HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 2009 Vol. one
UDC 81.42 T.A. Vorontsova
COMMUNICATION SPACE IN THE LINGUISTIC-PRAGMATIC PARADIGM
The communicative space is considered in the system of key concepts and categories of linguistic pragmatics, such as addresser, addressee, speech behavior, communicative intention, communicative strategy. The spheres of the communicative space that are significant for the process of speech interaction between the addresser and the addressee are identified. The communicative-pragmatic types of speech behavior are defined as a tool for the formation of a communicative space.
Key words: communicative space, speech behavior, linguo-pragmatics, spheres of communicative space, communicative-pragmatic types of speech behavior.
The concept of communicative space in linguistics does not have a stable and unambiguous definition. In the general theory of communication, this term can be interpreted extremely broadly as "a territory, an environment within which interaction takes place" . In "Communication Theory" G.G. Pocheptsov, a communicative space is, in essence, an informational space with the only caveat that “in the case of communication, we are already talking about a two-way process, where both the generator and the recipient of information have active roles that form this communication”
Often the concept of communicative space is actually equated with the concept of discourse. At the same time, the typology of discourse can have various grounds: the dialogical or monologic nature of communication (communicative space of colloquial speech); method of communication depending on the type of "technical" information carrier (virtual communicative space, communicative space of the Internet); stylistic and functional parameters of the discourse (game communicative space), etc.
In a narrower sense, the communicative space can be interpreted as a proxemic space (actual communicative space) between the participants in communication; as the space of a separate text (the communicative space of the article).
N.V. Muravyova under the communicative space of a person understands the level of his communicative competence: knowledge and ideas about how it is customary to communicate in a given situation.
The famous literary critic and linguist B.M. Gasparov defines language as the environment of human existence, with which he constantly interacts: “Each act of using a language - whether it is a product of high value or a fleeting remark in a conversation - is a particle of a continuously moving stream of human experience. In this
as it absorbs and reflects in itself the unique set of circumstances under which and for which it was created: the communicative intentions of the author, always multiple and contradictory and never completely clear to himself; the relationship between the author and his immediate and potential, close and distant, known to him and imaginary addressees; all kinds of "circumstances" - large and small, generally significant or intimate, decisively important or accidental - somehow imprinted in this message; general ideological features and stylistic climate of the era as a whole, and of the specific environment and specific individuals to whom the message is directly or indirectly addressed, in particular, the genre and style features of both the message itself and the communicative situation in which it is included; and finally - a lot of associations with previous experience, one way or another falling into the orbit of this linguistic action: associations of explicit and vague, close or distant, transparently obvious and esoteric, conceptual and figurative, relating to the entire message as a whole or its individual details. The totality and interaction of all these aspects is, according to B.M. Gasparov, and there is a communicative space - a holistic communicative environment, “into which the speakers seem to be immersed (highlighted by us. - T.V.) in the process of communicative activity” (Ibid., p.297).
According to B.M. Gasparov, for the speaker, the communicative space is a cognitive-discursive space: “In order to create or interpret a message, the speaking subject needs to feel a certain environment to which, in his mind, this message belongs - a kind of broader spiritual “picture of the area” , on which this language artifact is located and fits into. Any message occupies a certain place in a wider mental picture, and this rootedness in a certain mental space largely determines its semantic appearance. The communicative space, along with the genre characteristic, includes "such properties of a linguistic message as its "tone", subject content and the general intellectual sphere to which this content belongs", as well as the communicative situation "with the whole multitude of immediately available, implied and conceived components that form the idea of each participant about it” (Ibid., p. 295).
Such a voluminous linguo-philosophical interpretation of the communicative space in this case is quite justified, since the research task of the author is to give a multidimensional and multidimensional idea of the language in the process of communicative activity. Let us pay attention to the fact that the definition of the communicative space given by B. M. Gasparov is largely projected onto the linguopragmatic (pragmalinguistic) understanding of the process of communicative interaction, which is considered in this branch of linguistic knowledge within quite specific concepts and categories.
In linguo-pragmatic studies, the concept of a communicative (communicative-pragmatic) space is defined as a speech situation that includes the roles of the speaker and listener, the characteristics of time and place, the rules for coordinating these goals within the framework of the cooperative principle, the rules for transferring the role of the speaker from one communicant to another, etc. The linguopragmatic approach to language correlates the communicative-pragmatic space with linguistic (types of speech acts, speech moves, etc.) and mental structures (propositions, presuppositions, implicatures), which ensure purposefulness, expediency and relevance, as well as the success and success of communicative actions of each of the communication partners.
For us, a fundamentally important fact is that with any understanding of the communicative space, the starting point in it is always the addresser.
According to B.M. Gasparov, it is the cognitive-discursive representations of the speaker that form both the process and the “product” of communicative activity. This is “the idea of the author of the message about the real or potential partner he is addressing, his interests and intentions, about the nature of his personal and linguistic relationships with him”, as well as “the self-consciousness and self-esteem of the speaker, the idea of what impression he himself and his the message should be made on others ".
