Strong, weak and average linguistic personality in communicative-pragmatic and linguoculturological aspects

We need in constant speech improvement. D. Carnegie suggests that any speaker can carefully follow the rules and patterns of constructing public speech, but still can make many mistakes. He can speak in front of the audience exactly as in a private conversation, and at the same time speak in an unpleasant voice, make grammatical mistakes, be awkward, behave insultingly, and perform many inappropriate acts. Carnegie suggests that every person's natural, everyday manner of speaking needs many corrections, and it is necessary to first improve the natural style of conversation and only then to transfer this method to go up to the rostrum [8. P. 381--382].

In intercultural communication, it is also possible to detect manifestations of a weak linguistic personality. They are subjective and objective. Subjective manifestations: the interlocutors have a poor command of the language, are not inclined to mutual understanding, do not take into account the specifics of the situation, build their verbal and nonverbal behavior on the basis of various cultural axioms. Objective manifestations: the difference between the “national consciousness” of communicants, the divergence of cultures, the different division of the conceptual space, the goals and strategies of communication.

The linguistic personality is not only a social phenomenon that has, in addition to universal, national and cultural components, but it also has individual aspects.

A number of modern scientists devote their research to the problem of identifying a universal and national-specific language personality, noting that a personality should be viewed in the cultural tradition perspective of a people, ethnic group, because for the genesis of a person in a human being there is a need of a cultural-anthropological prototype, which is formed within the culture. Therefore, linguists are paying more and more attention to the problem of national character.

Successful use of national cultural semantics in speech is largely determined by the national stereotype existence in the field of speech communication: “It is not possible to draw a parallel between a linguistic personality and a national character, but there is still much in common between them...” [12. P. 42]. That is why Y.N. Karaulov emphasizes the national character already in the very definition of a linguistic personality. In his opinion, the actual linguistic or vocabulary personality is “the basic national- cultural prototype of a certain natural language carrier, fixed mainly in the lexical system, composing the timeless and invariant part of the linguistic personality structure” [ibid., P. 39]. A similar position is held by V.I. Karasik, P.V. Chesnokov, S.G. Vorkachev, O.A. Leontovich, A.P. Sedykh, O.S. Shiryaeva, A.M. Barminskaya, G.V. Komarov and many other scientists. Therefore, although it is possible to speak about the universalism of the linguistic personality criteria, it is nevertheless necessary to rely on certain national-cultural features, since the existence of a national stereotype in the field of speech communication has already been proven.

Grammar, vocabulary and semantics of each language have national specifics, which is largely determined by extralinguistic indicators -- national specifics of mentality, historically formed stereotypes, myths, including modern ones, the most popular subjects for discussion preferences among representatives of a given nation, etc. [see 24].

We share the opinion of O.A. Leontovich, who notes that the situation for native English speakers is unique, since the linguistic personality not only belongs to the communities located close to one another, but also includes far-located states where people speak English. Thus, native English speakers share features common to all residents of English-speaking countries [25. P. 127]. Therefore, “English is the invaluable resource where it is possible and necessary to study the patterns of intercultural communication” [ibid., P. 95].

D. Carnegie believes that the most relevant topics for discussion are as follows -- sex, property and religion: with the first, we can create life, with the second, we support it, and with the third, we hope to continue it in another world [8. P. 458]. Despite the real importance of these topics, we still believe that they can be considered nationally specific, popular among Americans, and for people of many other nationalities these other subjects can often be other problems.

The main goal of a strong English-speaking linguistic personality manifestation is to implement the “American-centrism” suggesting that he can dictate its will to other peoples of developing countries.

O.A. Urusova states that the most characteristic social activities of America are as follows: the actor, military man, educator, player, assistant, person with authority, aggressor, lawyer, politician, partner, dictator, steersman [26]. Many of them are associated with verbal communication and make appropriate impact on it, they require certain verbal skills and abilities formation that characterize a linguistic person as a strong one.

Many etiquette forms and principles of communication are national. “Polite and etiquette People communicate politely and adhere to etiquette in different countries. But each of the national languages manifests its own specifics, because the unique features of the language here are superimposed by the characteristics of rituals, habits, everything accepted and unaccepted in behavior, allowed and prohibited in the social etiquette of a given nation” [27. P. 130].

