|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
Lecture notes, cheat sheets
Rhetoric. Cheat sheet: briefly, the most important
Directory / Lecture notes, cheat sheets Table of contents
1. The concept of rhetoric Rhetoric (Greek rhetorike - "oratory") - a scientific discipline that studies the patterns of generation, transmission and perception of good speech and high-quality text (Introduction to cultural studies. A course of lectures / Edited by Yu. N. Solonin, E. G. Sokolov. St. Petersburg ., 2003. S. 149-160). In ancient times, rhetoric was understood as the art of a speaker, the art of oral public speaking, that is, only in the literal sense of the word. The understanding of rhetoric in a broad sense came only closer to the Middle Ages. Today, if it is necessary to distinguish the technique of oral public speaking from rhetoric in a broad sense, the term "oratorio" is used to refer to the former. Traditional rhetoric ("the science of good speech," as Quintilian defined it) was opposed to grammar ("the science of correct speech"), poetics, and hermeneutics. Unlike poetics, the subject of rhetoric included only prose speech and prose texts. In addition, rhetoric was distinguished by a significant interest in the persuasive power of the text and a vaguely expressed interest in other components of its content that do not affect persuasiveness. The latter distinguishes rhetoric from hermeneutics. Methodological differences between rhetoric and other philological sciences: 1) orientation to the value aspect in the description of the subject; 2) the subordination of this description to applied problems. В ancient Russian literature a number of synonyms with a value meaning were distinguished, denoting "mastery of the art of good speech": eloquence, kindness, red-spokenness, cunning, chrysostom and, finally, eloquence. During this period, the moral and ethical component acted as a value element. In this light, rhetoric became the science and art of bringing to good, persuading good through speech. The moral and ethical component in modern rhetoric has survived only in a truncated form, although some researchers are making attempts to restore its meaning. Other attempts are being made - to define rhetoric, completely removing the value aspect from the definitions. There are, for example, definitions of rhetoric as the science of generating statements (such a definition is given by A. K. Avelychev with reference to U. Eco-Dubois). The elimination of the value aspect of the study of speech and text leads to the loss of the specifics of rhetoric against the background of descriptive philological disciplines. The task of the philological sciences is a complete description of the subject, which involves further applied use. However, the description also focuses on the needs of speech practice. Thus, an important role, like scientific rhetoric, in the system of rhetorical disciplines, is played by educational (didactic) rhetoric, that is, teaching the technique of generating good speech and high-quality text. 2. Logical and literary direction in the development of rhetoric Throughout development, the definition of rhetoric has been reduced, in fact, to differences in the understanding of what kind of speech should be considered good and of high quality. There are two main trends here. First direction, coming from Aristotle, connected rhetoric with logic and suggested that persuasive, effective speech be considered good. Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the ability to find possible ways of persuading about any given subject." At the same time, effectiveness was reduced to persuasiveness, to the ability of speech to win the recognition of listeners, to make them act in a certain way. Second direction also originated in ancient Greece. Representatives of this trend (Isocrates and some other rhetoricians) were inclined to consider richly decorated, lush speech, built according to the canons of aesthetics, to be good. Following F. van Eemeren, the direction in rhetoric, originating from Aristotle, is called logical, and from Isocrates - literary. In the era of Hellenism, the literary trend strengthened and pushed the logical direction to the periphery of didactic and scientific rhetoric. This happened in connection with the decline in the role of political eloquence and the increase in the role of ceremonial, solemn eloquence after the fall of democratic forms of government in Greece and Rome. In the Middle Ages, this ratio continued to be maintained. Rhetoric began to become isolated in the sphere of school and university education, turning into literary rhetoric. She was in a difficult relationship with homiletics - the doctrine of Christian church preaching. Representatives of homiletics either turned to rhetoric in order to mobilize its tools for compiling church sermons, or again fenced themselves off from it as a "pagan" science ("Rhetoric", "Krugosvet". Encyclopedia 2006). The predominance of a decorative and aesthetic idea of one's own subject deepened the separation of rhetoric from speech practice. At a certain stage, literary rhetoricians stopped caring at all whether their speeches were effective in persuading anyone. This process ended with a crisis of rhetoric in the middle of the XNUMXth century. The balance of power changed in favor of the logical direction in the second half of the 2006th century, when neo-rhetoric, or new rhetoric, replaced the old rhetoric. Its creators were predominantly logicians. In this regard, the most significant part of it was the theory of argumentation. The area of interest for neo-rhetoric was again declared to be the effectiveness of the impact and the persuasiveness of speech and text. In this regard, neo-rhetoric is sometimes called the neo-Aristotelian trend, especially when it comes to the neo-rhetoric of H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka ("Rhetoric" "Round the World". Encyclopedia XNUMX). The results obtained in line with the literary trend, however, were not rejected. Today we can talk about the peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment of the logical and literary trends, with the former dominating. 3. Subject and tasks of rhetoric The subject of rhetoric is complex and ambiguous. Accordingly, the range of tasks varies depending on its definition. Rhetoric explores the centuries-old culture of the effective word, which is part of us. Rhetoric can be viewed from various positions: as the art of speech and the theory of this art, as a scientific discipline based on a rich cultural tradition, a holistic program for transforming an idea into a word, a general theory of mental and speech activity. Even with a cursory glance at the history of rhetoric, it is impossible not to notice its branching connections with such disciplines as philosophy, aesthetics, logic, ethics, psychology, sociology, linguistics, semiotics, etc. Before establishing the subject of rhetoric, it is necessary to take into account the fact that over the 2,5 thousand years of the existence of this science, hundreds of formulations have been used as a definition. Among them, there are three main areas. 1. The first, conditionally called Greek, interprets rhetoric as "the art of persuasion" (the central concept of Plato, Aristotle). 2. The second direction is connected to a greater extent with the Roman tradition to understand rhetoric as "the art of speaking well." Since that time, interest in the literary and linguistic component has increased in rhetoric. 3. The third is characteristic of the Middle Ages and the initial period of the Renaissance, in which rhetoric is the "art of decoration." As a result of the growing interest of rhetoricians in the literary component, the aesthetic characteristics of speech intensified, which ultimately led to the disintegration of the unity of logos (thought) and expression (language). Each of the directions listed above, which define the subject and set the tasks of rhetoric in accordance with it, cannot be strictly attributed to a certain period in the development of this discipline, they rightfully coexist and reflect the object from different angles. The subject and tasks of rhetoric can also be determined based on its literary or logical understanding. New ideas about the discipline are reflected in a number of modern definitions of rhetoric. In line with the logical direction of rhetoric - this is the science of methods of persuasion, various forms of predominantly linguistic influence on the audience, taking into account the characteristics of the latter and in order to obtain the desired effect (A. K. Avelichev); the science of the conditions and forms of effective communication (S. I. Gindin); persuasive communication (J. Koppershmidt); science of speech actions. In line with the literary direction - this is a philological discipline that studies the ways of constructing artistic and expressive speech, primarily prose and oral; close contact with poetics and stylistics (V. N. Toporov). 4. Divisions of rhetoric Traditionally, science distinguishes between general and particular rhetoric. The total rhetoric is the science of universal principles and rules for constructing good speech, independent of the specific area of speech communication; private - considers the features of certain types of speech communication in connection with the conditions of communication, the functions of speech and areas of human activity. In modern rhetoric, the term "general rhetoric" also has a second meaning - one of the areas of neo-rhetoric (Vvedenskaya L. A., Pavlova L. G. Rhetoric for lawyers: Textbook - Rostov n / D .: publishing house "Phoenix", 2002 pp. 16-25). The use of this term began with the publication of the book by J. Dubois "General Rhetoric". In ancient textbooks, rhetoric varied three functional types of speech: deliberative (inclining or deflecting), judicial (accusatory or defensive) and solemn, ceremonial or show (praise or blame) speech. deliberative speech used in political rhetoric. It had to proceed from the value categories of useful and harmful. court speech based on the categories of just and unjust, and ceremonial - in the categories of good and bad. In the Middle Ages, the predominant type of eloquence was church eloquence, which came from the categories of what is pleasing and objectionable to God (Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G. Rhetoric for lawyers: Textbook - Rostov n / D .: Phoenix, 2002. S. 16- 25). The status of various spheres of social communication has been relatively equalized only in modern times. To the traditional types of eloquence, new ones were added - academic, business and journalistic eloquence. At present, there are as many private rhetorics as there are spheres of communication, functional varieties of language, and in some cases smaller functional divisions (for example, the rhetoric of a television speech is a subsection of journalistic rhetoric). In one or another period of the development of society, specific types of speech communication occupy a dominant position and have the greatest impact on people's consciousness. Therefore, the rhetorical disciplines that study them are of the greatest interest. At present, a similar role is assigned to the rhetoric of the media, political and business (commercial) rhetoric. In science, there is also a division of rhetoric into theoretical, applied and thematic. Theoretical rhetoric - this is a section of general rhetoric that deals with the scientific study of the rules for constructing high-quality speech. Applied in this case, he uses the already found rules, patterns and best examples of the most successful speeches in the practice of teaching literature. These two divisions are identical in content to scientific and educational rhetoric. Thematic rhetoric has gained currency in the United States. She studies the unification of various types of literature around one topical issue (for example, presidential elections). 5. Parts of the rhetorical development of speech Parts (canons) of rhetorical development speeches were identified as early as antiquity. Their composition has not undergone significant changes over the centuries. Total Distinguish five canons (stages of rhetorical action): 1) finding or inventing the material of speech or text (inventio); 2) the location, or composition, of the material (dispositio); 3) verbal expression, or diction (elocutio); 4) memory, memorization (memoria); 5) performance, pronunciation (actio). Consonant with this division, N. F. Koshansky, professor of Russian and Latin literature at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, defined rhetoric as the science of invention, arrangement and expression of thoughts. The first stage rhetorical action according to the ancient canon (inventio) complies with the ban on the creation of uncreative speech, on the absence of mental effort in speech, "mental susceptibility", "invention", "finding the truth". Invention - it is a reflection of the subject, comprehending objective reality, the only way to fruitfully continue the cultural dialogue. Disposition (dispositio) means organization, building speech as a holistic work, achieving proportionality and completeness. This is where the ordering of the parts as a whole takes place. Plato compared speech to a living organism: every speech must be composed like a living being. - she should have a body with a head and legs, and the trunk and limbs should fit together and correspond to the whole. Analogous parts of speech are introduction, presentation, evidence, evidence and conclusions. The third stage rhetorical action - expression - means the verbal design of speech, the selection of words and grammatical structures, the decoration of speech with tropes and figures. Knowledge of language culture implies the ability to properly organize one's speech in terms of grammar, vocabulary, and style. Memory how the ability to reproduce the past was considered among the ancients one of the components of prudence. Rhetoric contained the art of remembering the truth. However, memory is burdened, in addition, with a spiritual dimension and comprehension (General psychology. Textbook for students of pedagogical institutes, edited by V.V. Bogoslovsky and others. 2nd ed., Rev. and add. M ., Education, 1973 S. 202). Pronunciation - the last stage rhetorical canon, manifested in speech action. It uses the entire palette of non-verbal expressive means, primarily intonation and body language. Speech is active, it is directed to reality, to the practice of communication, it serves to organize purposeful behavior. All stages of the rhetorical canon work for "persuasiveness" only in the system, that is, the unity of interrelated and interdependent structural elements. In general, they are implemented in speech. The ideal of the ancient orator combined such characteristics as the wisdom of a philosopher and the subtlety of a dialectician, the language of a poet and the memory of a lawyer, the voice and plastic grace of a tragedian. 6. Finding or inventing the material of speech or text (inventio) Finding is a set of mental operations aimed at planning the content of speech or the structure of the text. At this stage, the author once again defines and refines the topic, chooses ways to disclose it, arguments in favor of the defended thesis and other elements of content. The selection of material is made according to two main criteria: the author's communicative intention (intention) and the characteristics of the audience to which the author's speech is addressed. In scientific literature, it is recommended that in those types of eloquence in which there is an open competition of different points of view (primarily judicial and political), it is recommended to highlight the main controversial point, and build a speech around it. This main point must be verified through a series of so-called statuses: 1) the status of the establishment (the plaintiff claims that the defendant insulted him, and the defendant denies the fact of the insult - the task of the judges is to establish whether the insult took place); 2) the status of the ruling (with one definition of an insult, the defendant's statement to the plaintiff may be considered as such, but with another, it cannot); 3) qualification status (judges must determine whether the limits of necessary defense have been exceeded), etc. Earlier in rhetoric, material was divided into specific cases (causa) and general issues (quaestio). The removal of the latter from the former was carried out by abstraction from the specific circumstances of the case. For example, from causa "candidate N was twice convicted of lying during the last election campaign" one can deduce quaestio "is it permissible to lie in the name of gaining power?". General questions, in turn, are divided into practical and theoretical. In modern writings on rhetoric, attempts are made to clarify this subdivision of material. In particular, it is proposed to distinguish between encyclopedic, empirical material, "based on data obtained by the author himself," and comparative, "bringing the empirical and encyclopedic into conformity." Depending on the role of the material in the development of the topic and on the attitude of listeners to it in rhetoric, the degrees of likelihood that the material must meet are determined: 1) material important for the development and explanation of the topic should be distinguished by a high degree of credibility, which is achieved by selecting familiar material that meets the expectations of listeners or readers; 2) the thesis itself and the strongest arguments in favor of it must have the highest degree of plausibility, which is achieved with the help of a paradox or an unexpected question; 3) a low degree of likelihood may differ in material that is not of interest to listeners, but which is nevertheless included by the author in the text to achieve meaningful completeness; 4) material that is dangerous, inconvenient, indecent to present to a given audience, may differ in an indefinite degree of plausibility; 5) the material, the assessment of which goes beyond the limits of the intellectual capabilities of this audience, is distinguished by a hidden degree of plausibility. 7. Modes of Persuasiveness Whether the topic will be presented in a problematic way or descriptively, in the form of dispassionate logical reasoning or emotionally - these are the main ways to reveal the topic. Rhetoric traces them back to sources or modes of persuasiveness: logos, ethos and pathos. This triad underlies the rhetorical responsibility for what was said, and, consequently, for what was conceived and done. The absence of at least one of the elements entails such a speech act, which can be considered quasi-rhetorical. Logos, ethos and pathos are three categories that set value orientations and normative prescriptions, permeate all stages of the rhetorical canon. Together, they become an indivisible universal act of conscious (cultural) creation of speech. Logos - this is a conviction through an appeal to reason, a sequence of arguments built according to the laws of logic. It with- persuasion through appeal to moral principles recognized by the audience. Since the general moral principles and values are known (justice, honesty, respect for sacred things, devotion to the motherland, etc.), the author who wants to build a conviction in ethos has only to choose the principles that are appropriate for the case and are closest to the audience. Pathos means the excitation of emotion or passion, on the basis of which conviction occurs. The doctrine of the arousal of passions was developed in the old rhetoric (Introduction to cultural studies. A course of lectures / Edited by Yu. N. Solonin, E. G. Sokolov. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 149-160). Rhetoric imposes certain requirements on speech: in particular, expediency and skill. Thus, pathos acts as an emotional inspiration that causes an act. This creative source gives impetus to logos and ethos, by means of which it actually turns the text into a speech action. Creativity consists in the ongoing resolution of the conflict of values, the dramatic clash of motives, passions, interests, and everyone makes an active choice in a speech act. The mental space of consciousness is the unity of affective and intellectual processes. The conflict of will and reason lies in the fact that the will requires confidence and determination, and the mind, in turn, requires doubt and balance. Logos is the basis of rhetoric as a practical philosophy. Thus, rhetoric recommends selecting material in such a way as to activate all three modes of persuasiveness, which will help in the future to formulate the correct position and defend it. The text should present a logical sequence of reasoning, the arguments should be based on moral principles and appeal to the emotions of the audience. At the same time, the modes of persuasion should be brought into harmony with each other and with the theme, since the excited emotions should correspond to the theme. Sharp jumps from rational persuasion to emotional speech are unacceptable - smooth transitions are needed. 