U. Wråkberg

Kirkines, Norway

BUILT HERITAGE IN THE BORDERLANDS OF THE BARENTS AND BALTIC REGIONS: POST-SOVIET SPACES IN KIRKENES, PECHENGA AND KLAIPEDA

It is argued that the built heritage of the small and medium sized towns in the northern borderlands of the Barents Region is little discussed and seldom strategically developed today considering its interest in tourism, and in making the northern town a quality environment for its citizens. Comparing with tourism and conservation strategies on built heritage already applied in the Baltic Region, with a post-cold war socio-economic transition track-record that is in some regards similar, in others quite different from that of the Barents Region, facilitates seeing the usefulness of a research based approach in heritage and tourism management. It should be set on developing socio-politically inclusive local, regional and maybe also cross-border strategies on the regional cultural heritage.

Key words: tourism in the Barents Region, Lithuania, borderland, cultural heritage management

This article draws attention to the flexibility of meanings and the political hegemony manifest in acts of preservation, or of discard, of traditions and identities in the attribution of tourism and more general public interests of built her-

itage, monuments and culturally significant sites.

A ЭОбЭЛШШФ НОПТЧТЭТШЧ ШП “ЛЮТХЭ СОЫТЭКРО”, ЩЫШЯТНОН О.Р. ТЧ ЭСО ШЧ-line hand-ЛШШФ “TШШХФТЭ ПШЫ SЮЬЭКТЧКЛХО SЦКХХ TШаЧ SЭЫКЭОРв”, ЬЭКЭОЬ ЭСКЭ ТЭ ТЬ “ЭСО

unique and irreplaceable architecture with historic background that merits

ЩЫОЬОЫЯКЭТШЧ ПШЫ ПЮЭЮЫО РОЧОЫКЭТШЧЬ” КЧН ТЭ КННЬ: “TСОЬО МКЧ ЛО ТЧНТЯТНЮКХ ШХН buildings of historic importance such as houses, churches, castles, military fortifications and other types of buildings, monuments or areas of built heritage val-

ue e.g. town squares, harbours and churchyards. In the broadest sense, built her-

ТЭКРО НШОЬ ЫОПОЫ ЧШЭ ШЧХв ЭШ КЧМТОЧЭ СТЬЭШЫв, ЛЮЭ КХЬШ ЭШ ЦШНОЫЧ ЩОЫТШНЬ” Д21Ж. A ХОЬЬ ЩЫШЛХОЦКЭТМ НОПТЧТЭТШЧ ЦКв КЭЭОЦЩЭ ЭШ КЯШТН ЭСО ПХОбТЛТХТЭв ШП ТЧНТЯТНЮКХ’Ь ЩОЫМОЩЭТШЧЬ ШП ЭСО ЯКХЮО ШП КЧв ЛЮТХЭ СОЫТЭКРО Лв ЬЭКЭТЧР ЦШЫО ЬТЦЩХв ЭСКЭ: “AЧв

traditional building, i.e. one constructed before 1919 is considered to be part of the traditional built environment or, alternatively, a Heritage Building. This does

not only include stately homes, religious buildings and scheduled monuments;

ЛЮЭ КХЬШ НШЦОЬЭТМ ЩЫШЩОЫЭТОЬ ШП КЧв ЬМКХО КЧН ТЧНЮЬЭЫТКХ ЛЮТХНТЧРЬ ЭШШ” Д11Ж.

Putting an age criteria on what is qualified as heritage worthy of consideration for protection is still problematic, but from the cost and development point of view some criteria by which to judge the degree of interests as heritage of any built structure is certainly practically motivated. The academic and politically flawless criteria, which need to be brought into consideration as the starting

