Cooperative Communicative Behaviour Mode of Politeness of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans: Auto- and Heterostereotypes

←2017. – Vol.11

Korolyov I.

PhD, Associate Professor, Post-Doctoral Researcher

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

FULL TEXT PDF (UKRAINIAN)

ABSTRACT

The article deals with stereotypes of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians and Americans concerning cognitive-semiotic mode of politeness as a component of national cooperative communicative behaviour. The theoretical fundamentals of the study of politeness as cognitive-semiotic mode of communication of national cooperative behaviour have been characterized. The individual and collective stereotypes about politeness in Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian and American culture of communication have been identified based on the results of empirical studies (socio- and psycholinguistic experiments). The individual and collective stereotypes of polite linguistic identity in the analysed linguocultures have been systematized. The level of realization of politeness mode in specific communicative situations has been defined due to its three-level classification (high – formal, middle – neutral, low – informal politeness). The auto- and heterostereotypes of Ukrainians, Russians, Lithuanians, Americans and the degree of politeness in their cooperative communicative behaviour have been parameterized. Consequently, the cognitive-semiotic modus of politeness is a universal and complex formality and an integral part of the national cooperative communicative behaviour that belongs to the representatives of the Ukrainian, Russian, Lithuanian and American communicative cultures. In their communicative consciousness the notion of politeness relates to the following types of stereotypical reactions, such as: compliance with etiquette norms, established (generally accepted) rules of communication (the use of etiquette stereotyped statements); marker of parenting and education; demonstration of good manners, respect for the interlocutor; model of behaviour that represents traits of character and moral principles; non-conflict form of communication, taking into account the interests of the Other, compromise.

Key words: politeness mode, cooperative communicative behaviour, stereotype, communicative consciousness, auto- and heterostereotype, Ukrainian (Russian, Lithuanian, American) communicative culture.

