Communicative failures of ukrainian speakers in learning german

Introduction

Modern communicative linguistics actualizes the study of fundamental and universal concepts that have already been in the focus of linguistic research and among which the phenomenon of communicative deviations remains most controversial particularly in intercultural communication. The relevance of the topic is determined by its focus on formulating recommendations for preventing communication failures and, as a result, achieving cooperative balance between speakers in intercultural communication given the realia, norms, conventions, maxims and rules of interpersonal and group communication. The purpose is to identify and explore the German language peculiarities that cause misunderstandings in communication for non- native speakers, in particular Ukrainian speakers, and offer the algorithm for the representatives of different ethnic communities to help them avoid and resolve possible conflicts given the study of German as a foreign language.

Literature Review

Generally, two main approaches to the phenomenon of communicative deviations (Hinnenkamp, 2014; Deppermann, & Cindark, 2018; Deppermann, & De Stefani, 2019; Deppermann, & Helmer, 2013; Dyakiv, 2019; Kayumova, Safina, & Nefedova, 2019; Li, Zhong, & Mo, 2020; Mustajoki, 2012) have emerged: interdisciplinary and specialized. Interdisciplinary approach, extending beyond the very linguistics is reflected in philosophy, psychology, conflictology, journalism, culturology, what is particularly important for the present research – in intercultural communication (Ehrhardt, & Heringer, 2011; Földes, 2006; Földes, & Furmanova, 2020; Földi, 2020; Riehl, Kretzenbacher, Hajek, & López, 2020), in pedagogy (Busch, 2003; Chernyavskaya, 2020), methodics and didactics (Brinitzer, Hantschel, & Kroemer, 2016; Cherubim, 1986; Rösler, 2012; Rösler, 2013). Specialized approach is reflected in theoretical linguistics (Arutyunova, 1987; Gordevskij, 2000), cognitive (Dubtsova, 2014; Selivanova, 2000), discourse and text linguistics (Milchenko, 2011), communication studies (Ruda, 2007; Slavova, 2000), psycholinguistics (Pshenychna, 2011; Yanovets 2014), sociolinguistics (Hinnenkamp, 2014) and contrastive linguistics (Cherniukh, 2014).

Methodology

Communicative deviation are understood in a broad sense as an umbrella term for linguistic and communicative obstacles; the most common concept associated with different types of deviations in relation to the actual language norms, speech conventions, maxims of communication, interaction strategies, implications and implicatures of discourse (and other factors).

In a narrow sense communicative deviation is:

1. a difference, discrepancy in the expectations of communicators, caused by the addressee, the addresser or communication noise, which is a deviation for one of the communicators;


2. a communicative failure (an absolute synonym). This scientific description is developed against the background of such related concepts and terms that may be the causes of deviations:
   1. Communicative obstacle (or deviation) is a deviation from the norms of cooperative communication, which is not always a failure, but may be one of its causes; hyponym for failure.
   
   
   2. An error is a violation of the established lexical-grammatical and syntactical- stylistic norms of a certain language.

The study uses the term communicative deviation in favor of a generalized term, a broad concept of linguistic, speech and communicative deviations in dialogic speech, in particular between native German speakers and non-native speakers. Because one of the tasks for the representatives of different ethno- and linguocultures is to form intercultural competence and gain necessary knowledge about various peoples and cultures in order to avoid interethnic and intercultural conflicts and create comfortable environment for communication in different spheres and life situations (Manakin, 2012: 10).

Systematization of scientific literature on the researched issue allows to assume that the study of communicative deviations as a phenomenon is substantial to foreign language learning. Considering that current method of foreign language teaching is directed towards forming students` foreign language competence for direct and indirect intercultural communication, the cultural knowledge of the country whose language they are learning is an indispensable component for foreign language education. Mastering foreign language intercultural communicative competence (Byram, & Wagner, 2018; Savignon, & Sysoyev, 2005) involves: recognition and appreciation of one’s own and others’ multiplicities; ability to respond flexibly in unpredictable communicative situations; ability to respect national values of other culture; tolerance to culture-specific peculiarities of communicative behavior of other.

