Вісник київського національного лінгвістичного університету серія Філологія

Породжувальний простір

Агенс: те/той, що рухається

Вектор руху: від перешкоди

Причина руху: несприятливе середовище

Мета руху: джерело позитивної енергії

Ввідний простір₁ Ввідний простір₂












Інтегрований простір

Інтегрований простір
Рис. 1. Мережа концептуальної інтеграції хайку Тома Вільямса

Як бачимо з наведеної схеми, червоні ягоди у першому ввідному просторі співвідносяться з живими істотами – у другому, вектор руху від ліричного героя – з намаганням позбутися перешкоди, а рух до сонця – з тяжінням до добра. Інтегрований простір дозволяє розкрити прихований, емерджентний смисл поетичної метафори руху рослин до сонця: в якийсь момент природа може відмовитися захищати людину від тернистого поля, адже сама потребує порятунку, тому здатна робити вибір не на користь людини з її часто руйнівною поведінкою.

Звичайно, надмірне використання поетичних засобів може розмити жанрову сутність хайку [19, c. 26]. Тому в хайку має бути збалансованість між буквальним та фігуративним [23, c. 8], між економністю використання поетичних засобів і максимальною чуттєвістю пари образів, зображених кількома штрихами.

Отже, з усіх розглянутих нами жанрових ознак англомовного хайку, що сьогодні традиційно виділяють їх автори та дослідники, визначальними й універсальними можна вважати такі: 1) хайку – насамперед, короткий вірш, його лаконічність підкріплюється часом промовляння, тобто має дорівнювати одному подиху; 2) хайку – вірш про природу, благоговіння перед нею та злиття з нею, людина в ньому складає другий план; 3) звернення до природи підкріплюється в англомовному хайку сезонним словом – кіго, проте сезонна віднесеність може позначатися і більше, ніж одним словом, розумітися з контексту цілого вірша або ж взагалі не виражатися; 4) зв’язок з природою репрезентується в хайку чуттєвими, сенсорними образами, які передають враження і досвід людини, що переживаються тут і зараз, тому хайку не містять узагальнень; 5) незважаючи на лаконічність та позірну об’єктивність, хайку багаті на поетичні засоби, адже думка про те, що все зображене в хайку має відповідати лише власному пережитому досвіду [2; 4; 9; 15; 18; 19; 21], логічно співіснує з думкою про мову як “втілене знання” або “втілений досвід” (embodied experience) [14].

Звичайно, що ці п’ять критеріїв не можна вважати абсолютними – жанр англомовного хайку має пройти ще чималий шлях свого становлення та розвитку, поки не стане самодостатнім поетичним жанром. Навіть сучасний японський хайку – сповнений експериментів та суперечностей, зокрема, пов’язаних з кіго та формою вірша. Але в обох частинах світу хайку – це жива поезія.

Поетичні засоби в англомовних хайку нерозривно пов’язані з особливостями поетичного синтаксису хайку. В статті ми лише частково зачепили проблематику функціонування іменних частин мови та часових маркерів в англомовних орієнтальних поетичних мініатюрах, що і складає перспективи подальших досліджень.

1. 
   Воробйова О. П. Метафори про метафору : дидактичний сценарій / О. П. Воробйова // Записки з романо-германської філології. – Вип. 25. П присвячений 145-річчю ОНУ імені І. І. Мечникова та 50-річчю фак-ту РГФ у складі ОНУ імені І. І. Мечникова. – Одеса : Фенікс, 2010. – С. 76–83.
   
2. 
   Маркова В. История японской поэзии / В. Маркова : [Электронниый ресурс]. – Режим доступа : http://haiku.ru/haiku/base-haiku.
   
3. 
   Маслова В. А. Лингвокультурология / Валентина Авраамовна Маслова. – М. : Издательский центр “Академия”, 2001. – 208 с.
   
4. 
   Серебряков Д. Хайку. Японская поэзия XVI–XVII вв. / Д. Серебряков, Ю. Зартайская. – СПб. : Издательский дом “Нева”, 2000. – 383 с.
   
5. 
   Тарасов Е. Ф. Диалог культур в зеркале языка / Е. Ф. Тарасов // Встречи этнических культур в зеркале языка : (в сопоставительном лингвокультурном аспекте) : науч. совет по истории мировой культуры. – М. : Наука, 2002. – С. 110–121.
   
6. 
   Auble M. P. Effort toward Comprehension : Elaboration or “Aha!”? / P. M. Auble, J. J. Franks, S. A. Soraci : [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу : http://www.springerlink.com/content/ d350372p72026102/.
   
