Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

good job to the site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Test

On the topic: “Rhetorical ideal”

Kozlova Veronica

1. Prove with specific examples that the rhetorical ideal is characterized by historical variability and cultural specificity b and social conditioning

Before discussing the phenomenon of the rhetorical ideal, I will define this phenomenon.

A rhetorical ideal is “a general pattern, an ideal of speech behavior that must be followed.” The rhetorical ideal corresponds “in its main features to the general ideas about the beautiful... that have developed historically in a given culture” (according to A.K. Michalskaya).

Each culture develops special and well-defined ideas about how verbal communication should occur. People, joining a culture, “entering” it, receive as one of its components a certain general model - an ideal of speech behavior that needs to be followed, and an idea of ​​​​what a “good” speech work should look like - oral speech or written text. This ideal example of speech behavior and speech work corresponds in its main features to the general ideas of beauty - the general aesthetic and ethical (moral) ideals that have developed historically in a given culture.

So, the rhetorical ideal is a system of the most general requirements to speech and speech behavior, historically developed in a particular culture and reflected by the system of its values ​​- aesthetic and ethical (moral).

If we compare the historical ideal of ancient times and today, then, of course, the rhetorical ideal is historically changeable. As an example, let's take two great orators, Plato and modern Putin. Sentence structures, some words, the way thoughts are presented, and so on have changed significantly.

The rhetorical ideal is culturally specific, since the texts of speakers of different cultures and peoples have their own characteristics, for example, presidents with a political regime of democracy present their thoughts completely differently than in countries with an authoritarian regime.

The speeches of the former ruler of Cuba, Fidel Castro, are distinguished by the fact that his speeches are fiery, lengthy and sensual. Unlike the rulers of the USSR, their speeches are more restrained and laconic, but also effective.

Social conditioning is expressed in the fact that in order for people to start listening to you, they must develop respect for the speaker. Respect usually appears when a person takes a worthy place in society. For example, I am more likely to believe a speaker I like or someone whose actions are positively approved by society.

2. The rhetorical ideal of the Sophists: “calming human suffering” (A.F. Losowing) or danger to society

The Sophists did not represent a single ideological or political group. These are wandering philosophers who taught, for a fee, the art of argument, proof, eloquence, good style, and wisdom; they addressed problems of ethics and politics, and called for the study of man and methods of logic. They brought the latter to perfection.

According to Socrates, “the goal of eloquence is the truth about the subject under discussion, the subject of speech, it is precisely such rhetoric that gives genuine benefit to people and society and therefore is a real art, while the rhetoric of the sophists, manipulating the listener with the help of formal techniques, flattering them, pleasing them, is not art, but a simple skill based on lies and hypocrisy, and therefore not good, but harmful, not bringing real benefit, but delivering base pleasure. Thus, the problem of ethical choice is included in the dialogue in the very definition of eloquence. The rhetoric of the Sophists is addressed to the crowd and plays on its instincts; the rhetoric of Socrates appeals to the free citizen acting for the benefit of his state.”

Based on the above statement, we can conclude that the rhetorical ideal of the Sophists is neither “the pacification of human suffering” nor a danger to society.

In my opinion, the rhetorical ideal of the Sophists works to achieve personal goals. Perhaps such a technique will not bring true benefit to society, because it is based on deception, like art. You have never had a person prove to you that it will not rain, although you looked at the weather forecast and saw clouds. It will rain, that's obvious. But suddenly 10 more people join you and he begins to prove that not a drop will be spilled today, everyone begins to believe and dissuade you so much that you even think about it. Why is this happening? Because the measure of truth for a sophist is the opinion of people.

3. Is it possible to revive the Russian rhetorical ideal? On whom or what does it depend

The Russian rhetorical ideal is mainly considered to be monuments of the 11th-12th centuries. and the beginning of the 13th century. Researchers rely on both folklore materials and works fiction, first of all - on the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, chronicle.

Taking into account the fact that the rhetorical ideal is characterized by historical variability, cultural specificity and social conditioning, we can conclude that the revival of the Russian rhetorical ideal is only a repetition and an attempt to preserve society. rhetorical ideal sophist eloquence

After all, in the course of history, society, its material and spiritual values, and highest blessings change.

References

1. Mikhalskaya A.K. Fundamentals of rhetoric: Textbook. for educational institutions

2. Studopedia.net. , Russian rhetorical ideal.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Rhetorical question and its place in linguistics. Principles of construction, structure and functioning of a rhetorical question in newspaper texts. The phenomena of convergence and contamination in rhetorical issues, their characteristics, types and examples of application.

course work, added 12/24/2009


Definition of modern rhetoric and its subject. General and private rhetoric. Features of the ancient rhetorical ideal. The flourishing of ancient Russian eloquence. Features of public speech. Types and types of oratory. Business communication and communications.

cheat sheet, added 12/22/2009


The extra-linguistic influence of an influential and persuasive speech delivered by a professional speaker with the goal of changing the behavior of the audience, its views, beliefs, and moods. Political activity and the art of eloquence of Cicero, his rhetorical treatises.

abstract, added 06/06/2011


Basic properties of the rhetorical ideal. Oratory Ancient Greece and Rome. Rhetoric in the Renaissance. Theory and features of judicial eloquence. Anatoly Fedorovich Koni as an outstanding judicial orator of the 20th century. Analysis of the judicial speech of A.F. Horses.

course work, added 05/30/2010


The concept of rhetoric, the history of development as a systematic discipline. Rhetorical ideal of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Rhetoric in ancient Rome. Oratory during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Its development in the period from the 17th to the 19th centuries, the Renaissance.

abstract, added 11/26/2009


A study of the characteristics of oratory in Ancient Greece. Analysis of oratorical techniques used by the sophists and other prominent speakers of antiquity. Style as a subject of rhetoric. Aristotle's rhetorical ideal. The main provisions of his "Rhetoric".

abstract, added 10/04/2013


The study of the features of the use of lexical means of language that enhance its expressiveness, which in linguistics are called tropes. Rules for the use of metaphors, metonymy, comparison, epithet. Rhetorical appeal, exclamation and rhetorical question.

test, added 01/10/2011


Pragmatics in the system of linguistics. Interpretation of translation problems in line with linguistic pragmatics. The structure of a rhetorical question and its essence. Semantic and pragmatic features of the functioning of rhetorical questions in the English language.

course work, added 01/16/2012


Characteristics of the linguistic norms of a literary language, its relationship with the concepts of a common language, a literary language. The system of communicative qualities of speech, requirements for the speech of a specialist as a professional linguistic personality of a lawyer. Rhetorical canon.

test, added 07/21/2009


Factual errors associated with understanding and formulating the problem. What is the problem. How to understand the source text. Ways to formulate the problem. Speech clichés, main problems and author’s position. Question-answer unity and rhetorical question.

2. Rhetorical ideal. Features of the ancient Greek and Roman rhetorical ideal. Cicero's treatise "On the Orator"

Each culture develops special and well-defined ideas about how verbal communication should occur. By introducing the general rules of speech behavior and speech work, rhetoric also gives general ideas about the beautiful - the general aesthetic and ethical ideals that have developed historically in a given culture. The rhetorical ideal is a system of the most general requirements for speech and speech behavior, historically developed in a particular culture at a certain time and reflecting the system of its aesthetic and ethical values. This system is natural and historically conditioned. Therefore, the history of rhetoric is considered precisely as the history of emerging, developing and replacing rhetorical ideals.

Rhetoric is one of the ancient sciences. At various times it occupied a greater or lesser place in the development of society, was valued higher or lower, but never disappeared. In the development of rhetoric, the continuity of traditions, mutual influence of cultures, and consideration of national characteristics, and at the same time – a clearly expressed general humanistic character.

Objective basis The emergence of oratory as a social phenomenon became an urgent need for public discussion and resolution of issues of public importance. History shows that the most important condition for the manifestation and development of oratory, the free exchange of opinions on vital issues, the driving force of critical thought are democratic forms of government, the active participation of free citizens in the political life of the country. It is no coincidence that they say that “rhetoric is the child and condition of democracy.” Freedom of speech, equality of free citizens required them to have good command of speech in order to substantiate their point of view, convince others of its correctness, and defend it, refuting the opinion of an opponent or opponents. The art of oratory develops most actively during critical periods in the life of society, helping to unite people around a common cause, inspiring and guiding them.

So, eloquence became an art under the conditions of the slave-owning system, which created certain opportunities for direct influence on the mind and will of fellow citizens with the help of the living word of the speaker. The flourishing of rhetoric coincided with the flourishing of democracy, when three institutions began to play a leading role in the state: the people's assembly, the people's court, and the Council of Five Hundred. Political issues were decided publicly and trials were carried out. To win over the people (demos), it was necessary to present your ideas in the most attractive way. Under these conditions, eloquence becomes necessary for every person.

The first mentions of orators date back to the times of Homeric Greece. Homer is the first teacher of eloquence for the ancient Greeks. In the Iliad we find a description various types speakers. The founders of rhetoric were the classical sophists of the 5th century. BC who highly valued the word and the power of its persuasion. It should be noted that the attitude towards sophistry and sophists was ambivalent and contradictory, which was reflected even in the understanding of the word “sophist”: at first it meant a sage, a talented, capable, experienced person in any art; then, gradually, the unscrupulousness of the sophists, their virtuosity in defending directly opposite points of view led to the fact that the word “sophist” acquired a negative character. Coloring and began to be understood as a false sage, a charlatan, a cunning person.

The theory of rhetoric was actively developed by the sophist philosopher Protagoras from Abdera in Thrace. He was one of the first to use a dialogical form of presentation, in which two interlocutors express opposing views. Paid teachers appeared - sophists, who not only taught practical eloquence, but also composed speeches for the needs of citizens. The sophists constantly emphasized the power of the word, held verbal battles between exponents of different views, and competed in virtuosity in the use of the living word. Gorgias (485-380 BC) from Leontius in Sicily is considered the founder of sophistic rhetoric. Here is how the famous philosopher A.F. Losev writes about his rhetorical activity, relying on ancient sources: “He was the first to introduce the type of education that prepares speakers, special training in the ability and art of speaking, and he was the first to use tropes, metaphors, allegories, inversions, repetitions, apostrophes... Undertaking to teach everyone to speak beautifully and being, by the way, a virtuoso of brevity, Gorgias taught everyone rhetoric so that they could conquer people, “make them their slaves of their own free will, and not by force.” By the power of his conviction, he forced the patients to drink such bitter medicines and undergo such operations that even doctors could not force them to do.” Gorgias defined rhetoric as the art of speaking.

The rhetorical ideal of the Sophists had the following features:

1. The rhetoric of the sophists was “manipulating”, monological. The main thing was the ability to manipulate the audience, to amaze listeners with oratorical techniques; 2. The rhetoric of the Sophists was the rhetoric of verbal competition, struggle. A dispute necessarily aimed at the victory of one and the defeat of the other is the element of the sophist; 3. The goal of the sophists’ dispute was not truth, but victory at any cost, therefore it is not the content in the speech that dominates, but the “external form.”

