Метою стаття є аналіз вербальних та невербальних реакцій адресата як віддзеркалення розуміння, нерозуміння чи непорозуміння між співрозмовниками. Дослідження зосереджене на реакціях адресата з точки зору їх структурних, семантичних та комунікативно-прагматичних особливостей.
При цитуванні документа, використовуйте посилання http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/34791Целью статьи является анализ вербальных и невербальных реакций адресата как отражение понимания, непонимания, недопонимания между собеседниками. Исследование сосредоточено на реакциях адресата с точки зрения их структурных, семантических и коммуникативно-прагматических особенностей.
При цитировании документа, используйте ссылку http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/34791The aim of this article is to analyze verbal and non-verbal addressee’s responses as a reflection of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between interlocutors. The research focuses on addressee’s responses in the aspect of their structural, semantic, communicative and pragmatic peculiarities as a result of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators in business discourse. The results of the research show that the interplay of presuppositions manifests itself in a phenomenon that the mismatch of presuppositions of one type entails the mismatch at a higher level: the mismatch of syntactical presuppositions hinders understanding and the mismatch of semantic presuppositions mostly often relates to communicators’ personal sphere.
When you are citing the document, use the following link http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/3479

Yemelianova, Olena Valerianivna

Емельянова, Елена Валериановна

Ємельянова, Олена Валеріанівна

SocioEconomic Challenges Journal (Sumy State University)

