XIII Международная студенческая научная конференция Студенческий научный форум - 2021

What kind of culture are we dealing with?" - this question is constantly asked by a variety of people who communicate with representatives of other countries and other cultural areas, and this communication can take place in a variety of areas: official business, scientific, economic, private, etc. It is not by chance that the book about the cultural specifics of Russia, written by A. Baumgart and B. Eneke, which is popular in Germany, begins with this question. It sounds much stronger today than before, due to the intensive development of the process of globalization, which clearly characterizes the world community at the end of the XX century. The general public tries to find the answer to it in reference books such as those published in the "Culture Shock"series. Each of the publications in this series is dedicated to a single country that is culturally very different from the countries of Western Europe: Japan, India, China, Mexico, and Russia.

It is essential that the importance of individual, interpersonal communication in all spheres of practical activity is realized today especially acutely. Intercultural communication is always interpersonal communication, in which the cultural environment in which communicants were formed is very important, emphasizes F. L. Kasmir. Experts on the ICC explain this by moving away from "hierarchical-institutional social relations in favor of democratic, or participatory, relations." Today, we can talk about a kind of social order for research on the problems of the ICC, since many people encounter problems of cross-cultural misunderstanding caused by differences in cultural-specific norms of communication. This lack of understanding causes partners to feel insecure and fear of making a mistake, getting caught in a"communication trap".

Many sciences deal with the problems of the ICC: anthropology, ethnography, communication theory, linguistics, psychology, ethnopsychoanalysis, ethnoterritoriality - egnohermeneutics, ethnography of speech. The interest of so many sciences in the ICC may be due to the unclear boundaries of the concepts of culture and communication themselves. There are already more than 300 definitions of culture, each of which is focused on a range of problems developed by this branch of knowledge, including linguistics). For this review, the most relevant definitions are those given by Yu. M. Logman, as well as by Yu. M. Lotman and B. A. Assumption.

As FL quite rightly points out. Casmir, this system, which also includes certain concepts, ideas about values and rules, is not something immutable, once and for all given, but is constantly changing in the process of adapting human society to the world around it. In fact, culture is an expression of the human ability to adapt to the surrounding reality, which is why culture is primarily a dynamic phenomenon. As S. Kammhuber aptly put it, "culture is not so much a noun as a verb." Many authors emphasize their understanding of culture as a communicative process, but this approach does not exclude the consideration of culture in a static aspect, i.e. as a set of statements, symbolic series that serve various purposes of communication, means of communication.

With such a high degree of interest of many sciences in the development of problems of culture and the ICC, it is not surprising that many terms are interpreted ambiguously. In this review, it seems appropriate to clarify the scope of such key concepts as" cultural concept "and"cultural standard". In cognitive linguistics, the concept is usually understood as " an operational content unit of memory, mental lexicon, conceptual system and language of the brain, the entire picture of the world reflected in the human psyche." Many researchers emphasize the importance of cultural factors in the formation of concepts, i.e.e. The concept is considered as "a multidimensional culturally significant sociopsychic education in the collective consciousness, defined in one or another language form". Yu. S. Stepanov defines it as "a clot of culture in the consciousness of a person: that in the form of which culture enters the mental world of a person". In the concept presented to the evaluation norms and stereotypes, patterns of behavior and General schema situations. Cultural concepts determine the speech behavior of a linguistic person as a representative of a particular people, i.e., the language of the individual. concepts reflect cultural standards. According to S. Kammhuber, a cultural standard is a kind of mental system based on traditional norms and ideas for a given culture and serving the individual for his orientation in the world around him. communication communication interpersonal vocabulary

The peculiarity of national and cultural standards is especially acutely felt in the ICC, when a person is faced with an unexpected situation/behavior of the interlocutors. To understand the reason for unexpected communication situations, and even more so to master an alien cultural standard, it is necessary to find an answer to the question: why do people of another culture adhere to such rules of behavior and respect such values. Kammhuber gives the following illustrative example - how the Chinese people usually start a scientific report: "Before proceeding with my report, I would like to say that I have not yet thoroughly and deeply studied this problem. I would only like to report my preliminary and superficial observations, which may well turn out to be incorrect. I ask you to take a critical look at the shortcomings and mistakes in my report and make your suggestions."

