Moscow State University of Press. Report specificity of rhetorical argumentation Differentiation of logical and rhetorical argumentation

Argumentation

Traditionally, the argument is described in the logic works. Between the understanding of the argument in logic and rhetoric, of course, there is a lot of general, but there are also very significant differences for which it is necessary to pay special attention to, as it will save us from improper assessment of this phenomenon. Comparison is important to do and because the logical understanding of the argument is widely known, is replicated in many textbooks and scientific articles, while a rhetorical understanding remains still little-known, which creates the danger of replacing rhetorical argument by proof in the practice of mastering rhetoric. To avoid this undesirable phenomenon, it is necessary to first determine if possible to determine what value is investing in the concept of "argument" logic and rhetoric.

Specificity of rhetorical argument

24. A purely logical view on the problem of argument is represented, for example, such opinion: "If the process of argument in its abstract purity is the unity of logical and extrevical components aimed at a single goal - the formation of someone certain beliefs, then they are usually resorted to those in those Cases when narrowological components for the addressee turn out to be somehow not sufficiently convincing and as a result of this, the proof does not reach the target. The extrevical components take on the function of strengthening the process of evidence and ensuring the desired effect. But when the logical components themselves become sufficient, then the need for what -Lo extrevical elements disappears. The process of argument passes to the process of evidence. In this regard, the proof can be conventionally submitted if the mathematical term can be used as a "degenerate case" of argument, namely, as such argument, the extrevical components of which are striving for zero. Hence The legality of the situation is: if there is evidence, which is as such and perceived, then the argument, which, in its composition, in addition to purely discursive-logical, other components, are not needed. " one

Such a position is also characteristic of other works by logic professionals who consider argument to the subject of purely logical, which is necessary only when the audience does not immediately perceive the proof and requires additional arguments that should still remain in a strictly rational framework. "Philosophical and ideological, axiological, psychological and other components" are allowed in argument as secondary and only to the extent to which "each of them meets the requirements of formal logic, its standard, standard schemes." And even the choice of one or another logical argument is due to the specifics of the proposed audience, but "near-the scientific mythology", "fashion" and "ideological requirements". 2.

The opposite position is occupied by representatives of neoritory, in the writings of which the argument is strongly declared the prerogative of rhetoric, and which consider the argument of one of the possibilities of speech impact on a person's consciousness. So, Vz. Demyankov indicates that, in contrast to the proof, the argument serves to attract listeners to their side, and for this not necessarily resort to rational arguments. It is often enough to just give to understand, "that the position, in favor of which proponent acts, lies in the interests of the addressee; protecting these interests, you can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on moral installations. Argumentation is one of the possible tactics of realization of the plan." This view goes back to the neuroretical assessment of the essence of the argument of H. Perelmann, who claimed that "the area of \u200b\u200bargumentation is such assessments of the arguments, as likely, the possibility and probability taken in the value that is not amenable to formalization in the form of calculations. Any argument is aimed at rapprochement, and Thus, implies the existence of intellectual contact. " Thus, here we see a purely rhetorical look at the essence of the argument, which is understood as "the possibility of speech impact on the consciousness of a person", "part of the theory of achieving social understanding" and is opposed to logical effects. An important element of this position is the requirement of compulsory accounting of the audience features as an indispensable condition for the effectiveness of the argument, which is actually a rhetorical factor not used in logic. The argument is estimated from the point of view of relevance, which is also running rhetoric, and not logic.

However, it is clear that rhetoric cannot claim to be monopoly for consideration of the argument. The delimitation of logical and rhetorical in argumentation has a positive value for both sciences.

As a starting point of such a distinction, consider the point of view V.F. Berkova: "Any argument has two aspects - logical and communicative. In logically, the argument acts as a procedure for finding and presenting for some position (thesis) expressing a certain point of view, supports in other provisions (grounds, arguments, arguments). In some cases The thesis relies on the base in such a way that it is determined by the true content of the latter, as if filled with them. If, for example, for the thesis having a form "if p, then R, the true base is found" if p, then Q, and if q, then R ", it is obvious that it is constructed from the elements included in this base. It is this way of argument is characteristic of science. Outside science is the situation, as a rule, in other things, and the thesis can rely on religious faith, the opinion of the authority, the strength of tradition , momentary mood of the crowd, etc. In the Communicative Plan, the argument is the process of transmission, interpretation and suggestion of the recipient of information recorded in the abstract of the argumentator. Finite The purpose of this process is the formation of this belief. The argument reaches this purpose only if the recipient: a) perceived, b) I understood and c) adopted the thesis of the argumentator. Accordingly, two aspects are allocated for the functions of the argument: cognitive and communicative. "

The delimitation of a logical aspect of an argument focused on a cognitive function, and a rhetorical aspect oriented to communicative function, will help properly understand the essence and purpose of argument, understand the corresponding components.

25. The ratio between cognitive and communicative aspects of speech can change significantly. In this case, when only a logical aspect is relevant, called proof, and the case when only the communicative aspect is relevant, called suggestion.

Evidence - The concept is predominantly logical. This is a set of logical techniques to substantiate the truth of any judgment with other true and related judgments. Thereby, the task of proof is the destruction of all doubts in the correctness of the launched thesis. When building evidence, the speaker uses rational (logical) arguments: scientific theories and hypothesis, facts, statistics. All these arguments must withstand the verification of truth, rely on knowledge, consist of impersonal judgments.

Suggestion - The concept is predominantly psychological. This is an imposition of a ready-made addressee by influencing the subconscious. Thereby, the task of suggestion is to create a feeling of the voluntaryness of the perception of someone else's opinion, its relevance, attractiveness. When building a suggestion, the speaker uses emotional (rhetorical) arguments: psychological, figurative, references to authorities, etc. These arguments are built on estimates and norms, should seem likely to rely on opinions and refer to personality.

All other differences in different poles of influencing evidence and suggestion are followed from this. The proof is addressed to the thesis and sets the goal justify its truth. If the speaker succeeded in logical methods to show that smoking is harmful to health or that the proposals of this company are the most profitable, he considers his task to proof performed. In this case, it is not interested in the life of proven truth. Has her listener accepted and how she influenced his actions - it does not matter. "This approach to the argument ... is based on two assumptions. First, the participants in the discussion exclude the motives of personal interest. Secondly, the unity of the psychological decision mechanism is assumed: intuition and deduction, on Descartes, as a clear and distinct discretion of the subject. And the use of uniform rules and symbols is based on the idea of \u200b\u200bthe same intelligence of all people who differ only in the power of the mind. "

The suggestion is addressed to the audience and puts the purpose of influencing the sensual and emotional sphere of man make accept The proposed ideas and guided by them in practical matters. Which of the smokers does not know about the dangers of smoking? But they continue to smoke, despite all (well known them) the fear of their passion. The speaker coming to the suggestion initiates a sense of self-preservation, fear or disgust in this situation, etc. and thereby seeks to refuse the harmful habit; Or, referring to personal interests, declares the audience to sign the contract with its company. If the effectiveness of logical evidence depends on the truth of the arguments themselves, the effectiveness of suggestion in a decisive degree may depend not on the content of speech, but from such extraneous moments, as a) the tone used by the speaker (confident - uncertain, respectful - unleashed, etc.) ; b) information about the speaking, famous audiences before his speech (specialist - non-specialist, director - subordinate, etc.); c) the degree of resistance to the audience with the arguments with the arguments (I have prejudice against your company - I heard about it only good, etc.).