TO THE QUESTION OF COMMUNICATORS’ INTERPRETATIONAL 
ACTIVITY
Olena Yemelyanova, candidate of philological sciences
(Sumy, Ukraine)
Philology
Abstract
The  aim  of  this  article  is  to  analyze  verbal  and  non-verbal  addressee’s 
responses as a reflection of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding 
between interlocutors. The research focuses on addressee’s responses in the aspect of 
their structural, semantic, communicative and pragmatic peculiarities as a result of 
understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators in 
business  discourse.  The  results  of  the  research  show  that  the  interplay  of 
presuppositions  manifests  itself  in  a  phenomenon  that  the  mismatch  of 
presuppositions of one type entails the mismatch at a higher level: the mismatch of 
syntactical  presuppositions  hinders  understanding  and  the  mismatch  of  semantic 
presuppositions mostly often relates to communicators’ personal sphere.
Keywords: communicative  failure,  presuppositions,  understanding,  non-
comprehension, misunderstanding.
I. Introduction
The modern stage of linguistics development is characterized by both integral 
and differential processes. It is relevant for the linguistic researches of the late 20th 
and  early  21st century  to  accentuate  attention  on  efficacy  of  anthropocentrism 
principle  that  represents  the  general  tendency  of  modern  linguistic  noesis  – 
movement from the area of systems to their centre – the person. As O.O. Selivanova 
points out, turning to a person as to the producer of language and knowledge, fixed in 
verbal and  symbolic results of human activity – in texts, linguistics escaped from 
monologicality  and engaged in dialogue with other  branches  of  science,  applying 
them for cognition of its own object [6: 6].
The  essence  of  the  interpretational  school  researches  is  that  the  same 
interpretational mechanism serving various types of linguistic activity forms the basis 
of language proficiency. The main notion of the theory is the definition of the term 
interpretation meaning,  according to K.A. Dolonin,  explanation,  disclosure of the 
meaning [4: 5].
II. The aim of the research
The  aim  of  this  article  is  to  analyze  verbal  and  non-verbal  addressee’s 
responses as a reflection of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding 
between interlocutors. The object of the article is addressee’s responses in business 
discourse.  The subject  of  this research is structural,  semantic,  communicative and 
pragmatic peculiarities of addressee’s verbal and non-verbal responses as a result of 
understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators.
Communication as a purposeful process, activity one of the means of which is 
language and sign cohesive form of organization is the text [6: 32], in any of its types 
allows for an addresser and an addressee. Study of the addressee factor is connected 
with the problem of adequate understanding of the speech situation, with modeling of 
the communication of understanding [1: 90].
III. Results
According to  V.Z.  Dem’yankov’s  point  of  view,  the  definition  of  the  term 
understanding comprises the set of auxiliary characteristics which are called by the 
scientist  “modules  of  understanding”  [2:  58].  Nine  modules  of  understanding are 
allocated. The first  one is the use of lingual knowledge. In the framework of this 
module language defines understanding and is its prerequisite.  The second module is 
construction verification of hypothetical interpretations. Understanding as the process 
of origination of expectations (hypotheses) as far as the further course of events being 
interpreted, comprises in understanding the procedure of hypotheses verification or 
rejection. The third module is the “digestion” of what is being said. The scientist 
distinguishes such characteristics of this module of understanding as the degree of 
realism (or, visa versa, fantasy) of the interpretation, probability, the contrast between 
interpreter’s  model  and  inner  world,  interpretation  “stress  field”,  activity  of 
understanding. The forth module defines the aim, intentions and motivation of the 
utterance. The interpretation of the aim is possible in two aspects:  a) establishing 
what is meant by the utterance; b) discernment of the speaker’s strategic plan. The 