8. Rhetorical passages (topoi) The inventio also includes a subsection on the content sources of the invention of the material, in particular on the sources of the invention of arguments and arguments, arranged in a hierarchy. At the highest level of abstraction are the so-called general conditions of the case, described by a sequence of questions. Each of the questions sets the area for further meaningful clarifications. These clarifications are called rhetorical passages or topoi (Greek topoi, Latin loci). In modern rhetoric, they are also called semantic models or schemes, and the subsection itself is called a topic. Topoi are private standardized aspects of the consideration of any topic (Aristotle. Topeka. On sophistic refutation. Works: in 4 volumes. T. 2. M., 1978). In rhetoric, during its existence, a fairly large number of places have accumulated, which are nevertheless reducible to a certain number of groups (the classification is presented on the basis of the works of L. Ivanov). 1. Terms: Who? What? Topoi: definition of the subject; genus and species; part and whole; identity, similarity and comparison - similarities and differences, etc. Example: subject (what?) - computer; audience (for whom?) - for philologists; the internal architecture of the computer (central processing unit, read-only memory, etc.); peripherals, computer networks, WAN, etc. Comparison: computer and TV, computer and mobile phone (common functions), etc. 2. Terms: How? By whom? Through what? Topoi: methods, method and mode of action, interrelated subjects and objects, tools, etc. Example: principles of operation of a computer (transmission of electrical signals, semiconductor matrices, digital signal coding), the role of a human operator, software. 3. Terms: Where? When? Topoi: place - geographically, socially (in what strata of society); distance (near-far); time (morning-day-night), era (modern, classical), etc. Example: the history of the computer, the country where computers first appeared, social structures. Time of occurrence: XX century. etc. 4. Conditions: Why? Why? Topoi: causes, goals, intentions, consequences, etc. Example: why high technologies arose, what global computerization can lead to, the consequences of information wars, etc. The compiler of a speech or text can fill each group of places according to his own needs, excluding some topoi or adding new ones. In his work, the compiler must keep in mind that the structure of places is not identical to the structure of the speech or text itself. This is only an auxiliary basis that allows you to select meaningful content. The method of distribution and enrichment of the content found with the help of the technique of rhetorical places is called rhetorical amplification. 9. General characteristics of the composition of the material (dispositio). Title. Introduction. Topic The dispositio includes the doctrine of the order of arrangement and the main blocks of the structure of a text or speech. The basis of the canon "arrangement" was the doctrine of the composition of speech, on the basis of which such modern disciplines arose as the doctrine of literary composition and the theory of composition as part of the theory of text. Various theorists of rhetoric each offer their own structure of the text, the arrangement of its individual parts. However, it is possible to generalize all the developments of this issue by reducing the main blocks of speech structure to the following: from three (introduction - main part - conclusion) to seven (introduction - definition of the topic with its subdivisions - presentation - digression - argumentation or proof of one's own thesis - refutation - conclusion ). Some authors additionally highlight the title of the text. In traditional rhetoric title did not stand out in the structure of speech. The importance of titles has increased with the development of the rhetoric of mass communication. Here the title came to be regarded as a means of attracting the addressee's attention in the context of an alternative choice associated with a constant increase in the number of messages arriving at the addressee. Entry features can be reduced to several basic ones: the psychological preparation of the audience for the perception of the topic, as well as the awakening of the listeners' interest in the topic and the formation of favorable psychological conditions for its presentation. Tactically, for this reasoning can begin with the rationale for the choice of topic. It will not be superfluous to express respect for the audience and opponents, to show the general meaningful background against which the topic will unfold. The choice of introduction depends on the type of audience, the nature of the topic and the situation of communication. Having weighed all these parameters, the author can choose the introduction that is most suitable for a given situation: ordinary (standard), short, restrained, non-standard (paradoxical), solemn, etc. At the stage of defining the topic and its subdivision the author directly defines what he is going to talk about or write about next. It is advisable at this stage of the speech to list the most important issues that he wants to highlight (aspects of the topic). In a number of genres of special communication (an educational lecture, a scientific article), it is possible to present a plan for further communication to the audience. Practice has developed a number of criteria that the subdivision of the topic must meet: logical expediency; the content of exclusively significant, approximately equivalent aspects of the topic. since the main task of the speaker is to convince the audience, rhetoric recommends building the division in ascending order: from the least convincing to the most convincing aspects of the topic. The place of the definition of the topic and the thesis does not really matter; it can be located both before the presentation and after the argument. However, philosophical and artistic works are an exception. 10. The main and final parts of the speech The fourth part of the speech is the presentation of the material, i.e., a consistent story about the various aspects of the subject in accordance with the presented plan. There are two methods of presentation: 1) natural (other names of similar methods are found in the literature: plot, historical or chronological method) - the author presents the selected facts in their chronological or other natural sequence (first cause, then effect, etc.); 2) artificial (plot or philosophical method). In this case, the author, deviating from the natural sequence, follows the logic of the theme development created by him. Thus, the speaker is trying to increase the entertaining, conflict content of the message, to keep the attention of the audience with the help of the effect of broken expectation. Here, for example, messages about an event later in time can be followed by a message about an earlier event, after a story about consequences, a story about causes, etc. Retreat or digression, excursion - the fifth compositional part of the speech of the rhetor. Here, a subject that is only indirectly related to the main topic is briefly described, but the speaker considers it necessary to tell the audience about it. This compositional part is optional. The place of retreat, digression, excursion in the composition is not rigidly fixed. The place of this part is determined either in the course of the presentation, or after the presentation and before the argument. Digression is also used by experienced speakers as a way to relieve mental stress when the topic requires serious intellectual effort by the audience and the author. The digression also gives an emotional release if the author accidentally or intentionally touched on a topic that is emotionally unsafe in this audience. The most important building blocks are argumentation and rebuttal. Under argumentation is understood as a collection of arguments in favor of the thesis in its compositional unity and the process of presenting these arguments. Rebuttal - the same argumentation, but with an "opposite sign", i.e. a collection of arguments against the antithesis defended by the opponent or, if the main antithesis is not formulated, against possible doubts and objections regarding the thesis, as well as the process of presenting these arguments (Encyclopedic Law Dictionary / Under edited by V. E. Krutskikh, M., 1999). В concluding the main content of the text is briefly repeated, the most powerful arguments are reproduced, the necessary emotional state of the listeners and their positive attitude towards the thesis are reinforced. Depending on which of these tasks the author considers the most important, he can choose the appropriate type of conclusion: summarizing, typifying or appealing. In a summary conclusion, the speaker summarizes everything he said earlier. Such a conclusion is based on the psychological "law of the edge", according to which a person remembers better the information located at the beginning and at the end of the text. 11. Theory of argumentation and refutation Argumentation (including refutation) plays a major role in persuading the audience, and therefore in achieving rhetorical goals as such. The Doctrine of Argumentation actively developed in the old rhetoric. Today, the theory of argumentation represents its main part. The most important distinction in argumentation theory is the distinction between proof, demonstration, or logical argumentation, on the one hand, and rhetorical, dialectical argumentation, or just argumentation, on the other. The proof is carried out according to the formal rules of logic: the laws of logical inference, the rules for constructing a syllogism and general logical laws (Ivin A. A. Theory of argumentation: Textbook. M., 2000). Rhetorical arguments differ primarily in terms of topoi (places), with the help of which they can be invented or selected. On this basis, one can distinguish two big groups: 1) empirical - arguments originating from "external" places (observation, illustration, example and evidence); 2) theoretical - arguments originating from "internal" places (deductive, in particular, causal, generic and other argumentation, assimilation and opposition). A. A. Ivin identifies other general classes of rhetorical arguments: analogy, dilemma, induction, as well as contextual arguments: tradition and authority, intuition and faith, common sense and taste. From the point of view of the modern theory of argumentation, the choice of one or another formal variety of a rhetorical argument directly depends on the content that the author wants to put into it. In refutation, the same kinds of arguments can be used, but with the opposite sign. The best refutation is when the inconsistency of the thesis is deduced formally and logically. Along with logical proof and the standard methods of rhetorical argumentation listed above, there is an extensive set of techniques used primarily to refute the antithesis ("argument to personality", "argument to ignorance", "argument to strength", misleading by verbose empty reasoning, manipulating the ambiguity of words etc.). Their rhetoric does not recommend using them for ethical reasons, but you should know them in order to recognize them from your opponent. Similar techniques were used by the sophists in ancient Greece. For their study, a special applied rhetorical discipline has developed - eristic. The material accumulated by eristics has become an object of interest for the modern theory of argumentation (Ivin A.A. Theory of argumentation: Textbook. M., 2000). The subject of study of the theory of argumentation, along with the doctrine of techniques, are logical errors of argumentation, for example, a contradiction in the definition of the type of oxymoron (a living corpse), the definition of the unknown through the unknown (zhrugr is a Russian witzraor), denial instead of a definition (a cat is not a dog), tautology and etc. 12. Verbal expression or diction (elocutio) Part of the rhetoric is the canon "verbal expression". It is here that the organization of specific language material is considered, up to the selection of vocabulary and the construction of individual sentences. The verbal expression must meet four criteria: 1) correctness (meet the rules of grammar, spelling and pronunciation); 2) clarity (consist of commonly understood words in generally accepted combinations, the inclusion of abstract, borrowed and other words that may not be clear to the audience is not welcome); 3) grace (to be more aesthetic than everyday speech); 4) relevance (the harmony of the topic and the choice of language means, primarily vocabulary). These components of the canon "verbal expression" formed the basis of modern science of the culture of speech. Previously, the most voluminous part of the rhetoric was one subsection of the canon "word expression" - the study of figures. The opinion was expressed that all "verbal expression" and in general all rhetoric, without a trace, is reduced to the doctrine of figures. There are about a hundred figures in science. However, due to the spread of rhetoric across the territory, it led to the simultaneous use of Latin and Greek names, to which were added names from new languages. Therefore, a large number of synonymous terms began to be used to refer to one figure over the centuries. Attempts to classify the figures were made in antiquity. Initially, figures of thought were separated, which later separated into an independent group of tropes (metaphor, metonymy, etc.), and figures of speech. The latter were subdivided, according to Quintilian, into figures based on the form of speech (grammatical figures) and figures based on the principles of word placement. Other common classifications included division into word figures (alliteration, assonance) and sentence figures (parcellation, ellipsis, multi-union, non-union, etc.) (Introduction to Culturology. A course of lectures / Edited by Yu. N. Solonin, E. G. Sokolova, St. Petersburg, 2003, pp. 149-160). Of the modern classifications, the most promising are the classifications of figures according to the procedures for transforming the expression plan and the content plan corresponding to each of them. Here, figures are distinguished based on reduction, addition, reduction with addition and permutations (J. Dubois). V. N. Toporov gives the following classification of transformation methods: the repetition of "aaa" (for example, polyunion), the alternation of "abab" (parallel syntactic constructions), the addition of "abc" to "ab" (expletion), the reduction of "ab" to "abc " (ellipsis), symmetry "ab / ba" (chiasm), expansion "a › a1a2a3", collapse "a1a2a3 › a", etc. The canon "verbal expression" ended with the doctrine of the amplification of linguistic expression (the amplification of the content plan was related to the topic), in particular, through the sharing of figures, and the doctrine of the rhetorical period. 13. Memory, memorization (memoria) and performance, pronunciation (actio). Rhetoric and related disciplines canon memoria was intended for speakers who needed to memorize their prepared speeches for subsequent public reproduction, and had a more psychological than philological character. It contained a list of techniques that made it possible to memorize relatively large amounts of textual information, mainly based on complex visual images (Introduction to cultural studies. A course of lectures / Edited by Yu. N. Solonin, E. G. Sokolov. St. Petersburg, 2003) . The section on performance included information and skills that today are part of the theory of acting, namely: mastery of the voice - its accent-intonation richness, facial expressions, the art of posture and gesture. Complex requirements were formulated for the behavior of the speaker (charm, artistry, self-confidence, friendliness, sincerity, objectivity, interest, enthusiasm, etc.). Rhetoric, like linguistics, belongs to the circle of semiotic sciences (this is described in more detail in the works of V. N. Toprov and Yu. M. Lotman). The style and culture of speech are subsections of the old rhetoric, isolated and independently developing. The problems of a number of other disciplines, philological and non-philological, intersect with problems that are included in the circle discussed by rhetoric. These are: the syntax of superphrasal units and the linguistics of the text, the linguistic theory of expressivity, the linguistic theory of prose, as well as the logical sciences, especially modern non-classical logics, psycholinguistics, the psychology of memory and emotions, etc. Even sophists widely used two main disciplines in their activities: dialectics - the art of reasoning rhetoric - the art of persuasion. He who skillfully masters both arts can convince any opponent and achieve the triumph of his opinion. This, in their opinion, was the main advantage of the "social person" as the ideal of ancient Greece (Introduction to cultural studies. A course of lectures / Edited by Yu. N. Solonin, E. G. Sokolov. St. Petersburg, 2003). In the Middle Ages, rhetoric became one of the "seven free sciences" in Varro's system of sciences, taught in schools and universities. These seven sciences were divided into two groups: trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectics) and quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy). The teaching of the sciences of the trivium continued in ecclesiastical and secular schools until the XNUMXth century. The circle of traditional rhetorical disciplines in science includes eristics, dialectics and sophistry. The disciplines of the non-rhetorical cycle include the linguistic theory of argumentation, the study of communication, general semantics (general semantics), structural poetics, literary text analysis within the framework of new criticism, etc. 14. The birth of rhetoric Separate elements of rhetoric arose in ancient India and ancient China, but they were not brought together into a single system and did not play a particularly important role in society. As a systematic discipline rhetoric developed in ancient Greece during the era of Athenian democracy. Sophists were the creators of the image of the "public man" (the ideal of Ancient Greece). At the basis of the ideas about knowledge that the sophists came up with, at the basis of the doctrine of the relativity of truth, lay the democratic way of their thoughts. On any subject every man has the right to have his own opinion, just as in a free state every man has the right to judge the affairs of state and demand that he be reckoned with. Truth, according to the sophists, is only a subjective judgment about something. The basis of their teaching is the judgment that man is the measure of all things. The first treatise on rhetoric belonged to a Sicilian political orator and lawyer Corax. He was the first to give a definition: "eloquence is a worker of persuasion", and also argued that the main goal of the speaker is not to reveal the truth, but to convince with the help of the probable. Protagoras (c. 481-411 BC) - one of the first who began to study the derivation of the conclusion from the premises. He was also one of the first to use a form of dialogue in which the interlocutors defend opposing points of view. Protagoras owns the works “The Art of the Debate”, “On the Sciences”, etc., which have not come down to us. It was he who introduced the formula “The measure of all things is man” (the beginning of his work “Truth”). Gorgias(c. 480-380 BC) was a student of Corax and Tisias. He is considered the founder of figures as one of the main objects of rhetoric. He himself actively used figures of speech (parallelism, homeoteleuton, that is, uniform endings), tropes (metaphors and comparisons), as well as rhythmically constructed phrases. Gorgias narrowed down the subject of rhetoric, which was too vague for him: unlike other sophists, he claimed that he did not teach virtue and wisdom, but only oratory. Gorgias was the first to teach rhetoric in Athens. His writings "On the carrier or on nature" and speeches "Praise to Elena" and "Justification of Palamedes" have been preserved. Isocrates(c. 436-388 BC) is considered the founder of literary rhetoric - the first rhetorician who paid primary attention to writing. He was one of the first to introduce the concept of the composition of an oratorical work. The features of his style are complex periods, which, however, have a clear and precise construction and therefore are easily accessible for understanding, rhythmic articulation of speech and an abundance of decorative elements (Durant V. Life of Greece / Translated from English M., 1997). The Sophists created a cult of the word in Greece and thereby raised rhetoric to unprecedented heights. The theory of rhetoric was born from the practical needs of Greek society. Eloquence was the language of the ruling groups, the elite. Teaching rhetoric became the highest level of ancient education, an educational ideal called paideia. It is no coincidence that "Greek sophistry itself is undoubtedly the Greek Enlightenment." 