Introduction

I. Characteristics of tolerance/intolerance in interpersonal communication of high school students 12

1.1 Basic approaches to the study of tolerance in the humanities 12

1.1.1 Tolerance as a psychophysiological characteristic 14

1.1.2 Tolerance in social relations 16

1.1.3 Tolerance as recognition of differences 24

1.1.4 Tolerance as a personal characteristic 29

1.1.5 Generalization of theoretical approaches to tolerance 35

1.2 Phenomenology of intolerance 39

1.3 Interpersonal communication and tolerance 53

1.4 Conclusions of theoretical analysis and main provisions of our own approach to tolerance 61

II. Empirical study of tolerance in communication among high school students Research problem 66

II. 1.1 Program of the first stage of the pilot study 67

II.1.2 Tolerance/intolerance in the views of high school students 67

II.2.1 Program for the second stage of the pilot study 71

II.2.2 Tolerance/intolerance and their difference from tolerance/intolerance in interpersonal communication of high school students...71

II.2.3 Tolerance and individual characteristics of high school students 78

II.2.4 Social situations and tolerance 84

II.2.5 Conclusions from pilot studies 86

II.3.1 Basic research program 88

II.3.2 Analysis of the tolerant attitude as a phenomenon in interpersonal communication of high school students 94

II.3.3 Tolerance and personality characteristics. Typology of high school students 105

II.3.4 Features of social situations and tolerance 118

II.3.5 Personal, situational variables and tolerance 121

II.3.6 Socio-demographic parameters (gender, age) and

tolerance 124

II.4 Discussion of the results obtained 126

Conclusions 133

Conclusion 137

Bibliography 142

Applications 154

Introduction to the work

The relevance of research

Interest in tolerance attracts the attention of researchers from various disciplines - philosophy, sociology, cultural studies, personality psychology, clinical, developmental, social psychology, etc. To date, various approaches to the definition of tolerance have developed depending on the specifics of the discipline and the theoretical postulates within which it is considered concept. The relevance of research into the problem of tolerance is due to the growth of interethnic tensions and the increase in intolerance in society. Most researchers emphasize that tolerance is not just tolerance for differences, for other people, for differing opinions and views. Tolerance presupposes the ability to be tolerant while maintaining one’s own values ​​and individuality.

The term “tolerance” is relatively new in science. At the same time, the problem of the determinants of an individual’s social behavior is not new in psychology. We also encounter the complexity and ambiguity of answers to the question of what provokes a person to commit certain actions when defining tolerance. The dissertation work presents an analysis of the closest social psychology approaches to defining the phenomenon of “tolerance”, and reflects the specifics of this problem in relation to interpersonal communication of high school students.

The most interesting is the study of a group of high school students as one of the most flexible, open to the development of tolerant attitudes. It is known about the age period we are studying that early adolescence is the stage of searching for independent life guidelines, choosing social norms and values, which an adult then implements in life (Raie, 2000; Ardelt, 2000). One of the main tasks of early adolescence is “building a system

5 values ​​and ethical consciousness as guidelines for one’s own behavior: a critical analysis of the values ​​of the surrounding culture should lead to the formation of an independent “internalized” structure of values ​​as a guide to action” (Remschmidt, 1994, p. 148).

As I.S. Kon writes, the needs for self-knowledge, self-affirmation and the formation of ideas about the surrounding reality are combined and embodied in the need for communication. The need for communication, the constant search for it, is a distinctive feature of early adolescence (Kon, 1980). In the communication of high school students, two main trends can be identified: (a) expansion of the scope of communications and (b) individualization of relationships, high selectivity in friendships, and demanding communication in a dyad (Dubrovina, 1991).

On the one hand, our work is aimed at studying the specifics of the phenomenon of “tolerance” in interpersonal communication. On the other hand, the study is aimed at highlighting the characteristics of tolerance in high school students. In order to correctly determine the directions and means of increasing the tolerance of high school students, it is necessary to understand how they themselves interpret and perceive the interlocutors and social situations around them. The study of tolerant attitudes in the interpersonal communication of high school students allows us to better structure the provision of psychological assistance that is adequate to the problems that young people face as they grow up.

In our study, tolerance/intolerance is considered as three-component social attitudes; analyzed what personal and situational characteristics promote and hinder tolerance, and how high school students interpret their own behavior in interpersonal communication situations.

Tolerance in interpersonal communication of high school students.

An object

Students of senior classes of secondary schools in Moscow. A total of 130 students in grades 10-11. Of these, 67 were girls and 63 were boys. Also, 9 experts (practical psychologists working with high school students) took part in the study.

Target The research consists of a theoretical analysis and empirical study of tolerance as a combination of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components of an attitude in interpersonal communication of high school students. In accordance with the purpose of the study, the following tasks are set.

Tasks

Theoretical analysis of existing approaches to determining tolerance/intolerance; analysis of ideas about the characteristics of tolerance/intolerance in early adolescence; substantiation of the legitimacy of considering tolerance as a social attitude* in terms of its three-component structure.

Empirical analysis of a tolerant attitude in interpersonal communication and construction of a typology of high school students on this basis.

Identification of the connection between tolerance and individual characteristics of high school students, as well as characteristics of social situations.

Development of methodological tools adequate to the purposes of the study.

In the text of the dissertation, the concepts “attitude”, “attitude”, “disposition” are used as synonyms

7 Provisions submitted for defense

In the context of interpersonal communication, the phenomenon of tolerance can be presented as a social attitude. It includes on an emotional level - a negative attitude towards a partner; on the behavioral level - tolerance; on the cognitive level - the presence of a cognitive component “guidance by social norms of communication and respect for a partner.”

Tolerance is most manifested when interacting with a person who causes a negative emotional attitude. If the interlocutor is significant (interesting, pleasant), problems of tolerance/intolerance do not arise with him, and if they do appear, they can be easily eliminated.

In the context of interpersonal communication, the phenomenon of intolerance can also be presented as a social attitude. It includes on an emotional level - a negative attitude towards the interlocutor; on the behavioral level - intolerance; on the cognitive level - the presence of a cognitive component “guidance by social norms of communication and respect for a partner.” Tolerant/intolerant attitudes differ in their behavioral components and are similar in their emotional and cognitive components.

When analyzing the tolerance of high school students, four subgroups can be distinguished. The most common is the subgroup of respondents whose emotional assessment (communication is interesting - not interesting; likes - does not like a partner) invariably accompanies the choice of tolerant/intolerant behavioral intentions. The second subgroup of high school students are tolerant boys and girls. These are high school students who tend to be guided by social norms of respect for a partner; have high self-control. They share differences over everyday difficulties that do not deserve attention, and over global values ​​that need to be defended. The third subgroup is high school students who prefer an intolerant way of reacting, regardless of the interlocutor or the situation. They are characterized by a desire for competition and an unwillingness to make concessions;

8 inability to smooth out unpleasant feelings. The fourth subgroup is high school students who are prone to excessive tolerance. They forgive many mistakes of others, restrain emotions, and strive to please their interlocutor.

5. In interpersonal communication of high school students, problems of tolerance/intolerance are caused by situations of conflict of interests, the inability to take into account one’s own needs and the needs of the interlocutor, when it is necessary to defend oneself and defend one’s rights.

Scientific novelty work is determined by the insufficient development of the problem of tolerance in social psychology. In particular, in our study for the first time:

Tolerance is considered as a social attitude in terms of three components of its structure (behavioral, emotional, cognitive).

The relationship between the emotional, behavioral and cognitive components of a tolerant attitude towards another person within certain significant situations of interpersonal communication has been analyzed.

A correlation was made between the tolerant attitude and the individual characteristics of high school students.

A comparison of tolerant and intolerant attitudes in interpersonal communication of high school students was carried out.

As part of this study, a methodological tool has been developed that allows us to diagnose three components of a tolerant attitude.

Theoretical value

The conducted research contributes to a more complete understanding of the structure and prerequisites for the emergence of tolerance. The research principles we use and the results obtained make it possible to outline new aspects of the study of attitudes in interpersonal communication,

9 considering social situations. An analysis of the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive components of the attitude in manifestations of tolerance/intolerance was carried out.

