Refers to the dialogic form of communication. On dialogue and dialogical relations for the psychology of communication. Features of dialogic speech

Until the second half of the 19th century, philosophy was dominated by the belief that a person in his actions is guided by consciousness, the defining element of which is reason. This idea is expressed in its most complete form in .

At the end of the 19th century, a new direction in philosophy appeared, based on the discoveries of 3. Freud. Freud proved that in the inner world of a person there are spheres, the content of which a person cannot or does not want to be aware of. Two types of unconscious actions should be distinguished. The first type includes actions that were previously realized, were under the control of consciousness, and then became automatic. For example, when a person learns to walk or write, his consciousness is directed to every effort in this direction, and when these operations are mastered, the person performs them unconsciously. The second kind of unconscious actions never passed through the sphere of consciousness. It is this type that is called the unconscious in psychology. The unconscious plays an important role in human life and society, as it largely determines human behavior.

Freud proposes the following classification of the structure of the human psyche:

• superconsciousness- the individual's perception of the requirements of society: rules of conduct, parental prohibitions, moral censorship, etc.;
• unconscious- unrealized desires of the individual, which, due to a conflict with social norms, are forced out of consciousness and make themselves felt in the form of fears, complexes, neuroses, instincts, primarily sexual, and are found in dreams, reservations, etc .;
• consciousness- an intermediate part of the psyche. It is supported from below by fears and instincts, from above by the demands of society. It is impossible to succumb to instincts - this will lead to conflicts in society, it is also impossible to suppress them - this will lead to complexes, neurosis, mental illness. A person during his life must maneuver between these extremes.

Freud tried to explain from the point of view of psychoanalysis the whole of human history. Society creates prohibitions on the manifestations of human sexuality. The energy, which at the same time remains unclaimed, is forced to go in a different direction, sublimate, i.e. be transformed. This leads to the fact that a person turns to socially acceptable forms of activity: industrial, religious, political, artistic, etc. For example, in art, the energy of sexual desire is transformed into the energy of artistic activity, the artist replaces forbidden actions with legal images. Religion is a striking form of sublimation. In the image of God, people find a father whom they love and fear.

Freud's followers developed the doctrine of the unconscious, continued to work on finding methods to overcome its destructive effects. Thus, Jung discovered a new level of the unconscious, which he called collective unconscious. This level can never be realized, but it manifests itself in the form of mythological images that are common to all cultures of the world. Jung called them archetypes, which receive different interpretations in myths, fairy tales, poetry, manifest themselves in dreams and human behavior. Archetypes are some ideas encoded in the structure of the brain, they do not have an unambiguously negative content, but are, as it were, the foundation of the conscious, but they are irrational and cannot be understood by a person. Moreover, an attempt to directly comprehend the archetypes can lead to tragedy. The psychic energy contained in the archetypes can destroy the human psyche. To prevent this from happening, religious symbols stand between consciousness and the unconscious, which, as it were, transform the energy of the unconscious into human meanings. The “disenchantment” of religious symbols in our time, according to Jung, can lead to tragic consequences, to the death of culture.

Consciousness

- one of the most difficult objects for scientific study. It is not perceived by the senses, i.e. invisible, intangible, has no mass and form, is not located in space, etc. Nevertheless, no one doubts that consciousness exists and can be said to have a special, psychic or spiritual being. The concept of consciousness unites various forms and manifestations of spiritual reality in human life; it is the highest of the abilities of the individual. At present, the essence of these forms is interpreted from two positions - materialistic and idealistic.

IN materialistic interpretation, consciousness is declared secondary in relation to the material world and is understood as a special property of matter - the "tool" of the brain, its function. In this respect consciousness eat the property of highly organized biological matter (the human brain) to reflect the world.

IN idealistic interpretation, consciousness is understood as the only reliable reality. The concept of matter is questioned, and the things we perceive are declared to exist only in our consciousness (since they can only be an illusion, a dream, and it is not possible to prove their reality and objectivity).

There are three main properties of consciousness:

• ideality(consciousness cannot be measured, explored with the help of instruments);
• orientation(consciousness is always directed at an object or at itself);
• activity(consciousness not only reflects the world, but also develops various ideas).

Consciousness is divided into individual(the inner world of an individual) and public(the spiritual world of society - science, religion, morality, politics, law, etc.), as well as mundane(based on common sense and worldly experience) and scientific(systemic, theoretical consciousness based on objective data).

You can imagine the structure of consciousness consisting of four sectors (Fig. 2.4)

• sector I - sensations, ideas received with the help of the senses;
• sector II - thinking, logical operations;

• sector III - emotions, feelings, experiences;
• sector IV - higher motives - values, imagination, creativity.

Rice. 2.4 Structure of consciousness

External cognitive activity (sectors I and II) and emotional-value activity (sectors III and IV) are responsible for the activity of the left and right hemispheres of the brain, respectively. The upper segment (sectors II and IV) is responsible for the superconscious (rules of conduct, social norms), the lower segment (sectors I and III) is responsible for the unconscious (mental processes not represented in the mind of the subject).

Unconscious

The concept of the unconscious was introduced into science by the Austrian psychologist and psychiatrist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). In the most general form, according to Freud, the structure of the psyche can be represented as three levels:

• superconscious - prohibitions, norms, traditions, morality, laws, public opinion;
• consciousness- clearly conscious thoughts, desires, etc.;
• unconscious- secret, unconscious desires, thoughts, complexes, automatisms.

According to Freud, everyone experiences antisocial desires. In childhood, a person learns to suppress them out of fear of punishment (embodied in the superconscious). However, even suppressed and forgotten, desires do not disappear, but are concentrated in the unconscious, where they wait in the wings. Repressed experiences can be combined into stable groups - complexes. For example, an inferiority complex is a set of feelings about one's shortcomings and a desire to compensate for them. Unconscious desires and complexes, according to Freud, are usually of a sexual or aggressive nature. Although the person is not aware of them, they often make themselves known in dreams, humor, slips of the tongue.

Consciousness for Freud is a field of struggle between the unconscious and the prohibitions of the superconscious. Antisocial desires and complexes periodically “emerge” into consciousness, prohibitions and norms suppress them, forcing them back into the unconscious. However, the constant suppression of desires can lead to breakdowns (as in a steam boiler where the safety valve does not open) - neuroses, hysteria, etc. Therefore, all desires must be either “released” (realized in actions), or sublimated, i.e. transferred to other, sublime objects, for example, to creativity.

The Swiss psychiatrist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) believed that in addition to the individual unconscious, there is also a collective unconscious that contains unconscious images common to all people - archetypes. They manifest themselves in the "dreams" of all mankind - myths, legends, fairy tales, parables, where the main patterns of behavior in different situations are set. These patterns are assimilated from childhood, and then automatically, unconsciously reproduced in social activities.

In addition to desires, complexes and archetypes, the unconscious also includes simple automatic actions in the performance of which consciousness is not involved (for example, basic driving skills).

Consciousness and the collective unconscious

Individual consciousness can exist only on the basis of the collective unconscious. The relationship between consciousness and the collective unconscious was revealed by K.G. Jung.

The collective unconscious is a vast spiritual heritage reborn in every individual brain structure. Consciousness, as Jung writes, on the contrary, is an ephemeral phenomenon that implements all momentary adaptations and orientations, which is why its work can most likely be compared with orientation in space. The unconscious contains the source of forces that sets the soul in motion. The movement of the soul, i.e. the content of mental life is regulated by archetypes: "All the most powerful ideas and ideas of mankind are reducible to archetypes." This applies not only to religious ideas, but also to central scientific, philosophical and moral concepts, which can be considered as variants of ancient ideas that have taken their modern form as a result of the use of consciousness.

Consciousness is in constant interaction with the individual unconscious.

