Language and speech as a source of conflict situations. Speech conflict and ways to get out of a conflict situation. define speech conflict, study its nature

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL PROBLEMS OF DESCRIPTION OF SPEECH CONFLICT

1.1. Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem 17

1.1.1. Psychological nature of the conflict.; 19

1.1.2. Social nature of conflict 23

1.1.3. Conflict and Word 31

1.2. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech 55

1.2.1. Speech conflict (on the issue of the term) 55

1.2.2. Factors causing speech conflict 60

1.3. Aspects of linguistic description of speech conflict 65

1.3.1. Cognitive aspect: script theory and speech conflict script 65

1.3.2. Pragmatic aspect: theory of interpretation

and speech conflict 68

1.3.3. Linguistic and cultural aspect: the theory of communicative norms and speech conflict 71

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF DESCRIPTION OF SPEECH CONFLICT

2.1. Speech conflict in the light of theory speech activity 92

2.2. Principles of speech conflict analysis 116

Conclusions 131

CHAPTER 3. SPEECH CONFLICT: MARKERS AND GENRE SCENARIOS

3.1. Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in VKA 136

3.1.1. Lexico-semantic markers 136

3.1.2. Lexical markers 146

3.1.3. Grammar markers 155

3.2. Pragmatic markers 162

3.2.1. Discrepancy between speech action and speech reaction 163

3.2.2. Negative speech and emotional reactions... 178

3.3. Conflict communicative act: options

scenarios; 183

3.3.1. Communication threat scenarios 187

3.3.2. Communication scripts remarks 193

3.3.3. Communicative scenarios of unreasonable requests. 201

3.4, -Conditions for selecting a scenario option 213

Conclusions 217

CHAPTER 4. HARMONIZING SPEECH BEHAVIOR IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS 221

4.1. Personality types according to the ability to cooperate in speech behavior 222

4.2. Model as a stereotype speech behavior 247

4.3. Models of harmonizing communication 249

4.3.1. Models of speech behavior in potentially conflict situations 249

4.3.2. Models of speech behavior in situations of conflict risk. 255

4.3.3. Models of speech behavior in actual conflict situations 258

4.4. On the issue of conflict-free communication skills... 269

Conclusions 271

CONCLUSION 273

MAIN TEXT SOURCES 278

DICTIONARIES AND REFERENCES 278

REFERENCES 278

Introduction to the work

The appeal of researchers to the study of the speech behavior of communicants is determined by the peculiarities of the modern language situation, which formed at the turn of the century, during the period of change in economic civilization and major social upheavals.

An undoubted result of the democratization of our society has been an increased interest in the problems of national self-awareness, spiritual revival, accompanied by the formation of a new “paradigm of existence,” which is an invisible and intangible reality - a system of human values. Human values are a world of meanings, views, ideas, constituting the core of the spiritual culture of a community of people, developed by generations 1. There are different types of cultures, characterized by the fact that they have different value dominants, and in the interaction of people professing different spiritual values, conflicts of cultures and values arise.

Epochs of social revolutions are always accompanied by disruption public consciousness. The collision of old ideas with new ones leads to a severe cognitive conflict that transfers to the pages of newspapers and magazines, and to television screens. Cognitive conflict spreads

also in the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of good and bad, structuring our experience and turning our actions into actions, are blurring; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to the revolutionary situation are born: the mobilization of new values, the actualization of the values of the immediately preceding socio-political period, the actualization of culturally determined values that have deep roots in the social consciousness of society [Baranov 1990: 167].

This process is accompanied by injection social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, as psychologists believe, loss of integrating identification, loss of hope and life perspective, the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life [Sosnin 1997: 55]. There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and devaluation of others, the introduction of new cultural values into the cultural space [Kupina, Shalina 1997: 30]. Such a psychological state gives rise to various negative emotions: “For today's Russians it is “despair”, “fear”, “anger”, “disrespect”” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]; a certain reaction to the source of disappointment arises, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this condition; there is a desire to release accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts. As V.I. Shakhovsky notes, emotions, being an important element of culture, “are verbalized both in the social and emotional index, consonant with chronotopic national trends, through the corresponding emotive signs of language” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]. Thus, a person’s mental state and mood are reflected in his linguistic consciousness and take on verbalized forms of existence.

dits that determine the speech behavior of an individual in a conflict zone, the study of the linguistic, social and psychological nature of speech conflict is a priority and promising area various areas knowledge and is at the initial stage of study. Despite the breadth and diversity of research into effective communicative behavior, this problem has not received complete coverage. The need to study optimal ways of teaching corporate, harmonious speech behavior, speech tactics for regulating behavior in conflict situations determines the appeal to the study of social and communicative interaction in conditions of speech conflict.

The dissertation work is devoted to a comprehensive study of speech conflict, identifying its linguistic specificity.

. The relevance of research is determined by the need to develop theoretical foundations and practical methods for the linguistic study of conflict and harmonious social-communicative interaction and the unresolved nature of this most important problem in relation to the modern language situation. Today, the interaction of linguistics with other sciences, multidimensionality and complexity in the study of both the process of speech activity and its result are relevant. It is this comprehensive approach that is implemented in the dissertation research. The author focuses on the “speaking person,” whose speech activity accumulates certain sociocultural states. The study of speech conflict is carried out within the framework of all leading areas of modern linguistics: linguocognitive, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and linguocultural. Increased interest in the problems of speech conflict and harmonization of speech communication was also expressed within the framework of a new branch of anthropocentric linguistics - speech conflictology.

However, despite the intensification of research in the field of linguistic conflictology [Andreev 1992, Speech aggression... 1997, Aspects of speech conflictology 1996,

Shalina 1998, etc.], many issues regarding the nature and typology of speech conflicts cannot be considered finally resolved. In particular, questions remain open about markers of disharmony and speech conflict in a communicative act, about cooperative and confrontational strategies and tactics of speech, about functional models of harmonizing speech behavior.

The relevance of the work is also connected with the need for general linguistic education of society and education of communication tolerance among native speakers, which requires, firstly, a complete consistent theory of discursive harmony/disharmony, and secondly, a description of strategies and tactics of this kind within the boundaries of Russian communication traditions and communicative norms of a given linguistic culture. no community.

Subject of research in the dissertation the semantic structure is conflicting And harmoniously marked communicative acts (conversational dialogues) as a set of speech actions performed by communicants. They represent integral dialogical unities, characterized by unity of form and content, coherence and completeness, and ensuring the implementation of the author's plan. The focus here is on linguistic and speech activity means of expressing conflicting and harmonious speech behavior of communicants. The subject of attention is also cognitive structures (knowledge about a fragment of the world, including a communicative situation) as a source of verbalized conflict.

Researched materials- these are dialogues reproduced in fiction and periodical literature, as well as live conversational dialogues of Ural citizens, recorded by the author and teachers; graduate students and students of the Ural State Pedagogical University. The volume of the studied material is 400 text fragments, which in written form is more than 200 pages of printed text. The collection of live conversational material was carried out in natural communication conditions using the method of participant observation and the method of hidden recording.

In the process of selecting material for research, the author

was guided by the methodological position on the national and cultural specifics of communication. The author's attention was drawn to colloquial dialogues, in which Russian verbal communication is reflected extremely accurately. The source of the material was the realistic prose of modern Russian writers and the speech of native Russian speakers in relaxed verbal communication. Texts from Russian classical literature are sometimes used for comparison. Goals and objectives of the work. The main goal of the work is to build a holistic, consistent concept of speech conflict and harmonization of communication, identifying the features of their manifestation in Russian linguistic culture. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to solve the following main tasks:

justify the concept of “speech conflict”;

determine the essence and main features of speech conflict as a cognitive and linguocultural phenomenon,

verbally formalized in a text type built according to the canons of Russian society;

establish the denotative space of speech conflict and the factors determining the origin, development and resolution of speech conflict;

identify and describe linguistic and pragmatic indicators (markers) of communicative failure and speech conflict in recorded texts;

create a classification of speech strategies and tactics according to the type of dialogic interaction (conflict and harmonious);

determine the role of an individual’s personal qualities in the development and resolution of a conflict-prone communicative situation, create a unified classification of linguistic individuals according to their ability to cooperate in dialogic interaction;

develop parameters and identify components of cultural and communicative scenarios, build scenarios that are most indicative of the conflict of speech genres;

build basic models of harmonizing speech behavior in various conflict situations.

The dissertation research is based on hypothesis about speech conflict as a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is realized by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict occurs according to standard scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguocultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior.

Methodological basis and research methods. The concept of speech conflict as a communicative, social and cultural phenomenon caused by linguistic and extralinguistic factors is based on general provisions psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and theory of linguistic communication [L. S. Vygotsky, N. I. Zhinkin, L. P. Krysin, A. A. Leontiev, A. N. Leontiev, E. F. Tarasov, etc.].

The methodological basis of the work is the position postulated in modern linguistics about the need for a communicative approach to linguistic material, the transition from the primacy of taxonomy to the primacy of explanation [Yu. N. Karaulov, Yu. A. Sorokin, Yu. S. Stepanov and

The choice of strategic direction of research was predetermined by promising results in new areas of linguistic knowledge: linguopragmatics, cognitive linguistics, theory of speech acts and speech genres [G. I. Bogin, V. I. Gerasimov, M. Ya. Glovinskaya, T. A. van Dijk, V. Z. Demyankov, V. V. Dementyev, E. S. Kubryakova, J. Lakoff, T B1 Matveeva, J. Austin, V.V. Petrov, Yu. S. Stepanov, J. Searle, I. P. Susov, M. Yu. Fedosyuk, T. V. Shmeleva, etc.], as well as speech conflictology [B. Yu. Gorodetsky, I. M. Kobozeva, I. G. Saburova, P. Grice, N. D. Golev, T. G. Grigorieva, O. P. Ermakova, E. A. Zemskaya, S. G. Ilyenko, N. G. Komlev, Culture of Russian speech...,. T. M. Nikolaeva, E. V. Paducheva, G. G. Pocheptsov, K. F. Sedov, E. N. Shiryaev and others].

Modern works on linguistic conceptology and language mapping were essential for the construction of a scientific hypothesis and the development of research problems.

mud of the world [N. D. Arutyunova, A. N. Baranov, T. V. Bulygina,

A. Wierzbicka, G. E. Kreidlin, A. D. Shmelev, etc.].
Implementation of the methodological method that is important for the author
provisions on the national and cultural specifics of language and speech,
linguistic consciousness of native speakers was carried out with the help of
swarm for research in the field of history of Russian linguistics
culture [M. M. Bakhtin, V. I. Zhelvis, Yu. N. Karaulov,

V. G. Kostomarova. M. Lotman, S. E. Nikitina, I. A. Ster
Nin, A. P. Skovorodnikov, R. M. Frumkina, R. O. Yakobson and

The dissertation research uses, first of all, those methods of analysis of linguistic material that have been developed and shown to be effective within the framework of communicative studies of language and text stylistics [M. N. Kozhina, N. A. Kupina, L. M. Maydanova, T. V. Matveeva, Yu. A. Sorokin, etc.]. Comprehensive Study conversational dialogue (interpersonal communication) is based on methods of scientific observation and linguistic description, variants of which are methods of discourse and text analysis. Discourse analysis is carried out based on the basic provisions of the theory of speech activity [L. S. Vygotsky, N. I. Zhinkin, A. A. Leontiev, A. N. Leontiev, etc.].

At certain stages of the study, special methods of distributive, transformational, and contextological analysis were used. A special role in the work is given to methods of predictive modeling of cognitive structures (intention and communicative presupposition) and making expert opinions.

The integrated application of these methods is intended to ensure a multidimensional linguistic analysis of the material under study.

Theoretical significance and scientific novelty of the research« vaniya. The dissertation carried out a comprehensive systems approach to the study of one of the most important manifestations of interpersonal communication - speech conflict against the background of harmonious speech communication. This approach allows us to understand the nature and mechanisms of functioning of this phenomenon, to reveal its deep cause-and-effect consequences.

wearing, argue the functional features of the conflict statement, due to the unity of linguistic, psychological (personal) and social.

The novelty of the work lies in the development of the concept of Russian speech conflict as a speech activity phenomenon that embodies interpersonal dialogical interaction in Russian linguistic culture; in creating a theory of harmonization of potentially and actually conflict communication; in developing a mechanism for studying speech behavior in the procedural and effective aspects, which is applicable to the analysis of not only conflict and harmoniously marked communicative acts, but has explanatory power for other types of utterances; in defining the principles of cognitive-pragmatic analysis of conflict texts.

The conducted research shows the degree of connection between language/speech and thinking, especially in terms of the dependence of the cognitive and pragmatic attitudes of individuals and their implementation in speech activity (the act of communication), which plays an important role both for the theory of language and for the linguistic confirmation and concretization of many non-linguistic ( epistemological, social, psychological) explanations of the specifics of cognition.

From a descriptive point of view, the dissertation systematizes a variety of speech material, including, in addition to conflict texts that are insufficiently described in the scientific literature, also texts that record such communicative situations in which there are no obvious prerequisites for the emergence of a conflict, but due to certain circumstances, communication develops as a conflict.

The following main provisions are submitted for defense:

howl of the fabric of dialogue. Systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe a speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad-contextual manner.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain standard structure - a frame, including mandatory components (slots): participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, values, goals, etc.) among communicants; reason - reason; damage"; temporal and spatial extent.

A conflict is a communicative event occurring over time that can be presented in dynamics. Methods of such representation include, firstly, a scenario reflecting development within the framework of a stereotypical

Situations of the “main plots” of interaction, and, secondly, a speech genre with typical linguistic structures.

Scenario technology makes it possible to trace the stages of conflict development: its origin, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. Analysis of the conflict speech genre shows which linguistic means were chosen by the conflicting parties depending on their intention. The script establishes a standard set of methods of action, as well as their sequence in the development of a communicative event; the speech genre is built according to well-known thematic, compositional and stylistic canons enshrined in linguistic culture. This ensures the predictability of speech behavior in various communication situations. The dynamic structuring of conflict on the basis of these terms has explanatory power for recognizing potential conflict situations, risk situations and conflict situations themselves, as well as for forecasting and modeling by communicants both the situation itself and their behavior in it.

4. A native speaker is a linguistic personality who has his own
personal repertoire of means and ways to achieve
communicative purposes, the application of which is not fully
limited by script and genre stereotypes and
predictability. In this regard, the development of communication
but the conditioned scenarios are varied: from harmonious-

go, cooperative to disharmonious, conflictual. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type linguistic personality and the communicative experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, from the communication traditions and norms of speech behavior established in Russian linguistic culture.

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation - the post-communicative phase - is characterized by consequences arising from all previous stages of development of the communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions that emerged in the pre-communicative stage between the participants in the communicative act, and the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used in the communicative stage.

Among the linguistic means, lexical-semantic and grammatical units especially clearly mark the conflict communicative act (CCA). They most clearly reflect the national characteristics of the conflict. They form the content and structure of CCA and are expressive markers of speech conflict.

A special group is formed by pragmatic markers of CCA, which are “calculated” on the basis of a comparison of linguistic and speech structures and the communicative context and are determined by the psychological and emotional effect that arises among the participants in the communicative act. They are associated with various kinds of inconsistencies, misunderstandings and violations of any rules or intuitively felt patterns of speech communication. These include the discrepancy between the speech action and the speech reaction, negative speech and emotional reactions, which create the effect of disappointed expectations in the communicative act.

The speech behavior of conflict participants is based on speech strategies of cooperation or confrontation, the choice of which determines the outcome (result) of conflict communication.

The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation - speech tactics. Between speech countries

There is a strict correlation between tags and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: proposals, consent, concessions, approval, praise, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

10. There are two-valued tactics that can be either cooperative or conflicting, depending on the framework of which strategy, cooperative or confrontational, this tactic is used. Double-valued tactics include tactics of lies, irony, flattery, bribery, remarks, requests, changing the topic, etc.

I. Depending on the type of conflict situation and the stage of the conflict, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situation), a conflict neutralization model (a conflict risk situation) and a conflict harmonization model (the conflict situation itself). These models have varying degrees of cliché due to the multiplicity of parameters and components of QCA, reflecting the objective complexity of planning speech behavior in it.

Practical significance of the study associated with the possibility of using speech material And the results of its description in teaching courses in the culture of speech, rhetoric, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, as well as special courses in the theory of communication and functional linguistics. The patterns of dialogic communication described in the work can serve as a theoretical basis for the formation of communicative competence and speech culture of a linguistic personality; they are also essential for teaching Russian spoken dialogue to foreigners. Developed models of harmonizing speech behavior in conflict situations various types can be used in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

Approbation of research results. The results of the study were presented at international, all-Russian

kih, zonal scientific conferences in Yekaterinburg (1996-2003), Smolensk (2000), Kurgan (2000), Moscow (2002), Abakan (2002), etc. The main provisions of the work were discussed at the Russian language department of the Ural State Pedagogical University (USPU), at scientific seminars and meetings of the Department of Linguistics and Methods of Teaching the Russian Language of the USPU.

Structure of the dissertation. The text of the dissertation research consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources of researched materials and a bibliography.

The main content of the work.

The Introduction substantiates the relevance and novelty of the research, defines the subject, purpose and objectives and research methods corresponding to this goal, presents the main provisions submitted for defense, notes the theoretical significance and novelty of the work, and characterizes the main results of the research.

In Chapter 1, the object of research - a conflict communicative act in its speech embodiment - is placed in a broad socio-cultural and psychological context and is considered in cognitive, pragmatic and linguistic-cultural aspects.

Chapter 2 presents technologies, tools and principles of linguistic analysis of speech conflict. Various approaches to studying the problem of conflict speech interaction are discussed, the main of which is the strategic approach as a special type of description of discursive activity.

Chapter 3 proposes the essential features of a speech conflict and identifies the linguistic and pragmatic markers of CCA fixed in conversational dialogues. The most indicative speech genres are analyzed from the standpoint of the severity of the conflict. The analysis is carried out in accordance with the methodology proposed in Chapter 2.

In Chapter 4, focusing on the speech ideal of harmony, models of harmonizing speech behavior in potentially and actually conflict situations are built. At the same time, the types of personalities of communicants are taken into account, which are identified and given in the typology of personalities based on the ability to cooperate in communication.

The Conclusion summarizes the main results of the study.

Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem

The problem of conflict as a life phenomenon stands at the axis of intersection of interests of scientists from different scientific fields. It is studied by lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, and teachers. New scientific areas of conflict research are emerging. Thus, before our eyes, jurislinguistics was born, the object of study of which is the theoretical and practical problems of interaction between language and law, linguistics and jurisprudence in the aspect of regulating various kinds of social conflicts associated with the use of language in different spheres of social life [Jurislinguistics-I 1999 ; Jurislinguistics-II 2000; Jurislinguistics-III 2002]. Legal conflictology is successfully developing [Dmitriev, Kudryavtsev V., Kudryavtsev S. 1993], pedagogical conflictology [Belkin, Zhavoronkov, Zimina 1995; Zhuravlev 1995; Lukashonok, Shchurkova 1998];

Conflicts are a real phenomenon of our lives, and every person faces them all the time. That is why the study of conflicts is becoming more and more active. We should not exaggerate their importance in our lives, but we also cannot ignore them. In order to develop the right line of behavior in various conflicts, you need to determine what a conflict is, how it arises, what kind of conflicts there are, what are the ways out of difficult situations, as well as methods for resolving and resolving the conflict.

The study of conflicts is multifaceted.

On the one hand, general theoretical problems of describing the conflict are being developed, on the other hand, practical methods for analyzing, preventing and resolving conflicts of various kinds are proposed.

Speech conflictology is still in its infancy. It must incorporate the achievements of many sciences and create a holistic picture of the communicative behavior of the people. The complexity and versatility of the object of research suggests the creation of a new integral science at the intersection of sociology and cultural studies, psychology and psycholinguistics, communication theory and the theory of speech culture, linguodactics and linguistics proper.

There are many definitions of the concept “conflict”. Most often it is interpreted through more general concepts - collision (lat. conflictus - clash), contradiction, confrontation. Thus, we can highlight the first mandatory component of the content of this concept: conflict is a state (situation) of confrontation (collision). But these states or situations cannot exist by themselves; they arise when there are participants in the situation, carriers of contradiction. They can be various subjects - specific people, as well as groups of people, large or small. This means that the warring parties (participants in the conflict, its subjects) are an obligatory component of the conflict, this is the “core of the conflict” [Dmitriev, Kudryavtsev V., Kudryavtsev S. 1993: 27].

