Which is not a prerequisite for dialogue communication. Dialogue communication. Dialogue speech as a language function
In the process of communication, according to B.N. Lozovsky, there are "at least three main parts: cognition interlocutor, formation trusting relationship with him, actually communication (conversation, conversation, interview) ". In accordance with this, we have built a system of conditions that ensure the successful conduct of communication-dialogue.
In various scientific studies (A.A.Bodaleva, E.M. Lazutkina, M.S.Kagan, N.V. Revenko, S.V. Kondratyeva, etc.), various conditions are highlighted that contribute to the effective implementation of dialogical communication. We will dwell on some of them, which, in our opinion, are the main ones for a journalist, without them it is impossible to achieve success in communication.
Under success speech communication (dialogue) is understood implementation of the communicative goal of the initiator (initiators) of communication and achievement of the interlocutor's consent... It is especially important to remember this for a journalist who directly and constantly deals with a person, and whose success depends on how he knows and applies in practice the conditions of effective communication.
Such conditions combine psychological aspects, linguistic (linguistic) features, external conditions. The totality of all this will allow, in our opinion, to ensure the success of the journalist's communication, bring it closer to the dialogical one, allowing one to come to the definition of “something Whole”, “third essence”.
The original condition successful communication, according to M.S. Kagan, A.A. Bodaleva, is individual identity of partners. « Human communication is based on this deep dialectic of the differences between partners and their desire for unity, which, however, should not lead to the erasure of these differences, but to the "unity of diversity", as philosophers have long defined harmony"(M. S. Kagan). This idea is confirmed by M. Dufren. In his figurative expression, communication between two people is not an attitude " two monads, closed in themselves, between which there is a certain pre-established harmony; rather, these are two crossing views, two repulsive freedoms, two partners starting a dialogue».
A journalist, entering into communication with a person, must create for himself his image, more or less similar to a real person. And the closer such an image is to the real qualities of a person, the more successful communication will be. What a person can see in another depends on the opinion of researchers (A.V. Mudrik, O.G. Kukosyan, Z. Freud, A.A. Bodalev, etc.): from gender, profession, mood, character, from the situation, etc.
Of course, in many ways the image of a person is created on the basis of "reading" his gestures, posture, gait, timbre of voice, etc., that is, external signs. However, due to their conventionality, they cannot provide comprehensive knowledge about a person. It is much more important to know the motives, needs, interests, goals of the person with whom you come into contact. It is no coincidence that the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius said that “ each one is worth as much as the business he is concerned with».
A journalist who creates an image of a person should remember the words of William Faulkner that “ man is the sum of the past". Based on this, B.N. Lozovsky draws attention to the following: “ Man is not a momentary given, the basis for his present in the past. Therefore, professional journalists, before going to a meeting with another interlocutor, as a rule, try to find out everything possible about him from other sources:
- re-read his books, if it is a writer,
- talk with patients, if it is a doctor, etc.
For a conversation with a famous publicist and writer, a young journalist re-read not only everything that ever came out of his pen, but also all his interviews, reviewed all his films and TV shows with his participation". It is largely due to this that a kind of recreation of the interlocutor's life takes place, "modeling" of his personality. This is an acceptable way to get information about a person, but not the only one.
People are also recognized through the use of such admission as “a journalist changes his profession», Which allows you to learn in more detail about the field of activity in which the future interlocutor of the journalist works. In order to successfully "play" a new role, a journalist should remember about three conditions:
1) knowledge this role;
2) knowledge motives inherent in this role;
3) Availability skills and abilities that ensure its implementation (A.A.Leontyev).
Not everyone and not always succeeds in successfully fulfilling the role of another. The limitation of the general culture, own experience of communication interferes.
Often the creation of the correct image of the person with whom the journalist is talking is hindered by a well-known weakness, about which M. Montaigne wrote: “ Instead of striving to get to know others, we only care about how to flaunt ourselves, and our worries are directed rather to not letting our goods get stale rather than buying a new one for ourselves.". To prevent this from happening, you should always remember that the main purpose of communication journalist is cognition of the interlocutor, in obtaining the necessary information from this particular person, in the vision of precisely his originality.« Another»The person is for the journalist center communication.
The next condition successful communication, its perception and understanding stands mood, focus on the world of the interlocutor , the proximity of the worldview of the speaker and the listener. The past life experience of the interlocutors (the journalist and his guests), their similar interests and cultural canons give rise to rapid mutual understanding, which is expressed by a rapid change of remarks, such paralinguistic means as facial expressions, gestures, tone, timbre of voice, intonation, tempo of speech, pauses, silence, etc. etc. The success of the dialogue is determined by the ability of the speaker (the journalist asking questions) to represent the listener's world and organize his speech in accordance with this (starting with the address, word order, the choice of the semantic-syntactic structure of the sentence, expressive means of different levels, etiquette forms). For example, this focus on the world of the interlocutor is clearly visible in the programs of V. Pozner.
However, the mood for the world of the other is not always present in the programs, sometimes there is a reluctance of the participants in the conversation themselves, invited to the studio in order to find a common language, to come to a common denominator, to look at the other person with interest; listen carefully to what he is talking about; to think about, maybe he is right, and his point of view is correct and it is worth agreeing with it? But in the course of a conversation a certain stereotype is triggered among people: I am always right, I will stand my ground! And in this situation, all linguistic and paralinguistic means work not for interest, but vice versa.
Efficiency given conditions largely due to the knowledge of the journalist psychology of another person - his value orientations, which find expression in his ideals, needs, interests, in the level of his claims. It should be remembered that principle, which should be guided by the journalist in official communication: as much as possible exactingness towards a person and at the same time as much respect for him(A.S. Makarenko). Following this principle will allow the journalist to take into account in contacts the individual originality of each of the people talking to him.
This approach will help to form such focus, "In which other people would not stand on the periphery, but certainly in the center of the system of values that is developing in him" (both his own and that of another person) (AA Bodalev). " Personality-oriented orientation, - according to A.A. Bodaleva, - contributes to the success of communication, the choice of the ways of interacting with him that are most appropriate for the characteristics of another person, if in this orientation an attitude is manifested, which gives rise to an orientation in the personality primarily towards positive traits in another person". And this orientation is important for journalistic communication, as it contributes to the disclosure of the personal potential "of the person with whom the journalist communicates. A.M. Gorky, bearing in mind this meaning of focus on a person, said that a bell is hidden in each and if you touch it, a person will sound with all the best that is in him.
Such orientation, psychological "turn" to a person important for a journalist for competent, full-fledged communication. For without a stable orientation towards the positive, the journalist will not be able to receive reliable, sincere material, since the person being interviewed will not be able to "open up" in front of a journalist focused only on finding the negative, the negative in him. An example of a vivid negativism towards people is the image of Ivan the Terrible, about whom the historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “ He was more susceptible to bad than to good impressions, he was one of those unkind people who rather, more willingly notice in others weaknesses and shortcomings than gifts or good qualities.". Seeing only bad things in people, the tsar could suspect them of unthinkable actions. And how it all ended, we remember from the course of history.
With a general positive attitude towards another person, the ability to empathize and sympathy for him, the emotional response of the journalist in each particular case may change depending on the behavior of the people speaking with him. However, in any case, the general palette of a journalist's relationship to a person should be conditioned by civic and moral education.
Component parts focus per person are attention to him, memory, imagination and etc.
Attention manifests itself in the observation of manners, speech, clothing of a person. For a journalist noticing this, “ the world becomes more voluminous, fuller, more colorful, people cease to be casual passers-by or fellow travelers - they open their souls"(A. Vaksberg).
Attracting the attention of interlocutors largely depends on the expressive effect of the statement planned by the speaker and the listener's emotive reaction. The addressee seeks to communicate information in an unusual way, in a vivid, expressive form, using linguistic means of different levels with expressive meaning, as well as stylistic units.
For example, a journalist, reporting information, uses a spoken language saturated with emotive speech elements, which creates an expressive background throughout the speech communication. This is important, since the creative principle of feeling-thought is embodied here, therefore every conversation is aesthetically significant. This is facilitated by the use in speech, in printed material of words, phrases from different styles (for example, incline to a conclusion, make ends meet, find a common language, etc.), phraseological structures (for example, which is true, it is true, wholesale and retail, one field of berries, etc.), words of subjective assessment (for example, dad, girl, sidekick, cop, etc.) etc.
Memory, addressed to people, also acts as a condition for successful communication. Do not misinterpret the names, patronymics of people, remember their faces, do not forget that everyone can or cannot. It is in this that the memory of a journalist manifests itself.
To communicate well with others, a journalist must develop imagination... Imagination in this case is manifested in the ability to put oneself in the place of another, to see the world, everything that happens through his eyes. For example, the commander of the Northern Fleet during the war years, Admiral A.G. Golovko. V.A. Kaverin wrote about him like this: “ Golovko possessed a rare ability to put himself in the place of another person, with whom fate confronted him. Moreover, in place of others, be it a Marine battalion or a submarine crew. This meant that he "got into position." He understood "position" as a life task».
Necessary condition the emergence of a dialogue and its successful completion is need for communication, communicative interest (as defined by MM Bakhtin), which establishes parity between the participants in the dialogue, regardless of social status and roles.
Interest promotes:
The appearance of benevolent attention from the interlocutor,
Activation of all components of cultural understanding of speech, communicative expectations and associations;
Creating conditions for openness to any position of the speaker ,
Organizations willingness to accept his arguments, anticipating the meaning of each phrase and further course of the conversation .
On the interest in communication do not affect:
but) depth of acquaintance(for example, the journalist and the interviewee are close friends, acquaintances, strangers);
b) degree of social dependence(for example, the subordinate position of the journalist in the team, the superiority of the interviewer in the conversation);
in) emotional background(for example, in the conversation, neutrality, benevolence, hostility towards the interlocutor who is being interviewed) is manifested.
In any case, the journalist must have consent " heed», « solidarity". And this is the first step to a successful conversation.
Such a communicative interest is clearly visible in V. Posner's programs (ORT). The host does not just ask the guests, he "listens" to them, empathizes with them, tries to help.
One of the main conditions successful dialogue advocates the listener's ability to penetrate the communicative intention (intention, intention) speaker. Since the communicative intention is formed at the confidential level of speech-thought, and the construction of the meaning of what is said occurs parallel to the linear development of the utterance, the listener does a great job of interpreting the speech flow and “reconstruction” of the speaker’s intention, rethinking what was said and understood earlier, and correlating his “model »Taken with real facts and the line of behavior of the interlocutor. This “work” is instantaneous and has individual differences.
For example, in programs where a dialogue takes place (“A Woman's View” by Oksana Pushkina (NTV), “Green Lamp” (GTRK “Orenburg”), etc.), such a process can be observed. The entire course of verbal communication, its success depends on how much one person (the host of the program, one of the guests) understands what the other is talking about, and, only having understood this, continues the course of the conversation, based on the intention of the interlocutor.
With all the intricacies of the individual perception of speech, the speaker and listener should proceed from the following assumed factors(provisions of the theory of speech activity):
a) logical structures and language constructions are not completely correlative, that is, they are equal to each other;
b) there are explicit and implicit ways of expressing meaning. In colloquial speech, non-expression of semantic fragments and selective reflection of the "state of affairs" or "picture of the world" is a typical phenomenon; It is in this functional variety that the most complex interaction between the speaker and the listener takes place, the most stringent requirement for situational speech behavior, the most active and creative nature of speech understanding.
And for this you need to have language(communicative) competence- the central concept of communicative interaction. According to Yu.D. Apresyan, " to speak a language means:
but) be able to express the given meaning in different ways (the ability to paraphrase);
b) be able to to extract meaning from what is said in a given language, in particular - to distinguish outwardly similar, but different in meaning statements (distinction of homonymy) and find a common meaning in outwardly different statements (possession of synonymy);
in) be able to to distinguish linguistically correct sentences from incorrect ones ”; know the techniques of dialogization of speech (the ability to use appeals in various forms, be able to sincerely express their assessment of any fact or event, which usually evokes a response, reciprocal empathy);
G) be able to predict emotive reactions of interlocutors.
