Introduction
Graduates of Russian universities are required to have not only high professionalism, but also a deep understanding of the principles of communication, especially speech. Speech culture is essentially one of the components of professional training of specialists in tourism, provision of legal services to the population, museum and exhibition services, management, not to mention referents, document specialists and image makers. All of them must be fluent in all types of speech activity, have speech testing skills, be able to skillfully conduct a conversation (namely conduct, and not just participate in it), in general, feel quite confident in both everyday and business spheres of communication.
Despite the wide interest in the problems of speech communication, there is a shortage of relevant domestic textbooks and teaching aids. Many books are devoted to business communication, but their authors, as a rule, are either psychologists, or philosophers, or management specialists, therefore, in our opinion, in these publications the factors of language and speech are often relegated to the background.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that recently (primarily in connection with the introduction of very constructive manuals on speech culture into state standards for all specialties of the discipline “Russian Language and Speech Culture”), which, however, do not exhaust all the realities associated with speech communication. The translation literature is especially extensive, but it does not cover the entire range of problems of speech communication.
Analyzing the authors' views on ways to achieve the goals of verbal communication, which ultimately determines both the content of educational disciplines and the teaching methods used in them, we can note the presence of main approaches - linguistic (orthological), psycholinguistic, psychological and complex.
Linguistic (orthological)
the approach is to postulate the need to master the norms of the literary language and the criteria of speech culture in order to effectively achieve the final goal of communication. This approach is typical for textbooks on the Russian language and speech culture.
Within the framework of the psycholinguistic approach
Two directions can be distinguished, depending on ideas about the effectiveness of verbal communication:
rhetorical
– determined by the linguistic characteristics of the speech message (its composition, choice of linguistic means, etc.), depending on the characteristics of the listeners, the situation and other factors (implemented in textbooks on rhetoric);
active
– depends on the level of development of a person’s skills in basic types of speech activity (implemented in textbooks addressed mainly to students of pedagogical universities).
Psychological approach
is based on the idea that the success of communication depends on a person’s ability to use the psychological mechanisms of interaction between people, and is typical for the most part in textbooks on business communication.
The proposed textbook implements an integrated approach
to teaching verbal communication, combining the approaches listed above. It affects various aspects of the process of verbal communication and is optimal because it takes into account a variety of factors. According to this approach, teaching speech communication should pursue the following main goals:
• mastering the norms of the literary language (orthological aspect);
• the ability to construct a speech using various methods depending on the conditions of communication: choose linguistic means, figures of speech, etc. (rhetorical aspect);
• improving the skills of all types of speech activity (activity aspect);
• knowledge of the psychological mechanisms of interaction between people (psychological aspect).
It should be noted that today speech communication appears as a scientific direction and an independent academic discipline, which has its own (perhaps not fully developed) conceptual apparatus, and without understanding this it is impossible to master its content.
One of the main questions in understanding the essence of speech communication: is it a process of influence or interaction? There are supporters of both approaches. Without, of course, expressing the ultimate truth, I would like to present our point of view, from the position from which the student is given the basic concepts of the discipline.
By speech communication we understand speech-cognitive activity carried out for the purpose of interaction.
It seems that interaction is not limited to the information function of language, but is carried out within the framework of other functions. Naturally, when using the propaganda function, the interaction takes on the nature of influence.
Moreover, if the situation of verbal communication is of an everyday type, then it does not always require influencing the interlocutor, but business communication is not implemented outside of target settings.
From a methodological point of view, the choice of strategy in understanding speech communication as an activity is also important, since, as noted by A.A. Leontiev1, the subject of activity is always a “collective subject”, and by no means an isolated individual, which makes communication an internal moment of activity.
The above provisions formed the basis of the new discipline “Fundamentals of Speech Communication” (in modern standards – “Speech Communication”) developed by the Department of Russian Language and Literature of Moscow State University of Education and Science, the teaching of which first began in 1991 to students of the specialty “Social Work”, and in 1993 – students of the specialties “Socio-cultural service and tourism” and “Home science”. In 1992, a department textbook was published, and in 1997, a textbook for universities was published with the stamp of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation “Fundamentals of Speech Communication”.
