Draw up rules for verbal communication in the Russian language. Rules of speech communication or speech etiquette. Communication culture and speech etiquette

As a result of studying this chapter, the student should: know

• main characteristics of modern communication;
• the main features of correct and good speech;
• rules of speech communication; be able to
• correctly determine the unfolding of a communicative situation, for example a public speech;

own

• skills of analyzing a communicative situation;
• rules of modern communication.

and demagoguery. Speakers often manipulate public consciousness by using phrases as is known, quite obvious, as we all know, no doubt to emphasize your confidence in the listener's agreement, expressing praise to the addressee (as a thinker, intelligent, modern man , въ/ you can't help but agree...) presenting a subjective opinion in the form of a categorical judgment.

In the arsenal of speakers there are various techniques of “sliding”, “blurring”, “darkening” the meaning of a statement. For example, euphemisms are often used, e.g. softer expressions (displaced persons camp instead of concentration camp), words with negative evaluation ( spy instead of scout), expressions with vague meaning (consumer basket), synecdoche (when a part is used to mean a whole or a whole to mean a part: White House , Kremlin as a designation for parliament or presidential administration).

The attitude towards struggle (atonality, conflict, aggressiveness) of the participants in modern speech communication is obvious. Here is just a small list of incorrect techniques that are often used in public speech: arousing the opponent’s anger; gluing labels; game of authority; sweeping accusation (“this is bullshit”); arrogant answer (“any schoolchild knows this”); playing on pride; psychological pressure; false arguments; axiomatic statements that supposedly do not require argumentation (“ Russia is the most reading country in the world." Atonality is also manifested in the criminalization of language, in the use of vocabulary from the criminal world ( substitute, run over, sixes etc.), as well as in its “militarization” (go on the offensive, the forefront of the struggle).

It is important to emphasize that participants in verbal communication are both parties - the speaker and the listener (when using these terms in a broad sense, we also mean the writer and the reader), in other words, addressee(the one who creates the utterance) and destination(the one to whom the speech is addressed), whose roles change in the speech situation.

The rules of speech communication that regulate the interaction of the speaker and the listener are a long-standing subject of study in various disciplines: rhetoric, stylistics, speech culture, philosophy, psychology, sociology. They are based on the idea of ​​the modern literary norm. But the rules of speech communication are not reducible either to literary norms, or to speech etiquette prescribed by society to establish verbal contact and maintain communication in the chosen tonality, or to traditional criteria of correctness, accuracy, appropriateness, and expressiveness.

If we turn to any audience with a question about what a speech should be, we will receive the answer that it should be spoken correctly, accurately, expressively, concisely, vividly, emotionally, etc. But what is behind these concepts?

Correct speech - this is its correspondence to the modern literary norm;

speech accuracy - ego “correctness in action”, the use of all linguistic means (not only lexical, but also grammatical) in full accordance with their meaning;

expressiveness of speech - its quality that arouses and maintains the attention and interest of the audience; expressiveness is achieved by a wide variety of means;

appropriateness of speech- its correspondence to the speaker’s goal, the topic and genre of speech, the nature of the audience, its mood, the conditions of communication (place, time, etc.).

Relevance determines the degree of obligation of other qualities of speech. For example, in a situation of friendly, relaxed communication, a language game is quite natural, which is based on a deliberate violation of correctness, motivated by the goals of the speaker. Wed: * “It’s too late to carry out educational work among me.” Violation of correctness becomes a technique for creating a comic effect and expressing irony. However, this requires special conditions, and most importantly - an accurate understanding of both the speaker and the listener about the norm that is being violated, otherwise the language game will not have the desired result.

Much more often, the criterion of appropriateness regulates the degree of expressiveness of speech. Back in 1914, P. S. Porokhovshchikov, a famous researcher of Russian judicial eloquence, said: “The flowers of eloquence are not always appropriate.” In fact, expressiveness of speech is inappropriate in situations where we should not arouse and maintain the attention of the audience, since it is initially expected (everyday conversation between close people, automatic communication in transport, a store, a purely informational message). Moreover, outstanding speakers advised speaking simply, that is, in a neutral tone, without using special expressive techniques, if the speech is dedicated to an outstanding or tragic event, thereby avoiding accusations of false pathos and artificiality of speech.

Ideas about the qualities of speech developed over centuries must be supplemented by criteria that determine the rights and responsibilities of the creator of the speech and its addressee. The American philosopher P. Grice developed the principle of their cooperation, or cooperation. Formulated by scientists maxims(rules) are the communicative obligations of the speaker towards the addressee. P. Grice believed that successful cooperation the speaker and listener are ensured by compliance with the following layout.

quality(tell the truth);

quantities(say no more, but no less than is necessary for understanding, i.e. make your contribution to the conversation as informative as necessary);

relationship(stay on topic);

manners, or way(speak clearly, consistently, accurately, politely).

Grice's maxims deepen ideas about the traditional criteria of speech culture (correctness, accuracy, appropriateness, vigor, conciseness), although they are not identical to them: these are not only the rules of speech culture, but also aesthetic, moral, social postulates.

Grice's rules are primarily about protecting the rights of the addressee, the listener. Rhetoric, both in ancient times and today, attaches great importance to the audience, its age, social, national and other characteristics. However, in real verbal communication (both in colloquial speech and in literary texts) Grice’s maxims are violated. The relativity of Grice’s maxims is largely due to the fact that it is impossible to establish the rules of speech communication unilaterally and to understand them only as the protection of the rights of the addressee. According to the famous linguist N.D. Arutyunova, many bad things in language (for example, rude, abusive words and expressions, cliches, etc.) lie on the conscience of not only the speaker, but also the listener. Thus, the tendency of speakers to display verbal aggression is provoked by the tendency of their audience to suggest. Often, a modern speaker quite consciously gives a “set of suggestion.” Indicative, for example, is the statement of V. Zhirinovsky: “A politician needs to have a face and be able to speak! I am capable of captivating an audience - not everyone is given this. I captivate the audience - people clap for every good phrase"(AiF).

Despite the suggestibility of the modern audience, it does not care to a greater extent characterized by critical perception, awareness of strategies for manipulating public consciousness, and an understanding that “something is being done to it with the help of speech.” Interest in methods of manipulating public consciousness is also evidenced by sections of popular publications that publish statements by political figures in which communication failures were made, sometimes not requiring any comment:

First of all, there is clearly a tendency to exaggerate the alleged misunderstanding between representatives of various law enforcement agencies. In fact, for me, as a completely new person, the feeling of elbow room caught my eye.

Among the people we meet and talk with, there are many who are disappointed, confused, and confused. And it is our sacred duty to show these people the way at the end of the tunnel.

In the area where there is a court decision that this enterprise belongs to such an owner, the state is obliged to bring down all its might if this is necessary in order to implement the decision. This is what liberalism is.

The state is first and foremost an institution of violence. Coercion. If you and I wanted to live in a tribe somewhere in Africa, there is no state there. And then it still affects them sometimes. When you need to shoot someone there.

The government has made a number of proposals and measures that would help prevent price increases, even if they happen.

We all must become restorers and remove this dust, this plaque on the image, on the image of our republic. And during these restoration works we can easily, literally at a depth of two or three centimeters, see a high-tech republic.

It is obvious that both participants in communication are responsible for the success of verbal cooperation in both its dialogic and monologue forms. However, the focus of attention is traditionally on the speaker, to whom society places a whole range of demands. The speaker creates not only speech, but also his image (scientist, politician, business person, etc.), which is not something external, but derived from such deep personality qualities as authority, will, temperament, education.

Need I say that the requirements placed on a speaker, especially a public speaker, have historically changed? Once upon a time, M.V. Lomonosov believed that a speaker must certainly have a “postureous appearance” and it is important to carry on... But although the criteria change, the ethical component of the image of a true speaker remains mandatory. Oratory has long been understood as a spiritual and moral activity, therefore the main requirement for the creator of a speech has always been the ability to think publicly and inspire the trust of the audience. The assessment conveyed by the speaker depends not least on his sincerity, conviction, and interest in the subject of speech. A demagogue, a person who manipulates an audience with the help of speech, is capable of successful speech influence, but he will never be a true orator and will not be able to correspond to the rhetorical ideal.

At all times there have been different ideas about the rhetorical ideal. In the most general terms, it presupposes the harmony of the relationship between the speaker and the listener, an attitude towards speech as joint creativity, a means of self-education and self-expression of the individual, and not its suppression, not the manipulation of the addressee as a passive object of speech influence. In rhetoric, ancient and modern, we find the names of orators who embodied this ideal: Demosthenes and Socrates, Plato and Cicero. Let's also name domestic names: M.V. Lomonosov, V.O. Klyuchevsky, D.S. Likhachev... However, attempts to clearly define the characteristics of the modern rhetorical ideal are not indisputable. What is obvious is that in modern Russia, different priority priorities coexist, often entering into conflict. speech behavior patterns, in particular, totalitarian (the so-called rhetoric of lies, or rhetoric of the fist), sophistic (when the goal justifies everything, allows unacceptable tricks and manipulations) and Socratic rhetorical ideals.

Only the last, Socratic, ideal can rightfully be considered an ideal. Its name reminds of ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, who became famous for his dialogues, lively verbal communication with interlocutors, disputes in which the truth was born. When identifying rhetorical models, first of all, the signs of dialogicity/monologue are studied. The Socratic ideal is dialogical in essence, and not just in form; it lacks any manifestation of verbal aggression and demagoguery.

Despite the unresolved question of the rhetorical ideal, our judgments about verbal communication cannot be intuitive, cannot be limited to an assessment of its content (deep, interesting, etc.) or based only on ideas about the qualities of speech. In order to be objective, the assessment of verbal communication must be multidimensional: we must evaluate the speaker’s worth and answer the questions:

• - whether the speaker has defined a speech strategy based on a specific audience;
• - did you develop its tactics, did you bring arguments into the system;
• - did you approach the composition and verbal expression of speech creatively?
• - did he comply with the modern literary norm;
• - Was his behavior in the audience appropriate?

It is obvious that the same rhetorical device (for example, repetition) can be perceived as a disadvantage in a small audience of specialists and as an advantage in a speech at a rally or in a school lesson. Understanding the relativity of the put forward criteria is also necessary for an objective assessment of speech.

Let us characterize the stages of speech creation. Rhetoric taught that speech should come first find, choose the key to the topic and to the listeners, i.e. determine its strategy for a specific audience, identify key contradictions in its content.

In this regard, they often recall an example from the work of the famous judicial figure A.F. Koni, “Advice for Lecturers.” A.F. Koni posed a problem to the readers: how can it be interesting to talk about the life and work of M.V. Lomonosov to a prepared and unprepared audience? Using his advice, let’s transfer the speech to a modern, familiar situation.

