Russian language culture speech conflict. Speech conflict and harmonization of communication Vera Stepanovna Tretyakova

16.07.202327.05.2017

Conflict as a Phenomenon of Language and Speech

The optimal way of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. When studying it, the ways of creating speech comfort for participants in a communicative act, the means and methods used by communicants to ensure or destroy harmonious communication are considered.

The field of attention of researchers includes such phenomena as a language conflict, a situation (area) of risk, communicative success/failure (interference, failure, failure), etc. language conflict" (JK) and "communicative failure" (KN).

When defining this or that concept, it is necessary to proceed from the nature of this phenomenon. The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of the conflict in speech communication:

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

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

3) any conflict, socio-psychological, psychological-ethical or any other, also receives a linguistic representation.

However, the term "language conflict", in our opinion, does not reflect the full breadth and diversity of the speech behavior of communication partners. Misunderstanding, misunderstanding, discomfort or conflict in communication, provoked by the nature of a linguistic sign (for example, lexical or grammatical ambiguity, dynamic meaning of language units, lack of a natural connection between “signified” and “signifier”, between a sign and an object, etc.), could would be called a consequence of linguistic interference proper. But this is only one of the possible factors that determine the nature of communication; in reality, their complex operates. There are good reasons to use the term "speech conflict", the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept of "speech". Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using language resources, carried out by an individual. Contextuality, situationality and variability are the features that define speech, but not language. Firstly, they are related to the fact that speech is the creation of a person (author), who has his own communicative intentions, a certain level of language proficiency, psychological state, attitude towards the interlocutor, etc. Secondly, there is also an interlocutor (listening or reading ), with its own goal, focus on the speaker or its absence, adequate / inadequate interpretation of the linguistic sign or the addressee's statement as a whole, linguistic taste and many other features that determine the nature of the interlocutors' behavior and do not fit within the framework of the language system. We believe that the field of speech behavior cannot be limited to the study of its own linguistic nature, which means that the term "language conflict" does not fully reflect the essence of this phenomenon.

The very concept of "conflict" as a linguistic phenomenon requires clarification in a number of concepts related to the evaluation of the effectiveness of a communicative act. Various kinds of discomfort arising in the process of natural dialogic communication have received different names: communicative failure, communicative failure, communicative misunderstanding, communicative failure, etc. A communicative failure (the term of E.V. the subject of speech, the reason for which is the use by the participants of communication of a different set of codes for transmitting and receiving information. As N. L. Shubina notes, "a communicative failure should be distinguished from a communicative defect (mistake) caused by ignorance of the rules of communication, lack of language competence or insufficient culture of proficiency in the native language." Communication failure and communicative defect are very close concepts, and one often causes the other: ignorance of the rules of communication or the incompetence of one of the participants in communication determines the choice of such a code for transmitting or receiving information that does not correspond to the situation of communication, provokes an inadequate interpretation of the statement (the appearance of "other" meanings ); which, in turn, can also lead to communication failure.

E. V. Klyuev calls errors in the identification of spacecraft a communicative blunder.

T. V. Shmeleva uses the term “communicative failure”, paying attention, first of all, to the “co-authorship” of communication partners, their cooperative actions towards each other in the dialogue, the absence of which leads to failure or communicative failure of communication. The term "communicative failure" is also used by V.V. Krasnykh, understanding it as a complete misunderstanding, while "communicative failure" is interpreted by the author as an incomplete understanding.

The term “communicative failure” (hereinafter also referred to as CF) is most often found in special studies related to the evaluation of the result of a communicative act, and traditionally includes the following content: complete or partial misunderstanding of the statement by the communication partner, i.e. non-fulfillment or incomplete fulfillment of the communicative intention of the speaker. According to the concept of O. P. Ermakova and E. A. Zemskaya, CI also includes “an undesirable emotional effect arising in the process of communication that is not foreseen by the speaker: resentment, irritation, amazement”, in which, according to the authors, mutual misunderstanding of communication partners is expressed . Thus, the term "communicative failure" turns out to be very capacious due to the breadth of the phenomenon it covers: any misunderstanding by communication partners of each other, any undesirable emotional effect are CI. Communicative misunderstandings and failures, in our opinion, are particular manifestations of CI and can be removed in the process of communication with the help of additional communicative steps: re-questions, clarifications, explanations, leading questions, reformulation, as a result of which the communicative intention of the speaker can be implemented.

Consequently, not every CI is a communicative (speech) conflict. Conflict implies a clash of parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication over dissenting interests, opinions and views, 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 that can be expressed in the form of reproach, remarks, objections, accusations, threats, insults, 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 the disagreement or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is the speech conflict.

During the conflict, the speech behavior of the communicants is "two opposite programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in separate operations ...". These programs of behavior of communication participants determine the choice of conflict speech strategies and appropriate speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to induce the other one way or another to change their behavior. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc., which go beyond the concept of "language conflict". Thus, returning to the problem of the term, we believe that the use of the term "language conflict" is applicable to various kinds of communicative interference, which are of a purely linguistic nature. Such interference can potentially cause collision between communication partners. A speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in the communication of 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. If language conflict is the subject of systemic linguistics, then speech conflict is the subject of linguopragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and communicative linguistics. Naturally, in the presence of a linguistic and speech conflict, one can also talk about the existence of a non-verbal conflict that develops regardless of the speech situation: a conflict of goals, views. But since the representation of a non-speech conflict occurs in speech, it also becomes the subject of pragmatics research in the aspect of relations and forms of speech communication (argument, debate, quarrel, etc.) between the participants in communication.

As material in the study of speech conflict, we use the recordings of the program “To the Barrier” (presenter V. Solovyov, NTV channel). In this case, we get the opportunity to observe "live" communication, which initially contains, according to the author of the program, the grain of interpersonal conflict.

First, let's define the concept conflict as such. Following V.S. Tretyakov, under conflict we will understand a situation in which there is a clash of two parties (participants in the conflict) over a disagreement of interests, goals, views, as a result of which one of the parties deliberately and actively acts to the detriment of the other (physically or verbally), and the second party, realizing that these actions are directed against his interests, takes retaliatory actions against the first participant (1, pp. 127-140). so understood conflict can arise only on the basis of communicative contact: the opposite of positions or mental action, not expressed in any way outside, are not an element of the conflict that has begun, and there is no conflict if only one participant acts.

Thus, a speech conflict is the result of a special type of interaction between subjects, a certain state of participants in a communicative act that arises as a result of speech behavior.

