Globalization has created conditions for a closer contact between cultures, which implies that the representatives of those cultures need to be more sensitive with regard to others and show respect and acceptance towards difference in order to build successful communication. This study focuses on tolerance as a constituting part of a person's cross-cultural competence and aims to examine the application of tolerance in speech acts of professional stand-up performers.

Cross-cultural communication scholars believe the manifestation of tolerance in speech to be a sign of a strong moral conviction that a person has a clear understanding of their interlocutor's distinct linguistic and cultural characteristics. One of the main notions that serve as the basis of this research is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as we try to detect the connection between the use of tolerant linguistic units and a person's set of cultural norms and beliefs. Next, we examine the work of M. Verkuyten, K. Yogeeswaran, and L. Adelman (2018) who propose tolerance, defined as a way of managing of cultural and religious diversity, as an answer to the growing demand for a better understanding and acceptance of the diversity of cultures. Moreover, we operate with the classification of tolerant communicative strategies introduced by T. A. Shapovalova (2013) which help us analyze the specific language units used by comedians in their performances.

Although the concept of tolerance has sparked the interest of scholars in philosophy and ethics, psychology, and sociology, researchers fail to recognize the significance of its linguistic aspect. Another research gap is determined by the fact that humor and stand-up comedy are underdeveloped as serious scientific notions. Thus, the problem we will be dealing with is the reflection of changes in public discourse, especially the spread of tolerant langue units, in the performances of famous stand-up comedians. As this type of comedy is regarded as an expression of public opinion, it is expected to show an increasing number of signs of tolerance from the past to now.

This is why the aim of this research is to explore the relationship between a person's cross-cultural competence and their application of tolerant language means, with special attention to humor. For this purpose, we define the following objectives:

- to determine the role of the phenomenon of tolerance within the framework of cross-cultural communication;

- to investigate the characteristics of tolerance as a linguistic category;

- to establish the link between tolerance and humor, and stand-up comedy in particular;

- to analyze the manifestation of tolerance in stand-up comedy performances.

In this study we investigate the correlation between a person's use of tolerant language means and their level of cross-cultural competence, with an accent on stand-up comedy. For this purpose, we will analyze live performances of American and British Stand-up comedians, which are taken from the YouTube website due to their easy accessibility. The selection of specific comedians is determined by the themes they focus on in their comedy and their relevance in the modern media sphere. Therefore, the American comedians chosen are Louis C. K. (shows: Chewed Up, 2008; Stand Up Comedy Central, 2016) and George Carlin (shows: Jammin' in New York, 1992; It's Bad For Ya, 2008), the British ones - Ricky Gervais (shows: Out of England, 2008; Humanity, 2018) and Jimmy Carr (shows: In concert, 2008; Funny Business, 2016). The choice is dictated by the fact that these comedians have a reputation of being controversial. Therefore, it would be even more showing to demonstrate their increased attention to the means of speech.

In order to better understand the development of cross-cultural competence of comedians through the determined linguistic features of tolerance we employ the method of critical discourse analysis. This allows us to interpret the choice of words or phrases used by comedians in the context of social and cultural circumstances. Additionally, a comparative analysis approach will be adopted to illustrate the evolution of their competence in time and to outline the difference between the implementation of such linguistic means by British and American comedians.

We believe this research can potentially be applied in several spheres. First, the findings could be beneficial for professional comedians whose content is constantly being scrutinized by the public in light of the current events. Furthermore, the research results could be employed by media personalities in order to mitigate the negative reaction of audiences towards their content and potentially offensive jokes. Finally, such knowledge will help students and specialists in cross-cultural communication who wish to advance their cross-cultural competence.

1.Linguistic and Cultural Aspects of Tolerance

intercultural language comedy

Communicating with people from other cultures can be complicated due to the language barrier and differences in cultural characteristics. To simplify the process of communication, it is necessary to develop the skill of intercultural competence. Using that skill, intercultural communication specialists can effectively implement their knowledge to accomplish the communicative intentions. Intercultural communicative competence implies an understanding and respect for the opinions, behaviors and actions of people, due to their cultural characteristics. It also contributes to the correct application of speech patterns and the correct assessment of the interlocutor's behavior. This skill allows both sides to achieve a positive result of communication.

