The article is devoted to the description and justification of prohibitions in the communicative behavior of a professional linguistic personality. The communicative taboos of a mediator as a neutral mediator in a conflict/dispute are considered. Attention is paid to the prohibitions associated with the mediator joining the parties in the negotiation process. The impossibility of direct observation of the mediator's communicative behavior in connection with the principle of confidentiality in mediation led to the choice of research methods and material: linguopragmatic and discourse analysis of open mediation sources, participant observation and intraprofessional communication with mediators. The author examines the implementation of the principle of neutrality in mediation and defines the value guideline of the mediator's communicative behavior – non-alignment with the parties. There are prohibitions that characterize joining as a strict taboo of the mediator's communicative behavior: verbal (language and speech) prohibitions, thematic and non-verbal (sound, mimic and gesture) prohibitions, spatial-temporal and organizational prohibitions. It is noted that joining the parties significantly affects the process and results of mediation. The mediator's partiality and emotional involvement can lead to the loss of confidence of the parties and to the end of negotiations. The high taboo nature of the mediator's communicative behavior requires from the specialist of this communicative profession the ability of self-reflection and self-control.
The article is devoted to the discursive phenomenon of mediation, which is often identified with the phenomena of linguistic, cultural and intercultural mediation. The author shows that the social communicative practice of mediation is a special type of communicative interaction. The author distinguishes between the terms "mediation" and "translation" and defines the essential characteristics of two different discursive phenomena based on the comparison parameters traditionally used to compare mediation and court. The article considers the differences between the two communicative practices on the following grounds: free / non-free choice of mediator; the purpose of mediated communication; the mediator's role in communication; the possibility/impossibility of terminating negotiations; confidentiality of communication; the duration of communicative interaction; the language of communication; the removal of psychological tension in communication. As a result of the analysis, it turns out that the coincidence of the parameters of mediation and translation is possible only in an interlingual situation of conflict dialogue.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.