While in many foreign countries children from schoolhave been studying subjects such as Human Communication, Rhetoric, Debate, Conflict Resolution and many more for years. etc. (in the USA such subjects you begin in children from the age of 12), in our country the general Niyu is not taught anywhere - neither children nor adults.

Communicative illiteracy of the population of the country leads tonumerous conflicts and problems in teams, families, political and public organizations, creative teams, in the field of service, business, negotiation, etc.

Any woman should know that a man engaged in physical work cannot at the same time conduct a dialogue with a woman: this is how his speech-thinking mechanism works, and attempts to ask him questions will lead to irritation, and possibly to conflict with his wife.

Parents and educators should know that in educational communicationwith a child, it is useless to make arguments for the benefit or harm for health - the child does not perceive these arguments, since healthdoesn't bother him yet.

Any person should know that a drunk or excited person does not need to give logical arguments, he must agree with him. stagger and drag him to a safe place.

Any of us should know that remarks must be made in relation to to one specific case and not to generalize (“And in general, I don’tI like the way you've been lately...”) that there is no need to argue “on the plunch”, but one must argue “for the truth”, etc., etc. Knowledge and application of quiet knowledge is the communicative literacy of a person, which so lacking in our society. Communicative literacy is needed in order not to sound in in our society, the words “But I don’t know how to talk to my son vat”, “I didn’t find what to say to my student”, etc. This kind of literacy is more important for our society at this stage than legal, economic or even computer.

So, improving communication skills involves comprehensive knowledge about communication and speech, i.e. in psychology, linguistics, management theory, semiotics and many others.

Lecture 2
Speech conflict (on the question of the term)

The optimal way of verbal communication is usually called effective, successful, harmonious, corporate, etc. When studying it, the ways of creating speech comfort for participants in a communicative act, the means and methods used by communicants to ensure or destroy harmonious communication are considered.

The field of attention of researchers includes such phenomena as a language conflict, a situation (area) of risk, communicative success/failure (interference, failure, failure), etc. language conflict" (JK) and "communicative failure" (KN).

When defining this or that concept, it is necessary to proceed from the nature of this phenomenon. The following speaks about the linguistic (linguistic) nature of the conflict in speech communication:

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

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

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

However, the term "language conflict", in our opinion, does not reflect the full breadth and diversity of the speech behavior of communication partners. Misunderstanding, misunderstanding, discomfort or conflict in communication, provoked by the nature of a linguistic sign (for example, lexical or grammatical ambiguity, dynamic meaning of language units, lack of a natural connection between “signified” and “signifier”, between sign and object, etc.), could would be called a consequence of linguistic interference proper. But this is only one of the possible factors that determine the nature of communication; in reality, their complex operates. There are good reasons to use the term "speech conflict", the content of the first part of which is determined by the peculiarity of the concept of "speech". Speech is a free, creative, unique process of using language resources, carried out by an individual. Contextuality, situationality and variability are the features that define speech, but not language. Firstly, they are related to the fact that speech is the creation of a person (author) who has his own communicative intentions, a certain level of language proficiency, psychological state, attitude towards the interlocutor, etc. Secondly, there is also an interlocutor (listening or reading ), with its own purpose, focus on the speaker or its absence, adequate / inadequate interpretation of the linguistic sign or the addressee's statement as a whole, linguistic taste and many other features that determine the nature of the behavior of the interlocutors and do not fit within the framework of the language system. We believe that the field of speech behavior cannot be limited to the study of its own linguistic nature, which means that the term "language conflict" does not fully reflect the essence of this phenomenon.

The very concept of "conflict" as a linguistic phenomenon requires clarification in a number of concepts related to the evaluation of the effectiveness of a communicative act. Discomfort arising in the process of natural dialogical communication of various kinds has received different names: communicative failure, communicative failure, communicative misunderstanding, communicative failure, etc. A communicative failure (the term of E.V. the subject of speech, the reason for which is the use by the participants of communication of a different set of codes for transmitting and receiving information. As N. L. Shubina notes, “a communicative failure should be distinguished from a communicative defect (mistake) caused by ignorance of the rules of communication, lack of language competence or insufficient culture of proficiency in the native language.” Communication failure and communicative defect are very close concepts, and one often causes the other: ignorance of the rules of communication or the incompetence of one of the participants in communication determines the choice of such a code for transmitting or receiving information that does not correspond to the situation of communication, provokes an inadequate interpretation of the statement (the appearance of "other" meanings ); which, in turn, can also lead to communication failure.