For successful communication it is important for the interlocutors to pay close attention to the vocabulary they use. According to the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language displays the mental representations and systems of concepts of its speakers. Changes in the social, political, cultural spheres lead to a change in people's worldview, which, in turn, affects their language. Thus, this concept allows to amend the consequences of historical injustice. Culture can be defined as what a society does and thinks. Language is the way people think. It is fair to say that the content of the language is inseparable from culture. Language is the most important means of not only communication and expression of thoughts, but also the accumulation of knowledge of culture. Being a complex sign system, a language can be a means of transmitting, storing, using and transforming information.

Therefore, it is fair to point out the importance of communicative competence as part of cross-cultural competence, as communication is an integral element of any cross-cultural interaction. Communicative competence was first introduced by N. Chomsky, who defined it as a person's ability to effectively communicate in the studied foreign language (Chomsky, 1965). V. Narolina develops this idea and distinguishes the following components of communicative competence (Narolina, 2010):

· linguistic (lexical and grammatical), provides lexical adequacy and grammatical correctness of speech, which affects the correctness of the formulation of thoughts, as well as the process of understanding the intended message of the interlocutor;

· discursive, implies the ability to formulate a statement as a unit of speech and communication;

· sociolinguistic, the ability of an individual to perceive the multilingual world, the ability to use such sociolinguistic means as language switching, the intermediary language “Lingua Franca” and others, to achieve understanding in communication, and also to rely on the knowledge of such sociolinguistic concepts as “dialect”, “accent”, "mixing of dialects" and others, while perceiving the sociolinguistic picture of the world;

· sociocultural, allows representatives of different cultures to understand and respect the spiritual and moral values, art, traditions, customs, character traits of each other, and to form a tolerant and respectful attitude towards them;

· strategic, empowers a person with skills and readiness to use various methods, tactics and strategies of verbal and non-verbal communication to achieve mutual understanding depending on the specific communicative situation and in accordance with the sociocultural norms of their use.

Cross-cultural communication is possible due to the integrative ability -- the communicative competence that the interlocutors possess. However, intercultural communication becomes complete and effective only when, having cultural knowledge and operating with the appropriate categories, people of different cultures are able to overcome barriers arising from stereotypical attitudes, prejudices and other factors that impede communication, like insufficient knowledge of the language of communication or incomplete knowledge of cultural norms and rules.

Effective cross-cultural communication is both a condition and a product of the functioning of cross-cultural communicative competence of an individual, which in order to reach mutual understanding with representatives of other communicative communities and cultures, as well as to achieve the goals of communication, uses the knowledge of cultural rules responsible for the success of intercultural interaction. Thus, cross-cultural communicative competence allows a person in the process of communication to choose the necessary language means in accordance with the socio-cultural context, use sociolinguistic means, choose strategies and tactics of communication acceptable to achieve their goals, which increases the efficiency of cross-cultural interaction.

Intercultural competence is an individual's skill which is based on special knowledge and abilities, as well as personal attitudes and strategies. The model of intercultural competence, developed by M. Byram, is considered to be the most complete as it covers various qualities, abilities and skills of the individual. According to this model, intercultural competence consists of the following five elements (Byram, 2000):

1. Attitudes (curiosity and openness, readiness to reject prejudices in relation to both foreign and one's own culture);

2. Knowledge (understanding of social groups, their characteristics and functioning in a society in their native country and the country of the interlocutor, about the general processes of social and interpersonal interaction);

3. The skills of interpretation and correlation (the ability to understand and interpret a document or event of another culture and relate to the phenomena of the native one);

4. Skills of discovery and interaction (the ability to acquire new knowledge about a culture and its practical manifestations, as well as to implement these knowledge, attitudes and skills in real situations of communication);

5. Critical cultural awareness or political education (the ability to critically, on the basis of certain criteria, evaluate activities and their results in one's own and other cultures).

It is clear from this model that in order to become culturally aware and, ultimately, cross-culturally competent it is necessary not only to be aware of the differences between cultures, but also to develop the skill of critical thinking. Thus, advanced cognitive abilities are an essential element for strengthening one's cross-cultural competence.

Achieving intercultural communicative competence is almost impossible without the presence of relevant background knowledge, which is the main prerequisite for the effectiveness of intercultural communication. Background knowledge is treated as a common foundation that allows speakers of the same language to understand each other through mutual knowledge of realities. Thus, productive intercultural communication relies on the mutual correspondence of the background knowledge of the speaker and the receiver of the message.

