CC BY
89
Copyright © 2019 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o.
K " *
I
Published in the Slovak Republic Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie) Has been issued since 2005 ISSN 1994-4160 E-ISSN 1994-4195 2019, 59(1): 61-72
DOI: 10.13187/me.2019.1.61 www.ejournal53.com
Tolerant Media Discourse in the Coordinates of Political Correctness
E.G. Kulikova a - * , A.V. Kuznetsova b - * , O.A. Guk c
a Rostov State University of Economics, Russian Federation b Southern Federal University, Russian Federation c Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Russian Federation
Abstract
Tolerant media discourse has the features of institutional discourse, which arises and exists within a certain public institution and represents cliched communication, the core of which is the communication of the basic pair of participants in communication "author - reader". System of mediatopics functioning in a tolerant media discourse, occurs on the basis of realization of principles of correctness and includes three groups: the cooperation of countries in various spheres of society; the integration of migrants, including our compatriots, into the European community; overcoming ethnic and religious conflicts, the settlement of territorial claims. This kind of discourse has consolidating, forming, educating purposes that are implemented with the help of common and particular strategies: influencing strategy; demonstrating strategy; cooperative strategy; evaluation strategy. It is the semes of emphasized officiality and delicacy, subtlety in the understanding of other people are actualized in the concept of political correctness. Tolerant media discourse naturally relies on the principles of political correctness in its functioning. Tolerance and tolerant discourse are in regular dialectical relationships with the category of communicative freedom. Communicative freedom forms individuality of the speaking person, allowing him/her to choose from a variety of options a single, acceptable in communication option of influence on the interlocutor.
Keywords: tolerance, language personality, media discourse, political correctness, communicative freedom, world.
1. Introduction
The problem of tolerance is inherently interdisciplinary and equally concerns linguistics, sociology, ethnology, religious studies, ethics, philosophy, political science, general and social psychology and other Humanities. Each of them investigates the problem of tolerance in its own context, which is reflected in the attempts to determine. In general, tolerance is considered as a manifestation of the adaptive degree of plasticity offered by culture and subcultures of cognitive patterns of perception of other individuals, their views and action.
The implicit concept of a tolerant person can significantly vary in different socio-psychological groups, and its research should also take into account gender differences.
In the age of globalization, economic interdependence of countries, active migration of population and its integration, tolerance becomes a necessary condition for the survival and
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E.G. Kulikova), [email protected] (A.V. Kuznetsova)
development of the world community, ethnic, religious, national and cultural cooperation between countries.
Tolerance is a universal value, it should play an important role in the settlement of ethnic and religious conflicts, in the prevention of acts of terrorism and violence, manifestations of nationalism, racism and anti-semitism.
A number of international documents define the role and place of tolerance in the life of modern society. On November, 16, 1995 in Paris there was adopted the "Declaration of Principles of Tolerance", in which tolerance is proclaimed as moral duty, political and legal need (Declaration..., 1996).
The term "tolerant discourse" began to be used relatively recently, and along with this nomination other options are used: tolerant discourse (Lysakova, 2005; Ivanisheva, 2008); discourse of tolerance (Discourse-PI: philosophy, politics, power, public relations. Discourse of tolerance in the global world, 2003; Tolerance as a factor of counteraction to xenophobia, 2011); journalistic discourse of tolerance (Abolin, 2009); ethical discourse on tolerance (Nikonova, 2012).
This term is supposed to be used by I.P. Lysakova in the monograph "The Language of the Newspaper and the Typology of the Press. Sociolinguistic Research" (Lysakova, 2005). The phenomenon of tolerance is a controversial, multifaceted phenomenon of our time. The "Declaration of Principles of Tolerance" defines tolerance as a moral category that includes "respect, acceptance and understanding of the rich diversity of the cultures of our world, our forms of expression and ways of expressing human individuality" (Declaration., 1996). Tolerance is now also understood as a moral duty, a political, legal need and a virtue that "makes possible to achieve peace and promotes the replacement of the culture of war with the culture of peace" (Declaration., 1996).
Tolerance is not only as a moral quality, but also requirement of society to establish various forms of expression and manifestations of human individuality, diversity of cultural differences in their unity. Tolerance must be manifested in respect for "otherness" and in the peaceful coexistence of cultural, socio-political, scientific and religious differences. All these sense-forming components of tolerance reveal its importance and value both for the individual and for the entire human community as a "value-pragmatic phenomenon of cultural and civilizational reality" (Dneprova, 2010: 242).
The requirement of social and cultural tolerance in modern conditions is supplemented by the requirement of language tolerance. When cultures interact, they not only complement each other, but also enter into complex relationships with each other, and each of them reveals its own specificity and identity. In their contacts, cultures are mutually adapted in the form of borrowing their best "products". The changes connected with these borrowings force people of this culture also to adapt to them, learning and using new elements in their lives. In this regard, the concepts of inculturation and acculturation are relevant. Inculturation is teaching of human traditions and norms of behavior in a particular culture. This happens in the process of mutual exchange between a person and his/her culture, in which, on the one hand, culture determines the main features of a human personality, on the other - the person himself influences his culture. Inculturation includes the formation of basic human skills, such as types of communication with other people, forms of control of their own behavior and emotions, ways to meet basic needs, evaluative attitude to various phenomena of the world, etc. The result of inculturation is the emotional and behavioural similarity of a person with other members of a certain culture and his/her difference from other cultures. Acculturation is the process of mutual influence of cultures, the perception in whole or in part by one nation the culture of another nation. Acculturation was considered as a result of long-term contact of groups representing different cultures, which is expressed in the change of the initial cultural models in both groups depending on the specific weight of the interacting groups. The situation of interethnic communication gives the individuals more opportunities to get knowledge about the characteristics of their own and other ethnic groups, contributes to the development of interethnic understanding.