In the zone of consciousness, a small part of the signals that simultaneously come from the external and internal environment of the body is reflected. Signals that have entered the zone of consciousness are used by a person to consciously control their behavior. The rest of the signals are also used by the body to regulate certain processes, but at a subconscious and unconscious level.

The unconscious and the subconscious are those phenomena, processes of property and state that, in their effect on behavior, are similar to conscious ones, but are not actually reflected by a person, i.e. are not recognized.

The difference between the unconscious and the subconscious lies in the fact that the unconscious itself is such a mental formation that under no circumstances becomes conscious, and the subconscious is those ideas, desires, aspirations that have left consciousness at the moment, but can later come into consciousness or be restored.

The unconscious principle is one way or another represented in almost all mental processes, properties and states of a person.

Unconscious sensations - these are sensations of balance, muscular sensations that cause involuntary reflexive reactions in the visual and auditory central systems.

Unconscious images of perception are manifested in the feeling of familiarity that arises in a person when perceiving an object or situation.

Unconscious memory - this is a memory that is associated with long-term memory that controls, at an unconscious level, thinking, imagination, and attention of a person at a given moment in time. The genetic memory is also unconscious.

Unconscious thinking manifests itself in the process of solving creative problems by a person, when template solutions are exhausted.

Unconscious speech acts as inner speech.

Unconscious motivation affects the direction and nature of actions.

The unconscious in personality of a person are those qualities, interests, needs, etc., which a person is not aware of in himself, but which are inherent in him and manifest themselves in a variety of involuntary reactions, actions, mental phenomena.

The unconscious and preconscious play a much more significant role in a person's daily life than it seems at first glance. It should be borne in mind that consciousness is much less resistant to stress factors compared to the unconscious and subconscious. In a situation of danger to life, conflict, under the influence of alcohol, etc. the influence of consciousness on human actions is reduced.

Individual and collective unconscious

Far from all the processes occurring in the human psyche are realized, because in addition to consciousness, a person also has realm of the unconscious.

Unconscious represented in the form of the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious.

Individual unconscious associated mainly with instincts, which are understood as innate ways of human behavior that arise under the influence of environmental conditions without prior training. So, the instincts of self-preservation, reproduction, territorial, etc. appeared because in the process of evolution the need for such forms of behavior arose constantly, contributing to survival. Instincts include such forms of mentality that cannot be realized and rationally expressed at all.

The doctrine of the individual unconscious was created, as noted above, by the Austrian philosopher and psychologist Sigmund Freud.

Concept collective unconscious was developed by a student and follower of Freud, a Swiss psychologist Carl Jung(1875-1961), who argued that in the depths of the human soul lives the memory of the history of the entire human race that is in man. in addition to personal properties inherited from parents, the properties of his distant ancestors also live.

collective unconscious, unlike the individual, personal unconscious, is identical in all people and forms the universal basis of the spiritual life of each person, the deepest level of the psyche. K. Jung figuratively compares the collective unconscious with the sea, which is, as it were, a prerequisite for each wave. The collective unconscious, according to Jung, is the premise of every individual psyche. Between an individual and other people, processes of "psychic penetration" are constantly taking place.

The collective unconscious expresses itself in archetypes- the most ancient mental prototypes, such as images of father, mother, wise old man, etc. All the most powerful ideas and representations of man are reducible to archetypes.

The allocation of levels in the structure of the psyche is associated with its complexity. The unconscious is a deeper level of the psyche compared to consciousness. However, in the psyche of a particular person, there are no rigid boundaries between its various levels. The psyche functions as a whole. Nevertheless, a special consideration of individual levels and forms of the psychosphere contributes to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of the mental as a whole.

For a modern person, the concepts of "consciousness" and "unconscious" have become familiar, generally recognized, and do not raise questions. However, this was not always the case.

Initially, they refused to believe in the unconscious, considering all its manifestations in human activity as the action of physiological processes. Somewhat later, humanity recognized that consciousness and the unconscious exist in parallel, and not all processes and actions depend on physiology or consciousness.

Today, scientists are of the opinion that the unconscious is a huge world, real, like ordinary consciousness. The unconscious, despite the fact that it is beyond the control of man, is much wider and richer than consciousness.

There are unconscious sensations, for example, balance, visual, auditory, olfactory sensations that cause certain reactions in the nervous system.

Plato was the first to study consciousness and the unconscious, then there was Freud, Jung, and other researchers. Both they and modern scientists working in this field are sure that the unconscious sends us signals that we often do not know how or do not want to hear. If you listen to them, you can enrich your life with new, better content.

The unconscious is a way of reflecting reality, in which both it and the subjective attitude of a person act as a monolithic whole. The unconscious is the processes that take place in the psyche, but are not realized by a person, not so dependent on his will.

Consciousness is the highest form of mental reflection of the world generated in the course of social life, which is a generalized subjective template of the surrounding reality in the form of concepts, words, images. In other words, consciousness is a collection of images.

It is quite natural that consciousness, like any process, has its own characteristics.

The main characteristics of consciousness:

• cognitive processes. These include the processes of perception, imagination, memory, thinking. Feelings are included.
• Distinguishing between the concepts of "I" - "not I", subject and object. This characteristic is unique to humans. Only we, unlike other animals, are able to direct our mental activity towards self-knowledge.
• Goal-setting, which ensures the rationality of the activity. The human consciousness builds a scheme that takes into account the tasks of the activity, the methods of its implementation, and the results obtained.
• Attitude to reality: etc.
• Mastery of speech. This is perhaps the most important characteristic of consciousness, inherent only to man. It determines all other characteristics of consciousness. Only by mastering speech can one acquire knowledge, form the will, set goals, achieve them, separate the object and the subject. Philosophers, psychologists are unanimous in their opinion: it is language that is human consciousness.

In addition to the main characteristics, there are components of consciousness. There are few of them:

• responsible for everything related to knowledge. It includes methods of cognition, attitudes, cognitive techniques and strategies, results
• Emotional. These are the affective-motivational components of the psyche: emotions, relationships, self-esteem, etc.
• Behavioral-activity component that determines the techniques, methods, mechanisms that ensure the functioning of a person in his own mental, interpersonal, external space.

Inextricably linked. It is consciousness that controls unconscious impulses, helps socialization, dictates to a person the behavior recognized in a given society.

If it is impossible to influence the unconscious, then consciousness is successfully formed. In childhood, parents, educators, teachers are responsible for this process. At an older age, a person himself influences the formation of his own consciousness.

The general idea of ​​the unconscious, which goes back to Plato's ideas about cognition - recollection (anamnesis), remained dominant until modern times. The ideas of Descartes, who affirmed the identity of the conscious and mental, served as a source of ideas that outside of consciousness only purely physiological, but not mental activity of the brain can take place. The concept of the unconscious was first clearly formulated by Leibniz ("Monadology", 1720), who interpreted the unconscious as the lowest form of mental activity, lying beyond the threshold of conscious representations, towering like islands above the ocean of dark perceptions (perceptions). The first attempt at a materialistic explanation of the unconscious was made by Hartley, who connected the unconscious with the activity of the nervous system. Kant connects the unconscious with the problem of intuition, the question of sensory knowledge (unconscious a priori synthesis). A kind of cult of the unconscious as a deep source of creativity is characteristic of representatives of romanticism. The irrationalist doctrine of the unconscious was put forward by Schopenhauer, who was continued by E. Hartmann, who raised the unconscious to the rank of a universal principle, the basis of being and the cause of the world process.

In the 19th century, the actual psychological study of the unconscious began (J. F. Herbart, G. T. Fechner, W. Wundt, T. Lipps). The dynamic characteristic of the unconscious is introduced by Herbart (1824), according to which incompatible ideas can come into conflict with each other, and the weaker ones are forced out of consciousness, but continue to influence it without losing their dynamic properties.

