Psycholinguistic conflictology

The study of socio-psychological conflicts has now led to the emergence of an independent field of scientific knowledge -conflictology. The field of social psycholinguistics, which is designed to harmonize the process of communicative interaction of people, was called psycholinguistic conflictology. At the center of its consideration is a communicative conflict - verbal collision, which is based on aggression, expressed by linguistic means. Psychologists have written a lot and quite interestingly about the nature of communicative conflicts. In the works of foreign and domestic researchers are shown the causes of conflicts, recommendations for their prevention and out of the conflict situation. Linguists are doing only the first steps in the development of this not very familiar object of study.

At the heart of the communicative conflict is the desire of one (or both) participants of communication to relieve psychological stress at the expense of the interlocutor. This kind of defusing (releasing vapors) is preceded by a feeling of frustration - psychological discomfort that occurs when it is impossible to achieve any goal. In interpersonal interaction, frustration occurs when (in the opinion of one of the conflicting parties) the communicative partner violates the norms (rules) of behavior. The cause of social and psychological conflicts can be a delay in work, and not the time submitted report, and not cooked lunch, and not washed dishes, and adultery, etc.

In Bern’s transactional analysis, a communicative conflict looks like a system of non-parallel transactions. Here are examples of such communicative situations.

Talking husband with his wife.

Husband: - Honey, would you tell me where my cufflinks are? (In - - In).

Wife: - You are no longer small, you have to know where your cufflinks are!

(PD)

In the shop.

Buyer: Excuse me, how much is this cheese? (B - B)

Seller: - Do you have no eyes? (R - D).

In situations of this type there is always an element of active disagreement, protesting against the “wrong”, from the point of view of one of the participants of communication, the behavior of the interlocutor. This entails verbal aggression, provoking a communicative conflict. It is possible that the object of aggression will be forced to swallow taunts, but a transition “to the counterattack” is also possible. Then, in response to the “prick” of the interlocutor, the linguistic person makes his “lunge”.

A subtle analysis of communicative conflicts, ways to prevent them are proposed in the book of the Rostov psychotherapist M. E. Litvak “Psychological Aikido”. Consider the scheme of verbal "collision" of the interlocutors, developed by the scientist.

In response to the remark of the wife in the above communicative situation, the dialogue can have the following continuation.

Husband: If there was order in our house, I would be able to find my things! (R — D)

Wife: If you helped me a little, I would be able to. manage the farm! (R— ~ D)

Husband: Not so we have a large farm. Be quick. If your mom didn’t indulge you as a child, you would be controlled with him. See, I have no time! (R —D)

Wife: If your mom taught you to help, you would not serve breakfast in bed, you would find time to help me! (R —D) , etc.

Consider the course of the conflict. The husband’s first move was in line B → B. However, his wife took him as pressure on her own child. Her Parent stood up for the Child and collapsed.

on the child of her husband. The husband’s parent, in turn, defended his own Child. And off we go.

The essence of the “psychological aikido” of M. Litvak, we note in passing, is the ability to immediately agree with the attacker's arguments in order to extinguish his verbal aggression.

The study of the psycholinguistic nature of communicative conflicts is successfully engaged in the Yaroslavl scientist V.I. Zelvis. In his works, he analyzes linguistic forms of expression of negative attitudes (invectives) among various peoples. The researcher drew attention to the dissimilarity in the manifestation of conflict behavior among representatives of different ethnic groups. For example, the inhabitants of Japan in everyday quarrels, as a rule, avoid expletives similar to those used by our countrymen. And this does not mean that Japanese culture does not know verbal aggression. The fact is that Japanese speech etiquette is designed in such detail that it is possible to find in it specific grammatical forms of expressing different degrees of politeness. A simple request to open a window can be conveyed in several ways, from which it’s normal and polite in Russian translation sounds like this: “Could you make the window open?” The Japanese take the underlinedly polite message as a challenge, an insult. The simple “Open the window!” Form can be perceived as a deliberate provocation to conflict.