Among the factors characterizing the causes and nature of the conflict, V.S. Tretyakova relates language and speech. The social essence of the language, its conventional nature allows us to consider the language as a code that is common for speakers of this language, creating conditions for understanding, so we can talk about language as a means of establishing contact in speech communication. Another thing is speech. Speech is an individual phenomenon, it is a creative and unique process of using language resources. Situational conditioning, variability of speech, on the one hand, and the opportunity provided by the language to make a choice to express a certain content, on the other hand, make the speech of each subject unique, unlike the speech of other people. The right choice of language means that can adequately convey the content, justifying the expectations of a communication partner, is a condition for harmonizing communication.

Deviation from the rules often leads to misunderstandings, to mutual misunderstanding of the interlocutors, and this, in turn, can cause inadequate reactions, including aggression as one of the manifestations of a speech conflict. In this case, the representation of B.F. Porshnev about the mechanisms that create barriers in communication: he considers any speech as an impact on the addressee (suggestion) and proceeds from the fact that barriers are created primarily by the addressee as a kind of protection against suggestion. The researcher considers the main types of protection avoidance,authority And misunderstanding. So, considering misunderstanding as a form of protection, B.F. Porshnev identifies four of its levels:

I.1) phonetic- misunderstanding arises from the use of a set of phonemes unrecognizable by the addressee;

I. 2) semantic– misunderstanding arises due to the use of semantics that are unrecognizable by the addressee, due to the discrepancy between the thesauri of the addresser and the addressee;

I. 3) stylistic- misunderstanding arises from a mismatch between the form and content of the message;

I.4) logical- misunderstanding arises due to various kinds of logical errors in the message, due to a discrepancy in the "logic" of the addresser and the addressee.

In our case, of interest are linguistic means of creating a situation of coincidence or divergence of goals and attitudes of the addresser and addressee, means of achieving communicative cooperation, the absence of which leads to a speech conflict.

The level organization of language units (lexical, derivational, morphological and syntactic units) can be used as a basis for classifying conflict situations. Let's look at examples of how deviation from language norms affects the success of speech interaction.

V. Zhirinovsky: Another situation. Sasha where all these lists come from, accurate statements, the American embassy, banks, who gave to whom. That ordinary people have nothing? Who gave it to you?...

…A doctor who saw that this man was causing great harm. Why didn't he poison him, doctor? He treated him. Well, if he is a good doctor, he would take it, and undertreated would have it. And then they treated him well, guarded him, served him well ...

A. Khinshtein: Let's listen, listen...

V. Solovyov: No, the criteria for a good doctor, is that a doctor who undertreated?

V. Zhirinovsky: He his recovered

V. Solovyov: Well, you give.

V. Solovyov: Vladimir Volfovich, you don't want Alexander Alekseevich to call you Vova. So let's treat each other with respect...

V. Zhirinovsky: I can keep quiet Sasha. Look how much You there he wrote how much money he earned ...

The first thing to pay attention to is the violation of the cultural and speech norm by one of the communicants: V. Zhirinovsky addresses the interlocutor on You and uses the familiar form of a proper name, unacceptable in official communication Sasha, thereby demonstrating a disrespectful attitude towards the interlocutor. The last fact we noted is perceived as a kind of insult: V. Zhirinovsky and the host of the program point out the possibility of such an assessment, thus trying to remove the brewing conflict between the duelists. However, we see that V. Zhirinovsky does not react to the remark and returns to using the chosen form of a proper name, moreover in a more aggressive form, focusing on the pronoun You.

The risk of conflict development is also contained in the remarks of V. Zhirinovsky and V. Solovyov related to the definition of criteria for a good doctor. The underlined opposition is based on the use of word-building means - prefixes with an antonymous meaning (insufficiency - redundancy). We can observe both hidden irony and mockery, which is one of the factors provoking a speech conflict; see the reaction of V. Zhirinovsky in response to the host's remark ( good doctor is one who undertreated↔ he his recovered).

Forcing, an underlined exaggeration of the significance of the judgment being expressed, may be the result of a violation of syntactic norms - unreasonable redundancy of additions, their inconsistency, acts in the analyzed dialogue as a deliberate “challenge” of the interlocutor to a conflict: where did all these lists come from, accurate statements, the American embassy, banks, who gave it to whom? But V. Zhirinovsky does not achieve the desired result, since A. Khinshtein shows restraint, demonstrating with a condescending remark “ Let's listen, let's listen its superiority, self-righteousness. In addition, the use in this case of the verb of the 1st person in the plural is evidence that A. Khinshtein opposes the individual opinion of his interlocutor to the opinion of all viewers and the presenter that is common with his point of view.

We see that in the organization of television dialogue, the competent use of certain grammatical, mainly syntactic, as well as lexical and morphological elements can serve as a guarantee of conflict-free communication. And vice versa, conscious or unconscious violation of the norms of the language leads to a distortion of the meaning of what is being expressed, incorrect interpretation and disagreements between communicants.

The well-known work of G.P. Grice, introducing the concept principle of cooperation as the basis of speech interaction. concept principle specified in the concept postulate: the principle of cooperation is reflected in the postulates, which are divided into four categories - Quantity, Quality, Way and Relations (4). So, the category of Quantity includes postulates related to the amount of information that needs to be conveyed (“Your statement should contain no less information than required (to fulfill the current goals of the dialogue)”, “Your statement should not contain more information than required”) ; the category of Quality includes the postulate “Try to make your statement true”; the postulate “Do not deviate from the topic” is associated with the category of Relations; finally, with the category of Method, which, according to G.P. Grice, it's not about What is said (like the rest of the categories), but rather How this is done, one postulate "Speak clearly" applies.

G.P. Grice stipulates the existence of postulates of a different nature - aesthetic, social or moral, which he does not attribute to proper communicative ones. He sees his task in presenting communicative postulates, because they are connected with the goals for which the language is used. Following these postulates and rules can either provoke a speech conflict between communicants, or help find ways out of their conflict, prevent the conflict from brewing.

conflict is a two-way behavior based on communicative contact.

An important issue in the theory of conflict is the understanding and evaluation of the nature of the conflict. It is connected with understanding the nature of man himself: what is the main thing in him - individual or social?

Taking this or that point of view, the researchers, respectively, either point to the biological conditionality of the conflict as inherent in human nature, or take the position of social determinism, recognizing the conflict as the result of the processes of social life. In our opinion, the nature of the conflict combines and develops both internal (spiritual, personal) and external (social) factors as in a complex system. Their dialectical interaction determines the nature of both man and conflict. Thus, from the position of a researcher observing the manifestation of a conflict in a visible, observable stage, we can identify two parameters that characterize the causes and nature of the conflict.