For Americans, communication is characterized by simplicity, sociability, neighborliness, ease, tolerance, friendliness, honesty -- it is the norm of behavior in everything in any verbal behavior, for example, it is not accepted to give false testimony in court, to violate obligations in business [28. C. 5]. American etiquette requires constant smile when communicating, demonstrating that “they have everything O'key!” In the American national tradition, it is accepted: whatever happens -- “keep smiling”. The question “How are you?” In this tradition requires an indispensable standard positive answer “fine!”, “great!”, “all right!”, “everything's OK!”.

Among the apparent advantages of English-speaking communication we can mention: empressement, politeness, no forceful language, awkwardness when it is impossible to fulfill the request of your interlocutor, a large proportion of phatical etiquette communication formulas; to express a request, it is usually not an imperative that is used, as, for example, in Russian, but an indirect request in the form of a direct or indirect question. The expression of surprise, distrust and similar emotions in English language is much more restrained than in Russian. Therefore, with good reason, D. Carnegie calls for meaningful, calm and polite speech actions. D. Carnegie writes: “Little phrases such as “I'm sorry for you”, “Won't you please?”, “Would you mind?”, “Thank you” -- “little courtesies of the monotonous grind of everyday life -- incidentally, they are hallmark of good breeding” [15. P. 101].

The provision of services to a hostile person, asking him for a service in order to earn his friendly disposition is a nationally-specific American communicative-speech tactics [Carnegie 1989, P. 246--247]. In a number of other cultures [very often in Russian], not only doing a favor to a hostile person, but also asking him for one can cause hostility and refusal to communicate. “The inability to fulfill the request of his interlocutor causes a feeling of embarrassment in native English speakers... The refusal itself must combine politeness and persuasiveness. Even in the case when the reason for the refusal is not given, the Englishman is not inclined to extort it from the interlocutor. English etiquette does not recognize categorical forms” [27. P. 131]. Apparently, because of this, in English verbal communication there are formulas of phatic etiquette communication, which are much more evident than in Russian. While expressing surprise, distrust and similar emotions in the Russian language common remarks are as follows: What do you mean! Can not be! True? Oh my God! Nightmare! Horror!, but in English -- Really, Heavens, as well as grammatical structures set up according to the “auxiliary verb + pronoun” scheme, which are absent in the Russian language [29. P. 13].

Differences between Russian and English-language communication also show up in the etiquette of the request. In Russian, the imperative is most typical. In English, the most acceptable and polite form of a request is an indirect request in the form of a direct or indirect question [29. P. 17]. However, from a position of speech communication tactics, a request can sometimes do a disservice. D. Carnegie gives an example from the life of B. Franklin, who decided to gain the favor of a person hostile to him, because he could be useful to him in business. Franklin decided to gain goodwill of this man. However, not by doing his enemy a favor, but on the contrary, he asked his enemy to do him a favor. Franklin died more than a hundred and fifty years ago, but the psychological method applied by him retains its effectiveness by now [30. P. 246--247]. However, it seems that this tactic cannot be recognized as universal, but rather belongs to the national-specific.

Some paralinguistic phenomena can rightly be attributed to the national-specific features of a strong English-speaking linguistic personality. The brightest of them is showing a smile in all situations and the reaction of others to it [keep smiling -- “keep a smile”, no matter what happens]. D. Carnegie believes that a smile gives a lot to both the subject and the object of speech, enriches them, it remains in memory for a long time, it creates happiness in the house and a benevolent atmosphere in business communication, it is impossible to do without it, it is the best antidote for absolutely all troubles. The manner of speaking can also have a strong influence on an English-speaking audience, for example:

“There is an old saying in the English Parliament that everything depends upon the manner in whish one speaks and not upon the matter. Quintilian said it long ago, when England was one of the outlying colonies of Rome” [15. P. 197].