Lysias, a representative of judicial eloquence, perfectly mastered the art of storytelling, had a bright, but at the same time in simple language, took into account the features of oral speech: richness of intonation, exact address, etc. Isocrates is a representative of solemn, magnificent eloquence; wrote speeches, taught oratory to young people. Classical Greek rhetoric was crowned by the truly tragic figure of the political and judicial orator Demosthenes (384-322 BC). Nature did not endow him with any of the qualities necessary for an orator. A sick child, cared for by a widowed mother, he received a poor education. Demosthenes had an unclear, lisping accent, rapid breathing, a nervous tic, i.e. a lot of shortcomings that prevent him from becoming a speaker. At the cost of enormous efforts, constant and hard work, he achieved the recognition of his contemporaries. Circumstances forced him to become a speaker: he was ruined by unscrupulous guardians. Having actively taken up the challenge of defending his own rights through the courts, he began taking lessons from the famous specialist Isey, working to get rid of his shortcomings and eventually won the case. But when he first appeared in public, he was ridiculed and booed. From this moment, overcoming begins - the most characteristic feature in the fate and personality of Demosthenes.

To make his diction clear, he put pebbles in his mouth and so recited passages from the works of poets from memory; He also practiced pronouncing phrases while running or climbing a steep mountain; I tried to learn how to speak several poems in a row or some long phrase without taking a breath. He studied acting, which gives harmony and beauty to speech; to get rid of twitching his shoulder during speech, he hung a sharp sword in such a way that it pricked his shoulder and thus got rid of this habit. He turned any meeting or conversation into a pretext and subject for hard work: left alone, he outlined all the circumstances of the case along with the arguments relating to each of them; memorizing speeches, then reconstructing the course of reasoning, repeating words spoken by others, coming up with all sorts of amendments and ways to express the same thought differently. He sculpted himself, bringing to perfection what nature had so carelessly executed.

The main means of Demosthenes as an orator is his ability to captivate his listeners with the emotional excitement that he himself experienced when speaking about the position of his native city in the Hellenic world. Using the question-and-answer technique, he skillfully dramatized his speech. Demosthenes sometimes supplemented the dialogical form of his speeches with stories; in the pathetic parts of his speeches, he recited poems by Sophocles, Euripides and other famous poets of the ancient world. In general, Demosthenes’ thinking is characterized by irony, sparkling and interrupted at the most pathetic moments of his speeches; actively used antithesis (contrast), rhetorical questions; Its syllable is characterized by euphony, a predominance of long syllables, which evoked a feeling of smoothness. Demosthenes preferred logical stress to all methods of highlighting meaning, therefore keyword he bet on first or last place in the period; a means of highlighting meaning is also the use of several, most often a pair, synonyms denoting an action: let him speak and advise; rejoice and have fun; cry and shed tears. He often used hyperbole, metaphors, mythological images and historical parallels. The speeches are well-reasoned and clear in presentation. The main opponent of Demosthenes was the Macedonian king Philip - Demosthenes wrote eight “philippics” in which he explained to the Athenians the meaning of the Macedonian’s aggressive policy. When Philip received one of the texts of Demosthenes' speech, he said that if he had heard this speech, he would have voted for war against himself. The result of Demosthenes' convincing speeches was the creation of an anti-Macedonian coalition of Greek city-states. Having lost the war with the heirs of Alexander the Great, the Athenians were forced to sign very difficult peace terms and imposed death sentences on speakers who encouraged them to war against Macedonia. Demosthenes took refuge in the temple of Poseidon, but he was overtaken there too. Then he asked to be given a little time to leave a written order to his family and drank poison from a reed stick that the ancient Greeks used to write. Thus ended the days of the greatest master of ancient Greek eloquence, whom the Greeks called simply “orator,” just as Homer was called simply “poet.” However, Demosthenes' fame did not die with him. The ancients carefully preserved more than 60 of his speeches; Plutarch compiled an extensive biography of him, comparing his biography with the life of the outstanding orator of Rome, Marcus Tullius Cicero. The best epitaph for Demosthenes could be his own words: “It is not the word and the sound of the voice that are valuable in an orator, but that he strives for the same thing that the people strive for and that he hates or loves those whom his homeland hates or loves.”

On the basis of the developing art of oratory, attempts were made to theoretically comprehend the principles and methods of oratory. This is how the theory of eloquence—rhetoric—was born. The greatest contributions to the theory of eloquence were made by Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (428-348 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC).

Socrates, an outstanding master of conversations and dialogues, invented dialectics as the art of reasoning, arguing, and conversation. The main levers of Socratic dialectics were irony - a method of critical attitude towards dogmatics, the technique of Socrates, who pretended to be ignorant in order to catch and convict his interlocutor of ignorance, and maieutics (midwifery, obstetrics). The irony lay in the philosopher’s ability to drive his opponent into a logical dead end with a witty system of questions and answers. His irony is good-natured and delicate: “It’s not that I, confusing others, understand everything myself - no, I myself get confused and confuse others. So it is now - I know nothing about what virtue is, and you, perhaps, knew before before meeting me, but now you have become very much like an ignoramus in this matter. And yet, I want to reflect with you and look for what virtue is.” Next, maieutics was connected and, using the question-and-answer method, with the help of logic and dialectics, contributed to the birth of truth. Most often, the questions asked by Socrates were formulated in such a way that they could only receive an unambiguous and predictable answer. For all its apparent simplicity, Socrates' speech was not only in essence, but also in form, quite sophisticated. Socrates did not write down his speeches, but from the dialogues of his student Plato we have an idea of ​​the nature and content of these speeches, of their influence on the listeners.

Plato perfected the art of dialogue. Plato's dialogues were witty, logically constructed, and mysterious in appearance, arousing interest in the subject of the dispute or conversation. Plato enriched living public speech with techniques and forms of polemics, and with the help of allegories and metaphors made its language bright and expressive. In the dialogue "Theaetetus" various considerations are expressed about oratory in connection with questions about wisdom and comprehension of truth. The philosopher condemned the “idle talk” of those who, with their speech, curry favor with the people, without striving for the truth. According to Plato, rhetoric is a skill, a skill, a dexterity that can be learned and developed in oneself. And such skill can be applied for various purposes - good and evil. The ethical orientation of Plato's dialogues is obvious: eloquence should be honest and highly moral, businesslike, and not empty words, it should convince listeners, introducing them to knowledge. Plato believed that the speaker is the bearer of enlightenment. Summarizing the experience of rhetoric, he comes to the conclusion that there are two types of abilities necessary for a speaker. The first is the ability to take everything in with a general view, to reduce everything that is scattered everywhere to one idea. This gives the speaker the opportunity to make the subject of teaching clear. The second is the ability to subdivide everything into types, component parts. The need for unity of analysis and synthesis in oratory is emphasized. Any speech, Plato notes, must be composed like a living being: it must have a body with a head and legs, and the torso and limbs must correspond to each other and to the whole. Plato was one of the first to talk about the psychology of listeners: “Since the power of speech lies in its influence on the soul, someone who is going to become an orator needs to know how many types the soul has...” In the dialogues “Gorgias” and “Phaedrus”, he consolidates the understanding of rhetoric as the science of persuasion . He passed on many of his ideas to his student Aristotle.

The rhetorical ideal of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle can be defined as:

1) dialogical: not manipulating people, but stimulating their thoughts - this is the goal verbal communication and the activities of the speaker;

2) harmonizing: the main goal of the conversation is not victory at any cost, but the unification of the forces of the participants in communication to achieve agreement;

3) semantic: the purpose of a conversation between people, as well as the purpose of speech, is the search and discovery of truth.

The main “tools” for finding truth are Socrates’ irony and maieutics, the ability to build a dialogue in such a way that leading questions lead, as a result of the conversation, to the birth of truth.

The time of Aristotle in the history of Greek culture ends the period of classics, and a new Hellenistic era begins.

The fall of the polis system and the loss of independence by Greece leads to a decrease in the role of oratory. Hellenism is characterized not only by the spread of culture to the East, but also by the influence of Eastern cultures on ancient times. On this basis, in literature and oratory, the so-called Asian style, which gives preference to sound effects, chopped phrases, unusual order of sentence parts for the sake of rhythm, and mannered play on words. The power of speech was seen in floweriness and pomposity. However, among the writers and speakers there were many so-called Atticists, who were guided by classical authors, primarily Demosthenes. The art of words from the socio-political sphere migrates to school and turns into school recitations.

Eloquence in Ancient Rome developed under the influence of the Greek heritage and reached a special peak during the power of the Roman Republic. Republican Rome decided its state affairs through debates in the popular assembly, in the Senate and in court, where almost every free citizen could speak. The most famous orator in Rome was Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC). Any graduate of a Russian pre-revolutionary gymnasium could recite Latin by heart and comment on Cicero’s first speech against Catiline: “How long, O Catiline, will you exhaust our patience...” containing the famous catchphrase “O times! Oh morals! (O tempora! O mores!). It is Cicero who is the main object of admiration and imitation for European rhetoric. During the Renaissance, a real cult of Cicero arose.

He outlined the essence of his rhetorical system in three books, “On the Orator,” “Brutus, or On Famous Orators,” and “The Orator.” Noting the enormous potential of eloquence for influencing and controlling the masses of people, Cicero considered it one of the main weapons of the state. Therefore, he was convinced that any statesman and public figure must master the art of public speech.

Cicero's theory of eloquence occupies a middle position between Asianism and moderate classical Atticism. In the treatise “On the Orator,” he chooses a free form of philosophical dialogue, which allowed him to present the material in a problematic, debatable way, citing and weighing all the arguments for and against. In his opinion, there are few truly good speakers, because eloquence is born from many knowledge and skills. The basis of oratory, according to Cicero, is deep knowledge of the subject; If behind the speech there is no deep content, assimilated and known by the speaker, then verbal expression is empty and childish chatter. Eloquence is an art, but the most difficult of the arts. For a speaker, the most important conditions are: firstly, natural talent, alertness of mind and feelings, good memory; secondly, the study of oratorical theory; thirdly, exercise. Neither education nor natural ability will help the speaker if he does not develop them through constant exercise. Tries to create his own ideal speaker - educated person, who would be both a philosopher and a historian, and would know the law; such a speaker rises above ordinary consciousness and is able to lead people behind him.

The task of the speaker is to win over the audience, present the essence of the matter, establish the controversial issue, support his position, refute the enemy’s opinion, in conclusion, add shine to his positions and finally overthrow the enemy’s positions.

The first requirement for speech is purity and clarity of language, associated with correct, normative pronunciation: the speaker needs to correctly control the organs of speech, breathing and the sounds of speech themselves. “It’s not good when sounds are pronounced too emphatically; it is also not good when they are obscured by excessive negligence; it is not good when a word is pronounced in a weak, dying voice; it’s also not good when they are pronounced while puffing, as if out of breath...” The power of oratory, according to Cicero, is necessarily combined with honesty and high wisdom. Another important point in oratory science is the speaker’s ability to influence the feelings of the audience. He himself knew how to do this like no one else. He recommended appealing to feelings in connection with certain parts of speech: mainly with the introduction and conclusion. He paid special attention to the use of humor in public speaking. He was convinced that humor is a natural property and cannot be learned; When using humor, you must remember to observe a sense of proportion and the principle of appropriateness.

