| Annotation |
Relevance of the work is in the fact that communication is associated with difficulties and sometimes with
impossibility of transmitting information. For this reason, the analysis of the communication process from the
point of view of social normativity makes it possible to achieve an effective exchange of information between
individuals as subjects of social relations. The identification of ascriptive and descriptive norms of the communication
process makes it possible to identify the necessary grounds for the transmission of information between
social actors. However, it is important to study the problem of identification with the position of normativity, not
from a position of having a person of properties that determine itself, allowing you to identify the ways and forms a set of social norms. The scientific novelty of the work is the study of the relationship between the concepts of
“communication’’ and ‘‘social normativity’’. It is argued that the normativity of communication is a unity of ascriptive
and descriptive norms. The former determine the possibility of realizing a person’s ability to communicate,
the latter are thought of as the result of a social agreement, the purpose of which is to achieve effective interaction
between social actors. Communication of normativity is interpreted by the author as the ability of individuals
to exchange information and use the normative bases of existence for this purpose. Problem statement: the
authors are interested in finding a correlation between the concepts of “communication’’ and “normativity’’ in the
social life of persons. The purpose of the study is to determine the unity of communication and normativity in the
social and personal life of the individual, to identify the mutual influence of these social phenomena. The article
deals with the main concepts: normativity, ascriptive and descriptive norms, communication. The author uses a
logical method that allows us to make a meaningful relationship between the concepts of ‘‘communication’’, ‘‘social
normativity’’, ‘‘ascriptive norms’’, ‘‘descriptive norms’’, ‘‘normativity of communication’’ and ‘‘communication
of normativity’’, as well as a critical method that allows us to rethink the relationship of these concepts.The obtained
results showed that the normativity of communication expresses a set of norms of information translation,
which includes a set of natural and social norms as conditions for the possibility of a person’s communicative
activity. The normativity of communication allows us to determine the possibility of a person’s implementation
of the communicative process, as well as socially acceptable forms of such interaction that have consensual
grounds. Normativity communication allows us to describe the ability of social subjects to exchange information. |
| References |
1. Yakupov, P. V. Communication: definition of the concept, types of communication and its barriers. Vestnik
Universiteta, no. 10, pp. 261–266, 2016. (In Rus.)
2. Novopashina, I. U., Semenova, O. F. Communication as a process of bio-socio-cultural motivated
language interactions. Bulletin of State University, no. 3, pp. 40, 2015. (In Rus.)
3. Erokhin, V. S. Evolutionary development of social norms: from ascriptive to descriptive. Izvestiya of
Saratov University, no. 3, pp. 265–269, 2020. (In Rus.)
4. Fitch, W. T., Huber, L., Bugnyar, T. Social cognition and the evolution of language: constructing cognitive
phylogenies. Neuron, vol. 65, pp. 795–814, 2010. (In Engl.)
5. Maran, T., Kul, l. K. Ecosemiotics: main principles and current developments. Geografiska Annaler,
vol. 96, pp. 41–50, 2014. (In Engl.)
6. Danilova, M. I., Sukhoverkhov, A. V. Biological and social foundations of the evolution of language and
communication: modern discussions. Philosophy questions, no. 12, pp. 77–87, 2010. (In Rus.)
7. Strekol’shchikova, I. V. The question of the essence of language in the works of naturalistic linguists.
Chelyabinsk State University Bulletin, no. 20, pp. 110–116, 2015. (In Rus.)
8. Hovelaque, A. La linguistique. Paris: C. Reiwald, Librarie d’editeur, 1881. (In Engl.)
9. Pinker, S., Bloom, P. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 13,
pp. 707–784, 1990. (In Engl.)
10. Hurford, J. R. The evolution of critical period for language acquisition. Cognition, vol. 40, pp. 159–201,
1991. (In Engl.)
11. Davydov, U. N. Essays on the History of Theoretical Sociology of the Twentieth Century: From M.
Weber to Yu. The Habermas. Moskva: Nauka, 1994. (In Rus.)
12. Popova, T. P. The characteristics of the institutional discourse. Historical and social-education idea,
no. 6, part 2, pp. 295–300, 2015. (In Rus.)
13. Belousova, V. M. Discursive interpretation of the concept of ‘consensus’ in the political and legal doctrine
of Yu. Habermas. Bulletin of Udmurt University, no. 2, pp. 91–96, 2015. (In Rus.)
14. Mukhanalieva, A. A. Normative communicative behavior. Lingua mobilis, no. 4, pp. 68–72, 2012. (In
Rus.)
15. Molchanov, A. V. Communitarianism as an alternative to classical ideologies. Pro Nunk. Modern political
processes, no. 1, pp. 51–57, 2017. (In Rus.) |
