Филологические науки/7. Язык, речь, речевая коммуникация

Dr hab., prof. Romanov A.

Tver State University, Russia

Senior prof. Malysheva E.

Tver State Agricultural Academy, Russia

Frame organization of units in verbal and nonverbal intercourse

Communication is the technology of continuous human interaction with the world around him, requires some means of dialogue expressions aimed at implementing a successful, coherent and coordinated the activities of participants in interactive communication and is implemented as special sequence of symbolic behavior, verbal and nonverbal means of actions and states of members of dialogue communication with the receiving, processing and maintaining information.

In the process of interactive communication are the skills, experience, aspirations and desires of the communicants, and the growing interest from a wide variety of cultural, behavioral, social and applied sciences to the study of communication problems in general, as well as nonverbal communication, in particular due to various reasons.

In this regard, it is important to note V.F. Lomov who called the issue of communication, "the basic category, logical center of the overall system of psychological problems," while stating repeatedly, "in its lack of elaboration in the field of psychology", in particular in regard to non-verbal means of communication (Lomov, 1981: 59, 1984: 242 -243).

Thus problems of research the diversity and the specificity of norms and rules of conduct dialogue partners in the regulatory activities of the participants dialogue interaction with one hand and meaningful and functional specificity of different types of non-verbal (eg, kinesthetic) communication, which are woven into the process of communicative exchange in the structure of model complex verbal kinesthetic acts on the other hand make the process of studying various aspects of communication one of the challenging, relevant and interesting problems in the contemporary social world.

Relevance of such studies mainly highlights the increased interest in the problems of a complex process in the semiosis of communicative exchange in particular to such communicative units which are in the process of dialogue interaction can reflect the regulatory nature of the dialogue partners. In this regard under the close attention of researchers come as a verbal / speech units dialogue communication and nonverbal (in particular kinesthetic) as isolated incidents which are woven into the practice of speech-speech (also: dialogue steps, moves, replica) model of some dialogue fragments (in a typical speech acts with different illocutionary orientation) and are implemented simultaneously with the verbal / verbal action (manifestation) in the types of complex verbal-unverbal (kinesthetic) event or construct (CVUC) (Malysheva, 2009; 2010; Romanov, Malysheva, 2010; 2011).

In such an interaction in the structural and organizational terms, a model emerges as CVUC configuration (framing) construction in which each kind of model of communication verbal and kinesthetic activities forms a specific unit of dialogue interactions carrying the information about the functioning of the two codes of dialogue units of verbal and nonverbal order, capable of regulating the process of interactive communication. Called dialogue tools are updated in the global model or a particular act of communication goals to be achieved by dialogue partner with its complex verbal and kinesthetic activities. Therefore we can assume that each such dialogueal action is realized against the background of other features and has a demonstrative in the model space of CVUC.

The interaction of two codes of individual (subjective) discursive practices can be presented in interactive types of interactions dialogue partners, cf. (1): «Good bye, Hurry» murmured the girl, with a gentle pressure of his hand (1). «I wish you would try and be more like Deerslayer (2)» (Cooper, 1962: 467).

In this context we can say that the use of kinesthetic «a pressure of his hand» in relation to the interlocutor was undertaken not just to accompany the verbal part (as a formal index) dialogue cues (1), but also to enhance the credibility and training partner to further dialogue (2). Obviously softness, sensuality, and trust relationships between participants in the dialogue interaction is also transmitted through the kinesthetic action «a pressure of his hand», which is one of the participants makes interaction as «a gentle pressure of his hand».

Sincerity, openness, trust, dialogue partners, as a rule, can not only highlight the complex verbal and tactile cues dialogueal. They may also emphasize other non-verbal manifestations, which significantly enhance the emotional and personal perception of dialogue reality cf. (2): «Hello, Lester» he said, looking up from his paper over the top of his glasses and extending his hand (1). «Where do you come from?» (2) «Cleveland» replied his son, shaking hands heartily, and smiling (3) (Dreiser, 2004: 130).