The speech conflict of the Himalayan Sherpas proceeds in a completely different and diametrically opposite way. Followers of Buddhism, Sherpas profess unacceptability of any form of violence. However, the prohibition of verbal aggression is constantly violated: not having the possibility of physical impact, sherpas compensate for it with verbal expressions. They even have a kind of ritual of “embroidering at feasts”, which sometimes takes on the character of a rather tough verbal duel.

If we carefully look around, we can see that people around us also behave differently in situations of emotional stress. Among our acquaintances, we will find both scrupulous “Japanese” and incoherent “Sherpas”. In a conflict situation, different linguistic personalities adhere to different speech strategies. Differences in communicative behavior are determined by the individual

but the personal characteristics of the speaker, due to their temperament, upbringing, etc. The diversity of language forms used in a state of conflict can be reduced to three types of speech strategies: invective, courtly, rational-heuristic. As a single principle of typology, a feature of affective behavior is used here, which uses the linguistic personality to remove frustration. Characterize each.

1. The injective strategy of conflict behavior demonstrates a lower sign: communicative manifestations here are a reflection of emotional and biological reactions and result in affective discharge in the form of battle, swearing (invective).

2. Courtly strategy , on the contrary, is characterized by an increased semiotic character of speech behavior, caused by the speaker speaking to etiquette forms of social interaction. As an extreme form of passion in this case, preference is given to crying.

3. A rational heuristic strategy of speech behavior in a conflict situation is based on rationality and sanity. This type of discharge causes laughter as an affective reaction. Negative emotions in this case are expressed indirectly, indirectly.

We emphasize once again that the communicative conflict bears in itself the realization of emotional relaxation, stress relief. The effect of such “releasing vapors” is similar to what the ancient Greeks called the term catharsis , a psychological purification that brings relief. Different language personalities tend to different verbal catharsis. So the invective language personality is discharged by means of direct verbal aggression, courtly demonstrates the emotion of resentment, rational-heuristic uses laughter catharsis, presented in the form of irony. To illustrate, let's take a typical conflict situation of family communication: the husband unsuccessfully looks for his socks in the morning, which causes extreme irritation of his wife.

Husband: - Do you happen to know where my socks are?

( Injective type ) Wife: - Go to hell with your socks! I'm not a housekeeper! Moron!

( Courtly type ) Wife: - If it is not difficult for you, be so kind: put your socks in place!

( Rational-heuristic type ) Wife: - This, of course, the enemies stole. CIA kidnapped. Learn how weapons of mass destruction .

All three types of answers are given from the perspective of the Bern Parent. Speech strategy is chosen unconsciously by the speaker. Conflict behavior as a litmus test manifests the identity of a linguistic personality. These behavioral traits in a situation of emotional stress reveal themselves in other spheres of a person’s speech existence: in business, teaching, etc. It suffices to recall the school teachers with whom each of us dealt with in our childhood. In a state of stress, some of them took the offended posture, others preferred to go on screaming, while others were discharged with the help of ironic ridicule.

Domestic conflict, as a rule, occurs as a result of dissatisfaction of one of the participants of social interaction with the behavior of another. In some cases, such discontent becomes a consequence of a communicative misunderstanding, which is based on the difference in the speech strategies of the participants in communication. Let us give some examples from the records of lively speaking.

1 . Husband (looking for something irritably). - Hell! Where in this house all goes! Wife: -Do not you dare / talk to me in such a boorish tone!

2. Wife ("going to the apartment). - I was driving now / to some kind of gas chamber! This is a nightmare / what is happening in the transport!

Husband (ironically) - Horror! World catastrophe! Wife. - I do not understand / why are you happy / / Your wife almost broke her arm / and you are all jerking!