Speech does not have only an immediate goal, but also a motive -- the thing for which the speech goal is achieved. “Without understanding the motive of verbal actions, we cannot fully understand the meaning of the statement. Thus, any activity [including speech] is a process guided and prompted by a motive -- in which this or that ability is “objectified” [31. P. 57]. C.O. Malevinsky even considers it necessary to include motivational and speech predispositions in the speech structure of the personality [32. P. 128]. We share this point of view.

The study of D. Carnegie's language allows to identify the following motivational reasons in order to become a strong linguistic personality in the English-speaking environment:

1) prestige, the importance of being and positioning oneself as a strong linguistic personality for almost all layers of society:

“These investigations revealed that even in such technical lines as engineering, about 15 percent of one's financial success is due to one's technical knowledge and about 85 percent is due to skill in human engineering -- to personality and the ability to lead people” [21. P. 16];

2) demand for a strong linguistic personality in business and everyday communication:

“But gradually, as the seasons passed, I realized that as sorely as these adults needed training in effective speaking, they needed still more training in the fine art of getting along with people in everyday business and social contacts” [21. P. 15];

3) receiving high wages, large incomes, expansion of production, commercial success:

“This training... brought him a promotion with increased pay” [21. P. 18];

4) the desire for leadership, the desire to stand out, to be seen among many other people, maximum heights (achievements) on the career ladder, influencing others, selfpromotion;

5) shortcomings of the educational system of America (at least until the second half of the 50s of the twentieth century):

“He had learned more in fourteen weeks through this system of training about the fine art of influencing people than he had learned about the same subject during his four years in college” [21. P. 21].

“The fact that in ten -- twelve years after the end of primary and secondary school or college, these people take a similar course of study (of elocution oratory) is a clear evidence of the glaring errors of our education system” [14. P. 22];

6) the desire to get rid of the verbal communication fear;

7) improvement of intrapersonal self-perception and family relations:

“Spouses... have told me that their homes have been much happier since their husbands or wives started this training” [21. P. 20];

8) the desire to look decent in the eyes of others, consistent with the image of a cultured person;

9) the desire for lifelong self-improvement.

“At the end of the course, students organize their own clubs and for many years continue to gather for them every two weeks. In Philadelphia, one such group... has been encountered... for the past seventeen years” [14. P. 33].

A strong linguistic personality speaking English as a native language can shape the reading of certain books. D. Carnegie offers a reading program for Americans. These are the works of Byron, Milton, Wordsworth, Whitier, Shelley, St. Augustine, Bishop Butler, Dante, Aristotle, Homer, Demosthenes, Tacitus, Newton, Euclid, Hezlit, Lam, T. Brown, Defoe, Hawthorne, Montaigne, Fucidad, Laem, T. Bennett, R.W. Emerson, F. Norris, D. Hillis, W. James, A. Morois, Byron, R.L. Stevenson. The best choice are still the Bible and Shakespeare.

“An executive in the Philadelphia Gas Works Company, was slated for demotion when he was sixty-five because of his belligerence, because of his inability to lead people skillfully” [21. P. 17].

“For years, he had driven and criticized and condemned his employees without stint or discretion. Kindness, words of appreciation and encouragement were alien to his lips” [21. P. 18].

Here comes the result:

“When I used to walk through my establishment, no one greeted me. My employees actually looked the other way when they saw me approaching” [21. P. 18].

D. Carnegie calls the ability to listen to partner carefully and benevolently “an easy way to become a good conversationalist”. The lack of this quality characterizes a weak linguistic personality:

“Many people fail to make a favorable impression because they don't listen attentively” [21. P. 96].

“Hire clerks who haven't the sense to be good listeners” [21. P. 100].

Carnegie gives advice “by contradiction”:

“If you want to know how to make people shun you and laugh at you behind your back and even despise you, here is the recipe: Never listen to anyone for long. Talk incessantly about yourself. If you have an idea while the other person is talking, don't wait for him or her to finish: bust right in and interrupt in the middle of a sentence” [21. P. 106].

However, in order to be listened without interruption, it is necessary to show the qualities of a strong linguistic personality. An aggressive tone, as characteristics of the voice can prevent this. But:

“The chronic kicker, even the most violent critic, will frequently soften and be subdued in the presence of a patient, sympathetic listener -- a listener who will he silent while the irate fault-finder dilates like a king cobra and spews the poison out of his system” [21. P. 92].