164

point for any successful reasoning on these matters, are that any building and structure, also ruins and empty or completely altered sites, may represent a heritage reflecting past events and activities of significance in confirming the memory and identity of a group of individuals with some common trait, background or future. But it has been claimed convincingly that it is motivated to expand also this interpretation of cultural heritage further, beyond something mainly important to one identifiable social group, to recognize the value of heritage in cultural communication by acknowledging that built structures, monuments, sites, artefacts and museum collections are also of interest to wider circles of humans, maybe in a sense to the humanity as a whole. Cultural heritage in this outlook is seen as a testimony of human diversity and creativity which may inspire moral and aesthetic experiences in all humans. This invites the interest of those who are not ethnically, nationally or otherwise directly identified with the heritage in question to care about it, and is also politically motivated as part of an endeavour to counter further polarisations of group-interests in a world of ethno-nationalist separatist conflicts [7; 8]. Following among others this broader understanding of cultural heritage, tourism studies have been expanded from a business and market oriented research field into a scholarly undertaking which also recognises the significance of discourses, of symbolic representations and the enactments that tourists and guides do as part of their field and travel experiences. Recent research combines this with the analysis of the wider socio-economic context, material conditions and the environmental impact of tourism globally [3; 4].

Some theoretical aspects on heritage considered in contemporary research will be listed below and their practical worth demonstrated in improving our understanding of sites, towns and regional networks in the Barents and Baltic Re-

gions. It is important to open the processes of selection of what is regarded cul-

ЭЮЫКХ СОЫТЭКРО, КЧН ЩШЭОЧЭТКХ ЭШЮЫТЬЭ’Ь КЭЭЫКМЭТШЧЬ, ЭШ ЬМСШХКЫХв ЬМЫЮЭТЧв КЧН ЩЮЛХТМ debate because decisions on which buildings and sites to protect as cultural heritage is also an act of public recognition of the identity and importance of the individuals, organisations or interests that once were instrumental in creating the buildings and in most cases these have contemporary representatives and promoters. Thus, managerial definitions and prioritizations should be evaluated before and after public recognition is bestowed on any heritage.

Interpreting Heritage in Cross-Cultural Communication

All still existing built structures or sites of lost buildings as well as locations where significant events once took place, need to be understood as poten-

tial heritage with varying socio-political meanings over time and to different ob- ЬОЫЯОЫЬ. IЧЭЫШНЮМТЧР “ЭСО ШЛЬОЫЯОЫ” is, of course, very important to get any dis-

cussion on cultural heritage realistic and, in so doing, to distinguish between the local residents, different kinds of visitors and variously interested tourists. A local guide, or any other authoritative commentator, is, by all means, also im-

165

portant in directing the attention of the observer. In broadening the discussion on cultural heritage to consider historical change and relevant global or local contexts that give flexible meanings to any heritage, it is motivated to consider more kinds of buildings and sites than what is usually seen as worth preserving in any setting by their appearances as picturesque, magnificent or exotic to the average contemporary spectator. To facilitate such discussions this presentation will address six typical states of built heritage; in the following section these will be exemplified and discussed in terms of cultural heritage management and the challenges they present when turned into tourism attractions:

1. Built structures and monuments are the product of a socio-political and architectural context at its time of construction in which clues to its design can be found by professional historical interpretation and made to guide our understanding of it today. The popular contemporary meaning of built heritage in turn is an amalgamation of ideas based on this original meaning, and to which all later physical alterations of the site or construction may also be significant.

2. In some historically important places political and economic interests have focussed symbolic attention to the degree that the site as such, more than its particular design at a given time, has become the crucial factor. Buildings, city planning and monuments on such spots always change rapidly with shifts in political power. Such contested sites often exhibit a succession of monuments over time. Reference to professional principles of preservation will never be sufficient as a basis to regulate the design of such sites.

3.IЭ ТЬ ЦШЭТЯКЭОН ЭШ ТЧМШЫЩШЫКЭО “invisible structures” ТЧ ЭСО ЫОКЬШЧТЧР ШЧ heritage, most obviously regarding actively removed physical objects but also in re-labelled, re-interpreted and denied memories of marginalised groups in invisible, repositioned, replaced or eradicated heritage.

4.It is worth noticing the significance of neutralized heritage space:

sites designed or manipulated for dispatch into oblivion. They sometimes result in obvious lacunas of heritage in the city-scape, visible in e.g. odd nonfunctional squares or parks.

5.In some instances maintenance or reconstruction is made of monuments or buildings to achieve a resurrection of past values and traditions, or more commonly in order to connect and legitimate the contemporary initiator and exponent of the renovation with the past.