The second edition of the textbook offered to the attention of readers has been revised and expanded taking into account modern ideas about speech communication and the many years of teaching experience of its authors.
Psychology of communicationA. A. Leontyev, 1997
§ 2. Communication and communication activities
In the modern science of communication, there is such a huge number of divergent definitions of communication (communication) that the question of the definition of this concept becomes, one might say, an independent scientific problem. The famous American communication theorist Frank Dance tried to systematize such definitions[29]: as a result, three main “variables” were identified, three signs by which the main conceptual
discrepancies between different authors: this is 1) the level of analysis, 2) the presence or absence of intention on the part of the communicator, 3) the presence of a normative assessment of the act of communication (“good - bad” or “successful - unsuccessful” communication)[30].
If we try to determine our position on the issue of communication in these coordinates, we must first of all emphasize that communication is for us one of the types of activities
[31].
This does not mean that communication in all cases acts as an independent activity (see below); it is important that it can be such, although it can also act as a component, an integral part (and at the same time a condition) of another, non-communicative activity. And if we understand communication as an activity, then it is obvious that for us the axiom is, firstly, its intentionality (the presence of a specific goal
, independent or subordinate to other goals; the presence of a specific
motive
);
secondly, its effectiveness is a measure of the coincidence of the achieved result with the intended goal; thirdly, normativity, expressed primarily in the fact of mandatory social control
over the course and results of an act of communication, is an issue that we partially touched upon in the text of the work, but did not receive detailed consideration in it.
As for the level of analysis in the interpretation of communication, in order to determine the position of the psychology of communication on this issue, we will have to immediately introduce a number of categories in the system of which communication should find its proper place. These categories are: 1) activity, 2) interaction (interaction), 3) communication, 4) relationship, 5) social attitude.
When we talk about activity as a social phenomenon, about social activity, then what interests us and is essential for us, first of all, is its focus on the object (product, result), its objective content. For example, when we are talking about collective labor activity (we will consider this particular case later), we are interested in the labor process, the object (result) of labor activity, and finally, the subject or subjects of labor as bearers of the corresponding abilities, skills, abilities, as individuals, in whose consciousness is reflected in one way or another (and determines their activity, and not only directly labor!) production and other social relations built on top of them, characteristic of a given socio-economic structure, for a given stage of development of society. The production team occupies us here precisely as a production
, division of labor - as division
of labor
, etc.
It is possible, however, to approach collective production activity from a slightly different angle, considering what kind of organization of the work collective ensures the effectiveness of joint work (in particular, the effective distribution of labor responsibilities). In doing so, we will be faced with the fact that there are certain types of such organization that are effective regardless of the specific content of the activity. This fact is the basis for identifying an independent category of interaction. The production team turns to us here, so to speak, with its “collective” side.
But you can go further in the same direction, focusing not on what in organizing joint activities ensures its potential effectiveness, but on how to achieve
this optimal organization, what processes occurring in the production team lead to the formation of such an organization, ensure its maintenance and are a channel through which production factors do not directly influence its change.
This will be the approach from a communication
.
Thus, interaction (interaction) is mediated by communication. Through communication, people can interact. Otherwise, interaction is a collective activity that we consider not from the point of view of content or product, but in terms of its social organization. As for communication, this is one of the factors of interaction or, to be more precise, a combination of such factors (cf. mental and social contact in J. Szczepanski[32], physical and informational contact in M. Argyll[33], etc. d.). These factors “become communicative when they are used in interaction situations”[34].
But for the correct qualification of communication, it is absolutely necessary to clearly understand the actual relationship between the concepts of relationship, communication and activity. We will try to show in the future that communication can be interpreted as the implementation or actualization of a social relationship (and in two aspects: as a process of such actualization and as its condition or method). As for activity, it is that in which social relations are actualized, the psychological content of the communication process; in this and only in this sense it is possible to differentiate between communication and interaction (interaction): let us emphasize once again that this latter is activity considered as interaction, that is, activity considered in the aspect of “external” social forms of its implementation[35]. On the other hand, it is necessary, in our opinion, to distinguish between the concept of social relations
and its “personal”, psychological correlate, which arises in the real process of communication as a derivative of its psychological organization, namely
relationship
[36]. Therefore, it seems to us that V.N.’s formula is basically correct, although not entirely accurate. Myasishchev, according to which “relationship” is the internal personal basis of interaction, and the latter is the implementation or consequence and expression of the first”[37].