In the communicative-pragmatic sense, the speaker is the one who not only creates, but also controls the communicative space. In accordance with this, concretizing the concept of communicative space, we consider it as a zone of real and potential contacts of each of the participants in communication from the point of view of the speaker (addresser).
The creation of a harmonious communicative space is the orientation of communicants towards dialogic communication in the broadest sense of the word. The conditions for the success of such communication in various aspects have been repeatedly considered in linguistic studies. Entering into communicative relations, each of the participants in communication has its own vision of the communication process, its role in it, has its own value orientations and its own ideas about a particular subject of speech. However, the responsibility for the "quality" of the communicative space in a particular communicative act always lies with the sender. It is clear that in direct dialogic communication, from time to time (ideally, in turn) both communicants find themselves in this role, therefore, here the communicative space is a zone of mutual responsibility of the participants in communication.
Obviously, with any understanding, the communicative space is multidimensional, mobile, changeable, it is impossible to structure it, at least unambiguously. At the same time, from the perspective of a specific subject of research in the communicative space, it is possible, with a certain degree of conventionality, to designate areas related to this subject. Linguoprag-
The mathematical approach in a broad sense, as is known, explores not only the structural components of the communicative process, but also its discursive characteristics (which, by definition, should include the cognitive aspect)1.
In accordance with this approach, the following areas seem significant to us in the communicative space:
1. The actual speech sphere is relevant in direct interpersonal communication. These are a kind of discursive conventions regarding the speech participation in the communication process of each of the interlocutors. The boundaries of this sphere are determined by the rules of communication in a particular discourse and the parameters of a particular speech situation. For example, the situation of a scientific conference implies, on the one hand, a regulated sequence of speech participation of communicants (report - questions to the speaker - discussion of the report), on the other hand, in accordance with the conventions of scientific discourse ("no one has a monopoly on scientific truth") - equal the right to speech of all participants in communication, regardless of positions and academic titles.
2. The axiological sphere of the communicative space is considered by us as a system of values and assessments of each of the communicants that is relevant for a given communicative act. The interaction of communicants in this area of the communicative space occurs both in direct (interpersonal) and indirect communication (for example, through the media), when there is no change in the communicative roles of the addresser and addressee.
3. The cognitive sphere of the communicative space is a system of key concepts that are relevant for a given communicative act, a kind of picture of the world, which is represented by the sender and addressee within the framework of this discourse. This sphere of communicative space can be defined for any type of communication and for any type of discourse: from private conversations to socially significant types of discus.
The idea of the addresser (the speaker) about the communicative space within the framework of a particular communication determines the choice of the type of speech behavior by the communicant. Speech behavior is a kind of tool for the formation of a communicative space, therefore the parameters of this concept are fundamentally significant. The fact is that the term "speech behavior", along with the concepts of "speech activity", "speech communication", "communication", being in the sphere of interests of socio-, psycho-, pragmaling-guistics and the theory of speech acts, has not yet been has an unambiguous interpretation. .
A number of researchers deny awareness and purposefulness of speech behavior. R. Jacobson, as you know, argued
1 In principle, it would be more correct to designate this approach with the term “communicative-discursive” (see: Vorontsova T. A. Speech aggression: an invasion of the communicative space. Izhevsk: Udmurt University Publishing House, 2006).
that "any speech behavior is purposeful". It is this approach to speech behavior that is typical, for example, for sociolinguistics, where speech behavior is understood "as the process of choosing the best option for constructing a socially correct statement." On the socio-communicative aspect, without denying the activity nature of speech behavior, T.G. Distiller. She believes that “the interpretation of the concept of “speech behavior” should be based exactly as much on the very fact of the implementation of speech as on the selection of speech means that has taken place ...” . T.G. Vinokur considers speech behavior as a set of speech actions. From the intralinguistic side, speech behavior is determined by the patterns of language use in speech, and from the extralinguistic side, by the socio-psychological conditions for the implementation of linguistic activity (Ibid., p. 12).
In linguopragmatics, verbal behavior is "understood as a set of conventional (carried out in accordance with the rules) and non-conventional (carried out of one's own free will) speech acts performed by an individual or a group of individuals", that is, awareness and purposefulness are considered as key characteristics of speech behavior. From these positions, speech behavior can be defined as "empirically observed motivated, intentional, targeted communicative activity of an individual in a situation of speech interaction, associated with the choice and use of speech and language means in accordance with the communicative task" .
At the same time, it seems to us appropriate and logical to distinguish between the terms "communicative behavior" and "speech behavior" (not all linguistic studies distinguish these terms). In our opinion, communicative behavior is a broader concept than speech behavior. This is how communicative behavior is considered, for example, by I.N. Borisova, A.K. Mikhalskaya, N.V. Muravieva, I.A. Sternin1 and others.
Communicative behavior includes non-verbal and verbal behavior, in turn, the components of verbal behavior are intentional and linguistic behavior, i.e. “Speech behavior is considered as a “verbalized, verbally expressed part of communicative behavior” . The non-speech elements of communicative behavior in oral communication include the volume of the voice, intonation, gestures, in written communication - images, the nature of the font. Undoubtedly, non-speech elements can play an important role in the formation of a communicative space. However, as A.K. Michalskaya, “in communicative behavior, it is speech behavior that is the main thing, it is it that structures, organizes everything else, but at the same time reflects the features of the rest” .