3. Wife. Oh / something I feel so bad today // ...

Husband (ironically). - Poor man // Lie down and make a bye-bye //

Wife. - Cattle! That you have been sleeping all day long, and I am sticking to the whole family !

All three dialogues demonstrate conflict based on differences in the types of linguistic personalities. In the first situation, the husband belongs to the invective type, the wife to the courtly type; in the second, the wife of the school expresses dissatisfaction with her husband's rational-heuristic style of communication; in the third example, the conflict is outlined as a result of discrepancy: the wife is an invective type, the husband is rational-heuristic.

Observations on different linguistic personalities allows us to talk about the different degrees of their conflict. Among our acquaintances we can single out people for whom conflict is a natural form of interpersonal communication, and interlocutors, communication with whom never turns into confrontation. The ability to cooperate in interpersonal interaction can be considered one of the criteria for distinguishing the levels of communicative competence of linguistic personalities. The type of dominant attitude in relation to another participant of communication acts here as a unified basis. On this basis, we distinguish three levels of communicative competence: conflict, centered and cooperative . Each of the identified species includes two subtypes.

Before we proceed to a detailed consideration of each of the types, let us point out that the speech behavior of linguistic personalities within one or another level of communicative competence may differ. The difference in the linguistic forms of the expression of communicative intent is determined by the peculiarities of the individual style of the participants of communication.

Observations have shown that different levels of communicative competence, distinguished on the basis of harmonization / disharmonization of communication, provide different possibilities for distinguishing linguistic forms of constructing speech interaction (interaction). Let us turn to a detailed description of each of the selected types of discourse.

Conflict type demonstrates installation against a communication partner. It reflects the desire of one of the participants of communication to assert themselves at the expense of the interlocutor. This type is represented by two varieties: conflict-aggressive and conflict-manipulative.

The conflict-aggressive subtype is characterized by the fact that one of the participants (or both) demonstrate a negatively charged emotional attitude (aggression) to the communicative partner, which is caused by a desire to see hostility in his behavior. One of the features of this type of speech is the presence in it of so-called conflict -provoking persons who provoke the interlocutor to a collision. The aggressor is a socially and psychologically defective person. In order to achieve a sense of social usefulness, a communicator of this kind must deliver to the interlocutor moral discomfort (

to call disgusting " ). Communicative sadism becomes the extreme form of verbal aggression when a communication partner becomes the object of verbal bullying.

Depending on the individual characteristics of the speech, the portrait of the participants of communication, aggression can manifest itself in different forms. Observations show that invective, courtly and rational-heuristic speech aggression differs in terms of language implementation quite clearly. Conflict of this type is most clearly expressed when two injective linguistic personalities collide. As an example, let's take a short dialogue in public transport.

(A complete woman of advanced years, pushing herself towards the exit) -Yes, will you give me / will you go out or something?

(A woman of about forty) - Che, you gobbled up / the horse is old!

However, not always aggression can take the form of direct insult. More often, it has the appearance of an implicitly expressed relation, a hint. In everyday communication, this is manifested in subgenre, which we called the term "barb." This kind of courtly aggression is well illustrated by a joke.

Two elderly friends are talking.

- What we were once beautiful. Especially me.

- Yes. And now we are so scary. Especially you.

Courtly conflict may manifest itself in the form of so-called communicative sabotage, when the question posed is answered with a question.

(Female student looking at the department)

- Sorry / a N [teacher's last name] today?

- N / A IM. [name and patronymic] // Do you not know / what / should I contact the teacher by name and patronymic?

If in the first example a direct insult acts as a conflict agent, then in the second one there is a hint, a decrease in the interlocutor by indirect means. For a rational-heuristic person, such a provocative clue can be an introductory phrase that introduces a sense offensive to the interlocutor.

- Do you remember / what day was yesterday?

- Which one?

