CC BY
1«ШУШМУМ-ШУГМаУ» #W7©)), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
39
PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
УДК 8138; 801.6;808
Khuduyeva Gunay Rustam gizi Baku State University DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2023-11170-39-45 DIFFERENTIATION OF SPEECH SITUATION ACCORDING TO THE INTERCOMMUNICANT
RELATIONSHIP
Худуева Гюнай Рустам кызы
Бакинский Государственный Университет
ДИФФЕРЕНЦИАЦИЯ РЕЧЕВОЙ СИТУАЦИИ ПО МЕЖКОММУНИКАТИВНЫМ
ОТНОШЕНИЯМ
Abstract.
The article is devoted to the speech situations related to participants in the communication process. The communication among the communicants of different social status, representing different social strate is studied according to their interaction, their position in society and the problem of the influence of different attitudes on speech behavior is investigated. The kinship and closeness of communicants, the fact that age gender differences play a special role during communication are investigated. It is clarified that status and social differences affect both speech acts and speech behavior of communicants. The importance of distinguishing three main forms of relationship among participants in communication is determined. The division of three groups differentiated by relation into subgroups based on the same criteria is affirmed.
Аннотация.
Статья посвящена речевым ситуациям, связанным с участниками коммуникативного процесса. Общение между коммуникаторами, имеющими разный социальный статус и представляющими разные социальные слои, изучается с точки зрения их взаимоотношений, положения в обществе, исследуется вопрос о влиянии разных отношений на речевое поведение. Особую роль в общении играют родство и близость коммуникантов, возрастные и гендерные различия. Выяснено, что статусные и социальные различия влияют как на речевые акты, так и на речевое поведение коммуникаторов. Определена важность выделения трех основных форм взаимоотношений между участниками коммуникации. Подтверждено деление трех дифференцированных по родству групп на подгруппы по тем же критериям.
Keywords: speech act, status, social attitude, speech behavior, speech influence
Ключевые слова: речевой акт, статус, социальная установка, речевое поведение, речевое воздействие.
Introduction. Among the parameters and elements of the communicative situation, the communication process there are specific relationships and they influence to one another. Each speech situation has definite organizers. Among them the participants in communication, their number, status, relationship to one another form a separate system. Participants and their numbers are determined with the definite and accurate facts. The status of the participants is a large concept, the speech situation has variability according to this parameter. The status is characterized by such basic parameters as age, gender, as well as position in the system of social relations. The position in the system of public relations may include the position of the participant in communication, as well as the degree of privilege and recognition in society, as well as some other characteristics that belong to a particular participant. The relationship among the communicants is also one of the important elements of the speech situation. It includes kinship, closeness, hierarchy among the social statuses and other aspects. Social status and inter-communicant relations are interconnected and play a fundamental role in creating different speech situations. A
large number of such different speech situations require their grouping or classification.
In the speech situation the ethnocultural factors, as well as the norms of behavior adopted in the relevant society become relevant in one aspect or another and influence communication actively. This article is intended to carry out the differentiation of speech situations according to the interpersonal relations taking into consideration the above mentioned, to study the linguistic aspects of the influence of interpersonal relations to the communication process in specific cases.
In general, the full range of different types of speech situations has not been determined. In addition, the issues of differentiation of speech situations according to the interpersonal relationship and the influence of the relationship among the participants on the communication occupy a place in the line of topical issues that have been little studied in linguistics.
In modern linguistic studies an increasing interest to the study of communication and communicative situation issues is observed. In the investigation of the communicative situation according to the number of participants the study of dialogues and dialogic
speeches occupies a special place. There are two participants in dialogic communication and no matter, in this kind of communication process the relations between two participants and their mutual influence through speech acts are also mentioned and investigated from the certain aspects [Bogdanov 1989; Issers 2016; Makarov 1991; Bloch, Polyakov 1992].
The problems in this article have been involved in research from a number of aspects in the theory of speech acts, as well as from the position of etiquette situations in different languages [Serl 1986a; Serl 1986b; Grice 1985; ®0pMaH0BCKaa 2002]. The relationships among the communication participants influence to their behavior in the communication process. E.V.Kashkin has studied the issues of communicative influence of communication participants to each other [Kashkin 2007].