1 I.A. Sternin and his followers use the terms verbal communicative behavior and non-verbal communicative behavior for such a distinction (Essay on American communicative behavior. 2001, p. 13)
This allows us to say that the communicative-pragmatic types of speech behavior are actually the speaker's attitudes towards one or another way of forming a communicative space. By and large, the addresser (speaker) is guided by one of three settings:
1) to carry out an invasion into the communicative space of the addressee, to deform it in accordance with their own picture of the world, ideas, assessments, etc.;
2) to explicate their own ideas and assessments, without seeking to significantly change the ideas and assessments of the addressee;
3) to create a qualitatively new communicative space with the addressee for himself and for him.
These attitudes can be projected onto the main communication strategies: aggression, tolerance and politeness.
Thus, the concept of communicative space is organically integrated into the system of key concepts and categories of linguistic pragmatics, such as addresser, addressee, speech behavior, communicative intention, communicative strategy. Further study of speech tactics, specific techniques, speech and language means characteristic of these types of speech interaction will eventually lead to the problem of optimal communication in various types of discourse.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Asmus N.G. Linguistic features of the virtual communicative space: dis. ... cand. philol. Sciences. Chelyabinsk, 2005.
2. Borisova I.N. Russian conversational dialogue. Yekaterinburg: Publishing House Ural. un-ta, 2001.
3. Borisova I.N. Russian Conversational Dialogue: Zones of Tolerant and Intolerant Communication // Philosophical and Linguistic and Cultural Problems of Tolerance. M.: Olma-Press, 2005.
4. Vinokur T.G. The speaker and the listener. Variants of speech behavior. Moscow: Nauka, 1993.
5. Gasparov B.M. Language, memory, image. Linguistics of linguistic existence. Moscow: New Literary Review, 1996.
6. Goroshko E.I. Theoretical analysis of Internet genres // Genres of speech. Issue. 5. Genre and culture. - Saratov: Ed. Center "Science", 2007.
7. Demyankov V.Z. The Secret of Dialogue: (Introduction) // Dialogue: Theoretical Problems and Research Methods. Moscow: INION RAN, 1992.
8. Dridze T.M. Language and social psychology. M.: Higher. school, 1980.
nine . Klyuev E.V. Speech communication: textbook. allowance for high fur boots and in-comrade. M.: RIPOL CLASSIC, 2002.
10. Kreidlin G.E. Non-verbal semiotics in its relationship with verbal: author. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences. M., 2000.
11. Leontiev A. A. Psychology of communication. M.: Meaning, 1999.
12. Matveeva G.G. Actualization of the pragmatic aspect of the scientific text. Rostov-on-D.: Rostov Publishing House. un-ta, 1984.
13. Matveeva G.G. The translation method for the analysis of the speech behavior of the author of the source text and the translator // Problems of regional management, economics, law and innovation processes in education: materials of the first international. scientific-practical. conf. Taganrog: TIUE, 2000.
14. Mikhalskaya A.K. Russian Socrates: Lectures on comparative historical rhetoric. M.: Ed. Center "Academia", 1996.
16. Muravieva N.V. The language of conflict. M.: Thermal, 2004. 1 electron. opt. disc (CD-ROM).
17. Essay on American communicative behavior / scientific. ed. I.A. Sternin, M. A. Sternina. Voronezh: ORIGINS, 2001.
18. Pocheptsov G.G. Theory of communication. M.: Refl-book, K.; Wackler, 2001.
19. Susov I.P. Speaking personality in linguo-social and linguo-pragmatic spaces // Social stratification of language: materials of interuniversity. conf. Pyatigorsk. state ped. Institute of foreign lang. Pyatigorsk, 1989.
20. Formanovskaya N.I. Russian speech etiquette: linguistic and methodological aspects M.: Russian language, 1982.
21. Sharkov F.I., Fundamentals of the theory of communication. / M.: Social relations, 2005.
22. Schweitzer A. D. Sociolinguistics // Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Sov. encycl., 1990.
23. Jacobson R. Linguistics and poetics // Structuralism: "for" and "against". Moscow: Progress, 1975.
Received 06.03.09
T.A. Vorontsova, doctor of philology, professor Communicative Space in the Linguistic and Pragmatic Paradigm
Communicative space is viewed within a system of the key notions and categories of linguistic pragmatics: addresser, addressee, speech behavior, speech intention, communicative strategy. Communicative space spheres, which are important for the addresser's and addressee's speech interaction, have been outlined. Communicative and pragmatic types of speech behavior as a communicative space forming instrument have been defined.
Vorontsova Tatyana Alexandrovna, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Udmurt State University
426034, Russia, Izhevsk, st. Universitetskaya, 1 (building 2)
Read also:
|
Question 45. Communicative space. The theory of mass communication and its connection with other sciences.
Communication space
The interaction of socionic types takes place in a certain extended environment, which I will further call the communicative space. This space is heterogeneous: its density is not the same in different places, so the information exchange of the same types in different places will have different intensity.