E. V. Klyuev calls errors in the identification of spacecraft a communicative blunder.

T. V. Shmeleva uses the term “communicative failure”, paying attention, first of all, to the “co-authorship” of communication partners, their cooperative actions towards each other in the dialogue, the absence of which leads to failure or communicative failure of communication. The term "communicative failure" is also used by V.V. Krasnykh, understanding it as a complete misunderstanding, while "communicative failure" is interpreted by the author as an incomplete understanding.

The term "communicative failure" (hereinafter also referred to as CF) is most often found in special studies related to the evaluation of the result of a communicative act, and traditionally includes the following content: complete or partial misunderstanding of the statement by the communication partner, i.e. non-fulfillment or incomplete fulfillment of the communicative intention of the speaker. According to the concept of O. P. Ermakova and E. A. Zemskaya, CI also includes “an undesirable emotional effect arising in the process of communication that is not foreseen by the speaker: resentment, irritation, amazement”, in which, according to the authors, mutual misunderstanding of communication partners is expressed . Thus, the term "communicative failure" turns out to be very capacious due to the breadth of the phenomenon it covers: any misunderstanding by communication partners of each other, any undesirable emotional effect are CI. Communicative misunderstandings and failures, in our opinion, are particular manifestations of CI and can be removed in the process of communication with the help of additional communicative steps: re-questions, clarifications, explanations, leading questions, reformulation, as a result of which the communicative intention of the speaker can be implemented.

Consequently, not every CI is a communicative (speech) conflict. Conflict implies a clash of parties, a state of confrontation between partners in the process of communication over dissenting interests, opinions and views, communicative intentions that are revealed in a communication situation. A speech conflict occurs when one of the parties, to the detriment of the other, consciously and actively performs speech actions that can be expressed in the form of reproach, remarks, objections, accusations, threats, insults, 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 the disagreement or the interlocutor. This counter-directional interaction is the speech conflict.

During the conflict, the speech behavior of the communicants is "two opposite programs that oppose each other as a whole, and not in separate operations ...". These programs of behavior of communication participants determine the choice of conflict speech strategies and appropriate speech tactics, which are characterized by communicative tension, expressed in the desire of one of the partners to induce the other one way or another to change their behavior. These are such methods of speech influence as accusation, coercion, threat, condemnation, persuasion, persuasion, etc., which go beyond the concept of "language conflict". Thus, returning to the problem of the term, we believe that the use of the term "language conflict" is applicable to various kinds of communicative interference, which are of a purely linguistic nature. Such interference can potentially cause collision between communication partners. A speech conflict is an inadequate interaction in the communication of 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. If language conflict is the subject of systemic linguistics, then speech conflict is the subject of linguopragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and communicative linguistics. Naturally, in the presence of a linguistic and speech conflict, one can also talk about the existence of a non-verbal conflict that develops regardless of the speech situation: a conflict of goals, views. But since the representation of a non-speech conflict occurs in speech, it also becomes the subject of pragmatics research in the aspect of relations and forms of speech communication (argument, debate, quarrel, etc.) between the participants in communication.

Factors Causing Speech Conflict

In the linguistics of the last decades there have been significant changes in the definition of the object of research: their essence lies in the transition from the linguistics of language to the linguistics of communication. The most important object of research is discourse - "a coherent text in conjunction with extralinguistic - pragmatic, socio-cultural, psychological and other factors." Unlike text, which is understood primarily as an abstract, formal construct, discourse is viewed as a unit that addresses the mental processes of communication participants and is associated with extralinguistic factors of communication.

But the study of speech conflict does not exclude the appeal to the linguistic side of the discourse itself - language units and their speech semantics, as well as to a special linguistic discipline - the culture of speech, which is a scientific field that has the subject of study of linguistic means that allow in a certain situation of communication to provide the greatest effect in achieving communication goals.