All this allows the listener to adequately understand the speaker's intention and give him a correct assessment.
Interpersonal communication becomes psychologically full only when condition of communication on equal terms, when its participants try in their contacts to constantly make allowances for the originality of each other and not to infringe on the dignity of the partner. Such relations “are based on an a priori, unconditional acceptance of each other as values in themselves and presuppose an orientation towards the individual uniqueness of each of the subjects. These relations represent that optimal psychological background for organizing contacts, which people should strive for and which, with adequate external representation and internal acceptance, leads to true mutual disclosure, interpenetration, personal mutual enrichment of people interacting at this level ”(AA Bodalev).
It was about such communication that Nikolai Drozdov, the host of the TV show "In the world of animals", told. He talked about how long it takes an animal to prepare for a studio setting. " The hyena, for example, which I showed to viewers, required two weeks of "communication". I went to her zoo every day. At first he stood near the cage, then in the cage itself. In the early days, I sat on the floor, sat quietly in the corner. There was “communication at the same level, at the same height. The animal gradually ceased to be afraid».
Of course, in this episode we are not talking about human communication, but exactly the same mechanism should "work" in human communication. – alignment mechanism", Which is directly related to such an aspect as adaptation. A good example the community of people arising in the train compartment can serve this. Completely strangers find a common language with each other in a matter of seconds. Ideally, this is how a journalist should establish contact with people.
The success of communication depends on the speaker's ability to vary the way of linguistic representation this or that real event. This, first of all, “is connected with the possibility of different perception of the surrounding world. The worldview of a person and the mental categories that have developed in him determine such categories of language, which, by formal means of different levels of the language system, designate any concept in the world. These categories are called functional, since they show language in action "... In language, for example, there are functional categories of beingness, characterization, certainty, identification, etc.
The speaker forms the statement and the text as a whole. He forms his own style of writing, "point of view" when reflecting some events, phenomena (in newspapers, magazines, on television and radio). The speaker's role is manifested:
but) in choise the main "participant in the action" (for example, the syntactic position at the beginning of the sentence of the subject, the fact that will be discussed, the meaning depends on this. The wave swept over the boat; The boat was overwhelmed by a wave; The boat was overwhelmed;
b) in the way"Scenario" performance, in which linguistic means the attitude towards the subject of speech, as well as the addressee, is conveyed (for example, the use of diminutive-affectionate suffixes: eyes, paw, smart girl and etc.; using a set of stereopized constructions that suggest the interlocutor's reaction: it is terrible that ...; must be imagined; what is important is ...; naturally…; as known; generally and etc.);
in) in building speech with a focus on the world of knowledge of the addressee, adapting the form of presentation of information to the possibilities of its interpretation (for example, a group interview: "hot line" " Second term for a student”, Recorded by Olga Demidova (see Appendix 14).
The main the rule speaker behavior - it is a hierarchization of the content of the, which should be based on the speaker's awareness of a particular issue; first, the information that can be used in the interpretation of the subsequent one (for example, an interview “ Who does not believe in tears", Recorded by Elena Skvortsova-Ardabatskaya (see Appendix 12).
To a large extent, the addressee's personality determines the style of the information. Let us recall the episode with the “weather report” inappropriate in secular society, which was reported by Eliza Doolittle in the play “Pygmalion” by B. Shaw.
The linguistic representation largely depends on the topic of conversation (for example, in the program "Moment of Truth" by A. Karaulov (Ren - TV), different means of the author's modality are used, but they are very different from those used when discussing culinary recipes in the program "Culinary Duel" (NTV), etc.).
Mutual understanding, correct interpretation of the speaker's position is possible only if speech is the embodiment of feeling-thought, if it is figurative, sincere, emotional, and resonates with the interlocutor. At the same time, it is good to remember the words of L.N. Tolstoy: " never by any means can humanity be forced to know the world through boredom».
Thus, for success dialogical communication is important not the desire of the speaker to communicate to the interlocutor only facts, objective truth, but the ability to bring your own understanding into the communicated ... This position leads to a search for agreement, which is so lacking in today's newspapers, magazines, television and radio broadcasts, striving only for sensation, raising the rating by any means and means.
Conditions successful verbal communication are rooted in compliance of plans and patterns of speech behavior of interlocutors , which are based on a certain level of human relations and social interaction.
Every journalist understands that even a carefully thought-out course of a conversation and a predetermined procedure for the exchange of opinions does not always lead to the consent of the interlocutors and a successful conclusion of the conversation. This phenomenon prompted a comparison of the dialogue with the "element", with a river that cannot be entered twice. H.-G. Gadamer wrote: “... natural conversation is never the way we wanted it to be. It would be more accurate to say that we find ourselves in a state of conversation or even get involved in it ... Achievement or non-achievement of understanding is what happens to us».
If we, for example, take any interview or transmission-dialogue, then it is very clearly noticeable in them that often the conversation "turns off" from the previously conceived path. The very thread of the conversation "leads" the conversation to a new path, which does not always lead to success. But at the same time, a journalist should still remember that the correct perception of the speaker's remarks, the ability to predict his general intention in many respects ensures success in the search for truth, the “third essence”.
On the success verbal communication affect external circumstances :communication channel(telephone conversation, pager, letter to the editor, etc.), mood, emotional mood, physiological state - all this can predetermine the fate of the conversation.
Distinguish communication:
- contact(interviews, dialogue programs) - remote(for example, the program "Nanovo" (GTRK "Orenburg"), which uses a form of communication via a pager, by telephone);
- direct(journalist with interviewee) - mediated(nowadays, journalism often uses the form of answering a question (for example, on the street, answering by phone, etc.), and then the received answer is used in a certain program);
- oral(conversation, interview, etc.) - written(publications). Orally, with direct contact, success can be achieved as quickly as possible, and such success is really visible.
But even favorable circumstances do not always guarantee success, agreement. The conversation is "created" by speech segments (replicas), pauses, facial expressions, gestures, glances, postures, eye contact, etc. The addressee must pick up the addresser's remark, understand him both verbal and non-verbal communication.
The atmosphere of the dialogue is no less essential than its content. A journalist should always keep this in mind.
An important component successful dialogue is knowledge of the speaker of the norms of etiquette speech communication. « Speech ethics are the rules of proper speech behavior based on moral norms, national and cultural traditions».
Ethics verbal communication begins with a friendly attitude to the addressee, demonstrating interest during conversation, focus on the world of the interlocutor, in other words, from everything that was mentioned earlier.
Etiquette verbal behavior is rigidly predetermined by the circumstances of the conversation, the tone of communication, and its stylistics.
The main the rule for the reciprocal statement of the addressee: the replica must fit into the "context" of the dialogue, that is, be appropriate.
The first an important point of speech etiquette is greeting and address, they are the ones who set the tone for the whole conversation. Depending on the social role of the interlocutors, the degree of their closeness, you are chosen - communication or you - communication and, accordingly, greetings : hello or hello good afternoon(evening, morning), Greetings etc.
The appeal performs a contact-establishing function, is a means of intimization, therefore, throughout the conversation, the appeal should be pronounced quite often. This speaks of good feelings for the interlocutor and attention to his words.
Second the moment is to use etiquette formulas(for example: preceding your questions with a request You couldn't tell, you won't tell, Be kind. Etiquette forms, phrases for the occasion are an integral part of communicative competence; their knowledge indicates a high degree of language proficiency).
The next etiquette is considered maintaining a cultural atmosphere of communication, the desire not to upset the interlocutor, not to offend him indirectly, not to cause an uncomfortable state. There are ways of peripheral nomination in speech, that is, of everything that offends taste and violates the stereotypes of communication. Unfortunately, this principle is forgotten in the modern media. From the pages of even periodicals, from TV screens, streams of "linguistic dirt" are constantly "pouring", often showing openly pornographic shots and photographs. And some journalists believe that this is what they will be able to attract the attention of readers and viewers.
Emollient tricks conversation are also indirect information, allusions, hints, which make it clear to the addressee the true reasons for this form of expression.
Important in speech is the use counter remarks... Polite behavior in verbal communication prescribes to listen to the interlocutor's remarks to the end. However, interrupting appropriately is often seen as a signal of a cooperative strategy. The introduction of their assessments "along the way" of the partner's speech is considered a positive moment in journalism (of course, if the presenter does not constantly interrupt the guest, thereby preventing him from speaking), since it shows a high degree of emotionality of the participants in the communication, demonstrates solidarity and agreement with the opinion of the interlocutor.
Along with the above conditions that are important for a journalist to conduct a dialogue, we can name a few more, thanks to which both the emergence of a dialogue and its successful course will be ensured (these conditions stem from all the previous conversation about dialogue and its effective implementation):
1. all participants will be interested in finding a "single essence", "whole", "common meanings" of what was supposed to be an unshakable truth; will have a desire to approach high levels of values; will listen to the "truth of the Whole";
2. in a conversation "agreement is achieved without a pronounced hegemony of one voice"; individual voices are "equal to the truth";
3. there is “an attempt to understand the interlocutor, an attitude of respect for each person”;
4. each person should be seen as a person, understood as an "ensemble of relationships";
5. the conversation will be creative;
6. there will be a critical objective understanding of the various points of view of the participants in the dialogue, leading to the correct choice of a solution;
7. there will be a polemical palette of soft tones in the conversation;
8. the conversation will be interactive in nature;
9. a person will conduct an internal dialogue with himself, reflect on himself during a conversation, etc.
Failure to comply with these conditions turns the dialogue into a pseudo-dialogue, in which, according to E.S. Legova, people seem to hear each other, but do not pay attention to the arguments of the other side, they listen only to themselves, claiming that others would listen only to him. At the same time, the dialogue turns into unrelated monologues, into a cacophony of voices that do not hear each other. In journalistic activity, this is unacceptable.
Specialists working in the system of subject-subject relations should develop a thoughtfully attentive attitude to the process of their communication with people. To do this, each journalist should develop the habit of seeking and gradually developing a style of communication in which, on the basis of a stable interest in people, the desire to deeply comprehend the personal essence of each of them would be vividly manifested; build your contacts with people creatively.
1.4.3 Test questions to consolidate the material
1. What is called a monologue, dialogue, polylogue?
2. How do they differ from each other?
3. What are the features of a monologue and polylogue?
4. Give examples of monologue and polylogue?
5. Define the dialogue and decipher its essence by commenting on the features of the dialogue.
6. Tell us about each feature of the dialogue.
7. List the methods and techniques of Socratic dialogue.
8. Can they be used today in the practice of a journalist?
9. What types of dialogue do you know?
10. Tell us about the features of each type of dialogue.
11. What do you mean by "successful speech communication"?
12. What determines the "success of speech communication"?
13. What circumstances influence this?
14. List the conditions for successful verbal communication, using examples from journalistic practice.
15. What is the concept of "communicative competence"?
Your opinion:
How can a cultural atmosphere of dialogue be created?
Dialogue is one of the types of speech activity. The focus of our attention is on the study of the functioning of appeals in artistic dialogical speech, therefore it is very important to reveal the essence of the dialogue from the standpoint of communicative interaction.
Dialogue as a social and cultural phenomenon is widely considered in scientific research of recent decades. The versatility of the dialogue attracts the interest of representatives of such sciences as philosophy, sociology, psychology, semiotics, ethnology. But this phenomenon is considered most deeply and in detail in linguistics, and especially in pragmalinguistics, which deals with the analysis of specific situations of communication. The pragmatic approach takes into account such parameters of communication as the subject and addressee of speech, the goals of speech, the relationship between the participants in communication. From this point of view, dialogue is the embodiment of a complex communicative act. The difficulty lies in the fact that there are two speakers, two listeners, therefore, the interaction of intentions, emotions and assessments of partners becomes more complicated, problems of understanding, interpretation of meanings, etc. arise.