fifth module is an awareness of model and inner world nonidentity. (The inner world 
is understood as a fragment or instantaneous cut of inner life. The model world is as 
if being added to an interpreter’s inner life and sometimes exists parallel to his/her 
further  inner  life  or  sometimes  completely  excludes  it.)  The  content  of  the  sixth 
module  is  the  relation  inside  the  model  and  inner  worlds,  which  are  understood 
differently in interpretation. Correlation of the model world and stock of knowledge 
about the objective world is the content of the seventh module. Interpretation leads to 
constant  changes  in  interpreter’s  informative  fund.  The  eighth  module  correlates 
interpretation with the interpreter’s line of conduct. The ninth module is connected to 
the choice of understanding ‘tonality’. An interpreter should always select a ‘key’ for 
understanding to ensure its unity and integrity [2: 58-64].
Perceiving the utterance, an addressee refers its designation content with what 
he/she knows (or thinks that knows about the referential situation, verifies addresser’s 
statement about the referential situation being guided not only by what he knows, but 
also  what  is  possible  and  probable,  according  to  his/her  point  of  view.  As  the 
knowledge  of  different  people  about  the  same  phenomenon  varies,  not  just  the 
transfer  of  information  from  one  person  to  another  occurs  but  much  more 
complicated  process,  as  an  addresser’s  significatum  differs  greatly  from  an 
addressee’s significatum that, in its turn, leads to understanding, non-comprehension 
or misunderstanding between communicators.
Misunderstanding  and  miscomprehension  correlate  with  the  concept  of 
communicative failure. O.N. Yermakova and Ye.A. Zemskaya define communicative 
failure  as  a  complete  or  partial  misunderstanding of  an utterance by a  partner  of 
communication  that  is  a  speaker’s  communicative  intention  failure  [5]. 
Communicative failures are classified according to different grounds: lingual, socio-
cultural  and  psychosocial.  One  of  the  basic  factors  which  predetermines  the 
occurrence  of  communicative  failures  is  the  mismatch  of  communicators’ 
presuppositions  that  is  reflected  in  contradiction  of  interlocutors’  communicative 
expectations.
Misunderstanding which is caused by the breach of perception of speech flow 
and  leads  to  communicative  halting:  asking  again,  clarification  e.g.,  attests  the 
mismatch of syntactic presuppositions.
For example:
The phone rang a little after eleven p.m. …
“Bette,  listen  to  me.  I  don’t  know  why  I  didn’t  think  of  this  earlier,  I’m 
positively idiotic for not seeing the potential, but tell me, darling, what did you think  
of  Kelly?”
“Who’s Kelly?”
“The woman you sat next to at Charlie’s dinner at Elaine’s. So, what do you  
think?”
“I don’t know, she seems really nice. Why?”
“Why? Darling, you are positively brain-dead these days. What do you think  
about working for Kelly?”
“Huh? Who’s working for Kelly? I’m so confused.” (9 :57)
Communication on the phone which is contact in time and distant in space has 
its  specificity.  Lack  of  visual  perception  of  a  partner,  sign-mime  data  reception, 
various distractions, communicative noise can easily cause communicative failures. 
As suggested by Ye.A. Selivanova, communicative noise occurs in the area being 
either because of semiotic abnormality of the text in universe or in communicators’ 
spheres of consciousness as a result of divergence of mental lexicon, thesauri or as a 
result of insufficient or incorrect text program of interpretation [6: 147]. Syntactic 
presuppositions  regulate  syntactic  coherence  of  the  dialogical  speech,  as  only  an 
utterance  grammatically  and  syntactically  linked  to  the  preceding  one  may  be 
appropriate in the context. 
Misunderstanding which could be caused by  discordance of communicators’ 
knowledge  fund  regarding  the  referential  situation  characterizes  the  mismatch  of 
semantic presuppositions. 
For example: 
…“Who is it?” I asked, leaning in conspiratorially. I didn’t really care, but  
thought I should.
“Not ‘who’, ‘what’!” she practically scream-whispered. She hadn’t yet moved 
her eyes from the woman.
“What?” I asked, still clueless.
“What do you mean, ‘what’? Are you kidding? Do you not see it? Do you need  