The distinction between evidence and suggestion is based on the existence of two types of conclusions allocated by Aristotle: analytical and dialectical. A detailed description of analytical judgments is available in the first and second "analysts", where the basis of formal logic is laid. Dialectic conclusions are considered Aristotle in the "topic" and "rhetoric", where he describes their essence and prevailing sphere: "Proof is available when the conclusion is built from the true and first [provisions] or of those, knowledge of which originates from those or other first and true [provisions]. The dialectical conclusion - which is constructed from plausible [provisions]. The true and first [provisions] are those that are not reliable through other [provisions], but through themselves. For no knowledge is needed Ask "Why", and each of these began in itself should be reliable. It is believable that it seems to be the right one or most people, or wise - to all or most of them or the most famous and glorious. "

Thus, according to Aristotle, the proof relies on the truth, the suggestion is based on the opinion that it seems to be believable. Further, Aristotle writes about the entity of truth: "No reasonable person will put forward in the form of the provisions that no one seems correct, and will not put in the form of the problem of what is obvious to everyone or most people. After all, the latter would not cause any perplexity, but the first No one would claim. The dialectical position is the question of plausible for everyone, or for most people, or for wise - all, or most, or the most famous of them, that is, consistent with generally accepted. For it can be considered believable that It is believed to be wise if it is not disgusting the opinion of most people. Dialectic provisions are also similar to the plausible, and proposed as contradictory topics that are opposite to those who are considered plausible, as well as the opinions consistent with the acquired arts. " Thus, true statements are those that correspond to objective reality, and plausible - those that are perceived as true, that is, who believes the audience. These concepts may coincide, and may not coincide. So, the argument "because the earth rotates around the sun" is true and seems to be quite plausible to the modern listener, but in antiquity (the same Aristotel) was absolutely implausible, although it was also true as now. Approval of the speaker that he saw aliens, theoretically arguing, it may well be true, but perceived in many audiences as implausible. On the other hand, the statement that Jesus lived on Earth - the Son of God, may well do not correspond to the truth (this is exactly what the representatives of other religions think), but it believes (and therefore, considers the believable) a huge number of people.

26. All sorts of combinations of evidence and suggestion give us the basic, actually rhetorical form of influencing speech - conviction. In this case, the speaker turns to mind, but affects the feelings of the audience, appeals to both the truth and the opinion of the listeners, shows all the possibilities, benefits and advantages of its solution to the problem. F. Bacon wrote: "If you think about deeper, then the task and function of rhetoric are primarily in the instructions of the mind to transmit imagination in order to initiate a desire and will." 15, 351 at the same time those thoughts that speaker seeks to make the property of the audience , It should seem to him the most absolutely correct, he must sincerely believe in their intelligence. Only then conviction has a correct ethically immaculate character, otherwise we are dealing with a speculative form of belief.

However, it is important to keep in mind that not every thought can be the object of belief. Arguing about it, A.P. Alekseev indicates that there are a large number of scientific and domestic judgments of the type "I have two hands", "2x2 \u003d 4", "Prefix, root, suffix and ending are the words", about which you can talk about truth, but you can not talk about Believe me, as they cannot be accompanied by an emotional assessment. In contrast to this type of type, the noble goal does not justify the immoral funds used to achieve it "or" this person is unconditionally decent "are quite suitable as the theses of convincing speech, as they are evaluated to the audience with ethical and other positions. "The emotional painfulness of thought is due to a large extent to the belonging of the object of this thought to the system of human values, the connection of this thought with moral guidelines, aesthetic ideals."
So, the conviction necessarily has two sides: the demonstration of the thesis and the creation of an emotional attitude towards him when a person believes in the correctness of what has been said and perceives him as a guide to action, and such a relationship is possible only in relation to value judgments associated with moral landmarks, aesthetic ideals and etc. (it is clear that in relation to the Pythagora theorem to talk about faith, belief, etc. It would be ridiculous.) That is why the choice of one or another strategy of argument in conviction is entirely depends on the nature of the alleged audience. Even the choice of certain arguments among the logical in the affecting speech depends on the observations of the speaker and the task of speech and it turns out to be subjective. "Any spectrum statement, no matter how impartial it seems, there is always a manifestation of a certain choice if you compare it with other opposite statements." This is the main difference between the use of arguments in conviction and proof.

Can pure proof be used as a rhetorical form of influencing speech? Yes maybe. For example, if the audience consists exclusively of men, this is a scientific and technical intelligentsia, and the formal situation. (For example, speaking with a report before the management of the research institute.) In this situation, the speaker can choose the form of evidence as the most suitable for this type of audience in this situation. True, already the fact choice This form as oriented to a specific audience immediately translates proof from a logical aspect into rhetorical.

Can a pure suggestion be used as a rhetorical form of influencing speech? Yes maybe. For example, if the audience is exceptionally feminine, poorly educated, and the household situation. (For example, trying to encourage high school girls to cut off the hair and make fashionable hairstyles.) It forces the speaker to resort exclusively to psychological arguments and not use rational. However, in this case, it cannot go to certain ethical borders, does not resort to pressure, leaves the audience freedom of choice. Only then can be defined as rhetorically permissible.

Let's pay attention again: both situations give rise to the form of influencing speech, called conviction, but its extreme points - in the first case, the elements of suggestion are striving for zero, in the second - evidence. However, if the logical and psychological elements in a convincing speech turn out to be in greater equilibrium, it gives a stronger effect: "eloquence has two signs: the power of feelings and persuasiveness. The power of feelings - the eloquence of the heart - there is such a living sense of truth, such a strong participation of the speaker in the proposed business that he himself, captivating, fascinates and listeners for him. persuasiveness - the eloquence of the mind - there is such an irresistible force and the pleasant of the belief that we are against the aspirations, against the will, completely unexpectedly agree with the thoughts of the author. - If the eloquence of the mind connects with the eloquence of the heart, That is not almost forces to resist. "

27. The fact that logic recognizes exclusively proof, while rhetoric prefers more emotional forms of impact, determined by the areas of their application. Logic works in the scientific sphere, where proof is the main and most important procedure, and the agency is exclusively finding truth. Rhetoric works in other areas where the logical proof of truth is not the main task of the speaker. Those theses that are treated here is most often impossible to prove logically, Wed: " It is necessary to vote for our batch because it represents the interests of the people ";" Buy a chewing gum "STIMUROL", because it has the best taste and remarkably refreshes the breath"And so on. However, to create an opinion among the audience that these thoughts are correct, it is quite possible with the help of emotional (rhetorical) arguments. Subject of beliefs by proof in these cases leads to rhetorical failure:" What was in Greece, in ancient Rome that now We have, it was repeated everywhere at all times. In the process of Socrates, the guilt is not proven - he is executed, in the process of Zhanna Dark, the guiltness is not proved - it is burned on the fire; In the process, Varren Hastings, guilt is not proven - he was convicted; In the process of La Roncér, innocence is proved - he was convicted; In both processes of Dreyfus, the guilt is not proven - he was convicted; In the process of Estergani, guilt is proved - it is justified. In court, it does not mean to convince. "96, 260 and this is in judicial practice, where the truth is quite objective and can be found! What to talk about the social and political sphere, where it is possible to operate only with the concepts" better - worse "," to a greater extent - to a lesser extent. "In social practice, the truth is most often called only an officially recognized opinion.

