The appeal to the pedagogical aspect of the language is due to the theoretical and practical significance of this problem, which is found primarily in the fact that the interaction of the participants in educational discourse and their contacts often give rise to clashes caused by conflicting goals, views, interests, points of view of the two sides and are of a conflicting nature.
The phenomenon of conflict is interesting to a number of humanities (psychology, sociology, history, philosophy, pedagogy, jurisprudence) and is developing in a variety of linguistic studies that operate on the concepts of language and speech conflict, a conflicting communicative act, and communicative failures. The result of such research was the formation of a new special field of knowledge — linguistic conflictology.
To establish the relationship between the communicative competence of the teacher and the speech culture of all subjects of the educational space, the study uses the descriptive method methods, which include analysis, synthesis, interpretation and generalization of psychological, pedagogical and professional pedagogical literature, the content of federal state educational standards of pedagogical undergraduate education; critical analysis methods (discourse analysis, literary critical) of fixed spontaneous speech in a natural communicative conflict situation of speech obtained by passive observation (written literary and stage texts).
In solving the issue of confrontational behavior in the pedagogical process, an important role is played by the formation of a culture of behavior and speech etiquette of teachers and students of pedagogical universities, teaching public communication techniques and how to effectively respond in conflict situations. The development of a communicative culture and competence of both working teachers and students of pedagogical universities is due to modern requirements to improve the quality of pedagogical activity in the face of changing not only the content, but also the organization of the educational process.
Professional standards of a teacher put forward labor functions, knowledge, skills necessary for teachers of preschool, secondary and higher education in the process of their further professional and pedagogical activity. An indicator of the professionalism of a teacher of any type of training is the ability to conduct a constructive conversation, “the ability to communicate verbally and in writing in Russian and foreign languages to solve problems of interpersonal and intercultural interaction” [14, P. 6], [15, P. 8], [16, P. 7], [17, P. 6]; “Own the basics of verbal professional culture” , ; “Own the basics of professional ethics and speech culture” , ; “The ability to identify interests, difficulties, problems, conflict situations and deviations in the behavior of students” , ; “Be able to simulate communication strategy and technology to solve specific professional and pedagogical problems” [20, P. 5]; “Be able to use verbal and non-verbal means of pedagogical support for students who have difficulty communicating» [10, P. 24].
The formation of a speech culture in conflict situations should be implemented by the appropriate choice and organization of language tools, which in a specific communication situation, subject to linguistic and ethical standards, can effectively solve communicative tasks. A professional feature of his verbal and non-verbal expression is his commitment to psychological and pedagogical principles. The role of the psychotherapeutic function of speech behavior in a communicative conflict is played by psychological and pedagogical prevention or psychological and pedagogical support (prevention, prevention, warning, elimination and control) of students in pedagogical conflicts.
International, European and educational regulatory documents give us legal grounds for organizing and implementing pedagogical (including psychological and pedagogical) support for children in conflict situations in education and social security systems: “protect the dignity and interests of students, help children who find themselves in a conflict situation and / or adverse conditions” ; “Resolve conflict situations, including when violating the rights of the child; to create pedagogical conditions for the formation of a favorable psychological climate at training sessions, to use various means of pedagogical support for students” ; be able to «identify interests, difficulties, problems, conflict situations and deviations in the behavior of students» [21, P. 6].
Psycho-pedagogical prevention and correction of disputed behaviour of students in elementary, secondary and higher education includes a comprehensive psycho-pedagogical study of personality, the detection and study of adverse factors of the social environment, its correction and the correction of the disharmonious personality traits [3, P. 58]. In the prevention and resolution of conflict situations, optimizing the psychological climate in the pedagogical communication, psychological-pedagogical prevention aims to eliminate the stressful and socially dangerous situation, training and the formation of prosocial verbal behavior [4, P. 32]. Content of psycho-pedagogical support in the conflict are the methods supporting the development of communication skills and tactics developed by O. Gazmanov, N. In. Casilnos, N. N. Mikhailova, S. M. Ustinin (tactics of "protection", "help", "assistance" and "cooperation").
The criterion of efficiency of pedagogical support provided to students is the dynamics of the assessment of their own behavior students in a conflict situation and the situation in General, all participants of pedagogical interaction.
To describe the mechanisms of speech influence of the addresser's speech at its destination, as a method of forming and regulation of personal behavior, we will use the analysis of communicative-pragmatic situation in the framework of a conceptual model of pedagogical support. Consider the communicative situation from the story of V. G. Rasputin "French Lessons". The first communication was held in the beginning of the lesson between the teacher and students: the student came to the lesson of the French language with a Shiner on her face. Teacher showed a sincere interest in the incident.
Covering my eyes with my hand, I whisked into the classroom, sat down at my desk and lowered my head. The first lesson, as luck would have it, was French. Lidia Mikhailovna, rightfully the class teacher, was more interested in us than other teachers, and it was difficult to hide anything from her. …. And of course, she saw the signs on my face right away, even though I could hide them; I understood this because the guys began to turn to me. “Well”, said Lidia Mikhailovna, opening the. journal — Today among us there are wounded. The class laughed, and Lidia Mikhailovna looked up at me again.