In a conflict, there are necessarily two parties showing incompatible interests, goals or views, and one of the parties has a desire, one way or another, but with benefit for itself, to change the behavior of the other party, as a result of which the first subject begins to act against the other, to his detriment. This is how the conflict begins. The second party takes retaliatory actions, realizing the intentionality of actions against its interests. The conflict is developing. It is important to note that a conflict arises only in the presence of communicative contact and on its basis, i.e. the participant in the conflict must express his attitude (position) to the subject of disagreement or to his opponent physically (by posture, action) or verbally. N. G. Komlev notes two cases when, in the presence of contradictions, there is no conflict: firstly, with ideally coordinated interaction based on the complete mutual correspondence of the strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and groups; secondly, in the absence of any contact between them [Komlev 1978: 90]. There is no conflict even when only one participant acts. Thus, a speaker who is giving a report notices that his colleague is not listening to him. There are objective signs of a conflict situation: a discrepancy between goals and interests. But this is not a conflict. The speaker decides to later tell his colleague about his unethical behavior and lack of respect for himself, but changes his mind. And this is not a conflict. A mental action that is not expressed physically or verbally is not an element of the conflict that has begun. A conflict can occur when both participants realize the existence of a contradiction and not only realize it, but also begin to actively oppose each other.

Consequently, a conflict is a state of confrontation between two parties (participants in the conflict) in the field of goals, interests, views, as a result of which each party consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the opposite physically or verbally.

Speech conflict in the light of the theory of speech activity

In linguistics in recent decades there have been significant changes in the definition of the object of research: their essence lies in the transition from the linguistics of language to the linguistics of communication. The most important object of research becomes discourse - “a coherent text in combination with extralinguistic - pragmatic, sociocultural, psychological and other factors” [LES, 1990: 136]1. In contrast to the text, which is understood primarily as an abstract, formal construct [Arutyunova 1990; Serio 2001], discourse is considered as a unit addressed to the mental processes of the participants in communication and associated with extralinguistic factors of communication [Dijk van 1989].

But the study of speech conflict does not exclude turning to the actual linguistic side of discourse - linguistic units and their speech semantics, as well as to a special linguistic discipline - the culture of speech, which represents a scientific field whose subject of study is linguistic means that allow, in a certain communication situation, to ensure the greatest effect in achieving communication goals.

We can talk about two aspects of speech culture: normative and communicative (L. I. Skvortsov, L. K. Graudina, S. I. Vinogradov, E. N. Shiryaev, B. S. Schwarzkopf). The normative aspect is the elementary level of speech culture, associated with following the norms of the literary language in the process of communication; the norm is the basis of speech culture. However, the variability of the norm, its dynamism, variability, professional and territorial locality, and often ignorance of its fundamentals cause various deviations, errors leading to misunderstandings, various kinds of misunderstandings that reduce the effectiveness of communication, and even speech conflicts. Thus, in a dialogue, ignorance of the orthoepic norm by one of the interlocutors negatively characterizes his speech appearance and causes a negative reaction from the other, which indicates a communicative failure in communication: How much cold? - Chill! The collective farm came to check, but you don’t know what to say. Have you finished, district commissioner? (V. Lipatov).

The subject of speech culture in the communicative aspect is successful communication. The main qualifying categories of the communicative (pragmatic) aspect are the following: effective/ineffective communication, successful/unsuccessful discourse, communicative norm, which is assessed in a given culture within the framework of the positions of appropriate/inappropriate, ethical/unethical, polite/impolite, etc. Conflict in communication can occur as a result of a violation of a cultural standard, conditions that deform discourse, make communication difficult or impossible. There are a variety of conflict-generating factors of a pragmatic nature. Such factors also include “the difference in the thesauri of the speaker and the listener, the difference in the associative-verbal network of the speaker and the listener, the variety of means of reference” [Ilyenko 1996: 9], one of the interlocutors ignoring the pragmatic component in the semantics of a word, violation of stereotypical connections between categories of meanings, the presence of stereotypes of speech behavior and thinking [Ermakova, Zemskaya 1993: 55 -60], as well as imperfect mastery of linguistic signs by both participants in the communicative act, different levels of sensory assessments of linguistic signs by each of the participants in communication, and some others. All these factors can also be called linguopragmatic, since understanding the meaning of the judgment expressed by S and perceived by S2 is hampered by both the nature of the language structure used in communication and the participants in communication themselves who made its choice.

Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in KA

The linguistic means used by speakers to achieve their communicative intentions are the surface, visible structures of the text. They are observable, can signal the goals and intentions of communicants, and their analysis can provide information about the attitudes, strategic plans and tactical tasks of the speaker.

The purpose of this section is to answer the question of which units of language are conflictogenic, that is, capable of becoming an incentive mechanism for generating speech conflict or communicative failure.

Of course, within the framework of this paragraph it is impossible to make a theoretical review on this issue and consider the features of linguistic signs at all levels. Let us dwell on the basic units of language as a sign system: lexical, semantic and grammatical signals of speech conflict.

Language as a complex system of signs is characterized by a number of properties that provoke ambiguous interpretation of the meanings conveyed by these signs. These properties “live” inside the language and are potential in nature, since they require special conditions for their detection, mechanisms that bring them into action. These conditions are speech: only in correlation with the act of speech does the “virtual linguistic sign” [Ufimtseva 1990: 167] actualize its meaning and, therefore, reveal its contradictory properties that are conflict-generating in nature.

The study of the properties of language that predetermine the emergence of various types of misunderstandings and misunderstandings in communication invariably leads to the need to describe, on the one hand, the substantial nature of linguistic units of different levels, and on the other, their functional features in order to identify the nature of the impact of the actualized properties of selected linguistic units on participants communicative act and the speech situation as a whole.

This two-dimensional approach is due to the property of language as a system of signs, which consists in the double signification of its units: among the means of one or another system, series - primary signification, and in compatibility with other signs in a linear series - secondary signification. The unit of primary signification is the word as an undivided linguistic sign, i.e. its individual meanings are not actualized in the utterance, and therefore the addressee actualizes those meanings of the word that represent the zone of its “proximal meaning” [Potebnya 1958: 29] and which are significant for the speaker in this moment. The highlighted zone of meaning does not necessarily coincide with the zone of meaning of the interlocutor. Here a risk situation arises [Shmeleva 1988: 178], which can provoke a communication failure, conflict, or with communicative cooperation between the interlocutors it will be harmonized and will not end in conflict. The unit of secondary signification is a sentence or statement when a word is divided into its constituent meanings or exactly the meaning that is necessary is actualized in it. The use of units of secondary signification usually does not entail misunderstanding or contradiction between subjects of speech (unless supported by non-linguistic factors).

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict…………………………….4

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolution

speech conflict……………………………………………………………...8

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...13

List of references…………………………………………………………….14

Introduction

The optimal method of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. However, nowadays such phenomena as language conflict, risk situation (zone), communicative success/failure (interference, failure, failure), etc. are also common. The most common and frequently used terms in the specialized literature to denote the conflict type of speech communication are the terms "language conflict" and "communication failure" Ershova V.E. Denial and negative assessment as components of speech conflict: their functions and role in conflict interaction // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2012. No. 354. - P. 12. . .

The speech behavior of conflict participants is based on speech strategies. A typology of strategies can be built on different grounds. A typology is possible, which is based on the type of dialogic interaction based on the result (outcome, consequences) of a communicative event - harmony or conflict. If the interlocutors fulfilled their communicative intentions and at the same time maintained the “balance of relationships,” then communication was built on the basis of strategies of harmony. On the contrary, if the communicative goal is not achieved, and communication does not contribute to the manifestation of positive personal qualities of the subjects of speech, then the communicative event is regulated by confrontation strategies. Confrontational strategies include invective, strategies of aggression, violence, discredit, submission, coercion, exposure, etc., the implementation of which, in turn, brings discomfort to the communication situation and creates speech conflicts.

The purpose of this work is to study speech conflicts in modern society and ways to resolve them.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks need to be solved:

1) define the concept of speech conflict;

2) identify the features of modern speech conflicts;

3) outline ways to resolve speech conflicts in modern society.

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict

Conflict implies a clash of parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication regarding diverging interests, opinions and views, communicative intentions that are revealed in a communication situation.

There are sufficient reasons to use the term “speech conflict”, the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept “speech”. Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using linguistic resources carried out by an individual. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook / edited. ed. V.D. Chernyak. M.: Yurayt, 2010. - P. 49. . The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of conflict in verbal communication:

1) the adequacy/inadequacy of the mutual understanding of communication partners is determined to a certain extent by the properties of the language itself;

2) knowledge of the language norm and awareness of deviations from it helps to identify factors leading to misunderstanding, failures in communication and conflicts;

3) any conflict, socio-psychological, psychological-ethical or any other, receives a linguistic representation Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8. .

Naturally, if there is a speech conflict, we can also talk about the existence of a non-speech conflict that develops regardless of the speech situation: a conflict of goals and views. But since the representation of non-verbal conflict occurs in speech, it also becomes the subject of research in pragmatics in the aspect of relationships and forms of verbal communication (argument, debate, quarrel, etc.) between participants in communication.

Epochs of social revolutions are always accompanied by a breakdown in social consciousness. The collision of old ideas with new ones leads to a severe cognitive conflict that transfers to the pages of newspapers and magazines, and to television screens. Cognitive conflict also extends to the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of “good and bad” that structure our experience and turn our actions into deeds are blurring; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to the revolutionary situation are born: mobilization of new values, actualization of the values of the immediately preceding socio-political period, actualization of culturally determined values that have deep roots in the social consciousness of society Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - P. 142. .

This process is accompanied by increased social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, according to psychologists, loss of integrating identification, loss of hope and life prospects, the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life Ruchkina E.M. Linguistic and argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of dissertation. candidate of philological sciences / Tver State University. Tver, 2009. - P. 18. . There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and devaluation of others, the introduction of new cultural values into the cultural space. Such a psychological state gives rise to various negative emotions: “For today’s Russians it is “despair”, “fear”, “anger”, “disrespect”” Ibid. P. 19. ; a certain reaction to the source of disappointment arises, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this condition; there is a desire to release accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts.

A person’s communicative behavior is determined by social (economic and political) factors; they influence the psychological state of the individual and influence the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. During a conflict, the verbal behavior of communicants represents “two opposing programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in individual operations...” Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8. . These behavior programs of communication participants determine the choice of conflicting speech strategies and corresponding speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to encourage the other to change their behavior in one way or another. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc.

The actual pragmatic factors of speech conflict include those that are determined by the “context” human relations"Tretyakova V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. - P. 112. , including not so much speech actions as non-speech behavior of the addressee and the addressee, i.e. we are interested in the "utterance addressed to the “other”, unfolded in time, receiving a meaningful interpretation" Tretyakova V.S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech // http://www.jourclub.ru/24/919/2/. The central categories in this case will be be the categories of the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener), as well as the identity of the interpretation of the utterance in relation to the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener). The identity of what was said by the subject of speech and perceived by the addressee can only be achieved “with ideally coordinated interaction on the basis of complete mutual correspondence of strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and groups" Ibid.

But it is very difficult to imagine such an ideal interaction in real practice, or rather, impossible, both due to the peculiarities of the language system and because there are “communicator pragmatics” and “recipient pragmatics” that determine the communicative strategies and tactics of each of them. This means that the non-identity of interpretation is objectively determined by the very nature of human communication; consequently, the nature of a specific speech situation (success/failure) depends on the interpreters, who are both the subject of speech and the addressee: the subject of speech interprets his own text, the addressee interprets someone else’s. Ibid. .

A native speaker is a linguistic personality who has his own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by script and genre stereotyping and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type of linguistic personality and communicative experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, on the traditions of communication established in Russian linguistic culture and norms of speech behavior .

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation is the post-communicative phase. It is characterized by consequences arising from all previous stages of development of a communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions determined in the pre-communicative stage between the participants in the communicative act, and the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used in the communicative stage N. Muravyova. Language of conflict // http:// www.huq.ru. .

The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation - speech tactics. There is a strict correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: proposals, consent, concessions, approval, praise, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

So, a speech conflict occurs when one of the parties, to the detriment of the other, consciously and actively commits speech actions, which can be expressed in the form of a reproach, remark, objection, accusation, threat, insult, etc. The speech actions of the subject determine the speech behavior of the addressee: he, realizing that these speech actions are directed against his interests, takes reciprocal speech actions against his interlocutor, expressing his attitude towards the subject of disagreement or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is speech conflict.

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolving speech conflict

Depending on the type of conflict situation, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situations), a conflict neutralization model (conflict risk situations) and a conflict harmonization model (conflict situations themselves). To a greater extent, speech behavior in potentially conflict situations is subject to modeling. This type of situation contains provoking conflict factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural and communicative script, there are no markers signaling the emotionality of the situation, and only implicatures known to the interlocutors indicate the presence or threat of tension. To control the situation, preventing it from moving into a conflict zone, means knowing these factors, knowing the ways and means of neutralizing them, and being able to apply them. This model was identified based on an analysis of the incentive speech genres of requests, remarks, questions, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten the communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual incentive (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the incentive + justification for the importance of the incentive + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don’t do) this (that), because... This is a conflict prevention model Mishlanov V.A. On the problem of linguistic substantiation of legal qualifications of speech conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - P. 236. .

The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that in them there is a deviation from the general cultural scenario for the development of the situation. This deviation signals the danger of an approaching conflict. Typically, risk situations arise if, in potentially conflict situations, the communication partner did not use conflict prevention models in communication. In a risk situation, at least one of the communicants can still recognize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. We will call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the model of conflict neutralization. It includes a whole series of sequential mental and communicative actions and cannot be represented by a single formula, since risk situations require additional efforts by the communicator seeking to harmonize communication (compared to potentially conflict situations), as well as more diverse speech actions. His behavior is a response to the actions of the conflicting party, and how he will react depends on the methods and means that the conflicting party uses. And since the conflictant’s actions can be difficult to predict and varied, the behavior of the second party, harmonizing communication, in the context of the situation is more variable and creative. However, typification of speech behavior in such situations is possible at the level of identifying standard, harmonizing speech tactics. Russian language and culture of speech: a textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. - P. 83. .

The third type of situations are actual conflict situations, in which differences in positions, values, rules of behavior, etc., which form the potential for confrontation, are explicit. The conflict is determined by extralinguistic factors, and therefore it is difficult to limit ourselves to recommendations of only speech. It is necessary to take into account the entire communicative context of the situation, as well as its presuppositions. As the analysis of various conflict situations has shown, people, faced with the aspirations and goals of other people that are incompatible with their own aspirations and goals, can use one of three models of behavior.

The first model is “Playing Along with Your Partner,” the goal of which is not to aggravate relations with your partner, not to bring existing disagreements or contradictions to open discussion, and not to sort things out. Compliance and concentration on oneself and on the interlocutor are the main qualities of the speaker necessary for communication according to this model. Tactics of agreement, concession, approval, praise, promises, etc. are used.

The second model is “Ignoring the problem,” the essence of which is that the speaker, dissatisfied with the progress of communication, “constructs” a situation more favorable for himself and his partner. The speech behavior of a communicator who has chosen this model is characterized by the use of tactics of silence (tacit permission for the partner to make his own decision), avoiding the topic or changing the script. The use of this model is most appropriate in a situation of open conflict.

The third model, one of the most constructive in conflict, is “The interests of the cause come first.” It involves the development of a mutually acceptable solution, provides for understanding and compromise. Strategies of compromise and cooperation - the main ones in the behavior of a communication participant using this model - are implemented using cooperative tactics of negotiations, concessions, advice, agreements, assumptions, beliefs, requests, etc.

Each model contains the basic postulates of communication, in particular, the postulates of quality of communication (do no harm to your partner), quantity (communicate significant true facts), relevance (take into account your partner’s expectations), which represent the basic principle of communication - the principle of cooperation Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. manual [for universities] / Ros. rights acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011. - P. 43. .

Models of speech behavior are abstracted from specific situations And personal experience; Due to “decontextualization,” they make it possible to cover a wide range of similar communication situations that have a number of primary parameters (it is impossible to take everything into account). This fully applies to spontaneous speech communication. The developed models in three types of potentially and actually conflicting situations capture this type of generalization, which allows them to be used in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

For successful communication, when interpreting a message, each communicator must comply with certain conditions. The subject of speech (speaker) must be aware of the possibility of inadequate interpretation of the statement or its individual components and, realizing his own intention, focus on his communication partner, assuming the addressee’s expectations about the statement, predicting the interlocutor’s reaction to what and how he is told, those. adapt your speech for the listener according to various parameters: take into account the linguistic and communicative competence of the addressee, the level of his background information, emotional state, etc. Rosenthal D.E. A manual on the Russian language: [with exercises] / prep. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Onyx: Peace and Education, 2010. - P. 141. .

The addressee (listener), interpreting the speaker’s speech, should not disappoint his communicative partner in his expectations, maintaining the dialogue in the direction desired by the speaker, he must objectively create an “image of a partner” and an “image of discourse.” In this case, there is a maximum approach to the ideal speech situation, which could be called a situation of communicative cooperation. All these conditions form the pragmatic factor of successful/destructive discourse - this is the orientation/lack of orientation towards the communication partner. Other factors - psychological, physiological and sociocultural - which also determine the process of generation and perception of speech and determine the deformation / harmonization of communication, are a particular manifestation of the main, pragmatic factor and are closely associated with it. The combination of these factors determines the required pace of speech, the degree of its coherence, the ratio of the general and the specific, the new and the known, the subjective and the generally accepted, explicit and implicit in the content of the discourse, the measure of its spontaneity, the choice of means to achieve the goal, fixation of the speaker’s point of view, etc. .

Thus, misunderstanding can be caused by uncertainty or ambiguity of the statement, which are programmed by the speaker himself or which appeared by chance, or it can also be caused by the peculiarities of the addressee’s perception of speech: the addressee’s inattention, his lack of interest in the subject or subject of speech, etc. In both cases, the pragmatic factor mentioned earlier is at work, but there are clearly interferences psychological nature: the state of the interlocutors, the addressee’s unpreparedness to communicate, the relationship of communication partners to each other, etc. Psychological and pragmatic factors also include the following: varying degrees of intensity of verbal communication, peculiarities of perception of the context of communication, etc., determined by the type of personality, character traits, and temperament of the communicants.

In each specific conflict speech situation, one or another type of speech forms and expressions is most appropriate. Relevance determines the power of speech. To be relevant is to be functional. The means of language are determined by their purpose: the function determines the structure, therefore, the linguistic analysis of the communicative aspect of speech conflict behavior should be approached from a functional point of view.

In conclusion, we note that the above focuses on the speech behavior of a person who seeks to harmonize potentially and actually conflicting interaction. This position seems important from a cultural point of view: the ability of people to regulate relationships with the help of speech in various spheres of life, including everyday life, is urgently needed in modern Russian speech communication; everyone should master it.

Conclusion

Speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in communication between the subject of speech and the addressee, associated with the implementation of linguistic signs in speech and their perception, as a result of which speech communication is built not on the basis of the principle of cooperation, but on the basis of confrontation. This is a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is implemented by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict occurs according to standard scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguistic-cultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior. speech behavior conflict

A speech conflict is the embodiment of the confrontation between communicants in a communicative event, determined by mental, social and ethical factors, the extrapolation of which occurs in the speech fabric of the dialogue. Systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe a speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad-contextual manner.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain standard structure, including mandatory components: participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, values, goals, etc.) among communicants; reason - reason; damage; temporal and spatial extent.

The current state of Russian society is characterized by sufficient severity of conflict-generating situations. The severity of conflict-generating situations is caused mainly by severe violations of moral norms in the modern era (and not only in Russia). The resolution of conflicts and contradictions depends on how far-sightedly and skillfully moral judgments will be applied in resolving conflicts and contradictions with the help of speech means and through the management of speech communications.

Only following basic speech norms helps make verbal interaction more successful and efficient.

List of used literature

1. Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8.

2. Ershova V.E. Denial and negative assessment as components of speech conflict: their functions and role in conflict interaction // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2012. No. 354. - pp. 12-15.

3. Mishlanov V.A. On the problem of linguistic substantiation of legal qualifications of speech conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - pp. 236-243.