- You as always / forgot / that your son has a birthday //

Conflict-manipulatory subtype of speech behavior is focused on communication, in which one of the participants of communication in his interlocutor first sees the object of manipulation. Here we also encounter psychological impairment, which is overcome by the communicative partner. The manipulator asserts itself, putting the interlocutor in a specific communication situation on the lower status position compared to itself. He has no respect for the addressee of his statement, considering him for intellectual and ethical qualities to be a less developed one. The dominant attitude in the speech behavior of such a linguistic person is to impose one's opinion and, in general, exaggerate the credibility of one’s life experience (I think ...; You should (a) ...; I would be in your place ..., etc.). In the course of communication, the manipulator manifests itself in teachings, advice, dictation, and moreover, in a manner of asking a question, not hearing the answer to it or giving the answer itself, in an unceremonious change of topic by interrupting the interlocutor.

The discourse, which reflects conflict-manipulative communication, is also quite clearly differentiated depending on the belonging of the manipulator to the invective, rational-heuristic, or courtly type of language personality.

(Injective)

- I do not know / what should I do with K. [husband]? All day lies / and video recorder looks //

-Dura you were / when she married him! I count / chase you in his neck! Than this / better no //

(Courtly)

(Husband) - Of course, you / excuse me // I certainly / can't make you // But I think / you are in this jacket / look like a bum // Wear whatever you want / it's your right // But I will be with you / just ashamed to go //

(Rational-heuristic)

(Husband, referring to his wife, who speaks on the phone) - Will you last?

Wife - Do not bother / I am in business //

Male- I understand / we will have dinner today / will not ...

As in the discourse containing aggressive intentions, there are conflict agents in the verbal behavior of the conflict manipulator, the purpose of which is to reduce and humiliate the communicative partner.

The centered type of speech behavior is characterized by the presence of one (or both) of the participants in communication (interaction) with the attitude to ignore the communication partner. Our observations allow us to distinguish two types of

STI discourse of this type: active-centered and passive-centered.

The active-centered subtype (active egocentric) sometimes in its speech manifestations resembles conflict-manipulative discourse: it also contains interruptions to the interlocutor, arbitrary changes in the topic of conversation, etc. However, here it is necessary to state the difference: if the conflict manipulator does not respect the communicative partner, wishing навязать ему свою точку зрения, то активный эгоцентрик просто не способен встать на точку зрения другого участника общения.An active egocentric builds his communication like a child playing a ball with a wall: asks advice and immediately speaks about the decision, asks the question and answers it himself, determines the topic of conversation and develops it himself, without letting the communication partner insert a word, Express your judgment. Subjectively, he feels an illusion of full-fledged communication and, as a rule, gets pleasure from intercourse without noticing the discomfort that an interlocutor feels, which sometimes is fraught with communicative failures and (even) conflicts.

A conversation in the cinema, at the cinema viewing.

- N / let's talk //

- About what?

-Come on "Moloch" let's talk [film by A. Sokurov] // Do you understand how?

-You understand ...

(He speaks at the same time as the interlocutor's remark, interrupting) - I understand / he is lonely // He is a victim of loneliness // Existential cases / such //

- Ну ты понимаешь// Сложно рационализировать/ то/ что Сокуров имел в виду// Там скорее атмосфера...

(Глядя в пространство с отсутствующим выражением и явно не слушая) - Ясно// Ясно// А ты сейчас/ что читаешь? (не дожидаясь ответа) Я Фуко купил// Как тебе Фуко? (не дожидаясь ответа) Мне нравится//...

Собранный нами материал показывает, что центрированное речевое поведение слабо дифференцируется по стратегическим предпочтениям участников интеракции. Иными словами, в центрированной коммуникации говорящие обычно ведут себя примерно одинаково.

Пассивно-центрированная разновидность общения характеризуется уходом одного из коммуникативных партнеров в себя.