glasses?” I thought she was mocking me, but she reached into her tote bag and  
pulled out a pair of wire-rims. “Here, put these on and check that out.”
I continued to stare, clueless, until Elisa leaned in closer and said, “Look. At.  
Her. Bag. Just try and tell me it’s not the most gorgeous thing you’ve ever seen.”… 
“Ohmigod, I can barely stand it, it’s so amazing. It’s the crocodile Birkin. Rarest of  
them all.”
“A what?” I  asked.  I  briefly  considered pretending to  know what  she was  
talking about, but it felt like too much effort at that point in the day….
“You really don’t know, do you?”
I shook my head. (9 :65-66)
Any dialogue takes place  within the context which changes constantly. This 
context may be imperfect (when communicators’ presuppositions are not congruent) 
or nondefective [3: 36].  An aforecited conversation is a vivid example of a defective 
dialogue  that  leads  to  a  communicative  failure.  Semantic  presuppositions  are 
responsible for notional, logical coherence of the dialogue and their mismatch can 
cause misunderstanding or miscomprehension. 
Misunderstanding  caused  by  the  disparity  of  knowledge  about  the 
communicative situation reveals the mismatch of pragmatic presuppositions. Sharing 
N.I. Formanovskaya’s point of view, we understand a communicative situation as a 
complex  set  of   external  conditions  of  communication  and communicators’  inner 
states presented in an utterance or discourse [7: 42].
For example: 
“Oh yeah, and I’ve also sorted the gifts,” Lisa accused. Was she the only one 
who did any work around here? “As each guest leaves, we’ll present them with a 
bottle of wee.”
“A bottle of what?” Ashling was weary and perplexed – if this was Lisa’s idea 
of joke, it was an extremely poor one.
“Wee. A bottle of wee.”
“You are going to give a thousand of Ireland’s movers and shakers a bottle of  
wee?” She didn’t have the energy to laugh. “That’s an awful lot of wee. Where are 
you going to get it? Do we all have to make a contribution?”
Open-mouthed, Lisa surveyed Ashling. “From Lancôme, of course.”
… “That’s very decent of them.” What was Lisa on about?
“It’s only the fifty-ml bottle.” Lisa persisted with her parallel-universe chat.  
But it looks big enough, no? She held up a little bottle of Oui.
“Oh,” Ashling breathed in enlightenment. “You mean Oui!”
“Yeah, wee. Why, what did you think I said?” (8: 424)
IV. Conclusions
The  interplay  of  presuppositions  manifests  itself  in  a  phenomenon  that  the 
mismatch of presuppositions of one type entails the mismatch at a higher level: the 
mismatch of syntactical presuppositions hinders understanding and the mismatch of 
semantic presuppositions mostly often relates to communicators’ personal sphere.
The analysis of addressee’s responses from the point of view of balance or 
imbalance of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic presuppositions is valid and needs 
further research.
References
1. Белова А.Д. Лингвистические аспекты аргументации. – К.: Киевск. ун-т им. 
Т.Шевченко, 1997. – 310с.
2. Демьянков В.В. Понимание как интерпретирующая деятельность // Вопросы 
языкознания, 1983. № 6. С.58–67.
3.  Демьянков  В.В.  Тайна  диалога:  (Введение)  //  Диалог:  Теоретические 
проблемы и методы исследования. – М.: ИНИОН РАН, 1992. С.10–44.
4. Долинин К.А. Интерпретация текста: Французский язык: Учебное пособие. 
Изд. 4-е. – М.: КомКнига, 2010. – 304 с.
5.  Ермакова  Е.Н.,  Земская  Е.А.  К  построению типологии  коммуникативных 
неудач  //  Русский  язык  в  его  функционировании.  Коммуникативно-
прагматический аспект. – М.: Наука, 1993. – С. 30 – 64.
6. Селиванова Е.А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации. 
Монографическое учебное пособие. – К.: Фитосоциоцентр, 2002. – 336с.
7.  Формановская  Н.И.  Речевое  общение:  коммуникативно-прагматический 
подход. – М.: Рус.яз., 2002. – 216с.
8. Keyes M. Sushi for beginners. – L.: Penguin Books, 2001. – 564 p.
9. Weisberger L. Everyone worth knowing. – L.: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2005. – 
369 p.
Yemelyanova,  O.V.To  the  question  of  communicators’  interpretational  activity 
/O.V.Yemelyanova// Moderni vymozenosti vedy (27 January - 5 February 2013). Dil 
43.  Filologicke  vedy: materialy  IX  mezinarodni  vedecko-practika  conference.  - 
Praha: Publishing House “Education and Science”, 2013. – P. 71-75.


