<<
>>

THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK

In in in e d e n and also the object and an object of research, definite purposes and problems are formulated, the urgency and scientific novelty of work is proved, the practical and theoretical importance of dissertational research reveals, the positions which are taken out on protection are formulated.

Chapter 1 «the Disputed discourse in the light of researches harakterologicheskih features of the person» represents the theoretical description of modern approaches to studying lichnostnoyoorientirovannogo a discourse, the special attention is given a household disputed discourse.

For the given research following definition of concept "discourse" is chosen: «the Discourse is the speech product considered as social action, carried out with defined intentsijami, characterised by typologically caused communicative space» [Karasik 2000: 17].

The central circle of the questions investigated in diskursivnom the analysis, - questions of structure of a discourse. It is necessary to distinguish different levels of structure - a macrostructure, or global structure, and a microstructure, or local structure of a discourse. Macrostructures are defined by macrorules of Selection, Generalization, Omission, Construction. Macrorules are applied
Repeatedly, therefore there are some levels of a macrostructure on generalisation degree, thus for very big texts the quantity of levels can be very high, and for short - the macrostructure can be equal to a microstructure.

According to V.I.Karasiku, all kinds of a discourse share on statusno - and lichnostno-focused. The first concern institutsionalnyj and neinstitutsionalnyj the discourse types, the second are shown in household and bytijnoj dialogue spheres.

The household discourse is defined as dialogical dialogue between the people well knowing each other, characterised by spontaneity, strong situational dependence, strongly pronounced subjectivity, infringements of logic and structural oformlennosti statements. The purpose of a household discourse, however, is defined not so accurately, as at any other type of a discourse.

The household disputed discourse is understood «as a special kind of a communicative situation in which there is a collision of two parties because of a disagreement of interests, purposes, sights. As a result one of the parties meaningly and actively operates to the detriment of another, and the second party, realising, that the specified actions are directed against its interests, undertakes reciprocal actions against the first party» [Volkova 2009: 12]. It is necessary to add, that in the household conflict conflicting parties possess «a considerable general context of interpretation» [Hilalova 2010: 50].

Existence and the resolution of conflict is closely connected with the argument. «The argument and the conflict - strongly connected two among themselves the phenomena of a social life because the conflict is social, kognitivnoj and the dynamic reason that its parties have given argument signal to start» [Lisanjuk 2015: 30].

Some objectively existing or invented problem, disagreement becomes a subject of the household conflict usually; object of the conflict - some material assets, i.e. real subjects or non-material values, namely: ideals, belief, the social status, process of achievement of the purpose. The subject and object of the argument more widely also is more volume, and can include object and a conflict subject.

An obligatory condition of existence of the conflict is presence at least two parties (an exception - the intrapersonal conflict), hence, dialogical interaction whereas for argumentativnoj situations are characteristic both dialogue (direct dialogue), and a monologue (the mediated dialogue) [Vasilev, Nazarchuk 2014: 29]. Conflict and argument stages too in many respects coincide. Essential difference of the argument from the conflict is its purpose. In it not so much belief of the opponent in the correctness, how many joint search of the correct decision for divergence overcoming in opinions is important. One more difference argumentativnoj situations from the disputed consists that in the conflict (especially in household) on the first place there are emotions at
Decision-making while in the argument key concept is rationality. Quite often the emotional behaviour of conflicting parties prevents to reach it the consent and to resolve the conflict in the most favourable image.

The behaviour of the person in a conflict situation is influenced by features of its character, and also installation which has the person in the given concrete situation. At the heart of the given work the theory of installation and typology of persons of D.N.Uznadze lays. Installation he names «the basic, primary reaction of the subject to situation influence in which it should put and resolve problems». Installation of the person is influenced first of all by environment, but not less important role is played also by the last experience, capable to fix this or that installation and to prevent to appear new, possibly, more suitable in the given circumstances.