15. Rhetoric and philosophy - two poles of the spiritual life of antiquity The first challenge to the sophistical ideal was Socrates. Contrary to the sophists, who build calculations on psychological impact, Socrates became the founder of moral philosophy. According to his concept, the right thought gives birth to the right deed. The main philosophical questions for him were the search for the meaning of human existence, the purpose of man, the nature of knowledge and truth. "Active life" and "contemplative life" are the two elements into which the ideal of "social life" has disintegrated. The first ideal is a rhetorician, practitioner and politician. The second ideal is a philosopher, theorist and thinker. According to this alignment, the spiritual life of antiquity formed two poles - rhetoric and philosophy. Philosophy is the art of living (Socrates). A necessary component of this art is the ability to be aware of the correctness of one's judgments and demand the same from others (Manzhora O. B. Philosophical Anthropology: Lectures on Philosophy. Saratov: SGAP, 2000). As a result of the confrontation between the views of the Sophists and Socrates in Greece, by the end of the XNUMXth century. BC e. there was an unprecedented flowering of philosophical thought, the largest representatives of which were Plato and Aristotle. Plato (427-347 BC) rejected the value relativism of the sophists. He was the first to say that the main thing for a rhetor is not copying other people's thoughts, but his own comprehension of the truth, finding his own way in oratory. Plato noted that the main task of oratory is persuasion. By this he meant primarily an emotional conviction. Plato emphasized the importance of a harmonious composition of speech, the speaker's ability to separate the paramount from the unimportant, taking into account all this in speech. Turning to the analysis of the practice of judicial rhetoric, Plato noted that here the orator should not seek the truth, but strive for the maximum likelihood of his arguments. Aristotle (384-322 BC) completed the transformation of rhetoric into a scientific discipline. He established an inextricable link between rhetoric, logic and dialectics. In the main works devoted to rhetoric ("Rhetoric", "Topeka" and "On Sophistic Refutations"), Aristotle indicated the place of rhetoric in the system of sciences of antiquity and described in detail everything that formed the core of rhetorical teaching over the following centuries. Until the end of the period of ancient culture, rhetoric predetermined not only the style of speech, but also the way of thinking, that is, the philosophy of life. Philosophy claimed the title of true rhetoric, and rhetoric, in turn, claimed the title of true philosophy. The demands of freedom and justice received a rhetorical justification. Since then, scientific hypothesis and deductive proof have been systematically applied. An undoubted human achievement was the anthropological destruction of the alleged "natural" and the introduction of the cultural "artificial". The ancient type of culture gave both philosophy and rhetoric the opportunity to actually identify themselves with culture as a whole, to declare themselves the principle of culture. 16. Roman rhetoric Under the influence of Greek oratory, Roman eloquence developed and took shape. Its peculiarity was the possession of enormous practical power. All state affairs in Republican Rome were decided by debates in the popular assembly, in the Senate and in court. Almost every free citizen could speak here. Therefore, the possession of the word was necessary for the Roman citizen. All the requirements for purity, correctness, clarity, brevity, relevance and conformity that were imposed on Hellenic speech were successfully transferred to Latin speech and subsequently turned into an expressive and accurate tool of thought - Latin. Roman rhetoric reached its highest development in the last century of the Republic. An indicator of this fact is the pinnacle of Roman eloquence - the oratory of Mark Tullius Cicero. The theory of the rhetoric of a Roman figure is set forth in five of his works: "On Finding", "Topeka" - an application of the work of the same name by Aristotle to Roman oratorical practice, "Orator", "Brutus" and "On the Orator". In them, Cicero discusses the construction and content of speech, the choice of one of the styles according to the content, the period and the sources of persuasion. Cicero proceeds from three main purposes of oratory: to teach, delight and induce. The ideal Roman orator is one who at the same time: 1) in his speeches and teaches listeners - this is his duty; 2) gives them pleasure - this is the key to his popularity; 3) subjugates their will - a necessary condition for success. The most necessary conditions for eloquence are the following: natural talent, skills and knowledge. According to Cicero, the most important thing is knowledge, since the primacy belongs to an educated speaker-philosopher. A true orator must explore, re-listen, re-read, discuss, disassemble, try everything that a person encounters in life, since the speaker rotates in it and it serves as material for him. Science can develop mental alertness, but science is powerless to bestow it, therefore, no less important is the possession of a natural gift, that is, a quick and flexible mind, resourcefulness in the development of thoughts, and a good memory. The speaker must also have such data as a sonorous voice, a courageous physique. The ideal of the Ciceronian orator is culturally very high. It combined Roman practicality with Hellenic culture (Diogenes Laertes. On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. M., 1979). The theoretical generalization of Roman eloquence, in which one of the first classifications of rhetorical figures was given, was the anonymous treatise "To Herennius". The program of teaching the art of speech ("the art of speaking beautifully" in contrast to grammar - "the art of speaking correctly") was outlined by Quintilian in the treatise "On the Education of the Orator". 17. The development of rhetoric as a scientific discipline and its dissociation from logic and philosophy Undoubtedly completed the transformation of rhetoric into a scientific discipline Aristotle back in 384-322. BC e. He established an inextricable link between rhetoric, logic and dialectics. However, this achievement was further developed in the works Quintiliana (c. 35-c. 96 AD). One of his works is the most complete ancient textbook on eloquence "Institutio oratoria" or "Rhetorical instructions" in 12 books. In these works, Quintilian organizes all the knowledge accumulated before him on the art of the orator. The definition of rhetoric, its goals and objectives can also be found in the works of Quintilian. Based on the collected material, Quintilian considers three types of rhetorical organization of the message. Particular attention is paid to the main compositional blocks of the message, argumentation and refutation. He writes about ways to excite emotions and create the right moods, touches on issues of style and stylistic processing of the message. One of the books is devoted to the technique of pronunciation and memorization. Rhetoric turns not just into a scientific discipline, it is introduced as a training course in higher educational institutions, thereby giving it a special place in the education of the individual. In particular, one of the church fathers Aurelius Augustine (354-430) taught rhetoric among other things before his conversion to Christianity. After the adoption of Christianity, he substantiated the importance of eloquence for the interpretation of biblical provisions and for Christian preaching. These reasonings of his are contained, in particular, in the treatise On Christian Doctrine. In many respects, his merit can be considered that rhetoric was not rejected by Christians and continued to be developed in the Christian era. Tried to revise the ancient doctrine of the three styles Pierre Ramyu (1515-1572). He argued that any subject can be written in each of the three styles (this provision was rejected by the ancient tradition). P. Ramyu used the term "rhetoric" for the three components of communication (diction, memory and action), the purpose of which is persuasion. His followers defined rhetoric as ars ornandi, that is, the art of embellished speech. Subsequently, rhetoric began to be reduced to the study of literary form and expression. P. Ramyu, being himself a logician, nevertheless believed that figures of speech are only an ornament and cannot be characterized as models of reasoning. The spread of his point of view led to the final dissociation of rhetoric from logic and philosophy for that period. 18. Russian rhetoric From the beginning of the XNUMXth century the first written Russian rhetorical aids appear. The first Russian rhetoric is a translation from Latin of the rhetoric of one of the leaders of the Reformation F. Melanchthon. Another important textbook on eloquence was Rhetoric, attributed to Metropolitan Macarius. The original concept of Russian rhetoric was proposed by MV Lomonosov in A Short Guide to Rhetoric (1743) and A Short Guide to Eloquence (1747). In these works, the Russian scientific terminology of rhetoric was finally fixed. From the second half of the XVIII to the middle of the XIX centuries. many textbooks, manuals and theoretical works on rhetoric were published. In particular, "The experience of rhetoric, composed and taught at the St. Petersburg Mining School" (1796) I. S. Rizhsky; "General Rhetoric" (1829) and "Private Rhetoric" (1832) N. F. Koshansky and "Short Rhetoric" (1809) A. F. Merzlyakova. Approximately in the middle of the XIX century. a crisis of rhetoric began, which ended only in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Despite this, in the 1920s. in Russia, attempts were made to revive the theory of oratory. The world's first Institute of the Living Word was created with the participation of S. M. Bondi, V. E. Meyerhold, A. V. Lunacharsky, N. A. Engelgardt, L. V. Shcherba, L. P. Yakubinsky and others; public speech of K. A. Sunneberg. However, the rhetorical initiative did not receive support from official circles. Rhetoric as a carrier of bad qualities began to be opposed to Soviet oratory as a carrier of good qualities. At the same time, an objective and detailed analysis of even Soviet oratory was not encouraged. The harbingers of a way out of the rhetorical crisis were some important theoretical works on rhetoric in the 1960s and 1970s. (S. S. Averintsev, G. Z. Apresyan, V. P. Vompersky and others). In modern Russia, a significant number of works on didactic and theoretical rhetoric appear. The authors of these works can be divided into five groups. The division is distinguished by a certain degree of conventionality, in particular because different works of one researcher sometimes make it possible to attribute him to different groups at the same time. 1. Supporters of the revival of traditional rhetoric as "the art of speaking eloquently" taking into account new scientific achievements. This is a significant part of the scientists involved in the teaching of rhetoric (V. I. Annushkin, S. F. Ivanova, T. A. Ladyzhenskaya, A. K. Mikhalskaya, and others). 2. Developers of the modern theory of argumentation, cognitive linguistics and the theory of speech influence (A. N. Baranov, P. B. Parshin, N. A. Bezmenova, G. G. Pocheptsov, V. Z. Demyankov, E. F. Tarasov and etc.). 3. Developers of individual rhetorical trends - the theory of figures, tropes, the theory of expressiveness (N. A. Kupina, T. V. Matveeva, A. P. Skovorodnikov, T. G. Khazagerov, etc.). 4. Methodologists of rhetoric (S. I. Gindin, Yu. V. Rozhdestvensky, E. A. Yunina, etc.). 5. Researchers of literary rhetoric - poetic language (M. L. Gasparov, V. P. Grigoriev, S. S. Averintsev, V. N. Toporov, etc.). 19. Crisis and revival of Western rhetoric In the West, the era of the decline of rhetoric was the Age of Enlightenment. The formerly revered discipline has acquired a reputation for being dogmatic, of no practical value, and, if applied, only to mislead listeners. Interest in rhetoric was lost. Only in the first half of the XNUMXth century under the influence of radical economic and political transformations in the life of society, new requirements for speech practice were put forward. The revival of rhetoric in the XNUMXth century. started in the USA. He is associated primarily with the activities of I. A. Richards and C. Burke. The work of I. A. Richards "Philosophy of Rhetoric" (1936) showed the relevance and social significance of "persuasive" rhetoric, and the works of C. Burke (in particular, "The Rhetoric of Motives") increased the importance of literary rhetoric. The problematics of the new rhetoric was expressed in the works of the American propaganda theorists G. Laswell, W. Lippman, P. Lazarsfeld, K. Hovland and the founders of the administrative discipline "public relations" A. Lee, E. Bernays, S. Black and F. Jeffkins. Since rhetoric was seen as an effective tool for manipulating public opinion (an instrument of social power), from the very beginning of the rhetorical revival in the United States, the emphasis was on the rhetoric of the mass media. Particular importance was given to business rhetoric (negotiating, persuading a partner, etc.). In terms of the level of penetration of practical rhetoric into public life, the United States can be called a rhetorical superpower. The emergence of a new rhetoric is associated with Europe, namely, with the publication in France of the treatise by H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka "New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation" (1958). In it, at the modern level of scientific knowledge, primarily logical, the rhetorical system of Aristotle received further critical development. H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tytek examined the connection between logic and argumentation, the concepts of audience, dialogue, ambiguity, presumptions, topoi, normativity, argumentation errors, categorized arguments and analyzed their individual categories in detail. An important role in the modern theory of argumentation (also loosely called the theory of practical discourse) is occupied by the analysis of value judgments. In addition to H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka, R. L. Stevenson, R. Hare, S. Toulmin, K. Bayer devoted their works to this. These and other aspects of the theory of argumentation are also developed by A. Ness, F. van Eemeren, V. Brokridi and others. Authoritative among researchers is the "Handbook on Literary Rhetoric" (1960) by G. Lausberg and the methodologically important work "General Rhetoric" (1970) of the Liege group "mu" (J. Dubois with colleagues). After the publication of the work of the Lieges, the new rhetoric is often called "general rhetoric". 20. The concept of oratory Expression "oratory" has several meanings. Oratory is primarily understood as a high degree of skill in public speaking, a qualitative characteristic of oratory, skillful possession of a living persuasive word. It is the art of constructing as well as delivering a public speech in order to have the desired impact on the audience. Oratory is also called the historically established science of eloquence and an academic discipline that sets out the basics of oratory. Many modern researchers consider oratory as one of the specific types of human activity, which everyone who is professionally connected with the spoken word should master. The term "oratory" has Latin roots. Its synonyms are Greek words: rhetoric, eloquence. Throughout centuries of history, oratory has been used in various areas of society. It has always found the widest application in jurisprudence, in political activity. Many lawyers and politicians were famous orators. It must be borne in mind that oratory has always served and serves the interests of certain social groups, classes, and individuals. It can equally serve both truth and falsehood, be used for moral or immoral purposes. Who and how does oratory serve is the main question that has been solved throughout the history of the development of science, starting from ancient Greece. Therefore, in oratory, the morality of the speaker, his moral responsibility for the content of speech, is very important. Oratory is a historical phenomenon. Each era makes its own demands on speakers, imposes certain duties, has its own rhetorical ideal. However, in general, oratory has specific features.: 1) complex synthetic character. Philosophy, logic, pedagogy, linguistics, aesthetics, ethics are the sciences on which oratory is based; 2) heterogeneity. Historically, depending on the scope of application, it was divided into various types and genera. In Russian rhetoric, the following main types of eloquence are distinguished: socio-political, academic, judicial, social, and spiritual. Each genus combines certain types of speech, taking into account its functions, as well as situations, goals and topics. History shows that an important condition for the emergence and development of oratory, a free exchange of views on vital issues are democratic forms of government, the active participation of citizens in the political life of the country. Hence the name of oratory as "the spiritual brainchild of democracy." It is not surprising that today, in connection with the democratic processes taking place in the country, there is a new surge of interest in rhetoric. 22. Personality (image) of the rhetor The word "orator" appeared in the Russian language in the XNUMXth century, and became more widespread in the first quarter of the XNUMXth century. V. I. Dal, explaining the word "orator" in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language, selects words and phrases close to him: vitiya, eloquence, a well-spoken person, a master of speech. In this way, speaker - this is a person who knows how to speak red, that is, beautifully, figuratively, expressively. Each speaker has his own characteristics that affect the style of speech, appear in the manner of speaking. Therefore, the theorists of oratory have long distinguished different types of speakers. So, Cicero in his work "On the Orator" named three types: 1) speakers, "magnificent, with sublime power of thought and solemnity of expressions." These are speakers "decisive, diverse, inexhaustible, powerful, fully armed ready to touch and convert hearts"; 2) speakers, "restrained and insightful, teaching everything, explaining everything"; 3) "... a middle and, as it were, a moderate race, not using either the subtle foresight of the latter, or the stormy onslaught of the former." In modern literature, different types of speakers are also distinguished: speakers, for whom the main means of oratory is the logic of reasoning, and speakers who influence listeners with their emotionality. However, it should be borne in mind that speech should be both logical and emotional. Therefore, one cannot be only an emotional orator and not care about the logic of reasoning. At the same time, those speakers who speak dispassionately, unemotionally also lose. To speak in public, a rhetor must have a number of special skills and abilities. According to psychologists, skill - is the ability to perform this or that operation in the best possible way. The main skills of a public speaker include:: 1) the skill of selecting literature; 2) the skill of studying the selected literature; 3) the skill of drawing up a plan; 4) the skill of writing the text of a speech; 5) the skill of self-control in front of an audience; 6) the skill of orientation in time. From the acquired skills, the skills of the speaker are added. In particular, he must be able to independently prepare a speech, present the material intelligibly and convincingly, answer listeners' questions, establish and maintain contact with the audience, etc. If any skills and abilities are absent, then the communication of the speaker with the audience may be ineffective. In addition, the speaker must be erudite, that is, well-read, knowledgeable in the field of science and technology, literature and art, understand politics and economics, and be able to analyze events taking place in the country and abroad. He must know the subject of his speech well. Only if the speaker is well versed in the topic of the speech, knows how to tell a lot of interesting things and bring new facts unknown to the audience, he will be able to answer important questions from the audience. In this way, the rhetor will achieve attention and respect for himself. 