There are various definitions of the concept of dialogue. According to N.D. Arutyunova and E.V. Paducheva, it is “in dialogue that speech is embodied as an action with the entire range of communicative goals possible for it”.
Dialogue communication is an integral communicative process of exchange of thoughts, feelings, relationships, statements between partners on a common problem for them in the form of speech activity; a chain of logically and meaningfully related speech cues or statements of directly communicating people. For the implementation of dialogical speech, the participation of at least two communicants is required.
In addition, the dialogue should take into account the communicative intention, i.e. the rules for changing roles between speakers, the mutual focus of the participants in communication, which includes the orientation of the actual speaker to the listener and the orientation of the actual listener to the speaker.
H. Henne and H. Rebock interpret dialogue as "centered interaction", i.e. interaction between two communicative partners with a free change of communicative roles.
This understanding of dialogical communication draws us to the concept of interaction as the interaction of people participating in communication. Interaction is understood as "the continuous production of chains of interdependent acts built by two or more agents, each of which, on the one hand, controls, and on the other, is guided by the actions of the other." As a result, the relationship "subject - subject" is formed. Thus, the speech of two interlocutors requires their communicative actions, taking into account the rules of interaction and influence. L.M. Mikhailov calls these necessary conditions for the constitution of dialogical communication "the principles of the communicative-pragmatic organization of this form of speech." The author presents them as follows:
The principle of communicative cooperation is the most general and fundamental principle for organizing dialogue as a form of speech. Speech must be subject to certain rules of agreement, i.e. requires close communicative cooperation. In this case, the goals, motives and tasks of communication should be taken into account. The ability of the interlocutors to determine the functional types of sentences and the communicative intentions of the speaker, to distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts and to adequately respond to them, to own the metacommunicative inventory of speech and the rules of speech etiquette is of decisive importance for the observance of this principle.
The principle of influence is the consideration of dialogue as influence. This principle presupposes the existence of subject-object relations. For example, different functional types of sentences work in different ways. For example, interrogative sentences prompt an answer, and also provoke an emotional reaction, for example, resentment or unwillingness to respond.
The principle of interaction is the consideration of dialogue as interaction. This principle assumes the initial subject-subject relationship, when both interlocutors actively participate in the communication process. Interaction is a fairly broad category. It includes such processes as the impact of various objects on each other, their mutual conditionality, change of state, mutual transition, as well as the generation of one object by another. The concept of interaction is deeply connected with the concept of structure. It acts as a factor through which the parts are combined into a certain type of integrity.
N.I. Formanovskaya terminologically equates dialogue, discourse and dialogical discourse, since: "Dialogue is a dynamic, developing speech phenomenon ...". Reflecting further on the structure and functioning of the dialogue, she notes the following: “Dialogue is formed as a process and product of the speech activity of two communicants, including: a) knowledge of the speaker about the world, about the situation of communication, his opinion, attitude, intention, emotion, evaluation, etc. etc .; b) taking into account, whenever possible, such knowledge, opinions, etc .; c) focus on social roles and the status of the addressee in relation to their own indicators, etc. As a result, a complex speech work is created, reflecting the communicative event of oral contact direct communication, in which the partners verbally (or non-verbally), by changing the communicative roles of the speaker and listener in a particular situation, strive to achieve, with the help of certain strategies and tactics, the desired results - and achieve or do not reach them. "
It is customary to distinguish between a microdialogue consisting of two coordinated replicas - the so-called. dialogical unity, and macrodialogue, which finds expression in the dialogical genre: conversation, dispute, quarrel, etc. Both discursive or textual incarnations joint activities communicators, containing a lot of diverse information that deserves close attention. The language unit we are examining will be considered both in the context of microdialogue and in the context of macrodialogue.
An increasingly important personality trait is the ability to communicate effectively, objectively perceive information and respond to all changes in the surrounding world. The development of social intelligence is an important and necessary stage in the socialization of a child in the general process of mastering the experience of social life and public relations... This is due to the small life experience, the peculiarities of the development of perception, thinking, imagination, high emotionality. Playing, practicing, communicating with adults and peers, he learns to live next to others, to take into account their interests, rules, norms of behavior in society, i.e. becomes socially competent.
The relevance of the problem of studying the development of social intelligence in older preschool children is determined by the insufficient study of this problem in the psychological and pedagogical literature and its undoubted theoretical and practical significance. Such scientists as J. Guilford, N. Kantor, G. Allport, M. Sullivan and E. Thorndike, representatives of Russian psychology: M.I. Bobneva, Geranyushkina G.P., E.V. Subbotsky, O.B. Chesnokova, etc., but such an aspect as the development of social intelligence in older preschool children has been little studied. Basically, in the works of scientists, the development of social intelligence is considered on the example of schoolchildren, students, adults. Social intelligence is acquired by a child in communication and depends on diversity social relations, which are provided to him by the immediate environment. A developing environment without an active adult position aimed at translating cultural forms of relationships in human society does not carry social experience. The child's assimilation of the common human experience accumulated by previous generations occurs only in joint activities and communication with other people. Social intelligence provides an understanding of the actions and actions of people, an understanding of a person's speech production, as well as his non-verbal reactions (facial expressions, postures, gestures). Social intelligence is a factor in the social adaptation of an individual, and successful adaptation leads to a decrease in personality neurotization and an increase in personal achievements. Social intelligence allows the person himself to evaluate his own strengths and weaknesses, and is also a prerequisite for effective interpersonal interaction. It is important to understand that the development of social intelligence in older preschool children occurs in parallel with the development of intelligence as such (attention, memory, logical and creative thinking). Therefore, the level of development of social intelligence in older preschool children also depends on their curiosity, ability to think logically, criticality and breadth of thinking, depth and flexibility of mind.
The development of social intelligence in older preschool children is naturally associated with the learning process, the nature of which is aimed at the development and self-development of the subject in the process of active cognition of the surrounding reality. Hence, the main mechanism of developmental learning is dialogue. Dialogue situations are classified as follows: teacher-child, child-child, child-group of children, child-parents. Dialogue in the learning process creates conditions for the manifestation of the cognitive activity of children. It is in the dialogue that the child expresses his opinion, his point of view, which are listened to and accepted by the teacher.
The main method of working with children in the classroom was the method of communication, which proceeds as an active interpersonal interaction of children with each other and with an adult. The communication method underlies the problem-dialogical technology. The word "dialogical" means that the formulation of a psychological and pedagogical problem and the search for its solution is carried out by the children themselves in the course of a specially organized dialogue. The dialogue leading up to the discovery of new knowledge at the beginning of the lesson makes the children think about how to get out of a difficult situation together, if they really want to know or do something, but they do not know and do not know how. The next dialogue, which encourages the advancement and testing of hypotheses, allows us to vary the forms of learning (frontal, group, paired, individual). It is very important to correctly organize the work of children while performing communication tasks. It is necessary to strive to ensure that each child is active, participates in a dialogue, and acts out speech situations. The ability to work in a group (to coordinate their actions with all participants in achieving a common educational goal, the ability to negotiate, come to a common opinion, etc.) must be developed.
The kindergarten program provides for the teaching of dialogical speech. Work on the development of dialogical speech is aimed at developing the skills necessary for communication.
Dialogue is a complex form of social interaction. Participating in dialogue is sometimes more difficult than constructing a monologue. Thinking over your remarks, questions occurs simultaneously with the perception of someone else's speech. Participation in a dialogue requires complex skills: listening and correctly understanding the thought expressed by the interlocutor; formulate your own judgment in response, correctly express it by means of language; change the topic of speech interaction following the thoughts of the interlocutor; maintain a certain emotional tone; monitor the correctness of the linguistic form in which thoughts are clothed; listen to your speech in order to control its normativeness and, if necessary, make appropriate changes and amendments.
Development dialogical form communication plays a leading role in the development of the child's social intelligence and occupies a central place in the general system of work on the development of speech in kindergarten... And also teaching dialogue can be considered both as a goal and as the development of social intelligence in older preschool children. Mastering different sides speech is a necessary condition for the development of dialogical speech, and at the same time, the development of dialogical speech contributes to the child's independent use of individual words and syntactic structures. Coherent speech incorporates all the child's achievements in mastering the native language, its sound structure, vocabulary, and grammatical structure.
Children six to seven years old should be taught to answer the questions posed more accurately; they must learn to combine the short answers of their peers in a common answer.
Teaching children the ability to conduct a dialogue, to participate in a conversation is always combined with the education of the skills of cultural behavior: to listen carefully to the speaker, not to be distracted, not to interrupt the interlocutor.
However, educators should remember that for a preschool child, mastering dialogical speech is of paramount importance - a necessary condition for full social development child. Developed dialogue allows the child to easily get in touch with both adults and peers. Children achieve great success in the development of dialogical speech in conditions of social well-being, which implies that the adults around them (primarily the family) treat them with a feeling of love and respect, and also when adults reckon with the child, sensitively listening to his opinion and interests , needs, etc., when adults not only speak for themselves, but also know how to listen to their child, taking the position of a tactful interlocutor.
Some of the pupils are senior and preparatory groups in independent utterances, the number of verbs noticeably increases in comparison with the fifth year of life. Under certain conditions, for example, if children like to look at illustrations or pictures together with adults or peers, this can improve the use of speech. And the point is not only that other parts of speech are easily grouped around the verb, as an active part of speech, which naturally complicates the grammatical structure. With the help of verbs, children often characterize actions, express their attitude towards people. Children 5-7 years old, who use a sufficient number of verbs in independent statements, find it easier to conjecture the plot, i.e. highlight hidden connections, express value judgments.
Bibliography
1. Arushanova A. Organization of dialogical communication between preschoolers and peers / Arushanova A. - Preschool education, 2001. - No. 5. - with. 52.
2. Babaeva T.I., Gogoberidze A.G. and others. Childhood. Approximate basic general educational program of preschool education / T. I. Babaeva, A. G. Gogoberidze and others - SP .: LLC CHILDHOOD PRESS PUBLISHING HOUSE, 2011. - 528p.
3. Korotkova E.L. Ensuring speech practice with the interrelation of work on the development of dialogical and monologic speech // Reader on the theory and methodology of speech development in preschool children / Comp. M. M. Alekseeva. - M .: Academy, 1999 .-- p. 201.
There is a polished "technology" of dialogue for centuries, in the structure of which it is customary to distinguish five stages: beginning, transfer of information, argumentation, refutation of the interlocutor's arguments, decision-making. Practice shows that the success of the entire dialogue and each of its stages largely depends on how well thought-out they are from a psychological point of view. In this aspect, we will briefly consider the methodology for carrying out the named stages, we will show their features in relation to school education.
1. Beginning of a dialogue. Do we know how to start a conversation?
There are many ways to start a dialogue. Each person has several tried and tested methods in their experience that correspond to their role in life.
Tension relief method. It allows you to shorten the distance of alienation. Say a few warm words to the interlocutor, make him an indirect compliment (a direct compliment can be regarded as flattery, so it is preferable to praise not the person himself, but, for example, the product of his work), attract some kind of joke. If possible, show off your wit. It is necessary to avoid any manifestations of disrespect, disregard for the interlocutor, like. "I'm running out of time, let's take a quick look." From the very first phrases, you should not force the interlocutor to take a defensive position.
At the lesson, for example, at the beginning of the lesson, you can note: "I see from the inspired faces that you are well prepared today!" or "I am always pleased to communicate with you!".
