Mitmeviisiline suhtlus ja teiste käitumise mõistmine sõjaväelistel juhtidel

Silvi Tenjes

Abstract


Töö eesmärk on leida, kuidas sõjaväelised juhid tajuvad erinevaid suhtlusviise muutuvates tingimustes ning kuidas nad saaksid sellistes situatsioonides paremini toime tulla. Kaasnev eesmärk on leida seoseid tunnetustegevuse (kognitsiooni) ja tajuprotsesside mehhanismide vahel sõjaväelistel juhtidel mitmeviisilistes suhtlussituatsioonides. Korpus on videolindistatud loomulikus õppe- ja õppuse protsessi olukorras kahe kaameraga. Andmeid analüüsitakse kvalitatiivse mikroanalüüsi (kommunikatsioonietnograafia) meetodiga kahetasandiliselt. Artikli teoreetiline osa tutvustab kehastunud simulatsiooni hüpoteesi ning kvalitatiivse analüüsi tulemus laiendab teadmist modaalsuste käitumisest suhtluses. Töö näitab kehastunud modaalsuste olulist seotust intersubjektiivsuse ja kehastunud simulatsiooni mehhanismiga sõjaväelistes õppesituatsioonides.

***

Multimodal communication and understanding of the behavior of others among military leaders

This article analyses multimodal communication in the context of the defence forces. The research focuses on the specific nature of interactions in the military that require the practice of routine activities to be applied in unexpected situations. This unique context affects aspects of interactive communication. The data were collected as part of a research project on multimodal communication among military leaders. The relationship between the research question and more recent theoretical approaches to intersubjectivity is related to the results of brain research that gives insights into the mechanisms of imitation and simulation. They form the basis for brain-body system models in interaction with the world. Underlying embodied simulation is discussed in regard to the concept of intersubjectivity as a shared meaning space (Gallese 2003). The ability to model interactions between the environment and the organism within it allows our brains to model the behaviour of others in much the same way as it models our own behaviour. Imitation and simulation abilities help to understand and predict the behaviour of others. This knowledge is already being applied to improve team effectiveness through shared mental models in 21st century military operations. The results of qualitative analysis extend our understanding of referencing and the behaviour of modalities in communication. The paper provides insights how one modality could refer to another one. The interactive nature of the military revealed the use of artifacts that the civilian world does not consider to be commonplace. In military situations, it is of utmost importance to interpret the behaviour of others in the most correct way in terms of meaning. The use of simulation routines in learning situations is one means to achieve that. Activity tracking is expected to trigger automatic simulation of action, and, in real-world situations, registered routines will enable military leaders to behave appropriately and make the right decisions in a swift manner.


Keywords


multimodal communication, referencing, embodied simulation, intersubjectivity, military leaders, Estonian

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allik, Jüri 2017. Väldi igavaid inimesi ja olukordi [’Avoid Boring People and Situations’]. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.

Arbib, Michael; Rizzolatti, Giacomo 1997. Neural expectations: A possible evolutionary path from manual skills to language. – Communication and Cognition, 29 (3–4), 393–424.

Beilock, Sian L.; Goldin-Meadow, Susan 2010. Gestures changes thought by grounding it in action. – Psychological Science, 21 (11), 1605–1610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385353

Cannon-Bowers, Janis A.; Salas, Eduardo 1988. Individual and team decision making. – Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Eduardo Salas (Eds.), Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training. Washington: American Psychological Association, 17‒38.

Cannon-Bowers, Janis A.; Salas, Eduardo; Converse, Sharolyn A. 1993. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. ‒ John N. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and Group Decisions Making: Current Issue. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum, 221‒246. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772744

Chalmers, David J. 1996. The Conscious Mind: in Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chan, Kim-Yin; Soh, Star; Ramaya, Regena 2011. Military Leadership in the 21st Century Learning. Science and Practice. Andover–Melbourne–Singapore–etc.: Cengage Learning.

Clark, Andy 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001

Gallese, Vittorio 2003. The manifold nature of interpersonal relations: the quest for a common mechanism. – Philosophical Transactions B, 358. London: The Royal Society Publishing, 517–528. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1234

Gallese, Vittorio; Fadiga, Luciano; Fogassi, Leonardo; Rizzolatti, Giacomo 1996. Action recognition in the premotor cortex. – Brain, 119 (2), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.2.593

Goldman, Alvin 1989. Interpretation psychologized. – Mind and Language, 4 (3), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00249.x

Goldman, Alvin 1992. In defense of the simulation theory. – Mind and Language, 7 (1–2), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1992.tb00200.x

Goldman, Alvin 1993a. The psychology of folk psychology. – Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16 (1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00028648

Goldman, Alvin 1993b. Philosophical Applications of Cognitive Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Goldman, Alvin 2000. The mentalizing folk. – Dan Sperber (Ed.), Metarepresentation: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, 10. London: Oxford University Press, 171–196.

Gordon, Robert 1986. Folk psychology as simulation. – Mind and Language, 1 (2), 158–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1986.tb00324.x

Grafton, Scott T.; Arbib, Michael A.; Fadiga, Luciano; Rizzolatti, Giacomo 1996. Localization of grasp representations in humans by PET: 2, Observation compared with imagination. – Experimental Brain Research, 112, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00227183

Harris, Paul 1989. Children and Emotion. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.

Jokinen, Kristiina; Tenjes, Silvi; Rummo, Ingrid 2013. Embodied interaction and semiotic categorization: Communicative gestures of a girl with Patau syndrome. ‒ Carita Paradis, Jean Hudson, and Ulf Magnusson (Eds.), The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space. Explorations in Language and Space, 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74‒97. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641635.003.0006

Kendon, Adam 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572

Krauss, Robert M.; Fussell, Susan R.; Chen, Yihsiu 1995. Coordination of perspective in dialogue: Intrapersonal and interpersonal processes. – Ivana Marková, Carl F. Graumann, Klaus Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,124–145.

Kruusmann, Arno 2004. Sõjatopograafia. Kaardilugemine [‘Military Topography: Map Reading’]. Tartu: Kaitseväe Ühendatud Õppeasutused.

Kulakov, Dmitri; Tenjes, Silvi 2017. Multimodaalse suhtlusakti struktuur ja tähenduse kujunemine mitme osalejaga suhtlussituatsioonis [‘Structure of multimodal communicative acts and formation of meaning in multiparty communication situations’]. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 13, 187–203. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa13.12

Leeuwen, Theo van 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London–New York: Routledge.

Lõbus, Triin; Tenjes, Silvi 2010. Narratiivi aeg ja tõlkeaeg: diskursiivne käsitlus [‘Time of narrative and time of translation: A discursive approach’]. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 6, 157–173. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa6.10

Mathieu, John E.; Goodwin, Gerald F.; Heffner, Tonia S.; Salas, Eduardo; Cannon-Bowers, Janis A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. ‒ Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

Meltzoff, Andrew N. 2002. Elements of a developmental theory of imitation. ‒ Wolfgang Prinz, Andrew Meltzoff (Eds.), The Imitative Mind: Development, Evolution and Brain Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489969.002

Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Moore, Keith M. 1977. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. – Science, 198 (4312), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.198.4312.75

Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Moore, Keith M. 1997. Explaining facial imitation: a theoretical model. – Early Development and Parenting, 6 (3–4), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199709/12)6:3/4%3C179::AID-EDP157%3E3.0.CO;2-R

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. C. Smith (Transl.). New York: The Humanities Press.

Norris, Sigrid 2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. A Methodological Framework. London–New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203379493

Oakley, Todd 2007. Attention and semiotics. ‒ Cognitive Semiotics, 1, 25‒45. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem.2007.1.fall2007.25

Rizzolatti, Giacomo; Arbib, Michael A. 1998. Language within our grasp. ‒ Trends in Neuroscience, 21 (5), 188–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01260-0

Schmidt, Richard 2001. Attention. – Peter Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003

Serfaty, Daniel; Entin, Elliot E.; Johnston, Joan H. 1998. Team coordination training. – Janis A. Cannon-Bowers, Eduardo Salas (Eds.), Making Decisions under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training. Washington: American Psychological Association, 221–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/10278-008

Shedletsky, Lenny 2008. Cognition. – Wolfgang Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Vol. II. Malden–Oxford–Careton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 541–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc043

Silvet, Johannes 1995. Inglise-eesti sõnaraamat [‘An English-Estonian Dictionary’]. Tallinn: Valgus.

Stern, Daniel N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant. London: Karnac Books.

Tenjes, Silvi 2001. Keele žestilise päritolu hüpotees [‘Hypothesis of the gestural origins of language’]. ‒ Keel ja Kirjandus, 10, 683‒690; 11, 756‒764.

Tenjes, Silvi 2014. Multimodaalne suhtlus ja kognitsiooniuuringud pedagoogikas [‘Multimodal communication and studies of cognition in pedagogy’]. ‒ ESUKA/ JEFUL, 5 (3), 115‒132. https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2014.5.3.06

Tenjes, Silvi 2017. Mentaalsete mudelite avardamine multimodaalsete suhtlusviiside kaudu: kasu ennastjuhtivale õppijale [‘Mental model enhancement via multimodal communication methods: benefit for self-directed learner’]. – Sõjateadlane / Estonian Journal of Military Studies 4, 208–236. www.ksk.edu.ee/publikatsioonid (16.08.2017)

Watt, William C. 2006. Semiosis. – Keith Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, London: Elsevier, 193–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01449-8

EKSS = Eesti keele seletav sõnaraamat 2009. http://www.eki.ee/dict/ekss (22.8.2019).

VSL = Võõrsõnade leksikon. https://www.eki.ee/dict/vsl (22.8.2019).

ÕS = Eesti õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2018. http://eki.ee/dict/qs (1.9.2019).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa16.12

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Silvi Tenjes

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563