However, it should be said that recently life has also demanded from the logic of the need to recognize the role of rhetorical elements in the practice of argumentation. True, this refers to cases when the argument is used in the discussion, and not in the monologue. CP.: "At the heart of such ideas, there is a thought that the sample, model of the dispute and any argument is the mathematical evidence based on deductive conclusion. We have repeatedly stressed that such arguments have the greatest convincing and lead to reliably true results. In many ways, their attractiveness and desire to use them everywhere, where possible. However, a real dispute, a discussion or controversy is less like a deductive proof of at least because allegations and arguments are changing to confirm them in the very process of dispute influenced by the criticism of opponents. Yes, and the arguments themselves are never exhaustive and reliably true. That is why in this case you have to be limited only to plausible arguments. " So, in the situation of the dispute, the logic recognizes the pattern of appeal only to the plausible arguments. But if you remember that any campaign is not an abstract monologue in front of the scientific public, but a speech in a critical audience, as if a replica in dispute (at least alleged), it will become clear that the proposed reasoning is fully applicable to any convincing speech.

Argument of judicial speech

Introduction 3.

1. Argenition of argumentation 5.

2. Real view on the specifics of the argument 6

3.Ethical argument 7.

4.Strategia 9.

5. The construction of the rhetorical argumentation system on

example of defensive judicial speech 11

Conclusion 14.

List of references 15.

Introduction

Argument has many parties that serve as a subject of research - in various sciences - linguistics, rhetoric, philosophy, logic, psychology, in a number of social sciences, etc. None of the sciences can fully cover the phenomenon of argumentation precisely because to this We must go beyond your subject.

The study of the argument is carried out within the framework of the theory of argument, linguistic pragmatics, theory of discourse, cognitive semantics, etc. (G. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A.N. Baranov, BF Gak, G.P. Grys, T .A. Van Dyk, V.I. Karasik, Yu.N. Karaulov, E.S. Kuborakova, I.A. Sternov, etc.). But, despite the large number of research, the rhetorical aspects of this problem, is given unreasonably little attention.

The choice of exactly the rhetorical direction of the study of the argument is due to the complex nature of rhetoric. According to I. Kraus, "rhetoric shows an amazing ability to fill in the gap, which was created by a constantly deepening specialization of sciences." Rhetoric has become an integral area covering and the problem of creating speech; And the ways of rendering impact, it "describes the process coming from the communicative task to the actual message, further to the integration of the form and content of the text."

The main unit of argument is recognized as a strategy. For each genre, a general strategy arising from the specifics of the genre itself, and private strategies, whose choice depends on the desire of the speaker. According to the main intention, all strategies can be defined as ethical, rational or emotional.

The relevance of the study is due to the important social role of the argument of the judicial defensive speech and is determined by the following aspects: the rhetorical characteristics of the argument of judicial speech, the study of which is very relevant to identifying the essential signs of rhetorical argument as a whole, have not yet been the subject of scientific research of the basic, rhetorical characteristic of judicial speech argument is the presence of hierarchy of values, the study of which makes a certain contribution to the solution of some problems of the linguistic theory of linguaxiology values, the most important component of the rhetorical argument of the judicial speech is rational; (logical) component, the study of which is important for the theory of logical argument to a significant part of rhetorical argument, judicial speech is an emotional component, the study of which as a full component of argumentation makes a significant contribution to the theory of speech impact.

The concept of argument

Recently, in Russian and foreign science, there is an increasingly persistent interest in the argument, which is understood as the interdisciplinary area of \u200b\u200bthe humanities. This interest is due to the fact that the argument is present as an integral component not only in any act of communication, but also in a wide variety of spheres of human knowledge. Increased attention to the problems of argument leads to the unification of the efforts of scientists of different directions to overcome one-sidedness of studying this complex phenomenon. Gradually comes to an understanding that the argument is primarily the process of communication, both verbal and non-verbal, based on rational, emotional and even existential foundations of the human person. Today, psychological and linguistic mechanisms are investigated in the theory of arguments, not limited to the sphere of rational, the area of \u200b\u200bthinking.

Difficulty, however, is that, despite the generally accepted interdisciplination of the emerging theory of argumentation, it turns out to be influenced or logic (by tradition) or pragmalinguistics. In the first case, the tendency of the transfer of methods and forms characteristic of the exact sciences in the humanitarian sphere is clearly traced. In the second case, special attention is paid to form, grammatical methods for the expression of certain intentions. At the same time, if the first direction still tries to somehow interact with rhetoric, then the second is usually determined from it :.

At the same time, the rhetoric still thinking about the Aristotle as a science responsible for finding arguments suitable for specific situations of communication. It is not by chance that the ancestor of the theory of argument called his science "Neorovernment", because he understood that the argument is the heart of rhetoric.

In this regard, at present, the urgent need to eliminate this blatant injustice and to show the role of rhetoric in the formation of the theory of argumentation.

Rhetorical look at the specifics of the argument

A rhetorical view of the specificity of the argument is due to its purely teleological character: the ultimate goal of the theory here is always expected to provide practical assistance to a person speaking, the development of such a concept that would lead in practice to optimize the impact on the audience. The key concept of rhetoric is "impact", which is considered as a goal and the result of a speech action and manifests itself in the form of a new psychological state of the addressee - new knowledge, mood, consent with the proposed point of view, the desire to act in a certain way.

In this regard, since the times of Aristotle, it was assumed that, in addition to the purely rational elements studied by logic, affecting the speaker should necessarily contain ethical and psychological components consisting of the values \u200b\u200bof the author and appeal to the feelings of the audience. These components were usually described in rhetoric as an ethos, logo and pathos.

Ethos is a moral (ethical) basis of speech (morals). Traditionally, it is mainly considered by the appearance of the speaker, the oratorian mask, which the speaker considers it necessary to present listeners to achieve mutual understanding. However, it seems to understand the ethos more widely, as all the ethical aspects of speech. The importance of the ethical component of the argument is determined by the fact that human survival as a kind and species is due to reflexive acts of reflection of themselves in the world, and this reflection is initially ethical: "And God saw that it is good ...", "says the first head of the Bible (Gen. 1.10 -15) - the original source of Christian ethics.

From a cognitive point of view, the role of ethical argument is that it is possible to form certain models of social behavior with its help, since it is a kind of mechanism for the interaction of thinking and speech (language). The argument is not just a sense of reasoning, but also the "instrument", allowing a person to carry out effective behavior in a social environment. It serves as an intermediary in the development of social representations and models of due to social behavior.

Logos is an idea, meaningful (logical) Side of speech (arguments). Logos is responsible for a rational understanding of the audience of the essence and the circumstances of the thesis. "In private rhetoric, argument techniques are studied, characteristic of specific types of verbost, for example, the Argumentation of theological, legal, natural, historical. In general rhetoric, the method of building arguments in any kind words is studied. "

Pafos is the means of influencing the audience (psychological side of speech, passion). To achieve the consent of the listeners, it is necessary not just an understanding, but also sympathy for the ideas of the speaker. Emotional arguments allow you to influence the feelings and desires of listeners. "Fashionable thinking an ancient logical, arguing. By virtue of this, the images are deeply penetrated into consciousness, and the logic forms remain on its surface, performing the function of scaffolding around the building of thought. "

Ethical argumentation

Ethical argument stands aside from the other two branches. Many authors do not allocate this category of arguments at all; Sometimes such arguments are combined with emotional, in other cases - with rational. The main disputes in all directions of the theory of arguments are carried out over the separation of rational (logo) and emotional (pathos) of the branches of the argument.