At this stage of the speech act, the child finds himself in the position of “ugly duckling”, who is under the emotional pressure of others. The initiator of the conversation, communicator A (teacher), tries to smooth out the situation (uses humor, comparison), which caused an emotional reaction from other included subjects of the communicative situation.
The roles of communicants are determined by the nature of the distribution of speech moves between communicants: interest — disinterest in the conversation, voluntariness — involuntaryness in the transmission of the conversation. The peculiarity of the communicative behavior of communicator A is that, being aware of the non-verbal signs of others (she saw the signs on my face, I hid them as best I could, the guys began to turn around) and seeing that communicator B does not seek to enter into communication, avoids it (non-verbal signs), communicator A delves into the topic of conversation, focusing on the problem. So, he demonstrates a desire to continue the conversation: — And what happened? She asked. “Fell”, I брякнул [rashly, carelessly say], for some reason not having guessed in advance to come up with at least a decent explanation. — Oh, how unsuccessful. Yesterday fell or today? — Today. No, last night when it was dark.
The communicative attitude of communicant A is the desire to smooth out the situation, as mentioned above, the communicative intention is to find out the reason for the inappropriate view, symbolizing the student’s unfavorable relationship with others. In its form and content of speech, the essence of verbal signs plays an important role: specific business and clarifying questions, adverbs of the mode of action (evaluative characteristic, empathy). The answers of communicator B are interpreted by communicator A as true. Communicator B himself does not treat his statements insincerely (constructs expressions spontaneously during a communicative act), adapting to the social position of the listener. Communicative installation of communicant B consists in avoiding an answer, transferring the conversation to another topic, since he is initially interested in communication. The attempt of communicator A to establish contact with communicator B, the absence of direct violations of the postulates of communication, the principle of cooperation (cooperation) in dialogue interaction did not take place, and therefore communication practically did not take place (the communicative goal was not achieved). The reason is in the speech behavior of communicant B.
The situation of communicant B is aggravated by the negative attitude of communicator C – to expose the hater, aggravate the situation and darken his position in the eyes of the teacher: — Hee, fell! Tishkin cried out, choking with joy. — This is Vadik from the seventh grade поднёс [in the meaning of «present»]. They played for money, and he began to argue and earned, I saw. And he said he fell. I was dumbfounded by such a betrayal. We could be kicked out of school for a game of money в два счёта [very quickly, without delay, instantly]. Доигрался [long games bring yourself to undesirable consequences].
The first mental action was taken, not verbally expressed, indicating the defenselessness of the student in this situation, the appearance of communicative failure. The discourse takes place without changing the thematic units of communication, the friendly tone of the conversation, relaxed (communicants A and B) with elements of humor, but the alienation of communicants is implicitly evident: communicator B does not intend to give accurate information.
"Tishkin, I wanted to ask you something completely different", without being surprised and not changing her calm, slightly indifferent tone, Lidia Mikhailovna stopped him. — Go to the board, since you’re talking, and get ready to answerShe waited until the bewildered, immediately unhappy Tishkin came to the board, she said to me briefly, After the lessons you will stay.
The emotional background and communicative behavior of communicant C create a “imaginary threat” for the student, although her imagination is not recognized by him, since objectively no one blocks the child's activity, but he subjectively awaits punishment for this. The teacher’s non-verbal behavior symbolizes, on the one hand, ignoring the implicit reactions of communicator C to communicator B. The class teacher, taking the position of a “buffer” and standing between the child and circumstances, takes a hit on himself and translates the topic of discourse (from ordinary to educational) with operational skill (speech pace, intonation). On the other hand, in the eyes of the victim of the situation, the teacher acts as a defender and takes the position of a “lawyer”: she tries to identify the cause that caused the persistent negative situation (What happened?) And takes measures to neutralize it (holding an educational conversation): she said to me briefly, After the lessons you will stay.
The second communicative situation occurs outside school hours. The conversation takes place between the class teacher and the student in a secluded setting. The topic of discourse is the goal of the game for money, as there is a deliberate, arbitrary discussion of one important disciplinary topic. This is evidenced using social — household vocabulary (you play for money, milk, the ruble).
After the lessons, freezing with fear, I waited for Lydia Mikhailovna in the corridor. She left the teacher's room and, nodding, took me to class As always, she sat down at the table, I wanted to get a third desk, away from her, but Lidia Mikhailovna showed me the first one, right in front of her. — Is it true that you play gamble? She began immediately. She asked too loudly, it seemed to me that in school I need to talk about this only in a whisper, and I was even more scared. I mumbled: — True. — Well, how — do you win or lose? I hesitated, not knowing which was better. — Let’s tell how it is. Losing, probably? — Wi… win. — Well, even so. You win, then. And what do you do with the money?
Thematic units of the discourse are proof of the student’s activities, money (operations), playing bet, results (conclusion, instruction), solution of the situation. The roles of communicants are determined by the intensity of the distribution of speech moves between communicants: full interest — partial interest; volunteerism; intentions and goals of communicants (taking punitive measures, creating emotional comfort).