The work highlights personal and situational variables that influence tolerance in early adolescence. The work contributes to the development of the socio-psychological tradition of studying situational variables as significant determinants of behavior.

Practical significance

The idea of ​​​​forming attitudes of tolerant consciousness is one of the primary ones in the modern education system (Asmolov et al., 2003). Understanding the structure and prerequisites for tolerance in communication among high school students is necessary for theoretical and applied understanding of how the formation of tolerance in schoolchildren is possible.

Knowledge about the individual psychological characteristics of the identified subgroups of respondents, understanding how high school students interpret situations of communication with an unpleasant interlocutor, can be used in psychological counseling to provide psychological assistance in resolving conflict situations. The compiled psychological portraits of subgroups can be useful for a differentiated approach to high school students, in the development of tolerant attitudes, taking into account their individual characteristics.

Theoretical and methodological basis The research served as a basis for existing directions in the study of tolerance in relationships between people (V.V. Boyko), in the perception of other groups (V.S. Sobkin, N.M. Lebedeva, T.G. Stefanenko, etc.); ideas about tolerance as acceptance and respect for differences (V.A. Lektorsky, M. Walzer, B. Reardon, etc.), as a personal characteristic (G.U. Soldatova, L.A. Shaigerova, G. Allport and

10 etc.). In the analysis of intolerance, we proceeded from theoretical principles and studies of aggression, its prerequisites in high school students (A. Bandura, R. Walters, N.V. Vostroknutov, G. Parens, A. Guggenbühl, etc.). When constructing the study, we also relied on ideas about the relationship between attitudes, personality, and situations in interpersonal communication.

The study is based on qualitative and quantitative methods. When constructing the research design, the method of expert interviews was used. Among the qualitative methods of studying tolerance of high school students, unfinished sentences and in-depth interviews were used. Thomas, Cattell, and Boyko questionnaires were also used; As part of the research objectives, the author’s modification of the “Completing Situations” methodology was undertaken. Data processing was carried out using content analysis and statistical packages Excel, SPSS 1 1.5.

Credibility scientific provisions and conclusions formulated in the dissertation work were ensured through the initial methodological principles of constructing the research plan, choosing adequate methodological tools, and observing the rules And principles of conducting surveys, detailed interpretation of qualitative results and the use of statistical processing apparatus, representativeness of the sample and correlation of the results obtained in the work with the data of other authors.

Approbation

The dissertation work was discussed at the Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov (2004). The theoretical principles and main results of the study were presented in reports at graduate student seminars in 2003 and 2004,

international conference "Lomonosov - 2004", presented in the author's publications.

Work structure

The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a bibliography consisting of 182 titles of works by domestic and foreign authors, applications. The main text of the dissertation is presented on 141 pages, accompanied by 6 tables, 2 diagrams, 4 drawings.

Tolerance in social relationships

The second direction affects contexts in the study of tolerance as an attitude towards other people, groups, nations, and ethnic groups. For example, in works devoted to the problems of deviant behavior, one can find a definition of tolerance as tolerance to the influence of other people. Communicative tolerance is “a characteristic of a person’s relationship with people, showing the degree of tolerance of unpleasant or unacceptable, in her opinion, mental states, qualities and actions of interaction partners” (Mendelevich, 2001, p. 373).

Manifestations of communicative tolerance are due to the fact that the individual either does not perceive differences between himself and other people, or does not experience negative experiences about differences. Increasing the level of tolerance is associated with two skills: overcoming negative impressions from communication with a partner and eliminating circumstances that cause negative reactions (Boyko, 1996).

As V.V. Boyko writes, several levels of communicative tolerance can be distinguished: - situational tolerance - manifests itself in communication with a specific person (colleague, marriage partner, etc.). - typological tolerance - observed in a person’s attitude towards groups of people, for example, towards representatives of a particular nation or social stratum. A low level of typological tolerance is manifested in such judgments as “representatives of such and such a nation irritate me”, “it is better not to deal with pensioners”, etc. - professional tolerance - is revealed in the individual’s attitude towards the collective types of people with whom he has to interact in his line of work, mainly in a work environment. In particular, we can talk about the tolerance of a doctor towards patients, a hairdresser towards clients, a flight attendant towards passengers, etc.

There is also general communicative tolerance, which involves an attitude towards people in general and is determined by a person’s life experience, character, values, and state of mental health. One can observe the dynamics of communicative tolerance - periods of tolerance are replaced by moments of irritation. The fewer unpleasant, unacceptable differences a person finds in a partner, the higher the level of his communicative tolerance, that is, the less often irritation arises about individual differences (Boyko, 1996).

The development of communicative tolerance is influenced by a number of individual characteristics, including: intelligence (principles of decision-making and understanding problems); value orientations (basic ideological ideals); ethical standards (conscience, justice, sense of duty); aesthetic preferences (tastes, likes/dislikes); emotional background (predominant moods of joy or sadness); features of sensory perception of the world (which of the channels of perception - visual, auditory, kinesthetic - is leading); human energy properties; character; habits and needs. The basis of communicative tolerance is the compatibility of partners, their intelligence, character, habits, temperament, etc. (Boyko, 1996).

Understanding tolerance as communicative tolerance in the context of relationships between people is close to the topic we are studying. We especially note that the problem of tolerance is relevant when a person encounters emotionally negative events, interlocutors, and influences. Much attention is paid to the ability to endure to the extent that an emotionally unpleasant person, a difficult emotional situation, is bearable and does not lead to damage. Tolerance in relationships is based on the compatibility of partners and their individual characteristics, for example, value orientations, ethical standards, emotional background, habits, needs.

Tolerance between individuals, with an emphasis on their social groups, religions, and nationalities, is the subject of research in sociology and ethnopsychology. Tolerance is not studied towards an individual or an adverse effect, but towards another group or a person as a representative of a group. In sociology we find the following definition. “Tolerance is tolerance for someone else’s way of life, behavior, customs, feelings, opinions, ideas, beliefs” (Modern..., 1990, p. 350). From the point of view of sociologists, tolerance is usually not a stable characteristic of an individual; it changes depending on the context and situation: you can be tolerant of some religions and aggressive towards other ideas, customs, etc.

Let us dwell in more detail on one of the sociological studies devoted to the analysis of tolerance in adolescence (Evstigneeva, Sobkin, 2003; Age..., 2003). Manifestations of tolerance of adolescents towards representatives of other nations, religions, informal groups (skinheads, punks, metalheads, rappers), etc. were studied. It was revealed that tolerant attitudes are closely related to which group the respondent belongs to. This trend is clearly manifested in the perception of nationalities, religions, and informal groups. Acceptance or rejection of another culture is related to which group the respondent belongs to.

The determining factor in the attitude towards representatives of other religions and non-traditional religions is identifying oneself as a representative of a certain confession or an atheist. For example, Muslims, a religious minority, show the greatest need to protect their own interests and, accordingly, fear of losing their culture. They are quite tolerant of others, but are demanding and tough towards members of their group in following traditions. And the greatest tolerance is shown by those teenagers who do not identify themselves with one religion or another. They do not condemn the behavior or choices of others regarding religious preferences. For them, belonging to a religious denomination does not influence their attitude towards their interlocutor (Evstigneeva, Sobkin, 2003; Age..., 2003).

Those teenagers who belong to informal groups (for example, skinheads, punks, metalheads, rappers) are generally more tolerant of various groups than their peers who are not included in subcultures. But on the other hand, teenagers included in certain groups are much more likely to “get involved” in conflicts based on group affiliation. Belonging to an informal group influences the choice of friends, that is, adolescents prefer to be friends with representatives of their informal group.

The study revealed significant differences in tolerance for boys and girls. For girls, tolerant behavior is more normative. While boys are more prone to intolerant, protective reactions in assessing both their classmates and more distant abstract respondents (for example, representatives of other nationalities visiting Moscow) (Problems of Tolerance..., 2003).

Studies of tolerance by foreign authors show that gender and age have a significant impact on tolerance/intolerance. With age, adolescents become more tolerant of ideas and judgments that differ from their own. Girls tend to be more tolerant than boys in other people's assessments (Killen, Crystal, Watanabe, 2002; Wainrub, Shaw, Maiani, 1998).