From the point of view of the European rhetorical tradition, an author who apologizes in advance for what he has written and wants to say, it would be better not to make a report at all. In China, such an introduction will not reduce the audience's interest in the report and will not seem strange. On the contrary, the German manner of starting a report with a casual joke, a brief list of issues that will be raised in the speech, a clear argument will leave the Chinese audience with the impression of absolute impoliteness and bad manners of the speaker. In the given example, the following important attitude for a Chinese person is actualized: "Having the opportunity to make a report, I have already found myself in a more preferable situation than the rest of my group members. It may happen that my report will not be successful, and I will be subjected to public criticism. This will cause me to lose face and generally disrupt the harmony of the social situation. So: behave modestly, as this is an important evaluation criterion for your listeners, underestimate yourself and your merits. By doing this, you will prevent criticism and save the face of your listeners as well, namely, by elevating them." Another researcher, A. Thomas, also agrees with Sh. Kammhuber said that the desire to preserve social harmony, to save face is a Chinese cultural standard.

According to S. Kammhuber, the cultural standard exists against the background of a certain zone of tolerance, within which actions, including speech, are perceived as normal. Therefore, the German manner of starting a scientific report, following the principle of "hop-la, here I am", does not fit into the usual zone of tolerance for the Chinese cultural tradition and can lead to social sanctions.

As the practice of the ICC shows, most people perceive their native cultural standard as the only possible and correct one. This position is called ethnocentrism. According to G. Malecke, ethnocentrism is characterized by the following two features: 1) the native culture is taken for granted; 2) the native culture is perceived as obviously superior to the cultures of other peoples. Thus, ethnocentrism is associated with a sense of one's own cultural superiority.

Since ethnocentrism, the exaltation of one's own cultural standard, contradicts the main thesis of modern social and political ethics - the thesis of the equality of all people, a counter - concept appeared in the theory of the ICC - "cultural relativism", according to which there are no highly developed and low-developed cultures: cultures cannot be subjected to evaluative comparison. Cultural relativism, as a very desirable characteristic of a linguistic personality, creates the necessary initial prerequisites for mutual understanding in the ICC process, although it imposes very high requirements on the average person, since it deprives him of the usual value orientations. Since the interlocutors are not always able and willing to give up their cultural biases related to their cultural standards, there is a mutual misunderstanding. In addition, it can also occur due to the lack of cultural readiness of communicants, even with all their desire to meet each other halfway.

The practice of the ICC also shows that misunderstanding can also occur with a sufficiently high level of linguistic competence of speakers, if competence is understood as knowledge of the rules of grammar. The actual linguistic analysis of the ICC is not limited, however, to the level analysis of the language units used in oral and written texts generated in the process of intercultural communication. Ethnography of speech, which studies the models and rules of communication in various speech collectives, can offer a much more complete and linguistically promising approach to the ICC. The ethnographic approach to speech combines the methods of anthropological analysis and sociolinguistics. This approach allows us to explore the linguistic and cultural aspects of communication in a close relationship and interdependence. In this case, you should keep in mind: these two aspects are so intertwined with each other that separating them for analysis is more of a methodical technique. Taking into account this quality of the ICC, O. A. Leontovich considers it expedient to study the cultural and linguistic code as a complex and multicomponent structure. The author proceeds from the presence of two codes in communication - the actual language and cultural. "If the codes match, communication channels are opened, and if they do not match, these channels are blocked. Blocking can be complete or partial. When completely blocked, communication participants are usually aware of the difficulties encountered and include feedback. With partial blocking, there is an illusion of communication, when at least one of the participants seems to be communicating normally. In the terminology of T. M. Dridze, in this case there is a "pseudo-communication": elements of one code that penetrate into another code cause partial or complete blocking of communication channels.

This phenomenon is at the heart of a number of ICC paradoxes. For example, the penetration of elements of the cultural code into the language code takes place in the process of ICC when filling in gaps in the frame structure based on one's own national and cultural experience, which can lead to the construction of erroneous logical chains. Words selected under the influence of a national-cultural-specific frame cause unjustified associations in another code, which leads to misunderstanding.