Above, in the previous paragraph, we have already outlined our understanding of the subject of communication psychology, the range of problems that fall within the competence of psychological science. It is obvious that communication can, in principle, be considered in other aspects, and above all - in sociological and general philosophical terms.
The sociological aspect of the concept of communication involves the study of the internal dynamics of the structure of society and its relationship with communication processes. Ultimately, any communication, be it socially or personally oriented (see below) - of course, if socially significant relationships between people are actualized in this communication - is reflected at the sociological level: this, from our point of view, is the justification of the fact itself the existence of various forms of human communication. Here we can draw a well-known parallel with the functions of communication in animal communities, but if in the animal world the communication of individual individuals and individual communities with each other is unilaterally directed and is subordinated to the tasks of preserving and self-reproduction of the species, then in humans - due to the qualitative specificity of human society and the associated with it is a way of relating to reality - communication is two-way directed: it, so to speak, “works for society” not only directly, but also - as a rule - through one or another change in the consciousness and activities of the members of this society. In addition, human activity, as an activity mediated by the world of tools and the world of “psychological tools” (Vygotsky), is active and multifunctional, and the functions of communication in it are by no means reduced to ensuring the purely biological survival of the human collective; Following the variety of forms of activity, communication participates in various forms of active human influence on nature and thus acts as a whole bunch of multidirectional factors in the social life of mankind.
We in no way claim that any act of communication has a direct sociological “output”, direct meaning for society, or even more so leads to changes in its social structure. The situation is, of course, much more complicated. Firstly, sociologically, perhaps more important than changes in the social structure is the maintenance of the existence and functioning of this social structure as a whole and the individual social groups that make it up; this maintenance is carried out not only due to the stability of the communication system in a given community (stability of communication), as is often imagined by social psychologists, but also due to the stability of the system of personal in the form of existence, social in nature of relationships or relationships realized in communication. Secondly, not every act of behavior that is externally an act of communication is such from a functional point of view. (Of course, we do not consider as afunctional acts of communication aimed at establishing contact, that is, having a phatic function, or aimed at clarifying or understanding the means or forms of communication.) Moreover: approaching communication from a sociological point of view, we apparently has the right to “arrange” different types of communication, identified according to other criteria, into a consistent hierarchical series depending on the measure of sociological significance of a given type, highlighting the most sociologically loaded types of communication at one pole, and the sociologically “empty” types of communication at the other. In this sense, we can talk about typical communication
, in which his sociological orientation would appear most nakedly; Such typical communication, undoubtedly, is direct interpersonal communication in the processes of collective work activity.
So, from a sociological point of view, communication can be understood as a way of achieving internal evolution or maintaining the status quo
social structure of society, a social group or a separate community - to the extent that this evolution generally presupposes a dialectical interaction between the individual and society, which is impossible without communication [38].
Here, however, the question arises: is it possible to talk about communication as a subject of sociology? In other words, does the sociology of communication exist as an independent scientific field? It seems that its existence should be questioned. There are two different approaches to studying communication. We can consider communication processes in their specific historical specificity, determined by the nature of interaction and, ultimately, the content and characteristics of social reality. Then what is important for us is not what is common in different types of communication, but what is specific in it, which is rooted in interaction. Here, of course, we cannot do without sociology; but that in communication that could be the subject of sociological consideration is determined by interaction. We can, on the other hand, take communication precisely as something specific, as something that has relative independence from interaction, forms its own system, and is determined by specific factors. And in this case there is hardly a place for the sociology of communication as an independent field: it is “added” to communication, and does not interpret it. But a special branch of sociology, and at the same time a very important branch, is the sociology of interaction.
You can approach the analysis of various forms of communication from the other side, giving it a strictly philosophical interpretation. This aspect of the concept of communication is associated primarily with the dialectics of the development of social relations
and ways to actualize these relationships. To reveal this understanding, we will have to turn to the concept of communication (Verkehr) in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels, starting with “German Ideology”[39].
