home / Our children/ Psycholinguistics as a way to resolve conflicts. Speech conflict and ways to get out of a conflict situation

Psycholinguistics as a way to resolve conflicts. Speech conflict and ways to get out of a conflict situation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….3

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict…………………………….4

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolution

speech conflict……………………………………………………………...8

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...13

List of references…………………………………………………………….14

Introduction

At the core speech behavior participants in the conflict are based on speech strategies. A typology of strategies can be built on different grounds. A typology is possible, which is based on the type of dialogic interaction based on the result (outcome, consequences) of a communicative event - harmony or conflict. If the interlocutors fulfilled their communicative intentions and at the same time maintained the “balance of relationships,” then communication was built on the basis of strategies of harmony. On the contrary, if the communicative goal is not achieved, and communication does not contribute to the manifestation of positive personal qualities subjects of speech, then the communicative event is regulated by strategies of confrontation. Confrontational strategies include invective, strategies of aggression, violence, discredit, submission, coercion, exposure, etc., the implementation of which, in turn, brings discomfort to the communication situation and creates speech conflicts.

The purpose of this work is to study speech conflicts in modern society and ways to solve them.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks need to be solved:

1) define the concept of speech conflict;

2) identify the features of modern speech conflicts;

3) outline ways to resolve speech conflicts in modern society.

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict

Conflict implies a clash of parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication regarding diverging interests, opinions and views, communicative intentions that are revealed in a communication situation.

There are sufficient reasons to use the term “speech conflict”, the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept “speech”. Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using linguistic resources carried out by an individual. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook / edited. ed. V.D. Chernyak. M.: Yurayt, 2010. - P. 49. . The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of conflict in verbal communication:

1) the adequacy/inadequacy of the mutual understanding of communication partners is determined to a certain extent by the properties of the language itself;

2) knowledge of the language norm and awareness of deviations from it helps to identify factors leading to misunderstanding, failures in communication and conflicts;

3) any conflict, socio-psychological, psychological-ethical or any other, receives a linguistic representation Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8. .

Naturally, if there is a speech conflict, we can also talk about the existence of a non-speech conflict that develops regardless of the speech situation: a conflict of goals and views. But since the representation of non-verbal conflict occurs in speech, it also becomes the subject of research in pragmatics in the aspect of relationships and forms of verbal communication (argument, debate, quarrel, etc.) between participants in communication.

Epochs social revolutions are always accompanied by a breakdown in public consciousness. The collision of old ideas with new ones leads to a severe cognitive conflict that transfers to the pages of newspapers and magazines, and to television screens. Cognitive conflict extends to the sphere interpersonal relationships. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of “good and bad” that structure our experience and transform our actions into deeds are blurring; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to the revolutionary situation are born: mobilization of new values, actualization of the values of the immediately preceding socio-political period, actualization of culturally determined values that have deep roots in the social consciousness of society Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - P. 142. .

This process is accompanied by injection social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, according to psychologists, loss of integrating identification, loss of hope and life perspective, the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life Ruchkina E.M. Linguistic and argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of dissertation. Candidate of Philological Sciences / Tver State University. Tver, 2009. - P. 18. . There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and devaluation of others, the introduction of new cultural values into the cultural space. Such a psychological state gives rise to various negative emotions: “For today’s Russians it is “despair”, “fear”, “anger”, “disrespect”” Ibid. P. 19. ; a certain reaction to the source of disappointment arises, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this condition; there is a desire to release accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts.

A person’s communicative behavior is determined by social (economic and political) factors; they influence the psychological state of the individual and influence the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. During a conflict, the verbal behavior of communicants represents “two opposing programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in individual operations...” Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8. . These behavior programs of communication participants determine the choice of conflicting speech strategies and corresponding speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to encourage the other to change their behavior in one way or another. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc.

The actual pragmatic factors of speech conflict include those that are determined by the “context” human relations"Tretyakova V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. - P. 112. , including not so much speech actions as non-speech behavior of the addressee and the addressee, i.e. we are interested in the "utterance addressed to the “other”, unfolded in time, receiving a meaningful interpretation" Tretyakova V.S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech // http://www.jourclub.ru/24/919/2/. The central categories in this case will be be the categories of the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener), as well as the identity of the interpretation of the utterance in relation to the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener). The identity of what was said by the subject of speech and perceived by the addressee can only be achieved “with ideally coordinated interaction on the basis of complete mutual correspondence of strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and groups" Ibid.

But imagine such an ideal interaction in real practice very difficult, or rather, impossible, both due to the characteristics of the language system and because there is “pragmatics of the communicator” and “pragmatics of the recipient”, which determines the communicative strategies and tactics of each of them. This means that the non-identity of interpretation is objectively determined by nature itself human communication, consistently, the nature of a specific speech situation (success/failure) depends on the interpreters, which are both the subject of speech and the addressee: the subject of speech interprets own text, the addressee is a stranger Ibid. .

Native speaker - linguistic personality, has its own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by script and genre stereotyping and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type of linguistic personality and communicative experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, on the traditions of communication established in Russian linguistic culture and norms of speech behavior .

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation is the post-communicative phase. It is characterized by consequences arising from all previous stages of development of a communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions determined in the pre-communicative stage between the participants in the communicative act, and the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used in the communicative stage N. Muravyova. Language of conflict // http:// www.huq.ru. .

The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation - speech tactics. There is a strict correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: proposals, consent, concessions, approval, praise, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

So, a speech conflict occurs when one of the parties, to the detriment of the other, consciously and actively commits speech actions, which can be expressed in the form of a reproach, remark, objection, accusation, threat, insult, etc. The speech actions of the subject determine the speech behavior of the addressee: he, realizing that these speech actions are directed against his interests, takes reciprocal speech actions against his interlocutor, expressing his attitude towards the subject of disagreement or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is speech conflict.