If the redundancy of information when communicating in the context of one culture slows down the communicative process, then when different cultures come into contact, the opposite situation may arise, caused by a "frame conflict". In such cases, the success of communication is ensured by a certain redundancy of information with the mandatory implementation of feedback.

If in ordinary, monocultural communication, scenario frames serve as a cognitive basis for forming links between already accumulated experience and new ones obtained in the process of communication, then in the ICC, a mismatch of scripts in different cultures can manifest itself, which again can lead to a communicative failure.

Finally, a seemingly paradoxical situation is possible in the ICC process: failure is more likely to occur the closer cultures are to each other, i.e., with a significant commonality of cultures and behaviors.

Communicative acts fit into a situation that is built in accordance with certain socio-cultural models of behavior. The interaction of the main parameters of this model is reflected in the cultural model proposed by E. Oksaar:

nonverbal extraverbal para-linguistic means;

facial expressions word time;

gesticulation space;

body movements of proxemics.

Z. Luchtenberg pays special attention to the lexical aspect of the MCC, pointing out that taboo words and related changes in stylistic coloration play a special role in intercultural communication.

The basic communicative abilities of a person are formed in the context of a multicultural society, i.e. a society in which people from different cultures live in close contact. Australia, as a classic country of emigration, has extensive experience in developing such communication skills. The education policy pursued in this country is based on the recognition that the socio-cultural situation in it is determined by multilingualism and multiculturalism. In this regard, in Australia, training aimed at the formation of traditional types of communication competence for Western countries is carried out taking into account the tasks of the ICC, carried out primarily in the business sphere, in the workplace. In this situation, such communicative abilities of the individual are required, which will ensure successful communication with colleagues belonging to different cultural and linguistic areas. Products and services should fit people of different cultural and linguistic background, lack of the right kinds of communicative competence is assessed as a disregard for the interests of Australia's society and as unacceptable the rejection of the use of language and cultural resources of their country. In accordance with the specifics of Australian society, in 1993, the educational institutions of the country were tasked with developing another type of communicative competence among students - intercultural understanding - a culture of negotiation.

It should be emphasized that the formation of intercultural communicative competence is not just an extension of linguistic communicative competence as such, but its fundamental construction on an extralinguistic basis. This means that a person should build their communication with other people who come from other cultures, based on knowledge of the specifics of these cultures. The purpose of this approach to the formation of communicative competence is to prevent possible misunderstandings, discrimination and the emergence of cultural stereotypes. Kalantsiz even believe that life and work in a multicultural society require a very special kind of communicative competence - "civic competence", which implies a willingness to dialogue on the basis of mutual recognition of cultural differences.

The success of communication in a monocultural environment is achieved by matching the speech behavior of participants in communication with the following communicative rules, known as the postulates of G. P. Grice:

the rule of quantity - the statement should be quite informative: a) the message should be informative to the extent necessary; b) the message should not be overly informative;

quality rule - the statement must not be false:

don't say what you think is wrong; b) don't say what you don't know well;

the rule of relevance - the statement must be on the merits;

modality rule - the statement should be clear, unambiguous, concise and orderly: a) avoid ambiguity; b) avoid ambiguity; c) be brief; d) speak in order.

The question is: how applicable these postulates G. P. Grisak ICC?

M. Kline concludes that if compliance with the quantity rule and the associated requirements for utterance will not be a big problem in terms of the ICC, then compliance with the quality rule regarding the truth of the utterance can lead to cross-cultural conflicts, since it affects issues of politeness, harmony or empathy for the communication partner. The relevance rule concerns the topic of communication itself, so it is difficult to give any assessment of this rule in terms of its adaptation to the specifics of the ICC. The modality rule is especially culturally specific, since ambiguity can lead to a" loss of face " of the speaker, which is particularly important in some cultures. M. Kline corrects the rules of G. P. Grice as follows:

the rule of quantity: formulate the statement as informative as possible, while respecting the rules of discourse and the norms of this culture;

quality rule: formulate the statement in such a way that you can protect it in terms of compliance with the norms of your culture; do not say anything that would contradict your idea of cultural norms of truth, harmony, compassion and / or respect; do not say something that you do not know well enough;

the rule of modality: do not complicate mutual understanding more than the interests of "preserving face" and authority may require; avoid ambiguity, even if it is necessary for reasons of politeness or to preserve basic cultural values, such as harmony; formulate a statement of such length as is dictated by the purpose of the conversation and the discursive rules of your culture; structure the statement in accordance with the rules of your culture.