4. Muravyova N. Language of conflict // http://www.huq.ru.

5. Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. manual [for universities] / Ros. rights acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011. - 136 p.

6. Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - pp. 142-147.

7. Rosenthal D.E. A manual on the Russian language: [with exercises] / prep. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Onyx: Peace and Education, 2010. 415 p.

8. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. - P. 239 p.

9. Russian language and speech culture: textbook / edited. ed. V.D. Chernyak. M.: Yurait, 2010. 493 p.

10. Ruchkina E.M. Linguistic and argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of dissertation. candidate of philological sciences / Tver State University. Tver, 2009. 89 p.

11. Tretyakova V.S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech // http://www.jourclub.ru/24/919/2/.

12. Tretyakova V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. - P. 112-120.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

Transcript

1 In a scientist’s laboratory In modern conditions, the ideas of individualization of training and education are especially relevant. The problem of the pupil's fate is one of them. The teacher’s task is to liberate the student from an imposed fate and transfer him to a free one, based on independence and freedom of choice. This involves developing new ways of seeing, evaluating and self-realizing in students. Taking into account the unique life destiny of each child, the teacher creates conditions for finding oneself and one’s calling. The article revealed the aspect of a pedagogical attitude focused on the Whole - fate as the basis of human existence in the world. Plato laid the foundations of pedagogy, which takes into account not only the present, but also the future of the student, and considers a person’s life in society through the prism of his place in this structure. Plato's ideas were further developed in the context of a sociocentric model of education - education in society and for society. References Gaidenko V. 77. The theme of fate and ideas about time in the ancient Greek worldview // Issues. philosophy Goran V. 77. Ancient Greek mythology of fate. Novosibirsk, Yeager V. 77. Education of the ancient Greek (the era of great educators and educational systems). M., Losev A.F. History of ancient philosophy in a summary presentation. M., Losev A.F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology. M., Marru A.I. History of education in antiquity (Greece). M., Pedagogical views of Plato and Aristotle / Ed. prof. F. F. Zelinsky. Fri., Plato. Collection cit.: In 4 vols. M., T. 3. Popper K. Open Society and Its Enemies: In 2 vols. T. 1: Plato’s Enchantments. M., Psychology of fate: Sat. articles on depth psychology. Ekaterinburg, Rubinstein M. M. Pedagogical ideas of Plato // Questions of philosophy and psychology. Book 124 (IV). M., V. S. Tretyakova CONFLICT AS A PHENOMENON OF LANGUAGE AND SPEECH The optimal method of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. When studying it, ways of creating speech comfort for communication participants, means and methods used by communicants are considered to ensure harmonious communication. It is impossible to describe harmonious communication without identifying its qualities and properties that introduce disharmony into the speech actions of communicants, destroy understanding, and cause negativity - V. S. Tretyakova,

2 2003 News of Ural State University 27 emotional and psychological states of communication partners. Thus, the field of attention of researchers includes such phenomena as communication failure (E. V. Paducheva), communication failure (T. V. Shmeleva), communicative failure (B. Yu. Gorodetsky, I. M. Kobozeva, I. G. Saburova, E. A. Zemskaya, O. P. Ermakova), communicative interference (T. A. Ladyzhenskaya), language conflict (S. G. Ilyenko), speech conflict, etc. These phenomena mark the negative field of communicative interaction. To denote various types of failures and misunderstandings during verbal communication, the term communicative failure is most often used in special studies, which is understood as a complete or partial misunderstanding of the statement by the communication partner, that is, failure or incomplete implementation of the speaker’s communicative intention [Gorodetsky, Kobozeva, Saburova, 1985: 64-66]. Communicative failures, according to the concept of E. A. Zemskaya and O. P. Ermakova, also include “an undesirable emotional effect that arises in the process of communication, not foreseen by the speaker: resentment, irritation, amazement” [Ermakova, Zemskaya, 1993: 31], in which, according to the authors, expresses mutual misunderstanding of speech partners. Failures, failures, misunderstandings can be neutralized in the communication process with the help of additional speech steps: repeated questions, clarifications, explanations, leading questions, reformulation, as a result of which the speaker’s communicative intention can be realized. Not every communication failure results in conflict. Conflict implies a clash of parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication regarding divergent interests, opinions, and communicative intentions that are revealed in a communication situation. A speech conflict occurs when one of the parties, to the detriment of the other, consciously and actively performs speech actions, which can be expressed by appropriate - negative - means of language and speech. Such speech actions of the speaker - the subject of speech - determine the speech behavior of the other party - the addressee: he, realizing that these speech actions are directed against his interests, takes reciprocal speech actions of this kind, expressing his attitude towards the subject of speech or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is speech conflict. Conflict as a reality of life is the object of study of many sciences: philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, pedagogy. For a linguist, the speech specificity of a conflict is of interest as a manifestation of the interaction of various external factors, and the most important task is to establish the negative denotative space of speech communication and the factors that determine the origin, development and resolution of the conflict. The solution to this problem is possible by identifying the means and methods used by communicants to ensure or destroy harmonious communication. The relevance of the problem proposed for discussion is determined by the fact that the causes and conditions of conflict and harmonious social and communicative interaction remain unresolved today. In the study of speech conflict, we use an integrated approach, identifying linguocognitive, psycholinguistic, 144

3 In the laboratory of the scientist there are cues and linguocultural aspects that characterize the leading directions of modern linguistics. A verbal conflict is a state of confrontation between two parties (participants in the conflict), as a result of which each party consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the opposite party, explicating its actions by verbal and pragmatic means. Since the explication of the contradictions existing between the two sides occurs most often at the verbal and speech activity levels, the study of the speech behavior of participants in this type of interaction from the point of view of the means and ways of expressing these contradictions becomes relevant. However, the material expression of conflicting relations between subjects of speech in the act of communication in the form of specific linguistic and speech structures is a reflection of their pre-communicative state (interests, positions, views, values, attitudes, goals, etc.). The study was based on the hypothesis of a speech conflict as a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is realized by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. At the same time, it is assumed that speech conflict is assigned to typical scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by social experience and the rules of speech behavior established in a given linguistic and cultural community. In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain typical structure - a frame. The “conflict” frame represents a special stereotypical situation and includes the obligatory components of the reflecting object (the upper level of the “conflict” frame): participants in a conflict situation whose interests are in conflict; a collision (of goals, views, positions, points of view), revealing their contradiction or inconsistency; speech actions of one of the participants in a conflict situation aimed at changing the behavior or state of the interlocutor; resistance to the speech actions of another participant through one’s own speech actions; harm that is caused by a participant's speech acts and that another experiences as a result of said speech acts. Optional components of the “conflict” frame (lower level) can be represented by the following slots: temporal length, reflecting violations of the temporal sequence characteristic of the standard description of the situation; spatial extent, associated with a violation of the spatial representation of the speech situation and introducing deception into the communicative expectations of one of the participants in the communication situation; a third party who may not be a direct participant in the conflict, but may be its culprit, instigator or “arbiter” and significantly influence the outcome of the communicative situation. The “conflict” frame reinforces standard methods actions, regulating the speech behavior of its participants through the structure of knowledge about a given frame. A conflict is a communicative event that occurs over time, so it, like the “conflict” frame, can be presented in dynamics. The basis of such a representation is, firstly, a scenario reflecting the development of the “main plots” of interaction within the framework of a stereotypical situation, and, secondly, a speech genre with prescribed linguistic structures. Scenario technology makes it possible to trace the stages of 145

4 2003 News of USU 27 development of the conflict: its origin, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. Analysis of the conflict speech genre shows which linguistic means were chosen by the conflicting parties depending on their intentions, intentions and goals. The script establishes a standard set of methods of action, as well as their sequence in the development of a communicative event; the speech genre is built according to well-known thematic, compositional and stylistic canons enshrined in linguistic culture. Knowledge of conflict-type interaction scenarios and corresponding speech genres ensures predictability of speech behavior in such communication situations and has explanatory power for recognizing potentially conflict situations, risk situations and conflict situations themselves, as well as forecasting and modeling by communicants both the situation itself and their behavior in it . Since the frame, script and speech genre reinforce a stereotypical set of mandatory components, methods of action and their sequence, this makes it possible to identify the structure of communicative expectations of the participants in a speech event, avoid surprises and unpredictability in communication, and this, in turn, excludes the possibility of conflict development of interaction . However, despite the stereotypicality and predictability of the development of a communicative event, specified by the script within a particular speech genre, the specific speech actions of the speaker do not turn out to be of the same type. A native speaker - a linguistic personality - has his own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is limited within a given genre, but freedom of choice speaking topic no less exists. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios (even within a given genre) is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends on the personality type of the participants in the conflict, their communicative experience, communicative competence, communicative attitudes, and communicative preferences. The exchange of speech actions between participants in communication has its own name in communicative linguistics - a communicative act. It has its own structure and content. In a conflict communicative act (CCA), the structure and content of speech acts are determined by a number of inconsistencies and contradictions that exist between the participants. In the pre-communicative phase of CCA - the maturation of a conflict - its participants become aware of the existing contradictions between their interests (views, motives, attitudes, goals, code of relationships, knowledge), both subjects begin to feel the conflict of the situation and are ready to take mutually aggressive speech actions. In the communicative phase - the maturation, peak and decline of the conflict - the implementation of all pre-communicative states of the subjects occurs: both parties begin to act in their own interests to the detriment of the other side through the use of conflicting linguistic (lexical, grammatical) and speech (confrontational speech tactics, corresponding non-verbal) means. The post-communication phase - conflict resolution - is characterized by consequences arising from the previous stages: unwanted and/or unexpected speech reactions or emotional reactions 146

5 In the laboratory of the scientific standing of the conflicting parties, the quality of which depends on the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used by the participants of the CCA. Among the linguistic means that mark CCA, the lexical-semantic and grammatical systems are especially sensitive to the conflict component, in which the national characteristics of the perception of such reality as conflict are most clearly reflected. The carriers of conflicting meanings in the lexical-semantic system of language are ambiguous words and homonyms, the use of which outside of a sufficiently detailed context becomes a conflict-generating factor in the development of a communicative act. The most noted properties are possessed by obscene (obscene, invective) and negative evaluative vocabulary (the right position on the scale good - bad, smart - stupid, beautiful - ugly, etc.), special nominations of interlocutors according to some sign in the absence of the person’s name nominations, agnonym words (unknown, incomprehensible or difficult to understand words for many native speakers). Grammatical markers of conflict are the 2nd person pronouns “you” and “you” and the verb forms of the 2nd person singular and plural, the choice of which has tactical reasons; personal pronouns “he”, “she” in relation to the person present during the conversation, the functioning of which is subject to certain restrictions by the situation of the utterance; imperatives of the perfect form, particles, introductory words, special syntactic structures in denotative meanings unusual for them (phrase schemes). The noted linguistic units form the content and structure of the CCA and serve as clear markers of speech conflict. In addition to the obvious, observable signs of conflict in a communicative act, there are those that are “calculated” based on a comparison of linguistic and speech structures with the communicative context and are determined by the psychological and emotional effect that arises among the participants in the communicative act. These are pragmatic markers of CCA, which are associated with various kinds of inconsistencies, misunderstandings, violations of any rules or intuitively felt patterns of speech communication. These include the discrepancy between the speech action and the speech reaction, as well as negative speech and emotional reactions, which create the effect of disappointed expectations in the communicative act. The speech behavior of conflict participants is based on speech strategies. A typology of strategies can be built on different grounds. We propose a typology based on the type of dialogic interaction based on the result (outcome, consequences) of a communicative event - harmony or conflict. If the interlocutors fulfilled their communicative intentions and at the same time maintained the “balance of relations,” it means that communication was built on the basis of cooperation strategies. The interaction of communication partners in this case represents an increasing confirmation of mutual role expectations, the rapid formation of a general picture of the situation and the emergence of an empathic connection with each other. On the contrary, if the communicative goal is not achieved, and communication does not contribute to the manifestation of positive personal qualities of the subjects of speech, then the communicative event is regulated by confrontation strategies. When implementing this type of interaction, unilateral or mutual disconfirmation of role expectations occurs, 147

6 2003 News of Ural State University 27 divergence of partners in understanding or assessing the situation and the emergence of antipathy towards each other. Cooperation strategies include strategies of politeness, sincerity and trust, intimacy, cooperation, compromise, etc. They contribute to the full behavior of communication participants and effective organization speech interaction. Confrontational strategies include invective, strategies of aggression, violence, discredit, submission, coercion, exposure, etc., the implementation of which, in turn, brings discomfort to the communication situation and creates speech conflicts. The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of methods for its implementation - speech tactics. There is a strict correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used: proposals, agreement, concession, approval, praise, compliment, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc. There are also two-valued tactics that can be either cooperative or conflicting, depending on the strategy within which the tactic is used. Such tactics include, for example, lying tactics. It performs a cooperative function in the implementation of a politeness strategy, the goal of which is “not to harm” the partner and to “raise” one’s interlocutor. At the same time, this tactic can be a conflicting means when used as part of confrontation strategies, for example, a strategy of discrediting. Double-valued tactics also include tactics of irony, flattery, bribery, remarks, requests, changing the topic, etc. Speech strategy is associated with planning speech behavior. Big role The personal qualities of the subjects of speech play a role in this process. Thinking about the upcoming communication, future speech partners decide on the use of certain speech actions, as well as their sequence. To determine and plan his speech actions, the speaker needs knowledge about the person with whom he will interact. This means that even before the communicative act, its participant must have information about his interlocutor, his goals for entering into communication, the communicative intent as a whole, his knowledge of the upcoming speech event, his cognitive attitudes, and manner of behavior. Mutual knowledge about social and psychological characteristics sides, ethnocultural habits, knowledge of social status, temperament, type of perception of the world, etc. This knowledge determines the design of a future communicative act and its successful course. Personal structures do not exist in isolation from the broader sociocultural context; they closely interact. Therefore, a communicative act is determined by the extent to which the participants in the interaction relate it to the social characteristics of the situation as a whole. They plan their speech behavior according to the situation, place and time of the communicative event, they form an idea of their social roles, and they predict each other’s speech actions. The study of the patterns of human communication involves the inclusion of each specific statement, fragment of text in a broader 148

7 In the scientist’s laboratory, the context is transformed into a more global system, which we call the national-cultural space (in our case, this is the Russian national-cultural space). On the one hand, the national cultural space, acting as a form of existence of national culture in the human mind, is a regulator that determines the perception of reality, of which human communication is a part. On the other hand, each person - a representative of a national-cultural community - has his own space, which he fills with entities that are significant to him. Among these entities, there are those that are the property of almost all members of the national-cultural community, and there are specific ones that are significant only for a given individual. Thus, there is an individual national-cultural space and a universal one. What function do they perform in regulating communication? Every society develops its own system of social codes in one or another communication situation. This set of standard speech behavior programs is regulated by norms, conventions and rules developed in Russian linguistic culture. Society is interested in observing and preserving standards and samples. However, socially approved behavior programs never cover the entire sphere of human behavior in society [Baiburin, 1985]. And then we talk about individual characteristics speech behavior, its diversity and variability. This area of speech behavior usually becomes the subject of research by a linguist when he tries to answer the questions: “What significant patterns of speech communication were violated?”, “Are there any contradictions between the norms established by society and individual implementations of communication?” Thus, the model of individual behavior included in the broad social and national-cultural paradigm is studied. Models of speech behavior can exist at different levels of generalization. These can be individual (personal) models. They become significant for other people who find themselves in an unfamiliar communicative situation, since “they can be divorced from the context of a specific situation and become more abstract, that is, turn into socially significant scenarios of stereotypical knowledge” [Dijk van, 1989: 276]. Each person, since he is a subject of communication, participates in communicative events and the creation of texts, and therefore various models of speech behavior, focusing on ideals, values, and norms of behavior that are significant for him and a given society. Each of the models carries information for language users who evaluate and select these models. The task of society (in the person of its individual representatives - subjects of communication, whose influence on the formation of exemplary models is significant) is to offer specific individuals such models that need to be included in the system of their speech activity, in their “database”. These models can be enriched “through individual contributions” [Leontiev, 1979: 135] and subsequently serve as models of practical speech behavior. These should be positive models that reflect methods of civilized behavior in various situations, especially dangerous ones that threaten the development of harmonious relationships between participants in communication. Knowledge of variants of speech behavior is manifested primarily in the awareness of alternative speech 149

8 2003 News of USU 27 actions, it is necessary for making a practical choice of an adequate option and contributes to the development of skills for their effective use at each specific moment of communication. The lack of such knowledge will inevitably lead to the inappropriateness and inappropriateness of certain speech actions, to the inability to coordinate one’s practical speech actions with the actions of a partner, and to adapt as much as possible to the communication situation. Speech behavior is the speech activity of an individual; it is always someone else's behavior. There are several types of dialogic interaction in conflict. One type of such interaction is a mutual conflict, when the communicator behaves aggressively, attacks the other, and the latter responds in kind. The second type of dialogic interaction is a unidirectional conflict, when one of the communicants, at whom conflicting actions are directed, withdraws from conflictual opposition without taking any retaliatory steps. The third type of dialogic interaction in conflict is harmonizing. It is characterized by the fact that one of the participants in the CCA is unrestrained and aggressively active in his speech behavior, while the other is friendly and no less active in an effort to relieve tension and extinguish the conflict. We focused our attention on the speech behavior of a person who seeks to harmonize potentially and actually conflicting interactions. This position seems to us important from a cultural point of view: the ability of people to regulate relationships with the help of speech in various spheres of life, including everyday life, is urgently needed in modern Russian speech communication, everyone should master it. Depending on the type of conflict situation, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situations), a conflict neutralization model (conflict risk situations) and a conflict harmonization model (conflict situations themselves). These models have varying degrees of cliché due to the multiplicity of parameters and components of QCA, reflecting the objective complexity of planning speech behavior in it. To a greater extent, speech behavior in potentially conflict situations is subject to modeling. This type of situation contains provoking conflict factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural and communicative script, there are no markers signaling the emotionality of the situation, and only implicatures known to the interlocutors indicate the presence or threat of tension. To control the situation, preventing it from moving into a conflict zone, means knowing these factors, knowing the ways and means of neutralizing them, and being able to apply them. This model was identified based on an analysis of the incentive speech genres of requests, remarks, questions, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten the communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual incentive (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the incentive + justification for the importance of the incentive + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don't do) this (that) because... We called it the conflict prevention model. 150

9 In the laboratory of a scientist The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that in them there is a deviation from the general cultural scenario for the development of the situation. This deviation signals the danger of an approaching conflict. Typically, risk situations arise if, in potentially conflict situations, the communication partner did not use conflict prevention models in communication. In a risk situation, at least one of the communicants can still recognize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. We will call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the model of conflict neutralization. It includes a whole series of sequential mental and communicative actions and cannot be represented by a single formula, since risk situations require additional efforts by the communicator seeking to harmonize communication (compared to potentially conflict situations), as well as more diverse speech actions. His behavior is a response to the actions of the conflicting party, and how he will react depends on the methods and means that the conflicting party uses. And since the conflictant’s actions can be difficult to predict and varied, the behavior of the second party, harmonizing communication, in the context of the situation is more variable and creative. Nevertheless, typification of speech behavior in such situations is possible at the level of identifying standard, harmonizing speech tactics. Just as in a chess game, knowing how the chess pieces move, the player makes move after move depending on how the situation develops on the chess field, the speaker combines speech tactics according to the requirements of the communication situation. The behavior of communicants in situations of conflict risk requires them to possess a rich repertoire of constructive tactics and the ability to use them creatively. This is the highest level of communicative competence of the person speaking. The third type of situations are actual conflict situations, in which differences in positions, values, rules of behavior, etc., which form the potential for confrontation, are explicit. The conflict is determined by extralinguistic factors, and therefore it is difficult to limit ourselves to recommendations of only speech. It is necessary to take into account the entire communicative context of the situation, as well as its presuppositions. As the analysis of various conflict situations has shown, people, faced with the aspirations and goals of other people that are incompatible with their own aspirations and goals, can use one of three models of behavior. The first model is “Playing Along with Your Partner,” the goal of which is not to aggravate relations with your partner, not to bring existing disagreements or contradictions to open discussion, and not to sort things out. Compliance and concentration on oneself and on the interlocutor are the main qualities of the speaker necessary for communication according to this model. Tactics of agreement, concession, approval, praise, promises, etc. are used. The second model is “Ignoring the problem,” the essence of which is that the speaker, not satisfied with the progress of communication, “constructs” a situation more favorable for himself and his partner. The speech behavior of a communicator who has chosen this model is characterized by the use of tactics of silence (tacit permission for the partner to make his own decision), avoiding the topic or changing the script. The use of this model is most appropriate in a situation of open conflict. The third model, one of the SA 151