Each generation and each individual finds “as something given” a certain “sum of productive forces, capital and social forms of communication”[40]. A few lines above, the same idea is expressed differently - it is said that each stage of history “finds in presence” the sum of productive forces and “the historically created attitude of people to nature and each other” (ibid.). To what extent can this attitude be identified with social forms of communication? Why are they spoken of as synonyms, at least partially?
In the same place it is said - again “separated by commas”, as a synonym - about the “mass of circumstances” transmitted by the previous generation to the subsequent one. Below they are discussed as “the conditions under which communication of individuals occurs”: these are “the conditions under which these specific individuals existing in certain relationships can only produce their material life and what is connected with it” (3, 72)
. But these conditions are created by the individuals themselves; Marx’s note in the margin: “the production of the very form of communication” (ibid.).
So, under certain conditions created by people in the process of material production and found by each new generation and new individual as something fixed, objective - under these conditions, individuals who are (“existing”) in certain relationships enter into communication. From this place in “German Ideology” we can conclude that for Marx and Engels, the relationships of individuals and the process of their communication are in the relationship of the virtual and the actual: communication is the process of actualizing a social relationship, transforming it from a virtual into a real form, into the form of a “real relationship” ”, carried out under certain “circumstances” or “conditions”[41].
And further: “These various conditions form throughout the entire historical development a coherent series of forms of communication, the connection of which lies in the fact that in place of the previous form of communication, which became fetters, there becomes a new one, corresponding to more developed productive forces, and therefore a more progressive type of amateur activity.” individuals, is a form of communication which, son tour, turns into fetters and is replaced by another form.” (3, 72)
.
G.A. Bagaturia is undoubtedly right when he correlates the concept of a form of communication with the concept of production relations. But the concept of industrial relations is narrower than the concept of communication and forms of communication. Communication is the actualization of relationships: the form of communication is a way of actualizing relationships
, having a social character and historically developing;
hence the possibility of synonymizing “people’s relationship to nature and to each other” and “social forms of communication” in a certain context
. But these relations themselves are not necessarily productive. Therefore, the transition to a new formulation is not just a terminological renaming, but a clarification of the very thought of Marx and Engels, a narrowing of the concept of “form of communication” to the concept of “relations of production” and at the same time a clear contrast between two aspects - the virtual and the actual.
In this regard, a natural question arises: is the concept of “communication” in “German Ideology” really as broad and vague as the concept of “forms of communication” in relation to the dynamics of the development of these forms? In other words: do Marx and Engels use one global term “communication”, without differentiating this concept?
An analysis of the text of “German Ideology” shows that it contrasts, firstly, “internal” and “external” communication (3, 20)
. This is communication within a given group (specifically, a nation) and between different groups, in particular, nations, i.e. what we call intragroup and intergroup communication.
Secondly, “material” and “spiritual” communication are opposed to each other. This opposition is contained in a well-known place: “The production of ideas, ideas, consciousness is initially directly woven into material activity and into material communication
people, into the language of real life.
The formation of ideas, thinking, spiritual communication
of people are here still a direct product of the material attitude of people” (
3, 24)
. Thus, Marx and Engels very clearly say here that “material communication” is possible, using the “language of real life” as a means, and not specially developed means of communication[42].
Thirdly, the concept of “universal” and “world” communication is introduced (3, 33–34)
.
It, however, develops much lower, where universal communication is contrasted with “limited” communication. What's behind these terms? “All communication hitherto has only been communication between individuals under certain conditions, and not between individuals as “individuals” (3, 66)
.
There are two of these conditions: private property and labor. What is the importance of this thesis? The fact that behind it is the idea of the social nature
of communication.
After all, productive forces “become real forces only in communication and in the mutual connection of these individuals” (3, 67)
.
People are forced to communicate in order to produce, and they are forced to produce in order to “ensure their existence” (ibid.). Limited communication fetters the “independent activity” of individuals; hence the need for universal communication, “the transformation of former forced communication into communication in which individuals as such participate” (3, 69)
.