Intercultural communication skills are an important component in avoiding incomprehensible and atypical situations, failures and misunderstandings. Therefore, foreign language competence includes:

- knowledge of existing cultural differences,

- perception (but not evaluation) of these differences,

- ability to recognize intercultural misunderstandings,

- discussion of intercultural misunderstandings,

- resolving intercultural conflicts,

- exclusion of assessment of a person on the basis of their culture (Brinitzer, Hantschel, & Kroemer, 2016: 102).

Communicative linguistic competence in general comprises several components – linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic – each of which primarily includes declarative knowledge, as well as skills and procedural knowledge.

1. Linguistic competence includes lexical, phonological and syntactic knowledge and skills and other dimensions of language system, regardless of sociolinguistically determined variations and their pragmatic function in the use of language. This component of communicative language proficiency is related not only to the volume and quality of one's declarative knowledge but also to cognitive organization and the way the knowledge is stored. We can assume that cognitive organization of the vocabulary and idioms storage etc. depend, among other things, on cultural peculiarities of a language community or communities where a person grew up and communicated and where their studying occurred.


2. Sociolinguistic competence is determined by sociocultural conditions of language use, particularly rules of courtesy; norms that regulate relations between generations, genders, social classes and groups etc.


3. Pragmatic competence regulates functional use of language resources (language functions, speech acts) by means of interactive scenarios. They also include discourse competence, cohesion and coherence as well as the identification of text types.

However, pragmatic competence involves understanding language norms in different language communities and cultures. Therefore, we consider it appropriate in our study to include sociolinguistic competence in pragmatic, since we are dealing with a foreign language and therefore pragmatics is due to sociolinguistic specifics.

According to “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment” (CEFR) foreign language classes should promote the development of intercultural skills and know-how that are specified as:

- the ability to bring the culture of origin and the foreign culture into relation with each other;

- cultural sensitivity and the ability to identify and use a variety of strategies for contact with those from other cultures;

- the capacity to fulfill the role of cultural intermediary between one’s own culture and the foreign culture and to deal effectively with intercultural misunderstanding and conflict situations;

- the ability to overcome stereotyped relationships (Council of Europe, 2001: 104–105).

Further we suggest the analysis of communicative failures that occur in the process of learning German as a foreign language or during communication with native speakers of different languages, particularly German and Ukrainian, and cause mistakes and misunderstandings in communication. We shall specifically concentrate on phonological, lexical, syntactic and pragmatic aspects, which enabled the typology of deviations and structured approaches to their study and analysis.

Intercultural discrepancies are reflected in various language pictures of the world. The proposed research explores them through the prism of Ukrainian worldview. The empirical research was based on the speech activity of Ukrainian students during classes at the Department of German Studies and Translation (levels B2–C1) of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv in 2020–2021 academic years and definitions from the Universal Dictionary of German Duden (Duden, 2021), in addition to the materials reflected in textbooks and teaching manuals (Dyakiv, 2015; Ferenbach, & Schüßler, 2017; Koithan, & Schmitz, 2016a, b; Koithan, & Schmitz, 2015a, b; Stang, 2018; Strank, 2010) as well as from authentic German-language sources (DAAD, 2021; Deutsche Welle, 2021; Goethe & aktuell, 2021).

The methods used in research include observation method, descriptive method and structural-semantic method of deviant lexical units analysis based on vocabulary definitions, contrastive method to juxtapose normative and deviant language units taking into account sociocultural peculiarities. The analysis uses materials from online and offline German and translation classes where 50 German studies students and 50 translation students from the 3rd, 4th and 5th years of study took part and were interviewed about, what kind of failures are typical and most frequent in their communication in German. A survey, in which the students were asked what poses challenges in learning German as a foreign language and leads to confusion and misunderstandings, helped to identify the most common types of communicative deviations in percentage terms (interviewees had several response options). We offer their detailed analysis in the following section.

Results and Discussion

Given the presence of a significant amount of research on linguistic and country studies and methodics along with didactics of foreign language learning, aimed primarily at information acquirement in the fields of geography, economics or art, the linguistic aspect of communicative deviations remains understudied. There is also a lack of studies that would be adapted specifically for Ukrainians learning German, as the task of intercultural communication is to teach how to apply theoretical knowledge in practice, to communicate with native speakers, to understand and analyze other culture and thus to avoid communicative failures and deviations.