<…> at Lidia Mikhailovna he was somehow small and light, so he had to listen attentively, and not out of powerlessness at all — she sometimes could speak in all likelihood, but as if from secretness and unnecessary saving. <…> And now Lidia Mikhailovna asked as if she was at this time busy with something else, more important, but she still could not get away from her questions. “Well, so what do you do with the money you win?” Are you buying sweets? Or books? Or save up for something? After all, you probably have a lot of them now? — No, not much. I only win the ruble. “And you're not playing anymore?” — No. — And the ruble? Why the ruble? What are you doing with him? — Buying milk. – Milk?
The initiator of the conversation is communicant A: he is the "master" of speech; he is interested in continuing the conversation of the previous situation (asks questions), communicant B only answers questions. The transitions are voluntary and marked by the interrogative intonation of communicant A, and his interlocutor does not ask questions, that is, does not show interest in continuing the conversation. As in the previous speech act, the communicant A is dominant, while communicator A is the dominant one, and B is the introverted communicator, who does not seek to take the initiative in conversation, but, on the contrary, shows a desire to interrupt and end it as soon as possible.
Communication installation of communicants A and B is like the intentions of the previous communication. However, in the verbal behavior of communicants of both are important not only verbal signs, but also nonverbal (tone – short pause, the abruptness of the question; the tone, facial expressions, gestures). The teacher asks specific questions (sometimes rhetorical), including speech and non-speech acts-requests and specification information (What are you doing with the money win? What are you doing with him? And the ruble? Why the ruble?), trying to create emotional comfort for the student to show a friendly attitude, to liberate, through humor, emotions and feelings of the pupil (to achieve more information, to allow the student to open up, to peers, to talk to him). This behavior allows you to withdraw the child from the status of "victim of circumstance" to "meet the problem". Pupil discreetly evades answers. He doesn't mind and clearly does not demonstrate verbally their unwillingness to communicate, and therefore responsible, clearly, in essence: — Is it true that you gamble? – True, — You are losing, probably? — Wi-i… win, etc. Thus, the communicant In a partially interested in the success of communication, but because his speech acts although are constative (they contain information about the situation), but are accompanied by a deliberate evasion, which is implemented by the tactic of reticence.
In the presence of direct violations of the Maxim of communication (quality and quantity), the principle of cooperation (cooperation) in the Dialogic interaction did take place. However, the result of this communication becomes dry, intense, inevitable and painfully long (for the communicant B) the conversation. The reason lies in verbal behavior communicant B.
She was silent for a moment, examining me, and with my skin I felt how, when I looked at her squinting attentive eyes, all my troubles and absurdities really swell and fill up with her evil strength. “And yet you don’t have to play for money”, said Lidia Mikhailovna thoughtfully. “Would you manage without it somehow. Can you do it?". Not daring to believe in my salvation, I easily promised: — It is possible. I spoke sincerely, but what can you do if our sincerity cannot be tied with ropes.
Finding himself in a state of “sacrifice,” the student is afraid of both the problem and himself. His reactions are caused by the attitude to the problem from the position of psychological defense against it, but this shield is not so reliable (what can you do if our sincerity cannot be tied with ropes). The student, once again trying to "run away" from the problem, loses strength and self-confidence and does not gain anything in return, except for experiences and, possibly, new problems.
During the discourse, the teacher achieves a communicative goal. Thanks to contact-forming language tools, the teacher manages to find out enough information to prove the fact and put forward his position (opinion). Since the student had an “imaginary threat” (the first communicative situation) and he was expecting punishment, the teacher provided a “safe space” for his self-realization in a problematic situation using the “defense” tactic. Emotional comfort for a student is created by means of verbal influence — persuasion: “”, “So how do you win or lose?”, “Tell us how it is”, “Well, even so”, “Well, so what are you doing with the money”; methods of passive listening, which in the tactics of “help” of pedagogical support serves as a message about the willingness to help, about accepting the speaker as he is, with his anxiety, problems and everything else: “supporting signs” (non-verbal signs), “opening keys” (encouragement, approval, advice) [5, P. 169].
In this communicative situation (second), an attempt is made by the teacher to bring the student to a spiritual conversation, to unlock his activity. For this, the teacher gives the student a small guarantee that he understands, supports and does not condemn him (tactics of “help”). “Help” creates the conditions for the teacher’s self-rehabilitation in the eyes of the child, since he is an authority for him. But this tactic turns out to be ineffective since the student gets stronger psychological defense under the influence of the verbal influence of the teacher of the “defensive advocacy” tactics. Consequently, the teacher does not make enough effort to fully provide this type of support, therefore, takes the initiative in solving the problem (Would you manage without it somehow. Can you do it?), which leads to the completion of the communicative act.
As you can see, the socio-psychological, linguistic and pragmalinguistic analysis of conflict speech behavior allows us to identify a set of language markers typical for conflict dialogs, to identify patterns of cognitive processes of speech interaction, its structure and dynamics, to note the main types of speech acts characteristic of conflict behavior (order, refusal , disagreement, rebuttal, rebuke, accusation, omissions, hints, ambiguities, speech implications, etc.). The results of these studies can reveal the causes of situations (psychological, social) and predict the reactions and actions of students in a conflict situation.
