Keyword: «межкультурная коммуникация»

With the deepening of cultural exchanges between China and Russia, the cultural differences between them are becoming increasingly noticeable. To reduce misun-derstandings and obstacles in intercultural communication, we need to compare and con-trast Chinese and Russian cultures to find common ground while maintaining differences and promote the smooth development of intercultural communication. The author analyzes through comparative research Russian and Chinese food cultures, their obvious differences and reasons to benefit Russian-Chinese communication.

Definitional characteristics of the linguocultural type «dervish» in Arabic and Russian linguocultures are represented in this article. They are embodied here through the analysis of the definitional features of this type in lexicographic sources and notes of travellers as well as on the basis of its description in the historical essays both and in scientific literature in Russian and Arabic. Universal and regional features of the concept under consideration in both linguocultures have been recognized. Dictionary interpretations of the concept of «dervish» are highlighted, its lexical and semantic field is analyzed. The main conceptual characteristics of this linguocultural type were derived based on the analysis of dictionary and encyclopedic definitions.

The study of intercultural communication in psychology is an important issue in the context of the modern globalized world. Research in this area can lead to the development of more effective methods of training and education, improving the quality of international cooperation based on an understanding of psychological characteristics. The purpose of our research is to study intercultural communication from the point of view of the difficulties that arise in its process. The author's questionnaire was used for the study. The study sample consisted of two groups of students from the Petrozavodsk State University: 1 – a group in which there are foreign students (25 people), 2 – a group in which there are no foreign students (14 people). The results showed that the assessment of difficulties in intercultural communication by students who had experience of intercultural communication differed from the assessment of difficulties in intercultural communication by students who did not have such experience.