Professional experience in working with German studies students and students studying translation as well as analysis of existing works on German as a foreign language and our own teaching materials allowed to identify and explore the specifics of communicative deviations that occur in the following aspects:

Phonological aspect

The foundations for the formation of foreign language phonological competence (Borysko, 2011; Hirschfeld, & Siebenhaar, 2013), which involves mastering all sounds and sound combinations, stress, rhythm and intonation of simple and complex sentences, are laid primarily at the levels of A1–B1+. However, phonetic skills require further improvement at levels B2– C1 which will contribute to the correct pronunciation of speech, clear transmission of the content of the statement and the expression of attitude to the addressee or the subject of the conversation. Difficulties that arise in the process of learning foreign phonetic material are primarily related to interlingual and intralinguistic interference leading to phonetic and phonological errors, the former of which rarely cause misunderstanding, but change the sound quality and create accent, and the latter distort the content.

The observation of the pronunciation of Ukrainian students studying German as a first foreign language at the B2–C1 levels revealed the following violations of the phonetic arrangement of speech that lead to complete or partial misunderstanding of the utterance by the participants of communication:

1. 1. Violation of the rules of German vowels length and shortness that leads to a change in the meaning of the word (92% of the interviewees). For example, the length of vowels influences the meaning in such word pairs as: Beeren – Bären, Bieten – bitten, Beet – Bett, fühlen – füllen, Höhle – Hölle, Kahn – kann, Miete – Mitte, Saat – satt, Rate– Ratte, Schal – Schall, Wahn – wann etc.


2. Pronunciation of a vowel sound at the beginning of a word without a glottal stop which serves to articulate the separation of semantic parts in German compound words and helps to recognize their meaning (24% of the interviewees): Spiegelei, Ehrenamt, Verantwortung, beiphonen etc.


3. Incorrect pronunciation of monophthong [ŋ] as a combination of sounds„ n “and”, which complicates the distinction between [ŋ] and [ŋk] (29% of the interviewees): bang – Bank, Engel – Enkel, Klinge – Klinke, singen – sinken, Tang – Tank, Zangen – zanken etc.


4. Incorrect stress in compound words that occurs due to wrong distinction between denoting and denoted (main) parts of a compound (73% of the interviewees). Given that the disparity between word stresses is greater in German than in Ukrainian reading compound words incorrectly leads to misunderstanding of such seemingly simple words as: Blumen-topf-erde pronounced as Blumento-pferde, Antrag-steller as Antrags- teller, Kur-ort as Ku-rort. Additionally, false analogies with Ukrainian language cause incorrect stress in words of foreign origin: Kino – кіно́, Taxi – таксі́, Auto – авто́, Landschaft – ландша́фт, Rucksack – рюкза́к, Butterbrot – бутербро́д etc.


5. Mismatch between speaker's intonation and communicative intention of the utterance (21% of the interviewees). For instance, incomplete drop of tone in German imperative sentences creates an intonation of politeness, so an abrupt drop of tone, which Ukrainian students mistakenly use in requests, is perceived as being rude.

Lexical aspect

It is with lexical peculiarities that non-native speakers tend to have the most problem. Following groups can be distinguished here:

1. Lacunar vocabulary (86% of the interviewees) – the vocabulary that does not exist in person's first language. According to F. Batsevych, lacuna is a lack of lexical equivalents in one of the languages that are being studied or compared (in first or foreign), they usually involve words denoting national, historic and cultural realia, “cultural items” (Batsevych, 2007: 97). Lacunae are commonly the reasons why communicative failures, mistakes and misunderstanding occur during communication.