22. Features of public speaking oratorical speech - this is a special form of speech activity in conditions of direct communication, it is a speech addressed to a specific audience, public speech. Such a speech is delivered with the aim of informing the listeners and exerting the desired impact on them. By its nature, it is a monologue speech, i.e., designed for passive perception, which does not imply a verbal response. However, if we consider public speaking from a socio-psychological point of view, then this is not just a listener's monologue, but a complex process of communication with listeners, and the process is not one-sided, but two-sided (dialogue). The interaction between the speaker and listeners has the character of subject-subject relations. Both parties are subjects of joint activity, co-creation, and each performs its role in this complex process of public communication. Oratory is characterized by a number of features that determine its essence: 1) feedback (reaction to the words of the speaker). In the process of speaking, the speaker has the opportunity to observe the behavior of the audience and, by the reaction to his words, capture its mood, attitude towards what was said, determine from individual remarks and questions from the audience what is currently worrying the audience, and in accordance with this, correct speech; 2) oral form of communication. Public speech is a direct conversation with the listener. It implements the oral form of the literary language. Such a speech is perceived by ear, so it is important to correctly construct and organize your speech in such a way that its content is immediately understood and easily assimilated by the listener; 3) the complex relationship between book speech and its oral embodiment. In the process of thinking, developing, writing the text of the speech, the speaker relies on book and written sources, so the prepared text is, in fact, a book speech. But, going to the podium, the speaker must make a speech in order to be understood and accepted. At this moment, elements of colloquial speech appear, the speaker begins to improvise, relying on the reaction of the audience; 4) use of various means of communication. Since public speech is an oral form of communication, it uses not only linguistic means. An important role in the performance process is played by paralinguistic, non-verbal means of communication. Thus, the words of the largest linguistic scientist V. V. Vinogradov are updated: "oratorical speech - a special form of dramatic monologue, adapted to the situation of social or civil "action". 23. Audience Even in ancient times, the audience was called the audience, listening to the speech of the speaker or who came to the theatrical performance. This term has a direct relationship with the Latin words audire (to hear) and auditor (listener). In modern literature, the audience is defined as a spatially located group of people united by an interest in the subject of the utterance, as well as interacting with the speaker and with each other in the process of perceiving speech communication. This is a complex socio-psychological community of people with peculiar emotional experiences. The quantitative composition of the audience - essential sign. The speaker cannot be indifferent to the number of listeners. In a large and small audience, people's behavior and reactions are different. It must be borne in mind that a large audience is not intended for a debatable discussion of issues; it is difficult to use arguments that are relevant and understandable to everyone. Some speakers are afraid of a large audience, which gives them "oratory fever". A small audience does not represent anything monolithic, whole. Here everyone remains an individual, has the opportunity to show their individuality. In a small audience, the speaker is not expected to have a long monologue, but a lively direct dialogue, the ability to involve everyone present in the conversation. The amount of time devoted to answering questions is, to some extent, an indicator of a successful presentation. One of the characteristics of the audience is its homogeneity. It is determined by the socio-demographic features of the listeners. The more homogeneous the audience, the more unanimous the reaction and the easier it is to speak. The audience is also characterized by a sense of community, which is manifested in a certain emotional mood of the listeners. The influence of listeners on each other is especially acute when approving or disapproving of the speaker's speech. In this case, the rhetor must learn to control the mood of the audience, to be able to change it if necessary. An important characteristic of the audience - the motive of the listeners' actions. Usually people come to lectures, meetings, meetings, and so on, guided by certain considerations. Psychologists distinguish three groups of motives: 1) motives of an intellectual-cognitive nature; 2) moral motives; 3) emotional and aesthetic motives. Naturally, initially listeners in different ways tuned to the speaker. The speaker needs to identify the main motive for the action that unites the majority of listeners in order to build speeches accordingly. It should also be taken into account that the people gathered in the hall do not yet form an audience. An audience arises only when there is a single, significant center of attention for all those present - the speaker and his message. 24. Interaction between speaker and audience The highest manifestation of the skill of public speaking, the most important condition for the effectiveness of oratory is contact with the listener. Psychologists define contact as a commonality of the mental state of the speaker and the audience, mutual understanding between the speaker and the listener. This community arises primarily on the basis of joint mental activity. Rhetor and listener should solve the same problems, discuss the same issues. If the speaker talks about one thing, and the listeners think about something else, there is no contact. Scientists call joint mental activity intellectual empathy. For the emergence of contact, intellectual empathy is important, that is, the speaker and the listener should experience similar feelings during the speech. The attitude of the speaker to the subject of speech, his interest, conviction are transmitted to the listeners, thus causing a response. Externally, contact is manifested in the behavior of the audience. Some speakers are listened to with bated breath, afraid to miss a single word. In this case, the indicator of contact is silence. The speaker's jokes, his humorous remarks cause smiles and laughter in the audience, but everything stops as soon as the speaker begins to express his thoughts. Silence can also have other meanings. The so-called polite silence is an indicator that the topic is not interesting to the audience, that the listeners simply do not want to interfere with the speaker, do not violate order and at the same time do not work with the speaker, mentally doing other things. The main indicator of mutual understanding between the speaker and the listener - a positive reaction to the words of the speaker, an external expression of attention from the listeners, working silence in the hall. Contact can be complete or incomplete, cover the entire audience or only part of it, as well as stable from the beginning of the speech to the end or unstable, change during the speech. Factors affecting the establishment of contact: 1) the relevance of the issue under discussion, the novelty in its coverage, the interesting content of the speech; 2) the personality of the speaker, his reputation, the prevailing public opinion about him; 3) features of the audience: its quantitative and qualitative composition, the motive for the actions of listeners, their mood, attitudes, interests, etc.; 4) the psychology of listeners: the audience makes certain demands on the speaker and expects him to justify them. Listeners should feel the speaker's confidence, his calmness and dignity, firmness and determination in his voice; 5) appearance of the speaker. Listeners are at the same time spectators, so it is important to pay attention to the appearance of the rhetor, facial expressions, gestures, posture, and movements. All this will be criticized by the listeners. Additionally, the speaker has an important task - to interest listeners, set them up for the perception of speech, keep their attention until the end of the speech. 25. Audience Management Techniques No matter how interesting the speech would be, the attention of listeners dulls over time, and they cease to perceive it. Therefore, the rhetor needs to know the techniques of audience management. One of the interesting oratory techniques is the so-called the mystery of entertainment. P. Sergeich points out that "the attention of the listeners gets a push when the speaker unexpectedly interrupts the thought he has begun, and a new push when, after talking about something else, he returns to what was not previously agreed." Special oratorical techniques include question-answer move. The rhetor aloud discusses the problem posed. He puts questions to the audience and answers them himself, puts forward possible assumptions and objections, and comes to certain conclusions. Humor often becomes a very effective means of defusing, reviving the attention of the audience. To reach an understanding with the listener, public speaking uses empathy technique. The speaker expresses his sympathy to the listeners about any events, experiences a certain state of mind with them. Thanks to the reception of complicity, the speaker refers to joint participation with the listener in any events, recalls certain episodes. The speaker may agree or disagree with the opinion of the previous speaker on the issue under discussion, quote his words, beat them. This approach is called appeals to the previous speaker's speech. To awaken the attention of the audience, the rhetor can refer to known or unknown events that have a certain significance for the audience, helping to comprehend the essence of the problem under consideration, i.e. appeal to events. Appeal to the weather - another technique for managing an audience, when a speaker, speaking about some events, refers to a rainy or sunny day, windy or warm weather, and so on, thereby enhancing the effect of his speech. To reinforce his position, to make it more convincing, the speaker cites the words of prominent scientists, prominent state, political or public figures, refers to well-known scientific works, newspapers, magazines, opinions of authoritative figures. This approach is called reference to authorities or well-known sources. Useful in some cases appeal to the interests of the audience. The speaker considers a particular issue, emphasizes the relevance, significance of this problem for the audience, speaks about the practical orientation of the decisions made, etc. There is also a technique such as appeal to the personality of the speaker. In this case, the speaker refers to his own experience when discussing any issues, cites cases from his life, speaks about his perception of certain events. Enliven performance and examples from fiction, proverbs, sayings, catchwords and phraseological units. In addition, it also helps appeal to the audience. May be useful in management voice tricks, i.e., raising or lowering the voice, changing its volume, tempo of speech. A pause here gives meaning to what is said or what will be said. 26. Non-verbal means of communication Initially, the problem of sign language was considered Charles Darwin in the work "The Expression of Emotions by Animals and Man" in 1872. Subsequently, a whole direction appeared that studied this issue, its followers are non-verbalists. The language of facial expressions, gestures allows the speaker to more fully express his feelings, shows how the participants in the dialogue control themselves, how they really relate to each other. Thus, it is no coincidence that in various rhetoric, starting from ancient times, special chapters devoted to gestures were allocated. Oratory theorists in their articles on lecturing also paid special attention to gesticulation. In "Tips for lecturers" A. F. Koni pointed out: "Gestures enliven speech, but they should be used carefully. An expressive gesture should correspond to the meaning and meaning of a given phrase or a single word. Too frequent, monotonous, fussy, abrupt hand movements are unpleasant, boring, annoying and annoying." Mechanical gestures distract the listener's attention from the content of speech, interfere with its perception. Often they are the result of excitement, testify to the self-doubt of the speaker. Depending on the purpose, gestures are divided into: 1) rhythmic gestures associated with the rhythm of speech. They emphasize logical stress, slowing down and speeding up speech (intonation); 2) emotional, conveying various shades of feelings. Some of them are fixed in stable combinations, since these gestures have become universally significant (beat oneself on the chest, slam the table with a fist, turn around, shrug, etc.); 3) pointing gestures, through which the speaker singles out some object from a number of homogeneous ones, emphasizes the order. You can indicate with your head, hand, foot, turn of the body, finger; 4) pictorial gestures appear in several cases: a) if there are not enough words to fully convey the idea; b) if words alone are not enough for any reason (nervousness, uncertainty, lack of self-control); c) if it is necessary to enhance the impression and influence the listener additionally; 5) conditional (symbolic) gestures: a) a categorical gesture (a saber wave with the right hand - this is completely clear, I will never agree, no one knew); b) a gesture of intensity (the hand is clenched into a fist - he is very stubborn, he is terribly ambitious, she is stubborn); c) a gesture of denial, refusal (repulsive hand movements); d) gesture of separation (palms open, diverge in different directions); e) a gesture of association (fingers are connected to a pinch or palms are connected). For those who, by the nature of their activities, often communicate with people, it is important to know that facial expressions and gestures can say a lot about a person’s character, his thoughts, feelings. With all the variety of gestures, their variability, they show relative stability, although there are exceptions. 27. Legal rhetoric Cicero, and after him many other researchers, note the similarity of oratory and poetic art. Purity, clarity, accuracy and the ultimate information content of the language, the need for natural inclinations and great diligence make the orator and the poet related. In both cases art is enriched by scientific knowledge of itself. The practice of communication determines the art of communication and together with it constitutes the subject of rhetoric as a scientific theory of human communicative activity. The remarks of ancient authors on this subject take on a meaning that goes far beyond their definitions and observations when viewed in the context of the modern theory of rhetoric. The last conclusion is based on comparison and is not flawless from the point of view of formal logic. Comparison of oratory and poetic art only helped to define the subject of rhetoric in the context of a general discussion about the views of ancient authors on the relationship between science and the art of eloquence. The course of the author's thought remained, as it were, "behind the scenes" in the sphere of figurative, intuitive, irrational, but at the same time quite understandable knowledge. The very sequence of thought, its development and wording is convincing. The study of legal rhetoric cannot consist only in the analysis of texts of speeches and court decisions - the most striking and well-studied side of legal rhetoric. A less noticeable, but the most voluminous part of the subject of this discipline is concentrated in the process of preparing and forming convictions, formalizing the evaluative characteristics of the actual content of the case for subsequent convincing presentation in a speech or a court decision. therefore legal rhetoric it is primarily the methodology of the study of the case, and only then the art of judicial speech. Legal rhetoric, closely related to the branches of law and philology, is in fact the most important of the applied sections of scientific rhetoric. It depends entirely on the subject and methodology of this systematic discipline. Specifically philological or specifically legal approaches to the study of legal rhetoric are legitimate only if they are consistent with the rhetorical method of research that is necessarily applicable to the subject of persuasion in any humanitarian field. It is this method that will form the basis of the methodology of the present study. Thus, legal rhetoric as a scientific discipline studies the whole range of problems associated with analytical preparation and convincing presentation of evaluative conclusions about legally significant facts in the process of studying them and making decisions of a legal nature. The subject of legal rhetoric is persuasion in the legal sphere of communication. The scientific methodology of this applied discipline is closely interconnected with the methodology of law as a branch of knowledge, with the general methodology of the humanities, but is based on a rhetorical research method, which implies the interdependence of the research processes and the presentation of its results based on persuasiveness as a criterion of truth. 28. Style of defensive speech The court speaker builds his oral speech in such a way that it retains only a few features of the colloquial style and is characterized by a wide use of the style of written speech (book styles). This circumstance predetermines the complexity of the stylistic nature of defensive speech, which is formed by almost all known functional styles of the literary language. Philologists, and after them many lawyers, seek to analyze the style of defensive speech based on ideas about the styles of the literary language and the expressive means corresponding to these styles. Aristotle considered style as an evaluative characteristic of the correspondence of the expressive means of the speaker's language to the subject of speech and the personality of its author. Such an understanding of style turns out to be closely interconnected with the idea of the expressive means of the language. Modern researchers of rhetoric give precise, complex and rather rich definitions to style, which, in essence, continue the tradition of Aristotle. E. N. Zaretskaya writes: “From a communicative point of view, style is understood as a generally accepted manner, the usual way of performing any particular type of speech acts: oratory, editorial in a newspaper, scientific (not highly specialized) lecture, judicial speech, everyday dialogue, friendly writing, etc. Style in this sense is characterized not only by the set (parameters) of linguistic means, but also by the composition of the act. Applied to judicial speech style - this is a way of its execution, which is characterized by the subordination of language means and the composition of the speech act to the target setting of the speaker. The method of execution of a judicial speech depends on the target setting, which coincides with the procedural task of the judicial speaker, and must fully comply with it. The stylistic variety of judicial speeches is largely determined by the variety of procedural tasks. It is one thing to convince a jury of the principal's innocence, it is quite another thing to influence the conviction of professionals - a judge or a panel of judges. At the same time, the characteristics common to all judicial speeches should be considered rhetorically as genre characteristics. The genre of judicial speech is always ritual, unlike style, reflects not only the procedural goal, but also the personal characteristics of the speaker, is deeply individual and is always subject to evaluative characteristics from the outside. In this way, style in legal rhetoric is a form of communicative action, which is substantively determined by the laws of the genre. In this sense, the concept of "legal style" derived by E. Podgolin, which includes such mandatory features as accuracy, understandability and clarity, which "work" for the persuasiveness of a speech in judicial debate, seems to be very meaningful and promising in the sense of understanding the correlation of rhetorical and philological approaches. to the study of the style of judicial speech. 