The versatility of the old rhetorical principle of the need to appeal to the mind, feeling and will for the best impact on the audience finds confirmation and in modern science. So, V.I. Karasik notes that the concept of knowledge is relevant for the linguistic person - concept - has three main components: conceptual, shaped and value.

Next, within the framework of these traditional areas, it is necessary to determine the basic units of argumentation. The most optimal such unit, as appropriate as possible to the rhetorical description of the argument, is a strategy that is planning the activities of the speaker, consisting in choosing certain steps of argument on the basis of optimality criteria. This is organically connected with a common understanding of the discourse, which is not the sum of the arguments, but has a permeating strategic essence. Moreover, the compilation of the strategy cannot be identified with the creation of a speech plan (so far so-beloved by many authors of rhetoric textbooks). The strategy is the principle of all the activities of the speaker constantly corrective its plans in accordance with the change in the situation, since it constantly has to "choose from a certain number of alternative options such a move, which seems to him" the best answer "on the actions of others."

On the point of contact between the theory of speech genres and the theory of speech strategies, OS indicates Issis, which lists the parameters, bringing the concepts of "strategy" and "speech genre": a communicative goal as a constitutional sign, the image of the author, the concept of the addressee, the prediction of possible responses of the interlocutor, etc.

For the theory of rhetorical genres, the concept of a strategy is even more necessary. So, if "the goals of speech acts and in most cases - speech genres are limited to a specific communicative situation, an episode", then for rhetorical genres, as for strategies, goals "are long-term, designed for the final result" [ibid, p. 73]

Strategy

Strategies used in rhetorical purposes can be defined as rational (having predominantly logical impact elements), value (having predominantly ethical elements of exposure) and emotional (having predominantly psychological elements of impact).

Strategies that make up the basis of speech impact in a specific rhetorical genre, develop into the system. The first level of this system forms a general strategy corresponding to the general problem of the genre. At the second level, private strategies appear, which help to specify the idea of \u200b\u200bthe speaker. Their set is pretty much depends on the desire of the speaker and the situation (and not only from the genre), however, and here for model situations there is a typical set of opportunities. Each private strategy has its own microset, the solution of which makes a certain contribution to the solution of the general problem of speech.

Strategies are complex units and are built from smaller units - tactics. "From the point of view of speech exposure

the strategy can be considered only with the help of tactics analysis, since the strategy is the art of planning based on the right and far-reaching forecasts. Tactics are the use of techniques, ways to achieve any goal, the line of behavior of anyone. In this context, the strategy is a comprehensive phenomenon, and the tactic is-aspect. Thus, it is necessary to analyze aspect phenomena to compile a holistic understanding of the strategy. "

Tactics are determined by the "system of operational methods, techniques and means used in the process of discussing the problem and aimed at the effective implementation of the strategic goals of each of the participants in the dispute." Tactic is the art of solving private technical issues necessary to implement the strategy. However, the strategy is the phenomenon more complicated than just the amount of tactics. It rather "not" consists "of them, but defines their general direction. And vice versa: As in some extent, the parts of the strategy and unfolding linearly (in time and space), tactics do not precede the strategies, do not constitute it, but implement. "

In this regard, the question arises: is he always consciously choosing this or that strategy (tactics)? Whether the situation does not arise when the strategies can be found in the affecting speech, but it is difficult to assume that the speaker was going to use them (as in speech, you can always find and classify certain syntactic designs, but it is unlikely that the speaker is thinking about what kind of design it uses) ?

On this occasion, spoken-language researchers note the admissibility of the unconscious nature of the use of strategies: "The possible actualization of free schemes is obliged to free use of structures without prior inflammation of efficiency in the process of their choice and further applications. With spontaneous speaking, the form cannot be pre-clarified by the speaker. Spontaneous design (modeling) of the form seems to us natural process. " At the same time, in the institutional discourse, the use of certain strategies is conscious arising from the specifics of the situation and the genre. Of course, the speaker cannot think every time on the topic: What would choose a strategy? However, automatism in choosing strategies is achieved by persistent training, awareness of which strategies are characteristic (obligatory) for one or another genre, that is, the genre strategic field is conventional limited and determined.

Two arguments are used in rhetoric: logical and rhetorical.

Logical arguments are based on deductive and inductive evidence.

In deductive proof, the conclusion is done during the transition from the total to the private:

Any fish can swim

Elephant does not know how to swim

_________________________

Consequently, an elephant is not a fish

In inductive proof, the conclusion is done, on the contrary, from private facts to the general rule.

Latvia - the Baltic country,

Lithuania - the Baltic country,

Estonia - Baltic Country

Baltic countries - European Union Members

_______________________________

Consequently, all countries of the Baltic States are members of the European Union.

But, due to the infinite number of items and connections between them, we cannot know all the facts (there may be another Baltic country). Therefore, the conclusion is most often done from a limited number of facts, becoming only probabilistic.

Rhetorical arguments, in contrast to the logical, are not based on the truth, but on the opinion and speaker most of all use inductive arguments, setting out their audience.

Aristotle's rhetorical arguments called Topiki (Greek. - Common Places). It is with the help of common places a speaker develops the topic, reveals its content and its connection with other topics.

To convince the speaker does not simply indicate some thought, but reflects its various aspects (views, points of view, parties) of this phenomenon or this problem. For example, the actions of the same defendant prosecutor considers from the point of view of guilt, and a lawyer in the point of view of innocence. Various aspects of the problem help submit it deployed and deep.

Thus, the differences between logical and rhetorical arguments are reduced to the following:

· "Proof of man", his relationship and feelings. The main meaning of rhetoric consists not in the proof of truth, but in changing the opinion of the listeners. Rhetorical arguments operate where people disagree in opinions, beliefs and prejudices;

· Rhetoric operates not only true, but, to a greater extent, probabilistic statements;

· The fact is that in public life knowledge (truths) lives next to the opinions that are often false, but people are sure that it is their false opinions that are absolute truth. It is here that rhetoric comes into their own rights: if the speaker and the audience have common beliefs, then the speaker will be able to change the opinions of listeners. If the beliefs of the speaker and the listeners are fundamentally different, then besides endless disputes and accusations nothing happens. Therefore, the arguments of the speaker are not logical;

· Rhetorical argumentation is wider than logical, if only because rhetoric considers other means of belief, for example, private cases that can be referred to as an example or sample, as well as an analogy that helps clarify some sides of the object, although with The point of view of logic comparison is not proof.

If in logic the output (thesis) follows from the parcels as its foundations, then in the rhetoric conclusion (thesis) precedes its justification, since the Orator first pursues the thesis in front of the listeners, then it will lead to it its evidence (grounds). So, speaking with a speech on granting the empire Gneu Pompei, Cicero directly puts forward the thesis that is going to prove in his brilliant speech:

At the same time, I especially enjoy the fact that I, a person who is not accustomed to acting from this place, is given the opportunity to talk about such a thing that everyone finds what to say. After all, I have to speak out about the amazing and outstanding valor of Gneja Pompei.

Cicero M.T. Speech, T.1, M.1962, P167.

Finally, rhetoric proves only those provisions that have public value. For example, the following conclusions are completely equivalent for logic:

All books have more than one page.

This is a book.

_________________________________________

Consequently, it has more than one page.

If a person committed a murder, he can't sleep peacefully.

Man slept calmly.

_____________________________________________

Consequently, he did not kill.

From the point of view of rhetoric, it is obvious that the first conclusion does not have the same significance that there is a second: it is unlikely that life and well-being can depend on the first argument.