The functioning of languages in a multi-ethnic Russian society is determined by two human needs - the need for identity (language acts as one of the markers of ethnicity) and the need for mutual understanding, satisfied in the process of communication. The fate of national languages with the dominance of Russian can be different: 1) they can get the status of a regional language; 2) they can play the role of the language of everyday communication; 3) there may be a situation of language assimilation, which is facilitated by the number of people, strict language policy, cultural
factors. Attempts to create a common language picture of the world gave some dominant, which was determined by national and cultural traditions and the dominant ideology. Structuring a complete picture of the world is possible only on the basis of establishing a hierarchy of meanings and values for an individual linguistic personality. Language personality is characterized by a certain vocabulary of words with a particular rank of frequency of usage, which fill the abstract syntactic models. If the models are quite typical for a representative of a given language group, the lexicon and manner of speaking can indicate his/her belonging to a certain society, indicate the level of education, type of character, indicate gender and age, etc. The linguistic repertoire of such a person, whose activity is connected with the performance many social roles, should be assimilated taking into account the speech etiquette adopted in society. Norms of etiquette exclude rude, aggressive behavior that makes the communication process ineffective, leads to interpersonal conflicts and has a negative impact on the emotional and psychological state of communicants. Of course, the linguistic personality in modern society should be tolerant, have stable skills of producing tolerant discourse.
2. Materials and methods
The specificity of the nature of tolerant media discourse requires a polyparadigmatic study of its linguistic essence in the light of the principles of political correctness, which involves the synthesis of pragmalinguistic, structural, semantic and stylistic approaches, taking into account the extralinguistic conditionality of its production and functioning.
3. Discussion
Taking into consideration investigation of discourse (Arutyunova, 1990; Kubrakova, 2000; Sheigal, 2000; Karasik, 1998; 2000a; 2000b; Zheltukhina, 2003), in this paper we define a tolerant media discourse as a set of oral and written texts with a common theme "tolerance", reflecting the relations between people, social groups, peoples, nations and coumtries, based on mutual understanding, mutual assistance, friendship, solidarity, equality, and aimed to promote the formation of a tolerant consciousness, to assert ideals and practices of tolerance in society, to foster respect for the Other, to encourage interaction. "... it is important to investigate the means of tolerant discourse in the regional press, which is part of those emerging quality publications in Russia, which will mediate tolerance as the norms and values of culture" (Ivanisheva, 2008: 101). Tolerant media discourse naturally relies on the principles of political correctness in its functioning. It is the semes of emphasized officiality and delicacy, subtlety in the understanding of other people are actualized in the concept of political correctness. In discussions about political correctness, the key words are justice and equality. Semantics of the terminological combination political correctness contains the sema of prohibition and restriction. The notion of political correctness "impliciets" sometimes forced normalization, and hence "ideological excesses" are possible. Therefore, the term political correctness is often involved into ironic discourse (Akimoto et al., 2014). Since the ideas of political correctness are put into practice in recommendations (and sometimes requirements) to radically change the forms of expression fixed in the language, this cannot but cause a response protest. It is often implemented in irony relating to the improvement of language towards absolute justice. Since the ideas of political correctness (Bezmaternykh et al., 2017) are put into practice in recommendations (and sometimes requirements) to radically change the forms of expression fixed in the language, this causes a response protest. It is often implemented in irony relating to the improvement of language towards absolute justice.
According to M.A. Krongauz (Krongauz, 1999: 9), experiments of parodying politically correct changes both in language and behavior are popular. Anthropocentric linguistics seeks to comprehend the peculiarities of language action and impact, so it is particularly relevant today to penetrate into the essence of the influence of sign structures on human consciousness. This task can be performed only on the basis of the general humanistic paradigm, when a person (a sender of speech and its recipient) is in the research center. The phenomenon of political correctness reflects the dependence of speech communication on socially significant ideological connotations, value orientations and norms of social consciousness. Political correctness is first of all language correctness. Political correctness has emerged when people have a need to find new ways of language expression instead of those that hurt the dignity of the individual, infringe on his human rights relating to some of his/her properties - race, nationality, gender, age, health and mental
development (especially in those cases where some of the properties of a person does not fit into existing standards).