Imagine that you need to tell fourth and ninth grade students about Lomonosov. A stereotypical set of ideas and concepts is known to any speaker: the flight of young Lomonosov from a distant northern village to Moscow, difficult years of study, life abroad, return to his homeland, the scientist’s various scientific interests (physics, chemistry, geology, rhetoric), his poetic works, mosaic paintings... His independent, proud character.

In general terms, this information is also known to schoolchildren. In addition, it is unlikely that the scientific achievements of the 18th century. will amaze modern children and teenagers, their ability to appreciate the merits of the poetry of the era of classicism is even more doubtful... What to do? First of all, take into account the characteristics of the audience.

An unprepared, in our case children's, audience will be interested in a dynamic, emotional story, the ability of the speaker (teacher) to draw with words, and intrigue the class.

A.F. Koni suggested the following finding speech: without mentioning the name of the scientist, draw a blizzard winter night, the moment of “the youth’s flight from his home,” convey his condition, the fears and hopes he experienced during the long road to Moscow. And then - to bridge the gap after many years: “Many years have passed. Let's look through one of the windows into the magnificent hall of the palace. We will see the empress and a tall, portly man, in a wig and camisole, who, apparently, is demonstrating to her some complex physical experience. This man was the same boy who once went with a convoy to Moscow, and his name was Mikhaila Vasilyevich Lomonosov...”

This technique will undoubtedly attract the attention of the children's audience and will allow them to introduce the words camisole, wig, candelabra, empress and others necessary for an idea of ​​the Lomonosov era. But such “finding speech,” for all its merits, will not be successful in a classroom of ninth grade students. At best, they will appreciate the speaker's efforts to attract their attention, but his speech will be perceived as artificial, pompous.

What characteristics of this audience should the speaker take into account? Apparently, first of all, the tendency to argue, to destroy stereotypes, is that at this age they already think about life values ​​and priorities. How can Lomonosov’s personality impress ninth-graders? Obviously, not at all because Lomonosov was a great scientist or poet. He may be interesting to them in others - because he “made himself”, because of his strength, independence of character, universality of personality, because he knew how to do a lot with his own hands. But this is only a prerequisite for speech development - the keys can be very different.

A successful strategy must be supported by public speaking tactics. Classical rhetoric developed a whole doctrine of invention the content of speech, about various models of meaning generation - topoi, or tops of speech.

Evaluating a speaker’s speech involves analyzing the character and system of his chosen arguments. Strong arguments are scientific axioms, laws, quotes, links to authoritative sources; there should not be many of them; three or four strong arguments are enough to convince the audience.

Argumentation can be: refuting (against), supporting (for); one-sided (only “for” or only “against”), two-sided (both “for” and “against”), inductive (from particular to general), deductive (from general to particular); descending, ascending (from strong arguments to weak ones and vice versa).

For example, in discussing cloning, Archimandrite Sergius used refuting, one-sided, inductive and bottom-up argumentation:

I remember how I bought apples at the market. One seller had a regular-sized Antonovka, and another had a very large one; only 15 fruits fit in a large bucket. I ask where such large apples come from. In response to Slyig: "A This is Antonovka, which Michurin has not yet had time to ruin.” So cloning will ruin the entire human race.

It is said in the Holy Scripture: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him...”

Data from molecular biology indicate that cellular DNA itself - without any molecular intermediaries - reacts to the general situation in the body, that the feedback here is immaterial. Is this not evidence of that life, which, according to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, revives and warms the entire animal and plant world and thanks to which life manifests itself in animals and plants like a distant echo of Life?

It is said in the Holy Scripture: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis, chapter 2, verse 7)... Cloning practically deprives a person of his soul. And without a soul, a person cannot be complete, but only a mutant, and cannot become part of

World ocean. That is why all our interventions in nature have always ended unfavorably both for the general Nature and for the life of man himself.

Despite the systematic nature, the use of strong arguments (references to the Bible, the latest achievements of science, a specific example), this speech does not have sufficient persuasive power, primarily because its addressee is not precisely defined (what matters is whether a believer or an atheist, the degree of his education, age and etc.).

Invented speech must be positioned accordingly.

Sometimes ideas about the composition of a speech come down to its three-part structure, to the presence of an introduction, a middle part and a conclusion. This, ironically V.V. Odintsov, is not much different from the flat idea that every speech has a beginning, an end and “something in the middle.”

There are many definitions of composition. In its most general form, composition is the construction of speech, determined by its content, genre, type of audience, etc. You can explain what a composition is using a number of words with the prefix co-, since when creating it, the co-location, compatibility, and proportionality of the components of speech are taken into account. All this gives speech a feeling of integrity, completeness and harmony. According to Plato, “...every speech must be composed like a living being: it must have a body with a head and legs, and the torso and limbs must fit together and correspond to the whole.”

When they talk only about the sequence of speech components, they actually mean another term - architectonics. Unlike composition, architectonics is static and not related to time. When thinking about the composition, we take into account the time allotted for speech, i.e. We are guided by the regulations. The dynamism of the composition is also evident in its creative nature, in that the speaker during a speech can vary the volume of parts, sometimes reducing or increasing it, as well as their location, depending on the reaction of the audience. In the composition there is a change in points of view and types of speech (in school terminology - description, narration and reasoning).

Why is composition given such great importance, calling it art? Maybe to construct a speech it is enough to be guided only by the logic of common sense? No, this is really an art, and one that has been lost in many ways: it once manifested itself both at the level of a whole speech and at the level of a phrase. The word itself composition akin to the word composer, it is inherent not only in eloquence and literature, but also in other arts: music, painting, sculpture, architecture. Composition requires not only skill, but also talent and ingenuity. It gives speech, even the shortest one, a sense of completeness and integrity. The composition regulates the audience's attention and expresses the author's assessment.

What is the uniqueness of the composition of oral and written speech? Oral speech is perceived “here and now”; it is limited in time.

The conditions for its utterance are defined, the audience is known. The speaker must direct the attention of the audience, therefore the composition of oral speech consists of semantic parts with clear boundaries and logical bridges (and now about this, let’s return once again to the issue under discussion etc.).

The written form of speech provides the reader with the opportunity to go back, reread, and understand more deeply what has been written. It does not depend on the immediate perception of the audience, therefore the parts of the composition do not require clear delimitation from each other, the transitions between them are smoother than in oral speech, the connections can also be associative. The composition of written speech is devoid of the variability that distinguishes the composition of oral speech.

The art of composition is manifested not only in the thoughtful arrangement of parts of speech, but also in techniques for translating the audience to someone else's point of view. This is a very strong way of argumentation: to see the world through the eyes of another person means to understand him, and, having understood, perhaps to forgive. It is no coincidence that this technique was so often used in their speeches by the famous Russian lawyers F.N. Plevako, S.A. Andreevsky, V.D. Spasovich, N.P. Karabchevsky. P. A. Alexandrov, who defended V. Zasulich, also used it: “No, Vera Zasulich did not discuss Bogolyubov’s punishment from a formal point of view; there was another point of view, less special, more cordial, more human, which in no way allowed one to come to terms with the reasonableness and fairness of the punishment carried out on Bogolyubov.” The lawyer emphasized, speaking about his client: “I speak with her thoughts, I speak almost with her words.”

Let's return to the architectonics of speech, to its mandatory and optional parts. Rhetoric has accumulated a lot of contradictory opinions about the introduction and conclusion of a speech. Some speakers believed that the success of a speech was largely determined by a successful introduction, while others paid more attention to the conclusion. For example, there are several dozen unused introductions by Demosthenes, the greatest orator of antiquity. Another great orator, Cicero, was more concerned with the conclusion of a speech, although he also believed that the beginning “should immediately attract and lure the listener.”

The inconsistency of judgments is explained not only by the personal preferences of the speakers, but also by the fact that the “entry” into the speech and the “exit” from it depend on the topic, the genre of the speech, the composition and mood of the audience. Meanwhile, one cannot help but see that the introduction and conclusion are the so-called strong positions of speech; in their significance, they are similar to the frame of a painting, defining the boundaries of the visible/invisible, setting the perspective of perception. In the strong position of the absolute beginning and end, everything is significant: the choice of words, their order in a sentence, as well as much more, as evidenced by the experience of classical writers (A.S. Pushkin, L.N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov, etc.).

A.F. Koni compared a successful introduction to a catchy hook, emphasizing that there can be a lot of such “catching “hooks”-introductions: something from life, something unexpected, some paradox, some oddity , as if it does not go either to the gesture or to the deed (but in fact is connected with the whole speech), an unexpected and intelligent question, etc. In his opinion, “the end of the speech should round it off, that is, connect it with the beginning. Of course, such an ending is not necessary for all speeches. The end is the resolution of the entire speech (as in music, the last chord is the resolution of the previous one; anyone with a musical flair can always say, without knowing the play, judging only by the chord, that the play is over); the end should be such that the listeners feel (not only in the tone of the lecturer, this is necessary) that there is nothing more to say.” The conclusion most often “draws the line”, i.e. contains a brief summary of what was said earlier, a listing of the issues considered, emphasizes the relevance of the topic, but it can also have a playful, ironic character. The recognized master of the beginning and ending of a speech was the historian

V. O. Klyuchevsky. This is how he began his lectures:

“Pushkin Memorial Day is a day of memories. I’ll start with memories of myself”;

“Man is the main subject of art. The artist depicts him like this, how he expresses himself or tries to express himself. And a person loves to express, discover yourself. His motivation is understandable: we love to understand ourselves and try, so that others understand us the same way, how we present ourselves."

Here is an example of the end of one of his public speeches:

“But I have held your attention too long on personal and historical memories. I always want to say too much about Pushkin, you always say too much and never say everything, what follows."

What should be the optional parts of speech - digressions? To answer this question, we will also use the advice of A.F. Koni: “Short refreshing digressions are needed in a long (say, hour-long) speech, when there is every reason to assume that the attention of the listeners might be tired. Tired attention is inattention. Digressions should be light, even comic in nature, and at the same time be related to the content of the given passage of speech. In a short speech you can do without digressions: attention can be preserved good qualities speech itself." In the lectures of the famous philosopher of the second half of the 20th century. M.K. Mamardashvili’s retreats helped, as he put it, “to move on.”

Verbal expression speech is subject to a systematized idea of ​​​​the literary norm, as well as trails And rhetorical figures. If tropes are verbal imagery, then figures are syntactic imagery. Paths can be likened to a turn, a turn in a dance, while a figure is a more complete formation. In various dictionaries and reference books they are given the following interpretation:

Trope- a word or expression used in a figurative (indirect) meaning. For example, metaphor (a word or expression with a figurative meaning based on similarity, analogy, contrast): the talk of the waves, fire of the heart. Sometimes a metaphor is called a “comparison without a word” How".

Comparison - a type of trope in which one phenomenon or concept is manifested by comparing it with another phenomenon: "Like a slit, the alley turns black"(A. A. Akhmatova).