2 . - Well ... Tell us what you know about Vyatka province.

"Vyatka province," said Chelnts, "is distinguished by its sizes. This is one of the largest provinces of Russia ... In its area, it takes place equal to ... Mexico and Virginia ... Mexico is one of the richest and most fertile countries of America, inhabited by Mexicans who lead the clashes and battles with Gwerillas. The latter sometimes enter into an agreement with the Indian tribes of Shavnyyev and Gurons, and Mount the Mexican, which ...

"Wait," said the teacher, looking out due to the magazine. - Where are you in the Vyatka province found Indians?

- not in the Vyatka province, but in Mexico.

- And where is Mexico?

- In America.

- And Vyatka province?

- In Russia.

"So you are me about Vyatka province and speak."

- KGM! The soil of the Vyatka province has little to chernozem, the climate is harsh there and therefore the boldness is difficult. Rye, wheat and oats are that, mainly, can grow in this soil. Here we will not meet any cacti, nor Aloe, nor chain Lian, who, throwing off the tree on a tree, form in the virgin forests the impassable thickets, which, with difficulty, overcomes Tomahawk brave pioneer of the far west, who boldly makes his way forward under the non-colored crying of monkeys, multicolored parrots The announcement of the air ...

- I hear one of them. Unfortunately, he does not tell anything about Vyatka province. (A. Averchenko)

3 . Some People's Deputies of the USSR, who are chairmen of the Soviets and at the same time the first secretaries of the regional committees of the Communist Party, at their sessions do not give the words to People's Deputies of the RSFSR, in particular, Comrade Boldyrev Ivan Sergeevich. I propose a voting of the congress to confirm the possibility of finding people's deputies of the USSR in the hall of the congress meeting, and not on the balcony. I spoke at the session on this issue and explained the Comrade Boldyrev that the People's Deputies of the USSR could be in the hall, and he believed that they could not be in the hall. Therefore, I ask the congress's vote to confirm the opportunity for their stay in the hall. (A.V. Kulakovsky)

4 . Journalist: Ultimatum, adopted by the UN, concerned and Serbs, and Croats. Why did the air strikes affect only Serbs?

Man from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The fact is that it was bilateral ultimatum, which suggested the conclusion of troops from a demilitarized zone. Now all warehouses with server weapons are blocked and cannot be used. I hope that after this outbreak violence, the parties will sit at the negotiating table. (TV, "Time", 05/27/1995)

5 . He uttered a drink in such a way:

- I like it great here. I have never lived in the forest; But I had one time handpiece, and last birthday I was 9 years old. I can't go to school. Rats burned 16 pieces of eggs from under a row chicken aunts Jimmy Talbot. And the real Indians are there in the forest? I want even gravy. Why does the wind blowing? Because the trees are swinging? We had 5 pieces puppies. Henk, why do you have such a red nose? My father's father apparently invisibly. And hot stars? On Saturday, I took two times Ed Walker. I do not like girls! The toad is not very caught, unless on the rope. Bulls roar or not? Why are oranges round? Do you have a bed in the cave? Amos Merray - Sixpal. The parrot can speak, and there are no monkeys and fish. Dozen - how much will it be? (O'Genry)

6 . Bourgeois propaganda proclaims: "We have complete freedom: you want - vote for the Communist, you want - choose the defender of the capitalist system." Here and the "great American" Abraham Lincoln was a sack of a carpenter - they will not be promoted to remind bourgeois ideologues. The faith of such argument becomes apparent as soon as we turn to the real facts of the same American reality. It is said that Abraham Lincoln, running into the House of Representatives, spent 75 cents on the entire election campaign, putting cider barrel voters. Today it is remembered as historical curiosity. Now, to get into the capitol, and even more so in the White House, you need hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars. In the age of aviation, television, total advertising, they go to saturate the jet engines of special liners, buy time on the air, to contain a huge staff of assistants - from writing speeches to specialists in diction and gesticulation ... (E.A. Khenine)

Task number 16.Determine the task of performances. Find the thesis in each of them and make an abstract plan.

1 . The monument to Pushkin is set: the memory of the Great People's Poet is immortalized, his merit is witnessed. All are delighted. We saw the enthusiasm of the public yesterday, so rejoice only when the merit is given due, when justice triumphs. On the joy of writers to speak hardly necessary. From the completeness of the handy of the soul and I will allow myself a few words about our great poet, his meaning and merit, as I understand them.

At this holiday, every writer must be a speaker, it is obliged to loudly thank the poet for the treasures that he bequeathed to us. Treasures granted to us Pushkin are really great and invaluable. The first merit of the Great Poet is that everything will be clever through him that he can wisely. In addition to pleasure, except for the forms to express thoughts and feelings, the poet gives the most formulas of thoughts and feelings. The rich results of the most advanced mental laboratory are made by the common property. The highest creative nature entails and hangs to all. The poet leads the public to the country unfamiliar to it, in some paradise, in a thin and discerning atmosphere of which the soul is tested, thoughts are improved, feelings are thinned. Why is it looking forward to every new product from the Great Poet? Because everyone wants to think every way and feel with him, everyone awaits that he will tell me something beautiful, new, what I have, what I miss me, but he will say, and it will make it now. For some reason, love, and the worship of great poets, which is why the great sorrow with their loss, the emptiness is formed, mental orphanhood: it's some kind of thinking, it is somehow to feel.

But it is easy to realize the feeling of pleasure and delight from an elegant work, and notice and trace your mental enrichment from the same work is quite difficult. Everyone says that he likes him that and another work, but a rare aware of and admits that he won from him. Pushkin admired and smartly, admire and clever. Our literature is obliged to him with his mental growth. And this growth was so large, so quickly that the historical sequence in the development of literature and public taste was as if destroyed, and the connection with the past is broken. This jump was not so noticeable at the life of Pushkin, contemporaries, although they considered him a great poet, considered their teacher, but the present teachers were the people of the preceding generation with which they were associated with a sense of limitless respect and gratitude. Nor loved the Pushkin, but still, in comparison with the senior writers, he seemed to them yet young and not quite solid, to recognize him with one culprit of the rapid progressive movement of Russian literature meant to offend solid to them, in many ways very honorable people. All this is understandable, and otherwise it could not be, but the next generation brought up exclusively by Pushkin, when it was consciously looked back, he saw that his predecessors and many of his contemporaries had not even passed for them, but a long-lasting. That's when it was noticeable that Russian literature in one person rose for a whole century. Pushkin found Russian literature during her youth, when she still lived with strange samples and produced forms, devoid of live, real content, - and what? His works are no longer historical OD, not the fruits of leisure, privacy, or melancholy, he ended in that he left us samples equal to samples of mature literature, samples performed in shape and in a distinctive, purely popular content. He gave seriousness, raised the tone and meaning of literature, brought up the taste in the public, won it and prepared readers and connoisseurs for future writers.