In the dialogue Brutus, Cicero lists almost all the famous Roman orators - over two hundred - in chronological order from brief characteristics everyone. For Cicero, Roman eloquence is a source of national pride, and he is happy to become its first historian. For Cicero, eloquence is not an end in itself, but only a form of political activity, and the fate of eloquence is inextricably linked with the fate of the state.

The treatise “Orator” should, according to Cicero, answer the question: what is the highest ideal and, as it were, the highest image of eloquence? Cicero says that he translated Demosthenes and Aeschines, two great orators, in order to show his countrymen the standard of eloquence. The ideal speaker is the one who in his speech instructs his listeners, gives them pleasure, and subjugates their will. The first is his duty, the second is the guarantee of his popularity, the third is necessary condition success.

Cicero's oratorical theory, which he outlined in The Orator, was a summation of the rich practical experience of previous orators and his own. Much space in the treatise is devoted to the theory of periodic and rhythmic speech. Musicality and rhythm of phrases are one of the most remarkable properties of Cicero’s speech. The rhythm of speech facilitated the path to the hearts of the listeners and thereby contributed to the main task of the speaker - persuasion. Rhythm is created both by a combination of syllables - long and short, and by the choice of words, the order of their arrangement, and the symmetry of expressions. The period - a rhythmic, harmonized phrase - became the subject of close attention of Cicero as a rhetorical theorist and practitioner. An orator must be an artist - and Cicero was one. Existing rules he followed the compositions for the entire speech and for each part of it separately with the precision with which the circumstances required it. When necessary, he easily neglected them. Favorite techniques of Cicero's style are appeal, rhetorical questions, gradation, pathetic conclusions.

Cicero is the only Roman orator from whom not only theoretical works on rhetoric have come down to us, but also the speeches themselves, etc. a modern researcher has the opportunity to compare theory and practice. The famous teacher and theorist of rhetoric, Quintillian, wrote: “Heaven sent Cicero to earth in order to give an example in him of the extent to which the power of the word can reach.”

The rhetorical ideal corresponds to the general idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe aesthetic and moral; it was formed gradually in culture.

In the Russian tradition, the word was called upon to shape the worldview, bring peace and unity to people, and educate the human soul. Literary monuments of Ancient Rus' gave the word a high status.

The gift of speech and eloquence were perceived as a reward from above - for holiness, worship of God: “There was at that time a certain monk, wise in divine teaching, adorned with holy life and eloquence” (“The Tale of Barlaam and Josaph” 18th century).

What did our ancestors value most in speech behavior? It was important not only the ability to speak, but also the ability to listen to the interlocutor. This requirement is reflected in numerous sayings, proverbs, aphorisms (The word is silver, silence is golden. Know more, but tell me. Saying little, you will hear more).

In Rus', meekness has always been valued (“Keep your eyes down and your soul up”). Blasphemy in conversation, abuse, slander, slander, loud and loud speech, rudeness in speech and verbosity have always been condemned. The “Life” talks about one of the main virtues of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich, that he “did not have idle conversations, did not like obscene words..., avoided rude words in speech, spoke little, but understood a lot.”

The sin of verbosity and the advantage of silence are figuratively commented on in ancient Russian texts. “Let me not be like millstones, for they feed many people, but cannot satisfy themselves with life. May I not find myself hated by the world with my verbose conversation, like a bird frequenting its songs, which they soon begin to hate. For it is said in worldly proverbs: long speech is not good, but long speech is good.

“A silent deed is better than a useless word. Do what is said and do not talk about what has been done,” is written in an ancient Russian teaching.

Respect was considered a virtue, blasphemy was condemned - behind the eyes and in the eyes, and condemned as great sin. In the “Instructions of a Father to His Son” we read: “My son, if you want to achieve a lot in the eyes of God and people, then be respectful to everyone and kind to every person, both behind and in person. If someone is laughed at, praise him and love him.”

A kind word is the first thing you should say to a person. “Don’t let a person pass without greeting him, and kind word tell him,” Vladimir Monomakh orders. “Beware of lies and drunkenness and fornication, because the soul and body perish from this” (“Teachings of Vladimir Monomakh”).

Slander and listening to slander were prohibited and condemned. “The speech of a liar is like the chirping of birds, and only fools listen to him... if someone begins to slander your friend, do not listen to him, otherwise he will tell others about your sins.”

Speech that conveyed the truth, not blasphemy, and free from unkind condemnation was considered worthy. It is better to remain silent than to condemn, and if you condemn, then kindly and with the thought of benefit.

Thus, the oldest monuments of Russian literature allow us to imagine the origins of the Russian speech tradition, a tradition that is deeply moral and worldly wise.

The Old Russian rhetorical ideal of behavior presupposes in communication meekness, humility, love for one's neighbor, respect for him, and the prohibition of false and slanderous words. Speech must be restrained in all respects; shouting, irritation, displays of contempt, condemnation and any blasphemy are not allowed.

In our time, the best speech patterns to this day retain the features of the rhetorical ideal, this is especially clearly represented in the preaching activities of the Orthodox priesthood. For speech patterns fully reflect the value system of national culture.

Mass information gives a person the opportunity for at least relative independence from totalitarian propaganda for the construction of communism or “universal human values” of a democratic “ open society" Modern rhetoric is not just a technical discipline that teaches the ability to construct convincing statements, but a tool of self-defense from totalitarian consciousness. That's why it carries a return...

But these qualities are clearly not enough either to evaluate PR activities, or to control them, or to teach them, or to carry them out in mass, specially organized forms. 1.6. Ethics of rhetoric and ethics of PR PR pseudo-rhetoric has as its real addressee not the audience to which the speech is addressed, but the customer. Its purpose is to “report on the work done” by demonstrating some...

Comparative-historical rhetoric– a scientific discipline that studies forms of speech (“system of phrases”) that reflect the form of thoughts (“system of views”) in different cultures. The rhetorical ideal as the main category of comparative historical rhetoric. The concept of rhetorical ideal. Properties of the rhetorical ideal: historical variability, cultural specificity, social conditioning. Essential features of the rhetorical ideal: 1) the relationship between the participants in the speech situation (dialogue / monologue in content and form), 2) the intention of the participants (agonism / harmonization), 3) the subject of speech and the attitude of the participants towards it (relativism / ontologism).

Ancient rhetorical ideal. Classical rhetoric of the Sophists. “Wandering teachers of wisdom” as the first theorists and practitioners of eloquence. Socio-political views of the sophists and their reflection in rhetorical theory and practice. Development of the beginnings of the theory of eloquence. The art of arguing is a new stage in the development of eristics. The rhetorical ideal of antiquity and the speech behavior of the sophists: manipulative (monological), agonistic (competition, struggle), relativistic rhetoric (the goal is not truth, but victory); the dominance of external form over internal meaning; “opinion” is more important than “truth”; “pleasure” is more important than “virtue.” Playing on the instincts of the crowd as a means of sophist rhetoric, achieving power and necessary material goods- as the goal of sophistic rhetoric.

Sophists(from ancient Greek “craftsman, inventor, sage, expert”) - ancient Greek paid teachers of eloquence, representatives of the philosophical movement of the same name, 2nd gender. V - 1st floor. IV centuries BC e. In a broad sense, the term "sophist" served to designate a skilled or wise person. Today's word sophistry carries a somewhat negative connotation. In classical or ancient sophistry there are: 1) senior sophists, their acme (highest point, peak) was in the 2nd floor. 5th century BC e. (the most famous are Protagoras of Abdera, Gorgias of Leontine, Hippias of Elis, Prodicus of Keos, Antiphon, Critias of Athens); 2) younger sophists, their acme occurred in the 1st half of the 4th century. BC (the most famous are Lycophron, Alcidamates, Thrasymachus).

SOPHISTIC(from the Greek sofisma - wisdom, cunning, trick) - the direction of ancient Greek intellectual thought. The focus of the representatives of S. - the sophists (the so-called “teachers of wisdom”) were the problems of the theory and practice of eloquence, the art of argumentation, and debate, as well as various aspects of ethics, politics and the theory of knowledge. S. is the art of all kinds of tricks, focusing on winning an argument at any cost, even through deception, violating the requirements of logic, deliberately confusing the opponent, etc.

S. is usually assessed as absolute evil. This is a centuries-old conventional wisdom. Plato defined S. as follows: “This name denotes the hypocritical imitation of art based on opinion, entangling another in contradictions” (Plato. Sophist). According to Aristotle, the tricks of the sophists are “the art of making money with the help of imaginary wisdom, and therefore the sophists strive for imaginary evidence” (Aristotle. On sophistic refutations). G.H. Lichtenberg emphasized: “A person becomes a sophist and resorts to tricks where he lacks knowledge.” V. Hugo characterized S. in even harsher terms: “The sophist is a falsifier: if necessary, he rapes common sense. A certain logic, extremely flexible, merciless and skillful, is always ready to serve evil: it beats the science hidden in the shadows in the most sophisticated way. ... False science is the scum of genuine science, and it is used to destroy philosophers. Philosophers, by creating sophists, dig a hole for themselves. Mistletoe grows on the droppings of song thrushes, secreting glue with which thrushes are caught” (V. Hugo. The Man Who Laughs).

The formation of S. is associated with the peculiarities of the political life of Athens. For the ability to speak convincingly determined a person’s fate. Hence the attention of the Athenians to the possibilities of the living word. Written speech was considered (compared to oral) dead and useless. And this is natural: all fundamental issues were resolved by the people's assembly. This means that the degree of influence on the minds and feelings of citizens largely depended on the art of eloquence. There was another stimulating factor. Athenian legal proceedings were also based on competition: both the prosecutor and the defender made speeches, trying to convince the judges (who numbered several hundred!) that they were right. It can be considered, therefore, that there was a kind of “social order” for the ability to speak beautifully and convincingly, as well as for teachers of such art and compilers of public speeches, “craftsmen” who could come up with puzzling tricks, make the enemy look funny or stupid form.

In reality, the heyday of S. was several decades at the turn of the 5th-4th centuries. BC, a brief rise in thought, when the Sophists really developed ideas related to the art of argument and the ability to persuade through oratory. This period coincides with the “golden age” of Athenian democracy - the era of Pericles.

At the origins of S. stood two great thinkers (whose merits history has never properly appreciated) - Protagoras and Gorgias. Protagoras of Abdera (c. 481 - c. 411 BC), who was called the “father” of S., was a close friend of Pericles, wrote at his request laws for a new colony - cleruchy called Thurii, gave a philosophical “cut” to the amazing according to the strength of the intellect of Pericles' long-term friend, Aspasia. And such a relationship between the leader of Athenian democracy and the main sophist is far from accidental: S. is a very complex phenomenon, but on the whole it is the spiritual child of democracy. In fact, the sophists oriented the citizens of Athens to the fact that any of them has the right to express their opinion on the affairs of the state, talk about politics, etc. It is in this context that the famous aphorism of Protagoras should be perceived: “Man himself is the measure of all things.” . It is usually interpreted as the apotheosis of subjectivism, but in fact the meaning contained in it is completely different: a person can independently judge everything, first of all, of course, about political problems.

