Rhetoric tests. II. Who is considered the founder of the theory of rhetorical science? Insert missing word

Rhetoric Test 1. Fill in the missing word. Rhetoric is a philological science denoting the attitude ... to the word. 2. The basic laws of rhetoric do not include the law of a) harmonizing dialogue b) pleasure c) emotionality of speech d) brevity 3. Rhetoric refers to ... sciences a) philosophical b) humanitarian c) linguistic d) philological 4. Most fully corresponds to modern scientific views the following definition of rhetoric a) the science of speech, oratory b) the science of skillful, ornate, embellished speech c) a philological science that studies the relationship of thought to the word d) a philological discipline whose object is the theory of eloquence, oratory, methods of constructing expressive speech in all areas of speech activity (primarily in different genres of written and oral speech); is closely related to poetics, stylistics and culture of speech 5. General rhetoric differs from private in that a) general rhetoric considers the general laws of speech, and private - private b) the laws and principles of general rhetoric apply to all countries and nationalities, and private studies speech features of only a particular nation c) general rhetoric studies the universal laws of any speech, and private specific types of speech d) the laws of general rhetoric are universal, universal, have no temporal and spatial boundaries, the laws of private rhetoric are limited in space and time 6. Private rhetoric is divided into: a) pedagogical, diplomatic, economic, legal b) political, academic, judicial, social, spiritual c) socio-political, pedagogical, commercial, judicial d) pedagogical, legal, church theological, solemn 7. Rhetoric was considered the queen of all sciences in the ancient state a) Egypt b) Greece c) China d) Rome 8. The founder of t The theory of rhetorical science is considered a) Aristotle b) Quintilian c) Socrates d) Gorgias 9. The opinion that the orator must clearly define the subject of speech, learn the truth about it, know the souls of the people for whom the speech is intended, belongs to a) Plato b) Aristotle c) Demosthenes d) Cicero

10. The expression "The dignity of style lies in clarity: the proof of this is that since speech is not clear, it does not achieve its goal" belong to a) Lysias b) Cicero c) Aristotle d) Socrates 11. First proclaimed the cult of the word in Ancient Greece and said that “the word is a great ruler who, having a small and completely invisible body, performs wonderful deeds ...” a) Socrates b) Plato c) Cicero d) Gorgias 12. Establish a correspondence between the statements and their authors 1. Quintilian 2 .N.F. Koshansky 3. Aristotle 4. M.V. Lomonosov 1. Eloquence is the art of speaking eloquently about any given matter and thereby inclining others to one’s own opinion about it 2. Eloquence is the gift of shocking souls, pouring one’s passions into them and thereby communicating the image of one’s concepts 3. Rhetoric is the art of speaking well 4. Rhetoric is the art of finding ways of persuading each given subject 13. The author of the aphorism Truth always triumphs! is a) Seneca b) Cicero c) Quintilian d) Socrates 14. The author of the first Russian textbook on rhetoric was a) I.S. 15. The work "Red Guide to Eloquence" is written by a) N.F. Koshansky b) A.I. Galich c) M.M. Speransky d) M.V. Lomonosov 16. The crisis of rhetoric, associated with its disappearance as a science and an academic subject in lyceums, gymnasiums and universities, occurred a) in the second half of the 18th century. b) in the first half of the 19th century. c) in the first half of the 20th century. d) in the second half of the 20th century. 17. The main merit of M.V. Lomonosov in the theory of rhetoric is considered a) the secular orientation of his books on eloquence b) the systematization and breadth of the generalization of rhetoric c) the popularization of scientific knowledge and enlightenment in rhetoric d) reliance on the traditions and features of ancient eloquence

4 c, d 14 b 5 a 15 d 6 b 16 d 7 b 17 a, c 8 a 9 a 10 b Answer keys: 1 thought 11 d 2 d 12 13, 22, 34, 41 3 d 13 b Assessment criteria: 16 - 17 points - "5"; 12 - 16 points - "4"; 812 points - "3"; Less than 8 points "2";

I. In which of the ancient states was rhetoric considered the queen of all sciences?

VIII. Determine the style and type of speech.

Passengers are obliged: when riding a vehicle equipped with seat belts, to be fastened with them, and when riding a motorcycle, to be in a fastened motorcycle helmet; boarding and disembarking should be carried out from the sidewalk or roadside and only after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. If boarding and disembarking is not possible from the sidewalk or shoulder, it can be carried out from the side of the carriageway, provided that it is safe and does not interfere with other traffic participants.

1. Official business; narration.

2. Artistic; reasoning.

3. Publicistic; reasoning.

4. Scientific; description.

IX. Indicate what is characteristic of the journalistic style:

1. combination of expression and standard in the transmission of information about current events.

2. lack of expressive coloring and artistic expressiveness.

3. unmotivated use of terms.

4. close connection with non-verbal means of communication, incompleteness of expression (ellipticity).

X. In official business texts, the words are usually used:

1. amplitude, local, follow.

2. report, defendant, penalty.

3. climate, chronicle, magazine.

4. escalation, forum, initiative.

Didactic unit 2. Rhetoric

Test No. 2. "Rhetoric as a science"

1. Egypt.

2. Assyria.

3. Greece.

4. Babylon.

1. Aristotle.

2. Quintilian.

3. Socrates.

4. Plato.

III. The formation of rhetoric as a special science took place already in ...

1. V c. BC.

2. VI century. BC.

3. IV century. BC.

4. I century. BC.

IV. * Rhetoric is...

1. abstract science, equipped with mathematics and its own formalisms, elucidating the objective laws of speech.

2. communication process aimed at substantiating the point of view of the speaker.

3. the art of speaking beautifully and persuasively.

4. theory and mastery of effective (expedient, influencing and harmonizing) speech.

V. The stages of the rhetorical canon include:

1. invention, disposition, composition, action, memory.

2. disposition, demonstration, elocution, action, memory.

3. invention, demonstration, composition, action, memory.

4. invention, disposition, elocution, action, memory.

VI. The laws of general rhetoric include:

1. the law of harmonizing dialogue, the law of the excluded third, the law of sufficient reason, the law of logic.

2. the law of harmonizing dialogue, the law of promotion and orientation of the addressee, the law of the emotionality of speech, the law of pleasure.

3. the law of non-contradiction, the law of harmonizing dialogue, the law of advancement and orientation of the addressee, the law of identity.

4. the law of logic, the law of sufficient reason, the law of the emotionality of speech, the law of pleasure.

1. logos, pathos, syllogism.

2. pathos, ethos, sophism.

3. logos, ethos, sophism.

4. logos, pathos, ethos.

VIII. The concept of logos means...

1. means of persuasion that appeal to reason.

2. means of persuasion that appeal to a person's mood.

3. means of persuasion that appeal to the norms of human behavior.

4. means of persuasion that appeal to feelings.

IX. The concept of pathos implies ...

1. means of persuasion that appeal to the norms of human behavior.

2. means of persuasion that appeal to reason.

3. means of persuasion that appeal to feelings.

4. means of persuasion that appeal to a person's mood.

X. The concept of ethos presupposes...

1. means of persuasion that appeal to feelings.

2. means of persuasion that appeal to emotions.

3. means of persuasion that appeal to reason.

4. means of persuasion that appeal to the norms of human behavior.

Screening test number 3. "Types of eloquence"

At the time of its origin in antiquity, rhetoric was understood only in the direct meaning of the term - as the art of a speaker, the art of oral public speaking. A broad understanding of the subject of rhetoric is the property of a later time. Now, if it is necessary to distinguish the technique of oral public speaking from rhetoric in a broad sense, the term is used to refer to the former. oratorio.

Traditional rhetoric (bene dicendi scientia "the science of good speech", as defined by Quintilian) was opposed to grammar (recte dicendi scientia - "the science of correct speech"), poetics and hermeneutics. The subject of traditional rhetoric, unlike poetics, was only prose speech and prose texts. What distinguishes rhetoric from hermeneutics is a predominant interest in the persuasive power of a text and only a weakly expressed interest in other components of its content that do not affect the persuasive power.

The methodological difference between rhetoric and the disciplines of the rhetorical cycle from other philological sciences is the focus on the value aspect in the description of the subject and the subordination of this description to applied tasks. In Ancient Russia, there were a number of synonyms with valuable meaning, denoting mastery of the art of good speech: eloquence, good speech, eloquence, cunning, chrysostom and finally eloquence. In ancient times, the value element also included a moral and ethical component. Rhetoric was considered not only the science and art of good oratory, but also the science and art of bringing to good, persuading good through speech. The moral and ethical component in modern rhetoric has been preserved only in a reduced form, although some researchers are making attempts to restore its meaning. Other attempts are being made - to define rhetoric, completely removing the value aspect from the definitions. There are, for example, definitions of rhetoric as the science of generating statements (such a definition is given by A.K. Avelychev with reference to W. Eco-Dubois). The elimination of the value aspect of the study of speech and text leads to the loss of the specifics of rhetoric against the background of descriptive philological disciplines. If the task of the latter is to create a complete and consistent description of the subject, which allows further applied use (for example, in teaching a foreign language, creating automatic translation systems), but in itself is neutral with respect to applied tasks, then in rhetoric the description itself is built with an orientation on the needs of speech practice. In this regard, educational (didactic) rhetoric plays an equally important role as scientific rhetoric in the system of rhetorical disciplines, i.e. learning the technique of generating good speech and quality text.

The subject and tasks of rhetoric.

Differences in the definition of the subject and tasks of rhetoric throughout its history were reduced, in fact, to differences in the understanding of what kind of speech should be considered good and quality. There are two main trends.

The first direction, coming from Aristotle, connected rhetoric with logic and proposed to consider good speech persuasive, effective speech. At the same time, efficiency also came down to persuasiveness, to the ability of speech to win recognition (consent, sympathy, sympathy) of listeners, to make them act in a certain way. Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the ability to find possible ways of persuading about any given subject."

The second direction also arose in Ancient Greece. Among its founders are Isocrates and some other rhetors. Representatives of this direction were inclined to consider good ornate, opulent, built according to canons aesthetics speech. Persuasiveness continued to matter, but was not the only and not the main criterion for evaluating speech. Following F. van Eemeren, the direction in rhetoric originating from Aristotle can be called "logical", and from Isocrates - "literary".

In the era of Hellenism, the "literary" direction strengthened and pushed the "logical" to the periphery of didactic and scientific rhetoric. This happened, in particular, in connection with the decline in the role of political eloquence and the increase in the role of ceremonial, solemn eloquence after the fall of democratic forms of government in Greece and Rome. In the Middle Ages, this ratio continued to be maintained. Rhetoric began to become isolated in the sphere of school and university education, turning into literary rhetoric. She was in a difficult relationship with homiletics - the doctrine of Christian church preaching. Representatives of homiletics either turned to rhetoric in order to mobilize its tools for compiling church sermons, or again fenced themselves off from it as from a "pagan" science. The predominance of a "decorative-aesthetic" idea of ​​one's own subject deepened the separation of rhetoric from speech practice. At a certain stage, the proponents of "literary" rhetoric stopped caring at all whether their speeches were suitable for effective persuasion. The development of the rhetorical paradigm in this direction ended with a crisis in rhetoric in the middle of the 18th century.

The balance of power changed in favor of the "logical" direction in the second half of the 20th century, when the old rhetoric was replaced by neo-rhetoric, or new rhetoric. Its creators were predominantly logicians. They created a new discipline as a theory of practical discourse. The most significant part of the latter was the theory of argumentation. The area of ​​interest for neo-rhetoric was again declared to be the effectiveness of the impact and the persuasiveness of speech and text. In this regard, neo-rhetoric is sometimes called the neo-Aristotelian trend, especially when it comes to the neo-rhetoric of H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka.

Neo-rhetoric did not reject the results obtained in line with the "literary" trend. Moreover, some researchers of rhetoric to this day pay primary attention to the aesthetic qualities of speech (supporters of rhetoric as a science of artistic and expressive speech: to some extent, the authors General rhetoric, V.N. Toporov and others). Today we can talk about peaceful coexistence and mutual enrichment of the "logical" and "literary" trends, with the former dominating.

Most of the definitions given to rhetoric by various scholars over the centuries place the discipline in one of the two directions characterized. New ideas about the discipline are reflected in a number of modern definitions of rhetoric.

Definitions in line with the "logical" direction: the art of correct speech for the purpose of persuasion; the science of methods of persuasion, various forms of primarily linguistic influence on the audience, taking into account the characteristics of the latter and in order to obtain the desired effect (A.K. Avelichev); the science of the conditions and forms of effective communication (S.I. Gindin); persuasive communication (J. Kopperschmidt); science of speech actions.

Definition in line with the "literary" direction: A philological discipline that studies the ways of constructing artistic and expressive speech, primarily prose and oral; close contact with poetics and stylistics (V.N. Toporov).

divisions of rhetoric.

Traditionally, general and private rhetoric are distinguished. General rhetoric is the science of universal principles and rules for constructing good speech, independent of the specific area of ​​speech communication. Private rhetoric considers the features of certain types of speech communication in connection with the conditions of communication, the functions of speech and the areas of human activity. In modern rhetoric, the term "general rhetoric" also has a second meaning - one of the directions of the new rhetoric. The beginning of the use of this term was laid by the publication of the book by Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. Sometimes "general rhetoric" is used as a synonym for "neo-rhetoric".

In the ancient textbooks of rhetoric, three functional types of speech were distinguished: deliberative (declining or rejecting), judicial (accusatory or defensive) and solemn, ceremonial or demonstrative (praising or condemning) speech. The deliberative speech was used in political eloquence. It had to proceed from the value categories of useful and harmful. Judicial speech was based on the categories of just and unjust, and ceremonial speech on the categories of good and bad. In the Middle Ages, the predominant type of eloquence was church eloquence, which proceeded from the categories of what was pleasing and objectionable to God.

In modern times, the status of various spheres of social communication has become relatively equal. To the traditional types of eloquence - political, judicial, solemn and theological, new ones were added - academic, business and journalistic eloquence.

Nowadays, one can distinguish as many private rhetoric as there are spheres of communication, functional varieties of language, and in some cases even smaller functional subdivisions (for example, the rhetoric of a television speech is a subsection of journalistic rhetoric).

The dominant types of verbal communication have the greatest impact on public consciousness in each era. Therefore, the rhetorical disciplines that study them attract the greatest interest. At present, it is the rhetoric of the media, political and business (commercial) rhetoric.

Among other divisions of rhetoric is the division into theoretical, applied and thematic rhetoric. Theoretical rhetoric is engaged in the scientific study of the rules for constructing high-quality speech, and applied rhetoric uses the found rules and patterns, as well as the best examples of the most successful speeches, in the practice of teaching literature. Theoretical and applied rhetoric are identical to scientific and educational rhetoric. Thematic rhetoric considers the association of various types of literature around one important topic, for example, the election of the president. It has spread to the USA.

Parts (canons) of rhetorical development of speech. Parts, or canons, of the rhetorical development of speech were defined in antiquity. Their composition has not undergone significant changes over the centuries. In neo-rhetoric of the 20th century. only the amount of research attention paid to individual canons has changed. Almost all non-rhetorical studies concern argumentation (one of the subsections of the dispositio canon) and types of transformations of the expression plane and the content plane (one of the subsections of the elocutio canon). There are five canons in total.

Finding or inventing the material of speech or text

(inventory). Finding covers the entire set of mental operations associated with planning the content of a speech or text. The author needs to define and clarify the topic (if it is not set in advance), choose ways to disclose it, arguments in favor of the thesis being defended, and other elements of content.

The main criteria for selecting material are the author's communicative intention (intention) and the nature of the audience to which the author is going to address.

In the types of eloquence that serve an open competition of different points of view (primarily judicial and political), it is recommended to single out the main controversial point and build a speech around it. This main point must be tested through a series of so-called statuses: establishment status (the plaintiff alleges that the defendant insulted him, and the defendant denies the fact of the insult - the task of the judges is to establish whether the insult took place); determination status (with one definition of insult, the defendant's statement to the plaintiff may be considered an insult, but with another it cannot), qualification status (for example, judges must determine whether the limits of necessary defense have been exceeded) and some others.

In the old rhetoric, material was divided into specific cases (causa) and general issues (quaestio). The removal of the latter from the former was carried out by abstraction from the specific circumstances of the case. For example, from the specific case “candidate N was twice convicted of lying during the last election campaign”, one can deduce the general question “is it permissible to lie in the name of gaining power?” General questions, in turn, are divided into practical (as in the above example) and theoretical, for example, "what is the purpose of man?" Modern writings on rhetoric attempt to refine this subdivision of material. It is proposed, in particular, to distinguish between encyclopedic, empirical material, “based on data obtained by the author himself”, and comparative, “bringing the empirical and encyclopedic into conformity”.

Depending on the role of the material in the development of the topic and on the attitude of the listeners towards it, the old and new rhetoric determine the degrees of likelihood that the material must correspond to. A high degree of credibility should be distinguished by material important for the development and explanation of the topic. This degree is achieved by selecting familiar material that meets the expectations of listeners or readers. The thesis itself and the strongest arguments in its favor should have the highest degree of credibility. The highest degree of plausibility is achieved with the help of a paradox or unexpected question, presenting the thesis as true, and its opposite as a lie. A low degree of credibility may differ in material that is not of interest to listeners or readers, but which the author nevertheless includes in the text to achieve meaningful completeness. An indefinite degree of credibility can distinguish material that is dangerous, inconvenient, indecent, etc., to present to a given audience. The author must say that he is not sure of the truth of this material. Finally, a hidden degree of plausibility distinguishes the material, the assessment of which is beyond the limits of the intellectual capabilities of this audience.

The ways of revealing the topic include, in particular, whether the topic will be presented in a problematic form or descriptively, in the form of dispassionate logical reasoning or emotionally. These different ways, old and new rhetoric trace back to sources or modes of persuasiveness. There are three such modes: logos, ethos and pathos.

Logos is a conviction through an appeal to reason, a sequence of arguments built according to the laws of logic.

Ethos is persuasion through appeal to moral principles recognized by the audience. Since the general moral principles and values ​​are known (justice, honesty, respect for sacred things, devotion to the motherland, etc.), the author who wants to build a conviction in ethos has only to choose the principles that suit the occasion and are closest to the audience.

Paphos means the excitation of emotion or passion, on the basis of which conviction occurs. The doctrine of the arousal of passions was developed already in the old rhetoric. Emotions were described whose success in arousing meant success in persuasion: joy, anger, hope, fear, sadness, enthusiasm, courage, pride, etc.

Rhetoric recommends, in general, selecting material in such a way as to activate all three modes of persuasiveness. The text should present a logical sequence of reasoning, the arguments should be based on moral principles and appeal to the emotions of the audience. At the same time, the modes of persuasion must be brought into harmony with each other and with the theme. Excited emotions should correspond to the theme. Sharp jumps from rational persuasion to emotional speech are unacceptable - smooth transitions are needed.

The first canon of the rhetorical development of speech also includes a subsection on the content sources of the invention of material, in particular, on the sources of the invention of arguments and arguments. These sources are arranged in a hierarchy - from the most abstract to the most concrete. At the highest level of abstraction are the so-called general conditions of the case, described by a sequence of questions: Who? What? Where? How? By whom? Through what? When? What for? Why? Each of the questions sets the area for further meaningful clarifications. These clarifications are called rhetorical places or topoi (Greek topoi, Latin loci). In modern university rhetoric, they are also called "semantic models" or "schemes", and the subsection itself is called a topic. Topoi are particular standardized aspects of the consideration of any topic. In rhetoric, during the period of its existence, a fairly large number of places have accumulated, which, nevertheless, are reducible to a foreseeable number of groups. One possible grouping looks like this:

1) Conditions: Who? What?

Topoi: definition of the subject; genus and species; part and whole; identity, similarity and comparison - similarities and differences, etc.

An example of the development of the topic: subject (what?) - a computer; audience (for whom?) - for philologists; computer definition, internal architecture (central processing unit, read-only memory, etc.); peripherals, multi-computer networks, wide area network, etc. Comparison: computer and abacus, computer and TV, computer and mobile phone (general functions), etc.

2) Terms: How? By whom? Through what?

Topoi: methods, method and mode of action, interrelated subjects and objects, tools, etc.

Example: principles of operation of a computer (transmission of electrical signals, semiconductor matrices, optical signal, digital signal coding), the role of a human operator, software.

3) Terms: Where? When?

Topoi: place - geographically, socially (in what strata of society); distance (near-far); time (morning-day-night), era (modern, classical), etc.

Example: the history of the emergence of a computer, the country where computers first appeared, social structures (at first, only industrial and official use). Time of occurrence: 20th century. Calculating machines of past centuries, etc.

4) Conditions: Why? Why?

Topoi: causes, goals, intentions, consequences, etc.

Example: why computers appeared, what they are used for today, what global computerization can lead to, consequences in the form of information wars, etc.

The compiler of a speech or text can fill in each group of places depending on his own needs, excluding some topoi or adding new ones. It must also be borne in mind that the structure of places is in no way identical to the structure of the speech or text itself. This is just an auxiliary structure that helps to select meaningful content.

In modern didactic rhetoric, one can find the identification of the concepts of “places” (loci) and “common places” (loci communes). Meanwhile, in theoretical rhetoric, starting from Aristotle, these concepts are not identical. By "common places" is meant not standardized aspects of the consideration of any topic, but meaningfully defined places that served "for the emotional strengthening of already existing arguments ... arguments about the need to honor the gods, laws, state, precepts of ancestors, as well as about the disastrous damage that threatens these strongholds of human society if the accused is not convicted (according to the accuser) or acquitted (according to the defense). Due to the abstractness of their content, these motives could equally develop in speeches for any reason: hence their name ”(M.L. Gasparov).

The method of distribution and enrichment of the content found with the help of the technique of rhetorical places is called rhetorical amplification.

Location or composition of material

(dispositio). This part includes the doctrine of the order of arrangement and the main blocks of the structure of text or speech. The basis of the canon "arrangement" was the doctrine of hriya, or the composition of speech. On the basis of the doctrine of hriya, such modern disciplines as the doctrine of literary composition and the theory of composition as part of the theory of the text arose.

There are from three main blocks of the structure of a text or speech (introduction - main part - conclusion) to seven (introduction - definition of the topic with its subdivisions - presentation - digression - argumentation or proof of one's own thesis - refutation - conclusion). To these blocks, you can add another block - the title of the text.

Detailed division is used for texts related to functional varieties of language (scientific and business speech, journalism). It is not always applicable to the analysis of works of art. To designate the structural compositional parts of the latter in literary criticism, another series of terms is more often used: beginning - plot - culmination - denouement - ending.

1. Title. As a separate block in traditional rhetoric, it did not stand out. The importance of titles has increased with the development of the rhetoric of mass communication. Here, the title (or the name of the TV program) has come to be seen as a means of drawing the attention of the addressee to the text of a newspaper publication or to a television program in the context of an alternative choice associated with a constant increase in the number of messages arriving to the addressee.

2. Introduction. Its function is to psychologically prepare the audience for the perception of the topic. The introduction is recommended to build in such a way as to immediately interest the audience in the topic and form favorable psychological conditions for its presentation. To do this, you can justify the choice of topic, express respect for the audience and opponents, show the general content background against which the topic will be deployed. Depending on the type of audience, the nature of the topic and the situation of communication, the author must choose one of the types of introduction: ordinary (for some types of texts there is a standard form of introductions), short, restrained, non-standard (paradoxical), solemn, etc.

It should also be noted here that the introduction, like some other structural blocks (for example, argumentation), can be present in the text either only once, or accompany the introduction of each new subtopic.

3. Definition of the topic and its division. Here the author directly defines what he is going to talk about or write about next, and lists the most important issues that he wants to cover (aspects of the topic). In a number of genres of special communication (educational lecture, scientific article), a plan for further communication can be proposed here. A topic subdivision must meet a number of criteria: be logically appropriate; contain only essential, approximately equivalent aspects of the topic. If the main task is to convince the audience, rhetoric recommends building the division in ascending order: from the least convincing to the most convincing aspects of the topic. The definition of the topic and thesis can follow both before the presentation and after it, anticipating the argument.

Direct naming of the theme is not necessary for philosophical and artistic works. Moreover, indicating the topic, especially at the very beginning, can negatively affect the effectiveness of the impact of such works on the audience.

4. Presentation. A consistent story about the various aspects of the subject in accordance with the presented plan. There are two methods of presentation: (1) the natural, plot, historical or chronological method, when the author presents the selected facts in their chronological or other natural sequence (first cause, then effect, etc.); (2) an artificial, plot or philosophical method, when the author deviates from the natural sequence and follows the theme development logic created by him, wanting to increase the entertaining, conflict content of the message, to keep the audience's attention with the help of the effect of violated expectation. At the same time, after a message about an event later in time, a message about an earlier event can follow, after a story about consequences, a story about causes, etc.

5. Retreat or digression, digression. Here, a subject is briefly described that is only indirectly related to the main topic, but about which the author considers it necessary to tell the audience. It is not a mandatory compositional part. The exact place of retreat in the composition is also not fixed. Usually, the digression is located either in the course of the presentation, or after the presentation and before the argument. A digression can be used to relieve mental tension if the topic requires serious intellectual efforts by the audience and the author, or emotional release if the author accidentally or intentionally touched on a topic that is emotionally unsafe in this audience.

6. Argumentation and refutation. Argumentation is understood as a collection of arguments in favor of the thesis in its compositional unity and the process of presenting these arguments. Refutation - the same argument, but with the "opposite sign", i.e. a collection of arguments against the antithesis defended by the opponent, or, if the main antithesis is not formulated, against possible doubts and objections regarding the thesis, as well as the process of presenting these arguments.

Both Aristotle and neo-orators consider argumentation (including refutation) to be the most important compositional block, since it is she who plays the main role in persuading the audience, and, consequently, in achieving rhetorical goals as such. The doctrine of argumentation was actively developed already in the old rhetoric. In the new rhetoric, the theory of argumentation is its main part.

The most important distinction in the theory of argumentation is the distinction between proof, demonstration, or logical argumentation on the one hand, and rhetorical, dialectical argumentation, or just argumentation, on the other. The proof is carried out according to the formal rules of logic: the laws of logical inference, the rules for constructing a syllogism, and general logical laws. The case when the author manages to deduce the truth of the thesis by means of a formal proof is considered as almost ideal. “Almost”, since rhetoricians and especially non-orators admit that logically rigorous proof is a necessary, but not always sufficient condition for the success of persuasion (if the audience, for example, is hostile and fundamentally unwilling to agree, or if, due to its low intellectual level, it is not able to understand that the thesis has already been proven). More often, however, a formal proof of the thesis is impossible. In this case, the author has to resort to rhetorical argumentation. Thus, when convincing the audience of the heads of chemical enterprises of the need to implement measures to protect the environment, it is not enough just to prove (based on the data of chemical and biological sciences) that the substances emitted by their enterprises are harmful to living organisms. This evidence needs to be supported by an illustration, for example, how contact with such a substance can end for the children of one or another leader, as well as a mention of sanctions that threaten those who do not take the necessary measures to neutralize emissions.

Rhetorical arguments differ primarily in terms of topoi (places), with the help of which they can be invented or selected. On this basis, one can first of all distinguish two large groups: arguments originating from "external" places (observation, illustration, example and evidence) and arguments originating from "internal" places (deductive, in particular, causal, genus-species etc. argumentation, assimilation and opposition). In the modern theory of argumentation, the first group is otherwise called empirical, and the second - theoretical argumentation (A.A. Ivin). There are other general classes of rhetorical arguments: analogy, dilemma, induction, as well as contextual arguments: tradition and authority, intuition and faith, common sense and taste (A.A. Ivin).

From the point of view of the modern theory of argumentation (H. Perelman), the choice of one or another formal variety of a rhetorical argument directly depends on the content that the author wants to put into it.

As for the research interest of the modern argumentation theory, it is aimed primarily at studying the most difficult cases, for example, the impossibility of formal proofs of the truth of moral judgments or judgments about values. The study of this class of judgments is especially important for legal argumentation dealing with normative propositions.

The refutation can use the same types of arguments, but with the opposite sign (for example, the head of a chemical enterprise claims that the benefits of his enterprise's products for the country's economy are immeasurably higher than the harm caused by pollution of a local reservoir). The best refutation is when the inconsistency of the thesis is deduced formally and logically. Along with logical proof and the standard methods of rhetorical argumentation listed above, there is an extensive set of techniques used primarily to refute the antithesis (“argument to personality”, “argument to ignorance”, “argument to strength”, misleading verbose empty reasoning, manipulation of ambiguity words, substitution of concepts for homonymous ones, etc.). Their rhetoric does not recommend using them for ethical reasons, but you should know them in order to recognize them from your opponent. Similar techniques were used by the sophists in ancient Greece. For their study, a special applied rhetorical discipline has developed - eristics. The material accumulated by eristics has become an object of interest for modern argumentation theory. Since the sophists did not make detailed lists of their tricks and tricks (otherwise the demand for their teaching services would have decreased), a detailed description and systematization of tricks belongs to later times. Among the well-known works in this area is A. Schopenhauer's brochure Eristic.

Along with the doctrine of techniques, argumentation theory also studies the logical fallacies of argumentation. The latter include, for example, a contradiction in the definition of the type of oxymoron ( living Dead), definition of the unknown through the unknown ( zhrugr is a Russian witchraor), negation instead of definition ( a cat is not a dog), tautology, etc.

7. Conclusion. In conclusion, the main content of the text is briefly repeated, the most powerful arguments are reproduced, the necessary emotional state of the listeners is reinforced and their positive attitude towards the thesis is reinforced. Depending on which of these tasks the author considers the most important, he can choose the appropriate type of conclusion: summarizing, typifying or appealing.

Verbal expression or diction

(elocutio). The part of rhetoric most closely related to linguistic problems is the canon "verbal expression", since it is here that the organization of specific linguistic material is considered, up to the selection of words and the structure of individual sentences.

A verbal expression must meet four criteria: correctness (meet the rules of grammar, spelling and pronunciation), clarity (consist of commonly understood words in generally accepted combinations, if possible, do not include abstract, borrowed and other words that may not be clear to the audience), elegance or embellishment (be more aesthetic than everyday speech) and appropriateness. Relevance in traditional rhetoric was reduced to the harmony of the topic and the choice of language means, primarily vocabulary. From the requirement of appropriateness grew the theory of three styles, according to which low-style things were to be spoken of low-style things, high things were to be spoken of high-style things, and neutral things were to be spoken of in medium-style words.

These components of the canon "verbal expression" formed the basis of modern science of the culture of speech.

The most voluminous part of the old, especially medieval, rhetoric was one subsection of the canon "verbal expression" - the doctrine of figures. The opinion was expressed that all "verbal expression" and in general all rhetoric, without a trace, can be reduced to the doctrine of figures.

There are about a hundred figures themselves, but the simultaneous use of Latin and Greek names, to which were added names from new languages, led to the fact that a significantly larger number of doublet or synonymous terms began to be used to designate these figures over the centuries.

Even in antiquity, attempts were repeatedly made to classify the figures.

First of all, figures of thought were separated, which later became isolated under the name of tropes (metaphor, metonymy, etc.), and figures of speech. The latter were subdivided, according to Quintilian, into figures based on the form of speech (grammatical figures) and figures based on the principles of word placement. Other common classifications included the division into word figures (alliteration, assonance) and sentence figures (parcellation, ellipsis, polyunion, non-union, etc.). Some of the figures of the sentence later began to be considered in two ways, depending on the characteristics of a particular language, the nature and purpose of use: on the one hand, as rhetorical figures, and on the other, as a means of linear syntax. Of the modern classifications, the most promising are the classifications of figures according to the procedures for transforming the expression plan and the content plan corresponding to each of them. The authors General rhetoric offer to distinguish figures based on reduction, addition, reduction with addition and permutations (J. Dubois). V.N. Toporov gives the following classification of transformation methods: repetition of aaa... (for example, polyunion), alternation of abab... (parallel syntactic constructions), addition of abc with ab (expletion), reduction of ab with abc (ellipsis), symmetry ab/ba (chiasmus), expansion a > a 1 a 2 a 3, folding a 1 a 2 a 3 > a, etc.

The canon “verbal expression” ended with the doctrine of the amplification of linguistic expression (the amplification of the content plan was related to the topic), in particular, through the sharing of figures, and the doctrine of the rhetorical period.

memory, remembering

(memory).This canon was intended for speakers who needed to memorize speeches prepared by them for subsequent public reproduction, and was more psychological than philological in nature. It contained a list of techniques that made it possible to memorize relatively large amounts of textual information, mainly based on complex visual images.

performance, pronunciation

(action). Appearance of the speaker. The section on performance included information and skills that today relate to the theory of acting: mastery of the voice - its accent-intonation richness, facial expressions, the art of posture and gesture. Complex requirements were formulated for the behavior of the speaker: to demonstrate charm, artistry, self-confidence, friendliness, sincerity, objectivity, interest, enthusiasm, etc.

Rhetoric and related disciplines.

Rhetoric, like linguistics, belongs to the circle of semiotic sciences (see the works of V.N. Toprov, Yu.M. Lotman). The style and culture of speech are separate and independently developing subsections of the old rhetoric. The problems of a number of other disciplines, philological and non-philological, intersect with the problems of rhetoric. These are: the syntax of superphrasal units and the linguistics of the text, the linguistic theory of expressiveness, the linguistic theory of prose, but also the logical sciences, especially modern non-classical logics, psycholinguistics, the psychology of memory and emotions, etc.

The circle of traditional rhetorical disciplines includes eristics, dialectics and sophistry. The disciplines of the non-rhetorical cycle include the linguistic theory of argumentation, the study of communication, general semantics (general semantics), structural poetics, literary text analysis within the framework of new criticism, etc.

Brief historical essay and personalities.

Rhetoric as a systematic discipline developed in ancient Greece during the era of Athenian democracy. During this period, the ability to speak in public was considered a necessary quality of every full citizen. As a result, the Athenian democracy can be called the first rhetorical republic. Separate elements of rhetoric (for example, fragments of the doctrine of figures, forms of argumentation) arose even earlier in ancient India and ancient China, but they were not brought together into a single system and did not play such an important role in society.

It is customary to trace the beginning of rhetoric to the 460s BC. and associate with the activities of the senior sophists Corax, Tisias, Protagoras and Gorgias. Corax allegedly wrote a textbook that has not come down to us The art of persuasion, and Tisias opened one of the first schools for teaching eloquence.

Protagoras

(c. 481–411 BC) is credited as one of the first to study deriving a conclusion from premises. He was also one of the first to use a form of dialogue in which the interlocutors defend opposing points of view. Protagoras owns works that have not come down to us The Art of Arguing, About the sciences and others. It was he who introduced the formula “The measure of all things is man” (the beginning of his work True).

Gorgias

(c. 480–380 BC) was a student of Corax and Thissias. He is considered the founder or at least the discoverer of figures as one of the main objects of rhetoric. He himself actively used figures of speech (parallelism, homeoteleuton, i.e. uniform endings, etc.), tropes (metaphors and comparisons), as well as rhythmically constructed phrases. Gorgias narrowed down the subject of rhetoric, which was too vague for him: unlike other sophists, he claimed that he did not teach virtue and wisdom, but only oratory. Gorgias was the first to teach rhetoric in Athens. His essay has been preserved. About non-existent or about nature and speech Praise to Elena and Justification of Palamedes.

fox

(c. 415-380 BC) is considered the creator of judicial speech as a special type of eloquence. His presentation was distinguished by brevity, simplicity, logic and expressiveness, symmetrical construction of phrases. Of about 400 of his speeches, 34 have survived, but the authorship of Lysias for some of them is considered controversial.

Isocrates

(c. 436-388 BC) is considered the founder of "literary" rhetoric - the first rhetorician who paid primary attention to writing. He was one of the first to introduce the concept of the composition of an oratorical work. In his school, the allocation of four compositional blocks was adopted. The features of his style are complex periods, which, however, have a clear and precise construction and therefore are easily accessible for understanding, rhythmic articulation of speech and an abundance of decorative elements. The rich embellishment made Isocrates' speeches somewhat ponderous to hear. However, as a literary reading they were popular, as evidenced by the large number of lists on papyri.

Plato

(427-347 BC) rejected the value relativism of the sophists and noted that the main thing for a rhetor is not copying other people's thoughts, but his own comprehension of the truth, finding his own path in oratory. His main dialogues on rhetoric are Phaedrus and Gorgias. In them, Plato noted that the main task of oratory is persuasion, meaning primarily emotional persuasion. He emphasized the importance of a harmonious composition of speech, the speaker's ability to separate the paramount from the unimportant and take this into account in speech. Turning to the analysis of the practice of judicial rhetoric, Plato noted that here the orator should not seek the truth (which is of no interest to anyone in the courts), but strive for the maximum likelihood of his arguments.

Aristotle

(384-322 BC) completed the transformation of rhetoric into a scientific discipline. He established an inextricable link between rhetoric, logic and dialectics, and among the most important features of rhetoric he singled out its “special dynamic expressiveness and approach to the reality of the possible and probabilistic” (A.F. Losev). In the main works devoted to rhetoric ( Rhetoric, Topeka and On sophistical rebuttals), Aristotle indicated the place of rhetoric in the system of sciences of antiquity and described in detail everything that formed the core of rhetorical teaching over the following centuries (types of arguments, categories of listeners, types of rhetorical speeches and their communicative goals, ethos, logos and pathos, style requirements, tropes, synonyms and homonyms, compositional blocks of speech, methods of proof and refutation, rules of dispute, etc.). Some of these questions after Aristotle were either perceived dogmatically, or were generally removed from rhetorical teaching. Their development was continued only by representatives of the new rhetoric, starting from the middle of the 20th century.

In addition to theorists in antiquity, an important role was played by practical orators who did not write theoretical works on rhetoric, but whose exemplary speeches were actively used in teaching. The most famous orator was Demosthenes (c. 384-322 BC).

In Greece, two styles of oratory developed - the richly decorated and flowery Asianism and the simple and restrained Atticism that arose as a reaction to the abuse of embellishment.

In the pre-Christian Latin oratory tradition, the most famous theorists of oratory are Cicero and Quintilian.

Cicero

(106-43 BC). The theory of Cicero's rhetoric is set forth mainly in five of his writings: About finding, Topeka- the application of the work of the same name by Aristotle to Roman oratorical practice, Speaker, brutus and About the speaker. In them, Cicero discusses the construction and content of speech, the choice of one of the styles in accordance with the content of speech, the period and sources of persuasion.

Quintilian

(c. 35-100 AD) owns the most complete ancient textbook on eloquence Institutio oratoria or Rhetorical instructions in 12 books. In it, Quintilian systematizes all the knowledge accumulated by his time on the art of the orator. He defines rhetoric, characterizes its goals and objectives, writes about the communicative tasks of communication and persuasion, on the basis of which he considers three types of rhetorical organization of the message. Then he considers the main compositional blocks of the message, paying special attention to the analysis of argumentation and refutation, writes about ways to excite emotions and create the right moods, touches on issues of style and stylistic processing of the message. He devotes one of the books to the technique of pronunciation and memorization.

Aurelius Augustine

(354-430), one of the church fathers, taught rhetoric among other things before his conversion to Christianity. Becoming a Christian, St. Augustine justified the importance of eloquence for the interpretation of biblical provisions and for Christian preaching. His reflections on the role of rhetoric in interpreting and explaining Christian doctrine are contained, in particular, in the treatise Dedoctrina christiana (About Christian Doctrine). In many ways, it can be considered his merit that rhetoric was not rejected by Christians and continued to be developed in the Christian era.

In the Middle Ages, rhetoric became one of the "seven free sciences" in Varro's system of sciences, taught in schools and universities. These seven sciences were divided into two groups: trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectics) and quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy). The teaching of the sciences of the trivium continued in theological and secular schools until the 19th century.

Pierre Ramyu

(1515-1572) tried to revise the ancient doctrine of the three styles. He argued that any subject can be written in each of the three styles (which was rejected by the ancient tradition). He used the term "rhetoric" for the three components of communication (diction, memory and action), the purpose of which is persuasion. His followers defined rhetoric as ars ornandi, i.e. the art of embellished speech. As a consequence, after Ramyu, rhetoric began to be reduced to the study of literary form and expression. Ramyu, being himself a logician, nevertheless believed that figures of speech are only ornamental and cannot be characterized as models of reasoning. The spread of his point of view led to the final dissociation of rhetoric from logic and philosophy for that period.

From the beginning of the 17th century the first written Russian rhetorical aids appear. The first Russian rhetoric (1620) is a translation from Latin of the rhetoric of one of the leaders of the Reformation, F. Melanchthon (1497–1560). Another important textbook on eloquence was Rhetoric attributed to Metropolitan Macarius.

The original concept of Russian rhetoric was proposed by M.V. Lomonosov (1711–1765) in A short guide to rhetoric(1743) and A short guide to eloquence(1747). In these books, the Russian scientific terminology of rhetoric was finally fixed. From the second half of the 18th to the middle of the 19th centuries. many (according to the bibliography of V.I. Annushkin - over a hundred titles, not counting reprints) textbooks, manuals and theoretical works on rhetoric came out. The following works withstood the greatest number of reprints: Experience in rhetoric, composed and taught at the St. Petersburg Mining School(1st edition - 1796) by I.S. Rizhsky (1759–1811); General rhetoric(1829) and private rhetoric(1832) by N.F. Koshansky (1784 or 1785–1831), later republished with the participation of K.P. Zelenetsky, known for his own rhetorical writings, and Brief rhetoric(1809) A.F. Merzlyakova (1778–1830). Other theoretically important works of Russian rhetors were also known: Theory of eloquence for all kinds of prose writings(1830) A.I. Galich, who included “psychological, aesthetic and ethical principles in the consideration of rhetoric”, Rules of Higher Eloquence(manuscript 1792, published in 1844) M.M. Speransky, Foundations of Russian literature(1792) A.S. Nikolsky (1755–1834) and Readings about literature(1837) I.I. Davydov (1794–1863).

In the West, the Age of Enlightenment was the era of the decline of rhetoric. Rhetoric acquired a reputation as a dogmatic discipline of no practical value, and if used, it was only to mislead listeners. Interest in rhetoric was lost. The situation changed only in the first half of the 20th century, under the influence of radical economic and political transformations in the life of society, which put forward new requirements for speech practice.

The revival of rhetoric in the 20th century. started in the USA. He is associated, first of all, with the activities of I.A. Richards and K. Burke. The work of I.A.Richards Philosophy of rhetoric(1936) showed the relevance and social significance of "persuasive" rhetoric, and the works of K. Burke (in particular, Rhetoric of motives) emphasized the importance of literary rhetoric.

The problematics of the new rhetoric was developed in the works of American propaganda theorists G. Laswell, W. Lippman, P. Lazarsfeld, K. Hovland and the founders of the management discipline "public relations" A. Lee, E. Bernays, S. Black and F. Jeffkins. From the very beginning of the rhetorical renaissance in the United States, the emphasis was on the rhetoric of the mass media (since rhetoric was seen as an effective tool for manipulating public opinion, i.e. an instrument of social power) and business rhetoric (negotiating, persuading a partner, etc.). In terms of the level of penetration of practical rhetoric into public life, the United States can be called a rhetorical superpower.

Nevertheless, the emergence of new rhetoric is associated with Europe - with the publication in France of the treatise by H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka new rhetoric. Treatise on Argumentation(1958). In it, at the modern level of scientific knowledge, primarily logical, the rhetorical system of Aristotle received further critical development. H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tytek examined the connection between logic and argumentation, the concepts of audience, dialogue, ambiguity, presumptions, topoi, normativity, argumentation errors, categorized arguments and analyzed their individual categories in detail.

An important role in the modern theory of argumentation (also loosely called the theory of practical discourse) is occupied by the analysis of value judgments. In addition to H. Perelman and L. Olbrecht-Tyteka, R. L. Stevenson, R. Hare, S. Tulmin, K. Bayer devoted their works to this. These and other aspects of the theory of argumentation are also developed by A. Ness, F. van Eemeren, V. Brokridi and others.

Reputation among researchers is A guide to literary rhetoric(1960) G. Lausberg and methodologically important work General rhetoric(1970) of the Liege group "mu" (J. Dubois with colleagues). After the publication of the work of the Lieges, the new rhetoric is often called "general rhetoric".

In Russia, the crisis of rhetoric turned out to be shifted in time. It began around the middle of the 19th century and ended in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Despite this, in the 20s of the 20th century. in Russia, attempts were made to revive the theory of oratory. The world's first Institute of the Living Word was created with the participation of S.M. Bondi, V.E. Meyerhold, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.A. Engelgardt, L.V. Shcherba, L.P. Laboratory of Public Speech by K.A.Syunneberg. The rhetorical initiative did not receive support from official circles. A strange opposition has formed in the official theory of oratory. Rhetoric as a carrier of bad qualities began to be opposed to Soviet oratory as a carrier of good qualities: “In our time, rhetoric is a condemning definition of a pompous, outwardly beautiful, but little content work, speech, etc.” ( Dictionary of literary terms. M., 1974, p. 324). At the same time, an objective and detailed analysis of even Soviet oratory was not encouraged.

Some important theoretical works on rhetoric in the 1960–1970s (S.S. Averintsev, G.Z. Apresyan, V.P. Vompersky and others) became the harbingers of the way out of the “rhetorical crisis”. In modern Russia, a significant number of works on didactic and theoretical rhetoric appear, which allows us to speak of a rhetorical renaissance. The authors of these works can be divided into five groups. The division is distinguished by a certain amount of conventionality, in particular because different works of one researcher sometimes make it possible to attribute him to different groups at the same time.

1. Supporters of the revival of traditional rhetoric as "the art of speaking eloquently" taking into account new scientific achievements. This is a significant part of the scientists involved in the teaching of rhetoric (V.I. Annushkin, S.F. Ivanova, T.A. Ladyzhenskaya, A.K. Mikhalskaya and many others). 2. Developers of the modern theory of argumentation, cognitive linguistics and the theory of speech influence (A.N. Baranov, P.B. Parshin, N.A. Bezmenova, G.G. Pocheptsov, V.Z. Demyankov, E.F. Tarasov and etc.). 3. Developers of individual rhetorical trends - the theory of figures, tropes, the theory of expressiveness (N.A. Kupina, T.V. Matveeva, A.P. Skovorodnikov, T.G. Khazagerov, etc.). 4. Methodologists of rhetoric (S.I. Gindin, Yu.V. Rozhdestvensky, E.A. Yunina and others). 5. Researchers of "literary rhetoric" - poetic language (M.L. Gasparov, V.P. Grigoriev, S.S. Averintsev, V.N. Toporov, etc.).

Rhetoric Perspectives.

In the future, apparently, one should expect the transformation of rhetoric as a modern semiotic discipline into a more "exact" science, to the extent that the criterion of accuracy is applicable to the humanities. This should be done through a detailed quantitative and qualitative description of the regularities of the structure of all existing types of text and speech genres. It is possible to create detailed catalogs of types of transformations of the expression plan and the content plan, a description of all possible structural types of natural language arguments. It is also interesting to study the predictive potential of rhetoric - to what extent, based on the capabilities of the discipline, it is possible to predict the qualities of new speech genres and types of texts that appear in connection with the emergence of new areas of social practice.

Ethical aspect: rhetoric, when used correctly, is an effective tool in the fight against linguistic aggression, demagoguery, and manipulation. Didactic rhetoric plays an important role here. Knowledge of the fundamentals of the disciplines of the rhetorical cycle will make it possible to recognize demagogic and manipulative propaganda techniques in the media and in private communication, and, therefore, effectively defend against them.

Leon Ivanov

Literature:

Ancient rhetoric. M., 1978
Dubois J. et al. General rhetoric. M., 1986
Perelman H., Olbrecht-Tyteka. L. From book « New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation". - In the book: Language and modeling of social interaction. M., 1987
Graudina L.K., Miskevich G.I. Theory and practice of Russian eloquence. M., 1989
Toporov V.N. Rhetoric. Trails. Figures of speech. - In the book: Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1990
Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric. - In the book: Cicero Mark Tullius. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1994
Zaretskaya E.N. Rhetoric. Theory and practice of language communication. M., 1998
Ivin A.A. Fundamentals of the theory of argumentation. M., 1997
Annushkin V.I. History of Russian Rhetoric: Reader. M., 1998
Klyuev E.V. Rhetoric (Invention. Disposition. elocution). M., 1999
Rozhdestvensky Yu.V. Theory of rhetoric. M., 1999
Lotman Yu.M. Rhetoric is a mechanism for generating meaning(section of the book "Inside the thinking worlds"). - In the book: Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. St. Petersburg, 2000



Much in life is determined by the ability to communicate. Success in school, career, personal relationships, built on the ability to communicate. Whether you're reading a lecture in an audience, congratulating at a party, or going through a job interview, concise, structured speech will convey information to listeners in a favorable light. The science that studies the intricacies of oratory is rhetoric. It helps to give speech clarity, specificity, persuasiveness.

From its inception in antiquity to the present day, rhetoric as a science has been understood in different ways. The founding Sophists defined it as a discipline that teaches to manipulate, to prove the point of view of the speaker, to dominate discussions.

Today, in the first place is harmonizing speech, the search for truth, the incitement to thought. In the modern sense, rhetoric is a discipline that studies how to create an expedient, influencing, harmonizing speech. The subject of rhetoric is thought-speech action.

Combining philosophy, sociology, psycholinguistics and philology, modern rhetoric makes it possible to achieve effective speech interaction with any society.

The subject and tasks of rhetoric

The subject in rhetoric is the ways of forming an expedient word:

• oral;
• printed;
• electronic;
• the process of converting thought into speech.

The tasks of rhetoric are reduced to its direction. The first direction is logical: persuasiveness, efficiency of speech are the primary parameters. The second is the literary direction: the dominant aspects are the splendor and beauty of words. Given the unification of the logical and literary direction in modern rhetoric, its tasks include the correctness, persuasiveness and expediency of speech.

Rhetoric and culture of speech

The culture of speech is a discipline that studies the norms of the literary and national languages, as well as the rules for the appropriate use of linguistic means of expression. Rhetoric and culture of speech are interrelated concepts that provide productive communication.

Private and general rhetoric

Rhetoric falls into two categories: general and particular. General rhetoric studies oratory in general and is useful to any person.

Private rhetoric, based on canons and rules, studies the art of eloquence in various professional fields.

General rhetoric has sections:

• rhetorical canon;
• oratory - the art of public speaking;
• dispute - the art of apodictic discussion (arguing for the sake of reaching the truth);
• conversation - a section that teaches how to conduct a private, secular or business conversation;
• the rhetoric of everyday communication, teaching to recognize the emotional and speech signals sent by the interlocutor, to adapt to them;
• ethno-rhetoric, which studies the features of speech behavior of different nationalities.

The rhetorical canon of antiquity consisted of five parts:

• Invention (invention). Formation of an idea for a speech. Finding an answer to the question: What to say?
• Location (disposition). Drawing up a text plan to achieve the transfer of the main idea.
• Expression (elocution). Making speech with visual means of the language, editing the text.
• Memorization (memorio). The speaker's choice of communication method. Learning, taking notes.
• Pronunciation (action). The speaker's speech in front of an audience.

At the fifth stage, the culmination of oratorical activity takes place and the ancient rhetorical canon ends. For the sake of improving oratory skills, one more item has been added in the modern canon:

• Reflection. It implies the author's reasoning over his speech, the search for weak formulations and the selection of successful speech techniques.

There are three stages in the rhetorical canon:

• pre-communicative, including work on speech (invention, arrangement, expression, memorization);
• communicative, representing the interaction of the speaker with the audience (pronunciation);
• post-communicative stage, which is the analysis of the speech (reflection).

Oratorical activity is based on three concepts - ethos, logos, pathos.

• Ethos implies the validity of speech by circumstances that affect the topic of speech (place, time, duration of speech);
• Logos is responsible for the logical component;
• Paphos includes the emotional and mimic color of the performance.

Types of eloquence

There are five main types of eloquence:

• Socio-political view - diplomatic, socio-political, political-economic, parliamentary, rally and propaganda speeches.
• Academic view - scientific lectures, messages, abstracts, seminars and reports.
• Judicial view - the speeches of the actors in the trials: lawyers, prosecutors, judges.
• Theological eloquence or spiritual appearance - parting words, sermons, solemn speeches of a church orientation.
• Social and everyday types of eloquence - drinking, anniversary, festive or memorial speeches.

The origin of rhetoric as a scientific discipline takes place in ancient Greece as early as the fifth century BC. Due to the formation of slave-owning democracy, the art of persuasive speech has become in great demand in society. Any representative of the policy (city) could learn oratory from teachers of rhetoric - sophists (wise men).

Possessing all the skills of eloquence, the sophists taught the wards through practical exercises. At heated discussions and subsequent analyzes of speeches, the masters of the word prepared students for the professions of judicial defenders, prosecutors, and rhetors. The Sophists taught the art of decorating the word, creating persuasive speeches. They argued that the art of speech is not in the search for truth, but in proving the correctness of the speaker.

Rhetoric was understood by the sophists as the science of persuasion, the purpose of which is victory over the enemy. This served as a subsequent negative coloring of the meaning of the word "sophism". If at first it was understood as "skill, skill, wisdom", now it is "trick, invention".

Notable sophist philosophers:

• Protagoras (485-410 BC)

Considered the founder of the art of discussion. The author of the thesis: "Man is the measure of all things."

• Gorgias (483-375 BC)

Master of oratory, the first teacher of rhetoric in Athens. The founder of the use of tropes and figures of speech in rhetoric. Legacy: "Praise to Elena", "Protection of Palamedes".

• Lysias (445-380 BC)

Father of the art of judgment. His speeches were distinguished by clarity and brevity, 34 of them have survived to this day, among them: "Speech against Eratosthenes, a former member of the College of Thirty" and "Acquitory speech in the case of the murder of Eratosthenes." Eratosthenes was one of the thirty tyrants responsible for the death of his brother Lysias after the capture of Athens by Sparta.

• Isocrates (436-338 BC)

One of the students of Gorgias, the founder of literary rhetoric. His speeches stood out for their simplicity, intelligibility of style for all Athenians. The most famous sayings are: "Panegyric" and "Panathenaic" speech. Isocrates’ understanding of why rhetoric is needed is reflected in the statement: “A true master of the word should not mess around with trifles and not only inspire listeners that it is useless for them, but that it will save them from poverty and bring great benefits to others.” He also owns the expression: "Learning is the sweet fruit of a bitter root."

The Sophists exalted the art of the word over the truth. Dialectics was understood as a competition for the sake of victory. The search for truth seemed meaningless, because such, according to the sophists, did not exist.

The teaching of Socrates makes us look at rhetoric in a new way. The search for truth and the acquisition of virtue become the main tasks. With his dialogues, called "Socratic irony", the philosopher led the interlocutor to the knowledge of himself. He taught thoughtfulness and morality. Socrates did not write works, but the works of his students, such as Plato and Xenophon, convey the thinker's sayings. For example: “No one wants evil”, “Virtue is knowledge”.

Plato in the 380s BC e. founded the Academy, which taught astronomy, philosophy, mathematics, geometry, as well as techniques that develop the spiritual qualities of a person. His teaching called for the abandonment of passions, for the sake of purifying the mind for knowledge. The sciences were taught by the dialectical method, and individualism developed.

Plato's rhetorical ideal is reflected in the statement: "Every speech must be composed like a living being." A clear structure of speech was implied, the ratio of the general to the particular. The philosopher especially valued clarity of speech and truth.

Aristotle is an ancient Greek thinker, a student of Plato. He spent 20 years at the Academy, later founded the Lyceum (named after the temple of Apollo of Lyceum), where he personally taught philosophy and rhetoric. With his treatise Rhetoric, Aristotle singled out the art of speech among other sciences, defined the principles for constructing speech and methods of proof. It is Aristotle who is considered the founder of rhetoric as a science.

In ancient Rome, the politician, philosopher and great orator Marcus Tullius Cicero contributed to the development of rhetoric. In Brutus, or on Famous Orators, Cicero conveyed the history of rhetoric in the names of famous orators. The treatise "On the Orator" forms the image of a worthy rhetor, uniting knowledge in history, philosophy and law. The work "Orator" is dedicated to the styles and rhythm of eloquence. Mark Tullius singled out rhetoric among other sciences, calling it the most difficult. In his understanding, the subject of rhetoric is as follows - the speaker must have deep knowledge in all areas in order to be able to support any dialogue.

Mark Fabius Quintilian, in his 12 book Rhetorical Instructions, analyzed rhetoric, supplementing it with his own conclusions regarding all its components. He appreciated the clarity of the style, the speaker's ability to arouse emotions in listeners. Rhetoric was defined by him as "the science of speaking well". Quintilian also added to the teachings of rhetoric, pointing out the importance of the non-verbal component.

Development of rhetoric in Russia

Russian rhetoric developed mainly on the basis of the Roman one. The need for rhetoric rose and fell with the change of political and social regimes.
How did Russian rhetoric develop over the centuries:

• Ancient Russia (XII-XVII centuries). Until the 17th century, the term “rhetoric” did not exist in Russia, as well as teaching aids on it. However, there were rules. The ethics of speech, denoted by the terms: "eloquence", "eloquence" or "rhetoric". They studied the art of the word, guided by liturgical texts, the writings of preachers. For example, the collection "Bee" (XIII century).
• First half of the 17th century. "The Tale of the Seven Free Wisdoms"; opening of Moscow advanced schools; Kyiv Theological Academy; 1620 - the first textbook on rhetoric in Russian; Books "On the invention of cases", "On decoration".
• Late 17th – early and mid 18th centuries "Rhetoric" by Mikhail Usachev; Rhetoric Andrei Belobotsky; "Old Believer rhetoric"; treatises "Poetics", "Rhetoric", "Ethics, or the Science of Customs", as well as a number of lectures on the rhetorical art of Feofan Prokopovich.
• XVIII century. Rhetoric as a science in Russia was formed by the works of Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov: "A Brief Guide to Rhetoric" (1743), "Rhetoric" (1748). Lomonosov's "Rhetoric" is a reader, a fundamental work in the development of this science.
• Early and mid 19th century Until the middle of the nineteenth century, there was a rhetorical "boom" in Russia. The teachings of the word were published one after the other. The works of I.S. Riga, N.F. Koshansky, A.F. Merzlyakova, A.I. Galich, K.P. Zelensky, M.M. Speransky. In the second half of the century, rhetoric is being replaced by literature. In Soviet times, stylistics, linguistics, and the culture of the word were taught, while rhetoric was criticized.

The subject and tasks of rhetoric in the 21st century or why rhetoric is needed today

Our time is characterized by high technology, versatile, accessible, relentlessly developing education system. This is the age of information and communication. The communicative abilities of a person, his desire for development, determine success in all spheres of life.

First of all, oratory skills will be useful for people in non-productive areas of activity - media workers, lawyers, psychologists, teachers, designers, sellers, etc.

But why do locksmiths, doctors, drivers need rhetoric? The answer is in the following question, each one will find for himself separately: What kind of person does not need to be able to think and own his own word?

The study of the basics of oratory, psychology, body language will be useful to anyone who strives for a full, comfortable life in society.