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolving speech conflict

Depending on type conflict situation Various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situations), a conflict neutralization model (conflict risk situations) and a conflict harmonization model (conflict situations themselves). To a greater extent, speech behavior in potentially conflict situations is subject to modeling. This type of situation contains provoking conflict factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural and communicative script, there are no markers signaling the emotionality of the situation, and only implicatures known to the interlocutors indicate the presence or threat of tension. To control the situation, preventing it from moving into a conflict zone, means knowing these factors, knowing the ways and means of neutralizing them, and being able to apply them. This model was identified based on an analysis of the incentive speech genres of requests, remarks, questions, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten the communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual incentive (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the incentive + justification for the importance of the incentive + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don’t do) this (that), because... This is a conflict prevention model Mishlanov V.A. On the problem of linguistic substantiation of legal qualifications of speech conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - P. 236. .

The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that in them there is a deviation from the general cultural scenario for the development of the situation. This deviation signals the danger of an approaching conflict. Typically, risk situations arise if, in potentially conflict situations, the communication partner did not use conflict prevention models in communication. In a risk situation, at least one of the communicants can still recognize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. We will call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the model of conflict neutralization. It includes a whole series of sequential mental and communicative actions and cannot be represented by a single formula, since risk situations require additional efforts of the communicator seeking to harmonize communication (compared to potentially conflict situations), as well as more diverse speech actions. His behavior is a response to the actions of the conflicting party, and how he will react depends on the methods and means that the conflicting party uses. And since the actions of the conflictant can be difficult to predict and varied, the behavior of the second party, harmonizing communication, in the context of the situation is more variable and creative. However, typification of speech behavior in such situations is possible at the level of identifying standard, harmonizing speech tactics. Russian language and culture of speech: a textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. - P. 83. .

The third type of situations are actual conflict situations, in which differences in positions, values, rules of behavior, etc., which form the potential for confrontation, are explicit. The conflict is determined by extralinguistic factors, and therefore it is difficult to limit ourselves to recommendations of only speech. It is necessary to take into account the entire communicative context of the situation, as well as its presuppositions. As the analysis of various conflict situations has shown, people, faced with the aspirations and goals of other people that are incompatible with their own aspirations and goals, can use one of three models of behavior.

The first model is “Playing Along with Your Partner,” the goal of which is not to aggravate relations with your partner, not to bring existing disagreements or contradictions to open discussion, and not to sort things out. Compliance and concentration on oneself and on the interlocutor are the main qualities of the speaker necessary for communication according to this model. Tactics of agreement, concession, approval, praise, promises, etc. are used.

The second model is “Ignoring the problem,” the essence of which is that the speaker, dissatisfied with the progress of communication, “constructs” a situation more favorable for himself and his partner. The speech behavior of a communicator who has chosen this model is characterized by the use of tactics of silence (tacit permission for the partner to make his own decision), avoiding the topic or changing the script. The use of this model is most appropriate in a situation of open conflict.

The third model, one of the most constructive in conflict, is “The interests of the cause come first.” It involves the development of a mutually acceptable solution, provides for understanding and compromise. Strategies of compromise and cooperation - the main ones in the behavior of a communication participant using this model - are implemented using cooperative tactics of negotiations, concessions, advice, agreements, assumptions, beliefs, requests, etc.

Each model contains the basic postulates of communication, in particular, the postulates of quality of communication (do no harm to your partner), quantity (communicate significant true facts), relevance (take into account your partner’s expectations), which represent the basic principle of communication - the principle of cooperation Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. manual [for universities] / Ros. rights acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011. - P. 43. .

Models of speech behavior are abstracted from specific situations and personal experience; Due to “decontextualization,” they make it possible to cover a wide range of similar communication situations that have a number of primary parameters (it is impossible to take everything into account). This fully applies to spontaneous speech communication. The developed models in three types of potentially and actually conflicting situations capture this type of generalization, which allows them to be used in the practice of speech behavior, as well as in the methodology of teaching conflict-free communication.

For successful communication, when interpreting a message, each communicator must comply with certain conditions. The subject of speech (speaker) must be aware of the possibility of inadequate interpretation of the statement or its individual components and, realizing his own intention, focus on his communication partner, assuming the addressee’s expectations about the statement, predicting the interlocutor’s reaction to what and how he is told, those. adapt your speech for the listener according to different parameters: take into account linguistic and communicative competence the addressee, the level of his background information, emotional state, etc. Rosenthal D.E. A manual on the Russian language: [with exercises] / prep. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Onyx: Peace and Education, 2010. - P. 141. .

The addressee (listener), interpreting the speaker’s speech, should not disappoint his communicative partner in his expectations, maintaining the dialogue in the direction desired by the speaker, he must objectively create an “image of a partner” and an “image of discourse.” In this case, there is a maximum approach to the ideal speech situation, which could be called a situation of communicative cooperation. All these conditions form the pragmatic factor of successful/destructive discourse - this is the orientation/lack of orientation towards the communication partner. Other factors - psychological, physiological and sociocultural - which also determine the process of generation and perception of speech and determine the deformation / harmonization of communication, are a particular manifestation of the main, pragmatic factor and are closely associated with it. The combination of these factors determines the required pace of speech, the degree of its coherence, the ratio of the general and the specific, the new and the known, the subjective and the generally accepted, explicit and implicit in the content of the discourse, the measure of its spontaneity, the choice of means to achieve the goal, fixation of the speaker’s point of view, etc. .

