Communicative space: types and organizations of these spaces. Communicative space and its levels Laws of communicative spaces

HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY 2009 Vol. 1

UDC 81.42 T.A. Vorontsova

COMMUNICATIVE SPACE IN THE LINGUOPRAGMATIC PARADIGM

The communicative space is considered in the system of key concepts and categories of linguopragmatics, such as addresser, addressee, speech behavior, communicative intention, communicative strategy. Spheres of the communicative space that are significant for the process of speech interaction between the addresser and the addressee are identified. Communicative and pragmatic types of speech behavior as a tool for the formation of communicative space are defined.

Keywords: communicative space, speech behavior, linguopragmatics, spheres of communicative space, communicative-pragmatic types of speech behavior.

The concept of communicative space in linguistics does not have a stable and unambiguous definition. IN general theory communication, this term can be interpreted extremely broadly as “the territory, the environment within which interaction occurs.” In “Theory of Communication” G.G. Pocheptsov, the communicative space is, in essence, an information space with the only caveat that “in the case of communication, we are already talking about a two-way process, where both the generator and the recipient of information have active roles that shape this communication”

Often the concept of communicative space is actually equated with the concept of discourse. At the same time, the typologization of discourse can have various bases: the dialogical or monological nature of communication (communicative space of colloquial speech); method of communication depending on the type of “technical” information carrier (virtual communication space, Internet communication space); stylistic and functional parameters of discourse (game communicative space), etc.

In a narrower sense, communicative space can be interpreted as proxemic space (actual communicative space) between participants in communication; as the space of a separate text (communicative space of an article).

N.V. Muravyova understands a person’s communicative space as the level of his communicative competence: knowledge and ideas about how it is customary to communicate in a given situation.

Famous literary critic and linguist B.M. Gasparov defines language as the environment of human existence, from which his constant interaction: “Every act of using language - be it a work of high value or a fleeting remark in conversation - is a particle of the continuously moving stream of human experience. In this

As such, it absorbs and reflects the unique combination of circumstances under which and for which it was created: the communicative intentions of the author, always multiple and contradictory and never fully clear to himself; the relationship between the author and his immediate and potential, close and distant, known and imaginary addressees; all sorts of “circumstances” - large and small, generally significant or intimate, decisively important or accidental - one way or another imprinted in this message; general ideological features and stylistic climate of the era as a whole, and of that specific environment and specific individuals to whom the message is directly or indirectly addressed, in particular, genre and stylistic features of both the message itself and the communicative situation in which it is included; and finally - a multitude of associations with previous experience, one way or another falling into the orbit of a given linguistic action: associations obvious and vague, close or distant, transparently obvious and esoteric, conceptual and figurative, relating to the entire message as a whole or its individual details. The totality and interaction of all these aspects is, according to B.M. Gasparov, and there is a communicative space - a holistic communicative environment, “in which speakers seem to be immersed (emphasis added - T.V.) in the process of communicative activity” (Ibid. P. 297).

According to B.M. Gasparov, for the speaker, the communicative space is a cognitive-discursive space: “In order to create or interpret a message, the speaking subject needs to sense a certain environment to which, in his mind, this message belongs - a kind of broader spiritual “picture of the area” , on which this linguistic artifact is located and fits. Any message occupies some place in a broader mental picture, and its rootedness in a certain mental space largely determines its semantic appearance.” The communicative space, along with the genre characteristics, includes “such properties of a linguistic message as its “tone”, substantive content and the general intellectual sphere to which this content belongs,” as well as the communicative situation “with the whole variety of directly available, implied and the conjectural components that make up each participant’s idea of it” (Ibid., p. 295).

Such a comprehensive linguo-philosophical interpretation of the communicative space in this case is completely justified, since the author’s research task is to give a multidimensional and multidimensional understanding of language in the process of communicative activity. Let us draw attention to the fact that the definition of communicative space given by B. M. Gasparov is largely projected onto the linguopragmatic (pragmalinguistic) understanding of the process of communicative interaction, which is considered in this branch of linguistic knowledge within the framework of very specific concepts and categories.

