Russian journal of linguistics: Vestnik RUDN (Dec 2016)
Pseudo-communication vs Quasi-communication
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of such specific forms of human interaction as quasi- and pseudo-communication. The authors specify the terms which sometimes are used interchangeably. The aim of the conducted research is to find out and demonstrate existing differences and similarities of these communicative phenomena on the basis of theoretical and empirical analysis of the research material in the Russian and English languages. The authors describe communicative features of these phenomena and consider the reasons for such forms of communication and their increased use at present. The research material is represented fiction extracts, film scripts, jokes, print media, a collection of oral speech records both in Russian and English. The authors make use of the following research methods: definitional analysis (to define the terminology of the research), the method of linguistic observation and introspection (to select the communicative situations), the descriptive-analytical method and the method of comparative analysis (to identify similarities and differences of the target phenomena), and the conversational analysis method (to view productivity and effectiveness of a dialogue), etc. The classification of possible forms of their existence in different discourses is suggested. The authors assume that both pseudo- and quasi-communication are characterized as fictitious forms of human interaction with some noticeable violation of the basic communicative model. Pseudo-communication suffers from the discrepancy of the meaning of a coded and decoded message. The authors put forward the main parameters of scientific classification of it as follows: adequate understanding, intentionality, and the stage of communicative action where the failure takes place. At the same time they stress the necessity to distinguish the cases of pseudo talks from phatic and indirect communication. Quasi-communcation is marked by the lack of a real partner and hence the lack of any adequate feedback. The authors assume that any kind of communication can acquire a quasi-form. The preliminary conclusions of the comparative analysis prove that these kinds of communication are characteristic of both Russian and English communicative behavior. The authors stress the importance and perspective of research and scientific analysis of these communicative phenomena (in its comparative aspect as well) for linguists and experts in the theory of communication, the theory of crosscultural communication, and linguistic ecology.