Thus, misunderstanding can be caused by uncertainty or ambiguity of the statement, which are programmed by the speaker himself or which appeared by chance, or it can also be caused by the peculiarities of the addressee’s perception of speech: the addressee’s inattention, his lack of interest in the subject or subject of speech, etc. In both cases, the pragmatic factor mentioned earlier is at work, but there are clearly interferences of a psychological nature: the state of the interlocutors, the recipient’s unpreparedness to communicate, the relationship of communication partners to each other, etc. Psychological and pragmatic factors also include the following: varying degrees of intensity of verbal communication, peculiarities of perception of the context of communication, etc., determined by the type of personality, character traits, and temperament of the communicants.

In each specific conflict speech situation, one or another type of speech forms and expressions is most appropriate. Relevance determines the power of speech. To be relevant is to be functional. The means of language are determined by their purpose: the function determines the structure, therefore, to the linguistic analysis of the communicative aspect of speech conflict behavior should be approached from a functional point of view.

In conclusion, we note that the above focuses on the speech behavior of a person who seeks to harmonize potentially and actually conflicting interaction. This position seems important from a cultural point of view: the ability of people to regulate relationships with the help of speech in various fields life, including everyday life, is urgently needed in modern Russian speech communication; everyone should master it.

Conclusion

Speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in communication between the subject of speech and the addressee, associated with the implementation of linguistic signs in speech and their perception, as a result of which speech communication is built not on the basis of the principle of cooperation, but on the basis of confrontation. This is a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is implemented by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict occurs according to standard scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguistic-cultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior. speech behavior conflict

A speech conflict is the embodiment of the confrontation between communicants in a communicative event, determined by mental, social and ethical factors, the extrapolation of which occurs in the speech fabric of the dialogue. Systematization of various factors makes it possible to describe a speech conflict in a multifaceted and broad-contextual manner.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain typical structure, including required components: participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, values, goals, etc.) among communicants; reason - reason; damage; temporal and spatial extent.

The current state of Russian society is characterized by sufficient severity of conflict-generating situations. The severity of conflict-generating situations is caused mainly by severe violations of moral norms in the modern era (and not only in Russia). The resolution of conflicts and contradictions depends on how far-sightedly and skillfully moral judgments are used in resolving conflicts and contradictions using speech and management speech communications.

Only following basic speech norms helps make verbal interaction more successful and efficient.

List of used literature

1. Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8.

2. Ershova V.E. Denial and negative assessment as components of speech conflict: their functions and role in conflict interaction // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2012. No. 354. - pp. 12-15.

3. Mishlanov V.A. On the problem of linguistic substantiation of legal qualifications of speech conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - pp. 236-243.

4. Muravyova N. Language of conflict // http://www.huq.ru.

5. Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. manual [for universities] / Ros. rights acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011. - 136 p.

6. Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. - pp. 142-147.

7. Rosenthal D.E. A manual on the Russian language: [with exercises] / prep. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Onyx: Peace and Education, 2010. 415 p.

8. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. - P. 239 p.

9. Russian language and speech culture: textbook / edited. ed. V.D. Chernyak. M.: Yurait, 2010. 493 p.

10. Ruchkina E.M. Linguistic and argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of dissertation. candidate of philological sciences / Tver State University. Tver, 2009. 89 p.

11. Tretyakova V.S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech // http://www.jourclub.ru/24/919/2/.

12. Tretyakova V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. - P. 112-120.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict

There are sufficient reasons to use the term “speech conflict”, the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept “speech”. Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using linguistic resources carried out by an individual. The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of conflict in verbal communication:

1) the adequacy/inadequacy of the mutual understanding of communication partners is determined to a certain extent by the properties of the language itself;

2) knowledge of the language norm and awareness of deviations from it helps to identify factors leading to misunderstanding, failures in communication and conflicts;

3) any conflict, socio-psychological, psychological-ethical or any other, also receives linguistic representation.

Epochs of social revolutions are always accompanied by a breakdown in social consciousness. The collision of old ideas with new ones leads to a severe cognitive conflict that transfers to the pages of newspapers and magazines, and to television screens. Cognitive conflict also extends to the sphere of interpersonal relationships. Researchers assess the period we are experiencing as revolutionary: the evaluative correlates of “good and bad” that structure our experience and transform our actions into deeds are blurring; psychological discomfort and cognitive processes specific to the revolutionary situation are born: the mobilization of new values, the actualization of the values of the immediately preceding socio-political period, the actualization of culturally determined values that have deep roots in the social consciousness of society.

This process is accompanied by increased social tension, confusion, discomfort, stress and, according to psychologists, loss of integrating identification, loss of hope and life prospects, and the emergence of feelings of doom and lack of meaning in life. There is a resuscitation of some cultural values and devaluation of others, the introduction of new cultural values into the cultural space. Such a psychological state gives rise to various negative emotions: “For today’s Russians it is “despair”, “fear”, “anger”, “disrespect””; a certain reaction to the source of disappointment arises, which is realized in the search for those responsible for this condition; there is a desire to release accumulated negative emotions. This state becomes an incentive mechanism for generating conflicts.

A person’s communicative behavior is determined by social (economic and political) factors; they influence the psychological state of the individual and influence the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. During a conflict, the speech behavior of communicants represents “two opposing programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in individual operations...”. These behavior programs of communication participants determine the choice of conflicting speech strategies and corresponding speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to encourage the other to change their behavior in one way or another. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc.

