1. Theoretical approaches to research
The study of the effectiveness of educational practices abroad from the point of view of perception, assimilation and reproduction of sociocultural and institutional norms and rules by recipients focuses on the study of such social phenomena as: intercultural communication; sociocultural adaptation of an individual in a group alien to him; variability of human social-normative consciousness; the group's perception of a stranger who came from outside; the individual’s attitude towards his previous environment after gaining experience of interacting with a society alien to him at a normative, cultural, psychological level.
The phenomenon of intercultural interaction, the problem of assimilation of norms and cultural patterns and human adaptation in a different environment have received comprehensive coverage in theoretical sociology. Let's consider some theoretical concepts that interpret the situation of an individual who finds himself in another country in terms of his social and cultural interaction, and which can be used as theoretical and methodological categories of analysis.
The study of the assimilation of Western norms and cultural patterns is directly related to the phenomenon intercultural communication, since assimilation as such is the result of the process of intercultural communication between an individual who finds himself in a foreign environment and the local community.
The concept of “intercultural communication” was introduced into scientific circulation by American researchers E. Hall and D. Trager in 1954 in the book “Culture as Communication: Model and Analysis”. In their work, intercultural communication was considered as a special area of human relations. Later, in his work “Mute Language,” E. Hall develops ideas about the relationship between culture and communication and for the first time brings this problem to the level of not only scientific research, but also independent academic discipline. E. Hall developed an iceberg-type model of culture, where the most significant parts of the culture are “under water”, and what is obvious is “above the water”. That is, it is impossible to “see” the culture itself. In other words, to understand and experience another culture, observations alone are not enough. Full learning can only occur through direct contact with another culture, which largely means interpersonal interaction. The author believes that the value orientations of individuals (regarding actions, communication, situational environment, time, space, etc.) regulate communicative actions in a particular situational context and thus there is a certain exchange of experience between people from different cultures. It should also be noted that E. Hall became the founder of intercultural communication as a separate discipline.
The study of intercultural communication is often carried out using a systems approach (T. Parsons, K.-O. Apel, N. Luhmann, K. Deutsch, D. Eston, S. Kuzmin, A. Uemov). According to this approach in sociology, the object of sociology is declared to be diverse social systems, that is, one way or another ordered sets of relationships between people, including such a social system as society. Intercultural communication in in this case represents the interaction of two or more systems. Interaction can be carried out in different ways, but one way or another it is a kind of exchange of elements of systems, which can be both individuals and information, knowledge, cultural values and social norms. Unlike E. Hall and D. Trager, who see intercultural communication as a special area of human relations, a number of other researchers mean by this phenomenon the interaction of systems where people are not representatives of cultures, but only their elements.
The theory of cultural relativism (I. Herder, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, W. Sumner, R. Benedict, N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, L. N. Gumilyov) insists on the independence and usefulness of each culture, where the success of intercultural communication is associated with the stability of cultural subjects and the rejection of the idea of Western universality sociocultural system. In other words, this theory criticizes the process of assimilation as such and puts the uniqueness of each culture at the forefront of intercultural communication. That is, the difference between the norms, cultures, and lifestyles of communicating people from different countries should in no way become a stumbling block for the success of this communication. The mutual exchange of cultural practices in this case is more likely a negative than a positive phenomenon.
The study of an individual’s interaction with a foreign environment, his adaptation to it, is also one of the main problems of ethnosociology. Ethnosociologists place special emphasis on the process that occurs with a person in a new group, the stages and phases of change in the human sense of group belonging. Russian researcher S.A. Tatunts in his work “Ethonosociology” examines the problem of interaction between representatives of different cultures, Special attention focusing on the adaptation of a person who finds himself in an established environment that is alien to him, with its own rules, norms and cultural patterns.
In ethnosociology, the process of finding a representative of one country in another, alien country, the process of his interaction with an alien environment is usually called sociocultural adaptation. Sociocultural adaptation in a different environment occurs in two forms - assimilation and acculturation. In the first case, a person (group) accepts (voluntarily or forcibly) the values and norms of the host ethnic environment. IN new environment migrants and settlers seem to dissolve. Then neither they nor the host environment perceives them as “strangers” or a “foreign minority.” As the author writes, according to most scientists, complete assimilation and dissolution can only occur in the second or third generation. In another case, their basic ethnocultural characteristics are preserved, but minorities accept the norms and values of the new sociocultural environment and follow them.
Depending on a person’s goals, adaptation can have a different temporary nature: short and long. During short-term adaptation, a person, while maintaining his belonging to his cultural group and making it explicit, masters a new language, establishes contacts and communication. It is believed that such adaptation lasts up to two years, and beyond two years, while staying in a new ethnic environment, it is necessary to show greater involvement and activity.
In the structure of sociocultural adaptation S.A. Tatunts distinguishes three components:
situation, need, ability. A migrant is expected to go through three mandatory stages. The first stage is a device that includes searching and finding housing and work. At the second stage of adaptation, adaptation to the language, natural-ecological environment, confession and public life. The third stage - assimilation is associated with the elimination of the entire complex of uncomfortable aspects through the acquisition
new identity when a former migrant becomes part of the host ethnic environment.
The success of sociocultural adaptation depends on the correct balance of a person’s individual needs and the requirements of the host ethnocultural environment. This balance, in turn, depends on the individual, who must have a high degree of self-control and comply with the generally accepted regulatory requirements of the new environment.
If we transfer the above to the problems we are studying, we can note that, firstly, the problem of language acquisition and complex discomforts due to the loss of “ground under our feet” in the form of familiar social guidelines may be especially acute for a young person who finds himself abroad. , norms and rules.
Another researcher, K. Dodd, studying intercultural interaction in the ethnosociological aspect, in turn pays attention to the individual who finds himself in a foreign environment. In the work “Dynamics of Intercultural Communication” the author examines in detail the problem of human interaction with an alien environment.
According to K. Dodd, a person, finding himself in a foreign environment, first of all experiences “culture shock”, in other words, this is a feeling of discomfort, helplessness, a state of disorientation, anxiety due to the loss of familiar symbols and signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. Culture shock is primarily a socio-psychological phenomenon, the causes of which may also be difficulties in initial contact with a new ethnocultural environment, a state of uncertainty, etc.
Dodd identifies three main categories of culture shock symptoms:
psychological (insomnia, constant headaches, upset stomach
etc.);
emotional (irritability, anxiety, homesickness, sometimes turning into paranoia);
communicative (isolation, difficulties in relationships even with loved ones, constant dissatisfaction, frustration).
The period of culture shock for an individual who finds himself in a foreign country undoubtedly impedes intercultural communication. Due to poor health, both physical and mental, a person begins to “close down” and avoid new surroundings. Overcoming this period is one of the main tasks of an emigrant on the path to a normal existence among strangers.
1. Arriving in another, usually prosperous, country, the emigrant experiences joyful excitement. Dodd interprets this state as satisfaction with correctly accepted
decision to move to this beautiful place. The newcomer likes literally everything that surrounds him; he is in a state close to euphoria. Dodd calls this stage the “honeymoon.” Indeed, the duration of such a state can vary depending on the nature of the individual, from a short period of time to a month.
2. The second stage indicates the end of the honeymoon. Faced with many problems, a person begins to realize that the anticipation of happy expectations is just an illusion, embellished by the impressions of the honeymoon and enhanced by the euphoria of the first days of staying in a new place, and begins to realize that he was mistaken in coming here. According to Dodd, this stage is called “everything is terrible.”
3. Overcoming culture shock is the process of so-called adaptation, “getting along” in a new environment, which can take place differently for different individuals and have inherently different results.
K. Dodd tried to consider the interaction process in a more structured way
an individual with a new environment and identify four possible lines of behavior for a person who finds himself in a foreign country.
