Communicative behaviour problem in the context of cross-cultural interaction

Тип работы:

Узнать стоимость новой

Детальная информация о работе

Выдержка из работы

is an opinion that it is the idiomatic layer of a language that represents the system of ideas of a certain ethnic group, and it should be a subject of lingvocultural studies. But it should be checked if the phenomena described in fixed phrases are still relevant for the native speakers.
Having researched and analyzed the existing methods of studying concepts, Maksimchuk [1] offers the following succession of steps: 1) to define the basic lexical units related to a concept through turning to lexicographical sources- 2) to define and verify the definitions of the dictionary of the basic lexical units using the analysis of collocations- 3) to define the units of the lexical, morphological, syntactical, grammatical and other levels of verbalizing a concept in a modern stage of development of a language- 4) to define the ways of using a concept in the speech- 5) to unite lexical units in one functional semantic field- 6) to define the contexts in which a semantic field functions.
In spite of the maturity and completeness of these methods lots of scientists agree that the most accurate results can be reached through combining of several of them. Список использованной литературы
1. Максимчик, О. А. Методология исследования лингвокультурных концептов. / О. А. Максимчик. -Самара: Известия Самарского научного центра Российской академии наук. Т. 16. № 2−2, 2014. — С. 424−427.
2. Чибисова О. В., Товбаз А. А. Концепт «Удача» в русской и китайской культурах // Общественные науки. 2012. № 1. С. 56−65.
3. Шунейко А. А., Матюшко А. В. Характеристика научного знания: часть 1 — отправные точки // Ученые записки Комсомольского-на-Амуре государственного технического университета. 2015. Т. 2. № 1 (21). С. 121−123.
© А. А. Васильева, 2015
УДК 81
Yakubenko K.S., graduate student Gogoleva M.A., Associate Professor The Institute of Service and Business (branch) of Don State Technical University in Shakhty
E-mail: ksenia. yakubenko@yandex. ru
In this article, we discuss the aspects of cross-cultural communication connected with the differences in communicative behavior types. We explore what happens when the message is sent be the representative of a different cultural background than the intended receiver, and what influence this process may have.
Communicative behavior, culture, cross-cultural interaction, verbal communication, nonverbal communication,
contrastive approach.
Modern world has become more globalised and trade-oriented therefore communication in all spheres engages more and more cross-cultural interaction. This clash of different cultures can create various barriers which prevent people from efficient communication, it also can be connected with misunderstandings and sometimes miscommunication can make reaching a mutual agreement impossible.
Representatives of different cultures have distinct style of communication and different understandings of the interaction process as well. So we can say that communication and culture are closely related and if you want to avoid cross-cultural communication problems you need deeper understanding of cross-cultural differences.
The distinctive features of communication of a certain nation, systematically described, represent the description of communicative behavior of these people. National communicative behavior in the most general view is determined as a set of regulations and traditions of cultural communication.
The term & quot-communicative behavior& quot- in this meaning was firstly used by Joseph Sternin in 1989 in his work & quot-On communicative behavior concept& quot- [1, p. 280].
In modern world there is high interest in national communicative features. It is connected with general attractiveness of ethnic, national mentality and cultural features of different nations.
In our work we, first of all, refer to such notion as culture. The definition which suits our research best is given by Helen Spencer-Oatey: & quot-Culture is a fuzzy set of attitudes, beliefs, behavioral conventions, and basic assumptions and values that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member'-s behavior and each member'-s interpretations of the & quot-meaning"- of other people'-s behavior& quot- [2, p. 12].
In its turn communication is an activity in which meaningful information is conveyed between two or more people and will be recognized by them by their shared interpretations [3, p. 5].
When we talk about national communicative style in the context of different cultures and mentality we can mention the term communicative behavior. The communicative behavior can be verbal and nonverbal. Verbal communicative behavior is a set of norms and features of communication, establishing the requirements connected with the subject and features of the organization of communication process in the certain communicative conditions.