In linguopragmatic studies, the concept of communicative (communicative-pragmatic) space is defined as a speech situation, including the roles of speaker and listener, characteristics of time and place, rules for coordinating these goals within the framework of the cooperative principle, rules for transferring the role of the speaker from one communicator to another, etc. The linguopragmatic approach to language correlates the communicative-pragmatic space with linguistic (types of speech acts, speech moves, etc.) and mental structures (propositions, presuppositions, implicatures), ensuring purposefulness, expediency and appropriateness, as well as the success and success of communicative actions of each communication partner.

For us, a fundamentally important fact is that with any understanding of the communicative space, the point of reference in it is always the addresser.

According to B.M. Gasparov, it is the cognitive-discursive representations of the speaker that form both the process and the “product” of communicative activity. This is “the author of the message about the real or potential partner to whom he is addressing, his interests and intentions, the nature of his personal and linguistic relationships with him,” as well as “the self-awareness and self-esteem of the speaker, the idea of what impression he and his the message should have an effect on others.”

In the communicative-pragmatic understanding, the speaker is the one who not only creates, but also controls the communicative space. In accordance with this, concretizing the concept of communicative space, we consider it as a zone of real and potential contacts of each of the participants in communication from the point of view of the speaker (addresser).

Creating a harmonious communicative space is the orientation of communicants towards dialogic communication in the broad sense of the word. Conditions for the success of such communication different aspects have been repeatedly considered in linguistic research. When entering into a communicative relationship, each participant in communication has his own vision of the communication process, his role in it, has his own value guidelines and his own ideas about a particular subject of speech. However, the addressee always bears responsibility for the “quality” of the communicative space in a specific communicative act. It is clear that in direct dialogical communication, both communicants find themselves in this role from time to time (ideally, in turn), therefore, here the communicative space is the zone of mutual responsibility of the participants in the communication.

It is obvious that, with any understanding, the communicative space is multidimensional, mobile, changeable, and cannot be structured, at least unambiguously. At the same time, from the perspective of a specific subject of research in the communicative space, it is possible, with a certain degree of convention, to identify areas related to this subject. Lingvoprag-

The mathematical approach in its broad sense, as is known, studies not only the structural components of the communicative process, but also its discursive characteristics (which, by definition, must include the cognitive aspect)1.

In accordance with this approach, the following areas seem significant to us in the communicative space:

1. The speech sphere itself is relevant in direct interpersonal communication. These are a kind of discursive conventions regarding the speech participation in the communication process of each interlocutor. The boundaries of this sphere are determined by the rules of communication in a specific discourse and the parameters of a specific speech situation. For example, the situation scientific conference assumes, on the one hand, a regulated sequence of speech participation of communicants (report - questions to the speaker - discussion of the report), on the other hand, in accordance with the conventions of scientific discourse (“no one has a monopoly on scientific truth”) - an equal right to speech for all participants communications regardless of positions and academic titles.

2. The axiological sphere of communicative space is considered by us as a system of values and assessments of each of the communicants that is relevant for a given communicative act. The interaction of communicants in this area of the communicative space occurs both during direct (interpersonal) and indirect communication (for example, through the media), when there is no exchange of the communicative roles of the addresser and the addressee.

3. The cognitive sphere of the communicative space is a system of key concepts relevant for a given communicative act, a kind of picture of the world that is represented by the addresser and the addressee within the framework of this discourse. This sphere of communicative space can be defined for any type of communication and for any type of discourse: from private conversations to socially significant types of discourse.

The addresser's (speaker's) idea of the communicative space within the framework of specific communication determines the communicant's choice of the type of speech behavior. Speech behavior is a kind of tool for the formation of a communicative space, therefore the parameters of this concept are fundamentally significant. The fact is that the term “speech behavior”, along with the concepts of “speech activity”, “speech communication”, “communication”, having found itself in the sphere of interests of socio-, psycho-, pragmatic linguistics and the theory of speech acts, is still not has an unambiguous interpretation. .

A number of researchers deny the awareness and purposefulness of speech behavior. R. Jacobson, as you know, argued,

1 In principle, it would be more correct to designate this approach by the term “communicative-discursive” (see: Vorontsova T. A. Speech aggression: invasion of communicative space. Izhevsk: Publishing house " Udmurt University", 2006).

that “any verbal behavior is purposeful.” It is this approach to speech behavior that is characteristic, for example, of sociolinguistics, where speech behavior is understood “as the process of choosing the optimal option for constructing a socially correct statement.” T.G. also focuses on the sociocommunicative aspect, without denying the active nature of speech behavior. Distiller. She believes that “the interpretation of the concept of “speech behavior” should be based exactly as much on the very fact of speech as on the selection of speech means that took place...”. T.G. Vinokur considers speech behavior as a set of speech acts. On the intralingual side, speech behavior is determined by the patterns of language use in speech, and on the extra-linguistic side - by the socio-psychological conditions for the implementation of language activity (Ibid. P. 12).

