CC BY
16
УДК 811'112
М. А. Гуляева, ORCID Ю: 0000-0002-5536-5168
Волгоградский государственный социально-педагогический университет, г. Волгоград, Россия
ПОЗИТИВНАЯ РОЛЬ ОТКАЗА ОТ ОБЩЕНИЯ В УСЛОВИЯХ СОЦИАЛЬНОГО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ1
В настоящей статье рассматривается отказ от общения, то есть такого рода ситуации, когда люди посылают вербальные или невербальные сигналы об отказе общаться или делают вид, что не хотят общаться, пользуясь этим приемом в качестве манипулятивной стратегии.
Данное исследование осуществлено группой ученых из Волгоградского государственного социально-педагогического университета (Россия) и является частью более широкого исследования под названием «Позитивное общения».
Цель работы - внедрение результатов проведенных изысканий, касающихся позитивных аспектов использования отказа общаться в ситуации социального взаимодействия. В исследовании представлены критерии классификации, включающие функции, средства выражения и коммуникативные стратегии. В качестве иллюстративного материала приводится ряд примеров взятых из проанализированных данных, что делает научное исследование реалистичным, живым и понятным для читателя.
Ключевые слова: межличностное общение, выход из общения, прекращение общения, отказ от общения, урегулирования конфликтов, функции отказа от общения.
Introduction. The research "Refusal to communicate as an element of Interpersonal communication" generally represents a complex description of the communicative act of refusal to communicate in the area of interpersonal relations and is based to a large extent on the elements of discourse analysis, which helps to reveal and interpret the intentions of the participants of communicative actions. In a communicative act we refer to the interaction between communicants as a minimal unit of a communication process. The work contains a detailed description of verbal (semantic and syntactic) and non-verbal means of refusal, studies implicit and explicit meanings produced in the communication process. Besides, it represents different classifications, covering the set of strategies, functions of and reasons for investigated phenomenon.
The present paper aims at introducing the results of the conducted research concerning positive impact of refusal to communicate. Positive impact is studied from two perspectives: conflict resolution by means of communication termination or withdrawal and positive functions of refusal to communicate in everyday social interaction.
The stated problem may seem rather unexpected as nowadays a lot of researches in the area of interpersonal communication are dedicated to effective communication, ways of overcoming and avoiding communicative failures, conflict resolution by negotiation of the problem. So communication refusal may be exposed to negative assessment as at first sight this phenomenon affects the interaction destructively, as it does not maintain communication but terminates it. To avoid misunderstanding in terminology, the following definition to the notion under analysis is suggested. We see refusal to communicate as a communicative act, where an addresser consciously or unconsciously demonstrates the intention not to join the conversation or terminate it by means of a particular communicative action or its meaningful absence, and an addressee responds to the message irrespective of the accuracy of the interpretation of the message. In other words talking about refusal to communicate we do not mean literally REFUSAL but the manifestation of the intention to terminate communication.
Background and methodology. The present research is based on the following theoretical principles. In general, communication is expected to be an enjoyable occupation, where participants cooperate with each other to achieve a common goal (Lemmerman X. [13]; Melnikova S. [16]; Moskvin V. [17]). From this per-
1 Публикация подготовлена в рамках поддержанного РГНФ научного проекта №16-34-00016.
M. A. rynfiEBA
spective, refusal to communicate can be viewed as a symptom of constrained or even destructive interaction (Bodalev A. [2]; Panina N., Golovaha E. [9]), a form of an insecure personality's self-protection (Bodalev A. [1]; Golovin S. [10]; Vygotskij L. [25, p. 332]), a demonstration of negative attitude towards an interlocutor (Egides A. [7]; Gorjanina V [11, p. 248]; Parygin B. [18, p. 40]), a manipulation strategy (Egides A. [7, p. 57]; Lamykin O. [12]).