29. Performance Composition One of the sections of Paul Sauper's book "Fundamentals of the Art of Speech" begins with the words: "The battle is won not only by superiority in manpower and equipment, but also by the superiority of strategy and tactics." Like a battle, the author emphasizes, speech must be planned. Its content and techniques must be worked out so that they ultimately lead to the intended goal. The success of a public speaking depends not only on the study of the necessary literature, the selection of interesting information, the collection of convincing facts, figures, examples, but also on the sequence of presentation of the material. Before the speaker in the process of preparation, a number of questions inevitably arise: what words to start the speech, how to continue the conversation, how to end the speech, how to win the attention of the audience and keep it until the end of the speech. Therefore, serious attention should be paid speech compositions. In the theory of oratory performance composition means the construction of the performance, the ratio of its individual parts and the relationship of each part to the entire performance as a whole. If the ratio of parts is violated, then the effectiveness of speech decreases. There are no universal rules for constructing a speech. The composition will change depending on the topic, purpose, tasks facing the rhetor, on the composition of the audience. However, there are general principles for structuring speech. In particular, the main ones are: 1) sequence principle - each thought expressed should follow from the previous one or be correlated with it; 2) gain principle - the significance, weight, persuasiveness of arguments and evidence should gradually increase, the strongest arguments are reserved by the end of the argument; 3) principle of organic unity - the distribution of material and its distribution in speech should follow from the material itself and the intentions of the speaker; 4) economy principle - the ability to achieve the goal in the simplest, most rational way, with minimal effort, time, speech means. The well-known Russian writer K. A. Fedin defined the essence of the composition very accurately: "Composition is the logic of the development of the theme." A.F. Koni in the article "Lecturer's Tips" noted: "For the success of speech, the flow of the lecturer's thoughts is important. If the thought jumps from subject to subject, is thrown, if the main thing is constantly interrupted, then such a speech is almost impossible to listen to." The main elements of the composition traditionally include: introduction, main body and conclusion. In this case, the basic rule of composition must be strictly observed - the logical sequence and harmony of the presentation of the material. M. M. Speransky in his work "The Rules of Higher Eloquence" stated: "All thoughts in a word must be interconnected so that one thought contains, so to speak, the seed of another." 30. Introduction as an element of composition The success of a speech largely depends on how it started, how much the speaker managed to interest the audience. An unsuccessful start can reduce the interest of the public to zero, scatter their attention. Scientists have found that what is best perceived and remembered is what is given at the beginning and end of the message. In psychology, this is called action. law of first and last place (the law of the region). Therefore, the rhetor should pay special attention to the introductory part of the speech. The introduction emphasizes relevance of the topic, its significance for this audience, the purpose of the speech is formed, the history of the problem is briefly stated. The speaker must psychologically prepare the audience for perception. Undoubtedly, listeners come to the performance with different moods, as they are guided by different motives. Some come because they are interested in the topic of the speech, they want to learn something new, to expand their horizons. This group is initially tuned in to listening and perception. Others are present in the audience due to their official position, for example, it is their duty as members of this labor collective. In such a group, it will be very difficult for the speaker to win the attention of the audience. However, that is his task. A. F. Koni taught lecturers that the beginning should be clear. The first words should be accessible, interesting, should "hook" the attention of listeners. Experienced speakers recommend starting a speech with an interesting example, proverb, saying, catchphrase or humorous remark. In the introduction, it would be advisable to use a quote that will make the listeners think about the words of the rhetor, to comprehend more deeply what he said. Encourages interest in the speech, helps to listen carefully and tell about any significant events for this audience related to the topic of the speech. One of the ways to capture the attention of the audience is asking questions. They allow you to draw listeners into active mental activity, in a certain way they tune them. To find the original beginning, you need to think a lot, study, search. This is a creative process that requires a lot of effort. The writer Yu. V. Trifonov tells in his article "The Endless Beginning" how hard it is for him to get the very first phrases of his works. The author calls the search for an unusual beginning "the most painful time." In his opinion, "the opening phrases should give life to things." It should be borne in mind that each performance requires its own beginning. At the same time, it is necessary not to deviate from the topic, keep in mind the type of speech, the composition of the audience, the degree of its preparedness, the emotional mood of the speaker himself. 31. The main part of the speech A well-thought-out introduction does not ensure the success of a speech. The rhetor can start his speech in an original way, interest the listener, but subsequently lose their attention and interest. The speaker has a very important task - not only to attract the attention of the audience, but also to keep it until the end of the speech. Therefore, the main part of the speech is the most responsible. It sets out the main material, consistently explains the statements made, proves their correctness, and leads the audience to the necessary conclusions. In the main part, it is necessary to strictly observe basic composition rule - logical sequence and harmony of the presentation of the material. Preparing for a speech, the rhetor should consider what method he will use when presenting the main part, what arguments he will take to prove the position put forward, what oratorical techniques he uses to attract the attention of listeners. The speaker needs to skillfully arrange all these components in order to have an impact on the audience with his speech. The structure of the speech depends largely on the method of presenting the material. In science, the following methods are distinguished: 1) inductive method - presentation of the material from particular to general. The speaker begins the speech with a specific case, and then brings the listeners to generalized conclusions; 2) deductive method - presentation of the material from the general to the particular. The speaker first puts forward any assumptions, and then explains their meaning with specific examples; 3) analogy method - withmatching of various phenomena, events, facts. Usually parallel carried out with what is well known to the listeners; 4) concentric method - arrangement of material around the main issue raised by the speaker. The rhetor moves from a general consideration of the central issue to a more specific and in-depth analysis of it; 5) step method - sequential presentation of one issue after another. Having considered any problem, the speaker does not return to it; 6) historical method - presentation of the material in chronological order, description and analysis of the changes that have occurred in a particular person, subject over time. When working on the main part, attention should be paid to logical (addressed to the mind of the listener) and psychological (addressed to feelings) arguments. At the same time, it is customary to place the strongest arguments at the end of the speech. Every rhetor must also keep in mind some shortcomings in composition that should be avoided. The main one is the violation of the logical sequence in the presentation of the material. Here it is also necessary to avoid overloading the text with theoretical arguments, the lack of evidence for the main provisions, the abundance of questions and problems raised. The disadvantages of the composition also include a template, stencil construction of speech. 32. Conclusion of the speech An important compositional part of any speech is the conclusion. Convincing and bright, it is remembered by listeners, leaves a good impression of the speech. Conversely, a bad conclusion sometimes ruins a great performance. Some speakers at the end of the speech begin to repeatedly apologize to the listeners for the fact that they did not have enough time to prepare the speech, so they did not manage to speak well, that they probably did not tell the audience anything new and interesting, and the listeners wasted time. This is not worth doing. It is bad if the speaker ends his speech with a joke that has nothing to do with the introduction. Such a conclusion distracts listeners from the main points of speech. Psychologists have found that in the process of perception, a person remembers best the beginning and end, this is the action of the so-called law of the edge. Therefore, it is recommended to repeat in the conclusion the key idea for which the speech is made, to summarize the most important provisions. In conclusion, the results of what has been said are summed up, conclusions are drawn, specific tasks are set for the audience, which follow from the content of the speech. When preparing the conclusion, special attention should be paid to the last words (ending). If the first words are designed to attract the attention of listeners, then the last ones are to enhance the effect of the speech. This is precisely the role played by the words in the fourth speech of Cicero against Lucius Sergius Catiline: "So, deliberately and boldly, as you behaved from the very beginning, decide on the very existence of yours and the Roman people, about your wives and children, about altars and household hearths about the sanctuaries and temples, about the houses and buildings of all Rome, about our state and freedom, about the well-being of Italy, about the state as a whole... You have a consul who will not hesitate to obey your decrees and, while he lives, will be able to protect them himself stand up for them." The last words should mobilize the audience, inspire it, call for vigorous activity. If the speech ends with a slogan, an appeal, then it is pronounced in a high tone, emotionally. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that any speech as a creative act in the speaker's activity requires its completion, its final chord. A.F. Koni in the article "Advice to Lecturers" pointed out: "The end is the resolution of all speech (as in music the last chord is the resolution of the previous one; whoever has a musical flair can always say, without knowing the piece, judging only by the chord that the piece ended); the end should be such that the listeners feel (and not only in the tone of the lecturer, this is necessary) that there is nothing more to say. 33. Dispute and its types Dispute - this is a verbal competition, a discussion of something between two or more persons, in which each of the parties defends its opinion, its correctness. The struggle of opinions on various issues of science, literature, politics, etc. In modern scientific, methodological, and reference literature, the word "dispute" is used to denote the process of exchanging opposing opinions. An argument is a special kind of verbal communication. A dispute is understood as any clash of opinions, disagreement in points of view on any issue, subject, a struggle in which each of the parties defends its innocence (Vvedenskaya L. A., Pavlova L. G. Rhetoric for lawyers: a textbook. Rostov n /D.: Phoenix, 2002). In Russian, there are synonyms for this word: discussion, debate, controversy, debate, debate. In scientific research, in journalistic and artistic works, these words are used not only as synonyms for the word "dispute", but also as its varieties. Discussion - such a public dispute, the purpose of which is to clarify and compare different points of view, search, reveal the true opinion, find the right solution to a particular issue. Dispute originally denoted the public defense of a scientific essay written for a degree. Today, the meaning of this word has changed a little. They now call a public dispute on a scientific or socially important topic. Controversy - this is not just a dispute, but one in which there is a confrontation, confrontation, confrontation of sides, ideas and speeches. Thus, controversy can be defined as a struggle of fundamentally opposite opinions on a particular issue, a public dispute in order to defend one's point of view and refute the opponent's opinion (Vvedenskaya L.A., Pavlova L.G. Rhetoric for lawyers: a textbook. Rostov n /D.: Phoenix, 2002). Controversy is the science of persuasion. She teaches to reinforce thoughts with convincing and undeniable arguments, scientific arguments. Controversy is especially necessary when developing new views, upholding universal values, human rights, and shaping public opinion. It serves to foster active citizenship. The words "debate" and "debate", as a rule, refer to disputes that arise during the discussion of reports, messages, speeches at meetings, sessions, conferences, etc. Any dispute has a certain structure. On the one hand, this is the advancement and defense of the thesis by the first opponent, and on the other hand, the refutation of the thesis put forward and its argumentation by the second opponent. In science and methodology, attempts are being made to systematize various types of dispute. A variety of signs are taken as grounds. The main factors influencing the nature of the dispute and its features include: the purpose of the dispute, the number of participants, the form of the dispute, the organization of the dispute. 34. Purpose of the dispute Entering into a dispute, people pursue different goals, are guided by different motives. According to the purpose, the following types of disputes are distinguished: 1) dispute over truth; 2) an argument to convince someone; 3) dispute to win; 4) dispute for the sake of dispute. Dispute serves as a vehicle for search for truth, to test a specific thought, idea, its justification. The correct solution, according to polemicists, can be found by comparing a variety of points of view on a particular problem. They defend a thought from attacks in order to find out what objections there may be against it, or, on the contrary, they attack a position expressed by the opponent in order to clarify the arguments in his favor. In addition to the undoubted benefit, the dispute for the sake of truth acquires the character of a special beauty, it can bring special pleasure and satisfaction to the participants in the dispute, become for them a real "mental feast". As a result of such a mental struggle, a person feels taller and better. And even if you have to retreat, give up positions, abandon the protected thought, then the unpleasant feeling of defeat recedes. The aim of the dispute may not be to verify the truth, but persuasion of the opponent. In doing so, two important points stand out. The arguing convinces the opponent of what he himself is deeply convinced of. Sometimes, on the contrary, the speaker does not believe in what he claims, but this is his duty, his official duty. In this case, the goal may be good or deeply selfish, but in any case "outside". In other cases, the purpose of the dispute is victory. Moreover, polemicists strive to achieve it for various reasons. Some believe that they are defending a just cause, protecting public interests. They are absolutely convinced that they are right and will remain on principled positions to the end. Others need victory for self-affirmation. Success in a dispute, high appreciation of others, recognition of their intellectual abilities, oratorical data are very important to them. Others just love to win. They want the most spectacular victory. They are not shy about methods and means to achieve the goal. Quite common and argument for the sake of argument. For such disputants, it makes no difference what to argue about, with whom to argue, why argue. If someone will deny any position, then they will begin to fiercely defend it. Such polemicists can often be found among young people. Such a classification of disputes depending on the purpose is rather conditional. It is rarely possible to meet this or that dispute in its pure form. Thus, in order to achieve victory in a dispute, the polemicist seeks to convince the opponent of his position. And persuading the enemy of something contributes to the search for truth, the clarification of the assumptions put forward, and the adoption of more correct decisions. 35. Basic rules for conducting a dispute The polemists need to know the basic rules for conducting a dispute, the observance of which increases the effectiveness of the speech, contributes to success in discussion and controversy. The list of rules should include: 1) the ability to correctly identify the subject of the dispute and highlight points of disagreement. Dispute - these are the provisions that are subject to discussion by exchanging different points of view, comparing opinions. The subject of the dispute should be immediately indicated by the arguing parties. Having defined the subject, the participants in the dispute must indicate exactly on which points they do not agree with this idea; 2) the ability not to lose sight of the main provisions, because of which the dispute is being fought. In order not to lose the subject of the dispute, not to be led away from the problem under discussion, the polemicist must know the subject of the dispute well, understand the tasks set, the subtleties of the matter, be erudite and competent; 3) the ability to clearly define one's position in a dispute. The dispute becomes more fruitful if the participants in the controversy have a common starting position, an initial mutual understanding. The opinions of the participants in the dispute can be completely different, but they must be united by the goal, the desire to find the right solution, the desire to understand the controversial issue and reach the truth; 4) correct use of concepts. It is necessary to highlight the main concepts related to the subject of the dispute, and the terms that denote them. In order for all participants in the controversy to equally understand the concepts used, it is advisable at the beginning of the dispute to clarify the meaning of the main words, to exclude their ambiguity in the framework of the discussion; 5) respectful attitude towards the opponent, the desire to understand the views and beliefs of the enemy, to delve into the essence of his position. These are necessary conditions for the productivity of a public dispute, a fruitful discussion of problems; 6) the ability to maintain restraint and self-control in a dispute. Psychologists have established that when trying to impose on an opponent an opinion that is different from his own, the latter perceives it as false, unacceptable. Therefore, sometimes it is useful to agree with the opponent, and before saying "no", say "yes"; 7) the ability to pay attention to the opponent's behavior, correctly evaluate his actions. Where much depends on the enemy, his character, temperament, mood, nationality, social position. The factor of observation from outside also has an influence. The polemist is not indifferent to who will witness his victory or defeat; 8) the ability to select persuasive arguments to substantiate one's position and refute the opponent's position. In this situation, the polemicist must know well the person to whom his arguments are addressed. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the arguments should affect not only the mind of the listeners, but also their feelings. It is important to choose the only right words that will have an impact on listeners in this particular setting. 36. Polemical devices To confirm their point of view and refute the opinion of the opponent, the participants in the dispute use various polemical techniques. In particular, one of the approaches is boomerang reception. Translated from English, "boomerang" means a throwing weapon, with a skillful throw, returning to the place from which it was launched. The polemical technique is that the thesis or argument is turned against those who expressed it. A variation of such a "return strike" is the "pickup of a cue". When discussing controversial issues, polemicists often throw various kinds of remarks. In this situation, it will be useful to be able to use the replica to the advantage of one's own argumentation, to expose the views of the opponent and to exert a mental influence on those present. A common method of refutation is "reduced to absurdity". Its essence boils down to the following: to show the falsity of a thesis or argument, since the consequences arising from it contradict reality. Many rhetoricians use such means as humor, irony, sarcasm. Humor - it is a non-malice-mocking attitude towards something. Irony - subtle mockery, expressed in a hidden form. Sarcasm - caustic mockery, evil irony. A playful, ironic remark can confuse an opponent in a dispute, put him in a difficult position, and sometimes destroy a carefully constructed proof. In some cases, humor is inappropriate. For example, in litigation. In this situation, irony and sarcasm may be useful, aimed at destroying the evidence presented, at creating a figurative representation of the crime, at influencing the jury and judges. In polemics, one often uses such a technique as "argument to man." Here, instead of discussing the merits of a particular provision, they begin to evaluate the merits and demerits of the person who put it forward. This has a strong psychological impact. "Argument to a man" should be used in combination with other reliable and reasonable arguments. As an independent proof, it is considered a logical error, consisting in substituting the thesis itself with references to the personal qualities of the one who put it forward. A variation of this technique is "appeal to the public", the purpose of which is to influence the feelings of the listeners, their opinions, interests, to persuade the audience to the side of the speaker. It may be helpful to take "question attacks". It consists in the fact that the polemicist ends the next statement with a question to the opponent, forcing him to answer questions all the time. The goal in this case is to make the position of the opponent difficult, to force him to defend himself, to make excuses. This creates the most favorable ground for the speaker in the dispute. 37. Tricks in the dispute. Permissible and impermissible tricks Trick in an argument - any technique by which they want to facilitate the dispute for themselves and make it more difficult for the enemy. Much attention is paid to the description of the tricks in the dispute in the work of S. I. Povarnin "Dispute. On the theory and practice of the dispute." The author divides tricks into permissible and impermissible, analyzes psychological tricks, considers various types of sophisms. One of the most common tricks is - "to delay the objection". If the opponent has brought an argument to which it is difficult to immediately find a worthy answer, then some polemicists raise questions in connection with the argument, as if to clarify it; they begin the answer from afar, with something that is not directly related to this issue; they begin to refute secondary arguments, and then, having gathered their strength, they smash the main arguments of the opponent, etc. It is possible to use the "deferring objection" in order not to show the opponent one's nervous state. Another situation may also arise: in the process of discussing a controversial issue, one of the polemicists notices that he made a mistake. For various reasons, the polemicist does not want to openly admit a mistake and resorts to speech turns that make it possible to soften and correct the situation: "I did not mean to say that"; "These words incorrectly express my thought"; "Let me clarify my position," etc. All these techniques are considered permissible. They are perfectly acceptable in a public dispute. Their use does not interfere with the clarification of the truth, does not compromise the opponent. However, it should be borne in mind that unscrupulous polemicists in disputes often resort to various dishonest means. S. I. Povarnin considers the roughest impermissible tricks to be the wrong way out of the dispute, the disruption of the dispute, "the argument to the policeman", "arguments with a stick". Exit from the dispute - this is a trick of the participant who feels that the argument is not in his favor, that he does not have sufficient arguments. Therefore, he tries to "slip away from the dispute." Disruption of the dispute (obstruction). Sometimes the opponent is interested in disrupting the argument, since he is beyond his strength. In such cases, they resort to crude mechanical tricks: they interrupt the enemy, do not allow him to speak, clearly show an unwillingness to listen to the opponent - they cover their ears, sing, whistle, laugh, stamp their feet, etc. "Conclusion to the policeman". Through the fact that the opponent's thesis is declared dangerous for the state or society, the opponent is, in fact, "gagged". The dispute ends, victory is on the side of the one who applied the trick. "Punch Arguments". An argument is made that the opponent must accept for fear of something unpleasant, often dangerous, or to which he cannot answer for the same reason, and must either remain silent or come up with some "workarounds". 38. Psychological tricks Psychological tricks are diverse in nature, many are based on a good knowledge of the characteristics of the psychology of people, the weaknesses of human nature. They show a rude, disrespectful attitude towards the opponent. In particular, they include: 1) throwing the enemy off balance. The polemicist uses rude antics, insults, obviously unfair, mocking accusations, etc. If the opponent "boiled" - the case is won, because he has lost the chance of success in the dispute; 2) false shame. Psychologically, people often want to appear better than they really are, they are afraid to "drop themselves" in the eyes of others. It is on this desire to look a little better that some experienced polemicists play. For example, citing an unproven or even false conclusion, the opponent accompanies it with the phrases: "Don't you know yet?"; "The fact is well-known", etc. So he stakes on false shame. If a person does not admit that he does not know this, he is "on the hook" of the enemy and is forced to agree with his arguments; 3) "oiling the argument" - this is also a ploy based on self-love. A weak argument, which can be easily rebutted, is accompanied by a compliment to the opponent. For example: "You as a smart person will not deny"; "Everyone is well aware of your honesty and integrity, so you ...". Sometimes the enemy is subtly made to understand that he is personally treated with special respect, his mind is highly valued, his merits are recognized; 4) suggestion. A person who speaks with aplomb, an impressive voice, psychologically puts pressure on those present. In such a situation, internal composure, endurance, business tone, the ability to translate the conversation from general phrases to consideration of the merits of the case are required; 5) in addition to the appropriate tone, there are many other various tricks designed to suggest and psychologically influence the participants in the dispute. This and mockery, and the desire to interrupt the enemy, to cause distrust in his words, a sharply negative assessment of the judgments expressed, an offensive remark, etc.; 6) often in disputes, arguments are used links to your age, education and position: "Here, live to my age, then judge"; "First get a diploma, and then we'll talk"; “Take my place, then you will argue,” etc. However, a person who is older in age, who has a higher education, who occupies a certain position, is far from always being right; 7) "double-entry bookkeeping" is a ploy based on people's tendency to ambivalence. In a dispute, the same argument can be true when it suits us, and erroneous if it does not suit us. When we refute someone with this argument, it is true, and when we are refuted by it, it is false. 39. Logic tricks Logical tricks are otherwise called sophisms. These are intentional errors in the proof. It should be remembered that sophism and error differ only in that sophism is intentional, and error is not intentional. Therefore, as many logical errors as there are sophisms. Taking the conversation to the side. There are situations when participants in the discussion of a controversial issue find it difficult to find the necessary arguments. In order to get away from defeat, to make it less noticeable, they divert the conversation in every possible way, divert the attention of opponents with secondary questions, stories on abstract topics. Their behavior is reminiscent of the actions of the characters in A.P. Chekhov's story "On the Eve of Lent", which describes such a scene. Styopa, a second grade schoolboy, is sitting over a book and crying. Again, something does not work out with mathematics, he does not understand how a fraction is divided by a fraction. His mother, Pelageya Ivanovna, wakes her husband up and tells him to take care of his son. Pavel Vasilyevich gets up and goes to Styopa. However, instead of help in mathematics, Pavel Vasilyevich indulges in memories. He talks about his mathematics teacher Sigismund Urbanovich, from Poles, who used to get confused and start crying every lesson. He speaks of the generosity of his comrade Mamahin, a big schoolboy, a sazhen tall, whom even the teachers were afraid of. The case ends with the fact that the father and son, having heard the call of Pelageya Ivanovna, give up arithmetic and retire to drink tea. It is obvious that Pavel Vasilyevich begins to philosophize only because he cannot solve a simple problem. But in a dispute this trick is often used quite consciously. Translation of the dispute into contradictions between word and deed. It is also possible to get away from the subject of discussion, to leave aside the thesis put forward with the help of such a trick - to translate the dispute into contradictions between word and deed, the views of the enemy and his actions, way of life. By showing the discrepancy between the proposed thesis and the actions of the opponent, they put the opponent in an awkward position, and in fact reduce the dispute to nothing. Translating the question into terms of benefit or harm. Here, instead of proving the truth of this or that position, it turns out whether it is beneficial for the opponent or not. If a person feels that this proposal is beneficial to him, although it has harmful consequences for others, he is more likely to agree with him. Unscrupulous debaters take advantage of this, begin to put pressure on the opponent, emphasizing the advantages of their position for the opponent. Such arguments are often called "pocket", that is, convenient, profitable. Time offset. Sometimes, in the process of reasoning, disputants shift the time of action, replace what is true for the past and present with what will happen in the future. 40. Tricks related to the unfair use of questions and answers Often, polemicists resort to tricks related to the unfair use of questions. , and answers. These include, for example, "mistake of many questions". The opponent is immediately asked several different questions under the guise of one and requires an immediate answer "yes" or "no". But the fact is that the sub-questions contained in a given question are directly opposite to each other. The respondent may not notice this, and answer only one of the questions. The polemicist takes advantage of this, arbitrarily applies the answer to another question, and confuses the opponent. This trick was used in the ancient world. Sometimes polemicists, for various reasons, try evade questions. Sometimes they simply skip the question, as they say, past their ears, as if they do not notice it. Some debaters start to be ironic about your opponent's questions: “You ask such “profound” questions”; “And you consider your question serious?”; “What a frivolous question”; “You ask such a difficult question that I pass before him,” etc. A negative assessment of the question itself can be given : "This is a naive question"; "This question sounds apolitical"; "This is dogmatism", "This is an immature question". Such phrases do not contribute to clarifying the truth, a constructive solution to the problem. They have a psychological effect on the opponent, as they show disrespectful to attitude to him. This allows a person who utters such phrases to get away from the questions posed, to leave them unanswered. The most common in the dispute is considered "answering a question with a question" The polemicist, having difficulty in finding an answer or not wanting to answer the question posed, may raise a counter question. If the enemy begins to respond, then he fell for this trick. The polemicists also resort to such a peculiar trick as "answer credit". Experiencing difficulties in discussing the problem, they move the answer to "later", referring to the complexity of the issue. The ability to recognize this or that trick, to show for what purpose it is used, to give a worthy rebuff to the enemy is a necessary quality of a polemicist. Researchers are developing special methods of protection against incorrect methods of conducting a dispute. For example, if the opponent transfers the discussion of a controversial issue to another, no less important topic, then it is recommended to first agree that the new topic certainly deserves attention, and then offer to return to the previous one. It is advisable to ignore small injections from the opponent, and in case of obvious insults, it is necessary to temporarily interrupt the dispute. Useful guidelines for resolving difficult situations when making managerial decisions are contained in the book by O. Ernst "The word is given to you: practical recommendations for conducting business conversations and negotiations." 41. Professional communications of a lawyer The construction of a rule of law state in our country, the formation of civil society have significantly increased the role of law. Today it is difficult to find a sphere of social life that could do without lawyers. Depending on the content, the main types of legal work are distinguished: justice; prosecutor supervision; provision of legal assistance to citizens and organizations (advocacy); performance of notarial acts; legal work in state bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations. The listed types of legal work also correspond to legal specialties: investigator, prosecutor, judge, lawyer, notary, legal adviser. legal work - This is a very complex and multifaceted activity. Its content is determined by the need, on the one hand, to protect the rights of citizens enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and on the other hand, to ensure strict observance by each person of legal norms, a resolute fight against crime, with any form of antisocial behavior and illegal actions. All professional activities of a lawyer are closely connected with people, are realized in the process of interpersonal communications, and belong to the "man - man" system. A lawyer, by the nature of his activity, has to explain, explain, prove, convince and convince. Therefore, he must be a "professional communicator", that is, be able to actively use special methods of influencing people, allowing him to achieve a communicative goal with less time and energy losses. The higher the level of interpersonal communication of a lawyer, the more effectively he solves many professional problems. Along with the term "communication", the concept of "communication" has become widespread. Most often they are used as synonyms. Communications (lat. sottchisano, from sottitso - "I make common, connect, communicate") - communication, exchange of thoughts, information, ideas, etc. - a specific form of interaction between people in the process of their cognitive and labor activity. Recently, attempts have been made in the scientific literature to separate the meaning of the terms "communication" and "communication" (for example, communication theory = communication theory = theory of information transmission over a communication channel), but there is no generally accepted opinion on this issue. Psychologists define communication as a complex multifaceted process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the need for joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a unified strategy for interaction and understanding of another person. Considering communication as an independent process of interaction with the aim of implementing other types of activities, researchers identify main functions of communication: 1) information and communication (reception and transmission of information); 2) regulatory and communicative (mutual adjustment of actions in the process of joint activities); 3) affective-communicative (transmission of an emotional attitude). 