A new impetus in the study of the unconscious was given by work in the field of psychopathology, where, for the purpose of therapy, they began to use specific methods of influencing the unconscious (initially, hypnosis). Research, especially of the French psychiatric school (J. Charcot and others), made it possible to reveal the mental activity of a pathogenic nature, different from conscious, unconscious by the patient.

The continuation of this line was the concept of Z. Freud, who began with the establishment of direct links between neurotic symptoms and memories of a traumatic nature, which are not recognized due to the operation of a special protective mechanism - repression. Rejecting physiological explanations, Freud presented the unconscious as a powerful force, antagonistic to the activity of consciousness. Unconscious drives, according to Freud, can be identified and brought under the control of consciousness using the technique of psychoanalysis. Freud's student Jung, in addition to the personal unconscious, introduced the concept of the collective unconscious, the different levels of which are identical in individuals of a certain group, people, all of humanity. Freud's doctrine of the unconscious received a purely irrationalistic interpretation in a number of modern philosophical and psychological concepts.

Z. Freud was the first in science to admit and develop the idea that consciousness is not the only link in the human psyche that determines his behavior and activities. He put forward and proved a scientific hypothesis that, in addition to consciousness, there is the unconscious and the preconscious, which greatly influence the life and behavior of a person. In Z. Freud, most of the theory is based on human sexuality, which is the main driving force in the development of the individual, on the exaggeration of sexual desire. This earned him the misunderstanding of many of his contemporaries. His theories were ridiculed, books were burned. Now Freudianism is one of the trends in modern psychoanalysis. Modern psychoanalysis helps to understand and reveal the secret sides of a person, as it reveals the unconscious and allows you to find there the root cause of all the problems of a given person. There have been many theories of the unconscious in the history of psychology. They are all similar and at the same time very different. Some psychologists modified and supplemented the ideas of others.

Reading 8 min. Views 998

The term "dialogical speech" consists of two concepts, each of which requires separate consideration.

According to S.L. Rubinstein, speech is a mental process, which is the activity of communication using language. human speech, due to its semantic nature, can be used for conscious communication with other people.

Speech activity

Speech activity is one of the main mental functions of human consciousness. All people are able to learn something new, develop themselves, organize themselves, form their own personality. People constantly develop and modify their own inner world through communication with other people and encountering diverse cultures.

The main purpose of speech is to establish communication. First of all, speech is needed to communicate with other people. It allows you to express your thoughts and understand the thoughts of the interlocutor.

What is dialogue in communication?

If we talk about dialogue, then from the Greek language this term is translated as “conversation” or “conversation”. This is a form of speech that involves the exchange of remarks. These replicas have a certain linguistic composition, which is formed on the basis of the perception of someone else's speech. The unit is the dialogical unity.

It manifests itself in the semantic unity of a group of remarks made to exchange points of view. Moreover, each replica depends on the previous ones.

L.P. Yakubinsky believes that dialogue is not just one of the forms of speech. Dialogue is one of the main types of human behavior. In order to interact with others through dialogue, a child needs to have a whole list of social and speech skills that are gradually mastered by him.

During the dialogue, thoughts are usually exchanged quickly, each remark depends on the previous remarks of both interlocutors. Moreover, the exchange of thoughts occurs without preliminary reflection and conscious formation of statements.

Usually the dialogues are short.

Dialogue in communication as a speech reaction

According to L.V. Shcherba, the dialogue should be considered as speech reactions that occur between two communicating personalities. These reactions are spontaneous in nature and are based on the specific situation and the replicas of the communication partner. That is, a dialogue is just a sequence of replicas dependent on each other.

Dialogue is the main form of communication between people. It consists of statements that can take the form of answers and questions, objections and explanations. During the dialogue, in addition to speech means, gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice play an important role - all this puts its meaning and can even change the meaning of the uttered statements. If several people communicate, then it would be more literate to call it a polylogue.

The concept of dialogical speech

Now let's discuss the term "dialogical speech". This is a very bright language function, which is communicative in nature. Scientists associate dialogue with the human need for natural communication. Dialogic speech is one of the key forms of communication. It is important that both partners understand what they are talking about.

Therefore, it makes no sense to develop your thought in detail. Usually, dialogic speech takes place in a specific situation and depends on it. It is accompanied by other ways of exchanging thoughts - facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures. Therefore, dialogic speech usually has a bright design. Despite the fact that the speech is abbreviated, the interlocutors understand each other well.

Dialogic speech in communication

From the point of view of psychology, dialogical speech is communication. This is a special human activity. This point of view is described by A.V. Zaporozhets, M.I. Lisina and others.

The subject of the dialogue is the relationship and interaction between the participants in the communication.

According to S.I. Fox dialogue is a purposeful activity that is designed to solve the problem of coordinating actions between two or more people.

From the point of view of L.S. Vygotsky, dialogue in communication is the environment in which the child's personality develops. In order to fully participate in the dialogue, the child must be able to correctly understand other people's thoughts, form their own statements in response, correctly express their thoughts using linguistic means, maintain a suitable emotional background, exercise self-control of speech and make adjustments in the process of communication with the interlocutor.

Dialogic speech patterns

Usually, dialogic speech is involuntary and reactive in nature. People often use various patterns and accepted clichés in it, stable stereotypes sound in people's speech. A person in the process of communication uses his own communication formulas, which he is used to using in this particular situation in relation to the current topic of conversation. Many speech clichés make it easier to communicate.

Dialogic speech can be born due to both internal and external causes.

Usually, in the process of dialogue, people are not inclined to use complex sentences.

They often introduce abbreviations, incorrect word formations into their speech, violate existing syntactic norms. Dialogic speech allows the child to learn to arbitrarily formulate his thoughts, he begins to follow the logic of his speech. This is how the skills of monologue speech are born.

In order to participate in a dialogue, you need to have many complex speech skills: a child must be able to correctly understand other people's thoughts, form their own statements in response, correctly express their thoughts using linguistic means, maintain a suitable emotional background, exercise self-control of speech and make adjustments in the process. communication with the interlocutor.

Dialogic communication of children

Dialogue communication with peers is a very important component for the full development of the child's personality, for his social development. The child so constantly exercises in the development of his own speech, learns to build communications. This has an impact on his independent activity and self-development.

From the point of view of L.P. Yakubinsky, dialogical speech should be understood as such a form of speech, which is based on the exchange of remarks. The composition of these replicas is determined by the person's perception of someone else's speech and activity.

Characteristics of the dialogue

Dialogic speech has the following characteristics:

• for dialogical speech, at least two people must participate in the conversation, between whom there is an exchange of remarks;
• the atmosphere should be relaxed;
• speech constantly changes direction from one participant to another;
• speech is simultaneously perceived, produced and expressed: all this happens without significant delays;
• extralinguistic communication means are actively used;
• The language situation is constantly changing.

With the help of dialogue, the child begins to master speech. This is a kind of school of communication with other people. This school permeates the whole life of the child, all his relationships. It is the dialogue that becomes the main factor influencing the formation of the personality of the baby.

Dialogic speech as a language function

Dialogic speech is a bright language function that has a communicative character. Scholars tend to regard dialogue as a key form of communication.

Dialogue in communication is manifested in the fact that people alternately speak and listen to each other.

It is important that the topic of conversation always matters in the dialogue. Therefore, interlocutors do not need to express their thoughts in detail.

Dialogic communication usually takes place within a certain situation. At the same time, people actively use different methods of conveying thoughts and feelings.

The gestures and facial expressions used can not only significantly complement, but also change the meaning of the spoken remarks. Sometimes speech during a dialogue is fragmented, but the interlocutors still understand each other.