2. Transfer of information in the dialogue. The goals of this part of the dialogue are: to transfer the planned information, to identify the motives of the opposite side, to check the position of the interlocutor, as well as to preliminary forecast his further actions. To achieve success in this stage of the dialogue, it is necessary to master the technique of posing questions and developed listening techniques that require tact and concentration. The latter in the dialogue between the teacher and the students is also important because one of the parties has a higher status, so the teacher should not allow the pressure of his authority on the communication partner. The influence of authority can lead to incomplete presentation of thoughts and information to students, since they may be ashamed of the banality of their questions and conclusions, or consider that the teacher knows what is being stated.
Rarely are there people who, from start to finish, are able to clearly and clearly state their thoughts. Hence, in dialogue, even with a developed ability to listen, it is impossible to evade asking questions. The centuries-old history of communication and rhetoric have developed their own methods of conducting dialogue communication in the process of education in higher education. Let's take a look at some of them.
Conducting "Socratic" conversations. For example, ask a child audience the question, "Can food be salted?" You will immediately receive an answer - some will say "Yes", others - "No". This is not a Socratic discourse. Socrates said: "The fool gives the answer, and the sage seeks the truth." Therefore, one should not strive to immediately give an answer, but try to reflect, asking more and more new questions. After such information, presented to the children as a joke, questions will sprinkle: why is food salted? for whom is food salted? do i need to salt food for animals? Do all people salt their food? Why do we need salt in our food? etc. After that, you can proceed to solving educational problems in the subject. For example, in a physics lesson: will a candle burn in an artificial Earth satellite? Students no longer immediately give an answer, but try to reflect: under what conditions is combustion carried out? What else is needed besides oxygen? will it go to a burning candle? Under what conditions can he apply? etc.
For Socrates' (heuristic) conversation, it is characteristic that the teacher feels like a kind of generalized person and conducts classes, asks questions, not really revealing his opinion, but only in every possible way encouraging, like Socrates, his students to search. Then the students themselves are drawn into the search, clarify the teacher's question with their questions and at the same time listen: does the desired answer sound already in them? If the question is asked by the teacher correctly, then the students, trying to find the answer, expand the very scope of the question.
Close in purpose to the Socratic conversation are heuristic methods of activating creative thinking. The need for effective techniques and methods of activating creative thinking has arisen a long time ago. The effectiveness of any professional activity is determined not only by the level of knowledge and experience of a specialist (a necessary condition), but also by the richness of imagination, the development of imagination, the ability to abstract, “to see the unusual in the ordinary and the ordinary in the unusual”. “Imagination,” according to A. Einstein, “is more important than knowledge, because knowledge is limited. Imagination, however, embraces everything in the world, stimulates progress and is the source of its evolution.” Imagination (fantasy) is a mental process that consists in creating images based on the processing of past perceptions.
The development of these qualities in schoolchildren is an important factor in overcoming the inertia of thinking and accelerating the search for solutions to the assigned tasks. For this purpose, various heuristic techniques are used in the form of associations, analogies, control questions, techniques for eliminating various contradictions. Let's consider the most common techniques for enhancing creative thinking and eliminating contradictions.
The use of interactive learning technology based on the phenomenon of interaction (from English, interaction - interaction, impact on each other). In the learning process, there is interpersonal cognitive communication and interaction of all its subjects. The development of the individuality of each student and the upbringing of his personality occurs in situations of communication and interaction of people with each other. An adequate, from the point of view of the supporters of this concept, and the most frequently used model of such situations is the educational game. Psychologists and teachers have studied the educational possibilities of the game used in the learning process: games provide the teacher with opportunities related to the reproduction of learning outcomes (knowledge, skills and abilities), their application, practice and training, taking into account individual differences, involving students in the game with different levels training. At the same time, games have the potential for significant emotional and personal impact, the formation of communication skills and abilities, value relationships. Therefore, the use of educational games contributes to the development of the individual and personal qualities of the student. The use of interactive learning technology allows you to combine the activities of each student (a whole system of interactions arises: teacher - student, teacher - study group, student - study group, student - student, group - group), to link his educational activities and interpersonal cognitive communication.
"Brain attack". The brainstorming method is widely used for the systematic training of creative thinking and its activation. It is known that criticism or even fear of criticism interferes with creative thinking. Of course, any new idea may not be correct. If the author is afraid of criticism, which may be caused by the fact that his idea is bad, he will not express unverified thoughts. In this case, many potentially good ideas will be lost. In order to eliminate the fear of criticism when generating an idea and the consequences it causes, A. Osborne developed a method of the so-called "brainstorming". His book Applied Imagination, published in 1957, was adopted as the basis for lecture courses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as in other US institutions of higher education, colleges, research institutes and industrial companies.
The method proposed by A. Osborne is used to identify as many original ideas as possible. In essence, it is a modified method of free association. The emphasis is on relaxing the focus on critical appraisal of the value of individual ideas. It is not their quality that matters, but the quantity. Criticism of the ideas put forward is made later, after the "creative session" is over.
The basic rules for conducting brainstorming sessions are recommended:
1. Formulate the problem in basic terms, highlight a single central point.
2. Do not declare false and do not stop researching any idea.
3. Pick up an idea of any kind, even if its relevance seems questionable at the time.
4. Provide the support and encouragement needed to release participants from their constraints.
5. Conduct the assessment and selection of ideas only after the end of the lesson with the help of a group of experts, preferably not involved in the brainstorming.
Thus, the essence of the method is reduced to the prohibition to criticize any idea, no matter how "wild" it may seem. Participants can combine or improve ideas suggested by others. This method can be applied at any stage of creativity: at first, when the task has not yet been finally determined, and later, when it is formulated and the ways and means of its solution are outlined. The success of a brainstorming lesson largely depends on its leader, who must be able to conduct the lesson in accordance with certain rules, master the necessary techniques, be able to ask questions, prompt or clarify ideas submitted, make sure that there are no big pauses in the expression of ideas or so that the expression of ideas does not occur only in a rational direction (if this happens, the leader must take preventive measures, for example, suggest a deliberately fantastic or impractical idea, leading the question to direct the reasoning along a less rational channel).
The allowed number of participants in a brainstorming session is from 4 to 15 people. The duration of the exercise is from 15 minutes to 1 hour, depending on the nature and complexity of the problem. To record the ideas expressed, a secretary is allocated or a tape recorder is used. The group of experts carefully examines the statements of the participants, paying special attention to the possibility of using original, although, at first glance, unrealistic ideas. Experts first select ideas that can be implemented at a given level of development of the studied area, then from them they select the best ideas for application in specific conditions.
Test questions as techniques for enhancing creative thinking. Checklists (for example, on inventive creativity) have been known since the 1920s. They contain both special questions (for solving general and specific problems) and of a general nature (for training the imagination and psychological activation of thinking). In technical creativity, test questions are usually used as heuristics to facilitate the search for new technical solutions.
Test questions are used both in individual creativity and in collective problem solving. For example, in the form of a series of questions posed by the direct brainstorming leader to members of the "idea generation" group. The most widespread in the literature on technical creativity are the lists of control questions by A. Osborne, T. Eschuart, D. Poya. Here is a list of questions compiled by T. Eiloart, but modified by the authors for the learning process in higher education:
1. List all the qualities and definitions of the studied phenomenon, process, object.
2. Formulate tasks clearly, look for new formulations, identify secondary and similar tasks, highlight the main ones.
3. List the shortcomings of existing solutions, their basic principles, new assumptions of solutions.
4. Draw fantastic, biological, economic, social, legal and other analogies.
5. Build verbal, virtual, mathematical, mechanical and other models (models more accurately express an idea than an analogy).
6. Consider different situations various applications the studied object (process, etc.), transition states, conditions, effects, principles of application, etc.
7. Establish solutions, dependencies, possible connections, logical matches.
8. Find out the opinions of some completely ignorant people in this case.
9. Have a group discussion, listen to each idea without criticism.
10. Find gaps in solutions or new combinations.
11. Determine the ideal solution, develop a possible one.
12. Modify solutions to the problem in terms of time (rather, slower), size, etc.
13. Identify alternative problems and systems that remove a particular link from the chain and thus create something completely different, sidetracking from the desired solution.
14. Find out whose problem it is? Why him? Who came up with this first? History of the issue. What are the misinterpretations of this problem? Who else solved this problem? What has he accomplished?
15. Find the generally accepted boundary conditions and the reasons for setting them.
The above methods and techniques for activating students in dialogue are aimed at developing their both intellectual and special abilities. Now let us summarize the results of this stage of the dialogue.
It is advisable to convey information to the interlocutor visually, for example, graphically. This method includes not only the auditory, but also the visual perception channel. Point to the source of the information. By doing this, you will establish the degree of its reliability, which will exclude the emergence of all kinds of rumors and misinterpretation of what was heard. Be sure to submit information in a language understandable to the interlocutor, otherwise it may not be perceived by them. Observe the reactions of the interlocutor. Try to establish his characterological type (phlegmatic, choleric, sanguine ...) and the motives of behavior (for the sake of knowledge, assessment, recognition of authority, knowledge ...). This will allow you to adjust the way information is transmitted and choose adequate ways of persuasion in the subsequent stages of the dialogue. Combine types of questions. Strive to bring their setting in accordance with the motives and awareness of the interlocutor. Maximize your interest in getting information from you. Use epithets and terms based on the experience of the listener.
3. Argumentation in the dialogue. Modern education increasingly uses active teaching methods, including play, dialogue and discussion forms. Their use requires the teacher to thoroughly prepare for classes and intellectual tension in their conduct. In general, the awareness of students, which has increased over the past decades, no longer allows for declarative presentation, and the level of their self-awareness does not allow for an authoritarian style of communicative interaction. In discussion-dialogue training, the teacher must be fluent in the strategy and tactics of persuasion. Strong argumentation in the dialogue begins to play a leading role. At this stage, a confrontation of opinions occurs, personal qualities partners, the strengths and weaknesses of the interlocutors are mutually evaluated, illusions collapse or, on the contrary, their own positions are strengthened.
Argumentation requires partners to focus on the subject of the conversation, assertiveness and correctness in their statements. The goals of this stage are: to change the opinion already formed by the opposite side or to consolidate it; to mitigate the contradictions outlined before the dialogue; critically check the statements and facts stated by the interlocutor. A complete solution to the problem under discussion is possible, when the position of the interlocutor changes to the diametrically opposite, that is, his "no" turns into "yes" or, accordingly, "yes" into "no". Achieving this result requires a lot of effort and strong arguments. A partial solution is possible when a pronounced position of the interlocutor is "never!" is reduced to a compromise position "not yet" or "maybe", and sometimes the compromise position "maybe" turns into a firm position "yes (no)".
Let's move on to the practical methods of conducting a conversation, which have been honed in rhetoric for centuries and have not lost their relevance today. Dialogue at the stage of argumentation can be realized in two constructions: in evidence, when something is required to substantiate, and in counter-argument, when the theses of the opposite side are refuted. In real conversation, they turn out to be so organically woven into each other that it is very difficult to distinguish between them. The same methods apply for both designs.
The fundamental method is to substantiate arguments with indisputable facts and information. In this sense, the digital material cited, the exact dates of events and official facts are compelling arguments. The inference extraction method is based on the logical validity of the evidence, when a chain of reasoning is built step by step leading to the required result. This method can only be used with impeccable logical thinking. The comparison method makes it possible to seize the initiative in the dialogue and go on the offensive.
Method "yes - but". If the interlocutor makes well-constructed arguments, covering only the advantages or disadvantages of a phenomenon one-sidedly, it is easy to apply this method, since nothing in physical, biological or social nature consists of advantages or disadvantages alone. Calmly agreeing with the speaker's arguments, you can go over to the counteroffensive. An indispensable condition for success is an excellent awareness of the opponent in the issue. The chunk method consists in dismembering the interlocutor's speech in such a way that its individual parts are clearly distinguishable: completely reliable facts, controversial positions and erroneous views. In this case, it is advisable not to touch on strong arguments, but to focus on the weaknesses of speech and try to refute them.