7. 
   Brooks C. Understanding Poetry / C. Brooks, R. P. Warren. – N. Y. : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. – 688 p.
   
8. 
   Čekolj M. Haiku as a global (poetic) phenomenon / M. Čekolj // Haiku Magazine in English. − Autumn-Winter 2009. – V. 24. – № 4. – P. 36–37.
   
9. 
   Haiku. Another Kind of Poetry : Origins [Електронний ресурс] / Режим доступу : http://www. anotherkindofpoetry.org.uk/anotherkind/
   
10. 
    Higara K. M. Metaphor and Iconicity : A Cognitive Approach to Analyzing Texts / Masako K. Higara. – N. Y. : Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. – 261 p.
    
11. 
    Higginson J. William. Haiku World : An International Poetry Almanac / William J. Higginson. – Tokyo ; N. Y. : Kodansha International, 1996. – 407 p.
    
12. 
    Higginson J. William. The Haiku Seasons : Poetry of the Natural World / William J. Higginson. – Tokyo ; N. Y. ; L. : Kodansha International, 1996. – 171 p.
    
13. 
    Higginson J. William. The Disjunctive Dragonfly : A Study of Disjunctive Method and Definitions in Contemporary English-language Haiku / W. J. Higginson : [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу : http://www.iyume.com/dragonfly/DisjunctiveDragonfly.htm.
    
14. 
    Johnson M. The Body in the Mind : The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason / Mark Johnson. – Chicago ; L. : The University of Chicago Press, 1987. – 314 pp.
    
15. 
    Keene D. Japanese Literature : An Introduction for Western Readers / Donald Keene. – Singapore : Tuttle Publishing, 1977. – 120 p.
    
16. 
    Koko K. How to make haiku / K. Koko // Kō. Haiku Magazine in English. − Autumn-Winter 2010. – V. 25. – № 4. – P. 38.
    
17. 
    Langer S. K. Philosophy in a New Key : a Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and Art / Susanne K. Langer. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1957. – 313 p.
    
18. 
    Reichhold J. Haiku Techniques / J. Reichhold. – [Електронний ресурс] / Режим доступу : http://www.ahapoetry.com/haiartjr.htm.
    
19. 
    Swede G. Towards a Definition of the English Haiku / G. Swede // Global Haiku : Twenty-Five Poets World-Wide / Ed. G. Swede, R. Brooks. – Ontario : Canada and Mosaic Press, 2000. – P. 14–33.
    
20. 
    The Divergent Views of Henderson and Blyth : [Електронний ресурс]. – Режим доступу : http://hokku0.tripod.com/Divergent_Views_of_Henderson_and_Blyth.htm.
    
21. 
    Wakan N. World of Haiku : One Breath Poetry / Naomi Wakan. – Vancouver : Pacific-Rim Publishers, 1993. – 72 p.
    

ДЖЕРЕЛА ІЛЮСТРАТИВНОГО МАТЕРІАЛУ

22. 
    Kō. Haiku Magazine in English. − Autumn-Winter 2010. – V. 25. – № 4. – 46 p.
    
23. 
    Lucas М. Stepping Stones : A Way Into Haiku. – Essex : British Haiku Society, 2007. – 192 p.
    

The idea of non-killing existence finds its realization in modern linguistics as well. In non-killing linguistics we can express our desire for languages to be used in all of their peace-making potential. It is easy enough to observe language means which can be considered as employed as harm and manipulation instruments. The diplomatic communication tips the scale in the opposite direction by rein-insulting words and expressions that cause to the near universal actions.

Because we live in a world of violence, linguists might be interested in formulating peace-making communication strategies and tactics, especially in diplomatic discourse practices.

Francisco Gomes de Matos, applied peace linguist from Brazil, in his article “Learning to Communicate Peacefully” puts forward the following challenging ideas, both theoretically and practically related to their applied functions. He has created a very thorough list of peace-making principles of diplomatic communication to be carried out “constructively”. Some highlights of how to communicate peacefully include:

1. 
   Avoidance of dehumanizing language.
   
2. 
   Investment of handling differences constructively.
   
3. 
   Emphasis on language with potential for peace rather than language used with a strategic agenda.
   
4. 
   Focus on agreement rather than on polemics.
   
5. 
   Avoidance of pompous language to separate and hide.
   

Diplomatic communication, as a complex process of transmitting, perceiving and interpreting verbal and non-verbal messages, incorporates a lot of components – participants, type of diplomacy, diplomatic discourse, and deictic factors.