The first behavior model is “Fligt”: flight, or passive autarky. This is an attempt to avoid direct contact with a foreign culture. Migrants create their own microworld, in which “their own”, fellow tribesmen live and have their own ethnocultural environment. This pattern of behavior is also called “ghetto”. Ghettoization is typical for ethnic minorities who find themselves displaced and refugees, those who live in large industrial capitals and megacities. Thus, there is the Turkish quarter of Kreuzberg in Berlin, the Russian-speaking Brighton Beach in New York, Arab quarters in Paris, and Armenian quarters in Los Angeles. Here they speak a reflective language and observe the customs and traditions of their ethnic group.
The second model is “Fight”: struggle, or aggressive autarky. Migrants actively display ethnocentrism. New reality is perceived inadequately, the new culture is criticized. Migrants try to transfer their ethnic stereotypes and behavior patterns to a new environment.
The third model is “Filter”: separation, or filtration. It manifests itself as a multidirectional strategy: 1) complete rejection new culture and a strong commitment to one's culture; 2) complete perception of the new culture and rejection of the old one.
The fourth model is “Flex”: flexibility, flexibility. The migrant realizes the need to adopt a new cultural code - language, gestures, norms, habits; new ethnic frame. In other words, a person adapts to a new environment, follows its attitudes, norms, etc., but at the same time does not abandon the old, retains the value of the past and, if necessary, can return to the previous way of life.
The first two behavioral strategies are caused by the loss of familiar symbols, signs of social communication and the lack of new knowledge. They complicate interethnic interaction. By choosing the third model, when a person remains committed to his culture, he identifies himself with his ethnic group, promotes and disseminates his culture, and actually contributes to the dialogization of cultures and overcoming isolationism.
The fourth model of behavior changes a person’s cultural identity, he completely accepts the new and follows the new ethnic frame. This process can manifest itself both at the level of external observable behavior and at the level of social perception: a person develops new attitudes, views, assessments, and values.
The third and fourth models represent a way out of the crisis of interethnic interactions.
An interesting look at the relationship of a foreigner with local residents can be found in the German sociologist R. Stichwe in his work “Abivalence, indifference and the sociology of the alien.” The author examines the social phenomenon of the “stranger” and puts forward his theses regarding his interaction with the environment on different levels. Mentioning the provisions of this work seems appropriate to us, since it gives a look at the problem under study from the other side, that is, from the position of a society in which foreign individuals are included, and we have the opportunity to better understand the nature of the interaction being studied.
Society’s perception of a stranger, a newly arrived individual, and interaction with him, according to Shtikhve, is quite diverse and complex. The main idea expressed by the author is that the image of a stranger in society can take different forms.
The first such form is characterized by the fact that a stranger, having appeared in a certain place, on the one hand, is someone else, different from a given society according to a number of criteria, such as its social and cultural attitudes, norms of behavior, knowledge and skills. In this sense, he is perceived precisely as a stranger, whom people avoid and keep aside due to the fact that with his differences he brings a certain concern to the established order of a particular group. At the same time, a stranger is a definite innovation and a reason for society to think about its order and course of life. Knowledge, skills, a different perspective on social norms and foundations - something that can serve the group in which he finds himself for development and change. As Stichwe writes, “the stranger embodies rejected or illegitimate possibilities, which through him inevitably return to society.” The alien provides, for example, the possibility of hierarchy, the supreme power of a chief or monarch, which explains why in traditional African societies in the early modern period and in the 19th century. shipwrecked Europeans often became chiefs or monarchs. Or he embodies the possibility of usury, inevitable for economic reasons, which is not compatible with many common value orientations, and is therefore repressed into the figure of someone else. Using examples of this type, it becomes clear that society, in the figure of an alien, creates for itself disturbances that are necessary for its further evolution and are in fact not unexpected. The author makes a reservation that often society itself forms such a figure of an alien in order to justify the changes undertaken in it. That is, the first form of ambivalence in relation to someone else’s can be called “the alien-renegade and the alien-innovator.”
The second form of ambivalence in attitudes towards others is associated with the conflict of institutionalized normative expectations and structural possibilities for their implementation. On one side is the inevitable limitation of resources in almost every society, which forces strategically calculated, hostile treatment of everyone who does not belong to a close family circle or a certain community of people where everyone is somehow interconnected. But this pressure of limited resources is countered by institutionalized motives of reciprocity, widespread in all societies, which introduce help and hospitality towards strangers into the rank of norm. In other words, there is a contradiction in relation to someone else's. On the one hand, he is perceived as an enemy seeking to absorb and use part of the resources of the society in which he finds himself - be it material wealth, cultural values, information or knowledge and skills. On the other hand, a stranger is at the same time a guest who has arrived from another country, which requires a certain treatment with him in connection with the norms of hospitality, such as friendliness local residents, readiness to provide assistance, starting with problems of orientation in a foreign environment and ending with physical assistance. As the author writes, hesitation in the understanding of the “stranger” between the guest and the enemy is clearly related to the conflict of the above-mentioned structural and normative imperatives: limited resources and the obligation of reciprocity. In other words, this form of ambivalence in relation to the alien is “the alien-enemy and the alien-guest.”
Next, the author writes about tendencies towards the alien in modern societies. Along with the mentioned forms of ambivalence in the perception of the alien, a tendency has emerged that society seeks in some way to nullify the very existence of the category of “alien.” Since the existence of a stranger carries with it a certain social tension, it is not surprising that people strive to somehow neutralize this tension in one way or another. The author identifies several such methods.
1. “Invisibility” of someone else. The stranger is perceived as something that has a negative connotation, as a person who poses a threat, but this attitude does not apply to specific people who came from other countries, but rather to “mythical”, as the author puts it, bastards. That is, the category of alien becomes something invisible, discussed among individuals, but at the same time, such an attitude does not manifest itself towards certain and specific people. Their “foreignness” is either ignored or taken for granted.
2. Universalization of strangers. This is the so-called nullification of the category of the alien in the minds of people, as the author puts it - “parting with the alien”, which is carried out in different ways. In other words, the stranger as an integral phenomenon ceases to exist in society.
3. Decomposition of the alien. It lies in the fact that the integral personality of the stranger breaks down into separate functional segments, which are much easier to overcome. In modern society there are more and more short-term interactions, interaction partners therefore remain strangers to each other, the integrity of the individual in all its disturbing aspects recedes behind the act of interaction itself. In this sense, we are dealing with a developing differentiation of personal and impersonal connections. And it is the stranger who is the protagonist of such differentiation. In other words, a person as a single personality ceases to exist, he begins to be perceived in his different hypostases in the corresponding different communities. Personal and impersonal connections precisely determine the nature of the perception of someone else. At the level of personal connections, such as friendship, informal communication, a stranger can act irritatingly on others and increase the feeling of alienation. But, being in society, a foreigner more and more often has to go precisely to the impersonal level of communication, where we are talking about social aspects communication, such as business negotiations, and here if a stranger remains a stranger to someone, then this quality of his becomes expected and normal, ceases to bother and no longer causes the need to somehow process the stranger.
4. Typification of the alien. This aspect of the loss of meaning of the category of stranger lies in the significance of typifications and categorizations in interaction processes. While connections with close people are based on sympathy and include the individualities of both parties, a stranger is perceived only through typification, through assignment to some social category. Successful overcoming of the initial uncertainty is clearly assumed here. The alien is no longer a source of uncertainty; it can be more precisely defined by categorical assignment. It was characteristic of the position of the stranger in earlier societies that he was often on one side of distinctions in which a third possibility was not clearly envisaged. Thus, there remained either a rigid assignment to one of the two sides, or for none of the participants a pre-calculated oscillation between both sides. One of these distinctions is related/stranger. Now the so-called third status appears. This category can be described as follows: people belonging to it are neither friends nor enemies, neither relatives nor strangers. The dominant attitude of those around them towards them is indifference. The place of hospitality or hostility is replaced by the figure of indifference as a normal attitude towards almost all other people.
