- The authors:
Alina S. Zagrebelnaya
- Pages: 87-94
- Section: CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION AS A GLOBAL PROBLEM IN THE MODERN WORLD
- URL: http://conferences-ifl.rudn.ru/2712-7974-2019-6-87-94/
- DOI: 10.22363/2712-7974-2019-6-87-94
Abstract. Nowadays, modern linguists are deeply interested in
the study of linguopersonology. V.I. Karasik, O.A. Dmitrieva,
N.D. Golev, E.V. Dzyuba, E.A. Dzhenkova and others have chosen linguopersonology as the subject of their study. The usage of
the communicative aspect in the research paradigm has inevitably led to the expansion of the concept of linguistic personality.
Therefore, linguists have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to consider the linguistic personality through a wide range
of factors: mental, psychological, pragmatic, etc., which are
manifested in discursive strategies and implemented by the
speaker during the communication. It is in the discourse that a
person’s national, cultural, professional, age, gender and other
features are manifested.
The purpose of this study is to find out the definition of the notion “communicative type” and to identify the difference between communicative and linguocultural types.
The study reveals several differences between the “linguocultural”, “sociocultural” and “communicative” types including the
irrelevance of the social and ethnic features of a discourse personality (such as appearance, gender, origin, domicile, occupation, leisure time, marital status, environment, lifestyle, communicative features, precedent nameand situation) for the communicative type.
We follow the methodology of studying the communicative type
proposed by N.N. Panchenko, which includes: a) revealing and
analysis of the conceptual content of the corresponding concept
in the system of related concepts; b) identifying its image and
evaluative characteristics; c) analyzing the contexts which describe a particular communicative type; d) analyzing the discourse features of thecommunicative type.
In this study, we consider the “communicative type”, disregarding social and ethnic characteristics, based on the definition in
which the communicative type is understood as a typical representative of a group of communicative personalities, united by
common features of communicative behavior. This type of personality basically does not depend on ethnic and social characteristics and is displayed exclusively in the specifics of communicative behavior.
In other words, a communicative type is a variety of concept,
which contains a generalized idea of the typical characteristics of
a particular communicative personality.
Keywords: linguopersonology, linguistic personality, linguocultural type, communicative type, concept
Alina S. Zagrebelnaya
Institute of Foreign Languages
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Bogin, G.I. 2001. Text-building asthe realization of game potential. Tver, Moscow, 42 pp.
Dmitrieva, O.A. 2007. The passport of linguocultural type “kazak”. Antropological linguistics3: 133 – 139.
Karasik, V.I. 2003. Freak as a type of English linguoculture. Axiological linguistics: the problems of communicative behavior4:
Karasik, V.I. 2007. Language keys. Gnozis, Moscow, 228 pp.
Karaulov, U.N. 2007. The Russian language and the linguistic
ed. LKI, Moscow, 264 pp.
Mironenko, M.V. 2005. Joker as thecommunicative personality.
PhD thesis. Volgograd state pedagogical university, Volgograd,
Panchenko, N.N. 2008. Communicative type “truth-seeker”. The
newsletter of Chelyabinsk state university1: 110-116 pp.
Plotnikova, S.N. 2005. Language and cognition: Methodological
problems and perspectives. The newsletter of Irkutsk linguistic
state university2: 70-77.
Puziryov, A.V. 2002. Language and cogitation: Psychological
and linguistic aspects. The newsletter of Penza pedagogical state
Shakhovsky, V.I. 2006. Linguistic theory of emotions. Gnozis,
Moscow, 416 pp.