Even using moderate language material, it is possible in general terms to identify the main features of the three levels of a weak linguistic personality [according to Y.N. Karaulov]:

1) verbal-semantic level. Signs of a weak linguistic personality: arrogance, rudeness, aggressive tone, hostility, inability to listen to the interlocutor, abuse, criticism indiscriminately, non-use of praise and approval in communication;

2) lingvo-cognitive level. A person who is a weak linguistic personality believes that others are not as smart as he is; all they say is idle chatter, no use to waste time listening to it;

3) communicative and pragmatic level. A weak linguistic personality provokes the following feelings in others: people avoid it, ignore it, laugh at it behind their eyes, or even despise it, consider it a fool; he may be downgraded.

The manifestation of features of a weak linguistic personality may be situational, depending on a number of historically determined social factors. A situation in which a strong linguistic personality becomes weak may have psychophysiological roots, for example, emotional experience, stress, or affectation. Some students of the prestigious Harvard University oddly enough, can be attributed to the weak type of the American linguistic personality of the 50-s of twentieth century (still D. Carnegie's time) [see 33. P. 13]. Writing down a linguistic personality to a weak may have, in addition to the above, the time factor, something that was once considered a bad form, over time may cease to be so. Thus, over the course of two hundred years, the image of a gentleman in the American linguistic consciousness has undergone reconceptualization. In the United States today, gentlemen can be not only men of European appearance, but also African- Americans, which was impossible in the nineteenth century.

Americans in intercultural communication can be a weak linguistic personality also when they are persistent and ask questions that others do not like to answer, especially when it comes to particular features of the country where interlocutors are coming from, their religion, politics, and wars in their homeland, about meeting people from their country. In addition, in the intercultural communication between Americans and representatives of other cultures, the stereotyping of the national image, the particular picture of the world, and ideology can become an obstacle.

The following advice by D. Carnegie can probably be attributed to a very specific one:

“The average person... can be led readily if you have his or her respect and if you show that you respect that person for some kind of ability' [21. P. 50].

Anyway, a weak linguistic personality -- especially a public one -- can be equated with a national disaster requiring the remedy of comprehensive measures to overcome this problem.

Let us summarize the main conclusions made by our study.

Practically at all speech-communicative levels, the linguistic personality [both as the author and the recipient of speech] reveals a set of idiostyle parameters that allow to characterize the linguistic personality as 1] weak; 2] averaged; 3] strong [elite]. For a communicative personality, the characteristics of the three main parameters -- motivational, cognitive and functional -- are decisive.

The criteria of the most effective result of interpersonal communication can be recognized as genuine mutual understanding and joy, communicative comfort, intellectual, emotional and aesthetic empathy of communicants. Good command of such communicative universals and their appropriate use in interpersonal communication makes the language personality strong, as well as participation in intercultural communication contributes to the “cognitive flexibility” of the personality, enhancing its ability for analytical thinking, intercultural and linguocultural competence.

For a strong communicative personality, it is necessary not only to be able to speak correctly, but to communicate clearly and accessiblely to the addressee, to report, analyze, comment, summarize, parry, summarize, predict, which presupposes the existence of a developed thinking apparatus, as well as the lack of self-confidence, observance of the principles of cooperation, partnership, politeness and common culture -- the presence of composure, emotional non-response to the attacks of the interlocutor. This person is aimed at effective communication in any situation, is able to make efforts to monitor its functioning and influence the interlocutor, to carry out feedback with him, the adjustment in case of failure to achieve the purpose of communication. This person is able to apply proper language functions and their combinations, communication strategies and tactics, protect himself from demands, requests, encroachments that harm their interests, create a positive image, show reflection, charm, maintain contact with the audience, calculate the closer and distant goals of communication, the interlocutor's reaction to the statement, status-situational roles. Suggestive potential, adaptability is also among the characteristics of a strong linguistic personality.