This provides the basis for a teacher of any profile of humanitarian education with psychological and pedagogical support in the formation of a culture of dialogue through the organization of oral and written discussions on problems requiring decision-making and resolution of conflict situations. These requirements are dictated by the functional components of the teacher’s professional activity, regulated by federal state and professional standards in the field of education (pedagogy). In order for the teacher to be able to create a culture of dialogue through the organization of oral and written discussions on problems requiring decision-making and resolution of conflict situations, he must know “communication techniques (listening, persuasion) taking into account age and individual characteristics of the interlocutors” ; sources, causes, types and methods of resolving conflicts; techniques to overcome communication barriers; the logic and rules of building verbal and written monologic messages, conducting professional dialogue , , ; “Methods of correction of the socio-psychological climate, conflict resolution” [12, p. 20]; “Norms of pedagogical ethics, techniques and methods of communication (hearing, persuasion), especially their use, taking into account age and individual characteristics of the interlocutors” [10, P. 27].
Linguistic studies of the conflict take into account its duality: 1) speech in which the conflict between the communicants is the result of a misunderstanding by them of each other's statements, differences of opinion (inner side); 2) extra-linguistic events leading to a conflict situation (external).
Features of speech and language conflicts in linguistics are studied in the framework of sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, communicative-pragmatic, cognitive approaches, as well as in the framework of a critical analysis of discourse. In this article, the conflicting communication of the educational environment is considered in the communicative-pragmatic and cognitive aspect.
The communicative-pragmatic direction allows identifying language markers in a speech conflict that characterize the speech behavior of participants in a particular psycho-pragmatic linguistic conflict situation (acute, softened, and extremely weak), based on linguistic analysis of the lexical-semantic, grammatical and stylistic components in texts of various styles, authors which either describe a conflict situation, or are direct participants in a conflict communicative act.
In the work “Speech conflict and aspects of its study”, V. S. Tretyakova under the speech conflict refers to “the state of confrontation between the two parties (parties to the conflict), in the process of which each side consciously and actively acts to the detriment of the opposite side, using different language and speech means (stylistic devices and speech strategies)” .
The conflict or non-conflict of the communicative situation depends on the appropriate type of speech interaction, since speech, as an individual and creative process of using language resources and codes, is one of the reliable indicators of the conflict behavior of a person or group of people. Conflict is found in the nature of a linguistic sign (synonymy, homonymy, lexical and grammatical polysemy of a word), its variability and valency, which fills linguistic signs with different contents at the level of speech. As a result, there is a mismatch in the volume of the content of signs as units of language and as units of speech in the process of a communicative act. Such a process becomes the reason for their ambiguous interpretation, the emergence of "other meanings" in the statement, which leads to misunderstanding, undesirable emotional effects, tension in speech communication , .
The cognitive aspect in the study of speech behavior in a conflict is characterized by revealing the relationship between the mental processes that occur in the mind of a communication participant and the corresponding linguistic phenomena (A.N. Baranov, V.I. Gerasimov, V.Z. Demyankov, D.O. Dobrovolsky, E. Pirainen, E. S. Kubryakova, P. B. Parshin). In studies of the cognitive approach, questions of conceptualizing knowledge about the world are highlighted when presented in linguistic form. Much attention is paid to the study and explanation of the conceptual metaphor of conflict and its implementation in the text .
In a communicative act, the criterion of conflict is the degree of uncontrollability, intensity, aggressive nature of the recipient's reactions, which he, realizing that the speech effect is directed at him and/or him, also carries out in response to such a speech effect.
The incentive mechanism of verbal pressure lies in the social and individual root causes. An individual communication experience develops based on socially significant scenarios that, through repeatability in certain speech situations, are accumulated in the individual’s memory and used by speakers in typical speech situations [1, P. 276].
In the communicative practice of pedagogical communication, the most common forms of aggressive behavior, manipulative and verbal influence. Speech aggression as a consequence of the conflict manifests itself in the form of confrontation internal (failure to achieve a communicative goal, a difference in understanding or assessment of the situation, the occurrence of antipathy to the interlocutor) and external (verbal aggression) . Confrontational strategies include negativism, aggression, violence, defamation, coercion, submission, exposure exposed by tactics of intimidation, threats, reproaches, accusations, scoffs, taunts, insults, provocations. Moreover, these tactics are used by both students and teachers as a mechanism of psychological defense at the time of acute pedagogical situations.
The occurrence of conflict is due to the interaction of psychological and linguistic mechanisms of speech activity of subjects of pedagogical discourse. On the one hand, the mechanisms of speech and language bring psychological mechanisms into an effective state. Thus, differentiation in the structure and volume of the language code of the subject and the opponent often leads to aggression of various kinds (defensive action, attack, retaliatory aggression, etc.). For example, in one of the scenes of the famous Soviet television film “Sick Change” (dir. A. Korenev, 1972-1973), aggressiveness is observed caused by the language game by expressions of label formulas, syntactically-stylistic incongruity, emotional-volitional interjections and is used for educational purposes:
TEACHER OF HISTORY (loudly): Comrade Fedoskin!
FEDOSKIN (menacingly, dismissively): You?! (menacingly, intimidatingly zamahnuvshis' rabochej kochergoj) Yyyy!
TEACHER (reproachfully): You!!! (intimidating, menacingly with rubber in his hands) How dame! (calmed down, respectfully) Unfortunately, I can’t! I am your new class teacher, Comrade Fedoskin.
FEDOSKIN (scornfully, with a mockery): Wee-ell, happiness привалило [meaning come]! [still working]
TEACHER (reproachfully, presentingly): I came to find out why you do not go to school. What is this расхлябанность? [lack of clarity and firmness in actions, disorganization, disorder] The class was dismissed, the duty schedule is not fulfilled. The room is not aired! The elder is called!
FEDOSKIN (menacingly): Ты! No hands!
TEACHER (bickering, demands): Вы! [«you» in Russian respectful form of treatment]
FEDOSKIN (rudely): Вали отсюда! [«get out» in equal treatment]
TEACHER (in the same tone): Валите! [«get out» in Russian respectful form of treatment]
FEDOSKIN (indignantly, trying to get rid of): What are you привязался to me? [pester, annoying, not leaving alone]
TEACHER: Привязались! [the same in respectful form]
FEDOSKIN (rudely, sharply): Да иди ты! [«get out» in rough form]
TEACHER: Идите! [«gо away» in Russian respectful form of treatment]
FEDOSKIN (indignantly, persistently): I won’t go anywhere! I do not need! Somehow I will manage without higher mathematics, and without lower. There, in the design bureau there are 20 people with higher education, and I am a rational proposal on the table and the thing is in the hat! That's it, okay?
TEACHER (exploding): Clear! And I persuade him to have his face stick out in front of me every night? Yes, my eyes would not look at you! [leaves]
FEDOSKIN (sarcastically, indignantly, after): Woof! On you, firstly!
In addition, verbal reproaches, threats, attacks, gross forms of refusal are used as a mechanism of psychological defense and disposal of the object of negative impact S.
Another example of a clash between participants in the communicative situation in the pedagogical process is the result of an opponent’s verbal attack on action S, which offends his honor and dignity and allows him to leave his own comfort zone with mechanisms of manipulative influence:
I said to the boys: — Guys, you just cheated! To be an agronomist, you need to study a lot, study for several years, there are such institutes and technical schools, and to enter there you also need to study in an ordinary school for several years. And you … How many seven*eight?
Black cute young man to whom I turned point-blank with a question, hesitantly answered: “Forty-eight." <….>
— So how? — asked the broad-shouldered, angular guy, whom everyone called Swatko. — They promised us that they would give us a place on the state farm, and now how?
“And it is possible, I answered. — Work on the state farm is a good thing, only you will not be agronomists, but workers.”
Agronomists hopped on the beds in hot indignation. Swatko turned pale with anger: “Do you think we will not find the truth? We understand, we understand everything! Us and the manager warned, yes! You now need to plow, and no one wants to, so that means you twist! And comrade Halabuda persuaded! In your opinion it will not, it will not!”
Voskoboinikov put his hands in his pockets again and again extended his long body to the ceiling. “Why did you come here to fool? Knowledgeable people told us. We sowed and practiced. And you need to exploit? Enough!"
“What a fools”, Vitka said calmly.
— Vot ja emu dvinu v mordu! … Gor'kovcy!… Priehali sjuda chuzhimi rukami zhar zagrebat'? [threat, which is expressed in the fact that to render physical damage — hit on the face, reproach in the appropriation of work gained by force] – the result of verbal abuse of A in response to offensive expressions S, a provocative rebuke.
I got out of bed. Agronomists sent angry, dull faces at us. I tried to say goodbye to them as calmly as possible: — It's up to you guys. If you want to be an agronomist, please … We don’t need your work now, we can do without you. We headed for the exit. (Makarenko A. C. Pedagogical poem)
The other side of this interaction is the speech-language consequence of the impact of psychological mechanisms on the behavior of a participant in a conflict situation. So, inadequate contact-forming actions taken with the aim of intentional manipulative influence, incorrect interpretation of words, deeds or intentions of another person lead to the generation of conflict. Consider another communicative situation from the novel by A. S. Makarenko "Pedagogical poem." Head of the educational and labor colony them. Gorky goes for a new pupil who resisted to ride on his own from the collector and expresses an aggressive attitude.
He met me, lying on the bed, with a contemptuous look: — Fuck you, I won’t go anywhere!
I was warned about his heroic virtues, and therefore I spoke to him in a very appropriate tone: “I am very unpleasant to bother you sir, but I am very forced to fulfill my duty and I beg you to take a place in the crew prepared for you.”
An objective conflict situation partially exists. There are some contradictions between the subjects, which are recognized by the parties, but are not emphasized externally (in relation to each other). They create an inadequately understood conflict that can actively begin to develop at any time in a communicative act.