Interpersonal communication and tolerance

The purpose of this paragraph is to describe the main trends in interpersonal communication of high school students, thereby identifying the main context for the study of tolerance within the framework of our work. We start from the definition of communication traditionally accepted in social psychology.

V.N. Myasishchev proposed a classification of relations into social (relations between individuals as representatives of social groups, political parties, etc.) and interpersonal (psychological). Communication at the level of social relations is determined by social roles, normatively specified, and associated with the activities of the subject. Communication is the implementation of two types of relationships: social and interpersonal (Andreeva, 1996). Other authors distinguish three levels of communication - interpersonal, intragroup and intergroup (Solovieva, 2002).

Interpersonal relationships usually involve an emotional basis. “Feeling is the basic unit of analysis of interpersonal relationships” (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolypa, 2001, p. 213). Interpersonal communication is carried out using means of speech and non-verbal influence, includes interaction between several people, as a result of which psychological contact arises, relationships between its participants. A small number of participants (2-3) distinguishes interpersonal communication from intergroup, mass communication (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolypa, 2001; Solovyova, 2002).

Experiences, emotions, feelings can strengthen or disrupt relationships, contribute to both their improvement and deterioration. In interpersonal communication, emotions and feelings have their own characteristics. Firstly, they are bilateral in nature, that is, each partner has his own emotions and feelings towards the other, which are not always mutual. For example, one loves, another despises. Secondly, emotions and feelings always have a sign. Thirdly, there are unwritten laws on how to show feelings. Social control of emotions is culturally embedded. For example, a mother should love her children; it is not good to hate a neighbor or colleague (Kunitsyna, Kazarinova, Pogolsha, 2001).

The emotional basis of communication is also reflected in works on tolerance. “The nature of the assessment is directly related to tolerance or intolerance” (Bondyreva, Kolesov, 2003, p. 48). In the work of S.K. Bondyreva, D.V. Kolesov, the emotional attitude towards an object is a criterion for dividing tolerance into natural, constructive, adaptive, and lenient. If our attitude towards our partner is positive and our intentions are positive, then natural tolerance arises. If the attitude towards the partner is negative, then three types of tolerance are possible. Constructive tolerance appears when we have a positive attitude towards the person himself, but are critical of his actions. Adaptive tolerance occurs when we have a negative attitude towards a person, negative intentions towards him, but do not have the strength to implement them (“I’m tired of you”). Condescending tolerance is possible, that is, the actions and the person himself cause negative attitudes, but does not affect us personally (“this is a trifle, nonsense - I don’t want to get into it,” “getting involved is more expensive for yourself”). Condescending tolerance can be of a conventional nature, based on what is acceptable/unacceptable. In some cases, condescending tolerance is a manifestation of unscrupulousness (Bondyreva, Kolesov, 2003).

The emotional state of an individual is a significant factor determining altruistic actions. We briefly touch on the topic of helping behavior, because the very idea of ​​tolerance seems consonant with the readiness to come to the rescue. Among the characteristics of an individual that determine a person’s readiness to help, in the first place, according to D. Myers, are mood and feelings. “When we fall in love, we simply long to do good to everyone” (quoted in Myers, 1997, p. 613). Being in a good positive mood increases people's desire to help. And at the same time, when a person is in a depressed state, he is more able to show empathy and compassion, and to help others (Myers, 1997; Kim, 1984). There is a connection between the tendency to help and sympathy for the one to whom it is provided. The more attractive another individual becomes, the more altruistic acts are performed in relation to him (Gozman, 1987; Hornstein, 1976).

In the works of V. A. Labu, one can find a division of communication into tolerant and intolerant (Labunskaya, 2001; Labunskaya, 2002). Tolerant communication is dialogical, humanistic, personal development communication, which presupposes acceptance and understanding of the interlocutor. Tolerant communication is based on openness, trust, interest, recognition of the value of another individual, respect, equality (Labunskaya, 2002). Tolerant communication is accompanied by trust, acceptance of another culture, opinions, and values. It is trust that makes it possible to “hear another and be heard oneself” (Skripkina, 2001, p. 10). Intolerant communication includes destructive forms of behavior, which are characterized by deindividuation and depersonalization of the system of relationships (Labunskaya, 2001).

Humanistic communication presupposes a high level of moral development of each partner and their responsibility for the results of communication. Moral standards are necessary to ensure that “free” communication does not become “free throwing” of stones at each other; for example, in adolescents, freedom in communication leads to a tendency to “cut the truth” in the eyes (Mailenova, 1995). The ideal of humanistic communication is difficult to achieve, since “it requires maximum awareness of the communication process, and in general a high level of maturity of those communicating” (Mailenova, 1995, p. 66). Tolerance “as a moral principle, which is based on tolerance towards another person and acceptance of him by others, is, on the one hand, a freely accepted line of behavior, and on the other 56 cannot but rely on a person’s awareness of his personal value and his individuality” . Thanks to this awareness, tolerance becomes “not just passive agreement for the sake of consent as such, but a confirmation of the highest value of humanism - respect for the human person” (Mailenova, 1995, p. 103).

In works devoted to humanistic communication and touching on the problems of tolerance, we encounter slightly different understandings of humanistic communication itself. Namely, in the works of V.A. Labunskaya, the focus is on dialogue and trust, while in the works of F.G. Mailenova, the focus is on the value and individuality of the individual. We believe that if communication between partners can be regarded as dialogical and trusting, then issues of tolerance/intolerance are unlikely to arise, since both partners have the opportunity to realize the needs for understanding, sympathy, and empathy. While the problem of tolerance arises when relations between partners are tense, each is aimed at defending personal interests. On the other hand, humanistic communication presupposes that each partner has the opportunity to show his uniqueness, originality, and this is not always compatible with the idea of ​​tolerance, which includes tolerance towards another person. It is sometimes impossible to be free in self-expression and tolerant of your partner at the same time. The problem of comparing tolerance and humanistic communication seems interesting and requires a separate detailed study. We believe that tolerance lies not in the characteristics of communication, but in the dispositions of the subject, that is, communication in itself is not tolerant. An individual can be tolerant/intolerant.

Tolerance/intolerance and their difference from tolerance/intolerance in interpersonal communication of high school students

Description of one’s own behavior in situations of resentment, divergence of intentions such as “I will insist on my own, persuade”; “I won’t do anything again”; “I’ll be offended and leave”; “If I start swearing, I’ll beat you”; “I will argue and shout” was regarded by us as intolerance. High school students express disagreement with their partner’s opinions and actions and defend their own interests and values. Respondents described significantly more manifestations of intolerance (45 in total). All manifestations of intolerance are accompanied by comments on the emotional attitude towards the situation or the interlocutor.

Also, high school students indicate that they are intolerant when: - they didn’t like their interlocutor’s appearance at first sight; - the interlocutor is dangerous, does not support their interests; - think that the other person doesn’t like them; - the interlocutor made you angry with your bad mood; - it is necessary to be tough for educational purposes. Based on the collected answers, it is possible to distinguish between intolerance and intolerance.

Manifestations of intolerance are avoidance of communication, threats, insults, violent defense of one’s point of view while not wanting to hear the other. At the same time, high school students are unanimous that the interlocutor is not interesting, not pleasant, causes anger, irritation, protest, offends and commits provocative actions towards them. Emotions dominate reasoning.

Intolerant is reasoning of the type “I think that it is necessary to convince, to show that the person is wrong (without quarrels)”, which assumes the presence of conscious cognition in communication, when the interlocutor is not liked, causes disagreement; emotions do not have a dominant influence on reasoning and the choice of intolerant behavior.

So, based on behavioral manifestations, we differentiate between tolerance and intolerance. To identify tolerance/intolerance, it is important to understand why a person behaves in one way or another. Lack of awareness and the predominance of emotions leads to intolerance in communication with a partner who is not liked and causes disagreement. We would not regard strong suppression of emotions and lack of opinion as tolerance. Thus, the results of the study on the relationship between tolerance - tolerance, intolerance - intolerance in the interpersonal communication of high school students give us the following final table:

Having considered many theoretical definitions, as well as on the basis of pilot studies, we suggested that in the context of interpersonal relationships, tolerance can be considered as a social attitude with a corresponding three-component structure. Tolerance has three components: 1). tolerant behavior, 2). emotionally negative attitude towards the interlocutor, 3). the presence of a cognitive component (readiness to understand another person).

