As a result of the research carried out in the given chapter we have come to following conclusions.

1. Interrogation of respondents has proved, that the sceptic is the recognised representative of group of the communicative persons, allocated on features of the communicative behaviour which basis is made by doubt and mistrust.

In language consciousness of native speakers of Russian there is a representation that such lines as pessimism, isolation, cowardice, it partially correlates with made earlier psychological portrait of the sceptic are inherent in the sceptic.

2. The typology of sceptics allocated on the basis of the analysis of gradation of kinds of sceptical doubt (moderated, high, extreme), includes three kinds of communicative persons: the sceptic-pragmatist, the sceptic-critic, the malicious sceptic. Validity of allocation of the given types proves to be true questioning and data of the analysis of compatibility and contexts of a reflexion of a nomination "sceptic".

3. The analysis of compatibility and a reflexion has allowed to draw a conclusion on following characteristics of communicative behaviour of the sceptic: it is the owner of uncommon mental abilities, the erudite having requirement to analyze and philosophise on various themes. Thus the sceptical behaviour or is to constants (as reflexion of certain character traits), or can be situationally caused. The sceptic most often appears as the elderly person possessing rich life experience or the representative of an intelligent trade - the scientist, the doctor, the lawyer, the editor. In the course of communications the sceptic proves as not co-operative type in connection with a misanthropy inherent in it, emotional coldness and pessimism, and also the frequent appeal to the sharp criticism, irony, sarcasm, a causticity and cynicism. The relation of society to the sceptic the ambivalent.

4. The description of features of communicative behaviour of types of sceptics leans against the developed scheme of the analysis.

As leading motive of communicative activity of the sceptic - of the pragmatist the aspiration to get to the truth acts. To communicatively active type of the sceptic it is peculiar dokazatelnost, otsenivanie, the analysis owing to what in the course of communications the sceptic-pragmatist operates mainly argumentativnymi with speech certificates, speech certificates of an estimation, the consent-disagreement, a question. The communicative behaviour of the sceptic-pragmatist is characterised mainly by rationality, moderate degree of an emotionality, high degree informativnosti, low degree of a categoriality and a conflictness.

The communicative behaviour of the sceptic-critic motivirovano aspiration to critical otsenivaniju, desire to draw attention to the missing parties of resulted arguments, differs restraint, moderate communicative activity in the form of constructive or (mainly destructive criticism. As implementers of communicative intentions of the sceptic speech certificates of an estimation, objection, ironic statements, sarcastic remarks and speech certificates of a sneer / derisions act. Level of an emotionality of expressed judgements varies from an average to high, statements are characterised by the raised degree of a categoriality with moderate level informativnosti, that proves to be true absence of sensible arguments in support of the point of view expressed by the sceptic-critic.

The communicative activity of the malicious sceptic caused by desire all to deny, absence of meaningful dialogue, the high degree of a categoriality accompanied by briefness and deficiency of weighty arguments at a statement of the position that does not promote creation of harmonious relations distinguishes. High level of an emotional expression, rationality degree low is inherent in it basically or aspires to zero. The carrier of extreme doubt meets much less often than other types of sceptics.

<< | >>
A source: Pimkina Ekaterina Sergeevna. the SCEPTIC AS the COMMUNICATIVE PERSON. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Volgograd - 2016. 2016


  1. Conclusions under chapter 2
  2. Conclusions under Chapter 1.
  3. Conclusions under chapter 1
  4. Conclusions under chapter 2
  5. Conclusions under the chapter II
  6. Conclusions on chapter 1
  8. Conclusions under chapter 1
  9. Conclusions under chapter 2
  10. Conclusions on the third chapter
  11. Conclusions under chapter 3
  13. Conclusions under chapter 2
  14. Conclusions under chapter 3
  15. Conclusions under chapter 1
  16. Conclusions under the First chapter
  17. Conclusions on the fourth chapter
  18. Conclusions to the Chapter I
  19. Conclusions under Chapter 1
  20. Conclusions under Chapter 1.