Қытай Халық Республикасында инклюзивтік білім беру

М.А.Куратченко 
64 
Вестник Карагандинского университета 
References 
1  Foucault of M. Istoriya of madness during a classical era, Moscow: Smysl, 1998, 310 p.; Its Birth of clinic: Archeology of a 
medical look, Moscow: AST, 2010, 710 p.  
2  Kuratchenko M.A. Bulletin of the Altai academy of economy and right, 2014, to vyp. 1 (33), p. 108–112. 
3  Lugovoiy K.V. The Ethnographic review, 2003, 6, p. 57–69. 
4  Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Oriental studies in-t; executive editor M.V.Kryukov, Moscow: Nauka, 1987, 470 p. 
5  Ageyeva N.Yu. Society and the state in China: XXXLII scientific conference: To the 100 anniversary since birth L. I. 
Dumang / Ying t of oriental studies; compiler and executive editor S.I.Blyumkhen, Moscow: Wost. lit, 2007, p. 193–199. 
6  Ancient Chinese philosophy. Meeting of texts / Academy of Sciences of the USSR, philosophy in-t; compiler Jan Hinshun,  
Moscow: Thought, 1973, vol. 2, p. 99–141. 
7  Tāngshèngqīn zhǔbiān: «Tèshū jiàoyù gàilùn — pǔtōng bānjí zhōng yǒu tèshū jiàoyù xūyào de xuéshēng», shànghǎi jiàoyù 
chūbǎn shè 1998 niánbǎn, dì 51 yè (Universality of vocational education — students with special educational needs in usual groups / 
editions. Thane Shengqin, Shanghai, 1998, 51 p.) 
8  Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, Beijing: 2001, 115 p. 
9  Global education: the international scientific and practical conference, Shanghai: 2008, p. 59–65). 
10  Zhōnghuá rénmín gònghéguó xiànfǎ (The Constitution of the PRC), [ER]. Access mode: 
http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2004/content_62714.htm 
11  Guānyú shíshī tèshū jiàoyù de ruògān wèntí de yìjiàn (1986 nián 9 yuè) (Opinion on some questions of realization of voca-
tional education), [ER]. Access mode: http://www.moe.gov.cn/HLFtiDemo/search.jsp?dd=3 
12  Guānyú kāizhǎn cánjí értóng shàonián suí bān jiùdú gōngzuò de shìxíng bànfǎ 1994 nian (About ways of implementation of 
development of small children with limited opportunities (1994), [ER]. Access mode: 
http://www.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_163/200408/1515.html 
 
 
 
 
 
UDC 811.161.1’27.;81.111’27 
I.N.Martynova  
I.Ya.Yakovlev The Chuvash State Pedagogical University, Cheboksary, Russia 
(E-mail: irinamartynova08@mail.ru) 
The communicative hindrances arising in the course of communication between 
representatives of Russian speaking and English speaking linguistic cultures,  
and training in ways of their overcoming 
The article in question represents the results of a practical research of various categories of communicative 
obstacles and barriers which occur in the process of intercultural communication between representatives of 
the English speaking and Russian speaking linguistic cultures. The results are contrasted and compared, ex-
plained and analyzed with the description of their cultural specifics and also their possible reasons. In conclu-
sion various ways and methods of overcoming communicative barriers in the process of intercultural commu-
nication are explained that can be used in teaching foreign languages to secondary school and university stu-
dents.  
Key words: Intercultural communication, intercultural understanding, communicators, communicative barri-
ers, communicative situation, English speaking and Russian speaking cultures, non-verbal communication, 
tolerance, cultural background, stereotypes. 
 
In the present day world the issues of intercultural communication have become of a special importance 
due to the broadened contacts among people from different countries. 
Communication as an exchange of information is possible only when its participants use the same 
methods of information encoding. But knowledge of lexical units is not always enough as a result of various 
reasons, among them social, political and age peculiarities.  
If such peculiarities are not observed social and psychological communicative barriers might occur. So-
cial barriers appear when there is no unanimous understanding of a communicative situation due to differ-
ences between partners. Psychological communicative barriers result from individual psychological features 
of communicators or psychological relations between them. 