Intolerance is also an attitude in interpersonal communication, in which we can distinguish: 1). intolerance towards another person, his actions, opinions; 2). in situations where the interlocutor is emotionally unpleasant; 3). the presence of a cognitive component (readiness to understand another person, his opinion, point of view). Let us note that according to the interview responses, high school students are not particularly characterized by aggression or targeted hostility towards others. Behind each of the mentioned conflict situations and manifestations of intolerance there is a reasoned desire to protect one’s own interests, to defend one’s rights and point of view. At the empirical level, the problem of comparing tolerance - tolerance, intolerance - intolerance finds the following response. Tolerance is one of the types of tolerance. Conclusions about tolerance/intolerance can be drawn based on observations of a person, on the basis of his stated attitudes towards others. To identify tolerance/intolerance, it is necessary to understand why a person behaves in one way or another, that he is provoked to commit certain behavioral intentions. When analyzing the psychological literature on the topic, we noticed that tolerance presupposes the acceptance of a different system of views, opinions, and interest in differences, but is this true in the context of interpersonal communication? It is necessary to clarify what the predominant cognitive component of a tolerant attitude in interpersonal communication is.

Based on in-depth interviews, the main criteria were identified, according to which psychological portraits of subgroups of respondents were compiled, and the social situations described by high school students that provoked them to tolerance/intolerance were analyzed. First, let us dwell in more detail on the comparison of individual characteristics and tolerance.

Analysis of the tolerant attitude as a phenomenon in interpersonal communication of high school students

We began our analysis of the results by identifying the possible relationships between the three components of attitude in interpersonal communication in conflict situations. The responses received using the “Completion of Situations” method were analyzed in accordance with the hypotheses of the main study.

Hypothesis No. 2: The more clearly an emotionally positive attitude towards the interlocutor is manifested, the more likely behavioral tolerance is in relations with him; at the same time, the stronger the negative attitude towards the interlocutor, the more likely it is intolerant behavior in communication with him.

An analysis of six situations was carried out: a comparison of assessments on the semantic differential (emotional attitude towards the interlocutor) and choices of behavioral intentions (Appendix No. 4.1). The following trends have been identified. High school students who tend to give high ratings to their interlocutor on the scales of “good”, “safe”, “warm”, “pleasant”, “firm”, “kind”, “happy” are more likely to choose tolerant behavioral intentions. Those who tend to give low ratings are more likely to choose intolerant behavioral intentions. This trend is common across the sample of all respondents, regardless of gender, class, or age. Hypothesis No. 2 was statistically confirmed in our study (p.01). That is, the more clearly an emotionally positive attitude towards the interlocutor is manifested, the more likely behavioral tolerance is in relations with him, while at the same time, the stronger the negative attitude towards the interlocutor, the more likely is intolerant behavior in communication with him.

Hypothesis No. 1: In the interpersonal communication of high school students, tolerance in its structure represents a social attitude, including behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components. It is possible to draw conclusions about tolerance in interpersonal communication if there is tolerance at the behavioral level, a negative attitude towards a partner at the emotional level, and if there is a cognitive component - readiness to understand the other person.

To test this hypothesis, first, a content analysis of high school students’ responses to unfinished sentences corresponding to the cognitive component of the attitude in the “Completing Situations” technique was carried out, then a statistical analysis of the data. In the responses of high school students to specific situations of interpersonal communication, we identified the five most common justifications for the chosen behavior. 1. Conviction that one is right, the choice is based on one’s own desires, moods, interests: “I don’t like”; "Don't want"; "I don't like"; “I have such a character”; “I think I’m right”; "I'm sick of"; “I don’t like it when people argue with me”; “I am an individual with my own tastes and views on life, so I have the right to do things my way” (156 answers). Among the answers there are four descriptions of what one wants to achieve in a situation, the desire to find a benefit, cunning concessions: “I will give in in order to take advantage of something else”; “I will give in to him to prove to him that I am right.” 2. The value of good relationships, the priority of the interlocutor’s opinion, the rationale for the choice of behavior through the prism of the interests of another person: “you can have fun with a friend, no matter where”; “I value my relationship with my friend”; “I don’t want to spoil the mood for myself or my parents”; “we will try to come to a compromise” (118 responses to situations). 3. The choice of behavior through justification by the social norm “should”, “must”: “friends are friends, but parents need help”; “it is necessary to listen to the opinions of elders”; “they are obliged in this situation...”; “a friend shouldn’t act like that”; “she did wrong”; “you can’t do this”; “he has no right”; “this is not fair!” (72 responses). 4. Attributing guilt to the interlocutor, pointing to another person as the source of conflict in a given situation; unwillingness to accept that another person may have his own opinion: “she doesn’t respect me”; “they don’t understand me”; “he is too self-confident” (66 answers). 5. Uncertainty in one’s opinion, lack of one’s own position: “she will do it her way anyway, at least let’s go for a walk”; “why not agree with your friend”; “I don’t care at all”; “I won’t pay attention to this”; “okay, they’re probably right” (33 responses). Next, we compared the three components of social attitude (behavioral, emotional and cognitive) using mathematical statistical methods. Preparing data for statistical processing Having decomposed all the high school students’ answers into five predominant cognitions, we had the opportunity to conduct a statistical analysis of the collected material. Next, we compared three components of social attitude simultaneously (behavioural, emotional and cognitive) using mathematical statistical methods. To mathematically test the assumptions made, we asked: - choices of tolerant/intolerant behavioral intention (for each situation separately and for six situations in total); - total values ​​for the semantic differential, that is, emotional assessments of the interlocutor (for each situation separately and in total for six situations); - the number of occurrences of five cognitive constructs in responses to unfinished sentences. For each respondent, the frequency of occurrence of five constructs was calculated for all six situations simultaneously and for each situation separately. An analysis of the distribution of characteristics was also used in order to highlight which attitudes of interpersonal communication can be called tolerance. The distribution analysis was carried out as follows. 1. The average values ​​of emotional assessments given by respondents were calculated separately for each situation. Based on this, we divided the respondents’ answers into three groups: - high scores on the semantic differential, that is, a high positive assessment was given to the interlocutor; - average emotional attitude towards the interlocutor; - low differential scores - the attitude towards another person is rather negative.

Finally got to the next article. So today we are talking about tolerance.

Tolerance. Accept the imperfections of others.

Those who stand and wait also serve...

John Milton

We in the West are not used to tolerance. When a manager gives us a task, we usually ask: “By what date does the work need to be completed?” The answer is always the same: “Everything should have been done yesterday. Its meaning is absolutely clear - you should not waste time. Everything needs to be done and done quickly. Very often we become impatient with technology, cars and property (turning on the computer, driving a car, buying new clothes).

In our personal lives, we constantly expect instant gratification. Tolerance is one of the seven basic character traits of a loving person. Only a conscious decision to love will allow us to make our world more tolerant.

Tolerance is a skill that will allow a person to be imperfect.

Tolerance manifests itself in different ways in different relationships. But showing tolerance in one area of ​​our lives helps us be tolerant in others.

Let's look at two key factors that contribute to the acquisition of tolerance and its successful application in everyday life.

WORDS OF HOPE.

Tolerance manifests itself in the fact that we perceive others in the same way as we would like to be perceived ourselves. People are not machines, from whom it is natural to expect perfect work results. In the heat of everyday relationships, we forget that all people have different emotions, desires, ideas and perceptions of reality. Every person is capable of making choices. To be tolerant means to love a person even when you do not agree with his choice.

Not everyone agrees with our priorities. We must understand that in any relationship there is always a human factor. This factor must be taken into account when we make any demands on other people. Otherwise, we will remain intolerant people and will begin to show our intolerance in a way that does not in any way contribute to strengthening relations between people.

We are all constantly changing - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. If we understand this process, we can become more tolerant of relatives, colleagues and friends, even if at the moment they are not acting as we would like. If we respect their choices, we are more likely to have a positive influence on them. We shouldn't control other people. You can only influence each other. Tolerance creates an atmosphere in which positive influence is possible.