The name of another great sophist, Gorgias, is identified primarily with rhetoric. The emergence of rhetoric dates back to the middle of the 5th century. BC e., when in Sicily Corax and Tisias created their manuals on rhetoric (the first to be mentioned). It was from them that Gorgias of Leontinus (c. 480 - c. 380 BC), who became famous in Athens as a famous sophist and rhetorician, borrowed elements of the future theory of eloquence. Gorgias developed special stylistic techniques for decorating the speaker’s speech - Gorgian figures.

Representatives of S. acquired enormous influence in Athens: “paid teachers of wisdom” (as they were called) literally turned into a “plague.” It was to this time that well-known sophisms go back, such as Horned, Covered, You, father of the dog, You are not a man and others. The wide distribution of sophists in Athens is evidenced by the fact that Aristophanes dedicated a special comedy “Clouds” to exposing their tricks. The unlucky hero of the comedy Strepsiades, in order to get rid of debts, turns to the sophists so that they teach his son turn the truth into lies. His son Pheidippides, having gone through the “school” of false tricks, turns his art against the parent who sent him to the sophists, “justifying” the right to beat his father. “Pheidippides: And I can prove that the son of his father has the right to bludgeon... And this is what I’ll ask you: did you beat me as a child? Strepsiades: Yes, he beat, but out of love, wishing you well. Pheidippides: Well, I don’t have the right to wish you well in the same way and to beat you, when beating is the purest sign of love? And why is your back innocent of beatings, but mine is, since we were both born free? The boys are roaring, but the father shouldn’t be roaring? Is it so? You will object that this is all the responsibility of the little ones. I will answer you: “Well, the old man is doubly a child. Old people deserve double punishment, because the mistakes of the elderly are unforgivable” (Aristophanes. Clouds).

The greatest philosophers tried to resist the sophists. It is enough to recall the constant debates that Socrates conducted with them. It is not by chance that Plato brought out many sophists in his dialogues (dialogues “Protagoras”, “Gorgias”, “Hippias the Greater”, “Hippias the Lesser”, “Sophist” and a number of others), where he portrayed the sophists as negative characters, and this the assessment became entrenched in world culture, but Plato failed to refute the tricks of the sophists with the weapon of criticism.

Only Aristotle solved this problem. The creation of logic was conceived by him precisely as the development of methods for refuting sophistic arguments. As Aristotle himself emphasized, he created his logical system in order to give “honest citizens a weapon against the sophists”, to expose their techniques and tricks. It is the logical analysis of everyday spoken language that is the basis on which Aristotle’s logical teaching was created. In his work “On Sophistic Refutations,” he examined in detail the favorite techniques of the sophists: the use of words with different meanings; shifting many questions into one; substitution of the thesis; anticipation of the foundation; mixing the absolute and the relative, etc., thereby creating a “technology” for combating S.

So, it is necessary to recognize that representatives of S. have unconditional merits to science: it was they who, with their tricks, forced the ancient Greek thinkers to turn to a thorough development of the theory of argumentation and logic in general. They raised the art of argument to a whole new level. According to Diogenes Laertius, Protagoras “was the first to use arguments in disputes,” “began to organize competitions in disputes and came up with tricks for the litigants; he did not care about thought, he argued about words” (Diogenes Laertius. On the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers). It was Protagoras who created the philosophical dialogue; later it began to be called “Socratic” or “Platonic” - these thinkers gave the philosophical dialogue a special shine, but Protagoras was the first! That is why some researchers quite reasonably believe that in the works of the Sophists, and primarily Protagoras, are the origins of three areas of scientific thought: linguistics, logic and rhetoric.

Today we have to admit that the ideas of the sophists in the history of science were not appreciated. And it is no coincidence that A.I. Herzen considered it necessary to stand up for the “slandered and misunderstood sophists.” In his opinion, the sophists “expressed a period of youthful arrogance and daring.” The sophist “relies on one thing - his thought; this is his spear, his shield,” he has “the unconditional power of negation.” A.I. Herzen wrote about the sophists: “What a luxury in their dialectic! what mercilessness!.. What a masterful mastery of thought and formal logic! Their endless disputes - these bloodless tournaments, where there is as much grace as strength - were youthful prancing in the strict arena of philosophy; this is the daring youth of science” (A. Herzen. Letters on the Study of Nature).

In the period from the 2nd to the 4th centuries. n. e. the so-called second S.

Modern researchers, in particular A.A. Ivin, consider it insufficient to consider S. only as an art of tricks. Sophistry is beginning to be viewed as a special form of problem posing. A.A. Ivin emphasizes: “A distinctive feature of sophism is its duality, the presence, in addition to external, also of a certain internal content. In this he is like a symbol and parable. Like a parable, outwardly sophistry speaks of well-known things. In this case, the story is usually constructed in such a way that the surface does not attract independent attention and in one way or another - most often by contradicting common sense - hints at a different, underlying content. The latter is usually unclear and ambiguous. It contains in an undeveloped form, as if in embryo, a problem that is felt, but cannot be formulated in any clear way until the sophism is placed in a sufficiently broad and deep context. Only in him is it revealed in a relatively clear form. With a change in context and consideration of sophism from the point of view of a different theoretical structure, it usually turns out that a completely different problem is hidden in the same sophism” (A. Ivin. Logic: Textbook). Lit.: Aristotle. On sophistic refutations // Aristotle. Op. in 4 vols. - M., 1978; - T. 2; Herzen A.I. Letters on the Study of Nature. - M.; L., 1946; Diogenes Laertius. About the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. - M., 1979; Ivin A.A. Logic: Textbook. M., 1997 (Chapter 7. Sophisms); Ivin A.A. Sophisms as problems // Questions of philosophy. - 1984. - No. 2; Kravchuk A. Pericles and Aspasia: Historical and artistic chronicle. - M., 1991 (part seven is dedicated to Protagoras); Xenophon. Memories of Socrates. - M., 1993; Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics: Sophists. Socrates. Plato. - M., 1994; Nikiforov A.L., Panov M.I. Introduction to logic: A manual for teachers and parents. - M., 1995 (section 2 of topic 2. Logic, rhetoric, sophistry); Panov M.I. Rhetoric from antiquity to the present day // Anthology of Russian rhetoric. - M., 1997 (Chapter 2. How did rhetoric arise and what role did sophistry play in its formation?); Panov M.I. What are sophistry? What is their danger? How should they be refuted? // Buzuk G.L., Panov M.I. Logic in questions and answers (Experience of a popular textbook). - M., 1991; Plato. Gorgias // Plato. Op. in 3 vols. - M., 1968. - T. 1; Plato. Protagoras // Ibid. - M., 1970. - T. 2; Plato. Sophist // Ibid.; Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. In 2 vols. - Novosibirsk, 1994 (chapter 9 of part 1. Protagoras); Dictionary of Antiquity. - M., 1993 (articles: Gorgias; Protagoras; Sophistry). M.I. Panov

SECOND SOPHISTIC- a movement in ancient culture that arose at the beginning of the 2nd century. n. e. in Asia Minor (Smyrna, Ephesus) and developed until the end of the 4th century. Its leading representatives Lucian of Samosata, Aelius Aristides, Dion Chrysostomos, Libanius no longer developed the actual problems associated with sophistry, and the main attention was paid to the improvement and sharpening of rhetorical technique. Representatives of V. s. developed the traditions of Atticism and Asianism in the field of rhetoric. Atticism (from Attica) was focused on strict literary canons and norms for each of the three types of oratorical and poetic speech, dating back to the traditions of the outstanding orators of Athens in the 4th century. BC e. Asianism is a movement that arose in Asia Minor and focused primarily on the fascination with stylistic innovations and formal effects of the art of words.

Representatives of V. s. They devoted a lot of time to developing the classical rhetorical heritage, turning to the so-called canon of ten Attic orators, and sought to influence the Roman emperors with their speeches (Aelius Aristides, Libanius). Lit.: Averintsev S.S. Second sophistry // Literary encyclopedic dictionary. - M., 1987; Borukhovich V.G. Oratory art of Ancient Greece // Orators of Greece. - M., 1985; Kurbatov G.L. Early Byzantine portraits. - L., 1991 (Chapter 2 is dedicated to Libanius); Nakhov I.M. Lucian of Samosata // Lucian of Samosata. Favorite prose. - M., 1991; About the sublime. - M., 1994. M.I. Panov

Sophisms and eristic tricks. The specificity of the logical techniques of sophisms: 1) confusion of concepts due to ambiguity and “ambiguity” (Aristotle), polysemy, homonymy, paronymy, etc.; 2) substitution of the volume of content of the concept; 3) uncertainty of the content of the concept; 4) insufficiently expressed preconditions about the content of the concept.

Eristic tricks as “a more delicate, but also more dangerous weapon” (Yu. Rozhdestvensky): 1) avoidance of the topic: multiple questions, questions “for fools”, subversion of a contradiction, questions to change the scope of the concept being discussed; 2) change in attitude to the topic: objection in advance, false suspicion, categorical disagreement, authoritarian position, getting personal, “ladies’ argument” (illogical transition to another topic), imposed investigation, “sifting the facts,” constructing suspicions, playing with hyperbole and litotes , ironic repetition; 3) destruction of the speaker’s position: changing the subject of discussion, tabooing the discussion of the topic, insinuation, changing the assessment, false agreement and indignation with a change in the subject of discussion, switching to accusation, delaying or speeding up the speech with the addition of a new one and “confusing” the listener, false accusation of absence evidence, a false statement about the impossibility of continuing the dispute, false transfer of the topic to oneself, the use of the principle “the fool himself.”

Ethically acceptable / unacceptable sophisms and tricks. Criticism of sophistry by Plato (“Sophist” and “Euthydemus”) and Aristotle “on sophistic refutations”).

PROTAGORUS.“Man is the measure of all things that exist, that they exist, and non-existent, that they do not exist” (in other words: there is only what a person perceives with his senses, and there is nothing that a person does not perceive with his senses.), “How we feel that this is how it really is,” “Everything is as it seems to us.” Affirms the relativity of our knowledge, the element of subjectivity in it. He was taught philosophy Democritus, who took him as a student, seeing how he, being a porter, rationally stacks logs into bundles. The founder of the sophistic lifestyle (traveling with lectures, teaching for high fees, staying in the houses of rich people interested in culture). According to legend, he was a student of Persian magicians. Protagoras was probably the first Greek to make money in higher education, and he was notorious for extremely high fees. His training included such general areas as public conversation, poetry criticism, citizenship, and grammar. His teaching methods seemed to consist primarily of lectures, including exemplary orations, studies of poetry, discussions of the meanings and proper use of words, and general rules of eloquence. His audience consisted mainly of wealthy men from the social and commercial elites of Athens. The reason for his popularity among this class had to do with certain features of the Athenian legal system. The doctrines of Protagoras can be divided into three groups: 1) Orthoepia: a study correct use words, 2) Statement of the measure of man: knowledge, 3) Agnosticism: the requirement that we cannot know anything about the gods. Protagoras' influence on the history of philosophy was significant. Historically, it was in response to the statements of Protagoras and his fellow sophists that Plato began the search for superior forms or knowledge that could, somehow, anchor moral judgment.