The role of ethnoculturological factors in the communication process as participants' mutual speech influences has also been the object of study in a number of works [Namestnikova, 2003; Baeva, 2012]. Nevertheless, the issues of the influence of relations among the communication participants to the communication and its expression in the language have not been resolved in modern linguistics comprehensively. In order to solve the problems mentioned in the article the complex methodology of analysis of mutual speech influence is used. According to this methodology the elements of the methods of structural-semantic description, functional analysis, content analysis are applied in the research process.
l.The factor of the communicants' status. Communication begins from a certain moment, point. The communicative initiation is the law, authority, initiative to initiate communication. Law, authority and initiative do not have the same essence and meaning. The law has the function of determining. The laws, rules, traditions and manner of behavior adopted in the society determine a set of formalized laws, as well as the informal rights. Each communication process appears in the background of the way of thinking and behavior, traditions of the carriers of the language in which it is carried out. The corresponding anthropocentric background has a special and specific effect on the speech acts of the communication participants. Based on this factor, one can say that according to the way of thinking of the Azerbaijani language carrier, as well as the tradition adopted in the society in which he/she lives, the right to speak to the stranger, the third one, belongs to a legal man. But when the third person is a woman, the attitude towards this issue changes. The female guest is greeted by the the hostess of the house. In court proceedings the word belongs to the judge, but at the lesson it belongs to the teacher. In the Azerbaijani public environment the principle "The youngesters should keep quiet and respect the elders" is dominant. These norms inherent in a particular society affect various phases of the communication process, the speech behavior of the communication participants and regulate the system of relations among them. In the linguistic research of the communication the social status of the communication participants during the emergence, formation and division of speech situations into types, clarification of the
relations among the communicants is of particular interest. Social status and attitude play the role of criteria in the classification of speech situations.
The social status is determined with the position that a person occupies in the social hierarchy. There are differences in social status among the school principal, a teacher, a student, a father, a mother, a child and relatives. In one case the roles in the organization, institution and enterprise operating in the society, in the other case, the status of the position in the family plays its role in determining the speech behavior of the participants in communication. Family, kinship relations are formed on the basis of traditions, historical experience and culture of the ethnos.
Social interaction is divided into two types: symmetrical and asymmetric. The symmetric interaction form implies a relationship of equality among the communicants. Asymmetry is related to the case when relationship diversity is taken as a basis and it is divided into two directions: 1) large - small, male - female, old - young, strong-weak, etc.; 2) a teacher - a student, a doctor - a patient, a boss - an employee, a passenger -a driver, an inspector - a criminal, etc.
It is possible to expand the number of different pairs of different subjects, which are compared in both directions and to reveal different systems of relations. Social, status and relationship differences find their expression in the speech acts of communicants involved in communication, in the lexical units used in these acts, in the adopted syntactic mold and expressions.
The difference in status plays a significant role in the process of influencing communicants and the uniqueness of the speech situation. As the social difference increases, the features of the relationship in the speech acts of communicants are observed more clearly.
"- Last week he attempted suicide, - said one of them.
- Why?
- He fell into despair.
- From what?
- From nothing.
- And how do you know that from nothing?
- He has a lot of money" [Hemingway 1984, p. 67]
The dialogue is between two communicants - two
waiters with equalstatus. Their dialogue is about a client who often comes to a cafe. The communicative initiative is shown by the first waiter. Its replication is not a stimulus that requires a necessary reaction. Nevertheless, the second waiter reacts and takes the communicative initiative by constructing the speech act with a question sentence. Even in the continuation of the communication this initiative remains with the second waiter. He asks questions consistently and gets answers to his questions. The content of the dialogue, the course of communication do not have specific elements, lexical-semantic aspects that reveal the relationship among the equal communicants. Dialogue is realized through a speech situation of mutual understanding, it does not change. The interpersonal communication is revealed in the system of social relations of various types. In the communication of communicants, who occupy the same or close position in the system of public relations,
«<g©yL©(MUM~JOUTMaL» #M70)), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
41
mutual understanding, trust in one another, openness is felt [Vezhbitskaya 1999, p. 72]. The communication participants status in relation to the position can create at least two different speech situations. The difference in position forms a different relationship among communications working at the same enterprise, or in the administration, but for those who work in different places, a different kind of speech situation is formed. In the first case, the obvious effect of the difference in duty, status is realized. The head of the enterprise has a high status due to his position among the employees of that enterprise. In this enterprise he speaks to his subordinates as a leader. When the same leader is in a cafe or in a restaurant, he receives the status of a client. Communicating with his employees the characteristic features of the head of the enterprise for his speech are eliminated when the status changes. It is true, that in the speech behavior of some people there are traces of signs related to status, especially high administrative status. For example, when the director of an enterprise enters into communication in a store, restaurant as a client, his speech remains impermanence in his actions, attempts to behave above others, speak in command sentences, constantly seize communicative initiative. When such features of speech, the manner of speech receive a stable disposition, other participants in communication come to the conclusion that they are talking, communicating with the owner of a high position by status. The mentioned aspect of the speech situation has a correlation with speech influences.