The method of identifying contradictions is based on a thorough analysis of the statements of the interlocutor, if a counter-argument is being prepared. If one of the partners in the dialogue is going to prove something himself, then the contradictions are revealed in a preliminary mental dispute with himself. In terms of its tactics, this method in both cases is not offensive, but defensive. The survey method consists of posing carefully and pre-thought questions about the topic of the conversation. The method is applicable when the subject of the dialogue is known. It was successfully used by Zeno of Elea in ancient times. The tactic is to make the interlocutor contradict himself by building a battery of questions - the "striking force" of the dialogue.
Try to present the most compelling arguments with repetitions, but each time in a new aspect. Although the repetitive interlocutor is considered an obnoxious chatterbox, he must create an attitude in the partner for the perception of the thought being expressed. This technique is more powerful than meets the eye.
Argumentation is the most intense part of the dialogue. It is at this stage that emotional breakdowns on both sides are most likely, especially in cases where there is a lack of coherent evidence. Feeling the heating atmosphere of dialogue, just like in a sports game, you need to take a time-out to cool the ardor of your partners. And after a while, coolly return to the same question.
Any escalation in the dialogue should be avoided. Emotional incontinence is the very fly in the ointment that spoils the best work.
Try to reinforce one proof with another as often as possible, link one fact to another, but do not allow contradictions in your arguments. The bare facts themselves, given as arguments, have little effect on the partner, because he has to independently link them into a logical chain and make a mental conclusion. And this requires intellectual expenditures, which not everyone can afford. Therefore, it is tactically justified for the greater persuasiveness of the arguments presented to offer them together with the conclusions following from them. In other words, you need to create an attitude in the interlocutor for the conclusions and conclusions you want. This tactical technique is advisable when convincing opponents in the person of trainees who have not reached adulthood in that age period when their logical thinking has not yet been fully formed. But this tactical technique can misfire with the high intellectual potential of the interlocutor.
We examined the tactics and techniques of argumentation. In order not to fail at this stage of the dialogue, in order to convince or at least change the position of the interlocutor, you need to adhere to several rules formed by practice. Use rhetorical methods when arguing. Using speculative techniques can put you in an awkward position. Use simple and precise terms. Otherwise, persuasiveness can be drowned in a sea of words. Arguments and facts should be reliable and easily verifiable, and even better - generally known. Choose the pace and methods of argumentation, taking into account the temperament of the interlocutor. Accurately and timely placed logical stresses and pauses have a greater impact than the flow of words. You cannot speak with a slowed-down interlocutor at an allegro or presto pace. The most convincing arguments will remain for the opposite side beyond the threshold of his speech perception. And on the contrary: verbal chewing gum will alienate the interlocutor with a high rate of reactions, he will get bored and offer to end the dialogue. Present evidence as clearly as possible. The old truth is known: it is better to see once than hear a hundred times. An example of a complete assimilation of this proverb is a book with many drawings that significantly increase the effect of argumentation. The argumentation should not be declarative and look like a monologue of the protagonist; it is necessary to constantly check the impact of the arguments with cross-cutting questions to control the perception and understanding of the interlocutor. Any given epithets and comparisons
must be based on the experience of the listener, otherwise the interlocutor will not understand the meaning due to ignorance of the connection between the compared phenomena.
4. Neutralization of objections in the dialogue. The purpose of this stage is to dispel the other person's doubts about our arguments and increase the credibility of our arguments. No dialogue goes without mutual questions and comments. This is quite natural and testifies to the active attitude of the interlocutor to the subject of the conversation: he follows our thoughts, analyzes the arguments and carefully prepares his arguments.
It is worse when the feedback is eliminated in the dialogue by the silence of the interlocutor. An opponent without comments is a person without an opinion of his own. Such a person is completely indifferent to our point of view, since he either completely rejects it and is silent, fearing to spoil relations with us, or unconditionally accepts our position. The latter means that the interlocutor with the same ease can incline to another, strictly opposite opinion. For such interlocutors, it is not the content of the conversation that is decisive, but its external expressive, emotional side; not the persuasiveness of the arguments, but the authority and social status of the speaker ("Foma Fomich himself said so!"). If objections arise, then the question arises: what are the most common reasons pushing the interlocutor in the dialogue to these comments and objections? There can be many substantive reasons, but we will consider them from the point of view of our role-playing behavior.
Role playing. Each person can take on different roles depending on the situation. The behavior of a person in a conversation is very individual, because each person, being in a social environment, assumes some role and plays it, based on the expectations of society in relation to him. The same thing happens in dialogue. The interlocutor in a conversation is not always "real". The roles he plays in different situations come from: either from his own ideas of what he should be at the present time; either from aspirations, as he wants to see himself (to seem different); either out of nostalgia for what he once was (if his past social status was very satisfying). Therefore, any comment and remark from our side about the reasoning of the interlocutor have a response corresponding to the role he has chosen.
Let us assume that the partner in the dialogue has taken the content-role position of the "critic" and believes that he is in an exceptional position. This allows him to make mentoring remarks, to be strict in his assessments, to interrupt his partner. But the situation has changed. Other persons who were more aware of the issue joined the dialogue, and the conversation took the form of a discussion. Our interlocutor changed his role. He may behave like a “consumer,” not generating ideas in group work, but accepting what others have to say. Or it can become a "skeptic", disagreeing with anything, unconstructively criticizing. On his part, the position of a "problematizer" is possible, who does not calm down in reaching the truth, every time he turns the discussion at an acute angle. From a psychological point of view, all this is normal, because a person seeks to behave "correctly", that is, adequately to his role position.
Opposition as a reason is encountered when the interlocutor has a persistent opinion of his own, based on his life ideas, stereotypes, personal experience and the inertia of his thinking. A situational reason is also possible, associated with the failure to take into account the characterological characteristics of the dialogue partner. For example, persons of a demonstrative type are overwhelmed by the desire to take possession of the interlocutor's disposition, to arouse his admiration for themselves and for this they are ready for the most extravagant actions. If all the means of influencing the partner have been exhausted and they did not manage to be in the spotlight, their behavior can turn into tacit aggressiveness, unreasonable denial of reasonable positions and even affective outbursts.
When preparing for a dialogue, it is advisable to weigh the personality of the interlocutor, inquiring in advance about his positions, views, tastes. This helps to knowingly prepare for the expected objections on his part and correctly respond to his specific habits and behavior. It is even more important to choose the right time and tone to neutralize comments. In other words, it is necessary to correctly calculate when and how to parry the interlocutor's objections.
In the dialogue, you can encounter various comments from the partner. How to respond to comments of a different nature, how to neutralize them and return the conversation to the direction we need? The most acceptable method for normal situations in irresponsible dialogues is to react immediately. If it is possible to predict the question of the interlocutor with a high probability, then it is better to pre-empt this question with a prepared answer. In this way, we will avoid unnecessary contradictions, reduce the risk of a quarrel in the conversation, and ourselves will choose the most appropriate moment for an answer.
The postponement with the answer is resorted to, wishing to reduce the negative impact of the remark, because it has the property of losing force during the dialogue. It may even happen that due to the postponement of the solution of the question that has arisen, there will be no need to answer it at all, since it will be decided by itself. This method is usually used by leaders of the ritual management style.
Thus, the neutralization of remarks in time can be divided: into immediate responses, prepared in advance, delayed and unmeasured responses. The choice of a specific time tactics will be prompted by the very situation of the dialogue. Methods for neutralizing objections can have a variety of nuances depending on the characterological characteristics of the partners and the situation developing in the dialogue.
5. Making a decision and ending the dialogue. It would be a mistake to think that the denouement of the dialogue comes by itself or that it can be interrupted at any moment. In everyday conversation, this does not threaten complications. The spontaneous end of a business conversation or its termination at the inopportune moment means that the goal of at least one of the parties has not been achieved, and this can lead to mutual inconsistency of actions and even a break in relations.
Any dialogue pursues the ultimate goal - to stimulate our interlocutor to carry out jointly planned actions, or to convince the interlocutor to accept our arguments. Therefore, the end of the conversation should impress the partner. At the end, a single, basic thought should prevail. It should be highlighted and presented clearly and convincingly. Everything that was said in the previous stages of the dialogue is subject to this basic idea.
At the final stage of the dialogue, one should not allow the interlocutor to have confused ideas about the meaning of the conversation. In the conclusion there is no place for unnecessary words, it is unacceptable to be vague and indefinite. decisions taken
There are direct and indirect acceleration methods. The first is short but ethically awkward. For example, a head-on question: "What do you want from me?" involves summing up the final line, but at the same time puts the interlocutor in the position of a person who takes our time and is not able to formulate his thought. The indirect acceleration method is more delicate, but technologically difficult. There are four known techniques developed by the practice of business conversations,
A step-by-step approach consists in the systematic preparation of the interlocutor for the conclusion or decision we need. It is psychologically based on suggestion (on the suggestive perception of the interlocutor). It is always easier for any person to partially agree (everyone has pride!) Than to radically change their point of view.
The end of a conversation, as well as its beginning, requires attention. The fact that the interlocutor does not show signs of readiness to make decisions is not a reason not to watch him closely. Watch your partner's facial expressions! Without any good reason, no one spontaneously changes his mind. It is important to catch that psychologically convenient moment when the interlocutor is ready to move to the final stage of the conversation and push him to a decision. If during the whole dialogue it was possible to create a friendly atmosphere, if the conversation proceeded without any particular deviations from the topic, if the opposite side received completely satisfactory answers to all questions and comments, the partner himself can bring the ending of the conversation closer.
People remember the end of a conversation best. In the stages of dialogue preceding it, one thing is superimposed on another: word for word, one thought interrupts another. The finale, however, firmly settles in the memory, so the end of the conversation should be separated by speech patterns such as: "Let's summarize," "So, at the end of the conversation, we came to the conclusion ...?" This should be done confidently, without undue tension.
Any dialogue that has taken place, be it successful, and even more unsuccessful, should be analyzed from the point of view of your behavior in it. This work seems useless only at first glance. After a game played, chess players often analyze their moves, look for missed chances of winning and lose more and more new variations. Likewise, analyzing mistakes in a completed conversation makes it possible to avoid them in the future.
State educational institution of higher vocational education
“Arzamas State Pedagogical Institute named after A.P. Gaidar "
Department of Psychology
Dialogue communication
Completed:
2nd year student specialty psychology, group 21
Shcheulov Nikita Aleksandrovich Head:
Arzamas, 2010.
Introduction. 3
1. Dialogue as primary form speech communication.
Dialogue (from Greek conversation, conversation) is a form of speech, consisting of a regular exchange of utterances-replicas, the linguistic composition of which is mutually influenced by the direct perception of the speech activity of the speakers. The main unit of dialogue is dialogical unity - the semantic (thematic) union of several replicas, which is an exchange of opinions, statements, each subsequent of which depends on the previous one.
Dialogic unity is ensured by the connection of various kinds of remarks (formulas of speech etiquette, question - answer, addition, narration, dissemination, agreement - disagreement). In some cases, dialogical unity can exist due to remarks that reveal a reaction not to the previous remark of the interlocutor, but to the general situation of speech.
Three types of interaction of dialogue participants are distinguished: dependence, cooperation, equality
Any dialogue has its own structure: the beginning - the main part - the ending. The origin can be the formula of speech etiquette (Good afternoon, Nikolai Ivanovich!) Or the first replica-question (What time is it now?), Or a replica-judgment (Good weather today). It should be noted that the dimensions of the dialogue are theoretically unlimited, since its lower boundary can be open: the continuation of almost any dialogue is possible due to the increase in its constituent dialogical unity. In practice, any dialogue has its own ending (speech etiquette replica (Bye!), Consent replica (Yes, of course!) Or response replica).