RECOGNIZE THE POWER OF TOLERANCE

Like any other character trait of a loving person, tolerance changes people. Remember Aesop's fable "The North Wind and the Sun." This ancient fable can easily be attributed to human relationships. Harsh, cruel words only spoil connections with other people and push us to commit actions that are inappropriate for a loving person.

By being intolerant, losing my temper, and making unfair accusations against my wife, Caroline, I become her enemy, not her friend. Caroline's reaction is completely natural: she either fights the enemy or runs from him. As a result of our quarrel, no one wins, both suffer due to the fact that they are moving away from each other - absolutely not the relationship that should exist between spouses. In any case, we lose the potential for positive mutual influence. But when I show tolerance, restrain myself and express my concerns calmly, peacefully, as befits a loving spouse, I am able to maintain our relationship on good terms and have a positive influence on my wife.

Of course, it is much easier to be tolerant of those who are tolerant of us. But by avoiding communication with an intolerant person, we lose the opportunity to realize the power of tolerance. In difficult situations, we understand that tolerance can change a person, but for this we need to truly love him.

When someone behaves intolerantly towards you, use this opportunity to show tolerance.

TOLERANCE IN ACTION

Tolerance is not inaction at all. I have known people who could listen to shouts and insults with a straight face, and then, without saying a word, get up and leave the room. This is not patience, but ordinary inaction. This is egocentrism. A person with a straight face does not want to put himself in the position of his interlocutor.

Tolerance is attention and care for another person. This is a willingness to listen sympathetically, to understand what is happening in the soul of the interlocutor. This process takes time and is itself an act of love. Tolerance is the ability to remain calm when a person says unpleasant things to you. Tolerance says: “I am attentive to you, no matter what you say and no matter what you do. I’ll stay and listen instead of walking away and abandoning you.”

Tolerance is the willingness to accept another person's cold attitude or overly emotional reaction in order to find out the real reason for his dissatisfaction. Tolerance is the ability to continue to listen even when the words of the interlocutor hurt or offend you. You need to show that you understand the feelings of the interlocutor and listen carefully.

When a person is angry, listen carefully. Only then will you be able to understand the reasons for his irritation.

We've all been in situations where we or someone else has created incredible tension by being intolerant and unable to control their own speech. Anger itself has a right to exist. Time after time we get angry for one simple reason: none of us are perfect! Humans experience feelings of pain, anger, disappointment and depression. There is nothing wrong with these emotions. The most important thing is how we react to them. Our harsh, rude, harsh words only make the situation worse. When we show tolerance, we get time to sort out our own feelings.

Tolerance is not at all an obligation to “agree” with your interlocutor on everything in order to avoid a quarrel. Tolerance is the ability to conduct a dialogue that allows you to understand the thoughts, feelings and behavior of another person. We may not like this behavior. But, having figured out what is happening in the soul and mind of the interlocutor, we will be able to respond to his actions more constructively. By learning to listen before speaking, we will find the right, healing words.

There are times when you feel like your anger is justified. But even in this case, you still have a choice. If you show intolerance, it is easy to attack a person with accusations. But he will probably start scolding you, you will quarrel and ruin your evening. And if you express your anger differently, by honestly speaking about your feelings, but at the same time being tolerant of the other’s imperfections and being able to find positive words, then this will save the situation.

Harsh words always create tension. Tolerance calls us to always be guided by love.

In many ways, we value time even more than money. The idea of ​​tolerance goes against a busy work schedule. What if tolerance turns into laziness or leads to missed deadlines? We barely have time to do everything, and what happens if interaction with people becomes slower than it is now? But “patience” does not mean “slowness” or “ineffectiveness.” How to combine tolerance and the need to complete work on time?

Emotions, conflicts and human needs are rarely organized and should not be expected to be so. But it is very important to learn to process them in a positive way. By showing tolerance, we emphasize that human relationships are much more important than schedules and schedules. The amazing thing is that once you put relationships first at home and at work, productivity and quality of work increase dramatically.

You can never rush in relationships with people. This doesn't mean we should put off urgent work in order to talk. We simply must consciously put people above results in our actions and words. Success is not only about achievements, but also about relationships. Every time we show tolerance in a relationship with a person, without giving in to anger or irritation, we better understand the value of our interlocutor.

Tolerance is the wisest and most effective choice one can make.

By loving consciously, we realize the needlessness of haste and can slow down. At such moments we remember human relationships that are dear to us. Investments in human relationships in the future will bring success not only to our spouse, colleague, child, but also to us.

By cultivating tolerance, we increase our chances of success and achievement. By choosing to truly love the world and people, we can focus on what is most important at the moment and wait patiently when necessary.

BE PATIENT WITH YOURSELF

While we learn to be patient with others, we must not forget to be patient with ourselves. We change too, even if it is just a matter of developing the habit of tolerance. Most of us are constantly under stress, and in such conditions we are more prone than ever to intolerance. We become perfectionists: we want to do everything correctly and on time. And when we experience failure, we get angry and begin to mentally scold ourselves: “I can’t believe what I did! How could I be such an idiot? Why didn't I spend more time on this? I was so stupid." Such internal monologue does not contribute to our development. On the contrary, it deprives us of faith in our own strength.

If we want to truly love other people, we must be tolerant of ourselves.

If we are impatient with others, we are likely to be intolerant with ourselves. We set the same high standards for other people as we do for ourselves. Very often these requirements are completely unrealistic.

What to do in such a situation? Do not think that it is necessary to lower your self-esteem criteria. You just need to coordinate your development process. If you are unsatisfied with your job, try to find the good in it and ask yourself, “What can I learn from this experience?” By showing tolerance, we show respect for ourselves and others. We understand that every failure can be a step towards success.

THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING TOLERANCE

Being self-centered creatures, people tend to say and do what seems best for them. The instinct of self-preservation makes us instantly react to the person who hurts us. But every time we show intolerance in relationships with others, we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to show love.

Tolerance distinguishes the good legacy we have left from the bad legacy.

Very often the path to patience begins with acknowledging past failures. I have found that when I apologize to others for my intolerance, they are always willing to forgive me.

By dealing with the burdens of the past, we can destroy past standards of intolerance and replace them with standards of tolerance and love. The only way to get rid of old standards is to expose them. Ask yourself: “How do I most often react when I am angry or disappointed with someone?”

The Bible gives two good pieces of advice:

“If in your arrogance you have done something stupid and thought evil, then put your hand on your mouth; For as churning milk produces butter, and pushing the nose produces blood, so stirring up anger produces quarrels” (Prov. 30:32,33)

Find a way to get rid of old standards formed over the years . When you realize that you are saying something that you shouldn’t, stop. This can even be done literally by covering your mouth with your hand in such situations. Some people count to one hundred, others take a long walk before reacting to a situation, or simply leave the room for a few minutes.

“A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up wrath” (Prov. 15:1)

Replace negative behavior with positive behavior . Even in an irritated state, you need to speak quietly and calmly. Calm speech does not awaken anger in the interlocutor. A small voice makes people listen.

The next step is to realize that intolerance does not help change the situation, and it is not only futile, but also destructive.

The last step to achieving tolerance is ability to concentrate on a solution, not on the problem. Tolerance focuses on the problem, not the person, i.e. on solving problems, and not on conflict with the person himself.

Ulyanova Natalya,

Krasnoyarsk Pedagogical College No. 1

named after M. Gorky, 3rd year

Intolerance and tolerance in the teacher’s verbal communication

Life in society develops in a person the ability and need to serve socially constructive goals. Often these goals are related to solving specific tasks and problems. For example, developmental education prepares citizens to participate in the processes of social, cultural and economic development, while environmental education provides knowledge about threats to nature and encourages behavior aimed at eliminating them. Education should contribute to the achievement of socially constructive goals, ensure social processes based on respect for human rights and democratic principles. Such education is directly aimed at addressing the problem of intolerance, which poses a serious and very significant threat to human rights, democracy and peace.