Modern science recognizes several levels of cognitive development that relate to the components of intercultural competence and indicate the influence of cognitive processes on its formation (Ushakova, 2009). These levels include:

1. The level of the rule at which actions are performed in accordance with the rules;

2. The level of meaning at which occur the awareness and thorough understanding of the meanings of the used language units;

3. The level of speech activity, which implies the logic of constructing statements;

4. The cultural level at which a person realizes how some action or phenomenon meets the cultural standards of a native speaker;

5. The cognitive level at which people become aware of their cognitive strategies, their effectiveness, and they have the opportunity to independently assess their language and speech level. The basic unit of this level is a concept.

In the process of the formation of intercultural competence, a transition should be made to the conceptual level, that is, to the level of schemes, prototypes taking into account their differences in cultures. Only at this level it is possible to say that cross-cultural competence becomes an innate quality which is manifested subconsciously without forced effort.

Intercultural competence is defined as: the ability of people of different sexes and ages to exist peacefully and without mutual discrimination in the same society; the ability to feel a part of a previously alien culture; integration of knowledge and behavioral patterns, which are based on the principles of pluralism and awareness of the historically-determined cultural processes (Nazyrova, 2012). The formation of cross-cultural competence should be considered in connection with the extent to which someone is able and willing to participate in cultural dialogue based on the principles of cooperation, mutual respect, tolerance for cultural differences and overcoming cultural barriers. The consciousness of each participant of communication of their own culture and of another world that is somehow opposed to theirs creates the conditions for cultural dialogue.

A. S. Nazyrova (2012) asserts that the content of cross-cultural competence can be divided into three groups of knowledge. First, there are affective elements. These include empathy and tolerance which provide the psychological basis for effective intercultural interaction. Next, we consider cognitive elements -- ethnocentrism and ethno-cultural relativism; they allow for an adequate interpretation of the communicative behavior of speakers. Thus, it is possible to avoid misunderstandings and change our own communicative behavior according to the aims of communication. Lastly, it is important to point out procedural elements -- strategies used in situations of intercultural contacts. The strategies act as a means of getting to know the cultural identity of the other participants of communication along with finding common elements within the cultures, understanding and recognizing signs of misunderstanding, etc.

As a result, intercultural competence becomes the property of an individual or community that allows intercultural communication partners to carry out joint activities, create common cultural values, form a single sociocultural space in which representatives of different cultures and ethnic groups can interact.

Similarly, tolerance comes to exist as a result of a culturally diverse society. Nowadays, there exist some misconceptions regarding the concept of tolerance. Some assume it is manifested in initiatives and policies that require people to be open-minded and unprejudiced towards everyone. In such conditions criticism towards a specific group could be viewed as blatant racism or discrimination. People suppose that it is crucial to have a positive stance on those individuals and be welcoming towards others. On the other hand, there is the view that tolerance requires endurance, there needs to be a negative reaction or disapproval of something for a tolerant response to start to form. We believe that out-group toleration allows for the co-existence of different worldviews, while providing the opportunity for people to hold their deeply-rooted group beliefs. One must be allowed to stay faithful to their ideology, still, they should at least attempt to consider the point of view of the “other”.

In his book “The Intolerance of Tolerance” D. Carson develops the idea that the definition of “tolerance” has changed in the recent years (Carson, 2012). The “old tolerance” was an acceptance of the fact that different viewpoints exist, while the “new tolerance” is defined as the acceptance of those views themselves. The author states that this notion has turned from allowing different worldviews the equal right to be present to believing differing opinions are equally as valid as our own. The “old tolerance” was the belief that truth is either impersonal and can be discovered through open discussion of contrasting worldviews or that it is personal, thus it is unreasonable to try and uncover the ultimate truth which would be accurate for everyone. The author argues that, by contrast, the “new tolerance” claims there is truth in all statements, no matter how contradictory they are.

This research, however, will be based on the interpretation of tolerance as the norm of a civilized compromise between competing cultures and readiness to adopt other logics and views (Mikhailova, 2015). It is not a full acceptance of opposing views, but merely a display of willingness to consider those opinions. Tolerance acts as a condition for the preservation of diversity, a kind of historical right to distinctness, dissimilarity, otherness.

A tolerant attitude corresponds to the stage of recognition (approval) in the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, which was developed by Milton J. Bennett (2004). At this stage, a person perceives his or her culture as part of a complex system of diverse cultures. People create categories of concepts and values in relation to other cultures, which allow them to objectively evaluate the behavior of their interlocutors. It is important to understand here that accepting a different culture is not equal to accepting its values. A person is not obliged to show special sympathy for any culture in order to respect its representatives. In addition, the interlocutors must take into account their characteristic cultural features and differences, but avoid emphasizing them, especially in a negative light.