Refusal to communicate is usually construed as a non-productive strategy of conflict resolution (Canary D. [3]; Cloven D., Roloff M. [4]; DeVito J. [6, p. 397]; Ting-Toomey S. [21]). However, under certain circumstances it can be effective (Scott G. [19, p. 75]; Verderber R. [24, p.137]; Weaver R. [28, p.396]) and may prove to be culture specific (Leontovich O. [14, p. 356]; Ting-Toomey S. [21], [20]).
The methods of study include:
a) observation in order to select primary data, clarify and interpret the results at the intermediate and final stages of the research; b) discourse analysis used to study strategies and tactics, explicit and implicit meanings associated with the refusal to communicate; c) conversational analysis in order to research ways of combining words, phrases, and utterances forming communicative acts in a social context; d) method of introspection to investigate the causality of people's behaviour on the basis of the researchers' own communicative experience.
Data used for the research includes feature films and novels of 21st centuries of any origin and author's records of oral speech - all in all 389 communicative acts.
The role of communication termination in conflict resolution. People often choose to terminate or avoid communication instead of finding a compromise and using appropriate communication strategies for accordance. Such behavior cannot not affect the further communication process. We attempt to trace the factors that influence the choice of either maintaining or terminating the communication.
Careful study of the subject has shown that refusal to communicate in the western and especially American society, where the high level of directness in communication is quite common, refusal from communication is rendered as an unproductive strategy of conflict resolution [6, p. 397]. J. T. Wood talks about such a withdrawal as a distractive way, which does not solve the discordance but makes it worse. Besides, the nature of such avoidance is devastating for interpersonal relations: not willing to communicate a person demonstrates his/ her disrespect to a communicative partner, neglect to his/her feelings [27, p. 292]. Kehtlin and Rudolph Verderber assume that conflict avoidance only postpones and enhances confrontation and, as a rule, has negative consequences [24, p. 132]. Daniel Dana, the specialist in the field of conflict resolution, calls the withdrawal from communication a false reflex supposing that people break the relationships too easily [5]. In the opinion of American scholars active participation in conflict situations is significant for effective communication. It is important not only to speak but also be able to listen to and hear your partner and what he/she feels. Refusal to talk may also result in misunderstanding and irritation (Cloven D., Roloff M. [4]; Dana D. [5]; Weaver R. [28, p. 397]; Canary D. [3]; DeVito J. [6, p. 395]; Wood J. [27, p. 291]; Werderber K., Werderber R., [24, p. 132]).
As for intercultural communication, according to S. Ting-Toomey's theory [21] different cultures look at the problem of conflict resolution differently. The choice between terminating or maintaining the dialog depends on the importance of "face maintenance" of his/her own as well as other people's. In collectivist cultures "face maintenance" of the group prevails whereas in individualistic ones an individual, protecting his/her face often at the cost of somebody else's "face loss", comes first. Therefore unwillingness to discuss the problem and withdrawal is typical of collectivist cultures while individualistic ones are prone to choose other strategies of conflict resolution.
Nevertheless, it is to be noted that communication avoidance is not always rendered as a negative phenomenon. In Richard Weaver's opinion, such way of behavior is acceptable if it is not frequent, as it gives people time to calm down when the atmosphere is tense [28]. Rudolph and Kehtlin Verderber suppose that communication withdrawal may be effective as it gives an opportunity to think about the problem. Besides sometimes termination of communication takes place due to senselessness of the argument in the situations where relationships are of no significance. In other words it is more reasonable and polite to stop the conversation rather than heat up conflict taking part in the argument [24]. The following example, where the priest ignores the atheist, who tries to disrupt a sermon, illustrates this:
Finally, when Dad was unable to stand it any longer, he'd shout out something to challenge the priest. He didn't do it to be hostile. He hollered out his point in a friendly tone: "Yo, Padre!" he'd say. The priest usu-
ally ignored Dad and tried to go on with his sermon, but Dad persisted. He'd challenge the priest about the scientific impossibility of the miracles, and when the priest continued to ignore him, he'd get mad and yell out something about Pope Alexander VI's bastard children... (The Glass Castle. Jeannette Walls).
