Читать «Межпоколенческая коммуникация» онлайн - страница 194

In this survey, conducted in Moscow and St. Petersburg, 132 respondents were asked to indicate how familiar they were with 22 pre-selected ecclesiastical words, how often they used them in their speech, and how often they came across these words in the mass media and in the speech of their relatives and friends. Respondents also provided information about their age, gender, religion, and education. The study demonstrated that respondents in all age groups were rather poorly acquainted with the meaning of selected ecclesiastical words, with the exception of high frequency words like «Trinity» and «Eucharist». Correlation analysis showed that with age people tend to use more ecclesiastical words in their speech (notwithstanding the fact that the majority of old and middle-aged Russians were brought up in Soviet atheist traditions). At the same time, older respondents indicated that they view ecclesiastical words as being somewhat less prestigious than do their younger counterparts who were not subject to the atheist propaganda. On the issue of a special language policy of using measures to promote religious lexis, we found a strong correlation between the rate of church attendance and favorable attitudes toward such a policy. Education level correlated with a better understanding of religious words and expressions. Women viewed the policy to promote religious words favorably more often than men did, but did not report a better understanding and higher usage of ecclesiastical words.

In general, young speakers tend to innovate in their lexical usage and be the least conservative in borrowing and trying new words in their lexicon. Middle-aged participants in communication are usually very close to the lexical norm, while older speakers are more conservative and tend to use outdated and obsolete words. The study proved that ecclesiastical words are viewed as mostly obsolete by older and middle-aged Russian speakers, while younger communicators are more inclined toward learning and using these words in their speech. Ecclesiastical words were not viewed as an obstacle in intergenerational communication, as they currently play a very minor role in conversations among Russian speakers.

Chapter 5 deals with intergenerational communication in a familial setting. As a novel feature in discourse and sociolinguistic analysis, the chapter uses numerous examples from the texts of A. N. Ostrovsky, a famous Russian playwright of the 19^th century. The author gives a number of arguments supporting the innovative study of familial communication through the lens of interactions between characters in Ostrovsky’s plays, and provides a brief overview of his creative works. The chapter then focuses on communication between parents and their young sons and daughters, communication between older parents and their middle-aged children, and communication between grandparents and their grandchildren, as well as communicative relations with in-laws. The chapter closes with an analysis of painful self-disclosures, a typical feature of elderly speech, and narratives of elders, in which narratives of the author’s family members serve as illustrations.