Tolerance implies the existence of an insoluble conflict or contradiction. Having fixed such a conflict, the parties come to the decision to avoid violence and start searching for a compromise, as they recognize the rights of the conflicting parties as equal. M. Verkuyten, K. Yogeeswaran, and L. Adelman (2018) claim that tolerance is a tool for creating the conditions for harmonious coexistence of members of different, sometimes even traditionally clashing, cultural backgrounds. They define the application of tolerant ideas as a technique of regulating peace in the framework of a diversity of cultures. Such conditions raise the question of how the contrasting values of out-groups should be dealt with, especially when they are considered to be wrong by the majority. In this case, it is appropriate to show respect to the out-group beliefs and practices without necessarily having to value or approve of them.

Some sort of opposition is a fundamental quality for tolerance. A. Cohen argues that tolerance cannot be equated with indifference (Cohen, 2004). People must first have a negative reaction to some phenomenon and recognize the fact that they had such a reaction. Only then the necessity to tolerate the object of that negative attitude appears. However, it is also possible for a person to simply endure something they came in contact with. We believe it is important to draw the distinction between endurance and tolerance. While the first is an action someone feels they have to perform, the latter comes from the belief they should do it. Accordingly, an act of tolerance is based on a person's moral conviction of what they think is right. Tolerant behavior is always principled: one refuses to interfere with some behavior they are opposed to, even when this person believes they have the power to do so.

However, there have been some claims that tolerance is deceptive in the way it only shows a person's attempt to appear culturally-sensitive while disguising their prejudices. B. Engelen and T. Nys (2008) state that tolerance presupposes an initial opposition of a person to some idea or phenomenon and argue that a “tolerant” person has the means to change the situation they disapprove of but refrains from doing so. According to their work, the society imposes tolerant norms on people and restricts them from acting according to their genuine beliefs. The authors claim that those who do not oppose certain practices or values cannot be called tolerant as they do not have an initial negative reaction. Others, who practice plain intolerance, show unrestrained condemnation towards those they do not agree with and can possibly turn to physical measures of solving a conflict. They feel as though they cannot allow for those disapproved behaviors to exist without showing their attitude towards them. The last category of individuals the authors indicate are the questionably tolerant people. They do not agree with something, yet do not show this even when they have the means to do so. Engelen & Nys wonder why a person would refrain from showing their true reaction, especially if they believe that would be the right thing to do, and conclude that this is a sign of hypocrisy. Essentially, a tolerant person is lying to themselves and showing an altered version of their personality in order to fit in with the societal norms.

To avoid any misinterpretation, we limit tolerance to the acceptance of divergence without causing harm to any other group. Tolerance is the principle that establishes a balance between multidirectional forces. But the position determined by tolerance is an unstable position, as it is created by a conflict situation. The functions of tolerance in a conflict are not its resolution, the elimination of its causes, nor the removal of contradictions between the conflicting parties, but the transformation of the conflict into a relative balance in a peaceful, non-violent way. Tolerance is designed to overcome conflict, it contributes to the search for a common basis of interaction, which will connect the “incompatible”.

Hostility and suspicion towards others lead to the appearance of prejudices and superstitions, which are amplified by a group and manifest in a reluctance to recognize the existing positive aspects of the opponent and a tendency to exaggerate their negative traits and attribute new ones. The existence of both of these groups determines a sense of identity and is an indispensable element in the knowledge of the world as one and common to all. Integration of a community requires an adversary, in opposition to which people can unite, define the boundaries and spheres of influence, impose cooperation on the members of the group and force them to be loyal.

A vision of social reality only as a mechanical combination of a multitude of beings independent from each other is a vision of social reality through conflict. The ideological plurality, the multiplicity of differently thinking subjects creates a situation of contradictory relations between them. Mechanical or atomized pluralism contributes to the emergence of confrontation. To contain conflict, tolerance is necessary. Tolerance of the “other” is one of the first steps in the process of increasing unity, understanding the “other”. The next step should be the adoption of the “other”, which makes the world perception more multidimensional, more holistic.

Taking everything into consideration, it is fair to say that tolerance arises in a situation of tension and is an intermediate element in the chain of development from conflict to interaction. The development of a tolerant attitude can be called an attempt to become more cross-culturally competent.

2.Language of tolerance and verbal aggression