The term political correctness and the concept behind it can be attributed to the category of "fashionable". Being borrowed, the term today is high- frequency in the modern Russian media, it is used (interpreted, discussed) in the manuals on linguoculturology, theory of translation and intercultural communication, but it has not yet become the property of the domestic lexicography (linguistic dictionaries), and therefore we can talk about its non- codification and, as a consequence, its semantic underdevelopment. The criterion of politically correctness (where it is not obvious) is the usage of language units in a neutral or positive context (Arévalo, 2018; Mackenzie, 2018) in the discriminated groups themselves. The status of a politically correct unit is variable in language and speech: what seemed acceptable to one generation of native speakers may be regarded as unacceptable and discriminating by another one. The dynamism of politically correct lexemes is due to the need to soften with the help of euphemistic nominations the essence of what can be perceived as discrimination. Under the influence of ideas of political correctness, the norms of modern communication, especially public, are changing. But these new norms have not yet been codified. The task of modern lexicography is to show native speakers which units are most appropriate in accordance with the rules of political correctness and exclude even implicit discrimination. Tense relations between different peoples and national groups give rise a fear to increase tension between people, unwittingly contribute to inter- ethnic strife with inaccurate words, awkward expression. Hence the step to a false interpretation of the meaning of some units as being able to cause some emotional distress to the addressee or to those about whom we are talking.
Such fear, according to L.P. Krysin (Krysin, 2004: 275), is caused by replacement of the one-word name of nationalities of the people of the Caucasus, Central Asia and some other regions with descriptive expression: a person of the Armenian nationality (instead of the Armenian), a person of the Uzbek nationality (instead of Uzbek) and even a person of the Caucasian nationality though such nationality, as the Caucasian, doesn't exist. Compare the following official notice: The Court chamber for information disputes under the President of the Russian Federation recommended to consider incorrect and unethical the usage of terms in newspapers such as persons of Caucasian nationality (Evening Moscow, July 15, 1994) (Cyte. by: Krysin, 2004: 275). Thus, in the modern Russian language, describing the sphere of national relations, there are only "sprouts" of political correctness, because even normative ("protective") explanatory dictionaries without restrictive, stylistic or emotionally expressive notes include words like Negro, color and etc., such words are used in the author's text in the interpretation of words (Yus, 2017; Sánchez-Moya, Cruz-Moya, 2015). At the same time, the ideas of political correctness are already quite widespread, they are discussed in scientific, educational and popular (artistic and journalistic) texts, they gradually master the minds and now often correct the choice of speech units in conditions of both public and private communication. Language stereotypes promote, but often hinder, the development of progressive ideas in society. Counter action can be caused by the conservatism of the language system, which naturally complicates the development of language tolerance. Language stereotypes are caused by the language picture of the world and the cognitive capabilities of the language, so they can not change as quickly as, for example, social relations. Hence, language and discourse can influence tolerance/intolerance of linguistic identity (Kulikova, Kuznetsova, 2015; Kulikova et al., 2016).
Tolerant media discourse is in intersection with the political, economic, religious, pedagogical, legal and discourse of intercultural relations in the discourse space of the Russian-speaking foreign press. The lexeme tolerance in the texts of tolerant media discourse (Kulikova, 2004; Brusenskaya, 2016) acquires the following semes:' interaction aimed at achieving mutual understanding, establishing business or friendly relations', 'positive attitude to the Other', 'preservation of national and cultural differences', 'equality', 'freedom', 'sovereignty 'ideology directed against intolerance', 'active interaction with migrants and neighboring countries'. The stereotypical discursive formulas of tolerant media discourse include the following: "mutual respect", "mutually beneficial cooperation", "partnership", "fraternal peoples", "constructive dialogue", "peace agreement", "course for consolidation", "multipolar world", "tolerant consciousness", "cultural exchange", "readiness for interaction", "active interaction", "strengthening mutual understanding", "mutual trust", "support of immigrants", "bilateral integration", "mutual interests", "develop contacts", "strategic partners", "bilateral relations», "neighborhood policy", "direct negotiations", "understanding and support", "rapprochement of two peoples", "freedom of speech", "strengthen ties between our countries", "cooperation
agreement"," tolerant country" etc. Tolerant media discourse is characterized by a lot of means of emotional- evaluative expressions, which are actively used by the authors in newspaper publications. Tolerant media discourse has its own components inherent only in this type of discourse. They are 1) media topics, 2) the connotation, 3) purposes, 4) strategies. Media topics in journalism is understood as a sustained, regularly covered by the media theme that reflects the content of the media text (Dobrosklonskaya, 2004: 14). The analysis of the texts showed that the tolerant media discourse has a stable system of media topics regularly reproduced, which can be combined into three large groups.
1. Cooperation of countries in various spheres of society:
1) political cooperation; 2) economic cooperation; 3) cooperation in the field of intercultural relations; 4) in the field of tourism and sports; 5) cooperation in the field of medicine; 6) cooperation in the field of science; 7) cooperation in the fight against terrorism; 8) cooperation in the settlement of military conflicts; 9) cooperation in the organization of humanitarian missions.
2. Integration of migrants, including our compatriots, into the European community: 1) the relationship of immigrants with the population of the country to which they came; 2) assistance to immigrants in the integration into a new society; 3) activities aimed at the observance of human rights; 4) condemnation of racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, discrimination; 5) solving the problem of bilingualism and education of children from bilingual families; 6) organization of societies uniting compatriots.