Epithet- a figurative definition emphasizing the properties, qualities, attributes of an object or phenomenon, giving it artistic depiction, poetic brightness: pure beauty, a rebellious impulse, a wonderful moment.

Hyperbola- excessive exaggeration of certain properties of the depicted object or phenomenon: “A rare bird will fly to the middle of the Dnieper...” (N.V. Gogol).

Litotes(reverse hyperbole) - artistic understatement: Tom Thumb.

Allegory- figurative allegory, the expression of something abstract, some thought, idea in a specific image: the image of a woman blindfolded and with scales in her hands - the goddess Themis - an allegory of justice.

Rhetorical figures- special ways of constructing sentences and texts that enhance their expressiveness. Rhetorical figures include:

Ellipsis(abbreviation, “skipping” words): “I’ll read a book. That's to run..." (K. Chukovsky).

Antithesis- sharply expressed opposition of concepts or phenomena: “ The rank followed him; he suddenly left the service” (A.S. Griboyedov).

Rhetorical question- a structure of speech in which a statement is expressed in the form of a question. It does not imply an answer, but enhances the emotionality of the statement and its expressiveness: “Who was not eighteen years old?”

Multi-Union- a structure of speech in which the number of conjunctions between words or sentences is increased:

“And the waves crowd and rush back,

Nenova come and hit the shore..."

(M.Yu. Lermontov).

Of course, this is not a complete list of tropes and rhetorical figures. Their presence in itself is not a guarantee of expressiveness. Various figures and paths are necessary not to decorate speech, but to organically convey its internal expression and persuasion of the addressee. According to the writer V. Konetsky, “the ancients knew that an orator should hide his art. If you show the truth as it is, without covering it with any veils, then people will not see or hear.” Thus, the antithesis acts as a way of exacerbating a contradiction, identifying a conflict, and a rhetorical question is a means of attracting the attention of the addressee.

The rules of speech communication also regulate the behavior of the speaker in the audience, the appropriateness and expressiveness of his gestures, facial expressions and movements. The key to overcoming oratorical “shock” and fear of the audience is the creative well-being of the creator of the speech.

Thus, speech should be assessed not only in the statics of the text that recorded it, but also in the dynamics of its generation, taking into account the speaker’s goal setting, the conditions for its implementation, as well as the genre specificity of various spheres of speech activity (political, business, everyday life, etc.) . The norms of speech development should be adjusted in relation to a scientific report, speech at a rally or congratulations on a holiday. Some requirements apply to the preparation and content of a teacher’s educational speech, while others apply to a politician’s speech.

Over the long period of its existence, political eloquence has developed specifics, without which it cannot receive an objective assessment. About this back in the 19th century. A. F. Koni said wonderfully:

“...Political eloquence is not at all the same as judicial eloquence... a political orator will achieve little by convincing and proving... he should tie together the feelings aroused in a bright way, and give them embodiment in a word that is easy to digest and full of content... Political speech should present not a mosaic, a painting that is not striking in its careful depiction, not an elegant watercolor, but sharp contours and Rembrandt’s “chiaroscuro.”

The uniqueness of the rights and obligations of the speaker and the listener, different character their interactions are found in monologue And dialogical communication. Dialogue consists of an exchange of spoken remarks, when the speaker and listener constantly change roles. Monologue speech is designed for a more passive and indirect perception. Dialogue, as a rule, is a form of communication in a situation of direct contact. Special rules regulate the strategy and tactics of its participants, in particular, the conduct dialogue-dispute, political discussions And controversy, determine permissible and impermissible tricks in an argument, measures against sophisms(intentionally false conclusions, intentional errors in evidence).

Useful recommendations for conducting a dispute are offered in many manuals, not only in the popular books of the American D. Carnegie, but also in the lesser-known work of the domestic logician S.I. Povarnin “Dispute. On the theory and practice of dispute" (the first edition of the book appeared in 1918; in recent years it has been reprinted several times). Here are some of the recommendations.

S.I. Povarnin especially emphasized the difficulty of arguing about complex state and social problems. A successful dispute, in his opinion, requires the right choice opponent. You should avoid arguing with fools, with demagogues who like to get personal (“You don’t understand anything yourself/"), with those who do not hear anyone but themselves. S. I. Povarnin cites an expressive description given to Grushnitsky in M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time”: “ As soon as you stop, he begins a long tirade, apparently, having some connection with that, what did you say, but which is actually a continuation of his own speech.”

Thesis(the main idea) of the argument must suit the opponent, since “the more ignorant a person is, the less able he is to understand or accept a complex thought.” A person may not understand serious music, may not like it, but if at the same time he is also deeply self-confident in his denial of it, then an honest debate about music with such an opponent is impossible.

S. I. Povarnin identified the features of the following types of dispute:

• - constructive(tuned to collaboration) / conflictual(set up for a quarrel);
• - full-time/correspondence;
• - concentrated(on thesis) / formless(when opponents forget what the dispute was actually about, the formless dispute S.I. Povarnin believed its lowest variety);
• - written and oral;
• - simple(two opponents) and difficult(between several persons); a complex argument in the presence of a wise and experienced leader can be very effective and can become a real brainstorming session of the problem;
• - argument without listeners/with listeners/for listeners(election debates are an obvious example of not only an argument in front of listeners, but also for listeners; an argument in front of listeners, especially in an unprepared audience, is dangerous: “Any sophist, skillful enough, is impudent and knows how to speak passionately,” emphasized S.I. Povarnin, - may, on occasion, defeat you in front of such listeners").

The disputes differ in their motives:

• - dispute to test the truth - the highest form of dispute, according to Socrates, it has a special beauty, such a dispute helps broaden one’s horizons, it is based on a thesis that interests everyone, such a dispute requires strong opponents;
• - argument for persuasion hidden or explicitly lies, for example, at the basis of advertising;
• - dispute over victory professes the principle of “winners are not judged”; As a rule, this is an argument in front of listeners, and sometimes only for them; opponents use winning arguments that they do not necessarily believe in themselves.

The following are considered unacceptable tricks in a dispute:

• - sweeping accusation;
• - complete denial of authority;
• - throwing the enemy off balance(to have the right to tell him: “You’re angry, that means you’re wrong”);
• - distracting your opponent's attention;
• - double entry bookkeeping(double grading system in relation to different people, events, phenomena, objects);
• - deviations from the topic of dispute;
• - translation of the dispute into contradictions, for example, between word and deed;
• - substitution of thesis, for example, the statement “The death penalty is necessary under certain conditions” is replaced by the statement “The death penalty is necessary”;
• - change of thesis(softening, strengthening, narrowing, expanding: unknown money - stolen money);
• - argument "to your pocket" those. transferring the dispute to the point of view of benefit/disadvantage is the strongest argument, according to S.I. Povarnin. For example, in the contemporary debate about humanitarian assistance to refugees: "A Now, if they take money from your salary or pension for this help, will you still be in favor?”;
• - « lawyer» argument(taking advantage of the enemy's negligence);
• - "swine" argument(when, for example, a typo or slip is interpreted as libel);
• - argument "to the policeman"- blackmail, threat to deal with the enemy with the help of the authorities;
• - « ladies'» argument involves choosing the most absurd or opposite of all possible solutions, this is an option imposed investigation:
• - I'm tired!
• - But I also work and I’m no less tired...
• - So, in your opinion, I am a parasite?!;
• - sophistry of multi-questioning, when any doubt or refusal to make a hasty decision is interpreted as a refusal to answer directly and is perceived as a subterfuge:
• - I can’t answer in two words...
• - You can’t or don’t want to, are you avoiding a direct answer?

Are there measures against subterfuge in disputes? S. I. Povarnin advises

remain calm and not succumb to sophistry. In most cases, it is enough to confine yourself to pointing out your opponent’s mistake without analyzing it. But it is necessary to expose the deliberate breakdown of the dispute, the argument “to the policeman” and other impermissible tricks.

Of course, this is far from a complete outline of the rules of speech communication. For its successful implementation, it is very important to take into account the laws of communication, all the diversity of its conditions and forms and, of course, observe the norms in your speech behavior literary language.

Quests

• 1. Name the main qualities that public speech should have; describe its shortcomings.
• 2. Name the linguistic means of creating techniques for “sliding meaning” and “eroding it” (euphemisms, negative evaluative expressions, etc.).
• 3. Describe the motives and goals of verbal aggression. Give examples of the manifestation of speech aggression in various areas of speech activity. Determine the attitude of modern society towards verbal aggression. What mechanisms of its containment do you know?
• 4. Which of the two greatest orators of antiquity - Demosthenes or Cicero - do you agree with in determining the requirements for the personality of an orator?
• 1. ...The value is not in itself the speech of the speaker and not the sonority of his voice, but the extent to which he shares the point of view of the people and how much he hates and loves the same people as the fatherland ( Demosthenes, speech “About the Crown”);
• 2. ...The speaker must have the wit of a dialectician, the thoughts of a philosopher, the words of almost a poet, the memory of a lawyer, the voice of a tragedian, and the acting of the best actors (Antony in his treatise Cicero"On the art of oratory").

Formulate your idea of ​​the ideal modern speaker.

• 5. How is the art of eloquence connected with the moral character of the speaker? Give examples.
• 6. Analyze Cicero’s statement, determine the complex nature of the relationship between the speaker and the audience.

It can be said that a heavy burden and obligation is imposed on himself by the one who solemnly undertakes alone among a crowded gathering in general silence to discuss matters of the first importance! After all, the vast majority of those present notice the shortcomings in the speaker more attentively and sharply than the advantages. Therefore, his slightest error overshadows everything that was good in his speech... How many times we speak, so many times we are judged;

The speaker who is approved by the crowd will inevitably be approved by the experts.

• 7. Determine how Soviet rhetoric has been updated based on the following fragments of public speeches by communist leader G. Zyuganov. What oratorical techniques are used in them? What shortcomings of public speech were manifested in the statements?
• 1. I think it is urgent to mobilize all forces and throw them into decisive directions;
• 2. I had to go almost everywhere, meet, help...;
• 3. I believe that this will happen. I believe in the wisdom and common sense of our great people. I believe that the people will vote in the elections:

For peace against civil war!

For honest work against parasites!

For law and order against arbitrariness and violence!

For friendship and brotherhood of peoples against hatred and malice!

For truth and purity against lies and depravity!

For the power of the people!

