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, 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 objects 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 actual 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 between 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 participants in communication (conversation on the street or indoors, while 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 researcher’s native communicative culture 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)
The Russian smile has great national originality - practically it performs completely different, if not opposite, functions than the smile in European countries.
Russians, from the point of view of Europeans, are gloomy, gloomy, and unsmiling. This is due to the phenomenon of the everyday unsmiling of the Russian person, which acts as one of the most striking and nationally specific features of the Russian nonverbal behavior and Russian communication in general.
The following specific ones can be identified: national characteristics Russian smile.
1. The Russian smile (normally) is performed only with the lips, occasionally the upper row of teeth becomes slightly visible; Showing the upper and lower teeth when smiling, as Americans do, is considered unpleasant and vulgar in Russian culture, and such a smile is called a grin or a “horse smile.”
2. A smile in Russian communication is not a signal of politeness.
In American, English, and German communicative behavior, a smile is primarily a signal of politeness, therefore it is obligatory when greeting and during a polite conversation. Russian writers have more than once drawn attention to the difference between Russian and American smiles, characterizing the American smile as strange and artificial for a Russian person. M. Gorky wrote that the first thing you see on Americans’ faces is their teeth. The satirist M. Zadornov called the American smile chronic, and M. Zhvanetsky wrote that Americans smile as if they were connected to the network.
In the West, a smile when greeting means, first of all, a polite greeting. How more people smiles when greeting, the more friendly he is at this moment, the more politeness he demonstrates to the interlocutor in this communicative situation.
A smile during a dialogue with an interlocutor also signals politeness towards the interlocutor, that the participants are politely listening to each other.
A smile in the service sector in the West (and in the East) also primarily serves as a demonstration of politeness. Wed. Chinese proverb: He who cannot smile cannot open a shop. In Japan, girls at the escalator entrances in large department stores smile and bow to every customer who steps on the escalator - 2,500 smiles and bows a day.
A polite smile in some cultures has the meaning of protecting the interlocutor from grief in connection with the perception of what is being told. Thus, I. Ehrenburg in his memoirs talks about a Chinese man who with a smile informed him about the death of his wife. But this polite smile, as I. Ehrenburg writes, meant: “you should not be upset, this is my grief.”
In Russian communicative behavior, a smile of “politeness” or “out of politeness” is simply not accepted, and even vice versa - to a purely polite smile of an interlocutor, if it is recognized as such, a Russian person usually treats with caution or even hostility: the Russian phrase “he smiled out of politeness” contains a disapproving attitude towards the person who smiled.
Russians call a constant polite smile "duty smile"and is considered a bad sign of a person, a manifestation of his insincerity, secrecy, unwillingness to discover true feelings. “Take away the duty smile!” - they told a Russian teacher in Voronezh English language, who “kept a smile” all the time in the American way.
3. In Russian communication, it is not customary to smile at strangers.
A smile in Russian communication is mainly addressed to acquaintances. This is why saleswomen don’t smile at customers - they don’t know them. Saleswomen will smile at customers they know.
4. It is not customary for Russians to automatically respond to a smile with a smile.
An American at the dawn of perestroika wrote in Izvestia: “For some reason, when we look at customs officers checking our passports and smile at them, we never receive a smile in return. When we meet our eyes on the street with Russian people and smile at them, We never get a smile back." This observation is correct: if a stranger smiles at a Russian person, this will more likely prompt the Russian to look for the reason for the smile addressed to him than to prompt him to respond to the stranger with a smile.
Russians also do not always automatically respond to a smile from a familiar person; rather, it is seen as an invitation to enter into contact, into a conversation.
5. In Russian communication, it is not customary to smile at a person if you accidentally meet his gaze.
Americans smile in such cases, but Russians, on the contrary, tend to look away.
Russians do not necessarily smile when looking at small children or pets together. Americans accept this, but Russians do not.
6. For Russians, a smile is a signal of personal affection towards a person.
The Russian smile demonstrates to the person to whom it is addressed that the smiling person treats him with personal sympathy. A smile shows personal affection. That’s why Russians smile only at people they know, since there is no personal affection for strangers. That is why a smile addressed to stranger the reaction may follow: “Are we familiar with you?”
7. It is not customary for Russians to smile when performing official duties, when performing any serious, responsible business.
Customs officers don't smile because they are busy serious matter. Sellers and waiters too. This feature of the Russian smile is unique. At Chase Manhattan Bank in New York there is an announcement: " If our operator does not smile at you, tell the doorman about it, he will give you a dollar." IN Russian conditions such an inscription would be considered a joke.
8. The Russian smile is seen as a sincere expression. good mood or disposition towards the interlocutor and is called upon to be only sincere.
In the Russian communicative consciousness there is an imperative: a smile should be a sincere reflection of a good mood and good attitude. To have the right to smile, you must really treat your interlocutor well or have at the moment great mood.
9. The smile of a Russian person should have good reason, known to others, only then does a person receive a “right” to it in the eyes of others. If to a Russian person the reason for the interlocutor’s smile turns out to be incomprehensible, this can cause him serious concern; it is necessary to find out this reason.
So, one saleswoman got into psychiatric hospital: “The director is smiling at me, I’m sure I have a shortage”; A university teacher once wrote a complaint to the party committee against the rector of the institute - “he mocks me - he always smiles when we meet.”
There is a unique saying in the Russian language that is not found in other languages - “Laughter for no reason is a sign of a fool.” The logic of this saying cannot be understood by people with Western thinking. One German teacher, who was explained the meaning of this saying (If a person laughs for no reason, there is something wrong with his head), could not understand and kept asking: “Why does this follow from this?”
10. The reason for a person’s smile should be transparent and understandable to others
If the reason is unclear or is considered insufficiently respectful for others, others may interrupt the smile and make a remark - “Why are you smiling”?
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 thesis "On the problem of deictic functions of words" was defended in 1973 in Moscow (supervisor - A.A. Ufimtseva).
Doctoral dissertation" Lexical meaning words in speech" protected 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 communication 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.).
Tutorials 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]