But until such a position is achieved, communication is a way of “balancing” in the production process the fact that “individuals are completely subordinate to the division of labor and are therefore made completely dependent on each other” (3, 66)
. This is the way to temporarily unite divided individuals in the process of production. Thus, the subject of communication in the strict sense is not an isolated individual, but a society, society, social collective or community. And communication itself is not subject to the abstract need of communication; it is socially determined in terms of the content of communication.
Finally, there is a distinction between “direct” and “indirect” communication. (3, 440)
.
Much lower, in the chapter “Leipzig Cathedral,” Marx and Engels turn to another aspect of the problem of communication, which is of exceptional importance for us - namely, the relationship between the individual and society. It is noted here, firstly, that “the personal behavior of an individual inevitably undergoes reification, alienation, and at the same time exists as a force independent of him, created by communication, turning into social relations” (3, 324)
. Here the relationship of all three categories is clearly visible: communication transforms “personal behavior” into a social fact; and a social attitude is something that, through communication, turns into one of the aspects of the personality, one of the “sides of the personal development of individuals,” as they say on the page below for a slightly different reason.
The thesis of Marx and Engels is extremely important that “the material life of individuals..., their mode of production and form of communication mutually determine each other” (3, 322)
.
This idea is further developed by them as follows: “Individuals... entered into communication with each other... as individuals who are at a certain stage of development of their productive forces and needs, and since this communication, in turn, determines production and needs, it is precisely personal, the individual relation of individuals to each other, their mutual relation as individuals, creates and daily recreates existing relations. They enter into communication with each other as what they were…” (3, 439–440)
. Here again, communication is considered in two ways: as a process and as a condition (method) for the actualization of relationships.
Thus, the main conclusion from the consideration of “German Ideology” in terms of the theory of communication developed by its authors are three main theses:
A)
hierarchy of forms of communication; the possibility of identifying types of communication according to various criteria, the historical development of forms of communication, for example, from material to spiritual;
b)
understanding of communication as a process of transforming a social relationship from a virtual one into a real, “actual” form, carried out under certain circumstances;
V)
in this regard, there is a double interpretation of communication: as a process (process of actualization) and as a condition (method of actualization).
If we adhere to the concept outlined here, then any social activity of a person is, in a certain sense, communication. This idea of “the identity of communication and activity”[43] is one of the most important provisions of Marxism. After all, “there are no social relations outside of activity. They are realized in the activity itself and develop only in the process of socio-historical practice”[44]. Therefore, the concept of communication must be narrowed for our purposes. And first of all, it seems advisable to separate the concept of material communication and spiritual communication. In the first case, we are dealing with the implementation of relationships - including, apparently, ideological relationships - in the process of labor, productive activity. Here the “spiritual communication” of people, if it is present, is “another direct product of their material actions”[45]. In the second case, we are faced with other, not directly production forms of realizing relations; but this realization does not necessarily presuppose activity that is adequate to these relations. For example, primitive magic can reflect - and, judging by ethnographic data, it does reflect - not only religious relations, but a much more complex complex of social relations; in particular, moral, aesthetic, etc. Therefore, when analyzing primitive forms of social activity of man (or, if you like, social forms of activity of primitive man), it is completely unlawful to identify the genesis of forms of activity with the genesis of certain relationships realized in this activity, in these forms of communication, as is often done.
The further stage in the development of communication will be the emergence of methods of communication that are adequate to a particular type of relationship. There are, however, two points to keep in mind here. Firstly, you should not look for a specialized way of communication for any
type of relationship.
Thus, verbal communication (more on it later) is adequate to most types of ideological relations and completely to spiritual relations. Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish between the fact of the existence of psychologically
specialized communication activity (and its various varieties), on the one hand, and the fact of the existence of
semiotically
specialized systems of means of communication that mediate the activity of communication (see below). Psychological specialization does not necessarily imply semiotic: for example, J. Janousek points out that communication (in its developed forms) can be mediated in three ways: language or other language systems, “elements of social structure - roles, norms, etc., the relationship between ends and means ”[46].