The status among communicants may be mutually determined by agreement or on the basis of an event. When an employer recruits someone else with a specific right, the relationship between them does not settle at the official level. It means, at this time there is no boss-employee relationship. As the formation of a speech situation is important for communication, this situation must be associated with a certain event. At the beginning of the dialogue below the author describes the action and the speech act of a person named Dick, who is involved in a speech situation. At the end of the fragment in the author's speech the information about the influence of speech is given to the person who is called "doctor". At the beginning of the story the author's information about the doctor (Nick's father), Dick Boulton, Eddie, Billy Teibsha was presented. Nick's father recruited three other people as the workers. They have to chop the trees, which were stuck on the bank of the river, for the doctor. The owner of these trees is that who cut and drain them with the river to a certain point.
"Dick knelt down and began to look for the mark that the woodcutter put on the end of the log.
- White and McNally, - he said, standing up and brushing sand from his knees.
The doctor felt uneasy.
- Then we won't cut it, - he said in short.
- Don't take offense, Doc, - Boulton said. -Why be offended? I don't care who you stole from? It doesn't concern me.
- If you think the logs are stolen, don't touch them. Take your tools and leave", - the doctor said. He blushed all over" [Hemingway 1984, p. 9].
In the fragment given from the artistic discourse the author wrote that Dick was looking for and found the mark left by the real owner of the log. White and McNally are the owners of the logs. Dick Boulton is the worker the doctor wants to work daily. There is a difference between their social levels. Let's say that the doctor is an employer, Dick is an employee. It means, the doctor is a person whose status is higher. To whom exactly the Dick's speech act addressed is determined neither in the content of this speech act nor in the author's speech that follows it. By the status the doctor is in the highest position among the participants in the event and he wants to use the log as his property. Semantics and its logical basis make it possible to accept the conclusion that the speech act of Dick is addressed to the doctor. In the artistic discourse the author's speech exaggerates this point (The doctor felt uneasy). The speech situation changes according to the attitude of the participants to each other. Although Dick hired the doctor for a certain fee, at this point, he implicitly calls the doctor a thief, a person who steals someone's property. As a result, the doctor loses his high status. The social status of the thief is low than the man (Dick) who makes a living with his own hard work. The dialogue between the doctor and Dick turns into communication on the topic of clarifying social status. The continuation of communication goes on this topic.
As it can be seen from the dialogue, the doctor uses his former status, based on which he stops the case, repels Dick and the men he brought with him. Though Dick wants to continue the work, but repeats the fact that he revealed. In a speech situation a conflict arises among the participants in communication. In the scientific literature such situation is called a conflict situation [Volkova 2008].
Following the principles of communicative exchange leads to the transition of speech situation from one form to another and, thus, to a change in the types of discourse. In the above-mentioned communication, first of all, one of the participants in the dialogue violates one of the principles of communicative exchange. Dick changes the social status of the second participant in the communication. If a little earlier the social relationship between these two participants was conditionally an entrepreneur-worker relationship, Dick's speech act forms the relationship between the worker and the thief, the person who appropriates someone's property. Dick becomes the dominant participant of the communication. Of course, the first participant can't agree with it and a dispute, conflict discourse arises. Investigating the conflicting speech situations. G. Graber shows that speech movements in a conflict dialogue occur precisely at the moments of disagreement of the participants in communication with each other's opinions, not mutual understanding. The information of one of the sides in conflict meets with other's objection [Gruber 1996, p.56]. This alternation of communication participants deepens the conflict, ultimately leads to a stop, interruption of communication.