Dialogue is considered as the primary, natural form of verbal communication, therefore, as a form of speech, it received its greatest distribution in the sphere of colloquial speech, however, dialogue is also represented in scientific, journalistic, and official business speech.
Interpersonal dialogue is the highest level of communication and the main goal of preparing for communication
Among the numerous approaches to disclosing the content side of interpersonal communication and its typology, it is necessary to choose one that
- relies on the humanitarian paradigm, placing the personality and its relationship with the world at the center of the analysis of communication;
- does not ignore the ethical side of IO;
- allows you to understand MO as a way of existence (manifestation) and a factor in the development of personality;
- uses the personal component as the basis of the ML typology;
- possesses a sufficiently heuristic potential and the possibility of operationalizing the initial concepts of souls of use both in the development of a training program and for the creation of diagnostic tools.
From our point of view, to the greatest extent the specified requirements meet the concept of dialogue by M. M. Bakhtin .
In the work of M.M. Bakhtin (who was also published in the 1920s and 1930s under the names of V.N. Voloshinov and P.N. Medvedev), an outstanding Soviet philosopher and philologist, the problem of dialogue occupies a special place. Whatever issues a scientist is engaged in - developing a methodology humanities or by analyzing the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, studying the "philosophy of language" or theoretical problems of aesthetics, describing "carnival culture" or literary genres - literally all of his works are permeated with the idea and "spirit" of dialogue, he returns to dialogue again and again, examining it from new sides, revealing new facets. And this is not just a manifestation of the author's personal bias - it is a consequence of his theoretical position, according to which "dialogical relations are ... an almost universal phenomenon that permeates ... all relations and manifestations of human life, in general, everything that has meaning and significance" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 56 /. M.M. Bakhtin analyzed various (but interrelated) levels and forms of manifestation of this "universal phenomenon", which can be conventionally designated as:
- dialogue in speech- the simplest, "external" form of dialogical relations, relations between replicas in a conversation, one of the compositional forms of speech / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p.300, 303 /;
- dialogue as a literary genre("Socratic dialogue", "Menippean satire", etc. / Bakhtin MM, 1963 /);
- dialogue in the word- "internal dialogicity of the word, which does not accept external-compositional odds", but consists in the subject orientation of each "living" word in the "already said" and in the "attitude towards the answer" / Bakhtin M.M., 1975, p.92- 93 /;
- dialogue in thinking- dialectics, "purely logical" relations / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p. 300, 339 /;
- dialogue in art- the aesthetic principles of the artistic image of a person, for example, "Dostoevsky's dialogism" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963 ; 29 /;
- dialogue of cultures, traditions, sometimes turning into an "unintentional dialogue" of points of view, "who do not know anything about each other" / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p.293, 296 /;
- dialogue in the mind- "dialogized internal monologue" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p.100 /, "dialogue with oneself", which "has a secondary and in most cases played out" / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 296 /;
- interpersonal dialogue- direct dialogue of living people, "dialogue at the highest level", where "meet holistic positions, holistic personalities "," dialogue of personalities "/ ibid, p.300, 364 /.
Ignoring the versatility and diversity of the phenomena of dialogue and the levels of its study does not allow to adequately understand the concept of M.M. Bakhtin, leads to confusion when comparing the positions of different authors based on his work, but designating the term "dialogue" different realities (compare, for example, understanding dialogue B.C. Bibler, I.I. Vasilyeva, G.M. Kuchinsky, Yu.M. Lotman, L.A. Radzikhovsky, A.U. Kharash and etc.). We will be interested first of all personal, the highest level of dialogue (although to understand it, we will sometimes "descend" to other levels), which, in order to distinguish b it from the rest, in what follows we will denote by the term interpersonal dialogue(MD). In addition, we will use a number of derived concepts:
- dialogicality(personality trait),
- dialogism(characteristics of the communication process and other social processes),
- dialogist(an individual who consciously and consistently strives for dialogue),
- dialogization communication (saturation with elements of dialogue).
In the concept of MM Bakhtin, dialogue is opposed by the concept of "monologue"; to describe it (at the highest level), we will use the concepts interpersonal monologue(MM) (the logical inconsistency of this term corresponds to the ontological inconsistency of the phenomenon it denotes, which will be shown below), monologue , monologism , monologue .
How does M.M. Bakhtin characterize the main features of interpersonal dialogue and monologue?
MD, go to M.M. Bakhtin, is distinguished primarily by a special kind relations between personalities in the process of their interaction - relations that "cannot be reduced to either purely logical (even dialectical) or purely linguistic" or psychological / Bakhtin M.M., 1979 , p. 296,303 /. Dialogue relationship- this is the relationship between "equal and equivalent consciousnesses", while the monologue will be based on "denial of equality" / ibid, p. 309 /. That is, the division of communication into MD and MM is based on the method of mutual orientation of those communicating with respect to each other, the ratio of value-semantic positions of the individuals entering into communication. These positions are based on ethical, more broadly - worldview principles, which, in turn, "are determined by the attitude to another consciousness" / ibid., P. 311 /. The "dialogical attitude" leads to the "dialogical position", the most important characteristic of which is equitable attitude in communication; to a monologue position - a monologue attitude that denies this equality; when dialogical positions (dialogists) meet, a full-fledged MD will take place, and when monologic positions meet, MM will take place.
We especially note that equality here should not be understood as the sameness, identity of "I" and "other". On the contrary, M.M. Bakhtin in every possible way emphasized the essential, even essential opposition of the experience of one's subjectivity ("I-for-myself") and the subjectivity of the other ("the other-for-me") (see: / ibid. , P.22-121 /). Moreover, the "other" has the ability to carry out functions that are fundamentally inaccessible to the "I" - due to the initial social nature of the psychic being, it is the "other", his view (assessment, opinion) "from the outside" gives my "I" objectivity, complements the personality "to whole ". I can only observe myself directly "from within"; "outside" myself initially it is possible to see only indirectly - with the eyes another (here, by the way, M.M. Bakhtin develops well-known ideas K. Marx about Peter and Paul in the role of a "mirror" / K. Marx, F. Engels, v.23, p.62 /). But in the future, after the formation of a person's self-consciousness and the formation of his "I", the role of the "other" turns out to be extremely important and irreplaceable: from "possession" of information about the world from my own chronotope that is inaccessible to me to the possibility of confirming my identity and value - that " just another from his only place outside I can be realized "/ Bakhtin MM, 1979, p. 47 /.
In other words, the whole life of a person, all social being of a person turns out to be basically dialogical. However, this is "in principle", in theory. In reality, in order for Paul to become a "mirror" for Peter, the latter must at least look into it and strive to see his, Paul's, point of view. In order for the "other" to fulfill his role, he must take for me , in my mind, "the authoritative value position is outside of me ..., I must become value outside of my life and perceive myself as another among others" - that is, I must "bring myself under a common norm with another (in morality, in law) / ibid, p.54 /. The idea of M.M. Bakhtin is that precisely because the "other" is radically different from the "I" and is fundamentally unremovable from social life, that is why it is necessary to recognize equal rights "I" and "other" in relation to truth, to recognize his point of view as "equal" to his own and substantially complementing it. This is what the dialogist does, taking an equal position in communication, and, on the one hand, thus gets the opportunity for full-fledged existence, for self-confirmation and self-development, on the other hand, he himself becomes “different” for the interlocutor, a condition for his existence and development.
The monologue seeks to do without the "other" as other being different from him (look, point of view, etc.). But it’s impossible to do without “the other” completely (even when I look in a real mirror, I see myself “with my own and someone else’s eyes at the same time” / ibid., P. 314 /) - and the monologue (often without noticing it himself) puts " another "... most myself , his point of view (more precisely - the one with which he agrees), considering it the only possible, correct and sufficient, or completely deprives the "other" of any contentfulness, reducing to an extremely emasculated, unrequited abstraction - and "... the other entirely remains only object consciousness, and not another consciousness "/ ibid, p. 318 /. Thus, the monologue not only does not perform the function of" another "in relation to the interlocutor, but he himself loses his life-giving influence:" separation, separation, closure in oneself as the main the reason for the loss of oneself "/ ibid, p. 311 /. The dialogueist is open to a diverse, complex and contradictory" plurality of equal consciousnesses with their worlds "; the monologue is locked in the shell of only his own," monologically perceived and understood world "/ Bakhtin M.M. ., 1963, p. 8 /.
The concept of M.M. Bakhtin is distinguished by a high moral pathos, a desire to follow the principles of humanism, respect for man and faith in him. Hence the constant protest against any form of humiliation and denial of "human in man", any manifestation of inequality. However, for M.M. Bakhtin, the requirement of equality, “equal worth” of the communicating parties is not just an abstract ethical imperative, this requirement is based not only on the principles of humanism, but also on the understanding of “non-self-sufficiency, the impossibility of the existence of one consciousness,” the understanding that a person becomes himself, only "revealing himself to another, through another and with the help of another" / ibid, p. 311 /, as well as the fact that this person performs the same function in relation to the "other".
But there is one more, no less important reason why the constitutive characteristic of MD is precisely the equality and symmetry of the positions of the people entering into communication. This is a fundamental impossibility achieving a truly personal level of communication in a different way: a person cannot be "spied on, determined and predicted" against his will, "in absentia", "the true life of a person is only available to dialogical penetration into it, to which she responsibly and freely reveals herself" / ibid, with .79 /. A monologue, although it can take place "in the presence" of another person, will never rise to a truly personal level of communication precisely because it is built on the inequality of positions, the asymmetry of relations. The monologue builds MO, proceeding from himself, ignoring the other as an equal and equal partner to himself, denies the right of the other to his point of view, "his truth", significantly deforming the communication process, the nature of the co-existence of its participants. This is unnaturalness"interpersonal" (in fact - inter-individual) monologue, in which there is no place for personality.
However, the dialogical position is not limited to equality. The content of this position is no less essential. According to M.M. Bakhtin, the most important meaningful characteristic of the dialogical orientation is the attitude towards the person (both to oneself and to another) as becoming being ... It is impossible, Bakhtin believes, to draw the line under a living person, to deny him the possibility of development, change, and revision of his positions, since “a person never coincides with himself. The formula of identity cannot be applied to him: And there is A .... the true life of a person takes place, as it were, at the point of this non-coincidence of a person with himself, at the point of his going beyond the limits of everything that he is as material being "/ ibid., p. 79 /. It is dialogical relations, according to M.M. Bakhtin, that turn out to be "the only form of attitude towards a person-personality that preserves his freedom and incompleteness" / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 317 /. How is this possible in dialogue? Why is the personality inaccessible to the monologue? The bottom line is again in the starting positions of people entering the MO.
The dialogical position "asserts independence, internal freedom, incompleteness and unresolved" personality / Bakhtin MM, 1963, p. 84 /. And this is not passivity, bordering on indifference or permissiveness. The dialogical position is realized through activity, but the activity of the "special, dialogical character ", activity" in relation to someone else's living and full consciousness"/ Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 310 /.
The purpose of this activity is its participants as individuals and the dialogue itself as the highest level of coexistence of unique and inimitable personalities, which, nevertheless, can lead to both opposition and agreement.
Dialogue confrontation is not just a dispute, polemics is a "benevolent delimitation" followed by cooperation and "no fights on the border" / ibid., P. 340-341 /. In MD, the interlocutors do not pursue the goal of refuting, destroying someone else's position, the originality of a different point of view. On the contrary, "dialogical mutual orientation" emphasizes the individual characteristics of each person, reveals their originality. The confrontation in the "monological world" takes place in a completely different way: here a thought, a point of view "is either affirmed or denied"; in the latter case, "the denied alien thought does not open the monological context, on the contrary, it closes itself in its boundaries even more sharply and stubbornly. The denied alien thought is not capable of creating a full-fledged alien consciousness next to one consciousness ..." / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, with. 105-106 /.