For the honor and dignity of the Russian state!;

4. These are the richest natural resources.

This is the spirit of ancestors who withstood all the blows of fate;

• 5. The weapons of lies continue to fire with increasing force. Let us be vigilant - further gullibility is disastrous;
• 6. I see: the people are seeing the light, uniting. I believe that the people will be able to take their fate into account own hands how the epic hero will rise to his heroic stature;
• 7. Today, the work of an educator, teacher, doctor is the forefront of the fight for the salvation of the Motherland;
• 8. Ensure price parity for industrial and agricultural products. Modern Mikula Selyaninovich can and will feed his people;
• 9. The state has two pillars: the people and the law. The regime killed the law. To save himself, he drives the people into a yoke;
• 10. Stimulate the growth of production of competitive products by reforming tax, credit and customs policies, large-scale government orders and investments;
• 11. Preserve public education and fundamental science, culture and art, museums and libraries, theaters and cinema, without which Russia has no future.
• 8. Get acquainted with a fragment of V. Makanin’s story “A Successful Story about Love.” Name characteristic features speech behavior of television show hosts.

Tartasov is cute on screen. Although not young... Dressed up, with a tie. Hosts the prestigious conversation "Tea". (Writer on TV.) Solid and cultured... The conversation, however, became boring...

Tartasov still had his famous dumb question as his trump card. At the peak of television conversation. One on one... Millions of spectators saw live steam over a cup of tea at that moment. Over both of their cups. And the invited guest, a relaxed musician or artist, already believed that not everything on TV was so politicized and vile. And it turns out that you can be frank. And to speak with dignity, intelligently... The eminent guest was already quite relaxed, in his own way, holding out his hand for the candy. To the vase for some chocolate... At that very moment Tartasov asked him:

But finally answer directly. Did you (you personally) feel bad before - or do you feel bad now?

Which took me by surprise.

The alternative choice is always rude. And the ruder the softer the guest. And how was it appropriate to answer?.. To say that he lived well under the commies would be an absolute lie. (It’s also stupidity.) But it’s somehow out of place to boast about your current life. Awkward. In full view of millions of fellow citizens. In front of malnourished doctors, teachers...

There is a whole range of confusion on the interlocutor’s face. Rippling shades... Excitement to express the inexpressible. And the hand didn’t know what to do with the candy it had just taken. And Tartasov with a smile, with a gentle look. He was silent - he intensified the pause.

The audience, of course, knew the prickly question well. As they knew, there was no answer. (We, the viewers, have it all to our liking. Let it be petty, pitiful, vain... But let it be funny. We ourselves are petty, what can we do!) Millions, no less, were worried at the screens already ahead of time. We were looking forward to it... But it’s not bad for the viewer to get excited! An invited celebrity threw out his hand for a chocolate bar, and just (close-up) grabbed a brown square, the question:

Well?.. Before - or now?

The celebrity is confused, babbling incoherently. And we remember how the pianist stuttered last Tuesday. Thin. Red... Coloring the cheeks of a red-haired man! His embarrassment!.. We are children. We are guys, and TV is our cube. (It’s a pity, it’s too big, can’t be rolled in the palm of your hand.)

Of course, famous and ambitious people were invited to “Tea”. (Also children, only dressed up.) Too busy with themselves, they didn’t really follow other people’s mistakes on TV. They didn't know that the question was repeated. And, like smart children, they hurt themselves on the same pebble. Tartasov, also a naughty man, smiled. Before? Or now?.. Answer, please. Answer. And so as not to wobble!

9. Do you agree with the assessment of E. Radzinsky’s rhetorical image given by journalist A. Shchuplov (Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 12/26/2000)?

The hero of the evening prefaced his educational lecture with the statement that he would do what writers love most - telling stories about themselves. However, little was said about myself. But Klyuchevsky, Pushkin, Karamzin, Tolstoy were quoted... Aphorisms rained down on the heads of those gathered, as if they were written.

It has long been known that listening and watching Radzinsky is more interesting than reading. At first, historians tried to catch him with inaccuracies and mistakes. Then they gave up and gave it up for use for centuries. And what kind of struggle could there be between eggheaded professors and a writer who enchanted half the country with his exclusive falsetto?!

<...>Working in the best traditions of Irakli Apdronnikov, Radzinsky revived the old-new educational genre - “the writer at the microphone” - with all the ensuing consequences and no relation to either the subject of history or literature. His books are based on models of pop monologues. Hence the brevity of the chapters, the absence of Tolstoy’s sentences (the phrase must be pronounced in one breath, and there must be room for a tragic half-whisper!). Sensational intonation is embedded in the text with the original programming of the “reading author.”

10. Name the signs of modern speech that are parodied in B. Akunin’s fairy tale “Problem 2000 (Like a Christmas story).”

Vovan closed the door behind him, and the muse seemed to extinguish it. There was a specific door - ancient oak, damn it, cooler than any iron one. Vovan immediately designated a round room with plaster chicks and boys under the ceiling as his office. That's it. Still, the general director is not a piece of shit. Putting up an office set with leather seats, hanging a drop ceiling, running a real white carpet over the floor will work out adequately.

The real estate broke off almost for free. Previously, the editorial office of some scientific journal used to sit here - the kind of suckers that Vovan had only seen on TV before, in the movie “Nine Days of One Year.” I sublet a little nook from them, modestly, for two hundred bucks per square meter, and then I cheated the intelligentsia without even having time to sneeze. I made them in such a way that they are very expensive. Just like in a fairy tale: a sucker had a bast hut, but he got hooked on scammers. The pterodactor editors collected their typewriters with ficus trees and, as they say, departed for an unknown destination. The main ptsrodator (who also happens to be the main sucker) came to say goodbye. Vovan tensed a little - he thought it would become a nightmare. But grandfather only said: “You, young man, will be ashamed later” - and scratched himself on foot. Clean zoo, damn it.

<...>Vovan walked up to the chipped mirror (it was old, it would have to be thrown into the trash). I looked at myself and got a buzz. The Versace jacket is sweet, the Gucci shoes, the muzzle is smooth, the eyes are small, but so objective, a mud with intelligence.

• 11. The commonly used labels and running metaphors of the late eighties, according to the authors of the book “The Culture of Parliamentary Speech” (Moscow, 1994), were the words and phrases: populist, separatist voluntarist, ex-tremisupu political sabotage, mafia, shadow hustler; dead end at the abyss, bottom of the abyss economic disease diagnose paralysis of power, reanimation of convulsions of the virus system, sovereignty outrages, permissiveness demagogues destructive forces evil slander, screamers, political ambitions, dermocrats(but in relation to the right), KGB agents, imperial thinking, totalitarian regime and past, center nomenklatura, commies(in relation to the left). Determine the reasons for their spread (one of the possible ones is the primitive structuring of the picture of the world). Give examples of labels and common metaphors of the early 21st century.
• 12. Determine what is the secret of the expressiveness of I. Ilf’s statements.
• 1. A funny phrase must be cherished, groomed, affectionately stroking the subject.
• 2. A person not exhausted by mental exercise.
• 3. I had an acquaintance who was far from a lord. I have a lady friend who is not Vera Zasulich. The artist is not Rubens.
• 4. Poke and blunder, that’s how bears talk to each other.
• 5. An ugly smile wandered across his face.
• 6. Beige shoes and purple stockings of the same color.
• 7. Stop eking out a miserable existence. Tired of it!
• 8. St. Square Brand. Thick, rude, impudent, like cats, pigeons.
• 9. My neighbor was a young, full of energy idiot.
• 10. The kitten was running around in the yard all night, scratching and meowing. Apparently he took the cat exam.
• 13. Is the aphorism “To prove does not mean to convince” true, in your opinion? Support your point of view with examples.
• 14. Give examples of weak and strong arguments. What interferes with the perception of argumentation?
• 15. Reveal the strategy and tactics of speech behavior of any modern speaker (based on media materials). Determine the degree of their effectiveness.
• 16. Are introduction and conclusion mandatory parts of speech? Support your answer with examples.
• 17. Compare the discovery and invention of the speech of the writer M. Chulaki and the priest A. Borisov (Moscow News. 2000. No. 45):

M. Chulaki HAVE ARRIVED!

The front pages of newspapers were adorned with photographs: before launching to the international station, the cosmonauts humbly accepted a blessing from an Orthodox priest. By the way, they started starting from that very historical place, from which Gagarin went into space, here he said his famous “Let's go!”

Pilots, sailors, and climbers have always been superstitious. They took talismans with them, observed “true signs”, and so the cosmonauts followed them - before the flight they washed down a cucumber with champagne, during the launch they kept their fingers crossed... But sprinkling with holy water was still a different matter. It means that representatives of one of the most modern and most ancient professions have agreed on their worldview. Cosmonauts, “envoys of the Earth”, “pioneers of the Future”, seriously believe that their God can influence soulless “hardware” - all these cables, nozzles, valves, so that, according to His desire, an infinitely complex rocket will either fly safely or crash. There, in Heaven, according to their ideas, Hephaestus reigns, well, with pliers in his hands. Because even God must have His own technology: if He interferes with the state of matter, it means that His Word cuts through wires, and melts steel and titanium no worse than a gas cutter! Or, on the contrary, at the request of wives and mothers, he strengthens the seam undercooked by the earthly hack.

It’s funny, of course, to observe such innocence on the threshold of the 21st century. This is not about moral quests, not about a dispute about what comes first: spirit or matter? No, the faith that is expanding is completely primitive, completely pagan: first they tried to appease the almighty God so that He would help in the hunt for a mammoth, now - so that the “Proton” or “Progress” would fly safely.

But if you really believe in God with pliers, then you have to believe consistently! If He can save through prayer, does that mean He also destroys?! After all, He, the omniscient one, could not turn away or fall asleep when the Kursk was dying. It turns out that He allowed the unfortunate sailors to drown?! Yes, if he let it go, he ruined it. For what? Wonderful guys died. The president is criticized only for the fact that he remained in Sochi when the Kursk was lost; they blame him for the fact that he may not have done everything right away. But God, with His omnipotence, remains completely beyond criticism, even beyond discussion: Did He sink the Kursk consciously or only out of absent-mindedness? Could anyone else have been saved after the explosion, or was even He no longer able to do so?

By admitting the possibility of divine help for astronauts or divers, believers in the 11th, having the best intentions, make their God an evil monster responsible for countless crimes and disasters that are shaking our planet. They make him a monster, but they don’t complain, they worship him, because faith in God with an instrument in his hands is evidence of a deeply totalitarian consciousness. Having lost Stalin in the Kremlin, our fellow citizens subconsciously resettle Him to Heaven, although they retain His purely Stalinist character. Remember, Volkov, Dobrovolsky, Papayev died? And Komarov too. Not otherwise, the guys didn’t pray to Him before the start, they neglected Him. So He could not bear the insult. But now the servicemen have become smarter, they try according to the principle: it is better to bow than to under-bow.

And the infinity of coverage from Him is also demanded by Stalin, so that He, from Above, decides everything personally - great and small: after all, they pray to Him not only for the well-being of strategic submarines and spaceships, but also for the strawberries to grow in the garden. He must intervene in everything - such a dictatorship is looming.

