COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF KINESIC COMPONENTS OF ROMANTIC COMMUNICATION IN RUSSIAN, ENGLISH AND SPANISH LINGUISTIC CULTURES BASED ON LITERARY TEXTS

Download PDF

Abstract. The paper aims to identify universal and nationally specific kinesic components of romantic discourse by the example of the Russian, English and Spanish linguo-cultures. The article reveals the content of the notion “romantic discourse“ and shows that in the Russian, English and Spanish linguocultures romantic communication is characterized by the use of kinesic means, such as gestures and bodily movements. The relevance of the research topic is due to globalization processes and the rapid establishment of contacts between Russia, Great Britain and Spain, which, in turn, brings these linguistic cultures closer together and makes it necessary to study them in more depth in order to understand the peculiarities of the representation of kinesics in the course of interpersonal communication. The scientific originality of the study lies in the fact that the author identifies the difference in romantic communication strategies used by the Russian, English and Spanish linguo-culture bearers. The conclusion is made that kinesic components play a special role in romantic communication of the Russian, English and Spanish linguisticculture bearers.

The question of the similarity and divergence of the kinetic components in romantic communication in the Russian, English and Spanish linguocultures remains controversial and is of significant interest for specialists in the field of linguistics and cultural linguistics, as well as for representatives of business spheres, whose activities are in one way or another connected with Russia, Great Britain and Spain, for a better understanding of the meaning and use of kinetic components in a communicative aspect. To achieve this research goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks: first, to consider the romantic discourse; second, describe the characteristics of romantic discourse; thirdly, to carry out a comparative analysis of the use of kinesic components in romantic communication in Russian, English and Spanish linguocultures. The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the comparative analysis of the kinesic components in romantic communication in the Russian, English and Spanish linguocultures carried out in the article can be used in the scientific environment to clarify the issues of similarities and differences between Russian, English and Spanish linguistic cultures. It can also contribute to the development of productive collaboration between linguists and cultural linguists.

Keywords: kinesics, romantic discourse, romantic communication, linguoculture, non-verbal means of communication

Alina S. Zagrebelnaya

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Moscow, Russia
e-mail: zagrlina@gmail.com ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8356-225X

Ahern S. 2004. P.S. I love you. URL: https://avidreaders.ru/book/p-s- ya-lyublyu-tebya.html [Accessed 29 December 2020].
Bart R. 1999. Fragments of a lover’s speech. Moscow, Ad Marginem, 431 pp.

Deyk T. A. van. 1989. Tongue. Cognition. Communication: Sat. works / per. from English; comp. V. V. Petrov; ed. V.I. Gerasimov; entry Art. Yu.N. Karaulova, V.V. Petrova. Moscow: Progress, 312 pp. Dictionary of the Russian language: in 4 volumes. 1999. 3 volume. Ed. A.P. Evgenieva. Moscow: Rus. lang.; Polygraphs, 702 pp.

Gorelov I.N. 1991. Silent thought sign: stories about non-verbal communication. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 240 pp.
Karasik V. I. 2002. Linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Change, 477 pp.

Kauri L. 2017. Cinderella of our yard. URL: https://avidreaders.ru/ book/zolushki-nashego-dvora.html [Accessed 29 December 2020]. Kotelevskaya E.I. 2019. Romantic discourse as a kind of interpersonal communication. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/romanticheskiy- diskurs-kak-raznovidnost-mezhlichnostnoy-kommunikatsii [Accessed 29 December 2020].

Kravchenko A. V. 2003. What is communication? (Essay on the biocognitive philosophy of language). In: Direct and indirect communication: collection of articles. Saratov: College, p. 37-43. Marquez G.G. 1985. Love during the plague. URL: https://avidreaders.ru/book/lyubov-vo-vremya-chumy.html [Accessed 29 December 2020].

Martine A. 1979. Preface. In: Weinreich U. Language contacts. Kiev: Vishcha school, p. 18-21.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 1828. URL: https://www.merriam- webster.com [Accessed 29 December 2020].

Morris D. 2002. People watching: a guide to body language. London: Vintage, 136 pp.
Nugumanova L.A. 2013. Non-verbal communication in television communication, 2013, URL: https://www.science-education.ru/ru/ article/view?id=11818 [Accessed 29 December 2020].

Renz T.G. 2011. Romantic communication in the communicative- semiotic aspect: monograph. Volgograd: VolGU, 392 pp.
Text and discourse: traditional and cognitive-functional aspects of research: collection of articles. 2002. Еd. L. A. Manerko. Ryazan: Ryazan State Pedagogical University named after S. A. Yesenin, 236 pp. WordReference.com 1999. URL: https://www.wordreference.com [Accessed 29 December 2020].

Radchenko O. A. & Vetrinskaya V. V. 2017. Gender literature: How much is it underpinned by authors’ private lives? Training, Language and Culture 1(4): 56-67. Doi: 10.29366/2017tlc.1.4.4