According to D.N.Uznadze [2004], the important factors here will be excitability of installation (fixed installation), static character - dynamism of installation is how much easily developed at the subject (whether installation depending on environment change), plasticity varies - roughness (how much easily installation gives in to change), konstantnost - variability (variability of type of activity according to installation), stability - lability (as installation long remains), generalisation - irradiatsija (installation distribution), durability of installation (whether it is possible to affect installation).

According to installation type it is possible to speak about types of persons. The first type of people which are characterised «by the developed ability to obektivatsii and readiness it is easy be switched in a direction obektivirovannyh the purposes» [Uznadze 2004: 122], is called as dynamic.

The second type - static persons. Its characteristics: internal discrepancy, but activity, vigour, sense of duty. «These people make impression, that their activity proceeds under vigilant the consciousness control» [Uznadze 2004: 123].

The third type — variabelnye people who possess sufficient ease obektivatsii, but do not possess the sufficient strong-willed abilities necessary for its realisation. Variabelnyj the type of the person is divided, in turn, on variabelno-labile and variabelnoyostabilnyj subtypes. Variabelno-stable persons attract attention considerably developed force of the requirements and consequently their behaviour goes in the area of activation of installations of satisfaction of these requirements. Characteristic line of variabelno-labile persons first of all is weakness of their requirements. They fix the installations under a situation priority.

The discourse is conducted by persons. The language person - «the person existing in language space - in dialogue, in the stereotypes of behaviour fixed in language, in values of language units and senses of texts» [Karasik 2002: 7]. Differ diskursivnyj and lingvo-psychological types
The language person. Along with the disputed language person (lingvoyopsihologichesky) it is possible to speak type about the clashing language person. Any psychological type of the person in the conditions of the communicative conflict gets lines of the person clashing.

In the second chapter «the Structure of the household conflict and behaviour in it the language person» are revealed the basic signs of the household conflict on which basis the frame «Household conflict» is constructed. Also the superstructure of household dialogue and household disputed dialogue is constructed.

Household dialogue has obvious enough superstructure: a Greeting including a subcategory Introduction; planned or not planned main topik the conversation, including the Establishment topika; Discussion topika; End topika; Farewell.

During research the specific superstructure of household disputed dialogue has been revealed. The given scheme includes the following sequence: 1) incident, 2) maturing, 3) development, 4) the permission, 5) end, 6) consequences.

Research of a household disputed discourse at microlevel allows to define characteristic for it lexico-semantic means (semantic microstructures), and also tactics used by the clashing language person (pragmatical microstructures). Macrolevel gives possibility to define a theme of the household conflict (semantic macrostructures) and strategy of language persons in the conflict (pragmatical macrostructures).

To macrostructures (themes) of the household conflict, judging by teleshow materials, concern:

• material assets: desire of both parties to possess a concrete subject, for example, meal, technics, habitation, life subjects (580 cases in an investigated material);

• absence of desirable attention to itself at one of partners: absence of caress, care, positive emotions, supports. Here we will carry also the conflict on sexual soil (537 cases);

• infringement of self-respect of the person: the insult, the unreasonable criticism, insult (413 cases);

• bad habits: hobby for one of participants of the conflict alcohol, drugs, computer games, etc. (220 cases);

• disagreement in questions of conducting housekeeping, a division of labour (196 cases);

• aversion of one of the parties of hobbies, a hobby of the second party (98 cases).

Means of demonstration of macrostructures in a household discourse are revealed.

Syntactic level: the metasemantic designs specifying on topik, relevance indicators: first, secondly, you wish to tell, the union but as the indicator of sharp change topika conversation.

Phonetic level: increase of tone of a voice, acceleration of tempo of speech, and also speech delay kommunikanta, an accurate articulation, big enough intervals between words.

Morphological level: pronouns (everything, it, le, ce, ςa), nouns with global value (a thing, true, news).