3. Overcoming ethnic and religious conflicts, settlement of territorial claims.
The content of the texts of the tolerant media discourse reflects the problems associated with political, economic, cultural relations between different countries, with the integration of migrants. At the same time, it should be noted that the choice of the topic of the text of a tolerant media discourse can be influenced by a linguistic and cultural factor, "because in the texts of the media there is a kind of overlap of language and information pictures of the world, which is manifested in a set of permanent thematic components typical for a country, a culture" (Dobrosklonskaya 2004: 14). Media topics of the tolerant media discourse (Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2016; Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2017) as a whole reflect its value component, which consists of 1) the recognition of the uniqueness and uniqueness of the life of each person as the highest value on earth, the need to appreciate and protect not only own, but also someone else's life, respect people of different nationalities and religions (if that these religions do not harm the mental and physical health of a person); 2) in recognition of the right to exist, develop and preserve the diversity of national cultures on Earth; 3) in recognition of the right of each country to sovereignty, political and economic self-determination; 4) in the suppression of attempts to discriminate an individual on the basis of race, gender, religion, political and other beliefs, national and social origin (Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2017; 2018; Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2018).
The value component of a tolerant media discourse determines its goals.
• Consolidating goal, the achievement of which contributes to the expansion and strengthening of cooperation and interaction of countries or public organizations, reconciliation of conflicting parties, prevention of military clashes.
• Forming goal involves the formation of public opinion among the local population, which is expressed in a tolerant attitude to refugees, migrants, representatives of different nationalities, religions, and immigrants - a sense of respect for the language, culture, moral foundations of the society, citizens of which they are going to become.
• Educational goal is implemented in media texts aimed at educating the reader with a sense of tolerance to people who are different from anyone in their national origin, social status, religion, beliefs.
The goals of the tolerant media discourse are realized through general and private strategies:
• influencing strategy (a call for compassion, sympathy; drawing the reader's attention to the activities aimed at the formation of tolerance among the population; motivation for actions that contribute to the development of tolerant relations);
• demonstration strategy (demonstration of solidarity between countries and peoples; demonstration of willingness to negotiate; demonstration of recognition of the rights and freedoms of others; demonstration of protest against violence and humiliation of human dignity; demonstration of the desire to prevent discrimination of the person on the basis of race, gender, religion, political and other beliefs, national and social origin; demonstration of the desire to have
friendly, good- neighbourly relations; demonstration of respect for people of other nationalities and religions in general and for the individual in particular);
• cooperation strategies (joint solution of tasks; desire for negotiations to avoid misunderstanding and conflicts; invitation to dialogue and cooperation);
• evaluating strategy.
4. Results
Tolerance and tolerant discourse are in regular dialectical relationships with the category of communicative freedom. Realizing the compulsion of his position when entering into verbal contact with the interlocutor, the speaking person tries to avoid ineffective communication in a reasonable way, freely choosing those restrictions that are generated by the socio-cultural conditions of dialogue, and at the same time developing an individual style of communication with the environment, while identifying himself as a "tolerant interlocutor" (Sternin, 2000), the subject of his/her own speech being, that is, as a subject who in speech behaviour manages him/herself.
Choosing illocutive goals and language means of achieving them, the individual has the opportunity in this choice to show the individual features of his/her thinking and communicative beliefs. The wider the possibilities of choice provided by the situation of dialogical communication, the wider the communicative freedom of the speaker relating to his/her verbal self-expression. Such speech behaviour is comprehended by the speaking person, is influenced by his/her mind, an individual "Ego", which is present and acts here, and therefore can not be considered as unfree, not chosen by the personality. The question of communicative freedom, therefore, is not that the speaking person is the initiator of his/her speech decisions and as a subject of influence he/she is encouraged to these decisions by a certain system of values; this question is what is the position, based on which the person carries out his/her speech decisions. The basis of speech making decision is the individual picture of the speaker's world, formed by the system of his/her mental representations and includes the conditions of provability, truth, relevance, permissible in this socio-cultural community.
As for speech the speaking person is free because he/she is not a subject to certain motives from the outside, and independently carries out search of correct speech decision, and this search proceeds not without alternative as in its basis there is the possibility of the positive choice of the most appropriate way of influence on the interlocutor in this situation.
In other words, communicative freedom is the result of the speaker's comprehension of standard speech formulas aimed at mutual understanding of the interlocutors. Having entered into a confrontation with the language reality, the speaker comes to the need to identify with the language, the voluntary acceptance of its requirements. Having made the choice of language means to influence the dialogue partner, the speaker is no longer free in speech, but falls under the power of the chosen language rules. Having made a choice, he/she seeks not to lose own identity, makes the language a "stroke" to his/her portrait, implicitly - and perhaps subconsciously - conveying information about his/her origin, emotional predisposition, personal preferences and mental potential. The desire of the speaking person to communicative freedom - this is his/her desire for self- expression, self-realization, because only free speech activity allows the subject of influence to express his/her essential features. Communicative freedom is a manifestation of tolerance, a way to preserve the personal opinion of both participants of dialogical communication. Communicative freedom forms individuality of the speaking person, allowing him/her to choose from a variety of options a single, acceptable in communication option of influence on the interlocutor.
The opportunity to choose a certain language means to achieve the perlocutionary effect of his/her utterance to put a variety of illocutionary goals, to choose the terms of dialogic communication, - all this greatly extends the range of communicative freedoms of speech activity interlocutors. The morality of communication, regulated by common social norms for this community, has its own national and cultural specificity. The specificity of this defines unique to this society the balance of self-assertion and containment of the personality in acts of speech. And so the speech - and wider-language activity of the individual can be seen as a form of rational behaviour, maintaining optimal order in the micro- collective (Alba-Juez, Larina, 2018; Arévalo, 2018; Wierzbicka, 2018), and in society as a whole.