A. Borisov

THE WORLD IS MORE COMPLEX THAN WE THINK

Mikhail Chulaka’s objections to the prayer service before a space flight combine two motives: superficial, philistine and philosophically serious. According to the first, if submarines with good guys die, then it means there is no God, and serving a prayer service before a flight into space is an even worse superstition than keeping your fingers crossed. In other words, either God fulfills all our good wishes, or He simply does not exist. We are ready to recognize a simple and understandable God, like twice two, who acts as a lifesaver in any situation we create. We do not agree with a God who is mysterious, incomprehensible and yet loves His fallen creation. But, despite all human objections and doubts, history knows many facts that cannot be explained by mere coincidence. When Apollo 13 suffered a serious accident in the late 60s (a balloon exploded during its flight to the Moon), all of America prayed for the ship’s salvation. And although the ship did not land on the moon, its safe return to Earth is recognized as no less a cosmic achievement than the landing on our small star.

Nevertheless, a serious question remains in what Mikhail Chulaki writes. Why do disasters, earthquakes, and innocent people die? In the Gospel of Luke there is the following episode in chapter XIII: “At that time some came and told Him about the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus said to them: Do you think that these Galileans were more sinful than all the Galileans, that they suffered so much?.. No, I tell you, but unless you repent, you will all perish too...”

The existence of evil in the world contains one of the secrets of the universe. One thing is certain: evil human will is to blame for a huge number of tragic cases. Blaming God for crimes committed by people themselves is, to say the least, unfair.

In the above passage from the Gospel of Luke, Jesus also does not provide an explanation for the tragedies. But He connects them with general condition people of that time. The invisible components of the unrighteous life of individual members of human society, and most often of its majority, add up to sad results. Therefore, when we are faced with such tragedies, the question should not be posed in the form of “why?”, as if wanting to find the culprit. The correct question for each of us would be: “For what?” What message is contained in this or that sad event? For everyone, this is a call to put the life of our country on the scales as much as possible. more good, less evil.

As for the prayer service before a space flight, turning to a Higher Power with gratitude for the wisdom bestowed on humanity, which creates such complex machines, asking for blessings so that the plan goes well - all this is quite worthy of the event taking place. After all, unlike the recent past, this kind of prayer service, thank God, is not imposed by a decision of the government or the president, but is simply a response to the natural feelings of the people who go on a flight. Such complex experiments are always associated with great risk, and combining such an exciting event with prayer in the form of an established Orthodox tradition is quite natural for our country and our culture. Not very familiar? Perhaps. But we live in a democratic society, which is characterized by different opinions and different approaches to the phenomena of social life. If only there was no general imposition of views and traditions characteristic of one part of society, even if it constitutes the majority.

• 18. Analyze one of the outstanding works of oratory given in textbooks on rhetoric. List the figures and paths that appear in it. Explain their use.
• 19. Prove or disprove the following opinion of P. S. Porokhovshchikov (“The Art of Speech in Court”).

“...Skilled speakers have them (quotes and aphorisms. - Composition.) serve as a title or epigraph for each section of speech... Underdeveloped people are so afraid of paradoxes... General thoughts are also attractive to listeners because they reflect the personality of the speaker;

Whoever says... delaying irrevocable death is like giving himself evidence of poverty: he knows in history only what he heard from others, but wants to seem like a scientist;

Don’t name either Tolstoy or Dostoevsky: speak from yourself... To them (Kony, Andreevsky. - Comp.) it’s possible, but you and I can’t...”

Give examples of using quotes and aphorisms in public speaking speakers of the past and present.

• 20. Find a saying you like in collections of aphorisms. Prepare a five-minute speech that reveals or refutes its meaning.
• 21. What thrones and rhetorical figures are used successfully/unsuccessfully in the text of modern advertising? Give your own examples.
• 22. Select examples of unsuccessful influence through advertising. Reveal the reasons for communication failure.
• 23. Analyze the following advertising text. Can it be considered successful? What techniques and means of speech influence are used in it?

I WILL AVOID YOUR TROUBLE

Marya Semyonovna lived in this old apartment on Petrogradskaya for more than half a century. After retiring, Marya Semyonovna took up tutoring so that, as she herself said, “not to lose shape.” And she was quite happy with her life until her long-time flatmates exchanged their two rooms. New tenants moved in, and the life of the old teacher overnight turned into a real nightmare. Smart young people - a married couple from the outback, God knows how they ended up in St. Petersburg - set out to establish themselves in the communal apartment as sole owners. Any arguments were used - from washing powder in a teapot with tea leaves, shoes nailed to the floor to the point of assault and outright intimidation. In six months of such a life, Marya Semyonovna turned from a cheerful, friendly woman into a nervous one, exhausted by constant fear and desperate. Who knows how this story would have ended if not for a meeting with a former student. “Believe it or not, only one person can help your grief,” she said. - This woman's name is Daria. Thanks to her wonderful gift, today I am happy and loved, I have a family - two wonderful twins and a loving husband. I have health, optimism and faith. Take this photograph - it will give you strength and restore peace."

Marya Semyonovna placed a photo of Daria behind the glass at home bookcase. Every evening, going to bed, she mentally asked Daryo: “Help me!” And she felt that she was getting better. After two weeks, she returned to healthy sleep, her heart returned to normal, and she stopped reacting painfully to her neighbors’ antics. Yes, and they began to change. The quarrels stopped, and there was a truce in the apartment.

Marya Semyonovna, inspired by success, went to meet Daria and brought from there another photograph, an amulet and an amazing herb, which she used to fumigate the apartment in the absence of her neighbors.

A week later, a neighbor invited Marya Semyonovna for pies. “It was like a veil fell from my eyes,” she said. - We have nothing to share with you. Thank you for your patience and kindness." The old teacher smiled and thought: “Thank you Daria.”

• 24. Formulate the rules for conducting business speech. What rhetorical devices are appropriate and appropriate in this area? Give reasons for your answer. Note cases of violation of the rules of business speech (based on media materials).
• 25. Formulate the rules of conduct for participants in a dialogue-dispute. Give examples of incorrect techniques and tricks used by the King - a character in E. Schwartz’s play “An Ordinary Miracle”:

Master. Shame, shame, Your Majesty!

King. It's not my fault!

Master. And who?

King. Uncle! He’ll start talking the same way, sometimes, with whomever he has to, he’ll tell three stories about himself, and then he’ll feel ashamed. And his soul was subtle, delicate, easily vulnerable. And in order not to suffer later, he would even poison his interlocutor.

Master. Scoundrel!

King. Uniform brute! He left an inheritance, you scoundrel!

Master. So it's your uncle's fault?

King. Uncle, uncle, uncle! There's nothing to smile about! I am a well-read and conscientious person. Another would have blamed his meanness on his comrades, on his superiors, on his neighbors, on his wife. And I blame my ancestors as if they were dead. They don't care, but it's easier for me.

• 26. Compare the recommendations for conducting a dispute proposed by D. Carnegie (“How to win friends and influence people”) and S.I. Povarnin (“Dispute. On the theory and practice of dispute”).
• 27. What should motivate the choice of an opponent in a dispute? With which opponents is “an honest argument impossible”?
• 28. Analyze the speech behavior of the scientist-teacher Semyon Petrovich and Ivan, a friend of his daughter Katya, in a dialogue from the movie “Courier”. Why did Semyon Petrovich fail in communication?

S. II.: Young man! Would you give me a few minutes of your precious time? So, young man, I must confess to you: I have formed the conviction that your society is deeply contraindicated for my daughter. I will not allow myself to list numerous examples of your behavior that form such a belief. However, as a man to a man, I ask you to immediately end your relationship with Katya.

I.: This is impossible, sir...

S.P.: Why is this impossible for you... sir?..

I.: Your daughter and I love each other. I admit, it was dishonest on my part to hide the truth from you for so long. But, believe me, it didn’t happen on purpose. But now, when everything has opened up so happily, I entrust fate into your hands and ask for parental blessing.

S.P.: Wait, wait, wait... What are you saying? What are you saying? Have you decided to get married?

I.: You see, our relationship has gone too far... And I, as a noble man, cannot do otherwise and ask for your daughter’s hand in marriage.

S.P.: What?..

I.: Ekaterina Semyonovna is pregnant.

S.P.: How?

S.P.: Yes. When did you have time? Ah-ah-ah... How are you going to live?

I.: Difficulties do not frighten us.

S. II.: Well, of course, of course... But you are so young... Katya is in her first year, and here you are... Are you thinking about going to college?

I.: Higher education is not an end in itself for me.

S. II.: Of course, of course. Higher education is not the most important thing in life. But I hope you don't plan to work all your life... as a courier?

I.: I write poetry, Semyon Petrovich.

S. II.: So what? Are you publishing?

I.: Not yet.

S.P.: A-a-ha... I see. Do you get any poetry?

P. 11.: “...pillar...”. Well, not bad, not bad, really, it reminds me of something. Or is the style so old-fashioned?..

S. II.: But... in general it’s very, very good.

S.P.: No, no. No need.

I.: Well, shall I go then?

S.P.: Of course! You come in, come in. Maybe you can invite your parents to join us.

I.: Definitely. Can I call you “dad”?

29. Analyze the speech of Yu. M. Lotman “We will survive if we are wise.”

What I would call unrestrained pessimism now dominates television, radio and newspapers. I would like to express cautious optimism. I believe that, as the saying goes: “Terrible dreams, may God be merciful,” and that the difficulties that await us may not be as terrible as we think.

Why do I think this? In my younger years, I was at the front throughout the war, I am an artilleryman. And I know that when you are 30 kilometers from the front line, from where there is a continuous roar, it is very scary. When you approach a distance of 10 or even 8 km, it is no longer so scary. It turns out that the discharges are not continuous: the shells fall here and there, fly over, and do not reach.

<...>The main thing in order to get rid of fear is to meet it halfway. We very often experience fear in advance, see it in much worse forms than it really is, and become discouraged. Once you look fear in the face, it turns out that it is not so scary. Therefore, the first thing I would wish for everyone is VIEW. The main way to stay cheerful is to comfort someone else. You can't stay cheerful alone. It is impossible to be saved alone at all. Therefore, the second thing I would like is CONSOLIDATION.

The land we live on is very small. It was before that it seemed huge. Even when I was young, it seemed like there was no end to it. And now we see that she is small. Therefore, it is impossible to separate yourself from the Armenians, it is impossible to separate yourself from the events in the Caucasus, it is impossible to separate yourself from the events throughout the world. We are all sailing in the same boat: either we will all drown together, or we will all be saved together. No one can be saved alone. The only way to be saved is to be cheerful and help your neighbor.

In Estonia, I think the fate of all of us - both Estonians and Russians - will largely depend on how much we learn to understand each other. We don’t need to sort through our grievances - we all have a lot of grievances from Adam - but we need to learn to forgive and help. If we start looking for the first offense, we will still find it, but this search will become a school of hatred for us, and we will all drown. Therefore, when people are unfair to us - of course, this is very offensive - we must always remember that we too can be unfair. And we must not count, but forgive, we must be smart.

