facebook
twitter
vk
instagram
linkedin
google+
tumblr
akademia
youtube
skype
mendeley
Wiki
Global international scientific
analytical project
GISAP
GISAP logotip

КРОС-КУЛЬТУРНА КОМУНІКАЦІЯ: КРИТЕРІЇ ВЗАЄМОРОЗУМІННЯ

Автор Доклада: 
Солодка А. К.
Награда: 
КРОС-КУЛЬТУРНА КОМУНІКАЦІЯ: КРИТЕРІЇ ВЗАЄМОРОЗУМІННЯ

УДК 008.001

КРОС-КУЛЬТУРНА КОМУНІКАЦІЯ: КРИТЕРІЇ ВЗАЄМОРОЗУМІННЯ

Солодка Анжеліка Костянтинівна
Миколаївський національний університет імені В.О.Сухомлинського

Статя присвячена феномену лінгвокультурної ідентичності як предмету комунікації. Цей феномен вважається головним фактором, що впливає на взаєморозуміння під час взаємодії з іншою лінгвокультурною спільнотою. Критетії взаєморозуміння визаначаються як здібності трансформувати лінгвокультурну ідентичність у процесі комунікації.
Ключові слова: культурна ідентичність, комунікативна поведінка, крос-культурна комунікація, етноцентрізм, етнорелятивізм, лінгвокультурна ідентичність, трансформація лінгвокультурної ідентичності

The article is devoted to the phenomenon of linguacultural identity as the subject of communication. It is considered as the main factor affecting on the mutual understanding in the process of interaction. Linguacultural identity is seen as identity being formed on the basis of recognition and usage by the subject of communication models of discourse events accepted in certain culture and acquired by the subject in the process of socialization. Сriteria of mutual understanding are termed as an ability of communicants to transform his/her linguacultural identity.
Key words: cultural identity, communication behavior, cross-cultural communication, ethnocentrism, ethnorelativism, identity crisis, language consciousness, linguacultural identity, transformation of linguacultural identity.

In various scientific works devoted to the problem of human behavior in the process of culture cognition, understanding and creation, it has become traditional to speak about close language and cultural connection. It is also accepted that language is one of the most important indications of the person’s identity.

Culture is created in the process of interacting individuals. A person belongs to a particular culture not only due to some shared system of knowledge, but also due to algorithms of activity accepted in the community and realized in various situations with the purpose of reaching some definite results. Common knowledge and algorithms of activity (or interactional knowledge) shared with the same community provide harmonic interactivity and mutual understanding in the process of cross-cultural communication.

The problem of reaching mutual understanding (cross-cultural as well) is usually regarded by scientists as the problem of cultural identity of communicants [2; 3; 4; 5]. The system study of different works devoted to the phenomenon of cultural identity makes possible to regard it as an identity set on the basis of recognition and accepting by the subject of cognition and communication appropriate cultural norms and models of behavior, values and language, on the basis of self-identification with certain values and norms historically accepted in culture and acquired by the subject in the process of socialization and inculturalization.

The process of identification may be realized in the frames of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism.
Ethnocentrism is a tendency to see others and their behavior through your own cultural filters, often as distinctions of your own behaviors; the tendency to evaluate the values and beliefs of your own culture positively more than those another culture [ 1 ]. Ethnorelativism is a behavior of acceptance and integration into another culture without giving up one’s own cultural values and beliefs. Each of them is characterized by several stages.

Ethnocentrism.1. Denial: a person doesn’t really believe in cultural differences and tends to impose his own value system on others. These people are not threatened by cultural differences because they simply don’t accept them. 2. Defense: a person believes that cultural differences do exist, but they are threatened by existing of differences. A person views other cultures negatively and prefers not to have many contacts with those who are different from them.3.Minimization: People at this stage are still trying to minimize contacts. A person believes that the differences are real but not especially deep or significant because all people share many of the same values and beliefs.

Ethnorelativism. 1.Acceptance: a person accepts differences as being deep and legitimate, accepts inevitability of other value systems and behavioral norms/ This is the stage not only acceptance the differences but willingness and ability to adjust own behavior to conform to different norms. As a result a person becomes bicultural or multicultural, easily adjusting behavior to suit norms of new culture. He integrates aspects of other cultures into his consciousness. In the integration stage, certain aspects of other culture become a part of a new transformation identity.