Plato in his dialogue “Protagoras” puts into the mouth of the main character a well-known myth about the origin of man and human culture. It is debatable whether these were Protagoras's genuine views. Protagoras proclaimed relativism and sensationalism, and his student Xeniades of Corinth, based on the extreme conclusions of Protagoras, concluded that knowledge is impossible. Protagoras laid the foundations of scientific grammar through the distinction between types of sentences, genders of nouns and adjectives, tenses and moods of verbs. He also dealt with problems of correct speech. Protagoras enjoyed great authority among his descendants. He influenced Plato, Antisthenes, Euripides (whose friend he was), Herodotus, and probably the skeptics. Protagoras is the main character of Plato's dialogue and one of the works of Heraclides of Pontus.

The rhetorical ideal of Plato (Socrates)): dialogicity, harmonization, meaning, search for truth. “Sophistic” dialogues of Plato: “Gorgias” - formulation and solution of ethical problems of eloquence. The Phaedrus dialogue is the first guide to eloquence. Definition of eloquence as a special activity and subject of study. Morality (ethics) and beauty (order, harmony) as opposed to chaos; temperance and moral duty. The concept of the “image” of beautiful speech (rhetorical ideal). Fundamentals of the ancient rhetorical canon. Fundamentals of the doctrine of speech situations: addressee and types of addressees, types and types of speeches, their correspondence to types of audience, speaker and his image, time, place, conditions.

Plato intensively developed dialectics, consolidated the understanding of rhetoric as a means of persuasion. Plato's works are highly artistic dialogues: "Apology of Socrates", "Phaedo", "Symposium", "Parmenides", "Sophist", "Gorgias", "Phaedrus". The scientist reproduced the thoughts of Socrates in his famous dialogues. Plato came to the definition of sophistry as imaginary wisdom. Plato contrasts the sophists with genuine eloquence based on knowledge of truth. The essence of this theory is as follows. Before you start talking about any subject, you need to clearly define it. Next, it is necessary to know the truth, that is, the essence of the subject. The speech should be structured like this: introduction, presentation, evidence, conclusions. Refutation, confirmation, and collateral explanations are also possible. Valuable in Plato's theory of eloquence is the idea of ​​the impact of speech on the soul.

Rhetoric of Socrates: Socratic method, irony, antisophicality, maieutics, induction, antimoralism, appeal to a free citizen acting for the benefit of the state. The philosophy and rhetoric of Socrates (for the first time) as actually pedagogical. The main features of his rhetoric: - Irony as an evasion from categorical judgments and a means of comprehending the truth; - Maieutics or the ability to structure a dialogue in such a way that the alternation of questions and answers leads as a result of the conversation to the birth of truth; - The principle of truth of speech determines and ethical meaning eloquence; - A special role is given to the relevance and expediency of speech. Socratic rhetoric is one of the first examples of heuristic pedagogical dialogue in history. For Socrates, truth is the essence of a thing, its meaning.

Aristotle's rhetorical ideal(“Logic”, “Rhetoric”, “Poetics”). Public government system as the speech organization of society. Goals of speech. Ethics of the speaker. " Ultimate Goal of all – the listener” (Aristotle). Justice and correctness of society and speech. Aristotle's rhetorical ideal as a development of the ideas of Plato (Socrates). The main elements of the rhetorical ideal: thought-truth, goodness, beauty - harmony.

Aristotle- founder of formal logic. Logical essays: 6 treatises: Categories, About expressing thoughts, First analysts, Second Analysts, Topika, About sophistical deceptions. Developed a theory of thinking and its forms, concepts, judgments and inferences. Aristotle saw the goal of science in a complete definition of the subject, achieved only by combining deduction and induction. Formulated logical laws: identities- the concept must be used in the same meaning in the course of reasoning; contradictions- “don’t contradict yourself”; excluded third- “A or not-A is true, there is no third option.” Rhetorical essays: Rhetoric, Rhetoric to Alexander. Rhetoric: First part is devoted to the principles on the basis of which the speaker can encourage his listeners to do something or deviate them from something, can praise or blame. Second part- about the personal qualities of the speaker, with the help of which he can inspire confidence in his listeners and more accurately achieve his goal, i.e. persuade or dissuade. Third part– about the special (technical) side of rhetoric: methods of expression (about style), and about the construction of speech (including the meaning of humor, pathos, the influence on young and old), analysis of the strength of the evidence used. The work was in little demand due to its “scientific” nature.

Cicero's rhetorical ideal. The beauty of speech (rhetoric) is higher than philosophy and poetry. Rhetorical treatises: Brutus (Brut; 46), De inventione (On finding<материала>; 80), De optimo genere oratorum (On the best kind of speakers; 50 or 46), De oratore (On the speaker; 55), De partitione oratoria (Construction of speech; 54), Orator (Speaker; 46), Topica (Topic; 44) .

Cicero believed that only a highly educated person who has the goal of fighting for the happiness of people can be a speaker. The main thing in rhetorical essays is the theory of thought formation, work on language, speech rhythm, expressiveness, gesture and facial expressions. The simplicity of speech must be filled with sublimity and power of expression. Oratory is endowed with all the advantages of real art. The diversity and constant novelty of art in general are emphasized more than once by Cicero. No matter how much Cicero recognizes classical “correctness” (De orat. III 10, 38-12, 46) and “clarity” (13, 48-51) as extremely important in an orator’s speech, the main thing for him is to speak “beautifully,” namely “ harmonious, detailed, detailed, shining with bright words and vivid images" (14, 52-53). Perfect for Cicero is also the philosophy that speaks of the most difficult things“thoroughly and beautifully (copiose et ornate, Tusc. disp. I 4, 7). And further, Cicero defines the beauty of speech in “a certain freshness and richness,” “importance,” “tenderness,” “learnedness,” “nobility” , “captivating, “graceful,” “sensitivity,” “passion,” and “the colors of words and thoughts” should be distributed “evenly” and “discriminately” in speech. The main thing is that “the pleasure from the general tone of speech should be “without satiety,” without that novelty that captures at first sight, but “does not delight for a long time,” in contrast to ancient paintings, whose old-fashionedness and ineptitude itself attracts a person. Moderation is what Cicero demands from beauty. Verbal heaps, colored with bright colors, never give lasting pleasure, and the “curls” and “embellishments” of speakers and poets “satiate” and “irritate” the senses (De orat. III 25, 96-100).

A good speech must include wit. It is either “evenly spread throughout the entire speech and is then called playfulness,” or “caustic and catchy,” that is, what is called “wit.” And although no science is required for either playfulness or wit, “jokes and witticisms” can overthrow a person no worse than tragedy. The tragic “inspiration” of such a brilliant orator as Licinius Crassus did not in the least interfere with the fact that he spoke at the same time “cheerfully and mockingly” (II 54, 218. 225-56, 227)402. It is extremely desirable for a speaker to cause laughter, but even here it is necessary to “observe moderation” (II 58, 236-59, 238). The same moderation is characteristic of the “comicism of speech” (II 60, 244), for the speaker is always distinguished from the jester by “the appropriateness and restraint of wit, moderate and rare witticisms” (II 60, 247). Cicero more than once returns to this idea about the moderation of the funny, confirming that “jokes by their nature should not be licentious and unrestrained, but noble and witty” so that they show the “noble character of a person” (De offic. I 29, 102) (A.F. Losev). Cicero: “The ideal speaker is the one who in his speech instructs his listeners, and gives them pleasure and subjugates their will; the first is his duty, the second is the guarantee of his popularity, the third is a necessary condition for success.”

Greek rhetorical pantheon: Peitho (goddess of persuasion) and two Eris (goddesses of argument): agonistic argument (eristics) and harmonizing argument (dialectic).

The movement of rhetorical thought and the development of society. The heyday of Athenian democracy as the time of the formation of ancient rhetoric. “Rhetoric is the child of democracy” (Aristotle). Demosthenes and Cicero as “great tragic symbols” of “the collapse of small republican Greece and republican Rome” (A.F. Losev). The fall of the republics as the decline of rhetorical thought and the flowering of rhetorical form.

Pedagogical rhetoric of Quintilian. Losev A.F.: Quintilian’s work is systematic and strictly thought out, although it is not original. The entire experience of classical rhetoric is taken into account here, but the time of great discoveries in the sphere of this also once great art of living words and living human communication has passed, giving way to summing up results, strengthening canons, strictly following models and bringing the former diversity to schemes and formulations. Quintilian devotes individual books of his extensive work to the comprehensive training of the orator from childhood in rhetorical exercises, the division of speech, its logical structure, its decoration with paths and figures, the style of speech and the correspondence of outstanding oratorical qualities to the moral makeup of a person. However, sometimes among practical advice the themes of nature and art (II 19 Butler), laughter (V 13), fantasy (VI 2), style (VIII 1) and poetic language (VIII 3-6, IX 1-3), artistic structure and rhythm (IX 4), imitation (X 2); different types of oratorical styles and analogies between sculpture and painting (XII 10). Then all this material, which seems to have a distant relation to aesthetics, takes on a slightly different coloring.

Quintilian proves that rhetoric is an art, believing that the gift of nature alone is not enough for true eloquence (II 17). Here Quintilian refers to the Stoic Cleanthes with his teaching about art as a guide and founder of order, so that rhetoric turns out to be a certain science for him, consisting of business and useful rules. According to Cleanthes (II 17, 41), “art is a force that reaches the path (potestas viam afficiens),” the ability to act methodically. No one, says Quintilian, will doubt that rhetoric in this sense is precisely an art. It is important that Quintilian, in order to define rhetoric, gives some classification of the arts (II 18). Some sciences (or arts), according to Quintilian, are theoretical. These are those that require only knowledge and research (in inspectione, id est cognitatione et aestimatione rerum) and do not go into action (such as astronomy). Others are practical, consisting of only one action (in agendo, such is the dance). The third sciences and arts are poietic (from the Greek poieo - I do), real-productive, with the goal of producing one or another product (in effectu) as a result of a certain action. Here Quintilian names painting as an example. Rhetoric, in his opinion, belongs to the second category, although it can also use the other two methods. And if we classify it as one type, then it would be better to call it “active” or “administrative” art (activa vel administrativa). The division into theoretical, practical and poetic sciences and arts dates back to Aristotle.

Quintilian owns all the rhetorical literature that existed before him, and lists it in detail (III 1). Here we find the philosopher Empedocles, who, according to his testimony, was the first to study rhetoric; Corax and Tisias - the founders of rhetoric; the famous sophists Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Prodicus, Protagoras, who for the first time discussed the “common places”, or “Topic”; Hippias, Alcidamanta; Antiphon, who wrote the first defensive speech and rules of eloquence; Polycrates, Theodore of Byzantium; the orator Isocrates, Aristotle, Theodectus, the Stoics and the Peripatetics; Hermagoras, Athenaeus, Apollonius of Molon, Ares, Caecilius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Alolodorus of Pergamon and Theodore of Gadar. Among the Romans, Quintilian mentions M. Cato the Elder, M. Antony, Cicero and others.