In addition, M. Kline adds the following rules to the rules of G. P. Grice:

take into account in your statement all that you know or can assume about the communicative expectations of your interlocutor:

clarify your communication goals as much as possible by the rules of politeness.

The growing influence of globalization on all aspects of modern life and, above all, on its business sphere is also noted by E. Slambek. it examines speech communication in labor collectives and takes into account the attribution of their members to two different types of culture - individualist and collectivist.

In general, speech communication at work is determined by common goals - the coordination of processes and the solution of tasks. This applies equally to individualist and collectivist cultures. At the same time, in the former, individual needs, values and goals are valued higher than in collectivist cultures. In the latter, the interests of the group are in the foreground. However, these two types of cultures differ in their ways of finding solutions to problems.

Individualistic culture measure the effectiveness of the solutions first of all they brought in the benefit, quality and correctness. As this decision was made, it no longer plays a significant role, since in the foreground in group speech communication there is a common task and a variant of its solution. The speech process itself, i.e. how the options were discussed and made, what were the relations between the participants in the discussion, whether respect for each other was observed, whether a minority had the right to vote - all this is considered insignificant in individualist cultures, and attention is not fixed on this.

In collectivist cultures, "efficiency" means something else. The quality of a decision is evaluated primarily by its "relevance", i.e., by the nature of the decision-making process itself and the perception of its participants, as well as those who are affected by the decision. "Relevance" implies an equal degree of participation of all members of the working group, the consent of the participants and the finding of consensus. The whole process of speech communication requires much more time than is customary in Western cultures. Slambeck notes that the consensus principle of decision-making provides greater effectiveness in individualistic cultures than the traditional principle of making decisions in accordance with the majority opinion. If the working group consists of representatives of different types of cultures, then there is a fundamental question about the efficiency of such a group, since it is necessary to find a way to resolve conflicts and choose the optimal speech style for this. There are three styles of speech behavior in a conflict situation: 1) avoiding conflict as such; 2) integrative style - the idea and proposals for solving the problem are brought to the fore, rather than personal goals; "ideological", rather than personal differentiation of the participants in the conflict is carried out; 3) rivalry is the most unproductive style, since it pursues the goal of preserving personal positions and protecting personal interests.

From this it follows that the most acceptable for multicultural working groups is an integrative style of speech behavior in a conflict situation.

In conclusion, it is necessary to emphasize the following: the problem of the ICC, which attracted the attention of linguists at the end of the XX century, belongs to the range of problems whose socio-cultural potential is so great that this problem will undoubtedly be developed in the next century.

REFERENCES

Astafurova T. N. Variation of speech activity in intercultural business communication // Abstracts of the scientific conference "Language personality: Genre speech activity", Volgograd, 6-8 Dec. 1998-Volgograd. 1998. - pp. 6-7.

Babaeva E. V. Lexical meanings of a word as a way of expressing a cultural and linguistic concept // Language personality: Cultural concepts. - Volgograd; Arkhangelsk, 2002. - p. 25-33.

Vodak R. Language. Discourse. Politics. - Volgograd: Peremena, 2007. - 139 p.

Dridze T. M. Social communication as a textual activity in semiosociopsychology / / Social sciences and modernity. - M, 1999. - p. 138-150.

Kagan M. S. Philosophy of culture. - St. Petersburg: Petropolis, 1996. - 416 p.

Karasik V. I. Cultural dominants in the language // Language personality: Cultural concepts. - Volgograd-Arkhangelsk, 2002. - p. 3-16.

Код для цитирования: Скопировать