The problems of interaction between an individual and representatives of a society alien to him are considered by G. Simmel in his work “An Excursion about the Alien”. Simmel analyzes the concept of a stranger - a person who finds himself in a group that differs from him according to various criteria. A stranger is a wanderer who comes from outside. He, therefore, is spatially alien, since the group identifies itself with a certain space, and the space, the “soil,” with itself. A stranger, Simmel defines, is not someone who comes today to leave tomorrow. He comes today to stay tomorrow. But while he remains, he continues to be a stranger. The group and the stranger are heterogeneous, but as a whole they form a kind of broader unity in which both sides must be taken into account. In history, the stranger acted as a merchant, and the merchant as a stranger. The outsider is characterized by objectivity because he is not entangled in in-group interests. But because of this he is also free, and therefore suspicious. And often he not only cannot share with the group its likes and dislikes, and therefore seems like a person who wants to destroy the existing order, but actually takes the side of “progress”, against the prevailing customs and traditions.
The key criterion for defining a stranger in Simmel is the “unity of proximity and distance” of the stranger in relation to the group (and at first this criterion is perceived as spatial). Such unity can mean distance, border, mobility, fixity. These concepts help determine the specifics of the interaction of a stranger with a group. The essence of this specificity is the “freedom” of the stranger, the consequences of which for the group and for the stranger himself are what primarily occupies Simmel. To clarify the meaning of this freedom, it is necessary to understand what the mentioned “remoteness” is, a distance that has a very definite starting point - a group, but is not defined either by its final point or by its length. For the group, these last parameters are unimportant in characterizing the stranger; the only important thing is that he moves away from the group and moves away precisely from this particular group; his presence in it is significant only because it allows us to record this process of moving away from or returning to a given group. The group does not observe or control the stranger throughout the distance, so his alienation is not deprivation or schism. Rather, it is the position of an observer, when there is an object of observation - a group, and when observation constitutes the essence of the relationship between the stranger and the group, the leitmotif, tension and dynamics of this relationship.
The "Stranger" is not definitely associated with any one group, he opposes them all; This relationship is not just non-participation, but a certain structure of the relationship between remoteness and proximity, indifference and involvement, within the framework of which it is conceivable, although reprehensible, “with one’s own charter in someone else’s monastery.” The objectivity and freedom of a stranger also determine the specific nature of intimacy with him: relations with a stranger are abstract, with him one can share only the most common features, those that unite any person with anyone. The process of alienation, “alienation,” and transformation into a stranger is shown by Simmel as a process of universalization. The commonality of traits between people, as it spreads over a larger population, alienates them from each other. The more unique the thing that connects them, the closer the connection. The more this commonality extends beyond the boundaries of their relationship, the less close these relationships are. This kind of community is universal and can connect with anyone: the basis of such relationships can be, for example, “universal human values” and, perhaps, the most “universal” of them - money. The universality of the community enhances the element of chance in it; the connecting forces lose their specific, centripetal character.
A. Schutz’s work “Stranger. Feature article social psychology". By “stranger” the author understands “an adult individual of our time and our civilization, trying to achieve permanent recognition or, at least, a tolerant attitude towards himself on the part of the group with which he becomes close.” Schütz analyzes how this convergence occurs by comparing the adoption of cultural patterns by a person born into a given group and a person who is an “outsider” to it.
Schütz believes that everyone born or raised in a group accepts a pre-prepared, standardized cultural pattern handed down to him by his ancestors. This scheme is not questioned and acts as a guide in all situations arising in social world. Knowledge that conforms to a cultural pattern is taken for granted until proven otherwise. This knowledge allows, avoiding undesirable consequences, to achieve the best results in any situation with minimal effort. Thus, the function of a cultural pattern is to exclude, to eliminate labor-intensive research, to provide ready-made guidelines.
The fact is that in everyday life a person is only partially interested in the clarity of his knowledge, that is, a complete understanding of the connections between the elements of his world and the general principles that govern these connections. He does not ask himself how, for example, his car works and what laws of physics make it possible to function. A person, Schutz believes, takes for granted that another person will understand his thought if it is expressed in clear language and will respond accordingly; at the same time, he is not at all interested in how it is even possible to explain this “miraculous” event. Moreover, he does not strive for truth at all and does not require certainty: “all he needs is information about probability and an understanding of the chances and risks that the current situation introduces into the future result of his actions.”
Meanwhile, the stranger, due to his personal crisis, does not share the above assumptions. In essence, he becomes a person who has to question almost everything that seems certain to the members of the group with which he becomes close. The cultural model of this group does not have authority for him, if only due to the fact that he was not involved in the living historical tradition, which formed this pattern. Of course, the outsider knows that the culture of this group has its own special history; Moreover, this story is accessible to him. However, it never became as integral a part of his biography as the history of his native group was for him. For each person, the elements of his way of life are the customs by which his fathers and grandfathers lived. Consequently, writes A. Schutz, a stranger enters another group as a neophyte . IN best case scenario he may be willing and able to share with new group in living and direct experience a common present and future; however, under all circumstances he remains excluded from the analogous general experience of the past. From the point of view of his host group, he is a man who has no history.
The cultural pattern of the native group still continues to be for the stranger the result of continuous historical development and an element of his biography; and therefore this sample was and remains an unquestioned correlation scheme for his “relatively natural worldview.” Consequently, the stranger naturally begins to interpret the new social environment in terms of habitual thinking.
The discovery that many things in his new environment are very different from what he expected to find them at home is often the first shock to the stranger's belief in the significance of habitual "ordinary thinking." In addition to the fact that the stranger has difficulty accepting cultural patterns, he is faced with the fact that he has no status as a member of a social group to which he would like to join and that he cannot find a starting point for orientation.
For a stranger, the language spoken in a given social group becomes a significant obstacle, a barrier to the assimilation of cultural patterns. As a scheme of interpretation and expression, language does not simply consist of linguistic symbols cataloged in a dictionary and syntactic rules. The former are translatable into other languages, the latter are intelligible through their correlation with the corresponding or deviating rules of the unproblematic mother tongue. However, there are a number of other factors:
1. Around every word and every sentence, to use W. James’s term, there are “peripheries” that surround them with an aura of emotional values, which in themselves remain inexpressible. These “peripheries,” writes Schutz, are like poetry: “they can be set to music, but cannot be translated.”
2. In any language there are words with several meanings, which are also listed in the dictionary. However, in addition to these standardized connotations, each element of speech acquires a special secondary meaning, derived from the context or social environment, in which it is used, and also, in addition, a special connotation associated with the specific circumstances of its use.
3. Every language has special terms, jargons and dialects, the use of which is limited to special social groups, and their meaning can also be learned by a stranger. Beyond this, however, each social group, no matter how small, has its own private code, intelligible only to those who have participated in the common past experiences in which it arose.
All of the above specific subtleties are available only to members of the group itself. And they all relate to their scheme of expression. They cannot be taught or learned in the same way as e.g. lexicon. To freely use a language as a mode of expression, a person must write love letters in that language, must know how to pray in it. Of course, problems with language make it difficult for the “alien” to assimilate norms and cultural patterns.
Applying all this to the cultural pattern of group life as a whole, we can say that the group member grasps at a glance the normal social situations in which he finds himself and immediately catches a ready-made recipe suitable for solving the problem at hand. His actions in these situations show all the signs of familiarity, automaticity and semi-consciousness. This is made possible because the cultural pattern provides its recipes for typical solutions to typical problems available to typical actors.