During the dialogue, people use colloquial speech, speak briefly and abruptly, often without finishing the phrase. The sentences used are simple and non-union. If you need to think about something, very little time is spent on it. Communication is connected by the participation of two interlocutors.

Features of dialogic speech

Dialogic speech has a number of features. First, it is situational. This means that the dialogue in communication depends entirely on the environment in which it is carried out, as well as on the relationship between the interlocutors. Secondly, dialogical speech is contextual.

This means that each replica is highly dependent on the context. Thirdly, it is folded. The interlocutors perfectly understand each other, so much is implied, but not pronounced. Fourth, it is reactive.

This means that speech cues are essentially reactions to various stimuli. Fifth, it is poorly organized. Usually, the replicas are involuntary, they are not thought out in advance and are not formed in the human mind. Sixth, dialogic speech is short. Statements are usually very simple in their syntactic structure.

The role of dialogue in child development

Pedagogical research shows how important dialogic speech is in the development of a child. After all, this allows him to better master his native language, to learn how to use various language means for the presentation of his thoughts understandable to other people.

Unfortunately, many older preschoolers are only able to participate in simple forms of dialogue. They cannot reason and give arguments to their statements. They cannot keep up a conversation for a long time and do not take the initiative to start it.

As a rule, dialogic speech always precedes monologue.

With the help of frequent dialogues, children master the grammatical structure of speech, learn phonetics, replenish their vocabulary, and broaden their horizons. Dialogue in communication allows the child to develop their social and speech skills.

Thus, we discussed the meaning of the term "dialogue", understood that it is important to develop methods for the formation of dialogic speech in preschoolers.

Dialogic speech is a complex type of speech activity in which each replica has a contextual character.

We will discuss the formation of dialogic speech in older preschoolers in the following articles.

State educational institution of higher professional education

“Arzamas State Pedagogical Institute named after A.P. Gaidar"

Department of Psychology

Dialogical communication

Completed:

2nd year student majoring in psychology, group 21

Shcheulov Nikita Aleksandrovich Head:

Arzamas, 2010.

Introduction. 3

1. Dialogue as the primary form of verbal communication.

Dialogue (from the Greek conversation, conversation) is a form of speech consisting of a regular exchange of utterances-replicas, the linguistic composition of which is mutually influenced by the direct perception of the speech activity of the speakers. The basic unit of dialogue is dialogical unity - a semantic (thematic) combination of several replicas, which is an exchange of opinions, statements, each subsequent of which depends on the previous one.

Dialogic unity is ensured by the connection of various kinds of replicas (formulas of speech etiquette, question - answer, addition, narration, distribution, agreement - disagreement). In some cases, dialogic unity can exist due to replicas that reveal a reaction not to the interlocutor's previous replica, but to the general situation of speech.

There are three types of interaction between the participants in the dialogue: dependence, cooperation, equality

Any dialogue has its own structure: the beginning - the main part - the ending. The beginning can be a formula of speech etiquette (Good afternoon, Nikolai Ivanovich!) Or the first replica-question (What time is it now?), Or a replica-judgment (Good weather today). It should be noted that the dimensions of a dialogue are theoretically unlimited, since its lower limit can be open: the continuation of almost any dialogue is possible by increasing the dialogic units that make it up. In practice, any dialogue has its own ending (a replica of speech etiquette (Bye!), a rejoinder-agreement (Yes, of course!) or a retort-answer).

Dialogue is considered as a primary, natural form of speech communication, therefore, as a form of speech, it has received its greatest distribution in the field of colloquial speech, however, dialogue is also presented in scientific, journalistic, and official business speech.

Interpersonal dialogue is the highest level of communication and the main goal of preparing for communication

Among the numerous approaches to revealing the content side of interpersonal communication and its typologies, it is necessary to choose one that

1. relies on the humanitarian paradigm, placing the personality and its relationship with the world at the center of the analysis of communication;
2. does not ignore the ethical side of MO;
3. allows you to understand MO as a way of existence (manifestation) and a factor in the development of personality;
4. uses the personal component as the basis of the MO typology;
5. has enough heuristic potential and the ability to operationalize the initial concepts of the souls of use both in the development of a training program and in the creation of diagnostic tools.

From our point of view, to the greatest extent these requirements are met by concept of dialogue by M. M. Bakhtin .

In the work of M. M. Bakhtin (who was also published in the 1920s and 1930s under the names of V.N. Voloshinov and P.N. Medvedev), an outstanding Soviet philosopher and philologist, the problem of dialogue occupies a special place. Whatever issues the scientist deals with - the development of the methodology of the humanities or the analysis of the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, the study of the "philosophy of language" or the theoretical problems of aesthetics, the description of "carnival culture" or literary genres - literally all of his works are permeated with the idea and "spirit" of dialogue , he returns to the dialogue again and again, considering it from new sides, revealing new facets. And this is not just a manifestation of the author's personal predilection - it is a consequence of his theoretical position, according to which "dialogical relations are ... an almost universal phenomenon that permeates ... all relations and manifestations of human life, in general, everything that has meaning and significance" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p.56/. M.M. Bakhtin analyzed various (but interconnected) levels and forms of manifestation of this "universal phenomenon", which can be conditionally designated as:

• dialogue in speech- the simplest, "external" form of dialogic relations, relations between replicas in a conversation, one of the compositional forms of speech /Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p.300, 303/;
• dialogue as a literary genre("Socratic dialogue", "Menippian satire", etc. /Bakhtin M.M., 1963/);
• dialogue in words- "internal dialogicity of the word, which does not take external compositional odds", but lies in the subject orientation of each "living" word in "already said" and in the "set to answer" /Bakhtin M.M., 1975, p.92- 93/;
• dialogue in thought- dialectics, "purely logical" relations / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 300, 339/;
• dialogue in art- aesthetic principles of the artistic depiction of a person, for example, "Dostoevsky's dialogism" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963 ; 29 /;
• dialogue of cultures, traditions, sometimes turning into an "unintentional dialogue" of points of view, "knowing nothing about each other" /Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p.293, 296/;
• dialogue in mind- "dialogized internal monologue" /Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p.100/, "dialogue with oneself", which "is secondary and in most cases acted out" /Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p.296 /;
• dialogue in interpersonal communication- a direct dialogue of living people, a "dialogue at the highest level", where "there are holistic positions, integral personalities", "dialogue of personalities" /ibid., p.300, 364/.

Ignoring the versatility and versatility of the phenomena of dialogue and the levels of its study does not allow us to adequately understand the concept of M.M. dialogue understanding B.C. Bibler, I.I. Vasilyeva, G.M. Kuchinsky, Yu.M. Lotman, L.A. Radzikhovsky, A.U. Kharash and etc.). We will be primarily interested personal, highest level of dialogue (although for its understanding we will sometimes "go down" to other levels), which, in order to distinguish b it from the rest, in what follows we will denote it by the term interpersonal dialogue(MD). In addition, we will use a number of derived concepts:

• dialogue(property of personality),
• dialogism(characteristic of the process of communication and other social processes),
• dialogist(an individual consciously and consistently striving for a dialogue),
• dialogization communication (saturation with elements of dialogue).

In the concept of MM Bakhtin, dialogue is opposed by the concept of "monologue"; to describe it (at the highest level), we will use, respectively, the concepts interpersonal monologue(MM) (the logical inconsistency of this term corresponds to the ontological inconsistency of the phenomenon it denotes, which will be shown below), monologue , monologism , monologue .

How does M.M. Bakhtin characterize the main features of interpersonal dialogue and monologue?