In linguopragmatics, speech behavior is “understood as a set of conventional (carried out in accordance with the rules) and non-conventional (carried out at will) speech acts performed by an individual or a group of individuals,” that is, awareness and purposefulness are considered as key characteristics of speech behavior. From these positions, speech behavior can be defined as “empirically observed motivated, intentional, targeted communicative activity of an individual in a situation of speech interaction, associated with the choice and use of speech and linguistic means in accordance with the communicative task."

At the same time, it seems to us appropriate and logical to distinguish between the terms “communicative behavior” and “speech behavior” (not all linguistic studies differentiate these terms). In our opinion, communicative behavior is a broader concept than speech behavior. This is exactly how communicative behavior is viewed, for example, by I.N. Borisova, A.K. Mikhalskaya, N.V. Muravyova, I.A. Sternin1 et al.

Communicative behavior includes non-speech and speech behavior, in turn, the components of speech behavior are intentional and linguistic behavior, i.e. “speech behavior is considered as “a verbalized, verbally expressed part of communicative behavior.” Non-verbal elements of communicative behavior include voice volume, intonation, gestures in oral communication, and images and font type in written communication. Of course, non-speech elements can play an important role in the process of forming a communicative space. However, as A.K. notes. Michalskaya, “in communicative behavior, it is speech behavior that is most important; it is what structures and organizes everything else, but at the same time it reflects the features of the rest.”

1 I.A. Sternin and his followers use the terms verbal communicative behavior and nonverbal communicative behavior to make this distinction (Outline of American Communicative Behavior. 2001. P. 13)

This allows us to say that communicative-pragmatic types of speech behavior are actually the speaker’s attitudes towards one way or another of forming a communicative space. By and large, the addresser (speaker) is guided by one of three settings:

1) carry out an invasion into the communicative space of the addressee, deform it in accordance with one’s own picture of the world, ideas, assessments, etc.;

2) express one’s own ideas and assessments, without trying to significantly change the addressee’s ideas and assessments;

3) create a qualitatively new communicative space for yourself and for him with the addressee.

These attitudes can be projected onto the basic communication strategies: aggression, tolerance and politeness.

Thus, the concept of communicative space is organically integrated into the system of key concepts and categories of linguopragmatics, such as addresser, addressee, speech behavior, communicative intention, communicative strategy. Further research into speech tactics, specific techniques, speech and language means characteristic of these types of speech interaction will ultimately allow us to address the problem of optimal communication in various types of discourse.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Asmus N.G. Linguistic features of virtual communicative space: dis. ...cand. Philol. Sci. Chelyabinsk, 2005.

2. Borisova I.N. Russian conversational dialogue. Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. University, 2001.

3. Borisova I.N. Russian conversational dialogue: zones of tolerant and intolerant communication // Philosophical and linguocultural problems of tolerance. M.: Olma-Press, 2005.

4. Vinokur T.G. Speaker and listener. Variants of speech behavior. M.: Nauka, 1993.

5. Gasparov B.M. Language, memory, image. Linguistics of linguistic existence. M.: New Literary Review, 1996.

6. Goroshko E.I. Theoretical analysis of Internet genres // Genres of speech. Vol. 5. Genre and culture. - Saratov: Publishing house. Center "Science", 2007.

7. Demyankov V.Z. The Mystery of Dialogue: (Introduction) // Dialogue: Theoretical problems and research methods. M.: INION RAS, 1992.

8. Dridze T.M. Languages social Psychology. M.: Higher. school, 1980.

9 . Klyuev E.V. Speech communication: textbook. manual for un-tov and in-tov. M.: RIPOL CLASSIC, 2002.

10. Kreidlin G.E. Nonverbal semiotics in its relationship with verbal semiotics: abstract. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sci. M., 2000.

11. Leontyev A. A. Psychology of communication. M.: Smysl, 1999.

12. Matveeva G.G. Updating the pragmatic aspect of a scientific text. Rostov-n/D.: Publishing house Rostov. University, 1984.