The actual pragmatic factors of speech conflict include those that are determined by the “context of human relations,” which includes not so much speech actions as the non-speech behavior of the addressee and the addressee, i.e. we are interested in “an utterance addressed to the “other”, unfolded in time, receiving a meaningful interpretation.” The central categories in this case will be the categories of the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener), as well as the identity of the interpretation of the utterance in relation to the subject (speaker) and the addressee (listener). The identity of what is said by the subject of speech and what is perceived by the addressee can be achieved only “with ideally coordinated interaction based on the complete mutual correspondence of the strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and groups.”

But it is very difficult to imagine such an ideal interaction in real practice, or rather, impossible, both due to the peculiarities of the language system and because there is “pragmatics of the communicator” and “pragmatics of the recipient”, which determines the communicative strategies and tactics of each of them. This means that the non-identity of interpretation is objectively determined by the very nature of human communication; consequently, the nature of a specific speech situation (success/failure) depends on the interpreters, who are both the subject of speech and the addressee: the subject of speech interprets his own text, the addressee interprets someone else’s text.

A native speaker is a linguistic personality who has his own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by script and genre stereotyping and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type of language personality and communication the experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, from the traditions of communication established in Russian linguistic culture and norms of speech behavior.

The outcome (result) of a communicative situation - the post-communicative phase - is characterized by consequences arising from all previous stages of development of the communicative act, and depends on the nature of the contradictions that emerged in the pre-communicative stage between the participants in the communicative act, and the degree of “harmfulness” of the conflict means used in the communicative stage.

The strategic plan of a participant in a conflict interaction determines the choice of tactics for its implementation—speech tactics. There is a strict correlation between speech strategies and speech tactics. To implement cooperative strategies, cooperation tactics are used accordingly: proposals, consent, concessions, approval, praise, compliments, etc. Confrontation strategies are associated with confrontational tactics: threats, intimidation, reproach, accusations, mockery, barbs, insults, provocations, etc.

Anaphony and anagrams in Russian and English proverbs

Epigrams (from the Greek ana - re- and phone - sound) are one of the most ancient in European literature and perhaps the most complex method of phonetic instrumentation of text, used primarily in poetic works...

Zoomorphisms in phraseological units, proverbs and sayings

There is no complete unity in the definition of phraseological units in modern linguistics. According to N.M. Shansky, “a phraseological unit is a linguistic unit reproduced in finished form...

Lexico-semantic features of the English musical terminology system

Basics of speaking

Colloquial speech- a type of literary language that is realized primarily orally in a situation of unprepared, casual communication with direct interaction between communication partners Ryzhova, N.V...

Features of the manifestation of Russian and English gender stereotypes in jokes about women

First, let's figure out what a stereotype is: A stereotype in psychology is understood as a simplified, schematized, often distorted or even false characteristic of the sphere of everyday consciousness...

Features of methods for translating English deformed phraseological units

A phraseological unit, or phraseological unit, is a phrase that is stable in composition and structure, lexically indivisible and integral in meaning, performing the function of a separate lexeme (dictionary unit). I.A. Fedosov clarifies...

In 1967, the first issue of the magazine “Russian Language Abroad” was published, it opened with an article by V. G. Kostomarov “Russian speech etiquette”. In 1968, an edition was published teaching aid A. A. Akishina and N. I. Formanovskaya “Russian speech etiquette” (M....

Speech conflict

Depending on the type of conflict situation, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situations)...

Semantic features phraseological units of modern English, united by the concept of "time"

A phraseological unit is a unit that exists in a language at a given stage of its historical development constant combination of verbal signs: ultimate and holistic; reproduced in the speech of its speakers; based on internal...

Complex sentences with subordinating connection in English

Complex sentences are differentiated and contrasted. Unlike simple sentence, in a complex sentence there is no direct and obligatory connection between form and content. There are three signs...

Comparison of speech behavior of presenters of various television channels

You should start by answering the question: what is called speech behavior? According to the dictionary, speech behavior is a system of stable communication formulas prescribed to establish verbal contact...

Style-forming factors of English journalism

In every developed literary language more or less definite systems of linguistic expression are observed, differing from each other in the features of the use of national linguistic means...

Functional features of imperative sentences (using the example of a children's literary prose)

At present, the science of language knows several approaches to the study of a sentence: some consider it as a syntactic unit, others from the point of view of linguistic features...

Language public speaking and modern means mass media

A term is a word (or phrase) denoting a special concept and having a precise scope of semantic use. A term can be any word that has a clear definition...

V.S. Tretyakova SPEECH CONFLICT AND ASPECTS OF ITS STUDY

The concept of "conflict" includes scientific paradigm philosophy, sociology, psychology, jurisprudence, pedagogy. Linguistic research of this concept requires the syncretism of sciences, which is the main trend in communicative linguistics and communication theory. This trend pushes for the development of global concepts that can provide a holistic interpretation of the huge variety of means to achieve a communicative goal. The description of Russian discourse in one of the most important manifestations of interpersonal communication - speech conflict against the background of harmonious interaction - allows us to understand the nature and mechanisms of functioning of this phenomenon, reveal its deep cause-and-effect relationships, argue for the functional features of a conflict utterance, determined by the unity of linguistic, psychological (personal) and social.

In linguistics, the concept of “conflict” is correlated with the concepts of “speech conflict” and “conflict communicative act” and is considered from the perspective of the participants - the sender of speech (sender) and the recipient (addressee), as well as the contradictions that exist between them. A verbal conflict is a state of confrontation between two parties (participants in the conflict), during which each party consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the opposite party, explicating its actions by verbal and pragmatic means. The material expression of conflicting relations between subjects of speech in the act of communication in the form of specific linguistic and speech structures is a reflection of a certain pre-communicative state of the parties. Thus, a speech conflict is considered as a communicative event occurring over time, which has its own development. It can distinguish certain stages: maturation, maturation, peak, decline and resolution. The explication of the contradictions existing between the two parties occurs most often at the verbal and speech activity levels, so it becomes relevant to study the speech behavior of participants in this type of interaction from the point of view of the means and ways of expressing existing contradictions in the communicative phase of the development of the conflict. The result of conflict interaction can be

different, so an important step is to study the consequences (outcome) of conflict interaction, namely the post-communicative state of its participants.