MD, go to M.M. Bakhtin, differs primarily in a special kind relations between personalities in the process of their interaction - relations that "cannot be reduced either to purely logical (even if dialectical), or to purely linguistic", or to psychological / Bakhtin M.M., 1979 , p.296,303/. Dialogic Relations- this is the relationship between "equal and equivalent consciousnesses", while the monologue will be based on the "denial of equality" / ibid., p. 309/. That is, the basis for dividing communication into MD and MM is a way of mutual orientation of those communicating relative to each other, the ratio of value-semantic positions of individuals entering into communication. These positions are based on ethical, more broadly – ​​worldview principles, which, in turn, are “determined by the attitude towards another consciousness” /ibid., p. 311/. A "dialogical attitude" leads to the "dialogical position", the most important characteristic of which is setting for equality in communication; to the monologue position - a monological attitude that denies this equality; when dialogic positions (dialogists) meet, a full-fledged MD will take place, when monologic positions are "meeted" - MM.

Let us especially note that equality here should not be understood as the sameness, the identity of the "I" and the "other". On the contrary, M.M. Bakhtin in every possible way emphasized the essential, even essential, opposition of experiencing one’s own subjectivity (“I-for-myself”) and the subjectivity of another (“the other-for-me”) (see: / ibid. , S.22-121/). Moreover, the "other" has the ability to perform functions that are fundamentally inaccessible to the "I" - due to the original sociality of the mental being, it is the "other", his view (assessment, opinion) "from the outside" that gives my "I" objectivity, complements the personality "to whole." I can observe myself directly only "from within"; "outside" yourself initially can only be seen indirectly - with the eyes another (here, by the way, M.M. Bakhtin develops well-known ideas K. Marx about Peter and Paul in the role of a "mirror" / Marx K., Engels F., vol. 23, p. 62 /). But in the future, after the formation of a person's self-awareness and the formation of his "I", the role of the "other" turns out to be extremely important and irreplaceable: from "possession" of information about the world from my own chronotope, inaccessible to me, to the possibility of confirming my self and value - that " only another from his only place outside I can be realized" /Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 47/.

In other words, the whole life of the individual, the whole social existence of a person turns out to be basically dialogical. However, this is “in principle”, theoretically. In reality, in order for Paul to become a "mirror" for Peter, the latter must at least look into it and strive to see his, Paul's, point of view. In order for the "other" to fulfill his role, he must take for me , in my mind "an authoritative value position outside of me..., I must become value-consciously outside my life and perceive myself as another among others" - that is, I must "bring myself under a common norm with another (in morality, in law) /ibid., p.54/ M.M. Bakhtin’s idea is that precisely because the “other” is radically different from the “I” and is fundamentally equal rights"I" and "the other" in relation to the truth, to recognize his point of view as "equally worthy" of his own and essentially supplementing it. This is what the dialogist does, taking an equal position in communication, and, on the one hand, he thereby receives the opportunity for a full-fledged being, for self-affirmation and self-development, on the other hand, he himself becomes "other" for the interlocutor, a condition for his being and development.

The monologist seeks to dispense with the "other" as other , a being different from it (view, point of view, etc.). But it is impossible to do without the "other" at all (even when I look in a real mirror, I see myself "with my own and other people's eyes at the same time" / ibid., p. 314 /) - and the monologist (often without noticing it himself) puts in place " another "... himself myself , his point of view (more precisely, the one with which he agrees), considering it the only possible, correct and sufficient one, or completely deprives the “other” of any meaningful content, reducing it to an extremely emasculated, unrequited abstraction, and “... the other remains entirely object consciousness, and not another consciousness" /ibid., p. 318/. Thus, the monologist not only does not perform the function of the "other" in relation to the interlocutor, but he himself is deprived of his life-giving influence: "separation, separation, locking into himself as the main the reason for the loss of oneself" /ibid., p. 311/. The dialogist is open to the diverse, complex and contradictory "plurality of equal consciousnesses with their worlds"; the monologist is closed in the shell of only his own, "monologically perceived and understood world" / Bakhtin M.M. ., 1963, p. 8/.

The concept of M.M. Bakhtin is distinguished by high moral pathos, the desire to follow the principles of humanism, respect for man and faith in him. Hence the constant protest against any form of humiliation and denial of the "human in man", any manifestations of inequality. However, for M.M. Bakhtin, the requirement of equality, "equal worthiness" of the communicating parties is not just an abstract ethical imperative, this requirement is based not only on the principles of humanism, but also on the understanding of "non-self-sufficiency, the impossibility of the existence of one consciousness", the understanding that a person becomes himself, only "revealing himself for the other, through the other and with the help of the other" /ibid., p.311/, as well as the fact that this person himself performs the same function in relation to the "other".

But there is another, no less important reason why the constitutive characteristic of MT is precisely the equality and symmetry of the positions of people entering into communication. This is fundamental impossibility achieving a truly personal level of communication in another way: a person cannot be "peeped, determined and predicted" against his will, "in absentia", "the true life of a person is available only to dialogic penetration into it, to which it itself responds and freely reveals itself" / ibid., p. .79/. A monologue, although it can take place "in the presence" of another person, will never rise to a truly personal level of communication precisely because it is built on the inequality of positions, the asymmetry of relations. The monologist builds IR based on himself, ignoring the other as an equal and equal partner, denies the other's right to his point of view, "his own truth", significantly deforming the process of communication, the nature of the co-existence of its participants. This is what it consists unnaturalness"interpersonal" (essentially - inter-individual) monologue, in which there is no place for personality.

However, the dialogic position is not exhausted by equal rights. No less significant is the content of this position. According to M.M. Bakhtin, the most important meaningful characteristic of a dialogic orientation is the attitude towards a person (both to oneself and to another) as becoming being . It is impossible, Bakhtin believes, to “draw a line” under a living person, to deny him the possibility of development, change, revision of his positions, because “a person never coincides with himself. The formula of identity cannot be applied to him: A is A .... the true life of a person takes place, as it were, at the point of this discrepancy between a person and himself, at the point of his going beyond the limits of everything that he is as a material being " / ibid., p. 79 /. It is the dialogical relations, according to M. M. Bakhtin, that turn out to be “the only form of relationship to a person-personality that preserves his freedom and incompletion” / Bakhtin M. M., 1979, p. 317 /. What makes this possible in a dialogue? Why is a person inaccessible to a monologue? The essence is again in the starting positions of people joining the IR.

The dialogical position "affirms independence, internal freedom, incompleteness and unresolved" personality / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 84/. And this is not passivity, bordering on indifference or permissiveness. The dialogical position is realized through activity, but the activity of the "special, dialogical character", activity " in relation to someone else's living and full-fledged consciousness" / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 310 /.

The purpose of this activity is its participants as individuals and the dialogue itself as the highest level of coexistence of unique and inimitable personalities, which, nevertheless, can lead both to confrontation and to agreement.

Dialogic confrontation is not just a dispute, polemic is a "benevolent disengagement" with subsequent cooperation and "no fights on the boundary" / ibid., p. 340-341/. In the MD, the interlocutors do not pursue the goal of refuting, destroying someone else's position, the originality of a different point of view. On the contrary, "dialogical mutual orientation" emphasizes the individual characteristics of each person, reveals their originality. The confrontation in the "monologic world" takes place quite differently: here a thought, a point of view "is either affirmed or denied"; in the latter case, "the denied alien thought does not open the monologic context, on the contrary, it closes even more sharply and stubbornly within its boundaries. The denied alien thought is not capable of creating a full-fledged alien consciousness next to one consciousness ..." / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, from. 105-106/.

Different in MD and MM and the nature of consent. Agreement in dialogue is unity, but "unity is not as a natural one and only, but as a dialogic agreement of unmerged two or more", which is achieved through mutual "disclosure of the relative (partial) truth of one's positions and one's point of view ..." / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p.314, 340/. The dialogue is based on mutual respect, on respect for the opinion of another, his right to be different from me. Since each point of view in the dialogue is personified, presented as the point of view of this particular person, insofar as here "and agreement retains its dialogic character, that is, never leads to merger voices and truths into one impersonal the truth, as it happens in the monologue world" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 127 /. In essence, "consent" in a monologue does not fundamentally differ from monologue opposition - both are aimed at achieving "uniformity".