However, for the outsider, the pattern of the group with which he becomes close does not guarantee an objective probability of success, but rather a purely subjective probability, which must be tested step by step. That is, he must make sure that the solutions proposed by the new scheme will also lead to the desired result in his position as an outsider or newcomer who has grown up outside the system of this cultural pattern. He must first determine the situation. Therefore, he cannot stop at a rough acquaintance with a new sample, he needs explicit knowledge about its elements, asking not only WHAT, but also WHY.
In other words, the cultural pattern of the group is for the outsider a problem field that needs to be explored. All these facts explain two features of the attitude of an outsider in relation to the group, to which almost all sociologists working on this topic paid attention: objectivity stranger and his dubious loyalty .
The main reason for the outsider's objectivity lies in his experience of the narrowness and limitations of "habituary thinking", which taught him that a person can lose his status, his life guidelines and even his history and that the normal way of life is always much less immutable than it seems. Therefore, the outsider notices the brewing of a crisis that can shake the very foundations of the “relatively natural worldview,” while all these symptoms remain unnoticed by the group members, who rely on the inviolability of their usual way of life.
Very often, accusations of questionable loyalty arise from the surprise of group members that an outsider does not accept the entire cultural pattern as a natural and correct way of life and as the best possible solution to any problem. The stranger is accused of ingratitude because he refuses to accept that the proposed cultural model gives him shelter and protection. However, these people do not understand that a stranger in a state of transition does not perceive this pattern at all as shelter, and even as providing protection: “for him it is a labyrinth in which he has lost all sense of orientation.”
It is important to note that Schutz refrained from studying the process of assimilation itself, focusing on the problem of rapprochement preceding assimilation. The adaptation of a stranger to a group that at first seems strange and unfamiliar to him is a continuous process of exploration of the cultural pattern of that group. If the research process is successful, this pattern and its elements will become self-evident for the beginner, turning into an unproblematic way of life for him. In this case, the stranger will cease to be a stranger.
Another aspect of the process of interaction of an individual with an environment alien to him is considered by A. Schutz in his work “Coming Home”. A “home returner” in this case is defined as a person returning to his home environment permanently after sojourning and interacting with another group.
The installation of a returnee is different from that of a stranger. The one returning home expects to return to an environment that he has always known and, as he thinks, still knows from the inside and which he must simply accept as a given in order to determine the line of his behavior in it. A home, according to Schutz, is a specific way of life, consisting of small and important elements that a person treats with love. Life at home follows a well-organized pattern; it has its own definite ends and well-established means for achieving them, consisting of many traditions, habits, institutions, routines of activity of all kinds, etc.
The person returning home believes that in order to finally restore contact with the group he left behind, he must only turn to the memories of the past. And since everything happens a little differently, he experiences something similar to shock.
For an individual who has returned to his former environment, life at home is no longer directly accessible. Schütz writes that, even when trying to go home, a person always feels the desire to introduce into the old model something from new goals, from new means of achieving them, from skills and experience acquired abroad. Such an individual, to one degree or another subject to changes in a foreign land or, at least, having acquired a certain amount of new information for him, considering it important and useful, tries, as he believes, to bring benefit in his native environment. But people from his previous environment, due again to the lack of such experience, perceive the information coming from him through their usual prism of relating it to their everyday life. Explaining this, the author gives the example of a soldier returning from war. When he returns and talks about his experience as unique, he notices that listeners do not understand its uniqueness and try to find familiar features, bringing it to their pre-formed ideas about soldier's life at the front. There is a gap between the uniqueness and exceptional importance that the absent person attributes to his experiences, and their
pseudotyping by people at home; this is one of the biggest obstacles to the mutual restoration of interrupted “we-relationships”. Unfortunately, Schutz states, one can hardly hope that modes of behavior that have justified themselves in one social system will be just as successful in another.
In general, the concepts considered served as the theoretical and methodological basis for the research we undertook, devoted to the study of the assimilation and reproduction of the Western way of life, sociocultural and institutional norms and rules by Russian youth who studied abroad. In particular, the provisions of the phenomenological sociology of Alfred Schutz, in that part where, within the framework of the general theory of interpretation, the “stranger” and the “returning home” are spoken of, could not be more applicable to the comprehension of our materials.
“Cultural Grammar” by E. Hall Categories of culture Types of cultures 1. Context (information accompanying a cultural event). 1. High context and low context 2. Time. 2. Monochronic and polychronic 3. Space. 3. Contact and distance
The concept of context The nature and results of the communication process are determined, among other things, by the level of awareness of its participants. There are cultures in which additional detailed and detailed information is necessary for full communication. This is explained by the fact that there are practically no informal information networks and, as a result, people are insufficiently informed. Such cultures are called “low” context cultures.
High Context Cultures In other cultures, people do not need to obtain more complete information. Here people need only a small amount of additional information to have a clear picture of what is happening, since due to the high density of informal information networks they are always well informed. Such societies are called “high” context cultures. Taking into account the context or density of cultural information networks is an essential element of successful understanding of an event. The high density of information networks implies close contacts between family members, constant contacts with friends, colleagues, and clients. In this case, there are always close ties in relationships between people. People from such cultures do not need detailed information about current events, since they are constantly aware of everything that is happening around them.
High-context and low-context cultures A comparison of the two types of cultures shows that each of them has specific characteristics. Thus, high-context cultures are distinguished by: unexpressed, hidden manner of speech, meaningful and numerous pauses; the serious role of non-verbal communication and the ability to “speak with your eyes”; excessive redundancy of information, since initial background knowledge is sufficient for communication; lack of open expression of dissatisfaction under any conditions and results of communication. low-context cultures are characterized by the following characteristics: direct and expressive manner of speech; a small proportion of non-verbal forms of communication; a clear and precise assessment of all topics and issues discussed; assessment of understatement as insufficient competence or poor information of the interlocutor; open expression of dissatisfaction
High and low context Countries with a high cultural context include France, Spain, Italy, the Middle East, Japan and Russia. The opposite type of low-context cultures includes Germany and Switzerland; North American culture combines middle and low contexts.
Types of cultures (according to G. Hofstede) 1. Cultures with high and low power distance (for example, Turkish and German). 2. Collectivist and individualistic cultures (for example, Italian and American). 3. Masculine and feminine (for example, German and Danish). 4. With high and low levels of uncertainty avoidance (Japanese and American).
G. Hofstede's Theory of Cultural Dimensions The theory is based on the results of a written survey conducted in 40 countries. Dimensions of culture: 1. Power distance. 2. Collectivism – individualism. 3. Masculinity - femininity. 4. Attitude to uncertainty. 5. Long-term - short-term orientation
Power distance Power distance measures the degree to which the least powerful individual in an organization accepts unequal distribution of power and considers it the normal state of affairs.
Uncertainty Avoidance Uncertainty avoidance measures the extent to which people feel threatened by uncertain, ambiguous situations and the extent to which they try to avoid such situations. In organizations with high levels of uncertainty avoidance, managers tend to focus on specific issues and details, are task-oriented, and do not like to make risky decisions and take responsibility. In organizations with low levels of uncertainty avoidance, managers focus on strategic issues, are willing to make risky decisions, and take responsibility.
Femininity Masculinity Culture Masculinity is the degree to which the dominant values in a society are assertiveness, assertiveness, making money and acquiring things and does not place much emphasis on caring for people. Femininity is the degree to which the dominant values in a society are relationships between people, caring for others and overall quality of life. Measurement is important for determining methods of motivation in the workplace, choosing a way to solve the most complex problems, and for resolving conflicts.