The first parameter is the direct participants in the conflict, whose behavior is determined by a complex of external (social) and internal (psychological) factors. The external factors regulating speech behavior include the traditions and norms that have developed in a given ethno-cultural community, in the professional group to which the speakers belong; conventions adopted in a given society; schemes of speech behavior that have become socially significant and assimilated by the individual; as well as the fulfillment by communicants of social roles determined by social status, profession, nationality, education, age, etc. Internal factors that determine the behavior of participants in the conflict include those that are due to the qualities of the subjects themselves: personality type (psychological and communicative), interests, motives, intentions, attitudes and views of the participants in the conflict, etc. [Tretyakova, 2000, p. 167].

The second parameter is language and speech, which are also correlated as phenomena of an external and internal order. The social essence of the language, its conventional nature allows us to consider the language as a code that is common for speakers of this language, creating conditions for understanding those who communicate, and to talk about language as a means of establishing contact in speech communication. Speech is another matter. Speech is an individual phenomenon, depending on the author-performer, it is a creative and unique process of using language resources. Situational conditioning, variability of speech, on the one hand, and the ability to make a choice to express a certain content, on the other, make speech unique, unlike the speech of another person. The right choice of language means oriented to the interlocutor, the ability to adequately convey the content, justifying the expectations of the communication partner - all this harmonizes communication.

Introduction

CHAPTER 1. THEORETICAL PROBLEMS OF DESCRIPTION OF SPEECH CONFLICT

1.1. Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem 17

1.1.1. The psychological nature of the conflict.; 19

1.1.2. The 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 (to the question of the term) 55

1.2.2. Factors causing speech conflict 60

1.3. Aspects of the linguistic description of the speech conflict 65

1.3.1. Cognitive Aspect: Scenario Theory and Speech Conflict Scenario 65

1.3.2. Pragmatic aspect: the theory of interpretation

and speech conflict 68

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

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

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

2.2. Principles of speech conflict analysis 116

Findings 131

CHAPTER 3. SPEECH CONFLICT: MARKERS AND GENRE SCENARIOS

3.1. Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict 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 verbal and emotional reactions... 178

3.3. Conflict communicative act: options

scenarios; 183

3.3.1. Communicative Threat Scenarios 187

3.3.2. Communication Scenarios Remarks 193

3.3.3. Communicative scenarios of an unreasonable request. 201

3.4,-Conditions for choosing a scenario option 213

Findings 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 stereotypical sample of 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

Findings 271

CONCLUSION 273

MAIN TEXT SOURCES 278

DICTIONARIES AND REFERENCES 278

REFERENCES 278

Introduction to 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 was formed at the turn of the century, during a change in economic civilization, major social upheavals.

The undoubted result of the democratization of our society was the aggravation of interest in the problems of national self-consciousness, 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 the world of meanings, views, ideas, which is the core of the spiritual culture of the human community, developed over generations 1 . There are different types of cultures, characterized by the fact that they have different value dominants, and in the interaction of people who profess different spiritual values, conflicts of cultures and values arise.

1 See different definitions of values: “This is a world of meanings, thanks to which a person joins something more important and permanent 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 to the world” [Gurevich 1995: 120].

and the sphere of interpersonal relations. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: evaluative correlates of good-bad, structuring our experience and turning our actions into deeds, are blurred; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to a 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 public consciousness of society [Baranov 1990: 167].

This process is accompanied by an increase in social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress, and, according to psychologists, the loss of integrating identification, the 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', 'embarrassment', 'disrespect'” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]; there is a certain reaction to the source of disappointment, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this state; there is a desire to release the 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 the language” [Shakhovsky 1991: 30]. Thus, the mental state and mood of a person are reflected in his linguistic consciousness and take on verbalized forms of existence.

ditch, which determine the speech behavior of the individual in the conflict zone, the study of the linguistic, social and psychological nature of the 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 variety of studies of effective communicative behavior, this problem has not received full coverage. The need to study the 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 a speech conflict.

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

. The relevance of research is determined by the need to develop theoretical foundations and practical methods of linguistic research of conflict and harmonious social and 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, the multidimensionality and complexity in the study of both the process of speech activity itself and its result are relevant. It is this integrated approach that is implemented in the dissertation research. The focus of the author's attention is on a "speaking person", whose speech activity cumulates certain socio-cultural states. The study of speech conflict is carried out within the framework of all the leading areas of modern linguistics: linguocognitive, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic and linguocultural. A heightened interest in the problems of speech conflict and the 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 and others], many questions concerning the nature and typology of speech conflicts cannot be considered finally resolved. In particular, questions about markers of disharmony and speech conflict in a communicative act, cooperative and confrontational strategies and tactics of speech, and functional models of harmonizing speech behavior remain open.

The relevance of the work is also connected with the need for general linguistic education of the 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 this linguistic culture. noah community.

Subject of study in the dissertation is the semantic structure of the conflict And harmoniously marked communicative acts (conversational dialogues) as a set of speech actions performed by communicants. They are holistic dialogic units, characterized by the unity of form and content, coherence and completeness, and ensuring the realization of the author's intention. At the same time, the focus is on linguistic and speech activity means of expressing the conflict 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 townspeople, recorded by the author, teachers; graduate students and students of the Ural State Pedagogical University. The volume of the studied material is 400 text fragments, which in written fixation is more than 200 pages of printed text. The collection of live conversational material was carried out in the natural conditions of communication by the method of participant observation, by the method of covert 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 reliably. The source of the material was the realistic prose of modern Russian writers and the speech of native speakers of the Russian language in casual speech communication. The texts of Russian classical literature are sometimes used for comparison. Goals and tasks of the work. The main goal of the work is to build a holistic, consistent concept of speech conflict and harmonization of communication, to identify the features of their manifestation in Russian linguistic culture. To achieve this goal, it was necessary to solve the following main tasks:

substantiate the concept of "speech conflict";

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

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

to establish the denotative space of the speech conflict and the factors that determine the origin, development and resolution of the 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-generating communicative situation, create a unified classification of linguistic personalities 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 from the standpoint of the conflict of speech genres;

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

The dissertation research is based on hypothesis about a speech conflict as a special communicative event that takes place in time, has its own stages of development, and is realized by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict proceeds according to typical scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is due to 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, due to linguistic and extralinguistic factors, is based on the general provisions of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics and the theory of language 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 a strategic direction of research was predetermined by promising results in new areas of linguistic knowledge: linguopragmatics, cognitive linguistics, the theory of speech acts and speech genres [G. I. Bogin, V. I. Gerasimov, M. Ya. Glovinskaya, T. A. van Dyck, V. Z. Demyankov, V. V. Dementiev, E. S. Kubryakova, J. Lakoff, 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. Yu. Gorodetsky, I. M. Kobozeva, I. G. Saburova, P. Grice, N. D. Golev, T. G. Grigoryeva, O. P. Ermakova, E. A. Zemskaya, S. G. Ilyenko, N. G. Komlev, The culture of Russian speech ...,. T. M. Nikolaeva, E. V. Paducheva, G. G. Pocheptsov, K. F. Sedov, E. N. Shiryaev and others].