In order to more thoroughly understand the various types of mediation of communication activities, it is advisable to continue the analysis of the works of K. Marx and F. Engels and, first of all, to dwell on the so-called “Economic Manuscripts” of Marx, dating back to 1857–1859 and only relatively recently becoming fully available general reader (in volume 46, parts 1 and 2, second edition of the collected works of Marx and Engels).
The first essential position that we encounter in this work of Marx is the idea of “the exchange of activities and abilities”, “taking place in production itself”, which “constitutes its essential side” (46, 1, 35)
. Here we find a direct indication of the nature of the role that communication can play in production. What is the “exchange” described by Marx? This is the participation of individual activity and the corresponding individual ability in the collective labor process. But such participation obviously presupposes such goal-setting in individual activity, which is determined by the relationship between the general goal of collective production, on the one hand, and the means that each producer has to achieve this goal, on the other hand. It is this kind of material, production communication that can be interpreted, following Janousek, as mediated by the relationship between the goal and the means of activity.
Developing further the quoted thought of Marx, we should pay attention to the fact that this material communication ensures the optimal nature of production, because it leads to the most favorable ratio of the goals and means of collective production activity. But this same function continues to exist in the case when we are dealing with specialized communication activities mediated by language or other sign systems. In general, any communication activity in a typical case is aimed at ensuring the unity of goals and means of any other productive activity of a social nature, and thus, as it were, serves this latter, acting as a means of constituting and optimizing
this activity. “Communication is a condition for all other activities”[47].
However, this general function of communication in production activities can be examined in more detail in relation to the modifications that it receives at various stages of the labor process and under various conditions. These modifications are covered on a large amount of empirical material in the monograph of the Romanian psychologist T. Slama-Cazacu “Communication in the process of work” [48].
Returning to Marx’s economic manuscripts, we note one very important place where there is an explicit opposition between “relations of production” and relations of communication. Further mention is made of “forms of the state and forms of consciousness in their relation to the relations of production and communication” (46, 1, 46)
.
Unfortunately, both of these formulations are included in the title of the unwritten section of “Manuscripts”, and they did not receive any disclosure in the text. True, there is a “ nota bene
” regarding those points that should not be forgotten;
here “secondary” and “tertiary”
, generally
derivative, transferred,
non-primary production relations are mentioned” and
“the unequal relationship of the development of material production to the development, for example, of art” is
(ibid.).
From these casual thoughts we can conclude that Marx views “relations of communication” as “transferred” relations of production; such an understanding fits well with other aspects of Marxist theory of society. Wed. on the same page: “ War
reached developed forms earlier than peace;
the way in which in war and armies, etc., such economic relations as wage labor, the use of machinery, etc., developed earlier than within civil society. Also, the relationship between productive forces and relations of communication is especially clear in the army.” On the other hand, it is important to note that the dual interpretation of communication as a process and as a way of actualizing social relations, which we noted above in the analysis of “German Ideology,” is confirmed here: “forms of the state” here correspond to the forms of communication” in “German Ideology.” Finally, let us emphasize once again that the concept of communication and communication relations is not replaced in the Economic Manuscripts by the concept of production relations, but coexists
with them and
is opposed
to them.
Those provisions regarding communication that we find in the Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859 are further developed by Marx in the first volume of Capital (1867).
Here the concept of “social contact” is of particular interest to us. The concept of social contact (der gesellschaftliche Kontakt) is subordinate to the concept of communication [49] (for communication may not be direct; contact is a condition for communication, but not communication itself) and the concept of “the social nature of work.” And this last concept in “Capital” is correlated with the “social attitude of producers to total labor”: “...The mystery of the commodity form lies simply in the fact that it is a mirror that reflects to people the social character of their own labor as the material character of the products of labor themselves, as social properties of these things inherent in them by nature; therefore, the social relation of producers to aggregate labor seems to them to be a social relation of things located outside them.” (23, 82)
.
For us, the concept of social contact is of interest primarily because it - in development of what we just saw in the text of the “Economic Manuscripts” - forms, as it were, the third vertex of a triangle, the first vertex of which is the economic structure of society, and the second is the “form society” (“form of communication” in “German Ideology”). The concept of “social” in “Capital” is, as it were, bifurcated: on the one hand, we are dealing with the historical development of forms of society, with the sociality of ideological relations
(“secondary”, transferred relations of production!).