Just as conflict speech situations can eliminate status dominance, this dominance can also be caused by the desire to bring it to mind during communication. In
all cases, a conflict has a relationship with a communicative intention and purpose. In practice, there is little coincidence of the occurrence of conflict in the process of communication between the boss and the employee. The participant in the communicative process realizes that the communicant, having a higher status than himself, does not have the right and opportunity to change his status, he does not go into conflict, tries to use speech acts of approval and agreement.
2. Social class differences among communicants. The influence of social class differences on communication and thus, on the speech situation attracts more attention than the psycholinguistic aspect. Belonging to different social classes is able to determine the dominant state in communication.
Those involved in the communication process have stable social signs. Such signs may include their age, gender, profession, education and so on. Within a certain time frame the task of the communicant is also ranked among the stable signs.
Factors such as gender and age, acting as an indicator of the speech situation in communication among young and old, children and adults, women and men, as well as the relationship of the sides to each other, are revealed through visual observation. During the distance communication (telephone conversation) the voice carries information about the age and gender-related characteristics.
In the speech of young people there is a violation of the norms of etiquette, an abundance of speech appeals "you" [Formanovskaya 2002, p.68-69]. The important role in the communication process is also played by following the norms of etiquette, as well as working out ready-made molds related to speech etiquette, making the transition to etiquette speech situations in certain phases of full communication. The norms of etiquette are included among the determining factors of speech situations.
Along with the differences in the socio-cultural level, social position and status, the moral qualities of the person, his manner of behavior should be taken into consideration in determining the speech situation. Due to the character the aggressive communicator does not apologize when an apologetic speech situation arises and helps to direct the speech situation into conflict. In general, maintaining a good relationship with the participants in communication, continuing communication successfully excludes an attempt by a person to change the speech situation with his speech behavior [Ratmayr 2003, c. 47-48].
Speech situation is a linguistic concept that is directly related to the influence of communicants on each other in the process of communication. Many research studies about the effect of speech have been carried out [Issers 2016; Kotov 2003; Shalina 2000, etc.]. In these research studies the concept of speech influence is defined and studied from various aspects. The attitude of the concept of speech effect to itself is ambiguous. However, very often in its designation reference is made to the result of such speech act. Speech influence forms a change in speech behavior on the subject of communication either immediately or gradually, it
causes him to refine his vision of the topic of communication, raises the demand to internally revise his communicative strategy and tactics. Speech influence plays its role both in the general emotional-expressive picture of communication and in the psychological, emotional situations of communicants. In a broad sense, the effect of speech causes transformations in the individual thoughts and intentions of the subject first, and then in his response. The speech effect actualizes the cognitive meaning of the communicative act, forms the emotional environment in a certain communicative situation [Chexhlystova 2016, p. 170]. In the mentioned aspect, it cannot be said without a doubt that speech influence directly takes control of the speech situation. Speech situation is not directly dependent on the communication process. Its change also does not depend on the desire of the sides. However, in the process of speech the sides change the speech situation by influencing each other and the communication process. The analysis of speech acts and the speech effects revealed in them shows that the goal of those involved in communication is not to change the speech situation, but to realize their communicative intentions. During communication, the speakers not only exchange information through speech acts, but influencing each other they also change behavior and attitude [Naidenov 2000, p. 19]. The emergence of a different situation in behavior becomes dependent on the influence of speech. This effect is manifested, first of all, in the psychological state of the applicant and after that it is contained in his general, as well as speech behavior. Signs of a stable social relationship lead to the fact that certain signs of stability and similarity also prevail in speech situations.
"- Aren't you going to work anymore, honey? -his wife asked, lying in the next room, where the curtains were drawn.
- No.
- What's up?
- I quarreled with Dick Boulton.
- Oh! - said his wife. - I hope you haven't lost your temper, Henry?
- No, - said the doctor.
- Remember, the one who humbles his spirit is stronger than the one who conquers cities, - his wife said" [Hemingway 1984, p. 10].
This dialogue, which involves communication between spouses, can be divided into three parts. Talking with her husband, who returned from work earlier, the wife wants to find out its reason. Her question is focused on getting the information indirectly. The differentiation of language systems does not influence to the communicative intention, the communicative goal and the speech situation. In this regard, it can be concluded that the theory of communication and speech acts does not depend on the language in which communication proceeds. Language is a means of expressing the purpose of communication. But the social relations between communicants have a fundamental impact on communication and speech situation. The relationship between a husband and a wife plays a role in their communication. This aspect is observed in the above-mentioned dialogue. It confirms in the speech act of the
«COyyOMUM-JOUTMaL» 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
43
woman that she occupies a dominant position in the system of family relations.