Let us assume that the communicative space is four-dimensional, like the material space. The dimension of space should be understood as the level of sustainable information exchange, which is separated from other similar levels by a potential barrier of overcoming energy, i.e., by the effort necessary to move from level to level.
In order to determine at what level of space communication takes place, it is necessary to determine two parameters - the communicative distance (the parameter of the extent of space) and the density of communication (the parameter of space permeability).
From the point of view of the permeability of space, for a full-fledged information exchange, it is necessary to distinguish between deep and superficial communication.
Close distance means that communication takes place in close contact in space. It is most typical for groups of two to eight people. When interacting at a long distance, sociotypes are separated by a significant distance, determined by social and cultural indicators of development. Such a distance between people usually occurs in communication groups of more than eight people.
Deep communication means a dense information exchange, when almost all information resources available to the sociotype are involved in communication. There is a close interlacing of "power lines" of information fields, which indicates a high confidence in the contact.
Superficial communication occurs with incomplete involvement in the exchange of available information resources. The density of the information flow is much less than in the first case. The degree of confidence is also low.
First level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is superficial. bears the name physical, as it is typical for dense, materially mediated contact of physical substrates (carriers) of information systems. At this level, the natural human needs for food, shelter, procreation, production and consumption of material products are satisfied.
Second level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is deep. called psychological, since the exchange of intimate, personal information coming from the soul comes first.
Third level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is far, communication is superficial. called social, as it is regulated by social norms, traditions and rituals, legislation, state institutions, etc. This level of communication subordinates the interests of the individual to the interests of society, therefore it is of the most formal nature.
Fourth level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is far, but the communication is deep. bears the name intellectual, or informational, level. At the information level, a person satisfies his needs for actualization, disclosure of his talents and abilities, creativity, knowledge and self-improvement.
Communication space.
Lecture plan.
Definition of the term.
Primary and secondary communication processes.
Laws of communicative spaces.
Modern communicative space of the architect.
* * Definition of the term.
The life of every person is an endless series of different acts of communication - on different occasions, with different people, at different times, with different content, in different places. This leads to the fact that the actual reality is literally saturated with communications. Numerous acts of communication form the communicative space of society. Let's dwell on this concept.
Communication space
This is the basic concept for the analysis of communication. This is the area where there are different subjects of society, where their communication needs are realized - the impact and transmission of information. The communicative space is a certain “territory”, limited by time frames, where communicators that carry out communicative activities, for which they create discourses (texts for various purposes) and act in accordance with their goals. The structure of the interaction of communicators corresponds to the structure communicative act, where the author, addressee of the message are highlighted. A special lecture in this section is devoted to the communicative speech act.
Communicative space is the area of activity of communicators in accordance with their own goal-setting, limited by time frames.
____________________________________________________________________
* * Primary and secondary communication processes.
The communicative space, according to G. Pocheptsov, is structured primary and secondary communication processes.
Primary communication processes are a set of facts of communication that actually occur in different areas of life, for example, communication in the field of art, education, interpersonal communications and other diverse events of the surrounding reality. In other words, that's all that happens in life. Secondary(or post-communicative) processes are associated with the discussion or dissemination of information first received on the primary process, that is, this is information about past communications, and not these communications themselves.
____________________________________________________________________
Primary communications are a set of actually occurring facts of communication.
Secondary communications - discussion of information about the ongoing communications.
____________________________________________________________________
An important role of secondary communications is that only they give communicative weight to various events that have occurred. That primary communicative process is successful, gains resonance in society, becomes known if it then continues in secondary processes, is presented in different ways, is discussed [Pocheptsov 1998, p. 118]. Thus, a road accident becomes a communicative event only if it has become the subject of a report in a newspaper or on television. A natural phenomenon - a flood - will never receive the status of a social event if it does not become a post-communicative event, when it is broadcast on radio, television, it is discussed in newspapers, the Internet, and heard in conversations.
Primary communications in the field of architectural activity are all the variety of acts of professional communication taking place in different territories, in different organizations. The status of secondary communications is such that events become widely known only if they are discussed in the media, professional communities, in conversations, communication between architects and other interested parties. There are noisy discussions in TV programs and other types of mass media of the problems of the struggle for the preservation of historically valuable buildings, the restoration of valuable architectural objects, and urban development.
* * Laws of communicative spaces.
Let us turn to the phenomenon of interaction of different types of communication within the framework of the communicative space. In work G. Pocheptsova this interaction is characterized as laws of communicative attraction and repulsion. It is these laws that are decisive for the existence of a communicative space, namely attraction and repulsion different spheres of communication form modern society as a society of communicating individuals, it is these laws that determine the communicative intentions of people in their rich real activity.
____________________________________________________________________
The laws of communicative attraction and repulsion are the main laws of the communicative space
____________________________________________________________________
1. “Today’s communication space is characterized by borrowing methods that have received recognition both in one discourse and in another. Politicians use the tools of actors to win the hearts of their electorate. Artistic communication borrows the tools of the documentary mode. ... Feature films influence TV news. It also affects politics, when the problem of urban crime becomes the main topic of municipal elections, ... although this priority is dictated ... by the prevalence of the detective genre on the screens as the most advantageous in terms of artistic mode" - [Pocheptsov 1998, p. 295].