According to G.Scott communication withdrawal can be appropriate when a person has to deal with a tough partner and there are no compelling reasons to maintain the relationship. Among the most typical situations when the withdrawal strategy is recommended are the following: insignificance of the outcome of the situation, lack of willingness or an opportunity to resolve the conflict for your own benefit, intention to gain some time to obtain somebody's support or additional information or when the open discussion may make the conflict worse [19, p. 75].
Therefore, the way people behave in conflict depends on many factors, including not only personal traits of the communicants but also cultural peculiarities. Any situation of discordance creates a tense atmosphere with both partners in a vulnerable position and with especially sensitive perception, which requires maximum carefulness in the choice of communicative strategy on the way of effective communication.
However, people avoid interaction not only in conflict situations and communication termination does not always have a destructive impact. The present research attempts to trace some positive aspects of the investigated phenomenon in every day communication.
Functions of refusal to communicate in everyday social interaction. The analyzed data reveals a wide range of functions communication refusal performs. It does not only ruin interaction and person's relationships, but also regulates the conversation, leading it in a proper direction, coordinates behavior of the participants of the interaction. Taking into consideration the fact that in a real communication the combination of several functions is possible, here only positive aspects are described.
Among the positive functions of communication refusal we differentiate protective, regulative, wait and see and ethical functions.
Protective function is exercised if people choose to avoid interaction or terminate it when they are shy, self-conscious, and the level of communication apprehension is too high, when they want to get rid of overbearing company, defend their personal space, when they have fears, that some contact can damage his\her life or reputation They may become unapproachable in case they don't want anybody to see them weak, upset, depressed, outraged and etc. They intentionally avoid meeting others at that particular moment. In the movie Kramer vs. Kramer Ted is completely devastated by the court decision, which enforces him to give his son to his wife. In order to calm down and get over a shock he locks the door and doesn't respond to his neighbor's attempts to reach him. He asks her to leave him alone.
Regulative (directive) function is performed when refusal to communicate coordinates actions and behavior of communicants. A person chooses to refrain from taking part in some argument or wants to stop the conversation giving reasonable explanation: You'd better go. We have nothing to talk about any more. I do not want to talk as I don't like the tone of the conversation; Stop shouting at me or we won't talk.
In the movie "The land of women" the daughter doesn't want to talk to her mother as she is not pleased with the topic of the discussion. She tries to stop the conversation:
- Mom, I can't talk about it anymore. It's too retarded. And I really don't want to fight with you right now.
In the next example we see, how a woman tries to explain to her friend, that she wants to forget him and does not want to have any contact with him. This refusal aims at regulating the relationship between two people.
Text message:
Jasper: Heard you left for holiday in Lotus Land. First vacation for four years is a turning point. I salute you! How do I reach you? Jasper.
Iris: Jasper, we both know I need to fall out of love with you. Would be great if you would let me try. ("The holiday".)
Wait and see function is exercised when it is necessary for a communicant to suspend a conversation to calm down, wait until the better time, friendly and hospitable stance of the partner, his/her readiness to carry on an effective dialogue. As an example we took an episode from the book "The bridges of the Madison County" by Robert James Waller, where the wife experiencing personal tragedy, asks her husband to give her some time to recollect herself as she can not discuss her problem with him:
М. А. ГУЛЯЕВА
Richard looked over at her. "What S wrong, Frannie? Will you please tell me what's wrong with you?"
"Richard, I just need some time to myself. I'll be all right in a few minutes."
Ethical (ceremonial) function is realized when etiquette rules or the sense of delicacy require to finish the meeting or conversation. It can be observed in the situations when people are afraid to be overbearing or intrusive, when they do not want to delay or bother their companion, feel out of place or unwanted.
Another example illustrates how two people, who are bored with each other's company, finish their meeting, trying to be polite and not offend each other.
Then Ed glances at me, and my empty glass, and says, "Don't let me keep you".
Don't let me keep you. It's a good thing I'm not into this guy. If that isn't code for I can't stand a moment more in your company, I don't know what it is.