13. Matveeva G.G. Translation method for analyzing the author's speech behavior source text and translator // Problems of regional management, economics, law and innovative processes in education: materials of the first international. scientific-practical conf. Taganrog: TIUIE, 2000.

14. Mikhalskaya A.K. Russian Socrates: Lectures on comparative historical rhetoric. M.: Publishing house. Center "Academia", 1996.

16. Muravyova N.V. The language of conflict. M.: Thermika, 2004. 1 electron. wholesale disk (CD-ROM).

17. Essay on American communicative behavior / scientific. ed. I.A. Sternin, M. A. Sternina. Voronezh: ORIGINS, 2001.

18. Pocheptsov G.G. Communication theory. M.: Refl-book, K.; Wackler, 2001.

19. Susov I.P. Speaking personality in linguosocial and linguopragmatic spaces // Social stratification of language: materials of interuniversity. conf. Pyatigorsk state ped. institute of foreign language Pyatigorsk, 1989.

20. Formanovskaya N.I. Russian speech etiquette: linguistic and methodological aspects M.: Russian language, 1982.

21. Sharkov F.I., Fundamentals of the theory of communication. / M.: Social relations, 2005.

22. Schweitzer A.D. Sociolinguistics // Linguistic encyclopedic Dictionary. M.: Sov. Encycl., 1990.

23. Jacobson R. Linguistics and poetics // Structuralism: pros and cons. M.: Progress, 1975.

Received by the editor 03/06/09

T.A. Vorontsova, doctor of philology, professor Communicative Space in the Linguistic and Pragmatic Paradigm

Communicative space is viewed within a system of the key notions and categories of linguistic pragmatics: addresser, addressee, speech behavior, speech intention, communicative strategy. Communicative space spheres, which are important for the addresser’s and addressee’s speech interaction, have been outlined. Communicative and pragmatic types of speech behavior as a communicative space forming instrument have been defined.

Vorontsova Tatyana Aleksandrovna, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Udmurt State University»

426034, Russia, Izhevsk, st. Universitetskaya, 1 (building 2)

The communicative space of modern civilization is formed by a number of machines that generate symbols. This role is played by the media, art, and political communication.

We often talk about the information space. But we should rather talk about the communicative space. It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of communicative and information space. The communication space is highly dependent on both the consumer and the sender of information, while the information space depends only on the sender (sponsor) of information. If information refers us to a one-way process, where the consumer has only a passive role, then in the case of communication we are already talking about a two-way process, where both the generator and the recipient of information both have active roles that form this communication.

Today's world is heavily shaped by mass communications. A political or economic event only becomes significant when it is reported in the media. A certain dependence must be fulfilled: the more significant this figure, the structure in real world, the more place it should occupy in information flows.

In order to determine at what level of space communication takes place, it is necessary to determine two parameters: communication distance (parameter of the extent of space) and communication density (parameter of permeability of space).

Communication distance will take two values - near and far. From the point of view of space permeability, communication differs deep and superficial.

Close range means that communication occurs in close contact in space. It is most typical for groups of two to eight people. When interacting on long distance sociotypes are separated by a significant distance, determined by social and cultural indicators of development. This distance between people usually occurs in communication groups of more than eight people.

Deep Communication means a dense information exchange, when almost all the information resources available to a sociotype are involved in communication. There is a high level of trust in contacts. Surface communication occurs when cash is not fully involved in the exchange information resources. The degree of trust is low.

Types of communication.

Types of communication are distinguished by the composition of communicants.

intrapersonal communication is equal to talking with oneself, a person dialogues his internal “monologue”, talking with his inner voice, alter ego, conscience, etc.;

interpersonal communication is usually associated with an ideal model of communication, it involves two communicators;

group communication: within a group, between groups, individual - group; there are differences - not so much quantitative as qualitative: different goals - in communication in small and large groups;

mass communication occurs when a message is received or used a large number of people, often consisting of groups with different interests and communicative experience (television, radio, etc.).

Paradoxical phenomena arise at the level of mass and, partly, at the level of group communication. The sender can be an individual, and the recipient can be a group, collective, mass, party, people, etc.

Additional types of communication: intercultural (communication both between native peoples of different languages and communicative cultures, or between states, and interpersonal - between individual representatives of these peoples or states), organizational (communication in the business and production sphere, including interpersonal, group and personal -group).

A sociotype is a constant, that is, an unchanging part of any communication system, its invisible infrastructure. Consequently, the sociotype has an ideal character, but its manifestations in life are real and easy to detect.

Various definitions of sociotype.

Explaining what a type is is equally difficult for both outsiders unfamiliar with socionics and scientists who, by virtue of their profession, are engaged in classifications of various objects and phenomena. There is no doubt that type is one of the highest categories of such classification. So when you say that sociotype is a category of people united by a commonality of some external or internal traits Opponents agree: after all, we remain at a very, very abstract level, which does not directly affect our characterological qualities through comparison with other people.

When I narrow the definition by saying that type is a complex of stable proportions of the human psyche, many begin to disagree because they do not believe that there is something unchangeable in a person. Those ignorant of typology generally do not admit that stable psychological types of people exist, but scientists demand an objective criterion for identifying types. When they learn about Jung’s bipolar scales, they unanimously claim that these signs are not fixed and therefore there are no stable types. Well, it’s hard to argue with them, but let’s try anyway...

It is necessary to emphasize once again that in socionics personality type is understood as something different than in psychology. This difference is so significant that it makes sense to say that socionics has its own subject of study, separate from psychology. What is this difference?

A psychotype, as it is understood in differential psychology, is precisely a stable complex of characterological qualities of a person. Psychologists themselves cannot say for sure whether it is stable.

For the increasingly complex development of an already complex information processing system, which is the human psyche, nature uses only the path of supra-individual hereditary transmission. The fact is that the more complex the system is, the more difficult it is to rebuild it. This implies the need for the level of the collective unconscious, discovered by Jung. It is there that the sociotype is localized as an ideal example of the organization of parts of a self-developing system.

Taking into account Jung's contribution, I would give the following definition of the subject of socionics. Sociotype- this is the structure of the collective unconscious that controls the interaction of physical, psychological, social and intellectual manifestations of the individual.

This definition type, in essence, means the sum of the potential energy of the individual, which can be realized at any of the four levels of communicative space accessible to direct observation by a person.

All these are “traces” of the type. Indeed, each of us leaves his own mark in life (books, products of labor, relationships...), and what this mark will be is half determined by the innate sociotypical properties of a person. The other half of a person’s achievements is education, that is, how much a person has mastered his naturally determined potential.

Chapter 2. Signs of types at various communicative distances.

The interaction of socionic types takes place in a certain extended environment, which I will further call communicative space.This space is heterogeneous: its “density” is not the same in different places, therefore the information exchange of the same types in different places will have different intensity.

Let us assume that communicative space is four-dimensional, like material space. By “dimension” of space I will understand the level of stable information exchange, which is separated from other similar levels by a potential barrier - the energy of overcoming, that is, the effort necessary to move from level to level.

In order to understand at what level of space communication takes place, it is necessary to determine two parameters - the communication distance (the parameter of the extent of space) and the density of communication (the parameter of the “permeability” of space).

To build the model, I will use the binary principle familiar to socionics - division in half. Therefore, the communicative distance will take two meanings - close and far. From the point of view of the permeability of space for a full-fledged information exchange, I will distinguish between communication, on the one hand, deep, and on the other, superficial.

I will dwell in more detail on these poles. Close range means that communication occurs in close contact in space. It is most typical for groups of two to eight people. When interacting on long distance sociotypes are separated by a significant distance, which is determined by social and cultural indicators of development. This distance between people usually occurs in communication groups of more than eight people.

Deep Communication means a dense information exchange, when almost all the information resources available to a sociotype are involved in communication. A close interweaving of “power lines” of information fields arises, which indicates a high level of trust in the contact.

Surface communication occurs when available information resources are not fully involved in the exchange. The density of the information flow turns out to be much less compared to the first case. The degree of trust is also low.

Since the complexity of communication depends equally on both parameters, information exchange between systems can be considered as the product of communication distance and communication density:

information exchange=distance× density

Information exchange takes on discrete values, being an indicator of what is located at one of the levels of the communicative space. There are four such provisions in total:

1. The first level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is superficial. Has the name physical, since it is characteristic of dense, materially mediated contact of physical substrates (carriers) information systems.

At this level, human natural needs are satisfied - food, housing, procreation, production and consumption of material products.