In the second part of the dialogue between husband and wife the communicative initiative is also in the woman. She wants to find out the reason for her husband's quick return. As it can be seen from the example, the question and the man's answer reaction are short and specific. The speech act before the transition to the third part of the dialogue consists of an exclamation (Oh-oh!). Emotionality and expressiveness arise. Exclamations affect the emotional state of the man. The woman's question also raises some concerns.
Though the woman did not say clearly that the incident could have a bad result, but this thought was implicit in her questions. However, there are also notes of indifference in the woman's speech acts. It is felt that the result of the event, that may occur in the future, is of little importance to her personally.
The story ends with a dialogue between the father and the son.
" - Go to your mom, she needs you for some reason.
- I want to go with you, - Nick said.
His father looked at him.
- Well, let's go,-he said"[Hemingway 1984,p.11]
According to the scale of social relations and hierarchy, communicants belong to the following groups: father-son, elder - child. There is mutual understanding between them. The son shows indifference to his mother's call. But at this point the father does not stand above the instigation in the first act of speech, but agrees with the desire of the child. The mutual understanding between the father and the son does not allow the speech situation to change.
Social attitudes and status differences influence to the communication process in different ways. Such influence does not depend only on these factors, it also depends on the psychological state of the participants in communication. The father, who is a participant in the dialogue above-mentioned, has tension in his inner state. His dialogue with his wife also increased this tension. However, the father does not show it in the process of communicating with his son, he does not open his inner tension. Of course, the communication could have gone the other way.
By the way, it should be noted that the participant in interpersonal communication is also estimated for his appearance, speech behavior, clothes and capabilities. Such speech situations appear during the communication of communicants who do not know each other and have no personal acquaintance.
Results. The communication situation, the study of its relationship between its participants in relation to status and social situation shows that, the communication conditions depend on the relationship of communicants. The status differences allow to determine the dominant participant in the communication process. The analysis shows that the participant who is superior in status occupies a leading position during communication, controls the communicative process and has the authority to start and end it.
Social status, belonging to social levels also form the certain differences in terms of dominance in the
communication process. The older participant becomes dominant compared to the younger and child. In such speech situations a specific age difference is not decisive. The influence of the age difference on communication has a relationship with ethnocultural factors. Having gender differences between communicants the female participants usually occupy a dominant position.
In the communication between the parent and the child, the husband and the wife, dominance belongs to the father in the first case, but in the second case it belongs to the husband. In such speech situations the ethno-culturological factors influence dominance.
Communication between communicants of equal status does not dominate any of the sides. In such speech situations the success of communication depends on the real, the circumstances, the subject of communication, the psychological state of the participants.
Discussion. The speech situation is a situation that occurs during the beginning and continuation of the communication process. Different factors influence this situation. Among such factors, one of the leading ones is the relationship between the participants in the communication. The difference in the participants' status affects their speech acts as well as each other's speech behavior. While a communicator, who occupies a high position by status, is freer in the communication process, a communicator who occupies a low position by status has a certain dependence.
When the relationship between communicants is determined by age, not only a specific age difference, but also the division of older, younger, children is taken as the basis in determining the speech situation. In speech situations that differ in this factor, the elderly person occupies a dominant position in the communication. The mentioned speech situations also depend on the ethno-cultural parameters. According to the Azerbaijani mentality, the younger man does not interrupt the older one's speech, but pays attention to the choice of lexical means that he uses in the process of communicating with him, during the communication, the elderly person occupies a dominant position and takes the communicative initiative.
Communication among the relatives, friends and acquaintances becomes dependent on the subject. In such speech situations the degree of kinship, belonging to the age groups of communicants, as well as ethno-cultural factors affect the communication process. Communication between the persons equal in the status, the success of communication depends on the subject and extralinguistic factors. The relationship between communicants may change depending on the information obtained in the process of communication.
The factor of the relationship between the communicants creates the basis for the emergence of a large number of speech situations that differ from each other in certain parameters. These situations may form the particular interests such as the study of the speech behavior of communicants within the classification and groups on the basis of certain criteria, the grouping of speech acts of communicants according to the types in individual speech situations.