Another advantage provided to us by Pushkin in my opinion is even more important and even more significant. Until Pushkin, our literature was imitated - along with the forms, she took from Europe and different, historically developed directions there, which in our life roots did not have, but could begin, as she began and rooted a lot of transplanted. The relationship of writers was not directly direct, sincere, writers had to choose any conditional angle of view. Each of them instead of being himself, had to tune in to some way. Outside of these conditional areas, poetry was not recognized, the originality would be considered ignorance or free. The release of thought from the gennetus of conditional techniques is not easy, it requires huge forces. A strong start to liberate our thought is Pushkin, - he first began to treat the themes of his works directly, directly, he wanted to be original and was, - was himself. The Great Writer reserves a school behind him, leaves followers. And Pushkin left school and followers. What is this school, what did he give his followers? He won his sincerity, originality, he bequeathed to everyone to be himself, he gave every originality of courage, gave the courage to the Russian writer to be Russian. After all, it is only easy to say! It means that he, Pushkin, revealed the Russian soul. Of course, for the followers, the path of it is difficult: not all originality is so interesting to show it and take it. But, if our literature loses in quantity, so wins in qualitative terms. A few of our works is on the assessment of Europe, but also in this little the originality of Russian observation, the original warehouse of thoughts has already been noticed and appreciated. Now we have only designed to desire for Russia to make talent more, wish the Russian Mind of more development and space, and the path in which to go talents is listed by our great poet. (A.N. Ostrovsky, 7.06.1880)

2 . Glory serves the city of courage, body - beauty, spirit - reasonableness, speech given - truthfulness; All the opposite is only a mess. We should have a man and a woman, the word and the case, the city and the act, if they are praised - to read the praise, if they were unlikely - to fight the mock. And on the contrary, it is equally ineffable and incorrectly deliberate - to buy, ridiculous as worthy - praise. I have to go here at the same time and the truth to open, and the foliating to catch - those Elena, which is unanimously and unanimously preserved and the right word of poets, and the glory of her, and the memory of the troubles. I am removed, in speech, I bring reasonable arguments, to relieve the accusation with the one that I had to hear the religious badness, to show it to you, to reveal the truth and the end to put ignorance.

But former times in the current speech of my speech, I will go to the beginning of the commendable word, and for this I will set the reasons for which it is fair and decently to go to Troy.

Is the case by the Development, whether the Gods of God, the inevitability of prevailing did she make what he did? Was she strength stolen, or leaning speeches, or loving covered?

If we take the first, it cannot be guilty of the accused: God's fishery of human thoughts are not a hindrance - from nature is not a weak strong obstant, but a strong weak power and leader: strong leads, and the weak track goes. God is stronger than man and power and wisdom, as well as everyone else: if God or the case we should assign guilty, then Elena's free from dishonor must admit.

If she strengthened by force, it is invincible, it is not offended, it is clear that the kidnapper and the offender are guilty, and the abducted and offended innocent in his misfortune. What a barbarian was so in Barbarian accepted, the one for that, even if he was punished with a word, right and affair: the word to him - the accusation, the right - dishonor, the case is omitting. And Elena, the violence of being subjected to, the Motherland Having lost his birthplace, or after herself, unless he deserves regrets, rather than wearing? He accomplished, she underwent unworthy; The right, she is worthy of pity, and he hatred.

If this speech convinced her and the soul of her deception captured, then it is not difficult to defend it here and to whitewash this guilt. For the Word is the greatest lord: the view is small and imperceptible, and things are doing wonderful - can stop and sadness to disapperate, cause joy, strengthen pity. What prevents from Elena to say that she left, convinced by a speech, gone like that that he does not want to go, as illegal if she was submitted and was kidnapped by force. Convulse she made itselves to master; And convinced, she mastered, although it does not have the kind of violence, coercion, but the power has the same. After all, we are speaking, convincing her soul, makes it forces it to obey the said, sympathize with the made. I convinced the same guilty, as forced; She is convinced, as a forced, in vain in speeches he heard his own.

Now the fourth fourth speech I will figure it out. If this has accomplished love, it is not difficult to avoid the charges in that crime, what she says, committed. If Eros, being the god of the gods, owns the Divine force, - how can a lot of weakest and fight and defend yourself! And if the love - human diseases only suffering, feelings of spiritual eclipse, then not as a crunch you need to pierce it, but as an unfortunate applement. She comes, as soon as it comes, the fate is caught - no thoughts of the vein, the oppression of love to give up forced - not the will of the conscious strength born.

How can you consider fair if you donate Elena? She made it that she did, the power of love defeated, whether the speeches were convinced or explicitly violent into the distance in the distance, Il, forced the gods of the gods, - in all these cases there is no guilt on it. (Gorgiy)

Task number 17. Before you 6 options for plans for the abstract on the same topic (about etiquette). However, specific topics of performances are different. Word the topic, task and thesis of each speech. Determine which audience they could be uttered. Edit every summary so that it corresponds to the task and the characteristics of the audience, as well as the thesis of speech.

Option 1.

I. The ability to own etiquette rules has always been valued and appreciated.

II. The etiquette rules should be the second multiplication table for the Russian people.

1) The rules of etiquette must be trained with school bench.

2) It is necessary to start learning from an early age, because it is easier to teach than to move.

3) Training etiquette should occur in the family from the small years.

4) Even in a friendly company, at least the elementary knowledge of the rules of etiquette needs.

III. The rules of etiquette need to be revived in our low culture time.

Option 2.

I. Want to be respected - respect others.

II. From respect to etiquette.

1) The forgotten rules of etiquette lead to low culture.

2) Education of etiquette is the future that will help a person become cleaner, lighter.

3) What the etiquette rules include.

III. From the rules of etiquette not only can not be refused, but they must be revived.

Option 3.

I. Low level of etiquette in our society as a targeted action.

II. The complete absence of etiquette will contribute to a decrease in the cultural level, the destruction of the traditions, which were inserted by centuries.

III. Etiquette needs to be revived, and not to give up it.

IV. Etiquette and human behavior in society.

Option 4.

I. Entry. The ability to own the rules of etiquette is the human culture indicator.

II. main part

1) The Soviet Union has become a victim of the statement that we do not need etiquette.

2) Opening the window into the world, we cannot remain uncivilized representatives of our country.

3) The etiquette rules open the veil into the world of excellent communication and mutual understanding.

III. Conclusion. At all times, in any society there were the rules of etiquette. They contributed to the high level of relationship between people.

Option 5.

I. Etiquette as a necessary source of communication between people.

II. Violation of etiquette can lead to irreparable consequences (breaking diplomatic relations, war, etc.)

1) Today, etiquettes are not available:

a) the behavior of deputies at the congresses and in the Duma.

b) People's behavior in transport.

2) Laying the rules of etiquette in children from early age.

III. Etiquette is one of the foundations of culture.

Option 6.

I. It is necessary to revive the rules of etiquette in everyday communication.

II. Development of etiquette contributes to the increase in morality and culture of people.

1) There are few people in our society who comply with the rules of etiquette due to certain reasons.

2) Etiquette is a framework that determine the various qualities of a person.

3) the norm, smoothing friction and contradictions arising between people.

4) Measure, restraining negative emotions and asserting the correct relationship between people.

5) This is a tradition, gradually developed by humanity, the history of relationships.

6) In everything you need a measure over which etiquette makes it difficult to communicate.

III. How flowers adorn our lives, so etiquet makes joy in gray weekdays.

Argumentation

Traditionally, the argument is described in the logic works. Between the understanding of the argument in logic and rhetoric, of course, there is a lot of general, but there are also very significant differences for which it is necessary to pay special attention to, as it will save us from improper assessment of this phenomenon. Comparison is important to do and because the logical understanding of the argument is widely known, is replicated in many textbooks and scientific articles, while a rhetorical understanding remains still little-known, which creates the danger of replacing rhetorical argument by proof in the practice of mastering rhetoric. To avoid this undesirable phenomenon, it is necessary to determine exactly if possible to determine how much logic and rhetoric is investing in the concept of "argument".