2. The second level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is deep. Called psychological, since the first place comes to the exchange of intimate, personal information coming from the soul (from the Greek psyhe - soul).

The psychological level presupposes the most trusting relationships, since at this level a person satisfies his intimate-emotional needs - for love, friendship, family, empathy, etc.

3. The third level of interaction in the communicative space: distance is distant, communication is superficial. Called social, since it is regulated by social norms, traditions and rituals, legislation, government institutions etc.

This level of communication subordinates the individual to the interests of society, and therefore is of the most formal nature. The object of social communication acts not as a unique individual, but as a representative of a particular social class or professional group. At this level, a person satisfies his needs for career, learning, work and respect.

4. The fourth level of interaction in the communicative space: the distance is long, but the communication is deep. Has the name intellectual,or informational,level. You can carry out deep communication without contact with the other side only by transferring the entire information exchange inside yourself, into your brain. At the same time, a person’s memory and imagination work intensively. Only at this level can you access the depths of your subconscious and obtain information accumulated by generations of people who lived before you.

At the information level, a person satisfies his needs for actualization, disclosure of his talents and abilities, creativity, knowledge and self-improvement.

It is very significant that the described levels are not stretched out in a line, but form a circle, that is, they are connected by relations of contiguity and opposition. The physical level and the intellectual level are opposite. This means that they are in inverse proportion to each other: the longer a person lives physical life, the less he develops intellectually, and vice versa.

Social and psychological levels also exclude each other. It is impossible to simultaneously care for an individual (individual approach) and a whole group of people (mass approach). Macro-society encourages a person to sacrifice the personal on the altar of the public, while micro-society, for example his family, demands the opposite: that close person spent more time at home. Moreover, a proportion of 50 to 50% means a communication crisis: the state of fluctuating “scales” is extremely painful, because it makes choice very difficult.

Although communication levels are cyclical, it is more convenient and technologically feasible to represent them in the form of a vertical hierarchy on a plane. Their subordination in the communicative space is as follows:

Now let’s apply the conceptual apparatus of socioanalysis to describe the manifestations of a sociotype at all four levels of the communication space.

It is interesting to note that attempts to streamline the communicative space have been made since ancient times. According to the philosophical system of the Chinese “Book of Changes,” the world is divided into three potential layers: heaven - man - earth. The socionic coordinate system is four-dimensional, therefore it complicates the world one more step:

sky - society - man - earth

(info - socio - psycho - physio)

Plan.

1. Communication space and its levels. 2

2. Communication process. 6

1. Communication space and its levels.

The interaction of socionic types takes place in a certain extended environment, which I will further call communicative space. This space is heterogeneous: its density in different places is not the same, therefore the information exchange of the same types in different places will have different intensity.

Let us assume that communicative space is four-dimensional, like material space. By the dimension of space, I will understand the level of sustainable information exchange, which is separated from other similar levels by a potential barrier? the energy of overcoming, i.e. the effort necessary to move from level to level.

In order to determine at what level of space communication takes place, it is necessary to determine two parameters? communicative distance (parameter of the length of space) and communication density (parameter of permeability of space).

To build a model, will I use the binary principle familiar to socionics? split in half. Therefore, communication distance will take two values? near and far. From the point of view of the permeability of space, for a full exchange of information, I will distinguish between communication, on the one hand, deep and, on the other hand, superficial.

I will dwell in more detail on these poles. Close distance means that communication takes place in close contact in space. It is most typical for groups of two to eight people. When interacting over a long distance, sociotypes are separated by a significant distance, determined by social and cultural indicators of development. This distance between people usually occurs in communication groups of more than eight people.

Deep communication means a dense information exchange, when almost all information resources available to a sociotype are involved in communication. A close interweaving of “power lines” of information fields arises, which indicates a high level of trust in the contact.

Superficial communication occurs when available information resources are not fully involved in the exchange. The density of the information flow turns out to be much less compared to the first case. The degree of trust is also low.

Since the complexity of communication depends equally on both parameters, information exchange between systems can be considered as the product of communication distance and communication density:

information exchange = distance ¦ density.

Information exchange takes on discrete values, being an indicator of the location of an object at one of the levels of the communicative space. There are four such provisions in total:

It is very significant that the described levels are not stretched out in a line, but form a circle, that is, they are connected by relations of contiguity and opposition. The physical level and the intellectual level are opposite. This means that they are in inverse proportion to each other: the more a person lives a physical life, the less he develops intellectually and vice versa.