On the other hand, we are faced with external varieties of communication that have relative independence from the economic basis, that is, with the sociality of the implementation of
secondary relations, with “relations of communication” as “tertiary” transferred production relations. The method of communication, the specific implementation of this communication, thus depends on three factors, which in turn determine each other. This is the socio-economic structure of society, the development of productive forces and production (in general material) relations; this, further, is the level of development of ideological relations, reflected in the development of forms of society (especially the state); this is, finally, a typology of those specific varieties that communication acquires depending on the various conditions (including those formed by the previous two factors) in which it occurs. Thus, social contact in a capitalist society is a consequence of the emergence of cooperative forms of labor, and their necessity, in turn, is determined by the dynamics of the development of the means of production.
The very connection between a specific method of implementing communication and the factors that determine this method can be more or less strict in different historical conditions, under different structures and different forms of society. Thus, different types of material communication are directly dependent on the development of society, while the varieties of spiritual communication, those social and socio-psychological modifications of the basic function of communication discussed above, which the activity of communication acquires in a developed society, are relatively independent in nature.
Concluding the analysis of the philosophical side of the concept of communication, it seems especially important to point out that a consistent approach to the interpretation of communication is an approach from the point of view of correctly (not too narrowly) understood historicism
.
This approach, unfortunately, is too often replaced even in psychology (not to mention such fields as linguistics or semiotics) by one-sided synchronous, essentially phenomenological analysis and formal, and often even ad hoc,
classification of the phenomena being studied. “This understanding of history consists in, based precisely on the material production of immediate life, considering the actual process of production and understanding the form of communication associated with this method of production and the form of communication generated by it...” (VF. No. 10. P. 100).
Returning to the actual psychological issues, let us recall that in our view, the historical development of forms of communication is characterized by two types of mediation: semiotic and psychological. We will dwell on the semiotic mediation of communication later. Now we will try to define as accurately as possible what we mean by the concept of psychological mediation of communication.
Our first and main thesis is that the historical development of forms of communication goes from communication included in some other activity, to communication as an activity, to the activity of communication[50]. Consequently, it is necessary, if not to define the concept of activity in general, then at least to discuss the legitimacy of applying this concept to speech and communication in general.
Public speech contact
Consideration of the concept and types of speech communication obliges us to pay attention to the division of all cases into public and mass. The first involves a monologue. It is in this form that university lectures or meetings are structured. The participant’s speech must have a clear structure, because the main idea of the event is to achieve some pre-agreed goal, for the sake of which people gather in the chosen place. Without structure, speech is unlikely to be a significant assistant in achieving your goals. The public format is a meaningful statement with a specific purpose. For a public format, the level of responsibility is assessed as higher.
Public communication between people is possible in oral and written form. The first type is performances at stadiums and during various events, the second is publications in print media, which led to their name - mass media. In such an interaction, the addressee of the information does not have a specific person, and the speaker forms for himself a general idea of who the person listening to him is.
Communication culture and speech etiquette
One of the most important criteria for an individual’s culture is the level of culture of his speech. Therefore, each person needs to strive to improve their own communication styles and speech etiquette. The level of speech culture depends not only on the ability to avoid mistakes in communications, but also on the desire to regularly enrich vocabulary, the ability to listen and the desire to understand a partner, respect his views, and the ability to choose the right words depending on the interaction situation.
Speech is considered one of the most important characteristics inherent in a person. The impression that people make on the surrounding society depends on the style of communicative interaction.
The speech of an individual has the ability to attract society and other individuals to his personality or, conversely, repel them. Speech can also have a strong impact on the mood of communication partners. Thus, the culture of verbal communications is formed from the ability to listen to the speaker, speech etiquette, and following the rules of good manners.
Often, people, carried away by the topic of conversation, forget about the culture of communication interaction. They try to impose their own judgments, positions and views on the topic of conversation on their partner, do not try to delve into the counter-arguments that the opponent brings and simply do not listen to him, which ultimately leads to neglect of speech etiquette and a cessation of monitoring what they say.