Essential for the construction of a scientific hypothesis and the development of research issues were modern works on language conceptology and language mapping.

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

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

B. 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 in the framework of communicatively oriented studies of the language and style of the text [M. N. Kozhina, N. A. Kupina, L. M. Maidanova, T. V. Matveeva, Yu. A. Sorokin, etc.]. A comprehensive study of conversational dialogue (interpersonal communication) is based on the methods of scientific observation and linguistic description, variants of which are the methods of discursive and textual analysis. Discourse analysis is carried out based on the main 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 contextual analysis were used. A special role in the work is given to methods of predictive modeling of cognitive structures (intention and communicative presupposition) and expert opinions.

The complex application of these methods is designed to ensure the multidimensionality of the linguistic analysis of the material under study.

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

wearing, to argue the functional features of the conflict statement, due to the unity of the 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 the development of a mechanism for the study of speech behavior in the procedural and productive aspects, which is applicable to the analysis of not only conflict and harmoniously marked communicative acts, but has explanatory power for other types of statements; in determining the principles of cognitive-pragmatic analysis of conflict texts.

The study 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 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 not sufficiently described in the scientific literature, also texts that have recorded 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 put forward for defense:

1. Speech conflict is the embodiment of the confrontation of communicants in a communicative event, due to mental, social and ethical factors, the extrapolation of which occurs in speech.

howling fabric of dialogue. The systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe the speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad context.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a kind of typical structure - a frame that includes mandatory components (slots): participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, value ideas, goals, etc.) among communicants; cause-reason; damage"; temporal and spatial extent.

A conflict is a communicative event that takes place in time and can be presented in dynamics. The methods of such representation include, firstly, a scenario that reflects development within the framework of a stereotyped

Situations of "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 inception, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. An analysis of the conflict speech genre shows which language means the conflicting parties have chosen depending on their intention. The scenario reinforces 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 situations of communication. Dynamic conflict structuring on the basis of these terms has explanatory power for recognizing potentially conflict situations, risk situations and conflict situations proper, as well as for predicting and modeling by communicants both the situation itself and their behavior in it.

4. A native speaker is a linguistic personality, has his own
essential repertoire of means and methods of achieving com
communicative purposes, the application of which is not fully
limited to scenario and genre stereotyping and
predictability. As a result, the development of communication
but the conditioned scenarios are diverse: from harmonious

th, cooperative to disharmonious, conflict. The choice of one or another version of the scenario 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 and norms of speech behavior established in Russian linguistic culture. .

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation - the post-communicative phase - is characterized by the consequences arising from all previous stages of the development of a communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions that were 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.

Among linguistic means, lexico-semantic and grammatical units are especially brightly marked as a conflict communicative act (CCA). They most clearly reflect the national characteristics of the conflict. They form the content and structure of the CCA and are expressive markers of a 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 occurs among the participants in the communicative act. They are associated with various kinds of inconsistencies, misunderstanding and violation 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 that create the effect of deceived expectations in the communicative act.

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

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

tags and speech tactics there is a rigid correlation. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: offers, consents, concessions, approvals, praises, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproaches, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

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

I. Depending on the type of conflict situation and the stage of the conflict, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: the conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situation), the conflict neutralization model (conflict risk situation) and the conflict harmonization model (the actual conflict situation). These models have a different degree of cliché due to the multiplicity of parameters and components of the CCA, 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 on the culture of speech, rhetoric, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, as well as special courses on 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 colloquial 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 method of teaching conflict-free communication.

Approbation of the 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) and others. ), at scientific seminars and meetings of the Department of Linguistics and Methods of Teaching the Russian Language, USPU.

Dissertation structure. The text of the dissertation research consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources of research materials and a bibliographic list.

The main content of the work.

The Introduction substantiates the relevance and novelty of the study, defines the subject, purpose and corresponding tasks and methods of research, presents the main provisions for defense, notes the theoretical significance and novelty of the work, and characterizes the main results of the study.

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

Chapter 2 presents technologies, tools and principles of linguistic analysis of speech conflict. Various approaches to the study of 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, defines the linguistic and pragmatic markers of CCA fixed in conversational dialogues. The most revealing 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 real 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 according to 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 vital phenomenon is on the axis of the intersection of the interests of scientists from different scientific fields. It is studied by lawyers, sociologists, psychologists, linguists, teachers. New scientific areas of conflict research are emerging. Thus, jurislinguistics was born before our eyes, the object of study of which is the theoretical and practical problems of the interaction of language and law, linguistics and jurisprudence in the aspect of regulating various kinds of social conflicts associated with the use of language in various areas of social life [Jurisling-vistika-I 1999 ; Jurislinguistics-II 2000; Jurislinguistics-III 2002]. Legal conflictology is successfully developing [Dmitriev, V. Kudryavtsev, S. Kudryavtsev 1993], pedagogical conflictology [Belkin, Zhavoronkov, Zimina 1995; Zhuravlev 1995; Lukashonok, Shchurkova 1998];

Conflicts are a real phenomenon of our life, and every person faces them all the time. That is why the study of conflicts is becoming increasingly active. Their importance in our lives should not be exaggerated, but they should not be ignored either. In order to develop the right line of conduct in various conflicts, it is necessary to determine what a conflict is, how it arises, what conflicts are, what are the ways out of difficult situations, as well as ways to resolve and resolve the conflict.

The study of conflicts is multifaceted.

On the one hand, general theoretical problems of conflict description are developed, on the other hand, practical methods of analysis, prevention and resolution of conflicts of various kinds are proposed.

Speech conflictology is still in its infancy. It should incorporate the achievements of many sciences and create a complete picture of the communicative behavior of the people. The complexity and versatility of the object of study involves 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, linguodidactics and linguistics proper.

There are many definitions of the concept of "conflict". Most often, it is interpreted through more general concepts - collision (lat. conflictus - collision), contradiction, confrontation. Thus, we can single out 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 the contradiction. They can be various subjects - specific people, as well as groups of people, large or small. This means that the opposing sides (participants in the conflict, its subjects) are an obligatory component of the conflict, this is the “core of the conflict” [Dmitriev, V. Kudryavtsev, S. Kudryavtsev 1993: 27].

In a conflict, two parties necessarily act, showing incompatible interests, goals or views, and one of the parties has a desire one way or another, but for its own benefit, to change the behavior of the other side, as a result of which the first subject begins to act against the other, to the detriment of him. This is how the conflict begins. The second side takes retaliatory actions, realizing the premeditation of actions against its interests. A conflict develops. 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 there is no conflict in the presence of contradictions: firstly, with ideally coordinated interaction based on the full mutual correspondence of the strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and teams; secondly, in the absence of any contact between them [Komlev 1978: 90]. There is no conflict in the case when only one participant acts. Thus, the speaker notices that a colleague is not listening to him. There are objective signs of a conflict situation: discrepancy between goals and interests. But this is not a conflict. The speaker decides later to tell the colleague about his unethical behavior, disrespect for himself, but changes his mind. And it's not a conflict. Mental action, not expressed physically or verbally, is not an element of the conflict that has begun. A conflict can take place when both of its participants are aware of the existence of a contradiction and not only realize, but also begin to actively oppose each other.

Consequently, 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 of the parties 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 the linguistics of the last 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 is discourse - "a coherent text in conjunction with extralinguistic - pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors" [LES, 1990: 136]1. Unlike the text, which is understood primarily as an abstract, formal construct [Arutyunova 1990; Serio 2001], discourse is considered as a unit that addresses the mental processes of the participants in communication and is associated with extralinguistic factors of communication [Dijk van 1989].

But the study of speech conflict does not exclude the appeal to the linguistic side of the discourse itself - language units and their speech semantics, as well as to a special linguistic discipline - the culture of speech, which is a scientific field that has the subject of study of linguistic means that allow in a certain situation of communication to provide 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 an 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 foundations cause various deviations, errors leading to misunderstanding, various kinds of misunderstandings that reduce the effectiveness of communication, and even speech conflicts. So, 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 chill? - Zyabi! The collective farm came to check, but you don’t know how to speak. Did you finish, 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 appropriate/inappropriate, ethical/unethical, polite/impolite, etc. Conflict in communication can occur as a result of a violation of the cultural standard, conditions that deform discourse, make it difficult or impossible to communicate. Conflictogenic factors of a pragmatic nature are diverse. Such factors also include “the difference between 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], ignoring the pragmatic component in the semantics of the word by one of the interlocutors, violation of stereotyped connections between categories of meanings, the presence of stereotypes of speech behavior and thinking [Ermakova, Zemskaya 1993: 55-60], as well as the imperfection of the command 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 linguo-pragmatic, since the understanding of the meaning of the judgment expressed by S and perceived by S2 is hindered both by the nature of the language structure used in communication and by the participants in the communication who made its choice.

Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in the VKA

The language tools used by speakers to carry out their communicative intentions are superficial, visible structures of the text. They are observable, they can signal the goals and intentions of the communicants, 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 which language units are conflict-generating, i.e., capable of becoming an incentive mechanism for generating a speech conflict or communicative failure.

Of course, within the framework of the 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 the language as a sign system: lexical, semantic and grammatical signals of a speech conflict.

Language as a complex system of signs is characterized by a number of properties that provoke an ambiguous interpretation of the meanings conveyed by these signs. These properties "live" within the language and are of a potential nature, since they require special conditions for their detection, mechanisms that bring them into action. These conditions are speech conditions: 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 conflictogenic in nature.

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

Such a two-dimensional approach is due to the property of the language as a system of signs, which consists in the double signification of its units: among the means of a particular system, a series - primary signification, and in combination with other signs in a linear series - secondary signification. The unit of primary meaning is the word as an undivided linguistic sign, i.e., its individual meanings are not actualized in the utterance, in connection with which the addressee actualizes those senses of the word that represent the zone of its “closest meaning” [Potebnya 1958: 29] and which are significant for the current speaker. The distinguished 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 communicative failure, a conflict, or, with communicative cooperation of the interlocutors, will be harmonized and will not end in a conflict. The unit of secondary signification is a sentence or statement, when the word is divided into its constituent meanings or exactly the meaning that is needed is actualized in it. The use of units of secondary meaning usually does not entail misunderstanding or contradiction between the subjects of speech (unless supported by non-linguistic factors).

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 (actual conflict situations). To a greater extent, speech behavior in potentially conflict situations is subject to modeling. This type of situation contains provocative conflict factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural and communicative scenario, 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 without letting it go into the conflict zone means to know these factors, to know the ways and means of neutralizing them, and to be able to apply them. This model was identified on the basis of an analysis of the motivating speech genres of a request, remark, question, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten a communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual urge (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the urge + justification for the importance of the urge + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don't do) this (this) because... This is a conflict prevention model.

The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that they have a deviation from the general cultural scenario 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 situation of risk, at least one of the communicants can still realize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. Let's call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the conflict neutralization model. 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 of the communicant who seeks 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 actions of the conflicting party 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, the typification of speech behavior in such situations is possible at the level of identifying standard, harmonizing speech tactics.

The third type of situations is actually conflict situations, in which differences in positions, values, rules of behavior, etc. are explicated, which form the potential for confrontation. The conflict is determined by extralinguistic factors, in connection with which it is difficult to confine ourselves to recommendations of a speech plan only. 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 behaviors.

The first model is "Playing along with a partner", the purpose of which is not to aggravate relations with a partner, not to bring out existing disagreements or contradictions for open discussion, not to sort things out. Compliance and focus on oneself and on the interlocutor are the main qualities of the speaker, necessary for communication according to this model. Tactics of consent, 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 development of communication, "constructs" a situation that is more favorable for himself and his partner. The speech behavior of the communicant who has chosen this model characterizes the use of default tactics (silent permission for the partner to make a decision on his own), avoiding the topic or changing the scenario. The use of this model is most appropriate in a situation of open conflict.

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

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 the same type of communication situations that have a number of paramount parameters (it is impossible to take into account everything). This fully applies to spontaneous verbal communication. The developed models in three types of potentially and real conflict situations fix such a type of generalization that allows them to be used in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the method of teaching conflict-free communication.

For successful communication, when interpreting a message, each communicator must comply with certain conditions. The subject of speech (the speaker) must be aware of the possibility of inadequate interpretation of the statement or its individual components and, realizing their own intention, focus on their communication partner, assuming the recipient'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 different parameters: take into account the linguistic and communicative competence of the addressee, the level of his background information, emotional state, etc.

The addressee (hearer), while interpreting the speaker's speech, should not disappoint his communicative partner in his expectations, maintaining the dialogue in the desired direction for the speaker, he should objectively create an "image of a partner" and an "image of discourse". In this case, there is a maximum approximation to that 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 socio-cultural - which also determine the process of generating and perceiving speech and determining 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, the explicit and the implicit in the content of the discourse, the measure of its spontaneity, the choice of means to achieve the goal, fixing the speaker's point of view, etc. .

So, misunderstanding can be caused by the vagueness 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 speech perception by the addressee: inattention of the addressee, his lack of interest in the subject or subject of speech, etc. In both cases, the pragmatic factor, mentioned earlier, operates, but there are clearly psychological interferences: the state of the interlocutors, the unwillingness of the addressee to communicate, the relationship of communication partners to each other, etc. Psychological and pragmatic factors also include the following: varying degrees of intensity of conducting verbal communication, especially the perception of the context of communication, etc., due to the type of personality, character traits, and temperament of the communicants.

In each specific conflict speech situation, one or another type of speech forms, expressions is most appropriate. Relevance determines the strength of the impact of speech. To be able to be relevant is to be functional. The means of the 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 above attention is focused on the speech behavior of a person who seeks to harmonize potentially and actually conflict interaction. This position seems to be important in cultural terms: the ability of people to regulate relations 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.

Bibliographic list

Muravieva N.V. The language of conflict. - M., 2002.

V.S. Tretyakova

It is impossible to describe harmonious communication without identifying its qualities and properties that bring disharmony into the speech actions of communicants, destroy understanding, and cause negative emotional and psychological states of communication partners. In this case, the attention of researchers includes such phenomena as communicative failure (E.V. Paducheva), communicative 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 refer to various kinds of failures and misunderstandings in the course of verbal communication, the term is most often used in special studies. "communication failure", which is understood as a complete or partial misunderstanding of the statement by the communication partner, i.e. failure or incomplete implementation of the speaker's communicative intention [Gorodetsky, Kobozeva, Saburova, 1985, p. 64–66]. To communicative failure, according to the concept of E.A. Zemskoy and O.P. Ermakova, also applies to “an undesirable emotional effect arising in the process of communication not provided for by the speaker: resentment, irritation, amazement” [Ermakova, Zemskaya, 1993, p. 31], in which, according to the authors, the mutual misunderstanding of communication partners is expressed.

Not every communication failure grows into a communication conflict. Communication failures, failures, misunderstandings can be neutralized in the process of communication with the help of additional speech steps: re-questions, clarifications, explanations, leading questions, reformulation, as a result of which the communicative intention of the speaker can be implemented. The conflict implies a clash of the parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication over disparate interests, opinions, 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 that can be expressed by appropriate - negative - means of language and speech. Such speech actions of the speaker - the subject of speech, the addresser - determine the speech behavior of the other side - the addressee: he, realizing that these speech actions are directed against his interests, takes reciprocal speech actions against his interlocutor, expressing his attitude to the subject of speech or interlocutor. This counter-interaction is speech conflict .

The conflict as a reality of life is the object of study of many sciences. For a linguist, 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 a speech 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 need to develop theoretical foundations and practical methods for studying these types of communicative behavior. The focus of attention of linguists is a “speaking person”, who is immersed in a wide socio-cultural context and whose speech activity cumulates certain states of this context.

The change in the paradigm of linguistics naturally leads linguistic studies to a wide-context study of the general patterns of the functioning of dialogic texts, genres of everyday speech communication, an appeal to the text as the embodiment of the intentions of the sender and addressee, to identify factors that determine the conflict or harmonious type of speech interaction. In turn, this makes it possible to identify the preferences of communicants in interpersonal communication, the motives for choosing the means and ways to achieve the intentions of the speakers, the norms of behavior accepted in this society, the ways to achieve the aesthetic effect of interaction and, in this regard, to determine the causes of communication failures and speech conflicts, as well as identify ways to harmonize potentially and actually conflict communication.

As mentioned earlier, a speech conflict is a state of confrontation between the participants in the conflict, as a result of which each of the parties deliberately and actively acts to the detriment of the opposite side, explicating their actions by verbal and pragmatic means. Since the explication of the contradictions existing between the two parties occurs most often at the verbal and verbal levels, it becomes relevant to study the speech behavior of participants in this type of interaction from the point of view of the means and ways of expressing these contradictions. However, the material expression of the conflict relations of speech subjects in the act of communication in the form of specific language and speech structures is a reflection of their certain pre-communicative state (interests, positions, views, values, attitudes, goals, etc.). At the same time, it is assumed that the 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 linguocultural community.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a kind of typical structure - a frame. Frame "conflict" 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; clash (of goals, views, positions, points of view), revealing their contradiction or inconsistency - speech actions of one of the participants in the conflict situation, aimed at changing the behavior or state of the interlocutor and resistance to the speech actions of another participant through their own speech actions; the damage (consequences) that is caused by the speech actions of the participant and which the other experiences as a result of these speech actions. Optional components of the "conflict" frame (lower level) can be represented by the following slots: temporal extent, reflecting violations of the temporal sequence characteristic of the standard description of the situation; spatial extension 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 person who may not be a direct participant in the conflict, but be its culprit, accomplice, instigator or "arbitrator" and significantly influence the outcome of the communicative situation. The "conflict" frame reinforces the standard ways of action, regulating the speech behavior of its participants through the structure of knowledge about this frame.

The conflict as a communicative event occurring in time can be represented in dynamics. The units for such a representation are, firstly, scenario, which reflects the development within the framework of a stereotypical situation of the "main plots" of interaction, and, secondly, speech genre with prescribed linguistic structures. Scenario technology makes it possible to trace the stages of conflict development: its inception, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. Analysis of the conflict speech genre shows which language means the conflicting parties have chosen depending on their intentions, intentions, intentions and goals. The script reinforces a standard set of actions and their sequence in the development of a communicative event, and the speech genre is built according to well-known thematic, compositional and stylistic canons, enshrined in linguistic culture. Knowledge of scenarios of a conflict type of interaction and the corresponding speech genres ensures the predictability of speech behavior in communication situations and has explanatory power for recognizing a conflict, as well as predicting and modeling by communicants both the situation itself and their behavior in it. Since the frame, scenario 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 participants in a speech event, avoid surprises, unpredictability in communication, and this, in turn, excludes the possibility of conflict development of interaction. .

However, despite the stereotyping and predictability of the development of a communicative event, given by the scenario within a particular speech genre, the specific speech actions of the speaker are not of the same type. A native speaker - a linguistic personality - has his own repertoire of means and ways to achieve communicative goals, the use of which is limited by the boundaries of a given genre, but the speaker still has freedom of choice. In this regard, the development of communicatively conditioned scenarios (even within the framework of a given genre) is diverse: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflict. The choice of this or that variant of the scenario depends on the type of personality of the participants in the conflict, their communicative experience, communicative competence, communicative attitudes, communicative preferences.

The exchange of speech actions of participants in communication has its own name in communicative linguistics - a communicative act. It has its own structure and content. IN conflict communication act(KKA) the structure and content of speech actions is determined by a number of inconsistencies and contradictions that exist between the participants. In the pre-communicative phase of the CCA - the brewing 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 speech actions against each other. In the communicative phase - the maturation, peak and decline of the conflict - all the pre-communicative states of the subjects are realized: both parties begin to act in their own interests to the detriment of the other side by using conflicting language (lexical, grammatical) and speech (confrontational speech tactics, corresponding non-verbal) means. The post-communicative phase - conflict resolution - is characterized by the consequences arising from the previous stages: unwanted or unexpected speech reactions or emotional states of the conflicting parties, the quality of which is characterized by the degree of "harmfulness" of the conflict means used by the CCA participants.

At the heart of the speech behavior of the participants in the conflict are speech strategies. The 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 act - harmony or conflict. If the interlocutors fulfilled their communicative intentions and at the same time maintained the “balance of relations”, then communication was based on cooperation strategies. The interaction of communication partners in this case is an increasing confirmation of mutual role expectations, the rapid formation of a general picture of the situation in them 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 act of communication is regulated confrontational strategies. In the implementation of this variant of interaction, there is a unilateral or mutual non-confirmation of role expectations, a 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, closeness, cooperation, compromise, etc. They contribute to the effective behavior of communication participants and the full-fledged organization of speech interaction. Confrontational strategies include invective strategy, 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 conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation - speech tactics. There is a strong correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. For the implementation of cooperative strategies are used respectively cooperation tactics: offers, consents, concessions, approvals, praises, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

Exist double digit tactics, which can be both cooperative and conflict, depending on the strategy within which this tactic is used. Such tactics include, for example, the tactics of lying. It performs a cooperative function in the implementation of the politeness strategy, the purpose of which is to "do no harm" to the partner, to "raise" the interlocutor. At the same time, this tactic can be a conflicting tool when used as part of a confrontation strategy, such as a discredit strategy. Two-valued tactics also include tactics of irony, flattery, bribery, etc.

Speech strategy is associated with the planning of speech behavior. An important role in this process is played by the personal qualities of the subjects of speech. personality structures not isolated from the wider socio-cultural context, they interact closely. Therefore, the communicative act is determined by the extent to which the participants in the interaction correlate it with the social characteristics of the situation as a whole. The study of the patterns of human communication involves the inclusion of each specific statement, fragment of text in a wider context, in a more global system, which we call the national-cultural context. Speaking of the national-cultural context, we mean Russian national cultural space.

On the one hand, the national-cultural space, acting in the mind of a person as a form of existence of national culture, 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 the 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, significant only for this individual. Thus, there is an individual national-cultural space and a universal one. What function do they perform in the regulation of communication? Every society develops its own system of social codes in a given situation of communication. This set of typical programs of speech behavior is regulated by the norms, conventions and rules developed in Russian linguistic culture. Society is interested in the observance and preservation of standards and patterns. However, socially approved programs of behavior never cover the entire sphere of human behavior in society. And then we are talking about the individual characteristics of 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 have been violated?”, “Are there any contradictions between the norms established by society and individual implementations of communication?”. Thus, research individual behavior model, included in a broad social and national-cultural paradigm.

Models of speech behavior can exist at various levels of generalization. These are individual (personal) models. They can become meaningful for other people who find themselves in an unfamiliar communicative situation, because “they can be divorced from the context of a particular situation and become more abstract, i.e. turn into socially significant scenarios of stereotyped knowledge” [Dijk van, 1989, p. 276]. Each person participates in communicative events and the creation of texts, and hence various models of speech behavior, focusing on ideals, values, and norms of behavior that are significant for him and this society. Each of the models carries information for language users who evaluate and select these models. The task of the society (in the person of its individual representatives - the 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 could be enriched “through individual contributions” [Leontiev, 1979, p. 135] and subsequently serve as models for the practical implementation of speech behavior. These should be positive models that reflect the ways of civilized behavior in various situations, especially dangerous ones that threaten harmonious relations between the participants in communication. Knowledge of variants of speech behavior is manifested primarily in the awareness of alternative speech actions, it is necessary for the 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 partner's actions, and to adapt to the communication situation.

There are several types of dialogic interaction in conflict. One of the types of such interaction is mutual conflict, when the communicant behaves aggressively, attacks the other, and he responds to him in the same way. The second type of dialogic interaction is unidirectional conflict, when one of the communicants, to whom the conflict actions are directed, is eliminated from the conflict impact without taking any reciprocal steps. The third type of dialogical interaction in the conflict is harmonizing. It is characterized by the fact that one of the participants in the CCA is unrestrained, aggressively active in opposition, while the other is benevolent and no less active in an effort to relieve tension and extinguish the conflict.

Depending on the type of conflict situation, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model, a conflict neutralization model, and a conflict harmonization model. These models have a different degree of cliché due to the multiplicity of parameters and components of the CCA, reflecting the objective complexity of planning speech behavior in it. To a greater extent, speech behavior is subject to modeling in potentially conflict situations. This type of situation contains conflict-provoking factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural-communicative scenario, 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 the conflict zone, means to know these factors, to know the ways and means of neutralizing them, and to be able to apply them. This model was identified on the basis of an analysis of the motivating speech genres of a request, remark, question, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten a communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual urge (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the urge + justification for the importance of the urge + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don't) do this because…. We named her conflict prevention model.

The second type of situations situations of conflict risk- are characterized by the fact that they show a deviation from the general cultural scenario 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. Therefore, in a situation of risk, at least one of the communicants must realize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. Let us call the model of speech behavior in risk situations conflict resolution model. This model includes a whole series of sequential mental and communicative actions and cannot be represented by a single formula, since risk situations require additional efforts compared to potentially conflict situations and more diverse speech actions from a communicant seeking to harmonize communication. His behavior is a response to the actions of the conflicting party, and then , How he will react depends on the ways and means that the conflicting person uses. And since the actions of the conflicting party can be difficult to predict and varied, the behavior of the other side, which harmonizes communication, is more variable and more creative. Nevertheless, typification of speech behavior in situations of this type is possible at the level of identifying typical speech tactics that harmonize communication: the speaker knows the tactics, and he makes up their combinations himself. Such verbal behavior can be compared to a chess game, when a player, knowing how chess pieces move, combines the game, making move after move, depending on how the situation on the chess field develops. The behavior of communicants in situations of this type 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 speaker.