42. Business communication Business conversation - this is interpersonal communication with the aim of organizing and optimizing one or another type of objective activity: production, management, wrist, commercial, etc. This definition emphasizes purpose of business communication - organization of fruitful cooperation, and it is also noted that it is inextricably linked with a variety of areas of human activity. Keep in mind; that participants in business communication are, as a rule, official, officials performing their official duties. Researchers analyze various types of business communication, describe its specific features. First of all, this regulation, i.e. obedience to established rules and restrictions. In business communication, there are accepted standards of conduct, which are determined by the official rights and duties of this team, the type of business communication, the degree of its officiality, the goals and objectives of a particular meeting, national and cultural customs. Regulation implies the observance of business etiquette, reflecting the accumulated experience, moral attitudes and tastes of certain social groups. Business etiquette includes the rules of greeting and introduction, regulates behavior during a conversation, negotiations, at a reception, at a table; prescribes how to use business cards, conduct business correspondence, etc. Much attention in etiquette is paid to the appearance of business people, their clothes, the ability to manage negative and positive emotions, and the manner of speaking. Knowing the rules of business etiquette allows a person to feel confident and at ease, not to feel embarrassed due to mistakes and wrong actions, and to avoid ridicule from others. Violation of etiquette can lead to an undesirable result in the process of communication, put a person in an awkward position. Business people know the value of time, try to use it rationally and usually schedule their working day by hours and minutes. This is the regulation of business communication by time. The peculiarities of business communication include the increased responsibility of participants for its result. After all, successful business interaction is largely determined by the chosen strategy and tactics of communication, i.e., the ability to correctly formulate the goals of the conversation, determine the interests of partners, build a rationale for one's own position, etc. 43. The concept of judicial speech “Judicial eloquence,” wrote N. I. Karabchevsky, “eloquence of a special kind. It cannot be looked at only from the point of view of aesthetics. ". court speech - this is an official professional speech, it is an obligatory component of the most important judicial procedure - judicial debate. However, it differs significantly from other types of public speaking. Judicial Debate - part of the trial, in which the parties summarize the results of the study of the actual circumstances of the case, analyze the collected evidence, express and justify their opinions on issues to be resolved by the court. Judicial debates consist of speeches by persons representing the side of the prosecution or defense. And a judicial speech is a public speech addressed to the court, as well as to all those participating and present in the consideration of a criminal or civil case, delivered in a court session and representing the conclusions of the speaker on this case and his objections to other speakers. The purpose of a court speech is to contribute to the formation of internal convictions of judges, to convincingly and reasonably influence people's and jurors present in the courtroom of citizens. The subject of a judicial speech is an act for which the defendant is brought to criminal or other liability. A lot of attention in the scientific and methodological literature is given to the problems of business communication, which occupies a significant place in the lives of many people. After all, we constantly have to discuss issues related to the performance of official and official duties, the organization of production, the life of the workforce, the conclusion of contracts, decision-making, paperwork, etc. The content of the judicial speech is a set of issues resolved by the court when deciding the verdict. The material for a judicial speech is the circumstances associated with a particular criminal or civil case, facts, evidence. A specific feature of judicial speech - Strict procedural regulation. For example, prosecutors and defense lawyers, the victim and the defendant, participating in judicial debates in a criminal case, express their views on the factual circumstances of the case established during the judicial investigation, the proof and lack of proof of the charge, the consequences that occurred as a result of the crime, the legal assessment of crimes, etc. For professional participants in the process (prosecutor, prosecutor, defense lawyer), the presentation and justification of their position on these issues is a procedural duty. In their speeches, a conclusion should be made about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, about the legal qualification of the crime, about the punishment of the defendant or release from punishment, about the resolution of a civil claim, as well as other issues. But for the defendant, the accused, the victim in cases of private prosecution, speaking in court is a right that they can use if they wish. 44. Features of judicial speech, its types Judgment is adversarialwhich is its feature. The prosecution and the defense, on equal grounds, defend their point of view before the court. Competitiveness principle - the most important principle of legal proceedings, enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He assumes: 1) separation of the functions of prosecution and defense from the functions of justice and their demarcation among themselves; 2) vesting the parties with equal procedural rights for the exercise of their functions; 3) the leading position of the court in the process and granting only the right to the court to make a decision on the case. The adversarial nature of judicial debate helps the court to comprehensively and objectively analyze all the circumstances of the case, make a reasoned, balanced decision and deliver a fair verdict. Thus, in order to have the desired impact on judges and other participants in the process, the judicial speech must necessarily be evidentiary. , and persuasive, contain well-founded conclusions on issues appropriate to be resolved by the court. The speeches of the accusers and defenders are predominantly evaluative in nature and differ in their moral and legal orientation. Judicial speeches are called upon to play an important educational role, especially when the court session is held with open doors, and the case under consideration is socially significant. It is very important to show to those present in the courtroom the public danger of the committed crime, to instill a sense of respect for the law and the rule of law. It must also be borne in mind that a judicial speech is not only a dry analysis of an act, its qualification, research and conclusions from the evidence presented, it is also a creative process. It requires from the speaker not only legal knowledge, but also the possession of rhetorical skills and abilities, oratory, a lot of hard work on oneself. In legal practice, various types of court speeches are usually distinguished., As follows: 1) prosecutorial or accusatory speech; 2) public accusatory speech; 3) advocacy, or defensive, speech; 4) public defense speech; 5) self-defence speech of the accused. Each type of judicial speech has its own procedural and functional purpose, differs in features of construction and content. After the speeches have been delivered, the participants in the judicial debate may speak one more time with a remark about what has been said. Replica - this is an independent speech, answer, objection of one participant in the judicial debate to the statement of another. A peculiar type of judicial speech is the parting word of the jury presiding judge. 45. Characteristics of the judicial audience The well-known American social psychologist D. Myers wrote: “We can consider the courtroom as a social world in miniature, in which everyday social processes are intensified and have the most serious consequences for all participants. Here, as elsewhere, people reflect on the opinions of others and influence each other." The audience before which the court speaker has to speak is very heterogeneous in composition and functional roles. It includes the following groups: 1) professional participants in the process (judge, prosecutor, lawyer participating in the consideration of the grandfather by virtue of their professional and procedural duties); 2) jurors (citizens of the Russian Federation elected in accordance with the procedure established by law to participate in the administration of justice by the courts of first instance in criminal cases); 3) representatives of the public (public prosecutor, public defender, representatives of public organizations and labor collectives who perform public duties in a court session); 4) other participants in the process (defendant, victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, witnesses, experts, specialists protecting their interests or assisting in the consideration of the case, performing the procedural duties assigned to them by law); 5) relatives, relatives, friends of the defendant and the victim, who are interested in the outcome of the case; 6) the public (persons who came to court for various reasons. This may be a professional interest, concern for social problems, idle curiosity, etc.). Each group performs its procedural duties or plays certain functional roles. The presence of different addressees in the courtroom significantly complicates the activity of the speaker, obliges him to carefully think through his speech, select the appropriate language means, and use special methods of influencing listeners. His speech should be, on the one hand, quite professional, reflect the legal subtleties of the case, and on the other hand, be understandable even to the most inexperienced listener. It should be borne in mind that those in the courtroom represent two opposite camps - blame и of protection. As L. E. Vladimirov, a prominent specialist in criminal law, figuratively wrote, “the court is not the scientist Olympus, but a square on which two parties are fighting: one wants to shackle the defendant, and the other wants to beat him off and save him.” Each side seeks to influence judges, jurors, and the opposing side to achieve the desired outcome. Therefore, the courtroom is often called the battlefield for the minds. All participants in judicial debates, to one degree or another, also experience the pressure of public opinion, are guided by the socio-political and moral guidelines of society. 46. Morality and law in the activities of the I judicial orator Since ancient times, theorists and practitioners of oratory, communication specialists have attached and attach great importance to the moral position of the speaker. Morality и right perform a common social function: they regulate people's behavior. Both morality and law represent a set of relatively stable norms (rules, regulations) that reflect a general idea of what is fair and proper. However, the requirements of the law, as you know, do not always agree with the requirements of morality. Law is characterized by greater clarity, rigor and formalization of regulation. Legal norms are developed by state bodies or public structures with the consent of the state. Only the state can introduce legal norms, change them or cancel them. And morality arises and is formed spontaneously among the masses as a product of the social life of society. Morality has absorbed the millennial experience of generations of people in their struggle for survival. Therefore, morality underlies law, and not vice versa. Moral norms do not need the sanction of the authorities, it is enough that they are accepted by those people (collectives, corporations, classes) who recognize them and intend to be guided by them. Law and morality differ in the methods of their provision. Legal regulations are unconditional and binding. Violation or non-compliance with these norms is pursued and punished by law. Moral standards have a different status. Compliance with them is determined by the subject's sense of conscience, personal convictions and public opinion. Violation of these norms is not prosecuted by law, but public, group, corporate condemnation is often more effective than the threat of legal sanctions. The law cannot require a person to be decent, just, honest, generous, courageous, to perform feats and so on, as is typical of morality. But it formalizes and regulates the procedures of business processes. Morality and law complement each other. Morality to a certain extent determines (defines, conditions) the behavior of a member of society, and law regulates it. There are also significant contradictions between law and morality, which must be taken into account in social and legal practice. These contradictions reflect the dialectical contradictions of the life of society. A characteristic feature of the legal law is that it is situationally concretized and strictly stipulated, and life is characterized by an endless variety of situations that arise in it. There is a concept "abuse of the law". This is often cynically used for selfish purposes by businessmen, unscrupulous politicians, officials, and dishonest lawyers. The moral sense is universal because it is guided by a principle and not by a formal prescription. This is the superiority of the moral orientation over the legal one. 47. Ethics of a court speaker Moral pluralism, established in modern society, can lead to moral illegibility, become a serious barrier to establishing normal relationships when discussing and resolving certain issues. Under these conditions, it is important professional ethics, by which it is customary to mean the requirements of morality associated with the specific conditions of the activity of a particular profession. Professional ethics establishes ethical principles and norms of relationships between members of a professional group, as well as with those with whom it interacts. Professional ethics does not develop new moral principles and attitudes, but adapts existing ones to the specific conditions of a particular profession. One of the sections of the professional ethics of lawyers is judicial ethics, which is a doctrine of moral ideals, principles and norms for the administration of justice that determine the moral content of the activities of participants in legal proceedings. Separate provisions of judicial ethics are reflected in the legislation. For example, there is a Code of Judicial Ethics (approved by the VI All-Russian Congress of Judges on December 2, 2004). The Federal Law of January 17, 1992 No. 2202-I "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" contains the text of the oath of an employee of the prosecutor's office. Article 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation gives the text of the oath of jurors, etc. Lawyer ethics has been thoroughly developed, the subject of which is "the proper behavior prescribed by corporate rules for a member of a bar association in cases where legal norms do not establish specific rules of conduct for him." In world and domestic practice, there have long been various codes of ethics for lawyers. The most famous of them are: "The Rules of the Lawyer Profession" by M. Mollo (a collection of traditions of the French legal profession, first published in 1842); "Model Rules of Professional Ethics for American Lawyers"; "Common Code of Practice for Lawyers in the European Community". Common to all codes of ethics is that they apply one very important requirement to a court speaker - respectful and conscientious attitude to the court. The speaker must have a clear moral position - the court must not be misled, deceived, the court must be obeyed. In their speeches, both the prosecutor and the lawyer must demonstrate a respectful attitude towards the court, avoid everything that even remotely can be perceived by the court as tactlessness. A mandatory requirement for the ethical behavior of a speaker in judicial debates is respect for a procedural opponent. This principle was very clearly formulated by the well-known Russian lawyer P. Whatman in one of his works. Thus, judicial orators, fulfilling their duty to the law and conscience, rely on the moral principles that underlie the professional activities of a lawyer: honesty, competence, decency. 48. Logical foundations of the persuasiveness of judicial speech A judicial orator must not only be a good specialist in the field of law, but also have a high logical culture, i.e. be able to think correctly, logically and consistently build his speech, justify the put forward provisions, refute the opponent’s opinion, explain the essence of phenomena, events, processes, draw certain conclusions. He must competently use the entire arsenal of logical means: concepts, judgments, conclusions, proofs, refutations, etc. It is very important to know and observe the basic laws of thinking, which are divided into two types: formal logical laws and laws of dialectical logic. Dialectical logic studies the general patterns of development of the objective world and cognition. Formal logic - it is the science of the laws and forms of correct thinking. In practice, it is necessary to observe the laws and rules of both dialectical and formal logic. Confirming the relevance of this provision, we can cite as an example one of the fundamental principles of formal logic, which is as follows: in a correct judgment, a false conclusion cannot be drawn from true premises if the rules of this logic are followed. Thus, the observance of all the laws of logic will help to avoid false judgments, which means gaining the trust of the audience. Logical laws have an independent meaning and operate independently of the will and desire of people in any process of cognition. They recorded the centuries-old experience of social and industrial activity of people. The laws of logic reflect the regular processes and phenomena of the objective world. There are four basic laws of formal logic: 1) the law of identity: "Each thought in the process of this reasoning must have the same definite, stable content, that is, be identical to itself"; 2) the law of contradiction: "Two opposite thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same respect, cannot be true at the same time"; 3) the law of the excluded middle: "Of two contradictory statements at the same time and in the same respect, one is certainly true"; 4) the law of sufficient reason: "Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence." The laws of logic facilitate judgments, make them more accurate and habitual. Logic represents any information in symbols that replace individual words or their combinations, which allows you to simplify the statement and check its truth, accuracy, correctness. All this helps the speaker most effectively convey his speech, its main theses to the audience, prove his position and draw the right conclusions, and therefore, convince the audience and achieve the goal of the speech. 49. Law of Identity Literally, the specified law reads as follows: "Each thought in the process of this reasoning must have the same definite, stable content, that is, be identical to itself." The essence of this law is that during reasoning it is unacceptable to replace one object of thought with another, it is impossible to identify different thoughts, to take identical thoughts for different ones. Each concept, judgment must be used in one and the same, definite sense and keep it in the course of the whole reasoning. For example, we are talking about the low quality of the work performed by one of the employees. Some colleagues, defending a comrade, begin to talk about his diligence, modesty, cordiality, that is, they replace the subject of discussion. But after all, even a conscientious employee could perform the work unprofessionally due to insufficient competence. This does not mean at all that a person, object, event, phenomenon cannot be characterized comprehensively, describe its various features, i.e., talk about the quality of work, the merits of an employee, the sides of character, etc. But in each specific reasoning, the subject of thought should remain unchanged. The law of identity requires certainty of thought in any reasoning. It is directed against vagueness, pointlessness of judgments. Often, when they notice that when discussing any issue, the speakers have in mind different objects or different aspects of the same object, therefore they cannot come to a single conclusion, they use the saying: "One about Thomas, the other about Yerema." Violation of the law of identity It manifests itself when one of the participants in the conversation deliberately replaces one issue of the discussion with another or involuntarily loses it during the discussion. Failure to comply with this law It is also associated with the uncertainty of the concepts used by the participants in the conversation. It happens that in the course of reasoning, identical content is invested in concepts that are different in meaning, and, conversely, different content is invested in the same concept. This leads to ambiguity of the statement, to mutual misunderstanding. Here is what he wrote about it Aristotle: "Undoubtedly, those who intend to participate in a conversation with each other should understand each other to some extent. If this does not happen, what kind of participation in a conversation will they be possible with each other? Therefore, each of the names should be understandable and speak about something, and not about several things, but only about one; if it has several meanings, then it is necessary to explain which of them (in a particular case) is meant. This statement perfectly reflects the essence of this logical law. 50. Law of contradiction The law of contradiction reads as follows: "Two opposite thoughts about the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same respect, cannot be true at the same time." This law is also called the law of non-contradiction or the law of the prohibition of contradiction. According to the information that has come down to us, this law was first formulated Aristotle. He considered the law of contradiction to be the basic principle of thinking. A correct conclusion, the great thinker emphasized, should be free, first of all, from self-contradiction. In his work "Metaphysics" he wrote that it is impossible that "the same thing both was and was not inherent in the same thing and in the same sense." The law of contradiction forbids considering two contradictory statements to be true at the same time only under certain conditions. What are these conditions? First of all, we should be talking about the same subject. The sentence must refer to the same tense. Finally, in affirmation and negation, the subject must be considered in the same relation. The law of contradiction does not deny real contradictions, existing in objective reality and in our minds. In this light, it is very important to be able to distinguish between two kinds of contradictions: a contradiction in nature and society, and a contradiction in reasoning. The first contradiction serves as an internal source of development of objects and phenomena of the objective world. A logical contradiction is a consequence of a violation of the norms of correct thinking. Formal logic, without denying real contradictions, requires that one should also think about contradictory phenomena in a consistent, logically correct way. Knowledge of the law of contradiction helps to be consistent in thinking, in presenting one's point of view, allows one to avoid ambiguity, logical inconsistency in the analysis of facts, events, phenomena, in the evaluation of evidence, etc. Logical contradiction is unacceptable in the speech of a judicial orator. He must consistently defend the expressed point of view. It is unlikely that a speaker who gets confused, expresses opposite opinions on the same issue, can inspire confidence in the court. It is important to be able to identify contradictions in the reasoning of the procedural opponent. It should be borne in mind that sometimes a contradiction of objective reality is presented as a logical contradiction and the opponent is accused of inconsistency, of violating the laws of formal logic. Sometimes they try to attribute to their opponent a contradiction in statements, in order to then criticize him for this and refute the opinion expressed. However, the contradiction may be apparent, and referring to it enables the opponent to defend his convictions with even greater force. 