ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 40 (Number 34) Year 2019. Page 18

Feminine perspective of ethnic business communication

Perspectiva femenina de comunicación étnica de negocios

TAMERYAN, Tatiana Yu. 1; POPOVA, Tatyana G. 2; REDKOZUBOVA, Ekaterina A. 3; ANIKEJEVA, Irina G. 4; SEDLIAROVA, Olga M. 5 & SOLOVYEVA, Natalia S. 6

Received: 19/06/2019 • Approved: 28/09/2019 • Published 07/10/2019

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Features of inter-ethnic communication in North Ossetia-Alania

3. Business communication analysis

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Bibliographic references

1. Introduction

Business communication within the framework of a business institute is an important component of the success of any entrepreneur, from the owner of a small company to a large company. In business communication, the task is to convince the partner/client to accept specific offers, to take specific actions that are consistent with the interests of one or several participants of business communication (Shyriaeva, 2006; Bocheliuk et al., 2019).

Business communication varies across a wide range of written and oral communication genres. Our research is based on business speech scripts, which implement dialogical relationships within the framework of a business conversation genre realized through direct contact. In our article, we describe the newly formed new concept of a business woman in North Ossetia-Alania in terms of feminine business communication, reflecting the new system of sociocultural values of the global order (Tameryan, 2016).

Linguocultural competence as part of the cultural competence of an individual is realized in communication and is a set of interrelated ideas about common norms, rules and traditions of verbal and non-verbal communication within this linguistic culture, which is reflected in the works of many researchers in the field of cognitive linguistics, linguistic conception, linguistic culturology (Ufimtseva, 1998; Solovyeva, 2014, 2017; Repina et al., 2018; Ponomarenko et al., 2018; Popova et al., 2018). At the same time, the most important part of cultural competence determines the communication of society members, dictating them certain restrictions, norms, rules, rituals that are obligatory for implementation within a given culture and are specific for different communities (Gorodetskaia, 2007; Akhmetshin et al., 2019). Linguocultural competence manifests itself at the level of subcultures (social, professional, age, etc.) and within the national culture (Gorodetskaya, 2007; Privalova et al., 2019).

When identifying methodological approaches to describing business communication, we proceed from the sociolinguistic and cultural characteristics of Ossetian speakers, when belonging to a linguocultural community is determined by the degree of formation of the individual’s linguocultural competence. The following methods are used in the study: linguopragmatic analysis, interpretative analysis, elements of cognitive analysis, semantic analysis, rhetorical analysis.

The Ossetians have a complex hierarchical structure of multi-level identities – gorge, subethnic, ethnic, metaethnic (Khadikova, 2013). The Ossetians are peoples who have been divided into groups for several centuries; the North and South Ossetians live in different environmental conditions, have different ethnic surroundings and a mismatched event background of historical and political development that has projected certain differences in social and family life, behavioral norms, peculiarities of commonplace sense, embodying several different attitudes (Khadikova, 2013). The Ossetian language belongs to the Iranian-Eastern group of languages. It is represented by the Iron and Digor dialects and subdialects.

Elements of national etiquette, ritual culture and other forms of actualization of the traditional worldview and the value system of the North Ossetians (ascetic highlanders) are not completely identical to the values of the South Ossetians, who were subjected to a long and diverse influence of Georgia. Due to a number of objective reasons, there was a significant acculturation of the Ossetians living in the inner regions of Georgia (Khadikova, 2013). However, the core of the ideological intra-ethnic identity of the Ossetians is the memory of the past greatness of the ancestors, which explains the degree of consolidation of the people divided who do not have a common ethnonym. In moral issues the Ossetians are guided by the traditional moral code of ethics (Ossetian «Æгъдау»). It is an archaic, unforgotten content of the Ossetian moral identity of northern and southern peoples on equal terms (Khadikova, 2013).