English

To the question of communicators’ interpretational activity

Electronic Sumy State University Institutional Repository

TO THE QUESTION OF COMMUNICATORS’ INTERPRETATIONAL ACTIVITYOlena Yemelyanova, candidate of philological sciences(Sumy, Ukraine)PhilologyAbstractThe  aim  of  this  article  is  to  analyze  verbal  and  non-verbal  addressee’s responses as a reflection of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between interlocutors. The research focuses on addressee’s responses in the aspect of their structural, semantic, communicative and pragmatic peculiarities as a result of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators in business  discourse.  The  results  of  the  research  show  that  the  interplay  of presuppositions  manifests  itself  in  a  phenomenon  that  the  mismatch  of presuppositions of one type entails the mismatch at a higher level: the mismatch of syntactical  presuppositions  hinders  understanding  and  the  mismatch  of  semantic presuppositions mostly often relates to communicators’ personal sphere.Keywords: communicative  failure,  presuppositions,  understanding,  non-comprehension, misunderstanding.I. IntroductionThe modern stage of linguistics development is characterized by both integral and differential processes. It is relevant for the linguistic researches of the late 20th and  early  21st century  to  accentuate  attention  on  efficacy  of  anthropocentrism principle  that  represents  the  general  tendency  of  modern  linguistic  noesis  – movement from the area of systems to their centre – the person. As O.O. Selivanova points out, turning to a person as to the producer of language and knowledge, fixed in verbal and  symbolic results of human activity – in texts, linguistics escaped from monologicality  and engaged in dialogue with other  branches  of  science,  applying them for cognition of its own object [6: 6].The  essence  of  the  interpretational  school  researches  is  that  the  same interpretational mechanism serving various types of linguistic activity forms the basis of language proficiency. The main notion of the theory is the definition of the term interpretation meaning,  according to K.A. Dolonin,  explanation,  disclosure of the meaning [4: 5].II. The aim of the researchThe  aim  of  this  article  is  to  analyze  verbal  and  non-verbal  addressee’s responses as a reflection of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between interlocutors. The object of the article is addressee’s responses in business discourse.  The subject  of  this research is structural,  semantic,  communicative and pragmatic peculiarities of addressee’s verbal and non-verbal responses as a result of understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators.Communication as a purposeful process, activity one of the means of which is language and sign cohesive form of organization is the text [6: 32], in any of its types allows for an addresser and an addressee. Study of the addressee factor is connected with the problem of adequate understanding of the speech situation, with modeling of the communication of understanding [1: 90].III. ResultsAccording to  V.Z.  Dem’yankov’s  point  of  view,  the  definition  of  the  term understanding comprises the set of auxiliary characteristics which are called by the scientist  “modules  of  understanding”  [2:  58].  Nine  modules  of  understanding are allocated. The first  one is the use of lingual knowledge. In the framework of this module language defines understanding and is its prerequisite.  The second module is construction verification of hypothetical interpretations. Understanding as the process of origination of expectations (hypotheses) as far as the further course of events being interpreted, comprises in understanding the procedure of hypotheses verification or rejection. The third module is the “digestion” of what is being said. The scientist distinguishes such characteristics of this module of understanding as the degree of realism (or, visa versa, fantasy) of the interpretation, probability, the contrast between interpreter’s  model  and  inner  world,  interpretation  “stress  field”,  activity  of understanding. The forth module defines the aim, intentions and motivation of the utterance. The interpretation of the aim is possible in two aspects:  a) establishing what is meant by the utterance; b) discernment of the speaker’s strategic plan. The fifth module is an awareness of model and inner world nonidentity. (The inner world is understood as a fragment or instantaneous cut of inner life. The model world is as if being added to an interpreter’s inner life and sometimes exists parallel to his/her further  inner  life  or  sometimes  completely  excludes  it.)  The  content  of  the  sixth module  is  the  relation  inside  the  model  and  inner  worlds,  which  are  understood differently in interpretation. Correlation of the model world and stock of knowledge about the objective world is the content of the seventh module. Interpretation leads to constant  changes  in  interpreter’s  informative  fund.  The  eighth  module  correlates interpretation with the interpreter’s line of conduct. The ninth module is connected to the choice of understanding ‘tonality’. An interpreter should always select a ‘key’ for understanding to ensure its unity and integrity [2: 58-64].Perceiving the utterance, an addressee refers its designation content with what he/she knows (or thinks that knows about the referential situation, verifies addresser’s statement about the referential situation being guided not only by what he knows, but also  what  is  possible  and  probable,  according  to  his/her  point  of  view.  As  the knowledge  of  different  people  about  the  same  phenomenon  varies,  not  just  the transfer  of  information  from  one  person  to  another  occurs  but  much  more complicated  process,  as  an  addresser’s  significatum  differs  greatly  from  an addressee’s significatum that, in its turn, leads to understanding, non-comprehension or misunderstanding between communicators.Misunderstanding  and  miscomprehension  correlate  with  the  concept  of communicative failure. O.N. Yermakova and Ye.A. Zemskaya define communicative failure  as  a  complete  or  partial  misunderstanding of  an utterance by a  partner  of communication  that  is  a  speaker’s  communicative  intention  failure  [5]. Communicative failures are classified according to different grounds: lingual, socio-cultural  and  psychosocial.  