Oprishko was first struck by my "haberdashery" and even got out of bed, but then the previous whim took up above him, and he again lowered his head to the pillow. — I said that I would not go! … And годи! [wait, procrastinate, do not hurry]
The first reflex action is taken, not verbally expressed, then the desired action (caprice) occurs, provoking emotional aggression. However, this is not an element of the conflict that has begun.
“In that case, dear sir, I, unfortunately, will be forced to use force against you.”
Oprishko raised his curly head from the pillow and looked at me with genuine surprise: — Look, where did this come from? It’s not so easy to take me by force!
— Keep in mind … I intensified the pressure in my voice and added a touch of irony to it: — … dear Oprishko … And suddenly yelled at him: — Well, get ready, what the hell fell apart! Get up, tell you!
A communicative conflict arises, based on a conscious perception of the situation as a conflict and accompanied by an increase in emotional stress in S (head-teacher). In this case, conflict behavior may be a form of relieving the accumulated internal tension S in the process of professional activity.
Under the emotional influence, S begins to act on the opponent, creating the “effect of deceived expectation”. Conflict actions of communicants are aggravated by the emotional background of the course of the conflict. As a result, the first begins to take provocative actions, the second — set conditions. There is the so-called “conditional conflict” in social psychology [7, P. 130].
He brоke out of bed and rushed to the window: “By God, I’ll jump out of the window!” I said to him with contempt: “Either jump out the window immediately or go to the cart — I have no time волынить with you.” [to dawdle, deliberately delay the work, the execution of a business; be slow]
Thus, the potential internal conflict becomes external, since the present conflict situation is perceived by the communicants as such with significant deviations from reality (downplaying the scale of the problem). For the subject to perceive the situation as conflict, the presence of a significant destructive potential for the other side was sufficient. The fact of intentional polite treatment (I was warned about his heroic merits, and therefore I spoke to him in a very appropriate tone) becomes an occasion for the affective behavior of the other side and leads to a verbal aggressive confrontation. Mutually directed conflict actions provide a new incentive for further action.
We were on the third floor, so Oprishko laughed merrily and openly. — Vot prichepilis'! … Well, what do you say? Are you the head of the Gorky colony? — Yes. “Well, they would say so! Long gone.” He energetically rushed to pack on the road.
A genuine conflict is solved by a partial transformation of an objective conflict situation in the presence of an intangible communicative situation (they were on the third floor), which gives rise to an emotional reaction (laughter). Positive emotional-volitional behavior neutralizes the conflict but does not exclude the internal restrained incitement to conflict at the addressee (playful, soft reproaches to the other side). The result of this transformation of the conflict situation is disinterest in the continuation of the conflict and reconciliation of the parties.
Summing up, we note that the nature of speech conflict is considered by the interdisciplinary approaches of linguistic pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, communicative linguistics. Determining the nature of the conflict and the socio-psychological characteristics of its main participants allows us to identify those triggers that lead to the maturation, unleashing and development of the conflict.
A pedagogical conflict, like any other, has a linguistic and speech representation. The main conflictogenic provocateurs of communicative conflict behavior in pedagogical discourse are language and speech. These properties are supported by social and psychological factors that form sustainable communication models. The implementation of a harmonic or disharmonious model of communicative behavior is determined by social, psychological and linguistic factors, due to the context of the speech act as a whole.
A teacher working in a variety of communicative contacts, of course, must have a high degree of communicative competence necessary for resolving and preventing conflicts in the educational process, and must also be able to provide verbal support to students depending on the chosen communicative tactics of communication by the child in a conflict situation. Possession of the art of resolving conflict situations without losing the dignity and dignity of the schoolchild and student is an indicator of pedagogical communicative skill and professionalism of a school and university teacher.
- Дейк Т. А. ван. Язык. Познание. Коммуникация: сборник работ / Т. А. ван Дейк; сос. В. В. Петрова ; пер. с англ. яз. под ред. В. И. Герасимова; вступ. ст. Ю. Н. Караулова, В. В. Петрова. – М.: Прогресс, 1989. – 312 с.
- Добрович А. Б. Ролевая модель межличностного общения/ А. Б. Добрович // Принципиальные вопросы теории знания: Труды по искусственному интеллекту: УЗТГУ. – Вып. 688. – Тарту, 1984. – С. 23–31.
- Журавлев В. И. Основы педагогической конфликтологии: учебник / В.И. Журавлев. – М.: Российское педагогическое агентство, 1995. – 184 с.
- Козер Л. А. Функции социального конфликта/ Л. Козер; пер. с англ. яз. О. Назаровой; под. общ. ред. Л. Г. Ионина. – М.: Идея-Пресс, Дом интеллектуал. книги, 2000. – 205 с.
- Михайлова Н. Н. Педагогика поддержки: учебно-методическое пособие/ Н. Н. Михайлова, С. М. Юсфин. – М.: МИРОС, 2001. – 208 с.
- Муравьева Н. В. Язык конфликта / Н. В. Муравьева. – М.: МЭИ, 2002. – 264 с.