44
PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «ШкУЭМУМ-ЛШИПШУ» #W№0), 2023
Conclusions. The classification of a speech situation according to the relationship between communicants allows to distinguish three main groups: 1) a relationship group formed on the basis of a difference in status; 2) a relationship group formed on the basis of social factors; 3) a relationship group of an equal level. Each of these groups can be divided into subgroups.
The relationship between communicants can change the speech situation depending on the information transmitted in the speech act of the participant in the communication process. The change is accompanied by a change in the relationship between communicants.
References
1. Makarov 1991 - Makarov M.L. Reflection of interpersonal relations in the interaction of communicative strategies in dialogic discourse // Pragmatics and logic of discourse. Izhevsk, 1991 p. 66-73 // Макаров 1991 - Макаров М. Л. Отражение межличностных отношений во взаимодействии коммуникативных стратегий в диалогическом дискурсе // Прагматика и логика дискурса. Ижевск, 1991 С. 66-73.
2. Formanovskaya 2002 - Formanovskaya H.I. Speech communication: a communicative and pragmatic approach. - M.: Rus.yaz. 2002. -216 p. // Форма-новская 2002 - Формановская H. И. Речевое общение: коммуникативно-прагматический подход. -М.: Рус.яз. 2002. -216 с.
3. Bloch, Polyakov 1992 - Bloch M.Y., Polyakov S.M. The structure of dialogic speech. - M.: Prometheus, 1992. 154 p.// Блох, Поляков 1992 - Блох М. Я., Поляков С. М. Строй диалогической речи. -М.:Прометей, 1992. 154 с.
4. Bogdanov 1989 - Bogdanov V.V. Classification of speech acts // Personal aspects of language communication. - Kalinin: Publishing House KSU, 1989. -p. 25-37. // Богданов 1989 - Богданов В. В. Классификация речевых актов // Личностные ас-пектыязыкового общения. - Калинин: Изд-во КГУ, 1989. - С. 25-37.
5. Issers 2016 - Issers O.S. Speech impact: a textbook. 4th ed., Publishing house Flinta, Moscow, 2016, 224 p.// Иссерс 2016 - Иссерс О. С. Речевое воздействие: учебное пособие. 4-е изд., стер. М.:Фли-нта, 2016. 224 с.
6. Serl 1986a - Serl J.R. Classification of illocu-tionary acts // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 17. Theory of speech acts. M.: Progress, 1986a. p.170-194.// Серль 1986а - Серль Дж. Р. Классификация иллокутивных актов // Новое в
7. зарубежной лингвистике. Вып. 17. Теория речевых актов. М.: Прогресс, 1986а. С.170-194.
8. Serl 1986b - Serl J.R. Indirect speech acts // New in foreign linguistics. Vol. 17. Theory of speech acts. M.: Progress, 1986b. p. 195-222.// Серль 1986б -Серль Дж. Р. Косвенные речевые акты // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вып. 17. Теория речевых актов. М.: Прогресс, 1986б. С. 195-222.
9. Grice 1985 - Grice G.F. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. - M.: Progress, 1985. - Issue 16. - p. 217-237.// Грайс 1985 - Грайс Г. Ф. Логика и речевое общение // Новое в
зарубежной лингвистике. - М.: Прогресс, 1985. -Вып.16. - С. 217-237.
10. Kashkin 2007 - Kashkin V.B. Fundamentals of communication theory: a short course. - 3rd ed. reprint. and additional / V.B.Kashkin. - M.: AST East-West, 2007. - 256 p. // Кашкин 2007 - Кашкин В. Б. Основы теории коммуникации: краткий курс. - 3-е изд. перераб. и доп. / В.Б. Кашкин. - М.: АСТ Восток-Запад, 2007. - 256 с.
11. Baeva 2012 - Baeva E.I. Features of Italian communicative behavior. Abstract of the diss. for the degree PhD/ E.I. Baeva. - Voronezh, 2012. - 21 p.// Баева 2012 - Баева Е.И. Особенности итальянского коммуникативного поведения. автореф. дис. ... докт. филол. наук/ Е.И. Баева. - Воронеж, 2012. -21с.
