameters that reflect the communicative behavior of any people. Such a model should include verbal, non-verbal communicative behavior and social symbolism.
Contrast principle
An adequate description of communicative behavior is possible only on the basis of some comparison. Implicitly, any description will be contrastive: most of the characteristics of communicative behavior turn out to be parametric - often - rarely, intensively - little, loudly - quietly, quickly - slowly, etc. Without comparison, their description is simply impossible. The background is always some specific communicative culture known to the describer.
The most effective bicultural description is Russian communicative behavior against the background of English, German, American, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
The best results are obtained not from a comparative approach (an autonomous description of two communicative cultures with subsequent comparison), but rather from a contrastive approach (a systematic consideration of individual facts of native communicative behavior in comparison with all possible ways of expressing a given meaning in the compared culture). The most reliable results are obtained by comparing the native communicative culture of the researcher with the one being studied.
The contrasting principle makes it possible to most reliably identify and describe both common and divergent signs of the communicative behavior of peoples.
A contrastive description of the communicative behavior of a particular people allows us to identify several forms of manifestation of the national specificity of the communicative behavior of a particular communicative culture:
Lack of national specificity:
Certain communicative features of both cultures coincide.
For example, in all European cultures you must greet your acquaintance, say goodbye when leaving, and apologize for the inconvenience caused.
Availability of national specifics:
a) discrepancy between individual characteristics of communicative features and actions in compared cultures.
For example, the gesture ‘ thumb’ exists in most European cultures, but in Russian communication it is performed more energetically; the ‘four leg’ pose has a cheeky character in Russian communicative behavior and a neutral one in European behavior, entering into a conversation with a stranger like ‘ Your coat is dirty’ is considered as benevolence in Russian communication and a violation of distance and anonymity in the West; in Russian communication one often speaks to strangers, in Western communication - rarely, etc.
b) endemicity of communicative features for one of the compared cultures (a particular communicative phenomenon can be present only in one of the compared communicative cultures).
For example, only Germans knock on the table as a sign of approval of a lecture, only Russians slam the speaker with unmotivated applause or ask an unfamiliar interlocutor about his salary.
c) communicative lacunarity - the absence of one or another communicative feature or fact in a given culture when it is present in the compared one.
Thus, in Russian communicative behavior there is no such communicative phenomenon as ‘political correctness’, there is no gender specialization of all linguistic forms.
Using a non-rigid (ranking) metalanguage
Describing communicative behavior in strict terms, as a rule, turns out to be impossible - usually most communicative parameters cannot be strictly ranked. The contrastive nature of the description also encourages the use of such metalanguage units as more, more often, less, less often, more intense than...
In this regard, it is advisable to describe communicative behavior using ranking units of metalanguage: usually, most often, as a rule, relatively rarely, usually does not occur, allowed, usually not allowed etc. In this case, specific communicative cultures can be named in relation to which one or another communicative feature is characterized (more often than in English and German communicative behavior, relatively rarely compared to the British, etc.).
Distinguishing and taking into account social norms and social practices
In many cases, the following picture is observed: there is a communicative norm in society, they know it, but it is often not followed. This is especially characteristic of the Russian linguistic and cultural community.
Without discussing the reasons for this here (this is a separate issue related to the attitude of Russian consciousness to norms and rules), we note that both the norm and the practice must be subject to description.
If the norm is perceived as such, as a model ( it should be like this...), it is described, but deviations from it due to certain situational, age, cultural, etc. are also described. conditions. The reasons for non-compliance with communicative norms can mean both a lack of culture and an ongoing shift in the norm, a zone of development of a communicative rule, a zone of progress, transitional form. The description will look like this: often (sometimes, cases have become more frequent) men, youth, etc. they violate this norm and do something like this.
Sources for studying communicative behavior
Sources of material when studying communicative behavior are:
Journalistic sources
Country studies essays by international journalists
Travel essays, notes from travelers
Memoirs of diplomats
Writers' Travel Notes
TV programs about different countries
Fiction
Analysis of fiction texts
Folklore works
Analysis of films and videos
Special literature
Regional dictionaries
Encyclopedic dictionaries
Country studies and ethnographic publications
Cultural publications
Folkloristics
Psychological literature
Educational literature
Video courses of various languages
Nationally oriented textbooks and teaching aids
Translation, phraseological dictionaries
Collections of proverbs and sayings
Analysis of linguistic means
Data from contrastive linguistics
Paremiology
Poll results
Results of a survey of carriers of communicative culture
Results of a survey of people who were in contact with the described communicative culture
Results of psycholinguistic experiments
Results of participant observation
Communicative behavior
as an aspect of foreign language teaching
A systematic description of the communicative behavior of a particular people has an important linguodidactic side.
Teaching communicative behavior should be carried out along with teaching the actual language skills when learning a foreign language. Communicative behavior is as important an aspect of language learning as the others: learning to read, write, speak, comprehend and translate.
It is necessary to teach communicative behavior - in the receptive aspect - in full (a foreigner must understand the communicative behavior of the country of the language being studied).
As for the productive aspect, didactic selection of material is necessary here.
Apparently, it is necessary to teach communicative behavior in standard communicative situations (speech etiquette). as well as communicative behavior in those communicative areas where the implementation of certain norms is associated with the concept of polite, status communication. It is necessary to teach nationally specific techniques of argumentation and persuasion.
In the non-verbal aspect, the productive aspect will be much less - finger counting, gestural representation of numbers at a distance, gestures to attract attention and some incentive gestures (stopping a taxi), regulation of distance and physical contacts, eye contact. The remaining non-verbal means can be learned receptively. It is also important to pay attention to etiquette, cultural nonverbal behavior in order to teach students to avoid inappropriate or offensive nonverbal behavior to other people.
(Sternin I.A.The concept of communicative behavior and problems of its researchRussian and Finnish communicative behavior. Voronezh: VSTU Publishing House, 2000. P. 4-20.URLhttp://commbehavior.narod.ru/RusFin/RusFin2000/Sternin1.htm)