Long-term short-term orientation The values associated with long-term orientation are defined by prudence and assertiveness; The values associated with short-term orientation are respect for traditions, fulfillment of social obligations and the desire not to lose face. Unlike the previous four aspects, a table of differences was not compiled for this indicator due to insufficient knowledge of this area.
individualism Explaining the differences between collectivism and individualism, G. Hofstede explains that “in an individualistic culture, people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of any group. A high degree of individualism presupposes that a person, being in conditions of free social connections in society, takes care of himself and bears full responsibility for their actions: employees do not want the organization to interfere in their personal lives, avoid its guardianship, rely only on themselves, and defend their interests. The organization has little influence on the well-being of its employees; its functioning is carried out based on the individual initiative of each member; promotion is carried out within or outside the organization based on the competence and “market value” of the employee; management is aware of the latest ideas and methods, tries to put them into practice, stimulates the activity of subordinates; social connections within the organization are characterized by distance; relations between the administration and employees are based on taking into account the amount of personal contribution of each employee 1.”
collectivism A collectivistic society, according to G. Hofstede, “requires a great emotional dependence of a person on the organization and the organization’s responsibility for its employees. In collectivist societies, people are taught from childhood to respect the groups to which they belong. There is no difference between members of the group and those outside it. In a collectivistic culture, employees expect the organization to take care of their personal affairs and protect their interests; interaction in the organization is based on a sense of duty and loyalty; promotions are carried out in accordance with length of service; managers adhere to traditional views on the forms of maintaining the activity of subordinates; social connections within the organization are characterized by cohesion; relations between management and employees are usually based on a moral basis, based on personal relationships."
typology of crops by R. Lewis three types of crops: monoactive, polyactive, reactive. Monoactive cultures are cultures in which it is customary to plan their lives by doing only one thing at a given time. Representatives of this type cultures are often introverted, punctual, carefully plan their affairs and stick to this plan, are work (task) oriented, rely on logic in an argument, are laconic, have restrained gestures and facial expressions, etc. Polyactive people are sociable, active peoples who are accustomed to doing a lot tasks at once, planning the order not according to a schedule, but according to the degree of attractiveness and significance of the event at a given moment in time. The carriers of this type of culture are extroverted, impatient, talkative, unpunctual, have unpredictable work schedules (deadlines constantly change), are focused on human relationships, are emotional, seek connections, protection, mix the social and professional, and have unrestrained gestures and facial expressions. Finally, reactive cultures are cultures that attach the greatest importance to respect, politeness, preferring to silently and respectfully listen to the interlocutor, reacting cautiously to the proposals of the other party. Representatives of this type of culture are introverted, silent, respectful, punctual, work-oriented, avoid confrontation, and have subtle gestures and facial expressions.
Parameters of culture Perception of personality Variants of value orientations A good person A person has good and a bad person has a bad Perception of the world A person dominates Harmony Submission to nature Relationships between people Built individually Built in a group laterally Built hierarchically in a group Leading mode of activity Do (result is important) Control (important Exist (everything happens process) spontaneously) Time Future Present Past Space Private Mixed Public
Kluckhohn and F. L. Strotbeck To measure cultural differences, F. Kluckhohn and F. L. Strotbeck used six parameters: personal qualities of people; their attitude towards nature and the world; their attitude towards other people; orientation in space; orientation in time; leading type of activity.
Personal qualities of people A good person A person has good and bad A bad person
Relationships between people Are built individually Are built laterally in a group Are built hierarchically in a group
Leading mode of activity Do (the result is important) Control (the process is important) Exist (everything happens spontaneously)
A scheme for analyzing the orientation of various cultures, developed at Princeton, attitude towards nature: man is the master of nature, lives in harmony with nature or is subordinate to nature; attitude to time: time is perceived as motionless (rigid) or “current” (fluid); orientation towards the past, present or future; attitude towards action, orientation towards action or state (doing/being); The nature of the communication context: high-context and low-context cultures; Relationship to space: private or public space; Attitude to power: equality or hierarchy; Degree of individualism: individualistic or collectivist cultures; Competitiveness: competitive or cooperative cultures; Structurality: low-structural cultures (tolerant attitude towards unpredictable situations and uncertainty, unfamiliar people and ideas; disagreement with generally accepted opinion is acceptable); or highly structured cultures (need for predictability, written and unwritten rules; conflict is perceived as a threat; alternative points of view are unacceptable) Formality: formal or informal cultures
Acculturation is the process and result of the mutual influence of different cultures, in which representatives of one culture adopt the norms of value and traditions of another culture.
Basic forms of acculturation Assimilation is a variant of acculturation in which a person fully accepts the values and norms of another culture, while abandoning his own norms and values. Separation is the denial of someone else's culture while maintaining identification with one's own culture. In this case, representatives of the non-dominant group prefer a greater or lesser degree of isolation from the dominant culture. Marginalization means, on the one hand, a loss of identity with one’s own culture, and on the other, a lack of identification with the majority culture. This situation arises from the inability to maintain one’s own identity (usually due to some external reasons) and lack of interest in acquiring a new identity (possibly due to discrimination or segregation from this culture). Integration represents identification with both the old and the new culture.
Development of culture (according to M. Bennett) Ethnocentric stages. Ethnocentrism is a set of ideas about one’s own ethnic community and culture as central to others. Ethnorelativistic stages. Ethnorelativism is the recognition and acceptance of cultural differences.
Ethnocentric stages 1. Denial of cultural differences between peoples: a) isolation; b) separation – erection of physical or social barriers. 2. Protection (a person perceives cultural differences as a threat to his existence). 3. Decreasing (minimizing) cultural differences.
Ethnorelativistic stages 1. Recognition of cultural differences. 2. Adaptation (realization that culture is a process). 3. Integration – adaptation to a foreign culture, which begins to feel like “one’s own”.
Culture shock is the stressful impact of a new culture on a person. The term was introduced by K. Oberg in 1960. To describe the mechanism of culture shock, he proposed the term U-shaped curve.
Culture shock U Good, bad, very bad, better, good Stages: 1) emotional upsurge; 2) negative impact environment; 3) critical point; 4) optimistic attitude; 5) adaptation to a foreign culture.
Factors influencing culture shock Individual personal characteristics of a person: age, education, mindset, character, circumstances of life experience. Group characteristics: cultural distance, the presence of traditions, the presence of economic and political conflicts between countries.
Intercultural competence of intercultural communication is a person’s ability, based on knowledge and skills, to carry out intercultural communication by creating a common meaning for communicants of what is happening and to achieve a positive result of communication for both parties. Assumes that an individual has tolerance and cultural sensitivity.
Ways to develop intercultural competence 1. By teaching method: didactic and empirical. 2. According to the content of training: general cultural and culturally specific; 3. In the area in which they strive to achieve results: cognitive, emotional, behavioral.
Each specific linguocultural community has certain ideas about the world, scenarios and patterns of behavior, which are reflected in its linguocultural model of the world. The linguocultural model is “a quantum of sociocultural knowledge with its own subject area and implementation scenario.” As noted by M.B. Bergelson, linguistic-cultural models occupy an intermediate position between the most individualized knowledge that makes up a unique personal experience subject and the most general, universal knowledge that all people possess. The linguocultural model integrates concepts such as concept (Likhachev, 1993; Stepanov, 1997) and cultural script (Wierzbicka, 1992), since it includes both ideas about objects and scenarios of situations. Linguocultural models are implemented in discourse; they are mobile and dynamic, because in the process of communicative interaction they are replenished and clarified new information and undergo modifications [Ibid., 73-74].
In monolingual communication, participants have the necessary background knowledge and rely on a common linguocultural model of the world, which ensures the success of their communication. However, failures may occur in intercultural communication if participants do not take into account possible differences between the worldview of different cultures and mistakenly believe that it is the same.
Translation as intercultural mediation requires switching (mindshifting - the term of R. Taft, 1981) from one linguistic and cultural model of the world to another, as well as mediation skills to cope with the inevitable differences in in different ways perception of reality. A. Lefevre and S. Bassnett (1990) call this the term ‘cultural turn’, emphasizing the need for such switching and mediation.