2. In the communicative space there is a constant interaction many forms of communication. There exist, interacting, numerous types and forms of communication. For example, people in society communicate by building interpersonal communications that take on a verbal form. At the same time, there is also professional communication, when communication is mediated, for example, by visual signs (diagram, graph, table) placed in a book. In this case, one can observe the same action of the law of attraction and repulsion.
Vivid examples of the interaction of different communications are provided by modern television - we are talking about such widespread show programs, where sports, theater, circus are combined in one discourse (theatre stars, TV presenters become heroes of sports - figure skating, circus artists, famous politicians - stars of musical genres) . The expressiveness of such works is achieved through the play of masks, a kind of carnival dress-up technique, when recognizable characters perform functions that are unusual for them: a popular film actor becomes a figure skater, and a TV presenter performs in a circus performance. TV viewers are also involved in the communicative action - they act as addressees in the communicative field, who are well acquainted with the characters, empathizing with them.
3. Another manifestation of the mutual influence of individual modern types of communication occurs through mythologization different areas of reality « Myths today form the framework of the world in which we live. Myth is one of the hidden phenomena. Additional work is required to identify it," when it is necessary to become an external observer in relation to the myth [Pocheptsov 1998, p. 355]. Civilization has developed a number of myth-generating machines, they become the basis for the sphere of advertising and PR.
4. Various communicative fields are built using signs different semiotic systems , that is, there is the existence of different types of communication (a separate lecture is devoted to them), such as, for example, printed works using printed signs, TV and cinema using audiovisual signs, etc.
A separate area is a field of communication, characterized by a purpose for different purposes - domestic and professional. According to the purpose of our work, we will turn to the features of professional communication serving the activities of professional architects.
* * Modern communicative space of the architect.
The communicative space of a modern architect is built as a set of numerous acts of communication. This is a basic concept denoting the area of communication, where there are different subjects of society. In accordance with the topic of our conversation, we will focus on the modern professional communicative space where professional architects exist today.
We are talking about the formation of the communicative image of a modern architect. The condition for the correct formation of this image is the knowledge of those communicative spheres within which professional communication of specialists takes place. One of the prerequisites for the formation of a communicative professional field in the described field of activity is the observance of communicative unity "architect - city", where the concept of the city is considered in a broad sense: these are people (communicants) - partners, customers, clients, and things (existing and created architectural objects). The unity of this level implies a dialogue between the architect and the city, which ensures the integrity of the urban environment. Description of the features of this space of communication is given in the article: [Lazareva E.A., Volchkova I.M. 1997].
The modern architectural and construction situation is significantly different from the situation of previous periods and requires active participation client-customer in choosing a building site, planning it, choosing materials, building design. That is, the client has the right to discuss construction problems together with professional architect. In connection with these new conditions, a completely new nature of feedback arises between communicants: this connection takes on a different character, becoming not regulatory and prescriptive, but recommendatory. This new communicative phenomenon has two sides: both positive and negative.
Let us turn to the phenomenon of interaction of different types of communication within the framework of the communicative space. The professional communication of an architect is represented by all known types of communication, but opposition plays a decisive role in it. verbal-non-verbal communication.
In non-verbal communication, the whole range of different non-verbal symbols is used to convey information. When talking about the professional communication of an architect, it is important to refer to visual means of conveying meaning. Visual cues are important in conveying the meanings of architectural objects and in constructing text using verbal and visual codes. In the works of W. Eco and Y. Lotman. as shown in F.B. Sharkov, it is noted that in visual communications it is impossible to single out discrete semantic elements. Their components do not mean anything by themselves, but appear only in the context of the whole work.
The modern architect is in difficult conditions when presenting his project customer-client. The description of an architectural object under construction or just planned is based on verbal and non-verbal codes, but non-verbal elements occupy a predominant position.
The well-known theorist of visual communication A. Berger in his book “Seeing is believing. Introduction to Visual Communication" says: "Visual communication plays an important role in the life of every person: all of us, consumers of visual products, watch TV, read newspapers, magazines and books, go to the movies. We live in an "information" society, where the information received is predominantly visual. It is very important that each of us understand the impact of visual images on a person and how to learn to “read” and interpret their various forms” [Berger 2005, p. eighteen] . From this statement it is clear the attention that is paid to modern means of communication, their influencing role, attention to visual communication. This fully extends to the communicative image of a modern architect. It seems necessary in the architect's communicative activity to take into account the semantic significance of each visual element and the relationships in which it is located.
Control questions and tasks.
● What is a communicative space and what role do primary and secondary communications play in it?
● What laws exist in the communicative space?
●Tell us about borrowing methods from different discourses.
●Comment on the phenomenon of mythologization of different areas of modern life
● How are the means of different semiotic systems used in communication?
● Tell us about the role of visual communication in the professional communication of architects. Illustrate your story with scenes from your professional life.