Characteristic line of the conflict is arguing. In the argument theory there is a concept of rules and argument errors [Eemeren, etc. 2002; Lisanjuk 2015]. These rules are subdivided on procedural, rules of the thesis and a rule of arguments. At a withdrawal from argument rules argument errors take place.

On F van Eemernu, the roughest error of the argument is infringement of a rule of logicality, however, as has shown argumentativnyj the analysis, for a household disputed discourse use and infringement of the given rule is not frequent as logic arguments are least frequent in the conflict. Infringement of a rule of the point of view, namely, thesis loss (850 cases) and attributing of the point of view to the opponent («the Fictitious opponent») (512 cases) and freedom rules was the most frequent infringement of procedure of protection of the position in an investigated material. The most frequent error in the conflict is «the argument to a cudgel» (888 cases), direct attack (890 cases) and argument to pity (525 cases). Feature of the given research material is also the considerable quantity of pathetic errors (864 cases), but it is more likely connected with specificity of the given kind of teleshow.

Semantic both pragmatical micro-and the macroanalysis of a household disputed discourse has allowed to construct model of the clashing language person at verbally-semantic, psychological and pragmatical levels.

On verbally - semantic level following subtotals are allocated.

1. A lexical subtotal: not standard lexicon (obstsennaja, invektivnaja), negative estimated lexicon, comparative turns, hesitation words, creation by language persons of new words.

2. A grammatical subtotal: the use of pronouns of 3rd person in relation to present, the use of imperatives, the use of interjections, exclamatory offers, questions (including a rhetorical question), not finished offers, repetitions of phrases.

Nonverbal markers of a disputed discourse are allocated also. Them concern:

- Pauses;

- Increase or fall of tone of a voice;

- Acceleration or delay of tempo of speech.

At psychological level speech markers of installations for various psychological types of the person are allocated.

Installation on cooperation persons of dynamic type, as a rule, have. On cooperation it is possible to carry to speech markers of installation:

• descriptive statements:

«I have become angry yesterday on you that you have forgotten about our anniversary».

«You say people do not care about you, but that's because you do not know us. I wanted to talk to you. I asked about your Christian school, about your upbringing house. I want to know you».

• an appeal to an openness:

«Dasha, what you meant, when have told, what we with Andrey behaved indecently?»

«On est des grandes filles, d'accord? Ecoute, si j'ai quelque chose a te dire, et tu as a le dire a moi, fais ςa!>>

• an appeal to specification of the reason of a conflict situation:

«You wish to tell, what it is not pleasant to you, when to us Olesya comes?» «Maispourquoi tu t'enerves comme ςa7>>

• responsibility acceptance:

«Yes, both of us with you are guilty that happens».

«I am really sorry, I know I should not have told them about our plan».

• the expressions showing acceptance of feelings of the opponent:

«You think, I do not understand? I perfectly understand, why you have taken offence. Perhaps you will give the chance to me to try to you all to explain?»

«Tu es trop excitee, je le vois. Calme-toi, d'accord? Tu verra que ςa n'estpas si grave».

Persons of static type are inclined to installation on avoiding and the compromise. Installation on avoiding is characterised by such markers:

• direct ignoring of a conflict situation:

«Yes about what you? There are no problems!»

«There is nothing to argue about».

• indirect ignoring:

«Yes that to me with it to divide?»

«You really think that I care? Come on!»

• theme change:

«Oh, Lyosh, give about something the friend, and?»

«Je ne veux pas parler de Juliette! D'accord?»

• generalising remarks:

«Well, all of us on something we take offence...»

«Tout le monde sait que c ' est betise de disputer avec toi, Anne-Krystel».

To speech installation markers on the compromise will concern:

• the offer of the fast decision (but not to the full arranging conflicting parties):

«Give, now we will simply leave these regiments alone and we will go to children».

• the appeal to justice:

«Well, this week you will live in this small house, but on following we there will call in».

«Mais ce n'est pas juste, tout simplement!»

• "auction":

«Listen, if you do not wish to cease to communicate with Olesya, can make at least so that it here did not sit for days on end?»