We will survive if we are not even smart, but wise. We are no longer children who played war for so many millennia, and we do not live in the Stone Age. Perhaps the era of wars is now coming to an end. If only the Ukrainian proverb would not happen: “I sing the sun here, the dew will come.” If only the dew didn't burn your eyes. What is needed for this? Remember, as the author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” said: “And the princes began to talk about small and big things, the Polovtsians came from all sides to fight on Russian soil.” So, wars come when people begin to “talk about small things and big things.” Therefore, I wish everyone WISDOM and PATIENCE.

We must remember that if I shut myself up and count how much, who and when I was offended, my life will be bitter, and the world around me will seem unfair. But this is not so. I should consider not those who are guilty before me, but those to whom I am guilty. We are all to blame before each other: before our loved ones, before our parents, before our neighbors. We all the time - even without meaning to - bring evil. Therefore, I also wish to stock up on PATIENCE and FORCER. I wish everyone HAPPY LOVE, without which you also cannot live. I wish you HEALTH, health is very important. But health also depends on our vigor. You know the saying: “Even a louse can catch a sad person.” There is no need to be sad. Lord, this is not a blockade, not a war. After all, it depends on which end you count from. If we count from the ideal, then we don’t have a lot of things. And if from the end of the latter, then we have a lot to lose. God forbid we don’t lose, God forbid we preserve what we have.

30. Analyze I. Brodsky’s speech at the Royal Swedish Academy when receiving the Nobel Prize.

Dear members of the Swedish Academy, Your Majesties, ladies and gentlemen, I was born and raised on the other side of the Baltic, almost on the opposite gray rustling page. Sometimes on clear days, especially in autumn, standing on a beach somewhere in Kellomäki and extending his finger to the northwest over a sheet of water, my friend would say: “Do you see the blue strip of land? This is Sweden."

Of course, he was joking: because the angle was not right, because according to the laws of optics, the human eye can only cover twenty miles in open space. The space, however, was not open.

Nevertheless, I like to think, ladies and gentlemen, that we breathed the same air, ate the same fish, got wet in the same - at times radioactive - rain, swam in the same sea, and were bored by the same pine needles. Depending on the wind, the clouds that I saw in the window you have already seen, and vice versa. I like to think that we had something in common before we came together in this room.

As for this hall, I think it was empty just a few hours ago and will be empty again a few hours later. Our presence in it, mine in particular, is completely accidental from the point of view of the walls. In general, from the point of view of space, any presence in it is accidental, unless it has an immutable - and, as a rule, inanimate - feature of the landscape: say, a moraine, a hilltop, a bend in a river. And it is the appearance of something or someone unpredictable inside a space, completely accustomed to its contents, that creates the feeling of an event.

Therefore, in thanking you for your decision to award me the Nobel Prize in Literature, I am, in essence, thanking you for recognizing in my work features of permanence, like glacial debris in, say, the vast landscape of literature.

I am fully aware that this comparison may seem risky due to its coldness, futility, long-term or rapid erosion. But if these fragments contain at least one vein of animate ore - which I immodestly hope for - then perhaps this comparison is quite cautious.

And while we are on the subject of caution, I would like to add that in the foreseeable past the poetry audience rarely numbered more than one percent of the population. That is why the poets of antiquity or the Renaissance gravitated towards courts, centers of power; That’s why these days poets settle in universities, centers of knowledge. Your academy appears to be a cross between both; and if in the future - where we will not be - this percentage remains the same, to a large extent this will happen thanks to your efforts. If this vision of the future seems gloomy to you, I hope that the thought of a population explosion will cheer you up a little. And a quarter of that percentage would mean an army of readers, even today.

So my gratitude to you, ladies and gentlemen, is not entirely selfish. I am grateful to you for those whom your decisions encourage and will encourage to read poetry, today and tomorrow. I am not so sure that man will triumph, as my great American countryman once said, standing, I believe, in this very hall; but I am absolutely convinced that it is more difficult to triumph over a person who reads poetry than over someone who does not read them.

Of course, it's a hell of a circuitous route from St. Petersburg to Stockholm, but for someone in my profession, the idea that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points has long since lost its appeal. Therefore, I am pleased to know that geography also has its own highest justice.

Lnnushkin, V. I. What is eloquence? / V.I. Annushkin // Russian speech. - 2005. - No. 4.

Basovskaya, E. II. Rhetorical questions in modern journalism / E. N. Basovskaya // Russian speech. - 2004. - No. 1.

Belchikov K). A. Invective vocabulary in the context of some trends in modern Russian communication / Yu. A. Belchikov // Philological Sciences. -

Golovina, E. D. You have to be Cicero! / E. D. Golovina // Russian speech. - 2000. - No. 3.

Muravyova, N.V. Illogical language / N.V. Muravyova // Russian speech. - 2004. - No. 2.

Chudinov, A. P. New Russian metaphors / A. P. Chudinov // Russian speech. -

Chudinov, A. P. Financial metaphor in political speech / A. P. Chudinov // Russian speech. - 2003. - No. 4.

• See about this: Mshalskaya A.K. Fundamentals of rhetoric: Thought and word. M., 1996.
• “Is interfering in God’s affairs useful?” // Arguments and facts. 1998. No. 11.

Matveeva T.V.

(Ural University)

Norms of speech communication as

personal rights and responsibilities

One of the most significant functions of culture is the normative function [Bromley, 1991]. Culture creates the necessary conditions, forms an environment in which specific human states, relationships and actions are developed, and each individual person is socialized during his/her growing up. In their adult lives, people adhere to the developed cultural skills and pass them on to new generations. This is how culture as a whole is transmitted, and the culture of communication (including speech) is cross-cutting in nature, penetrating all cultural spheres. Thus, the culture of communication plays a vital role in ensuring the unity and reproduction of an ethnic group [Bgazhnokov, 1991].

The processes of verbal communication gradually lead to the development of specially motivated signs of culture [Tarasov, 1977, p. 90-91], which in their totality demonstrate the norms of speech interaction (according to Yu. Skrebnev, the social optimum is expressed in speech norms). In the speech life of an ethnos, stable speech and speech-behavioral patterns for repeated situations, or cultural stereotypes, are formed. Communication norms are spread and adopted precisely through the demonstration and assimilation of these patterns [Tarasov, 1994, p. 111].

Each cultural stereotype is a complex combination of social and individual, consecrated by national tradition as a socially favorable, harmonizing speech action or speech means. Fixation to a typical situation and a certain custom ensures the stability of cultural stereotypes, the individual way of using them provides extensive variability, the ability to reflect the nuances of the situation, as well as the social and psychological characteristics of the speaker.

The way to approve and protect speech cultural stereotypes as a realized norm of communication is most often informal sanctions and public opinion in

in general, i.e. The regulation here is not strict. Nevertheless, society quite actively comprehends the preference of one or another individual for signs of culture or signs of “anticulture”: for example, these problems are the subject of constant discussion both in the press and in the speech life of modern Russia.

Is the described picture reflected in theoretical and applied orthology?

Unfortunately no. The technique of cultural speech use has now been comprehended systematically and effectively: the dictionary and grammar of the modern Russian language have received an orthological interpretation and codification, and clichéd formulas of speech use have been partially recorded. The technological, procedural side of the norm remains outside the field of view of the theory of speech culture and orthological codification.

Selection of communicative and ethical,

components of speech culture [Skvortsov, 1996, p. 63], intensified with the development of functionalism and anthropocentrism in linguistics, the development of the concept of speech proficiency, which goes back to the concept of communicative competence [Krysin, 1994], promise changes and contribute to ensuring that the stable bulk of level orthology finally ceases to be the only way of orthological systematics. The second method can and should be taxonomy based on speech activity. The spheres of cultural and speech regulation correspond to the above-mentioned components of speech culture: communicative and ethical.

The two generic denotations behind these components are the communicative situation and the moral and ethical code of society. Each of them is a multifactorial and multielement formation and is characterized by a large number of options, reflecting a different combination of variables that make up the whole.

Let us dwell in more detail on the ethical component of communication, which is very important for Russians, whose mentality is characterized by a dominant morality [Mansurova, 1999, p. 98]. The ethical component is not included in the communicative situation as a separate feature. Ethics unites the bearers of all and any social roles on a single socio-cultural basis, and only then, on this common basis,

differentiates the rules of communication in relation to types of situations and the relationship of roles. Moreover, it is the area of ​​the universal that forms the core of an individual’s ethical speech behavior.

The description of the ethical component of speech culture, as a rule, is equated to the description of speech etiquette. Ethics directly comes down to etiquette: “Ethical standards are embodied in special etiquette speech formulas” [Lazutkina, 1998, p. 90]. Etiquette is classified either on a content-situational basis (from the idea of ​​an etiquette situation - “greeting”, “apology”, etc. - to its verbal embodiment in various social conditions), or without any basis at all. The somewhat natural bias for the linguistic approach towards the linguistic means of the phenomenon1 is too great here, and this completely covers up its (the phenomenon’s) speech-activity aspects.

Adequate reflection of the ethical component of speech culture requires a preliminary understanding of the controversial principle of scientific description and the basic terms of the classification being undertaken.

For the communicative (sociolinguistic) component of L.P. Krysin defines a situation as a basic concept, and the principle of description is the calculation of communicative situations, followed by a detailed analysis and description of the behavioral tactics of communicants [Krysin, 1994, p. 77]. Let us pay attention to the extralinguistic nature of the basic concept, as well as to the speech-activity approach in the classification and descriptive sphere.

The ethical component can only be described on the basis of an anthropocentric concept in linguistics. There is no doubt that when studying the ethical side of speech interactions, homo loquens - the person speaking - should be placed at the center of orthological constructions. Speech behavior is the behavior of the individual, and the individual, when dealing with the norm, is bound by responsibilities and endowed with rights.

Let us restore the half-forgotten (more precisely, not emphasized in orthology) connection between the concepts of “norm” and “instruction”, “obligation”, as well as “norm” and “opportunity”, “right”. The dichotomy of the terms of right / obligation emphasizes not only the personal principle in

1 In this case, the phenomenon is due from the point of view of morality and the national cultural tradition, speech behavior of the individual.

the phenomenon under study (the rights and responsibilities belong to a person in relation to other persons), but also the idea of ​​relationship, the interconnection of communicants. The rights vested in a given person are inevitably associated with the performance of certain responsibilities - by that person and his speech partners. The fundamental value of the speech culture of the individual and society as a whole is probably maintaining a balance of rights and obligations of both sides of speech communication.

With the outlined approach, the speech activity norm of communication appears as a collection of speech communicative duties and individual rights. In relation to the ethical component of speech culture2, the basic concept can be considered the national cultural and speech tradition, and the principle of description is the calculation of the basic ethical attitudes of speech communication with the subsequent description of the behavioral implementation of these attitudes in speech tactics and methods of speech use used by communicants in all or some situations .

The ethical line of verbal communication is ensured not only by special formulas of politeness and parallel nominations of different stylistic colors. Ethical balance is also achieved through speech behavioral operations in the field of all text categories (people communicate through texts) and the choice of speech strategies.

The formulation of the ethical content of communication is fundamentally variable, and it is necessary for the speaker: the option is carried out on the basis of ethical guidelines and psychological characteristics communicants (the leading anthropological factor), but also taking into account the sphere of speech activity (intralinguistically, this is a factor of functional style), as well as the social roles of communicants (intralinguistically, it is a factor of speech proficiency, or speech competence). When describing the core of the ethical component - general ethical standards - factors of secondary importance can be pushed aside. A complete description of the component requires taking into account all three groups of factors.

To demonstrate the stated provisions, we will focus on parity as the main ethical principle of verbal communication [Lazutkina, 1998, p. 90] and politeness as its main

cultural landmark [Sirotinina, 1995, p. 38]. In terms of analysis, colloquial texts as material for relaxed informal verbal communication, those with a psychological goal, i.e. communication itself, communication as a humanitarian value, is placed by communicants above informational and logical goals. Such a hierarchy of goals - phatic communication, according to T. Vinokur - is typical for conversational conversation, chatter as a conversational genre, perhaps for flirting. For comparison, the official business style is chosen as a set of texts with opposite dominants, primarily with the dominance of logical content.

The focus on phatic communication gives each communicant the following rights: 1) to subordinate the logical content of the conversation to the phatic content, aimed at communication itself; 2) for self-affirmation and open self-expression; 3) to axiological freedom, i.e. the ability to subject any subject of speech and component of a communicative act to individual subjective assessments; 4) to regulate the partner’s speech behavior within the framework of normative and cultural interactions and in accordance with one’s own attitudes and well-being; 5) on individual speech style: 6) on reciprocity on the part of the speech partner in all parameters of communication.

The named rights (the intuitively collected list of them is, of course, very approximate) turn into the following responsibilities for the communicant: 1) master the technique of phatic communication and subordination of the logical content of speech to it; 2) master the methods of self-expression and know the border between culture and “anticulture” in this area; 3) use a wide range of assessments, correlating them with the system of moral rules of the cultural community and with the personality of their speech partner; 4) remember the reciprocity of communicative interests and adequately respond to the regulation of your speech by your partner; 5) correlate individual habits and creative needs with the cultural-speech set of communicative qualities of speech and the speech competence of the partner, observe the measure in the field of speech freedom; 6) maintain a modal politeness strategy.

Technologically, the realization of the rights and responsibilities of an individual is expressed in specific speech-activity operations, an inventory of which should form the “body” of a scientific description of the ethical component of speech communication. The basis for grouping such operations is not yet clear, but grouping into

terms of rights and duties, focusing on the first dichotomy from the above lists: the right to subordinate the logical content of the conversation to the phatic and the obligation to master the cultural technique of phatic communication. In a generalized textual form, this right is realized as the admissibility of the polythematic nature of the subject-logical series in phatic speech communication under the influence of subjective-modal dominance.

In a more specific operational view, from the perspective of the rights/responsibilities of the communicator, the following is observed:

1. The communicant has the right to initiate a subject topic that is interesting from his point of view for joint discussion.

The obligations imposed on the initiator are that the topic must be acceptable from a general ethical position (objective-ethical aspect), as well as from the ethical position of the speech partner (subjective-ethical aspect). The themes of the initial episodes in colloquial-phatic genres have long been comprehended and are largely international. These include news, weather, art and other topics focused on entertainment and optimism.

Phatic communication traditionally imposes restrictions on complex and painful topics of everyday life, a set of which is also meaningful in the cultural tradition (death, personal tragedies, etc.). If these topics cannot be avoided, then they are not initiated at the very beginning of communication and are not discussed deeply and extensively. The exception is conversation - a joint complaint, which is in circulation in Russian speech life.

The key verbs of thematic initiatives are SPEAK / SAY, TELL AND HEAR / LISTEN, LISTEN. The repertoire of remarks includes standard formulas: they say that...; you have already heard that...; listen to what happened yesterday..., as well as individual options: You'll never guess what happened yesterday! Well, yesterday you looked like you were looking into water...; No, it’s still in vain that they don’t hire me as a psychic...

An attitude of politeness and parity obliges the communicator to request a specific topic from time to time.

speech partner, i.e. transfer to him the right of initiative in the subject area: Tell us about yours, please. What's new with you? Well, who does what and how?

For comparison, in a business conversation there is an operational similarity (the phatic beginning is necessary to create a comfortable atmosphere of communication), but the selection of initial topics is much stricter, the repertoire of replicas of the thematic initiative is more standard.

2. At the stage of development of a subject-logical topic, the communicant has the right to a relatively extensive development of the conversation (oriented towards the general laws of logic and rhetoric: division into subtopics, argumentation and illustration, comparison, etc.), as well as the obligation to correct this process in depending on the role of the speech partner. A partner can be an equal developer of the topic, an attentive listener, an opponent of the speaker, etc., so the options for deploying the topic will be very different.

The harmonious flow of the phatic genre presupposes constant concern for speech equality or, in the case of recognized inequality, respect for the role status of communicants. It is the responsibility of each communicator to ensure that the speech partner is interested in the topic and to show their own interest or disinterest. If the speech partner participates in the development of the topic through lengthy statements, clarifying questions, “assent” and emotional reactions, then the initiator has the right to continue the subject topic. If the intellectual and emotional activity of the speech partner tends to zero, then there is thematic rejection or thematic fatigue, and then the interlocutor who proposed the topic is obliged to change it or respond to the partner’s proposal for a replacement.

In a business dialogue, the communicator has the right to thematic movement only within the framework of a given subject-conceptual layer, dictated by the practical and pragmatic purpose of communication. An arbitrary proposal of an unrelated topic is not accepted (although it may indicate an additional hidden strategy of the initiator).

Setting up parity requires changing roles and constantly balancing between one’s own interests and the interests of the interlocutor. Cultural imbalance can be restored through special speech techniques. Thus, abuse in the subject-thematic sphere, desire

speaking on a certain topic more than the speech partner wishes can be regulated by the latter with the help of “speech restraints”: “zero reaction” to what is being said, which after some time is realized by the communicative leader (normal); a brief remark aimed at closing the topic: Well, this is the same as always; I've already been told about this; You already said; Yes, yes, it happens, but it’s hard to believe; Do you think so?; a slight rebuke to the interlocutor: Is it worth worrying so much? In my opinion, this is nothing; Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Restraining someone else's speech, especially emotionally charged, is an action whose ethics are always in question. This is a complex speech cultural technique, bordering on manifestations of “anticulture”; it is regulated by the tact of the interlocutors, and there are fewer speech standards here.

3. Replacing the subject-logical topic is a way to advance the conversation in a subjective-modal direction. Probably, each genre of phatic communication is characterized by its own rhythms of thematic fragments, but in any of them the speakers change subject-logical topics. This operation is reflected in the corresponding clichéd constructions: Shouldn’t we change the subject? Let's move on to another topic; This is a difficult topic; It is better not to touch on this topic, etc. and nominations: a sore subject; blessed topic; similar topic, etc. Thematic range is regulated using large quantity individualized reactions, often in the form of a hint: Don’t rub salt in my wound; Don't touch on a topic that is sore for me.

Perhaps the volume of subject-logical development of a topic in relaxed informal communication is regulated by national speech culture not only logically and psychologically, but also biologically. “Thematic fatigue” can be determined, in particular, by biological rhythms, climatic fluctuations, and the state of health of the speaker.

4. Completion of the text of the analyzed genres is characterized by the elimination of the subject-logical theme (topics) in favor of the subjective-modal content sphere. Only a reminder of the topic is used: About... I'll call you tomorrow; Oh... don't worry, everything will be fine; s... - you did it great. The examples already given show that the speakers made a selection of topics raised earlier. When parting, they mention the topic that made the greatest impression and was presented as the most significant for the interlocutor, i.e. functionally paramount. This role may be

both practically important and purely intellectual or aesthetically interesting.

Each of the positions discussed above can be transformed into a number of cultural and speech recommendations - operational rules for constructing a text of a certain style and genre. Let us mentally add a similar consideration of other categories and the derivation of evaluation rules, psychological self-disclosure of influence on the interlocutor. In general, behind their set there will be a linguoculturological phenomenon of the rights and responsibilities of the individual in speech communication.

The antinomy of speech communicative rights and obligations can be placed at the center of a communicative orthology, which will be capable of describing typical speech operations when generating a text, as well as defining different types of personality in speech communication: a law-abiding communicant and one who violates the laws of communication, one who exceeds and underestimates his rights, etc. d. The main thing is that orthology with this approach can become not a warehouse of things, but a guide to action.

Literature

Bgazhnokov B.Kh. Culture of communication and semiosis // Ethno-sign functions of culture. M., 1991.

Bromley S.V. Ethnic functions of culture and ethnography // Ethno-sign functions of culture. M., 1991.

Krysin L.P. Language proficiency: linguistic and sociocultural aspects // Language - culture - ethnicity. M., 1994. Lazutkina E.M. Ethics of speech communication and etiquette formulas of speech // Culture of Russian speech. Textbook for universities / Ed. OK. Graudina and E.N. Shiryaeva. M., 1998.

Mansurova V.D. Instance of truth: on the relationship between the norms of language and law in public communication // Legalinguistics-1: problems and prospects. Barnaul, 1999.

Skvortsov L.I. Modern domestic and foreign research in the field of speech culture // Culture of Russian speech and the effectiveness of communication. M., 1996.

Sirotinina O.B. Culture. communication // Language and communication. Saratov, 1995.

Tarasov E.F. The place of verbal communication in the communicative act // National-cultural specificity of speech behavior. M., 1977. Tarasov E.F. Language and culture: methodological problems // Language - culture - ethnicity. M., 1994.

Major foreign scientists G.P. Grice and J.N. Leach formulated maxims (rules) and principles establishing the obligations of the speaker in relation to the addressee and vice versa in speech communication. The most important criteria of the communication code are:

criterion of truth, which is defined as fidelity to reality;

a criterion of sincerity, which is defined as being true to oneself.

The main principles of the communication code are:

G. Grice's principle of cooperation;

J. Leach's principle of politeness.

The principle of cooperation of G. P. Grice includes 4 maxims:

maxim of completeness (quantity) of information;

information quality maxim;

maxim of relevance;

maxim of manner (way).