For Ukrainians who study German as a foreign language lacuna as a phenomenon manifest themselves in the following vocabulary:

a) Forms of family structure (Wochenendfamilie, Patch work familie, Einelternfamilie, Pflegefamilie, Wohngemeinschaft);

b) types of housing (Baumhaus, Jugendherberge, Plattenbau, Fachwerkhaus, Ferienwohnung, Wohnmobil, Hütte);

c) holidays (Heilige Drei Könige, Rosenmontag, Aschermittwoch, der Fasching, Karneval, Fastnacht, Festzug, Frühlings-, Sommer-, Herbst-, Winteranfang, Gründonnerstag, Karfreitag, Sternsinger-Umzug, die 5. Jahreszeit, Oktoberfest, Erntedank, Tag der deutschen Einheit, Weltspartag, Martinstag, Buß- und Betttag, 1.– 4. Advent, Silvester etc.);

d) greetings and wishes (Frohe Ostern! Frohe und gesegnete Weihnachten! Hals- und Beinbruch! Viel Glück! Guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr! Gesundheit!) in particular the manner to respond in the same way to greetings during Christmas and Easter (Frohe Weihnachten! – Frohe Weihnachten! Frohe Ostern! – Frohe Ostern!);

e) symbols of good and bad luck (Schornsteinfeger / Kaminkehrer, schwarze Katze, die von rechts nach links / von links nach rechts läuft, Glücksschwein, Glückspfennig, Scherben, vierblättriges Kleeblatt);

f) educational institutions (Hort, Realschule, Hauptschule, Gesamtschule);

g) some ways to characterize people and realia (Glucke, Schwarze Witwe, Partylöwe, Nesthocker, Hotel Mama, Flitterwochen, Elternzeit) etc.

2. Language variations (German: Varietäten) (97% of the interviewees). Taking into consideration the fact that German is a pluricentric language, which has its variations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the differences / inconsistencies in meaning of words in each country pose challenges to those who study German (for example, in Germany and Austria): Kartoffeln – Erdäpfel, Tomaten – Paradeiser, Aprikose – Marille, Pflaumen – Zwetschgen, Stuhl – Sessel, Freund – Kollege.

Regional variations also include greetings that can lead to a misunderstanding between German native speakers from different regions, not to mention Ukrainians who study German as a foreign language. Thus, forms of greeting, despite being considered clichéd and standardized speech acts, vary not only in German-speaking countries but also within particular regions of Germany:

Northern Germany: Hallo, Moin, Mahlzeit, Tschüs; Northern and Western Germany: Guten Tag, Hallo, Grüß dich, Auf Wiedersehen, Tschö; Southern Germany: Guten Tag, Hallo, Grüß Gott, Servus, Auf Wiedersehen, Tschüs, Grias di (Grüß dich), Habideri (Habe die Ehre); Austria: Grüß Gott, Servus, Auf Wiederschauen, Grias di (Grüß dich), Habideri (Habe die Ehre); Switzerland: Grüezi, Salü, Ade, Adieu, Auf Wiederluege, Bis dann, Bis bald, Tschau, Wir sehen uns.

3. Dialectisms (94% of the interviewees). This mostly concerns phraseology and cooking vocabulary. For instance, деруни (deruny) / Kartoffelpuffer have different names depending on the regions of Germany or the country (Austria, Switzerland): Kartoffelpuffer or Reibekuchen (Nord- und Westdeutschland, auch in Pommern und Schlesien), Baggers (Franken), Bambes, gebackene Glies, Buttermilchglies (Vogtland), Flinsen (Ostpreußen), Kartoffelplätzcher or Panneläppcher (Südhessen und Siegerland), Reiberdatschi or Erdäpfelpuffer (Bayern, Österreich), Dotsch (Oberpfalz), Rievkooche (Rheinland), Grommbierkischeljer (Saarland), Kartoffelklitscher (Obersachsen), Grumbeerpannekuchen (Pfalz), Erbelkrebbel (Hessen), Krumbirnpöngeli (Unterfranken), Ballnklöß, Franzkung (Oberfranken), Baggerla (Frankenwald and Hofer Land), Herdöpfelpuffer (Markgräflerland), Dädsch (Landkreis Coburg), Datsch, Detscher (nördlicher Thüringer Wald), Erdäpfelkrapferl (Österreich), Härdöpfelchüechli, Härdöpfeldätschli (Schweiz).

Regional variations or similar to this example are also: Dibbelabbes, Döppekooche, Fratzen, Klitscher, Latkes, Pillekuchen, Rösti, Pickert or Riewekooche.

