Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Sociological and psychological models of communication: possibilities and restrictions of application in intercultural interaction research at the borderlands

138
8
Article(UKR)(.pdf)

Paper considers the process of theoretical conceptualization of sociological and psychological models of communication as a substantial scientific basis for sociological study of intercultural interaction of adolescent borderland youth. This analysis highlights the dynamics and key semantic milestones of the formation process of intercultural communication in modern interpretation. This research traces the transformation of ideas about structural elements of intercultural communication models, their functions and tasks. Author analyses the genesis of ideas about the elements of models of intercultural communication with the needs and features of a specific period of their emergence and development. The vector of the dynamics of intercultural communication interpretation has been determined considering the peculiarities of the present: from its technocratic to interactionist vision. Emphasis is placed on the common and distinct communication models of G. Lasswell, Shannon-Weaver, T. Newcomb, Osgood-Schramm, J. Gerbner, Westley-MacLean, D. Berlo, M. de Fleur, and G. Melatzke Melatzke in the context of the logic of transformation, a shift can be made in the understanding of the communication process from a linear to a cyclic interpretation. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of communication barriers, conceptualized in the models of aforementioned authors within the concept of “noise”. This research places emphasis on the importance and relevance of the feedback factor in communication processes, especially in the context of intercultural interaction. Understanding the role of the personality structure of the sender and the recipient of the communication in the processes of communicative interaction, reveals its significance. Furthermore, this study analyzes culturally determined factors of pressure and restrictions caused by the public nature of the communication processes. The approaches to explaining the essence of communication in the plane of its scientific interpretations are distinguished: structural and procedural. It is emphasized that structural models are focused, first of all, on the analysis of the constituent elements of communication, whereas procedural models mainly describe the dynamics of communication, the processes of meaning transformation within the limits of communicative interaction. It is concluded that the most suitable models of intercultural communication that can be applied in the analysis of intercultural interaction of adolescent borderland youth are M. de Fleur model and G. Melatzke model.

  1. Maksymovych, O.V. (2017). Value Orientations and Social Status Aspirations of Frontier Teenagers in Eastern and Central Europe in terms of Economic Strategy of Carpathian Euroregion Development. In Contemporary Socio-Economic Issues of Polish-Ukrainian Cross-Border Cooperation: Abstracts (pp. 59-60). Warsaw: Center of European Project.

  2. Maksymovych, O.V. (2018). Value Orientations and Social Status Aspirations of Frontier Teenagers in Eastern and Central Europe. Warsaw East European Review, VIII, 219-237.

  3. Maksymovych, O.V. (2018). Identities of Adolescents of the Precarpathian Region in terms of Cross-Cultural Communication of Borderland Area of Central and Eastern Europe (based on the Survey of Students of General Secondary Educational Institutions). Habitus, 7, 54-59. URL: http://habitus.od.ua/journals/2018/7-2018/12.pdf [in Ukrainian]

  4. Sokurianska, L.G., Maksymovych, O.V.  (2019). Intercultural communication in terms of Central and Eastern Europe Adolescents’ Value Orientations Constructing Factor (based on International Survey Results). Science and Education a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences, VII (32), I, 192, 99-104 [in Ukrainian]

  5. Batsevych, F.S. (2007). Dictionary of Intercultural Communication Terms. Kyiv: Dovira [in Ukrainian]

  6. Pocheptsov, H. (2001). Communication Theory. Moscow: Refl-buk [in Russian]

  7. Lasswell, H.D. (1948). The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. URL: http://marketing-course.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Lasswell.pdf

  8. Shannon, C.E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Reprinted with corrections from The Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423, 623-656. URL: http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

  9. Newcomb, T.M. (1953). An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts. Psychological Review, 60 (6), 393-404.

  10. Schramm, W. The Nature of Communication between Humans. URL: http://marketing-course.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/schramm.pdf

  11. Gerbner’s General Model. Communication Theory.  URL: https://www.communicationtheory.org/gerbners-general-model/

  12. Westley Bruce, H., MacLean Malcolm, Jr. A Conceptual Model for Communications Research. URL: http://marketing-course.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Journalism-Quarterly-1957-Westley-31-8.pdf

  13. Arniel Ping. (2016). Introduction to Media and Information Literacy (Part 1). Communication, Communication Models, Media Literacy, Information Literacy, Technology (Digital) Literacy, and MIL.  URL: https://www.slideshare.net/arnielping/media-and-information-literacy-communication

  14. Berlo’s SMCR Model of Communication. (2018). Businesstopia. URL: https://www.businesstopia.net/communication/berlo-model-communication

  15. Melvin, L. De Fleur, Ball-Rokeach, S. (1970). Theories of Mass Communication: 2nd ed. New York: McKay.

  16. Dr. Melvin L. De Fleur Distinguished Lectures Series. URL: http://sites.bu.edu/crc/crc-lecture-series/

  17. De Fleur Model of Communication (2018). Businesstopia.  URL: https://www.businesstopia.net/communication/de-fleur-model-communication

  18. Maletzke, G. (1963). Psychologie der Massen Kommunikation: Theorie und Systematik. Hamburg: Verlag Hans Bredow-Institut [in German]

  19. Maletzke, G. (1996). Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Zur Interaktion zwischen Menschen verschiedener Kulturen. Opladen: Westdeutsher Verlag GmbH [in German]

  20. Korneva, L.I. (2004). Intercultural Competence in Terms of Successful Professional Work of Russian Managers. Vestnik UHTU-UPY, 10, 54-61. URL: http://elar.urfu.ru/bitstream/10995/54658/1/vestnik_2004_5_007.pdf [in Russian]

  21. Fawkes, J. (2007).  Public relations models and persuasion ethics: A new approach. Journal of Communication Management, 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540710843922

  22. Mynyn, A. Maletzke’s Model of Communication. URL: http://marketing-course.ru/maletzke-model/ [in Russian]

Full text