Cross-cultural participation is a dynamically developing field at the intersection of linguistics, cultural studies, common language communication and linguodidactics. This is a theoretical and applied scientific direction that is currently required by society for productive communication between people of a different culture and a different language.
Keywords: intercultural, linguistic personality, ethnolinguistic, culture, worldview.
In the theory of intercultural communication, a linguistic personality is a national type of communication based on a system of values capable of intercultural transformation and the image of the cultural world. Intercultural communication involves linguists who carry out operations to distinguish between their own and other cultural images. Therefore, the linguistic personality has a cognitive-discursive approach. This means that «interaction in the use of language tools in the socio-cultural community is characterized by the specifics of communication, socio-cultural and psychological characteristics of the interlocutors, as well as the level of language proficiency» [1, p. 143]. From this point of view, Russian, British, American, etc. have their own peculiarities. means the same can be said about linguistic entities.
The worldview and worldview of each nation is based on a system of material meanings, social stereotypes and cognitive patterns. They determine the ethnicity of the national consciousness of the individual, as well as society as a whole. In the context of intercultural communication, a linguistic person should be interpreted as a carrier of ethnolinguistic and cultural consciousness or an ethnolinguistic and cultural person. It allows to comprehensively determine their national features (ethnolinguistic and cultural personality) through the linguistic facts reflected in the fund of language tools. Linguistic markers of national-cultural consciousness described in our study in relation to a particular ethnolinguistic culture are considered as the main essence of invariants, for their implementation each ethnoculture has its own set of variable language tools. Their study allows to create a speech / linguistic portrait of a representative of a particular ethnolinguistic culture, ie a linguistic personality [2, p. 41].
In linguodidactics, to define the diversity of cultures, such definitions as additional linguistic personality, inofon, xenolectic linguistic personality, representative of the third culture are used. The researcher NV According to Khaleeva, according to the concept of a second language person, «in order to implement intercultural communication, it is necessary to constantly eliminate in the minds of students» another «language», another «culture», moving to the second level. " By translating the second language into another status, we set the task to create a second language person who is able to penetrate the «spirit» of the target language...» [3, p. 45].
The concept of «representative of the third culture» emerged as a result of the study of intercultural communication, initiated by American scientists. According to the concept of Fred Cashmere, the result of intercultural interaction is the emergence of a linguistic identity of the third (culture) building theory. According to this concept, the core of the study is not only the «acculturated» person, but also the assimilation processes taking place in the host culture: «The third culture is built only when the participants engage in an active, coordinated, mutually beneficial process of building relationship», «Melting pot», «salad bowl», «mosaic».
The third culture is formed only when there is an active, harmonious, mutually beneficial process of communication between the participants: «melting furnace», «salad bowl», «mosaic» [4, 115b]. The notion of a «third culture man» in this concept, which replaces the assumption about the results of cultural integration, is controversial.
For example, R. Shater believes that any prosperous multinational society comes through the creation of a society whose members are representatives of the «third culture»: «since the third culture is a product of synthesis and accommodation — it is an ethical process because it values commonality over difference and seeks to create a new culture to accommodate differences "-" The third culture is the result of the processes of synthesis and location — it is an ethical process, because it values commonalities rather than differences and seeks to create a new culture to preserve differences " [5, p. 429]. F. Kashmir's concept of «third culture building» and Yu.Yu. Kim's theory of «the theory of acculturation and intercultural identity» combines a two-pronged approach. It examines, on the one hand, the acculturated person and, on the other hand, the changes in the culture that perceive immigrants. In addition, the dominant world in the process of creating a «third culture» and «acculturation» — the media.
Intercultural communication is a state of consciousness in the presence of abnormal («pathological») conditions in the absence of harmonious integrity of consciousness of communicators. Therefore, the difference between these ethnocultural stereotypes is one of the reasons for misunderstandings in intercultural communication. Another culture is perceived as «abnormal», in which the image of its own culture is considered normal, and another culture is understood by bringing a different image of consciousness to the image of its own culture " [6, p. 18]. In this regard, the main barriers to intercultural communication are the specific national characteristics of the cultures with which they come into contact. In contact with the «other» culture, the recipient perceives it intuitively under the influence of their own culture. Features of the «other» culture may be inappropriately discussed by the recipient, resulting in different levels of misunderstanding.
In modern research, the meaning of the term «intercultural communication» is diverse. Here are some perspectives. For example, first of all, there are works that describe intercultural communication as an interaction of cultures. For example, IA Sternin defines intercultural communication as a process of direct interaction of cultures, and says that this process is carried out within the framework of incompatible (sometimes completely) thinking and behavior of national stereotypes, which significantly affect the interaction of the parties involved [7, Pp. 97–112].
In the context of intercultural communication and bilingualism (on the materials of the Kazakh Russian language) versions of communicative models were developed by G. M. Badagulova suggests [8, p. 101]. According to the researcher, in the context of intercultural communication, the linguistic image of the world, which is their national feature, is intercultural interaction. Intercultural communication is the interaction of a special national part of the linguistic image of the world, the carriers of which live in the same socio-cultural space. In the communicative model, the author considers bilingual communicators as the main link in intercultural communication.
References:
- Bayrak N. V. From the functional to the cognitive-discursive paradigm of linguistic research (following the recent scientific seminar) // Bulletin of VGU. — 2004. — № 4. — P.142–144.
- Privalova EV Interculture and verbal sign (linguocognitive foundations of intercultural communication): Monograph. — М.: Гнозис, 2005. — 472 с.
- Khaleeva NV Secondary language personality as a recipient of a foreign text / Language is a system. Language — Text. Language — ability. — M., 1996
- Casmir F. L. Third-Culture Building: A Paradigm Shift for International and Intercultural Communication // Communication yearbook. — 1993. — Vol. 16. — P. 407–498.
- Shuter R. On Third-Culture Building // Communication yearbook. — 1993. — Vol. 16. — P. 429–436.
- Tarasov EF Intercultural communication — a new ontology of the analysis of linguistic cognition // Ethnocultural specifics of linguistic consciousness. M., 1996. p. 7– 22.
- Sternin I. A. Communicative behavior in the structure of national culture // Ethnocultural specifics of linguistic consciousness. — M., 1996.
- Badagulova GM Communicative model in the conditions of intercultural communication and bilingualism (on the material of the Russian language of Kazakhstan) // Acta Linguistica. 2010. Vol. 4. 116–126.