The communicative hindrances arising… 
Серия «Педагогика». № 4(76)/2014 
65 
The problem of communicative barriers has been researched for several decades and its detailed studies 
were completed by V.G.Zinchenko, O.A.Leontovich, S.G.Ter-Minasova, E.Hall [1–4].  
I.A.Feshkina stresses that obstacles in intercultural communication are caused by different mentalities, 
behavior, perception and evaluation of reality among representatives of diverse social and ethnic groups. She 
points that obstacles which cannot be eliminated at once are called communicative barriers [5; 143].  
V.M.Shepel highlights six main communicative barriers: 
 discomfort in the surroundings were communication occurs; 
 preoccupation with issues different from points of conversation; 
 aversion to thoughts and stereotypes of tohers; 
 language barrier; 
 professional antipathy; 
 rejection of a communicator’s image [6; 61]. 
F.I.Sharkov classifies communicative barriers into technical, psychological, psychophysical, social and 
national [7; 248]. S.P.Bobrova and E.L.Smirnova write about geographical, historical, political, institutional, 
economical, technical, terminological, linguistic, psychological and resonance barriers [8; 41]. 
Our research was aimed at identification of various communicative barriers which occur during inter-
cultural interactions between representatives of the English speaking and Russian speaking cultures and 
highlighting the main strategies of their elimination. The subjective approach was employed as a research 
strategy while analyzing how instances of intercultural communication got reflected in the minds of the re-
search participants with the stress on interpersonal interaction.  
The study was based on interviewing 80 people aged 18–30 from Russia, the USA and Great Britain 
who already had some experience of intercultural communication which had occurred both in their native 
countries and abroad. Russian participants were 40 students of the Chuvash State Pedagogical University 
who had taken part in exchange programs in the USA and Great Britain. Among the foreign participants 
were 30 people from the USA and Great Britain who had previously communicated with Russians.  
The investigation included a survey which was conducted in March 2014 and analysis of its results. 
Questions of the survey corresponded to various barriers that exist due to the differences between in the lan-
guage and non-verbal systems and also between diverse linguistic views of the world.  
The questionnaire for the speaker of English was as follows: 
1. 
Have you ever communicated with a person whose native language is Russian? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
2. 
Did you have any linguistic problems with understanding them? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
c. It depends 
3. 
If you did, what was the main obstacle? (You may choose several options) 
a. Phonetical errors in their speech 
b. Lexical errors in their speech 
c. Grammatical errors in their speech 
d. Mishearing  
e. Wrong understanding of the meaning of some words 
f. Violation of the logic of the whole speech 
g. (your variant) _____________________________ 
4. 
What was the main psychological obstacle? (You may choose several options) 
a. Unexpected reaction of the interlocutor; 
b. Excessive emotionality of the interlocutor; 
c. Too high/low self-esteem; 
d. Disrespect to you; 
e. Violation of physical borders of your «private space»; 
f. Well-known Russians’ «unsmiling»; 
g. (your variant)_______________________________ 
5. 
What was the main cultural obstacle? (You may choose several options) 
a. Differences in Russian and American mentalities; 