"I'm sure you have dinner plans," he adds politely.
"Yes!" I say brightly. "I do as it happens. Absolutely. Dinner plans." I do a pantomime sweep of my watch in front of my eyes. "Goodness, is that the time? I must run. My dinner companions will be waiting."
"Well, I have plans too." He nods. "So maybe we should..."
"Yes, let's. It's been fun."
(Sophie Kinsella. Twenties girl)
Conclusion. The conducted analysis allowed us to describe some positive aspects of refusal to communicate from the point of view of its operating in conflict situations as well as in every day social interaction. The functions performed by communication refusal are not limited by the abovementioned classification. Here we attempt to show the aspects that can positively affect the process of communication, protect people feelings and maintain healthy relationships.
As a result of the research, I have come to the following conclusions:
The conducted analysis allowed us to describe some positive aspects of refusal to communicate from the point of view of its operating in conflict situations:
1. It allows people to calm down when the atmosphere is tense.
2. It gives an opportunity to think about the problem.
3. It prevents from heating up a conflict.
4. It allows to avoid unnecessary arguments.
As for everyday social interaction, we identify the set of functions that can positively influence the communication process as well as personal relationships. Among them are:
protective function - defends personal space and face;
regulative function - regulates the conversation, leading it in a proper direction, coordinates actions and behavior of communicants;
wait and see function - postpone a conversation, allowing time to both partners for an effective dialogue
ethical function - creates polite, favorable and proper atmosphere for further communication.
The investigation of the topic hopefully will positively influence the complicated process of human communication and its theoretical findings can be applied to real-life situations.
Список литературы
1. Бодалев А. А. Психология общения. - М.: Когито-центр, 2011. - 2280 с.
2. Бодалев А. А., Ковалев Г. А. Психологические трудности общения и их преодоление // Педагогика. -1992. - № 5. - С. 55-60.
3. Canary D. J., Cody M. J, Manusov V. L. (1994) Interpersonal communication. NY.
4. Cloven D. H., Roloff M. E. (1991) 'Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues' // Western journal of speech communication. - № 5. - С. 134-158.
5. Dana D. (2001) Conflict resolution. McGraw-Hill Education.
6. DeVito Joseph A. (2001) The interpersonal Communication Book. Longman.
7. Егидес А. П. Лабиринты общения или Как научиться ладить с людьми. М.: АСТ-Пресс-книга, 2002.
8. Головаха Е. И., Панина Н. В. Психология человеческого взаимопонимания. - Киев: Политиздат, 1989. - 189 с.
9. Головин С. Я. Словарь практического психолога. - Минск: Харвест. 1998. - 554 с.
10. Горянина В. А. Психология общения: учеб. пособие для студ. высш. учеб. заведений. - М.: Академия, 2002. - 416 с.
11. Griffin E. A. A first look at communication theory. - NY. : McGraw-Hill, 2004. - 608 p.
12. Ламыкин О. Д. Защита от манипуляций [Электронный ресурс]: электрон. данные. - Минск: Белорусская цифровая библиотека LIBRARY.BY, 05 ноября 2010. Онлайн документ. 30 Мая 2016. <http://library.by/portalus/modules/psychology/readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1288960931&ar-chive=1288969338&start_from=&ucat=&>.
13. ЛеммерманХ. Учебник риторики. Тренировка речи с упражнениями. - М.: Интерэксперт, 1999. -256 с.
14. Леонтович О. А. Русские и американцы: парадоксы межкультурного общения. - Волгоград: Перемена, 2002. - 344 с.
15. McCroskey J. C. (1984), The Communication Apprehension Perspective. In avoiding communication: shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
16. Мельникова С. В. Деловая риторика(речевая культура делового общения): учебное пособие. -Ульяновск: УлГТУ 1999. - 106 с.
17. Москвин В. П. Аргументативная риторика: теоретический курс для филологов. - Ростов н/Д.: Феникс, 2008. - 637 с.