In the stage of conflict maturation (pre-communicative phase), the subjects of interaction become aware of their needs, interests, positions, which influence the formation of communication goals and determine the intentions and choice of strategic and tactical means and methods of interaction. Both subjects begin to feel the conflict of the situation and are ready to take verbal actions against each other. The maturation of a conflict can continue in the communicative phase, when the actions of the subjects are aimed at “reconnaissance” of the situation: identifying the enemy’s position, possibilities for resolving contradictions, etc. The main stages of conflict - maturation, peak and decline - occur in the communicative phase. The maturation of a conflict is characterized by the fact that at this stage contradictions are clearly identified, their awareness occurs, and both sides begin to act in their own interests to the detriment of the other side. The peak of the conflict is determined by the use of the most conflicting language and speech means: from direct insult to the most sophisticated ways of humiliating the honor and dignity of the interlocutor. The decline of the conflict is characterized by the speech actions of the subjects associated with various kinds of concessions to each other, partial or complete agreement with the opposite side, changing the topic (scenario) of the conversation, etc. Conflict resolution begins in the communicative phase, when the conflicting parties come to some decision and complete contact, and continues in the post-communicative phase in the form of negative or inadequate emotional reactions, negative psychological state, delayed reaction, recording of any violations of communication conditions, etc.

Speech conflict in development fully corresponds to the concept of a communicative act (CA) as a bidirectional process of exchange of speech acts performed by communicants on the principle of illocutionary compulsion (J. Austin, J. Searle, P.F. Strawson, R.O. Jacobson, etc.). IN conceptual apparatus the term “conflict communicative act” (CCA) is included, the study of which is based on its pragmatic nature within the framework of social-role and interpersonal relationships (V.V. Bogdanov, D.G. Bogushevich, V.V. Zelenskaya, N.A. Zmievskaya, L.P. Krysin, G.G. Pocheptsov, I.P. Susov, S.A. Sukhikh, V.I. Troyanov, etc.) and taking into account

broad socio-cultural and psychological context. This representation of speech conflict allows us to take a closer look at the vast sphere of speech activity and rise above the heteroglossia of particular facts. A holistic representation of speech conflict is possible in a consistent consideration of this phenomenon in different aspects: cognitive, pragmatic, linguocultural - and in further generalization of the results obtained.

Cognitive aspect in the study of speech behavior is to identify the relationship between the mental processes occurring in the mind of a person, a participant in communication, and linguistic phenomena, which are inseparable from thinking (A.N. Baranov, V.I. Gerasimov, V.Z. Demyankov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, E.S. Kubryakova, V.V. Krasnykh, L.G. Luzina, Yu. G. Pankrats, P.B. Parshin, V.V. Petrov, A. Chenki, etc.). A real explanation of speech processes can only be obtained through the explication of the connections of linguistic expression with knowledge structures and procedures for their processing. Explication of these connections makes it possible to understand the communicative act and speech behavior of an individual, and to identify knowledge structures hidden in the KA. The unit of the knowledge processing procedure in cognitive linguistics is a frame (typical situation) and a scenario (one of the options for the development of a typical situation).

The “conflict” frame represents a special stereotypical situation and includes mandatory slots that reflect the components of the object-situation (the upper level of the “conflict” frame): participants in a conflict situation whose interests are in conflict; a collision (of goals, views, positions, points of view), revealing their contradiction or inconsistency; speech actions of one of the participants in a conflict situation aimed at changing the behavior or state of the interlocutor; resistance to the speech actions of another participant through one’s own speech actions; harm that is caused by the speech acts of one participant and that another experiences as a result of said speech acts. Additional components of the “conflict” frame (lower level) can be represented by the following slots: time length, reflecting violations of the normal time sequence; spatial extent associated with a violation of the spatial representation of the speech situation and introducing deception into the communicative expectations of one of the participants in the situation

communication; a third party who may not be a direct participant in the conflict, but may be its culprit, instigator or “arbiter” and significantly influence the outcome of the communicative situation (optional component).

The development of interaction within the framework of a stereotypical situation - frame - can be presented in the form of various scenarios with prescribed “main plots”, using pragmatic script structures, with the introduction of certain linguistic units into speech [Minsky, 1978, p. 295].

The presentation of communicatively determined scenarios in speech most adequately reflects speech genre(RJ), which gives a compositional form to a typical utterance and consolidates the content and patterns of speech behavior with corresponding speech structures.

Almost any speech disorder, depending on speech conditions, can develop according to two opposite scenarios: cooperative and confrontational. These conditions include the pragmatic goals of communicants and their intentions. Depending on them, the speaker takes various communicative steps, like relevant fragments of the speech language, which form the necessary tone of communication for him. Thus, the RJ remarks do not apply to conflict RJs. If the subject of speech making a remark cares about the emotional and psychological state of the addressee, then he uses such communicative steps as etiquette formulas, address, joke, compliment, etc., follows the rules of communication. Thus, the communicative scenario of the remark is positive.

Scenario 1: I encourage you to make behavioral or emotional changes to reduce or eliminate the likely negative consequences of your actions, while expressing my positive attitude towards you because I want to help you (and others).

If the speaker does not intend to care about the state of the addressee, he ignores such communicative steps, violates the rules of speech behavior and creates conditions for speech conflict.

Scenario 2: I encourage you to change your behavior or emotional state in order to reduce or eliminate the likely undesirable consequences of your actions, and at the same time I express a negative attitude towards you because I am dissatisfied with you (because you are bad).

Scripts are based on the speaker's different pragmatic goals, which are expressed in the last part of each script. As a rule, they are not made explicit in the RJ remarks, but they are the ones who determine the choice speaking of that or another scenario, its qualitative content and direct communication into harmony or conflict.

The frame, script and speech genre consolidate a stereotypical set of mandatory components, methods of action and their sequence, which makes it possible to identify the typical structure of communicative expectations of participants in a speech event.

The pragmatic aspect of the study of speech communication is realized in the interpretation of the text in relation to the person who created it and the person who perceived it - text - 82), in identifying the prerequisites for its generation and understanding (N.D. Arutyunova, T.V. Bulygina, Yu. S. Stepanov, I.P. Susov, etc.).

A text as a speech work presupposes the presence of two levels of perception simultaneously: on the part of the speaker, the one who generates the text, and on the part of the listener. The speaker, when creating a text, exercises control over what and how he says (it should be noted that this control does not guarantee him against unsuccessful use of linguistic and speech means). The listener also interprets the speaker’s statement, and his interpretation may not coincide with the content embedded in the text by the speaker. This is how conflict risk factors arise, caused by contradictions in the generation of the text and its perception. The subject of analysis in this case are meanings that are determined not only by what is said, explicated language structures, but also by what was meant, namely hidden meanings, which appear intentionally or accidentally in the text. The revealed hidden meanings - implicatures [Grice, 1985, p. 220] make it possible to explain how the “speaker’s meaning” can include something more than the literal meaning of a sentence, how it can deviate from the literal meaning or even be the opposite of it [Bulygina, 1981, p.339]. Subjective meaning (pragmatic meaning) depends on both the speaker and the addressee. The addressee’s task is to understand the interlocutor’s intention, decipher it, “calculate” it (communication implicatures, according to P. Grice, have the property of “computability”). From the degree of accuracy of the calculated pragmatic meaning depends on the nature of the verbal and/or behavioral reaction of the addressee and

the quality of the act of communication is in the zone of harmonious or disharmonious communication. Implicatures influence the success/failure of communication because, requiring maximum concentration of attention and intense mental activity from the addressee, they can create an emotional situation of risk and make it possible to develop communication in a conflict zone.

The linguocultural aspect of speech behavior (RP) is determined by considering the dyad “person - language” in relation to culture, which is based on language, namely such unique forms of its existence, preserved by society, as norms, on the basis of which activities in society are organized and experience is accumulated , passed on from generation to generation [Volkov, 2001, p. 12], as well as the language code itself.

Subjects of speech are representatives of a specific linguistic and cultural community, national culture, and this fact determines the specifics of their RP. The ethnolinguocultural factor acts as a regulator of speakers' RP through rituals and traditions, norms and rules, ethnic stereotypes, as well as national patterns, linguistic, speech and nonverbal mechanisms of speech activity of communicants and the specifics of discourse construction.

Culture, including speech culture, is based on the national mentality, which is understood as the image and way of thinking of a linguistic community, the attitude and worldview of the people, reflected in the language.

The communicative norm deserves special consideration in the aspect of linguoculturology. The communicative-activity approach to the norm is a logical continuation of the theory of Prague linguists, who consider the problem of norms in connection with linguistic culture (V. Barnet, B. Gavranek, K. Goralek, A. Jedlicka, L. Jelmslev, V.A. Itskovich, E. Coseriu, V. Mathesius, D. Nerius, W. Härtung, etc.).

Recognition of communicative normativity is based on the fact of public approval, as well as on the basis of the massive and regular reproducibility of this phenomenon in the process of communication. The repetition of a norm in a given situation makes it socially significant, although it is based on the individual models of speech activity of speakers. A communicative norm prescribes what a person should do and what he should say at the same time within the framework of

existing frames, scenarios, models of speech behavior. The function of the norm is to exclude the influence of random, purely subjective motives and circumstances, to ensure reliability and predictability, a certain standard and general understandability of behavior.

Evaluation of text-scripts of speech behavior is carried out within the limits: positive scripts constructed in accordance with the communicative norm, and negative ones demonstrating a violation of the norm. These assessments, marking only the extreme boundaries of speech communication based on its result, indicate the scope of variation in speech implementations. Scenarios located between these two poles can be used with known restrictions, taking into account the functional area and/or situational features of communication.

The language code is also of interest from the point of view of the subjects of communication belonging to a particular linguistic culture. The interaction of representatives of one linguistic cultural community (subcommunity) is obviously more successful, since their language code coincides to a greater extent than the code of representatives of different linguistic cultures. In intercultural interaction, the code chosen by communicants to carry out joint speech activity partially coincides. Going beyond the general code is a conflict-provoking moment in a communication situation.

For successful communication, communicants need the ability to establish relationships in the field of language code and use metalanguage. “If the speaker or listener needs to check whether they are using the same code, then the code itself becomes the subject of speech: speech performs a metalinguistic function (i.e., the function of interpretation)” [Yakobson, 1975, p. 202]. Speakers' concern for understanding the utterance allows them to avoid communicative failure. It is the presence of a certain community of signs that determines the possibility of communication, the adequacy and, consequently, the success of communication. The ability for metalinguistic operations in speech ensures the adaptation of speakers in situations of increased conflict danger. It is especially important when learning native language as a child, or when mastering a foreign language, or when encountering an unfamiliar word in communication. “What do you mean?”, “I don’t quite understand you,” “What does this word mean?” asks the listener. And the speaker, assuming that such

questions may arise, asks: “Do you understand this word?”, “Do you understand what I mean?” and so on. All these means used in utterances to establish their identity carry information about the lexical code of the language chosen by the subjects for interaction.