The person tries to act according to the rules of communicative roles of the speaker and the listener established in society, formulas of social communication. They are important pragmatic
signals for speakers, regulate their relations and implement specific communicative tasks (Russell, 1997).
Ignoring them leads to the violation of the conversational maxim - Maxim of communication. This is a kind of static components in the language of communication, which s most fully absorbed the pragmatics of the language community. In linguistic pragmatics and the theory of speech acts, conventions are understood as abstractions, which assume that the situation of the usagw of language has a form as if the representatives of a particular socio- cultural community had agreed in advance:
• to use this expression in this context;
• to use this expression for the realization of specific speech intentions (more - specific illocutionary goal);
• to accompany certain actions (both their own and their interlocutors) with certain statements;
• to accept certain statements as provably or unprovably true in a particular speech situation;
• to consider circumstances specific to the dialogue - both linguistic and extralinguistic nature and conditions of truth and conditions of relevance (Gordon, Lakof, 1985; Davidson, 1987; Stroman, 1986).
Accepted norms and conventions of social life, the conventions, most directly affect the nature of speech behaviour of communicating. Embodying all shades of mental activity of the speaking person in dialogical interaction, language itself begins to generate new forms of mental activity, forces to reckon with them, fixing them as norms and conventions.
Thus, communicative freedom is not only an opportunity to choose what sociocultural norms offer us, but also the ability to create new opportunities to modify the conditions of communication in accordance with their own speech desires and needs. The ability to adopt and assimilate such norms and conventions is an essential factor in the formation of the speaker's personality. "A person speaks in so far as," says M. Heidegger in this regard, "because he corresponds to the language" (Heidegger, 1991: 19). It turns out that this person is between his/her own word and the norm, and his/her individuality is formed in this borderline state, in combination of one and the other.
The conventional language is the common basis of the value language of the culture of dialogical communication. Dialogue through conventional language is possible if there is not only a semantic, but also a pragmatic Convention - a Convention of trust, the guarantor of which is the speaker him/herself. The essence of the Convention of trust is the establishment of psychological and - wider- cognitive contact with the interlocutor. And this is the main purpose of the dialogical form of communication.
Speech situations, which we can consider as examples of the implementation of communication conventions, appear as an appropriate unity of linguistic and extralinguistic activities of the interlocutors. The language expression is used correctly if the addressee's goal, aimed at mutual understanding with the dialogical communication partner, is at least partially achieved when uttering this expression. Thus conventions are aimed at successful communication. Smoothing out the differences between the interlocutors, determined by their personal goalsetting, in the conditions of dialogical interaction has an inter-conventional character: in a specific situation of communication, each time a new convention is developed to coordinate the positions of partners, there is an expansion of their individual picture of the world with new concepts, which makes it possible to continue a dialogue. And here the relationship between society and language is already manifested in the opposite direction: language is ideally an effective means of preserving the unity and integrity of society, a positive microclimate in its individual cell. Hence, the pragmatic interpretation of language and its modeling in modern linguistic research. Language -primarily in the form of dialogue - is an indispensable condition for the socialization of the individual, the development of social roles, the formation of his/her value preferences and worldviews, providing more advanced forms of social life. According to O. Rosenstock- Hussie: "Through speech society strengthens its axes of time and space. These axes of time and space set the direction and orientation for all members of society... Without road signs of speech, the social hive would crumble in an instant" (Rosenstock-Hussy, 1994: 19). Language, thus, becomes a positive prerequisite for the free and independent adaptation of the individual to the objective reality, the formation of his/her existence in the world and its culture.).
Taking into account all the privileges granted by language, a person does not always want to be limited in expressing his/her speech intentions, because the language ability for him/her is self-realization, self-assertion, perfection of his/her own personality. And, at first glance, it seems that communicative freedom of the speaking person, his/her speech independence and individualization is in the unboundedness with any sociolinguistic barriers. But this is just going beyond the limits of speech individualization imposed by the language community, results of which is loneliness and anxiety of the speaker, breaking his/her contact with the surrounding language world. In this case, the position of the partner in communication is ignored, and free speech self-realization is understood as a characteristic of the speaking person, perceiving him/herself as the only center of dialogue interaction, not even thinking about communicative freedom. In such circumstances, communication is reduced to communicative pressure on the interlocutor, the establishment of "superiority" of the personal sphere of the speaker over the sphere of the addressee. In short, the communicative power of the speaking person predetermines his/her verbal impotence.
Own speech power confronts him/her as an alien force, in this there is a significant point of paradox of the modern communicative process: the loss by the person his/her beliefs, traditions, communication skills, his/her loneliness/Ortega-Gasset H./; lack of personal responsibility, his/her own thinking, his/her activities outside the "Ego" /Jaspers K./; loss by the person "substantial existence" both of him/herself and the neighbor, and as a result the loss of the ability to feel love for him/herself, and for the neighbor/Unamuno M./; impotence of the person before his/her own development /Cassirer/; antipractice - antipurpose - alienation/J.- P. Sartre/; the transformation of the person into an instrument of external forces, separation him/her from him/herself and from the other people /E. Fromm/; Sisyphean task of the rebellious person/A. Camus/. Thus, "homo additus naturae" in the process of objective communicative formation turned into "homo homini lupus est".