In the dialogue fragment with illocutionary welcome destination orientation using stepping through the exchange (1-3) following a kinesthetic action - shaking hands. His attitude towards the addresser largely emphasized manner of manifestations of the action «heartily», indicating that a friendly, relaxed and sincere atmosphere of communication or relationship between the communicants, and passes them to the warmth and cordiality, with this effect is enhanced kinesthetic mimic expression of the recipient «smiling».

However not always through the use of kinesthetic activities in CVUC emphasizes trust, sincerity and openness of dialogue partners. In some cases their using is due to just formal expression of relations of the initiator to the recipient and is dictated by the social circumstances of dialogue communication, for example, underscores the formalities of the situation in which the interaction partners in the dialogue. cf., in Russian (3): Граф Вронский, - сказала Анна. - А! Мы знакомы, кажется, - равнодушно сказал Алексей Александрович, подавая руку. - Туда ехала с матерью, а назад с сыном, - сказал он, отчетливо выговаривая, как рублем даря каждым словом (Tolstoj, 1983: 109).

Noteworthy is one more piece of dialogue speech act within the framework of "gratitude" (4): «Thank you» returned the child, kissing her cheek (1), «you are always kind to me, and it is a pleasure to talk to you (2). I can speak to no one else about him, but poor Kit (3). I am very happy still, I ought to feel happier perhaps than I do, but you cannot think how it grieves me sometimes to see him alter so (4)» (Dickens, 1952: 62), where the dialogue partner thanks the recipient for the warmth and closeness towards him, as evidenced by the illocutionary indicator «Thank you». The desire of the partner to thank the recipient stresses the kinesteme «to kiss one`s cheek». Moreover the intensity of expression is confirmed by the desire to justify the recipient`s monologue, his relationship to the addressee (2-4). Touch as a component of the complex act of communication acts in this case as an exponent intensifier degree of confidence to the addressee, as well as manifestations of feelings of closeness and openness with respect to dialogue partners.

As seen from these examples an exchange of remarks between members of dialogue interaction is based on a complex process which is included the integrated using of different media as a verbal order and unverbal (eg, kinesthetic) and also includes a specific set of responsibilities and rights with which compliance is key to the success of coordinated activities of the participants of dialogue communication. Combining all components of this process contributes to framing the organization of space in social interaction CVUC. Therefore the perception of unnverbal components of communication involves the using of different types of information, understanding that "inevitably is based on more general concepts, categories, rules and policies. It is a common "knowledge" is not an amorphous" (Immamutdinova, 1999: 36) on the contrary it is organized into composite conceptual systems, which can be described as verbal and unverbal constructs which are used in constructing the frames.

From this it follows that the acts of unverbal communication (in particular, kinesthetic order) can also be represented in the form of framing configuration which is a cognitive structure as a "data structure to represent a stereotyped situation," the knowledge of which is necessary to understand the idea which has been encoded in a word (Fillmore, 1981). These frames are ones containing a basic typical and potentially much information as possible, and "are not randomly allocated" pieces "of knowledge" (Deyk, 1989: 3). In this case, it is possible that they contain conventional nature, and they "could define and describe what in this society is "typical" or "typical" (eg, some forms of social activity). Conventional frames (they can be called scripts) definitely organize our behavior and allow to interpret the behavior and speech of others" (Deyk, 1989: 3).

For example, the entry framing the organization of functional semantic representation illocutionary potential reglamentivov as follows (Romanov, 1988: 65-66):

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – UPS → ' р ç (S, L);

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – А1 → to assume (S, to expect (L, to be in solidarity / to acknowledge (S, р)));

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – А2 → to assume (S, [Solidarizovatsya (S, С, р) → to recognize (S, to be in solidarity (Г, р))]);

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – USG → to wish (S, to demonstrate (S, to believe L, to be in solidarity (S, р))));

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – YIS → to guarantee (Г, to meet the expectation (L, to be in solidarity (S, р)));

Solidarizovatsya (S, L, р) – UOD → to mean (S, kauzirovat (S, to recognize (L, to be in solidarity (S, р)))),

where S – speaker, L – listener, p - a fragment of reality, arrow is read as "should", A1 - establishing factual reason to initiate the dialogue interaction to the global goal, A2 - proof of ownership to the recipients status quo.