Specificity of rhetorical argument

§24. Argument in logic and rhetoric

§ 24. A purely logical view on the problem of argumentation is represented, for example, such opinion: "If the process of argument in its abstract purity is the unity of logical and extrevical components aimed at a single goal - the formation of someone certain beliefs, then they are usually resorted to These cases when narrowological components for the addressee turn out to be for some reason not sufficiently convincing and as a result of this, the proof does not reach the target. Exposable components take on the function of strengthening the process of evidence and ensuring the desired effect. But when the logical components themselves become sufficient, then the need for Any extrevical elements disappears. The process of argument passes to the process of evidence. In this regard, the proof can be conditionally submitted if we use a mathematical term as a "degenerate case" of argumentation, namely, such as argument, the extrevical components of which are striving for zero. Yes, the legality of the situation is: if there is evidence, which is as such and perceived, then the argument, which, in its composition, other than purely discursively logical, also other components, is not needed. "

Such a position is also characteristic of other works by logic professionals who consider argument to the subject of purely logical, which is necessary only when the audience does not immediately perceive the proof and requires additional arguments that should still remain in a strictly rational framework. "Philosophical and ideological, axiological, psychological and other components" are allowed in argument as secondary and only to the extent to which "each of them meets the requirements of formal logic, its standard, standard schemes." And even the choice of this or that logical argument is due not to the specifics of the proposed audience, but "nearly scientific mythology", "fashion" and "ideological requirements".

However, it is clear that rhetoric cannot claim to be monopoly for consideration of the argument. The delimitation of logical and rhetorical in argumentation has a positive value for both sciences.

§25. Evidence and suggestion ratio

§ 25. The ratio between cognitive and communicative aspects of speech can vary significantly. In this case, when only a logical aspect is relevant, called proof, and the case when only the communicative aspect is relevant, called suggestion.

Proof - the concept is predominantly logical. This is a set of logical techniques to substantiate the truth of any judgment with other true and related judgments. Thereby, the task of proof is the destruction of all doubts in the correctness of the launched thesis. When building evidence, the speaker uses rational (logical) arguments: scientific theories and hypothesis, facts, statistics. All these arguments must withstand the verification of truth, rely on knowledge, consist of impersonal judgments.

The suggestion is the concept of predominantly psychological. This is an imposition of a ready-made addressee by influencing the subconscious. Thereby, the task of suggestion is to create a feeling of the voluntaryness of the perception of someone else's opinion, its relevance, attractiveness. When building a suggestion, the speaker uses emotional (rhetorical) arguments: psychological, figurative, references to authorities, etc. These arguments are built on estimates and norms, should seem likely to rely on opinions and refer to personality.

All other differences in different poles of influencing evidence and suggestion are followed from this. The proof is addressed to the thesis and sets the goal to substantiate its truth. If the speaker succeeded in logical methods to show that smoking is harmful to health or that the proposals of this company are the most profitable, he considers his task to proof performed. In this case, it is not interested in the life of proven truth. Has her listener accepted and how she influenced his actions - it does not matter. "This approach to the argument ... is based on two assumptions. First, the participants in the discussion exclude the motives of personal interest. Secondly, the unity of the psychological decision making mechanism is assumed: intuition and deduction, on Descartes, as a clear and distinct discretion of the subject and application. Uniform rules and symbols are based on the idea of \u200b\u200bthe same rationality of all people who differ only in the strength of the mind. "

The suggestion is drawn to the audience and aims through the impact on the sensual and emotional sphere of a person to make the proposed ideas and guided by them in practical matters. Which of the smokers does not know about the dangers of smoking? But they continue to smoke, despite all (well known them) the fear of their passion. The speaker coming to the suggestion initiates a sense of self-preservation, fear or disgust in this situation, etc. and thereby seeks to refuse the harmful habit; Or, referring to personal interests, declares the audience to sign the contract with its company. If the effectiveness of logical evidence depends on the truth of the arguments themselves, the effectiveness of suggestion in a decisive degree may depend not on the content of speech, but from such extraneous moments, as a) the tone used by the speaker (confident - uncertain, respectful - unleashed, etc.) ; b) information about the speaking, famous audiences before his speech (specialist - non-specialist, director - subordinate, etc.); c) the degree of resistance to the audience with the arguments with the arguments (I have prejudice against your company - I heard about it only good, etc.).

The distinction between evidence and suggestion is based on the existence of two types of conclusions allocated by Aristotle: analytical and dialectical. A detailed description of analytical judgments is available in the first and second "analysts", where the basis of formal logic is laid. Dialectic conclusions are considered Aristotle in Topic and Rhetoric, where he describes their essence and the prevailing sphere: "Proof is available when the conclusion is built from the true and first [provisions] or from those whose knowledge of which originates from those or other first and true [provisions]. The dialectical conclusion - which is constructed from plausible [provisions]. The true and first [provisions] are those that are not reliable through other [provisions], but through themselves. For no knowledge is needed Ask "Why", and each of these began in itself should be reliable. It is believable that it seems to be right to all or most people, or wise - to all or most of them or the most famous and glorious. "

Moscow
Automobile and Road State Technical University
(Madi)

Department of Russian Language Basic Faculties

Student: Petrov A.V., gr.40 2
Leader: Professor Chesnokova MP

Moscow 2011-2012

Definition of rhetoric
The first known definition of rhetoric was given in ancient Greece, where it was described as the ability to find possible ways of believing relative to each present subject. Such a look at the rhetoric as a science on the forms and methods of speech impact on the audience was developed and consistently made in the treatises of Isocrat, Gergharora, Apollodore. Another approach gives us a Roman tradition, which considered the rhetoric on the "good speech" by the science, and this definition was invested as a requirement for the persistence of speech, as well as attention to expression, to verbal design. The further fate of the rhetoric is connected with the strengthening of this trend - interest in the form is coming to the form, the most beautiful expression becomes the main measure of practice. A common idea of \u200b\u200brhetoric as a pompous "externally beautiful, but low-consuming speech" We are obliged to this branch of rhetorical practice. It was then that the expression "empty rhetoric" appeared and a sustainable negative attitude towards this term was developed.
However, today it became clear that the word is not guilty, not science: it all depends on the content that we invest in this word and we are engaged in studying science. Rhetoric needs our society not as a science of decorating speech, but as a discipline that helps learn to reasonably express his thoughts, to influence the audience with speech. Therefore, it is quite obvious that modern rhetoric should return in general to the Greek interpretation of the subject, decisively put the form to the content service, because only in this case it will be able to cope with those important tasks that the time sets it. It is from such positions that the rhetoric A.K. Aveva: "Rhetoric is a science of ways of conviction, a variety of forms of predominantly linguistic impact on the audience rendered taking into account the peculiarities of the latter and in order to obtain the desired effect."

Purpose of speech
The first classification of speeches for the goal was proposed by Aristotle in his famous "rhetoric". In addition to the goal, it took into account time and place of communication. According to these signs, Aristotle allocated conscriptive speeches, judicial and epidectic. At the same time, the advising speech, as he believed, addressed to the future, acts in the form of the Council and sets the purpose of incloring a certain action; The judicial speech is facing the past and aim to convince the defendant in guilt or innocence; The epidectic speech is facing the present and aims to praise or scold a person.

Superbate of speech

In addition to the task, the target installation includes top-witted speech. "The term" ultra-shock "introduced Stanislavsky to the theory of theatrical art, and he means that hidden spring of action, which, according to the director, should, throughout the performance, hold the emotions of the audience in the direction of the director's plan. Superbate in convincing speech is also an element of art. Without it, the strategy of speech will be sent only to the consciousness, the "head" perception by listeners of the position of the speaker. "..." of course, there are general harness, conviction of the evidence, the stiffness of the conclusions on the emotions of the listeners. However, in order to encourage people to revise not only their views, but also behavior, change the ways of action, you need a targeted, through, but very well hidden from the direct perception of the overall, specially designed for the emotions of students, affecting not only consciousness, but also for the subconscious. "
In this way, a superfolder of speech is a hidden idea that sunts listeners by influencing their feelings and subconscious. Superbate is never open, and hiding in subtext. Its content is not related to the goal of speech on purpose and depends only on the intentions of the speaker. Therefore, there are, for example, cases when the speaker speaks with an information speech (the task: "introduce an audience with the situation in the trade union movement"), but at the same time ultra-founded ("convince the listeners that the trade union movement plays an important role in modern public Life ") or even prompting (" encourage students to join trade unions "). This position can not be qualified as the presence of several tasks in speech. After all, the task is what is declared and implemented in speech openly - such a task is always alone. Supersensive is that the speaker does not impose directly, but inspires by indirect means.

Argumentation

Creating speech begins with the definition of a strategy of a future speech - finding the topic, analyzing the characteristics of the audience, determining the problem of speech, formulating the thesis and conducting its conceptual analysis. These actions help create the idea of \u200b\u200bspeech, determine the direction of the main strike. This is the most important part of working on a speech that helps the future speaker to determine for itself the main content of the speech. However, after the actor himself clearly understood, to whom, why and what he will speak, it's time to think about the listeners, how to make the thesis of speaking their property, convince them of their thoughts. These tasks are implemented at the tactical stage of working on a speech, which consists mainly in that the speaker selects the material that, in his opinion, will help him realize his intention in the alleged audience. The specificity of rhetorical arguments is the subject of consideration.
Traditionally, the argument is described in the logic works. Between the understanding of the argument in logic and rhetoric, there is a lot of common, but there are also very significant differences for which special attention needs to be paid. The comparison is important to do and because the logical understanding of the argument is widely known, while the rhetorical understanding remains still little-known, which creates the danger of replacing rhetorical argument with proof in the practice of reserving rhetoric. To avoid this undesirable phenomenon, it is necessary to determine exactly if possible to determine how much logic and rhetoric is investing in the concept of "argument".

Specificity of rhetorical argument

Argument in logic and rhetoric

A purely logical view on the problem of argument is presented, for example, in such an opinion: "If the process of argumentation in its abstract purity is the unity of logical and extrevological components aimed at a single goal - the formation of someone certain beliefs, then it is usually resorted to it in cases When the narrowological components for the addressee turn out to be somehow not convincing, and as a result, the proof does not reach the target. Explicit components here are the function of strengthening the process of evidence and ensuring the desired effect. But when the logical components themselves become sufficient, then the need for any reason. The extractive elements disappears. The process of argument passes thus in the proof process. In this regard, the proof can be conventionally submitted if the mathematical term can be used as a "degenerate case" of the argument, namely, such as argument, the extrevical components of which are striving for zero. Hence The legitimacy of the situation is blowing: if there is evidence, which is both perceived, then the argument, which in its composition besides purely discursively logical, also other components, is not needed. "
Such a position is also characteristic of other works by logic professionals who consider argument to the subject of purely logical, which is necessary only when the audience does not immediately perceive the proof and requires additional arguments that should still remain in a strictly rational framework. "Philosophical and ideological, axiological, psychological and other components" are allowed in argument as secondary and only to the extent to which "each of them meets the requirements of formal logic, its standard, standard schemes." And even the choice of this or that logical argument is due not to the specifics of the proposed audience, but "nearly scientific mythology", "fashion" and "ideological requirements".
The opposite position is occupied by representatives of neoritory, in the writings of which the argument is strongly declared the prerogative of rhetoric, and which consider the argument of one of the possibilities of speech impact on a person's consciousness. So, Vz. Demyankov indicates that, in contrast to the proof, the argument serves to attract listeners to their side, and for this not necessarily resort to rational arguments. It is often enough to just give to understand, "that the position, in favor of which proponent acts, lies in the interests of the addressee; protecting these interests, you can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on moral installations. Argumentation is one of the possible tactics of realization of the plan." This view goes back to the neuroretical assessment of the essence of the argument of H. Perelmann, who claimed that "the area of \u200b\u200bargumentation is such assessments of the arguments, as likely, the possibility and probability taken in the value that is not amenable to formalization in the form of calculations. Any argument is aimed at rapprochement, and Thus, implies the existence of intellectual contact. " Thus, here we see a purely rhetorical look at the essence of the argument, which is understood as "the possibility of speech impact on the consciousness of a person", "part of the theory of achieving social understanding" and is opposed to logical effects. An important element of this position is the requirement of compulsory accounting of the audience features as an indispensable condition for the effectiveness of the argument, which is actually a rhetorical factor not used in logic. The argument is estimated from the point of view of relevance, which is also running rhetoric, and not logic.
However, it is clear that rhetoric cannot claim to be monopoly for consideration of the argument. The delimitation of logical and rhetorical in argumentation has a positive value for both sciences.
As a starting point of such a distinction, consider the point of view V.F. Berkova: "Any argument has two aspects - logical and communicative. In logically, the argument acts as a procedure for finding and presenting for some position (thesis) expressing a certain point of view, supports in other provisions (grounds, arguments, arguments). In some cases The thesis relies on the base in such a way that it is determined by the true content of the latter, as if filled with them. If, for example, for the thesis having a form "if p, then R, the true base is found" if p, then Q, and if q, then R ", it is obvious that it is constructed from the elements included in this base. It is this way of argument is characteristic of science. Outside science is the situation, as a rule, in other things, and the thesis can rely on religious faith, the opinion of the authority, the strength of tradition , momentary mood of the crowd, etc. In the Communicative Plan, the argument is the process of transmission, interpretation and suggestion of the recipient of information recorded in the abstract of the argumentator. Finite The purpose of this process is the formation of this belief. The argument reaches this purpose only if the recipient: a) perceived, b) I understood and c) adopted the thesis of the argumentator. Accordingly, two aspects are allocated for the functions of the argument: cognitive and communicative. "
The delimitation of a logical aspect of an argument focused on a cognitive function, and a rhetorical aspect oriented to communicative function, will help properly understand the essence and purpose of argument, understand the corresponding components.

Evidence and suggestion ratio

The ratio between the cognitive and communicative aspects of speech can change significantly. In this case, when only a logical aspect is relevant, called proof, and the case when only the communicative aspect is relevant, called suggestion.
Evidence - The concept is predominantly logical. This is a set of logical techniques to substantiate the truth of any judgment with other true and related judgments. Thereby, the task of proof is the destruction of all doubts in the correctness of the launched thesis. When building evidence, the speaker uses rational (logical) arguments: scientific theories and hypothesis, facts, statistics. All these arguments must withstand the verification of truth, rely on knowledge, consist of impersonal judgments.
Suggestion - The concept is predominantly psychological. This is an imposition of a ready-made addressee by influencing the subconscious. Thereby, the task of suggestion is to create a feeling of the voluntaryness of the perception of someone else's opinion, its relevance, attractiveness. When building a suggestion, the speaker uses emotional (rhetorical) arguments: psychological, figurative, references to authorities, etc. These arguments are built on estimates and norms, should seem likely to rely on opinions and refer to personality.
etc.................