Social and psychological levels also exclude each other. It is impossible to simultaneously care for an individual (individual approach) and a whole group of people (mass approach). Macro-society encourages a person to sacrifice the personal at the altar of the public, while micro-society, for example his family, would like the opposite: for a loved one to spend more time at home. Moreover, the proportion of 50% to 50% means a communication crisis: the state of fluctuating “scales” is very painful, because it greatly complicates the choice.

Although communication levels are cyclical, it is more convenient and technologically advanced to depict their vertical hierarchy on a plane. Their subordination in the communicative space is as follows:

info

socio

psycho

physio

It is interesting to note that attempts to streamline the communicative space have been made since ancient times. According to the philosophical system of the Chinese Book of Changes, the world is divided into three potential layers: heaven? man? earth. The socionic coordinate system is four-dimensional, therefore it complicates the world one more step:

sky? society? Human? Earth
info socio psycho physio

First level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is close, but communication is superficial. Has the name physical, since it is characteristic of dense, materially mediated contact of physical substrates (carriers) of information systems. Are natural human needs satisfied at this level? in food, housing, procreation, production and consumption of material products.

Second level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is close, but the communication is deep. Called psychological, since the first place comes to the exchange of intimate, personal information coming from the soul (from the ancient Greek psyche - soul). This psychological level presupposes the most trusting relationships, since at this level a person satisfies his intimate-emotional needs? in love, friendship, family, empathy, etc.

Third level interactions in the communicative space: distance is distant, communication is superficial. Called social, since it is regulated by social norms, traditions and rituals, legislation, government institutions, etc. This level of communication subordinates the interests of the individual to the interests of society, and therefore is of the most formal nature. The object of social communication acts not as a unique individual, but as a representative of a particular social class or professional group. At this level, a person satisfies his needs for career, learning, work and respect.

Fourth level interactions in the communicative space: the distance is far, but the communication is deep. Has the name intellectual, or informational, level. You can carry out deep communication without contact with the other side only by transferring the entire information exchange inside yourself, into your brain. At the same time, a person’s memory and imagination work intensively. Only at this level can you access the depths of your subconscious and obtain information accumulated by generations of people who lived before you.

At the information level, a person satisfies his needs for actualization, disclosure of his talents and abilities, creativity, knowledge and self-improvement.

2. Communication process.

Information sharing extends widely across different parts of the organization and is directly related to its effectiveness. But the exchange of information is not always as effective as it should be... in fact, people communicate with each other less effectively than they think.

For example, let's take a fact illustrated by Rensis Likerto when studying the work of foremen and their subordinates at one of the public service enterprises.

While 85% of supervisors believed that their subordinates felt free to discuss important business issues, only 51% of their subordinates actually had this feeling of freedom. In another study, a department head recorded instructions or decisions communicated to subordinates on 165 special occasions. Judging by the records of their subordinates, they were aware of only 84 such messages. One researcher analyzed the performance of a California healthcare company and found significant differences between senior, middle and lower level managers in how they assessed the effectiveness of communications in their organization.

In addition, in many cases the message being conveyed is misunderstood and, therefore, the exchange of information is ineffective.

John Miner, a prominent management researcher, points out that typically only 50% of information exchanges result in mutual agreement. Most often, the reason for low efficiency is forgetting the fact that communication is an exchange.

During the exchange, both parties play a huge active role. For example, if you, as a manager, describe to one of your subordinates how work needs to be changed, this is only the beginning of the exchange. For communication to be effective, your subordinate must communicate to you how he understands your task and expectations for his performance. Information exchange occurs only when one party offers information and the other perceives it. For this to happen, close attention should be paid to the communication process.

Communication process.

The communication process is the exchange of information between two or more people.

The main goal of the communication process – ensuring understanding of the information that is the subject of communication, i.e. messages. However, the very fact of information exchange does not guarantee the effectiveness of communication between the people participating in the exchange. To better understand the process of information exchange and the conditions for its effectiveness, it is necessary to understand the stages of the process in which two or more people participate.

Elements and stages of the communication process.

There are four basic elements in the information exchange process.

Sender , a person who generates ideas or collects information and communicates it.

Since the complexity of communication depends equally on both parameters, information exchange between systems can be considered as the product of communication distance and communication density:

information exchange=distance× density