爆走黑料

“This work focuses on mediation between representatives of different cultures at different levels of interaction. The events of the current decade prove that entire nations and states are in a situation of a civilizational communicative dead end, hence, among other things, arise numerous diplomatic and military conflicts, an increase in tensions on the world arena. Fragments of the speeches of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan against the background of the sharply aggravated military confrontation between these countries provide a vivid example of a problematic intercultural communication. Obviously, constructive mediation of such complicated conflict negotiations requires a multidimensional arsenal of mediating discursive techniques that make it possible to lead to a compromise, to a willingness to listen to and accept someone else's point of view. Although the work in the triangle (interlocutor 1 — mediator — interlocutor 2) does not always end with a consistent agreement," explains Lyudmila Kulikova.

According to the scholar, the competence of an intercultural mediator is the ability to manage existing differences, taking into account the cultural, political, historical background of each participant.

“It should be understood that the interlocutors whom you provide mediation assistance have a unique cultural background. There are communicative, historical, religious, ethical aspects that determine the behaviour of diplomats or leaders of states, or representatives of the academic community from different linguistic cultures, for example. A successful mediator sees these pitfalls and maneuvers freely among them,” the researcher continued.

A mediator can be either a specific person or a collective person (a group of mediators or even an entire state). Such a precedent could be observed in the constructive resolution of the international confrontation between Macedonia and Athens, the diplomatic mediator of which was the UN. In general, the mediator acts as a moderator, transforming the semantic or conceptual (and often a speech one – for example, using obscene language) conflict between the subjects of the negotiation into the prospect of developing positive cooperation.

“I witnessed an interesting example of intercultural conflict during a conference of linguists in Germany. I presented there my scientific hypothesis regarding the discrepancy between the declared and real communicative practices of attitudes towards migrants from the Middle East in the Federal Republic of Germany. Based on the main findings from the analysis of various sources, I have demonstrated that the rhetoric of democratic (peer-to-peer) attitudes towards migrants is accepted mainly in the circles of political elites. While many media outlets, TV presenters, burgomasters of lands, and ordinary residents demonstrate a pronounced paternalistic (like action for the good, but in a condescending manner) attitude towards refugees. Not all the participants of the scientific event liked my conclusions, however, some experience of intercultural mediation helped me to reduce the degree of tension: it was enough to transfer the confrontation of opinions from the political plane to the plane of professional interests — to immerse the interlocutors in a linguistic discourse, to draw their attention to keywords, principles and techniques of communication used in relation to migrants,” summarised Lyudmila Kulikova.