No matter how free the speaking person is within him/herself, when entering into communication he/she feels him/herself socially dependent. Having entered the sphere of language, the speaker becomes a part of his/her linguistic community. A person seeks to turn language into a part of his/her "Ego", and the language, in turn, makes the person its "Ego": the person struggles to personalize his/her language, the language through effective sociocultural norms of communication depersonalizes the person. This struggle is manifested in the dialogue form of communication. It is no coincidence that the issues of intellectual development of the person in connection with language are so relevant in modern linguistics (see, for example, reflections on the linguistic personality of Y. N. Karaulov (Karaulov, 1987).
On the basis of particular socio-cultural criteria of dialogue there is formed a range of some speech tools with a certain neutrality in relation to the various users for targeted management of the communicative process.
In normal conditions of communication, the cultural memory of society contains speech expressions that are for representatives of even very different layers of the language community about the same value. The totality of such means organize a common" background" on which specific acts of interpersonal communication are carried out. Language, therefore, is both universal and individual.
In the context of real communication, many communicative acts are carried out between representatives of qualitatively different social strata, which are characterized by a mismatch of criteria for the success of the efforts. Therefore, the "background" of interpersonal communication consists of absolutely heterogeneous elements. And in conditions of communication between representatives of one social community the participants in the dialogue pursue different goals, have different opinions both on their own speech behavior and speech actions of their interlocutors.
All this leads to differences in the positions and expectations of each individual speaker. The detection of such discrepancies is possible only in relation to some common basis. Only under this condition it is possible to determine the local speech position of the participants in the dialogue. In addition, the semantic flexibility of language means, manifested in the process of expressing the communicative attitude as a result of their multi-level interaction, provides the interlocutors with the opportunity to transform these means situationally and thus most adequately express their attitude to the addressee and stimulate an adequate response of the latter.
Without this factor, it is hardly possible to talk about any individual communicative freedom in dialog interaction.
When entering into a dialogue, the linguistic personality considers his/her position as "central", combined with the general focus of communication. The positions of the communication partner are ranked by each of the interlocutors by similarity or difference, first of all, from their own point of view.
Do the intentions of my interlocutor intersect with my own position, are they in a conflict with it or are they neutral? - these questions determine the image of the local speech situation in the cognitive consciousness of the speaker. Such an image determines the range of freedom of expression of the will of the interlocutors in each specific situation of communication and, consequently, the degree of completeness of mutual presentation of their speech intentions and communicative attitudes to each other.
The purpose of speech communication is an adequate and accurate transfer of thoughts to the listener, realized, according To T.G. Vinokur, in the communicative and stylistic version of speech behavior "search for a common language" (Vinokur, 1993: 60).
The communicative attitude of the dialogue participant is realized by means of multilevel linguistic means, schemes of actions related to the achievement of the actualized intention, connotations indicating the degree of coincidence of the desired result with the one that was actually obtained.
Moreover, "much may be 'implied' in a statement, so it is often simply impossible to relate it to only one intentional category" (Hartung, 1989: 42).
Any intention associated with a specific speech value can be formulated in a variety of language ways, and therefore the structural elements that organize the structure of the communicative task of the interlocutor, can be expressed with varying degrees of clarity. In this regard, the sphere of dialogue communication expected by the listeners at the moment is always narrower than the sphere of potential one.
In other words, we can talk both about the amount of information that the speaker's replica transmits about the expressed illocutive intention, and about the amount of information that the addressee is able to extract from the content of this replica within its cognitive structure. In other words, we can talk about the amount of information that the speaker's replica transmits about the expressed illocutive intention, and about the amount of information that the addressee is able to extract from the content of this replica within its cognitive structure.
The balance between these parameters in conditions of dialogue is largely determined by the way in which the addressee formalizes his/her communicative installation - direct or indirect, without violating the boundaries of the communicative freedom granted to him/her.
Methods of representing information in the dialogue indicate various aspects of interpersonal interaction, regulating and directing the speech activity of each interlocutors as a waiting and interested. However, the intentional base of the speaker when joining the dialogue deny the listener in "empty" perception of the message, which already defines a productive communicative interaction in general.
It is with the socio-cultural restrictions of individual freedom that the semantic completeness of understanding by each of the interlocutors of the meaning of the messages transmitted and received in the process of dialogical communication is directly connected.
Any of these messages is made with various linguistic and paralinguistic means used by representatives of this national and cultural community; the interpretation by each interlocutor perceived dialogical replicas depends on their ability to identify not only explicitly expressed, but also implicit components of meaning, which in real speech practice are often even more significant.
5. Conclusion
A person manifests him/herself as a linguistic personality when his/her speech activity reveals his/her dependence on the internal communicative freedom determined from the outside. This is not a question of subjective freedom, because it does not mean that the speaking person has gave it to him/herself or that it can be reduced to a constitutive indicator "Ego".
This relationship between the self-belonging of the speaking person and his/her appeal to certain socio-cultural values leads to the fact that any speech decision of the person indicates his/her attachment to the sociolinguistically significant position on the basis of which the subject
initiates his/her influence in the framework of dialogue. On the other hand, the speaking person believes just him/herself in speech decisions.
Communicative freedom of the individual is limited by the fact that in his/her speech behavior he/she fixes him/herself in position, based on which it is impossible to make a decision otherwise than guided by private socio-cultural criteria.