The maxim of completeness of information is associated with the dosage of information necessary for the act of communication. The postulates to this maxim are:

the statement must contain no less information than required;

the statement should contain no more information than required.

The maxim of information quality is specified by the following postulates:

do not say what you consider to be false;

do not say anything for which you do not have sufficient grounds.

The maxim of relevance actually presupposes only one postulate:

don't deviate from the topic.

In the real process of communication, it is not at all built around one topic: in a real speech act, there are frequent transitions from one topic to another, going beyond the currently discussed topic, and interference from the outside. However, as a strategic goal, “staying on topic” is of paramount importance precisely for maintaining contact. Psychologists are well aware that the attention of the audience is scattered if it is not able to connect the statement being spoken at the moment with the topic announced by the lecturer.

The maxim of manner involves an assessment of the way information is conveyed and is associated not with what is said, but with how it is said. The general postulate of this maxim is to express yourself clearly, and the particular postulates are as follows:

avoid unclear expressions;

avoid ambiguity;

be brief;

be organized.

Loss of clarity can result from inappropriate or poor wording and an imbalance between the known and the unknown.

Grice's maxims deepen ideas about the traditional criteria of speech culture (correctness, accuracy, appropriateness, expressiveness, brevity), although they are not identical to them: these are not only the rules of speech culture, but also aesthetic, moral, social postulates.

The principle of politeness. If the principle of cooperation characterizes the order of joint operation of information in the structure of a communicative act, then the principle of politeness is the principle of the relative position of speakers in the structure of a speech act. J. Leach, formulating the principle of politeness, provided the following maxims:

maxim of tact;

maxim of generosity;

maxim of approval;

maxim of modesty;

maxim of agreement;

Maxim of sympathy.

Compliance with the principle of politeness creates an environment of positive interaction and provides a favorable background for the implementation of communication strategies.

The maxim of tact involves respecting the boundaries of the interlocutor’s personal sphere. Each speech act contains an area of ​​general speech acts and an area of ​​private interests. The maxim of tact recommends that the speaker be careful regarding the speech strategy and the area of ​​private interests of the interlocutor.

Maxim of generosity (maxim of not burdening the interlocutor). In fact, it protects interlocutors from dominating the speech act.

The maxim of approval is a maxim of positivity in evaluating others. The discrepancy with the interlocutor in the direction of assessing the world greatly affects the possibility of implementing one’s own communication strategy.

The maxim of modesty is the maxim of non-acceptance of praise addressed to oneself. Realistic self-esteem is one of the conditions for the successful deployment of a speech act.

The maxim of agreement is the maxim of non-opposition. Instead of deepening the contradiction that arose during communication, this maxim recommends a search for agreement in order for the act of communication to reach a productive conclusion.

Speech culture is understood as mastery of the norms of the literary language in its oral and written form, in which the selection and organization of linguistic means are carried out, allowing, in a certain communication situation and subject to communication ethics, to ensure the necessary effect in achieving the communication goals.

In linguistic literature it is traditional to talk about two stages of mastering a literary language: correctness of speech and speech skills.

Right, as one of the main communicative qualities of speech, it presupposes compliance with norms at all speech levels. Ratings in various ways linguistic expressions are definite and categorical: right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable, both are acceptable, etc.

Speech skill involves not only following norms, but also the ability to choose from coexisting options the most semantically accurate, stylistically appropriate, expressive, and intelligible. The evaluations of the options are as follows: better, worse, truer, clearer, more accurate, etc.

Speech culture contains three components: normative, communicative and ethical.

Ethical aspect speech culture prescribes knowledge and application of the rules of linguistic behavior in specific situations. Ethical standards of communication mean speech etiquette ( speech formulas greetings, requests, questions, thanks, congratulations, etc.; addressing “you” and “you”; choice of full or abbreviated name, address formula, etc.).

The use of speech etiquette is greatly influenced by factors: the age of the participants in a speech act (purposeful speech act), their social status, the nature of the relationship between them (official, informal, friendly, intimate), time and place of speech interaction, etc.

The ethical component of the culture of speech imposes a strict ban on foul language in the process of communication and condemns speaking in “raised tones.”

Communicative expediency is considered one of the main categories of the theory of speech culture, therefore it is important to know the basic communicative qualities of speech and take them into account in the process of speech interaction.

In accordance with the requirements of the communicative aspect of speech culture, native speakers must master the functional varieties of language, as well as focus on the pragmatic conditions of communication, which significantly influence the optimal choice and organization of speech means for a given case. The communicative qualities of speech that have the best impact on the addressee, taking into account the specific situation and in accordance with the goals and objectives set, include: accuracy, clarity, richness and variety of speech, its purity, expressiveness.

Accuracy as a sign of speech culture is determined by the ability to think clearly and clearly, knowledge of the subject of speech and the laws of the Russian language. Accuracy of speech is most often associated with accuracy of word usage. It is violated as a result of insufficient knowledge of the peculiarities of the Russian language. The most typical of them are: the use of words in a meaning that is unusual for them; polysemy not eliminated by the context, giving rise to ambiguity; mixing of homonyms and paronyms.

Richness and variety, originality the speech of the speaker or writer largely depends on how much he is aware of what his originality consists of native language, his wealth. The richness of a language is determined by: the richness of the vocabulary (first of all); the semantic richness of the word, i.e. its polysemy; use of synonyms; word formation; expression; figurative phraseology.

Expressiveness speech enhances its effectiveness: vivid speech arouses interest, maintains attention to the subject of conversation, has an impact on the mind and feelings, and on the imagination of listeners. The resources of expressive means in language are inexhaustible. They are found at all its levels, especially at the lexical level. This is explained by the fact that the word not only names an object, quality, action, state, but is also capable of conveying the speaker’s attitude, his assessment (positive, negative), his emotions (disapproval, neglect, affection, love, delight), indicating the degree of manifestation sign, action, i.e. to be expressive (burn and glow, big and gigantic). Also, the expressiveness of speech largely depends on the extent to which the person creating it is familiar with artistic techniques, traditionally called tropes and figures.

Verbosity, or speech redundancy, most often manifests itself in the use of unnecessary words, which indicate not only stylistic negligence, they also indicate the vagueness and uncertainty of the speaker’s ideas about the subject of speech, which often comes to the detriment of information content, obscuring main idea statements.

Speech redundancy can take the form of pleonasm, which is understood as the simultaneous use of words that are close in meaning and therefore unnecessary (anticipate in advance, dark darkness, the main essence, everyday routine, valuable treasure, etc.). Often pleonasms are born by combining synonyms (long and lasting; bold and courageous; only; however, nevertheless). A type of pleonasm is tautology, that is, repetition of the same thing in other words (“in the month of August”, “schematic plan”, “five miners”, “seven pieces of transformers”, etc.).

Tautology can arise when repeating words with the same root (tell a story), as well as when combining a Russian and a foreign word that duplicates its meaning (debuted for the first time, a memorable souvenir). However, individual combinations of this type have become so entrenched in speech that they can no longer be classified as speech defects. These include, for example, such as “time period”, “monumental monument”, “real reality”, “exhibitions of the exhibition”, “second-hand book”.

12) Aspects of the culture of speech communication:

Normative – what we say is right or wrong

Communicative – associated with the implementation of language norms in communication and with the stylistics of the Russian language

Ethical - speech etiquette; most popular forms: congratulations, gratitude, question, request, greeting

Platonics is a subject that teaches how to compose letters concisely so as not to receive a negative answer. First humiliate yourself, then ask.

There are methodological requirements for teacher speech:

Must speak quietly so that the student can hear him; you can't be loud so as not to create stressful situation;

Must speak clearly;

Speak at an average speed of 120 words per minute;

It is desirable to be able to use pauses, especially psychological ones;

Must be able to speak with intonation, logical emphasis in phrases (underlining, emphasis, highlighting);

Speech Requirements:

Correct speech

Accuracy of information

Logic

Cleanliness (no jargon, uh)

Expressiveness

Wealth

Relevance

Related information.

The principles of life of any organization predetermine the characteristics of official and business communication and largely explain the nature of the requirements for speech communication in the business environment. These requirements can be formulated as follows:

Clearly define the purpose of your message

Make the message understandable and accessible to different groups of workers: find specific illustrations of general concepts, develop the general idea using vivid examples.

Keep your messages as short and concise as possible, avoid unnecessary information, and draw the attention of employees only to those problems that specifically concern them.

When talking with employees, follow the rules of active listening, show them signals of your understanding and readiness for joint action.

Thus, the above rules must be observed equally both in a conversation between two business interlocutors and in group communication. At the same time, their use and concrete manifestation in a business conversation and at a business meeting has its own characteristics.

§ 2. Business conversation

Business conversation – This is a conversation primarily between two interlocutors; accordingly, its participants can and should take into account the specific characteristics of each other’s personality, motives, speech characteristics, i.e. communication is largely interpersonal in nature and involves a variety of ways of verbal and non-verbal influence of partners on each other

In Management Theory, conversation is considered as a type of business communication, a specially organized substantive conversation that serves to solve management problems. Unlike business negotiations, which are much more strictly structured and, as a rule, are conducted between representatives of different organizations (or divisions of the same organization), a business conversation, although it always has a specific subject, is more personally oriented and more often occurs between representatives of the same organization.

Goals and objectives of business conversation

To the number purposes requiring business conversations, can be attributed, firstly, to the desire of one interlocutor through a word to exert a certain influence on another, to arouse a desire in another person or group to take action in order to change the existing business situation or business relations, in other words, to create a new business situation or new business relationship between the participants in the conversation; secondly, the need for the manager to develop appropriate decisions based on an analysis of the opinions and statements of employees.

Compared to other types of speech communication business conversation has the following advantages:

Responsiveness to the statements of interlocutors, contributing to the achievement of goals.

Increasing the manager's competence by taking into account, critically checking and evaluating opinions, proposals, ideas, objections and criticisms expressed in the conversation.

The possibility of a more flexible, differentiated approach to the subject of discussion as a result of understanding the context of the conversation, as well as the goals of each party.

Business conversation thanks to the effect feedback, which is most clearly manifested in direct interpersonal interaction, allows the manager to respond to the partner’s statements in accordance with the specific situation, i.e. taking into account the purpose, subject and interests of the partners.

When conducting business conversations, it is advisable to follow the rules of effective verbal communication formulated in the first chapter. At the same time business conversation how direct interaction between its two participants must be built on the basis of the following important principles:

Conscious adjustment to the level of the interlocutor, taking into account the content of the tasks he performs, his powers and areas of responsibility, life and work experience, interests, characteristics of his thinking and speech.

Rational organization of the conversation process, which first of all means summary interlocutors of the content of information on the topic under discussion, because lengthy presentation and redundant information complicate the assimilation of the most essential things.

Simplicity, imagery, clarity of language as a condition for the clarity of information, and therefore, orientation towards the interlocutor.