4. Toponyms that sound different than geographical names in the native language (48% of the interviewees), in particular in Ukrainian:

Ärmelkanal – Ла-Манш, Böhmen – Богемія, Bozen – Боцен, Breslau – Вроцлав, Kreta – Крит, Danzig – Гданськ, Erzgebirge – Рудні гори, Genf – Женева, Georgien – Грузія, Karlsbad – Карлові Вари, Kapstadt – Кейптаун, Laibach – Любляна, Lemberg – Львів, Lettland – Латвія, Litauen – Литва, Mailand – Мілан, Möhren – Моравія, Nordsee – Північне море, Ostsee – Балтійське море, Pazifik – Тихий океан, Pjöngjang – Пхеньян, Plattensee – Балатон, Posen – Познань, Pressburg – Братіслава, Siebenbürgen – Трансільванія, Slowakei – Словаччина, Stettin – Щецин, Venedig – Венеція, Weichsel – Вісла, Zypern – Кіпр.

5. Exclamations (62% of the interviewees). One of the seemingly simple issues (since it is studied at elementary level) but no less important is the problem of exclamations in German language due to their ambiguity (for example Hey! Hopp! Igitt! Oh-0h! Oh Gott! Oje! Pfui! Ui! Boah! Ach! Brr! Au!). Since exclamations only signal feelings, emotions, mood or expression of will, it is difficult for non-native German speakers to understand their meaning correctly or to use them adequately as an automatic reaction in spontaneous spoken language. Thus, the exclamation “Au!” in German can express pain: “Au, das tut weh!” or joy: “Au [fein], das macht Spaß!”; in a figurative sense “Au!” is used as a reaction to a bad joke (Duden, 2021). The equivalent to German “Pfui!”, that expresses disgust is Ukrainian “Фу!”: “Pfui, wie es stinkt!” – “Фу, як смердить!”. But if in Ukrainian language the same exclamation is used to express a feeling of relief after fatigue or hard work (e.g. “Фу, нарешті все зробила”), in German language such usage is unacceptable.
6. Color terms (53% of the interviewees). Another aspect of substantial differences in both ethnolinguistic cultures concerns color terms that have different symbolism, connotation, pragmatic potential and thus can form various phraseologisms. The verbalization of color terms in phraseological expressions is used as an attribute of distinct prototypes of both ethnolinguistic cultures. According to V. Manakin, “Connotations of color terms contain interesting information about the most stable (subconscious) visual tastes of color perception which distinguishes each national culture and which are reflected in the language and other ways of identifying national character and mentality” (Manakin, 2012: 164). Phraseologisms that use such color terms as black, red, white, yellow and grey mostly correspond symbolically in both linguocultures, the difference lies in the usage of such color terms as yellow and sometimes green, and color terms like blue and green tend to be lacunae.

Color symbolism examples in German linguoculture that differ from Ukrainian are presented below (Dyakiv, 2018: 247–258): Regenbogenpresse – жовта преса, бульварна преса, der gelbe Neid – чорна заздрість; sich grün und blau / grün und gelb ärgern – дуже злитися, jemandem nicht grün sein – не переносити когось на дух, [das ist] dasselbe in grün – це – те саме, einen grünen Daumen haben – мати легку руку у догляді і вирощуванні рослин, der Grüne Donnerstag – чистий четвер etc.; blau sein – бути напідпитку, blau machen, blauen Montag haben – прогулювати, alles himmelblau sehen, blauäugig sein – бути наївним, blau reden, das Blaue vom Himmel versprechen – брехати, mit einem blauen Auge davonkommen – легко відбутися, vom blauen Affen gebissen sein – бути не при собі; es geht mir lila – у мене справи посередньо, так собі; er war braun – переконаний націонал- соціаліст, ein Brauner – чорна кава; eine weiße Weste haben – не мати боргів, der weiße Tod – смерть від лавини, der Weiße Sonntag – Провідна неділя, der weiße Sport – зимовий вид спорту; graue Händler – нелегальні торговці, das graue Elend haben – бути нужденним, das ist nicht grau und nicht grün – ні те ні се; jmdm. nicht das Schwarze unter dem [Finger]nagel gönnen – зневажати, ins Schwarze treffen – влучити в десятку, das Schwarze Brett –дошка оголошень; rosige Zeiten – безтурботні, веселі часи, etw. in den rosigsten Farben schildern – зображати щось у яскравих барвах; sich eine goldene Nase verdienen – бути багатим, mit einem goldenen Löffel im Mund geboren sein – мати легке життя, Goldener Sonntag – остання неділя перед Різдвом.