In this context, the translator acts as a cultural intermediary. A cultural intermediary is a person who facilitates successful communication, understanding and action between people or groups of people who differ in terms of language and culture. He needs to take into account how much the meaning of the statement is related to a specific social context and, accordingly, to a system of values, and also how clear it is to the audience of recipients that this meaning is formed within the framework of a different model of perception of the world.
The role of a mediator involves interpreting the statements, intentions, perceptions and expectations of each group relative to the other by facilitating and maintaining communication between them. In order to serve as a liaison, the mediator must have some familiarity with both cultures and be able to see things from the perspective of each. J.M. Bennett (1993, 1998) believes that being bicultural means going through certain developmental stages in order to achieve “intercultural sensitivity.” R. Leppi-halme (1997) proposes the concept of “metacultural capacity”, i.e. “the ability to understand extralinguistic knowledge related to the culture of the source language, which also allows for the expectations and background knowledge of potential recipients of the translation to be taken into account.” In our opinion, this ability has great importance for the translator.
To effectively implement intercultural mediation, a translator must be able to build linguistic and cultural models of recipients of source and target texts. One of the ways of such modeling may be the use of logical levels of culture, which make it possible to present culture in a more systematic form.
Attempts to identify levels of culture have been made repeatedly. These include the logical levels of culture, based on aspects of the logical theory of NLP (Dilts, 1990; O’Connor, 2001), the anthropological “iceberg model” of E. Hall (1959, 1990), also known as the “triad of culture”. They all reflect a similar vision of culture and its levels.
The logical levels of NLP include three levels, each of which provides an answer to a specific question: 1) environment and behavior (Where? When? and What?); 2) strategies and abilities (How?); 3) beliefs, values, identity and roles (Why? Who?).
Let's take a closer look at the “iceberg model”. Using the image of an iceberg allows you to clearly show the different levels of culture and emphasize the invisible nature of many of them. Some researchers also draw a parallel with the Titanic, whose crew did not take into account the real size of the invisible part of the iceberg, which led to the disaster. This clearly illustrates the importance of the invisible aspects of culture in the process of intercultural communication and the extent of the negative consequences that neglecting them can lead to. The iceberg model has become widely used due to its clarity and precision. It allows you to clearly demonstrate the influence that the invisible level of culture has on visible behavior.
The Iceberg Model divides all aspects of culture into visible (above water), semi-visible and invisible. Visible part iceberg includes aspects of culture that have physical manifestations.
As a rule, it is these elements that we encounter first when entering a foreign country and culture. Such “visible” elements include music, clothing, architecture, food, behavior, and language. Behavior can include everything from gestures and greetings to standing in lines, smoking in public places and breaking various rules, for example, crossing a red light. All this is a visible manifestation of culture and mentality.
However, all these visible elements can be correctly understood and interpreted only by knowing and understanding the factors that caused them. These factors relate to the semi-visible and invisible parts of the iceberg. These invisible elements are the cause of what we have in the “visible” part. As E. Hall notes, “the basis of every culture is the so-called infra-culture, behavior that precedes culture or is subsequently transformed into culture.” This idea is continued by L.K. Latyshev, noting that “sometimes national cultures they directly prescribe to their representatives certain assessments of certain phenomena of material and spiritual life.”
Such invisible elements include religious beliefs, worldviews, rules for building relationships, motivating factors, attitudes towards change, following rules, taking risks, styles of communication, thinking and much more. Thus, the components that are “underwater” in to a greater extent hidden, but they are closer to our ideas about the world and our cultural identity.
All this fully applies to language, which belongs to the visible elements of culture, but is a direct reflection of its invisible elements. In this regard, it is customary to talk about conceptual and linguistic pictures of the world.
The linguistic picture of the world is called “the reflection in language of the collective philosophy of the people, a way of thinking and expressing in language the attitude towards the world.” Language reflects the vision of the world and its organization inherent in a particular linguistic-ethnic community. It reflects those features of reality that are important for carriers of culture; the psychology of the people is expressed in the forms of language. As E. Sapir noted, “in a certain sense, the system of cultural models of a particular civilization is fixed in the language that expresses this civilization.” Moreover, language is “the system that allows you to collect, store and transmit from generation to generation information accumulated by society.” However, the conceptual picture of the world is much broader than the linguistic one. That is why we talk about “invisible” levels of culture, hidden “under water”.
E. Hall’s “triad of culture” includes the technical, formal and informal levels of culture. These levels correspond to the visible, semi-visible and invisible levels of the “iceberg model”. These levels also reflect various ways, with the help of which we learn culture: technical (through clear instructions), formal (through modeling behavior based on trial and error) and informal (through the unconscious acquisition of principles and worldviews).
The Iceberg Model and the Cultural Triad can be very useful for the translator because they clearly and consistently reflect the cultural aspects that he needs to take into account. Let us consider in more detail the connection between each level of culture and language.
The technical level reflects a universal vision of culture, common to all people and a single encyclopedic knowledge of the world, known to everyone. At this level, linguistic signs have a clear referential function, and the possible hidden values associated with them are universal for everyone. According to a number of researchers, “once two cultures have reached a comparable level of development, there is no reason why the meaning of a word and the understanding of it by the recipient cannot be universal” (D. Seleskovic) [cit. according to 13, 6].
In this regard, P. Newmark speaks of the “cultural value” of translation. The statutes of the International Federation of Translators state that translators must “promote the diffusion of culture throughout the world.” IN to a large extent The merit of translators is the compilation of dictionaries, the development of national literatures and languages, and the dissemination of religious and cultural values.
The formal level of culture usually refers to what is normal, acceptable or appropriate. This level is below the visible tip of the iceberg, since appropriateness and normality are rarely purposefully articulated. These concepts have more blurred boundaries. Hans Vermeer's definition of culture can be attributed to this level: “culture consists of everything that needs to be known, possessed and experienced in order to evaluate where the members of a society behave appropriately or not according to their various roles.” At this level, culture is a system general practice, which determines the use of language (technical level).
The third level of culture is called informal or unconscious (“out-of-awareness”). At this level there are no formal guidelines for action. Here we are dealing with undeniable core values and beliefs, ideas about yourself and the world around you. Under the influence of family, school and the media, a person develops a stable perception of reality, which, on the one hand, guides, and on the other hand, restrains his behavior in the real world.
In psychological anthropology, culture is defined as a general pattern, map, or view of the external world (Korzybski, 1933, 1958); mental programming (Hofstede, 1980, 2001); the form of surrounding things that exists in a person's head (Goodenough, 1957, 1964, p. 36), which influences the way of implementation various actions person and the entire community. These are the basic, core ethical values (Chesterman, 1997) that influence the formal level of culture. The hierarchy of preferred values is reflected in a community's perception of universal human needs or problems (Kluckhohn and Strodt-beck, 1961).
At this level of culture, not a single word can be perceived only as naming an object. Almost any word can have “cultural baggage”, which depends on the receiving audience. S. Bassnett (1980, 2002), for example, notes how common foods such as butter, whiskey and martinis can change status and have different connotations in the context of different cultures, due to differences in people's daily lives. R. Diaz-Guerrero and Lorand B. Szalay (1991) note that the same word can be associated with opposing values and beliefs. So, in the course of the experiment they conducted, they found that Americans associate the word “USA” with patriotism and government, and Mexicans associate it with exploitation and wealth.
How can a translator use the theory of logical levels of culture in his work? Each level can be associated with specific translator strategies and actions.
At the behavioral level (technical level), the translator needs to understand what exactly the text is saying. At this level, the translator's task is to convey words and concepts from the source text with minimal loss (from literature and philosophical ideas to technical instructions), so that what we have in the source text is equivalent to what we we receive in the translation text.
