Purpose of the study: The topicality of the issue under study is caused by the interest to peculiarities of the Russian national routine verbal communication, and to constants and variables thereof. The goal of the article is finding certain peculiarities of family communication which are revealed against the background of the Russian verbal ideal.

Methodology: A leading approach to the investigation of this issue is linguo-culturological one which allows revealing value systems, apprehensions and stereotypes realized in family conversations of Ural town colloquial language native speakers and contributing to harmonization of communication between the family circle members, both close and distant.

Results: As a result of the undertaken analysis, it was found that communicators’ socio-centric view of life is supported by the value sets on cooperation, the entourage’s respect, jocosity, communicative confidence, and sociability; value of complicity to the family circle and family memory were revealed; the trend to direct valuation use was denominated; it was shown that it is the popular-tongue environment wherein apprehensions of Russian people about children’s obedience, fate and justice are tied up (Alapuro, R., Mustajoki, A., & Pesonen, P. (Eds.). (2011)).

Applications of this study: Materials of the article can be of interest for researchers of the Russian communicative culture, colloquialisms, teachers of Russian language as a foreign language, specialists in scope of communication optimization, higher and secondary school teachers, people forming and perfecting skills of conflict-free communication within the Russian verbal ideal.

Novelty/Originality of this study: The authors established that participants of a family communication take definite verbal efforts for providing communicative concord and harmony supporting speech traditions flowing out from parents’ families. The socio-centric mental outlook of speech partners is achieved through realization of conversational sets on cooperation, respect to close people, communicative confidence and frankness. Senior family members translate communicative stereotypes that are adopted in their parents’ families.


  1. Lobão, J., & Pereira, C. (2016). Looking for Psychological Barriers in nine European Stock Market Indices. Dutch Journal of Finance and Management, 1(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.20897/lectito.201639
  2. Machado, A. D. B., Souza, M. J., & Catapan, A. H. (2019). Systematic Review: Intersection between Communication and Knowledge. Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/jisem/5741
  3. Zare, Z. (2015). The benefits of e-business adoption: an empirical study of Iranian SMEs. UCT Journal of Management and Accounting Studies, 3(1), 6-11.
  4. Bakhshandeh, M., Sedrposhan, N., & Zarei, H. (2015). The Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral Group Counseling to Reduce Anxiety, Marriage; Single People have to be Married in Esfahan City (2013-2014). UCT Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Research, 3(1), 10-13.
  5. Novikova, I. N., Popova, L. G., Shatilova, L. M., Biryukova, E. V., Guseva, A. E., & Khukhuni, G. T. (2018). Lexical and semantic representation of the linguistic and cultural concept “Rest” in the English, German, and Russian languages. Opción, 34(85-2), 237-256.
  6. Nisawa, Y. (2018). Applying van Hiele’s Levels to Basic Research on the Difficulty Factors behind Understanding Functions. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2696
  7. Krechetova, S. Y., Karanin, A. V., Kudryavcev, N. G., & Kocheeva, N. A. (2018). Peculiarities of Thunderstorms Distribution (Altai Mountains, Republic of Altai, Russian Federation). www. mjltm. com info@ mjltm. org, 63.
  8. Alapuro, R., Mustajoki, A., & Pesonen, P. (Eds.). (2011). Understanding Russianness. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834145
  9. Malyuga, E. N., & Orlova, S. N. (2017). Linguistic pragmatics of intercultural professional and business communication. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68744-5
  10. AHRENS, W. P. E., & SHEILA, M. The Impact of Language Teachers’ Role on Language Learners’ Name Choice.
  11. Abashev, V., Akhmetova, M., Bittner, S. V., Dehaan, H., Dixon, M., Lurye, M., ... & Pyrah, R. Forum 12: City Culture, Urban Culture.
  12. srael, N. (2000). Outlandish: Writing between exile and diaspora. Stanford University Press.
  13. Csicsery-Ronay Jr, I. (2011). The seven beauties of science fiction. Wesleyan University Press.
  14. Mokeyeva, E. V., & Andreeva, I. N. (2016) Volume 11 Issue 15.
  15. Haldane, J. (Ed.). (2004). Values, education and the human world: Essays on education, culture, politics, religion and science (Vol. 1). Imprint Academic.
  16. Westfahl, G., & Yuen, W. K. (Eds.). (2014). Science fiction and the prediction of the future: Essays on foresight and fallacy (Vol. 27). McFarland.
  17. Bassett, C., Steinmueller, E., & Voss, G. (2013). Better made up: The mutual influence of science fiction and innovation. Nesta Work. Pap, 13(07).
  18. Johnson, S. (2018). Farsighted: How we make the decisions that matter the most. Penguin.
  19. Stingl, A. I., & Weiss, S. M. (2015). “Whose Science? Whose Fiction?” Uncanny Echoes of Belonging in Samosata. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 35(3-4), 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467616635916
  20. Bajaber, M. A. (2015). Utopian Literature and Imperialism.
  21. Butchard, D. K. (2015). Electric amateurs: literary encounters with computing technologies 1987-2001.