«Just listen to me, please, can you? Ifnow you listen without leaving or interrupting me, I promise I will never start the topic again!»

Speech markers of installation on the adaptation, characteristic for persons of variabelno-labile type are:

• refusal of the position:

«Be your way...»

«Senna, tu veux dire que je ne suispas raison, ah?!» - «Non».

• non-interference:

«Do, as you know, Sash. To me all the same».

«That's not my business».

• refusal of the needs:

«Go already. I will remain also itself here all I will clean».

«Mais oui, d'accord, on n'irapas, si tu veux».

For variabelno-stable persons installation on confrontation is characteristic. Speech markers of installation on confrontation include:

• direct threat:

«That do you achieve now? That I have given to you in a nose, whether that? You achieve it?»

«I cannot wait to feel the bones in your throat crashing beneath my fingers».

• malicious jokes:

«Well, of course, was nothing! You simply tired and have lain down to it in bed!»

«Vraiment? Vous allez vous marier?! Et Thomas (groom), est-il au courant de ga?»

• the insult:

«Yes you have gone, the stupid person!»

«Je te deteste! Putain!»

• attributing of thoughts, feelings, motives to the opponent:

«Yes you purposely here from yourself unfortunate build, that you only have regretted!» «You're defending her only to annoy me!»

• negation of own responsibility:

«Well, not I in it am guilty, whether know!»

«J'aimerai savoir ce que tu me reproches». - «Tout simplement je ne t'aime pas. C'est juste physique, ςa passe pas...»

At pragmatical level allocate co-operative and not co-operative communicative strategy.

Depending on a social role and chosen clashing strategy, allocates following tactics for co-operative and not co-operative strategy.

I. Kommunikanty with the social status equal in rights.

1. Co-operative strategy.

Tactics of rational belief:

«I just wanna tell everyone here. I apologise for all that he (father) does to all the people. I am not his mother. I do not control if he is doing anything».

The offer:

And: How to me now to arrive? Here, easier, here, in your opinion, how to arrive?

And: Sustain a pause. To you have given holiday - exhale 10 days!

Concession:

«Alors, je te laisse partir maintenant, va, si tu veux, mais demain j’irai quelque part avec Alexia, moi aussi, d’accord?»

The promise:

«Give so. I promise, what I will not lift any more this theme, and you, here, only will calm down now, all right?»

«Je suis en train de me preparer, mais je vais ranger ςa>>.

2. Not co-operative strategy

Charge:

«If you do not have not enough imagination on what cleverer, it is not necessary to run - you the leader while here. It is not necessary to run».

Threat:

«Next week good-bye. I will see you in the bathroom crying again».

Interruption of the interlocutor:

: I do not reproach with you...

L: And what you have told?

: You today not.

L: You became not that?

: No. For today for me personally, well when people, we will admit.

L: I once again speak to you, Eugenes!...

The insult:

«Fils de pute que tu es, je te deteste! Tu m’entends?!»

Jeer:

«Stop it! Why are you always blaming me!» - «And you are just a little innocent girl and do not deserve that, right? Come on!»

The appeal to the power:

«Here, I now will go and I will result here leaders then we will look who here is right!»

Deceit:

«It not I! I did not take your money! Jeans on the has bought! At me were!»

II. Kommunikanty with the unequal social status (conflicts between leaders and participants of the project, between old and new participants).

1. Co-operative strategy:

From the dominating:

Belief tactics:

: I go every day and I speak: Give the ground floor of house Pynzarej. And you speak: No, I will not give to you, because you should live there.

To: Correctly I speak to you. And what is wrong? If you even a thing cannot disassemble the on the second floor. Well, Eugenes, what to you the house? You in the beginning prove that you can deserve this house then you will receive.

The offer:

«Listen, give so. You apologise at all for the words on building, and I am more to you at all I do not approach with it».