- Петровская Л. А. О понятийной схеме социально-психологического анализа конфликта/ Л.А. Петровская // Теоретические и методологические проблемы социальной психологии. — М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1977. – С. 126-143.
- Полканова А.А. Понятие «Конфликт» в лингвистике: основные подходы к его изучению/А.А. Полканова// Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. – 2010. – № 584. – С. 200-208.
- Профессиональный стандарт «Педагог (педагогическая деятельность в сфере дошкольного, начального общего, основного общего, среднего общего образования) (воспитатель, учитель)»: утв. приказом Министерства труда и социальной защиты Российской Федерации от 18 октября 2013 г. № 544н (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 06.12.2013 г. № 30550). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2014. – 25 с.
- Профессиональный стандарт «Педагог профессионального обучения, профессионального образования и дополнительного профессионального образования»: утв. Приказом Министерства труда и социальной защиты Российской Федерации от 8 сентября 2015 г. № 680н (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 24.09.2015 г. № 38993). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2015. – 78 с.
- Профессиональный стандарт «Педагог дополнительного образования детей и взрослых»: утв. приказом Министерства труда и социальной защиты Российской Федерации от 5 мая 2018 г. № 298н (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 28.08.2018 г. № 52016). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2018. – 28 с.
- Профессиональный стандарт «Педагог – психолог (психолог в сфере образования)»: утв. приказом Министерства труда и социальной защиты Российской Федерации от 24 июля 2015 г. № 514н (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 18.08.2015 г. № 38575). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2015. – 28 с.
- Третьякова В. С. Речевой конфликт и аспекты его изучения/ В. С. Третьякова// Юрислингвистика-5: Юридические аспекты языка и лингвистические аспекты права: межвуз. сб. науч. ст. / М-во образования Рос. Федерации, Лаб. юрислингвистики и развития речи Алт. гос. ун-та, Ассоц. лингвистов-экспертов и преподавателей "Лексис"; [отв. ред. Н. Д. Голев]. – Барнаул: Изд-во Алтайского гос. ун-та, 2004. – С. 112–120.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего образования: бакалавриат по направлению подготовки 44.03.01 Педагогическое образование: утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации от 4 декабря 2015 г. № 1426 (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 11.01.2016 г. № 40536). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2016. – 17 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего образования: бакалавриат по направлению подготовки 44.03.02 Психолого-педагогическое образование: утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации от 14 декабря 2015 г. № 1457 (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 18.01.2016 г. № 40623). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2016. – 22 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего образования: бакалавриат по направлению подготовки 44.03.04 Профессиональное обучение (по отраслям): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации от 1 октября 2015 г. № 1085 (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 29.10.2015 г. № 39534). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2015. – 21 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего образования: бакалавриат по направлению подготовки 44.03.05 Педагогическое образование (с двумя профилями подготовки): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки Российской Федерации от 9 февраля 2016 г. № 91 (зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 02.03.2016 г. № 41305). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2016. – 17 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего профессионального образования по направлению подготовки 050100 Педагогическое образование (квалификация (степень) "бакалавр"): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки РФ от 22 декабря 2009 г. N 788 (с изменениями от 31 мая 2011 г.; зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 05.02.2010 г. № 16277). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2011. – 17 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего профессионального образования по направлению подготовки 050100 Педагогическое образование (квалификация (степень) "бакалавр"): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки РФ от 17 января 2011 г. N 46 (с изменениями от 31 мая 2011 г.; зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 22.03.2011 г. № 20228). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2011. – 16 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего профессионального образования по направлению подготовки 051000 Профессиональное обучение (по отраслям) (квалификация (степень) "бакалавр"): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки РФ от 22 декабря 2009 г. N 781 (в ред. Приказа Минобрнауки РФ от 31.05.2011 г. N 1975; зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 03.02.2010 г. № 16222). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2011. – 15 с.
- Федеральный государственный образовательный стандарт высшего профессионального образования по направлению подготовки 050400 Психолого-педагогическое образование (квалификация (степень) "бакалавр"): утв. приказом Министерства образования и науки РФ от 22 марта 2010 г. N 200 (в ред. Приказа Минобрнауки РФ от 31.05.2011 г. N 1975; зарегистрир. в Минюсте России 28.04.2010 г. № 17037). – М.: Изд-во стандартов, 2011. – 14 с.
- Dejk T. A. van. Tongue. YAzyk. Poznanie. Kommunikaciya: sbornik rabot [Cognition. Communication: collection of works] / T.A. van Dejk; compiled V.V. Petrova; translation from English edited V. I. Gerasimova; entry Art. Yu. N. Karaulova, V.V. Petrova. – M.: Progress, 1989. – 312 p.