We can talk about two aspects of speech culture: normative and communicative (L. I. Skvortsov, L. K. Graudina, S. I. Vinogradov, E. N. Shiryaev, B. S. Schwarzkopf). The normative aspect is an elementary level of speech culture associated with following the norms of the literary language in the process of communication, the norm is the basis of speech culture. However, the variability of the norm, its dynamism, variability, professional and territorial locality, and often ignorance of its foundations cause various deviations, errors leading to misunderstanding, various kinds of misunderstandings that reduce the effectiveness of communication, and even speech conflicts. So, in a dialogue, ignorance of the orthoepic norm by one of the interlocutors negatively characterizes his speech appearance and causes a negative reaction of the other, which indicates a communicative failure in communication: How much chill? - Zyabi! The collective farm came to check, but you don’t know how to speak. Did you finish, district commissioner?(V. Lipatov).

The subject of speech culture in the communicative aspect is successful communication. The main qualifying categories of the communicative (pragmatic) aspect are the following: effective/ineffective communication, successful/unsuccessful discourse, communicative norm, which is assessed in a given culture within the framework of the positions appropriate/inappropriate, ethical/unethical, polite/impolite, etc. A conflict in communication can occur as a result of a violation of the cultural standard, conditions that distort discourse, make it difficult or impossible to communicate. Conflictogenic factors of a pragmatic nature are diverse. Such factors also include “the difference between the thesauri of the speaker and the listener, the difference in the associative-verbal network of the speaker and the listener, the variety of means of reference”, ignoring the pragmatic component in the semantics of the word by one of the interlocutors, the violation of stereotypical connections between the categories of meanings, the presence of stereotypes of speech behavior and thinking , as well as the imperfection of the possession of linguistic signs by both participants in the communicative act, different levels of sensory assessments of linguistic signs by each of the participants in communication, and some others. All these factors can also be called linguo-pragmatic, since the understanding of the meaning of the judgment expressed by S 1 and perceived by S 2 is hindered both by the nature of the language structure used in communication and by the participants in the communication who made its choice.

Various factors of a linguo-pragmatic nature influenced, for example, the outcome of the following situation: - It says here: you ran after a hare, - Veronica reminded. - The dog ran, - said Zubatkin. - I'm not Ethiopian. - What about the Ethiopian? - Ethiopian is the best distance runner in the world(V. Tokareva). The subject-logical content reflected in the dictionary does not include the pragmatic component of the meaning of the word "Ethiopian" fixed in the practice of speech (Ethiopians - 1. The name of the peoples who lived in ancient times south of Egypt. 2. The population in Ethiopia, consisting of peoples who mainly speak in the Semitic-Hamitic languages, as well as representatives of this population 3. Ustar. Arap, Negro, black). Ignorance of the background component of the meaning or unwillingness to update the required component causes misunderstanding in the interlocutor and refers to the pragmatic provocative properties of the speech situation, leading to a communicative failure, as evidenced by the question "What about the Ethiopian?" One can also speak in this case about the differences in the language code of the speaker and the listener: the addressee's code consists in knowing the main subject-logical meaning of the word "Ethiopian", equal to the dictionary one; the sender's code includes the knowledge that at world competitions (Olympiads) blacks (for him the same as Ethiopians) took first places, showing miracles of speed and endurance, which means that Ethiopians are the best runners in the world. Determines the volume of the code of the speakers, the difference in the volume of background information: it is wider for the addresser than for the addressee.

To the actual pragmatic factors of a speech conflict, we would include those that are determined by the “context of human relations”, which includes not so much speech actions as non-verbal behavior of the addressee and addressee, i.e. we are interested in "a statement addressed to the" other ", deployed in time, receiving a meaningful interpretation." The central categories in this case will be the categories of the subject (the speaker) and the addressee (the listener), as well as the identities of the interpretation of the statement in relation to the subject (the speaker) and the addressee (the listener). The identity of what was said by the subject of speech and perceived by the addressee can be achieved only "with an ideally coordinated interaction based on the full mutual correspondence of the strategic and tactical interests of communicating individuals and groups." But it is very difficult, or rather, impossible, to imagine such an ideal interaction in real practice, both due to the peculiarities of the language system and because there is a “communicator’s pragmatics” and a “recipient’s pragmatics” that determine the communicative strategies and tactics of each of them.

The linguistic entity “verbal communication” is largely formed by non-linguistic factors and constructs extra-linguistic entities: relationships, action, state, emotions, knowledge, beliefs, etc. Therefore, both the success of verbal communication and failures do not always depend on the choice of linguistic forms by speakers.