In this article we focus only on the diplomatic discourse component, which is built on the basis of the following elements – the communicative intention, language, non-verbal signs in diplomatic discourse.

A. Communicative Intention. Diplomatic activity is based on an expectation that national interests will be a subject to compromise, and on a desire to avoid war. Every diplomatic process must include the participants’ readiness to compromise. Without this attitude, diplomatic efforts are inclined to fail. The actors must be willing and flexible enough to work on finding a compromise acceptable to the others, thus guaranteeing consensus. If diplomacy is to be given a chance it is self-defeating to make the desired result of negotiations their precondition. The ability to accept a compromise is inevitable to achieve this aim. For that purpose, it is important to be aware of one’s own liabilities and assets while recognizing the necessity of international consensus. The result of the negotiations must always be to identify the common interests and work out the acceptable solutions to a wide scope of the common concern.

One of the most important determinants of the diplomatic discourse practices is the nature of the decision to be taken. The nature of the decision influences the type of the negotiation which may vary between the traditional bilateral or multilateral diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy, summitry diplomacy and conference diplomacy by means of ad hoc meetings. Especially sensitive topics might necessitate the secret instead of open diplomacy and thereby influence the atmosphere of the negotiation.

Furthermore, there is interdependency between the importance of the decision to be taken and the public interest in it and, in consequence, the behaviour of the negotiators. The more the decision is important and the level the public interest is higher, than the higher the pressure the decision-makers put on their diplomats. Thus, the level of public interest can influence the pragmatics of discourse behaviour.

B. Language. Diplomatic interaction is not possible without communication; therefore successful diplomacy is not possible without the proper and deliberate use of language. As a result, language skills are one of the most important tools for every diplomat. The only possibility to communicate and negotiate without proper language skills is third party interpretation. However, involving an interpreter can lead to a loss of behavioural nuances and confidence and can be considered as second choice only. Hence, language is the medium which enables not only communication, but can also complicate it. One obstacle in the way to a successful diplomatic interaction is the different use of language among different cultural groups.

In this respect, Edward T. Hall differentiates between high and low context cultures. Whereas high-context communication implies the transfer of the unspoken meaning within communication, low-context communication contains all information in the utterances and there is not much or even nothing implied apart from what is explicitly said. Communication is based on the explicit verbal part of information. High context cultures communicate more allusively than directly, so that the context of what is said is as important as the content [4, p. 105–110]. What has been communicated is based on non-verbal aspects of the message. This cultural distinction shows that speaking the same language does not necessarily mean using the same language in the same way.

Even if the negotiation partners use the same language, for example English, it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to translate the meaning and relevance of the certain word. Some words have a completely different meaning depending on the culture in which they are used, so that it is not often sufficient just to translate them from English into the specific language or vice-versa. This different use of language can cause misunderstanding and as a result lead to a communication gap. One example of such communication gap is the different interpretation of “human rights”. Traditionally, Western developed countries associate human rights with the civil and political rights which define individuals as human beings, such as the right to themselves oneself freely regardless from gender or religion. Human rights are considered as a means of defending their freedoms against the state as an oppressive authority. In contrast, former communist countries and developing Third World states tend to perceive the human rights as rights of the collective or larger community and prefer less clear-cut distinctions between individual, society and state. This example shows how difficult it can be to find a consensus in diplomatic interactions without the same values and ideas behind fundamental terms which are in the focus of these interactions. Especially in diplomatic negotiations, the knowledge of such linguistic and cultural nuances and differences helps to avoid the communication gap.

There are a lot of recommendations how to express the courtesy in diplomatic texts, letters and notes. For example, a first-person note should begin with the courtesy phrase “I have the honor” when a foreign ambassador, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Foreign Relations, Secretary of State for External Affairs, Prime-Minister, or Minister in charge of a legation is being addressed. “I have the honor” is not used in a first-person note to a chargé d’affaires ad interim.

In a third-person note verbale the courtesy phrase “has the honor” is used to address a foreign ambassador, the head of the foreign ministry or diplomatic mission, and in a circular diplomatic note as follows: To a foreign ambassador: “The Secretary of State presents his (her) compliments to His (Her) Excellency the Ambassador of (country) and has the honor to...”. The phrase “has the honor” is not used in a note verbale to a chargé d’affaires ad interim. The note should begin as follows: “The Secretary of State presents his (her) compliments to the Chargé d’Affaires ad interim of (country) and acknowledges the receipt of, transmits to, refers to, etc.”.