10 2003 News of Ural State University 27 constructive in the conflict - “The interests of the cause come first.” It involves the development of a mutually acceptable solution, provides for understanding and compromise. Strategies of compromise and cooperation - the main ones in the behavior of a participant in communication using this model - are implemented using cooperative tactics of negotiations, concessions, advice, agreements, assumptions, beliefs, requests, etc. Each model contains the basic postulates of communication, in particular, postulates of quality of communication (do no harm to your partner), quantity (report significant true facts), relevance (take into account your partner’s expectations), which represent the basic principle of communication - the principle of cooperation. Models of speech behavior are abstracted from specific situations and personal experience; Due to “decontextualization,” they make it possible to cover a wide range of similar communication situations that have a number of primary parameters (it is impossible to take everything into account). This fully applies to spontaneous speech communication. The models we have developed in three types of potentially and actually conflicting situations capture this type of generalization, which allows, in our opinion, to use them in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication. Speech conflict with its multi-level structure creates a negative space of interpersonal dialogic interaction in Russian linguistic culture. The conducted research demonstrates the importance of the cognitive-pragmatic approach for an objective presentation of the factors that determine speech conflict, the mechanisms of conflict generation and the principles of its interpretation. The proposed theory of harmonization of potentially and actually conflicting communication, the principles and methods of studying conflicting speech behavior in the procedural and effective aspects have explanatory power for other types of speech communication. References Baiburin A.K. Some issues in the ethnographic study of behavior // Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. JL, Gorodetsky B. Yu., Kobozeva I. M., Saburova I. G. Towards a typology of communicative failures // Dialogue interaction and knowledge representation. Novosibirsk, Dyck T. A. van. Language. Cognition. Communication. M., Ermakova O.P., Zemskaya E.A. Towards the construction of a typology of communicative failures (based on the material of natural Russian dialogue) // Russian language in its functioning: Communicative-pragmatic aspect. M., Leontyev A. A. Statement as a subject of linguistics, psycholinguistics and communication theory // Text syntax. M.,

BEFORE. Yakubovich (Minsk, MSLU) SPEECH CONFLICT AS A TYPE OF SPEECH INTERACTION The problem of conflict as a life phenomenon is at the intersection of the interests of scientists from different scientific fields. All in all

PHILOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS Olga Anatolyevna Golovach, senior lecturer, Tolyatti State University, Togliatti, Samara region MODERN DIRECTIONS IN LINGUISTICS: ANTHROPOLOGICAL

UDC 371 STRATEGIES OF BEHAVIOR OF TEENAGERS IN A CONFLICT SITUATION Evdokimova Elena Leontyevna Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor Belarusian State Pedagogical University named after. M. Tanka Republic

Thematic parent meetings for the “Responsible Parenthood” program for DECEMBER Classes Parent meetings 1 Topic 5. Studying is the main activity of a primary school student. How to help parents

Characteristics of behavior strategies in conflict The two-dimensional model of individual behavior strategies in conflict interactions developed by K. Thomas and R. Killman has become widespread in conflictology.

LINGUISTICS Linguistic-cognitive approach to communication Doctor of Philology V.V. Krasnykh, 2000 Linguistic-cognitive approach, as is clear from the name itself, involves analysis of only linguistic,

T.V.Abramova (Gubkin) SPEECH ETIQUETTE AS A SUBJECT OF LINGUISTIC STUDY Characteristic feature modern communicative linguistics is an interest in the meaning and functioning of linguistic units in the process

Types of conflicts Intrapersonal conflicts are a clash between approximately equal in strength, but oppositely directed interests, needs, and drives of one person. Interpersonal conflicts

COMMUNICATIVE INTERACTION OF STUDENTS WHEN STUDYING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN CONDITIONS OF MULTILATERAL COMMUNICATION Zakharyeva L.V. Belarusian State Agrarian Technical University Multilateral

Questions for the test in “Conflictology” (Psychology distance learning recruitment 2008) Topic 1: “Methodological problems of conflictology and the history of its development” 1. Definition of conflictology as an independent

155 TUBOL N. A., ABDULLAYEVA GULRUKHSOR LANGUAGE CONSCIOUSNESS IN TEACHING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE When starting to study a foreign language, a person already has a formed picture of the world, into which his native language is “inscribed”

Conflict in the professional sphere Psychologist GAU SO MO "Dmitrovsky KTsSON" M. Yu. Piskareva Conflict is a stage of a conflict situation, characterized by a clash of subjects based on opposing interests,

Current pedagogical problems 13 O.G. Burova Manifestation of a culture of interpersonal communication at school age The article discusses the concepts of “communication”, “attitude”, “interaction” in relation to the process

Training for the development of the value-semantic sphere of the student’s personality Moskalenko O.V. National Technical University of Ukraine "Kyiv Polytechnical Institute", Kyiv City. The main prerequisite for successful self-realization

Sociability as one of the manifestations of an individual’s social activity should be considered as a set of personal needs. Driving force dialectical unity appears in the development of sociability

PHILOLOGY AND LINGUISTICS Pogudina Victoria Valentinovna student Elena Agapova Anatolyevna Dr. Philol. Sciences, Associate Professor, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Southern Federal University", Rostov-on-Don, Rostov region TO A QUESTION

Class hour - training “I See, Understand, Evaluate” Objectives: 1. Teach the ability to identify a conflict situation and psychological participants, determine the position of the participants 2. Consider possible solutions

Glossary for the course “Economic Conflictology” Aggression Individual or group behavior aimed at causing physical or psychological harm to another person or social group.

CONFLICT Barabash E.Yu. k.ps.n Conflict is a special interaction between people, which is characterized by the emergence and clash of contradictions in their relationships. Origins of the conflict Mutual opposition of the parties

Non-state educational institution of higher professional education "International Academy of Assessment and Consulting" NOU VPO "MAOK" PROGRAM OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS "Strategy

Interaction of people Completed by: student of class 11B of Municipal Educational Institution Secondary School 53, Saratov Vladimir Denisov Computer science teacher: E.V. Akchurina Interaction in psychology Interaction in psychology is a process of direct

1 OK-5 ability to understand the importance of humanistic values for the preservation and development of modern civilization; willingness to accept moral obligations towards surrounding nature,

I. Abstract 1. Name of the discipline: Psycholinguistics. 2. The purpose and objectives of the discipline The course “Psycholinguistics” contributes to the development of ideas about the evolution of thinking and speech, the formation of thinking in sociogenesis

Abstract of the work program academic discipline“Psychology of Conflict” in the field of training (specialty) 05.40.02 (031001.65) “Law Enforcement” Semester: 3 For full-time study:

As a manuscript Tretyakova Vera Stepanovna Speech conflict and harmonization of communication Specialty 10.02.01 - Russian language Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM higher education academic bachelor's program 45.03.02 Linguistics Qualification assigned to the graduate: bachelor 1. Types of professional activity,

Communication as interaction The interactive side of communication most often manifests itself when organizing joint activities of people. Sharing knowledge and ideas about these activities inevitably involves

Belonozhko A.V. FORMATION OF A COMMUNICATIVE CULTURE OF PERSONALITY IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS Odessa National University Institute of Innovative and Postgraduate Education In this report

UDC: 373.3 STRUCTURE OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE OF JUNIOR SCHOOL CHILDREN S.A. Tigina senior lecturer at the Department of Pedagogy e-mail: [email protected] Eastern Economic and Legal Humanitarian Academy

CONTENTS 1. Explanatory note... 3 2. Educational and thematic plan 7 3. Contents of the program. 9 4. Resource support for the program.. 12 4.1. Methodological support. Techniques and methods of working according to the program

INTEGRATED STRUCTURE OF THE FUNCTION OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN A NON-LINGUISTIC UNIVERSITY Kaverina O.G. Donetsk National Technical University There are many reasons for the interest in the problem of integration of knowledge, and for us

GBPOU "Rzhev College" Presentation on the topic: "Communication in the professional activities of a lawyer" Completed by Student 21P gr. Ershova Anastasia Head Kostina E.A. Rzhev 2016 Relevance of the topic Interaction

Section 4. Social relations Topic 4.2. Social norms and conflicts Lecture 4.2.3. Social conflict Plan 1. Causes, structure and types of social conflicts. 2. Methods of conflict resolution. Social

STUDYING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE AS ONE OF THE MEANS OF SOCIALIZATION OF MEDICAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Kodyakova N.V. Orenburg State Medical Academy, Orenburg In the second half of the 20th century, socialization became

Gender characteristics of the course of conflict Conflictology is a very young science. But she has already declared her rights to sociocultural status (longevity). Such concepts as “organization of cognitive

“SOCIO-COMMUNICATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PRESCHOOL CHILDREN CONCEPTUAL APPROACHES TO DESIGN” How do you understand what “Socio-communicative development” is? Social and communicative development of children relates to

MOVIE AND LITERATURE E. V. ZINKOVICH BUSINESS CONVERSATION AS A GENRE OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION AND FORM OF TRAINING Communication during business contacts within the framework of international cooperation is an important factor determining

MM. Pavlova On the issue of conflict in the pedagogical environment The development of a conflictological culture of society and the individual is a very relevant task in the pedagogical environment. Long-term focus on “conflict-free”

L.A. Veretennikova, Barnaul THE ROLE OF THE ANALYTICAL FUNCTION IN THE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY OF LEADERS OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT Modern direction of development of scientific thought

Nikulina Anna Sergeevna postgraduate student of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Saratov National Research State University named after. N.G. Chernyshevsky" Saratov, Saratov region RELATIONSHIP OF CONCEPTS "CONSCIOUSNESS"

COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE AS A RESULT OF UPDATED CONTENT OF EDUCATION DOCTOR OF PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES, PROFESSOR A.R. BASEMBAYEV COMMUNICATION PROCESS COMMUNICATION PROCESS 1. Participants (who participates

SELF-REALIZATION OF STUDENTS WHEN STUDYING A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN THE PROCESS OF MULTILATERAL COMMUNICATION Zakharyeva L.V. Belarusian State Agrarian Technical University In multilateral communication

Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation FEDERAL STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION “SARATOV NATIONAL RESEARCH STATE UNIVERSITY”

Starchenko Galina Nikolaevna, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Russian Language and Literature, Pavlodar State Pedagogical Institute, Pavlodar, Republic of Kazakhstan CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING MONOLOGICAL SPEECH

B3.+DV2.2 Business contacts and problems of intercultural communication Fund of assessment tools for conducting intermediate certification of students in the discipline (module): General information of Culturology and intercultural

Communicative competence: principles, methods, methods of formation: collection. scientific Art. / Belarusian State University; in ed. ed. Mn., 2009. Issue. 9. 102 p. T. V. Rubanik ABSOLUTION OF EXTRALINGUISTIC TECHNIQUES BY PHILOLOGIST STUDENTS

N.G. Novitskaya teacher of the department in English and teaching methods foreign languages(Mozyr, Republic of Belarus) SPECIAL METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES FOR TEACHING SELF-PRESENTATION IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Conflict management Modern theories and conflict practices Conflict analysis Technologies of conflict management Conflict is Nothing good Conflict is Necessary! Conflict DANGER OPPORTUNITY Conflict management

ORGANIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHER AND STUDENTS Barabanova Z.P. An important factor and condition for an effective educational process is the interaction of its subjects. Interaction

“LINGUISTICS (SECOND FOREIGN LANGUAGE)” GERMAN LANGUAGE B1.V.DV.6.2 The discipline “Linguistics (second foreign language - German)” is intended for students studying in the field of study

8. ASSESSMENT FUND FOR INTERMEDIATE CERTIFICATION OF STUDENTS IN A DISCIPLINE (MODULE) General information 1. Department of Economics and Management, Sociology and Law 2. Direction of training

PEDAGOGY Gavrilov Viktor Viktorovich Ph.D. ped. Sciences, Associate Professor, State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Surgut State Pedagogical University" Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra KEY ASPECTS OF FORMATION OF MOTIVATION IN THE FORMATION PROCESS

UDC 81 1 THE CONCEPT OF “CONFLICT” IN LINGUISTICS: BASIC APPROACHES TO ITS STUDY This article focuses on the study of the interdisciplinary concept of “conflict” in linguistics and existing approaches

Training and metodology complex in social studies 5-6 grades Federal State Educational Standard 5th grade: 1. Social studies. 5th grade: educational. for general education institutions / L. N. Bogolyubov [etc.]; edited by L. N. Bogolyubova, L. F. Ivanova

Required condition. Therefore, people become far from indifferent not only to what to say, but no less, and often more important, more significant, how to say, “how our word will respond” in the mind and heart

Topic 1.1. Human nature, innate and acquired qualities. Lesson topic: The problem of the cognizability of the world. Plan 1. The concept of truth, its criteria. 2. Types of human knowledge. Worldview. Types of worldview.

Federal State Budgetary Institution "Scientific Center for Children's Health" of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences Lecture: ALGORITHM OF ACTIONS OF A NURSE IN A CONFLICT SITUATION I.M. Spivak, E.G. Biryukova

MEMO Conflict management in the electoral process: ways of prevention and elimination Interpersonal conflicts Common features interpersonal conflicts - the presence of at least 2 conflicting parties; -

1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Basic educational program higher education (OOP VO) undergraduate program implemented at the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Moscow aviation institute"(national research university)

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL PROBLEMS OF DESCRIPTION OF SPEECH CONFLICT

1.1. Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem.

1.1.1. Psychological nature of conflict

1.1.2. Social nature of the conflict.

1.1.3. Conflict and the Word.

1.2. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech.

1.2.1. Speech conflict (on the issue of the term).

1.2.2. Factors causing speech conflict.

1.3. Aspects of linguistic description of speech conflict.

1.3.1. Cognitive aspect: script theory and speech conflict script.

1.3.2. Pragmatic aspect: theory of interpretation and speech conflict.

1.3.3. Linguistic and cultural aspect: the theory of communicative norms and speech conflict.

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF DESCRIPTION OF SPEECH CONFLICT

2.1. Speech conflict in the light of the theory of speech activity.

2.2. Principles of speech conflict analysis

CHAPTER 3. SPEECH CONFLICT: MARKERS AND GENRE SCENARIOS

3.1. Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in spacecraft.

3.1.1. Lexico-semantic markers.

3.1.2. Lexical markers.

3.1.3. Grammar markers.

3.2. Pragmatic markers.

3.2.1. Discrepancy between speech action and speech reaction.

3.2.2. Negative speech and emotional reactions

3.3. Conflict communicative act: scenario options.;.

3.3.1. Communication scenarios of threat.

3.3.2. Communicative scripts remarks.

3.3.3. Communication scenarios for unreasonable requests

3.4.-Conditions for selecting a scenario option.213

CHAPTER 4. HARMONIZING SPEECH BEHAVIOR

IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS.

4.1. Personality types based on the ability to cooperate in speech behavior.

4.2. Model as a stereotypical example of speech behavior.

4.3. Models of harmonizing communication.

4.3.1. Models of speech behavior in potentially conflict situations.

4.3.2. Models of speech behavior in situations of conflict risk.

4.3.3. Models of speech behavior in actual conflict situations.

4.4. On the issue of conflict-free communication skills. 269 Conclusions.

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Russian language", 02/10/01 code VAK

Pragmalinguistic features of interpersonal communication in the communicative situation “domestic conflict”: based on the material of the English language 2009, Candidate of Philological Sciences Volkova, Olga Sergeevna
Speech conflict strategies and factors influencing their choice 2005, Candidate of Philological Sciences Mulkeeva, Valeria Olegovna
Communication strategies and tactics of speech behavior in conflict communication situations 2004, Candidate of Philological Sciences Gulakova, Irina Ivanovna
Regulatory speech acts as a factor in the success of dialogue and a component of the communication strategy of communication partners 2004, candidate of philological sciences Rumyantseva, Elena Nikolaevna
Communicative strategies and tactics in conflict situations of communication of everyday and professional pedagogical discourses of Russian and American linguistic cultures 2008, candidate of philological sciences Pevneva, Inna Vladimirovna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Speech conflict and harmonization of communication”

An undoubted result of the democratization of our society has been an increased interest in the problems of national self-awareness, spiritual revival, accompanied by the formation of a new “paradigm of existence,” which is an invisible and intangible reality - a system of human values. Human values are a world of meanings, views, ideas, constituting the core of the spiritual culture of a community of people, developed over generations1. There are different types of cultures, characterized by the fact that they have different value dominants, and in the interaction of people professing different spiritual values, conflicts of cultures and values arise.

1 See various definitions of values: “This is a world of meanings, thanks to which a person joins something more important and enduring than his own empirical existence” [Zdravomyslov 1996: 149]; “These are social, psychological views shared by the people and inherited by each new generation” [Sternin 1996: 17]; “They arise on the basis of knowledge and information, a person’s life experience and represent a personally colored attitude towards the world” [Gurevich 1995: 120]. also in the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of good and bad, structuring our experience and turning our actions into actions, are blurring; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to the revolutionary situation are born: the mobilization of new values, the actualization of the values of the immediately preceding socio-political period, the actualization of culturally determined values that have deep roots in the social consciousness of society [Baranov 1990a: 167].

This process is accompanied by increased social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, according to psychologists, loss of integrating identification, loss of hope and life perspective, the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life [Sosnin 1997: 55]. There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and devaluation of others, the introduction of new cultural values into the cultural space [Kupina, Shalina 1997: 30]. Such a psychological state gives rise to various negative emotions: “For today's Russians it is “despair”, “fear”, “anger”, “disrespect”” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]; a certain reaction to the source of disappointment arises, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this condition; there is a desire to release accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts. As V.I. Shakhovsky notes, emotions, being an important element of culture, “are verbalized both in the social and emotional index, consonant with chronotopic national trends, through the corresponding emotive signs of language” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]. Thus, a person’s mental state and mood are reflected in his linguistic consciousness and take on verbalized forms of existence.

A person’s communicative behavior is determined by social (economic and political) factors; they influence the psychological state of the individual and influence the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. Description of the factors that determine the speech behavior of an individual in a conflict zone, the study of the linguistic, social and psychological nature of speech conflict belongs to the priority and promising direction of various fields of knowledge and is at the initial stage of study. Despite the breadth and diversity of research into effective communicative behavior, this problem has not received complete coverage. The need to study optimal ways of teaching corporate, harmonious speech behavior, speech tactics for regulating behavior in conflict situations determines the appeal to the study of social and communicative interaction in conditions of speech conflict.

The dissertation work is devoted to a comprehensive study of speech conflict, identifying its linguistic specificity.

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to develop theoretical foundations and practical methods for the linguistic study of conflict and harmonious social-communicative interaction and the unresolved nature of this most important problem in relation to the modern language situation. Today, the interaction of linguistics with other sciences, multidimensionality and complexity in the study of both the process of speech activity and its result are relevant. It is this comprehensive approach that is implemented in the dissertation research. The author focuses on the “speaking person,” whose speech activity accumulates certain sociocultural states. The study of speech conflict is carried out within the framework of all leading areas of modern linguistics: linguocognitive, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and linguocultural. Increased interest in the problems of speech conflict and harmonization of speech communication was also expressed within the framework of a new branch of anthropocentric linguistics - speech conflictology.

However, despite the intensification of research in the field of linguistic conflictology [Andreev 1992, Speech aggression. 1997, Aspects of speech conflictology 1996,

The subject of research in the dissertation is the semantic structure of conflicting and harmoniously marked communicative acts (conversational dialogues) as a set of speech actions performed by communicants. They represent integral dialogical unities, characterized by unity of form and content, coherence and completeness, and ensuring the implementation of the author's plan. The focus here is on linguistic and speech activity means of expressing conflicting and harmonious speech behavior of communicants. The subject of attention is also cognitive structures (knowledge about a fragment of the world, including a communicative situation) as a source of verbalized conflict.

The materials under study are dialogues reproduced in fiction and periodical literature, as well as live spoken dialogues of Ural citizens, recorded by the author and teachers; graduate students and students of the Ural State Pedagogical University. The volume of the studied material is 400 text fragments, which in written form is more than 200 pages of printed text. The collection of live conversational material was carried out in natural communication conditions using the method of participant observation and the method of hidden recording.