Такой пассивный эгоцентрик обычно выглядит безобидным рассеянным (иногда - забитым) «ежиком в тумане». Он с трудом способен выйти за пределы собственного внутреннего мира. Такая особенность речевого поведения, как правило, становится результатом работы психологических защитных механизмов, которые обычно отражают какие-то особенности воспитания индивида. Обычно речевое поведение такой языковой личности содержит несоответствие выбранных говорящим тактик ситуации общения и намерению собеседника, что свидетельствует о неумении переключиться на точку зрения слушателя. Это же выражается в упоминании имен, неизвестных собеседнику, как известных; в принципиально банальных реакциях на информацию, касающуюся коммуникативного партнера; в неадекватных реакциях (репликах невпопад); в переведении разговора на темы, которые касаются только говорящего, и полном отсутствии интереса к темам, интересующим слушателя и т. п. Речевое общение пассивного эгоцентрика наполнено коммуникативными неудача-ми и недоразумениями, факт возникновения которых часто им не замечается.

(Преподаватели, сидя на кафедре, наблюдая, как N перебирает на своем столе бумажки) - Интересно/ долго она копошиться будет?

—Да/ Между прочим/ звонок уже был//

- Смотри-ка/она даже не слышит//

(N, спустя некоторое время) - Эт вы че/ про меня говорите?

Особенно наглядно проявляется эта разновидность дискурса, когда оба участника общения строят свою речь в рамках пассивной центрации. В этом случае общение напоминает описанный в известном анекдоте диалог глухих:

- Ты в баню?

- Нет, я в баню.

- А-а. А я думал, что ты в баню.

Наши наблюдения показывают, что довольно успешно (по крайней мере - неконфликтно) проходит общение активного и пассивного эгоцентриков, в рамках которого первый выговаривается, не обращая внимание на то, слушает его собеседник или нет, а второй - просто присутствует при общении, не особо вникая в суть разговора.

В еще большей мере, чем дискурс активно-центрированный, пассивно-центрированное речевое поведение не дифференцируется по особенностям индивидуального стиля говорящих.

Кооперативный тип речевого поведения отличается доминирующей установкой в общении на партнера коммуникации. Здесь мы тоже выделяем подтипы: кооперативно-конформный и кооперативно-актуализаторский.

Кооперативно-конформная разновидность дискурса характеризуется тем, что один из участников общения демонстрирует согласие с точкой зрения собеседника, даже если он не вполне разделяет эту точку зрения, что, как правило, выступает следствием боязни конфликта, конфронтации. Такая настроенность проявляется в демонстрации интереса к другому участнику коммуникации в виде уточняющих вопросов, поддакивания, проявлении сочувствия, утешения, комплимента и т. д. В реальном общении обычно это выглядит как имитация (в той или иной степени убедительности) настроенности на коммуникативного партнера. Иногда уступки в построении интеракции, которые делает конформист, воспринимаются его коммуникативными партнерами как неискренность и, даже, хитрость.

Рассмотрение конкретного речевого материала показывает, что кооперативно-конформное речевое поведение также, как поведение конфликтное, способно различаться. Однако очень важно отметить, что основным принципом дифференциации выступает здесь не столько характер идиостиля говорящего, сколько особенности речевой манеры адресата. В подобном случае мы имеем дело со своего рода речевой мимикрией - стремлением подладиться под собеседника не только на уровне содержания речи, но и на уровне языкового оформления содержания. Let's give an example.

- Я не знаю/ неужели N вечно собирается/ на шее у матери сидеть?

- Не знаю/ не знаю//

- Пора/в конце-то концов/ей самой деньги зарабатывать!

- Да уж/вообще-то пора...

- Хватит/ с родителей тянуть!

- Да/конечно...