Communication failures are the failure of the initiator of communication to achieve the communicative goal and, more broadly, pragmatic aspirations, as well as the lack of interaction, mutual understanding and agreement between the participants in communication.

The linear deployment of a dialogue (or polylogue) is due to different order, but at the same time interrelated factors, linguistic and extralinguistic processes. Therefore, the search for the causes of communicative failures should be carried out in different areas: in the socio-cultural stereotypes of communicants, in their background knowledge, in differences in communicative competence, in the psychology of gender, age, and personality. In addition, naturally, the distance of the participants, the presence of unauthorized persons, communication through notes, letters, pagers, and telephone can have a negative impact on the outcome of verbal communication. An important role is played by all the features of the development of the speech situation, up to the state of the communicants and their mood.

The apparent amorphousness, intangibility of the terms of verbal communication, however, allows us to identify the following unfavorable factors leading to communicative failure.

1. An alien communicative environment reduces the efforts of the participants in communication to nothing, since disharmony reigns in such an environment, there is no mood of the interlocutors for the phenomenal inner world of each other. In dialogue communication with strangers, the interlocutors feel discomfort that prevents them from realizing themselves in this situation and determining the tone of their speech behavior. A small degree of familiarity can exacerbate discomfort and make it difficult to find a “common language”. In such an unfavorable situation may be a student who came to visit his fellow student in the hostel; a friend visiting a friend at her work. Regardless of the communicative intention, social interaction is difficult, it is impossible to fully “present oneself” in one or another property. The situation can be complicated by distractions: the intervention of third parties, forced pauses, distraction from the conversation for various reasons. With a polylogue in an alien communicative environment, it is impossible to achieve agreement in a conversation on any topic due to social, psychological differences, differences in education, understanding of moral standards, because of different interests, opinions, assessments, knowledge of the interlocutors.

Incomplete speech contact (even when interested in communication) can manifest itself in a low rate of exchange of remarks, out of place statements, inappropriate jokes and emotional reactions (for example, in irony instead of sympathy), misinterpretation and, in general, in a "dissonant" exchange of remarks.

2. A serious reason for the alienation of the participants in the conversation may be a violation of the parity of communication. In this case, there is also a violation of the rule of solidarity, cooperation of interlocutors. This is manifested in the dominance of one of the participants in the conversation: starting from the initial remark, the same person chooses the topic of conversation, asks questions, interrupts the interlocutor, without waiting for signals of perception and correct interpretation of what was said, thus turning the dialogue into a monologue. At the same time, factors such as the psychological traits of the participants in communication, social status, emotional relationships, and cultural skills play a decisive role. Wed the role of the particle in the question: Are you going with us?

3. The communicative intentions of the interlocutors will not be realized, there will be no agreement if live speech communication is ritualized. In a ritualized replica, all pragmatic characteristics of speech (who - to whom - what - why - why) are leveled: the rule of a sincere benevolent attitude towards the interlocutor, i.e. ethical norms, is violated, and there is also a use of a “set of words” for the occasion. The speaker does not check the “value” of his statement by the attention of the listener, his complicity in the conversation, in creating a meaningful outline of communication. Cliché constructions like This we have already gone through, commonplace judgments, categorical statements - all this narrows the scope of the possible use of words, practically limiting it to formulaic expressions in which there is no feeling-thought dynamics. In ritualized utterances (and dialogues in general), the living thread of the conversation is broken - the connection between the speaker and the listener: "I'm talking", "I'm telling you"; the addressee is deprived of the opportunity to hear openly expressed arguments, and the speaker hides his opinion under the "known" opinion of "everyone".

4. The reason for the violation of contact with the interlocutor and the termination of the conversation may be an inappropriate remark to the listener about his actions, personal qualities, which can be interpreted as an unfriendly attitude of the speaker (violation of the rules of cooperation, solidarity, relevance). Wed Cicero has a broad understanding of inappropriateness: “Whoever does not consider circumstances, who is excessively talkative, who is boastful, who does not consider either the dignity or the interests of the interlocutors, and in general who is awkward and intrusive, they say that he is “inappropriate”. There are different methods of introducing remarks “out of business” into the text of the dialogue. Wed hyperbole: "Petrushka, you are always with a new thing, With a torn elbow" [Griboyedov]; (conversation with a child) - Do not take any dirt in your mouth! - This is not everyone, this is a doll's teapot; cf. example of T. M. Nikolaeva: After all, you are always interested in how old someone is - (it is said to a person who has only once asked a similar question).