In modern society, among other universal human values, there is tolerance, considered today as respect and recognition of equality, rejection of domination and violence, recognition of the multidimensionality and diversity of human culture.

Tolerance is an important component of a mature personality, who has her own values ​​and interests and is ready, if necessary, to defend them, but at the same time respects the positions and values ​​of other people.

Thanks to the efforts of UNESCO in recent decades, the concept of “tolerance” has become an international term, the most important keyword in peace issues. In 1995, the UN adopted the “Declaration of Principles of Tolerance,” which reveals the essence of the concept of tolerance as fundamental in human relationships. The Declaration, in particular, states: “Education for tolerance begins with teaching people what their common rights and freedoms are, in order to ensure the exercise of these rights and to strengthen the desire to protect the rights of others” [Declaration 1995: 1]. The problem of fostering tolerance is becoming most relevant these days, when as a result of the intensification of international terrorism, tension in human relations has sharply increased [Lvov 2000: 4]. In many cultures, the concept of “tolerance” is a kind of synonym for “tolerance”. In the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language”, edited, “tolerance” is completely identified with the category “tolerance”. In the Dictionary of Foreign Words and Expressions, this concept is also defined as “tolerance of other people’s opinions, beliefs, behavior, condescension towards something or someone [Krysin 2000: 2].

In different languages, depending on the historical experience of peoples, the concept of tolerance has different semantic shades. In English, “tolerance” is “the willingness and ability to accept a person or thing without protest,” in French it is “respect for the freedom of another, his way of thinking, behavior, political and religious views.” In Chinese, “to be tolerant” means “to allow, allow, be generous towards others”; in Arabic “tolerance” is “forgiveness, forbearance, benevolence, patience, disposition towards others”, in Persian it is “patience, tolerance, endurance, readiness for reconciliation.”

In the Russian language there are two words with a similar meaning - “tolerance” and “tolerance”.

Currently, the problem of developing tolerance is particularly acute. This is explained by a number of reasons: the sharp stratification of world civilization along economic, social, moral, ethical, and other grounds and the associated growth of intolerance and religious extremism; aggravation of interethnic relations caused by local wars, refugee problems, changes in moral paradigms, etc.

The profession of a teacher belongs to professions of “increased speech responsibility”, since the activity of a teacher is embodied in speech and realized through speech [Ladyzhenskaya 1998: 3].

Pedagogical communication creates great opportunities for the manifestation of tolerance. The work of a teacher is creative; there is no strict regulation in it, so a teacher can show a tolerant style in different teaching and learning situations.

Tolerance in a teacher’s speech is a unique system of speech means and methods of pedagogical influence, characteristic of a master teacher and revealing his unique individuality. It reflects the style of pedagogical communication as an individual form of teacher communicative behavior.

Speech tolerance is influenced by the natural properties of the teacher’s personality - temperament, thinking style, abilities - and social properties - skills of verbal expression of thoughts.

Tolerance in speech is an indicator of a high level of pedagogical skill and mastery of professional speech, since the choice of speech means that reveal an individual approach presupposes the teacher’s knowledge of the whole variety of these means and his or her individual rhetorical nature.

Unfortunately, intolerant speech behavior of a teacher is quite common, which is expressed in ridicule, evaluative hints, ironic remarks, and deliberate changes in speech etiquette formulas. Sometimes intolerance in a teacher’s speech can manifest itself in the form of threats, shouting, open insults, and sometimes in the use of reduced vocabulary.

We began to conduct research in the aspect of our topic: “Tolerance and speech culture of a teacher.” Here are a few examples of expressions from future 3rd year student teachers at our college, in and out of class:

§ in a math lesson: “What a fool”;

§ in a history lesson: “It’s in your blood to lie!”;

§ in a Russian language lesson: “Well, why are you lying?”;

§ after lessons: “Some stupid people!”;

§ in a fine arts lesson: “Why are you so upset!?”

In our opinion, these remarks humiliate the dignity of the schoolchild and the student himself, because such an attitude violates all relationships. And we condemn it.

Speech aggression can have the most undesirable and dangerous consequences both for students and the teacher himself, and for the educational process as a whole.

Over many years, our society has formed the speech ideal of a teacher - a system of characteristics of speech behavior that correspond to the humanistic principle and embody the reference model of the teacher’s personality. “Do no harm” - this is the commandment of professional speech behavior of a teacher, which includes the following components:

§ avoid verbosity;

§ be clear about why you entered into the conversation;

§ speak simply, clearly and clearly;

§ avoid monotony of speech;

§ master the basic rules of language culture;

§ be able to find a common language;

§ know how to not only speak, but also listen;

§ follow high standards;

The teacher’s speech behavior should be tolerant, it should evoke respect from the students, because it is a reflection of a socially approved type of behavior, a role model.

Literature.

UNESCO Declaration of Principles of Tolerance dated January 1, 2001. Krysin dictionary of foreign words. M., 2000. Ladyzhensky speech as a means and subject of teaching. M., 1998. Lvov speech theory. M., 2000. Reardon. - the road to peace. M., 2001. Filippov’s teacher’s speech. M., 2001.

Ivanova Alexandra,

Cheremkhovo State Pedagogical College,

3rd year

Lexico-semantic classification of godonyms

Many domestic linguists have dealt with the problems of nomination as a purposeful activity to create new linguistic units. Among them are those who studied the interaction of language and thinking, language and reality, and the choice of features underlying the nomination. Research by other scientists has made a significant contribution to the development of a general model of the nominative process, the very technique of creating nominations, identifying the principles of nomination, analyzing the typology of linguistic nomination, classifying nominative features and methods of nomination.

Back in 1928, a well-known linguist in his work “On the linguistic study of the city” outlined the problem of studying the linguistic appearance of the city, developing a system of concepts and terms for the language of the city and its structure, principles of nominations [I 1997: 189].

Currently, a new discipline, recently separated from microsociolinguistics, linguistic urban studies, is studying changes in the characteristics of language. In the article “Linguistic Urban Studies” he considers “linguistic urban studies” as “an object of philological research that involves turning to the language of the city as a fragment of urban culture, the most important of the subsystems of urban semiotics, which is considered in the context of other semiotic subsystems” [1998: 78].

The language of the city is studied in different aspects: diverse forms of linguistic communication in the city space, various forms of communication in the city are explored and described, texts of the urban environment are analyzed. One of the important problems of linguistic urban studies is the problem of studying the language of the city, associated with the study of texts of the urban environment (toponymy, epigraphy, urbonymy), and the description of the “nominative picture” of the city.

Urbanonyms, whose function is to designate intra-city topographical objects, represent the most mobile part of toponyms, as they reflect not only linguistic changes, but also cultural and ideological trends of their time. Urbanonyms are a set of nominations for urban objects [1988: 21]. The naming of intracity objects is carried out administratively by self-government bodies, therefore urbanonyms are systematic and purposeful in nature. Urbanonyms include godonyms, ergonyms, agorononyms, hydronyms and other groups of nominations.

Achievements in the field of toponymy are currently actively used in the analysis of various types of urban anonymous nominations that make up the texts of the urban environment. Thus, in his work “Russian urban toponymy: Methods of historical and cultural study and creation of computer dictionaries” he emphasizes: “Urban toponyms, remaining monuments of history, language and dialects, culture, historical geography, traditions, way of thinking, etc. of the Russian ethnos , at the same time included in a strong and objective system of historical, cultural and spatiotemporal milestones in the life of Russian cities” [1996: 4].

In our study, we analyze homonymy (names of planar (districts, microdistricts, urban settlements) and linear (streets, alleys, squares, boulevards and driveways) intracity objects). Following, we consider godonymy as “a set of godonyms, as a fact of the linguistic life of a modern city, which represents a constantly changing phenomenon,” and godonymy as “the name of districts, microdistricts, urban villages, streets, alleys, squares, boulevards, avenues and passages” [ 1988: 22].

In this article, we have made an attempt to lexico-semantically classify the godonyms of the collected card index, numbering 200 nominations. The description of godonyms is based on the lexical-semantic classification developed by [1991: 35].