I.N.Martynova 
66 
Вестник Карагандинского университета 
b. Differences in perception of space and time; 
c. Stereotypes about Russians; 
d. Differences in value priorities; 
e. Differences in presupposition and background knowledge; 
f. Differences in understanding humor and  jokes; 
g. Not using politically correct words or euphemisms (an innocuous word or expression used in the 
place of one that may be found offensive or suggest smth unpleasant); 
g. (your variant)_______________________________ 
6. 
Which stereotypes about Russians seem to be true? (Please write the answer below)Why? 
7. 
Which stereotypes about Russians appeared to be false?  
8.
 What is the best thing when talking to a Russian? 
9.
 What is the most difficult thing when communicating to a Russian? 
10.
 Your age  
Analysis of the responses concerning the problems in communication and their influence on its success 
provided an informative interpretation of linguistic barriers which occur between speakers of English and 
Russian. Moreover, content analysis enabled to obtain certain data on the number of instances when the 
‘problem zones’ were mentioned and their representation in the minds of the respondents.  
Out of 80 respondents 69 people faced linguistic barriers in communication during their first contact 
with foreigners. Reasons of these barriers were of different nature. Nevertheless it should be stressed that in 
the majority of cases variations in styles of verbal communication didn’t hamper intercultural interactions. 
The most typical reaction was adaptation of a respondent to a new linguistic situation, tolerance to unknown 
stylistic features of speech. 
The respondents stress that they had experienced more serious problems with intercultural communica-
tion due to semantic barriers. Interaction with representatives of other cultures displayed differences in cog-
nitive schemes which in some instances can result in misunderstanding between communicators. Peculiari-
ties of phonetics, morphology, vocabulary and syntax of the languages cause difficulties in translation and 
reproduction of exchanged utterances.  
Having analyzed the results of the survey we distributed them according to the categories of verbal bar-
riers and tried to determine which category was the most problematic for the speakers.  
At the phonetic level difficulties mainly occurred because the respondents were not able to decipher 
some sounds and pronounce them correctly or to pronounce and interpret prosodic characteristics of speech. 
For example the respondents mentioned difficulties in understanding foreign accents and slang as they can 
differ greatly from Standard English or RP used in textbooks. Most of the speakers felt certain uneasiness 
when needed to check back or repeat their questions.  
The respondents, however, had almost no problems on the graphical level. Some of them pointed that 
had had difficulties with reading and understanding graphic abbreviations as it usually requires some back-
ground cultural knowledge. Intercultural barriers also occurred when non-native speakers created their own 
abbreviations which didn’t actually coincide with the existing ones. English-speaking respondents had prob-
lems with the Russian italics. They stress that such way of writing made it especially difficult for them to 
comprehend written texts and messages.  
Native speakers of English as well had lots of problems with the Russian morphology. American re-
spondents pointed at a great number of root morphemes and affixes in the Russian language which can be 
easily mixed up.  
The biggest number of communicative barriers happened on the lexical level. Most of the Russian 
speaking respondents pointed at communicative problems which happened due to the poor/not good 
knowledge of the English vocabulary. They felt uneasy and depressed being afraid of misunderstanding.  
The respondents stress specific features of oral communication in direct and indirect styles. They differ 
form each other in the way the express speakers’ intentions in speech acts. In the indirect style such inten-
tions are not demonstrated overtly. When the direct style is used messages reflect real goals, needs and wish-
es of a speaker. These stylistic differences are most noticeable when Russian and English verbal communica-
tive styles are compared, the latter characterized by a greater degree of honesty and openness.  
The American respondents mention that when Russians politely answer ‘Yes, yes’ they only demon-
strate their polite attitude, not their understanding, which hampers evaluation of the possible degree of mis-
understanding. 

The communicative hindrances arising… 
Серия «Педагогика». № 4(76)/2014 
67 
The survey also brought to light distinctions between English and Russian in personal and contextual 
styles. They employ language structures which stress either an individual or his role or status in different 
ways. English in traditionally oriented towards an individual. Equality of partners and symmetrical distribu-
tion of power in a communicative situation in stressed by the use of the pronoun ‘you’ when addressing any 
person. Contextually or status oriented style underlines the importance of formal relations which are charac-
terized by asymmetrical distribution of power. In this case language structures reflect hierarchic social order.  
For example, Russian respondents note that in Russia the distance between students and professors is 
quite big, while in England she felt no communicative barriers whole talking to teachers because she used 
just one pronoun ‘you’ to address them.  
Describing the semantic barriers which the respondents came across during intercultural communication 
we should say that they fall under five main categories.  
The first category comprises the situations when culture-specific terms were used in communication. 
This barrier was mostly mentioned by the American participants who tried to explain American realia to 
Russians. The second group consists of words which have different scopes of meaning in English and in 
Russian like the word ‘credit’. In the third group are verbal expressions which can be interpreted ambivalent-
ly in different cultures. The respondents mentioned the expression ‘to have some coffee’. For Americans it 
means to go to a café and have a talk, while Russians treat it more directly as an offer to drink coffee. Barri-
ers determined by shades of meaning are in group four. The survey highlighted certain difficulties that the 
Russian respondents had with the word ‘clever’ not considering its negative connotations. Finally a great lot 
of semantic barriers are connected with the use of dialectal, slang and idiomatic expressions. Several Russian 
respondents experienced lack of personal fulfillment caused by the poor knowledge of spoken idiomatic 
English. Though they know the language well enough for effective communication, they felt they could have 
conveyed their ideas better if they had mastered not only bookish expressions and phrases. 
Some respondents, mostly those for whom it was the first experience of intercultural communication, 
pointed at incongruity of verbal communication in the Russian speaking and the English speaking cultures. 
In such situations tolerance of communicating partners, their power of observation and readiness to follow 
the standards helped to avoid problematic situations.  
Analysis of the problems caused by differences in language systems mentioned in the survey proves 
that they produce certain problems for intercultural communication. As A.P.Zabrovsky states, any language 
reflects mental schemes, models of reality perception and experience of exploring the world, which are ac-
cumulated in culture [9; 89]. The biggest number of the barriers mentioned were the lexical ones. As it is 
shown on diagram 1, 82 % of the respondents named them while describing the most difficult situations they 
had to face. In the majority of cases these differences caused surprise, seemed strange and unusual. Under 
some circumstances they became barriers which hampered understanding between partners.  
D i a g r a m   1  
 