7. Numerals (91% of the interviewees). Reading numerals from units to tens creates a lot of misunderstandings for Ukrainian speakers who learn German. It should also be noted that often students do not distinguish between dates (im Jahr nenzehnhundertsiebenundfünfzig – у 1957 році) and number of objects or amounts (for example, eintausendneunhindertsiebenundfünfzig Tische – 1957 столів) that have a different pronunciation or spelling.


8. Shortening (88% of the interviewees) is a common phenomenon for native speakers, but for those learning German, many abbreviations are not easy to understand, for example: Zivi, Azubi, Kita, Abi, ADAC, AOK, TÜV, ICE, RE, DB, EU, ZDF, WG, GmbH, FAZ, BRD, AStA, BAföG.


9. Complex words or compounds (Bandwurmwörter) that cause difficulties in understanding, namely (76% of the interviewees):


10. Lexico-semantic interference (64% of the interviewees). Interlingual interference is a phenomenon that commonly leads to communicative deviations and misunderstandings caused by "false friends" of a non-native speaker or a translator, to name a few: Akademiker – людина з вищою освітою, Akademiemitglied – академік, Lehrer –вчитель, Hochschullehrer – викладач, Maschine – машина (пристрій, апарат), Auto – машина (автомобіль), eine Ausbildung / Lehre machen – навчатися професії, die Ausbildung – освіта, studieren – вчитися у внз або детально щось вивчати / розглядати, lernen – вчитися у школі або вивчати мову.

Syntactic aspect

Syntax plays an important role in a development of foreign language communicative competence, a correct use of syntax makes it possible to build sentences with various intentions, to connect parts of a complex sentence with coordinating and subordinating conjunctions and to express oneself logically and coherently in spoken and written communication. The difficulties that Ukrainian students face in the process of constructing syntactic units in German are primarily related to the transfer of grammatical structures, rules and norms from their native language. Peculiarities of German syntax that differ from Ukrainian: fixed position of the finite and non-finite part of the predicate in simple and complex sentences; frame structure (German: Satzklammer); the principle of placing modifiers in a sentence by meaning using the tekamolo order (adverbs of time, adverbs of manner, adverbs of place / direction); placement correlation of object in the sentence depending on the method of their expression (noun, pronoun) and the case (dative, accusative); zero position of conjunctions aber, denn, und, sondern, oder in compound sentences; change of word order in a sentence due to conjunctive adverbs deshalb, trotzdem, dennoch, folglich, sonst etc.; distinguishing between single and repeated actions in the past tense with the help of conjunctions “als” and “wenn” in temporal clause; use of infinitive clauses “um…zu + Infinitiv”, “ohne…zu + Infinitiv”, “statt…zu + Infinitiv” with identical subjects; use of subordinating conjunction “indem” instead of participle etc. Here are the most common types of violations of syntactic constructions which we observe during the process of teaching Ukrainian students at levels B2–C1:

1. Incorrect placement of the finite part of the predicate in German complex sentence due to incorrect identification of the meaning and position of the conjunction or adverb of the conjunctive nature (96% of the interviewees). In this manner a similar meaning of “denn” and “weil” leads to a false perception of “denn” as a subordinating conjunction: “Er spricht fließend Deutsch, denn er viel übt” instead of “Er spricht fließend Deutsch, denn er übt viel”.


2. Use of the conjunction “wenn” instead of “wann” in indirect interrogative sentences “Ich weiß nicht, wenn er kommt” instead of “Ich weiß nicht, wann er kommt” since they both sound similar in Ukrainian (87% of the interviewees).


3. Misuse of the preposition after proper names in the main sentence and of the relative pronoun in the subordinate attributive clause: “Berlin, in dem ich geboren wurde” instead of “Berlin, wo ich geboren wurde” (56% of the interviewees).