In the structure of Cheremkhovo godonymy, the following groups of linear urbanonyms – godonyms – are distinguished:

1. Agionyms - Godonyms based on a proper name (anthroponym) are the most extensive group of material we collected (34%).

1.1. anthroponyms of historical figures- generals, Decembrists, political figures of the Soviet era, military leaders of the Great Patriotic War, which is 76.7% (Dzerzhinsky St., Kalinin St., Stepan Razin St., Pugachev Lane, Ordzhonikidze St., Marat Lane, etc. );

1.2. anthroponyms of writers, poets, which is 16.8% of the recorded agionims (Belinsky St., Gorky St., D. Bedny St., Dostoevsky St., Yesenin St., Mayakovsky St. and others);

1.3. anthroponyms of famous Russian and foreign composers and artists, which is 6.5% of the recorded agionims (Glinka St., Tchaikovsky St. and others).

In our opinion, this group of godonyms reflects the cultural and historical development of the city of Cheremkhovo and the inclusion of such a large number of anthroponyms shows the importance of perpetuating the memory of people whose activities left a mark on the history of the country, region, and city.

2. Toponyms - lexemes with locative semantics (15.4%).

Toponymy of the region is reflected in the following toponymic godonyms, which are based on astyonyms (city names) (68%), for example, st. Angarskaya, per. Irkutsk, st. Cheremkhovskaya. In addition, the toponymy of the region is reflected in the godonyms, which received their name from komonimov(names of rural objects) – 32%, for example, st. Alarskaya, per. Golumetsky, per. Zabituisky and others.

3. Numerical godonyms(nominations created on the basis of the numerical principle) . In the city’s godonymy, the numeric principle of naming streets is productive (13% of all recorded nominations), for example, the godonym “Gornyatskaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Gornyatskaya St., 2nd Gornyatskaya St., 3rd Gornyatskaya St.), the godonym “Krasnoarmeyskaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Krasnoarmeyskaya St., 2nd Krasnoarmeyskaya St., 3rd Krasnoarmeyskaya St.), the godonym “Nagornaya” was recorded 3 times (1st Nagornaya St., 2nd St. Nagornaya, 3rd Nagornaya st.). A large number of words of professional affiliation indicate the historical construction of the railway in Siberia.

4. Names of symbols of the socialist era, which is 11.8% of all examples of collected material, for example, st. Komsomolskaya, st. Communist, per. October Revolution, trans. Proletarsky, per. Soviet and others.

5. Names of people by profession and occupation, public roles , as well as denoting groups of people who are assessed positively by society - 10% (for example, Bortsov Revolyutsii St., Gornyatskaya St., Zaboishchika St., Kuznechnaya St., Stroiteley St., Shakhterskaya St., Uglekop St. and others).

6. Names describing the terrain(4.2%), for example, st. Kariernaya, st. Lesnaya, st. Sadovaya, per. Bugrovoy, per. Nagorny and others.

7. Names with spatial semantics, make up 3.8% of all recorded nominations. Such nominations include streets that are named according to the cardinal directions (Verkhnyaya Zaozernaya St., Western St., Yuzhnaya St. and others).

8. Godonyms containing a mention of any materials, which is 3.8% of all recorded nominations (Grafitnaya St., Rudnichny Lane, Ugolny Lane, Khrustalny Lane, Slyudyanoy Lane and others).

9. Godonyms containing coloratives(words with a color meaning) make up 2% of the recorded nominations, for example, lane. Svetly, st. Green, st. Red and others.

10. Emotional and characteristic names(2%), for example, st. Friendship, st. Svobody, st. Yubileynaya and others.

Thus, these nominations are extremely interesting both in terms of reflecting the social, ethnic, cultural-historical and linguistic processes that have taken place and are taking place in the city, and in themselves, i.e. their consideration in the urbonymic system will allow us to better understand the main trends in development and determine the patterns of nomination principles. The identification of lexical-semantic types of godonyms revealed some features of the classification of godonyms of the city of Cheremkhovo. In our classification, there is a predominance of godonyms containing anthroponyms (34%), which is explained by the importance for a person of perpetuating the names of historical figures, writers, poets, artists. The vast majority of godonyms reflect some features of urban objects, different spheres of human life, the worldview of the subject of the nomination and the real natural conditions of the territory.

Literature:

1. “Russian urban toponymy: Methods of historical and cultural study and creation of computer dictionaries, M. - 1996.

2. , Rozanova clothes of Moscow//Russian speech.-1994. - No. 3.

3. On the linguistic study of the city // I Research of the Russian language and general linguistics. – M.: Education, 1977.

5. Podolsk Russian onomastic terminology. – 2nd edition. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – 192 p.

6. Podberezkina urban studies (on the prospects for studying the linguistic appearance of Krasnoyarsk) // Theoretical and applied aspects of speech communication: Scientific method. Bulletin-Krasnoyarsk University, 1998.- issue. 6.

7. Shmeleva godonymy: semantics and semiotics. Linguistic local history. Perm: Publishing house PGPI, 1991.

8. Shmeleva city. Spatial landmarks: M. Development - Krasnoyarsk: Krasnoyarsk University, 1990.

Volkova Marina,

KSPU named after. , 3rd year

Linguistic sign as a reflection of speech and thinking

activity of the subject

The desire to study language from the point of view of a linguistic sign determines the current state of linguistic research, developing the ideas of the linguistic philosophy of V. von Humboldt, de Courtenen, who paid attention to the close relationship of linguistic characteristics with the processes of higher nervous activity of individuals.

Based on this, we can say that a word consists of segments (signs) that have their own content. A linguistic sign is the main component of a word, and, therefore, of language. Since language is a system of phonetic, word-formation, lexical and syntactic means that are a tool for expressing thoughts, feelings, expressions of will, serving as the most important means of communication between people (LES), and a sign is a further indivisible, indecomposable unit of language, then a linguistic sign is the minimum element of linguistic thinking.

If a sign is isolated in a word known to the subject, then it may have the basic characteristics of a morpheme (the presence of semantics, reproducibility, independence and materiality). However, in different words it can be expressed differently, remaining minimal and indivisible. The identification of a sign depends on the speech-mental activity of the individual (subject), on the images and associations that arose as a result of it.

“Since sounding linguistic signs are really existing physical objects, in our minds they are reflected in the form of the same images as the images of any other objects that can be generalized and abstracted.” When encountering an unknown word, our consciousness puts together a certain sound-letter complex (linguistic sign), images and associations arise, on the basis of which variants of meaning appear and the main one, most suitable for the given context, is selected.

Considering a word as a sign, we decided to find out how significant the subject’s verbal and mental activity is in determining the meaning of an unknown word.

For this purpose, an experiment was conducted: students were offered a word (bigeminy), the meaning of which they did not know. Next, they were asked to write down and make an assumption about its lexical meaning.

Inferred meanings driven by specific associations were identified. Thus, 28% of respondents associated the concept of bigeminy with a disease or medical term, 16% - with science, 16% - with running or activities related to running, the same number of informants answered that bigeminy is the name of a plant or the science of plants, 8% were undecided answer, and 16% indicated other meanings.

These options were: bigeminy - “something incomprehensible, associated with abra-kadabra”, “something terrible, disgusting”, “a type of polysemy”, “something related to size”, “an artistic device, a type of metaphor”, “a female hippopotamus, or female cub."

It is necessary to note not only the different definitions of meaning, but also the different spelling. Opinions about writing E or I in the first syllable were equally divided, but in the second syllable, 58% of students preferred the letter I; 62% wrote bigeMiNia, 38% - bigeNiMia.

Exact meaning of the word bigeminy- this is “(from bi... and lat. geminus - double, paired) type of cardiac arrhythmia, in which each normal heartbeat is followed by an extrasystole.”

Connection with the name of the disease. Students determined the meaning of a word based on the subjectivity of the language, i.e., they put meaning into this concept by correlating certain sign units of the word with sign paronyms of other words. So, for example, the final –niya, - niya in bigeminy correlated with semantic matches (quasimorphemes) in the names of some diseases (anemia, leukemia, schizophrenia, dystonia). Sign bi - found paronyms in English words bi- g [bi-g], be- gin [bi-gin], as well as –min- correlated with English. verb mean, which means “to designate.”