In the same class are the traditional French abbreviations used by diplomats on visiting cards. The strict protocol requires them to be handwritten; and their function is to indicate the occasion on which a card is sent. The most common of these inscriptions are:

• 
  P.R. – Pour remercier (to say thank you for hospitality);
  
• 
  P.P. – Pour présenter (to introduce someone to someone else);
  
• 
  P.F. – Pour féliciter (to congratulate);
  
• 
  P.F.F.N. – Pour féliciter fête nationale (to congratulate on the national day);
  
• 
  P.F.N.A. – Pour féliciter nouvel an (to congratulate on the New Year);
  
• 
  P.C. – Pour condoléances (to express sympathy at some personal or national tragedy);
  
• 
  P.P.C. – Pour prendre congé (to bid farewell on leaving post).
  

C. Non-verbal signs. The nonverbal communication is very important in diplomatic collaboration. Not only by language but also by gestures, body language, smiles, frowns or grimaces distinguish a man from other creatures by his ways of communication. Sometimes people speak with their face. Often, no answer is an answer, or perhaps a smile, a frown, a sneer or merely turning one’s back on the speaker is a powerful way to communicate.

Even a tone, of how a thing is said, is declamatory. Yet with all this sophistication in communication, language is often a cause for misunderstanding and conflict. The selection of words or phrases, their structure, indeed how they are rendered, is sometimes a communication within a communication. The range of how things are said is wide almost in every language and it is much wider in Arabic language which leaves much room for choice. This eclecticism in many respects contains the essence of communication. Ambiguity, sometimes by choice, sometimes constructive, and yet sometimes deliberately obfuscating and confusing is a characteristic of human beings. Gestures among other creatures are straightforward, leaving little room for misunderstanding though none may have been intended. Sometimes what is not said or communicated is just as devastating or eloquent.

Silence as one of the components of nonverbal communication acquires a special meaning in diplomatic cooperation. For example, ponder the Western conspiracy of silence regarding what Israel is doing in its disregard of international law and the United Nations resolutions in dealing with its conflict with the Palestinians. Diplomatically speaking, such silence is infinitely more eloquent than words. According to an Arabic saying, “If words are sometimes silver, silence is made of gold”.

Used for meeting and greeting others, saying goodbye, the handshake, while expected as a professional gesture for both men and women, is not a fairly minor social affair.

The proffered hand is now taken as a signal of good faith and willingness to cooperate, the refusal to do so, is seen as the opposite, and ignoring a proffered hand is a significant diplomatic insult and a clear signal of disapproval. Prince Charles pointedly ignored Idi Amin’s proffered hand at Jomo Kenyatta’s funeral (1978). The question of whether or not Yitzak Rabin would shake Yasser Arafat’s hand was focused on to such an extent that President Clinton virtually threw the two together on the lawn of the White House. Symbolic as this was seen at the time, this tepid handshake was a far cry from Begin and Sadat’s embrace when Sadat visited Jerusalem. Perhaps embraces will be the next development. British Prime Minister Tony Blair in meeting with Sinn Fein, leader Gerry Adams temporized, shaking hands with him, but out of public sight. There is, of course, the issue of paranoia amongst leaders. Nicolae Ceacescu feared assassination from poison made to be absorbed through the palm and so kept his hand to himself. President de Gaulle was a master at ignoring proffered hands.

As a conclusion it is necessary to mention that a great deal of effort to restore and re-establish peace is undertaken by diplomacy. In a non-killing society, diplomacy also is a primary vehicle used to restore differences because armed conflict is not an option. In non-killing diplomatic interaction, individuals are encouraged to use the language skills for the development of international relations for the upholding of human dignity. The use verbal and nonverbal means in diplomatic communication is paramount to sustaining a peace-making paradigm.

1. 
   Crystal D. The Penguin Dictionary of Language / David Crystal. – L. : Penguin Books, 1999. –255 p.
   
2. 
   Gomes de Matos F. Teaching Vocabulary for Peace Education / F. de Matos Gomes // ESL Magazine. – July/August. – 2002. – P. 22–25.
   
3. 
   Gomes de Matos F. Language, peace and conflict resolution / F. de Matos Gomes // The Handbook of Conflict Resolution / Ed. M. Deutsch, P. Coleman, E. Marcus. – San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 2006. – P. 158–175.
   
4. 
   Наll E. Beyond Culture / Edward Наll. – N. Y. : Anchor Books, 1976. – 320 p.
   
5. 
   Seryakova I. Magic of Nonverbal Communication / Iryna Seryakova. – К. : Освіта України, 2009. – 161 p.
   
6. 
   Tillitt B. Speaking Naturally : Communication Skills in American English / B. Tillitt, M. Newton Bruder. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1985. – 115 p.