In general, the language situation in South Ossetia is more favourable – there are no Ossetians who do not speak their own language, unlike North Ossetia, what was promoted by the fact that the South Ossetians had to resist national suppression for a long time, while the North Ossetians did not experience it (Khadikova, 2013). As a result of the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, a significant number of the South Ossetian residents who spoke Kudar subdialect migrated to North Ossetia.

The archetypal binary opposition “friend-or-foe” which in many respects forms the world picture of various ethnic groups, is a conceptual presentation reflecting the universal egocentric position of the cognizing subject (Ufayeva, 2008). The projection of the opposition "friend-or-foe" in the mentality of the North Ossetians is the opposition of speakers of different language, dialects and subdialects from the position of a positively marked "friend" and a negatively marked "foe". This opposition is based on the specific features of the objects fixed in the North Ossetian linguocultural community, presented in stereotypes, the combination of which forms a unique system of images – "friend" and "foe" (Kachmazova and Tameryan, 2017).

Common ethnic values form the basis of the autostereotype, ethnic / subethnic differences trigger the heterostereotyping mechanism. The basic universal model of ethnic stereotyping "strangers – their own" and the universal estimated model "bad – good" serve as oppositive cognitive schemes of the ethnic image and are re-categorized (Kachmazova and Tameryan, 2017).

National peculiarities of business communication in North Ossetia-Alania are based on value orientations, peculiarities of ethnocultural / subethnocultural perception and thinking; behavior pecularities of the people from different gorges as well as universal and cross-cultural approaches.

The business communication analysis is carried out in the present study from a gender perspective on the basis of scripts presenting real situations. The following communication types are considered as participants (Kokova and Tameryan, 2016; Komleva, 2017):

1) a business woman as a high-status and low-status female entrepreneur:

a) a business lady (Osset. хъуыддаджылæудсылгоймаг“business woman”),

b) a saleswoman (Osset. базарг æнæг “trader/ tradeswoman”; базарыус “saleswoman”),

2) a variety of customers and consumers of goods and services.

The main component of the business woman’s image is a communication culture, marking the image of the company and its owner (Zheltukhina et al., 2017). The peculiarities of communication participants are identified on the basis of status parameters as well as ethnic, subethnic and supraethnic types of interlocutors. Techniques of making influence on the client vary.

Below you find a fragment of business communication that takes place in Russian and corresponds to the high-status type of communicator. A business woman demonstrates the leveling out the ethnic identity parameters and gender specificity of the interlocutors in order to conduct a mutually beneficial deal with the help of a cooperative strategy using the tactics of winning customer sympathy.

– Good afternoon! Come in and have a seat. Are you planning a trip? (travel agency owner)

– Yes, I would like to go on vacation for a couple of weeks. (Client)

– Well. Have you already chosen a destination?

– No, I just want to choose some options.

– Clear. And when are you planning a trip? Who are you going with? What is the budget for the trip?

– I think, in a week. We're going together. The budget is about 100,000 rubles.

– Ok, clear. Are you planning a vacation by the sea?

– Yes.

– Are excursions in your plans?

– No, they aren’t.

– Where have you already been on holiday?

– In Egypt, in a 5 * hotel.

– And what are the impressions of the vacation?

– Excellent.

– Wonderful! And what did you like, what didn't you like so much? I ask this question to better understand what factors are important to you while planning a vacation.

– I liked that the flight was not too long, not far from the airport.

– I understood, well, I will try to take into account. Will we we will consider Greece as one of the options for your vacation this time?

– I think we can.

– What is important to you while planning a vacation?

– The most important thing is to have a good food.

The following script reflects the average or neutral status of a business woman. Communication takes place in the bilingual mode: the owner of the salon is a native speaker of the Kudar subdialect of the Iron dialect, switching from the ethnic language code into Russian, while the client is a native speaker of the Iron dialect who speaks Russian. The choice of language by the client may be stipulated by the fact that she either has a poor command of her native language or does not want to use it in order not to cause a hidden conflict of subethnic identities.