However, both equality and respect in dialogue run the risk of being formal and illusory if they are not based on understanding. Understanding is the main facilities implementation of the dialogue. Therefore, the problem of understanding occupies no less important place in the concept of Bakhtin's dialogue than the problem of "I and the other."

Understanding, from the point of view of M.M. Bakhtin, is the most important feature of interpersonal communication. When a person interacts with an object, with a "silent thing", it is not about understanding, but about explanation. Although a person "can be perceived and known as a thing", but in this case only his "material" characteristics can be known. As a person, as a subject, he "cannot be perceived and studied as a thing, because as a subject; he cannot, remaining a subject, become mute" /Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p.363/. The subjective side of consciousness is objective, "but not objective, not material" /ibid., p.316/. The other as a personality can be revealed only in an equal dialogue, in the process of mutual understanding, in which "the activity of the learner is combined with the activity of the one who opens" /Bakhtin M.M., 1975, p.205/.

MM Bakhtin characterizes understanding primarily as active, creative and reciprocal /Bakhtin MM, 1979, p.91, 245-247, 300-305/. He emphasizes that the assignment of the "other" role of the listener, who only passively understands the speaker, which takes place in science, is a scientific fiction , which gives "a completely distorted idea of ​​the complex and multilaterally active process of verbal communication" /ibid., p.245-246/. Activity understanding, first of all, that he must clarify the point of view of the interlocutor for himself, "recreate" its meaning in the context of his being and at the same time overcome "the alienness of the alien without turning it into purely his own (substitution of any kind ...)" / ibid. , p.371/. The activity of the one who understands is also in the fact that he "personifies any statement" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963 , p.246/, that is, he seeks to see the personality behind the word. Because of this, understanding is always creation, a meeting of consciousnesses, semantic positions, similar not to mechanical contact, but to a chemical compound that gives birth as a result of "mutual dialogizing influence" / Bakhtin M.M., 1975a, p. 152-153/ something new. And this new one - including a new meaning and a counter assessment by the understanding of the understood (without which understanding, according to M.M. Bakhtin, is impossible), - finds its expression in answer , in the response activity of the understander (immediate or delayed).

This characteristic fully corresponds to the understanding that takes place within the framework of the MD, dialogical understanding. In a monologue, understanding, if it does occur, is in an essentially reduced form. If we use M.M. Bakhtin's division of "replica orientations" in speech communication into "internal policy" (orientation in relation to one's own statements) and "foreign policy" (in relation to the partner's statements) / ibid, p. 97 /, then we can say, that the understanding of the monologue is mainly subordinated to "internal politics", and sometimes only within its framework and is limited. If he sets the task of understanding a partner, he is limited only to the analysis of "objective meaning", "objective points", while the dialogist is also looking for "roots" in a person" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p. 127 / - personal meanings, personal position.

The idea of ​​M.M. Bakhtin that dialogue, dialogical understanding is the basis of not only communication between people in reality, but also one of the most important principles and mandatory stages in studying , a person as a person and personal forms of communication - in this case, the researcher "himself becomes a participant in the dialogue, although at a special level (depending on the direction of understanding or research" / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 305 /.

Until now, we have described the concept of MM Bakhtin through the opposition "dialogue - monologue", considering the latter as fundamentally different mutually exclusive and oppositely evaluated levels of interpersonal communication. However, it should be emphasized that M.M. Bakhtin does not absolutize or idealize the dialogue, dialectically resolving the issue of its relationship with the monologue.

Firstly, dialogue and monologue are presented by M.M. Bakhtin not so much as alternatives, but as poles between which the whole variety of real forms of human interaction with the world is located. Moreover, "absolute dialogue" as a relation to a person and "absolute monologue" as a relation to a thing are only theoretical abstractions that are unattainable in reality: "our acts alone (cognitive and moral) tend to the limit reification, never reaching it, other acts - to the limit personifications , not reaching it to the end" / M. M. Bakhtin, 1975, p. 209 /. At the same time, M. M. Bakhtin emphasizes that in communication with personality should strive primarily to dialogue .

Secondly, the monologue is inadequate not "in general" - namely, at the personal level of the IR, in the process of interaction of personalities, their semantic positions. Within the framework of one consciousness, monologization is a very important, even necessary moment, allowing the individual to stand on a certain, my point of view, to acquire a "solid monologue voice" (though only so that "then the monologized consciousness as one and a single whole enters into a new dialogue" / Bakhtin M.M., 1979, p. 187, 366 /). Thus, the monologue is an important moment dialogue process.

That is why, thirdly, the dialogue itself is not an absolutely positive phenomenon for M.M. Bakhtin. In those cases when dialogical relations to a person replace and cancel all others, M.M. Bakhtin speaks of the "bad infinity of dialogue" and even of the "dialogical decomposition of consciousness" / Bakhtin M.M., 1963, p.298, 309 / .

We described Bakhtin's concept of dialogue in such detail (although far from exhaustive) because we used it as the theoretical basis of our work. However, the concept of MM Bakhtin is not psychological, and in order to be directly used in psychological and pedagogical research, it is necessary to do work on "translation" into the appropriate planes. One can name a number of authors who approached this work from different angles.

One of the first in Russian science and the most fruitful attempts at the psychological application of the concept of dialogue by M.M. Bakhtin belongs to A.U.Kharashu. In his works, on the one hand, a convincing criticism of the "manipulative" (monologic) approach to the analysis of communication is given, on the other hand, the theoretical foundations are developed intersubjective (dialogical) approach/ Kharash A.U., 1977; 1978; 1979;1983; 1986/.

Analyzing the "manipulative approach" in the study of IR, A.U. Kharash shows that this reductionist idea of ​​IR consists of a number of "private reductions" (reduction of the communicator to a social role, messages - to the text, the reaction of the "recipient" - to agreement-disagreement ) and assumptions (assuming a passive (conformal) recipient, a diffuse audience). At the same time, A.U. Harash rightly notes that this is not just an erroneous point of view in science: manipulative (more broadly - monologue) communication exists in reality, and the error of this approach is in absolutization , "in the fact that he focused on only that facet of reality, where she herself is" mistaken ", where delusion exists as a stubborn fact accessible to observation" / Kharash A.U., 1979, p. 25 /. To implement an alternative - intersubjective - approach, the author proposes a system of concepts: "personal inclusion", "textual reincarnation", "message", "text" and other.

A.U. Kharash emphasizes that the main influencing factor in IR is not the “text” and not even the “message”, but the communication itself, the nature of the “dynamic relations between a communicator and a recipient" /Kharash A.U., 1983, p.22/. authoritarian influence("inclusion of the communicator into the sphere of the recipient's life activity, in which its own contents are turned off (displaced) from it") and dialogic impact("assertion of the position of the communicator in the life and consciousness of the recipient, in which the recipient's own position fully retains its strength and content") /ibid., p.22/, as well as three types of "messages" - dialogic, authoritarian and conformal /ibid. /. In subsequent works, A.U. Kharash considers the problem of personality development, emphasizing the special role of the "other" in the development of the "I" and striving to "recreate in theory the entire spectrum of relationships and interactions in the system" I - the other "..." / Kharash A. U., 1986, p.36/. Important for us is the author's conclusion about the greater effectiveness of a group discussion carried out in an "interactive group", where a discussion, a dialogue really takes place, in comparison with a "coactive" (pseudo-discussion), "in which an" active "minority evaluates the incoming information and imposes its assessments "passive" (inactive) majority" /Kharash A.U., 1975, p.23/.