The promise (the leader to the participant):

«And if you listen to me, it is pleasant to you both my voice, and my tone. I promise to you!»

Sympathy:

«Flax, I understand, how here all has bothered you, all these problems. Simply try not to vent the irritation on others».

From the subordinate:

The justification:

«I do not say, that I refuse to be tidied up! Put me watch for other day. I will clean all!»

The consent:

«Well, all right, I that? I will wipe this water, certainly...»

Belief:

«Look, Andrew: here, give I will speak for itself, yes? I validly concern you and at any raskladah I will support that choice of the girl which to you will come. But at all thus you ask me about what? Well here, even if the collective will decide to vote against Ani, you here, in general, at what?»

2. Not co-operative strategy

From the dominating:

Threat:

«I simply warn you: if you so in collective behave, on following voting will take off from here, as Ulja».

Charge:

«Girls, well, what for a pigsty here? Well, how so to live it is possible?! So, I will come in an hour and that all on places was!»

Interruption of the interlocutor:

CH: That's all. Right now collect belongings and bring down from here!

And: Listen, you do not solve.

CH: Because with pigs we in collective do not live.

Pressure:

CH: Go and tidy up. Anything terrible in it is not present. Why people here by rules all are on duty?

And: Andrey so you knew, that I leave. You knew!

CH: You should arrive till a dinner.

And: I am not obliged! I was not here!

CH: Ah, if it is not obliged, follow gate!

Jeer:

«I said to you, that in this life, maybe, it is necessary to change dialogue with men. In what plan: can be, it is necessary to wait this love and not to lay down with men with whom you sleep constantly?»

From the subordinate:

Indignation:

«I am guilty, what it psihanula and competition has broken?! I in a shock, in general, on you!»

Hint, irony:

E: Here, I should talk since leading 2 minutes, it is possible?

To: the Decision of conflicts? And what, already conflicts were outlined?

E: Well.

To: Already?

E: Not, well, on me Ksjusha (speaks to the leader about it) has pressed so in a root, I am simple till now in a shock I go.

Provocation:

«Where all maloletki, which mouths open? Where all? Where you sit? The girl offend. You, the man!»

Among co-operative tactics in a conflict situation of the most productive, from the point of view of result, there is tactics rational
Belief. Using given tactics, conflicting parties have the greatest chances of the rational resolution of conflict.

The most frequency not constructive, not co-operative tactics in a household disputed discourse both at equal in rights, and at unequal social statuses (from the dominating party) is communicative tactics of charge. Charge tactics is aimed at a negative estimation of actions of the partner. Accusing, speaking the psychological damage causes to image of the addressee, causing in it the emotional discomfort, and induces it to reciprocal speech actions that conducts to a conflict tightening.

Justification tactics (co-operative strategy, in reply to charge) is often enough used kommunikantami with the social status of submission as a reciprocal remark for clearing of the misunderstanding which have led to the conflict, - speaking tries to give the additional information on the circumstances explaining the reasons of its behaviour that promotes reconciliation.

During research it was found out, that the most destructive is not co-operative strategy c participants of the conflict equal in rights. If anybody from kommunikantov does not change strategy, to resolve the conflict without the third parties it will be practically impossible.

In Z and to l ju ch e n and also the general results of work are stated most and prospects of the further scientific researches in the field of research of a disputed discourse are outlined.

The bibliography includes 191 name in Russian, English and French languages.

<< | >>
A source: BELOVA Elena Vitalevna. STRUCTURALLY-SUBSTANTIAL FEATURES of the HOUSEHOLD DISPUTED DISCOURSE. The dissertation AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Tver - 2016. 2016

More on topic THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK:

  1. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  2. the Basic maintenance of work
  3. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  4. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  5. the BASIC MAINTENANCE of WORK
  6. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  7. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  8. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  9. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  10. II. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  11. the Basic maintenance of work
  12. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  13. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  14. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  15. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK
  16. THE BASIC MAINTENANCE OF WORK