4. Wrong word order in extended attribute constructions (74% of the interviewees): “das verkaufte im vergangenen Jahr Auto” instead of “das im vergangenen Jahr verkaufte Auto”.


5. Omission of “zu” in the structure of the modal participle (33% of the interviewees): “die lösende Aufgabe” instead of “die zu lösende Aufgabe”.

Pragmatic aspect

Regarding the pragmatic specifics, a significant difference lies in the fact that German linguoculture in comparison with Ukrainian belongs to the low- context cultures (Hall, 1976) that is, those that are characterized by: frank and expressive manner of speech, specificity, directness of questions, a small proportion of nonverbal forms of communication, clear and understandable assessment of all discussed issues, open expression of dissatisfaction etc.

Which is why open, direct communication of German speakers may often seem to Ukrainians as disrespectful and tactless. For example, it is customary for Germans to say “du” to both older relatives and strangers, for the addressee and not the addresser to introduce themselves on the telephone first, and to say “Auf Wiederhören!”, not “Auf Wiedersehen!” It is also important to remember that it is unacceptable to introduce oneself to someone in German using “Frau” / “Herr”, but it is normal to address other people using this form with a surname instead of a name, which is an example of interference.

Native language interference is also manifested in clichéd forms of communication such as: the answer to the question “Wie geht es Dir / Ihnen?” Ukrainians often express a lengthy monologue (53% of the interviewees), although the expected answer should be concise (for example, “Danke, gut”) and with a mutual question (“Und Dir / Ihnen?”), the typical answer is “Sehr angenehm” (дуже приємно) instead of “Freut mich” (84% of the interviewees). Common and frequent errors include misuse of ihr-Form (many people, each of whom is close to you, “Duzen”) and Sie- Form (one or many people, each of whom is not close to you, “Siezen”) (97% of the interviewees).

Of importance is also the observance of German etiquette and cultural specifics in certain situations, namely: shaking hands when greeting both men and women, asking in advance about the desired gifts for birthdays, weddings, consuming natural products and resources sparingly, keeping receipts, adhering to time framework of the meeting, looking into the eyes of the interlocutor during the conversation and making a toast with “Prost!”, a detailed response when requested to tell the way, loud nose- blowing, which is not typical for Ukrainians.

Not the least role is played by the distance between the speakers which in German-speaking countries is much greater than in Ukraine (unacceptable closeness to each other in the queue to the ATM, greater distance in transport, etc.). The set of diverse knowledge about the strategies and tactics of communicative behavior brings together and promotes understanding between communicators.

Conclusion

Given the analysis of the specifics of the German language and the survey of Ukrainian respondents, we can identify the following difficulties in mastering German language communicative competence, which lead to communicative failures of Ukrainian students: 1) phonological (violation of the rules of length and shortness of German vowels, incorrect stress in complex words, inappropriate intonation, incorrect pronunciation of the monophthong [ŋ], vowel sound, mismatch between speakers intonation and communicative intention of the utterance; 2) lexical (language variations, dialectisms, compound numerals, abbreviations, lacunar vocabulary, compound nouns, lexico- semantic interference, exclamations, color terms, toponyms); 3) syntactic (violation of word order in simple and complex sentences, the order of objects, modifiers, incorrect construction and misunderstanding of conjunctions, extended attributes and modal participle); 4) pragmatic (inappropriate form of address, violation of communicative acts of telephone conversation, greetings and farewells, violation of etiquette and norms of communicative behavior in general). Observations do not claim to be exhaustive but may serve as evidence of the need to study the linguistic, cultural and pragmatic aspects of communication as well as to compare a foreign language with a native one. Undoubtedly, understanding another culture and having meaningful and successful communication requires not only knowledge of the language code but knowledge of the culture in which the language is realized, knowledge of history, traditions and customs of the peoples of German- speaking countries, one needs to know the connection between modern German reality and language and master the system of ideas and views inherent in the native speaker. All these factors form a sufficient communicative competence of speakers in intercultural communication. The analysis of communicative deviations in terms of contrastive research and intercultural communication is promising taking into account the features of other languages in the comparison.