Similar problems - and also based on the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin - are considered in the works E.A. Rodionova/Rodionova E.A., 1981 and others/. The author comes to the conclusion that the most important condition for the development of a personality is "the way of understanding another person and determining one's own value attitude towards another", and that it is dialogue, upholding one's own point of view in equal interaction with other views that is "an impetus to the inner work of the individual in rethinking oneself, one's position in the world" /ibid., p.183, 190/.

An experimental study of the dialogue in thinking in joint and individual problem solving was completed G.M. Kuchinsky/Kuchinsky G.M., 1983/. The author has developed a conceptual apparatus for the analysis of verbal communication, obtained a rich empirical material. GM Kuchinsky sees the essence of dialogue in the interaction of "semantic positions" and singles out "external dialogue" (when these semantic positions belong to different interlocutors) and "internal" (when both positions are compared by one subject); to describe the dynamics of the interaction of semantic positions, the author uses the concepts dialogization(divergence of positions) and monologization(their convergence) /ibid., p.19-20/. In our opinion, if we talk about interpersonal communication, then this scheme must be supplemented with an analysis of the personal positions and relations of the communicating parties, not only in the plane of logic, thinking and speech, but also from the socio-psychological and ethical points of view. Otherwise, "dialogue" will include authoritarian, manipulative, and similar forms of "interaction of positions."

Within the framework of the general psychological approach, the works I.I. Vasilyeva/ Vasilyeva I.I., 1984; 1985 and others/. "Dialogue in the full sense of the word" I.I.Vasilyeva considers "such an interaction of personalities, which is characterized by a special relationship between partners: an attitude towards mutual understanding of each other, an interest in the personality of a partner, a benevolent desire to meet halfway in understanding, an attitude of communicative cooperation that can do not exclude the opposite of the personal positions of the partners" / Vasilieva I.I., 1984, pp. 57-58 /. In particular, the use of the concept of "communicative cooperation" in the analysis of the dialogue deserves attention. Communication collaboration, originally formulated as one of the principles of communication in pragmatics / see, for example, Arutyunova N.D., 1980; Paducheva E.V., 1982/, means that since communication partners are united by a common goal - to achieve mutual understanding - then each of them "must strive to understand exactly the meaning that his communicative partner has in mind, strive to take into account and satisfy him information needs, help the partner in formulating messages, etc." /Vasilyeva I.I., 1984, p.47/. This willingness to “understand correctly” is an extremely important feature of the dialogue, without which such attributive properties of DM as openness partners and mutual confidence .

In Pedagogy and Educational Psychology A.M. Matyushkin/Matyushkin A.M., 1977 and others/, S.Yu.Kurganov, V.F.Litovsky, I.M.Solomadin/Kurganov S.Yu., Solomadin I.M., 1986/ and others are developing training programs based on the principles of " learning dialogue ".

The ideas of dialogue have recently become widespread in the field of psychological counseling - in our country, these are primarily works A.F. Kopeva/1981 and others/, E.V. Novikova, V.A. Smekhova /1983/, L.A. Petrovskaya, A.S. Spivakovskaya /1983/, A.U.Kharasha and others. Here, the dialogue is considered as the leading, most effective type of communication of a psychologist-consultant and is endowed with the following characteristics: the reciprocity of the influence of the participants in communication, the desire to take each other's positions, mutual respect and trust, the ability to see, understand and actively use a wide and diverse range of communication skills.

The ideas of M.M. Bakhtin had a great influence on the development of semiotics. We note the work of scientists from the University of Tartu. One of them lists, in particular, conditions , necessary for the dialogue to take place: 1) the presence of certain differences between the participants in the dialogue when isomorphic to the third element of a higher level, in the system of which they enter; 2) reciprocity and reciprocity in exchange; 3) discreteness of issuing information; 4) "the translated text must, anticipating the answer, contain an element of transition to a foreign language" / Structure of the dialogue ..., 1984, p. 14-16/.

One could also name a large number of works on philosophy, logic, psycholinguistics, aesthetics, etc., which, to one degree or another, were influenced by the concept of dialogue by M. M. Bakhtin. However, such "popularity" of unconditionally progressive ideas has not only positive aspects. On the one hand, the number of "interpretations" is multiplying, "erosion" of the concept of "dialogue" is taking place, and its supporters are at risk of finding themselves in the position of the builders of the Tower of Babel. On the other hand, there is a trend towards absolutization of dialogue , to giving it the status of a "super-idea", with the help of which literally everything can be explained (see, for example, /Bush G.Ya., 1985/). At one time, L.S. Vygotsky showed that such a “blowing up of an idea” ends with a fatal outcome for it / Vygotsky L.S., 1965, vol. 1, p. 302-305/. In addition, when trying to give the idea of ​​dialogue a universal character, sometimes "abstracting" from its most important moments occurs. And above all, this concerns the moral pathos of the concept of M.M. Bakhtin, his "moral philosophy", which he himself "was conceived not as one of the" applied "parts of a more comprehensive philosophical construction, but as first philosophy" / Davydov Yu.N., 1986, p. 170 /, as a fundamental principle. It is consistent humanism that acquires methodological significance for M.M. Bakhtin and, thereby, fundamentally distinguishes his concept from previous and contemporary theories of representatives of the "philosophy of life ", "personology", etc., "is not noticed" by many psychologists who remain true to the natural-scientific paradigm. For example, in the "systemic approach" to the dialogue of I.I. We would like to avoid such extremes and simplifications.

Let us briefly outline the essence of our understanding of interpersonal communication, in the formation of which we relied on the concept of M. M. Bakhtin and took into account its psychological concretization by other researchers.

MO can happen fundamentally different ways - by the type of interpersonal dialogue and by the type of interpersonal monologue.

The basis for dividing MO into MD and MM is not the number of participants and not the formal characteristics of the communication process, but personal positions communicating, that "inner aspiration of the individual", which is based on value-semantic "attitudes of consciousness, morally significant and reciprocally active" (Bakhtin). That is, the basis for the typology are those characteristics of MO, which we designated as personal component communication.

Chief among these settings is the setting that determines orientation of the personality in the coordinates of "I" and "other ": MD assumes mutual attitudes towards equality, MM proceeds from the priority of one position (or only "I" - or only "other") and the subordinate, reduced role of the second.

The relation to the "other" in IR finds expression in "the concept of the interlocutor". Dialogue corresponds to the concept of the interlocutor as a person (independent, internally free and incomplete, concrete and unique), asserting his full rights, focused on development; moreover, this concept is "symmetrical", that is, applicable to oneself, to one's own "I", which is also perceived as a free and full “becoming being.” The monologue corresponds to the concept of the interlocutor as an object of influence – an extremely abstract, undifferentiated, “reified” “other”.

At the heart of MD relations mutual respect, trust, naturalness and openness; MM is based on ignoring the interlocutor, distrust, isolation (openness - only as an unintentional accident) or, conversely, demonstrativeness, narcissism.

Main means of interconnection in MD - dialogical mutual understanding as a way of mutual disclosure, mutual affirmation and mutual development; in MM - the reduction of two (or several) positions, points of view into one, unique and "indisputable" by either destroying different points of view, or averaging them into one "general", depersonalized.

Mutual knowledge ( cognitive component MO): in MD it is an active, creative process of overcoming the "discontinuity" of communication, mutual penetration into each other's inner world, free from stereotypes and prejudices, based on reflection; in MM - schematic, superficial "summing under the known", categorical and stereotyped.

Emotional Component MD - sympathy, benevolence and tolerance, evenness and adequacy of assessments and self-assessments; the emotional component of MM is cold hostility and indifference to another (easily turning into aggression), inability to sympathize, polarity of assessments, inadequacy of self-assessments.