18. Паригин Б. Д. Анатомия общения: учебное пособие. - СПб.: Изд. дом Михайлова В. А., 1999. -301 с.
19. Scott G. G. (1990). Resolving conflict. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
20. Ting-Toomey S., Chung L. C. (2005). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
21. Ting-Toomey S. (1985) 'Toward a theory of conflict and culture.' In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P., Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 71-86.
22. Van Dijk T. A. (1981) 'Discourse studies and education' Applied Linguistics 2, 1-26.
23. VerdeberRudolf F. (1994) Speech for Effective Communication. Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
24. Verdeber R., Verdeber K. (2003) Psychology of communication. Saint Petersburg: Prime-Euroznak.
25. Выготский Л. С. Основы дефектологии: учебник для вузов. - СПб.: 2003. - 654 с.
26. Watzlawick P., Beavin J., & Jackson D. (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication. W. W. Norton: New York.
27. Wood J. T. (2004) Interpersonal Communication. Everyday encounters. - Wadsworth.
28. Weaver IIR. L. (1996) Understanding Interpersonal Communication. Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated.
Фильмография:
1. Kramer vs. Kramer. USA: Columbia Pictures, 1979, dir. Robert Benton.
2. The Land of Women. USA: Picturehouse, 2008, dir. Diane English.
3. The Holiday. USA: Columbia Pictures 2006, dir. Nancy Meyers.
Источники:
1. Kinsella S. (2010) Twenties girl. New York: Dial Press.
2. Waller J. (1992) The bridges of the Madison County. New York: Warner Books.
3. Walls J. (2005) The Glass Castle. New York:Scribner.
Гуляева Марианна Александровна, кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры межкультурной коммуникации и перевода, Волгоградский государственный социально-педагогический университет, г. Волгоград, Россия.
M. A. rynfiEBA
M. A. Gulyaeva,
Volgograd state socio-pedagogical University, Volgograd, Russia
POSITIVE FUNCTIONING OF REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE IN SOCIAL INTERACTION
The present paper deals with refusal to communicate, that is situations when people send verbal or nonverbal messages about refusing to communicate or they pretend that they do not want to communicate, using it as a manipulation strategy. This research is a part of a broader study entitled "Positive communication" and done by a group of scholars from Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University, Russia. The work aims at introducing the results of the conducted research concerning the positive aspects of functioning of the refusal to communicate in social interaction. It represents the classification with suggested criteria, covering the functions, means of expression and communicative strategies, illustrated by a number of multiple examples taken from analyzed data, which makes the research work realistic, vivid and clear to the reader.
Key words: interpersonal communication, communication withdrawal, communication termination, refusal to communicate, conflict resolution, functions of refusal to communicate.
References
1. Bodalev A. A. (2011) Psihologija obshhenija [Psychology of communication], Moscow: Kogito centre.
2. Bodalev A. A., Kovalev G. A. (1992) 'Psihologicheskie trudnosti obshhenija i ih preodolenie' [Dealing with psychological difficulties and overcoming them]. Pedagogics, no 5, pp. 55-60.
3. Canary D. J., Cody M. J., Manusov V. L. (1994) Interpersonal communication. NY.
4. Cloven D. H., Roloff M. E. (1991) 'Sense-making activities and interpersonal conflict: Communicative cures for the mulling blues'. Western journal of speech communication, no 55, pp. 134-158.
5. Dana D. (2001) Conflict resolution. McGraw-Hill Education.
6. DeVito Joseph A. (2001) The interpersonal Communication Book. Longman.
7. Egides A. P. (2002) Labirinty obshhenija, ili Kak nauchit'sja ladit's ljud'mi [Labyrinth of communication, or how to learn to deal with people], Moscow: ACT-Press book.
8. Golovaha E. I., Panina N. V. (1989) Psihologija chelovecheskogo vzaimoponimanija [Psychology of human mutual understanding], Kiev: Politizdat.