Differing in MD and MM and the nature of consent. Consent in dialogue is unity, but "unity is not as a natural one and only, but as a dialogical agreement of unmerged two or several", which is achieved by mutual "disclosure of the relative (partial) truth of their positions and their point of view ..." / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 314, 340 /. Dialogue is based on mutual respect, on respect for the opinion of another, his right to be different from me. Since each point of view in the dialogue is personified, presented as the point of view of this particular person, insofar as here "and agreement retains its dialogic character, that is, it never leads to merging voices and truths into one impersonal the truth, as it happens in the monologue world "/ Bakhtin MM, 1963, p. 127 /. In essence," agreement "in a monologue does not fundamentally differ from a monologue confrontation - both are aimed at achieving" uniformity. "
However, both equality and respect in dialogue run the risk of being formal, illusory, if they do not rely on understanding... Understanding is essential funds implementation of the dialogue. Therefore, the problem of understanding occupies no less important place in Bakhtin's concept of dialogue than the problem of "me and the other."
Understanding about the point of view of M.M. Bakhtin is the most important feature of interpersonal communication. When there is an interaction of a person with an object, with a "mute thing", it is not about understanding, but about explanation. Although a person "can be perceived and cognized as a thing," in this case, only his "material" characteristics can be cognized. As a person, as a subject, he "cannot be perceived and studied as a thing, for as a subject; he cannot, while remaining a subject, become mute" / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p. 363 /. The subjective side of consciousness is objective, "but not objective, not material" / ibid., P. 316 /. The other as a person can be revealed only in an equal dialogue, in the process of mutual understanding, in which "the activity of the knower is combined with the activity of the one who opens" / Bakhtin MM, 1975, p. 205 /.
MM Bakhtin characterizes understanding primarily as active, creative and responsive / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p. 91, 245-247, 300-305 /. He emphasizes that the assignment of the “other” to the role of the listener, who only passively understands the speaker, which takes place in science, is a scientific fiction , giving "a completely distorted idea of the complex and multilaterally active process of speech communication" / ibid, pp. 245-246 /. Activity who understands, first of all, that he must understand the point of view of the interlocutor for himself, "recreate" its meaning in the context of his being and at the same time overcome "the alienation of someone else without turning it into purely his own (substitution of any kind ...)" / ibid. , p.371 /. The activity of the one who understands also lies in the fact that he "personifies every utterance" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963 , p.246 /, that is, seeks to see the person behind the word. Because of this, understanding is always creation, a meeting of consciousnesses, semantic positions, similar not to mechanical contact, but to a chemical compound that gives rise as a result of "mutual dialogizing influence" / Bakhtin MM, 1975a, p. 152-153 / something new. And this new - which includes a new meaning and a counter-assessment by the understanding understandable (without which understanding, according to M.M. Bakhtin, is impossible) - finds its expression in answer , in the response activity of the understanding (immediate or delayed).
This characteristic is fully consistent with the understanding that occurs within the framework of the MD, dialogical understanding... In a monologue, if understanding occurs, then in a significantly reduced form. If we use M.M. Bakhtin's division of "replica orientations" in speech communication into "domestic policy" (orientation regarding one's own statements) and "foreign policy" (regarding statements by a partner) / ibid., P. 97 /, then we can say that that the monologue's understanding is mainly subordinated to "internal politics", and sometimes only by its framework and is limited. If he sets the task of understanding the partner, then he is limited only to the analysis of the "objective meaning", "subject tops", while the dialogist is also looking for "roots" in a person "/ Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 127 / - personal meanings, personal position.
Bakhtin's thought that dialogue, dialogical understanding is the basis of not only communication between people in reality, but also one of the most important principles and mandatory stages in studying , a person as a person and personal forms of communication - in this case, the researcher "himself becomes a participant in the dialogue, albeit at a special level (depending on the direction of understanding or research" / Bakhtin MM, 1979, p.305 /.
Until now, we have described the concept of M.M. Bakhtin through the opposition "dialogue - monologue", considering the latter as fundamentally different mutually exclusive and oppositely assessed levels of interpersonal communication. However, it should be emphasized that M.M. Bakhtina neither absolutizes nor idealizes dialogue, dialectically resolving the question of its relationship to a monologue.
First, the dialogue and monologue are presented by M.M. Bakhtin not so much as alternatives, but as poles, between which all the variety of real forms of human interaction with the world is located. Moreover, "absolute dialogue" as an attitude towards a person and "absolute monologue" as a relation to a thing are only theoretical abstractions, unattainable in reality: "our only acts (cognitive and moral) tend to the limit reification without ever reaching it, other acts - to the limit personifications , not reaching it until the end "/ Bakhtin M.M., 1975, p. 209 /. At the same time, M.M. Bakhtin emphasizes that in communication with personality it is necessary to strive first of all to dialogue .
Secondly, the monologue is inadequate not "in general" - namely, at the personal level of the MO, in the process of interaction of individuals, their semantic positions. Within the framework of one consciousness, monologization is a very important, even necessary moment, allowing a person to stand on a certain, my point of view, to acquire a "solid monologic voice" (true - only so that "then the monologized consciousness as one and a whole entered into a new dialogue" / Bakhtin MM, 1979, pp. 187, 366 /). Thus, a monologue is an important moment dialogue process.
That is why, thirdly, the dialogue itself for M.M. Bakhtin is not an absolutely positive phenomenon. In those cases when dialogical attitudes towards a person replace and cancel all others, M.M. Bakhtin speaks about the "bad infinity of dialogue" and even about the "dialogical decomposition of consciousness" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 298, 309 / ...
We described in such detail (although far from exhaustively) the concept of dialogue by M.M. Bakhtin because we used it as the theoretical basis of our work. However, the concept of M.M. Bakhtin is not psychological, and in order to be able to directly use it in psychological and pedagogical research, it is necessary to do the work of "translating" into the appropriate planes. A number of authors can be named who approached this work from various angles.
One of the first in Russian science and the most fruitful attempts at psychological application of the concept of dialogue by M.M. Bakhtin belongs to A.U. Kharashu... In his works, on the one hand, a convincing criticism of the "manipulative" (monological) approach to the analysis of communication is given, on the other hand, the theoretical foundations are developed. intersubjective (dialogical) approach/ Kharash A.U., 1977; 1978; 1979; 1983; 1986 /.
Analyzing the "manipulative approach" in the study of MO, A.U. Kharash shows that this reductionist view of MO consists of a number of "private reductions" (the reduction of the communicator to a social role, the message to the text, the reaction of the "recipient" to agreement-disagreement ) and assumptions (assumptions about a passive (conformal) recipient, about a diffuse audience). At the same time, A.U. Kharash rightly notes that this is not only an erroneous point of view in science: manipulative (more broadly, monological) communication exists in reality, and the error of this approach is absolutization , "is that he focused on only one facet of reality, where she herself is" mistaken ", where exist as an observable stubborn fact "/ Kharash A.U., 1979, p. 25 /. To implement the alternative - intersubjective - approach, the author proposed a system of concepts:" personal inclusion "," text reincarnation "," message "," text "and other.
A.U. Kharash emphasizes that the main influencing factor in ML is not the "text" and not even the "message", but the communication itself, the nature of the "dynamic relationship between the communicator and the recipient "/ Kharash A.U., 1983, p. 22 /. To analyze the mechanisms of" communication impact "the author proposed the concepts authoritarian influence("the inclusion of the communicator in the sphere of the recipient's life, in which its own contents are turned off (displaced) from it") and dialogical impact("assertion of the position of the communicator in the life and consciousness of the recipient, in which the recipient's own position fully retains its strength and content") / ibid, p.22 /, and also three types of "messages" are identified - dialogical, authoritarian and conformal / ibid /. In subsequent works, A.U. Kharash considers the problem of personality development, emphasizing the special role of the "other" in the development of "I" and striving to "recreate in theory the entire spectrum of relations and interactions in the system" I am the other "..." / Kharash A. U., 1986, p. 36 /. Important for us is the author's conclusion about the greater efficiency of the group discussion carried out in the "interactive group", where discussion and dialogue really take place, as compared to the "coactive" (pseudo-discussion), "in which the" active "minority evaluates the incoming information and imposes its own assessments "passive" (inactive) majority "/ Kharash A.U., 1975, p. 23 /.
Similar problems - and also based on the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin - are considered in the works E.A. Rodionova/ Rodionova E.A., 1981, etc. /. The author comes to the conclusion that the most important condition for the development of personality is "a way of understanding another person and determining one's own value attitude to another", and that it is dialogue, defending one's own point of view in equal interaction with other views that is "an impetus to the inner work of the individual in rethinking yourself, your position in the world "/ ibid., p. 183, 190 /.
Experimental study of dialogue in thinking with joint and individual problem solving completed G.M. Kuchinsky/ Kuchinsky G.M., 1983 /. The author has developed a conceptual apparatus for the analysis of speech communication, obtained a wealth of empirical material. GM Kuchinsky sees the essence of the dialogue in the interaction of "semantic positions" and distinguishes "external dialogue" (when these semantic positions belong to different interlocutors) and "internal" (when both positions are compared by one subject); to describe the dynamics of the interaction of semantic positions, the author uses the concepts dialogization(divergence of positions) and monologization(their rapprochement) / ibid, pp. 19-20 /. In our opinion, if we talk about interpersonal communication, then this scheme must be supplemented with an analysis of the personal positions and relations of the communicating parties, not only in the plane of logic, thinking and speech, but also from the socio-psychological and ethical points of view. Otherwise, authoritarian, manipulative and similar forms of "interaction of positions" will be classified as "dialogue".
Within the framework of the general psychological approach, works I.I. Vasilyeva/ Vasilyeva I.I., 1984; 1985 and others /. II Vasilyeva considers "dialogue in the full sense of the word" to be such interaction of individuals, which is characterized by special attitude between partners: an attitude towards mutual understanding of each other, interest in the personality of a partner, a benevolent desire to meet halfway in understanding, an attitude of communicative cooperation, which may not exclude the opposition of personal positions of partners "/ Vasilyeva I.I., 1984, p. 57- 58 / In particular, the use of the concept of "communicative cooperation" in the analysis of dialogue deserves attention. Communicative collaboration, originally formulated as one of the principles of communication in pragmatics / see, for example, ND Arutyunova, 1980; Paducheva E.V., 1982 /, means that, since communication partners are united by a common goal - to achieve mutual understanding, each of them "must strive to understand exactly the meaning that his communicative partner has in mind, strive to take into account and satisfy him information needs, help the partner in the formulation of messages, etc. " / Vasilyeva I.I., 1984, p. 47 /. This readiness to "understand correctly" is an extremely important feature of the dialogue, without which such attributive properties of MD as openness partners and mutual the trust .
In pedagogy and educational psychology A.M. Matyushkin/ Matyushkin A.M., 1977 and others /, S.Yu.Kurganov, V.F.Litovsky, I.M.Solomadin/ Kurganov S.Yu., Solomadin I.M., 1986 / and others are developing training programs based on the principles " learning dialogue ".
The idea of dialogue has recently become widespread in the field of psychological counseling - in our country, this is primarily work A.F.Kopyeva/ 1981 and others /, E. V. Novikova, V. A. Smekhova /1983/, L.A. Petrovskaya, A.S. Spivakovskaya /1983/, A.U. Kharash and others. Here, the dialogue is considered as the leading, most effective type of communication of the psychologist-consultant and is endowed with the following characteristics: reciprocity of the influence of the participants in communication, the desire to take each other's positions, mutual respect and trust, the ability to see, understand and actively use a wide and varied range of communication skills.
The ideas of M.M. Bakhtin had a great influence on the development of semiotics. Let us note the work of scientists from the University of Tartu. One of them provides, in particular, a list conditions necessary for the dialogue to take place: 1) the presence of certain differences between the participants in the dialogue with isomorphism to the third element of a higher level, in the system of which they are included; 2) reciprocity and reciprocity in exchange; 3) discreteness of information delivery; 4) "the translated text should, anticipating the answer, contain an element of transition to a foreign language" / Structure of a dialogue ..., 1984, p. 14-16 /.