There is a list of such qualities and skills presented in D. Carnegie'a works which can be considered universal for a strong linguistic personality: active manifestation of personal interest, sincerity, goodwill and honesty in any interpersonal communication; the ability to evoke the emotions in listeners, appealing to their feelings, to saturate speech with emotional power; concreteness, rise and deep conviction; the ability to pass on their impulse to listeners; the fullest understanding of the interlocutor, a kind of penetration into his personality, plans and motives of speech; the ability to always speak calmly, very gently and friendly, not allowing any coercion and pressure. Often, open self-criticism becomes a shock absorber that can relieve tension in a dialogue, promote successful, conflict-free speech communication.

The most glaring signs of a weak linguistic personality are pronounced on the linguistic, communicative, paralinguistic, mental and intellectual levels. Even an elitist speech can characterize a weak linguistic personality due to the lack of targeted speech. In intercultural communication it is also possible to detect various manifestations of a weak linguistic personality -- subjective [the interlocutors have a poor command of the language, are not inclined to mutual understanding, do not take into account the specifics of the situation, build their verbal and nonverbal behavior based on various cultural axioms] and objective [difference between “national consciousness” of communicants, the divergence of cultures, different division of conceptual space, goals and communicational strategies].

The idiostatic characteristics of a weak linguistic personality are: ignorance of the norms of various styles and genres of language and speech, forms of speech etiquette, speech poverty, lexical composition monotony, inability to listen to the interlocutor and adequately defend their point of view, aggressive tone, unpleasant voice, considerable presence of parasitic words, empty sounds that have no meaning, which indicates a lack of vocabulary, logical violations, lack of ability to read kinetic information, inability to talk in the right gauge, stiffness, fear of communication and the desire to avoid it, noisiness, fussiness, complacency, arrogance, officialese, use of words and phrases in inappropriate meanings, excessive use of foreign words, use of vulgar, obscene expressions, abuse, ridicule, criticism, analysis, hostility, non-use of praise and approval, inability to distinguish situations that require the use of suggestives and directives. A weak linguistic personality considers itself smarter and more significant than others. In turn, others avoid such a person, ignore him, laugh at him behind his back, or even despise him, consider him a fool; he may be downgraded.

The linguistic personality has both universal and specific national-cultural features. The same applies to the list of motivational reasons for the development of a strong linguistic personality. The main motives of the fact that Americans are striving to become a strong language personality, according to D. Carnegie, are the following: 1) prestige, the importance of being and feeling like a strong linguistic personality for almost all social levels of society; 2) the demand for a strong linguistic personality in business and everyday communication; 3) obtaining high wages, large incomes, expansion of production, commercial success; 4) the desire for leadership, the desire to stand out, to be seen among many other people, the achievement of maximum heights on the career ladder, the impact on others, self-promotion; 5) shortages in the education system of America (until the second half of the 50s of the twentieth century); 6) the desire to get rid of the verbal communication fear; 7) improvement of intrapersonal self-perception and family relationships; 8) the desire to look decent in the eyes of others, consistent with the image of a cultured person; 9) the desire for self-improvement.

CONCLUSION

The results of our research [see also 34, 35] make it possible to predict the further study of parameters' transformation of a linguistic personality in dynamics (in particular, as from the second decade of the 21st century) taking into account sociocultural characteristics, different situations of speech, interpersonal and intercultural communications.

“His Majesty Personal Interaction (or Her Majesty Communication) governs people, their life, their development, and behavior, their knowledge of the world and themselves as part of this world. And any attempt to comprehend communication between people, to understand what prevents from it and what contributes, is important and justified, because communication is the tower, pivot, foundation of human existence” [36. P. 9]. Therefore, it is also necessary to create a clear classification of speech errors that corresponds to the modern understanding of the theory of communication.

REFERENCES

1. Budagov, R.A. (1976). New words and meanings In Man and his language. Moscow. (In Russ.).

2. Dryangina, E.A. (2006). The teacher's linguistic personality: to the problem statement In Language and thinking: psychological and linguistic aspects. Moscow--Ulyanovsk. pp. 219--220. (In Russ.).

3. Zvegintsev, V.A. (1964). The history of linguistics of the XIX--XX centuries in the essays and extracts. Part 1. Moscow. (In Russ.).

4. Kubryakova, E.S. (1994). Text and his understanding. Russian text, 2, 18--27. (In Russ.).

5. Khalyapina, L.P. (2005). Characteristics of the linguistic personality as a subject of communication. World in the language. Series of “Ethnogenesis and Ethnortoric”, 11, 438--450. (In Russ.).

6. Ryadchikova, E.N. (2001). Speech image in cross-cultural perspective In Language and national images of the world. Maikop: ASU. pp. 19--21. (In Russ.).

7. Infantova, G.G. (2000). Strong linguistic personality: its permanent and variable signs In Speech. Speech activity. Text. Taganrog. pp. 63--69. (In Russ.).

8. Carnegie, D. (1989). How to win friends and influence people. How to develop self-confidence and influence people by speaking in public. How to stop worrying and start living. Moscow: Progress.

9. Susov I.P. (1989). Personality as a subject of linguistic communication In Personal aspects of linguistic communication. Tver, 1989. (In Russ.).

10. Vinogradov, V.V. (1930). About fiction. Moscow. (In Russ.).

11. Bogin, G.I. (1986). Typology of text comprehension. Kalinin. (In Russ.).

12. Karaulov, Y.N. (1987). Russian language and language personality. Moscow. (In Russ.).

13. Krasnykh, V.V. (2001). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics and communication theory: Lecture course. Moscow: Gnosis. (In Russ.).

14. Thomas, L. (1989). The shortest path to fame In Dale Carnegie. How to win friends and influence people. How to develop self-confidence and influence people by speaking in public. How to stop worrying and start living. Moscow: Progress. pp. 21--33. (In Russ.).

15. Carnegie, D. (1992). The quick and easy way to effective speaking. NY: Dale Carnegie & Associates Inc.

16. Golev, N.D. (2004). Linguistic personality and anthropotext in linguistics and linguodidactics [typological aspect] In Russian language: historical destinies and modern age: II Intern. Congress of Russian Language Researchers. Moscow: Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov. pp. 15--16. (In Russ.).

17. Zelenskaya, V.V., Tkhorik, V.I. & Golubtsov, S.A. (2000). The semantic dimension of personality according to the language [on the material of idioms] In Language personality: structure and evolution. Krasnodar: Kuban State University. pp. 188--202. (In Russ.).

18. Bezmenova, N.A. (1991). Essays on the theory of rhetoric's history. Moscow. (In Russ.).

19. Ledeneva, O.V. (2002). Speech culture as an ability to express one's thoughts In Problems of Applied Linguistics. Penza. pp. 121--123. (In Russ.).

20. Murzabekova, D.E. (2004). Linguistic means of creating harmonious interpersonal communication In Russian language: historical destinies and modernity: II Intern. Congress of Russian Language Researchers. Moscow: Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov. pp. 131--132. (In Russ.).

21. Carnegie, D. (1981). How to Win Friends and Influence People. NY: Simon and Schuster.

22. Bogdanov, V.V. (1986). Communicative competence and communicative leadership In Language, discourse and personality. Tver: TSU. pp. 26--31. (In Russ.).

23. Sirotinina, O.B. (1998). Sociolinguistic factor in the development of the language personality In Language personality: sociolinguistic and emotive aspects. Volgograd--Saratov: Peremena. pp. 3--9. (In Russ.).

24. Kiener, F. (1987). URL: http://www.dafont.com/frank-kiener.d1100.

25. Leontovich, O.A. (2002). Russians and Americans: paradoxes of intercultural communication. Volgograd. (In Russ.).

26. Urusova, O.A. (2005). Social features of the concept “America”. World in the language. 11, 158--163. (In Russ.).

27. Abramova, T.V. (2000). National specificity of the culture in indirect speech acts of communication In Theoretical and applied linguistics. Issue 2. Language and social environment. Voronezh: VSTU. pp. 127--135. (In Russ.).

28. Kushcheva, O.Y. (2006). Language representation of the American national character In Modern linguistics: theory and practice. Materials VI Interlevel. Scientific methodological conf. Part II. Krasnodar: KVVAUL. pp. 3--7. (In Russ.).

29. Tyrnikova, N.G. (2003). Common and specifically national in speech etiquette (on the material of Russian and English languages): [dissertation]. Saratov. (In Russ.).

30. Shiryaeva, O. (2004). The word as a carrier of cultural information in artistic discourse In Language. Discourse. Text: Intern. Scientific conf. Rostov-n-D. pp. 215--216. (In Russ.).

31. Issers, O.S. (2002). Communicative strategies and tactics of the Russian language. Moscow: URSS. (In Russ.).

32. Malevinsky, S.O. (2008). Functional and speech structure of the personality and individual speech style In Functional and pragmatic features of units of different levels. Krasnodar: Kuban State University. pp. 118--129. (In Russ.).

33. Kostetskaya, A.G. (2001). Sociolinguistic characteristics of the speech of educated young people of Great Britain and the USA: [dissertation]. Volgograd. (In Russ.).

34. Ryadchikova, E.N. & Kadilina, O.A. (2009). Organization of linguistic personality as a linguistic- communicative phenomenon In Research in theoretical and applied linguistics. Krasnodar: Kuban State University. pp. 50--83. (In Russ.).

35. Ryadchikova, E.N. & Kadilina, O.A. (2011). National-cultural specificity of an English-speaking strong language personality, Bulletin of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series “Education issues: languages and specialty”, 2, 103--107. (In Russ.).

36. Ter-Minasova, S.G. (2000). Language, Personality, Internet. VestnikMGU. Series 19. Linguistics and intercultural communication, 4, 35--42. (In Russ.).

БИБЛИОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ СПИСОК

1. Будагов Р.А. Новые слова и значения // Человек и его язык. М., 1976.

2. Дрянгина Е.А. Языковая личность педагога: к постановке проблемы // Язык и мышление: психологические и лингвистические аспекты. Мат-лы 6-й Всероссийской науч. конф. (Ульяновск, 17--20 мая 2006 г.) / Отв. ред. проф. А.В. Пузырев. М.--Ульяновск, 2006. С. 219--220.

3. Звегинцев В.А. История языкознания XIX--ХХ веков в очерках и извлечениях. М., 1964. Ч. 1.

4. Кубрякова Е.С. Текст и его понимание // Русский текст. М., 1994. № 2. С. 18--27.

5. Халяпина Л.П. Характеристика языковой личности как субъекта коммуникации // Мир в языке. Серия «Этногерменевтика и этнориторика» / отв. ред. Е.А. Пименов, М.В. Пименова. Вып. 11. Кемерово, 2005. С. 438--450.

6. Рядчикова Е.Н. Речевой имидж в кросс-культурной перспективе // Язык и национальные образы мира. Мат-лы Междун. науч. конф. (20--21 марта 2001). Майкоп: АГУ, 2001. С. 19--21.

7. Инфантова Г.Г. Сильная языковая личность: ее постоянные и переменные признаки // Речь. Речевая деятельность. Текст: Межвуз. сб. науч. тр. / отв. ред. Н.А. Сенина. Таганрог, 2000. С. 63--69.

8. Карнеги Д. Как завоевывать друзей и оказывать влияние на людей. Как вырабатывать уверенность в себе и влиять на людей, выступая публично. Как перестать беспокоиться и начать жить: Пер. с англ. / Общ. ред. и предисл. В.П. Зинченко и Ю.М. Жукова. М.: Прогресс, 1989.

9. Сусов И.П. Личность как субъект языкового общения // Личностные аспекты языкового общения. Тверь, 1989.

10. Виноградов В.В. О художественной прозе. М., 1930.

11. Богин Г.И. Типология понимания текста. Калинин, 1986.

12. Караулов Ю.Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. М., 1987.

13. Красных В.В. Основы психолингвистики и теории коммуникации: Лекционный курс. М.: Гнозис, 2001.

14. Томас Л. Кратчайший путь к известности // Дейл Карнеги. Как завоевывать друзей и оказывать влияние на людей. Как вырабатывать уверенность в себе и влиять на людей, выступая публично. Как перестать беспокоиться и начать жить / Пер. с англ. З.П. Вольской и Ю.В. Семенова. М.: Прогресс, 1989. С. 21--33.

15. Carnegie D. The quick and easy way to effective speaking. NY: Dale Carnegie & Associates Inc., 1992.

16. Голев Н.Д. Языковая личность и антропотекст в лингвистике и лингводидактике (типологический аспект) // Русский язык: исторические судьбы и современность: II Междунар. конгресс исследователей русского языка (Москва: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, 18-- 21 марта 2004 г.): Труды и материалы. М.: МГУ, 2004. С. 15--16.

17. Зеленская В.В., Тхорик В.И., Голубцов С.А. Семантическое измерение личности по данным языка (на материале фразеологизмов) // Языковая личность: структура и эволюция: Монография. Краснодар: КубГУ, 2000. С. 188--202.

18. Безменова Н.А. Очерки по теории истории риторики. М., 1991.

19. Леденева О.В. Культура речи как умение выражать свои мысли // Проблемы прикладной лингвистики: Сборник материалов Всероссийского семинара (25 декабря 2002 г.). Пенза, 2002. С. 121--123.

20. Мурзабекова Д.Е. Лингвистические средства создания гармоничного межличностного общения // Русский язык: исторические судьбы и современность: II Междунар. конгресс исследователей русского языка (Москва: МГУ им. М.В. Ломоносова, 18--21 марта 2004 г.): Труды и материалы. М.: МГУ, 2004. С. 131--132.

21. Carnegie D. How to Win Friends and Influence People. NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981.

22. Богданов В.В. Коммуникативная компетенция и коммуникативное лидерство // Язык, дискурс и личность. Тверь: ТГУ, 1990. С. 26--31.

23. Сиротинина О.Б. Социолингвистический фактор в становлении языковой личности // Языковая личность: социолингвистические и эмотивные аспекты. Волгоград--Саратов: Перемена, 1998. С. 3--9.

24. Kiener F. 1987. URL: http://www.dafont.com/frank-kiener.d1100.

25. Леонтович О.А. Русские и американцы: парадоксы межкультурного общения. Волгоград, 2002.

26. Урусова О.А. Социальные признаки концепта «Америка» // Мир в языке. 2005. Вып. 11. С. 158--163.

27. Абрамова Т.В. Национальная специфика культуры общения в косвенных речевых актах // Теоретическая и прикладная лингвистика. Межвуз. сб. науч. тр. Вып. 2. Язык и социальная среда. Воронеж: ВГТУ, 2000. С. 127--135.

28. Кущева О.Ю. Языковая репрезентация американского национального характера // Современная лингвистика: теория и практика. Мат-лы VI Межвуз. научно-методич. конф. Ч. II. Краснодар: КВВАУЛ, 2006. С. 3--7.

29. Тырникова Н.Г. Общее и специфически национальное в речевом этикете (на материале русского и английского языков): автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Саратов, 2003.

30. Ширяева О.С. Слово как носитель культурной информации в художественном дискурсе // Язык. Дискурс. Текст: Междунар. науч. конф. Ростов н/Д, 2004. С. 215--216.

31. Иссерс О.С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. М.: УРСС, 2002.

32. Малевинский С.О. Функционально-речевая структура личности и индивидуальный речевой стиль // Функционально-прагматические особенности единиц различных уровней: Сб. науч. статей. Краснодар: КубГУ, 2008. С. 118--129.

33. Костецкая А.Г. Социолингвистические характеристики речи образованной молодежи Великобритании и США: автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. Волгоград, 2001.

34. Рядчикова Е.Н., Кадилина О.А. Организация языковой личности как лингво-коммуникативного феномена // Исследования по теоретической и прикладной лингвистике. Краснодар: КубГУ, 2009. С. 50--83.

35. Рядчикова Е.Н., Кадилина О.А. Национально-культурная специфика англоговорящей сильной языковой личности // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Вопросы образования: языки и специальность. 2011. № 2. С. 103--107.

36. Тер-Минасова С.Г. Язык, личность, интернет // Вестник МГУ. Серия 19. Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2000. № 4. С. 35--42.

Размещено на Allbest.ru