Межпоколенческая коммуникация

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the theoretical foundations of intergenerational communication research: the intergroup theory (Tajfel 1981; Turner 1986), the social exchange theory (Roloff 1981, 1987), the communication accommodation theory (Street & Giles 1982; William & Giles 1996), the communication predicament of aging model (Ryen et al. 1986), and the stereotype activation model (Hummert 1994). Each review presents essential findings in their respective areas of research and discusses them in the light of intergenerational communication research. The author contends that the combination of theories or models can provide an integrated approach to the study of intergenerational communication.

Chapter 2 analyzes some important factors relating to intergenerational communication. It starts with age as a category in historical development, focusing on recent changes in the demographic situation in the world and on the aging population in the lute 20^th and 21^st centuries. The author then investigates the position of the elderly in post-Soviet Russia and traces alterations in family structure, changes in the status of various groups of people, variations in adaptation to new market realities, and corresponding changes in communication styles. For example, the chapter asserts that changes in the material well-being and status of the Russian elderly may have translated into modifications of intergenerational communication puttems. The chapter examines research on familial intergenerational communication (grandparent-grandchild) and non-familial communication (with police officers, doctors, and educators) in an intergenerational context, highlighting communicative difficulties in various settings and providing examples of communication observed and recorded in Russia, particularly examples of over-accommodation in care-giving and community settings. Previous studies suggest that aspects of intergenerational communication in some East Asian nations may be more problematic than in some Western ones (Giles et al., 2001). The chapter reviews and summarizes research on perceptions of intergenerational communication and compares communication patterns in Western and Eastern countries where scholars noted significant differences in views on communication and aging. The chapter also deals with aging stereotypes and their reflection in intergenerational communication.

Chapter 3 reports on a study of cross-generational communication conducted by the author in 2005 in St. Petersburg, Russia. The research was modeled on recently conducted surveys of intergenerational communication in the US, Britain, and Pacific Rim countries (Williams et al., 1996; Noels et al., 2001; Giles et al., 2001), and was the first to be conducted in Russia. A questionnaire elicited participant’s perceptions of conversations with members of four target groups: the elderly (aged 60 and above), middle-aged people (40-60), young people (20-40), and teenagers (13-20). The participant pool was made up of 260 people living in St. Petersburg. These people were not formally randomly selected, but were a convenience sample of people available and willing to take part in the survey. Consistent with research in other countries, it was found that young Russian respondents under 20 and between the ages of 20 and 30 reported less frequent contact with older respondents (both aged 40 to 60 and above 60 years of age) and more contact with peers than did the older respondents. The oldest respondents (aged 60-70 and 70-80) reported more frequent contact with older targets than they did with young children and teenage groups; they, too, had the most frequent contact with peers. Respondents who perceived themselves as more sociable people reported more frequent communication regardless of age. However, the reported communicative acts happened more frequently with representatives of teenagers and young people; the study did not find any significant correlations between perceived sociability and communication with older people. The results point to a possible trend of selective sociability among our respondents, and the desire to communicate primarily with younger people. At the same time, young Russian respondents were less concerned with making themselves communicatively attractive to older people, probably because their communicative behavior was primarily aimed at communicative accommodation within their own age group. The author labels this phenomenon as a communicative egocentrism among young interlocutors.

The survey found that attitudes toward intergenerational communication in Russia are similar to those in Western countries. During conversations, people get more satisfaction while talking to interlocutors of their own age group. The study found a statistically significant relationship between the age of respondents and their reported communication satisfaction: for all four age groups the correlation coefficients were fairly high. Older people reported that they were less satisfied when holding conversations with younger people compared to their satisfaction with their communication with interlocutors of their own age group. Results of the survey indicate that younger Russians, like their American counterparts, often feel a desire to avoid or end conversations with non-family elders. To summarize the scales relating to perceptions of communication with different age categories, a factor analysis using SPSS 14,0 was conducted. The best solution for perceptions of other’s communicative behavior was comprised of four factors: communicative accommodation and desire to communicate, communicative egocentrism and self-promotion, communicative non-accommodation and desire to avoid or end conversations, and partial accommodation and desire to talk only about one’s own problems. The author found that strategies of communicative behavior do not change with age, as respondents reported the same strategies for initiation, avoidance, or conclusion of intergenerational conversations regardless of their own age.

Chapter 4 reports on a study investigating the understanding and usage of religious terminology by people of different ages. In the post-Soviet period, the Russian language has experienced instability in the boundaries between the center and the periphery of the lexical system. It was claimed that words previously considered historicisms or obsolete terminology were making a comeback (Ryazanova-Clarke & Wade 1999). The changed role of religion in contemporary Russia has propelled ecclesiastical words into more active use. However, it was not clear to what extent these words are familiar to Russian speakers of different ages. The central task of the study was to establish a relationship between the age of speakers and their familiarity with religious words, and their attitude toward ecclesiastical words and expressions.

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.