There may be inappropriateness. caused by the inability of the speaker to catch the mood of the interlocutor, to determine the course of his thought. This is typical for conversations between unfamiliar people. In the initial remark, it is not uncommon to use personal and demonstrative pronouns in the expectation that the listener knows what is being said; eg: They are always like this after courses (fellow traveler to their neighbor on the bus). - Who? — Drivers, I say, inexperienced. Pulls from a place, the turn is not worked out. — Ah... It is clear that the train of thought of the listener was not the same as that of the initiator of the conversation. Hence the misunderstanding. Such speech is socially marked; moreover, it is typical for female speech.

The discrepancy between the sociocultural characteristics of the participants in communication can also lead to inappropriate phrases leading to a communicative failure. Wed humorous finale of the dialogue cited in the article by N. N. Troshina: “The merchant Maysl comes from Chernivtsi to Vienna. In the evening he wants to go to the Burgtheater. He asks at the box office of the theater: “Well, what do you have on stage today?” - "As you wish". - "Fine! Let it be the "Queen of chardash". If the reader knows that the Burgtheater is a drama theater and that As You Please is a play by Shakespeare, then the communicative failure of the merchant will be obvious.

5. Misunderstanding and failure of the interlocutors to reach agreement can be caused by a number of circumstances when the listener's communicative expectations are not justified. And if the elimination of the causes of unsuccessful communication, which lie in the sphere of socio-cultural stereotypes, the background of knowledge, psychological predilections (acceptance / rejection of actions or character traits of the interlocutor), is in principle impossible, then misunderstanding caused by a low level of language competence can be overcome. Wed a dialogue on a tram between a mother and daughter who came to Moscow from the suburbs. Daughter: It’s even good that I didn’t enter a technical school in Moscow, otherwise I would go back and forth every day. - Mother: And in the evening I would come on eyebrows. - Daughter: Why on the eyebrows? — Mother: Well, I would be very tired. - Daughter: And why "on the eyebrows"? - Mother: So they say ... (does not know how to explain). The mother does not know the meaning of the expression “on the eyebrows” - “(come, walk, crawl) (simple) - about a drunk: with difficulty, barely get there” [Ozhegov S., Shvedova N., 1992. P. 58], therefore uses the expression out of place; the daughter seems to have never heard this expression at all. Here is a typical case of a low degree of language proficiency: the use of set expressions not for Meet y, ignorance of the exact meaning of the word. Another type of erroneous understanding or misunderstanding is associated with the ambiguity for the listener of words with an abstract meaning or words-terms corresponding to special areas of knowledge. So, for example, during a polylogue (three participants in the conversation, colleagues, two with a university education), one of the interlocutors looked at his watch and began to say goodbye: “I feel good with you ... However, time is not the time, I still need to go to one place today on business... "We'll meet again!" (a line from a popular song). - 2nd student: Tanya, don't disappear. - Where will I go, we are sophenomenal - 3rd student: What, what? Sophenomenal? I didn’t understand…” The word sophenomenal turned out to be a kind of litmus paper for determining the world of knowledge of the third participant in the polylogue.

Discomfort of communication, misinterpretation and alienation arise in the case of incorrect linear organization of the utterance. Syntactic errors in agreement, stringing of cases, truncated sentences, reticence, jumping from one topic to another, albeit a close one - all this causes tension in attention and failure to fulfill the listener's communicative expectations. The situation is exacerbated by the rapid pace of speech, pauses of reflection (stammering). If at the same time the speaker informs the listener on a topic known to him, then the listener has to do a lot of “work” to guess the overall picture, and if the topic of the message is unknown to the addressee, then the speaker risks being misunderstood. An illustration of such communicative failures can be a dialogue between two schoolchildren, when one of them tells a friend about his impressions about the action movie he saw yesterday. A .: He zhahnuts him ... Well, I generally ... - B .: Who? Whom? - A .: Well, this one, which at first ... - B .: And that one? A: What about that one? He didn't climb anymore...

