Moscow, Russian Federation
Russian Federation
This article examines nonverbal means of expressing the category of compatibility using the example of communicative interactions between the leaders of Russia and China, covered by media resources from 2013 to 2025. The theoretical framework of the study includes ideas from nonverbal semiotics, social psychology, as well as modern theories of embodied cognition and trust synchronization. Methods of thematic, semantic, and discourse analysis are used. The results of the study demonstrate the evolution of the nonverbal behavior of state leaders from formal and protocol-based (2013–2015) to informal and friendly, in which nonverbal elements play a significant role – communicative distance between subjects, gestures, facial expressions, tactile and visual contact (2013–2025). It has been established that as political relations between Russia and China develop, their leaders increasingly use nonverbal elements in communicative interactions, which is reflected in photo chronicles of meetings of the heads of state.
compatibility, non-verbal communication, kinesics, proxemics, Russian-language media texts
1. Vovkula A.V. Rechevye strategii v interaktivnom mediaformate mezhdunarodnogo politicheskogo interv'yu [Tekst] / A.V. Vovkula // Politicheskaya lingvistika. 2018. — № 1. — S. 47–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26170/pl18-01-05; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YSUNLF
2. Goffman E. Ritual vzaimodeystviya: Ocherki povedeniya licom k licu [Tekst] / E. Goffman, N.N. Bogomolova, D.A. Leont'ev. — M.: Smysl, 2009. — S. 18–47.
3. Kazachenok A.A. Neverbal'naya kommunikaciya v delovyh otnosheniyah s Kitaem [Tekst] / A.A. Kazachenok, T.V. Kuprina // Discovery science research. — 2020. — S. 310–315. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/YJAFWA
4. Kreydlin G.E. Neverbal'naya semiotika: Yazyk tela i estestvennyy yazyk [Tekst] / G.E. Kreydlin. — M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2002. — 592 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/STOOBN
5. Lenkova T.A. Fotografiya — sosredotochenie raznyh semioticheskih kodov [Tekst] / T.A. Lenkova // Nauchnye issledovaniya i razrabotki. Sovremennaya kommunikativistika. — T. 6. — № 6. — 2017. — S. 49–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12737/article_5a12a54ca9b745.15272554; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ZTPUHN
6. Leshkova Ya.N. Novyy podhod k zhestovym yazykam v ramkah evraziyskoy paradigmy [Tekst] / Ya.N. Leshkova // Vlast' istorii — Istoriya vlasti. — 2023. — T. 9. — № 48. S. 56–75. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/GLORJV
7. Molchanova G.G. Proksemika kak faktor nacional'nogo samosoznaniya [Tekst] / G.G. Molchanova // Vestnik Moskovskogo un-ta. Seriya 19. Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikaciya. — 2013. — № 3. — S. 57–72. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/REVULV
8. Han' Yu. Lingvisticheskaya kategoriya «sovmestnost'» v mediadiskurse o rossiysko-kitayskih otnosheniyah [Tekst] / Yu. Han' // Gumanitarnyy vektor. — 2025. — T. 20. № 1. — S. 154–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21209/1996-7853-2025-20-1-154-163; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RSGZYF
9. Yuysi Ch. Semanticheskie osobennosti zhestovyh znakov politika v russkoyazychnom politicheskom teleinterv'yu [Tekst] / Ch. Yuysi // Politicheskaya lingvistika. — 2024. № 6. — S. 231–239. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/BHIAGS
10. Bernieri F.J. Coordinated movement and rapport in teacherstudent interactions. 1988. Vol. 12, pp. 120–138.
11. Birdwhistell R.L. Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion and Communication. Philadelphie: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2010. 352 p.
12. Chartrand T.L., Bargh J.A. The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 999. Vol. 76 (6), pp. 893–910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
13. Christov-Moore L. Trust in social interaction: from dyads to civilizations // Social and affective neuroscience of everyday human interaction. 2023, pp. 119–141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08651-9_8
14. Hall E.T. Beyond culture. New York: Anchor Press / Double day. 1976. 320 p.
15. Hardy B.W. Embodied cognition in communication science // Communication Theory. 2021. Vol. 31. № 4, pp. 633–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaa003; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/IULVYL
16. Holmes M. The Force of Face-to-Face Diplomacy: Mirror Neurons and the Problem of Intentions // International Organization, Cambridge University Press. 2013. Vol. 67 (4), pp. 829–861. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000234
17. Kazantsev A., Medvedeva S., Safranchuk I. Between Russia and China: Central Asia in Greater Eurasia // Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2021. Vol. 12. № 1, pp. 57–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1879366521998242; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/DDVNCP
18. Mehrabian A. Nonverbal communication. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. 1971. Vol. 19, pp. 107–161.
19. Wahlin-Jacobsen C.D., Larsson M. Leadership Communication as Materiality, Embodiment, and Aesthetics // The Routledge Handbook of Organizational Leadership Communication. 2025, pp. 309–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380115-25
20. Weinberg J. Building trust in political office: testing the efficacy of political contact and authentic communication // Political Studies. 2024. Vol. 72. № 4, pp. 1288–1312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217231185706