At this level, the translator's main attention should be focused on the text itself. One of the problems he may encounter is the transmission of culturally determined words or cultures. They can be defined as “formalized, socially and legally established phenomena that exist in a certain form or function in only one of the two cultures being compared.” These “cultural categories” (Newmark, 1988) cover a wide range of areas of life from geography and traditions to social institutions and technologies. As can be seen from the definition, in this case we are dealing with non-equivalent vocabulary.
Starting with J.-P. Vinet and J. Darbelne, scientists proposed various ways of transmitting culturemes/non-equivalent vocabulary. P. Kwiecinski (2001) summarized them into four groups:
Exoticization procedures introducing foreign word into the target language;
. detailed explanation procedures (eg use of parenthetical explanations);
. recognized exoticism (translation of geographical names that have an established translation in other languages);
. assimilation procedures - replacing words from the source language with functionally similar words in the target language or completely refusing to use them, especially if they are not important.
The methods proposed by P. Kwiecinski are in many ways similar to those methods of transmitting non-equivalent vocabulary that are accepted today in translation practice: transcription, transliteration, tracing, approximate translation, descriptive translation and zero translation.
Moving from the technical to the formal level, the translator must take into account issues of appropriateness: how the text was written and how the text functions or could function in the receiving culture. What to count good translation, is also determined by the translation norms existing in a particular culture. This may relate to the types of texts that can be translated, the translation strategies that should be used, the criteria by which the translator's work should be assessed (Chesterman, 1993; Toury, 1995). The role of the translator at this level is to ensure that the translated text meets the expectations of the recipients of the translation.
At the level of “values and beliefs” (informal level), the translator deals with unconscious elements of culture: what values and beliefs are implicit in the source text, how they may be perceived by the recipient of the translation, and what the intentions of the original author were. In other words, it is necessary to understand for what purpose the original text was written. It must be remembered that we are dealing with various actors, such as the original author, the intended reader (in the original language), who have certain values and beliefs that determine the strategies for constructing a text written in a certain social environment.
Thus, in the translation process the text itself is one, but far from the only source of meaning. Other “hidden” and “unconscious” factors, which can be called cultural, if they are inherent in representatives of one linguistic and cultural community, determine how the text will be understood and perceived. In the process of translation, a new text is created, which will be perceived from the perspective of a different linguocultural model and through other perception filters. Hence the need for intercultural mediation. To effectively carry out such mediation, the translator must be able to project different models of perception of the world and switch between different positions perception (recipient of the original - recipient of the translation).
Literature
1. Bergelson M.B. Reliance on linguocultural models when interpreting discourse // Changes in language and communication: XXI century / ed. M.A. Krongauz. - M.: RSUH, 2006. - P. 73-97.
2. Zvegintsev V.A. History of linguistics of the 19th-20th centuries in essays and extracts. Part 2. - M.: “Enlightenment”, 1965. - 495 p.
3. Zinchenko V.G., Zusman V.G., Kirnoze Z.I. Intercultural communication. Systems approach: Tutorial. - Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing House of NGLU named after. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, 2003. - 192 p.
4. Latyshev L.K. Translation: problems of theory, practice and teaching methods. - M.: Education, 1988. - 160 p.
5. Miloserdova E.V. National-cultural stereotypes and problems of intercultural communication // Foreign. language At school. - 2004. - No. 3. - P. 80-84.
6. Fast J., Hall E. Body language. How to understand a foreigner without words. - M.: Veche, Perseus, AST, 1995. - 432 p.
7. Bassnett S. Translation Studies. Methuen young books, 1980 - 176 p.
8. Bennett J.M. Towards Ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity // Paige R.M. (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience. - Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press, 1993. - P. 21-71.
9. Diaz-Guerrero R., Szalay Lorand B. Understanding Mexicans and Americans: Cultural Perspectives in Conflict. - Springer, 1991 - 312 p.
10. Katan D. Translation as intercultural communication // Munday J. The Rout-ledge companion to translation studies. - Routledge, 2009. - P. 74-91.
11. Kwiecinski P. Disturbing Strangeness: Foreignization and Domestication in Translation Procedures in the Context of Cultural Asymmetry. Torun: EDY-TOR, 2001.
12. Leppihalme R. Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. - Clevedon and Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters, 1997. - 353 p.
13. Newmark P. A Textbook of translation. - New York: Prentice Hall, 1988. - 292 p.
14. Snell-Hornby M. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? - John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2006. - 205 p.
15. Taft R. The Role and Personality of the Mediator // S. Bochner (ed.) The Mediating Person: Bridges between Cultures. - Cambridge, Schenkman, 1981. - P. 53-88.
16. Vermeer H. Skopos and Commission in Translation Action // A. Chesterman (ed.) Readings in Translation Theory. - Helsinki, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989. - P.173-187.
In modern humanities, the concept of “culture” is one of the fundamental ones. It is natural that it is central in intercultural communication. Among the huge number of scientific categories and terms, it is difficult to find another concept that would have such a variety of semantic shades and would be used in such different contexts. For us, such phrases as “culture of behavior”, “culture of communication”, “culture of feelings”, etc. sound quite familiar. In ordinary usage, the term “culture” serves as an evaluative concept and expresses a certain set of human personality traits, which would be more accurately called not culture, but culture.
Currently, there are more than 500 different definitions of culture. Kroeber and Kluckhohn divided all these definitions into 6 classes (types). 1. Descriptive definitions that interpret culture as the sum of all types of human activities, customs, and beliefs. 2. Historical definitions that relate culture to the traditions and social heritage of a society. 3. Normative definitions that consider culture as a set of norms and rules that organize human behavior 4. Psychological definitions, according to which culture is a set of forms of acquired behavior that arise as a result of adaptation and cultural adaptation of a person to the surrounding conditions of life. 5. Structural definitions that represent culture in the form of various types of models or a single system of interrelated phenomena. 6. Genetic definitions based on the understanding of culture as the result of adaptation of human groups to their environment. Culture includes everything that is created by the human mind and hands. Therefore, culture is studied by a number of sciences: semiotics, sociology, history, anthropology, axiology, linguistics, ethnology, etc. Each of the sciences singles out one of its sides or one of its parts as the subject of its study, approaches its study with its own methods and ways, while formulating their understanding and definition of culture. Culture as a special sphere of human life cannot be seen, heard, felt or tasted. In reality, we can observe its various manifestations in the form of differences in human behavior and certain types of activities, rituals, and traditions. We see only individual manifestations of culture, but never see it as a whole. By observing differences in behavior, we begin to understand that cultural differences underlie them, and this is where the study of culture begins. In this sense, culture is only an abstract concept that helps us understand why we do what we do and explain differences in behavior among different cultures. The long-term coexistence of groups of people in the same territory, their collective economic activities, defense against attacks form their common worldview, a common way of life, manner of communication, style of clothing, specifics of cooking, etc. As a result, an independent cultural system is formed, which is usually called the ethnic culture of a given people. But it is not a mechanical sum of all acts of human life. Its core is a set of “rules of the game” adopted in the process of their collective existence. Unlike human biological properties, they are not inherited genetically, but are acquired only through learning. For this reason, the existence of a single universal culture that unites all people on Earth becomes impossible.
People's behavior in the communication process is determined by a number of factors of varying degrees of significance and influence. Firstly, this is due to the peculiarity of the inculturation mechanism, according to which a person’s mastery of his native culture is carried out simultaneously at both a conscious and unconscious level. In the first case, this happens through socialization through education and upbringing, and in the second, the process of a person’s mastery of his culture occurs spontaneously, under the influence of various everyday situations and circumstances. Moreover, this part of a person’s culture, as shown by special studies, is no less significant and important in his life and behavior than the conscious part. In this respect, culture can be compared to a drifting iceberg, in which only a small part is on the surface of the water, and the main part of the iceberg is hidden under water. This invisible part of our culture is located mainly in the subconscious and appears only when extraordinary, unusual situations arise during contacts with other cultures or their representatives. The subconscious perception of culture is of great importance for communication, because if the behavior of communicants is based on it, then it becomes especially difficult to force participants in communication to create other frames of perception. They are not able to consciously determine the process of perceiving another culture. The image of an iceberg allows us to clearly understand that most of the models of our behavior, which are products of culture, are applied by us automatically, just as we automatically perceive the phenomena of other cultures, without thinking about the mechanisms of this perception. For example, in American culture, women smile more often than men; this type of behavior was learned unconsciously and became a habit.
