Authors: Nasrullaeva Nafisa Zafarovna, Safaraliev Bozor Safaralievich
Certificate: View Certificate
The subject of the manuscript is types of language barriers which appear in the process of communication of representatives of different nations and cultures. It is about the formation of communicative competence, i.e. the ability and willingness to carry out both direct communication (speaking, listening comprehension) and indirect communication (reading with understanding of foreign language texts, writing). Learning to communicate in a foreign language is the ultimate goal in the process of learning a foreign language and is considered an indicator of students’ practical mastery of this foreign language. Speaking is an extremely multidimensional and complex phenomenon. The paper provides a detailed analysis of the process of learning to speak, describes the difficulties and barriers that arise in this process. The work attracts with its logic, consistency of the study of the tasks set, and specific conclusions. The article contains a lot of interesting material on modern methods of teaching speaking.
Only knowledge of a foreign language is insufficient for effective and correct communication with foreigners, certain difficulties often arise that interfere with the process of communicating with foreign partners. A man is a “social being”. This means that he lives among people and carries out his life activities (achieves goals, satisfies needs, works) only through interaction, communication with other people.
Communication is a process of successive actions, reactions, behavioral acts, mutually oriented in time and space, information is exchanged and interpreted, mutual perception, mutual understanding, mutual appreciation, the formation of likes or dislikes, the nature of relationships, beliefs, views, psychological impact, conflict resolution and joint activities.
Thus, each of us, while interacting with other people, acquire practical skills and abilities in the field of communication. However, these skills are different for everyone. Despite these skills, various misunderstandings and communication barriers can arise between people. Communication barriers can be related to people’s characters, their aspirations, views, speech characteristics and communication manners.
The main conditions for any practical communication are language skills and abilities of a person in using language units and response techniques when interacting with other people. The main reasons for the ineffectiveness of any real communication are so called barriers which stand in way to understand communicants.
Research on communication problems and practical observations allow all possible techniques or types of reaction of people in interpersonal contact to be conditionally grouped according to the “efficiency/inefficiency” parameter in terms of the implementation of communication goals. In general, the main conditions for any practical communication are the skills and abilities of a person in using so-called understanding and directive response techniques when interacting with other people.
II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Understanding communication is a purposeful interaction focused on understanding the interlocutor and showing respect for his personality in the form of non-appreciative reactions to his statements and emotional states. The techniques of understanding communication contribute to the establishment and development of contact, positive relationships, the study of the personal characteristics of the interlocutor, clarifying his point of view on the problem under discussion, etc.
A. Overcoming the Phonetic Barrier
It is unlikely that anyone will be surprised by the advice: in order to be correctly understood, it is necessary to speak clearly, legibly, loudly enough, avoid tongue twisters, etc. It is quite clear to everyone that the fulfillment of such conditions improves the quality of getting information, optimizes communication.
However, in addition to the listed general provisions, it is possible to indicate some very specific patterns of perception of the other’s speech. Such patterns have been revealed in numerous experiments devoted to the study of the comparative effectiveness in communication of various physical characteristics of communication – the pace and speed of speech, the quality of diction and pronunciation, etc. [1, p. 129]
In general, the results of such studies indicate that for each phonetic parameter there are upper and lower limits of perception, determined by the psychophysiological capabilities of a person. For example, for the speed of speech, one can find such a speed (upper limit) at which perception is impossible with any effort of the listener, because the speaker’s speech merges into one stream for him, and such a speed (lower limit) when the gaps between words become so large that it is impossible to establish a connection between them. The exact same limits can be specified for other parameters. However, communication rarely goes to the limit, usually there is a fundamental possibility of understanding. The speed of speech depends on many variables: from the degree of knowledge of the language, from the degree of familiarity with the content.
The perception of fast or slow speech is influenced by: education, accepted norms (different countries speak at different speeds), age, and individual characteristics. In addition, feedback is extremely important to overcome the phonetic barrier. In a particular communication, the optimal speed of speech or diction can be established along the way, based on the listener’s reaction .
B. Overcoming the Semantic Barrier
The semantic barrier is a consequence of the mismatch of people’s thesauruses. Due to the fact that each person has a unique individual experience, they also have a unique thesaurus. What makes it possible to overcome this barrier? This is possible with a more complete understanding of the partner's thesaurus.
In fact, nothing is impossible in this – we constantly take into account the thesaurus of the partner in communication, although we do it involuntarily. Numerous errors in communication are associated precisely with underestimating the difference in thesaurus [2, p. 132].
C. Overcoming the Stylistic Barrier
To overcome the stylistic barrier, it is necessary to be able to correctly structure the transmitted information, which will be easier to understand and better remembered. There are two main techniques for structuring information in communication: the frame rule and the chain rule.
The essence of the first rule is that all information intended for memorization in communication, whether it is a conversation, lecture, report or even just a spectacular appearance, should be enclosed in a frame that sets the structure. The frame in communication is created by the beginning and end of the conversation.
At the beginning, goals, prospects, and expected results of communication should be indicated, at the end, the results should be summarized, a retrospective should be shown, and the degree of achievement of goals should be noted. The need to use the frame rule is primarily justified by a simple psychological law of memory operation, discovered at the end of the 19th century.
The structuring of the message can be carried out by applying the chain rule. The chain rule defines the “internal” structuring, setting the structure of communication “from the inside”. The application of this rule is due to the fact that the content of communication cannot be a shapeless pile of various information, it must be somehow built up, connected in a chain. Any chain, ordering, linking, organizing the content, as well as the frame, performs two jobs at once. Firstly, it helps to improve memorization, and secondly, it helps to structure information in accordance with the expectations of the interlocutor.
D. Overcoming the Logical Barrier
Logic, as you know, can be different, which means that when building an impact, it is important to take into account the partner’s favorite logic. Overcoming the logical barrier is associated with knowing the effectiveness of different arguments and methods of argumentation. There are two main ways of constructing an argument: ascending and descending.
Taking into account the peculiarities of the listener clarifies the general provisions with many amendments. In the event that the listener is not too interested in the subject of the message and the speaker’s goal is to arouse the attention of the listeners, then the strongest and most important argument should be presented at the very beginning.
For people with high interest and a high educational level, the ascending system of argumentation is most effective, and for people who are not interested in what will be discussed, and with a low educational level, the descending one is most effective. Thus, the best way to build an argument is directly related to the perception of logic by different people.
Research was also conducted to determine whether to formulate the main conclusions in the message or leave this work for the listener. Scholars argue that it is more effective for people with high interest and a high intellectual level not to suggest a conclusion – they will make it on their own, but in the case of a low level of education, conclusions are necessary. The problem of constructing a logical structure of a message also includes the study of the comparative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation.
Summarizing the results of research on argumentation, we can say the following. A two-way reasoned message is preferable and more effective in educated audiences. The effectiveness of communication significantly depends on how deeply the partners are involved in communication. And this latter is closely related to how consciously a person approaches solving certain issues, whether he simply listens and looks or not only listens, but also thinks about what he hears and sees.
To increase the effectiveness of communication, it is important to have the opportunity or at least the chance to turn on and direct the interlocutor’s thinking in the “right” direction [3, p. 56]. One of the most well-known techniques for controlling the mindset of another is a rhetorical question. Its essence boils down to the fact that the speaker and the listener use questions to which they do not expect an answer, but assume to answer it themselves. Why is such a question being asked? The fact is that thinking begins with a question, a question is the starting point of the thought process, and by asking a rhetorical question, the speaker somehow hopes to "turn on" the interlocutor's thinking and direct it in the right direction.
In order to be understood by the interlocutor, it is necessary, if possible, to take into account the logic of the partner. To do this, it is necessary to imagine the positions, as well as individual and sociocultural characteristics, since the acceptability or unacceptability of one or another logic for a partner mainly depends on its initial orientation. Understanding the partner, an adequate understanding of one’s point of view, goals, and individual characteristics is the main condition for overcoming all barriers without exception, because the more the speaker considers the characteristics of the listener, the more successful communication will be. However, a lot depends on the listener. Listen to hear. “Listening” and “hearing” are not the same thing. What determines the quality of listening? Obviously, it depends on how interested the listener is in the successful mutual understanding of the partners. Obviously, when we “want” to reach an understanding, we listen in a different way than if we are not interested in understanding. There are two main types of listening: directed, critical listening and empathic listening. The desired goal in both types of listening is the same – to understand the partner and treat his message somehow. However, the ways to achieve this goal are different. In the first case, the listener first critically analyzes the message, and then “understands” it. In the case of empathic listening, the opposite happens. A positive result in the interaction on the organization of understanding is achieved by active, or reflexive, listening. There are four types of active responses in communication that provide reflexive listening: 1) Clarification, 2) Paraphrasing, 3) Reflection of feelings and 4) Summary. Clarification is simply an appeal to the interlocutor for clarification of his words, his own understanding, etc. Paraphrasing is a reformulation of what is reported in your own words also in order to test understanding or to direct the conversation in the right direction. Summarizing is giving the main ideas and feelings of the speaker. Thus, the necessary foundation for improving the effectiveness of communication “on the part of the listener” is one’s desire to listen and hear, which, in turn, strongly depends on how he sees the communication situation. The listener, therefore, can really significantly affect the effectiveness of communication – either increase or decrease it.
 Hall J.K., G. Vitanova & L. Marchenkova. Dialogue on second and foreign language learning. – Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2005. – 250 p.  Schaffner C. Editorial: Globalisation, Communication, 1996. – 122 p.  Swain M. The output hypothesis and beyond. Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. – 326 p.  Winitz H.Native language and foreign language acquisition. - New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice-Hall, 2003. – 155 p.  Nasrullaeva, N. Z. (2015). The concept\" kindred relations\" as a problem of gender linguistics (on the material of English phraseology). In The Fifth European Conference on Languages, Literature and Linguistics (pp. 8-13).  Zafarovna, N. N. (2016). GENDER AND GENDER STEREOTYPES IN THE ENGLISH PHRASEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. ????????-??????????? ??????? ??????, 12(1), 111-114.  Nasrullaeva, N. Z. (2018). English-Russian-Uzbek dictionary of genderly marked phraseological units. Toshkent: Navruz.  Nasrullaeva, N. Z. (2018). The formation of gender concepts in the English and Uzbek phraseological world vision. Abstract of doctoral dissertation. Tashkent.  Nasrullaeva, N. (2016). THE CONCEPTS “MAN” AND “WOMAN” IN THE ENGLISH PHRASEOLOGY. Scientific enquiry in the contemporary world: theoretical basi?s and innovative approach, 74.  Safaraliev, B., Bakieva, G., & Nasrullaeva, N. (2020). Linguocultural aspect of investigation of english and uzbek idiomatic expressions. Philology Matters, 2020(3), 3-15.
Copyright © 2023 Nasrullaeva Nafisa Zafarovna, Safaraliev Bozor Safaralievich. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.