A sociotype is a constant, that is, an unchanging part of any communication system, its invisible infrastructure. Consequently, the sociotype has an ideal character, but its manifestations in life are real and easy to detect.
Various definitions of sociotype.
It is equally difficult to explain what a type is, both to outsiders who are unfamiliar with socionics, and to scientists who, by virtue of their profession, are engaged in the classification of various objects and phenomena. There is no doubt that the type is one of the highest categories of such a classification. So when you say that a sociotype is a category of people united by a commonality of any external or internal features, opponents agree: after all, we remain at the same time at a very, very abstract level that does not directly affect our characterological qualities through comparison with other people.
When I narrow down the definition by saying that type is a complex of stable proportions of the human psyche, many begin to disagree, because they do not believe that there is something invariable in a person. Those ignorant in typology generally do not admit that stable psychological types of people exist, while scientists demand that an objective criterion for distinguishing types be given. When they learn about Jung's bipolar scales, they unanimously claim that these signs are not fixed and therefore there are no persistent types. Well, it's hard to argue with them, but let's try anyway...
It is necessary to emphasize once again that in socionics the type of personality is understood as something different than in psychology. This difference is so significant that it makes sense to say that socionics has its own subject of study, separate from psychology. What is this difference?
The psychotype, as it is understood in differential psychology, is just a stable complex of human character traits. Whether it is undoubtedly stable, psychologists themselves will not say unequivocally.
For the increasingly complex development of an already complex information processing system, which is the human psyche, nature uses only the path of supra-individual hereditary transmission. The fact is that the more complex the system is, the more difficult it is to rebuild it. Hence the need for the level of the collective unconscious, discovered by Jung. It is there that the sociotype is localized as an ideal example of the organization of parts of a self-developing system.
Given the contribution of Jung, I would give the following definition of the subject of socionics. Sociotype- this is the structure of the collective unconscious, which controls the interaction of the physical, psychological, social and intellectual manifestations of the individual.
This definition of the type, in fact, means by it the sum of the potential energy of the individual, which can be realized at any of the four levels of the communicative space accessible to direct observation by a person.
All these are "traces" of the type. Indeed, each of us leaves his mark in life (books, products of labor, relationships ...), and what this mark will be is half determined by the innate sociotypical properties of a person. The other half of a person's achievements is education, that is, to what extent a person has mastered his naturally conditioned potential.
Chapter 2. Signs of types at different communication distances.
The interaction of socionic types takes place in a certain extended environment, which I will further call communicative space.This space is heterogeneous: its "density" is not the same in different places, so the information exchange of the same types in different places will have different intensity.
Let us assume that the communicative space is four-dimensional, like the material space. By the "measurement" of space, I will understand the level of sustainable information exchange, which is separated from other similar levels by a potential barrier - the energy of overcoming, that is, the effort necessary to move from level to level.
In order to understand at what level of space communication takes place, it is necessary to determine two parameters - the communicative distance (the parameter of the extent of space) and the density of communication (the parameter of "permeability" of space).
To build a model, I will use the binary principle familiar to socionics - dividing in half. Therefore, the communicative distance will take on two meanings - close and far. From the point of view of the permeability of space for a full-fledged information exchange, I will distinguish communication on the one hand - deep, on the other - superficial.
I will dwell on these poles in more detail. close range means that communication proceeds with close contact in space. It is most typical for groups of two to eight people. When interacting with far distance sociotypes are separated by a significant distance, which is determined by social and cultural indicators of development. Such distance between people usually occurs in communication groups of more than eight people.
Deep communication means a dense information exchange, when almost all information resources available to the sociotype are involved in communication. There is a close interweaving of "lines of force" of information fields, which indicates a high confidence in the contact.
Surface Communication occurs with incomplete involvement in the exchange of available information resources. The density of the information flow is much less than in the first case. The degree of confidence is also low.
Since the complexity of communication equally depends on both parameters, the information exchange between systems can be considered as the product of the communicative distance and the density of communication:
information exchange=distance× density
Information exchange takes discrete values, being an indicator of what is on one of the levels of the communicative space. There are four such provisions:
1. The first level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is superficial. bears the name physical, as it is characteristic of dense, materially mediated contact of physical substrates (carriers) of information systems.
At this level, the natural needs of a person are satisfied - in food, housing, procreation, production and consumption of material products.
2. The second level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is deep. called psychological, since the exchange of intimate, personal information coming from the soul (from the Greek psyhe - soul) comes to the fore.
The psychological level involves the most trusting relationship, since at this level a person satisfies his intimate-emotional needs - in love, friendship, family, empathy, etc.
3. The third level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is far, communication is superficial. called social, as it is regulated by social norms, traditions and rituals, legislation, state institutions, etc.
This level of communication subordinates the individual to the interests of society, therefore it is the most formal. The object of social communication does not act as a unique personality, but as a representative of a particular social class or professional group. At this level, a person satisfies his needs for career, training, work and respect.
4. The fourth level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is far, but the communication is deep. bears the name intellectual,or informational, level. It is possible to carry out deep communication without contact with the other side only by transferring the entire information exchange inside oneself, into one's brain. At the same time, the memory and imagination of a person are intensively working. Only at this level can you access the depths of your subconscious and extract information accumulated by generations of people who lived before you.