He divides rhetoric into five parts: invention, arrangement, verbal expression, memory, utterance (or action) (III 3, 1). He divides the speeches themselves into three types: 1) commendable (blameful) or, generally speaking, demonstrative (genus demonstrativum), 2) reasoning (genus deliberativum) and 3) judicial (III 4). Each of these genus is devoted to a large section (III 7-11). Parts of speech are also analyzed in detail: introduction (IV 1), exposition (IV 2), digression (IV 3), sentence (IV 4), division (IV 5). Book V is devoted to evidence; VI speaks of conclusion (1), arousal of passions (2), laughter (3), competition (4), judgment and reflection (5).

The main condition for the artistic impression of speech, according to Quintilian, is the way it is pronounced (XI 3). Quintilian talks a lot and interestingly about developing intonations that would exactly follow the mood of the speaker, about their naturalness, evenness and variety, about controlling your breathing so as to stop not when you no longer have the strength to speak, but where it is appropriate from the point of view from the perspective of speech itself, and in general about constant exercises, a great example of which is the same famous Demosthenes. Quintilian, further, talks a lot about the meaning of gestures for the speaker, body movements and facial expressions. These are colossal resources for every speaker.

Regarding the internal content of the speech, the speaker must remember that with all the variety of affairs he has one and only goal, which he can achieve only through his own labor. This goal is to intervene in the psyche of listeners, for example, judges, to arouse feelings and passions in it, and to be able to control the feelings and passions of listeners. To achieve this, we ourselves must be sincerely moved by these feelings. If we want to make someone cry, we ourselves must feel the object in such a way that we are ready to cry.

Interesting as an example of rich and finely developed Hellenistic-Roman formalism is Book VII - on disposition (dispositio). Discussing verbal expression (elocutio), Quintilian (VIII 1) extols its clarity, purity, correctness and proportionality. He specifically treats about clarity (perspicuitas), born from the direct meaning of words, and about ways to avoid darkness (VIII 2), as well as about decoration (ornatus) (III 3). The decoration should be masculine, not effeminate. It must correspond to the subject. Decoration is opposed to pleonasm and artificiality, and is promoted by clarity, liveliness and brevity or “brevity” (brachylogia), “lively” (emphasis) and “simplicity” (apheleia). Quintilian is concerned with the issue of amplification and its four types - incrementum, comparison, inference, or conclusion, and the connection of different thoughts (VIII 4). And finally, the chapter on paths (VIII 6) is very important. Understanding by tropes “an expressive change of a word or speech from its own meaning to another” (VIII 6, I), Quintilian divides tropes into those promoting greater expressiveness and decorative ones (VIII 6, 2). He includes metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, antonomasia, onomatopoeia (onomatopoeia), catachresis (the use of a word in an unusual meaning), and the second - epithet, allegory, enigma (riddle), irony, periphrasis, hyperbat (transfer), hyperbole. (A.F. Losev).

Quintilian is considered the first classic of humane pedagogy. His words: “Father, when your son is born, place on him high hopes, for great hopes give rise to great pedagogy.”

The contents of the treatise on books are as follows: Book I discusses the initial education of a child; in II - training from a rhetorician; books III – VII are devoted to inventio and dispositio (finding and distributing material); books VIII–XI describe elocutio (style) and memoria (memorization); in Book XII, Quintilian paints a portrait of a perfect orator. Although many of Quintilian's technical aspects of rhetoric have become largely irrelevant today, his clear style, common sense, and abundance of examples give his work vitality. Books I, X and XII are especially interesting. In Book I, Quintilian emphasizes the responsibility of parents for raising their son, the importance of choosing nannies and educators, the need to encourage good habits, teach not only Latin, but also Greek, and give food to the child’s mind. Quintilian points out the advantage of schooling over home education, which lies in the presence of a moment of competition, says that the teacher needs special tact and acuity of perception, considers the problems of discipline and the role of games and recreation. In Book X, Quintilian considers the range of reading, which should form the main part of the preparation of a speaker. In this fluent and at the same time enough full review Greek and Roman literature, Quintilian expresses many judgments that have stood the test of time. In Book XII, he insists that only a highly moral and widely educated person can become an orator.

Ancient rhetorical ideal in the history of world culture.

Related information.

Federal Agency for Education
State educational institution of higher professional education
Omsk State University named after. F. M. Dostoevsky

Pavlova Yana Igorevna

"Rhetorical ideal in means mass media»

Speciality "Publishing and Editing"

Course work of a 4th year student of full-time and part-time study

Scientific supervisor:

Malysheva E.G.

Omsk 2010
Content

Introduction

Our time is a time of active and rapid political, economic, social changes, which cannot but be reflected in the language actively and daily used by society as a means of communication and communication. The modern era has updated many processes in language, which in other conditions might have been less noticeable and more smoothed out. New realities, a new situation determine changes in the linguistic and stylistic appearance of journalism, as well as some of its substantive features. This is natural: social reality is changing, and journalism is becoming different. Theoretical ideas about written speech and its constituent categories and concepts are changing accordingly. A social explosion does not make a revolution in language as such, but actively influences a person’s speech practice, revealing linguistic capabilities, bringing them to the surface. Under the influence of external factors, the internal resources of the language, developed by intrasystem relations, which were not previously in demand, come into motion. In general, language changes occur through the interaction of external and internal causes. Moreover, the basis for changes is laid in the language itself, where internal patterns operate, the reason for which, their driving force, lies in the systematic nature of the language. Thus, the life of language is organically connected with the life of society, but is not completely subordinated to it due to its own systemic organization. Thus, in the language movement, processes of self-development collide with processes stimulated from the outside.
The topic of this work is now becoming increasingly relevant. Literature is leaving its central place in Russian culture against the backdrop of the verbal life of society that has come into motion, primarily the public word, previously frozen for many years in ready-made forms of pre-written speeches.
Experts in the culture of speech say that the Russian language is our national treasure, but not one that can be put in a chest and admired from time to time: while reflecting our national virtues, the language no less clearly shows all our troubles. Scientists - linguists, literary critics, cultural experts, philosophers are concerned about the state and fate of the Russian language. Russian speech in modern Russian society is not in the best position.
In the modern world, communication is undergoing significant changes, since we live in an age of information boom, expansion of areas of communication, and numerous contacts with each other. This often leads to serious emotional and psychological overload.
This is due to the mistakes that we make in our speech behavior. Experts in the field of communication note with alarm the increase in intolerance, conflict, and aggression in communication.
Thus, the purpose of our research is to characterize the concept of “rhetorical ideal” and consider the features of the modern Russian language.
Tasks:

Define the concept of “rhetoric”.
Identify the features of the concept of “rhetorical ideal”.
Consider the lexical picture of the modern Russian language.

Object of study: Russian language.
Subject of research: rhetorical ideal.

Chapter I. The rhetorical ideal as a model of human speech behavior.

1.1.The essence of the concept of “rhetoric”

Researchers note that compared to 1985, by 2000 the use of the term rhetoric increased 586 times. The terminological chaos is associated with the split that occurred in rhetoric in the 5th century BC. The concept of rhetoric has many meanings, let’s consider its main definitions:
Rhetoric is the art of preparing and delivering a speech on a given topic in front of an audience, as well as the theory and practice of eloquence. This direction was led by Plato. The death of Socrates became a tragedy for Plato; he took 30 talented young men out of the cemetery, which was located on the edge of Athens, and organized an academy that existed for 1200 years. general principles, laid down by him. The name Academy is made up of two words: akad - the last grave of the warrior of Akkad, emiya - earth. Training at the Academy took place in the form of conversations during walks and symposiums. Listeners used dialectics as a way to understand aletheia - absolute truth. Academy students tested their oratory skills at general meetings, which took place in the agora - a square where women, children, and slaves were not allowed, and anyone could make a speech. Later, the functions of the agora expanded: entertainment events and trade appeared there. By the way, today the Internet space is called agora, by analogy with the Greek agora, only the opportunities in it are wider: free access (for children, women, and prisoners), the opportunity not only to communicate, but also to have fun and trade. There is a known case from history when Demosthenes went out to the agora for the first time, he could not speak, was disgraced, offended, and left Athens. He studied a lot: he read the sages, he rhythmized his speech in accordance with the tide of the waves, he spoke so that his voice was reflected from the mountains, his speech and voice became perfect. A year later, Demosthenes repeated his performance in the agora and was recognized.
Rhetoric is the art of controlling human behavior through the spoken or written word, through the production and presentation of certain texts, or in the process of discussing an issue. This direction in rhetoric is characterized by the ability to integrate into human consciousness and control it with the help of words. It was headed by Protagoras. He believed that truth does not exist, only man is the measure of all things, he is the highest truth. This type of rhetoric was preached by the Greek sophists, which is why it is often called sophistic rhetoric. Sophists are sages who taught oratory to everyone using the principle of relative truth. The one who makes the strongest arguments wins. Accordingly, the method of teaching sophistic rhetoric was competition in argument. All Greek culture is a culture of competition: gymnastics, poetry, music, art. Therefore, competitiveness in rhetoric was a natural consequence of Greek culture. This area is especially in demand during democratic periods of social development, when everyone is free to speak out and there is a need to learn how to do so. The most famous sophist of Greece is Gorgias. Subsequently, this direction was called agonistic communication (from the Greek agon - competition) and today has firmly entered our lives as modern speech technology.
By the middle of the 4th century BC. In Greek culture, two understandings of rhetoric developed: classical and agonal. The first developed predominantly since the collapse of Greek democracy put an end to agonistic communication. In the Middle Ages, there was also only classical rhetoric as presented by Aristotle, further improved by Quintilian.
Until the middle of the 18th century. The development of rhetoric follows the traditions of eloquence (eloquence). Only in the second half of the 18th century, during the Age of Enlightenment, did criticism of classical rhetoric begin. First with sides J-J. Rousseau, who believed that rhetoric is an attribute of civilization that interferes with the development of natural human qualities, legalized hypocrisy.
A sharp change occurred in the entire culture after the 1st World War, the language changed dramatically - many abbreviations and vulgarisms appeared. In 1912, the age of classical rhetoric ended: it was expelled from universities and remained only in law faculties. The solemn funeral of classical rhetoric in the first half of the twentieth century did not mean the end of rhetoric as such.
In the USA, rhetoric played a huge role, its study took place at all levels of education, and it was given an agonistic, instrumental character. The traveling salesman coming to the farm, the college graduate wanting to take a position in the city government, the preacher carrying his beliefs to his parishioners, could count on success only when they influenced the mind of another through words to achieve certain goals. This direction was called the New Living Rhetoric; it developed within the framework of pragmatism: with the help of words you can make a profit.
An ordinary person found himself entangled in endless threads of agonistic statements, which he could not resist without knowledge of the basics of rhetoric. The triumphant march of agonistic communication continued in the United States until 1945. After the war, as part of Alain Marshall’s “Aid to Europe” plan, along with financial support, American culture, including agonistic rhetoric, also penetrated into it.
The new living rhetoric was primarily associated with the practice of agonistic communication; much less attention was paid to theoretical issues. Only a few works of this period are known that were in the spirit of the theory of psychological training - this is Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Achieve Success?” At the end of the 1940s. united by the ideas of semiotics and text linguistics, rhetoric became one of the major scientific disciplines; in Europe it began to be called neo-rhetoric. Neorhetorics has firmly taken its place in modern speech technologies: the Mu school, schools of argumentation, new theories of negotiations, advertising, and management. At this stage, the struggle between the two rhetorics ends. Let us note the fact that agonistic communication appeared in Russia not so long ago, but is already having its results both in practice and in theory. There is a well-known school of rhetoric in Simferopol under the leadership of Pavel Taranov, where such disciplines as intrigue and argumentation are taught.
Let us note one more contrast: oral and written speech. In antiquity, priority was given to oral expression, while written text was viewed as an imprint, a pale copy of what was said.
The basis of Christian civilization, on the contrary, is a written text - the Bible, a book that lies at the foundation of human existence. An oral statement is considered as a commentary, an interpretation of the primary written discourse, and accordingly the status of oral speech is lower than written speech.
The rhetoric of the twentieth century is based on the fact that the ratio of oral and written statements changes dynamically depending on the situation and intentions of the speaker and listener; it is associated with the development of the media: telephone, radio, television, the Internet).
So, rhetoric is the most important concept of modern Russian culture. The penetration of rhetoric into all spheres of life and culture is associated with Russia’s transition from a totalitarian system to a democratic one. Rhetoric is a multi-valued concept.
From late antiquity to the mid-18th century. The development of rhetoric follows the traditions of eloquence (classical rhetoric), from the mid-18th century. a crisis of classical rhetoric emerged, which led to its death at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The tradition of agonistic communication was interrupted in the 5th-4th centuries. BC its revival began in the United States from the founding of the state and became widespread in the twentieth century. After the end of the Second World War, agonistic communication penetrated into Europe, where it received deep theoretical justification.