6.A final more general phenomenon in which cultural sites are often entangled is the result of failures to completely remove, add or keep items or layers of built heritage, which in turn might be due to lack of economic means and real political power among the agents and investors active in the location. This is, of course, very common. The result is an amalgam of styles and buildings of different origin and age typical of many towns. One may compare such cityscapes with the palimpsest of texts, meanings and heritage that often occurred

when attempting to re-use expensive parchment sheets in new handwritten manuscripts in medieval times: the erased old text that was written over returned af-

166

ter several years by its ink re-colouring the surface from below so that it created a palimpsest of two texts – the new and the old one – both readable with some difficulty on the surface of the manuscript [5].

Post-Soviet Space

LОЭ’Ь ОбОЦЩХТПв ЭСТЬ Лв МШЧЬТНОЫТЧР КЧН МШЦЩКЫТЧg instances of the postSoviet spaces in some locations in the Barents and Baltic Regions, and especially in the Norwegian-Russian subarctic borderland with the municipalities of Kirkenes and Vardø in Norway and that of Pechenga in Russia. In this article the post-Soviet space will be understood broadly both as the remains and functions today of an architectural or industrial item built in Soviet times, but also as the designation of a piece of heritage that has changed meaning profoundly from that which it held in Soviet times.

On the Russian side of this subarctic borderland the large Soviet war memorial at the river Litza, which gave name to this part of the World War II front between the Wehrmacht of Nazi Germany and the Red Army, has been redesigned and expanded in recent years. Its post-Soviet design is rather similar to its Soviet counterpart, located in the same area but added with informative stonetablets showing the location of the frontier at the beginning and the end of the war to educate post-Soviet generations on its significance.

In the town of Kirkenes, which was almost completely reduced to rubble by the war, nothing of its fine wooden small town architecture was rebuilt after the war; no tourism potential was seen motivating that at the time, nor either any values worth, or affordable, to convey to future generations to be living in this

town – this was several decades before the economic raise of Norway into one

ШП ЭСО аШЫХН’Ь ЦШЬЭ ЩЫШЬЩОЫШЮЬ ЬШМТОЭТОЬ. SЩОМТКХ ЭКбКЭТШЧ аКЬ МСКЫРОН in all of Norway for the rapid rebuilding of its northern counties, especially Finnmark,

and Marshall Plan money from the US were invested to re-open the Kirkenes

ТЫШЧ ЦТЧО ЧШЭ ХОКЬЭ ПШЫ ЭСО ЩШХТЭТМКХ ЩЮЫЩШЬО ШП “ЬЭЫОЧРЭСОЧТЧР ЭСО ПЫОО аШЫХН”. IЭ was deemed of strategic importance to keep up with the mining and metallurgical industry of the Soviet planned economy that was recuperating rapidly on the Kola Peninsula on the other side of what was now a closed border [15].

Despite the onset of the Cold War up-north, on a central hill in Kirkenes a monumental point of political significance was created when a Norwegian designed and built a statue depicting a Russian soldier that was erected on top of what would be one of the few German wartime constructions kept intact in Kirkenes: a bomb-shelter blasted into the rock of the mountain. Today the shelter is open for guided visits by tourists all year, and the war memorial is the site where official celebrations of the Red Army are held annually for its liberation of the County of Finnmark in 1944 – the first part of Norway that was freed from the Nazi occupation.1

1 On the liberation of Finnmark in 1944 see: 13; 8.

167

Not far from Kirkenes, on the Russian side of the borderland, in recent years there has appeared a major reconstruction of built heritage in the grand monastery of the Holy Triphon, the monk who christened the indigenous Skolt Sami people in both nearby Norway and in this part of Russia during the 16th century. It is situated in the municipality of Pechenga in the neighbourhood which is mainly military in character. This is a re-institution of religious heritage that is the result of traditions and novelties of state-church-society relations in contemporary Russia the meanings of which are not obvious to outside observers without expertise on relevant matters. Clearly such religious dynamics is not characteristic of the Norwegian side of the borderland where even modest measures just to maintain the small post-war church infrastructure are always reported in local newspaper as lacking funds. The rebuilt monastery of Pechenga looks to an uninformed Scandinavian observer as something brought forth by commercial tourism interests as a site of picturesque, apparently traditional Russian wooden architecture – but it is nothing of this kind. This failure to interpret a reconstruction of heritage on this scale is also due to it having no counterpart in the regional experience of the north-Scandinavian observer.