51. Law of the excluded middle Against the inconsistency, as well as the inconsistency of our reasoning, another logical law is directed - the law of the excluded middle. This law is formulated as follows: "Of two contradictory statements at the same time and in the same respect, one is certainly true." In this case, if we consider two-valued logic (a judgment consisting of two contradictory statements), the second statement will always be false. Otherwise, this law is called "the third is not given." This law, like the previous ones, was formulated by Aristotle. The famous Stagirite expressed the law of the excluded middle as follows: "In the same way, there can be nothing intermediate between the two members of the contradiction, but with respect to one thing it is necessary, whatever it may be, one either to affirm or deny." As can be seen from the definition, this law applies only to a certain group of judgments - contradictory. The simplest example of contradictory judgments is: "This is a witness" and "This is not a witness." One judgment affirms something, the other denies it, there is no third judgment between them and cannot be. Naturally, in relation to a certain person, this judgment is true, in relation to another, it is false. In logic, two judgments are called contradictory, in one of which something is affirmed about the subject, and in the other the same is denied about the same subject, therefore they cannot be both true or both false. This law obliges to choose according to the "either-or" principle, makes it necessary to give clear, definite answers to alternative questions. The law of the excluded middle, however, does not indicate which of these judgments is true, but it outlines the scope of the search for truth. It consists in one of contradictory statements. The law of the excluded middle is of particular importance in legal practice, in the process of litigation. The judicial orator constantly has to defend one of the alternative provisions: the defendant is guilty or not guilty of committing a crime; whether there is corpus delicti in the actions of the suspect or not; whether he pleads guilty or does not plead guilty; material damage has been caused as a result of the crime or has not been caused; whether the criminal had accomplices or not, etc. Therefore, a rhetorician in the courtroom should not, under any circumstances, allow violations of not only legal norms, but also logical laws. Otherwise, it may adversely affect the fate of a person. In addition, assumptions are unacceptable in the courtroom when the case concerns specific questions that require a clear answer, since uncertainty can turn against a lawyer as a speaker and, accordingly, against his client. 52. Law of Sufficient Reason Correct thinking should not only be definite, consistent and consistent, but also evidence-based and justified. This is required by the law of sufficient reason, which says: "Every right thought must be justified by other thoughts, the truth of which has been proven." This law was formulated by the outstanding German thinker G. W. Leibniz. He expressed it in the form of the following principle: "Everything that exists has a sufficient reason for its existence." The law of sufficient reason reflects the most important feature of the world around us. In nature and society, everything is interconnected and interdependent. Not a single phenomenon can take place if it has not been prepared by previous material development. Over 200 years ago MV Lomonosov in one of his works he emphasized: "Nothing happens without a sufficient reason." And since there are no causeless phenomena in the world, then our thinking can affirm or deny something about objects and phenomena of objective reality only if these assertions or denials are justified. The law of sufficient reason does not allow unsubstantiated and declarative statements, unfounded conclusions, and requires convincing confirmation of the provisions put forward. This rule, if strictly observed, can play a truly positive role in the speech of the rhetor in the courtroom. This law acquires special significance in legal practice. For example, if charges are brought against a person, then convincing evidence should be presented confirming his guilt. A lawyer, defending his client, is also obliged to substantiate his position. The verdict or decision of the court must be motivated, that is, justified, this is the most important principle of procedural law. One of the most important logical operations, proof, is based on the law of sufficient reason. In logic proof - this is the justification of the truth of a judgment with the help of other judgments, the truth of which has already been established. Aristotle said that people are most convinced when it seems to them that something has been proven. He considered the ability to prove the most characteristic feature of a person. "... It cannot but be shameful to be powerless to help oneself with a word," he wrote in Rhetoric, "since the use of the word is more characteristic of human nature than the use of the body." Any logical proof includes three interrelated elements: thesis (thought or position, the truth of which needs to be proved), arguments, or grounds, arguments (provisions by which the thesis is substantiated), demonstration, or form, method of proof (logical reasoning, during which the truth or falsity of the thesis is deduced from the arguments). 53. Fundamentals of the theory of argumentation Logical arguments include the following judgments: 1) theoretical or empirical generalizations and conclusions; 2) previously proven laws of science; 3) axioms and postulates; 4) definitions of the basic concepts of a particular field of knowledge; 5) statements about facts, etc. Distinguish between direct and indirect evidence. With direct proof, the thesis is substantiated by arguments without the help of additional constructions. Indirect evidence involves substantiating the truth of the thesis by refuting the contradictory position - antithesis. From the falsity of the antithesis, on the basis of the law of the excluded middle, a conclusion is made about the truth of the thesis. Direct and indirect evidence are often used simultaneously. In this case, the speaker substantiates his thesis and shows the failure of the antithesis. This rule helps the rhetor in creating his speech, namely, in constructing the main part, the proofs of the propositions put forward. When constructing a logical proof, it is necessary to know and follow a number of rules. The list of rules consists of requirements for a particular element of logical proof. In particular, the rules of the thesis are of particular importance: 1) the thesis must be true, i.e. correspond to objective reality, otherwise no evidence will be able to substantiate it; 2) the thesis must be a clear and precisely defined judgment, clearly formulated; 3) the thesis must remain unchanged in the course of this proof; 4) the thesis should not contain a logical contradiction. The basic rules of argument are: 1) true statements should be used as arguments; 2) the truth of the arguments must be proven regardless of the thesis; 3) the arguments must be sufficient for this thesis; 4) arguments should not contradict each other. There are also demonstration rule: the thesis must logically follow from the grounds, as a conclusion from the premises. If these rules are violated, various logical errors occur in the proof. So, the most common mistake made regarding the thesis being proved is the substitution of the thesis. Its essence lies in the fact that not the thesis that was originally put forward is being proved or refuted. This error may be involuntary, unintentional. The speaker does not notice how he moves from one thesis to another. However, one often has to deal with a deliberate distortion of the thesis, with attributing a different meaning to it, narrowing or expanding its content. This is done to put the opponent in an awkward position. 54. Errors in arguments If the thesis is substantiated by false judgments that are presented as true, then an error occurs, called "false basis", or "delusion". However, this error may be unintentional, it occurs due to insufficient human competence. When an unproven clause is taken as an argument, an error is made ground anticipation. This proposition is not obviously false, but it itself needs proof, which should show its truth. One should beware of the error called "vicious circle", or "circle in proof". It consists in the fact that the thesis is substantiated by arguments, and the arguments are derived from the same thesis. Finding this error is not always easy, so sometimes it goes unnoticed and it seems that the thesis put forward is proven. The basic error in relation to the demonstration shows that there is no necessary logical connection between the arguments and the thesis. Varieties of this error are as follows: from what was said in a relative sense to what was said in an absolute sense; from a collective meaning to a divisive one; from a divisive meaning to a collective one, etc. Logical errors, as already noted, are unintentional and intentional. Unintentional errors most often arise due to the speaker's lack of logical culture, dialogue skills, due to excessive vehemence, emotionality during discussion, etc. Intentional mistakes These are tricks, deliberately erroneous reasoning. This kind of error is called sophism (from the Greek. Invention, cunning). They have been known since ancient times. Many of them are described by Aristotle in his work On Sophistical Refutations. Before them, the goal was to make the enemy vulnerable, lead him astray, a difficult situation. Any logical errors complicate the discussion of issues, interfere with the search for truth, making the right decision. Therefore, it is necessary to try to minimize them in your speech, to be able to find logical errors in the arguments of opponents, to expose the logical tricks of opponents. To a special form of proof, some scientists also include such a logical operation as rebuttal. It consists in establishing the falsity or inconsistency of a thesis and is aimed at destroying the previously constructed proof. Refutation is done in three ways: 1) the thesis is refuted; 2) arguments are criticized; 3) the failure of the demonstration is shown. The refutation of the thesis can be built in the form of arguments such as: 1) direct proof of the antithesis; 2) reduction to absurdity (the truth of the put forward position is conditionally admitted and the consequences logically arising from it are deduced, and then it is shown that these consequences contradict the objective data, and the conclusion is made about the inconsistency of the thesis itself). Criticism of arguments shows the falsity or unfoundedness of the opponent's arguments; this leads listeners to the conclusion that the thesis he put forward is not proven. 55. Rhetorical and psychological aspects of persuasion A judicial orator, using only logical methods, cannot always achieve the desired result. Various kinds of psychological and rhetorical technologies have a great influence on the process of persuading influence. Some of these techniques are described by experts in the field of legal psychology, theorists and practitioners of judicial eloquence. P. Sergeevich gives a lot of useful advice to court speakers in his work "The Art of Speech in Court". So, he formulates the following rules: 1) in everything that is thought out, distinguish between the necessary and the useful, the inevitable and the dangerous. The necessary must be analyzed to the end, leaving nothing unproved; it is enough to mention the useful; the dangerous must be eliminated from speech; the inevitable must be resolutely recognized and explained, or not touched at all; 2) a consideration concerning the essence of the subject is the best instrument of dispute, other things being equal. Usually an argument addressed to a person is evidence of the weakness of the speaker's position; 3) beware of the so-called double-edged arguments, i.e., dangerous both for one and the other of the opposing sides; 4) be able to use double-edged considerations. There are circumstances that cannot be explained only in one's own favor and at the same time cannot be passed over in silence, because they are too noticeable and interesting, alluring. In such a case, it is advisable to anticipate possible comments by the opponent that may make a strong impression; 5) do not prove the obvious. If you have to repeat what is already known, you must be as brief as possible; 6) discard all mediocre and unreliable arguments. Only the strongest and most convincing evidence should be included in the speech; quality is important, not quantity; 7) proving and developing each separate position, do not lose sight of the main idea and other basic provisions; use every opportunity to remind one or the other; 8) do not miss the opportunity to state a strong argument in the form of reasoning, that is, a dilemma. This is perhaps the best form of reasoning before the judges; 9) do not be afraid to agree with the opponent, without waiting for an objection. This confirms your impartiality in the eyes of the judges. By agreeing with the position of the opponent, one can prove that it does not prove anything in the case, or that it does not prove what the opponent wanted; 10) try as often as possible to reinforce one evidence with another. If there is direct evidence in the case, leave it aside and prove the disputed fact with circumstantial evidence; 11) do not try to explain what you yourself do not fully understand; 12) do not try to prove more when you can limit yourself to less. Do not overload the speech with evidence that does not affect the decision of this case. It should be noted that the above rules are recommended to be used in legal practice by well-known modern psychologists, for example, M. I. Enikeev, A. M. Stolyarenko, V. L. Vasiliev and others. 56. Prerequisites for the success of the speaker's speech A great influence on the persuasive effect of judicial speech is exerted by the personality of the speaker, the credibility of him. As S. S. Khrulev rightly emphasized, jurors are predisposed "... to listen more willingly to those ... to whom they treat with great confidence. This trust is the soil on which, most likely, a person will find sympathy for his conviction on which the struggle of two opponents who are equal in ability, but unequal in trust, becomes unequal. K. L. Lutsky wrote in one of his articles: “Judges should see common sense and prudence in an orator. mistake, nor draw others into it. His influence in this case will rest on solid foundations, and the conclusions of his speech will be almost a decision for the court. Thus, the moral qualities of the speaker, his honesty, directness, modesty, prudence, tact, and so on help to win over the audience, inspire confidence in him and his speech. To achieve his goal, the judicial speaker must know well the person to whom the arguments are addressed, and present arguments taking into account the individual characteristics of the opponent. “When I accept a case for defense,” wrote Cicero, “I make every effort to penetrate the inner world of judges, to guess what they feel, what they think, what they are waiting for, and I need this in order to understand which side to approach them, so that it is easier to influence them with your speech. To put himself in the position of a juror and a judge recommended to the judicial orator and L. E. Vladimirov. He believed that the outcome of a case often depends on how well the defender has managed to catch the inner anxiety that overwhelms the juror, who is obliged by his verdict to save or break the life of the defendant. “This is the holy anxiety of the judicial conscience,” he argued, “and the defender must vividly feel what this anxiety is and how it is possible to satisfy the thirst of the judicial conscience, seeking to clarify the secret of the case in order to pronounce a just sentence.” LE Vladimirov gives an interesting example. In one case, the defender ended his defense speech in the embezzlement case like this: "Well, what can I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, in conclusion of my word! My unfortunate client's life is ending! I hear a death bell! It's hard. Save!" The voice, facial expressions, gestures, movements of the speaker can have an effective impact on the court and all those present. However, do not abuse the rights and patience of the audience. It must be borne in mind that in a certain way the success of a speech can be affected by its duration. For a long speech, not only the speaker will not have enough strength, but also the listeners, who will eventually lose all interest in speech. A rhetorician's focus on the best speeches of the masters of the word of the past can be the key to an excellent performance. So, the speeches of lawyers are distinguished by special brightness, expressiveness, education and emotionality. History itself has selected the best examples that can be used as a guide in preparing for a public performance. Author: Nevskaya M.A.
▪ International economic relations. Lecture notes ▪ Foreign literature of the XVII-XVIII centuries in brief. Crib
Artificial leather for touch emulation
15.04.2024 Petgugu Global cat litter
15.04.2024 The attractiveness of caring men
14.04.2024
▪ section of the site Calls and audio simulators. Article selection ▪ article Hit the face in the dirt. Popular expression ▪ article When and where did the tram run on rails laid at the bottom of the sea? Detailed answer ▪ article Means of fire-technical protection and means of extinguishing fires ▪ article Mounting with a syringe. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering
Comments on the article: a guest Helped, thanks :) ![[lol]](https://diagram.com.ua/comments/smilies/lol.gif){kind=small} Student Good article, thanks to the author. Shorty Briefly, however.
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page