In the process of selecting material for the study, the author was guided by the methodological provisions on the national and cultural specifics of communication. The author's attention was drawn to colloquial dialogues, in which Russian verbal communication is reflected extremely accurately. The source of the material was the realistic prose of modern Russian writers and the speech of native Russian speakers in relaxed verbal communication. Texts from Russian classical literature are sometimes used for comparison.

Goals and objectives of the work. The main goal of the work is to build a holistic, consistent concept of speech conflict and harmonization of communication, identifying the features of their manifestation in Russian linguistic culture. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to solve the following main tasks:

1) justify the concept of “speech conflict”;

2) determine the essence and main features of speech conflict as a cognitive and linguocultural phenomenon, verbally formalized in a text type, built according to the canons of Russian society;

3) establish the denotative space of the speech conflict and the factors determining the origin, development and resolution of the speech conflict;

4) identify and describe linguistic and pragmatic indicators (markers) of communicative failure and speech conflict in recorded texts;

5) create a classification of speech strategies and tactics according to the type of dialogic interaction (conflict and harmonious);

6) determine the role of an individual’s personal qualities in the development and resolution of a conflict-generating communicative situation, create a unified classification of linguistic individuals according to their ability to cooperate in dialogic interaction;

7) develop parameters and identify components of cultural and communicative scenarios, build scenarios that are most indicative of the conflict of speech genres;

8) build basic models of harmonizing speech behavior in various conflict-type situations.

The dissertation research is based on the hypothesis of a speech conflict as a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is realized by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict occurs according to standard scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguocultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior.

Methodological basis and research methods. The concept of speech conflict as a communicative, social and cultural phenomenon caused by linguistic and extralinguistic factors is based on the general principles of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and the theory of linguistic communication [L. S. Vygotsky, N. I. Zhinkin, L. P. Krysin, A. A. Leontiev, A. N. Leontiev, E. F. Tarasov, etc.].

B. 3. Demyankov, V. V. Dementyev, E. S. Kubryakova, J. La-koff, T. V1 Matveeva, J. Austin, V. V. Petrov, Yu. S. Stepanov, J. Searle, I P. Susov, M. Yu. Fedosyuk, T. V. Shmeleva, etc.], as well as speech conflictology [B. Y. Gorodetsky, I. M. Kobozeva, I. G. Saburova, P. Grice, N. D. Golev, T. G. Grigorieva, O. P. Ermakova, E. A. Zemskaya,

S.G. Ilyenko, N.G. Komlev, Culture of Russian speech.,. T. M. Nikolaeva, E. V. Paducheva, G. G. Pocheptsov, K. F. Sedov, E. N. Shiryaev, etc.].

Modern works on linguistic conceptology and the linguistic picture of the world were essential for the construction of a scientific hypothesis and the development of research problems [N. D. Arutyunova, A. N. Baranov, T. V. Bulygina,

A. Wierzbicka, G. E. Kreidlin, A. D. Shmelev, etc.].

The implementation of the methodological position, important for the author, about the national-cultural specificity of language and speech, the linguistic consciousness of native speakers, was carried out based on research in the field of the history of Russian linguistic culture [M. M. Bakhtin, V. I. Zhelvis, Yu. N. Karaulov,

V. G. Kostomarov, Yu. M. Lotman, S. E. Nikitina, I. A. Sternin, A. P. Skovorodnikov, R. M. Frumkina, R. O. Yakobson, etc.].

The dissertation research uses, first of all, those methods of analysis of linguistic material that have been developed and shown to be effective within the framework of communicative studies of language and text stylistics [M. N. Kozhina, N. A. Kupina, L. M. Maydanova, T. V. Matveeva, Yu. A. Sorokin, etc.]. A comprehensive study of spoken dialogue (interpersonal communication) is based on methods of scientific observation and linguistic description, variants of which are methods of discourse and text analysis. Discourse analysis is carried out based on the basic provisions of the theory of speech activity [L. S. Vygotsky, N. I. Zhinkin, A. A. Leontiev, A. N. Leontiev, etc.].

The integrated application of these methods is intended to ensure a multidimensional linguistic analysis of the material under study.

Theoretical significance and scientific novelty of the research. The dissertation takes a comprehensive systematic approach to the study of one of the most important manifestations of interpersonal communication - speech conflict against the background of harmonious speech communication. This approach allows us to understand the nature and mechanisms of functioning of this phenomenon, reveal its deep cause-and-effect relationships, and argue for the functional features of a conflict statement due to the unity of linguistic, psychological (personal) and social.

The following main provisions are submitted for defense:

1. A speech conflict is the embodiment of the confrontation between communicants in a communicative event, conditioned by mental, social and ethical factors, the extrapolation of which occurs in the speech tissue of the dialogue. Systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe a speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad-contextual manner.

2. In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain standard structure - a frame, including mandatory components (slots): participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, values, goals, etc.) among communicants; reason - reason; damage"; temporal and spatial extent.

3. Conflict is a communicative event occurring over time that can be presented in dynamics. Methods of such representation include, firstly, a script, reflecting the development of the “main plots” of interaction within the framework of a stereotypical situation, and, secondly, a speech genre with typical linguistic structures. Scenario technology makes it possible to trace the stages of conflict development: its origin, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. Analysis of the conflict speech genre shows which linguistic means were chosen by the conflicting parties depending on their intention. The script establishes a standard set of methods of action, as well as their sequence in the development of a communicative event; the speech genre is built according to well-known thematic, compositional and stylistic canons enshrined in linguistic culture. This ensures the predictability of speech behavior in various communication situations. The dynamic structuring of conflict on the basis of these terms has explanatory power for recognizing potential conflict situations, risk situations and conflict situations themselves, as well as for forecasting and modeling by communicants both the situation itself and their behavior in it.

4. A native speaker is a linguistic personality who has his own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by script and genre stereotyping and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type of linguistic personality and communicative experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, on the traditions of communication established in Russian linguistic culture and norms of speech behavior .

5. The outcome (result) of a communicative situation - the post-communicative phase - is characterized by consequences arising from all previous stages of development of the communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions determined in the pre-communicative stage between the participants in the communicative act, and the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used in the communicative stage .

6. Among the linguistic means, the conflict communicative act (CCA) is especially clearly marked by lexical-semantic and grammatical units. They most clearly reflect the national characteristics of the conflict. They form the content and structure of CCA and are expressive markers of speech conflict.

7. A special group is formed by pragmatic markers of CCA, which are “calculated” on the basis of a comparison of linguistic and speech structures and the communicative context and are determined by the psychological and emotional effect that arises among the participants in the communicative act. They are associated with various kinds of inconsistencies, misunderstandings and violations of any rules or intuitively felt patterns of speech communication. These include the discrepancy between the speech action and the speech reaction, negative speech and emotional reactions, which create the effect of disappointed expectations in the communicative act.

8. The speech behavior of conflict participants is based on speech strategies of cooperation or confrontation, the choice of which determines the outcome (result) of conflict communication.

9. The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation - speech tactics. There is a strict correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: proposals, consent, concessions, approval, praise, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

10. There are two-valued tactics that can be both cooperative and conflicting, depending on the framework of which strategy, cooperative or confrontational, this tactic is used. Double-valued tactics include tactics of lies, irony, flattery, bribery, remarks, requests, changing the topic, etc.

The practical significance of the study is associated with the possibility of using speech material and the results of its description in teaching courses in speech culture, rhetoric, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, as well as special courses in communication theory and functional linguistics. The patterns of dialogic communication described in the work can serve as a theoretical basis for the formation of communicative competence and speech culture of a linguistic personality; they are also essential for teaching Russian spoken dialogue to foreigners. The developed models of harmonizing speech behavior in conflict situations of various types can be used in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

Approbation of research results. The results of the study were presented at international, all-Russian, regional scientific conferences in Yekaterinburg (1996-2003), Smolensk (2000), Kurgan (2000), Moscow (2002), Abakan (2002), etc. The main provisions of the work were discussed at the department of Russian, language of the Ural State Pedagogical University (USPU), at scientific seminars and meetings of the department of linguistics and methods of teaching the Russian language of USPU.

Structure of the dissertation. The text of the dissertation research consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources of researched materials and a bibliography.

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Russian language”, Tretyakova, Vera Stepanovna

The identified models of speech behavior are structures that reflect in a generalized form the individual communicative experience of native speakers, members of a given ethnocultural community in specific communication situations. They are abstracted from specific situations and personal experience, and due to “decontextualization” they make it possible to cover a wide range of similar situations that have a number of primary parameters (it is impossible to take everything into account). Speech behavior patterns have varying degrees clichés depending on the type of conflict situation. The simplest in structure are models of harmonization of communication of the first type of situations - potentially conflicting ones. They can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual motivation + the reason for the motivation + justification for the importance of the motivation + etiquette formulas (Please do (don’t do) this because.).

In other situations - in situations of conflict risk and conflict itself - models are more variable, since they are determined by the context of the situation and represent various kinds of creative combinations of communication tactics aimed at neutralizing conflict and harmonizing communication. Nevertheless, it is possible to construct a typology of communicative tactics (main, supporting) used in situations of this kind, and a typology of compositions of these tactics, taking into account the most important parameters of the communicative situation. Conducting communicators in situations of this type requires them to possess a rich repertoire of constructive tactics and the ability to use them creatively. Each model contains the basic postulates of communication, in particular, the postulates of quality of communication (do no harm to your partner), quantity (communicate significant true facts), relevance (consider your partner’s expectations), which represent the basic principle of communication - the principle of cooperation. Other leading principles of successful interaction are the principle of politeness and etiquette of communication (increasing the “image” of the partner), as well as cooperation (focusing on oneself and on the other).

Like scenarios and frames, models allow the existence of variable parameters aimed at their adjustment in the form of additions or replacements of certain components of the model. In real speech life, a creative approach to the use of this type of model in each specific case is implied.

CONCLUSION

Speech conflictology is a science that studies human speech behavior, projected not only into the field of linguistic, but also cognitive, pragmatic and linguocultural knowledge. Understanding and systematizing the features of speech behavior in a conflict type of interaction involves systematizing features taking into account the properties of communication, both facilitating communication and preventing effective communication. These signs and properties are realized in communication by speech structures that reflect the action of social, psychological and linguistic factors, as well as the communicative potential of the individual.

At the center of the concept presented in the work is, first of all, the definition of fixed indicators (markers) of speech conflict - linguistic (lexical, lexical-semantic and grammatical) and pragmatic (speech-activity and script). These indicators represent different types of individuals in terms of communicative ability for cooperation in speech behavior and harmonization of communication in diverse areas of social interaction. Based on the identified markers of speech conflict and personality types of communicants, a multiplicity of parameters and components of communication scenarios and speech models of harmonization of potentially and actually conflict communication is determined, the construction of which reflects the objective complexity of planning speech behavior in a conflict communicative act - individual, creative and, in this regard, sometimes difficult predictable process of spontaneous communication. At the same time, it is regulated by society, namely by the norms, rituals, conventions and cultural and communicative traditions established in it. This allows the communicator to recognize situations, predict and model his behavior in them. Thus, speech behavior in a conflict reflects a typical (stereotypical) situational breakdown into its constituent elements; it is framed and scripted.

The “conflict” frame represents a special stereotypical situation and includes the obligatory components of the reflecting object (the upper level of the “conflict” frame): participants in a conflict situation whose interests are in conflict; a collision (of goals, views, positions, points of view), revealing their contradiction or inconsistency; speech actions of one of the participants in a conflict situation aimed at changing the behavior or state of the interlocutor; resistance to the speech actions of another participant through one’s own speech actions; harm that is caused by a participant's speech acts and that another experiences as a result of said speech acts. Optional components of the “conflict” frame (lower level) can be represented by the following slots: temporal length, reflecting violations of the temporal sequence characteristic of the standard description of a communication situation; spatial extent, associated with a violation of the spatial representation of the speech situation and introducing deception into the communicative expectations of one of the participants in the communication situation; a third party who may not be a direct participant in the conflict, but may be its culprit, instigator, organizer or “arbiter” and significantly influence the outcome of the communicative situation. The described genre scenarios of threats, remarks and unreasonable requests represent the “conflict” frame in its development. They reflect the patterns of speech behavior in a typical communication situation and, embodied in the speech strategies and tactics of speakers, are formalized by the corresponding speech structures. These speech structures are called in this work models of speech behavior. At the same time, the non-rigidity of such models is noted. They allow for the existence of variable components that could be creatively conceptualized and adjusted by the individual.

Any model is a simpler construct compared to the reflected object. This fully applies to spontaneous speech communication. The models we have developed in three types of potentially and actually conflict situations capture a level of generalization that allows, in our opinion, to use them in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

The establishment of factors influencing the process of discourse management and determining the nature of interaction in a communicative act made it possible to determine aspects of the analysis of speech conflict. We have tried to formulate a number of principles and methods for analyzing conflicting statements. These are linguocognitive, pragmatic-interpretive and contextual principles, the basis of which made it possible to present a conflict communicative act (CCA) as the intentions, goals and intentions of its participants objectively realized in it and to correlate the interpretation of the CCA with a broad linguocultural context. The use of complex research methods that correspond to our concept - interpretive, scenario analysis, discourse analysis, and the method of expert opinions - made it possible to obtain objective, in our opinion, data on the manifestations of speech conflict considered in the work. They can also be applied to other communicative situations that occur in reality, but have not been analyzed in the work.

The presented linguistic theory of speech conflict, as well as markers, genre scenarios and models of harmonizing speech behavior in it, have important theoretical and practical significance for explaining the specifics of producing effective texts, for understanding and expressing the interaction between people, bearers of different positions, views, values, cultural and other ideals. The development of problems of speech conflict draws attention to the study of linguistic and rhetorical disciplines, which provide linguistic and speech material that allows flexible and varied expression of a person’s communicative needs, ensuring the adequacy of mutual understanding: and a qualitatively positive result in the process of speech communication.

The prospect of this work can be seen in the use of models of communication harmonization as a technology of tolerance in disharmonious communicative acts. However, the list of specific language units and speech structures functioning in CCA remains open. New types of communicative situations, new ways to achieve communicative goals, identification of new factors that determine the process of communication management can become the basis for further presentation of the essential features and properties of speech conflict and the ideal of speech communication.

Models and scenarios of conflict-free communication are applicable for linguodidactic purposes. The development and presentation of ways to enrich the social and individual experience of the communicant with models and scenarios, means and methods that allow solving communicative problems in the zone of communication harmony, make it possible to motivate and expediently use them in teaching.

The main task of such training is to update the social and personal communicative experience of students, adjust it and enrich the individual repertoire with new, most productive models. In this we see one of the ways to form the linguistic and communicative competence of speakers. The acquisition of behavioral skills is based on knowledge of the theory of harmonious speech communication, which is impossible without a clear understanding of the factors that impede the harmony of communication. This theory should become active knowledge that determines socio-psychological and communicative attitudes towards cooperation in speech interaction. The systematization of linguistic and pragmatic markers of conflict, communicative scenarios and models of harmonization of conflict communication proposed in this work is aimed at understanding and mastering ways of responding to verbal aggression, and ultimately, at civilized behavior in difficult life situations.

The accumulation of experience in describing scenario types of speech conflict and models of speech behavior in a given situation will certainly make it possible in the future to more fully present the object of our research - the conflict communicative act in its speech expression.

Main text sources

Averchenko A. T. Knight of Industry // Selected stories. M., 1985.

Bogdanov £ Risk group // Friendship of Peoples. 1989. No. 6.

Gogol N.V. The story of how Ivan Ivanovich quarreled with Ivan Nikiforovich // Selected works. M. (1987.

Kolyada N. Murlin Murlo // Kolyada N. Plays for your favorite theater. Ekaterinburg, 1994:

Kolyada N. Night blindness // Kolyada N. Persian lilac and other plays. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

Kolyada N. Rugs and wadding // Ibid.

Kunin V. Ivanov and Rabinovich, or “Ay go tu Haifa!” St. Petersburg, 1994.

Malysheva A. Who will come to kill me? M„ 1998.

Malysheva A. Lovers by inheritance. M„ 1998.

Nikonov N. My eleventh worker: (A story told by the class teacher). M., 1980.

Petrushevskaya L. Vanya the Goat // Petrushevskaya L. The Last Man's Ball: Selected Prose. M., 1996.

Polonsky G. We'll Live Until Monday, or Chaadaev's Candlestick. Drama due to lyrics // Polonsky G. Tutor: Plays. M., 1984:

Rybakov A. Children of Arbat: A Novel. Yoshkar-Ola, 1988.

Filatov L. Cuckoo clock. Freedom or death. Sons of bitches // Poems, songs, parodies, fairy tales, plays, film stories. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

Dictionaries and reference books"

Dal V.I. Dictionary of the living Great Russian language: In 4 volumes. M., 1978-1980.

Kubryakova E. S., Demyankov V. Z., Pankrats Yu. G., Luzina L. G. Brief dictionary cognitive terms. M., 1996.

Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary/ Ed. V. N. Yartseva. M., 1990.

Dictionary of the Russian language: In 4 volumes. M., 1981-1984.

Phrasebook Russian language // Ed. A. I. Molotkova. M., 1978.

Dictionary of foreign words. M., 1988.

List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Philological Sciences Tretyakova, Vera Stepanovna, 2003

1. Abulkhanova K. A. Russian mentality: cross-cultural and typological approaches // Russian mentality: questions of psychological theory and practice. M;, 1997.

2. Agafonov Yu. L. Contact-establishing statements // MGPIIYA. M., 1986. Issue. 67.

3. Adam A. The war instinct does not exist // Psychological Journal. 1984. No. 1.

4. Azaev E. Ch. Development of communicative abilities of political leaders: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philosopher Sci. M., 1995.

5. Akimova O. B. Semantics of uncertainty and means of its expression in the Russian language. M., 1999.

6. Alekseev A. A., Gromov A: A. Do not get me wrong, or a book about how to find your own thinking style, effectively use intellectual resources and gain mutual understanding with people. St. Petersburg, 1993.

7. Altunyan A. About the gatherers of the Russian land: Zhirinovsky as a publicist: (Analysis of a political article) // Issues. lit., 1996. March-April.

8. Anisimova £ £ Communicative-pragmatic norms // Philol. Sciences. 1988. No. 6.

9. Antsupov A. Ya., Shipilov A. I. Conflictology: Textbook for universities. M., 1999.

11. Aristotle. Rhetoric //Ancient rhetoric. M:, 1978.

12. Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. M., 1976-1984. T. 4:

13. Arnold I.V. Stylistics of the modern English language. M., 1981.

14. Arutyunova N. D. The concept of presupposition in linguistics // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1973. No. 1 (Serial lit. and language).

15. Arutyunova N. D. Addressee factor // Ibid. 1981. T. 40, No. 4 (Serial lit. and language).

16. Arutyunova N. D. Strategy and tactics of speech behavior // Pragmatic aspects of the study of sentences and text. Kyiv, 1983.

17. Arutyunova N.D. Origins, problems and categories of pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

18. Arutyunova N. D. Types of linguistic meanings. Grade. Event. Fact. M:, 1988.

19. Arutyunova N. D. The phenomenon of the second remark, or On the benefits of a dispute // Logical analysis of language. Vol. 3: Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. M., 1990.

20. Arutyunova N. D. Genres of communication // Human factor in language: Communication, modality, deixis. M. (1992a.

21. Arutyunova N. D. Dialogical modality and the phenomenon of citation // Human factor in language: Communication, modality, deixis. M., 19926.

22. Arutyunova N. D. Speech behavioral facts and truth. True assessment in the context of dialogue//Human factor in language: Communication, modality, deixis. M., 1992c.

23. Arutyunova N. D. From the editor // Logical analysis of language. Language of speech actions. M., 1994.

24. Asmolov A. G. Activity and installation. M. born 1979.

25. Atwater I. Ya. I’m listening to you: Advice to a leader on how to listen to your interlocutor correctly. M., 1987.

26. Akhutina T.V. Theory of speech communication in the works of M.M. Bakhtin and L.V. Vygotsky // Vestn. Moscow State University. 1984. No. 3. (Ser. 14).

27. Bayburin A.K. Some issues in the ethnographic study of behavior // Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. L., 1985.

28. Bayramukov R. M. Speech effect of threat in the stories of V. M. Shukshin: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Stavropol, 2001.

29. Bakshtanovsky V.I., Sogomonov Yu.V., Churilov V.A. Ethics of political success. Tyumen, 1997.

30. Baranov A: A., Kazakevich E L Parliamentary debates: traditions and innovations. M;, 1991.

31. Baranov A. N. Political argumentation and value structures of public consciousness // Language and social cognition. M., 1990a.

32. Baranov A. N. Linguistic theory of argumentation (cognitive approach): Author's abstract. dis. Dr. Philol. Sci. M.*, 19906.

33. Baranov A. G. Functional-pragmatic concept of text. Rostov n/d., 1993.

34. Baranov A. G. Cogniotypicality of the genre // Stylistyka VI. Opole, 1997a.

35. Baranov A. L. Cogniotypicality of the text: On the problem of levels of abstraction of textual activity // Genres of speech. Saratov, 19976.

36. Baranov A. N., Kreidlin G. E. Illocutionary coercion in the structure of dialogue // Issues. lit. 1992. No. 2.

37. Baranov A. N., Dobrovolsky D. O. Postulates of cognitive semantics // Izv. AN. 1997. T. 56, No. 1 (Serial lit. and language).

38. Baranov A. N., Kreidlin G. B. The structure of a dialogic text: lexical indicators of minimal dialogues // Issue. linguistics. 1996. No. 3.

39. Baranov A. N., Parshin P. B. Towards the construction of a dictionary of terms in cognitive science // Cognitive research abroad: Methods of artificial intelligence. M., 1990.

40. Barannikova L. I Formation of modern scientific paradigm in linguistics. Functional approach to language // Language and Society. Saratov, 1995. Issue. 10.

41. Barnet V. Language norm in social communication // The problem of norm in Slavic literary languages in synchronous and diachronic aspects. M., 1976.

42. Bart R. Selected works. Semiotics. Poetics. M., 1989.

43. Bakhtin M. M. The problem of text in linguistics, philology and others humanities. Experience of philosophical analysis // Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M:, 1979.

44. Bakhtin M: M. The problem of speech genres // Collection. cit.: In 7 vols. M.!, 1996a. T. 5.

45. Bakhtin M. M. From archival records to the work “The Problem of Speech Genres” // Ibid.

46. Bell R. M. Sociolinguistics: goals, methods, problems. M. born 1980.

47. Belunova N. I. Comfort of verbal communication (Friendly letter) // Rus. language at school 1996. No. 5.

48. Benveniste E. General linguistics. M., 1974.

49. Berkeley-Alain M. The Forgotten Art of Listening. St. Petersburg, 1997.

50. Bern E. Games that people play; People who play games. M., 1997.

51. Blazhes V.V. Language game in etiquette speech behavior of townspeople // Living speech of the Ural city. M., 1990.

52. Blakar R. M. Language as an instrument of social power // Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987.

53. Bogdanov V.V. Functions of verbal and non-verbal components in verbal communication // Language communication: Units and regulations. Kalinin, 1987.

54. Bogdanov V.V. Classification of speech acts // Personal aspects of speech communication. Kalinin, 1989a.

55. Bogdanov V. I am Communicators // Vestn. Kharkiv un-ta. 19896. No. 339.

56. Bogdanov V.V. Communicative competence and communicative leadership // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990a.

57. Bogdanov V.V. Speech communication: Pragmatic and semantic aspects. L., 19906.

58. Bogin G. I Typology of text understanding: Textbook. allowance. Kalinin, 1986.

59. Bogin G. I Schemes of the reader’s actions when understanding the text: Textbook. allowance. Kalinin, 1989.

60. Bogin G.I. Speech genre as a means of individuation // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

61. Bogushevich D: G. Experience in classifying episodes of verbal communication // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

62. Bodalev A. A. Perception and understanding of man by man. M., 1982.

63. Bodalev A. A. Psychology of communication. Moscow; Voronezh, 1996. Bondarko A. V. Towards the analysis of categorical situations in the sphere of modality: imperative situations // Theory of functional grammar: Temporality. Modality. L., 1990.

64. Bonetskaya N.K. Philosophy of dialogue by M. Bakhtin // Rhetoric. 1995. No. 2.

65. Borisova I. N. Discursive strategies in conversational dialogue // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

66. Borisova I. N. The value of conversational text in the light of categorical comparisons // Stylistyka VI. 1997. Opole, 1997.

67. Borisova Yu., BorisovA. Verbal porn//Arguments and facts. 1998. No. 41.

68. Borodkin F. M., Koryak N. M. Attention: conflict! Novosibirsk, 1989.

69. BorovikN. M. Conflict and pedagogical influence // Master I. 1993. No. 6.

70. Brown L. Image: the path to success. St. Petersburg, 1996.

71. Brudny A. A. Towards the theory of communicative influence // Theoretical and methodological problems social psychology. M., 1977. Brushlinsky A.V., Polikarpov V.A. Thinking and communication. Minsk, 1990.

72. Bulygina T.V. On the boundaries and content of pragmatics // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1981. T. 40, No. 4 (Serial lit. and language).

73. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Evaluative speech genres from the outside and from the inside // Logical analysis of language: Language of speech actions. M., 1994.

74. Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Language conceptualization of the world (on the material of Russian grammar). M. born 1997.

75. Baron R., Richardson D. Aggression. St. Petersburg, 1997. Weinrich X. Linguistics of lies // Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987.

76. Varzonin Yu. N. Personal characteristics of an ironic speaker // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

77. Vasiliev L. G. Language communication and human factor// Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

78. Conducting political discussions: Psychological analysis conflict speeches. M., 1995.

79. Wierzbicka A. Metatext in the text // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1978. Issue. 8.

80. Wierzbicka A: Speech acts // Ibid. M., 1985, Issue. 16. Wierzbicka A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M., 1996. Vezhbicka A. Speech acts // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

81. Vendler ^.Illocutionary suicide // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

82. Vepreva I. T. Conversational norm: in search of new criteria // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

83. Vereshchagin E. M. Tactical-situational approach to speech behavior (behavioral situation “threat”) // Russistik (Berlin). 1990. No. 1.

84. Vereshchagin E. M., Roitmar R., Reuter T. Speech tactics of “call for frankness” // Issues. Linguistics 1992. No. 6.

85. Vereshchagin E. M., Kostomarov V. G. Language and culture. M., 1973.

86. Vinogradov V.V. Modern Russian language. MG, 19387 Issue. 2.

87. Vinokur T. G. Speaker and listener. Variants of speech behavior. M., 1993a.

88. Vinokur T. G. Informative and phatic speech as the detection of different communicative intentions of the speaker and listener // Russian language in its functioning: Communicative-pragmatic aspect. M., 19936.

89. Vinokur T. G. To characterize the speaker: Intention and reaction // Language and personality. M., 1989.

90. Wittgenstein L. Logical-philosophical treatise. M., 1958.

91. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical studies // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

92. Vitt N.V. On the issue of the relationship between intellectual processes and functional state //Linguistic and psychological justification for teaching foreign languages: Abstracts. report conf. M., 1971.

93. Vitt N.V. Emotional regulation of speech: Author's abstract. dis. . Dr. psychol. Sci. M.\ 1988.

94. Vlasenko V.V. Psychology of mutual evaluative relations between teachers and students of senior school age: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. ped. Sci. L., 1981.

95. Voiskutinsky A. I say, we speak. M., 1990.

96. Volkov A. A. Fundamentals of Russian rhetoric. M., 1996.

97. Volkov A. A. Course of Russian rhetoric. M;, 2001.

98. Wolf E. M. Functional semantics of assessment. M., 1985.

99. Vygotsky L. S. Psychology of art. M., 1969.

100. Gavrilova T. P. What prevents people from hearing each other? // Master I. 1993. No. 1.

101. Gak V. G. Statement and situation // Problems of structural linguistics. M., 1972.

102. Gak V. G. Space of thought (experience of systematization of words of the mental field) // Logical analysis of language: Mental actions. M;, 1993.

103. Gapaktionova I.V. Means of expressing consent // Ideographic aspects of Russian grammar. Mm 1988.

104. Gasteva N. N. Dialogical unity in colloquial speech: Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Saratov, 1990.

105. Gasteva N. N. Dialogical unity with a stating initial! remark in the speech genre of “friendly conversation” // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

106. Gaft R. //. Dialogical reactions as a reflection of the perception of a speech act // Dialogue interaction and knowledge representation. Novosibirsk, 1985.

107. Gvozdev A. N. Essays on the stylistics of the Russian language. M., 1955.

108. Gerasimov V.I., Petrov V.V. On the way to a cognitive model of language // New in foreign linguistics: Cognitive aspects of language. M.r. 1988. Issue. 23.

109. Germanova N. N. Communicative strategy of compliment and problems of typology of speech etiquettes // Language and model of the world. M., 1993. Issue. 416.

110. Glovinskaya M. Ya. Russian speech acts with the meaning of mental influence // Logical analysis of language: Mental actions. M., 1993.

111. Golev N. D. Legal aspect of language in linguistic coverage // Jurislinguistics-1: problems and prospects: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Ed. N. D. Goleva. Barnaul, 1999.

112. Golod V.I., Shakhnarovich A.M. Semantic aspects of speech generation. Semantics in the ontogenesis of speech activity // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1982. T. 41, No. 3 (Serial lit. and language).

113. Goldin V. E., Syrotinina O. Ya. Intranational speech cultures and their interaction // Questions of stylistics. Saratov, 1993. Issue. 26.

114. Goldin V. E Names of speech events, actions and genres of Russian speech // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

115. Gordon D., Lakoff J. Postulates of speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

116. Gorelov I. N. Nonverbal components of thinking and communication and the functional basis of speech // UZTGU. Tartu, 1984. Vol. 688.

117. Gorelov I.N., Zhitnikov V.F., Zyudko M.V. et al. Can you communicate? M., 1991.

118. Gorelov I. N., Sedov K. F. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. M., 1998.

119. Gorodetsky B. Yu., Kobozeva I. M., Saburova I. G. On the typology of communicative failures // Dialogue interaction and knowledge representation. Novosibirsk, 1985.

120. Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M., 1984.

121. Gorokhova S.I. Psycholinguistic features of the mechanism of speech production according to speech errors: Abstract of thesis. dis. Ph.D. psy-hol. Sci. M., 1986.

122. Gottlieb N. B. Semantic-pragmatic features of statements that do not allow explication of the performative: Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Lm 1989.

123. Grice G. P. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

124. Grigorieva T. G. Fundamentals of constructive communication: Workshop. Novosibirsk, 1997.

125. Grigorieva T. G., L and some L. V., Usoltseva T. P. Fundamentals of constructive communication: Method, manual for teachers: Novosibirsk, 1997.

126. Gridina T. A. Language game: stereotype and creativity. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

127. Gridina T. A., Tretyakova V. S. Principles of linguocognitive analysis of conflict statements // Jurislinguistics III-IV: Collection. scientific tr. Barnaul, 2002.

128. Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. St. Petersburg, 2000.

129. Hofmanova J., Mullerova O. Mixing literary and non-literary components in oral utterances in the Czech language // Language. Culture. Ethnos. M., 1994;

130. Gudkov D. B., Krasnykh V. V. Russian cultural space and intercultural communication // Scientific. report Philol. Faculty of Moscow State University. M., 1998. Issue. 2.

131. Danilov S. Yu. Speech genre of elaboration in totalitarian culture: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 2001.

132. Devkin V.D. On the types of non-literary speech // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M., 1984.

133. Dyck T. A. van. Language. Cognition. Communication. M., 1989.

134. Dyck T. A. van, Kinch V. Strategies for understanding connected text // New in foreign linguistics: Cognitive aspects of language. M., 1983. Issue. 23.

135. Dementyev V.V. Genres of phatic communication // House of Being: Almanac on Anthropological Linguistics. Saratov, 1995. Issue. 2.

136. Dementiev V.V. Phatic and informative communicative plans and communicative intentions: problems of communicative competence and typology of speech genres // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

137. Dementyev V.V. Study of speech genres: Review of works in modern Russian studies // Issues. linguistics. 1997. No. -1.

138. Dementiev V.V. Indirect communication and its genres. Saratov, 2000.

139. Dementyev V.V., Sedov K.F. Sociopragmatic aspect of the theory of speech genres: Textbook. allowance. Saratov, 1998.

140. Demyankov V. 3. Convention, rules and strategies of communication (interpretive approach to argumentation) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1982. T. 41, No. 4 (Serial lit. and language).

141. Demyankov V. 3. Understanding as an interpretive activity // Issue. linguistics. 1983. No. 6.

142. Demyankov V. 3. Misunderstanding as a violation of social regulations // Language and social cognition. M., 1990.

143. Dmitriev A., Kudryavtsev V., Kudryavtsev S. Introduction to the general theory of conflicts // Legal conflictology. M., 1993. Part 1.

144. Dobrovich A. B. Role model of interpersonal communication // UZTGU. Tartu, 1984. Vol. 688.

145. Dobrovich A. B. To the teacher about the psychology and psychohygiene of communication. M., 1987.

146. Domostroy: Based on manuscripts of the Imperial Public Library / Ed. V. Yakovleva; Ed. D. E. Kozhanchikova. SPb.," 1867.

147. Doronina S. V. Content and internal form of Russian game texts: cognitive-activity aspect (based on anecdotes and speech jokes): Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Barnaul, 2000.

148. Dotsenko E. P. Psychology of manipulation. M., 1996.

149. Dridze T. M. Language and social psychology: Textbook. allowance. M. born 1980.

150. Dridze T. M. Text activity in the structure of social communication. M., 1984.

151. Durin V. P. Contradiction and conflict (methodological foundations). St. Petersburg, 1994.

152. Dana D. Overcoming disagreements. St. Petersburg, 1994.

153. Jedlicka A. Literary language in modern communication // New in foreign linguistics. M„ 1988. Issue. 20.

154. Jedlicka.A. Types of norms of linguistic communication // Ibid.

155. Emelyanov S. M. Workshop on conflict management. St. Petersburg, 2001.

156. Emelyanov Yu. N. Training in parity dialogue. L., 1991.

157. Ermakova O. P. Nominations in vernacular // Urban vernacular: Problems of study. M., 1984.

158. Ermakova O. P. Verbalized irony in natural dialogue // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

159. Ermakova O. P., Zemskaya E. A. Towards the construction of a typology of communicative failures (based on the material of natural Russian dialogue) // Russian language in its functioning: Communicative-pragmatic aspect. M., 1993.

160. Erofeeva E. V. Direct and indirect ways of expressing the speech act of threat in the French language // Philol. Sciences. 1997. No. 1.

161. Erofeeva T. I. Profession and speech: to the problem of their interaction // Varieties of text in the functional-style aspect. Perm, 1994.

162. Zhalagina T. A. Communicative focus in a dialogic event // Language communication: Units and regulatives. Kalinin, 1987.

163. Zhalagina T. A. Types of adjustments in dialogic events // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

164. Zhelvis V.I. Invective: experience of thematic and functional classification // Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. L., 1985.

165. Zhelvis V.I. Invective strategy as a nationally specific characteristic // Ethnopsycholinguistics. M., 1988.

166. Zhelvis V.I. Battlefield: Foul language as a social problem. M., 1997.

167. Zhelvis V.I. Invective in the paradigm of means of phatic communication // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

168. Zhelvis V.I. Invective in political speech // Russian language in the context of culture. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

169. Living speech of the Ural city: Texts. Ekaterinburg, 1995.

170. Zhinkin N. I. Mechanisms of speech. M., 1956.

171. Zhinkin N. I. Language - speech - creativity. M., 1998.

173. Zhuravlev V.I. Fundamentals of pedagogical conflictology. M., 1995.

174. Zakharova A. M. Modality of the strange and its embodiment in the lyrics of A. A. Akhmatova: Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

176. Zakharova E. P. Communicative categories and the possibility of their classification // Units of language and their functioning. Saratov, 1998. Issue. 4.

177. Zakharova E. P. Types of communicative categories // Problems of speech communication. Saratov, 2000.

178. Statement on violence (the position of scientists in the form of statements) // Psi-hol. magazine 1987. No. 2.

179. ZdravomyslovA. G. Sociology of conflict: Textbook. allowance. M., 1996.

180. ZeerE. F. Psychology of professions: Textbook. allowance. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

181. Zemskaya E. A. Russian colloquial speech: linguistic analysis and learning problems. M., 1979.

182. Zemskaya E. A. Urban oral speech and the tasks of its study // Varieties of urban oral speech. M., 1988.

184. Zemskaya E. A. Linguistic mosaic: Features of the functioning of the Russian language in the last decades of the 20th century // Assessment in modern Russian. Momus XIV. Helsinki, 1997.

186. Zemskaya E. A., Kitaygorodskaya M. A., Rozanova N. N. Peculiarities of male and female speech // Russian language in its functioning: Communicative-pragmatic aspect. M., 1993.

187. Zernetsky P. Linguistic aspects of the theory of speech activity // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

188. Zernetsky P.V. Four-dimensional space of speech activity // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

189. Siegert W., Lang L. Lead without conflict. M., 1990.

190. Zimbardo F. Shyness (what it is and how to deal with it). St. Petersburg, 1996.

192. Zografova J. Problems of human aggressiveness: Abstract. M., 1990.

193. Ivanova V.F. Sociology and psychology of conflicts: Textbook. allowance. M., 1997.

194. Ivanova O. V. Communicative-pragmatic description of coercive dialogue in the Russian language: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1994.

195. Ilyenko S. G. Towards the search for guidelines for speech conflictology // Aspects of speech conflictology. St. Petersburg, 1996.

196. Ioni L. G., Matskovsky M. S. Introduction // Bern E. Games that people play: Psychology of human relationships. Mm 1997.

197. Issers O. S. Communication strategies as the reality of verbal communication // Stylistics and pragmatics: Abstracts. report scientific conf. (25-27 Nov. 1997). Perm, 1997.

198. Issers O. S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Omsk, 1999.

199. Itskovich V. A. Language norm. M., 1968.

200. Yokoyama Theory of communicative competence and problems of word order in the Russian language // Issues. linguistics. 1992. No. 6.

201. How aggression arises. The teacher made the usual remark. Will it lead to conflict? // First of September. 1993. November 6, No. 79.

202. Kapanadze L. A. About the genres of informal speech // Varieties of urban oral speech. M.", 1988.

203. Karasik V.I. Social status person in the linguistic aspect// “I”, “subject”, “individual” in the paradigms of modern linguistics: Sat. scientific analyst reviews. M., 1992.

204. Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., 1987.

205. Karaulov Yu. N. National specificity of the language and its reflection in the normative dictionary. M., 1988.

206. Karaulov Yu. N. Language: system and functioning. M., 1988.

207. Karaulov Yu. N. Preface. Russian linguistic personality and tasks of its study // Language and personality. M., 1989.

208. Karaulov Yu. N. Types of communicative behavior of a native speaker in the situation of a linguistic experiment // Ethnocultural specificity of linguistic consciousness. M., 1996.

209. Carbonell J., Hayes F. Strategy for overcoming communicative failures in the analysis of ungrammatical language expressions // New in foreign linguistics. M:, 1989. Issue. 24:

210. CarnegieD. How to win friends and influence people // Carnegie D. How to win friends and influence people. L., 1991a.

211. Carnegie D. How to develop self-confidence and influence people by speaking publicly // Ibid. 19916.

212. Carnegie D. How to stop worrying and start living // Ibid. 1991c.

213. Kasyanova K. About the Russian national character. M., 1994.

214. Kibrik A. E. Linguistic postulates // Mechanisms for input and processing of knowledge in text understanding systems: Tr. on artificial intelligence. Tartu, 1983. Vol. 621.

215. Kibrik A. £ Towards the construction of a linguistic model of communicative interaction // UZTGU. Tartu, 1983. Vol. 654.

216. Kibrik A.E. Essays on general and applied issues of linguistics. M„ 1992.

217. Kibrik A.E. Cognitive research on discourse // Issues. linguistics. 1994. No. 5.

218. Kiseleva L. A. Questions of the theory of speech influence. L., 1978.

219. Kitaigorodskaya M.V., Rozanova N.N. “Own” - “Alien” in the communicative space of the rally // Russian Studies Today. 1995. No. 1.

220. Kiefer F. On the role of pragmatics in linguistic description // New in foreign linguistics. M„ 1985. Issue. 16.

221. Clark G. G., Carlson T. B. Listeners and speech act // Ibid. 1986. Issue 17.

222. Klyuev E. V. Speech communication. M. 2002.

223. Klyukanov I. E. Units of speech activity and units of linguistic communication // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

224. Kobozeva I. M. “Theory of speech acts” as one of the options for the theory of speech activity // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1986. Issue. 17.