In other words, the real communicative freedom of the interlocutors interacting with each other is manifested only there where the restrictions generated by the conditions of social communication are found.
Speech behavior of communicants implies specific models of communication. The participants of the dialogue interaction should be responsible for each their speech action, which serves a certain, well-known for speaker purpose.
If this condition is met, the so-called "communication code" (Klyuev, 1998: 78) comes into force. It is a system of principles that regulate the speech behavior of communicants during a communication act on the basis of categories and criteria, among which tolerance takes on of central places.
Language personality exists in the space of culture reflected in the language, in the forms of social consciousness at different levels (scientific, everyday, etc.), in behavioral stereotypes and standards, in the objects of material culture, etc.
The central role in culture belongs to the values of the nation. Cultural values form a system in which universal and individual, dominant and complementary meanings can be distinguished.
They are reflected in the language, more precisely, in the meanings of words and syntactic units, in phraseological units, in proverbs and precedent texts.
It is possible for each culture to develop some parameters that will be its original coordinates, initial value characteristics. On the one hand, these value features are fixed in language stereotypes, on the other one, such features can be studied as concepts, and here the methodology of cognitive linguistics comes to the fore. On the one hand, these value features are fixed in language stereotypes, on the other - such features can be studied as concepts, and here the methodology of cognitive linguistics comes to the fore.
The main opposition in the ethno-cultural key is not the opposition "friend - foe" but "friend - different one". In the XXI-st century, firmly established in the national culture and spirituality, a person finds access to the non-indigenous creatures of the spirit, sees their spiritual strength and achievements. In order to be interesting for others, you should be yourself. And it should be provided through by tolerant media discourse.
6. Acknowledgements
The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project № 18-01200085.
References
Abolin, 2009 - Abolin, B.I. (2009) Concept "tolerance" in Cognitive-discursive Aspect: Unpublished master degree. Ekaterinburg, 229 p.
Alba-Juez, Larina, 2018 - Alba-Juez, L., Larina, T. (2018) Language and Emotions: Discourse Pragmatic Perspectives. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 9-37.
Akimoto et al., 2014 - Akimoto, Y., Sugiura, M., Yomogida, Y., Miyauchi, C.M., Miyazawa, S., Kawashima, R. (2014). Irony comprehension: Social conceptual knowledge and emotional response. Human Brain Mapping, 35:1167-1178. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22242.
Arévalo, 2018 - Arévalo, C.M. (2018). Emotional Self-presentation on Whatsapp: Analysis of the Profile Status. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 144-16.
Arutyunova, 1990 - Arutyunova, N.D. (1990). Discourse. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Soviet encyclopedia, 685.
Bezmaternykh et al., 2018 - Bezmaternykh, TA, Bezmaternykh, T.O., Kulikova E.G., Magomedova, A.A. (2017). Development of Municipal Education in Russia: Managerial Discourse. Man in India. 97 (15): 1-19.
Brusenskaya, 2016 - Brusenskaya, L.A. (2016). Legal Linguistics and Linguoecology: aspects of interaction. Philosophy of Law, 4: 54-59.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2016 - Brusenskaya, LA., Kulikova E.G. (2016). Ecological Linguistics. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 184 p.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2017 - Brusenskaya, LA., Kulikova E.G. (2017). Qualification of Insult in the Context of Legal Culture. Legal Culture, 4: 43-51.
Brusenskaya et al., 2017 - Brusenskaya, LA, Kulikova, E.G., Ukraintseva, I.V. (2017). Mediatization: Advertising as a Modern Speech Genre of Media Discourse in the Context of Ideas of Ecological Linguistics. Media Education, 3: 61-78.
Brusenskaya, Kulikova, 2018 - Brusenskaya, LA, Kulikova, E.G. (2018). Media linguistics: Origins, Problems and Prospects. Media Education, 1: 168-183.
Davidson, 1987 - Davidson, D. (1987). Communication and Conventionality. in Philosophy. Logic. Language. Moscow: Progress, 213-233.
Declaration., 1996 - Declaration of Principles of Tolerance (1996). Paris: UNESCO. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001518/151830eo.pdf
Dneprova, 2004 - Dneprova, T.P. (2004). National Tolerance in Bipolar Ddomestic education. Ekaterinburg: Ural Teacher's Training University, 363 p.
Dobroklonskaya, 2006 - Dobroklonskaya, T.G. (2006). What is Media linguistics? Vestnik of Moscow State University. Ser.19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, 2: 9-18.
Gordon, Lakoff, 1985 - Gordon, D., Lakoff, George (1985). The Postulates of Speech Communication. in New in Foreign Linguistics, 16. Linguistic Pragmatics. Moscow: Progress, 276-302.
Hartung, 1989 - Hartung, V. (1989). Activity Approach in Linguistics: the results of the border, prospects communication, text, sentence. Moscow, 41-55.
Heidegger, 1991 - Heidegger, M. (1991). Language. St.Petersburg: Intellect, 120p.
Ivanisheva, 2008 - Ivanisheva, O.N. (2008). Tolerant Discourse in the Regional Press (on the example of the media of the Murmansk Region). Bulletin of the Leningrad State University, 5: 101-110.
Karasik, 1998 - Karasik, V.I. (1998). About Categories of Discourse. in Language personality: social- linguistic and emotive aspects. Volgograd, Saratov: Peremena, 185-197.