At the information level, a person satisfies his needs for actualization, disclosure of his talents and abilities, creativity, knowledge and self-improvement.
It is very important that the described levels are not stretched into a line, but form a circle, that is, they are connected by relations of adjacency and opposition. Opposites are the physical level and the intellectual level. This means that they are inversely proportional to each other: the more a person lives a physical life, the less he develops intellectually, and vice versa.
The social and psychological levels also exclude each other. It is impossible to take care of an individual person (individual approach) and a whole group of people (mass approach) at the same time. The macro-society encourages a person to bring the personal to the altar of the public, and the micro-society, for example, his family, requires the opposite: that a loved one spend more time at home. Moreover, the proportion of 50 to 50% means a communicative crisis: the state of fluctuating "weights" is extremely painful, because it makes the choice very difficult.
Although the communicative levels are cyclical, it is more convenient and technologically possible to represent them in the form of a vertical hierarchy on a plane. Their subordination in the communicative space has the following form:
And now we apply the conceptual apparatus of socioanalysis to describe the manifestations of the sociotype at all four levels of the communication space.
It is interesting to note that attempts to streamline the communicative space have been made since ancient times. According to the philosophical system of the Chinese "Book of Changes", the world is divided into three potential layers: heaven - man - earth. The socionic coordinate system is four-dimensional, therefore it complicates the world by one more step:
sky - society - man - earth
(info - socio - psycho - physio)
Theoretical part
The concept of sociocultural communication
The concepts of "man", "society" and "culture" are inseparable. A person becomes who he is in society through the acquisition of culture. The very emergence, existence and development of society is impossible outside of culture, since it fixes the methods and techniques of human activity, patterns of human attitude to the world, features and nature of interaction between people in society. But culture does not exist without social interaction. People need to store, transmit and exchange a variety of information. Communication processes (contacts for the purpose of transmitting information) permeate the entire spectrum of human activity and are the internal mechanism for the existence of any culture. Therefore, it is necessary to study sociocultural communication as a mechanism for the accumulation and transfer of social experience, the formation of the possibility of understanding, management and communication between people.
Any object, any action and any phenomenon carries certain information, that is, it can be considered as communication. In a narrower sense, communication is understood only as those actions that are directly aimed at the transfer of information using a certain sign system for this purpose. Every time two or more people consciously try to convey a meaningful (meaningful) message to each other, a process of communication takes place. But even if a person is not going to communicate something, then the process of communication can occur unconsciously, since people always attribute some meaning (meaning) to behavior, regardless of whether the transmission of this meaning was intentional or not. Forms of communication can be a letter, a conversation, a book, a TV show. For the emergence of communication, it is necessary to have a common language among the subjects of communication, channels for transmitting information, as well as rules for the implementation of communication (semiotic, ethical).
In cultural studies, communication processes are studied from different methodological grounds. The rationalistic-technocratic approach focuses on the means of transmitting social information, which is conceived as a flow of messages from the creator of cultural value to the addressee who perceives it. The phenomenological approach (J. Habermas, X. Gadamer) focuses on the problem of understanding one subject by another through the process of "getting used to", "empathy". In any case, the relationship between the nature and method of transmitting information and the cultural development of society is obvious to researchers. It required an explanation. Initially, a purely technological attitude to this phenomenon was proposed, based on the nature of obtaining and methods of transmitting information, which is the main driving force of progress.
The prophet of electronic communication Canadian scientist G.M. McLuhan (1911-1980) in his famous works (“The Guttenberg Galaxy. The Creation of Man of Printed Culture”, “Understanding Media. External Extensions of Man”) formulated the idea that qualitative shifts in the history of mankind are associated with the emergence of new technical means of communication and transfer of information. In his theory, the nature of communication and the content of the knowledge taking place are the basis for distinguishing the stages of the historical development of mankind.
History unfolds as a process of accumulating information and complicating its circulation in the economic, social and cultural spheres. Starting with the spoken word, then with the advent of writing, the advent of the era of printing and, finally, the electronic era, each more effective way of transmitting information is seen as more progressive, corresponding to a more perfect, in terms of speed and purity, way of transmitting a message. That is, the spiritual and material progress of mankind is determined not by the development of the means of production and the nature of human exploration of nature, not by economics, politics or culture, but by the technology of social communication. The communication channels used by humanity are fundamental. Their type and form is even more important than the meaning or content they convey, since the very form of the medium changes our consciousness. The technology itself carries a certain message to the audience. Depending on it, this message can be understood and deciphered in different ways, i.e., depending on whether it is an oral statement, a manuscript, a printed text, a radio or a TV show, the transmitted information can have a different meaning. Hence the huge influence on the development of culture is from the technology of communication. It is necessary that a person is well versed in the peculiarities of transmitting information by an appropriate means, he must be able to decipher, understand the meaning of the message, taking into account the possible context and subtext.