The first phrase of the hostess said in Kudar subdialect (Куыдфыстстут? and Абадутиучысыл?) sounds the same in the Iron dialect.

The next phrase (Лена, мæнæ дæ клиентка æрбаЦыд [ш].* Тагъд æссæрибаруыДЗынæ [дж]?), is addressed not to the client but to the employee of the salon.

* Capital letters denote the letter that presents the sound of the Iron dialect which differs from the norms of the Kudar dialect.

Therefore, a cooperative communication strategy aimed at the cooperation and further customer acquisition has been formally kept. The parameters of suethnic identity and femininity have been marked.

(Kudar native speaker) – Good day! (owner of a beauty salon)

(Iron native speaker) – Good afternoon! (customer)

(Kudar native speaker) – Let me introduce myself. My name is Irina. Would you tell me please who you have an appointment with? Could you say your name? Куыдфыстстут(Osset. "What appointment do you have")?

(Iron native speaker) – I have an appointment for a haircut, my name is Alina.

(Kudar native speaker) – Абадутиучысыл (Osset. "Would you mind taking a seat")? Would you mind taking a seat and waiting a bit? Maybe a cup of coffee?Лена, мæнæ дæ клиентка æрбаЦыд [ш]. Тагъд æссæрибаруыДЗынæ [дж]? (Lena, a client has come to you for a haircut. Will you be free soon?)

(Iron native speaker) – Thank you.

(Kudar native speaker) – Please, come to your master!

(Iron native speaker) – Thank you.

(Kudar native speaker) – We are very pleased that you have chosen our salon! We are always glad to see you at our place!

The last abstract of the communicative situation reveals a low-status business representative – a saleswoman who does not have an entrepreneurial culture, and a client who makes speech mistakes (I don’t know what goes for me (about perfumes); And in what quantity limits do you have new products?).

In the given situation, the seller is a native speaker of the Kudar dialect of the Ossetian language, and the buyer is a speaker of the Iron dialect. The communicative situation is polylingual, contact-setting, neutral. The question Ног? (Osset. "New?”), doubling the Russian equivalent, serves to establish a subethnic identity. The phrase (Цы [ш] хуызæндæ хъæуы Osset. “What do you want?”) said in Kudar dialect opens the techniques of the seller’s conflict strategy who is aimed not at cooperating with the client, but at adjusting the client to herself.

(Ironnativespeaker) – Listen, what do you have suchlike?.. – ayoung ladyasksaparfumeseller.

(Kudar native speaker)– Like what?

(Ironnativespeaker) – I don’t know… something new? Ног (Osset. “new”)?

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Lady, there are a lot of new products now. *Цы [ш] хуызæндæ хъæуы(Osset. “What do you want”)?

(Ironnativespeaker) – I don’t know what goes for me.

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Well, you decide by your own now, and then ask me… Сæхæдæгдæр æйнæ зонынбайдайынЦ [ч], Цы [ш] сæ хъæуы, афтæмæймæнæйЦыдæр [ш] домынЦ[ч] (Osset. “They themselves do not know what they want, but behave in such a way as if I owe them”).

(Ironnativespeaker) – Oh, it’s difficult to give a cue…

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Lady, have you decided? Кæддæ фæнды, уæдраЦу [ш] æввахс æмæ фен, Цы [ш] дæ хъæуы. Цы [ш] аргъæйдæ хъæуы, уыймынуæддæрзæгъ (Osset. “You may come in and have a look, perhaps you will like something. At least tell me what sum of money do you have at your disposal”).

(Ironnativespeaker) – And in what quantity limits do you have new products? It may not necessarily be new products though…

(Kudarnativespeaker) – If you yourself do not know what you want, Цы [ш] дынравдисон (Osset. “What can I show you”)?

(Ironnativespeaker) – You are staying here for something after all?

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Райхъусма, аЦу [ш] мæ разæй, кæдæмЦыдтæ [ш] уырдæм (Osset. “Listen, go away from here where you were going”)!

(Ironnativespeaker) – And I will go. Such goods can be found anywhere.

(Kudar native speaker) – Гъе æмæ хорз. Хорзыламбæл (Osset. “Fine. We are better off without you”)!

* Capital letters denote the letter that represent the sound of the Kudar dialect which differs from the norms of the Iron dialect.

The same type of the saleswoman is represented in the second example. The technique of conducting business negotiations is discredited, the aim – to sell goods – is ignored. Business communication moves to the level of interpersonal conflict with the help of rhetorical techniques: contradictions and “boomerang".

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Good afternoon. Do you have autumn shoes?

(Ironnativespeaker) – Good afternoon. Куыднæ нæмиС[ш] * (Osset. “Of course, we have”). Well, what model, for example? Цы [с] хуыЗæн [ж] дæ хъæуы (Osset. “Which do you want”)?

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Well, something modern, leather?

(Ironnativespeaker) – Have a look at this model, адониттæгхорЗ [ж] Сты [ш] (Osset. “These shoes are good”), leather shoes (ponting at the model). Well, don’t you like? Дæ Зæрдæмæ [ж] нæ ЦæуынЦ[с] [с] (Osset. “Don't you like”)?

(Kudarnativespeaker) – Yes, I like everything, do not push me! Oh, thanks, but it doesn’t suit me.

(Ironnativespeaker) –ФидауынЦ [с] дыл. АппарДЗæн [з] дынаргъæй (Osset. “They suit you. I will reduce the price”).

(Kudarnativespeaker) –No, thanks. I am not going to bargain.

(Ironnativespeaker) – Уæдæ дæ Цы [с] хъæуы (Osset. “And what suits you”)? Do you want cheap and leather ones? АЦу [с] æмæ агур (Osset. “Go looking for them then”)! БаЗармæ [ж] Цæмæ [с] æрбаЦыдтæ [с] (Osset. “Why have you come to the market”)?

* Capital letter denotes the letter that represents the sound of the Iron dialect which differs from the norms of the Kudar dialect.

Thus, this article analyzes the main methods of conducting business communication in a mono-, bi- and polylingual situation in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. Business expansion as the most significant sphere of modern society’s vital activity, along with business relations that penetrate into various branches of production, are the most important creative force of any civilization. The fact that effective business development is impossible without a high communicative culture is of equal importance.

A study on the material of business communication scripts with clients from the perspective of a gender-marked type of communicator – a business woman – revealed the main status parameters as well as ethnic and subethnic types of interlocutors: 1) a business woman: a) a business lady, b) a saleswoman); 2) a customer and a consumer of goods and services.

The main applied communication strategies have been identified: conflict, cooperative, neutral. The effectiveness of business negotiation techniques has been evaluated. Effective communication is the key to successful achievements for the modern business community, since the solution of many diverse professional issues in business is based on discursive interaction using a cooperative strategy.

The reported study was funded by RFBR and MES RSO according to the research project No 19-512-07002 (10-МК/19).

Akhmetshin, E. M., Mueller, J. E., Yumashev, A. V., Kozachek, A. V., Prikhodko, A. N., & Safonova, E. E. (2019). Acquisition of entrepreneurial skills and competences: Curriculum development and evaluation for higher education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(1), 1-12.

Bocheliuk, V., Panov, M., Nechyporenko, V., & Pozdniakova-Kyrbiatieva, E. (2019). Formation of mental set of subjects of higher education institution for management by the correction game method. Astra Salvensis, 7(13), 275-288.

Gorodetskaya, L.A. (2007). Linguocultural Competence of the Individual. Moscow: MAKS Press.

Kachmazova, A.U., & Tameryan, T.Yu. (2017). The Ethnic Space of Linguistic Stereotyping "Friend-Foe-Own". Vladikavkaz: SOGU.

Khadikova, A.Kh. (2013). Ethnic appearance of modern Ossetians in historical and genetic aspect. Modern Problems of Science and Education, 5. Retrieved from: https://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=10594

Kokova, A.V., & Tameryan, T.Yu. (2016). The concept of "business woman" in the Russian linguoculture. Bulletin of PSLU, 2, 30-33.

Komleva, L.A. (2017). Modern media advertising: effective directions of influence in business and political communication. Man in India, 97(14), 207-215.

Ponomarenko, E.B., Vasilkova, N.N., Volskaya N.N., Kasperova, L.T., & Nikolaeva, A.V. (2018). Female political media discourse in American and English linguocultures: speech strategies and tactics. XLinguae, 11(2), 625-638. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.50.

Popova, T.G., Sausheva, Ye.V., Surikova, T.I., Yusupova, R.R., & Dzyubenko, A.I. (2018). Linguistic peculiarities of feminine and masculine political media discourse in English-speaking countries. XLinguae, 11(2), 147-157. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.12.

Privalova, I.V., Shaidullina, A.R., Zheltukhina, M.R., Grinberg, T.E., & Garcia Caselles, C. (2019). Coerced loss of national colorings – linguistic issues of virtual team communication. XLinguae, 12(1), 151-164. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2019.12.01.12.

Repina, E.A., Zheltukhina, M.R., Kovaleva, N.A., Popova, T.G., & Garcia Caselles, C. (2018). International media image of Russia: trends and patterns of perception. XLinguae, 11(2), 557-565. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2018.11.02.45.

Shyriaeva, T.A. (2006). Cognitive Model of Business Discourse. Pyatigorsk: PSLU.

Solovyeva, N.S. (2014). Gender-relevant sense presentation in Russian and English phraseological dictionaries. Journal of Historical, Philological and Cultural Studies, 3(45), 238-239.

Solovyeva, N.S. (2017). Specifics of euphemism usage in the Russian fashion magazines. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2-1(68), 145-149.

Tameryan, T.Yu. (2016). Key cultural concepts in the Russian and Ossetian pictures of the world. Actual Problems of Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics, 2(22), 53-56.

Ufayeva, I.Yu. (2008). Linguocultural Type Hispanic. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University.

Ufimtseva, N.V. (1998). Ethnic character, self-image and Russian language consciousness. In Language Consciousness: Formation and Functioning (pp. 135-170). Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS.

Zheltukhina, M.R., Biryukova, E.V., Gerasimova, S.A., Repina, E.A., Klyoster, A.M., & Komleva, L.A. (2017). Modern media advertising: effective directions of influence in business and political communication. Man in India, 97(14), 207-215.

1. Doctor of Philological Sciences. Professor. Department of Foreign Languages for Non-Linguistic Specialties. K.L. Khetagurov North Ossetia State University. Vladikavkaz. Russian Federation. E-mail: tamertu@mail.ru

2. Doctor of Philological Sciences. Professor. Department of the English Language. Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Moscow. Russian Federation. E-mail: tatyana_27@mail.ru

3. Doctor of Philological Sciences. Professor. Department of the Theory and Practice of the English Language. Southern Federal University, Rostov-on-Don. Russian Federation. E-mail: kateredkozubova@mail.ru

4. Doctor of Philological Sciences. Associate Professor. Department of Linguistics and Theory of Translation. Moscow Aviation Institute. Moscow. Russian Federation. E-mail: Irganik3@mail.ru

5. PhD in Philology. Associate Professor. Department of the English Language. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University. Magnitogorsk. Russian Federation. E-mail: sedliarova.olga2018@yandex.ru

6. PhD in Philology. Associate Professor. Department of the English Language. Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University. Magnitogorsk. Russian Federation. E-mail: nisanasol@yandex.ru