The third type of situation is proper conflict, in which differences in positions, values, rules of conduct, etc. are explicated, forming the potential for confrontation. The conflict is determined by non-verbal structures, and therefore it is difficult to confine ourselves to recommendations of a speech plan only. It is necessary to take into account the communicative context of the situation. As the analysis of various conflict situations has shown, people, faced with the aspirations and goals of other people, which turned out to be incompatible with their own aspirations and goals, can use one of three behaviors. The first model is "Playing along with a partner", the purpose of which is not to aggravate relations with a partner, not to bring out existing disagreements or contradictions for open discussion, not to sort things out. Compliance and focus on oneself and on the interlocutor are the main qualities of the speaker, necessary for communication according to this model. Tactics of consent, concession, approval, praise, promises, etc. are used. The second model is "Ignoring the Problem", the essence of which lies in the fact that the speaker, dissatisfied with the course of communication development, “constructs” a situation that is more favorable for himself and his partner. The speech behavior of the communicant who has chosen this model characterizes the use of default tactics (tacit permission for the partner to make a decision on his own), avoiding the topic or changing the scenario. The use of this model is most appropriate in a situation of open conflict. The third model is one of the most constructive in the conflict - "Business First". It involves the development of a mutually acceptable solution, provides for understanding and compromise. The strategies of compromise and cooperation - the main ones in the behavior of a communication participant using this model - are implemented with the help of cooperative tactics of negotiations, concessions, advice, consents, assumptions, beliefs, requests, etc.

Models of speech behavior are abstracted from specific situations and personal experience, and due to "decontextualization" they make it possible to cover a wide range of the same type of communication situations that have a number of paramount parameters (it is impossible to take into account everything). Any model is a simpler construct than a reflected object. This fully applies to spontaneous verbal communication. At the same time, the models of speech behavior proposed by us fix such a type of generalization, which, in our opinion, allows us to use them in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

This is how we imagine the main linguistic categories of such a multifaceted and complex phenomenon as conflict.

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.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

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

1. The concept and signs of a speech conflict……………………………….4

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis of resolution

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

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

List of used literature…………………………………………….14

Introduction

The optimal way of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. However, at present, such phenomena as a language conflict, a situation (zone) of risk, communicative success / failure (interference, failure, failure), etc., are also common. "language conflict" and "communicative failure" Ershova V.E. Denial and negative assessment as components of a speech conflict: their functions and role in conflict interaction // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. 2012. No. 354. - S. 12. . .

At the heart of the speech behavior of the participants in the conflict are speech strategies. The 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 relations", then communication was built on the basis of harmony strategies. 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. The concept and signs of speech conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epochs of social revolutions are always accompanied by a breaking of public consciousness. The clash of old ideas with new ones leads to a tough cognitive conflict that spreads to the pages of newspapers and magazines, to TV screens. Cognitive conflict extends to the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Researchers evaluate the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of "good-bad", structuring our experience and turning our actions into deeds, are blurred; 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 public consciousness of the society Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - S. 142. .

This process is accompanied by the intensification of social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, according to psychologists, the loss of integrating identification, the loss of hope and life prospects, the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life Ruchkina E.M. Linguo-argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of diss. PhD in Philology / Tver State University. Tver, 2009. - S. 18. . There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and the 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', 'embitterment', 'disrespect'" Ibid. S. 19. ; there is a certain reaction to the source of disappointment, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this state; there is a desire to release the accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts.

The communicative behavior of a person is determined by social (economic and political) factors, they affect the psychological state of the individual and affect the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. During the conflict, the speech behavior of the communicants is "two opposite programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in separate operations..." Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and jurislinguistic examination of conflict texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8. . These programs of behavior of communication participants determine the choice of conflict speech strategies and appropriate speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to induce the other one way or another to change their behavior. 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 of human relations" Tretyakov V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. - P. 112., which includes not so much speech actions as non-speech behavior of the addressee and addressee, i.e. we are interested in "a statement addressed to the "other", deployed 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 the categories of the subject (the speaker) and the addressee (the listener), as well as the identities of the interpretation of the statement in relation to the subject (the speaker) and the addressee (the listener). The identity of what was said by the subject of speech and perceived by the addressee can be achieved only "with an ideally coordinated interaction based on the full mutual correspondence of the strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and collectives" Ibid. .

But it is very difficult, or rather, impossible, to imagine such an ideal interaction in real practice, both due to the peculiarities of the language system and because there is a "communicator's pragmatics" and a "recipient's 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 particular speech situation (success / failure) depends on the interpreters, which 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 person who has his own repertoire of means and ways to achieve communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by scenario and genre stereotypes and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively conditioned scenarios is diverse: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflict. The choice of one or another version of the scenario 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 and norms of speech behavior established in Russian linguistic culture. .

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation is the post-communicative phase. It is characterized by the consequences arising from all previous stages of the development of a communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions that were 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 Muravyova N. The language of the conflict // http:// www.huq.ru .

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

So, a speech conflict takes place when one of the parties, to the detriment of the other, consciously and actively performs speech actions that can be expressed in the form of reproach, remarks, objections, accusations, threats, insults, 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 the disagreement or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is the speech conflict.

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

The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that they have a deviation from the general cultural scenario 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 situation of risk, at least one of the communicants can still realize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. Let's call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the conflict neutralization model. 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 of the communicant who seeks 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 actions of the conflicting party 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 Russian language and culture of speech: a textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. - S. 83. .

Each model contains the basic postulates of communication, in particular, the postulates of communication quality (do not harm your partner), quantity (report significant true facts), relevance (consider the partner's expectations), which represent the main principle of communication - the principle of cooperation Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. allowance [for universities] / Ros. rights. acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011. - S. 43. .

Conclusion

A speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in the communication of 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 takes place in time, has its own stages of development, and is realized by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict proceeds according to typical scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguo-cultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior. speech behavior conflict

Speech conflict is the embodiment of the opposition of communicants in a communicative event, due to mental, social and ethical factors, the extrapolation of which occurs in the speech fabric of the dialogue. The systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe the speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad context.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a kind of typical structure that includes the required components: participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, value ideas, goals, etc.) among communicants; cause-reason; damage; temporal and spatial extent.

The current state of Russian society is characterized by a sufficient severity of conflict-forming situations. The severity of conflict-forming 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-sighted and skillfully moral judgments will be applied in resolving conflicts and contradictions with the help of speech means and with the help of managing speech communications.

Only following elementary speech norms helps to make speech interaction more successful and productive.

List of used literature

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

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

3. Mishlanov V.A. On the Problem of Linguistic Substantiation of Legal Qualifications of Speech Conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - S. 236-243.

4. Muravyova N. Conflict language // http://www.huq.ru.

5. Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. allowance [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. - S. 142-147.

7. Rosenthal D.E. Russian language manual: [with exercises] / preparation. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Oniks: Mir i obrazovanie, 2010. 415 p.

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

9. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook / ed. ed. V.D. Chernyak. Moscow: Yurayt, 2010. 493 p.

10. Ruchkina E.M. Linguo-argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of diss. PhD in Philology / 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. - S. 112-120.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Conflict as an interdisciplinary problem

Speech conflict in the light of the theory of speech activity

Linguistic markers of disharmony and conflict in the VKA

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

Similar Documents

Functions of cell organelles

Algorithm for writing an essay on social studies

Chernobyl in the memoirs of eyewitnesses Chernobyl scary stories