Attention is drawn to the fact that the selected communication-pragmatic types are characterized by a specific set of functional conditions and parameters that define the typical scenario frame (Romanov, 1988: 27-68), compliance with which enables a partner in dialogue to achieve the desired (set) goals:

- Pre-conditions (A), which affect the principles of communicative cooperation, interest and reflect the communicative and social conventions;

- Terms of intentional content (B) correlated with the content basis and subject replikovogo step illocutionary potential, reflects the ratio of target (both positive and negative) of retaliatory action dialogue interaction participants, show the specific expression of illocutionary indicators and divided into the following parts: a) propositional content conditions (UPS) denote the order in which should be deployed or standard scenario typical question-response structure as a series of incremental actions in the dialogue; b) the conditions of illocutionary content (YIS) designed to provide a means of achieving results; c) the conditions of the inner content of the speaker (USG) show that the party of dialogue communication, acting as a recipient should assess the desirability of the result to the initiator, ie signal level of interest partner to the proposed type of dialogue communication;

Indicators of interactive moves to achieve goals in a frame called illocutionary subtypes: a) the interest may be any, but most of all - mutual. The growth of interest in the direction of the initiator demonstrates his desire to present his attitude toward the status quo in a positive form, b) The form of cooperation - either, as a rule, a positive attitude partners is coordinated interaction that does not require a deviation from the standard interactions (moves prescribed frame. And the level of cooperation partners is sufficient to meet their own and public expectations, c) relationships - kindness to each other and to the thematic content in general, d) social-role status - any. Code of confidence due to the belief in the sincerity of the recipient of solidarity with his condition, which is the initiator.

However, due to the kinesthetic manifestations of dialogue steps interlocutor recording framing scenario kinesthetic frame reglamentivov takes the following form:

To formalize (I, А, р) – UPS →' ^ ¨, р (formal relationship through kinesthetic activities);

To formalize (I, А, р) – А1 → to assume (I, to expect (А, to be unity (I, р)));

To formalize (I, А, р) – А2 → convinced (I, to be unity (I, А, р) → to demonstrate the attitude and to recognize (А, to be unity (I, р));

To formalize (I, А, р) – USG → to demonstrate (А, to be unity (I, р));

To formalize (I, А, р) – UIS → to guarantee (I, to meet the expectation (А, to be unity (I, р)));

To formalize (I, А, р) – UOD→to mean (I, kauzirovat (I, to recognize (to be unity (I, р))));

I - initiator of the first action, A – addressee, sign ^ denotes or includes the symbol • is read as "it is possible that."

Indicators of interactive moves to achieve the goals of illocutionary frame within the parameters of social forms of communication called a subtype: a) an interest in favor of the initiator, and b) a form of cooperation is positive. A positive attitude leads to a consistent partner interaction, which does not require a deviation from the interactive moves and c) the relationship friendly, and d) social-role status - any. Code of confidence due to the belief in the sincerity of the recipient initiating interactive communication.

Consequently the superposition of two frames (verbal and kinesthetic) in the process of dialogue communication occurs in the following positions: a) in the implementation of propositional content (UPS), b) in the realization of belonging to the recipient"s status quo (A2).

Note also that at one stage or sequence of actions committed by the initiator or kinesthetic destination in the dialogue interaction vertex kinesthetic frame will act as a single manifestation of the kinesthetic (Ie, one kinestema (without specifying / refine the focus of kinesthetic action: arm, leg, jaw, etc., that is, any body part). Thus a dialogue fragment (as a typical act of speech with different illocutionary function) will be characterized by a specific set of kinesthetic frame, for example, for a speech act with illocutionary function thanks kinesthetic frame-script (example number 4), according to which will be kinesthetic interaction, as follows:

To kiss (I, А, р) – UPS →' ^ ¨, р (formal relationship through kinesthetic activities);