Karasik, 2000a - Karasik, V.I. (2000). About Types of Discourse. in Language personality: institutional and personal discourse. Volgograd, Saratov: Peremena, 5-20.
Karasik, 2000b - Karasik, V.I. (2000). The Structure of Institutional Discourse. in Problems of Speech Communication. Saratov: UN-TA, 25-33.
Karaulov, 1987 - Karaulov, Y.N. (1987). Russian Lnguage and Linguistic Personality. Moscow: High School, 262 p.
Klyuev,1998 - Klyuev, E.V. (1998). Speech Communication. Moscow: Prior. 222 p.
Krongauz, 1999 - Krongauz, MA. (1999). Addresses as a Way of Modeling of Communicative Space. in Logical Analysis of Language: the Image of the Person in Culture and Language. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture, 124-134.
Krysin, 2004 - Krysin, L.P. (2004). Euphemisms in Modern Russian Speech. In Krysin L.P. Russian Word, Own and Foreign. Research in Modern Russian Language and Sociolinguistics. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture, 262-286.
Kubryakova, 2000 - Kubryakova, E.S. (2000). On the Concepts of Discourse and Discourse Analysis in Modern Linguistics. in Discourse, Speech, Speech Activity. Functional and Structural Aspects. Moscow: INION PAS, 7-25.
Kulikova, 2004 - Kulikova, E.G. (2004). Norm in Linguistics and Paralinguistics. Rostov n/D: Rostov State University of Economics "RSUE". 300 p.
Kulikova, Kuznetsova, 2015 - Kulikova, E.G., Kuznetsova, A.V. (2015). Modern Russia: Communicative Situation under Postmodern Era. Asian Social Science, 11-7: 184-194.
Kulikova et al., 2016 - Kulikova, E.G., Kuznetsova, A.V., Sarkisiyants, V.R., Zayats, P.V. (2016). The Media Discourse in the Conceptual Coordinates of Linguistic Ecology: to Problem of Statement. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 8 (4): 82-95.
Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2017 - Kulikova, E.G., Brusenskaya, LA. (2017). The Normativity of the Russian Language in the light of Ecological Linguistics and Social Processes in Contemporary Russian Society. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 9 (1): 312-318.
Kulikova, Brusenskaya, 2018 - Kulikova, E.G., Brusenskaya, L.A. (2018). Cognitive Principles and Persuasiveness of Social Anti-drug Advertising. European Research Studies Journal, 21 (1): 206-218.
Lysakova, 2005 - Lysakova, I.P. (2005). Language of the Newspaper and Typology of the Ppress. Sociolinguistic Research. St.Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 256 p.
Mokienko, Nikitina, 2000 - Mokienko, V.M., Nikitina, T.G. (2000). Big Dictionary of Russian Jargon. St.Petersburg: Norint, 717 p.
Nikonova, 2012 - Nikonova, S.B. (2012). Logical Bases of Tolerance. Bulletin of Leningrad State University, 2 (1): 137-144.
Ozhegov, Shvedova, 1994 - Ozhegov, S.I., Shvedova, N.Y. (1994). Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Moscow, 907 p.
Rosenstock-Hussy, 1994 - Rosenstock-Hussy (1994). Speech and Reality. Moscow: Nauka, 223 p.
Rusakov, 2003 - Rusakov, O.F. (2003) Discourse-PI: philosophy, politics, power, public relations: scientific-practice almanac. Discourse of Tolerance in the Global World, 3. Ekaterinburg: Ural State University, 178 p.
Russell, 1997 - Russell, W. (1997). Speech, Narrative and Social Changes. Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 18. Sociology and Political Science, 1: 141-147.
Sánchez-Moya, Cruz-Moya, 2015 - Sánchez-Moya, A., Cruz-Moya, O. (2015). Whatsapp, Textese, and Moral Panics: discourse features and habits across two generations. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 173: 300-306.
Sheigal, 2000 - Sheigal, E.I. (2000). Semiotics of Political Discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 328 p.
Sternin, 2000 - Sternin, I.A. (2000). Russian Communicative Behavior and Tolerance. Problems of National Identity in the Culture and Education of Russia and West: materials of scientific conf. vol. 1. Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 52-62.
Stroman, 1986 - Stroman, P.F. (1986). Intention and Convention in Speech Acts. New in Foreign Linguistics. 17. The Theory of Speech Acts. Moscow: Progress, 130-150.
Vinokur, 1993 - Vinokur, T.G. (1993). Speakre and Listener. Variants of Speech Behaviour. Moscow: Nauka, 290 p.
Wierzbicka, 2018 - Wierzbicka, A. (2018). Emotions of Jesus. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1): 38-53.
Yus, 2017 - Yus, F. (2017). Contextual Constraints and Non-propositional Effects in WhatsApp communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 114: 66-86. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma. 2017.04.003
Zheltukhina, 2003 - Zheltukhina, M.R. (2003). Tropical Suggestiveness of Mass-medial Discourse: on the Problem of Speech Influence of Tropes in the Language of Mass Media. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS; Volgograd, 656 p.
Zinchenko, Loginov, 2011 - Zinchenko, A.V., Loginov, Yu.P. (2011). Tolerance as a Factor of Counteraction to Xenophobia: control of xenophobia risks in the risk society. Moscow: Nauka, 608 p.