An interesting site of unique built heritage that has been preserved on the Norwegian side of the borderland with Russia consists in the old Russian houses of the Pomor trading station in Hamningberg on the north-eastern side of the large Varanger Peninsula. The little fishing village of Hamningberg was abandoned in the 1950s but has recently been the scene of some controversial privately managed tourism developments, though the Pomor heritage of Hamningberg has been protected by the vigilant National Heritage Administration of Norway [19]. Most pertinent to the topic of this article is the fact that the built Pomor heritage in Hamningberg, despite remaining unaltered physically, has got its geopolitical or rather geo-economic meaning changed profoundly after 1993 by the inauguration of the Barents Euroarctic Regional collaboration.1

During Soviet times the Norwegian-Russian border only saw a few cross-

ings annually of officials on formal trips, and one rigorously regulated instance

ШП ТЧНЮЬЭЫТКХ ЩКЫЭЧОЫЬСТЩ НЮЫТЧР KСЫЮЬСМСОЯ’Ь НКвЬ ШЧ УШТЧЭХв НОЯОХШЩТЧР ЭСО hydropower resources of the Pasvik border river [17, p. 669]. The Pomor houses facing the costal sea at Hamningberg were just reminiscences then about long gone pre-revolutionary times when regionally driven trade in fish from Norway and timber and grain from Russia flourished especially in periods of neglect in the southern leaderships of the local fiscal and customs authorities. With the advent of the Norwegian-Finnish-Swedish-Russian Barents cross-border collaboration the Pomor trading station in Hamningberg has taken on a new significance as a historic evidence and a symbol of the spirit of cross-border partnerships in business. It is today inspiring a regional movement of people-to-people friend-

1 On Russian-Norwegian post-war relations, and the background to the establishment of the Barents Euroarctic Region, see: 20.

168

ship. Cultural and educational cross-border collaboration is often underestimated in this but most politicians are now happy with the rapidly growing cross-border shopping in Kirkenes and in the mining and military towns in Russia along the 230 km long highway connecting the town of Kirkenes with the city of Murmansk.

Given that Norway and Russia are today part of the same global economy differences between the typical neoliberal outlooks of contemporary politics in Norway and the continuing belief in, and respect for, the state in Russia create differences in the management of the cultural and built heritage.1 Thus, the house of culture in Kirkenes, after having been closed for many years, was recently put out for sale by the municipality; no new building of its kind is planned in Kirkenes as its municipality is close to bankruptcy given among others various new duties and costs of e.g. running schools and taking care of the elderly, that are regularly transferred from the state and county levels to the municipal one of the public institutions in Norway. Such transfers of responsibilities are invariably insufficiently backed with allocation of new economic resources; this policy is typical of contemporary politics also in Sweden [22].

On the Russian side, in the mining towns of Nikel and Zapolyarny, not only the houses of culture are in use and kept in good order; in Nikel this includes the Soviet statue of V.I. Lenin which is still in its place in the square in front of it – amidst a city-layout once drawn by the Leningrad Architecture School and adopted here and in Murmansk since the 1930s. The reasons for this post-Soviet use in contemporary northern industry towns of Soviet monuments and decorations are discussed in a chapter co-authored by the present writer and Nadir Kinossian in a forthcoming book titled Border Aesthetics [14]; briefly stated, maintaining Soviet symbols and built heritage in some modern Russian company towns dependent on large-scale raw material industry, seems to represent a claim to continuity between the contemporary market-based enterprise and the spirit of material boldness of the Soviet technocratic planned economy and its commitment to provide a good life up-north for its arctic workers. In geographically distant but similarly socio-economically positioned Yakutsk the diamond quarrying Russian State company Alrosa has even kept and re-erected the monuments of Josef Stalin on its premises despite protests voiced by offended Russian citizens.

Looking further into the complexity of post-Soviet spaces – a complexity shared by several other historic, layered spaces and structures in the built heritage of many towns – a final turn is made here to Klaipeda, a town in southern Lithuania. It exhibits several of the kinds of complexities, mentioned in the previous section of this article, that need to be addressed to avoid simplifications

1 The view on the state as a bureaucratic burden on society that ought to be minimised and privatised has recently received some critique in Western Europe, see: 16.