 
Non-verbal communication plays an important role in the process of intercultural communication 
though its symbols can have different meanings for communicators. Its incongruity may influence effective-
ness of interaction. The results of the survey were analyzed to find out which non-verbal communicative bar-
rier posed the most serious problems for the speakers.  
Meaning of many symbols in Russian and English cultures are in opposition to each other. It reflects in 
paralinguistic characteristics, body language and context of communication. Most of the English speaking 
62
11
24
82
41
30
29
78
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Russian 
respondents, 
%

I.N.Martynova 
68 
Вестник Карагандинского университета 
respondents noted that they had problems with their personal space which speakers of Russian were eager to 
intrude. American respondents also stress that they gesticulate actively while speaking.  
Meanwhile despite the clear differences in non-verbal behavior of communicators representing different 
cultures non-verbal barriers are not perceived as seriously hampering intercultural communication. Non-
verbal distinctions when met for the first time were reasons for surprise and anxiety, slight shock. They 
seemed strange and unusual. However the partners got used to them in the process of communication and 
even began reproducing them. It can also be explained by the speakers’ tolerance to unusual behavior of their 
partners and understanding the role of non-verbal symbols in intercultural communication.  
The survey indicated that the greatest number of non-verbal communicative barriers occurred because 
of sensorial perception of representatives of other cultures. Diagram 2 shows the percentage of non-verbal 
barriers noted by the respondents. The English speaking respondents felt discomfort mostly due to intrusions 
into their personal spaces (61 %) or lack of communicator’s response (48 %).  
D i a g r a m   2  
 
 
On the whole we can say that the total number of non-verbal barriers was less than the number of verbal 
barriers in communication between speakers of Russian and English.  
Another factor which creates barriers for intercultural communication is stereotypes. Specific features 
of national and ethnical consciousness of people from the English speaking and Russian speaking cultures 
may become obstacles for intercultural interaction. 
According to A.P. Pavlovskaya, one can stress the following aspects of consciousness: 
1. tendency towards ethnocentrism when representatives of other cultures are estimated negatively as 
compared to the native culture of speakers; 
2. stereotypization of ethnic consciousness which is revealed in formation of  simplified images of rep-
resentatives of the native and other cultures; 
3. prejudice as a result of selective inclusions of sensorial perception or negative experiences from the 
past into intercultural contacts, etc. [10; 74] 
These phenomena are of a special importance as they pose a potential threat at the initial stage of inter-
cultural communication when there is no complete information about the partners. Expectation of greater 
differences in communication with representatives of other cultures as compared with the native culture re-
sults in limitation of contacts with the ‘others’. Being shielded from the new information people only enforce 
their prejudices and lose the ability to realize falseness of some stereotypes.  
Almost all the respondents pointed that stereotypes about other cultures influenced the process of inter-
cultural communication. Only 7 people denied this fact as a result of their skeptical attitude to stereotypes 
and a broad experience of intercultural interactions. 
Stereotypes of the English speaking respondents about Russians are of a special interest. They say that 
Russians are usually described as ‘crazy guys and like mafia ppl. With blowing up things!’, ‘are blunt and 
straight to the point in conversations’, ‘A lot of people think Russians are mean or aggressive but most of 
these people have never even met one’, ‘False is how they are big and mean!’. Meanwhile all the British and 
American respondents stress that in real life Russians turn out to be not like this. Most of them consider Rus-
sians to be smart and friendly.  
24
18
43
61
48
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Russian 
respondents
, %

The communicative hindrances arising… 
Серия «Педагогика». № 4(76)/2014 
69 
Diagram 3 presents the percentage ratio of the English and Russian speaking respondents about stereo-
types. 12 % of the speakers of English suppose that stereotypes make it easier to comprehend the Russian 
culture, while 88 % are sure that stereotypes hamper the correct evaluation of a communicator. More speak-
ers of Russian (27 %) think that stereotypes are positive for intercultural communication.  
D i a g r a m   3  
 