E/I in 1 syllable		E/I in 2nd syllable		MiNiya/NiMiya
begeminia		bigIminia		bigeMiNia
bigenymy		bigEminia		bigenymy

Reason for writing	explanation
Nimiya, - miniya, - niya	Anemia, leukemia, schizophrenia, dystonia, angina pectoris
	· from English big – “big”; something serious, life-threatening, i.e. illness · from English begin – “the beginning” of something serious; mean (English) – “to designate”
	“something to do with meningitis”

Mechanism for determining the value bigeminy How name of plant or plant science same. But, as the analysis shows, it played a certain role indexical sign(a sign that is related by contiguity to an object, without being similar to it, and causes associations to arise with it).

E/I in 1 syllable		E/I in 2nd syllable		MiNiya/NiMiya
begeminia		bigIminia		bigeMiNia
bigenymy		bigEminia		bigenymy

Reason for writing	Example
	Begonia, geranium
	Dieffenbachia, okra, gardenia
Unusual sound	Monstera, tradescantia, chlorophytum

Indexical signs be-, ge- gave associations associated with the names of colors – be persecution and ge early. This explains the spelling E in the first two syllables (75%).

At the same time, the unusual sound reminded me of the names of other plants that were difficult to remember (Monstera, Tradescantia, Chlorophytum).

As is known, the subject writes part of a word after the brain finds the corresponding homonymous part in another word, i.e., selects a test word. In our experiment, for example, 100% of respondents who noted connection between bigeminy and movement or running, written in the first syllable E, comparing bigeminy with words with a root -run-. Also 100% wrote - MiNiya, which gives reason to believe about a brain-selected homonym from English. mean. That is, literally “meaning running.”

E/I in 1 syllable		E/I in 2nd syllable		MiNiya/NiMiya
begeminia		bigIminia		bigeMiNia
bigenymy		bigEminia		bigenymy

Reason for writing	explanation
Root run-	Running, running
Roots run- And - min-	Mean (English) – to designate, i.e. “denoting running”
-min-	"running through a minefield"

When determining bigeminy like science Opinions about the spelling of word parts were equally divided. Apparently, semantic matches were found in such names of sciences as x- name, anato- mia, zoologist- and I, geometrician and I, epistemologist- and I.

Psychology of communication and interpersonal relationships Ilyin Evgeniy Pavlovich

4.5. Tolerance

4.5. Tolerance

In psychology tolerance(lat. tolerance - tolerance) - this is tolerance, condescension towards someone or something. This is an attitude toward a liberal, respectful attitude and acceptance (understanding) of the behavior, beliefs, national and other traditions and values ​​of other people that differ from one’s own. Tolerance helps prevent conflicts and establish mutual understanding between people.

Communicative tolerance is a characteristic of a person’s attitude towards people, showing the degree to which she can tolerate unpleasant or unacceptable, in her opinion, mental states, qualities and actions of interaction partners.

V.V. Boyko (1996) identifies the following types of communicative tolerance:

situational communicative tolerance: it manifests itself in the relationship of a given individual to a specific person; a low level of this tolerance is manifested in statements like: “I can’t stand this person,” “He annoys me,” “Everything about him outrages me,” etc.;

typological communicative tolerance: manifests itself in relation to a certain type of person or a certain group of people (representatives of a certain race, nationality, social class);

professional communication tolerance: manifests itself in the process of carrying out professional activities (tolerance of a doctor or nurse to the whims of patients, among service workers - to clients, etc.);

general communication tolerance: this is a tendency of attitude towards people in general, determined by character traits, moral principles, and level of mental health; general communicative tolerance affects other types of communicative tolerance, which are discussed above.

Tolerance is formed through education.

This text is an introductory fragment.

Nowadays, intolerance in society has reached great intensity. We see this everywhere: in events happening in the world, the media, social networks, disputes, discussions. Tolerance and tolerance are synonyms. Do you need to be tolerant of what seems unacceptable to you and what may lead to it?

What is tolerance?

- this is not persecuting people whose thoughts and actions do not coincide with yours and cause you disapproval. If you consciously decide not to persecute those people whose manifestations are alien to you, you can be called a tolerant person.

Important note! Tolerance does not require recognizing other people's behavior as positive and acceptable. It only means that you tolerate a person, group of people or phenomenon as a necessary evil. But tolerance does not mean indifference to breaking the law and crimes!

Tolerance is a non-aggressive attitude towards other people's views, beliefs, lifestyle, behavior. You give other people the right to live according to their ideas (not yours). Let’s say you don’t approve of same-sex love, you don’t like the fact that Muslim women wear long dresses and headscarves, you don’t like men squatting - but you are tolerant of this and do not persecute these people.

At the same time, you are not at all obliged to adopt an alien way of life and should not follow them. Being tolerant does not mean allowing someone to impose their beliefs on you. Both parties must respect each other's boundaries and not violate them.

Tolerance is a necessary condition for life in modern society, when people of different nations, religions, and customs live nearby. Tolerance indicates that society is confident in itself, in the reliability of its moral and spiritual foundations. It is aware of its strength and cohesion, so it is not afraid of comparison with other points of view and is not afraid of competition.

A mature, strong society respects other cultures, ways of life, ways of thinking and expressing itself. At the same time, tolerance does not mean concessions and condescension to social injustice, as well as imposing one’s way of thinking and behavior on other people.

Lack of tolerance: a danger to society

There are areas of life that especially often cause clashes of opinions and manifestations of intolerance. These are religious and political views, sexual orientation, characteristics of different races and nationalities, gender relations, perceptions of people with disabilities, etc.

What does a lack of tolerance for other people's religious, ideological and political views lead to? It always leads to terrible wars, religious and political purges and other cruelties. Hundreds of millions of people become victims. There have been a huge number of examples of this in history.
How does this happen? First, intolerance is inflated in society, brainwashing occurs. There is one step from whipping up hatred to the conflagration of war.

Diversity of opinions: how to deal with intolerance?

What should be the limits of tolerance? Should I be patient? For example, some groups of the population hate the rich and destroy their mansions, while other groups of citizens hate people of other nationalities, persecute them and beat them? How should we approach this - should we show tolerance for such intolerance?

Scientists believe that society must protect itself from such manifestations of intolerance. Tolerance is good as long as it does not pose a threat to the established order and the very existence of society.

How is this going in Russia?

In Russia, the attitude to this issue is determined by the Constitution. It prohibits manifestations of racism and racial discrimination, as well as actions aimed at inciting national and racial hatred, humiliation of national dignity, propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens based on their nationality or race. Such acts may result in civil or criminal liability.

The ideal of tolerance

The only religion that actually practices tolerance is Buddhism. He does not impose his teachings on those who have not yet reached spiritual maturity. According to this philosophy, the student must come to the teacher on his own; his own spiritual quest must lead him there.
Therefore, in Buddhism there is no missionary activity at all, as is the case in other religions. No one will push books that advertise religious views into your hands, invite you to meetings, convince you of the correctness of your religious views, etc.

We are convinced that we must respect the faith of others. They do not accept the forced dissemination of teachings. Moreover, in this religion they calmly treat schismatics and do not persecute them. Therefore, they have different interpretations of the teaching (in the end they still agree on one thing). Therefore, Buddhism has a huge number of followers not only in the Eastern but also in the Western world.

Critical attitude

The Russian Orthodox Church has a difficult attitude to the concept of tolerance. The clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church have many times expressed the idea that they are concerned about moral indifference, indifference to certain vices, religious truth, and to the values ​​that have been formed in the country for centuries. Some priests are ready to show intolerance towards them; they actively oppose tolerance lessons in schools.

In turn, authoritative public figures criticize the position of the Russian Orthodox Church. They say: “If society does not learn to understand that people can look different, eat different food, organize their lives and families differently, we will constantly be in a state of the most terrible war - not only social, but also war in soul."

In Western countries, schools teach lessons about tolerance. They teach children to look at phenomena from different points of view. For example, a student must make a judgment, prove and argue for it. Then he must take the opposite point of view and also prove and argue for it. Thus, children are taught to understand that in any clash of opinions, a middle path can be found, an optimal compromise solution that suits both sides. This understanding prevents inflexibility of thinking and ultimately works for peaceful coexistence.