The culture of communication and speech etiquette strictly prohibits putting any pressure on a conversation partner. Besides the fact that imposing one’s own position looks rather ugly from the outside, it is also ineffective. This style of behavior will most likely cause a defensive reaction on the part of the partner, which, at best, will lead to ineffective conversation, and at worst, to conflict situations.
If a communication partner does not listen to his opponent, constantly interrupts him, not allowing him to finish his speech, then this will not only be a demonstration of a lack of cultural speech, but also a manifestation of disrespect for the partner’s personality, which will not characterize the interlocutor who cannot listen at all positively. The ability to listen is an integral part of the culture of communicative interaction.
The verbal tool of communication and speech etiquette today are considered two of the most important components of success, both in communication and in other activities. They help to establish contacts with people, increase the effectiveness of communication, and persuade the mass audience to their own position. The influence of speech culture on the speaker’s behavioral styles is invaluable.
Definitions and concepts
Speech communication, types of speech situations are based on the presence of interest on the part of all participants in the process, as well as motivation to maintain contact. As a rule, there is a certain goal, for the implementation of which speech activity is necessary. Communication becomes part of social life and work, cognition and learning. Communication is possible between several persons, each of whom is active, is a carrier of information and communicates with others, assuming they also have the data of interest. Communication presupposes a reciprocal process. It refers to social activity characteristic of representatives of society, therefore it is, like other types of such activity, aimed at achieving a specific goal, social.
When considering the types of verbal communication and the concept of verbal communication culture, it is necessary to pay special attention to the features of the forms through which the process is implemented. Speech behavior is form, and content is activity. Behavior allows you to organize actions from your internal state that show a person’s attitude to the world around him and the people around him.
Speech means of communication
Verbal (sign) communicative interaction is realized using words. Human speech is considered a verbal means of communication. Studies show that modern “homo sapiens” pronounce approximately 30 thousand words per day, and about three thousand per hour. Words form a variety of speech texts, which are formed depending on the goals of the communicants, for example, to communicate or learn something, to express an attitude or to encourage something. Such texts can be oral or written. They implement language systems, which are systems of signs and methods of their combination. Language systems serve as a kind of tool that facilitates the expression of thoughts, the manifestation of feelings and desires of subjects. They are the most important means of verbal communication.
Language as a means of verbal communication has various purposes. It acts as a core means of communicative interaction. Thanks to this purpose of language systems, people have the opportunity to fully interact in society as a whole and with individuals individually. This purpose of language systems is considered their communicative function. In addition to the communication function, language as a means of verbal communication has a number of other functions, such as cognitive, accumulative, constructive, emotional, contact-building and ethnic.
The cognitive function of language is an expression of the activity of human consciousness. After all, people receive a significant part of information about the outside world through language.
The accumulative function involves the accumulation and preservation of experience, the storage of knowledge for use in later life. In everyday life, people are helped out by keeping diaries or notebooks. And the original “notebooks”, the heritage of all mankind, are all kinds of written monuments and literature.
The constructive function is to form thoughts and various judgments. With the help of language systems, thought seems to acquire a material shell and sound form. Expressed through words, a thought becomes clear and understandable, first of all, for the individual who expressed it.
The emotional function is one of the tools for expressing feelings and emotional states. This function is realized through speech only under the condition of direct expression of the individual’s emotional attitude to the information he communicates. In this case, intonation plays the main role.
The contact-establishing function is expressed in establishing contact between individuals. At times, communication may be aimless, and its information content may be zero, which means preparing the ground for further productive and trusting communication.
The ethnic function lies in uniting the people.
It is important to know
When analyzing types of communication and types of speech activity, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the result of activity is some text or a complete thought, while behavior is aimed at forming relationships between participants in society - these can be constructive, destructive, positive and unfriendly. In addition, behavior is aimed at the formation of an emotional component, explained by how the participants in the dialogue behave.
It is especially important to pay attention to verbal communication as part of the formation of a child’s personality, development of his social life skills and activity. At the same time, adults must teach both activity and behavior. When working, for example, with schoolchildren, we are talking about creating communicative competence. It is necessary to pass on the language system, speech, materials, as well as norms of communication and behavior to the younger generation.