Nonverbal communicative behavior is a set of regulations and norms establishing requirements for communication with the help of nonverbal body language (language of gestures, mimics, poses, movements, physical contact in the course of communication). It also includes involuntarily expressed perception of various conditions and relations with an interlocutor and set of communicatively significant social symbols and characteristic.
People often can hardly assume that the nonverbal language is not similar because different cultures affect our thinking processes and how we, for example, reflect our emotions and show them via our body language.
Language differences are obviously some of the biggest obstacles when it comes to intercultural communication. Apart from the evident fact that non-native speakers of English will not have the same linguistic variations and understandings of the language as natives, there are also cultural cues that determine, for example, what ways are appropriate for starting a conversation or when a person involved in the conversation has a right to speak, which can be lost on people from an outside culture [3, p. 5].
In practical terms it is necessary to use contrastive approach (the systematic consideration of the separate facts of the native communicative behavior in comparison to all possible ways of expressions in the compared culture) to reveal distinctions in communicative behavior of the representatives of different cultures. The contrastive approach allows to reveal and to describe general and no coincident features of the cultural communicative behavior.
The contrastive description of the communicative behavior of people allows to reveal some forms of manifestation of national specifics of communicative behavior of this or that communicative culture:
1. Lack of national specifics.
In this case communicative features of both cultures coincide. For example, in all European cultures when you meet the acquaintance, it is necessary to welcome him or her or to say goodbye if you leave, in case of the inconvenience caused it is a norm to apologize.
2. Availability of national specifics.
Here we can notice dissimilarity of various characteristics, communicative features and body languages in the compared cultures. For example, the gesture & quot-thumb up& quot- exists in the majority of the European cultures, but in the Russian communicative tradition it is more emotional and vigorous feature- the forefinger and the middle finger raised up in the Russian communicative culture means & quot-two"-, in Ireland such gesture is very vulgar and inappropriate- if you want your gesture to have the same meaning as in Russia, you need to turn your palm upside down.
Therefore representatives of different cultures have dissimilar nonverbal communication styles and what is a norm for one culture can be differently interpreted through the cultural frame of the representatives of another culture. Members of specific cultures see the world in personally recognizable patterns and if certain nonverbal signs are not comprehended, these gestures, poses or movements become obvious communication barriers. Thus, in all cases of cross-cultural communication we have to be very careful, polite and deliberate. References
1. Sternin J. Concept of communicative behavior. Voronezh, 1989, p. 279−282.
2. Spencer-Oatey, Helen- Introduction: Language, Culture and Rapport Management, In H. Spencer- Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking — Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures. Contiuum, 2000, p. 1−11.
3. Kathrine Markussen, British Communication Behavior. Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, 2011, p. 5.
4. Sternin J, Larina T, Sternina M. Study of English communicative behavior. Voronezh, 2003, p. 9−16.
© K.S. Yakubenko, M.A. Gogoleva, 2015
УДК: 81
Белунова Нина Иосифовна
д-р филол. наук, профессор ВКА им. А. Ф. Можайского,
г. Санкт-Петербург, РФ Email: belunova. n@mail. ru Черняева Алла Борисовна канд. филол. наук, доцент ВКА им. А. Ф. Можайского,
г. Санкт-Петербург, РФ Email: chernyaeva-a@mail. ru
(на материале писем творческой интеллигенции конца X1X — первой четверти XX века).
В статье рассматриваются: 1/ имитация диалога, 2/ выражение несогласия между адресантом и адресатом как способы, реализующие категорию диалогизации текста дружеского письма.
Ключевые слова Диалогизация, диалог, категория текста, дружеское письмо.
Обращение к исследованию текста дружеского письма творческой интеллигенции конца X1X-первой четверти XX века (выдающихся поэтов, писателей, ученых, музыкантов, театральных деятелей) является весьма актуальным, поскольку авторы данных писем представляли собой культурную микросреду, уникальную по своей духовности, энциклопедичности знаний, широте и многогранности интересов и несомненно являлись носителями высокой, элитарной речевой культуры.
Письма творческой интеллигенции — это исторические документы эпохи, отражающие творческий поиск, духовные идеалы их авторов.
Диалогизация является доминантной категорией текста дружеского письма и определяется нами как маркированность диалогичности в письменной речи, отражающая ее двуначалие (адресант- адресат), представленное системой синтаксических адресантных средств («Я-сфера») и системой синтаксических

Показать Свернуть
Заполнить форму текущей работой