In MD - orientation to behavior in communication ( behavioral component) on the basis of cooperation and equal interaction. Behavior in MM is either rivalry, conflict, or indifference, ignoring the partner.

Ways of being and co-existence of individuals, conditions for their development within the framework of MD and MM are fundamentally different. In MD, the "I" of both interlocutors, being open to each other, relying on the mutual assertion of themselves as individuals, establishing ethically equal relations, looking at each other "as in a mirror", thereby receive unlimited opportunities for comprehensive mutual development and improvement, with on the one hand, and for a much deeper (due to complementary points of view) orientation in situations of communication and cooperation in the performance of tasks of joint activity, on the other hand. The detachment of interlocutors from each other in MM, the unidirectional, often destructive nature of communicative interaction sharply reduce its effectiveness, significantly impoverish and deform the being of each of the partners, and serve as an obstacle to their personal growth. The tense, but constructive confrontation between the "I" and the "other" is a source of contradictions in communication and, by that, serves as a condition for the mutual development of its participants. The elimination of the "other" and the corresponding problems in the monologue acts as a limiting factor in personal development for both parties.

If we define communication as the coexistence of individuals, then dialogue is co-existence of equal persons. The monologue "sticks out" the being of one of the participants in communication at the expense of the other, pushing him to the periphery of communication, deprives communication of "personality", transferring it to the rank of functional and similar relations.

Dialogue and monologue - abstract, theoretically highlighted poles in the real manifold space of MO. A further, more detailed typology of IR can be built on the basis of the ratio of the main components of the personal component - attitudes towards equality, development and creativity, and mutual understanding.

Thus, proceeding from the fact that interpersonal dialogue is the highest, actually personal level of communication, which creates the most favorable conditions for the manifestation and development of the personality and is one of the most important means of this development, we considered the readiness and ability for dialogue to be the highest level of development of communicative competence. The main content of the personal component at this level is focus on dialogic communication - which was taken by us as the main goals of preparation for communication .

Literature

1. Marx K., Engels F. Works: 2nd ed. - M.: Politizdat.
2. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. The personal aspect of the problem of communication. // The problem of communication in psychology. - M., 1981. - S.218-241.
3. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Development of personality in the process of life // Psychology of formation and development of personality. - M., 1981. - S. 19-44.
4. Active methods of teaching pedagogical communication and its optimization. - M.: Publishing house of APN USSR, 1983. - 98 p.
5. Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human knowledge. -M.: Nauka, 1977. - 381 p.
6. Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: In 2 volumes. - M.; Pedagogy, 1980. - T. 1-2.
7. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1980. - 416 p.
8. Andreeva G.M., Bogomolova N.N., Petrovskaya L.A. Modern social psychology in the West. - M.; Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1978. -271 p.
9. Antsyferova L.I. On the psychology of personality as a developing system // Psychology of personality formation and development. - M., 1981. - S. 3-19.
10. Arseniev A.S. The problem of purpose in upbringing and education // Philosophical and psychological problems of the development of education. -M., I98I. - S. 54-118.
11. Arutyunova N.D. Addressee factor // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. literature and language. - 1980. - T.40. - Issue 4. - S. 356-367.
12. Asmolov A.G., Bratus B.S., Zeigarnik B.F. and others. On some prospects for the study of semantic formations of personality // Questions of Psychology. - 1979. - No. 4. - S. 35-46.
13. Batishchev G.S. Unity of activity and communication // Principles of materialistic dialectics as a theory of knowledge. - M., 1984. -C.I94-209.
14. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M.: Soviet writer, 1963. - 364 p.
15. Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. - M.: Fiction, 1975a. - 504 p.
16. Bakhtin M.M. To the methodology of literary criticism // Context - 74. - M., 1975. - C.203-2I2.
17. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M.: Art, 1979. - 424 p.
18. Bakhtin M.M. To the philosophy of the act // Philosophy and sociology of science and technology. - M., 1986. - C.82-I60.
19. Burns R. Razvitie I-concept and education. - M.: Progress 1986. - 423 p.
20. Bibler V.S. Thinking as creativity. - M.: Politizdat, 1975. - 399 p.
21. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication. - M.: Pedagogy, 1983.-271 p.
22. Brudny A.A. On the theory of communicative influence // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. - M., 1977. - S.32-49.
23. Bush G.Ya. Dialogue and creativity. - Riga: Avots, 1985. -313 p.
24. Vasilyeva I.I. Psychological features of the dialogue: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - M., 1984. - 181 s,
25. Vasilyeva I.I. Communicative properties of utterances in dialogue // Psikhol.zhurn. - 1984. - V.5. - No. 5. - S. 140-153.
26. Vasilyeva I.I. On the significance of M.M. Bakhtin's ideas on dialogue and dialogical relations for the psychology of communication // Psychological research of communication, - M., 1985. - C. 8I-94.
27. Voloshinov V.N. Marxism and the philosophy of language. - L .: Surf, I929. - 189 p.
28. Wrigt G.H. Logical-philosophical researches. - M.: Progress, 1986. - 600 p.
29. Vygotsky L.S. Psychology of art. - M.: Art, 1965, - 379 p.
30. Vygotsky L.S. Collected works. In 6 volumes - M .: Pedagogy, 1982-1984. - T. I-6.
31. Vygotsky L.S. Concrete human psychology // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser.14, Psychology. - 1986, - No. I. - S.52-65.
32. Davydov Yu.N. At the origins of MM Bakhtin's social philosophy // Sociological Studies. - 1986. - No. 2. - C. 170-181.
33. Dilthey V. Descriptive psychology. - M.: Russian scribe, 1924. - 118 p.
34. Emelyanov Yu.N. Active socio-psychological education. - D.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1985. - 168 p.
35. Zinchenko V.P., Mamardashvili M.K. The problem of the objective method in psychology // Vopr. philosophy. - 1977. - No. 7. - S.109--125.
36. Ivanov V.P. Human activity - knowledge - art. - Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 1977. - 252 p.
37. Kabrin V.I. The structure of human communication skills and the problem of personality formation strategy // Modern problems of applied sociology and social psychology in labor collectives. - L., 1984. - S. 143-144.
38. Kagan M.S. Art and communication // Art and communication. - L., 1984. - S.15-28.
39. Kakabadze Z.M. Culture and civilization // Culture in the light of philosophy. - Tbilisi: Helovneba, 1979. - S.187-225,
40. Kan-Kalik V.A., Kovalev G.A. Pedagogical communication as a subject of theoretical and applied research // Questions of psychology. - 1985, - No. 4. - p.9-I6.
41. Kidron A.A. Communicative ability and its improvement: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - L., 1981. - 199 p.
42. Kirshbaum E.I. Psychological and pedagogical analysis of conflict situations in the pedagogical process: Diss. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. -L., I986. - 199 p.
43. Kirshbaum E.I. Psychological problems of pedagogically difficult situations // Psychological and pedagogical support of the educational process. - L.-M., 1987. - C.26I-270.
44. Klyueva N.D. The success of training in the group form of its organization: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - L., 1987. -17 p.
45. Kovalev G.A. Active social learning as a method of correcting the psychological characteristics of the subject of communication: Dis. ... Candidate of Psychological Sciences. - M., 1980. - 270 p.
46. Kovalev G.A. About active teaching of pedagogical communication // Active methods of teaching pedagogical communication and its optimization. - M., 1983. - S.6-20.
47. Kovalev G.A. Three paradigms in psychology - three strategies of psychological influence // Vopr. psychology, - 1987. - No. 3. - P. 41-49.
48. Cognitive styles / Ed. V. Kolga. - Tallinn: Tal. ped. in-t, 1986. - 252 p.
49. Kolominsky Ya.L. Psychology of communication. - M.: Knowledge, 1974.-96 p.