In everyday speech, the incompleteness of statements and their contamination (overlapping) are “deciphered” with the help of the intonation pattern of the replica and accompanying circumstances. However, we should not forget that the linguistic comprehension of the same events and facts is different for different people, and the manner of speech “compression”, elliptation is also individual, so the listener’s attempts to extract meaning from the phrase heard may be in vain. Wed the dialogue of Darya Stepanovna (a housekeeper) with Professor Nikolai Nikolaevich (Enen) cited in I. Grekova’s story “Chair”: “Daria Stepanovna’s speech was given special originality by gaps and gaps, from which many phrases became some kind of rebus ... The interlocutor is not a fool is he! - he himself had to understand what he was talking about. She firmly believed in this a priori awareness of everyone about the course of her thoughts. Most of all she loved the program “Man and the Law”. The professor’s inattention to this spectacle could not be understood, she condemned:

- Everyone with books and books, so they missed it. About punks sixteen thirty. Wife is eight years old, sharpened a knife - once! Her in intensive care, three hours, died.

- Eight years old wife? Enen asked with horror.

“You all understand, you don’t want to listen. Not his wife, but he is eight years old. Few. I would give more."

The difference in the patterns of behavior of the participants in the dialogue can lead to communicative disharmony and misunderstanding, which is reflected in the incoherence (fragmentation) of parts of the dialogue, in the unrealized communicative valence of replicas, and unjustified pauses.

Culture of Russian speech / Ed. OK. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaeva - M., 1999

The following questions are considered: the concept of communicative failure, the classification of communicative barriers, the causes of communicative failures.

The concept of communication failure

A communicative failure is a failure by the initiator of communication to achieve a communicative goal and, more broadly, pragmatic aspirations, as well as a lack of interaction, mutual understanding and agreement between the participants in communication. Communication failures can be the result of improper organization of interaction: the wrong methods are chosen, the characteristics of the addressee are not taken into account, the rules of conflict-free communication are not followed, etc.

Specialists in speech influence even use such an expression as "communicative suicide". Communicative suicide is a blunder that makes communication deliberately ineffective. For example, if a speaker begins his speech like this: “Sorry for taking up your time ... I won’t keep you long ...” - this is a typical communicative suicide, as a person informs listeners that they do not need his information, it will irritate the audience, his appearance in front of the audience is undesirable, etc.

Reasons for communication failures

The following unfavorable factors leading to communication failure:

1. Alien communication environment is able to reduce the efforts of the participants in communication to nothing, since disharmony reigns in such an environment, there is no mood of the communicants on the inner world of each other. A small degree of acquaintance, gender and age differences, different social status, for example, can aggravate discomfort and make it difficult to find a “common language”.

2. A serious ground for alienation may be violation of the parity of communication, communicative balance . In this case, there is also a violation of the rule of cooperation. Most often this is manifested in the dominance of one of the communicants, the lack of feedback.

3. The reason for the disruption of contact and termination of communication may be inappropriate remark to the recipient of information about his actions, personal qualities, violation of the rules of cooperation.

4. The discrepancy between the sociocultural characteristics of the participants communication can also lead to communication failure. In textbooks on speech communication, the culture of speech, an example is often given from an article by N.N. Troshina: “The merchant Maysl is coming from Chernivtsi to Vienna. In the evening he wants to go to the Burgtheater. He asks at the box office of the theater: “Well, what do you have on stage today?” - "As you wish". - "Fine! Let it be the "Queen of chardash". If the reader knows that the Burgtheater is a dramatic theater and that As You Please is a Shakespearean play, then the communication failure is obvious.

5. Low level of language competence . Indicative in this sense is a textbook example of a dialogue between mother and daughter:

Daughter: - It’s even good that I didn’t enter a technical school in Moscow, otherwise I would go back and forth every day.

Mother: - And in the evening I would come on the eyebrows.

Daughter: - Why on the eyebrows?

Mother: - Well, I would be very tired.

Daughter: - And why "on the eyebrows"?

Mother: - So they say ... (does not know how to explain).

Mother does not know the meaning of the expression "on the eyebrows" - come, come, crawl(simple) - about a drunk: with difficulty, barely getting there.

Thus, both participants in communication are responsible for the success of cooperation, both in its dialogical and monologic form. However, the focus of attention is traditionally on the addresser, to whom society imposes a whole range of requirements. He creates not only speech, but also his own image (scientist, politician, business person, etc.), which is not something external, but derived from such deep personality qualities as authority, will, temperament, education.