169

and biases in developing a culturally and ethnically sustainable local heritage management policy.

Since medieval times Klaipeda has had the distinct character of a bordertown while presently it is no longer even near a border. It is today the largest port-town in the Baltic States. Before 1945 its name was Memel and it used to mark the northern end of the German speaking world. After the First World War it was managed by the Entente and a French governor before being annexed by Lithuania. In the opening months of the Second World War Nazi troupes invaded Memel Land and Adolf Hitler spoke from the balcony of the still remaining musical theatre, in the centre of town, where Richard Wagner once began his career [6].

The impressive economic and industrial growth of Memel until 1939 was due largely to the work of its considerable portion of Jewish industrialists, bankers and businessmen who either had fled Memel at the time of the Nazi occupation or fell victim to the ensuing holocaust. After the war the entire German population of Memel and nearby Königsberg, today Kaliningrad, were deported [18]. Paradoxically, the nicely restored built heritage of old town Klaipeda today mirrors a bygone Jewish and German civilisation as much or more than a Lithuanian one – a fact that is not mentioned in brochures and guides addressing contemporary tourists. They come mainly from Scandinavia, Germany, but also

Russia. Most of the still important heating and power infrastructure of Klaipeda and the Baltic States iЬ ШЩОЫКЭТЧР ШЧ RЮЬЬТКЧ ЧКЭЮЫКХ РКЬ КЧН ТЬ КЬ ЬЮМС К “ЩШЬЭ-

SШЯТОЭ” СОЫТЭКРО. DОЬЩТЭО ЦЮМС ЭКХФ EU ТЧЯОЬЭЦОЧЭЬ СКЯО ЛООЧ ЬХШа ТЧ МШЦТЧР during the past two decades, while Scandinavian banking arrived to create some characteristic modern buildings in Klaipeda before producing an equally characteristic bursting real estate bubble, upon which they largely sold out and returned home across the Baltic Sea [2; 10; 11].

A small square in front of the building of the city administration, the magistrate of Klaipeda, is the kind of spot, mentioned in the previous section, which carries such historical significance that it has proved impossible to leave it unoccupied by a monument conveying some distinct political meaning. Monuments have consequently succeeded each other amidst that square. A statue of Borussia, the mythical female protector of Prussia, was pulled off its fundament in 1923 by Lithuanian patriots. It was put back by the Nazis on the eve of WWII but replaced after it, when the Baltic States were made part of the Soviet Union, by a distinctly Soviet-styled statue of a socialist fisherman. It has been possible to re-interpret this monument as that of a Lithuanian anonymous hero and keep it in place.

Conclusion

State of the art scholarly analysis is needed as a basis for any sociopolitical sustainable and inclusive heritage management regime. This is because local initiative and intuitive approaches are prone to mirror vested economic,

170

social and ethnic interests only, at the expense of the visibility of other less popular or articulate groups lacking equal means to act as outspoken stakeholders. Solid scholarship provides the basis for inclusive heritage development plans that ideally produce a sense of belonging for all people living and working locally, as well as demonstrating the wider cultural connections and dependencies of any local culture and in so doing often also appealing to, and welcoming, wider groups of visitors and tourists to share the joy of a well-kept, multifaceted and inclusive cultural heritage.

Bibliography

1.Appiah K.A. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers / K.A. Appiah. London: W.W. Norton, 2007. 196 P.

2.Belinskaja L., Galiniene B. Baltic States: From giddy success towards the financial meltdown? / L. Belinskaja, B. Galiniene Transformations in

Business and Economics. Vol. 9 (1). 2010. P. 19-41.

3.BТКЧМСТ R.V. TСО “МЫТЭТМКХ ЭЮЫЧ” ТЧ TШЮЫТЬЦ SЭЮНТОЬ: К ЫКНТМКХ МЫi- tique / R.V. Bianchi // Tourism Geographies. Vol. 11. 2009. P. 484-504.

4.Cohen E., Scott A.C. Current sociological theories and issues in Tourism / E. Cohen, A.C. Scott // Annals of Tourism Research. Vol. 39 (4). 2012. P. 2177-2202.

5.Dillon S. The Palimpsest: Literature, Criticism, Theory / S. Dillon. London: Continuum, 2007. 164 P.