225. Kobozeva I. M., Laufer N. I. Interpretive speech acts // Logical analysis of language: Language of speech actions. M;, 1994:

226. Kolominsky Ya. L., Berezovin N. A. Some pedagogical problems of social psychology. M;, 1977.

227. Koltunova M. V. What type of speech culture prevails in business communication? // Russian speech. 1996. No. 6.

228. Kolshansky G. V: Pragmatics of the text // Collection. scientific tr. Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after. M. Thorez. 1980. Vol. 151.

229. Kolshansky G.V. Communicative function and structure of language. M., 1984.

230. Komina N. A. Communicative and pragmatic aspects of English dialogical speech: Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Kalinin, .1984.

231. Komlev N. G. Linguistic and semantic motives for the emergence and resolution of interpersonal conflict // Proc. VI All-Union symposium in psycholinguistics and communication theory. M;, 1978.

232. Kon I. S. Sociology of personality. M., 1967.

233. Kon I. S. Personality and its social roles // Sociology and ideology. M., 1969.

234. Kon I: S. People and roles // New world. 1970. No. 2.

235. Kon I. S. Discovery of the “I”. M., 1978.

236. Conrad D. Interrogative sentences as indirect speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

237. Conflictology I Ed. A. S. Carmina. St. Petersburg, 1999.

238. Conflicts: essence and overcoming: Method, materials. M., 1990.

239. Kopylov S. A. Psychological conditions for effective pedagogical interaction between the teacher and the class of students: Abstract of thesis. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. Ml, 1995.

240. Cornelius X., Fair S. Everyone can win: How to resolve conflicts. M., 1992.

241. Coseriu E. Synchrony, diachrony and history // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1965. Issue. 3.

242. Kokh I. A. Conflictology. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

243. Krasilnikova E. V. The language of the city as a linguistic problem // Living speech of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

244. Krasilnikova E. V. Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study // Language and personality. M., 1989.

245. Krasnykh V.V. On the issue of linguistic-cognitive aspects of the communicative act // Scientific. report Philol. Faculty of Moscow State University. M., 1998. Issue. 2.

246. Krogius N. Ya. Personality in conflict. Saratov, 1976.

247. Krogius N.V. People’s knowledge of each other in conflict activities: Abstract of thesis. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. L., 1980.

248. Krestinsky S.V. Interpretation of acts of silence in discourse // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

249. Krol L. M., Mikhailova E. L. Man-orchestra: microstructure of communication. M„ 1993.

250. Krongauz M. A. Game model of dialogue // Logical analysis of language: Models of action. M., 1992.

251. Krongauz M. A. Text and interaction of participants in a speech act // Logical analysis of language: Language of speech actions. M., 1994.

252. Krysin L.P. Sociolinguistics and semantics // Problems on socio-linguistics (Sofia). 1988. No. 1.

253. Krysin L.P. Sociolinguistic aspects of studying the modern Russian language. M., 1989.

254. Krupenin A. L., Krokhina I. M. Effective teacher: Practical psychology for teachers. Rostov n/d, 1995.

255. Kuzin F. A. Culture business communication: Practical guide for businessmen. M., 1996.

256. Kukushkina O. V. Main types of speech failures in Russian written texts. M., 1998.

257. The culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication / Ed. L.K. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaeva. M., 1996.

258. Kunitsyna V. N., Kazarinova N. V., Pogolsha V. M. Interpersonal communication: A textbook for universities. St. Petersburg, 2001.

259. Kupina N. A. Totalitarian language: Dictionary and speech reactions. Ekaterinburg; Perm, 1995.

260. Kupina N. A. Rhetoric in games and exercises. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

261. Kupina N. A., Enina L. V. Three stages of speech aggression // Speech aggression and humanization of communication in the media. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

262. Kupina N. A, Shalina I. V. Speech stereotypes in the dynamic space of Russian culture // Stylistics and pragmatics: Abstracts. report scientific conf. (25-27 Nov. 1997). Perm, 1997.

263. Kurilovich E. Notes on the meaning of words // Essay on linguistics. M., 1962.

264. Labov U. Unity of sociolinguistics // Socio-linguistic studies. M„ 1976.

265. Labunskaya V. A. Types of structures of psychological difficulties of communication // Psychological difficulties: diagnostics and correction. Thesis: dokl. Rostov n/d, 1990.

266. Ladyzhenskaya N.V. Scenarios for computer tasks on speech etiquette // Rus. language at school 1992. No. 3-6.

267. Lakoff R. The logic of politeness. Chicago, 1973.

268. LakoffJ. Linguistic gestaps // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1981. Issue. 10.

269. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live // Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987.

270. Larin B. A. Aesthetics of words and the language of the writer: Selected works. articles. L., 1973.

271. Larin B. A. On the linguistic study of the city: towards the linguistic characteristics of the city (several prerequisites) // Larin B. A. History of the Russian language and general linguistics. M., 1977.

272. Levin Yu. I. Selected works. Poetics. Semiotics. M., 1998.

273. Levitan K M. Culture of pedagogical communication. Irkutsk, 1985.

274. Levitan K. M. Pedagogical deontology. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

275. Lekant P. A. Disagreement as one of the modal meanings of a statement // Essays on the grammar of the Russian language. M., 2002.

276. Lekant P. A. Introduction - a communicative-pragmatic category // Essays on the grammar of the Russian language. M., 2002.

277. Leontyev A. A. Word in speech activity. M., 1965.

278. Leontyev A. A. Language, speech, speech activity. M., 1969.

279. Leontyev A. A. Psycholinguistic units and the generation of speech utterances. M., 1969.

280. Leontyev A. A. Statement as a subject of linguistics, psycholinguistics and communication theory // Text syntax. M., 1979.

281. Leontyev A. A. Pedagogical communication. M., 1979.

282. Leontyev A. A. Psychology of communication. M., 1997.

283. Leontyev A. A. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. M., 1997.

284. Leontyev A. A., Nosenko E. L. Some psycholinguistic characteristics of spontaneous speech in a state of emotional stress // General and applied psycholinguistics. M., 1973.

285. Leontyev A. N. Activity and consciousness // Issues. philosophy; 1972. No. 12.

286. Lixon C. Conflict. St. Petersburg, 1997.

287. Lisina M.I. Problems of ontogenesis of communication. M., 1986.

288. Lomov B. F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. M., 1984.

289. Lomonosov M. V. A short guide to eloquence. The first division, consisting of rhetoric // Lomonosov M. V. Reader. Perm, 1994.

290. Losev A. F. Sign. Symbol. Myth. M., 1982.

291. Lotman Yu. L/. Conversations about Russian culture. St. Petersburg, 1997.

292. Lukashonok O. N., Shchurkova N. £ Conflictological study for a teacher. M., 1998.

293. Lupyan Ya. A. Communication barriers, conflicts, stress. Minsk, 1988.

294. Luria Yu. I. Basic problems of neurolinguistics. M., 1975.

295. Maidanova L. M. Speech intention and typology of secondary texts // Man - text - culture. Ekaterinburg, 1994:

296. Maidanova L. M. Quality of communication through the media // Speech aggression and humanization of communication in the media. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

298. Makarov N. L. Role settings and understanding in group communication // Psycholinguistic problems of semantics. Kalinin, 1990.

299. Mandelstam O. About the interlocutor // About poetry. L., 1928;

300. Markelova T. V. Functional-semantic field of assessment in the Russian language // Vestn. Moscow State University. 1994. No. 4. (Ser. 9).

301. Markelova T. V. Semantics and pragmatics of means of expressing evaluation in the Russian language // Philol. Sciences. 1995. No. 3.

302. Markelova T. V. Interaction of evaluative and modal meanings in the Russian language // Philol. Sciences. 1996. No. 1.

303. Marsakova T. T. Russian language for business. M., 1994.

304. Matveeva T.V. Casual dialogue as a text // Man - text - culture. Ekaterinburg, 1994.

305. Matveeva T.V. On the linguistic theory of genre // Collegium. Kyiv, 1995a.

306. Matveeva T.V. How to maintain a conversation. Perm, 19956.

307. Matveeva T.V. About one linguocultural problem in the sphere of casual communication // Russia and the East: problems of interaction. Chelyabinsk, 1995c. Part IV.

308. Matveeva T.V. “We haven’t seen each other for a hundred years,” or Conversational maximalism // Russian word in language, text and cultural environment. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

309. Matveeva T.V. Speech support and containment in the aspect of tolerance: Abstract. report international scientific - conf. Ekaterinburg, 2001.

310. Maturana U. Biology of cognition // Language and intelligence. M., 1996.

311. Melibruda £ I You - We: Psychological possibilities for improving communication. M., 1986.

312. Meng K. The problem of analyzing dialogic communication // Text as a psycholinguistic reality. M., 1982.

313. Meng K. Semantic problems of linguistic research of communication // Psychological problems of semantics. M., 1983.

314. Milrud R.P. Formation of emotional regulation of teacher behavior // Issues. psychology. 1987. No. 6.

315. Minsky M. Structure for the representation of knowledge // Psychology of machine vision. M., 1978.

316. Mitina L. M. Teacher as a person and professional (psychological problems). M., 1994.

317. Mikhailova O. A. The life of someone else’s word in the colloquial speech of townspeople // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

318. Mikhalevskaya G.I. Analysis of teacher’s communicative errors // Vestn. St. Petersburg, univ. L., 1995. Issue. 1. Ser. 6.

319. Mikhalskaya A.K. On modern pedagogical rhetoric // Pedagogical education. M., 1990, Issue. 2.

320. Mikhalskaya A.K. Ways of development of domestic rhetoric: loss and search for the speech ideal // Philol. Sciences. 1992. No. 3.

321. Michalskaya A.K. Fundamentals of rhetoric: Thought and word. M., 1996.

322. Morkovkin V.V., Morkovkina A.V. Russian agnonyms (words that we do not know). M., 1997.

323. Mukarzhovsky J. Literary language and poetic language // Prague Linguistic Circle. M., 1967.

324. Murashov A. A. Rhetorical foundations of pedagogy of creative interaction// Rus. language; at school 1995. No. 4:

325. Murzin L. N. Language, text and culture // Man text - culture. Ekaterinburg, 1994.

326. Murzin L.N., Stern A: S. Text and its perception. Sverdlovsk, 1991.

327. Myasoedov B. O. About rudeness and bitchiness in Russian life. M., 1998.

328. Nadirashvili Sh. The concept of attitude in general and social psychology. Tbilisi, 1974.

329. Nayer V. L. Pragmatics of the text and its components // Pragmatics and stylistics. M., 1985. Issue. 245.

330. National cultural specificity of speech behavior: Sat. / Ed. A. A. Leontieva. M., 1977.

331. Nedobukh A. S. Verbal signals of exchange of communicative roles // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

332. Nesterenko V. G. The language of intolerance and the language of trust // Free Thought. 1992. No. 2.

333. Nechiporenko V. F. Biolinguistics in its formation. M., 1984.

334. Nikitina S. £ Linguistic consciousness and self-awareness of the individual in folk culture // Language and personality. M., 1989.

335. Nikitina S. £ Oral folk culture and linguistic consciousness. M., 1993.

336. Nikiforov A. L. Semantic concept of understanding // Studies in logic scientific knowledge. M., 1990.

337. Nikolaeva T. M. On the grammar of non-linguistic communications // UZTGU. Tartu, 1969. Vol. 326 Works on sign systems. 4.

338. Nikolaeva T. N. Linguistic demagoguery // Pragmatics and problems of intensional™. M., 1988.

339. Nikolaeva T. N. On the principle of “non-cooperation” and/or categories of sociolinguistic influence // Logical analysis of language. Inconsistency and anomalousness of the text. M., 1990.

340. Novichikhina M. Conducting a dispute. Voronezh, 1994.

341. Norakidze V. G. Types of character and fixed attitude. Tbilisi; 1966.

342. Norakidze V: G. Methods for studying personality character. Tbilisi, 1975.

343. Norman B. Yu. Syntax of speech activity. Minsk, 1978.

344. Norman B. Yu. Speaker's Grammar. St. Petersburg, 1994.

345. Newts Ya. Problems of the cognitive-pragmatic theory of language: cognition, functionalism and grammar // Abstract journal. 1994. No. 3 (Ser. 6: Linguistics).

346. Obnorskaya M. £ On the problem of norms in language and style // Style and context. L., 1972.

347. Communication and optimization of joint activities. M., 1987.

348. Odintsov V.V. Composition types speech // Kozhin A. N., Krylova O. A., Odintsov V. V. Functional types of speech. M. born 1982.

349. Omarov A. M: Management: the art of communication. M., 1983.

350. AustinJ. L. The word as an action // New in foreign linguistics. M;, 1986. Issue. 17.

351. Pavilenis R.I. Understanding and philosophy of language // Ibid.

352. Pavlova L. G. Dispute, discussion, controversy. M., 1991.

353. Pavlovich N.V. Language of images. Paradigms of images in the Russian poetic language. M., 1995.

354. Paducheva E. V. Pragmatic aspects of connectivity-dialogue // NAS-SLYA. 1982. T. 41, No. 4.

355. Paducheva E. V. Themes of linguistic communication in Carroll’s fairy tales // Semiotics and computer science. M;, 1982. Issue. 18.

356. Paducheva E. V. The problem of communicative failure in Lewis Carroll’s fairy tales // Tekst i zdanie: Zbior studiow. Wroclaw; Krakow; Gdansk; Lodz, 1983.

357. Paducheva E V. Semantic research (semantics of time and aspect in the Russian language; semantics of narrative). M„ 1996.

358. Panova A. A. Speech behavior in urban transport // Language. System. Personality. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

359. Parshin P. B. Theoretical revolutions and methodological rebellion in linguistics of the 20th century // Issues. linguistics. 1996. No. 2.

360. ParyginB. D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory. M., 1971.

361. Petrenko A. Security in the communication of a business person. M., 1994.

362. Petrenko V. F. Introduction to experimental psychosemantics: a study of forms of representation in everyday consciousness. M, 1983.

363. Petrenko V. F. Psychosemantics of consciousness. M., 1988.

364. PotashnikM. M., Vulfov B. 3. Pedagogical situations. M., 1983.

365. Petrov V.V. Philosophy, semantics, pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

366. Petrov M.K. Language, sign, culture. M., 1991.

367. Petrovskaya L. A. On the conceptual scheme of social-psychological analysis of conflict // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1977.

368. Petrovskaya L. A. Competence in communication. M.\ 1989.

369. Petrovsky A.V. What is an installation? // Popular psychology: Reader. M., 1990.

370. Petrovsky V. N. Activity of groups of various types in conflict situations: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. M., 1986.

371. Peshkovsky A. M. Objective and normative point of view on language // Selected works. M., 1959.

372. Plakhov V. D. Social norms: philosophical foundations of the general theory. M., 1985.

373. Povarnin S.I. Dispute: On the theory and practice of dispute. St. Petersburg, 1996.

374. Political discourse in Russia-2: Working materials. meeting 29. 3.1998 / Institute of Linguistics RAS. M., 1998.

375. Polozova T. A. Interpersonal conflict in a group (theoretical principles and experience of experimental research): Abstract of thesis. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. M., 1980.

376. Potebnya A. A. From notes on Russian grammar. M., 1958.

377. Pokhodnya S. Ya Language types and means of implementing irony. Kyiv, 1989.

378. Pocheptsov G. G. (ml). Semantic analysis of communication labelization // UZTGU. Tartu, 1980. Vol. 519.

379. Pocheptsov G. G. Phatic metacommunication // Semantics and pragmatics of syntactic unities. Kalinin, 1981.

380. Pocheptsov G. G. On the communicative typology of the addressee // Speech acts in linguistics and methodology. Pyatigorsk, 1986.

381. Pocheptsov G. G. communicative aspects of semantics. Kyiv, 1987.

382. Rules of social life and etiquette. Good manners: A collection of advice and instructions for various cases of home and social life; St. Petersburg, 1889. Reprint, ed. Mm 1991.

383. Prozorova V.V. Rumor as a philological problem // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

384. Prokopchuk A. A. Communicatively dominant/non-dominant statements in incentive remarks // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

385. Psychological studies of communication / Ed. B.F. Lomova. M., 1985.

386. Pushkareva O. V. Modality of the strange: a look through the prism of the author’s consciousness of A. S. Pushkin: Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 1998.

387. Pushkin A. A. Method of organizing discourse and typology of linguistic personalities // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

388. Rannikh N. A. The speech act of wish and ways of expressing it in the Russian language: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1994.

389. Rakhilina E. V. Some remarks about possessivity // Semantics and Informatics. M., 1983. Issue. 22.

390. Speech aggression and humanization of communication in the media. Ekaterinburg, 1997.

391. Speech influence in the field of mass communication. M., 1990.

392. Speech influence: psychological and psycholinguistic problems / Rep. ed. E. F. Tarasov. M., 1986.

393. Ricoeur P. The triumph of language over violence: A hermeneutic approach to the philosophy of law // Issue. philosophy. 1996. No. 4.

394. Rozhdestvensky Yu. V. What is the “cliché theory”? // Permyakov G. L. From saying to fairy tale. M., 1970.

395. Rozhdestvensky Yu. V. Introduction to general philology. M., 1979.

396. Rozhdestvensky Yu. V. Theory of rhetoric. M., 1999.

397. Rozov A. I: Speech activity as overcoming a conflict situation // Issue. psychology. 1987. No. 6.

398. Romashko S. A. Culture, structure of communication and linguistic consciousness // Language and culture: Sat. reviews. M., 1987.

399. Russian colloquial speech: Texts. M., 1978.

400. Russian colloquial speech: Phonetics. Morphology. Vocabulary. Gesture. M., 1983.

401. Russian written and oral traditions and spiritual culture. M., 1982.

402. Russian language according to mass survey data: Experience in socio-linguistic study / Ed. L.P. Krysina. M., 1974.

403. Ryzhova L. P. Speech etiquette and language norms // Language communication: Units and regulations. Kalinin, 1987.

404. Ryzhova L. P. Specificity of language communication in the sphere of production // Speech communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

405. Rykun R. O. Socio-psychological analysis of communication based on the material of fiction: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philosopher Sci. Tomsk, 1973.

406. Ryabtseva N.K. Thought as action, or the rhetoric of reasoning // Logical analysis of language: Models of action. M., 1992.

407. Ryadchikova E. N. Improperly direct monologue as a psycholinguistic device // Semantics and levels of its implementation. Krasnodar, 1994.

408. Samsonova N.V. Formation of conflict motivation among high school students: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. ped. Sci. Kaliningrad, 1995.

409. Sannikov V. 3. Russian language in the mirror of the language game. M., 1999.

410. Safarov Sh. Ethnocultural concepts of discursive activity // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

411. Sedov K. F. Types of linguistic personalities and strategies of speech behavior (about the rhetoric of everyday conflict) // Questions of stylistics. Saratov, 1996. Issue. 26.

412. Sedov K. F. Intra-genre strategies of speech behavior: “quarrel”, “compliment”, “causticism” // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

413. Sedov K. F. Anatomy of genres of everyday communication // Questions of stylistics. Saratov, 1998. Issue. 27.

414. Sedov K. F. Genres of speech in the formation of discursive thinking of a linguistic personality // Russian language in the context of culture. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

415. Semenyuk N. N. Norma // Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary / Ed. V. N. Yartseva. M„ 1990.

416. Semiotics: Anthology // Comp. and ed. Yu. S. Stepanov. M., 2001.

417. Serdobintsev N. Ya. Semantic structure of a word and its connotation // Theory of the word and the functioning of verbal units. Saratov, 1981.

418. Serio P. On the language of power: a critical analysis // Philosophy of language: within and beyond borders. Kharkov, 1993.

419. Serio P. Analysis of discourse in the French school (discourse and interdiscourse) // Semiotics: Anthology / Comp. Yu. S. Stepanov. M., 2001.

420. SearleJ. R. What is a speech act? // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1986. Issue. 17.

421. Searle J.R. Classification of illocutionary acts // Ibid.

422. SearleJ. R. Indirect speech acts // Ibid.

423. Simonova L. V. Methods of interaction between high school students and teachers in conflict situations // Teacher Psychology: Proc. report for the VII Congress of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR. M., 1988.