- Dobrovich A. B. Rolevaya model’ mezhlichnostnogo obshcheniya [Role model of interpersonal communication] / A. B. Dobrovich// Fundamental questions of the theory of knowledge: Transactions on artificial intelligence: UZTGU. – Vol. 688. – Tartu, 1984. – P. 23–31. [in Russian]
- Zhuravlev V. I. Osnovy pedagogicheskoj konfliktologii: uchebnik [Fundamentals of pedagogical conflictology: a textbook] / V.I. Zhuravlev. – M.: Russian Pedagogical Agency, 1995. – 184 p. [in Russian]
- Kozer L. A. Funkcii social’nogo konflikta [Functions of social conflict] / L. Koser; translation from English O. Nazarova; under total edition L. G. Ionina. – M.: Idea-Press, Intellectual House books, 2000. – 205 p. [in Russian]
- Mihajlova N. N. Pedagogika podderzhki: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie [Pedagogy of support: educational-methodical manual] / N. N. Mikhailova, S. M. Yusfin. – M.: MIROS, 2001. – 208 p. [in Russian]
- Muravyova N. V. YAzyk konflikta [Language of conflict] / N.V. Muravyova. – M.: MPEI, 2002. – 264 p. [in Russian]
- Petrovskaja L. A. O ponyatijnoj skheme social’no-psihologicheskogo analiza konflikta [About the conceptual scheme of the socio-psychological analysis of the conflict] / L.A. Petrovskaja// Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. – M.: Publishing House Moscow University, 1977. – P. 126-143. [in Russian]
- Polkanova A.A. Ponyatie «Konflikt» v lingvistike: osnovnye podhody k ego izucheniyu [The concept of "Conflict" in linguistics: the main approaches to its study] / A.A. Polkanova // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. – 2010. – No. 584. – P. 200-208. [in Russian]
- Professional standard “Teacher (pedagogical activity in the field of preschool, primary general, basic general, secondary general education) (educator, teacher)”: approved by order of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation of October 18, 2013 No. 544 n (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia December 6, 2013 No. 30550). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2014. – 25 p. [in Russian]
- Professional standard “Teacher of vocational training, vocational education and additional professional education”: approved by Order of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation of September 8, 2015 No. 680 n (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on September 24, 2015 No. 38993). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2015. – 78 p. [in Russian]
- Professional standard “Teacher of additional education for children and adults”: approved by order of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation dated May 5, 2018 No. 298 n (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on August 28, 2018 No. 52016). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2018. – 28 p. [in Russian]
- Professional standard “Teacher-psychologist (psychologist in the field of education)”: approved by order of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation of July 24, 2015 No. 514 n (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on August 18, 2015 No. 38575). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2015. – 28 p. [in Russian]
- Tretyakova V. S. Speech conflict and aspects of its study / V. S. Tretyakova // Jurislingistics-5: Legal aspects of the language and linguistic aspects of law: an inter-university collection of scientific articles / M. of education Ros. Federation, Lab. juris-linguistics and speech development of Altai State University, the Association of Linguistic Experts and Teachers "Lexis"; [executive editor N.D. Golem]. – Barnaul: Publishing House of Altai State University, 2004. – P. 112–120. [in Russian]
- Federal state educational standard of higher education: undergraduate in the field of preparation 44.03.01 Pedagogical education: approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of December 4, 2015 No. 1426 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on 11.01.2016, No. 40536). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2016. – 17 p. [in Russian]
- Federal state educational standard of higher education: undergraduate in the field of preparation 44.03.02 Psychological and pedagogical education: approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated December 14, 2015 No. 1457 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on January 18, 2016 No. 40623). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2016. – 22 p. [in Russian]
- Federal state educational standard of higher education: undergraduate in the field of training 44.03.04 Professional education (by industry): approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of October 1, 2015 No. 1085 (registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on October 29, 2015 No. 39534). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2015. – 21 p. [in Russian]
- Federal state educational standard of higher education: undergraduate in the field of study 44.03.05 Pedagogical education (with two specialization profiles): approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated February 9, 2016 No. 91 (registered with the Russian Ministry of Justice on March 2, 2016 No. 41305). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2016. – 17 p. [in Russian]
- Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the area of training 050100 Pedagogical Education (qualification (degree) "Bachelor"): approved by the order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2009 N 788 (as amended on May 31, 2011; registered in Ministry of Justice of Russia on 05.02.2010, No. 16277). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2011. – 17 p. [in Russian]
- Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the field of training 050100 Pedagogical Education (qualification (degree) "Bachelor"): approved by order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of January 17, 2011 N 46 (as amended on May 31, 2011; registered in the Ministry of Justice of Russia on March 22, 2011 No. 20228). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2011. – 16 p. [in Russian]
- Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the field of training 051000 Vocational training (by industry) (qualification (degree) "Bachelor"): approved by Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2009 N 781 (as amended by Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation from May 31, 2011 N 1975; registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia February 3, 2010 No. 16222). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2011. – 15 p. [in Russian]
- Federal State Educational Standard of Higher Professional Education in the area of training 050400 Psychological and pedagogical education (qualification (degree) "Bachelor"): approved by Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated March 22, 2010 N 200 (as amended by Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation dated 31.05.2011, N 1975; registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia on April 28, 2010, No. 17037). – M.: Publishing house of standards, 2011. – 14 p. [in Russian]
Это произведение доступно по – This material is available under Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная