Speech culture during discussion. Culture of discussion and polemical speech

I. Dispute: definition and typology.

A dispute is a clash of opinions and positions, during which each side argues for its understanding of the issues under discussion and seeks to refute the arguments of the other side.

A dispute is also a public discussion of problems of interest to the participants in the discussion, caused by the desire to understand the issues under discussion as deeply and thoroughly as possible: it is a clash of different points of view in the process of proof and refutation.

The art of arguing is eristics.

Dispute is called the highest form of human communication, since in this type of communication a person is required to have all the skills in the field of speech culture, psychological influence, etc. Dispute is not homogeneous. There are various classifications of it. Let us dwell on the most common one, dividing the dispute by ends and means.

Types of dispute:

1). Discussion from the Latin discussio - consideration, research - a dispute aimed at achieving the truth and using only correct methods of arguing. This is a method of solving controversial problems and a unique way of cognition. It allows us to better understand what is not fully clear and has not yet found a convincing justification. And even if the participants in the discussion do not ultimately come to an agreement, they definitely achieve better mutual understanding during the discussion.

2).Controversy(polemique - from the Greek polemikos - warlike, hostile) - a dispute aimed at winning over the opposite side and using only correct techniques. The goal of polemics is not to achieve agreement, but to defeat the other side and assert one’s own point of view. Each of them uses those methods that he finds necessary to achieve victory, and does not take into account how much they correspond to the ideas of other participants in the debate about acceptable methods of argument.

3). Eclecticism is a debate that aims to achieve truth, but also uses incorrect methods for this. In the most general sense, eclecticism is a combination of heterogeneous, internally unrelated and possibly incompatible ideas, concepts, styles, etc.

4). Sophistry is a dispute aimed at achieving victory over the opposing side using both correct and incorrect techniques.

In business communication and in the scientific community, the first two types of dispute should be used - discussion and polemics, since it is in these disputes that the correct techniques are honed to help the arguer achieve his goal. No one forbids the use of sophistry and eclecticism, but due to the fact that the method of conducting these disputes is based on dishonest and unacceptable methods, a person who resorts to these methods or organizes a dispute according to these forms will not inspire confidence and will not deserve respect in business. environment.

II. Requirements for the general organization of the dispute.

1. You should not argue unless absolutely necessary. If there is an opportunity to reach agreement without dispute, it should be used.

2. Every dispute must have its own topic, its own subject.

3. Another condition for the fruitfulness of a dispute: its topic should not change or be replaced by another throughout the entire dispute. This requirement presupposes compliance with the law of identity: the topic of the dispute throughout the entire dispute must be identical to itself.

Clarification and specification of the positions of the disputants is an important point in the dispute. But you still need to constantly keep in mind the main line of the dispute and try not to stray too far from it. If the subject of the dispute has changed, it is advisable to specifically pay attention to this and emphasize that a dispute regarding a new subject is, in essence, a different, and not the same, dispute.

Try to monitor the narrowing or broadening of the topic of the dispute, as this affects the argumentative process and the overall outcome of the dispute.

4. A dispute occurs only if there are incompatible ideas about the same object, phenomenon, etc.

5. The dispute presupposes a certain commonality of the parties’ initial positions, a certain common basis for them. Every dispute is based on certain premises; there are no precondition-free disputes. The commonality of the basis ensures the initial mutual understanding of the disputants and provides the platform on which the confrontation can unfold.

6. Successful argumentation requires a certain knowledge of logic. First of all, it assumes the ability to draw consequences from one’s own and others’ statements, notice contradictions, and identify the lack of logical connections between statements. Usually, for all these purposes, intuitive logic and spontaneously developed skills of correct reasoning are sufficient.

In particular, knowledge of the laws of logic will allow you to notice

Substitution of the topic (law of identity)

The fact that an opponent challenges his own affirmative statement on any issue (the law of contradiction)

An attempt to derive some average knowledge from two contradictory arguments, one of which denies the second (the law of the excluded middle)

Lack of reliable and sufficient evidence base (law of sufficient cause)

You can study the basic laws of logic in more detail by referring to specialized textbooks on logic.

7. The dispute requires a certain knowledge of the things in question.

8. You should not make major mistakes in the strategy and tactics of the dispute, but try to be flexible.

Strategy is the most general principles of argumentation, bringing some statements to justify or reinforce others.

Tactics is the search and selection of arguments or reasons that are the most convincing from the point of view of the topic being discussed in a given audience, as well as reactions to the counterarguments of the other side in the dispute.

Flexibility: Having entered into a dispute and having understood your attitude to the subject under discussion, you must firmly stand on your position, trying to make it as definite and clear as possible. Allegories, hypotheses, lack of direct answers - all this blurs the boundaries of a position, making the dispute evasive, or even simply lacking in substance. Sometimes evasiveness is good, but only sometimes. The rule should be a clear, unambiguously expressed position. The most common are two extreme ways of arguing: compliance and rigidity. More effective, however, is a method that is neither rigid nor compliant, but rather combines the features of both. Where possible, it is necessary to look for points of contact and coincidence of views, and where the latter come into conflict, to insist on a decision based on impartial criteria that are independent of the disputing parties. Flexibility also presupposes the ability to admit your mistakes.

III. Theory of argumentation.

Argumentation and its components.

The concept of argumentation - This is an activity related to the selection, evaluation and use of special provisions that serve as grounds (arguments, arguments) for proving or refuting a certain statement (thesis or antithesis).

Argumentation components:

1). Subject of argument- controversial position.

2). Object of argument – theses of the parties. If the controversial position determines the subjectivity or non-objectivity of the argument, then the theses of the parties are the positions of each of the participants in the discussion in relation to the controversial position, their vision of the controversial position. Argumentation on both sides is carried out in relation to the theses.

Thesis- an idea or position, the truth of which must be proven to each of the participants in the dispute. See below for the thesis requirements.

Requirements for the thesis.

1). Logical requirements:

The thesis must be a plausible proposition, the truth of which must be clarified by evidence (argumentation). A thesis cannot be an axiom or postulate.

The thesis must have a clear and precise formulation. This presupposes compliance with the literary norms of the language and grammatical correctness.

The thesis cannot be elements of proof, since it is its final link - a conclusion, a consequence.

The thesis statement should not include mutually exclusive judgments.

The thesis must be self-identical throughout the entire argumentation procedure, otherwise the law of identity is violated.

2). Linguistic requirements:

When formulating a thesis, the appearance of ambiguity, polysemy, synonymy, and homonymy should be excluded.

The thesis must be formulated according to the rules of literary language (be grammatically correct).

The formulation of the thesis should not include figurative expressions, metaphors, comparisons, hyperboles, linguistic archaisms, etc.

The thesis must be formulated in the same language both at the beginning of the argumentation process and at its end (conclusion). For example, if the thesis was indicated in the form of a diagram or graph, then in the conclusion it should also be mentioned in the form of a diagram or graph.

3). Actual requirements:

The basis of a thesis cannot be a single fact, but must be a system of facts. This requirement also prohibits the use of a trivial fact (for example, everyday experience) as a basis.

The thesis must be based on a factual basis, linked to experience or theory, experimental data. Without a factual database, it is impossible to formulate a thesis as a statement.

You cannot formulate a thesis too narrowly or too broadly within the given subject of dispute.

4). Organizational requirements:

The thesis should always be recorded, implementing fixation in the list of controversial provisions that are subject to proof.

The dynamics of the thesis allows you to make changes to the list of provisions and abandon previously adopted provisions.

5). Position requirements:

The thesis must fully and adequately express the position of the subject of the dispute in relation to the controversial position. Position in a dispute is an attitude towards the subject of the dispute, and not towards the opponent.

It is possible to change the thesis during a dispute only in connection with verification or falsification of the thesis, narrowing or expanding its scope. Changing thesis due to a change in position is unacceptable.

Basic mistakes regarding the thesis:

Substitution of the thesis, unconscious or deliberate replacement of it in the course of proof with some other statement. Consequence - what is being proven is not what was required to be proven.

Narrowing the thesis. The consequence is that it remains unproven.

Expansion of the thesis. Consequence - additional reasons will be needed, time to search for them, select, systematize and include them in the overall system.

Requirements for arguments.

Basic requirement what happens in the relationship between an argument and a thesis is called appropriateness or admissibility arguments. Relevant arguments are:

pro (proving their own thesis);

contra (refuting the opponent’s thesis);

arguments expressing doubt about the validity of a particular thesis.

1). Logical requirements:

An argument must be a true statement. Not plausible, not probabilistic, but true.

The argument must be consistent.

The argument must be self-identical throughout the entire period.

2). Methodological requirements:

Comprehensiveness of the system of arguments: to substantiate a thesis, an integrated approach to arguments is required - justification with the help of facts, theorems, definitions, theorems.

Specificity: substantiation with the help of arguments of a specific side of the thesis.

Objectivity: ideally, arguments should express not the subjective position of the disputant, but a factually and theoretically justified presentation and development of the controversial position (exposition of the subject of the dispute).

Completeness. It is expressed in the presence of levels: a). sufficiency of arguments to prove the thesis; b) measures of relationships between theoretical and practical; V). the relationship between the content and the formal.

Direct proof.

With direct proof, the task is to find such convincing arguments that, according to logical rules, a thesis is obtained.

In constructing a direct proof, two interconnected stages can be distinguished: finding those recognized statements that can be convincing arguments for the position being proven; establishing a logical connection between the found arguments and the thesis. Often the first stage is considered preparatory, and proof is understood as a logical conclusion connecting the selected arguments and the thesis being proven.

Indirect evidence.

Indirect evidence establishes the validity of the thesis by revealing the fallacy of the opposite assumption (antithesis).

Since indirect evidence uses the negation of the proposition being proven, it is, as they say, proof by contradiction.

Types of indirect evidence:

1)Consequences that contradict the facts. Most often, the falsity of the antithesis can be established by simply comparing the consequences arising from it with the facts. The consequence of the antithesis, and therefore it itself, is refuted by reference to an obvious circumstance.

2). Internally contradictory consequences. According to the logical law of contradiction, one of two contradictory statements is false. Therefore, if among the consequences of a proposition there are both an affirmation and a negation of the same thing, we can immediately say that this proposition is false. For example, the statement “A square is a circle” is false because it implies both that a square has corners and that it does not have corners.

a) Deriving a logical contradiction from the antithesis: if the antithesis contains a contradiction, it is clearly erroneous. Then its negation - the thesis of the proof - is true.

b). Reduction to the absurd: we mean only that part of such evidence that shows the fallacy of any assumption. The fallacy of the assumption is revealed by the fact that absurdity is deduced from it, i.e. logical contradiction.

Errors in the proof.

1). A formal error occurs when the conclusion is not based on a logical law and the conclusion does not follow from the accepted premises. Sometimes this error is abbreviated as “does not flow.”

Let's say someone thinks like this: “If I visit my uncle, he will give me a camera, when my uncle gives me a camera, I will sell it and buy a bicycle: that means if I visit my uncle, I will sell it and buy a bicycle.”

A subtype of this error is chaotic, amorphous reasoning. Outwardly they take the form of evidence and even pretend to be considered evidence. They contain the words “thus”, “therefore”, “means” and similar ones, designed to indicate the logical connection of the arguments and the position being proven. But these reasonings are not actually evidence, since logical connections are replaced in them by psychological associations.

2). Substantiating a thesis using false arguments.

3). A circle in proof: the validity of the proposition being proven is justified by means of the same proposition, expressed, perhaps, in a slightly different form. If what still needs to be proven is taken as the basis of the proof, the thought being justified is deduced from itself, and what is obtained is not a proof, but empty walking in a circle.

V. Types of arguments.

In rhetoric, there are several options for approaches to classifying arguments, but they all work with the same types of arguments, which are important for us to understand. Differences in typology naming are secondary.

Arguments for pathos.

They constitute a group of psychological techniques of influence, since they appeal to the feelings, emotions of the opponent and/or the audience, manipulating these feelings. Traditionally they are divided into threats and promises. The threat lies in the fact that the speaker shows what unpleasant consequences the adoption of a particular decision is fraught with. The promise, on the contrary, is that some improvements are associated with the adoption of a particular decision. We can say that the arguments of this group can be combined under the name “arguments to man.”

Almost all of the arguments listed below relate to incorrect, unacceptable methods in a dispute, since they are either means of changing the subject of the dispute, changing the thesis, or means of manipulating the feelings of the audience and opponent in order to suppress the opponent’s will, introduce chaos into his argumentation system, and confuse .

1). Argument to the individual from the negative – an indication of the opponent’s fictitious or real shortcomings (professional, personal) in order to instill distrust in him, in his position on a controversial issue, in order to win the opponent over to his side.

2). Argument to the individual from the positive- an indication of the imaginary or real dignity of someone (as a rule, when using this argument, the person or group of persons whose merits are pointed out are the subject of a dispute) in order to arouse sympathy for the person/group of persons under discussion, to divert suspicion from them of committing negative actions.

3). Argument to Vanity– praise, compliments, often unfounded, to the opponent in order to soften his opposition.

4). Argument for pity- the desire to evoke a feeling of pity and compassion in opponents and thereby win them over to one’s side.

5). Argument to the public- the speaker tries to attract listeners to his side and thus confront opponents, which often happens at rallies and in court. It is used, as is clear from its definition, during public disputes.

Arguments for ethos.

They are made up of ethical arguments, which are usually divided on reasons for empathy and reasons for rejection. Both are based on moral ideas common to a given ethos (ethnic group, social group, people of the same faith, denomination). However, the support for them is no longer individual experience, as for arguments for pathos, but collective experience. Arguments for empathy presuppose collective recognition of certain positions, and arguments for rejection presuppose their collective rejection and rejection.

3). Argument to authority represented by the disputant– indication of one’s own opinion as authoritative; used when the person arguing is an expert, a professional in some field, or an official authority figure.

4). Argument to the model- an indication of positive authoritative or usual, traditional behavior, decision, action that needs to be taken as a model. “How and what to do.” “This is good, because this is what so-and-so said and did, his behavior and words are approved by society, etc.”

5). Argument to the anti-model- an indication of an action, decision, action that does not need to be followed. Using an authoritative, well-known personality will also be effective here. Accompanied by censure and indignation.

6). Argument to precedent- an indication of a historical, eventful, cultural fact that has become a norm or antinorm for subsequent facts or which can be presented as a norm or antinorm. For example: prevent a repeat of the 1917 revolution (history); do not behave like Oblomov (cultural); don’t cheat, otherwise last time I had to complete 4 difficult tasks (event-based) for cheating.

7). Argument to the norm– bringing a fact under a certain norm that justifies or refutes it.

8). Argument for benefit - stimulates the audience/opponent to become aware of their interests and to satisfy their needs if they accept the point of view of the disputant. Used in advertising and political debates.

. Review of correct tactics in dispute.

1. Initiative. In a dispute, it is important who sets the topic and how exactly it is defined. You need to be able to lead the argument according to your own scenario.

2. In a dispute, you should be on the offensive, not on the defensive. Even defense is better carried out with the help of an offensive. Instead of responding to the opponent's objections, one must force him to defend himself and respond to the objections raised against him. Anticipating his arguments, you can advance them yourself and refute them in advance, without waiting for him to express them.

3. K concentration of arguments - the accumulation of such arguments that, independently of others, support one’s own thesis and refute the opponent’s thesis. Tactically, it allows you to maneuver, painlessly abandon a refuted argument, and reduce the effect of the enemy’s counterargument. In the case of using concentration, arguments should be selected in such a way that if one of them is lost, others can be used with no less evidential impact. At the same time, your thesis should not suffer in any way from the loss of one argument: on the contrary, it is believed that if after the loss of one argument your position has not been shaken, then the thesis in the eyes of the audience and opponents began to look more persistent and strong.

4. The technique of deconcentration of arguments (division of the opponent’s argument system). It is a way to counter the strategy of concentration of arguments, the essence of which is to dismember the opponent’s system of arguments. It is expressed in the concentration of actions and arguments on the central link of the enemy’s argument system or on its weakest link. The difficulty here is finding a central core argument or a weak argument. Often the weak link is used by the opponent due to inexperience as a pivotal one, therefore, by destroying it, the entire system of the opponent’s arguments will collapse, and his thesis will turn out to be untenable and devoid of arguments.

5. The technique of refuting an opponent with his own arguments or similar techniques. From the premises he accepts, you should always try to derive consequences that support the thesis you are defending. Full quotation of the opponent, direct reflection/repetition of the structure of his argument, linguistic features, signs are allowed.

6. The effect of surprise can be used in many other ways. For example, hold back the most unexpected and important information until the end of the argument.

7. Don't prove the obvious. Refuse meaningless proof of axiomatic or trivial propositions, otherwise there is a chance of getting bogged down in verbosity and deviating from the thesis.

8. Preparing a strong argument: Don't use a strong argument without proper preparation. This preparation includes: asking clarifying questions, putting forward additional preparatory arguments; rejection of weak and dubious arguments; A strong argument, as a rule, is either recommended to be placed at the conclusion of the dispute, or to be presented not as a fact, but as a conclusion, reasoning.

Incorrect techniques.

Invalid arguments have already been discussed earlier, in the section on arguments to pathos. Let's look at common incorrect techniques and dispute strategies.

1. Substitution of the thesis. Can draw up a strategy for a dispute. Instead of substantiating the position being put forward, arguments are given in favor of another statement put forward instead of the one that was required to be proven.

Substitution of the thesis can be complete or partial. Feeling the impossibility of proving or justifying the position put forward, the arguer may try to switch attention to discussing another, perhaps important, statement, but not having a direct connection with the original position. Sometimes, instead of a thesis, some weaker statement that follows from it is proven. Subtypes of thesis substitution: expansion of the thesis and narrowing of the substantive subject field of the thesis.

2. Using false, unproven arguments and facts that are difficult or impossible to verify, in the hope that the other party will not notice. The use of false, unsaid or untested arguments is often accompanied by expressions: “everyone knows”, “it has long been established”, “quite obvious”, “no one will deny”, etc. The listener seems to be left with one thing: to reproach himself for not knowing what has long been known to everyone.

3. Deliberate obfuscation or confusion. Demagogy, deviation from the topic, thinking about nothing and everything. The speech of someone who uses this technique may contain some information, but it is extremely difficult to grasp.

4. Argument to physical strength ("to the stick")- threat of unpleasant consequences, in particular the threat of violence or the direct use of some means of coercion.

6. Sophistry- conclusions that are outwardly correct, but contain inside a conscious (unintentional) logical error. The basis may be: synonymy, homonymy, grammatical ambiguity, error of following, etc.

References:

1. Kurbatov V.I. Logics. Systematic course. Rostov n/d: “Phoenix”, 2001. - 512 p.

2. Ivin A.A. The art of thinking correctly. - Riga: Zinatne, 1990. - 237 p.

3. Ivin A.A. Logic for journalists: A textbook for faculty students. and the department of journalism. - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. - 221 p.

4. Ivin A.A. Rhetoric: the art of persuasion: Proc. allowance. - M.: Grand: Fair Press, 2002. - 299 p.

5. Lemmerman H. Lessons in rhetoric and debate: Prepared. to the performance. The art of eloquence. Argumentation technique. Pract. examples and training; Per. with him. [I.V. Volnodumsky]. - M.: Unicum Press, 2002. - 330 p.

6. Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Ed. V. I. Annushkina. - 3rd ed., rev. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2003. - 176 p.

CULTURE OF DISCUSSION-POLEMICAL SPEECH.

EducationdebatableOuchspeechand and culturedispute in Russian language classes with foreign students

Bruleva F.G.

Almaty, KazNPU named after. Abaya

1. The teacher's word.

Debate speech - a type of public speech when different and opposing points of view are expressed during spore, polemics, discussions.

This is a dialogical form of public speech, where dialogue closely merges with monologue. The structure of a discussion speech includes statements by the disputants and the presenter.

Words dispute, discussion, polemic- synonyms united by a common meaning public dispute. The word is stylistically neutral discussion, At its core is the struggle and unity of directly opposing opinions. Discussion presupposes non-stubborn an attempt to certainly defend one’s opinion, and a serious approach toreasoned, balanced advocacy their point of view on some socially significant issues in the presence listeners also interested in knowing the truth.

In today's world, a significant portion of business meetings aretechnical, public organizations are held in the form of discussions.

2. Drawing up a table.

Types of discussions by number of participants

Discussions vary in their goals and results

Types of discussions by purpose

IIIIII

Achieve general agreement Disassociate from Get to know the arguments

"opponents" of the opposite side

All participants accept Each side remains The controversial issue has not been resolved,

general point of view with your own opinion and points of view are uncertain

Types of discussions based on results

3 . Preparing fordispute. Analysis text from the point of view of discussion speech.

I . 1. Read a fragment of the article by writer A. Solzhenitsyn “Our Pluralists.”What do you know about the author?

2. What is "pluralism"?

3. What do opponents of pluralism argue?

4. What arguments are there in the text for pluralism?

From the article "Our pluralists"

They are united by a fairly long social movement,directed towards the past and future of our country, which has nogeneral name, but among the ideological characteristics he most often and most readily singles out “pluralism.” Following this, I also call them pluralists.

They consider “pluralism” to be the highest quality of the current Western life. They often formulate this principle: “how can more different opinions,” and the main thing is that no one seriously insists on the truth of his own.

However, can pluralism appear as a separate principle?and, moreover, among the highest? It's strange to have a simple pluralelevated to such a rank. Pluralism can only be a reminderabout the multitude of forms, yes, we readily admit, but the integral movementof humanity? In all strict sciences, i.e. based on mathematicsku, - there is only one truth, and therefore the universal natural orderdoes not offend. If the truth suddenly doubles, as in some areasmodern physics, then these are the outflows of one river, they are only each other support and affirm, and this is understood by everyone. And many more Is the prerogative of truths in the social sciences an indicator of our imperfection, and not at all of our cult of “pluralism”? One day, in response to my Harvard speech, was published in the Washington Postsuch a letter from an American: “It’s hard to believe that diversity itself in itself was the highest goal of humanity. Respect for diversity is meaningless if diversity does not help us achieve a higher purpose."

Yes, variety is the colors of life, and we crave them anywaywe don't think. But if diversity becomes the highest principle, thenno universal human values ​​are possible, and accepting one’s own values ​​in assessing other people's judgments are ignorance and violence. Ifthere is no right and wrong - what are the holding ties?on a person? If there is no universal basis, then it cannotthere should be morality. “Pluralism” as a principle degrades to indifference, to the loss of all depth, spreads into relativism, into nonsense...

This is what paralyzes the current Western world: loss of differences between true positions and false, between undoubted good and untrue tainted by evil, centrifugal confusion, entropy thoughts - “more different ones - as long as they are different.” But a herd of mules pulling in different directions does not produce any movement.

(And Solzhenitsyn)

II . 1. Continue reviewing the text using the method of critical analysis: “Draftingdiscussion card", which consists of briefly filling out two columns innotebooks (3-4 judgments in each). Formulate and write down your statements correctly and concisely, briefly justifying them.

2. Select a facilitator who will interview everyone and write down their judgments on the board (Brainstorming technology).

Discussion card

General discussion questions for all participants:

“How do you personally feel about pluralism of opinions?”

Can pluralism be recognized as one of the highest principles?

III. Each group, drawing on additional facts, formulates its thesis, for example:

1) Yes, pluralism can be recognized as the highest principle, since...

2) No, it cannot be recognized as the highest principle, because...

It is necessary to present 3-4 arguments confirming this or that different thesis.

IV . The presenter invites to the board participants who are in favor and who"against", and asks them to speak convincingly on the issue.

Doubters may move from one group to another ifmanages to convince them.

Questions about conducting discussions

1. What type of discussion on purpose and result did you choose?

2. Write a version of the introductory and concluding words of the presenter depending on the type of discussion: confrontational (to disengage), informational (to get acquainted with the arguments, illustrative examples of the other side), imperative (to lead to general agreement).

3. What introductory words and sentences, words expressing your attitude to the topic, do youdid you use it? (Write them in a row).

4. What are the most powerful verbs you used?

5. What words and expressions of agreement and disagreement did you use?

Requirements for a discussion thesis

1) Clear, consistent formulation.

2) Unambiguity of the thesis, maintaining the unity of the thesis throughout proof.

3) The truth of the thesis is confirmed by evidence.

4) Arguments should not follow from the thesis (“vicious circle in evidence”).

4. Introductory reading.

Logical errors

1 . Substitution of the thesis when the disputants start talking about something else,prove another thesis similar to the original one. For example, whento prove the thesis “Ivanov can be a good leader of a production association,” the following arguments are given: “Ivanov swims well,” “Ivanov speaks eastern wrestling", which leads to the conclusion that Ivanov is a good sportshifts There is a substitution of the thesis here, since the conclusion is not identical the original thesis.

2. Expansion or narrowing the thesiswhen the speaker is assigned they propose another thesis that is more convenient for criticism (“distortion”).For example, the thesis “In a modern family, the husband must help his wife housework" was refuted with the following argument: "We are Asia, we are not some kind of Europe. This is not accepted among us." It was only about everyday relations in the kitchen. There is an expansion of the thesis.

3. "Vicious circle of proof" - for example: glass transparent because everything is visible through it. This can't be true because it can never be.

4. "Falsehood of foundation" when completely random, erroneous facts are cited as arguments. For example: the innocence of the convicted person is proven by the presence of a prosperous family, external characteristics, and an education diploma.

5. "Tricks in an argument" when, instead of compelling arguments to the thesis, those arguing begin to resort to such psychological tricks as “going to face”, “arguments to the person” or “arguments to the audience” - appealing to the feelings, mood of the opponent or those present in the room.

5. Reference materials.

Discussion speech is the basis of such rhetorical genres How:

Dispute- is a prepared, organized public debateon a given topic (moral, social, as well as on a book or play read). A wide variety of (not just opposing) points of view are possible. The debate should be conducted under the guidance of an experienced facilitator.

Controversy(Greek “hostile”, “belligerent”) - a public dispute in oral or written form, when the disputants seek to unambiguously resolve some issue of state or civil significance. The moderator in the debate is not required.

Debate- is a rhetorical genre of speech that reflects the acutea political dispute or discussion of a vital issue. Debates are held on television, in parliament, at meetings of members of political parties and professional organizations.

?6. Determine the nature of the dispute . TOWhich of the indicated rhetorical genres of discussion speech would you attribute the dispute between E. Bazarov and P. P. Kirsanov based on the novel I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"? (Please provide reasons for your answer in writing).

Independent work.

Write down 3-4 questions for the text, composing them yourself.

Retell the paragraph about the culture of argument.

About the dispute. About the culture of dispute

AND in ancient and modern rhetoric are formulated requirements totopics of debate, selected speakers:

1. The topic should be interesting and important for those people to whomspeech is addressed; otherwise the necessary contact does not occurbetween those arguing. Any debate must take into account the mood of the audience.

2. You should only take a topic that the author knows well, inwhich he really understands better than others. The author will find himself in a pitiful position if he repeats other people's thoughts, chews on things that are known to everyone, tries hard, but cannot captivate his listeners with something new and valuable.

3. The topic should be clear, if possible specific, substantive and not too broad... The author’s position on this topic should also be clear.

4. The author must be aware of his goal and subordinate the content to itand speech construction. It can entertain or quench the thirst for knowledge,inspire or demand a choice of decision, convince or demand readiness for action (six types of speech: entertaining, educational compelling, inspiring, challenging, persuasive and calling to action). Of course, the author can achieve two things at once: three goals, but one usually prevails.

5. The topic of the dispute and its problems will always have greater success, if a struggle of opinions, polemics, simply different points of view are possible.

6. It is very important to formulate the thesis clearly, expressively, figuratively,to be remembered - and in one phrase.

7. We need to talk specifically about the culture of discussion. It is not uncommon to observe a public dispute in which each speaker wants, first of all, to express himself, his point of view, without any listening to the partner and not accepting his position, while reaching and to aggressive speech techniques. Meanwhile, the discussion is democratic way of combining knowledge into a common fund is collaboration ness while listening and expressing various points vision. This is primarily a joint activity to comprehendtruth! After all, discussing a problem from different angles canlead to a decision that is beyond the power of an individual. Obsessions Giving the majority only one point of view, one view is contrary to the very nature of discussion - a collective (and, of course, respectful) discussion of opposites and contradictions, bringing into play many minds to obtain an optimal result.

(By M.R. Lvov)

Literature:

1. Bernatsky G.G. Culture of political discussion. -L., 1991.

2. Golub I.B., Rosenthal D.E. Secrets of good speech. -M., 1993.

3. Ivanova S.F. The Art of Dialogue, or Conversations on Rhetoric. - Perm, 1992.

4. Pavlova K. G. Dispute, discussion, controversy. - M., 1991.

5. Shvedov A.I. The art of persuasion. - Kyiv, 1986.

In article it is consideredThe language and cultural problems of training of foreign students to speech etiquette at the present stage.

The article is devoted to the problem of teaching oral speech skills to foreign students in Russian language classes. The development of a practical lesson is given.

Makala sheteldik studentterdi orys tіlіne okytuda auyzek soyleu adisterin thimdi koldan zoldar karoastyrylady. Sonymen qatar tazhirbielik sabaktyn zhospary beriledi.

In the struggle of ideas, harsh judgments are allowed,
but rudeness of expression is completely unacceptable.
G. V. Plekhanov

The most important way to get to know a person... is to listen to what
as he says... A person’s language is his worldview
and his behavior, as he speaks, is therefore what he thinks.

D.S. Likhachev

• clarifying different points of view on the norms of the modern Russian literary language;
• nurturing a culture of speech behavior in students during an argument;
• stimulation of speech activity.

Audience setup:

1. Exhibition of books on speech culture.
2. Linguistic bulletin “Do you need to speak correctly?”
3. Exhibition dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of D.S. Likhacheva.

Posters:

“What speakers lack in depth, they make up for in length.” Montesquieu

“Beautiful expressions decorate beautiful speech and preserve it.” Hugo

“Speaking well is simply thinking out loud well.” Renan

“If the shamelessness of everyday life (abuse) passes into language, then the shamelessness of language creates an environment in which shamelessness is already a common thing.” D. S. Likhachev

Preliminary preparation: Preparation of a skit based on M. Zoshchenko’s story “Monkey Language”.

Conducting an express questionnaire (students conduct and summarize the results of the questionnaire) : Will you correct your interlocutor if he makes a speech error? possible answers: yes, no, not always (underline as appropriate).

Interview “At the School Threshold” (interviews are conducted by students):

• is it necessary to speak correctly?
• read the words newborn, provision, calling.
• Are there any errors in the sentence “The son came home from school and asked what time it was.”

Creation of a video presentation “D.S. Likhachev.”

Preparing questions:

Discussion model. In the discussion, in addition to the teacher, schoolchildren speak, whose speeches are conventionally divided into two options: 1) improvised, completely unprepared; 2) prepared in advance - in this case, monologues are preceded by words supporters of the norm or opponents of the norm.

Approximate course of the discussion

Teacher. The culture of speech of an individual person reflects his general cultural level - education, good manners, ability to control himself, the ability to understand people of other cultures, receptivity to works of art, modesty... By the way a person constructs his speech, selects words, one can judge his moral and business qualities. The higher the general culture of the speaker, the more his speech will correspond to the norms of the literary language.

In the last decade, an extremely low culture of speech has emerged: people have been unable to express their thoughts clearly and intelligibly. An avalanche of errors poured in on us - grammatical, stylistic, syntactical... As the great Russian educator, Academician D.S. Likhachev, said in one of his last interviews, “the general degradation of us as a nation affected the language first of all.” Street language - swearing, swear words - is now not uncommon both in literary works and in public speeches. Dmitry Sergeevich spoke about this with pain: “If the shamelessness of everyday life (abuse) passes into language, then the shamelessness of language creates an environment in which shamelessness is already a common thing.”

Today it is no coincidence that we begin the conversation with the words of Academician D.S. Likhachev, The model and most striking example of a person who has a high culture of speech is Academician D.S. Likhachev, with his modesty, extremely sincere respect for people (and for the interlocutor, in particular), with his highest general culture, with his understanding and love for genuine treasures of visual and musical art. Central Television announcer I.L. Kirillov said this about D.S. Likhachev’s speech: “If I were asked to give an example of a sample of Russian speech, I would, without hesitation, name the speech of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. It is, as I often say, flowing, free, born right before your eyes.”

A story about D.S. Likhachev (accompanied by a video presentation). Appendix No. 1.

Teacher. Today we have gathered to discuss one question: “Do you need to speak correctly?” You say: “Does it really exist?! From the first grade we got used to his positive solutions (words in a frame in a school textbook, teacher corrections, dictionaries, TV shows).” Indeed, our society spends effort and money on cultivating a high speech culture among the population. Defenders of the norm can probably talk briefly about this.

Defenders of the norm. Yes, the authorities are on our side. M.V. Lomonosov was also a staunch supporter of the normalization of the Russian language; his “Russian Grammar” and “Rhetoric” laid the foundations of normative grammar and stylistics, which are largely relevant today. The norm was defended by A. Kh. Vostokov, F. I. Buslaev, Y. K. Grot, A. A. Potebnya.

Teacher. Maybe, indeed, we are fighting in vain: just say ringing And T, shav e l, etc. What is this all for? The Czech writer Jaroslav Hasek once said: “Everyone speaks as best they can.” Is it really necessary to speak correctly, that is, to comply with the norms of the literary language? A word to the opponents of the norm!

Opponents of the norm. First, let us remind those present what the norm is, so that it is clear what we are protesting against. A norm is one of many variants of a language unit, which has historically been accepted by society as the only correct one. So, you can pronounce the word n ​​in different ways A began - began A lost - started A Yes, but only the last version of pronunciation is accepted by society, legalized, recorded in all dictionaries, and is normative. And if I say not “the discussion has begun A sya,” and a little differently, I will be accused of lack of culture, of inability to speak Russian, of dislike for my native language. But why? After all, linguists themselves say that many words have variations in pronunciation, stress, grammatical forms, etc. These options exist objectively, in the language system, I don’t invent them. This means that the language itself wants diversity, it invites us to choose. Why should everyone choose the same and reduce linguistic diversity to dull correctness? Stop talking in unison. Everyone has the right to their opinion. Let him choose from several options what he personally likes (we will still understand each other, because our native language programmed these options). Only by abolishing the norm will we get not a gray mass devoid of individuality, but a union of bright personalities. We are for pluralism in speech practice, because it is boring when everyone speaks the same way, correctly. Let us remember Pushkin (his authority is also unconditional): “Like rosy lips without a smile, without a grammatical error, I don’t like Russian speech.” What do you say to this?

Teacher. So, the position of opponents of the norm is clear: they are for diversity. Maybe we can agree?

Opinion of unprepared students.

Questionnaire results.

Screening of the sketch “Monkey Language”. Appendix 2

Defenders of the norm. References to pluralism and freedom of choice in the issue of language norms are inappropriate. The scene we watched perfectly proved that speech uniformity is a condition for our mutual understanding. Formulated according to rules common to everyone, speech does not complicate communication, but facilitates it. Failure to comply with the norm distracts from the meaning and causes a comic effect. By the way, our satirists feel this very well: you just have to distort a word a little, pronounce it differently than is customary in society, and it immediately becomes funny. Remember Khazanov’s “calinary technical school”! Or from Zhvanetsky: “We need to be more careful, guys!” A civilized person understands that he does not live on a desert island, but in a society; he accepts social norms as his own in order to facilitate his contacts with people.

Opponents of the norm. OK. Maybe you're right. Without uniformity of speech it is difficult. But why should the only option be offered not at all the one to which everyone is accustomed, but some artificial one taken from God knows where?

Teacher. Clearly, the time has come to say where the norm comes from? A word to her supporters.

Supporters of the norm. Linguists do not invent, but only reflect the norm that society sets for various reasons. Linguists do not follow their taste or personal opinion, but rely on objective data: written sources of various genres, statistical information, recordings of oral speech, and public opinion.

Modern dictionaries reflected the former non-normative options as the law of today, the norm reflected the generally accepted colloquial option. By the way, the norm allows not one, but two completely equal options, and quite often, remember the famous TV O horn and creation O G! So the norm is democratic, it takes into account our desires!

Teacher. So, violation of the norm is possible, the norm is not a dogma, but every deviation from it must be justified, due to a special author’s task. There is no such task - stick to the general rules.

Results of the interview “At the School Threshold”.

“Test your knowledge”(shown on screen).

• Place emphasis in the words: wholesale, sentence, in shoes, more beautiful, calling.
• Put the words in the genitive plural form: sock, shoulder strap, orange, felt boot, dress.
• Write down the numerals in the given case: Over 895 kilometers.
• Insert, where necessary, the missing letters, forming gender forms of nouns: The buyer asked to let him try on the rights... tuff...
• Choose synonyms: emergency, region, defect.
• Divorce paronyms: dress - put on, company - campaign.
• Use phrases in a figurative meaning: walnut finish, green street.

Results of the sociological survey Person “Literacy”.

Summing up the discussion.

It is not uncommon for a speaker to feel nervous before a presentation, which can undoubtedly affect the success of the presentation. Our life one way or another contains various forms of manifestation of disputes and discussions. Of particular importance are professional discussions, which should lead to the resolution of certain professional issues, etc. In this regard, the question of how to properly conduct discussions arises. This primarily concerns the psychology of discussion, the logical and linguistic culture of discussions.

Basic rules of discussion.

1. Everyone expresses their thoughts openly.

2. All points of view must be respected.

3. Listen to others without interrupting.

4. Don't talk too long or too often.

5. Only one person speaks together.

6. Follow positive ideas and attitudes.

7. Don't criticize yourself and others.

8. Disagreements and conflicts regarding ideas should not be directed at a specific person.

Notes:

1. It is very important that everyone agrees with each point of the rules and “ratifies” them. This will make it possible to continue to refer to these rules as the “law of conduct” during discussions.

2. Comments regarding violations should not be rude or offensive. Any form can be used.

3. The list of rules is not permanent and unshakable. Participants can change and supplement it. But it's important to write it together. This initially creates an atmosphere of joint efforts rather than imposed attitudes.

Forms of organizing discussion

"Decision tree" (method of all possible options)

The essence of the method and its purpose:

This technique is used when analyzing situations and helps to achieve a complete understanding of the reasons that led to the adoption of one or another important decision in the past.

The participants in the discussion understand the mechanism for making complex decisions, and the teacher accurately records the advantages and disadvantages of each of them in the columns. During the discussion, the discussants fill out the table.

Problem

Discussion methodology:

1. The presenter (chairwoman) sets a task for discussion.

2. Participants are provided with basic information on the problem, historical facts, dates, events, etc. (this may be part of the homework).

3. The presenter (chairwoman) divides the team into groups of 4-6 people. Each group is given tables and bright markers. The time to complete the task is determined (10-15 minutes).

4. Discussion participants fill out the table and make decisions on the problem.

5. Representatives of each group talk about the results. The teacher can compare the results obtained and answer questions from the discussion participants.

TV talk show style discussion

The essence of the method and its purpose:

This form of discussion combines the advantages of lecture and group discussion. A group of 3-5 people conducts a discussion on a pre-selected topic in the presence of an audience. Spectators enter the discussion later: they express their opinions or ask questions to the participants in the conversation.

Talk shows provide an opportunity to clearly express different points of view on a given topic, but to do this, the main participants in the discussion must be well prepared. All conditions are equal – 3-5 minutes. The facilitator must ensure that the participants do not deviate from the given topic. Talk shows are good to conduct in paired lessons (1.5 hours)

1. The presenter determines the topic, invites the main participants, develops the basic rules for conducting the discussion, and the rules for speaking.

2. Discussion participants should be seated so that the “spectators” are around the table of the main characters.

3. The facilitator begins the discussion: introduces the main participants and announces the topic.

4. The main participants speak first (20 minutes), after which the presenter invites the “spectators” to take part in the discussion.

5. At the end of the discussion, the moderator sums up the results and gives a brief analysis of the statements of the main participants.

Discussion "Brainstorm"

The essence of the method and its purpose:

"Brainstorming" is an effective method of collective discussion, the search for a solution, which is carried out through the free expression of the opinions of all participants.

The principle of brainstorming is simple. You gather a group of discussants, give them a task and ask all participants to express their opinions on solving this problem: no one has the right to express their thoughts on the ideas of others at this stage or evaluate them.

In just a few minutes you can get a large number of ideas that will serve as the basis for developing the most reasonable solution.

Discussion methodology:

1. The facilitator sets a task for the brainstorming participants and talks about its rules:

the goal of the “assault” is to offer the greatest number of options for solving the problem;

put your imagination to work; do not discard any idea just because it contradicts conventional wisdom;

develop the ideas of other participants;

don’t try to evaluate the proposed ideas - you’ll do that a little later.

2. The presenter appoints a secretary who will write down all the ideas that arise, ensure that the rules are not violated, and intervene if necessary. The first stage lasts until new ideas appear.

3. The presenter announces a short break so that the participants are in a critical mindset. Stage II begins. Now the brainstorming participants group and develop the ideas expressed during Stage I (the list of ideas can be printed and distributed or posted during the rain). After analyzing and selecting ideas that can help find answers to the questions posed, participants come to a solution.

4. The moderator sums up the discussion. If brainstorming does not bring the desired result, you should discuss the reasons for the failure.

The essence of the method and its purpose:

The goal of a debater is to convince others that his approach to solving a problem is correct.

Conducting debates is an effective means of teaching discussants the ability to formulate their position clearly and logically, and to find convincing facts and arguments in support of their position.

Methodology.

The topic must be formulated in the form of resolutions.

2. Distribution of roles. Divide the discussion participants into 2 groups: those in support of the resolution and those that oppose it. Remind participants along with the debate. Elect a chairman and his assistant who will monitor the regulations.

3. Preparation of class participants. Participants in the discussion should prepare “constructive arguments” (based on 3-5 points, logically presented and supported by facts. They should try to imagine what the opponent’s arguments will be and prepare to refute these arguments.

Participants need to explain the benefits of participating in debates: acquiring the skills to find convincing evidence for an opponent who does not share your beliefs; ability to understand and respect the right of others to personal beliefs.

4. Conducting debates. The chairman and participants in the debate take their places in front of the audience (to the right of the head is the group “for the resolution”, to the left is “against”)

a) The Chairman formulates the problem and reads the resolution, establishes the rules;

Stage I b) The chairman gives the floor to the first speaker from the group, supports the resolution, and asks for constructive arguments to be presented (the assistant to the chairman must warn the speaker about the end of time);

c) The Chairman gives the floor to the first speaker from the group “against the resolution”;

d) The chairman gives the floor to a friend ... and so on until all participants in the debate have spoken;

Stage II e) at this stage, each participant is given the opportunity to refute the opponent’s arguments and respond to their criticism. The polemics are always started by representatives of the group that opposes the resolution. The procedure for conducting it is similar to the procedure for conducting stage I.

5. At this stage, the participants in the discussion lay out the reasons why they take one or another position on the definition of the resolution. The presenter (chairwoman) can write down these reasons on the board. Participants in the discussion can answer questions regarding reasons, but not prove that they are right.

6. Everyone should point out those arguments that, despite the fact that they do not correspond to views, made you think or sounded especially convincing

7. At the end of the debate, the participants in the debate must evaluate the consequences of implementing the opponent’s position. At the same time, it may be necessary to evaluate the current law or policies being pursued.

Culture of discussion

A discussion should be understood as a discussion of a controversial issue, a study of a problem in which each side, opposing the opinion of the interlocutor, argues for its position and claims to achieve the goal.

Experts distinguish several types of discussion. The type of discussion depends on the goal, which determines how to achieve it. If the interlocutor’s goal is to search for truth, then he conducts an apodictic (reliable, based on formal laws of thinking and rules of inference) discussion. If the opponent’s goal is to convince, to persuade the interlocutor to his opinion, then he is conducting an eristic (based on the laws of dialectics) discussion. If the goal is to defeat an opponent by any means, then such a discussion is called sophistical (based on verbal tricks that mislead the interlocutor).

From an ethical point of view, a sophistic discussion can hardly be considered acceptable, since manipulating the opinion of an interlocutor in the overwhelming majority of cases is unworthy for a cultured, intelligent person.

The businesslike nature of the discussion is facilitated by the use of principles that should be the basis for its conduct: promoting the emergence of alternatives, plurality of opinions, ways to solve the problem; constructive criticism; ensuring social and psychological security of the individual; adequacy of perception and statements. These principles form the norms for interaction between the parties and regulate the activities of the participants in the discussion.

Promoting the emergence of alternatives, a plurality of opinions, and ways to solve a problem is also interpreted as the principle of decentralized discussion.

This principle speaks of the need to analyze a situation or problem from the point of view of another person and the interests of the matter, and not based solely on personal goals. Decentric orientation develops in conditions of alternatives, that is, when considering several points of view on the problem from the participants in the discussion.

Constructive criticism is one of the most important principles in business ethics. Criticism is defined as a negative judgment, indicating shortcomings in a person’s work and behavior. Hence, criticism is initially perceived by people as painful and negative, although there are ways to somewhat reduce the severity of this problem. Criticism should be constructive and should not infringe on the self-esteem of the person being criticized. This general principle is implemented through more specific rules that the critic must observe.

Ensuring social and psychological security of the individual in the process of discussion is often interpreted as the principle of equal security. It says: Do not cause psychological harm to any of the participants in the discussion. If someone violates this principle, then the goal of achieving truth is replaced; the discussion moves from the process of confrontation between different logics of thought development to the process of confrontation of ambitions.

The principle of adequacy of what is perceived and what is said says: do not damage the thoughts of your interlocutor by intentionally or unintentionally distorting what was said. One side should strive for simplicity and accuracy of statements, the other should develop the skills of effective perception through reflective listening. In this type of listening, the party receiving the message provides the speaker with some feedback that does not include elements of evaluation or judgment. This feedback can be complemented by non-reflective listening, which uses simple tools such as attentive silence and minimal neutral verbal response.

The principle of adequacy of perception and statements implies the practical application of reflective listening skills. Reflective listening is a form of reflecting the speaker's messages, involving active feedback that does not include elements of evaluation or judgment.

In reflective listening, the receiver of the message uses the following types of feedback to the speaker:

a verbal signal about the need for any statements;

your own retelling of the interlocutor’s main thoughts;

generalization of individual parts of a message into a semantic whole;

a reaction that reflects the feelings of the interlocutor.

We can say that feedback in this case serves as a means of control of the speaker by the listener. To ensure each other's understanding during a discussion, one party must let the other party know exactly how the message is received. This provides an opportunity to correct it and make it understandable. This process is reflective listening.

The use of these types of feedback assumes that the listener follows the following basic rules for effectively perceiving verbal messages:

· restrains his desire to make a hasty judgment;

· does not refute the interlocutor without fully understanding the course of his reasoning;

· allows the other side to complete their own argumentation of statements;

· does not get distracted by unimportant moments to the detriment of the main thing;

· does not focus attention on the shortcomings of the speaker’s speech, the nuances of his appearance, and does not thereby miss the essence of the message;

· takes into account the motivation of the interlocutor, which encourages him to express his own thoughts that differ from the views of the other party;

· is not confident that the truth is on his side, thereby not being prepared in advance to disagree with the position of the other side in the discussion.

Failure to follow these rules leads to a breakdown in mutual understanding due to inadequate perception of the interlocutor’s statements.

Practice shows that it is not the one who controls the course of the discussion, who really controls it, who turns the conversation into his own monologue, trying to suppress the interlocutor with an abundance of information and a “mass” of intelligence. The one who clearly directs the discussion in the right direction, doses the information received and forms a meaningful result is the one who knows how to ask the right questions in a timely manner, and these questions can differ in their specific type. The choice of the type of questions that corresponds to the situation developing during the discussion, the choice of time for posing them, as well as varying the types of questions during the discussion - these are the main tasks, the solution of which allows us to talk about successful tactics for posing questions.

Questions used during the conversation can be divided into the following types: culture business speech document

· open, requiring the interlocutor to receive detailed, voluminous information on the essence of the question posed; such questions begin with traditional interrogative words like “how...?”, “how...?”, “why...?”;

· closed, requiring an answer from the interlocutor in the form of “yes” or “no”. This type of question is justified if you want to get specific, unambiguous information;

· mirror ones, containing a repetition with a questioning intonation of part of the statement just spoken by the interlocutor. This type of question allows you to create new elements in the conversation, highlight the core areas of the discussion, without contradicting the interlocutor or refuting his statements;

· counter-questions, very similar in essence to mirror ones; they make it possible to clarify this or that situation that develops during the conversation, to clarify the correct understanding of certain judgments of the interlocutor;

· *relay races, which allow you to dynamize the dialogue, develop the interlocutor’s statements, and help him in case of difficulties in mutual understanding of the parties to the conversation;

· *alternative, involving the choice of certain directions for the development of the dialogue from a set of alternatives proposed by one of the parties;

· suggestive, based on a certain impact on the mental sphere of perception of the conversation partner; this type of question contains some manipulation of the interlocutor due to the influence on the emotional component of the thought process;

· hypothetical, allowing you to build a simple model of the development of the subject of conversation using the assumption of the influence of any external conditions on the development of the problem under discussion;

· roundabout, forcing your interlocutor to give information that you consider to be not entirely correct to obtain through direct questions.

Mastering the basic elements of the culture of discussion will allow you to achieve success during the conversation faster and more reliably, without violating the ethical standards of interaction with business partners.

culture speech business communication