Кооперативно-актуализаторский подтип речевого поведения отражает высший уровень коммуникативной компетенций человека по способности к речевой кооперации. В этом случае гово-

I58

рящий руководствуется основным принципом, который можно определить как стремление поставить себя на точку зрения собеседника , взглянуть на изображаемую в речи ситуацию его глазами. Рискнем квалифицировать такой Тип общения, как соответствующий основному постулату христианской морали («возлюбить ближнего как самого себя»). Принципиальным отличием поведения актуализатора от конформиста выступает двойная перспектива в общении: ориентация не только на коммуникативного партнера но и на себя. Точнее - стремление возбудить в себе неформальный интерес к собеседнику , умение настроиться на его «волну». При этом кооперативный актуализатор, уважая мнение другого участника общения, сопереживая его проблемам, вовсе необязательно должен во всем с ним соглашаться. Более того, как это ни парадоксально, в некоторых случаях поведение актуализатора может напоминать методы манипулятора и, даже, агрессора.

Анализ конкретного речевого материала показал, что дискурс, соответствующий этому уровню коммуникативной компетенции тюке довольно отчетливо различается по идиостилевым особенностям. При этом критерием такой различия выступает и довольно сложное соотношение языкового своеобразия речевого поведения как адресанта, так и адресата коммуникации.

- Слушай/я в шоке/мне не приходит утверждение!

- Ну/ ты подожди// Рано паниковать// Оно не сразу приходит// Ирка вон/ целый год ждала// А сейчас и вовсе/ в ВАКе там сейчас/все меняется//

- Ой/ не знаю// У меня всегда все не по-людски// Всем приходит/ а меня могут не утвердить//

- Да нет// Так не бывает// Успокойся// Ты уже кандидат// Степень не ВАК/а совет присуждает// -Ты думаешь?.. -Ну хочешь/я позвоню в ВАК?// Я спрошу у О.Б. телефон... .

Представленные выше разновидности речевого поведения двойственны практически всем людям. Каждый из нас в различных коммуникативных ситуациях может демонстрировать конфликтность, центрацию, подниматься до высот актуализации и т. П. Более того, в соответствии с намеченными типами взаимодействия можно дифференцировать жанры повседневного общения, о которых у нас пойдет речь в следующем параграфе: так конфликтное общение в большей мере соответствует жанру ссоры,

выяснения отношений, центрированное - чаще присутствует в легкомысленной болтовне, кооперативное (особенно - кооперативно-актуализаторское) отвечает природе жанра разговора по душам и т. п.

Кроме этого, в выборе выявленных форм речевого поведения, при переключении (иногда - не вполне осознанном) с одного типа построения дискурса на другой большое значение имеет фактор адресата, характер статусно-ролевых отношений с ним говорящего. В разговоре с человеком, который старше нас по возрасту или общественному положению, мы, естественно, значительно чаще вынуждены прибегать к конформным способам кооперации, нежели со сверстником, который находится с нами в дружеских отношениях. Общение с сыном (дочерью) невольно побуждает нас обращаться к конфликтному манипуляторству, в то время как использование подобных принципов в коммуникации с женой (мужем) чревато ссорой.

The varieties of discourses described above can, in our deep conviction, be successfully used for the typology of linguistic personalities. However, for the reasons stated above, it is difficult to uniquely qualify one or another linguistic personality on the basis of the presented parameters. For an adequate separation of people according to their ability to cooperate in speech behavior, the concept of “ personality complex ” is used, which includes a set of signs according to the degree of decrease: dominant, subdominant, and substrate . Within the framework of such a division, a significant number of typological varieties can be distinguished, for example: a person with an actualizing dominant, a conflict subdominant, and an actively-centered substrate; conflict dominant, actualizing subdominant and manipulator substrate, etc. The number of subtypes in this case increases exponentially and reaches 63. The hierarchy of distinguished types will be located between the two poles, the upper of which should be designated as the actualizer in the dominant, subdominant and substrate. Such a linguistic personality is characterized by traits that are usually fixed with canonized saints. At the lower pole of the hierarchy there will be a “demonic personality” with the presence of an aggressive beginning in all three positions. Between these extreme characteristics are the usual representatives of the ethnos, native speakers, with their communicative advantages and disadvantages.