The lexical-semantic and grammatical systems that make up the foundations of the lexicon and grammar of a linguistic personality are especially sensitive to cultural component. They reflect in the most colorful and “convex” way national characteristics perception of a “piece of reality” [Safarov, 1990, p. 109]

The success of interaction is determined not only by the general linguistic code, but also by the general speech code, which is part of the moral and ethical standards of behavior and regulates the behavior of speakers of a given language. Their content includes both ethnospecific and general rules of communication.

General rules of communication include those that do not depend on the individual psychological qualities of the subject of speech, as well as on his ethnocultural affiliation. The universal rules of communicative behavior are based on the principles of politeness and cooperative communication (P. Grice, E.A. Zemskaya, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, I.P. Tarasova, D. Gordon, J. Lakoff, R. Lakoff, G. Leech , D. Tannen, etc.). These rules are supplemented by culturally specific ones, which are based on the traditions and norms of a particular linguistic culture. In terms of harmonization of communication, it is important to know the presuppositional factors of speech communication, the presence of which among partners allows one to avoid various kinds of communicative gaps and, consequently, clashes between subjects of speech regarding inconsistent and sometimes contradictory communicative actions.

Communication norms and rules are a factor that influences the success of communication and at the same time creates conditions for speech conflict. Deviations from them reduce the quality of communication, complicate or make it impossible. Following them harmonizes communication and allows you to effectively build speech behavior in specific linguistic and cultural situations.

The multidimensionality and complexity in the study of both the process of speech activity itself and its result is determined by the complex and multifaceted object of study - a speech conflict, which accumulates the psychological, sociocultural, and ethical states of the “person speaking.”

LITERATURE

Bulygina T.V. On the boundaries and content of pragmatics // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1981. T. 40. No. 4 (Serial lit. and language).

Volkov A.A. Course of Russian rhetoric. M., 2001.

Grice P. Logic and speech communication // New in foreign linguistics. M., 1985. Issue. 16.

Minsky M. Structure for the representation of knowledge // Psychology of machine vision. M., 1978.

Safarov Sh. Ethnocultural concepts of discursive activity // Language, discourse and personality. Tver, 1990.

Jacobson R.O. Linguistics and poetics // Structuralism “for” and “against”. M., 1975.

Introduction

Concept and signs of speech conflict

Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolving speech conflict

Conclusion

Introduction

The optimal method of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. However, nowadays such phenomena as language conflict, risk situation (zone), communicative success/failure (interference, failure, failure), etc. are also common. The most common and frequently used terms in the specialized literature to denote the conflict type of speech communication are the terms "language conflict" and "communication failure". The speech behavior of conflict participants is based on speech strategies. A typology of strategies can be built on different grounds. A typology is possible, which is based on the type of dialogic interaction based on the result (outcome, consequences) of a communicative event - harmony or conflict. If the interlocutors fulfilled their communicative intentions and at the same time maintained the “balance of relationships,” then communication was built on the basis of strategies of harmony. On the contrary, if the communicative goal is not achieved, and communication does not contribute to the manifestation of positive personal qualities of the subjects of speech, then the communicative event is regulated by confrontation strategies. Confrontational strategies include invective, strategies of aggression, violence, discredit, submission, coercion, exposure, etc., the implementation of which, in turn, brings discomfort to the communication situation and creates speech conflicts. The purpose of this work is to study speech conflicts in modern society and ways to resolve them. To achieve this goal, the following tasks need to be solved:

) define the concept of speech conflict;

) identify the features of modern speech conflicts;

) outline ways to resolve speech conflicts in modern society.

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict

There are sufficient reasons to use the term “speech conflict”, the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept “speech”. Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using linguistic resources carried out by an individual. The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of conflict in verbal communication:

) the adequacy/inadequacy of mutual understanding of communication partners is determined to a certain extent by the properties of the language itself;

) knowledge of the language norm and awareness of deviations from it helps to identify factors leading to misunderstanding, failures in communication and conflicts;

) any conflict, socio-psychological, psychological-ethical or any other, also receives linguistic representation.

A person’s communicative behavior is determined by social (economic and political) factors; they influence the psychological state of the individual and influence the linguistic consciousness of the communicant. During a conflict, the speech behavior of communicants represents “two opposing programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in individual operations...”. These behavior programs of communication participants determine the choice of conflicting speech strategies and corresponding speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to encourage the other to change their behavior in one way or another. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc.

A native speaker is a linguistic personality who has his own repertoire of means and ways of achieving communicative goals, the use of which is not completely limited by script and genre stereotyping and predictability. In this regard, the development of communicatively determined scenarios is varied: from harmonious, cooperative to disharmonious, conflicting. The choice of one or another scenario option depends, firstly, on the type linguistic personality the communicative experience of the participants in the conflict, their communicative competence, psychological attitudes, cultural and speech preferences, and secondly, from the communication traditions and norms of speech behavior established in Russian linguistic culture.