Culture, firstly, can be characterized as "centaur system" , i.e. complex “natural-artificial” formation. On the one hand, it is an organic whole, reminiscent of a living organism (culture reproduces itself in a sustainable way, assimilates and processes natural materials, responds to foreign cultural influences and changes in the natural environment), on the other hand, it represents the activities of people, communities, their desire to support traditions, improve life, bring order, resist destructive trends, etc. “The second characteristic of culture is determined by the opposition of its two main subsystems: "normative-semiotic" (it can be conditionally called the “semiotic cosmos of culture”) and "material-denotative" (“natural space of culture”). Any culture acts as a culture only to the extent that it is reproduced in a sustainable manner. A necessary condition for the reproduction of culture is a system of norms, rules, languages, ideas, values, i.e. everything that exists in culture. This system can be called the semiotic cosmos of culture. The natural cosmos is everything that, on the one hand, has an independent existence (natural-cosmic, biological, spiritual), and on the other hand, is comprehended, designated, presented and normalized in the semiotic cosmos. The opposition between the natural and semiotic cosmos of culture can be illustrated by the example of the birth and death of a person. The biological processes of birth and death are interpreted differently in different cultures. Thus, in archaic culture they are considered as metamorphoses of the soul (the transition of the soul from this world and back). In medieval Christian life, the birth of a child is only a necessary condition for the real birth of a person in the act of baptism; Accordingly, death is only a stage on the path leading to God. The third characteristic of culture can be called organismic . In a culture, diverse structures and processes do not simply coexist; they are closed on each other, they are conditions for each other, and at the same time they support or destroy each other. Culture is, if we can apply a physical analogy here, an equilibrium stable system, where ideally all processes should be consistent with each other, strengthen, and support each other. It is the third characteristic that includes cultural problems of searching for mechanisms that ensure the sustainability of culture.
The fourth characteristic belongs to the socio-psychological sphere. Culture and_person in some way one whole: culture lives in people, their creativity, activity, experiences; people, in turn, live in culture. Culture, on the one hand, constantly immerses a person in contradictions and situations that he must resolve, on the other hand, it provides him with tools and means (material and symbolic), forms and methods (“culture begins with rules” with the help of which a person resists these contradictions.
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_1.jpg" alt=">Model of culture "Iceberg"">!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_2.jpg" alt=">Superficial culture Above the “surface of the water” Emotional load: Relatively low Direct but near the surface."> Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Непосредственно возле поверхности. Негласные правила Основаны на поведенческих реакциях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая «Глубоко под водой» Неосознаваемые правила (бессознательные) Основаны на ценностях Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Глубокая культура «Неглубоко» под водой!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_3.jpg" alt=">“Everyone does it DIFFERENTLY.” Superficial culture Above “ surface of the water" Emotional load: Relatively low Food"> “Каждый делает это ПО-ДРУГОМУ.” Поверхностная культура Над «поверхностью воды» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Относительно низкая Еда * Одежда * Музыка * !} art* Theater * Crafts * Dance * Literature * Language * Holiday Celebrations * Games Visual aspects of a culture that are easy to identify, imitate and understand.
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_4.jpg" alt=">Today is the third Thursday of November. (In America) What will you eat ?In the USA"> Сегодня третий четверг ноября. (В Америке) Что вы будете есть? В США в этот день празднуют день Благодарения. В этот день по традиции семьи могут приготовить индейку, ветчину, а могут и не готовить ничего особенного. Даже если вы не празднуете праздник, вы можете пожелать кому-нибудь“Happy Thanksgiving” («!} Have a good day Thanksgiving”) Cultural Example of Superficial Culture “Everyone does it DIFFERENTLY.”
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_5.jpg" alt=">Thai folk craft Thai dance Architecture of a Buddhist temple in Thailand Examples"> Thai folk craft Thai dance Architecture of a Buddhist temple in Thailand Examples of Surface culture
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_6.jpg" alt=">The concept of “politeness” * Speech models depending on the situation * Concept "time" * Personal"> Понятие «вежливости» * Речевые модели в зависимости от ситуации * Понятие «времени» * Личное пространство* Правила поведения * Мимика * Невербальная коммуникация * Язык тела, жестов * Прикосновения * Визуальный контакт * Способы контролирования эмоций “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?” Элементы культуры труднее заметить, они глубже интегрированы в жизнь и культуру общества. Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. «Неглубоко под водой» Непосредственно возле поверхности Негласные правила Эмоциональная нагрузка: Высокая!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_7.jpg" alt=">Manifested in the behavioral reactions of culture bearers. In Switzerland: being late for a meeting"> Проявляются в поведенческих реакциях носителей культуры. В Швейцарии: опоздать на встречу - это недопустимо. В России: опоздать на встречу - не очень хорошо, но мы так все же поступаем. В Италии: опоздать на пол часа - час - ничего страшного. В Аргентине: опоздать на три часа - это прийти КАК РАЗ вовремя. (Правила поведения) Культурологические примеры уровня «Неглубоко под водой» «Негласные правила» “ЧТО ты ДЕЛАЕШЬ?”!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_8.jpg" alt=">"Deep Underwater" Emotional load: Intense Concepts of Modesty * Beauty s *"> «Глубоко под водой» Эмоциональная нагрузка: Напряженная Понятия Скромности * Красоты * Ухаживания * Отношение к животным * Понятие лидерства * Темп работы * Понятие Еды (отношение к еде) * Отношение к воспитанию детей * Отношение к болезни * Степень социального взаимодействия * Понятие дружбы * Интонация речи * Отношение к взрослым * Понятие чистоты * Отношение к подросткам * Модели принятия групповых решений * Понятие «нормальности» * Предпочтение к Лидерству или Кооперации * Терпимость к физической боли * Понятие «я» * Отношение к прошлому и будущему * Понятие непристойности * Отношение к иждивенцам * Роль в разрешении проблем по вопросам возраста, секса, школы, семьи и т.д. Вещи, о которых мы не говорим и часто делаем неосознанно. Основаны на ценностях данной культуры. Глубокая культура Неосознаваемые правила “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!”!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_9.jpg" alt=">Manifestations of culture are based on its values “You just DON’T do THAT! ” Examples"> Проявления культуры основаны на ее ценностях “Вы просто ТАК НЕ делаете!” Примеры Неосознаваемых правил В Китае: Нельзя дарить девушке цветы (это считается позором для нее, оскорблением ее чести). В России: Нельзя свистеть в доме. Мы сидим «на дорожку». В Финляндии: Нет бездомных собак на улице. Глубокая культура!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_10.jpg" alt=">Discussion Questions... How can we study aspects of another culture that are "deep underneath""> Вопросы для обсуждения… Как мы можем изучать аспекты другой культуры, которые находятся «глубоко под водой»? Как избежать стереотипов при определении поведенческих моделей и ценностей культуры? Будете ли Вы чувствовать себя комфортно, выступая в качестве представителя своей культуры? Кто должен присутствовать, если мы ведем межкультурный диалог? Можно ли по-настоящему понять другую культуру вне своей собственной? Почему (нет)? Приведите примеры каждого уровня «айсберга» из вашей культуры.!}
Src="https://present5.com/presentacii-2/20171208%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint.ppt%5C11908-the_iceberg_model_of_culture_russkiy_varint_11.jpg" alt=">Thank you for your attention!">!}