6.Egremont M. Forgotten Land: Journeys among the Ghosts of East Prussia / M. Egremont. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. 359 P.

7.Elkadi H. Whose identity? Valuing the culture built heritage in diverse and tensioned societies / H. Elkadi // A|Z Istanbul Technical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture. Vol. 4 (1). 2007. P. 45-55.

8.Gebhardt J.F. The Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation: Soviet Breakthrough and Pursuit in the Arctic, October 1944 / J.F. Gebhardt. Fort Leavenworth: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1990. 182 P.

9.Gillman D. The Idea of Cultural Heritage / D. Gillman / 2nd. rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 204 P.

10.Hardy J. Crisis and Recession in Central and Eastern Europe / J. Hardy // International Socialism: A Quarterly Journal of Socialist Theory. Issue

128.2010. URL.: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=683&issue=128.

11.Heritage Skills Hub. URL.: http://www.heritageskillshub.org/

12.Hudson M. Fading Baltic miracle: a dangerous dependence on the property bubble / M. Hudson // The International Economy. 2008. Winter. P. 74-

13.Jacobsen A.R. Nikkel, Jern og Blod: Krisen i Nord 1939-1945 / A.R. Jacobsen. Oslo: Aschehoug, 2006. 281 P.

171

14.Kinossian N., Wråkberg U. Palimpsests in the North European Borderland: The Border-Aesthetics of Post-Soviet Space / N. Kinossian, U. Wråkberg / eds.: J. Schimanski, S. Wolfe // Border Aesthetic, forthcoming. 250 P.

15.Lloyd T. Iron ore production at Kirkenes, Norway / T. Lloyd // Economic Geography. Vol. 31 (3). 1955. P. 211-233.

16.Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths / M. Mazzucato. London: Anthem Press, 2014. 237 P.

17.Moon V.B. Soviet-Norwegian relations since 1945 / V.B. Moon // Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 17. 1964. P. 659-670.

18.Pollin-Galay H. The holocaust is a foreign country: comparing representations of place in Lithuanian Jewish testimony / H. Pollin-Galay // Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust. Vol. 27 (1). 2013. P. 26-39.

19.Stavseth H. Hamningberg–Fra Fiskevær til Minnested: master thesis in History / H. Stavseth / Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education. Tromsø: UiT The Arctic University of Norway, 2008. 104 P.

20.Tjelmeland H. Border as barrier and bridge: the NorwegianSoviet/Russian border as a political and cultural construction / H. Tjelmeland / eds.: K. Katajala, M. Lähteenmäki // Imagined, Negotiated, Remembered: Constructing European Borders and Borderlands. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012. P. 167-186.

21.Toolkit for Sustainable Small Town Strategy. URL: http://www.pagodagraphics.com/susset/welcome.html

22.Trydegård G.-B., Thorslund M. Inequality in the welfare state? Local variation in care of the elderly – the case of Sweden / G.-B. Trydegård, M. Thorslund // International Journal of Social Welfare. Vol. 10. 2001. P. 174-184

II. -

81

. .

,

,

,

172

174

175

176

-,

,

. –

,

,

.

177

M.A. Kirillova

Murmansk, Russia

THE PHENOMENON OF THE DARK LORD IN THE WORKS OF

MODERN FANTASY LITERATURE

In this article the author tries to analyse the situation, which can be found in a great number of modern fantasy novels, when the position of the protagonist is taken by the so-called Dark Lord or some other negative character, and find out the cause of this phenomenon.

Key words: modern fantasy literature, folklore, the Dark Lord, protagonist, negative characters, Good and Evil.

81-25

. .

- ,

178

179

) Д7Ж.

,

.

–,

180

181

A.S. Kraynova

Saint-Petersburg, Russia

VOICE EFFECTS AND VOICE MANIPULATION

AS A CATEGORY OF LINGUISTIC PRAGMATICS

This article discusses the nature and object of the science of linguistic pragmatics, as well as the concept of speech influence and voice manipulation with values in the volume of both common and distinctive features.

Keywords: theory of speech acts, pragmatics, linguistic pragmatics, speech communication, effective communication, voice effects, voice manipulation.

182

81-23.367 – 373.612.2

183

184

185