12. Namestnikova 2003 - Namestnikova I.V. Intercultural communication as a social phenomenon: Abstract of the diss. ... Doctor of Sciences: 09.00.11 / I.V. Namestnikova. - M., 2003. - 345 p.// Наместни-кова 2003 - Наместникова И.В. Межкультурная коммуникация как социальный феномен: автореф. дис. ... докт. философ. наук: 09.00.11 / И.В. Наместникова. - М., 2003. - 345 с.
13. Volkova, O.S. Communicative situation "conflict": development strategies and pragmalinguistic characteristics / O.S.Volkova // Izvestiya RSPU named after A.I. Herzen. - 2008. - № 73. - p. 114-120.// Волкова, О.С. Коммуникативная ситуация «конфликт»: стратегии развития и прагмалингвистические характеристики / О.С. Волкова // Известия РГПУ им. А.И. Герцена. - 2008. - №73. - С. 114-120.
14. Brown, Fraser 1979 - Brown, P., Fraser, C. Speech as a Marker of Situation/P.Brown, C.Fraser // Social Markers in Speech. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. - p.33-62
15. Vezhbitskaya 1999 - Vezhbitskaya, A. Semantic universals and description of languages / A.Vezhbitskaya. - M.: Languages of Russian culture, 1999. - 780 p.// Вежбицкая 1999 -Вежбицкая, А. Семантические универсалии и описание языков / А. Вежбицкая. - М.: Языки русской культуры, 1999. -780 с.
16. Hemingway 1984 - Hemingway, E. Selected/Afterward. comp. and note by B. Gribanov - M.: Enlightenment, 1984. - 304 p.// Хемингуэй 1984-Хе-мингуэй, Э. Избранное/Послесл. сост. и примеч. Б. Грибанова.-- М.: Просвещение, 1984.-- 304 с.
17. Graber 1996 - Graber, G.N. Zur Psychoanalyse des Fluchens // Psychoanalytische Bewegung. - 1991. - № 3. - S. 56-68.// Graber 1996-Graber, G.N. Zur Psychoanalyse des Fluchens // Psychoanalytische Bewegung. - 1991. - Nr. 3. - S. 5668.
18. Ratmayr 2003 - Ratmayr R. Pragmatics of apology. - M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2003. -272 p.. p. 47-48// Ратмайр 2003, с. 47-48]. Ратмайр Р. Прагматика извинения. - М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003. - 272 с.
19. Kotov 2003 - Kotov, A. A. Mechanisms of speech influence in journalistic texts of mass media: Diss. for a degree Doctor of Philosophy / A.A.Kotov. -Moscow, 2003. - 280 p.// Котов 2003 - Котов, A. A.
«ШУШМУМ-ШУГМаУ» #W7©)), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
45
Механизмы речевого воздействия в публицистических текстах СМИ : дис. ... канд. филол. наук / А.А.Котов. - Москва, 2003. - 280 с.
20. Naidenov 2000 - Naidenov O.Y. Pragmatic aspects of optimizing the speech impact of printed mass media: Abstract of the diss. for the degree PhD: 10.02.19. Military univ., M., 2000. 19 p.// Найденов 2000-Найденов О. Ю. Прагматические аспекты оптимизации речевого воздействия печатных средств массовой коммуникации: Автореф. дис... канд. филол. наук: 10.02.19. Воен. ун-т. М., 2000. 19с.
21. Shalina 2000 - Shalina, I.V. The causes and types of communicative-speech disharmony / I.V. Shalina // Cultural-speech situation in modern Russia: questions of theory and educational technologies. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of USU, 2000. - p. 194-
196.// Шалина 2000 - Шалина, И.В. Причины и виды коммуникативно-речевой дисгармонии / И.В. Шалина // Культурно-речевая ситуация в современной России: вопросы теории и образовательных технологий. - Екатеринбург: Изд-во УрГУ, 2000. - С. 194-196.
22. Chekhlystova 2016 - Chekhlystova S. I. Violation of the principles of speech communication in conflict discourse // Linguistic discourse in social practice. - Tver: Publishing House of TSU, 2016. - p. 267277.// Чехлыстова 2016 - Чехлыстова С. И. Нарушение принципов речевого общения вконфликтном дискурсе // Языковой дискурс в социальной практике. - Тверь: Изд-во ТГУ, 2016. - С. 267-277.