Developing of anthropological paradigm in linguistics and cultural researches of the XX century, understanding cross-cultural communication as a dialogue between cultures, development of cognitive linguistics and discourse theory have provided the possibility to consider a problem of interrelationship man – language – culture from some other position: cultural identity is defined not by the language itself but by the specific ways of its usage for different cognitive and communicative aims in a particular cultural and linguistic environment.

Language is regarded as a cultural code and a specific channel to establish mutual understanding among people. That suggests ability to use a particular language in accordance with conditions in which it functioning as a specific cultural code. It also means that it is impossible to decide the sense of the text correctly having not enough knowledge of the culture itself.

A person realizes his identity being a part of this or that culture. This realization is fixed in language consciousness and is reflected on communication behavior. Language consciousness as is regarded as mental mechanisms providing speaking activity and knowledge used by the subject of communication in the process of producing and perception of speech. Communicative behavior is the sum of norms and traditions of communication accepted in lingual culture.

Modern approach to the discourse study considers discourse as a socially adequate process of speech communication described in terms of socially significant actions and strategies fulfilled by the members of society within the framework of communicative situations definite and relevant to language community and culture. Each discourse has dialogue nature which appears in the situation of interaction between communicants [6].
Discourse event being the most adequate unit for discourse description and understanding can be considered as the sum of important communicative coherent act speech directed on achieving some common communicative aim.

Modals of discourse events are represented as “expectation structures” which help the person to adopt to the endless variety of real communication situations and to choose definite discourse strategies in each particular episode. In other words, each person has some invariants for definite types of interaction and some knowledge about the principles of their variability. On this ground schemes of mental representation of correspondent interactions can be accepted as specifically organized sequence of actions which aim is to fix prototypical features of correspondent culture.

The subject of communication can recognize a person as familiar of stranger in his own or alien linguacultural community due to person’s discourse activity. Such identity is suggested to consider as linguacultural identity. It s the identity being formed on the basis of recognition and usage by the subject of communication modals of discourse events accepted in certain culture and acquired by the subject in the process of socialization.
New comers to the cultures become marginal according to R. Park’s definition.

The main reasons of the identity crisis in the process of cross-cultural communication may be considered the following:

  • a person is unable to express his “self” adequately using the means of foreign language;
  • a person is unable to define the interlocutor’s “self” adequately in case that the interlocutor uses his native language;
  • interlocutors are unable to expect culturally specific information from the discourse activity of each other;
  • a person is not ready to define correctly his position in a new cultural society

[3].

Resuming all mentioned above it has to be pointed that wide spread belief for people from different cultures to reach mutual understanding just because they speak the same language is dangerous illusion. Each language provides unique communal and individual means. This awareness is defined as the beginning and the most important stage of linguacultural transformation that provides a personality with ability to restore inside balance through searching for correspondence of the image of the world and environment that has been changed. It also helps a person to adopt himself to the endless variety of real communication situations and to choose definite discourse strategies and modals of discourse events in each particular episode.
The further research can be continued by investigating linguacultural transformation as a part of general socialization of personality in another linguacultural community.

References:

  • 1. De Vito, Joseph A. Veessages: Building Interpersonal communication Skills / De Vito, Joseph A. Veessages. - Boston, 2002.
  • 2. Grishajeva L.I. Peculiarities of the Language Usage and Cultural Identity of Communicants/ L.I. Grishajeva. – Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 2007.
  • 3. Leontovich O.L. Russian and Americans: Paradoxes of Cross-cultural communication / O.L.Leontovich. - Moscow: Gnosis, 2005.
  • 4. Sadokhin A.P. Introduction in the Theory of Cross-Cultural Communication / A.P.Sadokhin. - Moscow: Higher School, 2005.
  • 5. Shemanov A.Y. Self identity of a Person in Modern Culture / A.Y.Shemanov / In: Theoretical Culturology. – Moscow: Academic Project, RIC, 2005.
  • 6. Stubbs M. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language / M. Stubbs. – Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. 
0
Ваша оценка: Нет
Партнеры
 
 
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
Would you like to know all the news about GISAP project and be up to date of all news from GISAP? Register for free news right now and you will be receiving them on your e-mail right away as soon as they are published on GISAP portal.