REFERENCES

  1. Bakhtin M. M., Voloshinov V. N., Medvedev P. N. (1998). Tetralogiya [Tetralogy]. Moskva: Labirint, 607 s. (In Russ.).
  2. Bezrukova V. S. (2000). Osnovy dukhovnoy kultury. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar pedagoga [Fundamentals of spiritual culture. Collegiate Teacher’s Dictionary]. Ekaterinburg: GOU VPO UGTU-UPI, 937 s. (In Russ.).
  3. Bohdan S. K. (1998). Movnyi etyket ukraintsiv: tradytsii i suchasnist [Ukrainian language etiquette: tradition and modernity]. Kyiv: Ridna mova, 475 s. (In Ukr.).
  4. Vezhbitskaya A. (2005). Russkiye kulturnyye skripty i ikh otrazheniye v yazyke [Russian cultural scripts and their reflection in the language] // Zaliznyak Anna A., Levontina I. B., Shmelev A. D. Klyuchevyye idei russkoy yazykovoy kartiny mira: Sb. st. Moskva: Yazyki slav. kultury, S. 467-499. (In Russ.).
  5. Gazizov R. A. (2011). Kommunikativnaya kategoriya vezhlivosti v nemetskoy lingvokulture [Communicative category of politeness in the German linguaculture]: avtoref. dis. … doktora filol. nauk: spets. 10.02.04 “Germanskiye yazyki”, Ufa, 44 s. (In Russ.).
  6. Glushak V. M. (2009). Lingvopragmaticheskiy aspekt rechevogo povedeniya kommunikantov v situatsiyakh povsednevnogo obshcheniya (na materiale nemetskogo yazyka) [Linguapragmatic aspect of verbal behavior of communicants in everyday communication (on a material of German language)]: avtoref. dis. … doktora filol. nauk: spets. 10.02.04 “Germanskiye yazyki”. Moscow, 48 s. (In Russ.).
  7. Hnatiuk L. (2007). Prahmatychni i funktsionalno-komunikatyvni aspekty vvichlyvosti (na materiali suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy) [Pragmatic and functional and communicative aspects of politeness (based on the modern Ukrainian language)]: avtoref. dys. … kand. filol. nauk: spets. 10.02.01 “Ukrainska mova”. IvanoFrankivsk, 19 s. (In Ukr.).
  8. Gudkov D. B. (2003). Teoriya i praktika mezhkulturnoy kommunikatsii [Theory and practice of intercultural communication]. Moskva: ITDGK “Gnozis”, 288 s. (In Russ.).
  9. Zemskaya E. A. (2004). Yazyk kak deyatelnost: Morfema. Slovo. Rech [Language as an activity: Morpheme. Word. Speech]. Moskva: Yazyki slav. kultury. 2004. – 896 s. (In Russ.).
  10. Karaulov Yu. N. (1987). Russkiy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnost [Russian language and linguistic identity]. Moskva: Nauka, 264 s. (In Russ.).
  11. Korolyov I. (2016). Stereotipnyye predstavleniya ukraintsev, russkikh i litovtsev o kooperativnom kommunikativnom povedenii (po rezultatam empiricheskogo issledovaniya) [Stereotypical impressions of Ukrainians, Russians And Lithuanians about cooperative communicative behavior (due to the results of empirical research)] // Res Humanitariae, Vol.19, Klaipeda, S. 120–144. (In Russ.).
  12. Larina T. (2006). Lingvokulturnaya kommunikativnaya interferentsiya [Linguacultural communicative interference] // HUMANIORA: LINGUA RUSSICA. Trudy po russkoy i slavyanskoy filologii. Lingvistika IX. Vzaimodeystviye yazykov i yazykovykh edinits. Tartu: Tartuskiy universitet, S. 184–196. (In Russ.).
  13. Larina T. V. (2009). Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil kommunikatsii. Sopostavleniye angliyskikh i russkikh lingvokulturnykh traditsiy [Category of politeness and style of communication. Comparison of English and Russian linguacultural traditions]. Moskva: Rukopisnyye pamyatniki Drevney Rusi, 507 s. (In Russ.).
  14. Leontovich O. A. (2005). Russkiye i amerikantsy: paradoksy mezhkulturnogo obshcheniya [Russian and Americans: Paradoxes of Intercultural Communication]. Moskva: Gnozis, 352 s. (In Russ.).
  15. Mechkovskaya N. B. (2003). Obshcheye yazykoznaniye: Strukturnaya i sotsialnaya tipologiya yazykov [General Linguistics: Structural and social typology of languages]. Moskva: Flinta; Nauka, 312 s. (In Russ.).
  16. Sternin I. A., Larina T. V., Sternina M. A. (2003). Ocherk angliyskogo kommunikativnogo povedeniya [Essay on English communicative behavior]. Voronezh: Istoki, 185 s. (In Russ.).
  17. Sternin I. A. (2003). Problemy opisaniya vezhlivosti kak kommunikativnoy kategorii [Problems of description of the politeness as a communicative category] // Kommunikativnoye povedeniye. Vezhlivost kak kommunikativnaya kategoriya. Voronezh: Istoki, Vyp. 17, S. 22-47. (In Russ.).
  18. Sternin I. A. (2015). Modeli opisaniya kommunikativnogo povedeniya [Models of describe of the communicative behavior]. Voronezh: “Garant”. 2015, 52 s. (In Russ.).
  19. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. (2006). Tolkovyy slovar russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Moskva: ITI Tekhnologii. 2006. 944 p. [Electronic resource]: http://www.ozhegov.com/words/2847.shtml [div. 14.11.2016]. (In Russ.).
  20. Pauzha Y. (2007). Osobennosti russkogo i litovskogo kommunikativnogo povedeniya v situatsiyakh proyavleniya rechevogo etiketa [Features of Russian and Lithuanian communicative behavior in situations of manifestation of speech etiquette] // Kommunikativnoye povedeniye. Vyp. 27. Russkoye, litovskoye, estonskoye i latyshskoye kommunikativnoye povedeniye. Voronezh: Izd-vo “Istoki”, S. 16–31. (In Russ.).
  21. Poslovitsy o vezhlivosti [Proverbs of politeness. Electronic resource]: http://mydrost.com/o-vezhlivosti/ (In Ukr.). [seen. 14.11.2016].
  22. Prykazky ta prysliv’ia pro vvichlyvist [Proverbs of politeness. Electronic resource]: http://vidpoviday.com/prikazki-ta-prislivya-pro-vvichlivist (In Ukr.). [seen. 14.11.2016].
  23. Ratmayr R. (2003). Pragmatika izvineniya: Sravnitelnoye issledovaniye na materiale russkogo yazyka i russkoy kultury [Pragmatics of apology: Comparative study on the material of the Russian language and Russian culture]. – Moskva: Yazyki slav. kultury, 272 s. (In Russ.).
  24. Romanova I. A. (2001). Kontsept VEZHLIVOST i ego obyektivatsiya v russkom yazyke [Concept of POLITENESS and its objectification in Russian] // Kultura obshcheniya i eye formirovaniye. Vyp. 8, S. 95– 97. (In Russ.).
  25. Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy (1970): v 11-ty tomakh [Dictionary of Ukrainian Language] / Red. koleh. I. K. Bilodid (holova) ta in. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, T.1, S. 304. [Electronic resource]: http://sum.in.ua/s/vvichlyvyj [seen. 14. 11. 2016]. (In Ukr.).
  26. Kharchenko E. V. (2003). Modeli rechevogo povedeniya v professionalnom obshchenii [Models of speech behavior in professional communication]. Chelyabinsk: Izd-vo YuUrGU, 336 s. (In Russ.).
  27. Brown P., Levinson S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 358 p.
  28. Čepaitienė G. (2007). Lietuvių kalbos etiketas : semantika ir pragmatika. Šiauliai, 345 p. (In Lith.).
  29. Kučinskaitė A. (1990). Lietuvių kalbos etiketas. 2-asis pataisytas ir papildytas leidimas. Vilnius: Mokslas, 110 р. (In Lith.).
  30. Kuzmickaitė L. (1992). Etniniai stereotipai // Filosofija, sociologija, № 3(9), P. 56–58. (In Lith.).
  31. Lebedko M. (1999). Cultural Bumps: Overcoming Misunderstandings in Cross-Cultural Communication. Vladivostok: Far Eastern State University Press, 194 p.
  32. Leech G. N. (1983). Principals of Pragmatics. – London: Longman, 250 p.
  33. Oxford English Dictionary [Electronic resource]: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/politeness
  34. Ridout R., Witting C. (1969). English Proverbs Explained. – London: Pan Books Ltd., 224 p.
  35. Scheidegger G. (1980). Studien zu den Briefstellern des 18. Jahrhunderts und zur “Europäisierung” des russischen Briefstils. Bern, Frankfurt, Las Vegas: Slavica Helve tica, Bd. 14, 224 s.