2. Harmonizing speech behavior as the basis for resolving speech conflict

Depending on the type of conflict situation, various models of harmonizing speech behavior are used: a conflict prevention model (potentially conflict situations), a conflict neutralization model (conflict risk situations) and a conflict harmonization model (conflict situations themselves). To a greater extent, speech behavior in potentially conflict situations is subject to modeling. This type of situation contains provoking conflict factors that are not clearly detected: there are no violations of the cultural and communicative script, there are no markers signaling the emotionality of the situation, and only implicatures known to the interlocutors indicate the presence or threat of tension. To control the situation, preventing it from moving into a conflict zone, means knowing these factors, knowing the ways and means of neutralizing them, and being able to apply them. This model was identified based on an analysis of the incentive speech genres of requests, remarks, questions, as well as evaluative situations that potentially threaten the communication partner. It can be presented in the form of cognitive and semantic clichés: the actual incentive (request, remark, etc.) + the reason for the incentive + justification for the importance of the incentive + etiquette formulas. Semantic model: Please do (don't do) this (that) because... This is a conflict prevention model.

The second type of situations - situations of conflict risk - are characterized by the fact that in them there is a deviation from the general cultural scenario for the development of the situation. This deviation signals the danger of an approaching conflict. Typically, risk situations arise if, in potentially conflict situations, the communication partner did not use conflict prevention models in communication. In a risk situation, at least one of the communicants can still recognize the danger of a possible conflict and find a way to adapt. We will call the model of speech behavior in risk situations the model of conflict neutralization. It includes a whole series of sequential mental and communicative actions and cannot be represented by a single formula, since risk situations require additional efforts of the communicator seeking to harmonize communication (compared to potentially conflict situations), as well as more diverse speech actions. His behavior is a response to the actions of the conflicting party, and how he will react depends on the methods and means that the conflicting party uses. And since the actions of the conflictant can be difficult to predict and varied, the behavior of the second party, harmonizing communication, in the context of the situation is more variable and creative. Nevertheless, typification of speech behavior in such situations is possible at the level of identifying standard, harmonizing speech tactics.

For successful communication, when interpreting a message, each communicator must comply with certain conditions. The subject of speech (speaker) must be aware of the possibility of inadequate interpretation of the statement or its individual components and, realizing his own intention, focus on his communication partner, assuming the addressee’s expectations about the statement, predicting the interlocutor’s reaction to what and how he is told, those. adapt your speech for the listener according to various parameters: take into account the linguistic and communicative competence of the addressee, the level of his background information, emotional state, etc.

In each specific conflict speech situation, one or another type of speech forms and expressions is most appropriate. Relevance determines the power of speech. To be relevant is to be functional. The means of language are determined by their purpose: the function determines the structure, therefore, the linguistic analysis of the communicative aspect of speech conflict behavior should be approached from a functional point of view.

In conclusion, we note that the above focuses on the speech behavior of a person who seeks to harmonize potentially and actually conflicting interaction. This position seems important from a cultural point of view: the ability of people to regulate relationships with the help of speech in various spheres of life, including everyday life, is urgently needed in modern Russian speech communication; everyone should master it.

Conclusion

speech conflict language harmonizing

Speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in communication between the subject of speech and the addressee, associated with the implementation of linguistic signs in speech and their perception, as a result of which speech communication is built not on the basis of the principle of cooperation, but on the basis of confrontation. This is a special communicative event that occurs over time, has its own stages of development, and is implemented by specific multi-level linguistic and pragmatic means. Speech conflict occurs according to standard scenarios of speech communication, the existence of which is determined by linguocultural factors and individual experience of speech behavior.

In the mind of a native speaker, a speech conflict exists as a certain standard structure, including mandatory components: participants in the conflict; contradictions (in views, interests, points of view, opinions, assessments, values, goals, etc.) among communicants; reason - reason; damage; temporal and spatial extent.

The current state of Russian society is characterized by sufficient severity of conflict-generating situations. The severity of conflict-generating situations is caused mainly by severe violations of moral norms in the modern era (and not only in Russia). The resolution of conflicts and contradictions depends on how far-sightedly and skillfully moral judgments will be applied in resolving conflicts and contradictions with the help of speech means and through the management of speech communications.

Only following basic speech norms helps make verbal interaction more successful and efficient.

List of used literature

1. Golev N.D. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic examination of conflict-prone texts // http://siberia-expert.com/publ/3-1-0-8.

2. Ershova V.E. Denial and negative assessment as components of speech conflict: their functions and role in conflict interaction // Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2012. No. 354. pp. 12-15.

Mishlanov V.A. On the problem of linguistic substantiation of legal qualifications of speech conflicts // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. P. 236

Muravyova N. Language of conflict // http://www.huq.ru.

Nikolenkova N.V. Russian language and culture of speech: textbook. manual [for universities] / Ros. rights acad. Ministry of Justice of Russia. M.: RPA of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, 2011

Prokudenko N.A. Speech conflict as a communicative event // Jurislinguistics. 2010. No. 10. P. 142-147.

Rosenthal D.E. A manual on the Russian language: [with exercises] / prep. text, scientific ed. L.Ya. Schneiberg]. M.: Onyx: Peace and Education, 2010.

Russian language and culture of speech: textbook for universities / ed. O.Ya. Goykhman. 2nd ed., revised. and additional M.: Infra-M, 2010. 239 p.

Russian language and culture of speech: textbook / edited. ed. V.D. Chernyak. M.: Yurait, 2010. 493 p.

Ruchkina E.M. Linguistic and argumentative features of politeness strategies in speech conflict. Abstract of dissertation. ... candidate of philological sciences / Tver State University. Tver, 2009

Tretyakova V.S. Conflict as a phenomenon of language and speech

Tretyakova V.S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study // Jurislinguistics. 2004. No. 5. P. 112-120.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Psycholinguistics as a way to resolve conflicts. Speech conflict and ways to get out of a conflict situation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

1. Concept and signs of speech conflict

Tutoring

Password recovery