To kiss (I, А, р) – А1 → to assume (I, to expect (А, to be unity (I, р)));

To kiss (I, А, р) – А2 → convinced (I, to be unity (I, А, р) → to demonstrate the attitude and to recognize (А, to be unity (I, р));

To kiss (I, А, р) – USG → to demonstrate (А, to be unity (I, р));

To kiss (I, А, р) – UIS → to guarantee (I, to meet the expectation (А, to be unity (I, р)));

To kiss (I, А, р) – UOD→ to mean (I, kauzirovat (I, to recognize (to be unity (I, р))));

Thus breaking processing and interpreted reality in the act of an integrated touch-speech speaker and listener formulate a new concept of communication on the background of the functioning of a typical illocutionary frame in which speech acts are displaying typical speech acts to fix and install a state of affairs in the world in the process of generating verbal and nonverbal actions against the background of simultaneously implementing dialogue action and both auditory. And they at the same time are listening and are understanding what he heard or the perception and awareness of a set of touch in the structure framing the organization of two parallel operating frames - verbal and kinesthetic. In turn the using of kinesthetic activities in a representative CVUC illocutionary function reglamentativnogo type involves not only an expression of solidarity with the partner in dialogue, but also to a large extent a demonstration of a positive relationship, which are designed to strengthen all the indicators of dialogue interaction underline, highlight, clarify, remove contradictions and any doubts in the relationship of the initiator and recipient.

REFERENCES

1. Cooper J.F. The deerslayer or the first war-path. NY: Collier Books, 1962. - 479 p.

2. Deyk Т.А. Language. Cognition. Communication. М.: Progress, 1989. - 389 p.

3. Dickens Ch. The Old Curiosity Shop. M.: FOREIGN LANGUAGES PUBLISHING HOUSE, 1952. - 671 p.

4. Dreiser Th. Jennie Gerhardt. – M.: Menedger, 2004. - 384 p.

5. Fillmore C.J. Pragmatics and the description of discourse // Radical Pragmatics. NY, 1981. - Р. 143 - 166.

6. Immamutdinova F.R. Funkcionalno-kognitivnyj potencial glagolov rechi v russkom I anglijskom jzykah: (na material jdernyh komponentov rechi): Dis. … kand. filol. nauk: 10.02.20. – Ufa, 1999. - 148 p.

7. Lomov B.F. The problem of communication in psychology of the problem-tion in psychology. - Moscow: Nauka, 1981. - Р. 3 - 22.

8. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. - Moscow: Nauka, 1984. - 432 p.

9. Malysheva E.V. Cognitive aspect of kinesthetic regulatives in communication Thirty-Seventh LACUS Forum Communication and Cognition: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, July 20-24, 2010. - Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster University, 2010. - Р. 40.

10. Malysheva E. The illocutionary function of touches in dialogue intercourse / Culture as the text. Collection of Scientific Papers, V. IX – M.: IJ RAS, 2009. – Р. 176 – 179.

11. Romanov A. Sistemnyj analiz reguljativnyh sredstv dialogueheskogo obweniy, M.: IL AS USSA. - 183 p.

12. Romanov A., Malysheva E. Mehanizmy vzaimodeistvija verbalnyh I kinesteticheskih edinic v uslovijah megkulturnoj kommunikacii / МОВА I КУЛЬТУРА. Збірник матеріалів XIX Міжнародної наукової конференції iменi профессора Сергiя Бураго 21-25 червня 2010, V. 13. Т. VI (142). Киев: Видавничий дiм Дмитра Бураго, 2010. - Р. 135 – 139.

13. Romanov A., Malysheva E. Telesnoorientirovannye discoursivnye practiki v prostranstve dialoga / Studia Lingvistica. - Киев: Видавничо-полiграфiчний центр «Киiвський унiверситет». - V. 5. – Ch. 2, 2011. - Р. 339 – 342.

14. Tolstoj L.N. Anna Karenina. Roman v vosmi chastyah. – L.: Leningradskoe otdelenie. - Ch. I-VIII, 1982.