 
Barriers in intercultural communication gave way to the following aspects of cognitive schemes: 
1. Stereotypes about Russia existing in the consciousness of people from other cultures. Russian re-
spondents were slightly shocked by the negative image of Russia in the minds of Americans and Britons. 
One of the respondents didn’t like a lot the fact that many stereotypes were applied to him a Russian though 
soon he managed to convince his partners that the stereotypes were not true. 
Almost all the respondents who faced heterostereotypes as simplified images of Russian and Russians 
were displeased with it and tried to change such images and views. 
English speaking respondents noted that they were not surprised to hear stereotypes about themselves 
and they, as well as Russians, tried to show that stereotypes can’t be trusted.  
2. Stereotypes in the minds of the Russian participants as simplified images of representatives of other 
cultures (British or American) which were formed under the influence of other Russians, literature, mass 
media, own past experience.  
It is important to notice that during intercultural communication the degree of changes of the initial ste-
reotypical images varied from one respondent to the other. It depended mostly on whether the features of 
their communicators coincided with ones formulated in stereotypes.  
Practically all the Russian respondents stressed that Americans are indeed always very cheerful and like 
to eat junk food from fast food restaurants. There were fewer comments about Britons. Russian respondents 
only noticed that Britons always drink tea, are very pedantic and cowardly. They pointed that the stereotype 
about ‘stupid Americans’ is not true. 
The respondents who came across stereotypization said that it is especially important as a potential bar-
rier at the initial stages of intercultural communication.  
Diagram 4 represents the influence of stereotypes on comprehension of foreign cultures and intercultur-
al communication. 
Long-lasting and intensive intercultural communication often eliminates this barrier. The survey 
couldn’t show such results because it was set in a limited social environment which consisted mainly of stu-
dents and university professors.  
These circumstances didn’t allow relations between the communicators become interpersonal. Imper-
sonality characterizes initial stages of interaction when partners, knowing little about each other, use stereo-
typical images about a standard behavior of certain groups of people. Only when relations become interper-
sonal and individual characteristics of participants are taken into account communication is successful.  
The results of the survey clearly reflect the present day situation with intercultural communication 
where stereotypes are serious and important barriers of understanding between people of different cultural 
and ethnical background. Russian respondents named negative stereotypes about Russia as the greatest ob-
stacles on the way to intercultural understanding. This factor became even more salient when Russians had 
only positive intentions for contacts.  
88
73
12
27
0
20
40
60
80
100
English speaking 
respondents
Russian speaking 
respondents
Treat stereotypes 
positively, %
Treat stereotypes 
negatively, %

I.N.Martynova 
70 
 
Both speakers of English and 
other cultures effective tools in elim
these A.A. Brudny suggests using a 
[11; 59]. 
In accordance with the ideas o
mizing the process of intercultural 
ness, parallelism, ample use of feedb
Unlike communication within 
tural communication one cannot re
happens so because of the differenc
gest portion of the information shou
Quantitative measures of inform
fective intercultural communication
lexical units, use of complete gramm
culture commentaries, and also emp
Using various channels of infor
tive intercultural communication. B
tend to speak louder when talking to
It is a common knowledge tha
Skillful using of feedback in intercu
cause feedback enables a communi
Optimization of feedback presumes 
ligatory verification of information 
tions of interlocutors.  
 
 
1  Зинченко  В.Г.  Словарь  по  межк
З.И.Кирнозе, Г.П.Рябов. — М.: Флинта; Н
2  Леонтович О.А. Россия и США. В
мена, 2003. — 354 с. 
3  Тер-Минасова С.Г. Язык и межкул
4  Холл Э. Как понять иностранца бе
5  Фешкина  И.А.  Коммуникативный
бинского гос. ун-та. Сер. Филология. Иск
6  Шепель В.М. Языковая личность в
С. 59–65. 
7  Шарков Ф.И. Основы теории ком
248 с. 
8  Боброва С.П. Основы теории ком
— 124 с. 
9  Забровский А.П. К проблеме типо
— Центр по изучению взаимодействия ку

жүктеу/скачать 2,4 Mb.

Достарыңызбен бөлісу: