Source: https://qr.urfu.ru/ojs/index.php/qr/article/view/qr.375
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:29:23+00:00

Document:
This article considers heart-to-heart talk (Rus. разговор по душам), a genre of harmonious communication belonging to the informal sphere of immediate oral spontaneous communication mostly aimed at establishing or strengthening interpersonal intimacy, moral support, and the exchange of important personal information. The author provides linguo-communicative (speech genre), linguocultural, linguo-cognitive (value), and linguo-statistical (corpus) analysis of the genre, which is regarded as a genre of communication and speech with no equivalents in other cultures, a scenario and value of Russian speech communication and Russian culture as a whole. Analysis of the genre reveals its significant complexity and inconsistency, including value inconsistency: heart-to-heart talk can be “simple” – and beyond someone’s capacity to understand; with an “simple” interlocutor – and a highly educated specialist; with “one’s own” – and with a stranger; it can be short – and long; relaxed, “light” – and tense, “hard”; it can be pleasant, “partial”, and include elements of flattery – and harsh criticism; it can lead to reconciliation – and to a quarrel; it can be calm – and include elements of a dispute (razgovor po dusham between men) or hysterics (between women); usually a heart-to-heart talk cannot take place “on demand”. Razgovor po dusham is regarded positively when conducted (successfully) by psychologists with mentally ill or unstable people. In the majority of cases, the evaluative characteristics of the razgovor po dusham reflected in the examples are positive and highly positive; at the same time, there are negative characteristics. The article takes into account studies of cultural concepts in the Russian national and linguistic worldview (“душа” soul, “правда” truth, “дружба” friendship, “искренность” sincerity, “тоска” longing, etc.) and complements the picture with a number of important concepts, associated with the communicative-pragmatic and genrerole nature of the phenomenon, and with the peculiarities of paradigmatics and syntagmatics in the contexts of modern Russian speech.
Dr. Hab. (Philology), Professor, Saratov State University.
83, Astrakhanskaya Str., 410012, Saratov, Russia.
popytka sistemnogo opisaniya [The Image of the Person according to Language: An Attempt at Holistic Description]. In Voprosy yazykoznaniya. No. 1, pp. 37–67.
Arutyunova, N. D. (1992). Zhanry obshcheniya [Genres of Communication]. In Chelovecheskii faktor v yazyke. Kommunikatsiya, modal’nost’, deiksis. Moscow, Nauka, pp. 52–56.
Baikulova, A. N. (2015). Ustnoe neofitsial’noe obshchenie i ego raznovidnosti [Oral Informal Communication and Its Varieties]. Avtoref. dis. … dokt. filol. nauk. Saratov, S. n. 42 p.
Balashova, L. V. (2014). Russkaya metaforicheskaya sistema v razvitii: XI–XXI vv. [The Russian Metaphorical System in Its Development: 11th–21st Centuries]. Moscow, Rukopisnye pamyatniki Drevnei Rusi, Znak. 632 p.
Berdyaev, N. A. (1998). Filosofskaya istina i intelligentskaya pravda [Philosophical Truth and Intellectual Truth]. Berdyaev, N. A. Dukhovnyi krizis intelligentsii. Moscow, Kanon, pp. 173–193.
Bulygina, T. V., Shmelev, A. D. (1997). Yazykovaya kontseptualizatsiya mira (na materiale russkoi grammatiki) [Linguistic Conceptualisation of the World (Based on Russian Grammar)]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoi kul’tury. 576 p.
Cialdini, R., Kenrick, D., Neuberg, S. (2002). Sotsial’naya psikhologiya. Poimi sebya, chtoby ponyat’ drugikh. Vliyanie. Ubezhdenie. Samootsenka. Druzhba. Lyubov’ [Social Psychology. Understand Yourself to Understand Others. Influence. Conviction. Self-evaluation. Friendship. Love]. St Petersburg, Praim-Evroznak. 336 p.
Dementyev, V. V. (1999). Faticheskie rechevye zhanry [Phatic Speech Genres]. In Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Topics in the Study of Language]. No. 1, pp. 37–55.
Dementyev, V. V. (2010). Teoriya rechevykh zhanrov [The Theory of Speech Genres]. Moscow, Znak. 600 p.
Dementyev, V. V. (2013). Kommunikativnye tsennosti russkoi kul’tury. Kategoriya personal’nosti v leksike i pragmatike [Communicative Values of Russian Culture. The Category of Personality in Vocabulary and Pragmatics]. Moscow, Global Kom. 338 p.
D’yakova, L. N., Sternin, I. A. (2005). Zhanr razgovora po dusham i russkaya avtorskaya pesnya [The razgovor po dusham Genre and Russian Authorial Songs]. In Zhanry rechi. Iss. 4. Saratov, Nauka, pp. 273–280.
Gladkova, A. N. (2010). Russkaya kul’turnaya semantika: emotsii, tsennosti, zhiznennye ustanovki [Russian Cultural Semantics. Emotions, Values, Life Attitudes]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur. 304 p.
Il’in, E. P. (2009). Psikhologiya obshcheniya i mezhlichnostnykh otnoshenii [Psychology of Communication and Interpersonal Relationships]. St Petersburg, Piter. 576 p.
Karasik, V. I. (2012). Lingvosemioticheskoe modelirovanie tsennostei [Linguosemiotic Modelling of Values]. In Politicheskaya lingvistika. No. 1 (39), pp. 43–50.
Karasik, V. I., Sternin, I. A. (Eds.). (2005–). Antologiya kontseptov [Anthology of Concepts]. Vol. 1–. Volgograd, Paradigma.
Khizova, M. A. (2005). Kontsept “druzhba” v russkoi i angliiskoi lingvokul’turakh [The Concept of “Friendship” in Russian and English Linguocultures]. Avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk Krasnodar, S. n. 12 p.
Lanskikh, A. V. (2014). Razgovor po dusham v kommunikativno-pragmaticheskom aspekte [Razgovor po dusham in the Communicative and Pragmatic Aspects]. In Russkii yazyk: chelovek, kul’tura, kommunikatsiya – IV: sbornik materialov Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, 15 aprelya – 15 maya 2014 g. Yekaterinburg, Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo universiteta, pp. 35–41.
Lebedeva, N. M. (2000). Bazovye tsennosti russkikh na rubezhe XXI v. [The Basic Values of Russians at the Turn of the 21st Century.]. In Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. Vol. 21. No. 3, pp. 73–87.
Lingvistika i aksiologiya: etnosemiometriya tsennostnykh smyslov: kollektivnaya monografiya [Linguistics and Axiology. Ethnosemiometry of Value Meanings: Joint Monograph]. (2011). Moscow, Tezaurus. 352 p.
Lotman, Yu. M. (1994). Besedy o russkoi kul’ture. Byt i traditsii russkogo dvoryanstva (XVIII – nachalo XIX veka) [Conversations about Russian Culture. Life and Traditions of the Russian Nobility (18th – Early 19th Centuries)]. St Petersburg, Iskusstvo – SPb. 558 p.
Malinowski, B. (1972). Phatic Communion. In Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, pp. 146–152.
Maslova, V. A. (2001). Lingvokul’turologiya [Linguistic and Cultural Studies]. Moscow, Akademiya. 183 p.
Nikiporets-Takigava, G. (2006). Integrum: tochnye metody i gumanitarnye nauki [Integrum: Rigorous Methods and the Humanities]. Moscow, Letnii sad. 430 p.
Panchenko, N. N. (2011). Ispoved’ kak zhanr doveritel’nogo obshcheniya [Confession as a Genre of Confidential Communication]. In Zhanry rechi. Iss. 7. Zhanr i yazykovaya lichnost’. Saratov, Nauka, pp. 261–269.
Ryabov, A. V., Kurmangaleev, E. Sh. (Eds.). (2003). Bazovye tsennosti rossiyan: Sotsial’nye ustanovki. Zhiznennye strategii. Simvoly. Mify [Basic Values of Russians. Social Attitudes. Life Strategies. Symbols. Myths]. Moscow, Dom intellektual’noi knigi. 448 p.
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. 2 Ed. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. 315 p.
Sedov, K. F. (2016). Obshchaya i antropotsentricheskaya lingvistika [General and Anthropocentric Linguistics] / ed. by V. V. Dementyev, S. N. Tseitlin. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur. 440 p.
Shmelev, A. D. (2002). Russkaya yazykovaya model’ mira [Russian Linguistic Model of the World]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury. 224 p.
Stepanov, Yu. S. (1997). Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoi kul’tury: Opyt issledovaniya [Constants. Dictionary of Russian Culture: Attempt at Research]. Moscow, Yazyki russkoi kul’tury. 824 p.
Sternin, I. A. (2003). Eksperimental’noe izuchenie kategorii russkii kommunikativnyi ideal [Experimental Study of the Category of the Russian Communicative Ideal]. In Mir russkogo slova. No. 2, pp. 53–54.
Tarasov, E. F. (2012). Problema analiza soderzhaniya obshchechelovecheskikh tsennostei [The Problem of Analysis of the Content of Universal Values]. In Voprosy psikholingvistiki. No. 1 (15), pp. 8–18.
Uryson, E. V. (2004). Slovarnaya stat’ya “Drug 1, Tovarishch 1, Priyatel’” [Dictionary Entry “Drug 1, Tovarishch 1, Priyatel’”]. In Apresyan, Yu. D. (Ed.). Novyi ob’’yasnitel’nyi slovar’ sinonimov russkogo yazyka. Moscow, Vienna, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury, Venskii slavisticheskii al’manakh, pp. 297–299.
Vorkachev, S. G. (2003). Sopostavitel’naya etnosemantika teleonomnykh kontseptov “lyubov’” i “schast’e” (russko-angliiskie paralleli) [Comparative Ethnosemantics of Teleonomic Concepts “Lyubov’” and “Schastye” (Russian-English Parallels)]. Volgograd, Peremena. 164 p.
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Semanticheskie universalii i opisanie yazykov [Semantic Universals and Description of Languages]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury. 791 p.
Wierzbicka, A. (2002). Russkie kul’turnye skripty i ikh otrazhenie v yazyke [Russian Cultural Scripts and Their Reflection in Language]. In Russkii yazyk v nauchnom osveshchenii. No. 2 (4), pp. 6–34.
Wierzbicka, A., Goddard, K. (2002). Diskurs i kul’tura [Discourse and Culture]. In Zhanry rechi. Iss. 3. Saratov, Kolledzh, pp. 118–156.
Zaliznyak, A. A., Levontina, I. B., Shmelev, A. D. (2005). Klyuchevye idei russkoi yazykovoi kartiny mira [Key Ideas of the Russian Linguistic Worldview]. Moscow, Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury. 544 p.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.