One could also name a large number of works on philosophy, logic, psycholinguistics, aesthetics, etc., which to one degree or another were influenced by the concept of dialogue by M.M. Bakhtin. However, this "popularity" of undoubtedly progressive ideas has not only positive aspects. On the one hand, the number of "interpretations" is multiplying, the concept of "dialogue" is "eroded", and its supporters risk finding themselves in the position of the builders of the Tower of Babel. On the other hand, there is a trend towards absolutizing dialogue , to giving it the status of a "super-idea", with the help of which it is possible to explain literally everything (see, for example, / Bush G.Ya., 1985 /). At one time, even L.S.Vygotsky showed that such "blowing up an idea" ends with a lethal outcome for her / Vygotsky L.S., 1965, vol. 1, p. 302-305 /. In addition, when trying to give the idea of dialogue a universal character, sometimes there is an "abstraction" from its most important moments. And above all, this concerns the moral pathos of the concept of M.M. Bakhtin, his "moral philosophy", which he himself "was conceived not as one of the" applied "parts of a more comprehensive philosophical structure, but as first philosophy"/ Davydov Yu.N., 1986, p. 170 /, as a fundamental principle. It is consistent humanism that acquires methodological significance for MM Bakhtin and, thereby, fundamentally distinguishes his concept from the previous and contemporary theories of representatives of the" philosophy of life "," personology ", etc., is" not noticed "by many psychologists who remain faithful to the natural-scientific paradigm. For example, in the" systematic approach "to the dialogue of I. I. Vasilyeva, its ethical aspects, unfortunately, do not We would like to avoid such extremes and simplifications.
Let us briefly outline the essence of our understanding of interpersonal communication, in the formation of which we relied on the concept of M.M. Bakhtin and took into account its psychological concretization by other researchers.
MO can occur fundamentally different ways - by the type of interpersonal dialogue and by the type of interpersonal monologue.
The basis for dividing IO into MD and MM is not the number of participants and not the formal characteristics of the communication process, but personal positions communicating, that "inner aspiration of the personality", which is based on the value-semantic "attitudes of consciousness, morally significant and responsively active" (Bakhtin). That is, the basis for the typology are those characteristics of the MO, which we designated as personality component communication.
The main of these attitudes is the attitude that determines orientation of the personality in the coordinates "I" and "other ": MD assumes mutual attitudes towards equality, MM proceeds from the priority of one position (or only" I "- or only" another ") and the subordinate, reduced role of the second.
The attitude to the "other" in the MO finds expression in "the concept of the interlocutor". The dialogue corresponds to the concept of the interlocutor as a person (independent, internally free and incomplete, concrete and unique), affirming his full rights, focused on development; moreover, this concept is" symmetric ", that is, it is applicable to oneself, to one's own" I ", which is also recognized as a free and full-fledged “becoming being.” The monologue corresponds to the concept of the interlocutor as an object of influence - an extremely abstract, undifferentiated, “reified” “other”.
MD is based on relationship mutual respect, trust, naturalness and openness; MM is based on ignoring the interlocutor, distrust, isolation (openness - only as an unintentional accident) or, conversely, demonstrativeness, narcissism.
The main means of interconnection in MD - dialogical mutual understanding as a way of mutual disclosure, mutual affirmation and mutual development; in MM - the reduction of two (or several) positions, points of view into one, unique and "indisputable" due to either the elimination of differing points of view, or averaging them into one "common", depersonalized one.
Mutual recognition ( cognitive component MO): in MD it is an active, creative process of overcoming the "discontinuity" of communication, mutual penetration into inner world each other, free from stereotypes and prejudices, based on reflection; in MM - schematic, superficial "summing up the known", categorical and stereotyped.
Emotional component MD - compassion, benevolence and tolerance, evenness and adequacy of assessments and self-assessments; the emotional component of MM is cold ill will and indifference to the other (easily turning into aggression), inability to sympathize, polarity of assessments, inadequacy of self-assessments.
In MD, orientation towards communication behavior ( behavioral component) on the basis of cooperation and equal interaction. Behavior in MM is either rivalry, conflict, or indifference, ignorance of a partner.
Ways of being and co-existence of individuals, conditions for their development within the framework of MD and MM are fundamentally different. In MD, the "I" of both interlocutors, being open to each other, relying on the mutual assertion of oneself as a person, establishing ethically equal relations, looking into each other "as in a mirror", thereby receive unlimited opportunities for all-round mutual development and improvement, with on the one hand, and for a much deeper (due to complementary points of view) orientation in the situation of communication and cooperation when performing tasks of joint activities, on the other hand. The alienation of interlocutors from each other in MM, the unidirectional, often destructive nature of communicative interaction sharply reduce its effectiveness, significantly impoverish and deform the existence of each of the partners, and serve as an obstacle to their personal growth. The tense, but constructive confrontation between "I" and "the other" is a source of contradictions in communication and, thus, serves as a condition for the mutual development of its participants. Elimination of the "other" and the corresponding problems in a monologue acts as a limiting factor for personal development for both parties.
If we define communication as the co-existence of individuals, then dialogue is co-existence of equal individuals... The monologue also "pushes out" the existence of one of the participants in communication at the expense of the other, pushing it to the periphery of communication, deprives communication of "personality", transferring it to the rank of functional and similar relations.
Dialogue and monologue - abstract, theoretically highlighted poles in the space of the real variety of MO. A further, more detailed typology of ML can be built on the basis of the ratio of the main components of the personal component - attitudes towards equality, development and creativity, and mutual understanding.
Thus, based on the fact that interpersonal dialogue is the highest, in fact, personal level of communication, creating the most favorable conditions for the manifestation and development of personality and is one of the essential funds of this development, it was the readiness and ability to dialogue that we considered the highest level development of communicative competence. The main content of the personal component at this level is focus on dialogical communication - which was accepted by us as the main goals of preparation for communication .
Literature
- K. Marx, F. Engels Works: 2nd ed. - M .: Politizdat.
- Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. The personal aspect of the communication problem. // The problem of communication in psychology. - M., 1981. - S. 218-241.
- Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Personal development in the process of life // Psychology of personality formation and development. -M., 1981. - S. 19-44.
- Active teaching methods pedagogical communication and its optimization. - M .: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, 1983 .-- 98 p.
- Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. -M .: Nauka, 1977 .-- 381 p.
- Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: In 2-shah. - M .; Pedagogy, 1980. - T. 1-2.
- Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1980 .-- 416 p.
- Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Contemporary social psychology in the West. - M .; Moscow State University Publishing House, 1978.-271 p.
- L.I. Antsyferova Towards the psychology of personality as a developing system // Psychology of personality formation and development. - M., 1981 .-- S. 3-19.
- Arseniev A.S. The problem of the goal in upbringing and education // Philosophical and psychological problems of the development of education. -M., I98I. - S. 54-118.
- Arutyunova N.D. Addressee factor // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. literature and language. - 1980. - T.40. - Issue 4. - S. 356-367.
- Asmolov A.G., Bratus B.S, Zeigarnik B.F. et al. About some perspectives of research of semantic formations of personality // Questions of psychology. - 1979. - No. 4. - S. 35-46.
- Batishchev G.S.Unity of activity and communication // Principles of materialistic dialectics as a theory of knowledge. - M., 1984. -C.I94-209.
- Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. - M .: Soviet writer, 1963 .-- 364 p.
- Bakhtin M.M. Literature and aesthetics. - M .: Fiction, 1975a. - 504 p.
- Bakhtin M.M. To the methodology of literary criticism // Context - 74. - M., 1975. - C.203-2I2.
- Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M .: Art, 1979 .-- 424 p.
- Bakhtin M.M. To the philosophy of action // Philosophy and sociology of science and technology. - M., 1986. - C.82-I60.
- Burns R. Development of self-concept and education. - M .: Progress 1986 .-- 423 p.
- Bibler V.S. Thinking as creativity. - M .: Politizdat, 1975 .-- 399 p.
- Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. - M .: Pedagogy, 1983.-271 p.
- Brudny A.A. To the theory of communicative influence // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. - M., 1977. - S. 32-49.
- Bush G.Ya. Dialogue and creativity. - Riga: Avots, 1985. -313 p.
- Vasilyeva I.I. Psychological features of dialogue: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - M., 1984 .-- 181 s,
- Vasilyeva I.I. Communicative properties of utterances in dialogue // Psikhol.zhurn. - 1984. - T.5. - No. 5. - S. 140-153.
- Vasilyeva I.I. On the significance of MM Bakhtin's ideas about dialogue and dialogical relations for the psychology of communication // Psychological research of communication, - M., 1985. - P. 8I-94.
- Voloshinov V.N. Marxism and philosophy of language. - L .: Surf, I929. - 189 p.
- Wright G.H. Logical and philosophical studies. - M .: Progress, 1986 .-- 600 p.
- Vygotsky L. S. Psychology of art. - M .: Art, 1965, - 379 p.
- Vygotsky L.S. Collected Works. In 6 volumes - M .: Pedagogy, 1982-1984. - T. I-6.
- Vygotsky L.C. Concrete human psychology // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 14, Psychology. - 1986, - No. I. - P.52-65.
- Davydov Yu.N. At the origins of M.M. Bakhtin's social philosophy // Sociological research... - 1986. -No. 2. - C. 170-181.
- Dilthey V. Descriptive Psychology. - M .: Russian scribe, 1924 .-- 118 p.
- Emelyanov Yu.N. Active social and psychological training. - D .: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1985 .-- 168 p.
- Zinchenko V.P., Mamardashvili M.K. The problem of the objective method in psychology // Vopr. philosophy. - 1977. - No. 7. - P.109-125.
- V.P. Ivanov Human activity - knowledge - art. - Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1977 .-- 252 p.
- V. I. Kabrin The structure of human communication and the problem of the strategy of personality formation // Modern problems of applied sociology and social psychology in work collectives. - L., 1984 .-- S. 143-144.
- Kagan M.S. Art and Communication // Art and Communication. - L., 1984 .-- S. 15-28.
- Kakabadze Z.M. Culture and civilization // Culture in the light of philosophy. - Tbilisi: Khelovneba, 1979. - pp. 187-225,
- Kan-Kalik V.A., Kovalev G.A. Pedagogical communication as a subject of theoretical and applied research // Questions of psychology. - 1985, - No. 4. - p.9-I6.
- Kidron A.A. Communication ability and its improvement: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - L., 1981 .-- 199 p.
- Kirshbaum E.I. Psychological and pedagogical analysis conflict situations in the pedagogical process: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. -L., I986. - 199 p.
- Kirshbaum E.I. Psychological problems pedagogically difficult situations // Psychological and pedagogical support of the educational process. - L.-M., 1987. - C.26I-270.
- Klyueva N.D. The success of training in the group form of its organization: Author's abstract. dis. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - L., 1987.-17 p.
- Kovalev G.A. Active social learning as a method of correcting the psychological characteristics of the subject of communication: Dis. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - M., 1980 .-- 270 p.
- Kovalev G.A. About active teaching of pedagogical communication // Active methods of teaching pedagogical communication and its optimization. - M., 1983. - S.6-20.
- Kovalev G.A. Three paradigms in psychology - three strategies of psychological impact // Vopr. psychology, - 1987. - No. 3. - P.41-49.
- Cognitive Styles / Ed. V. Kolga. - Tallinn: Tall. ped. in-t, 1986 .-- 252 p.
- Kolominsky Ya.L. Psychology of communication. - M .: Knowledge, 1974.-96 p.
The fastest boat in the world!
The history of the Off-White brand
Habakkuk: how the British tried to build an aircraft carrier out of ice Why the project was curtailed