9. Golovin S. J. (1998) Slovar'prakticheskogo psihologa [Dictionary of applied psychologist], Minsk: Harvest.
10. Gorjanina V. A. (2002) Psihologija obshhenija: ucheb. posobie dlja stud. vyssh. ucheb. zavedenij [Psychology of communication: college textbook], Moscow: Academija.
11. Griffin E. A. A first look at communication theory, NY.: McGraw-Hill, 2004, 608 p.
12. Lamykin O. D. (2010) 'Zashhita ot manipuljacij' [Protection from manipulation]. In: Belorussian digital library. Belorussia, Minsk, Nov 2010. Online document. 30 May 2016 <http://library.by/portalus/mod-ules/psychology/readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1288960931&archive=1288969338&start_from=&uc-at=&>.
13. Lemmerman X. (1999) Uchebnikritoriki. Trenirovka rechi s uprazhnenijami [Book of rhetoric. Speech practice with exercises], Moscow: Interexpert.
14. Leontovich O. (2002) Russkie i amerikancy: paradoksy mezhkul turnogo obshhenija: [Russians and Americans: paradoxes of intercultural communication], Volgograd: Peremena.
15. McCroskey J. C. (1984), The Communication Apprehension Perspective. In avoiding communication: shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications
16. Mel'nikova S. V.(1999) Delovaja ritorika (rechevaja kul'tura delovogo obshhenija) [Business rhetoric (speech culture of business communication)], Ul'janovsk: UlGTU.
17. Moskvin V. P. (2008) Argumentativnaja ritorika: teoreticheskij kurs dljafilologov [Persuasive rhetoric: theory course for philologists], Rostov-on-Don: Phenix.
18. Parygin B. D. (1999) Anatomija obshhenija: ucheb. posobie [Anatomy of communication: study guide], St. Petersburg: Michailov's publishing house.
19. Scott G. G. (1990). Resolving conflict, Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.
20. Ting-Toomey S., Chung L. C. (2005). Understanding Intercultural Communication, Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
21. Ting-Toomey S. (1985) 'Toward a theory of conflict and culture.' In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P., Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 71-86.
22. Van Dijk T. A. (1981) 'Discourse studies and education' Applied Linguistics 2, 1-26.
23. Verdeber Rudolf F. (1994) Speech for Effective Communication, Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
24. Verdeber R., Verdeber K. (2003) Psychology of communication, Saint Petersburg: Prime-Euroznak.
25. Vygotskij L. S. (2003) Osnovy defektologii: uchebnik dlja vuzov [Fundamentals of defectology: college textbook], St. Petersburg: Lan'.
26. Watzlawick P., Beavin J., & Jackson D. (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication. W. W. Norton: New York.
27. Wood J. T. (2004) Interpersonal Communication. Everyday encounters, Wadsworth.
28. Weaver II R. L. (1996) Understanding Interpersonal Communication. Allyn & Bacon, Incorporated.
Filmography:
1. Kramer vs. Kramer. USA: Columbia Pictures, 1979, dir. Robert Benton.
2. The Land of Women. USA: Picturehouse, 2008, dir. Diane English.
3. The Holiday. USA: Columbia Pictures 2006, dir. Nancy Meyers.
Sources:
1. Kinsella S. (2010) Twenties girl. New York: Dial Press.
2. Walle, J. (1992) The bridges of the Madison County. New York: Warner Books.
3. Walls J. (2005) The Glass Castle. New York:Scribner.
Marianna A. Gulyaeva, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Intercultural Communication and Translation of Volgograd State Socio-Pedagogical University, Volgograd, Russia.
Для цитирования: Гуляева М. А. Позитивные функции отказа от общения в межличностной коммуникации // Актуальные проблемы филологии и педагогической лингвистики. 2017. № 2. С. 50-56.
For citation: Gulyaeva M. A. (2017). Positive functioning of refusal to communicate in social interaction.
Aktual'nye problemy filologii i pedagogiceskoj lingvistiki, 2017, 2, pp. 50-56 (In Russ.).