J. Habermas (b. 1929), a German philosopher and sociologist, created the theory of communicative action as a basic social process and personal development of sociality. In The Theory of Communicative Action (1981), he sees communication as social actions, the purpose of which is the free agreement of participants to achieve joint results in a certain situation. In his opinion, the hallmark of true communication is not a focus on success, as in other types of social action, but finding mutual understanding between different social actors. Since communicative processes inevitably take place in the sphere of meanings that exist in a given culture, each human action takes place in the context of a culture that exists as a permanent background, beyond which it is impossible to go. Cultural patterns act as resources for the practice of mutual understanding. Communication means a comparison of the individual interpretation of meanings with the public, the individual semantic reconstruction of society. This provides the necessary coherence and integrity and must be accompanied by an attitude towards agreement and a mutual rejection of subjectivism. Thus, in the process of communication, society is created as a whole, culture is produced and reproduced, and personal identity is formed. A feature of the current state of affairs, according to the thinker, is the excessive rationalization of communicative actions, which can lead to a crisis of culture.
So, it would be true, but not sufficient, to say that culture influences the processes of communication and the nature of communication reflects the development of culture. Sociocultural communication is a specific human phenomenon, a purposeful exchange of information that takes place in culture and creates it.
There are the following types of communication:
- by the nature of the subjects of communication - interpersonal, personal-group, intergroup, intercultural, mass;
- according to the forms of communication - verbal (through language) and non-verbal (when words or sentences are not used, these are facial expressions, looks, gestures, postures, movements, tone of voice, pauses, distance, etc.);
- according to the levels of communication - at the level of ordinary or specialized culture.
A special role in today's globalizing world is played by mass communication(the production of messages and their transmission to large segments of the population through the press, radio, television, the Internet, which involves the communication of people as members of the "mass", carried out with the help of technical means) and intercultural communication(interaction between representatives of different cultures).
The network of channels through which information is distributed in society forms a communication space. In it, people choose, consciously or unconsciously, a certain way and method by which to create and send a message to someone. In the process of socialization from early childhood, the rules of syntax, grammar, pragmatics and phonology are mastered, as well as the rules of non-verbal communication in order to skillfully encode information. Correct "adequate" coding reflects the level of development of the individual and depends on the understanding and use of the rules of verbal and non-verbal behavior. The success of communication also depends on correct decoding, "adequate" decoding, which means that messages are interpreted in the way in which they were supposed to be transmitted. It is clear that culture has a pervasive and profound influence on the processes of verbal and non-verbal encoding and decoding.
The very concept of "code" appeared in communication technology (Morse code). It meant a set of signs and rules by which information can be presented. Encoding did not correlate with the content of the transmitted. In culture, it is the content that comes to the fore. That is why the concept is so important. "Culture Code"- meaningful forms that organize the connection of a person with the world of ideas, images and values of a given culture. It is the code of culture that makes it possible to make the transition from the world of signals to the world of meaning. For example, in Russian culture, a smile means a sincere disposition towards a person, and in Anglo-American culture it means polite behavior.
In different cultures, one can observe different specifics of communication, different nature of signals, messages, different channels of information transmission. Signals are specific words and actions that are encoded when a message is sent. For example, a facial expression may be a signal that is encoded along with a specific message. Other cues may be specific words or phrases, body posture, or tone of voice. Messages are the meaning that is put into and extracted from signals. It includes knowledge, ideas, concepts, thoughts or emotions. Channels are the various senses (hearing, sight, touch, smell and taste) through which signals are transmitted and messages are recognized. The most widely used communication channels are visual (we see facial expressions, body posture, etc.) and auditory (we hear words, voice intonation, etc.). Thus, the process of communication can be described as a complex process of exchange in culture with changing roles and encoding-decoding of the message.
As a result of the formation of a person as a member of society, unique, culture-specific methods of verbal and non-verbal communication, encoding and decoding information are acquired. Therefore, human communication manifests itself in different cultures in different ways. For example, when Americans want to explain the actions of another person, they pay attention to his mood, while Indians tend to proceed from the social position of this person. This example demonstrates the differences between intercultural communication and intracultural communication. Due to the pervasive influence of culture, one can never be sure that two representatives of different cultures use the same rules for encoding and decoding information. Always, both in verbal communication, and especially in non-verbal communication, there is uncertainty in the interpretation of signals. In intercultural contacts, the first step is to reduce this uncertainty, that is, to try to decipher the culture code, and then interpret and respond to the deciphered content.
There are low-context cultures, in which the bulk of information is transmitted directly, and high-context cultures, when most of the information is present in the context, and there is not so much of it in the transmitted part of the message. Low-context cultures include American, European cultures, and high-context cultures - Asian, African.
Difficulties encountered in intercultural communication can be significantly reduced by developing the skills to understand the cultural context and reduce uncertainty in the process of communication. First of all, it must be remembered that the seeming idea that all people on Earth are similar enough to understand each other well is a dangerous illusion. Communication is an ability that specific cultures and societies form, it is a product of culture. Therefore, one cannot simplify the situation by ignoring seemingly minor sources of signals and messages. It is very difficult, sometimes even impossible, to abandon the peculiarities and stereotypes of one's perception and fully understand the language of a foreign culture.