424. Simonova L. V. Interpersonal conflicts of teachers and high school students and ways to resolve them: Abstract of thesis. dis. . Ph.D. psychol. Sci. M., 1989.

425. Simonova L. V. Resolving conflicts between teachers and students // Guidelines for teachers of secondary schools. N. Tagil, 1989.

426. Skovorodnikov A.P. On the content of the concept of “national rhetorical ideal” in relation to modern Russian reality // Theoretical and applied aspects of speech communication. Krasnoyarsk; Achinsk, 1997. Issue. 5.

427. Skorbatyuk I. D. Some aspects of expressing forms of politeness in the Korean language // National-cultural specificity of speech behavior. M., 1977.

428. ScottJ. Methods of conflict resolution. Kyiv, 1991.

429. ScottJ. The power of the mind. Methods of conflict resolution. St. Petersburg, 1993.

430. Skrebnev Yu. M: Introduction to colloquialism. Saratov, 1985.

431. Skrebneva A. A. On the status of modern urban vernacular (based on vocabulary based on experimental data) // Linguistic appearance of the Ural city. Sverdlovsk, 1990.

432. Semantic perception of a speech message (in conditions of mass communication). M., 1976.

433. Sokovikova E. B. Psychological conditions for the development of a positive style of relationships between teachers and teenagers: Abstract. dis. . Ph.D. psy-hol. Sci. M., 1988.

434. Sokolov E.V. Culture and personality. L., 1972.

435. Sokolova V.V. Culture of speech and culture of communication. M., 1995.

436. Solovyova A.K. On some general issues of dialogue // Issues. linguistics. 1965. No. 6.

437. Soper P. "Fundamentals of the art of speech. M., 1992.

438. Sorokin Yu. A. et al. Ethnopsycholinguistics. M., 1988.

439. Sorokin Yu. A. Theory of gaps and optimization of intercultural communication // Units of language and their functioning: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, 1998. Issue. 4.

440. Sosnin V. A. Cultural and intergroup processes: ethnocentrism, conflicts and trends in national identification // Psychological journal. 1997. T. 18. No. 1.

441. Spitsyn N.P. Chronicle of family communication. M., 1987.

442. Stepanov Yu. S. In search of pragmatics: (The problem of the subject) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1981. T. 40, No. 4.

443. Sternin I. A. Practical rhetoric. Voronezh, 1993.

444. Sternin I. A. Methods of teaching speech culture in high school. Voronezh, 1995.

445. Sternin I. A. Communication and culture // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

446. Sternin I. A. National specificity of communicative behavior // Linguistic consciousness and the image of the world: Abstracts. report XII international sym-pos. in psycholinguistics and communication theory. Mm 1997.

447. Sternin I. A. Does language belong to cultural phenomena? // Russian language in the context of culture. Ekaterinburg, 1999.

448. Sternin I. A. Is it possible to culturally form a culture in Russia? // Cultural and speech situation in modern Russia: questions of theory and educational technologies: Abstract. report and message All-Russian scientific -method, conf. Ekaterinburg, 2000.

449. Strakhov I. I Psychology of pedagogical tact. Saratov, 1966.

450. Strawson P. F. Intentions and conventions in speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1986. Issue. 17.

451. Susov I. P. Communicative-pragmatic linguistics and its units // Pragmatics and semantics of syntactic units. Kalinin, 1984.

452. Susov I. P. Pragmatic structure of an utterance // Language communication and its units. Kalinin, 1986.

453. Sukhikh S: A. Speech interactions and strategies // Ibid.

454. Sukhikh S. A. Organization of dialogue // Language communication: Units and regulations. Kalinin, 1987.

455. Sukhikh S. A. Structure of communicants in communication // Language communication: Processes and units. Kalinin, 1988.

456. Sukhikh S. A. Typology of linguistic communication // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

457. Sukhikh S. A. Pragmalinguistic dimension of the communicative process: Author's abstract. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sci. Krasnodar, 1998.

458. Sukhikh S. A., Zelenskaya V. V. Representative essence of personality in the communicative aspect of implementation. Krasnodar, 1997.

459. Sukhikh S. A., Zelenskaya V. V. Pragmalinguistic modeling of the communicative process. Krasnodar, 1998.

460. Shakumidova M. S. Teaching students extended-oral statements in linguistic topics// Rus. language at school 1987. No. 4.

461. Tarasov E. F. Social symbolism in speech behavior // General and applied psycholinguistics. M., 1973;

462. Tarasov E F. Sociolinguistic problems of the theory of speech communication // Fundamentals of the theory of speech activity. M., 1974.

463. Tarasov E. F. Status and structure of the theory of speech communication // Problems of psycholinguistics. M., 1975.

464. Tarasov E. F. The place of speech communication in the communicative act // National-cultural specificity of speech behavior. M., 1977.

465. Tarasov E. F. Trend in the development of psycholinguistics. M., 1987.

466. Tarasov E. F., Shkolnik L. S. Social-symbolic regulation of the interlocutor’s behavior // National-cultural specificity of speech behavior. M., 1977.

467. Tarasova I. P. Speech communication, interpreted with humor, but seriously: A manual for self-education. M., 1992.

468. Teplitskaya N. I. Some problems of dialogical text: Author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. M., 1975.

469. Timofeev V. P. Personality and linguistic environment. Shadrinsk, 1971.

470. Tikhonov S. E. Rhetoric course in the system of training a literature teacher // Current problems of cultural and speech education: Abstracts. report scientific-practical conf. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

471. Tolstaya S. M. Verbal rituals in Slavic folk culture // Logical analysis of language: Language of speech actions. M., 1994.

472. Tolstoy N.I. Fragment of Slavic paganism: archaic ritual-dialogue // Slavic and Balkan folklore: Ethnogenetic community and typological parallels. M., 1984.

473. Tretyakova V. S. Scenarios of speech behavior and speech genre // Russian language: history, dialects, modernity: Sat. scientific tr. M:, 1999.

474. Tretyakova V. S. Speech conflict: prerequisites and stages of development // Fifth Polivanov Readings. Sociolinguistics: Sat. scientific articles. Smolensk, 2000. Part 1.

475. Tretyakova V. S. Social component in the structure of relations between communicants // Problems of Slavic and Romano-Germanic philology: Collection. scientific and practical materials conf. Kurgan, 2000.

476. Tretyakova V. S. Speech influence and methods of its optimization in interpersonal communication // Linguistics: Bull. Ural, lingua, islands: Sat. scientific articles. Ekaterinburg, 2000.

477. Tretyakova V. S. Conflict through the eyes of a linguist // Jurislinguistics-ka-ll: Sat. scientific tr. Barnaul, 2000.

478. Tretyakova V. S. Models of behavior of communicants in a situation of information vacuum in the context of verbal communication // Russian language: theory and teaching methods: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. M., 2001.

479. Tretyakova V. S., Bitenskaya G. V. The ABC of non-conflict communication: communicative tactics in the teacher’s professional speech: Textbook. allowance. Ekaterinburg, 1997:

480. Troshina N. N. Stylistic parameters of mass communication texts and the implementation of the communicative strategy of the subject of speech influence // Speech influence in the sphere of mass communication. M., 1990.

481. Troyanov V. Ya "Scientific dispute with the attitude of one of the communicants to conflict // Language, discourse and personality. Tver. 1990.

482. Ulybina E. V. Interrelation of instrumental and motivational difficulties of interpersonal communication // Psychological difficulties of communication: diagnosis and correction: Abstracts. report Rostov n/d., 1990.

483. Uznadze D. N. Basic provisions of the theory of attitude // Experimental foundations of the psychology of attitude. Tbilisi, 1961.

484. Usmanova E. 3. Motivational-emotional regulation of thinking in conditions of intellectual conflict. Tashkent, 1993.

485. Ufimtseva N.V. Russians through the eyes of Russians // Language - system. Language - text. Language is an ability. M., 1995.

486. Ushakova T. N., Latynov V. V. Evaluative aspect of conflict speech // Issues. psychology. M., 1995. No. 5.

487. Fedosyuk M. Yu. Identification of the techniques of “demogic rhetoric” as a component of polemical art // Rhetoric in the development of man and society. Perm, 1992.

488. Fedosyuk M. Yu. Complex genres of colloquial speech: “consolation”, “persuasion” and “persuasion” // Russian colloquial speech as a phenomenon of urban culture. Ekaterinburg, 1996.

489. Fedosyuk M. Yu. Unresolved issues in the theory of speech genres // Issues. linguistics. 1997. No. 5.

490. Fedorova L. L. Typology of speech influence and its place in the structure of communication // Ibid. 1991. No. 6.

491. Filatov V.P. On the typology of situations of understanding // Issues. philosophy. 1988. No. 6.

492. Fillmore Ch. Frames and semantics of understanding // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1988. Issue. 23.

493. Fischer R., Yuri U. The path to agreement, or Negotiations without defeat. M., 1990.

494. Frank D. Seven sins of pragmatics: theses on the theory of speech acts, analysis of speech communication, linguistics and rhetoric // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1986, Issue. 17.

495. Freud 3. “I” and “It”: Works of different years. Tbilisi, 1991. Book. 1-2.

496. Fromm E. Anatomy of human destructiveness. M., 1994.

497. Frustration, conflict, protection // Issue. psychology. 1991. No. 6.

498. Harris T. I'm okay, you're okay. M., 1997.

499. Hymes D. X. Ethnography of speech // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 7: Sociolinguistics. M., 1975.

500. Holquist M. Inner speech as social rhetoric // Rhetoric. 1997, no. 1.

501. Khoruzhenko K. M. Culturology: Encycl. dictionary. Rostov n/d., 1997.

502. Khrakovsky V. S. On the rules for choosing “polite” imperative forms: (Experience of formalization on the material of the Russian language) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1980. No. 3 (Serial lit. and language).

503. Hristolyubova L. V. Characterization of a communicative act by means of Russian phraseology (based on stable units of seme speech): Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 1992.

504. Chenki A. Modern cognitive approaches to semantics: similarities and differences in theories and goals // Issues. linguistics. 1996. No. 2.

505. Chepkina E. M. Russian journalistic discourse: text-generating practices and codes (1995-2000): Abstract. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 2001.

506. Chernyak V. D. Agnonyms in the speech portrait of a modern linguistic personality // Cultural and speech situation in modern Russia: questions of theory and educational technologies: Abstracts. report and message All-Russian. scientific method, conf. Ekaterinburg, 2000.

507. Chudinov A.P. The ability to persuade: practical rhetoric. Ekaterinburg, 1995.

508. Chkhetiani T. D. Metacommunicative signals of the listener in the phase of maintaining speech contact // Language communication: Units and regulatives. Kalinin, 1987.

509. Shalimova D. V. Transformation of the meanings and meanings of words when understanding proverbs // Issue. psychology. 1990. No. 4.

510. Shapina I: V. Interaction of speech cultures in dialogical communication: an axiological view: Dis. . Ph.D. Philol. Sci. Ekaterinburg, 1998.

511. Shapiro R. Ya. Is an expressed thought a lie? // Language communication: Units and regulatives. Kalinin, 1987.

512. Shakhovsky V.I. On the role of emotions in speech // Issue. psychology. 1991. No. 6.

513. Schwarzkopf B. S. The problem of individual and public assessments of the norm // Actual problems of speech culture. M., 1970.

514. Shibutani T. Social psychology. M., 1969.

515. Shiryaev E. N. Culture of speech as a special theoretical discipline // Culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. M., 1996.

516. Shiryaev E. N. Structure of intentional conflict dialogues of spoken language // Problems of speech communication: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, 2000.

517. Shmelev D. N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary (based on the material of the Russian language). M., 1973.

518. Shmelev D. N. Syntactic division of statements in the modern Russian language. M., 1976.

519. Shmelev D. N. Modern Russian language: Lexicon. M., 1977.

520. Shmelev A.D. Lexical composition of the Russian language as a reflection of the Russian soul // Rus. language at school 1996. No. 4.

521. Shmeleva T. V. Code of speech behavior // Rus. language abroad. 1983. No. 1.

522. Shmeleva T.V. Mode and means of its expression in a statement // Ideographic aspects of Russian grammar. M., 1988.

523. Shmeleva T.V. Speech genre: possibilities of description and use in language teaching // Russian Studies (Berlin). 1990. No. 2.

524. Shmeleva T.V. Speech genre: experience of general philological comprehension // Collegium (Kyiv). 1995. No. 1-2.

525. Shmeleva T.V. Speech science: Theoretical and applied aspects. Novgorod, 1996.

526. Shmeleva T.V. Model of speech genre // Genres of speech. Saratov, 1997.

528. Shostrom E. Anti-Carnegie, or Manipulator. Minsk, 1992.

529. Shriner K. How to relieve stress: 30 ways to improve your well-being in 3 minutes. M„ 1993.

530. Shubina N. L. About adaptive processes in modern spontaneous speech // Aspect of speech-conflictology: St. Petersburg, 1996.

531. Shank R, Birnbaum L, MayJ. On the interpretation of semantics and pragmatics // New in foreign linguistics. M„ 1986. Issue. 17.

532. Shchedrovitsky G. P. Communication, activity, reflection // Study of speech and mental activity. Alma-Ata, 1974. Vol. 13.

533. Yim X. Ya. Pragmatics of speech communication // UZSTU. Tartu, 1985. Vol. 714 Theory and knowledge models: Works on artificial intelligence.

534. Yudina T.V. Tension and some means of its creation // Text and its components as an object of complex analysis: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. L., 1986.

535. Jurislinguistics-I: Russian language in its natural and legal existence: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Ed. N. D. Goleva. Barnaul, 2000.

536. Yusupov I. M. Psychology of mutual understanding. Kazan, 1991.

537. Language and personality. M., 1989.

538. Yakobson P. M. Communication between people as a socio-psychological problem. M., 1973.

539. Jacobson R. Linguistics and poetics // Structuralism: pros and cons. M., 1975.

540. Jacobson R. Speech communication // Selected works. M., 1985.

541. Jacobson R. Language in relation to other communication systems // Ibid.

542. Yakubinsky L.P. About dialogical speech // Selected works. M., 1986.

543. Austin J. L How to do things with words. Cambridge (Mass.), 1962.

544. Austin J. L Philosophical papers. Oxford, 1962.

545. Bach K., Harnish R. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge (Mass.), 1979.

546. Ballmer Th., Brennenstu // F Speech act classification: A study in the lexical analysis of English speech activity verbs. Berlin etc., 1981.

547. Cicoure! A. V. Sprache in der sozialen Interaktion. Muenchen, 1975.

548. Clark H., Carlson T. Context for comprehension // J. Long and A. D. Baddeley, eds. Attention and performance. N.Y., 1981. Vol. 3.

549. Clark H., Schaefer E. Collaborating on contributions to conversations I I Language and Cognitive Processes. 1987. No. 2.

550. Clark H., Schaefer E. Contributing to discourse I I Cognitive Science. 1989. No. 13.

551. Clark H., Schreuder R., Buttrick S. Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference I I Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1983. No. 22.

552. Clark H., WHkes-Gibbs D. Referring as a collaborative process // Cognition. 1986. No. 22.

553. Cutler A. The reliability of speech error data I I Linguistics. 1981. No. 19.

554.DeffG. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production I I Psychological Review. 1986. No. 93.

555. Ekman P. Body position, facial expression, and verbal behavior during interviews I I Journal of abmormal and social psychology. 1964. No. 68.

556. Fay D.Transformational errors I I Errors in linguistic performance / Ed. by V. Fromkin. N.Y., 1980.

557. Ferber R. Slip of the tongue or slip of the ear? On the perception and transcription of naturalistic slips of the tongue // Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1991. No. 20.

558. Firbas J. On the concept of communicative dynamics in the theory of" functional sentence perspective I I Sbornik praci filosoficke fakulty brnenske university. A(19). Brno, 1971.

559. Fowler Ft. Language in the news: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. L.; N.Y., 1991.

560. Fromkin V., ed. Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. N.Y., 1980.

561. GajdaSt. Gatunki wypowiedzi potocznych-jezyk potoczny jako przedmiot baban jezykoznawczych. Opole, 1991.

562. Greenberg J. N. Language, culture and communication. Stanford, 1971.

563. Grice H. P. Logic and conversation // Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts. N.Y., 1975. V. 3.

564. Grice H. P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge (Mass.), 1989.

566. Hopfer R. Die Rolle des Alltagswissens beim Verstehen Sprachlicher Aesserungen // Linguistische Studien (A) H. 72/II. Berlin, 1980.

567. Hymes D. Language in Culture and Society. N.Y., 1964.

568. Kimsuvan A. Verstehensprozesse bei interculturalller Kommunikation: Am Beispiel: Deutsche in Thailand. Frankfurt a/m, 1984.

569. Norrick N. Traditional verbal tricks: structure, pragmatics, humor // Grazer Linguistische Studien. 1983. No. 20.

570. Postma A/., Ko/k H., Pove! D.-J. On the relation among speech errors, disfluencies, and self-repairs // Language and Speech. 1990. No. 33.

571. Raskin V. Semantics of lying 11 Roberto Crespo, Bill Dotson Smith & H. Schultink, eds. Aspects of language: Studies in honor of Mario Alinei. Vol. 2: Theoretical and applied semantics. Amsterdam, 1987.

572. Redeker G. On differences between spoken and written language // Discourse Processes. 1984. No. 7.

573. Ringie M., Bruce B. Conversation failure // W. G. Lehnert and M. H. Ringie; eds: Strategies for natural language processing. Hillsdale; N.Y., 1982.

574. Sacks H. An analysis of the course of a joke "s telling in conversation I I Explorations in the ethnography of speaking / R. Bauman & J. Scherzer, eds. Cambridge, 1974. (2nd edition 1989).

575. Scheg/offE, Jefferson G., SacksH. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair conversation // Language. 1977. No. 53.

576. ScheHing T. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge (Mass.), 1960.

577. Scherzer J. Oh! That"s a pun and I didn"t mean it // Semiotica. 1978. Vol. 22, No. 3/4.

578. Sear/e J. R. Speech acts. Cambridge, 1969.

579. Sear/e J. R. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge; L., 1970.

580. Sear/e J. R. The philosophy of language. L., 1971.

581. Sear/e J. R. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, 1979.

582. Sear/e J. R. (ed.). Speech acts theory and pragmatics. Dordrecht, 1980.

583. Setting M. Verstaendigungsprobleme: Eine empirische Analyze am Beispiel der Buerger-Verwaltungs-Kommunikation // Linguistische Arbeiten 181. Tuebingen, 1978.

585. Tannen D. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood; N.Y., 1984.

586. Tent J., Clark J. E An experimental investigation into the perception of slips of the tongue 11 Journal of Phonetics. 1980. No. 8.

587. Tubbs S.,. Moss S. Human communications. N.Y., 1987.

588. Weinreich U. Language in Contact: Findings and Problems. N.Y., 1953.

589. Wierzbicka A. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt a/M., 1972.

590. Wunderlich D. Zur Konventionalitaet von Sprachhandlungen // Linguistishe Pragmatik. Frankfurt a/M., 1975.

591. YamaguchiH. How to pull strings with words. Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke I I Journal of Pragmatics. 1988: No. 12.

592. Yokoyama O. T. Disbelieve, Lies and Manipulations in a Transactional Discourse Model//Argumentation. 1988.

Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.

Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem

Speech conflict in the light of the theory of speech activity

Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in KA

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Transcript

Recommended list of dissertations in the specialty "Russian language", 02/10/01 code VAK

Pragmalinguistic features of interpersonal communication in the communicative situation “domestic conflict”: based on the material of the English language 2009, Candidate of Philological Sciences Volkova, Olga Sergeevna

Speech conflict strategies and factors influencing their choice 2005, Candidate of Philological Sciences Mulkeeva, Valeria Olegovna

Communication strategies and tactics of speech behavior in conflict communication situations 2004, Candidate of Philological Sciences Gulakova, Irina Ivanovna

Regulatory speech acts as a factor in the success of dialogue and a component of the communication strategy of communication partners 2004, candidate of philological sciences Rumyantseva, Elena Nikolaevna

Communicative strategies and tactics in conflict situations of communication of everyday and professional pedagogical discourses of Russian and American linguistic cultures 2008, candidate of philological sciences Pevneva, Inna Vladimirovna

Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “Speech conflict and harmonization of communication”

Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “Russian language”, Tretyakova, Vera Stepanovna

List of references for dissertation research Doctor of Philological Sciences Tretyakova, Vera Stepanovna, 2003