One  of  the  basic  factors  which  predetermines  the occurrence  of  communicative  failures  is  the  mismatch  of  communicators’ presuppositions  that  is  reflected  in  contradiction  of  interlocutors’  communicative expectations.Misunderstanding which is caused by the breach of perception of speech flow and  leads  to  communicative  halting:  asking  again,  clarification  e.g.,  attests  the mismatch of syntactic presuppositions.For example:The phone rang a little after eleven p.m. …“Bette,  listen  to  me.  I  don’t  know  why  I  didn’t  think  of  this  earlier,  I’m positively idiotic for not seeing the potential, but tell me, darling, what did you think  of  Kelly?”“Who’s Kelly?”“The woman you sat next to at Charlie’s dinner at Elaine’s. So, what do you  think?”“I don’t know, she seems really nice. Why?”“Why? Darling, you are positively brain-dead these days. What do you think  about working for Kelly?”“Huh? Who’s working for Kelly? I’m so confused.” (9 :57)Communication on the phone which is contact in time and distant in space has its  specificity.  Lack  of  visual  perception  of  a  partner,  sign-mime  data  reception, various distractions, communicative noise can easily cause communicative failures. As suggested by Ye.A. Selivanova, communicative noise occurs in the area being either because of semiotic abnormality of the text in universe or in communicators’ spheres of consciousness as a result of divergence of mental lexicon, thesauri or as a result of insufficient or incorrect text program of interpretation [6: 147]. Syntactic presuppositions  regulate  syntactic  coherence  of  the  dialogical  speech,  as  only  an utterance  grammatically  and  syntactically  linked  to  the  preceding  one  may  be appropriate in the context. Misunderstanding which could be caused by  discordance of communicators’ knowledge  fund  regarding  the  referential  situation  characterizes  the  mismatch  of semantic presuppositions. For example: …“Who is it?” I asked, leaning in conspiratorially. I didn’t really care, but  thought I should.“Not ‘who’, ‘what’!” she practically scream-whispered. She hadn’t yet moved her eyes from the woman.“What?” I asked, still clueless.“What do you mean, ‘what’? Are you kidding? Do you not see it? Do you need  glasses?” I thought she was mocking me, but she reached into her tote bag and  pulled out a pair of wire-rims. “Here, put these on and check that out.”I continued to stare, clueless, until Elisa leaned in closer and said, “Look. At.  Her. Bag. Just try and tell me it’s not the most gorgeous thing you’ve ever seen.”… “Ohmigod, I can barely stand it, it’s so amazing. It’s the crocodile Birkin. Rarest of  them all.”“A what?” I  asked.  I  briefly  considered pretending to  know what  she was  talking about, but it felt like too much effort at that point in the day….“You really don’t know, do you?”I shook my head. (9 :65-66)Any dialogue takes place  within the context which changes constantly. This context may be imperfect (when communicators’ presuppositions are not congruent) or nondefective [3: 36].  An aforecited conversation is a vivid example of a defective dialogue  that  leads  to  a  communicative  failure.  Semantic  presuppositions  are responsible for notional, logical coherence of the dialogue and their mismatch can cause misunderstanding or miscomprehension. Misunderstanding  caused  by  the  disparity  of  knowledge  about  the communicative situation reveals the mismatch of pragmatic presuppositions. Sharing N.I. Formanovskaya’s point of view, we understand a communicative situation as a complex  set  of   external  conditions  of  communication  and communicators’  inner states presented in an utterance or discourse [7: 42].For example: “Oh yeah, and I’ve also sorted the gifts,” Lisa accused. Was she the only one who did any work around here? “As each guest leaves, we’ll present them with a bottle of wee.”“A bottle of what?” Ashling was weary and perplexed – if this was Lisa’s idea of joke, it was an extremely poor one.“Wee. A bottle of wee.”“You are going to give a thousand of Ireland’s movers and shakers a bottle of  wee?” She didn’t have the energy to laugh. “That’s an awful lot of wee. Where are you going to get it? Do we all have to make a contribution?”Open-mouthed, Lisa surveyed Ashling. “From Lancôme, of course.”… “That’s very decent of them.” What was Lisa on about?“It’s only the fifty-ml bottle.” Lisa persisted with her parallel-universe chat.  But it looks big enough, no? She held up a little bottle of Oui.“Oh,” Ashling breathed in enlightenment. “You mean Oui!”“Yeah, wee. Why, what did you think I said?” (8: 424)IV. ConclusionsThe  interplay  of  presuppositions  manifests  itself  in  a  phenomenon  that  the mismatch of presuppositions of one type entails the mismatch at a higher level: the mismatch of syntactical presuppositions hinders understanding and the mismatch of semantic presuppositions mostly often relates to communicators’ personal sphere.The analysis of addressee’s responses from the point of view of balance or imbalance of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic presuppositions is valid and needs further research.References1. Белова А.Д. Лингвистические аспекты аргументации. – К.: Киевск. ун-т им. Т.Шевченко, 1997. – 310с.2. Демьянков В.В. Понимание как интерпретирующая деятельность // Вопросы языкознания, 1983. № 6. С.58–67.3.  Демьянков  В.В.  Тайна  диалога:  (Введение)  //  Диалог:  Теоретические проблемы и методы исследования. – М.: ИНИОН РАН, 1992. С.10–44.4. Долинин К.А. Интерпретация текста: Французский язык: Учебное пособие. Изд. 4-е. – М.: КомКнига, 2010. – 304 с.5.  Ермакова  Е.Н.,  Земская  Е.А.  К  построению типологии  коммуникативных неудач  //  Русский  язык  в  его  функционировании.  Коммуникативно-прагматический аспект. – М.: Наука, 1993. – С. 30 – 64.6. Селиванова Е.А. Основы лингвистической теории текста и коммуникации. Монографическое учебное пособие. – К.: Фитосоциоцентр, 2002. – 336с.7.  Формановская  Н.И.  Речевое  общение:  коммуникативно-прагматический подход. – М.: Рус.яз., 2002. – 216с.8. Keyes M. Sushi for beginners. – L.: Penguin Books, 2001. – 564 p.9. Weisberger L. Everyone worth knowing. – L.: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2005. – 369 p.Yemelyanova,  O.V.To  the  question  of  communicators’  interpretational  activity /O.V.Yemelyanova// Moderni vymozenosti vedy (27 January - 5 February 2013). Dil 43.  Filologicke  vedy: materialy  IX  mezinarodni  vedecko-practika  conference.  - Praha: Publishing House “Education and Science”, 2013. – P. 71-75.

https://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/34791/5/Yemelyanovacommunicator.pdf

To the question of communicators’ interpretational activity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SocioEconomic Challenges Journal (Sumy State University)

Electronic Sumy State University Institutional Repository