1.2. Rhetorical ideal

Let us consider the concept of a rhetorical ideal, which underlies the model of each type of rhetoric.
The rhetorical ideal consists of three components:

universal, used in different situations: these are the canons of rhetoric - the doctrine of a topic, its choice, the structure of speech, types of speech, norms of speech, diction, intonation.
national linguistic foundations of rhetoric: ethnic traditions, historical facts.
the position of individuals or any communities of people: a stable system of points of view and rules, an ethical system of communication are normalized.

The rhetorical ideal is a harmonious combination of these three components.
The ideal of advertising is to attract the attention of the listener, the viewer. His traits: wit, entertainment, good acting.
The ideal of Christian preachers is the inviolability of their truths.
The ideal of scientific disputes is in iron logic.
The ideal of Russian holy fools is earnestness, fearless truth, prophecy, denunciation of the powers that be, aphoristic and allegorical speech, the artistic ability to enter into an affective state, even to the point of self-torture.
The ideal of the criminal world in Russia is its own language (thieves' music).
Signs and criteria of the rhetorical ideal:
1.answer to questions:
who speaks?
who is he talking to?
under what circumstances does he speak?
what does he say?
For what?
How does he express his thoughts?
what is the result?
2. appearance of the speaking person:
What is most important in a speaker: emotions or logic?
correctness of speech or originality to the limit?
high competence or noisy affects?
3. the speaker’s position on the dilemma: “true-false”
4. ethics of speech: innate or ostentatious (to achieve a goal)
5. speed of speech, gestures, silence, artistry.
An interesting fact is that silence is also a rhetorical device. Previously, silence was seen as the opposite of rhetoric. Today, silence is an important tool in agonistic communication (AC). In 1996, Eva Esterberg, in her work “The Semiotics of Silence,” identifies 10 types of silence:
Silence of uncertainty.
Silence of waiting.
The silence is threatening.
Silence Wary.
Reflective silence.
Offended silence.
Silence of fatigue.
M doubts.
M despondency.
M embarrassment.
This list does not include silence of consent and ironic silence. Silence represents a certain alphabet (sign system), where not all symbols are combined with each other. In the context of communication, we can read the silence of the interlocutor, this strong remedy in AK.
The features of the rhetorical ideal of the sophists: it can be expressed by the phrase: “Language is given to us in order to hide our thoughts” allowed the use of eristics in all types of oratory:

fiction, propaganda, mass media, advertising.
prohibition of eristics in certain situations: false rumors, gossip, rumors, intrigue, false preaching - compromising evidence.
the admissibility of such techniques as excessive praise of some people and denigration of others, biased selection of facts.
use of sophistry. According to Nietzsche, a person can be influenced either by fear or by the expectation of reward, i.e. self-interest.

Sophistic rhetoric contributed to the development of the theory and practice of dialogue, polemics, argumentation, evidence, focused on everyday situations, and introduced an element of pragmatics.
Today these features take on a slightly different color:
Psychological bases of agonistic communication: a person undergoing AC should not know about it, namely, about the beginning and its completion. In this case, the influence occurs on an unconscious level; there are no conscious filters that record who is speaking, why they are speaking, how they are speaking.
The client is always right, the task is to convince him of this. Let's give an example: in the USA they released washing powder in blue, green and red packaging. We organized a TV debate of housewives: which one is better? After some debate, it was decided that the powder in blue packaging was better in quality. The agon method was applied, the client was satisfied, and the manufacturing company received financial benefits. Another example is related to the “Placebo” effect: in the American special forces, the problem of fear of parachute jumping was solved with the help of: A - a tranquilizer, B - ordinary chalk tablets, which were passed off as a new generation tranquilizer. Soon all military personnel switched to group B. Exposure came only after 6 years of use. The choice between A and B creates a choice situation; it is necessary for the organization of agonistic space. Presidential elections also require the creation of an agonistic space: even if there is only one real candidate, alternative candidates are introduced.
Along with real motives, there are quasi-real motives, which, being introduced into consciousness, act as real. Real motives include hunger, thirst, fatigue. The introduction of quasi-motives creates an agonal field. For example: if the recipe is how to make a million? You will be offered a formula - “you need to come to the cemetery at night, stand with your back to the monument and not think about the white monkey,” then this sequence of actions begins to work as a cause-and-effect relationship. When working with small audiences, you need to know where to introduce quasi-motives, and for large audiences you need to create them. For example, in the 60s. In America, the consumption of alcoholic beverages has sharply decreased, which has led to huge economic losses. We used the theory of agonal communication and asked the question: why do people drink? Research was carried out over a period of 2 years. Report: all drinkers are divided into 4 categories: the reparative group, which believes that drinking alcoholic beverages is a reward for work.
A communicative group that believes that it is better to communicate when drinking alcohol.
The indulgent group considers alcohol a cure for life's troubles.
The Ocean Group knows the world is bad, but they can change it.
The mistake the liquor manufacturers made was that everyone drinks for the same reasons, so they used one advertisement when there should have been four. Based on the recommendations of the AK, they divided the advertising field into four sectors, corrected the situation, and alcohol sales increased.
Ukhtomsky's principle of dominance: a person hears not what is said to him, but what he wants to hear. If a person has an area of ​​quasi-motives, then everything that contradicts them is filtered out, and only what supports them is allowed through.
Positioning Principle: Introduced by J. Trout. Positioning is a battle for your mind. There are always traces of past agonistic influences in consciousness, and there are gaps between them. The task is to penetrate them, expand them by erasing old traces, creating a new human unconscious. For example: in our consciousness there is a strong stereotype that Casanova is a Stakhanovist of pleasures (this term was used in one of the French brochures of the 60s), and it is a trace of past agonistic influences. In fact, he worked in the library, read a lot, his connections were not as numerous as the myth says, in relationships with women he valued interpersonal communication most of all. Another example: N.S. Khrushchev 60 As part of a television program exchange project, he brought to the United States a film about a Soviet woman. In it, our woman takes her child to kindergarten in the morning, then takes the helm of an airplane, attends evening courses in the evening, sits on the Presidium of the Supreme Council, and in her free time from these classes participates in sports parades. This type caused fear in the American government, they had nothing to oppose, then they created a new television commercial in which this agonistic effect on American women was overcome. It creates the image of an American woman who drinks coffee in bed in the morning, then a massage parlor, shaping, a shopping trip, and a candlelit dinner in the evening. The agonistic trail created by the Soviet TV commercial was removed.
The ancient rhetorical ideal (classical rhetoric, eloquence) was created by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and is based on the traditions of Homeric Greece.
The purpose of rhetoric is to serve the good and happiness of people (not to subjugate people, but to understand what their happiness is and how to achieve it). Happiness, according to Aristotle, lies in well-being, inspired by virtue, respect from people, prosperity in the home, a large friendly family, and most importantly, having a good friend. The modern definition of happiness is a person’s emotionally positive assessment of life in general.
The canons of rhetoric are invention (the invention of speech), disposition (the arrangement of speech), elocution (the execution of speech).
The ideal model of a speaker is a highly educated, active, quick-reacting, and sociable person.
Respect for the listener. Speech is a two-way process, but priority remains with the speaker.
Defending the truth is above all else.
The Old Russian rhetorical ideal is based on works of literature, primarily on “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign.”
The speaker is a well-known person, invested with the trust of the people: a church leader, a prince, a governor. Emotions are controlled by faith and beliefs. The language is bright, flowery, and not devoid of originality.
The speaker expresses a firm position, in speeches - teaching, appeal, criticism is introduced in the form of regret, crying.
The speaker defends the truth.
Respect on the part of listeners for the person of the speaker, for his wise and beautiful words.
The value of speeches is their repeated copying
The composition of the speeches is clear and precise.
Modern rhetoricians believe that there are three rhetorical ideals at work today.
The first of them can be called close to sophistic, but now it is very Americanized, self-promotional, intrusive, such that it has captivated the media everywhere and is aimed at manipulating the consciousness of the masses.
The second rhetorical ideal carries within itself the moral and ethical values ​​of the East Slavic ideal. It is close to the first ancient ideal - the ideal of conviction and truth, the ideal of Plato and Socrates.
The third rhetorical ideal was formed in imperial and Soviet times. This rhetorical ideal is called totalitarian, propaganda.
All these ideals still live in modified forms in modern Russian society. Together they do not represent a single balanced rhetorical-ideal system in which they would correspond to certain social models of life and behavior of speakers.
The picture of the Russian language changed by the end of the twentieth century. One of the obvious changes is in vocabulary and, above all, in such areas as political and economic vocabulary.

Chapter II. Lexical picture of modern Russian speech.

2.1. Classification of speech errors

There are several classifications of speech errors. We will focus on classification in the aspect of secondary communicative activity (perception of errors by the addressee) and consider errors associated with difficulties in interpreting the text.
1. Wrong choice of lexical equivalent often leads to inappropriate comedy, to the absurdity of the statement. For example: “Our Russian birches stand in wedding shroud"(instead of "in wedding dress); "In February the length of the day will increase by two hours" (instead of "... daylight hours will increase by two hours").
Such errors occur when a person selects words from a certain thematic group without bothering to analyze their exact meaning. This negligence turns into unclear statements, and sometimes into complete absurdity. In this case, various associations can fail (day - day, wedding dress (veil) - funeral dress (shroud). This type of error can be called associative.
Inaccurate word choice is not only the result of a lexical error. It happens that a person various reasons(for example, to soften the meaning of a statement) instead of the exact meaning of the word, it selects an indefinite, softened one. Stylists call such veiled expressions euphemisms, talk about euphemism speeches . For example, "We are still we don't pay enough attention children’s health” (it would be better to say: “we pay little attention” or “insufficient attention”).
2. Alogism. Aristotle also warned against logical errors in speech. He argued: “Speech must comply with the laws of logic.” Logic– a quality that characterizes the semantic structure of a text (statement). It refers to the correct correlation of the semantic structure of the text with the laws of development of the thought process. Below are the basic conditions of logic (and in brackets are examples from school essays in which these conditions are violated):

any statement should not be contradictory (“The peasants love Bazarov: for them he is like a clown”);
consistency: there should be no displacement of semantic layers in the text (“When he fell into the gorge, Gorky exclaimed: “One born to crawl cannot fly”);
correct establishment of cause-and-effect relationships and sufficiency of grounds for conclusions (“Bazarov does not marry because he is a nihilist”);
logical coherence, consistency of different parts of one whole (“It was raining and two students”).

Conditions for consistency - the correctness of the construction of syntactic structures, the order of words in a sentence; structural and logical connection between paragraphs and the entire text; thoughtfulness of the semantic content of sentence structures and phrases.
The reason for the illogicality of a statement sometimes lies in the unclear distinction between concrete and abstract concepts, generic and specific names. Thus, the thought in the sentence is incorrectly formulated: “With good care every animal will produce 12 liters of milk.” After all, it means cow, and not any animal, i.e. the species concept should not be replaced by the generic concept. It should be remembered that replacing generic categories with generic ones makes speech colorless, official (unless it is an official business style, where generic concepts are natural and even more preferable).
3. Violation of lexical compatibility. Lexical compatibility is the ability of words to connect with each other, because in speech words are not used in isolation, but in phrases. At the same time, some words are freely combined with others if they suit their meaning, while others have limited lexical compatibility. So, very “similar” definitions - long, lengthy, long, long-lasting, lasting– are attracted to nouns in different ways: one might say long (long) period, but not “long (long, long-term) period; long journey, long journey and long fees, long term loan, and nothing else . There are many such words, we use them all the time, without thinking about the peculiarities of their compatibility, because we intuitively feel which word “suits” which.
It happens that the meaning of words seems to be suitable for expressing one or another meaning, but they “don’t want” to be combined into phrases. We say: bow your head
etc.............

The ancient Greek oral tradition and heroic epic already laid the foundation for a maturing rhetorical ideal. For example, in Homer's poems the speakers are presented - Menelaus, Odysseus, the texts of their speeches are given, the power of influence on people in moments of struggle, the choice of tragic and heroic moments in the lives of heroes, the vividness of the description of events are shown.

This rhetorical direction is called ancient, it is associated with the name of Homer.

In the IV-III centuries. BC e. the theoretical positions of this direction, the rhetorical ideal, were formed, they had and are having strong influence on ethics, literature, culture. These positions were supported by Rome, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance.

Let's look at these positions.

1. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle saw the goals of rhetoric and oratory in serving the good and happiness of people. The power of persuasion, as the main advantage of eloquence, is to understand what people’s happiness is and how to achieve it.

2. Rhetoric is not only the practice of communication and eloquence, this science has its own subject - speech, it is closely related to philosophy, language, logic, ethics, literary criticism. Rhetoric has its own goals, patterns, structure. Within the framework of this rhetorical direction, the doctrine of canons was formed - invention, disposition, elocution, etc., connections with poetics (tropes, figures), stylistics, logic, and the theory of upbringing and education were developed.

3. In the same system, an ideal model of the speaker was developed as a highly educated, highly moral, active, quick-reacting, and sociable person.

4. The ethics of the ancient ideal required addressing the listener with respect. Speech is a two-way process, the result depends on both sides.

5. The next feature of the ancient ideal is its attitude to truth. The largest speakers who belonged to this type of ethical position confirmed in practice the firmness of their convictions and their position - not to deviate from their understanding of the truth.

The presented characteristics belong to the categories of ethos and pathos.

In the field of logos, the tradition did not oppose sophistic norms - neither in the recognition and use of logical laws and rules, nor in attention to dialogue, nor in the skill of choosing various means of language.

With great attention to the logic of the text, preference was still given to the structure of linguistic forms, the contiguity of the choice of words, the use of expressive means of language, and the culture of speech.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 43 BC) The pinnacle of the development of the oratory art of Ancient Rome is the activity of Cicero, one of the most outstanding orators in the world. His name has become a household name.

Cicero was born near Rome into a family belonging to an ancient family. It is believed that one of his ancestors was a simple peasant who was engaged in gardening: cicero is a variety of peas, hence this provincial nickname.

From childhood, Cicero was distinguished by an extraordinary love of science, was fluent in Greek, and as a student became famous for the extraordinary understanding and speed with which he mastered the sciences.

In Rome, Cicero studied philosophy, law, rhetoric, and poetry. Cicero firmly decided to devote himself in the future to politics and the legal profession.

Cicero was 25 years old when he made his first defense speech in the courtroom. In it, he condemned robbery, impudence and insolent people, and expressed faith in goodness and justice.

Cicero thought a lot about Rome, the people, the history and destinies of the republic. These thoughts were reflected in numerous speeches. He invariably won the cases he took on. His popularity grew; he became a senator and then a consul - in ancient Rome during the era of the republic - one of the two highest officials.

Cicero outlined the essence of his rhetorical system in three treatises: “On the Orator”, “Brutus”, “Orator”.

All these works are united by the general idea of ​​the need and expediency of general knowledge and broad culture for the speaker.

The treatise “On the Orator” consists of three books and is written in the form of a dialogue. Cicero's interlocutors were well-known orators in their time. Contents: Cicero’s answer to one of them’s doubts about the need for general knowledge for an orator. The author temperamentally shows what literature, history, law, philosophy gives to the speaker. Of the three branches of philosophy (the doctrine of nature, ethics, logic), Cicero considered ethics and logic the most useful for an orator.

In this work, Cicero defined specific tasks teaching eloquence. Based on the experience of his predecessors, he briefly and, as always, talentedly formulated the canons (Canon (Greek) - usually the position of a certain direction, teaching.) of classical rhetoric, which in subsequent eras were adopted by many authors of works on eloquence.

So, the speaker, according to Cicero, must: invent, arrange, decorate (express, set out in a well-known syllable), pronounce. Hence the division of classical rhetoric into five parts:

a) invention - in Russian translation “invention of thoughts”, or preparation of the content of speech;

b) disposition, in Russian rhetoric - location (usually associated with the speech genre);

c) elocution and ornamentation - expression and decoration; the last - the most voluminous part - subsequently acquired a leading role (choice of language means, styles, speech culture, poetics);

d) memoria - memorization of a prepared text, memory training, its high readiness;

e) action, or performance - impeccable command of speech, mastery of oral expression, ability to behave, gestures, etc.

In the dialogue “About the Speaker”, much attention is paid to the problem of influencing the listener’s feelings in public speaking. Cicero proceeds from the fact that people in their actions are more often guided by feelings than by rules and laws. Therefore, the speaker’s ability to influence the feelings of the audience has great value in rhetoric.

Brutus sets out the history of Roman eloquence in chronological order and is invaluable as a source of information about early Roman orators. It is built in the form of a dialogue with friends Brutus and Atticus.

The treatise “The Orator” answers the question: What is the ideal of eloquence? In search of an ideal, Cicero proceeds from the three main purposes of oratory: to teach, to please, to motivate.

The ideal speaker is the one who in his speeches instructs his listeners, gives them pleasure, and subjugates their will. The first is the duty of a speaker, the second is the guarantee of popularity, the third is a necessary condition for success.

Cicero formulated the signs different types eloquence, arguing that a real speaker is one who knows how to speak about the low simply, about the high important and about the average moderately.

2. Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 36 c. 100 AD) In ​​the second half of the 1st century. AD Quintilian becomes a theorist of classical eloquence: lawyer, teacher, head of the first state school of rhetoric.

Quintilian's knowledge of rhetoric was so extensive that friends and students insisted that he write about the rules of eloquence. Famous rhetorician for a long time disagreed, citing works already written on rhetoric in Greek and Roman literature. But subsequently he nevertheless wrote a treatise known as The Education of an Orator (translated into Russian in 1834 by A.S. Nikolsky). The treatise is a summary of the theoretical works of his predecessors and his own twenty years of experience as a teacher of rhetoric and trial lawyer.

Quintilian's work consists of 12 books: “On the Education of the Future Orator”; “When to give a youth to a rhetorician”; “History of rhetoric and its components”; “Attack, narration...”; "Evidence, refutation"; “On the arousal of passions: laughter, compassion, reflection”; "Location"; "Verbal expression"; "Shapes"; “About the abundance of words”; “On decency in speech”; “The speaker is like a person; moral character."

Quintilian's work is not only comprehensive, but also surprisingly rich in details: he gave the most complete list of tropes with their characteristics, revealed the connections between rhetoric and literature, logic, and increased attention to memory and types of text construction. The author developed training programs, methods of training students, and gave lists of life situations that encourage a person to speak and make statements. He gave recommendations for constructing phrases, dialogues of various types, argumentation, and giving examples. The problems of education - physical, moral, general cultural, harmonious - are not ignored. Much attention is paid to language learning and language exercises. The essence of rhetoric, according to Quintilian's definition, is the union of thought and word. The goals of upbringing and education are also defined - this is preparation for social activities: in public service, in culture, in court, in teaching. Quintilian created a model of the highest level of education for a young man.

In his treatise, Quintilian outlined advice based mainly on Cicero's system, because he considered the art of eloquence of the great republican a model for any orator.

The main provisions of Quintilian's work are close to the ideas of Cicero, but there are also significant differences in them.

Let us compare, for example, the statements of Cicero and Quintilian on rhetoric.

Cicero (following Aristotle): Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.

KVINTILIAN: Rhetoric is the science of speaking well. Because art does not depend on the outcome of the matter, it lies in the action, not the consequences.

Many differences in the views of Cicero and Quintilian were rooted in the fact that they lived in different eras existence of the Roman state: Cicero in the era of the Republic, Quintilian in the era of the Empire. During the period of the Republic, training in rhetorical schools prepared the Roman for broad practical activity. However, in the later period, the period of empires, the art of speech was cultivated, thanks to which speech was supposed to provide aesthetic pleasure with verbal structure and masterful pronunciation. But at the same time, speech betrayed its original purpose to express thoughts and feelings.

The trend in oratory, led by Quintilian, was a kind of last stage in the development of Roman eloquence. With the death of the republic, Roman classical eloquence also died. Ceremonial (epideictic) eloquence with its pomp and exaggerated attention to form came to the fore.

To summarize, we note that throughout the entire period ancient culture rhetoric determined not only the style of speech, but to a certain extent also the way of thinking and behavior, i.e. philosophy of life.